Social-Democrat? Democratic Socialism?

[ashtonh]

Hi, Im just wondering what the attitude towards these are on here.

[Connolly1916]

Social democracy is an attempt at making capitalism a fairer system. Under social democracy, the capitalist mode of production is maintained, therefore it's not something anyone (genuine) on here should be supporting.

[Zoroaster]

Most Marxist's appose these ideologies, since they favor revolution. Social democracy has turned into a capitalist movement, and reformist movements haven't had the greatest track record when it comes to getting stuff done.

[Five Year Plan]

Hi, Im just wondering what the attitude towards these are on here.

Do you know what they refer to?

[Revolver]

In reviewing the discussions here, my sense is Jean-Paul Sartre is correct, and most self-identified revolutionaries are opposed to both. I'm not sure that much of a distinction is made between those who support social democracy as part of a revolutionary strategy and those who have simply embraced social democracy and the social welfare state as the best possible solution to capitalism's externalities. As for democratic socialism, to me that encompasses revolutionary and reformist elements, so it is not clear that it would be "non-revolutionary" in character.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Social Democray is counter-revolutionary, and is simply a 'kindler, gentler' form of bourgeois dictatorship.

Democratic Socialism on the other hand......I can understand where they're coming from. The problem is that socialism will never come about through a bourgeois democracy, because bourgeois democracy by its very nature can only ever benefit the bourgeois.

[Five Year Plan]

Democratic Socialism on the other hand......I can understand where they're coming from. The problem is that socialism will never come about through a bourgeois democracy, because bourgeois democracy by its very nature can only ever benefit the bourgeois.

The problem is that social democrats often refer to themselves as "democratic socialists, with "democratic" indicating their support for bourgeois parliamentarism as a means of achieving socialism.

[Tim Cornelis]

Democratic socialism is social-democracy rebrandished as 'old school' social-democracy moved gradually rightward. And social-democracy is, since communism disassociated itself from it, 'social' (attempted) facilitation of capital.

[Slavic]

They may not be revolutionary but I'd prefer my ruling class try to give me a band aid rather than stab me again.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

They may not be revolutionary but I'd prefer my ruling class try to give me a band aid rather than stab me again.

The problem is, if you support the stabber that constantly gives you band-aids after stabbing you out of fear of the one that doesn't give you a band aid, you're still going to be stabbed a lot of times.

Honestly, I can't remember one organisation that calls itself "democratic socialist" that isn't social-democratic or worse (the DSA is a good example of the "worse" part, being merely a pressure group for a kinder liberalism).

[Slavic]

The problem is, if you support the stabber that constantly gives you band-aids after stabbing you out of fear of the one that doesn't give you a band aid, you're still going to be stabbed a lot of times.

Honestly, I can't remember one organisation that calls itself "democratic socialist" that isn't social-democratic or worse (the DSA is a good example of the "worse" part, being merely a pressure group for a kinder liberalism).


I'm not saying that I support social democrats, I'd just rather the ruling party be a social democrat then say fascist or fundamentalist. Of course I'm going to keep getting stabbed so regardless the ruling party should be opposed. I'd just rather they take me out on a date and buy me dinner first before stabbing me.

[Kingfish]

Hi, Im just wondering what the attitude towards these are on here.

I dont think Social Democrats would be that popular given how effective they are at lowering class consciousness and dividing the working class as a whole. Whilst they might be advocating for a kinder form of capitalism they still are capitalists and make no mistake when the supremacy of capital and private property is threatened they will ultimately come to it defense whether that means breaking strikes supporting globalization or directly persecuting revolutionary leftists.

If you want examples just look at the practice of any of the parties that are part of this international when they have been in power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International

The UK and Australian Labour parties are especially good examples of this.

[VivalaCuarta]

"Democratic socialists" are "socialists" who support imperialism. Since imperialism is "democracy," these people put "democratic" in front of their names to emphasize the fact that they are loyal to imperialist "democracy."

They would call themselves "social democrats" (and they are) but the name is irredeemably spoiled. The political exigencies of the present do not allow imperialist "democracy" the same critical examination as is afforded the ruined workers movements of the past.

[(A)]

Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system. This may refer to extending principles of democracy in the economy (such as through cooperatives or workplace democracy), or may simply refer to trends of socialism that emphasize democratic principles as inalienable from their political project.

Social democracy is a political ideology that officially has as its goal the establishment of democratic socialism through reformist and gradualist methods.[1] Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a policy regime involving a universal welfare state and collective bargaining schemes within the framework of a capitalist economy. It is often used in this manner to refer to the social models and economic policies prominent in Western and Northern Europe during the later half of the 20th century

I believe in Democratic Socialism; not imperialism.

[Црвена]

Democratic socialists (or, as they should be called, reformist socialists) are still socialists, just utopian ones. The notion that any kind of drastic change, such as the change from capitalism to socialism/communism, can be achieved through reformist methods is a utopian ideal. And it's ridiculous for them to call themselves "democratic socialists," since all socialists want democracy - real democracy, not the pseudo-democracy that we have with a capitalist system.

As for social democrats, they're just slightly more collectivist liberals.

[Left Voice]

Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system. This may refer to extending principles of democracy in the economy (such as through cooperatives or workplace democracy), or may simply refer to trends of socialism that emphasize democratic principles as inalienable from their political project.

Social democracy is a political ideology that officially has as its goal the establishment of democratic socialism through reformist and gradualist methods.[1] Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a policy regime involving a universal welfare state and collective bargaining schemes within the framework of a capitalist economy. It is often used in this manner to refer to the social models and economic policies prominent in Western and Northern Europe during the later half of the 20th century

I believe in Democratic Socialism; not imperialism.
It's all very well digging up literal definitions, but they are quite far off the mark because they fail to take into account the historical development of the political ideologies, and also the differing usages of the term 'democratic'.

You refer to 'democracy' as 'extending principles of democracy in the economy (such as through cooperatives or workplace democracy), or may simply refer to trends of socialism that emphasize democratic principles as inalienable from their political project'. That's all very well and good, but is completely irrelevant to democratic socialism because the conception of democracy that democratic socialism uses is bourgeois. Democratic Socialism essentially believes that the bourgeois democratic system can be utilised to bring about reforms that work towards a socialist society - they believe that a capitalist society can become socialist through a series of reforms. This is the 'democratic socialist' approach to establishing socialism, and has nothing to do with the definition you shared. In fact, the definition you shared is a key component of most forms of socialism/communism. The term 'democratic socialism' doesn't mean that other forms of socialism are undemocratic, it refers to the method of utilising the bourgeois democratic process to achieve socialism. And not only has the bourgeois democratic process been proven to be hardly democratic, but such reformist approaches have also failed to make meaningful shifts towards socialism.

Social Democracy has very different roots and a different history. Evolving from the split in socialism after the Second International, they espoused a reformist approach very similar to democratic socialists, and thus in the real world the actualisation of their methods can be similar to the point where they are nearly identical. But they key difference is that most Social Democrats abandoned Marxism after the second world war and embraced Keynesian economic - a Capitalist economic approach, in other words. Subsequent Social Democratic parties have adopted a wide range of economic approaches from a large welfare state, varying degrees of a mixed economy, and even adopting full-on neoliberalism with the Labour Party under Tony Blair. But critically, their embrace of socialism is purely nominal, often better characterised as misguided attempts at 'responsible capitalism'.

Thus, both are clearly reactionary ideologies, and ironically lack the democratic nature that a revolutionary socialist approach would necessitate.

[(A)]

It's all very well digging up literal definitions, but they are quite far off the mark because they fail to take into account the historical development of the political ideologies, and also the differing usages of the term 'democratic'.

You refer to 'democracy' as 'extending principles of democracy in the economy (such as through cooperatives or workplace democracy), or may simply refer to trends of socialism that emphasize democratic principles as inalienable from their political project'. That's all very well and good, but is completely irrelevant to democratic socialism because the conception of democracy that democratic socialism uses is bourgeois. Democratic Socialism essentially believes that the bourgeois democratic system can be utilised to bring about reforms that work towards a socialist society - they believe that a capitalist society can become socialist through a series of reforms. This is the 'democratic socialist' approach to establishing socialism, and has nothing to do with the definition you shared. In fact, the definition you shared is a key component of most forms of socialism/communism. The term 'democratic socialism' doesn't mean that other forms of socialism are undemocratic, it refers to the method of utilising the bourgeois democratic process to achieve socialism. And not only has the bourgeois democratic process been proven to be hardly democratic, but such reformist approaches have also failed to make meaningful shifts towards socialism.


Or I could just mean to say that Democracy is the road to socialism and that they require one another. I would not consider anything to be socialism in the absence of Democracy. The basic tenant of socialism is in my view a economy run by the society and not by individuals or dictators.

But that is just the way I see it.

[Left Voice]

That's fine, but that has nothing to do with Democratic Socialism (as in, the ideology). Democratic Socialism refers to a specific, reformist approach - contrasted with Revolutionary Socialism.

Any Marxian form of socialism would be inherently democratic anyway.

[(A)]

I was refering more to this tho. This is how i prefer to see the diffrence.

Sorry for Wiki Bombing i know it is a sin but i am a sinner.

In contrast, other definitions of democratic socialism sharply distinguish it from social democracy. For example, Peter Hain classifies democratic socialism, along with libertarian socialism, as a form of anti-authoritarian "socialism from below" (using the term popularised by Hal Draper), in contrast to Stalinism and social democracy, variants of authoritarian state socialism. For Hain, this democratic/authoritarian divide is more important than the revolutionary/reformist divide. In this definition, it is the active participation of the population as a whole, and workers in particular, in the management of economy that characterises democratic socialism, while nationalisation and economic planning (whether controlled by an elected government or not) are characteristic of state socialism. A similar, but more complex, argument is made by Nicos Poulantzas. Draper himself uses the term "revolutionary-democratic socialism" as a type of socialism from below in his The Two Souls of Socialism. He writes: "the leading spokesman in the Second International of a revolutionary-democratic Socialism-from-Below [was] Rosa Luxemburg, who so emphatically put her faith and hope in the spontaneous struggle of a free working class that the myth-makers invented for her a 'theory of spontaneity'". Similarly, about Eugene Debs, he writes: "'Debsian socialism' evoked a tremendous response from the heart of the people, but Debs had no successor as a tribune of revolutionary-democratic socialism."

A spontaneous struggle of a free working class may not ever come about... but it would sure be dandy if it did. Perhaps threw social media.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Except Draper was contrasting the Marxist fusion of democracy and socialism with the pre-Marxist forms of authoritarian communitarianism sometimes called "socialist", and the ideology of Stalinised liberals like Webb. Neither exist anymore. So who are the "democratic" socialists in opposition to, the Bordigists? Seems a bit odd to self-identify based on your opposition to a specific, mostly historic from what I can tell, current of the communist left.

No, the "democratic socialists" call themselves democratic in order to distinguish their vision of capitalism-with-minor-tweaks - whether the tweaks are a welfare state, cooperatives, or whatever - from the mean, totalitarian old Soviet Union. So yes, their "democracy" does mean adherence to imperialism. This is reflected in the origin of the DSA, the main self-proclaimed "democratic socialist" organisation, as a rightward split of the Shachtmanised SPA.

[VivalaCuarta]

To expand on this boring topic:

Show me one self-described "democratic socialist" group or individual who is not a pro-imperialist traitor.

I bet anyone US$15 that this is impossible.

[Left Voice]

Indeed. Even those in the left of the Labour Party, the unashamed 'socialists' such as Red Labour, ultimately are unconcerned with internationalism and typically support jobs for 'British workers', the nationalisation rather than internationalisation of industries etc.

The fact that democratic socialism is so integrated into the bourgeois democratic system and is an integral part of it results in them reaffirming the basic values and objectives of the bourgeoisie. The basic continued existence of the nation state, the unwillingness to revolt against the bourgeoisie to the extent that they will maintain the basic 'democratic' apparatus that would see them regain power, the basic bourgeois institutions such as the police, army etc.

The same obviously applies to social democrats.

[Revolver]

To expand on this boring topic:

Show me one self-described "democratic socialist" group or individual who is not a pro-imperialist traitor.

I bet anyone US$15 that this is impossible.

Angela Davis? You might not agree with her perspective, but I think that calling her a "pro-imperialist traitor" is a wee bit extreme. She is also cognizant of the limits of reform and the need to examine reform in light of its impact on the capitalist system. And she is, as far as I know, a self-described democratic socialist.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Angela Davis? You might not agree with her perspective, but I think that calling her a "pro-imperialist traitor" is a wee bit extreme. She is also cognizant of the limits of reform and the need to examine reform in light of its impact on the capitalist system. And she is, as far as I know, a self-described democratic socialist.

Even though A. Davis was a revolutionary when she was younger, currently she is in the Committees of Correspondence, a group of shills for the Democrats. "Pro-imperialist traitors" describes everyone in the CoC.