So, socialism is a question of degrees... that’s obviously true. But where you draw the line is important and not just a semantic argument. Democratic socialism has the word socialist in it, but isn’t Soviet or Chinese socialism of the type experimented with during the last century. We can see clearly where that goes—the Soviet Union collapsed, and was reborn into a world where the Russians use the apparatus of the state necessary to maintain a totalitarian government, in a world dominated by western capitalism, and the Chinese are now doing the same thing without the big public collapse. Both of them “cheat.” We call it that, and it is. They violate the laws of democracy and capitalism while still gaining the benefits. The whole world can see it happening. It’s not a secret what China and Russia are doing, and we (most of the world) punish these states with sanctions and other financial means in order to keep them from reverting back to just mowing down protesters in the streets, or taking what they want and profiting from it.
Now, in the case of western style democracy we also have problems in the system. Profit is what drives our systems. Yes, it promotes innovation, and does all the things you say it does, but at a certain level also offers us the opportunity to “cheat.” If I were rich enough I could use loopholes in our system to effectively pay no taxes, and further more I could outsource the manufacturing of my products to other countries where people have a much lower standard of living in general— the laws in those countries is such that employers can basically force what in the US would be called slavery—to increase my profits. So Western capitalism also “cheats” because the way the world is now allows it. I put cheats in quotes because doing this is mostly not illegal in the US. But it’s also not illegal in China to shoot protesters that the state sees as a threat to its system (or imprison, or whatever else it deems necessary.)
Our system in the US also tolerates “cheaters” doing illegal things for profit which in certain instances could be easily solved. Take illegal immigration. Instead of shutting down job opportunities for illegal immigrants, which would essentially diminish illegal immigration, we effectively allow people to get away with hiring illegal workers because we’ve created a profit motive and minimized penalties. We do this to because if we didn’t, profits would be less in industries where illegal immigrant employees is rampant (construction, food service, agriculture, manual labor, etc—we know where they are—I could find you dozens of illegal aliens working within 10 miles of my house on any day of the week, without trying hard. Not only would profits go down, but some of these business models would collapse (as they exist now) because they actually rely on “cheating.” stopping employers from hiring illegal immigrants for cheaper would raise the cost of goods and services to the end consumer.
Democratic Socialism offers a balance between these two systems. I understand the need to maximize freedom, and there are criticisms to a Social Democracy, just like any other system, but it’s moving in the right direction, IMO. But the idea that DS is going to end in totalitarianism and mass disappearings of our citizens is a bridge too far. Could it happen? Yes, it could, but the drive of DS is to take the best of both systems. Try being a big multinational or a government bureaucracy in France and doing something the public felt was terrible for them, or unfair. They literally might drag you out into the street and beat your ass, but the idea of the system tries to balance these forces in a way that benefits the majority of people regardless of their means or political leanings.
www.reuters.com
techcrunch.com