| Americans use the terms democratic socialism and social democracy interchangeably. But in Europe, and elsewhere, these terms can have very different meanings. I was recently reminded of the distinctions by linguistics professor Richard Teschner, University of Texas at El Paso. The distinctions are important because these terms have now entered our political discourse with politicians, such as Bernie Sanders, branding themselves as democratic socialists. |
|
Democratic socialism is defined as a political philosophy maintaining political democracy within a socialist owned economy. Democratic socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the values of equality. Thus, democratic socialism entails a democratic political system with a socialist economy in which the means of production are collectively owned.
Democratic socialists are committed to replacing the capitalist mode of production with socialism by replacing private ownership with collective ownership of the means of production. In theory, democratic socialism is distinguishable from autocratic and undemocratic Marxism-Leninism.
Typically, democratic socialism advocates for a limit on the accumulation of property and governmental regulation of the economy. It also seeks to provide extensive publicly financed assistance and pension programs. Currently, countries that may be said to be governed by a democratic socialist party are Armenia, Bolivia, Ecuador, Iceland, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland, Portugal, Serbia, and Venezuela.
On the other hand, social democracy is usually defined as a political regime advocating economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented mixed economy. Social democrats propose measures such as income redistribution, social-welfare provisions, and regulation of the economy.
Social democracy seeks to humanize capitalism by creating conditions for greater egalitarian outcomes. The long-term goal of social democracy is socialism thru an evolutionary change from capitalism to socialism using established political processes.
There is a great deal of overlap on policy positions between social democracy and democratic socialism. Political scientists use the social democratic label for center-left political positions, and the democratic socialist label for the more left-wing positions. Interestingly, Marx and Engels referred to socialism and communism interchangeably. I, having lived under communist rule, remain unconvinced by the definitional differences between democratic socialism and social democracy. They both encroach on our personal freedoms.
There is no sensible way of definitively ranking countries as social democracies. Currently, nations such as Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, as well as some Eastern European countries have adopted their own system of capitalism where socialist welfare policies are made to fit within a capitalist framework. Japan and Canada have also implemented policies that could be considered to fall within a reasonable definition of social democracy. I will borrow a sentence from Dinesh D’Souza that these countries are “capitalist in wealth creation and socialist in wealth distribution.”
For example, in the United States the top combined tax rate of 46 percent kicks in at $400,000, which is more than 8 times the average income. In Denmark, the top tax rate of 60 percent kicks in at $60,000 which is only 1.2 times the average income. Similar rules apply in Norway, Sweden, and Finland. That is, the United States imposes a high tax rate on the rich, whereas the Scandinavian norm is to tax heavily vast segments of the population.
Moreover, Sweden, Norway and Denmark, also collect a value-added tax of 25 percent on most consumer items. American politicians consider value-added taxes regressive in that they disproportionately penalize the lower income population that must spend a higher proportion of their income on consumer goods. In the Scandinavian countries, when the value-added taxes are considered the math shows that the middle classes pay taxes that are the same as, or higher than the rich.
Ironically, while the American left argues for a Scandinavian socialist model, the Scandinavian countries have been moving away from their socialist model of the 1970s, for the last two decades. Today, countries like Denmark and Sweden score at the very top of economic freedom.
This is telling because American politicians that label themselves as democratic socialists point to the Nordic countries as examples to follow. We are left to wonder if they are fundamentally ignorant or just deceitful.
Please let us know if you  this article. |
|
We welcome your feedback.
Abrazos,
Lily & José
(click on the name to email Lily or Jose) |
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment