Written by David Starr   

While democracy means a government of the people, socialism means a sharing of (or government controlling) the means of production and distribution of goods. But is there really a difference? It ain't necessarily so.

If government has a public obligation, through a constitution, to uphold fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech, labor rights, access to free and/or affordable healthcare, voting rights and is representative by and for the people, then socialism is another word for democracy. After all, socialism is supposed to be representative of people having power, e.g., the working class controlling the means of production. Democracy is similar where power is supposed to be in the hands of the people through their representatives. (But it's not just about voting)

Thus, government is reflective of the people having political and economic power. And whether it's representatives in government or workers in a business, power is shared among them within a reasonable framework as they play their respective roles in the maintaining of a society. For example, economic power: workers having decision-making powers in a business, such as voting for their managers or board of directors, setting policies and creating a fairer distribution of profits; something like workers' cooperatives. Government and its representatives, making laws, would step in a regulatory role to see that the laws, in this case pertaining to the economy, are reasonably upheld. In certain situations, referendums could be held to decide on a particular policy involving the economy.

While capitalism wouldn't disappear, a socialist government would regulate it. This is on par with Abraham Lincoln's statement that labor is superior to capital.

The Failed Stalinist Model

History has shown that Stalinism failed to live up to its "socialist" standards, although certain successes were produced such as rapid industrialization, free healthcare and education and repelling the Nazi invasion of the USSR during WWII. (Perhaps despite Stalinism.) At one point, a few years after the 1917 October Revolution in Russia, Bolsheviks like Vladimir Lenin and Nicholai Bucharin were introducing the New Economic Policy whereby capitalism would be utilized but under socialism. There would be negotiations with the peasants as opposed to conducting forced requisition of grain from them that occurred after the Revolution, during the Civil War between the Reds and Whites, and the invasion of the Western Powers and Japan.

But some years after Lenin died, Stalin ordered the NEP stopped. His goal was "full socialism." (An interesting term since socialism is an intermediary step, in Marxist terms, between capitalism and communism.) It was also called "socialism in one country." The Soviet Union had to industrialize quickly to ward off any foreign threats. But this could have been done with the NEP.

Stalinism introduced forced collectivization and state ownership of everything (“public ownership”).

In the late 1930s, a great purge began resulting in the Show Trials. Stalin had accused his own "comrades" of launching all sorts of conspiracies against him, calling them "enemies of the people," and had them executed. Many in the rank-and-file of the Communist Party were purged. In the early 1990s, the Soviet Union dissolved, ending whatever what was left of the Stalinist model in the former USSR.

Bernie Sanders and the Scandinavian Model

Democratic socialist Bernie Sanders has touted the Scandinavian countries as having an answer to governing a country. The Scandinavian countries combine capitalism with low barriers to "free" trade and a strong public sector. There is a strong social safety net, free education and universal healthcare. There are also partnerships between unions, employers and the government to negotiate the conditions in a workplace where it would be self-regulated.

Sanders favors using Scandinavian practices for the United States.

But neoliberal reforms have been introduced, notably in Sweden, where there has been a rise in inequality. Workers and unions worry that these reforms would make further inroads. And neoliberal reforms and "free" trade can tend to go hand-in-hand. Despite the success, the Scandinavian countries are not entirely immune to the current world economic order. Neoliberals and neoconservatives want to go far and wide to attain their ideological objectives.

Albert Einstein's Views on Socialism

Albert Einstein's credentials as a socialist are reflected in his piece, "Why Socialism?," published in the Monthly Review in 1949. Einstein wrote about the "predatory phase" of human development, and asserted that "the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase..." He also asserted that "socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end."

And here is additional information:

Einstein also wrote about the role of private capital:

"Private capital tends to become concentrated in a few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society [at least the bourgeois concept of it]."

The roles of the individual and society are also touched upon:

"The abstract concept 'society' means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive and work by himself; but he depends so much on society-in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence. It is 'society' which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought. However, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings is variable and susceptible to change."

Regarding the individual and socialism:

"[I]t is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?"

For a Democratic/Socialist Society

It is still taboo, at least in U.S. society, to openly talk about and debate socialism without the demonic stereotypes. Whatever is mentioned of it is strongly negative and biased. But the U.S. population has been conditioned to immediately think that socialism is "evil" by a capitalist-owned media and a capitalist-ruled government. Thus, having a balanced narrative on the subject is near to impossible.

But as conditions get harder for the average citizen, there may be more attention drawn to asking questions about socialism. In the United States today, 36% view socialism favorably. And in a 6/24/2015 Gallup poll, 47% said they would consider voting for a socialist candidate. There may come a time where the citizenry will get fed up with the boom and bust cycles of capitalist rule (and imperial wars that help it).

Perhaps then, the masses will recognize that not only is socialism another word for democracy, but an advanced form of democracy.

David Starr writes on various issues, both national and international.