Talk:Democratic socialism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Democratic Socialism is a mere fantasy?

The talk page is not a forum for general discussion about the topic.

Is it truly honest to discuss "Democratic Socialism" as an alternative political and economic system until its actually been proved effective and viable within an actual state system? I'm not convinced "Democratic Socialism" is real until we see some country actually have all means of production, industry, banking, education, hospitals, commerce totally owned and run by the government AND there is also FREEDOM of the press, speech, political association, gun rights, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscardoggy (talk • contribs) 18:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC) It's a bullshit label that Bernie Sanders or someone else came up with. Socialism has never been democratic in the real world. Just ask Romanians who never asked to become socialist and had to get rid of Ceaușescu because his cult of personality had probably driven him insane. --JamesPoulson (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC) First, Democratic socialism (in it’s original meaning), is a political philosophy that long preceded Bernese Sanders use of the label, so it’s not something the Bernie Sanders or anyone else just made up recently. Secondly, the political system advocates a gradual transition to truly socialist system by means of democratic elections, and as such several Democratic socialist polarities have existed in Europe and on elections, Though none have hung on to power long enough to see a fully socialist system (in any sense) implemented. Whether a truly socialist system (in the end form envisioned Democratic Socialist (in the original sense) could ever result from democratic elections and whether that result would be embraced by most citizens an any country freely is unknown. But the philosophy does in deed exist even if it’s never been fully implemented. But what Bernie and his supported seem to mean by the term “democratic socialism”, is not what the originators of the philosophy had in mind but rather a system more akin to a “Social Democracy” (aka The Nordic System), which Is what Nordic/Scandinavian countries currently have in place. Social Democracies are not truly socialist in the original sense but simply mean a capitalist system with strong labor rights and unions, strong government regulation of corporations, and a strong welfare state including universal healthcare. A number of prominent commentators & journalist came to this conclusion based on his proposed policies, which mirror what already exist in the Social democratic countries of Norway. Sweden, and Denmark. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Collapse off-topic post per WP:TPO and WP:TALKNO: Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it. Use the Reference desk for general discussion about a topic. Mathglot (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

How should we order the list of parliamentary democratic socialist parties?

Right now, there does not appear to be any specific order to the parties in the list. It is neither by popularity or proportion of parliament. Which standard should we pick? 129.59.47.132 (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be in order by the last column - proportion of seats in parliament. But it is also an aribtrary, contentious and unhelpful list which I think should be taken out of the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

A helpful rule might be that the Wikipedia article for the party must state that it is democratic socialist. If no article exists, the party is not notable enough for this list. 129.59.122.15 (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

History first, or economics and philosophy first?

An anon editor moved the Economics and Philosophy sections up to near the top of the article, before the history and the account of contemporary democratic socialism. Seems odd to me, as the material in those sections is - to my mind - quite obscure, while the history and factual material is really fundamental. Any thoughts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Are social democracy and democratic socialism being confused?

Looking at the page of each political party listed, it would seem that quite a few are in fact for social democracy.

This is weird because it seemingly confuses the center-left, or what Europe has today, with the far left as in socialism/communism.

How could this be addressed in order to present accurate information? --JamesPoulson (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks to be the case. Also I don't understand why there's a big Social Democracy placard in the article. That should be deleted. Mission Creep (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree. This has come up here again and again and it seems to me the consensus is always that socdem and demsoc, while related, are distinct, but that the socdem template always creeps back. I think the list of parties should be removed altogether, as it is tendentious and arbitrary. If not, then it should be trimmed to only include those whose articles explicitly say, with a source, that the party is demsoc. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that consensus has been that moderns social democracy and democratic socialism are two distinct movements with distinct goals and the social democracy template should be removed. There has been a persistent effort to gradually merge the scope and content from the two articles; it appears at some point the "History" section copied content from the same section in the social democracy article which contains tangetical information on the history of left-wing political movements and parties at best rather than the specific history of democratic socialism as a political ideology. -Battlecry 05:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Why exactly does the article says "with an emphasis on workers' self-management and democratic control of economic institutions within a market or some form of a decentralised planned socialist economy." Socialism within a market? Democratic Socialism is not Social democracy. In Socialism all the means of production are socialized. This definition is wrong. - Liberalo 02:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:85F:25:BA00:94ED:5E44:CD0E:3DBA (talk)

Examples/ Implementation section

I actually created the implementation section of this article, so I know what I'm talking about. The BEST and ONLY example of Democratic Socialism, (by that I mean a truly socialist/marxist government being elected and then building socialism within all the existing institutions) is that of Salvador Allende in Chile. If you look into it, you will see it is the perfect example. It had massive success. It was however overthrown in a CIA backed coup. This is the only example that exists, and the section needs entirely revamping to reflect this. Anarchist societies and social democracy in france do not count.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatjakelad (talk • contribs) 16:05, November 29, 2019 (UTC)

"Majoritarian socialism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Majoritarian socialism. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 January 2020

Could an administrator change the word "neoliberaô" to "neoliberal" in the "Oceania" section of this article, please? I accidentally made a typographical error there, and i cant remove it because this article is fully protected. Izuru Kamukura (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 January 2020

Could an administrator please change back to the more stable version? I remember reading that when the page is protected and in disputes like this, it should also be reverted to the more stable version until the dispute is over and there's a consensus, no? I've been more than kind and accomodating in incorporating the other user's edit which were good and improving in the aforementioned version. Thank you.--Davide King (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2020

Change;

"While having socialism as a long-term goal, modern social democrats are more concerned to curb capitalism's excesses and are supportive of progressive reforms to humanise it in the present day.[3][27] In contrast to that, democratic socialists believe that economic interventionism and other policy reforms aimed at addressing social inequalities and suppressing the economic contradictions of capitalism would only exacerbate the contradictions, causing them to emerge elsewhere in the economy under a different guise.[24][28][29][30][31][32][33] Democratic socialists believe the fundamental issues with capitalism are systemic in nature and can only be resolved by replacing the capitalist economic system with socialism, i.e. by replacing private ownership with collective ownership of the means of production and extending democracy to the economic sphere.[3][27][34]"

to;

"While having similar goals as socialism, modern social democrats focus on curbing capitalism's excesses through progressive reforms. [3][27] In contrast to that, democratic socialists believe that economic interventionism and other policy reforms aimed at addressing social inequalities and suppressing the economic contradictions of capitalism would only exacerbate the contradictions, causing them to emerge elsewhere in the economy under a different guise.[24][28][29][30][31][32][33] Democratic socialists believe the fundamental issues with capitalism are systemic in nature and can only be resolved by replacing the capitalist economic system with socialism, i.e. by replacing private ownership with collective ownership of the means of production and extending democracy to the economic sphere.[3][27][34]"

LevelPlayingFeild (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC) LevelPlayingFeild (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2020

The statement that, "Democratic socialism is a political philosophy supporting political democracy within a socially owned economy..." is not true. The most prominent of "democratic socialists," Senator Bernie Sanders, rejects this claim. This claim is, in fact, directed toward him and is a misuse of the goals and standards of Wikipedia.

Socialism is not, by nature, democratic. Unlike economic socialism, which regards itself as self-justified in its demand for ownership of the means of production, a democratic socialist is by nature pragmatic. Bernie Sanders, for example, explains that what "Democratic Socialist means is that one takes a hard look at countries around the world who have successful records in fighting and implementing programs for the middle class and working families.” The label as he defines it demands a democratic awareness of exigent economic consequences. As applied to socialism, the word "democratic" functions as more than an an adjective; it implies evaluation, judgment, and discernment. This explains the economic realism and pragmatism of democratic socialism. Kulpable (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2020

Please delete the final covering statement, which is untrue. See my earlier request for a change in the first sentence of the article. This is the final statement of the article: "Democratic socialists believe the fundamental issues with capitalism are systemic in nature and can only be resolved by replacing the capitalist mode of production with that of socialism, i.e. by replacing private ownership with collective ownership of the means of production and extending democracy to the economic sphere.[4][29][51]" This is flatly untrue of democratic socialism. Sanders, for example, rejects it. The first and final statement of the article, contrary to the goal of Wikipedia, constitute prejudicial disinformation. Kulpable (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

​This information is sourced to reliable sources, so you'd have to present better sources or show that the current sources aren't good enough. The views of one American politician are not relevant enough to mention in the introduction. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Hard to read

This is a great article and very thorough. Maybe too thorough? In reading the article, I keep stumbling over citations: a half dozen citations after every sentence makes it cluttered and hard to read. This is especially true in the opening paragraphs and the overview section, although becomes less pronounced later in the article.

There are many situations where the sentence deals with the same, single subject from the same source and can therefore be supported by a single inline citation. I recommend preserving the strongest citations and culling it to one or two per sentence - anything above that seems unnecessary in most cases and is a detriment to the flow of the article:

• See: Wikipedia:Inline citation

I recognize this would be a non-trivial amount of work and wouldn't want to step on other's work here without agreement. But the article could very much be improved if these inline citations were addressed. NF2358 (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

NF2358, thanks for your comment. I'm going to solve that by turning all refs into sfns so as to fix that issue without removing sources that can stil be useful or used.--Davide King (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is a joke

This page has become nonsense.

The seeming reason is that "democratic socialism" has popped up in US politics as some kind of buzzword or snarl-word?

It is being used to mean social democracy (reformist), but also used to conflate that with socialism (anticapitalist) into one big muddle by demagogues.

Yes, it could be argued that the far left and social democrats were intertwined at one point in history.

However, that's going back a long way to when Otto von Bismark and Ferdinand Lasalle had talks that led to the former creating the first welfare state.

It is more than questionable that the social democracy template should be on this page, as well as political figures like Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders if their programs are social democrat. --JamesPoulson (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Fascinating, but please limit your discussion to what reliable sources have to say. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

You can skim through this page which seems to be a pretty reliable source. --JamesPoulson (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I don't need to skim through that--but I do suggest you read WP:NOTFORUM. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

It's up to you to not transform this into a forum discussion by reacting as this were just personal opinion.

This article objectively has a problem that makes it stray from encyclopedic content, and that's all this section is about. --JamesPoulson (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Bernie's Democratic Socialism Isn't Socialism, It's Social Democracy. Tim Worstall going into what social democracy is and I'm sure some reliable sources could back what he explains in his column. It can be called democratic socialism since the term is widely used now but I'm certain a reputable encyclopedia would have an entry referring to it as social democracy. The name comes from the Social Democratic Party of Germany which moved away from anticapitalist socialism to become a reformist movement through Bismark's creation of the first welfare state. This is what apparently inspired American progressives within the Republican and Democrat parties. --JamesPoulson (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

As correctly stated by Drmies, you need reliable sources. As things stands, this sounds more like an "I don't like it" and so there's no need for the template, but you're free to discuss it here using reliable sources and not use this talk page as a forum. For instance, that is an opinion piece. Reliable sources refer to democratic socialism as a broad concept that can be either revolutionary or reformist. Modern social democracy is democratic socialism that is reformist, but not all democratic socialism is social democracy or even reformist. Many social democrats saw the welfare state as the necessary development of socialism and social democrats used democratic socialism as synonym. Also the template is there exactly because of their intertwined history and it's in the Definition section which specifically discuss the topic/issue.--Davide King (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The insistence of Americans to use (democratic) socialism to refer to social democracy, the Nordic model and the New Deal, which is essentially welfare capitalism (with privately-owned, profit-oriented enterprises predominating) and definitely not democratic socialism as we know it from Allende's Chile or Rojava, irritates me too – but as shown in Democratic socialism § Europe, especially the part about Germany's SPD, a party solidly identified with social democracy for many decades now, the terminological confusion is found elsewhere too. When the SPD mentions democratic socialism in their programme, it is not clear what is meant, and it may be a deliberate way to appease the party's left wing that hasn't abandoned the SPD's former goal to eventually introduce full socialism, nationalise the industry, etc., in a non-Leninist framework (reformism; also compare libertarian socialism just to appreciate how many strains of the socialist movement exist outside of Marxism-Leninism). Also, while Germany's Left Party is more clearly committed to full socialism as a long-term goal or vision (including the nationalisation of at least all large corporations, especially those deemed too big to fail, though not of small and medium-sized enterprises), in practice, the party functions like a social democratic party – a lot like the SPD and Greens before 1990, and especially the SPD of the 1950s. I'd say the defining feature of traditional social democracy is reformism – the idea that capitalism is to be overcome, and full socialism should eventually be reached, with Keynesian welfare capitalism only the more immediate practical goal; when there is no such long-term goal, social liberalism is a better label. Bernie Sanders therefore fits quite snugly into the European tradition of social democracy (prior to the Blairite neoliberal turn, known as Third Way), while Warren is probably better described as a social liberal, despite the close similarities of their policy proposals; compare, in the UK, Labour vs. the Liberal Democrats. Corbyn also identifies as a democratic socialist – this may well mean that his ideal is full socialism, even if it is not currently feasible or realistic as a goal. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Florian Blaschke, are you replying to me, or is that just your own thoughts on the matter? Because I don't disagree. The issue is that social democracy is seen as the Third Way and democratic socialism as pre-neoliberal social democracy. The thing is that social democracy (defined as pre-Third Way) and democratic socialism aren't so far away from each other or are closer than it may look like at first sight. In this sense, all social democrats are democratic socialists but not all democratic socialists are social democrats. The example of The Left is very helpful. Parties described as being democratic socialists such as The Left are actually closer to social democracy opposed to neoliberalism than to democratic socialism. Democratic socialism can also refer to evolutionary or parliamentary socialism (basically social democrats who are still committed to socialism, although not in the now) and can just as easily be reformist, whether other socialists may see that as not being true socialism. In practice, Corbyn, Chávez, et all are anti-neoliberal/Third Way and anti-establishment/populist social democrats. Some say Sanders isn't a democratic socialist because he doesn't "attempt to create a property-free, socialist society", but that's not what many other people described as democratic socialists advocate either. Do Corbyn et all actually advocate a property-free socialist society or even the abolition of the profit system? That certainly isn't reflected in their platforms or actual policies in practice. As I stated elsewhere, the problem is that it seems people see socialism as an economic system rather than as an ideology too, so apparently if someone doesn't advocate socialist policies (which ones then?), it isn't socialist. However, that's the curse of socialist reformism; because all reformist parties have to govern the economy according to capitalist, not socialist, logic. That doesn't mean they aren't still ideologically socialists as defined by The Historical Dictionary of Socialism or similar sources.--Davide King (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: I was mainly adding my own thoughts, not replying directly to you, and not completely disagreeing with you; sorry for not being clearer. With "traditional social democracy", I'm referring to the ideology pursued by the social democratic parties of Europe in the late 20th century (for example Germany's SPD in the 1960s to 1980s), which amounts to Keynesian welfare capitalism in practice (see also social corporatism, mostly in the Nordic model, but also to some extent in Rhenish capitalism), and whose early-20th-century form also inspired FDR's New Deal. The Third Way is a watered down form of traditional social democracy to me, or even neoliberalism. I think that traditional social democrats are distinct from social liberals in that they desire to overcome capitalism entirely, in the long run, but do not consider it realistic (or even desirable?) to achieve it directly; hence, reformism. Therefore, I accept that traditional social democrats are essentially, ideologically, also socialists (in that they wish to see a form of socialism come about in the long run), but adherents of the Third Way are not. Therefore, it makes complete sense for Bernie Sanders to call himself a socialist even though he does not propose a form of socialism in the strict sense (social ownership of the means of production).

In this way, much of Germany's Left Party can be said to be the same way, traditional social democrats, while Germany's SPD is currently dominated by Third Way adherents in its leadership. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Florian Blaschke, thank you very much for your thoughts. I pretty much agree with everything you've written, especially the final phrasing; and I've reflected this on the Democratic socialism, Social democracy and Third Way articles. For more, see here.--Davide King (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC

Jokes vs. Hot messes

     ... Jokes ...              ·... Hot messes ...

     Funny                   Not yet ready for prime time

Worthy of ridicule    Serious projects in inevitably chaotic early stages

“The beginning of wisdom is calling things by their right names.” (—Kung Fu-Tse, IIRC)
--JerzyA (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

A moderately POV-ish odor

I considered converting the refs to sfn, but the article has a moderately POV-ish odor (read forex Bernie Sanders is wrong on democratic socialism in Sweden, and everywhere else). Do I really wanna invest hours in this article only later to spend my time arguing with people and their beliefs? Mmmmmm. Looks doubtful.... POV forex, no causative links shown anywhere:

The Nordic countries, including Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden as well as Greenland and the Faroe Islands, also ranked highest on the metrics of real GDP per capita, economic equality, healthy life expectancy, public health, having someone to count on, education, perceived freedom to make life choices, generosity and human development.[503][504] Countries adopting similar policies have ranked high on indicators such as civil liberties,[505] democracy,[506] press,[507] labour and economic freedoms,[508][509] peace[510] and freedom from corruption.[511] Numerous studies and surveys have indicated that people tend to live happier lives in social democracies and welfare states as opposed to neoliberal and free-market economies.[512][513][514][515]

 ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

That seems to be an opinion and I'm sure there're people who disagree on whether it was the free market or the welfare state. Either way, we write This success is at times attributed to the Nordic model in the region and their type of universalistic welfare state which has been called social democratic. Social democracy is a moderate form of democratic socialism and both can also refer to policies within capitalism. After all, they're reformists and evolutionists or gradualists. By the 20th century, most of the Western world moved away from laissez-faire capitalism and closer to social democracy. As far as I know, the economic model of the Nordic countries and others is Social corporatism. The Four Deuces made the interesting point here that [i]t seems that the welfare state was inevitable once society became urbanized, hence different justifications were used, depending on the political identity of whoever implemented it and even your linked article writes that today they have government-funded education through university, universal health coverage [and] generous parental-leave policies; it's merely arguing that the success of Nordic countries like Sweden [...] precedes the contemporary welfare state, but that's better discussed at Nordic model.--Davide King (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for so elegantly proving my point. Good luck with your article. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, the refs are a hodge-podge

The refs are a hodge-podge. I can convert maybe two-thirds of them programmatically in only a few seconds, but the ones that are oddly formatted need to be resolved on a case-by case basis (and there are many of those... perhaps near 300 or so?). ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't finished my task, but I need to get up early for work. Here are a few I haven't added but be careful. I found a couple instances where the isbn already on the page did not match the book explicitly cited or other probs.. plus watch out for page numbers to add. If no one does these I will do them lunch time tomorrow: Several I haven't tried to add yet:

* {{sfn | Newman | 2005}}
* {{sfn | Aspalter | 2001}}
* {{sfn | Tucker | 1972}}
* {{sfn | Isakhan | Stockwell | 2015}}
* {{sfn | Klein | 2008}}
* {{sfn | Whyman| Baimbridge | 2012}}
* {{sfn | Leventhal | 2002}}
* {{sfn | Crick | 1986}}
* {{sfn | Shaw | 1988}}
* {{sfn | Seyd | 1987}}
* {{sfn | Silova | 2010}}
* {{sfn | Hudson | 2012}} ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Unacceptable sources

When I tried to paste the "news" section into the sources, I got this warning box:

An automated filter has identified this edit as containing references to one of the following blogging / web host platforms: Angelfire, Blogger (including blogspot.com), Geocities, Livejournal, Rootsweb, WordPress.com. Please be aware that self-published sources rarely meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. They may be used only with caution and for non-controversial material where the blog or website is owned by the subject of the article (see WP:ABOUTSELF). Best practice is to discuss this on the Talk page first.

These are typically unacceptable and probably need to be replaced ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Please stop adding unused sources

As nearly as I can tell, there are around 145 (yes, that's one hundred and forty-five) sources at the bottom of the page that are uncited. It's just an obfuscating thicket of clutter. I will delete them tomorrow. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

OK I've removed all of them except a final seven (7). Since these are encyclopedias, conferences, etc., which may be less straightforward in terms of formatting, it's best to do those by hand. Also note that removing Berman would delete the entire conference section:

• Berman, Sheri (2008). Understanding Social Democracy (PDF). What's Left of the Left: Liberalism and Social Democracy in a Globalized World. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies, Harvard University. Retrieved 29 January 2016. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBerman2008.
• Aimer, Peter (20 June 2012). "Labour Party". Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand. Retrieved 1 March 2020. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAimer2012.
• Columbia Encyclopedia (May 2001). "Progressivism". Columbia Encyclopedia (6th ed.). Archived from the original on 29 June 2008. Retrieved 18 November 2006. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFColumbia_Encyclopedia2001.
• Jackson, Ben (2008). "Social Democracy". In Blume, Lawrence E.; Durlauf, Steven N. (eds.). The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. 7 (2nd ed.). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-333-78676-5. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFJackson2008.
• Safra, Jacob E. (1998). "Social democracy". The New Encyclopaedia Britannica. 10 (15th ed.). Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. p. 920. "[...] a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes." Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFSafra1998.
• Stevens, Mark A. (2000). "Social democracy". Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia. Merriam-Webster, Inc. p. 1504. ISBN 978-0-8777-9017-4. "Political ideology that advocates a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from -capitalism to -socialism, using established political processes." Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFStevens2000.
• Younge, Gary (22 May 2017). "Jeremy Corbyn has defied his critics to become Labour's best hope of survival". The Guardian. Retrieved 23 February 2020. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFYounge2017. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Lists

Get rid of all the lists. They're extraneous clutter, at least in this article. Ship 'em to relevant "List of..." articles. It actually appears that some may be already be duplicated in "List of..." articles. If a relevant list doesn't exist, create it. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Totally agree. The list in this article should have gone years ago. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: Tks. I think we've already got them out. Now searching for POV (see dedicated thread below), and considering shipping the entire "History" section out to a separate article (considering making a dedicated section for that). Not entirely by coincidence, the most egregious POV stuff is in that section. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS

This will take time. Think of it as an ongoing task. We need to check all sources to see if they are in line with WP:RS:

• What makes "Alternative Orange", an alternative student newspaper described as a "radical tabloid", a reliable source? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• What makes sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com a reliable source?
• What makes theragblog.blogspot.com a reliable source? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• What makes eldiario.es a reliable source? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• What makes invisiblemolotov.files.wordpress.com a reliable source? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• What makes blog.chavez.org.ve a reliable source? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• 'As a commenter at Reason magazine's Hit&Run blog, remarking on Jesse Walker's link to the Kelly article, put it: "every trade is a cooperative act."' This isn't properly cited, but if it were, would it be a comment in the comment section of a blog? It's difficult to imagine how that would be WP:RS. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• What makes Gavekal Dragonomics, a financial services company headquartered in Hong Kong, a reliable source? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Democratic Socialism is NOT "decentralised", "anti-state" or "anti-authoritarian"!!

These words might sound big and nasty because of the baggage associated with them, but ultimately democratic socialism and democratic socialists do not want to smash the state, so to say they are anti-state or anti-authoritarian (a label only anarchism can truly hold) is misleading and inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by thatjakelad (talk • contribs)

Reliable sources please because Wikipedia isn't about opinions. Right now it seems "democratic socialism" is whatever each side of US politics wants it to mean :p --JamesPoulson (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

POV scan

I mentioned above that the article seems POV after skim/scan. I have been enmeshed in formatting and haven't actually read the body text closely yet. So now I will, and as I see POV statements I will post them here, probably in small batches.. But the article is really big (too big for this topic) so it may take days or even longer. I'm starting at this edit, for reference, and reading it section by section. If the number of things I post adds up to a goodly sum, I will slap a POV tag atop the page [note that I haven't done that yet]. If not, then I won't.

IN GENERAL, it seems the perspective adopted is the perspective of a member of a supportive group. The article seems to report the group's concerns from the group's perspective, using sources friendly to the group. Controversy? All I see at the moment is a wee tiny little box of token quotes gathering dust at the bottom of the page. And so on. But I will start reading. May take time. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this article is patently POV. Google "democratic socialism" critique, and read the articles that pop up in the results. I'm not staking out a position which holds that those critiques are correct; I am saying their observations and critiques are nonexistent in this article. The definition of an NPOV article is one in which the reader is unable to determine the POV of its authors. But an article which systematically omits critique is not one which passes tha test. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem adding relevant criticism; I just thought most of it would be a repetition of Criticism of socialism and so I think one section about the compatibility between democracy and socialism was more fitting (at least as far as know, that's the main criticism of democratic socialism, but we can add other relevant ones). Either way, not all articles have a criticism section. Conservatism (see results) doesn't have it, so I hope we can improve both on this.--Davide King (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It's late here so one last reply before sleep: (1) I think even the seemingly NPOV sections are as confusing as anything I've ever read on Wikipedia. Seriously. They need rewriting. (2) The "Let's add a criticism section" is a good idea as far as it goes but it doesn't go far enough. The whole perspective and tone adopted by the article "democratic socialists explaining democratic socialism". [Several bits simply need to be deleted.] That is not an appropriately NPOV tone. The correct tone is "an impartial observer offers a part-to-part, not whole-to-whole, comparison/contrast of the differing views of ds [let's just say ds because I am a slow typist]. I am sure you will reply but I won't see it 'til several hours from now. Later! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk)

Any specific examples of what you're referring to? I tend to think that encyclopedia entries on political parties/movements/ideologies ought to (like all encyclopedia entries) should be limited to factual information, which in these cases would be summary of the policies they promote along with any stated reasoning, and the history. In regards to the policies that they support, it doesnt make sense for the description to be written by opponents, who can easily lie. This could be appropriate in, perhaps, an article about a specific political party that had attained power at some time in the past, and had implemented policies that were counter to what they had/have said about themselves. But if on the more abstract subject of an ideology, as this one is, it would not improve the quality to have content such as, e.g., "members of political movement A say they support C, D, and F, but their critics, subscribers of the B school of thought say that the A movement would do X Y and Z should they ever be in power." Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Header section is very long

People might be on top of this already, but it seems like the header section here goes into much greater detail than other pages on wikipedia. Eg, is it really necessary to have ~4 sentences speculating about why "Third Way" supporters don't support democratic socialism?

Democratic socialism is also distinguished from Third Way social democracy[22] on the basis that democratic socialists are committed to systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism whereas social democratic supporters of the Third Way were more concerned about challenging the New Right to win social democracy back to power.[23] This has resulted in analysts and critics alike arguing that in effect it endorsed capitalism, even if it was due to recognising that outspoken anti-capitalism in these circumstances was politically nonviable; and that it was not only anti-socialist and neoliberal, but anti-social democratic in practice.[24] Some maintain this was the result of their type of reformism that caused them to administer the system according to capitalist logic[25] while others saw it as a modern form of democratic liberal socialism theoretically fitting within market socialism, distinguishing it from classical socialism, especially in the United Kingdom.[26]

Couldn't we just say they're two different views? (Supporting social services in a capitalist economy versus supporting government ownership of the means of production, I assume?) – It seems patronizing and POV to ever attribute someone else's view to being merely a result of political tactics, "they really agree with me, but had to fight the new right" etc. --Ak0015 (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Ak0015, we report what reliable sources and that is what they say. We are reporting both views, namely the Third Way view was that they were fighting the New Right and laissez-faire capitalism while critics say that they became part of the New Right and that they were neoliberal and anti-social democratic in pratice. Ian Adams distinguishes between classical socialism and liberal socialism. Both described themselves as democratic socialists. It was Blair who did describe the Labour Party as democratic socialist. Davide King (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

"Evolutionary socialist" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Evolutionary socialist. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 18#Evolutionary socialist until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism are not the same

Though it has become popular in the United States to speak about the Scandinavian/Nordic countries as socialist or Democratic Socialist(in big part thanks to Bernie Sanders), those countries have never been socialist, and therefore that section of the article should be removed. Both left-wing and right-wing parties in these countries have contributed to the development of the social democratic system. The Social Democratic system of the nordic countries is a free market capitalist system and has nothing to do with socialism or "democratic socialism". It's a multiparty system, and although small socialist parties have sometimes become part of coalition governments, they are usually a tiny part, receiving only a couple of percent of the vote. The larger left-wing parties, like the Norwegian Arbeiderparti, are not socialist, but Social Democratic parties, slightly to the left of center. The largest right-wing parties, like the Norwegian conservative party(Høyre) is also by most definition Social Democratic, though it is a right-wing party that stands for right-wing economic policies. The conservative Høyre is the largest party in the current coalition government in Norway. The same can be said about the other Scandinavian countries. Iceland has had a right-wing government for most of the years since their independence in 1944, but is unquestionably a social-democratic country. The whole section about the Nordic countries should be removed, since none of these countries have ever been socialist. BreakingZews (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

BreakingZews, nowhere does it states the Nordic model is democratic socialist or that they are democratic states. It states that democratic socialists want to strengthen it since by the 1980s there have been neoliberal reforms. You also fail to understand that social-democrats are democratic socialists, indeed they were the ones to popularise that, just they are more moderate and pragmatic. The overview section also explains this further; it is mainly journalistic sources that use democratic socialism to mean Soviet communism and social democracy to mean social-liberal capitalism; academic sources take a more nuanced approach and reject this mutually exclusive dichotomy. See Lyman Tower Sargent and Kendall, Diana (2011). Sociology in Our Time: The Essentials. Cengage Learning. pp. 125–127. ISBN 9781111305505. "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." That you fail to understand one can be a socialist while being pragmatic and reformist, i.e. supporting a mixed economy and advocating progressive reforms, etc. Of course, those to their left criticise them for it, especially since social-democrats moved more right since at least the 1970s, but that does not mean that social democracy itself did nor does it imply we ought to give capitalism all the merit of what socialist and social-democratic politicians, parties and thinkers did. Davide King (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Ferragina, Emanuele; Seeleib-Kaiser, Martin (October 2011). "Welfare Regime Debate: Past, Present, Futures?" Policy and Politics. Policy Press. 39 (4): 583–611. Those countries fit the social democratic type of "high socialism" which is described as favouring "a high level of decommodification and a low degree of stratification", so it is relevant. No one is saying that it is democratic socialist or that they are democratic socialist states (Jacobin criticises them from the left). But retaining a mixed-capitalist economy because one is pragmatic or reformist does not make one not a socialist (the difference between social democrats and social liberals is that the first one is a socialist and the second one is a liberal; that is notwithstanding the journalistic conflation of social democracy with Third Way social liberalism). The point is that they are still socialists in an ethical or liberal sense and is what distinguish them from social liberals; you may argue, as those to their left have argued, that they have abandoned socialism and everything, but academic and reliable sources show a more nuanced situation. Of course they are reformist (democratic) socialists, they are not going to radical change the capitalist economy today. It also depends on which capitalism and socialism definitions you use, whether you define capitalism as laissez-faire capitalism or socialism as the Soviet Union et al., "centrally-planned economy", or simply "state interventionism." Davide King (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This is an article about "Democratic Socialism". Nonetheless, a big section of the "Mid-20th Century" part is about the Nordic countries and other countries that have never been socialist, have never been under any kind of "Democratic Socialism". This labeling, which obviously arises from this common misunderstanding that Social Democracy is in any way connected to Democratic Socialism, is false. I have never heard of anything called "high socialism" except in your quote. Whatever it is, it is irrelevant in this context. The Nordic countries and others that have adopted the social-democratic free-market capitalist system, should not be associated with Democratic Socialism in this article. Those parts should be removed. BreakingZews (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

BreakingZews, as correctly noted by The Four Deuces here, "[s]ocialist/social democratic/democratic socialist are usually interchangeable terms, although they can take on different meanings in different contexts." I think that is why they advocate for a merge. However, I think they can serve a role and be useful to better describe and highlight their "different meanings in different contexts". As I already wrote elsewhere, you conflate social democracy with the policy regime and welfare states also adopted by conservatives and liberals. The article discusses the role of democratic socialists (social democrats are one type of democratic socialists, more pragmatic and moderate) in building and supporting the welfare state, with reliable sources describing the social-democratic or socialist type of welfare state, i.e. the universalistic Nordic model. Nowhere does the article says that the Noridic model is socialism. Finally, the Nordic model is not based on free-market capitalism (only in the 1980s it moved in that direction with neoliberal reforms) but on social (democratic) corporatism, which is still capitalism but is not the same thing as free-market capitalism, especially when it is used to mean anti-union, laissez-faire capitalism. Davide King (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

In addition, your claim that "[t]his labeling, which obviously arises from this common misunderstanding that Social Democracy is in any way connected to Democratic Socialism, is false." would have come as a surprise to the majority of social democrats who described themselves as democratic socialists and indeed they were the ones to popularise the term. As for you stating "I have never heard of anything called 'high socialism' except in your quote", the quote is from a reliable source and this socialist/social-democratic type of welfare state is described as favouring "a high level of decommodification and a low degree of stratification". Davide King (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Etymology, bais tagging for “Presentism” and “ Globalize”

I note there is no discussion on the origin of the term “Democratic Socialism” in this article, and it may go some way to explaining the very confused focus of the article, which seems to conflate all sorts of strands of Socialism and fit them into a contemporary US-centric reading of socialist history.

Unfortunately this article therefore suffers from issues which may need to be tagged with WP:Presentism and Globalize (I’m not doing this without discussion first).

“Democratic Socialism” as an English term dates only from the late 1940s, and was coined as a political position by Norman Thomas and then popularized (at least among the left) with his involvement in the Socialist Party of America. (See Thomas’ 1950 “Democratic Socialism”, 1953 “Revisiting Democratic Socialism” 1, SEIDLER, MURRAY. “The Social Theory of Norman Thomas.” (1958) 1 and also the google ngram of the term.

This eventually led to groups such as the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee that came out of the SPA split, and the championing of the term by the influential writer Michael Harrington as well as the two surviving factions of the old SPA : the DSA and the SP-USA.

Please note there is a past Australian Democratic Socialist Perspective one of the few groupings using the term outside the USA was in fact not “Democratic Socialist” by this article’s definition, but “Marxist-Leninist”. This is the sort of confusion this article needs to be edited to address.

Perhaps including such a section will clear up some of the confusion and bias in this article, which seems to simply repeat contemporary US (DSA in particular) arguments that to academics look like cherry-picking parts of the history of Socialism and Social Democracy to fit one current political program. Especially as the past movements did not use the term which this article is meant to describe. 100.12.150.73 (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

How does it suffers from that when you gave the American perspective? Democratic socialism was popularised, if not coined, by social democrats opposed to the development in the Soviet Union, not just by American socialists. "So too with 'democratic socialism', a term coined by its adherents as an act of disassociation from the twentieth-century realities of undemocratic socialism [...]." "The adjective democratic is added by democratic socialists to attempt to distinguish themselves from Communists who also call themselves socialists. All but Marxist-Leninists believe that modern-day communism is highly undemocratic and totalitarian in practice, and democratic socialists wish to emphasise by their name that they disagree strongly with the Marxist-Leninist brand of socialism." There is also no mention of the Australian Democratic Socialist Perspective, but it fits the "revolutionary-democratic socialist" label rather than "Marxism–Leninism". Davide King (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: signature should have been, so talk/discussion can be monitored T L Miles (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

On Criticism

The criticism section lacks left-wing critiques of the ideology. By contrast, Social democracy has criticism from the left POV outweighing bourgeois ones. Just an observation I thought worth addressing here. Red Society 01 (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Red Society 01, that is a good point, but I thought it would be simply repeating what we already write at Social democracy. It is actually discussed a bit in Philosophy, with Marxist–Leninists considering it as the same thing of social democracy and ultra-leftists considering it as too statist and reformist. Davide King (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Red Society 01 (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Market socialism

Seems to me the market socialism section, which should summarise the main Market socialism article, takes up way too much space here for a current that is pretty tiny and inconsequential in relation to the bigger picture of democratic socialism. Do others agree? Anyone want to boldly trim it, making sure everything is in the main article first? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

re ad Marxism

Shouldent the marxism catogory be broght back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4400:3560:98C5:B0A7:696E:1928 (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

History

Totally support this bold edit by Davide King, but I wonder if we need a short section that summarises the new article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 22 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aromanoumd.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)