Is "electoral socialism" possible?

[The Jamesian Republic]

Can’t we make it to where BOTH the worker and owner own the means of production? We keep democracy but with the scales tipped towards the workers?

We could do all kinds of shit. Why should we, though?

Killing them softly with the song of the workers.

[Ifreann]

We could do all kinds of shit. Why should we, though?

Killing them softly with the song of the workers.

So you're just shitposting. Got it.

[The Jamesian Republic]

Killing them softly with the song of the workers.

So you're just shitposting. Got it.

Okay bad post. In all seriousness if we were to establish socialism we need the scales in the favor of the workers. You need a foundation. Saying I want this but not having something to ground it in isn’t really a path to a successful socialist society. If we begin deteriorating the capitalist system from the inside we can then begin putting in the foundations to build socialism.

[Union of Socialist Council-Republics]

Let us for the moment accept the premise that a socialistic society will in fact sufficiently change the nature of its inhabitants so that authoritarianism is not inherently self-corrupting, although personally I have some serious doubts about that. Okay. How do you propose to achieve a socialistic society?

After all, the dominant ideology today is liberal capitalism. Your revolution needs to be built out of people who were born in and grew up under liberal capitalism. It needs to be sufficiently competitive, in both armed force and things like industrial productivity, against liberal-capitalist institutions. When it comes to building new revolutionary institutions, it needs to contend with an intellectual sphere shaped by liberal capitalism and a public that is generally committed to liberal-capitalist ideals.

Human nature may very well change after the revolution, but when we are talking about the viability of the revolution to deliver itself in the first place, we are talking about doing so with human nature as it currently exists. It took less than a decade for the Russian socialist revolution to be captured by fairly conventional authoritarians who then proceeded to do conventionally authoritarian things, and unless you can explain why that happened and why it wouldn’t happen again with whatever variant of revolution you are proposing, I am going to remain heavily skeptical.

It is by internal processes inherent to capitalism that it produces its own gravediggers. The class struggle drives the development of class consciousness, and the collective nature of capitalist production unites proletarians into a powerful political-economic force capable of waging a revolutionary struggle against liberal-capitalist society, dismantling its institutions and ideologies much as the historical bourgeois revolutions tore down feudalism. But you'd be correct in saying that this isn't enough. To ensure the success of the revolution, and to prevent it from being recaptured by bourgeois ideology as historical attempts were, class consciousness must be augmented by a proper system of analysis, this being Marxism. The class party must be built around a proper understanding of the communist programme, and an uncompromising definition of the means and ends of the revolutionary struggle undiluted by democracy and revisionism.

[Duvniask]

Hey, Theory of Contradiction right there!

It's the same conflict behind it, to ensure rights you have to enforce them. Libertarianism does not lead to widespread freedom, for as long as one is free to exploit there won't be freedom from exploitation - things like child-labour and 12-hour-days are outlawed for a reason. I agree with you on most, the capitalists won't give it up without a fight and won't stop to try and get it back without someone stopping them. The direction to be taken thereafter however should be determined by the workers themselves, and what other method is there to determine the will of the new rulers?

Preferably one that reflects the needs of society as determined by scientific analysis. This isn't necessarily something that can be achieved by democratic decision making, as democracy tends to flatten out nuanced analysis into simplistic binaries. There is absolutely no guarantee that democracy, even proletarian democracy, will make optimal decisions for the social totality.

However, decision-making isn't something reducible to scientific analysis - it must incorporate values, principles, morality, which I do know is shown a lot of disdain in the Marxist vein. We should not be so foolish as to think a socialist society will have no dilemmas to tackle and no normative questions to deal with. If we principally accept that people should have a say in their own lives, democracy is a workable way of coming to a decision, especially since it's unclear why exactly one person's say should be worth more than that of another. I agree with you that it's not an axiomatic principle, however, and world-be "socialists" are too caught up in chanting for "more democracy", as if that is somehow the cure to all ills.

[Umeria]

To ensure the success of the revolution, and to prevent it from being recaptured by bourgeois ideology as historical attempts were, class consciousness must be augmented by a proper system of analysis, this being Marxism. The class party must be built around a proper understanding of the communist programme, and an uncompromising definition of the means and ends of the revolutionary struggle undiluted by democracy and revisionism.

If the party members understand how the system works, wouldn't they realize that they could gain far more power and wealth by abandoning the project and becoming dictators than they could by transitioning to a classless society?

[Adamede]

Dictatorships of the proletariat seem to evolve into just "dictatorships" and the establishment of a new upper class.

[Kubra]

Dictatorships of the proletariat seem to awfully evolve into just "dictatorships" and the establishment of a new upper class.

If folks want to make sweeping reforms in a short span of time they will tend to want to increase the efficiency by which they can enact them, which will mean the elimination of certain deliberative processes. Every major shakeup in France until Algeria generally involved someone trying (and sometimes successfully) to make a committee of public safety for among other reasons that one.

[Page]

I think I've come to the conclusion that socialism is impossible when the state exists. If the state exists, the economic system will be of subjugation and plunder and those in power become the bourgeoisie.

[FutureAmerica]

Once you elect a dictator like Saddam, Hitler, Xi, Castro or Kim. They will not step down. They will gain lifetime control of the state using state security as the reason and protect their corruption. They will make sure democracy is terminated.

[Des-Bal]

I think I've come to the conclusion that socialism is impossible when the state exists. If the state exists, the economic system will be of subjugation and plunder and those in power become the bourgeoisie.

It's also just generally impossible.

[Adamede]

Dictatorships of the proletariat seem to awfully evolve into just "dictatorships" and the establishment of a new upper class.

If folks want to make sweeping reforms in a short span of time they will tend to want to increase the efficiency by which they can enact them, which will mean the elimination of certain deliberative processes. Every major shakeup in France until Algeria generally involved someone trying (and sometimes successfully) to make a committee of public safety for among other reasons that one.

Yah I’m well aware as to why it happens. I’m just saying when you give someone that much pwoer they’re leaky not going to give it back.

[Kubra]

If folks want to make sweeping reforms in a short span of time they will tend to want to increase the efficiency by which they can enact them, which will mean the elimination of certain deliberative processes. Every major shakeup in France until Algeria generally involved someone trying (and sometimes successfully) to make a committee of public safety for among other reasons that one.

Yah I’m well aware as to why it happens. I’m just saying when you give someone that much pwoer they’re leaky not going to give it back.

Sure, but that doesn't mean the movements themselves does not leave indelible marks. We are, after all, living in the shadows of the success's of many otherwise failed revolutions.

[Adamede]

Yah I’m well aware as to why it happens. I’m just saying when you give someone that much pwoer they’re leaky not going to give it back.

Sure, but that doesn't mean the movements themselves does not leave indelible marks. We are, after all, living in the shadows of the success's of many otherwise failed revolutions.

Yah and many didn’t live long after those revolutions.

[Kubra]

Sure, but that doesn't mean the movements themselves does not leave indelible marks. We are, after all, living in the shadows of the success's of many otherwise failed revolutions.

Yah and many didn’t live long after those revolutions.

And so we, the beneficiaries of their deaths, really ought not make light of such. Upon setting foot in Paris, one really ought to pay heed to the bodies beneath their feet.

[Adamede]

Yah and many didn’t live long after those revolutions.

And so we, the beneficiaries of their deaths, really ought not make light of such. Upon setting foot in Paris, one really ought to pay heed to the bodies beneath their feet.

And part of that is not handing power over to dictators.

[Ozenev]

Once you elect a dictator like Saddam, Hitler, Xi, Castro or Kim. They will not step down. They will gain lifetime control of the state using state security as the reason and protect their corruption. They will make sure democracy is terminated.

Hitler was appointed as chancellor, Saddam came to power through politicking within al-Bakr's government, Xi was elected by the People's Congress not a national poll, Castro essentially appointed himself as Prime Minister after Batista fled the country, and Kim, assuming you're talking about the current one, was confirmed within the party, not by a popular vote.
Although your examples are/were all undoubtedly dictators I'm sure that you could find better instances of people seizing power after winning a free and fair election.

[Cisairse]

Electoral socialism? Not possible.

Electoral fascism? Not only possible: inevitable.

[Auze]

Plenty of things are possible. Likely or desirable is another thing entirely.

[Free Algerstonia]

Electoral socialism? Not possible.

Electoral fascism? Not only possible: inevitable.

benito mussolini is well known for taking power in an election

[Wallenburg]

Socialism can only exist under democracy and, thus, an electoral system on the national scale. Overthrowing a stable democracy and imposing righteous socialist policy through autocratic means may seem simple and romantic once you disregard the violence and oppression such revolution requires, but it is fundamentally incompatible with the democratic ideals typical to socialism.

[Free Algerstonia]

Socialism can only exist under democracy and, thus, an electoral system on the national scale. Overthrowing a stable democracy and imposing righteous socialist policy through autocratic means may seem simple and romantic once you disregard the violence and oppression such revolution requires, but it is fundamentally incompatible with the democratic ideals typical to socialism.

so you're just ignoring socialism with chinese characteristics

[The Jamesian Republic]

Socialism can only exist under democracy and, thus, an electoral system on the national scale. Overthrowing a stable democracy and imposing righteous socialist policy through autocratic means may seem simple and romantic once you disregard the violence and oppression such revolution requires, but it is fundamentally incompatible with the democratic ideals typical to socialism.

Though you would probably have to allow only socialist parties, unless you can usher in a wave of socialists making up the parties we have.