Talk:Democratic socialism/Archive 1

message: Google hits on wikipedia&mirrors first, and to pages that use the term interchangably with social democracy next. This page should be merged (as required) and otherwise redirected to social democracy, unless someone can convince me differently? Kim Bruning 21:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I'm not entirely sure. I'm not satisfied with the state of either entry as it currently stands; but I do think there's some degree of difference we should try to enunciate. From my view, at least, there's a world of difference between, say, the Socialist Alliance of Australia and the Australian Labor Party, but both would be categorised under the same heading if the articles were to be merged. I really don't know if their respective ideologies have that much in common. Lacrimosus 04:22, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I think that the distinction is very subjective.  I think what we are dealing with is two issues.  (1) Many social democratic parties are less leftwing than they used to be.  For some reason, people want to reserve the term "social democracy" for the rightwing of social democracy, rather than for the left of social democracy.  (2) Many Leninist parties are becoming less revolutionary and more democratic, hence the Australian Socialist Alliance is being cited as an example of "democratic socialism", which in the past no one would have taken seriously because it comprises mainly Trotskyist organizations.  It may prove very difficult to decide definitely which organizations are social democratic and which democratic socialist, if a distinction is drawn between the two terms.  I personally doubt whether Trotskyists should be classified in either category, since there could be (and probably are) separate entries for Leninist and Trotskyist parties.  The usage of the term "democratic socialism" varies so widely - for example, the British Labour Party describes itself as democratic socialist and yet others are claiming it doesn't qualify as social democratic - it makes no sense to have the distinction.  The "social democracy" article could discuss both the right and the left of the movement, but would of course exclude Leninist parties (which have not been counted as social democrats since about 1917). User:rjpuk 20:32, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Parties such as the Dutch SP and the German Left Party never, AFAIK, use the term social democracy to refer to their own ideology. One could argue that they are social democratic in a historical sense of the word, but currently, social democracy (at least in the Netherlands) is invariably used to denote the centrist ideology of parties such as the PvdA (which, confusingly, sometimes still calls itself democratic socialist). Qwertyus 10:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, Qwertyus. I'm copying your comment over to talk:Social democracy where the rest of the merger discussion is taking place... QuartierLatin1968  14:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Social democracy]]

message: DS and SD should not be merged. DS should be updated for the new definition which is the reconciled definition of the old 20th century definitions of DS and SD. SD becomes the ideal application of the said. SD is no longer an ideology, and DS is now more accomodating for the centrist view, not just the leftist view. Stranger
:Okie-doke. However, there are still tons of people holding to the "old 20th century definition", as you call it, of democratic socialism – I'm one democratic socialist who doesn't give a rat's ass for what the SI says democratic socialism should be. (They should practise it first if they want people to take their preaching seriously.) But by all means, integrate what they have to say into the article – it's very important that all relevant definitions and understandings of democratic socialism be included. Cheers, QuartierLatin1968 14:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: On DS

message: Democratic Socialists of America should not be listed under "political parties", because they thenselevs are not one.  Members of DSA are registered members of the Democratic Party, the Green Party, the Socialist Party USA, etc.  DSA is a democratic socialist membership organization, it is NOT a democratic socilaist party that runs candidates on its own ticket/ballot line or even tries to, as other parties listed do.  As a matter of fact, DSA was started by Michael Harrington when he left the Socialist Party USA because he felt that a third party in America would never work, and he took a cadre of people from the Socialist Party USA into the Democratic Party - originally forming DSA within the Democratic Party.
Also, listing things such as caususes and tendencies within parties is not appropriate, either, for the same reason: they themselves are not political parties.  Instead they are trends *within* a political party.
:You know, funnily enough, I wouldn't have pegged the United States as a big centre of democratic socialist politics. QuartierLatin1968  22:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Parties 

message: Being brought up in Spain, a country where "The Socialist Party" have won 4 of the last 6 elections, I find preposterous that it is included alongside revolutionary idea.
In practice the socialist party is a left wing convesrvative party in its broadest term and have lead to a democratic system characterized by an alternation in power with Partido Popular, the conservative right wing party. The Welfare state was initially introduced by Franco, the right wing military dictator, and it has become the essential role of government. Neither PSOE or PP contest the validity of providing for a National Health System, Unemployment benefits or the role of government in developing an appropriate infrastructure. 
The main differences between these two parties respond to their style of government, the relation with the church and their position on social issues, specially their stance on regionalism, PP being a rather more "patriotic" party defending a strong idea of Spain, and PSOE being more accomodating. As an example, the last general elections where unexpectedly won by the socialist party and new laws have been passed recognizing the rights of gays and limiting certain aspects of the church's involment with government. Similarly a peace proccess has begun with ETA after they have called an indefinite cease fire.
The spanish system is characterized by a considerable degree of compromise between PSOE and PP, and it is relatively uncommon for open opposition to arise due to main social issues as discussed in this and other articles about socialism.
Spain is an example of socialism in Europe. If these and other articles about socialism fail to give this real democratic and market oriented understanding of socialism, void of extremist or revolutionary ideas, then we will continue to have a crap set or articles, possibly anchored in the perceptions of the early 20th century and contributing to the divide between America and Europe.
The Divide:
When I talk politics with americans, Socialism is equated with a mild form of extreme revolutionary communism, when infact it is rather the european equivalent of the Democratic party. This is like equating the Republican party with fascist capitalism.
Searching through wikipedia I have come with terms like "liberal socialism" "Demorcratic Socialism" "Social Democracy" "social progressivism", etc.
I suppose spanish socialism falls more under the definition of social liberalism in that it seeks to defend social and civil rights, with a progressive attitude and limited public involment in a market economy.
HOW WISE IS IT TO INCLUDE THE SPANISH SOCIALIST PARTY IN THE CURRENT ARTICLE?? WITHOUT DISCUSSING SOME OF THE ISSUES I MENTION??
CANT WE AGREE ON A CURRENT MODERN POLITICAL VOCABULARY TO UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER?? I am tired of being thought as a revolutionary when I express my "socialist" views.
I suppose that at the core of the problem lies a lack of effort by individuals to understand other ideologies from their own. I have tried to understand the differences between the american Republican and Demorcratic party, not according to their names but their practices and attitudes. I would like all americans do the same with the spanish Socialist party, instead of turning to century old texts. Cgonzalezdelhoyo 16:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Real Socialism 

message: Does anyone feel able to create a stub on Tribunite (sub-set of the mid-20th century British Left)?The only sources I have are 
http://www.allwords.com/word-Tribunite.html 
(and other pages with identical text)
and this from Guardian
http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1530801,00.html
"According to his biographer, Professor Bernard Crick, Orwell saw himself as a Tribunite socialist whose experiences in the Spanish civil war had left him sharply disillusioned with Soviet communism."
-- 201.50.123.251 12:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting article "[[Tribunite]]"

message: Would there be any objection to moving the list of democratic socialist parties and organizations to a page of that name (or similar)? The list really needs cleanup and organization, but I think its presence on this page just distracts from the rest of the article. QuartierLatin1968  20:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everybody can now go argue about it over there. QuartierLatin1968  19:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move list section?

message: Its a perfect mixture! It hasn't worked yet, but under the right leader, it would. People can't be trusted, but we can't have a totalitarian government, so this comes in between. -71.224.19.29 16:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's wrong with Democratic Socialism? 

message: The idea that socialism can be democratic is ludicrous at its best. The term "democratic socialism" is a contradiction in terms. This article should be removed altogether, it is quite a piece of nonsense! Lenineleal 18:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a discussion forum. Whether you agree that it exists or not is not relevant. What is relevant is that this is a notable topic discussed in every encyclopedia you would care to look at (see Britannica and Encarta). Gdo01 18:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Socialism is a form of economic system. Democracy is a form of government. So of course the two terms can be used together.Pharmakon7 15:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialism democratic?! 

message: I can't tell from the "definition" whether Venezuela under Hugo Chavez is heading for democratic socialism, or a Cuba-style dictatorship. 
In fact, I wonder if the definition was created to obscure distinctions between "freely chosen" and "accountable" systems, and dictatorial systems established by coup or revolution. The inclusion of the term "revolutionary" in the intro and the definition hints at this. 
Is closing down opposition newspapers and using a rubber-stamp parliament to change the constitution considered "democratic"? If so, in what sense? (I hate to bring up Hitler because of Godwin's law, but it seems to apply to Venezuela now, as well as the Chile of the 1970s).  --Uncle Ed 14:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inadequate distinctions

message: I've edited the article to make it as clear as possible. I felt the old article was poorly executed and nobody was doing anything to help it.
Also I've created a new article to end the argument over DS and SD. It's here. Right now it's barely above a stub, contribute to it so this confusion over the two systems will be cleared (Demigod Ron 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polished and Sensible 

message: I'm sorry but that evolutionary vs. revolutionary democratic socialism stuff was too confusing, unsourced, and just seem to want to divide people into two camps. --Revolución hablar ver 12:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I changed some things

message: Social democracy is more central-left compared to democratic socialism, the UK, Kiwi and Australian Labour Parties and the German SDP are Social Democratic whereas Der Linke would be Democratic socialist, right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Social democracy or democratic socialism

message: I've made the concept section as inclusive as possible so the anarchists wont feel excluded. Sorry my stateless brethren, I forgot that red is red. Furthermore, I added a "Common ideas" section to put all the principals that many systems that call themselves democratic socialist share. Those are the only ones I could think of right now. I added a "definition" section to explain why it's called "democratic socialism" and what it means in it's narrowest sence (nationalization of means of production, state planning, democratic elections) and it's broadest (any group of socialists what want to distance themselves from state capitalism, and as Trotsky called them "deformed workers' states." I hope everyone is happy now. (Demigod Ron 22:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I prefer this, but I'm still not sure. Will think about it! BobFromBrockley 12:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: You can't please all of the people all of the time, but you can try

message: It seems that we've reduced DS to an umbrella term for any kind of socialism that is democratic. But is DS not it's own distinct idiology? Or is it just Trotskyism or something like that? This should be clarified. (Demigod Ron 00:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The key issue is what movements and ideologies have referred to themselves as democratic socialists, and/or are widely referred to by others (especially in the scholarly literature) as democratic socialists. (The history section talks about the movements and parties most commonly referred to in this way. Most but not all of these believe in some form of state control of the economy (but, as Demigod Ron says, a thoroughly democratic state). Many of them, however, do not believe in the complete abolition of the market, nor in workers control or workers councils.) As to whether DS is a distinct ideology, well, most ideologies have subsets and are part of wider sets. BobFromBrockley 11:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree. But, still not sure that that distinct ideology has historically believed in workers councils etc. BobFromBrockley 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, what I am saying is that the movements or parties historically which have been called democratic socialist have tended not to be revolutionary movements or parties. So, we might come up with some normative definition of what we believe democratic socialism would mean if it ever became "actually existing", but the term descriptively is rarely used like this. An encyclopedia definition should reflect the way the term is used emprically. My understanding is that the term is used overwhelmingly to describe those socialists who believe in a democratic transition to socialism (democratic in the limited sense of through elections and ensuing reforms) to differentiate themselves from socialists who believe in a revolutionary transition to socialism. For examples of parties/movements which have called themselves DS, see Democratic Socialists of America, Democratic Socialist Party (Japan), Democratic Socialist Party (Prabodh Chandra), Italian Democratic Socialist Party, etc etc (for more see Democratic Socialist Party. Looking for exceptions, I've found: Democratic Socialist Perspective and that's about it. BobFromBrockley 09:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratic Socialism as a distinct ideology 

message: "Some argue that socialism implies democracy, and that democratic socialism is a redundant term."
Now, myself and a few other people that have read this would agree that socialism implies a more state controlled environment and therefore takes away from democracy. Conservatism or liberalism imply democracy, so I think that sentence should be re-written.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.220.82 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is perfectly accurate, so that's no reason to re-write it (see, for example, Socialism as Radical Democracy).  Perhaps we need to add more information for readers unfamiliar with democratic socialism so that confusion like the above arises less often in the future. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 18:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Could this be re-written?

message: Not all democratic socialists agree that democracy would be representative, rather than direct. Perhaps there needs to be something saying that this is more of what SOME believe, I don't think that is explained enough. --Revolución hablar ver 09:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recallable delegates

message: I've deleted parts of the introduction, which was, frankly, rubbish. I see someone complained about it above. "Some imply" etc etc. We need references from real books or links to real life self identified democratic socialists/social democrats etc, because otherwise the article sounds a bit waffly, I'm afraid. Wikidea 09:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the new wording, except am not sure that the reference to the details of parties and party names is appropraite for intro - might be better to move it later. BobFromBrockley 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved the stuff down, as you suggested. It's always a problem with these political topic pages, especially the socialist set I expect, how there are seemingly endless endless endless divisions and subdivisions. Arguments over the difference between "democratic socialism" and "social democracy" being a salient one. Of course, these words mean very little without some history of what real parties have really done (in reality). Otherwise we're all left to waddle through the swirling realm of conflicting conceptions, debating what some word entails or doesn't. What I'm trying to say is, more references about real political parties and movements would be good. Wikidea 18:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Since the changes I have made were reverted, apparently "perverting" the article, I am writing here. If you add something to the article you must have some kind of source to back up what you say. It is no good asserting that, for instance "Although some proponents of social democracy may describe themselves as democratic socialists, most democratic socialists are not social democrats and reject it as a form of capitalism." This is what is known as weaseling - the weasel words being "some proponents" and "most democratic socialists". Which ones? Where? I can't see them, can you? If we are to see them, we need references. The author of this seems to want to draw an enormous distinction between the two for some reason, when in reality, there is little difference. That is why I referred to, for instance, the British Labour Party, and the German SPD, who are both in the Party of European Socialists (see further down the page). If you can jump that hurdle with some reference to something that tells us why SD is so different to DS, then maybe you can put back in what you have written. Otherwise, I see your chances as dim, and assertions as unfounded. Maybe this time, the author will also bother to reply on this talk page! Wikidea 19:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry, "perversing" the article, is what I was told! Wikidea 20:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for sharing your views! Wikidea 11:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, Wikidea reverted my edits as well as Ron's, and I don't want to get into an edit war, but I strongly suggest that both equating DS with SD and saying they have nothing in common are "baseless assertions" unless they are backed up with references. BobFromBrockley 13:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I put in the stuff about the political parties, which you asked me to move down the page, remember? I won't bother to argue over this any more. It's a bit pointless! Wikidea 20:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Everyone is confused by the actions and names of these parties. But no, SD and DS are not the same at all. At one point they had little differences, but now the two have taken to different sides of the spectrum. Social democracy is a centralist ideology with no revolutionary undertones, it doesn't want to overthrow capitalism, but rather tame the beast a bit. Democratic socialism, as Bob said further in this talkpage, is a doctrine that tries to achieve socialism through democratic reform and the mass support of the proletariat. (Demigod Ron 01:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  achieve socialism through democracy is the definition of socialdemocracy for britannica, the differtnt that you tell is a journalists use not in politology use--Francomemoria 23:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: OK< I've researched usage of the term and written in quite a lot into the Concepts section. Please knock it in to shape everyone.BobFromBrockley 17:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The small changes/Democratic socialism and social democracy 

message: Are we presenting levellers and diggers as actual forerunners of democratic socialism, rather than as examples which more recent socialists have looked back on?  It seems unsupportable to do the former, whatever Christopher Hill might say - the context is just so different, and the lineage from the 17th century to the 19th so absent, that this seems extremely questionable. john k 22:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I think it was me that added that. Certainly it is unsupportable to say they are "actual" forerunners; they were influences or inspirations, perhaps inaugerators of a tradition, and articulated key democratic socialist concerns - but of course in a very different language and a very different context. Is there a way of re-writing that captures this, or should it be cut?BobFromBrockley 11:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Levellers and Diggers 

message: This article is, more broadly, very uncertain of what Democratic socialism is, or its place in a broader history of socialism.  I find it entirely unclear whether "democratic socialism" is a real movement with a real history, or just a term which has been used by various distinct and unrelated socialist movements over the years. john k 22:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. My view is that there is not a real coherent democratic socialist movement as such, but that there is something more than distinct and unrelated uses of the words. I think we can talk about a democratic socialist stream or tradition within the socialist movement, with various parties/thinkers/etc consciously placing themselves in such a tradition. I think, however, that the article needs to be much more rigorous in its use of sources in order to be clear about this. BobFromBrockley 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More broadly 

message: I've come across this Differences between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy. does anyone think this should be merged into this article? Or perhaps, seem as it has no references, deleted. G-Man ? 00:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Differences between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy was originally a fork from this article (first titled Democratic socialism vs. social democracy) -- compare with this version from earlier this year.  So I guess it could be merged back in easily enough, but should be trimmed down quite a bit in that case. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 03:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I'm considering an AFD on this article. Although well written, it cannot produce a coherent defition of the concept at hand. I seriously question the existance of any 'democratic socialist' movement or tendency, that would exist of its own outside of the wikiverse. To say that 'democratic socialism' is Social Democracy + a handfull of socialist tendencies that doesn't really fit into any international tendency is an OR construction.
The existance of this article does create problems, for example the usage of 'Social Democracy/Democratic socialism' in various infoboxes on political parties.
Material from this article can the shifted to a large extent to Socialism and Social Democracy articles respectively. --Soman (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD 

message: Labeling a fascist coupmonger like Hugo Chávez "democratic socialist" is absurd. The term is even less applicable to an outright nazi like Ollanta Humala.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.155.169 (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin America 

message: Can someone explain to me why there is not a 'criticism' section on this page? Admittedly, I'm biased, I think the phrase 'democratic socialism' is an oxymoron, but there is objective evidence for criticism. I think work should be taken to create a criticism section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.239.119 (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add a section if you want.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 07:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: A couple of weeks ago, Soman "weeded out" the OR sections of the article. While I strongly agree with this approach to the discussion of the concept, which was speculative and normative and did not necessarily relate to the historical usage of the term, I strongly disagree with this approach to the historical account of democratic socialism. It is true that the account that evolved in the article had lacked references, giving the appearance of OR. I have replaced that section, in its last version, but added a large number of references (although some parts are now better-referenced than others). Please do not remove the whole section again without discussion and consensus here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Within the USA the Democratic Socialists of America and Social Democrats USA hold joint or cross over meetings and share information. It is the Socialist Party of the United States of America that claims to be democratic socialist and does not interact with the other two and openly has members claiming to be democratic centralist of the third and fourth international. I read the whole introduction as an insult to the 2/3 of the Socialists (USA) who work within the greater internationalist movement and not the failed since 1991 Comintern.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.239.34.219 (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  social democracy and democratic socialism (USA) 

message: He's not a socialist, a communist a democratic socialist, or any other form of socialist.  He is entirely wedded to the Capitalist economic system.  Suggesting otherwise just misleads people as to what constitutes socialism.Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously, [[Barack Obama]] is NOT a socialist. 

message: List of socialist countries has been put up for deletion here. You may not be aware that this list exists. Various proposals are being debated including; keep, delete (and merge any useful information into the relevane articles), and rename. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related AfD at [[List of socialist countries]] 

message: This article does not seem neutral at all to me. Its very suggestive at the nature of the democracy that democratic socialists want to build.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llanowar90 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased 

message: A major issue I'm finding throughout this article is that it essentially equates the ideology of "democratic socialism" with any sort of democratic, socialist ideology. It is not synonymous with "socialism from below", and many revolutionary Marxists (not necessarily Leninists or supporters of the Vanguard Party theory) would argue that it's quite the opposite. Beyond that, most revolutionary socialists endorse some form of democratic organization of society and the economy. "Democratic socialism" refers to reformist socialism almost solely and the article should reflect that. JPuglisi (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equating "democratic socialism" with ''democratic'' socialism 

message: I think the list of notable democratic socialists is getting too long and is arbitrary. I think it should include only names of those who are significant and notable in the history or present of democratic socialism, and not those who are notable for other reasons and happen to be democratic socialists. It also should not be too focused on a small number of countries (at present the UK and Netherlands are rather over-represented). I have trimmed the more obvious ones, including some of the Dutch. I suggest we delete some more. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable democratic socialists 

message: I would like to change the title from Democratic socialism to Democratic Socialism.
The world Socialism deserves to be in capitals.
Gedgehog (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: per MOS:CAPS. Socialism is not a proper noun. Unless you can show that it is consistently capitalized in source material, it will not be capitalized on Wikipedia. --ElHef (Meep?) 00:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 3 June 2013 

message: Katherine Clark and Will Brownsberger are most definitely not socialists. The only connection they have with socialism is the fact that they both attended a candidate forum sponsored by the Democratic Socialists of America in September 2013. It is my belief that whoever listed them under "Notable Democratic Socialists" was trying to slander Rep. Clark and Sen. Brownsberger and vandalize the article. I would remove this vandalism myself were this article not protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.174.157 (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request: Removal of Katherine Clark and Will Brownsberger from list of Democratic Socialists 

message: The second sentence in the second paragraph of the introduction seems to have a typo. It reads: "It may can be described as a multi-party system, constitutionalism, freedom of speech, universal suffrage with common ownership and/or a planned economy."
I think the "may" should be removed so it reads: "It may be described as a multi-party system, constitutionalism, freedom of speech, universal suffrage with common ownership and/or a planned economy." 
221.80.201.153 (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Stickee (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2015 

message: I find the list of parties at Democratic_socialism#Parliamentary_democratic_socialist_parties rather arbitrary, especially as there is a much larger list at List_of_democratic_socialist_parties_and_organizations. 
For example, Maduro's United Socialist Party of Venezuela seems a bad example, as it is at the authoritarian end of "democratic" and has little to do with the tradition of democratic socialism as described in the article. Sinn Fein seems an odd example to represent Ireland and Northern Ireland. Milosevic's ex-Stalinist Socialist Party of Serbia seems a bad example. What's the rationale for inclusion? Shouldn't we either be comprehensive (but that's what the longer list is for) or pick exemplary democratic socialist parties? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it can certainly be argued that the Venezuelan socialist party isn't a democratic one. Venezuela is, at least nominally, a democracy where elections are held on a regular basis. I was the one who created that section and it does seem to have shortcomings, such as lack of sources. I suggest we add at least two sources for each party supporting their democratic socialist ideology. --Երևանցի talk  18:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of parties 

message: From the basic premise of this article anyone could think that the current latin american leftist governments, especially, Rafael Correa, Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales qualify as democratic socialism since they openly have said they are socialist and they participate in parlamentary democracy (being reelected all of them) and have carried out nationalizations (all of the things the Labour governments in the UK didin the 20th century). On the other hand a more moderate social democratic government which has not called itself socialist and which has not carried out nationalizations or land reforms such as the Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva government is for some reason listed as a democratic socialist government. If the "Lula" government is "democratic socialist" then the current Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner government is also democratic socialist and this because it could be seen now as more leftist than the Lula government since recently it decided to renationalize the National Oil Industry. I do remember when this article had these politicians within this article representing this tendency but it is clear their removal was not something really discussed here in talk section. Maybe I don´t know the place where to find this discussion (I have checked in Archives). I will also think that the current left of social democracy parties in europe and latin america will qualify as "democratic socialism" but there is no mention of this as so it will seem from the current state fo this article that this "democratic socialism" was something that existed mostly in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth countries. Also it seems to me that the tendency known as "eurocommunism" will also be a "democratic socialist" one but there is no mentioned of all of this and also since the URSS doens´t exist anymore one will also think that Communist Parties such as the French, the Greek, Communist Refoundation Party in Italy and United Left in Spain will also qualify as democratic socialism since it is clear they have restricted themselves to parlaiamentarism after clearly having abandoned Leninist insurrectionary and vanguardist options. As this article stands now I think it suffers perhaps from a conceptual unclarity and from a possible lack of consensus here so as to really address these issues. Looking at the history of this article, it seems a highly volatile logic is the rule here and so I will not be surprised to see a very different article from the one I am looking right now in the next time I come back here.--Eduen (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin american leftist governments and other current developments 

message: This article meanders from one idea to another while failing to draw together the common political thread that bears the stamp of democratic socialism. There are those in this Talk section who have argued that the term democratic socialism is an oxymoron. This is only true if one grants that the word democracy embodies economics as well as the political. Traditionally this has not been the case. Thus, it makes sense to call out that democratic socialism entails the democratization of the economy. The common thread shared by all who call themselves democratic socialists is the belief in economic democracy. 
The idea of economic democracy was first articulated by Herbert Marcuse, and became very influential in the thinking of the new left in the United States. It is from this branch of Marxian political philosophy that many political groups and parties mentioned in this article emerged. The article hardly mentions the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which is the largest socialist organization in America. DSA is multi-tendency, but draws extensively from the political philosophy of economic democracy, which influence the American New Left of the 1960's. The article also hardly makes reference to Michael Harrington who played a central role in defining modern democratic socialism as synonymous with economic democracy.Vaterlaus45 (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I reformatted the above text because it was not readable due to the leading spaces causing "code" formatting. No changes were made to the actual content. KTOM 12:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

text: I also just reformatted the above text because it was using external URL refs for Wikipedia articles. No changes were made to the actual content. KTOM 15:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic Democracy 

message: Someone should add a picture of Bernie Sanders. He is the Vermont senator who is the only openly a democratic socialist in congress.
Jakebarrington (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: According to which sources? --JamesPoulson (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Bernie Picture! 

message: , like many things in the universe, there are MANY definitions of Democratic Socialism.  Not one; nor is there one definition in scholarly thought of Democratic Socialism.  Yes, we can say, that Democratic Socialism in general involves the means of production being collectively owned and controlled democratically, but (and this is the problem here), there are MANY different groups that call themselves Democratic Socialist.  Some are mainline political parties, some are fringe groups, some are Leninist, some are not, some are Bernie Sanders, etc; and as such SOME of them advocate systems that exist within Capitalism, and do things that seek to strengthen Capitalism, temporarily, or not.  You may like that, or not, you may disagree with it personally, or not, but you cannot say that one group or person is, or is not Democratic Socialist, if THEY say they are, then they are.  Scholarship is about not getting to decide when writing a definition of something.  Life does not work that way, scholarship does not work that way.  You also then, cannot find scholarly material that says they are, or not.  If they say they are Democratic Socialist, so they must also be included in a definition -- whether we as writers like it or not. Also, you cannot have things in a definition that are your opinion of something, or any one person's opinion of something.  There are two kinds of scholarly writing, an opinion, and a definition, in general, this is supposed to be a definition, and definitions are about generality.
If you want to work on a definition of Democratic Socialism that's fine, but there is NO definition of Democratic Socialism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.202.234 (talk) 19:46, March 7, 2016‎ (UTC)
:You have some reading to do: Social democracy --JamesPoulson (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{U|Battlecry}}, Do You Understand What You're Doing is Wrong? 

message: Democratic socialism is often used in contrast to movements, such as Leninism, which resort to authoritarian means to achieve a transition to socialism (i.e., "democratic centralism", "vanguardism", etc.) 
Leninism is not authoritarian, and democratic centralism is not anti-democratic. This is not a neutral view on Leninism. It is a classic bourgeois standpoint, that Lenin is to blame for Stalin's totalitarianism. Leninism is not authoritarian.  --UDSS (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. As a Trotskyist (and therefore a Leninist), I take offense to pretty much this whole article. I changed the intro slightly to be more accurate (replaced the reference to Leninism with one to Stalinism and removed the reference to vanguardism).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.146.213 (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Democratic socialism was a phrase used to distinguish socialists who did not believe in Leninist-type socialism. The fundamental difference between the two is their position on achieving socialism; Leninists believe in Vanguardism and democratic centralism, organized revolution led by a self-appointed elite with the supposed aim of overthrowing bourgousie governments by force to establish a single-party (Vanguardist) state. On the other hand, democratic socialists believe in spontaneous revolution by the working class itself (not by any self-appointed elite or Vanguards) -or- grassroots political action as a means to achieve socialism. The two ideologies are fundamentally opposed to one another, and the lead paragraph should mention the fundamental distinction between the two. A democratic socialist is likely to believe that authoritarianism will be a likely outcome when vast amounts of power is vested in any single individual or small group of vanguards. Battlecry (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Battlecry. That is how democratic socialism is used in most instances. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Spontaneous revolution by the working class" and "grassroots political action" do a good job in distinguishing democratic socialism from Leninism. We will need to make it clear that this refers only to revolutionary democratic socialism, as reformist democratic socialism has a different view on the method of achieving socialism. Polly Tunnel (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leninism and authoritarianism 

message: Hi, the HDP in Turkey has been proven to support the PKK, a terrorist organization also listed by the US and the EU. It claims one thing but advocates another. They even refuse to condemn terror. I suggest it be removed from this particular article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.74.186.109 (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  HDP in Turkey 

message: In an ideal world WP readers will see that social ownership is wikilinked and go and read that article too. 
 We don't live in a perfect world. 
Above I proposed that it might be a good idea  In a number of discussions, both here and in real life, I have run across many people who erroneously think social ownership = government ownership. While social ownership is much more complicated than employee ownership, E-O is a well-understood form of social ownership that Americans are familiar with. And let us not kid ourselves, many people are reading this page now because of the American elections including a D-S candidate. I know it is not WP's purpose to Right Great Wrongs, but I think it would be a dis-service to our readers leave a minor (and avoidable) wrong interpretation unclear. Thus I am proposing that some kind of extra-clarifying text be put into this page to help avoid misunderstanding what social ownership is. 
How to do that? is the main question. Maybe in the end there is no way to do it neatly but I would at least like to explore this idea if other editors of this page are willing. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: To do this, you would need to provide scholarly sources that specifically define "social ownership" as "employee ownership", and which specifically mention that democratic socialism favors this strict form of social ownership. But this would contradict many sources and historical socialist movements cited in this article that advocated public ownership. Because "social ownership" is a nebulous concept, it's best to keep the lead ambiguous and explain the specific forms it can take in the "Relation to economics" section provided you have credible sources specifically linking "democratic socialism" with "employee ownership". -Battlecry 23:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Koala Tea Of Mercy's aim of clarity for those most likely to read this. However, as Battlecry points out, it's hard to do that while still remaining accurate. "Social ownership" in Europe takes different forms in different countries. In some places consumers' co-operatives are very popular, while in others housing cooperatives are the norm. Worker cooperatives only make up part of the non-state mix, though they seem particularly popular in the global south. "Employee ownership" on WP redirects to employee stock ownership plan, which doesn't really seem to be a form of worker coop at all, and doesn't sound like the sort of thing that's likely to be popular with Democratic Socialists. May I ask what is meant by "employee ownership" in the context of "a well-understood form of social ownership that Americans are familiar with"? Polly Tunnel (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Social ownership" is usually associated with society-wide ownership, with public (state) ownership being the most common form people associate with "society". However, "social ownership" was specifically used in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to refer to publicly-owned, worker-managed enterprises (where the workforce had control rights to dispose of property, manage their enterprise, and appropriate revenue, while the capital equipment was nominally the property of "society"). Employee ownership at the enterprise level (a producer cooperative) is only one form of "social ownership", and it certainly isn't the only form democratic socialists have advocated for (historically, the "democratic socialists" primarily advocated for public ownership). -Battlecry 22:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: How does Social ownership differ from Common ownership? --JamesPoulson (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

text:  I would respectfully challenge your claim that EO is , at least in the USA context, with the exception of municipality owned enterprises such as water companies, fire companies, hospitals, etc. I would definitely like to see some sources that supports the "usually" part of that claim. I also would like to see sources for your other claim of  with similar emphasis on the word "primarily". Now I would agree that the latter claim would be correct with the aggregate of socialists in general, but your statement specifically focuses on "democratic socialists" and I find that less likely to have reliable sources. I am always happy to be proven wrong. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 23:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

text:  To answer your question "what is meant ... ?" there are a number of American companies that -- starting in the 1980's -- have spent significant marketing resources to sell themselves to the American public as "employee owned" (although some were actually ESOP's) and portraying that configuration as better than being a "faceless corporation" (using buzzwords words like "care", "involved", "community", etc... and the ubiquitous "we" at all times). Americans seem to have a high-opinion of employee owned companies possibly as a result of this marketing strategy (alternatively a pre-existing pro-EO bias may have been the genesis of the strategy). While many of the EO/ESOP companies that were very visible in the 1980's have failed, there are still many success stories as well. Supermarkets in particular seem to work well with this model per some research I did a few years ago. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 23:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of Social Ownership 

message: The assertion that "marxism-leninism" is widely considered undemocratic (in the intro paragraph) is not supported by the accompanying citation. Regardless of one's opinion about the extent of democracy in historical socialist movements/governments, the Marxist-Leninist doctrines are based on Democratic Centralism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quee1797 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the democratic principle should be distinguished and an added section should exist to describe how democratic these movements or governments were in practise. --JamesPoulson (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have filled in the missing part of the quote in the citation so that it now supports the text. We could add the final qualifier "in practice" that Busky uses to make it clear that he is not talking about the Democratic Centralism of Marxist-Leninist ideology. Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

text:  as no objections raised. Polly Tunnel (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim that Marxism-Leninism is "undemocratic"