Содружество

Igor Volnov

When we talk about democratic socialism among Russian left-wing circles, it is primarily defined by the idea of a society without capitalism (1) and with private property either strictly regulated or abolished altogether (2). In this framework, the core normative concept is property—it shapes not only the political end goal, but also the means of achieving it.

The ultimate aim of democratic socialism, therefore, is a free, equal, and just society—achieved through the rejection of capital.

Social democrats, by contrast, do not reduce politics to the question of property. It is an important issue for us, but not an exclusive one. Our priority is not strict equality of outcomes, but ensuring the conditions that enable individuals to develop. Whether a person chooses to take advantage of those conditions is their own decision—not the concern of the state. At the core of social democracy lies the concept of life chances.

These life chances can be described in various ways, but in the context of Russia and the post-Soviet space, they most importantly include access to:

• free education at all levels
• affordable credit, rental options, and pathways to home ownership
• universal basic healthcare, with extended coverage through insurance
• reliable transport services
• unemployment benefits, pensions, and student stipends
• environmentally sustainable, multifunctional, and socially inclusive infrastructure
• unconditional access to public services (justice system, social protection, etc.)
• constitutional rights and freedoms, along with their effective enforcement

The ultimate aim of social democracy, then, is also a free, equal, and just society—but achieved through expanding individual autonomy and opportunity.

This is where a series of ideological tensions emerges between Russian social democrats and democratic socialists. For the former, achieving the conditions outlined above represents a realistic and sufficient goal. For the latter, it is often seen as inadequate. Democratic socialists argue that such measures may mitigate the effects of capitalism, but do not resolve its underlying contradictions: in Marxist terms, market capitalism is inherently prone to crisis, and no amount of incremental reform can fully escape that logic.

However, Marx was not right about everything. Historically, social democrats have demonstrated a more nuanced understanding of market economies, enabling them—at various points—to deliver higher living standards than those that preceded them, or than those found in the socialist bloc and communist states.

A thoughtful democratic socialist will engage in debate based on shared goals and empirical evidence from past political experience. A less serious one will resort to labeling, moralizing, and lamenting the supposed decline of “political ethics” or attacking “neoliberal social democrats”—recycling clichés that bear little relation to actual social-democratic practice.

From experience, intellectual rigidity is not confined to any one ideology. It tends to appear in individuals who lack pragmatism, think reactively, cling to abstract idealism, show weak moral resilience, or overestimate their own experience. By contrast, democratic socialists who focus on institutional effectiveness—rather than treating public ownership as a one-size-fits-all solution—tend to demonstrate stronger social and cultural competencies in collaborative work.

Why is meaningful dialogue—and even joint political action—possible with a thoughtful democratic socialist? Because if their understanding of socialism is not narrowly centered on property, their political language becomes more flexible. It is no longer limited to just two instruments: nationalization and socialization of property.

At first glance, this may seem abstract or even impractical—like a kite floating in a heavy, overcast sky. But under future conditions of a developing democratic system, such flexibility could make it possible to avoid zero-sum battles over “capitalist” versus “socialist” institutions. Instead, it opens the path to achieving tangible results through the regulation and improvement of existing systems.

Ideological conflicts will likely remain unavoidable. The real question is what matters more: winning arguments, or delivering results.