SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM
(Comments: tony.papard@btinternet.com)
(Background music: The Red Flag - tune: Tannenbaum)
'Socialist democracy' was the system which existed in the Soviet Union and its allies, alternatively known as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It consisted of either a one-Party State as in the Soviet Union and the Yugoslav federation, or a Marxist-Leninist-led coalition of political parties and democratic organizations, as in the GDR and CSSR (East Germany and Czechoslovakia), for example. Once candidates for election were nominated and chosen by the political parties/democratic organizations the electorate could only vote for or against them; there were no rival candidates to vote for.
'Democratic socialism', on the other hand, was a multi-party system with the various political parties putting up rival candidates in elections.
There were major flaws in both these systems. 'Socialist democracy' became very weak on democracy, in fact so weak it didn't exist at all, and Socialism also left a lot to be desired.
Meanwhile, 'democratic Socialism' quietly dropped the Socialism over the decades, and changed its name to 'social democracy'. It has now reached the stage in UK under New Labour where there is neither Socialism nor much democracy internally in the Party, although the country still has free elections, even if there is not much to choose between the three major political parties putting up candidates.
The Marxist theory behind Socialist democracy, or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, was historical and dialectical materialism. This philosophy taught that society was constantly evolving, and that tribal or primitive communism was followed by feudalism, which in turn was superseded by capitalism. Inevitably, according to this theory, Socialism would take over from capitalism, and would eventually develop into Communism proper; a utopian society where the State and all artificial regulators would 'wither away'. Under Communism there would be no State, no money, no police, no armed forces. Everyone would work for the good of the community, there would be an abundance of goods and services, and the maxim on which this selfless society ran would be 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs'.
In order to progress from Socialism to Communism it was necessary to establish a classless society. More precisely, this meant the liquidation of all classes except the working class. 'No war but class war' was a popular slogan in leftwing circles. It was therefore thought necessary to crush all opposition to Socialism and all classes but the proletariat.
Marxists argued that this was perfectly democratic, since Socialism was a purer form of democracy than anything which had preceded it, and Communism would be absolute democracy; a completely self-governing society where nobody exploited anybody else.
In order to progress from Socialism to Communism, so the theory went, it was necessary to unite the masses in one Party, the Marxist-Leninist Party. Alternatively, as an intermediate stage, the political parties/organizations representing various class interests could be tolerated within a coalition led by the working-class Party, i.e. the Marxist-Leninist Party. The crucial factor in both these systems was that no opposition to Socialism was tolerated, and no rival candidates were allowed to contest elections.
The theory aimed to teach people to govern themselves, rather than elect others to govern them. 'All Power to the Soviets', an early slogan after the Great October Socialist Revolution in the Soviet Union, meant 'all power to the workers' councils'. They did not need opposition parties or a choice of candidates in elections because the people were meant to be governing themselves.
The aim was to abolish class distinctions. The Socialist maxim was 'to each according to their work'. In other words, everyone would become a worker, a member of the proletariat. Exploitation of one person by another would be abolished by taking into public ownership and control the entire means of production, distribution and exchange. In this situation, everybody would be encouraged to join the Marxist-Leninist Party and participate fully in internal Party democracy.
The Marxist-Leninist Parties, and the coalitions they led in some countries, all operated under the principle of 'democratic centralism'. In theory this meant that the ordinary Party members came together in meetings and Party Congresses to decide policy and elect people to carry out these policies. Once policies had been decided, the details of the 5 year plans, etc. were entrusted to the Central Committee, the Politburo and the higher echelons of the Party and the People's government.
Often a great deal of trust was put in the General or First Secretary of the Party, be it V. I. Lenin, J. V. Stalin, Walter Ulbricht, or whoever, who was expected to carry out the democratic decisions of the Party Congress and interim day-to-day decisions of the Central Committee and Politburo. Every Party member, and every citizen, was expected to abide by the decisions of the Party Congress, the Central Committee and the Politburo. So once decisions had been made, there could be no opposition, but debate would open up again at the next Party Congress and its preparatory meetings. However, in practice 'debates' were always based on a program drawn up by the higher echelons of the Party, which few dared to oppose. (It is not much different in New Labour today).
In these circumstances of internal Party democracy in which every citizen was encouraged to participate, it was not thought necessary to have opposition Parties, or to put up rival candidates in elections. The democratic process took place within the Party organization, or within the coalition, and all that was left for the electorate to do was endorse the democratically chosen candidates at election time, or reject them if they saw fit.
This system was meant to get people used to governing themselves as a united body, as the proletariat. Their interests all coincided in Socialism, and once policies had been decided democratically it was everyone's duty to abide by them. As people became more and more involved in the process of inner Party democracy and Socialist government, be it on a local, national or federal level, so the system would become ever more democratic, till eventually the State itself would wither away, and you'd be left with a society which governed itself completely democratically.
This system might work in a small-scale Socialist society, such as a small Israeli kibbutz. The problem was it couldn't work on a country-wide scale where the majority of the population had no interest whatsoever in politics, let alone Socialism, and where a great many people were only interested in furthering their own careers.
Coupled with the inefficiency of monopoly State nationalized industries and central planning, which resulted in shortages and badly produced inferior goods in many cases, the desire of careerists and opportunists to achieve power and allocate privileges for themselves became overwhelming. Marx said this would be impossible, because the broad masses of the proletariat would be vigilant and by their sheer numbers would always be able to prevent any new 'ruling class' of exploiters taking over the State.
In practice, it was all too easy for opportunists to take over first the Party apparatus, and then the whole State, playing on the political apathy of the masses who simply didn't want to be involved in the day-to-day running of their factory, their workplace, their local council or the State. Former capitalists flocked to join the Party, paid lip-service to the ideals of Socialism, and then used the system to look after themselves and their own families at the expense of the masses.
Genuine Communists and Socialists were either liquidated, imprisoned, or they themselves became corrupted by the trappings of absolute power, and awarded themselves privileges. A new 'ruling class' of exploiters soon ran all the Socialist countries without tolerating any opposition. They paid lip-service to Socialism and the ultimate goal of Communism, but the reality was very different.
However, it was not totally negative. This very imperfect form of Socialism at least provided the masses with the essentials: there was no unemployment, they had access to good health services, good education, they had cheap and efficient public transport systems, cheap rents (albeit in often overcrowded apartments), subsidized basic food-stuffs, trade-union organized holidays (within the Socialist bloc of countries) and a secure old age. However there were often severe shortages and lack of variety, and queues for almost everything due to the inefficiency of the nationalized, centrally planned industries and services.
A more successful form of Socialism was the Yugoslav model, which used a form of market Socialism. This involved individual public enterprises and consumer/worker cooperatives all competing in the market place. This resulted in a much wider variety of goods and services and better quality, as central planning was replaced by catering for what the market wanted, and what would sell. Yugoslavia, however, whilst achieving competition in the economy, never achieved it in the political sphere. The Yugoslav Communist Party controlled the State, and no opposition was tolerated.
As I describe in my article on Socialism in the 21st Century elsewhere on this website, I now believe the Communist ideal to be too utopian to work on a national or worldwide scale. It could only work in small communities of idealists, such as the kibbutzim or communes of like-minded people dedicated to the cause.
Society in general will always need the State and artificial regulators to insure that one class or group does not exploit another. The only way this can be achieved is by genuine multi-party democracy, with different political parties contesting elections and putting up rival candidates. This is the only way to insure one group does not gain absolute power, and to guarantee the electorate can always vote out a government by electing another Party or another coalition of Parties to take over.
It is perfectly possible to have this proliferation of political parties with free elections and rival candidates within the confines of a Socialist Constitution. Rival Socialist parties can compete in elections, each with their own programs for implementing Socialism. The electorate then has a choice, without having to get involved too deeply in internal Party democracy and in the day-to-day workings of local and national government.
Democratic Socialism is the preferred term for this system of multi-party parliamentary democracy based on Socialism, but with genuine free elections. Non-Socialist political parties may also be allowed to exist and participate in elections, but may have to uphold the Socialist Constitution until they can muster a sufficient majority to replace this Constitution with an alternative one. However, the example of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe testify how it is almost impossible to successfully turn the clock back from even an imperfect Socialist society to a capitalist one. Inevitably the means of production, distribution and exchange will end up in the hands of criminals, former Party bureaucrats and foreign capitalist/multi-national corporations. Unless you are going to go right back to primitive communism and give everybody in the country an acre of land, some crops, a plow, a pig, a few chickens and a cow, and allow them all to compete and eventually let some employ and enslave/exploit others, starting the whole feudal/capitalist/socialist cycle over again, it just won't work.
The people of the former Socialist countries lost most of their social security when they tried to turn back to capitalism. Many became unemployed, those who found jobs discovered they were now a cheap pool of labor for Western multi-nationals, yet they no longer had the subsidized food, rents, public transport and good pensions Socialism once gave them. There was now an abundance of good quality goods and services, but how many could afford to buy them? Certainly no ordinary working-class person could afford to set up their own company, or buy huge blocks of shares in a newly privatized industry. Many, however, were caught up in 'get rich quick' scams and bought shares which quickly proved worthless, investing and losing their life-savings almost overnight. The only ones to come out on top were the former Party bureaucrats and foreign multi-nationals who grabbed for themselves the industries which once, nominally at least, belonged to the people - to the Socialist State.
Socialist democracy is a term which has been tainted by the errors of the past, but eventually it may be used again to describe truly democratic Socialism, rather than a one-Party State, or one-Party dominated coalition government, which tolerates no opposition and is impossible to get rid of without a popular uprising or complete collapse of the economy.