Democratic Socialism

[RogueRevolution]

Ive been doing some research on Socialism/Communism as well as different branches of it. One of the ones that interested me was Democratic Socialism. This is the idea of socialism, but things are democratically voted on, like a president or a major business decision. The only thing that turned me off from Communism, was the dictator part, and I thought that this was a good alternative. Does anyone have anymore information on Democratic Socialism?

[RNK]

First off, without trying to sound offensive, it's apparent that your understanding of Communism is completely wrong. Before asking about democratic socialism and why it's better than communism, read about Communism. I suggest you should start off with "Principles of Communism" and "The Communist Manifesto". They are very short reads and will help you understand Communism better. Because you are very misinformed about it. No offense.

And welcome to RevLeft nonetheless!

[Raúl Duke]

Political Parties in my opinion don't really give you any democracy.
Even the "dictator" thing that you speak of is really the work of one political party.
The reason one thinka that having many political parties, such as in "Democratic" Socialism, seems better is because the compitions for each party to get elect get intense and they have to compete by winning the vote of the people; thus they have to do some favors, have to look like a "good leader for you", etc . In a one party system the party is not held accountable for anything because it has no compitition; thus, it remains in power even if there is a growing dislike for the party. However, over time in party politics democracies (republics) they might actually develop similarity to other political parties and begin to change to a shape that supports the current system, this is why reformist parties lose their revolutionary flavor.

Unless by Democratic Socialism you actually mean real direct democracy were decisions are made from the bottom up, which I'm all for.

[Whitten]

YEs, I would recomend you read the works recomended by Ernest, as well as any other Communist texts that sound interesting to you (there's no real order to read them in, there's not and ending to spoil - ok bad joke...).

To summerise it: Communism does NOT support the existance of a dictator. Communism (in any of its types) requires a democracy. For a moment try to seperate whats you've read in western modern history textbooks from the word "communism". Marxists support the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" which means the dictatorship of the entire working class. People's power.

Secondly, about Democratic Socialism. The problem with this system is that it maintains the Bourgeois Democratic state apparatus left over from Capitalism. The capitalist state can only be used for the advantage of capitalists. Political parties, especially capitalist or nationalist parties, normalise those idelogies and deter class consiousness. In my opinion the best way to get the people on a whole to see the benefit in socialism is to put them in the driving seat themselves, put them in a position where they have and effective say over what happens in their local economy and society, seperate all political decisions from the stigmas and dogmas of ideologies and party lines, and get them to make the decisions based on how they will effect them. On the microscoptic level, all workers are socialists.

[Ander]

You are all confusing this person by using big words and complex ideas to understand for some one who knows nothing about Marxism. How do you think you're going to whip out terms like "class consciousness" and "bourgeois democratic state apparatus" and have a beginner understand?

Look, Rogue, as the others said your understanding of communism seems to be quite flawed. In communism there is not supposed to be a dictator at all, and if one comes to power then something has gone terribly wrong. I'm not saying it is not possible for a dictator to arise in the struggle for communism (see Soviet Union) but this is not an expected or favourable outcome.

The problem with democratic socialism is that (in my opinion) it does not change anything. While communists want an end to capitalism, democratic socialism generally maintains this system while trying to reform it. Take the quote in my signature as an example: "No replastering, the structure is rotten." A democratic socialist tries to replaster, provide a quick temporary fix to a great problem. Unfortunately, the overall structure (capitalism) is rotten, and needs to be torn down before it can be replaced with something better.

I also suggest that you take a look at some Marxist texts as well as some critiques of capitalism.

[RogueRevolution]

Wow then my US history teacher is an ass for explaining to my class that Communism required a dictator. I feel like a tool now....but I appreciate the responses, I guess I have more research to do than I thought!

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

The only tool is your teacher. Look, communism is about equality, and dictators remove any of that from the equation- simple as that. Tell him that and you'll prove to your class that he is talking out of his ass.

[Janus]

Past threads on the subject:
Democratic socialism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58941&hl=democratic+socialism)
Democratic socialism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62195&hl=democratic+socialism)
Another thread on this (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60727&hl=democratic+socialism)

[RogueRevolution]

I knew the whole dictator thing sounded odd. Well, if he was wrong about that...then what else was he wrong about?

Most of the things he says are weird and I'm pretty sure have nothing to do with a communist state, like "In communism, you cant by that fancy new big screen TV". But let it be known that I don't base all communist ideas around what my history teacher says, I go on wikipedia a lot, I have the communist manifesto and such, so I have a pretty basic knowledge of what its all about, its just that somethings are a little fuzzy around the edges when understanding how the whole concept of how communism works...though I still know enough about it to be able to say that I think communism is far better an approach then capitalism.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

That man is using logical fallacies to plug his propaganda to your class, who probably doesn't know any better.

If people would like large televisions they can go ahead and make them under communism. The only thing different would be that they'd be distrubted and not sold at a market, perhaps eventually being totally shared if that caught on.

[MrDoom]

Take anything your average history teacher says about the left wing with a glacier-sized grain of salt.

Mine, for example, recently (just this Monday, actually) was talking about ancient Sparta (with the release of 300); he said that Sparta's military training system of removing individuality was "the roots of communism". I interrupted him to tell him that he was flat-out wrong and classical pre-feudal slave states had absolutely nothing to do with communism. He then made the notion that he, having a degree, knew more about the subject than one such as I who had "read five books on the internet".

I then reminded him in front of the class of the fact that I had actually read the Manifesto and books by actual communists, while he had not read one paragraph by a communist outside my own.

Don't take them seriously, they're full of shit.

[redcannon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 10:24 am
The only thing that turned me off from Communism, was the dictator part
thats funny considering a communist society is to be both classless and stateless as well. :D

and about the history teacher thing:
my teacher and I argue almost every day about communism. we're learning about the USSR and keeps calling them communists, and I keep having to correct her. her logic is that because they referred to themselves as the communist party, they are communists.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Tell her that North Korea must be democratic then, because it's called the "democratic people's republic of Korea"

[Janus]

Most of the things he says are weird and I'm pretty sure have nothing to do with a communist state
A communist state (Communist state is a bit different) is an oxymoron and you should be skeptical of anyone who uses the term.

[Raúl Duke]

Wow then my US history teacher is an ass for explaining to my class that Communism required a dictator. I feel like a tool now....but I appreciate the responses, I guess I have more research to do than I thought!

When you begin to think and inquire (by this I mean looking for info on your own accord, instead of waiting for teacher to hand you down "pre-approved by the elite" facts) for yourself, you begin to notice that you teacher (specifically social studies teacher) is not only an idiot but full of shit (because they think that because they have a degree they are de facto smarter than you about everything related to their subject, in this case social studies)

The teacher is a tool, s/he's are usually too full of shit and/or too ignorant to know it.

(However, I did have a history teacher that somehow open my path to thinking for my self. But now I have a new teacher and he makes me come down to the fact that most teachers are ignorant tools of the elite.)


Take anything your average history teacher says about the left wing with a glacier-sized grain of salt.

Mine, for example, recently (just this Monday, actually) was talking about ancient Sparta (with the release of 300); he said that Sparta's military training system of removing individuality was "the roots of communism". I interrupted him to tell him that he was flat-out wrong and classical pre-feudal slave states had absolutely nothing to do with communism. He then made the notion that he, having a degree, knew more about the subject than one such as I who had "read five books on the internet".

I then reminded him in front of the class of the fact that I had actually read the Manifesto and books by actual communists, while he had not read one paragraph by a communist outside my own.

Don't take them seriously, they're full of shit.

Prime example what I'm talking about. See, I'm not alone on this.


her logic is that because they referred to themselves as the communist party, they are communists.


Tell her that North Korea must be democratic then, because it's called the "democratic people's republic of Korea"

Another fallacy use by teachers and their logic. "because they said they were communists and a socialist state, than they must be."

They fail to notice that actions speak louder than words: If they said they were x yet didn't act like x; than they aren't x. period