Talk:Democratic socialism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

John Stuart Mills incorrectly characterized

The passage that discusses John Stuart Mills on this page incorrectly places within the context as supporting socialist economic policy in later editions of his book, The Principles of Political Economy. I have searched the 1848 and the 1884 editions of this book and the referenced passage used to associate this claim are not in those editions. I suspect that other authors later made this erroneous connection, and are represented in citations 24/25 associated with that passage. Usage of this kind of secondary passage to characteristic JSM as "advocating" a form of economic socialism is an example of cherry picking from secondary commentators of a principle subject to misrepresent the context. I was also unable to find that passage in either of two references cited, one of which goes to a dead URL.

   JSM was by all accounts a naturalist, a Utilitarian and a liberal.  In his 1848 edition in fact he went into deeper critiques of the socialist systems available from observations after some of the European history that had transpired between 1848 and 1884. 
   I can make an edit to correct this erroneous connection but I would have to change the passage as currently provided, so I thought I'd open it discussion here.

Operem Perseverare, Existentialed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Existentialed (talk • contribs) 20:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

List of parties

The list of parties here is really arbitrary, some of them controversial, most of them un-sourced, and grossly out of date (to keep up to date, it needs very heavy maintenance). I raised these problems two years ago, and nobody defended it. As the section links to presumably more comprehensive lists, I think it should be simply deleted. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Good call. It's avowedly redundant to List of democratic socialist parties and organizations and List of democratic socialist parties which have governed, too. Why not just have those two lists in the "See also" section and cut the "Parliamentary democratic socialist parties" section altogether? Q·L·1968 ☿ 22:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

This page is 'owned' by Socialist ideologues and Libertarians, reminiscent of the Judean Popular People's Front, reflects a British view, and needs a complete NPOV re-write

This Wikipedia page needs to be completely re-written, from a neutral point of view, or renamed. "Democratic socialism" most emphatically does *not* mean "social ownership of the means of production," which is simply Socialism, and this article could be folded in there, or re-labelled "Socialism (democratic path)" or "Socialism (19th-20th c") or some such. Although one can find rare examples (mainly fringe or anachronistic) of that view (ownership of production), it is a tiny fraction of the individuals who consider themselves democratic socialists today, and of the political parties who describe themselves as such. (Many libertarians or conservatives, on the other hand, are eager to impose this label on anything related to government involvement in the economy.) Trying to force the label 'social democrat' on others, and to claim or impose the 'democratic socialist' label for a tiny far-left minority, is not neutral and does a disservice to the overwhelming majority of adherents and those who wish to learn about them and their views. (There is an odd confluence of interests in this: a) the tiny minority who support those views, and b) the libertarian camp who also want to force anything related to government into a 'road to serfdom' that phases out private ownership of production -- i.e. fear-mongering.) The modern usage has evolved way beyond this. As written, this page is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and deeply misleading to readers. Benefac (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, this article is misleading.

However, it is not a question of forcing anything as social democracy is the correct term for present-day "socialism" in Europe while what existed behind the iron curtain was definitely about worker or state ownership of enteprise.

The Social Democratic Party of Germany is still around and the article about the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats at EU level says that the "group mostly comprises social-democratic parties". Even Romania has a party that is called the Social Democratic Party and people there definitely reject socialism for obvious reasons.

As for any demagoguery, it stems from either ignorance or propaganda. --JamesPoulson (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Incoherence

The article doesn't prove that "democratic socialism" in this context even exists as a separate phenomenon from social democracy. It is essentially a way for social democrats to try and make themselves look sexy (and a way for Trotskyists and some revisionists in the West to make shilling for social democrat parties acceptable to their followers). The definition section is also a complete mess.... its a convoluted mish-mash of social democrat, left-com and Third Camp Trotskyist (Hal Draper) tidbits brought together into one big synthesis. The article can't decide if it wants to be a WP:FORK for the anti-Stalinist left or Libertarian Socialism articles. Is there any other example of an article in an encyclopedia on this topic, including a complete etymology for the phrase to rework it a bit? I have only been able to find this article from The Great Soviet Encyclopedia from 1979 demolishing the phrase as unscientific. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's a bunch of encyclopedia articles: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pWcoMn8nvXcC&pg=PA274&dq=%22democratic+socialism%22+encyclopedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjikfuj8PrZAhWE-aQKHVbXBfcQ6AEINDAC#v=onepage&q=%22democratic%20socialism%22%20encyclopedia&f=false https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Z6I5DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA401&dq=%22democratic+socialism%22+encyclopedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjd6K-t8PrZAhUJCuwKHf2HD1U4ChDoAQgoMAA#v=onepage&q=%22democratic%20socialism%22%20encyclopedia&f=false http://dschwei.sites.luc.edu/demsoc.pdf https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/9781118474396.wbept0254 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hXciENBqTUUC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=%22democratic+socialism%22+encyclopedia&source=bl&ots=aPDnb6XAOF&sig=NtwvP6exApxWhauB70lOu8uSmtE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbroqU8PrZAhUL2qQKHQHnDIk4ChDoAQg6MAM#v=onepage&q=%22democratic%20socialism%22%20encyclopedia&f=false And dictionary definitions: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/democratic_socialism https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/democratic-socialism https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/sociology-and-social-reform/sociology-general-terms-and-concepts/democratic And study notes (not RS, but possibly useful) http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/socialism/democratic-socialism-definition-nature-methods-and-tenets/817 BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Social democracy is a well defined ideology originating from social legislation introduced by Bismark and carried forward by the Social Democratic Party of which Ferdinand Lassalle (notice the school saying Social Democracy) was a precursor.

Democratic socialism, on the other hand, seems to be a buzzword and snarlworld which has picked up in US politics more recently. --JamesPoulson (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is dumb

1)Democratic Socialism is a tautology. 2)Half of the people in the list of democratic socialists are demonstrably not. Clement Atlee, Lula, Leon Blum, administered governments on the basis of the private ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Ergo, they were not socialists of any sort.

It's amusing. The term social democrat, which used to mean a socialist who wanted to gain a socialist economy through parliament and reform, was appropriated by the business parties who wanted a lefty synonym for welfare capitalism. So, the real social democrats started calling themselves democratic socialists, and now they want that too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.81.236 (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Seven years on, and this article is still bourgeois trash. 76.69.155.96 (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Distinguish?

A recent edit extended the list of terms distinguished from democratic socialism: previously, only social democracy appeared, but after the edit, democracy, republican democracy, and constitutional democracy were added. The documentation for Template:distinguish is definitive here:

This template renders a hatnote intended to inform the reader of the existence of one or more articles whose title(s) bears a strong resemblance to the current article.

There is no possibility of a reader confusing the term "democratic socialism" with any of the three added terms, hence the additions are unnecessary and unhelpful. (Also, the template allows multiple arguments, so using four copies of it is a terrible idea.) These topics would make perfectly good additions to the see-also section of the article, if you want. --JBL (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It's nice that you've personally decided that no one can possibly confuse different forms of government. It's also nice that you have personally decided that distinguishing these forms is not necessary for the article. If you are a supporter of DS, you would want to promote its distinction from other forms of rule. If not, you probably would not be so active on this page. The third possibility is that you want to disguise DS as something that it is not. Your thoughts would be fantastic. Best wishes always! Learner001 (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The distinguish template is for distinguishing similar names, not similar things. The rest of your post consists of unfounded and irrelevant personal comments of a sort that are not appropriate for Wikipedia editors. I have also fixed the broken formatting in your comment; you're welcome. --JBL (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

You're right, and I apologize. I was a bit out of sorts yesterday and should have stayed off WP. Best wishes Learner001 (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. I have added two of the three links to the See Also section. (Democracy is already linked in the lead section of the article, I didn't think it needed a second link.) --JBL (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Accounting for real use of the word "democratic socialism" and not just that of normative and utopian intellectuals

It is a general tendency around the world within socialist, socialdemocratic and labour parties to have people inside them who call themselves "democratic socialists" and yet who do not propose a communist system of the state owning everything or a communal or workers system of all companies owned by workers or the community. The cases of both very mainstream visible politicians such as Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn calling themselves "democratic socialists" accounts for this and so we need to adjust this article towards incluiding these people inside it who call themselves and who are called "democratic socialists". This doesn´t mean that democratic socialist can´t include people who want schemes of total workers ownership of companies but clearly people like Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders don´t want that and as such not every person who calls himself/herself democratic socialist wants that either. As such democratic socialism and socialdemocracy share a large overlap between each other just as, for example, nazism and fascism share a lot of space even though they are not synonymous. The mainstream press and media in the US is using "democratic socialism" in this sense also and so we cannot reduce the meaning of "democratic socialism" to what a miniscule amount of not too visible marxist intelectuals want democratic socialism to mean. Democratic socialism from that point of view is just achieving socialist ends (a more egalitarian social system) within a democratic political system and socialists have proposed a wide range of policies throught history which have gone from state ownership, regulated capitalist markets, real free non monopolistic markets (Proudhon), welfare states, cooperatives, trade unions and political parties. Not just cooperatives or state ownership.

Wikipedia is not a encyclopedia of intelectual utopian theorectical schemes but an encyclopedia that includes that but in a wider sense actual real widespread use of the concepts it deals with. I will start editing this article in that sense and I hope we could have a productive well discussed process in that.--Eduen (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Both Corbyn and Sanders are already listed in this article as notable self-described democratic socialists. --JBL (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

A proposal for a new version of the introduction of this article is available here for reviewing and comments. I will just comment on that proposal the fact that it incorporates the views which were present in the current version of the article which advocated for schemes of workers control of all companies alongside views which tend towards more mixed systems of some nationalisations, state regulation of capitalist companies and a strong welfare state.--Eduen (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I think new version is broadly OK, but some key material around socdem v demsoc was lost; I have copy edited and restored a much more concise version of that. I worry that the amount of time spent on Corbyn/Sanders in the lede might be a bit presentist - might be better to put that in the currently very skimy 21st century section, as lede should be summarising content. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the intro of this article to the previous version. Real use of the word "democratic socialism" does not support this affirmation which holds that all those who call themselves democratic socialists want to eliminate all capitalism while those who don´t want that are "socialdemocrats". Bernie Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist and he does not advocate a system in which all capitalism is eliminated and this is common all around the world. Also most if not all parties listed in this article as "democratic socialist" parties do not advocate total statization or communisation of productive property or arrival to communism at some future time. The UK Labour Party also says in its statutes that works for "democratic socialism" and does not advocate statisation or communisation of all property. Democratic socialism can indeed include communists working within democratic systems but not all socialism is communism. Anyway I am open for a debate on sources and real uses of the word "democratic socialism" but we cannot do justice to real use of that word saying that "Democratic socialism has historically often been distinguished from social democracy on the basis that democratic socialists were typically committed to systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism, whereas social democracy is supportive of reforms to capitalism". Socialism in itself is a very diverse tradition of thought which has include everything from mixed systems, communal property, state property, workers property (Bakunin, Tito´s Yugoslavia), non capitalistic market systems (Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker), regulation of the economy, welfare states, creating capitalism in feudal economies (third world socialisms and stalinist or maoist developmentalism in stages) and of course various and complex combinations of all of these things. Since all of those things-and combinations of all those things-have been proposed by socialists, all of those things are "socialism". A reduction of "socialism" to statisation is in fact a right wing caricature which has a clear intention of scaring people away from everything which associates itself with socialism but which is not representative of everyone who calls him/herself "democratic socialist".--Eduen (talk) 07:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Your revert restores a bunch of spelling and grammatical errors that I corrected, as well as a few reliable academic sources. The old version was supported by sources. The old version did not reduce socialism to "statisation" at all - it said nothing whatsoever about the state or state ownership (Which bit do you think implied statisation?); rather it was about whether capitalism and socialism are compatible (I don't think Corbyn or Sanders has ever said that capitialism is a good thing have they?). Finally, why do you insist on making social democracy one word? Makes the article look very idiosyncratic. Maybe the removed text should be the body not the lede, but I don't think it should go. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

On reflection, my proposal would be to move much of the controversial material out of the lede and into relevant sections, and keep the lede simple and un-controversial. But I'd suggest starting with a revert to this version to avoid the need for copy editing and correcting text already cleaned. I'll hold off on this though, in case others have different views. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The current revision relies too much on current events, presentism, and places an emphasis on defining democratic socialism by the actions of politicians as opposed to the concept of democratic socialism. The changes to the lead also remove lots of sourced material and appear to be pushing a non-NPoV.

The purpose of an encyclopedic entry on democratic socialism is the description and overview of democratic socialism as a concept as defined by scholars in relevant fields. It does not matter if it is a niche concept or a politician uses the term differently; the aim is to provide a general definition, not to expand the definition to include every possible policy favored by anyone who calls themselves a democratic socialist in current affairs.

Take Bernie Sanders as an example. In 2017 he sponsored the WORK ACT which proposed to expand worker-ownership in place of private ownership in the United States economy. On the other hand, in his 2016 campaign he did not bring up ownership as an issue in his speeches. Does this mean he believes in replacing capitalism and private property, or is he in favor of welfare state capitalism? Either way it is not up to Wikipedia to make this judgement. What Wikipedia can do is cite reputable scholarly sources on the definition of democratic socialism. Another example is Democratic Socialists of America; every member of that organization I have interacted with aims to replace capitalism with social ownership, but virtually all are supportive of social democratic reforms within capitalism as a first step in their political strategy. None would define these reforms as democratic socialism – I think this is where Eduen is confused. There is definitely overlap between the modern concept of “social democracy” as a welfare state and democratic socialism, but generally speaking, democratic socialists seek to go beyond capitalism. This is the position of most scholarly sources. This is also why it is problematic to use current politicians and their statements as reliable sources for political and economic concepts – otherwise everything from Nazism to Third Way neoliberalism could be considered “democratic socialist”.

BobFromBrockley The changes from the August 17 revision I agree with is mentioning the overlap between social democrats and democratic socialists, so I have added that material to the original lead. I have restored this version of the lead because it was easily readable and well-sourced, but have added the sources on the overlap between social democracy and democratic socialism; I also moved the overview of Sanders and Corbyn to the 21st century subsection of the History section of the article. A basic overview of the history of democratic socialism can probably be expanded upon in the lead. -Battlecry 12:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Eduen Socialists have supported everything from nationalism, internationalism, eugenics (as the Fabian society did for a while), electoral politics to revolutionary politics. But none of these things define socialism; the distinctive positive feature of socialism is some form of socialization of the means of production. So while it might be accurate to note that democratic socialists have often been in favor of certain policies (for example, progressive taxation) it is entirely inaccurate to define democratic socialism as progressive taxation (again using progressive taxation as an example). Democratic socialism is not defined as everything every self-described democratic socialist has supported in the same way that Christianity is not defined by every single action or position of every individual Christian. -Battlecry 13:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Socialism is above all a political movement and a very diverse one at that which has gone to have even deathly conflicts between some factions inside it (ex: stalinists versus trotskists). As such there is no single "socialist economic system" and almost each faction within socialism proposes its own while a few ones don´t even propose an actual "system" but just propose a few measures to correct the abuses and worst features of capitalism. Not even Marx himself gave details or even a working clear definition of what both socialism and communism is and his works are mostly criticism of capitalism and after that criticism of absolutist and democratic political systems.

But also "democratic socialism" does not alude in its name to a "socialist economic system" but to a political faction of the socialist movement which rejects dictatorships and totalitarianism and who supports and participates within mostly liberal democracy system´s rules. Also wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of normative or utopian proposals of intelectuals writing in books. It includes those things but it seeks to report actual discussion and widespread uses of words incluiding those in mainstream media sources and of politicians and political movements. As the article stands now, it is reducing democratic socialism to the views of communists participating in parties that are included in current democratic processes. But most importantly it is rejecting the actual positions of almost all the parties that are listed in the "Parliamentary democratic socialist parties" section and of almost all the politicians that are listed in the "Parliamentary democratic socialist parties". My proposal was able to include the views of communists within socialist parties acting in democratic systems while also stating that many if not most people who call themselves "democratic socialism" are working for reforms (some nationalisations, universalistic welfare states, more regulations of markets, workers cooperatives, progressive tax systems, anti-feudalistic and and anti-latifundio land reforms) and cannot be reduced to final ends of total elimination of all capitalism or statisation or communisation of all productive property.--Eduen (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the article back to the proposal of user Bobfrombrockley. I also support keeping his version as the introduction of this article while other issues are discussed and we reach a consensus in other issues.--Eduen (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Based on your comments I don't think you understand what the terms "communism" and "normative" mean. Democratic socialism is a broadly defined concept in political science, this definition is the appropriate definition to use in an encyclopedic entry as opposed to current news sources or misconceptions held by non-experts. The article never reduced democratic socialism to "communism" and was broad in its given definition, never specifying any specific economic model. Again you are confusing the actions of self-described democratic socialists with the definition of democratic socialism; not everything a democratic socialist politician favors and promotes is automatically "democratic socialist" in the same way that Christianity isn't defined as whatever actions, policies, etc. Christians currently favor. The lead never took a position on whether or not someone was or wasn't a "democratic socialist", it simply defined the concept and provided an explanation of democratic socialism and how it relates to and differs from other related political ideologies (Marxism-Leninism/Communism and social democracy).

It's also important to recognize the difference between the name of a political organization or group and political concepts. As an example, the concept of democracy is not synonomous with the policies, actions or positions of the United States Democratic Party simply because it has the word "Democratic" in its name. -Battlecry 12:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an enciclopedia of "political thought" but of a real existing world in which political thought clearly plays a role. In real social conditions political thought plays a role but within significant debate and with variable coherence with actual existing organizations, parties and politicians inside a complex political movement such as socialism. A hard distinction between democratic socialism and socialdemocracy such as you propose is sabotaged by situations such as the existence of mainstream self-labeled "socialist" parties such as the Spanish PSOE and the french Socialist Party existing within both socialdemocracy and socialism and having people inside them self labeling themselves both democratic socialists and socialdemocrats. Also the existence of something like the Socialist International points to the difficulty of establishing you "hard" distinction between democratic socialism and socialdemocracy. In order to distinguish for example the german socialdemocratic party from the more leftist The Left (Germany) labels such as "hard left" or "far left" are widely used and not "democratic socialism" versus socialdemocracy as anyone can check in the wikipedia article on that party. In Spain for example you have the situation of the Podemos party which is assumed to be to the left of PSOE assuming the label "socialdemocracy" and not "democratic socialism". This is also visible in the fact of US politicians such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez not deciding to call themselves "socialdemocrats" but "democratic socialists". I can also point out to the fact that the 2 references given previously to provide this "hard" difference between socialdemocracy and democratic socialism were from the 2000s while the mainstream strong visibility of politicians like Ocasio Cortez, Jeremy Corbyn, Jean-Luc Mélenchon or Bernie Sanders started in the 2010s. That is why in my proposal I note in the introduction the fact of the late 2000s Great Recession as influencing the emergence of these radicalized leftist politicians in rebelion againts the right wing development within socialdemocracy and US liberalism called the "Third way" of Anthony Giddens, the Clintons, Tony Blair and the more general embrace of socialist and socialdemocratic parties in Europe and other places of neoliberal and austerity economics during the 1990s and 2000s. I also think that this development should stay in the intro as opposed to your proposal which overemphasizes a hard distinction and we might also have to briefly mention the latin american "Pink tide" of the 2000s and 2010s which include the presidents of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia associating themselves with the label "21st century socialism". Clearly references from the 2000s are not going to deal with this while the mainstream press in the US talks today not about "social democracy" but of "democratic socialism" when dealing with Sanders and Ocasio Cortez.--Eduen (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Three comments on some of this. 1. Re the Pink Tide: the idea of Chavez etc being "democratic" socialists has been pretty contentious on this page in the past, so it definitely shouldn't go in the lede. 2. Ocasio Cortez is not very notable in the whole history of socialism, so shouldn't be in the lede - that would be presentist and probably US-centric. 3. The previous version incorporating most of your edits suggested no "hard" distinction at all. It said "The terms "democratic socialism" and "social democracy" have significant overlap" and "those labels were embraced, contested and rejected". I really don't see any advantage in the revised version. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The scope of this article is “democratic socialism” as commonly defined in scholarly sources as a broadly democratic political system combined with a socialist economy and/or the use of democratic means to achieve socialism as distinguished from the scope of the article on “social democracy”. There would be little point in having two separate articles on the same subject (the modern conception of social democracy). Furthermore Wikipedia is not a news source reporting on contemporary uses or misuses of political labels in the media and by contemporary political figures. If reputable scholarly sources mention alternate definitions or discuss the changing meaning of the term, then we can include that information in appropriate sections in the article body. For the time being Wikipedia should defer to the widely recognized definition of the concept by experts in relevant fields and not mainstream media news outlets.

You are also mistaken about the views of some recent “democratic socialists” like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who mentioned in a PBS interview that she believes capitalism probably wont exist in the future and that democratic socialists are ultimately “marching toward” a post-capitalist society. Is she being coy about her political views for the sake of electability? Perhaps. Either way this is not a matter for Wikipedia to decide; her views and electoral successes can definitely be covered in history section, but at this moment in history her views (and those of contemporary politicians like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn) are not notable enough to warrant a re-definition of “democratic socialism” in the lead. Current politicians are not the most reliable sources because they are likely to say things to enhance their electoral appeal. In any case the subject matter of the article is the political concept of “democratic socialism” and not how the term is used or misuused in contemporary mass media.

In my proposed revision of the original lead I included a section mentioning the overlap between “democratic socialism” and “social democracy” and retained the material covering Sanders, Corbyn and Ocasio-Cortez but moved them to appropriate sections in the article. @BobFromBrockley: what do you think of this proposed version?-Battlecry 21:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

To user Battlecry: ¿So people such as Ocasio Cortez who is covered by mainstream mass publications as "democratic socialist" and Bernie Sanders (an ex US presidential candidate) are less notable than obscure academics and pamplet writers proposing the democratic socialism that you like? That is just an absurd affirmation. And again you have accepted before that we should not "specify any specific economic model" and yet you insist on a non existing single "socialist economy" which does not exist anywhere and not even in books. To user Bobfrombrockley: I have to remind you or maybe inform you that the label "Socialism of the 21st century" is not only applied (and self applied) to the venezuelan PSUV presidents but also to the ecuadorian Rafael Correa and Evo Morales in Bolivia. So even if we decided to accept your view that the venezuelan presidents are not democratic (in which you would have to establish also a difference between Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro) you would still have to explain yourself about Correa and Morales. As far as Ocasio Cortez not being important as far as the whole history of socialism I can agree with you and that is why in my proposal I talked about Marx and Eduard Bernstein and didn´t mention her in the intro.--Eduen (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is a reliable definition of democratic socialism by a notable academic. Contemporary Political Ideologies. A Comparative Analysis. Fourteenth Edition. Lyman Tower Sargent. University of Missouri—St. Louis. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. 2009. pg. 118. "The word 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..."The Principles of Democratic Socialism...Democratic socialism can be characterized as follows:...Much property held by the public through a democratically elected government, including most major industries, utilities, and transportation systems...A limit on the accumulation of private property...Governmental regulation of the economy...Extensive publicly financed assistance and pension programs...Social costs and the provision of services added to purely financial considerations as the measure of efficiency...Publicly held property is limited to productive property and significant infrastructure; it does not extend to personal property, homes, and small businesses. And in practice in many democratic socialist countries, it has not extended to many large corporations."--Eduen (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Article becoming a confusing mess. Is it sabotage?

Some of the latest revisions of this article seem to be trying to redefine Democratic Socialism, to fit the incorrect definitions by Bernie Sanders & other U.S. democrats. Democratic Socialism is a long established term internationally, and has been put in practice in for ex. Venezuela, and has nothing to do with the social-democracy-light that Bernie Sanders and other democrats are incorrectly calling socialism. Social Democracy is not socialist but a CAPITALIST system with a few perks like mostly tax-payer funded education and health-care. Democratic Socialism on the other hand is NOT capitalistic, but a socialist system by definition. After the latest few revisions this has been confused into one big mess in this article. I recommend that the last 40 something revisions be undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BreakingZews (talk • contribs) 17:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Please check the previous section and continue the debate with that thread. The reality of use of the term democratic socialism shows it is sometimes used interchangeably with socialdemocracy. Also a realiable reference was provided that reports that but that reference also reports that some communists have decided to embrace the term after developments like eurocommunism and the collapse of eastern european communist governments during the late 1980s.--Eduen (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

This is simply not correct. Yes, there are INDIVIDUALS, politicians in social democracies that have called themselves democratic socialists, and all the social democracies have socialist parties(though these usually are small, here in Norway the socialist party gets only 4-6% of the votes), but Social Democracies are not socialist, in any form. Democratic Socialism on the other hand is a purely socialist system, although it allows for democracy in theory(though usually not in practice). Social democracies like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, are capitalist countries. Democratic socialist nations like Tanzania, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, are socialist... this is a very big difference, and this article, and in particular your edits Eduen, are mudding this difference up. I understand that Americans who have recently found themselves enlightened by Bernie Sanders "democratic socialism" are confusing these terms, but then please make that a separate article or at least a separate part in this article, "American Democratic Socialism". Of course American "Democratic Socialism", which is most probably a misnomer as I don't think they have any intention of introducing a real socialist system, has never been put in practice and therefor should not be the main theme of this article or distorting the original and international definition of Democratic Socialism that has been long established. BreakingZews (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I have to inform you that I am neither from the US nor do I live there. Now I don´t know about Tanzania but as far as Venezuela and Ecuador the property regime is very similar to the scandinavian countries. This means that most companies are privately owned while some big enterprises like phones, water, railroads, oil and the postal service are nationalized and there is a very small sector (almost insignificant) of cooperatives. As such it is clear you don´t know what you are talking about when you say that "Social democracies like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, are capitalist countries. Democratic socialist nations like Tanzania, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, are socialist". In Venezuela and Ecuador most property is private property just as in scandinavian countries. The difference between Venezuela and Ecuador and scandinavian countries is not the property regime but economic development and state strenght (meaning less state corruption, more industrialization among other things in the scandinavian countries). On the other hand I have to remind you that Spain now is being governed by the Spanish Socialist Workers Party and that party does not have a program of nationalizing all private property. In fact it is a mainstream party in a bipartisan party system alongside the conservative Popular Party. This shows how democratic socialism and socialdemocracy are in many cases interchangeable terms.--Eduen (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I would like to point out that being a self-declared socialist state says nothing about the economic system employed in a given country. Venezuela is not a constitutional socialist state nor does it have a socialist economy, but it is governed by a democratic socialist party. These are completely different things. The Nordic countries are also not officially "capitalist states" or constitutionally committed to capitalism, but they do have capitalist economies.

That being said, I agree this article's lead is becoming a convoluted mess without a clear scope and demonstrating political bias. -Battlecry 04:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please specify againts who in particular is the article "biased" againts. In my view the article before was biased againts the majority of self described democratic socialists and real existing democratic socialist parties and politicians (incluiding those of major world parites such as the UK Labour Party) who do not want total statisation or communisation of the means of production. Much of current self described democratic socialists are those who want to distinghish themselves from Third Way neoliberal socialdemocrats but Battlecry wants to restrict this article to something like "democratic communism". On the other hand here user Battlecry comes again with his non-existent single socialist economic system which does not exist anywhere. Or maybe that user should clarify if the only "real" socialist country is North Korea in his view since it is right now the only country commited to an economy of total nationalization of the means of production after even self described communist countries such as China, Vietnam and Cuba now have switched to a mixed economy of statization and capitalism.--Eduen (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Accusations of sabotage against good faith edits are bad Wikipedia practice. I agree with Battlecry about not taking country's official designations at face value, and I also think it is best to minimise mention of particular, especially contentious (e.g. Venezuela) examples in the lede, which should be concise and as comprehensive and uncontroversial as possible. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The red flags need to be removed

The two red flags on the Democratic Socialism Wikipedia webpage are prejudicial and need to be removed. The red flag is associated with Authoritarian Socialism and Communism- the red flag is not associated with modern day Democratic Socialism.

The second red flag’s caption reads, “The red flag is the only universally accepted symbol of democratic socialism.” This a patently false statement. Check out the Democratic Socialists of America website or Bernie Sanders website-do you see a red flag anywhere? Where is the red flag on the Socialist party USA website?

I am a Democratic Socialist and I ran for Congress in the South Carolina Second Congressional district in 2002. I was endorsed by the Socialist Party USA and I received a respectable 10% of the vote. I am one of the very few Democratic Socialists to run for major political office and to receive a substantial number of votes. I did not put a red flag on my congressional website (http://webarchive.loc.gov/lcwa0006/20021202080116/http://www.mark-whittington.com/) because I did not want people thinking that I am some kind of communist.

Putting the Socialism Portal with its red flag on the Wikipedia Democratic Socialism webpage is also a terrible thing to do. Modern day Democratic Socialists reject both Capitalism and red flag Communism. The precepts of Democratic Socialism predate Trotsky, Lenin, and Marx by centuries. The Socialism Portal needs to be removed from the Wikipedia Democratic Socialism webpage because the vast majority of people associate the red flag with Communism and not Democratic Socialism.

It also bugs me that the apparent author of this article (Demigod Ron? ) makes the following statement on his Wikipedia user page, “Firstly I'm a socialist of the Trotskyist sort. What Marxism advocates is the only thing that can be called socialism, everyone else is a bourgeois ideologist trying to instill a false consciousness in the proletariat!”

Why is it that a Marxist has the right to define Democratic Socialism on a major, supposedly unbiased, source such as Wikipedia? I am a real Democratic Socialist and I would be happy to rewrite this entire article to reflect modern Democratic Socialism if I am given the opportunity to do so. Mwhitti482 (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This is revisionist. 76.69.155.96 (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

"The Red Flag" is literally the official anthem of the British Labour Party. (The Irish Labour Party too, apparently.) As symbol, the red flag clearly is not just associated with the communists as this editor claims. No-itsme (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're not a Marxist you're not a socialist. All of us draw from Marx, no matter our tradition. You're just an edgy socdem trying to redefine our terms to suit your anti-socialist liberal agenda. 72.181.99.6 (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Do not confuse...

@Eduen: The only claim is "there is overlap" and one of the sources places democratic socialism in between communism and social democracy. I'd say the two terms, though there is overlap, should not be confused and a remark to that effect is useful to the reader. Kleuske (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

In what specifically should we not "confuse" both terms? The fact is that in Europe "socialdemocratic" and "socialist" parties both are part of the Party of European Socialists and Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats as you can check by yourself the article on that here in wikipedia. In those parties there are also subgroups and wings who are more right wing and left wing and "socialism" and "democratic socialism" there is widely used. --Eduen (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The difference between socialdemocracy and democratic socialism is that democratic socialism can include some near communists or more or less communists while socialdemocracy does not. The "overlap" between democratic socialism and socialdemocracy is that many if not most self-labeled democratic socialists are not advocating for a communist system (either of total state ownership of the economy or of total communal property) but for a mixed system of capitalist property, small businesses, some nationalisations, some cooperatives, and maybe things like local government property, communal property, and mixed property; with state regulation and taxation of all of that and a strong welfare state.--Eduen (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) @Eduen: I checked what matters:

• "Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy."
• "Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates achieving socialist goals within a democratic system"

In short, one is not like the other, so we have two articles. One for each political philosophy. Readers could get confused. Kleuske (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Both terms are not the same thing but there is significant overlap between them and sometimes both terms are used as synonyms as the usage of "democratic socialist" by politicians like Bernie Sanders shows. Bernie Sanders is not advocating for a nationalisation of all private property but just for a stronger welfare state. The UK Labour Party is a self-described party of "democratic socialism" and it does not advocate for communism either.--Eduen (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

And that's exactly the reason why the "do not confuse" template is needed. Confusion, as you point out, is rife. Kleuske (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The goal of wikipedia is not "stopping confusion" in political discussions in the US but to show the reality of the concepts it deals with. The reality of both concepts is some use as synonyms while some difference between the terms exists.--Eduen (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The reality of the concepts is that "social democracy" and "democratic socialism" are two different things. Hence we have two articles. What "political discussions" do with that is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. If confusion is likely, we have a nifty template to distinguish between the two. Mind you, this is about a "do not confuse"-template. I am not willing to engage in politico-pilosophical discourses over a fucking template. Kleuske (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kleuske: & @BreakingZews: I agree made a similar point abouut the article's scope being different from modern social democracy in the prior discussion. I proposed restoring the original version of the lead and expanding it with some of the new sources and information added by Eduen, where appropriate. This version is much clearer and easier to follow than the existing mess and makes a clear distinction between the scope of the articles on democratic socialism and (modern) social democracy while also recognizing the overlap between these political ideologies. I propose restoring this version of the article. -Battlecry 03:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I would like to contribute that I'm studying this topic for class and this article in particular is very hard to understand. From studying the subjects over the last few weeks (and reading this article) what I came up with is essentially the same as Battlecry's edit. That is, democratic socialism is distinct from social democracy in that it advocates a move towards social ownership of the means of production. At present, the definition and differences from social democracy are very hard to discern from this article. On the point of Bernie Sanders' use, I know he uses the term but it has a clear much further back history than just Sanders and others like him. If you feel that Sanders definition should be added, add it under a subheading instead of mixing up the article entirely. If the terms were interchangeable I wouldn't have been assigned a paper on the differences between the two. Anecdotal evidence I know, but I am confident in the Head of Politics' abilities in his paper assignment. I would appreciate if you guys could come to an accord and bring this article back to readability. 118.138.67.98 (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Battlecry: That's a different discussion. This particular thread revolves around including a {{Distinguish}} template. Kleuske (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Battlecry but on this specific topic there is a need for a "distinguish" tag as the two terms are similar and it is important readers are aware there are two different articles to describe two terms which, although describing two things which clearly overlap, are also clearly not identical. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

BobFromBrockleyBecause there was never a consensus for the bold changes to the lead section which removed lots of sourced material, I have reverted it to the version prior to the change in the scope of the article. I suggest the parties to this discussion work out a solution to expand and/or modify the existing lead. -Battlecry 10:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Democratic socialism, ovelap with socialdemocracy and the third way

Contemporary Political Ideologies. A Comparative Analysis. Fourteenth Edition. Lyman Tower Sargent. University of Missouri—St. Louis. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. 2009. pg. 118. "The word 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...The Principles of Democratic Socialism...Democratic socialism can be characterized as follows:...Much property held by the public through a democratically elected government, including most major industries, utilities, and transportation systems...A limit on the accumulation of private property...Governmental regulation of the economy...Extensive publicly financed assistance and pension programs...Social costs and the provision of services added to purely financial considerations as the measure of efficiency...Publicly held property is limited to productive property and significant infrastructure; it does not extend to personal property, homes, and small businesses. And in practice in many democratic socialist countries, it has not extended to many large corporations."

Following this we can understand the self-labeling of "democratic socialism" of the UK Labour Party in Clause IV of its constitution, of Jeremy Corbyn and of Bernie Sanders. But also the labeling of the mainstream press of those politicians and of that party as Democratic socialist. For an academic source which labels the policies of the UK Labour Party and the swedish Social Democrat Party as "democratic socialism" check this source. Forcing a "hard" distinction between democratic socialism and socialdemocracy will be falsifying real use of the word "democratic socialism" although we can definitely say that democratic socialism does not include "Third way" socialdemocrats while social democracy does include the Third Way, and so that is why the social democracy article in wikipedia includes the Third Way as a part of social democracy. But the current state of this article does include the views of those who also label themselves "democratic socialist" but who want economic schemes like complete worker´s ownership of all companies or total state or communal ownership of the means of production (although those sorts of people also tend to call themselves communist). The definition by Lyman Tower Sargent does provide space for cooperatives, communal property and nationalizations but it also shows space for tolerance of capitalist property as long as it pays taxes inside a progressive form of that and accepts state regulations coming from state planning of the economy and the existence of a strong welfare state.--Eduen (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This is material that can go into the body of the article, along with other reliable sources that give a different perspective. It should not clutter the lede. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

As suggested by user BobFromBrockley, I proceeded to add the citation from scholar Lyman Tower Sargent. iIt clearly gives the current state of the article more support.--Eduen (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You say "as suggest by user BobFromBrockley" but I said it should not clutter the already full and contentious lede. It should be included in the body, not the lede. The lede needs to revert to a version that is as consensual and non-contentious as possible, with competing definitions discussed in the body. There is no consensus on the lede, but the current version has no support apart from one editor. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn´t add it to the intro but to the section called "definition". As far as the current state of the article it is actually more inclusive than what user Battelcry wants. User Battlecry wants to reduce the introduction to something that would only please communists who call themselves "democratic socialists". The fact is that politicians in mainstream media who call themselves "democratic socialists" as well as very likely the majority of those in socialist parties are not for complete statisation or communisation of the economy and even self labeled governing "communist" parties like the chinese, vietnamese and cuban have abandoned a system of total state ownership of the means of production for something more plural which includes capitalist property but also cooperatives, self-employment and local communal property (ex: socialism with chinese characteristics). The current version of the article includes views such as market socialism as well as it leaves space for nationalisations. On the other hand user Battlecry doesn´t want the inclusion of the views of visible politicians calling themselves "democratic socialist" and wants to restrict the intro to the views of communism. That will simply be falsifying reality.--Eduen (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I must've looked at the wrong edit. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Eduen You keep repeating asinine accusations about Communists, downright false claims about the prior lead equating democratic socialism with "total state ownership", and purposely putting words in my mouth to give your positon a semblence of credibility. But for the sake of clarity, I have never been a "Communist" or a Marxist-Leninist (based on your usage of them, I don't think you know what they mean, but Wikipedia is not a place to discuss personal political stances). With respect to the article, there was no consensus to alter the lead and consequently the scope of the article to be about the media's perception of present day self-described democratic socialist politicians and parties. Wikipedia is not a new's article or repository of popular culture definitions and carcictures of concepts as portrated in contemporary media, nor is it a place to publish original research on neologisms and re-definitions of established political concepts and theories. Editors should also note that I incorporated some of Eduen's suggestions in an unbiased and brief expansion to the former lead; I recommend we restore this version and work on its expansion. -Battlecry 09:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree, and it seems that is the strong consensus here. The lede must be concise and uncontroversial and written in decent English. It must be based on what the preponderance of reliable sources say. It should give precedent to reliable academic sources over news articles. It should not be skewed towards the present. It should enable readers to understand that "democratic socialism" is a different phrase from "social democracy" even though there are overlaps. Anything more complex, along with details about the present, should be kept out of the lede and moved to the relevant sections. This is what pretty much every other editor is saying. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

On "social ownership"

I invite user LaklandDuke to come debate the state of the article here and not just edit things without following with more detail the discussions going on here. I will ask him to define "social ownership" so that we can understand how is it different from a soviet style economy of total statisation of the means of production or from total communal ownership of the means of production. Socialism has provided as solutions to inequalities since its beginnings everything from cooperatives, statisations, communisations, self employment and small businesses (Proudhon and mutualism), and even capitalism itself since in underdeveloped" "third world" countries situations such as near feudalism persisted in the rural sector. As such Soviet Union oriented parties advocated at some point collaboration with industrial "national" capitalists and capitalist industrialization againts big landowners. But on another subject I salute user LanklandDuke decision to leave the historical paragraph and the references from mainstream media sources since user Battlecry wants to leave out the historical discussion and mainstream media sources from the introduction.

To user Battlecry I think we should not care here in wikipedia about your personal political views. On another subject of your response mainstream media is widely used and accepted in wikipedia. Your total opposition of incluiding mainstream media sources of "democratic socialism" in the introduction cannot hold in wikipedia.--Eduen (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Eduen: This is not a WP:FORUM. Wikipedia just summarizes what reliable sources say on the subject. If you have sources, please cite them. Kleuske (talk) 09:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Eduen: You seem to be mistaken about the purpose of Wikipedia; I have not mentioned my personal views or suggested incorporating them into the article. On the contrary, you are attempting to engage in original research on the definition and scope of the term "democratic socialism" centered on its use in contemporary politics in the United States and United Kingdom in an attempt to promote your own personal opinions. Moreover, no one on this takpage has supported your bold changes to the article's lead section which changes both the scope and definition of the article and removes any material and sources which contraict your personal views on the meaning of democratic socialism.-Battlecry 09:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Eduen:From the Democratic Socialists of America's website, here is their position on "social ownership.":

"Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives." — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaklandDuke (talk • contribs) 14:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Almost all the parties that this article lists do not aspire to total statization of means of production and some of those parties are now in power. The fact is that you are confusing democratic socialism with communism which is something that more or less collapsed in the late 1980s and which has been rejected even by self described communist ruling parties such as China, Vietnam and Cuba who now have mixed systems with cooperatives, capitalist businesses, state enterprises and self-employment.--Eduen (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

LaklandDuke (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)The Democratic Socialists of America's website states "In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control." Qualifying the sentence with "In the short term" implies that their long term goal is different than their short term goal and is in fact to "eliminate private corporations" and the "total statization of means of production."

On overlap and even use as synonyms between social democracy and democratic socialism

The following citation even suggests that we should consider a merge of the democratic socialism and the social democracy article. Anyway it shows the overlap and how those terms sometimes are used as synonyms: "This chapter addresses the following questions: how and under what circumstances did democratic socialism emerge in China? What are the major arguments of the democratic socialist theorists? Does Northern Europe offer a better social, political, and economic model? To what extent have the social democrats’ arguments been taken into consideration by the party state? Will the policy programs of the current regime, which embody the major concerns of democratic socialism, lead China to a different political direction?...Anyone who writes about “social democracy” confronts an interpretive problem at the outset: what does the term mean? Indeed, it is not easy to define social democracy in a simple way. The scholarly work laid down on the topic of social democracy is plentiful, to say the least, and often incoherent. Many simply refer social democracy to all forms of socialism that follow an electoral, reformist, or evolutionary path to socialism, rather than a revolutionary one. Neither Eduard Bernstein (1850–1932), the leading social democrat, nor the democratic socialists after him had a very clear definition...In this book, social democracy is defined as a political ideology that advocates a peaceful, evolutionary transformation through democratic means such as election and state-initiated programs. It differs from both liberal capitalism and communism in that it promotes a balanced approach toward equality and liberty and avoids the classical trade-off between the two goals under either liberal capitalism or communism. The Chinese translation of “social democracy” is shehui minzhu zhuyi and that of “democratic socialism” is minzhu shehui zhuyi. These two terms are interchangeable in China. It is necessary to distinguish social democracy from democratic socialism in the historical context. The former developed in the early 20th century as a moderate branch of international socialism and the latter as a major Leftist force in the West. By contrast, most of the political parties transformed from the communist parties in the former Soviet bloc countries have chosen the term “democratic socialism.” In general, both of them advocate a policy in favor of social justice and equality, as well as a democratic transition. He Li. Political Thought and China’s Transformation. Ideas Shaping Reform in Post-Mao China. Palgrave Macmillan. 2015 pg. 60-61--Eduen (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

LaklandDuke (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Maria Svart, the Democratic Socialists of America's national director, has stated stated clearly the DSA's position when she wrote "Capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy–they are linked structures of oppression that must be dismantled."

While there is overlap, social democracy and democratic socialism are not synonymous due to their inherently different stances on capitalism. To say they are the same is intentionally misleading and an attempt to downplay the anti-capitalism belief at the core of democratic socialists' agenda.

"Anderson and Herr, Gary L. and Kathryn G. (2007). Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice. SAGE Publications, inc. p. 447. ISBN 978-1412918121. ...the division between social democrats and democratic socialists. The former had made peace with capitalism and concentrated on humanizing the system. Social democrats supported and tried to strengthen the basic institutions of the welfare state--pensions for all, public health care, public education, unemployment insurance. They supported and tried to strengthen the labor movement. The latter, as socialists, argued that capitalism could never be sufficiently humanized, and that trying to suppress the economic contradictions in one area would only see them emerge in a different guise elsewhere."

"Curian, Alt, Chambers, Garrett, Levi, McClain, George Thomas, James E., Simone, Geoffrey, Margaret, Paula D. (October 12, 2010). The Encyclopedia of Political Science Set. CQ Press. p. 401. ISBN 978-1933116440. Though some democratic socialists reject the revolutionary model and advocate a peaceful transformation to socialism carried out by democratic means, they also reject the social democratic view that capitalist societies can be successfully reformed through extensive state intervention within capitalism. In the view of democratic socialists, capitalism, based on the primacy of private property, generates inherent inequalities of wealth and power and a dominant egoism that are incompatible with the democratic values of freedom, equality, and solidarity. Only a socialist society can fully realize democratic practices. The internal conflicts within capitalism require a transition to socialism. Private property must be superseded by a form of collective ownership."

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaklandDuke (talk • contribs) 02:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC) 

The idea of merging the articles is a really bad one. Of course there is overlap. Of course there is contention. But there are two different historical traditions, and the vast weight of the scholarly literature confirms this. And the clear consensus among editors here corresponds to that.BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Two different traditions? Both democratic socialism and socialdemocracy are part of the bigger socialist tradition of politics. The introduction to the article then should tell readers that there are both views which make a hard difference between both terms and other views which treat both terms as near synonyms. That is how we are not biased.--Eduen (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing for the lede to make a hard difference between the two. All of the other editors are arguing for a lede that recognises there are overlaps but that these are different terms.

On the two traditions (not something for the lede, which should concisely summarise the content of the article) here are two scholarly RSs: "the arrival of New Labour signalled an unprecedented and possibly final assault on the party’s democratic socialist tradition, that is to say the tradition of those seeking the transformation of capitalism into socialism by overwhelmingly legislative means... It would be a while before some of the party’s social democrats—those whose aim is the gradual amelioration of poverty and exploitation within a liberal capitalist society—began to fear the same threat to Labour’se galitarian tradition as the left recognised to its socialist tradition." (Steve Ludlam in British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2000) "In Labour: A tale of two parties, Hilary Wainwright (1987) provided a different reading which contrasted the ‘ameliorative, pragmatic’ social democratic tradition expressed principally in the Parliamentary Labour Party with a ‘transformative, visionary’ democratic socialist tradition associated mainly with the grassroots members engaged closely with extra-parliamentary struggles." (Mathers, A. (2017) in Interface journal) BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Very useful citation which shows that there are tendencies inside social democrat and labour parties that align themselves with democratic socialism. This shows also how Corbyn and Bernie Sanders align themselves with democratic socialism as a way to fight the "Third Way" while in the 1980s and 1990s ex communist party members from communist countries decided to embrace the label "democratic socialism" to avoid associations with the fallen authoritarian communist regime while maintaining leftist positions. The fact is that the word "democratic socialism" is also contextual and as such we cannot reduce it to a single non-existent "socialist economic system" nor to an eternal atemporal definition which can be seen as clearly and different in a "hard" form from socialdemocracy.--Eduen (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Labour is a party that has historically defined itself as democratic socialist, but which draws on multiple political traditions, from Methodism to Marxism and including social democracy. I agree the wall between the traditions is porous and not hard, but I don't think anyone is advocating for a lede which makes the distinction that hard. Tony Blair also called himself a democratic socialist by the way - under his leadership the party first explicitly defined itself as a democratic socialist party. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@BobFromBrockley To prove your point further, I pulled these quotes from the Bernie Sanders Wikipedia page:

"Multiple commentators have examined Sanders' characterization of his political platform and ideology as 'democratic socialism' and generally found it to support tax-funded social benefits rather than social ownership of the means of production."

"Lane Kenworthy, professor of sociology at the University of California at San Diego, has stated that Sanders is a social democrat and not a democratic socialist, and that the two ideologies are fundamentally different from each other. Kenworthy points out that social democracy does not aim to abolish capitalism, and argues that Sanders' use of the term 'socialism' when he actually advocates 'social democracy' is causing more confusion than it is adding value, and might unnecessarily have a negative impact on his presidential campaign. Mike Konczal, an economic policy expert at the Roosevelt Institute, also characterizes Sanders' positions as 'social democracy' rather than 'socialist', noting that social democracy means support for a mixed economy combining private enterprise with government spending, social insurance programs, Keynesian macroeconomic policies, and democratic participation in government and the workplace—all of which are a part of Sanders' platform. Andrei Markovits, professor of political science at the University of Michigan, defines democratic socialism as 'an attempt to create a property-free, socialist society' and something that does not exist in Denmark or anywhere else in the world, and argues that Sanders' explanation of the term is inaccurate."

"In a 2016 editorial, The Economist suggested that, despite calling himself a 'democratic socialist', Sanders actually fits the mold of a "social democrat" for his embrace of 'private companies that thrive and grow in America' and belief that 'the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal.' A Forbes commentator suggested that his 'democratic socialism' is really social democracy, as found in much of Europe and especially in the Nordic countries." — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaklandDuke (talk • contribs) 00:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Eduen You said "ex communist party members from communist countries decided to embrace the label 'democratic socialism.'" Are you now saying that communists and democratic socialist are the same? Because above you were saying other people were "confusing democratic socialism with communism." You seem to be changing your labels to suit your argument. LaklandDuke (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

And the confusion is encouraged if we fill the article with material about Communist parties - see Asia and Africa talk section below. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Two sources that I have brought say that ex communists have assumed in recent years the label "democratic socialism". But if something is "ex communist" it is not communist anymore. This did happen with the ex members of the east german Socialist Unity Party of Germany who after german reunification decided to establish the Party of Democratic Socialism which later was absorbed into the current Die Linke.--Eduen (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Asia and Africa

In the "Asia and Africa" section, there are several paragraphs about China, N Korea, Vietnam, and also the Japanese Communist Party, which to my mind have nothing to do with democratic socialism. Can they go? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Communist parties acting in democratic systems can be considered forms of democratic socialism. Check the wikipedia article on eurocommunism. That is why is added a mention of eurocommunism in the intro.--Eduen (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Arguably Eurocommunism could be described as a form of democratic socialism, as it prescribes a democratic route to socialism. But to say that Chinese, Vietnamese and North Korean single-party states are forms of democratic socialism is pretty bizarre. Do you have reliable sources saying they are? (Because I'm sure we could easily find reliable sources saying they are not.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I brought here mentions of the japanese communist party since is a party with a history within the japanese democratic system since the post-world war II period. The article does not include the chinese, cuban, or vietnamese communist parties as democratic socialism and does not deal with them.--Eduen (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually the article does include the Chinese and Vietnamese CPs. It says: In Asia, states with socialist economies—such as the People's Republic of China, North Korea, Laos and Vietnam—have largely moved away from centralised economic planning in the 21st century, placing a greater emphasis on markets. Forms include the Chinese socialist market economy and the Vietnamese socialist-oriented market economy. They utilise state-owned corporate management models as opposed to modelling socialist enterprise on traditional management styles employed by government agencies. In China living standards continued to improve rapidly despite the late-2000s recession, but centralised political control remained tight. Brian Reynolds Myers in his book The Cleanest Race, later supported by other academics, dismisses the idea that Juche is North Korea's leading ideology, regarding its public exaltation as designed to deceive foreigners and that it exists to be praised and not actually read, pointing out that North Korea's constitution of 2009 omits all mention of communism. Really, seriously, are you arguing that Vietnam is an example of democratic socialism? If the JCP is indeed a democratic socialist party, that's fine to include (though it might be worth adding a citation describing it as such, as our article on it doesn't). BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

That text is not saying those countries live under democratic socialism but that they have undergone economic reforms. As far as North Korea it says there are serious doubts it could still be called socialist at all. Still I do not care to defend that text so if someone wants to take it out of the article I don´t mind.--Eduen (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, the article doesn't say those countries live under democratic socialism, but by including them in an article about democratic socialism it implies they are, otherwise why would they be in the article. Am removing them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Quotes etc.

This article, and esp. the lead, suffers from a bunch of things, one of which is footnotes full of quotations and editorial commentary. Be gentle to the reader, and be mindful of WP:COPYQUOTE. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

LaklandDuke (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)@Drmies could you elaborate on "Be gentle to the reader, and be mindful of [[WP:COPYQUOTE]?" I thought sources and citations help. Could you give suggestion? I ask because I'm still learning how coding working in the Talk section. Thanks in advance.

Quotes are included if they serve a purpose. If a section of text is easily paraphrased, there is no need to add the original (in the citation template, as here); only if someone's original words are somehow special, or perhaps murky, or really complex, should we include the quote in the citation template. Including too many quotes, quotes that are too long, can fall afoul of copyright law: we do not have the freedom to simply copy someone's copyrighted text, only little bits of it. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes it is a good idea to have a quote, for instance when a term can be controversial. In this case I was happy there were quotes. But note, they're short, and it's just a few. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: The current lead was completely and unanimously re-written by a single editor, Eduen, without gaining a consensus. This was the last version of lead before it was unanimously re-written [[1]]. I suggested incorporating some of Eduen's content into the existing lead, supported by User:BobFromBrockley, in this version[[2]] but it was reverted by Eduen who appears intent on monopolizing the lead section. I suggest we restore the original lead section prior to the unanimous, disruptive edits, or the modified version I proposed which adds some of Eduen's sources that are pertinent to the lead without removing the original sourced content. -Battlecry 17:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: I second @Battlecry:'s proposal. I think it will make the lead section clearer. LaklandDuke (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Possible "Disruptive Editing" to the Democratic Socialism Article

Reviewing the history of the democratic socialism article and it's talk page, I've seen myself, @BobFromBrockley:, @Battlecry:, @Kleuske: and @BreakingZews: all engage Eduen with sources that prove there are differences between democratic socialism and social democracy.

Wikipedia is meant to be an open platform where accuracy is reached by consensus. And yet, even though 5 out of 6 of us (and probably close to 90% of the contributors to this Talk page) agree, the one person who disagrees (@Eduen) has repeatedly removed all parts of the democratic socialism article that discuss these differences and democratic socialist's anti-capitalist views. @Eduen seems to be attempting to monopolizing the definition and hide the consensus of the majority. I can't help but wonder if this is an intentional attempt at disruptive editing.

Is this matter something that should be report to Wikipedia Administrators?

In the "Wikipedia:Disruptive editing" article, Wikipedia has clearly stated:

"Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. That very openness, however, sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as a platform for pushing a single point of view, original research, advocacy or self-promotion. While notable minority opinions are welcomed when verifiable through reliable sources, and constructive editors occasionally make mistakes, sometimes a Wikipedia editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view... Disruptive editors may seek to disguise their behavior as productive editing, yet distinctive traits separate them from productive editors. When discussion fails to resolve the problem and when an impartial consensus of editors from outside a disputed page agree (through requests for comment or similar means), further disruption is grounds for blocking, and may lead to more serious disciplinary action through the dispute resolution process. In extreme cases this could include a site ban, either through the Arbitration Committee or by a consensus."

In the "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" article, they state the following:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and miniscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ.

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject."

Reading through this entire Talk page from the beginning, the topic has been discussed and consensus has been reached several times since 2016 that Democratic Socialism are Social Democracy are not the same. Why is this happening again?

Everyone agrees there is "significant overlap," but why is the minority view being presented as the consensus majority view?

If Wikipedia's policy is "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views," why are we allowing the minority view to "be included at all?"

If we chose to mention the minority view, why can't the article say "A small minority hold the controversial view that there no distinction between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy" so the reader clearly knows "which parts of the text describe the minority view... [So] the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained?"

Please comment below if you think we should take action and elevate this matter.

LaklandDuke (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• OK this is way too long, with too many citations from things that are obvious, and so much emphasis that nothing is emphasized anymore. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

LaklandDuke (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)@Drmies Apologies. I'm still learning the coding of this talk section. I was trying to highlight the exact parts which I believe relate without taking them out of context.

As per your comment, I've removed all my bolds and italics from my post above.

I have provided reliable citations which use democratic socialism and social democracy as near synonyms. But also politicians like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn who identify as democratic socialists and the whole UK Labour Party-which identifies itself with democratic socialism in its constitution-do not propose eventual total socialisation of the economy and most other democratic socialist parties listed here do not propose that either.--Eduen (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

But your views have been proven over and over again to be the minority view and yet you've tried over and over to again to monopolize the page with it and edit out the majority view. Once again, I'll repost Wikipedia's position on minority views:

"Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views. ... Pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."

I propose we adhere to Wiki's position and add this to the page: "A small minority hold the controversial view that there no distinction between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy, but this is disputed by most mainstream political scholars." LaklandDuke (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@LaklandDuke: I agree, Wikipedia articles should present a summary of a topic supported by reliable sources, not quote mining to support a minority political position or agenda. While I am hesitant to label anyone a disruptive editor, recent unanimous edits to this article's lead, body and talk page are definitely indicative of disruptive editing motivated by a political agenda. There was never a consensus to completely re-write the lead section and purge it of sourced material on the definition of democratic socialism and its juxtaposition with modern social democracy. I suggest we restore the lead to [the revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic_socialism&oldid=857079229] prior to the unanimous edit which changed the entire scope of the article. The previous version, while not perfect, was concise, easy to follow, and provided a clear definition of the concept of democratic socialism without trying to pigeonhole it to the views of a few political figures. The current lead is a confusing mess that removes reliably sourced material in favor of news editorials. While there is overlap between "democratic socialism" and both "social democracy" and "Marxist-Leninist communism", it's clear from the majority of RS's that the ideology is generally considered to be distinct from both of these ideologies despite the overlap in some shared practical policy goals. -Battlecry 17:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Battlecry: I too am hesitant. But I do see a pattern of editing out reliably sourced material to fit a minority view, seeing the page restored and seeing the reliable sources edited out again under the guise of "productive" "neutrality." This meets my criteria of "sometimes a Wikipedia editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view." However, I don't want to present myself as the authority on disruptive editing. Wikipedia Administrators are. That's why I asked if we should elevate it to them. They're the judge, jury and executioner, so to speak.

I second your proposal. I think that is an excellent solution. I would like to add to it that, if we agree to restore the page to [the revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic_socialism&oldid=857079229] and @Eduen: edits it to support a minority political position or agenda we report him to Wikipedia administrators. LaklandDuke (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@LaklandDuke: I am onboard with your suggestion; you can revert the article back to the original revision. -Battlecry 09:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

How can a feature of major world political parties such as the US Democratic Party and the UK Labour Party and something reported by mainstream media organizations be a "minority position". I am talking about Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn calling themselves "democratic socialist" while not calling for an eventual transformation of the UK and US economies into communist countries.--Eduen (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Battlecry: @BobFromBrockley: Do we have consensus that we should report Eduen to Wiki admins for disruptive editing?LaklandDuke (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

How about you consider actually debating on what is argued on the subject instead of just threatening people who you don´t agree with?--Eduen (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction to the article cannot ignore mainstream politicians using the word "democratic socialism" in a certain form. User Battlecry wants to more or less equate "democratic socialism" with some sort of unanimous movement towards communism while a mainstream major world party like the UK Labour Party has in its constitution adherence to "democratic socialism". That is why it was nessesary to have a historical discussion in the intro on things like eurocommunism and the Third way. Some parts of the introduction are just redundant phrases which need to be confirmed with real historical and real political use of the phrase "democratic socialism" and not just with what obscure intellectuals say in manifestoes and books. Socialism is a worldwide phenomenon and so the intro of this article has to mention an important recent development which is the assumption of the label "socialism" by democratically elected governments in Latin America. Otherwise the introduction of this article can be accused of "anglocentrism" and "eurocentrism".--Eduen (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

We have been over this again and again and your version of the lede has not found consensual support, so your recent edits go against consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

If you check my edits more carefully I took out something that was almost repeated and supported by the exact citation in the previous line as well as something that was not supported by the citation given in the reference ("democratic socialists support both reform and revolution"). You are free to go get a reference that supports that affirmation but the citation given for that didn´t say anything about support both for revolution and reform. On the other hand the historical paragraph was never really questioned and the use of mainstream major politicians like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn of the phrase "democratic socialism" is something reported in mainstream media sources and is a current important issue of discussion in US and UK politics.--Eduen (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to making the lede more global in scope, but adding references to Corbyn and Sanders is a pretty bad strategy for making it less Anglo/US-centric. I think the main objection to devoting words to Corbyn and Sanders (and even more to Alexandra Ocasio Cortez, in your previous attempt and still in the footnote) was presentism. It is also worth remembering that Tony Blair called himself a democratic socialist too, and indeed introduced the words "democratic socialism" into the Labour Party constitution for the first time, so the claim in the footnotes that Corbyn's democratic socialism is a rejection of Blair's non-demsoc centrism is contestable, and therefore not appropriate for the lede. Another problem with your lede version is the extremely long footnotes full of irrelevant stuff - 168 words on social media, 134 words on an interview with Blair that seems utterly irrelevant. Ledes should neutrally and concisely summarise the article, and therefore need minimal referencing. If this stuff is important, a later section might work, if we can find wording that is agreed on consensually. Finally, I think your argument that Wikipedia should avoid "what obscure intellectuals say in manifestoes and books" in favour of what news articles say (or in the case of the 168 word footnote on social media, what a technology columnist with zero expertise on democratic socialism) is a little questionable, given Wikipedia generally prefers scholarly work to news reports. All of the cited texts in the current lede look solid to me - which ones specifically do you see as too obscure or too intellectual for us to use? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Democratic socialism as eventual transformation into communism

User LaklandDuke wants to keep selling the false view that everything that calls itself "democratic socialist" calls for an eventual transformation of the economy into communism. Mainstream western politicians like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn identify themselves with that label and do not call for that. In order to sell this false view that user is totally opposed to the use of mainstream media sources in the introduction of the article while rejecting good academic sources which do not present the view that democratic socialism=eventual transformation into communism (Lyman Tower Sargent. Contemporary Political Ideologies. A Comparative Analysis. Fourteenth Edition. University of Missouri—St. Louis. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. 2009. pg. 118.) The wikipedia article on "communism" defines it as "In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money[3][4] and the state." The current introduction to the article argues that all democratic socialists want to transform the current economy into that sort of system and that all democratic socialists are communists. That is clearly false. And it does not consider intermediary forms of property between capitalism and state or communal ownership such as personal property, small businesses or workers cooperatives. Socialism is not the same as communism even though communism is a form of socialist thought but not the only one.--Eduen (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Which specific piece of text do you have a problem with? No reference to communism was added in the recent diff. The only reference to communism in the latest lede is in the Lyman Tower Sargent footnote which I think you added? (LaklandDuke did, however, remove a reference to (euro)communism, which was undue for the lede.) Also, your version of the lede is clearly un-supported by consensus, so it is unhelpful to keep reverting to it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The Bernie Sanders wikipedia page has an entire section devoted to reliable sources stating that he isn't really a Democratic socialist ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#Commentary_of_others ). "Academics have variously described Sanders's political philosophy as 'welfarism' or 'social democracy' but not democratic socialism as defined as 'an attempt to create a property-free, socialist society'." LaklandDuke (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Bias and coverage problems in transition to capitalism

According to Kristen R. Ghodsee, the triumphalist attitudes of Western powers at the end of the Cold War, and the fixation with linking all leftist and socialist ideals with the excesses of Stalinism, allowed neoliberalism to fill the void, which undermined democratic institutions and reforms, leaving a trail of economic misery, unemployment, hopelessness and rising economic inequality throughout the former Eastern Bloc and much of the West in the following decades.[neutrality is disputed] With democracy weakened and the anti-capitalist Left marginalised, Ghodsee asserts the anger and resentment which followed the period of neoliberalism was channeled into extremist nationalist movements in both the former and the latter

This view attributed to Ghodsee makes it sound like the neoliberal version of capitalism was just a fundamentally bad idea and when adopted ruined the lives of people both inside and outside of the former Soviet Union. This seems like one opinion that could be argued, but I'm not sure it's a mainstream opinion and it's certainly not the only one. From what I've heard and from what happened in Russia in the late 1990s according to economy of Russia, I'd expect another view to be that Russia bungled the transition to capitalism in the way it sold off state enterprises, and apparently it didn't go far enough in freeing up markets in the first round of reforms. Russia isn't the only country that transitioned from socialism to capitalism, and from what I remember, some of those countries transitioned much more quickly, successfully from a GDP perspective, and are much more democratic. In Western Europe there are a lot of different countries that have had good and bad times since 1989, so I'm not sure this dire generalisation is accurate or informative. There's more info on later history of those countries elsewhere in the article, so I'm tempted just to remove that. We could add more coverage of Russia and other Eastern countries, though it may require some research to get content specifically about democratic socialism vs. a transition from what seems like undemocratic socialism to democratic capitalism. Any thoughts? -- Beland (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Kristen R. Ghodsee is not some insignificant blogger posting on a subject she knows little about, but a major scholar and specialist on the subject of post-socialist Eastern Europe and is recognized as such. Not only that, but the sources are from peer-reviewed journals and academic publishing houses (Duke University Press). To show this is not simply the controversial opinion of one academic, I attempted to buttress this material with additions from other top scholars on the subject, both economists and specialists in the field, Steven Rosefielde and Branko Milanović, and both citations published in peer-reviewed academic journals. There are others. Historian Walter Scheidel, for example, certainly no socialist or apologist for communism, also asserts in his 2017 book The Great Leveler (Princeton University Press, 2017) that poverty tripled and inequality skyrocketed in Eastern Europe and the former USSR after the collapse of Communism (pp. 222-223). In addition, even in the early 2000s mainstream media such as the BBC posted articles on the soaring child poverty in Eastern Europe. We have seen rising economic inequality and deepening poverty in the Western world over the last few decades following the Washington consensus and the establishment of neoliberal "free market reforms" in Western countries. The IMF, of all institutions, recently criticized neoliberalism for increasing inequality and financial crises, and also said that inequality is becoming so severe is could further exacerbate political polarization and financial crises. This seems, to me at least, to further corroborate Ghodsee's view on the subject, and why it is relevant to this article given the subject matter contained within this section.

One other thing, your recent additions included a citation which was a Wikipedia article on the subject, which is not a proper citation. If anything should be removed, it is material with improper citations.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Update: I went ahead and removed the passage, and moved the remaining materials, along with the relevant citations, to a more appropriate location in which post-socialist Eastern Europe is discussed, with some slight modifications. I hope this resolves the issue.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I am unsure, though, what this text has to do with our subject, democratic socialism. I don't know why we need much detail on the USSR's transition from state socialism to market capitalism, as neither of these are democratic socialism. We just need enough to contextualise what was going on in the socialist movement. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The history of the USSR from the Bolshevik Revolution on is discussed throughout the history section, but details and opinions in the last paragraph of that section were in excess, which is why I scaled it back significantly and removed the opinion of said scholar, and placed it in the small paragraph which was specifically on the end of the USSR. It seems to fit neatly into the narrative of that section.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

If democratic socialism is "not to be confused with social democracy" then why is there a social democracy sidebar?

Question in title. --JamesPoulson (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@JesseRafe: perhaps you can clarify?

How does social ownership of the means of production (=anticapitalist) equate to a welfare state (see Otto von Bismarck#Social legislation and Welfare state#History of welfare states) with capitalist economy as in primarily regulated privately owned businesses?

Why have both the social democracy sidebar AND the markup saying the concept shouldn't be confused with it?

If it has to be put under socialism as an umbrella term it is not marxist seeing Marx's disapproval of the SPD and the ideology has no ambition of shifting to communism (see common ownership) or getting rid of the state.

If this has something to do with statements made by the politician Bernie Sanders his position is described by the Economist as that of a social democrat and the Danish Prime Minister had some remarks to make in 2015 about Denmark being called socialist. --JamesPoulson (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this can be best answered within the scope of the Wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism or another big-picture venue rather than on this page. If you pinged me because I reverted you last month, that was solely because the Social Democracy template/sidebar included Democratic Socialism and I drew an ipso facto conclusion that the matter had been settled/a consensus was reached, that while the terms are not synonymous they are related. And being related enough to be in the sidebar is certainly above the threshold for that sidebar to be included on that article. In the same vein, a hattag should not be taken too literally, "do not confuse these two!" but is a term of art found throughout Wikipedia and only superficially refers to articles with similar titles or common names similar to those titles. JesseRafe (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, the "not to be confused with" tag is inappropriate for this article. Also, this article should not be transformed into a "Bernie Sanders is not really a socialist" coat rack, by selectively citing articles and opinion pieces that make that point, while ignoring articles that call him a socialist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, the matter is settled then. Agree that I should not have made that subsection but the previous content was pushing the other way with an unreferenced mention of the Red scare implying communism.

This will avoid Europe being painted as socialist in far left sense of the word and if the PM of Denmark reacted it was because this could have bad effects for Denmark and Scandinavians are getting flak as being described as "lost in nihilism and amorality" while "destroying themselves with unbridled liberalism".

You might not realise it but some Europeans are freaking out at the political tension on the other side of the big pond. When the terrorists get angry we're first in line and we're not interested in another Cold War which, if President Donald Trump is true to the impressions he's given out, will be avoided. --JamesPoulson (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is not the place to resolve 2017 freak-outs on either side of the Atlantic. It is inappropriate to this article, which ought to provide a broader worldwide historical overview of the topic. Also, Quota is not a reliable source for use in Wikipedia articles. It is just a place where random people can spout their opinions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, the article as it stands is most probably closer to a broader worldwide historical overview of the topic as you say as it was looking like a place where random people spout their opinions. So it's a good thing it picked up your attention ;) --JamesPoulson (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Please explain how the "not to be confused with" is inappropriate! The two articles are basically the same words in opposite order with slight morphological changes. Wikipedia is for the reader and not all readers are experts. It's very simple and common mistake to make. JesseRafe (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

In political ideology the meaning changes with a reversal of words. For example, liberal conservatism is not the same as conservative liberalism in that the former is a variant of conservatism while the latter is a variant of liberalism.

In this particular case, social programs (social = society) do not not equate to social ownership (=Far-left politics as in Marxism, Leninism, Maoism...) of businesses just as social media is not socialist. A social democracy is simply a democracy with social programs slapped onto it as in Germany's social market economy with antitrust law as an element and there is no intent of taking over the means of productions.

This is confirmed by the very first paragraph of this article that says "Democratic socialism is also sometimes used as a synonym for social democracy, although many say this is misleading as democratic socialism advocates social ownership of the means of production, whereas social democracy does not".

In fact, any member nation of the United Nations that implements Economic, social and cultural rights from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is technically a social democracy.

That includes the United States as the Second Bill of Rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944 most likely inspired the 1948 UDHR held up by Eleanor Roosevelt in November 1949. The US simply spends less on social programs then other Western countries or the means get gobbled up by inflated costs. --JamesPoulson (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You've made my point! The first words of both the Liberal conservatism and Conservative liberalism articles are a hat-tag for them not to be confused with each other! That's exactly the point. The differences between the ideologies are completely irrelevant as this is a procedural fact of Wikipedia. The hattag must be included for clarity. Now that we agree on that based on your own evidence, can we reinstate the two sidebars? Or restore status quo and then move the discussion to the template's Talk page about either DS and SD should be in each others' templates and those templates be added to each others' pages? JesseRafe (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You decide. Social democracy is listed a variant in the socialism sidebar.

It was mostly a mention of Bernie Sanders on this page that was an issue as it contradicts other content on Wikipedia and it is obvious that he meant social democracy in referring to Europe and Scandinavia in particular.

If you're wondering about what the link between US and European politics is and why liberalism has a different meaning, this link may offer insights even if the author may be slightly biased. --JamesPoulson (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_forum. Please stop. You're too experienced of an editor for me to feel I should give you a warning on your talk page, but this sanctimony is enough. JesseRafe (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Not that experienced as Wikipedia's workings are quite a labyrinth but, yeah, I'm sorry. Guess disinformation in casual political talk is getting to me. So I should do the same thing as with TV and "switch" it off. Bye. --JamesPoulson (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Social Democracy is not socialist and the sidebar should absolutely not be a part of this page. Social Democracy is a capitalist system, with no goal of implementing socialism in any form, and therefor fundamentally different from Democratic Socialism. I request that the Social Democracy bar be removed. BreakingZews (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to put the social democracy sidebar back up...

...But understand I will then create a massive stink by going up Wikipedia's hierarchy as far as I can and even contacting media if I have to dispute the lack of neutrality.

Because to conflate social democracy and socialism is nothing short of propaganda which Aldous Huxley quite rightly described as a way to make one set of people forget that another set are human.

It is infuriating to see how various political labels are being conflated into vague snarlwords these days as they obscure the dangers of each.

It is even more infuriating to see prejudice by certain Americanized groups - excuse me for spelling this out - using pseudo encyclopedic content such as this to bolster their crapping all over Europe calling it "soshullisssssm" like some kind of zombies while they're not manly enough to take it to their government for the over leveraging or excessive debt at the hand of barmy financial institutions that caused the 2008 crisis.

Have your very own separate page for U.S. politics to snarl away about democratic socialism but the rest of the world wants nothing to do with your paranoid brainwashing.

Is it really so hard to understand that one thing has to do with the social conservative German Bismarkian state to keep socialists and classical liberals in check, while the other has to do with Russians revolting because imperalists were running the country into the ground to then become an autocratic hell?

If you're prepared to equate capitalism with seatbelts - what social democracy is - with the dictatorial thing that was behind the iron curtain then we are going to have a massive disagreement that is going to end up with you being buried by an avalanche of quite objective information.

I know who here is not politically neutral by name so don't even bother replying here even if you think you're a head honcho as your insincerity and bias is more than obvious.

Especially if you're the type to prefer fascism over communist socialism or to pretend they are the same thing when the threat to democracy that these two represent can come from very different directions.

I will not stand down on this even if I am seen as a lowly editor for the simple reason that this muddying of everything is very dangerous to the future stability of the world.

P.S: Before you start the ad hominems, I stopped voting a long while ago and do not give a monkey's about left, right or center. Really, fuck the mass hallucinations politics and ideology are and they should have long been relegated to a museum as a testament to the partial insanity of the human species. --JamesPoulson (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

P.P.S: Yes, I'm aware that social democracy and socialism are historically intertwined but there was a definitive split of worldviews back in the 1880s. But confusing a reformist movement with a revolutionary one and saying Europe has the same thing as what was in East Berlin before the fall of the wall? What the flying fuck?!

Moved social democracy sidebar

The argument about whether or not to have the social democracy sidebar in this article has been rehashed multiple times and both sides make valid points. To address those points, IMO, it should be kept but moved to be in context. To that end, I've moved the sidebar to lower in the page right next to where the page's content does overlap with the social democracy topic. --24.239.43.191 (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The Nordic Model of the Scandinavian nations, the social democratic system, has never been socialist. Socialist parties usually garner only a small fraction of the votes in the Scandinavian countries, while the large parties usually are either capitalist left wing social democratic labour parties or right wing conservative social democratic parties. Sometimes the smaller socialist parties get to join government when running together with bigger parties, but none of the Scandinavian countries have ever adopted any form of socialist system. Therefor it is absolutely wrong to have references to Scandinavia or Social Democracy in this article. There have been several countries that have adapted "Democratic Socialism": Venezuela, Tanzania, Ecuador, and quite a few others. BreakingZews (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with BreakingZews. It is slanderous otherwise and is purely bad faith. Ask us f*cking Europeans what it's all about instead of inventing stuff. It is more than obvious that there is no interest here in having business controlled by workers or government. There are cooperatives and other structures for that kind of experiment so some people can do their thing while leaving others alone. --JamesPoulson (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The Nordic Model is not Democratic Socialism

I removed a section under "Mid-20th century" which contained simply a description of the Nordic Model, without any relevance to this article. We should avoid increasing the confusion(of mostly Americans) between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism. The Nordic Model has absolutely nothing to do with Democratic Socialism. BreakingZews (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Nordic countries do not have total state or communal ownership of the means of production. Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are also not advocating for that and Sanders is not even calling for nationalisations while Corbyn is calling for a few but not of all companies in the US. As such is more or less the same thing as the Nordic countries systems: strong welfare states, progressive taxation, mixed economy with strong protections for workers and the environment. On the other hand you will have to convince those politicians to stop saying that but we here in wikipedia only report reality and the usage of "democratic socialism" in socialist, socialdemocrat, labour and other leftist parties is widespread around the world. The fact is that many have gone to use that (incluiding Sanders and Corbyn) in opossition to the Third Wave within socialdemocratic parties but it is not too different from the self-description of older militants and politicians within socialist, socialdemocrat and labour parties around the world.--Eduen (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is a reliable academic source that describes the nordic model as "democratic socialism": "The scholars in camp of democratic socialism believe that China should draw on the Sweden experience, which is suitable not only for the West but also for China. In the post-Mao China, the Chinese intellectuals are confronted with a variety of models. The liberals favor the American model and share the view that the Soviet model has become archaic and should be totally abandoned. Meanwhile, democratic socialism in Sweden provided an alternative model. Its sustained economic development and extensive welfare programs fascinated many. Numerous scholars within the democratic socialist camp argue that China should model itself politically and economically on Sweden, which is viewed as more genuinely socialist than China. There is a growing consensus among them that in the Nordic countries the welfare state has been extraordinarily successful in eliminating poverty." He Li. Political Thought and China’s Transformation. Ideas Shaping Reform in Post-Mao China. Oalgrave Macmillan. 2015 pg. 69--Eduen (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

"Since the beginning of the 21st century, the Chinese debate on the direction and strategy of reforms has been intensifying. The writings of Bernstein and Karl Kautsky were reexamined.Writing in Yanhuang Chunqiu in February 2007, Xie Tao, former deputy president of Renmin University, warned that unless the Party embraced democracy, it was headed for defeat. The solution to such crisis, in his view, was to follow the Swedish paragon of democratic socialism. He Li. Political Thought and China’s Transformation. Ideas Shaping Reform in Post-Mao China. Palgrave Macmillan. 2015 pg. 60-61--Eduen (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there are a few RSs (the one you quote is a book about China) saying the Nordic model is demsoc, but I am pretty sure they are outweighed by RSs saying it is socdem. A Google scholar search for "Nordic model" "democratic socialism" gives 118 hits compared to 1,720 for "Nordic model" "social democracy". Examples: "This chapter explores the building of Sweden's reputation as a successful small democracy." (David Arter "A Nordic model of government?" in Scandinavian politics today 2013); Brandal N., Bratberg Ø., Thorsen D.E. (2013) The Nordic Model of Social Democracy (Palgrave Macmillan, London), which completely equates the Nordic model with social democracy, from the title on; and plenty more. It was bad practice too to unilaterally revert when there is a talk section here which should have been given time. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

118 hits is a lot and you have not analysed that qualitatively. It just confirms the overlap and near synonymous use of social democracy and democratic socialism in many places.--Eduen (talk) 05:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course I didn't anlayse it qualitatively, but the fact that ten times the number of references for socdem as for demsoc kind of confirms that it is the former not the latter that the overwhelming weight of scholarly sources associate with the latter. Especially when you actually look at the first few hits, which tend to equate the Nordic model with socdem (although of course some also say that they use demsoc and socdem interchangeably, which is a valid view we should include in the article, although not the view of the majority of RSs). BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I also bring into consideration this book by Jim Tomlinson Democratic Socialism and Economic Policy: The Attlee Years, 1945–1951 Cambridge University Press, 1997. Attle´s government didn´t make all property state property and yet it is called a "democratic socialist" government there. In the UK Labour Party the use of that word is widespread but according to the "hard" separation between democratic socialism and social democracy that user Battlecry advocates we should tell them that they are social democrats since democratic socialists should, according to that view, advocate for an eventual total "socialisation" of the economy.--Eduen (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not advocating a "hard" separation between them; most editors here are simply arguing against a simple equation between them. I don't think anyone is proposing a lede which implies that democratic socialists always make all property state property. I think we need a lede that acknowledges that there is overlap and the terms' meanings are contested (detail about this can then go into the definition section) but which makes it clear that the terms are not usually used interchangeably. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

This is primarily an American misunderstanding of the term(something which probably started with Bernie Sanders), but of course some socialists(including Chinese socialists) have earlier attempted to credit socialism for the highly successful *capitalist* social democracy of Scandinavia. None of the countries in Scandinavia have EVER been socialist. Socialism in any form has never been the political system of any of the Scandinavian countries. There are socialist parties in Scandinavia, but those usually only get a minor fraction of the vote(here in Norway, the socialist party usually gets around 4-6%, and the communist party 1-2%). The biggest parties are left and right wing social democratic parties, not socialist. I think it is pretty obvious that Eduen is fighting for this confusion of the terms in Wikipedia only for political reasons, I can not see any other reason for his high engagement in trying to confuse these terms. Democrats in the U.S. want to be able to point at Scandinavia as examples of how successful "democratic socialism" can be, which is obviously false, there is no democratic socialism in these countries. Bernie Sanders probably made a mistake calling himself a "democratic socialist", he should have called himself a "social democrat", because that does seem to be the system that he wants. But social democracy and democratic socialism are already clearly established and separate terms, democratic socialism has been tried in countries like Ecuador, Tanzania and Venezuela, while social democracy is the system of the Scandinavian nations, Germany and France... and although there may be some similarities, those are still very different systems with very different results. BreakingZews (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It just makes me laugh when I see someone trying to conflate the regime in Venezuela with the "socialism" in Europe in clearly being motivated by passion over reason. It's all seeming bad faith because some people seem to be in the illusion that "socialism" is dragging the US economy down when it's just the result of high debt with this absurd money system of having money created through credit. --JamesPoulson (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)