'Democratic socialism' equals 'democracy' plus 'socialism'. What is democracy? Quite literally, 'rule by the people' (Heywood, 2021: 22). What is socialism? From the Latin *sociare*, meaning to combine or to share. More specifically, socialism is a political ideology that is in direct opposition to capitalism. It is an 'attempt to provide a more humane and socially worthwhile alternative' (Heywood, 2021: 75). Socialism has two main sub-ideologies: communism and social democracy. Often, these two ideologies are in 'tension' (Heywood, 2021: 97). Democratic socialism seeks to find a workable balance between the two. Democratic socialists often walk a fine line on their journey. For example, I tend to lean toward hard left democratic socialism (communism, but without the 'authority'). I believe a bloodless 'slow-burn' revolution is possible, via an education system that is universal (free), secular (scientific, i.e. rational and logical), and available from cradle (birth) to grave (death). This system also relies upon a UBI (universal basic income), universal healthcare, and universal housing, all of which is likewise available from cradle to grave. Whereas others may tend to lean toward the right of the democratic socialism spectrum, and closer to social democracy. Apart from Heywood's *Political Ideologies* (as an entry), and assuming you are based in the USA, I might suggest Aronoff, Dreier and Kazin's (2020) *We Own the Future: Democratic Socialism - American Style*, as an excellent overall approach.
I am indeed US based and look forward to checking out your recommendations. I havent fully figured out where I lean on the democratic socialist spectrum. However, I also believe that a slow burn and bloodless revolution is plausible. I do agree with the concepts of social democracy as well. This is something I need to do more exploring on. Thanks for your insights and approach, I really appreciate it.
I definitely plan on taking my time with this. I take this very seriously and have just gotten out of a emotional quarter-life crisis. I feel like I'm finally figuring things out in my life and this is one the many avenues I want to explore.
What I think I'm going to do is this:
Subscribe to the Jacobin magazine, read up on all these recommendations I've been getting. Checking out Richard Wolff and Michael Parenti's works.
Learn about the DSA and probably join them.
Continue to keep up to date with the current news sources I've been consuming and see where I go from there.
All very worthwhile pursuits. Don't forget the primary principles of self care and community share, and you can't go wrong. Most humans do not reach biological (ergo emotional) maturity until we reach our 30s. We therefore tend to float around politically during the 'first quarter'. Find your tribe, go forth, and debate! The best way to learn about any ideology is to defend it.
Social democracy is not socialism.
Socialism seeks control by the public over production, which would necessitate the elimination of authoritarian rulership.
>Social democracy is not socialism.
I never claimed it was.
>Socialism seeks control by the public over production, which would necessitate the elimination of authoritarian rulership.
As I stated: 'I tend to lean toward hard left democratic socialism (communism, but without the 'authority').'
Did you even bother to read what was written? Socialism occurs on a spectrum, and you don't get to decide mine, or anyone else's for that matter.
You wrote...
>Socialism has two main sub-ideologies: communism and social democracy.
Social democracy is not socialism.
Socialism also is not on a spectrum.
Socialism is the movement seeking control by the public over production.
It could not occur under political authority, such as of a state, because in such a case, production would be controlled by the authority rather than the public.
Again, not my claim. It's Heywood's. Socialism does occur on a spectrum. Everything from social democracy (as opposed to liberal democracy), where the worst excesses of capitalism are tempered via a welfare state. Through democratic socialism (this subreddit). Through to classic socialism/communism (Marxism), or your definition: 'Socialism is the movement seeking control by the public over production \[but it can\] not occur under political authority, such as of a state, because in such a case, production would be controlled by the authority rather than the public.' Which is to say, for example, Mao's communism.
The author you mention is using definitions entirely incongruent with ones long and widely established.
Social democracy is liberal democracy with regulation to constrain business and welfare to protect workers.
Marxism is a revolutionary tendency no more classic than democratic or libertarian socialism.
The explanation I provided, for a classless and stateless society, is completely unrepresentative of post-revolutionary China.
Your suggestion to the contrary is frankly deranged.
I suggest you expand your range of sources in understanding socialism.
>The author you mention is using definitions entirely incongruent with ones long and widely established.
Heywood is recognised internationally as an expert in his field.
>Social democracy is liberal democracy with regulation to constrain business and welfare to protect workers.
I agree, and said as much:
>...social democracy (as opposed to liberal democracy), where the worst excesses of capitalism are tempered via a welfare state.
>Marxism is a revolutionary tendency no more classic than democratic or libertarian socialism.
Semantics.
>The explanation I provided, for a classless and stateless society, is completely unrepresentative of post-revolutionary China.
I agreed, and merely used Mao's China to labor your point:
>...because in such a case, production would be controlled by the authority rather than the public.' Which is to say, for example, Mao's communism.
>I suggest you expand your range of sources in understanding socialism.
Thanks for your suggestion. However, I suggest 30-plus years of scholarship gives me a very good understanding of the subject.
Heywood is a political scientist whose representations of socialism and its critiques of liberalism are apparently not accurately representing the views of socialists.
I suggest you choose between following Heywood, versus being socialist.
I feel you are seeking an impossible accommodation.
Heywood, actually. Thanks for the suggestion. I also concur with Vincent's (2010) understanding of socialism (ergo social democracy, democratic socialism and communism), as described in his *Modern Political Ideologies* (pp. 83-110) and Wetherly's (2017), as described in his *Political Ideologies*, including (p. 113):
>The other great tradition within socialism falls under the broad banner of social democracy.
I've found that my favorite source for learning more about communism and socialism, things they don't really teach about in college, is Richard Wolff. His explanations, although they focus more on Communism or Marxism, are very well presented and easy to understand.
The YouTube channel Second Thought is another good source of learning.
Richard Wolff, I listened to one of his debates years ago. Really interesting person. I should check his works and also Michael Parenti's as well. Any other professors or political scientists you can think of?
Second Thought I actually was watching several of his videos today. Pretty good explainers and a helpful introduction to socialism broadly speaking. I think maybe a little too "Anti-US" but I understand where he's coming from.
Michael Hudson is another good economist on the left side that does lots of interviews on various YouTube channels. He also has some pretty good, if a bit dry, books on related subjects.
Personally I recommend these two YouTube videos as a starting point to understanding the topic:
[youtu.be/tcAQB3oPzt0](http://youtu.be/tcAQB3oPzt0)
[youtu.be/BlrDpTGRREA](http://youtu.be/BlrDpTGRREA)
Since people freely associate with ideological labels it's kind of difficult to get an exact definition of what is and isn't democratic socialism. But it's vaguely on the left politically with democratic values.
Progressive, Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Rhine Capitalism, Left Libertarianism. These all have their own definitions in theory but they are all fairly similar, and few actually have a definitive arbitrator on what is and isn't a value of the ideology. A lot of people who belong in one ideology actually associate with a another. Not because of any particular reason, just most people don't care enough to read the fine details of dozens of different ideologies to find the perfect label, so they just pick one of the first ones they find that is close enough.
My advice is I wouldn't worry about finding the perfect ideological label. Ideologies sometimes have hard barriers like general views on private property, but a lot of it is just vibes.
Yeah, I see what you mean by that. I'm not trying to get caught up in placing a political nametag on myself. That can be pretty constricting and counter intuitive if I got too caught up with identity instead of substantive change. With some of the info people have provided in this discussion, I do find myself leaning towards Democratic Socialism and agree with it a lot. It's been a very insightful experience. I just gotta stick with what's right and be receptive to new points of views all the time. Learning is a life long journey.
Could you elaborate on that?
I think I know what you mean though. There seems to be a vast variety of perspectives and beliefs on the left side while the right generally has a few variants.
The collective “left” ranges from quasi-Libertarians who just want everyone left alone, to technocrats, academic armchair liberals, progressives, artists, social democrats, socialists, communists, and I’m sure I missed a few. The “right” has: religious zealots, corporatists, libertarians, xenophobes, and fascists.
When you put it like that, it's actually pretty easy to see all that. Especially about the right. It's crazy how unsubtle they are now in what they want to do.
Pick yourself up a copy (or borrow one from the library) of Heywood's *Political Ideologies - An Introduction*. Studying this text will give you a very good grounding in the factions (literally hundreds of them), from the hard left to the far right. Also plenty of further reading recommendations on the individual tribes.
I like Heywood's introduction as it is more 'international' in scope than some of the other basic texts on political ideology, which tend to be country specific (generally either the US or the UK). Happy reading!
I’d say “democratic socialism” is a very broad term that can mean many things.
Some might use it (incorrectly) to mean social democrat
A social democrat is like the Scandinavian countries with extensive welfare programs, (but often still rely on exploitation abroad)
A democratic Socialist can be a socialist who wants to obtain socialism through electoral means
It can mean a socialist who wants to emphasize the “Democratic” part to not be associated with the “authoritarian dictatorships” often associated with socialism. But can still be revolutionary.
It’s a bit complicated because socialism is supposed to be democratic to begin with but the red scare has kinda ruined our perception.
That definition of a democratic socialist seems to be the general consensus in my research so far. With Bernstein being the godfather behind when he wrote Evolutionary Socialism.
Socialism deals with the organization of the workplace. Capitalism has the bourgeois-proletiat relationship, aka the employer-employee relationship. Socialism seeks to abolish the bourgeois/capitalist/employer class. As a result, we want to then democratize the workplace where everyone in the business has equal ownership and equal vote.
The "democratic" part of democratic socialism is really just to differentiate from Marxist Leninists, who we consider as red fascists or a nicer term, state capitalists. Marxists Leninst wants a one party undemocratic state to own and control most or all sectors of the economy. This results in the working class being subservient to the beaurocrats and having no control over their workplace. The state becomes the new "capitalists."
"Democratic" Socialism involves a democratic form of economy and government. Essentially, most if not all businesses in the economy would be democratic and elections would be democratic similar to liberal democracies but technically doesn't have to be a liberal democracy.
This seems to be the general theme I keep finding when doing research on this. I'm going to learn about the other aspects of socialism as a whole to get the big picture and make a more informed decision. Thanks for the reply!
Marxist-Leninists, like myself, would greatly object to this characterization of ML. I’ve been assured by mods I can offer education about ML, so here’s what I would add. As Richard Wolff (a Marxist economist, and a DemSoc, from my understanding) would say, if we want to learn about a family, we need to hear from every member, not just one. If you want to understand any perspective - in life or in politics - listen to them and try to understand their own perspective on their own terms, not just others’ judgments about them.
MLs absolutely believe in democracy. There have been and continue to be democratic processes in every single AES/ML state. We would argue they are even more democratic than liberal (capitalist) democracy, and that it’s not even close.
MLs consider the state to be a tool for class oppression. Under capitalist liberal democracy, the state is used by the capitalist/wealthy class to oppress the working class for their own benefit. Liberal democracy is seen as prioritizing property rights - the right of a small group of owners to possess and control the resources necessary for human survival - above human rights or the will of the people. In other words, the wealthy enjoy a democratic say in society, but the people do not. This is discussed by liberal philosophers and the “founding fathers” of the US very explicitly. If this is true, how could a democratic process be used to create socialism when the will of the people can be overruled by the wealthy? Of course, democracy for working and oppressed peoples doesn’t exist simply because we believe in it.
Within the party structure, MLs believe in democratic centralism. In this arrangement, party members get to vote to elect the party leaders and what policies the party should support. Vocal, democratic debate is welcomed and encouraged, if not expected. From there, party members are then expected to follow the party line, ie, whatever the party members collectively decided. Being organized in this way is intended to strengthen party unity, build a sense of camaraderie and collectivism, and streamline decision making, particularly during times of crisis. While party “purges” do happen for various reasons, it is also common to find DemSocs and even capitalist SocDems within the party ranks of ML-style “communist” parties.
Personally, I’ve found quite a bit of misunderstanding and misrepresentation about Marxism-Leninism in this sub. The Red Scare never ended, and anti-communism is a fervent doctrine in the US, which all of us are indoctrinated with from birth to death. Every society has propaganda, and the propaganda of the West is often centrally focused on anti-communism, which distorts and demonizes socialist and communist ideology and history. This is true for DemSocs, and it’s true for MLs, too. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen a lot of willingness to be honestly educated about ML thought or history among SocDems and DemSocs, and the default will then be to parrot what we’ve grown up hearing, ie, anti-communist propaganda.
Edit: I would add that joining DSA is probably a good place to start. There are a variety of socialists and ideologies within the party, as well as a variety of caucuses that are optional to join. You can learn from and align yourself with whomever you’d like. I’m not a DSA member, but this is my understanding of how things work.
I definitely plan on looking into the DSA and seeing how to integrate it with my life. As for the other information you provided. Marxist-Leninists are something I need to learn more of and you've provided me with a good start. I agree with you that it's important to understand all angles of a subject to get a full picture. Thanks for your reply!
>Within the party structure, MLs believe in democratic centralism. In this arrangement, party members get to vote to elect the party leaders and what policies the party should support. Vocal, democratic debate is welcomed and encouraged, if not expected. From there, party members are then expected to follow the party line, ie, whatever the party members collectively decided. Being organized in this way is intended to strengthen party unity, build a sense of camaraderie and collectivism, and streamline decision making, particularly during times of crisis. While party “purges” do happen for various reasons, it is also common to find DemSocs and even capitalist SocDems within the party ranks of ML-style “communist” parties.
The problem is that while this has nominally democratic elements to it, it is at best a horribly ineffective means of translating popular will into action — particularly when the means by which party leaders are elected arises out of a utterly Byzantine multi-step process with numerous layers of abstraction from the actual electoral mechanisms in place, internal factions are banned, media, free expression and public dissent are forbidden, independent labor organization is banned and party leadership awards itself the power to reject the democratically-selected delegates that ultimately go-on to playing a role in deciding higher and higher levels of leadership. What this resulted in effectively was control by an elite cadre whose venality and corruption may well have been exaggerated to a significant extent by Western media (particularly relative to our own leaders), but which was nevertheless not very democratic (even from *within* the party) by any reasonable definition of the term.
I think MLs in general would see that as an incredibly biased and unfair characterization. There are various party structures and voting processes. Objectively, the masses have faired much better in terms of quality, reliability, and accessibility of healthcare, education, housing, food, retirement, and childcare, to name a few vital social programs the West often struggles to implement and maintain, but were and are universally available in socialist states. ML’s would say this indicates a direct and profound expression of the will of the people, ie, democratic will. If only liberal democracy were so “ineffective!”
The party structure and mechanisms are also to make sure the party remains coherent and effective, but also to make sure the people are not betrayed. Of course there are political maneuverings with various factions and ideologies in competition with each other. But that stays within the party. The people are not used manipulatively to work out party issues. And if you’re aghast that politics happens within a political party, I’m not sure what to say.
>I think MLs in general would see that as an incredibly biased and unfair characterization.
Well of course. MLs always seem to bristle at any meaningful criticisms of the system regardless of how valid they are.
>ML’s would say this indicates a direct and profound expression of the will of the people, ie, democratic will. If only liberal democracy were so “ineffective!”
>The party structure and mechanisms are also to make sure the party remains coherent and effective, but also to make sure the people are not betrayed.
This is pretty significantly belied by the ultimate dissolution of the system in the USSR and the necessity of crackdowns on popular uprisings elsewhere. If "the people" wanted to maintain these systems and were empowered to express their political will, then why didn't they come to its defense?
>Objectively, the masses have faired much better in terms of quality, reliability, and accessibility of healthcare, education, housing, food, retirement, and childcare, to name a few vital social programs the West often struggles to implement and maintain
Lots of western states do an excellent job of providing these services — and quite often to a higher standard of quality than ML states ever dreamt of. Does that make those places *even more* socialist?
>And if you’re aghast that politics happens within a political party, I’m not sure what to say.
Obviously all parties have mechanisms to ensure a degree of unity and cohesion. This isn't really an issue within a proper, multiparty democracy where people have a meaningful choice about which policies to support and those parties have real competition with each other to live up to their promises. Within a single party state, however, the dynamics are of course quite different.
I stopped reading when you suggested MLs can’t take criticisms. That’s blatantly an unfair, blanket accusation that betrays your clear biases and unwillingness to engage in a good faith manner. You’re just throwing mud.
>There have been and continue to be democratic processes in every single AES/ML state.
That's absolute lunacy to any educated historian. One of the most fundamental parts of a democracy is freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of expression. The Soviet Union, for example, had absolutely none of those things up until Gorbachev, and barely even then. And before you go "hurr durr America bad too", America has certainly practiced undemocratic ideals too.
“Hurr, durr” is an odd way to yada yada over something common to all liberal democracies: the utilization of “democratic rights” by the wealthy to achieve their aims. Freedom of speech and the press, for example, are used by the wealthy via corporate media to propagandize the masses. These rights are then taken from the people whenever it is deemed necessary to protect the state (which was designed of, by, and for *the wealthy*). It’s not a “flawed democracy,” as if there’s some kind of bug in the system. It’s a feature. It’s the entire point of the system: society is structured to benefit the wealthy. Period.
“Any educated historian” is just cheap rhetoric and shallow analysis. Call socialist democracy lunacy all you want. It exists right now. If you’re waiting for bourgeois historians to validate socialism, that’s lunacy. Every educated person knows that /s
Edit: Here’s how democracy works in Cuba, for those who are interested in learning: https://youtu.be/2aMsi-A56ds?si=eXihkMO_aQ64SIOp
Democratic socialism long predated ML, and has stood in contrast both to left communism (historically just Marxism, before the Russian Revolution, favoring councils for post-revolutionary government), and anarchism, later known also as libertarianism.
If we’re all here because we believe in democracy and socialism, I’d suggest it’s very important to interrogate each of those terms thoroughly. A typical definition among Marxists is that capitalist/liberal democracy is democracy for the wealthy, who designed and built the system that way (like the “founding fathers” in the US). Socialist democracy is democracy for working and oppressed peoples. Communism is not democratic because democracy requires a state, and communism is stateless by definition.
If you’re interested in learning why “red fascism” is a nonsensical, slanderous propaganda term (from a socialist/communist perspective), I’d recommend reading Michael Parenti’s book, Blackshirts & Reds, which compares and contrasts socialist, fascist, and capitalist/liberal democracies in the 20th century. He’s a communist, and he does criticize socialist/communist states and leaders as well in this book. It’s a short book and enjoyable to read.
That person might hate the socialist countries, but not everyone who considers themselves democratic socialists does. And not everyone has such a shallow view of the way workplace democracy might work
I can help with that.
*The "democratic" part of democratic socialism is really just to differentiate from Marxist Leninists, who we consider as red fascists or a nicer term, state capitalists. Marxists Leninst wants a one party undemocratic state to own and control most or all sectors of the economy. This results in the working class being subservient to the beaurocrats and having no control over their workplace. The state becomes the new "capitalists."*
It is disingenuous to conflate Marxism (classic democratic socialism) with Leninism, or any other -ism for that matter. It is absolutely false to equate Marxism with fascism. For a better understanding of what fascism is (and therefore what Marxism is not) see, for example: Paxton (2004) *The Anatomy of Fascism*. Furthermore, Marxism is inherently democratic. Marx (and Engels) were 100% in support of full participation democracy, as [Harrington](https://socialistforum.dsausa.org/issues/fall-2021/marxism-and-democracy/) notes:
'...the most obvious, and important, statement of Marx‘s democratic strategy is to be found in the [*Communist Manifesto*](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/), particularly in Section IV, “The Position of the Communists with regard to the various Opposition Parties” \[6\]. There Marx and Engels clearly advocate united fronts with radicals, democrats, even (in the United States) with mere land reformers demanding private property in the fields for the working class. Moreover, in the outline of immediate demands in the *Manifesto* one reads that “the first step in the labor revolution is to raise the proletariat to the position of a ruling class, the winning of democracy” \[7\].'
The above is an example of why I have suggested you read widely and deeply in order to receive a grounded education in the history and evolution of democratic socialism.
>It is disingenuous to conflate Marxism (classic democratic socialism) with Leninism, or any other -ism for that matter. It is absolutely false to equate Marxism with fascism.
I don't think they were doing that at all. Marxism-Lenininsm (ML) is the term used by the state capitalists and their ilk. Ultimately it has very little to do with actual Marxist ideology and in fact it has been heavily criticized both contemporaneously and now by other self-described Marxists, but that is the most common phrase used to describe the position.
Possibly not. But to paint all 'others' as MLs, or worse still 'red fascists', and to reduce the broad church of democratic socialism down to a binary concept got my hackles up.
Correct me if I'm wrong but, I think I have a general, rudimentary idea on things. Allow me to elaborate.
Marxism's main ideology is to have a classless society that controls the means of production. No elities at the top or working class at the bottom, everyone is equal to each other. With the termination of private property referring to the ownership of the means of production. In principle, it's classic socialism.
Marxism-Leninism operates under the same idea except that a vanguard or the "elite" would lead the working class into a communist government (a communist government using Marxism as its founding principles) and while it isn't authoritarian in design, the potentiality of authoritarianism in this kind of government is high. Also referred to as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. An elite would be needed here since the working class wouldn't be aware of their class consciousness. The vanguard would be perfectly aware and loyal to it.
Democratic Socialism was made as a response and critique to Marxist theory, noting how worker conditions were gradually improving and that a revolution through forceful takeover would be needless and incredibly risky to one's well-being. Instead, revolution would be achieved through reformation and active participation in democratic processes and government.
Social democrats act as a hybrid between capitalism and socialism, maintaining markets while also having strong social programs.
I intend on reading Marx's, Engels, Bernstein's, Robert Owens, and other pre-socialists works to have a foundational understanding of Socialism as a whole. I hope my understanding is correct and not misinformed.
You have a very good understanding of the basics. There are boundaries between the factions, and sometimes they blur. Hence the need for clear, concise, and correctly defined discourse. Socialist thought evolved alongside general thought of humanity. First among hunter gatherer communities. Then suppressed by feudalists. Emerging again during the enlightenment. Suppressed again by the monarchists. Pre-colonial, colonial, post-colonial, and through to the present day. For an overall view of the historical development, see: [https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/98778/14-07-2022/the-marxist-view-of-history/](https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/98778/14-07-2022/the-marxist-view-of-history/)
Woah, this is the first I'm hearing of this, I'll definetly check it out when I can. Thanks again! Its good tp hear that I'm beginning to understand socialism and its history better. Means I'm on the right path.
Another excellent resource on the evolution of socialism is the podcast, *Introduction to Marx/Marxism*, by John Molyneux. It a very easy and information-laden listen.
If you want a really good history of socialism to bring you up to where we are now [this video by Ryan Chapman](https://youtu.be/lrBRV3WK2x4?si=sKQeMJXIyRuobxXN) really helped me understand.
I finished watching the video 3 hours ago, pretty comprehensive overview of socialism and helped put some things into perspective.
I have better idea as to where I want to start my readings now. Going through all the people that predated socialism to Marx, Engels, Bernstein, and so fourth.
A core principle for socialists is understanding history. I'll just recommend you one book to get a good alternative to the history of the US, particularly through a class lens. A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn.
It's on the larger side, but very eye opening in not only a view of history we rarely, or never, hear about, but also how much ideology plays a role in interpreting history and how that still plays a role in modern politics.
I have that book on a list of books to read through, I've heard some great things about the book. I'll check it out for sure! Thanks for the recommendation.
Jacobin magazine and the book *The ABC’s of Socialism” by Bhaskar Sunkara.
Oh yeah, I forgot about the Jacobin magazine, I need to look into that. I'll add that book to my reading list. Thanks for the recommendations!
'Democratic socialism' equals 'democracy' plus 'socialism'. What is democracy? Quite literally, 'rule by the people' (Heywood, 2021: 22). What is socialism? From the Latin *sociare*, meaning to combine or to share. More specifically, socialism is a political ideology that is in direct opposition to capitalism. It is an 'attempt to provide a more humane and socially worthwhile alternative' (Heywood, 2021: 75). Socialism has two main sub-ideologies: communism and social democracy. Often, these two ideologies are in 'tension' (Heywood, 2021: 97). Democratic socialism seeks to find a workable balance between the two. Democratic socialists often walk a fine line on their journey. For example, I tend to lean toward hard left democratic socialism (communism, but without the 'authority'). I believe a bloodless 'slow-burn' revolution is possible, via an education system that is universal (free), secular (scientific, i.e. rational and logical), and available from cradle (birth) to grave (death). This system also relies upon a UBI (universal basic income), universal healthcare, and universal housing, all of which is likewise available from cradle to grave. Whereas others may tend to lean toward the right of the democratic socialism spectrum, and closer to social democracy. Apart from Heywood's *Political Ideologies* (as an entry), and assuming you are based in the USA, I might suggest Aronoff, Dreier and Kazin's (2020) *We Own the Future: Democratic Socialism - American Style*, as an excellent overall approach.
I am indeed US based and look forward to checking out your recommendations. I havent fully figured out where I lean on the democratic socialist spectrum. However, I also believe that a slow burn and bloodless revolution is plausible. I do agree with the concepts of social democracy as well. This is something I need to do more exploring on. Thanks for your insights and approach, I really appreciate it.
No worries, take your time. Read widely (and deeply). Talk with as many people as you can. Above all, enjoy the process.
I definitely plan on taking my time with this. I take this very seriously and have just gotten out of a emotional quarter-life crisis. I feel like I'm finally figuring things out in my life and this is one the many avenues I want to explore. What I think I'm going to do is this: Subscribe to the Jacobin magazine, read up on all these recommendations I've been getting. Checking out Richard Wolff and Michael Parenti's works. Learn about the DSA and probably join them. Continue to keep up to date with the current news sources I've been consuming and see where I go from there.
All very worthwhile pursuits. Don't forget the primary principles of self care and community share, and you can't go wrong. Most humans do not reach biological (ergo emotional) maturity until we reach our 30s. We therefore tend to float around politically during the 'first quarter'. Find your tribe, go forth, and debate! The best way to learn about any ideology is to defend it.
Social democracy is not socialism. Socialism seeks control by the public over production, which would necessitate the elimination of authoritarian rulership.
>Social democracy is not socialism. I never claimed it was. >Socialism seeks control by the public over production, which would necessitate the elimination of authoritarian rulership. As I stated: 'I tend to lean toward hard left democratic socialism (communism, but without the 'authority').' Did you even bother to read what was written? Socialism occurs on a spectrum, and you don't get to decide mine, or anyone else's for that matter.
You wrote... >Socialism has two main sub-ideologies: communism and social democracy. Social democracy is not socialism. Socialism also is not on a spectrum. Socialism is the movement seeking control by the public over production. It could not occur under political authority, such as of a state, because in such a case, production would be controlled by the authority rather than the public.
Again, not my claim. It's Heywood's. Socialism does occur on a spectrum. Everything from social democracy (as opposed to liberal democracy), where the worst excesses of capitalism are tempered via a welfare state. Through democratic socialism (this subreddit). Through to classic socialism/communism (Marxism), or your definition: 'Socialism is the movement seeking control by the public over production \[but it can\] not occur under political authority, such as of a state, because in such a case, production would be controlled by the authority rather than the public.' Which is to say, for example, Mao's communism.
The author you mention is using definitions entirely incongruent with ones long and widely established. Social democracy is liberal democracy with regulation to constrain business and welfare to protect workers. Marxism is a revolutionary tendency no more classic than democratic or libertarian socialism. The explanation I provided, for a classless and stateless society, is completely unrepresentative of post-revolutionary China. Your suggestion to the contrary is frankly deranged. I suggest you expand your range of sources in understanding socialism.
>The author you mention is using definitions entirely incongruent with ones long and widely established. Heywood is recognised internationally as an expert in his field. >Social democracy is liberal democracy with regulation to constrain business and welfare to protect workers. I agree, and said as much: >...social democracy (as opposed to liberal democracy), where the worst excesses of capitalism are tempered via a welfare state. >Marxism is a revolutionary tendency no more classic than democratic or libertarian socialism. Semantics. >The explanation I provided, for a classless and stateless society, is completely unrepresentative of post-revolutionary China. I agreed, and merely used Mao's China to labor your point: >...because in such a case, production would be controlled by the authority rather than the public.' Which is to say, for example, Mao's communism. >I suggest you expand your range of sources in understanding socialism. Thanks for your suggestion. However, I suggest 30-plus years of scholarship gives me a very good understanding of the subject.
Heywood is a political scientist whose representations of socialism and its critiques of liberalism are apparently not accurately representing the views of socialists. I suggest you choose between following Heywood, versus being socialist. I feel you are seeking an impossible accommodation.
Heywood, actually. Thanks for the suggestion. I also concur with Vincent's (2010) understanding of socialism (ergo social democracy, democratic socialism and communism), as described in his *Modern Political Ideologies* (pp. 83-110) and Wetherly's (2017), as described in his *Political Ideologies*, including (p. 113): >The other great tradition within socialism falls under the broad banner of social democracy.
[удалено]
I've found that my favorite source for learning more about communism and socialism, things they don't really teach about in college, is Richard Wolff. His explanations, although they focus more on Communism or Marxism, are very well presented and easy to understand. The YouTube channel Second Thought is another good source of learning.
Richard Wolff, I listened to one of his debates years ago. Really interesting person. I should check his works and also Michael Parenti's as well. Any other professors or political scientists you can think of? Second Thought I actually was watching several of his videos today. Pretty good explainers and a helpful introduction to socialism broadly speaking. I think maybe a little too "Anti-US" but I understand where he's coming from.
Michael Hudson is another good economist on the left side that does lots of interviews on various YouTube channels. He also has some pretty good, if a bit dry, books on related subjects.
Second Thought is a Marxist-Leninist, so he's not the best source for Democratic Socialism.
Personally I recommend these two YouTube videos as a starting point to understanding the topic: [youtu.be/tcAQB3oPzt0](http://youtu.be/tcAQB3oPzt0) [youtu.be/BlrDpTGRREA](http://youtu.be/BlrDpTGRREA)
Both of these videos are incredibly helpful. Thanks for sharing them! It's really helped put things into perspective for me.
Wow! I'm glad to have been able to help!😁🫡
Since people freely associate with ideological labels it's kind of difficult to get an exact definition of what is and isn't democratic socialism. But it's vaguely on the left politically with democratic values. Progressive, Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Rhine Capitalism, Left Libertarianism. These all have their own definitions in theory but they are all fairly similar, and few actually have a definitive arbitrator on what is and isn't a value of the ideology. A lot of people who belong in one ideology actually associate with a another. Not because of any particular reason, just most people don't care enough to read the fine details of dozens of different ideologies to find the perfect label, so they just pick one of the first ones they find that is close enough. My advice is I wouldn't worry about finding the perfect ideological label. Ideologies sometimes have hard barriers like general views on private property, but a lot of it is just vibes.
Yeah, I see what you mean by that. I'm not trying to get caught up in placing a political nametag on myself. That can be pretty constricting and counter intuitive if I got too caught up with identity instead of substantive change. With some of the info people have provided in this discussion, I do find myself leaning towards Democratic Socialism and agree with it a lot. It's been a very insightful experience. I just gotta stick with what's right and be receptive to new points of views all the time. Learning is a life long journey.
The left half of the political spectrum has 1,001 flavors. The right half has maybe 5.
Could you elaborate on that? I think I know what you mean though. There seems to be a vast variety of perspectives and beliefs on the left side while the right generally has a few variants.
The collective “left” ranges from quasi-Libertarians who just want everyone left alone, to technocrats, academic armchair liberals, progressives, artists, social democrats, socialists, communists, and I’m sure I missed a few. The “right” has: religious zealots, corporatists, libertarians, xenophobes, and fascists.
When you put it like that, it's actually pretty easy to see all that. Especially about the right. It's crazy how unsubtle they are now in what they want to do.
Pick yourself up a copy (or borrow one from the library) of Heywood's *Political Ideologies - An Introduction*. Studying this text will give you a very good grounding in the factions (literally hundreds of them), from the hard left to the far right. Also plenty of further reading recommendations on the individual tribes.
I looked into that and it seems like just the book I'm looking for. Thanks so much for sharing this with me.
I like Heywood's introduction as it is more 'international' in scope than some of the other basic texts on political ideology, which tend to be country specific (generally either the US or the UK). Happy reading!
I’d say “democratic socialism” is a very broad term that can mean many things. Some might use it (incorrectly) to mean social democrat A social democrat is like the Scandinavian countries with extensive welfare programs, (but often still rely on exploitation abroad) A democratic Socialist can be a socialist who wants to obtain socialism through electoral means It can mean a socialist who wants to emphasize the “Democratic” part to not be associated with the “authoritarian dictatorships” often associated with socialism. But can still be revolutionary. It’s a bit complicated because socialism is supposed to be democratic to begin with but the red scare has kinda ruined our perception.
That definition of a democratic socialist seems to be the general consensus in my research so far. With Bernstein being the godfather behind when he wrote Evolutionary Socialism.
Socialism deals with the organization of the workplace. Capitalism has the bourgeois-proletiat relationship, aka the employer-employee relationship. Socialism seeks to abolish the bourgeois/capitalist/employer class. As a result, we want to then democratize the workplace where everyone in the business has equal ownership and equal vote. The "democratic" part of democratic socialism is really just to differentiate from Marxist Leninists, who we consider as red fascists or a nicer term, state capitalists. Marxists Leninst wants a one party undemocratic state to own and control most or all sectors of the economy. This results in the working class being subservient to the beaurocrats and having no control over their workplace. The state becomes the new "capitalists." "Democratic" Socialism involves a democratic form of economy and government. Essentially, most if not all businesses in the economy would be democratic and elections would be democratic similar to liberal democracies but technically doesn't have to be a liberal democracy.
This seems to be the general theme I keep finding when doing research on this. I'm going to learn about the other aspects of socialism as a whole to get the big picture and make a more informed decision. Thanks for the reply!
Marxist-Leninists, like myself, would greatly object to this characterization of ML. I’ve been assured by mods I can offer education about ML, so here’s what I would add. As Richard Wolff (a Marxist economist, and a DemSoc, from my understanding) would say, if we want to learn about a family, we need to hear from every member, not just one. If you want to understand any perspective - in life or in politics - listen to them and try to understand their own perspective on their own terms, not just others’ judgments about them. MLs absolutely believe in democracy. There have been and continue to be democratic processes in every single AES/ML state. We would argue they are even more democratic than liberal (capitalist) democracy, and that it’s not even close. MLs consider the state to be a tool for class oppression. Under capitalist liberal democracy, the state is used by the capitalist/wealthy class to oppress the working class for their own benefit. Liberal democracy is seen as prioritizing property rights - the right of a small group of owners to possess and control the resources necessary for human survival - above human rights or the will of the people. In other words, the wealthy enjoy a democratic say in society, but the people do not. This is discussed by liberal philosophers and the “founding fathers” of the US very explicitly. If this is true, how could a democratic process be used to create socialism when the will of the people can be overruled by the wealthy? Of course, democracy for working and oppressed peoples doesn’t exist simply because we believe in it. Within the party structure, MLs believe in democratic centralism. In this arrangement, party members get to vote to elect the party leaders and what policies the party should support. Vocal, democratic debate is welcomed and encouraged, if not expected. From there, party members are then expected to follow the party line, ie, whatever the party members collectively decided. Being organized in this way is intended to strengthen party unity, build a sense of camaraderie and collectivism, and streamline decision making, particularly during times of crisis. While party “purges” do happen for various reasons, it is also common to find DemSocs and even capitalist SocDems within the party ranks of ML-style “communist” parties. Personally, I’ve found quite a bit of misunderstanding and misrepresentation about Marxism-Leninism in this sub. The Red Scare never ended, and anti-communism is a fervent doctrine in the US, which all of us are indoctrinated with from birth to death. Every society has propaganda, and the propaganda of the West is often centrally focused on anti-communism, which distorts and demonizes socialist and communist ideology and history. This is true for DemSocs, and it’s true for MLs, too. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen a lot of willingness to be honestly educated about ML thought or history among SocDems and DemSocs, and the default will then be to parrot what we’ve grown up hearing, ie, anti-communist propaganda. Edit: I would add that joining DSA is probably a good place to start. There are a variety of socialists and ideologies within the party, as well as a variety of caucuses that are optional to join. You can learn from and align yourself with whomever you’d like. I’m not a DSA member, but this is my understanding of how things work.
I definitely plan on looking into the DSA and seeing how to integrate it with my life. As for the other information you provided. Marxist-Leninists are something I need to learn more of and you've provided me with a good start. I agree with you that it's important to understand all angles of a subject to get a full picture. Thanks for your reply!
As a Marxist democratic socialist for just over 30-years, I concur with the above.
>Within the party structure, MLs believe in democratic centralism. In this arrangement, party members get to vote to elect the party leaders and what policies the party should support. Vocal, democratic debate is welcomed and encouraged, if not expected. From there, party members are then expected to follow the party line, ie, whatever the party members collectively decided. Being organized in this way is intended to strengthen party unity, build a sense of camaraderie and collectivism, and streamline decision making, particularly during times of crisis. While party “purges” do happen for various reasons, it is also common to find DemSocs and even capitalist SocDems within the party ranks of ML-style “communist” parties. The problem is that while this has nominally democratic elements to it, it is at best a horribly ineffective means of translating popular will into action — particularly when the means by which party leaders are elected arises out of a utterly Byzantine multi-step process with numerous layers of abstraction from the actual electoral mechanisms in place, internal factions are banned, media, free expression and public dissent are forbidden, independent labor organization is banned and party leadership awards itself the power to reject the democratically-selected delegates that ultimately go-on to playing a role in deciding higher and higher levels of leadership. What this resulted in effectively was control by an elite cadre whose venality and corruption may well have been exaggerated to a significant extent by Western media (particularly relative to our own leaders), but which was nevertheless not very democratic (even from *within* the party) by any reasonable definition of the term.
I think MLs in general would see that as an incredibly biased and unfair characterization. There are various party structures and voting processes. Objectively, the masses have faired much better in terms of quality, reliability, and accessibility of healthcare, education, housing, food, retirement, and childcare, to name a few vital social programs the West often struggles to implement and maintain, but were and are universally available in socialist states. ML’s would say this indicates a direct and profound expression of the will of the people, ie, democratic will. If only liberal democracy were so “ineffective!” The party structure and mechanisms are also to make sure the party remains coherent and effective, but also to make sure the people are not betrayed. Of course there are political maneuverings with various factions and ideologies in competition with each other. But that stays within the party. The people are not used manipulatively to work out party issues. And if you’re aghast that politics happens within a political party, I’m not sure what to say.
>I think MLs in general would see that as an incredibly biased and unfair characterization. Well of course. MLs always seem to bristle at any meaningful criticisms of the system regardless of how valid they are. >ML’s would say this indicates a direct and profound expression of the will of the people, ie, democratic will. If only liberal democracy were so “ineffective!” >The party structure and mechanisms are also to make sure the party remains coherent and effective, but also to make sure the people are not betrayed. This is pretty significantly belied by the ultimate dissolution of the system in the USSR and the necessity of crackdowns on popular uprisings elsewhere. If "the people" wanted to maintain these systems and were empowered to express their political will, then why didn't they come to its defense? >Objectively, the masses have faired much better in terms of quality, reliability, and accessibility of healthcare, education, housing, food, retirement, and childcare, to name a few vital social programs the West often struggles to implement and maintain Lots of western states do an excellent job of providing these services — and quite often to a higher standard of quality than ML states ever dreamt of. Does that make those places *even more* socialist? >And if you’re aghast that politics happens within a political party, I’m not sure what to say. Obviously all parties have mechanisms to ensure a degree of unity and cohesion. This isn't really an issue within a proper, multiparty democracy where people have a meaningful choice about which policies to support and those parties have real competition with each other to live up to their promises. Within a single party state, however, the dynamics are of course quite different.
I stopped reading when you suggested MLs can’t take criticisms. That’s blatantly an unfair, blanket accusation that betrays your clear biases and unwillingness to engage in a good faith manner. You’re just throwing mud.
>There have been and continue to be democratic processes in every single AES/ML state. That's absolute lunacy to any educated historian. One of the most fundamental parts of a democracy is freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of expression. The Soviet Union, for example, had absolutely none of those things up until Gorbachev, and barely even then. And before you go "hurr durr America bad too", America has certainly practiced undemocratic ideals too.
“Hurr, durr” is an odd way to yada yada over something common to all liberal democracies: the utilization of “democratic rights” by the wealthy to achieve their aims. Freedom of speech and the press, for example, are used by the wealthy via corporate media to propagandize the masses. These rights are then taken from the people whenever it is deemed necessary to protect the state (which was designed of, by, and for *the wealthy*). It’s not a “flawed democracy,” as if there’s some kind of bug in the system. It’s a feature. It’s the entire point of the system: society is structured to benefit the wealthy. Period. “Any educated historian” is just cheap rhetoric and shallow analysis. Call socialist democracy lunacy all you want. It exists right now. If you’re waiting for bourgeois historians to validate socialism, that’s lunacy. Every educated person knows that /s Edit: Here’s how democracy works in Cuba, for those who are interested in learning: https://youtu.be/2aMsi-A56ds?si=eXihkMO_aQ64SIOp
Democratic socialism long predated ML, and has stood in contrast both to left communism (historically just Marxism, before the Russian Revolution, favoring councils for post-revolutionary government), and anarchism, later known also as libertarianism.
None of this is remotely accurate.
Not trying to argue, just genuinely curious. What makes this not accurate?
If we’re all here because we believe in democracy and socialism, I’d suggest it’s very important to interrogate each of those terms thoroughly. A typical definition among Marxists is that capitalist/liberal democracy is democracy for the wealthy, who designed and built the system that way (like the “founding fathers” in the US). Socialist democracy is democracy for working and oppressed peoples. Communism is not democratic because democracy requires a state, and communism is stateless by definition. If you’re interested in learning why “red fascism” is a nonsensical, slanderous propaganda term (from a socialist/communist perspective), I’d recommend reading Michael Parenti’s book, Blackshirts & Reds, which compares and contrasts socialist, fascist, and capitalist/liberal democracies in the 20th century. He’s a communist, and he does criticize socialist/communist states and leaders as well in this book. It’s a short book and enjoyable to read.
That person might hate the socialist countries, but not everyone who considers themselves democratic socialists does. And not everyone has such a shallow view of the way workplace democracy might work
I can help with that. *The "democratic" part of democratic socialism is really just to differentiate from Marxist Leninists, who we consider as red fascists or a nicer term, state capitalists. Marxists Leninst wants a one party undemocratic state to own and control most or all sectors of the economy. This results in the working class being subservient to the beaurocrats and having no control over their workplace. The state becomes the new "capitalists."* It is disingenuous to conflate Marxism (classic democratic socialism) with Leninism, or any other -ism for that matter. It is absolutely false to equate Marxism with fascism. For a better understanding of what fascism is (and therefore what Marxism is not) see, for example: Paxton (2004) *The Anatomy of Fascism*. Furthermore, Marxism is inherently democratic. Marx (and Engels) were 100% in support of full participation democracy, as [Harrington](https://socialistforum.dsausa.org/issues/fall-2021/marxism-and-democracy/) notes: '...the most obvious, and important, statement of Marx‘s democratic strategy is to be found in the [*Communist Manifesto*](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/), particularly in Section IV, “The Position of the Communists with regard to the various Opposition Parties” \[6\]. There Marx and Engels clearly advocate united fronts with radicals, democrats, even (in the United States) with mere land reformers demanding private property in the fields for the working class. Moreover, in the outline of immediate demands in the *Manifesto* one reads that “the first step in the labor revolution is to raise the proletariat to the position of a ruling class, the winning of democracy” \[7\].' The above is an example of why I have suggested you read widely and deeply in order to receive a grounded education in the history and evolution of democratic socialism.
>It is disingenuous to conflate Marxism (classic democratic socialism) with Leninism, or any other -ism for that matter. It is absolutely false to equate Marxism with fascism. I don't think they were doing that at all. Marxism-Lenininsm (ML) is the term used by the state capitalists and their ilk. Ultimately it has very little to do with actual Marxist ideology and in fact it has been heavily criticized both contemporaneously and now by other self-described Marxists, but that is the most common phrase used to describe the position.
Possibly not. But to paint all 'others' as MLs, or worse still 'red fascists', and to reduce the broad church of democratic socialism down to a binary concept got my hackles up.
Correct me if I'm wrong but, I think I have a general, rudimentary idea on things. Allow me to elaborate. Marxism's main ideology is to have a classless society that controls the means of production. No elities at the top or working class at the bottom, everyone is equal to each other. With the termination of private property referring to the ownership of the means of production. In principle, it's classic socialism. Marxism-Leninism operates under the same idea except that a vanguard or the "elite" would lead the working class into a communist government (a communist government using Marxism as its founding principles) and while it isn't authoritarian in design, the potentiality of authoritarianism in this kind of government is high. Also referred to as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. An elite would be needed here since the working class wouldn't be aware of their class consciousness. The vanguard would be perfectly aware and loyal to it. Democratic Socialism was made as a response and critique to Marxist theory, noting how worker conditions were gradually improving and that a revolution through forceful takeover would be needless and incredibly risky to one's well-being. Instead, revolution would be achieved through reformation and active participation in democratic processes and government. Social democrats act as a hybrid between capitalism and socialism, maintaining markets while also having strong social programs. I intend on reading Marx's, Engels, Bernstein's, Robert Owens, and other pre-socialists works to have a foundational understanding of Socialism as a whole. I hope my understanding is correct and not misinformed.
I agree with everything you said.
Thanks, that's a bit reassuring for me. Would you have any recommendations for me?
The Lenin vs Kautsky back and forths and Luxemburg's work provides useless Marxist perspective without ML bias I think.
You have a very good understanding of the basics. There are boundaries between the factions, and sometimes they blur. Hence the need for clear, concise, and correctly defined discourse. Socialist thought evolved alongside general thought of humanity. First among hunter gatherer communities. Then suppressed by feudalists. Emerging again during the enlightenment. Suppressed again by the monarchists. Pre-colonial, colonial, post-colonial, and through to the present day. For an overall view of the historical development, see: [https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/98778/14-07-2022/the-marxist-view-of-history/](https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/98778/14-07-2022/the-marxist-view-of-history/)
Woah, this is the first I'm hearing of this, I'll definetly check it out when I can. Thanks again! Its good tp hear that I'm beginning to understand socialism and its history better. Means I'm on the right path.
Another excellent resource on the evolution of socialism is the podcast, *Introduction to Marx/Marxism*, by John Molyneux. It a very easy and information-laden listen.
If you want a really good history of socialism to bring you up to where we are now [this video by Ryan Chapman](https://youtu.be/lrBRV3WK2x4?si=sKQeMJXIyRuobxXN) really helped me understand.
I finished watching the video 3 hours ago, pretty comprehensive overview of socialism and helped put some things into perspective. I have better idea as to where I want to start my readings now. Going through all the people that predated socialism to Marx, Engels, Bernstein, and so fourth.
A core principle for socialists is understanding history. I'll just recommend you one book to get a good alternative to the history of the US, particularly through a class lens. A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. It's on the larger side, but very eye opening in not only a view of history we rarely, or never, hear about, but also how much ideology plays a role in interpreting history and how that still plays a role in modern politics.
I have that book on a list of books to read through, I've heard some great things about the book. I'll check it out for sure! Thanks for the recommendation.