Im thinking about becoming a Democratic Socialist

[tradeunionsupporter]

Im thinking about becoming a Democratic Socialist because I feel that the Workers should own the Means of production.

[GPDP]

Again, like I said in the other thread, what exactly do you mean by "Democratic Socialism?" Do you believe a future socialist society should be democratic at heart? Or by that label, do you mean to reform capitalism "democratically" through reforms made through the existing capitalist system?

[IcarusAngel]

lol. If you're going to keep creating posts you should put a tad more effort into them.

But, yes, you have inadvertently hit upon a very important point in regards to property, ownership, power, and freedom. Should the people own what they produce, or should private corporations or governments own what they produce? What are the effects of these three systems.

I used to think Chomsky was being a bit hyperbolic when he said that market tyranny is even worse than state tyranny. Now I'm in complete agreement. The fact of the matter is, these two things are linked to one another in a way that creates a system that is unlivable, and completely unsustainable.

Time and time and time again, experiment after experiment has shown that society is more free - and things naturally work out better - when you have cooperation, egalitarianism, and bottom-up approaches to society. Even Adam Smith wanted markets only if there was perfect equality among workers and 'owners' - he didn't predict the rightism that is inevitably associated with markets.

Google: Anarchist FAQ (infoshop)
Life After Capitalism.
An Anti-Capitalist Reader.
etc.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I just feel that Capitalism exploits Workers.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I just feel that Capitalism exploits Workers.

Yes, but do you feel like the current system should be reformed to be made "softer" or do you believe in the outright abolition of the Capitalist system? If it's the former, you'll likely be restricted.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I would support the abolition of the Capitalist system.

[#FF0000]

I would support the abolition of the Capitalist system.

How, though? Do you think there needs to be a revolution, or do you believe that we can abolish it through legislation?

[Rosa Provokateur]

Yes, but do you feel like the current system should be reformed to be made "softer" or do you believe in the outright abolition of the Capitalist system? If it's the former, you'll likely be restricted.

Don't threaten the guy, let him answer free of intimidation.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Don't threaten the guy, let him answer free of intimidation.

I agree - some of the comments sound a little harsh comrades. This discussion is in OI already, so if TradeUnionSupporter is not sure exactly where his ideas put him politically or if he's interested in talking about it, whatever, he/she is playing by the rules.

I thought the point of OI was so liberals and conservatives and reformists can still participate without clogging up other discussions with basic questions about or straw-men arguments against radical politics.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I think we can get Socialism by voting.

[Conquer or Die]

Democratic socialists are progressive liberals. They also break like glass when confronted with Thatchers, Reagans, Hitlers, Churchills, and Roosevelts.

[Hiero]

Do it.

[Muzk]

Problem: How do you vote for socialism in a capitalist system? :confused:

[thejambo1]

answer to above post...you cant,it just wont happen as you know. its a pleasant thought that it could be done but especially in the u.s.a it is not going to happen.:(

[Pogue]

Thia thread is fucking pathetic. Do you think promising people are going to be attracted to revolutionary dieas if you fucking treat the conversation like a fucking interrogation, seriously, you lot need to sort this out.

[Havet]

I just feel that Capitalism exploits Workers.

To hell with your feelings. Either there is evidence that it exploits, or there isn't.

Don't base your opinions on feelings, base it on facts. Just ask for evidence that Capitalism exploits, and people here (myself included) will show it to you.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

To hell with your feelings.

Well that's nice...

[Havet]

Well that's nice...

Sometimes you need to shake people into shock before they are aware of their numbness

[ZeroNowhere]

Are you still beating your wife?

On a more serious note, you should probably not capitalize the 'democratic' there, since 'Democratic Socialism' generally refers to something which doesn't especially want to abolish capitalism.

[scarletghoul]

It's a really vague term actually, and can range from Gorbachevism to Chavezism to Blairism.

Anyway you guys should be explaining to this new member what its all about and why DS fails, rather than being all hostile.

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, one would think it being a vague term would make it harder to explain what it's all about and why it fails, no?

[Pogue]

It's a really vague term actually, and can range from Gorbachevism to Chavezism to Blairism.

Anyway you guys should be explaining to this new member what its all about and why DS fails, rather than being all hostile.

Blair and Gorbachev wouldn't fit the definitions of democratic socialists. Better examples would be George Galloway and Tony Benn.

[bricolage]

Blair and Gorbachev wouldn't fit the definitions of democratic socialists. Better examples would be George Galloway and Tony Benn.

The point being that democratic socialism is such a vague term it has been applied to all of those people and more by themselves and/or external parties. For example Clause IV under Blair;


The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.

[Pogue]

The point being that democratic socialism is such a vague term it has been applied to all of those people and more by themselves and/or external parties. For example Clause IV under Blair;

But Tony Blair and new Labour don't fit the definition of democratic socialism, anyone can give themselves a name innit.

[Havet]

Are you still beating your wife?

Is this addressed to me?

Because I never meant physical harm.

[Catbus]

:cursing:

[ZeroNowhere]

Is this addressed to me?

Because I never meant physical harm.
No, I just found it rather amusing how this thread turned more or less into an interrogation.

[bricolage]

But Tony Blair and new Labour don't fit the definition of democratic socialism, anyone can give themselves a name innit.

But that's just the thing, there is no 'definition' of democratic socialism, it's just a bit of a nothing term, hence its application to near everything.

[Die Rote Fahne]

May I ask what you are to begin with? Before a dem soc?

[Muzk]

National Bolshevist

[The Red Next Door]

If you want to be one go ahead, don't let others opinions affect your choose, i used to be a social democrat for a while but then i be came a libertarian communist, in which workers get to control stuff and the state don't

[RedRise]

I thought about democratic socialism after i watched Capitalism: A Love Story. It's got some really good points to it so if you think that's right go ahead. I think that's what both my parents are, or at least my mum.

[ls]

Democratic socialism is an oxymoron, you can't destroy capitalism through the parliaments.. if you look at the Socialist International's member parties, you can see the UK labour party there, they are "democratic socialists", isn't that proof enough that democratic socialism is a warped super-liberalised form of socialism put under the strains of managing capitalism, just look at Blair going into Iraq if you want quick proof of that.

Alternatively, Galloway is interpreted as a socialist and you can see him apologising for Saddam Hussein here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzWNXEtwHUc, all democratic socialists in this day and age are absolute hacks.

[Bud Struggle]

Well it all depends on what your end game is. If you want a totally classless, stateless, moneyless society with workers in charge of the means of production then SD isn't probably your thing--but if you want a reasonably fair society with an economic safty net for the less advantaged and yet a reasonable amount of ability to get ahead for those so inclined, with everyone getting an equal share in saying how things are run--than Social Democracy is a workable system.

I don't think economic systems have much to do with Imperialistic tendencies--look at the USSR going in to Afganistan or China in Tibet. Nothing short of a stateless world will stop Imperialism--but till that happy day, Social Democracy seems to be a viable alternative.

[graffic]

Well it all depends on what your end game is. If you want a totally classless, stateless, moneyless society with workers in charge of the means of production then SD isn't probably your thing--but if you want a reasonably fair society with an economic safty net for the less advantaged and yet a reasonable amount of ability to get ahead for those so inclined, with everyone getting an equal share in saying how things are run--than Social Democracy is a workable system.


Workers in charge of the means of production is a very nice idea, on paper, when you are perhaps high, or pissed. Perhaps it is more "righteous" and "ethical" than capitalism but throwing Molotov's at RBS banks and walking around with a massive inferiority complex about anyone who has money is not going to do anyone any favors, in my opinion. I speak from a western perspective, so there may be better ground for a revolution elsewhere in the world, and perhaps it will improve the life of some people.

[Svante]

I think we can get Socialism by voting.

do you thiink the rich capitalists will let socialism win b y voteing?

[Bud Struggle]

do you thiink the rich capitalists will let socialism win b y voteing?

Why not? Up to now (at least in the USA) no one is much interested in Socialism. But that's not to say that it can't be voted in anytime people actually do want it.

The power isn't in the control of the ballor box--it is in the control of media. Right now the media (radio talk shows, etc,) are against nationalized health care--and are influencing the voters.

[RGacky3]

Why not? Up to now (at least in the USA) no one is much interested in Socialism. But that's not to say that it can't be voted in anytime people actually do want it.

The power isn't in the control of the ballor box--it is in the control of media. Right now the media (radio talk shows, etc,) are against nationalized health care--and are influencing the voters.

IF you look at polls, when it comes to the issues Americans are much more socialistic, your right about the media, but the media is far far right of Americans.

Do a test, anyone, ask your average American "do you believe in socialism" they'll say "no", but if you ask them "do you believe that workers should have an equal say in how the workplace is run" or "do you believe the economy should be run more democratically" or something similar, most people are socialistic.

The problem is, voters don't have much of an option, and thus vote on more trivial things that change their life slightly. People are not voting for systems here.

[graffic]

In America I think they have an example of what George Orwell called "Newspeak" going on. In his book, 1984, "Newspeak" propaganda (the changing of words) was used to suit the needs of the totalitarian regime. You could say the same about the US; media and popular culture effectively slurs progressive ideas because the majority of the media is funded by big business. For example, the phrase "liberal fascism" is clearly a paradox however commentators use it and it has the desired effect of confusing people or perhaps diverting the topic. Although in a liberal, pluralistic country such as the US there is more freedom than say, in a totalitarian regime, the meaning of words is hijacked to support the needs of a certain group of people: the people with capital and power. People are brought up with certain understandings of words which can be ambiguous. For example, people believe certain members of society are "successful" and others are "failures" which should be used as a negative standard which others should be compared to. The Free-market propaganda works but not as many people as you would perhaps expect bother to question the logic of it, in my opinion.

[Revy]

The point being that democratic socialism is such a vague term it has been applied to all of those people and more by themselves and/or external parties. For example Clause IV under Blair;

You could say the same thing about "socialism", "communism" and "anarchism".

The phrase democratic socialism has varied interpretations. Some people who are revolutionary and anti-capitalist use it.


But that's just the thing, there is no 'definition' of democratic socialism, it's just a bit of a nothing term, hence its application to near everything.

And the dictionary definition of "socialism" is government run economy, not the Marxist definition of workers' control of the means of production. Don't think so simplistically.


Democratic socialism is an oxymoron, you can't destroy capitalism through the parliaments..

Except that's not what the term actually implies.:rolleyes:



if you look at the Socialist International's member parties, you can see the UK labour party there, they are "democratic socialists", isn't that proof enough that democratic socialism is a warped super-liberalised form of socialism put under the strains of managing capitalism, just look at Blair going into Iraq if you want quick proof of that.
so what? The Communist Party USA calls itself communist (even though it supports the Democratic Party).

Both words communism and socialism have been used by bureaucracies and dictatorships, but also by revolutionary socialists.

Should we abandon all labels then? Call ourselves what? Revolutionary Leftists?

[ls]

You could say the same thing about "socialism", "communism" and "anarchism".:rolleyes:

The phrase democratic socialism has varied interpretations. Some people who are revolutionary and anti-capitalist use it.

Like who, examples please.


Except that's not what the term actually implies.:rolleyes:

It has a meaning in most people's minds, it's unfortunate and it would be NICE to be able to use it as a label, but I don't think it's possible, you'e always welcome to call yourself what you want.


so what? The Communist Party USA calls itself communist (even though it supports the Democratic Party).

Sure, but the vast majority of those who term themselves democratic socialists or vice versa are neoliberals, also the vast majority of people perceive those who term themselves democratic socialists as neoliberals.


Both words communism and socialism have been used by bureaucracies and dictatorships, but also by revolutionary socialists.

Yep, we can't reclaim words that.. can't be reclaimed though.


Should we abandon all labels then? Call ourselves what? Revolutionary Leftists?

Leftism and 'leftists' aren't good phrases so no.

[RGacky3]

Sure, but the vast majority of those who term themselves democratic socialists or vice versa are neoliberals, also the vast majority of people perceive those who term themselves democratic socialists as neoliberals.

Do you know what neolibralism is?

[ls]

Do you know what neolibralism is?

Yep and do you?

I am getting annoyed with this 'leftism' being practised here, why don't you just go and consider all those who profess 'leftism' like Galloway/the rest of the "left of UK labour party", many of the democrat party grassroots and associated speakers on their behalf as completely progressive revolutionary socialists. There's no way they'll turn to neoliberalism in the path of Thatcher and Reagan quicker than you think, seriously if you placed Galloway in power, he would certainly be a democratic socialist just the way the label suggests.. and the UK could rejoice in glorious socialism.

[RGacky3]

Yep and do you?

I am getting annoyed with this 'leftism' being practised here, why don't you just go and consider all those who profess 'leftism' like Galloway/the rest of the "left of UK labour party", many of the democrat party grassroots and associated speakers on their behalf as completely progressive revolutionary socialists. There's no way they'll turn to neoliberalism in the path of Thatcher and Reagan quicker than you think, seriously if you placed Galloway in power, he would certainly be a democratic socialist just the way the label suggests.. and the UK could rejoice in glorious socialism.

I did'nt say that, but neo-liberalism is the theory of taking down "trade barriers" to allow corporate "freedom" all over the world, in other words, making capitalism more global, and giving corporations more power.

The public DOES NOT percieve democratic socialists as neo-liberal. Now is Obama neo-liberal? You bet, does he call himself a democratic socialist? no. Is Bernie Sanders a Neo-Liberal???? NO, why? Because he does'nt not support global corporate control. Now is Bernie Sanders a revolutionary? Not at all, but calling him, and people like him, neo-liberal is rediculous.

[ls]

I did'nt say that, but neo-liberalism is the theory of taking down "trade barriers" to allow corporate "freedom" all over the world, in other words, making capitalism more global, and giving corporations more power.

The public DOES NOT percieve democratic socialists as neo-liberal. Now is Obama neo-liberal? You bet, does he call himself a democratic socialist? no. Is Bernie Sanders a Neo-Liberal???? NO, why? Because he does'nt not support global corporate control. Now is Bernie Sanders a revolutionary? Not at all, but calling him, and people like him, neo-liberal is rediculous.

If you think most people in the united states will take note of any of that, you are wrong, feel free to continue.

[RGacky3]

If you think most people in the united states will take note of any of that, you are wrong, feel free to continue.

Many people in the United States don't use the term neo-liberal, and those who do use it in the international economics context and DO NOT use it to describe democratic socialists.

NO ONE calls people like Bernie Sanders a neo-liberal, don't be silly.

[ls]

Edit: Okay wateva everyone mentioned on this thread are socialist and progressive, I've unsubscribed from this thread.