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
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.
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
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.