Zohran Mamdani’s recent mayoral primary win again has the media asking what democratic socialism is and how it differs from mainstream European center-left politics.
Here in Austria, the Communist Party has found success running on a platform essentially the same as Mamdani’s. Does that mean they’re democratic socialists? In a certain sense, yes, but they still identify as Communists because that’s the specific socialist political tradition they come from – a political tradition that had radically democratic origins that are now being reclaimed, in spite of the tradition’s Stalinist degeneration.
The other socialist political tradition in Europe with a relevant level of support today is, ironically, Social Democracy, which has of course almost entirely accommodated itself to capitalism by this point.
Democratic Socialism is also its own specific tradition, rooted in the DSOC/NAM merger into DSA and the works of Michael Harrington – the only anti-capitalist tradition with any degree relevance in the US today.
I think we in the democratic socialist tradition sometimes try to stand out from the usual social progressive by over-emphasizing the distinction between our tradition and the social-democratic. As Matt Bruenig has shown on multiple occasions, Nordic social-democracy actually did socialize significant portions of the economy (through militant class-struggle), with their left-wing pushing for further socialization. This would make them, under this classification, democratic socialists. Similarly, you could argue that this makes us not too different from "left social-democrats", at-least when talking about mid-century Nordic social-democracy. Drawing this thought further, I think a better distinction than democratic socialist vs. social-democrat, or revolutionary vs. reformist, is socialist-from-below vs. socialist-from-above or (as you actually state) class-struggle socialist vs. class compromise socialist. In practical terms, what matters more is not what one says their ends are (remember, most social-democratic parties started off Marxist; demanding abolition of capitalism) but what ones means are. Whether one advocates making change via mass action, democratic party-building, and struggle from below or through backroom negotiations, legislating/good governance, and compromise is what makes the difference between someone who is really "red" or just a "pink."
To speak directly to your question, it's important to distinguish between different end goals: are we respecting private property rights, or are we trying to socialize most productive assets? Today this question separates democratic socialists from most European social democrats as well as progressives like Ro Khanna and Elizabeth Warren in the US. (You're right that, by my definition, many mid-century Nordic social democrats would probably count as democratic socialists. And also that many parties that were at one point committed to abolishing capitalism eventually abandoned that goal. But neither of those facts undermines the importance of the distinction between those committed to respecting private property and those committed to overcoming it.)
More to come soon on the from above / from below and class struggle / class compromise dichotomies...
Yes I absolutely think this is important distinction but perhaps a distinction that more clearly delineates democratic socialism from modern social-democracy (or "social-liberalism) and American progressivism and less clear at delineating post-war social democracy and democratic socialism (even Clement Atlee's government, for instance, nationalized large sections of the UK economy). I think another good distinction to draw between democratic socialism and US progressivism is the presence of class analysis. Democratic Socialists and progressives often agree on a lot of more immediate horizon reforms (for instance, there really aren't that many policy differences between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie; both support Medicare for All, free college, etc.) but for progressives, these reforms are just 'commonsense' policies that just make sense while socialists recognize that these reforms are in the interests of one class and opposed to the interests of another. Therefore, progressives often see change as coming through convincing the elites about how progressive policy "makes sense" (which is why progressives tend to be more into policy wonkery), while socialists see change as coming through class-struggle: organizing the working-class as a united political force that can demand and win these reforms.
Pretty critical typo at the beginning of the article! After the NYT quote, the next paragraph says Democratic Socialists want to shift power "from workers to corporations" and it is definitely the opposite lol
Social democracy is not the only thing on the table, by any means. Sean Fain, President of the UAW, threw general strike on the table with a bang at the 2024 Labor Notes Conference. That gives us a strategic focus because it raises the question of dual power—an organized Left populism posed against the capitalist state. There is a minority, but only a minority, wing of DSA that settles for the 1970 Sweden vision and is blind to dual power. We can co-opt it with a non-electoral political strategy for the working class. One that organizes the working class from the inside, from the workplace.
Hope to see more like this and go into more detail
"Does a socialist project respect private ownership rights, or is it trying to socialize (take under public or cooperative control) most productive assets?"
Even the Soviet Union still had private ownership rights. They had self-employed people. So that is a misnomer.
As for me, the only private ownership of the means of production should be small local businesses and maybe some small real estate investors that own duplexes. Everything else (except the HR coops below) should be socialized and owned by the public with the exclusive rights to the profits. These businesses can be owned at different levels of government. Production would be contracted out to private management-labor coops/staffing firms. These human capital firms may be quite large and nation-wide. In addition, the overall income distribution nation-wide would be democratically determined and based on principles of equity.
Here in Austria, the Communist Party has found success running on a platform essentially the same as Mamdani’s. Does that mean they’re democratic socialists? In a certain sense, yes, but they still identify as Communists because that’s the specific socialist political tradition they come from – a political tradition that had radically democratic origins that are now being reclaimed, in spite of the tradition’s Stalinist degeneration.
The other socialist political tradition in Europe with a relevant level of support today is, ironically, Social Democracy, which has of course almost entirely accommodated itself to capitalism by this point.
Democratic Socialism is also its own specific tradition, rooted in the DSOC/NAM merger into DSA and the works of Michael Harrington – the only anti-capitalist tradition with any degree relevance in the US today.
I think we in the democratic socialist tradition sometimes try to stand out from the usual social progressive by over-emphasizing the distinction between our tradition and the social-democratic. As Matt Bruenig has shown on multiple occasions, Nordic social-democracy actually did socialize significant portions of the economy (through militant class-struggle), with their left-wing pushing for further socialization. This would make them, under this classification, democratic socialists. Similarly, you could argue that this makes us not too different from "left social-democrats", at-least when talking about mid-century Nordic social-democracy. Drawing this thought further, I think a better distinction than democratic socialist vs. social-democrat, or revolutionary vs. reformist, is socialist-from-below vs. socialist-from-above or (as you actually state) class-struggle socialist vs. class compromise socialist. In practical terms, what matters more is not what one says their ends are (remember, most social-democratic parties started off Marxist; demanding abolition of capitalism) but what ones means are. Whether one advocates making change via mass action, democratic party-building, and struggle from below or through backroom negotiations, legislating/good governance, and compromise is what makes the difference between someone who is really "red" or just a "pink."
Thanks for reading! Neal discusses this issue a bit in his most recent Substack post: https://www.left-notes.com/p/a-typology-of-socialisms-in-the-21st
To speak directly to your question, it's important to distinguish between different end goals: are we respecting private property rights, or are we trying to socialize most productive assets? Today this question separates democratic socialists from most European social democrats as well as progressives like Ro Khanna and Elizabeth Warren in the US. (You're right that, by my definition, many mid-century Nordic social democrats would probably count as democratic socialists. And also that many parties that were at one point committed to abolishing capitalism eventually abandoned that goal. But neither of those facts undermines the importance of the distinction between those committed to respecting private property and those committed to overcoming it.)
More to come soon on the from above / from below and class struggle / class compromise dichotomies...
Yes I absolutely think this is important distinction but perhaps a distinction that more clearly delineates democratic socialism from modern social-democracy (or "social-liberalism) and American progressivism and less clear at delineating post-war social democracy and democratic socialism (even Clement Atlee's government, for instance, nationalized large sections of the UK economy). I think another good distinction to draw between democratic socialism and US progressivism is the presence of class analysis. Democratic Socialists and progressives often agree on a lot of more immediate horizon reforms (for instance, there really aren't that many policy differences between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie; both support Medicare for All, free college, etc.) but for progressives, these reforms are just 'commonsense' policies that just make sense while socialists recognize that these reforms are in the interests of one class and opposed to the interests of another. Therefore, progressives often see change as coming through convincing the elites about how progressive policy "makes sense" (which is why progressives tend to be more into policy wonkery), while socialists see change as coming through class-struggle: organizing the working-class as a united political force that can demand and win these reforms.
Pretty critical typo at the beginning of the article! After the NYT quote, the next paragraph says Democratic Socialists want to shift power "from workers to corporations" and it is definitely the opposite lol
Oops! Thank you, fixed lol
Haha, I got you, comrade!
Social democracy is not the only thing on the table, by any means. Sean Fain, President of the UAW, threw general strike on the table with a bang at the 2024 Labor Notes Conference. That gives us a strategic focus because it raises the question of dual power—an organized Left populism posed against the capitalist state. There is a minority, but only a minority, wing of DSA that settles for the 1970 Sweden vision and is blind to dual power. We can co-opt it with a non-electoral political strategy for the working class. One that organizes the working class from the inside, from the workplace.
Hope to see more like this and go into more detail
"Does a socialist project respect private ownership rights, or is it trying to socialize (take under public or cooperative control) most productive assets?"
Even the Soviet Union still had private ownership rights. They had self-employed people. So that is a misnomer.
As for me, the only private ownership of the means of production should be small local businesses and maybe some small real estate investors that own duplexes. Everything else (except the HR coops below) should be socialized and owned by the public with the exclusive rights to the profits. These businesses can be owned at different levels of government. Production would be contracted out to private management-labor coops/staffing firms. These human capital firms may be quite large and nation-wide. In addition, the overall income distribution nation-wide would be democratically determined and based on principles of equity.
I'm way ahead of you. :)
I like Tim Walz’s “Some call it socialism, I call it neighborliness.”