Socialism History

Socialism in the Early 20th Century

Introduction to Socialism History

Germany’s Social Democratic Party (SPD) dominated the European socialist movement at the turn of the 20th century. Its dominance was due to a combination of factors: the prestige and importance of Germany, the prestige of the party’s intellectuals, the SPD’s superb organization, and above all its electoral strength and the weakness of socialist parties in countries of comparable importance such as France and the United Kingdom. In 1890, when the German Reichstag (parliament) stopped renewing laws that restricted SPD activities, the party became the largest in Germany. By 1914 it had 1 million members.

Elsewhere strong labor movements did not necessarily mean strong socialist parties. British trade unions created the Labour Party only in 1900 and did not ally it with the goals of socialism until 1918. In the United States the widespread persecution of labor unions made it difficult to form a separate party of any significance. In France workers were organized more slowly, and the socialist movement remained divided.” (1)

Socialism in 1889

The following information about Socialism and Socialists is from the Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy, and the Political History of the United States by the Best American and European Writers:

“Until quite recently there was one most marked and important difference between the continental and the English workman. The former placed his chief reliance on the state, whereas it was the aim of the latter to free himself as much as possible from government control. One of the first uses which the French workmen made of their success in the revolution of 1848, was to compel the government to establish national workshops, and to advance loans to co-operative associations. One of the first things which the English workmen did, when they obtained political power by the reform bill of 1867, was to call upon parliament to repeal all the laws which interfered with the formation of voluntary trade combinations. The continental workman was constantly looking to the state as he would to a powerful friend or benefactor to aid and reward him. The attitude of the English workman has, until recently, been one rather of hostility toward the state. His habit has been to claim freedom from government control, to that he might have a free and open field for the exercise of his energies. This difference, however, between English and continental laborers is becoming less marked. It can scarcely have escaped notice that during the last two or three years English workmen have with much greater frequency asked for government assistance; and the demands for state intervention are constantly enlarging.

There are many circumstances which have contributed to bring about this change. In the first place, it is probable, as previously indicated, that the growing tendency shown by so many of our artisans to rely upon the state may be traced to the false hopes excited, some years since. by those who taught the people to believe that the great end to be striven after was a larger production of wealth. This augmented production of wealth has taken place, and when it is found to be unaccompanied by the predicted improvement in the condition of the poor, there is naturally aroused keen disappointment, and there is diffused through the industrial classes a general feeling of distrust. They get into just that frame of mind which causes them to give a ready acceptance to any doctrines differing from those by which they suppose they have been deceived.

The opinions in favor of state intervention so current among continental workmen now consequently find a more ready acceptance in this country; these opinions are, In fact, transplanted to our shores under such favorable circumstances that, for a time at least, they seem to have taken root among us.

England

Fully (…) admitting that among those who hold these opinions are still to be found some of our ablest artisans, yet it can scarcely be denied by any who observe serve the signs of the times that, so far as England is concerned, the demands for state assistance are each year assuming more formidable proportions. This will be sufficiently shown by enumerating some of the many things which the state is, with increasing urgency, asked to supply for the people. It is now, for instance, often said that the government should pay the passage-money of emigrants; should furnish work at good wages for the unemployed; and should secure for laborers comfortable houses and wholesome food at a reasonable rate. Such proposals as these represent the opinions of those who may by comparison be regarded as moderate in their demands.

State

In one respect (the) (…) growing tendency to rely upon the state is fraught with greater danger to England than to many other countries. This is not an appropriate place to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of government by party. There is, however, one aspect in which party government may be viewed, as having a very direct bearing upon the subject we are now considering. The two great political sections who contend for place and power have a constant temptation held out to them to bid against each other for popular support. [May not the same be said of political parties in the United States?] When therefore, it is perceived that any particular set of opinions has obtained a great hold upon the masses, place and power will seem to be the lot of the political party which promises to do most to give effect to these opinions.

Under the pressure of this temptation, it may, consequently, any day happen that statesmen will accept doctrines and pursue a policy against which, if their judgment was unbiased, they would be the first to protest. This is a peril which hangs over this country, and recent events have shown that I am not conjuring up an imaginary vision of coming danger. During the last year [this was written in the early part of 1872] direct encouragement has been given to some of the most mischievous and alarming features of modern socialism by one who is, and by another who has been, a responsible minister of state. The budget of 1871 was framed in accordance with some of the financial principles of the international association; and no member of this organization ever made more reckless promises to the proletariat than did Sir John Pakington, when, as president of the social science association, he told the workmen, in his address at Leeds, that parliament ought to secure for them comfortable homes and wholesome food at reasonable prices.

A few months before Sir John Pakington enunciated these mischievous doctrines, the people had been virtually told by the chancellor of the exchequer, that if they make some demand, the granting of which involves additional expenditure, the majority shall avoid contributing a single shilling toward the outlay, and shall be enabled to throw the whole burden upon the payers of income tax. Under such fostering care it is not surprising that there is rapidly growing up in this country an abnormal development of that new form of socialism, the cardinal principle of which is that all social improvements must be effected by state agency, and must also be carried out by public money.”

Political Economy and Socialism

“Among the forms of socialism, German writers on political economy mention what they call staatssozialismus. or state socialism. understanding by the term “that system which would have economic relations regulated as far as possible by the state, and which would substitute state help for self-help” Prince Bismarck has shown a decided leaning to this form of socialism. The French have the expression socialisme d’état, which is the exact equivalent of staalssozialismus, or state socialism. That such a form of socialism has been finding favor with large classes of the people in recent times can not be doubted. Hence it has been not inappropriately styled by Professor Faweett, “modern socialism;” and much of what he says on its growth and probable consequences in certain countries of Europe is true as to its growth and consequences in the United States, but of course not to the same extent as in Europe. He writes: “It is each day becoming more evident that in every European country an increasing number of the laboring population are giving an enthusiastic adherence to certain social and economic principles, which, if carried into effect, will introduce even more fundamental changes than those brought about by the first French revolution. Never, perhaps, was there a time when it was more important to dispassionately consider the ideas. the wants and the aspirations of the workmen who are engaged in this movement, which may be described under the general title of modern socialism. Without such dispassionate consideration, there is certain to arise, instead of a kindly and intelligent sympathy, the rancorous enmity of bitter class prejudice. Those who are prepared to show this sympathy may have some chance of directing to purposes of inestimable good this new movement, which, if met with blind and unreasoning opposition, will at last gradually gather so much strength as to pass beyond control; Europe may then flud herself involved in a terrible war of classes. It has been repeatedly shown that the friends of revolutionary changes derive their motive power from the bigoted opponents of progress, and from the stubborn upholders of unwise laws and unjust privileges. It might as well be supposed that the railway engine would move if it were deprived of steam, that wheat could grow without soil, or that man could live without food, as to imagine that a revolutionary propagandism could be maintained if it were not kept alive by the recollection of some wrong inflicted, and by the continuance of some grievance unredressed. It is perfectly vain to expect that there will not be threatening of coming convulsions so long as the social and economic condition of great masses of the people remains what it is at the present time. England is constantly being glorified as the wealthiest of all nations. From every platform in the kingdom orators delight to parade the well-known statistics about our vast and growing commerce. Each quarterly return from the board of trade shows an augmentation of exports and imports. In spite, however, of all these evidences of accumulating wealth, the majority of our people have a severe struggle for existence, and no inconsiderable minority live in abject misery and in degrading poverty. The more wealthy the nation is admitted to be, the more perilous does it become, and the more ominous of future trouble, that one out of twenty of the nation should be a pauper; that to a great proportion of our laboring classes a life of incessant toll yields no other result than an old age of dependent mendicancy; that millions are so entirely uneducated as to be cut off from every intellectual enjoyment; that in many rural districts horses are stabled far more comfortably than laborers are housed; and that in our largest and wealthiest cities the poor are so crowded and huddled together, that in a countless number of instances all the members of a family herd together in a single room. Can any one who reflects on such facts be surprised that a wide-spread spirit of unrest and dissatisfaction is abroad? Ought it not to be regarded as almost incredible that a social structure resting on such a basis should have stood so long? But it may be said that if things are not as rapidly improving as can be desired, they are certainly not getting worse. Why then, it is urged, should there be this new outburst of discontent? No new laws vexations to the industrial classes have been imposed; many, on the contrary, have been repealed; taxation is not more burdensome, and duties on many of the necessaries of life which added greatly to their cost have been remitted. May it not, therefore, be fairly concluded that things will gradually improve; that the present dissatisfaction is unreasonable, and that the demands of those who are so discontented with society as it is now constituted should be simply met by undeviating resistance? As there is only too much reason to fear that many will assume this attitude of resistance, it is important to give the most emphatic warning as to the consequences which the adoption of such a policy may involve. As it is so frequently supposed that the movement in favor of organic social and economic changes has no solid foundation in reason or in justice, and that it is rather a temporary aberration of certain unsettled and mischievous people who love revolution for revolution’s sake, it becomes important, in the first instance, to attempt to discover whether this is a true interpretation of the sentiments now widely prevalent among the industrial classes.

Resources

Notes and References

• Information about Socialism History in the Encarta Online Encyclopedia

Guide to Socialism History

Socialism Socialism in the Early 20th Century World War I

Introduction to Socialism History

Before the outbreak of World War I in 1914 socialists assumed that their demands could be achieved peacefully in democratic countries and that violence might be necessary where despotism prevailed, as in Russia under the tsars. The majority assumed that their task was to build up the movement until the eventual collapse of capitalism would enable socialism to be established. Some socialists, such as SPD member Rosa Luxemburg, impatient with this wait-and-see attitude, advocated the use of the mass general strike as a revolutionary weapon to be deployed when required.

On the eve of World War I all socialist parties were united in at least one aim-the prevention of the impending war. When war did erupt, however, the two most important socialist parties of the time, the French and the German, chose to support their own governments. In both France and Germany socialists had acquired a stake in the existing social order. Universal or near-universal male suffrage had given them some degree of representation in the legislature, and with this some negotiating strength to secure civil rights and social reforms. Where socialists had made little or no gains, or were banned and persecuted, as in Russia, there was no ground for patriotism.

The war effectively broke up the limited unity of European socialism. The Russian Revolutions of 1917 provided a further blow against socialist unity. It separated the supporters of the Bolsheviks, led by V. I. Lenin, from reformist social democrats, most of whom had backed their national governments during the war. Most Communist parties were formed in the years immediately following World War I by Lenin’s supporters within the socialist parties. In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), and in the Communist countries that emerged after World War II, the term socialism indicated a transitional phase between capitalism and Communism. Communists remained committed to a centralized and authoritarian view of socialism, whereby the Communist Party made all the important decisions as the unelected representative of the people.

Elsewhere, during the years leading up to World War II, the socialist parties and not the Communists remained the dominant leftist current in the European labor movement and in the electorate as a whole. European socialists rejected the authoritarian concepts of Soviet Communism and accepted all the basic rules of liberal democracy: free elections; civil liberties; political pluralism-that is, multiple parties; and the sovereignty (authority and independence) of parliament, the legislative branch. The rivalry between socialists and Communists was interrupted only occasionally, as in the 1930s when they joined forces to oppose fascism. ” (1)

Resources

Notes and References

• Information about Socialism History in the Encarta Online Encyclopedia

Guide to Socialism History

Socialism Socialism in the Early 20th Century Between the Wars and World War II

Introduction to Socialism History

Between the two world wars socialists were able to form governments, usually in coalition with or supported by other parties. They were thus able to be in power at times during the 1920s in Britain and Germany, and during the 1930s in Belgium, France, and Spain. In Sweden, where social democrats have been more successful than elsewhere, they governed without interruption from 1932 to 1976.

In Spain a coalition of socialists and leftist liberals, supported by the Communists, formed a popular front government from 1936 to 1939. The leftist coalition provoked a fierce reaction from clerical and military circles led by General Francisco Franco. The resultant Spanish Civil War ended with Franco’s victory and the establishment of a dictatorship in Spain that lasted until 1975. A similar popular-front government, elected in France in 1936, was more fortunate. It introduced some social reforms but was ousted from power in less than a year. In Germany the SPD formed a government in 1918 and introduced significant social legislation, but it was out power for most of the 1920s. By the 1930s the consequences of the Great Depression had so increased unemployment and social discontent in Germany that the way was opened for the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party.

The 1930s were grim years for the European socialist parties and for democracy in general. In many countries authoritarian regimes of the right held power, and in the Soviet Union, an authoritarian regime of the left was in control. World War II (1939-1945) offered a new chance to European social democracy. Although the Communists tended to lead the main resistance in territories occupied by Nazi Germany and its allies, the socialists emerged from the war as the main party of the left in nearly all European countries. In Eastern Europe, under Soviet influence or occupation, the socialists merged with the Communists, usually against their will, and socialist parties essentially became banned.” (1)

Resources

Notes and References

• Information about Socialism History in the Encarta Online Encyclopedia

Guide to Socialism History

Socialism The Postwar Years

Introduction to Socialism History

After World War II European socialist parties, frequently leading the government, concentrated on social and economic reforms under capitalism. Although these reforms varied from country to country, the first goal was the introduction of a comprehensive welfare plan that would protect all citizens “from the cradle to the grave.” Secondly, socialist parties sought to maintain full employment using techniques of economic management developed by liberal economist John Maynard Keynes. It was primarily after 1945 that socialism became associated with management of the economy by the government and expansion of the public sector through nationalization of major industries.

Remarkable economic growth during the 1950s and 1960s put an end to the socialist assumption that under capitalism the working class would be constantly impoverished or the economy would stagnate. Western European socialist parties increasingly sought to attract middle-class voters. To do so they openly discarded Marxism (something they had already done in practice), loosened their links with labor unions, and abandoned the idea of an ever-expanding nationalized sector. This late-1950s revisionism proclaimed the new goal of socialism to be wealth redistribution according to principles of social justice and equality. Many centrist and conservative parties in Europe shared these assumptions.” (1)

Resources

Notes and References

• Information about Socialism History in the Encarta Online Encyclopedia

Guide to Socialism History

Socialism The 1970s and 1980s

Introduction to Socialism History

A sharp increase in petroleum prices in 1973 triggered widespread inflation in the developed world, while economic growth rates faltered. The idea of a crisis of capitalism reappeared in political discourse. Growing environmental consciousness, though not necessarily aligned with socialism, implied that unchecked capitalist growth was harmful to the environment. The Vietnam War, which ended in 1975 and was followed by the Watergate scandal, weakened the prestige of the United States, the leading capitalist country.

By the late 1970s and early 1980s, however, the tide was turning against the left, at least in northern Europe, particularly in Britain and Germany. Rising unemployment had weakened the labor unions, increased poverty, and made the welfare system far more costly than in the days of full employment. To maintain welfare standards during a time of rising unemployment required increased taxation of those still employed. This move proved unpopular. Conservative parties argued that it was necessary to “roll back the state,” reduce public spending, and privatize state-owned companies. Socialists were increasingly on the defensive.

The growing economic interdependence that developed rapidly in the 1970s and 1980s, often referred to as globalization, meant that Keynesian economic policies had become less effective. Pumping money into the economy to increase the demand for goods brought about balance of payments problems (because some of the demand was for goods produced abroad) and inflation. Socialist governments discovered this to their cost as they lost elections in Britain in the 1970s and in France in the 1980s.

In Britain and Germany the socialist parties lost elections in, respectively, 1979 and 1981. They remained out of power until the second half of the 1990s. In France and Italy the left was deeply divided between socialists and Communists. This helped centrist parties remain in power. An effort by Communists and socialists in France to patch up their differences finally paid off in 1981 with the election of Socialist leader François Mitterrand as president. But the French Socialist Party lost control of the National Assembly in 1985. In Italy the Democratic Party of the Left, a reconstituted Communist party, came to power in 1996 at the head of a coalition only after the collapse of the governing parties in the wake of sensational corruption scandals. The coalition lost power in 2001 to a right-wing government headed by media magnate Silvio Berlusconi.” (1)

Resources

Notes and References

• Information about Socialism History in the Encarta Online Encyclopedia

Guide to Socialism History