Social Democracy vs Democratic Socialism

[JPSartre12]

Just throwing a random thought out there, but am I the only one who holds a serious beef with social democracy / social democrats?

I'd like to see the so-called 'socialist' and progressive parties around the world do some legitimate economic reform - preferably quick, but I'd deal with gradualism - that gets rid of the capitalist mode of production. I'd rather there be more real democratic socialists than this sort of welfare-capitalism-loving social democracy.

Thoughts?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Both social democracy and reformist democratic socialism are pretty unimpressive, in my opinion. But yeah, I have a beef with them as everyone else here does as well.

[JPSartre12]

Both social democracy and reformist democratic socialism are pretty unimpressive, in my opinion. But yeah, I have a beef with them as everyone else here does as well.

But wouldn't reformism be better than nothing? At least it gets the ball rolling .... Not an end in itself sure, but it seems like a decent means to get things started.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

I see it as a lesser of two evils, instead of something that gets the ball rolling.

Mind you, when I first joined this site, I considered myself a democratic socialist, but that's in the past. Revolution is the answer, comrade.
Political democracy is void without economic democracy.

[cynicles]

I don't have a problem with reform as a tactic but I choose to remain highly sceptical and suspicious of social democrats and democratic socialists given their history of back stabbing marxists and anarchists. They always end up as capitalisms most ardent defenders when a real revolution get's started. I'd rather not give an organization political clout so it can stab me in the back later when shit hit's the fan.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Liberals and Social Democrats seem tantamount in my eyes. That's just me though. The direction both are moving towards the concept of the welfare state.

[Ocean Seal]

To-may-to, to-mah-to

[JPSartre12]

I see it as a lesser of two evils, instead of something that gets the ball rolling.

Mind you, when I first joined this site, I considered myself a democratic socialist, but that's in the past. Revolution is the answer, comrade.
Political democracy is void without economic democracy.

What made you change your mind and no longer consider yourself a democratic socialist?

[Eagle_Syr]

The big problem is that social democrats confuse the public by passing off their brand of reform capitalism as socialism.

Liberals and social democrats are ultimately agents of the bourgeoisie, so I don't support them

[MustCrushCapitalism]

'Ooh, look at me, I can switch the words around.'

[Permanent Revolutionary]

What made you change your mind and no longer consider yourself a democratic socialist?

The more I read about Marx and Lenin, the history of the Russian Revolution and looking at the world today, I realized that "democratic socialism" doesn't make sense.
The bourgeoisie can easily counteract a change to socialism, by the methods which DSs advocate. That is why I migrated to revolutionary socialism.

[JPSartre12]

I'm new and still learning, so excuse my naivety butttt the Socialist Party USA (which I'm also part of) has a very interesting article on their site regarding "revolutionary democratic socialism" ... I was under the impression that DS is always gradualist and reformist?

Am I wrong? Is revolutionary DS just favoring bolder, quicker reform, or is it actually for a revolution?

If you could clear that up, that'd be great :) I'm not opposed to revolution, but from what I've read, heard, learned, etc I get the feeling that without having the revolution occur in the perfect historical moment, then it's not going to succeed (Leninism, jumping from feudalism to a post-capitalist bureaucracy, and so on), so I feel like a gradual capitalism-to-socialism reform is much more likely to be successful.

But then again the proletariat will grow complacent with the reforms that take place and never desire a whole system change so ... I guess I just countered my own argument ;)

[eric922]

I'm new and still learning, so excuse my naivety butttt the Socialist Party USA (which I'm also part of) has a very interesting article on their site regarding "revolutionary democratic socialism" ... I was under the impression that DS is always gradualist and reformist?

Am I wrong? Is revolutionary DS just favoring bolder, quicker reform, or is it actually for a revolution?

If you could clear that up, that'd be great :) I'm not opposed to revolution, but from what I've read, heard, learned, etc I get the feeling that without having the revolution occur in the perfect historical moment, then it's not going to succeed (Leninism, jumping from feudalism to a post-capitalist bureaucracy, and so on), so I feel like a gradual capitalism-to-socialism reform is much more likely to be successful.

But then again the proletariat will grow complacent with the reforms that take place and never desire a whole system change so ... I guess I just countered my own argument ;)
Is this the article you are taking about, "Social Democracy vs. Revolutionary Democratic Socialism"? If so, I just finished reading it, their critique of social-democracy seems fairly accurate. They certainly aren't apologizing for social-democracy or advocating it, which is a criticism I've heard thrown at SPUSA. Thanks for bringing it up. Here is the link if anyone wants to read it: http://www.socialistparty-usa.org/sdvrds.html

[JPSartre12]

Yes, that's the article :laugh:

But is there a difference between "democratic socialism" and "revolutionary democratic socialism"?

I'm getting the vibe that the latter is just a more aggressive and bold version than the former.

Or maybe the "revolutionary" prefix just implies adherence to democracy after the revolution ... Random rambling :tt2:

[eric922]

Yes, that's the article :laugh:

But is there a difference between "democratic socialism" and "revolutionary democratic socialism"?

I'm getting the vibe that the latter is just a more aggressive and bold version than the former.

Or maybe the "revolutionary" prefix just implies adherence to democracy after the revolution ... Random rambling :tt2:

In my opinion, there is a difference. Social-Democracy seeks to manage and reform capitalism. Democratic Socialism seeks to replace it all together. Even Marx admitted that it might be possible for the workers to achieve their goals peacefully, in some countries.


Also you might be interested in this article by Einstein where he discusses Democratic Socialism, "Why Socialism?" It's one of my favorites, but I am a big admirer of Einstein. Here is the link: http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism

As to the SPUSA, from what I've read of their platform they seem pretty solid, though a bit vague, I'd like some more specifics.

[NGNM85]

The more I read about Marx and Lenin, the history of the Russian Revolution and looking at the world today, I realized that "democratic socialism" doesn't make sense.

Marx specifically said that in countries such as the United States, England, Holland, etc., that the working class could acheive it's aims entirely through non-violent means.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/08.htm


The bourgeoisie can easily counteract a change to socialism, by the methods which DSs advocate.

Progress isn't always a straight upward trajectory. (See: The Third Reich.) Gains, once acheived, can be lost, especially if one does not bother to defend them. While it is true that the same legislative processes which can be used to empower the working class, can also be used to disempower the working class. However; due to the structure of most Western governments this necessitates the complicity of a certain percentage of the working class, this is why the elites expend so much energy indoctrinating people, reinforcing illusions, driving wedges between different segments of the working class, etc. If a significantly large percentage of the working class were to become aware of their class interests, and to pursue those interests, collectively, in an organized way, this should no longer be possible.


That is why I migrated to revolutionary socialism.

I think the word; 'revolution' has been done a grave disservice by much of the Radical Left. The word has been sullied, and degraded, reduced to something like; 'a violent coup by a Radical elite.' I think there's quite a bit more to it than that. Revolutions come in a myriad of shapes, and forms, and colors, and sizes, far beyond this dull, lifeless, gray, and blood-red, Leninist perversion.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

I think the word; 'revolution' has been done a grave disservice by much of the Radical Left. The word has been sullied, and degraded, reduced to something like; 'a violent coup by a Radical elite.' I think there's quite a bit more to it than that. Revolutions come in a myriad of shapes, and forms, and colors, and sizes, far beyond this dull, lifeless, gray, and blood-red, Leninist perversion.

Whoa! Back up a bit. I'm not arguing for a violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie governments, I consider myself quite the pacifist. What I mean by "revolution" I mean a mass action by the working people, where they take to the streets and make their voices heard. Like something we saw in Egypt.
However! Sometimes, a violent revolution is necessary. This all depends on how much the ruling elite is willing to do, to maintain its power grip, and what actions it it is willing to take to do so.

[NGNM85]

Whoa! Back up a bit. I'm not arguing for a violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie governments, I consider myself quite the pacifist. What I mean by "revolution" I mean a mass action by the working people, where they take to the streets and make their voices heard. Like something we saw in Egypt.
However! Sometimes, a violent revolution is necessary. This all depends on how much the ruling elite is willing to do, to maintain its power grip, and what actions it it is willing to take to do so.

Oh, I wasn't necessarily referring to you, specifically, just making a more general comment about the kind discourse that takes place on the forum.

I am not a pacifist, but I apply the Hippocratic principle; Violence should always be a last resort, it should be proportionate, and it should be fairly reasonable to assume that the consequences will not be dramatically worse than whatever prompted it. Anyone who suggests otherwise is an idiot, or a psychopath. (Or; perhaps, both, as the two are not mutually exclusive.)

[Thirsty Crow]

Marx specifically said that in countries such as the United States, England, Holland, etc., that the working class could acheive it's aims entirely through non-violent means.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/08.htm

That can't be taken as a basis of the viability of democratic socialism since the viewpoint preceeded the outbreak of the first international revolutionary wave and, of course, couldn't have incorporated its historical lessons, much like the views put forward in the Communist Manifesto were adapted, and to an extent transformed, by the experience and lessons of the Paris Commune, especially with regard to the necessity of eliminating the bourgeois state apparatus.

In other words, it is enough to think about the historical example of the German revolution, not to mention the long and bloody history of democratic repression and co-optation (for that, see McCarthyism, Chile under Allende, as examples) and the inherent naivete and flaws of the so called democratic socialism will be exposed.

[Zukunftsmusik]

as far as I can see, at least as the situation is here in Norway/Europe, democratic socialists are in no way revolutionary. They are merely social democrats with a slightly more "human face". The democratic socialists in Norway sit in government with the social democratic party, and they do absolutely nothing to bring the working class to power (if anyone would even think so). They have some reforms that are good for the working class, however, they still wag their tale to every word spoken by the EU (which means bad news for the workers, especially the most oppressed, immigrants, both "legal" and "illegal", people without proper education etc). They offer nothing to the working class except perhaps a slightly better situation than if the conservatives, or god forbid the "progressive" party (that are in no way progressive) came to power.

Summa sumarum: It's a dead end, as I see it. Even though such a party is revolutionary on paper (as the Norwegian democratic socialists no longer are), it's better to judge them from their action, I think. Do they only engage in electoral politics, or do they try to form a broader movement? If they are elected, what reforms do they propose, and are these reforms actually valuable to the working class in any meaningful way?

[NGNM85]

That can't be taken as a basis of the viability of democratic socialism since the viewpoint preceeded the outbreak of the first international revolutionary wave and, of course, couldn't have incorporated its historical lessons, much like the views put forward in the Communist Manifesto were adapted, and to an extent transformed, by the experience and lessons of the Paris Commune, especially with regard to the necessity of eliminating the bourgeois state apparatus.

In other words, it is enough to think about the historical example of the German revolution, not to mention the long and bloody history of democratic repression and co-optation (for that, see McCarthyism, Chile under Allende, as examples) and the inherent naivete and flaws of the so called democratic socialism will be exposed.

I didn't say anything about 'the viability of Democratic Socialism.' I meant exactly what I said; that it was Marx's position (The later Marx, mind.) that in the United States, England, and, opossibly, several other countries, that the working class could acheive it's ends without needing to resort to political violence. He did say that. End of thought.

Personally; I don't take either position. I'm much more (small 'c') conservative in my predictions. It's simply impossible to say. What I will say is, again; that political violence should be a last resort, anyone who suggests otherwise is an idiot, a psychopath, or some combination, thereof.

[Grenzer]

Personally I hate democratic socialism. Every single time I've seen it, it's always been in the context of liberalism. Every damn time.

[Thirsty Crow]

I didn't say anything about 'the viability of Democratic Socialism.' I meant exactly what I said; that it was Marx's position (The later Marx, mind.) that in the United States, England, and, opossibly, several other countries, that the working class could acheive it's ends without needing to resort to political violence. He did say that. End of thought.
Yes, it's unquestionable that he did, but I assumed you referred to this statement with a reason, something along the lines of "even Marx stated that...".
Though, even if it were to be shown that this forms the basis of Marx's politics (at a given age and period), I don't think the position can hold today.


Personally; I don't take either position. I'm much more (small 'c') conservative in my predictions. It's simply impossible to say. What I will say is, again; that political violence should be a last resort, anyone who suggests otherwise is an idiot, a psychopath, or some combination, thereof.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely do not want to advance a line of argument similar to any kinf of violence fetishism. It is just that, with all the wealth of historical evidence, I don't think there is a reason not to assume that the ruling class will use any means at its disposal to prevent its overthrow, and that includes the vast repressive apparatus. Violence should be the last resort, but all historical experience indicates that it will be necessary in one form or another.

[A Marxist Historian]

Just throwing a random thought out there, but am I the only one who holds a serious beef with social democracy / social democrats?

I'd like to see the so-called 'socialist' and progressive parties around the world do some legitimate economic reform - preferably quick, but I'd deal with gradualism - that gets rid of the capitalist mode of production. I'd rather there be more real democratic socialists than this sort of welfare-capitalism-loving social democracy.

Thoughts?

"Democratic socialism" is the same thing as Social Democracy, as the rules of grammar illustrate. It's the preferred euphemism, given that Social Democracy is in such bad odor these days, and not only on the left.

This is particularly obvious with the "Democratic Socialists of America," who are not only Social Democrats, but pretty right wing Social Democrats.

I've heard that several Democrats in Congress are DSA members!

In America, "democratic socialism" usually boils down to socialists who support Obama and the Democratic Party.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Marx specifically said that in countries such as the United States, England, Holland, etc., that the working class could acheive it's aims entirely through non-violent means.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/08.htm



Marx made that speculation in the 1870s, when England didn't really have a standing army on its soil, bobbies didn't carry guns, and the US army was mostly in the South defending Reconstruction vs. the KKK, and was pretty small.

He was probably wrong even then, but that was then and this is now. Anyone who thinks you could have a peaceful revolution in England or America now needs to have their head examined.


Progress isn't always a straight upward trajectory. (See: The Third Reich.) Gains, once acheived, can be lost, especially if one does not bother to defend them. While it is true that the same legislative processes which can be used to empower the working class, can also be used to disempower the working class. However; due to the structure of most Western governments this necessitates the complicity of a certain percentage of the working class, this is why the elites expend so much energy indoctrinating people, reinforcing illusions, driving wedges between different segments of the working class, etc. If a significantly large percentage of the working class were to become aware of their class interests, and to pursue those interests, collectively, in an organized way, this should no longer be possible.

The only reason we even have democracy is exactly because the working class is sufficiently divided, demoralized and propagandized that most people in the USA in particular actually think capitalism is a good thing.

As soon as that changes, the democracy will go into the toilet. Even now, Bush and now Obama have been ripping up all traditional democratic liberties with abandon, with very little protest as the victims are Muslims and troublemakers.



I think the word; 'revolution' has been done a grave disservice by much of the Radical Left. The word has been sullied, and degraded, reduced to something like; 'a violent coup by a Radical elite.' I think there's quite a bit more to it than that. Revolutions come in a myriad of shapes, and forms, and colors, and sizes, far beyond this dull, lifeless, gray, and blood-red, Leninist perversion.

No intelligent historian any more believes the old myth that the Bolshevik Revolution was just "a violent coup by a Radical elite." It's sad to hear that nonsense resurrected by alleged radicals here.

-M.H.-

[NGNM85]

Yes, it's unquestionable that he did, but I assumed you referred to this statement with a reason, something along the lines of "even Marx stated that...".

No, that was pretty much it.


Though, even if it were to be shown that this forms the basis of Marx's politics (at a given age and period), I don't think the position can hold today.

I don't take either position. I'm, admittedly, skeptical, probably less skeptical than yourself, but still unconvinced. There's only one way to know for sure.



Don't get me wrong, I definitely do not want to advance a line of argument similar to any kinf of violence fetishism.

There's a lot of that going around...


It is just that, with all the wealth of historical evidence, I don't think there is a reason not to assume that the ruling class will use any means at its disposal to prevent its overthrow, and that includes the vast repressive apparatus. Violence should be the last resort, but all historical experience indicates that it will be necessary in one form or another.

See above.

[NGNM85]

No intelligent historian any more believes the old myth that the Bolshevik Revolution was just "a violent coup by a Radical elite." It's sad to hear that nonsense resurrected by alleged radicals here.

-M.H.-

I didn't say anything about the Russian revolution.

[JPSartre12]

"Democratic socialism" is the same thing as Social Democracy, as the rules of grammar illustrate. It's the preferred euphemism, given that Social Democracy is in such bad odor these days, and not only on the left.

This is particularly obvious with the "Democratic Socialists of America," who are not only Social Democrats, but pretty right wing Social Democrats.

I've heard that several Democrats in Congress are DSA members!

In America, "democratic socialism" usually boils down to socialists who support Obama and the Democratic Party.

How can you say that democratic socialism doesn't differ from social democracy when the former explicitly advocates the abolition of the capitalist mode of production for a socialist one, while the latter has no desire of doing so?

And the DSA is by no means social democratic, let alone right-wing social democrats. We've made vocal our intentions to do away with private property and the capitalist mode of production. It advocates the complete and utter (yet gradual) abolition of capitalism :) I know that gradualism won't end up with socialism in the near or foreseeable future, but that's why I'm receptive and supportive of a revolution too!

There are a healthy number of DSAers who don't support the Democratic Party; in fact, it's probably a pretty significant majority. Those that are in the DSA and support/run as Democrats are only doing so for the sake of easy ballot access.

I'd rather have democratic socialists in office (with their registration being with the Democratic Party) than have no socialists at all. At least its a step in the right direction though :bored:

And the DSA is not endorsing Obama in the 2012 elections because we're rather disappointed with his actions in office. A decent number are supporting Stewart Alexander, Jill Stein, or Rocky Anderson instead ... all of which I don't think are Left enough, for the record.

[human strike]

I can't tell the difference.

[eric922]

How can you say that democratic socialism doesn't differ from social democracy when the former explicitly advocates the abolition of the capitalist mode of production for a socialist one, while the latter has no desire of doing so?

And the DSA is by no means social democratic, let alone right-wing social democrats. We've made vocal our intentions to do away with private property and the capitalist mode of production. It advocates the complete and utter (yet gradual) abolition of capitalism :) I know that gradualism won't end up with socialism in the near or foreseeable future, but that's why I'm receptive and supportive of a revolution too!

There are a healthy number of DSAers who don't support the Democratic Party; in fact, it's probably a pretty significant majority. Those that are in the DSA and support/run as Democrats are only doing so for the sake of easy ballot access.

I'd rather have democratic socialists in office (with their registration being with the Democratic Party) than have no socialists at all. At least its a step in the right direction though :bored:

And the DSA is not endorsing Obama in the 2012 elections because we're rather disappointed with his actions in office. A decent number are supporting Stewart Alexander, Jill Stein, or Rocky Anderson instead ... all of which I don't think are Left enough, for the record.
Thanks for clearing that up. I've heard a lot of people here say that the DSA are just left-Democrats, but from what I've read they are socialists, even if they advocate achieving it gradually. I'll admit I sympthaize with them because of my aversion to violence and the simple fact that revolutions have a tendency to be hijacked.

[SirBrendan]

This topic has already been posted a short while back, so my main argument is in there. I will throw in a quick two cents to repeat the core.

You need starvation or an external force for revolution without democracy. It happened in the Russian Revolution. It happened in the French revolution. It has happened in every revolution I can think of in which the lower class rose up in a class action. There is a global depression, as globalist capitalism will always guarentee to happen, but it has not hit the levels necessary for revolutionary action (Greece is getting close, but they're still to isolated).

So the only other option is to use education and democracy as a tool to:
a) progress social awareness of social injusice and natural flaws of capitalism
b)mitigate the damage of capitalism as best we can

I get that most of you live in America where social democracy has been effectively dead for 70 years but the rest of the West still enjoys the benifits of their labours. Without social democracy, even if I lived in America, I would currently not be in school and be homeless. So please, be more aware of their accomplisments before you all snobby that you're a 'true revolutionary'

The hard truth: socialism is not accessible in Canada and America right now. It is a dying ideaology. You aren't going to have a revolution with 5 000 kids in Che Guevera t-shirts. You can however take political actions through all the provided venues to alter our path. Because in the end, just like it was democratic values that ended despotism and feudalism, it will also be democratic values and the will of the people that abolish capitalism and transcend us into socialism. I choose to, proudly, push towards reform and a gradual evolution.