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

You'll want to study the topic of reform vs. revolution.

Reform is good in the same way soothing the ego of your abuser is good. It only prolongs the agony.

I think we are mixing democratic socialism and social democracy here.

Democratic socialism is literally the classical political perspective of the revolutionaries from early 1900s whereas social democracy is a political ideology where reformism is the endgoal. I know in modern contexts much of this revolutionary fervor has been liquidated into reformist tendencies but as a communist who firmly believes in democratic centralism and the obvious need for a socialist revolution in service of the creation of a communist society, I am comfortable calling myself a democratic socialist but reject the label of social democrat.

Reforms are not bad. Pushing for reforms can be in service of creating a larger revolutionary moment but it cannot be the endgoal of the movement or the politics advancing it otherwise it is simply fighting for a nicer form of capitalism that extends the longevity of the bourgeoisie's hegemonic power. We are not going to free ourselves from the grips of capitalism overnight. We are not going to change the hearts and minds of people who have by and large lived every waking moment of their life indoctrinated into neoliberalism all at once. It will necessarily be a gradual thing but we must keep our eyes on what the ultimate goal is and ensure we do not lose sight of it. We are fighting for the liberation of every human being across the face of the globe - it's gonna take some time.

Its againt a lifetime of propaganda, poor education and tribalism.

Democratic socialism implies that socialism is not inherently democratic. The whole ideology sprouted from Western leftist critique of existing socialist systems in countries like the Soviet Union because of their supposed authoritarianism. Marxists-Leninists rather speak of “socialist democracy” which is “the rule by and expresses the will of the rural and urban workers, who comprise the vast majority that had been exploited by and excluded from the benefits of capitalist democracy.” (See Boer, Socialism in Power, Chapter 4). How this is achieved is through the "dictatorship of the proletariat” which makes of the workers the masters of their own country. The employment of the term "dictatorship" may seem antithetical to democracy at first glance, but the reality is that the dictatorship of the proletariat aims to suppress the former ruling class while simultaneously ensuring mass participation in democracy for the formerly suppressed classes. In practice, this has been ensured through both participatory and consultative democratic systems in local and national levels, while preserving the leadership of the communist party to avoid the resurgence of counter-revolutionary outbursts. This is the case in all existing socialist countries, such as the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam and so forth.

The merits of Democratic Socialism on the other hand can be assessed by asking one simple question: has it historically ever succeeded in establishing a socialist state? No. That is because democratic socialist parties on the ground have been more concerned with creating guardrails for capitalism rather than progressing the revolution. While reform is always appreciated, the reality stays the same: as long as there is capitalism, the working class will remain exploited, and no amount of reform can fix this crucial component. Revolution, despite its violence, remains the only path forward towards socialism because of the inherent contradiction between the interests of the working class and those of the ruling class who's unwilling to give up the benefits it gets from oppression domestically and abroad.

Demsocs want to work within the confines of capitalism. Their goal isnt the liberation of the working class, but shackles with longer chains and rainbows.

Democratic socialism is socialism based on the will of the people via voting. People here support communism which generally includes revolution and is far less likely to happen in the USA since most people will need to slowly be familiarized with the benefits. Other countries may vary depending on their history and relationship with communist countries. But if you try to support the ideas of democratic socialism here, they'll eventually just remove your posts. Unfortunately there isn't a good place on Lemmy for presenting ideas for socialism without someone saying everything you know was imprinted on you by capitalism then deleting your stuff. Either drink the Kool aid or you're not invited.

It's an artifact of political debate done within the bubble of people who read too much theory or engage in discussions only with other political people. People who do politics and organizing in the real world are not so concerned about all these ideological nuances or asserting the value of one model over another.

If you don't have the power to change things, all these abstracts models are useless and uninteresting. Discussing how to build power in the real world is a much better way to spend your political energy.

Engels again on tribalism:

"Within the tribe there is as yet no difference between rights and duties; the question whether participation in public affairs, in blood revenge or atonement, is a right or a duty, does not exist for the Indian; it would seem to him just as absurd as the question whether it was a right or a duty to sleep, eat, or hunt. A division of the tribe or of the gens into different classes was equally impossible."

Anti-tribal sentiment has no place in a communist movement.

(FYI you should ban me now cause Im not going to change my mind about this.)

Ill just say that from a personal standpoint I dont see ANY form of 'socialism' that doesnt involve the mass trial then slaughter of the bourgeoisie , their pigs, and the divvying up of their stolen resources as socialism for ME. I dont see it as socialism. Me. Everyome who is complicit with the bourgeoisie will have to pay for their crimes, except kids of course. Even I will , if Ive dome anything. (though seeing as how Ive been impoverished most of my life I doubt it)

So no , youre not gonna 'elect' MY socialistic leaders. I dont even care if the socialist party where Im at wins the bourgeoise elections. Unless I see a mass slaughter of bourgeoisie and their collaborators? Then IDGAF about whatvever form of 'socialism' you call it.

Thats the only reason Ill never be a democratic socialist. I dont see non-violent socialism or communistic transitions as worthy of my time. Thats just how Ive alwsys been.

ya this is why violent socialism is the only form of socialism to make the news.

NOT.A.SINGLE. democratic socialist group in human history has ever been able to make lasting changes to benefit ALL of the proletariat....so nothing changes when these democratic socialists implement reform after reform after reform after reform after....

Cause reforms do not destroy the current capitalistic systems in place ina. region that impoverish and propagandize the proletariat. Reform after reform after reform is like a shark swimming kn a fragile glass box. When the sharl is finally violent and headbutts the glass repeatedly it can finally break throughband swim to the rest of the ocean

Only violent proletarian revooution has ever been able to do this.

Those Sri Lankans just elected some democratic 'socialist' leaders in their bourgeoise elections and we shall see the problems that plagued Sri Lanka be alleviated for a short. while....only to be resurged!

Its like the difference between radical feminism and proletariam feminism

radical feminism only wants to liberate some women within the confines of capitalistic socoety . So instead of the 8 richest billionaires being all White men radical feminists want it to be so that a disabled Indian , an autistic Guinea person, 5 non-binary Russians, and a White Norwegian man are the 8 richest billionaires.

A proletarian feminist doesnt eant there to be ANY billionaires. They want to see the liberation of all genders from all patriarchal and capitalistic propaganda about each of the genders that we have chosen to place on each gender.... and part of that means that each person of each gender has enough to survive AND thrive...and part of that means the eliminations of all those who can hoard billions of dollars s in resources

PErsonally I feel that this is why I reject ALL reforms. Yes ALL reforms. Even the pro-socialosm ones.

In my opinion pro-socialistic reforms after pro-socialistic reforms are just reforms that extend rhe life of capitalism by paying temporarybconcessions to pissed off, super exploited members of the proletariat. ALSO something tjat Ive noticed is that people will often chalk up pro-socialistic reforms as a 'better form of capitalism than what we previouslt had' ....when its clearly a socialistic policy... Has anyome seen anything that proves me wrong about this particular point? cause I havent been able to find anything.

Something Ive found awful about humanity is that humans tend to not steike out into violent, necessary revolution unless they have nother choice but to do so. So if things get bad enough people will surely the people will want to strike out sooner, no? You cam call me an acclerationist but I also reject accelerationism too. In my opinion humans are very capable of putting themselges in chains under capitalistic and fascistic leaders so there is no need to accelerate anything cause humans , as stupid as we are , are already accelerating towards our Nuclear Armageddon Doom or our Proletarian Revolutions

Personally I want to see humanity make its own stupid , self-destructive decisions and from the pain of these decisions they have a series of 'Revelations' as to how the socialists were always right all along . And from there the people organically from themselves become socialistic .And when the majirity of people are just organically socialistic you dont have to put in too much work to keep the Revolution going because the average person will be putting in that work for you and for their communities. The Revolutions become self-sustaining in this one scenario.

The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.
Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. But, for man, the root is man himself.

Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.

Ah I'm not an accelerationist. I don't believe in taking the most painful path to progress because that sounds miserable and people deserve to live lives worth living.

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.

<3 I feel you. I hope you dont get banned. I have been there and it hurts, the only reason I started pursuing peaceful options is because it was destroying my mental health.

Ew, no. There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. This is not merely an ideological nuance (although your opposition to that is weird and gross) Democratic Socialism vs MLs and Anarchists is primarily a discussion on the methods of leftist organization and action. MLs and Anarchists tend to believe that establishing socialism in the current system is impossible and so the only option is to violently remove the powers at be. Democratic Socialists, on the other hand, believe that socialism can be achieved through reform. A Democratic Socialist tells you to vote while a ML tells you to strike. That is the practical difference.

....eww.....I dont understand why people pursue peace anymore. CAUSE ITS CLEARLY FUCKING NOT WORRKING

Peace is what led us tot oday's world where you can have thousands of canadians , aussies, brits, americans, filippinos, french, etc flying over to Palestine to participate in the Genocode there and never facing prosecution or persecution (we can say the same for the Bosnian Geenocide and ither genocides too )

Peace is what led us to this woorld where you have to stand by and watch as your taxes are used to bomb out familiies and kids in Palestine, LEbanon, Yemen and Iran.

Peace is what led us to this world where we can hear thst the usa , Isntrreal, annd uk are complicit in genocide after genocide after genocide of Global Southerners like the Indonesian , Timorese, Malayan, Vietnamese, Rwandan , Korean , Chilean, Guatemalan Genocides and you have to just....accept it?

Peace isibwhat led us to a world where we can have millions of homeless people for decades and decades and not a single government is doing a damnedd thing sbout their homeless people eveb though they can end all homelessness and impoverishment with the stroke of a pen.

Peace is what led us to. this world where 2SLGBTQIA+ get discriminated and slaughtered globally STILL despite how kind and peaceful theyve been for numerous millenia.

WHy peace?. Weve been peaceful with these capitalists and their class collaborators .... and..... look at where we are now.

You are OK with this? THIS is the peace that your mental health is OK with? THIS form of current genocidal, enforced impoverishment 'peace' doesnt destroy your mental health? ...just. ....wow dawg.... woooow....Your peace and peace of eberyone else who knows how disgusting our world's economics and politics are should be what is destroying your mental health lol

This kind of LARPing is why so few take Socialism seriously.

Calm down. Reread what I said. I did not in any way condemn your position. I legitimized it. I understand why you are angry, I understand why you misunderstood. As for that decision regarding my mental health, I reached the point of psychosis and almost killed random people. In order to stop that, I looked into peaceful options knowing that they are illogical. Choosing to hope for the best even if the best is not possible. And btw, I want justice too, my brother was killed by medical experimentation through the US military, I witnessed many of my Trans friends commit suicide during 2025. This is why being a realist can cause more harm than good. I am not ok with this, your methods work and need to happen. I just cannot participate without losing my shit.

...bro the people THEMSELVES are accelerationist. THEY THEMSELVES choose the most painful path more oft than not . THEY THEMSELVES are choosing to be miserable. THEY THEMSELVES are acting in ways that have made me sure that they dont see their lives as worth liiving lol.

People say 'living paycheque to paycheque is pain ful' all the time....and yuet.... these same people never substantiate substantial actions to improve the economics of their region by forcing their economiic systems to ONLY be socialistic or anarchistic so that its impossible for anyone to hoard the wealth , required resources for human reproduction and resources for human happieness of the workers

People say 'feminism is good and we have to stop femicide and the discriminatory deaths of 2SLGBTQIA+ people' all the time ....and yet.... the people have not substantiated substantiatial acttions to protrct the rights, life,, love and liberties of non males and 2SLGTQIA+ peoples

People say 'bLaCk LiVes MaTtEr' ....and yet....these same people have not substantiated substantial actions to stop the murder rof Black Sudanese and Rwandan people by genocidal groups funded by the uae,, uk and usa or the numerous gang-related murders or numerous Blcknpeople all over the Global North that could easily be solved with socialistic economics to ensure thar peoole dont get into drug trafficking and hitman businesses just to keep a roof over their heads..

PEople say that 'racism is bad'....and yet.... these same peoplle have not substantiated substantial actions to xreate a world where the robbed Global Southerners receive.their reparations and where the ethnicity of a person is irrelevant

PEople say 'climate change is bad' ....annd yet.....they have not substantiated substantial actionnto ensure that fossil fuels and greenhousse gases use and manufacture whhen not used in scientific research is a crime worthy of death or imprisonment (as it oughta be)

If people keep on and keep on andd keep on saying shit but thrn never substantiate substantial actions to ensure that shit gets done about those topics...do you really think they hate what iis happening to them?. This is what they want, because if they didnt want it they would start causeing murderous chaos to ensure that it occurs. The Austrian school of thought is 100% correct about this
theyre rigjt that if you have thebcapabilities to substantiate substantial actions to ensure that something happens or that you can initiate taking steps towards channgimg something....but then you never do it....then you TRULY want the curent situation. The people have chosen to be miserable and they enjoy it as far as Im concerned

You or I dont have tot be accelerationist or not. You or I or anyone doesont have to make peoples' lives worst or not. THE PEOPLE ARE BEING IDIOTS AND DOING THAT TO US ALREADY WITHOUT ANYBODY'S INPUT CLEARLY , CANT YOU SEE?!

Sounds like you're confusing DemSocs for SocDems. The goal of DemSocs is explicitly liberation of the working class, they just want to do it gradually, reforming the system in the interim to make that eventual liberation easier. SocDems are the ones whose goal is preserving capitalism with longer chains.

In an international capitalist context, if a nation keeps a capitalist economy it exposes itself to international competition. So any welfare program financed by the national economy harms the nation by makeing local companies less competitive.

A social democratie may therefore just go for little welfare things, and constantly need to defend its policy toward (justified) critics on international competitivity.

If the economy is organized in some way that doesn't comply with international competition, but is, for example, planified and state owned ; then it is not a "democratie" (in the eyes of capitalists).

Socialism, communism, and anarchism do not aim at establishing a political dictatorship. Even the "proletarian dictatorship" is supposed (in the theories) to be the power given to the workers collectively ; not to "the leader".

The problem with social-democratie is that it creates the conditions so all rights and protections given to workers are temporarily given to them so that they don't revolt, at times they could set a socialist society if they revolted instead. It is a shield to protect the interest of the richest.

Attempting to reform the system has been done time and time again over decades, and it comes to the same conclusion: it does not work. Demsocs are a tool of the oligarchy to keep you tied up in electoralism so that you don't fight for class solidarity against them.

This episode is for you. They mess around for a bit but then get into real discussion and the guy called Diallo gives two tirades on capitalism that are awesome and should illuminate things.

https://www.youtube.com/live/xfzTiIrFGcU?is=d3UzZMtOShZjG50-[EYL - Run the Delusions](https://www.youtube.com/live/xfzTiIrFGcU?is=d3UzZMtOShZjG50-)

Sure, but such reform must come after the revolutionary party overthrows the ruling class and cements its rule. The Soviet Union, for example, did not achieve socialism overnight (see the New Economic Policy), however the Bolsheviks had to consolidate their power first and foremost against the reactionary and counterrevolutionary forces. The goal is to impose reforms ourselves, and not beg and demand it from the bourgeoise, or else such reform cannot be guaranteed. If you agree with this stance, then you may be a Marxist-Leninist.

Understandable .

Random violence is for cavemen and fascists

tell me somewhere it has worked without exploiting people in a capitalistic way and i'll be sold.

Can't talk about these things here for the reasons above.

i'll ask the mods if you would be censored from saying the name of a single country for you then.

On the contrary, I think certain reforms help bring about a proper revolution. The USSR achieved quite a lot, but I don't think they achieved socialism period, largely because of the vanguard. It sounds great in theory to seize total power so you can responsibly divide it without the interference of the bourgeoisie, but historically those with total power are hesitant to give it up. And that process takes time; even if your revolutionary leaders are perfectly trustworthy, by the time power has been cemented they may be replaced by more ambitious leaders (like Stalin, for instance).

In my eyes, organizing and executing a successful revolution is harder than getting a plurality of people to vote in coordination. You'd need that much support for a revolution anyway, so why not try to get as much as we can through reform today while we build the revolution of tomorrow?

No, been down this path before. Don't feel like getting banned or silenced. This is ml after all.

Did you read Reform and Revolution?

too bad then, they said you were allowed to name not one but two countries, but no more before being censored for being too lib. guess we will never know now.

Well, history until now has favored revolutions over electoral campaigns. Should the socialists get elected into power, what would guarantee that the reactionaries do not interfere and overthrow you? (I have Chile's Allende in mind here, or Jan 6th). It doesn't matter how socialists get to power really, be it through elections or revolution, the point is that it is imperative and inevitable that they need to consolidate their power or else no socialist project can outlast them.

The USSR achieved quite a lot, but I don't think they achieved socialism period

Socialism is by definition a transitional period between capitalism and communism, so in that sense they did achieve it. The whole point is to gradually transition into communism without disrupting citizens' livelihood.

the decision of what's possible or impossible shoudln't be done through ideological discourse but through empirical practice. Ideologies are not tools for strategic development and they should stop being treated as such.

It depends on who you ask.

If you mean USians, the word "socialist" has been involved in a decades-long campaign of propaganda. Any adjective you put before it will not matter. A whole class of people think it is evil a priori.

If you don't mean in the US, then I don't know. I hope it isn't problematic in civilized countries.

I actually havent now that I think about it. Is it that pamphlwt by Rosa Luxembourg?

Also Im sorryvfor your pain comrade and your loved ones 🥺🫂

In short, it's like trying to solve the problem of an overflowing septic tank by hooking up your house to a second, identical tank: you have not actually solved the central problem, only delayed and worsened it's consequences.

If you're asking about the US; it's fund mismanagement. Where I live local politicians and so forth make more to even double what federal politicians make (lets ignore the bribes, then again I'm sure they're there as well), but nobody wants to jump on the train of lets pay the government more money when some of these people are paid 400K-500K. The budget keeps climbing and nothing gets done, actually it's been getting worse and worse. I think that partially breeds that greed of wanting to help your fellow neighbor.

Well, history until now has favored revolutions over electoral campaigns.

Can't say I agree with you there. The USSR collapsed, China had backpedalled into private enterprise, the revolutionary states that haven't collapsed have hardly brought about international communism.

the point is that it is imperative and inevitable that they need to consolidate their power or else no socialist project can outlast them.

Except "they" is going to include a lot of dark triad types. Consolidating power is only good if you can trust the people you've consolidated it in. Untrustworthy people are drawn to power, and they're willing to lie and plot to get it.

Socialism is by definition a transitional period between capitalism and communism

Socialism is by definition worker ownership of the means of production. If soviet workers didn't have democratic control over their production, it isn't socialism. They may have been aspiring towards it, and a noble attempt it was, but they drifted pretty far from the goal.

The whole point is to gradually transition into communism without disrupting citizens' livelihood

Which is why reform seems the obvious choice. Any revolution is going to bring chaos and suffering, as well as a potentially slippery power vacuum. What happens when your revolution successfully topples the government, the corporations, how do you coordinate production and distribution? I don't mean eventually, I get eventually, but day one after the revolution how is society going to work?

Even if you have the perfect theoretical system ready to go, you still have to implement it, and that takes time. That's a lot of disrupted livelihood.

Your arguments rely on the sole premise that socialism was either not achieved or failed in the Soviet Union and China. But the historical facts prove otherwise.

1. The Bolsheviks succeeded in their revolution and managed to establish a socialist state. The "collapse" of the USSR seventy years later is irrelevant and does not change this fact.

2. Marxism-Leninism is realistic and not idealistic. It prioritizes the consolidation of the revolution and building socialism at home before getting drawn into volatile revolutions abroad.

3. The soviet workers did have democratic control over their production. Not as individuals, but as a collective. This control was exerted through so-called Primary Party Organizations present in factories, farming collectives and neighbourhoods. Similarly, China has enterprise party branches which are crucial for management.

4. China has shown the opposite of backpedaling into private enterprise. Since the start of this century, the state has been stricter in regulating non-public enterprises and directing them towards the social goals that are set up by the five year plans.

All of these points can be fact checked and there is plenty of academic research done on them. I can recommend for starters Roland Boer's works.

What happens when your revolution successfully topples the government, the corporations, how do you coordinate production and distribution?

Just like other socialist states have done in the past and presently: you let the workers control and manage the existing factories, farms and enterprises according to what they seem fit; you organize them and provide them with enough training and education. There are plenty of lessons from history in that regards which one can learn from. I don't know why you seem to think this to be a difficult matter.

Ideological purity.

No going halfsies on the future of humanity.

<3

every time a socialist is elected there will be powers that cause their assassination and/or overthrow.

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.

the decision of what’s possible or impossible shoudln’t be done through ideological discourse but through empirical practice

I agree with this. However, It has now been almost two hundred years of empirical practice, and the data is in.

You should release a Netflix stand-up special where the promo image is you doing the Dreamworks Face with caution tape over your mouth

yeah, we know that the conditions on which these practices developed don't exist anymore, the context keep shifting and anything that is conceptually stable for more than a decade probably is unfit to create the change we need.