Socialism Flashcards
Idea of collectivism
Collectivism is one of the most important ideas underpinning socialist ideology, informing other socialist values and principles including equality, welfare and common ownership.
It maintains that humans can achieve their political, social and economic objectives more effectively through collective action than through individual effort. Collectivism also implies that society can only be transformed by collective endeavour - for socialists, it offers a way of achieving an ideal society.
Why do socialists endorse collectivism (2)?
Socialists endorse collectivism for two fundamental reasons.
• From a moral perspective, the interests of the group - such as a society or a community - should take priority over individual self-interest. Collective effort encourages social unity and a sense of social responsibility towards others
In practical economic terms, collectivism utilises the capabilities of the whole of society efficiently, avoiding the wastefulness and limited impact of competitive individual effort
inherent in the capitalist economy.
How is the collectivist idea rooted in socialist idea of human nature?
Collectivism reflects the socialist view that it is more important to pursue the interests of a society or a community rather than individual self-interest.
This emphasis on collectivism is rooted in the socialist view of human nature, which argues that humans are social animals; as such, they prefer to live in social groups rather than alone. It follows that humans have the capacity for collective action and can work together in order to achieve their goals. In this sense, they are tied together by the bonds of fraternity.
Socialists also argue that human nature is moulded by social conditions - the experiences and circumstances of a person’s life. According to the socialist view, people can only be defined or understood in terms of the social groups they belong to. This line of argument leads socialists to conclude that membership of a community or society offers humans true freedom and fulfilment.
Fraternity def
literally a brotherhood’-
humans bound together by comradeship and a common outlook because they share the same basic nature and interests, while differences due to class, religion, nationality and ethnic background are far
less significant.
Capitalism def
wealth is privately owned and goods and services are produced for profit, as determined by market forces. The capitalist system has developed over the last five centuries to become the economic driving force of the modern global economy.
Communism def
an economic and political system advocated by Karl Marx in which private ownership of the means of production is abolished in favour of common ownership. A classless society is established, production is based on human need, and the state withers away. Marxists argue that it is only under such a system that humans can realise their full potential.
Marxism def
an ideological system, within socialism, that drew on the writings of Marx and Engels and has at its core a philosophy of history that explains why it is inevitable that capitalism will be replaced by communism.
General socialist view of collectivism
Most socialists call for some form of state intervention and state planning to promote collectivist goals and ensure that the distribution of goods and services is not left to free-market forces. The pursuit of collectivism is commonly seen to involve the growth of the state, the expansion of state services and responsibilities, and an increase in state spending.
Other branch views of collectivism
Marxists and state socialists advocate collective action through a centralised state that organises all (or nearly all) production and distribution. For example, in the USSR after 1929, most industries were nationalised and all agricultural land was collectivised in order to transform a backward state into a modern industrial society, using complete state control of the economy to bring about change. After the Second World War, communist regimes in China and eastern Europe pursued similar policies of state-controlled collectivism.
Moderate socialists who accept some degree of free-market capitalism in the economy have pursued collectivism in a more limited way. For instance, the 1945-51 Labour government in the UK nationalised key industries - such as coal, electricity, and iron and steel - but left much of the
economy in private hands.
What collectivism means for different areas of policy
Housing:
Subsidised homes provided by local
government
Industrial relations:
Workers organised if trade unions with bargaining rights over terms and
conditions.
Education:
The state runs the school system, which is free and available to everyone.
Health care:
National health service, funded from
genera taxation. Provides free care based on need.
Industry:
Key industries under state control to operate in the national interest.
Different concepts about what collectivism is
In many ways collectivism is a difficult concept to pin down precisely. This is partly because it is often used to describe very different things. The term has been applied to small self-governing communities (such as those based on the ideas of the 19th-century socialists Robert Owen and Charles Fourier), general opposition to individualism, and a system of centralised state control the directs the economy and society.
Criticisms of collectivism
There are two basic criticisms of collectivism.
• Because collectivism emphasises group action and common interests, it suppresses human individuality and diversity.
• As collectivist objectives can only really be advanced through the agency of the state, it leads» the growth of arbitrary state power and the erosion of individual freedoms.
Modern status of collectivism
Since the 1970s, socialists generally have attached less importance to collectivism. This is due to a growing perception that collectivism in developed countries such as the UK (mainly in the form of state welfare, trade union power and government intervention in the economy) was producing a dependency culture and a sluggish, uncompetitive economic sector. The end of the Cold War in 1989 and the collapse of the USSR in 1991 reinforced this view as collectivism suffered a significant ideological defeat.
Belief of common humanity and how it links to cooperation
The socialist belief in a common humanity is also based on assumptions about human nature.
Socialists see humans as social creatures with a tendency towards co-operation, sociability and rationality; humans naturally prefer to co-operate with, rather than compete against, each other.
In fact, the individual cannot be understood without reference to society, because human behaviour is socially determined.
Socialists advocate co-operation based on their positive view of human nature. They argue that humans are naturally inclined to work together for the common good and that co-operative effort produces the best results for society. Co-operation also reinforces and reflects the socialist idea of a common humanity, in both moral and economic terms. People who co-operate rather than compete with each other form connections based on understanding, respect and mutual support.
They also channel the capabilities of the whole group or community, rather than just the potential of a single individual.
What do socialists believe about competition?
By contrast, according to the socialist view, competition (particularly within a capitalist economy) is wasteful, promotes social divisions and generates conflict, hostility and resentment. Socialists maintain that capitalist economic competition sets one person against another, a process that encourages people to reject or disregard their common humanity (and social nature) rather than
accept it. It encourages humans to be selt-centred and belligerent.
What do socialists believe about common humanity and motivation
This emphasis on a common humanity has led socialists to conclude that human motivation can be driven not just by material considerations but also by a moral view of people’s role in society.
People should work hard in order to improve their society or community because they have a sense Of responsibility for other humans, particularly the least fortunate. The moral incentive to improve society rests on the acceptance of a common humanity.
For the economy to function properly, most contemporary socialists accept the need for at least some material rewards to motivate people, but they also stress that these should be linked to moral incentives. For example, co-operative effort to boost economic growth not only increases living standards for the working population but also provides the funds (through taxation) to ninance welfare measures to help the vulnerable and the poor.
What do socialists believe about common humanity and state intervention?
Finally, the belief in a common humanity has led socialists to support an interventionist role for the state. Marxists and state socialists argue that the agency of the state can be used to control economic production and dis:ribution for the benefit of everyone. Social democrats also advocate state intervention, in the more limited form of welfare and redistribution programmes, to help those in the greatest need.
Common ownership def
the means of production is owned by the workers so that all are able to participate in its running and to benefit from the wealth of society.
Three justifications for social equality
Social equality ensures fairness
Economic inequality (differences in wealth), according to the socialist view, is due to the structural inequalities in a capitalist society, rather than innate differences of ability among people. For this reason, some socialists tend to reject equality of opportunity because, in their view, such a concept justifies the unequal treatment of people on the grounds of innate ability. This argument reflects a view of human nature that emphasises people are born with the potential to be equal.
Other socialists maintain that, since it is part of human nature to have different abilities and attributes, inequality in the form of differential rewards is inevitable to some extent. These socialists tend to endorse an egalitarian approach to ensure that people are treated less unequally, in terms of material rewards and living conditions. Without this commitment to socialist egalitarianism, formal political and legal equality is compromised because, on its own, the latter does nothing to tackle the structural inequalities (such as social class) inherent in capitalism.
Social equality reinforces collectivism
A second argument is that social equality reinforces collectivism, co-operation and solidarity within society and the economy. Put simply, human beings are more likely to co-exist harmoniously in society and work together for the common economic good if they share the same social and economic conditions. For example, modern Sweden has high levels of social equality based on extensive wealth redistribution and social welfare. Socialists argue that such measures have made a major contribution to the stability, cohesion and economic output of Swedish society.
Social inequality, on the other hand, encourages conflict and instability. Societies with great economic and social inequalities are unstable because they are sharply divided into the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots.
Eventually, if the situation is not addressed, the disadvantaged sections of society will revolt in protest against their conditions, as happened in Russia in 1917 and Mexico in 1910-20. In a similar way. socialists also condemn equality of opportunity for fostering a competitive ‘dog-eat-dog’ outlook.
Social equality is a means of satisfying basic human needs
A third view is that social equality is a means of satisfying basic human needs that are part of human nature and essential to a sense of human fulfilment. Given that all people’s basic needs are the same (such as food, friendship and shelter), socialists call for the equal, or more equal, distribution of wealth and resources to promote human fulfilment and realise human potential.
In terms of the economy, most socialists agree that the free market, driven by the profit motive, cannot allocate wealth and resources fairly to all members of society. In their view, only the redistributive mechanism of the state can provide for everyone, irrespective of social position, and combat the divisive effects of the free market.
Branch views of equality
A key debate within socialism focuses on the extent to which social and economic equality can or should be achieved. In many ways, this is a debate about the role of the state. Revolutionary socialists, such as Marxists, demand absolute equality for everyone in terms of material rewards and life opportunities. Such equality can be guaranteed only by the controlled distribution of goods and services, the abolition of private property and the introduction of common ownersh of all means of production. Under this system, the state exercises common ownership and supervises the distribution of resources to prevent the return of social and economic inequalities. By contrast, social democrats call for more limited state intervention to achieve relative equality within society via welfare measures, government spending and progressive taxation. Their primary aim is to remove absolute poverty and, if this can be achieved, then a certain level of inequality can be tolerated. For social democrats, the state does not own or control all the means of production
- its role is to adjust distribution to narrow differences in wealth and life chances. In essence, social democrats seek to reform rather than abolish capitalism and for this reason maintain that material incentives continue to play an important role in human motivation. As a result, the social-dernociat position on social equality is flexible enough to embrace equality of opportunity
Socialist view of private ownership
As wealth is created by the communal endeavour of humans, it should be owned collectively, not by individuals.
•Private property encourages materialism and fosters the false belief that the achievement of personal wealth will bring fulfilment.
• Private property generates social conflict between ‘have and “have-not’ groups, such as owners
and workers
Broadly speaking, socialists have argued either that private property should be abolished entirely and replaced with common ownership or that the latter should be applied in a more limited way. In the USSR from the 1930s, the Stalinist regime implemented an all-encompassing form of common ownership by bringing the entire economy under state control. More moderate socialists, including the Attlee Labour government in the UK (1945-51), have opted for limited common ownership by nationalising only key strategic industries, including the coal mines, the railways and steel-making, leaving much of the economy in private hands. However, in recent decades, western socialist parties have placed less emphasis on common ownership in lavour of other objectives
Equality of outcome
Equality of outcome maintains that rewards should be based on an individual’s contribution. Since this will vary from person to person some inequality will persist but differences in
rewards will not be as marked as in the free-market system. quality of outcome tends to be supported by fundamentalist socialists (who reject capitalism) as a way of removing the free market’s influence but opposed by social democrats and the Third way as a form of artificial social and economic ‘levelling’.
Equality of opportunity
Equality of opportunity is based on the principle that everyone should have an equal chance to make the best of their ablities. There should be a level playing field with no artificial
barriers to propress for those with ability talent and a positive attitude to hard work This approach is supported by social vernocrats and the Third Way on meritocratic grounds but rejected by Marxists because it does not seek to remove copitalism and its structural inequalities
Absolute equality
Absolute equauty is based on the notion that evervone will receive the same rewards, providing they make a contribution to society. Over time, each person will make a broadly equal contribution. This approach is supported by Marxists as the basis of a communist society but rejected by social democrats and the Third Way as impractical and potentially destabilising.
Equality of welfare
Equality of welfare accepts that human society is inevitably unequal but also maintains that every individual is entitled to have an equal minimum standard of living guaranteed by state welfare provision. Equality of welfare is endorsed by social democrats and the Third Way because it provides a vital satety net for the most vulnerable in society. Marxists reject it because this welfare provision does not seek to remove capitalism and it’s structural inequalities.
What do opponents of social equality argue?
• it is unjust - in treating everybody the same irrespective of their attributes, it does not reward people according to their skills and abilities
• it lowers human ambition, motivation and initiative by removing or downgrading material incentives, leading to economic underperformance
• it restricts the liberties of the individual because it can only be implemented through extensive state intervention and control
• it stifles diversity and individuality, encouraging a ‘colourless’ social uniformity.
Importance of class in socialism
For socialists, the existence of social classes explains the most important divides in society, rather than the actions of individuals or the essence of human nature itself. At one level, socialists have used the concept of social class to enhance their understanding of social and political development. This approach has led them to conclude that people with a similar socio-economic position in society share a similar outlook and have common aims. It follows that social classes, rather than individuals or human nature, have been the principal agents of change throughout history. For example, Marxists assert that conflict between ruling and revolutionary classes is the driving force behind such change in society.
At another level, socialism’s focus on social class is based on an ideological commitment to represent the interests of, and improve conditions for, the working class. Indeed, for socialists, the working class provides the means for bringing about a socialist transformation of Society and the economy. Having said this, social class is not viewed as either an essential or everlasting feature of society because communist societies aim to eradicate all class distinctions, and other socialist societies seek to diminish class inequalities significantly.
Marxist view of class
Social class provides a way of categorising and analysing society by dividing it into different economic and social groups. In basic terms, a social class consists of a group of people with similar social and economic characteristics. Marxism, in particular, has offered a highly influential class analysis of society and politics. From a communist perspective, a person’s class is determined by their position within the economy (such as a landowner, a capitalist or a wage earner) and these economically based
class distinctions powerfully shape the nature of society. The crucial Marxist class division is between capital and labour - between the bourgeoisie (who own productive wealth) and the proletariat (who have to sell their labour power in order to survive).
Marxists traditionally emphasise the fundamental role of class politics based on the economic division between capital and labour. In this analysis, a person’s class position is economically determined by their relationship to the means of production. Marxism maintains that conflict is inevitable between the owners of productive wealth (the capitalists or the bourgeoisie) and those who have to sell their labour to survive (the proletariat or working class). Under the capitalist system, argue Marxists, the state becomes an instrument of class rule, with the bourgeoisie using institutions and agencies (such as the political and legal systems, the bureaucracy and the police) to maintain their dominance. Nevertheless, this class conflict, according to Marxist theory, grows in intensity and inevitably divides society sharply into two antagonistic groups - the ‘haves’ and
‘have-nots’ Eventually, this process leads to a proletarian revolution that overthrows the capitalist state and the bourgeoisie. For Marxists, the state will only wither away once the workers’ gains have been consolidated and social class differences are replaced by a classless, equal society.
Other definitions of class
Other definitions of class commonly focus on how occupational groups - such as middle class/white collar/non-manual workers and working class/blue collar/manual workers - differ in terms of income and status.
Marketing organisations have developed a more sophisticated classification scheme that distinguishes
between six catecories:
A- Higher managerial, administrative or professional
B- Intermediate managerial, administrative or professional
CI- Supervisory, clerical
C2- Skilled manual worker
D- Semi-skilled and unskilled manual worker
E- State pensioner, casual worker and unemployed
Current importance of class
The British Election Study; which analyses voting behaviour, uses another class scheme. This distinguishes between owners and managers, and between the petite bourgeoisie (small proprietors) and the working class. Most contemporary political commentators maintain that social class nos exerts a declining influence on society due to deindustrialisation and dealignment (a trend that sees a social group abandoning its previous partisan loyalty to a particular party, resulting in less predictable voting patterns.
Over the last 50 years or so, the connection between socialist ideology and class politics has weakened considerably. The decline in class politics, reflected in the social democrats more moderate stance, has been an important consequence of signiticant changes in the economy notably deindustrialisation and the rise of the service sector. Deindustrialisation has led to the decline of traditional staple industries (such as coal mining and steel making), which had previously supported a culture of working-class solidarity, pro-socialist-worker politics and powerful trade union organisations. The contraction of the staple industries has undermined working-class solidarity and working-class communities, and has reduced the size of the manual workforce.
Deindustrialisation has created post-industrial societies with service- and information-based economies and expanding middle classes
As a result, in recent decades, moderate socialist parties have adapted their programmes to appeal to non-manual workers. They have also attempted to redefine their brand of progressive politics in terms of ‘classless’ concerns, such as green and feminist issues, and have placed less emphasis on the redress of working class grievances.
Social democrat view of class
By contrast. social democrats denine social class in more fluid terms, emphasising income and status differences between non-manual and manual occupational groups. Social democrats also tend to argue that socialist objectives can be achieved througn targeted state intervention to narrow (not remove) class cistinctions. The state, according to social democrats, does not represent an instrument of oppressive class rule but rather provides the welfare and redistribution schemes by which class inequalities can be reduced. Unlike Marxists, who stress class conflict and revolutionary action, social democrats advocate class consensus in society and peaceful social
improvement
Idea of workers’ control
The term ‘workers’ control’ refers to the complete or partial ownership of an economic enterprise (such as a business or factory) by those employed there. It can also be used in a wider and more political sense to mean workers’ control of the state. The concept has influenced different strands of socialist thought, including Marxism and syndicalism. Workers’ control covers a range of schemes that aim to provide workers with full democratic control over their places of employment.
These schemes go beyond the right to be consulted and participate by seeking to establish real decision-making powers for workers in their particular industries or occupations.
Justification for workers control
Such a system is often justified in terms of core socialist ideas and principles. First, workers’ control is clearly based on socialist views about human nature, as it promotes collective effort and the pursuit of group (rather than individual) interests. Furthermore, some socialists have argued that workers’ control, with its emphasis on fully involving employees in all aspects of the production process, can maximise human potential by combating alienation at the workplace and undermining the capitalist view of labour as a mere commodity.
Workers’ control’s implications for the economy
Workers’ control has significant implications for the economy. Some socialists maintain that, as the workers are the key factor in the production process, they should have the right to control the means of production. Workers’ control aims either to dilute or replace capitalist control of the economy. For example, French syndicalists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries called for the overthrow of capitalism and the introduction of workers’ control of the economy based on the trade unions and proletarian political institutions.
Views about workers’ control and the state
Those endorsing workers’ control hold contrasting views regarding the role played by the state in the socialist transformation. Syndicalists are hostile towards the state, regarding it as an instrument of capitalist oppression and an inefficient bureaucratic structure incapable of initiating meaningful reform. Consequently, they call for the state to be forcibly replaced with a form of workers’ control based on a federation of trade union bodies. British guild socialism, a pro-workers’ control movement that emerged in the early 20th century, was internally divided over the role of the state. Although all guild socialists argued for state ownership of industry in the pursuit of workers’ control, some called for the state to remain essentially in its existing form, whereas others called for the state to be turned into a federal body composed of workers’ guilds, consumers* organisations and local government bodies.
