Socialist democracy is a political system that aligns with principles of bothsocialism anddemocracy. It includes ideologies such ascouncil communism,social democracy,democratic socialism, andsoviet democracy, as well asMarxist democracy like thedictatorship of the proletariat. It was embodied in theSoviet system (1922–1991).[1] It can also denote a system ofpolitical party organization likedemocratic centralism, or a form of democracy espoused byMarxist–Leninist political parties or groups that supportone-party states. TheSocialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1945–1992) styled itself a socialist democracy,[2] as did thePeople's Republic of Bulgaria (1946–1990) and theSocialist Republic of Romania (1947–1989).[3][4]
On the other hand,Trotskyist groups have interpreted socialist democracy to be synonymous withmulti-partysocialist representation,autonomous union organizations,worker's control of production,[5]internal party democracy and themass participation of the working masses.[6][7] Several parties or groups that tend to have a connection to thereunified Fourth International use this label.
In the modern world, parties includeSocialist Democracy in Australia,Socialist Democracy in Brazil,Socialist Democracy in Ireland, theSocialist Democracy Group in England,Parti de la Democratie Socialiste in Canada, and theSocialist Democracy Party in Turkey. TheChinese Communist Party (CCP) claims to maintain principles ofsocialist democracy. CCP ChairmanMao Zedong advocated thepeople's democratic dictatorship, which emphasizes the importance of dictatorship of the proletariat in the democratic process.[8] In thereform and opening-up period,Deng Xiaoping said that democracy is the essential element of socialism, as there will be no socialism and modernization without democracy.[9] Under CCP General SecretaryXi Jinping, the CCP continues labeling itself a socialist democracy, under which theNational People's Congress selectsstate leaders.[10]
One of the major scholars who have argued that socialism and democracy are compatible is the Austrian-born American economistJoseph Schumpeter, who was hostile to socialism.[11] In his bookCapitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942), Schumpeter emphasised that "political democracy was thoroughly compatible with socialism in its fullest sense",[12][13] although it has been noted that he did not believe that democracy was a good political system and advocated republican values.[14]
In a 1963 address to theAll India Congress Committee, Indian Prime MinisterJawaharlal Nehru stated: "Political democracy has no meaning if it does not embraceeconomic democracy. And economic democracy is nothing but socialism."[15] Political historianTheodore Draper wrote: "I know of no political group which has resisted totalitarianism in all its guises more steadfastly than democratic socialists."[14] Historian and economistRobert 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.[14]
Bayard Rustin, long-time member of theSocialist Party of America and National Chairman of theSocial 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."[14]
Economist and political theoristKenneth 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.'"[14] JournalistWilliam 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."[14]
Marxist theoristLeon Trotsky had proposed the election of a new Sovietpresidium with othersocialist parties on the basis ofproportional representation in 1917.[16] In his work,The Revolution Betrayed: What Is the Soviet Union and Where Is It Going? (1936), Trotsky argued that the excessiveauthoritarianism under Stalin had undermined the implementation of theFirst five-year plan. He noted that severalengineers andeconomists who had created the plan were themselves later put on trial as "conscious wreckers who had acted on the instructions of a foreign power".[17]
He would later elaborate on the need forSoviet democracy in relation to theindustrialisation period when questioned by theDewey Commission in 1937:
“The successes are very important, and I affirmed it every time. They are due to the abolition of private property and to the possibilities inherent inplanned economy. But, they - I cannot say exactly - but I will say two or three times less than they could be under a regime of Soviet democracy”.[18]
ModernTrotskyists believe thatMarxist-Leninist regimes will lead to the establishment of adegenerated ordeformed workers' state, where the capitalist elite have been replaced by an unaccountablebureaucratic elite and there is no truedemocracy orworkers' control of industry.[19]
Russian historianVadim Rogovin attributed the establishment of the one-party Soviet socialist system to theconditions which were “imposed on Bolshevism by hostile political forces”. Rogovin further highlighted the fact that the Bolsheviks made strenuous efforts to preserve theSoviet parties such as theSocialist-Revolutionaries,Mensheviks, and other left parties within the bounds of Sovietlegality and their participation in theSoviets on the condition of abandoningarmed struggle against the Bolsheviks.[20] Similarly, British historianE.H. Carr drew attention to the fact “the larger section of the party (the SR party) - V.R) had made acoalition with the Bolsheviks, and formally broke from the other section which maintained its bitter feud against the Bolsheviks”.[21]
Some politicians, economists, and theorists have argued that socialism and democracy are incompatible. According to them, history is full of instances ofself-declared socialist states that at one point were committed to the values ofpersonal liberty,freedom of speech,freedom of the press, andfreedom 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.[14]Chicago School economistMilton Friedman argued that a "society which is socialist cannot also be democratic" in the sense of "guaranteeing individual freedom".[14] SociologistRobert 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."[14]
Irving Kristol, aneoconservative journalist, 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'."[14]Anti-communist academicRichard 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 the 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."[14]
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)The Soviet bureaucracy and Western capitalism rested on mutually antagonistic social systems.
