Revolution or Democracy?

The major question facing socialists is the whether or not socialism is possible without total revolution.

Much of early Marxist theory and pre-WW1 socialism was premised on the idea that absent an actual revolution there was no way to overthrow capitalist control of the economy and government. Capitalists control the wealth of society and therefore have significant resources to overwhelm any non-violent movement to redistribute wealth. Additionally any move toward socialism would so threaten this group that even the smallest steps are likely to bring about swift retribution. Therefore it was the role of socialists to best bring about a worker revolution. The fury of the workers would wash over the capitalist institutions and the police protecting them through sheer numbers. Banks, business, and utilities would be forcibly taken from the capitalists and placed under democratic control.

Within this group there was a large division over Leninism and heightening the contradictions within capitalism. Lenin argued the revolution can only be carried out once the apex of contradiction within capitalism has been created; trying to bring about socialism incrementally was doomed to failure. Opposing this view was the majority of the international socialists, including Rosa Luxemburg. First and foremost it was the duty of socialists to help the workers and oppressed around the world, then to bring about the revolution. They persuasively argued that revolution was not possible without the trust of the workers, and it was necessary to help them in order to lead them.

While this was the major split in socialist thought prior to the First World War there were early manifestations of political actionists.

Political actionists argue for the position that capitalist democracy can be taken over and co-opted for socialist action. As a larger and larger percentage of the nation becomes wageworkers a huge natural constituency for socialist politics is created. From this a socialist party should be able to overwhelm capitalist candidates for office, and take over the levers of government. Laws can be passed nationalizing banks and utilities. This creates more popularity for the governing socialists, allowing them to push further democratic control of the economy. Eventually this process weakens the capitalist institutions to the point where they can be drowned in a bathtub.

Political Actionistism was particularly strong in the United States. All but the most radical US socialists believed in political actionism. Even the forth convention of the Industrial Workers of the World split in to two factions over this issue. Most intellectual socialists in the United States also supported political actionism, including W.E.B Du Bois. The most powerful and popular socialists in the United States were not just organizers and intellectuals, but politicians. Eugene Debs, Norman Thomas, Victor Berger.

Here Bernie Sanders is moderate, and thoroughly in the mainstream of US socialist thought. He believes that the time is right for the first steps of the political actionist agenda. Bring about a groundswell of popular support and sweep leftists and socialists in to control. From there enact the first stages of socialist reform. Eugene Debs believed that in the US context that a presidential campaign is most likely to bring about this political revolution.

It is somewhat ironic that in our current political context that many liberal wonks are implicitly supporting revolutionary socialism. By arguing that simple socialist steps, like single payer health care, are impossible in the political context of the United States they are really saying that the only way you will have any socialism is if you pry it out of capitalists by force. Their cries ring familiar to those of 19^th century German and British intellectuals. Patience! Restraint! Work with the System! One day Clinton Lloyd George will give us health insurance!

One or the other, the pen or the sword.