What is Democratic Socialism?

When I identified as a conservative, I understood what socialism was. Why aren’t there more conservatives today that understand this concept? Is that why I’m no longer a Republican? Did I merely realize that the GOP rhetoric was incorrect, because I knew what socialism was, as well as what it wasn’t? Was I just tired of wasting time talking about it? I think it runs a little deeper than that, but this certainly played a role.

I remember my father telling me Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the worst president in history, and biting my tongue because while I could find faults with the welfare state, it was specifically his New Deal that rebuilt our country and set our economy on a healthy path to greatness in the 20th century. I remember wondering why my father, who was a smart man, could be so wrong about this?

“He’s a Socialist. You can’t be a Socialist without violating liberty.”

Having every economic class, pay equally into the same system we all benefit from, has never denied anyone personal liberties. Democratic Socialism is not Socialism. It is not Marxism. Average people seem capable of understanding this. A simple Google search can clear up any confusion, yet it appears to be uncommon knowledge. I’d encourage you to just read up on the difference. It’s easy to understand.

I think you’ll be surprised to realize that Bernie Sanders’ ideas, align very much with most of yours, even if you identify as a conservative. This is why he is described, even by his critics, as a “populist” candidate. He says things that are popular with the majority of people.

As if that were some kind of negative?

I have to admit that if I were somehow capable of rebranding “democratic socialism” with some new fancy name so that it wasn’t carrying the word socialism in it, I would do so. This is because it is more than just a label. Fundamentally, democratic socialism and pure socialism are extremely different. They are as different as capitalism and unchecked anarchy are.

Democratic Socialism is merely the idea that we do some things together, better. It’s not the idea that we do everything together better, but rather, it’s an position that there are some things that are objectively better handled by public interests, than private or special interests. The moment someone begins saying that the government should manage all supply and demand (see: Socialism) they jump into an entirely different spectrum of political thought.

This isn’t some slippery slope, either. You have to have a fundamentally different opinion about the role of government as a Democratic Socialist, than as a pure Socialist. When you think things like the military, emergency services, transportation and education, are stuff we should work on together (collaboratively) through elected representatives, then you’re in line with democratic socialism; even if it makes you sick to use the term.

America has been utilizing Democratic Socialism since its inception. The moment we made roads, schools, militaries and laws outlawing child labor, we dictated that our elected officials, who represent us, have the authority to regulate some infrastructural elements under private control, or at least build some public infrastructure that benefits all of us.

Pure socialism postulates that there is absolutely no benefit or virtue to be found and self interest and that the people can’t be trusted making money or choosing what’s right for them. This is because socialism believes capitalism is inherently flawed and can only lead to corruption. Pure socialism suggest that production and the supply are things that we as individuals cannot be trusted with and that economies should be centrally planned. This is a falsehood. This is exactly why every instance of pure socialism that has been implemented as a system of governance, has collapsed and failed miserably.

Socialism is a government concept that completely and fundamentally ignores human nature.

Having said that, many of our political ideas are designed to rise above our simplistic nature and take us further than our primal needs. The social evolution we have experienced in the last 400 years, is one of the most important events in human history because it birthed the idea of universal human rights. This radical concept defies the social norms of every previous era in human history, and it has directly contributed to the improvement of human existence.

Yet, universal human rights, no matter how great, is also an idea that’s rather contrary to our “natural” state as selfish, self-interest focused beings. This is a point that’s often made by conservatives and libertarians. They argue that self-interest solves problems, because an “invisible hand” of the free market will supply a need when there is a demand. Someone will build a better mousetrap for every problem, or the market will somehow prove that the problem didn’t exist to begin with.

Socialism argues that forcing everyone to be equal, and working on everything together, helps humanity to thrive by completely eliminating competition for resources. It transfers the means of production to the workers, thus eliminating and replacing capitalism. There’s a strain of “natural economy” socialists that have argued that socialism creates an environmental/biological advantage; helping humanity to expand and grow without allowing anyone to over-consume or exploit resources. They feel that this is better because it’s natural.

Funny how that works, right? Yeah, it’s all bullshit.

That’s because arguing that something is “better” because it’s “natural” is nonsense. It’s natural to do a lot of really horrible shit and some of the most important parts of our civilization, require effort, technology, and thinking harder than cave men did.

Democratic socialism attempts to be realistic with how our self interests motivate us, while also challenging us to do the difficult part of working together for a common good. This is where most people get confused. They’re used to political ideas being diametrically opposed. We’re not used to the idea of borrowing a little from one side of an argument, and borrowing a little from another side. We’re used to right/left arguments about politics. We use language that suggests “our way or the highway” about a wide range of ideas, even though there are hundreds of millions of Americans with a wide array of opinions about a lot of things.

So is the solution found in the middle?

The problem with that idea is that it’s perilously close to a common mistake known as the “middle ground fallacy”. Compromising yourself into corner, with no forward movement, is ultimately a bad idea and one of the most valid criticisms of government bureaucracy.

“Americans say they hate socialism but when it comes to Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, corporate welfare, bailouts, and farm subsidies, what we really say to socialism is “I can’t quit you.”

…There are millions of people in the world just like you in nice places like Switzerland and Sweden. They enjoy high standards of living and freedom, and they’re socialists. Studies show they’re actually happier than we are, and that’s not surprising, because the only difference between American socialism and European socialism is European socialism works.

For their tax dollars, Europeans get full health care coverage, generous pensions, daycare, long paid vacations, maternity leave, free college, and public transportation that doesn’t smell like pee. Whereas our tax dollars go towards military bases in Germany, subsidies to oil companies, building bridges to nowhere, wars, and putting half of Cheech and Chong in prison. They get universal health care. We get a Blue Angels flyover at the Fiesta Bowl.” — Bill Maher

Ultimately chasing after what you want, and seeking to make money are good things. Making money because you came up with a better idea that even runs other people out of business because you’re so good at what you do, is also perfectly fine. If however, during your journey of economic badassery, you deliberately engage in tactics that harm others for your benefit, you violate the law. You also violate and ethical principle that is exactly what the Constitution was founded upon:

We are free to do whatever we want, up to the point where it harms someone else.

Pooling resources together to achieve common goals, that we all have a voice to oppose or support, never denied liberty or freedom to anyone in any way — other than denying them the freedom to exploit and harm someone else.

If you have a problem with the government telling you you don’t get to exploit someone else to make a buck, well then you’re on the wrong side of the law, and the wrong side of history. Deal with it.

Important Democratic Socialism Ideas:

This is an over-simplified list, but it’s pretty accurate:

1) Self interest is great, up to the point of exploitation.

2) Investing in America, means investing in Americans.

3) Demanding everyone pays an equal share into the same system, is fair.

I’m a pretty big fan of this way of thinking, even if I’m concerned about someone taking it too far. Ultimately, that’s the reality of our situation. Any good idea can be taken to extremes and turned into a bad idea. We can’t just hope our leaders come up with some perfect method of running everything, that’s somehow guaranteed not to fail or be exploited. Someone will inevitably try to exploit us, and someone else will inevitably ask for too much power in trying to protect us from that.

Democratic Socialism isn’t perfect, nor should it be. It’s just an idea that borrows from a lot of other really good ideas, to create a working framework of governance. Regardless of our apprehension over the word “socialism” this is how America has operated since day one. To suggest that we have to use one political system only, and not the other, is a false dichotomy. We’ve been playing this game of borrowing and reshaping since 1776. It’s why we’re called “the great experiment” in democracy.

So what is America then?

We are a Republic
We are a Democracy
We use Capitalism
We use Socialism

Subsequently:

We are an Oligarchy (specifically a Plutocracy)
We are an Empire (see for yourself)

In spite of what people say/want:

We are not a Theocracy
We are not a Fascist state
We are not a Socialist Republic (see: Communism)

We have the luxury of thinking things suck right now, because we don’t live in some poor third world country. Our skewed perspectives on what’s good or bad for our nation, are built around what we know and observe. After America started, the democracy floodgates opened and hundreds of others nations began refining these ideas alongside us. Ultimately, we can take a good concept, regardless of where they come from, and use it. It’s no less valuable, just because someone else came up with it. Our egos can handle the fact that the Scandinavian countries have implemented some really good ideas into their system. Not everything would work here, but some of them are well overdue.

There is an objectively better way to govern for America, all we have to do is set our first priority to be the protection of liberty. If we approach every social challenge with the question “can I solve this with more freedom, first” then we’re in a good position, I think.

Be free to do what you want, up to the point where it harms someone else. You’re free to swing your arm until you hit your neighbor’s nose. That means the government is nothing more than a nose-hitting referee, that answers to all of us collectively. We’re in the business of arm swinging, and deciding when noses got hit, and by whom. Sounds miserable, but that’s the business of dealing with people.

It requires work, but I can live with that.