Socialism

From Example Problems
Jump to: navigation, search

Template:Socialism

File:Redflag.jpg
The color red and particularly the red flag are traditional symbols of Socialism.

Socialism is an ideology with the core belief that a society should exist in which 'popular' "collectives" control the means of power, and therefore the means of production. In application, however, the de facto meaning of 'socialism' has changed with time. Although it is a politically-"loaded" term, it remains strongly-related to the establishment of an organized working class; created through either revolution or by social evolution, with the purpose of building a "classless society". 'Socialism' had its origins in the "Utopian" ideals of the "Enlightenment", during the "Industrial Age/Age of Industrialization", amid the yearnings for a "perfect society". It has also increasingly become concentrated on social reforms within modern democracies. This concept and the term Socialist may refer to a group of ideologies, an economic system, or a state that exists or has existed.

In Marxist theory, it also refers to the society that would 'succeed' or supplant capitalism, and in "ideal" cases, would develop further into "communism", as the 'necessity' for the socialist structure would "wither away". 'Marxism' and 'communism' are both branches of socialism.

The word dates back at least to the early nineteenth century. It was first used, self-referentially, in the English language in 1827 to refer to followers of Robert Owen. In France, again self-referentially, it was used in 1832 to refer to followers of the doctrines of Saint-Simon and thereafter by Pierre Leroux and J. Regnaud in l'Encyclopédie nouvelle. Use of the word spread widely and has been used differently in different times and places, both by various individuals and groups that consider themselves socialist and by their opponents. While there is wide variation between socialist groups, nearly all would agree that they are bound together by a common history rooted originally in nineteenth and twentieth-century struggles by industrial and agricultural workers, operating according to principles of solidarity and advocating an egalitarian society, with an economics that would, in their view, serve the broad populace rather than a favored few.

An ideology or a group of ideologies

According to Marxists (most notably Friedrich Engels), socialist models and ideas are said to be traceable to the dawn of human social history, being an inherent feature of human nature and early human social models. During the Enlightenment in the 18th century, revolutionary thinkers and writers such as the Marquis de Condorcet, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, abbé de Mably, and Morelly provided the intellectual and ideological expression of the discontented social layers in French society. This included even the bourgeoisie, at that time kept out of political power by the ancien régime, but also the "popular" classes among whom socialism would later take root.

The earliest modern socialist groups shared characteristics such as focusing on general welfare rather than individualism, on co-operation rather than competition, and on laborers rather than on industrial or political leaders and structures. They did not generally think in terms of class struggle, but argued that the wealthy should join with the poor in building a new society. Class struggle, the challenge to private property and the accompanying notions of the special role of the proletariat in the revolution find their earliest origins in the Conspiracy of Equals of Babeuf, an unsuccessful actor in the French Revolution. Later, they were much greatly developed by the Marxist branch of socialism.

Elie Halevy claims that the term "socialism" was coined independently by two groups advocating different ways of organizing society and economics: the Saint-Simonians, and most likely Pierre Leroux, in the years 1831-33, and the followers of Robert Owen, around 1835.

By the time of the Revolution of 1848 there were a variety of competing "socialisms", the most influential being those founded by Saint-Simon, Owen and Charles Fourier. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels by this time were referring to themselves as "communists", in large part to distinguish themselves from the above ideologies, which they described as "utopian socialism". (Engels later used the term "scientific socialism" to describe Marxism.)

Depending on the context, the term socialism may refer either to these ideologies or any of their many lineal descendants. While these cover a very broad range of views, they have in common a belief that feudal and capitalist societies are run for the benefit of a small economic elite and that society should be run for the common good. "Socialist" ideologies tend to emphasize economic cooperation over economic competition; virtually all envision some sort of economic planning (many, but by no means all, favor central planning). All advocate placing at least some of the means of production -- and at least some of the distribution of goods and services -- into collective or cooperative ownership.

Historically, the ideology of socialism grew up hand in hand with the rise of organized labor. In many parts of the world, the two are still strongly associated with one another; in other parts, they have become two very distinct movements.

Branches of socialism

File:Socialismchart.png
A chart of some branches of socialism. Note: This chart seems to simplify the evolution of socialism into anarchism and "authoritarian socialism." This is a contentious point made by some anarchists who view most strains of Marxist socialism to be inherently authoritarian

Since the 19th century, socialist ideas have developed and separated into many different streams. Notable ideologies that have been referred to using the label "socialism" are:

The socio-political or intellectual movements basing themselves in the Marxist-Socialist tradition can generally be further divided into:

Several forms of "socialism" are considered by those further to the left to be reformist or revisionist. These include:

Other ideologies including the word "socialism"

Like other political terms, such as liberal, conservative and democratic (see, for example, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, which is neither liberal nor democratic), the words socialism or socialist have sometimes been used in self-description by groups that had little or no connection with the historical socialist movement, and who sometimes openly and virulently opposed the socialists in their countries.

The German National Socialists (Nazis) used the word "socialist" in their official name much like any branch of Socialism, but most scholars argue that the term "socialism" in "national socialism" did not meaningfully extend beyond propaganda purposes. However, rightwing F.A. Hayek, Nobel prize-winning economist, in his The Road to Serfdom, claims that National Socialists did indeed "socialize" the economy. In practice, the Nazis allowed (friendly) capitalists to thrive while liquidating socialists everywhere else (including from within their own party in the Night of the Long Knives). Hayek points out that this state involvement in the economy, while not left socialism, is socialism nevertheless. Unlike 'national socialists,' many left socialists who consider themselves nationalist reject the racialist theories and totalitarianism of the Nazis, unlike socialists, who are known for struggling for a classless society where everyone is equal. (see: Nazism and Socialism).

Some Japanese right-wing and nationalists thinkers, such as Kita Ikki, also used the term from the 1920s to the Pacific war period, referring to a state socialism, rooted in the Japanese feudal Shogunate and Meiji periods. This was based on socialist theory, which arrived to Japan in 1901, introduced by Western missionaries, and built on the work of Japanese socialists thinkers, Kotoku Shusui and Katayama Sen, as well as social Darwinism, Marxism, and similar ideas. These ideologies were continued in the work of Yoshino Kazuko and Minobe Tatsu Kichi, in "minponshugi" and "minshushugi", Japanese socialist philosophies. Yoshino Kazuko also founded the Reimeikai Party, a movement based on Christian Socialism, Confucian politics, Marxism and syndicalism, with some populism. In this period, the first nationalist secret societies were born. During the Showa Epoch, the final developments of these ideologies combined Japanese state socialist thinking with contemporary European fascist ideals and the Japanese WW2 radical right-wing ideology of Militarism-Socialism. Under this movement ideologists such as Sadao Araki founded the right-wing Kodoha party; Hachiro Arita organized the Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere concept and Naoki Hoshino organized the foundation of puppet state of Manchukuo along with local nationalist groups;the local left socialism along Russian and Chinese soviets elements conduct in development of Japanese local communist thinking. (See also Socialist thought in Imperial Japan, Japanese nationalism,Japanese fascism and Communist Party of Japan)

Another party who employs the word "socialist" in its name but is viewed by many as being not genuinely socialist, is the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party which rules Syria and also ruled Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It claims a tradition of secular, non-Marxist socialism, but most political theorists (as well as nearly all other socialists) argue that, in fact, it persecutes socialists (who wish to redistribute wealth more equally in the country) while promoting capitalists from within the dominant minority ethnic group that controls the Party and, decisively, the Syrian armed forces. The CIA assisted Saddam Hussein with death squads, effectively wiping out the Iraqi communists.

For a discussion of the controversial views of one philosopher of history who sees a close, though antagonistic, relationship between the left and the right descendants of Hegelianism, see Eric Voegelin.

Various Catholic clerical parties have at times referred to themselves as "Christian Socialists." Two examples are the Christian Social Party of Karl Lueger in Austria before and after World War I, and the contemporary Christian Social Union in Bavaria. Most other socialists would consider these two parties to be "socialist" in name only. However, there are other individuals and groups, past and present, that are clearly both Christian and Socialist, such as Frederick Denison Maurice, author of The Kingdom of Christ (1838), or the contemporary Christian Socialist Movement (UK) (CSM), [1] affiliated with the British Labour Party. (See main article Christian socialism; see also Christian left and social gospel)

Some individualist anarchists, such as Benjamin Tucker, refer to their philosophy as "anarchistic socialism," though supporting private property in the produce of labor, including capital, and opposing collectivism. Tucker defines "state socialism" as "the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by the government, regardless of individual choice."

A note on usage

Some groups (see above) have called themselves socialist while holding views that most socialists consider antithetical to socialism. The term has also been used by some politicians on the political right as an epithet for certain individuals who do not consider themselves to be socialists and policies that are not considered socialist by their proponents (e.g. referring to all publicly funded medicine as "socialized medicine" or to the United States Democratic Party as "socialist"). This article touches only briefly on those peripheral issues.

What distinguishes the various types of socialism

There are a few questions that point out some of the big differences among socialisms:

  • Do advocates of this ideology say that socialism should come about through revolution (e.g. Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, revolutionary Marxism) or through reform (e.g. Fabianism, reformist Marxism), or do they view both as possible (e.g. Syndicalism, various Marxisms) or do they fail to address the question of how a socialist society would be achieved (e.g. utopian socialisms)?
  • Do they advocate centralized state control of the socialized sectors of the economy (e.g. Leninism), or control of those sectors by workers' councils (e.g. syndicalism, left and council communism, Marxism, Anarcho-communism)? This question is usually referred to by socialists in terms of "ownership of the means of production." None of the social democratic parties of Europe advocate total state ownership of the means of production in their contemporary demands and popular press, but most contain rhetoric in their platform which state that in the event the capitalists fail to meet up to their end of the social contract, the workers have the legitimate historical basis to assume or seize total control of the means of production, should those conditions ever arise in the future.
  • Do they advocate that the power of the workers' councils should itself constitute the basis of a socialist state (coupled with direct democracy and the widespread use of referendums), or do they hold that socialism entails the existence of a legislative body administered by people who would be elected in a representative democracy? In other words, through what legal and political apparatus will the workers maintain and further develop the socialization of the means of production?
  • Do they advocate total or near-total socialization of the economy (e.g. revolutionary Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Left and Council Communism, anarcho-syndicalism and syndicalism), or a mixed market economy (e.g. Bernsteinism, reformism, reformist Marxism)? Mixed economies, in turn, can range anywhere from those developed by the social democratic governments that have periodically governed Northern and Western European countries, to the inclusion of small cooperatives in the planned economy of Yugoslavia under Josip Broz Tito. In a related, but not identical, question, do they advocate a fairer society within the bounds of capitalism (e.g. most social democrats) or the total overthrow of the capitalist system (most Marxists).
  • Did the ideology arise largely as a philosophical construct (e.g. libertarian socialism), or in the heat of a revolution (e.g. early Marxism, Leninism), or as the product of a ruling party (e.g. Stalinism), or as the product of a party or other group contending for political power in a democratic society (e.g. social democracy).
  • Does the ideology systematically say that "bourgeois liberties" (such as those guaranteed by the U.S. First Amendment or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) are to be preserved (or even enhanced) in a socialist society (e.g. social democracy), or are undesirable (e.g. Maoism), or have they held different opinions at different times (e.g. Marx and Engels), or is this a dividing point within the ideology (e.g. different strains of Trotskyism)?
  • Does their critique of the existing system center on the ownership of the means of production (e.g. Marxism), on the nature of mass and equitable distribution (e.g. most forms of utopian socialism), or on opposition to industrialism as well as capitalism (common where socialism intersects green politics)? Utopian Socialists, like Robert Owen and Saint-Simon argued, though not from exactly the same perspective, that the injustice and widespread poverty of the societies they lived in were a problem of distribution of the goods created. Marxian Socialists, on the other hand, determined that the root of the injustice is based not in the function of distribution of goods already created, but rather in the fact that the ownership of the means of production is in the hands of the upper class. Also, Marxian Socialists maintain, in contrast to the Utopian Socialists, that the root of injustice is not in how goods (commodities) are distributed, but for whose economic benefit are they produced and sold.
  • Which governments does the ideology regard as practicing or moving toward socialism and which does the ideology not regard as doing so? For example, in the era of the Soviet Union, western socialists were bitterly divided as to whether the Soviet Union was basically socialist, moving toward socialism, or inherently un-socialist and, in fact, inimical to true socialism. Similarly, today the government of the People's Republic of China claims to be socialist and refers to its own approach as "Socialism with Chinese characteristics," but most other socialists consider China to be essentially capitalist. The Chinese leadership concurs with most of the usual critiques against a command economy, and many of their actions to manage what they call a socialist economy have been determined by this opinion.

Note also that while many would say that socialism is defined by state ownership and state planning of the means of production and economic life, a certain degree of such state ownership and planning is common in economies that would almost universally be considered capitalist. In Canada, Crown Corporations are responsible for various sectors of the economy deemed to be of strategic importance to the people (for example power generation). In the U.S., a semi-private central bank with close ties to the federal government, the Federal Reserve, regulates lending rates, serving as a "bank of banks." Also, governments in capitalist nations typically run the post office, libraries, national parks, highways, and (in the case of the US) NASA. Interestingly, though, the federal government's monopoly on space travel from U.S. take-off sites is itself a thing of the past -- as of 2004 (see Ansari X Prize) private capital is entering even that field.

State, provincial, and local governments within a capitalist system can operate and own power companies and other utilities, parks, mass transit including rail and airports, hospitals and other medical facilities, and public schools (often including a number universities). Capitalist governments also frequently subsidize or otherwise influence (though do not own) various sectors of the economy, such as automotive, weapons, oil (petrol), aerospace, and agriculture.

In the post-World War II political lexicon, this sort of (limited) economic state planning became integral to stabilization of the global economy, and has come to be known as Keynesian economics, after John Maynard Keynes.

Conversely, Chinese economic reform under Deng Xiaoping has been characterized by decreasing state ownership of the economy, the replacement of central planning mechanisms with market-based ones that are also used in Western capitalist nations, and even going as far as removing governmental social welfare services that are commonly found in most capitalist nations. However, because the legitimacy of the Communist Party of China is based on the premise that China has already made a transition to socialism, the government insists that it is a socialist government. Very few inside and outside China would support this claim.

One form of common ownership, or socialism, is a system of theocratic governance proposed by Joseph Smith, the original prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It was called the United Order. According to the United Order, no man "owns" any of his possessions, but instead everything is owned by the church, and individuals are granted a "stewardship" over property.

An economic system

Main article: Socialist economics

As in the realm of ideology, there is no single consensus on what it means for a particular economic system to be "socialist". However, all socialists agree that a socialist economy must be run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small aristocratic, plutocratic, or capitalist class. In the mid-nineteenth century, when socialism first arose, many political ideologies of the day were frank in supporting the interests of elite classes. Today, in a world where many countries offer a broader electoral franchise, such open support for the wealthy would be the equivalent of political suicide. Therefore, most ideologies claim to support the greatest good for the greatest number, something that was once advocated only by socialists. Still, even today, socialism stands out by being particularly forthright in advocating direct pursuit of working class interests, even at the expense of what other ideologies consider the legitimate property rights of the wealthy classes.

Most socialists argue that socialism also entails democratic control of the economy, although they differ vastly over the appropriate institutions of that democracy and over whether control should be centralized or highly dispersed. Similarly, they differ over the extent to which a socialist economy could involve markets, and among those who believe that it could, there is a further dividing line on whether markets should apply only to consumer goods or, in some cases, to the means of production themselves (factory and farm equipment, for example). For the means of production, this is a question of ownership of the economy, and therefore of control over it.

Many non-socialists use the expression "socialist economy" (or "socialization" of a sector of the economy) almost exclusively to refer to centralized control under government aegis: for example, consider the use of the term "socialized medicine" in the US by opponents of single-payer health care.

There is general agreement among socialists and non-socialists that a socialist economy would not include private or estate ownership of large enterprises; there is less agreement on whether any such enterprises would be owned by society at large or (at least in some cases) owned cooperatively by their own workers. Among the few self-described socialists who dispute these principles are the leadership of the Communist Party of China, who claim to remain socialist, even while the continuing Chinese economic reform explicitly includes the concept of privately-owned large enterprises competing on an equal basis with publicly-owned ones. The adoption by China of this essential characteristic of capitalism is a principal reason why, outside and inside of China, few people (socialists or otherwise) consider present-day mainland China and its ruling party to be, in any meaningful sense, socialist.

It has been claimed, both by socialists and non-socialists, that the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc had socialist economies, as the means of production were owned almost entirely by the state and the bulk of the economy was centrally controlled by the Communist Party acting through the state. However, many other socialists object to that label, because the people in those countries had little or no control over the government, and therefore they had little or no control over the economy. The aforementioned socialists argue that these societies were essentially oligarchies; some would call them state-capitalist, Stalinist, or as some Trotskyists would say, "degenerated workers states". Trotskyists contend that Stalinist economies fulfilled one criterion of a socialist economy, in that the economy was controlled by the state, but not the other criterion, that the state must be in turn democratically controlled by the workers. Many non-Marxist socialists would agree with the general outline of this argument, while perhaps dissenting from the statement that state control of the economy is one of the criteria of socialism. Further, many socialists would argue that the Soviet Union and its satellite states merely replaced a capitalist ruling class with a new ruling class, the coordinator class or nomenklatura, who played an extremely analogous role to the former capitalists, by managing the economy for their own benefit, or at least attempting to do so.

During the Cold War, a common term used by the Soviet Union and its allies to refer to their own economies was "actually existing socialism" (presumably as against any number of theoretically possible socialisms, but carrying an implicit statement that their economy was, in fact, socialist). Another similarly used term was (and is) "real socialist." Typically, when these terms were or are used by anyone outside of the particular parties that ruled these countries (or the parties who supported them in other countries), they are placed in scare quotes and are used with at least mild irony.

A state that exists, or has existed, or may exist

Main articles: Communist state, Social democracy

Most past and present states led by parties of Communist orientation called (or call) themselves "socialist." However, by anti-communists in the western world they were usually referred to as "Communist states." Once again, whether these states were socialist or not was (and is) disputed, with the large majority of today's socialists (including many, perhaps most, communists) contending that they were not socialist, for reasons directly analogous to those just discussed in the section above (regarding the "socialist" economy).

A libertarian socialist society known as "The Republic" emerged in 1930s Spain during the civil war. See Anarchism in Spain.

There are also some who dispute whether it is appropriate to refer to any state, past, present, future, or hypothetical as "socialist," preferring to reserve that word for an economy or even a society, but not a state.

Socialism as transition from capitalism

Although Marxists and other socialists generally use the word "socialism" in the senses described above, there is also another specifically Marxist use of the term that is worth noting. Karl Marx, in his exposition of historical materialism (his Hegelian model of history) saw socialism as a phase of human society that would follow capitalism and precede communism. Marx is by no means clear about the expected characteristics of such a society, but he is consistent in his belief in the eventual triumph of revolutionary-socialism over capitalism, and then, its eventual transformation into communism.

According to Marx, the socialist society will be controlled by the working class (the proletariat), whose familiarity with large, collective undertakings will be reflected in the character of this society. It will be a "dictatorship of the proletariat", in the sense that it is contrasted with the existing dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (i.e. capitalism). It is worth noting in this context that Marx was not necessarily advocating or predicting "dictatorship" in the sense that word is commonly used today; he was referring only to which class would be dominant - in other words, it is the proletariat who become the ruling class, not a "dictator". While Leninist dictatorship is arguably consistent with this vision, so is workers' democracy, analogous to bourgeois democracy. In addition, note that most Marxist models of socialism involve the abolition of the so-called "exploitation of man by man" which is presumed to exist in capitalist society. This would mean abolishing class distinctions, therefore making "the proletariat" a universal term synonymous with "the people".

Marx saw socialism (the "dictatorship of proletariat", as explained above) as a transitional phase, ultimately to be replaced by a classless communist society in which the existing forms of government would no longer be needed. According to Engels, the state was destined to eventually "wither away", as the representative democracy of socialism slowly turned into the direct democracy of communism, and economic life would be re-organised on a basis of freedom and equality. In holding this classless non-state as the ultimate goal, Marx expressed an ideal not far from that of anarchism. However, whereas the anarchists wanted to abolish the state overnight, the communists expected the "withering away" to be a slow and gradual process.

This definition of socialism is particularly important in understanding the official ideology of the People's Republic of China. The Communist Party of China states that class struggle has already pushed China into the socialist phase of social development. Because of this and Deng Xiaoping's theory of seeking truth from facts, any economic policy which "works" is automatically classified as a socialist policy, and hence there are no constraints on what "socialism with Chinese characteristics" can look like.

Socialism and the mixed economy

As remarked above, some self-described socialists, especially those who identify as social democrats, but also including (for example) the reform-oriented "Euro-communists", advocate capitalism rather than a complete re-working of existing capitalist economies along socialist lines. These views also extend to many who would not describe themselves as "socialists."

In the most moderate formulation of such a mixed economy, collective ownership is typically limited to control of natural resources and public utilities. The rationale for prioritizing these is that natural resources are a common patrimony and that (all or some) public utilities are natural monopolies.

Others would extend a socialist approach within a mixed economy to what they deem to be essential industries to prevent certain capitalists from having a stranglehold on society, or to prevent massive concentrations of wealth which result in a power imbalance (including disproportionate bargaining leverage). There is also often a rationale of national defense or national sovereignty. Thus, many otherwise capitalist countries have, at least at times, nationalized such industries as steel, automobiles, or airplanes. In the U.S., for example, President Harry S. Truman nationalized the steel mills during the Korean War. They soon returned to private ownership by order of the U.S. Supreme Court, however.

All socialist thinkers argue that unrestrained free market economics would generally result in profits for a few at the expense of the many. Communists, in particular, are adamantly opposed to any compromise with capitalism, claiming that any economic system that permits the private accumulation of wealth is inherently unjust and allows capitalists (those who own and control capital) to compel behavior out of individuals due to their own necessity to survive. (see: labor theory of value). As noted several times above, this is disputed by the contemporary Communist Party of China, making China (if it is regarded as socialist or communist) an inevitable exception to much of what follows here.

While few self-described communists support any scheme upholding private ownership of the means of production (except, perhaps, as a temporary disposition on the way to something purer, and again noting the contemporary Chinese exception), other socialists are split over this, arguing over whether to only moderate the workings of market capitalism to produce a more equitable distribution of wealth, or whether to expropriate the entire owning class to guarantee this distribution. Many socialists acknowledge the extreme complexity of designing other appropriate non-market mechanisms to identify demand, especially for non-essential goods. Some have put forward models of moderate market socialism where markets exist, but an owning class does not.

In practice, many aspects of the socialist worldview and socialist policy have been integrated with capitalism in many European countries and in other parts of the world (especially in the industrialized "first world"). Social democracy typically involves state ownership of some corporations (considered strategically important to the people) and some participation in ownership of the means of production by workers. This can include profit sharing and worker representation on decision-making boards of corporations (a measure in vigour in Germany, for instance). Some inherently capitalist measures, such as stock ownership for workers or stock options would, however, also fit the description. Social services are important in social democracies. Such services include social welfare for the disadvantaged and unemployment insurance.

Likewise, market economies in the United States and other capitalist countries have integrated some aspects of socialist economic planning. Democratic countries typically place legal limits on the centralization of capital through anti-trust laws and limits on monopolies, though the extent to which these laws are actually enforced has to do with the balance of power between the actually existing or emerging monopoly firms, as well as political ties between government and some corporations (crony capitalism). Ownership of stock has become common for middle class workers, both in companies they work for and in other companies (see mutual fund). Labor market pressures (see labor economics) and regulations have encouraged profit sharing. Social welfare and unemployment insurance are mandated by law in the US, UK, Canada and other market economies. There is a lively debate today as to whether the world is moving closer to or farther away from "socialism", as defined by different people. Another component of this debate is whether or not these developments are to be encouraged.

Opposition and criticisms of socialism; arguments for and against

See main article: Criticisms of Socialism

A number of thinkers, economists and historians have raised some issues with socialist theory. These individuals include Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Joshua Muravchik, to name a few. Most of their objections and critiques seem directed more at a centrally planned economy (not a part of all proposed socialisms), some at socialism and Marxism in general, but because these distinctions are relatively difficult to tease out of their writings, it is probably useful to take them up in a single context.

References and further reading

  • Makoto Itoh, Political Economy of Socialism. London: Macmillan, 1995.
  • Friedrich Engels, The Origin Of The Family, Private Property And The State, Zurich, 1884
  • Elie Halevy, Histoire du Socialisme Européen. Paris, Gallimard, 1937
  • Market Socialism: the debate among socialists, ed. Bertell Ollman (1998) ISBN 0415919673
  • G.D.H. Cole, History of Socialist Thought, in 7 volumes, Macmillan and St. Martin's Press (1965), Palgrave Macmillan (2003 reprint); 7 volumes, hardcover, 3160 pages, ISBN 140390264X
  • Michael Newman, "Socialism - a Very Short Introduction", Oxford University Press (2005) ISBN 0-19-280431-6
  • James Weinstein, Long Detour: The History and Future of the American Left, Westview Press, 2003, hardcover, 272 pages, ISBN 0813341043
  • Leo Panitch, Renewing Socialism: Democracy, Strategy, and Imagination, ISBN 0813398215
  • Michael Harrington, Socialism, New York: Bantam, 1972
  • Edmund Wilson, To the Finland Station: A Study in the Writing and Acting of History, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1940.
  • Albert Fried, Ronald Sanders, eds., Socialist Thought: A Documentary History, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1964.

See also

External links

Pro socialism

Against socialism

zh-min-nan:Siā-hoē-chú-gī ca:Socialisme cs:Socialismus da:Socialisme de:Sozialismus et:Sotsialism es:Socialismo eo:Socialismo eu:Sozialismo fa:سوسیالیسم fr:Socialisme id:Sosialisme it:Socialismo he:סוציאליזם lt:Socializmas hu:Szocializmus ms:Sosialisme nl:Socialisme ja:社会主義 no:Sosialisme nn:Sosialisme pl:Socjalizm pt:Socialismo ro:Socialism ru:Социализм sco:Socialism simple:Socialism sr:Социјализам fi:Sosialismi sv:Socialism zh:社会主义