Disclaimer I’m very light on ML theory so may the community forgive me and the mods have mercy on me:

One perspective on a “liberal democracy” within which you would have democratic socialism might be: There are no ideological constraints except the chains of capitalism. Like that is the reality of western democracies today I think.

They might hold their nose and bla bla about far right and religious this or bad communist but everything goes. Nobody can censor anything because liberal values.

This means that fundamentally, those with the most power OUTSIDE of the state have the most power over the democracy. And that is the capitalists.

And the amount of influence capitalists or plutocrats or capitalist institutions or corporations have is vastly understated as to constitute a “big lie” a la Goebbels. Western democracies are ruled by an amoral “nonsentient amalgamated intelligence”. A million individuals all greeding for their own piece of the pie be it wealth or power or just making it to the next paycheck. The true form of the “chains of capitalism” is a slime mold growing inside our heads. No other ideology that actually exerts power is allowed.

So how are you going to implement democratic socialism? You can’t!

Nothing stops those with the most power from undermining you, fomenting sentiment, pushing propaganda and influencing the next election which will invariably be some neoconservative anti-commie bullshit.

Democratic socialism implies that socialism is not inherently democratic. The whole ideology sprouted from Western leftist critique of existing socialist systems in countries like the Soviet Union because of their supposed authoritarianism. Marxists-Leninists rather speak of “socialist democracy” which is “the rule by and expresses the will of the rural and urban workers, who comprise the vast majority that had been exploited by and excluded from the benefits of capitalist democracy.” (See Boer, Socialism in Power, Chapter 4). How this is achieved is through the "dictatorship of the proletariat” which makes of the workers the masters of their own country. The employment of the term “dictatorship” may seem antithetical to democracy at first glance, but the reality is that the dictatorship of the proletariat aims to suppress the former ruling class while simultaneously ensuring mass participation in democracy for the formerly suppressed classes. In practice, this has been ensured through both participatory and consultative democratic systems in local and national levels, while preserving the leadership of the communist party to avoid the resurgence of counter-revolutionary outbursts. This is the case in all existing socialist countries, such as the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam and so forth.

The merits of Democratic Socialism on the other hand can be assessed by asking one simple question: has it historically ever succeeded in establishing a socialist state? No. That is because democratic socialist parties on the ground have been more concerned with creating guardrails for capitalism rather than progressing the revolution. While reform is always appreciated, the reality stays the same: as long as there is capitalism, the working class will remain exploited, and no amount of reform can fix this crucial component. Revolution, despite its violence, remains the only path forward towards socialism because of the inherent contradiction between the interests of the working class and those of the ruling class who’s unwilling to give up the benefits it gets from oppression domestically and abroad.