As the political calendar approaches the midterm elections of November, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have unveiled their platform for the United States. This agenda, which includes the abolition of the presidency, Supreme Court, and the Senate, as well as calls for open borders and nationalization of major corporations, is philosophically incoherent. Democratic socialism is attractive because it promises to reconcile democracy with economic equality. Yet beneath that promise lie several philosophical contradictions that make the project difficult to sustain.
First, in purely ideological terms, there is no such thing as “democratic” socialism within a liberal democratic framework, as socialism is, by its very nature, an undemocratic ideology. As defined by political scientists, socialism is an economic system based around worker ownership of the means of production.
This economic system stems from the idea of Marxism which argues that economic relations are at the center of all human conflict, and that to solve such conflicts a society would need to abolish all economic classes. This abolition—outlined in Marx and Engels’ book The Communist Manifesto—argues for a political system called communism, defined as a classless and stateless society, run by an economic system called socialism, where the means of production are not owned by capitalists, but by the “proletariat,” that is, the workers. The goal of such a system is to abolish all classes.
The many countries that attempted socialism as an economic model did not witness worker control of the means of production but rather governmental control of the means of production through the abolition of private property, forced expropriations, and political persecutions of political dissidents, capital owners, and the clergy.
To be sure, contemporary democratic socialists claim to reject the authoritarian methods employed by Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. Their stated objective is not the establishment of a one-party dictatorship, but rather the democratic expansion of economic equality through greater public ownership and control of the economy. That distinction deserves to be acknowledged.
However, if socialism, as experienced under communism, requires taking away people’s private property and economic rights, how can we call such an ideology democratic? After all, liberal democracy is very much based around private property, free speech and the right to vote with your conscience. This is why socialism is inherently undemocratic making democratic socialism inherently contradictory. Either you have socialism, or you have liberal democracy. You cannot fully have both.
The philosophical question, however, remains whether extensive social ownership can ultimately be achieved without eroding the liberal institutions such as private property, constitutional protections, and dispersed economic power, which are the goals of liberalism.
On that note, there’s a reason why the communist regimes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were called “dictatorships of the proletariat.” Many of these socialist leaders followed Lenin’s teachings about how the abolition of capitalism would necessitate a strong centralized government working for the interests of the proletariat, under the umbrella of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” According to Lenin, such dictatorship based on socialism would be the step before the communist utopia.
Liberalism is the near-opposite of dictatorship. If a socio-economic model necessitates the imposition of a political dictatorship, it is by definition undemocratic. By this measure, socialism cannot be democratic, as its establishment requires a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Second, democratic socialism is not the economic system of the Nordic countries or Western Europe, pointing out the contradictory nature of the term. Nordic and Western European countries like Germany are social democracies, which resemble welfare capitalism much more than democratic socialism. The Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen himself has stated that: “Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.” And for good reason.
Socialism claims worker ownership and control of the means of production. That doesn’t happen in Northern and Western Europe, where businesses operate freely and where prices are set by the forces of supply and demand. Governments do intervene with social programs, and robust social safety nets funded through high consumption taxes, progressive taxation, and governmental management of natural resources like oil.
Keynesian redistributive programs like the ones established by FDR’s New Deal in America or like Norway’s sovereign wealth fund are not examples of socialism, but rather redistributive mechanisms within the capitalist systems, as means of easing off wealth and income inequality or jumpstarting the economy during a depression or recession. Capitalism funding a welfare state is not socialism.
Call them welfare capitalist systems or social market economies, Northern and Western European countries are not socialist. Moreover, Scandinavian countries rank higher in economic freedom compared to the United States, while maintaining lower corporate tax rates than the United States, which would not be the case if these countries were actually socialist.
Last, the DSA agenda would likely worsen the problems it purports to want to solve, all the more evidence of its inherent philosophical contradiction. This is especially true on the economic front. The United Kingdom tried the nationalization of private businesses and industries in the 1960s, and such a project ended up disastrously, with the need to immediately liberalize the economy to reignite economic growth, as delivered by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. What’s to say that the same will not happen in the US?
Democratic socialism aims to empower the worker but by giving the government greater control over private businesses, it will only do the opposite. It aims to promote justice by eliminating wealth and income inequality, but by attacking private enterprise, it will make everyone equally miserable. Taxing wealth as a means to solving inequality will lead to a capital flight, which will hurt jobs and the working class in the long run.
If the policies required to establish democratic socialism ultimately worsen the problems they were intended to solve, then the philosophy begins to undermine its own stated objectives.
Proponents of the democratic socialist model will point to rising wealth and income inequality, stagnant wages and an ever-worsening affordability crisis, not only as economic issues, but as social issues that could eventually bring about the fall of American democracy. They’re not wrong.
Many of these concerns are legitimate. Housing affordability, rising healthcare costs, stagnant wages, and widening wealth inequality deserve serious public debate and meaningful policy responses.
What they’re missing out on is that you can’t save democracy by proposing undemocratic and illiberal solutions, such as the forced nationalization of big corporations, or the abolition of democratically-elected institutions like the Senate and the Presidency.
Majority rule is not liberal democracy, and just because the majority demands nationalization of big corporations and taking away people’s choices in choosing their own healthcare provider, doesn’t mean that they should get their way. The US Constitution is clear about that and so are the Founding Fathers.
Democratic socialism remains politically attractive because it speaks to real frustrations over inequality, affordability, and insecurity. But a philosophy should ultimately be judged not only by its aspirations but also by its internal coherence. By that measure, democratic socialism is a contradiction in terms.
