fetishizing socialism…//Which Way to (socialism?) stalinism?

This kind of debate shows that the left is not ready to create socialism, has no idea what it is and that it has learned nothing from previous failures. Although the case for revolution is strong its proponents have no idea of what is entailed and cannot refrain from the leninist inclinations that led to failure in the first place. Democracy and socialism are not distinct and the implication is whether a group of revolutionary thugs who take power can create socialism. All indications are that they can’t. To be debating this at this late date is unsettling.
We must do more than fetishize socialism, which is mostly an empty term: we must solve all at the same time, the question of demoracy/authority, markets/planning, the nature of property and the immense complexity of ecological issues.
To be speaking of socialism in isolation is predictably going to fail because the context for socialism in isolation is basically stalinism: state capitalism, bureaucracy, idiotic pseudo-planning, state ownership (by an elite) by a new bourgeoisie, and the recipe for failure at the hands of marxist true believers who can’t even study the problem and have read no books on the subject.

We need to solve the whole problem at the start and to be making a distinction of democratic socialism versus revolution shows that the whole left is close to braindead…

Is there a democratic road to socialism? And if so, what does it mean for socialists today?

Source: Which Way to Socialism?