INTRODUCTION
Socialism has undergone several trials since its inception as a political philosophy. The latest of these has been the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe during 1989, an event which was, metaphorically speaking, of earthquake proportions, and which has resulted in a popularly perceived setback for the whole left movement. That there was this setback is perhaps paradoxical as communism (and the command state economy) had become a euphemism for totalitarianism and many leftist political scientists predicted a liberation for socialists so as to enable them to get on with their political agenda. After all Democratic Socialists in the West had been denouncing the undemocratic practices in the Soviet Union and the satellite states for decades.
Socialism has changed, or rather, evolved through the years. This is axiomatic of many political ideologies and with few exceptions political parties have sought to increase their popularity at the polls. As times changed and liberal philosophy became the norm in the west, other ideologies had to reinvest in the formulation of new goals, and perhaps even more importantly, in the methods of achieving them. With an ever increasing movement by its adversaries towards the centre and the acceptance of certain principles such as equal opportunities, the welfare state and so on, the left was finding itself at a loss and was continuously being accused of tilting at windmills. Already by the 60's political scientists were heralding the end of ideology. However victories by the right in the late 70's and 80's and even the 90's and the threatened erosion of the welfare state and a growing income gap, caused the question of the 'haves and the have nots' to arise once more. This has renewed interest in socialist ideals, with the problem however that Socialist Parties had in several ways, by this time, changed much of their agenda.
This essay shall attempt to show that Socialist Parties today are still not only just a very relevant part of today's political system, but also still able to appeal to the masses who, in the West at least, have tended to move towards the centre . To achieve this one has to perforce examine, albeit briefly, what socialism represents, how it has evolved and why agendas had to be changed.
SOCIALIST IDEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT
First and foremost it has to be emphasised that Socialism, Marxism and Communism are not synonymous. Within 'the left' there has been, from the beginning, theoretical differences and disputes. Socialism is the tree of which Marxism is a branch and anarchism another. Engels and Marx were both aware that they formed part of a wider movement whose origins could be traced back to the French Revolution and the Utopian ideas which it spawned. Some have even claimed that forms of socialism sprang from Christian principles while others claimed atheistic humanism as a source. It is in fact recognised that socialism is an "amalgam of philosophies emerging from diverse social movements which, consequently presents certain difficulties of definition".
Socialism, according to Parekh, began as a revolt against capitalism and its conception of man and society was initially developed as an alternative to the one which, in the socialist view, underlay and reinforced capitalist society. It follows therefore that socialism would be interested in tackling those effects of capitalism which were detrimental to the proletariat and advantageous only to the elite. Some of the major ideological issues that have been tackled by socialists in past years will now be considered.
A. Poverty. This was seen as being both direct economic oppression and also the root cause of social oppression. The end result of socialist intervention was thought to be, therefore, egalitarianism which can be perceived as the remedy for the injustice of poverty. In situations where 5% of the population owns 95% of the wealth this ideal makes sense, and one must remember also that this statistic has changed little since Marx. However not everyone reacts to poverty in this way. Christianity for long periods of time advocated acceptance of one's lot and station in life, a philosophy happily embraced by some conservatives.
B. Class division. Socialists are themselves divided on this issue between on the one hand the Marxist view of class being a structural consequence of capitalism and on the other hand the view that it is a passing (or even past) phenomenon. The former contends that class is economically determined and that classes with necessarily opposed interests are not reconcilable. Today most of the democratic socialist parties accept the other view, playing down the importance of class and class struggle. However the issue of 'haves and have nots' as classes in themselves is not easy to brush away as being simply an ephemeral phenomenon.
C. Egalitarianism. As mentioned above this can be considered as a remedy for poverty. However egalitarianism has other connotations which make it a central ideal of socialism. Socialism extends the notion of egalitarian justice from the legal and political into the economic and social spheres. Saint-Simon perceived egalitarianism to signify uniform treatment, that is, " from each according to his ability to each according to his needs". Thus as perceived by the 'Utopians' equality did not necessarily mean levelling down as opponents accused but rather equality of treatment and equal opportunities. David Robertson has written that all versions of socialism expect to produce an egalitarian society, one in which all are cared for by society with no need either for poverty or the relief of poverty by private charity.
D. Means of Production and ownership. Socialists in the past had demanded the abolition of private wealth in the form of productive assets. This has been misunderstood, purposely or otherwise, and has created many enemies for the socialists. The method of achieving the elimination of private ownership of the means of production has been, more often than not, an attempt at creating collective or communal ownership. The British Labour Party has recently drawn attention to this issue with the removal of the now famous (or infamous) clause 4. This read as follows:-
To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.
As it stood, this clause epitomised the ideal of socialists in having common ownership of the means of production. But does the removal of this clause from the Labour Party statute in 1994 mean the degeneration of socialist principles in Britain following the 1989 turn of events and 15 years of a Conservative government, an accusation which has been heard recently? The answer in fact has to be NO. Between 1959 and 1960 the Party was already involved in a bitter dispute about this clause. That it remained then, is significant only in pointing out that, contrary to the rest of Western Europe, a substantial part of the Labour movement was still living a Utopian dream albeit one with strong Keynesian overtones. Today after the privatisation of many of the nation's industries it would be in any case economic suicide to attempt, on the whim of a passé statute, to collectivise them again except perhaps in the very long term. Now most socialists would recommend a variety of forms of ownership within a mixed public/private sector economy as the best approximation of the ideal. After all common ownership is not an end in itself but rather a means to attain greater equity and social justice. If other methods are possible why should any socialist party be condemned not to try them out?
E. Power to the people. There is, on this issue, a profound difference of opinion between social democrats who readily accept representative democracy and the more radical socialists (including some Marxists) who prefer a system of direct 'democracy' . An example of the latter is the creation of people's congresses which in states such as the Soviet Union and China meant one-Party rule, in other words, justifying party dictatorship in the name of the people. This does make dialectic sense because if the premise of a classless society is accepted, a one-party state can still be considered as democratic because everyone would then thus have similar interests. Human reality (and frailty) however has shown that this is yet another form of unreachable Utopia unless enforced in such a way which would put paid to any democratic aspirations.
F. The individual and Society. This in many ways is tied to the question of popular sovereignty (people power). The individual has been expected by many socialists to be subordinate to society in what has been called by Rousseau as 'making the social contract'. The reasoning is that if all are equally subordinate then tyranny is not a threat and economically if each depended on all there would not be any degrading of the human spirit. From a certain viewpoint, this latter interdependency in today's economic scenario is accepted within liberal democracy. However universal subordination and the argument of it not giving rise to tyranny suffers from the same lack of reality as does popular sovereignty. Stalin took good care in proving this point.
THE PROBLEM OF HAVING A SOCIALIST AGENDA
Western European Socialist parties have failed to achieve socialism even when in government. This in many cases can be explained historically. In Britain the Labour Party had often been hampered by its link with Trade Unions which tend to be conservative and concerned only with short-term economic gains. Another reason, often cited, is the strength of world capitalism which makes socialism in one country difficult to achieve as that would entail a self-imposed isolation, at least, in economic matters.
Another alleged reason for the failure is that socialism was primarily an intellectuals' movement, inspired by ideals which appeal to the impartial reasoner. When it becomes the doctrine of a mass party, the party must adapt these ideals to the demands of supporters who are, logically because of the nature of socialism, often the most downtrodden and the least educated members of society. Since socialists working within a democratic system can only gain power by appealing to this section of their natural electoral support, compromise is inevitable.
The fact that there is no shared conception of what a socialist economy can really be has also created a problem for parties. What they can in fact implement is totally different from what ideals present as feasible or even desirable. If there was a single concept this would prevent one country or other from becoming isolated, thus implementation of an economic policy could, perhaps, be achieved. Even today some radical proposition or other still makes the intellectual journals. In a review article of the New Left Review Wright examines Roemer's idea of the creation of two kinds of money in an economy, that is, commodity-money for commodity consumption, and share-money called coupons with which to buy stocks in firms. Thus each individual can have shares, which he cannot sell or convert into ordinary money, in an enterprise thus preventing ownership from becoming concentrated. At the risk of sounding cynical this scheme although plausible on an academic level is totally derisory in respect of realpolitik. This and other ideas like it can hardly be called serious contributions to help solve the problem socialism has of reaching a standard policy leading to economic equality.
SOCIALIST PARTIES TODAY
Socialism, has more often than not, been adapted according to time and place. This has resulted in different and sometimes unrecognisable socialist parties in respect to the country in which they are to be found. In Russia, the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party split in 1918 with the more radical Bolshevik section renaming itself communist and the rest is of course history (and the end of the RSDLP). Another good example of the way parties change is the German SPD which was explicitly Marxist in its early years, becoming reformist in later years and today can hardly be called even left of centre.
A good case study for the purposes of this essay is the British Labour Party. This has been for all intents and purposes a social democratic party as it was committed to work through the parliamentary elective system, not withstanding however that it also contained a number of democratic socialists who were more left wing. Labour's first real experience in government was the post-war Attlee administration which took steps to nationalise the mines and steel industry and set up the welfare state and the health service. Other Labour governments 1964-70 and 1974-9 were markedly less doctrinaire although they still managed to renationalise steel (after the conservatives had denationalised them), and make secondary schools comprehensive in pursuit of an egalitarian education system. However the lack of belief in extreme socialism was already showing by the late 50's with Crosland, a well known intellectual, writing " In my view Marx has little to offer the contemporary socialist, either in respect of practical policy, or of the correct analysis of our society, or even of the right conceptual tools or framework." Today, more than ever, with the exception of die hard academic Marxists, few would disagree with Crosland's words.
During the past months (late 1995 and early 1996) there has been a possible attempt at creating a split within the Labour party. Arthur Scargill, a union leader, has formed the Socialist Labour Party and observers have feared that he could draw with him the more leftist segment of Blair's party. This step taken by Scargill was seen to be a reaction against what was described as a selling out of basic principles after Labour had removed the aforementioned clause 4 and the statutorial tie with the trade unions. However the first result for the SLP in its first ever contestation was a resounding defeat. In the Hemsworth by-election in the first week of February 1996 it polled less than 5.5% with Labour receiving an impressive 71.92%. Labour seems to be reaching a new high in popularity which reflects a sign of the times in respect of ideology. In Britain, at least, people seem to be ready to accept socialism only in its most watered down form, and Tony Blair's relative success is perhaps a temporary indicator of this frame of mind.
Electoral support is a crucial element for the continuation of a party. The socialist parties have maintained themselves rather well over the years since 1945. Only 4 parties have fallen to below 20% in the whole of western Europe, while the majority have on average exceeded 30%. They have mainly suffered a slight decline during the 70's and 80's with the exception of France, Greece and Spain were the socialists were stronger in the 80's. In Greece a set back in 1989 when Karamanlis' rightist party won the election was overturned in 1993 when Papandreou again swept the board. In France, 1993 saw a confirmation of the rise of the right in the form of Chirac's presidential victory. However with the recent spate of industrial conflict and the attempt at the erosion of the welfare state (which the French have been taking for granted) together with an unemployment figure of 3,000,000 have, according to observers, nibbled consistently away at their support. In Portugal and Spain the Socialists have reconfirmed their popularity with a resounding victory as they have done in Austria in late 1995.
However what might be described as most surprising is the swingback to the 'left' in Eastern Europe. In the Russian Duma election the Communists with a much more moderate socialist agenda have captured 20% of the vote making them the largest party. In Poland the return of the left was emphasised in November1995 when Aleksander Kwasniewski, in the Presidential election polled 52% of the vote to Walesa's 48%. Although this and other wins have been described as communist victories, this statement is not quite correct. Mr. Kwasniewski himself has repudiated communism, describing himself as a social democrat. When a party accepts market reform and the democratic elective process as practised in the west, it can hardly be called communist and that tag is only used by their opponents in the hope of denigrating them. In the meantime, the present author prefers to hail these events as victories for the Socialist movement.
THE INTERNATIONAL ASPECT OF SOCIALISM
Of all the political ideologies, socialism is, perhaps, the most associated with internationalism. This is so because, as for the liberals, all humanity should be one race, moreover national boundaries cannot circumscribe universal political truths nor limit universal rights.
The socialist movement was self-proclaimed internationalist until 1914 when the outbreak of hostilities in Europe forced existing socialist parties to choose between patriotism and internationalism. This problem was never truly overcome especially after the third international (1919) which had strict membership rules designed to ensure that all national member parties supported revolution rather than parliamentary socialism.
Recent history demonstrates the evils of nationalism which has given rise to various wars. However, although internationalism is a high ideal of socialist ideology with its demand of world-wide equality and peace, the strength of nationalism and international capitalism together with the short-sightedness of people make it the hardest ideal to pursue.
At present the only method of assessing the performance of any political grouping in the international arena is the European Parliament. Following the 1994 Euro-elections the largest political group with 221 is the party of European Socialists (PES). This includes MEPS from all Socialist, Social Democratic and Labour parties in the member states. The communists split in 1989 to form two groups, one known as the European Unitarian Left (EUL) and the other as Left Unity (LU). In 1993 the Euro-communist element joined the PES confirming that Euro-Communism as an ideology in itself had abdicated and joined the wider socialist movement.
That the socialists have been consistently the largest group in the EP is significant. The trend is that the EP is increasingly becoming a two-party system based on ideological grounds. This leads to various interpretations which are not within the scope of this essay, however one point does come across. As the EP's importance is rather played down, especially in the eyes of the man in the street, the general populace votes more on general lines than it would in a national election where each is effected directly. It is not socialist ideology which has been spurned in many countries but rather the practice of parties as it effects the individual. At the international level socialism is as popular as ever, something which augers well considering the creation of a media induced global village.
CONCLUSIONS
It is doubtlessly true that socialist parties have significantly changed their agendas along the years and are hardly recognisable compared to the socialist movements of the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. However comparisons are in many ways misleading (and at times odious). The successes achieved by socialists and liberals throughout the years have been accepted in today's political scenario. In the fight against the extreme right in the form of Nazism and Fascism the left and centre were victorious. That a more moderate right would again have its day in the latter part of this century was perhaps inevitable. Since the 60's the left in the west has had to recapitulate ideologically to maintain its popularity within the democratic parliamentary system.
As has been seen socialism did not achieve all its goals. However many of its ideals have become accepted concepts in today's society. Inversely many socialists have had to accept such capitalist precepts as are the market economy. Pragmatic choices like this have been attacked as betrayal by both their opponents and by the hard liners within socialists parties themselves. But can one really blame socialist parties for jettisoning what would ultimately mean a failure at the polls? In Portugal and Spain socialist parties have been responsible for what has been considered as Europe's largest denationalisation process in an attempt to cut budget deficits and bringing their countries in line with the rest of Europe. The Labour party in Britain has had to rethink its policies after three consecutive electoral defeats making the Liberal democrats seem more to the left in the political spectrum then themselves.
The dream of socialism to redress the wrongs of society and create the perfect world is indeed noble. However previous maxims like Marx's assertion that the spectre of Communism is haunting Europe are no longer credible because of the turn events have taken. Nonetheless, socialism is still valid even though the mechanisms to achieve it have changed. Socialists still believe in equal opportunities regardless of birth. They still believe that the means of production should not be used by a few to enslave another segment of society. All socialists believe that a worker has the right to be able to enjoy some of the wealth he/she has produced. What has changed, amongst other things, is the idea that the state should be the centre of everything, omnipotent, in control of all aspects of the economy and social life. Controlled economies have failed to produce the long-term desired results, although they did succeed in putting food in peoples' mouths. With the rising of expectations and increasing fetishism the ideological debate took on a new form, one that is still raging today.
Socialists have had to become more versatile and flexible today. A growing middle class, which might have perhaps horrified Marx, is today an accepted norm especially in Western Europe. However certain segments in society, ones that would have been termed Lumpenproleteriat, still exist in depressed areas which need the help that only socialism of all the ideologies can offer. The dream of a classless society has not been achieved and it is debatable if it is even possible. This confirms why socialists HAVE to be flexible. After all it is not what is on a party's agenda which makes it socialist or otherwise, but rather its practice vis-à-vis the now acceped different segments of society.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCE
Bainbridge, T. And Teasdale, A. 1995. The Penguin Companian to European Union, Penguin Books Ltd., Middlesex.
Cohen, G. A. 1994. Back to Socialist Basics, in New Left Review, Sepetember/October, 207/94, 3-16.
Geras, N. 1994. Democracy and the ends of Marxism, in New Left Review, January/February , 203/94, 92-106.
Goodwin, B. 1992. Using Political Ideas, 3rd Edition, John Wiley and Sons Ltd., West Sussex.
Hamilton, M. And Hirszowicz, M. 1993. Class and Inequality, Simon and Schuster, Hertfordshire.
Lane, J. E. And Errsson, S. O. 1994. Politics and Society in Western Europe, 3rd Edition, Sage Publications Ltd., London.
Lacquer, W. 1992. Europe in Our Time: A History 1945-1992, Penguin Books Ltd., Middlesex.
Macridis, R. C. (Ed.) 1990. Modern Political Systems: Europe, 7th Edition, Simon and Schuster, New Jersey.
Miliband, R. 1994. The Plausability of Socialism, in New Left Review, July/August, 206/94, 3-14.
Robertson, D. 1993. Socialism, in A Dictionary of Modern Politics and Government, 2nd Edition, Europa Publications Ltd., London.
Wickham-Jones, M. 1995. Recasting Social Democracy: A Comment on Hay and Smith, in Political Studies, December,Volume 43 no. 4, 698-702.
Wright, E. O. 1995. Cooupon Socialism and Socialist
Values, in New Left Review, March/April, 210/95, 153- 160.