Arvind Sujeeth

Moeller

Modern Revolutions

4/1/03

“Socialism as an effective, organized political movement is the product of the Industrial Revolution.”[i] Accordingly, socialism is most well categorized as a modern social movement – one that continues to gather force and speed into the new millennium. While Rousseau, Marx and Engels formed the basis for much of the socialist doctrine, socialism as an idea and a movement has become adopted by much of Europe and Canada; indeed, many socialist elements are present in America’s own capitalist system.

Before we can conduct any accurate analysis of socialism as a modern movement, we must first distill the most common misconceptions relating to socialism: first, that it is synonymous with communism; second, that it falls under the category of a coercive or command economy; third, that its reformers seek or advocate violent revolution. Rather than be an opposite to capitalism, socialism is an inherently idealist system aiming for the same goal – the maximum welfare of the people. Socialist goals aren’t that of power or oppression, as we might see in a fascist or communist state, but instead one of extreme cooperation – the “brotherhood” of the collective, which includes everyone in the state. Communism endorses the rule of the elite (the Communist Party) to guide the proletariat; Socialism inherently rejects any such elitist – unequal – idea.

It follows, then, that with its idealist vision of man and this brotherhood, socialism has become the ultimate left-wing goal – one that liberal progressives hope will appeal to, in Robert Owen’s words, “every rational man, every true friend of humanity.” Ultimately, the ideal socialist aims to end inequality everywhere through perpetual peaceful reform. Equality and freedom – two of the noblest visions of civilization – are unfortunately often contradictory ideas. Where one ends and the other begins, however, is a difficult line to follow; it is critical, then, that most modern socialists (in the last 50 years to present) – including key American socialists such as Norman Thomas – “generally accept, as they should, a mixed economy, controlled by the overall concept that production should be for the good of all. For the state, under any system, to try to own and operate anything, would deprive us of some of the important values of private initiative and responsibility.” Most socialist parties argue not for the nationalization of all fields, but instead for the nationalization of specific fields: ones that invariably arrive at natural monopolies (oil, water, public utilities) along with fields of necessity (medical, other fundamental humanist fields). Collective ownership is dangerous only insofar as it is absolute, with the government both the means and the end; socialism, to most socialists, is not absolute, but rather relative.

Why, then, has socialism lagged behind in the United States when it has gained such significant footholds around the world? William Ebenstein and Edwin Fogelman offer two theories: 1) because the United States has never experienced a feudal system, it has never experienced the gaping social inequality of Europe and 2) the abolition of poverty – one of the major promises of socialism – was regarded almost as a non-issue in the U.S. because poverty levels themselves are lower in the U.S. than in most states, and furthermore, are closely tied to race. Nonetheless, through publicly financed initiatives in the U.S. as well as perpetual programs like public schooling and Medicare, we can see socialism coexisting with individual competition in the U.S. market.

Around the world, the socialist movement is coming to an almost bewildered form of standstill, having accomplished most of its progressive goals and achieving a satisfying balance of cooperation with privatization. If one believes Marx, the next step is communism; given the historical context, goals and methods of communism, however, this “step” sounds much more like an unlikely and backwards leap. Many of the new issues seem to be outside the political scope of both capitalism and socialism, such as foreign policy, which is dominated in both socialist and capitalist countries by an arbitrary (but necessary) attachment to national interest, whatever it may be at the time.

The socialist movement has taken leaps and bounds from where it started with Rousseau’s shady idea of the “general will” and its immeasurable idealism. It is still inherently idealistic, but possesses a more balanced and moderate position to its goals; it has been irreversibly touched by the ideology and methodology of political liberalism, and like political liberalism, it has witnessed the realization of most of its programs around the world. The welfare state – a state that provides, in some sense, a safety net for those at the very bottom rungs, those who may be unable to help themselves for whatever circumstance – is no longer a controversial state, but an accepted state. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy to point out that while socialism lies on the extreme left of the political spectrum, many leftists and liberals find it inherently irreconcilable with their views; collectivism, at some point, must sacrifice individualism; even in moderation, the fundamental idea that the brotherhood is superior or a greater goal than that of the individual is an idea that is often at odds with many liberals – including myself. Like most conservatives, I have no great urge to give 80% of my paycheck to the government, regardless of what it may be taking care of for me. Nonetheless, neo-socialism is a careful, intellectual, and moderate movement; it has championed and achieved social progression around the world, with, as far as I can tell, only noble intentions. Socialism may speak a lot to and for the collective, but in the end, it aims for nothing more than protecting and aiding each and every last individual – a respectable goal if I have ever seen one.