Democratic socialism

[Kernewek]

what exactly is democratic socialism and how does it differ from other forms of socialism? is it similar to soviet democracy?

sorry if there's allready a thread on this but I've had a look around the site and can't find much

[ComradeOm]

Basically 'democratic socialism' is the belief that a communist society can be arrived at through the peaceful use of parliamentary structures. Also known as 'reformism' due to its rejection of revolution

Don't confuse it with 'social democracy', which has no desire to end capitalism, or communism, which insists that socialism is only obtainable through the destruction of the bourgeois state. As such democratic socialism is completely different to soviet democracy because the latter involves the transfer of power from parliamentary bodies to revolutionary worker councils

[ZeroNowhere]

Basically 'democratic socialism' is the belief that a communist society can be arrived at through the peaceful use of parliamentary structures. Also known as 'reformism' due to its rejection of revolution
Nope. A change from capitalism to socialism is revolutionary, regardless of the means used. Reformism would be more along the lines of the Green Party or Kucinich than the WSM, who are revolutionary, but think that this is to happen through solely electoral means (well, generally).
Anyways, it's a term with far too many meanings to be useful. For example, it is sometimes used to refer to reformism (that is, reforming capitalism through higher taxes, etc), sometimes to refer to revolution through solely electoral means, sometimes used to contrast one's own beliefs with state capitalism, though it's pretty much redundant in this sense, etc.

[ComradeOm]

Nope. A change from capitalism to socialism is revolutionary, regardless of the means used. Reformism would be more along the lines of the Green Party or Kucinich than the WSM, who are revolutionary, but think that this is to happen through solely electoral means (well, generally)That's the logic used by reformists. Luckily we all know just how much bullshit that is. Anyone who insists that winning the ballot box is a prerequisite for socialism is a reformist; ie, they see reaching socialism as a gradual and evolutionary process. This is a central plank of democratic socialism, really its defining feature, and thus democratic socialists are reformists

[ZeroNowhere]

That's the logic used by reformists. Luckily we all know just how much bullshit that is. Anyone who insists that winning the ballot box is a prerequisite for socialism is a reformist; ie, they see reaching socialism as a gradual and evolutionary process. This is a central plank of democratic socialism, really its defining feature, and thus democratic socialists are reformistsWait, what?
Alright, so, firstly, the WSM don't see reaching socialism as a 'gradual and evolutionary process', at least from when a majority of workers is socialist (or vast majority, in the case of most of them. You've got a majority, now? Well, you'll just have to wait.)
"Reform means a change of externals; revolution, peaceful or bloody, the peacefulness or the bloodiness of it cuts no figure whatever in the essence of the question, means a change from within."
"Whenever a change leaves the internal mechanism untouched, we have reform; whenever the internal mechanism is changed, we have revolution."

Reformism is the reforming of capitalism. Talking about 'reforming capitalism into socialism' is generally born from misconceptions about socialism. One cannot 'reform' from capitalism to socialism: one can do it peacefully, through a general strike, through insurrection, or whatever, but it's still a revolution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In response to the OP, and taking into consideration the comments above, "democratic socialism" is alas synonymous with parliamentary socialism. What groups like the DeLeonists and the WSM don't get is that participatory democracy is the key to implementing socialism.

IMO, demarchy is the best of both worlds in terms of representation and participation, since representation is achieved statistically and not electorally (so much for even "soviet democracy"), and since participation on issues is paramount.

[One of the posters from the WSM supports demarchy, but still stubbornly supports getting into power through parliamentary means before changing the political system, neglecting the lessons of the Paris Commune and the anti-czarist February Revolution.]

[ComradeOm]

Reformism is the reforming of capitalism. Talking about 'reforming capitalism into socialism' is generally born from misconceptions about socialismOf course, its an absurd position to hold. Yet participation in (and potentially reform of) parliamentary structures remains a defining feature of democratic-socialism

Which is one of many reasons why democratic-socialism is a virtually non-existent political strain today. Outside of US politics, it (and its most notable proponents - the ILP and other parties associated with the 2.5 International) remain nothing more than a historical relic


"Reform means a change of externals; revolution, peaceful or bloody, the peacefulness or the bloodiness of it cuts no figure whatever in the essence of the question, means a change from within."
"Whenever a change leaves the internal mechanism untouched, we have reform; whenever the internal mechanism is changed, we have revolution."Well what exactly do you expect? Such arguments and fig leaves have been bandied about since Bernstein's day