Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 4:
'''Socialism''' is an [[ideology]] with the core belief that a [[society]] should exist in which popular collectives control the means of [[Power (sociology)|power]], and therefore the means of [[production]]. In application, however, the [[de facto]] meaning of socialism has changed with time. Although it is a politically [[Loaded language|loaded]] term, it remains strongly related to the establishment of an organized [[working class]], created through either [[revolution]] or [[social evolution]], with the purpose of building a [[classless society]]. It has also increasingly become concentrated on [[social reform]]s within modern [[democracy|democracies]]. This concept and the term '''Socialist''' also refer to a group of ideologies, an [[Social economy|economic]] system, or a [[state]] that exists or has existed.
In [[Marxism|Marxist]] theory, it also refers to the society that would succeed [[capitalism]], and in some cases develop further into [[communism]]. Marxism and communism are both
The word dates back at least to the early [[Nineteenth Century|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 [[Claude Henri de Rouvroy, Comte de Saint-Simon|Saint-Simon]] and thereafter by [[Pierre Leroux]] and J. Regnaud in ''[[l'Encyclopédie nouvelle]]''<!--pages 1 and 2, ''A History of Socialist Thought, Volume 1, (1965)-->. 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 Century|nineteenth]] and [[Twentieth Century|twentieth-century]] struggles by [[industrial]] and [[agricultural]] [[worker]]s, 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.
Line 26 ⟶ 24:
[[Image:Socialismchart.png|thumb|right|A chart of some branches of socialism.]]
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:
* [[African socialism]]
Line 78 ⟶ 76:
Like other political terms, such as ''[[liberal]]'', ''[[conservative]]'' and ''[[democracy|democratic]]'' (see, for example, the [[Liberal Democratic Party of Russia]], which is neither liberal nor democratic), the words ''socialism'' or ''socialist'' have sometimes been used 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 countries.
The German [[National Socialist]]s (Nazis) used the word "socialist" in their official name much like any branch of Socialism, but most scholars argue that the term "socialism" in "national socialism" did not meaningfully extend beyond propaganda purposes. However, rightwing [[Hayek|F.A. Hayek]], [[Nobel prize]]-winning [[economist]], in his ''[[The Road to Serfdom]]'', notes that [[National Socialists]] did indeed "socialize" the economy. In practice, the Nazis allowed (friendly) capitalists to thrive while liquidating socialists everywhere else (including from within their own party in the [[Night of the Long Knives]]). Hayek points out that this state involvement in the economy, while not [[left-wing politics|left]] socialism, is socialism nevertheless. Unlike 'national socialists,' many [[left-wing politics|left]] socialists who consider themselves nationalist reject the [[Racialism|racialist]] theories and totalitarianism of the Nazis, unlike socialists, who are known for
Some [[Japan]]ese right-wing and [[nationalists]] thinkers, such as [[Kita Ikki]], also used the term from the 1920s to the [[Pacific war]] period, referring to a [[state socialism]], rooted in the Japanese feudal [[Shogunate]] and [[Meiji period|Meiji]] periods. This was based on socialist theory, which arrived to Japan in 1901, introduced by Western [[missionaries]], and built on the work of Japanese socialists thinkers, [[Kotoku Shusui]] and [[Katayama Sen]], as well as [[social Darwinism]], [[Marxism]], and similar ideas. These ideologies were continued in the work of [[Yoshino Kazuko]] and [[Minobe Tatsu Kichi]], in "[[minponshugi]]" and "[[minshushugi]]", Japanese socialist philosophies. Yoshino Kazuko also founded the [[Reimeikai Party]], a movement based on [[Christian Socialism]], [[Confucian]] politics, Marxism and [[syndicalism]], with some [[populism]]. In this period, the first nationalist [[secret societies]] were born.
Line 84 ⟶ 82:
During the [[Showa]] Epoch, the final developments of these ideologies combined Japanese state socialist thinking with contemporary European [[fascist]] ideals and the Japanese WW2 radical right-wing ideology of [[Militarism-Socialism]]. Under this movement ideologists such as [[Sadao Araki]] founded the right-wing [[Kodoha]] party; [[Hachiro Arita]] organized the [[Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere]] concept and [[Naoki Hoshino]] organized the foundation of puppet state of [[Manchukuo]] along with local nationalist groups;the local left socialism along [[Russia|Russian]] and [[Chinese Communism|Chinese]] [[soviet]]s elements conduct in development of Japanese local [[communist]] thinking. (''See also'' [[Socialist thinking and the Empire of Japan]], [[Japanese nationalism]],[[Japanese fascism]] and [[Communist Party of Japan]])
Another party who employs the word "socialist" in its name but is viewed by many as being not genuinely socialist, is the [[Ba'ath Party|Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party]] which rules [[Syria]] and also ruled [[Iraq]] under [[Saddam Hussein]]. It claims a tradition of secular, non-Marxist socialism, but most political theorists (as well as nearly all other socialists) argue that, in fact, it 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. The [[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA]] assisted Saddam Hussein with [[death squads]], effectively whiping out the Iraqi communists.
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]].
Line 99 ⟶ 97:
* 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' council]]s (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
* 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 [[referendum]]s), 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 economy|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 [[cooperative]]s in the planned economy of [[Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia|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.
* Does the ideology systematically say that "[[bourgeoisie|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
* 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 [[Claude Henri de Rouvroy, Comte de Saint-Simon|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
* 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
Note also that 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 (in the case of the US) [[NASA]]. Interestingly, though, the federal 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.
Line 113 ⟶ 111:
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.
One form of common ownership, or socialism, is a system of theocratic governance proposed by [[Joseph Smith]], the original prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It was called the Law of Consecration. According to the Law of Consecration, no man "owns" any of his possessions, but instead everything is owned by the church, and individuals are granted a "stewardship" over property.
Line 122 ⟶ 120:
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 [[aristocracy|aristocratic]], [[plutocracy|plutocratic]], or [[capitalism|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 [[suffrage|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 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 [[market]]s, 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
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, consider the use of the term "[[publicly funded medicine|socialized medicine]]" in the US by opponents of [[publicly funded medicine|single-payer health care]].
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
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 [[oligarchy|oligarchies]]; some would call them [[state capitalism|state-capitalist]], [[Stalinist]], or as some Trotskyists would say, "[[degenerated workers state]]s". 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.
Line 135 ⟶ 133:
''Main articles: [[Communist state]], [[Social democracy]]''
Most past and present states
A libertarian socialist society known as "The Republic" emerged in 1930s Spain during the civil war. See [[Anarchism in Spain]].
Line 144 ⟶ 142:
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 that is worth noting. [[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
Marx saw socialism (the "dictatorship of proletariat", as explained above) 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 an ideal not far from that of anarchism. However, whereas the anarchists wanted to abolish the state overnight, the communists expected the "withering away" to be a slow and gradual process.
Line 151 ⟶ 149:
==Socialism and the 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-communist]]s
In the most moderate formulation of such a mixed economy, collective ownership is typically limited to control of [[natural resource]]s and [[Public utility|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]]''.
Line 159 ⟶ 157:
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 option]]s 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 [[US]], [[UK]], [[Canada]] and other market economies. There is a lively debate today as to 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.
| |||