Cornell West and Tucker Carlson on 'socialism'

I liked Kulinski’s discussion about the differences between democratic socialism and social democracy, though it needed much more fleshing out. At first, I thought he was a proponent for the former, then he said he was a social democrat instead. I think he’s right to note the differences, especially that democratic socialism is a post-capitalist philosophy — one that calls for an end to capitalism, which is absolutely necessary in order to democratize the economy/extend democracy to the economy.

If the economy is democratized, it is no longer “capitalism,” by definition. It’s something else.

Social democrats prefer to keep capitalism in place, but seek reforms and a stronger social safety net. They want the Nordic model, basically.

But he confused me by saying that, whether we like it or not now, the two terms are interchangeable. Personally, I don’t see how that’s possible, given the ginormous differences regarding capitalism.

wv wrote:

“we in america became anti-intellectual about socialism…”

This video was interesting too.

O’Donnell has said, on air, that he’s a democratic socialist. But I disagree with a couple of things he said here. To me, the conventional wisdom that asserts “We need capitalism” is absurdly wrong, and any close look at economic history proves this.

America wasn’t a “capitalist” society until after the Civil War, and the entire human race somehow managed to survive roughly 300,000 years without it.

I think too many Americans confuse it with commerce, trade and “business” in general, when it’s a specific economic form, not commerce itself, etc.

Capitalism is a specific social, legal, economic form of commerce that cedes all control of commerce to the few, the people who hold “capital.” In this system, capitalists purchase labor power (as a commodity) to produce commodities for money. C-M-C and exchange value. It’s all about who controls this, not about commerce itself, or production itself. Who calls the shots? Who owns all of this? Who gets to decide everything along the way? That’s what makes “capitalism” unique and unprecedented.

Billy_T wrote:

Perhaps the way to bridge that gap is to say: Democratic socialists are more than willing to push social democratic policies, on the way toward achieving actual socialism — Medicare for all, a living wage, cradle to grave free public education, etc. etc. But they still have the ultimate goal of fully democratizing the economy and socializing ownership of the means of production. Social democrats don’t have those goals. They are fine with Scandinavia as end-goal.

We socialists want more.

Democratic socialism vs social democracy…

What we want vs what is achievable.

I became interested in democratic socialism in college. But it is no more of an achievable goal today than it was way back then. If anything, less so. Capitalism is too imbedded in our society to be rooted out. Not in my lifetime anyway.

So it comes down to the practical versus the illusory hope.

I think forcing a muzzle on capitalism is at least theoretically doable. I think that’s an attainable albeit really ambitious goal. The millennials are sorta sniffing around that hole already.

You’re free to disagree of course, BillyT.

Perhaps social democracy can be a waypoint on our way to democratic socialism – the ultimate goal. When asked about the Vikings’ defensive philosophy, Keith Millard used to say that they tackle the RB on the way to the QB. 😉

nittany ram wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

Perhaps the way to bridge that gap is to say: Democratic socialists are more than willing to push social democratic policies, on the way toward achieving actual socialism — Medicare for all, a living wage, cradle to grave free public education, etc. etc. But they still have the ultimate goal of fully democratizing the economy and socializing ownership of the means of production. Social democrats don’t have those goals. They are fine with Scandinavia as end-goal.

We socialists want more.

Democratic socialism vs social democrat…

What we want vs what is achievable.

I became interested in democratic socialism in college. But it is no more of an achievable goal than it was way back then. If anything, less so. Capitalism is too imbedded in our society to be rooted out. Not in my lifetime anyway.

So it comes down to the practical versus the illusory hope.

I think forcing a muzzle on capitalism is at least theoretically doable. I think that’s an attainable albeit really ambitious goal. The millennials are sorta sniffing around that hole already.

You’re free to disagree of course, BillyT.

Perhaps social democracy can be a waypoint on our way to democratic socialism – the ultimate goal. When asked about the Vikings’ defensive philosophy, Keith Millard used to say that they tackle the RB on the way to the QB. 😉

Hey, Nittany,

I definitely think it’s important to remember what is doable, versus the theoretical. But recent times have shown that what we once thought was impossible no longer is. See the entire Trump presidency.

The left (in general), IMO, fails by holding back, always holding back on the sphere of the Imagined, though it never comes close to the Dems in this regard. The Dems in power are positively afraid of their own shadows. They’ve got people holding their thumb in the wind to find out if it’s okay to send other people out to hold their thumb in the wind, etc. All that does is preempt any discussion of alternatives to our present nightmare. It just cedes victory to the bad guys.

To me, it’s “negotiations 101” to always ask for more than you think you can achieve. By sliding back to that and asking just that, you’re going to get less, which means less than you’d get if you ask for more, typically.

(I’m betting that was clear as mud!)

Anyway . . . I also think this is the case right now: Even social democratic reforms are a tall task in this atmosphere. Next to impossible. So why not push the Overton Window as far as we can beyond that. Wouldn’t that make those SD reforms appear closer to the “middle”?