THE IDEOLOGICAL DIVIDE: SOCIAL DEMOCRACY AND COMMUNISM
Jeanne McGuire
Many social democrats and others on the non‑revolutionary left have been critical of social democracy. There are legions of books and articles which have laid bare the “failures” of social democracy in practice. In every country where the local variant of social democracy has formed the government, in every Canadian province where the New Democratic Party (NDP), and the Co‑operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) before it, has been elected, there have been those both from outside and within its own ranks who have bemoaned the failure of those governments to deliver the changes which were promised, and which were eagerly anticipated. And there have been myriad reasons offered why those governments have failed. This is an issue to which I will return later in this article.
Social democracy has been described by its own documents as well as by its academic supporters as the peaceful, electoral, evolutionary (as opposed to revolutionary) road to socialism. Increasingly, however, many of the official social democratic parties and their supporters no longer even refer to socialism at all, in their documents or in their rhetoric. A revolutionary rupture with the past is seen as neither necessary nor desirable. This opposition to a revolutionary challenge to capitalism has meant that those who are adherents of social democracy see social democracy not merely as an alternative to communism. Based on their actions and often their rhetoric, the conclusion is inescapable that the official party and the leadership of social democratic parties, in particular, see communism as more of a threat than capitalism.
It is this assessment—that communism, not capitalism, is the real enemy—that has produced some of social democracy’s most egregious behavior. It provided the rationale for social democrats to destroy militant trade unions and to reject alliances with communists which might have led to working class gains. It provided the basis for its support of military alliances whose aim was to threaten socialist countries, its support for military actions aimed at the overthrow of governments labelled as communist, communist‑leaning, anti‑Western, “undemocratic,” or any of a whole host of other designations which the capitalists and the states in their thrall have identified as requiring removal and replacement. They agreed to the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran (Britain), to the operations against Cheddi Jagan in Guyana (Britain), they agreed to the inclusion of Canadian involvement in the invasion of Afghanistan (Canada), they joined the invasion of Iraq (Britain). The Canadian arm of social democracy initially failed to speak out against the bombing of Libya, has backed away from its opposition to Canada belonging to NATO and has supported the membership of Ukraine in NATO.
There are Marxist assessments which have examined the constraints which social democracy has accepted and the concessions it has made—over time and across nations—in order to present itself as a credible alternative.[1] There are Marxist assessments which have analyzed the divisions between social democracy and communism. Sam Hammond in The Spark! #26, summer 2017, wrote an excellent article delineating the difference between reformism and the struggle for reforms, between reformism and revolution. These are important and useful to understand social democracy and how communists differ in their approach to practical political questions.
This article hopes to address a separate issue, the theoretical distinction between social democracy and communism. What constitutes the ideological foundation for the divide between reformism and revolution? Why is it they are reformists and we are revolutionaries?
Many social democrats and communists agree that the system is unjust and inequitable and becoming more so, that it treats some people cruelly, that it discriminates, and that it ignores catastrophic issues of climate change, environmental degradation and the threat of nuclear war.
Why, then, do we disagree on how to address those problems? In my estimation, the answer lies in differences in theoretical understanding with respect to a few, but significant, features of the system which both social democrats and communists agree produces these unacceptable results. It is these differences in the theoretical understanding of the nature of the problem and consequently, the solution to the problem, that lie at the heart of the “great divide” within the working class between reformism and revolutionary politics.
Before I begin to outline those theoretical differences, I must make the following disclaimer. Not every social democrat accepts all, or even some, of the ideas that I am attributing to social democracy. These are the ideas which have been the distinguishing ideas of social democratic parties and governments and many of those who have led those parties in different countries and over many years. Obviously, they are also the ideas of many of social democracy’s supporters.
The first theoretical difference is in the understanding of the nature of the society in which we live. Social democracy identifies Western societies not primarily as capitalist, but as democratic. This reflects an idealist focus on ideas and superstructural features as being the most significant features in defining the nature of a society. This definition of the West as democratic also includes the view that socialist societies are totalitarian. Communists see production—what is produced and how it is produced, how it is distributed, how much to whom, who owns the production process, who controls the surplus that is produced—as the defining attribute of a society. Thus, communists see Western societies not as democratic, but as capitalist, and see societies organized around the social ownership and control of production not as totalitarian but as socialist. The mechanisms of representation and accountability with respect to how policy decisions are made—while important and worthy of scrutiny and assessment—are less important than the issue of private versus social ownership.
Another way in which social democrats and communists differ with respect to the nature of capitalism is on the issue of exploitation and the degree to which capitalism is amenable to change. Social democracy agrees that capitalism is unfair, that working people get the dirty end of the stick when it comes to wages, access to resources, and services like housing, education, security of incomes and employment. The job confronting social democracy, then, is to make it fairer, to enact policies to redistribute income through state provision of certain services, through welfare schemes and taxation laws.
Communists approve of all these measures but for communists, capitalism cannot be made fair because capitalism is based on the exploitation of labour power, that is, the private appropriation of the surplus that is produced in the process of production. Since capitalism by this theory must exploit workers, to end exploitation it is necessary to end capitalism. Production today is a process involving masses of people across a variety of individual industries which employ workers who labour in social collectivities, all working in a multitude of complementary activities contributing to the final product. In other words, production is social at the factory level and across the economy. Therefore, the only way workers as a class can have control over production, decide the objectives of the economy, and determine the use of social wealth, is to become the owners of the industries and corporations where production takes place. There is just one way for them to do that: by owning them in common. To be free of exploitation requires workers to do away with private ownership and to place industry in the hands of society as a whole.
The second theoretical difference is in the understanding of the state in capitalist society. There are two ways in which the social democratic view of the state differs from a Marxist view of the state. First, social democracy views the state as supra‑class and as the arena in which differing ideas about how best to organize the social aspects of society are contested through elections. In other words, for social democracy the state is neutral and subject to the democratic wishes of the citizenry. Marxists view the state as a mechanism of class rule, as predating capitalism and as existing primarily to ensure the continued existence of whichever class is in power. As The Communist Manifesto so succinctly puts it: “The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” This is in no way a simplistic view of the state. It allows for a wide range of options for how best to achieve the ongoing stability of the system: from democracies that range from neoliberal to social democratic, to authoritarian regimes ranging from repressive monarchies to military juntas—and a whole range of governmental systems in between. It allows for policies, within each option, that cover the spectrum from benevolent to totalitarian, from progressive to reactionary, from enlightened to repressive.
A further difference between social democracy and communism with respect to the state is the view social democracy has that what constitutes the state is the government. Social democrats believe that once they are elected, they are in control of the state. This explains why social democracy focusses on elections. If real control over a society is possible just through elections, then it is rational to emphasize elections over all else.
For communists the government is merely one aspect of the state—its administrative arm. In addition to the administrative apparatus of governments, the state includes a whole range of agencies, organizations and bodies such as schools, hospitals, libraries and the CBC (in Canada), which deliver agreed‑upon services and meet certain state‑assigned needs of the ruling class—yes—but also of the whole society, or at least large sections of it.
The state plays an important role providing ideological legitimation for the existing class relations by promoting the idea that the way society is organized represents the best possible way, and if there are problems, they are minor and can be fixed with small administrative adjustments. Moreover, since everyone has the right to vote, whatever exists, exists because the majority of the people support it. The state is not the only mechanism for transmitting this message. Newspapers and other media such as movies and the internet (both privately and, too frequently, publicly owned) play a significant role broadcasting and echoing this theme, with a thousand variations.
This ideological legitimation incorporates the doctrine that the people who own the major corporations do not exercise undue control over the administrative arm of the state, and if they do, that we can either agree that it is acceptable that they do (U.S.) or that we can limit some facets of the undue influence (Canada). Furthermore, this view holds that ownership reflects the innate abilities and intelligence of the owners. The workers earn what the job they do deserves, and the owners earn more, sometimes hundreds, even thousands of times more, by virtue of their greater abilities, and as their return for risk‑taking. The efficacy and success of this message means that under normal conditions elections can, indeed, be free and fair without any threat to the existing social order. When there is a threat to the social order, or even a hint of a threat to the social order, the other side of the state comes into its own.
Crucial to the communist analysis of the state is the presumption that the state requires the capability of physically repressing the subordinate classes should they ever attempt to alter class relations. One of the prerogatives of the state, in fact, is that it holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. That is an important distinction. It does not hold a monopoly on the use of force, but on the legitimate use of force. Anyone else using force to achieve their aims may be judged to be legal or illegal, depending on the circumstances. In most cases it is not acceptable to use force to direct the behavior of others, although here we see another example of American exceptionalism. The state, however, is deemed to have the right to do exactly that at all times.
The institutions that are given responsibility for this function include the police, the army, the prison system and the judicial system. These coercive elements are crucial to the maintenance of the class relations of society, and to be unaware of their power and relative autonomy from administrative control can prove fatal. Examples of the military stepping in to prevent a democratic alteration of class relations include: Spain (civil war); Indonesia (military intervention); the Democratic Republic of the Congo (military coup); and Chile (military coup). There are other examples. In these instances, the most powerful of the repressive forces, the military, acted to overturn or, in the case of Indonesia, prevent the election of, a government with an agenda of substantial change to the society, which might have curtailed the power of the ruling class.
Understanding the repressive nature of the capitalist state and understanding what agencies constitute the threat of repression does not guarantee that a government hoping to enact substantial social change will have the resources necessary to counter that threat. Believing that the military serves the nation rather than the ruling class, however, means that such a government doesn’t even know there is a threat and therefore has no way to resist it when that threat is unveiled.
Moreover, because the state is legitimate, the amount of power it can normally exercise far exceeds that of any other social force which might emerge to challenge it. That is why the American so‑called right to take up arms to overthrow an unjust government is a joke. It would be pitting guns against tanks, flame throwers and armored vehicles, jet bombers and missiles. In the same way that notions of taking on the police in any way other than civil actions, demonstrations, political organizing and pressure on politicians would be calamitous. Unless, of course, those who protest have those who wield power on their side. This is the reason for the leniency often shown by the police in the face of right‑wing actions which challenge the state. We are aware of this leniency but we should not be surprised by it, for those right‑wing challenges are not to capitalism but to more liberal, often secular, less socially backward administrations of capitalism.
This imbalance in access to force is the reason communists argue for mass, extra‑parliamentary activity since the only power progressive elements have that exceeds the coercive power of the state is the power of the many—many in action, many united and many determined to change the way society operates. Communists accept that they must articulate this need to achieve unity and help to organize to achieve that unity and strive always to articulate the program required to mobilize the many—the working class.
There have been some instances when the revolutionary movements have been able to overcome the enormous power of the state through combat (e.g., Cuba). Most movements for social change, however, have relied on the sheer weight of numbers to overcome the willingness of the armed forces to suppress their aspirations. Uprisings such as occurred in Egypt in 2011 were initially successful because of their numbers and persistence. I say initially, because, once the uprising felt it had achieved its goals, the armed forces were still there, willing and able to reassert past power relations. The other condition under which a movement for social change can assert itself occurs when those who are responsible for upholding that power no longer feel any loyalty to it (e.g., Portugal, 1974). In other words, when the army and the police refuse to turn their guns on the protesters. As I noted above, this most often occurs when the protests are made up of right‑wing elements. However, if the overwhelming majority of the people support revolutionary demands, then the protests will include the parents, siblings and children of the police and army, and that can induce an unwillingness to use force against them.
One way or another, for a revolutionary change in the social system to occur, the power of the bourgeois state must be overcome by force, by uncontainable numbers or by the unwillingness of the repressive agencies to exercise their capability. The use of force is never the decision of the revolutionary movement. It is always the decision of the class in power not to cede its place to the contending class under any circumstance other than the defeat of the palace guard.
Another theoretical difference between communists and social democrats is the attitude towards the nation. Social democrats, when faced with a crisis, even if that crisis has been manufactured, have traditionally opted to support the so‑called national interests of their country against the interests of the working class at home and (weighing with them even less) the interests of workers in other countries. They have supported sending their own working class to die in the wars that the rulers have said must be fought.
This was one of the first cracks in the unity of the parties of the working class when the social democratic parties of Europe supported their governments’ call to arms in World War I.
Communism places its emphasis on class and—in the case of capitalism—the working class and the capitalist class. Communists contend that each of these classes has its own interests, and that they are, ultimately, in opposition to each other. While communists do support the right of those living under the yoke of imperialism to take up arms to rid themselves of imperialist domination, communism opposes workers being used as cannon fodder in the defence of imperialist goals.
With few exceptions this difference has continued down to the present. Social democracy has continued to support the “national” interests and communists have supported workers’ class interests. See the instances cited above of social democratic parties’ collusion with their national bourgeoisie against efforts within colonies and former colonies to alter power relations.
Nationalism has been a monumental obstacle to working class unity. Even communists, whose ideology opposes nationalism, have at various times over the course of their history fallen prey to its allure. The French Communist Party, for example, betrayed their class for the “national interest” when it supported the participation of France in the invasion of Afghanistan and, more recently, when it supported the intervention by France in Mali initiated in 2018 by the President of France, Francois Hollande of the Socialist Party. Nationalism continues to plague the working class, obscuring the face of the real enemy of working people, and allowing the capitalist class to claim it as their ally in conflicts around the world.
There is one other issue which I would like to address. It is true that social democratic governments have, historically, delivered some important reforms to health care, education and infrastructure, as well as other areas within society. It is also true that social democratic governments have been unable to meet the expectations of many of their supporters, particularly with respect to policies that would constrain the corporations or reduce their profits. That is the criticism of social democracy by many social democrats. I stated above that I would come back to this point. Many left social democrats voice disappointment (or even outrage) at what they perceive as a failure (or even betrayal) on the part of the social democratic parties in office to follow party policy as decided in convention, or to deliver upon promises made in elections. This failure—or betrayal—is often seen as a result of the lack of commitment on the part of individual leaders, a matter of their personal culpability. The critics sometimes attribute it to an all‑consuming desire to be elected and the perception on the part of electoral players in the party that adhering to policy would be detrimental to their electoral chances. These reasons may indeed be at play in decisions they make once elected, particularly if they are elected but do not form the government.
Footnotes
A writer with exceptional clarity of analysis and language can be found on ZZ’s blog (http://zzs-big-blogspot.com). He has written equally insightfully on this subject supported by a wealth of historical detail.
For example, the head of the British army, General Sir Nicholas Houghton expressed the opinion that then left‑leaning head of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn’s views “made him unfit to be the prime minister” (The Guardian, November 9, 2015); and another, “anonymous” general was quoted as saying “there was a very real prospect of an event which would effectively be a mutiny” if Corbyn was elected Prime Minister.
Social democracy identifies Western societies not primarily as capitalist, but as democratic. ... This definition of the West as democratic also includes the view that socialist societies are totalitarian. Communists see production—what is produced and how it is produced, how it is distributed, how much to whom, who owns the production process, who controls the surplus that is produced—as the defining attribute of a society. Thus, communists see Western societies not as democratic, but as capitalist, and see societies organized around the social ownership and control of production not as totalitarian but as socialist. The mechanisms of representation and accountability with respect to how policy decisions are made—while important and worthy of scrutiny and assessment—are less important than the issue of private versus social ownership.
Social democracy agrees that capitalism is unfair, that working people get the dirty end of the stick when it comes to wages, access to resources, and services like housing, education, security of incomes and employment. The job confronting social democracy, then, is to make it fairer, to enact policies to redistribute income through state provision of certain services, through welfare schemes and taxation laws.
Communists approve of all these measures but for communists, capitalism cannot be made fair because capitalism is based on the exploitation of labour power, that is, the private appropriation of the surplus that is produced in the process of production. Since capitalism by this theory must exploit workers, to end exploitation it is necessary to end capitalism. ... Therefore, the only way workers as a class can have control over production, decide the objectives of the economy, and determine the use of social wealth, is to become the owners of the industries and corporations where production takes place. There is just one way for them to do that: by owning them in common. To be free of exploitation requires workers to do away with private ownership and to place industry in the hands of society as a whole.
Crucial to the communist analysis of the state is the presumption that the state requires the capability of physically repressing the subordinate classes should they ever attempt to alter class relations. One of the prerogatives of the state, in fact, is that it holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. That is an important distinction. It does not hold a monopoly on the use of force, but on the legitimate use of force. Anyone else using force to achieve their aims may be judged to be legal or illegal, depending on the circumstances. In most cases it is not acceptable to use force to direct the behavior of others, although here we see another example of American exceptionalism. The state, however, is deemed to have the right to do exactly that at all times.
The institutions that are given responsibility for this function include the police, the army, the prison system and the judicial system. These coercive elements are crucial to the maintenance of the class relations of society, and to be unaware of their power and relative autonomy from administrative control can prove fatal. Examples of the military stepping in to prevent a democratic alteration of class relations include: Spain (civil war); Indonesia (military intervention); the Democratic Republic of the Congo (military coup); and Chile (military coup). ... In these instances, the most powerful of the repressive forces, the military, acted to overturn or, in the case of Indonesia, prevent the election of, a government with an agenda of substantial change to the society, which might have curtailed the power of the ruling class.
... Moreover, because the state is legitimate, the amount of power it can normally exercise far exceeds that of any other social force which might emerge to challenge it. That is why the American so‑called right to take up arms to overthrow an unjust government is a joke. It would be pitting guns against tanks, flame throwers and armored vehicles, jet bombers and missiles. In the same way that notions of taking on the police in any way other than civil actions, demonstrations, political organizing and pressure on politicians would be calamitous. Unless, of course, those who protest have those who wield power on their side. This is the reason for the leniency often shown by the police in the face of right‑wing actions which challenge the state. We are aware of this leniency but we should not be surprised by it, for those right‑wing challenges are not to capitalism but to more liberal, often secular, less socially backward administrations of capitalism.
This imbalance in access to force is the reason communists argue for mass, extra‑parliamentary activity since the only power progressive elements have that exceeds the coercive power of the state is the power of the many—many in action, many united and many determined to change the way society operates. Communists accept that they must articulate this need to achieve unity and help to organize to achieve that unity and strive always to articulate the program required to mobilize the many—the working class.
There have been some instances when the revolutionary movements have been able to overcome the enormous power of the state through combat (e.g., Cuba). Most movements for social change, however, have relied on the sheer weight of numbers to overcome the willingness of the armed forces to suppress their aspirations. Uprisings such as occurred in Egypt in 2011 were initially successful because of their numbers and persistence. I say initially, because, once the uprising felt it had achieved its goals, the armed forces were still there, willing and able to reassert past power relations. The other condition under which a movement for social change can assert itself occurs when those who are responsible for upholding that power no longer feel any loyalty to it (e.g., Portugal, 1974). In other words, when the army and the police refuse to turn their guns on the protesters. As I noted above, this most often occurs when the protests are made up of right‑wing elements. However, if the overwhelming majority of the people support revolutionary demands, then the protests will include the parents, siblings and children of the police and army, and that can induce an unwillingness to use force against them.
One way or another, for a revolutionary change in the social system to occur, the power of the bourgeois state must be overcome by force, by uncontainable numbers or by the unwillingness of the repressive agencies to exercise their capability.
It is true that social democratic governments have, historically, delivered some important reforms to health care, education and infrastructure, as well as other areas within society. It is also true that social democratic governments have been unable to meet the expectations of many of their supporters, particularly with respect to policies that would constrain the corporations or reduce their profits. That is the criticism of social democracy by many social democrats. …Many left social democrats voice disappointment (or even outrage) at what they perceive as a failure (or even betrayal) on the part of the social democratic parties in office to follow party policy as decided in convention, or to deliver upon promises made in elections. This failure—or betrayal—is often seen as a result of the lack of commitment on the part of individual leaders, a matter of their personal culpability. The critics sometimes attribute it to an all‑consuming desire to be elected and the perception on the part of electoral players in the party that adhering to policy would be detrimental to their electoral chances. These reasons may indeed be at play in decisions they make once elected, particularly if they are elected but do not form the government.
Hey sorry can you please elaborate on the origins of the earthworm Jim thing. Back in 2016 my boyfriend and I would send LET EARTHWORM JIM BE GAY to every blog we could think of on anon, but we don’t know how far back we were doing it and we don’t know why it started. Did you draw that because of an earthworm jim ask, or did we start doing it in response to your drawing? This is making me crazy
Around that time Earthworm Jim creator Doug TenNapel was getting heat for his history of transphobic and homophobic remarks. And I think maybe the franchise was also optioned or sold to a new rights holder? So of course, future Jim media should Let him Be Gay. I borrowed the phrase from tumblr to draw it but I don't remember the OP or how to find it!
discoholicmusic
yousharknotpass
origamiaround
andulkaphoto
janainaart
