As discussed on the political-economic systems page, we can identify six types of political-economic systems based on the extent to which they are more or less democratic or authoritarian political systems and have adopted capitalism, socialism, or a mix of both, as their economic system. Actual (existing) systems can be identified for five of these categories. The only kind of system that has, to my knowledge, and based on the criteria specified, never been put into practice at the national (state) level is that of democratic socialism. Neither the Soviet Union nor China, nor any other country that was or is a self-proclaimed socialist state, has been (more or less) democratic. Here, I argue that the non-existence of democratic socialist systems can be interpreted in two main ways: first, at the level of ideology or principle it can be argued that there is a fundamental clash between socialism and the liberal view of democracy; second, at the political level, the hostility of capitalist forces (including governments) towards socialism has not been conducive towards the introduction of democratic institutions in socialist countries. However, this does not mean that, in principle, socialism cannot be democratic. On the contrary, given the limited nature of liberal democracy and the scope for interpreting and applying the idea of democracy much more broadly and meaningfully, it is possible to design socialist political-economic systems that are more democratic than liberal-democratic systems. And whilst we are at it, let us not forget to also make them genuinely sustainable.
Ideologically, there is an obvious reason why socialism and liberal democracy are clashing and incompatible. As discussed before, one of the key tenets of liberal democracy is the belief in the sanctity of private property rights, while socialism rejects capitalism and the private ownership of the means of production. Although socialism does not necessarily imply the rejection of all private property (socialist systems have varied in the extent to which private ownership has been allowed), it advocates (some form of) public or collective ownership of those assets (including the means of production) that are used to exploit people for the sake of expanding capital. It is in this respect that socialism does not recognise private property as a core element of democracy or democratic rights. By contrast, such private property rights (of land and other means of production) were advanced by liberal thinkers as natural or inalienable political rights at the time of the rise of the capitalist class. Enshrining private property rights in law was aimed at providing protection against the power of monarchs to arbitrarily confiscate the wealth of citizens and civilian organisations, a practice which was not uncommon. Although the introduction and strengthening of liberal democratic institutions (including Parliaments, voting rights, and other rights) were also important means for putting checks on the arbitrary power of monarchs, it is the sanctity of private property rights that arguably is the ultimate rationale that underlies liberal democracy. By definition, capitalism does not and cannot exist without private property rights, but it can happily function, and even flourish, in undemocratic and highly oppressive regimes as long as private property rights are respected.
Given the threat that socialism poses to capitalism and the sanctity of private property (of the means of production) proclaimed by liberal democracies, it is understandable that capitalists and adherents of liberal democracy have been hostile to socialism and have declared it to be incompatible with democracy. Liberal democratic governments (especially of the United States) have done everything in their power to suppress, combat and eliminate support for socialism around the world, often under the banner of democracy.[1] Given the numerous ways and instances in which the governments of capitalist countries have (tried to) “neutralise(d)” socialist advocates and regimes, the leadership of socialist countries did not have to be paranoid to think that their regimes were targeted for elimination. Not surprisingly, this has led these leaders to develop a siege mentality which made them inclined to see plots and traitors (supported by foreign capitalists and governments) everywhere. It speaks for itself that such a situation and mentality are not conducive to (the promotion of) democracy and/or for allowing opposition. Marx, Lenin, Mao, and other socialists have always been keenly aware of the likelihood that counterrevolutionary and reactionary forces would do whatever they could to restore capitalism. Marx foresaw the need for a “dictatorship of the proletariat” and Lenin argued for concentrating power in the hands of a “vanguard party” to represent and defend the interests of the proletariat. From this point of view, establishing democracy in socialist political-economic systems is only possible if these systems are no longer under threat from reactionary capitalist forces, domestically and from abroad.
It is against the backdrop of this political struggle between capitalism and socialism that we should interpret the anti-democratic record of socialist systems. This is not to condone the atrocities committed under these regimes. There is always scope and a role for agency, especially at the level of political leadership, which can have enormous consequences for many, even millions of people. Yet, it is hard to deny that the creation of socialist systems in a significant number of countries, especially after WWII, led Western governments to actively seek regime change in those countries by all kinds of means, including military intervention.[2] Even if those efforts have not always been directly effective, they arguably contributed indirectly to the undermining of the political regimes in those countries as their repressive and undemocratic institutions and practices led to moral degeneration, corruption, the re-emergence of inequality, disillusionment, and cynicism about socialist ideals, and eventually to the erosion of legitimacy.[3]
However, it is important to recognise that these obstacles to the introduction of democracy in socialist political-economic systems are not intrinsic to socialism but exist because of the ideological and political antagonism from capitalist-liberal circles. A priori there is no reason why socialist ideology would be incompatible with the idea and practice of democracy, as reflected in the writings of non-Marxist-Leninist socialists, even pre-Marx. The key issue here is how democracy is interpreted or defined. Apart from the clash between socialist ideology and the idea that private ownership of the means of production is a fundamental political (or even human) right, socialism is ideologically compatible with political and human rights, including the right to vote, to be elected, freedom of speech, and to justice and “positive” human rights (including a right to housing, education, and health care). Moreover, within the socialist school of thought, which is much less homogenous and rigid than the opponents of socialism commonly wish to portray, other and broader interpretations of democracy can be found that transcend the rather narrow and limited view of democracy propounded by liberal democrats. Here, I will just briefly discuss a few of those ideas as they have much to offer when aspiring to create not only more democratic societies, but also to the introduction of institutional changes that can significantly advance environmental integration, protection, and sustainability. First, socialist thinkers have traditionally conceived of democracy as a collective, participatory, and collaborative process towards creating a better society, with an emphasis on common values, interests, and goals. Second, based on this broad interpretation, there is a long tradition in socialist thinking of applying the idea of democracy to the economic sphere.
Early socialist thinkers, who are often referred to, following the label used by Marx and Engels, as utopian socialists,[4] generally shared a commitment to creating a better society, in response to what they perceived as the pernicious effects of industrial capitalism. Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, Henri de Saint-Simon, and others all shared the belief that it was desirable and possible to create more just and egalitarian societies in which all members would enjoy a good life. The path towards creating such an ideal society was commonly based on ideas (or even a specific design) of how such a society should look like and on the creation of (intentional) communities that, if or when successful, could function as models and thus bring about social and political transformation. Hence they did not think that a revolution (by the working class) would be required to create a socialist society, which is why they were characterised as utopian by Marx and Engels, even though the latter shared the goal of creating a better (or ideal, communist) society and were influenced in this respect by the early socialists.
Although Marxist-Leninist socialists believed in the need for a political revolution to establish a socialist society, many other socialists did not and took the view that a better/socialist society could be brought about by a process of (mostly peaceful) reform.[5] But regardless of the differences in strategic thinking about how socialism can or must be established, socialists generally share the goal of creating a society based on cooperation, participation, equality, and solidarity as foundations for human and societal flourishing. Such a society, based on common values, must and will also be democratic but in a much broader sense than liberal democracy proclaims. Democracy implies the participation of all citizens in all matters and decisions that concern them (as determined by themselves), on an equal footing and by cooperation and deliberation rather than by competition based on their narrow self-interest. Thus, the socialist notion of democracy is based on self-governance by equal citizens, rather than one of competition between conflicting interests.[6]
This does not mean, of course, that socialists agree on the specific form(s) that democracy should take. There is a wide range of views on this point, among others, about the level and scale of the polities within which socialism can or should be practised or aspired to. For instance, while anarcho-socialists argue that socialism can only be achieved in small communities in which the state and all other forms of hierarchy are abolished, those who seek to establish socialism at the national or even global level accept that indirect (representative) forms of participation, and elements of (reformed) liberal democracy, will need to be part of the architecture of democratic institutions alongside new forms, such as citizens’ committees or councils. But a common observation that can be found in many socialist writings on this topic is that, once power has been wrested from the dominant liberal-capitalist class, it is up to the people themselves to further develop and introduce the particular forms, institutions, and processes by which they wish to govern themselves. Most recognise that there is little merit in presenting blueprints for democratic socialist systems.
A second, equally important contribution of socialist thinkers to democratic theory relates to the idea of economic democracy. The idea that workers should have a say in the management of companies, or even collectively own and run businesses, also goes back to pre-Marxist utopian socialist thinkers, including Robert Owen, who created cooperative communes that became a source of inspiration for the cooperative movement, and Louis Blanc, who sought government support for the establishment of workers’ associations.[7] Although these initiatives mostly failed, the idea of economic democracy has never gone away but has generated a considerable stream of ideas, literature and debate, as well as a variety of applications, some of which have been highly successful.
Broadly speaking, these discussions and efforts have focused on two levels: the (micro) level of individual enterprises and/or the (macro) level of the whole (national) economy. The ideas developed under the first focus are often referred to with the label of workers’ or industrial democracy, whereas the ideas and applications of the notion of economic democracy at the national level are commonly referred to as such (economic democracy) although they are sometimes also discussed under the heading of social democracy. However, it must be acknowledged that the principle of economic democracy must be developed and applied together at both levels if it is to make sense and be viable.
Following in the footsteps of the early or utopian socialists, who believed that societies could be transformed from the bottom up without the need for a revolution, those who focus foremost on industrial democracy look at how workers can be given greater or even full control over the enterprises in which they are working. Ideas and practices on this front comprise, among other, the creation of workers’ councils or committees that participate in decisions regarding a variable range of things (from working conditions and work practices to remuneration and investment), the creation of workers’ cooperatives that collectively own and manage enterprises, and the expansion of (shareholding) ownership by workers of existing companies.
The establishment of workers’ councils or committees that have a say in how companies are managed is not, on its own, a form of socialism. Such councils have been established in many social-democratic countries, including Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands, with varied rights and powers, but without a transfer of formal ownership to workers. Thus, they imply a very limited notion of industrial democracy, mitigating the inherently hierarchical structure of capitalist enterprises. For the most part, such councils have no control over investment decisions, nor a final say or veto in employment decisions. Yet, it is remarkable that, in many countries, allowing even such a minimal degree of participation of workers in the decision-making processes of companies is often resisted and rejected by employers and hence considered controversial.[8] Nonetheless, the idea that workers must have a say in the management of companies is a fundamental element of the socialist conception of economic democracy. But it should not stand alone.
A more meaningful interpretation of economic democracy involves the transfer of ownership of capital to workers as well as the granting of control over the management of companies to the collective of workers. This idea, based on the view that it is the collective of workers, including those in management positions, who produce the output and value of a company, makes it only logical that they should also own the company. Even if external financial capital is needed to establish or run the company, this can be sourced from cooperative banks or raised through bonds without relinquishing ownership to external shareholders. Ultimately, it can be argued, the collective of workers should have the final say in all matters of importance to the company.
This idea of economic democracy has been applied in many countries and different contexts. Arguably the most well-known and frequently mentioned example is that of Mondragon in the Spanish Basque region. Founded in 1956 as a small producers’ cooperative, Mondragon has grown into a collective of cooperatives involving the production of a broad range of products, including electrical goods, automobile components, machine tools, and furniture. It also operates a construction division, a retail chain, and its own bank.[9] The organisation is based on worker ownership, with initially all workers being members of the co-operative owning personalised capital accounts on which a proportion (45%) of the company’s profits is deposited (with another 45% being set aside for investment and 10% being allocated to charity and community projects). Management was accountable to all members and the wage differential was 3:1. Its financial management was conservative, with most investments financed from the co-operative’s revenues and bank. Because of its principled approach, cooperative culture, internal democratic structure, and economic success (its companies achieved above-average levels of productivity), Mondragon has often been held up as a showcase for industrial democracy.[10]
However, during the 1980s and 1990s, the organisation introduced several significant changes to respond to the growing competition arising from globalisation. Effectively, a choice was made to turn the cooperative into a multinational company, with subsidiaries being set up in many countries. In 2013, Mondragon, which changed its name to Mondragon Corporation, operated more than 120 production plants in 16 countries, including two in India and 13 in China.[11] In 2019, the company employed more than 80,000 people worldwide.[12] Most foreign workers were not members of the co-operative group with the result that, in 2006, the percentage of worker-members fell to less than 40 per cent compared to 80 per cent in 1990.[13] Although foreign workers were paid slightly higher wages than those paid by competing multinationals in the same countries, and an effort was made to maintain the original principles, including a low wage differential (which rose to 6:1, still small compared to that of capitalist corporations), inevitably, the company’s culture changed. As Malleson states, one can hardly escape the impression that Mondragon’s minority of worker-members “have, in effect, become privileged quasi-capitalist employers of a larger body of nonmember workers.”[14] While the economic success of Mondragon is often held up as evidence that cooperative enterprises can hold their own in the competitive struggle, it also shows that such companies do not fundamentally alter the (global) capitalist system if they are or become driven by the economic growth imperative necessitated by an industrial mode of production and competition in the national or global market. Invariably, this subjugates them to the same pressures to exploit people and the environment that are inherent to the capitalist-industrial system, even if they do so more efficiently and with the consent of the workers. The experience of Mondragon demonstrates that to effectively address the sources of exploitation of humans and the environment, socialism must be adopted at the national (and ultimately global) level.
This has been long recognised by many advocates of socialism. Yet, as noted above, thus far, no (nation-) state has succeeded in establishing a democratic-socialist system that has also proven to take the environmental challenge seriously. The only state that is sometimes referred to as a democratic socialist state (or a market-socialist state, which is not the same), was the former Yugoslavia. However, although the Yugoslav experience is very interesting, I will not elaborate on it here, for five main reasons.[15] First, although Yugoslavia, between 1949 and 1991 (when it fell apart), had a nationwide system of workers’ councils that formally promoted workers’ self-management, it constituted at most a very limited form of workers’ democracy as, de facto, much of the decision-making power at the micro (enterprise) level remained in the hands of managers, while all the macro-economic decisions were made by the federal government with little or no input from below. Moreover, the Yugoslav political system was not democratic but dominated by the Communist Party (and President Tito in particular).[16] Second, the workers’ councils seemed primarily concerned with wage increases and the standard of living of the workers, effectively functioning as enterprise trade unions with little interest in broader issues and/or even the interests of workers of other companies. Third, the companies operated within a market economy and competed with each other, as well as with foreign companies. Unlike the Soviet Union, the Yugoslav economy was not based on central economic planning. Fourth, there is no evidence to suggest—the literature generally ignores this issue—that Yugoslav companies gave serious consideration to environmental matters. Fifth, the Yugoslav system was not aimed at creating a post-industrial mode of production – boosting production in all sectors was as much an overall priority of this regime as of socialist and capitalist systems. For all these reasons, and as the country disintegrated in the 1990s, and not much has been written about its environmental integration efforts, the Yugoslav (Tito) regime offers a poor basis for assessing the merits of democratic socialism, let alone of a democratic eco-socialist system. Rather, as suggested above, it was a form of market socialism, even though it is difficult to locate the socialist element in such a system.[17]
Hence, we cannot point to a real-life example of a democratic socialist system at the national level, let alone a system that also integrates the environmental challenge in a fundamental way and that is oriented towards the development of a post-industrial production system. To determine whether it is possible to design such a system, what its main elements would be, and how it could be turned into reality are questions that can only be answered in tentative or even speculative, and different, ways. This challenge has been taken up by a considerable number of thinkers and authors, many of whom profess a commitment to eco-socialism. While many of the contributions on this front are interesting and important, quite a few seem to be aimed at proving that Marx was an environmentalist and/or that socialism is an ideology that is (most) compatible with, conducive to, or a necessary or even the only basis for creating a sustainable and socially just world. I agree with the view that capitalism is incompatible with long-term environmental sustainability and that socialism, in principle, is compatible with the need to give priority status to the protection of the environment (which has a social dimension) alongside social justice. The fact that actually existing socialist political-economic systems have mostly failed on the environmental front is not convincing evidence that socialist systems cannot integrate environmental concerns. Anyone who makes that argument will also need to write off capitalist political-economic systems. But whereas there is an internal logic in capitalism that makes it environmentally incompatible, this is not the case with socialism.
Here, I will not discuss the diversity of views on what an eco-socialist society can or should look like. Instead, I will highlight several points that, in my view, are crucially important but that do not always receive the attention or weight that they deserve.
First, given the fact that socialist systems have also been hooked by a commitment to industrialism, which is environmentally incompatible, the question remains what kind of (post-industrial) production system advocates of socialism would put in place or work towards introducing. Given the importance that Marxists assign to the “forces of production” and “modes of production”, the relative neglect of this question is somewhat surprising. “Just” abolishing capitalism is not a sufficient condition for moving towards a sustainable world, and neither is an emphasis on reducing inequality and or arguing that capitalism needs to be replaced by rational economic planning or management. The challenge of creating environmentally sustainable production systems that do not require growth raises big issues related to how sustainability is defined, technology, the scale of production, what is produced (and not), how resources are allocated, the role of markets (which does not imply accepting capitalism), the role of finance (if any), the relations and organisation of work, living standards, income distribution, and many more questions, including how decisions are made on these questions and by whom. As the mode of production is fundamental to the social relations of a society, the technical, social, ethical, economic, environmental, and political issues that it raises all need to be considered together.
Second, although this may seem obvious, it is highly unlikely that the world will move towards adopting socialism at the global level, let alone via a global revolution. Apart from the fact that socialist ideology has been in retreat for much of the past fifty years, the highly fragmented and geopolitical nature of the global order makes it extremely difficult to convert the whole world, or even all the major countries, to socialism, and certainly not all at once. Moreover, it is hard to imagine what a global socialist order or system would (have to) look like, even if the whole world would choose to or be forced to accept the creation of such an order. The idea of developing a global economic system that addresses all the questions referred to above (and more), and of adopting an economic plan that sets out the goals, objectives, and targets for each country or (geographical) region in the world, is likely to sprout a rationalistic, technocratic, social, and political nightmare. Even or especially if such efforts were to be assisted by artificial intelligence (AI) they are bound to lead to dystopia. Realistically, democratic socialism is only feasible at the national level as states remain vitally important for meeting the needs and demands of people, and for doing so in more or less democratic ways.
Third, to the extent that socialist ideology has been built on the assumption that socialism can only be achieved once a society has developed a substantial industry, and concomitantly an industrial workforce that provides the social (class) basis for bringing about change towards a socialist society, it can be regarded as being out of line with environmental imperatives. However, contrary to Marx’s expectations, the first socialist revolution occurred in a predominantly agricultural society (Russia), not in an advanced industrial society. This feat was repeated in all other countries that made the switch to socialism based on the efforts of home-based socio-political movements (rather than imposed by the Soviet Union, as in Eastern Europe), including Cuba, Vietnam, and several African countries. It appears, therefore, that being an advanced industrial society has not been, in reality, a requirement for establishing a socialist economic system. Nonetheless, as illustrated by the Soviet Union and socialist China, the development of industry was seen as an essential priority to unlock the productive forces of these countries, and as a basis for achieving real socialism (or communism) at a later stage. Arguably, therefore, from a socialist perspective, the development of an industrial production system marks a transitional stage and may no longer be necessary once the industrial forces have reached a certain (sufficient) level. But this assumes that, somehow, the further expansion of industry can be brought to a halt, which is counter to the logic of an industrial system.
Whether or to what extent an industrial production system can be transformed so that it loses its inherent expansionist logic and becomes fully or mostly ecologically rational as well as socially desirable (in terms of production relations and work conditions) is a big question facing both capitalist and socialist economic systems. This question also casts doubt on the possibility of greening socialist economic systems since they have become heavily dependent on industrial production (like most non-socialist countries in the world). Simply combining a socialist ideology with a pro-environmental or green stance is not a sufficient basis for creating a sustainable political-economic system. To achieve the latter, socialist economic systems will need to be based on an alternative (non- or post-) industrial production and consumption system that will significantly reduce in absolute terms the material and ecological footprint of existing systems and the world as a whole. Again, one would think that, in principle, designing, adopting, and implementing such an approach is more compatible with a rational and planned socialist approach than with capitalist rationality. However, a planning approach based on scientific rationality, even if circumscribed by socialist and environmental or ecological principles, may not lead to the kind of societies and world that most people want to live in. To achieve the latter, one ingredient that is missing and that needs to be added to the mix is democracy.
References
[1] Chomsky, Noam (1992), Deterring Democracy. London, New York: Verso; Huberman, Leo (1968), “The ABC of Socialism”, in L. Huberman and P. M. Sweezy (eds.), Introduction to Socialism, 21-81, 79.
[2] The reality of this threat was of course clearly illustrated in the case of Cuba, where an American-led invasion took place in 1962 (in the Bay of Pigs) but was defeated. The CIA also undertook several attempts to kill Fidel Castro, the Cuban leader, again to no avail.
[3] For powerful accounts on the degeneration of socialism in the Soviet Union, contributing to its ultimate demise, see Djilas, Milovan (1957), The New Class. An Analysis of the Communist System. New York: Praeger. Also Sarkar, Saral, Eco-Socialism or Eco-Capitalism? A Critical Analysis of Humanity’s Fundamental Choices. London and New York: Zed Books.
[4] Engels, Friedrich (1892; 1970), “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific”. In Marx/Engels Selected Works. Volume 3. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 95-151.
[5] Apparently, Marx himself later changed his mind and thought that in some advanced capitalist countries where the socialist movement had built up considerable strength (like the Netherlands) a peaceful and legal transition to socialism was quite possible. Sweezy, Paul M. (1968), “Marxian Socialism”, New York and London: Monthly Review Press, 85.
[6] Albert, Michael (2003), Parecon: Life after Capitalism. London: Verso; Fotopoulos, Takis (2009), “The Multidimensional Crisis and Inclusive Democracy”, The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy; Lebowitz, Michael A. (2016), “What Is Socialism for the Twenty-First Century?”, Monthly Review, Vol.68, No.5, 26-43.
[7] Wikipedia (2021), Louis Blanc, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Blanc (Accessed: 9 February 2021). Brown, Archie (2013), “Pre-Marxian Communist Ideas”, in M. Freeden, et al. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Engels, Friedrich, “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific”; Wikipedia (2021), Robert Owen, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen (Accessed: 9 February 2021).
[8] It is indicative that in a fairly recent work on economic democracy, it is deemed necessary to spend a whole chapter on justifying even such a minimal degree of economic democracy. Malleson, Tom (2014), After Occupy. Economic Democracy for the 21st Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Chapter 2.
[9] Blackburn, Robin (2007), “Economic Democracy: Meaningful, Desirable, Feasible?”, Daedalus, Vol.136, No.3, 36-45; Hutchinson, Frances, et al., The Politics of Money. Towards Sustainability and Economic Democracy. London: Pluto Press.
[10] Malleson, Tom, After Occupy. Economic Democracy for the 21st Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Whyte, William, F. (1999), “The Mondragon Cooperatives in 1976 and 1998”, Industrial & Labor Relations Review, Vol.52, No.3, 478-481.
[11] Murray, Robin (2012), “Co-Operatives and Global Growth: The Case of Mondragon”, in M. Kaldor, et al. (eds.), Global Civil Society 2012. Ten Years of Critical Reflection. Houndsmill, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 146; Wikipedia (2021), Mondragon Corporation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation (Accessed: 11 February 2021).
[12] Wikipedia, Mondragon Corporation.
[13] Malleson, Tom, After Occupy. Economic Democracy for the 21st Century, 64.
[14] Ibid., 60.
[15] For useful brief discussions and assessment of the Yugoslav experience with workers’ councils, see Singh, Parbudyal, et al. (2007), “The Yugoslav Experience with Workers’ Councils: A Reexamination”, Labor Studies Journal, Vol.32, No.3, 280-297; Marković, Goran (2011), “Workers’ Councils in Yugoslavia: Successes and Failures”, Socialism and Democracy,Vol.25, No.3, 107-129; Devine, Pat, Democracy and Economic Planning. Oxford: Polity Press, 94-100.
[16] Djilas, Milovan, The New Class. An Analysis of the Communist System. New York: Praeger.
[17] Marković, Goran (2011), “Workers’ Councils in Yugoslavia: Successes and Failures”; Bockman, Johanna (2011), Markets in the Name of Socialism: The Left-Wing Origins of Neoliberalism. Palo Alto, US: Stanford University Press, Chapter 3.
Humanity on Trial 