Exactly what I thought writing it down, someone should make it

...because we're about to be buried under a bunch of sticky balls?

"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.

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

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.

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 :)

the funny part is that it didn't work, she could see them

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.

deleted by creator

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"

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).

Your comment is perfect. I starred it for later access

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.