Archive for the ‘Socialism’ Category

Socialist organization in the time of Trump – Socialist Worker Online

HUNDREDS OF thousands of people are going to be protesting Donald Trump's inauguration and marching to send a message for women's rights and other demands in the next few days. And there's every reason to believe these mobilizations won't stop anytime soon.

The Donald groping his way to power will dominate mainstream headlines, but the big news for the left is that socialism is re-emerging as a systemic alternative to capitalism. Thousands of people are asking whether it's time to join socialist organizations in order to resist Trump--and the social system that gave rise to his villainy in the first place.

Of course, there are important shades of difference in how people define socialism--ranging from Bernie Sanders' advocacy for increasing taxes on the wealthy so we can expand Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and make public college free; all the way up to Eugene V. Debs' proposal for the "utter annihilation of the capitalist system and the total abolition of class rule."

But wherever you fall on this spectrum, it's a pleasure to welcome so many new people to the socialist movement.

There's a lot to talk about, but I want to begin by urging you, if you've not already done so, to join an existing socialist organization or start one of your own. Being an "individual socialist" is like being a fish out of water. You can have the best analysis of the world as you read about what's happening on the Internet, but you have no power to do anything about it unless you're organized.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Some Starting Points for Socialists

How should you choose? I would argue that any group you consider joining or initiating should agree on these common tasks and shared responsibilities for all socialists:

-- First, we must do everything we can to agitate against each one of Trump's attacks, as well as every concession to him by his not-so-erstwhile opponents among the leaders of the Democratic Party.

We are in immediate need of united fronts to defend immigrants from deportation, safeguard abortion and reproductive rights, stand up against racist police violence, protect public education, fight for our unions and save the planet. Unity in struggle doesn't have to wait for unanimity of politics--even as each component force within our broad movement retains the right to respectfully, if forcefully, advocate for its own unique beliefs.

-- Second, all socialists share a common duty to educate a new generation of activists about what those who have fought before have to teach us.

The socialist movement overflows with inspiring and ingenious lessons, and as the Russian revolutionary Lenin once put it, "Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." Any prejudice against study and debate will doom us in advance. How can we hope to overturn the most powerful and destructive economic system in world history if we deny the wisdom of the past?

Furthermore, we aren't alone in our individual countries. Internationally, from Brazil to Greece to South Africa to Spain, socialists are building organizations and movements. Ours must be a global movement of solidarity and sharing.

-- Third, while we organize in the short term, we must learn to sustain movements and organizations.

Donald Trump is dangerous, but it isn't 1933--that is, we aren't on the verge of a fascist dictatorship taking power, as the Nazis did in Germany. Trump will do real damage, but he will also overreach and expose his vulnerabilities. And in the crises we know are coming, there will be opportunities to turn the tide.

But we should not be so nave as to think that we will win quickly or so shortsighted as to trade away the organizations and movements we build for the promise of a simple "return to normalcy" under some status-quo Democratic administration.

We are in a decades-long fight for the future of humanity and the planet, and we must learn to act like it.

Having made these general points, I want to focus on a specific aspect of political strategy: Namely, what sort of socialist organization or party will strengthen, rather than smother, social and class struggles? This is not the only area up for debate, but I think it is a particularly relevant one today.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Time to Resist Is Now

Let's begin with something all socialists should agree on: as the great abolitionist Fredrick Douglass put it, "If there is no struggle, there is no progress." If you rely on the elite of society for social justice, you'll be waiting a long time. Decades of union busting, climate catastrophe and mass incarceration should have driven this point home.

Obviously, it's easier to invoke past struggles than organize new ones, and there is a danger that politicians will manipulate our legacy for their own purposes. Remember President Obama's inspiring references to suffrage and civil rights organizers? Or his more recent call for people to "grab a clipboard" and start organizing? In the end, his presidency relied more on drone strikes than knocking on doors.

Despite this--or, really, because of the consequences of disappointment in Obama--many people are developing a healthy appreciation for the necessity of organizing movements to change the world. Writing in The Guardian, Kate Aronoff rightly sounds the alarm that only by "mustering more unity and vision than progressives in the United States ever have" will we be able to confront Trump's reactionary agenda.

At the same time, Aronoff assumes that, like it or not, social movements have no choice but to turn to the Democratic Party when it comes time for elections. While this point of view can be argued forcefully and effectively by those honestly committed to radical change, I think it deserves to be challenged--and not only on tactical grounds.

Why? Here it's useful to recall Karl Marx's insight that workers and the oppressed must develop their own movements and struggles, and they must control their own political parties and organizations, in order to liberate themselves from the profit system.

If workers struggle for their own emancipation in the social sphere, but hand over politics and elections to (at best) marginally sympathetic leaders of a party financed by business interests, they will never learn how to run society collectively.

Socialism isn't simply the end "goal." It's not just a series of worthy reforms. It is a living movement in which ordinary people learn to organize democratically. Marx made the case that "for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men [and women] on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution."

To steal a phrase from Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, author of From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation, for workers to create genuine socialism, the democratic means to organize and control their own movements and actions must be "baked in" to their own political party.

This, I would argue, ought to form the starting point for our discussion of how to understand the relationship between socialist organization and mass movements. It is, undoubtedly, a minority point of view today. In fact, Aronoff's view is broadly shared by many socialists in the U.S. today, even if there are important distinctions in their positions.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Can the Democratic Party Be Reformed?

First and foremost, supporters of Bernie Sanders advocate a close link between building movements and the success of the Democratic Party.

The socialist movement owes Sanders a debt of thanks for--in a rare instance of courage in American politics--making the forthright defense of his brand of socialism a topic of mainstream political discussion. For millions of people, Sanders has helped connect ideas of economic, social, racial and climate justice to the concept of socialism.

At the same time, he has a particular definition of the "political revolution." He proposes that unions and social movements expend their energy on participating in and reforming the Democratic Party. In a speech endorsing Rep. Keith Ellison to be chair of the Democratic National Committee, Sanders urged his supporters to "transform the Democratic Party from a top-down party to a bottom-up party, to create a grassroots organizations of the working families of this country, the young people of this country."

Now you might think that starting at the top of the Democratic Party is an odd place to begin building a "bottom-up" movement if the aim is to create a genuinely democratic party. The solution to this riddle lies in the strict limits that Sanders sets on the sorts of changes he thinks are needed in the Democratic Party.

Ellison's subsequent remarks make this abundantly clear. By all accounts one of the most liberal members of Congress, nevertheless, his plan to "reset" the Democrats consists of little more than "listening sessions" and making it possible for immigrants rights and Black Lives Matter activists to "express themselves electorally" when it comes time to vote.

And that day isn't far off, according to Ellison: "We're off to a good start because Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton combined to create the best platform the Democratic Party has ever head."

So for Sanders, joining the socialist movement means, in a fairly straightforward fashion, participating in the Democratic Party and working within its structures in the hopes of pressing it to adopt more progressive policies.

However, as Lance Selfa, author of The Democrats: A Critical History, demonstrates, the Democratic Party isn't susceptible to easy change. Despite lots of public hand-wringing, for example, Senate Democrats continue to "curry favor with their corporate backers"--including potential 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Corey Booker, who joined Trump's most enthusiastic partisans in voting to ban the import of cheaper prescription medicines from Canada.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Time for Something New?

Unfortunately, understanding the political apparatus of the Democratic Party as a "field of struggle" for unions and social movements, as long-time organizer Bill Fletcher suggests, has a long and powerful tradition in the United States.

On the other hand, Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow, recently concluded, "I hold little hope that a political revolution will occur within the Democratic Party without a sustained outside movement forcing truly transformative change. I am inclined to believe that it would be easier to build a new party than to save the Democratic Party from itself."

Here, Alexander is pointing to a key link in the chain for socialists--that is, the goal should be to construct a political party that strengthens our social movements and advances working-class struggle. The starting point should not be "how can we reform the Democratic Party?" Rather, it ought to be how can we give that "sustained outside movement" a political voice of its own?

Fortunately, for the first time in decades, Sanders' campaign itself--even if we disagree with his decision to run as a Democrat--along with the experience of social movements from Occupy Wall Street to Black Lives Matter to Standing Rock, and the inability of the Democratic Party to offer an inspiring alternative to Trump, have all combined to create a dynamic and multi-sided discussion about what next.

One of the most talked-about contributions to this conversation is "A Blueprint for a New Party," written by Jacobin magazine editorial board member Seth Ackerman.

His innovative and closely researched contribution begins by insisting that a "true working-class party must be democratic and member controlled. It must be independent--determining its own platform and educating around it." This is critical, as it breaks the cycle of subordinating working-class struggle and social movements to a party controlled by hostile powers.

Ackerman warns that traditional leftist notions of "working within the Democratic Party" cede "all real agency to professional politicians." In Ackerman's estimation, Sanders' Our Revolution group seems sadly poised to fall into the "trap" of "becoming a mere middleman, or broker, standing between a diffuse, unorganized progressive constituency and a series of ambitious progressive office-seekers."

As a way out of the electoral quicksand, Ackerman proposes a particular kind of "inside/outside" strategy in which he suggests we organize a working-class political party that uses the Democrats' ballot line where convenient, but remains formally independent--preserving its right to run on alternative ballot lines, for instance.

In other words, rather than the Democrats using social movements and unions for their own selfish purposes, Ackerman proposes that socialists turn the tables and use the Democrats.

Although intriguing, I would argue that Ackerman relies far too heavily on technical maneuvers, even putting a good deal of faith in a new party's ability to bend existing Federal Elections Commission regulations and Supreme Court decisions to our needs.

Yet the system doesn't just accidentally happen to be rigged. It's actively rigged. Any loopholes we might find in the short term could be quickly closed in time-honored bipartisan fashion. Defending their domination of "American democracy" is one of the few things that Democratic and Republican politicians agree on these days.

Aside from these legal questions, Ackerman himself expresses skepticism about whether or not "a significant part of the labor movement," in its current state, can be convinced to join in--a prerequisite for success in his opinion. One problem with this model, I believe, is that it puts the cart before the horse. The question is: Why isn't the labor movement, so badly mistreated by the Democrats, willing to strike out in a new direction?

Adolph Reed and Mark Dudzic, both leaders in the now defunct attempt to start a Labor Party in the U.S. in the 1990s and 2000s, suggest this is due to the "strategic defeat" of the labor movement itself over these last decades.

This is true as far as it goes, but it doesn't answer the question of how to build a socialist alternative today--which takes us back to our question about the relationship between struggle and organization.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Working-Class Struggle Is the Key to Building a Mass Socialist Party

Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor identifies a good place to start when she describes how the Black Lives Matter movement developed in response to racist police violence:

[T]he formation of organizations dedicated to fighting racism through mass mobilizations, street demonstrations and other direct actions was evidence of a newly developing Black left that could vie for leadership against more established--and more tactically and politically conservative--forces.

The Black political establishment, led by Obama, had shown over and over again that it was not capable of the most basic task: keeping Black children alive. The young people would have to do it themselves.

Taylor doesn't begin by asking how Black Lives Matter might impact existing liberal forces. Rather, she identifies how an entirely new force came into being. This is what is important in the first instance.

Applying this extraordinarily important lesson to the attacks we will face in the coming years, labor historian Kim Moody warns:

There will be resistance. Rather, there will be increased resistance. And this will offer new possibilities for organizing, even in a more hostile atmosphere. At the same time, many, including not a few on the socialist left, will run for cover in the Democratic Party's "Big Tent," arguing that now is not the time to take on the Democrats, that the great task is to elect a Democratic Congress, any Democratic Congress, in 2018 to rein in Trump just as the Republicans blocked Obama after 2010, and so on.

But such a political direction will only reinforce the Democrats' neoliberalism, digital-dependency and failed strategies. We had better bear in mind what this approach has not done for the past four decades and will not do in the coming years.

Nothing of what Taylor and Moody write should be construed to mean that elections don't matter. The point is that building socialist organization cannot begin within the confines of American electoral law and then work backwards from that. Instead, we must build up social movements and unions that eventually grow powerful enough to challenge--and break--the bipartisan duopoly's lock on "politics."

Along the way, socialists may support genuinely independent candidates and organize referendums, like those calling for a $15 an hour minimum wage, for sanctuary cities, and so on.

It goes without saying that this is no easy task, but the potential for the revival of a mass socialist movement is just as alive today as it was back when Debs one a million votes for president in 1912. Any other disagreements aside, Chris Maisano of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) hits the nail on the head when he writes that:

a revival of working class organization is sine qua non for a broader revival of the Left...Continuing to see the working class in all its occupational, racial, ethnic, and sexual variety as the leading historic agency for radical change is not metaphysics--it's a recognition of the enduring realities of life under capitalism. The Next Left would do well to keep this in mind.

We are in for a rough ride in the coming years, but the truth that Maisano points to will only become more apparent as Trump grafts his macho nationalism and xenophobia onto the neoliberal order.

Objective circumstances will tend to discredit politics as usual in the eyes of millions. However, Trump's election also shows that if we don't organize a left-wing alternative, then despair and frustration can win the day. Organizing that alternative is our common challenge.

For my money, I hope you consider joining the International Socialist Organization because I believe the ISO clearly understands that socialist organization must flow from social and working-class struggle. We are dedicated to the three common tasks outlined above, and we are capable of putting our principles into action.

Besides that, the ISO stands by Rosa Luxemburg's belief that there is an "indissoluble tie" between reform and revolution. As she put it, "The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its aim."

Having said that, you should make an informed decision. Comrades from other organizations--such as DSA, Solidarity, Socialist Alternative, the Philly Socialists, Left Roots and the Kentucky Workers League, among others--are making real contributions to the revival of the socialist movement.

Political and tactical differences remain among the socialist movement. But that is nothing to fear. Disagreements can be debated fraternally and tested in practice on one simple condition: you join the socialist movement. We are not yet at the moment where a socialist party of tens of thousands can easily arise. However, there are indications that the necessary precursors--growing socialist organizations and rising struggle--are emerging.

Now is not the time to sit on the sidelines and hope history turns back from the abyss. Now is the time to join the fight for a socialist future.

Here is the original post:
Socialist organization in the time of Trump - Socialist Worker Online

National Juggernaut: This Cartoon Seemed Far-Fetched In 1948

Debbie said...

Unbelievably scary today!

How quickly people will give up their freedoms today for the illusion of security, and the false hope of prosperity through government control. Perhaps it is time for all Americans to revolt against an oppressive government, one that no longer is representative of the will of them majority, but rather the influence of bans and corporations.

I agree Fred, but we should have started standing up during the last administration and impeached our leader for his lies and scare tactics then. He feed all his cronies coffers on the backs of our hard working country and our fine military service people. He used scare tactics the like I have never seen before. We bowed down and surrendered our rights without even asking questions. Now we're jumping on the new administration for trying to find a better way, but we ignore what put us here to begin with..... It's hard to blame the farmer for the pile of horse manure, when the former leader brought the horse into the barn to begin with...

Alright, VICTOR! Great to hear a more accurate picture of where we've been and as the Nobel Peace prize committee has pointed out, there is hope of cleaning (literally) up the mess that we are in. Dianne

Heres what I noticed.

1) The cartoon presupposes a Christian America (To Mom it is church on Sunday morning), leaving out all Jews, Muslims, and all other non-Christian faiths,

2) There is a backwards-hanging American flag (in the first minute, the blue star field is ALWAYS in the upper left)

3) It is sexist (the jury whistling at the woman on the stand)

Oh, yeah, anytime a people give up their civil liberties for a small measure of security, they gain neither liberty nor security.

I am sorry for those who wrote a negative post about this carton, they missed the whole message of the carton. We live in a dark time with Peoples minds clouded with the sin of self. Our forefathers, who by the way where christians, build this nation with standards that today are according to all you liberalist have become obsolete. This country is headed for socialism or worse marxism. I wonder how all the liberalist will like our country then. GOOD LOOK WITH THAT!

Everyone blames Bush, who had to deal with Clinton's pushing the mortgage companies to give loans that they knew people couldn't pay back. Bush worked hard to keep taxes down so work would go on even after the panic of 911. Wake up. What good ever came of handouts?? Churches, of all faiths should be shouting at the rooftops for government to get out of charity work. Government is supposed to protect us from invasions and keep our laws. They are not supposed to get into our personal lives or tell us what we can and can't do.

Holy Cow!

That smooth talker reminded me of our latest Nobel prize winner... Looks good, speaks well, but buyer beware!

Terrific video and very appropriate for today. It baffles my mind that people are screaming bloody murder about government intrusision in security matters but turn around and encourage heavy government in other areas of individual rights. Bush's presidency was far from perfect but he did what he promised he would do: he kept us safe for 8 years and did his best to ensure a working economy. Only after Democrats took over Congress did things turn South, and now we are being led by a President who has not delivered on anything he promised but also willingly received an award that he did not earn nor deserve. Let's hope the next few years pass quickly and we can get a true leader in office.

Victor you had best look at the present administration instead of doing like they do and blame everything on the prior administration. They don't take responsibility for anything and obama (lower case intendedd) has put us into debt more than all the presidents before him. His agenda is to bankrupt the U.S. and then he, acorn and all the other buddies of his can remake (or as he says "transform the government). You must be a die hard democrat. Look at all the communist czars around obama and you have the audacity to talk about the previous administration. I served through two wars so don't talk about the military to me. Been there and done that. I suggest that you open your eyes. Bill

No wonder nothing gets done in Washington, it mirrors the public discourse. How can we expect our elected officials to look forward when those who elected them cannot. We always have to find someone to blame. It must have been the previous parties fault! Lets investigate all of them! No one wants to compromise anymore, it's my way or the highway. Hell, people wanted more refineries when gasoline was high, just not near their house. Some folks around the country want Green Wind Power, BUT!! Do not build big windmills near them as they are ugly. This country needs a real leader! One who will explain the problems, suggest fixes and then take it to the people. Kind of like Ronald Reagan, JFK or Harry Truman. It is time for some civility in politics in this country and one way to start is to vote against every incumbent office holder at every level of government! Just my 2 cents worth.

Actually many of our founding fathers were NOT Christians. Quite a few were agnostics, and several were Deists (who believed in God, but felt that it didn't matter how you practiced that belief).

Further, if you were to look at unvarnished view of US History you will find that there was a very strong Jewish presence during Colonial times.

I will agree that there is a load of hatred for folks who don't "believe exactly what I believe exactly the way I believe it" Have we forgotten that it is out whole "melting pot" paradigm that has made us a great nation?

To Robert who is so hung up on the religion or the Christian portrayal in the video--quite frankly, who cares? The gist of the video is about the overreaching government we have and the direction we are headed towards. As a US History teacher myself, 22 yrs, your accounting of the various religions or beliefs during the colonial period is accurate--but again, who cares? The founders were very wise in their construction and language of the Constitution--remember the Bill of Rights? Stop focusing on the mother in the church or the whistling from the bench--it's about the choice to attend the church or whistle--don't you get it?? PS and most of us normal attractive ladies don't mind a whistle or too now and then.

Absolutely amazing! I was 14 when that came out and had no clue what was being said if I then saw this "cartoon" . Here we are today pointing fingers and the message to me is there was skull drudgery way back then. A continual witling away at what makes America, America...... the freedom. A costly price to keep it clean and working. Lost two uncles and my dad ( bless his soul ) had three bullet scars in his back. The arrogance, egotistical, superior, attitude of our lawmakers, thumbing their noses at us once they're in office. There is no just and moral way anymore to get replacements into Washington that we can trust. The politicians have us scared of them and can get away with anything and if caught, the pass word is Oh, sorry, I made a mistake. and they go back in their office. "We the People" use to have the politicians scared of us. That's what gave us freedom. The politicians did for us. It wasn't we did for them.

Incredible Video!! For those who choose to pick at the details (i.e. what about the Jews, Muslims, etc., it's sexist, etc.) you must realize "It's a Cartoon!". Our country was "founded" on Christian beliefs! That doesn't mean there's no room for other faiths, only that the core belief system of our country is that of the Christian faith. Don't like it? LEAVE!

"Provide" for the common defense... that means the government will "provide" it! "Promote" the general welfare... that, on the other hand, does NOT mean "Provide"!

How this cartoon ended is how it's going to end this time, one way or another! Wake up before it's too late...

To Robert. A typical liberal who misses the big picture pointing out all the little irrelevant social issues that usually correct themselves through public pressure and the over all moral standards our country. Like a good magician who uses misdirection to make you to see only the things that he wants you to in order to mask the reality of what he is doing to you. ( Yes, the magician could have been a non-christian, gay woman from the middle-east, but I have Chosen not to make him that in my humble rant)

The point that this cartoon seems to be making, is beware of any individual, organization, or administration that attempts to escalate class, or race warfare to divide the country and make socialism appear to be the only solution. We will always have our differences, but putting the government in charge of everything, and surrendering person freedom is not the solution. - Very timely.

Mary, you are so right! And BTW you get a whistle from me for your beauty within. Friends, we who love Liberty must kick the Republicrat/Democritter habit! The petty Party battles are a ruse to keep us distracted from the REAL battle: the destruction of our Constitutional Republic. Bush surely did his part in this regard, and I'll admit, I voted for him. I'm not proud of that; I saw it as the classic "lesser of two evils", but now I realize that evil is EVIL and cannot be justified.

I know now that God always provides us with a non-evil choice, if only we are strong enough to take it. In this case, the ONLY non-evil choice is to demand our leaders honor the sacred oath they took when they took office: to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. It is up to us to hold their feet to the fire!

Those who take that oath and fail to honor it are joining the enemies of our Republic, and giving aid and comfort to those enemies. They are therefore, by Constitutional definition, Traitors. There is simply no pretty way to paint this: they are guilty of Treason! They should therefore be prosecuted for Treason to the fullest extent of the law.

And anyone who is blaming Democrats or Republicans... Obama or Bush or Clinton or anyone else... is missing the point. If you are a Patriot you should know our enemies can wear any coat they choose, wave any banner they like, and claim to be anything they think will get them elected. We must trust or distrust them purely on the basis of their actions.

I get downright sick seeing people justify Obama's un-Constitutional acts by pointing a finger at Bush, but even sicker at seeing Bush voters trying to defend the scumbag. Folks, let's try to get this straight: Obama is a weasel, but that doesn't mean Bush WASN'T. Yes, Bush WAS a weasel but he's gone now and he's done about all the damage he's likely to do, so get over it. Also, no amount of weasling on Bush's part can excuse the slightest weasling on Obama's part. Both were elected to serve our people and our free, Constitutional Republic, and both... so far at least... have failed miserably. Both took a solemn oath of fidelity to our Constitution, and both knew, as the words rolled off their tongues, they had no intention of honoring that oath.

They are both Globalists, in a long string of Globalists we have managed to elect as President. Each of them has taken, or is taking, orders from a small, clandestine group of anonymous power-brokers who can promise them a lot more than We The People can.

It would seem all is lost for those of us who love Liberty, but IT IS NOT. We must know the Enemy and call him what he is. Then we must take on the sword and armor of Almighty God, believing in Him, and unite under Him, and prepare to do battle with the Devil himself.

And if/when we do this, the Devil will stand down. He will have no choice.

I must say I'm getting sick and tired of hearing from people that voted for George W. bush and somehow now feel the need to apologise for it. I thank God for President Bush. No, he wasn't perfect, who is. But I truly believe in my heart of hearts that President Bush made decisions that he felt were in the best interests of the country and the people of the United States, whether they have a "D" or an "R" after there name, black or white, Christian, Jew or Muslim, not just because he thought it would be the best thing for his re-election coffers. I think that the Republican Congress failed him and the left wing media assassinated his character like they are doing to Sarah Palin now, another true American with the best interest of the people in her heart not political power. The kind of person the founding fathers intended to shoulder the burden of public service. How refreshing. I would trade my right arm to have "W" back right now I would even take Clinton and that is saying something.

Well, I am not exactly apologizing for voting for Bush; he really WAS the lesser of two evils. My point is, EViL IS EVIL, no matter what label you put on it. And in every instance we are given a number of choices, at least one of which will not be evil.

I believe Globalism is evil. I know for certain Obama is a Globalist, and so is Bush, and so was his daddy, and so was Clinton, and Carter, and so on. I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT, and anyone who doesn't has not been paying attention.

I am not apologizing for voting for Bush, or for any other votes I've cast in the past, but I have learned something and I'm trying to pass that knowledge along. And it is simply this: if you think you are voting for "the lesser of two evils", you are right... you are voting for EVIL! And God will not put you in a position such that your only choice is for evil, so you need to keep looking.

Sometimes we overlook good options because they seem impossible, or too much trouble, or unpopular or whatever. Sometimes we overlook options because they are, well, unthinkable. But none of that really matters if we know wee're doing the next right thing in front of us.

So okay, here is my problem with Bush, and Carter, and Clinton, and Obama and FDR and so many other presidents we have had: The Constitution of the United States of America

To the extent they upheld it, each of them garners my applause. But to the extent they ignored... or worse, circumvented... it, they have proved themselves Traitors. And in my opinion Traitors should be tried for Treason and when convicted, executed. EVERY ONE OF THEM, and I don't care if they claim to be republican or democrat or what, just as evil is EVIL, a traitor is a TRAITOR, and as such needs to be eliminated.

To those who would condemn Obama: you will get no arguement from me. I consider him the lowest of the low. But please consider, when you flash Bush up as an alternative, you discredit your argument. Please admit it: Bush is a damned Globalist! His administration set the stage for everything Obama is doing now. They are on the same team, driving our nation to the same end-point, and I am astounded so many seemingly intelligent people have failed to pick up on this!

What I'm trying to say here is so simple it seems absurd to even state it, but some folks aren't catching on: if you claim to be a democrat or republican, you have not been paying attention. Both parties intend to enslave you! Each has a slightly different approach but the result will be the same.

And we have but one defense: The Constitution! If we hold them to the letter and spirit of that document we may retain our liberty. We have been warned, if we forfeit the first piece of it we stand to lose it all, and many pieces have already been lost. If we want it back we must stand and take it now.

Sorry, but evil is too strong a word for any of these men. Bin Laden...EVIL, Hussein...EVIL. Our presidents no not evil. You must define globalist. Our place in the international community is vital to our very existence. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Sound familiar? Rep or Dem it is the system we have right now and isn't going to change anytime soon. If we want it to really change we need to get involved and initiate change from within. Not an easy task for sure but truly the only chance for it. Too much power has been accumulated already to stop it without all out revolution and you don't have the support for that i assure you.

All of you Obama apologists are only confirming the intellectual barreness of the liberal landscape.It also confirMs that the only reason Obama was able to even come close to winning the Oval office is because of an anti-Bush vote, race, promises to unions and gov. employees. There was not a single element of his entire format except bullshit promises which he has yet to perform on, soaring sermons of giving away ice cream and being a Pied Piper for all who wanted to share prosperity....SOME ONE ELSES PROSPERITY. You elected an empty shirt....and untalent hunk of nothing except hot air and and put and embarassing slice of humanity in leadership capacity.

A bunch of morons and a tele prompter elected a president.

Some observations:

1. This is propoganda for capitalism--which is fine, but call it what it is. This is directly after WWII, when McCarthyism was in full effect.

2. The automobile industry held up as the exemplary example in this video is often demonized because of its unions.

3. All of the people who are in blind support of this video seem to be resurrecting the ghosts of McCarthy when they start pulling out the socialism vs. capitalism card--and it's disingenuous when you consider that they simultaneously accuse Obama of socialism and fascism.

4. All of the doomsayers of today need to have faith in our country. The same worries existed in 1930 as 1948 as 1969 and today. We are always destined to be in tension between individual freedoms and the benefits of the collective society. Some eras swing one way, some another. This is inevitable, and it's healthy.

5. Everyone needs to relax and read some more history.

Well said Christopher!!

Anyone who ties this cartoon to a specific person misses the whole point of this message. One can just as easily point to G. W. Bush's actions as president and compare it with what is said in this narrative. A foundation to freedom is the ability to THINK, otherwise everyone will blindly follow the loudest voice.

William E., are you applying your comment to ALL recent presidents? It makes America a nation of idiots, including you.

Socialism, communism, Marxism, they're all bad. Russia and China tried them and went broke. Now our fearless leader is trying it and we are going broke. Now that those countries have switched to a capitalist type market, they're economy is growing like crazy. I wish they could pass a law that keeps liberals from running government. They don't do a very good job of it.

Robert,

The references to religion were very general in content. First, the Church on Sunday mornings. Big Deal. Are you saying other religions don't worship on Sundays. Second was in the classroom and this is what they said: "it's all races, creeds and religions" (more than one) doesn't sound like preaching Christianity to me and third was when they were listing our freedoms and they said "and to worship God in your own way".

I wish people would stop bringing up the Christianity issue. We really have more serious issues at hand; like the hijacking of our country, a President who is intentionally bankrupting us and trying to divide this country further than it already has been. We need to fire every single one of them and replace them with fresh new citizens who want to serve and their first agenda promise should be term limitations for all.

Just my thoughts.

I just wish this had been spread around to the majority of Americans who voted for change for the sake of change, whether good or bad, in the last election. Now we are all faced with taking the "medicine". Yuk.

Don't understand all the amazement. If everyone had been watching important events since Nov. 22, 1963 none of this should be amazing. In the words of Al Jolson, "You ain't seen nothin', yet!"

What is wrong with you people? Can't you admire the animation? Do you know how much time it takes to create a film of this length? Did you not admire the color? Who cares about the political side?

Fred, open your eyes man, and embrace the truth, we didn't "come close" to electing Obama. We actually did elect him, and we didn't need the Supreme Court to overturn the will of the people to do it either.

The point is...

our system is not perfect but it allows us Freedoms of choice and opportunities that simply are not available in other countries - certainly not so easily.

Forget which President or party is in power. It barely matters.

YOU are the leader of this country. Keep it that way.

To Robert J. Sodaro, specifically, it appears you feel that "church" can only be Christian, how sad. Further, as young as you are, you may not remember that most people in the 40's were Christian. Too bad you feel this is an attack on the current President, it is really an attempt to get people like you to see that it is the current organizations, Labor, Management, Politicians, and large Farmers, pushing us toward something that removes our freedoms in exchange for a false security. But that is why we are on the verge of losing it all today. And it has been in the works for over 60 years!

The very end of the film says it all: "Whenever anyone preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against the other, through class warfare, race hatred or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives...and we know what to do about it. Working together to produce an ever greater abundance of material and spiritual values for all. That is the secret of American prosperity."

However, even the comments here show that our own interpretation of that is different for each of us. At the time of this movie, the government was instituting the largest aid to the middle class ever seen...the GI Bill of 1944. That is why more people started owning homes and going to college. But, like I said, we all see in different ways.

When I hear religious freedom, I interpret that to mean the right to worship or not worship my own choice of God as I please. I hear class warfare and interpret that as the top 1% holding as much power as the lower 99% combined. I hear "an ever greater abundance of material and spiritual values" and intrepret that as a changing wider diversity of materials and broader exchange of ideas, not simply more of the same thing.

But, evidently, we all hear and see it in our own way.

Hope and Change, anyone?

"For those choose to divide us using fear...." sounds like Karl Rovian tactics for the Homeland Security Act!

Whew....so glad those days are over....

Why does the American person living in their own country constantly have to defend their beliefs and values? If we travel to other countries, do we try to reform them? We are demanded to respect their beliefs and even wear their dress in some countries. I do not know of any other country that lets others come in and then try to change their beliefs and the way they live. I don't want the government involved in my personal life and our freedom of choice and free speech and all other things free or any aspect of it. This is my country and I enjoy my freedoms, choices, my free speech, and I am able to live that way because of our Freedom that others have died for!! I do not believe that we were even being offered a choice of this so called "Health Care Reform", at least some of the Americans started opening their eyes and standing up for themselves and that is exactly what it is going to take to keep our freedom. We are going to have to fight for it just like our fathers and fore fathers have do in the past. I think Americans, which I am one born and bred in KY, have had it so easy and are so spoiled rotten that it is just easier to say ah sign it and lets go to the next step with our next "Change"..It doesn't matter to me what color you are, who you worship or how, how you dress or what you do for a living, but when you come to my house, don't start moving my stuff around or throwing away things you don't like, it doesn't belong to you!!!!People we are going to have to work together if this country is to stand proud and strong again..Unity is the only way to keep it that way. People cry "Well what about this or what about that, you didn't name this in the cartoon, come on, its a 1948 cartoon for Gods Sake!!No one has mentioned the disabled or the handicapped trying just to survive in this world today..What happens to them when the government takes control??Are they going to be herded up and sent to a camp somewhere because we are not "Normal" I can cry discrimination too!!! We have not be mentioned at all in any of this whole thing. Quit living in the past and focus on what is happening today, give your child a hug tonight and ask who ever you pray to, to keep this nation together, strong and Free!! Look in your child's eyes tonight and tell them we are fighting for them and their futures!!

I say hooray for someone finding this cartoon. Amazing at the paralell this has to todays issues. Many of you need to watch this again, without your party views getting in the way. I think the snake oil salesman can be either party quite frankly. It is time to rethink the party system and start voting for the PERSON who best shares the ideals in which this cartoon and country were founded upon. Blame, blame, blame is all you want to do. Instead why don't you try becoming a solution to the problem instead of the obstacle of blame. It is time to remove the DEM Party and the GOP Party and put in the GOD party. I am a Christian without shame and debuke those who wish to scoff at me for being so. This does not mean I am intolerant of other beliefs, as long as they are godly in their own right as far as this country is concerned. Simply put "do the right thing by others". Then we can work on a productive CARING based diaglogue without all the personal agendas. Ron

The snake-oil Democrats say:

We can have peace through weakness

We can have success without failure

We can reward the unsuccessful while punishing the successful and still have a successful economy

We can entrust the government to take care of us without taking advantage of us.

It's the stuff of children's fairly tales. Wake up America before it's too late!

I wonder who edited the video that deleted the line before "and drive 70% of automobiles". Listen again. That static is no accident. It deletes a comment that would have originally made the point that "American's have only x percent of the resources yet drive 70 percent of the automobiles."

it probably said, america has only x amount of population/people, but drive 70% of the cars, or it could just be a very old video and the result of very old editing.

Don't forget, one of the ISM's is Capitalism. Was there a reason he said Capitalist instead? Oh, I see, all of the other ISM's are really bad. Lets see about a little history. The oil debacle, mortgage crisis, health insurance, Bernie Madoff, mercantile market, ad infinitum. Sure seems like they all pretty much regulate themselves for the benefit of all. And if you buy that, ........ I voted for change the last time...the jury is still out, but it looks to me as though it's happening. And, by the way, he doesn't look like a socialist to me. But then maybe not everyone uses Rush's definition??

The politically correct movement is obviously alive and well as the first few comments attest missing the point that our country WAS FOUNDED on Christian foundations with specific laws prohibiting discrimination against other religions and preventing the states and the federal government from establishing a state/national religion and the government is restricted FROM "PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF" which has been forgotten by federal judiciary for the most part while the discrimination against Christians speaking out in the public square. We, are the only ones responsible for the loss of religious freedom for Christians by sitting on our collective behinds and expecting dishonest, deceptive politicians to protect our liberties instead of doing all they can to protect their positions of power and influence. For years the citizens voted their pocketbook over every other issue, including moral issues, and now we have the current mess that exists in our nation and the world.

I am only a little surprised that there are people in this country that are so blind as to believe that the Government is our savoir. The jury is not out on the current administration, it is full speed to a socialist society. How is it that poll after poll say the American people blame the government for all our problems but want the government to solve them. The government has been responsible for all the problems that we have seen over the last 30 years because they regulate for the result they wish with out taking into account the real results of trying to please everyone. What we are headed for is not utopia but shared misery. People wake up! Take care of your selves and quit waiting for the government to take care of you. Lazy ignorance is why we are headed to failure. Take responsibility and reject any government that seeks to take care of you cradle to grave. The grave will surely be where you are once you are no longer useful to the government.

It's amazing to me how some people see this cartoon and all they can think about is what the last administration did to us. While I don't disagree, but I do believe these are the same individuals who seem to think that what is going on now is all A-OK. This country is in real trouble and it started 20 years ago and if people don't wake up soon and stop this nonsensical idea that the government is here to help; then may God, yes I said God help us all.

Funny, why are the "christans" and right winged nut jobs are so thined skined now, but never said a word when there guy was selling us down the river,taking our rights away with the illegal wire taps,the patriot act, medicare drug handout, the illegal unjustified war were in now,corprate welfare, Haliburton, 911, etc....

Yea just keep on listing to your guru's like fox's glen beck,Bill oreally? & the $400 million dollar man rush limpdick, What a joke......

The Rich get richer by keeping the rest of us fighting amongst eachother.....

Okay, back to the cartoon. This was put out two years before the "golden age" of the 1950s. The middle class was beginning to really take the reigns of this society. The "average" American (meaning that portion of the population within one or two standard deviations of the mean in statistical terms)had a home, at least one car, food on the table and adequate clothing. Reasonable vacations could be taken and luxuries such as televisions and high fidelity players could be bought at a reasonable price. Most homes had a telephone, running hot and cold water, indoor lavatory, and electricity. Some had it better than others. Some had it worse. There were still the very poor and the very rich.

Please recall that this "utopia" did not last particularly long. The Korean "War" and then Vietnam were the catalysts for a great deal of social unrest...which could not have occured if there had not been a thriving middle class in America who had the luxury of revolting or trying to maintain the status quo or trying to walk a middle line and every other point on the spectrum between radical liberals and radical conservatives. People in countries that don't grant individual rights and freedoms don't have the luxury of holding the kinds of relatively "peaceful" debates that we do here in America.

Folks, we still live in a great country. We have forgotten, however, that it IS great and that WE are great.

So, we have a high rate of unemployment right now. Okay. We just need to come together and decide how we are going to share our resources so that everyone has at least enough to subsist. Some of the greatest stories in our history are of people helping each other in time of need.

So, some people are losing their homes. WE have. We couldn't afford it. These things happen. We are renting a nice enough space and happy to have a roof over our heads. Just because we used to have something doesn't mean we should continue to have it. Some people are living on the streets or in their cars and I am amazed at the way some of these people, children in particular, can find the smallest and simplest things with which to be happy or contented.

Go here to see the original:
National Juggernaut: This Cartoon Seemed Far-Fetched In 1948

Socialism and the Fight Against Imperialist War | Socialist …

Statement of the International Committee of the Fourth International

1. One hundred years after the outbreak of World War I and 75 years after the start of World War II, the imperialist system is once again threatening humanity with a catastrophe.

2. The breakdown of global capitalism that erupted in 2008 has vastly accelerated the predatory drive by the imperialist powers for a new division and redivision of the world. Already, in the two decades since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the major imperialist powers have visited destruction and death on millions of people in wars in the Balkans, Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. Time and again they have proven their indifference to human suffering. Now, a qualitatively new stage in the crisis of imperialism has been reachedone in which the major powers are risking a nuclear conflagration.

3. The danger of a new world war arises out of the fundamental contradictions of the capitalist systembetween the development of a global economy and its division into antagonistic nation states, in which the private ownership of the means of production is rooted. This finds its most acute expression in the drive of US imperialism to dominate the Eurasian landmass, above all those areas from which it was excluded for decades by the Russian and Chinese revolutions. In the west, the US, in league with Germany, has orchestrated a fascist-led coup to bring Ukraine under its control. But its ambitions do not stop there. The ultimate objective is to dismember the Russian Federation, reducing it to a series of semi-colonies to open the way for the plunder of its vast natural resources. In the east, the Obama administrations pivot to Asia is aimed at encircling China and transforming it into a semi-colony. Here, the objective is to ensure domination of the cheap labour that is one of the key global sources of the surplus value extracted from the working class and the life-blood of the capitalist economy.

4. At present, Washington is pursuing these objectives with the collaboration of the other major imperialist powers. However, there is no permanent coincidence of interests among them. German imperialism, which fought two wars with the US in the 20th century, is reviving its imperial ambitions. Having secured the dominant position in Western Europe, it is seeking to become a world power. Likewise in Asia, Japan is remilitarising in order to pursue its own longstanding ambitions for regional hegemony. To legitimise this turn, systematic efforts are being made to whitewash the monstrous crimes of the Nazis and the Japanese imperial army in the 1930s and 1940s.

5. All of the imperialist powersincluding Britain, France, Canada and Australiaare taking full part in this struggle for spheres of influence. Every area of the globe is a source of bitter conflict: not only the former colonies and semi-colonies in the Middle East, Africa and Asia but also the Arctic, Antarctic and even outer space and cyberspace. These conflicts, in turn, are breeding tensions leading to separatist tendencies, ethnic divisions and communal fighting.

6. The Russian and Chinese regimes do not constitute a counterweight to the imperialist war drive. Both represent a criminal oligarchy that emerged from the restoration of capitalism carried out by the Stalinist bureaucracies, and seek only to defend their interests. Not only do they bear political responsibility for the terrible dangers now facing the Russian and Chinese masses, but the nationalism they are whipping up serves to divide the working class.

7. Another imperialist bloodbath is not only possible; it is inevitable unless the international working class intervenes on the basis of a revolutionary Marxist program. The two world wars of the 20th century arose out of the contradiction between global economy and the outmoded nation-state system. Each of the imperialist powers sought to resolve this contradiction by striving for world hegemony. The globalisation of production over the past three decades, resulting in a further qualitative leap in the integration of the world economy, has brought the fundamental contradictions of capitalism to a new peak of intensity.

8. The collision of imperialist and national state interests expresses the impossibility, under capitalism, of organising a globally-integrated economy on a rational foundation and thus ensuring the harmonious development of the productive forces. However, the same contradictions driving imperialism to the brink provide the objective impulse for social revolution. The globalisation of production has led to a massive growth of the working class. Only this social force, which owes no allegiance to any nation, is capable of putting an end to the profit system, which is the root cause of war.

9. All the great issues confronting the working classthe growth of social inequality, the resort to authoritarian forms of ruleare inseparable components of this struggle. There can be no fight for socialism without a struggle against war and there can be no fight against war without a struggle for socialism. Imperialist war must be opposed by the working class, leading behind it the youth and oppressed masses, on the basis of a socialist program: the fight to take political power, expropriate the banks and major corporations and begin the task of constructing a world federation of workers states.

10. The International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) resolves to place the struggle against war at the centre of its political work. It must become the international centre of revolutionary opposition to the resurgence of imperialist violence and militarism. There is no other organisation that even aims to carry out this task. Innumerable former pacifists, liberals, Greens and anarchists have positioned themselves behind the imperialist war drive under the fraudulent banner of human rights. Similarly, the pseudo-left tendencies such as the Pabloites and the state capitalists, having denounced knee jerk anti-imperialism, are lined up behind US aggression against Russia and China.

11. The building of the Fourth International, under the leadership of the International Committee, is the central strategic question. It is the only conceivable means through which the working class can be unified internationally. The online May Day rally held on May 4, attended by people from 92 countries, revealed the growing support for the revolutionary perspective of the ICFI and the potential for its development as the world party of socialist revolution. The task of the ICFI now is to work for the development of sections in new countries and areas of the world.

Adopted by the International Committee of the Fourth International on June 9, 2014.

Visit link:
Socialism and the Fight Against Imperialist War | Socialist ...

History of socialism – Wikipedia

The history of socialism has its origins in the French Revolution of 1789 and the changes brought about by the French Revolution, although it has precedents in earlier movements and ideas. The Communist Manifesto was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848 just before the Revolutions of 1848 swept Europe, expressing what they termed 'scientific socialism'. In the last third of the 19th century in Europe social democratic parties arose in Europe drawing mainly from Marxism. The Australian Labor Party was the world's first elected socialist party when the party won the 1899 Queensland state election.[1]

In the first half of the twentieth century, the Soviet Union and the Communist parties of the Third International around the world mainly came to represent socialism in terms of the Soviet model of economic development, the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production, although other trends condemned what they saw as the lack of democracy. In the UK Herbert Morrison said "Socialism is what the Labour government does", whereas Aneurin Bevan argued that socialism requires that the "main streams of economic activity are brought under public direction", with an economic plan and workers' democracy.[2] Some argued that capitalism had been abolished.[3] Socialist governments established the 'mixed economy' with partial nationalisations and social welfare.

By 1968, the prolonged Vietnam War (19591975), gave rise to the New Left, socialists who tended to be critical of the Soviet Union and social democracy. Anarcho-syndicalists and some elements of the New Left and others favored decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils. At the turn of the 21st century, in Latin America, Venezuelan President Hugo Chvez championed what he termed 'Socialism of the 21st Century', which included a policy of nationalisation of national assets such as oil, anti-imperialism, and termed himself a Trotskyist supporting 'permanent revolution'.[4]

Mazdak (died c. 524 or 528) preached and instituted a religion-based socialist or proto-socialist system in the Zoroastrian context of Sassanian Persia.[5]

In Britain Thomas Paine proposed a detailed plan to tax property owners to pay for the needs of the poor in Agrarian Justice[6] (1797), while Charles Hall wrote The Effects of Civilization on the People in European States (1805), denouncing capitalism's effects on the poor of his time.[7]

The English word "socialist" in its modern sense dates from at least 1822.[8]

Chartism, which flourished from 1838 to 1858,

"formed the first organized labour movement in Europe, gathering significant numbers around the People's Charter of 1838, which demanded the extension of suffrage to all male adults. Prominent leaders in the movement also called for a more equitable distribution of income and better living conditions for the working classes. The very first trade unions and consumers cooperative societies also emerged in the hinterland of the Chartist movement, as a way of bolstering the fight for these demands."[9]

By 1842 socialism "had become the topic of a major academic analysis by a German scholar, Lorenz von Stein, in his Socialism and Social Movement.[10][11] According to an 1888 volume of A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles, the word socialism first appeared on 13 February 1832 in Le Globe, a liberal French newspaper of Pierre Leroux.[12] Leroux returned to the theme of "socialism" in 1834,[13] and Louis Reybaud (1799-1879) published tudes sur les rformateurs contemporains ou socialistes modernes in 1842 in France.[14] In England Robert Owen (1771-1858) was also using the term socialism independently[citation needed] around the same time. Owen is considered[by whom?] the father of the cooperative movement.[15]

The first modern socialists were early 19th-century Western European social critics. In this period socialism emerged from a diverse array of doctrines and social experiments associated primarily with British and French thinkersespecially Robert Owen, Charles Fourier (1772-1837), Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865), Louis Blanc (1811-1882), and Saint-Simon (1760-1825). Early-19th-century followers of the utopian theories of such thinkers as Robert Owen, Claude Henri de Saint-Simon and Charles Fourier used the term "associationism" to describe their beliefs.[16] These social critics criticized the excesses of poverty and inequality of the Industrial Revolution, and advocated reforms such as the egalitarian distribution of wealth and the transformation of society into small communities in which private property was to be abolished. Outlining principles for the reorganization of society along collectivist lines, Saint-Simon and Owen sought to build socialism on the foundations of planned, utopian communities. According to Sheldon Richman, "[i]n the 19th and early 20th centuries, 'socialism' did not exclusively mean collective or government ownership of the means or production but was an umbrella term for anyone who believed labor was cheated out of its natural product under historical capitalism",[17]

According to some accounts,[which?] the use of the words "socialism" or "communism" related to the perceived attitude toward religion in a given culture. Continental Europeans considered "communism" more atheistic then "socialism". In England, however, "communism" sounded too close to communion - with Catholic overtones; hence atheists preferred to call themselves socialists.[18][need quotation to verify]

By 1847, according to Frederick Engels, "Socialism" was "respectable" on the continent of Europe, while "Communism" was the opposite; the Owenites in England and the Fourierists in France were considered Socialists, while working-class movements which "proclaimed the necessity of total social change" termed themselves "Communists". This latter trend was "powerful enough" to produce the communism of tienne Cabet in France and of Wilhelm Weitling in Germany.[19] In the post-revolutionary period right after the French Revolution of 1789, activists and theorists like Franois-Nol Babeuf, Filippo Buonarroti, and Auguste Blanqui influenced the early French labour and socialist movements.[10]

Josiah Warren is widely regarded[by whom?] as the first American anarchist,[20] and the four-page weekly paper he edited during 1833, The Peaceful Revolutionist, was the first anarchist periodical published.[21] Anarchist Peter Sabatini reports that in the United States

"of early to mid-19th century, there appeared an array of communal and 'utopian' counterculture groups (including the so-called free love movement). William Godwin's anarchism exerted an ideological influence on some of this, but more so the socialism of Robert Owen and Charles Fourier. After success of his British venture, Owen himself established a cooperative community within the United States at New Harmony, Indiana during 1825. One member of this commune was Josiah Warren (17981874), considered to be the first individualist anarchist".[22]

For American anarchist historian Eunice Minette Schuster "[i]t is apparent ... that Proudhonian Anarchism was to be found in the United States at least as early as 1848 and that it was not conscious of its affinity to the Individualist Anarchism of Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews ... William B. Greene presented this Proudhonian Mutualism in its purest and most systematic form."[23] There were also currents inspired by dissident Christianity of Christian socialism "often in Britain and then usually coming out of left liberal politics and a romantic anti-industrialism",[10] which produced theorists such as Edward Bellamy (1850-1898), Frederick Denison Maurice and Charles Kingsley.[24]

Henri de Saint-Simon (born Oct. 17, 1760, Paris, France; died May 19, 1825, Paris), who is called[by whom?] the founder of French socialism, argued that a brotherhood of man must accompany the scientific organization of industry and society. He proposed:

Franois Marie Charles Fourier (7 April 1772 10 October 1837) was a French utopian socialist and philosopher. Modern scholars[which?] credit Fourier with having originated the word fminisme in 1837;[26] as early as 1808, he had argued, in the Theory of the Four Movements, that the extension of the liberty of women was the general principle of all social progress, though he disdained any attachment to a discourse of "equal rights". Fourier inspired the founding of the communist community called La Reunion near present-day Dallas, Texas, as well as several other communities within the United States of America, such as the North American Phalanx in New Jersey and Community Place and five others in New York State. Fourierism manifested itself "in the middle of the 19th century (where) literally hundreds of communes (phalansteries) were founded on fourierist principles in France, N. America, Mexico, S. America, Algeria, Yugoslavia, etc."[27]

Robert Owen (1771-1858) advocated the transformation of society into small, local collectives without such elaborate systems of social organization. Owen managed mills for many years. He transformed life in the village of New Lanark with ideas and opportunities which were at least a hundred years ahead of their time.[citation needed] Child labor and corporal punishment were abolished, and villagers were provided with decent homes, schools and evening classes, free health-care, and affordable food.[28]

The UK government's Factory Act of 1833 attempted to reduce the hours adults and children worked in the textile industry. A fifteen-hour working day was to start at 5.30 a.m. and to cease at 8.30 p.m. Children of nine to thirteen years could work no more than 9 hours, and workers of a younger age were prohibited. There were, however, only four factory inspectors, and factory owners flouted this law.[29] In the same year Owen stated:

Leaving England for the United States, Robert Owen and his sons began an experiment with a socialist community in New Harmony, Indiana in 1825. Advertisements announced the experiment for the cooperative colony, bringing various people to attempt an 8-hour work-day of which Owen was a proponent. The town banned money and other commodities for trade, using "labour tickets" denominated in the number of hours worked.[31]

Owen's son, Robert Dale Owen, would say of the failed socialism experiment that the people at New Harmony were "a heterogeneous collection of radicals, enthusiastic devotees to principle, honest latitudinarians, and lazy theorists, with a sprinkling of unprincipled sharpers thrown in".[31] The larger community lasted only until 1827, at which time smaller communities were formed, which led to further subdivision, until individualism replaced socialism in 1828. New Harmony dissolved in 1829 due to constant quarrels as parcels of land and property were sold and returned to private use.[31]

Individualist anarchist Josiah Warren, who was one of the original participants in the New Harmony Society, saw the community as doomed to failure due to a lack of individual sovereignty and private property. He wrote of the community:

"It seemed that the difference of opinion, tastes and purposes increased just in proportion to the demand for conformity. Two years were worn out in this way; at the end of which, I believe that not more than three persons had the least hope of success. Most of the experimenters left in despair of all reforms, and conservatism felt itself confirmed. We had tried every conceivable form of organization and government. We had a world in miniature. --we had enacted the French revolution over again with despairing hearts instead of corpses as a result. ...It appeared that it was nature's own inherent law of diversity that had conquered us ...our 'united interests' were directly at war with the individualities of persons and circumstances and the instinct of self-preservation... and it was evident that just in proportion to the contact of persons or interests, so are concessions and compromises indispensable." (Periodical Letter II 1856).

In a Paper Dedicated to the Governments of Great Britain, Austria, Russia, France, Prussia and the United States of America written in 1841, Owen wrote: "The lowest stage of humanity is experienced when the individual must labor for a small pittance of wages from others."[32]

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) pronounced that "property is theft" and that socialism was "every aspiration towards the amelioration of society".[citation needed] Proudhon termed himself an anarchist and proposed that free association of individuals should replace the coercive state.[33][34] Proudhon himself, Benjamin Tucker, and others developed these ideas in a mutualist direction, while Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876), Piotr Kropotkin (1842-1921), and others adapted Proudhon's ideas in a more conventionally socialist direction.

In a letter to Marx in 1846, Proudhon wrote:

Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876), the father of modern anarchism, was a libertarian socialist, a theory by which the workers would directly manage the means of production through their own productive associations. There would be "equal means of subsistence, support, education, and opportunity for every child, boy or girl, until maturity, and equal resources and facilities in adulthood to create his own well-being by his own labor."[35]

While many socialists emphasized the gradual transformation of society, most notably through the foundation of small, utopian communities, a growing number of socialists became disillusioned with the viability of this approach and instead emphasized direct political action. Early socialists were united, however, in their desire for a society based on cooperation rather than competition.

The French Revolution of 1789, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote, "abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property".[36] The French Revolution was preceded and influenced by the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose Social Contract famously began, "Man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains."[37] Rousseau is credited with influencing socialist thought, but it was Franois-Nol Babeuf, and his Conspiracy of Equals, who is credited with providing a model for left-wing and communist movements of the 19th century.

Marx and Engels drew from these socialist or communist ideas born in the French revolution, as well as from the German philosophy of GWF Hegel, and English political economy, particularly that of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism, more commonly called Marxism. Marxism comprised a theory of history (historical materialism) as well as a political, economic and philosophical theory.

In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, written in 1848 just days before the outbreak of the revolutions of 1848, Marx and Engels wrote, "The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property." Unlike those Marx described as utopian socialists, Marx determined that, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles". While utopian socialists believed it was possible to work within or reform capitalist society, Marx confronted the question of the economic and political power of the capitalist class, expressed in their ownership of the means of producing wealth (factories, banks, commerce in a word, 'Capital'). Marx and Engels formulated theories regarding the practical way of achieving and running a socialist system, which they saw as only being achieved by those who produce the wealth in society, the toilers, workers or "proletariat", gaining common ownership of their workplaces, the means of producing wealth.

Marx believed that capitalism could only be overthrown by means of a revolution carried out by the working class: "The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority."[38] Marx believed that the proletariat was the only class with both the cohesion, the means and the determination to carry the revolution forward. Unlike the utopian socialists, who often idealised agrarian life and deplored the growth of modern industry, Marx saw the growth of capitalism and an urban proletariat as a necessary stage towards socialism.

For Marxists, socialism or, as Marx termed it, the first phase of communist society, can be viewed as a transitional stage characterized by common or state ownership of the means of production under democratic workers' control and management, which Engels argued was beginning to be realised in the Paris Commune of 1871, before it was overthrown.[39] Socialism to them is simply the transitional phase between capitalism and "higher phase of communist society". Because this society has characteristics of both its capitalist ancestor and is beginning to show the properties of communism, it will hold the means of production collectively but distributes commodities according to individual contribution.[40] When the socialist state (the dictatorship of the proletariat) naturally withers away, what will remain is a society in which human beings no longer suffer from alienation and "all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly." Here "society inscribe[s] on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"[40] For Marx, a communist society entails the absence of differing social classes and thus the end of class warfare. According to Marx and Engels, once a socialist society had been ushered in, the state would begin to "wither away",[41] and humanity would be in control of its own destiny for the first time.

In Europe, harsh reaction followed the revolutions of 1848, during which ten countries had experienced brief or long-term social upheaval as groups carried out nationalist uprisings. After most of these attempts at systematic change ended in failure, conservative elements took advantage of the divided groups of socialists, anarchists, liberals, and nationalists, to prevent further revolt.[42] The International Workingmen's Association (IWA), also known as the First International, was founded in London in 1864. Victor Le Lubez, a French radical republican living in London, invited Karl Marx to come to London as a representative of German workers.[43] The IWA held a preliminary conference in 1865, and had its first congress at Geneva in 1866. Marx was appointed a member of the committee, and according to Saul Padover, Marx and Johann Georg Eccarius, a tailor living in London, became "the two mainstays of the International from its inception to its end".[43] The First International became the first major international forum for the promulgation of socialist ideas. In 1864 the International Workingmen's Association (sometimes called the "First International") united diverse revolutionary currents including French followers of Proudhon,[44]Blanquists, Philadelphes, English trade unionists, socialists and social democrats.

In 1868, following their unsuccessful participation in the League of Peace and Freedom (LPF), Russian revolutionary Mikhail Bakunin and his collectivist anarchist associates joined the First International (which had decided not to get involved with the LPF).[45] They allied themselves with the federalist socialist sections of the International,[46] who advocated the revolutionary overthrow of the state and the collectivization of property.

The Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany was founded in 1869 under the influence of Marx and Engels. In 1875, it merged with the General German Workers' Association of Ferdinand Lassalle to become what is known today as the German Social Democratic Party (SPD). Socialism became increasingly associated with newly formed trade unions. In Germany, the SPD founded unions. In Austria, France and other European countries, socialist parties and anarchists played a prominent role in forming and building up trade unions, especially from the 1870s onwards. This stood in contrast to the British experience, where moderate New Model Unions dominated the union movement from the mid-nineteenth century, and where trade unionism was stronger than the political labour movement until the formation and growth of the Labour Party in the early twentieth century.

At first, the collectivists worked with the Marxists to push the First International in a more revolutionary socialist direction. Subsequently, the International became polarised into two camps, with Marx and Bakunin as their respective figureheads.[47] Bakunin characterised Marx's ideas as centralist and predicted that, if a Marxist party came to power, its leaders would simply take the place of the ruling class they had fought against.[48][49] In 1872, the conflict climaxed with a final split between the two groups at the Hague Congress, where Bakunin and James Guillaume were expelled from the International and its headquarters were transferred to New York. In response, the federalist sections formed their own International at the St. Imier Congress, adopting a revolutionary anarchist program.[50]

In 1871, in the wake of the Franco-Prussian War, an uprising in Paris established the Paris Commune. The Paris Commune was a government that briefly ruled Paris from 18 March (more formally, from 28 March) to 28 May 1871. The Commune was the result of an uprising in Paris after France was defeated in the Franco-Prussian War. Anarchists participated actively in the establishment of the Paris Commune. The 92 members of the Communal Council included a high proportion of skilled workers and several professionals. Many of them were political activists, ranging from reformist republicans, various types of socialists, to the Jacobins who tended to look back nostalgically to the Revolution of 1789. The "reforms initiated by the Commune, such as the re-opening of workplaces as co-operatives, anarchists can see their ideas of associated labour beginning to be realised...Moreover, the Commune's ideas on federation obviously reflected the influence of Proudhon on French radical ideas. Indeed, the Commune's vision of a communal France based on a federation of delegates bound by imperative mandates issued by their electors and subject to recall at any moment echoes Bakunin's and Proudhon's ideas (Proudhon, like Bakunin, had argued in favour of the "implementation of the binding mandate" in 1848...and for federation of communes). George Woodcock manifests that "a notable contribution to the activities of the Commune and particularly to the organization of public services was made by members of various anarchist factions, including the mutualists Courbet, Longuet, and Vermorel, the libertarian collectivists Varlin, Malon, and Lefrangais, and the bakuninists Elie and Elise Reclus and Louise Michel." The veteran leader of the Blanquist group of revolutionary socialists, Louis Auguste Blanqui, was hoped by his followers to be a potential leader of the revolution, but he had been arrested on March 17 and was held in prison throughout the life of the Commune. The Commune unsuccessfully tried to exchange him, first against Georges Darboy, Archbishop of Paris, then against all 74 hostages it detained, but Thiers flatly refused. Some women organized a feminist movement, following on from earlier attempts in 1789 and 1848. Thus, Nathalie Lemel, a socialist bookbinder, and lisabeth Dmitrieff, a young Russian exile and member of the Russian section of the First International (IWA), created the Union des femmes pour la dfense de Paris et les soins aux blesss ("Women's Union for the Defense of Paris and Care of the Wounded") on April 11, 1871. The Women's Union also participated in several municipal commissions and organized cooperative workshops.[51]

According to Marx and Engels, for a few weeks the Paris Commune provided a glimpse of a socialist society, before it was brutally suppressed by the French government.

From the outset the Commune was compelled to recognize that the working class, once come to power, could not manage with the old state machine; that in order not to lose again its only just conquered supremacy, this working class must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself, and, on the other, safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment.

Following the 1871 Paris Commune, the socialist movement, as the whole of the workers' movement, was decapitated and deeply affected for years.

As the ideas of Marx and Engels took on flesh, particularly in central Europe, socialists sought to unite in an international organisation. In 1889, on the centennial of the French Revolution of 1789, the Second International was founded, with 384 delegates from 20 countries representing about 300 labour and socialist organizations.[53]Anarchists were ejected and not allowed in mainly because of the pressure from marxists.[54]

Just before his death in 1895, Engels argued that there was now a "single generally recognised, crystal clear theory of Marx" and a "single great international army of socialists". Despite its illegality due to the Anti-Socialist Laws of 1878, the Social Democratic Party of Germany's use of the limited universal male suffrage were "potent" new methods of struggle which demonstrated their growing strength and forced the dropping of the Anti-Socialist legislation in 1890, Engels argued.[55] In 1893, the German SPD obtained 1,787,000 votes, a quarter of votes cast. However, before the leadership of the SPD published Engels' 1895 Introduction to Marx's Class Struggles in France 18481850, they removed certain phrases they felt were too revolutionary.[56]

Marx believed that it was possible to have a peaceful socialist transformation in England, although the British ruling class would then revolt against such a victory.[57] America and the Netherlands might also have a peaceful transformation, but not in France, where Marx believed there had been "perfected... an enormous bureaucratic and military organisation, with its ingenious state machinery" which must be forcibly overthrown. However, eight years after Marx's death, Engels argued that it was possible to achieve a peaceful socialist revolution in France, too.[58]

The SPD was by far the most powerful of the social democratic parties. Its votes reached 4.5 million, it had 90 daily newspapers, together with trade unions and co-ops, sports clubs, a youth organization, a women's organization and hundreds of full-time officials. Under the pressure of this growing party, Bismarck introduced limited welfare provision and working hours were reduced. Germany experienced sustained economic growth for more than forty years. Commentators suggest that this expansion, together with the concessions won, gave rise to illusions amongst the leadership of the SPD that capitalism would evolve into socialism gradually.

Beginning in 1896, in a series of articles published under the title "Problems of socialism", Eduard Bernstein argued that an evolutionary transition to socialism was both possible and more desirable than revolutionary change. Bernstein and his supporters came to be identified as "revisionists" because they sought to revise the classic tenets of Marxism. Although the orthodox Marxists in the party, led by Karl Kautsky, retained the Marxist theory of revolution as the official doctrine of the party, and it was repeatedly endorsed by SPD conferences, in practice the SPD leadership became increasingly reformist.

Bernstein coined the aphorism: "The movement is everything, the final goal nothing". But the path of reform appeared blocked to the Russian Marxists while Russia remained the bulwark of reaction. In the preface to the 1882 Russian edition to the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels had saluted the Russian Marxists who, they said, "formed the vanguard of revolutionary action in Europe". But the working class, although many were organised in vast modern western-owned enterprises, comprised no more than a small percentage of the population and "more than half the land is owned in common by the peasants". Marx and Engels posed the question: How was Russia to progress to socialism? Could Russia "pass directly" to socialism or "must it first pass through the same process" of capitalist development as the West? They replied: "If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development."[59]

In 1903, the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party began to split on ideological and organizational questions into Bolshevik ('Majority') and Menshevik ('Minority') factions, with Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin leading the more radical Bolsheviks. Both wings accepted that Russia was an economically backward country unripe for socialism. The Mensheviks awaited the capitalist revolution in Russia. But Lenin argued that a revolution of the workers and peasants would achieve this task. After the Russian revolution of 1905, Leon Trotsky argued that unlike the French revolution of 1789 and the European Revolutions of 1848 against absolutism, the capitalist class would never organise a revolution in Russia to overthrow absolutism, and that this task fell to the working class who, liberating the peasantry from their feudal yoke, would then immediately pass on to the socialist tasks and seek a "permanent revolution" to achieve international socialism.[60] Assyrian nationalist Freydun Atturaya tried to create regional self-government for the Assyrian people with the socialism ideology. He even wrote the Urmia Manifesto of the United Free Assyria. However, his attempt was put to an end by Russia.

In 1877, the Socialist Labor Party of America was founded. This party, which advocated Marxism and still exists today, was a confederation of small Marxist parties and came under the leadership of Daniel De Leon. In 1901, a merger between opponents of De Leon and the younger Social Democratic Party joined with Eugene V. Debs to form the Socialist Party of America. In 1905, the Industrial Workers of the World formed from several independent labor unions. The IWW opposed the political means of Debs and De Leon, as well as the craft unionism of Samuel Gompers. In 1910, the Sewer Socialists, the main group of American socialists, elected Victor Berger as a socialist Congressman and Emil Seidel as a socialist mayor of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, most of the other elected city officials being socialist as well. This Socialist Party of America grew to 150,000 in 1912 and polled 897,000 votes in the presidential campaign of that year, 6 percent of the total vote. Socialist mayor Daniel Hoan, was elected in 1916 and stayed in office until 1940. The final Socialist mayor, Frank P. Zeidler, was elected in 1948 and served three terms, ending in 1960. Milwaukee remained the hub of Socialism during these years. The Socialist Party declined after the First World War. By the 1880s anarcho-communism was already present in the United States as can be seen in the publication of the journal Freedom: A Revolutionary Anarchist-Communist Monthly by Lucy Parsons and Lizzy Holmes.[61] Around that time these American anarcho-communist sectors entered in debate with the individualist anarchist group around Benjamin Tucker.[62]

French socialism was beheaded by the suppression of the Paris commune (1871), its leaders killed or exiled. But in 1879, at the Marseille Congress, workers' associations created the Federation of the Socialist Workers of France. Three years later, Jules Guesde and Paul Lafargue, the son-in-law of Karl Marx, left the federation and founded the French Workers' Party.

The Federation of the Socialist Workers of France was termed "possibilist" because it advocated gradual reforms, whereas the French Workers' Party promoted Marxism. In 1905 these two trends merged to form the French Section Franaise de l'Internationale Ouvrire (SFIO), led by Jean Jaurs and later Lon Blum. In 1906 it won 56 seats in Parliament. The SFIO adhered to Marxist ideas but became, in practice, a reformist party. By 1914 it had more than 100 members in the Chamber of Deputies.

When World War I began in 1914, many European socialist leaders supported their respective governments' war aims. The social democratic parties in the UK, France, Belgium and Germany supported their respective state's wartime military and economic planning, discarding their commitment to internationalism and solidarity.

Lenin, in his April Theses, denounced the war as an imperialist conflict, and urged workers worldwide to use it as an occasion for proletarian revolution. The Second International dissolved during the war, while Lenin, Trotsky, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, together with a small number of other Marxists opposed to the war, came together in the Zimmerwald Conference in September 1915.

Anarchism as a social movement has regularly endured fluctuations in popularity. Its classical period, which scholars demarcate as from 1860 to 1939, is associated with the working-class movements of the 19th century and the Spanish Civil War-era struggles against fascism.[63]

In 1864 the International Workingmen's Association (sometimes called the "First International") united diverse revolutionary currents including French followers of Proudhon,[65]Blanquists, Philadelphes, English trade unionists, socialists and social democrats. Proudhon's followers, the mutualists, opposed Marx's state socialism, advocating political abstentionism and small property holdings.[66][67]

The anti-authoritarian sections of the First International were the precursors of the anarcho-syndicalists, seeking to "replace the privilege and authority of the State" with the "free and spontaneous organization of labor."[68]

In 1907, the International Anarchist Congress of Amsterdam gathered delegates from 14 different countries, among which important figures of the anarchist movement, including Errico Malatesta, Pierre Monatte, Luigi Fabbri, Benot Broutchoux, Emma Goldman, Rudolf Rocker, and Christiaan Cornelissen. Various themes were treated during the Congress, in particular concerning the organisation of the anarchist movement, popular education issues, the general strike or antimilitarism. A central debate concerned the relation between anarchism and syndicalism (or trade unionism). The Spanish Workers Federation in 1881 was the first major anarcho-syndicalist movement; anarchist trade union federations were of special importance in Spain. The most successful was the Confederacin Nacional del Trabajo (National Confederation of Labour: CNT), founded in 1910. Before the 1940s, the CNT was the major force in Spanish working class politics, attracting 1.58 million members at one point and playing a major role in the Spanish Civil War.[69] The CNT was affiliated with the International Workers Association, a federation of anarcho-syndicalist trade unions founded in 1922, with delegates representing two million workers from 15 countries in Europe and Latin America.

Some anarchists, such as Johann Most, advocated publicizing violent acts of retaliation against counter-revolutionaries because "we preach not only action in and for itself, but also action as propaganda."[70] Numerous heads of state were assassinated between 1881 and 1914 by members of the anarchist movement. For example, U.S. President McKinley's assassin Leon Czolgosz claimed to have been influenced by anarchist and feminist Emma Goldman.

Anarchists participated alongside the Bolsheviks in both February and October revolutions, and were initially enthusiastic about the Bolshevik coup.[71] However, the Bolsheviks soon turned against the anarchists and other left-wing opposition, a conflict that culminated in the 1921 Kronstadt rebellion which the new government repressed. Anarchists in central Russia were either imprisoned, driven underground or joined the victorious Bolsheviks; the anarchists from Petrograd and Moscow fled to the Ukraine.[72] There, in the Free Territory, they fought in the civil war against the Whites (a Western-backed grouping of monarchists and other opponents of the October Revolution) and then the Bolsheviks as part of the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine led by Nestor Makhno, who established an anarchist society in the region for a number of months.

In the 1920s and 1930s, the rise of fascism in Europe transformed anarchism's conflict with the state.

In Spain, the CNT initially refused to join a popular front electoral alliance, and abstention by CNT supporters led to a right wing election victory. But in 1936, the CNT changed its policy and anarchist votes helped bring the popular front back to power. Months later, the former ruling class responded with an attempted coup causing the Spanish Civil War (19361939).[73] In response to the army rebellion, an anarchist-inspired movement of peasants and workers, supported by armed militias, took control of Barcelona and of large areas of rural Spain where they collectivised the land.[74] But even before the fascist victory in 1939, the anarchists were losing ground in a bitter struggle with the Stalinists, who controlled the distribution of military aid to the Republican cause from the Soviet Union. Stalinist-led troops suppressed the collectives and persecuted both dissident Marxists and anarchists.[75]

A surge of popular interest in anarchism occurred during the 1960s and 1970s.[76] In 1968 in Carrara, Italy the International of Anarchist Federations was founded during an international Anarchist conference in Carrara in 1968 by the three existing European federations of France, the Italian and the Iberian Anarchist Federation as well as the Bulgarian federation in French exile.[77][78] In the United Kingdom this was associated with the punk rock movement, as exemplified by bands such as Crass and the Sex Pistols.[79] The housing and employment crisis in most of Western Europe led to the formation of communes and squatter movements like that of Barcelona, Spain. In Denmark, squatters occupied a disused military base and declared the Freetown Christiania, an autonomous haven in central Copenhagen.

Since the revival of anarchism in the mid 20th century,[80] a number of new movements and schools of thought emerged.

Around the turn of the 21st century, anarchism grew in popularity and influence as part of the anti-war, anti-capitalist, and anti-globalisation movements.[81] Anarchists became known for their involvement in protests against the meetings of the World Trade Organization (WTO), Group of Eight, and the World Economic Forum. Some anarchist factions at these protests engaged in rioting, property destruction, and violent confrontations with police, and the confrontations were selectively portrayed in mainstream media coverage as violent riots. These actions were precipitated by ad hoc, leaderless, anonymous cadres known as black blocs; other organisational tactics pioneered in this time include security culture, affinity groups and the use of decentralised technologies such as the internet.[81] A landmark struggle of this period was the confrontations at WTO conference in Seattle in 1999.[81]

International anarchist federations in existence include the International of Anarchist Federations, the International Workers' Association, and International Libertarian Solidarity.

The Social Democratic Party (SPD) in Germany became the largest and most powerful socialist party in Europe, despite working illegally until the anti-socialist laws were dropped in 1890. In the 1893 elections it gained 1,787,000 votes, a quarter of the total votes cast, according to Engels. In 1895, the year of his death, Engels emphasised the Communist Manifesto's emphasis on winning, as a first step, the "battle of democracy".[82] Since the 1866 introduction of universal male franchise the SPD had proved that old methods of, "surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of masses lacking consciousness is past". Marxists, Engels emphasised, must "win over the great mass of the people" before initiating a revolution.[83]

Marx believed that it was possible to have a peaceful socialist revolution in England, America and the Netherlands, but not in France, where he believed there had been "perfected ... an enormous bureaucratic and military organisation, with its ingenious state machinery" which must be forcibly overthrown. However, eight years after Marx's death, Engels regarded it possible to achieve a peaceful socialist revolution in France, too.[58]

In 1896, Eduard Bernstein argued that once full democracy had been achieved, a transition to socialism by gradual means was both possible and more desirable than revolutionary change. Bernstein and his supporters came to be identified as "revisionists", because they sought to revise the classic tenets of Marxism. Although the orthodox Marxists in the party, led by Karl Kautsky, retained the Marxist theory of revolution as the official doctrine of the party, and it was repeatedly endorsed by SPD conferences, in practice the SPD leadership became more and more reformist.

In Europe most Social Democratic parties participated in parliamentary politics and the day-to-day struggles of the trade unions. In the UK, however, many trade unionists who were members of the Social Democratic Federation, which included at various times future trade union leaders such as Will Thorne, John Burns and Tom Mann, felt that the Federation neglected the industrial struggle. Along with Engels, who refused to support the SDF, many felt that dogmatic approach of the SDF, particularly of its leader, Henry Hyndman, meant that it remained an isolated sect. The mass parties of the working class under social democratic leadership became more reformist and lost sight of their revolutionary objective. Thus the French Section of the Workers' International (SFIO), founded in 1905, under Jean Jaurs and later Lon Blum adhered to Marxist ideas, but became in practice a reformist party.

In some countries, particularly Britain and the British dominions, labour parties were formed. These were parties largely formed by and controlled by the trade unions, rather than formed by groups of socialist activists who then appealed to the workers for support. In Britain, the Labour Party, (at first the Labour Representation Committee) was established by representatives of trade unions together with affiliated socialist parties, principally the Independent Labour Party but also for a time the avowedly Marxist Social Democratic Federation and other groups, such as the Fabians. On 1 December 1899 Anderson Dawson of the Australian Labor Party became the Premier of Queensland, Australia, forming the world's first parliamentary socialist government . The Dawson government, however, lasted only one week, being defeated at the first sitting of parliament.

The British Labour Party first won seats in the House of Commons in 1902. It won the majority of the working class away from the Liberal Party after World War I. In Australia, the Labor Party achieved rapid success, forming its first national government in 1904. Labour parties were also formed in South Africa and New Zealand but had less success. The British Labour Party adopted a specifically socialist constitution (Clause four, Part four) in 1918.

The strongest opposition to revisionism came from socialists in countries such as the Russian Empire where parliamentary democracy did not exist. Chief among these was the Russian Vladimir Lenin, whose works such as Our Programme (1899) set out the views of those who rejected revisionist ideas. In 1903, there was the beginnings of what eventually became a formal split in the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party into revolutionary Bolshevik and reformist Menshevik factions.

In 1914, the outbreak of World War I led to a crisis in European socialism. The parliamentary leaderships of the socialist parties of Germany, France, Belgium and Britain each voted to support the war aims of their country's governments, although some leaders, like Ramsay MacDonald in Britain and Karl Liebknecht in Germany, opposed the war from the start. Lenin, in exile in Switzerland, called for revolutions in all the combatant states as the only way to end the war and achieve socialism. Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, together with a small number of other Marxists opposed to the war, came together in the Zimmerwald Conference in September 1915. This conference saw the beginning of the end of the uneasy coexistence of revolutionary socialists with the social democrats, and by 1917 war-weariness led to splits in several socialist parties, notably the German Social Democrats.

The Russian Revolution of October 1917 led to a withdrawal from World War I, one of the principal demands of the Russian revolution, as the Soviet government immediately sued for peace. Germany and the former allies invaded the new Soviet Russia, which had repudiated the former Romanov regime's national debts and nationalized the banks and major industry. Russia was the only country in the world where socialists had taken power, and it appeared to many socialists to confirm the ideas, strategy and tactics of Lenin and Trotsky.

The Russian Revolution of October 1917 brought about the definitive ideological division between Communists as denoted with a capital "C" on the one hand and other communist and socialist trends such as anarcho-communists and social democrats, on the other. The Left Opposition in the Soviet Union gave rise to Trotskyism which was to remain isolated and insignificant for another fifty years, except in Sri Lanka where Trotskyism gained the majority and the pro-Moscow wing was expelled from the Communist Party.

In 1922, the fourth congress of the Communist International took up the policy of the United Front, urging Communists to work with rank and file Social Democrats while remaining critical of their leaders, who they criticised for "betraying" the working class by supporting the war efforts of their respective capitalist classes. For their part, the social democrats pointed to the dislocation caused by revolution, and later, the growing authoritarianism of the Communist Parties. When the Communist Party of Great Britain applied to affiliate to the Labour Party in 1920 it was turned down.

After three years, the First World War, at first greeted with enthusiastic patriotism, produced an upsurge of radicalism in most of Europe and also as far afield as the United States (see Socialism in the United States) and Australia. In the Russian revolution of February 1917, workers' councils (in Russian, soviets) had been formed, and Lenin and the Bolsheviks called for "All power to the Soviets". After the October 1917 Russian revolution, led by Lenin and Trotsky, consolidated power in the Soviets, Lenin declared "Long live the world socialist revolution!"[84] Briefly in Soviet Russia socialism was not just a vision of a future society, but a description of an existing one. The Soviet regime began to bring all the means of production (except agricultural production) under state control, and implemented a system of government through the workers' councils or soviets.

The initial success of the Russian Revolution inspired other revolutionary parties to attempt the same thing unleashing the Revolutions of 1917-23. In the chaotic circumstances of postwar Europe, with the socialist parties divided and discredited, Communist revolutions across Europe seemed a possibility. Communist parties were formed, often from minority or majority factions in most of the world's socialist parties, which broke away in support of the Leninist model.

The German Revolution of 1918 overthrew the old absolutism and, like Russia, set up Workers' and Soldiers' Councils almost entirely made up of SPD and Independent Social Democrats (USPD) members. The Weimar republic was established and placed the SPD in power, under the leadership of Friedrich Ebert. Ebert agreed with Max von Baden that a social revolution was to be prevented and the state order must be upheld at any cost. In 1919 the Spartacist uprising challenged the power of the SPD government, but it was put down in blood and the German Communist leaders Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg were assassinated. Communist regimes briefly held power under Bla Kun in Hungary and under Kurt Eisner in Bavaria. There were further revolutionary movements in Germany until 1923, as well as in Vienna, and also in the industrial centres of northern Italy.

In this period few Communists doubted, least of all Lenin and Trotsky, that successful socialist revolutions carried out by the working classes of the most developed capitalist counties were essential to the success of the socialism, and therefore to the success of socialism in Russia in particular.[85] In March 1918, Lenin said, "we are doomed if the German revolution does not break out".[86] In 1919, the Communist Parties came together to form a 'Third International', termed the Communist International or Comintern. But the prolonged revolutionary period in Germany did not bring a socialist revolution.

A marxist current critical of the bolcheviks emerged and as such "Luxemburgs workerism and spontaneism are exemplary of positions later taken up by the far-left of the period Pannekoek, Roland Holst, and Gorter in the Netherlands, Sylvia Pankhurst in Britain, Gramsci in Italy, Lukacs in Hungary. In these formulations, the dictatorship of the proletariat was to be the dictatorship of a class, not of a party or of a clique."[87] However within this line of thought "The tension between anti-vanguardism and vanguardism has frequently resolved itself in two diametrically opposed ways: the first involved a drift towards the party; the second saw a move towards the idea of complete proletarian spontaneity...The first course is exemplified most clearly in Gramsci and Lukacs...The second course is illustrated in the tendency, developing from the Dutch and German far-lefts, which inclined towards the complete eradication of the party form."[87] In the emerging Soviet state there appeared Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks which were a series of rebellions and uprisings against the Bolsheviks led or supported by left wing groups including Socialist Revolutionaries,[88]Left Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and anarchists.[89] Some were in support of the White Movement while some tried to be an independent force. The uprisings started in 1918 and continued through the Russian Civil War and after until 1922. In response the Bolsheviks increasingly abandoned attempts to get these groups to join the government and suppressed them with force.

Within a few years a bureaucracy developed in Russia as a result of the Russian Civil War, foreign invasion, and Russia's historic poverty and backwardness. The bureaucracy undermined the democratic and socialist ideals of the Bolshevik Party and elevated Stalin to their leadership after Lenin's death. In order to consolidate power, the bureaucracy conducted a brutal campaign of lies and violence against the Left Opposition led by Trotsky.

By the mid 1920s, the impetus had gone out of the revolutionary forces in Europe and the national reformist socialist parties had regained their dominance over the working-class movement in most countries. The German Social Democrats held office for much of the 1920s, the British Labour Party formed its first government in 1924, and the French Socialists were also influential. In the Soviet Union, from 1924 Stalin pursued a policy of "socialism in one country". Trotsky argued that this approach was a shift away from the theory of Marx and Lenin, while others argued that it was a practical compromise fit for the times.

The postwar revolutionary upsurge provoked a powerful reaction from the forces of conservatism. Winston Churchill declared that Bolshevism must be "strangled in its cradle".[90] The invasion of Russia by the Allies, their trade embargo and backing for the White forces fighting against the Red Army in the civil war in the Soviet Union was cited by Aneurin Bevan, the leader of the left-wing in the Labour Party, as one of the causes of the Russian revolution's degeneration into dictatorship.[91] A "Red scare" in the United States was raised against the American Socialist Party of Eugene V. Debs and the Communist Party of America which arose after the Russian revolution from members who had broken from Debs' party. In Europe, fascist movements received significant funding, particularly from industrialists in heavy industry,[92][93] and came to power in Italy in 1922 under Benito Mussolini, and later in Germany in 1933, in Spain (1937) and Portugal, while strong fascist movements also developed in Hungary and Romania.

After 1929, with the Left Opposition legally banned and Trotsky exiled, Stalin led the Soviet Union into a what he termed a "higher stage of socialism." Agriculture was forcibly collectivised, at the cost of a massive famine and millions of deaths among the resistant peasantry. The surplus squeezed from the peasants was spent on a program of crash industrialisation, guided by the Communist Party through the Five Year Plan. This program produced some impressive results,[94] though at enormous human costs. Russia raised itself from an economically backward country to that of a superpower. Later Soviet development, however, particularly after the Second World War, was no faster than it was in Japan or the United States under capitalism. The use of resources, material and human, in the Soviet Union became very wasteful. Stalin's industrialization policy was geared towards the development of heavy industry, an emphasis that facilitated Soviet military action in its defence against Hitler's invasion during the Second World War in which the USSR stood on the side of the Allies of World War II. For "many Marxian libertarian socialists, the political bankruptcy of socialist orthodoxy necessitated a theoretical break. This break took a number of forms. The Bordigists and the SPGB championed a super-Marxian intransigence in theoretical matters. Other socialists made a return behind Marx to the anti-positivist programme of German idealism. Libertarian socialism has frequently linked its anti-authoritarian political aspirations with this theoretical differentiation from orthodoxy... Karl Korsch... remained a libertarian socialist for a large part of his life and because of the persistent urge towards theoretical openness in his work. Korsch rejected the eternal and static, and he was obsessed by the essential role of practice in a theorys truth. For Korsch, no theory could escape history, not even Marxism. In this vein, Korsch even credited the stimulus for Marxs Capital to the movement of the oppressed classes. "[87]

The Soviet achievement in the 1930s seemed hugely impressive from the outside, and convinced many people, not necessarily Communists or even socialists, of the virtues of state planning and authoritarian models of social development. This was later to have important consequences in countries like China, India and Egypt, which tried to copy some aspects of the Soviet model. It also won large sections of the western intelligentsia over to a pro-Soviet view, to the extent that many were willing to ignore or excuse such events as Stalin's Great Purge of 1936-38, in which millions of people died.

The Great Depression, which began in 1929, seemed to socialists and Communists everywhere to be the final proof of the bankruptcy, literally as well as politically, of capitalism. But socialists were unable to take advantage of the Depression to either win elections or stage revolutions. Labor governments in Britain and Australia were disastrous failures. In the United States, the liberalism of President Franklin D. Roosevelt won mass support and deprived socialists of any chance of gaining ground. And in Germany it was the fascists of Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party who successfully exploited the Depression to win power, in January 1933.

Hitler's regime swiftly destroyed both the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party, the worst blow the world socialist movement had ever suffered. This forced Stalin to reassess his strategy, and from 1935 the Comintern began urging a Popular Front against fascism. The socialist parties were at first suspicious, given the bitter hostility of the 1920s, but eventually effective Popular Fronts were formed in both France and Spain. After the election of a Popular Front government in Spain in 1936 a fascist military revolt led to the Spanish Civil War. The crisis in Spain also brought down the Popular Front government in France under Lon Blum. Ultimately the Popular Fronts were not able to prevent the spread of fascism or the aggressive plans of the fascist powers. Trotskyists considered Popular Fronts a "strike breaking conspiracy"[95] and considered them an impediment to successful resistance to fascism.

When Stalin consolidated his power in the Soviet Union in the late 1920s, Trotsky was forced into exile, eventually residing in Mexico. He maintained active in organizing the Left Opposition internationally, which worked within the Comintern to gain new members. Some leaders of the Communist Parties sided with Trotsky, such as James P. Cannon in the United States. They found themselves expelled by the Stalinist Parties and persecuted by both GPU agents and the political police in Britain, France, the United States, China, and all over the world. Trotskyist parties had a large influence in Sri Lanka and Bolivia.

In 1938, Trotsky and his supporters founded a new international organisation of dissident communists, the Fourth International. In his Results and Prospects and Permanent Revolution Trotsky developed a theory of revolution uninterrupted by the stagism of Stalinist orthodoxy. He argued that Russia was a bureaucratically degenerated workers state in his work The Revolution Betrayed, where he predicted that if a political revolution of the working class did not overthrow Stalinism, the Stalinist bureaucracy would resurrect capitalism. Trotsky's monumental History of the Russian Revolution is considered a work of primary importance by Trotsky's followers.

Once the world's most powerful nation, Britain avoided a revolution during the period of 19171923 but was significantly affected by revolt. The Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, had promised the troops in the 1918 election that his Conservative-led coalition would make post-war Britain "a fit land for heroes to live in". But many demobbed troops complained of chronic unemployment and suffered low pay, disease and poor housing.[96]

In 1918, the Labour Party adopted as its aim to secure for the workers, "the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange". In 1919, the Miners Federation, whose Members of Parliament pre-dated the formation of the Labour Party and were since 1906 a part of that body, demanded the withdrawal of British troops from Soviet Russia. The 1919 Labour Party conference voted to discuss the question of affiliation to the Third (Communist) International, "to the distress of its leaders".[97] A vote was won committing the Labour Party committee of the Trades Union Congress to arrange "direct industrial action" to "stop capitalist attacks upon the Socialist Republics of Russia and Hungary."[98] The threat of immediate strike action forced the Conservative-led coalition government to abandon its intervention in Russia.[99]

In 1914 the unions of the transport workers, the mine workers and the railway workers had formed a Triple Alliance. In 1919, Lloyd George sent for the leaders of the Triple Alliance, one of whom was miner's leader Robert Smillie, a founder member of the Independent Labour Party in 1889 who was to become a Labour Party MP in the first 1924 Labour government. According to Smillie, Lloyd George said:

Gentlemen, you have fashioned, in the Triple Alliance of the unions represented by you, a most powerful instrument. I feel bound to tell you that in our opinion we are at your mercy. The Army is disaffected and cannot be relied upon. Trouble has occurred already in a number of camps. We have just emerged from a great war and the people are eager for the reward of their sacrifices, and we are in no position to satisfy them. In these circumstances, if you carry out your threat and strike, then you will defeat us. But if you do so, have you weighed the consequences? The strike will be in defiance of the government of the country and by its very success will precipitate a constitutional crisis of the first importance. For, if a force arises in the state which is stronger than the state itself, then it must be ready to take on the functions of the state, or withdraw and accept the authority of the state. Gentlemen, have you considered, and if you have, are you ready?

"From that moment on", Smillie conceded to Aneurin Bevan, "we were beaten and we knew we were". When the UK General Strike of 1926 broke out, the trade union leaders, "had never worked out the revolutionary implications of direct action on such a scale", Bevan says.[101] Bevan was a member of the Independent Labour Party and one of the leaders of the South Wales miners during the strike. The TUC called off the strike after nine days. In the North East of England and elsewhere, "councils of action" were set up, with many rank and file Communist Party members often playing a critical role. The councils of action took control of essential transport and other duties.[102] When the strike ended, the miners were locked out and remained locked out for six months. Bevan became a Labour MP in 1929.

In January 1924, the Labour Party formed a minority government for the first time with Ramsay MacDonald as prime minister. The Labour Party intended to ratify an Anglo-Russian trade agreement, which would break the trade embargo on Russia. This was attacked by the Conservatives and new elections took place in October 1924. Four days before polling day the Daily Mail published the Zinoviev letter, a forgery that claimed the Labour Party had links with Soviet Communists and was secretly fomenting revolution. The fears instilled by the press of a Labour Party in secret Communist manoeuvres, together with the half-hearted "respectable" policies pursued by MacDonald, led to Labour losing the October 1924 general election. The victorious Conservatives repudiated the Anglo-Soviet treaty.

The leadership of the Labour Party, like social democratic parties almost everywhere, (with the exception of Sweden and Belgium), tried to pursue a policy of moderation and economic orthodoxy. At times of depression this policy was not popular with the Labour Party's working class supporters. The influence of Marxism grew in the Labour Party during the inter-war years. Anthony Crosland argued in 1956 that under the impact of the 1931 slump and the growth of fascism, the younger generation of left-wing intellectuals for the most part "took to Marxism" including the "best-known leaders" of the Fabian tradition, Sidney and Beatrice Webb. The Marxist Professor Harold Laski, who was to be chairman of the Labour Party in 1945-6, was the "outstanding influence" in the political field.[103]

The Marxists within the Labour Party differed in their attitude to the Communists. Some were uncitical and some were expelled as "fellow travellers", while in the 1930s others were Trotskyists and sympathisers working inside the Labour Party, especially in its youth wing where they were influential.

In the general election of 1929 the Labour Party won 288 seats out of 615 and formed another minority government. The depression of that period brought high unemployment and Prime Minister MacDonald sought to make cuts in order to balance the budget. The trade unions opposed MacDonald's proposed cuts and he split the Labour government to form the National Government of 1931. This experience moved the Labour Party leftward, and at the start of the Second World War an official Labour Party pamphlet written by Harold Laski argued that, "the rise of Hitler and the methods by which he seeks to maintain and expand his power are deeply rooted in the economic and social system of Europe... economic nationalism, the fight for markets, the destruction of political democracy, the use of war as an instrument of national policy":

The war will leave its meed[104] of great problems, problems of internal social organisation... Business men and aristocrats, the old ruling classes of Europe, had their chance from 1919 to 1939; they failed to take advantage of it. They rebuilt the world in the image of their own vested interests... The ruling class has failed; this war is the proof of it. The time has come to give the common people the right to become the master of their own destiny... Capitalism has been tried; the results of its power are before us today. Imperialism has been tried; it is the foster-parent of this great agony. Given power [the Labour Party] will seek, as no other Party will seek, the basic transformation of our society. It will replace the profit-seeking motive by the motive of public service... there is now no prospect of domestic well-being or of international peace except in Socialism.

Read more from the original source:
History of socialism - Wikipedia

Democratic socialism – Wikipedia

In contemporary political discourse, "democratic socialism" is sometimes inaccurately used synonymously with social democracy.

Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, often with an emphasis on democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system. The term "democratic socialism" is sometimes used synonymously with "socialism"; the adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish it from the MarxistLeninist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being non-democratic in practice.[1] Recently, the term democratic socialism has been used to describe individuals who support "social democracy", which maintains the power of production within the private sector.

Democratic socialism is distinguished from both the Soviet model of centralized socialism and from social democracy, where "social democracy" refers to support for political democracy, regulation of the capitalist economy, and a welfare state.[2] The distinction with the former is made on the basis of the authoritarian form of government and centralized economic system that emerged in the Soviet Union during the 20th century,[3] while the distinction with the latter is made on the basis that democratic socialism is committed to systemic transformation of the economy while social democracy is not.[4] That is, whereas social democrats only seek to "humanize" capitalism through state intervention, democratic socialists see capitalism as inherently incompatible with the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity; and believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by superseding private ownership with some form of social ownership. Ultimately democratic socialists believe that reforms aimed at addressing the economic contradictions of capitalism will only cause more problems to emerge elsewhere in the economy, that capitalism can never be sufficiently "humanized", and that it must therefore ultimately be replaced with socialism.[5][6]

Democratic socialism is not specifically revolutionary or reformist, as many types of democratic socialism can fall into either category, with some forms overlapping with social democracy, supporting reforms within capitalism as a prelude to the establishment of socialism.[7] Some forms of democratic socialism accept social democratic reformism to gradually convert the capitalist economy to a socialist one using pre-existing democratic institutions, while other forms are revolutionary in their political orientation and advocate for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the transformation of the capitalist economy to a socialist economy.

Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production are socially and collectively owned or controlled alongside a politically democratic system of government.[1]

Some tendencies of democratic socialism advocate for revolution in order to transition to socialism, distinguishing it from some forms of social democracy.[9] For example, Peter Hain classifies democratic socialism, along with libertarian socialism, as a form of anti-authoritarian "socialism from below" (using the term popularised by Hal Draper), in contrast to Stalinism, a variant of authoritarian state socialism. For Hain, this democratic/authoritarian divide is more important than the revolutionary/reformist divide.[10] In this type of democratic socialism, it is the active participation of the population as a whole, and workers in particular, in the management of economy that characterises democratic socialism, while nationalisation and economic planning (whether controlled by an elected government or not) are characteristic of state socialism. A similar, but more complex, argument is made by Nicos Poulantzas.[11] Draper himself uses the term "revolutionary-democratic socialism" as a type of socialism from below in his The Two Souls of Socialism. He writes: "the leading spokesman in the Second International of a revolutionary-democratic Socialism-from-Below [was] Rosa Luxemburg, who so emphatically put her faith and hope in the spontaneous struggle of a free working class that the myth-makers invented for her a 'theory of spontaneity'". Similarly, about Eugene Debs, he writes: "'Debsian socialism' evoked a tremendous response from the heart of the people, but Debs had no successor as a tribune of revolutionary-democratic socialism."

In contrast, other tendencies of democratic socialism advocate for eventual socialism that follow a gradual, reformist or evolutionary path to socialism, rather than a revolutionary one.[13] Often, this tendency is invoked in an attempt to distinguish democratic socialism from MarxistLeninist socialism, as in Donald Busky's Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey,[14] Jim Tomlinson's Democratic Socialism and Economic Policy: The Attlee Years, 1945-1951, Norman Thomas Democratic Socialism: a new appraisal or Roy Hattersley's Choose Freedom: The Future of Democratic Socialism. A variant of this set of definitions is Joseph Schumpeter's argument, set out in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1941), that liberal democracies were evolving from "liberal capitalism" into democratic socialism, with the growth of workers' self-management, industrial democracy and regulatory institutions.[15]

The Democratic Socialists of America's purpose is defined as "We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race and sex, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships. We are socialists because we are developing a concrete strategy for achieving that vision, for building a majority movement that will make democratic socialism a reality in America. We believe that such a strategy must acknowledge the class structure of American society and that this class structure means that there is a basic conflict of interest between those sectors with enormous economic power and the vast majority of the population." [16]

The term is sometimes used to refer to policies that are compatible with and exist within capitalism, as opposed to an ideology that aims to transcend or replace capitalism. Though this is not always the case. For example, Robert M. Page, a Reader in Democratic Socialism and Social Policy at the University of Birmingham, writes about "transformative democratic socialism" to refer to the politics of the Clement Attlee government (a strong welfare state, fiscal redistribution, some government ownership) and "revisionist democratic socialism," as developed by Anthony Crosland and Harold Wilson:

The most influential revisionist Labour thinker, Anthony Crosland..., contended that a more "benevolent" form of capitalism had emerged since the [Second World War] ... According to Crosland, it was now possible to achieve greater equality in society without the need for "fundamental" economic transformation. For Crosland, a more meaningful form of equality could be achieved if the growth dividend derived from effective management of the economy was invested in "pro-poor" public services rather than through fiscal redistribution.[17]

Some proponents of market socialism see it as an economic system compatible with the political ideology of democratic socialism.[18]

The term democratic socialism can be used even another way, to refer to a version of the Soviet model that was reformed in a democratic way. For example, Mikhail Gorbachev described perestroika as building a "new, humane and democratic socialism."[19] Consequently, some former Communist parties have rebranded themselves as democratic socialist, as with the Party of Democratic Socialism in Germany. A problem with this approach is the collapse of the Soviet system under these policies.

Justification of democratic socialism can be found in the works of social philosophers (non-economists) like Charles Taylor and Axel Honneth, among others. Honneth has put forward the view that political and economic ideologies have a social basis, that is, they originate from intersubjective communication between members of a society.[20] Honneth criticises the liberal state because it assumes that principles of individual liberty and private property are ahistorical and abstract, when, in fact, they evolved from a specific social discourse on human activity. Contra liberal individualism, Honneth has emphasised the inter-subjective dependence between humans; that is, our well-being depends on recognising others and being recognised by them. Democratic socialism, with its emphasis on social collectivism, could be seen as a way of safeguarding this dependency.

Fenner Brockway, a leading British democratic socialist of the Independent Labour Party, identified three early democratic socialist groups in his book Britain's First Socialists: 1) the Levellers, who were pioneers of political democracy and the sovereignty of the people; 2) the Agitators, who were the pioneers of participatory control by the ranks at their workplace; 3) and the Diggers, who were pioneers of communal ownership, cooperation and egalitarianism.[21] The tradition of the Diggers and the Levellers was continued in the period described by EP Thompson in The Making of the English Working Class by Jacobin groups like the London Corresponding Society and by polemicists such as Thomas Paine. Their concern for both democracy and social justice marks them out as key precursors of democratic socialism.[22]

The term "socialist" was first used in English in the British Cooperative Magazine in 1827[23] and came to be associated with the followers of the Welsh reformer Robert Owen, such as the Rochdale Pioneers who founded the co-operative movement. Owen's followers again stressed both participatory democracy and economic socialisation, in the form of consumer co-operatives, credit unions and mutual aid societies. The Chartists similarly combined a working class politics with a call for greater democracy. Many countries have this.

The British moral philosopher John Stuart Mill also came to advocate a form of economic socialism within a liberal context. In later editions of his Principles of Political Economy (1848), Mill would argue that "as far as economic theory was concerned, there is nothing in principle in economic theory that precludes an economic order based on socialist policies."[24][25]

Democratic socialism became a prominent movement at the end of the 19th century. In Germany, the Eisenacher socialist group merged with the Lassallean socialist group, in 1875, to form the German Social Democratic Party.[26] In Australia, the Labour and Socialist movements were gaining traction and the Australian Labor Party (ALP) was formed in Barcaldine, Queensland in 1891 by striking pastoral workers. A minority government led by the party was formed in Queensland in 1899 with Anderson Dawson as the Premier of Queensland where it was founded and was in power for one week, the world's first democratic socialist party led government.[citation needed] The ALP has been the main driving force for workers' rights in Australia, backed by Australian Trade Unions, in particular the Australian Workers' Union. Since the Whitlam Government, the ALP has moved towards Social Democratic and Third Way ideals which are found among many of the ALP's Right Faction members. Democratic Socialist, Christian Socialist, Libertarian Marxist and Agrarian Socialist ideologies lie within the ALP's Left Faction.[citation needed]

In the United States, Eugene V. Debs, one of the most famous[according to whom?] American socialists, led a movement centered on democratic socialism and made five bids for President, once in 1900 as candidate of the Social Democratic Party and then four more times on the ticket of the Socialist Party of America.[27] The socialist industrial unionism of Daniel DeLeon in the United States represented another strain of early democratic socialism in this period. It favoured a form of government based on industrial unions, but which also sought to establish this government after winning at the ballot box.[28] The tradition continued to flourish in the Socialist Party of America, especially under the leadership of Norman Thomas,[29] and later the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Upon the DSA's founding in 1983, Michael Harrington and socialist-feminist author Barbara Ehrenreich were elected as co-chairs of the organization. Currently philosopher and activist Cornel West is one of several honorary chairs. The organization does not run its own candidates in elections but instead "fights for reforms... that will weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of working people."[citation needed]

Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont is a self-described democratic socialist and is the only declared socialist to ever be elected to the United States Senate.[30] In 2016 he won the New Hampshire Democratic primary on February 9 by 22.4% of the vote (60.4% to Hillary Clinton's 38.0%); he received strong support from voters who considered it important to nominate a candidate who is "honest and trustworthy."[31][32] This made him the first self-described democratic socialist to win a U.S. presidential primary.[33] Sanders has spoken in defense of the concept of democratic socialism,[34] which some modern American conservatives associate with the leftist ideologies that sparked the Red Scare.[35][36] However, Sanders has also faced criticism from other socialists, some of whom assert that he speaks about social democracy, not democratic socialism.[37][38][39]

In Britain, the democratic socialist tradition was represented in particular by William Morris's Socialist League, and in the 1880s by the Fabian Society, and later the Independent Labour Party (ILP) founded by Keir Hardie in the 1890s, of which George Orwell would later be a prominent member.[40] In the early 1920s, the guild socialism of G. D. H. Cole attempted to envision a socialist alternative to Soviet-style authoritarianism, while council communism articulated democratic socialist positions in several respects, notably through renouncing the vanguard role of the revolutionary party and holding that the system of the Soviet Union was not authentically socialist.[41] During the 1970s and 1980s, prominent democratic socialists within the Labour movement included Michael Foot and Tony Benn, considered by many to have redefined democratic socialism into an actionable manifesto which was, however, voted overwhelmingly against in the General Election of 1983 and referred to as 'The longest suicide note in history'. The modern Labour Party has often referred to itself as a democratic socialist party throughout the 20th century, and explicitly identifies as such in Clause IV of its Rule Book. This was demonstrated in 2015, when politician and prominent activist Jeremy Corbyn was elected Leader of the Labour Party in a landslide victory, becoming the Leader of the Opposition.[42][43]

In other parts of Europe, many democratic socialist parties were united in the International Working Union of Socialist Parties (the "Two and a Half International") in the early 1920s and in the London Bureau (the "Three and a Half International") in the 1930s, along with many other socialists of different tendencies and ideologies. The socialist Internationales sought to steer a course between the social democrats of the Second International, who were seen as insufficiently socialist (and had been compromised by their support for World War I), and the perceived anti-democratic Third International. The key movements within the Two and a Half International were the ILP and the Austromarxists, and the main forces in the Three and a Half International were the ILP and the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM) of Spain.[44][45] In Italy, the Italian Democratic Socialist Party broke away from the Italian Socialist Party in 1947, when this latter joined the Soviet-funded Italian Communist Party to prepare the decisive general election of 1948. Despite remaining a minor party in Italian Parliament for fifty years, its leader Giuseppe Saragat became President of Italy in 1964.

During India's freedom movement, many figures on the left of the Indian National Congress organised themselves as the Congress Socialist Party. Their politics, and those of the early and intermediate periods of Jayaprakash Narayan's career, combined a commitment to the socialist transformation of society with a principled opposition to the one-party authoritarianism they perceived in the Stalinist revolutionary model. This political current continued in the Praja Socialist Party, the later Janata Party and the current Samajwadi Party.[46][47] In Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto introduced the concept of democratic socialism, and the Pakistan Peoples Party remained one of the prominent supporters for the socialist democratic policies in the country.In Nepal, B.P Koirala introduced the concept of democratic socialism.

In the Middle East, the largest democratic socialist party is the Organization of Iranian People's Fedaian (Majority).

The Folkesocialisme (translated into "popular socialism" or "people's socialism") that emerged as a vital current of the left in Nordic countries beginning in the 1950s could be characterised as a democratic socialism in the same vein. Former Swedish prime minister Olof Palme is an important proponent of democratic socialism.[48]

Democratic socialists have espoused a variety of different socialist economic models. Some democratic socialists advocate forms of market socialism where socially-owned enterprises operate in competitive markets, and in some cases, are self-managed by their workforce. On the other hand, other democratic socialists advocate for a non-market participatory economy based on decentralized economic planning.[49]

Democratic socialism has historically been committed to a decentralized form of economic planning opposed to Stalinist-style command planning, where productive units are integrated into a single organization and organized on the basis of self-management.[50]

Contemporary proponents of market socialism have argued that the major reasons for the failure (economic shortcomings) of Soviet-type planned economies was the totalitarian nature of the political systems they were combined with, lack of democracy, and their failure to create rules for the efficient operation of state enterprises.[51]

Eugene V. Debs and Norman Thomas, both of whom were United States presidential candidates for the Socialist Party of America, understood socialism to be an economic system structured upon "production for use" and social ownership in place of private ownership and the profit system.[52][53]

Some politicians, economists and theorists have argued that "socialism" and "democracy" are incompatible. Milton Friedman, a well-known economic liberal, wrote:

[...] there is an intimate connection between economics and politics, that only certain combinations of political and economic arrangements are possible, and that in particular, a society which is socialist cannot also be democratic, in the sense of guaranteeing individual freedom.

Irving Kristol argued: "Democratic socialism turns out to be an inherently unstable compound, a contradiction in terms. Every social-democratic party, once in power, soon finds itself choosing, at one point after another, between the socialist society it aspires to and the liberal society that lathered it." He added: "socialist movements end up [in] a society where liberty is the property of the state, and is (or is not) doled out to its citizens along with other contingent 'benefits.'"

Richard Pipes:

The merger of political and economic power implicit in socialism greatly strengthens the ability of the state and its bureaucracy to control the population. Theoretically, this capacity need not be exercised and need not lead to growing domination of the population by the state. In practice, such a tendency is virtually inevitable. For one thing, the socialization of the economy must lead to a numerical growth of the bureaucracy required to administer it, and this process cannot fail to augment the power of the state. For another, socialism leads to a tug of war between the state, bent on enforcing its economic monopoly, and the ordinary citizen, equally determined to evade it; the result is repression and the creation of specialized repressive organs.

Robert Nisbet: "In any event, with not a single free socialism to be found anywhere in the world."

According to Michael Makovi, "An economic analysis of the political institutions of democratic socialism shows that democratic socialism must necessarily fail for political (not economic) reasons even if nobody in authority has ill-intentions or abuses their power."[129]

One of the major scholars who have argued that socialism and democracy are compatible is the Austrian-born American economist Joseph Schumpeter, who was hostile to socialism.[130] In his book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (first published in 1942), he "emphasize[s] that political democracy was thoroughly compatible with socialism in its fullest sense."

In a 1963 address to the All India Congress Committee, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru stated: "Political Democracy has no meaning if it does not embrace economic democracy. And economic democracy is nothing but socialism."[131]

Political historian Theodore Draper wrote: "I know of no political group which has resisted totalitarianism in all its guises more steadfastly than democratic socialists."

Robert Heilbroner: "There is, of course, no conflict between such a socialism and freedom as we have described it; indeed, this conception of socialism is the very epitome of these freedoms," referring to open association of individuals in political and social life; the democratization and humanization of work; the cultivation of personal talents and creativities.

Bayard Rustin:

For me, socialism has meaning only if it is democratic. Of the many claimants to socialism only one has a valid titlethat socialism which views democracy as valuable per se, which stands for democracy unequivocally, and which continually modifies socialist ideas and programs in the light of democratic experience. This is the socialism of the labor, social-democratic, and socialist parties of Western Europe.

Kenneth Arrow argued that "We cannot be sure that the principles of democracy and socialism are compatible until we can observe a viable society following both principles. But there is no convincing evidence or reasoning which would argue that a democratic-socialist movement is inherently self-contradictory. Nor need we fear that gradual moves in the direction of increasing government intervention will lead to an irreversible move to serfdom. [referring to The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek]."

William Pfaff: "It might be argued that socialism ineluctably breeds state bureaucracy, which then imposes its own kinds of restrictions upon individual liberties. This is what the Scandinavians complain about. But Italys champion bureaucracy owes nothing to socialism. American bureaucracy grows as luxuriantly and behaves as officiously as any other."

Read the original:
Democratic socialism - Wikipedia