Democratic Socialism v Marxist-Leninism

[Orange Juche]

Which is better in your opinion? Which is more likely to work? Why do you feel this way?

Democratic Socialism: http://www.sp-usa.org, http://www.dsausa.org
Marxist-Leninism: http://www.cpusa.org, http://www.communist-party.ca/

[Orange Juche]

Also, is free speech (the first amendment) possible in a Marxist-Leninist society?

[RedAnarchist]

Marxist-Leninism. Out with the old COMPLETELY, in with the new.

ie State out, Capitalism out, reactionaries out

Communist Society in, Communism in, revolutionaries in.

Of course freedom of speech will be allowed, except when there is a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as this is the time when any counter-revolutionary crap is flushed down the toilet. :D

[New Tolerance]

Both faces certain problems, but I am probably more for Democratic Socialism, certain things might get out of hand during the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. ie nationalist lashbacks that could set off wars that would potentially devestate and deindustrialize the civilization. So a less "in-your-face" approach is prehaps more artful. Violent revolutions should definately be used to overthrown monarchies or facist dictatorships though.

[Raisa]

I think it kind of depends on the situation. Things need to be applied with reguard to the locality and the current situation, whether it is marxism leninism, or whatever.

And in a dictatorship of the proliteriat, I support free speech for everyone.

I do not see the point in surpressing the expression of reactionaries. It makes us look weak and feeble.

Let them say what they want to say. Let us all talk and debate openly. And learn.

When the proliteriat is in power, I do not see what is the threat of a reactionary and his words.

[redstar2000]

It seems to me that you've posed your question in such general (and even misleading) terms that it doesn't admit of an answer.

For example, the "representative" links that you posted would not be considered "Leninist" by many and perhaps even most Leninists.

Also, when you use the phrase "democratic socialist", are you referring to the way a socialist group comes to power (wins elections) or the kind of new state that is set up after a revolution?

Sometimes a "simple" question has a "simple" answer...but other times, there are so many built-in (and even unknown) assumptions in a question that just trying to disentangle them would make a very lengthy post indeed.

Finally, there are many coherent or at least semi-coherent ideas about how capitalism will end and what will replace it...it's not an "either/or" situation at this point.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[BOZG]

I'm pretty much in agreement with redstar2000. Your question is far too vague. I'll assume though that by Democratic Socialism, you mean by parliamentary socialism. You have to consider that in many countries it's not viable to call yourself a Marxist-Leninist, that you have to approach people differently. I know many Leninists that call themselves Democratic Socialists as to distinguish themselves from Stalin.

He's pretty much spot on about the links too. Most people, Leninists included, would not consider the CPUSA a Leninist party, not even a communist party because of their current policies of actually supporting bourgeois politicians and considering the roles that the various CPs have played around the world.

[SonofRage]

As others have already said, Democratic Socialism is a pretty broad term which can mean a lot of different things (although DSA is not really Democratic Socialist, it's Social Democratic).

For example, the Sociailist Party USA has a broad range of views. Members range from Social Democrats to traditional Marxists, Council Communists and Anarchists. It's has organized tendencies in it such as the Direct Action Tendency (http://www.actiontendency.net) and the Debs Tendency (http://www.debstendency.org)

Democratic Socialism as thought of from the SP-USA's documents is "Socialism as Radical Democracy" and probably has more in common with Anarchism than it does with Leninism.

I should note that I am a member of the Socialist Party USA and of the Direct Action Tendency.

[Wiesty]

democratic-socialism, because while the citizens can make hundreds of more decisions than marxistrs-leninsts.
they can cleanly vote for their ruler, trade is tooken through the man rulers, etc. free market, etc. etc. etc.

while marxistrs and lenists are still great ideas, id rather see my self living in a demo./social. country (a bit of anarchism would be nice, even though i dont see how that would work :huh: )

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 10:52 PM
Also, is free speech (the first amendment) possible in a Marxist-Leninist society?
It's not only possible, it is vital for the success of the revolution.

As history has shown, restrictions on freedom of speech render the system rigid and unable to adapt to a changing environment. The leaders get stuck in their dogma, the system becomes fossilized, and eventually crumbles into dust.

We can put a stop to capitalist propaganda by nationalizing the media and putting it in the hands of the workers. But freedom of speech must be guaranteed for everyone.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Edric O
But freedom of speech must be guaranteed for everyone.

No "Free Speech" for Reactionaries! (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1097152138&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[__ca va?]

Marxist-Leninism. Out with the old COMPLETELY, in with the new.
Yes! Out with the old completely!!

Marxism-leninism out, dictature of the proletariate out
democracy in, freedom of speech in!

I can't believe you think a 160 years old theory is still correct word by word! And who the hell wants dictature of the proletariate? It took a long time to create democracy and would you spoil it by creating a tyrannic system?? And the world has changed so much throughout these 160 years: there are new media, new technologies the whole society changed. Even the means of production and the ways of exploitation. We just have to reform marxism because it is not the holy bible, it can be reformed, its words are not sacrosanct! So this is why I support democratic socialism and reformism.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by __ca [email protected] 26 2004, 05:05 PM
I can't believe you think a 160 years old theory is still correct word by word! And who the hell wants dictature of the proletariate? It took a long time to create democracy and would you spoil it by creating a tyrannic system?? And the world has changed so much throughout these 160 years: there are new media, new technologies the whole society changed. Even the means of production and the ways of exploitation. We just have to reform marxism because it is not the holy bible, it can be reformed, its words are not sacrosanct! So this is why I support democratic socialism and reformism.
Reformism is not about reforming Marxism. Reformism is about reforming capitalism (as opposed to overthrowing it via revolution) to make it "better".

OF COURSE Marxist theory needs to be updated. Lenin himself did exactly that - he updated the original Marxism, thus creating Marxism-Leninism. A second update might be a very good idea (but, of course, it would be a massive task to undertake).

[__ca va?]

Reformism is not about reforming Marxism. Reformism is about reforming capitalism (as opposed to overthrowing it via revolution) to make it "better".

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I know what reformism is. I've even read Evolutionary Socialism from Bernstein. What I was intending to say is that I consider reformism the only way socialism can be achieved. But what Lenin did was not updating marxism, but simply rewriting it! He thought that an undeveloped country like Russia could become a socialist state, which was a big mistake. To become a socialist one, a state must reach a levek of development. Like having industry. Russia in 1917 was basically an agricultural country therefore it hadn't even had a proletariat!