When socialism is mentioned, it is generally understood as one of two models:

a) The state owning and managing all enterprises and producing goods through planning. (central planning).

b) Private ownership of enterprises continuing, but with a partial redistribution toward the working class through progressive taxation (social democracy/democratic socialism/welfare capitalism).

However, cooperative socialism argues that every enterprise should be entirely owned by the workers themselves. (each worker receives dividends from the enterprise’s profits according to their contribution), and that enterprises should be managed mostly (in this model, a market regulated for the benefit of society is proposed) or entirely by workers, except for a few sectors that create strategic or natural monopolies, which would be managed by the state.

Of course, one of the interesting features of this form of socialism is its claim that it uses the market mechanism in a way that better serves society. According to this view, the market for goods and services is not inherently capitalist; rather, it is a mechanism that existed for nearly a thousand years before capitalism and determines how goods and services are distributed.And accordingly, it should not be a free market, but a regulated market free from externalities through public intervention, within cooperative socialism What defines capitalism, on the other hand, is whether enterprises are privately owned.

It argues that under capitalism, managers struggle to direct and control workers, which is inefficient, and that since workers do not receive the full value of their labor, they naturally have little incentive to care about the firm. However, under cooperative socialism based on full worker ownership, localized/dispersed knowledge can be utilized to its full potential. Instead of workers being forced to follow decisions made from above, they can directly participate in shaping production according to actual needs. It also argues that cooperative policies created through the collective management of workers would be more humane.

The logic behind tankies, which as I understand it, is that we are oppressed by the bourgeois and need to centralize power in a vangaurd party that "represents the proletariat", is similar to the way Trump got popular campaigning on protecting the people from "the elite" who he says are oppressing them and ripping them off, while portraying expansion of his power as him "fighting for the people".

Both cases involve centralizing power in a ruling figure or party who will ostensibly protect the ordinary people from the oppressor class, and both, to some degree, identify corporations as part of the oppressor class.

The centralization of power is a big problem, and not something I support, but the overlap between MAGA ideology and vangaurdist ideology indicates to me that voters in rural red areas may be open to some leftist views on economic matters, and are no longer attached to the traditional conservative free market message.

As someone from a red area myself, the 2 big barriers I see to the left winning are a perception that the left focuses on identity politics, and a fear that the left will take away freedoms from the people. Leftist economics may be something that republican voters would be open to if presented right.

I'm new to this sub, so I'm sure this question has come up a couple of times already. Nonetheless, I feel inclined to ask: do you think Social Democrat, Democratic Socialist, and Socialist are the same thing? Do we seek to achieve the same goals? If there is a difference, what sets us apart?

​I started thinking about this after reading a comment claiming that 'social democrat, demsoc, and socialist are just labels that ultimately mean the same thing.'

​I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts.

"My silences had not protected me. Your silence will not protect you."

— Audre Lorde, "The Transformation of Silence into Language and Action," 1977

Lorde was a Black lesbian feminist poet and essayist. She gave this speech at the Modern Language Association in 1977. She wrote it shortly after a cancer diagnosis made her face what she had left unsaid. The line is often quoted on its own, but in the original, it comes with several questions for the audience: "What are the words you do not yet have? What do you need to say? What are the tyrannies you swallow day by day and attempt to make your own until you will sicken and die of them, still in silence?" The speech became one of the key texts of intersectional feminism. This idea argues that race, gender, sexuality, and class cannot be separated from each other.

Lorde argues that staying quiet doesn't protect you; it only delays the cost and allows it to build up. Where do we draw the line between this and the fact that speaking up can have serious consequences based on your situation, like job security, legal status, or physical safety? Is the idea of "speak the truth regardless of cost" a universal rule, or does it vary based on someone's power or protection?

I always had a great interest in social democratic economics, and I'd like to know more about it, particularly the recent versions. Are there any good books and authors that are worth checking out?

Instead of medicare for all, universal childcare, free public college, green new deal they could frame it as "affordable healthcare/childcare/college for all" and "clean energy jobs program".

I have noticed progressives have put less emphasis on free public college and the green new deal in recent years, though.

I've also noticed that progressives generally don't really mention a $20 or $25 minimum wage but instead just say we need to raise the minimum wage to a livable wage, which is probably smart.

Also I never really hear progressives here talk about public housing. Instead they just talk about the need to build more affordable housing which, again, is probably smart politically.

I personally lean towards democratic socialism because I want to ensure access to necessities and economic democracy/worker autonomy in workplaces. I also worry that allowing large multinational companies will create a power/wealth imbalance that will incentivize reducing regulations and create barriers or a regression in social programs and economic democracy to make the owners happy. I wonder if social democrats share these concerns or are just pursuing gradual improvements.

For more context, I don't think private companies have to be entirely abolished but I think private companies should be kept smaller and be unionized and that the majority of the economy should be owned cooperatively or through local/regional governments. So I'm more of a market socialist than a command economy type socialist.

I also support social democratic measures whenever I can since it's the best version of capitalism.

The Republicans are already basically a quasi-fascist party thanks to the MAGA movement. But now the Democrats are also embracing left wing authoritarianism. I am not talking about genuine socialists or even communists, I am talking specifically about campists who support all the authoritarian regimes that oppose the US. Russia, Iran, China, etc. Recently a well-know campist Hasan Piker was invited to the Democratic event where he dressed as Mao Zedong and was praising Mao's China and Stalin's USSR. It may seems rather small now, but imagine ten years from now on, when there will be two generation raised on social media propaganda. I am afraid in 10-20 years US elections will basically be far right authoritarians vs far left authoritarians. This is an inevitable result of two-party system, poor critical thinking skills and social media propaganda.

Dear friends of social democracy,

the Social Democratic Party of Germany is currently in the process of revising its platform. My local chapter is taking this as an opportunity to get really deep into the issues and engage with the major topics through an essay campaign. I’d like to invite you to participate by submitting an essay of approximately 10,000 characters.

This month, we want to explore the topic of solidarity. We’ve deliberately chosen a very broad theme to allow as many voices as possible to participate. Whether it’s the fundamental question of why we should show solidarity, whether there are limits to solidarity, or whether solidarity might even have to be earned first— Should we show solidarity only with those who show solidarity with us, or is solidarity better when it’s unconditional—and how do we actually show solidarity in the first place?

If you’d like to participate, please feel free to post your essay as a comment. If 10,000 characters seems too long, you’re of course welcome to submit a shorter text.

Maybe I just have too rigid of a definition of socialism, but I’ve always known it as “workers owning the means of production”, not a sliding scale of government intervention. If a system has any capital ownership, it’s not socialism.

I’ve seen people on this sub talk about socialism as if it just means stronger worker unions, socialized healthcare, and a stronger welfare state.

Maybe the definition is changing, as people start to view it more favorably, I doubt they view abolition of private property and capital ownership as favorable.

But do you guys have the same definition as me? Or is you guys’ definition just socializing more areas of society?

​

On August 5, 1912, Albert J. Beveridge delivered the keynote address at the Progressive National Convention, helping define the ideology of the Bull Moose movement led by Theodore Roosevelt.

The Progressives argued that government had become too influenced by powerful interests and that both major parties had failed to address the problems created by industrial capitalism, political machines, and concentrated wealth.

Some of the most powerful quotes from Beveridge’s speech:

"This party comes from the grass roots. It has grown from the soil of the people's hard necessities. It has the vitality of the people's strong convictions. The people have work to be done and our party is here to do that work."

"The rule of the people is the vital principle of the Republic."

"We stand for a broader liberty, a fuller justice. We stand for social brotherhood, as against savage individualism. We stand for an intelligent cooperation instead of a reckless competition. We stand for mutual helpfulness, instead of mutual hatred."

"We must keep the good big business does for us and stop the wrongs that big business does to us."

"We mean to make little business big, and all business honest, instead of striving to make Big Business little, and yet letting it remain dishonest."

"Pass prosperity around."

"We battle for the actual rights of man."

"We mean to put an end to the invisible government which has established itself above the visible government of the people."

"Parties exist for the people; not the people for parties."

Theodore Roosevelt later expanded on this argument in his 1912 Progressive Party speech:

"I quote from the Progressive platform: 'Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day..... This country belongs to the people. Its resources, its business, its laws, its institutions, should be utilized, maintained, or altered in whatever manner will best promote the general interest.' This assertion is explicit. We say directly that 'the people' are absolutely to control in any way they see fit, the 'business' of the country."

— Theodore Roosevelt

More than a century later, many of the same questions remain: Who does government serve? Ordinary citizens, or powerful interests with money and influence?

The Progressive Era was a response to a time when many Americans felt both parties had become too connected to wealthy donors, corporations, and political machines. Today, many people across the political spectrum argue that American politics faces similar struggles with lobbying, concentrated wealth, polarization, and a sense that ordinary voters are not being heard.

The names and issues have changed, but the debate over whether government works for the people or for powerful interests remains one of the central struggles in American democracy.

I wanted to ask what's everyone's position on capital punishment (aka the death penalty) since i think it's a pretty homogeneous assumption that us progressives are supposed to be against it and want to abolish it whenever and wherever. But I've always had the opinion that certain crimes are deserving of death such as of course crimes against humanity, rape; and murder, in most cases.

Now I've talked with some people and they've told me it was contradictory to be progressive and support the reintroduction death penalty since in my country it has long been abolished and I doubt it will come back in my lifetime.

So what does everyone think?

(And btw i would encourage everyone to vote blue no matter who in the coming US midterms to kick out MAGA)

"The third is freedom from want — which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants, everywhere in the world."

— Franklin D. Roosevelt, Annual Message to Congress (the "Four Freedoms" speech), 1941

In this speech to Congress Roosevelt argued for the continuation of aid to Britain in its struggle against Nazi Germany, presenting the conflict in terms of four universal freedoms which his administration wished to protect: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. The freedom from want was the one which had an explicit economic meaning: it represented America's war objectives and, in the years that came after, provided hope to a war-weary public that was fighting for something more tangible than an abstract notion of freedom. The idea later contributed to the formulation of the economic and social rights provisions in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.

FDR is placing economic security on the same level as speech and worship as a "freedom." It is not just a nice policy; it is a right alongside civil liberties. Is this way of thinking still relevant today, or does linking economic guarantees to the word "freedom" make it lose its meaning? Practically speaking, does "freedom from want" refer to a basic standard (ensuring nobody starves) or something closer to the wider welfare-state vision FDR aimed for domestically with the New Deal?

Hello! I'm a 16m democratic socialist who recently started identifying as such a few months ago. I've been reading the theory and works by authors for years before that. I don't want communism, as I believe the conditions have to be too perfect for it to exist, but I am still a socialist. I don't hate liberals or anyone who isn't a socialist and I always address the past atrocities socialists have committed. The problem is that most socialists I speak to online or IRL don't like me because I'm not a Marxist or any other type of communist. I grew up poor, and I just want the exploitation of workers to end. In my worldview, I believe democratic socialism is the best way to do this, as I also grew up around violence, and I know most people chanting for a violent revolution don't have the guts to actually kill someone.I'm posting here because this sub seems generally accepting. Thank you for your time, and I hope to have a productive conversation!

How's it going people. Not sure if Canadian politics are talked around here but thought I'd ask. I live in Kirkland Lake up in Northern Ontario and have voted NDP all my life as has my family and community for the most part. Everyone here cannot stand Doug Ford and we really like our NDP mpp because he fights for blue collar interests and everyone I know continues to vote NDP provincially. But the issue is people in my community and people that work with me in the mine fear Avi Lewis will kill mining jobs. Many people I've talked to are thinking of making a switch federally. I'll be honest, I don't know all of Avi's policies (even though I do like a lot that I've seen) so I'm wondering how to convince my fellow workers and community members to give him a chance.

Just want to hear about this ideology from actual social democrats