59
Except for the Zohran Mandani part, mostly true of democratic "socialism" in this Wikipedia edit from r/wikipediavandalism
(lemmygrad.ml)
this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2026
59 points (96.8% liked)
GenZedong
5180 readers
57 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Aren't Democratic Socialists just Social Democrats? In Europe we have several Socialist Parties who are part of the same European group of Social Democrats. PS (French and Portuguese), PSOE, SPD are all part of the same group Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D). Also, those "Socialist" parties have long stopped advocating for socialism and even take pride in implementing and defending liberal policies.
My understanding of the difference is: dem socs believe you can bring about socialism through electoralism, whereas soc dems (in the modern terminology) just believe in reforming capitalism.
But in practice, there doesn't appear to be substantial difference because neither is willing to buck the system on a fundamental level and so both end up working toward policies that try to reform capitalism. They can dress it up however they want, but neither takes seriously the power struggle for control over the means of production and distribution, nor the need to have a militant and disciplined vanguard. I'm not aware of any instance of dem socs winning electorally on a majority level of influence and actually holding onto it in the long-term against the forces of reaction. Not sure how they would without armed forces on their side to defend them.
But I also sympathize with why some true believers may try anyway. If one lives in a place where repression of communists is high, then going for reform might feel like a way to reduce harm without risking their life outright. People just have to be clear about the limitations of it for bringing a socialist project into being. OTOH, people who seize on it because it advances their career and who choose their career over any sort of ideological line that actually challenges the system, fuck that.