Question for Democratic Socialists

[tradeunionsupporter]

Question for Democratic Socialists. Why don't Democratic Socialists call themselves Communists and call their parties the Communist party since many Democratic Socialists believe in Marxism and Karl Marx call his book the Communist Manifesto or the Manifesto of the Communist Party ?

[Agnapostate]

Assuming this is serious...There are effectively no socialists (or any serious economics analyst, for that matter) that don't incorporate some element of Marxism into their perspective. What is shared by the majority of socialists is advocacy of the Marxian critique of capitalism, regardless of disagreement that exists about his own preferred principles of social organization. However, many who accept elements of Marxism don't accept Marxism in its entirety or to an extent that they could reasonably self-identify as "Marxists" (anarchists, for example), with others that do self-identify as Marxists not being communists, but instead being market socialists (such as David Schweickart, or Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis in the 1970's). There's also discontent among some self-identifying "democratic socialists" about association with Marxism, which is regarded as being an authoritarian ideology.

[danyboy27]

Question for Democratic Socialists. Why don't Democratic Socialists call themselves Communiss and call their parties the Communist party since many Democratic Socialists believe in Marxism and Karl Marx call his book the Communist Manifesto or the Manifesto of the Communist Party ?

probably beccause social democrat are not really communists.

they basicly gave up the idea that the system will change, and gave up any hope that a revolution/drastic change might occur one day.

somer maoist and marxist leninist have party, probably dreaming that they could one day get into the system the lenin way, and running everything to the ground when they will have the control.

the thing is, political party alone wont do squat. a different form of pressure need to be applied on the governement. I personally believe that the only option left beside revolution is encouraging and organising all sort of non-governemental services run by communities and spread the word about our ideas.

the more those kind of things are organised, the more you hurt the verry influence and power a state have on its own citizen.

[Agnapostate]

Who mentioned social democrats? It's indeed the case that there are occasionally alliances between social democrats and "democratic socialists" (such as the Socialist International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International)) because reformist-minded socialists are of the opinion that such unions are temporary practical expedients and that they have shared generic leftist goals (particularly since the definition of "socialism" has been diluted to such a degree). To some extent, that's true, but it's also the case that legitimate socialists will have an interest in ultimately establishing public ownership and management of the means of production, which social democrats will not share.

[Robocommie]

I think it can be easy to get the two terms "social democrat" and "democratic socialist" mixed up. I know in the past I myself thought the two were interchangeable.

[Agnapostate]

Yeah, same here. It's an unfortunate side effect of the misconception that mixed economies are "combinations of capitalism and socialism" (a belief I used to actively share), with market forces representing the "capitalist" elements and state forces representing the "socialist" elements. This commits the twin fallacies of "markets = capitalism" and "government = socialism," and ignores the fact that socialism entails the public ownership and management of the means of production. Many state programs actually serve to sustain the private ownership of the means of production, which means that rightists will ironically be more closely allied with socialists than "leftist" capitalists, since their favored policies will destabilize capitalism.

[graffic]

As "Agnapostate" said social democrats recognise the marxian critique of capitalism but they believe in reform and education rather than radicalism and revolution. So they are more pragmatic than idealistic and fearful of radical change

[Agnapostate]

As "Agnapostate" said social democrats recognise the marxian critique of capitalism but they believe in reform and education rather than radicalism and revolution. So they are more pragmatic than idealistic and fearful of radical change

That's not what I said. I said that of democratic socialists; I maintain that social democrats are fundamentally interested in the preservation of capitalism, since they don't wish to eliminate the private ownership of the means of production.

[h9socialist]

Oh for crying out loud! This thread isn't adding one iota of insight into "democratic socialism" or "social democracy." This is an epidemic among members of this site -- particularly the unrestricted ones. The idea of posing such a question shows a level of unawareness and misunderstanding that explains why good socialist comrades get restricted!

First of all, "socialism" and "communism" are words -- and as words they can be misunderstood and mangled beyond recognition. Marx himself used the term "communist" mainly to distinguish himself from the utopians, such as Robert Owen, St. Simon and even Proudhon, whom he thought unrealistic.

The struggle on this website seems to proceed from a debate going back a century in Russia, that might commonly be thought of as bolshevism vs. menshevism. Lenin appropriated the term bolshevism because half of those "in the majority" walked out of a meeting Lenin chaired. But, in fact, the main schism amongst the socialists in Russia at the time was whether or not to pursue an electoral strategy in which the socialists were likely to be in the minority, or to seize power, and essentially impose socialism from a vanguard party. Interestingly enough, at that time the party of Lenin was called the "Russian Social Democratic Workers Party."

The truth is that both sides of this debate claim Marx, and cite passages that seem to shore up their interpretation. Democratic Socialism takes its queue from a passage where Marx cites universal suffrage in Great Britain as a more "socialist" accomplishment than all the socialists had hitherto accomplished.

The truth is that some many communists use the term "democratic socialism." CPUSA does this a lot. IN the US both "socialism" and "communism" have been demonized beyond recognition. However, democratic socialists tend to use words that are more palatable to the mainstream, and that's why they don't use "communism" on a regular basis. However, democratic socialists often refer to some of Marx's ideas in "Critique of the Gotha Programme" to define "communism" as the ultimate stage of socialism when all of capitalism's contradictions are gone, and society "inscribes on its banner 'From each according to ability. To each according to need.'"

[syndicat]

However, democratic socialists often refer to some of Marx's ideas in "Critique of the Gotha Programme" to define "communism" as the ultimate stage of socialism when all of capitalism's contradictions are gone, and society "inscribes on its banner 'From each according to ability. To each according to need.'"

That distinction is due to Lenin, tho. Marx spoke of the earlier and later phases of communism. Marxist-Leninists use this distinction to cover over the fact that the various "Communist" regimes weren't the lower phase of communism, since they are class societies with a bureaucratic exploiting class.


The struggle on this website seems to proceed from a debate going back a century in Russia, that might commonly be thought of as bolshevism vs. menshevism. Lenin appropriated the term bolshevism because half of those "in the majority" walked out of a meeting Lenin chaired. But, in fact, the main schism amongst the socialists in Russia at the time was whether or not to pursue an electoral strategy in which the socialists were likely to be in the minority, or to seize power, and essentially impose socialism from a vanguard party.

but your dichotomy leaves out libertarian socialists who are neither Leninists nor electoral politics oriented "democratic socialists."

I'm not sure I buy the idea there is a distinction between social democracy and "democratic socialism." Speaking as a former member of the two predecessor groups of DSA. Both groups tended to tout the European electoral socialist parties...whether called social-democratic, socialist, labor or Euro-communist.

Those European parties have tended in more recent times to abandon even a rhetorical commitment to socialism, and capitulate to the neoliberal "third way" ideology. But they often had been officially "socialist" in the past.

I think social democracy refers to a kind of strategy for change, a strategy that can be pursued by people who do subscribe to some ideological ideal of socialism. This is a strategy that bases itself on electoral political parties, gaining influence and control in the existing states, and routine bargaining with employers through bureaucratic trade unions and bureaucratic nonprofit agencies. This social democratic strategy can be pursued both by people who have no ambition of a socialist change and also by those who do have such an ambition. I think "social democracy" should refer to the strategy, not to whether one has some ideal of "socialism." or, to put it another way, it seems that "democratic socialism" is used by people who advocate the social democratic strategy but do still retain some ideological commitment to an ideal of "socialism", whatever that means.