General Assembly
Security Council
Governor: 
The Diversely United State of Leftist Assembly Founder
WA Delegate: 
The People's Federation of Fuchsheim (elected )
Founder: 
The Diversely United State of Leftist Assembly Founder
Last WA Update:
Embassies: NSLeft, The Social Liberal Union, North Korea, Anarchy, Wintercrest, Gay, Forest, Libertarian Socialist Confederation, The Region That Has No Big Banks, the West Pacific, Communitas, Refugia, Starlight, The Red Fleet, Antifa, The MT Army, and 3 others.The Internationale, the democratic socialist union, and The Communist Region.
Tags: Anarchist, Anime, Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Fascist, Anti-GenAI, Anti-World Assembly, Casual, Communist, Democratic, Eco-Friendly, Egalitarian, Feminist, and 11 others.Gargantuan, Independent, Issues Player, LGBT, Modern Tech, Offsite Chat, Regional Government, Role Player, Serious, Social, and Socialist.
Regional Power: Extremely High
The Leftist Assembly contains 847 nations, the 51st most in the world.
Today's World Census Report
The Most Rebellious Youth in The Leftist Assembly
World Census observers counted the number of times their car stereo was stolen from outside fast food stores to determine which nations have relatively high levels of youth-related crime.
As a region, The Leftist Assembly is ranked 19,424th in the world for Most Rebellious Youth.
 | Nation | WA Category | Motto | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. |  The Syndicalist Union of Ragnaria | Left-wing Utopia | “Progress is essential for prosperity.” | |
| 2. |  The United Socialist States of Caspersland | Left-wing Utopia | “Victoria Concordia Crescit.” | |
| 3. |  The Socialist Pirate Republic of Schillikia | Civil Rights Lovefest | “¡Avast, compañeres!” | |
| 4. |  The Socialist Republic of Tannkrem | Democratic Socialists | “Ever onwards to victory!” | |
| 5. |  The Demonstrably Enjoyable Realm of Sylvyn | Scandinavian Liberal Paradise | “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” | |
| 6. |  The Whatever's Left of Sincadenas | New York Times Democracy | “Send help, NationStates” | |
| 7. |  The Most Serene Republic of PEPEP | Civil Rights Lovefest | “In Donie we trust.” | |
| 8. |  The Syndicalist Zombie Nation of Marxist Land of Peoples | Left-wing Utopia | “Hi :3” | |
| 9. |  The Commonwealth of Biotopia | Democratic Socialists | “socialism within ecological limits” | |
| 10. |  The Automated Eden of Robo-topia | Liberal Democratic Socialists | “Efficiency engenders happiness.” |
1234. . .8485»
Recent polls: “Award Marxist Land of Peoples the Order of Cedoria” • “Position of Justice Poll” • “New Founder Poll”
Regional Happenings
- : MTA NYCTA ceased to exist.
- : Beratpapi ceased to exist.
- : Sordova ceased to exist.
- : Nicoyara ceased to exist.
- : Lawrentia ceased to exist.
- : Alnurna ceased to exist.
- : Riyon ceased to exist.
- :
The Community of Angry Anarchy arrived from Balder.
- :
The People's Republic of -Turtle Island arrived from The West Pacific.
- :
The Commonwealth of Dulce de Viva departed this region for Surpridom of the Left.
The Leftist Assembly Regional Message Board
Loading...
I agree! I feel that having a system of government that unilaterally enforces its ideas through state force opposes what I consider some of the intrinsic ideals of socialism; that people are equal, and entitled to inalienable human rights and dignities. I don't think that authoritarianism enables those ideals, and inevitably ends with the concentration of power in the hands of a few, which to me undermines the "all people are equal" idea. Wherever leftism ends, be it socialist space-utopia a la Star Trek or a communist utopia or somewhere we haven't yet conceived, I truly cannot imagine that a utopia could ever be reliably sustained and stay true to its ideals as an authoritarian state.
Apologies if that doesn't make sense, its 1am where I am and my brain is mushy, haha
The reason I kind of equate democratic socialism and social democracy is because they generally straddle the same lines historically and currently. If I look at my country, Sweden, our social democrats have generally switched between terming themselves social democrats and democratic socialists (like Palme did).
I mean I’m kind of confused otherwise, what parties or leaders or countries were democratic socialists would you say? Palme? Kreisky? Willy brandt? Chile I guess, but they got couped, and now Allende’s socialist party is neoliberal.
If we look at parties today it seems like democratic socialist parties generally just want more welfare, more healthcare, more jobs, more unionism and so on. But they’ll always cooperate with neoliberal parties out of necessity, either that or be shut out of any influence. Since they are integrated into a political system upholding capitalism they’ll also follow the needs and development of capitalism and change thenselves accordingly, just like all the other parties.
If you mean that democratic socialist parties are those espousing keynesian economics, generally the welfare success stories of the 1930s to 1970s before neoliberalism, well the problem then is that all of those demsoc parties and leaders switched to neoliberalism, since it was necessary for to continued existence of capital to implement (trade unions had too much power, profits were down by the end of the 70’s, capital decided it had to discipline the working class). At this point all of the demsoc parties that we look back on fondly are neoliberals. Eurocommunists started terming themselves demsocs in the 90s and also turned rightwards. At this point even our swedish left party is neoliberal, and our socdem party ain’t letting them anywhere near power.
At the end of the day the working class policies that existed after ww2, keynesianism and so on, were only allowed to exist because of the needs of capital. When it wasn’t sustainable for capitalism anymore they all turned right. And even though keynesianism and the ruling demsocs at the time were wonderful and brought the european working class out of poverty, it was all built on neocolonialism and continued exploitation of poorer countries, keeping them from industrialising or progressing.
We can also make the argument that in a way, left-wing authoritarianism does not exist, or is instead extremely rare. Some of the most common explanations for authoritarianism include three facets: submission, aggression, and conventionalism.
That conventionalism, or otherwise traditionalism, establishes this as what can be made as an inherently right-wing attitude (personality, also, as it is often discussed). You see that in comparison to the left, who is often defined by progressivism.
Every year around Halloween I wish for the same in my real life.
None. The whole auth-dem binary was a creation of liberal western media during the Russian revolution. Socialism is inherently democratic. Otherwise, it is not socialism at all. Was Soviet Union democratic? Yes. Absolutely. Party in Soviet Union acted as a control mechanism (feedback) for the other pillars of society (and is just another pillar).
All the parties/individuals/organisations that call themselves democratic socialists have been playing on bourgeois terms. It is not their fault in one way. Back in the day, it was difficult to get information. People were ill-informed. Countless revolutions, insurrections, and workers' revolt lost because of the pace of spread of information (not that I am reducing all revolutionary failures to logistical failure, but it is a part of military strategy and all revolutions have militaristic components). And like-wise, during the Russian Revolution, people in the left were ill-informed about what was happening in the Soviet Union. And, thus, they formed their own brand to distinguish themselves from authoritarian socialism.
And that's why what happened to Allende, happened [tragic? yes! But so is reality - a long continuum of tragedy]. Are they democratic socialists? If they call themselves that, maybe. But to me they are all social-democrats (making capitalism better, or making socialism out of capitalism by voting the capitalists out is in reality the same thing - tomato vs tomato).
Absolutely! A lot of things we learn of past socialist states are a lot of bogus. Not that all are. Certain things could have been handled better (I won't go for 'in similar cases the democratic states also would have done the same thing, and history says they did worse' since as socialists we should be doing things in a better way and not be comparable, and history says in many areas we did better than the rest). Personally, I have experience of authoritarianism from communists and that's absolutely maddening (bureacratic degeneracy within the communist movement and opportunism are something that communist orgs should not be afflicted with but here we are). But still I am an ardent supporter of communism (though, I'd rather be a socialist since I can't be a member of a CP)
Disclaimer: I have nothing against anyone - be it DemSocs or SocDems; you are who you are and I believe you have your reasons.
Happy Cultural Appreciation Day, everyone! Let this day be a reminder that the world is more vibrant and joyful when we celebrate and honor our differences. Assimilation and segregation disconnect us from our shared humanity.
I’ll start by sharing some made up lore for Greylyn and then real-life culture haha.
Greylyn: The sea turtle is our national animal and is respected as a spiritual messenger.
Puerto Rico: (non-vegan) Are you in a pinch for a quick bite? Fry an egg and boil some medium to long grain white rice! If you’re vegan, I’m sure tofu would be a nice substitute for the egg. :)
Happy Cultural Appreciation Day!!
Grod Island, Sodorstan, Marxist Land of Peoples, Ghurlan, and 3 othersValan Prala, Botto, and Asali
Haha I guess I actually misunderstood what you wrote before because I agree completely
democratic socialists utilize the democratic electoral system to bring forth and legitimize socialism while replacing capitalism, whereas social democrats seek to implement more social welfare policies while maintaining and regulating capitalism, so i think the differences between them are more than just marginal. i think democratic socialism is both reform and revolutionary, the end goal which is to abolish capitalism is structurally revolutionary whereas the path to that which is electoralism, is reformist by attempting to shift political power from corporate elites and returning it to the working class. so in short demsoc is both reformist (the method) and revolutionary (the end goal) imo
there are political figures/parties that use demsoc and socdem interchangeably when in reality their policies align with social democracy more than democratic socialism, which is a real frustration among democratic socialists
Could someone please do my Q&A thread
here 
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=589296
Preach!
We already discussed the topic here, not so long ago. There is a lot of disinformation or false beliefs on the distinction between demsocs and socdems, and that causes a lot of frustration for the formers, indeed.
Demsocs, in their ideology, strive to establish socialism as an end goal, not differently than a classic revolutionary. But what define demsocs diversely from the batch of revolutionary socialists and communists is the method, which is, among others, the liberal-democracies' electoralism... not only that though, as extra-parliamentary organizations, collectives, social spaces and such are among the methods the demsocs usually are active to be connected and in touch with the people's needs, albeit with the core focus on getting the political momentum to win elections.
From there on though, every choice that a demsoc should eventually make, in their role of power, should strive for socialism as a concrete objective, to demolish the faulty structures of capital egemony from within, not a bland appeasement to what is permitted by it like socdems limits themselves to
Lots of parties that declared and acted under the flag of democratic socialism, instead, really acted (at best) as social democrats, and that means pushing for a timid reformation under capitalism that didn't test the prove of time, or are still getting actively rolled back today.
The only, truthful example of true democratic socialism was Allende, and only him though: his death just demonstrated how global, imperialist capital doesn't accept socialism winning on their own playfield.
The other parties and movements of the world, from there on, didn't risk it and complied into socialdemocracy, or rightward of it.
The difference is pretty clear to me, but I get why there is ignorance, misconceptions and such in the western-led propaganda that poisons such informations.
TL;DR, no, demsocs and socdems are not the same.
Advertisement
