What is Democratic Socialism?
From the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) website
Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few.
Ignoring the fact that pure democracies have never worked throughout history, a well thought out explanation of how this would work would be helpful. Does this mean that for every decision needing to be made, everyone in society has to stop what they are doing for a vote on the decision. Obviously not, nothing would ever get done. Someone would be empowered to make decisions to a certain level. So, who identifies the individual able to make decisions and on the level of decisions that can be made?
The other part of the statement that bothers me is that the economy would be geared to "meet public needs". To "need" something can be very subjective. Do my wife and I actually "need" a second vehicle when we could manage without one only making life more difficult for us. Do we as individuals actually "need" different brands of items to choose from or even different styles of clothing. Within the last few years, my local Kroger built a new store across the road from the old one and expanded to carry clothing and have an expanded deli section. It's a great store but as a result, the food section is smaller and the selection of different brands on most items has been reduced with some items being reduced to only one brand. As someone that enjoys cooking, I know that some brands of seemingly mundane ingredients have subtle taste differences resulting in one brand being preferred over another. As far as clothing, why couldn't we get by all dressed the same? Give us all a uniform and our "needs" have been met. A great deal of our economy and subsequently our way of life is based on our "wants" versus our "needs".
Part of running the economy democratically is ownership of the company is to be among those affected by the company, the workers and consumers. This is referred to as social ownership. Again from the DSA website:
Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives.
Democratic Socialists are not encouraging the development of new "worker-owned cooperatives" to compete with existing companies but the conversion of existing companies. The reference to "publicly owned enterprises" refers to companies that have been nationalized, taken over by the government. While Democratic Socialists claim not to want "an all-powerful government bureaucracy", they do admit that some industries will will be run by the state (government in this case).
While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.
So it would be helpful to me for Democratic Socialists to explain how they intend to make the transition of companies currently being owned by individuals to companies either being owned by the "state" or workers. Are the people with current ownership compensated for relinquishing ownership or are the companies simply confiscated from the current owners? Very few of the companies in the energy and steel industries are owned by individuals but have ownership spread over thousands of individuals and investment companies through the stock market.
Part of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution indicates that we cannot "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". Under our Constitution the current owners of these companies would have to be compensated.
An explanation from the Democratic Socialists of how the transition would work is needed. Do the current owners get compensated for relinquishing ownership of companies or does the Fifth Amendment go on the trash heap. If the Fifth Amendment gets eliminated, how long before the rest of the Bill of Rights comes into conflict with the Democratic Socialist's dreams of utopia?
Resteemed! Great explanation of Democratic Socialism!
Thank you.
Alright, you make some good points, as a social democrat myself, let me tell you how my perspective is
A state-run healthcare system isn't meeting "the needs" of all of its people. In fact, no system does. If health insurance companies are left by themselves, you end up with 45,000 people dying every year from lack of health insurance. Now, in a state-run system, some people will wait longer than they would have before, others will only get healthcare then, while today they would just die, while even others will wait less. And some of the time, not the person who needs care the most will get care first, but another one. In fact, there were scandals in Europe where people had been BRIBING doctors to give them organ donations sooner! Clearly, that can't be accepted, you shouldn't get care sooner just because you're rich
Now, if you want to understand how I feel about the current private healthcare system, try to see it through those eyes: Clearly, with the very limited amount of time and resources doctors have at their hands, it would be wrong to have a system where not those who need care the most get it first, but those who pay the most. And yet, that's exactly what the US healthcare system does. Why do you think healthcare premiums keep rising so incredibly much in the US? Because patients have to outcompete each other, paying more and more, to be able to get care first. Worse even, those who don't pay don't get anything
That's why it's the position of democratic socialists to change the healthcare system into one where the person who needs care the most gets it first, not the person who pays the most. It would drive down cost and at the same time treat everyone.
It's a very good question, how advocates of collectives want to create that system. I personally want the US to do what Germany has done since the 70s, and to allow workers in big corporations to elect half of that corporation's board. It is basically a compromise between the two, and it makes sure that conflicts between management and workers don't escalate, but are resolved before the action against workers is even implemented. Unions only have the ability to threaten to destroy the company, by refusing to work. If workers have a seat at the baord, that's a much more efficient solution, and owners can't be exploited either because they still have half the board as well. German rich people aren't really complaining about this, BTW, it didn't result in all their money being stolen, or something
I don't want the government to control any part of the market just for the sake of centralizing everything, it's just in few industries where it's really necessary, I think a competitive market between cooperatives and corporations where workers can elect half the board is a much better solution for everyone involved.
According to factcheck.org the number of people dying from lack of health insurance, 45,000, comes from a study by six researchers with the Department of Medicine at Cambridge Health Alliance, which is affiliated with Harvard Medical School. Two of these researchers are co-founders of a single-payer advocacy group Physicians for a National Health Program, PNHP. In other words they went into the study with their own political motivation. After the paper was published PNHP did the work of publicizing the report to the general public.
One thing that needs to be pointed out is that these people are not dying because of a lack of health insurance. Assuming the 45,000 number is correct, these people are dying "prematurely" due to a lack of health insurance. We're all going to die someday, it just a fact of what we call life.
Factcheck.org sites another report by former Congressional Budget Office Director June O’Neill and her husband, economist Dave O’Neill. In this study they say
I do believe that those without health insurance are at a bigger risk of dying prematurely because of the finances of medical care, but there is another side to that argument as well.
If we get everyone health insurance, they're still at risk. From a study out of Johns Hopkins Medicine suggest that 250,000 people die annually from medical errors. This puts medical errors as the third leading cause of death above respiratory disease at 150,000 annual deaths. Shouldn't we be working on reducing this number first?
One factor driving up medical costs in the U.S. is malpractice insurance. Doctors are forced to run additional tests that may or may not be needed to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits. Tort reform could aid in controlling the increases in medical costs.
I've been on a factory floor in Germany, on the floor of German ran factories here in the U.S. and worked with engineers in the German auto industry. I can tell you we have a great deal we can learn from them. German's tend to be very analytical, at least in business, and very disciplined. The discipline extends down to the factory floors. German ran plants are cleaner, work areas are better arranged, and the workers show this discipline. The plant I was at in Germany with a vending machine selling beer in the break area. I asked if workers ever had too much to drink. The response was this rarely happens because the result would be the worker loosing his job immediately with no questions asked and no second chances. That could not happen here in the U.S.
My only opposition to workers electing a portion of the board of directors is the union involvement. Unions here and the U.S. and Canada set up rules allowing poor work ethic. In the U.S. have seen workers sleeping on break tables and on forklifts set up with a rack on the side to hold newspapers. A Uniroyal tire plant in Opelika, Alabama use to have recliners on the factory floor for the workers to sit. When the machine started making a strange noise, the worker would get out of the recliner, hit the stop button, call maintenance and sit back down in the recliner. I was walking an automotive assembly line one where a worker was reading a book and every so often would turn around with a screw driver and tighten a screw. In Canada, at a GM transmission plant, a worker crossed over caution tape to enter a work area he was not supposed to be in and got himself hurt. The management review of the accident had nothing to do with discipline of the worker for breaking rules but all to do with how to keep this from happening again. The plant now builds walls around any construction area. We could use some of the German discipline.
Corporate boards and executives have a fiduciary duty to do what they believe is best for the company and their stockholders. Unions do not. It's not just the rich that own stocks. A 2017 Gallup poll determined that 54% of American adults own stocks by themselves or jointly with a spouse. That's down from 62% after the financial crisis in 2008. If you don't own stock in an IRA, a 401k, or mutual fund then you're in the minority.
I have also worked in a plant with a productivity bonus for all employees. When the bonus was only 1 or 2 percent is was a joke around the workforce. When it got to 8 to 10 percent, the workforce started coming around offering and helping implement ideas to improve productivity. When I left that company the bonus was in excess of 25%. I understand the positive influence worker involvement can have on a company and think it's a great idea for them have more input, just not through a union.
Instead of discussing whether we should first reduce the rate of fatal errors or first reform who pays for healthcare, why not just do both? If you have a good idea how to reduce fatal errors, I'd love to hear it. A way to reduce the number of people dying simply because they're sick while poor, is certainly single-payer
France and Germany are two perfect examples why workers electing part of the board is superior to strong unions. In the US, the vast majority of workers don't work for unionized businesses, but it is my understanding that those who do have it relatively well, while maybe some of them even have it too welld based on what you say here. I know in France they have very strong unions by law, and they suffer from mass unemployment, constant strikes.
If you have workers electing a part of the corporate board, then workers won't elect "radicals" into the union leadership anymore, that demand productivity crippling working conditions. When workers elect half the board, their representatives make compromises with the stockholders, then I imagine workers won't want people in union leadership who destroy that deal by going on an unnecessary strike for a 100$/h wage.
You seem to like the way German businesses are run, and since our corporate boards are half controlled by workers, maybe that is why working conditions are good but not unnecessarily luxurious
Single payer is another example of a grand idea with no plan put forth for implementation. What all will be covered? Who will be covered, citizens or anyone that walks into the hospital? How will it be funded? How will costs be controlled? Will the existing medical insurance industry go away? If so, how will the current shareholders be compensated for their losses? How will single payer help with access to medical services in rural areas? There are a lot of questions out there that need to be answered before we can say single payer will help.
From your statement:
How do you know "radicals" wouldn't be elected? We have elections for political offices and continue to elect what I would consider "radicals" to office, on the left and on the right. Why would workers act any different electing members of the board than the general population does when electing those to political offices?
In Germany it works, I'd probably have to study sociology to know exactly why. You said it yourself, German companies tend to be quite efficient, despite or maybe because their workers elect half the board.
I think at this point, Americans would be quite happy to just literally copy and paste any Western European healthcare system, whether for example the UK, Germany or France. That should answer all the questions you have about who is covered, how prices are controlled etc. Healthcare Triage on YouTube has a great series on the healthcare system in many countries
Not all Americans would be happy to copy a European healthcare system, "some" Americans I am sure would be. Some of us Americans want less government than we have now, not more.
You're right, not all Americans want Medicare For All or a specific European system, and those who don't are very strongly opposed to it. But 70% of Americans are for it, including 52% of Republicans in one poll https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all
The average of polls is probably around 65% nationally and a plurality of 40-45% of Republicans, but still more Republicans are for it than against
A single payer system for all medical services is far different from Medicare. I'm all for Medicare, completely support it. But it is a real stretch to compare care for the elderly or those in need to a single payer system for all medical services for the everyone of any age.
Rich do not give his power. Here democracy is impossible.