Talk: Democratic socialism
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
128.193.88.202 wrote: ((municipal tax = 25%-35%) + (state tax = 25%-30%) = 50%-70%)
- Where did you get this from? The municipal tax (kommunskatt) is about 20% and the "county"-tax (landstingsskatt) is about 10%. Plus a small church-tax which is <1%. What do you mean by "state tax"? Maybe you are thinking about VAT? Source: [[1]]
I am sorry, but this page appears to be a joke. Or at best a POV to the max power charachterisation of the European political landscapae. Please edit it. Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 22:20 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Much better. Let's see how long it lasts. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 00:37 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Next time you edit it yourself! :)) -- Ruhrjung 00:43 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Now I am even more worried about the page. Is there anybody out there who can verify that those two outside links to American Socialist organizations have anything whatsoever to do with the historical concept of "Democratic socialism". Let me emphasize, that I would be very glad indeed to hear that yes, they do indeed epitomize that very ideological concept in a historically representative way, but would like some very convincing evidence. Please! -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 18:23 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Instead of moaning why dont you edit it G-Man 09:19 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Because I don't feel qualified to do so. I don't know enough to feel more than disquiet about the article. I might be wrong, and the article spot on! I have no qualifications at all to expound on American socialist movements/parties, so if my concerns were perceived as "moaning" by true experts, I would take that on the chin. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 09:29 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Google hits on wikipedia&mirrors first, and to pages that use the term interchangably with social democracy next. This page should be merged (as required) and otherwise redirected to social democracy, unless someone can convince me differently? Kim Bruning 21:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm not entirely sure. I'm not satisfied with the state of either entry as it currently stands; but I do think there's some degree of difference we should try to enunciate. From my view, at least, there's a world of difference between, say, the Socialist Alliance of Australia and the Australian Labor Party, but both would be categorised under the same heading if the articles were to be merged. I really don't know if their respective ideologies have that much in common. Lacrimosus 04:22, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I think that the distinction is very subjective. I think what we are dealing with is two issues. (1) Many social democratic parties are less leftwing than they used to be. For some reason, people want to reserve the term "social democracy" for the rightwing of social democracy, rather than for the left of social democracy. (2) Many Leninist parties are becoming less revolutionary and more democratic, hence the Australian Socialist Alliance is being cited as an example of "democratic socialism", which in the past no one would have taken seriously because it comprises mainly Trotskyist organizations. It may prove very difficult to decide definitely which organizations are social democratic and which democratic socialist, if a distinction is drawn between the two terms. I personally doubt whether Trotskyists should be classified in either category, since there could be (and probably are) separate entries for Leninist and Trotskyist parties. The usage of the term "democratic socialism" varies so widely - for example, the British Labour Party describes itself as democratic socialist and yet others are claiming it doesn't qualify as social democratic - it makes no sense to have the distinction. The "social democracy" article could discuss both the right and the left of the movement, but would of course exclude Leninist parties (which have not been counted as social democrats since about 1917). User:rjpuk 20:32, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I do think that the distinction here between democratic socialism and social democracy is important, but it could maybe be expanded on somewhat... There are at least two branches of democratic socialist praxis that I'd like to see mentioned here (I'll add them myself, if nobody objects): the participatory democracy wing of the New Left in Europe and North America (the names Tom Hayden and Dany Cohn-Bendit spring to mind), and in India the anti-totalitarian socialism of JP Narayan and his sometime associates such as Acharya Narendra Deva and other Congress Socialist Party luminaries. I'm sure other folks could come up with examples from elsewhere. In both instances, we have a definite revolutionary Left politics that's anti-Leninist but also not anarchist. But rjpunk's observations about the subjectiveness of the term might make a handy contribution to the article itself: in reality, most movements do seem to want to swing either towards reformism pure and simple, or to some degree of authoritarianism (quite a problem!). Oh, I thought of a third current: the Left-wing "radical democracy" movement coming out of a lot of post-structuralist and feminist theorizing these days (think of Chantal Mouffe). QuartierLatin1968 01:40, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
