What democratic socialism is today

We often hear the same question, which pops up now and then both among the Russian political left and in the international political arena. This question is: what is the difference between social democracy and democratic socialism?

The question itself is not new. According to Thomas Meyer, one of Germany’s leading theorists of social democracy, the concepts of “democratic socialism”, “social democracy”, and “social democracy” constitute the essence of one and the same political phenomenon. To this day, in the party programs of some social democratic parties, we observe the gradual attainment of democratic socialism as an option for the main political goal. But attention should be drawn to the fact that social democracy and democratic socialism, while being political movements, exist as close to each other, yet still separated by differences in organizations.

What then happened that makes us define them as political “twin brothers”? Why do situations arise in which some experts claim that social democracy is preferable for the state¹, while others favor democratic socialism²? First of all, we should mention the seven most important points in political philosophy from which further comparative reasoning should proceed. For instance, both social democrats and democratic socialists:

• Consider themselves part of the political left;
• Initiate, formulate, and implement policies in adherence to the idea of social progress;
• Cite freedom, justice, and solidarity (in some cases, the latter may be replaced by equality) as their key political values;
• Are convinced that politics must be ethical;
• Deem it necessary, for the fulfillment of the aforementioned political values and principles, to actively develop the welfare state and social policy;
• Place the achievement and development of political democracy at the core of their political program, with a view toward building social democracy;
• Pursue their political goals solely through legal means — via participation in elections and in the parliamentary struggle.

From understanding this theoretical and philosophical paradigm, we move on to further discussion regarding social democracy and democratic socialism.

What is social democracy

Concept. If we turn to classic dictionaries and encyclopedias, we find several meanings for the concept of “social democracy” at once. First, it is an ideological and socio-political movement based on the labor and democratic movement that aims to achieve social justice³. From Merriam-Webster’s dictionary⁴, we learn that social democracy is “a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means; a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices”. Finally, the Britannica encyclopedia refers to social democracy as a political ideology “that originally advocated a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes. In the second half of the 20th century, there emerged a more moderate version of the doctrine, which generally supported state regulation, rather than state ownership, of the means of production and extensive social welfare programs”⁵.

It can be said that social democracy is an ideological and socio-political movement that rests upon the labor and democratic movement, strives for social justice, supports state regulation, and aims to achieve a democratic welfare state in which “capitalist” and “socialist” practices will be combined (however, these terms are not sufficiently specific, as we wrote in a separate piece).

Current State. Social democratic organizations are traditionally (that is, by virtue of their historical origin) located in Europe, although significant presence is also observed on other continents. The traditionally well-known and historically longstanding social democratic movements and parties include the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the Swedish Social Democratic Workers’ Party⁶, the Norwegian Labour Party⁷, the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party⁸, the Labour Party of the United Kingdom, and so forth (on “Logic of Progress” there is a separate piece on social democratic parties). In Russia, social democracy is represented primarily as part of the social-liberal political party “Yabloko”, in the form of its faction⁹.

International Cooperation. Social democrats coordinate their actions not only within their home countries, but also with one another at the international level. There are a number of international organizations — such as the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats¹⁰ in the European Parliament, the Progressive Alliance¹¹, and the Socialist International¹² — which actively and productively propagate and develop social democratic political values and ideas.

What democratic socialism is

Concept. The concept of democratic socialism is interpreted in various ways today. Firstly, an ideological and political closeness to social democracy is noted, and secondly, the use of the term “democratic socialism” by political movements, including those with an authoritarian self-identification. Here are a few meanings that are cited in various texts.

First, it is a trend within socialist and, to some extent, communist ideology that advocates an inseparable combination of democracy and socialism¹³. Second, as Lyman Tower Sargent rightly notes, “because many communists now call themselves democratic socialists, it is sometimes difficult to know what a political label really means”¹⁴. Thomas Meyer also drew attention to this phenomenon, stating that the force field of political semantics was destroyed due to the collapse of communism and the name changes of former parties of the communist system¹⁵.

As a result, Sargent continues, the social democratic label becomes intellectual and political property for democratic socialist parties as well. He also derived several criteria for defining the democratic socialist movement: limitations on the accumulation of private property, state regulation of the economy, extensive social programs (pensions, social assistance), and viewing social expenditures and the provision of social services as measures of efficiency.

Third, it is a set of various political doctrines based (to varying degrees) on public ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods. They encompass a multitude of theoretical positions — starting from those that provide for limited public ownership (for example, only of large enterprises) to those that demand comprehensive state control in economic planning and management¹⁶.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQLcAGyIv5I

To summarize, democratic socialism can be characterized as a political doctrine holding socialist ideas, advocating an inseparable combination of democracy and socialism within the framework of constitutional parliamentary democracy or direct democracy, and economically ranging from limited public ownership (as an option, only of large national enterprises) to comprehensive state control in economic planning and management.

Current State. Economic policy measures of democratic socialists, as seen from the given examples, may vary depending on the political movement. Usually, the democratic socialist movement occurs in two political-organizational states:

• As part of a political party, in the form of platforms and factions (the German “Parlamentarische Linke”¹⁷ and the British “Socialist Campaign Group”¹⁸);
• As an independent political party (Die Linke in Germany¹⁹, Vänsterpartiet in Sweden²⁰, Socialist Left Party in Norway²¹).

International Cooperation. Democratic socialists develop international ties through the Socialist International. Another expression of international cooperation is the Party of the European Left²² and The Left in the European Parliament²³ — GUE/NGL (jointly with Eurocommunists). In addition to the above-mentioned forms of interaction, democratic socialists cooperate through international organizations such as the International Falcon Movement – Socialist Educational International (IFM-SEI)²⁴ and the International Union of Socialist Youth (IUSY)²⁵.

Prominent representatives of social democracy and democratic socialism

In history, social democrats and democratic socialists share a common origin narrative thread. This imposes a certain burden of responsibility on us for an extremely complex intellectual procedure of identifying social democratic and democratic socialist figures.

The list presented below will allow the reader to get acquainted with prominent (in modern times or history) or just starting their rise figures of social democracy and democratic socialism. We ask the reader to treat the list as an introductory presentation rather than a final result or conclusions of a scientific study. The division into social democrats and democratic socialists in some cases can be quite conditional — some figures make no distinction between social democracy and democratic socialism, positioning themselves as representatives of both ideologies, while some might have belonged to both tendencies in different periods of their activity. This list is not the last. Of course, it will be gradually expanded, and you can participate in supplementing it if you send us your suggestions.

Democratic socialists:

• Alexander Shubin (Russia, scholar and public figure);
• Alexis Tsipras (Greece, SYRIZA);
• Bernie Sanders (USA, Democratic Party);
• Gregor Gysi (FRG, Party of Democratic Socialism);
• Jeremy Corbyn (UK, Leader of the Labour Party in 2015–2020);
• Karl Kautsky (Weimar Republic, SPD);
• Mikhail Gorbachev (Russia, President of the USSR);
• Ota Šik (Czechoslovakia, Deputy Prime Minister);
• Pavel Kudyukin (Russia, scholar and public figure);
• Ferdinand Lassalle (Kingdom of Prussia, philosopher).

Social democrats:

• Alva Myrdal (Sweden, Nobel Peace Prize laureate, one of the architects of the Swedish Folkhemmet model);
• Aneurin Bevan (UK, Minister of Health, Labour Party);
• Boris Orlov (Russia, scholar and one of the founders of the Social Democratic Party of Russia);
• Bruno Kreisky (Austria, Federal Chancellor);
• Willi Eichler (FRG, SPD);
• Willy Brandt (FRG, Chancellor);
• Herbert Wehner (FRG, Chairman of the SPD parliamentary group in the Bundestag);
• Jack Layton (Canada, Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Commons, New Democratic Party);
• Kalevi Sorsa (Finland, Prime Minister);
• Clement Attlee (UK, Prime Minister);
• Kurt Schumacher (FRG, Chairman of the SPD);
• Mette Frederiksen (Denmark, Prime Minister);
• Per Albin Hansson (Sweden, Prime Minister);
• Romano Prodi (Italy, Prime Minister);
• Sanna Marin (Finland, Prime Minister);
• Thomas Meyer (FRG, scholar and editor of the journal “Neue Gesellschaft”);
• Tony Blair (UK, Prime Minister);
• Olof Palme (Sweden, Prime Minister);
• François Mitterrand (France, President (1981–1995);
• Friedrich Ebert (first President of the Weimar Republic);
• Eduard Bernstein (Weimar Republic, SPD);
• Anthony Crosland (UK, Labour Party functionary and thinker).

Historical note

We speak of classical (in a historical sense) political parties of social democracy and democratic socialism for a reason. This is explained by the fact that in 1989–1991, on the wave of democratization of the USSR and the Socialist Bloc, as well as the fall of authoritarian political regimes, a process of reconstruction of former communist parties took place. As a rule, as a result of such reconstruction, a change in political as well as ideological orientation toward social democracy or democratic socialism was declared. Thomas Meyer’s observation on this event is interesting and valid: “It is not only that the term ‘socialism’ suffered from the historical bankruptcy of the Soviet model, regardless of what meaning those who put it into practice attached to this concept. It is also that almost all communist parties of Eastern Europe, in the year of the European revolution, ‘rechristened’ themselves as ‘socialist’ parties or even — like the former SED — as a party of ‘democratic socialism’ At the same time, the question remains open as to how much democracy they are ready to accept, and to what extent they are ready to abandon dogmas, whether the turn they are making is serious and credible. Under such circumstances, serious doubts arise as to whether it is permissible in public discussions to use the concept of ‘democratic socialism’ without pointing out the distortions, manipulations, and systematic misinterpretation of what free socialists mean”²⁶.

History knows successful outcomes of such a process. “In the new political conditions in a number of countries in Central and Eastern Europe, the once-ruling communist parties were forced to step down from power and go into opposition. A long and difficult path lay ahead: adapting to the current political realities, finding their place in the party spectrum, and establishing an ideological identity. The Soviet Union ceased its support for communist parties, allowing them to determine their own further political fate. In such a situation, the region’s former communist parties demonstrated a steady trend of renouncing their communist past and shifting to the positions of social democracy”²⁷, concludes Margarita Blinova, Candidate of Historical Sciences, in her article. Thus, the former Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED) transformed into the Party of Democratic Socialism and later joined the unified political party Die Linke. The Polish United Workers’ Party (PZPR), after its self-dissolution, partially re-established itself in the form of “Social Democracy of the Republic of Poland”.

However, history has also known unsuccessful attempts at the democratic transformation of former communist parties. The clearest example of this is the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), which failed at an extremely difficult historical moment to handle the democratic transit and transition into a constructive parliamentary party. Paradoxically, at its final 28th Congress (1990), the CPSU adopted the concept of democratic socialism and published a corresponding declaration, but the majority in the central apparatus and in the regions (especially in the RSFSR, judging by the political rhetoric of the newly formed Russian Communist Party at the time) did not accept and rejected the new political ideas. The climax of protest against such a policy, expressed in the August Coup of 1991, became the final nail in the CPSU’s coffin.

The above allows for the assumption that young political movements of social democracy and democratic socialism in Eastern Europe are currently in the stage of reaching their political maturity, although in some states of the region, we are forced to note, we can observe a decline of parties of such political orientation.

The split between movements: was there really one?

The distinction between the two movements in politics began approximately in the 1960s, when the Socialist International, together with the social democratic and socialist political parties of Western Europe, shifted toward a strategy of moving away from Marxism within their own intellectual tradition. Remaining within the bounds of left-wing political thought, social democrats and democratic socialists opened a new stage of philosophical search and discovery of a new political self-identity.

Pluralism and freedom inevitably lead to the emergence of different colors, voices, opinions, meanings, and subjects. Difference is natural, just as human nature requiring respect for its individuality is natural. Consequently, it becomes unsurprising that dissenters appeared among the political left who sought to deeply or completely separate (de facto distance) themselves from the socialist project.

Following the suppression of the Hungarian Uprising of 1956 and the Prague Spring of 1968, illusions among the Western political left regarding the possibility of transforming the Soviet concept of Marxism and socialism evaporated. This was reflected in the rejection of the Marxist vision of socialism by democratic socialists and social democrats in the programs of many prominent parties, such as the Social Democratic Party of Germany in 1959²⁸ and the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party in 1979²⁹. Democratic socialists, like part of the social democratic movement, strive for a transition to a socialist society. But, unlike the latter, the former largely retained in their theoretical and philosophical concept certain notions drawn from Western Marxism.

The democratic socialist parties themselves emerged in different ways: the Left Party in France split off from the Socialist Party of France³⁰, the “Left Party”³¹ changed direction, and there are also coalition parties of diverse left-wing forces, such as SYRIZA³².

Another reason for the alleged split was defined as the Third Way — a policy that arose due to the discredit of left-wing political thought following the collapse of the socialist states of Europe in 1989–1991. The Third Way took shape as an attempt to find a new place between socialism and capitalism, to develop a strong welfare state with a strong market economy. The movement received much criticism: the political left considered it insufficiently socialist, while centrist critics pointed out a serious deviation from the market economy.

As an example, one can recall the SPD, where part of the left social democrats did not support the Third Way, advocated at the time by SPD leader Gerhard Schröder, and as a result created their own party, “Labour and Social Justice – The Electoral Alternative”³⁵, which later, specifically in 2007, merged with the Party of Democratic Socialism into Die Linke³⁶.

Differences in political views: reformism or gradualism?

Now let us consider specifically what the difference is, using the example of formulating future policy. Social democrats, in the process of formulating their policy, embed a reformist approach — movement toward a free, just, and solidary society through gradual reforms. At the same time, a certain final goal is not set, nor is it programmed into party documents.

Since the movement toward democratic socialism (as well as the understanding of it itself) may change, social democratic parties do not designate a final goal in the form of achieving a socialist society. In the context of modern political reality, some social democratic political parties have excluded the goal of building a democratic socialist society, defining it as utopian and excessively distant from the real needs of voters. Reformism is characterized by features such as prioritizing reforms of social institutions; opposing revolutionism, which seeks to forcibly spur the development of society and accelerate social changes in every way, without regard for the degree of their readiness. “Reforms in society are a necessary path of social development, which in Marxism was considered something secondary”³⁷, reports the New Philosophical Encyclopedia on reformism.

Democratic socialists, in the process of formulating their policy, embed a gradualist approach — movement toward a free, just, and solidary society through gradual reforms that lead to revolutionary social shifts. At the same time, a quite specific goal is programmed, which consists in achieving a socialist society. Gradualism, according to the Great Russian Encyclopedia, is “a term characterizing the process of evolution as a gradual transition of a system from one state to another through the continuous accumulation of small changes, without any leaps, catastrophes, and revolutions”³⁸. In accordance with such an understanding, we can reach the following conclusion: since small reformist steps will lead to revolutionary changes (for example, to the socialization of various sectors of the economy), moderately revolutionary political design is retained for democratic socialists.

Differences in economic views: socialist or market form of economic activity?

First, the quality and quantity of the resulting national product, which is used to satisfy individual and collective needs, depends on the form of economic activity. Second, the form of economic activity determines how factors of production and production units will interact. Democratic socialism continues to develop ideas about the socialist form of economic activity. These ideas are usually realized in two types — state and cooperative production.

The first type has been known to humanity for a long time: back in ancient Egypt and China, state management was actively used, being useful for providing for large social masses. Currently, it is represented in state production of electricity, drinking water, weapon systems, and passenger and cargo transportation.

The cooperative type is a form of organizing economic activity based on the voluntary consent of several individuals (entrepreneurs, workers) and realized through their participation in the production process. Cooperation has also been known to humanity for a fairly long time, although not in the same way as state management. In any case, its development since the 19th century took place within the bosom of the socialist movement. The theoretical fathers of cooperation were Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, Charles Gide, Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky, and Vahan Totomiants.

Social democracy discovers considerable efficiency and accessibility in the market form of economic activity. At the same time, social democrats reject classical market production models in favor of various modifications aimed at state regulation and intervention. As a rule, social democrats also actively develop the state sector in the national economy, while preventing an excessive, in their opinion, growth of the state sector’s share.

Differences in economic views: public or private property in the economy?

Democratic socialism presupposes the creation of a socialist economy. Unlike the historical practice of the authoritarian left (Bolsheviks), as well as the propaganda of the modern authoritarian left (Stalinists), democratic socialists develop ideas of a gradualist economic policy of reforms that will gradually socialize the economy. In accordance with such a policy, socialization will transfer one market institution after another in such a way that, ultimately, the individual and society do not find themselves impaired in freedom, justice, and solidarity. If a socialist institution that replaced a market one proves inefficient, it is dismantled.

The concept of market socialism became, according to L. Sargent, “the most significant addition to the vocabulary of democratic socialism in many years”³⁹. The socialist market is a compromise solution between an undemocratic centralized plan, on the one hand, and “democratic capitalism” on the other. This concept is based on the market as a system that most contributes to the development of freedom, which will be controlled and regulated, preventing the emergence of monopolies and price-fixing. Since the natural essence of the market inclines it toward cyclicality in its development, there must be a large-scale system of social security and insurance to protect citizens from socio-economic shocks. At the same time, market socialism implies a mixed economy, with the presence of state, private, worker, and cooperative property and competition in a government-regulated market.

Social democracy, having transitioned to a policy of reforming the market economy, formed its own project of a mixed economy. According to the idea established among modern social democrats during the Cold War, a pursuit of “capitalism with a human face” is permissible. In their book “The Future of European Social Democracy”, H. Meyer and J. Rutherford note that “in some cases, social democrats argued that they could manage capitalism better and create a fairer and more equal society through social engineering, market controls, and welfare policy”⁴⁰.

The tasks of a mixed economy include maximizing the satisfaction of goods and creating a welfare state. Thus, when considering the “Tony Blair era” in the Labour Party, one discovers the creation of an Anglo-social model of the welfare state that combines “high employment (provided by labor market flexibilization and active state policy aimed at helping the population obtain jobs), economic dynamism, and a social protection system funded by fairly high taxes” and is distinguished by a synthesis of Anglo-Saxon neoliberalism and European Scandinavian social democratism⁴¹.

Cooperation between social democracy and democratic socialism

In general, due to ideological similarity in theoretical and philosophical doctrines, as well as historical kinship, social democrats and democratic socialists, like other democratic leftists, often form various kinds of coalitions. For example, one can take the left-wing coalitions of the SPD, Die Linke, and “Alliance 90/The Greens” in Berlin⁴², Bremen⁴³, and Thuringia⁴⁴. In Finland, an example of this is the government coalition, which consists of 3 left-wing parties (Social Democratic Party of Finland, Green League, and Left Alliance) and 2 centrist parties (Swedish People’s Party and Centre Party)⁴⁵.

From events of the recent past, one can find the activities of Jens Stoltenberg’s government in the period from 2005 to 2013⁴⁶, which included representatives of the Labour Party of Norway (social democrats), the Centre Party (centrists), and the Socialist Left Party (democratic socialists).

Rivalry between social democrats and democratic socialists: a process of creative destruction?

Rivalry as a positive phenomenon. The reader has likely already assumed that between social democrats and democratic socialists, there is no such fierce, antagonistic struggle as, for example, with communists. Overall, relationships between social democracy and democratic socialism grow and develop peacefully in the public sphere and in parliament, and contradictions between the political movements benefit rather than harm the entire political left. We perceive this process as a creative one, bearing features of creative destruction: the revision and refutation of an outdated political theoretical and philosophical tradition, the generation of new ideas and values, and the search for further political ways to achieve a free, just, and solidary society.

This circumstance is arch-important, for as historical experience and political reality show, only the democratic left managed to achieve genuine, constructive results in those societies where they came to political power. Moreover, they averted for themselves the sad fate of the authoritarian left — such as the Stalinist and Marxist-Leninist movements — which in 1989–1991 lost not only political power, but also brought down the states (the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia) in which they ruled. Paradoxically, even today, Stalinists and Marxists-Leninists, like Sisyphus (a character in Ancient Greek mythology condemned by the gods to roll a heavy boulder up a mountain, which, as soon as it reaches the top, always rolls back down — editor’s note, Logic of Progress), time and again blindly attempt to grasp a political tradition that has lost all connection with reality, inevitably rolling into the abyss of intellectual poverty and despair.

Rivalry as a negative phenomenon. For the sake of fairness, it is worth noting that in some cases social democrats and democratic socialists reach open political confrontation in their rivalry. For instance, Die Linke and the Left Party criticize the SPD and SAP for a “right turn” in policy⁴⁷⁴⁸. Another example of rivalry is the conflict in Sweden over the housing issue (it was proposed to introduce market rents for real estate in new buildings)⁴⁹, which led not only to dissatisfaction among most political movements, especially the Left Party, but also to the resignation of Stefan Löfven’s government⁵⁰. In the end, both Löfven and his team returned to government, while the Left Party abstained from the vote on re-appointment, which indicates that the party is ready for cooperation⁵¹. In turn, social democrats criticize democratic socialists, for example, for the fact that after SYRIZA came to power in Greece, no positive radical shifts occurred in the country, meaning there was no point in replacing social democrats with them.

The future of social democracy and democratic socialism: how can joint political action be achieved?

“Party alliances take a wide variety of forms and degrees. Some are short-lived and unorganized — simply temporary coalitions to gain an advantage in elections, overthrow a government, or support it from time to time. Others are lasting and have a solid infrastructure, which sometimes makes them resemble a kind of super-party”⁵², reflects M. Duverger in his famous work “Political Parties”.

Why should political movements unite? Politics, whether people want it to or not, is tied to the future — a time that has not yet occurred, and to events that have not been in our reality, but presumably will come true. Formulating policy means designing our future. It is much easier to resolve internal and external challenges in politics (economic crisis, unemployment and growing inequality, environmental destruction, national security threats, equitable redistribution of the common good, eliminating the consequences of disasters, building a welfare state, and so on) jointly through the consolidation of political forces. In some cases, this allows saving time, the lives of citizens, and the historical prospects of the state.

We have already told the reader that social democrats have a common past, a shared present full of cooperation and rivalry, and we have established that there are several key differences that manifest in the process of formulating new policy. It is quite likely that in the course of an electoral struggle, one or the other movement will lack sufficient resources (financial, material, human) to achieve success. In that case, a political coalition is an effective tool for maximizing gain in the event of an election victory and in the subsequent implementation of policy at a lower cost.

It is impossible not to mention the fact that political movements with many points of convergence on key and secondary issues of formulated policy will form a coalition much more willingly, as the number of conflicts on an ideological basis will be minimized.

The reader may ask: “How can cooperation be preserved if political movements can develop their intellectual tradition differently?”. Based on scientific knowledge in political science, we can assume that forms of cooperation in the future will remain and may develop further, acquiring new qualities and functions. We assume that cooperation can be maintained in the form of:

1. A super-party. This is a political party that allows the creation of platforms. Accordingly, a platform democratically elected at a congress becomes the party program, and the party itself participates in elections and in the parliamentary struggle as a single unit. Such a political party has high chances of implementing the goals set out in its election program;
2. An electoral, parliamentary, or governmental alliance. Three levels of cooperation where candidates, deputies, and ministers create an alliance to acquire greater political power;
3. A temporary association on a specific issue on the current parliamentary agenda. For example, to solve the problem of forest fires and prevent their occurrence, political parties will vote together for a project to create a system of fire reservoirs.

Conclusion

1. Social democracy and democratic socialism are political movements and doctrines that are as close as possible in their ideological coordinates, representing the democratic wing of the political left.
2. The policies of social democrats and democratic socialists are based on key political and philosophical principles — freedom, justice, and solidarity (equality).
3. Politics, in the opinion of social democrats and democratic socialists, should be social and ethical.
4. Social democrats and democratic socialists reject revolutionary or other violent means of transforming society and recognize the attainment of political power only through legal means—by winning elections and participating in parliamentary struggle.
5. Often, social democrats and democratic socialists belong to the same political party or are part of a parliamentary coalition.
6. In matters of policy formulation, there are several differences between social democrats and democratic socialists. The key ones, in our view, are the reformist and gradualist approaches to policy implementation, the development of market or socialist modes of production, and the building of a mixed market or socialist economy.
7. The historical split between social democrats and democratic socialists occurred in the 1960s–1970s, largely due to the discredit of socialist ideas in the West by the policies of authoritarian regimes in socialist countries. However, this political split cannot be described as catastrophic or fatal in nature.
8. In the process of political struggle between social democrats and democratic socialists, both cooperation and rivalry arise. Both trends lead, in our opinion, to creative destruction of the old, as well as the revision and renewal of political ideas, principles, and values.
9. In the future, political movements of social democrats and democratic socialists can form coalitions between political parties, alliances during electoral or parliamentary struggles, or coalitions in government, as well as form temporary associations on individual policy issues.

1. Daron Acemoglu. Social Democracy Beats Democratic Socialism // Project Syndicate (www.project-syndicate.org). February 17, 2020. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/social-democracy-beats-democratic-socialism-by-daron-acemoglu-2020-02 (accessed: 30.08.2021).
2. Kirill Kobrin. Democratic socialism or barbarism: the case of XXI century Russia // Open democracy (www.opendemocracy.net). August 20, 2020. [Electronic resource] URL: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/democratic-socialism-or-barbarism/ (accessed: 30.08.2021).
3. Social democracy // Great Russian Encyclopedia. Volume 30. Moscow, 2015, pp. 748-749. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://bigenc.ru/world_history/text/3638953 (accessed: 30.08.2021).
4. Social democracy // Merriam-Webster (www.merriam-webster.com). [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20democracy#learn-more (accessed: 30.08.2021).
5. Social democracy // Encyclopedia Britannica (www.britannica.com). [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-democracy (accessed: 30.08.2021).
6. Socialdemokraterna // Socialdemokraterna (socialdemokraterna.se) [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.socialdemokraterna.se/ (accessed: 30.08.2021).
7. Arbeiderpartiet // (www.arbeiderpartiet.no) [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.arbeiderpartiet.no/ (accessed: 30.08.2021).
8. PSOE // PSOE (psoe.es). [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.psoe.es/ (accessed: 30.08.2021).
9. Social Democratic Faction // Yabloko Party (www.yabloko.ru). [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.yabloko.ru/Faction/Social-demokrat/index.html (accessed: 30.08.2021).
10. S&D // S&D (socialistsanddemocrats.eu). [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.socialistsanddemocrats.eu/ (accessed: 30.06.2021).
11. Progressive Alliance // Progressive Alliance (progressive-alliance.info). [Electronic resource]. URL: https://progressive-alliance.info/ (accessed: 30.08.2021).
12. Socialist International – Progressive politics For a fairer world // Socialist International (www.socialistinternational.org.) [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.socialistinternational.org/ (accessed: 30.08.2021).
13. Democratic socialism // Encyclopedia World History (w.histrf.ru). [Online resource]. URL: https://w.histrf.ru/articles/article/show/diemokrati_chieskii_sotsiali_zm (Accessed: 30.06.2021).
14. Lyman Tower Sargent. Contemporary political ideologies: A comparative analysis. Nelson Education. – 342 p. – Wadsworth: Cengage Learning, 2009. – p. 117.
15. Meyer Thomas. Democratic Socialism – Social Democracy. Introduction. / Trans. from German – 172 p. – M: Respublika, 1993. – p. 166.
16. Economic Sociology: From Classics to Modernity: Anthology / Comp. and general ed. G.N. Sokolova. – 342 p. – Minsk: Belorusskaya Nauka, 2016. – p. 121.
17. Dr. Matthias Miersch Sprecher der Parlamentarischen Linken in der SPD-Bundestagsfraktion // Parlamentarische Linke in der SPD-Bundestagsfraktion (https://www.parlamentarische-linke.de). [Online resource]. URL: https://www.parlamentarische-linke.de/ueber-uns/ (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
18. Who we are // The Socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs. (https://socialistcampaigngroup.com/). [Online resource]. URL: https://socialistcampaigngroup.com/who-we-are/ (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
19. Start: Die Linke. // Die Linke (www.die-linke.de). [Online resource]. URL: https://www.die-linke.de/start/ (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
20. Ett Sverige för alla – inte bara för de rikaste | Vänsterpartiet // Vänsterpartiet (www.vansterpartiet.se). [Online resource]. URL: https://www.vansterpartiet.se/ (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
21. SV – Sosialistisk Venstreparti // SV (www.sv.no). [Online resource]. URL: https://www.sv.no/ (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
22. Party of the European Left // Party of the European Left (www.european-left.org). [Online resource]. URL: https://www.european-left.org/our-parties/ (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
23. Delegations // The Left in the European Parliament (left.eu). [Online resource]. URL: https://left.eu/groups/delegation/ (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
24. Our Aims & Principles // IFM-SEI International Falcon Movement (ifm-sei.org). [Online resource]. URL: http://ifm-sei.org/the-organisation/our-aims-and-principles. (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
25. About Us // International Union of Socialist Youth (iusy.org) [Online resource]. URL: http://iusy.org/category/home/about-us. (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
26. Meyer Thomas. Democratic Socialism – Social Democracy. Introduction. / Trans. from German – 172 p. – M: Respublika, 1993. – p. 165-166.
27. M.A. Blinova. Social-democratization of the communist parties of Central and Eastern Europe at the turn of the 20th–21st centuries: prerequisites and prospects // Society: Politics, Economics, Law, 2019. – No. 5 (70). – p. 16-21.
28. Godesberg Program of the SPD from 1959 // 100(0) Key Documents (https://www.1000dokumente.de/index.html?l=ru) [Online resource]. URL: https://www.1000dokumente.de/index.html?c=dokument_de&dokument=0013_god&object=translation&l=ru (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
29. Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party // Encyclopaedia Britannica (www.britannica.com). [Online resource]. URL: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Spanish-Socialist-Workers-Party (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
30. Jean-Luc Mélenchon quitte le PS // Le Monde (www.lemonde.fr) September 19, 2016, 11:29. [Online resource]. URL: https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2008/11/07/jean-luc-melenchon-quitte-le-ps_1115955_823448.html (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
31. Left Party // Encyclopaedia Britannica (www.britannica.com). [Online resource]. URL: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Left-Party-political-party-Sweden (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
32. Giorgos Christides. Greek radical left Syriza prepares for power under Tsipras // BBC (www.bbc.com). November 7, 2008, 10:20. [Online resource]. URL: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30481307 (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
33. SF helt kort // SF (sf.dk) [Online resource]. URL: https://sf.dk/om-sf (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
34. Pacifistisch-Socialistische Partij (PSP) // Parlement (https://www.parlement.com/) [Online resource]. URL: https://www.parlement.com/id/vh8lnhrp8wsk/pacifistisch_socialistische_partij_psp (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
35. Germany’s political parties — what you need to know // Deutsche Welle (www.dw.com) [Online resource]. URL: https://www.dw.com/en/cdu-csu-spd-afd-fdp-left-greens/a-38085900 (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
36. Gabriele Zimmer. The Left Party in the 2021 Election Campaign // The American Institute for Contemporary German Studies (https://www.aicgs.org/) 2021. April 26, 2021 [Online resource]. URL: https://www.aicgs.org/2021/04/the-left-party-in-the-2021-election-campaign (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
37. New Philosophical Encyclopedia: in 4 vols.: Vol. 3 / Chairman of the Scientific and Editorial Board V.S. Stepin — 692 p. — M: Mysl, 2001. — p. 453.
38. E.E. Rumyantseva. Gradualism // Great Russian Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. Moscow, 2007, pp. 589-590
39. Lyman Tower Sargent. Contemporary political ideologies: A comparative analysis. Nelson Education. — 342 p. — Wandsworth: Cengage Learning, 2009. — p. 122.
40. Henning Meyer, Jonathan Rutherford. The future of European social democracy: Building the good society. — 235 p. — UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. — p. 25.
41. N.V. Rabotyazhev. West European Social Democracy at the Beginning of the 21st Century // World Economy and International Relations. — 2010. — No. 3. — pp. 52-53.
42. Koalitionsvereinbarung 2016-2021 // Berlin.de (https://www.berlin.de/) [Online resource]. URL: https://www.berlin.de/rbmskzl/regierender-buergermeister/senat/koalitionsvereinbarung/ (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
43. Vereinbarung zur Zusammenarbeit in einer Regierungskoalition für die 20. Wahlperiode der Bremischen Bürgerschaft 2019-2023 // Freie Hansestadt Bremen (www.transparenz.bremen.de) [Online resource].URL: https://www.transparenz.bremen.de/metainformationen/vereinbarung-zur-zusammenarbeit-in-einer-regierungskoalition-fuer-die-20-wahlperiode-der-bremischen-buergerschaft-2019-2023-142269?asl=bremen02.c.732.de. (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
44. Das Thüringer Kabinett // Freistaat Thüringer Landesregierung (www.landesregierung-thueringen.de) [Online resource].URL: https://www.landesregierung-thueringen.de/regierung/kabinett (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
45. Etusivu // ValtIoneuvosto Statsrådet (valtioneuvosto.fi). [Online resource]. URL: https://valtioneuvosto.fi/etusivu (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
46. Jens Stoltenbergs andre regjering // Regjeringen.no (www.regjeringen.no) [Online resource]. URL: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/om-regjeringa/tidligere-regjeringer-og-historie/sok-i-regjeringer-siden-1814/historiske-regjeringer/regjeringer/jens-stoltenbergs-andre-regjering/id449424/ (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
47. Jan Korte. SPD muss mit Agenda-Politik brechen und einen echten sozialdemokratischen Neustart wagen // Die Linke (www.linksfraktion.de). November 6, 2017. [Online resource]. URL: https://www.linksfraktion.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/detail/spd-muss-mit-agenda-politik-brechen-und-einen-echten-sozialdemokratischen-neustart-wagen/ (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
48. Socialdemokraterna fortsätter sin resa högerut // Vänsterpartiet (www.vansterpartiet.se). April 10, 2019. [Online resource]. URL: https://www.vansterpartiet.se/v-socialdemokraterna-fortsatter-sin-resa-hogerut (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
49. Mikhail Busnyuk, Pavel Tarasenko. Swedish policy spoiled by the housing question // Kommersant (www.kommersant.ru). June 21, 2021, 19:24. [Online resource]. URL: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4867767. (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
50. Artyom Filipenok. Prime Minister of Sweden resigned // RBC (www.rbc.ru). 2021. June 28, 2021, 12:26. [Online resource]. URL: https://www.rbc.ru/politics/28/06/2021/60d991319a79478459f71e42 (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
51. Stefan Löfven statsminister igen // Sveriges Radio (sverigesradio.se). July 7, 2021, 14:59 [Online resource]. URL: https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/ja-till-lofven-som-statsminister (Accessed: 30.08.2021).
52. M. Duverger. Political Parties / Trans. from French — 538 p. — M.: Akademicheskii Proekt, 2000. — p. 392.