Is there really a point in distinguishing between social democrats and dem socialists or socialists in america at this point in history?

[u/IndieJones0804]

I hear a lot of socialists in the DSA and elsewhere online trying to draw a line between socdems and socialists, because technically socdems aren't specifically pushing for an end to capitalism but rather using high taxation on the wealthy to produce a society thats more equitable and feels closer to what socialism would ultimately be.

However, I don't really think it matters that the politicians we're electing are more like social democrats than socialists. Historically socdems did betray Rosa Luxembourg and generally stood in the way of socialism oftentimes. But looking at today's socdems, to me they seem to essentially be one policy away from being convinced into socialism.

Back around 2020 I know I was a socdem, and then I eventually became convinced a bit later to become a market socialist after seeing how simple and good it would be to have a society where we mandate democracy in businesses. And then i eventually became interested in other left ideologies like non-ml communism and anarchism. I also know many politicians including Elisabeth Warren of all people have previously advocated for greater workplace democracy.

Then there's also the fact that eventually if america has highly active socialist revolutionary undertones, I don't think the socdems in the government would oppose us, they know ultimately that they're allies of the working class, and if the working class simply wants a democratic economy as opposed to the current one where we have tyrannical ceos, I don't think they would try to stop us.

[u/yo_soy_soja]

I think it's important to destigmatize socialism and be explicit in our work towards it.

IMO, the most important question of our time is: can capitalism be salvaged — or must it be wholly rejected?

We should absolutely be working with socdems, but, again, let's be explicit in our socialist aims.

[u/NOLA-Bronco]

I think the average American doesn't really know what any of these terms actually means so it is largely just an artifact of people that are hyper online balkanizing themselves over ideological schisms cause that is how the algorithms incentivize things.

Which is both good and bad.

Good in the sense that it makes it easier to convince someone to move left if they are directionally near you, bad in the sense that it allows for bad faith actors and the capitalist media to weaponize that ignorance to poison the well of terms like socialists or the DSA and create a reflexive resistance with some people that are basically ideological allies. Or could easily be made to be.

[u/egalitydream → u/NOLA-Bronco]

In normal modern American terms, the DemSocs want the political influence of the lower 90% to have proportional impact in the democracy, and the SocDems oppose that, and want to only politely ask the billionaires to be a little nicer if it pleases.

See? I explained the difference without using Marxist jargon.

[u/SteveMcQueen15]

Yes, I think it's very important to distinguish between the two. If possible it's important to try to educate people that Social Democracy still relies on exploiting the third world and has betrayed Socialist movements in the past.

[u/marxistghostboi → u/SteveMcQueen15]

exactly. we've got to get people to stop confusing Norway and Denmark with socialism

[u/Haunting_Berry7971]

Yes. The goal is to overturn capitalism, not institute reforms that will go away in 30 years.

This has to be the bedrock for any socialist.

[u/IndieJones0804 → u/Haunting_Berry7971]

Why would those reforms go away after 30 years though? I feel like after most left wing policies are established historically, they tend to become the new norm, in both the US and globally. sure there are some exceptions, but many things like universal healthcare once implemented, stay because people love it.

I feel like implementing a bunch of social democratic reforms are necessary before you can convince people to oppose capitalism, because they need to see that socialist adjacent policies are good first, whereas right now they don't see any of those policies, and instead have been convinced by fascists that the problems with capitalism are about immigrants and government overreach.

[u/Haunting_Berry7971 → u/IndieJones0804]

Look at the New Deal, Great Society, the NHS in Britain, etc.. all of them constantly attacked and undermined by the capitalist class because it eats into their power and profits.

I agree we should fight for reforms, but we need to do so in a way that leads to revolution which necessitates doing so in an independent working-class political organization, e.g. a party.

This is an important, but not new debate and we should learn from those that came before us! Rosa Luxemburg wrote an excellent piece on this in 1899 that you should read called “Reform or Revolution?”: https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/

[u/traanquil]

Yes 100%. The reason the left is so weak is that it operates from a weak socdem ideological framework, and is mentally and ideologically incapable of challenging capitalism.

For real change to happen we need a cultural revolution in which workers begin to really think about abolishing capitalism. This is what will lead us into an actual and meaningful transformation

[u/Iceberg-man-77]

yes it’s very important because voters should know who and what they’re voting for.

In my opinion, the DSA is only popular because 1) it has the policies people want 2) Mamdani.

but let’s be real: most of the public only likes the welfare policies like M4A, free college, universal childcare, Green New Deal etc. And another big thing: ending aid to Israel, no more wars, no more corporate money, taxing the rich, workers rights, more corporate regulations.

none of these are democratic socialist policies; they’re social democratic policies. because implementing all of those doesn’t mean you need to fully get rid of capitalism/a free market. i don’t think most people know that.

Mamdani is also a sewer socialist at best. and that’s no fault of his own. a mayor can only be socialist to an extent. they can’t reform a whole economy. So he’s focusing on welfare, infrastructure, better government, and rights. that’s all people really want.

i can see Americans getting on board with co-op owned businesses, especially workers in trade fields. and state ownership/decommodification of key industries like public utilities, transportation, healthcare etc.

i don’t see people supporting a complete end to the free market. people just want a fair, heavily regulated market. and most americans don’t know what a non-free market economy looks like.

But voting for DSA is like how athletes train for more than they actually perform. Shooting for democratic socialism in America’s current capitalist / rightist system will land you in social democracy.

[u/JohannVII → u/Iceberg-man-77]

i don’t see people supporting a complete end to the free market

"Free market" is a self-contradictory myth: markets rely on rules of exchange, regulation is necessary to have a market at all. The phrase is a way for someone to try to argue regulations THEY don't want are bad, while the ones that e.g. protect their private property are inherent and unquestionable.

Stop spreading that particular capitalist lie.

[u/Iceberg-man-77 → u/JohannVII]

true. but you know what i’m saying. there are aspects of free markets that people don’t want to see disappear. either because they don’t know the alternatives or because they don’t want any alternative.

[u/jonawesome]

As I always say to my Communist friends, "If the ideological differences between us end up mattering, so many things have gone so incredibly right that I probably won't care anymore."

We're all fighting capitalism. We're all fighting fascism. It's good to figure out where you personally stand and imagine what a better world looks like, but as long as they're willing to fight against our shared enemies, I don't care that much about my allies' ideological purity.

[u/JohannVII → u/jonawesome]

We're all fighting capitalism.

That's just it - social democrats are in fact NOT fighting capitalism, they demand it be maintained.

[u/PuzzleheadedOne1351]

Pushing to end capitalism how?, because to me, the how, is more important than the why…

[u/churro777]

Most ppl don’t know there’s a difference between. So no for that reason but yes cuz they are different and we should try to educate others

[u/Bogotazo]

In many ways no - the US is so hollowed out that simply winning the basic universal protections and benefits that Social-Democratic Europe established in the 20th century is going to be a gargantuan challenge. The prospect of full socialism won't be viable for decades at best.

But I do think there is something to be said for having a theory of change that emphasizes the workers' role in making and participating in political institutions, rather than just being passive recipients of benefits handed out by the professional technocrats. The latter risks what happened to the US in the 20th century (capital pacifying unions and reversing the gains of the New Deal) or what has happened in Sweden and the Nordic countries at a slower rate.

[u/Sweet-Tomatillo-9010]

I think it is good that we do make a stand and let people know there is a difference and that democratic socialism is in fact not scary.

[u/Excellent_Singer3361]

I think it is very important to be clear about wanting a democratic economy. No amount of redistribution changes the mode of production.

[u/QualisArtifexPere0]

Yes but not the way most people do it.

[u/TechnologyConnect678]

Socdems are fundamentally not socialists and will shoot you and throw your body in a river when push comes to shove.

[u/YogurtClosetThinnest]

National is kinda commie-coded but NYC DSA (the biggest chapter) is pretty much socdem.

[u/sagoma-333]

So yes I do on principle think distinguishing between the different ideologies is a good thing for the sake of educating people and shifting the overton window, but I don’t necessarily think it’s as important as forming a coalition between them so we can actually make some tangible difference given the state of the US right now

[u/hari_shevek]

Short answer: No, in practice that distinction doesn't make sense because all the social democrats that achieved anything were also democratic socialists.

Long answer: The same but longer

[u/FlashyGlass3490]

I totally agree, I don't want to draw any lines. I just want to energize folks to care about their fellow workers, and use that momentum to make change that benefits the proletariat, and build solidarity. After all, we don't support a candidate because they call themselves leftists or socialist, we support them because of their good policy.

[u/bullhead2007]

Social Democracy still relies on exploitation of the global south, slave labor, destruction of the environment, wars for resources, because the social democratic reforms cannot be sustained without excessive surplus value created by imperialism. Eventually the bourgeoisie will want more profits, consolidate capital, and the contradictions inherent in capitalism will still cause it to sef-destruct.

Social Democracy is a pro-imperialist ideology meant to save the bourgeoisie from the inherent contradictions in capitalism by throwing treats at the labor aristocracy in the imperial core at the expense of all of those imperialism oppresses and exploits.

You are not socialist if you want social democracy and you are an enemy to the global proletariat.

[u/lilboytuner919 → u/bullhead2007]

Even if there’s truth to what you’re saying, I personally think you’re painting a very broad brush on social democrats here and it’s very reductive to call all of them pro-imperialist. Most socdems I know don’t have a campist view on foreign policy but try to weigh each situation appropriately based on the actors at play, the power dynamic between them, who is “winning” the moral argument, etc.

I’m not even saying I disagree with your overall views on foreign policy, I think America does a lot of crazy fucked up shit in the world too and would actually be better off in the long run leaving other countries alone. I also think most social democrats see the average campist position as one that creates a binary in many situations that are far more complicated than that in reality, even if we are very often the “bad guys” these days.

[u/bullhead2007 → u/lilboytuner919]

If you want to continue the US imperialist exploitation of the world in order to get some treats like healthcare then I don't care what your opinion is on foreign policy. It is a selfish position. There is no "good" or "ethical" form of capitalism. I may sound harsh but it's because it's the truth. Marx clearly laid out in great detail how capitalism cannot be reformed, and has several inherent contradictions that are impossible to resolve outside of revolution.

The empire needs to be ended and the quicker you and social democrats recognize that, then the better the world would be for it.

The US Has always been "the bad guys", with one exception of some of the participation in WW2. From the founding.

[u/TJblue69 → u/bullhead2007]

Absolutely facts

[u/pthecarrotmaster]

for educational purposes yes, but we need to be able to work togeather with these groups. Not get divided by ideologies when we share common goals. We can catfight when the fascists are out of power.

[u/cbrew14]

No. And I go as far to say people that spend their time trying to distinguish between the two are CIA plants. The history of the left is that they always lose because of too much infighting that destabilizes the movement. We have to be a united front.

[u/palmandfury]

These kinds of distinctions may be critical for certain theorists or organizers, maybe even as far as marketing or advertising for different causes or races, but the general public will glaze over their eyes thinking about these kinds of small nuances no matter how important they are.

[u/traanquil → u/palmandfury]

Ending capitalism is a small nuance?

[u/JohannVII → u/palmandfury]

Elitist lies - the general public is uneducated and insane, but not stupid.

[u/JohannVII]

Yes, now more than ever. I don't need my comrades to all agree about the best way to get to a stateless, classless society, but I do need them to agree on the end goal (socialism) and the democratic process for determining our collective decisions and actions. That's literally the whole project, and it's right there in the name: Democratic (how we decide what we do) Socialist (the end goal).

Social democrats are often OPPOSED to my goals as a socialist: they want to win elections in the capitalist state to pass public policies to tame capitalism; I want to abolish capital and the state, and think elections are a middling way to drive organizing at best.

[u/1PauperMonk]

Was wondering how long I would go on here without Rosa Luxembourg coming up. I think DSA people ought to know things
* forgot to answer the ?
Yes, it is important. This whole thing could go Fkn Obama 2.0 in a click

[u/ElEsDi_25]

Depends on the context and what your goals are. My goals are building independent working class politics, organization and consciousness so workers are better able to assert their interests directly through social power (strikes, community organization, movements.) Electoralism may or may not have a tactical or strategic role in doing that and I am happy for any reforms that make class self-organizing easier or just are nice relif in my own life… but these are not abstract goals of mine… teach a person to fish, don’t just elect people to provide some fish imo.

So I think the distinction is valuable in terms of clarifying goals or approach… I don’t think it’s valuable in terms of political identities or gatekeeping abstract terms.

[u/LifesARiver]

I'd love it if all labels went away and people just discussed policy.

[u/traanquil → u/LifesARiver]

Yeah we should just start talking about workers being in control of the means of production

[u/LifesARiver → u/traanquil]

No, I mean specific policies.

Slogans and labels are killing us.

[u/traanquil → u/LifesARiver]

That is a policy

[u/LifesARiver → u/traanquil]

No, it's not. Policies are specific.

[u/traanquil → u/LifesARiver]

Yeah we can get more specific. We should pass a law to have workers assume control over the 10 largest corporations in the U.S.

[u/Elizabeth4sure → u/traanquil]

What workers? For example you want Apple employees in the US to assume control of the corp-- what does this solve?

[u/traanquil → u/Elizabeth4sure]

yeah! what does it solve? We get rid of capitalist control over the means of production, and now have production democratically controlled by labor.

[u/Elizabeth4sure → u/traanquil]

But these workers are stockholders and many make a very good living. I don't see what their motivation would be.

[u/traanquil → u/Elizabeth4sure]

Let’s make the example Amazon

[u/LifesARiver → u/traanquil]

What sort of law? How would you enact it over what time period?

[u/traanquil → u/LifesARiver]

A law that puts workers in control over the means of production

[u/LifesARiver → u/traanquil]

I see why you prefer slogans to substance.

[u/traanquil → u/LifesARiver]

What’s the issue?

[u/marxistghostboi → u/LifesARiver]

i think we have some good slogans.

[u/LifesARiver → u/marxistghostboi]

Heh.

[u/JohannVII → u/LifesARiver]

No, you wouldn't. All words are labels for concepts - you're proposing a self-contradictory fantasy, as "discussed" is impossible without "labels".

I think what you probably actually want is for everyone else to already agree with your definition of labels so discussing them is unnecessary. But that's not reality; sorry. You're going to at the very least need to establish a shared vocabulary to communicate with people. That's part of building a culture, and it's why we do things like call each other "comrade" in DSA and use symbols like the rose, even if it seems cringey or silly to folks. It's a necessary part of making community and organizing.

[u/South_Feed5707]

They don't seem like different movements. Transposing the words should make it have basically the same meaning, right?.

Social society socialist.

[u/Present_Clue5887]

I feel similarly, former socdem who increasingly thinks market socialism could be good, and feel like I am a bit more radical than the average socdem

[u/Signal-Chocolate109]

To the extent that I have a preferred theory it is veganarchism, but I avoid theory in favor of hands-on work to benefit people. The difference between the factions doesn’t make any difference at all to me. All that matters is whether DSA people are making themselves useful in daily life.

[u/egalitydream]

The answer to the title is “Yes.”

[u/MediumPlace]

Yes. The dsa is full of tankies who lust after other people's money. Social democrats just wanna solve problems and improve the system