[–] rwbj 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Democratic socialism, in common usage, is just capitalism with a strong social support net. If somebody loses their job, falls on hard times, or just generally sucks at capitalism then they don't starve, go homeless, or find themselves unable to receive appropriate medical care. The cost of this is generally a substantial peak tax rate. In the US most think of the 40-60s as a period of great economic wealth. The stories of people paying there way through college with a part time job and then graduating debt free and owning a home before they were 35 with just hard work are not uncommon. What people might not know is that during that period the peak tax rate ranged from 80-90%. It only hit 70% in the 1970s.
High peak tax rates help keep income inequality to fairly sane levels. That in turn keeps maintain a more robust economy. It also enables the government to sustain basic programs without going into insane deficits. We've substantially dropped the tax rates since the 'good ole days' but mostly all we have to show for it is a sharply increasing wealth divide and a government that's nearly $20 trillion in debt. The common objection against high end tax schemes is that it discourages achievement and pursuit of something greater. Personally I think people that strive to become millionaires and billionaires are driven by something different than the threat of homelessness and starvation. The numbers also don't add up. In reality places like Norway, Sweden, and Iceland have near the highest number of billionaires per capita in the world - well ahead of the US. They also have some of the highest taxation in the world.
National socialism, again in common usage, is little more than a euphemism for racism and nationalistic extremism. This is not really an accurate description, but history is written by the winners. Had the Soviets overcome the US, today free market capitalism would likely be similarly just a pejorative, regardless of its actual views and merits/demerits.
[–] CrustyBeaver52 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
National Socialism is like Communism in the sense that you have to work, where and when you are told to work - and you do not keep the fruits of your labor. Non workers scrape by on a minimal welfare existence. It is nearly impossible to become rich unless you are a senior politician or in the criminal class.
In Democratic Socialism you get to find your own job, and must compete to obtain one, but there are never enough to go around, and the majority of the fruits of your labor will be confiscated from you through taxation. Non workers scrape by on a minimal welfare existence. It is nearly impossible to become rich unless you are a senior politician or are in the criminal class.
[–] alalzia 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Textbook democratic socialism is achieving communism without a revolution but through gradual reforms .
Nazism is about the protection of the motherland and the increase of dominant ethnicity in it .
The main difference is that like all socialisms the democratic one is internationalist , nazism at the other hand is nationalist . Nazism is capitalist while DS want to dismantle the capitalist economy and eventually the state . Like with all left politics DS only sees class while Nazists only see ethnicity .
[–] 1HepCat 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Well, if you want a pedantic, narrow interpretation...
Democratic socialism is where some majority (e.g., 50.000000001%) of a group's members elect to take and redistribute the property of the remaining members (the majority's contributions may be seen as voluntary).
National socialism is a similar scheme but with an emphasis on the group being citizens of a particular nation instead of or in addition to the election component.