Is "electoral socialism" possible?

[Union of Socialist Council-Republics]

The problem with this is that a person stops being proletariat the moment they're put in a position with that much power. Having experienced poverty will certainly help, as well as having friends and family members currently experiencing it (although arguably even they are elevated to a higher status simply by being close to them), but at the end of the day, a party member is never going to worry about putting food on the table. So you have to rely on trusting the party members to not go back on their initial commitments. That seems risky to me.

Firstly, class isn't dependent on how much nebulous 'power' they wield. Class is dependent on socioeconomic conditions, with emphasis on economic. The bourgeoisie are bourgeois not because of the power they wield, but because they control the means of production which puts them in a certain economic position that produces the incentives and interests that form the basis of bourgeois ideology. A proletarian sells their labour for wages, which places them in a certain economic position that produces class conscious proletarian ideology. With a basis in class consciousness and a firm rejection of bourgeois and subsequent petite-bourgeois ideology at all levels, there is no reason why the class party would abandon its positions for bourgeois ones.

Now we're getting somewhere. What do you mean by "exerting proper control" and how would that make sure the party members remain committed to the people?

While the Bolsheviks emerged as the ultimate driving force of the Russian Revolution, they were unable to secure the dictatorship of the proletariat due to the particular economic situation faced by the USSR during and after the civil war. As described above, the party remains committed not so much to the concept of the proletariat itself, but rather to the programme that lays out the means and ends of the revolutionary struggle. The party will be organised in accordance with the dictatorship of principles, its organs composed of those possessing a high degree of class consciousness who are additionally well-versed in the programme and its theoretical underpinnings. Those expressing bourgeois or petite-bourgeois ideals are unlikely to get very far in such an organisation.

[Existential Cats]

Socialism proposes a massive alteration of the state and economic relations. It can't be achieved by simply electing socialists to office in a liberal democratic state and them passing some legislation.

Moreover, democracy, by nature, doesn't work for any non-hegemonic ideology... When you're running for office, you have to be willing to compromise, negotiate, and follow the will of majority. It's a matter of fine-tuning the dominant liberal capitalist framework, not ushering in something different.

[Genivaria]

Socialism proposes a massive alteration of the state and economic relations. It can't be achieved by simply electing socialists to office in a liberal democratic state and them passing some legislation.

Moreover, democracy, by nature, doesn't work for any non-hegemonic ideology... When you're running for office, you have to be willing to compromise, negotiate, and follow the will of majority. It's a matter of fine-tuning the dominant liberal capitalist framework, not ushering in something different.

This is why I believe that a system based on workers councils is the most stable and least vulnerable to corruption in the long term.
At least that's the traditional term, nowadays I see no reason to restrict the councils to simply laborers when that's only one aspect of society, we could a council for what nowadays we refer to as 'interest groups' so that instead of people lobbying and distorting the democratic process members of said group will be delegated to represent their interests.

[Washington Resistance Army]

While not a Marxist I am utterly opposed to the status quo and in no real way can anything I advocate be considered "simple alterations" to it.

No doubt you're convinced that's what you are, but I'm quite skeptical of that, since a common theme on this site is people professing to have come up with the newest radical solution for the world of tomorrow which, upon further analysis, changes very little or is downright dubious.

Perhaps saying I reject "most" of Marx was a mistake, while I do have disagreements I feel like the only truly significant area, at least in my own eyes, I differ from Marxists is the ultimate end goal. I don't view a stateless communist society as viable in the long term for a number of reasons and thus reject it in favor of a streamlined socialist state. The exact form it should take is something I go back and forth on as I digest new ideas and theories but I'm currently leaning towards ideas espoused by some American socialists in the late 1800's and early 1900's of a scientifically guided system that seeks to eliminate waste and ensure everyone has their needs met.

You're not wrong that people largely don't know what they want, or that they're basically full of conflicting aspirations, but this underscores the need for an authentic communist party with theoretical rigor serving as the nexus for action; one that is somehow capable of recruiting a mass of people to the cause, and that certainly isn't impossible if we look to the past, whilst retaining its proletarian character.

I fully believe a mass of people can be recruited nowadays but you then run into the problems of such wildly differing ideologies, even amongst otherwise leftist types, and the infighting that inevtiably causes. This especially isn't helped by the warping of the words "socialism" and "communism" in common use by people like Bernie or AOC to continue using American examples.

[Genivaria]

I've found it fascinating the pre-marxist examples of groups that we could call 'proto-socialist' like the Diggers (or Levelers) of England and the medieval Peasant Republics that were based around the peasant farmers themselves often without a formal state apparatus.
The Peasant Republic of Dithmarschen notably resisted multiple invasions by neighboring noble lands who sought to force the peasants back under feudalism.

[Umeria]

The problem with this is that a person stops being proletariat the moment they're put in a position with that much power. Having experienced poverty will certainly help, as well as having friends and family members currently experiencing it (although arguably even they are elevated to a higher status simply by being close to them), but at the end of the day, a party member is never going to worry about putting food on the table. So you have to rely on trusting the party members to not go back on their initial commitments. That seems risky to me.

Firstly, class isn't dependent on how much nebulous 'power' they wield. Class is dependent on socioeconomic conditions, with emphasis on economic. The bourgeoisie are bourgeois not because of the power they wield, but because they control the means of production which puts them in a certain economic position that produces the incentives and interests that form the basis of bourgeois ideology. A proletarian sells their labour for wages, which places them in a certain economic position that produces class conscious proletarian ideology. With a basis in class consciousness and a firm rejection of bourgeois and subsequent petite-bourgeois ideology at all levels, there is no reason why the class party would abandon its positions for bourgeois ones.

How would the party members have the same socioeconomic conditions as the working class? Would they work in a factory until noon and then do politics after lunch or something?

Now we're getting somewhere. What do you mean by "exerting proper control" and how would that make sure the party members remain committed to the people?

While the Bolsheviks emerged as the ultimate driving force of the Russian Revolution, they were unable to secure the dictatorship of the proletariat due to the particular economic situation faced by the USSR during and after the civil war. As described above, the party remains committed not so much to the concept of the proletariat itself, but rather to the programme that lays out the means and ends of the revolutionary struggle. The party will be organised in accordance with the dictatorship of principles, its organs composed of those possessing a high degree of class consciousness who are additionally well-versed in the programme and its theoretical underpinnings. Those expressing bourgeois or petite-bourgeois ideals are unlikely to get very far in such an organisation.

Class consciousness doesn't get rid of temptation and greed. However you structure the party, the fact that it has control over society means that the party members can use that control to enrich themselves. From what you're saying it seems like the only thing stopping them is their conscience.

[Hukhalia]

Ignoring a handful of OP's out-of-context and woefully misunderstood quotes, in order to answer this rather relevant question, we must first take into account and dissect the process of what constitutes the state, the nature of political participation in the state, and the role of the state in achieving socialism.

I will be using the following definition for "socialism":

"The instance whereby total political and economic authority is in the hands of the proletariat; marked by the absence of generalised commodity production."

"Generalised" meaning that production in such a society is for the most part not geared towards "commodities" in the sense of being produced for sale on the market.

The proletariat here is the propertyless class, i.e. people who don't own property which can be used to provide a living income; people who, by and large, must sell their labour to an employer in order to merely exist. I feel that a lot of the time this fairly simple definition is neglected when people appeal to "the proletariat", and indeed it is in failing to properly make clear the definition of the "proletariat", I feel, that a lot of the appeals of the radical left fall flat academically and in the popular consciousness; or at least in part. This definition is also rather important to use here.

From their nature of being propertyless (in the sense of the term denoted above), it should be a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that proletarians therefore have very little power. But this is incorrect. The workers have in their hands nigh-insurmountable power, a power which, if expressed in unity, could bring all of the powers-that-be toppling to the ground overnight. This power is expressed in the workers' qualitative nature as labourers, as those who the rulers rely on for profit; it is also expressed in the workers' sheer quantitative nature as the masses -- they outnumber by far any other class. As such, the proletariat exists as a large mass of people who the powers of today rely on.

So why is the average worker, in everyday political life, powerless? Why, say, in America, is the voice of the businessmen, financiers, and CEOs exponentially more pronounced than those of the average voter?

This is where we get to the crux of the question: it is because the former control the state. This is implicit in how the capitalist state is built. The state extolls the legal and moral principles which are then monitored and enforced by soldiers, courts, policemen, civil servants, &c. Take the lauded "universal right": the "universal right" to property is not universal at all! It is entirely a right solely for those with property, and thus favours the propertied. The police will thus mostly focus on poor areas - for the reproduced destitution leads to crime - in order to protect the property rights of rich areas and the corporations which operate in poor areas!

The workers have untold power in their hands. The thing stopping this from being used efficiently is the state, its ideological propaganda apparatus, and the boots of its thugs.

I think the answer to the question is fairly obvious.

[Union of Socialist Council-Republics]

How would the party members have the same socioeconomic conditions as the working class? Would they work in a factory until noon and then do politics after lunch or something?

The party will be formed of proletarians because that is one of the key characteristics that defines it. Its' membership will emerge from the proletariat as the conditions of the proletariat are what drives the development of class consciousness and the subsequent realisation of the need for collective revolutionary action. In the pre-revolutionary stage I imagine that most if not all party members would participate in wage labour, given that like most people they don't really have any choice. But they don't stop holding proletarian ideology when they stop working, it is something that they have learned through experience and will subsequently maintain.

Class consciousness doesn't get rid of temptation and greed. However you structure the party, the fact that it has control over society means that the party members can use that control to enrich themselves. From what you're saying it seems like the only thing stopping them is their conscience.

It does, actually. The prevalence of greed and general economic sociopathy in our society is the direct result of bourgeois ideology. Capitalism actively incentives greedy behaviour and zero-sum attitudes, and then justifies this behaviour post hoc by declaring it to be human nature. While those immersed in bourgeois ideology and capitalist incentive structures are more likely to be inclined to selfishness, class consciousness combats this by developing a counterposed proletarian ideology that actively attacks capitalism and all the ideology and incentives that come with it.

[Umeria]

How would the party members have the same socioeconomic conditions as the working class? Would they work in a factory until noon and then do politics after lunch or something?

The party will be formed of proletarians because that is one of the key characteristics that defines it. Its' membership will emerge from the proletariat as the conditions of the proletariat are what drives the development of class consciousness and the subsequent realisation of the need for collective revolutionary action. In the pre-revolutionary stage I imagine that most if not all party members would participate in wage labour, given that like most people they don't really have any choice. But they don't stop holding proletarian ideology when they stop working, it is something that they have learned through experience and will subsequently maintain.

You said that "class is dependent on socioeconomic conditions." If the party members don't need to do wage labor to survive, then by your definition they aren't proletariat. And the idea that having experienced poverty in the past makes you immune to corruption is demonstrably false. Think about all the businesspeople and politicians who started out as working class only to stab that class in the back when they gained power. Before you say "they were corrupted by the capitalist framework", explain why the framework of a post-revolution society would prevent such behavior. So far you haven't done this; the only thing you've mentioned is prior working class experience, which clearly isn't enough.

Class consciousness doesn't get rid of temptation and greed. However you structure the party, the fact that it has control over society means that the party members can use that control to enrich themselves. From what you're saying it seems like the only thing stopping them is their conscience.

It does, actually. The prevalence of greed and general economic sociopathy in our society is the direct result of bourgeois ideology. Capitalism actively incentives greedy behaviour and zero-sum attitudes, and then justifies this behaviour post hoc by declaring it to be human nature. While those immersed in bourgeois ideology and capitalist incentive structures are more likely to be inclined to selfishness, class consciousness combats this by developing a counterposed proletarian ideology that actively attacks capitalism and all the ideology and incentives that come with it.

It's true that capitalism encourages greed, but the idea that a pure enough ideology would eliminate human selfishness is ridiculous. Especially when there's a huge incentive for the party members to betray the mission, as doing so would make them part of an almost untouchable political elite. Do you really think reading a few books will be enough to dissuade the party members from that temptation?

[Big Bad Blue]

Not as long as money = free speech and corporations = people with natural rights (except when it comes to being held accountable for their crimes).

tl;dr: no.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Then by that logic, regulated capitalism continues to prove to be the only economic system that actually works. Where as feudalism, unregulated capitalism, and attempts to achieve socialism have all been proven failures. If nothing has met "true marxism", then it remains nothing more then a dream.

Unless you can present an example of regulated capitalism that has stood the test of time and will continue to do so indefinitely, then it can equally be considered 'just a dream'. Capitalism is inherently unstable and even Keynes, the supreme advocate of regulated capitalism, admitted that crisis couldn't be avoided. Furthermore, it is in the interests of many capitalists to dismantle regulations in order to accelerate their accumulation of capital, and the capitalist state ultimately serves the interests of the capitalist class, it doesn't sit 'above' class conflict. You do the math.

I do the math where peoples standard of living is better than ever thanks to capitalism. We went from feudalistic serfs to a society where even the worst off people eat better than mideval kings. It's taken a few bumps and still has flaws, but I'd safely say the current models work and they work well. Instead of living in a world where getting born lucky will decide your life. There's atleast enough social mobility to decide the life and ambition you want.

And no shit businesses will want to lessen their restrictions. Anybody wouldn't like the idea of being restricted by law. But their not as unified as you make them out to be. Amazon for example wants to regulate minimum wage to put pressure on Walmarts far larger staff. In order to hurt them financially. If it's not the businesses, it's the politicians. If it's not the politicians, it's the people. No matter the government, you'll have some kind of tug of war.

Also as a sidenote on terminology, marxism is a system of analysis whereas socialism/communism is the socioeconomic system itself, so it is more accurate to say that nothing has met 'true socialism', where true socialism is defined as being in accordance with the descriptions laid out by marxist socioeconomic analysis. Which, so far, is a true statement, but in the grand scheme of things this isn't particularly surprising given the historical time-periods of socioeconomic systems.

Until it actually bears fruit. I don't think I'll be investing much stock in it.

[Ifreann]

Unless you can present an example of regulated capitalism that has stood the test of time and will continue to do so indefinitely, then it can equally be considered 'just a dream'. Capitalism is inherently unstable and even Keynes, the supreme advocate of regulated capitalism, admitted that crisis couldn't be avoided. Furthermore, it is in the interests of many capitalists to dismantle regulations in order to accelerate their accumulation of capital, and the capitalist state ultimately serves the interests of the capitalist class, it doesn't sit 'above' class conflict. You do the math.

I do the math where peoples standard of living is better than ever thanks to capitalism. We went from feudalistic serfs to a society where even the worst off people eat better than mideval kings.

Apart from all the people who die of hunger.

[Neanderthaland]

Unless you can present an example of regulated capitalism that has stood the test of time and will continue to do so indefinitely, then it can equally be considered 'just a dream'. Capitalism is inherently unstable and even Keynes, the supreme advocate of regulated capitalism, admitted that crisis couldn't be avoided. Furthermore, it is in the interests of many capitalists to dismantle regulations in order to accelerate their accumulation of capital, and the capitalist state ultimately serves the interests of the capitalist class, it doesn't sit 'above' class conflict. You do the math.

I do the math where peoples standard of living is better than ever thanks to capitalism. We went from feudalistic serfs to a society where even the worst off people eat better than mideval kings.

And can't afford to own a home or have children.

[Deblar]

Unless you can present an example of regulated capitalism that has stood the test of time and will continue to do so indefinitely, then it can equally be considered 'just a dream'. Capitalism is inherently unstable and even Keynes, the supreme advocate of regulated capitalism, admitted that crisis couldn't be avoided. Furthermore, it is in the interests of many capitalists to dismantle regulations in order to accelerate their accumulation of capital, and the capitalist state ultimately serves the interests of the capitalist class, it doesn't sit 'above' class conflict. You do the math.

I do the math where peoples standard of living is better than ever thanks to capitalism. We went from feudalistic serfs to a society where even the worst off people eat better than mideval kings.

More than 38 million people in America alone live in food insecure households, so were medieval kings living on an almost nonexistent diet or...

[Genivaria]

I do the math where peoples standard of living is better than ever thanks to capitalism. We went from feudalistic serfs to a society where even the worst off people eat better than mideval kings.

Apart from all the people who die of hunger.

Is this the math that puts the global poverty line as low as $2 an hour? Because I'm sure that's reliable.

[Genivaria]

I do the math where peoples standard of living is better than ever thanks to capitalism. We went from feudalistic serfs to a society where even the worst off people eat better than mideval kings.

More than 38 million people in America alone live in food insecure households, so were medieval kings living on an almost nonexistent diet or...

Also serfs only worked a few hours a day to work the crops, nowadays many people work over 10 hours a day to barely survive.
Strange how production skyrocketed but worker wages never followed.

[Holy Tedalonia]

I do the math where peoples standard of living is better than ever thanks to capitalism. We went from feudalistic serfs to a society where even the worst off people eat better than mideval kings.

Apart from all the people who die of hunger.

Honestly who starves when government services these constantly provide shelter, food, and water. Hunger in countries tend to be regional/underdeveloped country issues, and less so economic.

Capitalism doesn't make you go hungry. Nor does socialism necessarily provides you food.

[Genivaria]

Apart from all the people who die of hunger.

Honestly who starves when government services these constantly provide shelter, food, and water. Hunger in countries tend to be regional/underdeveloped country issues, and less so economic.

Capitalism doesn't make you go hungry. Nor does socialism necessarily provides you food.

It does when we prioritize throwing bleach on food instead of giving it to the poor.

[HISPIDA]

Apart from all the people who die of hunger.

Honestly who starves when government services these constantly provide shelter, food, and water

i dunno, maybe 690 million people that are starving to death and over 2 billion who can't get adequate food

Hunger in countries tend to be regional/underdeveloped country issues, and less so economic.

the main driving force in hunger is poverty
try again

Capitalism doesn't make you go hungry. Nor does socialism necessarily provides you food.

capitalsm is inherently founded on the unequal oppression of a lesser group of people. if they can't afford food to feed their family or afford clean water so they don't die of NTD's then too bad they just had to pull themselves up by the bootstraps they can't afford i guess

[Holy Tedalonia]

Honestly who starves when government services these constantly provide shelter, food, and water

i dunno, maybe 690 million people that are starving to death and over 2 billion who can't get adequate food

I thought it was obvious I'm talking about 1st world countries here. Since complaining about economic policy is more of a 1st world issue.

Hunger in countries tend to be regional/underdeveloped country issues, and less so economic.

the main driving force in hunger is poverty
try again

And the most impoverished nations tend to be former colonies from colonial empires, and regions known for being not good in providing food. You can try again.

Capitalism doesn't make you go hungry. Nor does socialism necessarily provides you food.

capitalsm is inherently founded on the unequal oppression of a lesser group of people. if they can't afford food to feed their family or afford clean water so they don't die of NTD's then too bad they just had to pull themselves up by the bootstraps they can't afford i guess

And fortunately governments these days help provide where capitalism doesn't deliver. This is why mixed economies, like regulated capitalism works.

[HISPIDA]

i dunno, maybe 690 million people that are starving to death and over 2 billion who can't get adequate food

I thought it was obvious I'm talking about 1st world countries here. Since complaining about economic policy is more of a 1st world issue.

except for the 3rd and 2nd world countries being used as capitalist fodder and imperialist pawns like, oh i dunno
iraq, ukraine, hong kong, taiwan, afghanistan, libya, syria, indonesia, somalia, yemen, the former yugoslavia -- do i need to go on?

And the most impoverished nations tend to be former colonies from colonial empires, and regions known for being not good in providing food. You can try again.

this, again, is because of capitalism. modern imperialism is fueled by capitalism; conquer western africa to sell slaves, sell slaves in america for cotton, sell cotton to the UK, sell slaves from western africa. when that fails and the market shuts down? go to india. enslave the indians, get your cotton from there.

And fortunately governments these days help provide where capitalism doesn't deliver. This is why mixed economies, like regulated capitalism works.

because it's not like 14.6% of american households suffer from hunger, 22% of all households in the UK are below the poverty line, 15% of people in sweden and germany are impoverished, and 85% of the PRC's population lives in squalor and is forced to work in sweatshops for $3 a day because of deng and these sweatshops literally use uighur slavery

nah that couldn't be it

[Pasong Tirad]

Doubt it. Anything's possible, but probably not this.

Whether or not so-called socialists win in elections and are able to carry out reforms that do actually make people's lives better is beside the point in this regard. Things like healthcare, housing, etc. are all well and good. That's still not going to bring about a socialist society. For that, you need a revolution.

[Holy Tedalonia]

I thought it was obvious I'm talking about 1st world countries here. Since complaining about economic policy is more of a 1st world issue.

except for the 3rd and 2nd world countries being used as capitalist fodder and imperialist pawns like, oh i dunno
iraq, ukraine, hong kong, taiwan, afghanistan, libya, syria, indonesia, somalia, yemen, the former yugoslavia -- do i need to go on?

Anybody would take advantage of the less fortunate countries. You don't need to be a capitalist to pursue your own interests as a domineering nation.

And the most impoverished nations tend to be former colonies from colonial empires, and regions known for being not good in providing food. You can try again.

this, again, is because of capitalism. modern imperialism is fueled by capitalism; conquer western africa to sell slaves, sell slaves in america for cotton, sell cotton to the UK, sell slaves from western africa. when that fails and the market shuts down? go to india. enslave the indians, get your cotton from there.

Damn bro, when the 2008 stock market crashed, why didn't I get slaves?

And fortunately governments these days help provide where capitalism doesn't deliver. This is why mixed economies, like regulated capitalism works.

because it's not like 14.6% of american households suffer from hunger, 22% of all households in the UK are below the poverty line, 15% of people in sweden and germany are impoverished, and 85% of the PRC's population lives in squalor and is forced to work in sweatshops for $3 a day because of deng and these sweatshops literally use uighur slavery

nah that couldn't be it

America refers to food problems as food insecurity which is a statistic in people not being able to afford food. It doesn't matter if they were to get free food from the government or charity, but because they can't afford food they are food insecure. America's not concerned feeding its people, because they already do. They want to make it so people can afford their own food, either by government benefits or by getting them out of poverty.

I can't really say for the rest, because I'm not to read up on other countries in all honesty. Although I have doubts China is a good example of a regulated capitalist society. They come across as authoritarian to me, personally.

[Ifreann]

Apart from all the people who die of hunger.

Honestly who starves when government services these constantly provide shelter, food, and water. Hunger in countries tend to be regional/underdeveloped country issues, and less so economic.

Capitalism doesn't make you go hungry. Nor does socialism necessarily provides you food.

Capitalism is the system according to which we assign resources. When people starve, or otherwise suffer a lack of food, that is because our ample supplies of food have not been assigned to them. Which can only be attributed to capitalism.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Honestly who starves when government services these constantly provide shelter, food, and water. Hunger in countries tend to be regional/underdeveloped country issues, and less so economic.

Capitalism doesn't make you go hungry. Nor does socialism necessarily provides you food.

Capitalism is the system according to which we assign resources. When people starve, or otherwise suffer a lack of food, that is because our ample supplies of food have not been assigned to them. Which can only be attributed to capitalism.

I'd agree if it was a pure capitalism. But fortunately most of the world works under mixed economies. The market socialism of the Nordic countries which many American socialists believe in would most likely be considered a market economy despite their reforms.

I mean if I was defending a country like Chechen where there's no regulation to the economy at all. Maybe you'd have a point, and yes under that system, people would starve, because there's no government to provide aid. Your point?