Talk:Democratic socialism

Question:

Uh.. Simple question: Why is the article about Democratic Socialism not protected? Obviously this would be the target of vandalism. Like seriously. So, how come an article about ROBLOX is extra-protected, but not the one about Democratic Socialism? Not even edit moderation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.245.66 (talk • contribs) 19:33, March 17, 2021 (UTC)

Europe section

The first paragraph of the Europe section seems to conflate democratic socialism with social democracy, for the most part, only talking about social democratic parties and countries that follow the Nordic model. Should this paragraph be moved to the social democracy article or perhaps removed in its entirety assuming that the aforementioned article already states this information? digiulio8 (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The entire article is largely nonsense. It's an attempt to cobble together a grandiose history for a new-ish political grouping that is, in terms of what its (mostly American) adherents believe, indistinguishable from social democracy. The reality is that the term 'Democratic socialism' really emerged in the early 90s as a way to differentiate existing Western social-democratic parties from the old Eastern bloc communist parties. It then evolved to describe the "really social-democratic" groups in opposition to the old parties that had slid to the political center. This page really should be dedicated to illustrating that semantic shift and nothing else. 82.12.128.242 (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems a couple people decided to dramatically change the articles on social democracy and democratic socialism with cherry picked sources to portray them as the same (despite adherents to each regularly distinguishing the two). They used to be pretty accurate articles a couple years ago, so perhaps it would be beneficial to look at previous versions and revive that essence, with additional sources. There could remain parts pointing out the conflation in recent years. Bryce Springfield (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Trotskyism?

I wouldn't have thought trotskyism would fall into this category, especially as trotsky was anti-Menshevik Sporadicmonk03 (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is weird. Encyclopédisme (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Late to the party, but agreed... is there enough consensus to remove it from the lede at least?

Differentiation between dem socialism and social democracy

more emphasis and clarity needed Sporadicmonk03 (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I, as someone who lived long enough to experience the pre-90s social democratic parties of (continental) Europe, can tell you that there is none. To me there were always two courants, reformist socialism, i.e social democracy, or whatever else you want to call that, it exists, and it worked, in Sweden, in Danemark, in Norway, for a time in Venezuela, in Bolivia, in France etc. as opposed to revolutionary socialism i.e communism, supported by the communist and Trotskyist parties of Europe. I don't get the point of over-emphasizing a difference between reformist socialist courants. Encyclopédisme (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

In addition you may look at the FAQ on the top of this page, cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Although the term has been used by different people at different times - for example, I believe George Orwell, from one point onwards, considered himself as such - however this does not mean that we cannot make distinctions, especially when Social Democracy is concerned. First, Social Democracy as a movement has changed over its existence. To put it clearly, despite, you wouldn't call any modern Social Democratic parties 'Marxist.' Yet, in the beginning they certainly were. The change was gradual, and although the 1959 Godesberg Program of the German SDP is commonly used as a turning point, post-war Social Democratic parties clearly moved away from their Marxist roots.

Most parties and groups that today refer to themselves as Democratic Socialist, have followed a different root, and of course have a different ideology than Social Democratic parties. Unlike Social Democratic parties, most of these groups came from within Marxist-Leninism Communism. The Neo-Communist tradition, also popularly known as Euro-communism, rejected the authoritarianism and one-party state of Soviet Communism. However, this does not mean that they became Social Democrats. They continue to consider the Free Market, capitalism, whatever you want to call it, incompatible with a democratic society, and effectively have chosen to 'work within' the constraints of liberal-democratic states in order to pave the way for their own 'socialism.' Social Democratic parties, although during their Marxist era made similar rationalizations, today don't operate, or think, like this.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union and its satellites across eastern Europe names that included terms like communism became less popular, and along with the rise of other movements and parties (Green parties for example) Eurocommunist parties and groups have adopted the tern Democratic Socialist to express their political/ideological orientation. Although the term can be interpreted quite loosely to incorporate any number of groups, including former Eurocommunist ones, it's important to note that today the main strain comes from this tradition, especially in Europe. And there is little, if any, commonality with Social Democratic parties or their historical evolution. Alector87 (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This is only true for some social democratic parties. It’s a mess. The 2000s are over, the left-wing of those parties is having a slight resurgence, the far-right is getting stronger and stronger as we speak. You forgot, in all of this, the new parties, you know, the "true left-wing" the "true social-démocrats" the "true reformists", those who were opposed to both the communists (with whole they still occasionally made alliances) and the "social-democrats" converted to the neo-liberal doxa. PG, now organizing member of La France Insoumise (movement, pretty successful for now, built on the ideas of Chantal Mouffe), Die Linke, Podemos (another one based on Chantal Mouffe), SYRIZA (Chantal Mouffe, again, at the origins of it all), and of course the parallel movements around Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn in UK and US. There is Kevin Kühnert, general secretary of the SPD, too, and Olivier Faure leading the Socialist Party. Don’t forget the new one, Sumar. Reformist socialism isn’t about any revolution aside from the "citizen revolution", and the reason the distinction isn’t accoepted by most of the real social-democrats, moderate communists, democratic socialists, and whatever you call them based on their angle of attack, is because it is being repeated exclusively by capitalists, and by far-leftists… As well as by some north-Americans feeling a need to "rectify" something which has never been in the need of rectification. Don’t forget those Latin Americans either. All in all, social-democracy will never become fully not-socialist (especially since Fabianists, Jaurressian socialists, post-Marxists, heterodox marxists and co. are not going to cease to exist suddenly). Encyclopédisme (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

this is quite silly. Social democracy and democratic socialism are two different philosophies and forms of governance. They are historically related, and have been closer in the past, but they are different things. You may define all reformist socialism as social-democracy, including the left-wings of social-democratic parties, and I would agree. but social democracy is not socialism, and makes no claim to overcome capitalism.

But the theory of democratic socialism, often proposed by Marxists on non-reformist grounds, is different to that. Even if we take Eurocommunism (what Poulantzas would call the "democratic road"), we are not talking about a reformist project. I wouldnt say trotskyists are necessarily democratic, but trots are surely a part of this democratic socialist tradition too (hence why trot parties often describe themselves as such). essentially, revolutionary socialists who oppose Marxism-Leninism but are not anarchists surely come under this umbrella. The New Left most obviously, but also autonomists, humanist marxists, the Praxis school, Hegelian marxists, and syndicalists. E.P Thompson, for example, (and potentially those around him like Hobsbawm who called for a "realistic" Marxism, or Hall who called for a post-colonial and post-socialist Marxism) specifically defends a "democratic communism", being a member of the CP who left after 1956 but maintained a communist perspective. A third-way, if you will, between social-democracy and soviet socialism. Sporadicmonk03 (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The term "democratic socialism" is indeed vague. And it is also used by gradualists, by reformist socialists. I define social-democracy as part of reformist socialism. The problem with this is that the line between a non-socialist social-democrat and a socialist social-democrat is blurry, very blurry. Most reformist socialists don’t have expropriations and co. in the party program… Reformist socialism, social-democracy, which never excludes an eventual turn towards socialism, hence is not fundamentally capitalist while being strongly linked to socialism, often represented a "third way" between soviet communism (and associated communist groups) and US capitalism. On euro-communism, in practice many "euro-communists" of the post-Soviet years were only European, not communist nor socialist. Social-democracy, or part of it, as you write yourself, the historically important reformist socialist wing (Jauressians, Fabianists, etc. most left-wing governments of Europe in the past were reformist. Don’t forget that most of the Third Wayers simply didn’t follow up on their program, while campaigning for radical policies. And also, the emerging Populist left has, as I mentioned above, a habit of excluding new courants, "social traitors", from the left-wing, socialism, or social-democracy. La France Insoumise, and the Socialist Party now too, have this habit, with the first dubbing François Hollande a "social-traitor", social-liberal and right-winger, and the latter now explicitly stating it’s eco-socialist, anti-liberal and social-democratic goals. Die Linke often claims the true social-democracy of Willy Brandt, etc.) being social-democratic, is a part of socialism (as a wide movement and ideology).

An important problem with this is that often reformist socialists use the term democratic socialism to mean reformist socialism, with no connection to the Trotskyist meaning of the term. Trotskyist "democratic socialism" and reformist "democratic socialism", often used synonymously to "social-democracy", aren't the same ideology. Encyclopédisme (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I guess this is the heart of the matter. I'm not sure socialist social-democracy / reformist socialism really exists. social-democracy is ultimately not committed, and hasn't historically, created socialist societies. if democratic socialism refers to a form of socialism between social-democracy and marxism-leninism, then perhaps this is the room for "socialist" social democracy, reformist non-reformism, etc. as for left populism, I see it as a strategy for radical social democracy, but not truly democratic socialism. Sporadicmonk03 (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with this is that once a politician is committed to making "true" social-democratic (often populist) policies, the way is open for developing a socialist society. This is why the São Paulo Forum gets along, mostly. You can of course make it quick, like Allende, or Chavez, or you could make it slow, like most European reformist governments of the past. This is more about the efficiency of reformism (which exists. The idea is a gradual move towards a mixed economy, first, as a compromise, and eventually a functioning non-capitalist [or non-neoliberal at the very minimum] economy) in all its forms, than about the actual question at hand: Is social-democracy socialist, or (if not) capitalist?

There are multiple problems with this question.

First, there are two or three ways to do "social-democracy": there is the historical right-wing of socdem ("second left" in France), economically vaguely liberal; the traditional (refsoc) wing, glorifying historical leaders, often populist, and currently disappointed with the traditional parties, splitting off into multiple new "populist left" parties, critical of American foreign policy, more or less aligned with the historical heritage of the traditional parties, and supportive of the Latin-American left, in all its forms; and there are the Third Wayers, often believing the Keynesian policies of social-democracy aren’t workable, or just incapable of following up on promises made in the party program.

Second, as mentioned before, socdems are never really capitalist or socialist, as the idea of a gradual development towards socialism was not historically tested, the question of wether this is possible remains open. Because of this, reformists are free to idealistically believe in this. And the legitimately recognized reformist socialists who are also simultaneously socdems are the radical ones, not the Third Way types, those are definitely not-socialist. You could surely argue that, following Popper’s falsification principle, that reformist socialism is pseudo-scientific (on the same grounds Popper thought Marxism was pseudo-scientific), but that doesn’t change the ideological link to "real" (whatever that might be) Marxism. Encyclopédisme (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)