Category: Political Science Notes

One of the greatest contributions of Lenin was that he adapted Marxism to Russia. Lenin was a Russian and being an arch revolutionary very soon realised that revolution was possible in Russia only under certain circumstances. The Czar must be defeated in war and there must be a group of highly disciplined and professional revolutionaries who must be in a position to take over the Government of the country.

Before the outbreak of the First Great War, Lenin was convinced that there would be world war and Russia would be defeated but the real problem before Lenin was how to train revolutionaries who could take over the government in the event of the defeat of Russia.

However, Lenin had to face great difficulty because Marx predicted that a revolution could take place only in a country where there was full-fledged capitalism. There were no short-cuts to revolution. However, Russia was essentially an agricultural country and there was no full-fledged capitalism there.

Therefore, the philosophy of Marx could not be applied to Russia. In spite of this difficulty, Lenin came to the firm conclusion that the revolution could take place in Russia if Czar, Nicholas II was defeated in the war and a most disciplined and secret cadre of the Communist Party was ready to take the reigns of the government.

Lenin on the role of professional revolutionaries:

According to William Ebenstein, “Lenin’s most important single contribution to the theory of Marxism is his concept of the professed revolutionary. Marx thought that class-consciousness would develop in the working class spontaneously due to economic misery and the leadership would come from their ranks. Lenin on the other hand, considered that a disciplined Communist Party could only arouse political consciousness amongst the workers and lead Russia to revolution.

For that purpose Lenin believed that first workers were to form labour organisations with primarily economic objectives, operating openly, legally and as publicly as conditions allow. Side by side with such organisations, there are to be small groups of professional revolutionaries, patterned after the army and the police, highly select and entirely secret.

Lenin said that the professional revolutionaries should guide and supervise the open communist-led economic associations-the trade unions, the co-operatives and the rest. Lenin advised these professional revolutionaries to form cells and infiltrate in social, economic and political bodies of the societies whether they are schools, churches, labour unions or political parties.

But Lenin especially emphasised the active role of the professional revolutionaries when he advocated them to infiltrate into armed forces, the police and the government. It should be particularly noted that with the help of these professional revolutionaries Lenin brought about the revolution and was able to throw off the most autocratic regime of the Czar (Russian Emperor).

Upload and Share Your Article:

The system theorists point out that on political system is distinguished from another not only by its structure but also by the political culture in which the structures are embedded. That the working of the political system is very much affected by the political culture in which it functions can be illustrated by this fact that some developing countries like India, Ceylon, Burma, Pakistan etc. adopts certain political institutions like democracy, party-system and judicial system from the developed countries like England, France and U.S.A. but they soon discovered that these institutions did not function in the safe way as they worked in those countries from where they had been taken.

The question arises why the political system of the developing countries works differently from the developed countries, walk of life, we have to study the political culture of each country. Now we realise that the political culture of one country differs from other countries.

“Every political system”, writes Almond, “is embedded in a particular pattern of orientation to political actions”.’ Political Culture, according to Sidney Verba, “consists of the system of empirical beliefs, expressive symbols and values which defines the situation in which political action takes place”. It should be noted that political culture of a country is very close to its general culture. Just as the culture of one country differs from the culture of another country, so the political culture of a country also differs from another country.

The political sphere is also provided with political .structures and meanings in the same manner as consistency and integration is provided to the social life by general culture. It relates to rational considerations, emotions and ethical values, just like culture, it is hard to define political culture but still the political scientists have tried to define it.

In the words of Pye, “Political culture can be found only in men’s minds, in the pattern of action, feeling and reflection which they have internalised and made part of their very existence”. Every generation inherits attitudes and beliefs towards politics, partly from the earlier generation and partly it is formulated as a reaction to the on-going politics. Consequently, political culture is a product of the learning process.

General elections, party-politics, working of pressure-groups, changing social basis of the elites, governmental performance influence the political culture. Group-behaviour also largely determines the political culture of a country. In simpler words, political culture studies the interaction between the beliefs, events and structure.

Thus political culture makes a critical evaluation of the standards of political conduct. The way in which the political activities of a particular country are organised besides public statements, myths and legends, speeches and writings are the norms for the foundation of a political culture of that country.

Study of a political culture is also a study in political dynamics. The process of interaction between the political system and the political actors is one of techniques to understand the change in political culture that happens through time.

The social processes influence the individual at all stages of life. These individuals in return inter-act with the political system and introducing changes in the character of the political system, whereas the changing character of the political system influences the channels of political socialisation, on the one side and the individual behaviour on the other side. These things collectively form political culture can be treated as valuable method for the study of the behaviour of the individual in the context of the political system in which he is operating.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Recall means that the sovereign power lies with the people and they have the right to recall their representatives, whether the representatives are legislators or high officials, if they fail to perform their functions in a proper manner.

Foreman writes, “Where the recall is in use, the voters upon the complaint or petition of a certain number of citizens, vote upon the question whether a certain officer shall be deprived of (recalled from) his office before his term expires and if the vote is in favour of the officer’s removal, he must give up his office before the end of his term”.

According to Leacock, “The system means that all persons who hold office must do so only as long as their tenure of office is sanctioned by the will of the people. At any time when a majority of the voters desire it, the office-holder is removed from his office”.

Prevalence of this System:

This system is prevalent in some of the American States like Arkansas, Kikhoma, Montana. North Dakota, Oregon, Arezona, Louisiana, Nevada, California and Washington. In Washington, judges cannot be removed in this manner but in Oregon even the judges are recalled. In six states of America both the judges and the officials can be recalled and in ten states only officials can be recalled.

This system is also seen in Communist China. In China, Deputies to the Local People’s Congress are elected by the people of the age of 18 years or above. The voters can recall the members of the Local People’s Congress at will. This system is not in practice in India and there is no mention of it in the Constitution.

Advantages of the System of Recall:

(1) Real Control of the masses over the officials and representatives:

The people can exercise their sovereign power only when they are given the right to recall their elected representatives or the official, if they fail to perform their responsibilities in a proper manner. If the people are not given the right to recall their representatives, they are apt to act arbitrarily and the people will have no control whatsoever over their elected representatives.

(2) An important method to end bribery and corruption:

The officials will not indulge in corrupt practices because of the fear of recall.

(3) This system is a symbol of direct democracy:

Recall is the best system of the preservation of direct democracy. If the people have no control over their elected representatives or officials, democracy will become meaningless and the representatives and the officials will act arbitrarily.

(4) A good method to root out political corruption:

In democracy it is generally seen that the ministers become corrupt and they favour their relatives and friends. Through the system of recall, they will be under the control of the people. For fear of recall, they will hesitate to do any undesirable thing. The ministers indulge in corrupt practices because the people have no control over them.

Disadvantages of the Recall System:

(1) There is possibility of a wrong judgment:

In the system of recall there is a possibility of a big leader indulging in creating a misunderstanding among the minds of the people against any official, with whom the leader is not on good terms. Mostly the people are not aware of the diplomatic tactics of the political leaders and sometimes wrong decisions are given against honest and sincere officials.

(2) The whole atmosphere is vitiated by the recall of the officers and the representatives:

When an official or a representative is recalled, charges are leveled against him. The official or the representative against whom charges are leveled tries to level counter-charges against his complainants. With charges and counter­charges the entire atmosphere is poisoned.

(3) Independence of the officers is curtailed:

Because of the fear of charges and counter-charges, sometimes intelligent able and honest persons hesitate to accept high positions. This is quite harmful for the administration.

(4) Independence of the officers is curtailed:

Because of t he fears of recall, the officers do not take such decisions as may not be liked by the political leaders. If they take any such decisions, they face a severe criticism and adverse propaganda. Thus, the officers sometimes try to flatter the political leaders. This curtails their freedom of action.

(5) Serious consequences may occur if the judges are recalled:

The system of the recall of the Judges destroy, the liberty of the judiciary, the judges will not be able to take any decision independently and fearlessly because of the fear of being recalled.

(6) Independence of the judgement of the representatives is lost:

Because of the fear of recall, the representatives do not do any unpopular but right thing. This mars their independence.

Upload and Share Your Article:

If we go thoroughly the various aspects of behaviouralism or behavioural approach one thing will be clear to us and it is it has certain interesting features.

Some of them are:

1. Robert Dahl says, “Historically speaking, the behavioural approach was a protest movement within political science”. Why it is a protest movement or protest against which? We have already noted that the dissatisfaction against the traditional or conventional political science was the root cause of the emergence of behaviouralism.

It was strongly and also legitimately felt that conventional way of analysing political science was quite inadequate to meet the requirement of the new age. What was the requirement of the new age? The new age, that is twenties and thirties of the last century, required that a fruitful analysis of political science shall be based on advanced scientific methods. Otherwise it would not be possible for the discipline to draw attention of policy-makers and serious students. Miraculous innovations were taking place and social scientists, specifically sociologists, were applying them. Economists were also doing the same.

This advancement in the application of technique draw the attention of many people and the importance of these subjects increased. Political scientists also fell in the line. They expressed their dissatisfaction against the traditional approach and they resorted to empiricism.

2. The purpose of behaviouralism ‘is’ to arrive at what is and not to discuss what ‘ought to be’. The difference between the two is obvious. In order to find out what is it is necessary to be pragmatic and empirical and not to be normative. From the thorough analysis of behaviuralism we come to know that behaviouralists have done hard labour in order to collect, analyse and explain data and facts about political behavior of individuals.

They apply advanced scientific methods and sophisticated techniques to find out the reality. We can, therefore, say that behaviouralism embraces scientific approach and methodological analysis. The purpose of behaviouralism is predominantly scientific.

3. Students of political science sometimes become the victim of confusion and this relates to behaviourism and behaviuralism. But in strictest term there is a clear distinction between the two. Behaviourism implies, “a school of psychology that takes the objective observation of behavior as measured by responses to stimuli”.

The response to stimuli constitutes the foundation of study of behaviourism. It is also the subject of psychology. But, on the other hand, behaviouralism is a sub-field of political science and it studies the political behaviour of individuals. The political behaviour must be observable whereas stimuli or response to it may not be observable.

4. Behaviouralism in politics does not reject historical knowledge. In behaviouralism, historical knowledge has an important part to play. It supplements the contemporary observation of political behaviour. It has been argued that any new approach to the study of political science must be based on the tradition and knowledge of the past. A denial of the past will harm the study and progress of the new approach.

A critic says, “Any new departure in an established discipline must built upon the accomplishments of the past. Although much of the existing literature of politics may be impressionistic, it is extensive and rich in insights. Without a command of the significant portions of that literature, behavioural research is likely to be naive and unproductive. Though behaviouralists are quite dissatisfied with the traditional approach they should not deny the importance of the past literature of political science based on traditional methods of analysis.

The traditional method was analytical and, at the same time, full of data and facts. The behaviouralists can easily utilise them for their analysis. Truman was a great exponent of behavioural approach and he did not hesitate to recognise the importance of conventional method. Robert Dahl also supports Truman’s views. Behaviouralism does not insist upon separation from the past.

5. We have already noted that behavioural approach to the study of politics embraces various improved methods of other sciences and it is interesting to note that this has brought political science in close relation to economics, sociology, psychology and anthropology. This close relationship has been interpreted by many as behavioural revolution.

In traditional approach there was no place of scientific methods in political science. This revolution can also be called a type of unity between political science on the one hand and other sciences such as sociology, economics, psychology etc.

But, at the same time, there have developed fissures between political science based mainly on behavioural approach and political science with traditional approach. Though it has been suggested that behaviouralism must recognise the importance of historical knowledge the glaring differences between the two cannot be denied.

6. Behaviouralism makes political science a comprehensive subject. The behaviouralists do not stop by collecting data and facts. They scrupulously and meticulously analyse them, construct general conclusions and also make suggestions.

The data and facts they collect are not particular. That is they relate to all acts and facets of governmental activities and policies. When the policies are implemented, behaviouralists collect data in relation to the political behaviour of persons or voters.

We find the following observation of a well-known critic: “Behaviouralism calls for a closer attention to methodological niceties, to problems of observations and verification, to the task of giving operational meaning to political concepts, to quantification and testing, to eliminating productive intervening variables.”

It has been claimed by the behaviouralists that this approach provides a clear and scientific guideline to the study of politics. Not only this, behaviouralism does not like to fragment the subject. It treats it in a comprehensive way. Apparently political science is associated with only political facts and behaviour and it has no relation with other subjects and various manifestations of government. But, broadly speaking, political science cannot be separated from other social sciences and even various branches of government.

7. Behaviouralism is not based on speculation. What it says everything is based on facts and data. One may not agree without the conclusions. But the behaviouralists are helpless because their conclusions are based on data. So behaviouralism is different from speculative subjects. It has no association with moralism and normative approach. Behaviouralist claims that he does not say anything on the basis of his liking or disliking.

8. Behaviouralism, positivism and empiricism are closely connected. In fact, it is very difficult to analyse behaviouralism without empiricism and positivism. Empiricism means verification of statements and conclusions by empirical data and facts. If any statement fails to stand the test of data or verification that is subject to rejection.

Again, it has also a intimate relationship with positivism. This term was coined by Comte (1798-1857). By positivism he meant the rejection of value judgments in social science. In other words, both empiricism and positivism tell us that what would be the conclusion or statement that will depend on what facts and data exactly say. In our analysis of behaviouralism we have seen that it has made utmost efforts to overlook value judgment in its analysis o political behaviour.

Behaviouralism has nothing to do with philosophical analysis of political theory. Another aspect of empiricism is experience. Experience, again, is not without data or facts. Men learn something from past activities and that is experience. This experience guides man in his future course of action.

So we can
say that the two important pillars of behaviouralism are positivism and empiricism. Though, some political scientists have expressed their reservations about behaviouralists’ sole dependence on empirical data and positivism. The concept (behaviouralism) is still treated as an empirical political theory.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Socialism: Origin, Development, Components and Divisions!

Definition of Socialism:

Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics defines Socialism as, “a political and economic theory of system of social organisation based on collective or state ownership of the means of production, distribution or exchange”. C.E.M. Joad thinks that socialism denotes “both a doctrine and a political movement”. Socialism consists of both economic and political doctrines.

Bernard Crick in his small book Socialism (World View, 1998) describes socialism as, “an invented system of society that stressed the social as against the selfish, the cooperative as against the competitive, sociability as against the individual self-sufficiency and self-interest, strict social controls on the accumulation and use of private property; and either economic equality or at least rewards according to merits (merits judged socially) or rewards judged according to need”.

Crick has not simply defined socialism as economic and political doctrine; he has briefly elaborated what is exactly meant by this concept. Strictly speaking socialism is not a political and economic doctrine, it at the same time envisages methods to reach certain goals which large number of men aspire to.

Similarly capitalism, fascism and anarchism are also methods. But some adherents of socialism claim that it is not at par with them. It, as a method, is different from other methods. In this respect socialism has speciality.

Nature of Socialism:

1. A thorough investigation about socialism reveals that it is an ever-changing concept. With the change of social, political, economic conditions and also with the change in attitude the concept simultaneously undergoes changes. Looking at this aspect of socialism Joad writes, “Socialism is like a hat that has lost its shape because everybody wears it”. Everyone claims to be a socialist. Whatever an individual adopts is named socialism. In this regard socialism has come to be linked with democracy because even an autocrat demands that he is a democrat.

2. Joad observes that though there are few similarities among its adherents as to its aim, they clearly differ among themselves so far as the methods of achieving aims are concerned.lt implies that the methods of socialism have failed to receive universal approval.

3. Socialism is a doctrine and a movement. Both these features are parts of the concept. It is a doctrine closely linked with the practical objectives which people ardently desire (of course not all men) to realise in practice. Because of this, attempts are made to achieve socialism or socialist goals and to that end socialists launch movement. Thus socialism, in fact, combines three things—it is a theory, it is a movement and it is, finally, an objective.

4. Bernard Crick is of opinion that “socialism is the product of the modern world. It has no precedent in the ancient or the medieval worlds”. This observation of Crick is true conditionally. As a unified “clear” doctrine socialism, no doubt, is a modern doctrine. But the seeds or the ideas in embryonic form were hidden in the literature, movements or activities of earlier epochs and the past records of history are replete with manifold examples. Plato’s The Republic contains a number of hints of communism of what may be called socialism. In old Indian scriptures there are few hints on socialism.

Origin:

The term socialism or socialist can be traced to the Latin word sociare which means to combine or share. The present meaning has got sufficient relevance to the Latin meaning though at present it is used in broad sense. As to the first use of the term almost all the scholars agree that the word socialist or socialism was first used in 1827.

The Cooperative Magazine in 1827 first circulated the word and subsequently Robert Owen (Utopian Socialist, 1771-1858) and Saint-Simon (1760- 1825) used the word in their writings. Like Owen, Saint-Simon was also a Utopian socialist. Besides the Cooperative Magazine another journal La Globe used and popularised the word socialism.

Saint-Simon was a Frenchman and he was so much perturbed by the growing misery and poverty of the working class people that he was seriously thinking about their emancipation. He also believed that only the establishment of socialism could give them relief. Robert Owen also believed same idea. We thus hold the view that socialism arose as a reaction against the evils and conditions generated by the Industrial Revolution.

The fact is that when Owen and Saint-Simon were writing in the early nineteenth century the impact of the Industrial Revolution upon all the spheres of society was as clear as broad daylight. It was not difficult for persons like Owen and Saint-Simon to gauge that the Industrial Revolution had failed to fulfill the aspiration of common people.

Rather it brought with it degradation, misery and many other evils. Both socialism and sociology arose from the shattering of the old order—the old order was agriculture-based economy.

Development:

The concept of socialism or socialist thought first appeared in the famous work of Thomas More (1478-1535). His Utopia was published in 1516, few years before his death. Though Utopia is regarded as a first comprehensive and to some extent modern book on socialism, more was not interested in propagating the concept.

He simply provided a sketch of an imaginary island, with ideal economic, social and political conditions which modern scholars treat as basis of socialism. At the next stage we encounter three Utopian socialists—Robert Owen, Saint-Simon and Charles Fourier (1772-1837). All the three socialists are called Utopian because the methods suggested by these three socialists had no relevance with the real world and because of this F. Engels called them so.

After the Utopian socialists the most prominent names linked with the theory of socialism are F. Engels (1820-1895) and K. Marx (1818- 1883). We thus come across a very interesting fact which is the chief tenets of socialism as a political and economic doctrine were prepared before the end of the nineteenth century, Nevertheless what we call socialism today was primarily a product of Marx’s and Engels’ political and economic philosophy based on materialist conception of history or what is popularly called the historical materialism.

After Marx and Engels’ scores of writer contributed to the development of socialist thought such as Henry Mayers Hyndman (1842-1921), V. I. Lenin (1870-1924). Besides them in the European continent numerous movements were started by different radical and socialist groups and organisations. Their chief aim was to emancipate common men from atrocities.

Components of Socialism:

Vincent Geoghegon in his article Socialism published in Political Ideologies edited by Robert Eccleshall and Vincent Geoghegan says that socialism in general comprises three basic components and these are: it is a critique, it is an alternative and, finally, it is a theory of transition.

In the first place, socialism is regarded as a critique. We have earlier said that it is a reaction against the deteriorating conditions of the Industrial Revolution. The socialists came to the conclusion that the deteriorating social, political and economic conditions must be removed and for this purpose concerted efforts both at academic and practical levels are to be made. Geoghegan says that as a critique it is a form of egalitarianism. Some may raise question against this contention. But it is a fact that some sort of egalitarianism contains in it. It is again an alternative.

The persons who criticise the liberal, political and economic system have offered an alte
rnative approach and it is socialism. They forcefully argue that only through the implemen­tation of socialist principles the economic conditions of common men can be appreciably improved. Hence socialism is an appropriate alternative to capitalism.

As a theory of transition socialism indicates how the improvements could be achieved through concerted efforts. We have said that socialism is an alternative model to capitalism. Naturally setting up of a new social order is the goal of the socialists. The socialists aim at freeing the society from all the evils and at the same time they want to build up a new society taking the best elements of all political models.

Change from one system to another and so it is transition. It is a theory of transition in another sense also. A socialist society is built upon the ashes of capitalism, but the completion of this task requires continuous efforts and a number of revolutions.

Ways of Understanding Socialism:

Different people/scholars try to understand socialism in their own ways and this gives rise to the different meanings of socialism or these may be called various ways of understanding socialism. These are the following. In the first place, socialism is understood by many as an economic model. In this sense socialism means generally the nationalisation of the means of production and at the same time to vest the function of the distribution in the state.

The economic functions are performed through a centralised planning system. In this regard socialism is opposite to capitalism which is based on private management. In some instances socialism means the blending of private or capitalist and socialist features. Secondly, socialism is being viewed by many as an instrument of movement specially used by the working class.

The workers use it for fulfilling some economic demands which are deemed by them as just. In many states it is an instrument of labour movement. In this sense socialism has been termed by many as a form of labourism. There is a final manifestation of socialism and it is socialism is a political doctrine or ideology.

Needless to say that this last meaning is prominent among the socialists, political scientists and even general public. But the three meanings are not separate from each other. When the application of the political ideology proceeds it appears to us as an instrument. Again, when applied, the socialist principles stand opposite to the capitalist principles and socialism is regarded as an alternative to capitalism. However, we shall now turn to the third way—socialism as an ideology.

Philosophy of Socialism:

A thorough analysis of the various aspects of socialism as an ideology reveals its philosophical aspects which can be described in the following way:

1. Socialism wants all-round development of the individuals:

There is a long and heated controversy between socialism and individualism and the chief point of this controversy is the former tries to subjugate or suggests subjugation of the individual to the authority or common order. Individuals alone cannot do anything. Naturally the development and welfare can be done only through the cooperation and common order or ownership of property.

But the individualists strongly oppose this. To force the individual to carry out the direction of authority is another name of coercion and loss of freedom. The scheme of the socialists, the individualists allege, will stand on the way of all-round progress of individuals. But socialists challenge this argument and their contention is that only through the system of socialism an all-round progress of society and all the faculties of the individuals are possible.

The socialists further contend that only socialism professes to free the individuals from various pressures and necessities of day-to-day life and this abundantly promises all-round development. C. E. M. Joad says, “Socialism in fact seeks to free the individual from the pressure of material cares, in order that he may live his life in his own way and freely develop his personality”.

The individualism throws the individuals into the vortex of keen competition among themselves and thus creates a lot of tension, confusion and anxiety. This blocks the free development of personality. To sum up, the standpoint of liberalism is competition among individuals will lead to all-round progress whereas socialism believes that this type of competition creates an atmosphere of tension and animosity.

2. Life is not for struggle for existence alone:

Many individualists borrowing Darwin’s famous phrase argue that only the fittest persons can survive. Charles Darwin (1809-1882), in his most thought-provoking famous book The Origin of the Species (1859), said that in the animal world it was found that only the fit animals had been able to survive. Many individualists claim that in society there is a continuous competition or struggle among the individuals and only the persons who have been able to establish their superiority in all or many respects will ultimately survive.

For this competition the individuals will be left alone and any type of outside interference shall be stopped. But the socialists have rejected this contention. Their view in life is not simply for struggle and competition. Life has greater and nobler objectives and these can be attained if the individuals are completely freed from their day to day’s petty necessities.

It is the noble function of all individuals to advance civilisation and progress of society, to realise more liberty and exercise large number of rights. Rights and liberties can help the individual to develop personality. The socialists, therefore, claim that all these are possible only in a true socialist society.

So life should not be thrown to the unlimited and cut-throat competition. The life conceived by individualism is a life of competition and hard struggle. The life imagined by socialism is for greater and nobler objectives and life of leisure and comfort.

3. Socialist state is based on cooperation:

Mention has been made how cooperation comes to be a fundamental principle of socialism. Here we want to highlight other aspects—without cooperation among the citizens and also the cooperation between the ruler and the ruled no state structure can discharge its responsibility.

For that reason every state aspires cooperation and a socialist state gives emphasis on it because it abhors competition and struggle among citizens. Men are not always interested in cooperation and often they forget this principle. So it is the duty of the state to create an atmosphere of cooperation among the citizens and this could be done in socialism.

A critic makes the following observation: “No socialist can be logically and thoroughly a socialist unless he gives the right answer, which is that they (citizens) shall cooperate so that they may escape from the struggle of life to the doing of those things which are worth doing for their own sake”. “Hence the social creed which underlies the socialist view of the state is that society is an association of human beings, formed with the object of giving all its members the opportunity to satisfy their desires for spiritual freedom and the good life”.

Here the noble and lofty aim of cooperation has been briefly stated by Joad. It is unfortunate that individualism by emphasising on the competition has ignored this. This view is generally found in the writings of idealist philosophers. Particularly Rousseau and Hegel thought that a state has noble aims. Before them Plato and Aristotle said the same thing. We conclude that socialism is for noble purpose.

4. Socialism envisages democracy but it is more than that:

There has been found a confusion as regards the relationship between socialism and democracy. It is admitted on all hands that without democracy
socialism is not complete and without socialism democracy is void. Bernard Crick says: “Socialism is a special form of democracy, it arises from a tradition of democratic ideas and to some extent, democratic experience. Democracy is a necessary, but not a sufficient, part of any definition of socialism.

Socialism says that free development of each is the condition of the free development of all. Democracy also aims at the same noble objective. Socialism—through the machinery of cooperation and collective ownership of the means of production—can ensure of development of all. In socialism every individual gets the adequate scope to exercise rights and culture liberties. Opening up this opportunity is the primary condition of successful working of democracy. But today democracy has changed considerably.

All the citizens do not get the scope to participate directly in the administration of state; they do it through their representatives. In such a situation it is the duty of democratic government to see that the most important objectives of socialism are translated into reality. If there are inequalities (specially the economic inequality) among the individuals that will make democracy a mockery.

Both socialism and democracy need each other. Democracy stresses rights and liberties and socialism tries to create a friendly atmosphere for their realisation. However, one cannot reach the destination without the other. The above-noted intimate relationship between socialism and democracy is not based on imagination but on the ground realities and because of this we talk of democratic socialism or socialist democracy.

5. Socialism aims at social benefit and not private benefit:

The main philosophy of socialism is it always gives priority to social good or common welfare of society and welfare of the particular individual receives secondary importance. Recollecting our memory we can say that this conception was (in modern times) first enunciated by Rousseau.

In his idea of general will the common good was of prime importance and he in no uncertain terms announced that the individuals must adjust themselves with the general will which aims at common good and through this adjustment they will be in a position to reach the goal of moral upliftment.

In a different languishedJoad has observed: “Socialism aims at substituting the motive of social service for the motive of private profit. It holds that men will do better work to make the good life with the leisure and financial competence it requires possible for a society which in the long run is themselves, than they will at present consent to do for a society which compels them to enrich the exploiters of their labour in order to avoid starvation for themselves”.

The socialisation of production and distribution the objective of common good can be better served. Private profile and satisfaction of the needs of few persons at the cost of interests of others can never be the goal of any social philosopher. Viewed from this angle, it is asserted, socialism is far better than any other political ideology. This view has, however, been contested by many liberals and conservatives. For this very reason socialism is a polemical concept.

Upload and Share Your Article: