Democratic Socialism

[RGacky3]

Democratic Socialists generally want to try to achieve Socialism through the institutions we have now, electoral, representative democratic institutions. Recently they have been gaining some popularity I think, with the left turn in Latin America, and some other places. But I always think about post war europe and its "Democratic Socialists" who then turned into "Social-Democrats" who then turned into friendly Capitalists, and are now almost back to where they started.
The theory as I see it seams kind of like a Compromise between Anarchism and "Authoritarian Socialism" like the Authoritarian they don't believe Direct Action and non heiarchial movements can achieve Socialism, But like Anarchists they are against a revolutionary Vanguarde and a Centralized Power system (I think they lean a lot more to the Authoritarians than they do to Anarchists).

But what do you think, do you think that through the modern electoral, representative systems Socialism can be achieved through constution changes or new laws or redistribution programs?

Personally I believe that the State and its institutions are under the Capitalists and that Direct Action and ground up action against both the Capitalists and the State is neccesary, and that the institutions of the State will always be basically under the control of the Capitalists, but I hope I can be proved wrong by people like Evo Morales and the such.

[Fawkes]

You'll find that most people on this board do no see reform as an effective method to achieve widespread change, hence the name RevolutionaryLeft.

[RGacky3]

Some might argue that you could achieve revolutionary goals (not reform) through electoral means. Such as legal nationalization, land redistrubution, decentralization, and constitutional changes. Meaning it would be an economic (not neccesarily political) revolution.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 11:14 pm
Some might argue that you could achieve revolutionary goals (not reform) through electoral means. Such as legal nationalization, land redistrubution, decentralization, and constitutional changes. Meaning it would be an economic (not neccesarily political) revolution.
Yes, but is are goals such as nationalization, land distribution, decentralization and other changes really that revolutionary? This only transfers the capital from private hands into public ones. Capital, no matter who has it, is still capital.

The goals you speak of may make things a little better, but still there is no revolution. Revolution is not redistributing land or putting factories in state control.

Now, onto the debate on whether or not such changes could even take place. Bourgeois elections are little more than a spectacle. The bourgeoisie are very good at keeping the state apparatus in their hands. They will not allow such reforms.

This "left turn" you speak of in Latin America is not a revolutionary turn. It is simply a transfer of capital from the hands of one group to the hands of another. They are still capitalist nations. They may appear to be more humane, they may even be more humane, but it's still capitalism and is still the enemy.

[RGacky3]

Transfering Capital from Private to Public hands is the point, under communism Capital does'nt stop existing (Capital meaning tools of production), they are just socially, or communally owned.

I think its hard to argue that those countries arn't becomming more Socialist, (distributing land to peasants, and putting resources in the hands of the state, which can be pressured by the public much much easier than private capital, is clearly Socialistic), but the question is whether they can sustain that change and eventually change it so much that it the country can be described as Socialist.

Obviously if your an anarchist you would be pretty much opposed to this, so this question is a little more for Vanguardists, such as Lenninists.

I personally, although I do consider my self somewhat of an anarcho-syndicalist/communist, think Evo Morales is doing a very good thing, even though its from the top down, I think there might be something to it, as long as his support base continues being the poor farmers and indians, and they continue making demands.

Of coarse another question is can democratically elected officials make the changes they want? And how? or Why not?

[Coggeh]

This "left turn" you speak of in Latin America is not a revolutionary turn. It is simply a transfer of capital from the hands of one group to the hands of another.

Yes,One being the Aristocracy the other being the working class , Socialism through reformism is the prime way foward , socialism must not be forced on them if they dont want it , and if they do then they would vote for it ... this being a fact since the majority of everynation on the planet are the working class .

For the last 80 years, socialism has been delieved down the barrel of a gun , how many pure socialist states are around today ? , by using this feudal method its fueling the bourgeois media that make socialism a word commonly referred with terrorism , its only since Chavez has used his democratic right to put the wealth in public hands and create more radical changes has socialism been getting un-bias,good reporting.It makes it more attractive for the workers in other nations .

[McLeft]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:09 am
You'll find that most people on this board do no see reform as an effective method to achieve widespread change, hence the name RevolutionaryLeft.
But isn't that what Chavez is doing? I mean he has enjoyed victory after victory at the polls and changes are taking place at a reasonable pace, which I think might be less messier that the impact of a revolution and can act as a tool of transition rather than transforming the country into a socialist state in 24 hours. I previously believed that revolution was the only way forward but Chavez has shown a different alternative which could well work, so far it is working. The creation of the new "Bolivarian Circles", Naionalisations, basic services, missions, etc, it's all happened through reform and whether it will be successful remains to be seen but so far the signs are positive.

Just my two cents.

[Rawthentic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:48 am

This "left turn" you speak of in Latin America is not a revolutionary turn. It is simply a transfer of capital from the hands of one group to the hands of another.

Yes,One being the Aristocracy the other being the working class , Socialism through reformism is the prime way foward , socialism must not be forced on them if they dont want it , and if they do then they would vote for it ... this being a fact since the majority of everynation on the planet are the working class .

For the last 80 years, socialism has been delieved down the barrel of a gun , how many pure socialist states are around today ? , by using this feudal method its fueling the bourgeois media that make socialism a word commonly referred with terrorism , its only since Chavez has used his democratic right to put the wealth in public hands and create more radical changes has socialism been getting un-bias,good reporting.It makes it more attractive for the workers in other nations .
So you openly admit that you are a reformist?

Socialism can never be achieved through the electoral system, for that is only an attempt to make things a little more better under the current system, other than destroying the institutions of oppression to be replaced with new ones.

And there's no such things as "pure socialism". Socialism has been "attempted" in feudal o semi-feudal nations, but degenerated to state-capitalism because of the lack of a proletariat and material conditions for proletarian revolution, as well as hierarchical "Leninist" structures.

Socialism can only be achieved "through the barrel of a gun", because we cant sweet-talk the capitalist class to hand over the means of production. Thats common sense. And if the majority of workers are against socialism, its because of the aggressive propaganda and brain-washing that the bourgeoisie puts on them to keep them subservient.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:46 am
Socialism can only be achieved "through the barrel of a gun", because we cant sweet-talk the capitalist class to hand over the means of production. Thats common sense. And if the majority of workers are against socialism, its because of the aggressive propaganda and brain-washing that the bourgeoisie puts on them to keep them subservient.
If the Majority of workers are against socialism, it would be nessesary to force socialism on them (meaning a non-democratic society), and would'nt that kind of destroy the point?

I disagree that Socialism can only be achieved "through the barrel of a gun." Although I also don't believe eletoral ways are very effective. In fact I don't think any attack on the political elements is the best way to go about things, I think the anarcho-syndicalist way is best, attack the Capitalists directly with direct action.

[Rawthentic]

If the Majority of workers are against socialism, it would be nessesary to force socialism on them (meaning a non-democratic society), and would'nt that kind of destroy the point?


You are correct here, but this has no logical make-up. Who and how are they going to "force" socialism into the workers? Socialism comes from working class organization and the achievement of a revolutionary class-consciousness. With this, it can't be forced onto them. :huh:


I disagree that Socialism can only be achieved "through the barrel of a gun." Although I also don't believe eletoral ways are very effective. In fact I don't think any attack on the political elements is the best way to go about things, I think the anarcho-syndicalist way is best, attack the Capitalists directly with direct action.

OK, looks like you need help. How is one going to achieve a revolutionary anarchist society? Anarchist societies are the ones that would require the most thorough remake of social relations and institutions. This cant be achieved unless the capitalist class is overthrown. That requires a certain degree of force and violence, because they are the ones that do not allow peaceful revolution, and it is not our job to ask them for it, but to, as you said, use direct action.

[dannie]

I think we should give credit to the democratic socialists working in the electoral system where it's due. And in my opinion they are in an exellent position to increas polarity between the different classes driving inter-class relations to a point where revolution becomes a valid method of change. I do believe there must be a clear division between social democrats and democratic socialists. The way I see it is that the social democrats actually work in favor of the ruling class by ensuring a constant population that belongs to the labour aristocracy whereas democratic socialists have the task to actually agitate. To constantly put forward an alternative to the neo-liberal and imperialist policies of today.
Of course it's important to note that as a part of the electoral system at a certain point they become part of that problem because of their nature, validating that same system they are fighting.

[Orange Juche]

While I feel the modern electoral system can be used to certain positive ends, I wouldn't see it at all as the means towards the ends we are looking for.