Socialism: Has it had its Day - Essay Example

Socialism: Has it had its Day? No, socialism has not had its day. Some scholars argue that though Stalinist communism may have had its day socialism has yet to see its day (Kumar, 1989). Karl Marx based his philosophy on premises that capitalism was on its death bed, and a time would be reached when the capitalist system would be defeated, and at this stage; “the knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.” (Kumar, 1989). Consequently based on Marx philosophy, socialists believed for many years that capitalism was condemned. Nevertheless, over the past century dramatic events have taken place, such as the fall of the soviet bloc, and it is capitalism that is now considered to have triumphed contrary to Marx prophesy. Indeed, it is now socialism that is deemed to be on its death bed. This paper seeks to critically analyze whether socialism has had its way. It is critical to examine the history of the 19th century socialism, the ideals, philosophy and foundations of socialism, in order to use them as parameters to gauge its success. The enlightenment stage was synonymous with the worship of property rights. Property rights were equated to liberty, rights which were protected religious by some philosophers. During that era, there developed a close nexus between wealth and political power. The wealthy assumed the political power and which they defended by the claim that the wealth and nobility was their God given right (Roemer, 2008). They employed the political power to protect their property and to oppress the poor. Socialism arose out of the aspiration to protect worker’s rights following the industrial revolution. Socialists sought to eradicate social classes that emerged from capitalism and promote equality. 19th century socialists rejected the foundations of capitalism that resulted following the industrial revolution that the wealthy deserved their wealth since they are the ones who had created it. They based their argument on the hypothesis that wealth is created by the working class and wrongfully commandeered by the rich. Therefore, the rich were gaining at the expense of their labourers who they underpaid. They equated labour to capital, arguing that they were equally important, and attributed the cause of poverty and despair to capitalism. Socialists fronted the ideals of equality, democracy, cooperation and shared prosperity. With regards to democracy, socialist philosophers like Rousseau argued that real democracy could not survive societies with great disparity of wealth and poverty. He argued that whichever the electoral system, power naturally tends move towards wealth. During the industrial revolution, the bourgeoisie created various democratic movements gained momentum across Europe. This is because they viewed their economic and political ideals as interdependent. Social democracy was central to passing laws that would enable business to thrive and, also to guarantee their property rights. Marx argued that for social democracy to exist, a revolution was inevitable, where the majority in the society would seize power from a tiny minority of capitalists for the common good of all the people. Socialist ideals saw the formation of labour movements across the globe, even in the traditionally conservative U.S. These labour movements registered success, though the union members were often beaten, shot, imprisoned and faced all manner of obstacles from the capitalists. Their campaign led to shortening of the working day, improve working conditions and demand a better pay for its members. Labour movements still play a role today. Nevertheless, labour movements are blamed for the failure of a revolution the kind envisaged by Marx since most workers did not see the necessity of destroying the very system they were building. Another form of socialism whose impacts can be felt today was advocated by Ferdinand Lassalle (1825-1864), who argued for the formation of voluntary workers cooperatives as the basis of socialism. Lassalle’s cooperatives are seen as the front runners to many organizations that exist today in the center of capitalism, for example, credit unions and mutual insurance companies. Some scholars argue that the cooperatives did not achieve the socialist ideals, but rather offered alternatives for profit making. Social democracy as a key pillar of socialism, evolved to counter situations where a minority in the ruling class controlled both the economy, and the decision making. Socialism advocated for the economy to be owned and controlled by the people as a whole. This was to be implemented through the formation of labour and socialists parties across the globe. Though initially these parties registered some electoral success, they ended up being absorbed into the conventional political activities rather than creating the revolution envisaged under Marx revolution. For instance, in Germany, Social Democratic Party was formed based on Marx ideals. It originally garnered massive followers. Consequently, it later developed moderate views in the 20th century culminating in its abandonment of the goal of revolution and supporting the aggressive militarism of Kaiser Wilhelm. This move destroyed its credibility both locally and abroad among the socialists and their sympathisers. In England, the labour party has been accused of being complicit in acts contrary to the socialism philosophy and ideals, for example, using police to disperse striking workers, and joining the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The first and Second World War also played a part in the fall of labour parties across Europe, as the parties supported their own governments. It was the first victim of the world war (Young J, 1988), disproving the Marxist belief that, even across the international boundaries, all the workers would feel more attached and loyal to each other than they would be loyal to a government controlled by the capitalist ruling class. Some ideals of the social democrats still evident today especially in the Scandinavia are being dismantled. These include gradualist approach towards high taxes to enforce relative economic equality, the regulation of industries by the government and nationalization of large industries. Another factor that led to the fall of socialism democracy evidenced by the fall of the Soviet Block and Eastern Europe can be attributed to the “Stalinism” which denotes the bureaucratic and authoritarian style of leadership. Stalinism was contrary to the socialist essence of social democracy. It led to the spread of authoritarianism across the socialists thus denuding the parties the practice of socialism while concentrating power in the hands of tiny, self perpetuating elite. As a result, the economy was being planned by the state, but there was no democracy and accountability. It resulted in a small group of elites who enriched themselves, acquired a lot of privileges and power while using extreme repression tactics to control the majority. It led to poor quality life whereby people were queuing for poor quality food and product, while at the same time; people in capitalist economies were more comfortable. This is what eventually led to the revolutions across many socialist nations leading to the fall of socialism. However, some scholars argue that the socialism in Soviet Union and Eastern Europe failed because these economies were pre-industrial, far from the level of development that Marx envisaged as the core foundation of building socialism. Marx had envisioned a revolution that would restructure previously created wealth while nationalizing previously developed industrial systems so as to run them more equitably and equally. However, these socialist states had to build material base which Marx had assumed socialism would be built. They became super capitalists, reproducing the miseries of the industrial revolution without labour movements to check their extreme measures. Moreover, it is argued that, modern, developed, and industrialized states never endured the kind of revolution that was envisaged by Marx (Young 1998), while the success of socialism in places like Sweden, Denmark and England fell short of his vision. Consequently, some socialists conclude that Marxism did not fail but rather it was not tried at all. Marx and Engels also envisaged a revolution that would be universal and simultaneous. He argued that communism would not be possible in a single country. It is argued that Marx postulated that if an isolated country like France should ever establish communism, it would fall to its core if other nations like England did not follow suit. This is because foreign trade influences the internal affairs of a state. Therefore, the success of communism in Russia was predicated on Europe also to embracing communism. This seemed impractical and led to the demise at its planning stage. Marxism made several assumptions. For instance, Marxist models assumed that workers were homogenous in skill and, therefore, associated the elimination of exploitation with the realization equality of income. This is not true today, given the extreme distribution of skills. Therefore, socialism itself would not succeed in any modern day economy because if the products were to be distributed in accordance with socialism models, there would be considerable income inequality. Therefore, it can be argued that socialism enjoyed success at its early conception stage, but failed due to the emergence of deficiency in central planning. Unlike in capitalism where competition thrives, driving innovation, socialism lacks effective incentives means to direct economic projects. Capitalism leaves the market forces to determine the price of commodities and promotes individual property rights. Therefore, at its inception socialism was a theory doomed to fail because of this inconsistency with human nature. Moreover, some scholars attribute the feeling that socialism is yet to take off to the fact that socialist philosophy set their sights too high. A lot of people engaged get disillusioned with politics. In conclusion, therefore, Marx and Engels ideals depended on several things and had many preconditions for its success. Most of these preconditions were not possible to achieve and, therefore, socialism in Marx’s theory and principles was not possible to achieve. Even where it took off, it led to the creation of socialism without democracy which was doomed to fail. It also faced stiff obstacles from the capitalists, and everything bad was equated to socialism in common parlance. Works Cited Crawford, J., 2011. Political socialism, would it fail in success? BiblioBazaar. Ree,V.,E., Socialism in One Country: Reassessment. Studies in East European Thought. 50(2), p. 77-117 Roemer, E., J., 2008. Social Democracy as Income-Equalizing Institutions. Eastern Economic Journal. Sheridan, M., 2004. Environmental Consequences of Independence and Socialism in North Pare, Tanzania, 1961. The Journal of African History, 45(1), P.81-102 Young J., 1988. Socialism since 1889: A Biographical History. Rowman & Littlefield. New Jersy. Read More