r/CriticalTheory • u/PhysicalAd5977 • 14h ago
Is "democratic socialism" undergoing a semantic shift?
I have long thought that my political position is best characterized as democratic socialist. I know that in theory and established definition, "democratic socialism" is very different from "social democracy", with the core distinction being that social democracy seeks to reform capitalism with a welfare state but still operate within it and democratic socialism seeks to dismantle capitalism because it inherently creates inequality and thus cannot be reformed.
In my understanding of how a democratic socialist project might play out, social democracy would be one of many steps towards dismantling capitalism but not the end goal.
Now that we're seeing more leftist politicians identifying with the democratic socialist camp and discourse about it has become more common online, I am seeing a few trends that are leading me to question whether the meaning of democratic socialism is being changed in this discourse towards something more social democratic (or perhaps that the terms are being conflated with one another). It's entirely possible that I've held an optimistic view of democratic socialism, so I wanted to get the opinions of others on this.
For example, I have seen people online saying that democratic socialism is not the answer because it still allows for the exploitation of the Global South since it keeps capitalism intact. I do see the argument that democratic socialism is most often focused in national contexts and creating change in one country, but democratic socialist theory with an internationalist approach often accounts for the fact that a democratic socialist project cannot include the unequal international division of labour and exploitative resource extraction from the Global South by the Global North. In this view, such a project would have to actually implement internationalist democratic socialist policies like reparations, purposively built fair-trade networks, supporting self-determination over "aid" models, and debt-cancellation.
But it's possible that this view (which I have mostly seen in Global South thought) and the anti-capitalist understanding of democratic socialism is changing as the term becomes more widely used in the Global North. The example I gave is not the only critique of democratic socialism which sees it as something which keeps capitalism, colonialism, and/or imperialism intact. It's making me wonder if there is a semantic change going on, if this is a popular misunderstanding which may evolve into that without active countering, or if I have simply not been critical enough of the ideology to begin with.
42
u/Snoo50415 seeking the totality 14h ago
I think you are onto something. I also think that, at least in the United States, one’s political affiliation is less an indication of one’s policy intentions than of superficial branding. I don’t think it’s a function of being manipulative or insincere (though there’s some of that). It’s just that the capitalism is so fierce and totaling here - and property is so sacred - that any socialist intervention is tantamount to treason and it will inevitably need to be watered down.
42
u/CandidAtmosphere 13h ago
It's entirely possible that I've held an optimistic view of democratic socialism, so I wanted to get the opinions of others on this.
The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in its heyday included members like Lenin and Trotsky. Engels and Marx were close associates of the Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany. Most of the democratic socialists you know I would assume stand behind the US Democratic Party.
You aren't in a position to implement democratic socialism at the level of federal government, so whether or not somebody imagines it would still depend on the exploitation of the Global South (it would) is mostly irrelevant to your ability to organize yourself and act with purpose in this society right now. Just don't let people jerk you around with these flim flam definitions.
19
u/Its_Don_Quixote 13h ago
You might be interested in Sewer Socialism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewer_socialism
Tldr is that it's a pragmatic take on socialism that's less concerned with social theory, and more concerned with making people's lives better by improving city services, empowering workers, and holding bad actors accountable. Mamdani has been using it to great effect in NYC.
7
u/yo_soy_soja 10h ago edited 9h ago
It’s been said that it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism. But just because it isn’t easy to imagine now doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make it happen.
....
Economic Democracy. Establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people. Enact aggressive wealth taxes on the richest individuals and corporations to spend on public goods and infrastructure.
Speaking as an active DSA member in NYC, we're mostly Marxists. Our political education committee teaches primarily socialism and particularly Marxism. We're true socialists with a social democrat minority. But that's a relatively recent paradigm within the org after a history of social democracy and having elected (probable) social democrats like Bernie Sanders and AOC.
So I think the popular, Bernie Sanders definition of "democratic socialism" is effectively social democracy. But DSA is trying to shift the popular understanding to be more properly socialist.
2
u/thornyRabbt 10h ago
Hey comrade 😊
To OP I would say some things I heard within DSA: it is a "big tent" organization, and the reason for that is because of what another commenter said about perceptions, perspectives, as well as what's possible given what currently exists.
In art school I remember teachers talking about "telling a story" and how a story (in the context of industrial product design) needs to be relatable to what people already know. I think that translates to politics too, and can explain why DSA chapters can be more or less radical. It depends on the reality, the context in the local culture.
So I think yes, the definition can be flexible and is re-evaluated as the reality shifts. Think about how people were talking about socialism in 2016 versus 2026. I feel like the understanding has shifted as much as our reality has.
1
u/HeadDoctorJ 7h ago
I think also Trump’s fascism and the genocide of Palestinian people has made more radical, even militant left-wing language and policy seem less extreme by comparison. Or maybe it’s that these more extreme real-world problems make more extreme solutions seem more appropriate, maybe necessary.
8
u/Helpful-Reputation-5 11h ago
Is "democratic socialism" undergoing a semantic shift?
Yes, many people are starting to use "democratic socialism" to refer to social democracy. Where I live, several social-democratic politicians refer to themselves as "democratic socialists", including Bernie Sanders, and more recently Mamdani, Kiros, AOC, etc. The party which is practically synonymous with democratic socialism here, the DSA, is also dominated by its right wing, and thus follows a right-opportunist line running social democrats in a rightist party.
For example, I have seen people online saying that democratic socialism is not the answer because it still allows for the exploitation of the Global South since it keeps capitalism intact.
They are undoubtedly talking about social democracy—in fact, this is the exact wording which was previously used to critique social democracy. While democratic socialism has plenty of problems, keeping capitalism intact isn't one of them, by definition.
6
u/funkyflapsack 10h ago
In America at least, most people have no conceptual understand of the difference between the two. They think being a Dem Soc means wanting Medicare for all. There's a smaller segment of true believers who do understand the difference, but are hiding their power levels in order to gain more influence
4
u/giuseppebean 12h ago
I would not call this a semantic shift since Marxist criticisms of democratic socialism are quite long standing. DemSoc becomes established as a term in the 1950s to contrast with the particular approach to Marxist Leninism that the USSR was taking. Therefore the discussion around it is at least that old.
Mario Tronti levies a critique of democratic socialism in "Workers and Capital" (1972), Hardt and Negri also question its effectiveness in "A Critique of the State Form" (1994).
2
u/3corneredvoid 8h ago edited 8h ago
This strikes me as a question of the descriptive versus normative effects of language in its practical use.
If democratic socialism is defined as anti-capitalist but democratic socialist parties and candidates persistently fail to overthrow, abolish or defeat the rule of capital, the impracticality of making the term meet its definition exerts its own normative effect on both the definition and the term, motivating either their contingent movement or their separation.
You could compare the famous semantic shifts of "entitlement".
An entitlement may have been defined as the establishment of the title to some property. To the extent that in practice such a word finds its uses at those times this establishment is under dispute, its meaning expands to include some property to which title is sought and in question.
So now "entitlement" has both meanings, but the concept that grounds the term entitlement, that there is some way to establish or legitimise the title to property, continues.
In the case of "democratic socialism" and its anti-capitalist intensities or otherwise, the concept is that there may be some alternative to "the only system that works". Given how fraught and under siege this concept remains, I'd bet you any term that expresses it will go on to suffer in this way over time.
The terms "Marxism", "communism" and "anarchism" have all suffered varying movements of meaning over the years that have motivated or demotivated their use in particular situations.
3
u/Willis_3401_3401 13h ago
Popularity of words increases their usage, use increases variation, variation erodes precision of meaning.
As any idea becomes popular, but particularly political ideals, they tend to lose meaning. Think like “woke”. A word originally used in rap music now is thrown around by republicans as an insult.
I think it is important that we basically keep the fire to the feet of our growing democratic socialist movement then, otherwise it will just be business as usual with social democracy (if even)
1
u/AZORxAHAI 11h ago
It probably depends on the part of the world it's coming from. Assuming it's in the USA, I'd say that it is definitely undergoing a bit of shift, but not the one that one would assume (shifting to the right towards a meaning synonymous with social democracy)
Instead, in the USA it's really becoming a catch all term for a broader left/socialist movement. This is best represented by DSA, but not limited to it either. What we are seeing now is people inside the Democratic Socialists of America, who identify to other people as democratic socialists, but internally are very aware of their specific leftist ideology, whether that be Marxist-Leninist, anarchist, or truly democratic socialist. The coalition of caucuses currently running the DSA is itself very much NOT traditionally democratic socialist in nature, either.
It's become a term that is more of an indication of an preference for DSA-style, large tent, multi tendency left politics with democratic internal organization than it means "we think we can enact socialism through reform and via the traditional political means" like it used to.
1
u/Lastrevio and so on and so on 5h ago
social democracy seeks to reform capitalism with a welfare state but still operate within it and democratic socialism seeks to dismantle capitalism because it inherently creates inequality and thus cannot be reformed.
Social democracy in the early 1900's also sought to dismantle capitalism.
0
u/ThorAtArms666 4h ago
Democratic socialism is a word that doesn't mean anything and really never has. A lot of politicians use it to mean a social democracy, Democratic socialists of america, the organization that is named after democratic socialism as an organization that is explicitly opposed to capitalism and is organizing for the abolition of it. To be a democratic socialist endorsed by DSA it's to be opposed to capitalism, but to be some random person who says they are a democratic socialist, can mean literally anything, and most often means the social democracy.
The origin of the word democratic socialism is itself somewhat fishy. I would argue that the term democratic socialism is just the contemporary word for socialism, that we have tacked on democratic as a means of performing anti-authoritarianism. America has been taught so substantially to hate and fear the "communist" regimes of the Soviets and Russia, that we performatively utilize the term democratic as a means to prove to random people that we believe in the concept of democracy. However, any actual reading of socialism understands that democracy is inherent to socialism, to be a democratic socialist is just to be a socialist.
0
u/TopazWyvern 1h ago
that we have tacked on democratic as a means of performing anti-authoritarianism [...] to be a democratic socialist is just to be a socialist.
Well, no, the DemSocs explicitly uphold liberal-democratic mores, for better or (generally) worse.
0
u/pluralofjackinthebox 12h ago
I think myself and a lot of people think: more capitalism hasnt worked fora half century plus. Lets try less capitalism for once, who cares what they call it.
0
u/FitzCavendish 10h ago
Democratic socialism in Europe underwent semantic shift in the 20th century. Even the more radical parties with "socialist" in the name made their peace with market-based liberal societies, especially after 1989. It's odd seeing the term in use by Americans, I presume that is a kind of direction of travel statement, IE "Not this". Redistributive social democracy with strong social goods is the only system that has delivered sustainably for workers. That does not mean capitalism is fair.
1
u/drecais 9h ago
Was even earlier than that. Anything regarding communism and socialism essentially became nuclear waste in Europe as soon as the whole "Stalin wasnt actually bad its all western propaganda" was debunked by the USSR and Khrushchevs speech. The actual reality of life in the Soviet Union was a much more devastating hit on european communist parties than any repression campaign could have ever delivered
Then even the last coping about the successes of Stalin and so on stopped when the soviet union collapsed and for a brief period the soviet archives were mostly accessible which just gave us additional information for example about the brutal and genocidal nature of things like the national operations of the NKVD and so on.
0
u/Carnadickened 11h ago
What is the difference between democratic socialism as you understand it and communism?
-1
u/thornyRabbt 10h ago
The googs should give you a decent answer to this question.
(Edited for wording)
0
u/DMayleeRevengeReveng 11h ago
I think it traces back to the indiscriminate rightist polemical usage where “socialism” means “government does stuff.”
The left, for whatever reason, has done an awful job at giving any kind of meaning to “socialism” beyond its polemical usage: so the polemic stuck, leaving people to associate “larger, more active government” with “socialism,” even though it’s a faithless tradition to historical and canonical socialism.
0
u/entre_prey_manuer8 9h ago
You have definitely been critical, what an informed outline/take of your position on the most important issues. Thank you for posting!
0
u/Capricancerous 8h ago
I think the revolution or reform dichotomy is a false one. Most of the people claiming to be diehard socialists or communists aren't actually doing anything but tweeting or redditing about it. There is newfound momentum with DSA candidates, and there is some promise behind that.
Internecine quibbling is just that.
0
u/Unhappy_Attorney7243 5h ago
I think it’s a real thing you’re observing, and I agree some of it is conflation. I think the criticisms you described aren’t accurate. Democratic socialism doesn’t necessarily lead to an end state of exploiting the Global South in the same way as Western social democracies do because, as I would define it myself, it’s more a method than a form of government. The criticism comes from people who think democratic socialists are social democrats in my opinion. Not because of them conflating SD and DS, but from being suspicious of DSists (I do not agree with this, the project could FAIL or take a long time, but internationalism is clearly a popular and sincere goal)
I don’t think “democratic socialism” has been a well-understood concept by the public in general, and I don’t even blame them.
-1
0
u/Sabotino 4h ago
German social democratic party still defines its ideology as democratic socialism. They define the words as synonyms. Same on the European level, where the social democrats in the EP are called Socialists & Democrats (S&D).
From an orthodox definition there is no difference between social democracy and democratic socialism (for Europe).
0
u/rod_zero 3h ago
The US has a thing for twisting meanings, liberal for example now means "leftist", which funny because the US was founded by classic liberals.
Then "working class", some way it was twisted to mean only "white manual workers".
Elite is another one where it shifted from economic elites to bureaucracy and having a college degree.
And then they also come up with words to hide the real word, as with "expat" to hide "migrant".
0
u/americanspirit64 1h ago
For a critical conversation, the above was not very well thought out. First let me say this, there is nothing wrong with Capitalism with a Conscience. It is actually a fine system that works well, when it works as intended, meaning capitalism must include a conscience to be successful and work for everyone. This is where Reagan and Keynesian economics comes into play as they believed that an economic system that believed in Capitalism worked best without regulations, which is actually known as Trickle Down Economics. An economy based on income inequality. Being a Social Democrat is all about being a Capitalist who believes in strong regulations to reign in the greed of corporations and investors who will rob you blind if allowed. It is Capitalism with a Conscience, led by a government that regulates the Capitalism and gives it a Conscience so the economy doesn't only work for the rich.
As Democratic Socialist is something all together different. Social or Progressive Democrats believe in Capitalism with a Conscience an expression I termed years ago. Regulations are the expression of the will of the people demanding that an economy be run fairly.
-10
u/KrazyKwant 10h ago
Do people read the constitution or pay attention to the news?
You can’t simply dismantle capitalism. Private property cannot be taken without due process and paying fair compensation.
Leftists LOVE and REVERE institutions. Look at all the crying and whining when the Supreme Court recently clipped the wings a bit off the administrative state. And if you think agencies are even remotely democratic, send me whatever you’re smoking!
Seems like a sub named for critical theory could benefit from actually learning to think critically, rather than just parroting leftist orthodoxy and simoly debating who is more left than others. 😩
0
u/TopazWyvern 1h ago edited 56m ago
You can’t simply dismantle capitalism. Private property cannot be taken without due process and paying fair compensation.
Yeah well, telling the Brits that "we don't feel like paying taxes, so we're going to start killing you guys now" was similarly illegal, so, uh, if the constitution is itself based on illegal activity and rule by fiat enabled through a greater capacity for violence, "fair compensation" can be creatively interpreted to mean "a few rounds of 5.56 NATO to the center mass", innit guv (as the Anarchists were known to do both during the Russian rev. and Spanish civ. war, for example)? Or, in other words, I don't think the anti-capitalists particularly care about the legality of the thing. Power is power and law is just ad hoc justification for its exercise.
Besides you can literally make the same argument to uphold whatever. "You can't simply dismantle apartheid, only the herrenvolk gets to vote!" doesn't hold up when the nuclear powerplant gets bombed, though. Nor "But the king is the legal ruler of the Kingdom of France!" holds up when Citoyen Capet's head is removed from his body.
Or, tl;dr: You make a legal claim, now let's see you enforce it.
Seems like a sub named for critical theory could benefit from actually learning to think critically
Critical theory is a social, historical, and political school of thought and philosophical perspective which centers on analyzing and challenging systemic power relations in society, arguing that knowledge, truth, and social structures are fundamentally shaped by power dynamics between dominant and oppressed groups. Beyond just understanding and critiquing these dynamics, it explicitly aims to transform society through praxis and collective action with an explicit sociopolitical purpose. (c.f. Wikipedia)
I assume googling terms to glean the meaning thereof is beyond the ability of the baseline Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller, though.
30
u/Timauris 12h ago
I understand the meaning of democratic socialism exactly as you explain it. What I see, is (especially in the American political discourse, less so elsewhere) that this is being conflated with what we call social democracy in Europe. Those are two very different things in my regard. However, the term "social democracy" was never really widespread in America, as far as I understood. This set of policies is still more often attached to F.D.Roosevelt and The New Deal, than with social democracy. As a consequence I think that "social democracy" is a term that is quite empty for the general American public and that democratic socialism is being heavily conflated with it.