Democratic Socialism

Evolution of the Terms

Before the separation of the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, the words Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy were broader, encompassing terms that could be synonymous with Marxism or socialism itself, but that would change, and these terms would develop distinct, commonly accepted definitions. Understanding the significance of this split, and how this new strain of socialist thought (Marxism-Leninism) influenced the defining thereafter of all these other terms, is key to understanding not only what these terms mean, but how they formed and became the more specifically defined concepts they are now. What the Mensheviks advocated for, pursuing political struggle in Congress through voting for policies that would create socialism, was a similar strategy of socialist movements all throughout Europe, and when the Bolsheviks came up with a new strategy toward socialism that did not fit in those parameters, it became a new thing, leaving the Mensheviks and all the other socialist movements at the time who followed those same strategies to be defined by that same form of struggle that they pursued. When the “RSDLP (Bolshevik)” became the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the term “communism” became a word that many people outside of the USSR used to describe the Marxist-Leninist socialism of the USSR. To be clear, the Marxist-Leninists in the CPSU did consider themselves communists (and also socialists), but they considered their economic and political system to be a socialist one. This is because they believed communism would be a future ideal society where the state (the power structure of the government) is no longer needed, but the workers’ democratic state was a socialist state.

Imperialist Sabotage

It is important to understand that the ideology and political practice of Democratic Socialism is not as simple as the name implies. It does not simply mean socialism that is democratic, because all socialism is democratic. In Marxist-Leninist parties and states, decisions are made democratically and action is taken collectively. The true definition of Democratic Socialism that accurately explains what it means is simply this: achieving socialism through pre-existing democratic structures in society. What does this mean? It means that while both Marxism-Leninism and “democratic socialism” as it is practiced are structured to be expressions of democracy, the Leninist party creates a new form of democracy while Democratic Socialism only acknowledges existing official democratic channels for political agency within a state to be the only ones worth pursuing. This can be confusing at first, but to understand it we need to look at democracy as an evolving concept not a static institution. The Marxist-Leninists and even the anarchists create internal democracy among the working class and oppressed with the hope of that new democratic structure replacing the old rigged capitalist one that is now imposed upon us. The Democratic Socialists work within the pre-existing democratic structure that the capitalists have already set up and rigged for their own interests. To present themselves as legitimate, the liberal capitalist democracy has to at least set up polling stations and count the votes and make a big show out of a competition between two politicians who both are either capitalists themselves or bought and paid for by capitalists. In the imperial core where the plunder of other nations lessens the suffering from capitalism that the working class experiences, it is easy to keep enough of the population satisfied with this imperial privilege, but in the countries that are oppressed by this imperial core, the imperial privilege is not there to make people as complacent. Now along with selling the charade of democracy to its own citizens, the imperial core nations must also sell the charade to the countries on which it is imposing its capitalist economic system. These countries are first threatened economically. Since the US and its NATO allies have enjoyed a near total monopoly over the global financial system, they have the power to tell all of the other countries in the world (except a few) that they cannot trade with this country if this country does not follow their rules. To someone who doesn't fully understand how the modern quality of life we experience works this may not seem like such a big deal, but that restriction from trade with other countries can be the difference between life and death. These “sanctions” have continuously been criticized by independent international organizations as a method of collective punishment, and the fact that the whole population suffers from this embargo whether or not they support their government's decisions or take part in it. When that does not force regime change in the country, when the people do not bow under their pressure, they come then with violent force.

While Democratic Socialists organize support and attempt to bring about socialism through the existing, official democratic channels, they rarely succeed in getting enough elected representatives to do anything to fundamentally alter the relations of production (the way labor and value is distributed). However, there are examples of this strategy being effective in certain cases.

This phenomenon even being possible in the first place seems to hinge on the country being oppressed by larger imperialist powers, thus building the solidarity among the citizens of the nation necessary for collective politics to be seen as not only a utopian ideal, but as necessary. In 1970 Salvador Allende, a Democratic Socialist candidate (who identified as Marxist) running on a platform of nationalizing national industries and resources for the benefit of the masses of the country, was elected as president of Chile. Within three years, his party had, by the power of the government they democratically gained control of, nationalized key industries including copper mining, implemented land reforms to give people a home and livelihood who previously had none, and was pushing for more ways to redistribute wealth from within the same state apparatus that was already set up to preserve capitalism. In 1973 the military of the country, with the help of the CIA, conducted a successful violent coup, forcing his party out of power and reversing the legal reforms they had carried out. What makes this instance so different than the countless other coups the US government was directly responsible for is that this was a government that had played by the rules of capitalist democracy, won fair and square within it, and still was violently overthrown once the redistribution of wealth and ownership of resources affected the pockets of the imperialists.

Marxism-Leninism emphasizes the need for an armed wing of the revolutionary political party to defend it from violent capitalist reaction to preserve their power when they are threatened. Allende and his party, being self-described Marxists and Democratic Socialists, did not build up an armed wing of the party to defend it. The military in Chile was the only force within the existing state structure that had the right and power to defend the government from those who would seek to overthrow it, and this force was not ideologically or even necessarily politically aligned with the federal government. This is why although Allende’s party proved Democratic Socialism can win elections and gain political power by vote, it did not prove that it can sustain socialist economic reforms or protect them from capitalist restoration.

The Exception

There is another contemporary example however which often gets left out of this discussion and the broader discussions of socialism, and that is Kerala, India. In 1957 they became one of the first places in the world to succeed in electing a fully Marxist government within a capitalist democratic republic. Kerala is only one state in the broader nation of India, and so the “Communist Party of India (Marxist)” does not have the power to change the national economic system short of starting a civil war. Instead, they have chosen to do what they can with their control of the state government to materially improve the lives of the working class and further their democratic agency. They have implemented comprehensive land redistribution, invested heavily in public education to achieve near-universal literacy, established a healthcare system that rivals those in the developed world, and much more.

Kerala, while inspiring, seems to be the exception to the rule. When Kerala gets brought up in the imperial core it is presented as an oddity, something that exists despite all logic; it borders on mind-boggling for the average American. We “know” that “socialism doesn't work” because of the sensationalized portrayal of the violent revolutions of Marxist-Leninist states and the sanctions and coups that overthrow them, but here is a place that has been existing all these decades with no violent civil war caused by capitalist reaction and no sanctions or coups making things worse; only an earnest representative government consistently improving the lives of the citizens, for all these years, and it still is here, still going.