So basically, what is the difference between Socialism and Democratic Socialism?

[cowslayer]

I was told that Democratic Socialism is Socialism achieved in a country through democratic and electoral means and regular Socialism is achieved through Revolution and the formation of a new state.


Is this true?

Thanks!

[mikelepore]

There is no generally accepted difference in meaning. The difference between saying "socialism" and "democratic socialism" is the idiosyncrasy of whomever is doing the speaking.

"Democratic" is from demos and kratos, Greek for "the people govern." Historically, the intent of saying "the people" there is to contrast with government by a tyrant or by an aristocracy. My point is: the word refers to how a system operates, not to the path taken to implement it.

I have never used the term "democratic socialism" because any system that isn't the first word doesn't deserve the second word. If socialism weren't democratic, it would have to be the contradiction of "a class-divided classless society."

I also don't recognize any opposition between "electoral means" and "revolution." To say "electoral means" indicates that people made use of some flexibility found in a political system for polling the people about what they want. "Revolution" says that the changes enacted were fundamental or basic, and not merely changes to the manifestations on the surface, which are called reforms. These two concepts are not opposites.

When I say that, I'm in the minority opinion at revleft. Most people on this site will claim that the participation in elections IS reformism. I say with a big grin, but with confidence: I'm right and they are wrong.

[the last donut of the night]

When I say that, I'm in the minority opinion at revleft. Most people on this site will claim that the participation in elections IS reformism. I say with a big grin, but with confidence: I'm right and they are wrong.

How so then?

[9]

@mikelepore:

Well, in the states, "Democratic Socialism" (particularly when it is capitalized as was done in the OP) often refers actually to "social democracy"; based on the description in the OP ("Socialism achieved in a country through...electoral means"), I am relatively confident that s/he is indeed using "Democratic Socialism" as a synonym for social democracy.
Also, I have to inquire as to whether you think "socialism can be achieved in a country through...electoral means", or if instead you are saying that voting in elections can be a helpful tactic to supplement working class struggle before a revolution?

[Revy]

It is a word used with different meanings. There are revolutionary socialists who use it, to left-wing social democrats to the über-capitalists in the Labour Party and other parties like it.

The same can be said about the word socialism and the word communism. I don't think we should concede "democratic socialism" to social democrats any more than we should concede the word socialism itself.

The fact that the Communist Party USA uses the word communist in no way protects it from having the most pro-Democratic Party views of any group on the left.

What matters is the substance of one's politics not whatever left-wing label. What if there was a group calling itself social democratic in the classical, revolutionary Marxist sense? It wouldn't be a terrible group just because of its name.

[9]

^As you said at the beginning, "it is a word used with different meanings". It doesn't just mean what we want it to mean, just because we want it to mean it. Words have various connotations, separate from what we may or may not want them to mean, or what we think they should mean.
Just as 'Communism' and 'communism' have different connotations, so too do 'Democratic Socialism' and 'democratic socialism'. And, considering that the OP pairs it with a definition that is exactly that of social democracy - in addition to the fact that Democratic Socialism (capitalized) tends to mean social democracy in the US - I think it would be disingenuous to respond to a post made in the Learning Forum and say that it isn't social democracy, simply because we don't want it to mean that. Is that what it should mean? No, of course not. But nor should Communism (capitalized) mean state capitalism, in my opinion, yet that is the connotation that it frequently has.

[Revy]

^As you said at the beginning, "it is a word used with different meanings". It doesn't just mean what we want it to mean, just because we want it to mean it. Words have various connotations, separate from what we may or may not want them to mean, or what we think they should mean.
Just as 'Communism' and 'communism' have different connotations, so too do 'Democratic Socialism' and 'democratic socialism'. And, considering that the OP pairs it with a definition that is exactly that of social democracy - in addition to the fact that Democratic Socialism (capitalized) tends to mean social democracy in the US - I think it would be disingenuous to respond to a post made in the Learning Forum and say that it isn't social democracy, simply because we don't want it to mean that. Is that what it should mean? No, of course not. But nor should Communism (capitalized) mean state capitalism, in my opinion, yet that is the connotation that it frequently has.

I have never noticed this difference you claim to exist. Plenty of social democrats in the US will use the phrase democratic socialism without capitalization.

Capitalization in U.S. politics is a reference to party names. That is the difference between writing "I'm a Socialist" and "I'm a socialist". I see no reason why it would be correct to capitalize one's own ideological position in any case. The words in the OP should not be capitalized from a linguistic perspective. It's archaic to capitalize so many words (the Constitution does it a lot).

The difference between Communism and communism may be simply because one refers to a title used by those regimes and the other to an ideology (some ideologies are capitalized but only when they refer to a proper name, like Marx or Trotsky).

[el_chavista]

democratic socialism: "it's not 'real socialism' as you have seen it on TV" (kind of "it's not Unix") :rolleyes:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

'Democratic Socialism' is used as a perjorative by many on the sectarian left, to imply that Democratic Socialists are in effect Social Democrats.

Really, if Socialism is not democratic it is nothing. Democratic Socialism, therefore, can be a blanket term for any Socialist (of revolutionary ilk, not a Social Democrat) who does not wish to ascribe a more specific 'ism' to their political views.

[ZeroNowhere]

'Democratic Socialism' is used as a perjorative by many on the sectarian left, to imply that Democratic Socialists are in effect Social Democrats.Not really, 'sectarian left' is more of a baseless pejorative. Generally, it's used as a self-description by said social democrats, hence the association.

[mikelepore]

How so then?

Do you mean -- why do I say that elections and revolution go together? Because the nature of oppression and revolution changed suddenly after universal suffrage was introduced. In the newer historical period, the main feature that props up class rule is the ruling class use of ideological devices (mainly the schools and the media), by means of thousands of repetitions, to persuade working class people to keep voting to continue their own oppression. In modern times, oppression relies on the expressed consent of the oppressed. Each election is the occasion for expressing that consent. That consent rests on the population's habits of thinking, "we already live under the best of all possible systems", etc. Socialist education is mainly conceptual education, striving to falsify each of the old misconceptions. Since socialism can't be implemented until the majority of the working class understand it and want it, it is automatic that working class voting patterns will change at the same time. By the time a majority understand and want socialism, there will also be a political reflection of that new consciousness, a political declaration that a democratic economic system is to be adopted.

[Pogue]

I would say its the (naive) idea that socialism can be ahceived through parliamentary reforms, different from social democracy in that it does aim to completely do away with capitalism, whereas social democracy just wants to make capitalism nicer.

[Weezer]

Socialism is a socioeconomic ideology where the workers control the means of production and distribute it to how they see fit.

However, and more and more both socialism and democratic socialism are synonymous with social democracy. I guess social democrats are just trying to fool people into believe they will represent the working class.

But in truth, I don't see much difference or the need for a wall between socialism and democratic socialism. Democracy is essential for socialism. Some may argue that a dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary for socialism, but I don't think dictatorship means quite the same in this context, as opposed to the more common meaning nowadays, which is a one or two autocrats in complete or mostly complete control of everything. Look at today's world, we are run by the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, mostly.

However, many members of bourgeoisie hold power, like in the US, Canada, etc. because they were elected into power. Let's face it, most politicians are rich and bourgeois. I think a dictatorship of the proletariat would mean that workers would elect fellow workers or revolutionaries to rule them, through means of democracy, direct of indirect, not the 25+ year rule of some pseudo-socialist.

Communism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen. If the people can't choose and vote for the leaders and laws that govern them, where is the power to the people?