Democratic Socialists vs. Social Democracy

Sheri Berman

In the Washington Post today, an article by Barnard College professor of political science Sheri Berman is of interest: "Democratic socialists are conquering the left. But do they believe in democracy?"

Much of Berman's article is a quick history of two of the primary branches of European socialist politics, beginning with the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848 and ending with the "unraveling" of the post-World War II order in the 1970s. During that extended period, "three camps emerged with different views of capitalism and democracy":

• One camp — that of Vladimir Lenin, the man who engineered the bolshevik communist takeover of what would, in 1917, become the Soviet Union — set about bringing down capitalism lock, stock, and barrel (and with it, democracy as we know it). The necessary agent that would bring about the end of capitalism was thought by this camp to be "a revolutionary vanguard."
• Another camp, disdaining the "violence and elitism" of the revolutionary movement with its self-styled "revolutionary vanguard," settled for "agitating against the reigning [capitalist] order and eagerly awaiting its departure." That departure was sure to happen in the not too distant future, it was felt by this camp. This camp thought it wrong to promote governmental "policies to 'reduce capitalist exploitation'." Why? "Alliances or compromises with nonsocialists" would just prop up the existing order. As for democracy per se, safeguarding it was not a priority — just "a means rather than an end." This camp was that of the first "democratic socialists." It wanted to use democratic means solely to put an end to capitalism's exploitation of the working classes.
• A third camp, the "social democrats," were willing to compromise with the forces of the capitalist bourgeoisie. To leftists of this stripe, capitalism was not necessarily "bound to collapse." But its "downsides" could be ameliorated if its "upsides" were harnessed to the task by means of enacting "concrete reforms" in the here and now.

*****

Bernie Sanders

In 2016, we witnessed a Democratic presidential primary battle between the party's eventual candidate, Hillary Clinton, and Senator Bernie Sanders, who called himself a socialist. Is Senator Sanders a "social democrat," or is he a "democratic socialist"? It's a question I can't easily answer, if the litmus test is simply one's attitude toward capitalism. Neither Sen. Sanders nor Ms. Clinton talked about bringing about an end to capitalism, after all.

Ms. Berman says in her article, "Although traditions are neither monolithic nor unchangeable, democratic socialism and social democracy have worked very differently." And the two camps have accordingly evolved differently. So I think I'm on firm ground when I say Bernie Sanders was and is, at least in today's terms, a "democratic socialist," while Hillary Clinton represented the forces of "social democracy" in our 2016 presidential race. (By the way, I voted for Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton in the Maryland presidential primary in 2016.)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Now, in 2018, we Democrats are trying to resolve the question of what our party should do if we want to deliver as much of a death blow to Trumpism as possible in the upcoming November elections. In particular, should we support latter-day "democratic socialists" like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is running for Congress in New York's 14th district?

Conor Lamb

Or should we lean more toward today's "social democrats," such as Conor Lamb, who won a special election in March of this year to be able to represent Pennsylvania's 18th district?

Well, I'd say that as a practical matter, we can do both. Wherever the ultra-left Ocasio-Cortez's can get on the ballot, we can support them if we are so inclined. Where the best Democratic hope lies with a more moderate Conor Lamb type, then that candidate can be our standard bearer.

My attitude is: whatever works to give Trump a big, fat black eye is all right with me ...