Even smothered in ketchup, the turnip is widely regarded as a ‘food of last resort’; a tasteless option when the store cupboard is bare, fridge empty and the last crate of pot noodles is locked up for the Day of Judgement. Whenever that may be. The turnip is not a go-to staple, it’s hard to garnish well, and when it is the only thing on offer people revolt. Like they did in Germany post the infamous Turnip Winter of 1917. The revolution was an ‘up-and-at-em’ that saw the hot-headed Emperor Wilhem II go AWOL and helped lay the seeds for the foundation of the Weimar Republic. All told, don’t feed the kids too many turnips, lest they lock you in the Tesla and refuse to negotiate.
The revolutionaries in Germany post WW-I, whilst they liked the cut of many communist and socialist ideas, they did not go full-on Bolshevik by handing over power to shiny eyed Soviet-styled councils. Instead, under the heavy hand of the Social Democratic Part of Germany, they erred with a softer line, opting for a national assembly that would form the basis of a parliamentary system of government. Rather than hound out the upper classes, redistribute their silver dinner service and confiscate their wine, they sought to integrate them into a new social democratic system. The army was brought in too and given enough rope to squash any sort of uprising, which they did very effectively when the communists gave it a go in January 1919. One bloody week later and there was no more uprising. Social democracy it was.
Social democracy is a flavour of socialism and, as a political movement, it tries to find a socialist end state, slowly and through democratic ways. It is influenced by Ferdinand Lassalle, the Prussian-German philosophical big hitter, who initiated the reformist movement in Germany; and the potent revolutionary socialism expounded by our old friend Karl Marx, and the equally spikey Friedrich Engels. As a movement, it has changed shapes through the years, shifting from a sort of organised Marxism to something a little softer around the edges. Latterly it is loosely a system that looks to develop society through strong political structures, without the wild eyes and liberal burning of cars in the streets, that is often associated with more full-blooded tilts at sticking it to the ruling, corrupt and undeserving elites.
It is different from authoritarian or state socialism, which also supports socialist economic policies but rejects political pluralism. Collective pow-wows are a strict no, so too assemblies, conferences, standing on a box in the park and letting go. Self-expression, in whatever form, frowned upon. So too, one imagines, having fun. Looking for examples of authoritarian socialist states today, just open the newspaper and read the bit between Page 3 and the Sport. One or two will jump out.
According to the political scientist Lyman Tower Sargent, a man who would be first on the team sheet for any dinner party that is looking to explore the ins and outs of utopianism, democratic socialism can be characterized by a few common threads. Property is owned by the public, through a democratically elected government. This includes all the major industries, like the water companies, the railways, and the gas man. Individual accumulation of property is allowed but limited; so not good for those with mogul-like tendencies and aspirations of gated country club living. The government runs the economy, and indeed, pretty much everything else with generous publicly financed assistance and pension programs. Happy days.
In the stew of definitions, of slicing and dicing the ideals and goals of those who wear the badge, a lot of grey zones emerge, but essentially what socialists, anarchists, communists, and social democrats all have, is a common history. They can all trace the essence of their pamphlets and ideology back to individuals, groups, and the literature of the First International; the latter an international organisation which aimed at bringing all the beards and hot breath together, harnessing the passion of those who represented the working class. Where they all slightly stray, is in the role of government, and whether it is the right vehicle for change.
Socialism broadly, is seen as the Liverpool to capitalism’s Man Utd. Social democrats, specifically, are anti-capitalist in the universal belief that poverty, low wages, unemployment, inequality, and lack of economic security are all linked to the private ownership of the means of production; a term which describes the land, labour and capital that can be used to produce products, such as goods or services. That said, it’s not black and white, as change comes slowly, and by nurturing an evolution of capitalism, socialist goals can be achieved. All citizens deserve an equal shot at life: same social rights, same access to education and healthcare, same treatment at Glyndebourne. Eduard Berstein a German politician and poker pal of Marx and Engels, believed that cooperation between different people, irrespective of class, would be enough to achieve social democratic goals. In squaffing at more orthodox Marxism, he leaned on the approach favoured by the Fabian movement in Britain. Less looting of the mayor’s office, more gradual change. Think tortoise, not hare.
Many hard-core socialists have had a bit of beef with social democracy, arguing that it strengthens the capitalist system, which is not the plan. The plan is to replace capitalism with socialism. Burn it all down. It is here perhaps, that it’s worth highlighting that social democracy, and democratic socialism, do differ slightly. The American social philosopher David Schweickart has suggested that social democracy is an attempt to strengthen the welfare state, and democratic socialism is essentially an alternative to capitalism. Do what you like with that. It seems that some think the social democrats don’t go far enough, that they have supported the capitalist overlords in some sort of compromise. According to Irving Kristol, an American journalist known as the ‘godfather of neoconservatism’, democratic socialism was a ‘contradiction in terms’, given that once in power, ideals get diluted and capitalism holds sway. Basically, everyone gets a little bit too used to the chauffeured cars and state sponsored drinks trolley.
All told, something of a work in progress.
Hepburnsays 