Go Socialism!

in Sweden [they] have achieved a substantial measure of success - however at the cost of restricting immigration and growth.

This means Socialism has been forced to give up some of it's ideals in order to accomodate desireable features of capitalism.

The Erfurt Program (1891):
Programme of the Social Democratic Party of Germany


The struggle of the working class against capitalistic exploitation is of necessity a political struggle. The working class cannot carry on its economic contests, and cannot develop its economic organisation, without political rights. It cannot bring about the transference of the means of production into the possession of the community, without having obtained political power.

To give to this fight of the working class a conscious and unified form, and to show it its necessary goal-that is the task of the Social Democratic Party.

The interests of the working classes are the same in all countries with a capitalistic mode of production. With the extension of the world's commerce, and of production for the world­market, the position of the worker in every country grows ever more dependent on the position of the worker in other countries. The liberation of the working class, accordingly, is a work in which the workmen of all civilised countries are equally involved. In recognition of this, the Social Democratic Party of Germany feels and declares itself to be one with the class­conscious workmen of all other countries.

The Social Democratic Party of Germany does not fight, accordingly, for new class­privileges and class­rights, but for the abolition of classrule and of classes themselves, for equal rights and equal duties of all, without distinction of sex or descent. Starting from these views, it combats, within existing society, not only the exploitation and oppression of wage­earners, but every kind of exploitation and oppression, whether directed against a class, a party, a sex, or a race.

Proceeding from these principles, the Social Democratic Party of Germany demands, to begin with:

1. Universal, equal, and direct suffrage, with secret ballot, for all elections, of all citizens of the realm over twenty years of age, without distinction of sex. Proportional representation, and until this is introduced, legal redistribution of electoral districts after every census. Biennial legislative periods. Holding of the elections on a legal holiday. Compensation for the elected representatives. Abolition of every limitation of political rights, except in the case of legal incapacity.

2. Direct legislation through the people, by means of the rights of proposal and rejection. Self­determination and self­government of the people in realm, state, province and parish. Election of magistrates by the people, with responsibility to the people. Annual voting of taxes.

3. Education of all to bear arms. Militia in the place of the standing army. Decision by the popular representatives on questions of war and peace. Settlement of all international disputes by arbitration.

4. Abolition of all laws which limit or suppress the right of meeting and coalition.

5. Abolition of all laws which place women, whether in a public or a private capacity, at a disadvantage as compared with men.

6. Declaration that religion is a private affair. Abolition of all expenditure of public funds upon ecclesiastical and religious objects. Ecclesiastical and religious bodies are to be regarded as private associations, which regulate their affairs entirely independently.

7. Secularisation of schools. Compulsory attendance at the public national schools. Free education, free supply of educational materials, and free maintenance in the public schools, as well as in the higher educational institutions, for those boys and girls who, on account of their capacities, are considered fit for further education.

8. Free administration of justice, and free legal assistance. Adminis tration of the law through judges elected by the people. Appeal m criminal cases. Compensation of persons unjustly accused, imprisoned, or condemned. Abolition of capital punishment.

9. Free medical attendance, including midwifery, and free supply of medicines. Free burial.

10. Graduated income and property­tax for defraying all public expenses, so far as these are to be covered by taxation. Duty of selfassessment. Succession duties, graduated according to the amount of the inheritance and the degree of relationship. Abolition of all indirect taxes, customs, and other economic measures, which sacrifice the interests of the community to those of a privileged minority.


For the protection of the working classes, the Social Democratic Party of Germany demands to begin with:


1. An effective national and international legislation for the protectlon of labour on the following principles:-

(a) Fixing of a normal working day, which shall not exceed eight hours.

(b) Prohibition of the employment of children under fourteen.

(c! Prohibition of night­work, except in those industries which, by thelr nature, require night­work, from technical reasons, or for the public welfare.

(d) An unbroken rest of at least thirty­six hours in every week for every worker.

(e) Prohibition of the truck­system.

2 Supervision of all industrial establishments, investigation and regulatlon of conditions of labour in town and country by a central labour department, district labour bureaus, and chambers of labour

3. Legal equality of agricultural labourers and domestic servants with industrial workers; abolition of the laws concerning servants.

4. Confirmation of the right of coalition.

5. Taking over by the Imperial Government of the whole system of working people's insurance, though giving the working people a controlling share in the administration.

Einherjar

Welcome to the discussion and I do believe your suggestion to discuss one tenent at a time would prove useful. In reading all the well written responses thus far it appears that the utopian model of Marx is being rejected in favor of a kinder, gentler form that has evolved in the UK, Sweden, France and other countries. This means Socialism has been forced to give up some of it's ideals in order to accomodate desireable features of capitalism. Am I correct thus far? I apologize for asking a generalized question but I believe at this point it would be useful to establish whether or not the Utopian model has been abandoned completely or whether it has been recognized that a new strategy must be adopted.

Wouldn't yiu guess that Walter woulfd assert a German invented it.

(I believe you said you were a member of this party).

It figures !

Would you be surprised to learn that I am a Republican?

In reading all the well written responses thus far it appears that the utopian model of Marx is being rejected in favor of a kinder, gentler form that has evolved in the UK, Sweden, France and other countries. This means Socialism has been forced to give up some of it's ideals in order to accomodate desireable features of capitalism. Am I correct thus far? I apologize for asking a generalized question but I believe at this point it would be useful to establish whether or not the Utopian model has been abandoned completely or whether it has been recognized that a new strategy must be adopted.

Einher,

I agree (mostly) with your point here. The fact is that we had stumbled over different mental concepts about the meaning of words. Whatever we call them there are three social-economic-political models that affect the Western world today (1) the now defunct Soviet model which, though it no longer exists still leaves some detectable after effects in the behaviors and attitudes of people once subject to it; (2) The European model of capitalism with strong mitigating elements of socialism thrown in; and (3) The American model of capitalism with relatively freer labor markets, greater competition and inequality economically. I believe the effects on the attitudes and outlook of people subject to these models may explain some of the frictions so visible in public affairs, both within Europe and across the Atlantic.

I agree that the individual merits of issues like health care, government retirement benefits, and the like ought to be discussed on their individual merits as you suggest. However I also believe that it is equally uaseful to consider the collective effect of all these issues in considering the relative suitability and adaptability of the European and Americam models in view of the challenges ahead.

You continue to reffer to socialism as a uniform movement, with a single set of goals. Countless political doctrines have identified themselves as socialist troughout history, and each has tried to narrow the definition so as to proclaim "we are the genuine socialists". A multitude of philosophies have thus been branded socialist.

Einherjar wrote:

You continue to reffer to socialism as a uniform movement, with a single set of goals. Countless political doctrines have identified themselves as socialist troughout history, and each has tried to narrow the definition so as to proclaim "we are the genuine socialists". A multitude of philosophies have thus been branded socialist.

I think that is a consequence of the content of the Einstein piece that started this discussion. It implicitly and explicitly defined Socialism much more prescriptively than you have here - i.e. state ownership of the means of production, central planning and allocation of resources. The subsequent dialogue has more or less lumped that into something else more reminiscent of Soviet-style approaches and reserved other appelations for the European model. Your definition is sufficiently broad to encompass the United States into the 'socialist' camp, though I believe we are fairly far from the central tendency among the European states.