ADVERTISEMENTS:
In this essay we will discuss about the political theory of socialism.
Essay # 1. Theory of Socialism:
Socialism as a theory of the sphere of state activities came to eradicate the evils associated with the free competition and private property under the individualistic order of the nineteenth century. Individualism gives rise to capitalism, which creates inequalities of wealth by dividing the society into “haves” and “have-nots”.
The capitalistic system is plagued by absence of planning and the presence of profit motives, which goes to exploit the poor gravely. In protest of this economic order came socialism, which aims at placing all the means of production under the ownership of the state, which will regulate economic competition and eliminate the profit motive. Since land is a free gift of nature it cannot be grabbed by only a few individuals but must be placed under the whole community.
According to the socialists, the state is not an evil but a positive good and so the state must be clothed with widest powers. Since the stale alone can bring maximum material benefits to the people, the state should be given maximum powers. All the means of production should be owned by the stale.
It is the stale alone that can equally distribute the national income among all the people so that each individual can receive his due share of the income in proportion to his labour and efficiency. So the thrust of socialism is “from each according to his capacity and to each according to the quantity and quality of work put in.”
The main tenets of socialism are six. They are:
(a) It aims at eradication of inequalities of wealth by equitable distribution of wealth and prevention of exploitation by the capitalist class;
(b) It seeks to replace competition by cooperation and thus prevents all wastes and losses;
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(c) It seeks to establish a system of planned economy, in which the needs of the people are assessed and production is properly adjusted to meet the needs;
(d) It wants to replace the profit motive by that of social service and social good;
(e) It places all the means of production under the ownership of the state and
(f) It guarantees to pay everybody according to the quantity and quality of his works.
Criticism of Socialism:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The following is some of the attacks against socialism:
First, in a state-controlled system there will be lack of initiative and efficiency in the work of the people. People are likely to work more sincerely where there is incentive for personal benefits and gains. Socialism will reduce the human beings into so many nuts and bolts in a machine.
Secondly, socialism makes no difference between the intelligent and the idiots, which is bound to produce gross injustice to all. Socialism does not recognise the extra-calibre of the few who should be given a better treatment in the hands of the state. The society is bound to suffer in such a system.
Thirdly, if the slate takes over all the means of production it may tend to become authoritarian and bureaucratic, which will result in corruption, inefficiency, intrigues and red-tapism. So socialism cannot be a panacea of the ills of the capitalist society but will become a prey for all that it wants to eradicate.
Fourthly, socialism by lightening its noose round the neck of the individuals will create a neo-slavery in the modern age. In his book Road to Serfdom Von Heyak asserted that socialism will regiment human thought and actions and make every individual a slave of the community.
Conclusion:
There is no doubt that the tide of socialism is so strong that it can sweep away all other isms, capitalism included. It stands for progress and welfare. That is why more and more states until 1991 were switching over to the creed of socialism. There is again a new tendency among some of the countries to evolve a kind of synthesis between socialism and individualism.
This is called general welfare theory, which three-fold object – the well-being of the individuals, well-being of the state or the collective interests of individuals in their associated capacity and promotion of human civilisation. Only by performing these pursuits the state can justify its existence.
In India we have half-socialism and half-individualism. The state controls the key industries of the country. At the same time, some industries are left to the care of the private sectors. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru called this system socialistic pattern of society. This has worked well in India. It strikes a middle course between socialism and individualism.
Essay # 2. Various Forms of Socialism:
There are very few terms in political science that have involved so much controversy as socialism. This is so because socialism has several facets and it can be viewed from different angles of vision. So it has wide-ranging variations from nationalisation of key installations and public utility services to the creation of a totally paternal state which will willingly do everything for the individuals.
So C.E. M. Joad rightly observed:
“It is a matter of some difficulty to give within a small compass, a comprehensive account of socialism since the socialists all the world over, are divided into a number of opposing schools which are separated by acute differences both as regards aims and methods.”
Although there are various forms of socialism, here we shall discuss only three types of it, namely Utopian Socialism, Fabian Socialism and Scientific Socialism which is known also as Marxism.
i. Utopian Socialism:
Socialism came into existence to uproot the evils of extreme poverty, repression and discriminations associated with the capitalistic society in the wake of the Industrial Revolution. There was a protest against the uncontrolled course in production and the dismal condition of the working class. Those who made the protests were the first socialists and they were called “Utopian Socialists”.
The name Utopian was derived from the book Utopia by St. Thomas More (1478-1535) who by Utopia meant an ideal state. His plan was to restructure the society and establish a system, by which the profits produced by labour could be divided among the workmen. Robert Owen (1771-1858) was the first and the most famous of the Utopians.
He made his factory town New Lanark in Scotland a model community and wanted to establish similar communities all over the world. The main result of the Utopian movement was the formation of cooperative and profit-making industries and stores which were successfully introduced in various parts of the world. In France the chief Utopians were Count Saint-Simon (1760-1825) and F. M. C. Fourier (1772-1837). Louis Blanc (1811-1882), who was another French Utopian, advocated for what is called “government ownership socialism”. Thus the Utopians did some spade-works as the pioneers of socialism.
ii. Fabian Socialism:
Fabian Socialism was brought into existence in England in 1884 by a galaxy of intellectuals who had been deeply concerned with the increasing evils of the capitalist society. The Fabians, who were also called the state socialists, did not believe in violent revolutions. They wanted that the state should take over the control of production by peaceful methods.
Prominent among them were George Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb, Beatrice Webb, Annie Besant, G. D. H. Cole, H. G. Wells, Graham Wallas, M. Headlam, E. R. Pease, etc. The term Fabian was derived from the famous Roman General Fabeus (210 B. C.) who is said to have defeated Hannibal by strategic evasion without any actual fight.
The Fabians put their basic ideas in a book Fabian Essays published in 1889. Although Karl Marx’s views were before them, they did not accept these and rather preferred a milder course of action. They were also called state socialists because they gave all powers to the state and not to the working class as was the case with Karl Marx.
Their programmes, compared with Marx’s, had subdued notes like:
(i) Nationalization of land in some form or other;
(ii) Competition of the state with the private enterprises;
(iii) Gradual extension of franchise with universal adult franchise as the target;
(iv) Gradual nationalisation of industrial capital with compensation to the owners;
(v) Slow and gradual state control over all economic activities and replacement of profit-motive by cooperation;
(vi) Propagation of socialist ideas among the educated middle class; and
(vii) Social and economic reforms by parliamentary legislation.
Criticism of Fabian Socialism:
First, the Fabians arc the academic socialists or the armchair socialists, having little concern for the realities. They rely on their own education and intellect to recommend the school of thought among the educated middle classes.
Secondly, the Fabians are opportunists and believers in compromise. They want to perpetuate capitalism with little relaxation of its rigour. They want to recommend the existing capitalistic order with little changes here and there. So Ernest Barker assailed it: “It sails under a false flag, wishing not to arouse suspicion as to its objects.”
iii. Scientific Socialism or Marxism:
Socialism took a new turn with the advent of Karl Marx and his ideals, ingrained in the Communist Manifesto published in 1848.
Marx defined socialism:
“Socialism is not a mere feeling for the downtrodden or speech-making about them. It is a social system which comes into being when the state power is seized by the workers and peasants and all lands and industries are nationalized without any compensation. A true socialist is one who believes in this creed and actively works it in his own way for the relevant transformation of the society in order to implement the dictatorship of the proletariat.” It was the firm belief of Marx that all history was a long struggle between the “haves” and the “have-nots”.
The new capitalist class became a new class in the society in the wake of the introduction of the machines. The capitalists used their surplus wealth to buy the tools which were used by the labourers to produce still more wealth. This wealth was used in building more factories and so on.
In this way, the capitalist class or the bourgeoisie will grow richer and richer at the expense of the proletariats or the working class. In the final stage of the capitalist system, one man will possess all the wealth of the world and will make all other people his slaves.
Marx was an original thinker and his Communist Manifesto is considered a remarkable contribution to the mankind. He gave a clearer delineation of his ideal in his other book Das Kapital. Marx believed in a violent change in the social order. He was a revolutionary asking for bold and quick action. He appealed to the working class and wanted that the working class should hold on the cockpit of power. His appeal to the working class was: “Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains, and the world to win.”
Marxism occupies a preeminent position in the realm of socialistic thinking. Its scientific and logical attack on capitalism and its picture of a classless society carries a continuous appeal not only to the working classes but all the intelligentsia of the world. Marxism acted as the foundation-stone, upon which other socialistic theories like anarchism, syndicalism, collectivism guild socialism, etc. have been built up.
So Morris Hillquit, a leading American socialist, rightly observed:
“Marxism is still the avowed creed of all contending (socialist) camps, each claiming strict adherence, to the doctrines of the theoretical founder of the modern socialist movement and charging its opponents with palpable departure from them.”
Essay # 3. Difference between Fabian Socialism and Marx’s Socialism:
The contrast between Fabian socialism and Marxism is of wide marks.
First, Fabian socialism is a typical English socialism. Unlike Marx, the Fabians do not believe in a violent revolution to eradicate the evils of unrestricted capitalism. They are of the view that this can be achieved by parliamentary legislation. This has been rightly asserted by George Bernard Shaw- “We want to give up the delightful case of revolutionary heroics and take to the hard work of practical reforms on ordinary parliamentary lines.”
Secondly, unlike Marx, the Fabians do not believe in class struggle. They give the thrust on the educated middle class and want welfare for all classes, the working class not excluded. Thus the Fabians reject the idea of the hegemony of the working class which is the ultimate goal of Marx.
Thirdly, the Fabians do not share Marx’s theory of dialectical evolution or the materialistic conception of history and lays more emphasis on social legislation, education and propaganda. Thus Fabianism is a slower dose of socialism. Marxism, on the other hand, recommends a surgical operation of the society.
Fourthly, while Marx wanted to abolish the state and enthrone the working class instead, the Fabians wanted that socialism must progress under the care and control of the state. The state must take the leading role in bringing socialism in the world.
Essay # 4. Democratic Socialism:
The expression democratic socialism has been an enigmatic one because democracy and socialism are generally taken to be opposite of each other. Does it suggest that socialism must be diluted by democracy or there must be fifty-fifty ratio of democracy and socialism to make the system workable? The other question mark is whether democracy by itself was not sufficient to appeal to the people without a socialistic slogan? The answer is that the rigour of Marxist socialism made it too bitter a pill to be stomached.
The over-emphasis on economic rights in total disregard of morality and religion and right to freedom of speech and expression made a section of the people feel that, side by side with the advantages of socialism, the state could go for the advantages of democratic tenets. In other words, side by side with the public ownership of land and means of production there could exist private ownership of land and means of production.
The illustrious Fabian socialists of England like Sydney Webb, H. G. Wells and Bernard Shaw did a lot for the growth of democratic socialism. The democratic socialists wanted socialism not by a violent process but in an evolutionary way. The highest exponent of the theory of democratic socialism, Edward Bernstein of Germany, was the first to delineate his thesis in his book Evolutionary Socialism. Like Karl Marx, he also wanted that the state should control the land, mines and all major industries, but he, at the same time, suggested freedom of thought and expression as those obtained in England, France and the USA.
So democratic socialism is a mixture of capitalism and socialism, there being no dictatorship of the proletariat or use of violence to steer clear of the evils of capitalism. There is also no withering away of the state. The Labour Party in England believes in democratic socialism. India is following this under the name of socialistic pattern of society which is a symbol of mixed economy.
In England democratic socialism found its most remarkable votary in the person of the illustrious socialist thinker of England Harold J. Laski. And the present day democratic socialism got publicity and acceptability through the teachings of Laski. In Laski’s own admission, socialism was his life’s central conviction and he had been a socialist since the last years of his school days.
In 1930 in his book Liberty in the Modern State, the English socialist said- “Any society, in fact, the fruits of whose economic operations are unequally distributed will be compelled to deny freedom as the law of its being.” In 1930 in England and the USA there was virtually unlimited freedom, compared with the Marxist socialist country, namely the USSR where freedom of criticism was totally absent. That is why many an English and American, Laski not excluded, could criticise the government. This goes to the credit side of democratic socialism.
As a champion of democratic socialism, Laski openly condemned the volatile way of Marxism. He wanted that legal and constitutional means rather than the path of violence should be the means of attaining the powers and the goals of democratic socialism. He had no hesitation to suggest that the right to property should be abolished in respect of the monopolistic industries and business houses and in their place must come public ownership.
He was aware of the lopsided civil service in England and so he said from hindsight that nationalisation of basic industries was not a solution of the malaise. Laski wanted democratisation of the industries in the hands of the government. He was also critical of the functioning of the democratic socialist countries and called them bourgeois democracy, a term used by Karl Marx.
Thus we find that Laski not only supported democratic socialism but pointed out some inherent defects of that system also. As a matter of fact, the defects of democratic socialists’ programme in England, France, the USA and India is getting corrected and remedied on the lines suggested by Laski. Actually, democratic socialism, rather than Marxian socialism has come to stay in the world. This idea has been further strengthened after the USSR in 1991 bade a farewell to Marxist socialism.
Essay # 5. Guild Socialism:
Guild socialism is a half-way house between Fabian socialism and syndicalism. Those English philosophers who were once the frontline spokesmen of Fabianism came to champion a new course of action, which came to be called Guild Socialism. Like syndicalism it is another offshoot of socialism. What is a guild? A guild is self-governing association of mutually dependent people organised for the discharge of a particular function of society. The myth of guild socialism is all that was good with the ancient cottage industries where the workers or the artisans had the full control over their work and full satisfaction in its making and marketing.
According to the guild socialists, the workers of each industry should be organised into guilds or unions. These guilds will manage the industries, but the ownership of the industries will lie with the state. Thus there would be an ownership of the means of production by the community as a whole, but the ownership of the industries will be in the hands of the state.
Like Marx, the guild socialists believe in the theory of class struggle. They also criticise the capitalist system as unsound and irrational. They are not interested in political democracy which does not bring any good for the workers. On the other hand, they clamour for industrial power.
The crux of guild socialism is rightly delineated by G. D. H. Cole:
“Guild socialism is based on the idea of partnership between the producers and the state in the control of industry. Guild socialists emphasise that the first need of socialism is the placing of industrial power in the hands of the workers, and that, without such industrial freedom, every change in the structure of society must be a bureaucratic sham.”
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The guild socialists attack the existing parliamentary representation as tentorial representation. But any representation to be real must be functional. There are various interests concerning the various institutions. But these institutions are not represented in the existing system of parliamentary elections.
The society will be completely democratic only when it is organised on a functional basis. So representation should be from a local and regional body. So the guild socialists insist on devolution or decentralisation of powers and functions of the state to a number of local and regional bodies.
Finally, the method to achieve the changeover is that of trade-union, which will have a monopoly of the trade market and will mount increased pressure on the employers to nationalise the industries. Thus we find that guild socialism is a half-way house between syndicalism and collectivism.
Criticism:
Critics point out that the theme of guild socialism is inconsistent and rather academic. By trying to give representation to the industrial interest the guild socialists are actually canvassing for two parliaments’ one for political democracy and the other for industrial democracy. This will make things absurd. Secondly, if the guilds are given the control over the means of production this will result in stagnation and inefficiency in industry and a consequent reduction in output.
Since the founding fathers of guild socialism are all intellectuals and never workers, they cannot realise the practical problems involved in it. Finally, decentralisation of powers to the local and regional guilds will breed mutual jealousy and rivalry which will hinder the industrial progress.