76
"Democratic" socialism (lemmy.ml)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/memes@lemmy.ml
29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 31 points 4 months ago (14 children)

Yes and also no. Yes because that is clearly the role it plays in the US. But no in the sense that it is a name for a specific theory of action, the theory that you can achieve socialism through voting instead of through a coup (even a bloodless one) or a civil/revolutionary war.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 29 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Has any election in human history ever actually disrupted a class hierarchy?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Not that I am aware of.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 20 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

    True, but also as a tactic (IE voting in socialism) its a complete historical failure that should be relegated to the history books. There has not been a single case of a country acheiving socialism through the ballot box.

    All the attempts in the late 1800s until now showed that capitalists will not give up state power without violence, and even explicitly socialist parties who acheived some electoral success, end up quickly capitulating to the demands of the capitalists who run the country's economy, and make a hard turn to the right. Look at the state of the European "socialist" or "labour" parties.

    Not to mention all the coups the US carried out even on countries who attempted to tread a "non-violent" socialist path: like Chile in 1970. While the countries who took control of the military and went through a civil war to disempower and nationalize capital are still standing on their own two feet: Cuba, China, Vietnam, DPRK.

    "Democratic socialism" is also sometimes used (incorrectly) to refer to capitalist-run states in the imperial core (like the nordic states) with some welfare band-aids, funded on the backs of the world's workers in the global south.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Respectfully: I think this take is dumb.

    There's no practical utility in fighting against democratic socialists. They're not a problem that needs solved. It's a label used to organize people who are looking for an easy every point to leftist organizing. Most DSA "socialists" I know are actually radical dual power ML Communists already.

    Complaining that DSA socialism is ineffective is like complaining that the first rung of a ladder is too close to the ground.

    Just focus on building up the stuff you like better. Instead of explaining why voting is insufficient, point people towards what is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 4 months ago

    Scientific socialism is a science. We build on foundations and knowledge gained through years of experience, and we've learned that acheiving socialism through voting and electoralism in capitalist dictatorships is not only impossible, inneffective, and a dead end, but a drain on people's energy. If people keep treading the wrong roads, and through historical ignorance keep making the same mistakes people have made hundreds of times, then we aren't doing our duty.

    It's a label used to organize people who are looking for an easy every point to leftist organizing.

    No, as the post stated, its a western-chauvinist / supremacist dogwhistle to agree with CIA talking points and demonize existing socialist states as being "not democratic". Western supremacy is the root cause of many of these issues that should be tackled at the root instead of being allowed to fester and grow.

    Just focus on building up the stuff you like better. Instead of explaining why voting is insufficient, point people towards what is.

    Both sides are equally important: showing what doesn't work, and showing what does work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Not a theory, an illusion

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    What you describe is called social democracy. And, in my opinion, it is an ideological cul-de-sac.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago

    The words social democracy and democratic socialism have swapped definitions and started the same and have been translated variously. It's even more confusing than the word histories of socialism and communism.

    My understanding of social democracy in the contemporary meaning is liberal capitalist society with substantial concessions to the working class for quality of life, while democratic socialism is a movement to end liberal capitalism via the ballot box.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent