What is the difference between a Socialist & a Democrat?

[William769]

Just curious to the responses.

[Dic mihi solum facta]

1. Socialists are upfront with their beliefs.

[XNASA]

4. Not true.

I believe you suck.

Upfront enough for you?

[nam78_two]

5. LOL

:applause:

[LostinVA]

46. hahaha

[texastoast]

6. What are you trying to say, newbie?

I'm sure you know that word.

[Momgonepostal]

16. Help me with my Latin...

Does your user name mean, "The only fact is, I have a mini dick?"

[Mandate My Ass]

21. That sounds about right

:rofl:

[nam78_two]

27. "Just the facts" eh??

so what might these "facts" be?

[unpossibles]

49. subtle

I'm not sure you really understand your mission....

[blonndee]

70. Which are what?

And which do you think Dems aren't upfront about? Do tell, please oh please.

[blonndee]

97. Oh, the irony. How "upfront" is this hit and run post?

I was hoping you'd come back and answer our questions. :eyes:

[arcos]

2. Most Socialists have an ideology...

Democrats do not, it's just a party label.

[rhiannon55]

3. I'm a Democratic Socialist

So I don't know :hi:

[rhiannon55]

11. P.S. Here's a link

Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.

http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

[bobbolink]

20. Ugh--more "leftist fringe" junk ^_^

Your definition is that leftist wacko stuff we've been hearing so much about. :hi:

Can somebody pleeeez tell me why this is supposed to be "bad"?

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

7. The Constitution?

What's the difference in a Republican and Theocrat?

A hug?

[leftofthedial]

10. other than the Democrats acting as accomplices

to king george's neutering of the Constitution


I'm not sure how the Constitution is involved.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

23. It's not.. just thought it was a Flame thread.. thought I'd help!

Trying to get my posting numbers up!!!

[MrModerate]

8. Well, for one thing, Socialists haven't been a meaningful national . . .

Force at the polls for over 75 years, and even at their height were a tiny minority.

And of course there's that "entirely different view of how things should be governed" thingy.

[bobbolink]

25. Never mind all those nutty Europeans....

[eallen]

28. Socialism seems pretty dead in Europe. Capitalism thrives there.

Or are you thinking social democracy?

[bobbolink]

40. Maybe we should discuss the difference between economic

systems and governmental systems.

All the brainwashing of the 50's seems to be very alive and well.

[MrModerate]

51. There are almost no socialist political entities . . .

(i.e., political parties) of any significant influence in Europe. Nor are there any socialist governmental systems, per se. "Welfare states," you betcha. But it's not the same thing.

Your distinction is fairly pointless.

[bobbolink]

53. BWAHAHAHAHA!!

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Selatius]

73. The socialist parties of Europe should not be underestimated

To garner 20 to 30 percent of the popular vote at the polls in, for instance, France may seem pitiful in the US system, but France et al. operate on systems closer to proportional representation, so any center-left government that gains power would usually include the socialists in the ruling coalition. In the last parliamentary elections in France, they won 24 percent of the vote.

The prime minister of Spain coincidentally is a socialist. In fact, the Spanish Socialist Party won 43 percent of the popular vote in their last parliamentary elections.

[MrModerate]

101. OK, I admit to having underestimated their influence.

I had forgotten about Spain, to be honest.

I do wonder how close to socialism (the economic theory) that European socialists (the party members) really are. I don't hear of them proposing seizure of private assets that you'd think "ought" to be in the public sector's hands in a truly socialistic system.

[MrModerate]

43. I think bobbolink is referring to the worker-friendly . . .

Social welfare programs that predominate in Europe, and which 'Murrican wingnuts casually label "socialist."

[LSK]

56. wrong, they BALANCE socialism and capitalism quite nicely

[MrModerate]

64. And hence, are more . . .

"Socialistic" (i.e., committed to state support/control of key industries and services) than "Socialist."

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William769]

15. How is this flame bait?

I asked a question. You can answer it or...


BTW you may like to vist that place but for me no thanks.

[Dr.Phool]

65. Bernie Sanders is a socialist.

Bill Nelson is a Democrat. Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers are Democrats.

And there's a whole lot of room between them.

[Ignacio Upton]

99. Sanders is an ex-Socialist

Officially he's an Independent.

[GOPBasher]

12. Democrats are a political party; socialism is an economic theory.

Now Democrats may be socialists, and some socialists may belong to the Dem party, but they're differeing things. As far as what Democrats believe, and how many are socialist, I could be wrong, but I think most Democrats are basically capitalists who believe in some socialistic elements. I don't think many Dems are socialist, but I could be wrong.

I personally am a Dem who believes in a middle way between capitalism and socialism.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

19. Ding ding! We have a winner!

Nicely put.

[GOPBasher]

22. Thanks. n/t

[LSK]

44. agreed

[MrModerate]

66. "Socialist" also describes a number of political parties . .

Of widely varying beliefs, all the way from the economic/governmental theory of state ownership of key industries/means of service delivery to (gulp!), National Socialists who believed . . . well, you know.

[GOPBasher]

92. Yeah, that's true. Socialist can refer to that as well. n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

80. There is a Socialist Party in the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Socialist_Party_of_the_United_States

[GOPBasher]

93. That's true. I wasn't thinking in that context. n/t

[Joanne98]

13. Well if you look at other countries..

The Socialist Parties are firm believers in a welfare state. When the countries in Europe go right, they usually go to Democratic Parties. As far as I can tell, Democratic Liberal Parties believe in globalization and markets.(google; The Washinton Consensus) Democrats are kinda Adam Smith, but not so cruel. I don't think there's a difference anymore between between Democratic Liberal and Republican or Torrie. Socialists believe in a safety net. Democrats don't.

[ComerPerro]

14. um, you mean aside from the fact that

socialists advocate socialism, while Democrats do not?

[MrCoffee]

17. are you advocating socialism? socialist.

[ComerPerro]

18. no, but if I were, I would be a socialist, right?

[MrCoffee]

26. apparently. maybe you're a crypto-socialist.

i like to have fun with threads that are so obviously doomed.

[ComerPerro]

30. I wouldn't be a very good one if I told you

[MrCoffee]

36. you're in deep cover. you're good, i'll give you that.

[eallen]

24. I think there is a large difference between a socialist and a liberal.

A socialist believes that ownership of the means of production should not be separated from labor. Depending on variety of socialist, they favor either the state owning the means of production as representative of the laborer, or something like syndicalism. My own view is that the first is a proven failure as an economic system, and the latter is mostly mythical, in that few of those who adhere to it have well considered the legal structures that are required to maintain it.

A liberal believes that capitalism of some variety is the outcome of liberal political arrangements, and also favors it on the pragmatic grounds of its productivity. A liberal's political views will differ from a libertarian's, in that the liberal doesn't make some fantasized capitalism the sine qua non of his economic view. Against the notion that taxes are anti-capitalist, the liberal mostly scratches his head, recognizing that capitalism also requires some state apparatus, and that taxes are what pay for that. A liberal's economic views will differ from the conservative's, in that the liberal doesn't necessarily see government social programs or regulations as signs of incipient socialism. (I'm not quite sure whether conservatives really believe that, or merely use it as a talking point.)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. Well, you're a democrat.

So why don't you tell us?

[MrCoffee]

33. don't speak too soon. jury's still out on this one.

[William769]

37. You have something you would like to say?

[MrCoffee]

38. if i had something i'd like to say, i'd say it.

[William769]

41. Thats what I thought.

[ComerPerro]

48. ROFL

:rofl:

[LSK]

52. I thought he just did n/t

[William769]

34. I know what I am.

I'm just trying to figure out what other people think.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. Why don't you tell us what you think?

[William769]

42. I don't know what I think, thats why I'm asking.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. Well, if you know what you are...

that is, a democrat. And you, presumably, know what socialists are, then why don't you tell us what you think is the difference?

Just curious about your response, is all.

[William769]

55. To me a Democrat is one who believes in social programs

to help the less fortunate and to help them on their feet again.

A socialist is according to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

I happen to agree with the above definitions.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. That's getting somewhere.

Now: What's the difference between a Democrat, a Socialist, and a Christian?

[Selatius]

78. All three can converge, actually

The man who penned the Pledge of Allegiance happened to be a Christian Socialist. He was a socialist precisely because he felt that is what Jesus was trying to teach: Mutualism. There are still strains of that kind of thinking existing today. Liberation Theology is one of them, but the Catholic Church has spent decades trying to suppress it now.

[LSK]

31. how come nobody ever discusses Third Way

And what they are doing in Europe???

Is that Socialism? Is that Capitalism??

Maybe its just fucking common sense.

[eallen]

57. What they are doing there isn't that different from what we're doing here.

At least, not economically. Most European nations have thoroughly capitalist economies. The government extracts a share of GDP as taxes, typically between 30% to 50%, to fund its expenditures, including various social programs and pensions.

I suspect the largest difference is that the typical European nation has some kind of national health insurance, where here in the US, we have a potpourri of Medicare, Medicaid, CHAMPUS, local funding of public clinics and emergency rooms, and some state programs, rather than a national program that covers everyone. I also suspect that will change in the future.

[LSK]

59. the difference is their taxes go back to help their citizens

Our taxes line the pockets of Corporations and Military defense contractors.

In addition, their judgement of the economy isnt solely based on how well the stock market is doing.

[eallen]

71. Half the budget is social security, medicare, medicaid & means-tested...

benefits. Seems to me those help the citizens. The rest is divided between defense, interest on the debt, and discretionary spending.

[LSK]

74. social security is not part of the federal budget

[Selatius]

77. It wasn't supposed to be part of the federal budget to begin with

To lump it in with the federal budget is to accept as valid Johnson's move to hide the true costs of the Viet Nam War and to hide the true costs of Reagan's tax cuts and military spending.

[eallen]

95. Just remember to compare apples to apples across nations....

If you're looking at a European nation's tax collection or expenditure, and comparing it to the US's, then government pensions (superannuations, etc.) either need to be uniformly included or excluded.

[William769]

106. No your right.

They only use it to help supplement the federal budget.

[georgialiberal1]

32. huge difference

Socialist believe in the people having control of industry. Imagine the people control what they built with their own hands and backs! A democrat may have socialist leanings, but true socialism requires economic and political revolution. Marx theorized that after capitalism revolution, socialism would take hold. But socialism is a dirty word, so no politicians should ever use it. If a socialist movement started these capitalist pigs would shit themselves.

[Mandate My Ass]

50. the capitalist pigs

love socialism as long as it remains socialism for the priveleged class and social darwinism for everyone else. Yes, and if we got even a crumb of the pie they certainly would shit themselves. Welcome. :hi:

[H2O Man]

35. The answer is

pretty simple. "Democrat(ic)" is a political party. "Socialism" is an economic system. They can overlap.

[LostinVA]

45. I am a Democratic Socialist -- a proud member of the DSA

[oldcoot]

58. Easy question to answer

Socialists generally believe that the state/ people should own the means of production.

Democrats favor capitalism but believe that business should be regulated. For example, most of us favor safety regulations for the automobile industry. Of course, there may be differences between liberal and conservative Democrats in how much businesses should be regulated.

I personally do not oppose corporations but do feel that they should have to follow the law. For example, if I stole $50 from another person, I would probably go to jail. I see no reason why executives who steal thousands/millions of dollars from the customers, employees, or stock holders should not receive the same treatment.

[William769]

61. I personally believe they should receive harsher sentences

For breaking the publics trust.

[Nutmegger]

62. Democrats rather keep their capitalist system

While socialist seek to have the means of production controlled by the workers.

[Jed Dilligan]

63. Socialists are a cunning bunch of runts...

Oh, never mind.

[MrModerate]

67. Well, you got your wish . . .

This simple little question has generated a lot of response, from the ridiculous to the sublime. Congrats.

[William769]

69. Thanks.

This is what I was looking for.

[Catherine Vincent]

68. The same difference between a Nazi and a Republican.

[Selatius]

75. I guess there goes your support for Martin Luther King, Jr.

He was a democratic socialist, perhaps the most influential in US history.

[eallen]

72. socialism : Democratic Party :: creationism : GOP

How's that for an analogy. :evilgrin:

Except that far more Republicans are creationist, than Democrats are socialist.

[Rex]

76. What is the difference between a Fascist & a Republican?

nt

[Selatius]

79. What would you say if I told you Martin Luther King, Jr. was a socialist?

The same thing?

[IChing]

81. They get their history and philosophies from a dictionary

Upton Sinclair: After President Theodore Roosevelt read The Jungle and ordered an investigation of the meat-packing industry. He also met Sinclair and told him that while he disapproved of the way the book preached socialism he agreed that "radical action must be taken to do away with the efforts of arrogant and selfish greed on the part of the capitalist."

Jack London: 1901 London ran unsuccessfully on the Socialist party ticket for mayor of Oakland. He started to steadily produce novels, nonfiction and short stories, becoming in his lifetime one of the most popular authors. London's first novel, The Son Of The Wolf, appeared in 1900. His Alaska stories, The Call Of The Wild (1903), in which a giant pet dog Buck finds his survival instincts in Yukon, White Fang (1906) and Burning Daylight (1910) gained a large reading public. Among his other works are The Sea-Wolf(1904) and The Road, a collection of short stories.

The Pledge of Allegiance written by a socialist Francis Bellamy

[eallen]

87. I'd continue to respect him for the other things he did.

[Selatius]

90. Fair statement, but it misses the point of my question.

If you're going to apply the Fascist-Republican binary analogy to the right, then naturally you would have to apply an equally rigid binary rubric to the left as well. If you accept his frame of debate, then Dr. King was little different than a Stalinist.

[Rex]

100. Sorry should have said the PNACers or the BFEE.

I know not all Reps are bad and MLK as Stalin? Funniest thing I've heard all day! :rofl:

[BootinUp]

82. One has a shot at influencing American politics

the other don't.

[William769]

83. BINGO!

Thank you.

[BootinUp]

85. Not at all... thank you sir.

:)

[GreenPartyVoter]

84. Under the current election system, no. That's all tied up pretty for

Repubs these days, whereas before it was all tied up pretty for Repubs and Dems.

[Selatius]

88. You're not the only person unhappy with the two party system n/t

[BelgianMadCow]

86. Tzadzaaaam: my first decidedly inflammatory post on DU

as I got the feeling in this thread that some measure of REALITY is urgenttly needed (inspired by Chavez, bite me) :

Democrats : one of two parties ruling the US of A, complicit through things such as NAFTA and the abandoning of the Fairness Doctrine to the current very bad state of affairs and the total hollowing out of the middle class and the sucking out of the lower class to the advance of corporations. Even if among them are numerous and noteworthy examples of leadership FOR the people, I strongly suspect they too are bought and paid for to a (too) big extent by "special interests".

Socialists : parties in Europe who have the biggest share in the EU parliament after the Christian / central parties, who represent the working class and whose opposition to several "liberalisation" ideas has kept our social security systems in place.

In many of the large traditional production industries, the socialist unions are by far the biggest and have very considerabe power. I do not like it when they try to hold on to every acquired right, as I do think we in the west need to consider the enormous difference in living standards and wages with other production sites in the world. But they fight for the people and their jobs and often are the only check on the big corporations.

So I'd say that the socialists over here are a big part of the reason why we don't have as many hollow shells of production sites that got outsourced as I hear you do in the US.

bmc

edited for typos and included "too big extent"

[butterfly77]

89. The difference is that ..

both are better than hypocritical, lying, theiving ass republiCONS AND CONservatives.

[Jamastiene]

91. Socialists believe in a form of government with no private ownership

of land or property allowed. Democrats, believe in a capitalist government with ownership of land and/or property allowed. The socialists take it to a level where the government makes decisions for you and Democrats believe in strong social programs while still keeping a capitalist government, which is held in check.

[PATRICK]

103. The common ground defines the problem

Namely that the "demos" or people controls its own civil society AND economy. That is precisely what puts them in the same basket of enemies by corporate special interests even if Democrats try to resolve the practical/impractical application of the ideal by all sorts of dangerous compromises with its polar opposites. In this country, sadly, the condemnation of Stalinist totalitarian "communism" that led a problematic medieval backwater into a headon with the world's prevalent economic system has been used to drag down all democratic and civil boats. The European brand of socialism probably leans on the FDR model in the direct confrontation with communism and then need to rebuild a non-fascist, peaceful ciivil society. Ironically the Democrats probably led to the model of current Eurpoean socialism even as they themselves tended to favor the corporate right more and more. Those caught in between the Cold War loons, when not riddled with crossfire wars, seem to to have benefited the most, but I doubt there is pure socialism anywhere. Hiding all the flaws behind a dictator and calling it socialism is not its real expression as envisioned. You have to have a healthier democracy than most governments have and if you do and move toward a different system than your powerful world neighbors you will then have to face the most severe external pressures. The common belief why it doesn't work often neglects the glaring problem of anti-democratic governmental power, but in the human condition they are related. It is just that in almost all large social experiments, the worst in humanity is vastly overpresented and corrupt at the top. Sooner rather than later too.

When Utopia clicks all elements have to support each other or you have totalitarian corruption, competing self-interests destroying society, a costly have-it-both-ways yin and yang seesaw which is stable when it is stable and taken for granted that "this is socialism" in its failings. Utopian literature, even as it lets the ideal determine the outcome, keeps slipping into disturbing areas of limits, losses and failings that needs authoritarianism and unsettling moral and libertarian sacriifices OR sanguine permissiveness to sustain itself, the same sort of fantasy that all dictators enforce and personally entertain themselves when wreaking havoc on individual rights and civil society both.

The Democrats as a party are not founded with socialist ideals and probably cannot sustain that philosophy except through adaptation to sustain its Jeffersonian roots. Pragmatism, a long history of states rights, etc have met social changes and new philosphies before. Populism was a Republican reform
concept because the GOP WAS the reigning people's party(in a way) much the same as the only populist hope for Americans now, realistically, is the Democratic party. The other side fears that any empowering and educating amd social programs among the people will lead to the socialist state itself- or more acutely, constraints on dynastic profit. This is very far from the Democratic vision and they consider their Utopia is a bi-partisan balance with crony capitalism, less examined and less driven than the Euro model, and therefore riddled by GOP ruthless attack.

JFK noted the trajectories of both parties as opposed to their stands and definition at any one point in development. That thoughtful assessment probably confirms the emnity the business world has toward everything Democratic except as it derails that trajectory and absorbs it into corporate Republicanism.
Socialism is a evolutionary premise and a practical benefit to state social programs and civic infrastructure. The real, visible concern is the human condition failure we DO have running most of the world that should not have the distracting benefit of pointing the finger at failed communist states- especially when it adopts social programs to placate the restive labor population.

It is sad, when confronting the shattering world crises about to swiftly fall upon the dumb neocon games, to have this type of post immediately fall prey to the idea of socialism(wrongly equated with Stalinist Communnism) as part of name calling on the same level as fascism, often confusing the failures of the two totalitarian extremes with problems within the traditional Democratic party. That is comparing apples(Dems) and rotten tomatoes. In the ideal, Democrats agree with the civic aims of the socialists but not the means and not the transformation of the economic system or the sacrifice of certain freedoms. As we have seen, this more worldly approach, this consensus of moderation, is not practicable either, but would be logically, compassionately susceptible to utopian progress in the long were it not also even weaker in self-protection and political will. Were it not also prone into reversing its trajectory into absurdity just as the GOP has become "progressively" insane and bereft of its best ideals since Lincoln.

[Armstead]

94. Depends on the Democrat and Depends on the Socialist

A wishy washy answer, I realize, but it's true.

Bernie Sanders, for example, describes hiomself as a Socialist, but he's basically a traditional liberal with progressive tendencies.

Other socialists are basically Marxists, against private ownership.

Democrats range from progressive liberals like Sanders to Corporate Conservatives with a (D) after their names.

[lumberjack_jeff]

96. Too much. n/t

[TheFarseer]

98. These are apples and oranges

socialism is an economic system. Democrat is a political philosophy which encompasses much more than economic philosophy and the economic philosophy it includes is not necessarily even socialism. In fact it is rather unlikely to be socialism, although it is often some mix of capitalism and socialism.

to the guy with reply #1, go masterbate to your copy of Rush Limbaugh's "The way it ought to be" and leave us alone.

[Skinner]

102. A Democrat is a member of an American political party.

The Democratic Party is a coalition of people of various ideologies and beliefs who have come together for the purposes of competing (and hopefully winning) elections. Democrats tend to fall somewhere on the more "liberal" half of the political spectrum here in the United States, but being a Democrat does not imply adherence to any particular ideology.

A socialist is someone who adheres to a specific political ideology (socialism, obviously). It does not imply membership in a particular political party. At least not here in the United States. (Although I think it should be fairly clear that a socialist in the United States would probably favor the Democratic Party over the Republican Party. A socialist might even be a member of the Democratic Party.)

[PATRICK]

104. I think there has been a

Socialist Workers party for some time in the US. Small parties are pretty much thrown into the same basket because of ideological purity wedded to idiosyncratic political dysfunction. Even more centrist parties like the Greens fall prey to the difficulties and that dysfunction so the ideology or even the individuals themselves are not wholly to blame- nor the absence of a Great Leader(shudder). Some of those
same dysfunctions plague the privileged dynamic Duo, but success and power so far enables them to thrive in a system they completely adjudicate against all comers.

In NY the small party has an ideological endorsement role that is instructive on where the candidate generally stands as opposed to campaign rhetoric. That is a far cry from having a parliamentary coalition role, conspicuous in its absence from American politics which seems still trying to reconcile G. Washington's wish that there were no political parties- a sentiment still redolent in the hinterlands when a party label used to be inconsequential and to this day often seems more a team icon than a thoughtful delineation. Well, are we going to have real political parties repesenting differing approaches or not? We seem to agree that we are not able to agree while the GOP has taken a political ax to the landscape and clearly determined to repesent a privileged minority and set worldview against all democracy and reality itself.

Should Democrats accidentally, through little act of political will of its own, become a super party, it can expect the upsurge of real parties in the vacuum and suffer from the gnats what its suffered from the bully until it decides what bi-partisan, big tent, and real party politics actually mean in the world.

[William769]

105. Thank you Skinner for this little tidbit.

"but being a Democrat does not imply adherence to any particular ideology."

I get lambasted for what I think alot here, but then again I do the same in return. To me thats what makes the Democratic party so good.

I have always believed in the the big tent philosophy and when I read a post weather it be from a liberal, moderate, or Conservative Democrat about a certain faction within the party bringing the party down, it just makes my blood boil.

Although I will say this about our big tent, I would hope that we follow the Detroit's Zoo's philosophy & send the elephants packing!

ON EDIT : spelling.