The Socialist Idea

Lecturer in Political Science, Holkar College, Indore

We can think of two very different ways of studying socialism. We can see it as a scientific doctrine of the nature and evolution of societies in general and, more specially, of the most civilized contemporary societies. In this case, the analysis does not differ from that to which scholars submit the theories and hypotheses of their respective sciences. They are considered abstractly, outside of time, space, and of future history, not as something whose genesis one attempts to find, but as a system of propositions which express, or are seemed to express facts.

Socialism, on the contrary, may be conceived as something entirely oriented toward the future, a plan for the reconstruction of societies, a, programme for a collective life which does not exist as yet, or in the way it is dreamed of, and which is proposed to men as worthy of their preference. It is an ideal. It concerns itself much less with what is or was than what ought to be. Undoubtedly, even under its most utopian forms it never disdained the support of facts, and has even, in more recent times, increasingly affected a certain scientific turn of phrase. It is indisputable that it has thus rendered social science more service, perhaps, than it received from it. For it has aroused reflection, it has stimulated scientific activity, it has instigated research, posed problems, so that in more than one way its history blends with the very history of sociology.

In fact, there cannot be a scientific Socialism. Because, were such a Socialism even possible, sciences would be necessary that are not yet developed and which cannot be improvised. The only attitude that science permits in the face of these problems is restraint and circumspection, and Socialism can hardly maintain this without lying to itself. And, in fact, Socialism has not maintained this attitude. Note even the strongest work–the most systematic, the richest in ideas–that this school has produced: Marx’s Capital. What statistical data, what historical comparisons, what studies would be indispensable to solve any of the innumerable questions that are dealt with there! Need we be reminded that an entire theory of value is established in a few lines? The truth is that the facts and observations assembled by theoreticians anxious to document their affirmations are hardly there except to give form to the arguments. The research studies they made were undertaken to establish a doctrine that they had previously conceived, rather than the doctrine being a result of the research. Almost all had developed before asking science for the help it could lend them. It is fervour that has been the inspiration of all these systems; what gave them life and strength is pity for the misery of the working classes, a vague sympathy for the travail of contemporary societies, a thirst for a more perfect justice, etc. Socialism is not a science, a sociology in miniature–it is a cry of grief, sometimes of anger, uttered by men who feel most keenly our collective malaise. Socialism is to the facts which produce it, what the groans of a sick man are to the illness with which he is afflicted, to the needs that torment him.

If this is so, then to study Socialism as a system of abstract propositions, as a body of scientific theories, and to discuss it formally, is to see and show a side of it which is of minor interest. Those aware of what social science must be, of the slow pace of its processes, of the laborious investigations it implies to resolve even the narrowest questions, cannot be fond of these premature solutions these vast systems so summarily sketched out. One is too clearly impressed with the discrepancy that exists between its simple methods and its elaborate conclusions, and one is consequently prompted to scorn the latter. But Socialism can be examined in an entirely different light. If it is not a product of science, it is an object of science. As such, we do not have to borrow from Socialism such and such a proposition ready made; but we do have to know Socialism, and to understand what it is.

Not only does such an investigation have its usefulness, but it should prove in other respects more fruitful than the usual examinations to which Socialism is subjected. When studied only in order to discuss it from a doctrinaire point of view, since it is based only on a very imperfect science, it is easy to show how far it goes beyond the very facts on which it leans, or to oppose contrary facts to it, in a word to criticize all its theoretic imperfections. One can, without much difficulty, review all its systems; there is none whose refutation is not relatively simple, because none are scientifically established. But as scholarly and as well-conducted as it may be, such a critique remains superficial, for it avoids what is essential. It concerns itself only with the exterior and superficial form of Socialism and so does not perceive what gives it depth and substance, namely collective diathesis, the profound uneasiness of which the particular theories are merely the symptoms and episodic superficialities. When one has sharply disputed the theories of Saint-Simon, Fourier, or Karl Marx, one is not, for that, especially informed on the social conditions which created them, which have been and still are there raison d’etre, and which, in future, will produce other doctrines if these fall into discredit. All these fine refutations are a veritable work of Penelope, endlessly beginning again, because they touch Socialism from without, and because what is within escapes them. They blame the effects, not the causes. But it is the causes that must be attacked, if only to understand the effects. For this purpose, Socialism must not be considered in the abstract, outside of every condition of time and place. On the contrary, it is necessary to relate it to the social setting in which it was born. It is essential not merely to subject it to dialectic discussion, but rather to fathom its history.

Of all definitions, the one which is perhaps most consistently and generally brought to mind whenever there is a question of Socialism, is that which has it consist of a pure and simple negation of private property. I do not know, it is true, of any passage by an authoritative writer where this formula is expressly proposed, but it is found implicitly at the base of more than one of the discussions that Socialism has occasioned. For example., Mr. Janet believes, in his book on Les Origines de Socialisme (page 2) that, to firmly establish that the French Revolution had no socialist character, it is sufficient to have it understood that “it has not violated the principle of property.” And yet one can say that there is not a single socialist doctrine to which such a definition applies. Let us consider, for example, the one which most limits private property–the collectivist doctrine of Karl Marx. It indeed withdraws from individuals the right to possess the means of production, but not to every form of wealth. They retain an absolute right over the products of their work. Can this limited restriction of the principle of private property be considered characteristic of Socialism? Our economic organization now presents restrictions of the same kind, and in this regard is distinguished from Marxism only by a difference in degree. Is not everything which is directly or indirectly a monopoly of the state taken from the private domain? Railways, post office, tobacco, manufacture of money, etc., cannot be carried on by individuals, or can be only by virtue of an express concession of the state. Shall we say then that in reality Socialism starts where the practice of monopoly begins? If so, then it is everywhere: it is of all times and countries, for there never has been a society without monopoly. This definition is far too broad.

Further, we can say as much of the concept–no less wide-spread–according to which Socialism consists of a subordination of the individual to the collectivity of the people. “We can define as socialist” says Adolphe Held, “every tendency which demands the subordination of individual welfare to the community.”¹ In like manner, Roscher, mixing judgement and criticism with his definition, calls socialist those tendencies “which claim a consideration of the common good above what human nature permits.” ² But there has never been a society in which private interests have not been subordinated to social ends; for this subordination is the very condition of all community life.

But there is also a definition which seems more suited to the object described. Very often, if not always, Socialism has had as its principal aim the amelioration of the condition of the working classes, by introducing greater equality into economic relations. That is why it is called the economic philosophy of the suffering classes. But this tendency of itself, is not sufficient to characterize it, for it is not peculiar to it. Economists also aspire to lessen inequality in social conditions; they believe, however, that this progress ought to be made by the natural play of supply and demand and that every legislative intervention is useless. Shall we then say that what distinguishes Socialism is that it wishes to obtain this same result by other means, namely by legal action? This was the definition of Laveleye. “Every socialist doctrine,” he says, “aims to introduce more equality into social conditions, and, secondly, to realize these reforms by action of the law or the state.” ³ But, on the one hand, if this objective is distinctively one which these doctrines pursue, it is necessary that it be theirs alone. And, on the other hand, the connection between the state and large industries, great economic undertakings, which by their importance embrace all of society, mines, railways, banks, etc., has as its aim the protection of collective interests against certain private influences, not the improvement of the lot of workers.

Socialism goes beyond the workingman’s problem. In certain of the systems it occupies only a secondary place. This is the case with Saint-Simon, who is regarded as the founder of Socialism. It is the case also with the academic socialists, who are much more concerned with safeguarding the interests of the State than with protecting the disinherited. On the other hand, there is a doctrine which aims at realizing this equality much more radically than Socialism; it is Communism which denies all private property and by that all economic inequality. But, although there has often been this confusion, it is impossible to regard Communism as a simple variant of Socialism. We will return shortly to this question. Plato and More, on the one hand, and Marx, on the other, are not disciples of the same school. A priori, it is not possible that a social organization, conceived in contemplation of the industrial societies we actually have under our eyes, could have been imagined when these societies had not yet been born. Finally, there are many legislative measures which one could not regard as exclusively socialist and which nonetheless have the effect of diminishing the inequality of social conditions. The progressive tax on inheritance and on income necessarily has this result, and nevertheless is not a concomitant of Socialism. What should one say of the foundations granted by the state, of the public welfare and loan institutions, etc.? If one labels them as socialist, as sometimes happens in the course of running discussions, the word loses every kind of sense, so broad and indefinite a connotation does it take.

In view of these facts we pose the question: What is Socialism?

We denote as socialist every doctrine which demands the connection of all economic function or of certain among them, which are at the present time diffused, to the directing and conscious centres of society. It is important to note at once that we say connection, not subordination. In fact, this bond between the economic organisation and the state does not imply, according to our belief, that the direction in every action should come from the latter. On the contrary, it is natural that it receives from it as much as it gives it. One can foresee that the industrial and commercial life, once put in permanent contact, will affect its functioning, will contribute to determining the manifestations of its activity much more than what it is to-day, will play in the life of the Government a much more important role; and this explains how, while complying with the definition we have just obtained, there are socialist systems which tend to anarchy. It is because, for them, this transformation must result in making the state subordinate to economic functions, rather than putting them in its hands. Although Socialism is a common issue, we have been able to see by the definitions given of it how inconsistent and even contradictory is the notion commonly held of it. The adversaries of the doctrine are not the only ones to speak of it without having a clear-cut idea. Socialists themselves often prove–by the way they understand the word–that they know only imperfectly their own theories. It constantly occurs that they take this or that particular tendency for the whole of the system, for the simple reason that they are personally impressed with one detail or the other. Although the conflict of ideologies confuses the problem of Socialism and leaves us without any clear-cut idea about it, we can still draw some conclusions regarding its aim and method on the basis of our analysis of the various socialist principles. We can maintain that Socialism stands for equality, particularly for economic, social and political equality, dignity of labour, and the general amelioration of the weaker sections of human society. Strictly speaking, it not only tries to safeguard the interests of the workers as Marxists and Syndicalists believe, but its efforts are directed towards the progress of the whole society. It aims at eradicating from human society, inequality of wealth and opportunities, poverty, ignorance, and every type of exploitation by one class or another. It endeavours to free every individual from want and frustration through fair distribution of wealth and chances, and as such it attempts to promote justice in society. Further, it views society not as monolithic, but as pluralistic in character, and to that effect it attempts to preserve its diversified life by organizing workers’ and consumers’ guilds and trade unions.

To achieve these aims, we cannot concede the Marxist or state-collectivist idea of transferring all the powers to the state. With a view to safeguarding the federal character of society, we cannot accept the state as an all-absorptive and all-powerful authority. The acceptance of such a state, for the purpose of Socialism, would mean the complete subordination of the individual initiative and activity to the commands of those who actually wield the power of the state. If Socialism stands as much for the collective life as for the individual life, we then have to decentralize the state authority and transfer most of its power to the masses.

Since the I World War there has been a general reaction against the authority of a too-powerful state. The birth of pluralism may be traced as a reaction against such a state. Even within Socialism we see various theories, such as Syndicalism, Guild Socialism, and Trade Unionism, which have reacted against the tendency of regarding the individual as a mere adjunct of state machinery. All these theories support as much the idea of individual freedom as of group and trade union activities in human society. There are various recent political proposals for a decentralized application of social control. There are, for example, the proposals to give greater recognition to vocational groups within the Government service, by enlarging the powers and responsibilities of association of public employees; the projects for re-invigorating local governing units by enlarging their functions and increasing their administrative autonomy, and the suggestions that the state, in recognising the control of industry so as to bring about a fairer distribution of wealth and broader opportunities of self-expression, should enlarge private systems of joint control under state auspices rather than establish a direct governmental administration or regulation of industrial enterprises. Most proposals, in modern time, for state ownership now include plans for a considerable devolution in the ordinary administration of the socialized industries. The principle behind this is that a state-owned enterprize should be managed not by politically-minded ministers, but by boards selected by the groups particularly concerned in the efficient and equitable operation of the enterprise. Another reaction against the all-inclusive centralized authority has been in the direction of a greater localization of governmental control. The aim is to preserve popular self-government against control by a Central Government which, however, democratically constructed as to suffrage and the distribution of representation, is too far away from the mass of citizens to know their needs and opinions. Nowadays the vocational groups are taking an increasing part in determining the action of formal governing bodies. This appears in the lobbying activities of associations of labourers, professional men, farmers, manufacturers, traders, bankers, etc. All such proposals and group activities clearly reflect the recent tendency of the human mind towards a decentralized state authority. It is, therefore, necessary that authority should be federalized and mass participation in political activity be increased. Socialism cannot disregard this demand of the modern time. There is always a danger in a powerful state that the agents through whom the state’s purpose is expressed might misinterpret that purpose or pervert it to their own ends. Prof. Laski remarked that “it is the clear lesson of history that no class of men can retain over a considerable period of time sufficient moral integrity to direct the lives of others. Sooner or later they pervert those lives to their own ends.” ⁴ Hence the only way to guarantee that the government in any state will actually carry out the purpose of the state is “to take steps to see that the decisions made by the state take full account of the interests that will be affected by those decisions……The sovereign power must be compelled, a priori, to make a comprehensive effort to embody the wills of those over whom it rules in its will before it is entitled to act upon them.” ⁵

In fact, the system of government must be democratic even in a socialist society. In a democracy, where there are regular opportunities for the people to change their rulers, the interests of those who wield power are more securely liked with the interests of the people than under any other form of government. It is not only the economic security that men need in life, but, at the same time, they also want to participate in the process of administration. They should, therefore, be allowed to express their opinion and judgement on almost all social, political and economic questions. No doubt, a considerable degree of central control is indispensable, but, to the utmost extent possible, there should be devolution of the powers of the state to various kinds of bodies–geographical, industrial, cultural–according to their functions. The powers of these bodies should be sufficient to make them interesting, and to cause energetic men to find satisfaction in influencing them. Bertrand Russell remarks that “nothing is so damping and deadening to initiative as to have a carefully thought out scheme vetoed by a central authority which knows almost nothing about it and has no sympathy with its objects.” ⁶ Therefore, a more elastic and less rigid system of government is needed if the best brains are not to be paralysed. And it must be an essential feature of every democratic and a socialist system that as much as possible of the power should be in the hands of men who are interested in the work that is to be done.

As such, Socialism, to attain its desired goals of individual freedom, equality and dignity of human labour and mind, must rely on more and more self-government in industry and mass participation in the work of administration. G. D. H. Cole was right when he said that democracy and Socialism had failed, not because there was an appalling poverty among the masses, but because there was no self-government in industry and we relied too much in state powers. As a matter of fact, there is not much difference between the goals of democracy and Socialism. Both strive for the progress of human society. Hence it is necessary for the socialists that they should realize the new demands of the fastly changing society without wasting their energies in the ideological differences and work strenuously and sincerely for raising the economic, political and educational standards of the masses.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. A. D. Lindsay......“The State in Recent Political Theory,” Political Quarterly, I (1914), 128-45.
2. Adam B. Ulam…..Philosophical Foundations of English Socialism (1951).
3. Bertrand Russell…..Authority and the Individual (1949).
4. Chester C. Maxey……Political Philosophies.
5. E. Durkheim…..Socialism and Saint-Simon.
6. F. W. Cocker…..Recent Political Thought, Chap. XVIII.
7. H. J. Laski…..Grammar of Politics and Studies in Law and Politics.
8. Krabbe…..The Modern Idea of the State.
9. Rammanohar Lohia……Fragments of a World Mind.

¹ Socialism and Saint-Simon by E. Durkheim, p. 14.
² Ibid.
³ Ibid., p. 15.
⁴ Grammar of Politics by Laski, p. 290.
⁵ Studies in Law and Politics by Laski, p. 255.
⁶ Authority and the Individual by B. Russell, p. 99.