Lunacy Undefined: Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism
I’ve been swarmed by leftists who tell me I don’t understand the difference between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism. So, I took it upon myself to get educated and learn the difference between those two terms. After reading numerous articles, I have to admit, I am still un-enlightened as before. Even the experts can’t coherently define them.
One website had these explanations: Social democracy use market forces, the government can privatize some of the state-owned industries. It seeks to humanize capitalism. It aims at providing public services universally. Social democracies soon become welfare states.
Then it said: Democratic Socialism is similar to the socialist parties of the western part of Europe. The state doesn’t have all power. It is a mixed economy whereby the state controls key industries. The elected government manages the major factors of production. They are then distributed amongst people through centralized planning. The private industries have the freedom to operate the remaining part of the economy.
Can’t you see the obvious distinction between the two? No? Neither can I. There is no distinction, it is just swapping words and definitions then claiming both are different.
This Medium article tries to straighten it out but fails spectacularly: https://zacherriges.medium.com/democratic-socialism-vs-social-democracy-12ea49450cd7
The author writes: “Some people like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez call themselves Democratic Socialists.” Later he states: “Famous Social Democrats include: Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Clement Attlee, and Jeremy Corbyn.”
OK, a Democratic Socialist is a Social Democrat. That clears things up!
Various other articles across the web run into the same confusion. At first, I thought this was one of the best explanations: Democratic socialism involves democratic control over the socialist means of economic production. The adjective “democratic” is often added to distinguish itself from the Marxist-Leninist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being non-democratic.
OK, that seems like a good definition. But if Marx was a big advocate of socialism, why would the type of socialism that carries his name be non-democratic? Was Marx an opponent of democracy, so we need to explicitly label some types of socialism as “democratic”? We would need to go down the Marxism rabbit hole to investigate that.
The same article then tells us: Social democracy focuses on socialist state intervention in order to further social justice, particularly in Europe.
Heavy sigh. Maybe this wasn’t that great of an explanation of how they are distinct. Isn’t socialist state intervention the same as socialist means of economic production?
Another explanation but slightly different terms:
The main difference between socialism and social democracy is that socialism is a socioeconomic system based on the public ownership of the means of production, whereas social democracy is a political ideology that advocates the government to provide certain social and economic rights necessary for the well-being of all members of the society.
But isn’t the intent of public ownership of the means of production to provide everybody with what they need? Isn’t that the same as “certain social and economic rights”? Or is that something different?
If you got this far without rushing to the comments to post hateful comments about how stupid and ignorant I am, let me try to clear this up: There really is no meaningful distinction between social democracy and democratic socialism. They mean whatever the user wants them to mean. It is a kinder, gentler form of socialist tyranny, where each citizen is essentially a slave and dependent of the government. It could be “democratic” where people have the right to vote and more freedom than “undemocratic” socialism where government thugs knock down your door in the middle of the night to drag you off to the gulag.
Why can’t the socialists just use those two terms, democratic and undemocratic, to define the two types of socialism?
Undemocratic: North Korea, Cuba, the old USSR and all the other communist/socialist nations that people desperately tried to flee or at least not be exterminated by those in power?
Democratic: Most of modern Europe and a few other nations that don’t drag people out of their beds in the middle of the night to the prison camps.
Now I will give my definition of capitalism and socialism.
Capitalism defined: what is mine is mine, what is yours is yours. We can voluntarily trade that what is mine and that what is yours, to cooperatively and mutually meet each of our needs. This is how free markets are supposed to work, all citizens cooperating, respecting each other’s property rights, and trading with one another peacefully in the market where everybody’s needs are hopefully met. Nothing is perfect, some people need help, but most people are capable of taking care of themselves while providing goods and services to others. All part of Adam Smith’s invisible hand that drives a free economy.
Socialism defined: what is mine is the governments. What is yours is the governments. We depend on the government to meet our needs. Nothing is perfect, socialism is far from perfect. Yes, society can function this way, but it is miserable. Rather than depending on own selves, socialism destroys initiative, personal responsibility and accountability. Why work if government takes from others and gives it to me? After all, as part owner of the means of production, I get a portion of the output, it is my economic “right”.
The undeniable fact is this: socialism NEEDS capitalism. Mixed socialist/capitalist economies NEEDS capitalist enterprises to produce material needed by their populations. When socialist government regulations, taxes, waste and corruption destroy a socialist economy, the underground market emerges and provides citizens with what they need beyond the grasp of government. Numerous failed socialist nations have turned a blind eye towards the black market so their people wouldn’t starve, as long as entrepreneurs don’t become too wealthy or powerful. Socialism NEEDS capitalism to blame for the failures of socialism. China’s socialist dictator Mao Zedong blamed “running dog capitalists” for various economic failures of his regime. America’s social decline is blamed on free markets by the leftists. Free markets practically don’t exist and have been hobbled with a massive social safety net that prevents millions of people from escaping poverty. Poverty is then blamed on free markets because the left think it is only a zero-sum game, the rich got that way because they stole money from the poor.
This mass of confusion over terms and types of socialism is really an indictment on the ideology of socialism itself, which is mass of logical inconsistency. Socialists denounce markets, yet all humanity’s needs are met within the market. Socialists condemn “greed”, but how is greed defined, who decides what limits of acquisitiveness is greed? If a person has three pairs of shoes but others only have one, is that person greedy and shoes get redistributed? Hey, let’s take that idea to everybody’s bank accounts, including American champions of socialism. Collectivists love to denounce individualism; the highest nails must get hammered down so that everybody is equal. Yet, socialism requires individuals to lead, are they hammered down? Do they have the same rights as everybody else, or do they get special privileges because they are leaders? What a quagmire of contradictions and dilemmas, and a mess of different ways to define it.
I look forward to YOUR explanation of the difference between social democracy and democratic socialism in the comments.
Sources, Google it yourself, here are some I found:
https://www.cairco.org/reference/socialism-social-democracy-democratic-socialism
https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-socialism-and-social-democracy/
https://quillette.com/2018/12/26/democratic-socialism-or-social-democracy/