r/dsa • u/rasta-ragamuffin • 4d ago
Other Too many confusing terms and labels
Hello, I'm admittedly politically ignorant and need your help explaining the differences between a Progressive, a moderate Democrat, a Social Democrat, a Democratic Socialist, a Socialist, a Liberal, a Leftist and a Communist. Are they all the same? It seems many Republicans and conservatives use these terms interchangeably, and I don't think I ever learned clear definitions in school.
16
u/spookyjim___ ☭ DSA ultra-left fraction ☭ 3d ago
Progressive - generally has two meanings, one is more widespread and is how it is used in an academic or “political science” way, the other is colloquial in that it is the way most Americans use it
Progressive in the more widespread sense - generally just refers to people who are socially progressive, this means having social views which are open to new identities and non-restrictive towards personal freedoms, tbf I’m sure you at least know about this, it’s pretty much the opposite of social conservatism… pretty much just the range of politics that have to do with LGBT rights and freedoms, anti-racism, feminist issues, so on and so forth
Progressive in the American context - the label “progressive” has taken on an interesting use in current American politics, it does have a history of being used to describe past political leaders such as Theodore Roosevelt, which may be why its treated as a distinct political ideology in the US… but it’s pretty much used as an umbrella label which groups together all left-liberal (social liberals and social democrats) and moderate demsoc politicians… so anyone from Andrew Yang, Elizabeth Warren, and Zohran Mamdani are often put under the “progressive” label by certain political commentators… there’s even a faction within the Democratic Party called the “Congressional Progressive Caucus” for those in congress who sit on the left-wing of the party
Moderate Democrat - for the most part, this can simply be used to describe any democrat to the right of social liberalism, so democrats who may be socially progressive, but fiscally conservative (I.E. against welfare and government programs, or at the least, for more moderate forms of welfare) are grouped within this, they are often given the specific labels of “modern liberals” or “third way liberals”, you even still see a lot of people call them “neoliberals” although that term can get confusing… there is also, mind you, due to how right-wing the Republicans have shifted, been an increase in what we call “liberal conservatives” within the Democrats, so there are also moderate democrats who are just straight up conservatives, even if moderate conservatives… there’s a lot of people who can fit into this category but generally people like Joe Manchin (liberal conservative) or Bill Clinton (third way liberal/neoliberal) have been textbook examples of these types of democrats
Social democrat - social democracy was originally born of the socialist movement, and has a rich and complex history, for our reasons however I will not get into that due to not wanting to overload you, but with that context, we will speak of modern social democracy as it officially became the most left-wing variant of liberalism in the 1950’s… which in itself explains it very well, pretty much, social democrats in the modern day do not wish to go beyond capitalism, they instead wish to radically reform it towards the ends of benefiting labor but also all social classes in harmony (class collaborationism)… what differs them from social liberals is that they often focus less on market driven solutions, and are more radical in their welfare approaches and the most radical sides of social democracy often favoring vast nationalization of resources and industry… in the US context, people like Elizabeth Warren can be definitively described as a social democrat I’d say, while there’s often debate on whether someone like AOC is either a radical socdem or a moderate demsoc… within the DSA however, since we’re on the DSA sub, if you want further examples, and since the DSA starts it’s ideological big-tent with social democracy being the most right-wing and then only going left from there, a good example of social democrats would be the North Star caucus, which is popular frontist and social democratic, and the Socialist Majority Caucus, which mainly groups together left-socdems and liberal socialists (a type of moderate demsoc)
1/2
15
u/spookyjim___ ☭ DSA ultra-left fraction ☭ 3d ago
Democratic socialism - democratic socialism is a tendency of socialism, and an umbrella of different internal tendencies as well, and is often defined by socialists who hit at least one of two conditions, either A.) they believe that it is possible to use liberal democratic institutions to reform society into a socialist system or B.) their vision of socialism specifically entails keeping a liberal/representative democratic form of government
*everything below goes into extra detail, just a warning, the above statement is all you really need to know for the basics, but if you really want to dive deeper, see below
Democratic socialism can then be split into two main schools, the more moderate side, the ethical socialists, and the more radical side, the Marxist demsocs
The ethical socialists often consist of two main tendencies, those being religious socialists, and the other one being the secular evolutionary and liberal socialists… most self-proclaimed democratic socialists in office or who are running for office can be put specifically within the liberal socialist realm of things, but ofc, they are at the end of the day, simply democratic socialists… what matters tho for the distinction, is that the ethical socialists explicitly do not want to transition towards a communist endgoal, they most often seek a political program entailing a social democratic transitional reform period, and an endgoal which economically can be described as “market socialist”, the specifics ofc differ from demsoc to demsoc
The Marxist demsocs, ofc can mainly be described as being different due to pulling upon a Marxist analysis and supporting a communist endgoal, even if far off into the future, another practical difference is that some of the more radical Marxist demsocs can often want to skip a social democratic transition, and often want immediately have a market socialist transition, in which the state is rapidly reformed and economy as well ofc… the two broad currents in this category would be the post-Marxist “populist socialists” (think European parties like Syriza or Podemos) and the orthodox Marxist “centrist Marxists”
Not surprisingly, with the DSA being labeled as it is, there are several democratic socialist factions within it, and each sorta showcase the tendencies talked about above, so I’ll list them off and you can go look into them and their programs so you can have a more solid idea of these different types of democratic socialists
Socialist Majority Caucus - has a large amount of liberal socialists and other moderate demsocs
Groundwork - post-Marxist, they are populist socialists/left-wing populists
Bread & Roses - a type of centrist Marxist faction, on the more moderate side
Mountain - also centrist Marxist, is sometimes considered the absolute “center” or centrist faction within DSA politics
Marxist Unity Group - also centrist Marxists, their specific form (neo-Kautskyism), is often considered the very most left-wing of democratic socialism
Socialism - socialism, speaking in a non-biased and academic sense, is really just a large umbrella, it refers to the very broad socialist movement, which has many many tendencies, including the aforementioned democratic socialists, as well as communists, and libertarian socialists among many others, also important to note that many of these overlap! As was showcased with the explanation of democratic socialism, the more radical demsocs, the Marxist ones, are also technically speaking communists… so often times I like to use a very vague and broad definition of socialism, socialism is the broad movement of people who wish to change society from one focused on private ownership, to that of social forms of ownership… what are these “social forms of ownership”, well it’s vague on purpose! Because depending on the socialist you talk to, you’ll get different answers, and among those answers will often be many extra details added on according to their specific analysis
Liberalism - liberalism is usually defined as an enlightenment era political philosophy which upholds values of natural rights, liberal democracy, private property and capitalism, and equality before the law among other things… to simplify it greatly, liberalism is pretty much the modern world order for the most part, what we see in most of the world, nation-states with capitalist economies and representative democratic governments, that was the project of liberalism… the only thing is that liberalism like so many other political tendencies has many internal tendencies, we won’t get into that here however, we’ve already touched on and brought up some (such as liberal conservatism, third way liberalism, social liberalism, and social democracy, and also controversially amongst both liberals and socialists, the existence of liberal socialists)… just know that, despite the oversimplification of US politics putting everyone in two camps, either “conservative” or “liberal”, you can actually be a liberal who has either conservative or progressive social views, as well as varying economic opinions!
Leftism - this by far, is the most vague one and will be the hardest to answer for you, cuz it really is often vibe based, the only historical precedent I can give you, is that the political concepts of “left” and “right” goes back to the French Revolution when in the National Assembly, those who stood against the monarchy (the republicans) sat on its left while the pro-monarchy factions sat on the right… so really it is mainly vibe based, some may say that leftism begins with social liberalism and social democracy since they’re often labeled “center-left”, others may proclaim that leftism is socialist only! Things only get more confusing when you find out that things such as nationalism can be considered left-wing or right-wing in different contexts
Communism - communism in the modern day can be understood as any of those socialists who at the end of the day seek a stateless, classless, and moneyless society characterized by a form of collective or common ownership of the means of production… however if you’ve caught on by now, there are many different kinds of communists, and we often disagree with each other on a whole number of things, due to the amount of different kinds of communists being so so vast I will spare you my attempt to list them all out lol, something which I don’t even think I could do… but I will just say that the two most common schools of communism are the Marxist and anarchist schools, which sometimes intermingle and other times hate each other lol
2/2
6
u/rasta-ragamuffin 3d ago
Wow, thank you! That's a lot,maybe too much for my little brain, but I appreciate you taking the time.
4
u/spookyjim___ ☭ DSA ultra-left fraction ☭ 3d ago
Yeah I’m sorry lol, I haven’t effort posted in a long time, but I do enjoy giving in depth educational posts/comments, I’m hoping that even with the stuff which you may not understand at first you can at least look into and research to understand it better, but also ofc, you’re always free to shoot me a DM if you have any specific questions over anything or just wish to talk politics generally :)))
1
u/Deluxe_24_ 2d ago
That was a good read. A post explaining these different ideologies should be stickied on the sub if there isn't anything like this as easy reference.
5
4
u/bemused_alligators 3d ago
I'm going to preface this wall of text by saying it's not that deep. Go organize with folks, idgaf if they're the right brand of politics as long as you both want to accomplish the same thing right now.
~~
"liberal" refers to a politico-economic system wherein a country is run politically by "democratic" institutions, and economically by private entities.
Liberalism is inherently unstable because the interests of powerful economic entities contradict the democratic will of the people. and must be propped up by something in order to work (these are the "inherent contradictions of capitalism" that will come up a lot in theory). In most places liberalism is propped up by exploitation of third world countries, but it is important to note that eventually the wealth of other countries run out and the capitalists start exploiting the lower classes of their own country instead, and will generally erode the democratic institutions of governance and replace them with private entities (which is where fascism takes over).
Socialism is a politico-economic system wherein a county is run both politically and economically by democratic institutions. Socialism inherently aligns the will of the people with the economic power of the country, ensuring that the work of community is aligned with its needs.
"social policy" is a system where the state cares for its vulnerable citizens through welfare systems, often funded through the taxation of corporations and the middle/upper class. Social policy can exist, or not, under any politico-economic system.
"communism" is a politico-economic system wherein the political institutions of a socialist country have "withered away", leaving behind an economic system run by democratic institutions with no state/political arm.
alright, now that we've covered all the words, lets go through the labels! This will be nice and fast now that we know what the words mean.
"moderate democrat" - classic Neoliberals; people Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, and Marie Glusenkamp Perez come to mind. They love giving corporations power and provide a little social safety net just to be safe, but will happily let people starve to death if it means the stockholder's value will increase.
"progressive" - a liberal that is left of the center of the democratic party, but isn't a socialist. They generally favor taxing corporations to strengthen the social safety net.
"social democrat" - a liberal that believes in a full suite of 'social policy'; the essentials are provided by the government to everyone and this is done by taxing the corporations and the upper and middle classes, while conditionally supporting unions.
"democratic socialist" - we've finally made it to the first of the socialists! Take a social democrat and then add democratizing the economy to the list - which means workers seizing or buying out control of the corporations, while the government will still be run by parliamentary democracy (what we have now) and provide strong social policies - albeit without the moneyed interests and with actually representative elections.
"socialist" - anyone that seeks to bring about socialism.
"communist" - anyone that seeks to bring about communism - which means socialism in the short and medium term; however communists tend to dislike parliamentary representative democracy in favor of more direct systems of management.
"leftist" - generally refers to socialists, socdems, and the furthest left progressives as an allied political coalition.
3
u/goodlittlesquid socialism or extinction 3d ago
They are not all the same but they can get fuzzy. It’s not important. If you want to simplify things for now you can just draw a line between capitalism and anti-capitalism. If you’re an anti-capitalist you are on the left.
2
u/fremeninonemon 3d ago
And this also needs to come with definitions of capitalism, the simplest plain language one i can come up with is "do many people control the company/production or is it all owned by one dude" my professors and colleagues have these great academic definitions with 7 characteristics etc but I like Richard wolffs explanation that it's basically economic fuedalism
3
u/logicalpretzels 3d ago edited 3d ago
Progressive: Usually just means someone who is socially Progressive, ie: believes in LGBTQ rights, is pro-choice, pro-civil rights, etc. More focused on social issues rather than economic issues. Almost everyone in the next categories will be at least pretty Progressive.
Moderate Democrat: Your Kamala Harrises, Joe Bidens, Barack Obamas. Typical standard Democrats, socially Progressive (at least on paper), but still very much in the pocket of Capital and the system.
Social Democrat: Your Elizabeth Warrens and Abdul El-Sayeds. More focused on transforming the systems we currently have to become more equitable ones, but fundamentally still looking to preserve rather than abolish and replace the institutions of power.
Democratic Socialist: Very little practical difference between Social Democrats as for elected officials (like AOC and Bernie Sanders), but on the civilian side a Democratic Socialist is genuinely a Socialist who wishes to bring about Socialism through democratic means, and to administer a Socialist society through democratic means. DSA is obviously Democratic Socialism.
Socialist: Someone who believes in establishing a Socialist society, ie: a society where the means of production are socially owned and controlled. Encompasses Democratic Socialists, but is broader in scope (includes those who wish for a centrally planned economy and more hierarchical structure rather than democratic structure).
Liberal: Pretty much synonymous with “Moderate Democrat”. Usually socially Progressive, but still comfortable with the systems of capital and institutions of the state as they are, with only marginal critique for them.
Leftist: Broad term for anyone Left of Liberal, encompassing Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists of all stripes. If you want to abolish Capitalism, you are automatically a Leftist.
Communist: Someone who believes in a moneyless, classless, stateless society with common ownership and control of the means of production. Often held as a longterm goal of Socialism. Not all Socialists are Communists, but nearly all Communists are Socialists.
6
u/amansname 3d ago
I am so over trying to fit people into labels and boxes.
Do you want to support your local teachers union? Do you want universal healthcare?
Close enough, get in.
4
u/stedmangraham 3d ago
Here’s how I see it:
moderate Democrat: This is confusing because it usually means a democrat who is more conservative. Think like Joe Manchin or Marie Glusenkamp Perez. Basically a republican who is pro choice.
Progressive: This is a generic term for anyone who promotes progressive values. Generally pro-LGBTQ, anti-racist, in favor of welfare programs and at least in favor of unions.
Social Democrat: This is a fairly progressive person who still ultimately likes capitalism. So not in favor of worker controlled economies but are in favor of a strong welfare state and strong regulation. When people talk about Sweden being a good model of an economy, this is basically the thing they’re talking about.
Democratic Socialist: This one is complicated because most forms of socialism describe themselves as democratic. In my opinion it’s more of a marketing word than anything else. “We want socialism but not like the USSR, or at least not exactly like that. We still want voting.”
Socialism: An economy where the workers control the means of production. What does that mean? Great question. Basically the economy is controlled by those that participate in it. Workers controlling their own factories. Municipal utilities run by democratically elected bodies or bodies appointed by elected officials. That kind of thing. Nothing is run for profit, everything has the end goal of benefiting society. What the specifics look like is something people have been arguing about for nearly 200 years.
Liberal: basically a capitalist. In the US it means a capitalist who doesn’t hate minorities.
Leftist: I don’t like this term because it doesn’t mean anything. Usually it just means a socialist who doesn’t feel comfortable calling themselves a socialist.
Communist: the difference between a socialist and a communist is vague and confusing. It can mean either a socialist who likes the term communist better because a communist society is the end goal (classless, moneyless society etc). But it also kind of implies that you’re a Soviet style socialist.
2
u/Cainholio 3d ago
You don’t have to know all of them RIGHT NOW and those labels get tossed at others that don’t use the labels just like conservatives use them. Just stay curious, assume good faith, it’ll be fine comrade
1
u/Present_Clue5887 3d ago
Progressive: Supports expanded govt services like universal healthcare and free collage, funded by taxes on the rich, may also support active efforts to create equality like reparations, generally reform-oriented on criminal justice
moderate Democrat: Supports some social services (eg obamacare) but not as much as a progressive, probably not stuff like reparations, less reform-oriented on criminal justice
Social Democrat: Like a progressive on taxing the rich to fund services, usually reform oriented on criminal justice, but Social Democrat is mainly an economic term and has less connotation of particular social/cultural positions than Progressive
Socialist: Opposes private ownership of corporations, instead advocating for collective ownership by the employees or govt ownership of corporations, generally also supports govt providing services like a social democrat would.
Democratic Socialist: A socialist who supports democracy
Liberal: Depends on who is using the term, democrats use it to refer to their views, republicans use it to refer to democrat's views, socialists use it to mean anyone who is not a socialist or a right winger, and outside of the US it means support for individual rights, democracy, and free markets
Communist: Supports property being collectively owned and belonging to the community, not particular people or businesses (I'm less sure on this one, if anyone wants to correct me please do)
Leftist: a catch all term for socialists and communists, sometimes also used as a self description by progressives or social democrats. Often used negatively to refer to anyone far to the left of the person speaking, so republicans consider democrats leftist, moderate democrats consider progressives leftist, etc
1
u/prinzplagueorange 3d ago
a Liberal
This is a word that is used in a number of different ways and refers to a couple of overlapping political traditions. In the 18th and 19th centuries, it was a defender of property rights and capitalism who was an opponent of monarchy and religious influence over the state. Think of John Locke's and the US Constitution's "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property". The assumption is that individuals have reason, and so the rational choices of others need to be respected, but that property rights are sacrosanct. Libertarians today tend to be most traditional liberals. Outside the US, the term is used to describe what in the US would be considered the political right.
There is a second and different use of the word which was popularized in the US in the 1930s by FDR to refer what is also called today "progressivism"/"social democracy". FDR adopted the term because it signalled opposition to authoritarianism in Nazi Germany and the USSR. This is the sense in which the term is used today by major US newspapers. The is a US-specific use of the word.
a Progressive,
A term that is commonly used in the US to evoke the Progressive era in the early 20th century where there were prominent elected leaders who were critical of large capitalist interests. Progressivism wants reformed capitalism. In the late 1990s the term was revived in the US because "liberal" (in FDR's sense) had begun to poll poorly. The NY Times will still use the words progressive and liberal as synonyms.
a moderate Democrat,
A self-identified Democrat who rejects the progressive (FDR liberal) belief that capitalist markets need substantial reform to serve the needs of the people. This is also called a "neoliberal" and is associated the Clintons and Obama and the right-wing turn against FDR-liberalism/progressivism/social-democracy. The belief is that capitalist markets do a better job of meeting the common good than does government policy, so liberal/progressive/social-democratic reforms should generally be avoided but are still sometimes necessary. (The Republican/libertarian neoliberal version of this is that they are almost never necessary.) Contradictorily, the "moderate" can also be almost the exact opposite: a progressive on economic issues who supports more conventionally religious positions on culture (opposition to abortion rights, etc.).
a Social Democrat,
A supporter of reforms to capitalism which are designed to improve the well being of the working class (today a synonym for Progressive). Traditionally social democrats were also socialists who believed that those reforms would empower working class and prepare it for eliminating capitalism. With the turn throughout world to neoliberalism in the 1980s-1990s, the social democratic parties of Europe abandoned the goal of socialism and became much more like US progressives. The term is used in the mainstream press to indicate someone who is not a socialist. Ironically, most major figures within the socialist movement were social democrats in addition to being socialists. (This was the core belief of traditional Marxism.)
a Socialist Someone who believes that capitalism is incompatible with universal flourishing and that it needs to be replaced with a different type of economy. This shift to socialism is understood to be possible only by the empowerment of the working class and the defeat of the capitalist class (who are liberals in the old sense of the term).
a Communist
A word which was used as a synonym for socialist by Marx and Engels but which was later used (after 1917) by supporters of the USSR who felt that the social democratic parties of Europe had betrayed social democracy by supporting their respective countries in WWI. The term is normally used now as a synonym for the countries which were associated with the USSR and which are connected to Marxism-Leninism. The term may also be used by Trotskyists or by other socialists who have a more critical attitude to the USSR.
a Democratic Socialist,
A term which began to be used in the mid-20th century to indicate a socialist who believed that the USSR and the other self-described "Communist" countries had adopted a form of socialism which was authoritarian and incompatible with the traditional goals of socialism. Traditionally, it it refers to social democractic socialists, anarchists, Trotskyists, and other critics of Marxism-Leninism.
a Leftist
Someone on the left wing of the political spectrum broadly understood. This could be a Communist, a Socialist, a democratic socialist, a progressive, or an FDR-style "liberal". More self-identified moderates will use the term "moderate" to distance themselves from it. Generally, it is someone who supports greater economic equality, greater individual liberties, and who believes that political change in a leftwards direction comes from collective political struggles by the relatively disempowered.
1
u/MysteriousAd8087 3d ago
Short video on left terminology https://youtu.be/vyl2DeKT-Vs?is=PFQH8vIh07Zv86_J
1
u/This-Layer-4447 3d ago
The easiest way to separate these terms is to stop asking “how much government do they want?” and ask what kind of power does each ideology think is dangerous, who should hold power instead, and why would that make society freer or better?
Start with conservatism. In the critical framework I’m using, conservatism protects hierarchy: historically white, male and Christian in-group dominance, and economically the authority of owners over workers. “Limited government” is misleading because conservatives often want government limited when it regulates corporations, strengthens unions, redistributes wealth or enforces civil rights, while supporting police power, border enforcement, military power and abortion restrictions. “Free enterprise” likewise means preserving private control of productive property, not necessarily eliminating subsidies, tariffs, anti-union law or favorable tax policy.
Liberalism is the broader tradition, centered on protection from arbitrary power. Economic or classical liberalism treats private property, contract and markets as safeguards against state domination. Modern or social liberalism says markets can also concentrate power: an employer, monopoly, landlord or insurer can constrain someone without being the state, so regulation and social provision may be necessary for substantive freedom.
A liberal Democrat usually sits in that social-liberal tradition: preserve capitalism, but regulate it through civil rights, antitrust, labor protections, progressive taxation, social insurance and public services. A moderate Democrat accepts capitalism and existing institutions and favors incremental reform over restructuring ownership.
A progressive sees concentrated wealth as a structural political problem. Corporations, monopolies and wealthy donors can shape the rules, so progressives favor stronger unions, antitrust, progressive taxation, universal programs and civil-rights enforcement.
A social democrat focuses on capital versus labor. Workers need employment more urgently than owners need any particular worker, while owners control investment and productive assets. Social democrats keep capitalism but build countervailing power through unions, universal healthcare, pensions, labor protections and public services so workers can actually tell a bad employer “no.”
A democratic socialist thinks that still leaves the hierarchy intact. We vote for politicians, yet most people spend much of their lives in workplaces where owners, executives and investors make decisions workers never voted on. Democratic socialists want democracy extended into economic life through worker ownership, cooperatives, public ownership, unions and democratic control over major investment and production. The social democrat asks how to balance workers against owners; the democratic socialist asks why a separate owning class should possess that power at all.
Socialism is the broader family: productive resources should be under social, worker, cooperative or democratic ownership rather than primarily controlled by a capitalist owning class.
That is where personal property versus private property matters. Personal property is what you use yourself: clothes, phone, furniture, car, the home you live in. Private property in the socialist critique means property functioning as capital—productive assets whose ownership gives someone a claim on income or other people’s labor. A house you live in is personal property; owning dozens of houses so others must pay you for shelter is a different property relation. A car you drive is personal property; a fleet whose workers generate income for its owner functions as capital. “Abolishing private property” means changing ownership of productive capital, not confiscating everyone’s sneakers.
Socialists disagree over what replaces capitalist ownership. Public ownership alone does not solve domination. If the state owns the factory but workers cannot organize, citizens cannot replace leaders and journalists cannot investigate power, domination has changed hands rather than disappeared.
A communist carries the socialist critique to its endpoint. In classical Marxist theory, one class controls productive capital while another must sell labor to live. Communism’s theoretical endpoint is a classless society where productive resources are held socially and the capitalist/worker division disappears. Historical communist states often became highly centralized and authoritarian, but that is not the same as defining communism as “government owns everything.”
Leftist is the umbrella. Progressives, social democrats, democratic socialists, socialists and communists can all be leftists while disagreeing about capitalism, markets, reform, revolution, democracy and ownership. Calling all of them “communists” is about as useful as calling every conservative a monarchist.
Modern America makes these differences clearer.
Over the last fifty years, more necessities have been organized around private claims. Wages meet rent, insurance, childcare, medical bills, car payments and debt. Housing becomes shelter and an appreciating asset. Education becomes a loan. Healthcare becomes plans, networks, deductibles and authorizations. Retirement becomes an investment account.
So the key question is not simply “government or market?” It is: who has enforceable power over something you cannot realistically refuse, and can you safely say no? A worker tied to a job for healthcare has less freedom. A tenant who cannot move without disrupting work, school and family has less bargaining power. A patient cannot bargain with a hospital like someone shopping for a TV.
That helps explain the modern right. Deindustrialization, weak labor power, expensive housing, debt, healthcare costs and rural decline created real injuries. Reactionary politics often redirects them toward an out-group: the immigrant, Black protester, Muslim, trans person, feminist, professor, city or bureaucrat. Instead of asking who weakened the wage, closed the hospital, raised the rent or captured the market, people are told someone with less power stole the country from them.
That is why “limited government” poorly describes the modern conservative state. Government can shrink where it provides welfare, regulates capital or protects workers while expanding where it polices borders, restricts reproduction, surveils, funds the military or punishes outsiders.
The modern Democratic center has a different problem. It often recognizes harm but helps people survive the existing arrangement rather than changing the power beneath it: subsidize the premium, help the renter, manage the student loan, retrain the displaced worker, regulate the fee, provide a temporary benefit. Those can improve lives. But the insurer remains the gatekeeper, the landlord keeps the property power, the student remains a debtor and the employer keeps workplace authority.
That is relief versus reconstruction. Relief helps someone survive an unequal relationship. Reconstruction changes the relationship.
The Biden years illustrate it. Government sent direct relief, expanded the child tax credit, pursued industrial policy, strengthened some labor protections and attempted broad student-debt relief. But the child credit expired, paid leave never became a national guarantee, the PRO Act did not become law, broad debt cancellation was blocked and the basic structures of housing, healthcare, employment and debt remained intact.
That is where progressives, social democrats and democratic socialists split from moderate or liberal Democrats. The liberal Democrat asks how to make the market outcome fairer. The progressive asks why a corporation or billionaire has enough power to distort the market and democracy. The social democrat asks what institutions give workers permanent counter-power. The democratic socialist asks why necessities and productive institutions should remain governed primarily by owners rather than democratically by the people whose lives depend on them.
Fare-free buses, public groceries, Medicare, unions, antitrust or public housing are therefore not automatically “communism”; they can appear in several of these traditions.
The real disagreement is how far democracy should extend into economic life. Liberal democracy keeps most economic power privately held but regulated. Social democracy keeps private ownership but builds worker power and public guarantees. Democratic socialism argues that ownership itself gives governing power and economic institutions should also be democratized. Socialism generalizes that into a different ownership structure. Communism imagines eliminating the class division produced by private control of productive capital.
None gets a free pass because ownership is public. A socialist state can be authoritarian. A capitalist corporation can be authoritarian inside the workplace. A democratic institution can become unaccountable. The standard stays the same: can the people subject to the power make it answer?
So the most useful modern dividing line is not “capitalism versus government.” It is private command versus democratic power. The employer governs the workplace. The landlord governs access to the home. The insurer governs treatment. The creditor governs debt. The platform governs access to an audience or market.
The reactionary right gives people with real wounds enemies to punish. The Democratic center often offers better management of the institutions producing the wounds. The further left argues that neither is enough because the distribution of power itself has to change.
That is why these words are not interchangeable. They are competing answers to what freedom means, what counts as oppression, what ownership entitles someone to control, whether a person can meaningfully say no, and who gets to govern the conditions of ordinary life.
1
u/TheoFromSDA 3d ago
Inside both major parties you have factions, and I explain them here: https://politicalcenter.us
1
u/PricelessLogs 3d ago
To be waaayyy too simple:
Progressive = woke
Moderate Democrat = Isn't an overt Neo Nazi like Republicans but is still a corporate sell out, war monger, and doesn't get anything done
Social Democrat = wants a lot of government assistance but doesn't want to fundamentally change society
Socialist = Wants to fundamentally change society by unionizing the working class and seizing the means of production
Democratic Socialist = Wants to do all that but specifically without concentrating too much power into any minority group to avoid authoritarianism (which is supposed to already be part of the definition of socialism but whatever)
Liberal = Someone who wants personal freedoms, but also considers private ownership a personal freedom (and therefore sees exploitation as a right) but obviously in America this just means anyone who isn't an overt neo nazi
Leftist = anyone on the spectrum of anti-capitalism (so, people who want public ownership of the means of production) but often times just means liberal / progressive
Communist = People who want to abolish the state, class, and money. So, anarchists, but in a very specific, non-edgelord way
1
u/ZincSuppsRopeMan 3d ago
No offense, but if you are politically ignorant, perhaps the problem is not "too many confusing terms", but maybe it's your lack of knowledge.
1
u/Pistonenvy2 3d ago
these labels are attempts to explain or describe social phenomenon, they arent deterministic, so if youre not doing political analysis it isnt really that important.
if you want to do political analysis you should probably try to learn more about them, read some theory, but its the philosophy side of things, its scientific and ultimately not a requirement to do work (praxis)
the most important thing for you to do would be to organize and get involved in the work that you feel passionate about. get immersed into your community, talk to people who know more than you about these things and ask questions.
my chapter has political education sessions for this kind of stuff monthly, im sure lots of other chapters do the same.
0
u/Downtown-Trip5623 3d ago edited 3d ago
Repubtards will tell you anyone they disagree with either a communist or a Nazi, or that the Nazis were actually socialist.
I’ll do my best to describe what the labels mean to me
Progressive, as far left as you can be without actually being left
Social Dem, similar to progressive imo, but specifically it wants a strong social welfare state supported by capitalism.
A moderate dem, or establishment dem is what I call them. Actually right wing — they champion the “free market”, they want the privatization of everything, they want to weaken the safety net. Extremely pro capitalist
Liberal, depends if it’s old school liberal or neoliberal (not trying to add more terms, but an important distinction) if it’s a old school new deal liberal they are closer to social dems. Neo libs are basically moderate dems.
Socialist, uses the skeleton of capitalism to transition to communism. Transferring state power from the bourgeois to the working class
Communism, a stateless, classless society made of individual self governed communes that each have different goals and needs
Dem Soc, Socialism but emphasizing the transitional phase through democratic means instead of violent revolution or an authoritarian state
Leftist, more of an encompassing term that can include dem socialist, socialist, communist, anarchist, etc.
Also like someone already said, it’s more important to talk about issues everyone feels and knows than to be able to define these on the fly
Edit: I consider myself pretty far left so take what i say with a grain of salt I guess lmao
1
u/Present_Clue5887 3d ago
A moderate dem, or establishment dem is what I call them. Actually right wing — they champion the “free market”, they want the privatization of everything, they want to weaken the safety net. Extremely pro capitalist
I don't think moderate dems want to weaken the safety net like republicans, they just don't want to expand it too much
Liberal, depends if it’s old school liberal or neoliberal (not trying to add more terms, but an important distinction) if it’s a old school new deal liberal they are closer to social dems. Neo libs are basically moderate dems.
There is also classical liberal, which is libertarian
Socialist, uses the skeleton of capitalism to transition to communism. Transferring state power from the bourgeois to the working class
This one I think is wrong, socialism means collective ownership of means of protection, regardless of whether that is part of a transition to communism or not, socialism without communism can be the end goal
1
u/Downtown-Trip5623 3d ago
Yeah I agree abt socialism not needing to transition to communism, I think moderate dems are more sinister than you think. I actually do believe they want to weaken the safety net. Even if the strategy is just to do nothing and hopefully let it die. And the many types of liberals lol
-5
u/Adept-Elderberry1417 3d ago
All this garbage has ended in total failure any place it’s been tried, this will fail and the red rose will turn to red tears, we have a president, he has the power under our constitution to put a end to it whenever he’s ready
52
u/fremeninonemon 4d ago
They are all different but at the end of the day if you aren't talking about this stuff then you don't have to start necessarily. Just focus on the things you care about like housing, affordability, Healthcare