Mitch, thank you sooooooo much for this article. I've been hearing that socialism/ communism comparison since 1968, and now they using that fear tactic again.
This is what happens when a poorly educated low information group of people are manipulated by hate, racism, misogyny, and fear of their fellow man,
They end up believing a con man, criminal, felon who knows exactly how to bullshit them
If we all displayed this sign across the nation it would send such a powerful message! There is power and safety in numbers! Buy or make your own sign. Please share widely.
Spot on! I’ve said for years that we live in a far more “socialist” society than we care to admit or realize. Our tax dollars have paid into literally hundreds of government run programs and projects and a countless number of employees that we’ve never needed or benefited from. Further, we’ve bailed out, in no particular order, the banking industry, the automobile industry, the insurance industry, the farming industry, and most recently, a foreign country (Argentina).
Finally, our current government has taken a significant financial interest in no less than 30 privately held companies.
Trump taking a financial stake in companies on part of the US Government would not have been tolerated even a decade ago. Many conservatives of the time hated it when the Obama administration took a stake in GM and Chrysler, only as a bale-out, where they bought back the shares. Many would consider the US Government partnership in these companies as unfair competition to those they compete against. Unlikely Trump even realized the ideological aspect. He probably thought it was a great transactional deal.
To think the healthcare bill with the least socialism, the ACA (private companies with government requirements and subsidies), was so badly opposed as "socialistic".
A few years ago I ran into a friend from high school that I hadn’t seen for quite some time.
He mentioned that he wished things could go back to when things were better.
I said “When public education was well funded? When college tuition was affordable? When public libraries were well funded? When the USPS worked well? When medical expenses weren’t out of control? When roads, highways and other forms of public infrastructure were well maintained?” He hesitantly said “yes.” I said “Ah, my friend, you are a fan of a social democracy.”
You r really confused. You’ve drink the KoolAid of US propaganda. Communism is the “dictatorship of the proletariate”. The Soviets were the grassroots orgs that provided input for the 5 year plans. Everyone owns everything bc everything is nationalized for the benefit of all.
“Democratic socialism” and “a democracy with a mixed economy” are often treated as synonyms in American political debate, but they aren't the same thing.
The cleanest way to separate them is to ask who owns productive capital, who makes economic decisions, and what role the state is ultimately supposed to play.
1. A mixed economy is still a capitalist economy. Take the United States as an example.
entrepreneurs who can start businesses, investors who own corporations, employees who sell their labor for wages, and markets that determine most prices.
But we also have: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schools, government-owned infrastructure, public utilities in some places, agricultural subsidies, unemployment insurance, environmental regulations, minimum-wage laws, antitrust laws, progressive taxation, government contracting, and Federal Reserve monetary intervention.
That's a mixed economy. The government isn't saying: "We, the government, own General Motors." It is saying: "General Motors is privately owned, but it operates within rules established by democratic government."
That's still capitalism. And you can move very far toward the government/regulation/welfare side of the spectrum without becoming socialist.
2. Democratic socialism makes a different argument. Democratic socialism isn't primarily about how much government spending you have. It's fundamentally about who owns capital. A democratic socialist might argue:
"Why should a relatively small number of private shareholders own the factories, corporations, mines, infrastructure, etc., while everyone else works for them?"
The proposed answer is some form of social ownership.
That could mean worker-owned cooperatives, municipal ownership, public corporations
national ownership, sovereign wealth funds, employee ownership, and various combinations of those.
And importantly, democratic socialism does not necessarily mean government bureaucrats personally running every business. That's one of the common misunderstandings. A democratic socialist economy could theoretically have lots of independent businesses and markets. The crucial difference is that the ownership structure of major productive assets changes.
3. This is where "social democracy" comes in. This is probably the term that causes the most confusion. Social democracy ≠ democratic socialism, although historically the two movements were closely related.
Modern social democracy generally says capitalism works, but capitalism produces problems that democratic government should correct.
So you get: Capitalism plus regulation, unions, progressive taxation, social insurance, universal/near-universal healthcare, education, pensions, unemployment protection, and
consumer protections.
The Scandinavian countries are generally better examples of social democracy/social-market capitalism than of democratic socialism. Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, etc. have substantial private sectors, private companies, stock markets and wealthy entrepreneurs.
They haven't abolished capitalism. In fact, some of their economic policies are considerably more market-oriented than Americans sometimes realize.
4. Think of three positions rather than two. I'd actually put the concepts on a spectrum:
Laissez-faire capitalism
↓
Regulated/mixed capitalism
↓
Social democracy
↓
Democratic socialism
↓
State socialism
But there's an important caveat: This isn't necessarily a single straight line. You can have relatively free markets, high taxes, generous welfare, strong unions, and extensive regulation without moving toward socialism in terms of ownership.
Likewise, you could theoretically have social ownership with relatively extensive markets.
So there are actually two separate axes:
Axis 1 — Who owns productive assets?
Private ←————————→ Social/Public
Axis 2 — How much does government intervene?
Low ←————————→ High
That's a much better model.
5. And there's a particularly interesting historical wrinkle: The term democratic socialism has changed meaning. Historically, many socialist parties started with the explicit objective of replacing capitalism. Over time, particularly after WWII, some socialist parties moved toward:
"We don't necessarily need to abolish capitalism. We can tame it." That produced modern social democracy.
Meanwhile, other democratic socialists continued to say: "No. Regulation of capitalism isn't enough. Ownership itself needs to change."
So you can have two people who both call themselves "democratic socialists" who actually have substantially different economic visions. One might envision Norway + stronger unions + more worker ownership.
Another might envision large corporations becoming worker/public cooperatives and eventually eliminating private ownership of major capital.
Those aren't remotely equivalent economic systems.
6. The question I'd use to identify the difference. If somebody says: "I believe in democratic socialism." I'd ask them: "Do you think private ownership of large productive corporations should continue indefinitely?"
If they say, "Yes. I just want them heavily regulated and heavily taxed." They're really describing social democracy / regulated mixed capitalism, regardless of what label they prefer.
If they say, "No. Ultimately workers or society should own those enterprises." Now we're talking about democratic socialism in the traditional economic sense.
And there's a third answer: "I'm not sure. I just want universal healthcare, stronger unions, higher taxes on the wealthy, and a larger welfare state." That's not enough information to determine whether they're socialist at all. Those policies are entirely compatible with capitalism.
That distinction—between redistributing the fruits of capitalism and changing who owns the capital that produces them—is probably the single most useful conceptual tool for understanding this debate.
Mitch, thank you sooooooo much for this article. I've been hearing that socialism/ communism comparison since 1968, and now they using that fear tactic again.
This is what happens when a poorly educated low information group of people are manipulated by hate, racism, misogyny, and fear of their fellow man,
They end up believing a con man, criminal, felon who knows exactly how to bullshit them
GREAT PIECE MITCH!
Thanks Mitch! Putting a copy in my notes to burn into my brain.
I want to plug this article into my head!
https://www.etsy.com/listing/4389471762/proud-antifa-yard-sign-anti-fascism?ref=share_ios_native_control
If we all displayed this sign across the nation it would send such a powerful message! There is power and safety in numbers! Buy or make your own sign. Please share widely.
And the key ingredient is election day when everyone votes
Spot on! I’ve said for years that we live in a far more “socialist” society than we care to admit or realize. Our tax dollars have paid into literally hundreds of government run programs and projects and a countless number of employees that we’ve never needed or benefited from. Further, we’ve bailed out, in no particular order, the banking industry, the automobile industry, the insurance industry, the farming industry, and most recently, a foreign country (Argentina).
Finally, our current government has taken a significant financial interest in no less than 30 privately held companies.
Socialism…it’s what’s for dinner!
Trump taking a financial stake in companies on part of the US Government would not have been tolerated even a decade ago. Many conservatives of the time hated it when the Obama administration took a stake in GM and Chrysler, only as a bale-out, where they bought back the shares. Many would consider the US Government partnership in these companies as unfair competition to those they compete against. Unlikely Trump even realized the ideological aspect. He probably thought it was a great transactional deal.
To think the healthcare bill with the least socialism, the ACA (private companies with government requirements and subsidies), was so badly opposed as "socialistic".
A few years ago I ran into a friend from high school that I hadn’t seen for quite some time.
He mentioned that he wished things could go back to when things were better.
I said “When public education was well funded? When college tuition was affordable? When public libraries were well funded? When the USPS worked well? When medical expenses weren’t out of control? When roads, highways and other forms of public infrastructure were well maintained?” He hesitantly said “yes.” I said “Ah, my friend, you are a fan of a social democracy.”
This is a must read for all Americans! Easy to understand these vital topics to begin "political" discussions!
Don't forget about that socialist program, GPS
You r really confused. You’ve drink the KoolAid of US propaganda. Communism is the “dictatorship of the proletariate”. The Soviets were the grassroots orgs that provided input for the 5 year plans. Everyone owns everything bc everything is nationalized for the benefit of all.
Excellent article!
Thank you. Excellent job!
Can you be more explicit? Thanks!
An excellent take down…Clear, specific, meaningful, and timely. Well written and well done.
Thanks Mitch.
“Democratic socialism” and “a democracy with a mixed economy” are often treated as synonyms in American political debate, but they aren't the same thing.
The cleanest way to separate them is to ask who owns productive capital, who makes economic decisions, and what role the state is ultimately supposed to play.
1. A mixed economy is still a capitalist economy. Take the United States as an example.
We have: privately owned companies, farms, banks, stock markets, privately owned homes,
entrepreneurs who can start businesses, investors who own corporations, employees who sell their labor for wages, and markets that determine most prices.
But we also have: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schools, government-owned infrastructure, public utilities in some places, agricultural subsidies, unemployment insurance, environmental regulations, minimum-wage laws, antitrust laws, progressive taxation, government contracting, and Federal Reserve monetary intervention.
That's a mixed economy. The government isn't saying: "We, the government, own General Motors." It is saying: "General Motors is privately owned, but it operates within rules established by democratic government."
That's still capitalism. And you can move very far toward the government/regulation/welfare side of the spectrum without becoming socialist.
2. Democratic socialism makes a different argument. Democratic socialism isn't primarily about how much government spending you have. It's fundamentally about who owns capital. A democratic socialist might argue:
"Why should a relatively small number of private shareholders own the factories, corporations, mines, infrastructure, etc., while everyone else works for them?"
The proposed answer is some form of social ownership.
That could mean worker-owned cooperatives, municipal ownership, public corporations
national ownership, sovereign wealth funds, employee ownership, and various combinations of those.
And importantly, democratic socialism does not necessarily mean government bureaucrats personally running every business. That's one of the common misunderstandings. A democratic socialist economy could theoretically have lots of independent businesses and markets. The crucial difference is that the ownership structure of major productive assets changes.
3. This is where "social democracy" comes in. This is probably the term that causes the most confusion. Social democracy ≠ democratic socialism, although historically the two movements were closely related.
Modern social democracy generally says capitalism works, but capitalism produces problems that democratic government should correct.
So you get: Capitalism plus regulation, unions, progressive taxation, social insurance, universal/near-universal healthcare, education, pensions, unemployment protection, and
consumer protections.
The Scandinavian countries are generally better examples of social democracy/social-market capitalism than of democratic socialism. Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, etc. have substantial private sectors, private companies, stock markets and wealthy entrepreneurs.
They haven't abolished capitalism. In fact, some of their economic policies are considerably more market-oriented than Americans sometimes realize.
4. Think of three positions rather than two. I'd actually put the concepts on a spectrum:
Laissez-faire capitalism
↓
Regulated/mixed capitalism
↓
Social democracy
↓
Democratic socialism
↓
State socialism
But there's an important caveat: This isn't necessarily a single straight line. You can have relatively free markets, high taxes, generous welfare, strong unions, and extensive regulation without moving toward socialism in terms of ownership.
Likewise, you could theoretically have social ownership with relatively extensive markets.
So there are actually two separate axes:
Axis 1 — Who owns productive assets?
Private ←————————→ Social/Public
Axis 2 — How much does government intervene?
Low ←————————→ High
That's a much better model.
5. And there's a particularly interesting historical wrinkle: The term democratic socialism has changed meaning. Historically, many socialist parties started with the explicit objective of replacing capitalism. Over time, particularly after WWII, some socialist parties moved toward:
"We don't necessarily need to abolish capitalism. We can tame it." That produced modern social democracy.
Meanwhile, other democratic socialists continued to say: "No. Regulation of capitalism isn't enough. Ownership itself needs to change."
So you can have two people who both call themselves "democratic socialists" who actually have substantially different economic visions. One might envision Norway + stronger unions + more worker ownership.
Another might envision large corporations becoming worker/public cooperatives and eventually eliminating private ownership of major capital.
Those aren't remotely equivalent economic systems.
6. The question I'd use to identify the difference. If somebody says: "I believe in democratic socialism." I'd ask them: "Do you think private ownership of large productive corporations should continue indefinitely?"
If they say, "Yes. I just want them heavily regulated and heavily taxed." They're really describing social democracy / regulated mixed capitalism, regardless of what label they prefer.
If they say, "No. Ultimately workers or society should own those enterprises." Now we're talking about democratic socialism in the traditional economic sense.
And there's a third answer: "I'm not sure. I just want universal healthcare, stronger unions, higher taxes on the wealthy, and a larger welfare state." That's not enough information to determine whether they're socialist at all. Those policies are entirely compatible with capitalism.
That distinction—between redistributing the fruits of capitalism and changing who owns the capital that produces them—is probably the single most useful conceptual tool for understanding this debate.