Democratic Socialist...?

[CECE]

I'd call this my first real attempt at becoming involved in an online community. As my political views are greatly different than that of anyone I know I decided to find a place were I could discuss and develop them... I hope I came to the right place. :P

I'd identify as a democratic socialist... but I do know this is "RevLeft" so... am I going to be ostracized?? Or will I be forcefully converted into a marxist-leninist before I can participate? Okay... that was a little tongue in cheek... but I am half serious.

Anyways, I'd like to interact with more like minded people and learn some things as I've never really had any interaction with the left besides bed time stories with Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Rousseau and the like...

To start, what's your take on democratic socialism?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'd call this my first real attempt at becoming involved in an online community. As my political views are greatly different than that of anyone I know I decided to find a place were I could discuss and develop them... I hope I came to the right place. :PHello and welcome.


I'd identify as a democratic socialist... but I do know this is "RevLeft" so... am I going to be ostracized??Well because of the "revolutionary" requirement, if you think that working class liberation must be accomplished through elections and slow reforms over time, then you may be restricted from posting on the Revolutionary sections of the board. Hopefully not ostracized and if people treat other that way for no cause then it's pretty wrong-headed IMO. There are pleanty of people online with racist and sexist views who SHOULD be ostracized... someone who wants to reform the system, well they should be argued and debated in my view:grin:.
Or will I be forcefully converted into a marxist-leninist before I can participate? Okay... that was a little tongue in cheek... but I am half serious.Gee I hope not.



To start, what's your take on democratic socialism?As far as electoral "democratic socialism"? Well I think there are some inherent problems with this view that have manifested historically a few times, but in essence, it tends to lead to accomodation (reform-only) with the capitalist system rather than working class self-liberation. I would call it a form of "socialism from above" because it puts party officials, elected party members in parlements, people who write laws as the "protagonists" of working class social change. I think the goal of revolutionaries should be to help workers organize themselves to take their own actions and take over their own workplaces and communities "from below". I think history shows that no ruling order has ever given power without a serious fight and so even if reform efforts (by the way, I do support reforms as a means to workers building up their own power and organization - just not an end in of themselves) or electoral majorities begin to threaten the capitalist's power, they will resort to direct repression and even fascism to smash democratic movements of workers (or the population in general for that matter).

[CECE]

Hello and welcome.
As far as electoral "democratic socialism"? Well I think there are some inherent problems with this view that have manifested historically a few times, but in essence, it tends to lead to accomodation (reform-only) with the capitalist system rather than working class self-liberation. I would call it a form of "socialism from above" because it puts party officials, elected party members in parlements, people who write laws as the "protagonists" of working class social change. I think the goal of revolutionaries should be to help workers organize themselves to take their own actions and take over their own workplaces and communities "from below". I think history shows that no ruling order has ever given power without a serious fight and so even if reform efforts (by the way, I do support reforms as a means to workers building up their own power and organization - just not an end in of themselves) or electoral majorities begin to threaten the capitalist's power, they will resort to direct repression and even fascism to smash democratic movements of workers (or the population in general for that matter).

You make a good point, one that I've often thought about. But I can't help but to think of the vanguard party in the same way, as merely acting as "protagonists" of the working class. I've always felt that if a vanguard party is needed to coordinate the social revolution then maybe the social revolution is premature. Because as far as I've seen the whole vanguard party seizing control thing doesn't really turn out to be a dictatorship of the proletariat but more like just an oppressive, authoritative dictatorship of one or a few.

I feel like if true class consciousness of the working class can be achieved then naturally they will dominate the electorate and there you have "socialism from below". Obviously the key being to organize and unify the working class which I believe would require a leadership of sorts.

But maybe I'm just being naive... My understanding is limited but these are my thoughts.

[TheEmancipator]

To Have a democratic socialist society these days would require some kind of revolution anyway, since the bourgeoisie would probably block any kind of attempt from the proletariat to take control via democratic means.

If you mean a post-revolutionary democratic socialist society then I think most are in agreement with you.

However, I wish good luck in trying to convince the blood thirsty MLs and Trots that you aren't a social democrat and reformist that needs to be purged or must spill bourgeois blood to prove his worth...

[Jimmie Higgins]

If you mean a post-revolutionary democratic socialist society then I think most are in agreement with you.Yeah I don't think that you can have socialism without some form of proletarian democratic decsion-making, but I consider that different than "Democratic Socialism" which tends to mean socialism through wining elections inside the capitalist state and transforming society that way.

[CECE]

To Have a democratic socialist society these days would require some kind of revolution anyway, since the bourgeoisie would probably block any kind of attempt from the proletariat to take control via democratic means.

If you mean a post-revolutionary democratic socialist society then I think most are in agreement with you.

However, I wish good luck in trying to convince the blood thirsty MLs and Trots that you aren't a social democrat and reformist that needs to be purged or must spill bourgeois blood to prove his worth...

Oh... I won't be trying to convince anyone of anything... not yet anyway, haha. As far as I'm concerned, I'm still learning. I try to stick to the principle that nothing can ever be proven, only supported. Things could always change, to remain stagnant is intellectual suicide.

I'm just not a fan of the vanguard party seizing control. Why would they need to? If true class consciousness is achieved then all democratic control would be held by the working class and therefore all control of the state. Then the transition into a socialist state could be made followed ultimately by communism. If the vanguard has to physically seize control then I feel like the state is probably not ready for a worker's revolution in the first place. Am I making sense? :P

I realize I may come of as... naive. I'm new to this, haha.

[ВАЛТЕР]

You cannot have socialism without the violent overthrow of the current system in place. I think the tragic end to Allende's Chile is proof of that. Capital defends its interests with brute force and mercilessly crushes opposition. Electoral politics have proven themselves to be inefficient at best, and at worst deadly to our cause.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I'm just not a fan of the vanguard party ceasing control. Why would they need to? If true class consciousness is achieved then all democratic control would be held by the working class and therefore all control of the state. Then the transition into a socialist state could be made followed ultimately by communism. If the vanguard has to physically cease control then I feel like the state is probably not ready for a worker's revolution in the first place. Am I making sense? :P

I'm not sure if I follow. As far as I can see you say two things here: 1) That the vanguard party (that is, a section of the working class) should take power and keep that power (i.e. rule on behalf of the rest of the class), yet you think that 2) if we achieve "true consciousness" the whole class should run things democratically, and that is the path to communism. Do you support both things?

Regarding consciousness and revolution and what comes first etc, there is a recent thread about it (http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-t183722/index.html) with some interesting answers.


I realize I may come of as... naive. I'm new to this, haha.

You come off as more intelligent and less naive than many people on here, both newbies and oldies.

[CECE]

I'm not sure if I follow. As far as I can see you say two things here: 1) That the vanguard party (that is, a section of the working class) should take power and keep that power (i.e. rule on behalf of the rest of the class), yet you think that 2) if we achieve "true consciousness" the whole class should run things democratically, and that is the path to communism. Do you support both things?

You come off as more intelligent and less naive than many people on here, both newbies and oldies.

Well thank you for the vote of confidence. I was beginning to fear I might be coming off as overly foolish. But I'll try to make myself a little more clear...

I am in direct opposition to a vanguard party ruling on behalf of the working class. If I'm not mistaken in most historical examples the vanguard party, or certain individuals within, end up seizing control but never really transition the state to true socialism. Has a vanguard party ever relinquished power and given control democratically to the working class? (Genuine question)

In my mind I feel like a vanguard party might be necessary to unify the working class but not forcibly seize control. Maybe forcibly defend the working class through organization, but never should they, in my opinion, take total control of the state.

[Zukunftsmusik]

ah, now I get it. You're thinking of "seize", not "cease". "Cease" means "to stop" as in "cease fire", "seize" means "take hold of" or something along those lines. that was what confused me.

[CECE]

ah, now I get it. You're thinking of "seize", not "cease". "Cease" means "to stop" as in "cease fire", "seize" means "take hold of" or something along those lines. that was what confused me.

Well... fuck. Now that you point that out I'm beating my head against the keyboard in an attempt to dull my agonizing humiliation. I promise I know how to spell... ahem... time to go edit my posts, haha.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Well... fuck. Now that you point that out I'm beating my head against the keyboard in an attempt to dull my agonizing humiliation. I promise I know how to spell... ahem... time to go edit my posts, haha.

don't bang your head into you keyboard, I just wanted to clear things up, not humiliate you.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You make a good point, one that I've often thought about. But I can't help but to think of the vanguard party in the same way, as merely acting as "protagonists" of the working class. I've always felt that if a vanguard party is needed to coordinate the social revolution then maybe the social revolution is premature. Because as far as I've seen the whole vanguard party seizing control thing doesn't really turn out to be a dictatorship of the proletariat but more like just an oppressive, authoritative dictatorship of one or a few.Well this conception of a "vanguard party" does exist, but it's different from the way I would think of such a formation and essentially would be a variation of "socialism from above". In this case it would be socialism through a coup or socialism through a revolution which then puts a party in charge of governance - rather than elections and parlements who put a party in charge of governance.


I feel like if true class consciousness of the working class can be achieved then naturally they will dominate the electorate and there you have "socialism from below". Obviously the key being to organize and unify the working class which I believe would require a leadership of sorts.The sentiment would be "from below" in this case (but then again, the Cuban revolutionaries might have sentiment and support "from below" too - but I see this differnet than say, communities and workplace councils of workers replacing the present way of organizing society. Even if the sentiment is from below, the actual power in this equation comes "from above" in the sense of specialists who negotiate with the system in the interest of socialist goals. In this situation of "from below" the initiative and transformation takes place through popular and direct involvement: the power is in workers taking control of their workplaces and communities themselves. I think the point of a vanguard party (i.e. a network of already active socialist workers) would be not to directly control this process from above, but to help advocate for it and coordinate it when possible.

I think revolutionaries who want "followers" or want to have some one party state that hands socialism to workers has many of the same problems as electoral strategies because workers play mainly a support role while others do the negotiation and wheeling and dealing and become the specialists at social change. This also means that - for electorial socialism - the "socialist power" is not in class organization and militancy, but in electoral support... so if class consiousness declines, electoral socialists will loose ground unless they attract more moderate elements and rebuild a larger popular base. This strategy has a tendency to pull socialists towards the system rather than pull the system towards socialism.

[Q]

Welcome :)

If you have political questions, you can ask them in the Learning forum. That's why it's there after all!

If you have questions about your account, don't hesitate to send me a PM or ask here.

I wouldn't be too bothered with what others may think about your politics. we certainly don't ban you for being a "democratic socialist". So, please be curious and ask questions :)


To start, what's your take on democratic socialism?
Well, it's not really a well defined term to begin with. What does it mean to you?

[Blake's Baby]

...
I'm just not a fan of the vanguard party seizing control...

A good many of us feel the same. All of the Anarchists, the Council Communists and the Impossiblists, and the majority of the Left Communists (and those Left Comms that do support 'the vanguard party seizing control' don't post on here anyway). But we're still revolutionaries (OK you might refer to some of the Impossiblists as 'Democratic Socialists' as you understand it).


...Why would they need to? If true class consciousness is achieved then all democratic control would be held by the working class and therefore all control of the state. Then the transition into a socialist state could be made followed ultimately by communism. If the vanguard has to physically seize control then I feel like the state is probably not ready for a worker's revolution in the first place. Am I making sense? ...

Well I think this goes to the root of a bunch of discussions about class consciousness and how it develops, and what the 'vanguard' is anyway. For some of us, we are the vanguard - class-conscious workers, that is; those of us asking questions about the world and coming to the conclusion that the working class can create a new society.

We're the 'vanguard' because because we're at the front; our experiences have led us to the belief that capitalism must be overthrown. We expect that other workers will also realise this, if they haven't yet; so being part of the 'vanguard' is merely a question of timing. Because of particular experiences, we've come earier rather than later to a realisation. That's all.

But there is a problem I think with the idea that mass class-consciousness must preceed a revolution. Those of us who are class-conscious now have been radicalised by our experiences - in strikes or other actions of 'class power', or through contact with these actions, or looking at war, the environment and the state of the world, etc. Without these experiences, capitalism is capable of an awful lot of social control through the media and education system, which is why everyone isn't a socialist. Small struggles produce small groups of revolutionaries; it is only massive struggles that will produce massive groups of revolutionaries. But what are these 'massive struggles' if not the revolution?

So for some of us, it's the working class struggling that produces socialist consciousness, not socialists spreading consciousness that produces class struggle.

This means it's the job of the vanguard - those workers who have come to some understanding of the current situation and the need for the working class to intervene in it - to endlessly push for the working class to struggle on its own account, to learn from its own struggles, to generalise and extend its struggles where it can and always to try to link up with struggling workers everywhere, for this more than anything is what increases class consciousness and class solidarity.


... I realize I may come of as... naive. I'm new to this, haha.

Keep asking questions and thinking about things - it's all good.

[JPSartre12]

Welcome to revleft, comrade.

If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to ask.


To start, what's your take on democratic socialism?

I'm not opposed to democratic socialism proper, because the seizure of the State political apparatus by a genuine proletarian party has incredible potential - to use its immense economic and legal authority to re-direct the economy in the direct material interests of the working majority. But it is necessary to understand that the bourgeois class isn't going to quietly roll over and hand control of industry to the proletariat - they're going to fight (potentially very violently) to stay in power. A pacifist, reformist path to socialism is almost certainly destined to fail, if for nothing else than the fact that piecemeal "reforms" sate worker desire for revolution.


I think the tragic end to Allende's Chile is proof of that. Capital defends its interests with brute force and mercilessly crushes opposition.

Comrade ВАЛТЕР has a point. Look at what historically happened in Chile. Democratic socialism certainly can improve the living standards of the working class, but its "democratic revolution" is most likely going to be stomped out by ruling powers before it has the possibility of constructing a genuinely alternative mode of production.

[argeiphontes]

These ideas of "vanguard" and "violent revolution" were just some strategies some guy or guys came up with a hundred years ago or more, to change their particular societies. It begs the question of the validity of the whole enterprise, and you can see how those "revolutions" worked out. I wouldn't support either of those things except in a concrete situation, like violence from the other side.

"Revolution" means "socioeconomic revolution", not a single or violent conflagration, that's besides the point (it's just an irrelevant strategy now, though it could conceivably become relevant in the future I suppose). I think of it more like the agricultural revolution or a scientific revolution, I just don't want it to take as long, but right now it's looking as if it will.

I don't have a problem calling us a vanguard, but I'm just using vanguard in the usual dictionary-definition way. We are the ones with the only correct solution to all the world's problems, after all ;)

Anyway, welcome to the board.

[CECE]

don't bang your head into you keyboard, I just wanted to clear things up, not humiliate you.

Oh, I know you weren't, it's okay, haha. But thank you indeed for clearing that up, I may have never caught that and went on for ages confusing the hell out of people and making myself look like a fool... Well I did a little...

[CECE]

The sentiment would be "from below" in this case (but then again, the Cuban revolutionaries might have sentiment and support "from below" too - but I see this differnet than say, communities and workplace councils of workers replacing the present way of organizing society. Even if the sentiment is from below, the actual power in this equation comes "from above" in the sense of specialists who negotiate with the system in the interest of socialist goals. In this situation of "from below" the initiative and transformation takes place through popular and direct involvement: the power is in workers taking control of their workplaces and communities themselves. I think the point of a vanguard party (i.e. a network of already active socialist workers) would be not to directly control this process from above, but to help advocate for it and coordinate it when possible.

See I kind of envisioned it working its way from the bottom-up rather than power strictly coming from "above" or just from electoral support. In my mind in order to achieve electoral support this would have to accomplished naturally anyway. That is to say that this "social and political revolution" would start out locally on a small scale, in the fashion that you mentioned, through class organization and from worker's councils refashioning society at its roots. Of course this is overly simplified, but this class organization would then grow, next reaching the state level (from a U.S. perspective), and then as this was accomplish, the federal level would naturally follow.

Starting at the local level with developing class consciousness and facilitating organization and then expanding upon this will lead to state control. If this class consciousness is near universal and organized (which could be led by a vanguard of sorts) then federal control would be won without having to seize anything.



I think revolutionaries who want "followers" or want to have some one party state that hands socialism to workers has many of the same problems as electoral strategies because workers play mainly a support role while others do the negotiation and wheeling and dealing and become the specialists at social change. This also means that - for electorial socialism - the "socialist power" is not in class organization and militancy, but in electoral support... so if class consiousness declines, electoral socialists will loose ground unless they attract more moderate elements and rebuild a larger popular base. This strategy has a tendency to pull socialists towards the system rather than pull the system towards socialism.

Continuing from what I wrote above I feel like you wouldn't have to worry about the decline of class consciousness and support as in the process of gaining control of the state a social and cultural revolution would have had to have to taken place anyway. In the wake of class organization and development of consciousness comes a change in society. I think this would be inevitable, no?

Not to mention, as the working class gained electoral support and control of the state it would be transitioned into socialism in which this risk of loosing electoral support would no longer be relevant. And then onto pure democracy... haha... anyway. Those are my thoughts.

[the debater]

I'd identify as a democratic socialist... but I do know this is "RevLeft" so... am I going to be ostracized?? Or will I be forcefully converted into a marxist-leninist before I can participate? Okay... that was a little tongue in cheek... but I am half serious.

You shouldn't be ostracized. I myself am a "democratic socialist," but here on RevLeft, apparently they refer to us as "libertarian socialists" instead.


To start, what's your take on democratic socialism?

Music to my ears, even more so than Madvillain or Fat Jon. Don't ask me how it's possible for democratic socialism to be music to my ears, if you ask me that question, I'm only going to respond by quoting Marx and Lenin extensively, to the best of my knowledge and googling ability.

[helot]

Hi CECE and welcome!





These ideas of "vanguard" and "violent revolution" were just some strategies some guy or guys came up with a hundred years ago or more, to change their particular societies. It begs the question of the validity of the whole enterprise, and you can see how those "revolutions" worked out. I wouldn't support either of those things except in a concrete situation, like violence from the other side.

"Revolution" means "socioeconomic revolution", not a single or violent conflagration, that's besides the point (it's just an irrelevant strategy now, though it could conceivably become relevant in the future I suppose). I think of it more like the agricultural revolution or a scientific revolution, I just don't want it to take as long, but right now it's looking as if it will.

I don't have a problem calling us a vanguard, but I'm just using vanguard in the usual dictionary-definition way. We are the ones with the only correct solution to all the world's problems, after all ;)

Anyway, welcome to the board.


Do you think there's no place for violence? I'm of the impression that the decisive struggles between the capitalism of today and the communism of tomorrow will inevitably be violent. The ruling class will not relinquish their power without a fight.

[Comrade Jacob]

As the sweetness of the idea of getting socialism without bloodshed is tempting but with bourgeois democracy you can only as get as far as Chavez's Venezuela. (And hundreds did die through the coups and fighting). In short you can only go so far.

[argeiphontes]

Do you think there's no place for violence?

I'm willing to cross that bridge when I come to it, and in the meantime advocate for nonviolence. That's partly because I think there's too much apocalyptic thinking going on, taking on religious elements actually. The revolution is a series of steps that need to be taken to establish a communist society. Whether violence is required for this nor not remains to be seen, and is currently not relevant. Thinking about the revolution as a conflagration distracts from the real goals, and militates against the activity of "just taking the next step" toward communism. Not to mention being bad for PR.

[CECE]

It's not that I don't think there is a place for violence. Like mentioned before myself, it is more than likely something that would be inevitable. Inevitable maybe, but I think It would be more appropriate in form of defending the transformation (both socially and politically) of the workers. As the workers gain political control I believe there could realistically be physical aggression from those in power to try and defend their 'empire' and it is here also that I support the violence defense of the workers coming into power. But the kind of violence I do not support is the aggressive (often times in my opinion, premature), violent, overthrow of a power and then the occupation of such by a vanguard party who 'supposedly' represent the workers. But this I've all said before anyway, so I'm really just rehashing... :P

[CECE]

You shouldn't be ostracized. I myself am a "democratic socialist," but here on RevLeft, apparently they refer to us as "libertarian socialists" instead.

Music to my ears, even more so than Madvillain or Fat Jon. Don't ask me how it's possible for democratic socialism to be music to my ears, if you ask me that question, I'm only going to respond by quoting Marx and Lenin extensively, to the best of my knowledge and googling ability.

So there are more of 'me' on here! Well excellent! I was beginning to feel... beset on all sides... :P

I do hate the word 'libertarian' though... that is unfortunate. I'll get over it... haha

[Blake's Baby]

There might be. There might not. If by 'democratic socialist' you mean an electoral strategy to take control of the state + policies to manage capitalism in a slightly fairer way + slowly building a bloc of 'socialist' states (kinda like a 'red' version of the EU) then no, you won't find many people who agree with you.

If you mean 'peacefully if we can, forcefully if we must', then most people here I think will agree (but, not all).

What's wrong with 'libertarian'? Is it that it implies there's such a thing as an 'authoritarian socialist'? Is it it because the 'libertarin/authoritarian' dichotomy makes no sense? Is it because the most insane advocates of capitalism call themselves 'libertarian' now?

[CECE]

There might be. There might not. If by 'democratic socialist' you mean an electoral strategy to take control of the state + policies to manage capitalism in a slightly fairer way + slowly building a bloc of 'socialist' states (kinda like a 'red' version of the EU) then no, you won't find many people who agree with you.

If you mean 'peacefully if we can, forcefully if we must', then most people here I think will agree (but, not all).

What's wrong with 'libertarian'? Is it that it implies there's such a thing as an 'authoritarian socialist'? Is it it because the 'libertarin/authoritarian' dichotomy makes no sense? Is it because the most insane advocates of capitalism call themselves 'libertarian' now?

I mean more along the lines electorally taking control of the state. Because, I feel if the workers of the state were effectively organized it would happen anyway as they are the majority. If organization or seizure of the state by the workers in this way were to encounter physical resistance it is then that I agree with the use of... I guess like a 'vanguard party' or militant force of some kind.

As far as libertarian is concerned, I don't like it because of the later; its capitalistic ties, more or less. Silly maybe but there you have it, haha.

[Blake's Baby]

I mean more along the lines electorally taking control of the state. Because, I feel if the workers of the state were effectively organized it would happen anyway as they are the majority. If organization or seizure of the state by the workers in this way were to encounter physical resistance it is then that I agree with the use of... I guess like a 'vanguard party' or militant force of some kind...

How is this ever to happen as 'the state' (or at least the capitalist class) controls the means of dissemination of ideas (press, TV, education system...)? 'The ruling ideas of any epoch are the ideas of the ruling class' as Marx said. It doesn't seem feasible to me that 'mass consciousness' could grow in such a fashion.


... As far as libertarian is concerned, I don't like it because of the later; its capitalistic ties, more or less. Silly maybe but there you have it, haha.

Really, that's only come about in the last few years. Socialists have been using 'libertarian' for... a long time. I don't think they should be able to claim 'our' word.

A far better argument against it is that the libertarian/authoritarian dichotomy doesn't make any sense.

[argeiphontes]

Think of "libertarian" as a methodology: That any authority needs to be justified. Sometimes it can, but sometimes it can't. The classic example would be authority of parents over children, that can be justified. But workers aren't children and don't need "managers" (representatives of power) when they could just use democracy or other self-management techniques.

And yes, they have stolen the word just like they redefined communism to mean an authoritarian system to make people hate the idea. (Having the Soviet Union to point to, helped them do this, but that's a different thread.)

[The Idler]

'Democratic socialists' and other non-Leninists are welcome on revleft
'Democratic socialism' is a useful term for a particular ideology, albeit not my own. I think of 'democratic socialism' as distinct from social democracy but also distinct from socialism. I used to see it as a grade between the two. It might help to think of social democracy as Fabian, democratic socialism as Chartist (or following Eduard Bernstein) and socialism as Marxist.
Many characteristics have been suggested here that I wouldn't say distinguish 'democratic socialism' well at all.
I wouldn't say an electoral strategy is a good distinction of 'democratic socialism' especially when argued from a Bolshevik approach, who were just as guilty as using elections when it suits them. An electoral strategy is not 'socialism from above' contrasted with 'socialism from below' and the 'democratic' in 'democratic socialism' is a clue. I'm not even sure historically 'democratic socialism' envisaged a role for the state.
I'm not even sure supporting reforms is something to distinguish 'democratic socialism', again especially when argued from a Bolshevik approach, who also support reforms when it suits them.
I don't think pacifism or an unwillingness to insist on violence distinguishes 'democratic socialism' or makes them 'non-revolutionary' either.
I think by vanguard party, perhaps you just mean 'an organised party with a object' at all (against the anarchist and autonomist objection) rather than a party arbitrating on everything in society and where only members get a say etc. in which case again, a few non-Leninist currents would agree.
Misleadingly a little bit, I think the important thing about 'democratic socialism' is not that it is the only 'socialism' to bear the mantle of 'democratic' (and I don't include so-called 'democratic centralism' in this) but it is more seriously economic about production and exchange. To clarify, way beyond what Labour Party (UK), Chavez or Allende in Chile has ever stood for.
I think what distinguishes 'democratic socialism' is it proposes a highly democratic society in production if not exchange. This is more than Bolshevism ever proposed, but authentic Marxism goes even further in emancipation of society.
Blake's Baby gives a fair shake at it, but I, as an impossibilist, am democratic but distinguish from the 'democratic socialist' current emanating from Bernstein, although 'democratic socialism' may be a better term than 'revisionist' if you're feeling generous.
'Democratic socialism' is more Edward Bellamy, and I prefer William Morris.
'Libertarian socialism' as a term really shouldn't be necessary at all, but for the pernicious effects of Bolshevism. And no 'libertarian socialism' does not mean 'do whatever you want'! It aims at capture of political power, and parties are groups of workers voluntarily joining to prescribe the most effective way they think this can be done (not a dictatorial vanguard).

[Remus Bleys]

then the occupation of such by a vanguard party who 'supposedly' represent the workers.
As compared to the multi-party parliamentary system?