I am trying to understand as much as possible about socialism as well as other leftist ideologies, and looking around i’ve seen many being critical about democratic socialism, but i honestly struggle to understand why that is such a bad idea as some say. I get that it’s incompatible with ML, but it doesn’t sound so unrealistic and unreasonable to me, so… can you explain? Excuse the ignorance, but as i said socialism is a new topic for me, i mean no offense to anybody
Problem #1. Democratic Socialism is almost certain to fail. The best example of this is what happened to President Allende of Chile in the 1970s, every time a socialist is elected there will be powers that cause their assassination and/or overthrow.
Problem #2. Democratic Socialism has ethical issues with maintaining the current system during reform. Many argue that as long as the institutions of liberal democracy remain the same, socialism and by extension communism will be impossible.
Problem #3. If you were to stabilize Democratic Socialism and if that Democratic Socialism were to actually establish socialism, then there would be the problem of maintaining bourgeoise crimes under socialism. There is no practical form of enforcement for right wing oppressors under Democratic Socialism.
Problem #4. This is primarily for liberal socialists such as anarkitties but it is still a problem that needs to be mentioned. Democratic Socialism is simultaneously too authoritarian for liberal socialists and too revisionist for MLs. It often makes temporary unity but that unity simply cannot last. Anarchists want pure communism right now and will fight other revolutionaries to get it, MLs are too closely associated with Nationalistic movements to try to maintain liberal democracy. DemSocs make enemies of the whole left but damnit we aint gonna let fash bash them tho. Just cause we dont like ya dont mean ya aint one of us.
…but the DemSocs are not some of us. Right?
Umm Im gonna be 💯 withbyou here (and ya just ban me IDC) and Ill say I dont see Dem Socs as part of us cause I legitimately believe that for every imstance in which anarchy or communiam is established for each region there will neber bee a process of 100% democratically elected socialist and anarchist community leaders. Like I actualy mean EVERY instance of successfully achieved anarchism or socialism, or even communism, in a region will HAVE to mean a unbleivable amount of death and slaughter of both the bourgeoisie AND the proletariat. BUT of mostly the bourgeoisie, because we will have to violently take back the governmental institutions, resources, etc… which they have stolen from us.
When has this not been the case? You brougjt up Allende. Uhh had Allende made CHile a seige socialist state like Kim Jing Un did NK then Socialist Chile might still exist till today, right?
Isnt this s why siege socialosm is so fucking common ? Because the capitalists and their bribed insider pigs keep on and keep on attempting to and succeeding to sabotage the socialist projects relentlessly , it leaves the socialists with no means but to resort to violence to the bourgeoisie elements both inside and outside the region. Youu brought up how maintaining the crimes of the bourgeoisie will be difficult under a democratic socialist system and thats true cause the former legal and economic institutions that were bought out or created to protect them …are still there! Meanwhile if you just completely vaporize all members of the bourgeoisie , all their bribed institutions, and all those who took bribes to bodyguard for them this problem of bourgeoise crimes also vaporizes , no?
You cannot be ‘democratically peacefiul’ with cheaters whjo rig the game , SA your loved ones , massacre your entire extended family cause 'They were TooBlack©®™ or NotRichEnough©®™, and then have the legal and economic protections to paint you like a tyrant on the international stage.
They are socialists. They may not be effective, they may not hold the values you like, but they are socialists. I dont like the fact that current socialist Burkina Faso just illegalized my people, but they are socialists. Us does not mean carbon copy.
… they arent socialist enough . you just said that.
Whats the point of being part of a big group of people if most of them are ineffective at achieving the group’s goals? Nothing is substantial unless it can substatiate notable changes. Even 9 billiin DemSocs are less worthy of our time than EVEN 1 real commie or anarchist.
Would anyone here trade 9 billion DemSocs for 1 Vladimir Lenin? (And you all better answer that question correctly…)
First and most importantly, you are correct about all of the above, and I am just giving a thought. I could at least see that one as being a spark to mobilize to revolution. Especially if the far-right conservatives/fascist groups took that as their “cue” to start “taking back America” via open killing other leftists (and liberals since they have been groomed to see liberals as being “communists”).
Not super likely given actual history, but seems like the most likely situation out of the four problems given. Too many things would have to happen to make the “spark” catch instead of fizzle out. Just like the mass anger at Trump will regress “back to normal” the moment Dems likely win the White House after the next national election (even if the Dems do what they did after W and not actually undo anything).
Just like we are still hoping they win, we can still hope that Dems are forced to cede power to the left.