Beyond Democratic Socialism

What is there's no democratic road to socialism?

Now I want to be clear here about what I mean by this:

- by 'socialism' I mean a society defined by social values, as opposed to the all-encompassing definition of society by capital. In my previous post, I suggested: mechanisms such as defining some things as being 'not for sale'; alternative 'currencies' such as reputation, trust, friendship and family or tribe; and physical limits on capital, so that it is not possible to concentrate wealth.  

- by 'democratic' I mean a society governed through the process of elections and representative assemblies, where while there may be distinct federal, provincial and municipal 'layers' of government, nonetheless power is concentrated in the individuals or parties that earn the most votes.

The Jacoban article by Neal Meyer that prompts this discussion suggests that there are limits to what capitalism will allow socialism to achieve under democratic government. "Capital will not tolerate its own abolition by gradual steps, and that when those limits are reached, further conflict and not retreat will be the order of the day."

Now let me separate myself from the sort of policies described by the Jacoban, such as the nationalization of finance and the major corporations, or the expropriation of the great family fortunes. As I suggested in my previous article, simply transferring ownership from individuals to the state does not overturn capitalism, it doesn't overturn the all-pervasive power of ownership, it simply puts it into different hands.

Just as you don't change a society by merely changing the government, so also you do not change capitalism simply by changing the owners. There's nothing special about people who are in government that would make them less autocratic than people who own vast sums of wealth. Surely we've learned this through history, even as we learn it again anew today.

That said, the proposition posed by the Jacoban is a serious one: capitalists will resist any government that threatens to impose deep structural reforms in society: "that showdown may take the form of capital strikes, semilegal moves to destabilize a socialist administration, and even attempts to depose a democratically elected government by force."

Democratically elected socialist governments make two mistakes, according to Meyer.

First, "social democratic parties were marked by a pervasive equivocation... parties that are ambivalent about the goal of democratizing economic power will never see the need to move toward, let alone see through, a rupture with capitalism."

Second, "social democratic parties were marred by a tendency to contain the rank-and-file activities of party members and movement activists, to channel all work into the electoral arena, and ultimately to disempower the activist layer in their own parties." 

I don't disagree with either point, though again I don't think "public ownership, nationalization, and expropriation" are the way forward. Nor do they even define a real socialism. Transferring the power of ownership isn't the same as eliminating it, nor even of reducing it.

I think I can capture the spirit of these points by saying that a single-minded focus on replacing government and replacing ownership will not result in sustained change in society. That, indeed, is also why a socialist movement based in conflict will ultimately fail. The goal isn't to overthrow capitalism, it isn't to replace capitalism, it is ultimately to make capitalism - and governance by ownership, generally - unnecessary.

That doesn't mean there should be no involvement in electoral politics. It's just to say that the needs and priorities of political parties should not be the tail that wags the dog. Indeed, political success is more likely through keeping a focus on core values and goals.

What are these? Something like:

- support for ordinary people with stronger services like health, dental, pharma and child care, employment insurance, disability and welfare support, etc.

- protection for basic rights like the right to unionize, organize, protest and generally speak effectively to power to promote equitable wages and quality of life

- provision of strong consumer protections and ensures we are not victimized by huge corporations

- honouring of national and international commitments to environmental protection and preservation, including support for affordable transit and active living, and an end to oil industry subsidies

- genuine reconciliation with indigenous nations

- honouring and promoting the many cultures of the world, and ensuring that all people, including especially under-represented groups, have equitable access to opportunities and outcomes

- support for cooperative culture and industry and protection from their assimilation by external forces

This is not a complete list. But things like that, all based on the idea of a Canada where each Canadian has the right to live a dignified life without fear or deprivation. It's based on the idea that these core elements of society are not for sale and cannot be withheld simply because a person does not own enough capital. 

The route to policies such as these isn't based on fighting those who oppose them, it's based on supporting those who are in support of them. This is based not on the easy work of reacting to what you don't like, but on the hard work of defining what specific things we should do instead. Otherwise the movement has no centre.

There's no shortage of people who are aligned, but they have to be found. For example, one could go through the phone book (I show my age), Facebook, Reddit, etc. etc. - everything you can find - and make a list of individuals and groups that align with that centre - especially the 'specific things' part.

And then, a sustainable movement doesn't ask for their support. Instead, it offers to help them. Don't ask them to help you. Offers to help them. Shares. Does the work. Gets to know them. Connects. Promotes them and helps their voices to be heard. Provides resources. Defends them.

This kind of power - the kind that emerges from inter-meshed and society-wide networks of people more interested in society than in wealth or power - isn't what overthrows large governments, industries and financial networks. It's what makes them unnecessary. It's a society based on governing ourselves and helping others. 

If we focus on trying to govern society, all we get is the same old society, with the same old problems. If we focus on building society, we have at least some chance of getting - finally - what we want.