Socialism: A Brief Introduction | Brookings (2023)

It is worth remembering how important socialism once was at the ballot box to understand that this tradition has deeper roots in our history than many realize. In the 1912 presidential election, Debs secured 6 percent of the vote, and the Socialists held 1,200 offices in 340 cities, including 79 mayors. After this peak, socialism declined and was suppressed in World War I due to party opposition to the war. (Debs secured nearly a million votes in the 1920 presidential election by running from a jail cell.) After the war, the Communist takeover of what would become the Soviet Union contributed to a "Red Scare" that further weakened America's original socialist tradition. .

However, socialism never lost its intellectual influence. The New Deal was based on socialist proposals and it was a young socialist named Michael Harrington whose bookThe other Americahelped start the war on poverty. But when it came to electoral politics, socialism was largely avoided or irrelevant.

Until now. The 2008 crash, rising inequality, and a growing critique of the workings of modern capitalism have brought socialism back into the mainstream—in some ways even more so than in Debs' time, as those who use the label have become an influential force in the world have become Democratic Party. Senator Bernie Sanders, running as a Democratic Socialist, received 45 percent of the Democratic primary vote in 2016, and in the 2018 midterm elections, prominent Democratic winners included members of the Democratic Socialists of America. Her ranks also included Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who quickly became one of the country's best-known politicians. A measure of their influence: in early May, Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer had 1.7 million Twitter followers; Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, had 2.5 million. Ocasio-Cortez had 4 million.

The generation gap

Although President Donald Trump declared war on socialism in his 2019 State of the Union address, his supporters felt no pressure to back down. It is not difficult to understand why.

In the heyday of the industrial age, growth was rapid, its fruits spread across all income and wage brackets, and upward mobility was widespread. Capitalism was popular. It was not socialism. In recent decades, however, growth has been sporadic and slow, wages for working-class and many middle-class families have stagnated, mobility has declined, and inequality has risen sharply. The economic and financial collapse of 2008–2009 undermined claims that the economy had entered a new era of stability and moderation. Experts who had preached the virtues of self-regulation had to back down. The slow recovery from the Great Recession left many Americans wondering if they would ever regain the income and wealth they had lost.

The global economic crisis particularly influenced the attitudes of young adults. The younger working class entered a job market that offered far less stable opportunities than their parents. And as revenues fell, many state governments cut public support for higher education, forcing public colleges and universities to drastically increase tuition. Students had to give up their hopes of going to college or take out large loans that ate up a significant portion of their income. And especially in the years immediately following the crash, many of them struggled to find the jobs their educations once promised. As corporate earnings and share prices bounced back from their slumps, and executives and investors became rich, many young adults wondered if they would ever share in the fruits of the 21st century.^stcentury capitalism. They became increasingly open to the idea that the system was rigged against them and that gradual reforms were not enough. Many concluded that only transformative system change could solve the problem and that socialism was the available alternative to the failed "neoliberal" model of modern capitalism.

The generational effect is dramatic. ONEYouGov survey 2018found that 35 percent of young adults under 30 had very or somewhat positive feelings about socialism, while only 26 percent expressed negative feelings. (40 percent were not sure.) In contrast, only 25 percent of voters age 65 and older had a favorable view of socialism, while 56 percent had a negative view.

Table 1: Influence of age on attitudes towards socialism

(De: YouGov, august 2018)

Competing Definitions of Socialism

The growing popularity of socialism reflects a change in its image. Seen in the past in the dark shadow of the Soviet system, it is now seen in the light of the results of social democratic governments in Scandinavia and elsewhere in Europe.

In 2018, the Public Religion Research Institute offered respondents two definitions of socialism. One described it as "a system of government that provides citizens with health insurance, pensions, and access to free higher education." The second characterized it as "a system in which the government controls important parts of the economy, such as utilities, the transport and communications industry". The first definition practically refers to the Scandinavian model - and the ideas that Sanders popularizes. Most advocates of social democracy sees it as a way of smoothing the rough edges of capitalism and making it more humane, egalitarian and protective rather than replacing the market entirely.The second definition corresponds to the classic understanding of socialism that dominated public consciousness after World War II, where the challenge of The Soviet Union was at its peak.

As might be expected, young adults with little or no memory of the Cold War were strongly inclined to define socialism in terms of social democracy rather than state ownership of key industries. 58 percent of them chose the social democratic variant, only 38 percent for the prevailing post-war understanding. In contrast, Americans 65 and older, whose views of socialism reflected the postwar conflict with communism, tended to focus more on government control of the economy, although even the oldest Americans now also lean toward the social democratic definition.

Other study results confirm this change. In 1949, the organization Gallup surveyed the American understanding of the concept of "socialism". More Americans chose state ownership or control as the defining feature of socialism than all other options combined. Nearly seven decades later, in 2018, Gallup asked the same question with very different results. The share of respondents who focused on government control fell by half to just 17 percent. In contrast, the proportion of those who emphasized equality and generous public benefits rose from 14 percent in 1949 to 33 percent in 2018.

Table 2: Changes in Americans' understanding of socialism over time

(Source: Gallup Organization, 1949, 2018. Enrollments total more than 100% due to rounding.)

In the post-war period, Americans viewed socialism through the prism of Soviet communism. Today they look at it through the prism of the welfare state.

In the post-war period, Americans viewed socialism through the prism of Soviet communism. Today they see it through the prism of the welfare state, the system Western democracies developed to make market economies generally acceptable and to weaken the pull of communism, which enjoyed strong support across Europe in the post-war decades. The Soviet Union threatened freedom. Norway, Sweden and Denmark do not.

However, there was an important difference between Soviet communism and the system advocated by the socialist parties after World War II. The Soviet system was undemocratic and totalitarian. The state (ie the Communist Party) controlled not only the entire economy but also civil society. As a "vanguard" party, the CPSU unfailingly claimed to represent the "true interests" of the working class, even though the average citizen of the Soviet Union might well disagree with the party's "line" at any given time.

In contrast, the program of the western socialist parties was both democratic and non-totalitarian. Western socialists recognized the importance of individual liberties, which communists dismissed as "bourgeois". These parties distinguished between those parts of the economy that should be brought under public control and those that were not. Essentially, they did not seek state control over civil society and were willing to constantly submit to the democratic verdict of the electorate.

From socialism to social democracy

The post-war British Labor Party is a living example of democratic socialism in practice - and also of the transition from state ownership to greater equality as the core goal of socialism. As World War II drew to a close in the summer of 1945, Britain held its first general election in almost a decade. The Labor Party advocated a bold program of economic and social change. "The Labor Party is a socialist party and proud of it," its manifesto said. "Its ultimate object . . . is the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain."

The manifesto was serious, even literal, about the choice of the noun "Commonwealth". The basic premise was that everything in Britain – not just land and natural resources, but also productive assets and wealth – should be considered the common property of the people as a whole and could be used through democratic processes for humanly determined purposes.

The Manifesto was not content with ringing generalizations, but set out its socialist program in great detail. It called for public ownership of the fuel and power industries, the iron and steel industry and all domestic means of transport (rail, road, air and canals). Other important provisions included the nationalization of the Bank of England, eventually the nationalization of land holdings, a National Investment Board to plan and shape public and private investment, and a state-funded and run National Health Service.

Another theme runs through the Manifesto - the thesis that building socialism is akin to war mobilization, which focused all the nation's energies on a single overarching goal. "The nation and its governments after the war will be called upon to place the nation above all self-interest, above all free enterprise," reads the manifesto. "The problems and pressures of the post-war world threaten our security and progress as surely - if less dramatically - than the Germans did in 1940. We must preserve the spirit of Dunkirk and the Blitzkrieg for a period of years to come."

However, the Labor Party's version of socialism was entirely consistent with the British system of individual liberty and parliamentary democracy. The manifesto emphasizes the Labor Party's commitment to freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom of the press. It rejected the proposal that wartime restrictions on individual liberties should be carried over to peacetime. The Labor Party peacefully and democratically won power in the 1945 general election, and when Labor lost the subsequent election, it handed power to the victorious Conservatives.

In many ways the Labor Party's post-war program represented a high point for democratic socialism.

In many ways the Labor Party's post-war program represented a high point of democratic socialism.From the 1950s, after they had fallen from power, Labor leaders emphasized aspects of their program centered on the nationalization of key industries without formally opposing say them. During the 13 years of Conservative government between 1951 and 1964, the Labor Party saw the rise of "revisionists" who turned the party away from the nationalization of industry as a central goal. In his seminal book The Future of Socialism, Anthony Crosland, a major figure in the party, argued that the focus on nationalization confuses means and ends, and that the aim of socialism was greater equality, not state ownership of industry. The party leader at the time, Hugh Gaitskell, was a revisionist who regularly clashed with the left wing of the party. And when Harold Wilson brought Labor back to power in 1964, he emphasized the power of technological change to transform society and the promise of the "white heat" of the "scientific revolution". It was still a long way from taking over the coal mines.

In Germany, the transformation of democratic socialism was formal and explicit. As late as the mid-1950s, the Socialist Party of Germany (SPD) continued to uphold classical socialist ideology. A key SPD leader stated that the decisive point on the party's agenda was "the abolition of capitalist exploitation and the transfer of the means of production from the control of large owners to social ownership". But after a series of electoral defeats against a centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), which itself supported a large welfare state, the SPD realized that its post-war program had been overtaken by events. Rapid economic growth based on private property and regulated markets in the 1950s had sparked the emergence of a new middle class and outpaced an economic program aimed at nationalizing key industries. The Soviet Union was a threat to social and political freedom and not an economic model to emulate.

The SPD's famous Bad Godesberg programme, adopted in November 1959, marked a fundamental change of course. She criticized Soviet communism and rejected Marxism. The proletariat was no longer the only engine of progress; The SPD had changed from a "party of the working class" to a "party of the people". The guiding principles will henceforth be democracy, freedom, equality and the greatest possible development of the individual.

The program defined the social function of the state as "the provision of social security to its citizens, to enable all to freely organize their own lives and to promote the development of a free society". While significant government regulation would be required to achieve this goal, government involvement would not be required except in the rare cases where "sound economic balance of power" could not otherwise be ensured.

The new economic vision was based on freedom – “free choice of consumer goods, free choice of employment, freedom of employers to exercise their initiative and free competition.” Where excessive concentration restricts competition, the state must intervene to restore competition. The task of free economic policy was to curb the power of big business, not to replace the private sector. In some cases, they suggested that what we would now call a "public option" could be used to expand consumer choice and weaken corporate power. But in a notable break with socialist orthodoxy, the program emphasized that "any concentration of economic power, even in the hands of the state, is fraught with danger." Widespread state ownership of the means of production is not always the solution; that may be part of the problem.

The program focused not on government taking control of the economy, but on using government to improve the lives of all citizens.

The program focused not on government taking control of the economy, but on using government to improve the lives of all citizens. Key issues included full employment, generous wages and shorter working hours, a redistributive tax system, secure retirement with a state-guaranteed minimum pension, universal access to health care, and decent and affordable housing. They are among the building blocks of the system of "social democracy" that developed and spread throughout the West as an alternative to socialism and unregulated capitalism. As scholar Sheri Berman puts it: "Capitalism persisted, but it was a very different kind of capitalism—one tempered and limited by political power and often subordinated to the needs of society rather than the other way around."

From social democracy to the third way

Although social democracy was the dominant political program in most democracies, its triumph was short-lived. From the late 1970s, conservative leaders who challenged the core principles of social democracy won electoral victories in Britain, the United States, Germany and elsewhere. They argued that excessive government intervention and spending had slowed economic growth, inhibited innovation and fueled inflation. Furthermore, over-reliance on organized labor had reduced private sector profits and investment, while the pursuit of equal outcomes had deprived "job creators" of the necessary incentives to take risks. According to the new conservative wisdom, government is not the solution to capitalism's problems, but rather the biggest obstacle to the success of a market economy. Industries were to be deregulated; Spending on social protection programs had to be cut; Taxes had to be reduced; and the unions had to be brought under control.

The political success of conservative policies convinced many center-left leaders that their social democratic programs needed to be adapted to the new circumstances. As this movement gained strength, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union changed the political landscape. It seemed that any alternative to capitalism had faded. The future lay in a dynamic and increasingly global market economy with minimal restrictions on the free flow of capital, goods, services, labor and information. Appropriate tax, trade, investment, immigration and education policies would allow Western democracies to take the lead in the new economy. The future of workers lies in lifelong education and training, not in the efforts of organized labor to oppose necessary change. Regulations that hampered efficiency in key sectors such as banking had to be removed. Competition would promote "self-regulation" as an alternative to the heavy hand of the state. Programs to promote financial security and retirement security were acceptable—as long as they didn't break the bank, raise interest rates, and crowd out private investment.

Led by key figures such as Bill Clinton in the US, Tony Blair in the UK and Gerhard Schröder in Germany, this new economic vision - called the "Third Way" by its friends and "neoliberalism" by its enemies - led to changes in the middle. left parties. As long as the new economy offered plenty of jobs and broad income gains, center-left parties thrived politically. But the 2008 financial crisis and the severe global recession that followed eroded public confidence in the institutions and policies that made the disaster possible. Populist forces began to move to the right. (In retrospect, the Tea Party was a harbinger of the future.) On the left, the failure of post-Cold War globalized capitalism opened the door for critics of the status quo. Occupy Wall Street targeted the "1 percent" — the wealthy elites whose greed and shortsightedness, they said, triggered the crisis, leaving those with less means to suffer the losses and bear the costs.

In 2016, right-wing populism had taken over the former center-right Republican Party in the United States, while Sanders gave Hillary Clinton, the established center-left candidate, a surprisingly tough run. Across Europe, traditional centre-left and centre-right parties suffered heavy losses, while both right-wing populists and far-left parties gained support. Rebels in the US, UK and elsewhere have rejected what they see as offensive and ineffective Third Way compromises with conservative principles and programmes. Against this historical backdrop, young adults in America embraced programs that promised more than incremental change—and they weren't afraid to call themselves socialists.

what is in a word

Medicare and Social Security are socialist in some ways, as are our public schools and universities, our community colleges, our water and sewer systems, and our mass transit systems.

When discussing socialism (and especially when attacking it), there has always been a gap between rhetoric and reality. Not a single economically advanced society can be described as purely capitalist; Each is a mixed economy that contains some elements of socialism. Medicare and Social Security are socialist in some ways, as are our public schools and universities, our community colleges, our water and sewer systems, and our mass transit systems. Municipally owned and built sports stadiums are forms of socialism. North Dakota still has a public bank that was founded in the years when agrarian populism and socialism intersected. The Tennessee Valley Authority is a form of socialism, as conservatives keep pointing out.

Ideas rooted in socialism have often been used to save capitalism from its excesses—mostly against the opposition of capitalists. Political scientist Mason Williams points to a comment by New Deal lawyer Jerome Frank that summarizes this story well. "We socialists are trying to save capitalism," Frank said, "and the damned capitalists won't let us."

And from Franklin Roosevelt to Barack Obama, conservatives make a point of accusing their Democratic opponents of being socialists, no matter how many speeches they make praising the market. Al Smith attacked his former friend FDR's program, declaring, "There can be only one national anthem, the Star Spangled Banner or the International." In the 1950 midterm elections, Republicans briefly used the slogan "Liberty versus Socialism." (It turned out not to be a very good test.) Ronald Reagan's 1964 speech on behalf of Barry Goldwater, which made "The Gipper" a conservative hero, argued that Goldwater's victory over Lyndon Johnson was necessary to stop the spread of socialism advance And, of course, Barack Obama's health care plan, which was far from a single-payer system, was regularly denounced as socialist.

Most Democratic politicians have consistently denied being socialists—and even in this campaign cycle marked by the resurgence of socialism, most Democrats really do identify as capitalists. Among the proud capitalists is Elizabeth Warren, who is in many ways as progressive as Sanders and has made even broader proposals for restructuring contemporary capitalism than he has. The fact that Sanders describes himself as a socialist and Warren does not suggest that the divide between socialists and capitalists tells us less about politics than we might think and more about the value attached to the brands from different parts of the world voters.

Diploma

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the term socialism lost its once automatic association with America's mortal enemy. The acceptance of socialism is no longer tainted with treachery, and the proposals of avowed socialists have widened the range of acceptable debate. As recent comments by Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co, and Ray Dalio of Bridgewater Associates on the threatened future of capitalism suggest, the harsher criticism of capitalism is catching the attention of capitalists themselves. In the past—from the New Deal years until the 1960s—fear about the future of the system led major voices in business to advocate social reforms necessary to save the system. The socialists could again be the forerunners of the capitalist reform.

There are three basic principles here. The first is that the position on socialism now divides the two parties. In a 2018 YouGov poll, 46 percent of Democrats had a somewhat or very favorable view of socialism, while only 25 percent had a negative view. Among Republicans, only 11 percent viewed socialism favorably, while 71 percent viewed it negatively—including 61 percent who had a "very" negative opinion. It is significant that the distribution among independents was 19 percent positive and 40 percent negative. Among Americans who voted for Hillary Clinton, 53 percent had a favorable view of socialism, an opinion held by only 7 percent of Trump voters.

Second, sympathy for socialism is still a minority opinion. In the YouGov survey, only 26 percent of American adults viewed socialism generally favorably and 46 percent viewed it negatively. Among registered voters, the split was 30 percent positive and 50 percent negative. As Warren's self-description shows, most politicians who want to win national elections will continue to resist the S-word. While socialism is more popular than ever, it remains a troubling word online for a large segment of the electorate. But whatever you call it, the urge to use public power to smooth the rough edges of the market economy and improve opportunity and security for all Americans is a strong current in today's post-Great Recession politics.

Table 3: Partisanship and attitudes towards socialism

(De: YouGov, august 2018)

Third, decades of rising inequality and the shock of the 2008 crash have led large numbers of Americans—whether they call themselves socialists or not—to question the very foundations of our economic system. The resurgence of socialism is a warning sign for those who want to preserve this system and an opportunity for those who want to reform it. And as before, it can happen that their two causes overlap.

The authors would like to thank Amber Herrle for her contribution to this article.