Letter: Socialism, Dictatorship and Democracy (1940)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent (I. E., Sheffield) writes criticising the concluding paragraph of an article, “Russian Invasion of Finland,” published in the January Socialist Standard.

The letter is too long to be reproduced in full, but we deal below with the essential points.

The correspondent refers to the quotation from Kautsky’s “Terrorism and Communism” with which we concluded our editorial.

“It (Socialist development) will not proceed on the lines of a dictatorship, nor by means of cannons and guns, nor through the destruction of one’s political and social adversaries, but only through democracy and humanity. In this way alone can we hope to arrive at those higher forms of life, the working out of which belongs to the future task of the proletariat.”

Then follows the criticism : —

“Even if we accept history, as the article does, as a proof, the conclusions are not convincing. For, taking the case of Russia, where history proves dictatorship to be wrong, does that prove democracy to be right ? It does not. To prove this you would have to find an example in history where Socialism has been achieved through democracy. But your editorial, in spite of what history seems to prove, maintains that democracy will achieve socialism. The reason for this is clear from the terms which are used. Whilst you link up dictatorship with suppression and terrorism, you present democracy as being linked up with humanity. As you are convinced that humanity is an aim. that must not be abandoned, democracy must not be abandoned either. . . . Thus, if we look at democracy and dictatorship as methods of government, then in either of these systems the decisions arrived at may be right or wrong, may help towards the achievement of Socialism or may hamper it. Humanity and barbarism can both be due to regimes of majorities or minorities. . . . Summing up the position, it seems to me, that “in order to assure humanity,” i.e., freedom, and justice, we must be prepared to investigate in each case the means which are most suitable at the present time to bring us nearer to a state of society in which the fullest justice and freedom exist. The means must be effective, otherwise we miss the aim.”

Reply:

Kautsky, in that quotation, refers to “democracy and humanity” as means through which Socialist development will proceed. The word humanity is vague, and we are not responsible for Kautsky’s use of it. We included it in preference to cutting up the quotation. Your definition of the word does not help, because both “freedom” and “justice” are relative terms. But Socialism is our object, not “humanity,” and, as you say, the means for its achievement must be effective, otherwise we miss the aim.

If two alternative means present themselves, democracy and dictatorship, and one has been tried and failed, as the article in question showed, then the other must be accepted as being the only means. That is the lesson of history.

If our object was “freedom and justice,” then we would accept the possibility of its achievement through the instrumentality of a dictatorship. But our object is Socialism—the establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments of wealth production and distribution, by and in the interests of the whole community. Even without the lesson of history it should be apparent that common ownership and .democratic control by the whole community cannot be achieved by dictatorship, either by one man or a number, benevolent or barbaric.

Socialism is a social system, not a political regime, or a phase of some other system. It requires a revolutionary change for its establishment and the co-operative effort of the whole community for its successful functioning. It necessitates fundamental changes in the relationships of the members of the community, the casting aside of long-cherished and deep-rooted ideas and customs. This change cannot be brought about except by the conscious effort of at least the majority of those concerned. No dictatorship, no matter how determined, how well intentioned, how efficient, how “human,” could ever impose such fundamental changes on society. Dictatorships have crashed for attempting less. If the establishment of Socialism requires a majority effort then majority decisions “in meeting each and every situation” are necessary in the struggle for its achievement.

This is not a “dogmatic assertion.” We are not concerned whether “democratic methods are always good and dictatorial methods are always wrong.” We are concerned only with effective means of achieving Socialism.

W. E. Waters