Why is it that democratic socialism would fail?

No? Democratic Socialism is literally Social Democracy all over again, hell, people like Olof Palme called themselves Democratic Socialists.

Because you can't compromise with capitalism

Read Luxemburg, Reform or Revolution.

Go to >>>/freedu/ its in the general left literature thread there

Socialism, while not necessarily being focused on Democracy, has democratic features already within it, saying you are a "Democratic" Socialist is something pussies do so they don't get associated with the Bolsheviks

sage for can we please start banning demsoc/socdems they aren't leftists

Nope

Why not?

All great Socialist organizations throughout time, even the more Libertarian ones, had measures to purge liberal opportunists from their ranks why not Holla Forums

How are they not?
politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab83.htm

Centre-Left=/= left sorry

Because this is a discussion forum, not an operational body. If it were the latter, I would agree with you.

Oh so we should just let Holla Forums make as many threads as they want about why we're all cucks since this is a place for discussion?

Got it

Gotta say I agree with the tripfag on this one. What Holla Forums is doing isn't so much making a public speech as they playing a foghorn to prevent others from speaking. Like fine, let's debate them, but Holla Forums doesn't really have a sincere interest in debating. If they did they wouldn't flood us with cuckposting etc. Deleting Holla Forums bait threads is just deleting spam, not censoring sincere speech.

I think there's a difference between a polyp coming here to cuckpost, and a SocDem coming here to discuss ideas. If they're not shitposting and they're looking to have a two-way dialogue rather than monologue about why we're wrong and they're right, then why not allow any posters here. It won't damage the quality of the place to have incorrect views proven to be wrong by intelligent discussion.

Because that works so well with the Holla Forumslacks right. My point is that SocDems more often than not are on the same level as Holla Forumslacks insofar as THEY come here specifically to tell us why THEY are right and why we are wrong and no matter what you say they find a way around it (usually by being the ones who shitpost)

Ultimately in a democracy their attacks require them to convince the public to vote for politicians who will chip away at the public benefits. You can point to examples like Thatcher for reductions of public benefits in previously more social-democratic countries, but to what extent is this actually a universal trend? Have public services in the Scandinavian social democracies been greatly reduced since, say, the 1970s? Also, what's your explanation for how these public benefits got instituted in the first place in states that were previously more laissez-faire, presumably despite the opposition of most of the bourgeoisie? It doesn't seem like there's any kind of iron law of history you can point to here, more like a historically-contingent tendency that's been seen since the 1980s.

And thinking about the future, imagine a scenario–likely realizable within the next 50 years or so–where pretty much all the labor in mass-production (along with other relatively unskilled manual labor like construction and farming) has been taken over by machines, and these production machines can themselves be constructed by other machines. In this case you'd have a combination of very cheap goods (no surplus labor to make profits on goods, so their price gets driven down to barely more than the price of the raw materials and energy that must be supplied to the machines that make them) and far fewer jobs that don't require advanced training. This would lead to high political pressure for a livable basic income (enough to buy sufficient numbers of these cheap goods for a materially comfortable lifestyle) in any democratic state, or to expand it if some more minimal basic income already existed. And if there was a livable basic income, then while capitalists might have some preference to reduce it (though the preference might not be all that strong if the cheapness of goods meant the taxes needed to fund a livable basic income weren't very high), it would be hard to get the large numbers of the public who depend on basic income to support any politician who wanted to reduce it (similar to how Republicans in the U.S. haven't had much success in their desires to reduce social security or medicare because voters are strongly against it).

What happens in that near-future scenario when the means of production don't actually require the assistance of human workers to churn out goods, and capitalist profits depend mainly on paying workers who produce intellectual property or provide services, not on profits from production of material goods? What would "taking over the means of production" look like for a software company where the programmers' own personal computers are sufficient for the work they need to do, and the capitalists are just organizing programmers into a project and using their capital to pay the workers an income for a product that may take a while to actually turn a profit?

Define "fail", I am a de facto democratic socialist (yearning for revolution and upheaval) but I don't believe the ballot box will ever bring communism to society, but merely at best making capitalism more palatable for the masses whilst unfortunately delaying the much needed revolution that would actually help society get things done.

I'm democratic socialist only because I'm making the best of a situation, I always tell disillusioned non-voters to vote not because it will transform society (I mock anyone who spouts such naive platitudes), but rather that if the elite can offer us crumbs in their rigged carnival game, then we should take what we can for now.

Can these SocDem newfags stop shitting up the board please?

We get it, you're enthusiastic about your failed ideology, but you don't need half a dozen threads to express that.

Fail to do what?

Because democracy and socialism are incompatible. You need a totalitarian state to destroy all traces of independent thought, culture, etc. in order to have social ownership.

It would look like those programmers organizing themselves instead. As any other workers revolution would. As you correctly point out, technology is increasingly making the capitalist functionally obsolete, all that is left to do is expropriate the wealth he still gains from his now pointless existence as capitalist.

That's a good way to have programming projects without capitalists, but it doesn't involve any means of production being seized as in traditional socialism. Also, I'd say the main reason programmers don't do that regularly today is that they need salaries to live on day-to-day, while capitalists can afford to invest a bunch of money in paying the workers a salary and not collect the profits on the software product until a bunch of time has passed. But if you had a livable basic income, this obstacle would disappear, and so I think you'd see a lot more of these worker-organized collective projects and decreasing dominance of capitalists in the economy without any need for a revolution.

Social-democracy-with-livable-basic-income is really a fundamentally different thing that social democracy without it IMO, and would have a lot more dramatic effects on economic life and people's freedom to spend their time how they choose rather than being wave slaves.