Is "electoral socialism" possible?

[Umeria]

I've never lived in Sweden. Medicare for All in the US would be unlike any past I've experienced. And why can't we reach it?

because you've been trying for Sweden in the 30's since the actual 30s, when the state had the actual capacity to do things, and youve failed at every step. And now it's too late since the state has been purposefully stripped of any capacity to effect any of the changes you want

Actually we succeeded at several steps, such as when we got social security and Medicare, and later on convinced the overwhelming majority of Americans that universal healthcare is a good idea.

The state is perfectly capable of implementing all of the changes I want. For some of them all it takes is an executive order.

[Kerwa]

I don’t know how you get socialism in a country that enshrines anti-social behavior as a virtue.

[HISPIDA]

Ok but if you have an authoritarian state you can't have a socialist society because the state would own the means of production, not the workers

you say this like it's a bad thing in the short term or anti socialist
to quite engels again:

"A revolution is the most authoritarian thing there is!"

if, in the short term, a strong state is needed to preserve socialist gains and make sure that the state doesn't fall to the bourgeoisie then i'm all for that
provided they don't go borderline revisionist like stalin

[Lady Victory]

A capitalist system will never allow itself to be abolished. It has incentive to prevent a socialist takeover, which will take precedent over whatever vague democratic traditions may exist. Therefor attempting to bring about socialism through democracy will not bring about socialism, but rather it will merely lead to the subversion of democracy to keep socialism out. If a democratic capitalist society must choose between capitalism and democracy it will always choose capitalism. Revolution is thus not a question at all; it is an obligation.

[Umeria]

if, in the short term, a strong state is needed to preserve socialist gains and make sure that the state doesn't fall to the bourgeoisie then i'm all for that
provided they don't go borderline revisionist like stalin

How would you make sure that the borderline revisionism doesn't happen?

A capitalist system will never allow itself to be abolished. It has incentive to prevent a socialist takeover, which will take precedent over whatever vague democratic traditions may exist. Therefor attempting to bring about socialism through democracy will not bring about socialism, but rather it will merely lead to the subversion of democracy to keep socialism out. If a democratic capitalist society must choose between capitalism and democracy it will always choose capitalism. Revolution is thus not a question at all; it is an obligation.

So it's impossible to force the system to choose democracy over capitalism, but it is possible to overthrow the system entirely? That doesn't make sense.

[Deblar]

Depending on how it’s done and where it’s being done, I’d say yes under the right conditions.

[Page]

Marxist-Leninists tend to think that the system serves bourgeoisie interests alone and that it cannot be democratically taken or reformed, only overthrown. I, an anarchist, would go one step further: The STATE serves bourgeoisie interests alone and the existence of the state does not allow for any meaningful degree of socialism.

Every single "revolutionary" state in history has developed a new bourgeoisie class. Google "list of Chinese billionaires." It's a long goddamn list. North Korea is a theocratic absolute monarchy, the Castros and their clique live like kings in Cuba, Vietnam is most of the way toward being a regular old neoliberal mixed market.

The state is incompatible with socialism.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Anything is possible, but like all attempts at overthrowing an established system the chances at each attempt are low. A mass movement is required to prevent the electoral arm from "going native", and the ability to provide continued evidence of real gains is important to keeping the people motivated. In most circumstances, internal pressures to win over key insider enabling groups, the fluctuations of markets etc, as well as the system being set up to advantage the existing interests - this tends towards a pressure for moderation and heading towards the political centre. At which point enthusiasm tends to bleed away and the party or new faction moves towards politics as usual. Or Americans turn up to restore "freedom".

It stands to reason that all the methods of transition are hard, or everyone would choose the easy one and capitalism would be dead a century ago.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'd say so, provided it is market socialism. If it's state socialism, then as people point out, them losing an election to a capitalist party means the sale of state assets and undoing all of their work.

But it's easily possible for a market socialist party and a capitalist party to compete for legislative control and for the socialist party to spend time in opposition without progress being unmade, because the assets are in the hands of workers, not the state, and thus cannot be sold by a new government coming to power.

As capital shifts into the hands of the workers the "Conservative" party will be forced to adopt a stance of "Mixed economics" to remain competitive, and eventually will become a functionally socialist opposition party as the capitalist elements lose their power.

But it's easily possible for two or more parties to exist under market socialism.

"The steel workers union wants less pollution regulations and is suspiciously keen on interventionist foreign policy, whereas the trade-dock workers union wants more pollution regulations and international diplomacy. I'm sure this is a coincidence." rather than "Boy oh boy, the capitalist in charge of the military industrial complex and the one who wants peace and open borders are at odds!".

The material interests that different sections of the economy have being at odds with one another doesn't suddenly change when you take the profit from CEOs and give it to workers.

[Daniel-Franklin]

You either campaign for the Neoliberals or the Neoconservatives. They have so much power that they can blacklist opposition.

Didn't the Dems literally sue to prevent the Green party candidate from being on the debate stage in 2018?

Yeah, the "Democratic" Party. Champions of Constitutional Government. Just listen to them rant about January 6, these ardent advocates of liberty. Even as they seek to silence competition for their left-wing's votes.

As for the question, yes. More than once, the socialist worldview has proven more popular than not. But a democratically elected socialist regime must be prepared to fight militarily to ward off treasonous insurrections by the Right. It doesn't want to go the way of the Second Spanish Republic, after all.

That being said, the problem with January 6 is that it was a fight between two groups of neoliberals for power and one of them was bound to win. There was no truly progressive faction involved on either camp.

[Ostroeuropa]

Marxist-Leninists tend to think that the system serves bourgeoisie interests alone and that it cannot be democratically taken or reformed, only overthrown. I, an anarchist, would go one step further: The STATE serves bourgeoisie interests alone and the existence of the state does not allow for any meaningful degree of socialism.

Every single "revolutionary" state in history has developed a new bourgeoisie class. Google "list of Chinese billionaires." It's a long goddamn list. North Korea is a theocratic absolute monarchy, the Castros and their clique live like kings in Cuba, Vietnam is most of the way toward being a regular old neoliberal mixed market.

The state is incompatible with socialism.

I think the state is compatible with socialism provided it doesn't own industries, but instead largely plays the role it currently does on behalf of market socialist corporations instead of capitalist ones. A functional and possible socialist society looks exactly like our current one, merely with worker-owned corporations bribing politicians and lobbying them instead of lobbyists who work for stockholders. Two (or more) political blocs of various corporate lobbying groups with various material interests and cultural positions, pretty much everything the same except workers take the place of stock owners and receive the dividends alongside voting on policy.

The extent to which the state is anathema to socialism is the same extent that it is toward capitalism. It is a tool used by the owners of capital, whether they be borgeousie or workers. (This is distinct from pure state run systems like those you mention). Under a socialist system we might see anarchistic "Laissez-Fairez" socialism take up residence in one of the political parties using large the same language and arguments as anti-regulation capitalists do in the modern era, opposed by a bloc of socialists who theoretically like regulation to stop things going fucking nuts, even if without it it would be workers setting company policy rather than CEO's, but who suspiciously seem to like regulation on industries not a part of their bloc more than ones which are.

[Republic of La Boca]

Is electoral socialism possible? YES, in the Republic of La Boca (but not nowadays)

[Kerwa]

Marxist-Leninists tend to think that the system serves bourgeoisie interests alone and that it cannot be democratically taken or reformed, only overthrown. I, an anarchist, would go one step further: The STATE serves bourgeoisie interests alone and the existence of the state does not allow for any meaningful degree of socialism.

Every single "revolutionary" state in history has developed a new bourgeoisie class. Google "list of Chinese billionaires." It's a long goddamn list. North Korea is a theocratic absolute monarchy, the Castros and their clique live like kings in Cuba, Vietnam is most of the way toward being a regular old neoliberal mixed market.

The state is incompatible with socialism.

I think the state is compatible with socialism provided it doesn't own industries, but instead largely plays the role it currently does on behalf of market socialist corporations instead of capitalist ones. A functional and possible socialist society looks exactly like our current one, merely with worker-owned corporations bribing politicians and lobbying them instead of lobbyists who work for stockholders. Two (or more) political blocs of various corporate lobbying groups with various material interests and cultural positions, pretty much everything the same except workers take the place of stock owners and receive the dividends alongside voting on policy.

The extent to which the state is anathema to socialism is the same extent that it is toward capitalism. It is a tool used by the owners of capital, whether they be borgeousie or workers. (This is distinct from pure state run systems like those you mention). Under a socialist system we might see anarchistic "Laissez-Fairez" socialism take up residence in one of the political parties using large the same language and arguments as anti-regulation capitalists do in the modern era, opposed by a bloc of socialists who theoretically like regulation to stop things going fucking nuts, even if without it it would be workers setting company policy rather than CEO's, but who suspiciously seem to like regulation on industries not a part of their bloc more than ones which are.

I’ve always been an fan of co-ops. I wish they got more state support.

[Ostroeuropa]

I think the state is compatible with socialism provided it doesn't own industries, but instead largely plays the role it currently does on behalf of market socialist corporations instead of capitalist ones. A functional and possible socialist society looks exactly like our current one, merely with worker-owned corporations bribing politicians and lobbying them instead of lobbyists who work for stockholders. Two (or more) political blocs of various corporate lobbying groups with various material interests and cultural positions, pretty much everything the same except workers take the place of stock owners and receive the dividends alongside voting on policy.

The extent to which the state is anathema to socialism is the same extent that it is toward capitalism. It is a tool used by the owners of capital, whether they be borgeousie or workers. (This is distinct from pure state run systems like those you mention). Under a socialist system we might see anarchistic "Laissez-Fairez" socialism take up residence in one of the political parties using large the same language and arguments as anti-regulation capitalists do in the modern era, opposed by a bloc of socialists who theoretically like regulation to stop things going fucking nuts, even if without it it would be workers setting company policy rather than CEO's, but who suspiciously seem to like regulation on industries not a part of their bloc more than ones which are.

I’ve always been an fan of co-ops. I wish they got more state support.

This is how a socialist government can operate and socialism can expand under electoralism. Policies and funding directed towards the foundation and expansion of co-ops and worker owned businesses. For example, we could scrap the capital gains tax and instead implement a confiscatory measure.

(So instead of "You made 1 million dollars selling stock, and 10% of that is taxed" it becomes "You sold 1 million dollars of stock. 1% of that which you tried to sell is confiscated and distributed to the co-operative entity, controlled by the workers of the company in question.".)

[Fauzjhia]

If its possible I don't know
but if we want to a real, lasting form of socialism, it is necessary

we need democracy to make a communist system work

Pretty sure we're not talking about Communism, Socialism and Communism are not the same.

as I already explained more the once. the reason why (socialist) democratic socialist, market socialist, rise as an alternative to communism is because of the failure of autocratic (communists system) who became failed state, due the corruption of their bureaucracy ( or their crystallization)

Democracy is the only way to prevent such a event for a communist regime, since it can simulate a permanent revolution.
the only other alternative would be revolution after revolution. Revolution for the shake of revolution, as you can think this lead to pointless blood spilled and this cannot be sustained.

This, to be fair.

Marxist-Leninists tend to think that the system serves bourgeoisie interests alone and that it cannot be democratically taken or reformed, only overthrown. I, an anarchist, would go one step further: The STATE serves bourgeoisie interests alone and the existence of the state does not allow for any meaningful degree of socialism.

Every single "revolutionary" state in history has developed a new bourgeoisie class. Google "list of Chinese billionaires." It's a long goddamn list. North Korea is a theocratic absolute monarchy, the Castros and their clique live like kings in Cuba, Vietnam is most of the way toward being a regular old neoliberal mixed market.

The state is incompatible with socialism.

however, I don't agree about the pessimist analysis that the state will always create a new bourgeoisie class, but its truth that so far, it has done so.
I simply argue that if we want to avoid this, we need a real democracy.

[Daniel-Franklin]

Pretty sure we're not talking about Communism, Socialism and Communism are not the same.

as I already explained more the once. the reason why (socialist) democratic socialist, market socialist, rise as an alternative to communism is because of the failure of autocratic (communists system) who became failed state, due the corruption of their bureaucracy ( or their crystallization)

Democracy is the only way to prevent such a event for a communist regime, since it can simulate a permanent revolution.
the only other alternative would be revolution after revolution. Revolution for the shake of revolution, as you can think this lead to pointless blood spilled and this cannot be sustained.

This, to be fair.

Marxist-Leninists tend to think that the system serves bourgeoisie interests alone and that it cannot be democratically taken or reformed, only overthrown. I, an anarchist, would go one step further: The STATE serves bourgeoisie interests alone and the existence of the state does not allow for any meaningful degree of socialism.

Every single "revolutionary" state in history has developed a new bourgeoisie class. Google "list of Chinese billionaires." It's a long goddamn list. North Korea is a theocratic absolute monarchy, the Castros and their clique live like kings in Cuba, Vietnam is most of the way toward being a regular old neoliberal mixed market.

The state is incompatible with socialism.

however, I don't agree about the pessimist analysis that the state will always create a new bourgeoisie class, but its truth that so far, it has done so.
I simply argue that if we want to avoid this, we need a real democracy.

Democratic socialism must be democratic enough to respect basic civil liberties, but socialist enough to fight the armed retainers of the bourgeois robber barons. Especially vital once the revolution begins in earnest and the former ruling class seeks to regain its power. Either syndicalism or council-communism works best for this.

[Senkaku]

And Karl Kautsky, a German social democrat, would write in 1912:

The objective of our political struggle remains what it has always been up to now: the conquest of state power through the conquest of a majority in parliament and the elevation of parliament to a commanding position within the state. Certainly not the destruction of state power.

How’s that path to socialism gone for the German social democrats since 1912 lol

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

I suppose it’s possible in theory, but so was Marxism, and that didn’t go well. I think it’s possible, but for reasons already stated I find it very unlikely. And either it wouldn’t be true socialism, or true democracy.

[-Azteca Mexico]

It's possible but it would take a long time to do. Revolution is the best way to do so. Most people forget that's how most republics were formed after all.

[Genivaria]

Ok but if you have an authoritarian state you can't have a socialist society because the state would own the means of production, not the workers

you say this like it's a bad thing in the short term or anti socialist
to quite engels again:

"A revolution is the most authoritarian thing there is!"

if, in the short term, a strong state is needed to preserve socialist gains and make sure that the state doesn't fall to the bourgeoisie then i'm all for that
provided they don't go borderline revisionist like stalin

Yeah I'm not impressed by Engel's attempt to paint all revolution has authoritarianism.

[Hemakral]

all the commies say is "THEORY, MARX, ENGELS, INFIGHTING"
I just wanna overthrow the ruling class for god's sake!

[Deblar]

all the commies say is "THEORY, MARX, ENGELS, INFIGHTING"
I just wanna overthrow the ruling class for god's sake!

Sig worthy

[Thermodolia]

No

[Hemakral]

all the commies say is "THEORY, MARX, ENGELS, INFIGHTING"
I just wanna overthrow the ruling class for god's sake!

Sig worthy

hehe, I did a funny!

oh btw can somebody drop me a linkie to the sig guide

[Fauzjhia]

all the commies say is "THEORY, MARX, ENGELS, INFIGHTING"
I just wanna overthrow the ruling class for god's sake!

what,s the point of overthrow the ruling class, just to have another similar ruling class in its place.
its switching 4 quarters for a dollar.