Political Traditions: Socialism

In the Prologue, it was noted that it’s easier to identify the ‘great socialist’ by popular agreement than to provide a clear definition of socialism that encompasses all forms and excludes non-socialist ideologies. The internal conflicts between different socialist schools and sects demonstrate that what one person considers socialism, another may view as heresy. Often, dissenters within the movement are treated with more disdain than external opponents. – Alexander Gray (The Socialist Tradition)

One way to tackle such a varied phenomenon is to argue that all forms of socialism share a fundamental trait or essence that can be used to define the entire doctrine. While this approach simplifies analysis, it tends to result in dogmatic claims about what constitutes ‘true socialism,’ and is often wielded against those deemed heretics. On the other hand, defining socialism too broadly can make meaningful analysis impossible. – Michael Newman (Socialism: An Introduction)

In simple terms, socialism represents a rich political tradition that prioritizes the community over individual interests. Though challenging to define in its diversity, socialism remains relevant as a collection of ideas that arose in the 19th century with the aim of creating a just social order. This unit seeks to explore the meaning of socialism, its ideological trajectory, its variants, and the role of socialist states in contemporary times.

All socialists, to varying degrees, reject the property relations that underpin capitalism and strive to eliminate deep structural inequalities in income, rights, and opportunities. Historically, socialism emerged as a political and economic doctrine offering a more humane and socially beneficial alternative to capitalism. The hallmark of a socialist state is a centrally planned economy directed by the state, which is viewed as a positive force with the responsibility to advance the common economic, moral, and intellectual interests of its people. – (Garner, 1928) The system is fundamentally based on the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” American socialist Daniel De Leon even defines socialism as a system where the means of production are owned, controlled, and managed by the people, for the people.

Meaning and Definitions of Socialism

The term “socialist” originates from the Latin word sociare, meaning to combine or share. While it is challenging to precisely define this evolving doctrine, its core revolves around the concepts of common ownership and collective effort. Broadly speaking, socialism addresses the relationship between the individual, the state, and society.

Some scholars describe socialism as a populist economic and political system grounded in public ownership of the means of production. This entails that all resources essential for wealth creation—such as land, factories, mines, and banks—should no longer be owned by individuals or specific groups but instead become the collective property of the public. In essence, socialist principles advocate for free access to products and services, production based on need rather than profit, equitable distribution of wealth and material resources, and the elimination of market competition. The slogan “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” reflects these ideals.

Unlike capitalism, where business owners control the means of production and pay wages to workers who use them, socialism envisions shared ownership and control by the laboring class. This means that no individual could own resources or dictate their use for profit. Socialists argue that socialism provides greater security, as a worker’s value is determined by the time they contribute rather than the value of what they produce. In contrast, capitalism is seen as exploiting workers for the benefit of the wealthy. Ideally, in socialism, the workers themselves would own the resources they utilize.

In a purely socialist system, public activities are directed by a central planner or government body. Socialist systems often feature extensive welfare programs and social safety nets, ensuring that individuals rely on the state for essential needs, from food to healthcare. It was the negative impact of industrial capitalism that inspired socialist reformers to advocate for new economic structures based on a different set of moral principles. Their broader vision was the creation of an “alternative egalitarian” society (Newman, 2020). The details of what this alternative society would look like and the path to achieving it will be explored in the following sections.

Evolution of Socialism

Some trace the origins of socialist doctrine to Plato, others to Christianity, and many, with more credibility, to the radical movements during the English Civil War in the 17th century. However, modern socialism, with its evolving ideas and movements, truly emerged in early 19th-century Europe. The reasons for its rise have been debated, but it is generally accepted that the rapid economic and social changes linked to urbanization and industrialization played a key role. Socialism first appeared in the writings of reformers such as Comte Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825), Robert Owen (1771-1858), Charles Fourier (1772–1837), and others, who are often referred to as early socialists.

These early socialists viewed property as a form of theft, believing that the owners of the means of production exploited workers, the actual producers. To them, the accumulation of wealth through exploitation marked the beginning of private property. Their goal was to transform private ownership into common ownership. Later socialists, while not labeling property as theft, still viewed wealth accumulation as the product of workers’ labor, facilitated by labor-market dynamics central to capitalism. Regardless of the era, socialists have opposed systems that enable exploitation and have advocated for common ownership.

Interestingly, like many enduring ideologies, socialism is rooted in human nature. It is based on a belief in the inherent goodness of human beings and the possibility of an egalitarian society. Socialists generally prioritize collective interest over individual self-interest and cooperation over competition. Though human history has seen setbacks to this optimistic vision, socialists often regard instances of violence as anomalies rather than representative of human nature.

Regarding the role of the state, Garner points out that socialism directly opposes the laissez-faire view of minimal government intervention. Instead, the socialist theory advocates for a maximum government presence. Unlike those who distrust the state and seek to limit its role, socialists view the state as a force for good, with the mission of promoting the common economic, moral, and intellectual interests of the people (Garner, 1928). Followers of socialism see the state as a tool to reduce the gap between the rich and poor as much as possible.

Prof. F.J.C. defines the broader idea of socialism through the following six principles:

Exaltation of the community above the individual
Equalization of the human condition
Elimination of capitalism
Expropriation of landlordism
Extinction of private capital
Eradication of competition

Schools/Traditions of Socialism

Over time, socialist ideology evolved through various interpretations, particularly regarding “how capitalism would be replaced” and “what forms of social ownership would define different schools of socialism.” This section will examine some of the distinct traditions that eventually emerged.

Utopian Socialism

The term “utopian” was later applied to early socialists by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, associating their ideas with impractical and unrealistic visions of society. This theory gained traction in 18th-century France, where many socialist writings envisioned an ideal future society that would guarantee equality and social justice for all. Figures like Babeuf, Cabet, Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Blanc were prominent in this movement, with the English thinker Robert Owen also counted among them. As Hallowell noted, “the real home of what has come to be called Utopian Socialism was eighteenth-century France” (Gray, 1947). While some scholars dismissed utopian socialism as fanciful and unattainable, others, like Michael Newman, saw it as part of a broader process of social transformation, where “today’s utopia often becomes tomorrow’s reality” (Newman, 2020).

Key characteristics of the utopian socialists’ transformative visions included:

Human Dignity and Equality: They believed that all human beings possess equal dignity, and despite innate differences, individuals are identical in their rights and duties.
Economic Opportunity: They envisioned an industrial society where economic opportunity was equal, and no person could live off the labor of others.
Small-Scale Social Salvation: They imagined a society that would make efficient use of natural resources and achieve social salvation on a small scale.
Critique of Private Property: They saw private property as the root cause of poverty, benefiting only a select class. They believed that societal change could be achieved through reason and appeals to the sense of justice of influential individuals, and while they were critical of private property, they supported the idea of fair compensation for labor.
Gradual Transformation: Rather than advocating for revolutionary change, they sought to build an industrial society focused on economic interests, not a political one.

Different utopian socialists had varying interpretations of their ideal society, often envisioning government representation based on economic interests and occupation.

One notable utopian, Étienne Cabet, wrote the novel Voyage to Icaria, where he imagined a society founded on the principles of equality and democracy. Despite concerns about uniformity and social regimentation, Cabet’s vision offered hope to the marginalized French working class. While Cabet had significant contemporary influence, the utopians with the most enduring impact were Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, and Robert Owen.

Henri Saint-Simon (1760–1825) was a French aristocrat who defied his father’s authoritarianism and explored life through various pursuits. Deeply influenced by science, Saint-Simon envisioned a scientific understanding of historical development, which would later have significant relevance to Marxist theory (Newman, 2020). He opposed the feudal class, which he saw as perpetuating power struggles, and instead supported the industrial and scientific classes that fostered cooperation and peaceful competition. Saint-Simon believed that “idlers” (nobles, barons, and clergy) should step aside because they contributed nothing to industrial enterprise (Johri, 1989). He also developed the concept of the “religion of Newton,” which emphasized scientific rationality, secular morality, and industrial progress. His utopian vision promoted harmony through aligning human feelings, passions, and functions with natural instincts.

Charles Fourier, another key utopian socialist, believed that restrictive societal norms were the cause of human misery. He focused on addressing psychological and sexual human needs through collective societal action rather than leaving these needs to individual fulfillment. Robert Owen, while sharing some of Fourier’s views, believed that society—not the individual—was responsible for social ills but that people could and should change for the better (Newman, 2020).

Despite their differences, Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen shared some common beliefs:

They viewed social issues as the most pressing concern.
They believed it was the responsibility of all to promote the happiness and welfare of society.
They opposed the social order based on competition for resources.
They distrusted traditional politics, seeing the future of society’s governance in the hands of “producers” rather than politicians or monarchs.

If economic and social lives were aligned, they argued, the old systems of governance based on conflict and competition would give way to a new order defined by international peace and cooperation.

While the Fourierists and Owenites focused on creating experimental communities to serve as models for a new social order, the Saint-Simonians believed in large-scale industrial organizations run by scientists and technicians (Esenwein, 2004). At this stage, socialism emphasized collective progress over politics and saw education as a means to shape social attitudes and behaviors. These early socialists did not focus on class struggle or the proletariat, as they did not view society through the lens of a conflict between capitalists and workers. They also did not advocate for revolutionary change through class struggle.

Critics have labeled this branch of socialism “utopian” due to its perceived detachment from reality. Marx and Engels studied this variety of socialism critically and rejected it for its lack of coherence and practical strategy. As critics noted, utopian socialists “do not probe the question to any depths or indicate how their deterministic fancies are to be reconciled with the conception of socialism as an ideal or a moral imperative” (Kowalski, 1978).

Scientific Socialism

Scientific Socialism, rooted in the Marxian interpretation, is distinguished by its belief in the dialectical process of social development. It not only critiques the current social and economic system but also anticipates the emergence of a new, exploitation-free society. This modern socialist movement can be traced back to the publication of the Communist Manifesto in 1848. Marx and Engels argued that society’s political and cultural structures (the superstructure) are shaped by the material forces of production (the base). As these modes and relations of production evolve, conditions arise for a revolutionary transformation that replaces the old order with more progressive systems. In this way, societies advance from primitive systems like feudalism to more complex ones like capitalism.

Scientific Socialism revisited history through the lens of dialectics, viewing the state as a class-based institution built upon an economic foundation. With capitalism’s rise, profit became the central focus, driving people into a relentless pursuit of future comfort while overlooking deeper social issues. According to the Manifesto, the ongoing dialectical struggle between dominant and subordinate classes fuels the breakdown of exploitative structures. As dissatisfaction and alienation grow, the stage is set for revolution, where bourgeois dominance is replaced by proletarian equality.

In the aftermath of revolution, control of the state shifts to the working class, enabling the development of new productive forces. Over time, the material conditions necessary for a socialist reconstruction of society are created, ultimately leading to the emergence of a classless and stateless society—communism.

Revisionism or Revolutionary Socialism

Edward Bernstein, a German socialist, was a leading figure in the development of “Evolutionary Socialism,” a revisionist approach to traditional Marxism. His book Evolutionary Socialism laid the foundation for this school of thought. Bernstein was joined by fellow scholars of the German Social Democratic movement such as Ferdinand Lassalle, August Bebel, and Wilhelm Liebknecht. Although both revisionists and orthodox Marxists viewed socialism as a doctrine for the working class, they diverged on the situation of wage workers and the political strategies that would best benefit laborers. This division was rooted in differing perspectives on how socialism should be implemented and the future of capitalism (Coke, 1934).

Ferdinand Lassalle, another key figure in German revisionism, accepted Marx’s historical materialism but believed that political democracy—based on universal suffrage—should precede the proletariat’s rise to power. He advocated for the immediate establishment of worker cooperatives supported by the state. Lassalle also proposed the formation of a working-class political party to ensure representation in legislative bodies. He became the leader of the Universal German Workingmen’s Association in 1863. After his death, Marxist radicals like Bebel and Liebknecht pushed the movement in a more revolutionary direction, culminating in the Erfurt Programme, a revision of Marx and Engels’ original doctrines.

Among these varying interpretations, Bernstein’s revisionism gained the most prominence. His main points included:

Capitalism’s collapse is not imminent: Bernstein rejected the Marxist prediction that capitalism was on the verge of collapse.
Increasing number of capitalists: Contrary to Marx, Bernstein observed that while wealth concentration increased, so did the number of capitalists across different levels, and the middle classes were not disappearing.
Slow industrial concentration: He noted that industry was not concentrating as quickly or uniformly as Marx had forecasted.
Impact of labor reforms: Bernstein argued that labor movements, factory legislation, the democratization of local government, and trade unions had slowed down capitalist exploitation.
Inclusion of non-economic factors: While acknowledging the validity of economic interpretations of history, Bernstein believed that non-economic factors should also be considered when analyzing social development.
Dependence on social wealth: He argued that socialism’s prospects depended on increasing social wealth, rather than a decline in capitalist structures.
Economic crises: Bernstein disagreed with Marx’s theory of inevitable and worsening economic crises under capitalism, suggesting that such crises were unlikely in the near future.
Opposition to violent revolution: Instead of advocating for a violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, Bernstein supported universal suffrage as a peaceful path to achieving socialism.
Middle class and class structure: Bernstein rejected Marx’s two-class model of society, arguing for the importance of the middle class.

Critics of Bernstein and other revisionists often pointed to their selective adoption of Marxism, accusing them of diluting the original theory and making them appear unoriginal and ideologically inconsistent. Their blend of Marxist principles with a more pragmatic approach to socialism left them wavering between pro- and anti-Marxist positions.

Fabianism or English Variety of Democratic Socialism

Fabianism rejected Marxism entirely and introduced a new form of socialism, drawing from the ideas of John Stuart Mill during the post-1860 period. Unlike Marxism, Fabianism adapted to the unique national characteristics and historical experiences of England, embracing both individualism and a practical, compromising approach that resonated with English sensibilities (Skelton, 2009). The Fabian Society, formed by prominent English intellectuals of the time, was influenced by social and economic thinkers like Henry George, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill. The essence of Fabianism lay in its rejection of Marxism and its alignment with English parliamentary democracy. Key principles of Fabianism include:

Opposition to a competitive system: Fabians rejected competition as a means to ensure general welfare and happiness.
Land nationalization: They advocated for the nationalization of land.
Political representation of socialism: They believed socialist principles should be expressed through political parties.
Scientific and ethical foundation: Fabianism aimed to provide a scientifically and ethically justified socialist policy compatible with the social and economic realities of England at the time.
Theory of value: Fabians revisited the classical and Marxist theories of value, arguing that value was created by society, not just by laborers.
The role of the state: Rather than seeing the state as an evil, Fabians viewed it as a welfare agency—a representative and trustee of the people.
Rejection of class warfare: They argued that the real conflict was not between wage workers and owners, but between the community and those who grew rich through investments.
Constitutional and democratic methods: Fabians believed in using constitutional and democratic methods to achieve socialism.
Social service over private property: They advocated for social service to replace the private property motive.

Fabian socialism has faced criticism, often being labeled “bourgeois socialism.” Liberals from the schools of Adam Smith and Herbert Spencer criticized it for expanding state involvement at the expense of individual liberty. Additionally, it has been called idealistic or utopian due to its non-revolutionary and gradualist approach.

Syndicalism

Syndicalism represents a unique form of socialism that blends elements of Marxism and Proudhonian anarchism. Its advocates describe it as a trade unionist interpretation of Marx’s economic doctrine and class struggle, focusing on the role of workers’ syndicates or unions as key drivers for transforming the social structure.

Syndicalism emerged from the French trade union movement, with its most influential leader being Georges Sorel. Another important figure associated with the adoption of Syndicalist policies was Fernand Pelloutier. Both Sorel and Pelloutier were prominent exponents of this theory, emphasizing social transformation through working-class institutions (Coke, 1934).

Philosopher C.E.M. Joad outlines the key principles of Syndicalism as follows (Joad, 1925):

View of the state: Syndicalists see the state as a bourgeois, middle-class institution that is bureaucratic and indifferent to the needs of workers.
Rejection of middle-class socialism: They argue that middle-class socialists are disconnected from the real needs of workers, advocating instead for a form of workers’ socialism.
Producers’ control: Syndicalists support a system where industries are owned and controlled by trade unions, which they believe would increase both workers’ freedom and industrial efficiency. In this system, unions would manage industries and play a central role in decision-making.

Syndicalism rejects peaceful, constitutional methods in favor of revolutionary tactics, often referred to as “direct action.” These methods include general strikes, sabotage, boycotts, and labeling. The general strike, in particular, is seen as the primary tool for paralyzing capitalist structures, though it would focus on key industries rather than striking across all sectors. Syndicalists believe that a catastrophic, all-encompassing revolution is necessary, as opposed to gradual or staged political reforms.

After the revolution, power would rest exclusively in the hands of trade unions. Key industries, such as railroads and postal services, would be managed by the unions, while national federations would provide technical support and advice. Disciplinary measures would involve boycotts for profiteers and banishment for idlers. Syndicalists also envisioned a society without traditional prisons and courts, where crimes would be dealt with through immediate, spontaneous justice.

A defensive militia composed of armed trade union members would protect against counter-revolutionary threats. Each union would maintain its own defense force, with arms distributed by central labor exchanges to ensure protection.

Syndicalism can be understood as a mix of Marxist and anarchist ideologies. Its critique of capitalism and adherence to class struggle align with Marxism, while its emphasis on trade union control and its anarchist vision of a stateless society distinguish it from orthodox Marxism.

Criticism of Syndicalism includes:

View of the state: Some argue that Syndicalism’s characterization of the state as a purely destructive force is overly harsh. The state could potentially serve as an enabling force for the common good.
Political irrationalism: Syndicalism has been criticized for relying on bold, adventurous action rather than rational planning and strategy, leading to its classification as politically irrational (Gray, 1947).

Guild Socialism

This form of socialism can be seen as a blend of French Syndicalism and English Fabianism. It is fundamentally anti-Marxist, rejecting the Marxian idea that the state is a class-based institution used for exploitation and oppression. Guild Socialists aim to strip capital owners of the power to dictate working conditions and to profit from the labor of workers. They advocate for workers to have a direct role in management. In this model, all workers in an industry would form a union, or “guild,” responsible for managing its own affairs. In this respect, Guild Socialists share similarities with Syndicalists, but they take the concept a step further.

Guild Socialism began in 1906 with the publication of A.J. Penty’s book The Restoration of the Guild System, which called for a return to the medieval principle of self-governance in industry. In this system, craftsmen were members of autonomous guilds and owned their tools. Penty’s ideas laid the groundwork for the establishment of industrial self-governance by the workers themselves, organized into guilds, with trade unions serving as a foundation.

A key feature of Guild Socialism was its goal to abolish the wage system. The following four points highlight its critique of the wage system:

The wage system separates labor from the laborer, commodifying labor so it can be bought and sold independently.
Wages are only provided when it benefits the employer.
In exchange for wages, workers relinquish all control over the production process.
Workers forfeit any claim to the products of their labor.

Guild Socialists argued that the wage system symbolized a “degraded status” and must be replaced. They believed it was the duty of National Guilds to guarantee workers four essential rights:

Payment based on their inherent dignity as human beings.
Financial security during employment, unemployment, sickness, and health.
Control over the organization of production.
A rightful claim to the products of their labor.

The core principles of Guild Socialism, particularly as articulated by its main advocate, Cole, are as follows:

Functional Democracy: Guild Socialists argue that true representation must be functional. They believe that any system of representation that claims to be universal but fails to reflect the actual functions and roles within society is merely a form of misrepresentation. They criticize the prevalent system of territorial representation, asserting that it often results in misrepresentation because individuals cannot adequately represent functions outside their own expertise. Therefore, historical representative institutions are seen as inadequate.
Self-Government in Industry: Guild Socialists advocate for the complete control of industries by guilds. A guild includes everyone involved in an industry, from the top managers to the lowest workers, distinguishing it from trade unions which involve only workers. Unlike trade unions, which focus solely on protecting workers’ interests, guilds are responsible for the entire management of their respective industries. The principle of self-government in industry is intended to empower workers and support their personal development (Orage, 2019).
Guild Commonwealth: Guild Socialists envision a new societal structure similar to that proposed by syndicalists and anarchists, but without abolishing the state. They propose a society organized into guilds representing producers, manufacturers, and agriculturalists, each of which would operate autonomously. These guilds would be regulated by communes at local, regional, and national levels. The national communes would provide representation for all guilds and handle various functions, including:

Financial issues, such as allocating national resources, providing capital, and regulating incomes and prices.
Resolving policy disagreements between functional bodies.
Addressing constitutional matters related to the boundaries between functional authorities.
Managing issues outside the scope of any single functional authority, including external relations.
Exercising coercive functions as necessary (Carpenter, 1922; Cole, 1972).

Guild Socialism faces several criticisms:

Lack of Coherence: Critics argue that Guild Socialism is a disjointed amalgamation of various socialist theories, resulting in a vague and inconsistent framework.
Utopian Nature: Some contend that Guild Socialism is overly idealistic and impractical, making it a utopian vision rather than a feasible system.
Potential for Anarchism: There are concerns that Guild Socialism could inadvertently lead to anarchism and lawlessness, as it challenges traditional state structures.
Confusing Role of the State: Critics also find the role of the state within the Guild Socialism framework to be ambiguous and unclear.

Anarchism

Anarchism derives from the Greek word “anarchic,” meaning non-rule. Anarchists advocate for the absence of any form of authority to ensure complete human liberty. Coker defines anarchism as “the doctrine that political authority, in any of its forms, is unnecessary and undesirable.”

Anarchists represented a significant non-Marxian faction within the socialist movement, and their ongoing rivalry with Marxists fueled the doctrinal debates and organizational divisions that marked both the First (1864–1876) and Second Internationals (1889–1914).

Anarchism was never a unified ideological movement. Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, anarchists within the international socialist movement identified as mutualists, collectivists, communists, and syndicalists. Despite their theoretical differences, anarchists of all schools were united in their opposition to Marxism. This opposition arose because Marxists advocated for the continuation of the state until full communism was achieved, while anarchists rejected the idea that the state could ever serve as a positive force.

Some scholars consider anarchism a distinct variety of socialism for two reasons. First, many prominent anarchists, like Proudhon and Bakunin, had socialist backgrounds and were close to Marx, who subjected them to harsh criticism when they expressed divergent views. Second, anarchism is seen as complementary to scientific socialism, as some argue that what scientific socialism aims to achieve in its final stage aligns with the central principle of anarchism.

Anarchists, like other revolutionary socialists, critique the capitalist system and envision its replacement with a system centered around the individual and their interests. According to Laidler, the main points of anarchism are as follows:

Opposition to the Political State: Unlike socialists, anarchists oppose all forms of the political state and may advocate for terrorism to achieve their goals.
Philosophy Beyond Economics: Anarchism is not just an economic-political program but a philosophy that applies to every aspect of human life—education, marriage, religion, work, and social order.
Education Over Violence: Leading anarchists aim to achieve their ideals through education, leaving acts of indiscriminate violence to government officials, stockbrokers, and other figures of authority.
Revolutionary Strategy: Since anarchists abstain from politics and reject the ballot box as a means to advance workers’ causes, they adopt a revolutionary strategy, which puts them at odds with both Marxists and reformist socialists.

The anarchist tactic of “propaganda by the deed” led to their portrayal as social deviants determined to destroy civilization, a view popularized by writers and social scientists such as Joseph Conrad, Henry James, and Cesare Lombroso.

At the turn of the century, anarchism, which had nearly faded in Europe, was revitalized by the emergence of revolutionary syndicalism. Libertarian thinkers like Arturo Labriola, Émile Pouget, and José Prat merged this new doctrine—emphasizing trade unionism and direct action tactics like the general strike—with older anarchist beliefs, resulting in anarcho-syndicalism. This movement became particularly influential in France, Spain, and Italy, and it was the introduction of syndicalism that spurred the phenomenal growth of anarchism in Spain.

Anarchism later faced several criticisms:

Misinterpretation of the State: Anarchists are criticized for their erroneous view of the state’s origin and nature. Their belief that the state is inherently coercive and oppressive, and that only a stateless society can ensure absolute individual liberty, is seen as flawed and unconvincing.
Utopian Vision: Anarchism is considered another form of utopian socialism. While its critique of the state may have some logical basis, its vision of a golden era of total human emancipation is viewed as unrealistic.
Condemnation of Violence: The violent methods suggested by revolutionary anarchists are criticized, as violence only begets more violence, creating a cycle that is difficult to break.

Socialism Today and Tomorrow

At the beginning of the 20th century, the parties of the Second International believed in the establishment of socialism. However, by 2005, few communist governments remained in power, and social democracy had diverged significantly from traditional forms of socialism. North Korea continued to exhibit a “totalitarian” personality, but its population lived in dire poverty. Meanwhile, in much of Europe, the extreme Right, along with xenophobia and racism, appeared to be on the rise. The United States emerged as the sole superpower, committed to spreading its brand of capitalism worldwide. Even the most pessimistic observer would concede that this was a highly unfavorable environment for socialists.

This perspective is encapsulated by Perry Anderson, a prominent intellectual of the Marxist Left. In 2000, he published an article titled “Renewal,” which could have just as easily been called “Requiem for Socialism.” Anderson observed that, for the first time since the Reformation, there were virtually no significant oppositional viewpoints—no systematic, competing ideologies—within the Western intellectual community.

Neo-liberalism, despite any existing limitations in its application, had become the most successful philosophy in history. Anderson suggested that before there is any shift in the political correlation of forces, there will be a significant change in the intellectual balance. He believed that this correlation would remain stable as long as there was no severe economic crisis in the West. Only a recession of interwar magnitude, Anderson argued, could challenge the current consensus. He acknowledged that both the Soviet Union and the West’s Keynesian demand management strategies had contributed to the power of communism and social democracy. Anderson also recognized the advancements made by feminists and ecologists in the developed world as “the most important elements of human progress,” though he saw these as an afterthought that did little to lift the deeply pessimistic mood surrounding social democracy.

Socialists have often used the phrase “pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will.” However, Ralph Miliband challenged this notion in the 25th anniversary issue of New Left Review in 1985, arguing that rationality requires the belief that things are unlikely to turn out as they should, given the higher likelihood of failure over success. This view presents a challenge to the socialist belief that the inherent injustices and inequalities of capitalism will always give rise to movements of protest and opposition, which, even if they don’t lead to utopia, will still contain elements of progress.

A close examination of contemporary concepts and policies, particularly those of New Labour, suggests a departure from socialism. The focus has shifted to individual autonomy, the introduction of private capital, and the infusion of private sector values into the public sector. In response to current challenges, New Labour, and European social democracy more broadly, have moved away from socialism and toward liberalism.

Moreover, there has been a search for frameworks where socialist-compatible ideas could be advanced without explicitly mentioning socialism. New perspectives on citizenship, democracy, global governance, and human rights have gained prominence. In the 1930s and 1940s, it was possible to present a leftist view on concepts like democracy, capitalism, and socialism without overtly proposing a socialist framework. The argument was that these concepts required the inclusion of economic, social, collective, and sometimes ecological elements to be fully realized. In this way, socialist ideas could be integrated into theories and proposals without being explicitly labeled as such.

This strategy has its advantages, as it draws attention and support from various political and intellectual perspectives. However, it also presents significant drawbacks, particularly when applied to the concept of human rights. While the importance of human rights is undeniable, and some may argue that socialism should play a crucial role in protecting and expanding these rights, this perspective poses challenges. For instance, if socialism had always been strongly aligned with human rights, it would have been more difficult for socialists to defend Stalin’s crimes under the justification that the ends justified the means. However, equating the concept of human rights—even when including socioeconomic and collective rights—with a replacement for socialism is not the same thing.

Socialism was built on a critique of capitalism and a commitment to creating an equal society based on principles of cooperation and solidarity. Theorists who limit human rights to the civil and political realms are likely to challenge this position, highlighting that the use of human rights terminology alone cannot bridge deep-seated ideological divides.

Conclusion

It is clear from the preceding account that socialism has undergone numerous transformations and interpretations over the past two centuries. Some scholars argue that socialists should remain true to their philosophy rather than allowing it to fragment into a collection of separate concepts. Others contend that socialism in the twenty-first century cannot be situated on the same ideological map it occupied as a revolutionary theory in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Whether socialism will continue to evolve or fade away entirely remains uncertain. However, regardless of its future as a doctrine, socialist ideas and values are so deeply embedded in various political traditions that they will undoubtedly continue to find expression in an ever-changing political landscape.

References

Aber, J. (1983). Social policy and social welfareˇ (M. Loney, D. Boswell, & J. Clarke, Eds.). ˇMilton Keynes: Open Press University.
Anderson, P. (2022). New left review 5; second Series. September/October 2000 (First Edition). New Left Review Ltd.
Bovens, L., & Lutz, A. (2019). “From each according to ability; to each according to needs.” History of Political Economy, 51(2), 237–257.
Joad, C.E.M. (1925). An introduction to modern political theory.
Johri, J.C (1989). Principles of Modern Political Science, Sterling Publishers.
Kolakwaski L. (1978), Main Currents in Marxism, Vol I, Oxford University Press.
Newman, M. (2020). Socialism: A very short introduction (very short introductions) (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Orage (2019) An alphabet of Economics, Forgotten Books.
Skelton, D.(2009), Socialism: A Critical Analysis, Cornell University Library.