Well, tankies might disagree with me on some of this.
Democratic socialism got popular under socialist that opposed the Soviet Union.
China would like to be seen as democratic and would like to be socialistic but they are effectively a one party system (not very democratic) and they have special economic zones and simplified: the state owns the meaning of production and the worker only by proxy. China admit that they aren’t socialist yet but that they are working towards it. So currently not socialist, and the state owned means of production is in conflict with democratic socialism (or at least, that is my opinion and given that it became popular in opposition to the Soviet Union, I think I have a good case for that)
The whole state owned means of production issue and/or 1 party system, tend to be the reasons why no country was considered a democratic socialist country to my knowledge.
As a tankie I disagree with you. (Multiparty doesnt mean democracy)
If there is no example of “democratic socialism” yet then its acceptable to say its hogwash and presents no threat to status quo. I am not even getting into how would it be achieved
I never said multiparty means democracy. But okay.
Who said it was hogwash? Who said it presents no threat to status quo?
We are talking about how the nazis weren’t socialist, or social Democrats. And how you don’t know the difference between social democracy and democratic socialism. And to say that you are a tankie after saying that socialism is capitalism, is wild.
You certainly implied that saying leninist revolutions (like in china and russia) led to single party systems which arent democratic
I mean you are not able to give single example of what you would consider “democratic” socialism, neither of present nor historic and the way these terms are used interchangeably in modern discourse its easy to conclude that democratic socialism is the same as social democracy.
They aren’t used interchangeably? Unless you are talking about people who also use communism and socialism interchangeably, then sure but i don’t think we should have a discussion on nazi politics based on utter lack of knowledge what words mean.
I implied that historically speaking Leninist Revolution led to single party systems? I mean yeah. That is just fact.
But you understand how saying “1 party systems aren’t democratic” doesn’t mean “multiparty systems are democratic”? If anything, it means “multiparty is one of the requirements of a democracy”.
e.g. i don’t think America is a proper democracy. Technically speaking, a person with 21% of the votes could win the presidential election. Yes, even if the other candidate has 79% of the votes. The obvious corruption and Oligarchy is another issue. I would argue that the use of voting computers makes them undemocratic. And there are probably more reasons but I am lazy.
Exactly so not being multiparty doesnt make one necessarily undemocratic even by your standards because being multipart is just one of the requirements
any examples of what is a democratic socialism and what is a social democracy in real life
It would be easier to draw distinction
The distinction is between socialism and capitalism.
There are no democratic socialist countries.
Germany is a social democracy.
are there any that has ever existed?
Well, tankies might disagree with me on some of this.
Democratic socialism got popular under socialist that opposed the Soviet Union.
China would like to be seen as democratic and would like to be socialistic but they are effectively a one party system (not very democratic) and they have special economic zones and simplified: the state owns the meaning of production and the worker only by proxy. China admit that they aren’t socialist yet but that they are working towards it. So currently not socialist, and the state owned means of production is in conflict with democratic socialism (or at least, that is my opinion and given that it became popular in opposition to the Soviet Union, I think I have a good case for that)
The whole state owned means of production issue and/or 1 party system, tend to be the reasons why no country was considered a democratic socialist country to my knowledge.
As a tankie I disagree with you. (Multiparty doesnt mean democracy)
If there is no example of “democratic socialism” yet then its acceptable to say its hogwash and presents no threat to status quo. I am not even getting into how would it be achieved
I never said multiparty means democracy. But okay.
Who said it was hogwash? Who said it presents no threat to status quo?
We are talking about how the nazis weren’t socialist, or social Democrats. And how you don’t know the difference between social democracy and democratic socialism. And to say that you are a tankie after saying that socialism is capitalism, is wild.
You certainly implied that saying leninist revolutions (like in china and russia) led to single party systems which arent democratic
I mean you are not able to give single example of what you would consider “democratic” socialism, neither of present nor historic and the way these terms are used interchangeably in modern discourse its easy to conclude that democratic socialism is the same as social democracy.
They aren’t used interchangeably? Unless you are talking about people who also use communism and socialism interchangeably, then sure but i don’t think we should have a discussion on nazi politics based on utter lack of knowledge what words mean.
I implied that historically speaking Leninist Revolution led to single party systems? I mean yeah. That is just fact.
But you understand how saying “1 party systems aren’t democratic” doesn’t mean “multiparty systems are democratic”? If anything, it means “multiparty is one of the requirements of a democracy”.
e.g. i don’t think America is a proper democracy. Technically speaking, a person with 21% of the votes could win the presidential election. Yes, even if the other candidate has 79% of the votes. The obvious corruption and Oligarchy is another issue. I would argue that the use of voting computers makes them undemocratic. And there are probably more reasons but I am lazy.
Exactly so not being multiparty doesnt make one necessarily undemocratic even by your standards because being multipart is just one of the requirements