Democratic Socialism

Towards a theory of democratic ownership

Who makes the decisions over what in a democratic socialist society?

Sooner or later any discussion on the topic of socialism will end up with the question, “Do you want the government to run everything?” The socialist in the conversation seldom wants to answer yes to the question and gets in to an argument about workers’ control, co-ops, and, yes, a strong public sector.

But there is almost never a clear theory about what we as democratic socialists mean by “democratic control of the means of production”? How can we imagine a society that is democratic and socialist, but where everything isn’t run by the government?

To figure that out we have to figure out what we mean by democracy, and what we mean by ownership. So bear with me.

Democracy

For a liberal the question about democracy is easy. Democracy is basically the right to elect the political leaders on different levels, and a bunch of civic rights. And that’s it.

For a democratic socialist, democracy is much harder. It’s everything that’s in the liberal version. But that’s not enough. That’s because for a democratic socialist the idea of democracy soaks every thread of human interaction. Democracy can’t be limited to a specific sector of society, and it can’t be excluded from any sector of society.

But that doesn’t mean that the political realm has to take power over all parts of society in the name of democracy. It might be sectors that need to be put under democratic political control for the sake of common good. But it is not a given.

Instead of seeing democracy as a way to elect leaders, a democratic socialist view of democracy is to consider it a guiding principle in all interaction between people. Which means that every situation is a demos in itself.

Ownership

In Swedish social democracy there is an idea that is referred to as functional socialism (funktionssocialism). Basically it’s the idea that ownership isn’t something solid. That ownership is always fractioned into different functions.

For example, if we take an apartment building, there’s a landlord that owns the building. But by renting out apartments to the tenants the latter take charge over a function of ownership by having a lease to their homes. The state has the right to tax the profits and the property, and can also set standards that the landlord has to fulfill to be able to rent out his building as something fit for humans to live in. For example. The ownership of the apartment building isn’t as solid as it looked at a first glance.

In the Swedish debate during the 20th century functional socialism was used as an argument for a view that actual ownership of the means of production wasn’t necessary. As long as enough functions were socialized that was enough. But there’s an inconsistence in that view.

A radical functional socialism

If we accept these two premises, the primacy of democracy, and the idea that ownership isn’t a solid entity, then it’s reasonable to argue for a more radical view of functional socialism. A view that claims that every function in society should be under democratic control by the demos that are affected.

So who decides what? Well, we all do, when we have a stake in the issue. It doesn’t mean that we have to take part in a vote on every single thing. It might be better to delegate power to democratically accountable representatives. But any authority should in the end always be accountable to a demos.

Does the state have a role to play in this radical functional socialist society with its decentralized decision making? Yes, the democratic state has a role that is quite similar, but still different, to the role that it plays in a liberal democracy. It is, with its rule of law and monopoly of force, the overarching guarantee for democratic decision making in society as a whole.

Democratic socialism is kind of like an ant hill. A democratic ant hill where a myriad of small decisions are made by the individuals that are affected, directly or through representatives that are democratically accountable. But there’s still a queen ant and soldier ants in the shape of laws, state democracy, and, if need be, protection of democratic principles.