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.
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.