What is Democratic Socialism?

[Nikolay]

This is probably a stupid question, but I could never get my head around what Democratic Socialism means.. So what does it mean? Is it similar to Social Democracy, or far from it?

Thank you in advance. :)

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

the view that socialism can be achieved by democratic means, i.e. through parliament, as opposed to revolutionary means.

[graymouser]

This is probably a stupid question, but I could never get my head around what Democratic Socialism means.. So what does it mean? Is it similar to Social Democracy, or far from it?
Well, "Democratic Socialism" is a term that has moved around quite a bit in history and context. Traditionally, it has been used as a synonym for social democracy, contrasting with "authoritarian socialism" or Leninism. However, like all good terms other ideas have floated around. A number of Trotskyist currents have used the term "democratic socialism" to mean a revolutionary democratic alternative to Stalinism, with mixed success. Also some people, particularly around the Socialist Party USA, have tried to define it as totally distinct from social democracy. I think those efforts have failed, but they have nonetheless set the terminology in some degree of flux.

I wouldn't use the term myself, because it carries too much explanatory baggage. But then what doesn't?

[Rafiq]

Sometimes it's a step up above social democracy, other times it's just a name Socialists call themselves, to avoid accusations of totalitarianism and stalinism...

[theblackmask]

For the most part "democratic socialism" implies the belief in working within the electoral system to achieve socialism, although outside of the established parties.

"Social democracy" usually refers to those who also cling to electoral politics, but choose to do so within bourgeois political parties.

At least that's how it is in the US...

[psgchisolm]

Democratic Socialism is a form of socialism that can really be described as a broad term. I think the DSA said it best through



From Democratic Socialists of the United States of America:

Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.



Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.



Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.



Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.



Democratic socialists always opposed the ruling party-states of those societies, just as we oppose the ruling classes of capitalist societies. The improvement of people’s lives requires real democracy without ethnic rivalries and/or new forms of authoritarianism.



In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control. The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment.



Public pressure can also have a critical role to play in the struggle to hold corporations accountable. Most of all, socialists look to unions make private business more accountable. Although no country has fully instituted democratic socialism, the socialist parties and labor movements of other countries have won many victories for their people. We can learn from the comprehensive welfare state maintained by the Swedes, from Canada’s national health care system, France’s nationwide childcare program, and Nicaragua’s literacy programs.



Lastly, we can learn from efforts initiated right here in the US, such as the community health centers created by the government in the 1960s. They provided high quality family care, with community involvement in decision-making.


First, we call ourselves socialists because we are proud of what we are. Second, no matter what we call ourselves, conservatives will use it against us. Anti-socialism has been repeatedly used to attack reforms that shift power to working class people and away from corporate capital. In 1993, national health insurance was attacked as “socialized medicine” and defeated. Liberals are routinely denounced as socialists in order to discredit reform. Until we face, and beat, the stigma attached to the “S word,” politics in America will continue to be stifled and our options limited. We also call ourselves socialists because we are proud of the traditions upon which we are based, of the heritage of the Socialist Party of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, and of other struggles for change that have made America more democratic and just.



Finally, we call ourselves socialists to remind everyone that we have a vision of a better world.

[Proukunin]

social democracy is Capitalism with a 'human face'. they believe reforming capitalism is the best way to get rid of class struggle.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Democratic Socialism is a form of socialism that can really be described as a broad term. I think the DSA said it best through

DSA are social-democrats these days, you know. This piece of rubbish you posted reeks of reformism and social-democracy.


We can learn from the comprehensive welfare state maintained by the Swedes, from Canada’s national health care system, France’s nationwide childcare program, and Nicaragua’s literacy programs.


:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[psgchisolm]

social democracy is Capitalism with a 'human face'. they believe reforming capitalism is the best way to get rid of class struggle.Thats Social Democracy. There's a difference between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy.


DSA are social-democrats these days, you know. This piece of rubbish you posted reeks of reformism and social-democracy. Of course this is coming from the founder of Democratic Socialism right? I wonder how many leftists join the CPUSA only to find out they are basically democrats. It's not as if there are any actual Democratic Socialists in the DSA :rolleyes: Just as it's not like there are any actual communists in the CPUSA. There's more than one definition for Dem. Soc so reformist and social-democratic to you is Nazi-bolshevic-anarchism to others(Glenn Beck). It's safe to say through the US has a fairly fucked up version of politics.

Edit: I see your tendency is "Authoritarian Socialist" so that makes sense as to why democracy to me is reformist to you.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Edit: I see your tendency is "Authoritarian Socialist" so that makes sense as to why democracy to me is reformist to you.

This has nothing to do with that. Reformism is the gradual change of a nations politics through elections, and it is contrasted with revolution and revolutionary politics, and is rejected by anarchists and Marxist-Leninist alike. If your idea of "democracy" involves bourgeois elections and gradual change, you are a reformist, and the policies espoused by the DSA - which revolve heavily around talking about the welfare state and "regulating private corporations", "market mechanisms", then you are a social democrat.

[psgchisolm]

This has nothing to do with that. Reformism is the gradual change of a nations politics through elections, and it is contrasted with revolution and revolutionary politics, and is rejected by anarchists and Marxist-Leninist alike. If your idea of "democracy" involves bourgeois elections and gradual change, you are a reformist, and the policies espoused by the DSA - which revolve heavily around talking about the welfare state and "regulating private corporations", "market mechanisms", then you are a social democrat.I think you skimmed over the part where I said it's possible to be a revolutionary democratic socialist. Never mind that through. I would prefer a revolution to reformism. My idea of democracy is power to the workers. The only way to achieve that is with a socialist revolution. Decisions will still need to be made after a revolution through. That's where the democratic part comes in. I would prefer a socialist economy over a capitalist one anytime.

[The Idler]

This has nothing to do with that. Reformism is the gradual change of a nations politics through elections, and it is contrasted with revolution and revolutionary politics, and is rejected by anarchists and Marxist-Leninist alike. If your idea of "democracy" involves bourgeois elections and gradual change, you are a reformist, and the policies espoused by the DSA - which revolve heavily around talking about the welfare state and "regulating private corporations", "market mechanisms", then you are a social democrat.
The distinction between reformism and revolutionary is a common misconception. The SPGB are revolutionary because they would get rid of capital in one go (albeit through parliamentary elections they would get to this position), and any attempt to manage capitalism even if you get there through a violent coup is reformist.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I think you skimmed over the part where I said it's possible to be a revolutionary democratic socialist. Never mind that through. I would prefer a revolution to reformism. My idea of democracy is power to the workers. The only way to achieve that is with a socialist revolution. Decisions will still need to be made after a revolution through. That's where the democratic part comes in. I would prefer a socialist economy over a capitalist one anytime.

Democratic socialist is a nonsense term made up by various groups seeking to distance themselves from "real existing socialism" and whatever you want to interpret that as.

Let's look over what your dear DSA considers "democratic socialism", then.

There seems to be a lot of focus on "consumers", which I'd say is a capitalist notion. Apart from this;


Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.They're against planning and heralds market mechanism as the great solution to production allocation, although this is in no way social-democratic as such, it does suggest they have accepted that common idea often sprouted by various liberals that somehow only market mechanisms can adequately respond to "consumer demand".


In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control. Reformism.


The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment.Typical liberal hogwash.


Although no country has fully instituted democratic socialism, the socialist parties and labor movements of other countries have won many victories for their people. We can learn from the comprehensive welfare state maintained by the Swedes, from Canada’s national health care system, France’s nationwide childcare program, and Nicaragua’s literacy programs.What socialist parties achieved that? The rise of social-democracy, particularly in Northern Europe, was permitted because it would stifle worker militancy and provide a safe operating environment for capitalism. All of those projects have been pioneered by social-democrats, and today (since about 1970-1975), they are being undone, because they are no longer necessary.

Even using the definition of reformism as being anything that seeks to manage capitalism rather than directly abolish it, the DSA are nothing but reformist social-democrats, sprinkled with some empty talk about cooperatives and workers democracy.

[psgchisolm]

Democratic socialist is a nonsense term made up by various groups seeking to distance themselves from "real existing socialism" and whatever you want to interpret that as.


There seems to be a lot of focus on "consumers", which I'd say is a capitalist notion. Apart from this;


They're against planning and heralds market mechanism as the great solution to production allocation, although this is in no way social-democratic as such, it does suggest they have accepted that common idea often sprouted by various liberals that somehow only market mechanisms can adequately respond to "consumer demand". There are somethings with the DSA I don't agree with. This is one of them.


Reformism.I think I skipped over that sentence. I read it last night so I just copy pasted. Agreed through. Complete reformism.


Typical liberal hogwash.


What socialist parties achieved that? The rise of social-democracy, particularly in Northern Europe, was permitted because it would stifle worker militancy and provide a safe operating environment for capitalism. All of those projects have been pioneered by social-democrats, and today (since about 1970-1975), they are being undone, because they are no longer necessary.

Even using the definition of reformism as being anything that seeks to manage capitalism rather than directly abolish it, the DSA are nothing but reformist social-democrats, sprinkled with some empty talk about cooperatives and workers democracy.

Wait I cherry-picked the hell out of the original post. I think I mostly read the anti-authoritarian part and skimmed over the rest. Let me edit it to what I think Dem. Soc. is. I think I just failed hard lol.

[psgchisolm]

I was going to try and edit where I got my basis from, but then I saw a bunch of horse shit and hard to start from scratch. I do completely agree with this through.

Democratic socialists always opposed the ruling party-states of those societies, just as we oppose the ruling classes of capitalist societies. The improvement of people’s lives requires real democracy without ethnic rivalries and/or new forms of authoritarianism.

Something like Catalonian Spain in terms of the way the country should be run.

[Agnapostate]

"Democratic socialism" is a redundant term, first and foremost, since socialism entails workers' and citizens' democracy. As others have stated, it mainly describes a strategic movement within socialism that involves reformism and participation in campaigns and elections, particularly when there is a stated set of aims that are largely social democratic in nature (i.e. raising the minimum wage, strengthening unions and collective bargaining rights, investing in welfare statism, etc.). In politically stable first-world capitalist countries, however, most parties and organizations are reformist as a matter of practicality, even if they describe themselves as "revolutionary," especially those that run candidates in elections and campaign for or against referendums.

I wrote about a dispute I had with some members of my local PSL branch a while back. My friend invited me to a post-event gathering at his house, and the PSL leader told me that I wasn't invited because I wasn't a party member or Leninist. I mentioned this to some party members and prospects that were there; some sympathized with me, but one said that he agreed with the leader because they couldn't compromise their status as professional revolutionaries. I found it very hard not to laugh.

[Jose Gracchus]

I wrote about a dispute I had with some members of my local PSL branch a while back. My friend invited me to a post-event gathering at his house, and the PSL leader told me that I wasn't invited because I wasn't a party member or Leninist. I mentioned this to some party members and prospects that were there; some sympathized with me, but one said that he agreed with the leader because they couldn't compromise their status as professional revolutionaries. I found it very hard not to laugh.

:lol: That's rich.

[Sosa]

I used to call myself a Dem Soc before I knew any better. I always thought of Social Dem as still maintaining capitalism but using profits for public welfare. I used the label democratic socialist because I thought socialism could be achieved through the ballot and as a way of not being off-putting to people who didn't know what true socialism is. I would never call myself that these days

[#FF0000]

Something like Catalonian Spain in terms of the way the country should be run.

I'm not gonna disagree with you but I think it's a little unrealistic to expect this if you want workers to act as a voting bloc instead of a revolutionary class.

[#FF0000]

I called myself a democratic socialist when I first started reading into socialism.

What I thought of as "democratic socialism" turned out to be a thing already, called council communism.