All socialism is democratic, so I assume you mean reformist socialism. Reformism has extremely specific and limited use-cases, Allende being a short-lived example. Chile was able to successfully elect a Marxist, but he was ousted in a coup. It isn’t impossible, but relying on reformism as the main strategy in all or even most cases is a significant departure from Marxist analysis of the state and its class character.
Libertarian socialism is more anarchist than anything, and has no problems with revolution. I don’t see why you bring it up.
No not all socialism is democratic. Libertarian socialism is by definition non-violent. You cannot be libertarian while also advocating for violence against others.
What happens when the US and allies forments coups and starts bombing you?
Obviously, peaceful means are preferred by most people.
Like, why would they allow you to take power peacefully?
Imagine you take power and want to redistribute land to the common people who were exploited and forced to be landless or without proper homes in the previous regime? Would not the ultrawealthy landowners try to coup you and get support of US and other countries?
Then you’ll have to go there, right?
Or you’ll have to stop or allow yourself to be couped.
Like, in Russia, they took power away from a monarchy and came into power with the slogans of 'Land, peace and bread:. They faced an attack by the White army, which was supported by major foreign powers.
In China, they took power away from Japanese colonialism and subsequent mix of Koumingtang rule which violently opposed communists and the public who wanted land reform.
In Vietnam, they fought French colonialism and US invasion.
Even in the case of slavery in US, the North, under the Lincoln govt, had to fight the south, right? Republicans were attacked in the south by Racial supremacist groups on that too.
Incorrect on both counts. Democracy is rule by the majority, socialism is a mode of production where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working class is in control of the state. Libertarianism just refers to a limited state, it cares nothing about how that is achieved. Anarchism and anarchist-adjacent ideologies are almost always revolutionary as well. Pacifism is uncommon.
Like what?
Democratic socialism? Libertarian socialism?
All socialism is democratic, so I assume you mean reformist socialism. Reformism has extremely specific and limited use-cases, Allende being a short-lived example. Chile was able to successfully elect a Marxist, but he was ousted in a coup. It isn’t impossible, but relying on reformism as the main strategy in all or even most cases is a significant departure from Marxist analysis of the state and its class character.
Libertarian socialism is more anarchist than anything, and has no problems with revolution. I don’t see why you bring it up.
No not all socialism is democratic. Libertarian socialism is by definition non-violent. You cannot be libertarian while also advocating for violence against others.
What happens when the US and allies forments coups and starts bombing you?
Obviously, peaceful means are preferred by most people.
Like, why would they allow you to take power peacefully?
Imagine you take power and want to redistribute land to the common people who were exploited and forced to be landless or without proper homes in the previous regime? Would not the ultrawealthy landowners try to coup you and get support of US and other countries?
Then you’ll have to go there, right?
Or you’ll have to stop or allow yourself to be couped.
Like, in Russia, they took power away from a monarchy and came into power with the slogans of 'Land, peace and bread:. They faced an attack by the White army, which was supported by major foreign powers.
In China, they took power away from Japanese colonialism and subsequent mix of Koumingtang rule which violently opposed communists and the public who wanted land reform.
In Vietnam, they fought French colonialism and US invasion.
Similarly, in Korea, US installed a dictatorship to kill people who may have been even slightly sympathetic to socialism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre
Even in the case of slavery in US, the North, under the Lincoln govt, had to fight the south, right? Republicans were attacked in the south by Racial supremacist groups on that too.
Incorrect on both counts. Democracy is rule by the majority, socialism is a mode of production where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working class is in control of the state. Libertarianism just refers to a limited state, it cares nothing about how that is achieved. Anarchism and anarchist-adjacent ideologies are almost always revolutionary as well. Pacifism is uncommon.