This issue I will be writing about here is the role of parliamentary politics, “liberal” democracy, and reformism in the struggle for a socialist society. For someone who is critical, like me, of leftist, socialist, and communist parties taking part in “democratic” elections, the easiest place to look for examples of the political selling out that results is by far Europe. Many countries in europe have had parties in power who claimed to be socialist, such as the ruling party in Spain, and even the current ruling “communist” party in greek cyprus. But take a look at any of these parties, and all they do is continue the capitalist policies, and often imperialist policies, which are inherent under liberal “democracy,” and the only difference between them and out and out reactionary parties is that they claim to be working under the banner of socialism, while in reality doing nothing but defiling the name of a revolutionary ideology. These parties don’t even claim to be revolutionary, they are openly reformist, and their thirst for power leads them to continually betray the principles on which their parties claim to stand.

Trotsky describes these european parliamentary “socialists” very well in his autobiography when he describes his encounters with the leaders of the Austrian Social Democratic Party:

“I listened with intense, and one might almost say, respectful interest to their conversation in the “Central” café. But very soon I grew puzzled. These people were not revolutionaries. Moreover, they represented the type that was farthest from that of the revolutionary. This expressed itself in everything – in their approach to subjects, in their political remarks and psychological appreciations, in their self-satisfaction – not self-assurance, but self-satisfaction…I was surprised to find that these educated Marxists were absolutely incapable of applying Marx’s method as soon as they came to the big problems of politics, especially its revolutionary turns…

“In informal talks among themselves, they revealed, much more frankly than in their articles and speeches, either undisguised chauvinism, or the bragging of a petty proprietor, or holy terror of the police, or vileness towards women. In amazement, I often exclaimed, “What revolutionaries!”

The other region which has a fairly long history of parliamentary “socialism” is Latin America, although it does manifest itself there is somewhat better form than in europe. Without doubt there are several outstanding leaders (at very least in contrast to other world leaders) there who are the products and beneficiaries of the parliamentary road to socialism (which inevitably leads nowhere). The most well known of these socialist/parliamentarian leaders being Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales (currently in power), Manuel Zelaya (removed from power in a 2009 military coup) and the greatest symbol of parliamentary socialism in Latin America: Salvador Allende (killed during the 1973 military coup led by Pinochet). Now, as socialists, I think it is very important to support these governments against their enemies, both the foreign imperialists, local puppet leaders, and the domestic and expatriate bourgeois. This does not mean, however, that criticizing them is off limits. Of course these leaders are far from perfect, and criticism is essential if we want to achieve true socialism and not sell out our principles for seats in a parliament.

So: Where are these governments going? What security do they have that they won’t be deposed by a coup? Or that the “liberal” democracy they have founded their rule on won’t be used (as it normally is) to sell the election to the highest bidder?

In regards to the question of security, Chavez has already had a military coup launched against him, which he thankfully defeated, and Zelaya was deposed by another military coup, and it doesn’t look as if he will ever return to power, and Allende was killed during Pinochet’s coup. The only lesson some socialists draw from this is that military coups are bad, as if we did not know that before. The much more important point to make, however, is that reformist/parliamentary socialism will never work. We need a revolution, not an election, and if there is no revolution, but rather a selling out to the structures of state that the capitalists themselves have built, there will be little to no protection from military coups and no reliable security on which to base and support the restructuring of society.

Also, a key point to be made about these leaders, and parlimentary “socialism” in general, they being its outcome, is that their rules’ are supported to a great extend by their individual characters and leadership. And no this is not a complement. It is not a complement, because what will happen when these leaders die? Most likely the system they have worked towards creating, far from perfect though it may be, will die as well, or will be killed by the accession to power of an “ally” or “fellow” party member of the said leader, who will then proceed to undue everything that their predecessor had worked to build. If we focus on the individual, we will never be able to achieve socialism, as socialism is the focus on the collectivity, not the individual. When we start talking about “the leader of the revolution,” you can be quite sure that the revolution will fail. Likewise, when we put our faith and hope for change in one person, or even several people, we will either be disappointed with the result, or have to lie to ourselves. For our revolution to succeed and survive, it needs to be based on the masses of the people, the exploited and the oppressed, and be lead by them!

Another issue with parliamentary “socialism” is its reliance on institutions and a system created by the people they should be enemies of. We are not attempting to build half-hearted-kind-of-like-socialism and use the prevailing system, a system created by and for the upper classes, to achieve our goal of a complete transformation of society. No! If we say we are socialists, then let us be socialists and say NO, unequivocally, to reformism and selling out. As we have seen with the people and groups who have gone down the road of parliamentary “socialism,” we will be able to change very little in the long run, and will be left yelling empty slogans in the streets during election time. A real change of society, a complete and utter shattering of the previous system and norms, is what we need to accomplish to truly change our world for the better. If we choose instead to engage in parliamentary politics, it means nothing less than that we are selling out to the capitalists and upper classes who want nothing more than to co-opt revolutionary movements and turn them into neutered, tamed parliamentary parties.