I am trying to understand as much as possible about socialism as well as other leftist ideologies, and looking around i’ve seen many being critical about democratic socialism, but i honestly struggle to understand why that is such a bad idea as some say. I get that it’s incompatible with ML, but it doesn’t sound so unrealistic and unreasonable to me, so… can you explain? Excuse the ignorance, but as i said socialism is a new topic for me, i mean no offense to anybody
Sure, but such reform must come after the revolutionary party overthrows the ruling class and cements its rule. The Soviet Union, for example, did not achieve socialism overnight (see the New Economic Policy), however the Bolsheviks had to consolidate their power first and foremost against the reactionary and counterrevolutionary forces. The goal is to impose reforms ourselves, and not beg and demand it from the bourgeoise, or else such reform cannot be guaranteed. If you agree with this stance, then you may be a Marxist-Leninist.
On the contrary, I think certain reforms help bring about a proper revolution. The USSR achieved quite a lot, but I don’t think they achieved socialism period, largely because of the vanguard. It sounds great in theory to seize total power so you can responsibly divide it without the interference of the bourgeoisie, but historically those with total power are hesitant to give it up. And that process takes time; even if your revolutionary leaders are perfectly trustworthy, by the time power has been cemented they may be replaced by more ambitious leaders (like Stalin, for instance).
In my eyes, organizing and executing a successful revolution is harder than getting a plurality of people to vote in coordination. You’d need that much support for a revolution anyway, so why not try to get as much as we can through reform today while we build the revolution of tomorrow?
Well, history until now has favored revolutions over electoral campaigns. Should the socialists get elected into power, what would guarantee that the reactionaries do not interfere and overthrow you? (I have Chile’s Allende in mind here, or Jan 6th). It doesn’t matter how socialists get to power really, be it through elections or revolution, the point is that it is imperative and inevitable that they need to consolidate their power or else no socialist project can outlast them.
Socialism is by definition a transitional period between capitalism and communism, so in that sense they did achieve it. The whole point is to gradually transition into communism without disrupting citizens’ livelihood.
Can’t say I agree with you there. The USSR collapsed, China had backpedalled into private enterprise, the revolutionary states that haven’t collapsed have hardly brought about international communism.
Except “they” is going to include a lot of dark triad types. Consolidating power is only good if you can trust the people you’ve consolidated it in. Untrustworthy people are drawn to power, and they’re willing to lie and plot to get it.
Socialism is by definition worker ownership of the means of production. If soviet workers didn’t have democratic control over their production, it isn’t socialism. They may have been aspiring towards it, and a noble attempt it was, but they drifted pretty far from the goal.
Which is why reform seems the obvious choice. Any revolution is going to bring chaos and suffering, as well as a potentially slippery power vacuum. What happens when your revolution successfully topples the government, the corporations, how do you coordinate production and distribution? I don’t mean eventually, I get eventually, but day one after the revolution how is society going to work?
Even if you have the perfect theoretical system ready to go, you still have to implement it, and that takes time. That’s a lot of disrupted livelihood.
Your arguments rely on the sole premise that socialism was either not achieved or failed in the Soviet Union and China. But the historical facts prove otherwise.
The Bolsheviks succeeded in their revolution and managed to establish a socialist state. The “collapse” of the USSR seventy years later is irrelevant and does not change this fact.
Marxism-Leninism is realistic and not idealistic. It prioritizes the consolidation of the revolution and building socialism at home before getting drawn into volatile revolutions abroad.
The soviet workers did have democratic control over their production. Not as individuals, but as a collective. This control was exerted through so-called Primary Party Organizations present in factories, farming collectives and neighbourhoods. Similarly, China has enterprise party branches which are crucial for management.
China has shown the opposite of backpedaling into private enterprise. Since the start of this century, the state has been stricter in regulating non-public enterprises and directing them towards the social goals that are set up by the five year plans.
All of these points can be fact checked and there is plenty of academic research done on them. I can recommend for starters Roland Boer’s works.
Just like other socialist states have done in the past and presently: you let the workers control and manage the existing factories, farms and enterprises according to what they seem fit; you organize them and provide them with enough training and education. There are plenty of lessons from history in that regards which one can learn from. I don’t know why you seem to think this to be a difficult matter.
Removed by mod