(05-14-2020, 10:42 AM)TJBender Wrote:

(05-13-2020, 07:36 PM)Last42min Wrote: Quick aside, I think it's interesting that Bernie Sanders uses the democratic socialist tag instead of the social democrat tag. He's either too stupid to know the difference, or his end goals are socialist in nature. I don't think he's stupid.

I try to limit how often I whip out the whole, "Political science major with a focus in political theory", but I do have a pretty good idea of why:

1. By the time you get that far left to one side of the scale, things start jumbling together. First with each other, then with the farthest fringes starting to reach across and connect dots with the other side. "Social democrat" and "democratic socialist" are close to being the same thing. I don't remember the exact differences, but I would guess it's mostly centered around little bits and pieces of capitalism left in social democracy that aren't there in democratic socialism. A couple of ideologies that are so far to one side that they pull from the other would be Stalin-style communism (drew heavily from fascism despite placement on the left) and Nazism (drew from socialism and communism despite being far right...I know I'm going to hurt the feelings of a few by saying that).

2. One of the key identifiers of most of Sanders' supporters is a rejection of both parties, not just of Republicans and those right of center. The term "social democrat" suggests that Sanders is still tied to the concepts of the Democratic Party, because most of his supporters wouldn't know a political horseshoe if it hit them in the face. By using "democratic socialist", it's a break from being a "Democrat" while still differentiating it from further right ideas, and true democratic socialism isn't far enough out there to draw over from the right.

or 3. He doesn't actually know the difference, or doesn't care that there is one, and just went with what sounds better on the evening news.

It's cool. It was my major also. I disagreed with most my professors and half of my peers, so it's possible to have an honest discussion about the subject. I just lose my patience with a person like Mikel who likes to read Wikipedia, then present himself as an expert here. 

You nailed the bolded part. Social democrats are largely pro-capitalist with an emphasis on a large social safety net, but Democratic socialists are pro-socialist (in that they think the means of production should be run by the state), but think decisions should be made via the people through a democratic process. Social democrats are as far to the left as you can get in a capitalist system, while democratic socialists are as far as you can get to the right in a socialist system. While there is some overlap with regards to welfare, the big difference goes back to who controls the means of production. Let me address some of your points. 

1. I do understand that there is confusion, even at the undergrad level. I don't think this is due to a lack of clarity of the terminology, but rather the institutions' fixation on Marxism, Communism, and Fascism. There is a terrible bias in academia with regards to socialism, and I feel this tends to soften the role it has played in tyrannical governments. I will admit that I didn't even have a solid grasp of the systems until many years after graduating from college, as I continued to educate myself about history and philosophy. I am ok with people confusing these terms, but not after it's been explained. 

2. This distinction between terms exacerbated by the rhetoric rampant in our political system, and I've already conceded that point in my previous post. I don't think this justifies using the more extreme of two terms, though. I could see why someone might use the justification you presented here, but it just seems like a terrible strategy. 

3. It's a possibility, certainly. I just find it hard to believe he doesn't know the difference. 

4. You left out 4. He wants a socialist society and is ok with misleading the public until it's a realistic possibility. One of the problems I have with Marxism is that it was literally designed to usher in a communist society (we would say Marxist) using a socialist society to destroy a capitalist society. People who study his works and those that follow, know the blueprint. Depending on the author, this could be achieved through revolutionary means or democratic means. Because of this, it is actually very hard to believe that anyone that reads and values Marx would like to stop anywhere short of Marxism.

---