Socialism: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[pending revision][pending revision]
Content deleted Content added
Infinity0 (talk | contribs)
Infinity0 (talk | contribs)
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 173: Line 173:
====Ideologies not universally agreed apon as "socialist"====
====Ideologies not universally agreed apon as "socialist"====
{{totallydisputed-section}}
{{totallydisputed-section}}
Like other political terms, such as ''[[Liberalism|liberal]]'', ''[[conservative]]'' and ''[[democracy|democratic]]'' (see, for example, the [[Liberal Democratic Party of Russia]], which is, according to critics, neither liberal nor democratic), the words ''socialism'' or ''socialist'' have sometimes been used in a controversial manner.
Like other political terms, such as ''[[Liberalism|liberal]]'', ''[[conservative]]'' and ''[[democracy|democratic]]'' (see, for example, the [[Liberal Democratic Party of Russia]], which is, according to critics, neither liberal nor democratic), the words ''socialism'' or ''socialist'' have sometimes been used in a controversial manner, for example in self-description by groups that had little or no connection with the historical socialist movement, and who sometimes openly and virulently opposed the socialists in their own countries.


For a discussion of the controversial views of one [[philosophy of history|philosopher of history]] who sees a close, though antagonistic, relationship between the left and the right descendants of [[Hegelianism]], see [[Eric Voegelin]].
For a discussion of the controversial views of one [[philosophy of history|philosopher of history]] who sees a close, though antagonistic, relationship between the left and the right descendants of [[Hegelianism]], see [[Eric Voegelin]].


;Baathism :The [[Ba'ath Party|Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party]] rules [[Syria]], and also ruled [[Iraq]] under [[Saddam Hussein]], based on a tradition of [[secular]], non-Marxist socialism.
;Baathism :The [[Ba'ath Party|Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party]] rules [[Syria]], and also ruled [[Iraq]] under [[Saddam Hussein]], based on a tradition of [[secular]], non-Marxist socialism. Ba'athist beliefs combine [[Arab Socialism]], [[nationalism]], and [[Pan-Arabism]]. The mostly secular ideology often contrasts with that of other Arab governments in the [[Middle East]], which sometimes tend to have leanings towards [[Islamism]] and [[theocracy]].


:Ba'thist beliefs combine [[Arab Socialism]], [[nationalism]], and [[Pan-Arabism]]. The mostly secular ideology often contrasts with that of other Arab governments in the [[Middle East]], which sometimes tend to have leanings towards [[Islamism]] and [[theocracy]]. Due to the party's mixuture of strong nationalism with socialism, some have labelled the Ba'th Party a [[fascist]] movement, though this definition is hotly disputed and the subject of much debate.
:In Iraq, the [[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA]] assisted Saddam Hussein with [[death squads]], effectively wiping out the Iraqi communists. Most political theorists, as well as nearly all other socialists, argue that, in fact, Ba'ath persecutes socialists (who wish to redistribute wealth more equally in the country) while promoting capitalists from within the [[dominant minority]] ethnic group that controls the Party and, decisively, the Syrian armed forces. some have labelled the Ba'th Party a [[fascist]] movement, though this definition is hotly disputed and the subject of much debate.

:The motto of the Party is "Unity, Freedom, Socialism" (in [[Arabic language|Arabic]] ''wahda, hurriya, ishtirakiya''). "Unity" refers to Arab unity, "freedom" emphasizes freedom from foreign control and interference in particular, and "socialism" refers to what has been termed [[Arab Socialism]] rather than to [[Marxism]].


;Catholicism :(''See main article [[Christian socialism]]; see also [[Christian left]] and [[social gospel]]'')
;Catholicism :(''See main article [[Christian socialism]]; see also [[Christian left]] and [[social gospel]]'')
Line 201: Line 199:
:Scholars have highlighted the similarities between the Islamic economic system and socialist theory. For example, both are against unearned income. [[Islam]] does allow private ownership of [[natural resource]]s and large [[industry|industries]], which are owned collectively, or at least encouraged.
:Scholars have highlighted the similarities between the Islamic economic system and socialist theory. For example, both are against unearned income. [[Islam]] does allow private ownership of [[natural resource]]s and large [[industry|industries]], which are owned collectively, or at least encouraged.


;Fascism : Fascism developed as a [[fascio]], a form of radical socialism. While opposing [[communism]] and [[social democracy]], fascism was rooted in radical leftist philosophy, including the theories of those such as [[Gabriele D'Annunzio]] (a former anarchist), [[Alceste de Ambris]] (influenced by [[anarcho-syndicalism]]) or former socialist [[Benito Mussolini]].
;Fascism : Fascism developed from [[fascio]], a term used by a few radical socialists. While opposing [[communism]] and [[social democracy]], fascism was rooted in radical leftist philosophy, including the theories of those such as [[Gabriele D'Annunzio]] (a former anarchist), [[Alceste de Ambris]] (influenced by [[anarcho-syndicalism]]) or former socialist [[Benito Mussolini]].

:Fascism rejects [[Marxism]] and the concept of [[class struggle]] in favor of [[corporatism]]. Fascism however holds the state to be an end in and of itself (see also [[statism]]). It is also noted that, contrary to the practice of socialist states, fascist [[Italy]] did not [[nationalization|nationalize]] any industries or capitalist entities. Rather, it established a [[corporatism|corporatist]] structure influenced by the model for class relations put forward by the [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic Church]]. (For more on the influence of Catholicism on fascism see [[Roman_Catholicism's_links_with_democracy_and_dictatorships#Fascism|links between the clergy and fascist parties]].)


:Fascism rejects [[Marxism]] and the concept of [[class struggle]] in favor of [[corporatism]]. It holds the state to be an end in itself (see also [[statism]]). Contrary to the practice of socialist states, fascist [[Italy]] did not [[nationalization|nationalize]] any industries or capitalist entities, instead establishing [[corporatism|corporatist]] structure influenced by the model put forward by the [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic Church]]. (See [[Roman Catholicism's links with democracy and dictatorships#Fascism]].)
:[[Friedrich Hayek]] argues that the differences between fascism and totalitarian forms of socialism (see [[Stalinism]]) are rhetorical rather than actual. [[Hannah Arendt]] asserts that fascism, [[Nazism]] and Stalinism are all forms of [[totalitarianism]], and that "totalitarian movements use socialism and racism by emptying them of their utilitarian content, the interests of a class or nation." (''The Origins of Totalitarianism'' by Hannah Arendt, page 348). Fascists rejected categorization as left or right-wing, claiming to be a "[[third force]]" (see [[international third position]] and [[political spectrum]] for more information).


:Fascists rejected categorization as left or right-wing, claiming to be a "[[third force]]" (see [[international third position]] and [[political spectrum]] for more information).
;Nazism : Nazism is an abbreviation for "[[National Socialist German Workers Party]]", and Nazi leaders described their ideology as [[socialist]]. Thus, a number of people believe that Nazism was a form of socialism, or that there are similarities between Nazism and socialism. This correlation has been rejected to by virtually all who consider themselves socialist in any sense other than "national socialism", then and now.


;Nazism : Nazism is an abbreviation for "[[National Socialist German Workers Party]]", and Nazi leaders described their ideology as [[socialist]]. A few people believe that Nazism was a form of socialism, or that there are similarities between Nazism and socialism. This correlation has been rejected by virtually all who consider themselves socialist. The Nazis were extremely hostile to other socialists in their country. Once in power, they allowed (friendly) capitalists to thrive while liquidating socialists everywhere (including from within their own party in the [[Night of the Long Knives]]).
:It has been argued that the Nazi [[war economy]], large [[public works]] projects, demand for [[total employment]], and state interventions such as the National Labour Law of January 20, 1934 [http://www.thecorner.org/hists/total/n-german.htm#econ-reorganize] are indicative of socialism.


:Socialists reject the [[Racialism|racialist]] theories and [[totalitarianism]] of the Nazis, while Nazis rejected the [[internationalism]], [[egalitarianism]] and the [[class struggle]] policies pursued by many socialists. (''See [[Fascism and ideology#Fascism and the political spectrum]]''.)
:Industries and trusts were not nationalised in Nazi Germany, with the exception of private rail lines (nationalised in the late 1930s to meet military contingencies). The only private holdings that were expropriated were those belonging to [[Jew]]s. Nevertheless, efforts ''were'' made to coordinate business's actions with the needs of the state, particularly with regard to rearmament, and the Nazis established some state-owned concerns such as [[Volkswagen]]. The Nazis also engaged in an extensive public works program including the construction of the [[Autobahn]] system. Independent [[trade unions]] were outlawed, as were [[Strike action|strike]]s, much like the labour practices of [[State Communism]].


:It has been argued that some Nazi policies such as the [[war economy]] and large [[public works]] projects are indicative of socialism. The Nazis did demand [[National Socialist Program|some nationalization]] of big industries and land reform before their rise to power. However, most industries and trusts were not nationalised in Nazi Germany. Nevertheless, efforts were made to coordinate business' actions with the needs of the state.
:There were ideological shades of opinion within the Nazi Party, particularly before their seizure of power in 1933, but a central tenet of the party was always the ''leader principle'' or [[Führerprinzip]]. The Nazi Party did not have party congresses in which policy was deliberated upon and concessions made to different [[faction]]s. What mattered most was what the leader, [[Adolf Hitler]], thought and decreed. Those who held opinions which were at variance with Hitler's either learned to keep quiet or were [[purge (repression)|purge]]d, particularly after [[1933]]. This is comparable to the behavior of certain [[Communist state]]s such as that of [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] in the [[Soviet Union]] or [[Mao Zedong]] in [[China]].


==Socialism and other ideologies==
==Socialism and other ideologies==

Revision as of 19:02, 24 March 2006

Socialism is both an ideology interpreting the nature of the human condition, and a process by which that human condition can be transformed to produce a better human being. In a nutshell, it is about two inter-related concepts - the possible perfectability of human nature, and obtaining social justice.

The implementation of this process can entail the introduction of a social and economic system in which the means of production are collectively owned and administered democratically by all of society. Amongst other things, this is intended to produce a more evenly spread distribution of wealth in order to reduce the harm engendered by exploitative relationships.

The idea of abolition of private property became popular in the early 19th century, and was influenced by new discoveries and the myth of the 'noble savage', popularised by Rousseau How this democratic society should be run, and how it should be implemented or achieved, is a matter of controversy and has resulted in many theories of socialism and related ideas.

In Marxist theory, it also refers to the society that would succeed or supplant capitalism, and would later develop further into communism, where the state would wither away.

Etymology

The word "socialism" dates back to the early nineteenth century. It was first used, self-referentially, in the English language in 1827 to refer to followers of Robert Owen. In France, again self-referentially, it was used in 1832 to refer to followers of the doctrines of Saint-Simon and thereafter by Pierre Leroux and J. Regnaud in l'Encyclopédie nouvelle[1]. Use of the word spread widely and has been used differently in different times and places, both by various individuals and groups that consider themselves socialist and by their opponents.

While there is wide variation between socialist groups, nearly all would agree that they are bound together by a common history rooted originally in nineteenth and twentieth-century struggles by industrial and agricultural workers, operating according to principles of solidarity and advocating an egalitarian society, with an economics that would, in their view, serve the broad populace rather than a favored few.

Elie Halevy claims that the term "socialism" was coined independently by two groups advocating different ways of organizing society and economics: the Saint-Simonians, and most likely Pierre Leroux, in the years 1831-33, and the followers of Robert Owen, around 1835.

A note on usage

Some groups (see below) have called themselves socialist while holding views that most socialists consider antithetical to socialism. The term has also been used by some politicians on the political right as an epithet for certain individuals who do not consider themselves to be socialists and policies that are not considered socialist by their proponents (e.g. referring to all publicly funded medicine as "socialized medicine" or to the United States Democratic Party as "socialist"). This article touches briefly on those peripheral issues.

Socialist theory

File:Redflag.jpg
The color red and particularly the red flag are traditional symbols of Socialism, in honour of the blood spilt in the struggle for freedom.

According to Marxists (most notably Friedrich Engels), socialist models and ideas are said to be traceable to the dawn of human social history, being an inherent feature of human nature and early human social models.

The Primitive Church is described in the Acts of the Apostles as having everything in common, and this was copied by a number of religious groups down the modern times. Some socialist thinkers, such as William Morris, have identified John Ball, the leader of the Peasant's Revolt, as the first socialist. Historians have rediscovered the writings of Gerard Winstanley in the period of the English Civil War, and the commune set up by the Diggers, as they were termed.

During the Enlightenment in the 18th century, revolutionary thinkers and writers such as the Marquis de Condorcet, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, abbé de Mably, and Morelly provided the intellectual and ideological expression of the discontented social layers in French society. This included not only the bourgeoisie, at that time kept out of political power by the ancien régime, but also the "popular" classes among whom socialism would later take root.

The earliest modern socialist groups shared characteristics such as focusing on general welfare rather than individualism, on co-operation rather than competition, and on laborers rather than on industrial or political leaders and structures. They did not generally think in terms of class struggle, but argued that the wealthy should join with the poor in building a new society. Class struggle, the challenge to private property and the accompanying notions of the special role of the proletariat in the revolution find their earliest origins in the Conspiracy of Equals of Babeuf, an unsuccessful actor in the French Revolution. Later, they were greatly developed by the Marxist branch of socialism.

By the time of the Revolution of 1848 there were a variety of competing "socialisms", the most influential being those founded by Saint-Simon, Owen and Charles Fourier. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels by this time were referring to themselves as "communists", in large part to distinguish themselves from the above ideologies, which they described as "utopian socialism". (Engels later used the term "scientific socialism" to describe Marxism.)

Depending on the context, the term socialism may refer either to these ideologies or any of their many lineal descendants. While these cover a very broad range of views, they have in common a belief that feudal and capitalist societies are run for the benefit of a small economic elite and that society should be run for the common good. "Socialist" ideologies tend to emphasize economic cooperation over economic competition; virtually all envision some sort of economic planning (many, but by no means all, favor central planning). All advocate placing at least some of the means of production -- and at least some of the distribution of goods and services -- into collective or cooperative ownership.

Historically, the ideology of socialism grew up hand in hand with the rise of organized labor. In many parts of the world, the two are still strongly associated with one another; in other parts, they have become two very distinct movements.

An economic system

As in the realm of ideology, there is no single consensus on what it means for a particular economic system to be "socialist". However, all socialists agree that a socialist economy must be run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small aristocratic, plutocratic, or capitalist class. In the mid-nineteenth century, when socialism first arose, many political ideologies of the day were frank in supporting the interests of elite classes. Today, in a world where many countries offer a broader electoral franchise, such open support for the wealthy would be the equivalent of political suicide. Therefore, most ideologies claim to support the greatest good for the greatest number, something that was once advocated only by socialists. Still, even today, socialism stands out by being particularly forthright in advocating what it considers to be direct pursuit of working class interests, even at the expense of what other ideologies consider the legitimate property rights of the wealthy classes.

Most socialists argue that socialism also entails democratic control of the economy, although they differ vastly over the appropriate institutions of that democracy and over whether control should be centralized or highly dispersed. Similarly, they differ over the extent to which a socialist economy could involve markets, and among those who believe that it could, there is a further dividing line on whether markets should apply only to consumer goods or, in some cases, to the means of production themselves (factory and farm equipment, for example). For the means of production, this is a question of ownership of the economy, and therefore of control over it.

Many non-socialists use the expression "socialist economy" (or "socialization" of a sector of the economy) almost exclusively to refer to centralized control under government aegis: for example.

There is general agreement among socialists and non-socialists that a socialist economy would not include private or estate ownership of large enterprises; there is less agreement on whether any such enterprises would be owned by society at large or (at least in some cases) owned cooperatively by their own workers. Among the few self-described socialists who dispute these principles are the leadership of the Communist Party of China, who claim to remain socialist, even while the continuing Chinese economic reform explicitly includes the concept of privately-owned large enterprises competing on an equal basis with publicly-owned ones. The adoption by China of this essential characteristic of capitalism is a principal reason why, outside and inside of China, few people (socialists or otherwise) consider present-day mainland China and its ruling party to be, in any meaningful sense, socialist.

It has been claimed, both by socialists and non-socialists, that the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc had socialist economies, as the means of production were owned almost entirely by the state and the bulk of the economy was centrally controlled by the Communist Party acting through the state. However, many other socialists object to that label, because the people in those countries had little or no control over the government, and therefore they had little or no control over the economy. The aforementioned socialists argue that these societies were essentially oligarchies; some would call them state-capitalist, Stalinist, or as some Trotskyists would say, "degenerated workers states". Trotskyists contend that Stalinist economies fulfilled one criterion of a socialist economy, in that the economy was controlled by the state, but not the other criterion, that the state must be in turn democratically controlled by the workers. Many non-Marxist socialists would agree with the general outline of this argument, while perhaps dissenting from the statement that state control of the economy is one of the criteria of socialism. Further, many socialists would argue that the Soviet Union and its satellite states merely replaced a capitalist ruling class with a new ruling class, the coordinator class or nomenklatura, who played an extremely analogous role to the former capitalists, by managing the economy for their own benefit, or at least attempting to do so.

During the Cold War, a common term used by the Soviet Union and its allies to refer to their own economies was "actually existing socialism" (presumably as against any number of theoretically possible socialisms, but carrying an implicit statement that their economy was, in fact, socialist). Another similarly used term was (and is) "real socialist." Typically, when these terms were or are used by anyone outside of the particular parties that ruled these countries (or the parties who supported them in other countries), they are placed in scare quotes and are used with at least mild irony.

Transition from capitalism

Although Marxists and other socialists generally use the word "socialism" in the senses described above, there is also another specifically Marxist use of the term. Karl Marx, in his exposition of historical materialism (his Hegelian model of history) saw socialism as a phase of human society that would follow capitalism and precede communism. Marx is by no means clear about the expected characteristics of such a society, but he is consistent in his belief in the eventual triumph of revolutionary-socialism over capitalism, and then, its eventual transformation into communism.

According to Marx, the socialist society will be controlled by the working class (the proletariat), whose familiarity with large, collective undertakings will be reflected in the character of this society. It will be a "dictatorship of the proletariat", in the sense that it is contrasted with the existing dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (i.e. capitalism). In this context, Marx was not necessarily advocating or predicting "dictatorship" in the sense that word is commonly used today; he was referring only to governance in which class would be dominant - in other words, it is the proletariat who become the ruling class, not a "dictator". While a Leninist dictatorship is arguably consistent with this vision, so is a workers' democracy, analogous to bourgeois democracy. In addition, most Marxist models of socialism involve the abolition of the so-called "exploitation of man by man" which is presumed to exist in capitalist society. This would mean abolishing class distinctions, therefore making "the proletariat" a universal term synonymous with "the people".

Marx saw socialism (that is, the "dictatorship of proletariat") as a transitional phase, ultimately to be replaced by a classless communist society in which the existing forms of government would no longer be needed. According to Engels, the state was destined to eventually "wither away", as the representative democracy of socialism slowly turned into the direct democracy of communism, and economic life would be re-organised on a basis of freedom and equality. In holding this classless non-state as the ultimate goal, Marx expressed a long-term ideal not far from that of anarchism. However, whereas the anarchists wanted to abolish the state overnight, the communists wanted to utilize the state to transform society, expecting it to "wither away" to the extent that the nature of man evolved to the "new socialist man." In other words, while anarchists try to abolish the state more directly through a nonstate, noncapitalist revolution directly against both capitalism and the state at the same time, Marxists believe that a new state can be un-capitalist and that its destruction of the bourgeoisie will also destroy the self same state.

This definition of socialism is particularly important in understanding the official ideology of the People's Republic of China. The Communist Party of China states that class struggle has already pushed China into the socialist phase of social development. Because of this and Deng Xiaoping's theory of seeking truth from facts, any economic policy which "works" is automatically classified as a socialist policy, and hence there are no constraints on what "socialism with Chinese characteristics" can look like.

Mixed economy

As remarked above, some self-described socialists, especially those who identify as social democrats, but also including (for example) the reform-oriented "Euro-communists", advocate capitalism rather than a complete re-working of existing capitalist economies along socialist lines. These views also extend to many who would not describe themselves as "socialists."

In the most moderate formulation of such a mixed economy, collective ownership is typically limited to control of natural resources and public utilities. The rationale for prioritizing these is that natural resources are a common patrimony and that (all or some) public utilities are natural monopolies.

Others would extend a socialist approach within a mixed economy to what they deem to be essential industries to prevent certain capitalists from having a stranglehold on society, or to prevent massive concentrations of wealth which result in a power imbalance (including disproportionate bargaining leverage). There is also often a rationale of national defense or national sovereignty. Thus, many otherwise capitalist countries have, at least at times, nationalized such industries as steel, automobiles, or airplanes. In the U.S., for example, President Harry S. Truman nationalized the steel mills during the Korean War. They soon returned to private ownership by order of the U.S. Supreme Court, however.

All socialist thinkers argue that unrestrained free market economics would generally result in profits for a few at the expense of the many. Communists, in particular, are adamantly opposed to any compromise with capitalism, claiming that any economic system that permits the private accumulation of wealth is inherently unjust and allows capitalists (those who own and control capital) to compel behavior out of individuals due to their own necessity to survive. (see: labor theory of value). As noted several times above, this is disputed by the contemporary Communist Party of China, making China (if it is regarded as socialist or communist) an inevitable exception to much of what follows here.

While few self-described communists support any scheme upholding private ownership of the means of production (except, perhaps, as a temporary disposition on the way to something purer, and again noting the contemporary Chinese exception), other socialists are split over this, arguing over whether to only moderate the workings of market capitalism to produce a more equitable distribution of wealth, or whether to expropriate the entire owning class to guarantee this distribution. Many socialists acknowledge the extreme complexity of designing other appropriate non-market mechanisms to identify demand, especially for non-essential goods. Some have put forward models of moderate market socialism where markets exist, but an owning class does not.

In practice, many aspects of the socialist worldview and socialist policy have been integrated with capitalism in many European countries and in other parts of the world (especially in the industrialized "first world"). Social democracy typically involves state ownership of some corporations (considered strategically important to the people) and some participation in ownership of the means of production by workers. This can include profit sharing and worker representation on decision-making boards of corporations (a measure in vigour in Germany, for instance). Some inherently capitalist measures, such as stock ownership for workers or stock options would, however, also fit the description. Social services are important in social democracies. Such services include social welfare for the disadvantaged and unemployment insurance.

Likewise, market economies in the United States and other capitalist countries have integrated some aspects of socialist economic planning. Democratic countries typically place legal limits on the centralization of capital through anti-trust laws and limits on monopolies, though the extent to which these laws are actually enforced has to do with the balance of power between the actually existing or emerging monopoly firms, as well as political ties between government and some corporations (crony capitalism). Ownership of stock has become common for middle class workers, both in companies they work for and in other companies (see mutual fund). Labor market pressures (see labor economics) and regulations have encouraged profit sharing. Social welfare and unemployment insurance are mandated by law in the U.S., UK, Canada and other market economies. There is a lively debate today whether the world is moving closer to or farther away from "socialism", as defined by different people. Another component of this debate is whether or not these developments are to be encouraged.

A state?

Most past and present states led by parties of Communist orientation called (or call) themselves "socialist." However, they were usually referred to as "Communist states" by anti-communists in the western world. Once again, whether these states were socialist or not is disputed, with the large majority of today's socialists (including many, perhaps most, communists) contending that they were not, for reasons analogous to those discussed in the section above (regarding the "socialist" economy).

A libertarian socialist society known as "The Republic" emerged in 1930s Spain during the civil war. See Anarchism in Spain.

There are also some who dispute whether it is appropriate to refer to any state, past, present, future, or hypothetical as "socialist," preferring to reserve that word for an economy or even a society, but not a state. Socialist leaders have been elected in South America, in recent years, but there has not been a large shift away from capitalism, at this point.

Types of socialism

Socialism can be divided into the libertarian schools, generally called libertarian socialist or anarchist, and the more authoritarian schools that support some degree of state coercion. Since the 19th century, socialist ideas have developed and separated into many different streams. Notable ideologies that have been referred to using the label "socialism" are:

The socio-political or intellectual movements basing themselves in the Marxist-Socialist tradition can generally be further divided into:

Several forms of "socialism" are considered by those further to the left to be reformist or revisionist. These include:

Communism

Communism refers to a conjectured future classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production, and can be classified as a multivariant branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism also refers to a variety of political movements which claim the establishment of such a social organization as their ultimate goal. Early forms of human social organization have been described as primitive communism. However, communism as a political goal generally is a conjectured form of future social organization which has never been implemented.

There is a considerable variety of views among self-identified communists. However, Marxism and Leninism, schools of communism associated with Karl Marx and of Vladimir Lenin respectively, have the distinction of having been a major force in world politics since the early 20th century. Class struggle plays a central role in the theory of Marxism. The establishment of communism is in this theory viewed as the culmination of the class struggle between the capitalist class, the owners of most of the capital, and the working class. Marx held that society could not be transformed from the capitalist mode of production to the communist mode of production all at once, but required a state transitional period which Marx described as the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. The communist society Marx envisioned emerging from capitalism has never been implemented, and it remains theoretical. However, the term "Communism", especially when the word is capitalized, is often used to refer to the political and economic regimes under communist parties which claimed to be the dictatorship of the proletariat.

After the success of the Red October Revolution in Russia, many socialist parties in other countries became communist parties, owing allegiance of varying degrees to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (see Communist International). After World War II, regimes calling themselves communist took power in Eastern Europe. In 1949, the Communists in China, led by Mao Zedong, came to power and established the People's Republic of China. Among the other countries in the Third World that adopted a Communist form of government at some point were Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Angola, and Mozambique. By the early 1980s, almost one-third of the world's population lived under Communist states.

Communism carries a strong social stigma in the United States, due to a history of anti-communism in America. Since the early 1970s, the term "Eurocommunism" was used to refer to the policies of communist parties in western Europe, which sought to break with the tradition of uncritical and unconditional support of the Soviet Union. Such parties were politically active and electorally significant in France and Italy. With the collapse of the Communist governments in eastern Europe from the late 1980s and the breakup of the Soviet Union on December 8, 1991, Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, but around a quarter of the world's population still lives under Communist states.

Libertarian socialism and anarchism

Libertarian socialism is any one of a group of political philosophies dedicated to opposing coercive forms of authority and social hierarchy, in particular the institutions of capitalism and the State. Some of the best known libertarian socialist ideologies are anarchism - particularly anarchist communism and anarcho-syndicalism - as well as mutualism, council communism, autonomist Marxism, and social ecology. However, the terms anarcho-communism and libertarian communism should not be considered synonyms for libertarian socialism - anarcho-communism is a particular branch of libertarian socialism.

Libertarian socialists believe in the abolition of the State and of private control over the means of production, considering both to be unnecessary and harmful institutions. Most libertarian socialists support personal property or use rights over certain goods destined for individual use, but some, such as anarcho-communists, favoured collective ownership in the products of labor as well, with a distribution system which allocates based on one's needs.

Most individualist anarchists also referred to their philosophy as libertarian socialism, although some supported private property (as long as it was not exploitative) and a market economy.

Social democracy

Modern social democracy emphasises a program of gradual legislative reform of the capitalist system in order to make it more equitable and humane, while the theoretical end goal of building a socialist society is either completely forgotten or redefined in a pro-capitalist way.

The term social democracy can also refer to the particular kind of society that social democrats advocate. The Socialist International (SI) - the worldwide organisation of social democratic and democratic socialist parties - defines social democracy as an ideal form of representative democracy, that may solve the problems found in a liberal democracy. The SI emphasizes the following principles[1]: Firstly, freedom - not only individual liberties, but also freedom from discrimination and freedom from dependence on either the owners of the means of production or the holders of abusive political power. Secondly, equality and social justice - not only before the law but also economic and socio-cultural equality as well, and equal opportunities for all including those with physical, mental, or social disabilities. Finally, solidarity - unity and a sense of compassion for the victims of injustice and inequality.

The prime example of social democracy is Sweden, which prospered considerably in the 1990s and 2000s, against the predictions of those who suggested Sweden's 57% top tax bracket would slow its economy. Instead, Sweden has produced a robust economy from sole proprietorships up through to multinationals, while maintaining the longest life expectancy in the world, low unemployment, inflation, all while registering sizable economic growth. Many see this as validation of the superiority of social democracy. On the other hand, Sweden experiences welfare dependency of around 20% of the working age population according to the Swedish Trade Union Confederation. Likewise, crime has been steadily rising since the 1960s, and during the past decade has grown ever more violent.

Differences between various schools

There are a few questions that point out some of the major differences between schools of socialisms:

  • Do advocates of this ideology say that socialism should come about through revolution (e.g. Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, revolutionary Marxism) or through reform (e.g. Fabianism, reformist Marxism), or do they view both as possible (e.g. Syndicalism, various Marxisms) or do they fail to address the question of how a socialist society would be achieved (e.g. utopian socialisms)?
  • Do they advocate centralized state control of the socialized sectors of the economy (e.g. Leninism), or control of those sectors by workers' councils (e.g. syndicalism, Left and Council communism, Marxism, Anarcho-communism)? This question is usually referred to by socialists in terms of "ownership of the means of production." None of the social democratic parties of Europe advocate total state ownership of the means of production in their contemporary demands and popular press, but most contain rhetoric in their platforms which state that in the event the capitalists fail to meet up to their end of the social contract, the workers have the legitimate historical basis to assume or seize total control of the means of production, should those conditions ever arise in the future.
  • Do they advocate that the power of the workers' councils should itself constitute the basis of a socialist state (coupled with direct democracy and the widespread use of referendums), or do they hold that socialism entails the existence of a legislative body administered by people who would be elected in a representative democracy? In other words, through what legal and political apparatus will the workers maintain and further develop the socialization of the means of production?
  • Do they advocate total or near-total socialization of the economy (e.g. revolutionary Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Left and Council Communism, Anarcho-syndicalism and Syndicalism), or a mixed market economy (e.g. Bernsteinism, reformism, reformist Marxism)? Mixed economies, in turn, can range anywhere from those developed by the social democratic governments that have periodically governed Northern and Western European countries, to the inclusion of small cooperatives in the planned economy of Yugoslavia under Josip Broz Tito. In a related, but not identical, question, do they advocate a fairer society within the bounds of capitalism (e.g. most social democrats) or the total overthrow of the capitalist system (most Marxists).
  • Did the ideology arise largely as a philosophical construct (e.g. libertarian socialism), or in the heat of a revolution (e.g. early Marxism, Leninism), or as the product of a ruling party (e.g. Stalinism), or as the product of a party or other group contending for political power in a democratic society (e.g. social democracy).
  • Does the ideology systematically say that "bourgeois liberties" (such as those guaranteed by the U.S. First Amendment or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) are to be preserved (or even enhanced) in a socialist society (e.g. social democracy), or are undesirable (e.g. Maoism), or have they held different opinions at different times (e.g. Marx and Engels), or is this a dividing point within the ideology (e.g. different strains of Trotskyism)?
  • Does their critique of the existing system center on the ownership of the means of production (e.g. Marxism), on the nature of mass and equitable distribution (e.g. most forms of utopian socialism), or on opposition to industrialism as well as capitalism (common where socialism intersects green politics)? Utopian Socialists, like Robert Owen and Saint-Simon argued, though not from exactly the same perspective, that the injustice and widespread poverty of the societies they lived in were a problem of distribution of the goods created. Marxian Socialists, on the other hand, determined that the root of the injustice is based not in the function of distribution of goods already created, but rather in the fact that the ownership of the means of production is in the hands of the upper class. Also, Marxian Socialists maintain, in contrast to the Utopian Socialists, that the root of injustice is not in how goods (commodities) are distributed, but for whose economic benefit are they produced and sold.
  • Which governments does the ideology regard as practicing or moving toward socialism and which does the ideology not regard as doing so? For example, in the era of the Soviet Union, western socialists were bitterly divided as to whether the Soviet Union was basically socialist, moving toward socialism, or inherently un-socialist and, in fact, inimical to true socialism. Similarly, today the government of the People's Republic of China claims to be socialist and refers to its own approach as "Socialism with Chinese characteristics," but most other socialists consider China to be essentially capitalist. The Chinese leadership concurs with most of the usual critiques against a command economy, and many of their actions to manage what they call a socialist economy have been determined by this opinion.

Ideologies not universally agreed apon as "socialist"

Template:Totallydisputed-section Like other political terms, such as liberal, conservative and democratic (see, for example, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, which is, according to critics, neither liberal nor democratic), the words socialism or socialist have sometimes been used in a controversial manner, for example in self-description by groups that had little or no connection with the historical socialist movement, and who sometimes openly and virulently opposed the socialists in their own countries.

For a discussion of the controversial views of one philosopher of history who sees a close, though antagonistic, relationship between the left and the right descendants of Hegelianism, see Eric Voegelin.

Baathism
The Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party rules Syria, and also ruled Iraq under Saddam Hussein, based on a tradition of secular, non-Marxist socialism. Ba'athist beliefs combine Arab Socialism, nationalism, and Pan-Arabism. The mostly secular ideology often contrasts with that of other Arab governments in the Middle East, which sometimes tend to have leanings towards Islamism and theocracy.
In Iraq, the CIA assisted Saddam Hussein with death squads, effectively wiping out the Iraqi communists. Most political theorists, as well as nearly all other socialists, argue that, in fact, Ba'ath persecutes socialists (who wish to redistribute wealth more equally in the country) while promoting capitalists from within the dominant minority ethnic group that controls the Party and, decisively, the Syrian armed forces. some have labelled the Ba'th Party a fascist movement, though this definition is hotly disputed and the subject of much debate.
Catholicism
(See main article Christian socialism; see also Christian left and social gospel)
Various Catholic clerical parties have at times referred to themselves as "Christian Socialists." Two examples are the Christian Social Party of Karl Lueger in Austria before and after World War I, and the contemporary Christian Social Union in Bavaria. There are other individuals and groups, past and present, that are clearly both Christian and Socialist, such as Frederick Denison Maurice, author of The Kingdom of Christ (1838), or the contemporary Christian Socialist Movement (UK) (CSM), [2] affiliated with the British Labour Party.
Distributism, is a third-way economic philosophy formulated by such Catholic thinkers as G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc to apply the principles of social justice articulated by the Roman Catholic Church, especially in Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum.
Islamic Socialism
Islamic socialism is the political ideology of Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi, Former Iraqi president Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, and of the Pakistani leader of Pakistan People's Party, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
The Green Book (written by Muammar al-Qaddafi) consists of three parts:
  • The Solution of the Problem of Democracy: 'The Authority of the People'
  • The Solution of the Economic Problem: 'Socialism'
  • The Social Basis of the Third Universal Theory
The book is controversial because it completely rejects modern conceptions of liberal democracy and encourages the institution of a form of direct democracy based on popular committees. Critics charge that Qaddafi uses these committees as tools of autocratic political repression in practice.
Scholars have highlighted the similarities between the Islamic economic system and socialist theory. For example, both are against unearned income. Islam does allow private ownership of natural resources and large industries, which are owned collectively, or at least encouraged.
Fascism
Fascism developed from fascio, a term used by a few radical socialists. While opposing communism and social democracy, fascism was rooted in radical leftist philosophy, including the theories of those such as Gabriele D'Annunzio (a former anarchist), Alceste de Ambris (influenced by anarcho-syndicalism) or former socialist Benito Mussolini.
Fascism rejects Marxism and the concept of class struggle in favor of corporatism. It holds the state to be an end in itself (see also statism). Contrary to the practice of socialist states, fascist Italy did not nationalize any industries or capitalist entities, instead establishing corporatist structure influenced by the model put forward by the Catholic Church. (See Roman Catholicism's links with democracy and dictatorships#Fascism.)
Fascists rejected categorization as left or right-wing, claiming to be a "third force" (see international third position and political spectrum for more information).
Nazism
Nazism is an abbreviation for "National Socialist German Workers Party", and Nazi leaders described their ideology as socialist. A few people believe that Nazism was a form of socialism, or that there are similarities between Nazism and socialism. This correlation has been rejected by virtually all who consider themselves socialist. The Nazis were extremely hostile to other socialists in their country. Once in power, they allowed (friendly) capitalists to thrive while liquidating socialists everywhere (including from within their own party in the Night of the Long Knives).
Socialists reject the racialist theories and totalitarianism of the Nazis, while Nazis rejected the internationalism, egalitarianism and the class struggle policies pursued by many socialists. (See Fascism and ideology#Fascism and the political spectrum.)
It has been argued that some Nazi policies such as the war economy and large public works projects are indicative of socialism. The Nazis did demand some nationalization of big industries and land reform before their rise to power. However, most industries and trusts were not nationalised in Nazi Germany. Nevertheless, efforts were made to coordinate business' actions with the needs of the state.

Socialism and other ideologies

While many would say that socialism is defined by state ownership and state planning of the means of production and economic life, a certain degree of such state ownership and planning is common in economies that would almost universally be considered capitalist. In Canada, Crown Corporations are responsible for various sectors of the economy deemed to be of strategic importance to the people (for example power generation). In the U.S., a semi-private central bank with close ties to the federal government, the Federal Reserve, regulates lending rates, serving as a "bank of banks." Also, governments in capitalist nations typically run the post office, libraries, national parks, highways, and space agencies. Interestingly, though, the U.S. government's monopoly on space travel from U.S. take-off sites is itself a thing of the past -- as of 2004 (see Ansari X Prize) private capital is entering even that field.

State, provincial, and local governments within a capitalist system can operate and own power companies and other utilities, parks, mass transit including rail and airports, hospitals and other medical facilities, and public schools (often including a number of universities). Capitalist governments also frequently subsidize or otherwise influence (though do not own) various sectors of the economy, such as automotive, weapons, oil (petrol), aerospace, and agriculture.

In the post-World War II political lexicon, this sort of (limited) economic state planning became integral to stabilization of the global economy, and has come to be known as Keynesian economics, after John Maynard Keynes.

Conversely, Chinese economic reform under Deng Xiaoping has been characterized by decreasing state ownership of the economy, the replacement of central planning mechanisms with market-based ones that are also used in Western capitalist nations, and even going as far as removing governmental social welfare services that are commonly found in most capitalist nations. However, because the legitimacy of the Communist Party of China is based on the premise that China has already made a transition to socialism, the government insists that it is a socialist government. Very few inside and outside China would support this claim.

Criticisms of socialism

See main article: Criticisms of socialism

Since one of the fundamental goals of the socialist movement throughout history has been the abolition of capitalism, the majority of socialism's opponents have been advocates of capitalism - most often, advocates of "pure" or laissez-faire capitalism. They include liberals, conservatives and libertarians such as Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Joshua Muravchik.

Notes

  1. ^ A History of Socialist Thought, Volume 1 (1965) pp1-2

References and further reading

  • G.D.H. Cole, History of Socialist Thought, in 7 volumes, Macmillan and St. Martin's Press (1965), Palgrave Macmillan (2003 reprint); 7 volumes, hardcover, 3160 pages, ISBN 140390264X
  • Friedrich Engels, The Origin Of The Family, Private Property And The State, Zurich, 1884
  • Albert Fried, Ronald Sanders, eds., Socialist Thought: A Documentary History, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1964.
  • Phil Gasper, The Communist Manifesto: A Road Map to History's Most Important Political Document, Haymarket Books, ISBN 1-931859-25-6 paperback, 224 pages, 2005.
  • Elie Halevy, Histoire du Socialisme Européen. Paris, Gallimard, 1937
  • Michael Harrington, Socialism, New York: Bantam, 1972
  • Makoto Itoh, Political Economy of Socialism. London: Macmillan, 1995.
  • Michael Newman, "Socialism - a Very Short Introduction", Oxford University Press (2005) ISBN 0-19-280431-6
  • Bertell Ollman, Market Socialism: the debate among socialists, ed. (1998) ISBN 0415919673
  • Leo Panitch, Renewing Socialism: Democracy, Strategy, and Imagination, ISBN 0813398215
  • Selbourne, David, Against Socialist Illusion, London, 1985, ISBN 0-333-37095-3
  • James Weinstein, Long Detour: The History and Future of the American Left, Westview Press, 2003, hardcover, 272 pages, ISBN 0813341043
  • Edmund Wilson, To the Finland Station: A Study in the Writing and Acting of History, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1940.

See also

External links

Pro socialism

Anti-socialism