I haven’t heard the word SOCIALISM this much since I was in a class on the Russian Revolutions. It’s mostly used as an accusation, and often linked with other terms, like Marxist, Communist, Liberal, etc. But what is it? And where does it come from?
Any economic textbook will tell you what Socialism actually is. It means that “the means of production are owned in common.” In other words, things like factories, mines, land, etc., belong to the community, not individuals. It does not mean “welfare” or “free stuff”; we’ll get back to that a little later. Let’s first look at where Socialism came from.
Like so many modern ideas, Socialism had religious roots. Back in the 16th and 17th centuries, common ownership was proclaimed by various radical religious groups. Most prominent of these were the Anabaptists, the ancestors of today’s Baptists. They believed that Jesus had forbidden private property ownership and that everything should be owned by the group. In this they were not alone. The more radical Puritans bought into this idea as well, forming societies such as the Levelers and the Diggers during the time that the Puritans overthrew the British monarchy. However, this idea of common ownership was never applied at a national level. Only small communities of true believers practiced it, or tried to.
The same was true of the first groups who used the actual term, “Socialist.” These folks, who organized in the 18th and 19thcenturies, were people who believed that humanity would destroy itself through too much competition, and therefore wanted to build a society based on cooperation. The settlements they formed existed in France, Britain, and America. These people were also known as “Utopian Socialists” because of their belief that they could construct a more perfect world.
The third – and more influential – Socialism was, however quite different; in contrast to the first two forms of common ownership, it called for direct government involvement in the economy. French Socialist Louis Blanc (1811-1882) was one of the primary founders of this idea. Why? Blanc believed that the capitalist (free enterprise) economy was inherently unfair to the worker. So long as employers could always turn to the unemployed for cheap labor, there was no way for the worker to demand better pay and working conditions. Much work at this time was unskilled or semiskilled, so Blanc had a point. He did not advocate that the government should take over all existing private enterprises. Instead, his approach was far more moderate; he wanted the government to create “national workshops” that would get the unemployed off the streets, thereby forcing wage levels up.
Someone who greatly admired Blanc was Karl Marx (1818-1883). He did not, however, agree with Blanc’s solution, but instead developed his own alternative, Communism. He created that name, by the way, to distinguish his philosophy from that of other Socialists, who he saw as far too moderate or limited in their thinking. Marx spent much of his life fighting with other radical philosophers. My favorite example of this is his tussle with French Socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Proudhon had published a book called, The Philosophy of Poverty. Marx was so enraged (as he often was) by this book, that he retaliated with a booklet called, The Poverty of Philosophy.
Interestingly, Marx in one way had more in common with the Utopian Socialists and their Christian forebears than the more modern Socialists like Blanc and Proudhon. Marx believed that humanity was capable of creating a perfect society; the difference was that Marx thought that this was possible on both a national and a global scale and, in fact, thought it would inevitably happen. While the early Socialists hoped that their work might set an example for society, they certainly never went that far.
At the beginning of the 20th century, Socialist parties were growing rapidly in many countries. In Britain and Germany there were efforts to improve the standard of living of the working class to head of the threat of radicalization. These efforts became far greater as the result of two crises; the Great Depression, and World War II. The Depression threatened many countries with political instability. Programs to save people from poverty were a means of heading off Socialist, Fascist, and Communist takeovers. After the war, the Right in Europe was largely discredited – but that did not lead to a Socialist continent. Instead, a compromise emerged.
This compromise would be known as Social Democracy. Social Democracy meant guaranteeing a basic standard of living or at least providing sufficient benefits to meet most basic needs. How is this different from Socialism? Capitalism (free enterprise) was preserved. Most of the Socialist parties abandoned platforms calling for nationalization of private property. (Communist parties did not, but they steadily became irrelevant.) There were cases of industries being nationalized – but this was usually because they were failing and headed for bankruptcy.
Socialism is not truly practiced by any country today. There are countries where the government controls all production, but that is not the same thing as Socialism. Neither Blanc nor Marx would have anything good to say about North Korea, for example. China is ruled by a Communist party but its economy is increasingly capitalist. Social Democracy is used in one form or another around the globe. It is not universally popular. It does mean greater government regulation, as well as significantly higher taxes.
But the alternatives are not promising.
Hubert P. van Tuyll is a Professor Emeritus of History, Augusta University
