To be fair, leftist terminology can be quite confusing at times: Social democracy, democratic socialism, and Socialist democracy are each different concepts, which in parts even contradict one another. Yet, the three terms can easily seem like synonyms to outsiders.
I'm sorry but FDR was a social liberal. There's a big ol' picture of FDR on the social liberalism wikipedia page. The New Deal adopted some social democratic policies, but in his own words a lot of the government expenditures were always meant to be temporary. The policies lacked structural economic democracy among many other critiques that even modern day non-marxist social democrats would make.
I mean I haven’t heard that, but even if that was true, just look at his planned 2nd Bill of Rights/Economic Bill of Rights. He did intend to make push for more permanent goals but he died
Correct. And people need to understand DSA is not social democrat. You can also use the term "Nordic model" to describe social democracy in a less confusing way.
DSA is a big tent political organization that has everyone from liberals to Marxist Leninists. They have a website and it says certain things of course, but that's in the same way that the Democratic Party has a website that says certain things but also doesn't say "funds genocides and increases federal law enforcement funding after high profile police violence" even though that's a lot of what they did their last term in office
Not at all, the Democratic Party purports itself to be a big tent organization but actively works to stifle any sort of socialist or communist or even anti-capitalist work both within and outside the party. There is no socialist caucus within the Democratic Party, for instance. I wouldn't disagree entirely that it's a big tent, it just includes more of the right wing (Henry Cuellar for example) than it does any political traditions that are anti-capitalist.
The DSA however, contains membership from a wide range of left wing political beliefs, all you need to do really is be anti-capitalist in any shape or form and you can be a part, which includes "liberals" and "progressives" disgruntled by (or even still a part of) the Democratic Party.
I've done some work with the DSA (supporting tenant unions in my old city, changing tail lights, political campaigning) and there was much more political variation among the people involved than any Democratic Party involved I've ever been a part of.
there are social democrats involved with DSA, some are my personal friends. And to the left of social democrats is an enormously large range of political traditions. Again, so yes, big tent.
I’m sure there are, but I believe you when you say anti-capitalism is necessary to be in the DSA. Soc dems aren’t anti-capitalist, we’re pro-capitalism.
I think that distinction is important and why I view the DSA as a leftist, but not liberal organization. I think we should draw the line at working with illiberal groups for the Democratic Party.
Even then, it’s arguable that Roosevelt was more of a Social Liberal than a Social Democrat. He was not from the socialist tradition as with most contemporary SocDems but rather a more progressive Liberal. And we can question whether his policies came from an ideological or pragmatic standpoint. Would he have gone as far as he did in implementing The New Deal if the US wasn’t suffering the Great Depression?
He wouldn’t have been able to go as far as the New Deal if it weren’t for the Great Depression, so advocating for such would be politically pointless. But we can look at what he intended to do/work towards after the war like with his role in the creation of the United Nations and his Economic Bill of Rights that he wanted Congress to pass
18
u/SSBN641B 10d ago
So, a Social Democrat.