Democratic socialism just means you believe in democratically governed socialism, not that you think you can just vote capitalism into socialism. There's both reformist and revolutionary democratic socialists. I both believe in democracy and also see that the only way to overturn capitalism (at least in the US) would be through revolution. All the democratic part means is that they're opposed to monarchies or dictatorships.
No. That's incorrect. Democratic socialism is always and has always been an opposite to revolutionary socialism. Read some goddamned books. ALL forms of socialism are democratic, essentially by definition, but certainly by historical precedent. The only undemocratic "socialist" movements have been fascist movements using socialist aesthetics.
Are you saying that you can have undemocratic socialism?
Isn't that what USSR was, dictatorship?
Good question. No. It was not. Please read about it. There is plenty of writing about the political structure of the USSR, its constitutional documents, its legal and court systems, etc. It is imminently possible for you to learn about it if you're curious
Dictatorship of the proletariat is democracy for the people
And at what point is it no longer a "dictatorship of the proletariat"? Do you really think, say, the Soviet leaders were looking out "for the proletariat"? Is Kim Jong-Un doing so because the country's official name contains the word "people"?
The working class saw a doubling of life expectancy, reduced working hours, tripled literacy rates, cheap or free housing, free, high quality healthcare and education, and the gap between the top and bottom of society was around ten times, as opposed to thousands to millions. The structure of society in socialist countries is fashioned so that the working class is the prime beneficiary. Having "people" in the name of the country makes no difference on structure, be it the PRC, DPRK, or otherwise, what matters is the structure of society.
How? You still have 1 person having full power instead of being first among equals?
What are you talking about about? Go read a goddamned book about the political structure of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, its many voting structures, its multiple state entities, its levels of power of distribution, and THEN try to argue that 1 person had full power.
It's ridiculous to think that your level of ignorance counts as a political perspective on history.
Stalin was a captain of a team
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf
Counterpoint:
You don't, though, this is ahistorical. Not only was the politburo a team, but the politburo wasn't all-powerful, merely the central organ. There was a huge deal of local autonomy.
No, the soviet union was democtatic. The soviet union had a more comprehensive and complex system of democracy than liberal democracy.
It was even dissolved through a vote
Illegally though, most of citizens voted against in a referendum that was just ignored.
Thank you, as a democratic socialist this is what I was looking for.
Sometimes I wonder how many “Marxists” really have read Marx.
The DSA has everyone from reformist soc dems, to anarchists, to MLs, to Maoist Third Worldists
and that's precisely the reason it's been so effective
Were you were being sarcastic? I am Brazilian and know nothing of the DSA.
Yes, he was being sarcastic.
Supa-hot-fire.gif
"I'm about to ruin this man's whole career"