#1
Georgia
Post rating: ~
I'm asking this question because I don't really see the difference between a socialist party gaining control of a bourgeois democracy through elections and a socialist party violently gaining control of the state through revolution. A party that gains control of the state through revolution obviously cannot snap its fingers and implement socialism; it has to gradually transition to socialism by nationalizing industries, redistributing wealth with taxes, etc. while allowing some aspects of capitalism to continue so society can still function: see the history of the soviet union and china.

I dont see how this is any different than a socialist party gaining control of parliament through elections, mass peaceful protests, and whatnot and implementing the same program. Of course, i'm not saying that attempts to change society through violent revolution are illegitimate, just that they are two different ways of achieving the same end. It does seem that gaining power through electoral means in western democracies is much more realistic than a successful violent revolt against the U.S. government, for instance.

The history of social-democratic parties in Europe becoming thoroughly liberal seems to provide evidence that this does not work in practice. But revolutionary vanguard parties seem to have the same problem with being overtaken by bourgeois opportunists and degenerating into defenders of capitalism.

So why am I wrong? Please stop me from becoming a revisionist democratic socialist before its too late.
#2
YUNG JIRO AKA SHOWA STUNNA AKA
Post rating: +
This is real real shameful coming from you Stalin
#3
Post rating: ~
Allende.
#4
Post rating: +

stegosaurus posted:

Allende.



well, this certainly revealed that you can't do it while simultaneously being a committed liberal democrat. chavez has taken a different approach though

#5
Georgia
Post rating: ~

stegosaurus posted:

Allende.


That is one example in one particular situation. I'm not suggesting that it is possible all the time in all conditions(the same could be said of revolution)

#6
Kurdt
Post rating: ~
a shameful thinly veiled peta lindsay thread
#7
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~
the reason reformism can't bring about socialism is that anyone smart enough to get elected to the head of a country starts to notice that trying to subordinate the entire economy to a single bureaucratic logic doesn't work that well. that is why no elected leader has ever successfully built something close to real socialism, because it's a bad idea. this has more explanatory power than the jew conspiracy stuff that floats around here.
#8
Poronto
Post rating: ~
funny it worked for sam's club
#9
Post rating: ~
Remember what Marx said about the lumpenproletariat? He despised them! And yet social democracy makes these people and their comfort and convenience the front and centre of their thinking……”oooo he raped that old lady because he’s disadvantaged”, “this 15 year old girl got pregnant because she didn’t feel enough love, here's a house”……meanwhile they import new underclasses from overseas to destroy the strong, proud, dignified working class communities that did exist.

You know that many French working communities used to vote overwhelmingly communist right? Now guess how many people vote communist, and guess the ethnic composition of those communities now. Social Democrats destroyed real communism by engendering fraction and division.

This is what social-democracy leads too: the Victim on a pedestal, the betrayal of the worker, silly bourgeois thought games that replace dignity and intra-communal respect.
#10
Poronto
Post rating: ~
double postertration
#11
Post rating: +
"It's simply not true that you can participate in a system as powerful and as ramified as parliamentarism without a real subjective commitment to it. In any case, the facts speak for themselves. None of the parties which have engaged in the parliamentary system and won governing power has escaped what I would call the subjective law of 'democracy', which is, when all is said and done, what Marx called an'authorized representative' of capital. And I think that this is because, in order to participate in electoral or governmental representation, you have to conform to the subjectivity it demands - that is, a principle of continuity, the principle of the politique unique - the principle of 'this is the way it is, there is nothing to be done', the principle of Maastricht, of a European conformity with the financial markets, and so on. In France we've known this for a long time, for again and again, when left-wing parties come to power, they bring with them the themes of disappointment, broken promises, and so forth. I think we need to see this as an inflexible law, not as a matter of corruption. I don't think it happens because people change their minds, but because parliamentary subjectivity compels it."
#12
Post rating: ~

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

Remember what Marx said about the lumpenproletariat? He despised them! And yet social democracy makes these people and their comfort and convenience the front and centre of their thinking……”oooo he raped that old lady because he’s disadvantaged”, “this 15 year old girl got pregnant because she didn’t feel enough love, here's a house”……meanwhile they import new underclasses from overseas to destroy the strong, proud, dignified working class communities that did exist.

You know that many French working communities used to vote overwhelmingly communist right? Now guess how many people vote communist, and guess the ethnic composition of those communities now. Social Democrats destroyed real communism by engendering fraction and division.

This is what social-democracy leads too: the Victim on a pedestal, the betrayal of the worker, silly bourgeois thought games that replace dignity and intra-communal respect.


oi m8

#13
Post rating: ~

getfiscal posted:

the reason reformism can't bring about socialism is that anyone smart enough to get elected to the head of a country starts to notice that trying to subordinate the entire economy to a single bureaucratic logic doesn't work that well. that is why no elected leader has ever successfully built something close to real socialism, because it's a bad idea. this has more explanatory power than the jew conspiracy stuff that floats around here.



Heey Fucker

"Desire is always what is inscribed as a repercussion of the articulation of language at the level of the Other."