Go Socialism!

Brandt and Schroeder didn't/don't label their political affiliations as socialist - only the UK's PM and the Labour Party does so
(We are Social Democrats here, the PDS is a socialist party: Party of Democratic Socialism - ex-governing state party in the GDR :wink: )

Walter is maintaining his habit of finding fault with the details, while ignoring the main point. If he wasn't such a nice guy this would drive me crazy .

The topic was about socialism, not social democracies. Notwithstanding this, I have expressed my interest in discussing th behvoral differences that result from socialism (GDR) , social democracies ()if walter wants to call them that) such as the principal members of the EU, and more conservative capitalistic democracies such as the United States.

Walter however refuses to cooperate unless I say it eexactly right

)

No need to become an alcoholic, George :wink:

You see, what looks like nitpicking has - and obviously still is, as seen here - essential for the Social Democracy since more than 140: namely that they are no communists. (That they are so dependent on the capitalist system now and will perhaps end up doing the work of the capitalists , is another topic )

Clearly competence as a physicist is not the same thing as competence as a student of political economy. It would be kinder to such gifted genius as that of Einstein to bury or otherwise neglect such such efforts in fields that were not his.

The world has not worked out as Einstein implicitly foresaw in this piece. Every effort at the operation of planned economies and central control or ownership of the means of production since this piece was written - has failed, and failed miserably. The unlamented Soviet Empire is only the most prominent example. Neither should one forget a whole generation of post colonial leaders in Africa who credulously accepted this doctrine and wasted substantial wealth and natural resources as well as the work of a generation of their people - only to produce the chaos, poverty, political corruption, and disorder that so afflicts that unfortunate continent.

It is worth reflecting on the state of the world inn 1949 when this piece was written. Economic and political conditions in Europe, and to some extent in America were not good. The effects of wartime destruction of industry and infrastructure were still felt , and the activities associated with the Marshal plan had been underway for only a year or so. The political expansion of Soviet control in Central Europe was complete. The Berlin crisis had just been resolved. The prospect of Communist political successes in Italy and France was quite real. The economic boom which began in America late in 1949 was as yet still undetected. (If I am not mistaken this was the year that George orwell published his unforgettable novel "1984".) The Schuman plan for the eventual unification of Europe had not yet been issued. There was a general sense of pessimism that overhung much of the West, and to many the Soviet model of central planning and economic control was quite attractive. The ghastly horrors of the totalitarian control associated with this regime were only beginning to be perceived and understood.

This was the context in which Einstein wrote this piece and we should remember it as we contemplate the many false assumptions implicit in his arguments and the several economic fallacies it contains. To cite just one example - anyone in the IT industry during the boom of the 1980s and 1990s can attest to the fact that the price of labor (measured in salary and stock) is indeed related to the price of the goods produced.

Perhaps Walter will argue that there is a third alternative to capitalism and Socialism - perhaps he will call it Social Democracy or something like that. As I see it this is merely a contrived version of capitalism that produces lower growth and sustained higher unemployment than the rawer variety.

George

Re; the difference between communism and socialism

Basic pointers:

"Dictatorship of the proletariat", ideological rationale for imposing totalitarian control over a reluctant population - communist invention, not believed in by socialists.

"Elite party as revolutionary vanguard of the masses", which, being the historical vanguard and all, is thus assigned the 'right' to impose its will upon a reluctant majority, justified by how it is supposed to have history on its side - the people will be grateful to them for it later. Again, an invention of leninist communism, not believed in by socialists.

Same notion encouraged the conspirative character of communist parties, which was to determine the political style, structure and ideology of the regime it would establish, with disastrous results.

I believe those two elements are at the core of what made the Soviet system such a murderous totalitarian excess - and such a rupture with everything that had ever been grouped under "socialism" before.

They have also clearly delineated the Eastern Bloc dictatorships from mainstream socialists worldwide. Remember that Lenin's troop was simply considered a zealotist fringe group even just months before the disintegration of politics in Russia allowed it to stage its cleverly arranged coup d'etat. And it remained an obscurantist fringe group in the world of socialist ideology, even when its grip on the Soviet state gave it exorbitant power on the world political scene.

Yes, I know that communists called themselves socialists. And the anti-foreigner racists of the eighties here in Holland called their party the "Centre Democrats". <shrugs>

Has there ever been a truly socialist state? For long, anyway? I dunno. The Soviet-imposed states definitely did not meet the standards/definitions of mainstream socialist thought. On the other hand, a country like Sweden with its fully-developed welfare state probably better fits the label Socialdemocratic than Socialist. But that difference, in itself, is smaller than that between Socialists and Communists. For one because Socialists and Socialdemocrats both believe that the change to a socialist society can only come upon the express wish of the population itself, and can not be imposed with force.

I gotta say here - because we've had this discussion here a trillion times, thats probly why noone is reacting anymore - the only people I ever hear equate Socialism and Communism are either strident American anti-communists - or Communists.

And Walter is right to highlight the historical and emotional importance of the distinction as well. Its not just academic nitpicking we're engaging in here. The Socialists (Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutinaries, etc) were the very first to be collectively persecuted by the Leninist thugs after 1917. The same experience was repeated in every country newly controlled by the Soviet Union. The Hungarian Socialists were forcibly "integrated" into the communist party after 1948 - despite their party being the larger one - and any Socialist who resisted or complained went to jail to face torture, camp sentence or what not. Many Socialists died for the distinction between their beliefs and Communism. In Western-Europe, many Socialists parties, especially untill the late sixties, were consistently and bravely anti-communist. The Eastern Europe bureau of the Labour Party here is still named after a Jewish refugee who helped, from here, many a brave dissident against communist dictatorship. This is not just empty squabbling about definitions here.

I completely disagree.

Remember at one point we were nomads, hunters, gatherers; look how far we've come. To state that Humanity is done learning/changing/evolving is foolish and indicative of a closed mind.

Cycloptichorn

In fact, my parents were both avowed socialists, yet had little to condone about anything Soviet. In fact, in 1989 my mother kept wanting to go to whatever East-European country was overthrowing communism next, so as to join them in celebration and experience history in the making - eventually we ended up in Prague a week after the Velvet Revolution, just before Havel was elected president. And there is a bit of a logical contradiction in claiming socialism was represented in the (Soviet) system that most socialists repudiated. Socialism without socialists?

Nimh

Nice contributions to the topic. Your obviously superior intellect and exceptional writing ability are very welcome additions.

Good of you to give some of your background because I was just about to ask about it when I read your last post.

You said this in your next to last post: <Has there ever been a truly socialist state? For long, anyway? You said you didn't know so with your knowledge and experience the answer must be NO!

Why do you think that is Nimh? Isn't it because TRUE Socialism requires a certain devotion based on a need for blind adherance to the philosophy? This requires that any opposition to the philosophy must be eliminated, including any opposition political party and all religion. And, since it is obvious that a bearucratic infrastructure must be created to administer all the tasks that a modern society must have, doesn't this create a leadership opportunity for a person or committee? This opportunity would corrupt anyone there fore this society soon becomes a totalitarian dictatorship. Am I wrong? What am I missing here?

Nimh, I am thoroughly familiar with the fierce struggle between the Menshevicks and the Bolsheviks and the strong antipathy the self-appointed avant garde reds felt for the Social democrats who they feared would apply palliatives that risked delaying the crisis of capitalism they so earnestly believed in and the revolutions they worked so hard to create. We all know the rest of that story. My problem with what you and Walter seem to be saying is that I know of no example in the real world - none - of what you seem to be referring to.

You say socialism is different from communism, but imply a novel new definition, one different from that which the Soviets used. OK, then what is it??? Evidently, according to your definition the Soviet Union and most of the Eastern European satellite states were Communist, and not Socialist. That is a novel definition because none of them had fulfilled the Marxian or even Leninist definition of Communism - the state hadn't "withered away" and elements of the class struggle continued. So please define for me the terms Communism and Socialism as you understand them.

Sweden operates a capitalist economy albeit one with a high degree of social and economic control by the government. Is that your model for "socialism?? OK by me if that is what you mean, but please acknowledge that this is not the conventional definition of the term. The conventional definition of socialism involves the public or government ownership and control of the principal means of production, and a fairly high degree of central planning of the economy as opposed to the operation of free markets. Do you reject that definition?

In the paper quoted above Einstein was clearly referring to the conventional definition of socialism, just as I have given it. Do you contend that my recitation of its failures is false?

Do you claim that (say) Germany is a socialistic state? How about the UK? France? the Netherlands? Do you suggest that the performance of these economies is superior to others that operate more closely to free market principles?? Frankly, except for the UK, they are all rapidly approaching a crisis with their unsustainable social welfare programs, inflexible labor markets, high unemployment and low rates of growth. Hard to recommend this sclerosis to others.

I don't think, I (we) can ever persuade you :wink:

e.g. Sweden was ever thought to be "THE" socialistic country in Europe - France is led since years by conservatives both as president and as government ...

George - quikcly, cause I have to go - I dont think the definition I propose is either highly individual, novel, uncoventional or otherwise experimental, but pretty much the standard modus operandi in defining political currents (at least here in Europe, and as far as I know most elsewhere in the world) for the past century.

Yes, like I said: I know the Communist heirs of Lenin had their definition of Socialism and Communism. The definition of Communism you use - the state of society after the withering away of the state, 'mission complete' basically - is their ideological dogma. In day-to-day usage (and political science, for that matter), however, "Communist" has been the adjective of use to identify all those who supported and were loyal to the Soviet model since 1917, while "Socialists" were those who proponed public ownership and an egalitarian sharing of wealth, but opposed the totalitarian state form of Soviet communism. Thats a clear enough distinction and one reflected in the names of the respective parties pretty much across the world. Walter even brought the encyclopedia definitions on it.

Now you can insist that socialism be defined exclusively by the model that was implemented by the Leninists who so bloodily came to power throughout the Eastern Bloc and developed their own ideology and worldwide network of political parties, unions etc - and that we use their particular definitions of what "socialism" and "communism" respectively encompassed. I can see why you would want to do so; it does neatly divide the world into the right-thinking capitalists and the dangerous socialists. But realise that you are therewith placing yourself outside the colloquial and political use of the label throughout democratic societies where Socialists played a prominent rule in the last century (which would be pretty much everywhere except Northern-America - and perhaps Africa, where political-ideological labels often remained superficial pretenses).

OK, now does the definition used throughout much of last century to distinguish socialists from communists mean that there is no historical example of an actual socialist state? Perhaps. I've come to the conclusion that socialism, as opposed to socialdemocracy (but there, IMHO, is the tenuous and hard-to-pinpoint distinction) might be unrealisable in full. But the other side of the coin is that socialism, like much any political ideology, in reality comes in degrees - and is defined in degrees. The current societies of the West have been largely created by a blending of both capitalist and socialist tenets. Take Sweden up to the eighties. You say it is "a capitalist economy albeit one with a high degree of social and economic control by the government". Thats word play though, isnt it? It has (or used to have) extensive state ownership of the economy, in the sense that (like here, in fact) public (or "nationalised", if you will) ownership of railways, postal service, energy and utilities and in fact extensive swathes of the housing system was considered the rule. There's a reason they called it a "mixed" economy.

The Socialists never managed to implement their system in full, completely, no. But it is the notions and concepts they infused that have greatly determined the economic structure and political character of many democracies - degrees of socialism, if you will. That they never implemented in full anywhere is IMHO the dilemma that is encapsulated within socialism: its dilemma if you will. Socialists, after all, do not believe in totalitarian imposition like the Communists did, and thus would never be able to establish their ideology wholesale into a system. That doesnt mean that their proposed ideology or definition of what Socialism is, is meaningless or spurious, however - why in heaven's name would it be? Libertarianism I believe is considered a proper ideology, with distinct notions and objectives about what society and politics should look like - even though there is no example of Libertarianism having been brought into practice in an actual country anywhere. Its true for most any ideology except for those which were imposed in totalitarian fashion.

Is the confusion that I'm talking about socialism as a political ideology and you about it as an economic system? Even so, the Soviet model with its totalitarian imposition and exclusive focuse on industrial development, contempt for the agricultural section, etc, is in many ways an anomaly, whereas the basic tenets of socialism as economic system (public ownership, price controls, wealth redistribution) have been imposed to varying degrees throughout democratic societies without such specifically Leninist baggage.

Very well written, nimh. Thank you.


And I agree that I (and not only I, most I think) look at socialism at first as a political ideology.

By pure chance, I could talk with our state minister of finance (and party leader of the SPD in our state) today.
He nearly said exactly the same what nimh wrote above - and what I tried to do before.

My Swedish relatives, btw, regret that they are loosing socialism more and more.

Nimh,

Thanks for the response and thanks for answering my questions. Walter thinks i am stubborn and hopeless and therefore won't engage. I am stubborn, but not, I think, hopeless.

If I understand you correctly then socialism does indeed involve government ownership and control of the principal means of production, central planning of the economy, but stops short of the totalitarian control and attempts to reshape humanity according to the doctrines of the ruling avant garde that characterized the Soviet model. OK so far? I take it that the post war Labor/Social Democrat governments in Sweden and the UK (Attlee & Brown & co.) were moving towards your definition of Socialism, but perhaps stopped short of reaching it. Still OK?

Here is where my objections begin. This "socialization" of the UK was stopped and substantially reversed by the Thatcher government precisely because it wasn't performing economically. It produced stagnation, uniform relative poverty, and the decay of public services at the hands of self-serving bureaucracies and unions. I am less familiar with the details in Sweden and recognize that they too have backed off, but a good deal less than the UK, and have achieved a substantial measure of success - however at the cost of restricting immigration and growth.

I infer from your comments that there are no extant models for the kind of socialism to which you are referring. However I note and acknowledge your point that most of the governments of Europe have successfully adopted many of its features, particularly those involving programs for social insurance, welfare, regulation of labor markets and a degree of government control of the economy. This synthesis of socialism and capitalism (as I use those terms) is what is advocated by the various political movements and parties that are often referred to as 'Social Democrats'.

I have referred to this contemporary European synthesis as capitalism with a number of socialist features as you have noted. I am perfectly willing to call it whatever you want, Is this what you wish to call socialism? Or, instead, is there an alternate, albeit theoretical condition for which you wish to reserve the term? For example is socialism the condition to which the UK was headed before Thatcher, and which it would presumably have reached had her Conservatives not come to power? If you choose the latter condition as your definition, then I think you will have a very hard time touting its benefits.

If, instead you chose the contemporary synthesis of the major Western European states as your model for Socialism, then the question rests on the relative adaptability and sustainability of that model, and what you call the North American model, relative to the challenges the world presents to us all today. That is an interesting question, which I would enjoy discussing. I have certain opinions and preferences, but I don't claim to know with certainty just what answer history will eventually reveal.

I do believe there are interesting questions to be explored concerning the effects of these three systems (Soviet Socialism, the European Synthesis, and North American Capitalism) on human behavior and choices. Germany, and the EU as a whole are dealing now with an encounter between the first two (at least the aftereffects of the Soviet system), and the friction between Europe and the U.S. has a good measure of the encounter between the second and the third in it.

By ways of bookmark, I realised that here I afforded you an unexpected 'shot for open goal' as we say here - since the notion of the state withering away of course goes back to Engels and is not merely a product of Leninism. (Though on an aside, in turn it should be noted that Socialism does not equate with Marxism either, Marxism being one, if particularly prominent, brand of socialism).

However, that does not change much about the point I made here: that ever since 1917, "communism" became used primarily as the description of the political system imposed in the Soviet model, one that socialists elsewhere systematically repudiated and were generally also little associated with by their political opponents:


I really don't see how you can insist that using such a distinction is somehow a "novel" concept on my part. As I said, it's a clear enough distinction and one reflected in the names of the respective parties pretty much across the world. Walter even brought the encyclopedia definitions on it.

For sure, the definitional confusion is apparent and understandable enough, since the Soviet states themselves kept insisting on their self-description as socialist, continuing to use "communism" as description of the-final-phase-of-historical-development they claimed to be gradually realising. But that's what dictionaries, encyclopedias and history books are for: to cut through the fog and define the essence.

You yourself evidence no problem in cutting to the chase later on, when you describe socialism as implying "the public or government ownership and control of the principal means of production, and a fairly high degree of central planning of the economy as opposed to the operation of free markets". That is definitely a sufficient definition of Marxist socialism. However, for one, note that as a definition of Marxist socialism, it goes far beyond the equation with the Soviet model you suggest elsewhere. The Soviet communist system and ideology, after all, included a number of important other concepts as well (eg what i mentioned already: the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Party as avant garde that was entitled to exercise totalitarian power in the name of the proletariat regardless of whether the proletariat already consented, etc) that had gravitating consequences for the political system practiced in the Soviet states. And that non-communist Marxists around the world who otherwise agrees with the elements you mention would have nothing to do with at all. Additionally, there's the question of non-Marxist socialists who did not at all strive for government ownership and central planning, but for decentralised community control (think self-governing peasant collectives, control by workers' councils, etc).

One can debate the feasibility of the various concepts of Socialism (some of them were not called Utopian Socialism for no reason), especially in this modern, globalised, post-industrial society. But that's another question from that about the definitions of Socialism that generations of politicians worked on/with - and the question of whether one can blithely, retroactively, equate them all with the SOviet system. Again, look up any encyclopedia definition of "socialism" (here's the Wiki one) and you will find that it is not at all "unconventional" to reject said equation at all.

Ah, I see we cross-posted, George.

A minor aside, from a perhaps interesting link:

the foreign born population (last census years) in Austria and Germany is 12.5%, in the USA 12.3% and in Sweden 12.0%.

--------------


Besides, I don't think you are stubborn or hopeless, but I believe, you pretend to be so.

---------------

Well, nimh (now) refers to the Wiki definition. I really don't think, both definitions on Wiki (additionally that one about Social Democracy [and capatalism, too] are not exactly brilliant.
But that's just my opinion (and I can't give a better one, too).

Good questions George. I'm afraid I don't have the time right now to answer, but will come back. Oh, and Rayban thanks for the warm welcome!