Socialismens historie

Socialismens historie


Socialisme

Socialisme opstod i forbindelse med den industrielle revolution som et middel til at beskytte arbejdernes og kvinders rettigheder. Efterhånden som det 19. og 20. århundrede skred frem, forblev socialismen en populær og effektiv styreform på verdensplan. Nedenstående websteder skitserer de teorier, der gav anledning til socialisme, og fremhævede de store begivenheder og figurer gennem dens historie.

Dulcineas indsigt

  • Socialisme og kommunisme har lignende oprindelse og filosofier. Karl Marx og Friedrich Engels skrifter er centrale for begge systemer. Besøg webstedet FindDulcinea Communism for mere historisk information om socialismens udvikling.

Dulcineas valg


Bernie Sanders 'New Hampshire -sejr er en stor aftale for socialisme i Amerika. Her er hvad du skal vide om idéens historie

Bernie Sanders, den eneste demokratiske socialist i præsidentløbet i 2020, kom på toppen i det demokratiske partis primærvalg i New Hampshire og vandt omkring 26% af stemmerne. Hans sejr fulgte et hals -og -hals løb med tidligere South Bend, Ind., Borgmester Pete Buttigieg i Iowa -forsamlingerne. Vermont -senatorens primære succes er den seneste udvikling i en lang og ujævn historie om politisk socialisme i USA.

Den omstridte politiske filosofi har været til stede i USA siden 1800 -tallet. Tidlige utopiske kommunale eksperimenter, der begyndte i 1830'erne, lagde grunden til en gylden æra af politisk socialisme i begyndelsen af ​​det 20. århundrede, en periode præget af Eugene Debs ’ historiske præsidentkamp og valg af socialistiske kandidater i hele landet. En række faktorer, herunder den politiske forfølgelse af socialister, et ubehageligt globalt billede af socialistiske revolutionærer og kommunismens fremgang kombinerede for at skubbe socialismen til den politiske udkant i begyndelsen af ​​1900'erne, hvor den blev i næsten et århundrede.

I kølvandet på finanskrisen i 2008 nød politikere, der identificerede sig som socialister, en grund til fornyet støtte. Ved midtvejsvalget 2018 blev snesevis af medlemmer af Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) valgt til statslige og lokale kontorer, og rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez og Rashida Tlaib blev valgt til det amerikanske hus. Selvom Sanders ikke er medlem af DSA, har han længe identificeret sig som en demokratisk socialist, en filosofi, som han beskriver som en del af sin støtte til store, skatteyderfinansierede programmer, som Medicare for All.

Sanders ’ succes i både Iowa og New Hampshire kan signalere, at en version af amerikansk socialisme igen er stigende.

Se videoen for at lære mere om Amerikas nuancerede historie med socialisme.


Socialismens historie, del 1: Venezuela

En mand gik ned ad gaden og bar det, der syntes at være en baseballbat i træ. Venezuela har en lang historie med store baseballspillere, men han ville ikke spille baseball. Venezuela har en høj kriminalitet, men han ville ikke tjene vigilante retfærdighed over for en fjende.

Nej, manden ledte efter mad til at brødføde sin sultende familie. Uanset om det var en rotte, en hund, en fugl eller en anden skabning, der kunne dræbes og spises, var denne mand, kun bevæbnet med det mest basale våben, villig til at tage risikoen for at holde sin familie i live endnu en dag.

Denne scene er blevet gentaget utallige gange i Venezuela. Borgerne lider på grund af mangel på mad, vand og medicin. Enhver indkomst, de tjener, køber dem mindre mad i slutningen af ​​deres hverdag, end den gjorde i begyndelsen. (På grund af hyperinflation af deres valuta). Kriminaliteten stiger, og regeringen under Nicolas Maduro er blevet mere og mere autoritær.

Hvorfor lider borgerne på denne måde?

Svaret er enkelt: Socialisme.

I 1970'erne var Venezuela et af de mest velstående lande i Latinamerika. I de sidste fire år er deres økonomi dog skrumpet med 35%. Dette sammenbrud kan spores tilbage til 1999, da socialisten Hugo Chavez blev præsident. Chavez blev bekendtgjort som leverandør af et "socialistisk paradis." Han modtog besøg af skuespillerne Danny Glover og Sean Penn. Han modtog ros fra Bernie Sanders, der hævdede, at du var "mere tilbøjelig til at opnå den amerikanske drøm i Venezuela end i USA."

Chavez gik på arbejde med at nationalisere olieindustrien. Han satte uerfarne kammerater til ansvar for olieraffinaderierne, hvilket forårsagede flere dødsulykker og brande. På trods af høje oliepriser faldt olieproduktionen med 25 procent under Chavez regeringstid. Chavez decimerede landets fremstillingsindustri. Ved at nationalisere industrien fik han produktionen til at falde tilbage til 1965 -niveauet.

Han tog kontrol over gårdene og supermarkederne, hvilket forårsagede fødevaremangel. Han placerede priskontrol på mange varer, hvilket fik producenterne til at producere mindre. Han indførte sociale velfærdsprogrammer, der forårsagede store budgetunderskud. De fattige fik tilskud til mad og gratis bolig. De politisk forbundne modtog op til 30 milliarder dollar om året i tilskud.

Sundhedsydelser og andre tjenester blev leveret på regeringens regning. Disse tjenester tvang regeringen til at låne til høje renter. Dengang troede man, at Venezuelas store lager af olie fortsat ville opretholde de høje udgifter. Men prisen på olie tog fart, og det samme gjorde den venezuelanske økonomi.

Chavez 'efterfølger, Nicolas Maduro, tog til, hvor hans forgænger slap. Hans regime er blevet mere og mere autoritært i sit styre. Fødevaremangel, hyperinflation, faldende retsstat, et svigtende sundhedsvæsen og undertrykkelse af oppositionen er blevet normen under hans styre.

Venezuelanere er fattige - brutalt fattige. Næsten 90 procent af landet lever i fattigdom i henhold til globale økonomiske standarder. De har ikke råd til mad eller andre basisvarer. Ni ud af ti venezuelanere har ikke råd til mad nok til at brødføde deres familier. Dette har fået nogle forældre til at opgive deres børn, de efterlader dem på krisecentre og børnehjem med håb om, at de vil blive fodret der.

Børn dør i alarmerende hast. Rekordmange børn er blevet indlagt på hospitalet for alvorlig underernæring, og børnedødeligheden steg 100 procent mellem 2012-2015.

Venezuelanere rapporterede at tabe næsten 25 pund i gennemsnit sidste år, og 60 procent rapporterede at vågne sultne, fordi de ikke havde penge nok til at købe mad.

En stor årsag til denne fattigdom er hyperinflationen i valutaen, bolivaren. IMF rapporterede for nylig, at inflationen kan stige til en million procent (det er ikke en stavefejl!) Årsagen til dette er enkel: Regeringen har brugt store mængder penge på at finansiere sociale programmer og nationalisere industrier. For at finansiere disse programmer begyndte regeringen at trykke penge for at betale for udgifterne. Stigningen i pengemængden fik priserne imidlertid til at stige.

For eksempel var prisen på et enkelt æg 200.000 Bolivars sidste år, en månedsløn ville købe dig kun en kop kaffe, og en amerikansk dollar kan veksles til 3,5 millioner Bolivars på det sorte marked. For at følge med de stigende priser har Maduro hævet mindstelønnen til 5 millioner Bolivars, hvilket svarer til 41 amerikanske dollars.

Hyperinflation har fået forbrugerne til i stigende grad at vende sig til byttehandel. Parkeringspladser betales med granola barer, en haircut byttes med æg, cigaretter byttes til en taxatur, og en burrito kan byttes til papirservietter på en restaurant. Deres valuta bliver så værdiløs, at nogle kunstnere bruger den til at lave kunst til at sælge til samlere.

Et af påstandene fra tilhængere af socialisme er, at det vil føre til en ende på, at de velhavende og politisk forbundne borgere får fordel af de lavere klasser. Socialismen sætter imidlertid ikke en stopper for overklassen, den erstatter bare overklassen med dem, der er begunstiget af regeringen.

I Venezuela beslutter regeringen, hvem der får rindende vand, de beslaglægger vandbiler og fortæller chaufførerne, hvor de skal levere vandet. (De tvinger dem ofte til at levere det til regeringsembedsmændenes hjem). Militæret vogter den subsidierede fødevareforsyning og bestemmer, hvem der får mad.

Socialisme fører altid til udviklingen af ​​et sort marked, hvor der sælges varer, der er mangelvare. I Venezuela tager regeringsembedsmænd også deres snit af det sorte marked. De tager halvdelen af ​​provenuet fra varerne og efterlader forhandlerne med mindre - og de personer, som varerne oprindeligt var beregnet til, modtager ofte en brøkdel, hvis nogen, af det, de oprindeligt bestilte.

Reporter Anatoly Kurmanaev skrev om at deltage i et arrangement afholdt af præsidenten for Venezuelas centralbank, Nelson Merentes. Merentes er manden, der er ansvarlig for at øge pengemængden til niveauer, der har forårsaget en sådan elendighed for venezuelanere. Kurmanaev beskrev begivenheden som en "strandfest, hvor vodka og rom flød - og hvor Merentes vinkede maracas og dansede med en flok unge kvinder i stramme jeansshorts." Mens hans pengepolitik fik sine medborgere til at lide, havde Merentes en fest, som du ville forvente at se på Playboy Mansion.

I Venezuela, ligesom andre socialistiske lande, er retsstaten gået i stykker. Caracas er blevet verdens mordhovedstad, mens paramilitæren afrunder politiske fanger hver eneste dag. Modstanden mod regeringen undertrykkes. Borgerne frygter at tale imod regeringen af ​​frygt for at blive anholdt eller dræbt. Scenen i Venezuela minder om George Orwells 1984.

Sikkerhedsembedsmænd sporer journalister. En ABC News -korrespondent og hans produktionsteam blev anholdt i fem dage for at have rapporteret om medicinsk mangel og barbariske tilstande på et hospital. Embedsmændene skræmte ABC -teamet ved at true med at tilkalde det venezuelanske hemmelige politi, hvis de ikke betalte dem bestikkelse. Scener som disse afspilles dagligt i Venezuela.

Venezuela følger mønsteret i andre socialistiske lande (hvoraf mange vi vil dække i denne serie). Deres land styres af en autoritær, Nicolas Maduro. Deres folk sulter på grund af fødevaremangel forårsaget af, at regeringen dikterer, hvad der bliver produceret, og til hvilken pris. Venezuelanske borgere lider og lever under umenneskelige forhold, og vold er blevet voldsom.

DET er socialismens sande ansigt, og det viser præcis, hvorfor det ikke kan få lov at slå rod i USA.

Følg med på FreedomWire i morgen for del 2, hvor vi analyserer et af de mest kendte eksempler på socialisme: Sovjetunionen.


Socialismens historie - Historie

& ldquoVi er alle socialister nu. & rdquo - Sir William Harcourt

Introduktion

ictorian socialisme - eller victoriansk socialisme, fordi den tog så mange forskellige graderinger -, opstod i Storbritannien sammen med andre bevægelser, såsom ny konservatisme, ny liberalisme, ny fagforeningsisme, anarkisme, social darwinisme, sekularisme, spiritualisme og teosofi. Det udviklede sig fra forskellige traditioner, ideologier og baggrunde, men intens modvilje mod de sociale virkninger af den industrielle revolution ligger til grund for de forskellige dele af victoriansk socialisme, som i det væsentlige var et middelklassens, hjemmelavet projekt med ringe udenlandsk indflydelse.

Viktorianske socialister trak stærkt ikke på Karl Marx 'værker, men på arven fra forfattere, der havde romantiske, radikale og endda konservative synspunkter, som Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Robert Southey, Percy Bysshe Shelley, William Cobbett, Thomas Carlyle, Benjamin Disraeli og John Ruskin. Rødderne til britisk socialisme kan imidlertid også søges i mere fjerntliggende tider. Nogle af de fjerne forløbere for victoriansk socialisme omfatter William Langland, John Wycliffe, John Ball, Thomas More, Francis Bacon, Gerrard Winstanley og James Harrington.

Oprindelsen til britisk socialisme

Britisk socialisme opstod i den tid, hvor det victorianske samfund begyndte at overvinde principperne for klassisk økonomi, laissez-faire system, og var nedsænket i troskrise. Traditionel britisk liberalisme og radikalisme spillede en langt vigtigere rolle i udformningen af ​​socialisme i victoriansk Storbritannien end Karl Marx værker. Selvom marxismen havde en vis indflydelse i Storbritannien, var den langt mindre betydningsfuld end i mange andre europæiske lande, hvor tænkere som David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill og John Ruskin havde meget større indflydelse. Ikke-marxistiske historikere spekulerer i, at det var fordi Storbritannien var blandt de mest demokratiske lande i Europa i perioden, hvor valgurnen udgjorde et instrument til forandring, så parlamentariske reformer virkede som en mere lovende rute end revolutionær socialisme, som Marx forfægtede. Som Sir Ivor Jeggins udtrykte det, & ldquoBritisk socialisme har altid været lige så meget britisk som socialist. & Rdquo (429)

Socialistiske ideer blev det naturlige resultat af moderne industrielle forhold, og deres oprindelse kan søges i begyndelsen af ​​moderne industri. I England blev socialistiske ideer formet som et biprodukt af den industrielle revolution. Ordet 'socialisme' blev først brugt på det engelske sprog i 1827 i arbejderklassens publikation, Co-operative Magazine, og det betød samarbejde i modsætning til konkurrence. (Garner et al. 115) I 1830'erne blev ordet socialisme brugt i flæng med ordet Owenism, og Robert Owen (1771-1858) blev den centrale figur i britisk socialisme i første halvdel af 1800-tallet.

Fremkomsten af ​​arbejderradikalisme

Arbejderklassens første politiske bevægelse blev lanceret af London Corresponding Society, grundlagt i 1792, af Thomas Hardy (1752-1832), en skomager og storbyradikal. Samfundet, der hovedsageligt består af arbejderklassemedlemmer, agiterede blandt massernes parlamentariske reformer, almindelig mandlig stemmeret og arbejderklassepræsentation i parlamentet. Selskabet mødtes åbent i seks år på trods af chikane af politimagistrater og anholdelser af dets medlemmer, men blev endelig forbudt i 1799 ved en handling fra parlamentet som følge af frygt for, at det stillede en farlig udfordring til den etablerede regering.

Robert Owen og kooperativ socialisme

Robert Owen (1771-1858), der var tekstilfabriksejer, filantrop, social- og arbejdsmarkedsreformator, betragtes som far til britisk kooperativ socialisme. Han og hans tilhængere grundlagde flere kooperative samfund i Storbritannien og USA, som tilbød arbejdere anstændige levevilkår og adgang til uddannelse. Selvom alle owenitiske samfund til sidst mislykkedes, fortsatte den kommunitære tradition i det victorianske England og andre steder. Owenisme havde en betydelig indflydelse på forskellige dele af britisk socialisme, herunder kristen socialisme, etisk socialisme, laugssocialisme, Fabianisme og socialistisk arbejderbevægelse. Kooperativ socialisme blev af disse organisationer opfattet som en erstatning for det uretfærdige konkurrencedygtige kapitalistiske system.

Ricardiske socialister

En anden gruppe tænkere, der havde en direkte indflydelse på victoriansk socialisme, blev såkaldte ricardiske socialister. De baserede deres teorier på arbejdet fra økonom David Ricardo (1772-1823), der hævdede, at økonomien bevæger sig mod sociale konflikter, fordi ejerskabsklassernes interesser var direkte modsat de fattige klassers. I dette aspekt forudså Ricardo og Ricardian -socialister Karl Marx 'opfattelse om kontradiktoriske klasseforhold.

De vigtigste medlemmer af denne gruppe var Charles Hall (1740-1820), William Thompson (1785-1833), Thomas Hodgskin (1783-1869) og John Gray (1799-1883). Paradoksalt nok afviste ricardiske socialister nogle af Ricardos antagelser og argumenterede for, at privat ejerskab af produktionsmidlerne skulle fortrænges af centralt ejerskab af produktionsmidler, organiseret som et arbejderstyret aktieselskab. (Tolerant 46)

Marxisk socialisme

Marxian socialisme havde ringe indflydelse på forskellige dele af Storbritanniens socialisme. Karl Marx (1818-83), der levede og skrev sine værker i London fra 1849, var først bredt kendt i England indtil hans død. Han mødte få englændere og var ikke særlig opsat på at stifte bekendtskab med engelske radikaler. De eneste englændere, der udtrykte alvorlig interesse for Marx 'ideer i løbet af hans levetid, var Ernest Jones, en revolutionær chartist, der gjorde et forgæves forsøg på at genoplive den døende chartistiske bevægelse, og Henry Mayers Hyndman, grundlæggeren af ​​Socialdemokratisk Føderation, den første Marxistisk socialistisk parti i Storbritannien. Marxismen appellerede dog næppe til viktorianske socialister i sin ortodokse form.

Sent-victoriansk socialisme

Socialister af William Strang R.A. (1859-1921). 1891. Ætsning og tørring på papir. [Klik på billedet for at forstørre det.]

Den britiske socialistiske bevægelse genopstod i 1880'erne. En stærk kritik af kapitalismen, som blev ytret af forskellige grupper af socialkritikere, litterære figurer og arbejderklassemilitanter, førte til dannelsen af ​​tre forskellige dele af sen viktoriansk socialisme: (1) Socialdemokratisk forbund (SDF) og Socialist League, (2) Fabian Society og dets forgænger, Fellowship of the New Life, og (3) de etiske socialister, sammen med Independent Labour Party.

Den socialdemokratiske føderation, der blev det første marxistiske politiske parti i Storbritannien i 1884, gik ind for en forestående revolution og nationalisering. Dens lille offshot, Socialist League, dannet af William Morris i 1884 efter hans løsrivelse fra Den Socialdemokratiske Føderation, tiltrak et par socialdemokrater, men i 1990 blev den domineret af anarkister, hvilket fik Morris til at trække sig tilbage fra den.

Fabian Society, der også blev grundlagt i 1884, var ikke radikal, men forsøgte at gennemsyre fredeligt de eksisterende institutioner og parlamentet for at gennemføre dets socialistiske reformer. Fabianerne støttede den såkaldte 'gas- og vandsocialisme', dvs. statens ejerskab af kommunale forsyningsselskaber samt kommunalisering og nationalisering af jord og mange industrier, kanaler, jernbaner, vand- og gasselskaber, sporveje, dokker, hospitaler, markeder, biblioteker og endda logi. (Haggard 94)

Etisk socialisme var ikke forbundet med et bestemt parti og overlappede med andre dele af victoriansk socialisme. Det omfattede en forskelligartet gruppe af sociale aktivister og litterære figurer, der kæmpede for ideerne om etisk socialisme og lagde vægt på moralsk udvikling af enkeltpersoner over økonomiske og sociale reformer. Etisk socialisme opstod i 1880'erne, blomstrede i 1890'erne og inspirerede dannelsen af ​​det uafhængige arbejderparti og også Labour Party. (Bevir 1999: 218)

De mest karakteristiske repræsentanter for den etiske socialisme var Thomas Hill Green, Edward Carpenter, John Ruskin og William Morris. Andre vigtige figurer omfattede pionerens arbejdsleder, Keir Hardie, Robert Blatchford, redaktør for ugeavisen, The Clarion, og forfatteren til det bedst sælgende socialistiske traktat, Merrie England (1893), John Bruce-Glasier, en af ​​lederne af det uafhængige arbejderparti. Som Mark Bevir udtrykte det, troede etiske socialister på idealet om moralsk fællesskab og tænkte på et kooperativt og decentraliseret civilsamfund, hvor enkeltpersoner kunne udøve fuld kontrol over deres egne daglige aktiviteter. (McDonald 58-59)

Landnationaliseringsbevægelsen

Rødderne til den britiske landnationaliseringsbevægelse, der stærkt påvirkede den traditionelle tradition for sen victoriansk socialisme, kan søges i aktiviteten af ​​Thomas Spence (1750-1814), en autodidakt militant, der dedikerede det meste af sit voksne liv til forskellige former for politisk agitation. I 1770'erne argumenterede han for, at al jord ikke måtte ejes af enkeltpersoner, men af ​​parochiale selskaber. (Parssinnen 135) I begyndelsen af ​​1800'erne blev Spence leder af en gruppe radikaler, der gik ind for social revolution i Storbritannien. Efter hans død dannede de radikale tilhængere af Spence Society of Spencean Philanthropists (1815). Dens medlemmer samledes i hemmelighed i små grupper i alehouses og diskuterede Spences socialistiske landbrugsplan og den bedste måde at opnå et ligeværdigt samfund. De distribuerede også traktater, pjecer, broadsheets, plakater og digte og metalbrikker, der reklamerede for Spences ideer (Benchimol 153).

Jordreform var et af de hotteste spørgsmål blandt britiske radikaler og sociale reformatorer fra 1860'erne til 1. verdenskrig. I midten af ​​det victorianske England foreslog James Bronterre O'Brien (1805-64), en chartistisk leder og arbejderreformator, en ordning for statskøb af jord og derefter omfordeling ved udlejning. (Bronstein 107) O'Briens tilhængere, grupperet i National Reform League, fortsatte med at udbrede ideen om jordnationalisering efter hans død i 1864. Land and Labor League, der voksede ud af National Reform League i 1869, fremskred et program det opfordrede til nationalisering af land, men det fik kun lidt offentlig indflydelse.

I slutningen af ​​det victorianske England genoplivede Alfred Russel Wallace, co-opdageren med Charles Darwin om teorien om naturligt valg, landnationaliseringsbevægelsen. Wallace mente, at jorden skulle ejes af staten og udlejes til mennesker. I 1881 blev han valgt som den første præsident for Land Nationalization Society, der udarbejdede en plan for statsejede og forpagtede jorder. Wallaces syn på jordreform var tæt på ånden i Henry Georges afhandling, Fremskridt og fattigdom (1879), der fremmede en enkelt progressiv skat på jordværdier for at reducere økonomisk ulighed.

Landnationaliseringssamfundet og Socialdemokratisk Føderation gav fuld støtte til landnationaliseringsprogrammer. Land Restoration League og Land Reform Union (LRU), gik også ind for statens jordbevilling. Alle disse ordninger forstærkede nationaliseringsbevægelsen i det sene victorianske Storbritannien og vakte en bevidsthed om behovet for jordreform. Wallaces såvel som Georges ideer om jordreform blev godkendt af fagforeninger og inspirerede både liberale og arbejderpartier til at danne en politik for jordfordeling ved begyndelsen af ​​1800 -tallet.

Arbejderkirken

De sidste to årtier af den victorianske æra så også fremkomsten af ​​Arbejderkirken, som blev startet i Manchester i 1891 af en unitær minister, John Trevor (1855-1930), og havde et tydeligt socialistisk budskab. Arbejderkirken blev hurtigt en landsdækkende bevægelse og hævdede 100 kirker med menigheder mellem 200 og 500. (Worley 154) Konferencen, der blev afholdt i Bradford i 1893 for at danne det uafhængige arbejderparti, blev ledsaget af en arbejderkirkegudstjeneste, som deltog af 5.000 mennesker. Arbejderkirkens bevægelse begyndte imidlertid at falme efter 1900. På den årlige konference i 1909, der blev afholdt i Ashton-under-Lyne, blev navnet Arbejderkirke ændret til Socialistisk Kirke, men ved begyndelsen af ​​Første Verdenskrig blev den nyligt omdøbte Arbejderkirke var forsvundet.

Konklusion

Udtrykket socialisme var generelt synonymt i det victorianske Storbritannien med sociale reformer, kollektivisme, kommunitarisme og forbedring af arbejderklassens levevilkår, og det bar ikke stærke marxistiske konnotationer. Faktisk var det få mennesker, der var interesseret i socialistisk revolution i det victorianske Storbritannien, men ganske mange var fascineret af socialismens mystiske træk. I modsætning til marxismen, som kritiserede det liberale demokrati og gik ind for revolutionær klassekamp, ​​kan de viktorianske socialismes hovedområder karakteriseres af etisk, ikke-marxiansk, antikapitalistisk opfattelse, der kombinerede traditionel engelsk radikalisme med traditionel engelsk respekt for demokrati.

Referencer og yderligere læsning

Beer, M. A History of British Socialism. London: G. Bell and Sons, Ltd., 1919.

Benchimol, Alex. Intellektuel politik og kulturkonflikt i den romantiske periode: Scottish Whigs, English Radicals and Making of the British Public Sphere. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2010.

Berlin, Esajas. Karl Marx: Hans liv og miljø. New York: Time, 1963.

Bevir, Mark. Fremstilling af britisk socialisme. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011.

_____. & ldquoThe Labor Church Movement, 1891-1902, & rdquo Journal of British Studies, 38 (2) 1999, 217-245.

Storbritannien, Ian. Fabianisme og kultur: En undersøgelse af britisk socialisme og kunst 1884-1918. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Bronstein, Jamie L. Jordreform og erfaring fra arbejderklassen i Storbritannien og USA, 1800-1862. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999.

Carter, M. T. H. Green og udviklingen af ​​den etiske socialisme. Exeter, Storbritannien: Imprint Academic, 2003.

Christensen, Torben. Den kristne socialismes oprindelse og historie, 1848-54. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1962.

Claeys, Gregory. Maskiner, penge og årtusinde: Fra moralsk økonomi til socialisme, 1815–60. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987.

____. Borgere og hellige: Politik og antipolitik i den tidlige britiske socialisme. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Claeys, Gregory, red. Owenitisk socialisme. Pjecer og korrespondance: 1832-1837. New York: Routledge, 2005.

Cole, Margaret. Historien om Fabian Socialisme. London: Heinemann, 1961.

Ely, Richard T. Socialisme: En undersøgelse af dens natur, dens styrke og dens svaghed, med forslag til social reform. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1894.

Fremantle, Anne. This Little Band of Prophets: The Gentle Fabians historie. London: Allen & Unwin, 1960.

Garner, Robert, Peter Ferdinand, Stephanie Lawson. Introduktion til politik. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Haggard, Robert F. Persistensen af ​​victoriansk liberalisme: Politikken for social reform i Storbritannien, 1870-1900. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001.

Himmelfarb, Gertrude. Fattigdom og medfølelse: De sene victorianeres moralske fantasi. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1991.

Hobsbawm, E. J. Primitive Rebels: Studier i arkaiske former for social bevægelse i det 19. og 20. århundrede. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959.

Hyndmann, H. M. Socialismens historiske grundlag i England. London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1883.

Inglis, Kenneth S. Kirker og arbejderklasserne i det victorianske England. London: Routledge og Kegan Paul, 1963.

Jennings, Ivor. Partipolitik. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962.

Lawrence, J. & ldquoPopular Radicalism and the Socialist Revival in Britain, & rdquo Journal of British Studies, 31 (1992) 163-86.

McBriar, Alan M. Fabian Socialisme og engelsk politik 1884-1918. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962.

Mackenzie, Norman og Jeanne Mackenzie. De første Fabianere. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1977.

Mc Donald, Andrew, red. Genopfinder Storbritannien: Forfatningsændring under nyt arbejde. University of California Press, 2007.

Manton, Kevin. & ldquoThe Fellowship of the New Life: English Ethical Socialism Reconsidered, & rdquo History of Political Thought, 24 (2) 2003, 282–304.

Milburn, Josephine Fishel. & ldquoThe Fabian Society og British Labour Party, & rdquo The Western Political Quarterly, 11 (2), 1958, 319-339.

Norman, Edward. De victorianske kristne socialister. Cambrige: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Parssinnen, T. M. & ldquoThomas Spence and Origins of English Land Nationalization, & rdquo Journal of the History of Ideas, 34 (1) 1973, 135-141.

Pease, Edward R. Historien om Fabian Society. New York: E.P. Dutton & Company Publishers, 1916.

Raven, Charles E. Christian Socialism, 1848-1854. 1920. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, Forlag, 1968.

Shaw, George Bernard, red. Fabian Essays i socialisme. London: Fabian Society, 1889.

____. Fabian Society: dets tidlige historie. London: Fabian Society, 1892.

Thompson, E. The Making of the English Working Class. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1981.

Tolerant, Pamela. Alt guide til forståelse af socialisme: De politiske, sociale og økonomiske begreber bag denne komplekse teori. Avon, MA: Everything Books, 2011.

Ward, P. Red Flag og Union Jack: Englishness, Patriotism and the British Left, 1881–1924. Woodbridge, Storbritannien: Royal Historical Society, 1998.

Waters, C. Britiske socialister og populærkulturens politik 1884-1914. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990.

Webb, Sidney og Beatrice Webb. En forfatning for det socialistiske Commonwealth i Storbritannien. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1920.

___. Industriel demokrati. London: Longman, 1897.

White, R. E. O. Christian Ethics. Leominster, Herefordshire: Gracewing Publishing, 1994.

Worley, Matthew, red. Grundlaget for det britiske arbejderparti: Identiteter, kulturer og perspektiver, 1900-39. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2009.

Yeo, S. & ldquoA New Life: The Religion of Socialism in Britain, 1883– 1896, & rdquo History Workshop, 4 (1977) 5-56.


Socialismens kedelige historie

Og den skumle taktik socialister bruger til at overtage et politisk system.

Redaktørens note: Nedenfor er del 8 af et nyt essay skrevet af Bruce Hendry: Demokrater, progressive og socialister. Følg med i de efterfølgende kapitler. [Se links til tidligere kapitler under denne artikel].

19. Økonomiske grundprincipper.

En af farerne for vores demokrati er den totale mangel på forståelse for grundlæggende økonomi. De fleste K-12-lærere kan ikke undervise i økonomi, fordi de ikke ved det. Alligevel er enhver organisation fra en børns limonade til den største virksomhed og naturligvis til et land underlagt uforanderlige og usynlige økonomiske love. Hvordan kan du muligvis forstå konsekvenserne af dine politiske beslutninger, hvis du ikke har nogen forståelse for deres økonomiske indvirkning?

Økonomi er simpelthen kvantificering af menneskelig adfærd og beslutninger. Økonomiske konservative tror på at træffe beslutninger baseret på fakta, logik og ideen om et frit markedssystem. Demokrater tror på at træffe beslutninger baseret på ønsketænkning, følelser og socialisme. Begge grupper siger, at de er for ligestilling for alle borgere og er imod diskrimination i deres samfund, men de har forskellige opfattelser af, hvad der menes med "lighed". Den frie markedskonservative gruppe mener, at alle skal have lige muligheder for at lykkes, mens den socialdemokratiske gruppe tror på lige resultater, der håndhæves af regeringens magt.

At forstå begyndende økonomisk teori er grundlæggende for at forstå, hvad der rent faktisk fungerer i et samfund. Denne forståelse er nødvendig for at fjerne den ønsketænkning, benægtelse og mytologier i fællesskab, der resulterer i valg af embedsmænd, der kodificerer ting, der ikke virker eller faktisk er skadelige for dem, som lovene skal hjælpe.

I et frit virksomheds system vil du have store økonomiske forskelle mellem sine borgere. Jo friere landet er, jo større er forskellene. Socialisme og kommunisme vil udjævne disse forskelle ved at nedbringe de rige og uddannede til niveauet for de fattige og uuddannede, men så vil du ikke have en økonomisk model, der producerer kvaliteten eller mængden af ​​varer og tjenester, som vi nyder i dag på et frit marked samfund. Democrats do not teach, and perhaps do not know that wealth does not exist, but is created, and that the free enterprise system is the supercharged engine of wealth creation.

Communists, socialists, collectivists, the Left, the New Left, Democrats, progressives, Democratic Socialists, the Socialist Workers Party -- these are all members of basically the same political ideologies. They just go by different names. The name changes because socialist theories don’t work and to pretend that they are something different from the socialist failures of the past, they are constantly giving themselves and their agendas new names. But the fundamental schemes they have for implementing their wish lists remain the same. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. That describes modern-day communists, socialists and progressives.

In a socialist economy, the rich are pulled down to the level of the poor so that everyone is the same. Politicians and government officials become the new elite, and the free enterprise engine of wealth creation is shut down. In a socialist society there are only two classes, the rulers and the ruled.

Why is there an economic disparity? For lots of reasons, some to do with the luck of being born smart or having parents that care. Other causes are that some people invent, create, and/or get a better education than their competition other people delay pleasures for longer term advantages. These are society's producers and we should embrace and treasure this group, rather than vilify them as the Left does.

The danger of believing in this imaginary future of equal outcomes is that in order to achieve this goal, individual freedoms will have to be given over to governments who can then force the ideal of equal outcomes. The Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela -- all impoverished socialist states -- are modern examples of the failed ideology of the Left.

The Soviet Union was a socialist system. The state owned the factories, and all employees were government employees that were paid in the same way no matter how good or bad they were. These workers couldn’t be fired. This is the system that we use today in the public schools, and its failure should not be a surprise to anyone who understands that the public school system is a socialist system – and therefore destined to fail.

Although this socialist idea gets tried over and over again and fails over and over again, the experiments in socialism continue to this day and it has an army of advocates. In the Soviet Union it took 70 years for the socialist system to collapse. In the process it ruined hundreds of millions of lives.

The same can be said of modern-day Cuba, where thousands risk their lives each year to escape that socialist paradise. We can say the same thing for England before Margaret Thatcher, communist China and socialist India. Argentina and Venezuela should be the wealthiest countries in South America because of their natural resources, but they are impoverished because of their socialist system.

A real life experiment that matches capitalism with socialism is in Korea. After the Korean war, both North and South Korea lay in ruins. North Korea chose socialism and South Korea chose capitalism. South Korea now has 40 times the GDP per capita as socialist North Korea. That’s not a misprint. South Korea has 40 times the production per person as the socialist North Korea. North Korea has reached the progressive dream of equal outcomes by bringing everyone except the dictators into poverty. North Korea did this by creating two classes in their society, the rulers and the ruled. Cuba suffered the same fate. That is always where a progressive agenda leads.

In 1998, a Bernie Sanders-type politician from Venezuela named Hugo Chavez promised free stuff to poor people and they elected him and loved him for his false promises. But in the next 18 years the number of people who were considered poor rose from 58%, when Chavez was elected in 1998, to 78% today. This despite the fact that Venezuela is sitting on one of the largest oil deposits in the world. Bernie’s and Hugo’s pretend-world-of-socialism and free stuff sounds good, but history has shown us that it just does not work.

The poor are not poor because the rich are rich. Nor are the rich undeserving. Most of the rich have contributed brilliant innovations or other expertise to America’s well-being. We all live better because of people who were rewarded with wealth, like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Sam Walton. It’s always been that way, and historically we could say the same about Henry Ford, Thomas Edison and Andrew Carnegie who all got very rich, because they left all of us better off. When the rich consume wealth, they provide jobs and business for others. But they produce much more than they can consume, which leaves billions to invest in businesses that benefit everyone else as well. Taking away their wealth kills their investments and hurts everyone. This is the sad story of socialism wherever it has been tried.

Politicians on the left say that millionaires and billionaires are not “paying their fair share.” That statement is a bold lie. Let’s take a look at the actual figures as to who pays the bills from the IRS web site: The top 20% of taxpayers earn 50% of the national income and pay 84% of the tax collected. The bottom 20% of taxpayers pay no tax, but still get an “earned tax credit” refund. One way to look at this is that the top 20% of the taxpayers pay their own way and also pick up the “fair” share that the bottom 20% don’t pay. Who then is not “paying their fair share?”

Socialism is the false god for the poor. It sounds good, especially if presented by a good salesman like Fidel Castro or Bernie Sanders. But the system is an eventual disaster for everyone, especially the poor. It’s the false promise to the poor that there is something for them for nothing and that the rich are rich because they have stolen something from the poor, something that they didn’t have in the first place. Jealousy is a normal human emotion and that plays a role here too. All of these socialistic political and social constructs revolve around the idea of an imaginary future not tempered by common sense, human nature, or the lessons of history, in which everyone gets along and is taken care of.

The American idea of equal opportunity is dismissed as racist, sexist, and the white man’s construct. The Left and so-called progressives are at war with traditional American values of individual freedom and the idea that people should be judged on their character and not the color of their skin or their political views. All politicians ignore the realities of basic economics, at the expense of the community, in order to get votes. But Democrats have made it a religion.

Progressives will say that their dream world will be more like Norway, Sweden or Finland than North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela. Here’s the problem with that idea:

Norway, for instance, is rich from its North Sea oil deposits and has a common culture. In other words, its citizens are united in their culture and not diverse. The words diverse and divisive come from the same root word for a reason. Because of the military protection provided by the United States through NATO [Americans pay 68% of NATO’s budget], Norway's budget is tiny, thus freeing up money that can be spent on social projects.

Norway has a population of just 5 million. New York City, by comparison, has a population of almost 9 million people. To apply a political system that works for a tiny, rich, homogenous population to a multiracial society of 330 million people is just plain silly.

Free enterprise, also called capitalism, has lifted more people out of poverty than all of the socialist experiments and all of the religious efforts in the history of mankind. Everybody, especially the poor, are beneficiaries of a free enterprise system of government and people like Bernie Sanders do the poor a great disservice with his false promises of free health care and education.

20. Consequence of Ignoring Economic Fundamentals.

Politicians and the voting public either don’t know fundamental economic realities or ignore them for personal or political gain. Three of these economic realities are:

1. The law of supply and demand.
2. If you tax something, you’ll have less of it.
3. If you subsidize something you’ll get more of it. A real life example of this is that if you subsidize being a single mother, you’ll have more single mothers.

Let’s see how ignoring economic fundamentals plays out in our society, which has certain values such as education, home ownership and health care that translate into political support for directing public funds into promoting these values.

In every case, you initially get more of what you subsidize and at a price that starts out with the unsubsidized price. Therefore, the early recipients of a subsidized commodity get a good deal. The two realities that we talked about now come into play. Først, we’ll get more of what we subsidized and sekund, the price will go up because of the increased demand.

These are simple immutable economic facts, and unfortunately, legislatures can’t legislate against the immutable laws of economics. Sorry about that, guys. Let’s look at what happened in each case.

Higher Education: In my day, you could pay for a college degree by working full time in the summer and part time during the school year. You can’t do that anymore - not even close. So what happened? Lots of things, but mostly subsidized easy-to-get student loans created a new demand for education which raised the price. [Remember the law of supply and demand.] Politicians responded to this increased cost of education by increasing the ease and amounts of student loans which further raised the cost of education.

In the end, this well-meaning effort to lower the cost of education actually raised the cost for everybody and left a legacy of debt with many students, and encouraged some to go to college who may have been better off going to a trade school.

Home ownership:The Government basically took over the home mortgage market and made it possible for many who didn’t qualify to get a home loan anyway. This artificially increased the demand for houses and guess what? the increased demand increased the prices for homes.

This well-meaning effort to help those who couldn’t afford a home to get one artificially raised the price of all homes to unsustainable levels, and saddled many with debt burdens that brought on personal economic ruin. The housing prices collapsed in 2008 and almost brought down the U.S. economy with it. Unfortunately, the law of supply and demand raises its ugly head, and that’s what happens when politicians either don’t know or ignore simple economic rules. By the way, Democrats and their national media supporters blamed the "greedy Wall Streeters" for the home mortgage collapse when it was actually government policy and easy government home loans that caused it.

Health care: is the biggest disaster of all. Nothing is more important to us all than our health and our life, but the government has been stuffing money into the health care system for decades. The results were predictable: costs escalated faster than inflation for all of those decades. Now the government says that costs are too high for the average person so it took over the health care system in order to make health care more affordable. Of course prices will continue to rise as even more money is poured into the system. It’s that old problem of supply and demand again. Not knowing or ignoring Economics 101 will always produce a bad outcome.

21. The Sorry History of Socialism.

We study history to get insights into our own time. We know from that study that socialism doesn’t work in the real world. It sounds great, the idea that everybody lives equally well, but that is a fantasy and is not validated by any historical precedent. I think that there is a deep-seated need in human beings – call it “human nature” - that keeps this disastrous idea alive over the generations. It may be the deep emotional human need to be taken care of by a strong, caring and wise person or government. One of the socialist founders, August Comte, called socialism “the religion of humanity” for good reason. In place of God the Father it puts God the State.

Historically speaking, here is a snapshot of the steps that socialists use to take over a political system that gives them the power to impose their political ideology on the population.

Step One is to take political control of the country. Saul Alinsky, the radical father of the modern Democratic Party, taught that political change cannot come about if society is peaceful and if people are engaging each others differences in a civilized manner. Therefore, as he explains in his book, Rules for Radicals, you should never let a crisis go to waste and if there isn’t a real crisis, you should create one.

Obama and Hillary are both Alinsky disciples. In fact, Obama was trained in his school and Hillary did her college thesis on him. Obama created crisis after crisis by taking local or regional race issues and elevating them to national prominence by weighing in, as President, and then sending the DOJ to investigate.

The crisis in Ferguson Missouri was a good example of this. Here’s what happened: A petty criminal who was black got caught shoplifting and while resisting arrest was shot and killed. There was no evidence that the police officer was the aggressor or that he shot him because of his race. Seven black eyewitnesses testified to the Grand Jury that the shooting was in self-defense.

Democrats just made up the story that the culprit was murdered because he was black. It was not true. President Obama weighed in and sent Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice to investigate, making it into a national crisis. As it turned out, the DOJ concluded that the police officer acted in self defense but it came up with a rationale for the rioting that destroyed the town that Blacks were targeted for more traffic tickets than whites. Sounds ridiculous, and it is, but this is pure Alinsky. If you don’t have a real crisis, start one.

Alinsky taught that to effect political change you have to infiltrate the institutions of the State and once you are in, to sabotage them. This is a good strategy, but one that can take years to accomplish. Unfortunately for the United States, the Left has been working at this objective for decades, largely out of the view of the average person. Until the advent of Donald Trump.

The infiltration of our public schools, universities and the national press by the Left is now an accomplished fact, and they are now in a position of power to indoctrinate young minds. In a recent survey of students at public universities, it was found that more than 50% of those surveyed thought that socialism is a better system than free enterprise. These are our future leaders and such a widespread belief, in my opinion, is dangerous to the long term health of our democracy.

Trin to is to take over the institutions such as the IRS, the Department of Justice and the FBI. If you have control of law enforcement, then your own misdeeds will not be accounted for because you control the organization that is charged with discovering them. Of course, this is exactly what happened in the Obama administration - it took over these agencies simply by putting in its own people at the top. It is frightening to see how easy it was for the Obama administration to accomplish this.

Trin tre is to disarm the population.The Communists did it, the Nazis did it, the Chinese did it, and the Democrats in the USA are trying to do it too. The Democrats say that the murder rate in the United States is too high when compared to Europe and other developed countries and the way to stop these murders is to control guns. It’s true that the murder rate in the USA is much higher than other developed countries and even many undeveloped countries. What’s not talked about is that if you subtract the murder rates from the five most violent US cities, the ones controlled by Democrats, the murder rate for the rest of the United States is lower than most European countries.

The five most murderous cities in the United States have these things in common:

1. They have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
2. They are all controlled by Democrats.
3. Most the murders are blacks killing other blacks.

Trin fire is to control the newspapers and TV. If you can control what people hear and see, you can fashion their opinions. CNN, for instance, has negatively reported on the Trump Presidency 93% of the time. It has been 70 years since the NY Times has endorsed a Republican for President. In today’s media, only the Wall Street Journal og Fox News have maintained their journalistic standards. All of the other news organizations are now reporting their opinions as actual news, screening out any news that might be favorable to the right or unfavorable to the Left.

News that is embarrassing to the Left is simply not reported except on Ræv og WSJ. It’s called “omission bias” and a viewer simply cannot know what hasn’t been reported. Proverbs 18:17 says, “Every story seems true until you hear the other side”. Many Democrats never get to hear the other side because they rely upon the national press for their information, and therefore are not fully informed on the issues.

Step Five is the courts. Conservative judges are those judges that come to their opinions based upon the law as written and not on their personal opinions. Democrats hate conservative judges because their own judges base their legal opinions on what they think the law bør be and are not afraid to legislate from the bench. Democrats do not have the support of the voters to change the country to a socialist state, so they need to rely upon the judiciary to do that work for them. That is why the recent appointment of Judge Kavanaugh, a constitutionalist, to the US Supreme Court, was such a disaster to the Left’s long term agenda.

If you can pack the courts with your political operatives, the courts will affirm the politicians. This happened very recently in Venezuela and that country is now paying the price in a national meltdown which is throwing millions more into poverty. In “Trump v. Hawaii,” four Democrat Judges were willing to ignore the plain language of the law and come up with a political decision.

If Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 Presidential election and had appointed another liberal judge to the US Supreme Court, the trajectory of our country would have been altered toward the disaster of socialism.

Even if you hate Donald Trump and you hated every one of his policies, conservatives and progressives alike should be forever grateful for his appointment of two judges to the US Supreme Court who will follow the law, rather than make it.

Bruce Hendry is a retired businessman who began from humble origins to become a highly successful investor and captain of industry. He embodies the American dream, having earned his way to becoming the president and chairman of the Erie Lackawanna Railroad and Kaiser Steel. He is one of the leaders of the economic revolution that has made America the envy of the world, and also the target of resentful and spiteful leftists who want to destroy it.


The Stomach of Man Under Socialism: A Culinary History of Socialist America

On the other hand, if you managed to avoid the dust bowl or something similar, it probably means you have a more robust agriculture that hasn't fallen prey to the monoculture and soil exhaustion traps?

Unless you decide to merely delay it and have the 50s be your dust bowl equivalent wake up call about failing agricultural management. I could see that, if things remained smooth before that.

Some kind of Potato Blight or grasshopper invasion?

You know what works well for a modern industrial Socialist America that believes in knowledge of its scientists?
A new chemical fertiliser that is mixed so well and yet so badly it turns out to be a slow acting crop killer.

Sam R.

An IWW (Chicago) / Homesteader / 40 acres and a mule / Sharecropper / Crossborder hand & fruitpicker alliance isn’t impossible.

This will walk straight into scale of production and mechanisation issues: the allies aren’t producing tens of thousands of head of cattle millions of tonnes. Their scale of production is human not machine.

A Deleonist IWW (Detroit) alliance isn’t capable.

JesterBL

Organizing farmworkers is not organizing farmers (and is in fact, antagonistic to most farmers who have to use any amount of seasonal labor). A system of political and economic organization based around industrial unions is going to naturally exclude most American farmers who are effectively, self-employed property owners.

To be clear, I agree with you about OTL's Detroit IWW (which like the SLP itself never had a chance once it was rejected by the trade unions, a pattern and tension likely important ITTL's America)- but I think an IWW that managed to keep De Leon and thread the needle between political action and direct action would have stood a chance of becoming something bigger.

Nyvis

"Farmer" is a very specific word, often distinguishable from "farm worker" and I think it's worth keeping that in mind. The US may have been a land of settler-farmers, and frankly labeling those as likely reactionary for propertarian reasons is probably accurate. But it also had a bunch of land trusts that reduced rural people to employed farm workers, who are proletarian and any Marxist should recognize that. Because of that, it's less likely to hit a wall of peasant class interests.

American Marxism could easily be antagonistic to farmers, but I don't think that extends to a general disdain of agriculture. Instead it's likely to invest in farmworkers as the answer.

Sam R.

All you’d need, and what you’d see on good country from the ag IU, is a displacement collectivisation by “teams,” resulting in the twenty district machine farms (owner operator) being run by a 40-80 adult work team collective.

The scale of production is still too low for machine survival (elevators and collectives). Socialist displacement will happen only on good land. The northern Scands and Finns will voluntarily reorganise even harder towards collectivisation with individual incentive, take over the regional IU, and achieve scale of production.

It’s the involuntary bad land “collectives” made up of the railway IU dictating to small holders and single family capitalists that’ll be the ugliness. Nobody *wants* to steal their land for socialisation.

JesterBL

"The duration and extent of this entente cordials, or co-operation, of the two classes, one of which is still largely imbued with individualistic ideas of private property in the means of production, would largely depend on economic developments under the new conditions. If the immediate result of the new measures were a marked relief in the situation of the farming class as indebted property holders, we might expect the latter to become every day more conservative whereas any improvement in the condition of the wage workers would inevitably tend to render these more radical. Then, of course, co-operation would cease, until the temporary relief gained by the small farmers had been lost again through the natural operation of the fundamental laws of the capitalistic system, which nothing short of its complete removal can permanently prevent."- Daniel De Leon, The People Volume I No. 10 "Farmers and Wage-Workers"

"In the first place, is the farmer movement, as Mr. Wright asserts, a revolutionary movement? We must answer, No. Far from being a revolutionary movement, it is one of the most conservative and even retrograde attempts ever recorded in the history of economic evolution. Its object is to perpetuate a class that modern progress has doomed, and its only result can be to prolong the agony of the poor people who belong to it by deferring the day of their complete emancipation. Mr. Wright mistakes blind rebellion for intelligent revolution."- Daniel De Leon, The People Vol. II No. 3 "Socialism and The People's Party"


The history of socialism

Where did Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders get his political philosophy? Here's everything you need to know:

What is socialism?Broadly, it's a political and economic system under which the means of production are owned by the community as a whole, with government ensuring the equitable distribution of wealth. But socialism has taken many forms. "'Socialism' is an exceedingly fuzzy term used to label an extraordinarily wide array of political and economic beliefs," says scholar Paul Brians. Socialism has morphed into Soviet-style communism and spawned Latin American dictatorships, while in Europe, many countries combine socialistic principles with capitalism and democracy. In the U.S., programs that opponents once condemned as socialism, such as Social Security and Medicare, are now deeply embedded in our society. Still, socialism has largely dwelled on the margins of American politics, until it was revived by the campaign of Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders.

What is Sanders' preferred form of socialism?A self-described "democratic socialist," Sanders believes government should aggressively use taxes and social programs to limit income inequality and provide health care, day care, and a college education to all without charge. But he doesn't spurn private enterprise. "I don't believe government should own the means of production," the Vermont senator says. "I do believe the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth deserve a fair deal." Sanders' model social democracy is Denmark, which tops polls of the world's happiest countries — but also has one of the world's highest tax rates, averaging about 60 percent.

When did socialism arise?It began as a response to the dire poverty and inhumane working conditions in industrialized Europe in the early 19th century. One of the first thinkers called a "socialist" was Robert Owen, an idealistic Welsh mill owner who in the 1820s created a number of short-lived "utopian" communities — basically, collectives — in Britain and the American Midwest. But socialism really took off in midcentury, spurred by the writings of German philosopher Karl Marx and the rise of labor unions. "Socialists rejected the argument that the wealthy deserve their wealth because they created it," Brians says, "instead believing that wealth is created by the working class and wrongfully appropriated by the rich."

How did it spread to the U.S.? Mainly via Marxist German immigrants, who spearheaded the establishment of the Socialist Labor Party (SLP) in 1876. The first socialist to hold public office in the U.S. was Fred Haack, a shoe-store owner elected to the Sheboygan, Wisconsin, city council in 1897. Four years later, ex-SLP members and others formed the Socialist Party of America, which over the next two decades elected two U.S. congressmen, dozens of state legislators, and more than 100 mayors. "They pushed for public ownership of utilities and transportation facilities," says political scientist Peter Dreier, as well as expanded parks, libraries, and playgrounds "and a living wage for workers." The face of the party was Eugene V. Debs (see below), a fiery railroad-union leader who ran for president five times. But by the 1920s, U.S. socialism had fallen far out of favor.

Hvad skete der?The Socialist Party opposed America's entry into World War I, and was widely condemned as unpatriotic. In 1917, Congress passed the Espionage Act, making it a crime to speak out against the war or oppose the draft. Thousands of socialists, including Debs, were subsequently arrested. At the same time, Russia's Bolshevik Revolution caused a "red scare" in the U.S. — a panicky fear that a similar worker revolt might occur here. Suspected radicals were rounded up and jailed, and nativists demanded an end to immigration from Italy and Eastern Europe, which they saw as hotbeds of communist sentiment.

Is socialism the same as communism?No. Marx envisioned communism as a higher and purer form of socialism, in which all private property would become obsolete, class distinctions would dissolve, and goods and services would flow freely, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." In the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and other communist countries, Marx's idealistic vision produced a grim reality, with economic growth stalling and an authoritarian ruling class appropriating much of the meager wealth for itself while murderously suppressing all dissent. During the Cold War, "socialist" and "communist" were often used interchangeably in the U.S., in what political scientist Lawrence Quill calls "shorthand for all things un-American."

Is socialism un-American?Many Americans have conflicted attitudes about socialism, best illustrated by the Tea Party activists who demanded that "government get its hands off my Medicare." But when a Gallup poll asked Americans last year whether they would consider voting for 11 categories of presidential candidate, "socialist" ranked last, garnering 47 percent, behind "Muslim" and "atheist." Among 18- to 29-year-olds, however, 69 percent had no problem voting for a socialist. Why the huge disparity? People in their 20s have no memory of the Soviet Union or the Cold War, but did come of age during and after the 2008 financial crisis. To young people feeling great economic insecurity, sharing the wealth sounds less like a threat than like a promise.

Sanders' socialist heroEugene V. Debs received 919,799 votes in the 1920 presidential election — while serving a 10-year sentence for his passionate opposition to America's entry into World War I. "The working class, who freely shed their blood and furnish the corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace," Debs had said. A rousing speaker, he made four other White House bids, garnering 6 percent of the vote in 1912. Debs embraced the Russian Revolution, but was appalled by the Soviets' violent suppression of dissent pardoned by President Warren G. Harding in 1921, he remained a vociferous anti-communist until his death in 1926. Many of Debs' ideas — such as banning child labor, social security for retired workers, and unemployment insurance — were later co-opted by the major parties. He was the subject of an admiring 1979 documentary — Eugene Debs: Trade Unionist, Socialist, Revolutionary — produced and narrated by his political descendant, Bernie Sanders.


The History Of Socialism And Capitalism

The Hoover Institution presents an online virtual speaker series based on the scholarly research and commentary written by Hoover fellows participating in the Human Prosperity Project on Socialism and Free-Market Capitalism. This project objectively investigates the historical record to assess the consequences for human welfare, individual liberty, and interactions between nations of various economic systems ranging from pure socialism to free-market capitalism. Each session will include thoughtful and informed analysis from our top scholars.

The History of Socialism and Capitalism
THE DISCUSSION IS BELOW

/p>

Niall Ferguson, MA, D.Phil., is the Milbank Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a senior fellow of the Center for European Studies, Harvard, where he served for twelve years as the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History.

Victor Davis Hanson is the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution his focus is classics and military history.

Click HERE to read papers or watch videos that have been released for this project.


THESE Are the Most Telling Failures of Socialism

KOMMENTAR AF

Fremstående stipendiat i konservativ tanke

Karl Marx has been wrong about nearly everything he predicted. Bettmann / Contributor / Getty Images

Some conservatives may be discouraged by the latest surveys confirming that nearly one-half of millennials are receptive to living under socialism and regard capitalism as a captive of greed. In fact, they present us with a golden opportunity to educate all Americans about the manifold failures of socialism and the miraculous advances the world has made under free enterprise.

For example, the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson revealed at a Heritage Foundation event that between 2000 and 2012, “the rate of absolute poverty in the world fell by 50 percent.” That is, “the poor in the world are getting rich at a rate that is absolutely unparalleled in all of human history.” Heritage’s 2019 Index of Economic Freedom reported that the greatest advances came in African and Asian countries (such as Botswana and Taiwan) that limited rather than expanded the role of government. More than 100 countries, many of them with less developed or emerging economies, showed marked advances in economic growth and individual prosperity.

Such good news is seldom reported by the mainstream media, Dr. Peterson said, because of the technological revolution that’s occurring in every form of media. All the broadcast networks, leading newspapers and magazines exist in a shrinking market with dwindling margins of profit. To attract attention they are turning to an old journalism axiom: “If it bleeds, it leads.”

The news media obsess over the latest school shooting and bloody street riot. And yet, Dr. Peterson pointed out, the rates of violent crime in the United States and in most places “have plummeted in the last 50 years.” The U.S. is now safer than it has been since the early 1960s, but the reporting of violent crime in America has materially increased as the mainstream media, in pursuit of ratings and revenue, have highlighted the dark side of society.

Conservatives must step forward to tell the truth about capitalism: the better life it has brought to billions of people, the diversity and freedom of choice it celebrates, the individual responsibility it encourages, the continuing miracle of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” its rejection of government planning that always leads to dictatorship.

Which brings us to the urgent task of exposing the chimera that socialism is just another political system. Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and their fellow socialists carefully omit any mention of the principles laid down by Karl Marx, the founding father of Socialism, such as the abolition of private property and the centralization of the means of production and of decision-making. But make no mistake: there are radical socialists waiting in the wings to promote these extreme initiatives.

It’s up to us to tell the truth. Socialists promise a classless society but create the prison camps of the Gulag and the Isle of Pines. They assure peace but engage in wars of national liberation. They abolish private property but depend upon the underground economy. They stamp out religion but worship Big Brother. They bring down corrupt dictators but institute a dictatorship of the Party.

Here are some of the most telling failures of socialism.

One, socialism has never succeeded anywhere, including the Marxism-Leninism of the Soviet Union, the National Socialism of Nazi Germany, the Maoism of Communist China, the Chavez-Maduro socialism of Venezuela. It has never come close anywhere to Marx’s ideal of a classless society.

Two, Karl Marx has been wrong about nearly everything he predicted. The nation-state has not withered away. Capitalism didn’t break down as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Workers haven’t become revolutionaries but capitalists. The middle class hasn’t disappeared indeed, it has expanded exponentially around the world (see the above about the sharp decline in global poverty). Marx’s attempt to use Hegel to create a “scientific socialism” has been an abject failure.

Three, socialism denies the existence of an essential human trait – human nature. Marx borrowed from the Enlightenment to declare that human nature was malleable, not constant. Christian theology with its idea of a fixed God-given nature infuriated Marx. The socialist state established by Lenin tried for seven decades to create an entirely new human being – Soviet Man. In December 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev gave up trying and dissolved the world’s most spectacular failure in human engineering.

Four, socialism depends not upon the will of the people but on the dictatorship of the Party to remain in power. In “The God That Failed,” six famous Western intellectuals describe their journey into socialism and their exit when they encountered the gigantic gap between their vision of a socialist utopia and the totalitarian reality of the socialist state.

After visiting the Soviet Union, the French Nobel Laureate writer Andre Gide said: “I doubt where in any country in the world – not even in Hitler’s Germany – have the mind and spirit ever been less free, more bent, more terrorized and indeed vassalized than in the Soviet Union.”

Hvilken pris socialisme? The Chinese philosopher Lin Yutang listed the “little terrors” that prevailed in China – making children of 12 subject to capital punishment, sending women to work in underground coal mines, harassing workers during their lunchtime with threats of prison if they were late returning to work. A Soviet defector said of the perpetual surveillance: “We lived in a world swarming with invisible eyes and ears.”

Given the ignorance of so many of our fellow especially young Americans, telling the truth about socialism has become an imperative. If we do not, Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and their fellow travelers will fill the vacuum with their misleading rhetoric. This is the truth about socialism: It is a pseudo-religion founded in pseudo-science and enforced by political tyranny.


Trump claims Biden will try to impose 'socialism plus' if elected

Likewise, when JFK unveiled what would become the Civil Rights Act of 1964, opponents denounced it too as socialism. Segregationist organizations in the South, for instance, took out large newspaper ads denouncing it as “the Socialists’ Omnibus Bill of 1963.” “What is being piously presented as a humane effort to redress past wrongs — the ‘Civil Rights’ bill — is, in fact, a cynical design to make even the least of us … subject to the whim and caprice of government bureaucrats.”

Once the Civil Rights Act and Medicare had been enacted, some conservatives still denounced them — and the larger Great Society programs of the Johnson administration — as more socialism. “This will be only the beginning,” warned conservative journalist Walter Trohan of the Chicago Tribune, “because once a country embarks on such a welfare or socialistic program, there is virtually no avenue for retreat.”

Ironically, if there has been “creeping socialism” in America, it’s apparently crept up on those who keep shouting about it.

Today, of course, all these policies that were once denounced as dangerously “socialist” have become mainstays of the American political scene. As he warns that his opponent will bring dangerous new forms of socialism to America, Trump has promised to preserve the programs that previous generations of conservative Republicans warned were dangerous new forms of socialism. “We will protect Medicare and Social Security,” he promised in his acceptance speech at this year’s Republican National Convention. Ironically, if there has been “creeping socialism” in America, it’s apparently crept up on those who keep shouting about it.

Kevin M. Kruse is a professor of history at Princeton University. A specialist in modern American political, social and urban/suburban history, he is the author and editor of several books, including "White Flight" (2005), "One Nation Under God" (2015) and "Fault Lines: A History of the United States since 1974" (2019). He grew up in Nashville, Tennessee, and earned his bachelor's degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and his master's and doctoral degrees from Cornell University.


Se videoen: Ako by vyzeralo Slovensko, keby tu bol ešte stále socializmus?