I am trying to understand as much as possible about socialism as well as other leftist ideologies, and looking around i’ve seen many being critical about democratic socialism, but i honestly struggle to understand why that is such a bad idea as some say. I get that it’s incompatible with ML, but it doesn’t sound so unrealistic and unreasonable to me, so… can you explain? Excuse the ignorance, but as i said socialism is a new topic for me, i mean no offense to anybody
In short, it’s like trying to solve the problem of an overflowing septic tank by hooking up your house to a second, identical tank: you have not actually solved the central problem, only delayed and worsened it’s consequences.
Problem #1. Democratic Socialism is almost certain to fail. The best example of this is what happened to President Allende of Chile in the 1970s, every time a socialist is elected there will be powers that cause their assassination and/or overthrow.
Problem #2. Democratic Socialism has ethical issues with maintaining the current system during reform. Many argue that as long as the institutions of liberal democracy remain the same, socialism and by extension communism will be impossible.
Problem #3. If you were to stabilize Democratic Socialism and if that Democratic Socialism were to actually establish socialism, then there would be the problem of maintaining bourgeoise crimes under socialism. There is no practical form of enforcement for right wing oppressors under Democratic Socialism.
Problem #4. This is primarily for liberal socialists such as anarkitties but it is still a problem that needs to be mentioned. Democratic Socialism is simultaneously too authoritarian for liberal socialists and too revisionist for MLs. It often makes temporary unity but that unity simply cannot last. Anarchists want pure communism right now and will fight other revolutionaries to get it, MLs are too closely associated with Nationalistic movements to try to maintain liberal democracy. DemSocs make enemies of the whole left but damnit we aint gonna let fash bash them tho. Just cause we dont like ya dont mean ya aint one of us.
every time a socialist is elected there will be powers that cause their assassination and/or overthrow.
First and most importantly, you are correct about all of the above, and I am just giving a thought. I could at least see that one as being a spark to mobilize to revolution. Especially if the far-right conservatives/fascist groups took that as their “cue” to start “taking back America” via open killing other leftists (and liberals since they have been groomed to see liberals as being “communists”).
Not super likely given actual history, but seems like the most likely situation out of the four problems given. Too many things would have to happen to make the “spark” catch instead of fizzle out. Just like the mass anger at Trump will regress “back to normal” the moment Dems likely win the White House after the next national election (even if the Dems do what they did after W and not actually undo anything).
Just like we are still hoping they win, we can still hope that Dems are forced to cede power to the left.
This episode is for you. They mess around for a bit but then get into real discussion and the guy called Diallo gives two tirades on capitalism that are awesome and should illuminate things.
https://www.youtube.com/live/xfzTiIrFGcU?is=d3UzZMtOShZjG50-[EYL - Run the Delusions](https://www.youtube.com/live/xfzTiIrFGcU?is=d3UzZMtOShZjG50-)
It depends on who you ask.
If you mean USians, the word “socialist” has been involved in a decades-long campaign of propaganda. Any adjective you put before it will not matter. A whole class of people think it is evil a priori.
If you don’t mean in the US, then I don’t know. I hope it isn’t problematic in civilized countries.
Democratic socialism implies that socialism is not inherently democratic. The whole ideology sprouted from Western leftist critique of existing socialist systems in countries like the Soviet Union because of their supposed authoritarianism. Marxists-Leninists rather speak of “socialist democracy” which is “the rule by and expresses the will of the rural and urban workers, who comprise the vast majority that had been exploited by and excluded from the benefits of capitalist democracy.” (See Boer, Socialism in Power, Chapter 4). How this is achieved is through the "dictatorship of the proletariat” which makes of the workers the masters of their own country. The employment of the term “dictatorship” may seem antithetical to democracy at first glance, but the reality is that the dictatorship of the proletariat aims to suppress the former ruling class while simultaneously ensuring mass participation in democracy for the formerly suppressed classes. In practice, this has been ensured through both participatory and consultative democratic systems in local and national levels, while preserving the leadership of the communist party to avoid the resurgence of counter-revolutionary outbursts. This is the case in all existing socialist countries, such as the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam and so forth.
The merits of Democratic Socialism on the other hand can be assessed by asking one simple question: has it historically ever succeeded in establishing a socialist state? No. That is because democratic socialist parties on the ground have been more concerned with creating guardrails for capitalism rather than progressing the revolution. While reform is always appreciated, the reality stays the same: as long as there is capitalism, the working class will remain exploited, and no amount of reform can fix this crucial component. Revolution, despite its violence, remains the only path forward towards socialism because of the inherent contradiction between the interests of the working class and those of the ruling class who’s unwilling to give up the benefits it gets from oppression domestically and abroad.
You’ll want to study the topic of reform vs. revolution.
Reform is good in the same way soothing the ego of your abuser is good. It only prolongs the agony.
Removed by mod
I think we are mixing democratic socialism and social democracy here.
Democratic socialism is literally the classical political perspective of the revolutionaries from early 1900s whereas social democracy is a political ideology where reformism is the endgoal. I know in modern contexts much of this revolutionary fervor has been liquidated into reformist tendencies but as a communist who firmly believes in democratic centralism and the obvious need for a socialist revolution in service of the creation of a communist society, I am comfortable calling myself a democratic socialist but reject the label of social democrat.
Reforms are not bad. Pushing for reforms can be in service of creating a larger revolutionary moment but it cannot be the endgoal of the movement or the politics advancing it otherwise it is simply fighting for a nicer form of capitalism that extends the longevity of the bourgeoisie’s hegemonic power. We are not going to free ourselves from the grips of capitalism overnight. We are not going to change the hearts and minds of people who have by and large lived every waking moment of their life indoctrinated into neoliberalism all at once. It will necessarily be a gradual thing but we must keep our eyes on what the ultimate goal is and ensure we do not lose sight of it. We are fighting for the liberation of every human being across the face of the globe - it’s gonna take some time.
It’s an artifact of political debate done within the bubble of people who read too much theory or engage in discussions only with other political people. People who do politics and organizing in the real world are not so concerned about all these ideological nuances or asserting the value of one model over another.
If you don’t have the power to change things, all these abstracts models are useless and uninteresting. Discussing how to build power in the real world is a much better way to spend your political energy.
deleted by creator
Ew, no. There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. This is not merely an ideological nuance (although your opposition to that is weird and gross) Democratic Socialism vs MLs and Anarchists is primarily a discussion on the methods of leftist organization and action. MLs and Anarchists tend to believe that establishing socialism in the current system is impossible and so the only option is to violently remove the powers at be. Democratic Socialists, on the other hand, believe that socialism can be achieved through reform. A Democratic Socialist tells you to vote while a ML tells you to strike. That is the practical difference.
the decision of what’s possible or impossible shoudln’t be done through ideological discourse but through empirical practice. Ideologies are not tools for strategic development and they should stop being treated as such.
the decision of what’s possible or impossible shoudln’t be done through ideological discourse but through empirical practice
I agree with this. However, It has now been almost two hundred years of empirical practice, and the data is in.
yeah, we know that the conditions on which these practices developed don’t exist anymore, the context keep shifting and anything that is conceptually stable for more than a decade probably is unfit to create the change we need.
The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses. Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. But, for man, the root is man himself.
Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.
Its againt a lifetime of propaganda, poor education and tribalism.
Engels again on tribalism:
“Within the tribe there is as yet no difference between rights and duties; the question whether participation in public affairs, in blood revenge or atonement, is a right or a duty, does not exist for the Indian; it would seem to him just as absurd as the question whether it was a right or a duty to sleep, eat, or hunt. A division of the tribe or of the gens into different classes was equally impossible.”
Anti-tribal sentiment has no place in a communist movement.
