Democratic socialism
Democratic socialism is a left-wing[1] set of political philosophies that supports political democracy and some form of a socially owned economy,[2] with a particular emphasis on economic democracy, workplace democracy, and workers' self-management[3] within a market socialist, decentralised planned, or democratic centrally planned socialist economy.[4] Democratic socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the values of freedom, equality, and solidarity and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realisation of a socialist society.[5] Although most democratic socialists seek a gradual transition to socialism,[6] democratic socialism can support revolutionary or reformist politics to establish socialism.[7] Democratic socialism was popularised by socialists who opposed the backsliding towards a one-party state in the Soviet Union and other nations during the 20th century.[8]
This article is about socialism emphasising democracy. For the form of democracy emphasising socialism, see Socialist democracy. For the ideology focusing on the humanisation of capitalism, see Social democracy.
The history of democratic socialism can be traced back to 19th-century socialist thinkers across Europe and the Chartist movement in Britain, which somewhat differed in their goals but shared a common demand for democratic decision-making and public ownership of the means of production and viewed these as fundamental characteristics of the society they advocated for. From the late 19th to the early 20th century, democratic socialism was heavily influenced by the gradualist form of socialism promoted by the British Fabian Society and Eduard Bernstein's evolutionary socialism in Germany.[9] Following the rise of "actually existing", barracks socialism in the mid-20th century, "democratic socialism" became defined as distinguishing between social democracy and Soviet socialism.[10]
Democratic socialism is what most socialists understand by the concept of socialism;[11] the term may be used broadly (such as all forms of socialism which reject a one-party Marxist–Leninist state)[12] or more narrowly.[13] As a broad movement, it includes forms of libertarian socialism,[14] market socialism,[15] reformist socialism,[5] revolutionary socialism,[16] ethical socialism,[17] liberal socialism,[18] social democracy,[19] state socialism,[20] left populism,[21] Trotskyism,[20] left communism,[20] utopian socialism,[22] and Eurocommunism[23] all of which share a commitment to democracy.[12]
Democratic socialism is contrasted with Marxism–Leninism, whose opponents often perceive as being authoritarian, bureaucratic, and undemocratic in practice.[24] Democratic socialists oppose the Stalinist political system and the Marxist–Leninist economic planning system, rejecting as their form of governance the administrative-command model formed in the Soviet Union and other Marxist–Leninist states during the 20th century.[25] Democratic socialism is also distinguished from Third Way social democracy[26][nb 1] because democratic socialists are committed to the systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism,[nb 2] while social democrats use capitalism to create a strong welfare state, leaving many businesses under private ownership.[32] However, many democratic socialists also advocate for state regulations and welfare programs in order to reduce the perceived harms of capitalism and slowly transform the economic system.[32]
While having socialism as a long-term goal,[33] some moderate democratic socialists are more concerned about curbing capitalism's excesses and are supportive of progressive reforms to humanise it in the present day.[34] In contrast, other democratic socialists believe that economic interventionism and similar policy reforms aimed at addressing social inequalities and suppressing capitalism's economic contradictions can simply exacerbate them[35] or cause them to emerge under a different guise.[36] Those democratic socialists believe that the fundamental issues with capitalism can only be resolved by revolutionary means of replacing the capitalist mode of production with the socialist mode of production through a replacement of private ownership with collective ownership of the means of production and extending democracy to the economic sphere in the form of workplace democracy or industrial democracy.[37] The main criticism of democratic socialism from the perspective of liberal democrats is focused on the compatibility of democracy and socialism,[38] while Marxist–Leninist criticisms are focused on the feasibility of achieving a socialist or communist society through democratic means or without suppressing counter-revolutionary forces.[39] Several academics, political commentators, and scholars have noted that some Western countries, such as France, Sweden and the United Kingdom, have been governed by socialist parties or have social democratic mixed economies sometimes referred to as "democratic socialist".[40][41] However, following the end of the Cold War, many of these countries have moved away from socialism as a neoliberal consensus replaced the social democratic consensus in the advanced capitalist world.[41][42][43][44]
Views on the compatibility of democracy and socialism[edit]
Support[edit]
One of the foremost scholars who have argued that socialism and democracy are compatible is the Austrian-born American economist Joseph Schumpeter, who was hostile to socialism.[212] In his book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942), Schumpeter emphasised that "political democracy was thoroughly compatible with socialism in its fullest sense".[213] However, it has been noted that he did not believe that democracy was a sound political system and advocated republican values.[38]
In a 1963 All India Congress Committee address, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru stated: "Political democracy has no meaning if it does not embrace economic democracy. And economic democracy is nothing but socialism."[214]
Political historian Theodore Draper wrote: "I know of no political group which has resisted totalitarianism in all its guises more steadfastly than democratic socialists."[38]
Historian and economist Robert Heilbroner argued that "[t]here is, of course, no conflict between such a socialism and freedom as we have described it; indeed, this conception of socialism is the very epitome of these freedoms", referring to open association of individuals in political and social life; the democratization and humanization of work; and the cultivation of personal talents and creativity.[38]
Bayard Rustin, a long-time member of the Socialist Party of America and National Chairman of the Social Democrats, USA, wrote: "For me, socialism has meaning only if it is democratic. Of the many claimants to socialism only one has a valid title—that socialism which views democracy as valuable per se, which stands for democracy unequivocally, and which continually modifies socialist ideas and programs in the light of democratic experience. This is the socialism of the labor, social-democratic, and socialist parties of Western Europe."[38]
Economist and political theorist Kenneth Arrow argued: "We cannot be sure that the principles of democracy and socialism are compatible until we can observe a viable society following both principles. But there is no convincing evidence or reasoning which would argue that a democratic-socialist movement is inherently self-contradictory. Nor need we fear that gradual moves in the direction of increasing government intervention will lead to an irreversible move to 'serfdom.'"[38]
Journalist William Pfaff wrote: "It might be argued that socialism ineluctably breeds state bureaucracy, which then imposes its own kinds of restrictions upon individual liberties. This is what the Scandinavians complain about. But Italy's champion bureaucracy owes nothing to socialism. American bureaucracy grows as luxuriantly and behaves as officiously as any other."[38]
Economic anthropologist Jason Hickel and his colleague Dylan Sullivan argue that in order to transcend the problems associated with the persistent underdevelopment in the contemporary "imperialist world economy", where "continued capital accumulation may create pressures for cheapening labour" which "works against the goals of human development," and also the top-down authoritarian socialism as experienced in the Soviet Union and Maoist China, which they argue is "at odds with the socialist goals of workers’ self-management and democratic control over production," it will be necessary to adopt a "socialist strategy in the twenty-first century that is radically democratic, extending democracy to production itself."[215]
Marxist theorist and revolutionary Leon Trotsky wrote that: "Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen".[216] In particular, he believed that central planners in the Soviet Union, regardless of their intellectual capacity, operated without the input and participation of the millions of people who participate in the economy and so they would be unable to respond to local conditions quickly enough to effectively coordinate all economic activity.[217]
Opposition[edit]
Some anti-socialist politicians, economists, and theorists have argued that socialism and democracy are incompatible. According to them, history is full of instances of self-declared socialist states that at one point were committed to the values of personal liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of association but then found themselves clamping down on such freedoms as they end up being viewed as inconvenient or contrary towards their political or economic goals.[38] Chicago School economist Milton Friedman argued that a "society which is socialist cannot also be democratic" in the sense of "guaranteeing individual freedom."[38] Sociologist Robert Nisbet, a philosophical conservative who began his career as a leftist, argued in 1978 that there is "not a single free socialism to be found anywhere in the world."[38]
Neoconservative Irving Kristol argued: "Democratic socialism turns out to be an inherently unstable compound, a contradiction in terms. Every social democratic party, once in power, soon finds itself choosing, at one point after another, between the socialist society it aspires to and the liberal society that lathered it." Kristol added that "socialist movements end up [in] a society where liberty is the property of the state, and is (or is not) doled out to its citizens along with other contingent 'benefits'."[38]
Similarly, anti-communist academic Richard Pipes argued: "The merger of political and economic power implicit in socialism greatly strengthens the ability of the state and its bureaucracy to control the population. Theoretically, this capacity need not be exercised and need not lead to growing domination of the population by the state. In practice, such a tendency is virtually inevitable. For one thing, the socialization of the economy must lead to a numerical growth of the bureaucracy required to administer it, and this process cannot fail to augment the power of the state. For another, socialism leads to a tug of war between the state, bent on enforcing its economic monopoly, and the ordinary citizen, equally determined to evade it; the result is repression and the creation of specialized repressive organs."[38]