Democratic Party Platform: How to win?

[sophie]

Social democracy is socialism, but I agree the midcentury version didn't go far enough and that AOC and Bernie don't go far enough.

Social Democracy is Leftism, and indeed shares many ideological goals with Socialism, but it fundamentally seeks to work within a capitalist framework. Any political ideology which doesn't envisage a wholesale break with the capitalist base cannot rightly be called socialism.

 

[Lexicus]

Social Democracy is socialism insofar as it takes power over investment out of the hands of the capitalist class.

 

[Hrothbern]

In my country the social Democrats did not lose because of populist right
But because they institutionalised too much in the pod of politics
And lost their own ability to thrive on a populist left base and adjacent grassroots

 

[metalhead]

Use Trump only to the extent he is a symbol of the rot within the system. Validate the view that the system is broken and the thought that Trump might be a vehicle for changing it. Point out that the fault there lies with Trump for lying about it.

And that's it. Lay out a roadmap for fixing it that focuses on challenging the power of corporations and elites to rig the economy and political structures in their favor. The specifics don't matter as long as the solution is credible. Don't focus on the colossal mistake voters made last time around. Just focus on how Democrats can make it better.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Don't focus on the colossal mistake voters the electoral college made last time around.

FTFY

 

[metalhead]

The electoral college are people, my friend!

 

[Kyriakos]

I am not sure if changing the system will be a good idea, given then a number of states will mean virtually nothing re general elections, and therefore politicians wont even pretend to care about them.
Then again... the fate of peripheries is similar in all countries. (Though most countries have no state and federal level distinction to this degree).

 

[Gori the Grey]

The electoral college are people, my friend!

By the way, I'm in basic agreement with your earlier post, and it was what I was trying to get at when I was describing, early in this thread, how I want to see Dem candidates treat Trump.

There's a bad way of governing (typified by Trump). I'm for this good way of governing.

 

[metalhead]

Having genuine leftist politicians with real clout existing in the American political arena and within the American popular consciousness is undeniably a good thing. But I would much rather see actual socialists who both own the term AND the political agenda. Sanders and AOC are preferable to Neoliberal Democrats, who are themselves preferable to ANY Republicans, but none of are genuinely great candidates to me.

There is a problem though. The actual political left has been institutionally deplatformed everywhere in America. Nazis are mostly fine, of course, but anything which is not explicitly capitalist is basically not to be discussed, ever.

 

[innonimatu]

Social Democracy is socialism insofar as it takes power over investment out of the hands of the capitalist class.

No, they don't really take power out of the hands of the capitalist class, none that I can recall in Europe did it. By allowing that capitalist class to continue to exist, they guarantee that corruption will within a couple of decades destroy any social-democratic system. And by capitalist class I do not mean the small business of the market economy, the field where competition exists. I mean the big business that supplies the state and is backed by the state. That is capitalism. The natural monopolies granted to capitalist rent-seeking, the market-manipulating monopolies enabled and protected by the state's laws (standardization, regulations, "intellectual property, etc). Those will always have a natural interest in corrupting politicians. They will inevitably do it, and use it to increase their power and take over the political system, moving it from social-democracy to oligarchy.

A social-democracy that makes sure these economic fields of activity are not capitalist, rent-seeking, privately controlled, can survive. Not saying that it will, any small businessman can aim for monopoly and seek to get the state on their side, the danger of corruption (from below or even from within the state) is ever present. But it can be managed. Whereas a social-democracy that tolerates large rent-seeking business will surely fail quickly.

The Democratic Party may once have had within it the monopoly busters. Or was it a different party? I don't know, but you may have once been a party of the small independent business. That is long gone, both parties are thoroughly capitalist, protect the rent-seeker capitalists. The logic that making an ever-greater profit is good, which implicitly says that exploiting people to produce that ever-greater profit is to be protected, is very much supported by both parties. The only veneer of "popular equality" in this game is the allegation that anyone can play at being capitalist, stock markets etc. As if the fact that wealth wasn't getting more and more concentrated didn't disprove that.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Most important Democratic planks:

• Immigration reform that includes Dreamers
• Healthcare reform that includes some kind of opt in for either a single payer or Medicare for all. Single payer, not medicare, would shut down the private insurance business. Medicare uses private insurance for supplemental care. I do not think that you can go from what we have now to a full single payer for all in a single step. By having an opt in for those who wanted it, you could get a transition to help figure out how it would work.
• Infrastructure bill that includes high speed rail and restoration of Amtrak funding.
• Support for controlling global warming and green energy efforts
• Election reform to improve security and voting rights for all

Secondary planks

• Forgiveness of college loans
• Restoration of relationships with our allies
• Restoration of Government norms
• Global oriented trade policies
• Positions on Middle East wars
• Higher marginal tax rates on the very wealthy

I think they need to stay focused on those top five, but be able to respond on the others. In each case for the top items they need to have enough detail so voters can imagine what the outcome will be. Healthcare needs a transition period so it is less scary to those who will oppose it.

 

[metalhead]

Warren says she is a capitalist to her bones, or whatever her phrase was. I will support her in the general should she win the nomination but I'll continue to support candidates who call themselves socialists in the primary. If the gods furnish me with a non-Bernie candidate who meets that criterion I shall be very grateful.

What do you think about her when you see she proposes stuff like the Accountable Capitalism Act? I was pretty impressed, at least insofar as it seeks to fundamentally change the duty of large corporations to account for the good of the public and employees, not shareholders. It also mandates workers elect a large share of corporate boards.

I think these are the types of fundamental changes we need to make corporations behave more responsibly. I also think she gets the nitty-gritty details of how to attack these types of problems much much better than anyone else. I personally find this way more compelling than the programs Bernie and even AOC tout. They're good, but they don't offer any actual reform to the system. I think Warren does.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I was actually just about to ask if there were workable schemes for ensuring that a rising tide lifts all boats.

I think something like this could get purchase. The big resentment by American workers is that their efforts help make their companies profitable and they don't see direct benefits from that.

 

[Lexicus]

No, they don't really take power out of the hands of the capitalist class, none that I can recall in Europe did it.

The problem is that you take this is a total, binary, entirely-true or entirely-not-true statement. That may be a nice way to draw theoretical distinctions but it is not how you talk about, or study actually-existing economies. I have already agreed that midcentury social democracy did not go far enough. I would agree with you that it was not sustainable. I don't entirely agree with the reasons you give here but I can give other reasons of my own.

In any case, midcentury social democracy did take some of the power over investment out of the hands of the capitalist class, because it involved a variety of investments made for example by democratically-elected governments rather than by capitalists. There were a variety of institutions which ensured that, even within the private sphere, the capitalists did not have unilateral control over all investment.

What do you think about her when you see she proposes stuff like the Accountable Capitalism Act? I was pretty impressed, at least insofar as it seeks to fundamentally change the duty of large corporations to account for the good of the public and employees, not shareholders. It also mandates workers elect a large share of corporate boards.

I think these are the types of fundamental changes we need to make corporations behave more responsibly. I also think she gets the nitty-gritty details of how to attack these types of problems much much better than anyone else. I personally find this way more compelling than the programs Bernie and even AOC tout. They're good, but they don't offer any actual reform to the system. I think Warren does.

Her Accountable Capitalism Act is actually pretty interesting, but honestly I think the things AOC is proposing at least are more radical. A Green New Deal could be as revolutionary for the United States as the effort to fight World War II was (midcentury equality in the US was much more the result of the war effort than the original New Deal) and I believe the political consequences of a federal job guarantee would be far more radical than the co-determination system in Warren's proposal.

In any case one need look no further than Germany for ample evidence that co-determination is not inherently revolutionary.

I was actually just about to ask if there were workable schemes for ensuring that a rising tide lifts all boats.

One workable scheme for ensuring that a rising tide lifts all boats is to ensure that the government is always spending exactly what is required for full employment. Full employment is far more broadly prosperous than the alternative of allowing involuntary employment to persist in the name of fighting inflation. The political consequences of full employment would also include giving people a sense of power and purpose that they must lack when their lives can be so easily thrown into disarray by an arbitrary decision of their employer.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I believe the political consequences of a federal job guarantee would be far more radical than the co-determination system in Warren's proposal.

But you also have to think about what you can sell voters on. Federal job guarantee sounds more radical. Warren's proposal can be sold as a fair shake for the employees whose labors make these American companies so profitable.

 

[Gori the Grey]

The political consequences of full employment would also include giving people a sense of power and purpose that they must lack when their lives can be so easily thrown into disarray by an arbitrary decision of their employer.

I'm not sure this is true. I'm not sure people would feel "power and purpose" if an external force was guaranteeing that they have that work. I'm not saying they wouldn't. I'm just saying I'm not sure they would in that case. Also, how does one handle the practical problem of matching people to jobs? Whatever you want to do in the world, and here's some money to do it? Or here's some things that our society needs done; which of them are you qualified to/interested in doing?

 

[Lexicus]

I'm not sure people would feel "power and purpose" if an external force was guaranteeing that they have that work.

The job guarantee is for anyone who wants it. No one who doesn't want to work would be forced into it.

Or here's some things that our society needs done; which of them are you qualified to/interested in doing?

This would be more the model of the job guarantee; my belief is that the state has the obligation to meet people where they live, so to speak. I don't believe it is possible to accomplish this perfectly, but I also believe that whatever the cost of falling short, it is almost guaranteed to result in less lost real output than the current system of maintaining "a tenth of the population in idleness" (to use Keynes' phrase; I know it's not a tenth of the population unemployed in the US today...)

Whatever you want to do in the world, and here's some money to do it?

Some of the best cultural and scientific stuff in US history came out of programs that were modeled a lot like this back in the original New Deal.

 

[Ajidica]

Social democracy is socialism, but I agree the midcentury version didn't go far enough and that AOC and Bernie don't go far enough.

I would argue that Social Democracy is not socialism - and that it positioned itself as an opponent/alternative to socialism (such as with the SDP in the UK in the 80s).
That said, what real-world examples did you have in mind when making this statement?

 

[Lexicus]

It positioned itself as an opponent of Bolshevism/Marxism-Leninism/Maoism, certainly. That was rhetorically identified with socialism.

 

[Ajidica]

I will admit my knowledge is largely limited to the UK, but the SDP was formed as a breakaway from Labour on the grounds it was too socialist/left wing* and preferred a more German-style system with regards to unions.

*Several MPs who would form the SDP did not object to the very left-wing elements of Labour's 1983 "Longest Suicide Note in History" Manifesto so they would have clearer public grounds for splitting from Labour.