Democratic Socialists

[Cloud]

A lot of people I talk to say they are democratic socialists, yet whenever I ask them what their beliefs are they kind of don't give me any real answers, just that its more justified then communist beliefs. If anyone has any information they can give me on what democratic socialists are it would be greatly appreciated, thank ya!

[Dominicana_1965]

They are Socialist but believe in being implemented through Democratic Elections.

Like Hugo Chavez hes a Socialist Democrat.
Won elections but is a Socialist.

[LSD]

In simplest terms, modern social-demoracy (as distinct from 19th century social-democracy) is the attempt to achieve socialism, or something close to it, from within the bourgeois political arena.

That is, party politics, electioneering, passing legislation, etc...

Sweden is usually presented as the best example of a social-democracy in practice, but there are actually quite a few of them around the world. Obviously none of them has managed to actually accomplish anything beyond capitalism-light.

Not that social-democracy has much of an endgame, anyway. In many ways, it buys into the neoconservative myth that the liberal republic is the "end of history" and therefore "market hampeing" is the best we can do.

Obviously revolutionaries disagree with that assesment.

[GSTPP]

We need smash this bad ideas! Only good bourgeois is dead bourgeois said Brother Number 1!!

[BobKKKindle$]

Democratic Socialism has its roots in the ideas of Eduard Bernstein, who believed that Marx had not taken into account the role of the state as a mediator of class struggle, and pointed out that, contrary to Marx's expectations, there was not a growing immsieration of the proletariat, but rather the spread of abundance and material wealth throughout all of society, and so the original idea that socialism would be achieved through a revolutionary uprising in the face of terrible material coniditons was void. Instead, he believed that socialists should try and further the interests of workers within the bourgeois political system, and encourage the state to mediate class struggle.

Clearly DSocialists are counter revolutionary, because they are not struggling for a complete change in the form of economic organisation, rather, they are accepting the capitalist mode of production and trying to overcome its problems within the existing economic framework.

[Son of a Strummer]

Far be it for me to promote wikipedia (which for the most part is a misleading guide), however the entry on democratic socialism is not so bad...

Democratic Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism)

I think democratic socialism should be distinguished from social democracy, especially liberal social democracy, which wants to leave capitalist property relations intact while attempting to achieve a compact between capital and labour.

Democratic socialism seeks a genuine transformation of property and production relations. The preferred strategies to achieve this vary between gradualism and revolutionary direct action.

One reason the term exists is because there were people who rejected Marxian doctrine yet who still looked forward to the radical socialization of economic institutions. This trend continues, people like Immanuel Wallerstein are democratic socialists, of a revolutionary bent.

A major reason why democratic socialism exists is because of the ambiguities in Marx , Marxism and actually existing socialism about the value of democracy, whereas democratic socialists make it clear that their values are concerned with using democratic institutions to give everyone a fair say in the matters that affect them, and do not rule out the use and transformation of current democratic institutions as a means of social progress. Many people nowadays reject Marxian doctrine for substantive reasons which they believe are valid but see no reason to forfeit their socialist identity just because of the collapse of Marxist theory.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Son of a [email protected] 18, 2006 01:55 pm
Democratic socialism seeks a genuine transformation of property and production relations. The preferred strategies to achieve this vary between gradualism and revolutionary direct action.
This is actually something that should be stressed. Technically democratic socialists are Marxist in that they seek to arrive at the communist mode of production. Of course this is no longer a major factor today, where democratic socialists are few and far between, but is important when looking at Marxism/communism from a historical perspective.

[Son of a Strummer]

This is actually something that should be stressed. Technically democratic socialists are Marxist in that they seek to arrive at the communist mode of production. Of course this is no longer a major factor today, where democratic socialists are few and far between, but is important when looking at Marxism/communism from a historical perspective.

Logically speaking you are conflating the general and the specific. If democratic socialists favour the radical socialization of property, production and consumption relations, then it does not follow that , technically, they are Marxist. To be Marxist they have to acknowledge a general acceptance of core Marxist doctrine (LTV, materialist conception of history, dialectical reasoning, Marxist class theory, theory of surplus value, etc.).

In reality it can be said that democratic socialists and Marxists are both socialists, and no more, because there is a further distinction to be made between socialism and a communism as a society of communes united by free association. Some democratic socialists are communists, others are not, and favour a distributive maxim of reward according to productive output rather than distribution according to needs.

Some examples of democratic socialists might be Bertrand Russelll (who once wrote a lucid essay called The Case for Socialism, but rejected Marxism), and John Dewey, and also arguably Thorstein Veblen and Michael Harrington.

By the way, contrary to what Bobkindles wrote, democratic socialist "roots" pre-date Bernstein and even Marx.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Son of a [email protected] 18, 2006 02:48 pm
Logically speaking you are conflating the general and the specific. If democratic socialists favour the radical socialization of property, production and consumption relations, then it does not follow that , technically, they are Marxist. To be Marxist they have to acknowledge a general acceptance of core Marxist doctrine (LTV, materialist conception of history, dialectical reasoning, Marxist class theory, theory of surplus value, etc.).
All of which the original democratic socialists readily subscribed to. Their only differences with the communists was a belief that state power must be conquered rather than destroyed. Bernstein and Kautsky were Marxists.

[Son of a Strummer]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+November 18, 2006 03:29 pm--> (ComradeOm @ November 18, 2006 03:29 pm)
Son of a [email protected] 18, 2006 02:48 pm
Logically speaking you are conflating the general and the specific. If democratic socialists favour the radical socialization of property, production and consumption relations, then it does not follow that , technically, they are Marxist. To be Marxist they have to acknowledge a general acceptance of core Marxist doctrine (LTV, materialist conception of history, dialectical reasoning, Marxist class theory, theory of surplus value, etc.).
All of which the original democratic socialists readily subscribed to. Their only differences with the communists was a belief that state power must be conquered rather than destroyed. Bernstein and Kautsky were Marxists. [/b]
The difference between us on this subject seems to be one of historical interpretation.

You seem to want to categorize anyone who calls themselves a "democratic socialist" today within the organized tradition that you believe began with the likes of Bernstein and Kautsky.

I think of the term of "democratic socialism" as signifying a complex of values and ideas which cannot be confined to the Marxian tradition. Nor do I think that the existence of organized groups (ie: parties) labelled as or calling themselves "democratic socialist" satisfactorally represents the origin and evolution of democratic socialist ideas. In Great Britain, where orthodox Marxism had never been a powerful force, there was what can be plausibly called a flourishing of democratic socialism too, that predated Bernstein and Kautsky; it was an eclectic tradition derived from the ideas of people like William Morris more than Marx.

To me, whether one accepts the Marxian version of the history of democratic socialism or some other is of little importance. Since that time numerous folks have identified with democratic socialism, rather than Marxism, without any reference point whatsoever to the ideas or historical movement associated with Marxist revisionism. Really I think the question is whether one can currently be democratic socialist, and thus favour radical socialization, while not subscribing to Marxist theory- your answer implied that they are still technically Marxist. For me the answer is obvious. Marxism is a subset of socialist ideas and practice, democratic socialism is also a subset of socialist ideas and practice. There are numerous intersections, and in some cases Marxists are democratic socialists, and democratic socialists are Marxists, yet there can and do exist democratic socialists independent of the Marxian tradition.

"Je ne suis pas Marxiste."

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Democratic Socialism is the belief of acheiving socialism through bourgieous elections. They are often the far left of capitalism.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Son of a [email protected] 18, 2006 04:00 pm
The difference between us on this subject seems to be one of historical interpretation.
That's probably true given that I regard democratic socialism purely as an historical movement. Apart from isolated thinkers it does not apply to the world today - those parties that were originally democratic socialist (the SPD springs to mind as the most prominent) have almost universally renounced their Marxist origins and turned social democratic. When we speak of democratic socialism today, outside of Latin America of course, we are in fact talking about Kautsky et al.

Let us make no bones about this - as a political movement democratic socialism has been dead for almost a century now. It is an historical curiosity.

[Son of a Strummer]

Let us make no bones about this - as a political movement democratic socialism has been dead for almost a century now. It is an historical curiosity.

It's my impression that it is no less dead than orthodox Marxism and Marxism-Leninism. In the U.S. there's the Democratic Socialists of America and The Socialist Party USA which probably dwarf the explicitly Marxist parties.

It is also my impression that as a complex of ideas and values, democratic socialism is currently no less accepted in left wing politics than Marxism. I can think of tendencies in intellectual traditions like critical institutionalism or the New Left or the increasingly popular journal New Politics (http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/whoweare.htm) , that embrace these values in a non-Marxist way, and can be said to be a living tendency on the left, and arguably more alive than Marxism. The Marxist tradition has seen something of an exodus, not just because the failure of the SU has been illegitimately associated with it but because some socialists, though remaining revolutionary in outlook, are finding Marxist doctrines too flawed to sustain a direct identification with.

To quote the position of New Politics:


"Above all, New Politics insists on the centrality of democracy to socialism and on the need to rely on mass movements from below for progressive social transformation."

Neither Marx nor the Marxist movement that followed was as unambiguous about the importance of democratic values as that.

[Joby]

Democratic Socialism is necessary for the revolution.

A real Socialist Party must emerge, with a platform, flag, and a good following.

When the capitalists inevitably try to crush it, people can fight back. But more importantly, a structure and a belief could be followed.

If all the "revolutionaries" went and started shit today, they'd get...nowhere.
If a large group of people THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN FORMED tries to fight back, say...Islam, then they'd get somewhere.

Basically, there needs to be something for people to rally around. And people don't rally around losing causes.

[chebol]

Two different things here:

First, the phenomenon known as "democratic socialism", which is described correctly above as classical 'social democracy'.

Second, democratic socialism - ie not what existed in the soviet union and the eastern bloc for most of the C20, but the real deal, the kind of thing that Cuba is making (limited) strides towrds, and hopefully Venezuela and others too. The stronger the socialist camp, the more important the battle for democracy within that camp, else socialism will fail, as historically socialism has been concerned with taking state power (which I don't disagree with), a scenario fraught with danger if the proletariat becomes excluded from the exercise of political power.

The DSP in Oz is the latter.

The theory that the state can arbitrate the class struggle (at least under capitalism) is sheer sophistry. The state is an instrument of class rule. If it is a capitalist state, then capitalist relations remain intact, regardless of who makes up the government, and the working class remains oppressed. The 'social democrats' might throw crumbs, but they're still at the masters' table.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Son of a [email protected] 18, 2006 10:13 pm
It's my impression that it is no less dead than orthodox Marxism and Marxism-Leninism. In the U.S. there's the Democratic Socialists of America and The Socialist Party USA which probably dwarf the explicitly Marxist parties. Well this is actually interesting. The DSA, if I can abbreviate it to that, seems to be a hodge podge of ideas or, as they themselves put it - "it draws upon Marxism, religious and ethical socialism, feminism, and other theories that critique human domination." I'll admit that I've never been a fan of the scattergun, or "throw it all in" approach to politics.

Of course both the CPUSA and SWP(US) outnumber it. But I'll concede that democratic socialism is not as dead as I thought... its just been hiding within the Democratic Party.

Its also good to see that the DSA's basis remains firmly Marxist... or at least as Marxist as the SPD once was. As much as they've bastardised and misinterpreted Marx's work his critique of capitalism remains the foundation of their manifesto. That at least ranks them higher than the Utopians.


It is also my impression that as a complex of ideas and values, democratic socialism is currently no less accepted in left wing politics than Marxism.Define "the left wing". If you mean everything left of centre then you're wrong - the social democrats and capitalists look far more favourably on democratic socialism than they do communism. If you mean those committed to seeing the socialist mode of production then you're still wrong - this is an segment of the political spectrum that the revolutionary left has an almost complete monopoly on.


I can think of tendencies in intellectual traditions like critical institutionalism or the New Left or the increasingly popular journal New Politics (http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/whoweare.htm) , that embrace these values in a non-Marxist way, and can be said to be a living tendency on the left, and arguably more alive than Marxism. That the New Left, or whatever they're calling themselves these days, are still scrambling for a remotely coherent ideology to pin their colours to is not surprising. What is surprising is that anyone is actually noticing.

Personally I think they like being in a flux. Its safer than actually taking a position.


Neither Marx nor the Marxist movement that followed was as unambiguous about the importance of democratic values as that.
Oh Marx was pretty clear on the worth of parlimentary democracy alright: "Universal suffrage is an opportunity citizens of a country get every four years to decide who among the ruling classes will misrepresent them in parliament."