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.
Another good post Mitch. When he said this Obama was pilloried by the right (And some on the left). "Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that." But all that infrastructure has a cost. Obviously not in taxes to the 1% though. They get infrastructure socialism.
You seem to be confusing Democratic Socialism with Social Democracy. You also don't seem to have examined the successes and failures of social democracy too intently, or have any knowledge of The Road to Serfdom, which begins in the halls of social democracy, evolves into Democratic Socialism which morphs into Communism, Maoism etc.
Social democracy, one of the methods by which Big Business cartelizes the economy, socializing losses while privatizing profits, and maintains a dependency class is already present in America. What is on the ballot this autumn is its more virulent descendant, Democratic Socialism... this includes things like price and rent fixing, government stores, etc., working toward an electoral machine that will move society to a one party state. Clearly there are some aspects of this machine already in places like California and Chicago. Sweden tried it in the middle of the 20th century and was nearly bankrupt when they bailed from the socialist experiment in 1974.
So your grandpa, who clearly *had* read The Road to Serfdom was correct when he pointed at the phone and said, "Communism." Because that's the implication. The destination, the end result. You should've listened and done your research. Grandpas are not out-of-touch idiots.
You are a smart guy. Seems strange for you to be minimizing the danger here.
Thank you for this explanation of the differences between a social democracy and communism - unfortunately we have some national voices calling themselves democratic socialists who are really communists which has caused a great deal of confusion and generates misinformation by republicans - compare that with Zorham Mamdami who ran as a social democrat as you describe it in this article - i hope this information is shared to all democratic voters
Thank you for the very solid talking points. I always equate my inability to debate effectively to being in front of the cameras on Jeopardy, or, in my case, maybe the Wheel of Fortune. The knowledge is in there (pointing at brain), but the pressure switch has been activated and, well.....refresh, refresh....buffer, buffer......
You don't think you're speculating too soon I mean look what we have with the Republicans I've never seen anybody really jumping out at them and what they're doing Jesus this place is a disaster with Trump and his administration but everybody's quiet.
Mitch, Has there been a breach of your site? I keep getting hoops through which to jump to be able to respond. It has deterred me in recent days. Perhaps my subscription has run out.
On your essay, I have always *felt that socialism was for those who wanted to return to the bliss of being a five year old without a care IN the world and capitalism was for those without care FOR the world.
"@Mitch Jackson writes a richly detailed essay differentiating, with plain-spoken intelligence, the everyday mainfestations of Communism, Democratic Socialism, and Social Democracy.✍️
"We ought properly to count our blessings that we have faithful — and fateful — allies showing us the way toward a renewed justice: a society fuelled by private passions balanced by public compassion.🙏
"Mr Jackson closes with an extra treat: reciting the ten most common fantasies of fear with a compelling respoense to each. How my right-leaning parents came to support the Great Society.💙"
I’ve been a democratic socialist since Michael Harrington converted me in the late Sixties, and I’ve never seen such a clear and persuasive description as Mitch offers here. Thanks, Mitch, for this important public service. Incidentally, I live in a small Wisconsin community in which the word, “socialism,” is still damning. Yet our town loves that we collectively own and manage our electricity co-op, than which it’s hard to imagine a purer and more direct socialist organization. Jaws drop whenever I muster the courage to point this out.
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.
Another good post Mitch. When he said this Obama was pilloried by the right (And some on the left). "Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that." But all that infrastructure has a cost. Obviously not in taxes to the 1% though. They get infrastructure socialism.
I find it rather sad that this stuff has to be explained.... to adults.
That said, Americans have always had a hate-on for the "s" word: "socialism", while simultaneously completely not understanding it.
Somewhere along the way your education system has completely failed it's objectives.
You seem to be confusing Democratic Socialism with Social Democracy. You also don't seem to have examined the successes and failures of social democracy too intently, or have any knowledge of The Road to Serfdom, which begins in the halls of social democracy, evolves into Democratic Socialism which morphs into Communism, Maoism etc.
Social democracy, one of the methods by which Big Business cartelizes the economy, socializing losses while privatizing profits, and maintains a dependency class is already present in America. What is on the ballot this autumn is its more virulent descendant, Democratic Socialism... this includes things like price and rent fixing, government stores, etc., working toward an electoral machine that will move society to a one party state. Clearly there are some aspects of this machine already in places like California and Chicago. Sweden tried it in the middle of the 20th century and was nearly bankrupt when they bailed from the socialist experiment in 1974.
So your grandpa, who clearly *had* read The Road to Serfdom was correct when he pointed at the phone and said, "Communism." Because that's the implication. The destination, the end result. You should've listened and done your research. Grandpas are not out-of-touch idiots.
You are a smart guy. Seems strange for you to be minimizing the danger here.
Thank you for this explanation of the differences between a social democracy and communism - unfortunately we have some national voices calling themselves democratic socialists who are really communists which has caused a great deal of confusion and generates misinformation by republicans - compare that with Zorham Mamdami who ran as a social democrat as you describe it in this article - i hope this information is shared to all democratic voters
Thank you for the very solid talking points. I always equate my inability to debate effectively to being in front of the cameras on Jeopardy, or, in my case, maybe the Wheel of Fortune. The knowledge is in there (pointing at brain), but the pressure switch has been activated and, well.....refresh, refresh....buffer, buffer......
You don't think you're speculating too soon I mean look what we have with the Republicans I've never seen anybody really jumping out at them and what they're doing Jesus this place is a disaster with Trump and his administration but everybody's quiet.
Mitch, Has there been a breach of your site? I keep getting hoops through which to jump to be able to respond. It has deterred me in recent days. Perhaps my subscription has run out.
On your essay, I have always *felt that socialism was for those who wanted to return to the bliss of being a five year old without a care IN the world and capitalism was for those without care FOR the world.
WRITTEN FOR THE Re-STACK:
"@Mitch Jackson writes a richly detailed essay differentiating, with plain-spoken intelligence, the everyday mainfestations of Communism, Democratic Socialism, and Social Democracy.✍️
"We ought properly to count our blessings that we have faithful — and fateful — allies showing us the way toward a renewed justice: a society fuelled by private passions balanced by public compassion.🙏
"Mr Jackson closes with an extra treat: reciting the ten most common fantasies of fear with a compelling respoense to each. How my right-leaning parents came to support the Great Society.💙"
I’ve been a democratic socialist since Michael Harrington converted me in the late Sixties, and I’ve never seen such a clear and persuasive description as Mitch offers here. Thanks, Mitch, for this important public service. Incidentally, I live in a small Wisconsin community in which the word, “socialism,” is still damning. Yet our town loves that we collectively own and manage our electricity co-op, than which it’s hard to imagine a purer and more direct socialist organization. Jaws drop whenever I muster the courage to point this out.