TL;DR:
Democratic Socialists have a hard time defining their ideology.
A neutral definiton based on credible dictionaries is: equalizing income and wealth by government/collective/societal control of property achieved through democratic means (either as a mixed economy somewhere on a spectrum or as a transitional state towards complete equality of wealth and income and the elimination of private property).
A basic problem is that socialism is generally not imposed or maintained in a democratic fashion.
Secondly, and the primary grounds for discussion and debate, is the question of where on the spectrum between pure free market capitalism (which we don't have anyways) and communism (with the abolition of private property and complete income/wealth equality through forced redistribution) do the various self proclaimed "democratic socialists" stand?
The final point is that identity politics, open borders and the likes are merely an insane sideshow that has little or nothing to do with democratic socialism per se.
Democratic Socialism is the new fad on the political left with the new Democrat "it girl", Ocasio-Cortez, describing herself as a Deomcratic Socialist as well as various others. For anyone on the right, or even center-right, moderate as well as some on the genuinely liberal left, this term is rather cringe inducing. However, it is hard bring particular criticism to bear on an ideology that its own proponents and subscribers can't or refuse to define. So here is my attempt to define it in as neutral a way as possible. Conservative and right-wing ideological rhetoric follows after that.
My first stop is a review of dictionary definitions of "socialism" at:
https://onelook.com/?w=socialism&ls=a
The components of the various definitions of Cambridge, Collins, Webster/Merrium-Webster, MacMillan and Oxford include the following:
1) Equal opportunity (2/6)
2) Important industries controlled by the community (2/6)
3) Government ownership of the means of production (2/6)
4) Distribution of goods by the government (2/6)
5) No private property (1/6)
6) Exchange regulated collectively (1/6)
7) Equal opportunity to benefit from a country's wealth (1/6)
8) Equal sharing of a country's money (1/6)
9) Ownership of industry/capital (1/6)
Some of these are essentially the same. "Equal opportunity" here has a particular spin on it making it largely different from the free market concept and at a minimum it involves a redistribution of wealth to give everyone a base starting point through public education, welfare, socialized medicine, subsidized housing, food stamps and even a basic income. Other formulations involve matters of degree rather than substance so things can be combined to:
1) (More) equal(ized) distribution of a country's wealth and income.
2) Government/collective/societal control of property:
a) all private property
b) all means of production/capital
c) major industries (the "Commanding Heights" of the economy - great documentary to watch if you find it online, by the way)
Merrium-Webster has a notation that "common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments"
Their entry under "social democracy" says:
1 : a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means
2 : a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices
The other entries under social democracy include references to:
1) the transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means (2 other references)
a) gradually and peacefully (1 reference)
2) social justice and equality can be achieved within the framework of a market economy (one reference) with no definition of "social justice" from Collins.
Merriam-Webster and Oxford take a shot at "social justice" with "a doctrine of egalitarianism" and "Justice [ie. fairness] in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society."
Of course, justice/fairness tends to mean equal.
So what we get to describe "democratic socialism" (setting aside the idea of "privilege" as separate from wealth) is: equalizing income and wealth by government/collective/societal control of property achieved through democratic means (either as a mixed economy somewhere on a spectrum or as a transitional state towards complete equality of wealth and income and the elimination of private property).
That's about as neutral a defintion as possible from neutral source - English language dictionaries which are descriptive rather than prescriptive (as with French or Japanese) in that they catalogue how people commonly use the terms, thus avoiding the "no true democratic socialist fallacy".
------
Having said that, here are a few problems.
The first question is whether democratic socialists are truly commited to democratic, peaceful and perhaps gradual means to achieve socialism, and, once socialism has been achieved, does democracy goes out the window? This is a real concern on at least two fronts.
First is that pretty much every country with combinations of "people's", "democratic" and "republic" in their name are totalitarian regimes, or at least not very democratic in the common sense of the word, or else third world shit holes in transition from civil war or dictatorships: East Germany, North Korea, China, Algeria, Bangladesh, Democratic Republic of Congo, Laos, - the sole exception I could find was Sao Tome and Principe while Sri Lanka and East Timor are "flawed democracies"; other honourable mentions go to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam who are sort of honest about the nomenclature. The Economist Magazine Democracy index out of 10 rates Norway as 9.87, Canada as 9.15, USA as 7.98, and the average of the above - less East Germany - is under 4.0 with North Korea taking the cake at 1.08.
The point is here that those factions who allege to represent the people in a democratic fashion to achieve socialist ends tend to strip representative institutions of their power in favour of an annointed elite
The second front is the historical and ongoing use of very non-democratic, non-peaceful and non-leagal means that the American "progressive" left uses.
They have rarely been able to advance their agenda through legislative reform and instead have used judicial activism to ignore the Constitution or interpret it in a ridiculous matter such that the only way for the legislature to correct the errors is through constitutional amendments.
The next point can be largely summed up in two words: "The Clintons". Bill was actually not a horrible president but he lied to the American people and he lied under oath. Two Republicans voted not guilty on both charges and an additional 7 voted not guilty on the perjury charges. Not a single Democrat voted guilty on either charge. Hillary has a litany of scandals that have never been fully investigated or prosecuted.
The mainstream media perverts the first amendment by misinforming the public and then hides behind it when they are called out as fake news. The fourth estate is effectively a fifth column in the culture wars.
To top it off is the harassment, intimidation, vandalism and violence committed by the left to harm or silence conservatives, their views and their icons. The Silent Sam statue was torn down recently. MAGA hats and such apparently provide license for their wearers to be insulted, harassed, attacked, denied service at public venues and such. Conservative speakers are shut down by violent mobs or charged exhorbitant security fees to protect themselves against these mobs.
The Antifa movement has no sense of irony given that Fascism is a creature of the left and their tactics include dressing in black shirts and committing vandalism and violence to intimidate conservative voices.
Secondly, but not secondary, is that even if you have defined "democratic socialism" for those claiming to be democratic socialists, they are awfully damn cagey about where on the spectrum of mixed economies they prefer the resting place of society to be: how much income equalization is appropriate and how much social control over otherwise private property do they want?
A pervasive series of questions that conservatives ask socialists - without receiving a reply - is "which industries would you nationalize and which would you not, and why?" Along with "how will you pay for it?", this is the primary grounds for discussion and debate against the left. In large part, they don't know where they would draw the line, or else they will lie to you and then shift the goal posts later. Suggest that social media (Facebook, Twitter and Youtube for instance) be nationalized and under the control of the government, and lefties freak given who is in control of the government at the moment.
This goes back to the previous point in that they don't really want "collective" or "social" control of capital and industry but rather they want to be in control and the other half of the country (as it stands now) gets no say in it.
Finally is the point that various other pet issues have nothing to do with democratic socialism per se. For instance, do you really think that Norway wants to throw open its borders, have 200,000 immigrants from third world nations enter and stay through "irregular" means, and then have 10,000 more each year arrive and be let loose? "Color Blind Racism" is the newest bit of illogic to come out of the left: treating people of different races the same. . .IS RACIST! It is similar to the feminist notion of "substantive equality" whereby the way to treat people the same is to treat them differently. Discussion of 68 genders is all part of this sideshow which is heavily eclipsed by the idea of businesses being expropriated and then everyone living with 75% tax rates or whatever.
Democratic Socialists have a hard time defining their ideology.
A neutral definiton based on credible dictionaries is: equalizing income and wealth by government/collective/societal control of property achieved through democratic means (either as a mixed economy somewhere on a spectrum or as a transitional state towards complete equality of wealth and income and the elimination of private property).
A basic problem is that socialism is generally not imposed or maintained in a democratic fashion.
Secondly, and the primary grounds for discussion and debate, is the question of where on the spectrum between pure free market capitalism (which we don't have anyways) and communism (with the abolition of private property and complete income/wealth equality through forced redistribution) do the various self proclaimed "democratic socialists" stand?
The final point is that identity politics, open borders and the likes are merely an insane sideshow that has little or nothing to do with democratic socialism per se.
Democratic Socialism is the new fad on the political left with the new Democrat "it girl", Ocasio-Cortez, describing herself as a Deomcratic Socialist as well as various others. For anyone on the right, or even center-right, moderate as well as some on the genuinely liberal left, this term is rather cringe inducing. However, it is hard bring particular criticism to bear on an ideology that its own proponents and subscribers can't or refuse to define. So here is my attempt to define it in as neutral a way as possible. Conservative and right-wing ideological rhetoric follows after that.
My first stop is a review of dictionary definitions of "socialism" at:
https://onelook.com/?w=socialism&ls=a
The components of the various definitions of Cambridge, Collins, Webster/Merrium-Webster, MacMillan and Oxford include the following:
1) Equal opportunity (2/6)
2) Important industries controlled by the community (2/6)
3) Government ownership of the means of production (2/6)
4) Distribution of goods by the government (2/6)
5) No private property (1/6)
6) Exchange regulated collectively (1/6)
7) Equal opportunity to benefit from a country's wealth (1/6)
8) Equal sharing of a country's money (1/6)
9) Ownership of industry/capital (1/6)
Some of these are essentially the same. "Equal opportunity" here has a particular spin on it making it largely different from the free market concept and at a minimum it involves a redistribution of wealth to give everyone a base starting point through public education, welfare, socialized medicine, subsidized housing, food stamps and even a basic income. Other formulations involve matters of degree rather than substance so things can be combined to:
1) (More) equal(ized) distribution of a country's wealth and income.
2) Government/collective/societal control of property:
a) all private property
b) all means of production/capital
c) major industries (the "Commanding Heights" of the economy - great documentary to watch if you find it online, by the way)
Merrium-Webster has a notation that "common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments"
Their entry under "social democracy" says:
1 : a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means
2 : a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices
The other entries under social democracy include references to:
1) the transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means (2 other references)
a) gradually and peacefully (1 reference)
2) social justice and equality can be achieved within the framework of a market economy (one reference) with no definition of "social justice" from Collins.
Merriam-Webster and Oxford take a shot at "social justice" with "a doctrine of egalitarianism" and "Justice [ie. fairness] in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society."
Of course, justice/fairness tends to mean equal.
So what we get to describe "democratic socialism" (setting aside the idea of "privilege" as separate from wealth) is: equalizing income and wealth by government/collective/societal control of property achieved through democratic means (either as a mixed economy somewhere on a spectrum or as a transitional state towards complete equality of wealth and income and the elimination of private property).
That's about as neutral a defintion as possible from neutral source - English language dictionaries which are descriptive rather than prescriptive (as with French or Japanese) in that they catalogue how people commonly use the terms, thus avoiding the "no true democratic socialist fallacy".
------
Having said that, here are a few problems.
The first question is whether democratic socialists are truly commited to democratic, peaceful and perhaps gradual means to achieve socialism, and, once socialism has been achieved, does democracy goes out the window? This is a real concern on at least two fronts.
First is that pretty much every country with combinations of "people's", "democratic" and "republic" in their name are totalitarian regimes, or at least not very democratic in the common sense of the word, or else third world shit holes in transition from civil war or dictatorships: East Germany, North Korea, China, Algeria, Bangladesh, Democratic Republic of Congo, Laos, - the sole exception I could find was Sao Tome and Principe while Sri Lanka and East Timor are "flawed democracies"; other honourable mentions go to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam who are sort of honest about the nomenclature. The Economist Magazine Democracy index out of 10 rates Norway as 9.87, Canada as 9.15, USA as 7.98, and the average of the above - less East Germany - is under 4.0 with North Korea taking the cake at 1.08.
The point is here that those factions who allege to represent the people in a democratic fashion to achieve socialist ends tend to strip representative institutions of their power in favour of an annointed elite
The second front is the historical and ongoing use of very non-democratic, non-peaceful and non-leagal means that the American "progressive" left uses.
They have rarely been able to advance their agenda through legislative reform and instead have used judicial activism to ignore the Constitution or interpret it in a ridiculous matter such that the only way for the legislature to correct the errors is through constitutional amendments.
The next point can be largely summed up in two words: "The Clintons". Bill was actually not a horrible president but he lied to the American people and he lied under oath. Two Republicans voted not guilty on both charges and an additional 7 voted not guilty on the perjury charges. Not a single Democrat voted guilty on either charge. Hillary has a litany of scandals that have never been fully investigated or prosecuted.
The mainstream media perverts the first amendment by misinforming the public and then hides behind it when they are called out as fake news. The fourth estate is effectively a fifth column in the culture wars.
To top it off is the harassment, intimidation, vandalism and violence committed by the left to harm or silence conservatives, their views and their icons. The Silent Sam statue was torn down recently. MAGA hats and such apparently provide license for their wearers to be insulted, harassed, attacked, denied service at public venues and such. Conservative speakers are shut down by violent mobs or charged exhorbitant security fees to protect themselves against these mobs.
The Antifa movement has no sense of irony given that Fascism is a creature of the left and their tactics include dressing in black shirts and committing vandalism and violence to intimidate conservative voices.
Secondly, but not secondary, is that even if you have defined "democratic socialism" for those claiming to be democratic socialists, they are awfully damn cagey about where on the spectrum of mixed economies they prefer the resting place of society to be: how much income equalization is appropriate and how much social control over otherwise private property do they want?
A pervasive series of questions that conservatives ask socialists - without receiving a reply - is "which industries would you nationalize and which would you not, and why?" Along with "how will you pay for it?", this is the primary grounds for discussion and debate against the left. In large part, they don't know where they would draw the line, or else they will lie to you and then shift the goal posts later. Suggest that social media (Facebook, Twitter and Youtube for instance) be nationalized and under the control of the government, and lefties freak given who is in control of the government at the moment.
This goes back to the previous point in that they don't really want "collective" or "social" control of capital and industry but rather they want to be in control and the other half of the country (as it stands now) gets no say in it.
Finally is the point that various other pet issues have nothing to do with democratic socialism per se. For instance, do you really think that Norway wants to throw open its borders, have 200,000 immigrants from third world nations enter and stay through "irregular" means, and then have 10,000 more each year arrive and be let loose? "Color Blind Racism" is the newest bit of illogic to come out of the left: treating people of different races the same. . .IS RACIST! It is similar to the feminist notion of "substantive equality" whereby the way to treat people the same is to treat them differently. Discussion of 68 genders is all part of this sideshow which is heavily eclipsed by the idea of businesses being expropriated and then everyone living with 75% tax rates or whatever.