Talk:Democratic socialism/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Democratic socialism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Tax

128.193.88.202 wrote: ((municipal tax = 25%-35%) + (state tax = 25%-30%) = 50%-70%)

Where did you get this from? The municipal tax (kommunskatt) is about 20% and the "county"-tax (landstingsskatt) is about 10%. Plus a small church-tax which is <1%. What do you mean by "state tax"? Maybe you are thinking about VAT? Source: [[1]]

Bias

I am sorry, but this page appears to be a joke. Or at best a POV to the max power charachterisation of the European political landscapae. Please edit it. Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 22:20 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Much better. Let's see how long it lasts. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 00:37 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Next time you edit it yourself! :)) -- Ruhrjung 00:43 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Now I am even more worried about the page. Is there anybody out there who can verify that those two outside links to American Socialist organizations have anything whatsoever to do with the historical concept of "Democratic socialism". Let me emphasize, that I would be very glad indeed to hear that yes, they do indeed epitomize that very ideological concept in a historically representative way, but would like some very convincing evidence. Please! -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 18:23 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Instead of moaning why dont you edit it G-Man 09:19 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Because I don't feel qualified to do so. I don't know enough to feel more than disquiet about the article. I might be wrong, and the article spot on! I have no qualifications at all to expound on American socialist movements/parties, so if my concerns were perceived as "moaning" by true experts, I would take that on the chin. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 09:29 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Merge with Social democracy

Google hits on wikipedia&mirrors first, and to pages that use the term interchangably with social democracy next. This page should be merged (as required) and otherwise redirected to social democracy, unless someone can convince me differently? Kim Bruning 21:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure. I'm not satisfied with the state of either entry as it currently stands; but I do think there's some degree of difference we should try to enunciate. From my view, at least, there's a world of difference between, say, the Socialist Alliance of Australia and the Australian Labor Party, but both would be categorised under the same heading if the articles were to be merged. I really don't know if their respective ideologies have that much in common. Lacrimosus 04:22, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think that the distinction is very subjective. I think what we are dealing with is two issues. (1) Many social democratic parties are less leftwing than they used to be. For some reason, people want to reserve the term "social democracy" for the rightwing of social democracy, rather than for the left of social democracy. (2) Many Leninist parties are becoming less revolutionary and more democratic, hence the Australian Socialist Alliance is being cited as an example of "democratic socialism", which in the past no one would have taken seriously because it comprises mainly Trotskyist organizations. It may prove very difficult to decide definitely which organizations are social democratic and which democratic socialist, if a distinction is drawn between the two terms. I personally doubt whether Trotskyists should be classified in either category, since there could be (and probably are) separate entries for Leninist and Trotskyist parties. The usage of the term "democratic socialism" varies so widely - for example, the British Labour Party describes itself as democratic socialist and yet others are claiming it doesn't qualify as social democratic - it makes no sense to have the distinction. The "social democracy" article could discuss both the right and the left of the movement, but would of course exclude Leninist parties (which have not been counted as social democrats since about 1917). User:rjpuk 20:32, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I do think that the distinction here between democratic socialism and social democracy is important, but it could maybe be expanded on somewhat... There are at least two branches of democratic socialist praxis that I'd like to see mentioned here (I'll add them myself, if nobody objects): the participatory democracy wing of the New Left in Europe and North America (the names Tom Hayden and Dany Cohn-Bendit spring to mind), and in India the anti-totalitarian socialism of JP Narayan and his sometime associates such as Acharya Narendra Deva and other Congress Socialist Party luminaries. I'm sure other folks could come up with examples from elsewhere. In both instances, we have a definite revolutionary Left politics that's anti-Leninist but also not anarchist. But rjpunk's observations about the subjectiveness of the term might make a handy contribution to the article itself: in reality, most movements do seem to want to swing either towards reformism pure and simple, or to some degree of authoritarianism (quite a problem!). Oh, I thought of a third current: the Left-wing "radical democracy" movement coming out of a lot of post-structuralist and feminist theorizing these days (think of Chantal Mouffe). QuartierLatin1968 01:40, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A naive reader will not distinguish between "social democracy" and "democratic socialism". I think that we should either

Merge the articles, and emphasize the difference within the articles
Clearly state in the introduction that these are different concepts/movements, perhaps with a disambiguation notice.

AdamRetchless 14:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Parties such as the Dutch SP and the German Left Party never, AFAIK, use the term social democracy to refer to their own ideology. One could argue that they are social democratic in a historical sense of the word, but currently, social democracy (at least in the Netherlands) is invariably used to denote the centrist ideology of parties such as the PvdA (which, confusingly, sometimes still calls itself democratic socialist). Qwertyus 10:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Qwertyus. I'm copying your comment over to talk:Social democracy where the rest of the merger discussion is taking place... Quartier Latin1968

14:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This is a copy of my NPOV comments in Social Democracy's talk page.

The article does not give due justice to the recent Socialist International's councils and the groups statutues and principles. The article just discusses the old school meaning during the turn of the 20th century which was even pre-cold war, not the 21st which is the priority. SI redefined social democracy and Democratic Socialism. Today, DS forms the ideology and theory, meanwhile SD forms the application and integration with the real world. Issues like welfare, etc, were already reconciled between the 2 former ideologies. These were completely ignored by the article, it was not even considered in the start. SD now is the ideal representative democracy and objective, and not a political ideology. DS is the ideology. See SI Principles in the web

On DS

DS and SD should not be merged. DS should be updated for the new definition which is the reconciled definition of the old 20th century definitions of DS and SD. SD becomes the ideal application of the said. SD is no longer an ideology, and DS is now more accomodating for the centrist view, not just the leftist view. Stranger

Okie-doke. However, there are still tons of people holding to the "old 20th century definition", as you call it, of democratic socialism – I'm one democratic socialist who doesn't give a rat's ass for what the SI says democratic socialism should be. (They should practise it first if they want people to take their preaching seriously.) But by all means, integrate what they have to say into the article – it's very important that all relevant definitions and understandings of democratic socialism be included. Cheers, QuartierLatin1968 14:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revolutionary Democratic Socialism

I have restored a previous version of this article. The most recent edits were based on the assertion that democratic socialism is inherently different from revolutionary socialism. This is fundamentally untrue. There are many currents within the general category of democratic socialism, of which revolutionary democratic socialism is one example. To cite one example, the Socialist Party USA, which is an explicitly democratic socialist party, has both revolutionary and evolutionary elements within the party. It is completely inappropriate to exclude those who seek to achieve democratic socialism via revolutionary means from this article.

"Revolutionary socialism", and I don't think there can be any disagreement on this point, is generally speaking the aim of achieving socialism through violent overthrow of the existing state. "Democratic socialism", and again, I think this is an extremely reasonable definition, is the aim of achieving socialism peacefully, through pre-existing political processes. I cannot see how it is possible (according to the generally-used division of currents of socialism) for one group to be both revolutionary and democratic, let alone one individual. The confusion must stem from some definition of "democratic socialism" which does not accord with the norm. Slac speak up! 20:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

What you are giving is simply one possible definition of democratic socialism. I am restoring the broader and more correct definition. Whether you think something is "possible" isn't really the point. Both the evolutionary and revolutionary strands of democratic socialism are in strong disagreement with one another, but both have a claim to the term. I have already given an example of a current within the SP USA, an explicitly democratic socialist party that is the heir of Eugene Debs, that falls within the category of revolutionary democratic socialism. Revolutionary Democratic Socialists are those who choose to achieve a democratic socialist society through revolutionary means. In this article, I have tried to be fair to all sides, both the evolutionary and the revolutionary versions of democratic socialism, when I have edited this article. To deliberately exclude those democratic socialists who favor revolution as a means of achieving democratic socialism is to exclude those who use the term in that way, and it is narrow and restrictive.

REVOLUTION IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH ACTS VIOLENCE BY THE REVOLUTIONARY. Examples: the Indian revolution to gain independence from Britain; the industrial revolution. It can be defined as "a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving" or "A sudden or momentous change in a situation" as it might also be defined as "the overthrow of a government by those who are governed" or "The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another".

Thanks for the definitions, however, the meanings of the terms could be altered depending on the context. redvegetarianRedvegetarian 02:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Political Parties

Democratic Socialists of America should not be listed under "political parties", because they thenselevs are not one. Members of DSA are registered members of the Democratic Party, the Green Party, the Socialist Party USA, etc. DSA is a democratic socialist membership organization, it is NOT a democratic socilaist party that runs candidates on its own ticket/ballot line or even tries to, as other parties listed do. As a matter of fact, DSA was started by Michael Harrington when he left the Socialist Party USA because he felt that a third party in America would never work, and he took a cadre of people from the Socialist Party USA into the Democratic Party - originally forming DSA within the Democratic Party.

Also, listing things such as caususes and tendencies within parties is not appropriate, either, for the same reason: they themselves are not political parties. Instead they are trends *within* a political party.

You know, funnily enough, I wouldn't have pegged the United States as a big centre of democratic socialist politics. Quartier Latin1968

22:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Welfare State

I don't think that term is appropriate here. "Welfare State" - according to the Wikipedia link, is a mixture of democracy, welfare and capitalism. So if the welfare state is capitalist, then how can it also be socialist. To be socialist, wouldn't an economy have to be run by the workers, and not "capital" interests?

The welfare state is an intermediate solution, as is explained sufficiently (IMHO) in the article. Qwertyus 16:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you raise a valid point. While social democrats do generally consider welfare state capitalism to be some sort of intermediate state between capitalism and socialism, many socialists by contrast do not consider welfare-state capitalism to be socialist at all. This is a point of debate among many in the socialist and social democratic left.

It was only T.H. Marshall who defined the term 'welfare state' as a merging of democracy, welfare, and capitalism. That's not the general definition adhered to by socialists (I being one myself) when we speak of creating a welfare state. Even Wikipedia's main definition is more inclusive. I would contend that the term should stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comrade Dave (talk • contribs) 01:37, 30 September 2006

Welfare State is CRUCIAL to modern "real" socialism, it derives from the economic theory of Welfare Economics and justifies the need of public intervention in the market. The interpretation of Socialism that is widespread in these articles is of a Communist ideology and you are wrong to ignore the vast majority of socialists world wide who believe in democracy and the market economy. Call us Social Liberals if you want, but we will continue to define ourselves as socialists without giving any credit to communist or revolutionary ideas.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 17:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Real Socialism

Being brought up in Spain, a country where "The Socialist Party" have won 4 of the last 6 elections, I find preposterous that it is included alongside revolutionary idea.

In practice the socialist party is a left wing convesrvative party in its broadest term and have lead to a democratic system characterized by an alternation in power with Partido Popular, the conservative right wing party. The Welfare state was initially introduced by Franco, the right wing military dictator, and it has become the essential role of government. Neither PSOE or PP contest the validity of providing for a National Health System, Unemployment benefits or the role of government in developing an appropriate infrastructure.

The main differences between these two parties respond to their style of government, the relation with the church and their position on social issues, specially their stance on regionalism, PP being a rather more "patriotic" party defending a strong idea of Spain, and PSOE being more accomodating. As an example, the last general elections where unexpectedly won by the socialist party and new laws have been passed recognizing the rights of gays and limiting certain aspects of the church's involment with government. Similarly a peace proccess has begun with ETA after they have called an indefinite cease fire.

The spanish system is characterized by a considerable degree of compromise between PSOE and PP, and it is relatively uncommon for open opposition to arise due to main social issues as discussed in this and other articles about socialism.

Spain is an example of socialism in Europe. If these and other articles about socialism fail to give this real democratic and market oriented understanding of socialism, void of extremist or revolutionary ideas, then we will continue to have a crap set or articles, possibly anchored in the perceptions of the early 20th century and contributing to the divide between America and Europe.

The Divide:

When I talk politics with americans, Socialism is equated with a mild form of extreme revolutionary communism, when infact it is rather the european equivalent of the Democratic party. This is like equating the Republican party with fascist capitalism.

Searching through wikipedia I have come with terms like "liberal socialism" "Demorcratic Socialism" "Social Democracy" "social progressivism", etc.

I suppose spanish socialism falls more under the definition of social liberalism in that it seeks to defend social and civil rights, with a progressive attitude and limited public involment in a market economy.

HOW WISE IS IT TO INCLUDE THE SPANISH SOCIALIST PARTY IN THE CURRENT ARTICLE?? WITHOUT DISCUSSING SOME OF THE ISSUES I MENTION??

CANT WE AGREE ON A CURRENT MODERN POLITICAL VOCABULARY TO UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER?? I am tired of being thought as a revolutionary when I express my "socialist" views.

I suppose that at the core of the problem lies a lack of effort by individuals to understand other ideologies from their own. I have tried to understand the differences between the american Republican and Demorcratic party, not according to their names but their practices and attitudes. I would like all americans do the same with the spanish Socialist party, instead of turning to century old texts. Cgonzalezdelhoyo 16:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Requesting article "Tribunite"

Does anyone feel able to create a stub on Tribunite (sub-set of the mid-20th century British Left)?
The only sources I have are

http://www.allwords.com/word-Tribunite.html

(and other pages with identical text)

and this from Guardian

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1530801,00.html

"According to his biographer, Professor Bernard Crick, Orwell saw himself as a Tribunite socialist whose experiences in the Spanish civil war had left him sharply disillusioned with Soviet communism."

-- 201.50.123.251 12:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Move list section?

Would there be any objection to moving the list of democratic socialist parties and organizations to a page of that name (or similar)? The list really needs cleanup and organization, but I think its presence on this page just distracts from the rest of the article. Quartier Latin1968 20:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Everybody can now go argue about it over there. Quartier Latin1968

19:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with Democratic Socialism?

Its a perfect mixture! It hasn't worked yet, but under the right leader, it would. People can't be trusted, but we can't have a totalitarian government, so this comes in between. -71.224.19.29 16:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Socialism democratic?!

The idea that socialism can be democratic is ludicrous at its best. The term "democratic socialism" is a contradiction in terms. This article should be removed altogether, it is quite a piece of nonsense! Lenineleal 18:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion forum. Whether you agree that it exists or not is not relevant. What is relevant is that this is a notable topic discussed in every encyclopedia you would care to look at (see Britannica and Encarta). Gdo01 18:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Socialism is a form of economic system. Democracy is a form of government. So of course the two terms can be used together.Pharmakon7 15:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Inadequate distinctions

I can't tell from the "definition" whether Venezuela under Hugo Chavez is heading for democratic socialism, or a Cuba-style dictatorship.

In fact, I wonder if the definition was created to obscure distinctions between "freely chosen" and "accountable" systems, and dictatorial systems established by coup or revolution. The inclusion of the term "revolutionary" in the intro and the definition hints at this.

Is closing down opposition newspapers and using a rubber-stamp parliament to change the constitution considered "democratic"? If so, in what sense? (I hate to bring up Hitler because of Godwin's law, but it seems to apply to Venezuela now, as well as the Chile of the 1970s). --Uncle Ed 14:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Polished and Sensible

I've edited the article to make it as clear as possible. I felt the old article was poorly executed and nobody was doing anything to help it.

Also I've created a new article to end the argument over DS and SD. It's here. Right now it's barely above a stub, contribute to it so this confusion over the two systems will be cleared (Demigod Ron 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

I changed some things

I'm sorry but that evolutionary vs. revolutionary democratic socialism stuff was too confusing, unsourced, and just seem to want to divide people into two camps. --Revolución hablar ver 12:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Following the good work of Demigod Ron and Revolución, I have (I believe) strengthened the history section. However, this is somewhat unbalanced by my lack of knowledge about the non-English-speaking world, and needs to reflect more of a global view. I also think the Concept section, while important, needs to be grounded in some references, as it runs the danger of being slightly essayistic and even original research. BobFromBrockley 14:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work comrades. This article is begining to take shape now. (Demigod Ron 03:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC))

Social democracy or democratic socialism

Social democracy is more central-left compared to democratic socialism, the UK, Kiwi and Australian Labour Parties and the German SDP are Social Democratic whereas Der Linke would be Democratic socialist, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to return this article to its previous version?

See http://www.answers.com/topic/democratic-socialism

The current version of this article implies that socialism = nationalisation, or at least requires it. This ignores the impossibility of non-statist forms of common ownership, such as those suggested by libertarian socialists, anbarchists, council communists etc. In the interests of consistency, I think that this article should have a more inclusive definition of socialism / common ownership, that is compatible with ALL forms of socialism, not just statist socialism. Therefore I propose that the article be changed back to its previous form, at least in the relevant areas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samuel sanchez (talk • contribs) 23:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

I also felt that the article implies that socialism = nationalisation, and re-wrote the concept section slightly to lighten this. But I think the "Definitions" section of the old version is better than the "Concept" section is now. One caution, though, is that council communists and social anarchists rarely refer to themselves as democratic socialists, precisely because the term democratic socialism tends to be associated with state-based forms of socialism. BobFromBrockley 10:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Article currently says: "Socialism necessitates the abolition of markets and the nationalization of the means of production in the hands of the state (exceptions being market socialism with regard to markets, and libertarian socialism with regard to the state)." Surely, if there are such glaring exceptions, it is wrong to talk of socialism necessitating these things? Isn't the direct/indirect formula (taken from the socialism article) better? BobFromBrockley 16:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Socialism as defined by Marx requires the abolishion of markets and the nationalization of the means of production. Since Marxist socialism (or as he refered to it "the lower stage of communism) is by far the most popular brand of socialism and to some, the only true form of socialism. It makes sence to define socialism along Marxist lines, though there are other forms which deviate from Marxist thought and still call themselves socialism. (Demigod Ron 20:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

I don't quite follow your reasoning. Marxism is not the most popular brand of socialism at all - non-Marxist socialist parties continue to have mass memberships and bigger electoral support in many, many parts of the world, while Marxist socialist parties are far, far smaller almost everywhere. And only by a Marxist definition is Marxism the only "true" form of socialism. Socialism is not the abolition of markets and nationalization of the means of production. It is the socialization of the means of production, which most obviously includes nationalization, but also includes several other things.

As an aside, I don't believe that Marx called for nationalization either or defined socialism as nationalization. His summary of the many different forms of socialism in the Communist Manifesto makes it clear that he thought that there were several different forms of socialism, including those that did not call for the abolition of the market or the nationalization of the m.o.p. BobFromBrockley 11:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree that democratic socialism would necessitate the control and ownership of the means of production in the hands of the state. Various names are given for this "state socialism", "state capitalism" but never socialism itself. Socialism is WORKERS' control of the means of production. --Revolución hablar ver 17:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously in a democratic "workers' state" one in which the bourgeoisie has no political power and the state owns the means of production, the workers, through their political power control the means of production. Hence the term "democratic socialism". Though I do think the Concept section is a too detailed and should be as vague as possible in order to be inclusive not exclusive to statist socialism. (Demigod Ron 20:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

You can't please all of the people all of the time, but you can try

I've made the concept section as inclusive as possible so the anarchists wont feel excluded. Sorry my stateless brethren, I forgot that red is red. Furthermore, I added a "Common ideas" section to put all the principals that many systems that call themselves democratic socialist share. Those are the only ones I could think of right now. I added a "definition" section to explain why it's called "democratic socialism" and what it means in it's narrowest sence (nationalization of means of production, state planning, democratic elections) and it's broadest (any group of socialists what want to distance themselves from state capitalism, and as Trotsky called them "deformed workers' states." I hope everyone is happy now. (Demigod Ron 22:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

Well, I prefer this, but I'm still not sure. Will think about it! BobFromBrockley 12:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Democratic Socialism as a distinct ideology

It seems that we've reduced DS to an umbrella term for any kind of socialism that is democratic. But is DS not it's own distinct idiology? Or is it just Trotskyism or something like that? This should be clarified. (Demigod Ron 00:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC))

The key issue is what movements and ideologies have referred to themselves as democratic socialists, and/or are widely referred to by others (especially in the scholarly literature) as democratic socialists. (The history section talks about the movements and parties most commonly referred to in this way. Most but not all of these believe in some form of state control of the economy (but, as Demigod Ron says, a thoroughly democratic state). Many of them, however, do not believe in the complete abolition of the market, nor in workers control or workers councils.) As to whether DS is a distinct ideology, well, most ideologies have subsets and are part of wider sets. BobFromBrockley 11:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean. DS is an umbrella term for any form of socialism that is democratic used by people who are not socialists. But socialists see DS as a distinct idiology. (Demigod Ron 02:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

Yes, I agree. But, still not sure that that distinct ideology has historically believed in workers councils etc. BobFromBrockley 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I for one see DS as statist socialism (as opposed to anarchism which is stateless). All democratic socialists advocate state ownership, even if they advocate workers' councils, they seek to put the nationalized means of production in the hands of the councils. A territory run by workers' councils is still a "state", nowhere in the definition of a state does it say that legislative power has to be given to a parliament or congress. (Demigod Ron 02:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC))

I've been thinking about this for a while, and this is what I think. Most people, movements or organisations that have historically or do today call themselves democratic socialist have a vague and often minimal definition of socialism, perhaps best summed up in Clause IV of the old Labour Party constition: ""To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service." Why they have used the term "democratic" socialism is not so much about having a different view of what socialism will be like than those who don't use that term (indeed, the most authoritarian of state socialists probably think that when real socialism finally comes it will be democratic) but about the means to achieve socialism - i.e. through democracy, through elections, through legal reforms, through trade union struggle, through the support of the mass of the population. Thus, what defines democratic socialism is not about common ideas of a socialist society, but a common focus on the role of democracy in the transition to socialism. BobFromBrockley 10:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that DS refers to a revolution or evolution that is supported by the masses? Instead of a revolution inacted by a small group in the name of the public, or an automatic evolution over which the public has no control. DS is achieved in a revolutionary manner when the proletariat gains class conciousness and overthrows the bourgeois state, since this action would be as democratic as possible as it has the support of the overwhelming majority. And it's achieved in an evolutionary manner through reforms and/or popular support for unions and so forth? I agree with that, and socialism is basically all the same deal just "place the means of production in social control" hence it's called socialism. There's a bloody reason for the name, nobody picked it because we thought it sounded cool, at least I hope not. (Demigod Ron 03:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

No, what I am saying is that the movements or parties historically which have been called democratic socialist have tended not to be revolutionary movements or parties. So, we might come up with some normative definition of what we believe democratic socialism would mean if it ever became "actually existing", but the term descriptively is rarely used like this. An encyclopedia definition should reflect the way the term is used emprically. My understanding is that the term is used overwhelmingly to describe those socialists who believe in a democratic transition to socialism (democratic in the limited sense of through elections and ensuing reforms) to differentiate themselves from socialists who believe in a revolutionary transition to socialism. For examples of parties/movements which have called themselves DS, see Democratic Socialists of America, Democratic Socialist Party (Japan), Democratic Socialist Party (Prabodh Chandra), Italian Democratic Socialist Party, etc etc (for more see Democratic Socialist Party. Looking for exceptions, I've found: Democratic Socialist Perspective and that's about it. BobFromBrockley 09:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Could this be re-written?

"Some argue that socialism implies democracy, and that democratic socialism is a redundant term."

Now, myself and a few other people that have read this would agree that socialism implies a more state controlled environment and therefore takes away from democracy. Conservatism or liberalism imply democracy, so I think that sentence should be re-written.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.220.82 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is perfectly accurate, so that's no reason to re-write it (see, for example, Socialism as Radical Democracy). Perhaps we need to add more information for readers unfamiliar with democratic socialism so that confusion like the above arises less often in the future. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 18:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Socialism at one point was one and the same with democracy, and in fact seen as the highest democratic form. However after the formation of the Soviet Union, which called itself socialist, socialism lost some of it's democratic face, especialy during the Cold War when the capitalist world worked hard to deface socialism and communism. Most laymen, who are not well versed in the nature and goals of socialism, equate socialism with the totalitarian system of the Soviet Union and the other communist states. Socialism thus began to exist as solely an economic system that could be applied to any political system (democracy, despotism, ect.). Thus the term democratic socialism is necessary to assure people that this "brand of socialism" is indeed democratic. At least, that's my hypothesis. (Demigod Ron 01:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

Recallable delegates

Not all democratic socialists agree that democracy would be representative, rather than direct. Perhaps there needs to be something saying that this is more of what SOME believe, I don't think that is explained enough. --Revolución hablar ver 09:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I've deleted parts of the introduction, which was, frankly, rubbish. I see someone complained about it above. "Some imply" etc etc. We need references from real books or links to real life self identified democratic socialists/social democrats etc, because otherwise the article sounds a bit waffly, I'm afraid. Wik idea 09:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the new wording, except am not sure that the reference to the details of parties and party names is appropraite for intro - might be better to move it later. BobFromBrockley 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved the stuff down, as you suggested. It's always a problem with these political topic pages, especially the socialist set I expect, how there are seemingly endless endless endless divisions and subdivisions. Arguments over the difference between "democratic socialism" and "social democracy" being a salient one. Of course, these words mean very little without some history of what real parties have really done (in reality). Otherwise we're all left to waddle through the swirling realm of conflicting conceptions, debating what some word entails or doesn't. What I'm trying to say is, more references about real political parties and movements would be good. Wik idea 18:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The small changes/Democratic socialism and social democracy

Since the changes I have made were reverted, apparently "perverting" the article, I am writing here. If you add something to the article you must have some kind of source to back up what you say. It is no good asserting that, for instance "Although some proponents of social democracy may describe themselves as democratic socialists, most democratic socialists are not social democrats and reject it as a form of capitalism." This is what is known as weaseling - the weasel words being "some proponents" and "most democratic socialists". Which ones? Where? I can't see them, can you? If we are to see them, we need references. The author of this seems to want to draw an enormous distinction between the two for some reason, when in reality, there is little difference. That is why I referred to, for instance, the British Labour Party, and the German SPD, who are both in the Party of European Socialists (see further down the page). If you can jump that hurdle with some reference to something that tells us why SD is so different to DS, then maybe you can put back in what you have written. Otherwise, I see your chances as dim, and assertions as unfounded. Maybe this time, the author will also bother to reply on this talk page! Wik idea 19:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

sorry, "perversing" the article, is what I was told! Wik idea 20:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Little difference? Social democracy is nothing more than a bourgeois veil thrown over the eyes of the proletariat! There is not a drop of socialism in SD, it's nothing more than capitalism with a bit of it's natural cruelty drawn out. While democratic socialism in all it's forms is a genuine effort to replace the bourgeois state with the proletarian state. You are either confused by the programs of the bourgeois parties that dare to call themselves socialist to come to this conclusion, or you are a bourgeois idiologist trying to taint socialism. I believe the second.(Demigod Ron 03:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for sharing your views! Wik idea 11:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed some compromise wording, and put in citation needed tags, so that people can add references, rather than simply asserting that DS is the same as SD or the opposite of it. I referred to the page Democratic socialism vs. social democracy, but note that this was actually deleted yesterday - I can't work out how to see the deletion log/talk thing properly, and didn't notice a proposal for deletion, but never mind. BobFromBrockley 11:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC) (I also think that the Concept/Common Ideas section(s) could do with some references.) BobFromBrockley 11:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikidea reverted my edits as well as Ron's, and I don't want to get into an edit war, but I strongly suggest that both equating DS with SD and saying they have nothing in common are "baseless assertions" unless they are backed up with references. BobFromBrockley 13:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

But I put in the stuff about the political parties, which you asked me to move down the page, remember? I won't bother to argue over this any more. It's a bit pointless! Wik idea 20:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, someone here is trying to deface another current of socialism. These bourgeois opportunists never cease to attack us and warp the truth to their liking and benefit. And I agree with Bob where he says that equating and saying DS and SD have nothing in common is equally unfounded. But Wikidea is determined to equate them, to place a reactionary idea on the same podium as a quasi-revolutionary idea. I guess that every epoch has its opportunists. Oh and while the common ideas and concept section don't have direct references, if you check the currents mentioned you will see that they're true (such as market socialism not abolishing markets, or anarchists not aproving of states and so on) I found no way to add refences in that section without making it unwiedly and cumbersome. (Demigod Ron 00:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

AFAIK social democracy and democratic socialism are same, only there is a different journalits use. It's an other problem if all parties that called himself democratic socialist or social democratic are this, sorry for my english --Francomemoria 19:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is confused by the actions and names of these parties. But no, SD and DS are not the same at all. At one point they had little differences, but now the two have taken to different sides of the spectrum. Social democracy is a centralist ideology with no revolutionary undertones, it doesn't want to overthrow capitalism, but rather tame the beast a bit. Democratic socialism, as Bob said further in this talkpage, is a doctrine that tries to achieve socialism through democratic reform and the mass support of the proletariat. (Demigod Ron 01:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

achieve socialism through democracy is the definition of socialdemocracy for britannica, the differtnt that you tell is a journalists use not in politology use--Francomemoria 23:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think now what we need is references from good sources defining democratic socialism, including references that make clear the links/contrasts between democratic socialism and social democracy. here or here might be a good place to start. BobFromBrockley 11:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK< I've researched usage of the term and written in quite a lot into the Concepts section. Please knock it in to shape everyone.BobFromBrockley 17:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Levellers and Diggers

Are we presenting levellers and diggers as actual forerunners of democratic socialism, rather than as examples which more recent socialists have looked back on? It seems unsupportable to do the former, whatever Christopher Hill might say - the context is just so different, and the lineage from the 17th century to the 19th so absent, that this seems extremely questionable. john k 22:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I think it was me that added that. Certainly it is unsupportable to say they are "actual" forerunners; they were influences or inspirations, perhaps inaugerators of a tradition, and articulated key democratic socialist concerns - but of course in a very different language and a very different context. Is there a way of re-writing that captures this, or should it be cut?BobFromBrockley 11:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

More broadly

This article is, more broadly, very uncertain of what Democratic socialism is, or its place in a broader history of socialism. I find it entirely unclear whether "democratic socialism" is a real movement with a real history, or just a term which has been used by various distinct and unrelated socialist movements over the years. john k 22:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. My view is that there is not a real coherent democratic socialist movement as such, but that there is something more than distinct and unrelated uses of the words. I think we can talk about a democratic socialist stream or tradition within the socialist movement, with various parties/thinkers/etc consciously placing themselves in such a tradition. I think, however, that the article needs to be much more rigorous in its use of sources in order to be clear about this. BobFromBrockley 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I've come across this Differences between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy. does anyone think this should be merged into this article? Or perhaps, seem as it has no references, deleted. G-Man ^? 00:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe Differences between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy was originally a fork from this article (first titled Democratic socialism vs. social democracy) -- compare with this version from earlier this year. So I guess it could be merged back in easily enough, but should be trimmed down quite a bit in that case. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 03:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

They are the same article Democratic socialism vs. social democracy was deleted and in it's place we now have Differences between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy. The reason why that article should not be remerged with democratic socialism is because democratic socialism is now more detailed than when the fork existed. Which is why the seperate article exists in the first place. (Demigod Ron 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

AFD

I'm considering an AFD on this article. Although well written, it cannot produce a coherent defition of the concept at hand. I seriously question the existance of any 'democratic socialist' movement or tendency, that would exist of its own outside of the wikiverse. To say that 'democratic socialism' is Social Democracy + a handfull of socialist tendencies that doesn't really fit into any international tendency is an OR construction.

The existance of this article does create problems, for example the usage of 'Social Democracy/Democratic socialism' in various infoboxes on political parties.

Material from this article can the shifted to a large extent to Socialism and Social Democracy articles respectively. --Soman (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

i'm agree --Francomemoria (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Latin America

Labeling a fascist coupmonger like Hugo Chávez "democratic socialist" is absurd. The term is even less applicable to an outright nazi like Ollanta Humala. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.155.169 (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Can someone explain to me why there is not a 'criticism' section on this page? Admittedly, I'm biased, I think the phrase 'democratic socialism' is an oxymoron, but there is objective evidence for criticism. I think work should be taken to create a criticism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.239.119 (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add a section if you want.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 07:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

History

A couple of weeks ago, Soman "weeded out" the OR sections of the article. While I strongly agree with this approach to the discussion of the concept, which was speculative and normative and did not necessarily relate to the historical usage of the term, I strongly disagree with this approach to the historical account of democratic socialism. It is true that the account that evolved in the article had lacked references, giving the appearance of OR. I have replaced that section, in its last version, but added a large number of references (although some parts are now better-referenced than others). Please do not remove the whole section again without discussion and consensus here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

social democracy and democratic socialism (USA)

Within the USA the Democratic Socialists of America and Social Democrats USA hold joint or cross over meetings and share information. It is the Socialist Party of the United States of America that claims to be democratic socialist and does not interact with the other two and openly has members claiming to be democratic centralist of the third and fourth international. I read the whole introduction as an insult to the 2/3 of the Socialists (USA) who work within the greater internationalist movement and not the failed since 1991 Comintern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.239.34.219 (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, Barack Obama is NOT a socialist.

He's not a socialist, a communist a democratic socialist, or any other form of socialist. He is entirely wedded to the Capitalist economic system. Suggesting otherwise just misleads people as to what constitutes socialism.Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Related AfD at List of socialist countries

List of socialist countries has been put up for deletion here. You may not be aware that this list exists. Various proposals are being debated including; keep, delete (and merge any useful information into the relevane articles), and rename. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Biased

This article does not seem neutral at all to me. Its very suggestive at the nature of the democracy that democratic socialists want to build. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llanowar90 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Equating "democratic socialism" with democratic socialism

A major issue I'm finding throughout this article is that it essentially equates the ideology of "democratic socialism" with any sort of democratic, socialist ideology. It is not synonymous with "socialism from below", and many revolutionary Marxists (not necessarily Leninists or supporters of the Vanguard Party theory) would argue that it's quite the opposite. Beyond that, most revolutionary socialists endorse some form of democratic organization of society and the economy. "Democratic socialism" refers to reformist socialism almost solely and the article should reflect that. JPuglisi (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Notable democratic socialists

I think the list of notable democratic socialists is getting too long and is arbitrary. I think it should include only names of those who are significant and notable in the history or present of democratic socialism, and not those who are notable for other reasons and happen to be democratic socialists. It also should not be too focused on a small number of countries (at present the UK and Netherlands are rather over-represented). I have trimmed the more obvious ones, including some of the Dutch. I suggest we delete some more. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Where is Eduard Bernstein?

Eduard Bernstein, the reformist and evolutionary socialist who created social democracy should be mentioned in this article.--R-41 (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No, he shouldn't! At least not as leading figure. Bernstein was a pioneer of Liberal Socialism, which is what social democracy became after WWII. And by his very influence!! You're doing exactly what the article says one shouldn't do, in one of its very first lines: confusing Democratic Socialism with social democracy. What's the difference? Basically Bernstein was one of the first socialists, in Germany at least, to give up on the goal of nationalising all means of production and distribution:

"Marx had accepted the solution of the Utopians in essentials, but had recognised their means and proofs as inadequate. He therefore undertook a revision of them, and this with the zeal, the critical acuteness, and love of truth of a scientific genius. … But, as Marx approaches a point when that final aim enters seriously into the question, he becomes uncertain and unreliable. … It thus appears that this great scientific spirit was, in the end, a slave to a doctrine. …

To me that which is generally called the ultimate aim of socialism is nothing, but the movement is everything. … it is certainly indispensable for revolutionary socialism to take as its ultimate aim the nationalisation of all the means of production, but not for practical political socialism which places near aims in front of distant ones. … an ultimate aim is here regarded as being dispensable for practical objects, … as I also have professed but little interest for ultimate aims."

— Eduard Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism, Conclusion Ultimate Aim and Tendency – Kant against Cant, 1899.

Edit request on 3 June 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to change the title from Democratic socialism to Democratic Socialism. The world Socialism deserves to be in capitals. Gedgehog (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: per MOS:CAPS. Socialism is not a proper noun. Unless you can show that it is consistently capitalized in source material, it will not be capitalized on Wikipedia. --ElHef (Meep?) 00:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request: Removal of Katherine Clark and Will Brownsberger from list of Democratic Socialists

Katherine Clark and Will Brownsberger are most definitely not socialists. The only connection they have with socialism is the fact that they both attended a candidate forum sponsored by the Democratic Socialists of America in September 2013. It is my belief that whoever listed them under "Notable Democratic Socialists" was trying to slander Rep. Clark and Sen. Brownsberger and vandalize the article. I would remove this vandalism myself were this article not protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.174.157 (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2015

This edit request to Democratic socialism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The second sentence in the second paragraph of the introduction seems to have a typo. It reads: "It may can be described as a multi-party system, constitutionalism, freedom of speech, universal suffrage with common ownership and/or a planned economy."

I think the "may" should be removed so it reads: "It may be described as a multi-party system, constitutionalism, freedom of speech, universal suffrage with common ownership and/or a planned economy." 221.80.201.153 (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Contradictions and differing agendas in the article, confusion between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy

I took the liberty of removing these contradictions and streamlining (read: making sentences readable and conceptually coherent) some text. In the header of the article a clear cut definition was established with nothing wrong with it. It acknowledge revolutionary democratic socialism and reformist democratic socialism, BOTH which are actual things and must be represented here. However, just one block down into the definition section, it states that there is no clear definition, never mentioned revolutionary DemSoc, and even considered social democracy as democratic socialism, which is not actually true. The two words certainly do have history with each other, reflected in the Social Democracy article, but they are not one and the same. At the very most, social democracy can be acknowledged as a synonym for reformist democratic socialism.

Now of course, in everyday life we DO meet people who refer to Scandinavia as a DemSoc region, and we hear Bernie is a DemSoc, and we hear public schools, taxes, and healthcare are all DemSoc ideas. Maybe this should be aknowledged as well, HOWEVER if it we must make sure that it is clearly noted that these interpretations of democratic socialism are controversial, vague, and usually only seen in casual non-academic non educated conversations and certain political contexts. (Because as some of us know, "socialism" is used as a vague buzzword in US politics that refers to anything from something you disagree with, to Universal Healthcare, to a discrediting descriptor, to a Plain Jane insult; it's just never used properly)

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, something meant to CORRECTLY inform what something means, concisely. Academic interpretations and professional definitions are first and foremost, what the uninformed average joe thinks is second, third... last.

I just want to further explain a few of my edits here. Besides that my edits had consisted of adding to George Orwell in the Notable section, noting Bernie as a Social Democrat, adding an additional economic model of DemSoc to the Economic section, and fixing spelling/making things clearer.

SpaceMilk (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

In the second line of the first paragraph you added that the "adjective 'democratic' is added to denote a system of political democracy similar to that found in existing Western societies". This is dubious as it is not only unsupported by the given source, but many democratic socialists often seek to go beyond the liberal democratic conception of representative democracy, embracing some form of workplace, economic or direct democracy. You also added that some democratic socialists support a centrally-planned economy, which contradicts the given definitions of democratic socialism as a philosophy that rejects centralized forms of socialism. I don't necessarily disagree, but I think given the conflicting definitions we need to have a reputable source stating specifically that some democratic socialists support or historically supported centralized economic planning.

You are absolutely correct in asserting that Wikipedia should give precedence to academic and professional definitions before succumbing to popular (mis)conceptions. This has been an unfortunate and persistent problem on Wikipedia's socialist pages. -Battlecry 06:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

List of parties

I find the list of parties at Democratic_socialism#Parliamentary_democratic_socialist_parties rather arbitrary, especially as there is a much larger list at List_of_democratic_socialist_parties_and_organizations. For example, Maduro's United Socialist Party of Venezuela seems a bad example, as it is at the authoritarian end of "democratic" and has little to do with the tradition of democratic socialism as described in the article. Sinn Fein seems an odd example to represent Ireland and Northern Ireland. Milosevic's ex-Stalinist Socialist Party of Serbia seems a bad example. What's the rationale for inclusion? Shouldn't we either be comprehensive (but that's what the longer list is for) or pick exemplary democratic socialist parties? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it can certainly be argued that the Venezuelan socialist party isn't a democratic one. Venezuela is, at least nominally, a democracy where elections are held on a regular basis. I was the one who created that section and it does seem to have shortcomings, such as lack of sources. I suggest we add at least two sources for each party supporting their democratic socialist ideology. --Երևանցի ^talk 18:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Latin american leftist governments and other current developments

From the basic premise of this article anyone could think that the current latin american leftist governments, especially, Rafael Correa, Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales qualify as democratic socialism since they openly have said they are socialist and they participate in parlamentary democracy (being reelected all of them) and have carried out nationalizations (all of the things the Labour governments in the UK didin the 20th century). On the other hand a more moderate social democratic government which has not called itself socialist and which has not carried out nationalizations or land reforms such as the Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva government is for some reason listed as a democratic socialist government. If the "Lula" government is "democratic socialist" then the current Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner government is also democratic socialist and this because it could be seen now as more leftist than the Lula government since recently it decided to renationalize the National Oil Industry. I do remember when this article had these politicians within this article representing this tendency but it is clear their removal was not something really discussed here in talk section. Maybe I don´t know the place where to find this discussion (I have checked in Archives). I will also think that the current left of social democracy parties in europe and latin america will qualify as "democratic socialism" but there is no mention of this as so it will seem from the current state fo this article that this "democratic socialism" was something that existed mostly in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth countries. Also it seems to me that the tendency known as "eurocommunism" will also be a "democratic socialist" one but there is no mentioned of all of this and also since the URSS doens´t exist anymore one will also think that Communist Parties such as the French, the Greek, Communist Refoundation Party in Italy and United Left in Spain will also qualify as democratic socialism since it is clear they have restricted themselves to parlaiamentarism after clearly having abandoned Leninist insurrectionary and vanguardist options. As this article stands now I think it suffers perhaps from a conceptual unclarity and from a possible lack of consensus here so as to really address these issues. Looking at the history of this article, it seems a highly volatile logic is the rule here and so I will not be surprised to see a very different article from the one I am looking right now in the next time I come back here.--Eduen (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Hugo Chavez and his political party ARE NOT the official registered Democratic Socialist Party in Venezuela, it is Copei. Copei has actively participated int Democratic Socialism Party Alliance of Europe for over 50 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.163.217 (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Economic Democracy

This article meanders from one idea to another while failing to draw together the common political thread that bears the stamp of democratic socialism. There are those in this Talk section who have argued that the term democratic socialism is an oxymoron. This is only true if one grants that the word democracy embodies economics as well as the political. Traditionally this has not been the case. Thus, it makes sense to call out that democratic socialism entails the democratization of the economy. The common thread shared by all who call themselves democratic socialists is the belief in economic democracy.

The idea of economic democracy was first articulated by Herbert Marcuse, and became very influential in the thinking of the new left in the United States. It is from this branch of Marxian political philosophy that many political groups and parties mentioned in this article emerged. The article hardly mentions the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which is the largest socialist organization in America. DSA is multi-tendency, but draws extensively from the political philosophy of economic democracy, which influence the American New Left of the 1960's. The article also hardly makes reference to Michael Harrington who played a central role in defining modern democratic socialism as synonymous with economic democracy.Vaterlaus45 (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Vaterlaus45

I reformatted the above text because it was not readable due to the leading spaces causing "code" formatting. No changes were made to the actual content. KTOM 12:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I also just reformatted the above text because it was using external URL refs for Wikipedia articles. No changes were made to the actual content. KTOM 15:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Faking sources

I have reverted SpaceMilk's recent changes to the article after noticing that he faked the quote from Sociology in Our Time: The Essentials. That is so obviously and blatantly inappropriate that I don't think going through the rest of the changes in detail, which at a glance seemed rather slanted to me, is necessary. Huon (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I faked a quote? I added a quote from Reform or Revolution under Critcisms, copy pasted straight from the link, and ellipsed out parts of it. It was a block quote. I didn't do anything to quotes beyond that.

SpaceMilk (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

In this edit you changed the quote from Sociology in Our Time: The Essentials and turned it from

Sweden, Great Britain, and France have mixed economies, sometimes referred to as democratic socialism—an economic and political system that combines private ownership of some of the means of production, governmental distribution of some essential goods and services, and free elections. For example, government ownership in Sweden is limited primarily to railroads, mineral resources, a public bank, and liquor and tobacco operations.

into:

Sweden, Great Britain, and France have welfare capitalist economies, sometimes referred to as social democracy—an economic and political system that combines capitalism, state oversight of industry, governmental distribution of some essential goods and services, and free elections. For example, government ownership in Sweden is limited primarily to railroads, mineral resources, a public bank, and liquor and tobacco operations.

I provided a link to the page in question above. Somehow I don't see it mention welfare capitalist economies, social democracy or state oversight of industry. That wasn't the only quote you modified in that edit. Any comment on that? Huon (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I just didn't see the quotation marks around it. On my screen they are pretty difficult see. I was combing through and setting the definitions to what was most supported while redirecting other definitions to the other wikipedia articles it talked about. Sorry about that, it was a mistake. SpaceMilk (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.132.96 (talk)

Tony Blair

Seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@60.242.81.170: First, new sections/topics should always be added at the bottom of Talk pages by clicking on the "new section" button/tab at the top of the page. Putting new topics elsewhere usually ends up getting them ignored since most WP editors only expect to see them at the bottom. As a courtesy I have gone ahead and moved this topic to the bottom of the page (see WP:TALK for more information).

Second, before asking a question like "Seriously?" please try and take a moment to look at any references linked to in the text of the article. WP is built on reliable and verifiable sources that anyone can check for accuracy. In this case on the line with Blair's name where it says "(self described)" there is a reference link to the text of a speech Blair gave in 1995, in which he said: "The record of that government makes me proud to call myself a democratic socialist." The government he was was referring to was the 1945 Labour government which, in the same speech, he called "the greatest peacetime government this century." Furthermore, the Labour Party is Blair's official party affiliation and it has always been a socialist organization from its founding in 1900. So yes, Blair is a democratic socialist, seriously. The big problem is people keep confusing socialism with communism (mostly due to the Marxism–Leninism concept of a socialist state) and then are puzzled when they hear that America's strongest ally had a socialist prime minister & government. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 14:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The lede is plagiarized

Compare the opening para to the source it cites. Almost verbatim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.51.46 (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@70.31.51.46: Plagiarism is using someone else's words and/or ideas without attribution. Since you compare the source cited it clearly has attribution so plagiarism cannot be applicable. You also say "almost verbatim" which might be a WP:COPYVIO issue if accurate but I see substantial wording differences that cannot be interpreted as verbatim (word-for-word copying), "almost" or otherwise:

Lede Sentence 1: Democratic socialism is a political system wherein there is democratic control of a socialist economic system.
Source Sentence 1: Democratic socialism is the wing of the socialist movement that combines a belief in a socially owned economy with that of political democracy.

Only a single three-word phrase matches "verbatim": Democratic socialism is. The remaining 13 to 20 words do not.

Lede Sentence 2: It thus combines political democracy with social ownership of significant elements of the means of production.

This sentence is based on the text from Source Sentence 1 but the lede's wording uses a separate sentence and is completely different in grammar.

Lede Sentence 3: Sometimes used synonymously with "socialism", the adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish itself from the Marxist-Leninist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being non-democratic.
Source Sentence 2: Sometimes simply called socialism, more often than not, the adjective democratic is added by democratic socialists to attempt to distinguish themselves from Communists who also call themselves socialists...democratic socialists wish to emphasize by their name that they disagree strongly with the Marxist-Leninist brand of socialism.

One sentence uses "socialism"/"itself" (the concept) as the grammatical object, the other sentence uses "socialists"/"themselves" (the people) as the grammatical object. Verbatim copying isn't even technically possible in this case.

I am sure you meant well but please carefully read ♦ Plagiarism, ♦ WP:PLAGIARISM, ♦ Verbatim, ♦ WP:COPYVIO, and most importantly ♦ WP:AGF before making any further accusations of plagiarism. Thank you. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 13:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Add Bernie Picture!

Someone should add a picture of Bernie Sanders. He is the Vermont senator who is the only openly a democratic socialist in congress. Jakebarrington (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

According to which sources? --JamesPoulson (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Battlecry, Do You Understand What You're Doing is Wrong?

Battlecry, like many things in the universe, there are MANY definitions of Democratic Socialism. Not one; nor is there one definition in scholarly thought of Democratic Socialism. Yes, we can say, that Democratic Socialism in general involves the means of production being collectively owned and controlled democratically, but (and this is the problem here), there are MANY different groups that call themselves Democratic Socialist. Some are mainline political parties, some are fringe groups, some are Leninist, some are not, some are Bernie Sanders, etc; and as such SOME of them advocate systems that exist within Capitalism, and do things that seek to strengthen Capitalism, temporarily, or not. You may like that, or not, you may disagree with it personally, or not, but you cannot say that one group or person is, or is not Democratic Socialist, if THEY say they are, then they are. Scholarship is about not getting to decide when writing a definition of something. Life does not work that way, scholarship does not work that way. You also then, cannot find scholarly material that says they are, or not. If they say they are Democratic Socialist, so they must also be included in a definition -- whether we as writers like it or not. Also, you cannot have things in a definition that are your opinion of something, or any one person's opinion of something. There are two kinds of scholarly writing, an opinion, and a definition, in general, this is supposed to be a definition, and definitions are about generality.

If you want to work on a definition of Democratic Socialism that's fine, but there is NO definition of Democratic Socialism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.202.234 (talk) 19:46, March 7, 2016‎ (UTC)

You have some reading to do: Social democracy --JamesPoulson (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Democratic Socialism is not Social Democracy

I'm new here on Wikipedia, but it seems someone has vandalized this page. I reference this article frequently in debates about socialism, and recently someone added "In contemporary political discourse, "democratic socialism" is sometimes used synonymously with social democracy" just below the article heading. While that might be true, it's also inaccurate to suggest the synonymy is at all accurate.

Socialism of any kind is inseparably associated with "social/public/common ownership/control/management of the means of production". The degree to which an economy can be said to be "socialist" is the degree to which the "means of production" are owned/managed by the government, or by worker collectives which are accountable to the government for ensuring profits are not retained privately but distributed to society. Socialism is not merely social safety nets and economic regulation/intervention; if it were, then virtually every government would be socialist to some degree, and it would be sort of pointless to have a separate word which just meant "government".

Social democracy, on the other hand, IS all social safety nets and economic interventions, but without the "social control of the means of production". Many people, that I've debated anyway, have attempted to assert that the "Scandinavian Miracle" is the result of "democratic socialism", but none of the Scandinavian countries are socialist. The only one that slightly satisfies that definition is Norway, where the energy sector is partially state-owned (though still privately managed). The success of the Nordic countries should really be attributed to their relative ethnic homogeneity, economic unstratification, geopolitical isolation, and civil commitment to the welfare state (which is currently being eroded by the refugee crisis, as evidenced by the recent political gains of far-right parties in response to it).

I'm not the kind of person who indulges conspiracy theories, but I'm almost inclined to believe there is a strong movement to restore "socialism" to relevance by tricking people into thinking that the success of the "Nordic Model" should be attributed to it. The best example of democratic socialism is Venezuela, which is as of this writing experiencing a major economic crisis as a result of the democratically elected socialist government's refusal to abandon its commitments to "social ownership of the means of production". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki232 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. It's an issue we've been discussing at various talk pages. The piece above about Bernie Sanders is an example. The problem seems to be that the definitions used in abstract discussions of social democracy and democratic socialism often do not tie up with the application of those terms to specific examples.

The sentence you mention (In contemporary political discourse, "democratic socialism" is sometimes used synonymously with social democracy) would not normally be classed as vandalism. It appears to be a good faith edit consistent with reliable sources. As it's a hatnote (an initial sentence in italics), its purpose is to ensure that people end up reading the article they're looking for. The aim here is that those interested in social democracy find the social democracy page, even if they get here as a result of erroneously thinking that the concept of social democracy is called democratic socialism. It would be an easy mistake to make at this time.

You have a good point that anyone who didn't go on to read the two articles could come away with the impression that the terms were genuine synonyms. Do you have an alternative suggestion for the hatnote text that would avoid this problem?

Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It seems like a standard hatnote along the lines of "This article is not about the political ideology of Social Democracy", perhaps with the added note "which is sometimes confused/inaccurately equated with Democratic Socialism" would have been more precise and content-neutral.

Loki232 (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That sounds good. I've combined some of your words with some of the original words in a new hatnote. Hopefully it will achieve both of the objectives:

This article is about the political ideology of democratic socialism. It is not to be confused with the political ideology of social democracy. The two terms are sometimes inaccurately used as synonyms in contemporary political discourse.

If you can spot any problems with it please leave a comment and we can work out a better one. Polly Tunnel (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Polly Tunnel and Loki232: I added the original hatnote and would argue that it is the most neutral and concise way of addressing the ambiguity with both "democratic socialism" and "social democracy". The hatnote did not imply that "social democracy" and "democratic socialism" are synonyms (hence why both terms were in quotation marks), but points out that irrespective of their differences, the two are frequently used as synonyms in popular discourse. Furthermore, it is difficult to entirely separate the two traditions. While the contemporary notion of social democracy as a welfare state is not socialist, historical definitions of social democracy do heavily overlap with (and can be seen as being synonymous with) the concept of democratic socialism. -Battlecry 07:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally I'm happy with either hatnote. I do think there is something to the point that casual visitors to the page probably need to understand that DS and SD are usually distinguished. The fact that we have separate pages on WP for DS and SD, and within them we distinguish between the two, seems to me to indicate that distinguishing between them is a valid exercise for WP to be doing. But equally I agree that the relation between the two is complex, and probably too complex to summarise in a hatnote. This probably all turns on the term "inaccurately". The original hatnote could have had much the same import as the current one if it had read: In contemporary political discourse, "democratic socialism" is sometimes inaccuratley used synonymously with social democracy. This would have retained some of the original conciseness but exchanged the neutrality for a degree of disambiguation. Is this a form of words that anyone would like in the hatnote? Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Polly Tunnel:I would be fine using this revised version of the original hatnote for its conciseness and acceptance of ambiguity with the two terms. -Battlecry 23:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Done – Polly Tunnel (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: An unregistered user has removed the hatnote and I have replaced it, with a request that she or he discusses it here first. The edit summary supplied was interesting:

Hat note has been removed. It is constantly getting edited, based on people's individual politics or opinions. A strictly revolutionary definition of "democratic socialism" is inadequate, as is a strictly reformist one. Need to bridge the gap in hat note.

Polly Tunnel (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Redundant phrasing

I undid this edit because the phrasing was very redundant. As edited it said:

"Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating political democracy and democratic control of a socialist economic system.

It thus combines political democracy with social ownership of the major means of production."

But if you incorporate the text in the lede of the socialist article the text reads as:

"Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating political democracy and democratic control of an economic and social system characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production economic system.

It thus combines political democracy with social ownership of the major means of production."

Unfortunately after doing the undo I realized this particular edit was not the actual problem (so I returned the "and" where it was). The entire lede is filled with confusing redundancy. I cannot work on this right now today but I will come back and discuss some more later and tomorrow. In the meantime I would welcome comments on the issue of redundancy here. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your explanation. You're quite right about the redundancy issue. Editing your incorporated text down we could try the following:

Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating political democracy and democratic control of an economic and social system characterised by ~~social ownership and democratic control of the means of production economic system. It thus combines political democracy with~~ social ownership of the major means of production.

Polly Tunnel (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Better, but now I see something that may be why the redundancy popped-up to begin with ... reading only the ledes for these two articles I am unable to differentiate between the definitions for socialism and democratic socialism? Can you explain what is the difference in a nutshell? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 20:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, what is a "social system" as you used that phrase above? I think this is the first time that phrase has been proposed for this article. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 20:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

A social system is a broad designation for any established patterns of social interaction. It thus includes concepts like the economic system and political system. Socialism is sometimes defined as an entirely different form of social organization from capitalism, not limited to just the economic sphere; hence why "social system" is included in its definition. I don't think we need to include that in the definition of democratic socialism.

To remove the redundancy in the first paragraph of the lede, I would suggest the following:

Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, or democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system. Sometimes used synonymously with "socialism", the adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish itself from the Marxist-Leninist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being non-democratic. -Battlecry 01:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That looks like a good definition to me, although as before I would prefer the "or" to be an "and". I guess social ownership of the means of production is often taken to mean nationalisation, and democratic management of enterprises is often taken to mean co-operatives (hence "or"). But in an abstract literal sense the means of production and enterprises would all be subject to both social ownership and democratic management. Taken in this sense we could lose the distinction, replacing …social ownership of the means of production, or democratic management of enterprises… with …social ownership and democratic management of the means of production…. Oh and technically we probably ought to say The term "democratic socialism" is sometimes used synonymously with "socialism";. As it stands it could be read to imply that it's …the adjective "democratic"… that's …sometimes used synonymously with "socialism"….

So a modified version of the definition could be:

Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating political democracy alongside social ownership and democratic management of the means of production within a socialist economic system. The term "democratic socialism" is sometimes used synonymously with "socialism"; the adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish it from the Marxist-Leninist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being non-democratic.

Social system has a (very brief) WP article of its own. I included it because it appeared in the incorporated text, but we can easily do without it in the definition if that's preferred.

As regards the distinction between socialism and democratic socialism, I would be hard put to come up with one. As I said when replying to JamesPoulson, I suspect the qualifier "democratic" serves primarily to distance socialism from the Soviet legacy and is technically tautologous. Hence Battlecry's text …the adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish itself from the Marxist-Leninist brand of socialism…. Of course Marxism–Leninism isn't undemocratic in theory (it uses democratic centralism), hence the qualifier …which is widely viewed as being non-democratic.

Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this wording (including the "and") works pretty good. One last possible suggestion might be to over-explain "social ownership" by expanding it to "social (employee) ownership". I realize this is an oversimplification of the concept but it is the most easily understood form and the link is there for expanding the definition. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 19:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest the following changes to the proposed lede. The difference between "socialism" and "democratic socialism" by some definitions is that democratic socialism specifically includes democratic management of the socially-owned enterprises (democracy at the level of the workplace). However, this is a different concept of "democratic socialism" meaning social ownership (whether democratically-managed or not) alongside political democracy. Hence why I initially included or in my proposed version.

Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, with democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system. The term "democratic socialism" is sometimes used synonymously with "socialism"; the adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish it from the Marxist-Leninist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being non-democratic.

@Koala Tea Of Mercy: Over-defining "social ownership" as employee ownership is too narrow. Many democratic socialists have favored public ownership, for example. -Battlecry 08:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The fact that "many" D-S ^[who?] support public ownership is a separate issue to what social ownership is. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd be happy to go with this latest definition. Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm okay with this last definition also, looks like we have consensus on the wording. Yay! Go ahead and put that into the lede as is. I would however like to revisit the social ownership issue so I am going to start a new section below. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Leninism and authoritarianism

Democratic socialism is often used in contrast to movements, such as Leninism, which resort to authoritarian means to achieve a transition to socialism (i.e., "democratic centralism", "vanguardism", etc.)

Leninism is not authoritarian, and democratic centralism is not anti-democratic. This is not a neutral view on Leninism. It is a classic bourgeois standpoint, that Lenin is to blame for Stalin's totalitarianism. Leninism is not authoritarian. --UDSS (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Soviet authoritarianism predated Stalin and continued after Stalin; no country with a Leninist government was ever not authoritarian. The USSR, China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc, etc were all Leninists and were all authoritarian; to suggest these statements are not neutral is an asinine rejection of objective reality. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. As a Trotskyist (and therefore a Leninist), I take offense to pretty much this whole article. I changed the intro slightly to be more accurate (replaced the reference to Leninism with one to Stalinism and removed the reference to vanguardism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.146.213 (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Democratic socialism was a phrase used to distinguish socialists who did not believe in Leninist-type socialism. The fundamental difference between the two is their position on achieving socialism; Leninists believe in Vanguardism and democratic centralism, organized revolution led by a self-appointed elite with the supposed aim of overthrowing bourgousie governments by force to establish a single-party (Vanguardist) state. On the other hand, democratic socialists believe in spontaneous revolution by the working class itself (not by any self-appointed elite or Vanguards) -or- grassroots political action as a means to achieve socialism. The two ideologies are fundamentally opposed to one another, and the lead paragraph should mention the fundamental distinction between the two. A democratic socialist is likely to believe that authoritarianism will be a likely outcome when vast amounts of power is vested in any single individual or small group of vanguards. Battlecry (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Battlecry. That is how democratic socialism is used in most instances. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"Spontaneous revolution by the working class" and "grassroots political action" do a good job in distinguishing democratic socialism from Leninism. We will need to make it clear that this refers only to revolutionary democratic socialism, as reformist democratic socialism has a different view on the method of achieving socialism. Polly Tunnel (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Erroneous inclusion of Bernie Sanders under "notable democratic socialists"

The article cited mentions only that Bernie Sanders self-identifies as a "democratic socialist," but does not provide any information that would suggest that his politics actually reflect such a stance. On the contrary, Sanders' political positions regarding wealth and income distribution are textbook examples of social democratic positions^[1]---something this article spends a great deal of time distinguishing from democratic socialist positions. His inclusion in this list is erroneous at best (and calculating at worst), and have taken the liberty of removing him. As an alternative, we could add (disputed) to his entry. Nic01445 (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Sanders, in explaining his political position, stated: "I don’t believe government should take over the grocery store down the street or own the means of production..."[2] This explicitly contradicts the definition of democratic socialism given in the lede of this article, which states "Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy with social ownership of the means of production". Whatever he calls himself, Sanders is clearly a social democrat, not a democratic socialist. Either his name should be removed from the article or the definition should be changed. -Wormcast (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Nic01445 & Wormcast: The concept of "social ownership of production" is not the same as "government ownership of production". I think what Sanders is advocating for is something more like the Worker cooperative and/or Employee stock ownership plan models. You might read the text of the speech Sanders made last November (complete transcript) where he says (bold emphasis added):

"I don't believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal.
I believe in private companies that thrive and invest and grow in America instead of shipping jobs and profits overseas."

Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 12:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Correction: Sanders definitely is advocating for the Worker cooperative model. In December 2014 (four months prior to his starting his run for president) he apparently wrote an editorial, where he said (bold emphasis added):

"We need to develop new economic models to increase job creation and productivity. Instead of giving huge tax breaks to corporations which ship our jobs to China and other low-wage countries, we need to provide assistance to workers who want to purchase their own businesses by establishing worker-owned cooperatives. Study after study shows that when workers have an ownership stake in the businesses they work for, productivity goes up, absenteeism goes down and employees are much more satisfied with their jobs."

Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 12:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The point of contention is that Bernie Sanders essentially defines "democratic socialism" as New Deal-era liberalism, which is an ideology that favors policies that seek to preserve capitalism. Academic commentators routinely identify Sanders as a "social democrat" (which has acquired roughly the same meaning as "New Deal liberalism") as opposed to an actual democratic socialist. If we include Bernie Sanders, we can mention his advocacy of employee-ownership and his historical support for public ownership of industry. -Battlecry 09:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Battlecry, I understand what you are saying but under WP's rules on No Original Research we cannot take it on ourselves to define who is or who is not a "true" democratic socialist. Saying he is not one also runs a little afoul of the essay WP:TRUTH and could even be seen as a possible fallacious argument per the main-space article No true Scotsman. WP editors write articles only based on what others have written/said, not on what we think or even "know" to be a certain way. If you can find a reliable source that explicitly comments on Sanders' philosophy in contrast to "authentic" democratic socialism then you can use that in the article content, but as long as Sanders self-identifies as one -- and as long as he is a "notable individual" (which I do not think is in contention) -- then he must be included in the article. Understand that since a claim that Sanders is not a democratic socialist is a very strong claim, you will need an equally strong source. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 21:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

In referring to Pope Francis every now and then, Mister Sanders may be reviving ideas of Distributism. His wife is catholic. --JamesPoulson (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

If you search Google for "is Bernie Sanders a Democratic Socialist" the very first article makes the argument he is not.^[2] There are many reliable sources making this argument. At the very least, Wikipedia should make it clear that Bernie's self-described "democratic socialist" stance is refuted by many sources. As it stands, this article has the frankly ridiculous position of arguing profusely for the difference between "democratic socialist" and "social democrat" and how these terms are erroneously considered synonymous, then lists someone as a democratic socialist who has positions the article itself states are clearly those of a social democrat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.67.111 (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

References

HDP in Turkey

Hi, the HDP in Turkey has been proven to support the PKK, a terrorist organization also listed by the US and the EU. It claims one thing but advocates another. They even refuse to condemn terror. I suggest it be removed from this particular article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.74.186.109 (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Clarification of Social Ownership

In an ideal world WP readers will see that social ownership is wikilinked and go and read that article too.

We don't live in a perfect world.

Above I proposed that it might be a good idea to over-explain "social ownership" by expanding it to "social (employee) ownership". In a number of discussions, both here and in real life, I have run across many people who erroneously think social ownership = government ownership. While social ownership is much more complicated than employee ownership, E-O is a well-understood form of social ownership that Americans are familiar with. And let us not kid ourselves, many people are reading this page now because of the American elections including a D-S candidate. I know it is not WP's purpose to Right Great Wrongs, but I think it would be a dis-service to our readers leave a minor (and avoidable) wrong interpretation unclear. Thus I am proposing that some kind of extra-clarifying text be put into this page to help avoid misunderstanding what social ownership is.

How to do that? is the main question. Maybe in the end there is no way to do it neatly but I would at least like to explore this idea if other editors of this page are willing. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

To do this, you would need to provide scholarly sources that specifically define "social ownership" as "employee ownership", and which specifically mention that democratic socialism favors this strict form of social ownership. But this would contradict many sources and historical socialist movements cited in this article that advocated public ownership. Because "social ownership" is a nebulous concept, it's best to keep the lead ambiguous and explain the specific forms it can take in the "Relation to economics" section provided you have credible sources specifically linking "democratic socialism" with "employee ownership". -Battlecry 23:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Koala Tea Of Mercy's aim of clarity for those most likely to read this. However, as Battlecry points out, it's hard to do that while still remaining accurate. "Social ownership" in Europe takes different forms in different countries. In some places consumers' co-operatives are very popular, while in others housing cooperatives are the norm. Worker cooperatives only make up part of the non-state mix, though they seem particularly popular in the global south. "Employee ownership" on WP redirects to employee stock ownership plan, which doesn't really seem to be a form of worker coop at all, and doesn't sound like the sort of thing that's likely to be popular with Democratic Socialists. May I ask what is meant by "employee ownership" in the context of "a well-understood form of social ownership that Americans are familiar with"? Polly Tunnel (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

"Social ownership" is usually associated with society-wide ownership, with public (state) ownership being the most common form people associate with "society". However, "social ownership" was specifically used in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to refer to publicly-owned, worker-managed enterprises (where the workforce had control rights to dispose of property, manage their enterprise, and appropriate revenue, while the capital equipment was nominally the property of "society"). Employee ownership at the enterprise level (a producer cooperative) is only one form of "social ownership", and it certainly isn't the only form democratic socialists have advocated for (historically, the "democratic socialists" primarily advocated for public ownership). -Battlecry 22:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

How does Social ownership differ from Common ownership? --JamesPoulson (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Battlecry: I would respectfully challenge your claim that EO is usually associated with society-wide ownership, at least in the USA context, with the exception of municipality owned enterprises such as water companies, fire companies, hospitals, etc. I would definitely like to see some sources that supports the "usually" part of that claim. I also would like to see sources for your other claim of historically, the "democratic socialists" primarily advocated for public ownership with similar emphasis on the word "primarily". Now I would agree that the latter claim would be correct with the aggregate of socialists in general, but your statement specifically focuses on "democratic socialists" and I find that less likely to have reliable sources. I am always happy to be proven wrong. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 23:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Polly Tunnel: To answer your question "what is meant ... ?" there are a number of American companies that -- starting in the 1980's -- have spent significant marketing resources to sell themselves to the American public as "employee owned" (although some were actually ESOP's) and portraying that configuration as better than being a "faceless corporation" (using buzzwords words like "care", "involved", "community", etc... and the ubiquitous "we" at all times). Americans seem to have a high-opinion of employee owned companies possibly as a result of this marketing strategy (alternatively a pre-existing pro-EO bias may have been the genesis of the strategy). While many of the EO/ESOP companies that were very visible in the 1980's have failed, there are still many success stories as well. Supermarkets in particular seem to work well with this model per some research I did a few years ago. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 23:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hatnote

Re http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Democratic_socialism&oldid=prev&diff=728105893

I agree that the "meaning and PURPOSE" were potentially changed here (though not "COMPLETELY") but this doesn't actually explain what the problem is. The "inaccurately in contemporary political discourse" version of the note unnecessarily takes the POV that there are strictly well-defined meanings for terms like "democratic socialism" and "social democracy," and people (e.g. Bernie Sanders) who call themselves "democratic socialists" when they actually favor is a market economy with state intervention and regulation are wrong to do so. In fact these loose ideological labels have shifted continuously over time; "social democratic party" was originally a synonym for "communist party," for example; the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks split from the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. Are we going to say that the RSDLP was "inaccurately using the term in contemporary discourse?"

Allegedly my version of the hatnote suffered from "right-wing bias." I am at a loss. Let's try and stay calm and avoid spurious unmotivated accusations here. All I did was shorten and paraphrase the opening sentences of the two articles:

"the left-wing ideology favouring democratic control of economic activity"

> a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, often with an emphasis on democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system.

"the left-wing ideology favouring a market economy with state intervention and regulation"

> a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving collective bargaining arrangements, a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.

I honestly do think that my version was more accurate and neutral, and the "inaccurately in contemporary discourse" version comes off as an inappropriate intervention by Wikipedia in inter-"socialist" disputes. It is reasonable to distinguish "democratic socialism" and "social democracy" for the purpose of writing two articles about the two separable concepts, but it is not reasonable or NPOV to insist that everyone who doesn't observe this precise taxonomy is being "inaccurate," or that this is merely a "contemporary" problem.

Let's look at dictionary definitions of the two terms.

Merriam-Webster defines "social democracy" to encompass either what Wikipedia calls "social democracy" – a market economy with a socialistic welfare state – or what Wikipedia would call "reformist democratic socialism" – "a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means." They don't have an entry for "democratic socialism."

Oxford defines "social democracy" as exactly what we're calling "democratic socialism": "A socialist system of government achieved by democratic means." They define "socialism" very vaguely, to include ownership or regulation of the means of production, and add a somewhat apologetic note about the vaguess of the term and the tendency for "socalist" parties in Europe to "tend towards social democracy." They define "democratic socialism" to encompass both what we're calling the "accurate" meaning of democratic socialism, as well as "(also more generally) moderate or centrist socialism."

So I find strong support for the idea that "social democracy" and "democratic socialism" lack accepted, precise, non-overlapping definitions; therefore the usage note should not insist that they do.

TiC ^(talk) 07:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Btw, while calling it the "bernie note" may have been slightly flip, the edit history strongly suggests that the note was put there to "defend" the article against Sanders supporters. It started as "not to be confused with," morphed to "sometimes used synonomously with," and then was removed and re-added in its present form because editors were mad that it "misleadingly suggests the synonymy is accurate." See #Democratic_Socialism_is_not_Social_Democracy above and note the discussion explicitly mentioned Bernie Sanders. As was fairly predictable, the note was put there because of Sanders' use of the term, and the resultant controversy among turf-guarding old-style socialists. TiC ^(talk) 07:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I would also agree that the article should be defended against but it should be clear that the synonym exists in everyday language and not according to original concepts. There would be no socialist economies in the world aside countries which are described as communist so if Bernie Sanders statements were to be taken literally he would have wanted the United States to be sole socialist country in the West.

Europeans do not want to be associated with the controversy this has brought about as it would position Europe as being antagonistic to the United States according to some weird populist revisionism. --JamesPoulson (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

response to User:TitaniumCarbide

I agree, let's stay calm and discuss this respectfully.

While your edit was well-intentioned it was technically inappropriate for a number of reasons. First among these is the fact that the hatnote was already discussed explicitly last March-April (see the Democratic Socialism is not Social Democracy section above) and unanimous consensus with no dissenting voices was achieved for the wording you changed. While I did not comment at that discussion I did monitor it and I was in full agreement with the outcome. Other editors who were active at the time also did not add any objections or concerns to the discussion on the wording of the hatnote. Thus universal consensus is correct per WP:Silence and consensus. In short, your edit goes against a well established and very solid consensus.

The purpose of the hatnote had nothing to do with "bernie" or any political candidate. Yes, the candidacy of Mr. Sanders had caused increased activity on this article but those of us who were editing the page were making great efforts to ensure that this article did not get drowned in bernie rhetoric, pro or con.

The purpose of the hatnote was in fact to ensure that the reader was aware that the terms "social democrat" and "democratic socialist" are not synonyms. Nothing more, nothing less. Your edit removed the word "synonym" from the text and thus completely changed the purpose of the hatnote as decided by consensus. The reason for the need for the hatnote (inaccurate use) was also removed by your edit even though it had been deliberately incorporated into the hatnote for the same purpose. In fact, as you yourself point out: "these loose ideological labels have shifted continuously over time" and it was the intent of the hatnote to ensure that the reader was made aware of this existence of this "shifting" so that they could be certain they were reading the desired page for whatever their purpose might be.

The hatnote did not attempt to explain the differences between the two terms at all, because that is not the purpose of any hatnote. See the next item for an explanation of this last sentence.

Another reason why your edit was technically inappropriate is that your edit is in contradiction of the WP:HATNOTE guideline. You say above "All I did was shorten and paraphrase the opening sentences of the two articles:" but WP:HATNOTE states explicitly that one of the "5 basic rules" for using hatnotes is: "Keep explanations to a minimum; only explain vital information, trusting instead in the article lead to clarify things for the reader." By "incorporated" the two ledes into the hatnote (paraphrased or not) you did exactly what hatnotes are not supposed to do and and in the process more than doubled the size of the hatnote text...

BEFORE:

In contemporary political discourse, "democratic socialism" is sometimes inaccurately used synonymously with social democracy.

versus

AFTER:

This article is about the left-wing ideology favouring democratic control of economic activity. 
For the left-wing ideology favouring a market economy with state intervention and regulation with a market economy, see social democracy.

The two terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" have almost from their inception (circa late 1800's) been derogatory in nature. A much less politically charged term that I would not have seen as biased would be "leftist" but even that is really not appropriate if the intent is neutrality. Your hatnote would have been just as helpful to the reader if it had used an absolutely neutral term such as "the political ideology" and allowed the reader to apply their own understanding/classification of that ideology.

To be precise democratic socialists/socialism is actually more of a center-left ideology since center-left politics typically desire market-driven production/allocation in a mixed economy with both a substantial public sector for some services and a thriving private sector for most products. Only in recent years has correcting extreme wealth inequality become a major platform for the movement and even then the preferred solution is apparently social ownership of competitive private enterprises.

Your comment "Are we going to say that the RSDLP was inaccurately using the term in contemporary discourse?" is interesting but I offer the following for consideration:

Your suggestion that "contemporary discourse" equally applies to 1903 and 2016 is flawed. The usage of that phrase in the hatnote -- which is an advisory comment for the reader -- applies only to the reader themselves (i.e.: events that are contemporary to the reader). In the unforeseeable future we might achieve universal precision-of-language and so that term might need to be changed into a past-tense phrasing but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and even if such a change did occur it would only ever apply to what was contemporary at the time the hatnote was written (i.e.: circa very late 20th to very early 21st century).

Russian grammar is not the same as English grammar. My admittedly limited understanding of the Russian grammar is that word-order is extremely fluid and that instead of using modifier-words (like adjectives) the way English does, the Russian language uses a word-order logic for that purpose. The emphasis is generally placed with the earlier words in a sentence or phrase being more significant than later ones. Thus in Russian the Росси́йская Социа́л-Демократи́ческая Рабо́чая Па́ртия (РСДРП), would be approximately equivalent in English to the "Russian Democratic-Socialist Labor Party" since социа́л is earlier/more significant and демократи́ческая being later then takes the role of a word-modifier to социа́л. The party name apparently was transliterated & romanized to "Rossiyskaya Sotsial-Demokraticheskaya Rabochaya Partiya (RSDLP)" and then never corrected for word-order into an accurate English translation.

A fine example of this is the transliteration of Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик (CCCP) to Sojuz Sovetskich Socialističeskich Respublik (SSSR) followed by the correct translation to the English Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).

The concept of "contemporary" is very relevant in understanding certain terminology. For example the term "left-wing", currently so strongly applied to liberal politics in the United States, was originally applied even more strongly to republicanism and the French Revolutionaries in the very late 18th century.

Finally, the dictionary definitions you provide actually are a good example of why the hatnote was needed and worded as it was. The use of the word "inaccurate" is not applied to the definition of the terms, it is applied to the usage of the terms as synonyms. In other words it is inaccurate to use these two terms for the same thing because they are not the same thing. Nothing more, nothing less. What the different terms mean precisely is a matter of significant debate but they are definitely not synonyms. That is the sole purpose of the hatnote as decided by discussion and consensus, to let the reader know these two terms are not the same thing.

Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Koala Tea Of Mercy|TitaniumCarbide|JamesPoulson As per the previous consensus, I find the existing hatnote to be both neutral and concise. The proposed revision is too verbose and brings into question subjects that should be discussed in the articles in question ("left wing ideology" and "market economy"). While there is overlap between the concepts of "democratic socialism" and "social democracy" and the terms have at times been used interchangeably due to the lack of precision inherent to highly politicized topics, there's a clear distinction recognized between the concept of a non-capitalist, democratic socialist system and the advocacy for regulated capitalism ("social democracy"). -Battlecry 01:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Battlecry in its present form it brings to the attention of the reader that differences exist between concepts.

It should be added that the previous hatnote holds certain connotations in terms of the word "ideology" as in being dogmatic so if that were used then it should be identified what exactly is such.

Marxist socialism is ideological beyond doubt. However, most inhabitants of a Social democracy would be oblivious to any imperative that might exist in politics and simply consider some conveniences as the norm. Although people are obviously questioning excesses of welfare (and not welfare itself).

"A market economy" is the base notion of an economy which functions according to the supply and demand principle and varies from regulated markets (not necessarily by government) to economic interventionism with central planning as the extreme. Most economies do feature some degree of economic planning if only via central banks so they are considered as mixed economies.

To make distinctions in terms of "state intervention" and "regulation" appears to hint at free markets which forms an ideology in itself.--JamesPoulson (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Added feedback

Since Koala Tea Of Mercy pinged me on his user page here's some feedback.

This is just a detail but Right-wing politics says "The people of English-speaking countries did not apply the terms "right" and "left" to their own politics until the 20th Century." and "From the 1830s to the 1880s, there was a shift in the Western world of social class structure and the economy, moving away from nobility and aristocracy towards capitalism".

So it was originally about a divide between those for and against aristocracy and has morphed into a range of views between being being for or against a capitalist economic system with Syncretic politics being one possibility. Anyway, here is what was posted on the user page:

As I'm living in Europe in a Social Democracy it seems important to distinguish from this idea of Democratic Socialism that has been tossed about in Bernie Sanders' recent political campaigns.

It's gotten to the point where the Prime Minister of Denmark has reacted to Bernie Sanders' statements by claiming his country has a Market economy. Nordic capitalist countries actually have a high degree of Economic freedom according to this index and this is on the opposite to any ideas of economic planning.

The United States also has a mixed economy and is also a United Nations member. So technically it would be be a Social democracy too although liberalization and privatization are pronounced as they are to a lesser degree in the United Kingdom.

To clarify the difference:

A Social Democracy very much has a Capitalist (private ownership of industry) economy with varying degrees of Economic, social and cultural rights as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
A hypothetical Democratic Socialist country would have Democratic rule with a Socialist economic system (worker or publicly owned industry).

In terms of the hat-note, the hypothetical Democratic Socialism would definitely be about (complete?) control of the economy.

However, the description "left-wing ideology favouring a market economy with state intervention and regulation with a market economy" repeats "market economy" is seemingly ideologically charged in conflating the concepts mentioned above according to views of Free market proponents with respect to a system that might not have ever existed.

Technically speaking, most if not all countries in the world would have fit this description a century ago since governments were Authoritarian to some degree regardless of having a right or left wing majority with State capitalism as the norm as it still is in some parts of the world.

It's only with the Austrian School that there has been renewed interest in Economic liberalism. The shift is understandable seeing high level of taxation but, contrary to some narratives, a lot more of tax money goes to paying back interest on public debt than goes into social programmes in European countries with the rest being the usual mix of mismanagement and cronyism.

--JamesPoulson (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah this is just a melange of your personal idiosyncratic political opinions with some reasonable but basically irrelevant notes about how "social democracy" and "democratic socialism" are most often used in distinction. I know that. It's not the point. The point is that Wikipedia has no basis in its own policies for asserting that this typical usage is the only correct one and that other usages are "inaccurate." That's an assertion contradicted by reliable sources, and it's not really a linguistic argument at all, but yet another dumb intra-leftist purity argument (viz. "anarchism," "socialism") about who is entitled to use labels that have a positive connotation with that crowd.

And I am sorry that the term "market" reminds you of big bad neoliberals and the Austrian School and blah blah blah but "market economy" remains the standard NPOV descriptor for "an economy in which decisions regarding investment, production, and distribution are based on market determined supply and demand, and prices of goods and services are determined in a free price system."

Christ no wonder even a blatantly inaccurate whiney one-sentence hatnote at the top of the page can't get fixed if this is the quality of the users you have to find "consensus" with. 205.211.141.42 (talk) 07:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi 205.211.141.42, are you TiC?

If so you are correct in that I have mixed facts and interpretations here. Sincere apologies for getting you upset and I will readily look into any sources you have to offer while putting any bias aside.

You can shorten the discussion and resolution by going to the core of why the text bothers you. Your needs in short according to your views, not issues along the lines of what Bernie Sanders supporters might do.

Anyway, opinions aside I do sense there is a factual basis that distinguishes Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism in terms of how the economy functions.

The distinction has become even more relevant seeing the reaction of the Danish Prime Minister with Denmark's regime being seemingly equated with that of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic.

Polysemantics would be more the concern of Wiktionary and on Wikipedia disambiguation is a standard practice which is why the concepts above have their separate pages, even if they are bundled together in everyday language under the term Socialism.

Of course, there is that running joke in the United Kingdom you seem to be hinting at about the breakup of the left wing with this scene from Monty Python's The Life of Brian.

It does not matter what particular usage a word has in that *all* its meanings and viewpoints should be documented, albeit with the necessary distinctions.

Whatever "intra-leftist purity argument" you may perceive here, it is inexact to absolutely pair a social democracy with left-wing ideology since the main component is democratism with added social security as an afterthought with governments having the possibility of being right wing regardless of that. Some socialist states were not democratic and democratic control of a socialist economy (aka economic planning) is not the same thing at all as Welfare might be absent. In fact, the minority far left in Europe seemingly rejecting social democrats.

Browsing through Wikipedia will show that variants of political philosophy are finely detailed, regardless of where they stand in the right-left classification and the realities of today's politics.

The term market has nothing to do with "big bad neoliberals" in any way. This supposed ideology is a strange one with classical liberals and others underlining how it goes against some principles of liberalism.

The Austrian School should not be confused with it as being considered as Heterodox economics and not mainstream.

A market economy could be contrasted with a planned economy where a government would control the markets as was done in the Soviet Union. The former is sometimes associated with Capitalist economics although purists would speak in free market terms and definitely doesn't have anything to do with Socialist economics.

So there is no whining here and there are quite a few reliable sources drawing a distinction including this article by The Economist.

As for the quality of users, people may be seen as idiots but crowdsourcing is apparently capable of producing material that is close to being as accurate as the Encyclopædia Britannica. --JamesPoulson (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Claim that Marxism-Leninism is "undemocratic"

The assertion that "marxism-leninism" is widely considered undemocratic (in the intro paragraph) is not supported by the accompanying citation. Regardless of one's opinion about the extent of democracy in historical socialist movements/governments, the Marxist-Leninist doctrines are based on Democratic Centralism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quee1797 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the democratic principle should be distinguished and an added section should exist to describe how democratic these movements or governments were in practise. --JamesPoulson (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I have filled in the missing part of the quote in the citation so that it now supports the text. We could add the final qualifier "in practice" that Busky uses to make it clear that he is not talking about the Democratic Centralism of Marxist-Leninist ideology. Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Done as no objections raised. Polly Tunnel (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Democratic socialism is not Social democracy (continued)

This is disinformation even if it is sourced.

Even North Korea with the way it uses words in a seemingly ironic fashion doesn't have a democratic socialist party.

Despite all that's being said on the other side of the big pond, no the United States is not the sole capitalist country in the world and there have been various forms of capitalism such as Dirigisme.

What Europe has is what I personally call "capitalism with seatbelts" with the application of social rights which are simply articles 22 to 27 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by that same United Nations of which the United States is a member.

See Is there a confusion between socialism and the application of social rights? Are they related? --JamesPoulson (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas for improving the article? Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, start off from the original definition.

There is already italics up top distinguishing the two but this has been ignored.

Democratic socialism is a socialist economic system (a form of Collectivism as opposed to Individualism) with a democratic government latched onto it, implying that pure socialism is not democratic. That's it.

The "social" in "social democratic" is not about economics but about the English meaning of the word as in relating to society. The human rights mentioned above are protections for the individual as the authors of the charter perceived as a necessity seeing what happened leading up to and during the last World War. It seems that they made a mistake in ignoring the economic medium with the Great Depression having been a factor in starting this bloodshed.

One reason why these rights are being attacked is because of the repeated economic mayhem that the world has been going through since the 70s-80s. This forced solidarity and the cost incurred to people's pockets due to uneven tax structures and mounting debt is why classical liberals among others and more specially the libertarian crowd want to reduce or do away with Positive rights.

Regardless of whether these should be rethought, this is a dangerous path the world is taking as a healthy democracy is one where Majoritarianism and populism is countered by individual and minority rights which should be unalterable. This comic strip sums up the risk involved in that.

So the article should be sifted through for inconsistencies such as these:

The Socialist Party (Netherlands) is listed on this page as democratic socialist but is described on its own page as social-democratic. The confusion exists in Europe too even though it would have made a country radically different and the so-called "socialist" parties make no effort to bring a distinction as this propagates the myth that they are opposed to unfettered capitalism and destructive trends observed in the economy.

Bernie Sander's political positions say he has apparently described himself as a democratic socialist and has perhaps back-tracked since then? He is said to admire the Nordic model of Social Democracy with the Nordic model also being described as Nordic capitalism. The Economist confirms that his positions reflect that of a social-democrat and Sandersisnotasocialist.com goes into more detail on why socialists reject him.

To add to this, Barack Obama has apparently sought to distance himself with the socialist label and rightly so due to its authoritarian undertones. Modern liberalism in the United States (liberalism being the opposite of authoritarianism) is different from the more right-wing leaning (classical) liberalism that exists in Europe. It is perhaps closer to Social liberalism of which Germany's Social market economy is an implementation.

This can be contrasted against China's Socialist market economy with China itself being described today in terms of State capitalism.

With this having been done the article should be more informative and less influenced by the interpretational "he said this and that" propaganda coming from news sources. --JamesPoulson (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

And this video shows why political labels should be taken with a grain of salt :p (I like to counter-balance over-seriouness with humour) --JamesPoulson (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

Concerning the definition, I'm trying to work out what you would like to change. Many socialists would traditionally have argued that the adjective "democratic" added to socialism would have been redundant, as socialism implies democratic control of the economy (as in the WP definition of socialism). While the DS label became popular amongst parties trying to distance themselves from the Soviet legacy, I'm not sure we have any sources to back up the idea that "pure socialism is not democratic". SD as a whole supports both economic and social interventions (as in the WP definition of social democracy). The distinction between DS and SD is usually made on the economic distinction of SD's support for a mixed economy and DS's support for social ownership. Certainly SD supports social justice, but I am not aware of any form of DS that is opposed to it. Indeed, many socialists would argue that far from it being incompatible with socialism, social justice would only be achievable with socialism. I haven't been able to identify any aspects of the definition used here that are incompatible with this. Is there an aspect of the definition you would like to remove or add to?

The problem with the Socialist Party (Netherlands) is interesting. It is indeed listed as "social-democratic" in the lead of the SP article. I believe that this was changed in 2013 from "democratic socialist" by Qwertyus, though the Ideology and issues section of the article confusingly labels it as "socialist, or social democratic". The confusion may originate from the party's changing ideology over time. I would agree with removing it from the list in this article and I have Done.

With regard to Bernie Sanders, I can't find any sources indicating that he has "back-tracked" on his self-description. We cannot say that he is not a DS if there are sources saying that he is (himself for one) due to WP:TRUTH. We could, however, add something like: "some commentators consider Sanders to be a social democrat rather than a socialist" and include your Economist reference as a WP:RELIABLE source. Do you think that would help?

If you can spot any other inconsistencies, please let us know and we can try to correct them.

Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The Labour Party (UK) shouldn't be there either. It may be called socialist in casual conversation and have socialist origins but a peek at its program will show that it is technically supportive of social democracy. --JamesPoulson (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Be careful with phrases like "some commentators" as this can easily run afoul of WP:WEASEL. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 14:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Good point. It does say in WP:WEASEL that "views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source", but you're quite right that this probably isn't the bast phraseology. "The Economist considers…" would imply that the magazine has only one view on the matter (unlikely). The piece's writer is strangely listed as "S.M." which makes it difficult to cite her or him as the author. Do you have any suggestions as to how we could phrase it better? Polly Tunnel (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

One solution would be to find at least three, possibly more reliable sources that say this. Then saying "some" would be appropriate. If we can't find such sources then it may turn out to be a fringe view that sounds respectable. Stranger things have happened. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"Concerning the definition, I'm trying to work out what you would like to change. Many socialists would traditionally have argued that the adjective "democratic" added to socialism would have been redundant, as socialism implies democratic control of the economy (as in the WP definition of socialism)."

Perhaps in theory but in practice that is not necessarily the case. People having lived in Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and People's Republic of Bulgaria would disagree that these regimes were democratic. Younger generations in Eastern Europe seem to be wary of socialism, likely because of what older generations told them. --JamesPoulson (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

[1] ttps://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/

[2] ttp://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism/471630/

[1]

[2]