Permanently Deleted
The problem is that in practice Democratic Socialists are often identical to Social Democrats and will support the same imperialist policies that oppress workers in the 3rd World. I would put both of them in greater camp of the left but the idea that DemSocs represent a major qualitative difference from SocDems is mistaken.
Also just from practical experience it's pretty obvious to any genuine Marxist how enacting socialism through the ballot box is a failed strategy, especially in the West. Genuine socialists will always be harassed by the media and couped by their own parties, as seen in figures as diverse as Corbyn and Bernie to Melenchon and Yanis. DemSocs have also been couped nonviolently as seen in Australia or violently as seen in Chile. From Bernstein to Bernie the movement to try and institute socialism through elections to state power have failed, because the state is not neutral and is specifically designed to uphold capitalism in the capitalist order we have today.
I'd suggest you read Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution if you haven't already: https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/
hmm, I understand you point, and pretty much agree lol. But, obviously from an ML/3rd worldist perspective they effectively are the same and uphold the exploitation on the global south.
But there is a difference. A socdem would argue that we are raising quality of life through our exploitation and a demsoc would atleast say they advocate to end exploitation and support socialism in the 3rd world.
I’ve read State and Rev, haven’t got to Rosa yet though
enacting socialism through the ballot box is a failed strategy, especially in the West
Venezuela, Bolivia, and Chile might have something to say about this.
Lol this is the funniest example ever to try and defend democratic socialism. Literally all three of these countries faced attempted coups, and in two of them the coups succeeded for a period of time leads to dozens of people being killed. Venezuela also is the only one which successfully fended off all coups attempts because they established dual power structure communes with armed militias that weren't connected to the formal military, that likes to coup socdems alot
Reaction is inevitable, so the presence of reaction means nothing by itself. The takeaway from the coup attempts in those countries is that 2/3 ultimately resisted them. That stacks up just fine against the success rate of revolutionary strategies.
That just signifies that socdem/demsoc parties end up only truly working for the people in the global south/countries subjected to imperialism, while in the west they function as the moderate wing of capital and therefore imperialism. There may be isolated examples of parties breaking this trend once or twice but the trend is obvious to see.
There are various leftist parties in Europe that have always voted and acted against imperialism though. I think the left most swedish party was the only one to vote against the Iraq war. I don't think it's fair to say that DSA types inherently support imperialism. Most of the actual DSA people that I've met would love to abolish the American Defense Aparatus as it is.
This is actually incorrect as well. Democratic Socialism does not mean "reformist socialism". Not all reformists are DemSocs and not all DemSocs are reformists. Democratic Socialism is misunderstood because it's just a confusing ideology. Democratic Socialism is "socialism with a democratic system of government". I don't know by what argument a hypothetical DemSoc state would be any more democratic than say, Cuba, which has a very democratic system of government, but that's just the definition of the ideology, that's what they say. Some DemSocs even prescribe a violent revolution to achieve a DemSoc society, hence it is not synonymous with reformism. The confusion is aided by the SocDem/DemSoc split, your definition of SocDem is correct though.
The only thing that is common with nearly all DemSoc ideology is opposition to Marxist-Leninist states like the USSR and PRC. To them, the phrase "Democratic Socialism" makes sense and is needed because they view ML states as inherently non-democratic. MLs like myself would say socialism implies democracy and that ML states are democratic, making "democratic socialism" a redundancy. But again, that's what they say. So to summarize, Democratic Socialism basically means someone who aligns themselves generally with socialist ideology but views ML as "authoritarian" and opposes them, and is also not in favor of anarchist-type overnight communism in favor of more of a market socialist intermediate period. Many if not most DemSocs ARE reformist but it's not a requirement.
Democratic Socialism basically means someone who aligns themselves generally with socialist ideology but views ML as “authoritarian” and opposes them
Do they really view ML states this way, or is this a tactical choice so they're not forced to defend the Soviet Union in the heart of the most anticommunist country in the world? And yeah, you can argue that "the USSR was good, actually" would be a productive conversation to have on the campaign trail, but you can make the opposite argument just as convincingly (if not more so).
Of course, it will vary depending on the individual DemSoc, but look at Bernie: visited the USSR back in the 80s, made some of the most pro-Cuba comments any presidential candidate has made during a campaign, had a laser-like focus on domestic issues, and valued a chance at getting something done in the near term over ideological purity. That all lines up with not opposing ML states so much as thinking that open support for them would be electoral poison.
This. I see DemSocs as basically in the lineage of Trotskyist parties and movements (i'm aware this is a bit of an over-simplification). They believe MLs, maoists/etc to be "authoritarian" and hence argue for a "democratic" socialism, which implies that previous socialist attempts (or even theory) was non-democratic or anti-democratic.
They're leftists, but I still think their ideological framework is fucking dumb and non-materialistic, which explains why they are especially shit at geopolitical/foreign policy analysis, it's idealism and revisionism.
Edit: It's also why, to me, they fall into tactics of entryism (see bernie and the dems), and why they seem to often be reformists, or associated with reformism/"voting away capitalism". It's very common in a lot of trotskyist or euro-communist parties in Europe now. They are either "revolutionary" mostly in name and only weakly agitate through the lens of unions, strikes and protests (while selling newspapers), or they go full-on entryism and reformism.
I mean they would say the exact same thing about you, like an extremely common critique of MLs from democratic socialists is that their materialism is a guise, and they in fact being idealistic, especially Maoists. MLs will say the same thing about democratic socialists, and materialist anarchists (which is most anarchist theorists at this point) will say the same thing about both. Ultimately the accusations of idealism don't mean much from any side when what everyone means is the other guy is doing materialism wrong.
No one is idealist, everyone just disagrees on what reality is.
I wouldn't necessarily put myself in the "ML" label or maoist honestly. I kinda wander in between a bunch depending on what makes sense and what seems effective. Trostkyist groups have absolutely 0% success rate or effectiveness and a lot of the theory is very naive revisionist stuff that's never really done anything. I don't hate trostkyists, I was in a trot group for a while and the people there are good, but their framework is flawed. Then again the reason the majority of communist orgs that were left alive (in the imperial core and periphery) in the last couple decades are trotskyists is precisely because they were the most harmless or easy to control.
There is plenty of idealism in all groups, I agree. But at least MLs, Maoists and anarchists often have useful theory and effective strategy. I'm not trying to throw accusations of idealism from another just-as-dogmatic position, I legitimately try to be materialistic, and materially it seems to me that trots are a complete dead-end. Maybe i'm wrong! That wouldn't be the first time.
This is a theoretical distinction, I’d like to see a historical/material distinction where the outcomes of these two strains of left thought didn’t result in the same outcomes
I sadly do not have the time to create a researched dissertation lmao.
It’s just a handy ideological distinction, understand who does and does not ideologically uphold capitalism
ok? there are also ideologies that are never reach anything past paper, it's still useful to know them. And there are certainly demsocs today that react differently to current event than socdems
So what if they react differently? Your reactions mean nothing if you're powerless and likely to remain that way
It's small, but look at :warren-snake-green: standing and applauding when Trump said "America will never be a socialist country" while Bernie sat there. That shows who supports capitalism with some welfare state paint slapped on vs. who supports socialism.
Okay so it sounds like when push comes to shove, a DemSoc is likely to have our back while a SocDem is more likely to grab brunch.
socdems side with fascists over communists
ex. Socdems killed Rosa :rosa-shining:
This meme needs to be put to bed. Yeah, German socdems killed Rosa, but (1) no one outside the terminally-online left gives a damn about leftist infighting a century ago on another continent and (2) a bunch of social democracies sided with the USSR against fascism in WWII. It's too online and has the biggest possible countexample anyway.
i used a meme on a leftist website, ergo where it is understood and is helpful to the person asking a question
I see it more on twitter than on here, but I have seen it on both. :meow-tankie:
Historically, social democrats considered themselves the first thing.
And in practice, most use the term "democratic socialism" to distinguish themselves from those no-good "authoritarian" socialists while supporting capitalist, imperialist states, so I apologize for not seeing the distinction as all that meaningful.
Bzzzt wrong. Demsocs are the newest strain of reformism in the long tradition of Socialism. Social Democrats have been in existence since the First Internationale and have through history gone through phases as various groups shaped it's class character (Marx, & later Engel's time period of the First and the initial part of the Second Internationale) or all-together broke away from it (The later part of the Second International with Lenin condemning the social democrats that chose to align with their national bourgeois over the international proletarian), or condemn it as the moderate form of Fascism (The Third International, known as the Communist Internationale AKA the COMINTERN).
No where in the long history of Socialist thought was there "Democratic Socialists" due to the fact all Socialists are democratic socialists.
Lets not rewrite history to allow this American exceptionalist strain of right-opportunism try and fabricate legitimacy in the movement and call it what it is and always has been: Social Democrats.
Demsocs are also easier to pull further left as they already recognize the failures of capitalism so it's a straight path to recognizing the failures of liberal democracy
It's sort of complicated by the fact that quite a few avowedly democratic socialist parties in Europe became, in practice, expressly neoliberal, and rejected even lip service to socialist ideals.
But what is a "leftist" in this case? Does it mean studying and practicing Marxist theory, or is it just the intersection of "we should do good things" and "capitalism bad"?
the intersection of “we should do good things” and “capitalism bad”?
me_irl
Imo the best definition of leftist is someone who knows capitalism is doomed/exploitative and advocates for a solution that seeks to end wage slavery/the labor of many for the profit of the few.
Any issues with this?
Just a question, is it possible to call the People's Republic of China a leftist state then? They have wage slavery and a system that currently profits some people significantly more than others. Fwiw, I think that they are a leftist state, but do you?
China themselves say they have not achieved socialism. https://www.equaltimes.org/china-seeks-to-become-a-socialist?lang=en
I personally am extremely critical of China’s economic system, they are effectively the most Neoliberal state on Earth. A tenet of neoliberalism is that Capitalist investment raises the quality of life in developing counties, Deng agreed and opened China up to investment.
The Chinese labor force is stuck in wage slavery and awful conditions just the same as much of the global south in the name of economic development, they offer cheap labor and in return the CPC gains economic power.
China currently is much like a social democracy, they uphold capitalism and believe it is the best option for rapid development and pass some social programs to keep the proletariat placated. ex. Their healthcare system is pretty much identical to the heavily criticized US system.
Therefore imo, China Ideologically is a leftist state, but their doctrine calls for, much like the USSR, a transitory capitalist state to achieve socialism. China state media states they are in this process
A tenet of neoliberalism is that Capitalist investment raises the quality of life in developing counties
The fact that this never happened not even once ever in any neoliberal economy for any time span should make you very hesitant to say that China which is the prime example of increasing QoL and wages for workers in the last 50 years is neoliberal. Unless your point is doing a backflip and say "Actuly neoliberalism only worked in China" which is still dumb af then idk sooo:
they are effectively the most Neoliberal state on Earth
Is it now ? A still largely planned economy with the majorities of its most important sectors being state owned and with party members forced in the management of ever private enterprise above a certain size. The most neoliberal state on earth that "serious" neoliberal economic publications have been crying about Xi's stronghold on the economy and about regulation in every other article ? That in most industries it has a bigger % of co-ops than any western nation.
A capitalist market economy ? Sure. Not only neoliberal but THE most neoliberal on earth? You make me doupt your knowledge on the subject
The Chinese labor force is stuck in awful conditions just the same as much of the global south
Is your definition of stuck them constanly getting better for decades ? Im not saying the working conditions are great in China but are you sure about not only them being stuck at awful but also directly comparable to the global south
Their healthcare system is pretty much identical to the heavily criticized US system
Its easily better actualy. Have you spoken to any mainland Chinese? Still worse than a lot of european social democracies but on the other hand they had to build it with no imperialism ,for a billion people and from an infastructure starting point in the 90s still , comparable to pre-ww2 Europe. And again opposite to western nations it is getting better and expands , not tripped down over time
but their doctrine calls for, much like the USSR, a transitory capitalist state to achieve socialism
The USSR had a transitionary capitalist economy only for the short lived NEP years so again here your knowledge on the subject seems off
Well said. If China is like a social democracy, what makes them a leftist state is their commitment to theory. This is why I think the distinction between demsoc and socdem is kinda meaningless. Any demsoc who isnt a marxist is just a socdem who doesnt know it, while a marxist (aka communist) calling themselves a demsoc is doing it for strategic reasons.
Edit: or non marxist demsocs are utoptian socialists, read this, anyone who hasnt
A cynic might say that succdems are demsocs who have been let into the halls of power, gotten used to it and now wants to keep that arrangement.
