There is nothing communistic or pure socialist about it. It is capitalism that is regulated and certain functions are performed by the people as a whole expressing themselves through the government. There is nothing anti-capitalist about it.
Germany is a social democracy with lots of social benefits. We (Americans) also have many projects that form our infrastructure both social and economic that we do together through our democratically elected government.
A lot of people do not understand what democratic socialism is. It is not anti-capitalism. Some banks are controlled by the government in some democratic socialist states. In Austria, the government had a Bausparkasse program when we were there. If you saved money in your Bausparkasse account, the government put in some. Bau is related to the word bauen which means build.
In the US the government helped the builders of some of our canals in the early days and then the railroads later with land grants. Government has always helped prepare the infrastructure for those with capital and ideas. Eisenhower was big on building freeways. I remember that. A lot of our community redevelopment projects in California and elsewhere have been very successful. Government can boost capitalism in important ways other than just tax breaks for entrepreneurs and corporations.
I quote from Wikipedia:
The Social Democratic Party of Germany (German: Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, SPD) is a social-democratic[2][4][5][6] political party in Germany. The party is one of the two major contemporary political parties in Germany, along with the conservative CDU/CSU, and is led by Sigmar Gabriel.
The SPD currently governs at the federal level in a so-called grand coalition with the Christian Democratic Union and the Christian Social Union since December 2013 following the results of the German Federal election of 2013. The party participates in 14 state governments, of which nine are governed by SPD Minister-Presidents.
. . . .
The SPD was established as a Marxist party in 1875. However, the SPD underwent a major shift in policies reflected in the differences between the Heidelberg Program of 1925, which "called for the transformation of the capitalist system of private ownership of the means of production to social ownership",[10] and the Godesberg Program of 1959, which aimed to broaden its voter base and move its political position toward the centre.[11] After World War II, under the leadership of Kurt Schumacher, the SPD re-established itself as a socialist party, representing the interests of the working class and the trade unions. With the Godesberg Program of 1959, however, the party evolved from a socialist working-class party to a modern social-democratic party working within capitalism.
The current party platform of the SPD espouses the goal of social democracy, which is seen as a vision of a societal arrangement in which freedom and social justice are paramount. According to the party platform, freedom, justice, and social solidarity, form the basis of social democracy. The coordinated social market economy should be strengthened, and its output should be distributed fairly. The party sees that economic system as necessary in order to ensure the affluence of the entire population. The SPD also tries to protect the society's poor with a welfare state. Concurrently, it advocates a sustainable fiscal policy that doesn't place a burden on future generations while eradicating budget deficits. In social policy, the SPD stands for civil and political rights in an open society. In foreign policy, the SPD aims at ensuring global peace by balancing global interests with democratic means. Thus, European integration is one of the main priorities of the SPD. SPD supports economic regulations to limit potential losses for banks and people. They support a common European economic and financial policy, and to prevent speculative bubbles. They support environmentally sustainable growth. [1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany
Socialism is an accepted term in Europe that mostly refers to social welfare programs like education, health care, worker participation in certain aspects of the workplace. It is not a movement that favors the nationalization of all industry. As I understand the proponents of "socialism" in the US favor the fostering of employee-owned businesses. Richard Wolff favors that. I asked him if he meant businesses formed like partnerships, and he said "yes."
If we can have corporations which are investor-owned, we can certainly have partnerships or worker or employee-owned businesses without even changing our laws much. During the late 19th century, there were many rural cooperatives. We still have some today. We just don't think of them as socialist.
With regard to the partnerships or employee-owned businesses, many law firms are partnerships but they do not include all employees as partners. It is a simple matter to change an existing partnership into a company in which all have a share.
Americans become frightened at the word "socialism" because of the terrible violence that has been associated with socialist movements in many parts of the world. That has been the case especially when the society is to begin with not democratic, in which speaking freely is punished. But actually, Americans have always worked together in their communities. I was raised in churches in which the cooperative and social aspects of religion were emphasized.
I don't think that anyone is talking about some sort of socialist revolution. When Bernie Sanders talks about a revolution, he is talking about raising political awareness, getting people out to vote and exciting people about participating in government. Wouldn't it be great if as many people could name all the potential candidates for their local mayor's office or the presidency as recognize the names of the Kardashians? We might be able to at least claim that we were a true democracy or democratic republic, take your pick.
But the sad fact is that most Americans think that self-government is either boring or a sport with points being racked up for two opposing sides. Many Americans do not realize that their government was intended to be the expression of the social will of the people and to serve the needs of the people, and that is what democratic socialism is now in most of Europe.
In particular, we need affordable education for people who want to and are eligible to attend college. We need that if we are to have a strong, capitalist society. Young people, saddled with school debt have to choose between starting a business or having children. This is especially true of young people with graduate degrees in professional fields and the large debts they incur in getting those degrees. In the countries that call themselves social democracies, college education for qualified students is inexpensive or free. We should offer the same opportunities to our young people.
That's an example of social democracy. Kindergartens in Europe are wonderful and when we lived there were free. My children attended those free half-day kindergartens and benefited so much from them.
That is what is being talked about when people use the term social democracy. At least that is my experience and opinion.
= new reply since forum marked as read
And he won anyway!
