"Democratic Socialism"

[Nateddi]

Am I the only one who thinks that "Democratic Socialism" is just a watered down term which can be used by any Communist, Socialist, or even Anarchist?

Although nothing wrong with that term, I don't feel its a separate ideology. Its more of a way to not get your view dismissed as extremely radical or undemocratic.

Take this example of a statement with a typical knee-jerk reaction about it.

"I am a Communist" - Pfft, just some Stalin worshiper. No thanks sir, I like democracy better

"I am a Socialist" - Hmm, didn't I learn that socialism is the same as communism? This guy must be whacky, he seems like he can be a communist"

"I am a Democratic Socialist - Hrms, I like democracy, and I guess this ideology seems pretty good, I think I will let you teach me about it a little more

All Socialists and Communists on this board favor democracy. So I just figure that this stance of "Democratic Socialism" is not a real ideology, just a well dressed term for a radical leftist position. Agree?

[red senator]

I think that the "democratic" in "democratic socialist" refers to the means of acheiving a socialist state. It means they favor using democracy to get socialism rather than a revolution.
But you are right about "democratic socialist" sounding more appealing than "communist."

"All Socialists and Communists on this board favor democracy."

I have seen some posts on here that say socialism will never come as a result of democracy but must be taken through a violent revolution. (check the Evolution2 thread)

[Lardlad95]

I feel that Democracy is the first option and that revolution is a last resort. I feel right now that the situation isn't bad enough for revolution. People should now learn about socialism and try to elect socialist leaders. There are places were socialists are elected.

[peaccenicked]

Up till The Russian Revolution and even in the mind of
Lenin. Socialism and democracy are inseperable.
'Democratic socialism' is largely used as a term to disavow Stalinism. In this sense it is useful although strictly speaking, one presupposes the other.

[Blackberry]

Look at http://www.red-encyclopedia.org/vocab.html and then you will find out what it is. It also includes many forms of leftism.

I found myself to be a democratic socialist, for all that there are, but there are plenty of forms of leftism to categorise yourself in.

[El Che]

The term is unnecessary if you ask me. We need not be ashamed of who we are and the history of our movement. To call our selves "democratic" is to evidenciate stigmatisation by capitalist propaganda. Ignorance is on the ignorant, we need not explain the acusations made against us, rather let the filth stand undignified by a response. To me, democratic socialism usualy means shallow socialism, it means conformed groups or parties, some of which are no longer Marxist, that are content with campagning for nothing more then mear raises in wage. They have abandoned Socialism because they seek nothing more then conciliation with capitalism, they either lost heart, brain or are currupt, I do not know and I do not care. Such people are no Socialists. Even our name (dignified with the blood of brothers) has been usurped by these capitalist beasts.

[Lardlad95]

with out parties we aren't unified. If a revolution were ever to take place we would need to be united.

[Blackberry]

Quote: from El Che on 2:19 am on April 9, 2002
They have abandoned Socialism because they seek nothing more then conciliation with capitalism, they either lost heart, brain or are currupt, I do not know and I do not care. Such people are no Socialists. Even our name (dignified with the blood of brothers) has been usurped by these capitalist beasts.


I call myself a democratic socialist, but I am strictly against socialism. What made you think I wanted to reconciliate with capitalists? What nonsense.

And just t back myself up, look at the meaning. it will clearly state that democratic socialists view capitalists as evil.

I am very anti-American (government).

[deadpool 52]

Socialism, in the sense of the economic system.

Democracy, in the sense of voting for laws, thus, political system.

[Nateddi]

Online I call myself a "Communist". It draws more attention, and I converted one person, and left huge effects on others who I couldint talk to/who didnt want to give up their views infront of me.

In public, I call myself a Communist, or Socialist, or a "Democratic Socialist" (if the people are that stupid).

There

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from deadpool 52 on 1:34 am on April 10, 2002

Socialism, in the sense of the economic system.

Democracy, in the sense of voting for laws, thus, political system.



dead pool is correct. IF you take both basic meanings you get what Democratic socialism really is

[RedCeltic]

I'm a Democratic Socialist but I take the term to mean more than simply fighting for socialism democraticly... its also the resteration of democracy... today the largest obstical is the two party (non democratic) representitive democracy we have in the United States.

So the main goal for third parties in the United States... rather than actually hoping for a fluke that will let them gain office... is to work with other third parties in ending the two party monopoly.

Besides the "Worker's World Party" a Stalinist party... most American communist parties like Communist Party USA are 'reform communist'... and are very very close to democratic socialism. So I think today the mesh between the two is thiner.

[honest intellectual]

I think there is very little distinction between these new-age leftist terms. there is no one 'real meaning'. different people mean different things by the phrase 'social democrat' or, for that matter, 'socialist', 'communist', 'Trotskyist' etc.

[Blackberry]

Some people get democratic socialism mixed up with social democracy. They are two completely different things.

[Fires of History]

I agree with RedCeltic,

Those that call themselves 'Democratic Socialists' that I know and have met, have been people trying to reinstitute true representation to government. It's been dead a long time, that is, if you believe it has ever existed.

But the same could easily happen in any system, and I think it a product of simple thinking to believe that Socialism = Democracy automatically. Perhaps more important than any ecomonic system, or applied theory, to me is the establishment of the rule of the people, the dictatorship of the proletariat, or whatever one want's to call it.

Not the rule of a 'party,' or special interest, or landowners, or those of the upper class. True representation of the people, and that Comrades, is perhaps our most difficult task in the decades to come.

[TheDerminator]

Fires of History,

Can't say that I am familiar with "true representation", so I cannot say if it is dead or not. Maybe U can difine what is meant by the phrase. Certainly, I am infavour of the true representation of the interests of the working class! I hope that isn't dead!

"I think it a product of simple thinking to believe that Socialism = Democracy automatically."

When there is no room for socialist organisation to develop upon in democratic lines, or when history dictates the necessity for a revolution, it is democracy = socialism is not the equation.

However, in advanced BORG societies Democracy = Socialist organisation, just as in a socialist society Democracy = Freedom.

The control of society by the people for the people.

The road to socialism is entrenched in historical reality. Horses for courses, which was why Marx was right to be ambivalent about the need for revolution.


Obviously U see "true representation" and true representation, but the end objective is the long-term interests of every individual, even the enemy, because they are brutalised people, and a democracy sees the greater interest of every individual within society as representing their true interests.

The realisation of the common interest is ultimately in the interests of all. We should not be shy about showing the depth of our commitment to democracy.
It should not be seen as a dirty word, that our enemies have a monopoly upon. Theirs is indeed the shallow interpretation of the word.

May the Force be with U!

derminated

(Edited by TheDerminator at 2:29 pm on April 13, 2002)

[Michael De Panama]

"Democratic Socialist": Seven syllables.
"Socialist": Three syllables.
"Communist": Three syllables.

[Revolution Hero]

I'll try to put the last point, by saying that Communism is the most democratic form of society structure.
Everybody are equal financially and jurisdictionally. That is the true democracy. People rule themselves in a commune, isn't it democracy?
What is called democracy in the capitalist states is not real and true democracy.
Communism= Democracy.

[TheDerminator]

Communism = Highest state of socialism

Point: Socialist democracy comes first. Gotta get it right.

Resistance is Futile!

derminated

[maoist3]

"Democratic socialists" have a different theory than
communists. They believe it is possible to be elected
into state power within bourgeois political systems--often in Liberal imperialist or fascist imperialist or fascist semi-feudal situations.

Socialists of any kind also do not have the goal of state-less society. Only those calling themselves communist are talking about the harmony necessary to do without states and classes.

Scientific communists look at how elected socialists
get massacred by the imperialists and their lackeys.
That is why democratic socialists do not implement socialism and receive a bad image from communists.

Also, a communist does not have to be for
majority elections, especially if the majority of a country
is exploiters. People calling themselves "democratic socialists" are usually intentionally drawing attention
to their support of majority rule at the ballot box.

Because of their failures to accomplish anything,
because of their supporting World War I (since
the majority of workers initially supported it)
and because of their geographic dispersal centering
in Europe, scientific communists hold democratic socialists in low esteem.

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

[Lefty]

I call myself a pragmatic democratic socialist. Meaning, basically, that i can believe what i want and im not held down to any one system of beliefs, i just tend to lean towards a democratic system of election in a socialistic society.

[pastradamus]

N0o way dude,its a seperate idealology alright,but its composed of other idealologys like socialism,marxism especially.

Its refusal to pick up arms has made it more "democratic" & has lost it some respect among the more leftests.

Even marx himself once claimed to be a democratic socialist.

[komsomol]

I call my self a Liberal Communist, if the person who I was talking to doesn't go into a fit as if he had an overdose on doublethink, then I talk to him, and explain my beliefs.If not, I back slowly away.

[oki]

in Europe there are ceveral dem.sos.partys.they wouldn't go for communism at all,they are not anarchists or radicals.I do think you can call it a seperate thing.

[Mazdak]

This is to nateddi's first post--

I am not in favor of democracy.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 3:30 am on Aug. 17, 2002
This is to nateddi's first post--

I am not in favor of democracy.

with out democracy the system utimatley becomes currupt and your authoritarian socialist "paradise" will eventualy

1) Form a class society (those in power will be in the higher class)

2) Form a totalitarian state

3) become a facist hell hole.

Whats to prevent the government from harming people and thier rights?

basically its a extremeley facist monarchy, with the exception that instead of a royal family you have an extremely powerful group of leaders and or a single dictator who rules for his pleasure/benefiet at the expense of his people's well being.

[Nateddi]

democracy is a dogmatic term. define democracy, and I will tell you if i support your definition.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Nateddi on 3:47 am on Aug. 17, 2002
democracy is a dogmatic term. define democracy, and I will tell you if i support your definition.

in its simplest form a system in which the people collectivley vote for how the society is run

[Nateddi]

that is still broad.

i support banning right-wing candidates or even multiparty elections all together, because such are greatly vulnerable to great tempering from abroad by capitalist superpowers which proven by history hijack elections in various different ways. ive just written about it in another thread, i don't feel like writting details.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Nateddi on 4:05 am on Aug. 17, 2002
that is still broad.

i support banning right-wing candidates or even multiparty elections all together, because such are greatly vulnerable to great tempering from abroad by capitalist superpowers which proven by history hijack elections in various different ways. ive just written about it in another thread, i don't feel like writting details.

why should we opress people's opinions?

I don't want cappies opressing me so in turn wont opress them. People have a right to their opinion

[Nateddi]

it is not as simple as it seems.

like it or not lardlad, they are the ones that will have the power for the simple reason that they are the higher class. this is exactly why the US has crushed every single socialist movement in the 20th century that was not closely affiliated with the USSR. The ussr was a superpower and therefore was a threat to the US if they attempted to overthrow, subvert, or destabalize movements. contrary, if you have autonomous small movements, realistically they have no chance at sovereignty without authoritarian tactics. they will be crushed immediatly directly, or indirectly from the class interests abroad.

I suggest you read "free elections, hollywood style", a chapter in killing hope, a great book by william blum that exposes the US imperialism. that chapter among other things has only strenthened my belief in the marxist and marxist-leninist doctrine.

luckily that chapter is avaliable for free online on his website (http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm)

[Lardlad95]

but does that justify what comes out of a result?

I'm not saying everything has to be tottaly open to everything, however it still doesn't mean the people should be silenced for their beliefs.

I agree on the issue of non multiple party elections, and if I could make it that way I would but plain and clear people don't always agree

[Nateddi]

There is something dogmatic about freedom to you I've noticed. you seem to value it above everything, even in proven cases where it works in favor of a small minority.

let me ask you a question:

do you support economic freedom (free market, capitalism, etc)? Obviously not, I assume. Why? because it works against the majority and the general population.

now on the issue of how to sustain a revolutionary government in power:

i am going to be practical and assume the example of a revolution in a small, third world nation. these will come before any changes in developed nations.

now than, i do not wish to allow the kind of freedom that allows for power-possessing interest of the capitalist superpower to destroy the revolution. I would be in favor of greater militarism, with the only type of democracy allowed as internal party democracy, democratic centralism, and worker self management to prevent the development of what criticts call ruling classes (government as a class). If i allow free elections, free access to the country by foreign powers, free speech and organization by opposition right-wing groups, if i do that, they will be funded and supported by the superpower forces, leading in the inevitable overthrow of the government. this is why revolution has been the only way of acheiving socialism that is against capitalist interest.

you seem to be engulfed with the dogma of freedom. you seem like an objectivist libertarian capitalist, if you've ever debated with them you know. you cannot convince them of any left idea because it violates freedom. regulation to businesses and practices violate freedom. do they do good for the society? of course! do they violate freedom? yes they do! if you posses a dogma, everything is immoral. this is why capitalists favor freedom even if corrupt, over progress.

the same thing can be applied to how to acheive socialism. those that are dogmatic about freedom do not consider any realistic method as just.

(Edited by Nateddi at 5:51 am on Aug. 17, 2002)

[Lardlad95]

but I only value mental freedom above everything else.

If you can't say what you want, if you can't believe what you want, if you can't express your opinion there is no need to do so because you are already dead.

When it gets to a point when a person can't try and express and provoke in others using his point of veiw where has the world gotten to.

Just because I don't like capitalism doesn't mean I'm not willing to listen to a capitalists opinion.

[Nateddi]

It all comes down to pragmatism.

I am too against thought policing, however I am not against action policing. A revolutionary government must completely change the political system. Introduce a democracy over the economy, while keeping the basic structure solid and unchangable. In times of crisis, and you will know this if you research, communists and communist sympathizers, and possible communist sympathizers have been executed without trials in many different countries and movements. All I support is keeping capitalists legally powerless to make any change, because, repeating for the third time, if capitalists have the freedom to legally change the system, they will find a way to do it with the assistance of outside influence.

The reason why revolutions happen is because of a violent and political resistance to social change proposed by the revolutionaries. To be completely frank, communists are not supposed to be wimps. If such suppression of opposition happens, it would only happen as a result of revolutionary action, which as I said is caused by militant opposition by the ruling class. If you seize power I do not see a reason why you should not temporarily suppress the opposition. It is basic warfare, it has been practiced since the dawn of light.

Now democratic socialists are dogmatic about freedom. Therefore their ideas could only pragmatic in first-world democracies, after economic troubles have risen, and socialism is sweeping throughout the world. This likely will happen, but not any time soon. For practical purpouses I have used third-world revolution as my example. When met by militant opposition, the Marxist and Marxist-Leninist doctrine is the one that shall be followed. You shall fight, and you shall not allow your enemies to walk freely promoting their ideas until your enemies are gone or no longer an influence over politics.

Though policing is a worry of the developed world, a north american / western european worry. In pseudo-democracies and dictatorships of the developing world, it has never been a concerned by anyone in the dozens of revolutions that have taken place, nor should it be.

[Lardlad95]

thats one of the reasons I am a democratic Socialist I'm focusing on the US, I'm focusing on my home first. and Democratic Socialism is probably the one that will succeed most likely out of any other socialist group.


I think capitalist supporters abilities to influence government should be limited but if they wanna try to convince people go ahead. I'm assuming if teh US did turn to socialism this would mena that as a country the US has gotten smarter and wont go back to capitalism

[man in the red suit]

You guys both make valuable points but who is really "correct?"

democratic socialism has more of an appeal to people than does communism but it is true that democratic socialism will never make a substantial change. They both have different qualities. So I have a question for both of you. Lardlad first.

Lardlad- do you think that any problems within the current system can only be eliminated through revolution?

nateddi-are there any problems which can be solved without a revolution?

the reason I ask is because I would like to see whether there are more substantiable facts supporting a revolution or democratic election. I was a die hard supporter of democratic socialism but now I am leaning towards the idea that democratic socialism may not be the correct solution. Through nateddi's numerous explanations, I have a more thorough understanding of and a new found respect for the dictatorship of the proletariot. Yet at the same time, I fear the dic. of the pro. with an understanding that excludes democratic rights from the capitalists. Is'n that a bit unfair. yet at the same time, the left side has not always been treated fairly either, has it not? I'm in a turmoil here.

Help me out both of you.

[man in the red suit]

actually, after reading both of your posts, I think Nateddi is convincing me a lot more than Lardlad 9no offense to you lardlad). I guess that rendering the capitalists legally powerless, is a good idea. I guess the past has proven this may times.

so lardlad do you have anything to say that might convince me to thinking otherwise?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from man in the red suit on 6:39 am on Aug. 18, 2002
actually, after reading both of your posts, I think Nateddi is convincing me a lot more than Lardlad 9no offense to you lardlad). I guess that rendering the capitalists legally powerless, is a good idea. I guess the past has proven this may times.

so lardlad do you have anything to say that might convince me to thinking otherwise?

I'm trying to convince capitalist not Leftist, hell if the US became democratic socialist wouldn't you like it more than it currently is even if you were communist? So why the hell am I trying to convert you?

I wanna convert capitalists. If they are gonna be opressed they aren't gonna be as open to a leftist government. If they get some freedoms its gonna be easier for them to accept.

Besides Capitalists are people also, they are entitled to rights just like everyone else. Not letting them speak their mind is wrong period.

Thats like me going to school and being allowed to learn, but I can't speak because I'm black.

It just isn't right. Freedom is more important than keeping cappies out of the government.

That can go away but do you know how long opression's scars last?

The scars of slavery will never go away, the Jewish Holocaust's scars will never go away.

Cappies can always be voted out of office but if a group of people are opressed that opression will transcend time.

[Nateddi]

>>democratic rights from the capitalists. Is'n that a bit unfair.

If our goal is to abolish the class of capitalists. Even if you are not a communist, and therefore support small-scale business. If you wish to get rid of the big dogs, you do not give them "democratic rights".

If there is a revolution that overthrows capitalist interest, I consider it very hypocritical that capitalists should be given representation after the revolution. You abolish all private property of the major means of production, you go into a movement for socialism, you do not stagnate the process by allowing the capitalists to filibuster land and production reforms with their "proportional representation" and "decmoratic rights", or worse...

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Nateddi on 6:57 am on Aug. 18, 2002
>>democratic rights from the capitalists. Is'n that a bit unfair.

If our goal is to abolish the class of capitalists. Even if you are not a communist, and therefore support small-scale business. If you wish to get rid of the big dogs, you do not give them "democratic rights".

If there is a revolution that overthrows capitalist interest, I consider it very hypocritical that capitalists should be given representation after the revolution. You abolish all private property of the major means of production, you go into a movement for socialism, you do not stagnate the process by allowing the capitalists to filibuster land and production reforms with their "proportional representation" and "decmoratic rights", or worse...

ah ha I see, that makes even more sense.

Lard lad, I know your not trying to convince me personally but I was interested as to whether or not I thought democratic socialism or revolution was the more beneficial solution.

nateddi makes a lot of sense so I think I will have to go with him on this one. Giving capitalists democratic would be a bit hypocrytical and yet for some reason I was unable to stand the idea of not letting another class have democratic rights even when it is the class which I am against. I must be too endowed with democracy or something. But still, Nateddi has me really convinced.

I am more in support of what Nateddi said earlier. I am agianst thought policing but action policing is a different subject. You are not preventing the cappies from speaking their minds, you are simply preventing them from owning the major means of production and distribution.

I don't know lardlad, nateddi has me really convinced.
He is certainly skilled at the brainwashing. :)

[Lardlad95]

perhapes you guys didn't know this.

I'm only in favor of revolution as a last resort.

I would preffer democratic reform.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 7:15 am on Aug. 18, 2002
perhapes you guys didn't know this.

I'm only in favor of revolution as a last resort.

I would preffer democratic reform.

that is exactly what I thought your beliefs were.

[oki]

after a revolution:if a group calls themself kapitalists and forms a party that tries to reinstate kapitalism,this would be undermining the system.counterrevolutionairy.so it's only logical you would bann that party.just like democracy's right now bann partys that are facist/fundamentalist.
as long as former capitalists don't do things to undermine the system,they should be free like everybodyelse.locking people up because of what they used to be,now that's not right.if it would take a revolution to change the system,you should make sure that they need a revolution allso to change it back.

democratic sosialists are not per definition dogmatic about freedom.they have a different view on revolution.their aim is to convince the people they are right,and win elections,and I think they are right,even though naive and impossible now.if the people don't support a revolution,now that's hopeless too.it won't last,unless you repress the hell out of the people.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from oki on 11:34 am on Aug. 18, 2002
after a revolution:if a group calls themself kapitalists and forms a party that tries to reinstate kapitalism,this would be undermining the system.counterrevolutionairy.so it's only logical you would bann that party.just like democracy's right now bann partys that are facist/fundamentalist.
as long as former capitalists don't do things to undermine the system,they should be free like everybodyelse.locking people up because of what they used to be,now that's not right.if it would take a revolution to change the system,you should make sure that they need a revolution allso to change it back.

democratic sosialists are not per definition dogmatic about freedom.they have a different view on revolution.their aim is to convince the people they are right,and win elections,and I think they are right,even though naive and impossible now.if the people don't support a revolution,now that's hopeless too.it won't last,unless you repress the hell out of the people.

the Democratci Socialist Party, Communist Party, etc. undermine the system yet they still exist in the US

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from oki on 11:34 am on Aug. 18, 2002
after a revolution:if a group calls themself kapitalists and forms a party that tries to reinstate kapitalism,this would be undermining the system.counterrevolutionairy.so it's only logical you would bann that party.just like democracy's right now bann partys that are facist/fundamentalist.
as long as former capitalists don't do things to undermine the system,they should be free like everybodyelse.locking people up because of what they used to be,now that's not right.if it would take a revolution to change the system,you should make sure that they need a revolution allso to change it back.

democratic sosialists are not per definition dogmatic about freedom.they have a different view on revolution.their aim is to convince the people they are right,and win elections,and I think they are right,even though naive and impossible now.if the people don't support a revolution,now that's hopeless too.it won't last,unless you repress the hell out of the people.


There are still fascist parties in the united states. The fascist parties are not banned. Havn't you heard of the collective rogue? that is one of the many fascist parties that still exists. Of course they have no chance of winning elections but they still exist.

[oki]

ah....
I live in europe,and overhere,if a party is openly facist,they are outlawed in most country's.even a guy like le pen is trying hard to not be openly facist,but at the same time make it obvious that he is... the sosialist party's overhere allso recognise democracy as a system and will never say they willl cancel it,when they get in power.
but yea,I guess capitalists could allso play that game in a communist system.but I still wouldn't lock them all up.a sosialist system should be a better thing,and people should feel that ,they should have a better life.if that's the case,kapitalists don't stand a chance to counter revolt,because they would have no support.

[mentalbunny]

I haven't read all the posts on this thread so I'm not sure if Nateddi has changed his/her point of view, but Democratic Socialism is not watered down and is very different from Communism. I would call myself a democratic socialist and I belive that is the truest form of socialism (but then I would say that, wouldn't I?).

I agree with RedCeltic that two parties is not enough for a democracy, but in the UK we don't do alot better, I keep on hoping and praying that the lib dems will get into power soon. The problem is that many people think if they vote for them their vote would be wasted as they won't get into power. If enough of these people voted for them we might get some results. After all the conservatives won't win the next election and labour are moving more to the right every day.

I belive in freedom, in choices. I think that it is necessary for a community that looks after itself, rather than being spoon fed by the government.

In an ideal world we wouldn't need to be capitalists to ensure the best world for our individual selves. We wouldn't need to have private schools as the state system would have a high quality of teaching and small enough class sizes, state health care would be good enough to eradicate the need for pirvate health and people wouldn't have to worry aobut having a large enough salary to care for themselves and their families. It is nice to have a good car, nice clothes and to be able to go on expensive holidays, but it is not essential and rich people would, in this ideal world, pay more taxes and not mind becasue they would be benefitting their fellow man. The government would not waste so much money on red tape and the like and it would all run smoothly. But this is, as I said, in an ideal world and will probably never happen unless the true revolution takes place, the revolution of our way of thinking and the loss of selfishness in our hearts.

I am however painfully aware that my dreams are pointless and I will strive to practise what i preach and be as giving as I can.

As someone I knwo said, we are all capitalists from the day we are born becasue we live in a capitalist world. I hate to say this, but i think he might be slightly right. Untill the world, especially the West, changes it's way of thinking, we will never be free.

(Edited by mentalbunny at 10:49 pm on Sep. 2, 2002)

[marxistdisciple]

The problem of sustaining socialism is an an interesting paradox it seems. Am I right in saying Nateddi, that you believe in order to get to a socialist, or ultimately communist state you think a degree of central supression of freedoms is required? If this is so, do you also concur that people might be a little pissed off at losing social freedom in order to speak against the government (which is something they still have in capitalism) ? I ask because surely, even if Marx advocated it years ago, the totalitarian control of the country would never be handed back.

After all, power corrupts they say, and if a system was in place to supress the people's will, what would naturally make the power fall back into the hands of the people?
Without true democracy, the proletariat will not have influence on the government, because the new government will become a higher class by the nature of the system. This instantly creates a hierarchy in the place of the hiarachy which has been abolished.

There seems to me to be another way to avoid this problem though. If you remove the influence of money from outside sources, and nationalise key industries to start off with, you can start to remove the ability to remove the new democracy. People will vote for what is in their best interest, and if the media, banks and all important institutions are immediately nationised, then the people, and elected government will have the resources in order to redistribute them. Of course, all the millionaries will instantly lose their fortunes (as these are just figmental numbers in a computer system, not real cash) and the country will control their influence of capital.

Of course, there is the outside influence of other nations - particularly (if it happened elsewhere, like in europe) the US. This is why it is important to develop a socialist revolution through gradual change - a violent revolution would be ultimately easy to supress as has been shown in the past. Also, violent revolutions invariably lead to a dictorial regime which does not stand for the interests of everyone. If socialism occured over time, and an true effort was made to reduce prejudice and social gaps over a long period, eventually socialism would become a natural system. It has taken a long time for people to become firmly routed in a capitalist system, and they will not change their beliefs over night (much as it would be nice if they did :)

Every small victory for the people over money, is an extra point for socialism, and if we fight every step of the way to these ends, and form parties and alliances (to strengthen the left) it will be easier to gain political clout and power. It is important to recruit more people and raise awareness by making it easy for people to understand what all socialists (or at least most of us) stand for.

I think I am a democratic socialist personally, and I would rather live in a true democratic capitalist country (if there was such a thing, hypothetically) than a communist/socialist country without democracy.

Democracy is the people's ability to change things, and in affect 'dictatorship of the proletariat' as Marx and Lenin liked to call it, is not really dictatorship at all, since the proletariat are the majority. In fact, it is almost enforced democracy, with the proletariat taking the power that is rightfully theirs, and ensuring that they keep it fairly attributed to the people....and I'm rambling, but you get the point...

[El Che]

All labels are ultimatly gorse generalisations. That being said: if someone calls him self what he is not he is either a liar or a fool. Hope you can see through those!

[mentalbunny]

I think that for a revolution, whether rapid or slow, to work, it must abide by it's own principles. What I mean is the kind of thing that Camus expresses through most of his characters in les Justes (The Just). Some things are never acceptable, whether they are helping to install the new government,etc or not.

[marxistdisciple]

You're right, I agree.