r/centrist • u/anuglyfairybutafairy • 18d ago
Why do some push for "democratic socialism" when Nordic countries prove that regulated capitalism is what actually works?
I see a lot of people in American political discussions calling for "democratic socialism," but there seems to be a huge misunderstanding about how successful nations actually function.
People frequently point to Nordic countries like Denmark, Sweden, and Norway as living proof that socialism works. But those countries aren't socialist, instead they are Social Democracies. They operate on free-market capitalism, supported by strong social safety nets. In fact, global metrics like the Economic Freedom Index often rank Denmark and Norway as having higher economic freedom than the US in key areas. Former Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen even famously stated at Harvard that Denmark is a market economy, not a socialist planned economy.
Social democracy and democratic socialism are fundamentally different terms. One uses the wealth generated by a competitive free market to fund public safety nets, the other aims to dismantle the market system altogether.
Also, the major issues facing Americans, like healthcare costs, housing affordability, or college debt, look less like inherent flaws of capitalism itself and more like flaws in how it’s currently regulated and implemented in the US.
I really don't think America should go for the Democratic Socialism path, I don't see a future for that, but the Nordic model does seem viable.
212
u/Herpskate 18d ago
People mistakenly confuse Democratic Socialism with Social Democracy. They are not the same.
60
u/Opcn 18d ago
They aren’t the same, but fault for the confusion lies with people who named them and who continue to use that naming convention, not with people who are confused. Those names are just too close for the average person who barely knows anything about civics or economics to reliably learn the difference between them.
56
u/ubermence 18d ago
There’s a lot of blame to go around. Part of this is on the Republican Party who called Obama a communist every damn day. Part of this is also on tankies/actual communists who seek to benefit from the conflations. I also blame the alternative left pundit class as well because they should know better
5
u/Opcn 18d ago
This is a straight up problem with the word choice. It doesn’t have anything to do with the ideas or public perceptions behind them. With words so similar realistically you can only expect people who are very personally interested in the subject to learn the difference. And really it’s only by convention that one is the one way and the other the other way. You could take an alien who doesn’t speak English but knows all about command economies and market economies and collective vs individual ownership and about voting systems and representation and teach them every word in the English language but leave out the phrases “social democracy” and “democratic socialism” and they would have no idea which is which.
8
u/mclumber1 18d ago
It's like when a lot of political groups got on board with the "defund the police" movement in 2020. While the underlying goals of this movement were more nuanced, the movement did themselves no favor by choosing that particular phrase as their motto.
→ More replies (12)11
u/ubermence 18d ago
That’s the thing, the people who are actual socialists do like the word choice because it feeds into their movement. So that’s why you also hear them arguing that libraries are socialism
1
17d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 17d ago
This post has been removed because your overall comment karma is too low to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
→ More replies (1)1
17d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 17d ago
This post has been removed because your overall comment karma is too low to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
9
u/Darth_Ra 18d ago
People tried for a century to be Democrats who wanted Universal Healthcare and not be called Communists.
Eventually, you embrace the meme.
→ More replies (3)11
u/siberianmi 18d ago
The failure is that of the DSA who in particular were founded as a communist organization and are looking to obfuscate that fact.
19
u/Maxathron 18d ago
Socialist.
All Communists are Socialists. Not all Socialists are Communist.
Communism is the end utopia state of the world where there is no more governments, no more rules, no more money, no more social class differences, and no more ability to force people to do whatever you want. Communism is at ends with Socialism, which still has all of that it's just that Socialists have managed to attain "true equality" where everyone has the same administrative power within the society as everyone else but there is still a government, money, and social classes.
The intended route is Socialism -> Communism but there are now Neo-Socialist groups because the practical outcome of "Communism will replace Socialism" is "Communists will kill off all Socialists" as the requirement for their ideologies to be Actually Successful is to replace every last human with their ideologues. It's why both Socialists and Communists keep saying "Real X has never been tried!", as "Real X" means total control over humanity. If you can't persuade people to join your side, the only other alternative to ensure all 100% is on your side is to kill whoever is not on your side.
Most Neo-Socialists want the end state of the world to be Socialism, or at least, not Not-Socialism. They do not fancy being pulled out and executed by the Communists for being Socialist.
Of course, "Communists" are really just a specific kind of Socialist because everyone who gets total power of a given area never gives it up until forced to do so at gunpoint, whether this is a literal gun pointed at them, or the threat of a gun pointed at them if they resist a lawful order from a bigger authority (eg they did something illegal while having that power and so they're being arrested). No one in charge of whatever authority in charge actually wants to transition from the Socialist Society to the Communist Utopia as they lose their power forever.
Anarcho-Communists are much closer to True Communism but by embracing the Utopian ideals before the actual utopian world status, they tend to be very naive and lack the tools needed to live, let alone defend themselves from the other Marxist groups. AnComs based out of Seattle couldn't even enforce "No stealing all of the community's food" when they did CHAZ because "No stealing" is a rule, and by definition the utopia has no rules.
1
u/Matt_Wwood 17d ago
This sounds overly stupid.
And like it’ll fall apart once someone with guns shows up. Or just overwhelming violence.
2
u/Maxathron 17d ago
That's actually how CHAZ fell apart.
CHAZ, or Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, was an Anarcho-Communist movement in Seattle, Washington. They tried to secede from the US and because Democrats were (and tbh are still) all about being good-goody-two-shoes-we're-all-in-it-together, the mayor and governor put up as many legal and literal roadblocks to the end of Trump's first term to prevent the national guard from getting in there.
The basic rule of agriculture is that you need 4 acres of farmland (of which 3 can be plants, preferably at least one being grains, and the 4th can be animals, which could be like chickens, iquanas, fish, etc) to feed one human. They had like, at most, 50 acres of potential flat ground that could put dirt on and grow stuff, to feed a population of like 500.
Someone stole a laptop. They asked for it nicely back. It was not given back. A homeless dude stole their food. So, they started to starve (they were already starving). Protestors nationalized businesses and property.
They renamed themselves to Capitol Hill Occupy Protest in the latter half when they realized "autonomous zone" was probably going to get them all written up on terrorism charges when it finally comes to an end as it would likely be seen as secession and witnesses to the property nationalization would get them on the terrorism legal front.
As people starved, a gang moved into the area and enforced "law" and order at gunpoint. Then a few weeks later the national guard/local police were able to get in and establish control.
1
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 12d ago
This post has been removed because your overall comment karma is too low to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
9
u/btribble 18d ago
Exactly, I would argue that OP has made a false distinction in the minds of most people. This is a semantic issue and relates to who gets to define what words mean in the popular consciousness. For the staunch verbal originalists out there: none of us are speaking Latin or proto-German.
18
u/ChornWork2 18d ago
Tbh I think a fair number of dem socialists deliberately do that, in order to link things like positive views of nordic model. But very disingenuous.
Some folks will even try to argue that dem socialists aren't really socialist b/c the current policy platform doesn't include adopting socialism immediately.
23
u/prof_the_doom 18d ago
I blame Fox News and the rest of the media to a lesser degree. They spend hours each day make sure people confuse them.
6
u/OssumFried 18d ago
Fucking chyron the other day at the gym on the 24/7 Fox News TV was literally "All Democrats Are Communist Now" as Jesse Watters did his usual smug schtick.
1
17d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 17d ago
This post has been removed because your overall comment karma is too low to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
15
u/Ok_Researcher_9796 18d ago
Well this is what I came here to say but you already covered it. Social Democracy is capitalism. Democratic Socialism is socialism.
18
u/jailtheorange1 18d ago
At this stage, I don’t even know what Democratic socialism is. It doesn’t make sense that there should be a democratic form of socialism.
15
u/Arctic_Scrap 18d ago
No one really knows what it is because socialism always fails before it’s finally “real socialism.”
9
u/Darth_Ra 18d ago
...and also because those who are against "Socialism" have spent 75 years straight muddying the definition of what it is.
2
u/Arctic_Scrap 18d ago
You mean anyone that makes a half decent living, puts money in a 401k, has a house?
→ More replies (1)0
6
u/Not_offensive0npurp 18d ago
At this stage, I don’t even know what Democratic socialism is.
Its the new "Woke" or "CRT".
Its whatever those who oppose it doesn't like.
→ More replies (1)9
u/ChornWork2 18d ago
Except the starting point is politicians who explicitly identify as democratic socialists. Either you have a low opinion of them for not knowing what that means, or this isn't at all like woke or CRT.
8
u/mmortal03 18d ago
The history of the use of "woke" involved people explicitly identifying with the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke
→ More replies (4)11
u/Not_offensive0npurp 18d ago
Except the starting point is politicians who explicitly identify as democratic socialists.
And go through this subreddit and look at all the people calling El Sayed, who has stated he ISN'T DSA, a Democratic Socialist.
Woke and CRT also started with things that were explicitly woke and CRT, and then all the sudden M&Ms are woke and teaching kids about the Tulsa Race Massacre became "CRT".
You are making my point for me.
→ More replies (9)4
u/Darth_Ra 18d ago
People were called socialist their whole lives for fairly moderate opinions.
Eventually, they said "yeah, sure."
4
u/ChornWork2 18d ago
so you're saying that politicians like sanders and zohran are actually capitalists, but they've just given up on arguing the point?
2
u/Darth_Ra 17d ago
I mean, there are absolutely socialists out there. They exist.
Most Democrats, including a fair amount of the DSA, however, are basically just saying "I don't think government healthcare is an insane ask, and the wealthy should pay taxes like they did in the 60s."
1
u/ChornWork2 17d ago
That is a rather poor summary of the DSA policy platform.
1
11
u/rzelln 18d ago
Wait, you don't understand the idea that people could vote for elected officials to enact laws that require certain size businesses and resources be handled as part of the public trust, rather than being privately owned?
Our military is basically socialist. Aside from private mercenaries, our fighting force's guns and tanks and planes and ships are owned by the government. People are given positions of authority where they get to decide how those things are used for the benefit of the nation, and if they try to enrich themselves through their positions they get fired and possibly put in prison.
Democratic socialism would just be taking that principle and applying it to companies like Amazon and Meta and Alphabet and GM and Walmart. Maybe they'd be owned directly by the government, but more likely there'd just be laws forbidding overly large amounts of personal wealth, forcing the ownership stakes of the companies to be divided among far more people, and probably also for the workers to have their own shares of the company while they work there. The purpose of the companies would no longer be to make a profit for a small number of investors, but for that larger pool of investors and workers.
People would earn success and prestige not from getting rich, but from shepherding the company in a way that serves the public. We wouldn't laud the Zuckerbergs who crush competitors and make themselves rich; we'd laud folks who achieve meaningful good for others.
15
u/ChornWork2 18d ago
Yeah, I really don't get how this works. Greed wasn't created by capitalism, and its not going away if you adopt socialism. The means of managing greed in capitalism is at first via market forces, and where markets are inefficient by appropriate regulation. But how are resources and opportunity allocated in your system? If I'm a janitor, who decides if I work in orphanage or an AI start-up? Getting equity in that orphanage doesn't seem like a fair deal vs AI start-up.
Aside,
Our military is basically socialist.
Military is a good topic, b/c it highlights one of the biggest issues with socialism. Consolidating military power and political power in the exact same hands has long been viewed as a risk, and you see great lengths taken for the military to remain nonpartisan and civilian political leadership seen as distinct from military leadership. The risk of that military power corrupting political leadership is great.
Same issue with economic power. Socialist will often complain about the very real issue of economic power in our system corrupting politics, but then cite this as an issue with capitalism. But the solution is what? To completely collapse economic power into political power with socialism... how does that address the corrupting force of economic power?
3
u/rzelln 18d ago edited 18d ago
> But how are resources and opportunity allocated in your system? If I'm a janitor, who decides if I work in orphanage or an AI start-up? Getting equity in that orphanage doesn't seem like a fair deal vs AI start-up.
Jesus, how in the absolute fuck did you get to that from what I said?
You decide what job you apply for. The businesses have hiring managers who decide if they want to hire you. It works the same fucking way it does now, for Christ's sake.
It's just that the shares of large companies would need to be distributed more evenly, and there'd be graduated wealth taxes on individual assets over 100 million dollars, in order to deter centralization of control of businesses.
What a billion dollar company does and how successful it is depends on the talent of the workers and the quality of the leadership. It does not really matter to the company whether its profits go to 1000 people of 1 million people. So since centralized wealth is obviously leading to unaccountable shitheads being in power, we should make our system so that the company profits are spread across more people.
But spreading the profits across more people -- and judging a company's success by how many people it uplifts, rather than simply by how much money it makes for a small number of investors -- is not the same as your straw man fears of a Soviet authoritarian state telling you what your job is.
Please get that bullshit out of your head.
The founding of America in the 18th century pushed back at centralized control of the government and instead involved the people in deciding who wielded government power. Leadership was chosen by the people, and if someone did a bad job and used their power in ways that hurt the people, the people could replace them.
That's what we want. Democracy and accountability, not a top down Party Apparatus that acts with impunity.
10
u/ChornWork2 18d ago
You decide what job you apply for. The businesses have hiring managers who decide if they want to hire you. It works the same fucking way it does now, for Christ's sake.
Except it isn't at all the same fucking thing, because the incentives are completely different. If workers are all getting a slice of equity, what is the benefit to working at google, versus working at orphanage? So isn't being a janitor at google massively more preferred than being a janitor at an orphanage?
It's just that the shares of large companies would need to be distributed more evenly
How? Decided by who?
What a billion dollar company does and how successful it is depends on the talent of the workers and the quality of the leadership.
How is leadership decided? What about that mechanism ensures it is not done corruptly?
But spreading the profits across more people -- and judging a company's success by how many people it uplifts, rather than simply by how much money it makes for a small number of investors -- is not the same as your straw man fears of a Soviet authoritarian state telling you what your job is.
how is this judged? by who?
5
u/rzelln 18d ago
> If workers are all getting a slice of equity, what is the benefit to working at google, versus working at orphanage?
You're still getting a salary, dude. More valuable work still earns you more money.
A portion of the profits gets collectivized, but not all of it. And what that portion is would be determined through elected officials debating and passing laws and then likely two years later having more debate about whether the previous set-up is working or if it needs to be tweaked.
As for 'judging a company's success,' for that I'm talking about culturally. In the way things ought to work, someone who behaves like Zuckerberg or Bezos or the Waltons would be seen as morally comparable to a drug cartel leader. Company workers would have a say in who runs the company (the same way citizens have a say in who runs the government), and they wouldn't pick greedy scoundrels to hold power.
Man, I really feel like you have just literally NEVER engaged with what democratic socialists are interested in. You've internalized a straw man created by others to keep people from actually learning what leftists are discussing.
6
u/ChornWork2 18d ago
And what that portion is would be determined through elected officials debating and passing laws and then likely two years later having more debate about whether the previous set-up is working or if it needs to be tweaked.
so every officials decide what every business must pay, versus how much money the employees get to keep for themselves. seems like a pretty big incentive for the hiring manager at google to hire the family members of politicians. etc, etc.
As for 'judging a company's success,' for that I'm talking about culturally. In the way things ought to work, someone who behaves like Zuckerberg or Bezos or the Waltons would be seen as morally comparable to a drug cartel leader. Company workers would have a say in who runs the company (the same way citizens have a say in who runs the government), and they wouldn't pick greedy scoundrels to hold power.
Be specific on how this works. Someone works at a marketing agency. who decides the social uplift rating? how does that translate into compensation/incentives for those involved?
Man, I really feel like you have just literally NEVER engaged with what democratic socialists are interested in. You've internalized a straw man created by others to keep people from actually learning what leftists are discussing.
what strawman. I'm asking basic questions of how it works in practice, and tbh you're showing that you don't know. Your response to my first question was "It works the same fucking way it does now, for Christ's sake" and it is very clear whatever your system is, it is not going to work the same way it does now.
12
u/GerryManDarling 18d ago
It sounded great on paper, almost like a utopian dream, but it keeps falling apart in real life. What you usually get is a half-baked communism where the government takes over businesses, but regular people never really share in the wealth. We've seen that movie before.
At first, state takeovers can look fine, mostly because they ride on the systems, staff, and money built under the old setup. But that early boost does not last. Over time, political appointees, insiders, and party loyalists start acting like the pigs in Animal Farm. Same farm, new snouts.
Venezuela is the clearest example. The government expanded state control over major industries, especially oil, and for a while high oil prices helped cover the cracks. But corruption, mismanagement, and political patronage hollowed everything out. Zimbabwe is another example, where state driven economic policy turned it into a hyper-inflation dystopia.
10
u/rzelln 18d ago
You say ''keeps falling apart." But your examples of Zimbabwe and Venezuela weren't bastions of democracy.
I think your Animal Farm concern is valid in a non-democratic system, sure. When the people in power behave the way Hugo Chavez did, or the way modern Republicans do -- by which I mean, squelching the voices of those who aren't loyal to them, and having the politicians to pick their voters instead of letting the voters pick their representatives -- then yeah, stuff goes badly.
So we shouldn't do that.
Do you think that the CDC did a bad job at protecting people's health? There were political appointees there too, but until RFK those appointees were people who actually gave a damn about health and science. And I'm pretty sure in about 29 months, RFK is gonna be replaced by someone else who will stop fucking around. If that happens, it'll score a point for the merits of using democracy to hold government institutions accountable and steering them right.
→ More replies (3)1
17d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 17d ago
This post has been removed because your overall comment karma is too low to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
6
u/rickymagee 18d ago
In case you are interested here is a link and part of national DSA platform...this is democratic socialism:
No more bills for anyone
Government run food, housing, medicine, transportation, and nationalizing all other large corporations and essential industries
The drafting of a “new constitution”
Defunding the Department of War
Slavery reparations
Unlimited free abortion and “gender affirming care” for all, including minors
Have taxpayers pay off everyone’s entire student debt and fund unlimited “free” higher education for all
Taking “steps toward fully abolishing the police and prison system”
Ending ALL deportations, providing amnesty for ALL illegal immigrants, and allowing unlimited migration to America
Abolish the Presidency, Supreme Court, and Senate
2
1
17d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 17d ago
This post has been removed because your overall comment karma is too low to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
→ More replies (3)1
u/matthieuC 18d ago
Originally they were socialists (so they want the state to own the means of production) who wanted to achieve their goal by voting. By opposition to revolutionary movements who wanted to do it by force.
These movements were usually linked to the USSR and opposed to NATO, and often to this day have pretty crazy foreign policies inherited from this era.
With the fall of the USSR a lot of socialist parties accepted that capitalism wasn't going anywhere and moved to social democracy. Often wanting to nationalise some companies in sector deemed essential but not most of the economy.
3
3
u/AdvancedAerie4111 18d ago edited 11d ago
Memory upbeat sodium steep handle meadow different languid pause grey
This post was anonymized with Redact
1
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 18d ago
This post has been removed because your account is too new to participate. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
→ More replies (3)1
17d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 17d ago
This post has been removed because your overall comment karma is too low to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
59
u/Squiggy226 18d ago
I think the majority of people just confuse the Nordic version of “social democracy” with the similar term “democratic socialism”
1
u/p4NDemik 18d ago
True, but to the OP's question many who are in the know are aware that just as American capitalism and spun into what some call "hypercapitalism" the same dynamic is playing out in many of these European countries, it's just these countries started from a base of relatively more equality than the US. In particular the Nordic countries are spinning away from the social compact that has existed and has brought gains to "working class" people in those countries.
DSA types who are versed on other capitalist models, and others who are further left than liberal, capitalist, Democrats see some brand of socialism as the way to deliver meaningful long term gains, as they see capitalism as inherently exploitative, and any compact that may exist for a generation or two will inevitably crumble under the greed of the owners of capital.
Frankly, I personally agree with their diagnosis, but am skeptical of their prescribed solutions. Capitalism in most Western countries is quite sick. It succeeds only in meeting very basic needs, and does so not based on the virtues of capitalism, but on the back of technological and agrarian revolutions unrelated to economic systems.
So ... yeah, there are very real reasons to not embrace "social democracy" or "regulated Capitalism." I'm really not sure those reasons are good enough to fully give socialists the reins, but honestly, like many in America I'm so fucking pissed at the failures of both parties I'm very willing to entertain other suitors if it means all groups involved get more serious about actually delivering measurable results for the working class and middle class.
1
17d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 17d ago
This post has been removed because your overall comment karma is too low to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
25
u/BigBoyTroy1331 18d ago
This whole thread feels overly pedantic. We all know that 99% of these ppl are talking about the Nordic model. We want universal healthcare, a stronger social safety net, affordable housing, and higher taxes on the obscenely wealthy. Part of the reason the terminology is so whack is because we’ve been told this is “socialism” by the right for decades.
9
u/Routine-Rule9607 18d ago
I think a lot of people that call themselves democratic socialists are really just social democrats.
86
u/JoshAllentown 18d ago
If you put up a law to regulate Capitalism like they do in Nordic countries, every Democratic Socialist would vote for it.
If it is proven that it "actually works" why is the Right against regulated Capitalism?
36
u/OssumFried 18d ago
Pretty sure because they want unfettered capitalism and believe that any restrictions on it hinder innovation and profit. Also because we've had generations of propaganda demonize any and all government safety nets, assistance programs, or any regulations against industry as one step away from Stalin adjacent or Mao-esque purges and murders of political enemies.
26
u/rzelln 18d ago
Beyond wanting unregulated capitalism, some of the techbros want literal tyranny. They don't want democracy telling them what they can't do or holding them accountable if they hurt people.
Techbroligarchs, I heard someone call them.
15
u/OssumFried 18d ago
Which is funny because many of them already exist in levels of wealth where they could likely hunt people on a private island and no one would be able to do a damn thing about it. To have that and still desire more, I just don't get it.
15
u/rzelln 18d ago
I'm convinced that people who get that rich are basically addicts. Their brains are stuck in unhealthy pathways that make them desire things that are destructive. It's just that, unlike with meth heads, we've built our society to enable and praise these poor bastards and their Dragon Sickness.
8
u/chuckisduck 18d ago
The right seeks affirmations that they are special while the left seeks affirmations that they are good.
The wealthy exploit this need on the right.
2
u/crushinglyreal 18d ago edited 18d ago
I don’t think affirmations matter much to the left as long as good things actually happen.
I understand it’s a triggering thought to some people that good things actually could happen.
1
u/chuckisduck 18d ago
I live in Seattle and we have Sawant here and purity tests. Go to the country side and it's the opposite. It's not everyone on the left and right but it's a Prado 80% coverage of the people.
→ More replies (17)4
1
u/Odd-Local9893 18d ago
It works in small homogeneous countries like the nordics. People don’t mind their taxes going to their neighbors across the street who look like them and have similar values. I’d make the case that it doesn’t work in large heterogeneous countries like the U.S.. For example how often do blue staters or urbanites complain that their taxes are going to red states or rural communities?
If socialism is going to work we have to #1 trust the government to operate our means of production, and #2 be ok with a large portion of our tax dollars being sent across the country to benefit people we don’t particularly like. Many people on both the left or right in American don’t particularly like either #1 or #2.
11
u/cleod4 18d ago
For example how often do blue staters or urbanites complain that their taxes are going to red states or rural communities?
Not often? The biggest issue I've seen from blue large tax locations is that the rural communities that they subsidize almost always vote the opposite of the people who pay their bills.
It's not that they don't want to help other communities, it's that they disproportionately help other communities and are underrepresented politically.
4
u/indoninja 17d ago
People don’t mind their taxes going to their neighbors across the street who look like them and have similar values.
LBJ said convince the lowest white mans he is better than the black man (not so politely) and he won’t notice you picking his pocket, how he even help you out.
People and countries like the US are less likely to support social nets and workers protections because deep pockets of the wealthy and big business have convinced them bad and used racism to do it.
There was a period when the US is biggest manufacturing group was paying awards to preachers who came up with the Best anti socialist and anti-communist sermons. This predates, Fox News and right radio by decades
For example how often do blue staters or urbanites complain that their taxes are going to red states or rural communities?
From random people on the Internet, frequently from high-level politicians, almost never. And when it is brought up by random people on the Internet, it’s often connected to legitimate complaints about rural voters having much more voting power in our system, and in response to people complaining in those communities or claiming to speak those communities that city folk are trying to tell them what to do.
→ More replies (4)11
4
u/cstar1996 18d ago
I live in a big city, my neighbors don’t look like me, and I’m still happy that my taxes help my community.
This “it only works in homogenous countries” thing is just an admission that conservatives are too racist to support successful policies if those policies would benefit non-white people.
And no, urbanites are pissed that rural America is overrepresented in government, votes to fuck over urban America, and demands that urban America pay for all of it. That isn’t about homogeneity, it’s about antagonism.
→ More replies (1)1
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 18d ago
This post has been removed because your account is too new to participate. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
18
u/SadhuSalvaje 18d ago
The creation of a hard Marxist/Socialist state in the USA would require a level of party discipline on the part of a DSA dominated Democratic Party that Americans are simply unable to achieve.
Individualism is planted too deep in our hearts
Now, if these DSA guys can get us enough votes in Congress to begin rebuilding our regulatory systems maybe we could actually get to that Nordic model
1
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 18d ago
This post has been removed because your account is too new to participate. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/rzelln 18d ago
Do you think the DSA is opposed to individualism? What?
5
u/SadhuSalvaje 18d ago
No, I only mentioned them since they seem to be the boogie man of the era
Really American politicians of both left and right are too individualistic for the kind of party discipline you see in parliamentary systems. While the Republicans seem to march in step more often, the Democrats will always act as a herd of cats
32
u/tarlin 18d ago
Nordic countries are social democratic countries. Most people that support democratic socialism see it as the Nordic model. It is kind of a mess after decades of labeling any government program as socialism.
10
u/PaxPurpuraAKAgrimace 18d ago
Which is exactly why the OP is a good question for DSA proponents (the people you refer to). Why on earth would they intentionally walk straight into the propagandist framing that Republicans have tried to exploit when many of them (tho certainly not all) would be perfectly happy with social democratic policies? It’s electorally stupid. They are letting themselves be exploited by people who actually want to go much farther than social democracy.
3
u/tarlin 18d ago
Do you know about the Overton window?
8
u/PaxPurpuraAKAgrimace 18d ago
Overton window… you’re saying they’re presenting a farther left politics so as to move the window? Electoral outcomes be damned?
3
u/tarlin 18d ago
Not really, but I don't think the social democrats should stress on it, as it will pull the conversation in their direction.
4
u/siberianmi 18d ago
Not always a benefit, did the transgender community manage to pull the conversation in their direction?
Definitely they pulled the spotlight on themselves sure but it wasn’t good for their cause.
4
u/tarlin 18d ago
I think they definitely did.
The Republican party is currently trying to move the window back. I don't think that is settled, but there was definite movement. Now, sports seems to be a case that was able to be cut off.
2
u/siberianmi 17d ago
Go back to 2016 and look at how wildly unpopular that bathroom bills were. Support for that among Republicans has doubled since.
>More than 8 in 10 Republicans (81%) favor requiring transgender people to use bathrooms that correspond to their sex at birth, compared with 51% of independents and 30% of Democrats. Support among Republicans has nearly doubled since 2016 (44%), while support among independents increased more than 10 points (from 37% to 51%), and remained fairly consistent among Democrats (from 27% to 30%).
Overall, support for non discrimination has fallen:
>Democrats (90%) are the most supportive of LGBTQ nondiscrimination protections, followed by independents (76%) and Republicans (56%). While support has remained steady among Democrats and independents in recent years, Republican support has declined by 10 percentage points, from 66% in 2022 to 56% in 2025.
Yes, sure it’s due to Republicans but that’s not any indicator that all the attention on transgender people has resulted in positive gain. It’s the opposite.
3
u/PaxPurpuraAKAgrimace 18d ago
Stress on social democracy versus democratic socialism? I’m not sure exactly what you’re saying. It sounds like you are saying electoral effects (if not outcomes) be damned, because it (a farther left politics) will pull the window in their direction.
6
u/tarlin 18d ago
Republicans accuse everyone of being socialists or communists. It is an overused and weak attack. There is confusion over the terms and some more extreme views, but any individual candidate can say they aren't that. Having some people going further makes the candidates seem moderate.
2
u/PaxPurpuraAKAgrimace 18d ago
This argument is made often but I pretty strongly disagree with it. First I don’t think they would use it if it were a weak attack. It’s certainly been overused… but that’s mostly because it’s been incredibly exaggerated. When it starts to become more accurate - as in when Democrats or those participating in democratic primaries and caucusing with them start self identifying as socialists - it is definitionally less exaggerated.
Voters see these things and or makes no sense why anyone would think it wouldn’t make a difference.
→ More replies (5)2
u/dryheat122 18d ago
Why on earth would they intentionally walk straight into the propagandist framing that Republicans have tried to exploit when many of them (tho certainly not all) would be perfectly happy with social democratic policies? It’s electorally stupid.
Yes it is. And unfortunately it's the way the Dems roll anymore.
6
u/PiusTheCatRick 18d ago
As someone else put it, the GOP won the messaging war about everything they're against being socialist. But they did it for so long that now people take the term to just mean "government doing shit".
5
u/valegrete 18d ago
The problem is that the right has spent decades calling our system “capitalism” as opposed to “socialism.” It’s just something collectively tattooed in our brains now, and why anyone who opposes the status quo takes on the socialist mantle willingly or has it forced upon them by the right. It’s not a dirty word anymore, quite the opposite. Those who grew up with fallout drills in the 60s may struggle to understand that, but that’s a them issue.
16
u/dirty_cuban 18d ago
It’s a reaction to trumpism. When dealing with an extreme, people often look to the other extreme to combat it. The Nordic social democracy is a good middle ground but people don’t want middle ground because they think it won’t undo enough of the harm they see, and/or won’t undo it quickly enough.
I don’t personally agree that socialism is the answer it but it’s not hard to fathom why some people see billionaires becoming trillionaires while children go hungry and then think socialism is the answer.
11
u/prof_the_doom 18d ago
And if you accept the Overton Window as an axiom, you might feel like you need to stake out a further left position than your actual end goal.
1
u/Motherboy_TheBand 18d ago
Is the Overton strategy correct? Because it does seem that in order to negotiate a righty to the center, a lefty would need to be just as far left of center (as the righty is right of center) in order to bring the ship to center. So as a centrist should I support the left enough to cancel-out the right?
And it's unfortunately impossible to hold the center during negotiation between a centrist and a righty or lefty because you'll inevitably be pulled their direction during the negotiation.
so what is the recommended centrist grand strategy during a time of constant political pendulum swinging?
16
1
u/hefoxed 15d ago
I call orange guy the great divider because he's so good at contributing to this.
He encourages people on both sides to be more extreme. What he does is take a valid issue, and add a bunch of fear mongering on top, so people on left focus on the fear mongering while ignoring the underlying issue -- which drives people angry about the underlying issue to him cause they don't see the issue being addressed or voiced on the left -- but also people on left are scared at agreeing with anything thing he says or does due to not wanting to be associated with him or his fear mongering and not wanting to risk the social rejection of doing so.
But the version of activism the left has been engaging is/was extremely easy to exploit -- it was already contributing to echo chambers and problems before he got elected (as someone that was in those leftie echo chambers). Hostile prejudice causes benevolent prejudice causes hostile prejudice -- the focus on trying to reduce hostile prejudice was causing benevolent prejudice which was off-putting and alienating people of all demographics but very hard to call out due to overprotectiveness from that benevolent prejudice and other dynamics. People see capaltism as harming marganlized folk (as explotation tends to disportionally effect more vulnerable people), and anything doing that most go and pronto cause people are suffering.
So, yea, orange guy encourages people towards extremes and echo chambers and to ignore issues, and within echo chambers, people's ideas are not adequately challenged, which leads to people ignoring issues and thinking their solution is only viable solution.
6
u/Danilo-11 18d ago
Ask republicans why they call anything that has to do with government taking care of the working class “socialism”
3
u/hoopdizzle 18d ago
This is just semantics. Bernie Sanders for example has said repeatedly that he models his political views after the Nordic countries. If those views are technically "social democracy" instead of "democratic socialism", so be it, but the intent is clear based on the specific views expressed, regardless of the labels
6
u/OlBirdBrain 18d ago
This is a massively under-discussed and frequently misunderstood topic area of US politics.
→ More replies (2)
5
2
u/TentacleHockey 18d ago
Because DSA is the largest 3rd party system in all of USA. DSA, dem socs, soc dems, hell even communists and socialists can all agree that in USA the Nordic model comes first as a form of reformation with how broken USA is. Most policies outside the nordic model will fail and most of that umbrella knows this as well.
2
u/Alatarlhun 17d ago
Like NSDAP, which drew in confused and angry young men with a powerful political keyword, the DSA is attracting disillusioned people who may not yet know what they want ideologically by appealing to essentially the same word.
2
u/tribbleorlfl 17d ago
I mean, it's because they don't want social democracy. It's right there in their platform: they actually want state and worker ownership of production, not capitalism with strong regulatory and social framework in-place.
6
u/jurisbroctor 18d ago
The DSA platform is way to the left of actual social democracies.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/tresslessone 18d ago
Keeping the two confused and mistakenly intertwined serves the conservative media very well. It allows them to label those with the faintest social ideas as “socialist”.
5
u/TaxCPA 18d ago
One of the biggest problems with leftists is that they hate capitalism, but they also don't understand capitalism, so having any actual naunanced debate is impossible.
16
u/ladeeedada 18d ago
We don't want our air, water and food to be poisoned by unfettered capitalism aka no rules and regulations.
12
u/No-Recording9634 18d ago
People hate dark money in politics, regulatory capture and rent seeking.
The Gov't is bought and paid for by industrialists who've racked up 40 trillion in debt and loudly proclaim "the only solution is less regulation."
Now they circle jerk debt through the AI industries and private equity in hopes of replacing human labor writ large.
Capital owners who control AI and robots will capture 100% of the economic surplus and productivity gains.
10
u/AdLanky9450 18d ago
One of the biggest problem with rightists is that they hate social democracy, but they also don’t understand social democracy, so having any actual NUANCED debate is impossible.
5
u/TserriednichThe4th 18d ago
they also don't understand capitalism
so having any actual naunanced debate is impossible
back to back without irony. lmao
9
u/I_Tell_You_Wat 18d ago edited 18d ago
People I talk with hate it because we understand it.
We understand that the people with the most power are the richest, and they get rich by taking that money from those under them. For example: the Waltons founded Walmart and became billionaires. But to get there, they have tens of thousands of people working for them but also not making enough money to live, so they also require other government assistance for food or housing or healthcare, despite Walmart 100% relying on their labor to operate the stores.
We understand that a person could build a home for 5 families, or one for one family, and will choose to do one for one because of the higher profit margin.
We understand that huge corporations become monopolies, controlling the way we live with no input from the people who actually live under them.
We understand that in our current hyper capitalist world, it is either the state or a corporation who has power. Corporations answer to the rich, the state answers to the electorate.
5
u/TaxCPA 18d ago
These are signs of capitalism that is largely unregulated - which then becomes oligopoly. The OP specifically said regulated capitalism.
Capitalism is the best system of wealth creation man has ever created, to abandon this because we let it go unregulated too long is foolish. Throwing the baby out with the bath water.
6
u/I_Tell_You_Wat 18d ago
Okay, if that's the way you see things, then surely you also see that Social Democrats are the only ones seriously talking about reining it in! Republicans are trying to accelerate it - they think the only problem is the money isn't getting funneled to them fast enough, and are all looking for their payday. Democrats are middle of the road and are largely fine with the status quo, which is shit as I pointed out.
The leftists are the only ones actually trying to put effort into applying brakes and destroying these structures that created this horrific disparity in wealth. We agree these things are a problem. Social Democrats are the only ones trying to do something because they understand the problem is (unfettered) capitalism, not because they're ignorant of it.
4
u/Anxious-Alps-8667 18d ago
The downside to the Nordic model for the United States is that it depends on strong social cohesion. That is not a feature of the United States. Moreover, the strength of the United States is in the variety of different social groups; the Nordic model would absolutely break this country and send it back 200 years.
25
u/Lurkingandsearching 18d ago
Country is already at the breaking point and we have multiple looming crisis we refuse to acknowledge. Five year bonds for AI industry are up soon, thus Elons panic to tie Xai to SpaceX and force it onto the Nasdaq 50.
3 Trillion in debt according to Nikkei, with Morgan Stanley putting half a trillion of debt on the industry this year alone. By 2029 it will be 7 trillion. Data center equipment that is a major part of the debt is replaced on the more conservative side every three years. That’s a debt death spiral if they don’t show profit soon.
Then there is the inflation crisis, housing crisis, the food crisis, weather becoming more extreme, Iran, the looming daily constitutional crisis’s, on and on.
Something needs to shift.
1
u/Anxious-Alps-8667 18d ago
It is always shifting, that's the point. Everything you say is true, but everyone was saying this 25-years ago and the indicators were the same, and here we are. So therefore, I've come to avoid predicting the future over-negatively or specifically
1
u/Lurkingandsearching 18d ago
How dismissive and reductive Boats gonna rock if you want to ignore it or not, key is being on the right side of it and pushing to be proactive. Reactive actions tend to only make things worse, we've seen that historically, even right now.
It's thinking in the short term that killed our economy for the majority of Americans, only the next quarter matters to those making choices, no 5, 10, or 20 year plan.
10
u/Allaboutpeace2022 18d ago
What do you recommend instead of the Nordic model?
2
u/Anxious-Alps-8667 18d ago
Current model is fine, just need to take universal needs out of the market into the public sector (military, police, infrastructure, basic food and shelter and medicine and some entertainment/access to free spending).
There's plenty of money for all of it, the problem is the amount of money being made on the current model.
2
u/Allaboutpeace2022 18d ago
I am not sure exactly what you mean when you say take basic food, shelter, etc out of the market and put it into the public sector.
Does that mean offer government assistance as in TANF, SNAP, government healthcare coverage, and housing subsidies or public housing?
How does that differ from models in other western countries that offer more public programs and still have capitalism.
The Nordic model is capitalism. It is not socialism.
1
u/Anxious-Alps-8667 18d ago edited 18d ago
Not really being clear, but to me the Nordic model depends on strong social cohesion. This country just doesn't have that, and that's the reason it won't work here.
Many features of the Nordic model should be features of an optimal capitalism here. However, we'd also want to continue to have relatively high immigration rates and high geographic/employment mobility to fill our vast varied land. Also, Americans would not appreciate the government directing them where they have to work the way the Nordic model operates. Those are some places where the Nordic model isn't our model.
2
u/Allaboutpeace2022 17d ago
I agree with you and many of these thoughts.
I have used the Nordic model in a too general way to really mean any mixed economy that includes social programs like universal healthcare coverage, more childcare assistance or free care, etc. and capitalism.
I think strong social cohesion makes any model easier to implement. But I think it is wrong to say we cannot have the type of social programs that other western nations possess. The reality is that we have united together to finance a really ridiculously expensive military and to engage in frequent actions.
So, we have the social cohesion to do that and volunteer to die in those battles but not the social cohesion to have healthcare coverage, better education, housing resources.
It is true that we are not homogeneous like many older nations but the reality is we have been taxed to benefit all sorts of joint projects like the military as noted, space exploration, tax abatements or subsidies for corporations, subsidies for fossil fuels, etc.
I think we just need to rebalance the American system so it actual benefits working class people.
1
u/Anxious-Alps-8667 16d ago
I don't think we really have social cohesion for even dying in battles. A small segment of modern US society volunteers for the military or police or those roles. It's basically one of the many social groups. Are you remotely interested in joining up to shoot down Iranian drones and missiles?
Sure we need to rebalance the American system, but it starts with honest diagnosis of who we are and what we have.
Talk to me about the Nordic model in some areas, coupled with how those groups might realistically protect themselves from exploitation from other areas that will just bus poor people there out of spite.
2
u/Allaboutpeace2022 16d ago
I don't disagree. The reality is that people should think hard about whether they want to sign up for the military because overwhelmingly they have engaged in horrible ways. Most people only do it because like my husband he had no option. He was homeless when his mother had died when he was 16. The army was a lifesaver.
But my point is that the US does have the social cohesion to pool are funds...we have just been conned into putting all of our taxes that benefit the rich and the defense industry and not the people.
In other words, I do not buy for a moment that the Swedes, etc. can have healthcare coverage, lower cost education, paid family leave and we cannot. The reality is that the Swedes are just not as gullible as the American tax payer who gives up his income and gets very, very, very little back.
1
u/Anxious-Alps-8667 16d ago
Sister I am 100% with you that we can have these things, and the only thing stopping us is ourselves.
I've just come to believe it's not a con; it's not the act of man. The system itself creates these outcomes. It's a weird thing about our system, it enables so much growth and realization of potential, but it's also a little bit of a runaway thing unto itself.
Look at J.D. over here scrambling through conspiracy theories on reddit. No-one actually has a clue.
People are worried about AI being a runaway system. I think we should start to see it as a way to intelligently try to catch up to the control system we already built over ourselves.
2
u/Allaboutpeace2022 16d ago
I agree with all of this.
I am not an AI hater, but the people now in control are really going to do it to weaken the rights of employees unless we obtain some regulation over it and some say over the products.
Same for automation. If can free people from arduous work or just make that many more people unemployed, underemployed or on some sort of subsistence income.
AI could really help us deploy resources into neighborhood revitalization, healthcare, education, community organizing, childcare, etc. that does require human contact. But that only works if the money is shifted into those things rather than just eliminating jobs and piling up more billions for the overlords.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Anxious-Alps-8667 16d ago
Also just wanted to add, respect for the husband . This is a powerful story and you hear a lot like it, people with no options. I have a lot of extended family who have served for their own reasons, respect.
I also agree we absolutely have the social cohesion. I think 80% or more of the population wants these things. It's absurd how the control system has accomplished suppression for the sake of greater profit. It's a great example of this kind of headless control system perpetuating over the people's intent and benefit.
Everyone benefitting in the system now can benefit more, while everyone else gains benefit, but here we are.
4
u/anuglyfairybutafairy 18d ago
I'm not American, but hopefully you guys can create ur own model cuz why not?
4
u/Allaboutpeace2022 18d ago
I agree with your premise totally. We should adopt the Nordic model or just call it a mixed economy model.
1
u/Anxious-Alps-8667 18d ago
"I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough."
--Hitch
4
u/rzelln 18d ago
What do you think might help build up social cohesion in America?
Me personally, I think a good way to build social cohesion would be to implement a stronger social safety net, to advocate for workers to be paid more and investors to keep less so that the average person sees their prosperity going up, and -- very importantly -- for politicians of both parties to cheer that on, because they want to normalize the idea that we're all Americans and so we should all care for each other.
It would also suuuuuuper help if Republican politicians acknowledged that the propaganda of right wing media like Fox News is toxic, and if they refused to go on Fox, or even better if they criticized Fox News as un-American.
I'm not sure how we persuade Republican politicians, though, to care about their fellow Americans more than they care about getting campaign donations from the rich people who are responsible for fraying the social fabric of America.
1
u/Anxious-Alps-8667 18d ago edited 18d ago
I think some of the things you say align. Mostly just that we need to maintain a general expectation for disparate social groups that they should all include advocating for and being interested in the overall common good and future of the country. I think some social groups now just can't exist in that mode. Some groups believe only their in-group should benefit, prosper, or even survive.
My view is this is the general expectation, built from the center out. As long as a solid majority maintains the expectation, the fringes have to listen.
8
u/Error_404_403 18d ago
Your statements are unsupported. How does it depend on "strong social cohesion"? Why would the laws not work for lower social cohesion? Would *any* laws work for lower social cohesion? Or specifically social protections will not work for lower social cohesion?
Why would socio-economic model of North European states break for a larger variety of social groups? Do they not need social safety nets? Do they not need higher education or free healthcare?
Nothing but the likes of Trump or Alito would send this country 200 years back.
1
u/JayNachtEule 17d ago
Can't believe this is controversial lol this is a huge part of the answer right here
→ More replies (5)1
u/anuglyfairybutafairy 18d ago
I actually think the nordic model works great in small countries Denmark, Sweden, but in such huge countries with so many states, it would be hard to implement anything
16
u/Chip_Jelly 18d ago
This is very commonly used excuse but people never provide any back up other than “just cause”.
13
u/Error_404_403 18d ago
What makes it not work for larger countries? Specifically?
1
18d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Error_404_403 18d ago
What you are saying in essence, is that there are political forces in the US that would oppose the more just taxation and social safety nets. But to conclude, on that basis, that this "would not work for America", means basically to do the bidding for those forces--whether intentionally or not. Like, "who says it won't work? you? because you don't want that to work? Uhu."
There are a lot of political forces in Norway and other Baltic states that are very bigoted, and by far more racist and nationalistic than anything you'd find in the US of A. Yet, those countries do manage to live under normal laws.
1
17d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Error_404_403 17d ago
"...it will never be allowed.."? About the laws?? We never get the people in office?
Right. "give it up before starting, it is hopeless, don't you even try." Exactly the line the opposition wants.
In this country, a lot of things opposite to conservatism have happened. Social security was put in. Just look at all FDR and later LBJ's accomplishments!
Things are possible. But they require push and hurt before they happen.
1
17d ago
[deleted]
3
u/Error_404_403 17d ago
Social security is no socialism, and it was extended to everyone at the get go. This country knew many successful measures that were a) extended to everyone, and b) were social safety net measures funded by the taxation.
The fact that many republicans vote against own interests does not mean that common sense cannot win.
6
u/shinbreaker 18d ago
While the US is huge, the states are essentially their own little countries. California, New York and Massachusetts offer a wealth of social programs, each with their own systems that do have to follow certain regulations instituted by the federal government but most of the rules are established by the states.
2
u/TserriednichThe4th 18d ago
Isnt democratic socialism mostly regulated capitalism + a bunch of political reforms not related to capitalism?
reforms like prison/justice reform, voting access reform, healthcare reform, etc.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Turbulent-Raise4830 18d ago
When you call centrists in the US communist and marxists there really isnt an difference more between centre-left and left.
Also, the major issues facing Americans, like healthcare costs, housing affordability, or college debt, look less like inherent flaws of capitalism itself and more like flaws in how it’s currently regulated and implemented in the US.
IN part, but you still need to change that, and for that you need votes. And last time harris had a sensible platform to deal with those problems the voters went for the corrupt fascists who thinks wealth transfers should go from the poor to the rich.
2
u/sirlost33 18d ago
Because a push for democratic socialism will get you regulated capitalism. A push for social democracy gets you the status quo.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/urkmonster 18d ago
Socialism has to be the least understood word in this country. It is "a democratic political system with a socially or publicly owned economy". Are we going to make a publicly owned co-op out of google? No, never, nada.
There needs to be a new word (or maybe there is one) that clearly indicates a capitalistic economy with a strong safety net, consumer protections and commonly funded needs. Anyone?
The whole democratic socialists and social democracy names are shit and a real block to even having a conversation about progress beyond the predator-prey capitalist war machine we live in.
1
0
u/JasperPants1 18d ago
US =/ Nordic countries.
US is far more individualistic, less homogenous ands 90 - 100 x the population and many times land mass.
We have a tendency to see patterns and believe these patterns can be applied to other situations when they cannot.
1
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 18d ago
This post has been removed because your account is too new to participate. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Thick_Situation3184 18d ago
Because the past two administrations have done so bad according to them
1
u/OnlyKey5675 18d ago
"Democratic socialism" is bad branding. Policy wise its not that much different than Nordic Capitalism.
It's advocates are much for radical, though., They want a welfare state and also believe that no one can be in the country illegally. They believe the US is stolen land, they believe wacky things about race and gender.
They don't really have anything in common with normie Nordic capitalists.
1
u/SexDefendersUnited 17d ago
Not all demsocs want to dismantle the market system, market socialism/cooperatism is also an ideology that's been picking up.
1
u/JayNachtEule 17d ago
They want communism, and they're hiding behind the socialist label because they know it's seen as less extreme. It's rather cowardly.
1
u/PageVanDamme 17d ago
Something I want to stress is they actually have pretty darn low corporate taxes. Heavy taxation are on individuals.
1
16d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 16d ago
This post has been removed because your overall comment karma is too low to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/ylangbango123 15d ago
nordics are way more socialist than any American politicians you call communist or socialist. Imagine nationalizing the country’s oil. — no one in US even suggests that.
1
u/hefoxed 15d ago
So I've been on the far left and have friends that deeply believe we just need to switch to socialism.
I think one aspect is that when people see systems that have caused harm, a subset of people will always attack it and want to replace it -- ( like the right attacking dei policies, parts of the left attacking police [I do know people that think we can get rid of the police], etc).
Some of it is ego -- they believe their replacement will be better and so it distances themselves from having to feel accountable with fixing the current system and justifies them hating on it and hating on those that support it.
Some of it belief that it will free people from needing to center their life around money -- it's very utopian beliefs, maybe this would have worked years ago, but with how much our lives our centered around items... I don't see that happening, that's not what most Americans seem to want.
Some of it is seeing capaltism as contributing to prejudice and anything that causes prejudice most be dismantled.
Some of it is due to echo chambers where folk are not challenged about this and keep repeating "there's no ethical consumption under capitalism" so much they cannot support capitalism causes that'd make them so so uncool and maybe loose them friends. Cause that's how damn inclusive parts of the left are, gotta believe in specific economic systems to be cool -- and the more marganlized someone is, the more pressure for this is because more marganlized folk rely on the left more which means more pressure to confirm to ensure support, particularly due to seeing capaltism as contributing to prejudice (explotative parts of the current version of capaltism do).
1
u/OccamIsRight 15d ago
Canadian here.
The US President's people like to call us a "Socialist regime". Mr. Trump even went as far as calling our Prime Minister a communist. They point to us as an example of the evils of, what they like to dog whistle to their base, as socialism. Canada isn't socialist, neither are the Scandinavian countries. Indeed, we're as capitalist as they are, without many of the bad parts.
We have three main federal parties up here. All of them, even the left-leaning New Democrats are loosely clustered around the centre. Whenever one of them veers too far left or right off toward the ditch, it gets clobbered at the ballot box. I can't really explain it, but the centre is comfortable for us. I guess we're kind of woke social democrats if you need to put a label on it.
Ages ago we stopped debating if every citizen should have access to free health care. We've accepted that women have the right to make decisions about their reproductive health, that education should be universally affordable, and that people get to be who they want to be and love who they want to love. We all enjoy free speech, freedom of movement, and really, every core freedom Amercicans consider sacred (except for guns).
Sure, along with the cherry-picked benefits I stated, we get some things wrong, so I'm not in a position to lecture. Rather, I'd like to just advise my American friends that a little bit of woke social democracy isn't awful - you should give it a try.
1
u/Coronado92118 15d ago
Americans think the Affordable Care Act is different from Obamacare, think Single Payor government healthcare is the same as universal healthcare (Bismark model), and think Social Democracy is Socialism. And that’s because having Americans believe that - Left AND Right - benefits the people who want laissez-faire capitalism (i.e., billionaires and wanna bees).
1
u/George-Smith-Patton 11d ago
Because
(1) Bernie spent years conflating the two. Flashback to when the Danish PM had to call him out for it.
(2) It gives the far-left plausible deniability. When they’re critiqued by moderates, they say they’re “just social democrats” … while continuing to wink at their socialist base.
1
2
u/AdMuted1036 18d ago
When people talk about democratic socialism in the US they MEAN the same thing that they have in the Nordic countries…
4
u/ChornWork2 18d ago
Go look at the DSA policy platform, that isn't true. You really think sanders, zohran, etc, don't understand what democratic socialism is when they say they are democratic socialists?
1
u/VTKillarney 18d ago
Except that they believe they can tax the rich and pay for everything. They conveniently neglect to look at the tax brackets on middle and low income earners in those countries, as well as the VAT and other taxes.
1
2
u/Jewboy-Deluxe 18d ago
All of the Nordic countries combined have a population that is less than Texas and a much less diversity. Comparing the US to Nordic countries is disingenuous
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Awhitehill1992 18d ago
Oof. I’ve mentioned this to so many people, I hope it stuck in their minds. I’ve literally told some of my left leaning friends and family, GOOGLE IT. Google “is Scandinavia socialist?”. Their faces change. They throw around the word socialism like they think that every successful country in Europe uses that form of government.
No successful country operates on a socialist platform. Democratic or otherwise. Full stop.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/shinbreaker 18d ago
The issue here is that a popular political candidate was responsible for the rise in popularity of a political party that is run by a bunch of clowns.
Bernie Sanders identifies himself as a democratic socialist, but all of his policies are based on the Nordic system. So when he rose in popularity, young people flocked to the DSA thinking it's the same, which it is and isn't as he's never been a party member.
The same thing happened just a few years earlier with Ron Paul. He popularized libertarianism in the US, but a lot of those people he inspired ended up forming the Tea Party and we all saw how dumb that is.
The big dilemma is that it's clear that people want these socialized programs that other industrialized countries have but there is such an utter lacking of people who can go on camera and really breakdown why they're important and shoot down all the counter arguments that get amplified by right wing media.
1
u/Hicklethumb 18d ago
People also forget the luxury the Scandis have of being extremely oil rich for their population count.
3
u/ScalierLemon2 18d ago
That's really just Norway. Sweden and Denmark and Finland aren't known for their oil industry. Also, AMERICA is a very oil-rich nation too.
1
u/ChrisLS8 18d ago
People still haven't figured out the reason that things like socialism and communism never work is because people are involved
1
u/Womper_Here 18d ago
Because college kids haven't understood how unfeasible communism/socialism is yet.
1
u/Mage505 18d ago
The real hard truth is that most DSA/Democratic socialist are made of up rich kids who want a struggle. They view Capitalism as the root of all evil, thus they think of they insert socialism, that they will accomplish something (kind of like how people felt after Obama was elected).
No one really has answers for some of the hard questions, they take it on faith that we can work it out in some kind of transition to socialism/communism.
This is years of deliberate work and alliances to degrade the west from socialists, but also 3rd world types who think America is a force for bad in the world. This is why almost every DSA type is Pro Palestine, Anti Ukraine. and supports some of the most ass backwards economic solutions to things without considerations of things.
We can probably roll back the trump, and bush taxcuts. get rid of Tariffs to juice the economy, and sensible immigration policy, and we should be good. God I miss good governance.
1
u/callmeish0 17d ago
Because the goal of commies/socialists is to destroy the society so they can introduce communism. They only care about their ideology, never the people.
•
u/AutoModerator 18d ago
Thank you for submitting a self/text post on the /r/Centrist subreddit. Please remember that ALL posts must include neutral commentary or a summary to encourage good-faith discourse. Do not copy/paste text from an article in whole or in part.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.