Democratic Socialists: Do you agree with this statement?

“This Campaign Is Literally Making Socialists”

Ugo Okere is a 22-year-old Nigerian immigrant and democratic socialist running for Chicago City Council. In an interview, he describes his history as an activist, the smears he's faced from the incumbent, and why democratic socialism “is about democratic control of every single facet of our life.”

Click to expand...

Do you agree? Is that a fair description of "democratic socialism"?

Why or why not?

Further in, he confirms that he means it like it sounds:

Democratic socialism, to me, is about democratic control of every single facet of our life. Government is led by the people, not by big corporations, not by multibillionaires, and working people actually have control over who we elect to be our politicians, over how elections work, and over how our government is structured. People have the power.

It’s also about how our economy is structured. In a democratic-socialist society, the economy does not allow for profits to be concentrated in a few companies, in the hands of a few people, while everyone else is struggling. A socialist economy doesn’t allow for workers to work in unsafe working conditions and not be paid well enough and not be able to get paid sick time off.

Democratic socialism even extends to our relationships and how we treat each other. [It looks] at the world through a socialist-feminist lens, in how we treat people who are black, who are brown, who are femme, who are non-binary, who are gender-nonconforming, and who are working class.

To me, we’ll have achieved democratic socialism not when there is no conflict in the world, but when our societies are not governed based on power, but are governed based on the mutual understanding that everybody deserves a decent and quality life.

Click to expand...

Harshaw said:

Do you agree? Is that a fair description of "democratic socialism"?

Why or why not?

Further in, he confirms that he means it like it sounds:

Click to expand...

I'm not a Democratic Socialist, but I think it's kind of sad that you seem to think what he's saying sounds horrible. What's wrong with the people having power in a society rather than corporations and individual millionaires and billionaires? Do you think that an Oligarchy sounds better than a Democracy?

MrWonka said:

I'm not a Democratic Socialist, but I think it's kind of sad that you seem to think what he's saying sounds horrible. What's wrong with the people having power in a society rather than corporations and individual millionaires and billionaires? Do you think that an Oligarchy sounds better than a Democracy?

Click to expand...

What difference does it make if every aspect of your life is controlled. I guess it is Ok I you are a child your whole life and need direction.

No. It is demonstrably false because they don’t want to tell me what I can put in my own body. They don’t tell women what they can and can’t do with their reproductive systems.

Conservative and liberals, including Democratic Socialists, all believe in big government. They just differ on what parts of your life the government should intrude. Generally speaking, libs want control over your money and conservatives want control over your body.

MrWonka said:

I'm not a Democratic Socialist, but I think it's kind of sad that you seem to think what he's saying sounds horrible. What's wrong with the people having power in a society rather than corporations and individual millionaires and billionaires? Do you think that an Oligarchy sounds better than a Democracy?

Click to expand...

What's sad is that you think he's describing a society where people have power. What he's describing is a society where government has total control over the results of every action every person takes.

Skeptic Bob said:

No. It is demonstrably false because they don’t want to tell me what I can put in my own body. They don’t tell women what they can and can’t do with their reproductive systems.

Conservative and liberals, including Democratic Socialists, all believe in big government. They just differ on what parts of your life the government should intrude. Generally speaking, libs want control over your money and conservatives want control over your body.

Click to expand...

Bingo.

Or as Pete Townsend once said

“Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.”

MrWonka said:

I'm not a Democratic Socialist, but I think it's kind of sad that you seem to think what he's saying sounds horrible. What's wrong with the people having power in a society rather than corporations and individual millionaires and billionaires? Do you think that an Oligarchy sounds better than a Democracy?

Click to expand...

Having the government control every aspect is no better than having corporations control it - assuming the lot do which I rather doubt.

Everyone likes to point to Venezuela and whine about how bad socialism is but Venezuela has deeper problems: the resource-curse, corruption, mismanagement, dictatorship and the inevitable associated nepotism and graft that comes with it. Their chosen economic system cannot cope with that whatever it is and a purely capitalist one would fare little better if they can't clean up that mess.

For a model of what 'democratic socialism' might look like in America look to northern Europe, Singapore, Japan, Korea, Australia or New Zealand: a smaller gap between rich and poor, much less poverty, lower crime, better health, clean streets and parks and schools; access to health care. Everyone is that little bit better off if the government put its resources into social welfare rather than corporate welfare.

There are no rainbows and unicorns. It doesn't solve every problem. But is better at finding that middle ground.

There are still big companies and millionaires; still small businesses and entrepreneurs. McDonalds hasn't gone out of business because it pays a higher minimum wage. Life goes on as normal but people get slightly more opportunity and those who can't work (or won't) are to a greater extent kept off the streets by being somewhat better cared for. People don't die because they cannot afford to go to hospital. Corporations get less of a say in government business and therefore less sway over public interests. The rich are still rich (though there are possibly fewer 'mega rich' boo hoo) but the poor are considerably less so.

PIPEWRENCH said:

What difference does it make if every aspect of your life is controlled?

Click to expand...

You seem to be radically misinterpreting what he's saying. He doesn't mean literally telling you what to do. He simply means that it is the people who would decide the laws and have influence over leaders. That each individual person's voice would have equal say regardless of how much money they make, what color their skin is, what religion they worship, their gender, their last name...

Here is a list of the top 27 most free countries in the world today...

Countries in the world with the most freedom - Business Insider

America isn't even on it. Meanwhile, the countries that follow a political philosophy more like what Democratic Socialism strives for are all near the top of the list. Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Canada...

You think about freedom in terms of your ability to make a choice, but what if all the choices available to you are terrible? What if the choice you'd like to make isn't available to you because of circumstances outside of your control? Excessive competition can force people with little means into making some terrible choices whether they want to or not. In America you're only truly free if you have enough wealth to leverage it.

Harshaw said:

“This Campaign Is Literally Making Socialists”



Do you agree? Is that a fair description of "democratic socialism"?

Why or why not?

Further in, he confirms that he means it like it sounds:

Click to expand...

"Democratic control of every facet of our life"? Since we democratically elect our leaders can the statement be restated as "our elected leaders in control of every facet of our lives"? Unfortunately I think so.

MrWonka said:

I'm not a Democratic Socialist, but I think it's kind of sad that you seem to think what he's saying sounds horrible. What's wrong with the people having power in a society rather than corporations and individual millionaires and billionaires? Do you think that an Oligarchy sounds better than a Democracy?

Click to expand...

And you think THE PEOPLE would do better? Corporations and mil/bils only get that way because THE PEOPLE purchase their products and services; corporations are run by subsets of "the people" who have risked their money to invest in the corporation. I damn sure like that better than what ever a majority of a mob wants to dictate to me.

Skeptic Bob said:

Generally speaking, libs want control over your money and conservatives want control over your body.

Click to expand...

It's not that liberals want control over your money. What they want is a fair competition. Just like a professional sports league, you need rules and you need referees to enforce them. You need rules that improve overall parity and ensure the teams which are behind have a reasonable opportunity to get back in the game. It's the difference between the commissioner's office telling you what free agents to sign, and telling you how much you're allowed to spend on free agents.

Skeptic Bob said:

No. It is demonstrably false because they don’t want to tell me what I can put in my own body. They don’t tell women what they can and can’t do with their reproductive systems.

Conservative and liberals, including Democratic Socialists, all believe in big government. They just differ on what parts of your life the government should intrude. Generally speaking, libs want control over your money and conservatives want control over your body.

Click to expand...

Don't conflate conservatives with Republicans - there are some common grounds but they are not interchangeable. Cons DON'T what large overpowering government - we favor federalism.

MrWonka said:

I'm not a Democratic Socialist, but I think it's kind of sad that you seem to think what he's saying sounds horrible. What's wrong with the people having power in a society rather than corporations and individual millionaires and billionaires? Do you think that an Oligarchy sounds better than a Democracy?

Click to expand...

Democracy = 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

MrWonka said:

You seem to be radically misinterpreting what he's saying. He doesn't mean literally telling you what to do. He simply means that it is the people who would decide the laws and have influence over leaders. That each individual person's voice would have equal say regardless of how much money they make, what color their skin is, what religion they worship, their gender, their last name...

Here is a list of the top 27 most free countries in the world today...

Countries in the world with the most freedom - Business Insider

America isn't even on it. Meanwhile, the countries that follow a political philosophy more like what Democratic Socialism strives for are all near the top of the list. Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Canada...

You think about freedom in terms of your ability to make a choice, but what if all the choices available to you are terrible? What if the choice you'd like to make isn't available to you because of circumstances outside of your control? Excessive competition can force people with little means into making some terrible choices whether they want to or not. In America you're only truly free if you have enough wealth to leverage it.

Click to expand...

And "the people" are medium sized, dumb herd animals.

Bullseye said:

And you think THE PEOPLE would do better?

Click to expand...

Again, you seem to want to live in an oligarchy.

Bullseye said:

Corporations and mil/bills only get that way because THE PEOPLE purchase their products and services;

Click to expand...

Or if they inherit the money from daddy.

Furthermore, you seem to be ignoring the reality that in any competition there will always be cheaters, and you must have rules with people to enforce them.

Bullseye said:

corporations are run by subsets of "the people" who have risked their money to invest in the corporation.

Click to expand...

Please. The risks are minimal. The average worker at the company generally has more to lose if the company takes a hit than the owners in most cases.

Lutherf said:

What's sad is that you think he's describing a society where people have power. What he's describing is a society where government has total control over the results of every action every person takes.

Click to expand...

Back in the day, many, many days ago, I was a long-haired hippy weird freak who spent a lot of time yelling "Power to the people" and associating with others that did, too.t But the further I got into that the more I began noticing that our leaders really meant "Power to me. I'll tell the people what they want." I think that mentality continues today. Folks like Bernie and AOC visualize themselves as the top tier directing the lives of the worshipful lower classes, because, obviously the lower classes don't know what they want or need.

Lutherf said:

What's sad is that you think he's describing a society where people have power. What he's describing is a society where government has total control over the results of every action every person takes.

Click to expand...

Nope. That's what you're choosing to hear. You love to throw around that word government, without understanding that in a Democracy a government is of the people, by the people, for the people. It's not an individual. It's not a dictator or a king who is living on high in his mansion or castle.

Bullseye said:

Don't conflate conservatives with Republicans - there are some common grounds but they are not interchangeable. Cons DON'T what large overpowering government - we favor federalism.

Click to expand...

I agree that Republicans aren’t always conservative. Many of Trump’s actions are decidedly not conservative. But as long as most conservatives believe abortion and marijuana should be outlawed, then I view them as being in favor of overpowering government. Outlawing it at the state level doesn’t make it less overpowering or controlling.

Libertarians, on the other hand, are for actual small government that doesn’t intrude. I don’t agree with them on everything, but they are the true small government faction.

Harshaw said:

“This Campaign Is Literally Making Socialists”



Do you agree? Is that a fair description of "democratic socialism"?

Why or why not?

Further in, he confirms that he means it like it sounds:

Click to expand...

If the corporations control the government, then under Democratic socialism the corporations control everything.

Skeptic Bob said:

No. It is demonstrably false because they don’t want to tell me what I can put in my own body. They don’t tell women what they can and can’t do with their reproductive systems.

Conservative and liberals, including Democratic Socialists, all believe in big government. They just differ on what parts of your life the government should intrude. Generally speaking, libs want control over your money and conservatives want control over your body.

Click to expand...

I think you've outdone yourself here! What a great post! :thumbs:

MrWonka said:

You seem to be radically misinterpreting what he's saying. He doesn't mean literally telling you what to do. He simply means that it is the people who would decide the laws and have influence over leaders. That each individual person's voice would have equal say regardless of how much money they make, what color their skin is, what religion they worship, their gender, their last name...

Here is a list of the top 27 most free countries in the world today...

Countries in the world with the most freedom - Business Insider

America isn't even on it. Meanwhile, the countries that follow a political philosophy more like what Democratic Socialism strives for are all near the top of the list. Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Canada...

You think about freedom in terms of your ability to make a choice, but what if all the choices available to you are terrible? What if the choice you'd like to make isn't available to you because of circumstances outside of your control? Excessive competition can force people with little means into making some terrible choices whether they want to or not. In America you're only truly free if you have enough wealth to leverage it.

Click to expand...

Whoa! The great posts keep coming. I feel very humbled, here.

MrWonka said:

Nope. That's what you're choosing to hear. You love to throw around that word government, without understanding that in a Democracy a government is of the people, by the people, for the people. It's not an individual. It's not a dictator or a king who is living on high in his mansion or castle.

Click to expand...

So as long as the people hold the power in a government it's a good, safe government? OK. Let's say that 51% of the American people decide to stone black citizens to death in the public square. That would be Democracy in action as the will of the people would be done, right?

It sounds like the overly idealistic rantings of a twenty-two year old.
The end.

Democratic socialism doesn't exist in this country in measurable numbers but we had a healthy forty year relationship with mild social democracy applied to our capitalist system.
The most people can expect from our leadership is to make at least some small effort to reward whatever reduces "the despair quotient" for those at the bottom, because natural human ambition will help alleviate much of the rest of our socioeconomic woes if those at the bottom have opportunities available to better themselves.
The idea is, the bottom need not always be a permanent place to stay if upward mobility is realistically available to a wider number.
The natural "churn" will move those who make the effort up the ladder.
Social democracy is that which ensures that the bottom one or two rungs remain intact and accessible.

Despair is poisonous. It behooves our body politic to take steps to minimize the risk of widespread and fulminating infection.
A bit of social democracy is usually appropriate and will make poverty and despair a temporary condition for a larger number of people.

One might ask, "What is the difference between democratic socialism and social democracy?"
That could be argued ad nauseum because there are social democrats who think they are democratic socialists, so if the difference between the two is the difference between peaches and nectarines, take note that no one ever makes a nectarine pie because peaches make the better pie, so if we're talking about pie, one is more palatable when cooked.

Bullseye said:

Don't conflate conservatives with Republicans - there are some common grounds but they are not interchangeable. Cons DON'T what large overpowering government - we favor federalism.

Click to expand...

This is a fair point. And quite honestly, I'm not even sure where principled conservative go today? The Republicans have left them, and the Dems haven't had them for a long while. So, where?