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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Democratic socialism is socialism based on the will of the people via voting. People here support communism which generally includes revolution and is far less likely to happen in the USA since most people will need to slowly be familiarized with the benefits. Other countries may vary depending on their history and relationship with communist countries. But if you try to support the ideas of democratic socialism here, they'll eventually just remove your posts. Unfortunately there isn't a good place on Lemmy for presenting ideas for socialism without someone saying everything you know was imprinted on you by capitalism then deleting your stuff. Either drink the Kool aid or you're not invited.

(FYI you should ban me now cause Im not going to change my mind about this.)

Ill just say that from a personal standpoint I dont see ANY form of 'socialism' that doesnt involve the mass trial then slaughter of the bourgeoisie , their pigs, and the divvying up of their stolen resources as socialism for ME. I dont see it as socialism. Me. Everyome who is complicit with the bourgeoisie will have to pay for their crimes, except kids of course. Even I will , if Ive dome anything. (though seeing as how Ive been impoverished most of my life I doubt it)

So no , youre not gonna 'elect' MY socialistic leaders. I dont even care if the socialist party where Im at wins the bourgeoise elections. Unless I see a mass slaughter of bourgeoisie and their collaborators? Then IDGAF about whatvever form of 'socialism' you call it.

Thats the only reason Ill never be a democratic socialist. I dont see non-violent socialism or communistic transitions as worthy of my time. Thats just how Ive alwsys been.

Ideological purity.

No going halfsies on the future of humanity.