2.2.1             Socialism  

Socialist Democracy  

The most famous takeover of such type is known under the name of socialist revolution. The objectives of socialist revolutions have been to ensure social stability and prosperity. They tried, as a reaction to the lack of rights of people, to form social relations that create equality, prosperity and humane relations among people. In theory, the structure of the systems starts from a fully free cooperation among the people, without repressions known under the name of anarchy. The other extreme lies in the long-term complete regulation of social relations. However, even the theory of such systems is not developed enough. Developed productive social relations are too complex to be left over to anarchy. Large regulation of social relationships requires a strong support by repressive measures that provide stability, but take freedom away and thus hinder the society.  

Protagonists of the socialist revolutions have tried to define a social system that suits optimally all individuals in the society. It is accomplished by equal democratic decision-making of all society members on all issues of collective interest. An ideal form of democracy is carried out by mutual agreement on all community members, until consensus is established on the rules for collective movement. It is sometimes very hard to make consensus because of largely different interests; however, upon the success accomplished such a democracy allows to optimally direct the society in line with its needs. It may enable formation of a homogenous productive social orientation, stability and prosperity.  

However, in larger social communities such as a state, an agreement on equal footing about the collective movement cannot be achieved because of the large number of entities with a large number of different needs. Therefore, in socialist systems delegates are formed that represent the society in setting up the rules of social behaviour. The society elects the delegates by elections estimating the degree of their contribution to the development of the society. The delegates are bound to represent the interests of their elective constituencies in the administration bodies.  

The delegate decision-making system about joint activity of the society requires a broad discussion in each segment of the society where decisions are made and then, through delegates, conveyed to the administration bodies that make up the legislative, executive and judicial power. Socialist administrative bodies trz in this way to form a social order that optimally meets the social needs.  

There have been in history several sincere attempts to create a democratic delegate system. However, the problems emerged again with regard to the difficulties in harmonizing different interests of a large number of entities with the possibilities of the society and, naturally, of the need of the people to exercise power over the society. Generally speaking, the democratic delegate system did not manage to prove its successfulness in practice.  

In order to allow the making of efficient measures, protagonists of revolutionary movements used to assume direct management over the society naming it "the dictatorship of the proletariat". In order to accomplish the stability of the system in the long run, they form an ideology that directs the society, thereby stabilizing the social activity and the society as a whole. Such ideologies are acceptable for the society as they proclaim the equality, solidarity, "brotherhood and unity" among people. In reality, however, the unity does not allow an option that would differ from the ruling one. Delegates alienate themselves from society and no longer transmit the will of the people to the centre, but convey the will of the centre to the people supported by the repressive state apparatus. Such a system does not enable the society to freely decide and solidify the power of autocracy. In this way, the dictatorship system gets renewed in the society where the man as an individual becomes impotent. Then emerge all inconvenient phenomena of the alienated autocratic social order.  

Socialist Economy 

The socialist form of production understands social ownership of the means of production. Since the society has not found out a peaceful mode of transforming the private into social ownership of the means of production, it has been taking forcedly away the private ownership, which makes the private capital owners deeply dissatisfied. Such act represents the negation of the differences in the productive power of workers' past labour, which would also have to consistently require the negation of the differences in the productive power of the current and future labour of workers. Such an attitude supposes that all workers are equally productive and deserve, therefore, equal share in the distribution of the product of mutual work performance. Such distribution system lacks the income-based work stimulation, so that the operation result is below expectations.   

Further, the socialist form of production would need to understand a democratic plan and organization of production and distribution. A democratic planned economy needs to generate the products in a quantity and of a quality precisely as needed individually and collectively by members of the society. Since the society has not acquired the knowledge and, consequently, the possibility of forming democratic planned economies, it has created an authoritative planned economy. In such a system, the political power bodies elected in more or less democratic elections assume the role of planners and organizers of the production and distribution in the name of the society.  

A centralized form of production planning may successfully follow the basic interests of an undeveloped society, such as food, housing, education, health care, culture or sports, as such needs may be successfully envisaged. In the beginning, the socialist system brings great prosperity to the society because, as a reaction to repressive exploitation systems, a strong enthusiasm emerges that inspires the people in their building of a better future. In such a system, the authorities introduce a unique production organization that may achieve full employment of workers, a satisfactory productivity, a stable business activity, and satisfaction of the basic social needs. The people get gratis education, social and health protection, and income sufficient to meet all their basic natural needs. The initial working enthusiasm contributes to a significant rise of the living standard. The people are satisfied and the rate of criminality is low.  

However, as the time passes the enthusiasm in the society falls and big problems emerge. The planned economy determined from one centre could neither register nor plan the special needs of the society members. An economy not having an objective overview of the social needs cannot make a successful work programme. In such a system the consumer has no possibility of election of the consumption and, therefore, the economic system exerts violence over the consumers.  

Planned economy is not subject to the market criterion of the cost of labour, and employs all workers protecting at the same time their work posts as a reaction to merciless exploitation systems. The protected work posts create a closed structure that hinders the production process. The work loses creativity and becomes monotonous, non-stimulating in productive terms. Protected workers are privileged and can, therefore, inflict inconveniences to other members of the community in the form of insufficient work engagement when it is necessary to other community members. The system has developed a very strong political responsibility in order to protect itself; however, it has not managed to create a successful mechanism of economic responsibility. Simply, the system could not send each insufficiently engaged worker to prison, and could not offer a real economic stimulation. Moreover, the workers without any right to decision-making do not accept social ownership as their own, and thus behave irresponsibly toward the same.  

An authoritative planned economy tries to overcome all such deficiencies by forming an ideological, working and humanitarian consciousness; however, this is non-achievable with the bureaucratic, authoritative forces that coordinate the activity and distribution. On its route to achieving major benefits, the autocratic power aspires to the control of all relations in the society, thus not differentiating largely from the extreme dictatorial regimes. Such control oppresses the society and is, therefore, doomed to failure, as have all dictatorships failed. Regardless of the initial success, the authoritative planned economy is alienated, non-productive, without perspective and thus potentially destructive, which is also visible in the example of the breakdown of the so-called "real socialism" in the world.  

 Back to Top