Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism

[ComradeJunichi]

Someone explain to me what Social Democracy is and what Democratic Socialism is. I've looked it up on several sites but it doesn't tell me what they want to achieve and what they believe. It only states what types of groups there are. So it would be great if someone can explain to me, thanks a lot.

[Edelweiss]

Social democracy is a compromise with capitalism. Social democrats believe in a social government control of capitalism. Democratic/"liberal"/libertarian socialists believe in personal freedom but are anti-capitalist though. Many libertarian socialists still support a violent revolution, social democrats would never do that.
Modern social democracy like there is in Germany or the UK can hardly be described as social democracy, it has too many neo-liberal parts.

[Weidt]

Social Democracy would be what much of Europe is today. It is Capitalist economics, but with social programs and regulation, as well as nationalization of some industries. Social Democrats are really Social Capitalists; they believe in the glory of Capitalism, but recognize it has some ills that they try to remedy. An analogy I use is, "Social Democracy is to Capitalism, what make-up is to a battered woman." In other words, tries to cover-up the abuses thereof.

Democratic Socialism is merely Socialism, but placing stress on it being democratic in nature. Democratic Socialists participate in electoral politics in the aim of acheiving whatever positive change they can now, but recognize that electoral politics cannot bring about Socialism alone. Many believe there will be a revolution, though hope for a non-violent, bloodless, one. It is also anti-vanguardist and anti-elitist and believes in grassroots democratic action. Many Leftists dislike them simply because they engage in electoral politics, but frankly, I see it as merely another form of action against Capitalism.

The Left needs to stop fighting itself for once.

[Borincano]

Weidt,

Great definitions that I couldn't have written better my self!

[RedCeltic]

Democratic Socialism is merely Socialism, but placing stress on it being democratic in nature. Democratic Socialists participate in electoral politics in the aim of acheiving whatever positive change they can now, but recognize that electoral politics cannot bring about Socialism alone. Many believe there will be a revolution, though hope for a non-violent, bloodless, one. It is also anti-vanguardist and anti-elitist and believes in grassroots democratic action.

That's one of the best definitions I've seen of exactly what I belive in. ( Democratic Socialism).. And yes, as Malte said, many of us would support a violent revolution if it came to it, but would hope for a non violent one.

[Weidt]

Being that I am a Democratic Socialist (Anarcho-Communist, Libertarian Socialist), it was rather simple to give such a definition. I am glad you agree. Thank you.

[vox]

Well good goddamn.

That's me up there in that definition. If anyone was wondering, I am, apparently, a Democratic Socialist.

I don't know who you are, Weidt, but you've done me a great service here.

Thanks.

vox

[Borincano]

I can see that there are more Democratic Socialists on this forum than I thought. I must admit, I'm a Democratic Socialist as well. :)

[ComradeJunichi]

So, I'm wondering can you be a democratic socialist and believe in Marx or Lenin's writing?

[Edelweiss]

Quote: from ComradeJunichi on 2:45 pm on Aug. 1, 2002
So, I'm wondering can you be a democratic socialist and believe in Marx or Lenin's writing?

Of course! I would say all Democratic Socialists "believe" in Marx's writings. Lenin is a different case, some Democratic Socialists do, some don't. Often, like the PDS (Party of Democratic Socialism) in Germany, Democratic Socialists are reformed Marxist-Leninists or even reformed Stalinists.

[Edelweiss]

Let me add this: The borders between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy are fluent. The PDS in Germany is a fine example for that too.

[abstractmentality]

i would also call myself a democratic socialist. i was wondering though, of those in america that are democratic socialist, do you belong to the Democratic Socialist of America (http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html) party, or do you belong to another party?

[mentalbunny]

i think it was redceltic who gave me this url, it's good.

red dictionary (http://www.red-encyclopedia.org/vocab.htm)

I reckon I'm a democratic socialist.

(Edited by mentalbunny at 12:34 am on Aug. 3, 2002)

[Weidt]

Yes, a Democratic Socialist can read and believe in ideas of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, or whomever. I take from every author in some form or another, big or small. I believe in some of Che Guevara, even though I oppose guerrillaism and terrorism.

As to the Democratic Socialists of America, I think they are more of Social Democrats or Left-Democrats. Some DSA members hold political office now as Democrats (a couple Congressmen), and the AFL-CIO (largest US federation of unions) President is Sweeney, a DSA member. The DSA are former Shactmanites (neo-Trotskyists) and Harrington followers that practice "realignment", or "entrism". It is the practice of working within the Democratic Party to make liberal change. The problem is that the Democratic Party is a corporate party, it is not of the working class, it merely throws out a facade of such.

The Socialist Party of America suffered a three-way split in the 1970s due to internal divisions. Harrington and the right-wing of the SPA hijacked the SPA and split/renamed into the DSA. The Social Democrats USA split off as well (virtually neo-conservatives). The left-wing SPA members restructured, through the Eugene V. Debs Caucus, forming the present-day Socialist Party USA.

I am a member of the Socialist Party USA, and welcome any of you Democratic Socialists to join or discuss with me personally - view my profile for my instant messanger contact info, or email.

[maoist3]

I agree with Malte on the difference of democratic
socialism and social-democracy. However, in practice,
many who even call themselves communists are
social-democrats. A lot of people have a hard time
maintaining the distinction, especially communists
who do not really have the courage of their convictions.

Something that has to be analyzed is whether people
are in favor of elections held by exploiters. We at MIM
believe most Amerikkkans are exploiters. The result
of even the fairest election (which of course we don't have in the u$A) would still be an exploiter President wanting to abuse the rest of the world. And who elected
the Pentagon to run the rest of the world? Amerikkkans did.

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/opposedem.html

[antieverything]

I am a Democratic Socialist and I also believe in Marx...why? Its like believing in rain...Marx's economic predictions have come true again and again. The thing about Marx is that after the fall of capitalism, he wasn't saying what he believed should happen but what he believed would happen inevitably. I don't agree with him on some minor issues but the bulk of his writings are wonderful. Lenin...who cares what this guy said, he was insane.

[pastradamus]

Fucking hell! About a few months ago I thought I was the only democratic socialist here! now look at us! muhahahaha!

Most of us would believe in marxist writings & would hold them in a higher category than those of lenin.

[pastradamus]

Fucking hell! About a few months ago I thought I was the only democratic socialist here! now look at us! muhahahaha!

Most of us would believe in marxist writings & would hold them in a higher category than those of lenin.

[vox]

If you go here:

www.dsausa.org/archive/Docs/Lingo.html

You'll find a whole bunch of definitions, but what I like is the chart at the bottom. I am, admittedly, to the left of the DSA, and I don't particularly care for the "loony left" tag it included in the chart, but I think it's still a pretty accurate portrait of where the groups stand, as long as one accept "Stalinist" as being left-wing, as it traditionally is in the US. Also, I think that perhaps Solidarity might need to be pushed to the left a bit, but that's a trivial complaint.

vox

[Weidt]

Looking at the DSA's own chart you can see they are right-wing socialists, and how absurd they are in declaring the far left the "looney left". The DSA is merely a bunch of people who lay in bed with the Democrats saying "we need social change, we want a system like Europe." Come on, Socialists should demand Socialism, not European Social Capitalism!

In their definition of "Social Democracy" they put themselves under it. They put the Socialist Party of America there between 1900-1972, which is absurd. The SPA was more Left until the Shachtman and Harrington takeover that moved the SPA to the right, and ultimately into a three-way split in the SPA in 1972. The SPUSA that is the heir of SPA of Eugene V. Debs is on the rise and staying true to the call for Socialism.

The DSA should just merge with the Democratic Party, the wankers.

[antieverything]

The DSA isn't a party at all, just an organization. In 2000, 56 members of congress were members of the DSA and and all of them were independants or democrats. I think that six were even on the judiciary commitee.

I am probably closest to the SPUSA. Most other parties are either non-existant or screwed up (CPUSA). I've never been able to find anything about the Socialist Worker's Party USA even though they got as many votes as the SP in the presidention election.

[vox]

"In their definition of "Social Democracy" they put themselves under it. They put the Socialist Party of America there between 1900-1972, which is absurd."

Yes, the definitions show clear bias. Like I said, what I like is the chart at the bottom of the page, which I think is useful for people in the US.

What's odd to me is that I've read Harrington, and he doesn't sound like a Democrat, but like a socialist. I know a lot of people don't like him, but I do.

vox

[antieverything]

Well, these guys aren't bad, they are just quick to compromise...but hell, they are the only ones in congress doing anything at the legislative level.

[vox]

Antieverything,

I called the local SWP group several years ago and got a Pathfinders bookstore. Then I started getting The Militant (http://www.themilitant.com/) delivered to me. They don't really seem to be much of a party in the US. From what I could tell, they were Marxist-Leninist and very similar to the CPUSA.

If you want something to the left of the SPUSA but isn't Leninist, Trotskyist or Maoist, you've got the Socialist Labor Party (http://www.marxism.net), the oldest socialist party in the USA. And, I gotta tell ya, I don't hate it. Sadly, the party has lost a lot of members and can barely keep it's paper going. It's recruiting tactics don't seem to be too good. I've considered joining this party, actually.

vox

[Weidt]

The SWP spends their time selling books and their paper, about it really. Pathfinder Press is expensive and holds like a monopoly on Trotsky, Cannon, and other author's english works. They threatened to sue the Marxists Internet Archive for copyright infringement because they had some Trotsky works on their website. Commies suing over copyright?! haha.

As for the SLP, I never much cared for them. DeLeon was a wanker who tried to takeover the IWW from the beginning, only to break off and declare the "Detroit IWW", whose membership was a direct copy of the SLP membership, so that disbanded rather quickly. I also question any party that takes their founder and makes him into an -ism, like DeLeonism - or as they claim their party is, Marxism-DeLeonism. Personally, I find any name-ism to be rather dogmatic, be it Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, or DeLeonism. Of course it does not mean I dislike Marx or whomever, but to be a Marxist would imply you follow that person 100%, which is 1) impossible, 2) arrogant, and 3) pointless. I take from a lot of people, so cannot tie me to one name-ism.

Anyway, the SPUSA does not preach Debsism, there is no such a thing. I would suggest any Socialist to join the SPUSA, CoC, Solidarity, or some other multi-tendency democratic/libertarian socialist party or organization.

[vox]

Someone should have taken over the IWW. They don't even consider themselves to be a political organization, which strikes me as rather bizarre.

As for DeLeon, if you wait for perfection you'll die waiting.

vox

[antieverything]

The IWW is only a collection of unions (well, its not much of one anymore!) kind of like the AFL-CIO only not a bunch of pansies and it's organized bottom up anarcho-syndiclist style.

[vox]

Yes, but why can't a union be political? It seems to me that it would have to be.

vox

[Weidt]

Unions are for the economical and workplace wellbeing of workers, not out for political action. They may endorse political parties, but they are not politicians themselves.

Also the IWW is anarcho-syndicalist in theory, but strives to represent workers regardless of the worker's individual beliefs.

[antieverything]

Yeah, they would be the ideal union if they were more powerful.

According to the Encyclopedia of the American Left, the SWP is a trotskyiest splinter organization of the CP...did they change or am I just not remembering correctly?

(do you guys like my new avatar? I changed it as I am no longer an anarchist!)