Social Democracy is Being Destroyed by "Populism"

--Social democracy is being destroyed by so-called "populism," and this isn't good for the left
How to Fix US Democracy • How to Fix Democracy (...
www.journalofd...
Support The David Pakman Show:
-Become a Member: www.davidpakma...
-Become a Patron: / davidpakmanshow
-Get your TDPS Gear: www.davidpakman...
Engage with us on social media:
-Join on KZbin: / @thedavidpakmanshow
-Follow David on Twitter: / dpakman
-David on Instagram: / david.pakman
-TDPS on Instagram: / davidpakmanshow
-Discuss on TDPS subreddit: / thedavidpakmanshow
-Facebook: / davidpakmanshow
-Call the 24/7 Voicemail Line: (219)-2DAVIDP
-Timely news is important! We upload new clips every day! Make sure to subscribe!
Broadcast on May 5, 2020
#davidpakmanshow #socialdemocracy #populism

[@thedondeluxe6941]

Here in Norway, "populism" is so looked down on, it's basically a swear word reserved for far right politicians. It's really weird for a Norwegian person to hear leftists like TYT speak of populism as something positive.

[@blackout07blue]

David is trying to make that the case here. In America, Populism is working-class policies - not race based and extremely welcoming to immigrants. Trump is a nationalist or a European-style racist/populist.

[@thedondeluxe6941]

@@blackout07blue Yes, I totally agree with David on this. Trump's views are far too extreme to be labelled populist in Europe, but we have some similar characters with weird hair and huge egos over here too :-)

[@tomitiustritus6672]

In some countries, Populism is viewed as "politics for 'the people'", like in the US, while here in northern europe, populism is defined as a demagogic communication strategy that sells the idea of 'we represent the will of the people'. Populism often goes hand in hand with implying a singular "Peoples Will" represented by the populist, as opposed to a heterogenic one represented by the diversity of opinions. If the populist represents that will, opposing him is opposing the 'Peoples Will' and thus the people. This deligitimizses every other opinion. The right does that very happily, but a left wing movement can do that too. I'd say, the american definition leaves them unaware of that narrative and open for falling into that populist trap.

[@wvu05]

@@thedondeluxe6941 Here in the US, the fake populists are on the right. Pointing out the problems with how the wealthy are treating the poor, and a lot of what it proposed became the New Deal.

[@simbamartens7192]

A good example of how populism goes wrong is the situation in Hungary which shows what happens when right-wing authoritarians use coronavirus to seize power: kzbin.info/www/bejne/apXXoWhthNJmo7M America's future?

[@user-jc6tj2xt1p]

I love you David, even if I'm Republican. 🤗

[@vintage0x]

I'd love to hear David talk with Krystal Ball about this topic.

[@vintage0x]

Mycel yeah another reason why a conversation would be interesting

[@stevenm732]

@Mycel LMAO your being mental friend.

[@Ray-cn1yn]

@Marc Ruffalo Packman would apply logic and reasoning to eat Ball alive. She's basically a populist figure that drives an anti establishment message. David puts things in perspective minus the emotional response and puts real priorities on the table; Supreme court picks and federal judiciary.

[@Ray-cn1yn]

@Marc Ruffalo The majority of Democratic voters that show up to vote are centrist if not more conservative democrats. A progressive agenda will do no good if you have a federal judiciary waiting to strike down everything you think you've gained. The GOP isn't fast tracking federal judges at breakneck speeds for nothing. They are preparing themselves for the long haul just in case they lose the White House and or the Senate. Keep balance on the Supreme Court because if Trump gets another 4 years then you'll see some Heritage Foundation or Federalist Society hard right religious fundamentalist on the bench for at least 30 years.

[@KenS1267]

@Marc Ruffalo LOL whut? If Trump gets another term it is at least one if not 2 SCOTUS picks, Breyer is 81. How do you think any piece of "progressive" legislation makes it through a 7 -2 majority? Not just that but the one remaining old RWNJ on the Court will be under intense pressure to retire so Trump can replace Thomas with another loon. You understand, I hope, that next year Roe is being overturned with just a 5-4 RWNJ majority? That Obergfell is likewise doomed. With 7 justices they'd go after Lawrence v Texas, Griswold and Brown v Board. So the choice really is Biden wins this year or the entire left, not just "progressives," are screwed for a generation. There is no logic to any argument that disagrees.

[@BrendanBeckett]

For a while I held two ideas in my head at once: Most people are stupid and/or terrible, and populism (i.e. more direct democracy) is a good idea. I don't know why I didn't see the contradiction before.

[@tasheemhargrove9650]

Lol. Most likely, you didn't see the contradiction because you haven't yet developed a habit of questioning your own beliefs. Or you've been in an echo-chamber for some time. Or both.

[@legion999]

A moment of clarity

[@BrendanBeckett]

@@tasheemhargrove9650 That's just the thing, I've been in the habit of questioning my own beliefs for most of my life. I've always been a skeptic and I've flitted around different political tribes many times because I always find the fault in whatever group I associate with. This one just took a while.

[@tasheemhargrove9650]

@@BrendanBeckett Oh okay. Well at least you found the contradiction in your two opposing beliefs. Most people go their entire life engaging in double-think. So props to you.

[@newshound2521]

This is basically Scandanavia. The most socially responsible place on the planet.

[@dfuher968]

And we managed it without any revolutions, by working together for gradual improvement. As we still do, since there is no perfect society, u can always do better. When I hear Americans on the left talking about needing to burn everything down and have a revolution, I think of Russia/Soviet Union. When I hear Americans on the left talk about socialism, I also think of the Soviet Union, coz Americans fundamentally do not understand the definition of socialism or capitalism or, really any ism. When I hear Americans talk about populism as being "for the ppl", I roll my eyes, coz thats not, how we see populism. Hitler was a populist. Mussolini was a populist. And so on. To us, a populist is some1, who will say, whatever is needed to be popular, to get into power, and then, maybe, keep trying to remain "popular" but ruling with an iron fist for his own advantage and to consolidate power. A populist to us is a hostile takeover, only instead of a violent revolution a populist will con u into giving them power, and then ur basically screwed. And when I hear Americans talking about wanting the Nordic model, I scoff, coz u will need to change ur entire culture to make it work.

[@stevenschulte1475]

@@dfuher968 They out dated terms with ill defined meanings. A good society contains elements of all these ideologies.

[@donaldmike9709]

Dfuher D also the most white... what’s your point? Should we not encourage diversity? You ARE A BIGOT!

[@punkgrl325]

Bullshit. Scandinavian countries are strongly nationalist and are now dealing with an upswelling in white-supremacy and neo-nazi groups, just because some refugees started deciding to seek asylum there. The poor are still heavily observed and regulated and don’t have many personal freedoms either. Bernie’s movement being as unironically euro-centric as the alt-right and only focusing on Scandinavia as a model of success when there are Asian countries with better models in standards of living is a key reason he lost the minority vote.

[@hakanpetersson2662]

The higher death toll in Sweden is not due to Sweden unlike other countries being exceptionally bad at protecting the elderly. According to Swedens Socialstyrelsens recent report 50 % of the deaths are from institutitions for elderly, but this is no different from most western european countries. For example: around 60 % of the deaths in Norway can be traced to residents in these institutions. A much more reasonable explanation is that Covid-19 is being spread to more people in Sweden than its neighbouring countries. And the absence of a lockdown together with miniscule testing capacity early on could very well be deciding factors (In fact testing is still rather lacking). At the early stage of the outbreak Sweden, Norway and Denmark didn't differ that much as far as cases per capita and deaths per capita goes. But Norways and Denmarks resolute lockdowns and Norways much higher number of Covid-19 tests in the early stage goes a long way explaining why Sweden has a much higher fatality rate than its neighbours. Sweden is currently at number 9 when it comes to deaths per capita according to Wordometer and seems to be moving further upwards(although there are reasons to believe that swedish numbers are more accurate than those for the UK, Spain, Italy).

[@aaronstarkey3271]

Social Democracy is not leftist at all. Socialism is leftism. Conflating social democracy with leftism, and socialism with progressivism, is a deeply dangerous idea.

[@vintage0x]

before all you guys dislike this video, at 5:36 david specifically says that left wing populism is "not bad"

[@idyyott1467]

That's the only I disagree on. Left-wing populism is bad.

[@Zhicano]

Idy Yott ....and why would that be

[@TheEvilChipmunk]

Unfortunately, bots don't actually "watch" the videos.

[@legion999]

Left wing populism could easily be bad too. I'd probably prefer it over right wing but populism is just bad in general. To me populism is telling what they want to hear just because its popular, making incredibly unrealistic promises and giving simplistic solutions, all just to consolidate power.

[@legion999]

@@idyyott1467 They're both bad. For instance the polish government uses a mixture of both, and its SHIT

[@waldemarrognes8844]

Very illuminating!

[@1DangerMouse1]

This is why I do not like The Hill Rising. They act like populism is what matters whether it is right wing or left wing. (The hosts wrote a book about populism..). They're wrong. The right winger host, Sagar, is like one of those Focus on the Family scary 90s right wingers. He is not my ally.

[@wisetrollman]

John Smith Krystal and Sagaar are hacks.

[@user-ub6yl4yc6v]

Well certainly the answer isn’t neoliberalism.

[@blackout07blue]

David is just conflating people-first Populism with the ugly nationalism of right-wingers.

[@b3nfriend]

My lord, I adored this video. You've got a new fan in me. I struggle to call myself a "progressive" because, while I support a majority of progressive policies, I can't stand the populist rhetoric and posturing from the new left, entirely because of what you lay out here. It's so given to conspiracy theories, tribalism, cult-of-personality, etc. This was why I was Hillary over Bernie, then Warren over Bernie, then Biden over Bernie... I think this brand of left-wing populism is damaging to our politics, to our discourse and to our democracy overall. You are one smart, sensible dude who cut right to the middle of my struggles as a liberal these last handful of years.

[@pathologicaldoubt]

Somebody inform Kyle Kulinski, who shouts at the rooftops that popularism should be absolutely embraced by the left

[@FourSeasonsNorth4x4]

Interesting..waiting to hear more on this. Great job btw David...I watch daily.👍👏👏👏🤙🤙

[@BDizDaBest]

Beautiful video, David - very true and well stated. As Michael Brooks is fond of saying, “Generic anti-corruption rhetoric is the handmaiden of global fascism.”

[@Zhicano]

Darrell Davis dude where did you learn that lol

[@bolshevikY2K]

Populism is only as bad as people make it out to be when there's not a greater force deliberately inhibiting democracy. As an example of my point, populism is sorely needed in the US because all we've known for 50 years is a political establishment that sees citizens as capital to be dealt in and that sees the political system of administering a country of hundreds of millions as a team sport to be "won" or "lost." However, in Sweden, where there are 8 major parties, a coalition government, no suppression of the electorate, and a much higher political engagement rate, populism is not needed as a form of democracy. The government is already accountable to the people, so the populism there is reactionism with the Sverija Demokratija ("Sweden Democrats," the far-right party) and quickly becomes fascistic. So, saying "populism is dangerous, don't do it" in the United States reads as "stop asking for agency and just leave us to our business of using your lives as bargaining chips." However, saying that in Europe where you have actual democracy instead of derivative, district based, 2-party, neo-feudalist nonsense reads more like "be careful with populism, it may lead to the erosion of democratic institutions and principles such as checks and balances or protections of the citizenry."

[@ObiWann90]

David declaring war on the Hill's Rising!

[@eddietheberniebro5503]

Funny is that he is a recurring guest

[@blackout07blue]

David can’t stop himself from conflating Nationalism and Populism. It’s weak.

[@aarontalksculture4946]

I don't really see how social democracy and left populism are different. If social democracy is the policies and populism is the rhetoric then they go hand in hand. If I say "I want a living wage and free public college because the wealthy elites have their boot on the neck of the working class and the poor" isn't that social democratic policy with populist rhetoric? I don't see a difference. I understand the inherent xenophobia and racism often present in right wing populism, but I really dont see a difference between left populism and social democracy. Does David just want people to not be so angry about their motivations for policy change? If you aren't angry either you aren't paying attention or you are part of the elite.

[@morphkogan8627]

You should go on rising and debate Krystal and Saagar. They both want right and left populists to join together. They also think Bernie lost because he wasn't revolutionary ENOUGH, and he didn't go after establishment democrats and the media.

[@maniacpwnageking]

Absolutely. That'd be a great conversation to hear.

[@Ray-cn1yn]

That alone should tell you that Krystal and Saagar don't know much about voters. Bernie has railed against the establishment for well over 4 years now and where exactly did it get him; nowhere. Everything promoted by Krystal and Saagar now is just low key Fox News worthy because Trump gets next to no criticism but Pelosi and Biden are a daily punching bag for those two.

[@taragnor]

@@Ray-cn1yn While I can see potential criticisms for Bernie's strategy that go both ways, calling Rising like Fox news because they don't do hourly "Orange man bad" segments is disingenuous. Rising tries to cover things that MSM doesn't. There's already more than enough Trump bashing and 99% of Rising's viewship already know that Trump sucks, but they want to hear news about things other than Trump, especially the stuff that MSM sweeps under the carpet like the anti-Biden/ Pelosi stuff.

[@Ray-cn1yn]

@@taragnor The Hill promotes nothing positive about Biden or Pelosi. While any congressional rep can obviously be criticized, the Hill is over the top when it comes to establishment leaders. I get it that Bernie was their guy but he got defeated. There's no need to keep promoting every bad policy coming out of DC around Pelosi's neck. The senate has the final say on policy and Mitch McConnell has the power right now. Pelosi is begging for peanuts because that's about all she's going to get so long as the senate majority is with the Republicans.

[@taragnor]

@@Ray-cn1yn : I'm not saying that I agree 100% with everything the Hill is saying. My main point was that we don't need another "Trump is bad" news channel, there's already enough of those. That being said, I think it's important to criticize corporatist democrats a lot and get people to realize why progressive candidates are so important. The democratic establishment is not on the side of the people, they're bought off. Just because they're slightly less horrible than the Republicans doesn't mean they should get a free pass.

[@michaelwoodsdale460]

Populism uses people’s aggrievedness to inspire a fear-based reaction...principles and policies don’t have emotional responses that lead to us vs them thinking. Well said

[@blackout07blue]

He is actually conflating nationalism and Populism.

[@mr8839]

Right on David. !

[@Zultarify]

Most people just overlook the fact that capitalism doesn't only fail because of unregulating, but the real never fixed problem causing it to fail is that companies don't work democratically. If every Company would be a worker Co-op with rights to make decisions about products the company produces and get cuts from every benefit for every member of the company, the whole capitalistic system would have a real chance to heal itself by giving power back to the masses.

[@tasheemhargrove9650]

So, is David saying that the Sanders campaign should have had the social democracy without the populism? Trump won the entire election on just populism alone so I don't know if that's an entirely impractical strategy. I agree with everything David was saying about populism's susceptibility to authoritarianism and charlatans. But as a strategy, it seems to be more practical because these past few presidential elections have shown us that people vote primarily based on their emotions rather than reason or practicality. Bernie and his team just screwed up in some critical ways. They really let that one get away. Maybe the "Socialist" label harmed the Sanders campaign in some ways, but on the other hand, Bernie Sanders and his campaign destigmatized the label. It's much harder to red-scare with just that label alone, than it has ever been since the 60's. In a world where people voted solely on logic, we could do away with populism. But a lot of people are motivated by narratives. Most people understand a boogeyman (i.e the 1% or Big Pharma). The concept of revolution is widely understood to be associated with significant change, and people know they want a lot of things to change. The term revolution just encapsulates all of that. I think Bernie had serious trouble adapting. There are moments where talk of revolution will benefit you more (i.e when you're not leading, when there are more people competing in a race) and there are moments where rhetoric focused on safety/security and moderation is more beneficial (i.e as the front-runner, when you're speaking to an older demographic etc.)

[@tomasroma2333]

Theres nothing wrong with Populism by itself. The problem is when Populism becomes the main ideology. If the main focus of someone politically is “us vs them” then one is a Populist first and foremost. If the main focus is “Achieve Democratic ownership of the means of Production”, then one is a socialist.

[@TheCristo68]

JOSEPH STALIN - The Social-Democratic View of the National Question - 1904 (aged 26) "Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.... These organisations ( ie Fascism and social democracy ) are not antipodes, they are twins"

[@unelectedleader6494]

America is capitalist at the street level - More or less. America is socialist at the macro level. Fortune 100 firms are supported by the state and they are here in China in joint ventures with our gigantic state owned enterprises.

[@Blabla130]

"social democracy won't turn into something else as long as it stays social democracy" Um....................... .............................. Can't argue with that!

[@jupiterran]

The moment Bernie lost the nomination in 2016 was when, during the first debate with Hillary, he uttered the word revolution. He has never learned how to make his message unthreatening to older, more established people who worked hard for many years for what they have and want to hold on to it.

[@9000ck]

Maybe they should just call populism - stupidism or lowest common denominatorism

[@scottwilkins886]

Just excellent David. Good work man

[@blackout07blue]

Conflation of 2 different labels.

[@rikkoning452]

The use of the word socialism by Bernie Sanders was i’m afraid a bad choise. There exists sort of an allergy for this word in large parts of the American sociaty. The outside of the USA widely used term social democracy would have avoided that. More so social democracy is a system with private businesses in stead of state owned means of production as is the case in socialism. A state owning “everything” is another red flag for many many Americans i think. A name can be very important and in this case it was.

[@griiseknoen]

Populism, as a concept, is incredibly vague. It can mean almost *anything.* Right or left. Good or bad. Sometimes it's not much of anything at all... Social Democracy, on the other hand, is *SOMETHING.* And it's good.

[@eshqa]

Thank you for so much explaining, David. 💖

[@Xpistos510]

I want a scientific or intellectual aristocracy with essentially a Bernie-Warren economic agenda.

[@Gurfmanj]

Populism: a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups. I think you’re reaching on this one David. The above basically looks like actual democracy to me rather than let the rich represent the poor. Democracy can still have a right wing! Why and how is that so difficult to understand? Why not use populism to maybe show the right wing that they are getting screwed by some of their ideas.

[@jarlemalmin]

Most people are afraid of Social Democracy. They do not know what it really is. Most people are not educated at all about it. I am from Norway and I am very happy to live under a social democracy. I pay high taxes and get free hospital and education in return, We also get many more merits for living in this type of government. Could it work in the states. Of course it could.

[@hellnah1688]

Bernie’s 2016 and 2020 campaigns have created a tricky situation as far as political language goes. Bernie advocated for social democracy, but called it democratic socialism. As a result, a social democratic platform will inevitably evoke the ‘socialism’ scare-word. I’m not sure that you can put that cat back in the bag, and populism might be a good short-term political tool to get the electorate on board with a social democratic platform, until they’re comfortable with whatever label that gets attached to it. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@joshuasalem5022]

Populism is just whatever is popular with the public Social Democracy in America is populism because a majority of Americans want it, but social democracy in let’s say, Iran, is not popular Correct me if I’m wrong

[@MidnightRambler]

Lets hope so..

[@airtylerb]

Ahhh!!! Socialism!!!! Scary!!! Everybody run!!!!!

[@Zhicano]

Darrell Davis The homies? Hell yeah

[@airtylerb]

Darrell Davis Because to most older Americans the scariest thing on the planet is socialism.

[@Personmr]

@Darrell Davis The primary difference between communists and right wing libertarians is that while one are statists that turn a blind eye to corruption and allows liberty to be taken by the powerful; the other wants to get rid of the state, money, and social class. Free markets aren't free; they give power to the people who own factories and businesses to exploit people who are forced to rely on them to have money to survive. people in the state aren't the only people who steal freedom; employers are more than willing to do that too. Stalin was a statist who never tried to implement any Marxist policies. You can't be a communist without trying to get rid of the state and you can't be a socialist without the workers owning the means of production.

[@Mine-rq2ho]

Taxation is theft.

[@Personmr]

@Darrell Davis "Communism’s main goal (according to Marx, Engels, and Lenin) was a completely planned society to restore the “dignity of man”-whatever that means" No, that's not at all what communism means; you've been listening to too much statist propaganda. Authoritarianism is incompatible with communism and so is having a central government with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence (a state) that makes decisions in lieu of the proletariat. You're confusing tankies with legitimate communists. The main goal of communism is an anarchist society: no state, no class, and no money. Any nation that isn't trying to achieve those 3 goals can't be communist. I suspect that the Leninist idea of a vanguard party is a bad idea as it takes power away from the proletariat and gives it to people in the state. It tends to result in a state that is hard to shrink. Try to from a union in China (which doesn't even bother with the pretense of calling itself communist anymore) and the state will come after you.

[@theotormon]

I have also been thinking about the dangers of populism as well, but I am also not sure anything changes in the US without it.

[@l.h.wotton6161]

The division of terms is always leading us to a wrong conclusions. The division of terms is the world’s biggest problem.

[@KaiserMattTygore927]

And both are being destroyed by Lesser evilism.

[@TheNewblade1]

I wish I had a pear group to have these types of conversations, guess the subreddit will have to do

[@phoenixaeon5556]

Pear group. Yum.

[@cgrim003]

Social democracy =/= mixed economy. In an actual mixed economy ownership of productive assets is split between the public and private sectors. Social democracy is capitalism with safety nets and worker participation. Germany and Sweden are NOT mixed economies.

[@johnsinclair4621]

In Germany there are no restrictions on the state as entrepreneur. The purchase and operation of companies is at the discretion of the state and local authorities. The possibilities of expropriation are defined in Art. 15 i. V. m. with Art. 14 para. 3 of the Grundgesetz. This states: "Land, natural resources and means of production may be transferred to common property or other forms of public service for the purpose of socialisation by a law which regulates the nature and extent of compensation ...". The Grundgesetz makes no statement about the economic order of the Federal Republic of Germany. It knows the possibility of socialising the means of production, but does not order it. However, the characteristic feature of legal nationalisation is that private and general interests are weighed up and the expropriated person(s) receive appropriate compensation. Similar clauses exist in many national constitutions. In the constitutions of Rhineland-Palatinate and North Rhine-Westphalia, it was stipulated that companies which are important due to their monopoly-like position should be transferred to common ownership. The Bremen state constitution authorises nationalisations if the purpose of the company can be better achieved in a public economic form. In the Saarland, the law stipulates that even key industries may not be privately owned because of their paramount importance for the economy. Likewise, the Bavarian constitution has provided for nationalization "if consideration for the whole requires it" Here is a list of some of the state owned german businesses. I will concede that we are not like the French, but to say that we don’t have a mixed economy is just not true. Companies wholly owned by the Federal Republic of Germany: - Enterprise in the form of a public law institution: Landwirtschaftliche Rentenbank, the regional broadcasting corporations, ZDF, German Wave - Enterprises in the form of a public corporation: Germany Radio - Company in the form of the AG: Deutsche Bahn - Company in the form of the GmbH: The motorway GmbH of the federal government, the Federal Printing Office, the Federal company for final disposal mbH, Federal Republic of Germany - Finance Agency, BVVG Land utilisation and management company, BWI Information Technology, German air traffic control, German Society for International Cooperation, Bismuth - Companies with a participation of the Federal Republic of Germany undertaking in the form of a public-law institution: Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW; ownership: 80 % Federal Government, 20 % Länder; however, the Federal Government is solely liable for all liabilities) - Company in the form of the AG: Deutsche Post (indirectly via KfW), Deutsche Telekom (directly and indirectly via KfW), Port of Duisburg - Company in the form of the GmbH: juris, Research Centre Jülich, Berlin Brandenburg Airport, Munich Airport Also: Municipalities in Germany have organised the tasks of basic service provision in public or private law,

[@EASYTIGER10]

Most advanced countries are social democracies. Even the USA is, although to a lesser extent than other countries. Oh and the USA doesn't do it very well.

[@coopsnz1]

Because it screw over middle claas and upper class globally

[@schr4nz]

My concern is that David underestimates how easy it is to pervert social democracy, it only took the USA one president to screw that up (Nixon), ever since then your country has been on the decline with neo-liberalism

[@schr4nz]

@Darrell Davis wait what, you make no sense, more government is not inherently bad, it comes down to policies enacted, you can have large and corrupt government but you can also have large governments working for the people, it has less to do with the size of government and more to do with education and class consciousness, if it is as you say, the left allegedly wants more government, then explain anarchists?

[@climatedeceptionnetwork4122]

Very good Mr. Pakman. I hope that you are staying safe and well.

[@James-ip1tc]

the problem isn't Populism it is the Democratic establishment types and a base that enthusiastically supports them regardless of their poor performance and lack of vision

[@mvemjsunp8]

How is it possible that your takes get better and better over time? How can one man have so many great takes?

[@maxminkin6227]

Sorry, David, but you are no social democrat - just a garden-variety Rawlsian liberal (which is not even a particularly bad thing). A true social democrat would never refer to social democracy as a “capitalist system” - because it’s not, it’s a mixture of both capitalism and socialism. (Honestly, it’s like calling a cappucino a “milk drink”.) Furthermore, social democracy has always been a part of the broader socialist movement; for example, the father of social democracy, Anthony Crosland, always described himself as a socialist - you, on the other hand, do not seem to see yourself as part of that movement. #JustSaying

[@prometheus3498]

I'd agree that populism is much more easier to pervert/trick people with then social democracy. However, I would hesitate at the prescription that we should stop engaging in left wing populism because of its potential for perversion, simply because I believe that its far too effective a tactic for political advocacy and we'd be putting ourselves at a tremendous disadvantage against the right.

[@Ken-ki]

I wish my old man spoke English more fluently so I could show him this video, we've been having this debate for around a year now... My point is that a socialist, who trully embrace all that that implies, won't have any need of populism; socialist programs tend to be populist in nature, they benefit almost everyone, they also tend to be popular amongst the marginalized sectors of society. IMO populism is just a reflection about the humam hunger for power over the actual will to make the world a better place.

[@bobbydisastrous]

Populism and socialism are opposites: Populism uses phrases like "the people" vs "the elite" or "99%" vs "1%" while socialism advocates class war, the proletariat fighting big and small bourgeoisie.

[@Ken-ki]

@@bobbydisastrous yes, I agree in the sense that it is the attainment of power wich drives populism vs. the pursuit of equality and humanist values for socialism. When I say socialist projects tend to be populist in nature, I'm reffering to the benefit almost all members of society will draw from their implementation; socialism achieves in practice wich populism only in discourse...

[@bobbydisastrous]

@@Ken-ki socialism isn't about benefiting everyone or a majority of everyone in society, people are divided into different classes. Populism is just a tool for the power hungry - socialism is about the emancipation of workers.

[@Ken-ki]

@@bobbydisastrous yes absolutely, that's what I've been trying to say, tou are right about the emancipation of workers but remember that there has been a lot of literature done by socialist other than just that specific issue, a very concrete example is eco-socialism.

[@yoavnader7662]

Populism is also destroying the rational, pragmatic and moderate conservatism

[@matthewrider5906]

Social democracy: An economic system that achieves socialist goals w/in the capitalist system.

[@jjjay30]

Did your friends Kyle Kulinski Gleen Greenwald and Krystal Ball see this video . They should

[@ctznblack7996]

I agree that it's harder to corrupt but i think Social Democracy can be polluted just like any ideology especial when the activists become complacent and muddy the waters for populist appeal. The nice thing about it is the definition is right there in the name but you get enough bad faith actors and populists tarnishing the reputation and it could fall apart just like anything else. To be clear i don't identify as a Social Democrat myself, i'm mostly a libertarian who leans center-left. I think our society would be best served by universal social systems like M4A and UBI payed for by everyone and mostly by those benefiting most our evolving economy. Appreciate your analysis and look forward to more discussion on the topic.

[@cryptomojito]

Should have been called 'Social Capitalist'😷

[@maxwellschmidt235]

In my view, the succinct difference between social democracy and populism is that social democracy is about constantly strengthening the status quo in ways that meaningfully enhance the lives of people so that they don't look for extreme answers. Populism is about the exploitation of people for political gain who are so disaffected that they search for extreme answers. Social democracy is a symptom of an elite who are delivering on promises, populism is a symptom of an elite who have failed to deliver for long enough that people are shaken from the status quo.

[@MondayMonkeyz]

Ever considered that the rise of populism is a direct consequence of the failings of social democracy?

[@52power]

Or, more likely, due to the absence of social democracy.

[@MondayMonkeyz]

@@52power Social democracy cannot be both missing and the system that's being compromised. The way David defined it, social democracy was definitely at work in the U.S, implying it's either become inefficient or ineffective.

[@EmeraldPhoenix-sp8hm]

I kinda get DP's point here, honestly. I think populism (as a rhetorical device) can be twisted, corrupted, and co-opted by autocratic actors all too easily. That said, I'd consider myself a Social Democrat, and I don't think "populism" is "destroying [the argument for] social democracy." Relying completely on that rhetoric w/o a higher focus on hard policy? I'd agree - that doesn't seem to be working. But, (left-wing) populist appeals have their place. They speak to the people left behind, the people trampled on. The inequity of income and wealth in this country has all but reached critical mass - people are starting to see that. And they're angry. If we (the left) don't redirect that anger toward those actually responsible, the right is going to redirect that anger into fueling fascism. I think Social Democrats would be wise to try to tame the populist rhetoric coming from the left and focus it toward introducing SD policies. I'd argue that's what the Democrats and FDR successfully did in the 30's. Listen to FDR's Second Inaugural Address. Lots of left-wing populist rhetoric in there - but he was a SocDem (of sorts). And his policies were SocDem (kinda... Pretty much).

[@chriswalker7632]

Who was right? - Aristotle or Martin Heidegger?; Political Compass and Zeno's Paradox of Motion: - Libertarian Left: The arrow is moving relative to the background (basic common sense). Authoritarian Left: There is only the background because the arrow is under arrest (har har har). Authoritarian Right: There is only the arrow because the whole background is under arrest (double har har har). Libertarian Right: Face reveal from evil cave scene in Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back (it'd be funny if it wasn't true...).

[@alltradejack]

The common feature of all populism is people ganging together to excuse themselves of their agency in all kinds of misfortune and finding someone else to blame and vilify. Part of it is also believing that there are good kinds of populism and good kinds of us vs. them behaviors.

[@CulturalMarxist4985]

Well, I definitely think that although I support Bernie's policies, taking enough pride to call himself a democratic socialist might have heard his chances since that's become bad word in the US.

[@vampireheart1987]

Populism must be seen as a tool. Anyone can use it and anyone can misuse it, regardless of political affiliation.

[@frankbruder3097]

I would propose a system of populist democracy. I have really no idea what that would look like. I just think it sounds funny because it's using the Latin and Greek words for 'people' and is pleonastic.

[@DerTaran]

Social democracy is simply a pragmatic approach.

[@blackout07blue]

Yes. Add a populist-edge with that...which equates to anti-corruption in my book.

[@Motorrr]

Virually EVERY European country has got a social democratic party. This is nothing to fear, America! Just another democratic party with a slightly (!) different approach to things

[@TroIIingThemSoftly]

Russia knows this, and is exploiting it. Why do you think they were pro trump and pro Bernie in 2016? Though there are HUGE differences between those candidates (I actually voted for Bernie), because of the populist rhetoric, it's much easier to divide Democrats using it. That's the very reason Russian trolls were (still are?) posing as Bernie Bros and attacking other Democratic candidates, which ironically, Bernie has expressly said NOT to do. Excellent breakdown, David.

[@tomitiustritus6672]

I think it needs to be explainded what populism actually is. Because many here seem to confuse it with "acting in the will of the people/on popular demand". Populism is a communication strategy of selling to people that you are "acting in the will of the people/on popular demand". The above statement is just the message promoted by populism, not its definition. Often the idea of a singular legitimate "will of the people" is implied ot even promoted (former happens mostly on the far right, but also in the more dogmatic corners of the left), that is represented by the populist. Everyone that opposes the populist, opposes the "will of the people" and thus the people. Even if it is parts of the people themselves. While a populist can actually represent a majoritarian opinion , but he can also just convince a smaller group of people, that they speak for a silent majority or that 'if the others weren't fed the enemies propaganda, they would all support us'. The core narrative is "this is what 'the people' wants and every other position is illegitimate and an attempt to overrule the people" even if democratically confirmed. That is why 'populism' is an insult in some countries. Implying demagogery. Democracy in on the contrary, recognises that the "peoples will" is not a singular "will", but recognises the heterogenity of it. Thats the whole point of democracy as opposed to a single-party-system or a dictatorship.

[@morgan619able]

So is David a Social Democrat? I am a former right winger, and honestly the idea of social democracy appeals to me, I was just wondering.

[@bootyeater7331]

David warns about populism> Kyle Kulinski describes himself as a populist left> David warns about Kyle Kulinski.

[@jymbo1969]

Kyle is a joke.

[@bootyeater7331]

jymbo1969 how so?

[@blackout07blue]

Kyle is not racist, and his govt corruption claims & media bias claims are as legit as can be. David just keeps conflating Nationalism with legit grievances.

[@paramiind4730]

Booty Eater ... but Kyle IS a social democrat...

[@todorkerev1707]

@@paramiind4730 Kyle is closet socialist. You dont attract a tankie fanbase by being a social democrat

[@Sea_ss]

True

[@Poeneutral]

Revolution hurts social democracy? Come again?

[@stillnessinmovement]

what I see is different. we have D and R, and both sides are bad actors. describe positive change in a D way, R hates it. and vice versa. we have been manipulated into a lose lose situation, where our mutual interests are hidden in rhetoric and politics. to me, populism is something that honest people from both D and R party can get behind. Were not gonna just become a socialist utopia all of a sudden, it's one step at a time. real question is, does populist leaders want to get money out of politics? that is the root of the problem, too much corporate influence via money. we cant fix anything until we manage that. I support honest populist ideas, and we should try to onboard them, not push them out. democracy is all about getting to consensus, at the heart of it. so, id ask, DP, what are the areas where populism and SD overlap? how can we use this movement to help people? it's not about social democracy, it's about having an effective govt and a healthy, vibrant population. in democracy, it's always a trade off...

[@CROSSxNOVA]

As a former fervent Bernie supporter I agree with this. But we should continue fighting for the best possible future no matter who is there to “represent the left”

[@blackout07blue]

Ro Khanna 2024 (most electable Bernie ally)

[@johaniojo]

Social democracy is the system in most of European countries

[@jasonzcomedy]

I’d be very interested in seeing you discuss this on Rising

[@apoco_lips9957]

David should definitely be have meetings with the heads of other top progressive channels and discuss this high level idea about the underpinnings of the movement and the rhetoric around it

[@wisetrollman]

That would expose some progressive grifters for the hack they are

[@TheMjsanty]

I am very disappointed by this take.

[@HomeAloneGaming1]

non of this rhetoric matters...this is not how people vote or make up their mind to vote. David is generalizing and categorizing an individuals stance on certain issues and grouping them into a voting category. most of the time people's viewpoints and positions on these issues overlap. additionally, David is wrong on Venezuela, the govt. there has raised millions of citizens below the poverty level who were living in shit cardboard boxes before socialism

[@slammajamma5435]

Typical overreaction to people banding together to fight the system. Make the many the enemy & keep them inline with scare tactics. What’s next call out communist, fascist or do the “people” simply want a transparent social democracy in which money doesn’t sway policy. Which corporate master is holding your chain...?

[@tomitiustritus6672]

You are missing the point here. Populism is not "acting in the will of the people". Populism is a communication strategy to sell that message. It is deeply problematic to imply that there is a singular 'will of the people', or even to imply that you are the one representing it. Democracy in every form is foundamentally reliant on the recognition of the heterogenity of the 'will of the people'. On accepting the diversity of legitimate opinions. Don't change your ideals. i happen to agree with them, but please don't get caught up in a populist trap. That is the achilles heel of left-wing movements and is an open invitation for demagogic exploitation. I am saying this to you as a anarchist socialist.

[@Drowningpic]

I respect someone who says they won't or can't vote for Biden and doesn't vote, but you can't complain or gloat about how it turns out. I just don't get the flip from Bernie all the way to Trump. The only connection they have is populism turnout but their value system isn't even in the same ballpark

[@Drecon84]

I honestly do think that populism is bad. It's a type of movement where it's more about who than what. Arguments start mattering less and less until at some point people just follow the leader blindly.

[@HemiLyfestyle]

I'm gonna keep crying to I figured out how we got in this position 😭🤦

[@kimberlywertz8266]

Could the regionalization of the states be the new form of the United States? If so then the U.S. will actually become the Confederate States of America.

[@yiwuei]

Very interesting take on a very important debate. I would disagree with David here, having lived in France and the EU most of my life, I think social democracy can become the killer of progressive ideas. The main problem is that social democracy relies on a benevolent elite (Plato would call it philosopher king), to think for the good of the general population. Despite its name, social democracy is really not democratic, or at least in most of its forms (although I agree, much better than the current situation in the US). I think the US can do better than trying to get where Europe was 50 years ago. We need populism to have the general population participating in politics again; 2500 years ago, democracy was born by giving power to the people of Athens, not by having a benevolent elite (or you can argue Solon was that benevolent elite, but his reforms were radical and certainly be called populist today).

[@blackout07blue]

You have to win elections, including democratic primaries. Put in change-agents.

[@0lAllan]

"Rightwing populism" is an oxymoron. That's not to say it doesn't exist. It just means the words together are contradictory. Rightist are always emphasizing policies which are skewed towards the wants of the rich. While populism would skew policy to favor the populous. At least "leftwing populism" is congruent in it's conception.

[@blackout07blue]

You are conflating Nationalism and Populism, david.

[@tomitiustritus6672]

Please explain.

[@GumballEdits]

Please invite Vaush onto the show.

[@tonguemybumb]

amazing video david!

[@shaleel]

On a large scale I agree. On a small scale if it's a decision to have bernie wear an american flag to combat those sort of nationalist attacks, I am fine with it. We have to admit nationalism exists and can be worked. Cant just ignore it and expect these people to go along with all the social justice type stuff from some left types

[@teacup755]

Populism with American characteristics? I refer to Churchill’s observation regarding us. We have a lot more (worse) things to try.

[@Kloutkulture]

I know it would probably never happen but I would LOVE to see Pakman have a long-form conversation with Michael Brooks. They are the same person just David is the right-wing version.

[@Kloutkulture]

Or Maybe with Richard Wolff

[@waldemarrognes8844]

Look to Scandinavia!

[@Sean-yc2ji]

Social Democracy always gets destroyed by populism. David, interview Richard Wolff and ask him why.

[@Zhicano]

Darrell Davis the Soviet economy was on par with the US economy and did things better than the US ever did.

[@blackout07blue]

Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

[@blackout07blue]

He talks about Nationalism when he uses the word Populism.

[@TTTzzzz]

How long has Social Democracy functioned in Europe? 75 years? I'm Dutch and SD is still going strong!

[@Sean-yc2ji]

You will go down the same path as the UK, US, Canada, France and several other European countries in time. Next on the chopping block is likely Germany when they elect AfD after Merkel.

[@sirphoenixknight3567]

Trumps Campaign in 2016 was the Exact Same Talking Points as Bernie Sanders was in 2016....

[@Chromedome-ss6mg]

I'm just concerned about people that arnt very responsible or they don't take care of their self. how do you give that person care, you can't just give that person money they can't handle it. It would be squandered. Idk

[@Chromedome-ss6mg]

The only reason I'm saying this cuz I see people that are using hard drugs and are homeless. You can't give that person free money like that it be really bad

[@Bisquick]

David, I love you, but holy shit this is a bad take. _Language itself_ is _always_ able to be perverted (linguistic turn) and unfortunately there is no way around this but to evolve the language.

[@Lenwang211]

You got not tooth by giving up the only leverage you have with vote blue no matter who. I don't see you making any effort asking for any reform from Bidon, unlike Kylie. All you're doing recently is just asking ppl to vote blue and hoping/believing the reform you mentioned will come in a later time. I've been getting really disappointed with you recently. What does SC judge worth when the executive wing isn't even gonna bring up reforms that might be challenged to the SC? Stop asking whoever's not comfortable voting for Bidon this question as if it matters.

[@Jotakumon]

All people like Kyle are doing is promoting the idea of not voting Biden as if it's going to change anything. It's ridiculous that there are people out there thinking that they will change things by doing nothing. Their heads are so poisoned by populism that they don't see the bigger picture anymore. Kyle won't even debate anyone on it. He talked big game about how he's all ears for an argument against his stance, except when people actually challenged him, or when TJ tried to organise a discussion between him and Vaush, then he showed that what he really meant is that he's going to ignore every single voice that disagrees with him.

[@Lenwang211]

​@@Jotakumon That's not what Kyle is doing. He said he will vote for Bidon if Bidon back one of the progressive ideas. It's called bargaining. I don't expect the full package, I just want to get something. The progressive wing is in a position to make some demands, so why give it up completely? I don't see David demanding for any progressive ideas from Bidon. If David worries about low turnouts that might not be enough to vote Trump out then why not reach out? Why not making swallow the pill easier for "never Bidon"?