Socialism

Disclaimer I'm very light on ML theory so may the community forgive me and the mods have mercy on me:

One perspective on a "liberal democracy" within which you would have democratic socialism might be: There are no ideological constraints except the chains of capitalism. Like that is the reality of western democracies today I think.

They might hold their nose and bla bla about far right and religious this or bad communist but everything goes. Nobody can censor anything because liberal values.

This means that fundamentally, those with the most power OUTSIDE of the state have the most power over the democracy. And that is the capitalists.

And the amount of influence capitalists or plutocrats or capitalist institutions or corporations have is vastly understated as to constitute a "big lie" a la Goebbels. Western democracies are ruled by an amoral "nonsentient amalgamated intelligence". A million individuals all greeding for their own piece of the pie be it wealth or power or just making it to the next paycheck. The true form of the "chains of capitalism" is a slime mold growing inside our heads. No other ideology that actually exerts power is allowed.

So how are you going to implement democratic socialism? You can't!

Nothing stops those with the most power from undermining you, fomenting sentiment, pushing propaganda and influencing the next election which will invariably be some neoconservative anti-commie bullshit.

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.

MLs make democracy a core part of the political process through democratic centralism, but Lenin expresses it as "diversity in discussion, unity in action." Members might have intense debates about an issue but they follow the party line when it comes time to vote. An ML party's more disciplined approach to politics results in being able to throw a lot of organisational weight at something with the full support of the base. It also limits infiltration and the influence of people whose view is too far right to be socialist or too far-left to be scientific socialism.

Those things are really important since an ML doesn't believe that the existing electoral system allows you to vote your way to communism, and even if we did have a Red New Deal it would be dismantled under the next crop of politicians. Bourgeois democracy exists for the bourgeoisie and they have have the resources to multiply the value of their vote, rig the system, or assassinate anyone they want. Revolutions are something you inherit more than you spontaneously create. The old system dies under the weight of its contradictions and you're the most organised group to take power during that moment of rupture. Until then, you fight for bread and roses while increasing the party's strength.

Democratic socialism, at least with the DSA that I'm familiar with and member of, has problems that make it very vulnerable. There's a disconnect between local chapters and national which makes messaging and organising more difficult than it should be. National doesn't set the programme that Local is bound to follow. The Black Panthers were able to start the same mutual aid projects across the US within a few years, while my local DSA hasn't achieved much beyond endorsing a few local democrats for non-specific policy goals. The Panthers were able to form the necessary militias to protect their projects, while the DSA's entryist model allows liberal views to have too much weight. PSL has an interview process to join where you have to at least have read the material like any other serious subject, DSA has a public discord and joining is just handing over $20. An infiltrator has a lot more ability to cause damage or derail the project, including the opposing politicians in the elections they're investing so much effort in.

Beyond the structural issues, there's the question of what happens when the DSA-backed politician wins. They have to participate in the empire and that shapes their material interests. AOC and Mamdani both slid right on some really important issues after winning because they have to maintain their office. DSA may have gotten out the vote but most of their constituents aren't in the DSA and most of the party hates socialism. It's very bad branding if you accidentally/intentionally elect the next Graham Platner or John Fetterman and you're held responsible. PSL might run a protest candidate from the party to raise awareness of its platform and drive membership, but its time and resources go to fighting for individual issues.

I still think an ML should be in both spaces. DSA has a Marxist caucus and they're at least people willing to put their name next to socialist during a red scare. It's good for local networking and you can inject revolutionary ideas into their projects. Here the environmental justice committee is very lackluster and has no public awareness. As an eco-Marxist, I'm using park cleanups as Debordian derives to discuss the socioecology and public land, unionising the municipal workers in the process with the help of another DSA member forming a union in their department. It's super easy to get someone to agree with revolutionaries when you point at the contradiction and can give a detailed historical or theoretical answer, and that trains me to talk to the rest of the public who are even less radical. I just limit my participation to things like that because I don't think the DSA will be able to elect someone more radical than FDR. I'm in PSL because if society collapses tomorrow I think they'll be the quickest to rally around a coherent message even if I disagree with some small percentage of it.

In an international capitalist context, if a nation keeps a capitalist economy it exposes itself to international competition. So any welfare program financed by the national economy harms the nation by makeing local companies less competitive.

A social democratie may therefore just go for little welfare things, and constantly need to defend its policy toward (justified) critics on international competitivity.

If the economy is organized in some way that doesn't comply with international competition, but is, for example, planified and state owned ; then it is not a "democratie" (in the eyes of capitalists).

Socialism, communism, and anarchism do not aim at establishing a political dictatorship. Even the "proletarian dictatorship" is supposed (in the theories) to be the power given to the workers collectively ; not to "the leader".

The problem with social-democratie is that it creates the conditions so all rights and protections given to workers are temporarily given to them so that they don't revolt, at times they could set a socialist society if they revolted instead. It is a shield to protect the interest of the richest.

Because demsocs are idealists. They reject the historical material reality that the ruling class never give up power willing.

The ruling class believe they are ruling because they are exceptional and because their ancestors were exceptional and their children will be too. They believe they should rule because nobody else can do it because they are sub-human. They believe this even when all the evidence says otherwise because it is in their interests to believe it.

Demsocs believe they can negotiate with people who don't even consider them as human.

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.

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.

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.

Democratic Socialism is nothing but a rebrand of Social Democracy. There are two actual traditions in socialist parties. They are either revolutionary or they are reformists. Either they accept the capitalism superstructure (the state) needs to be overthrown, or they want to work through the superstructure to achieve socialism. There's no middle ground as those two are two contradictory views on socialism.

Note that revolutionary parties are necessarily anti-reform, but reformists parties are usually anti-revolution. This is why every reformist party is doomed to fail. Capitalists will do everything they have in power to stop reformists from enacting their reforms. Since every reformist party rely too much on the liberal legality, they tend to be undermined by lawfare, smear campaigns, capitalists tanking the economy, military coups, etc. Reformists have the illusion that the whole legality of the liberal system will be enough to maintain them in power.

The main difference of revolutionary parties from reformists is that revolutionaries understand the need to fight through non legal means (not necessarily illegal, but outside of parliamentary legal framework). So, we plan strikes armed insurgency to counter a military coup, occupying factories and key strategic positions to maintain the economy circulating and so on.

I am also still learning, but I can share this. I am assuming that you are referring to 'social democracy' and similar reformist movements. The SPD (as in Germany and its many international affiliates) and the DSA (in America, though many will argue that there is a meaningful Communist contingent within the party, despite its leadership). Communism as an ideology is defaultly more democratic than the current system of liberal capitalism, which these movements have been trying to reform. Hopefully I have not misconstrued your question.

A primary concern with this basic choice between liberal reforms and 'actual Communism' is that it is vulnerable to 'recuperation' by the current (imperial) stage of capitalism's development.

Here's how it would work: we say that we want reforms to gradually transform society into something that works for all people, including the working class, not just the economic elite. As an example, I'm going to pick on a common slogan in the West that goes, "Spend money on people (here in this nation), not war." Remember that a change like this requires a mass movement, we can't just agree in a few small rooms across the country; this has to be a movement that will involve all of working people across society pushing together to change what is unjust.

Remember that the exploitation that funds capitalism comes from home and abroad: not just war, not just militarized seizure of oil assets and political extortion, but also privatization of critical industries, "trade" with a less industrial developed partner that leads to the enrichment of the richer economy and the impoverishment of the poorer, and any example that lengthens the reach of the powerful nation over the weaker.

So, here is the capitalist solution to the reformist "problem": stop being so selfish and share more of the profits not just with the 1%, but with the 5% -- a larger population of people in the imperial core. Satisfy them until they don't feel the economic pinch anymore and stop wanting to organize. Give them a show trial. Give them a hospital. Whatever it takes to "reform" the people's attitude until they no longer want to change the system. All the meanwhile, continue to exploit people outside of your borders, perhaps in ways that include war.

edit: At some point, some people in this movement will become satisfied by the gains. They will see the 'fascism at home' end, and they will not see the 'imperialism abroad', so they will give up the struggle. We need them to keep struggling until the exploitation ends. In this way, reformism has no solutions, where other the other ideology has invested a great deal of human effort looking for solutions.

We should push harder for a form of society where luckier people don't have so much power over those who are less fortunate. Directionally, that is Communism, not a reform of liberalism.

My criticism is fairly limited to this one example that I gave, but I hope that it is still helpful. Interested in feedback on my framing from those who are more read. :)

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.

Demsocs want to work within the confines of capitalism. Their goal isnt the liberation of the working class, but shackles with longer chains and rainbows.

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-%5BEYL - Run the Delusions](https://www.youtube.com/live/xfzTiIrFGcU?is=d3UzZMtOShZjG50-)

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.

Because they have no answer to state violence, what's the demsoc response to the CIA for instance? Whatever it's bound to be, it'll never be enough and they'll get their people hurt or worse

But they're still useful as a potential demonstration effect and popularizer of socialist thought, in a situation where legalism is state mandated through overwhelming violence like in the imperial core, demsocs can function as an effective stopgap measure, until better conditions arise for more serious tendencies to gain traction

If you're asking about the US; it's fund mismanagement. Where I live local politicians and so forth make more to even double what federal politicians make (lets ignore the bribes, then again I'm sure they're there as well), but nobody wants to jump on the train of lets pay the government more money when some of these people are paid 400K-500K. The budget keeps climbing and nothing gets done, actually it's been getting worse and worse. I think that partially breeds that greed of wanting to help your fellow neighbor.

Its againt a lifetime of propaganda, poor education and tribalism.