We’ve seen a rise of movements and parties –in parts of Latin America and the EU, as well as in the UK and even the US– that position themselves to the left of the existing, traditional bourgeois left parties, which has especially been the case since the 2008 crisis. They usually emphasize that they are “democratic socialists.” In the face of capitalism’s historical systemic crisis, as the political stage polarizes, with a tendency toward fascist forces on one end, it’s hardly surprising to see a corresponding tilt toward socialism on the other.

At this juncture, it is imperative to distinguish between the enormous significance of the anti-capitalist tendencies developing and rising within the working-class and youth, and the reformist tendency that leads them, regardless of how it labels itself. It is absolutely wrong to dismiss, overlook, or look down upon the growing sympathy for socialism among the working class and youth masses with a cynical remark, a la “how could it be called socialism?” Regardless of what exactly is meant by “socialism,” the fact that it is generating such widespread interest and popularizing itself –especially in the US, where it was effectively demonized for decades– is a significant phenomenon in its own right.[1] Moreover, this mobilization is not limited to purely economic demands being raised against deteriorating living conditions. The rising left-wing youth movements are adopting strong positions that are both anti-fascist and anti-militarist.

These developments make it necessary to briefly recall what the tendency of “democratic socialism” championed by the reformist circles leading these movements actually means. In Turkey, this necessity has become even more pressing recently due to a rather unexpected reason. Öcalan’s “initiatives,” which emphasize “democratic societal socialism,” substantially overlap in content with the core claims of the reformist tendency in the Western world. Therefore his views are neither new nor particularly original.

The two pillars of “democratic socialism” tendency

We can focus on the two fundamental claims of the “Democratic Socialism” tendency, which have been its characteristics since the beginning. These claims are essentially related to the Marxist perspectives on revolution and the theory of the state.

The first claim is that socialism can be established through a peaceful path without coercion by transforming capitalism via reforms. This means, in principle, a proletarian revolution achieved through a mass workers’ uprising is rejected. This view, seen most clearly in the German social democrat Bernstein (1850-1932), argues that in the economic sphere, exploitation can be limited and workers’ conditions permanently improved through trade union struggle. In the political arena, it maintains that the state can be democratized and placed at the service of the entire populace through reforms. In short, it is evolutionary and reformist, not revolutionary.

The second claim is that the Marxist understanding of socialism is not democratic but despotic. Almost from the very beginning, anarchists and reformists slandered Marx and Engels’ concept of socialism with these labels. For years, Lenin was similarly vilified with anti-democratic, conspiratorial, elitist, and Blanquist epithets due to the vanguard party concept he developed. Proletarian revolutionaries braved all these unjust accusations and never swerved from their course. However, the subsequent internal collapse of the workers’ state born out of the 1917 October Revolution –at the hands of the bureaucracy– and the emergence of a monstrous despotic-bureaucratic dictatorship, which is utterly incompatible with Marxism, dealt a far greater blow to Marxism than all the previous slanders combined. Furthermore, this despotism was even labelled as “real socialism”, even by those who called themselves communists, implying that this was the only socialism there ever could be. Those who looked at this monstrosity in the USSR and thought that socialism could not, and should not, be this way were not wrong to feel that way. Therefore, their need to emphasize their conception of socialism with the adjective “democratic” was understandable. But the reformist majority used the travesty called the USSR as a pretext to abandon socialism altogether and embark on the task of taming capitalism. The revolutionary minority, who remained firmly committed to the hope of a socialist world, continued to champion the principles of revolutionary Marxism against both Stalinism based in the USSR and against reformism itself.

The evolution and metamorphosis of reformism

The roots of the concept of “democratic socialism” actually stretch back to the mid-19th century, when the socialist movement was first taking shape. Aside from the communist current represented by Marx and Engels, there were numerous currents that called themselves socialist. These movements, at least on the surface, aimed for a libertarian, egalitarian, and collectivist society (socialism). It was from the alliance between self-styled socialists and democrats during the 1848 revolutions that the concept of social democracy would emerge. Elif Çağlı summarizes the process as follows: “In this process, the petty-bourgeois democrats of the period –seeing the democratic rights they hoped to secure under threat– allied themselves with leaders who passed themselves off as socialists. A joint draft program was prepared for the elections, joint election committees were established, and joint candidates were selected. However, for the revolutionary proletariat, this development amounted to an unprincipled alliance. To reach a compromise, the revolutionary edge of the proletariat’s social demands was blunted, and they were dressed up in democratic expressions acceptable to the petty-bourgeois democrats. Meanwhile, the democratic demands of the petty-bourgeoisie were stripped of being mere political forms and coated in a thin veneer of socialism. Historically, the social-democratic movement, which would go on to play its sinister role in the years to come, was born on such a foundation.”[2]

While Marxists emphasized the necessity of a proletarian revolution based on the organized power of the masses, the abolition of private ownership of the means of production, the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, and the dismantling of the state as an apparatus of oppression; others aimed for the democratization of the state –turning it into a “people’s state”– and the step-by-step transformation of society through reforms. All these socialist tendencies, Marxists included, coexisted within both the First and Second Internationals. Within the German and French parties that formed the backbone of the Second International, Marxism had established its ideological hegemony after long-running struggles. Or so it seemed on the surface. While the party in France was named the Socialist Party, the one in Germany was called Social-Democratic, and the socialist movement of the time was generally referred to as the social-democratic movement. From the very beginning, Marx and Engels gave the cold shoulder to the concept of social democracy, emphasizing that it was scientifically inaccurate. However, they turned a blind eye to the use of this title for the sake of maintaining the unity of the German party. This was, in truth, a forced compromise between Marxists and petty-bourgeois socialism. The revolutionary Marxist leaders who followed them did not lose much sleep over this naming convention either. That is, until the First World War revealed the reality: that Marxism was actually in the minority within the Second International. With that war, the Second International –which was in fact dominated by a nationalist, statist, and reformist petty-bourgeois socialist outlook– went bankrupt.

Although the proletarian revolutionaries of the period –who began calling themselves revolutionary Marxists to distinguish themselves from reformists and nationalist socialists– strove to build a separate international organization, they only succeeded after a proletarian revolution erupted and triumphed in Russia. With the Russian Revolution, that distasteful “social-democratic” label was scrapped, and the proletarian revolutionaries reclaimed their original, true identity by adopting the title of communist.

While the reformist social-democratic movement relied on historical organizations deeply rooted in the working masses, these organizations –exactly as Marx had initially identified– essentially amounted to the working masses trailing behind petty-bourgeois radical intellectuals. This is why Lenin characterized such parties as bourgeois [minded] labour parties. Before long, even their identity as workers’ parties or class-based organizations evaporated. Ever since Bernstein, the “ultimate goal” (socialism) had been dismissed as irrelevant; the emphasis on socialism had dwindled into nothing more than ceremonial window dressing. Soon, these reformist parties abandoned the goal of socialism –in the sense of abolishing capitalist private property– altogether. In its place, they adopted programs of intra-systemic “fixes,” such as developing democracy based on class compromise rather than class conflict, establishing social service pillars of the state, and shaving down socio-economic inequalities through tax policies. In other words, the issue was no longer whether capitalism would be transcended via revolution or reform; the social-democrats had given up on socialism entirely and became obsessed with taming capitalist society. The reality Marx had identified from the start was now laid bare: “The peculiar character of social-democracy is epitomized in this: that democratic-republican institutions are demanded as a means, not of doing away with two extremes, capital and wage-labour, but of weakening their antagonism and transforming it into harmony. However different the means proposed for the attainment of this end may be, however much it may be trimmed with more or less revolutionary notions, the content remains the same. This content is the transformation of society in a democratic way, but a transformation within the bounds of the petty bourgeoisie.”[3]

Today, although many long-standing Western parties bearing the name “Socialist” or “Social-Democratic” ostensibly still retain the goal of “socialism” in their official documents, not a trace of it remains in their actual policies. For instance, Clause IV of the constitution of the British Labour Party –which for decades has not skipped a beat in serving British imperialism– continues to state: “The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party.” Similarly, the program of the SPD, a servant of German imperialism, continues to use the term “democratic socialism.” The goal of socialism, postponed to an infinite future and rendered invisible on the horizon, remains in their programs as a mere ornament, but with its meaning entirely changed! Accordingly, socialism has been stripped of being a society built on the abolition of private ownership of the means of production (transforming it into social property) and has been reduced to a vague “society where the values of freedom, justice, and solidarity prevail.” For the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and the likes of Sanders in the US, “being a socialist” is nothing more than an identity opposed to the Establishment. Unlike their European counterparts, they use this term in their daily politics, but what they are aiming for is nothing other than a Nordic-style social democracy. Whether they call themselves social-democratic or socialist, all such parties have, step by step, made their peace with the capitalist system under the guise of the “market economy.” Emphases and rhetoric such as being a class party, class conflict, capitalist exploitation, and the internationalist interests of the working class have been utterly abandoned. In their place, the rhetoric of being a “people’s party,” class compromise, industrial peace, “production democracy,” and the “national interest” has been brought to the fore.

Parties of this sort, with their deep-rooted histories, keep socialism like a rusted antique rifle hanging on the wall –a family heirloom from their grandfathers– but they never actually fire it! It remains on the wall as a mark of historical respect and a way to show off to guests. It is written in their statutes, but no one ever uses it; in daily politics (during the hunt for voters), they prefer “modern and light weaponry” with less recoil: rhetoric such as social justice, abstract equality, solidarity, peace, and the “green transition.” One thinker calls this phenomenon “ceremonial socialism”; something remembered only at party congresses, in anthems, and in bylaws. It is like a garment worn for Sunday Service but taken off on Monday morning before heading to work! When things reach this point and socialism ceases to be a genuine goal, the debate over whether to reach it through reform or revolution automatically falls off the agenda for these circles.

Furthermore, whether we examine these long-standing parties or the newer left-reformist parties emerging to their left, their sinister roles come to light not during “normal” times, but during periods when the class movement is on the rise and revolutionary mobilization is gaining momentum. History is replete with examples of reformist currents –carried to power by a mass upsurge– squandering the energy of the revolutionary movement and, whether intentionally or not, paving the way for counter-revolution. One need not look to the distant past for this. It is enough to look at the roles played since the turn of the millennium by the governments of Lula in Brazil, Morales in Bolivia, Chavez in Venezuela, and Syriza in Greece. One might also recall the outcomes of the waves of optimism generated around Podemos in Spain, Die Linke in Germany, Mélenchon in France, Corbyn in the UK, and Sanders and the DSA in the US. To be sure, we are not suggesting that all those mentioned above follow the exact same line, but the essence of the matter remains unchanged. Each time, the result is utter failure: a practice of atrophying the movement, which begins by creating great expectations among the masses only to end in profound disillusionment.

Blaming Marxism for the sins of Stalinist despotism

The accusations made by bourgeois and petty-bourgeois left currents –claiming that Marxism is inherently despotic– have been well-known since the time of Marx and Engels, particularly as reflected in the debates over the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” If one recalls the polemics with Kautsky, Lenin also received his share of these accusations. However, the slander that the Marxist conception of socialism is despotic and anti-democratic gained its primary strength from the identification of Stalinist despotism with Bolshevism and Marxism. The workers’ state established by the 1917 October Revolution was short-lived; the workers’ state based on workers’ councils (soviets) was demolished by the Stalinist bureaucracy and replaced by a despotic-bureaucratic dictatorship. This dictatorship distorted Marxism beyond recognition while pretending allegiance to the ideas of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. The USSR continued to exist in name only, and this situation turned into a massive stain on the name of Marxism and communism. In the Marxist conception, communism was envisioned as a world where classes and, consequently, the state are entirely abolished; where poverty is completely eradicated to establish a society of abundance; where people become truly equal, not just formally; where everyone lives and works according to their abilities as truly free individuals; and where all forms of discrimination based on gender, race, religion, or sect are eliminated.

What emerged in the USSR, however, was something entirely different: a monstrosity based on a state apparatus possessing a gargantuan bureaucracy –endowed with immense material and moral privileges– and a standing army; where workers were deprived of basic political and even trade union rights, children were encouraged to inform on their parents, and the whole of society was forced under the yoke of an internal intelligence machinery that had reached terrifying proportions! For decades, this dark scene –which for revolutionary leaders like Marx, Engels, and Lenin would have signalled a “return to all the old filthy business”– was shoved down humanity’s throat as “socialism.” This was a lie pumped out by Stalinists, social-democrats, and the world bourgeoisie alike.

Social-democrats have used this lie to legitimize their desertion of revolution and their compromise with the bourgeoisie. They continued to hide from the labourers what the state and democracy actually mean in a capitalist society; they concealed the fact that bourgeois democracy is, in reality, the political dominance –the dictatorship– of the bourgeoisie over the exploited classes. To them, democracy was a phenomenon that stood above classes, and what they championed was “democratic socialism,” or “socialism with a human face”! They incessantly claimed that sullenness, despotism, and tyranny were inherent in the Marxist conception of socialism. In doing so, they exploited the hope that billions of labourers had invested in socialism; they restricted the labourers’ desire for a new world to a mere effort of amelioration within the framework of capitalism – and they continue to do so today.

Marxism demonstrates that what is called democracy under capitalism has nothing to do with the genuine freedom of individuals; in reality, it concerns how the political relations among property owners are to be regulated and their rights over political power. In capitalist society, democracy exists for property owners. For the political rights and freedoms defined by laws can, in truth and in essence, only be exercised by property owners, whereas for the impoverished majority of society, these rights generally remain a mere dead letter.

Thus, democracy can only approach its true literal meaning (rule by the people) within a workers’ state. For only in a workers’ state will the labourers, who constitute the majority of society, possess genuine and exercisable democratic rights; only in such a state will the will of the majority of society become decisive: “Workers’ power means the «proletariat organized as the ruling class».In order for the workers to maintain this dominant position, the workers’ state must be a semi-state that is withering away from its very inception. This means that the worker-labourer masses, who form the overwhelming majority of society, will possess the broadest democracy and rights –rights they have never possessed at any point in history. To emphasize briefly, the revolutionary power of the workers (...) will be their own democracy, which the vast masses living on their labour power will attain for the first time in history.”[4]

Presenting Marxism as a system of thought that worships the state is one of the greatest insults that can be directed at it. Marxism aims for a society where there is no state and no political oppression. With the advent of socialism, even the workers’ state –the semi-state– will no longer be necessary. Thus, the division of society into classes will have come to an end; the state, which signifies class dominance, will have withered away and vanished; and the problem of how people are to be governed will have naturally ceased to exist. Only then will the whole of society and every single individual within it be truly free. In such a society of free producers, as Engels stated, the “government of persons” will come to an end; the only thing remaining to be managed –that is, requiring the collective decision of the majority– will be economic activity.

One of the greatest theoretical distortions of Stalinism –which dominated the world communist movement for nearly seventy years– was to equate the workers’ state, which is the transition period to a classless society, with socialism, the first stage of a classless and stateless world society (communism). As a result, socialism came to be understood as a class-based, state-bound society that could be established within a single country. Consequently, the debate over the democratic nature of socialism, or “socialist democracy”, is in reality a debate not about socialism itself, but about the workers' state/democracy that corresponds to the period of transition toward it.

Contrary to the despotic monstrosity created by Stalinist practice, the Marxist conception of socialism is inherently democratic, liberatory, and ecological; it places humanity and nature at its centre and is fundamentally opposed to male dominance. Far from there being a lack of democracy in a workers’ state, humanity will experience a democracy millions of times more profound than any previous form, both formally/theoretically and in practice. Therefore, rather than attempting to amend the conception of socialism by adding external labels, the only thing that needs to be done is to underline that the Stalinist regimes of the 20th century had absolutely no relation to a workers' state, socialism, or communism.

Finally, since the slander that Marxism is despotic or anti-democratic is based on the concept of the “revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat”, it is necessary to remind ourselves what was intended by this concept, which has been turned into a scapegoat. Marx and Engels used this term to describe the direct political dominance of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. To those who asked what it was, they said: “Look at the Paris Commune; that was it”. To those who view democracy and dictatorship as mutually exclusive phenomena, they reminded that the apparatus called the state is already the dictatorship of one class over others, and that democracy itself is a form of state. Therefore, they argued that even the most advanced democracy in capitalist society in reality signifies the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the working class. They maintained that on the road to communism, the state cannot be abolished instantly –as the anarchists desire– and that a transition period encompassing the disappearance of classes is required. They argued that this period would be one of revolutionary transformations, to which the revolutionary power of the working class would correspond: “These revolutionary transformations, which will liberate human life from the bondage of classed societies and bring it to the world of freedom of a classless society, can only take place under the power of the working class. This power, based on the majority of the population that produces and lives by its labour, signifies the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie and elements that threaten the revolution.”[5]

For Marx, Engels, and Lenin alike, this dictatorship was nothing more than the direct dominance of the working class over the bourgeoisie. The working class was to exercise this dominance itself, through its own self-organizations (councils, assemblies, shuras, soviets, etc.). Since, for the first time in history, the direct producers who constitute the majority of society would become the ruling class and establish this dominance directly, this state would not resemble old states; it would be a semi-state that, far from being anti-democratic, would not even require a bureaucracy. The content of the dictatorship consisted solely of the measures taken to expropriate the bourgeoisie and prevent it from regaining its former status. Therefore, “the dictatorship of the proletariat is and can be nothing else than workers’ power, i.e. workers’ democracy which is the most extensive democracy from the point of view of the working masses.”[6]“Let us emphasize firmly that, in a situation where workers’ democracy is not kept alive, the power of the working class is absolutely doomed to die.”[7] It is unnecessary to prolong this discussion further here. Indeed, Elif Çağlı’s comprehensive work, In the Light of Marxism[8], has addressed and clarified this subject in all its details; let us suffice with a single quotation: “According to genuine Marxism, the dictatorship of the proletariat means workers’ democracy. (…) In short, the workers’ state cannot be organized in a bureaucratic manner like the bourgeois state; if it is so organized, it cannot be a workers’ state. Furthermore, the dictatorship of the proletariat is not based on the dominance of the party that has won the leadership of the class, but on the direct dominance of the proletariat organized in the form of soviets. Therefore, workers’ democracy is not one of the forms of the dictatorship of the proletariat; it is its condition for existence, its very essence.”[9]

It is patently obvious that there is no common ground between the conception of the workers’ state outlined in these quotes and the Stalinist regime in the USSR. Therefore, no credence can ever be given to the vulgar approaches that present Marxism as a despotic worldview worshipping the “state” and “dictatorship”, nor to the attempts to unload the sins of Stalinism onto the back of Marxist socialist thought. Today, the class movement is on the rise across the globe, including in the most advanced countries; the labourers and the youth demand an end to poverty, wars, oppression, and the lack of a future. Even if they cannot yet fully clarify and formulate it, they demand a new world! “Our task is to raise the alternative of workers’ democracy against bourgeois democracy –which, even in its relatively broadest forms, remains essentially limited for the working class and in fact serves to mask exploitation.”[10]