Dem. Socialism v. Communism

[Servia]

What are the defining characteristics between the two?

And should Communists support Democratic Socialist organizations/movements?

[#FF0000]

Democratic socialism is a broad and fuzzy category. A lot of people who describe themselves as "democratic socialists" are social democrats who see the welfare state as the end goal. Others might believe in an electoral path to communism. And then there are some who are revolutionary socialists but want to emphasize the importance of democratic processes in a post-revolutionary society, as opposed to what they see as the party dictatorships of Actually Existing Socialism.

So ultimately it depends on the politics of the organization. I wouldn't support Democratic Socialists of the USA, personally, since they're social democrats -- but I might work with them on specific individual projects or campaigns. Then there's the Socialist Party of the USA, which is also "democratic socialist" but is an ostensibly big-tent organization with people of all stripe of socialist thought in the organization -- who I still would not support because of their fondness of purging revolutionary socialists from their party.

So yeah, "democratic socialism" might not be enough to judge what a person or organization is about, but to me, it's indicative of pretty bad politics.

[MarxistWorld]

Dear brothers and sisters. From my own personal point of view, I think that the poor people of this world, should vote and support political parties in favor of full socialism (worker's states, dictatorships of the proletariat), instead of supporting political parties in favor of capitalism with welfare services (social-democratic parties)

I wrote these thoughts in another topic in this learning section, about why the radical left in favor of workers states is so weak, while the social-democratic left is so politically and economically powerful. And why the great majority of poor people of the world prefer to vote for social-democratic parties (In favor of capitalism with welfare services, than in favor of dictatorships of the proletariat [socialism]), in most countries of the world, as a solution for poverty, when we all here know that workers's states, dictatorships of the proletariat, workers governments, governments of the workers and poor peasants, would be a better solution than capitalist governments with welfare services (Like Chile, France, Ecuador etc)

And I think that there are many causes of why the radical left is so weak and so divided. I think that one of the main reasons for this is that most poor people and most workers have become right-wingers, and vote for traditional parties in most presidential elections. Another factor for the marxist radical left being so weak, and so underground. While the social-democrat reformist, revisionist left (Like PODEMOS and Syrizia) to be so popular and powerful. Is that social-democratic reformist parties have a lot more economic power, than radical ultra-leftist parties. And money for advertising and spreading the marxist communist political programs to the masses is very necessary. In today's world if any institution, organization or business does not invest in advertising its product, it will be a failure.

And another factor is that even though oppressed poor masses hate corporate politicians, instead of voting and supporting ultra-leftist marxist parties, the most radical that the masses can be, is social-democracy, social-democrat parties. I think that most poor people hate corporate capitalism but at the same time, most poor people hate communism. In other words the oppressed hate capitalism, but love capitalism at the same time. That's like the oppressed wives, who hate her husbands, but at the same time they cannot divorce their husbands. This is related to the Stockholm Syndrome

Another thing, is that I read in the book "The Prince" by Nicholas Machiavelli, that most people are very skeptical toward new ideas, toward new way of thinking, humans are habit-creatures and prefer to continue with capitalism, than to try socialism.

There are many other factors like fear, because voting for capitalist parties won't get people harassed by FBI and CIA, most people in America who are poor prefer poverty under capitalism because supporting capitalism won't get them any trouble with the government. Than to rise toward a middle class self-realized life by supporting radical marxist parties.

The behaviour of humans is very complicated, some years ago I thought that sooner or later when food prices and the basic needs will get real expensive, all poor blacks, all poor latinos, and all poor whites will become marxists and will support ultra-leftist radical marxist parties. But the behaviour of people is very complicated and not so simple like I thought.




What are the defining characteristics between the two?

And should Communists support Democratic Socialist organizations/movements?

[oneday]

So ultimately it depends on the politics of the organization. I wouldn't support Democratic Socialists of the USA, personally, since they're social democrats -- but I might work with them on specific individual projects or campaigns.

What do you think are the most worthwhile projects or campaigns for us to work with them on?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

As Red says above, democratic socialism is a broad spectrum of different ideologies, borne out of a variety of philosophies. Some are philosophical children/cousins of Marxism (eurocommunism and left populism, for example), whereas some are much closer to traditional social democracy (Labour Parties, Socialist International).

Overall, what differentiates democratic socialists and revolutionary socialists was traditionally strategy and ideology mixed; whereas some democratic socialists of the more right-wing kind oppose communism in principle, some do not yet are opposed to the militant overthrow of the bourgeois state and of capital.

One imagines that it should be possible to recognise the more genuinely socialist (rather than social democrat) elements of democratic socialists with the less dogmatic elements of revolutionary socialism, in order to build a plurality of groups opposed to capital.

[Total Stranger]

:) Hi. I am not a right wing so ,please don't ban me.I have a feeling that u r not right so i go straight to the point about communism because i lived long enough in so called communist country the USSR and i know well(as far as i remember ) the theory of the Marxism-Leninism and a bit of anarchism .
I WANT TO TELL U THAT THIS WAY in practice is wrong. but only in my personal opinion , i can say.
anything milder could be better---like liberal democracy.

and i can feel it and explain. from the experience.

[MarxistWorld]

Total: According to most orthodox marxists, the Soviet Union was a sort of state-capitalist system, orthodox marxists claim that socialism in 1 country or in only 2 countries is very hard to implement. Most political systems in 1, or 2 countries, while every other nation would have another political system is very hard to apply.

And I think that's one of the main reasons of why USSR was not a worker's government. There are many many other reasons as well of why USSR might have not been a worker's state



:) Hi. I am not a right wing so ,please don't ban me.I have a feeling that u r not right so i go straight to the point about communism because i lived long enough in so called communist country the USSR and i know well(as far as i remember ) the theory of the Marxism-Leninism and a bit of anarchism .
I WANT TO TELL U THAT THIS WAY in practice is wrong. but only in my personal opinion , i can say.
anything milder could be better---like liberal democracy.

and i can feel it and explain. from the experience.

[#FF0000]

:) Hi. I am not a right wing so ,please don't ban me.I have a feeling that u r not right so i go straight to the point about communism because i lived long enough in so called communist country the USSR and i know well(as far as i remember ) the theory of the Marxism-Leninism and a bit of anarchism .
I WANT TO TELL U THAT THIS WAY in practice is wrong. but only in my personal opinion , i can say.
anything milder could be better---like liberal democracy.

and i can feel it and explain. from the experience.

Well I doubt anyone would agree that liberal democracy is better, I don't think many on this site would disagree with you on Marxism-Leninism. Folks here are pretty critical of it, and the USSR.

[Total Stranger]

Total: According to most orthodox marxists, the Soviet Union was a sort of state-capitalist system, orthodox marxists claim that socialism in 1 country or in only 2 countries is very hard to implement. Most political systems in 1, or 2 countries, while every other nation would have another political system is very hard to apply.

And I think that's one of the main reasons of why USSR was not a worker's government. There are many many other reasons as well of why USSR might have not been a worker's state

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I KNOW THIS SONG. This system was not in one or 2 countries. Don't U remember that after WWII there were many countries with this system? And the USSR was in fact 15 republics and 1/6 th of the land.
I am for the just system . Something is wrong in real practical communism.Which is the first stage of it=socialism.
And I SUGGEST to look at these persons who were or are famous for their position in revolutionary movement.
And to look not with a worship but practically.
Let's take K .Marx --WE KNOW what he wrote and so on. But how did he live?
Big family is good , but when in Britain --I haven't heard that he worked at all.
He could give some lessons. Of German language . Not all day long but a little bit. Of , may be, Greek(had they any Greek at the university ? )
I know that he wrote a little to the newspapers to America.
But he mostly lived on the money of Engels.
OK, MAY BE we don't know about him enough.
I spoke to the general secretary of British com. party, one of them parties. I tried to explain him that the life in the USSR was kind of shit if we compare to the good capitalist country. He didn't believe me. I guess that they showed him good things when he visited Moscow, fed with good food in good hotel--for free and he thought that that was it.

I THINK that such leaders like him , they treat their activity in the communist movement like a business that gives them additional money.

What point I WANT TO ACCENT. There is no sense to call names , like ''we want communism or socialism or anarchism ...''

We should want a normal state where people can live a comfortable life . If it could be achieved without state---ok.

But to say ''let's make a total change in all countries of the world to the communism and then we'll see how good it is''---is an absurd.

1--different countries are on different stages of development.how they all be there?
Such a way is through the war. So ---what is the difference: capitalism makes wars and socialism-communism makes wars?

I suggest something different.
If socialism is so good---make a little piece of it and show that it's better.
Yeh, I know about ''falangs'' , such communist communities in America in 19th century.

But. Nowadays capitalism is very tolerant.

If a big group of people will make a firm in the USA or anywhere, WITHOUT shouting that ''we are communists'' and win the economical competition and make a good local community---people will want to come into it.

If they couldn't win the competition---so, they can't create a higher productivity of the work and they are not better from capitalists.

[Comrade Jacob]

Bourgeois democracy can be used as a tool for spreading leftist ideas but the end goal of it should be a revolution and overthrowing of capitalism and not reformism.
I think we should show solidarity with genuine socialists that use bourgeois democracy like the Respect party in Britain in etc.