Yes and also no. Yes because that is clearly the role it plays in the US. But no in the sense that it is a name for a specific theory of action, the theory that you can achieve socialism through voting instead of through a coup (even a bloodless one) or a civil/revolutionary war.
Has any election in human history ever actually disrupted a class hierarchy?
Not that I am aware of.
I feel like Gogh in australia came close.
Also Jose Musica in Uruguay. Or however you spell his name. But not to the scale that we’re probably talking about here.
True, but also as a tactic (IE voting in socialism) its a complete historical failure that should be relegated to the history books. There has not been a single case of a country acheiving socialism through the ballot box.
All the attempts in the late 1800s until now showed that capitalists will not give up state power without violence, and even explicitly socialist parties who acheived some electoral success, end up quickly capitulating to the demands of the capitalists who run the country’s economy, and make a hard turn to the right. Look at the state of the European “socialist” or “labour” parties.
Not to mention all the coups the US carried out even on countries who attempted to tread a “non-violent” socialist path: like Chile in 1970. While the countries who took control of the military and went through a civil war to disempower and nationalize capital are still standing on their own two feet: Cuba, China, Vietnam, DPRK.
“Democratic socialism” is also sometimes used (incorrectly) to refer to capitalist-run states in the imperial core (like the nordic states) with some welfare band-aids, funded on the backs of the world’s workers in the global south.
Absolutely correct. I just find that leaning in to the real history makes smearing it as a sheepdog and as a psyop somewhat more effective
What you describe is called social democracy. And, in my opinion, it is an ideological cul-de-sac.
The words social democracy and democratic socialism have swapped definitions and started the same and have been translated variously. It’s even more confusing than the word histories of socialism and communism.
My understanding of social democracy in the contemporary meaning is liberal capitalist society with substantial concessions to the working class for quality of life, while democratic socialism is a movement to end liberal capitalism via the ballot box.
Not a theory, an illusion
A theory that’s been mostly disproven
Is there any case that favors this idea?
There is no historical evidence that the theory works.
A bit like saying how saying Chinese Communist Party instead of Communist Party of China invokes all sorts of racist gunk in liberal democracies
good post
She seems nice.
We need to rename it to “socialist reform”. It says what it means.
