Sometimes I’m a bit fixated on the distinction between social democracy and socialism (or socialist democracy). And I approach the topic from many angles. We might tell one from the other in terms of how they build programs, how (and whether) they oppose capitalism, who makes up their base, how (and whether) they engage in class struggle, and whether morality drives their politics. And we even find that language (and/or inflation thereof) plays a role.
Furthermore, this stands out as no mere academic debate. It drives movement and electoral strategy, as well as how leftist orgs grow.
A book I was just reading reminded me of another approach to it. That approach concerns creativity, democracy, and innovation. Let’s take a look.
Socialist Democracy as Liberation
About 50 years ago, Noam Chomsky delivered a set of lectures in honor of Bertrand Russell. The first covered more philosophical or scientific topics, while the second covered political activism. I found that these lectures go very nicely with Chomsky’s discussions with Foucault around the same time.
Chomsky doesn’t dwell on the issues of social democracy and socialist democracy, but he does mention it in passing. Here’s what he says:
For the present, Russell regarded some variant of guild socialism as a reasonable prospect for the advanced industrial societies, with workers’ control of industries…Such ideas stand in sharp contrast to a widespread view that “All social democratic ideals fundamentally relate to how we distribute our wealth and allocate our resources: this is what socialism is about.” For Russell, what socialism is about is the liberation of the creative impulse and the reconstruction of society to this end. Wealth might be distributed equitably in a prison, and resources allocated rationally by a dictatorship or corporate oligarchy.
In other words, a socialist democracy allows people the freedom to engage in creativity and innovation in line with their wishes. It’s also one where they’re free to develop those wishes without the pressures found in capitalism.
Anarchism, Socialist Democracy, and Social Democracy
Chomsky’s remarks don’t really contradict social democracy. Rather, they put the emphasis in a different place. The social democrat wants to ensure the public ownership and distribution of key resources. The public owns and manages health care, food, housing, and so on.
But, more deeply, social democracy of this sort emerges from a class collaboration project between workers and capitalists. The worker gains all the tools necessary for survival – no small feat under capitalism! – and the capitalist gains the ability to continue profiting elsewhere, in other industries. It doesn’t build socialist democracy, but simply a much more humane capitalism.
By contrast, Chomsky draws from anarchist tradition. The anarchist wants to build a society where people can thrive, where they can live out the best version of their lives.
With that as the goal, we might make different strategic and tactical decisions on the left. We might put more focus on, for example, creating worker co-ops, running our organizations with democratic processes, and creating democratic workers and tenants unions. When working toward social democracy, these things can get lost in the fray. Chomsky’s lecture reveals that disconnect.
