Democratic Socialism, the Liberal Perversion of Socialism
By: J. Folley
Tags: Marxism, Socialism, Democratic Socialism, Communism, Liberal Democracy

Socialism as we discussed earlier can be defined as (in the context of a mode of production) a system which,“…ensures production for benefit through the abolition of capitalist accumulation and the allocation of basic necessities to the population.” (“Why Market Socialism Is Still Capitalism — Google Docs”). This quote shows what socialism should be however this would not be applicable to a system which wished to preserve the markets which make up capitalist production. According to one source i used to research the central tenants however, DemSocism advocateds for market socialism as an economic model which goes against the central tenant of actual socialism:“a society orientated for social needs”. If socialism is about having a society oriented towards social needs then one could assume that ‘social needs’ would go against the profit motivated decisions of a market. If this is the case then democratic ‘socialism’ would deny the benefit of social needs of the whole economy to all those whom (the broader working class) are not within the enterprise of which they work. This would mean that the entire economy is in fact not in a format in which the goal is social needs of society-as they are keeping markets-and simply ignoring the problems of distributing resources to all peoples. The following quote demonstrates this failure of democratic socialism.

“…Under “Market Socialism”, the nationwide plan does not serve to organize production. Instead of production for benefit of society, production for profit is realized through the co-operative market (in other words, it’s capitalism without the capitalists).” Some people make the grand mistake of arguing that capitalism requires capitalists. This is wrong because in order for it to be valid capitalism would have had to be a result of the capitalists. This is far from the truth…

From this one must make the connection back to the nature of a capitalistic mode of production and it’s many issues. The nature of modern day capitalism came to form a state entwined with the capitalist class; however the mode of production that is capitalism is based on the socio-economic system of capitalism-not the presence of the capitalist class. As an example of this one can point to the Law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. The market ‘socialist’ system-of which democratic socialists advocate-would be prone to this economic law due to it still operating under the same economic laws of a capitalist mode of production. Due to the falling rate of profit a market socialist economy would-not unlike current capitalist economies-experience a stagnation of wage growth, a growth in unemployment and an emergence of a reserve labour army. This is (normally) a sign of a growing economic contradiction between a capitalist and the labourer as a capitalist is forced to cut costs to make up for their loss of profit-as this is the most ‘rational’ decision in a market economy. In a Democratic Socialist economy just because there is no capitalist in their proposed co-operative economy, this would not exclude these co-operatives from the pressures such contradictions that (market economies broadly speaking) capitalistic modes of production produce. These Co-ops would have to to lay off multiple workers, cut workers dividends of the profit (share of output) or centralize economic power to a new kind of capitalist.

For individuals with the goal of supposedly,”…not to rein in the excesses of capitalism for a few decades at a time — we want to end our society’s subservience to the market”(Day) their systems seem to be willing to cater to market oriented systems. To add to this point one can simply look at the surprisingly accurate description given at the beginning of the article “They are not traditional socialists. There is no call for communal ownership of production,” said an MSNBC anchor while attempting to define “democratic socialism,”(Day). Despite this clear display of anti-socialist and pro-capitalist rhetoric and proposed policy, these individuals are still considered to be socialists by the public.

“Democratic” Socialism (Liberalism in a Red Coat)

When i say that Democratic Socialism is liberalism in a red coat, i mean to point out specifically that the format of political governance (from what I’ve read) does not change from the status quo: Liberal Democracy. Now if you wished to operate a liberal democracy you have to recon with the dissatisification of the current liberal democratic format. The fact that a majority of average Americans (51%) are dissatisfied with how Liberal Democracy functions is already an issue (and that isn’t even getting into the average Americans’ view of congress), if you wish to preserve such a system you must recon with it’s flaws. The following is a rather large expert from a piece i wrote about the issues with liberal democracies.

The problems with [Liberal Democracy] representative democracy are often not seen as problems in the same way that the problems with direct democracy. While direct democracy is not an inherent failure of governance-from a citizen point of view-representative democracy has been taken over and corrupted so much the average citizen is unable to realize this is not democracy. The republican will often use the word ‘liberal’ to describe democrats in a negative light, however in reality both republican’s and democrats are both liberals. Both parties are based on ideas of political liberalism and advocate for the same political system and organization:liberal democracy. Liberal democracy is merely a description of the representative system of democracy, separation of powers into different branches, generally advocating for ‘political freedom’, and operating under the principles of the constitution.

The next segment discuss the issues with lobbying in liberal democracies.

The corporation and capital is the natural corrupter of Liberal Democracy and of representative democracy in general. The individual politician when subject to pressure to perform political tasks for their constituents, may instead be tempted with monetary compensation more lucrative than their loyalty and thus is pron to corrupt. In fact liberal democracy has made its system work for the benefit of corporations and allowed the individual vote to be snuffed out by big business and elites. The corporation attacks the very principles of liberal democracy (life and liberty), and by the aesthetics of liberal democracy one can assume that liberal democracy would not allow such a transformation into a illiberal format. But corporations not much unlike liberal democracy wish to preserve the status quo by any means necessary, unfortunately this has come to mean something abhorrently exploitative:lobbying. In this very direct form of political manipulation you see such situations and an outlook on corporations as negative forces in politics as demonstrated by the following quote, “…before the Citizens United v. FEC ruling removed constraints on corporate political spending, 80 percent of Americans agreed with the following statement: ‘I am worried that large political contributions will prevent Congress from tackling the important issues facing American today, like the economic crisis, rising energy costs, reforming health care, and global warming.’” (“Corporate Capture Threatens Democratic Government — Center for American Progress”). However, the average American is too busy either as a wage slave to said corporations to gain any form of class consciousness and gain any differing idea of a new form of democracy. Instead, a reformed (or entirely new) political system is dismissed as impossible and incompatible with such American values as personal responsibility and ‘freedom of thought’. As a Socialist I say we burn these false doctrines, as the founding fathers who advocated for the freedom of thought and expression would wish us to do. To hold onto an outdated document restricting our freedom is antithetical to the idea of the constantly changing and evolving American nation. Perhaps the abolition of the liberal nation state is a truer form of freedom than one can achieve in our current system.

Another view of America’s political system

The above document shows the distrust most people have toward congress and it’s corrupt corporate owned politicians. With an average of the survey (conducted over 21 years) more than 60% of people believe most members of congress are corrupt politicians showing more accurately the distrust of the liberal establishment.

To further demonstrate this point i will cite from another article i have written about liberal democracy and it’s relationship with corporations.

The label of ‘citizen’ [in a liberal democracy] grants the individual certain rights and educates and wires you to ascribe only to the ideas of liberal democratic values. Corporations within the capitalist liberal (democratic) state have an intimate relationship with each other, both of which delegitimize and suppress individual thought and action. One of perhaps the best examples of the dangers of corporations is a case in the supposed epicenter of democracy: the US of A. The republican party is the only political party in 195 countries including North korea, China and India that actively participates in climate change denial. The only reason the republican party does this is simply for the massive oil and gas companies which sponsor and raise money for a majority of their party reps. This can be demonstrated in the following interview with former Rhode Island Congresswoman Claudine Schneider,” Why has the Republican Party shifted? I have one answer for you: Money. They have been bought off by the fossil fuel industry. If it’s a congressman from Virginia, or [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell from Kentucky — where they have the coal or some of the oil and fracking interest — there’s a very clear correlation. There’s a reason there’s the phrase “follow the money.” Because if you do, you will see that the voting correlates with those major contributors to the Republican party, and most of them happen to be in the fossil fuel regions of our country.” (Bologna). This quote demonstrates the brazenly undemocratic actions taken by both corrupt capitalist institutions and representatives who betray the trust of their constituents.

To finish off this article on why democratic socialism is utter rubbish i will cite some further writing about the political system of which it wishes to build off of.

The Historic Unpopularity of the U.S Congress

The historical unpopularity of the U.S congress is one that should be of great embarrassment to a nation predicated on the ideas of a government ‘by the people, for the people’. The fact that congress has continuously been not only a controversial tool for questionable political agenda is not a new concept at all. Congress has constantly been known for being a divisive and horrible system for representing the people. As I’ve mentioned previously congressmen and their has been bought and sold many times it’s sometimes hard to believe populist leaders who advocate for change within the current political system. If we look at polls taken showcasing the views the American people have on their congressional body which helps dictate the laws of the land, you see a divisive and hostile look at these supposed ‘representatives’-which represent nothing if not the legal corruption of a system.

The above document is a description of the average a]Americans view of the political system of their country, as you can see only a small minority of the population has any confidence in it. With a majority of the data falling into the not very much approved category, it is clear that a change needs to be made if American society is to be ‘for the people, and by the people’. With a simple look at the disapproval rating of the congressional body, the legislative branch for the last 11 years-both parties-have had a similar distrust ratings of over 56%. It would be reasonable to assume there may be a few issues with our current system just with that statistic alone. The fact that collectively, the average of people who have a great deal of trust in the US government doesn’t even reach over 10% or 6% most years should say a great deal about how well our system functions.

This article was written with a very particular target:Democratic socialists and others who believe in similarly reformist ‘socialist’ models. My message to these individuals is that they should read a bit more theory and educate their opinions beyond their current levels. In crude terms: Read some Fucking Marx.

Works cited page