It is not a socialist economy. It is indeed a market economy. I've been there. There is nothing radically different about their system of government from ours, except people all vote, and money is not allowed to sway elections, so the needs of average people do get addressed by the government.

Like any well functioning democracy, the people make sure the market economy is well regulated and that there is a good safety net, where each person's basic needs are met. Of course, to accomplish that, they pay much higher taxes than we do. But those taxes go to basics we here in the US would have to pay for out of pocket: healthcare, college, childcare, etc. So they definitely get their money's worth from their taxes. That is why they don't mind paying the taxes. And of course, their idea of what constitutes basics is a lot more progressive and generous than ours.

Its a mixed economy, what Rasmussen called a 'market economy'.

The bottom line with all of the different socialisms is that collective (i.e. state) ownership of business is either an imperative or an option. In a democracy, however, there are usually non-socialist or capitalist parties as well so its a matter of popular support whether a given industry (like train service) will be run privately or publicly. Trains are a good example, and in the UK there are now even serious proposals by Tories to re-nationalize parts of the rail system that had been privatized earlier.

I don't think there are any "mixed economy" parties, just mixed economy countries. They are mixed because both capitalists and socialists represent competing ways of organizing business. (And yes, a few of those politicians would like to see everything run all one way or the other, but their influence averages-out within the democratic system).

When he was on Bill Maher's show recently, Bill Maher tried to draw it out of him, but Sanders just went into vague generalizations about how we should be like the Nordic countries--the same line he gives in his stump speeches and every time he is asked about socialism in interviews.

He says what democratic socialism means is a government that "works for ordinary people." Tea partiers would define conservatism that way. Religious nut bags define theocracies that way. That is not a definition, it is an aspiration for a particular system of government. It does not explain the system by which the government gets there.

If he thinks socialism is just a better functioning democracy but with a market economy, like Denmark, then I do not understand why he clings to the word socialism, because that is not socialism.

direct democracy. Other forms of government (like republics) "aren't" really democracies. A "republic" is not a "democracy".

Narrow textbook definitions don't fit the way terms and ideas are used in real political life. And if they had to, Democrats would fail the test of accuracy.

In practice we call republics "democracies" because its a matter of degree and voting for representatives is considered "good enough".

Also.....

I'm curious what specifically Sanders wants to emulate.

eom

I think there is a good/simple answer along the lines of Rasmussen's comments in OP -- "the Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."

The inability to get that across to voters -- even if articulated better than Sanders did on Maher -- is why I fear for him (and us) in the elections.

So it would be hard to explain it in exactly those terms.

...their system of government is a republic, not a democracy? Real small-d democrats have voters run the legislation process directly. Its an ideal that isn't put into practice.

A democratic socialist (or perhaps social democrat) has an ideal in his/her head -- which varies from person to person -- then works and compromises in that general direction using 'democratic' and representative processes where other politicians also represent other economic ideals like capitalism. The result is a 'mixed economy'. Its the best you can hope for in politics in this age.


Also, Rasmussen is a right-winger and he was speaking at Harvard, for crissesakes. He isn't going to give you a decent definition or impression of a left party.
(Uh oh, OP is a RW talking point )

Here is an overview of party representation in Denmark. Notice the large presence that social democratic and democratic socialist parties have. Its similar in other European countries, not just the Nordic ones. Their "markets" and public sector have the character they do because of the political pressure those parties can bring to bear on leaders, whether they or some non-left party is currently in control.

So those countries are "socialist" the way vanilla swirl icecream is "chocolate". The socialist ideals have parties that can express them as policies from time to time and to various extents. And they can defend/maintain socialist-inspired laws and programs better because they are not borrowing policies from the left the way US Democrats do, cut off in an ideological vacuum enforced by taboo.

From a Scandanavian economist: http://www.capx.co/scandinavian-unexceptionalism-8-the-third-way-model-a-collosal-failure/

Hint -- You can click on the "About" page on websites, and they will tell you what they are about. In this case the sponsors of that website.

I do think we have accomplished the revival of the philosophy and principles of a free society, and the acceptance of it. And that is absolutely the thing that I live for. History will accord a very great place to Keith Joseph in that accomplishment. A tremendous place because he was imbued by this passion too. We set up the Centre for Policy Studies, and it has propagated those ideas, and they have been accepted.

Margaret Thatcher, 1979

Frederich Hyatt was also an economist, but I'm certainly hoping the democratic Party doesn't take HIS advice.

and very very much so. http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-09-20/denmarks-economic-model-is-a-success

Amusing that it refers to the Swedish socialist plan as "Third Way." I guess that makes the Bernie supporters "Third Wayers."

At least according to Wikipedia.

Education
Nima Sanandaji came to Sweden from Iran at the age of eight and lives in Stockholm. He has conducted research in structural biochemistry at Cambridge University and has a degree in biotechnology from Chalmers University of Technology. He has a PhD from the Royal Institute of Technology in polymer engineering. Nima has previously been chairman of the Free Moderate Student League and the Swedish-American Association, both based in Gothenburg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nima_Sanandaji

That's why he's citing it as an example. Sanders wants the US to continue to have a market economy.

Is Denmark a socialist country? Compared to the US it is.

FDR style policies and that nationalization is 'on the table' for some industries (re-nationalizing the production of money -- the Fed -- would be an interesting start). Its not about a full-tilt planned economy.

Not by their deeds , words, or writings.

There are socialist themes in his Second Bill of Rights.

I'm not going to try debating socialism as a neat point on an ideological continuum the way conservatives try to do on the subject of "democracy" to denigrate populism. State ownership of business and the provision of jobs are socialist themes, among others like planned economy and price controls (the two latter I would guess are not a Sanders policy instrument).

I read Arthur Schlesinger's work on the great man...He ended the Great Depression and won World War ll.He subscribes to the commonly accepted argument that he saved capitalism from itself or as David Woolner, Senior Fellow and Hyde Park Resident Historian, Roosevelt Institute, wrote:

He's running for office trying to get the gist across to masses of ordinary Americans in the simplest way possible. I already linked to his explanation video in post #6.

As for FDR, his Presidency was as much a product of the rise of communists and socialists as was capitalism. The same holds true for pressures on European capitalists.

Its a Socialist Democracy.....it doesnt disaprove of all Capitalism now does it? THAT would be Socialism....

A country doesn't have to try to eliminate all capitalism to be socialist. Maybe to be Marxist, but Marxism is only one form of socialism.

Democratic socialism

Not to be confused with Social democracy.
Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy (usually multi-party democracy) with social ownership of the means of production. Although sometimes used synonymously with "socialism", the adjective "democratic" is sometimes added to distinguish itself from other models of socialism which democratic socialists perceive to be undemocratic.[1]

Democratic socialism is usually distinguished from both the Soviet model of a centralized economy and social democracy.[2] A distinction is also made between democratic socialism and social democracy in that the former is committed to systemic transformation of the economy while the latter is not.[3] However, "democratic socialism" is sometimes improperly used as a synonym for social democracy, where "social democracy" usually refers to support for political democracy, regulation of the capitalist economy, and a welfare state.[4]

Democratic socialism rejects the social democratic view of reform through state intervention within capitalism, seeing capitalism as inherently incompatible with the democratic values of freedom, equality, and solidarity. Democratic socialists believe that the economic contradictions inherent to capitalism can only be solved by transitioning from capitalism to socialism, by superseding private property with some form of social ownership, with any attempt to address the economic contradictions of capitalism through reforms only likely to generate more problems elsewhere in the capitalist economy.[5][6]

...to try to keep with that definition.

But if he did that, critics would say he was trying to hide his socialism by avoiding calling himself a socialist.

Are you saying he doesnt know the diff?

...about "Social Democrat" vs. "Democratic Socialist."

If he called himself a "Social Democrat," it would be more consistent with party-names in Denmark.

But if he did that, he'd be accused of hiding his socialism. Since he calls himself a "Democratic Socialist" he isn't accused of hiding his socialism.

That opposes all forms of Capitalism.....has he told the American voter THAT?

There are other forms of socialism. Socialism is about brotherhood, sisterhood, the commons, working together instead of in competition.

The UK Labour Party of 1945 had socialist values. It nationalized some industries, but it didn't eliminate capitalism.

He just believes in elections (what the adjective Democratic means in the term ).....Marx didnt...

The Democratic prefix just implies elected governance of it.

Now socialist Democrat is one that accepts a balance between Capital and Labor....

UK PM from 1945-1951.

He nationalized medicine, The Bank of England, civil aviation, coal mining, the railways, canals, electricity, gas, and steel.

He didn't eliminate capitalism.

Believe this.....Anerica is not going to elect one....

The fact that one was elected once elsewhere has no bearing on it.

The different definitions of socialism create the opportunity for specious definitions to be applied ...

You support one type? ... Your enemy says you support the other, more onerous type ...

And that is where you come in ...

eom

we should always look to the right wing for clarification

nt

just as it does in this country

I want to use the profits capitalism generates to ameliorate social ills while allowing people the freedom to live out their dreams.
I am not a leveler. As a consumer I want more choice. I don't want the government dictating to me what I can and can't buy and where to buy it.

and it doesn't look like the textbook definition that you cite.

The people for whom it is a loaded term won't vote for a Democrat, period.

with or without the "democratic" prefix.

Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist, and he does appear to be against Capitalism, so he's not lying. BUT his supporters believe he means he favors a social democracy "that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy".

That would make him a Social Democrat.

But that's not what Bernie calls himself and he's intelligent enough to know the difference.

He calls himself a "Democratic Socialist".

Democratic Socialism advocate "a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy (usually multi-party democracy) with social ownership of the means of production.

Pretty much straight socialism. That's what Bernie Sanders is. A Socialist.

your mind reading skills are amazing

Marx argued that private property could not exist alongside socialism and those that believed it could were utopian dreamers dommed to failure...

I can't speak for Senator Sanders but I would tell folks what I think and let them label me and then react if the label is unfair.

his spin on Danish politics, which he spins to the right. He just beat the Socialist Democrats who had previously unseated him after he got accused of all sorts of petty corruption.
I offer that his use of the terms is political and intended to serve him in his political context without any regard to our own, what Sanders said, what Democratic Socialist or Socialist Democrat means here. There, those two words mean 'my opposition' to Rasmussen. And that's his entire objective. To say 'Denmark is not Socialist Democrat but more center right like me'.

or else they would not have the safety net they do.

That's why these terms need to be applied objectively, not in relation to ourselves alone.

they wouldn't eliminate the safety net in two months

this whole thing is a dumb argument anyway.....as usual, Hillary supporters
love bickering over labels.

Bernie clearly explains his view of Democratic Socialism.

....looking at this quote from Dr. King, I see where Bernie's view came from

“You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry…. Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong… with capitalism…. There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism”

that we give the labels their objective meaning in the context. It's like far right wingers calling Bush a moderate. Bush is not a moderate. He's only moderate in relation to them. Why not they just admit they are among the most right wing people in the country? It's no crime to be on the extreme end. It is not admitting the "centrists" are right, just that they have the more common opinions.

Goldwater was a conservative in the 60's and a moderate in later life without changing views.

President Obama has said that his economic policies are "so mainstream" he'd be considered a moderate Republican in the 1980s.

There are arguments on DU over whether Hillary is actually a Progressive.

Objectivity is just a perspective and labels are just a shortcut to telegraph ideas. They are usually used to misinform rather than inform. (like, Obama is a socialist)

just admit to being further to the left of politician A or to the right of politician B.

I'm more liberal than Hillary, but it doesn't mean she's not the best candidate IMO, because I'm not the only vote. But your perspective would mean I have to label her a conservative. She's still a liberal. Just not as liberal as I am (because of the death penalty and marijuana and such things).

my view is, don't label her...she is liberal in some ways....conservative in others.... but to be honest, I have difficulty with those labels too.

For example, I consider protecting the environment to be a conservative viewpoint.

I believe that the labeling system is what persuades people to vote against their own interests.....a "conservative" who hates "government interference"
doesn't actually want the government to allow carcinogens in their drinking water.....they have just fallen for the Jedi mind trick of labeling.

Still, you could try harder.

rivals the Socialist Democrats. Rasmussen has often been accused of corruption and he's much like a US Republican. His distaste for the word 'Socialist' has much to do with his rivals being the Socialist Democrats.

There is a difference between a Democratic Socialist and a Socialist Democrat.

Sweden Denmark and Europe are Social Democracies and would resent being called Democratic Socialist countries...

Sanders is a Democratic Socialist which just means it disavows all forms of Capitalism albeit with Democratic Elections....

On the other hand Socialist Democrats believe in a balance between Labor and Capital...and therefore do not eschew all forms Capitalist production.

Notice that though Sanders has entered the Democratic Primary..... Sanders doesnt still call himself a Euro style Socialist Democrat.....

No wait a minute, that would be Wal Mart

Your digging into esoteric crap to distort Sanders real positions on real issues is, er, misguided

Its easy....use the dictionary...

For your edification (esp the final paragragh where Democratic Socialists explain the difference to you....)

Democratic socialism

Not to be confused with Social democracy.
Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy (usually multi-party democracy) with social ownership of the means of production. Although sometimes used synonymously with "socialism", the adjective "democratic" is sometimes added to distinguish itself from other models of socialism which democratic socialists perceive to be undemocratic.[1]

Democratic socialism is usually distinguished from both the Soviet model of a centralized economy and social democracy.[2] A distinction is also made between democratic socialism and social democracy in that the former is committed to systemic transformation of the economy while the latter is not.[3] However, "democratic socialism" is sometimes improperly used as a synonym for social democracy, where "social democracy" usually refers to support for political democracy, regulation of the capitalist economy, and a welfare state.[4]

Democratic socialism rejects the social democratic view of reform through state intervention within capitalism, seeing capitalism as inherently incompatible with the democratic values of freedom, equality, and solidarity. Democratic socialists believe that the economic contradictions inherent to capitalism can only be solved by transitioning from capitalism to socialism, by superseding private property with some form of social ownership, with any attempt to address the economic contradictions of capitalism through reforms only likely to generate more problems elsewhere in the capitalist economy.[5][6]

Signed proud Socialist Democrat

VanillaRhapsody

As has been pointed out numerous times before- he's an FDR style capitalist who is trying to save our system from itself again.

I'm a socialist that says our system is like a condemned house- the longer we have to wait for necessary changes the more we're going to HAVE to tear down to make it usable again...assuming it doesn't just fall in on itself and we'll have to trash it altogether.

By all means though, keep the status quo going, or do as little as possible to keep it running- we're going to have to go fully socialist to successfully combat climate change, and the longer this system runs(badly) the faster we'll get to a full conversion.

Instead of Socialist Democrat?

What used to be called the far left pretty much doesn't exist, the left are now the loony far left, the moderates are the left, the center right is now just left of center, the heartland of the right is the center, the crazy right are now just republicans...the same thing has happened with economic POV. Social Security and basic wages are practically considered the dreaded "socialism" where they used to be supported by the Grand ol' Perverts.

It works for my advocacy though- the red scare thing has been overused so many times to justify capitalism's excesses that it's no longer working. Sanders would have been smarter to run as a capitalist, but it may not have worked anyway- The RW calls Obama a socialist when he always favors highly capitalist policies. Probably best just to embrace it and say: "I'm not offering more of the same like those predators in the clown car."

He doesnt believe in Capitalism......I think he is smart enough to know what that term means don't you?

*I* don't believe in Capitalism, so I'd probably recognize policies meant to move away from it. Please feel free to preach the "true faith" though- the people being screwn by the system don't have a whole lot of love for it left.

You should be thanking Sanders for trying to save the system again for you just as FDR did. I'm one of the people calling for it to be torn down entirely.

Because a Socialist DEMOCRAT believes in a balance between Capital and Labor.....

And I've strengthened my push for it since climate change is now utterly out of control. Capitalism cannot function without growth, and we need pull growth back to negatives in every way possible to even attempt to fix the climate change and other types of pollution that Capitalism brought us.

You have 3 options ahead of you- Keep doing what we're doing now(Clinton or Clown car) and the system will crash soon and be replaced by something else, Moderate capitalism but don't stem the growth kicking the can a little further along(Sanders), or tear down and start over.

It's up to you what you want to support.

Which is what Sanders has also claimed ......wait till the American voters hear that.....do you really think that will endear him?

It's quite possible Sanders could run on a purely socialist platform and win. It's also clearly not in his worldview, more's the pity.

That said, you and others are doing a good job laying the red carpet down for my movement. If you are not willing to do even bare minimum to keep the working class going, they are going to look at what you are trying to scare them away from and ask, "How bad is it really?"

Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy (usually multi-party democracy) with social ownership of the means of production

That doesn't follow his policy points, but if he does that means my job is done if he is elected. Thanks for giving me that point of hope!

Self description.....what are YOU using?

Ans it means he has no hope.......Americans wont go for that.....we are not even as Socialist Democratic as Europe and the Nordic countries yet. . ..you think we are going to throw out all Capitalism?

I don't know if this is that point or not, but 2 things have massively shifted in the last few years:

1. The people at the top are taking everything. We used to have the myth that capitalism is somehow fair, but now it's all hanging out there. Citizens United just highlighted that we can't have a democracy if someone can just buy it all. Ergo, Capitalism is not democratic.

2. The people underneath the 1% and their lackeys are just not feeling it anymore- Obama spoke of the great "hunger for change" that he later did not address. That didn't go away, and now it's finding its voice in socialism and other changes.

So while I'm still planning on a long haul of advocacy...things are now moving. The minimum wage raise was not supported by the status quo. Neither was SSM. These things will happen against their desire not to share.

I can guarantee that......they would never vote to elect someone who oppsses Capitalism....

Keep doing your work- you're making my job easier. And I vote too, so...there may be more of me than you think

is not working so easily right now is it?

It appears.....my "job" is going better on the other hand..and is nearly done!

And why are you here on DU debating it......

better get back to hitting the pavement...canvassing!

kinda prove you wrong about that!

And from what I see he is not.

Neither is Socialist.

But please, carry on with the completely ridiculous strawman.

I mean what's next? Gonna roll out the Zombie Tail Gunner Joe to make their case?

Cripes, the bullshit is deep.

This OP exposes exactly how stupid HRC supporters must think Sanders or O'Malley or undecideds are... I'm stunned at how her supporters believe anyone will fall for this.

And that undecideds like me are appalled at those who are blindly reccing this horse shit.

They actually think this horseshit sells.

They'll pull something else out of their asses tomorrow and the next day and the next day and the next day...

They're beyond uninformed. They're best ignored.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

Denmark has a market economy:

with democratic socialism.

I actually feel sorry you've exposed yourself like this. I hate seeing this kind of anti-intellectualism on DU, really.

Please, please do some reading on the Scandinavian economic models and the differences between Democratic Socialism and Socialism.

Who knew?

Fine, here's a wiki article that explains the Scandinavian democratic model. We are referencing Denmark here, not rigid socio-political theory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

Socialist...

Are Democratic socialism and Social democracy mutually exclusive ways of organizing an economy and polity?


Thank you in advance.

One dowsnt accept Capitalism at all...

Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Europe....Social Democracies....