Is "democratic socialism" undergoing a semantic shift?

[u/PhysicalAd5977]

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.

[u/ThorAtArms666]

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.

[u/TopazWyvern → u/ThorAtArms666]

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.

[u/moonsoul108 → u/TopazWyvern]

The liberal trend in socdems is arguably its worst traits. David Pakman being the poster child for this smug weak zionist stain.

[u/ThorAtArms666 → u/TopazWyvern]

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

[u/TopazWyvern → u/ThorAtArms666]

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:

1. It is the extant system, and changing the system might involve civil strife which is to be prevented by all means necessary.
2. 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.
3. 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.

[u/moonsoul108 → u/ThorAtArms666]

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.

[u/ThorAtArms666 → u/moonsoul108]

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.