No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2011
It would be a mistake to view the intellectual and political movement of socialism as a clearly identifiable and neatly circumscribed historical structure. Out of the many strands which have gone into the making of “socialism” it is possible, by simplifying the complexity of the process, to select at least four broad sources of socialist inspiration and thus four different versions of the socialist goal. These different concepts of socialism are not to be identified with specific historical figures or groups or movements, but represent rather the basic social and psychological elements which combined in varying degree to form the socialist movements known to us. The crisis of modern socialism—as exhibited in the books under consideration—is due to the fact that each of these concepts, for different reasons, has reached a dead-end from which advance toward any one goal means retreat from others also previously embraced.
1 This approach is strongly reflected by the intellectuals of the British Labour Party in the Fabian Society and Socialist Union.
2 This combination of “scientific” and Utopian socialism is graphically depicted by Buttinger, reared in the Marxist tradition of Austrian socialism.
3 “Equality,” pp. 75–76.
4 The ambiguous theoretical and emotional position toward the Soviet Union that convinced Marxist Social Democrats occupied between the two wars appears to have been finally resolved with the theoretical help of James Burnham (who, as an ex-Marxist writing in the Marxist idiom, has had a remarkably powerful influence on European socialists) and the practical assistance of the Red Army and Stalinist policy after 1945. See, e.g., chapters 2, 3, and 6 in Sering's book for his analysis of Soviet totalitarianism and bureaucratization.
5 This is done by R. H. S. Crossman in “Towards a Philosophy of Socialism” (New Fabian Essays, p. 27) and by the authors of Socialism: A New Statement of Principles.
6 Socialism: A New Statement of Principles, p. 35.
7 Sec, eg., Crosland, C. A. R., “The Transition from Capitalism” (New Fabian Essays, p. 63)Google Scholar, and Roy Jenkins (ibid., p. 76). Trade union pressure also operates to maximize distribution of surplus income in the form of freely spendable and differentiated wage packages.
8 Thus Sering still adheres to the ultimate ideal of goods allocation “to everyone according to his needs” and welcomes social welfare measures which approximate this ideal in existing welfare states.
9 Socialism: A New Statement of Principles, p. 32.
10 The disenchantment with nationalization of industries prevalent among the European working class—attested by many, even friendly, observers and reflected in the socialist parties' slackening drive for further nationalization measures—is largely due to the failure of such measures to alter substantially the hierarchic, coercive management structures characterizing modern mass industry. “Workers' control” and “industrial democracy” are other—perhaps Utopian—aspects of traditional ideology dear to many socialists which the exigencies of responsible government have exposed as unrealizable.
11 This observation applies primarily to Continental (Marxist) socialist parties.
12 An outstanding example of this attitude is the refusal of the Austrian Socialist Party to discuss—or even to take notice of—the problems raised by Buttinger in his challenging book. To the best of my knowledge, no Austrian socialist publication has, since its appearance in 1953 (in a German edition), referred to it or reviewed it.
13 Crossman, , op.cit., p. 2.Google Scholar