Does Only Dialectical Materialism Interfere with Democratic Socialism?

[BornDeist]

I do not believe in dialectical materialism for many reasons, but I will not go into that here. As far as I know the reasons Democratic Socialism cannot work is because it interferes with dialectical materialism. So if you take dialectical materialism out of the picture Democratic Socialism is a ver possible reality?

[Remus Bleys]

What? No of course not. The "dialectical" argument is only a helper to discount this ridiculous idea. Democracy is not a principle for us, the state cannot be peacefully taken do to the bureaucracy and the violence within it making it so all we can do is smash the tool of the bourgeoisie and erect our own state for the purpose of winning the class struggle (which makes null the state once and for all. I did not rely on dialectics for that, and it is arguable that dialectics itself can lead to social democracy, Democratic socialism, or whatever else the bourgeois socialists are calling themselves.

[ARomanCandle]

I have no idea what dialectical materialism is, and Hegel makes absolutely zero sense to me.

I also don't know if you are referring to democratic socialism by reform or - socialism based on democracy. The former is likely impossible, and the latter is wholly necessary.

[BornDeist]

I have no idea what dialectical materialism is, and Hegel makes absolutely zero sense to me.

I also don't know if you are referring to democratic socialism by reform or - socialism based on democracy. The former is likely impossible, and the latter is wholly necessary.

Democratic Socialism is the political view of Evolutionary Socialism, which is that socialism can rise through reform and peaceful means. Not to be confused with Engles definition of Democratic Socialism which would be modern day Social Democrats.

[BornDeist]

What? No of course not. The "dialectical" argument is only a helper to discount this ridiculous idea. Democracy is not a principle for us, the state cannot be peacefully taken do to the bureaucracy and the violence within it making it so all we can do is smash the tool of the bourgeoisie and erect our own state for the purpose of winning the class struggle (which makes null the state once and for all. I did not rely on dialectics for that, and it is arguable that dialectics itself can lead to social democracy, Democratic socialism, or whatever else the bourgeois socialists are calling themselves.

The ruling class controls the state through corruption. However I believe we've seen as the internet has become a form of anonymous media more whistleblowers come out. People see this corruption now and want to vote for leaders that give more control to the people. Through reform people can gain more political power thanks to inventions like the internet.

[Pinto Morais]

Democratic Socialism is the political view of Evolutionary Socialism, which is that socialism can rise through reform and peaceful means.

Yes, because the capitalists will just allow you to take them from their dominant position peacefuly and without question...

[ARomanCandle]

Democratic Socialism is the political view of Evolutionary Socialism, which is that socialism can rise through reform and peaceful means. Not to be confused with Engles definition of Democratic Socialism which would be modern day Social Democrats.

Take political office within the capitalist state via capitalist elections and implement socialism from the top?

I don't see this being a possibility.

I'm entirely for reforms that benefit the working class. I'm entirely against the notion that reforms can lead to socialism.

[Rafiq]

No, even the most elementary understanding of social relations, without an adherence to dialectical materialism, would allow one to understand the function of "democratic socialism" and why precisely it can only reinforce these relations.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Democratic Socialism is the political view of Evolutionary Socialism, which is that socialism can rise through reform and peaceful means.
Shouldn't that be called Naive Socialism? I mean, does anyone really believe the capitalist class will just quietly go away because workers ask nicely?

[Hit The North]

To the OP: reality is not determined by theories; theories are a reflection of reality. Whether socialism can be the result of gradual evolution will not depend on "taking dialectical materialism out of the picture" but will obviously be the result of real events.

If the question is reform or revolution you should know that far more human effort has been put into the former than the latter. If you wish to defend a position of peaceful reform then you need to provide a supporting argument.

[Red Economist]

I do not believe in dialectical materialism for many reasons, but I will not go into that here. As far as I know the reasons Democratic Socialism cannot work is because it interferes with dialectical materialism. So if you take dialectical materialism out of the picture Democratic Socialism is a ver possible reality?

Yes. Dialectical Materialism emphasises the role of class struggle as the motive force of historical change. Consequently, it insists on the class character of the state, whereas democratic socialism argues that 'democracy' is 'universal' and the state is 'class neutral' and hence, reformable. These are however different interpretations of reality which may or may not correspond to it.
According to Marxist-Leninists I've read, Dialectical Materialism supposedly leads to a consistently revolutionary position. Evolutionary or democratic socialism borrows a lot from the 'materialist conception of history', but does not take this view of the class struggle as inevitably revolutionary. Eduard Bernstein was a major proponent of evolutionary socialism in his The Preconditions of Socialism (1899).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Bernstein#Opinions