→A moderately POV-ish odor: no causative links |
|||
Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
== A moderately POV-ish odor == |
== A moderately POV-ish odor == |
||
I considered converting the refs to sfn, but the article has a moderately POV-ish odor (read forex '''[https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/bernie-sanders-wrong-democratic-socialism-sweden-everywhere-else-ncna1158636?cid=referral_taboolafeed Bernie Sanders is wrong on democratic socialism in Sweden, and everywhere else]'''). Do I really wanna invest hours in this article only later to spend my time arguing with people and their beliefs? Mmmmmm. Looks doubtful. |
I considered converting the refs to sfn, but the article has a moderately POV-ish odor (read forex '''[https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/bernie-sanders-wrong-democratic-socialism-sweden-everywhere-else-ncna1158636?cid=referral_taboolafeed Bernie Sanders is wrong on democratic socialism in Sweden, and everywhere else]'''). Do I really wanna invest hours in this article only later to spend my time arguing with people and their beliefs? Mmmmmm. Looks doubtful.... POV forex, no causative links shown anywhere: |
||
{{quote|The Nordic countries, including Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden as well as Greenland and the Faroe Islands, also ranked highest on the metrics of real GDP per capita, economic equality, healthy life expectancy, public health, having someone to count on, education, perceived freedom to make life choices, generosity and human development.[503][504] Countries adopting similar policies have ranked high on indicators such as civil liberties,[505] democracy,[506] press,[507] labour and economic freedoms,[508][509] peace[510] and freedom from corruption.[511] Numerous studies and surveys have indicated that people tend to live happier lives in social democracies and welfare states as opposed to neoliberal and free-market economies.[512][513][514][515]}} ♦ [[User:Lingzhi2|Lingzhi2]] [[User talk:Lingzhi2|(talk)]] 02:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:13, 19 March 2020
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Template:Friendly search suggestions
Democratic Socialism is NOT "decentralised", "anti-state" or "anti-authoritarian"!!
These words might sound big and nasty because of the baggage associated with them, but ultimately democratic socialism and democratic socialists do not want to smash the state, so to say they are anti-state or anti-authoritarian (a label only anarchism can truly hold) is misleading and inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by thatjakelad (talk • contribs)
Examples/ Implementation section
I actually created the implementation section of this article, so I know what I'm talking about. The BEST and ONLY example of Democratic Socialism, (by that I mean a truly socialist/marxist government being elected and then building socialism within all the existing institutions) is that of Salvador Allende in Chile. If you look into it, you will see it is the perfect example. It had massive success. It was however overthrown in a CIA backed coup. This is the only example that exists, and the section needs entirely revamping to reflect this. Anarchist societies and social democracy in france do not count.— Preceding unsigned comment added by thatjakelad (talk • contribs)
"Majoritarian socialism" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Majoritarian socialism. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 04:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
This article is a joke
This page has become nonsense.
The seeming reason is that "democratic socialism" has popped up in US politics as some kind of buzzword or snarl-word?
It is being used to mean social democracy (reformist), but also used to conflate that with socialism (anticapitalist) into one big muddle by demagogues.
Yes, it could be argued that the far left and social democrats were intertwined at one point in history.
However, that's going back a long way to when Otto von Bismark and Ferdinand Lasalle had talks that led to the former creating the first welfare state.
It is more than questionable that the social democracy template should be on this page, as well as political figures like Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders if their programs are social democrat. --JamesPoulson (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Fascinating, but please limit your discussion to what reliable sources have to say. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- You can skim through this page which seems to be a pretty reliable source. --JamesPoulson (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, I don't need to skim through that--but I do suggest you read WP:NOTFORUM. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's up to you to not transform this into a forum discussion by reacting as this were just personal opinion.
- This article objectively has a problem that makes it stray from encyclopedic content, and that's all this section is about. --JamesPoulson (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Bernie's Democratic Socialism Isn't Socialism, It's Social Democracy. Tim Worstall going into what social democracy is and I'm sure some reliable sources could back what he explains in his column. It can be called democratic socialism since the term is widely used now but I'm certain a reputable encyclopedia would have an entry referring to it as social democracy. The name comes from the Social Democratic Party of Germany which moved away from anticapitalist socialism to become a reformist movement through Bismark's creation of the first welfare state. This is what apparently inspired American progressives within the Republican and Democrat parties. --JamesPoulson (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, I don't need to skim through that--but I do suggest you read WP:NOTFORUM. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- You can skim through this page which seems to be a pretty reliable source. --JamesPoulson (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
As correctly stated by Drmies, you need reliable sources. As things stands, this sounds more like an "I don't like it" and so there's no need for the template, but you're free to discuss it here using reliable sources and not use this talk page as a forum. For instance, that is an opinion piece. Reliable sources refer to democratic socialism as a broad concept that can be either revolutionary or reformist. Modern social democracy is democratic socialism that is reformist, but not all democratic socialism is social democracy or even reformist. Many social democrats saw the welfare state as the necessary development of socialism and social democrats used democratic socialism as synonym. Also the template is there exactly because of their intertwined history and it's in the Definition section which specifically discuss the topic/issue.--Davide King (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- The insistence of Americans to use (democratic) socialism to refer to social democracy, the Nordic model and the New Deal, which is essentially welfare capitalism (with privately-owned, profit-oriented enterprises predominating) and definitely not democratic socialism as we know it from Allende's Chile or Rojava, irritates me too – but as shown in Democratic socialism § Europe, especially the part about Germany's SPD, a party solidly identified with social democracy for many decades now, the terminological confusion is found elsewhere too. When the SPD mentions democratic socialism in their programme, it is not clear what is meant, and it may be a deliberate way to appease the party's left wing that hasn't abandoned the SPD's former goal to eventually introduce full socialism, nationalise the industry, etc., in a non-Leninist framework (reformism; also compare libertarian socialism just to appreciate how many strains of the socialist movement exist outside of Marxism-Leninism). Also, while Germany's Left Party is more clearly committed to full socialism as a long-term goal or vision (including the nationalisation of at least all large corporations, especially those deemed too big to fail, though not of small and medium-sized enterprises), in practice, the party functions like a social democratic party – a lot like the SPD and Greens before 1990, and especially the SPD of the 1950s. I'd say the defining feature of traditional social democracy is reformism – the idea that capitalism is to be overcome, and full socialism should eventually be reached, with Keynesian welfare capitalism only the more immediate practical goal; when there is no such long-term goal, social liberalism is a better label. Bernie Sanders therefore fits quite snugly into the European tradition of social democracy (prior to the Blairite neoliberal turn, known as Third Way), while Warren is probably better described as a social liberal, despite the close similarities of their policy proposals; compare, in the UK, Labour vs. the Liberal Democrats. Corbyn also identifies as a democratic socialist – this may well mean that his ideal is full socialism, even if it is not currently feasible or realistic as a goal. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Florian Blaschke, are you replying to me, or is that just your own thoughts on the matter? Because I don't disagree. The issue is that social democracy is seen as the Third Way and democratic socialism as pre-neoliberal social democracy. The thing is that social democracy (defined as pre-Third Way) and democratic socialism aren't so far away from each other or are closer than it may look like at first sight. In this sense, all social democrats are democratic socialists but not all democratic socialists are social democrats. The example of The Left is very helpful. Parties described as being democratic socialists such as The Left are actually closer to social democracy opposed to neoliberalism than to democratic socialism. Democratic socialism can also refer to evolutionary or parliamentary socialism (basically social democrats who are still committed to socialism, although not in the now) and can just as easily be reformist, whether other socialists may see that as not being true socialism. In practice, Corbyn, Chávez, et all are anti-neoliberal/Third Way and anti-establishment/populist social democrats. Some say Sanders isn't a democratic socialist because he doesn't "attempt to create a property-free, socialist society", but that's not what many other people described as democratic socialists advocate either. Do Corbyn et all actually advocate a property-free socialist society or even the abolition of the profit system? That certainly isn't reflected in their platforms or actual policies in practice. As I stated elsewhere, the problem is that it seems people see socialism as an economic system rather than as an ideology too, so apparently if someone doesn't advocate socialist policies (which ones then?), it isn't socialist. However, that's the curse of socialist reformism; because all reformist parties have to govern the economy according to capitalist, not socialist, logic. That doesn't mean they aren't still ideologically socialists as defined by The Historical Dictionary of Socialism or similar sources.--Davide King (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Davide King: I was mainly adding my own thoughts, not replying directly to you, and not completely disagreeing with you; sorry for not being clearer. With "traditional social democracy", I'm referring to the ideology pursued by the social democratic parties of Europe in the late 20th century (for example Germany's SPD in the 1960s to 1980s), which amounts to Keynesian welfare capitalism in practice (see also social corporatism, mostly in the Nordic model, but also to some extent in Rhenish capitalism), and whose early-20th-century form also inspired FDR's New Deal. The Third Way is a watered down form of traditional social democracy to me, or even neoliberalism. I think that traditional social democrats are distinct from social liberals in that they desire to overcome capitalism entirely, in the long run, but do not consider it realistic (or even desirable?) to achieve it directly; hence, reformism. Therefore, I accept that traditional social democrats are essentially, ideologically, also socialists (in that they wish to see a form of socialism come about in the long run), but adherents of the Third Way are not. Therefore, it makes complete sense for Bernie Sanders to call himself a socialist even though he does not propose a form of socialism in the strict sense (social ownership of the means of production).
- In this way, much of Germany's Left Party can be said to be the same way, traditional social democrats, while Germany's SPD is currently dominated by Third Way adherents in its leadership. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Florian Blaschke, thank you very much for your thoughts. I pretty much agree with everything you've written, especially the final phrasing; and I've reflected this on the Democratic socialism, Social democracy and Third Way articles. For more, see here.--Davide King (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC
- Florian Blaschke, are you replying to me, or is that just your own thoughts on the matter? Because I don't disagree. The issue is that social democracy is seen as the Third Way and democratic socialism as pre-neoliberal social democracy. The thing is that social democracy (defined as pre-Third Way) and democratic socialism aren't so far away from each other or are closer than it may look like at first sight. In this sense, all social democrats are democratic socialists but not all democratic socialists are social democrats. The example of The Left is very helpful. Parties described as being democratic socialists such as The Left are actually closer to social democracy opposed to neoliberalism than to democratic socialism. Democratic socialism can also refer to evolutionary or parliamentary socialism (basically social democrats who are still committed to socialism, although not in the now) and can just as easily be reformist, whether other socialists may see that as not being true socialism. In practice, Corbyn, Chávez, et all are anti-neoliberal/Third Way and anti-establishment/populist social democrats. Some say Sanders isn't a democratic socialist because he doesn't "attempt to create a property-free, socialist society", but that's not what many other people described as democratic socialists advocate either. Do Corbyn et all actually advocate a property-free socialist society or even the abolition of the profit system? That certainly isn't reflected in their platforms or actual policies in practice. As I stated elsewhere, the problem is that it seems people see socialism as an economic system rather than as an ideology too, so apparently if someone doesn't advocate socialist policies (which ones then?), it isn't socialist. However, that's the curse of socialist reformism; because all reformist parties have to govern the economy according to capitalist, not socialist, logic. That doesn't mean they aren't still ideologically socialists as defined by The Historical Dictionary of Socialism or similar sources.--Davide King (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Jokes vs. Hot messes
- ... Jokes ... ·... Hot messes ...
- Funny Not yet ready for prime time
- Worthy of ridicule Serious projects in inevitably chaotic early stages
“The beginning of wisdom is calling things by their right names.” (—Kung Fu-Tse, IIRC)
--JerzyA (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 7 January 2020
Could an administrator change the word "neoliberaô" to "neoliberal" in the "Oceania" section of this article, please? I accidentally made a typographical error there, and i cant remove it because this article is fully protected. Izuru Kamukura (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 7 January 2020
Could an administrator please change back to the more stable version? I remember reading that when the page is protected and in disputes like this, it should also be reverted to the more stable version until the dispute is over and there's a consensus, no? I've been more than kind and accomodating in incorporating the other user's edit which were good and improving in the aforementioned version. Thank you.--Davide King (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2020
Change;
"While having socialism as a long-term goal, modern social democrats are more concerned to curb capitalism's excesses and are supportive of progressive reforms to humanise it in the present day.[3][27] In contrast to that, democratic socialists believe that economic interventionism and other policy reforms aimed at addressing social inequalities and suppressing the economic contradictions of capitalism would only exacerbate the contradictions, causing them to emerge elsewhere in the economy under a different guise.[24][28][29][30][31][32][33] Democratic socialists believe the fundamental issues with capitalism are systemic in nature and can only be resolved by replacing the capitalist economic system with socialism, i.e. by replacing private ownership with collective ownership of the means of production and extending democracy to the economic sphere.[3][27][34]"
to;
"While having similar goals as socialism, modern social democrats focus on curbing capitalism's excesses through progressive reforms. [3][27] In contrast to that, democratic socialists believe that economic interventionism and other policy reforms aimed at addressing social inequalities and suppressing the economic contradictions of capitalism would only exacerbate the contradictions, causing them to emerge elsewhere in the economy under a different guise.[24][28][29][30][31][32][33] Democratic socialists believe the fundamental issues with capitalism are systemic in nature and can only be resolved by replacing the capitalist economic system with socialism, i.e. by replacing private ownership with collective ownership of the means of production and extending democracy to the economic sphere.[3][27][34]"
LevelPlayingFeild (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC) LevelPlayingFeild (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit semi-protected}}
template. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Hard to read
This is a great article and very thorough. Maybe too thorough? In reading the article, I keep stumbling over citations: a half dozen citations after every sentence makes it cluttered and hard to read. This is especially true in the opening paragraphs and the overview section, although becomes less pronounced later in the article.
There are many situations where the sentence deals with the same, single subject from the same source and can therefore be supported by a single inline citation. I recommend preserving the strongest citations and culling it to one or two per sentence - anything above that seems unnecessary in most cases and is a detriment to the flow of the article:
I recognize this would be a non-trivial amount of work and wouldn't want to step on other's work here without agreement. But the article could very much be improved if these inline citations were addressed. NF2358 (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- NF2358, thanks for your comment. I'm going to solve that by turning all refs into sfns so as to fix that issue without removing sources that can stil be useful or used.--Davide King (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2020
The statement that, "Democratic socialism is a political philosophy supporting political democracy within a socially owned economy..." is not true. The most prominent of "democratic socialists," Senator Bernie Sanders, rejects this claim. This claim is, in fact, directed toward him and is a misuse of the goals and standards of Wikipedia.
Socialism is not, by nature, democratic. Unlike economic socialism, which regards itself as self-justified in its demand for ownership of the means of production, a democratic socialist is by nature pragmatic. Bernie Sanders, for example, explains that what "Democratic Socialist means is that one takes a hard look at countries around the world who have successful records in fighting and implementing programs for the middle class and working families.” The label as he defines it demands a democratic awareness of exigent economic consequences. As applied to socialism, the word "democratic" functions as more than an an adjective; it implies evaluation, judgment, and discernment. This explains the economic realism and pragmatism of democratic socialism. Kulpable (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2020
Please delete the final covering statement, which is untrue. See my earlier request for a change in the first sentence of the article. This is the final statement of the article: "Democratic socialists believe the fundamental issues with capitalism are systemic in nature and can only be resolved by replacing the capitalist mode of production with that of socialism, i.e. by replacing private ownership with collective ownership of the means of production and extending democracy to the economic sphere.[4][29][51]" This is flatly untrue of democratic socialism. Sanders, for example, rejects it. The first and final statement of the article, contrary to the goal of Wikipedia, constitute prejudicial disinformation. Kulpable (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- This information is sourced to reliable sources, so you'd have to present better sources or show that the current sources aren't good enough. The views of one American politician are not relevant enough to mention in the introduction. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
A moderately POV-ish odor
I considered converting the refs to sfn, but the article has a moderately POV-ish odor (read forex Bernie Sanders is wrong on democratic socialism in Sweden, and everywhere else). Do I really wanna invest hours in this article only later to spend my time arguing with people and their beliefs? Mmmmmm. Looks doubtful.... POV forex, no causative links shown anywhere:
The Nordic countries, including Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden as well as Greenland and the Faroe Islands, also ranked highest on the metrics of real GDP per capita, economic equality, healthy life expectancy, public health, having someone to count on, education, perceived freedom to make life choices, generosity and human development.[503][504] Countries adopting similar policies have ranked high on indicators such as civil liberties,[505] democracy,[506] press,[507] labour and economic freedoms,[508][509] peace[510] and freedom from corruption.[511] Numerous studies and surveys have indicated that people tend to live happier lives in social democracies and welfare states as opposed to neoliberal and free-market economies.[512][513][514][515]