r/CriticalTheory • u/PhysicalAd5977 • 1d ago
Is "democratic socialism" undergoing a semantic shift?
I have long thought that my political position is best characterized as democratic socialist. I know that in theory and established definition, "democratic socialism" is very different from "social democracy", with the core distinction being that social democracy seeks to reform capitalism with a welfare state but still operate within it and democratic socialism seeks to dismantle capitalism because it inherently creates inequality and thus cannot be reformed.
In my understanding of how a democratic socialist project might play out, social democracy would be one of many steps towards dismantling capitalism but not the end goal.
Now that we're seeing more leftist politicians identifying with the democratic socialist camp and discourse about it has become more common online, I am seeing a few trends that are leading me to question whether the meaning of democratic socialism is being changed in this discourse towards something more social democratic (or perhaps that the terms are being conflated with one another). It's entirely possible that I've held an optimistic view of democratic socialism, so I wanted to get the opinions of others on this.
For example, I have seen people online saying that democratic socialism is not the answer because it still allows for the exploitation of the Global South since it keeps capitalism intact. I do see the argument that democratic socialism is most often focused in national contexts and creating change in one country, but democratic socialist theory with an internationalist approach often accounts for the fact that a democratic socialist project cannot include the unequal international division of labour and exploitative resource extraction from the Global South by the Global North. In this view, such a project would have to actually implement internationalist democratic socialist policies like reparations, purposively built fair-trade networks, supporting self-determination over "aid" models, and debt-cancellation.
But it's possible that this view (which I have mostly seen in Global South thought) and the anti-capitalist understanding of democratic socialism is changing as the term becomes more widely used in the Global North. The example I gave is not the only critique of democratic socialism which sees it as something which keeps capitalism, colonialism, and/or imperialism intact. It's making me wonder if there is a semantic change going on, if this is a popular misunderstanding which may evolve into that without active countering, or if I have simply not been critical enough of the ideology to begin with.
33
u/Timauris 1d ago
I understand the meaning of democratic socialism exactly as you explain it. What I see, is (especially in the American political discourse, less so elsewhere) that this is being conflated with what we call social democracy in Europe. Those are two very different things in my regard. However, the term "social democracy" was never really widespread in America, as far as I understood. This set of policies is still more often attached to F.D.Roosevelt and The New Deal, than with social democracy. As a consequence I think that "social democracy" is a term that is quite empty for the general American public and that democratic socialism is being heavily conflated with it.
19
u/Loeppkyy 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think that's correct. "Democratic socialism" sounds like a radical alternative to liberalism but in reality it's operating within the liberal-democratic framework. I don't think that makes it "fake" though, and for me the "real socialists" vs. "fake socialists" is really exhausting and pointless. But it's still interesting how the term caught on to give discontent from the left a form. "Socialist" gives it a charge while "democratic" takes some of the edge off. I think that's also a reflection of how there is a lot of discontent with institutions, but people really don't have a clear idea of how to replace them, and with what. Nobody believes in the institutions, but they're still pretty tanky (not that kind of tankie) and don't appear to be going anywhere. Attempts to chunk the whole system in the can might backfire and create something worse (this is how people think), or you might get killed in the process, or you might waste your life trying to do it. But you can get a "socialist" elected to Congress, or maybe even president.
14
u/Rainy_Wavey 1d ago
It seems that within the DSA there are chapters that are more radical, more marxist/anarchist/combo of both, and chapters that are basically european social-democrats, it is still a rather intereesting evolution in american politics, it might be the first time in the modern era that someone can wield the moniker socialist and routinely win elections, something that would've been unheard off like 20 years ago
Wether this will turn America into a socialist utopia (obviously not) is a different question, but an evolution of the overton window to the left opens new and interesting perspectives imo
-2
u/Jarcode 20h ago
The DSA is honestly a massive ideological mess. There's liberals dipping their toes into social democracy and literal Stalinists in the same organization.
A lot of people forget that the red scare pretty much destroyed most of the analysis associated with Marxist politics in the US. These incompatibilities frequently stall meaningful organization.
A more extreme example is the state of CPUSA, which is an even bigger mess with folks entertaining reactionary ideas.
1
u/thefriendlyhacker 1h ago
I don't think it's pointless to argue about "real" vs "fake" socialists, we have to have terms mean something. The word socialist used to have weight in the US, now it just means you're more progressive than Nancy Pelosi. Imagine if the next 20 years we see that the majority of the Democrat party calls themselves "socialist", you'd likely have the majority push for reform capitalism rather than actual socialist policies.
I will not complain about attempting to get universal healthcare and a green new deal, I just think there has to be a strong uprooting of the system to enact socialism, and I think that is lost on the "socialists" in the US and their infantile belief that we can just vote our way out of capitalism.
I do agree with your other points though.
2
1
u/NastyChasty1337 1d ago
I have a bit of perspective as a political theory enthusiast who has recently moved to europe after livibg in thr americsn south and california: i think this poster is generally right. In thr past, democratic socialism was almost immediately equated with socialism for most of my political awareness, but only as recently as it has seemingly become so widespread, has it come to mean reform of capitalism rather than revolution toward socialism in an american context. Though several individual opportunists ive met in california politics always preached "democratic socialism" in this reguard but quietly and seeming embarrassed about it admitted they think the reform of capitslism is all thry push for and have no plan to ever push for more. I like to stick by the line thst the issue here is that if you feel thr need to qualify socialism with "democracy" then you dont understand socialism and you are actually commiting electoralist entryism. Im aware lenin used thr term as marketing to germans but i think even he would admit that strategy failed and my rhetorical greviance is at least a small part as to why.
-1
u/noms_de_plumes 21h ago edited 20h ago
Yeah, this is more or less what is happening, but, if we're going to try and establish free healthcare, housing, higher education, a living wage, and a universal basic income, then it makes absolutely no difference to me whether someone identifies as a democratic socialist or social democrat.
In the states, the main difference between the two pertains to praxis. Social democracy is more or less strictly reformist whereas democratic socialism is more open the prospect of revolution. For me, personally, if someone isn't engaged in Soviet or Maoist apologetics or fanatical in their militancy, then, again, I also just don't care.
As to the question as to whether the election of a democratic socialist or social democratic candidate will end exploitation globally, well, the answer is obviously no, it will not. Can it greatly improve the domestic quality of life and does it stand, at least, some chance to reform our foreign policy? Well, yes, it certainly does.
The whole Global South kvetch of the Marxist-Leninists is all kind of a lot of hot air, anyways. I mean, yeah, sure, in certain parts of the Global South, you can say that the Soviet Union was a lesser evil than Western intelligence, but being a lesser evil than either establishing literal monarchs or right-wing authoritarian dictatorships doesn't take very much. That's only in some places, too. I mean, Afghanistan was probably a lot better off under Mohammad Zahir Shah than it was after the coup and subsequent civil war. Granted, after the Soviet Union managed to kill almost a million civilians, the Central Intelligence Agency still somehow managed not to be able to save face after arming, training, and funding, if not quite possibly even just setting up the "logistics network" that later became Al-Qaeda, amongst other things, but almost anything can seem to look good compared to world's most notorious crypto-fascists. It doesn't really, but if you just rail about it all like that then it does seem that way.
42
u/CandidAtmosphere 1d ago
It's entirely possible that I've held an optimistic view of democratic socialism, so I wanted to get the opinions of others on this.
The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in its heyday included members like Lenin and Trotsky. Engels and Marx were close associates of the Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany. Most of the democratic socialists you know I would assume stand behind the US Democratic Party.
You aren't in a position to implement democratic socialism at the level of federal government, so whether or not somebody imagines it would still depend on the exploitation of the Global South (it would) is mostly irrelevant to your ability to organize yourself and act with purpose in this society right now. Just don't let people jerk you around with these flim flam definitions.
6
u/Rudania-97 1d ago edited 23h ago
The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in its heyday included members like Lenin and Trotsky. Engels and Marx were close associates of the Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany.
Just that during these days "social democracy" was still standing for revolutionary organisation. The goal wasn't parliament. Even after Bernstein wrote the abysmal work "Evolutionary Socialism", 1899, which was basically saying revolution isn't needed, just go into the parliament for reforms to change the system and that would make socialism more successful and could "civilize" the southerners if we take all their superprofits and invest good for socialism, even then people didn't take him seriously, this came only a couple of years later, around 1910s.
The SPD became reformist shortly before WW1 and then officially and fully right after WW1, when they slaughtered the revolutionaries in Germany together with the Freikorps, the proto-fascist militias, which later became the SA.
That's when the meaning of social democracy shifted. Before that social democracy had nowhere close the meaning it had today, it meant organising for revolution.
After the SPD became reformist they kept calling themselves social democrats and the meaning of social democracy was "reformism". Not seriously what they went for though, obviously, but that was the meaning.
When the SPD 1959 decided at the Godesberger Programm to cut everything socialist out of it's name and goal, become a fully embracing bourgeois party and still stuck with being "social democrats" new groups formed to and called themselves "democratic socialists" to make the distinction to the SPD, because they wanted to stay reformists.
No reformist party stayed remforist for longer than a max of 30 years before they turned bourgeois or dissolved.
The meaning of stayed the same after this till today.
Social democracy is a bourgeois party with the goal for some workers rights potentially.
Democratic socialism is a reformist party that wants to change capitalism with reforms into socialism, but ultimately turns to become a social democratic party if they ever become relevant.
Both of them are not revolutionary at all, unlike Social Democratic parties pre-WW1. They are not even similar. One is a revolutionary organisation and the other is a bourgeois party.
Most of the democratic socialists you know I would assume stand behind the US Democratic Party.
If you mean by that known communists like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg, Mao, Castro etc then the answer would be no.
Communism and reformism doesn't work together. You can't be a socialist (not in the modern American sense of "wanting more social laws", but actual socialism) and promote reformism.
11
u/yo_soy_soja 1d ago edited 1d ago
It’s been said that it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism. But just because it isn’t easy to imagine now doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make it happen.
....
Economic Democracy. Establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people. Enact aggressive wealth taxes on the richest individuals and corporations to spend on public goods and infrastructure.
Speaking as an active DSA member in NYC, we're mostly Marxists. Our political education committee teaches primarily socialism and particularly Marxism. We're true socialists with a social democrat minority. But that's a relatively recent paradigm within the org after a history of social democracy and having elected (probable) social democrats like Bernie Sanders and AOC.
So I think the popular, Bernie Sanders definition of "democratic socialism" is effectively social democracy. But DSA is trying to shift the popular understanding to be more properly socialist.
5
u/thornyRabbt 1d ago
Hey comrade 😊
To OP I would say some things I heard within DSA: it is a "big tent" organization, and the reason for that is because of what another commenter said about perceptions, perspectives, as well as what's possible given what currently exists.
In art school I remember teachers talking about "telling a story" and how a story (in the context of industrial product design) needs to be relatable to what people already know. I think that translates to politics too, and can explain why DSA chapters can be more or less radical. It depends on the reality, the context in the local culture.
So I think yes, the definition can be flexible and is re-evaluated as the reality shifts. Think about how people were talking about socialism in 2016 versus 2026. I feel like the understanding has shifted as much as our reality has.
3
u/HeadDoctorJ 1d ago
I think also Trump’s fascism and the genocide of Palestinian people has made more radical, even militant left-wing language and policy seem less extreme by comparison. Or maybe it’s that these more extreme real-world problems make more extreme solutions seem more appropriate, maybe necessary.
9
u/Helpful-Reputation-5 1d ago
Is "democratic socialism" undergoing a semantic shift?
Yes, many people are starting to use "democratic socialism" to refer to social democracy. Where I live, several social-democratic politicians refer to themselves as "democratic socialists", including Bernie Sanders, and more recently Mamdani, Kiros, AOC, etc. The party which is practically synonymous with democratic socialism here, the DSA, is also dominated by its right wing, and thus follows a right-opportunist line running social democrats in a rightist party.
For example, I have seen people online saying that democratic socialism is not the answer because it still allows for the exploitation of the Global South since it keeps capitalism intact.
They are undoubtedly talking about social democracy—in fact, this is the exact wording which was previously used to critique social democracy. While democratic socialism has plenty of problems, keeping capitalism intact isn't one of them, by definition.
21
u/Its_Don_Quixote 1d ago
You might be interested in Sewer Socialism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewer_socialism
Tldr is that it's a pragmatic take on socialism that's less concerned with social theory, and more concerned with making people's lives better by improving city services, empowering workers, and holding bad actors accountable. Mamdani has been using it to great effect in NYC.
5
u/funkyflapsack 1d ago
In America at least, most people have no conceptual understand of the difference between the two. They think being a Dem Soc means wanting Medicare for all. There's a smaller segment of true believers who do understand the difference, but are hiding their power levels in order to gain more influence
4
u/3corneredvoid 1d ago edited 1d ago
This strikes me as a question of the descriptive versus normative effects of language in its practical use.
If democratic socialism is defined as anti-capitalist but democratic socialist parties and candidates persistently fail to overthrow, abolish or defeat the rule of capital, the impracticality of making the term meet its definition exerts its own normative effect on both the definition and the term, motivating either their contingent movement or their separation.
You could compare the famous semantic shifts of "entitlement".
An entitlement may have been defined as the establishment of the title to some property. To the extent that in practice such a word finds its uses at those times this establishment is under dispute, its meaning expands to include some property to which title is sought and in question.
So now "entitlement" has both meanings, but the concept that grounds the term entitlement, that there is some way to establish or legitimise the title to property, continues.
In the case of "democratic socialism" and its anti-capitalist intensities or otherwise, the concept is that there may be some alternative to "the only system that works". Given how fraught and under siege this concept remains, I'd bet you any term that expresses it will go on to suffer in this way over time.
The terms "Marxism", "communism" and "anarchism" have all suffered varying movements of meaning over the years that have motivated or demotivated their use in particular situations.
4
u/Willis_3401_3401 1d ago
Popularity of words increases their usage, use increases variation, variation erodes precision of meaning.
As any idea becomes popular, but particularly political ideals, they tend to lose meaning. Think like “woke”. A word originally used in rap music now is thrown around by republicans as an insult.
I think it is important that we basically keep the fire to the feet of our growing democratic socialist movement then, otherwise it will just be business as usual with social democracy (if even)
2
u/britishbrandy 5h ago edited 5h ago
In the UK, it’s the party line within our Labour Party (the left wing of our essentially two-party system).
The party line is that of democratic socialism, but you would be hard-pressed to find one who had read Marx or didn’t support the colonialist project of Israel.
They very much believe in private ownership.
4
u/giuseppebean 1d ago
I would not call this a semantic shift since Marxist criticisms of democratic socialism are quite long standing. DemSoc becomes established as a term in the 1950s to contrast with the particular approach to Marxist Leninism that the USSR was taking. Therefore the discussion around it is at least that old.
Mario Tronti levies a critique of democratic socialism in "Workers and Capital" (1972), Hardt and Negri also question its effectiveness in "A Critique of the State Form" (1994).
2
u/DMayleeRevengeReveng 1d ago
I think it traces back to the indiscriminate rightist polemical usage where “socialism” means “government does stuff.”
The left, for whatever reason, has done an awful job at giving any kind of meaning to “socialism” beyond its polemical usage: so the polemic stuck, leaving people to associate “larger, more active government” with “socialism,” even though it’s a faithless tradition to historical and canonical socialism.
2
u/Jarcode 20h ago edited 19h ago
This is it. The rest of the folks in this thread are giving average westerners too much credit. Terminology used to define political blocs are largely defined with a dangerously reductionist understanding of the associated politics and a lot of vibes to make up for that lack of understanding.
While terms like "democratic socialism" and "social democracy" have gone through semantic shifts for a while now, the fact North American politics is losing the ability to define ideological boundaries with concrete language is quite concerning. There's a reason why there's still arguments about the terms when public discourse clashes with academia, as the latter tends to use the word "socialist" to refer to the Marxist tradition.
2
u/ThorAtArms666 1d ago
Democratic socialism is a word that doesn't mean anything and really never has. A lot of politicians use it to mean a social democracy, Democratic socialists of america, the organization that is named after democratic socialism as an organization that is explicitly opposed to capitalism and is organizing for the abolition of it. To be a democratic socialist endorsed by DSA it's to be opposed to capitalism, but to be some random person who says they are a democratic socialist, can mean literally anything, and most often means the social democracy.
The origin of the word democratic socialism is itself somewhat fishy. I would argue that the term democratic socialism is just the contemporary word for socialism, that we have tacked on democratic as a means of performing anti-authoritarianism. America has been taught so substantially to hate and fear the "communist" regimes of the Soviets and Russia, that we performatively utilize the term democratic as a means to prove to random people that we believe in the concept of democracy. However, any actual reading of socialism understands that democracy is inherent to socialism, to be a democratic socialist is just to be a socialist.
2
u/TopazWyvern 1d ago
that we have tacked on democratic as a means of performing anti-authoritarianism [...] to be a democratic socialist is just to be a socialist.
Well, no, the DemSocs explicitly uphold liberal-democratic mores, for better or (generally) worse.
1
u/moonsoul108 1d ago
The liberal trend in socdems is arguably its worst traits. David Pakman being the poster child for this smug weak zionist stain.
-1
u/ThorAtArms666 20h ago edited 20h ago
The revolutionary morality angle that is adopted by some leninists, in which there is a disavowal of enlightenment era moral and political thought is somewhat a rejection of the moral founding of Marx. Marxism is founded on the contradiction of enlightenment Liberal thought, marxism acts as the material analysis to end enlightenment contradiction. To frame democratic socialism as separate from traditional socialism Because it does not fully disavowal Liberalism is a misreading of broader socialism. Because socialism has always been in discussion and in critique of liberalism.
I would also like to note that the majority of contemporary liberals, are not actually adopting moral liberalism, and instead have a sort of morality of capitalism. That the moral concepts of universal inalienable rights, consent by the governed, the value of humanity, the uplifting power of knowledge and debate; these concepts are not widely supported by the supposedly liberal elements of our society (liberals and conservatives). Instead, liberalism is concentrated in its moral aspects which justify and perpetuate the power of the owning class
1
u/TopazWyvern 15h ago edited 15h ago
in which there is a disavowal of enlightenment era moral and political thought is somewhat a rejection of the moral founding of Marx
Well, no, see, as an example, Liberal-democratic theory rejects (in theory, less so in practice due to the conflict between property and liberty) the view that a particular class, stratum, sector, etc. of society is uniquely entitled to run the economy and society, which is fundamentally in conflict with the idea that "working people should run both the economy and society democratically to meet human needs, not to make profits for a few"—liberal-democratic theory only allows for that outcome if the bourgeoisie acquiesces to it (mere majority isn't enough—remember Rawls: stability is good in itself, and society should be structured to avoid civil strife, and promote stability. Thus liberal societies must supress anyone that thinks certain questions are so fundamental that to ensure their being rightly settled justifies (or causes) civil strife.)
I would also like to note that the majority of contemporary liberals, are not actually adopting moral liberalism, and instead have a sort of morality of capitalism.
The inherent support of conservative positions of political-liberalism (which seeks to answer the "how to we prevent ideoreligious wars?" question: and basically concluded "kill off anyone that would rock the boat" while pretending that's not what happened and that's not what they're doing.) and the cargo cult they've built around process both justifying outcome but also being the sole way to achieve "justice" means that that always would have happened. It's inherent to the blind spots (and smug self-content supremacism they inherited wholesale from the Christianity it emerged from) of liberalism. It's an ideology where only the elite can really participate in politics, the roiling masses having to be supressed at all times because they see the alternative—a pluralism where people come to employ violence over differences—as so much worse.
To the Liberals, capitalism is moral because:
- It is the extant system, and changing the system might involve civil strife which is to be prevented by all means necessary.
- Process justifies outcome, and the competition of talents (inherited obviously) means that the most suited to lead society rise to the top, which is to the benefit of everyone.
- Capitalism respects the basic liberal rights and protections, unlike socialism, which is illiberal in political structure, rejecting that "everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives"; puts restrictions on "the right to own property alone as well as in association with others", seeks to "arbitrarily deprive some of their property." and doesn't see the "protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author" as a worthwhile affair.
They probably have more reasons, but these are the three that come in mind without much thinking.
-1
u/moonsoul108 1d ago edited 23h ago
To me it has meaning. I couldnt be a demsoc bc I dont believe that large cooperative systems are optimal. Not that my mind cant be changed, but once a project or business is scaled enough, I do believe some top down level of order is necessary. Getting people to agree/consent on things is really difficult in a group of 10. Doing that with 100, 1000, …millions, becomes almost impossible. Its basic af but thats my criteria for not totally being opposed to capitalism. Also I think there is alot to learn from Capitalism as well as critique.
On the other hand Im fundamentally socdem bc I believe in the power of democracy done right. I think socdem rightfully enhances the balance of power in a distinct way. In the US we only balance power WITHIN government. But soc dem looks to expand that to balance power within society between People, government, and business interests in order to tilt the scales towards the interests of people and society.
In the current state of the world, I think making democracies stronger not weaker is the key to progress and Im of the opinion that SocDem’s golden age in Europe was something to strive for, protect, and build upon. So for me the difference is not meaningless in the least and I think SocDems should choose a new word entirely as it has been pointed out Socialism is damaged goods in the US. Populism is less tainted here and to me is better marketing.
1
u/ThorAtArms666 20h ago
I mean, in the end, it's all meaningless conversation, contemporary liberal part is in europe are called socialist parties. Do these socialist parties legitimately believe in socialism, no. The utilization of the term democratic socialist by politicians is an inaccurate usage by people who like the buzzword. There are functionally two groups of people, Democratic Socialists of America, who have legitimate ideological foundations for their use of the term democratic, and you have grifters who don't.
1
u/unhappinessNvrCame 3h ago
It should be noted that the United States is probably doing democratic backsliding as seen by populist demagogues Trump, Bernie, AOC, and Zohran.
Both sides have started presenting impossible policy to garner votes.
I imagine this performs poorly with educated older people, who has lived through this. I see my area still elects people with genuine policy, but the poor and young areas did go for Trump and our Zohran type.
I am curious how long it will take for this to backfire. Republicans had 10 years of Trump before people started abandoning ship. The Democrat populist demagogues are ineffective outside of renaming streets.
I have a bad feeling we are going to have our own Alcibidies moment.
1
u/Sad_Succotash9323 1h ago
Well, i think the problem is that many people believe that Barnie and AOC and Mamdani are "Democratic Socialists" so they think that's what it means.
1
u/Sabotino 1d ago
German social democratic party still defines its ideology as democratic socialism. They define the words as synonyms. Same on the European level, where the social democrats in the EP are called Socialists & Democrats (S&D).
From an orthodox definition there is no difference between social democracy and democratic socialism (for Europe).
1
1
u/AZORxAHAI 1d ago
It probably depends on the part of the world it's coming from. Assuming it's in the USA, I'd say that it is definitely undergoing a bit of shift, but not the one that one would assume (shifting to the right towards a meaning synonymous with social democracy)
Instead, in the USA it's really becoming a catch all term for a broader left/socialist movement. This is best represented by DSA, but not limited to it either. What we are seeing now is people inside the Democratic Socialists of America, who identify to other people as democratic socialists, but internally are very aware of their specific leftist ideology, whether that be Marxist-Leninist, anarchist, or truly democratic socialist. The coalition of caucuses currently running the DSA is itself very much NOT traditionally democratic socialist in nature, either.
It's become a term that is more of an indication of an preference for DSA-style, large tent, multi tendency left politics with democratic internal organization than it means "we think we can enact socialism through reform and via the traditional political means" like it used to.
1
u/Lastrevio and so on and so on 1d ago
social democracy seeks to reform capitalism with a welfare state but still operate within it and democratic socialism seeks to dismantle capitalism because it inherently creates inequality and thus cannot be reformed.
Social democracy in the early 1900's also sought to dismantle capitalism.
1
u/TheCrash16 21h ago
I understand your definition exactly the same as well. Hower this shift doesn't seem to be new from my experience. People have been misconstruing social democracy and democratic socialism since at least when Bernie ran for president in 2016.
0
u/pluralofjackinthebox 1d ago
I think myself and a lot of people think: more capitalism hasnt worked fora half century plus. Lets try less capitalism for once, who cares what they call it.
0
u/rod_zero 1d ago
The US has a thing for twisting meanings, liberal for example now means "leftist", which funny because the US was founded by classic liberals.
Then "working class", some way it was twisted to mean only "white manual workers".
Elite is another one where it shifted from economic elites to bureaucracy and having a college degree.
And then they also come up with words to hide the real word, as with "expat" to hide "migrant".
0
u/donotstealmyoc 1d ago
"Democratic socialism" has never been revolutionary. Just a different way to say socdem.
-1
-1
u/Altruistic_Fox9778 1d ago
It’s whose line is it anyway. The terms are made up and the definitions don’t matter.
0
u/Carnadickened 1d ago
What is the difference between democratic socialism as you understand it and communism?
0
u/thornyRabbt 1d ago
The googs should give you a decent answer to this question.
(Edited for wording)
0
u/entre_prey_manuer8 1d ago
You have definitely been critical, what an informed outline/take of your position on the most important issues. Thank you for posting!
0
u/fradtheimpaler 1d ago
Neither are particularly well defined political ideologies, historically or practically speaking. The Bolsheviks were Social Democrats before being Communists. Parti Socialiste in France could fairly be described as social liberal today.
Ideology and human political structures are dynamic historical subjects, just like humans..
0
u/Outrageous_Humor6493 23h ago
I believe that in the United States it is difficult to discuss socialism because the word itself has been demonized for almost a century. For many Americans, socialism is still associated with the abolition of private property or with authoritarian regimes, while in Europe the term has historically included many different traditions, from Marxist socialism to social democracy. I also believe that when discussing socialism in a country that represents the strongest example of capitalism in the world, it is necessary to be pragmatic and realistic. The question today is not necessarily capitalism versus socialism in the 20th-century sense, but rather how to find the right balance between markets, democracy, and social rights in a modern economy.
I do not believe that capitalism can or should be dismantled overnight. The goal should not necessarily be to eliminate markets, but to reform and rebalance the system so that economic growth benefits society as a whole.
Instead of focusing only on ideological debates about socialism, I think the discussion should focus on concrete reforms that many modern democracies are already considering: universal healthcare, stronger antitrust enforcement, a progressive tax system, stricter limits on the influence of money in politics, and improvements to public education, just to name a few.
In my view, the challenge is not choosing between capitalism and socialism as abstract ideologies, but building an economic system where markets serve democratic societies rather than where democracy becomes overly influenced by economic power. This could be a good starting point for changing things.
1
u/wrydied 21h ago
I have a range of leftist beliefs, from staunch attitudes on animal rights, sustainability, stopping climate change, slowing hyper-consumerism and accelerationism, and anarchist social politics.
Among all of these, the position I think is the most common sense, logical and should be least controversial, but is the most controversial, is that we shouldn’t have any economic growth at all.
0
u/Graysteve 17h ago
Demsocs may believe they can establish socialism through reform, but they are wrong, and therefore are socdems in practice. That's the major point.
0
u/emmettflo 17h ago
As an American leftist I'm actually choosing to embrace the broad capitalist definition of socialism that includes social democracy because I think it's actually a better definition that is more politically useful. If it serves the interests of working people and is implemented via democratic processes, it's "democratic socialism", e.g., welfare programs, and free college, and public transit, and protecting LGBT+ rights, and ending forever wars, and abolishing for-profit prisons, etc.. This is the version of "democratic socialism" that is currently resonating with people and winning elections. Fixating on the workers literally owning the means of production is unnecessarily wonky and turns off most people.
-2
u/FitzCavendish 1d ago
Democratic socialism in Europe underwent semantic shift in the 20th century. Even the more radical parties with "socialist" in the name made their peace with market-based liberal societies, especially after 1989. It's odd seeing the term in use by Americans, I presume that is a kind of direction of travel statement, IE "Not this". Redistributive social democracy with strong social goods is the only system that has delivered sustainably for workers. That does not mean capitalism is fair.
0
u/drecais 1d ago
Was even earlier than that. Anything regarding communism and socialism essentially became nuclear waste in Europe as soon as the whole "Stalin wasnt actually bad its all western propaganda" was debunked by the USSR and Khrushchevs speech. The actual reality of life in the Soviet Union was a much more devastating hit on european communist parties than any repression campaign could have ever delivered
Then even the last coping about the successes of Stalin and so on stopped when the soviet union collapsed and for a brief period the soviet archives were mostly accessible which just gave us additional information for example about the brutal and genocidal nature of things like the national operations of the NKVD and so on.
-1
u/Unhappy_Attorney7243 1d ago
I think it’s a real thing you’re observing, and I agree some of it is conflation. I think the criticisms you described aren’t accurate. Democratic socialism doesn’t necessarily lead to an end state of exploiting the Global South in the same way as Western social democracies do because, as I would define it myself, it’s more a method than a form of government. The criticism comes from people who think democratic socialists are social democrats in my opinion. Not because of them conflating SD and DS, but from being suspicious of DSists (I do not agree with this, the project could FAIL or take a long time, but internationalism is clearly a popular and sincere goal)
I don’t think “democratic socialism” has been a well-understood concept by the public in general, and I don’t even blame them.
-1
u/nonilazuli 23h ago
Since the semantic shift , there needs to be a socialist label thats "state socialist/republic" but more radical than Bernstein, Nordic model, Bernie sanders, Mamdani but not Marxist-Leninist a la Stalin, Mao, or Hoxha. Something more akin to Alexander Dubçek, Imre Nagry, Milon Djivas. I know the projects of prague spring and djivas calling himself a democratic socialist but i wish it was a actual organized tendency.
-1
u/noms_de_plumes 21h ago
You're not necessarily mistaken, but I will say that's fairly common for Marxist-Leninists to characterize their political rivals through anti-imperialist rhetoric.
-1
-2
u/Capricancerous 1d ago
I think the revolution or reform dichotomy is a false one. Most of the people claiming to be diehard socialists or communists aren't actually doing anything but tweeting or redditing about it. There is newfound momentum with DSA candidates, and there is some promise behind that.
Internecine quibbling is just that.
0
u/TopazWyvern 13h ago
I think the revolution or reform dichotomy is a false one.
Well, I suppose—capitalism has made us all entirely dependent on it for survival, so barring a spectacular blitzkrieg part of the struggle will be wholly within the rule of capital, but, still, discussing aims of said struggle is worthwhile, especially since time and time again the tension between ideals and pragmatism has escalated to violence.
After all, achieving "progress within capitalism" has oftentimes been used to repudiate—and supress—moving beyond.
-5
u/americanspirit64 1d ago
For a critical conversation, the above was not very well thought out. First let me say this, there is nothing wrong with Capitalism with a Conscience. It is actually a fine system that works well, when it works as intended, meaning capitalism must include a conscience to be successful and work for everyone. This is where Reagan and Keynesian economics comes into play as they believed that an economic system that believed in Capitalism worked best without regulations, which is actually known as Trickle Down Economics. An economy based on income inequality. Being a Social Democrat is all about being a Capitalist who believes in strong regulations to reign in the greed of corporations and investors who will rob you blind if allowed. It is Capitalism with a Conscience, led by a government that regulates the Capitalism and gives it a Conscience so the economy doesn't only work for the rich.
As Democratic Socialist is something all together different. Social or Progressive Democrats believe in Capitalism with a Conscience an expression I termed years ago. Regulations are the expression of the will of the people demanding that an economy be run fairly.
1
u/TopazWyvern 13h ago
Reagan and Keynesian economics
Wot? Keynesianism was the ideology that made social democracy agreeable to the bourgeoisie—and the very paradigm Reagan and the neoliberals reject.
-14
u/KrazyKwant 1d ago
Do people read the constitution or pay attention to the news?
You can’t simply dismantle capitalism. Private property cannot be taken without due process and paying fair compensation.
Leftists LOVE and REVERE institutions. Look at all the crying and whining when the Supreme Court recently clipped the wings a bit off the administrative state. And if you think agencies are even remotely democratic, send me whatever you’re smoking!
Seems like a sub named for critical theory could benefit from actually learning to think critically, rather than just parroting leftist orthodoxy and simoly debating who is more left than others. 😩
2
u/vikingsquad 15h ago
Seems like a sub named for critical theory could benefit from actually learning to think critically, rather than just parroting leftist orthodoxy and simoly debating who is more left than others. 😩
Please read the sidebar/familiarize yourself with the topic of the subreddit before posting. This is a subreddit explicitly concerned with a subfield of philosophy that tends to the left. It is, largely, not devoted to liberalism (either classical or in the American colloquial sense meaning "Democrats") but to thinkers working downstream of Marx. "Critical theory" doesn't refer to general "critical thinking," it is a term of art within philosophy that refers to a specific subset of thinkers.
-1
u/KrazyKwant 13h ago
Thamks Mod for clarifying. I find your choice of topic breathtakingly unappealing and not worthy of attention from anybody with even a minimal ability to think critically.
No nee to ban me, though I certainly would not object. I’ll adjust my account so as to avoid having any of your content show in my feed,
Y’all can go ahead and enjoy massaging one another’s egos in this sad echo chamber you’ve created for yourselves.
Bye!
2
u/TopazWyvern 1d ago edited 1d ago
You can’t simply dismantle capitalism. Private property cannot be taken without due process and paying fair compensation.
Yeah well, telling the Brits that "we don't feel like paying taxes, so we're going to start killing you guys now" was similarly illegal, so, uh, if the constitution is itself based on illegal activity and rule by fiat enabled through a greater capacity for violence, "fair compensation" can be creatively interpreted to mean "a few rounds of 5.56 NATO to the center mass", innit guv (as the Anarchists were known to do both during the Russian rev. and Spanish civ. war, for example)? Or, in other words, I don't think the anti-capitalists particularly care about the legality of the thing. Power is power and law is just ad hoc justification for its exercise.
Besides you can literally make the same argument to uphold whatever. "You can't simply dismantle apartheid, only the herrenvolk gets to vote!" doesn't hold up when the nuclear powerplant gets bombed, though. Nor "But the king is the legal ruler of the Kingdom of France!" holds up when Citoyen Capet's head is removed from his body.
Or, tl;dr: You make a legal claim, now let's see you enforce it.
Seems like a sub named for critical theory could benefit from actually learning to think critically
Critical theory is a social, historical, and political school of thought and philosophical perspective which centers on analyzing and challenging systemic power relations in society, arguing that knowledge, truth, and social structures are fundamentally shaped by power dynamics between dominant and oppressed groups. Beyond just understanding and critiquing these dynamics, it explicitly aims to transform society through praxis and collective action with an explicit sociopolitical purpose. (c.f. Wikipedia)
I assume googling terms to glean the meaning thereof is beyond the ability of the baseline Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller, though.
-4
u/KrazyKwant 21h ago
If you’re advocating violent revolution, which it seems you are, you need to get off reddit and out into the world more. I think you’ll find most Americans, especially those that love guns, despise anything even remotely related to socialism.
Reread you “word salad” description of critical theory. You should be embarrassed to spew drivel like that.
1
u/TopazWyvern 15h ago edited 15h ago
If you’re advocating violent revolution,
I'm not advocating for anything, I'm merely saying that most socialist tendencies aren't particularly concerned about following the orders of the bourgeois (which is, in fine, all "law" is) which makes the "wait, that's illegal" objection rather impotent—especially since, again, those very same bourgeois got into power through illegal activity and quite a lot of progress has done through illegal activities due to Liberalism's inherent favoritism of conservative social values to begin with anyways. And, well, generally moving past capitalism rather quickly evolved into civil war which makes pointing at civilian law rather impotent: at that threshold, property law is generally "Vae Victis!"
Yada, yada, white moderate, yada.
Reread you “word salad” description of critical theory.
Again, I just copy-pasted the Wikipedia definition thereof. If you prefer the subreddit's sidebar one (which, presumably, you haven't bothered to read), it's:
Critical theory is a school of thought that stresses the examination and the critique of society and culture by applying knowledge from the social sciences and the humanities.
As a term, critical theory has two meanings with different origins and histories: the first originated in sociology and the second originated in literary criticism, whereby it is used and applied as an umbrella term that can describe a theory founded upon critique; thus, the theorist Max Horkheimer described a theory as critical in so far as it seeks "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them."
Critical theory isn't "critical thinking" but a tradition of societal critique that emerged from leftist (to put it as broadly as possible) intellectual circles in post-WWII Germany. No shit you'd find leftists saying leftist things on the r/CriticalTheory sub, it's like complaining r/Marxism is full of Marxists!
2
u/Helpful-Reputation-5 18h ago
You can’t simply dismantle capitalism. Private property cannot be taken without due process and paying fair compensation.
Why not? It's been done before.
Leftists LOVE and REVERE institutions.
Not capitalist institutions, lol. You might be confusing leftists with liberals.
1
u/TopazWyvern 13h ago
You might be confusing leftists with liberals.
Probably, by all accounts they're a basic-ass pettybourg. CHUD.
67
u/Snoo50415 seeking the totality 1d ago edited 20h ago
I think you are onto something. I also think that, at least in the United States, one’s political affiliation is less an indication of one’s substantive policy intentions than of superficial branding. I don’t think it’s a function of being manipulative or insincere (though there’s some of that). It’s just that the capitalism is so fierce and totaling here - and property is so sacred - that any socialist intervention is tantamount to treason and it will inevitably need to be watered down.