squalid & trivial ends

@Soothfast said
So you are not opposed to the Nordic system of governance? After all, it is "capitalism."

Democratic socialism is a process, or goal, toward which democratic socialist parties in the Nordic countries strive toward. Of course the Nordic countries are essentially capitalist, but informally they may be labeled (and certainly have been) democratic socialist in order to contrast their approach to governance from the extremely different approach of, say, the US.

Nothing at all against any capitalist democratic country. They are mostly successful, free and the people who live there enjoy a superior level of happiness than other economic or political systems.

So show me where the Nordic countries are striving toward democratic socialism. We had Google define what this means and I post it again. ..
Democratic socialism is a political and economic ideology that advocates for a democratic political system alongside a socially or collectively owned economy, aiming to replace capitalism with a system that serves public needs rather than private profit. It emphasizes achieving this transition through democratic processes, aiming for economic equality, robust social services, and worker management of production.

Right .. thats the definition and Im sure there is no such attempt to
- a collectively owned economy
- aim to replace capitalism
- economic equality
- workers managing production.

What is the source for your statement that Nordic countries are striving toward the above. ? I will be waiting.

Not interested in the rest of your post ... yet. Maybe later.

@Rajk999 said
Nothing at all against any capitalist democratic country. They are mostly successful, free and the people who live there enjoy a superior level of happiness than other economic or political systems.

So show me where the Nordic countries are striving toward democratic socialism. We had Google define what this means and I post it again. ..
[i]Democratic socialism is a pol ...[text shortened]... ard the above. ? I will be waiting.

Not interested in the rest of your post ... yet. Maybe later.

Most of this is really irrelevant to my original point, and I assume you're just deflecting now, in hopes that your truly black-and-white characterizations of "leftists" will assume the illusion of going unchallenged. Here's your post:

They are leftists. They lean toward communism and socialism. They support these systems but never actually want to live in one. They live in capitalist states but continually condemn everything in capitalism. They support Islam and condemn Christianity, and do the same thing. They never actually want to live under Islam but enjoy the freedom in a Christian nation. In other words they are blatant hypocrites.

I offered you a shade of gray, a nuance—something to think about. The left-wing of the Democratic party, I believe it's safe to say, would be largely happy if the US adopted something like the Danish or Swedish system of government. Socialized medicine, a robust social welfare system, more social control of utilities and other basic human needs, with subsidized childcare, public transportation, retirement benefits, education, and so on. That's a lot of "socialism," but of course there is still a large private sector in Nordic countries. It's not purely capitalism, and it's not purely socialism. It's a hybrid system, which for decades I've heard referred to as democratic socialism. No, "leftists" don't necessarily default to desiring a purely socialist/communist system, never mind doing so while simultaneously hoping to never be subject to such a system. How absurd can you get?

That the Nordic approach to governance is referred to as democratic socialist by many may be because it is the self-proclaimed democratic socialist parties in Nordic countries that push for the socialistic policies I've listed above, and of course such parties would go much further if they were not opposed by parties representing competingt interests. So there's compromise, but the resultant compromise arrived at in Nordic countries certainly features a far larger public sector than the US has ever had. So again, it's a hybrid system. You can read "democratic socialism" as meaning a system that adopts socialist ideas in the context of a democracy wherein other (non-socialistic) parties advance competing approaches to governance.

Anyway you miss something critical in your own Google-poached definition that makes my point very well: "It emphasizes achieving this transition through democratic processes, aiming for economic equality, robust social services, and worker management of production." So, as I said, democratic socialism isn't defined strictly by its end goal, but also by the process of achieving that goal.

I didn't even mention that unions are generally obligatory in all large Nordic companies, and so workers have a much greater say in how their place of employ is managed compared to US companies that are run top-down like quasi-fascist fiefdoms. Collective ownership and co-ops are much more the norm, too—more socialism.

By the way, nowhere do I say that the Nordic countries as a whole strive toward democratic socialism. Try to pay attention. I said the democratic socialist parties strive toward democratic socialism—something of a no-brainer, of course.

I know I shouldn't really take your posts seriously. You've recently gone on record predicting that the UK will become an Islamic state because of something something something—oh, I guess because someone who's a Muslim might become the next prime minister or whatever. Yes, I think I should care much less what you think.

@Soothfast said
Most of this is really irrelevant to my original point, and I assume you're just deflecting now, in hopes that your truly black-and-white characterizations of "leftists" will assume the illusion of going unchallenged. Here's your post:
[quote]They are leftists. They lean toward communism and socialism. They support these systems but never actually want to live in one. They ...[text shortened]... ght become the next prime minister or whatever. Yes, I think I should care much less what you think.

First of all the fact that I said youall .. lean towards communism and socialism ", should be a clear sign of no "black and white" anything. A 'leaning' implies a shade of grey.

Next and most importantly, you continue to misuse the term 'democratic socialism', deliberately I believe, despite calling you out on this mischaracterisation over and over. The noun here is Socialism, and the modifying adjective is democratic. All you left leaning junkies do this, and it is deliberate. Trying to describe Nordic states as democratic socialism is incorrect as it also imples they are attempting to move over to socialism. No such thing is going on.

Nordic states can be better described as "Welfare Capitalism". In this expression the noun is capitalism ... none of these countries have any desire to move away from capitalism.

Here is a breakdown from CoPilot:
*********************************
Democratic Socialism - Seeks to move beyond capitalism.
Aims for social or worker ownership of major industries (e.g., energy, transportation, healthcare, sometimes finance).
Production and large-scale resources are managed democratically—often through cooperatives or public ownership.
Reduces or eliminates the profit motive in essential sectors.

Welfare Capitalism - Accepts capitalism (private ownership, markets, profit) as the foundation. Adds a strong welfare state to cushion capitalism’s inequalities.
Markets and corporations remain privately owned, but the government provides programs such as:

public healthcare (or subsidized healthcare)
unemployment benefits
pensions
public education
labor protections

2. View of Markets
Democratic Socialism - Markets may exist for non-essential goods, but major sectors are collectively owned.
Believes markets tend to create inequality if left to run the core economy.

Welfare Capitalism - Markets drive most of the economy.
Government regulates them to prevent abuse, protect workers, and stabilize society. Believes capitalism can be fair if supported by the right social programs.

Examples of Welfare Capitalism - Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland (strong welfare states with capitalist economies). Germany and France (regulated capitalism + social programs). Canada and the UK (universal healthcare + capitalist markets)

Note: Nordic countries are often mistakenly labeled “democratic socialist,” but they describe themselves as social‑democratic welfare states, which is closer to welfare capitalism.

************************************

@Rajk999 said
First of all the fact that I said youall .. lean towards communism and socialism ", should be a clear sign of no "black and white" anything. A 'leaning' implies a shade of grey.

Next and most importantly, you continue to misuse the term 'democratic socialism', deliberately I believe, despite calling you out on this mischaracterisation over and over. The nou ...[text shortened]... ratic welfare states, which is closer to welfare capitalism.

************************************

Raj you've offshored your own brain to AI.

@Rajk999 said
First of all the fact that I said youall .. lean towards communism and socialism ", should be a clear sign of no "black and white" anything. A 'leaning' implies a shade of grey.

Next and most importantly, you continue to misuse the term 'democratic socialism', deliberately I believe, despite calling you out on this mischaracterisation over and over. The nou ...[text shortened]... ratic welfare states, which is closer to welfare capitalism.

************************************

LOL.

So lemme ask you a question: In practice, was the USSR a communist country?

Since democratic socialism by definition operates in a democracy, it stands to reason there will always be other political parties that are not democratic socialist influencing government policy and the organization of society. Therefore we cannot expect there ever to be a "pure" democratic socialist system. It's a process, with push and shove, give and take, and compromise. It's merely a question of whether a country has adopted substantial components of democratic socialist principles.

@Soothfast said
LOL.

So lemme ask you a question: In practice, was the USSR a communist country?

Since democratic socialism by definition operates in a democracy, it stands to reason there will always be other political parties that are not democratic socialist influencing government policy and the organization of society. Therefore we cannot expect there ever to be a "pure" d ...[text shortened]... question of whether a country has adopted substantial components of democratic socialist principles.

I have no comment on USSR.

In the case of the Nordic countries, they are all capitalist, so that becomes the noun. The type of capitalism becomes the adjective, so in there case you can add welfare or socialist, but the noun remains.

This is the standard terminology used when referring to capitalist countries with a high degree of welfare ... Welfare Capitalism ... NOT Democratic Socialism.

The reason is that nobody in the Nordic wants socialism.

@Rajk999 said
I have no comment on USSR.

In the case of the Nordic countries, they are all capitalist, so that becomes the noun. The type of capitalism becomes the adjective, so in there case you can add welfare or socialist, but the noun remains.

This is the standard terminology used when referring to capitalist countries with a high degree of welfare ... Welfare Capitalism ... NOT Democratic Socialism.

The reason is that nobody in the Nordic wants socialism.

You've picked a truly bizarre hill to let this thread die on—or at least your part of it.

Is there even any point to hashing out your other assertion that leftists "support Islam and condemn Christianity"?

I think not.

@Soothfast said
You've picked a truly bizarre hill to let this thread die on—or at least your part of it.

Is there even any point to hashing out your other assertion that leftists "support Islam and condemn Christianity"?

I think not.

You are mixing up stuff, outright lying, and using the wrong expressions ...
- lots of welfare does not mean socialism - (mixed up and confused)
- Democratic socialism not a correct expression for Scandinavia - (wrong)
- A push for welfare does not mean Nordic countries want socialism or democratic socialism. .. (outright lie)

If you have proof of any of these statements then please post it.

If you refuse to get these expressions correct, and make truthful statements about Scandianvia, and this topic, then the discussion becomes a bunch of pointless lies and misinformation. So you are on your own.

@Rajk999 said
You are mixing up stuff, outright lying, and using the wrong expressions ...
- lots of welfare does not mean socialism - (mixed up and confused)
- Democratic socialism not a correct expression for Scandinavia - (wrong)
- A push for welfare does not mean Nordic countries want socialism or democratic socialism. .. (outright lie)

If you have proof of any of these statem ...[text shortened]... , then the discussion becomes a bunch of pointless lies and misinformation. So you are on your own.

I assure you I do not lie. Why should I? I have no real stake in this forum. It is a real abuse of the word—and here we are talking about a word even a 5-year-old knows the meaning of. You debate in extremely bad faith, and your poisonous rancor reflects quite badly on you.

Where I'm coming from makes a less formal distinction between democratic socialism and social democracy. In point of fact what there is here is a Transatlantic divide in how certain terminology is used. I've been a nominal member of the Democratic Socialists of America for many years, and the DSA's aim, in pragmatic terms, largely aligns with social democracy as exhibited by the "Nordic model." The USSR practiced a mix of state capitalism and socialism with communism as the official goal, and so it was labeled communist by the West. The DSA practices social democracy with democratic socialism as the official goal and so its members are (rightly) labeled democratic socialists.

You see there another divide: whether to label a partisan by his day-to-day actions (the means to the end) or his ultimate aim (the end itself). But let's move on...

The reason I even got into this discussion was simply to point out something, which is that many US "leftists" would be happy to live in a society that has adopted the DSA's agenda. Speaking for myself, I laud the DSA's pragmatic proposals for accomplishing the transition to democratic socialism (namely through the instruments of social democracy), and I would heartily welcome living in the future society the DSA envisions—democratic socialism itself (though competing parties would still exist in such a future democracy).

I don't know. I find your screeching and unhinged hyperbole touching on all things to do with Muslims, "leftists," and a litany of other things fairly nauseating, and I can hardly believe how someone can be so twisted inside. The blinding displays of irrationality, hatred, and fear by the right-wingers here is the reason I only visit for short stints every few weeks or months.

@Soothfast said
I assure you I do not lie. the DSA's aim, in pragmatic terms, largely aligns with social democracy as exhibited by the "Nordic model."

This is a lie, and you know these are lies, and yet you keep posting this nonsense trying to equate your democratic socialism with the Nordic model of capitalism. They are not the same, not even close. You are a delusional fool.

Here is the philosophy of the DSA
***************************
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) defines democratic socialism as a system designed to replace capitalism, aiming for a humane society where workers and consumers control the economy. Key elements include public ownership of key infrastructure, a multi-racial, unified working class, social ownership of production, and "radical" economic democracy.

Key aspects of the DSA’s definition include:
Replacing Capitalism: They believe capitalism is designed to exploit the working class and must be replaced with a system that puts power and wealth in the hands of "ordinary people".
Economic Democracy & Ownership: This involves moving from a profit-driven economy to one with social ownership, where workplaces are run by workers, and key industries (like energy and transport) are managed by the public.
*********************************

Here is the Nordic model of welfare capitalism
*********************************
Scandinavian welfare capitalism (the Nordic Model) is not the same as the philosophy of The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). The Nordic Model is a high-tax, capitalist market economy with a strong welfare state, whereas the DSA advocates for democratic socialism, which seeks to replace private ownership of production with social ownership.

Key Differences:
Economic System: Nordic countries are capitalist market economies that rank highly in ease of doing business and private property rights. The DSA defines itself against capitalism, arguing that capitalist systems inherently exploit workers.
Ownership: The Nordic Model relies on private ownership of the means of production. The DSA advocates for a "decentralized socially-owned economy," seeking to move beyond private ownership of major corporations.
*************************************

The DSA wants to replace capitalism, while there are no Scandinavian countries that are interested in replacing capitalism. STOP WITH THE LIES

@Rajk999 said
This is a lie, and you know these are lies, and yet you keep posting this nonsense trying to equate your democratic socialism with the Nordic model of capitalism. They are not the same, not even close. You are a delusional fool.

Here is the philosophy of the DSA
***************************
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) defines democratic socialism as a sys ...[text shortened]... re are no Scandinavian countries that are interested in replacing capitalism. STOP WITH THE LIES[/b]

Sigh.

Once again you conflate the means with the end. I tried to make this point clear, but you refuse to understand for some reason.

The end that the DSA strives toward—it's ultimate goal—is not social democracy; however, as a matter of practicality and actual policy, it proposes to achieve democratic socialism by means of implementing policies aligned with social democracy (what you've called welfare capitalism or somesuch).

I really tried to make the distinction clear, but you just won't understand. Why? I even threw in a historical example: the USSR saw communism as an end to be achieved by means of socialism. That's why the word "socialist" is in the USSR's name, and not "communist."

So, I already said democratic socialism and social democracy are different, but you seem to be mentally incapable of grasping most everything I said in my latest post above.

And now let me help you with a definition. A "lie" is not merely to make an untrue statement, but to do so with the intent to deceive. I can assure you that's not the case here. I have no motivation for coming to a backwater forum to spout what I know to be falsehoods. What a waste of time that would be. But you seem to be interested in the nuances distinguishing certain political ideologies, which is great—but you must employ more concentration when reading what your interlocutor is saying, or else you waste both your own time as well as the time of those whom you purpose to debate.

Moving on, nor no...?

@Soothfast said
Sigh.

Once again you conflate the means with the end. I tried to make this point clear, but you refuse to understand for some reason.

The end that the DSA strives toward—it's ultimate goal—is not social democracy; however, as a matter of practicality and actual policy, it proposes to achieve democratic socialism by means of implementing policies ...[text shortened]... both your own time as well as the time of those whom you purpose to debate.

Moving on, nor no...?

No organisation can be defined by their means, methods or policies. What is critical and far more telling is the end result, or final product that they are after. The DSA seeks to end capitalism and free enterprise, and have an economy owned collectively by the government which is supposed to act on behalf of the people.

Free market economies like the Scandinavian countries have zero resemblence to the policies of the DSA. Trying to equate them is deceitful.

Interesting list of US politicians attached to this DSA :
************************
Prominent U.S. politicians affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) include Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, along with NYC official Zohran Mamdani. Other members have included former Congressman Major Owens and NYC Mayor David Dinkins. While often associated with the movement, Senator Bernie Sanders is not a DSA member.

Prominent DSA-Affiliated Politicians:
- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Representative for New York (NY-14), widely recognized as a DSA member elected to Congress in 2018.
- Rashida Tlaib: Representative for Michigan (MI-13), aligned with the DSA's electoral approach.
- Greg Casar: Representative for Texas (TX-35), elected in 2022, though later faced tension with local DSA chapters.
- Zohran Mamdani: New York State Assemblymember and noted figure in NYC socialist politics.
- Julia Salazar: New York State Senator.
- Ruth Messinger: Former Manhattan Borough President and NYC Council member in the 1980s.
- Major Owens: Former New York Representative, described as a long-time member.
- David Dinkins: The first Black Mayor of NYC was also a member.
******************************

@Rajk999

Historically and in different countries the terms "democratic socialism" and "social democracy" are used in different ways, to describe a variety of political, economic, and social principles and goals. There is quite a bit of overlap between the two that strict dictionary definitions will not capture.

We might once again be running up against the limitations of your trademark black-and-white thinking.

Let's look here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Some salient points:

In political science, democratic socialism and social democracy are sometimes seen as synonyms,[28] while they are distinguished in journalistic use.

Remembering that the Nordic nations today all have "social democratic" parties, and not "democratic socialist" parties, bear the following in mind:

According to Lyman Tower Sargent, "socialism refers to social theories rather than to theories oriented to the individual. Because many communists now call themselves democratic socialists, it is sometimes difficult to know what a political label really means. As a result, social democratic has become a common new label for democratic socialist political parties."
...
In the 20th century, the term [social democratic] came to be associated with the positions of the German and Swedish parties. The first advocated revisionist Marxism, while the second advocated a comprehensive welfare state.

Now to circle back to the beginning of the article:

Social democracy is a broad, centre-left[1] to left-wing[2] social, economic, and political ideology within the wider socialist movement[3] that supports political and economic democracy[4] and a gradualist, reformist, and democratic approach toward achieving social equality. In modern practice, social democracy has taken the form of a predominantly capitalist,[5] yet robust welfare state, with policies promoting social justice, market regulation, and a more equitable distribution of income.

You'll note the phrase "gradualist, reformist, and democratic approach," which highlights that social democracy, like democratic socialism, must operate in the conditions of the times we live in, and so it will strive to enact policies not in keeping with its ultimate goals, but are means to coming closer to those goals. What those goals are will depend on the particular "social democratic" party. Maybe the German party has full-blooded socialism in its sights, whereas the Swedish one is content with your "welfare capitalism."

I hope you apprehend, at this point, the silliness of holding up the entire thread to split hairs on the matter of what distinguishes democratic socialism from social democracy. Should I bother to mention there is also something that's called socialist democracy?

@Rajk999 said
No organisation can be defined by their means, methods or policies. What is critical and far more telling is the end result, or final product that they are after. The DSA seeks to end capitalism and free enterprise, and have an economy owned collectively by the government which is supposed to act on behalf of the people.

Free market economies like the Scandinavian countr ...[text shortened]...
- David Dinkins: The first Black Mayor of NYC was also a member.
******************************

So, you don't acknowledge any difference between, say, Maoism and Leninism?They both have the same goal: a communist utopia. What distinguishes the two is their proposed manner of achieving that goal.

EDIT: And in practical terms, it's the means toward the end that most viscerally impacts people's lives day to day. The means dictate political, economic, and social policy, and becomes the daily business of the governing institutions.

Really...

@Rajk999 said
No organisation can be defined by their means, methods or policies. What is critical and far more telling is the end result, or final product that they are after. The DSA seeks to end capitalism and free enterprise, and have an economy owned collectively by the government which is supposed to act on behalf of the people.

Free market economies like the Scandinavian countr ...[text shortened]...
- David Dinkins: The first Black Mayor of NYC was also a member.
******************************

No organisation can be defined by their means, methods or policies. What is critical and far more telling is the end result, or final product that they are after.

This is so absurd on its face that I think there's no going forward from here. If this is what you really think, then it's no wonder you are utterly incapable of making sense of anything I've been saying today. Both means AND ends matter!