It’s increasingly difficult for US political commentators to neglect the centrality of socialism to the country’s affairs. We now see a spate of polling results and other commentary testifying to the popularity of socialist ideas, if not the label, as well as to the prospects of rising political stars like Zohran Mamdani in New York City, Katie Wilson in Seattle, and Omar Fateh in Minneapolis.
Whenever democratic socialism has a moment in the mainstream media, as it is having now, pundits and reporters ponder what “democratic socialism” really means. Those on the Left speculate on how, if at all, it differs from “social democracy” — generally taken to refer to the more egalitarian economic arrangements observed in the Nordic countries, and to a lesser extent across Western Europe. The relationship between democratic socialism and social democracy is a matter of dispute on the Left, but in general, democratic socialists imagine a more far-reaching transformation of economy and society than they expect from social democracy.
I would contend that democratic socialism and social democracy are more alike than different, and so the term “social democrat” can be kosher again. The important justifications for seeing a close connection between democratic socialism and social democracy are twofold. First, in practical political terms in the here and now, they are identical. Take Medicare for All (M4A), for instance. Whatever you think M4A is or should be, there is nothing inconsistent between M4A advocacy, social democracy, and democratic socialism.
Second, the European nations whose policies most Americans are comfortable with — and that American socialists like Bernie Sanders point to as models — often are led by governments and parties that self-identify as social democratic. It’s the word “socialism” that tends to scares Americans, not the content offered by most socialist politicians. Yet while the terminology of “socialism” still…
Auteur: Max B. Sawicky
