Ok so this is my current understanding, please correct me where I err and supplement where I omit needed information.
Historically the Mensheviks and chartists inspired social democracy whereas the Bolsheviks inspired Marxism-leninism.
They (demsoc and socdem) are extremely similar but have some key differences. Social democrats are to the right of democratic socialists and they are both centre-left parties slightly to the left of social liberalism.
left-ish------Center-left----Center
---------Demsoc-----Socdem Libsoc Lib
Where they differ is usually on imperialism and capitalism.
Social democrats typically support imperialism continuing so long as a slice of the spoils support a welfare state. In that sense they're just capitalist reformists. It also appears that the DSA and the "Democratic-Socialist" movement in the United States is simply social democracy with no intention of seizing the means of production.
Democratic socialists do advocate for seizing the means of production and want the end of imperialism but believe this can be accomplished democratically -- however naive that may be.
As far as I can tell social liberalism appears to be almost synonymous with social democracy but with an added emphasis on the "freedom" to own private property and a more laissez-faire role of the state.
Please fill in my understanding :)
Both of them are just a marketing term for neo-liberalism with benefits. There is nothing socialist about them.
Democratic socialism is not neo-liberalism.
SDP in Germany was involved in the privatization of Deutsche Bundesbahn in 1994 in 2008 The SPD executive branch voted in favor of a partial stock market flotation of Deutsche Bahn, SDP was involved selling off publicly owned utilities to private entities during reunification.
In the Netherlands The PvdA in the 1990s to early 2000s was involved in the privatization of the postal, telephone and energy system, they voted in favor of the breakup of Governement monopolies on public transport, they cut social security spending and introduced privately owned agencies responsible for administering benefits, they transferred all public housing to not-for profit/non state sponsored associations.
do I need to keep going?
Similarities do not equate to identicality.
Democratic socialism is an ideology, not a party. I would argue that any party touting the term around while cutting social security is akin to the Nazi party calling itself socialist or the DRC calling itself democratic—not true to its own branding. Misuse of the term by a political entity does not change the meaning of the term.
Also, parties change with time (e.g., the GOP platform of 1956 compared to the party at present). Present-day American democratic socialists include Zohran Mamdani and Bernie Sanders.
So social democrats do exactly what Neo-liberals do but they aren't the same thing because they have different names? Next you will tell me that Coke and Pepsi are 2 different things.
Democratic socialism is a false ideology that was debunked over 150 years ago. Democratic socialism is the lie that if the socialists just keep voting it magically cause socialism. The plan is 1.vote 2.??? 3.socialism. There is no through line it is just delusional wishful thinking. The rich will never give up power without using violence to defend their power. The only way to get socialism is to use violence back, kill the rich and take their power for the people.
The CPC has not changed with time they are as committed to communism as they were 105 years ago. Democratic socialist change with time because they require the bourgeoisie's consent to be reelected. They are forced to give up the charade of socialism every single time because... YOU CANNOT VOTE YOUR WAY TO SOCIALISM.
Democratic socialism has never been "debunked". Ideologies are based on morality, principally. One cannot "disprove" a stance on a subjective matter.
I have never met a democratic socialist who believes voting magically causes socialism, myself included. True socialism is impossible on a societal scale. Democratic socialism aims to get close and stay close.
I would have enjoyed a rational conversation, but since I see you are advocating for violence, I do not believe that to be possible. Withered trees bear no fruit; anything founded on violence is foul; the ends do not justify the means.