Socialism
Socialism
What is Socialism?
Focuses on cooperation and the role of society and community.
History of Socialism
Traditionally defined as being opposed to capitalism.
The term 'socialism' was first used by utopian socialists Charles Fourier and Robert Owen in the early nineteenth century.
Socialism can be broadly divided into two main branches: revolutionary socialism and evolutionary socialism.
Revolutionary socialism:
Marxism
Utopian socialism (developed in the nineteenth century).
Evolutionary socialism:
Democratic socialism
Social democracy
The Third Way (emerged in the twentieth century).
Evolutionary strands believe that capitalism can be reformed, though they disagree about how.
Key Thinkers
Marx & Engels
Key Texts: ‘The Communist Manifesto’ (1848) / ‘Das Kapital’ (1867)
Revolutionary Socialists
Both born in Germany from upper class (bourgeoisie) backgrounds.
Highly critical of capitalism as they believed it corrupted human nature and caused vast inequality.
Advocated for a revolution to overthrow capitalism and the state as this was the only way to achieve socialism.
Rosa Luxemburg
Key Text: ‘Reform or Revolution?’ (1898)
Revolutionary Socialist
Born in Poland but did more of her political activity in Germany.
Agreed with Marx & Engels that capitalism should be overthrown and could not be fixed.
However, she thought a revolution could be ‘spontaneous’ and was more accepting of democracy.
She was killed in 1919 during an attempted Communist revolution.
Beatrice Webb
Key Text: ‘Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission’ (1909)
Evolutionary Socialist
Her and her husband Sidney founded the Fabian Society and was a key individual in the early years of the Labour Party.
She thought capitalism should be abolished as it was the cause of all inequality.
However, she did not support revolution – she believed that capitalism could be ‘gradually’ replaced by ‘common ownership’.
Anthony Crosland
Key Text: ‘The Future of Socialism’ (1956)
Evolutionary Socialist
Labour MP and senior cabinet member in the 1960s and 1970s.
His book was the most significant socialist work in the 20th century and was written after the Labour government elected in 1945 which nationalized industries and created the NHS.
He argued for a ‘mixed economy’ and that Marxist class distinctions were unfit for the 20th century.
Anthony Giddens
Key Text: ‘The Third Way’ (1998)
Evolutionary Socialist
Wrote at the time of the 1997 election and his writing inspired a lot of New Labour thinking and policy.
He was also writing post-USSR and post- Thatcherism
Advocated for accepting some right-wing economic policies as long as they could be used to promote policies leading to social justice.
Human Nature
‘Optimistic’
Socialists believe that humans should not fear the future or accept their fate.
Webb argued that human beings are in fact destined to improve the world. “A better tomorrow is conceivable, achievable and probable”.
Marx argued that if true communism was achieved it would bring about a secular paradise where serious problems were banished and people were “wise, virtuous and free”.
‘Fraternal’
Socialists see human beings as brotherly and comradely and are naturally inclined to generosity and concern for others.
Human beings are also not naturally competitive but co-operative.
Luxemburg argued “our instinct is not to win, but to share”.
Giddens argued that the highest earners could be persuaded to give up some of their wealth if it went to helping the most unfortunate, best achieved through progressive taxation.
‘Rational’
Like Liberals, Socialists view humans as naturally logical; they are rational enough to understand that their needs are best served by working together.
As Webb said “Liberals hope for a better future instead of resolving to plan one”.
Webb argued that a socialist state full of rational people who have been educated can guide humans “gradually but inevitably” towards an improved life.
‘Communal’
Humans naturally seek to be part of a community such as a trade union, school or team.
Webb – “We are not lone wolves, we forever seek the company of a pack”
Humans seek the company of people with similar interest.
Luxemburg believed that this communal spirit would lead to a ‘spontaneous revolution’ which would overthrow the existing state and replace it with a socialist one.
Marx argued that the ultimate form of socialism was ‘communism’ where everyone’s needs are met rather than simply rewarding their abilities. In a communist state people will have a ‘class-consciousness’ where they sacrifice their self -interests for the common good of all.
‘Malleable’
Socialists do not believe that human nature is fixed at birth. They believe in the idea of ‘plasticity’ that human nature is malleable and able to be changed.
Marx thought that capitalism had corrupted human nature and that a revolution which overthrew capitalism could help restore and reshape human nature.
Giddens believed that human nature could be moulded for the better through social reform by the state. Giddens was an advisor to the New Labour government of Tony Blair who had as part of his social policy the pledge to be ‘tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime’.
Society
‘Existential’
All socialist thinkers see society as crucial.
Crosland “We cannot separate who we are from the sort of society we have. Our perspectives, our prospects and our very personalities are affected by the society we are born into”.
Socialists believed that ‘traditional’ societies such as religious, monarchical and capitalist ones had damaged the potential of human beings. Therefore, if society can be improved then so can individuals.
However, socialists disagree on the ways of improving society, either by revolution or evolution.
‘Collectivist’
Socialists believe that individual efforts are better achieved and more practical when linked to the interests of others. This is the direct opposite of ‘atomism’ as all socialists fundamentally agree that humans are stronger together than apart.
Individual’s interests are less important than the interests of society as a whole.
Marx argued that “Man’s social being determines their consciousness”.
When the Labour Party was founded it had the famous Clause IV in its constitution which stated “by the strength of our common endevaour we achieve more than we achieve alone”
‘Class-focussed’
Class in society is very important, and links to Crosland’s previous argument that people’s social class defines their attitudes and lifestyle.
Class divisions in society exist. This usually takes the form of the ‘haves and the haves not’.
Socialists will side with the ‘have nots’ or ‘working classes’, as such they seek to correct these inequalities to make society fairer.
However, different socialist thinkers have different ideas about how to correct this problem.
Marx and Engels argued this took the form of the ‘bourgeoisie and the proletariat’. They argued that these divisions were saw large that they would lead to a class conflict between the two sides.
‘Egalitarian’
Socialists argue that an unequal society means that equality of opportunity is limited. This is particularly true for those born into the lower classes as they then will naturally have fewer opportunities.
Crosland saw the main aim of socialism as narrowing the gap between the stronger and weaker classes. There should be more equality of opportunity leading to more equality of outcomes which would lessen the wealth gap and create a more ‘egalitarian society’.
This will be achieved by a socialist government delivering social justice. As Webb said “the humble must be made mighty and the mighty made humble”
Economy
‘Fundamental’
All socialists place a large amount of importance on the economy.
Marx argued it was impossible to understand the workings of the state without understanding the workings of the economy. He argued that radical political change could only be accompanied with radical economic change.
This fits the orthodox socialist view that socialism could only be achieved following a revolution.
Whilst Giddens, argued that overthrowing capitalism was not necessary for a better society and more social justice. However, he argued that that economic policy was still central to creating a fairer and more equal society.
‘Redistributive’
To create an equal and more egalitarian society it is necessary for wealth to be redistributed across society to narrow the fap between the rich and poor. This often done through tax and spend policies being used to fund public services.
This took an extreme form with ‘collectivization’ in the USSR. However, there have been more mainstream examples. Crosland was a senior Labour MP and the 1974 election manifesto said the following: “A fundamental and irreversible shift of wealth and power in favour of working people and their families”.
Ambivalent about Capitalism
There is debate between revolutionary and evolutionary socialists about whether socialism can be achieved under a capitalist system.
Marx, Luxemburg and Webb thought that capitalism is incompatible with socialist ideas as it always creates gaps in wealth and other inequalities.
Crosland and Giddens thought that capitalism is necessary to create wealth which can then be redistributed under a socialist government. Crosland said “it is difficult to redistribute wealth if there is no wealth to distribute”.
‘Interventionist’
One area that all socialists agree on is that government should intervene in the economy and therefore they reject ‘laissez-faire’ economics and a minimal government.
If there is to be a more equal society then the government needs to take a ‘hands on’ approach to the economy.
Crosland was a senior Labour MP who was part of the government who created the Equal Pay Act in 1970. Giddens who advised the New Labour government under Blair who introduced the Minimum Wage Act in 1998.
The State
Rejection of Anarchism
Whilst orthodox socialists like Marx, Engels and Luxemburg support having a revolution to overthrow the existing capitalist state, unlike anarchists they still advocate for a strong socialist state to replace it.
Marx argued for a dictatorship of the proletariat to be established after the revolution to help deliver socialism. This is turn would create Communism which Marx said would be a ‘utopian anarchist society’ and that the state would ‘wither away’. So, whilst saw the state as eventually not existing, he still saw the importance of having a state to create these circumstances.
‘Rejection of Medieval States’
A socialist state is one that is naturally incompatible with a monarchical state or a theocratic (religious) state. They advocate for a state where political and economic power is redistributed and decisions are based on the common good.
Luxemburg during her time was very critical of Germany’s involvement in the First World War and used the overthrow of Kaiser Wilhelm II to push for a socialist state which would have ‘unlimited democracy’. Luxemburg wanted a state with “the most active, unlimited participation of the mass of the people”.
‘An Enlarged State’
All socialists agree that a large and extensive state is necessary.
Orthodox socialists such as Webb and others thought the state should have complete control of the economy.
Giddens argued there should be ‘state sponsored collectivism’ to “create a sense of we/us rather than me/I”. He argued this would be achieved by the state introducing:
Progressive taxation
Greater public spending
Universal public services.
Revolutionary Socialism
Marxism: ‘Class Conflict’
Capitalism creates to different classes in society, those who have wealth and those who do not.
Marx and Engels – referred this as the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie are the minority who have wealth, and the proletariat are the majority who do not.
This inequality will naturally lead to class conflict and this tension will eventually lead to the destruction of capitalism.
Marxism: ‘Exploitation of the Masses’
Despite being a minority of the population, the bourgeoisie are the one who ‘own the modes of production’.
This then gives them the advantage in terms of wealth, power and influence within society.
This then means that the bourgeoisie are able to exploit or oppress the masses. This will often take the form of paying low wages or charging high rents.
Marxism: ‘Surplus Value’
Marx and Engels did not view the bourgeoisie as naturally bad people (they were from the bourgeois class themselves). They argued that capitalism corrupts them and makes them act in an amoral way.
They argue this is shown through the concept of ‘surplus value’ which means paying workers less than the value of their labour, and there is no correlation between time and effort.
This means that workers become alienated and dehumanized which shows that capitalism is an ineffective system.
Marxism: ‘False-Consciousness’
Capitalism creates a ‘false consciousness’ which stops individuals form acting in their naturally fraternal way and that this is against their best interests and the nest interests of society.
This ‘false consciousness’ means that humans instead act out of envy, greed and resentment all driven by self-interest.
Marxism: ‘Capitalism is Self-Destructive’
Marx and Engels argued that capitalism ‘sowed the seeds of its won destruction”
Marx argued that each economic crisis that occurred would be worst than the last, and therefore the impact on the proletariat will be greater. This will then lead to people losing their ‘false consciousness’ and gaining a ‘class consciousness’. Once this has been realized it will lead to a revolution as the proletariat realise they have ‘Nothing to lose but their chains’.
Marxism: ‘Capitalism cannot be fixed’
Marx and Engels thought that it was not possible, feasible or desirable to fix capitalism.
This is because it is a system that only serves the interests of the ‘dominant economic class’.
They argued that the state is just a “committee managing the everyday affairs of the bourgeoisie”.
Marxism: ‘Revolution is historically inevitable’
Marx and Engels subscribed to the idea that history was ‘dialectic’ (First put forward by the German philosopher Hegel). This idea views human history as a series of episodes with each stage involving a clash of ideas, particularly economic ones.
They developed this into Historical Materialism which would be a clash between the existing mode of production and those challenging it.
Marxism: ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’
After the inevitable revolution a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ would emerge which would see the replacement of private property with common ownership.
This dictatorship would inevitably ‘wither away’ and be replaced with a ‘stateless society’ and this is what true Communism and once that has been achieved this would be the “End of History”.
This was most notably seen in the Russian Revolution and the creation of the USSR under Lenin. Lenin was inspired by Marxism and argued there needed to be a ‘Vanguard’ to make this happen. His vanguard was the Bolshevik Party which would be solely responsible for creating the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’.
Luxemburg Version: ‘Critique of Marxism’
Whilst Rosa Luxemburg was inspired by much of the beliefs and ideas of Marxism or Orthodox Communism, however, she had key differences with them.
Whilst she agreed with the ‘inevitability of a revolution’ she disagreed with Marx that capitalism had to reach an advanced stage before a class consciousness could be achieved. She did not think it was right for the proletariat to suffer under years of industrialization before a revolution happened. “Impatient with injustice, impatient for socialism”
Luxemburg Version: ‘Spontaneous Revolution’
Luxemburg also disagreed with Lenin’s version of Communism. In particularly dislike the idea that there needed to be a political party acting as a ‘vanguard’ to lead a revolution against capitalism.
She argued that a revolution could and should occur ‘spontaneously’ amongst the people. Most notably, she thought this would happen through existing groups such as trade unions.
Luxemburg Version: ‘Engagement with Existing State’
Marx, Engels and then later Lenin so that working with existing state as pointless as it had been corrupted by capitalism. This is because those in power were almost exclusively from the bourgeoisie.
Luxemburg did not agree with this. She thought that campaigning in things like elections would be the best way to spread the ideas of socialism. This would then in turn allow the people to gain a ‘class consciousness’.
Luxemburg proved this by helping found the German Communist Party (KPD) and the ‘Red Flag’ Magazine.
Luxemburg Version: ‘Support for Democracy’
Luxemburg also did agree that a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ was needed to deliver socialism.
She also rejected that a ‘one-nation state’ like the USSR was necessary. Instead, Luxemburg wanted a post- revolutionary state to be a genuine democracy with actual competition in elections between differing socialist parties.
Evolutionary Socialism
Democratic Socialism: ‘Critique of Capitalism’
Webb differed from revolutionary socialists as she rejected the idea that it had brought ever increasing misery. However, she still rejected it as an economic system – she wanted “a more orderly economy”.
This would be an economy that could be planned logically by the government and she advocated for ‘common ownership’ which took the form of nationalizing key industries. Her views influenced Clause IV of the Labour Party and the nationalization of coal, steel and rail.
Democratic Socialism: ‘Support for the State’
Webb thought that revolutions were “chaotic”, “unmanageable” and “counterproductive” and not a good starting point for creating an improved society.
During her lifetime Webb had seen how the state had made improvements in making society more equal, most notably the extension of the franchise to women in 1918. This demonstrated to Webb that the state was versatile and therefore could bring about other socialist changes.
Democratic Socialism: ‘Gradualism’
Webb thought that the existing state should promote a slow but steady movement towards socialism and ‘common ownership’.
This has become known as gradualism and is in opposition to the idea of a revolution being necessary to achieve socialism. Webb called it the “inevitably of gradualism”.
Webb thought that parties should gradually gain the attention of the people and they will inevitably elect socialist governments. This was shown in the Labour government elected in 1945 under Clement Attlee.
Social Democracy: ‘Revisiting Class’
Crosland argued that after 1945 the idea of ‘us and them’ was now outdated and that class was more complicated than this.
He argued this is because of the emergence of a ‘managerial class’ made up of technocrats who are people working in trained professions. These people were neither exploiting people (the bourgeoisie) or being exploited themselves (the proletariat).
Social Democracy: ‘Mixed Economy’
Crosland also argued that after 1945 there was now a ‘mixed economy’. He described this as a “pragmatic blend of public and private ownership”.
Crosland thought that the industries nationalized under Attlee were enough and there was no need for it to go any further so that there was full state ownership of all industries. This meant that even though he was a Labour MP he rejected Clause IV of the party constitution.
Social Democracy: ‘Keynesianism’
As Labour MP it is natural that Crosland would support Keynesian economics which advocated for state intervention in the economy.
He also supported the knew ‘managerial class’ that he saw emerging. Like Webb, he did not believe that capitalism had to be destructive as the government could guide the economy towards steady growth and full employment.
Social Democracy: ‘Public Spending not Public Ownership’
Crosland’s support for a Keynesian/Managerial economy meant that the government could create constant growth which would lead to more tax revenue which would go towards public spending.
This meant it was not necessary to also have the government have complete control over all industry.
Social Democracy: ‘Welfarism’
Crosland was a key part of the Labour government under Clement Attlee first elected in 1945. This was the first government in British history to implement wide ranging socialist policies.
The Attlee government was key in creating a ‘welfare state’ in Britian through policies such as the founding of the NHS, implementing universal education and introduction of social security and benefits system. All of these policies were aimed at tackling inequality and poverty.
Third Way: ‘Embourgeoisement’
Giddens was writing at the end of the 20th century and he argued that there were a lot less working class or ‘blue collar’ workers. The people who socialist policies were most aimed at helping.
Giddens argued that society had undergone a process of ‘embourgeoisement’ and was becoming more diverse and there were more people from working class backgrounds in ‘white collar’ professions. “By 1995 there are more people in the UK with mortgage accounts than trade union cards”.
Third Way: ‘Triangulation’
After many years of Conservative governments and ‘neo- liberal economics’ (Thatcherism), Giddens argued that there needed to be a new form of socialism that bridged the gap between these ideas and social democracy.
This took the form of having the socialist values in terms of social policy and more conservative economic policies. These ideas were implemented under New Labour in the UK and the presidency of Bill Clinton in the USA.
Third Way: ‘Remixed Economy’
Giddens supported the Keynesian model of the economy and Crosland’s ‘mixed economy’. However, he thought this could be further extended due to globalization.
Giddens thought it was perfectly accept to allow private industry to be involved in public services. These were introduced under New Labour with PFIs (Public Finance Initiatives) which where private firms are contracted to complete and manage public projects like the NHS. New Labour MP Peter Mandelson once said they were “comfortable with people getting filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes”.
Third Way: ‘Cultural Equality’
Giddens form of socialism put much more focus on social equality, this mostly because at the end of the 20th century society had become “more diverse, multi-racial and cosmopolitan”.
New Labour social policies were based around creating a more multicultural society. For example, they introduced the first Muslim faith schools on the same terms of existing Christian and Jewish ones.
Third Way: ‘Communitarianism’
Giddens though it was important for the state to repair divisions between groups in society as these are damaging.
He saw it as important to achieve this kind of social justice and that you do not need to treat people solely as minorities but to make them feel part of a community as this creates a stable society. Civil Partnership Act (2005) allowed same-sex relationships to be legally recognised on the same terms as marriage (these were effectively marriage in all but name).
Third Way: ‘Redistribution of Power’
Unlike more traditional socialists, Giddens was willing to have a strong state which shared its power rather than centralizing it.
Again, this can be seen in New Labour’s devolution policies such as the introduction of national assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as the introduction of elected Mayors in cities like London. This approach has been criticized as making it harder to implement socialist policies nationwide.
Explain and analyse three ways in which socialist thinkers view capitalism [9]
I Do
One way that socialist thinkers view capitalism is that it produces inequality in society. This is because capitalism creates two distinct classes in society which can be defined as those who benefit from capitalism and those who suffer because of it. This is supported by the thinking of Marx and Engels in ‘The Communist Manifesto’ who argued that capitalism created two classes the ‘bourgeoise’ and the ‘proletariat’ and this in turn created a class conflict which would eventually lead to a revolution which would overthrow capitalism.
W e Do
Another way that socialist thinkers view capitalism is that it should be replaced by a more redistributive system. This is supported by the thinking of Beatrice Webb…
Yo u Do
Explain and analyse three ways in which socialist thinkers view the role of the state [9]
I Do
One way that socialist thinkers view the role of the state is that it is necessary. Socialist thinkers do not support the anarchist idea of overthrowing and completing abolishing the state. Orthodox socialists support the overthrow of the existing state but replacing it with another. This is supported by the thinking of Marx and Engels who advocated for a strong and all-encompassing state which was necessary to deliver true socialism. Marx also argued that this state would not last forever and would eventually ‘wither away’.
W e Do
Another way that socialist thinkers view the role of the state is that it has been used to oppress the working classes. This is supported by the thinking of…
Yo u Do
Socialism Thinkers
Key Ideas
Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels
Human Nature:
Naturally optimistic and fraternal.
But corrupted by capitalism (false consciousness).
Society:
Class conflict exists.
Revolution would create a utopian communist society.
Economy:
Capitalism is corrupt and self destructive
Should be replaced by collective ownership
The State:
Existing capitalist state only benefits bourgeoisie
Should be replaced with a Dictatorship of the proletariat
Rosa Luxemburg
Human Nature:
Agreed with Marx about capitalisms corrupting effect
“Instinct to share”
Society:
Capitalist society cannot be defended due to the amount of divisions and inequalities
Capitalist should be overthrown and replaced controlled by the workers
The State:
Should be overthrown by spontaneous revolution.
Replaced by genuine democracy
Beatrice Webb
Human Nature:
Communal and optimistic
Can be guided by the state to be improved
Society:
A more egalitarian society is needed to address the inequalities caused by capitalism
Capitalism should be gradually replaced
Economy:
An economy based on collective ownership
The State:
State should take a clear role in gradually reforming capitalism
State can be versatile
Anthony Crosland
Human Nature:
Powerful sense of fairness
Naturally objection to unfairness and inequality
Society:
More complex than us and them
Growing managerial class of technocrats
Ecomony:
Mixed Economy
Keynesianism
Greater public spending
The State:
Elected socialist governments can be used to make socialist changes.
Such as 1945 Labour government.
Anthony Giddens
Human Nature:
Can be changed for the better by govt policy.
Fraternal nature means rich people accept taxation
Society:
Embourgeoisement
It has become more diverse and multicultural
Economy:
Remixed Economy
Triangulation
Increased public spending to fix inequality
The State:
Decentralized/devol ved power
State should take an active role to fix divisions and deliver social justice
Revolutionary vs. Evolutionary Socialism
Revolutionary Socialism
Optimistic view of Human Nature
Co-operation
Bourgeoisie v Proletariat
Revolution necessary and historically inevitable or spontaneous
State ownership of all industries
Capitalism cannot be fixed
“False Consciousness” / “Class Consciouisness”
Evolutionary Socialism
Human beings are malleable
Government intervention in economy
Redistribution of wealth
Managerial Class / ‘Embourgeoisement’
Gradualism
Revolutions are chaotic and counterproductive
Mixed economy
Capitalism is necessary
Public spending not public ownership
Triangulation
Enlarged State
Equality
Class divisions
Public Services
Is Socialism compatible with Capitalism?
YES
Webb thought capitalism should be reformed but by gradual change not revolution.
Crosland believed that capitalism was necessary if there was to be a redistribution of wealth. “There can be no redistribution of wealth if there is not wealth”.
The state should take an active role in making capitalism benefit as many people as possible with progressive taxation being used to create a welfare state.
Crosland and Giddens thought that capitalism could be used to create social justice with a mixed/remixed economy.
Support for Keynesian style of economics.
NO
Marx & Engels thought that capitalism was a corrupting force which gave human’s a ‘false consciousness’ and once people got a ‘class consciousness’ they would overthrow capitalism.
Marx & Engels believed it created class conflict as the bourgeoisie own the modes of production and exploit the proletariat for profit (surplus value).
Marx, Engels & Luxemburg believed a revolution was necessary to overthrow capitalism.
They also believed that human beings were naturally fraternal and capitalism prevented them from working together in pursuit of self- interest.
Is revolution necessary to achieve Socialism?
YES
Marx & Engels argued that a revolution was historically inevitable to the dialectic nature of history.
Orthodox or revolutionary socialists see capitalism as incompatible with socialist values.
The bourgeoisie own the modes of production so will not give them up without a revolution.
A revolution could be used to make human beings aware of their ‘class consciousness’ and rid them of the ‘false consciousness’ caused by capitalism.
Luxemburg believed that a revolution could occur ‘spontaneously’.
NO
Webb thought that capitalism was a flawed system which created massive amounts of inequality… however she believed it needed to be gradually reformed.
Webb thought that revolutions were chaotic and created more problems than they solved.
The state had shown that it can be used to create socialist reforms e.g. extension of the franchise, NHS, nationalization.
Crosland supported Keynesian economics which involved state intervention in the economy.
Giddens thought that social justice could be achieved through government action.
