Here is your essay on the Challenges and Difficulties Faced in Implementing Socialism through Democratic Procedures !
Democratic Socialism lays great stress on the importance of the larger interests of society as a whole, against the narrow and selfish interests of the individual. It is against individualism or laissez faire, it is a theory of community welfare. It promotes co-operation instead of competition and removes antagonism between the employer and the employee.
Socialism stands for the principle of economic equality. The state should prevent the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few individuals so that the gulf between the rich and the poor classes may not be wide. However, democratic socialism does not aim at establishing absolute equality, which is almost impossible. Its aim is to remove glaring inequality of wealth by progressive taxation of the rich. It stands for equitable opportunities for all.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Democratic socialism also stands for common ownership of important means of production, which are to be utilized for common good. It is in favor of granting full civil, political and economic rights. The individual is free to lead his own way of life, outside intervention. It stands for extension of democracy from political to economic and social fields. Thus, there is a desire to widen the base of democracy.
According to it, if democracy is to be real, it should go far beyond the frontiers of politics and enter the economic field. It is against the ownership of land, factories and other means of production by a few at the cost of the community. It must be clearly noted that democratic socialism is not against all forms of private property, but only against such private property, which becomes the means of exploitation.
It allows small plots of land, houses and other limited property, as these cannot be put to antisocial uses. In conclusion, we may say that democratic socialism is neither merely anti-capitalism nor statism. According to J.P Narayan, “there is no exploitation of man by man, no injustice, oppression, or denial of opportunities.”
One of the remarkable results of the victory of democratic socialism in Britain was the elimination of communism as an important factor in British politics. Even in developing countries, democratic socialism provides an alternative to the extremes of communism and capitalism by bringing about the much needed socio-economic transformation of societies.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Problems in implementing socialism through democratic procedures:
To say that it is possible to achieve a changeover to socialist rule with democratic means does not necessarily imply, however, that it is possible also to implement and maintain socialism with such means. Communist theory has persistently alleged and on this point it has not yet changed that it is impossible to carry through socialism under a system of free elections, freedom of speech, free association and free majority decisions.
Soviet theorists do not stand alone in their contention that the implementation and maintenance of socialism are impossible with democratic means. Right- wing liberals, like Friedrich Hayek, agree with them on that count. Their interest is, of course, the opposite: they hope to see democracy maintained and socialism abandoned.
But on the major issue under discussion here whether it is possible to have both democracy and socialism—the two opponents are agreed. It is impossible, they say. In his ‘Road of Serfdom’ Hayek predicts that socialism will inevitably lead to the abolition of democratic liberties.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
One of his chief arguments is that socialism requires centralized planning and that, even in the event that there is a large majority for socialism, there frequently will be no majority able to agree on particulars ends and means. In such a case, he says, a democratic parliament “cannot direct”.
In appraising the Lenin-Hayek theory of incompatibility between democracy and socialism, we must not underestimate the strength of their combined arguments. They competently point to grave difficulties and dangers. But they fail to prove the impossibility. Their allegations are half true at best.
It is a strong argument that those who are to lose their privileges are likely to rise in violent resistance when a radically socialist legislation issues from a pro-socialist majority in a democratic legislature. This was strikingly illustrated after the Spanish Revolution of 1931, when the democratic majority in the newly elected parliament engaged in simultaneously frontal legislative attacks against all vested interests monarchists, army, church, big land owners and big industrialists before it had built up sufficiently strong armed forces of its own for support of the republican government.
However, there is no justification for a scientific verdict that it was impossible to avoid a similar outcome when an attempt is made to carry through socialism with democratic procedures.
Another strong argument of this problem is that workers who have won parliamentary majorities may be impatient in their desire to secure tangible benefits quickly and beyond reasonable limits. In order to cope with this danger, it will be necessary to educate people in advance so as, to prepare them for a meaningful exercise of majority powers. That may not be easy, but it is not necessarily impossible.
Finally, it is a weighty argument when Hayek warns that the majority is likely to split whenever major decisions on planning become necessary. But once this danger has been well understood in advance, it may not be impossible to meet it by proper device, such as a careful preparation of master plans and delegation of the power to make current economic decisions under such plans to some board or commission.
The question of compatibility of democracy and socialism, therefore, is still an open one. There is good reason to believe that it is necessary to go all the way along the totalitarian road, if a majority should be bent on carrying through socialism, although certain modifications in the process of economic legislation and administration will be necessary.
Establishment of a penetrating and reassuring political theory regarding the compatibility of socialism and democracy could also offer encouragement to whatever tendencies there may develop in present Soviet Russia or some of its satellites towards introduction of more democratic institutions. It would make j possible a stronger and more precise language in international political discussion about both democracy and socialism, and co-existence as well.