Democratic Socialism, Social Democracy, what’s the difference?
Leftism is incredibly complex, with dozens and hundreds of competing ideologies. This complexity often devolves into bitter in-fighting, which then results in splintering, and an ever-growing word-salad of differing branches, which adds to the complexity. Complex political discourse is not a bad thing, but political action does require consensus, which means one thing: Compromise.
Most people in the United States associate Leftism with Socialism, or Communism, the two main, most identifiable Leftist Ideologies. Many still conflate moderate democratic neo-liberal politicians like Joe Biden and Barack Obama with leftism, which tends towards the absurd. The largest Leftist organization in the country is the Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA. A handful of politicians identify themselves as Democratic Socialists, and most people that are aware of Leftism in the United States beyond the overarching concepts of Socialism and Communism, are aware of the DSA.
So, that begs the following questions: Why did we switch the words around and call ourselves Social Democrats? Isn’t that just going to confuse folks? Also, what makes us so different that we need a different name?
The basic reason is this: We believe leftism in America, currently centered around the DSA, is faltering. With declining membership, little to no open support in Congress, and declining favorability in polls, DSA is failing at it’s one job: Turning collective action into meaningful results.
People struggling to pay their gas bills, or afford rent, or avoid police harrassment don’t care whether or not DSA is helping them or not, and they certaintly don’t care about the nuances of leftist discourse. They care about results, and that is the only thing that should matter.
Unfortunately, DSA has allowed itself to be captured by extremist and unserious policymaking. From bitter divisive presidential primaries, attacking Social Democratic candidates like Elizabeth Warren in 2020 with pejoratives and absurd accusations of top-secret capitalist tendencies, to tacit support for Russian Imperialist chauvinism in Ukraine, DSA has clearly fallen into a hole of its own making. These kinds of hypocritical, divisive, anti-intellectual, and downright awful opinions tend to drive people away who might otherwise support public healthcare, free college, or national rent regulation for example.
Because DSA has been captured by extremism, there needs be an alternative.
So why “Social Democrat”? Isn’t that so similar to “Democratic Socialist” that it will confuse people? Maybe. But the reasons why we have decided to pick up the mantle of Social Democracy are threefold.
First, there are many current Social Democracies to point to, and Social Democracy is already a well established political and economic system, as well as supported by decades of analysis, philosophical debate, and media depictions. Social Democracies are extremely successful, boasting high per capita incomes, human development scores, life expectancies, and reported human happiness levels. Social Democracies blend the good parts of Capitalist economies with the good parts of Socialist societies to achieve a perfect balance. We are not looking to completely reinvent the wheel.
Second, Social Democrats do have some fundamental differences from Democratic Socialists. Democratic Socialists effectively view Democracy as a means to an end. There will ultimately be socialism, and Democracy will get them there. We believe this ideology not only attracts extremists who wish to speed up the socialist revolution with hardline thinking, but it also tethers Democratic Socialism to a completely unattainable goal, particularly in the United States. The United States will never become fully socialist, nor should it. There are some good things about Capitalism. Namely, and most importantly: Free Enterprise. Free Enterprise is the engine that drives the American economy. It is the most efficient method of resource allocation and generation of economic activity. Free enterprise requires certain things that come with capitalism. Specifically: ownership of productive capital, and intellectual property rights. Social Democracies allow for Free Enterprise, while ensuring that human needs are tended to. The state provides humans with all their basic needs and the essential things that Capitalism cannot provide to the poor such as healthcare and education. Business provides everything else.
The United States is already partly a Social Democracy, through its provision of welfare, public education, retirement pensions, old age healthcare, and various other large-scale public welfare state programs, all combined with robust Free Enterprise. There are many and profound flaws with the current set up of the American version of Social Democracy, which we delve into in other articles in this journal. However, it is still a starting point, and already politically palatable in the United States. In fact, even in the far-right of the U.S. political spectrum, attacking things like social security or medicare are seen as political suicide. Full Social Democracy is an attainable goal in the United States. Full Socialism is not.
Third, tying into the first reason, we believe in internationalism. Because Social Democracies exist around the world, and strong Social Democratic parties exist around the world, we seek to align ourselves with our comrades in the struggle for world peace and stability. Humanity shares one tiny rock floating in space, and we cannot allow our national divisions to prevent us from uniting for the greater good. Our ultimate goal as human beings should be a global peace, where all people are self-governing, and all peoples are accountable and responsible for each other.
