Communism and Democratic Socialism?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Hello.Once more I have a question.....

What's the difference between communists and democratic socialists (term was mentioned in the communist manifesto)? I'm having trouble finding information.

Help on their beliefs would be very much welcomed.Please leave whatever info you believe would help.

P.S:Thanks for all the help you guys have been.Without your answers I would have been digging through hours and hours of information in vein.

[StoneFrog]

Reactionary horseshit.
forgive me for being a little blunt :rolleyes:

Basically, they wish for class collaboration with the bourgeoisie. They say to achieve socialism you have to go through parliamentary means and not a revolutionary means. So essentially its a platform to distract the angry proletarians that are displeased with capitalism. All Democratic socialists end up being corrupt and turn unions into agents of capitalism, just exploiting the workers for their membership fees.

[durhamleft]

Democratic Socialism is the belief that Socialism can be achieved by "taming" capitalism via govt. intervention and by democratic means. Many people on here will be scathing of it, and with some justification, however it cannot be ignored as a tool whereby which we could build mass support in my opinion; the workers would not take seriously the idea of a revolution currently, so one would have to build public support first, and then strike the state with general strikes and revolution.

[punisa]

Democratic Socialism is the belief that Socialism can be achieved by "taming" capitalism via govt. intervention and by democratic means. Many people on here will be scathing of it, and with some justification

Yes, this would be great IF democratic socialism would work as presented, unfortunately it does not.
Soc-dem parties that seize power (or a large chunk in the parliament) have a cute fetish for corruption, this further breaks the illusion of the peaceful "i-vote-for-socialism" idea.
Furthermore, they actually distance themselves from the very idea that workers could (at least partially) own the means of production.

They trim the whole leftist ideology to such an extent that all there is left is some wimpy reforms which do more harm then good.
Sure, the opportunist self-centered parts of the W.class love it.

Example: they will push for a rigid regulation that will allow all goverment employees to keep their cushy jobs.
Result: country still operates in a hardcore capitalism mode, and the "security" that gov.employees just received will become yet another huge weight upon the backs of the employees in the private sector.


however it cannot be ignored as a tool whereby which we could build mass support in my opinion; the workers would not take seriously the idea of a revolution currently, so one would have to build public support first, and then strike the state with general strikes and revolution.

As I mentioned before - IF the soc.dem would function along the lines Wikipedia describes it should.
Only when workers realize that soc.dem won't do anything for them - a revolution may occur.

Soc.dem is a capitalist exhaust pipe for letting the steam out.
Let's be a little bit creative and imagine that there is some sort of revolutionary meter ranging from 1 to 10 for the population of a specific country.
It climbs up to 6,4 (let's consider 8,0 is a full blown revolution), then soc.dems get elected and it quickly falls back down to 3,0 ("healthy" capitalist exploitation mode)

homework for everyone: research who donates money for the campaign to your soc.dem party (or take a wild guess)

[durhamleft]

Yes, this would be great IF democratic socialism would work as presented, unfortunately it does not.
Soc-dem parties that seize power (or a large chunk in the parliament) have a cute fetish for corruption, this further breaks the illusion of the peaceful "i-vote-for-socialism" idea.
Furthermore, they actually distance themselves from the very idea that workers could (at least partially) own the means of production.

They trim the whole leftist ideology to such an extent that all there is left is some wimpy reforms which do more harm then good.
Sure, the opportunist self-centered parts of the W.class love it.

Example: they will push for a rigid regulation that will allow all goverment employees to keep their cushy jobs.
Result: country still operates in a hardcore capitalism mode, and the "security" that gov.employees just received will become yet another huge weight upon the backs of the employees in the private sector.



As I mentioned before - IF the soc.dem would function along the lines Wikipedia describes it should.
Only when workers realize that soc.dem won't do anything for them - a revolution may occur.

Soc.dem is a capitalist exhaust pipe for letting the steam out.
Let's be a little bit creative and imagine that there is some sort of revolutionary meter ranging from 1 to 10 for the population of a specific country.
It climbs up to 6,4 (let's consider 8,0 is a full blown revolution), then soc.dems get elected and it quickly falls back down to 3,0 ("healthy" capitalist exploitation mode)

homework for everyone: research who donates money for the campaign to your soc.dem party (or take a wild guess)


Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with Socialist Democracy type beliefs, but I think that to simply dismiss them as capitalist bollocks is wrong, as they are likely to present us an opportunity to gain sympathisers I'd have thought.

[chegitz guevara]

democratic socialism ≠ social democracy

It's an undefined term, with some revolutionary socialists claiming it and a lot of social democrats claiming it.

[Uppercut]

Communists, or at least Leninists, advocate democratic centralism. Dem Socs usually do not, although they may gather inspiration from the Bolshevik Revolution in that it was an attempt to provide a better future for working people. However, it would difficult to form a united bloc with them, as some would rather have the party and organization operate in accordance to democratic centralism, while others will not. Hence, you have a split.

[The Red Next Door]

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with Socialist Democracy type beliefs, but I think that to simply dismiss them as capitalist bollocks is wrong, as they are likely to present us an opportunity to gain sympathisers I'd have thought.


I think Allende Would be the Only democratic socialist who was revolutionary.

[Red Commissar]

Some comrades who genuinely believe in "democratic socialism", and not simply a form of modern social-democratic practices, are not our enemies. In most cases, as it was with one of my friends, most of them describe themselves as "democratic socialist" because of their misconceptions of Marxism, Anarchism, and other variants of socialist thought as being violent, brutal, or some point of disillusionment with it. However I think these people can be worked with and brought over to our side. Most of them tend to hold liberal misconceptions of our views because of the "radical" sources they subscribe too.

The ones we should be skeptical of are the politicians who describe themselves as such, as there is a significant chance they are careerists who couldn't make the cut in the main parties.