Democratic Socialism would be an improvement over Capitalism/Social Democracy

I appreciate that Con has specified that he will only be arguing for the social democracy portion of the capitalism/social democracy duo. I hope, however, that I can demonstrate that this position necessarily entails support of capitalism itself. Including state or revolutionary communism, we can delimit at least three different main varieties of socialism. State or revolutionary communism advocates the forceful seizure of power via the revolutionary action of the working class and its allies, generally led by a vanguard party which assumes governance in the aftermath. Social democracy, the position advocated by Con, recommends pursuing the interests of workers within the capitalist framework itself with a program of gradual reforms (minimum wages, healthcare, education, pensions, anti-discrimination laws, progressive taxation and so on). One important historical feature of social democracy is that it has, by the present day, all but entirely disregarded the final aim of socialism, i. e. , a socialist society. By the goal of a "socialist society" I mean a society in which capitalism is abolished in favour of a planned economy based on the collective ownership of the means of production (factories, power plants, mines, natural resources). Democratic socialism, which I am advocating here, cuts a middle ground between the two extremes of state socialism and social democracy. It denies the validity of the authoritarian tendencies of state communism whilst keeping firmly in mind the final aim of socialism " a socialist society. Here are the basic tenets of democratic socialism as I advocate it: 1. Direct democracy " direct democracy is the antidote to the authoritarianism of state communism, as well as the banal and ineffective pseudo-democracy of present parliamentary systems. Direct democracy entails the direct operation of power by the people " officials and administrators of the general will are mandated rather than "empowered", making only the decisions they are permitted to by the electorate. Direct democracy also entails far greater policy making by the people themselves " all major decisions would be made by referendum. Direct democracy would exist at both the local, national and, ideally, international levels. The rest of democratic socialism stems, in essence, from the mass institution of direct democracy. 2. Direct democratic control over the economy " in principle, it should be possible to have a directly democratic capitalist society (modern day Switzerland approximates this, although its democracy is far more limited and parliamentary that what I am advocating). If direct democracy is taken to its logical conclusion, however, then I believe it must encompass both the political and economic spheres " the people should have democratic control over the production and allocation of goods and services. Without this socialist step, direct democracy will never truly come about " a liberal economy is inherently undemocratic, since it involves an enormous part of social life operating as the result of millions of individual decisions, rather than as the conscious application of a democratic consensus. 3. A socialist economy " democratic control over the economy would, I believe, lead to a socialist economy, since the majority of people will always vote in their own interests if empowered to do so. This is likely to mean the collectivization of the means of production and a planned economy based upon the rational production and allocation of goods on the basis of serving social needs. Equality will be vastly improved over present arrangements. Remuneration, as I would recommend it, would be based on the "parecon" model of participatory economics, wherein workers are compensated on the basis of effort, time worked, and the onerousness of the job. I will now present the basic co-ordinates of this the socialist critique of capitalism, along with the relation of that critique to both democratic socialism and social democracy: 1. Marx"s labour theory of value " Marx held that the source of all wealth and value is labour, that is, the toil of the worker. In contrast to the still-dominant neo-classical vision of value, which holds that value is based upon subjective evaluations of the desirability of commodities, Marx held that labour was the primary factor that ultimately accounted for prices (supply and demand simply caused prices to oscillate around a central value based upon labour times). If all value is produced by labour, it follows that all of society"s wealth is produced by working people. Social wealth is produced by the workers and then divided unjustly by the capitalist system. 2. Marx"s theory of exploitation " stemming from the labour theory of value, Marx"s theory of exploitation holds that profit emerges from the difference between the value of the product that the worker produces, and the value of his wages. The worker may spend four hours working to produce enough value to produce his wages, then a further four hours working to produce the capitalist"s profit. The worker agrees to do this because he has no other choice " capitalists own the means of production and the worker can only use those tools and machines with the capitalists consent, which requires the production of profit (surplus value) by the worker. All profits thus emerge from the exploitation of workers. The key point in exploitation is that profit or "the surplus" is appropriated not by the workers themselves but by capitalists. While exploitation is still present in social democratic society, which operates in accordance with the basic laws of capitalism, a democratic socialist society is free from exploitation. The workers themselves appropriate whatever value they produce above and beyond their salaries and can democratically select whether to increase their salaries or to reinvest and grow their productive ventures. 3. Inequality " capitalist societies produce enormous inequalities as a natural outcome of the laws of capital accumulation. Monopoly or oligopoly is the natural outcome. Cyclical crises maintain a permanent underclass of the unemployed which is endemic to capitalism and completely unnecessary. Inequality and unemployment are primary sources of social conflict and produce a variety of malignant social effects. Social democracy can partly ameliorate the problem of inequality with progressive taxation and welfare. Democratic socialism all but eradicates it. 4. The erosion of democracy " capitalism is inherently anti-democratic. Unplanned economies, while flexible and prone to incredible spurts of growth, are appallingly unstable, as the recent recession made clear. Under capitalism, single individuals and small groups can make decisions about what is to be done with considerable portions to total national wealth and income, wealth and income which is produced entirely by the workers themselves. While capitalist decisions can result in faster growth than in planned economies (due to the higher level of worker exploitation), they also use resources in ways in which society as a whole, were it given the chance to voice its opinion, would never condone. Billions are spent on economically "efficient" but socially irrelevant projects while basic needs go unmet. Social democracy cannot get around this problem, since it relies on the capitalist system to be successful. Only rich, capitalist societies can get away with significant social democratic reforms, which means, in essence, that only non-democratic societies can get away with it. Under a system of democratic socialism, all resources will be used for the rational improvement of social and material life in a manner that satisfies the needs, wants and opinions of the largest possible number of people. I"ll leave it there for now and let Con respond. I look forward to elaborating on all of these points later in the debate.