8 Answers

  1. There is no difference: both have nothing to do with socialism. Socialism as a part of communism is the process of destroying (removing) private property, namely, the alienated relations of production of distribution, then exchange, and finally the sectoral division of labor. As a result, what Lenin called a “factory country” will be fully realized: each according to his ability, each according to his work, and the measure of labor will be measured by the time or effort spent on it. = “Full socialism” – Lenin.

  2. “Democratic socialism”, as far as I remember, was created in the propaganda centers of NATO as a program of ideological struggle against the USSR, where socialism was still being built under constant military, economic, cultural, propaganda pressure (14 powers in 1919) of the West in the form of an “iron curtain” created by the West practically during the Second World War. (Capitalism cannot exist without wars, as Dwight Eisenhower confirmed in his farewell speech on the military-industrial complex.) Churchill was actually preparing to use 800,000 captured fascists to strike at the Soviet Army. Seventeen Moments of Spring), and completed after Churchill's Fulton speech, at the insistence of Truman, intoxicated by the atomic bombing of Japan. Churchill did a lot of shit in the world, saving his beloved empire-colonial England, but honestly warning Stalin about his hatred of socialism. It was this bulldog who ordered strikes in 1943-1945. in the back of Communist partisans fighting with the Wehrmacht in Greece, Italy, and other countries and colonialists-the French in Vietnam. Our young people do not know that the iron curtain was created by the world bourgeoisie, extremely alarmed by the victories of the socialist Soviet Union over almost the entire capitalist system, which prepared World War II and sent troops of many European countries against the USSR according to the decision taken in Munich in 1938 by Hitler and his “friend” Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of England. Marx warned of such a danger in the event of the victory of the socialist revolution in a particular country, surrounded by countries that have become rich from plundering colonies, without achieving the success of socialists in many developed countries of capitalism. Now the world bourgeoisie is extremely afraid of a global socialist revolution as a result of the next colossal crisis. See the Financial Times for April 22!!! 2019 report on the meeting of the Finance Committee of the US Congress: are you for socialism or capitalism?.

  3. There is no difference. Both are the screen of capitalism.

    Socialism is a political dictatorship of the proletariat and an economy based on public ownership of the means of production. All.

  4. Let's not kid ourselves about the next one. Any term is self-contained. There are no additional definitions for it. If there is no need to distort its interpretation. There are two distortions in the question. 1. There is no democratic or libertarian socialism. Socialism is never non-democratic. Socialism is not libertarian. You don't need to look for the difference in the offer of nothing, in empty-empty. 2. There is no libertarianism other than liberalism. He's on the right of the political spectrum. That is why it cannot be integrated into left-wing socialism. Their nature and attitude to people do not coincide.

  5. Who are these “WE KNOW”people? In order to establish this fact, it is necessary to really know, and first of all: – WHAT IS SOCIALISM in its essence?

    For example, I know a lot of things, but just to put the question mentioned above and know the answer to it myself, it took me about 45 years of research work in the field of SOCIAL STUDIES with historical layers from 4-5 thousand years to the present day. So that not WE, but only a few people around the world know, and you are so confused in your own snot, not even knowing the simple terminology.

  6. It is that socialism cannot be created as non-democratic. By its definition, it is no different. It presupposes a society for all-freedom in equality. Therefore, emphasize its democratic nature? What to remind about butter: butter. And libertarianism does not imply socialism. Basically. This ideology does not provide for freedom and equality. Generally. All.

  7. Democratic socialism is a type of socialism that emphasizes its democratic nature.

    Proponents of this ideology believe that public ownership and control of the means of production should be combined with political democracy. In terms of economics, the views of supporters of demsocialism range from supporting a mixed economy to transferring all the means of production to distributed ownership among labor collectives.
    While Libertarian socialism is a set of socialist political philosophies dedicated to resisting authoritarian coercion and social hierarchy, in particular the institutions of capitalism and the state.

  8. It's quite big. The following difference can be distinguished:

    1) Theoretical difference. Democratic socialists proceed from an evolutionary view of the development of society and the gradual development of capitalism into socialism. They advocate a combination of formal representative democracy with the idea of gradually expanding the practice of group private ownership to public ownership. Libertarian socialists believe that freedom from the coercion and control of the capitalist state (including symbolic coercion through propaganda and manipulation in the media) is the highest value. They advocate a de facto civil revolution – through mass strikes and civil nonviolent resistance, and the revolutionary development of society from below.

    2) Practical difference. All known social democratic movements either came to power and were reborn (European traditional social democrats), or implemented social democratic reforms, combining democratic and authoritarian tendencies (Hugo Chavez, etc.), or were overthrown by the right (Salvator Allende in Chile). As a rule, Social Democrats did not manage to escape the influence of big capital after coming to power through formally democratic elections, and even such an instrument as a referendum did not save them. They have always underestimated grassroots democracy (Councils, trade unions, local self-government). On the other hand, libertarian socialists, which are mainly left-wing anarchists and Marxist autonomists, were distinguished by the fact that they advocated “grassroots action”, street protest activity and rejected parliamentarism, seeing it only as a form of bureaucratic and capitalist coercion. As a result, their movements often broke up, because they did not have a clear organizational character, and were largely situational. In their attempt to avoid the “temptation of authoritarianism”, they also rejected the idea of a rigid organization that could carry out that very revolutionary action. In addition, by refusing to fight formally in parliament, they pushed themselves out of public policy and made it impossible for them to be present in the media.

    In fact, the tactics of fighting them were completely different between the “system parties” and big capital. Social democrats or democratic socialists were mostly tried to “tame” them, flirted with them, allowed to “play democracy”, but when they came to power and tried to carry out reforms, they organized military coups against them, and so on. As a result, most of these parties and movements were neutralized by “bribing leaders” and “degenerating organizations”, while a smaller part (and this is mainly in the third world) was crushed by blockades, terror, and coups. The conversation with libertarian socialists was even shorter. They were simply branded radicals, extremists, violence was used against their actions, their literature was always destroyed or prevented from being distributed. At the same time, they supported the point of view about the lack of organization (spread through the media), pointing to the “bureaucratic degeneration of the authoritarian left” (that is, the USSR). As a result, they became harmless, because if they managed to gain the upper hand for a moment, they could not organize themselves and their scattered groups were mired in squabbles and battles among themselves, and then the state came and dispersed them. The working environment also gradually began to alienate them, because the capitalist enterprise gave the workers some guarantees and showed them a structure that could be hated, but with which it was possible to negotiate or fight, while the leaders of the” libertarians ” called them to protest, and then in the midst of them left them or could not organize the work of what they themselves led. Therefore, trade unions in Europe began to refrain from politics and engage only in economic struggle, and “libertarians” migrated to the environment of young people, students, as well as migrants or marginals (which was actively used by their opponents against them). In the United States, things are even worse with libertarian socialists, where the word “socialism “or” communism “is something like” devil “or” satan ” for ordinary Americans, so their street propaganda in the masses does not reach the goal at all among the middle or even working strata. Why, in the United States, even democratic socialists such as Bernie Sanders are considered “extreme left rioters” by the media.

Leave a Reply