Definitions of democratic socialism are often too vague and varied to produce a definitive model. One school defines it as ‘socialism through electoral, evolutionary or reformist path’ (as against the revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg path or the autocratic communist path); however, this definition is a little too simplistic and incomplete as it speaks about process only and remains silent about the very (economic) system.
To understand the similarities and differences between communist and socialist economies in proper perspective, we have to compare their modalities going beyond the abstracts of definitions. For example, total absence and abolition of private properties to establish a ‘classless’ state, use of forced labor, conscripted mass mobilizations and similar other non-priced, non-monetized measures to launch development undertakings, total control of the party over government, society and economy, state’s monopoly over resources, production and distribution, and a planned economy replacing market forces of demand and supply are specialties of classical communism.
Socialism believes in minimizing the gap between classes, mainly through ‘redistributive’ fiscal measures, such as ‘progressive taxation’ and subsidies to the poor; elimination of classes itself is not its goal. Similarly, political freedom, freer societies and a ‘mixed’ economy (of public and private sectors) are its salient features. Socialism considers public sector role as primary in providing relief to the weaker sections of society and in delivering basic and social services (like food, health care and basic education) to common people.
Socialism used to be the ideal of egalitarian democrats of newly-independent or emerging nation-states of post-colonial, post-Second World War era that included the likes of Guiseppe Saragat (Italy), Olaf Palme (Sweden), Willy Brandt (Germany), François Mitterand (France) and Jawaharlal Nehru and Jaya Prakash Narayan (India). Mainly inspired by Indian leader’s hunger of ‘socialism’, Nepali Congress (NC), during its 1955 Birgunj general convention adopted socialism as one of the party’s founding principles alongside democracy and nationalism.
NC leaders should focus on issues that will lead to nation-building and institutional build-up, not on jargons and glossaries of failed ideologies. People expect them to become good managers, not ‘good’ ideologues.
The largest party for the last six decades (before the Maoists pushed them to No 2 position two-and-a-half years back) hasn’t written-off the provision from its statute till date. Nonetheless, after the restoration of democracy in 1990, which coincided with the collapse of global communism, NC chucked the notion in effect that has been both its identity and politico-economic goal for decades.
The party is convening its long overdue 12th General Convention in about three months. Besides wrangling for leadership, the forgotten socialism too may find publicity during the occasion as some NC politicians are lobbying to reverse the party’s de facto departure from socialism. The lobbyists believe that only such a move can counter the growing influence of the communists and save the party from sliding further. As such, the subject merits some deliberations.
It is true that introduction of income and urban property taxes, birta land abolition, nationalization of privately-owned forests and other radical measures of the first elected NC government headed by its dynamic and socialist leader B P Koirala back in the sixties were primary steps toward justice and modernity in the agrarian-feudal socioeconomic structure of the day. Today we live in a world different from the sixties; the ‘socialist’ wealth tax introduced in early nineties was a flop that even communist governments of CPN-UML and UCPN (Maoist) dared not continue. The much hyped land reforms too will contribute very little in terms of national development; at most it will have some political and symbolic significance. That socialistic measures only contribute to equity without contributing to growth and development, which results in an equi-distribution of poverty, is now everyone’s knowledge.
Socialism intended to mitigate both authoritarianism – the inherent shortcoming of communism – and inequality, the inbuilt vice of capitalism. In course of time and experiment, it failed to deliver, as did communism. On the other hand, capitalism reached new heights as it balanced and accommodated the rights, demands and interests of different classes, encouraged to produce more through competition and price mechanism, rewarded innovation, and helped reduce poverty and hunger through increased and improved outputs. Traditional communist economies could not sustain as they offered no incentives, competitions and motivations for production, improvement and innovation. Subsequently, regimes that succeeded to change themselves like China and Vietnam survived and thrived while those that could not such as former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe collapsed. Democratic socialism failed because it compounded two defects in one: Communism, on the one hand, and dysfunctional democracies of the third world on the other.
While developing countries/territories like Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore later followed by other South-East Asian states, with or without democracy, turned into economic showpieces and miracles with their export-led growth under free-wheeling capitalism and quickly graduated to the status of developed nations, almost all democratic socialist economies from Asia to Africa remained poor and least developed during this period; therefore, they too abandoned socialism to adopt capitalist reforms, albeit much later. Now almost all Social Democrat parties from British Labor to Indian National Congress – once the torch-bearer and self-righteous champion of socialism among the developing nations and a role model of NC – have abandoned socialism and shifted to market economy. The result: The country has been achieving an average annual growth rate of 8 percent as against the total stagnation of Nehru-Indira era.
The socialist lobby of NC must understand and acknowledge that NC has been losing the battle to communists because the latter have far better organizational and management capabilities than they have. The reasons behind NC’s constant decline are not abandonment of socialism. Its problems are poor capabilities, poor performance and poorer governance, not poor political correctness. Therefore, socialism is not the prognosis to NC’s ills, building capacity is. NC needs to build its capacity to run the country and to run the organization. They don’t have a working organization, so they need to build one. Their leaders are either inept or selfish and greedy and are always fighting each other for power, so they ought to find good ones and groom. Their cadres are few (as most consider themselves leaders, not workers), whatever left are just talks; so they have to recruit, train and mobilize cadres. In fact, NC is hardly a cohesive entity; it is a crowd of self-seeking individuals at every level and spirit of collectivism or teamwork is nowhere in sight. Socialism will neither bring life to the nonfunctional organization nor will produce dedicated, hardworking, disciplined and skillful team-workers among its ranks.
NC leaders should focus on issues that will lead to nation-building and institutional build-up, not on jargons and glossaries of failed ideologies. People expect them to become good managers, not ‘good’ ideologues. Right policies, organizational efficiency and prudent and optimum use of resources are the tools of the day to national development, outdated doctrines or political campaigns are not. Our leaders, from NC and other parties as well, should learn from China; they should compare her present ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’ (read capitalism) and her past Cultural Revolution and see for themselves the difference.
jeevan1952@hotmail.com
Related story
When Will We Be Free From Socialism?
_20210926115209.jpg)
-1765616104.webp)