Social democracy and democratic socialism compared to marxism.

[eric922]

Hey I'm new here and I have a post going in the learning forum, but I thought this might be a better place for this question. How do Marxists view democratic socialism and social democracies around the world in comparison to Marxism? Are they considered legitimate forms of Socialism or rather misguided attempts to reform capitalism? I should note I am not sure where I consider myself, all I know is capitalism is a complete and utter failure of a system. I should probably point out by democratic socialism I'm referring to the system found in Sweden and Norway at least I think they are considered democratic socialists.

[Paulappaul]

I should probably point out by democratic socialism I'm referring to the system found in Sweden and Norway at least I think they are considered democratic socialists.

No they are considered Social - Democrats in Sweden and Norway. More moderate ones too.

Democratic Socialism is "revolutionary" in the sense that it attempts to still overturn the current social order and replace it with a Democratically run Socialist State. Social - Democracy on the other hand seeks to reconcile the battle between Classes by creating Welfare programs, Cooperatives, etc.

Are they considered legitimate forms of Socialism or rather misguided attempts to reform capitalism?

Social Democracy definitely falls under the later.

If you consider Venezuela as legitimately Socialist, then you may find Democratic Socialism to be legitimate.

How do Marxists view democratic socialism and social democracies around the world in comparison to Marxism?

Marxists can be still be Democratic Socialist. Most Marxists depise it, but their are attempts to reconcile the two. Marxists usually hate it because it fails to understand the revolution must inherently break out with Bourgeois Institutions and usher in a class war.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Neither Social Democracy nor Parliamentary / "Democratic" Socialism are the same as Participatory Socialism or more revolutionary forms of socialism.

[RGacky3]

Norway can be considered Social-democracy, I'd say Sweeden is more Welfare Capitalism but with a strong worker control (maybe I'm just nit picking and you can call it Social democracy).

Democratic Socialism is generally just socialism that seperates itself from Leninism.

Marxism is a form of anylsis and an understanding of Capitalism, many different political ideologies us it.

Also social-democracy is not an ideology in itself perse, the history of it was in europe socilaists and communists fought for socialism, they got some reforms, they got a lot of socialism but not all, the outcome was social-democracy, social-democrats nowerdays are those that want to support that mixed system (and maybe expant the socialist aspect) but not overthrough Capitalism completely.

Some-social democrats are marxists, most are not, most believe in class struggle, a few do not.

[#FF0000]

Democratic Socialism is generally just socialism that seperates itself from Leninism.

No.

Democratic Socialism's kind of a murky word and different people mean different things when they say it. There's such a thing as a revolutionary democratic socialist, and there are certainly democratic socialists who have been influenced by Lenin.

[gorillafuck]

Democratic Socialism is generally just socialism that seperates itself from Leninism.

Lol huh?

From what I can tell, reformist "democratic socialist" parties are social democrats and revolutionary "democratic socialist" groups are usually trotskyist.

[RGacky3]

In the US a lot of people use the term "democratic socialist" to differentiate themselves from the USSR, generally you'd just say socialist, but some people put the democratic in front to make that distinction, I'm not talking about the trotskyites.

[Sosa]

In the US a lot of people use the term "democratic socialist" to differentiate themselves from the USSR, generally you'd just say socialist, but some people put the democratic in front to make that distinction, I'm not talking about the trotskyites.

Yup, I used to call myself that especially with people who had no fucking clue what socialism was, or at least had a warped understanding, and I was just an independent socialist at the time without advocating any specific tendency. I wouldn't go by that now because of it's association with being reformist.

[RATM-Eubie]

I certainty been influenced by Lenin in a good way...
Im just gonna post this semi long assesment of Democratic Socialism semi explained for starters.
" Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect. Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them. Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives. Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods. Democratic socialists always opposed the ruling party-states of those societies, just as we oppose the ruling classes of capitalist societies. The improvement of people’s lives requires real democracy without ethnic rivalries and/or new forms of authoritarianism. In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control. The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment. Public pressure can also have a critical role to play in the struggle to hold corporations accountable. Most of all, socialists look to unions make private business more accountable. Although no country has fully instituted democratic socialism, the socialist parties and labor movements of other countries have won many victories for their people. We can learn from the comprehensive welfare state maintained by the Swedes, from Canada’s national health care system, France’s nationwide childcare program, and Nicaragua’s literacy programs. Lastly, we can learn from efforts initiated right here in the US, such as the community health centers created by the government in the 1960s. They provided high quality family care, with community involvement in decision-making.
First, we call ourselves socialists because we are proud of what we are. Second, no matter what we call ourselves, conservatives will use it against us. Anti-socialism has been repeatedly used to attack reforms that shift power to working class people and away from corporate capital. In 1993, national health insurance was attacked as “socialized medicine” and defeated. Liberals are routinely denounced as socialists in order to discredit reform. Until we face, and beat, the stigma attached to the “S word,” politics in America will continue to be stifled and our options limited. We also call ourselves socialists because we are proud of the traditions upon which we are based, of the heritage of the Socialist Party of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, and of other struggles for change that have made America more democratic and just. Finally, we call ourselves socialists to remind everyone that we have a vision of a better world."

[MarxSchmarx]

I should probably point out by democratic socialism I'm referring to the system found in Sweden and Norway at least I think they are considered democratic socialists.

It's important to point out that these two countries are still capitalist, albeit with a large public sector than most other first world countries. A solid majority of ownership stakes in both countries are in private hands (although somewhat smaller in norway due to the state oil concessions) and there is a strong push to reduce the share of state ownership even further.

Moreover, both these countries are thorough market economies, and this is reflected in the cultural proclivities of the peoples that are quite similar to citizens of other OECD states.

[RGacky3]

Norway has a strong public sector, as well as relatively strong unions, their public sector is also extremely profitable which makes it a very strong social democracy.

Sweeden on the other hand has a less strong public sector but extremely strong unions and a strong welfare state.

In Norway the fight is between those who want to keep the strong public ownership in the economy and those who want to have more private involvement, the fight should be brought to the left, to expand the social democratic state, not just protect it.

I would'nt call them democratic socialist states, but social-democracies, (sweeden I would just call a welfare capitalist state with strong syndicalism).

My problem is not with social democracy, its with social democrats, who are either just socialists that are too scared to push for waht they believe in or want to be moderates, or capitalists that want to look like socialists for votes.

Social democrats are not the ones that make the social-democracies, they always are just the ones kind of protecting it, and sometimes doing slight changes. The big pushes towards worker power and public power in the economy were made by socialists fighting for socialism, not some Mixed-economy.

Its like tug of war, your goal should be the other team in the mud, not a stalemate, with that goal you'll probably end up with a stalemate, because guess what, the other side is tyring to get you in the mud, if your mediocure you'll loose inch by inch.

[RATM-Eubie]

Is it true because of Norway's strong public sector that and heavy regulations that it "skipped" the global recession?

[Impulse97]

I used to be a Democratic Socialist. I always thought it meant that they are socialists who want a revolution and everything that goes with it, but HOW they want to achive it is different. They want to bring about a revolution via elections into power. Using the system via class awareness. I think its a very noble approach and should be supported to the fullest.

[RATM-Eubie]

I used to be a Democratic Socialist. I always thought it meant that they are socialists who want a revolution and everything that goes with it, but HOW they want to achive it is different. They want to bring about a revolution via elections into power. Using the system via class awareness. I think its a very noble approach and should be supported to the fullest.

Then what happened? You "used to be"? What changed your mind?

[Impulse97]

Then what happened? You "used to be"? What changed your mind?

Not sure really. It's still an option for me considering I'm still learning, but a revolutionary approach just seems to be a more viable approach considering how reactionary the US is. Can't say it wouldn't work in a more left inclined nation though. Thus, we need to support it while trying to incite class war.

[RGacky3]

Is it true because of Norway's strong public sector that and heavy regulations that it "skipped" the global recession?

Yeah, a lot of it had to do with the strong public sector, which has the ability to look long term (i.e. run at a loss for a little while to keep demand high and then return to running a surplus), also the public sector is a productive industry. The fact that Norway nationalized their Oil early on is the main reason for their success, that coupled with the labor policies and strong unions that created the social-democracy.

Any time you have a top down economy you are REALLY succeptable to recessions.

[Revolution starts with U]

The funniest part about the countries up there in the north is they have relatively low taxes (for most people) and relatively high economic freedom, while at the same time providing a strong public safety net and worker controls.
I mean, for the meantime, they seem to have taken the best of both worlds and run with it.

[JTB]

The problem with democratic socialism is that it is centrally governed economy. Think: bureaucratic collectivism.

Historically, such things tend to end badly.

[JTB]

Did someone just quote Vladimir Bureaucratic Collectivism Lenin talking about all-powerful bureaurcracies?

[RATM-Eubie]

The problem with democratic socialism is that it is centrally governed economy. Think: bureaucratic collectivism.

Historically, such things tend to end badly.

Huh?
How do you come to this point?