How do you guys feel about democratic socialism? I feel like it's the only realistic way to get socialism without bloodshed - though I also understand the US is a long goddamn way away.
Be gentle pls, I'm still learning ❤️
Edit: thanks for all the replies!! There's a ton to read through so bear with me
Salvador Guillermo Allende Gossens was a Chilean physician and socialist politician who served as the 28th president of Chile from 3 November 1970 until his death on 11 September 1973. He became the first Marxist to be elected president in a liberal democracy in Latin America.
As president, Allende sought to nationalize major industries, expand education and improve the living standards of the working class. He clashed with the right-wing parties that controlled Congress and with the judiciary. On 11 September 1973, the military moved to oust Allende in a coup d'état supported by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
This nonviolent stuff'll get you killed - Charles Cobb
Visiting Martin Luther King Jr. at the peak of the Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott, journalist William Worthy almost sat on a loaded pistol. “Just for self defense,” King assured him. It was not the only weapon King kept for such a purpose; one of his advisors remembered the reverend's Montgomery, Alabama home as “an arsenal.”
Like King, many ostensibly “nonviolent” civil rights activists embraced their constitutional right to self protection—yet this crucial dimension of the Afro-American freedom struggle has been long ignored by history.
Look up the Spanish civil war. Democratic Socialists won the government through elections and all of the right wing elements in the country banded together to overthrow what was a mildly socialist government. Take note of how Hitler's Germany aided the Right faction under Franco, but no liberal nations aided to rightfully elected socialist government. Great Britain, France, and the US all decided to stay neutral as a military dictatorship overthrew one of their peers.
My point is that right wing elements won't let you vote away their power. And that liberal governments, while they nominally espouse the rule of law and democracy, will let fascism run over socialist movements.
Honestly the same as Red. I used to be one who was playing around with the viability of democratic socialism, but as I read of the historic examples, every single one died. Killed by the US. Allende in Chile, the italian marxists post ww2, Nasser in egypt, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo the United Arab Republic, Arbenz was barely even left but they initiated a terror campaign so intense its as if he was Castro. There are countless socialist and socialist adjacent leaders like them with human dignity and love of their people, who tried to do it "the right way" and were all slaughtered.
Anyone who did not immediately take up arms to entrench themselves, who did not make their nation a fortress, were immediately ripped to shreds. You have morals and a want to do right by people, as do we, but the US and its allies have no such disposition.
They fund nazi shock troops, trained the people who became Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Installed dozens of fascist dictatorships all over the world, and have caused their own holocaust in political killings through them. Thats just the start! They killed our own movements! The Black Panthers! They created COINTELPRO to hunt down every single leader of the civil rights movement. One they got may seem familiar: Malcolm X. They will fund the shit out of every single one of your competitors, be it fascist or liberal, they will bribe your army, they will assassinate your friends, drive you insane, and they will do so with a smile. In their eyes, just stepping on the toes of american imperialism to defend your people is enough for them to lash out.
Even the ones armed barely get away. Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia (US aided Pol Pot, and the socialist Vietnamese took him out), Korea, China, Basically the entirety of Africa and South America, The Soviets, the Greeks, Cuba, and several more were all scarred forever by the actions of the US. The Soviets specifically were invaded during the revolution by various foreign powers (US, UK, France, etc), Sanctioned to hell so that trade was almost impossible, fighting through one of the most intense civil wars at the time, subjected to one of the largest sabotage campaigns in history (yet), had to industrialize their country to western levels in 10 years where it took capitalists 100 during said sabotage and after said civil war, subjected to the largest land invasion in history by the most evil empire in history (lots of history being made), lost 30 million people in that war, lost major parts of their industrial and infrastructure capacity, had to rebuild and reorganize themselves and eastern Europe from scratch, then subjected to military and political encirclement by the richest countries on earth, and all of this within 30 years. There are people who had to fight, suffer, and survive through each of those while they were teens to adults. They survived. It took 70 years of the most intense military, political, and subversive pressure known to man before people like them could be broken. They did it to tell us that it is possible. Even through the most hellish of conditions, it is possible. Just keep fighting. This isn't even mentioning the insane struggles of the Chinese communists in the civil war, sino japanese war, and then Korean war. The Struggle of the Vietnamese fighting off the US, Japan, and France in a thirty year span.
We do not choose violence because it is our favorite option, it is because it is our only option. I wish we could just get the bright world we both see in the future through little bloodshed, but its not possible.
Sorry for the long response, but this is very important to me. I have some books to recommend if you want.
This is very comprehensive, thanks for the explaination! What I was trying to ask though was what's hexbear's thoughts on Democratic socialism as a concept. I ask because everyone here seems to be very specifically communist which is fair but I don't think I'm quite there yet is all. I'm assuming this is because there are successful real world examples of communism such as The People's Republic of China vs the only ever failed attempts at a socialist country?
"Most social revolutions begin peaceably. Why would it be other-wise? Who would not prefer to assemble and demonstrate rather than engage in mortal combat against pitiless forces that enjoy every advantage in mobility and firepower? Revolutions in Russia, China, Vietnam, and El Salvador all began peacefully, with crowds of peasants and workers launching nonviolent protests only to be met with violent oppression from the authorities. Peaceful protest and reform are exactly what the people are denied by the ruling oligarchs. The dissidents who continue to fight back, who try to defend themselves from the oligarchs' repressive fury, are then called "violent revolutionaries" and "terrorists."
-Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds.
Democratic Socialism, while a nice thought, does not have the internal strengths to combat capitalist forces from the outside. You cannot vote in socialism, nevertheless communism. The external systems of global hegemony will do anything in their power to destroy it. The concept of self-sufficiency on a national scale is nearly impossible, due to how global capitalism and finance imperialism works. The work that is required to be self-sufficient, especially under sanctions, from "western" capitalist nation, requires other countries that reject the western paradigm to be able to export goods. By definition, democratic socialism is a bandaid for capitalism, as it still requires the extraction of resources from the global south.
To clarify, when you said “you cannot vote in socialism” pretty sure you meant “you cannot vote in socialism,” not “in socialism, you cannot vote.” For outsiders who might be confused.
Who would not prefer to assemble and demonstrate rather than engage in mortal combat against pitiless forces that enjoy every advantage in mobility and firepower?
I think we all want democracy. And, actually, plenty of existing socialist states do have democratic processes, despite being under threat from the United States. Cuba, for example, has regular elections and a large system of citizen councils. Here’s a video about Cuban democracy
You probably can’t start a Capitalism Party in Cuba and hand out leaflets saying “We should sell our land and factories to American businesses!” — because if Cuba allowed that, America would pour a billion dollars a year into funding and training and staffing that party, insert CIA agents into the staff, publish a Capitalism Party newspaper full of slander and propaganda, engineer Cuban elections, and start to gnaw at Cuba from the inside. The party would become a beachhead for counterrevolution.
Restrictions on democracy in communist countries are a wartime measure to fend off capitalists. The more open and democratic your country is, the greater the attack surface. That doesn’t mean actually existing socialist (AES) states have no democratic processes at all, but they have to be vigilant and ensure that positions of power are occupied by committed and capable socialists.
successful real world examples of communism such as the PRC vs the only ever failed attempts at a socialist country
you label the successful, presumably less democratic nations “communist,” and the failed, presumably more democratic nations “socialist,” but I would say the terms communist and socialist don’t really work that way. To be honest we mostly use the terms interchangeably lol, but I would say “Socialist” is a descriptor while “Communist” is a goal, where you aspire to be a classless, moneyless, stateless society in the future, and to survive in the meantime while keeping capitalists out of power.
I'm assuming this is because there are successful real world examples of communism such as The People's Republic of China vs the only ever failed attempts at a socialist country?
in a way, but the main point is that the bourgeoisie has its tools within bourgeois democracy and it's gonna use them to jeopardize every socialist effort
the chilean experience is the best one to show this imo, you can watch guzmán's "battle of chile" to see a good explanation (it's pretty widely available on the internet), but to sum it all up: first they blocked allende through all the institutional tools, such as congress and the judiciary (which tends to be very elitist by nature); once popular movements started pressuring with strikes and demonstrations, they used economic power, especially aided by america - they would shut down factories, transportation companies, call for sanctions, etc, all in an attempt to cause a supply crisis and demoralize the government and all social organizations; but popular movements again reacted, mostly by literally forcing up the factories and warehouses and keeping them working, since they knew bosses are basically useless for a company to actually be functional; after that happened, the bourgeoisie went for their last resort, the military, and finally the workers were crushed since there was no armed resistance as an answer
this was not a singular experience, but the norm throughout the 20th century: people would go forward, class relations would get really intense, then the military or paramilitary forces would kill everyone. the point is that capital can and always will use force, and once they do, you either react accordingly or you get crushed and killed. bear in mind, this is actually "understandable" - how would you feel if you were in their place? if your entire lifestyle was threatened by those under you? would you simply give up on all you have (and they have a lot of shit to lose)? fuck no, they are gonna have your ass arrested or killed, there's a limit to what people can lose without resorting to violence, and the whole point of socialism is that the bourgeoisie should eventually lose everything. we're talking about the entire disappearance of a class here - not the people belonging to it, mind you, they would just become common workers like all of us - but for a capitalist, becoming a simple worker is just hell
in a way, but the main point is that the bourgeoisie has its tools within bourgeois democracy and it's gonna use them to jeopardize every socialist effort
So you're saying Democratic socialism is flawed because it still allows elections, which are by nature corruptable?
no, cuba has elections, and is actually more inclusive than america in that sense
the point is you can't vote the bourgeoisie out of power because they simply won't let you. they will use their massive economic power to shut you down, in whatever ways said economic power can be used, including, as a last resort, to fund a violent reaction (through the army, paramilitary forces, or otherwise)
edit: oh, nvm, you mean democratic socialism not as a way to achieve socialism, but to run it? if that's the case then no socialist i've met has any issue with democracy at all, in fact most of us (at least among marxists) consider every socialist country to be more democratic than any capitalist one. we have a problem with liberal democracy, which we think is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in disguise
you mean democratic socialism not as a way to achieve socialism, but to run it?
Yes, this! Sorry, I wasn't being clear enough. Good to know though. I'm still researching socialism so there's a lot I don't quite understand - I grew up religious conservative and have only been leftwing for the last few years. Definitely leaning hard into socialism the more I learn though. US voting is goddamn bullshit though with our archaic electoral college, gerrymandering, and the legal bribing we call "lobbying".
No, socialist states hold elections. The problem isn't democracy, it's the bourgeois control of "democratic" mechanisms in liberal society, which isn't "corruption" so much as the explicit intention of the design (why is there a Senate?).
Democratic Socialism is flawed because it attempts to enact change under an economic dictatorship, the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. They hold all the factories, all the gun makers, all the money flow, all the software and telecommunications and electricity and water.
And so in order to enact Socialism you need to take those things away from the Bourgeoisie. This is what Communists really mean about establishing the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It's not just political control by the workers, it's economic control. And unfortunately you can't vote your way to that if those who have economic control don't want you to.
Again, I think you mean Democracy within socialism, which is something we aim to protect. We do not throw away democracy.
Okay so basically there are two kinds, these are based on dictatorships of class (not of people, dictatorships aren't a good thing)
Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie: the thing that 'democracy' is usually represented as. Its the UK, US, Germany, Russia, etc. These governments, although allow some form of popular democracy, are system established by and for the rich. Most people in the US would like a decrease of military spending to focus on infrastructure and free healthcare, so why don't they implement it? Its not profitable to the class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The profit motive is the main drive. Wars are terrible, no sane person wants one to happen, but to the large private war industries it is profitable, so they make sure we (all bourgeoisie dictatorships do this) is always instigating wars or inflaming conflicts. Purely for profit. We as workers have some sway over politics, but that is due to concessions and freedoms we forced out of them. It is in their eternal material interest to make the most money out of the lowest cost, by every underhanded tactic in the book.
This is in direct contrast to the interests of the worker, who dare to want fulfilling lives and to have a state that gives according to need, and from everyone according to ability. Workers want things like Free Universal Education, Well built/maintained infrastructure, A good house, reliable source of food that is healthy and cheap, large working benefits, government safety nets, etc. A society that works on what is most effective possible, while favoring the living status of the worker. This is, again, in direct conflict with the profit motive and thus the interests of the bourgeoisie. Their efforts to suppress our self-determination and our efforts to draw concessions of power is basically what we define as Class War. Our democracies are that for the rich, who hold all the power and all the wings of government. Under Bourgeoisie Democracy, there will be this constant class war. We the worker are the oppressed, and the owning class are the oppressors.
This is where the second Dictatorship of Class comes in handy. You see, what they're afraid of is due to this fact: we don't need them at all anymore, haven't for hundreds of years, if ever. We know this clearly, and it terrifies them. A Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the inevitable result of this contradiction. To solve the Class war, we will use our own power (gained through the concessions to labor power), to win the war by hijacking the class dictatorship and flipping it. The State serves us, and so we are able to implement what is in our interests against theirs. We take their factories and office building, thus rendering them basically powerless. We have taken their tools and truly made it our own. We built the world, they did not, why should the capitalists run it? We can run the workplaces and co-operate for the common good of all. A human oriented society. That is the true democracy where change can be made. A democracy in politics, the community, and the workplace. A state that enforces our rights above that of property. There is a better world, it has been done, and we can have it in our lives.
if thats not what you're talking about, then idk have this okayish explanation of the class dictatorship
Literally it is impossible to achieve socialism by Bourgeoisie Democratic means, they will do everything within their power to kill the movement.
By chance, what do you mean by Democratic Socialism? A lot of the times it gets mixed up. If you mean democracy inside socialism, then there is no problem there. Communism and Democracy are hand-in-hand, in every ideology of socialism. Democratic Centralism is what we preach as Marxist Leninists.
If you mean Social Democracy like that of the nords, we can effectively explain how those are not effective examples of worker power, and just ineffective in general.
Vietnam and Cuba are absolutely inarguable and Laos and the DPRK are still kicking. The USSR did eventually fall to sabotage after ~75 years, but by the metric that any state that ever dissolves is somehow to be entirely considered a "failed attempt," and we would need to say the same of a great many "liberal" states.
There are plenty of anarchists on the sub, and not all Socialists here are massive fans of China (I think most have pretty severe critique on some of their recent LGBT+ policies).
But we do for the most part offer it "Critical Support" meaning that we assume it is trying to be Socialist in good faith and criticise it as a friend and ally, not an enemy "corrupting Socialism". (China does not claim to be Socialist yet, it is "building Socialism", and expects to complete the lower stage of that around 2050. Even the Soviets didn't claim to have built Socialism until 1970.)
There are some exceptions of course; many here will, for instance, support Vietnam over China in any disputes they may have, despite Vietnam currently having a marginally better relationship with the USA. This is generally because Vietnam is doing very well for itself, has good LGBT policies, and of course the memory of Vietnam putting down Pol Pot.
its a touchy subject yeah, but again all good faith arguments. If you see China as more of an enemy than that of NATO and the US, you will find no friends here.
The short answer is that democratic socialism requires using institutions deeply intertwined with capitalism to vote it out of existence, and the forces of capital will use every tool, legal and illegal, to prevent it – that's what other users are trying to point out with the examples. It's a dead end that never works.
What I was trying to ask though was what's hexbear's thoughts on Democratic socialism as a concept
I'm new here, but from my understanding we're a leftist unity instance! So folks will have opinions across the spectrum. Communists and anarchists generally do not like democratic socialism, or think that it isn't a viable way to achieve socialism. Most Hexbear users from my understanding and experience seem to fall into one of those two camps, but you're still welcome :)
-no wreckers
-no social democrats (liberalism, also rosa learned the hard way)
-no pushing of electoralism as the end all be all strat. It is useful in a minor extent, and only for communist party power.
-no uninformed bashing of AES or bringing up debunked nonsense.
but asking questions and whatnot is completely fine, and its fine to chill, theres just still rules that we must go by. Being to lax can have its consequences.
I hate to be this person, but I would highly highly highly recommend listening to Season 2 of the Blowback podcast if you haven't yet. It goes over the Cuban revolution and explains some of the 'bloodshed' that was necessary. It also gives you an idea of what a real revolution looks like (hint: it's more boring and tame than you'd think). I just started listening to it and it's literally blowing my mind. Making me feel like a lot of this is more achievable.
Let me preface this by saying that I am deriding the people who fed you that line, not you for repeating it.
Moderates love to talk about how their proposals are more "realistic" than the radical ideas. While this is not false as a rule, it is overwhelmingly asserted without evidence and never has that been more the case than with the "Reform or Revolution?" debate. For the sake of convenience, here's what I told another DemSoc:
Do you believe the rich and powerful will submit to being voted out of power? Do you think they won't ratfuck anyone who gets close and buy off, intimidate, or assassinate anyone who gets in? We've seen what that looks like internationally, it looks like coups and the slaughter of peaceful actors. Do you think that, with such violence used to protect the appendages of capitalism, they will roll over and allow you to claim their beating heart?
"Ah," the close reader says "But what the user you are responding to now said was 'the only realistic way to get socialism without bloodshed,' which is a somewhat different claim!"
Correct, I'm covering my bases. The second point that I want to make is that "without bloodshed" is doing an immense amount of heavy lifting for the justification of your idea, and it is no coincidence that it is also a lie of catastrophic proportions. Let us pretend that what we have already established is false -- that the rich and powerful are like the Jurassic Park T. Rex, they can't see you if you move slowly enough -- is true, and in the far-flung future we can succeed in voting our way to socialism. Who does this save? Most directly, it protects the capitalists and their jackbooted thugs, plus the fascist paramilitaries that would assist them in fighting to suppress communist revolution.
"But doesn't it also save people on our side?" the reader now interjects "Surely you don't proffer a fantasy in which the Vanguard triumphs over Washington without casualties!"
Right you are, many revolutionaries would die. However, what you are failing to take into account is that a potential revolution is not the only violence that may exist or does exist in society. Specifically, you are entirely ignoring the extraordinary violence of the status quo which kills people every day. There's a reason for the old slogan "Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied." Injustice will keep being done every day, people will be threatened, starved, tortured, murdered, forced to live like animals, every single day while we wait for this far-flung future where the appointed time has finally come and the moderates declare that we as a society may now have justice, on a boiling planet with a peace soaked in the blood of people who never had a chance to fight back but were butchered by the state just the same.
But dropping now the counterfactual that such a future exists, what we are left with is the understanding that the job of the moderates is to continuously stall the radicals, claiming to support change while only stifling it, to be on our side while constantly betraying us, to abhor violence while tacitly perpetuating a violence bloodier than a thousand revolutions.
I'm gonna come right out and say I have had many disagreements with you on many of your alts and frankly do not like you.
BUT, this is a very very good post and is very thoughtful and I wish you would make more of this sort of post than being (at times very problematically) so hostile with your comrades.
There's a person here that I could potentially have immense respect for and your writing chops are not at issue here. Just have a bit more humility sometime and you could probably be a great writer.
For what it is worth, I have always respected you, and now all the more so for your willingness to be constructive and encouraging with someone you dislike.
part of becoming a leftist for me was realizing that winning is more important than honor, and that the two need not necessarily be distinct. Winning for the sake of our cause will deliver the moral high ground once we have socialism and end poverty.
It's all fine and honorable to say we can and should get socialism without bloodshed, purely through democratic elections, but that hasn't historically been a viable strategy (Chile, Spain, Germany, and current issues within Venezuela). There's only been one instance I can name where a country voted its way into socialism, and it was Czechoslovakia in 1946. But even then they had to do a Soviet backed coup two years later in 1948 to fully seize power.
The best strategy is the one that works and achieves victory, not the strategy that can claim moral superiority in defeat. There's no honor in defeat, it's just defeat.
Romania technically voted it in, probably with a majority since it left the Axis in 1944 and joined the Allies, but the Soviets were leaning on them heavily.
Replying to you a second time, there's a pretty good passage from Vincent Bevins' book "The Jakarta Method"
“Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported—what the rich countries said, rather than what they did. That group was annihilated.”
This is a fair take. I'm not a pacifist per se, I just avoid violence as much as I can. If that's what it takes to be a socialist state though, so fucking be it
If given the choice between Democratic Socialism and violent revolution, i believe almost anyone would pick the former rather than the latter. However you have to question how the current ruling class would attempt to fight the DemSoc reforms. I can't really think of any example in human history where the ruling class has willingly abdicated power simply because the majority of the population asked them to.
Concessions can be achieved because of other socialists movements though, as this essay succinctly describes: https://redsails.org/concessions/
These should not be confused with wins of liberalism or dem-socialism, but wins fought for elsewhere by communists and able to be won by concession in the west.
Democratic socialism does come with bloodshed, but it's the blood of democratic socialists getting murdered by US-trained fascist juntas. You can look at any example of actual democratic socialism that isn't just social democratic libs in the imperial core, the only case where the inevitable reactionary coup got prevented with the measures of a civil society and the rule of law is Bolivia. That's one example out of dozens of honest, peaceful attempts of global south countries to elect their way out of capitalism and neo-colonial structures. That track record seems way too dangerous to me, i'd take a violent suppression of the comprador bourgeoisie over that any time because i value my own life and that of my comrades over that of capitalist leeches and their nazi lackeys. Better to live in the next Cuba than the next Chile or Indonesia.
And Bolivia wasn't even bloodless. The reactionary coup regime was brutal towards protests and carried out several massacres. The only thing that made the putschist allow free elections in the end was the very real threat of militant labour activists blockading the capital.
If the Bolivian movement had listened to the liberals and limited themselves to debating the fascists in the marketplace of ideas, Jeannine Añez would still be dictator and not a convict.
I would really suggest reading The Jakarta Method or looking into what happened to Allende to get our perspective on democratic socialism and why it isn't a viable path.
Thanks! I'll definitely look up the Jakarta Method. Can you clarify about Allende, though? What does the massacre have to do with democratic socialism? Everything I could find talked about how the US DEA put it's grubby paws on them and upset the cartels
Well, it is a good example of the way that socialist movements that try to win power through bourgeois democracy universally end up losing in a spectacularly bloody fashion.
This is a bit long but very well made video about what happened in Chile if you want to understand the history and context.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJLA2_Ho7X0
Project Cybersyn was a socialist logistical mechanism for running the economy based on a marxist understanding of production. It later became the basis for neoliberal logistical protocols because of how effective the methodology actually was in practice. This is partly why the military coup was used ultimately. Allende and Cybersyn were so effective at circumventing the other forms of control and manipulation that were initially used in response.
So even if you survive the first, second, etc order reactions, that just means an escalation towards total war will be coming soon.
I'm just going to toss out a relevant excerpt from The Jakarta Method:
This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: “Who was right?”
In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?
Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.
Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported -- what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.
That group was annihilated.
I would also suggest Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth which we happen to be reading right now in Hexbear's book club. We're a couple chapters in already, but it's a slow schedule so easy to catch up for anyone interested. (Thanks to @Othello@hexbear.net for cluing me in on it).
To enact democratic socialism or any form of socialism today, you cant simply vote for it, as your current government will fight against it.
You cant work within a capitalist government to enact socialism, just look at how hard it is today to simply try to put welfare programs.
I'm talking about the USA of course. If you want socialism you will be silenced, attacked, and manipulated by the media and if you are strong enough assassinated by the CIA. So you only way is violence.
Lets look at other countries wanting socialism, you will be attacked by the USA military, so you need a strong army to defend yourself, same thing again, the media will try to say your country is authoritarian and the CIA will try to manufacture events off unrest in your country to justify itself. There are multiple events like this in the past century. So you require violence to defend yourself here.
Things will get better with time, I hope, as more societies try different forms of socialism, but for that the fastest way is a violent socialist revolution, or waiting centuries for the USA and other capitalist countries to completely fall and allow socialist to exist.
honestly yep I should have just said that lol. Capitalists just won't allow you to break their system while working within its rules. You must destroy it from outside with your own worker dual power.
Despite all the numerous failures that democratic socialism has had, its the only tendency that has had any actual success in "western liberal democracies". Someone is welcome to correct me but I'm not aware of any successful Maoist revolutions in liberal democracies. They all get stomped out immediately by a fully developed capitalist state.
Meanwhile we currently have Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez successfuly getting elected and their parties are still in power. But thats because they weathered the reaction. You have to be ready for the reaction comrade.
Evo and Chavez can only win precisely because those countries are not fully developed Liberal democracies but instead periphery comprador resource extraction states (prior to the revolution). I’m not aware of any “democratic socialist” in western nations that has ever won power either and not just immediately became a succ traitor like in Greece
Name a more developed or more western "liberal democracy" than Bolivia or Venezuela that had a successful revolution. My point is its the best example we have to go off.
They tend to become fascist when that happens. Besides if you're in one of those nations, "we need to break and collapse" is a dead-end political movement.
The daily bloodshed of capitalism is such that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the only means of progressing historically. The proletariat is the progressive class, not in the social sense but as in the mode of production and form of society. That is the goal. Without bloodshed means that without bloodshed is the goal, with socialism being secondary at best. It would be ideal for sure, but it is also historically proven to be impossible, and as a means supplants the necessity of socialism.
How do you guys feel about democratic socialism? I feel like it's the only realistic way to get socialism without bloodshed - though I also understand the US is a long goddamn way away.
Be gentle pls, I'm still learning ❤️
Edit: thanks for all the replies!! There's a ton to read through so bear with me
This nonviolent stuff'll get you killed - Charles Cobb
instructive example; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende
Like King, many ostensibly “nonviolent” civil rights activists embraced their constitutional right to self protection—yet this crucial dimension of the Afro-American freedom struggle has been long ignored by history.
Very very good book highly recommend.
Look up the Spanish civil war. Democratic Socialists won the government through elections and all of the right wing elements in the country banded together to overthrow what was a mildly socialist government. Take note of how Hitler's Germany aided the Right faction under Franco, but no liberal nations aided to rightfully elected socialist government. Great Britain, France, and the US all decided to stay neutral as a military dictatorship overthrew one of their peers.
My point is that right wing elements won't let you vote away their power. And that liberal governments, while they nominally espouse the rule of law and democracy, will let fascism run over socialist movements.
They just didn't vote hard enough.
That isnt true, those "neutral" countries were actually helping Germany rearm, so were indirectly contributing to the Franco faction
Honestly the same as Red. I used to be one who was playing around with the viability of democratic socialism, but as I read of the historic examples, every single one died. Killed by the US. Allende in Chile, the italian marxists post ww2, Nasser in egypt, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo the United Arab Republic, Arbenz was barely even left but they initiated a terror campaign so intense its as if he was Castro. There are countless socialist and socialist adjacent leaders like them with human dignity and love of their people, who tried to do it "the right way" and were all slaughtered.
Anyone who did not immediately take up arms to entrench themselves, who did not make their nation a fortress, were immediately ripped to shreds. You have morals and a want to do right by people, as do we, but the US and its allies have no such disposition.
They fund nazi shock troops, trained the people who became Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Installed dozens of fascist dictatorships all over the world, and have caused their own holocaust in political killings through them. Thats just the start! They killed our own movements! The Black Panthers! They created COINTELPRO to hunt down every single leader of the civil rights movement. One they got may seem familiar: Malcolm X. They will fund the shit out of every single one of your competitors, be it fascist or liberal, they will bribe your army, they will assassinate your friends, drive you insane, and they will do so with a smile. In their eyes, just stepping on the toes of american imperialism to defend your people is enough for them to lash out.
Even the ones armed barely get away. Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia (US aided Pol Pot, and the socialist Vietnamese took him out), Korea, China, Basically the entirety of Africa and South America, The Soviets, the Greeks, Cuba, and several more were all scarred forever by the actions of the US. The Soviets specifically were invaded during the revolution by various foreign powers (US, UK, France, etc), Sanctioned to hell so that trade was almost impossible, fighting through one of the most intense civil wars at the time, subjected to one of the largest sabotage campaigns in history (yet), had to industrialize their country to western levels in 10 years where it took capitalists 100 during said sabotage and after said civil war, subjected to the largest land invasion in history by the most evil empire in history (lots of history being made), lost 30 million people in that war, lost major parts of their industrial and infrastructure capacity, had to rebuild and reorganize themselves and eastern Europe from scratch, then subjected to military and political encirclement by the richest countries on earth, and all of this within 30 years. There are people who had to fight, suffer, and survive through each of those while they were teens to adults. They survived. It took 70 years of the most intense military, political, and subversive pressure known to man before people like them could be broken. They did it to tell us that it is possible. Even through the most hellish of conditions, it is possible. Just keep fighting. This isn't even mentioning the insane struggles of the Chinese communists in the civil war, sino japanese war, and then Korean war. The Struggle of the Vietnamese fighting off the US, Japan, and France in a thirty year span.
We do not choose violence because it is our favorite option, it is because it is our only option. I wish we could just get the bright world we both see in the future through little bloodshed, but its not possible.
Sorry for the long response, but this is very important to me. I have some books to recommend if you want.
The list of nonviolent revolutionaries and their fates at capitalist hands is like the list of terminated superheroes from The Incredibles
Exactly what I thought writing it down, someone should make it
Where is Eugene Dabs when we need them
This one is close to what you're thinking of
...because we're about to be buried under a bunch of sticky balls?
This is very comprehensive, thanks for the explaination! What I was trying to ask though was what's hexbear's thoughts on Democratic socialism as a concept. I ask because everyone here seems to be very specifically communist which is fair but I don't think I'm quite there yet is all. I'm assuming this is because there are successful real world examples of communism such as The People's Republic of China vs the only ever failed attempts at a socialist country?
"Most social revolutions begin peaceably. Why would it be other-wise? Who would not prefer to assemble and demonstrate rather than engage in mortal combat against pitiless forces that enjoy every advantage in mobility and firepower? Revolutions in Russia, China, Vietnam, and El Salvador all began peacefully, with crowds of peasants and workers launching nonviolent protests only to be met with violent oppression from the authorities. Peaceful protest and reform are exactly what the people are denied by the ruling oligarchs. The dissidents who continue to fight back, who try to defend themselves from the oligarchs' repressive fury, are then called "violent revolutionaries" and "terrorists."
-Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds.
Democratic Socialism, while a nice thought, does not have the internal strengths to combat capitalist forces from the outside. You cannot vote in socialism, nevertheless communism. The external systems of global hegemony will do anything in their power to destroy it. The concept of self-sufficiency on a national scale is nearly impossible, due to how global capitalism and finance imperialism works. The work that is required to be self-sufficient, especially under sanctions, from "western" capitalist nation, requires other countries that reject the western paradigm to be able to export goods. By definition, democratic socialism is a bandaid for capitalism, as it still requires the extraction of resources from the global south.
To clarify, when you said “you cannot vote in socialism” pretty sure you meant “you cannot vote in socialism,” not “in socialism, you cannot vote.” For outsiders who might be confused.
Yeah, that was my intent. Sorry. I wrote this during a midnight bathroom break while i was half-asleep.
lol o7
It was a great comment though
I think we all want democracy. And, actually, plenty of existing socialist states do have democratic processes, despite being under threat from the United States. Cuba, for example, has regular elections and a large system of citizen councils. Here’s a video about Cuban democracy
You probably can’t start a Capitalism Party in Cuba and hand out leaflets saying “We should sell our land and factories to American businesses!” — because if Cuba allowed that, America would pour a billion dollars a year into funding and training and staffing that party, insert CIA agents into the staff, publish a Capitalism Party newspaper full of slander and propaganda, engineer Cuban elections, and start to gnaw at Cuba from the inside. The party would become a beachhead for counterrevolution.
Restrictions on democracy in communist countries are a wartime measure to fend off capitalists. The more open and democratic your country is, the greater the attack surface. That doesn’t mean actually existing socialist (AES) states have no democratic processes at all, but they have to be vigilant and ensure that positions of power are occupied by committed and capable socialists.
you label the successful, presumably less democratic nations “communist,” and the failed, presumably more democratic nations “socialist,” but I would say the terms communist and socialist don’t really work that way. To be honest we mostly use the terms interchangeably lol, but I would say “Socialist” is a descriptor while “Communist” is a goal, where you aspire to be a classless, moneyless, stateless society in the future, and to survive in the meantime while keeping capitalists out of power.
in a way, but the main point is that the bourgeoisie has its tools within bourgeois democracy and it's gonna use them to jeopardize every socialist effort
the chilean experience is the best one to show this imo, you can watch guzmán's "battle of chile" to see a good explanation (it's pretty widely available on the internet), but to sum it all up: first they blocked allende through all the institutional tools, such as congress and the judiciary (which tends to be very elitist by nature); once popular movements started pressuring with strikes and demonstrations, they used economic power, especially aided by america - they would shut down factories, transportation companies, call for sanctions, etc, all in an attempt to cause a supply crisis and demoralize the government and all social organizations; but popular movements again reacted, mostly by literally forcing up the factories and warehouses and keeping them working, since they knew bosses are basically useless for a company to actually be functional; after that happened, the bourgeoisie went for their last resort, the military, and finally the workers were crushed since there was no armed resistance as an answer
this was not a singular experience, but the norm throughout the 20th century: people would go forward, class relations would get really intense, then the military or paramilitary forces would kill everyone. the point is that capital can and always will use force, and once they do, you either react accordingly or you get crushed and killed. bear in mind, this is actually "understandable" - how would you feel if you were in their place? if your entire lifestyle was threatened by those under you? would you simply give up on all you have (and they have a lot of shit to lose)? fuck no, they are gonna have your ass arrested or killed, there's a limit to what people can lose without resorting to violence, and the whole point of socialism is that the bourgeoisie should eventually lose everything. we're talking about the entire disappearance of a class here - not the people belonging to it, mind you, they would just become common workers like all of us - but for a capitalist, becoming a simple worker is just hell
So you're saying Democratic socialism is flawed because it still allows elections, which are by nature corruptable?
no, cuba has elections, and is actually more inclusive than america in that sense
the point is you can't vote the bourgeoisie out of power because they simply won't let you. they will use their massive economic power to shut you down, in whatever ways said economic power can be used, including, as a last resort, to fund a violent reaction (through the army, paramilitary forces, or otherwise)
edit: oh, nvm, you mean democratic socialism not as a way to achieve socialism, but to run it? if that's the case then no socialist i've met has any issue with democracy at all, in fact most of us (at least among marxists) consider every socialist country to be more democratic than any capitalist one. we have a problem with liberal democracy, which we think is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in disguise
Yes, this! Sorry, I wasn't being clear enough. Good to know though. I'm still researching socialism so there's a lot I don't quite understand - I grew up religious conservative and have only been leftwing for the last few years. Definitely leaning hard into socialism the more I learn though. US voting is goddamn bullshit though with our archaic electoral college, gerrymandering, and the legal bribing we call "lobbying".
No, socialist states hold elections. The problem isn't democracy, it's the bourgeois control of "democratic" mechanisms in liberal society, which isn't "corruption" so much as the explicit intention of the design (why is there a Senate?).
Democratic Socialism is flawed because it attempts to enact change under an economic dictatorship, the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. They hold all the factories, all the gun makers, all the money flow, all the software and telecommunications and electricity and water.
And so in order to enact Socialism you need to take those things away from the Bourgeoisie. This is what Communists really mean about establishing the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It's not just political control by the workers, it's economic control. And unfortunately you can't vote your way to that if those who have economic control don't want you to.
Again, I think you mean Democracy within socialism, which is something we aim to protect. We do not throw away democracy.
Okay so basically there are two kinds, these are based on dictatorships of class (not of people, dictatorships aren't a good thing)
Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie: the thing that 'democracy' is usually represented as. Its the UK, US, Germany, Russia, etc. These governments, although allow some form of popular democracy, are system established by and for the rich. Most people in the US would like a decrease of military spending to focus on infrastructure and free healthcare, so why don't they implement it? Its not profitable to the class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The profit motive is the main drive. Wars are terrible, no sane person wants one to happen, but to the large private war industries it is profitable, so they make sure we (all bourgeoisie dictatorships do this) is always instigating wars or inflaming conflicts. Purely for profit. We as workers have some sway over politics, but that is due to concessions and freedoms we forced out of them. It is in their eternal material interest to make the most money out of the lowest cost, by every underhanded tactic in the book.
This is in direct contrast to the interests of the worker, who dare to want fulfilling lives and to have a state that gives according to need, and from everyone according to ability. Workers want things like Free Universal Education, Well built/maintained infrastructure, A good house, reliable source of food that is healthy and cheap, large working benefits, government safety nets, etc. A society that works on what is most effective possible, while favoring the living status of the worker. This is, again, in direct conflict with the profit motive and thus the interests of the bourgeoisie. Their efforts to suppress our self-determination and our efforts to draw concessions of power is basically what we define as Class War. Our democracies are that for the rich, who hold all the power and all the wings of government. Under Bourgeoisie Democracy, there will be this constant class war. We the worker are the oppressed, and the owning class are the oppressors.
This is where the second Dictatorship of Class comes in handy. You see, what they're afraid of is due to this fact: we don't need them at all anymore, haven't for hundreds of years, if ever. We know this clearly, and it terrifies them. A Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the inevitable result of this contradiction. To solve the Class war, we will use our own power (gained through the concessions to labor power), to win the war by hijacking the class dictatorship and flipping it. The State serves us, and so we are able to implement what is in our interests against theirs. We take their factories and office building, thus rendering them basically powerless. We have taken their tools and truly made it our own. We built the world, they did not, why should the capitalists run it? We can run the workplaces and co-operate for the common good of all. A human oriented society. That is the true democracy where change can be made. A democracy in politics, the community, and the workplace. A state that enforces our rights above that of property. There is a better world, it has been done, and we can have it in our lives.
if thats not what you're talking about, then idk have this okayish explanation of the class dictatorship
Literally it is impossible to achieve socialism by Bourgeoisie Democratic means, they will do everything within their power to kill the movement.
By chance, what do you mean by Democratic Socialism? A lot of the times it gets mixed up. If you mean democracy inside socialism, then there is no problem there. Communism and Democracy are hand-in-hand, in every ideology of socialism. Democratic Centralism is what we preach as Marxist Leninists.
If you mean Social Democracy like that of the nords, we can effectively explain how those are not effective examples of worker power, and just ineffective in general.
Vietnam and Cuba are absolutely inarguable and Laos and the DPRK are still kicking. The USSR did eventually fall to sabotage after ~75 years, but by the metric that any state that ever dissolves is somehow to be entirely considered a "failed attempt," and we would need to say the same of a great many "liberal" states.
There are plenty of anarchists on the sub, and not all Socialists here are massive fans of China (I think most have pretty severe critique on some of their recent LGBT+ policies).
But we do for the most part offer it "Critical Support" meaning that we assume it is trying to be Socialist in good faith and criticise it as a friend and ally, not an enemy "corrupting Socialism". (China does not claim to be Socialist yet, it is "building Socialism", and expects to complete the lower stage of that around 2050. Even the Soviets didn't claim to have built Socialism until 1970.)
There are some exceptions of course; many here will, for instance, support Vietnam over China in any disputes they may have, despite Vietnam currently having a marginally better relationship with the USA. This is generally because Vietnam is doing very well for itself, has good LGBT policies, and of course the memory of Vietnam putting down Pol Pot.
its a touchy subject yeah, but again all good faith arguments. If you see China as more of an enemy than that of NATO and the US, you will find no friends here.
The short answer is that democratic socialism requires using institutions deeply intertwined with capitalism to vote it out of existence, and the forces of capital will use every tool, legal and illegal, to prevent it – that's what other users are trying to point out with the examples. It's a dead end that never works.
I'm new here, but from my understanding we're a leftist unity instance! So folks will have opinions across the spectrum. Communists and anarchists generally do not like democratic socialism, or think that it isn't a viable way to achieve socialism. Most Hexbear users from my understanding and experience seem to fall into one of those two camps, but you're still welcome :)
uh theres a breaking point to left unity
-no wreckers -no social democrats (liberalism, also rosa learned the hard way) -no pushing of electoralism as the end all be all strat. It is useful in a minor extent, and only for communist party power. -no uninformed bashing of AES or bringing up debunked nonsense.
but asking questions and whatnot is completely fine, and its fine to chill, theres just still rules that we must go by. Being to lax can have its consequences.
I hate to be this person, but I would highly highly highly recommend listening to Season 2 of the Blowback podcast if you haven't yet. It goes over the Cuban revolution and explains some of the 'bloodshed' that was necessary. It also gives you an idea of what a real revolution looks like (hint: it's more boring and tame than you'd think). I just started listening to it and it's literally blowing my mind. Making me feel like a lot of this is more achievable.
Let me preface this by saying that I am deriding the people who fed you that line, not you for repeating it.
Moderates love to talk about how their proposals are more "realistic" than the radical ideas. While this is not false as a rule, it is overwhelmingly asserted without evidence and never has that been more the case than with the "Reform or Revolution?" debate. For the sake of convenience, here's what I told another DemSoc:
"Ah," the close reader says "But what the user you are responding to now said was 'the only realistic way to get socialism without bloodshed,' which is a somewhat different claim!"
Correct, I'm covering my bases. The second point that I want to make is that "without bloodshed" is doing an immense amount of heavy lifting for the justification of your idea, and it is no coincidence that it is also a lie of catastrophic proportions. Let us pretend that what we have already established is false -- that the rich and powerful are like the Jurassic Park T. Rex, they can't see you if you move slowly enough -- is true, and in the far-flung future we can succeed in voting our way to socialism. Who does this save? Most directly, it protects the capitalists and their jackbooted thugs, plus the fascist paramilitaries that would assist them in fighting to suppress communist revolution.
"But doesn't it also save people on our side?" the reader now interjects "Surely you don't proffer a fantasy in which the Vanguard triumphs over Washington without casualties!"
Right you are, many revolutionaries would die. However, what you are failing to take into account is that a potential revolution is not the only violence that may exist or does exist in society. Specifically, you are entirely ignoring the extraordinary violence of the status quo which kills people every day. There's a reason for the old slogan "Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied." Injustice will keep being done every day, people will be threatened, starved, tortured, murdered, forced to live like animals, every single day while we wait for this far-flung future where the appointed time has finally come and the moderates declare that we as a society may now have justice, on a boiling planet with a peace soaked in the blood of people who never had a chance to fight back but were butchered by the state just the same.
But dropping now the counterfactual that such a future exists, what we are left with is the understanding that the job of the moderates is to continuously stall the radicals, claiming to support change while only stifling it, to be on our side while constantly betraying us, to abhor violence while tacitly perpetuating a violence bloodier than a thousand revolutions.
LMAO I fucking love this comparison
the funny part is that it didn't work, she could see them
deleted by creator
Ur right, correction made for the girlboss
deleted by creator
I'm gonna come right out and say I have had many disagreements with you on many of your alts and frankly do not like you.
BUT, this is a very very good post and is very thoughtful and I wish you would make more of this sort of post than being (at times very problematically) so hostile with your comrades.
There's a person here that I could potentially have immense respect for and your writing chops are not at issue here. Just have a bit more humility sometime and you could probably be a great writer.
For what it is worth, I have always respected you, and now all the more so for your willingness to be constructive and encouraging with someone you dislike.
part of becoming a leftist for me was realizing that winning is more important than honor, and that the two need not necessarily be distinct. Winning for the sake of our cause will deliver the moral high ground once we have socialism and end poverty.
It's all fine and honorable to say we can and should get socialism without bloodshed, purely through democratic elections, but that hasn't historically been a viable strategy (Chile, Spain, Germany, and current issues within Venezuela). There's only been one instance I can name where a country voted its way into socialism, and it was Czechoslovakia in 1946. But even then they had to do a Soviet backed coup two years later in 1948 to fully seize power.
The best strategy is the one that works and achieves victory, not the strategy that can claim moral superiority in defeat. There's no honor in defeat, it's just defeat.
Romania technically voted it in, probably with a majority since it left the Axis in 1944 and joined the Allies, but the Soviets were leaning on them heavily.
Replying to you a second time, there's a pretty good passage from Vincent Bevins' book "The Jakarta Method"
“Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported—what the rich countries said, rather than what they did. That group was annihilated.”
deleted by creator
This is a fair take. I'm not a pacifist per se, I just avoid violence as much as I can. If that's what it takes to be a socialist state though, so fucking be it
deleted by creator
If given the choice between Democratic Socialism and violent revolution, i believe almost anyone would pick the former rather than the latter. However you have to question how the current ruling class would attempt to fight the DemSoc reforms. I can't really think of any example in human history where the ruling class has willingly abdicated power simply because the majority of the population asked them to.
Concessions can be achieved because of other socialists movements though, as this essay succinctly describes: https://redsails.org/concessions/
These should not be confused with wins of liberalism or dem-socialism, but wins fought for elsewhere by communists and able to be won by concession in the west.
deleted by creator
Democratic Socialism only works in the context of there being a bunch of successful revolutionary socialisms in the region/globally at the same time
Democratic socialism does come with bloodshed, but it's the blood of democratic socialists getting murdered by US-trained fascist juntas. You can look at any example of actual democratic socialism that isn't just social democratic libs in the imperial core, the only case where the inevitable reactionary coup got prevented with the measures of a civil society and the rule of law is Bolivia. That's one example out of dozens of honest, peaceful attempts of global south countries to elect their way out of capitalism and neo-colonial structures. That track record seems way too dangerous to me, i'd take a violent suppression of the comprador bourgeoisie over that any time because i value my own life and that of my comrades over that of capitalist leeches and their nazi lackeys. Better to live in the next Cuba than the next Chile or Indonesia.
And Bolivia wasn't even bloodless. The reactionary coup regime was brutal towards protests and carried out several massacres. The only thing that made the putschist allow free elections in the end was the very real threat of militant labour activists blockading the capital.
If the Bolivian movement had listened to the liberals and limited themselves to debating the fascists in the marketplace of ideas, Jeannine Añez would still be dictator and not a convict.
I would really suggest reading The Jakarta Method or looking into what happened to Allende to get our perspective on democratic socialism and why it isn't a viable path.
Thanks! I'll definitely look up the Jakarta Method. Can you clarify about Allende, though? What does the massacre have to do with democratic socialism? Everything I could find talked about how the US DEA put it's grubby paws on them and upset the cartels
He was a democratic socialist. Won as a marxist through the communist party in a popular election.
The US immediately couped him, bombed the seat of government, and installed Agusto Pinochet.
"America will use fascism to protect Capitalism while claiming to defend democracy from communism"
Ah, there was a person named Allende. I was only seeing articles about the city in Mexico 😅
In fairness though that speaks more about the atrocities of the US than Democratic socialism.
it also speaks a lot to how search algorithms will bury ideas dangerous to capital.
Well, it is a good example of the way that socialist movements that try to win power through bourgeois democracy universally end up losing in a spectacularly bloody fashion.
Ah, I see. This makes sense actually, thanks.
This is a bit long but very well made video about what happened in Chile if you want to understand the history and context.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJLA2_Ho7X0
Project Cybersyn was a socialist logistical mechanism for running the economy based on a marxist understanding of production. It later became the basis for neoliberal logistical protocols because of how effective the methodology actually was in practice. This is partly why the military coup was used ultimately. Allende and Cybersyn were so effective at circumventing the other forms of control and manipulation that were initially used in response.
So even if you survive the first, second, etc order reactions, that just means an escalation towards total war will be coming soon.
I'm just going to toss out a relevant excerpt from The Jakarta Method:
I would also suggest Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth which we happen to be reading right now in Hexbear's book club. We're a couple chapters in already, but it's a slow schedule so easy to catch up for anyone interested. (Thanks to @Othello@hexbear.net for cluing me in on it).
deleted by creator
I'm gonna keep it short:
To enact democratic socialism or any form of socialism today, you cant simply vote for it, as your current government will fight against it. You cant work within a capitalist government to enact socialism, just look at how hard it is today to simply try to put welfare programs. I'm talking about the USA of course. If you want socialism you will be silenced, attacked, and manipulated by the media and if you are strong enough assassinated by the CIA. So you only way is violence.
Lets look at other countries wanting socialism, you will be attacked by the USA military, so you need a strong army to defend yourself, same thing again, the media will try to say your country is authoritarian and the CIA will try to manufacture events off unrest in your country to justify itself. There are multiple events like this in the past century. So you require violence to defend yourself here.
Things will get better with time, I hope, as more societies try different forms of socialism, but for that the fastest way is a violent socialist revolution, or waiting centuries for the USA and other capitalist countries to completely fall and allow socialist to exist.
honestly yep I should have just said that lol. Capitalists just won't allow you to break their system while working within its rules. You must destroy it from outside with your own worker dual power.
Your comment is perfect. I starred it for later access
Despite all the numerous failures that democratic socialism has had, its the only tendency that has had any actual success in "western liberal democracies". Someone is welcome to correct me but I'm not aware of any successful Maoist revolutions in liberal democracies. They all get stomped out immediately by a fully developed capitalist state.
Meanwhile we currently have Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez successfuly getting elected and their parties are still in power. But thats because they weathered the reaction. You have to be ready for the reaction comrade.
Evo and Chavez can only win precisely because those countries are not fully developed Liberal democracies but instead periphery comprador resource extraction states (prior to the revolution). I’m not aware of any “democratic socialist” in western nations that has ever won power either and not just immediately became a succ traitor like in Greece
Name a more developed or more western "liberal democracy" than Bolivia or Venezuela that had a successful revolution. My point is its the best example we have to go off.
To me the evidence points to those western liberal nations needing to break and collapse before they have any hope
They tend to become fascist when that happens. Besides if you're in one of those nations, "we need to break and collapse" is a dead-end political movement.
The daily bloodshed of capitalism is such that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the only means of progressing historically. The proletariat is the progressive class, not in the social sense but as in the mode of production and form of society. That is the goal. Without bloodshed means that without bloodshed is the goal, with socialism being secondary at best. It would be ideal for sure, but it is also historically proven to be impossible, and as a means supplants the necessity of socialism.
deleted by creator