[Abood]

By 'democratic socialism', I mean the belief that socialism can be brought about through parliamentary democracy. I think that the best example of democratic socialism in the 21st century is the Bolivarian Revolution.

My question is: How realistic is democratic socialism? In other words, do you think socialism can be brought about by means of parliamentary democracy?

Many would say no, because reform can only go so far. I agree. However, I believe that a democratically elected socialist party/government can use its power to increase class consciousness. In essence, it would be a sort of vanguard party, except that it'd operate within the framework of capitalism. However, much like any socialist government, it would have to liquidate the bourgeoisie for there to be a classless society. So now the question becomes: Is a socialist party elected within the framework of capitalism capable of liquidating the bourgeois class, thus establishing communism?

[DDave3]

In other words, do you think socialism can be brought about by means of parliamentary democracy?

No, not really. The bourgeois have spent the better part of a hundred and fifty years establishing power structures, power relationships and public order to survive one thing - capitalism. The need for a violent revolution comes not from the working class, but the certainty that the ruling classes would use violence to maintain themselves in power. Therefore, I really only think that Revoluntionary Socialism could attain socialism.

[Vera Politica]

DDave3 I concede your point, but not in full. Even Marx looked at the prospect of a minimally violent revolution in the industrial centers of the world. In terms of numbers, simply, the proletarian far outnumber the bourgeois, and a simple switch in side from the military would decide the contest quite swiftly.

However I do agree that the prospect of parliamentary revolution is quite naive. We are talking about a complete restructuring of economic relations - this cannot be done within the institutions that have been erected to preserve those very relations. The shift has to come from without the parliament and eventually within it.

[Abood]

DDave3, are democratic socialism and revolutionary socialism mutually exclusive? Is it not possible for the elected officials to have enough power to use violence that would further the path towards socialism?

Vera Politica, I don't quite understand why the current institutions cannot be used make radical change. For instance, the way I see it, an elected socialist president with a large majority (and as you have said, considering the numbers of the proletariat compared to the bourgeoisie, that wouldn't be impossible) would be able to socialize the means of production and nationalize crucial institutions, such as the media.

[Vera Politica]

would be able to socialize the means of production

How?

[Abood]

Well, s/he might start off by initiating democratic, cooperative worker assemblies that s/he would later legislate to take over the control of the industries.

[Vera Politica]

Well, s/he might start off by initiating democratic, cooperative worker assemblies that s/he would later legislate to take over the control of the industries.

Say this gets rejected by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional

[FallenRaptor]

In underdeveloped countries where the national ruling class is relatively weak, there's more of a possibility for socialist parties to get elected and pass some reforms, but I don't think they can go all the way since they are too underdeveloped for socialism and they often rely on larger capitalist countries for their economic livelyhood.

In developed capitalist countries, it would be just about impossible for a genuine socialist party to gain power and create socialism through reform because of how interconnected the state institutions are to the ruling class. In the US, the second coming of christ is more likely to happen before a socialist party can win a majority against the corporate-sponsored Republocrats & Demoplicans in the House Of Representatives, the Senate, the Electoral Colleges, and in the lower state government organs. Even if that were to happen, the socialist party would have to struggle against the military-industrial complex, the prison-industrial complex, lobbyists, etc. and still keep their offices long enough to fully implement their reforms.

I also think it's a fallacy to suggest that a party in power alone can just pass a few laws and bring about socialism. True socialism can only be materialized by the participation of the masses.

[Abood]

Say this gets rejected by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional

A constitution can usually be amended, especially when the working class is huge and class conscious.

I have yet to see evidence that a system cannot be taken down from within.

In the US, the second coming of christ is more likely to happen before a socialist party can win a majority against the corporate-sponsored Republocrats & Demoplicans in the House Of Representatives, the Senate, the Electoral Colleges, and in the lower state government organs.

Is agitating for an immediate violent revolution any more likely, though? And by 'immediate' I mean without first electing a socialist party into power. The way I see it, they both require a class conscious majority among the working class. In the US, that's not very possible because of the corporate media, but it's not possible either way. They are both as unlikely as each other.

I also think it's a fallacy to suggest that a party in power alone can just pass a few laws and bring about socialism. True socialism can only be materialized by the participation of the masses.

I agree. But as I have just said, democratically electing a socialist party itself requires some level of class consciousness.

[Vera Politica]

A constitution can usually be amended, especially when the working class is huge and class conscious.

I have yet to see evidence that a system cannot be taken down from within.

If the working class is huge and class conscious, why wouldn't they simply get rid of the supreme court?

Democratic socialism supposes that the population is not class conscious or organized. If they were, they would replace the parliamentary and constitutional system not tinker with it. The prospect of democratic socialism only rose when the prospect for revolution faded and along with it any actual change in the economic relationships. It is these economic relations which need to be overcome, first, and not the superstructural imposition.

[Abood]

If the working class is huge and class conscious, why wouldn't they simply get rid of the supreme court?

I'm not saying they wouldn't. I'm just saying there's more than one path that would lead to the same goal.

Democratic socialism supposes that the population is not class conscious or organized.

How so? If the population was not class conscious, how would the people vote for a socialist party? That implies a level of class consciousness.

[FallenRaptor]

Is agitating for an immediate violent revolution any more likely, though? And by 'immediate' I mean without first electing a socialist party into power. The way I see it, they both require a class conscious majority among the working class. In the US, that's not very possible because of the corporate media, but it's not possible either way. They are both as unlikely as each other.

Both ways would very difficult, but I still consider revolution to be more realistic if the conditions are right for it. It's possible for a faction of the military to become sympathetic towards the revolution if the majority of the population is class conscious. The Corporate media doesn't have a monopoly on all sources of information, and they won't be able to save the system from crises(if anything they'll sensationalize it even more to get higher ratings).

[Potemkin]

It's possible for a faction of the military to become sympathetic towards the revolution if the majority of the population is class conscious.

This is the critical point. The February Revolution succeeded in Russia because the military garrisons in Moscow and Petrograd went over to the side of the protestors. There wasn't even an organised revolutionary movement with a vanguard party present in Russia when this happened. The Tsarist regime had spread itself too thinly in military terms to fight WWI, and had made the mistake of stationing unreliable and "substandard" troops in its capital cities to suppress popular uprisings. The February Revolution demonstates that if the military switch sides, then even in the absence of a vanguard party, the revolution can still succeed. Of course, a vanguard party and a conscious revolutionary movement is then needed to prevent a counter-revolution.

[Red Star]

mistake of stationing unreliable and "substandard" troops in its capital cities to suppress popular uprisings

I wouldn't say there was anything particular substandard about the troops stationed in Petrograd. The main problem was that the Russian Army was a peasant army, and conscripted many more troops that could be deployed. Those languishing and rotting away in barracks and garrisons thus were already on the brink of mutiny no matter what their "elite" status - enough "elite" units joined the workers in the February Revolution, including the Machine-Gun Regiment.

The Russian Army was decimated by 1915 and that was another part of its downfall. The new officers and NCOs were upwardly mobile peasant sons who did not subscribe to the same worldview as the surviving aristocratic officers or the Tsar. It was the losses of 1914 and 1915 that really revolutionised the army, as well as its ability to educate peasants and band them together in groups ripped away from the land, making them more susceptible to radical views.

Basically I agree with you, I am just saying that no matter how elite the units in Petrograd were, the Revolution would have happened as the army itself was very different from the 1914 mass in composition and outlook.

As for the point of the vanguard party, I will have to disagree but that is to be expected.

[Potemkin]

I wouldn't say there was anything particular substandard about the troops stationed in Petrograd.

Some of his aristocratic relatives repeatedly warned Nicholas II that the garrisons stationed in Moscow and Petrograd were unreliable. Of course, he ignored them.

The main problem was that the Russian Army was a peasant army, and conscripted many more troops that could be deployed. Those languishing and rotting away in barracks and garrisons thus were already on the brink of mutiny no matter what their "elite" status - enough "elite" units joined the workers in the February Revolution, including the Machine-Gun Regiment.

Agreed. Once the defections gained a certain critical mass, they became unstoppable, and even elite units were deserting.

The Russian Army was decimated by 1915 and that was another part of its downfall. The new officers and NCOs were upwardly mobile peasant sons who did not subscribe to the same worldview as the surviving aristocratic officers or the Tsar. It was the losses of 1914 and 1915 that really revolutionised the army, as well as its ability to educate peasants and band them together in groups ripped away from the land, making them more susceptible to radical views.

Agreed.

Basically I agree with you, I am just saying that no matter how elite the units in Petrograd were, the Revolution would have happened as the army itself was very different from the 1914 mass in composition and outlook.

If the defections had been nipped in the bud, then the Revolution might have been averted. After all, one of the reasons for the German Army's agreement to an Armistice in 1918 was to free up sufficient troops to suppress the Communist uprisings in Germany itself.

As for the point of the vanguard party, I will have to disagree but that is to be expected.

Indeed. But Lenin was caught by surprise by the February Revolution, in exactly the wrong place - Switzerland. To get to Russia, he would have to travel through Germany, which was technically still at war with Russia. The Bolsheviks were nowhere in sight in February, which allowed the bourgeoisie to install their own "bums on ministerial seats", to use Lenin's phrase, in the Provisional Government. The period of dual power between the Soviets and the Provisional Government between February and October 1917 was one long attempted counter-revolution. Without the Bolsheviks there to act as a vanguard party, the counter-revolution would undoubtedly have succeeded and the gains of February would have been extinguished.

[Red Star]

Some of his aristocratic relatives repeatedly warned Nicholas II that the garrisons stationed in Moscow and Petrograd were unreliable.

May be so, but even units dispatched from the front joined the revolution, so my point was that even "elite" units were already so degraded in morale that there was no real distinction between second-rank garrisons and front-line "Guards" units in that respect (see the Kornilov affair, for example).

If the defections had been nipped in the bud, then the Revolution might have been averted

It was simply impossible to avert defections in such a huge army with an officer class that was more and more sympathetic to the soldiers rather than the generals or "aristocratic" officers. My opinion anyway.

Without the Bolsheviks there to act as a vanguard party, the counter-revolution would undoubtedly have succeeded and the gains of February would have been extinguished.

Well, may be. The thing is that the Provisional Government was in a very precarious situation anyway, and I do not think that it could have stayed in place indefinately (it was too inept). For example, I see the July Days (the insurrection of the 3rd-6th) as a good example of spontaneous outburst of revolutionary dissent on part of the workers. Of course, they still showed that the Russian working class culture was still somewhat different and looked for leaders - after all, they appealed to the Bolsheviks for leadership. If they had managed to produce real self-governing organs and councils and produced non-party delegates and theory (the anarchist in me is saying all this) this wouldn't be needed. But they didn't. It is interesting to note the working classes' demands in Russia up to 1917 (and during it). Their language of opposition was framed in the languageo of equality and morality rather than Marxist or socialist analysis - the idea of the "citizen" was well developed and present in many songs and memoirs of workers in the early 20th century.

My point is that working class culture was not as revolutionary as some might want to argue - their economic issues were for example centred on management, rather than ownership: they wanted supervision of the work-floor, not workers control over the factory itself. It is interesting to note, I think, and kind of shows that they weren't really Bolsheviks or anarchists, but a more peculiarly Russian, moralistic brand of group.

I am kind of simply thinking aloud here, as you can see.

[Potemkin]

May be so, but even units dispatched from the front joined the revolution, so my point was that even "elite" units were already so degraded in morale that there was no real distinction between second-rank garrisons and front-line "Guards" units in that respect (see the Kornilov affair, for example).

Agreed. The Kornilov fiasco demonstrated once and for all that the Russian army was lost to the reactionaries. During the Civil War, the Whites were often reduced to having brigades consisting entirely of officers, one of the reasons for their eventual defeat.

It was simply impossible to avert defections in such a huge army with an officer class that was more and more sympathetic to the soldiers rather than the generals or "aristocratic" officers. My opinion anyway.

I agree that beyond a certain point the defections became an unstoppable flood.

The thing is that the Provisional Government was in a very precarious situation anyway, and I do not think that it could have stayed in place indefinately (it was too inept).

Agreed. Everyone knew that the Provisional Government would be overthrown, the only question was by whom. The far Right made its bid for power first, and failed miserably. The Right had shot its bolt. This made a far Left coup inevitable, only a matter of time.

For example, I see the July Days (the insurrection of the 3rd-6th) as a good example of spontaneous outburst of revolutionary dissent on part of the workers. Of course, they still showed that the Russian working class culture was still somewhat different and looked for leaders - after all, they appealed to the Bolsheviks for leadership. If they had managed to produce real self-governing organs and councils and produced non-party delegates and theory (the anarchist in me is saying all this) this wouldn't be needed. But they didn't.

Precisely the point. Lenin understood the situation and the stage of development of the Russian working class, and he tailored his vanguard theory to fit the historical and political circumstances of the Russian proletariat of that time. He was absolutely correct for that time and place.

It is interesting to note the working classes' demands in Russia up to 1917 (and during it). Their language of opposition was framed in the languageo of equality and morality rather than Marxist or socialist analysis - the idea of the "citizen" was well developed and present in many songs and memoirs of workers in the early 20th century.

In other words, the Russian proletariat was ripe to carry out the tasks of the bourgeois democratic revolution, in a way that the actual Russian bourgeoisie was not. This was precisely Lenin's (and Trotsky's) justification for seizing power in October.

My point is that working class culture was not as revolutionary as some might want to argue - their economic issues were for example centred on management, rather than ownership: they wanted supervision of the work-floor, not workers control over the factory itself. It is interesting to note, I think, and kind of shows that they weren't really Bolsheviks or anarchists, but a more peculiarly Russian, moralistic brand of group.

And just how successful would that moralistic brand of revolutionary politics have been? It wouldn't have survived the Civil War; the reactionaries would have drowned their moralistic revolution in a sea of blood, just as they did the Paris Commune in 1871.

I am kind of simply thinking aloud here, as you can see.

Indeed.

[Red Star]

And just how successful would that moralistic brand of revolutionary politics have been?

Not very, I am not arguing they would have. Indeed, their language reveals that they would not have carried out "socialist" structuring of society.

Overall, we are agreeing on every point. I recognise the Bolsheviks' immense pragmatism and actual accuracy in the Russian situation of 1917, just do not agree with what they stood for and what they aimed for. But of course, this doesn't make Lenin any less of a successful leader and revolutionary.

Anyway, I managed to derail this thread in my own sub-forum. Sorry for that.

[Mikolaj]

My question is: How realistic is democratic socialism? In other words, do you think socialism can be brought about by means of parliamentary democracy?

Given the track record of democratic socialists, I would say pretty low. Just look at all of the socialist parties today. What have they achieved?

Have they nationalized some key industry like oil, etc? Because if that's the case, I would say their version of "people's control" of the means of production is the equivalent of "people's control" over government in any representative democracy. In both cases, you just have some small group of people running things. Socialism has to be direct control of the means of production.

And supposing they *eventually* achieve socialism. Nevermind the fact that it would be painfully slow. What would stop some other reactionary party coming around and undoing it when our socialist party falls out of favor? They would just undo everything or sabotage it like they do with today's welfare states via cutbacks.

As it was said, democratic socialist parties have had over 100 years, and they aren't much closer to reaching their goal.

[Kasu]

Is agitating for an immediate violent revolution any more likely, though?

Just look at the Black Panther Party.