“LIBERALISTIC STATE V. SOCIALISTIC STATE: A COMPARITIVE POLITICAL ANALYSIS”
CHAPTER I RESEARCH OBJECTIVES In this research project the author is going to analyze the liberalistic state and socialistic states as how the liberal state and social state will function and what are the benefits the people will enjoy. And at last which type of state would be suitable for the people to live sophisticated life. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This project has required consultation to an assorted range of books and websites that a part of the primary sourses. The project mainly advocates from the doctrine of liberalism and the funtioning of the liberlistic state and Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation. Socialism, a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. HYPOTHESIS In this project the researcher is going to find functioning of the liberal and social states and analyze comparatively both the states find out the well being of the state and comfort to the people who are living and which would be the suitable state for the people ti live their life peacefully and sophisticated life.
CHAPTER II INTRODUCTION Philosophers of liberalism and socialism actually have very different visions for the world. They don’t disagree at all on the idea that spreading the wealth around is good for everybody. In fact, this idea finds one of its greatest expressions in the work of the philosopher of welfare liberalism, John Rawls. He proposed two principles of justice, one of which—the “Difference Principle”—claims that inequalities are permissible if and only if they benefit the worst-off person. Since many inequalities arising from the free market violate this principle, some wealth must be redistributed. The difference between liberals and socialists, rather, is founded on their different answers to this question: Can the principles by which I vote differ from the principles by which I live? Liberals say yes, they can. Rawls, for example, said that you must be guided by principles of distributive justice, such as the Difference Principle, only when you think about the basic structure of society. Roughly, those times are when you self-consciously think of yourself as a citizen: when you vote, when you debate political ideals, when you think about those ideals in your time alone. Otherwise, you don’t need to heed principles of distributive justice. So a liberal allows you to accept a salary that is four, ten, 100 times greater than that of the least well-off person in your society, so long as, when you step into the voting booth, you don a new hat and act so that all inequalities are arranged to benefit the least well-off.
That picture deeply disturbs socialists. Jerry Cohen, the preeminent contemporary philosopher of socialism, wrote: “Liberally minded economists take for granted that economic agents are self-seeking, or, like James Meade, they think that they should be, and then they want people as political agents to act against the grain of their self-interest: pile up your earthly goods on the mundane plane of civil society but be a saint in the heaven of politics. CHAPTER III DOCTRINE OF LIBERLALISTIC STATE: Liberalism has been a dominant political philosophy of the west which created immense impact for about four centuries. It was not developed at a particular point of time. A few thinkers have expressed liberalism as a faith and a spiritual affair. Others viewed it as a matter of intellectual affair. A few writers equated liberalism with individualism. Yet there are a few others who interrupted it in terms of social democracy. It is thus evident that it is difficult to describe it either as a dogma or doctrine. It represents a system of ideas which ultimately aims in realizing a plural society with abundance of diversity in socio, politico, economic and cultural. Liberalism may be traced in the writings of Socrates and Plato who argued, for the freedom of inquiry and expression. In fact liberalism is the movement which was adopted to fight against authority of the monarchy, the feudal lords and the tyranny of the church in fifteenth and the sixteenth centuries. In reality it was a product of reformation, individualism and scientific temper representing the middle class. It stood for the removal of hurdles coming in the way of human progress so as to free the individual and the society from the bondage of the state and government. In essence its political expression was manifest in the assertion of individual and his rights, autonomy and freedom against the arbitrary authority of the state.1 Subsequently it was further developed and consolidated at the hands of the john Locke, Montesquieu, Thomas paine, Bentham and Rousseau during 17th nod 18th centuries. Liberalism 1
Edmund Fawcett, LIBERALISM, The life of an idea, 2 nd edition.
as a movement though made itself felt in almost all the countries of western Europe and in America but the most spectacular development took place in England due to rise of the middle class with the industrial development in the 19th century. Liberalism is the theory and practice of individual liberty, judicial defense and constitutional state. It was an attempt to give back to man his personality and individuality. Liberalism means freedom from the authority of the government in the affairs of the individual. Thus, liberalism means the absence of governmental authority in matters relating to the welfare of the individual. Thus, theory is based on the principle that the individual can develop his personality to the fullest possible extent, if alone he is left free from the arbitrary interference of the government. That is why J.S.Mill declared that “that government is the best which governs the least” According to David G. Smith, “Liberalism is the belief in and commitment to a set of methods and policies that have as their common aim, greater freedom for individual men.” As per H.J. Laski, “Liberalism is the expression, less of a creed than of a temperament. It implies a passion for liberty and that passion may be compelling, it requires a power to be tolerant, even skeptical about opinions and tendencies you hold to be dangerous, which is one of the rarest human qualities.” In the words of Sartori, “very simply, liberalism is the theory and practice of individual liberty, judicial defense and the constitutional state.”
Principles of Liberalism: Social:
Liberalism is opposed to all artificial pressures as well as regulation on individual freedom and conscience of individuals.
It believes that traditions and institutions being outdated will have no relevance in the individual prosperity and development.
Economical:
In economic sphere liberalism supports free trade and production.
It vigorously opposes any restriction on imports and exports.
It advocates that the citizens should be allowed freely to exploit natural resources and distribute economic dividends as he desires.
Political:
Initially liberalism had advocated the total restriction of state interference in the freedom of man.
It advocates the strict application of the theory of separation of powers, judicial review, parliamentary control over the executive, protection of minority interests, prevention of the concentration of power and the rule of law.
Liberalism preaches that the power rests with the people and the government must be accountable to the people through periodic elections. It is a voice in favour of equality before law. It advocates freedom of thought and expression. It maintains that state and society should protect individual’s natural rights. It stands for secularism.
LIBERAL STATES
Countries following the understand liberalism in continent of America is USA, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chili, Cuba, Colombia, Equador, Honduras, canada, Mexsico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. Now liberalsm also adopted for Aruba, Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Greenland, Grenada, Costa Rica, Puerto Rico dan Suriname. Countries following the understand liberalism in continent of Europe is Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatian, Cyprus, Republik Cekoslovakia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungaria, Islandia, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraina and United Kingdom Now liberalsm also adopted for Andorra, Belarusia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Faroe
Islands,
Georgia,
Ireland
and
San
Marino.
Countries following the understand liberalism in continent of Asia is India, Iran, Israel, Jepang, South korea, Fhiliphines, Taiwan, Thailand and Turki. For now, a lot of state in
asia whose start the understand liberal. Another for now is Myanmar, Kamboja, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapura.
Countries following the understand liberalism in Oceania islands is Australia and New Zealand liberal economic system In Africa is a new. Basically, only adopted for those living in Mesir, Senegal, And South Africa. For now, liberalsm already understood by country Aljazair, Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Mantol Verde, Côte D'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Maroko, Mozambik, Seychelles, Tanzania, Tunisia, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
TYPES OF LIBERALISM Liberalism Liberalism is one of the theories in international relations; it focuses on democracy and cooperation. Liberalists belief that individuals share many interests and can thus engage in cooperation. Basic liberal assumptions: • A positive view of human nature • A conviction that international relations can be cooperative rather than conflictual • A belief in progress. Liberal theory after the Second World War was divided into four main standards of thinking: • Sociological Liberalism • Interdependence Liberalism • Institutional Liberalism • Republican Liberalism Interdependence Liberalism means mutual dependence: • People and governments are affected by what happens elsewhere, by the actions of their counterparts in other countries. • A high level of transnational relations between countries --> a high level of interdependence. • Basically these liberals argued that a high division of labour in the international economy --> increases interdependence between states --> discourage and reduce violent conflict between states. Complex interdependence is qualitatively different from earlier and simpler kinds of interdependence. Under complex interdependence: • Transnational actors are increasingly important • Military force is a less useful instrument • Welfare (not security) is becoming the primary goal and concern of states. Hence, the world is more cooperative interdependence relations.
Republican Liberalism is built on claim that liberal democracies are more peaceful and lawabiding than are their political systems. Michael Doyle claimed that there are three elements that democracy leads to peace with other democracies: • The existence of domestic political cultures based on peaceful conflict resolution • Democracies hold common moral value which lead to the formation of a "pacific union“ • Peace between democracies is strengthened through economic cooperation and interdependence. Democracies do not go to war against each other owing to: • their domestic culture of peaceful conflict resolution • their common moral values • their mutually beneficial ties of economic cooperation and interdependence Institutional Liberalism According to international liberals, international institution is an international organization, such as NATO, the European Union; or it is a set of rules which govern state action in particular areas, such as aviation or shipping. International liberals adopt a behaviouralistic, scientific approach to claim that international institutions help promote cooperation between states. Institutions alleviate problems concerning lack of trust between states and they reduce states’ fear of each other. Neo-Liberalism and institutions • Post-1945 International Relations: – Rise of international institutions as collective actors – Rise of European integration – Rise of Pluralism in the US • Pluralism focused on new actors (transnational corporations, non-governmental organizations) and new patterns of interaction (interdependence, integration). Neo-Liberalism (Institutionalism) • Nature of the International System: Anarchy – For the liberalist, anarchy signifies that there is no supranational authority that is able to enforce agreements. – While liberalism and realism share the assumption of international anarchy, neoliberals criticize realists for underestimating opportunities for cooperation within that system. – Question becomes how to create an international system that encourages cooperation. Neo-liberalism • Neo-liberal institutionalists recognize that co- operation may be harder to achieve in areas where leaders perceive they have no mutual interests. • Neo-liberals believe that states co-operate to achieve absolute gains and the greatest obstacle to co- operation is ‘cheating’ or non-compliance by other states. – This is were institutions come in. – Neo-liberal institutionalists see institutions as the mediator and the means to achieve co-operation in the international system.
Neo-Liberal Institutionalism • Transnational cooperation needed to resolve common problems • Cooperation in one sector would extend range of collaboration • Growing integration increases the ‘cost’ of withdrawal from cooperative ventures • Pluralism of actors
FEATURES OF LIBERAL STATE 2 1. A liberal state always adopts a liberal attitude towards the rights of the citizens.mention has been made that the most vital precondition of individuals development is granting of rights and previleges to all individuals equitably.by resorting to this system the authority of the liberal state will be in a position to ensure the progress of the individual. 2. Liberal state presupposes the existence of many grops and organizations and the characteristic feature of a liberal state is they are engaged in cooperation and conflict among themselves. These groups are termed in various ways such as “power elite” “ruling elite” etc. under normal and peaceful conditions liberal state does not normally intend to impose restrictions upon their activities. 3. The liberal state maintains a neutrality among all these groups. Since multiplicity of groups and organizations and co existence among tem are the characteristics feauture any conflict or clash of interests can also be regarded as inevitable consequence. Here is the question is : what would be the exact role of the state in the situation? The liberal state maintain utmost neutrality.the liberal state does not favour any particular class in the case of conflict. As a provider of ceck and stability in the political system the state adopts reforms so that the destabilization cannot occur. 4. The important feature of a liberal state is it is accountable to the citizenry which means that all its activities, decisions and policies are to be approved by the body politic. The consent and accountability is the twin ideas associated with the liberal state. 5. Liberal state is never a one idea state; it embraces multiplicity of ideas, views and existence of numeral groups and parties. This finally indicates a competition among them. Competition involved seizure of political power through constitutional means,legal 2
Michael Freedon, Liberalism: A very short introduction, oxford.
procedure and democratic ways, competition in views and ideas.it iss belived that the truth will emerge only from this struggle of words and ideas. 6. A liberal state cannot be imagined without political parties; and this is not all. In any liberal state there are number of ideas and number of political parties and they struggle to capture power. A liberal state sometimes called as pluralist statebecause of the plurality of the ideas and organizations. 7. Separarion of power is generally regarded as a feature. A liberal state means limited state and it again implies the three organs of the state will discharge this function keeping themselves within the confine ment decided by
law and constitution. When tis is
implemented no organ of the government will interfere wth the functions and jurisdiction of another organ. But the separation of powers need not be the only precondition of being liberal. For example, Britain is the liberal state but the separarion of powers has failed to be an integral part of state machinery. But someforms of separation of powers must exist in all liberal states. 8. A liberal state does not endorse the domination of a particular ideology, various opinions or ideologies work and exist side by side. 9. In all liberal states there are mainly two centre sof power- one is economic and other is political. But the interesting fact is that economic power centre controls the political power centre. Marx emphasize this aspect of liberal sate. 10. There is no fixed form of liberal state. For example, we find in Britain a constitutional monarchy.there is clear incongruity between monarchism and liberalism. But the mere fact is that Britain is the liberal state. On the other hand, united states is also the liberal state with constitutional republic in charater. ECONOMIC POLICY OF THE LIBERAL STATE In the background of economic crisis such as the great depression in American economy during the thirties of the last century and the financial crisis from which the west European capitalist countries frequently suffered, growing unemployement qhich was a very common feature of all capitalist countries of both hemispheres it was strongly felt that the state could never be a simple onlooker, it has cetain roles to play to combat these crisis.
The laissez faire doctrine of the classical liberals was not abandoned, but it received a thorough overhaul at the hands of a number of liberal philosophers who wanted to see the role of the state in economic affairs in a new grab. The state must adopt monetory policy which would be able to reduce the volume of unemployement , extent of poverty and ensure stability in the field of production. Not only this, the state must see that the produced commodities ae properly distributed among the persons who really require them. It was urged that the state cannot have monopoly power over the economy, but absolute free and competitive economy is neither desirable. It is the duty of the stateto keep a vigil over both the money market and production market. The individual entrepreneurs will have full freedom in economic affairs but that freedom shall be based on certain rules and regulations framed by government modern liberals or advocates of modern liberal state did not believe that laissez faire was the only solution to all evils from which economy suffered. Function of liberal state: There is a very significant aspect of liberal state which can be stated in the following way. There are, in general terms, two ways to do the works stated briefly above. One is democratic or constitutional maeans such as legal ways, refrms approved by those for whom the reforms are made, and to do everything according to the wishes of the people. There is another way and this is called coercive method. In the case of any slightest reluctance the state authority will proceed to apply coercive measures. Coercion is the sine qua non of the govenmenrt/state. Coercion forces the citizen to do work reluctantly. In this respect a liberal state can responsibly be distinguished from an authoritarian state. A liberal state always encourages people’sparticipation in the affairs of the state. Only through participation people can think of translating their political dreams into a viable reality. In such a state, participation is never mind.
CHAPTER IV CHALLENGES TO LIBERAL STATE If Russia and China really are not marching inevitably toward liberal democracy, as Ignatieff argues, that is a problem not just for their repressed people but also for us [bold mine-DL]. Ignatieff says that our attitude toward Russia and China is a question of such great import because both countries “are attempting to demonstrate a novel proposition: that economic freedoms can be severed from political and civil freedom, and that freedom is divisible.” He is right that this is the fundamental operating proposition of Russia and China, and he is right that it poses the most serious challenge that the very idea of liberal democracy faces anywhere today. Let me ask the obvious question: how is that a problem for “us” (by which I assume Freeland means Western democracies)? I am hardly a triumphalist when it comes to the spread and promotion of liberal democracy, but this concern that Freeland expresses suggests a strange lack of confidence in the virtues and resilience of Western political and economic systems. Suppose that Russia and China continue to develop as authoritarian regimes with state capitalist economies. Let’s imagine that over the next several decades the current systems simply become more entrenched and don’t liberalize. Are Western democratic nations likely to dismantle their own systems and start imitating them? It seems unlikely, so how does this proposition pose “the most serious challenge” to the very idea of liberal democracy? Even if economic freedom doesn’t necessarily have to be accompanied by political freedom, it doesn’t follow that most nations are going to prefer a system that severely limits the latter indefinitely. It’s not as if people value representative government and civil liberties because they associate these things with a certain amount of economic growth.
It seems to me that there are two challenges here in the U.S. that are more serious than the proposition that freedom is divisible. The increasing concentration of power and wealth into fewer hands is one, and the decline in social mobility is the other. Stratified societies can sometimes have liberal governments that aren’t broadly democratic, or they can have populist democratic governments that aren’t all that liberal, but they don’t balance the two very well, and sometimes they end up with neither. If America continues to become more socially and economically stratified, our political system will face enormous strains, and our political institutions and norms as we know them could be badly damaged.3
CHAPTER V DOCTRINE OF SOCIALISTIC STATE Definition of Socialism: Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics defines Socialism as, “a political and economic theory of system of social organisation based on collective or state ownership of the means of production, distribution or exchange”. C.E.M. Joad thinks that socialism denotes “both a doctrine and a political movement”. Socialism consists of both economic and political doctrines. Bernard Crick in his small book Socialism (World View, 1998) describes socialism as, “an invented system of society that stressed the social as against the selfish, the cooperative as against the competitive, sociability as against the individual self-sufficiency and self-interest, strict social controls on the accumulation and use of private property; and either economic equality or at least rewards according to merits (merits judged socially) or rewards judged according to need”. Crick has not simply defined socialism as economic and political doctrine; he has briefly elaborated what is exactly meant by this concept. Strictly speaking socialism is not a political
3
www.4pt.su/en/content/critique-liberal-ideology
and economic doctrine, it at the same time envisages methods to reach certain goals which large number of men aspire to.4 Objectives of socialism ideology: 1. Property, disease and ignorance shall be eliminated. 2. Property and privilege in any form shall occupy a strictly limited place. 3. All citizens shall have equal opportunities. 4. Ethical and spiritual values shall contribute to the enrichment of the individual and communal life. SOCIALISTIC STATE A socialist
state or socialist
republic (sometimes Workers'
State)
refers
to
any state that is constitutionally dedicated to the establishment of socialism. In Western usage, the term "Communist state" is often used in reference to single-party socialist states governed by parties adhering to a variant of Marxism–Leninism; however these states officially refer to themselves as "socialist states" or states that are in the process of building socialism, and do not describe themselves as "communist" or as having achieved communism. Aside from the "Communist states", a number of other states have described their orientation as "socialist" in their constitutions. A socialist state is to be distinguished from a multi-party liberal democratic state governed by a self-described socialist party, where the state is not constitutionally bound to the construction of socialism. In such cases, the political system and machinery of government is not specifically structured to pursue the development of socialism. The concept of a socialist state is closely related to "state socialism", the political view that a socialist system can be established through the use of state action or government policies. As such, the concept of a socialist state is usually advocated by Leninists and Marxist-Leninists but rejected as being either unnecessary or counterproductive by some 4
Ludwig von mises, Socialism: an economic and sociological analysis
classical Marxists, libertarian socialists and political thinkers who view the modern state as a byproduct of capitalism which would have no function in a socialist system, and as a result, cannot be used to construct socialism. In the Marxist–Leninist view, a "socialist state" is a state under the control of a vanguard party that is organizing the economic, social, and political affairs of the country toward the realization of socialism. The vanguard party presides over a state capitalist economy structured upon statedirected capital accumulation, with the goal of building up the country's productive forces and promoting worldwide socialist revolution, with the eventual long-term goal of building a socialist economy. MARXIST LENINIST SOCIALISTIC STATES States run by Communist parties that adhere to Marxism–Leninism, or some variation thereof, refer to themselves as socialist states. The Soviet Union was the first to proclaim itself a "socialist state" in its 1936 Constitution and a subsequent 1977 Constitution. Another wellknown example is the People's Republic of China, which proclaims itself to be a "socialist state" in its 1982 Constitution of the People's Republic of China. In the West, such states are commonly known as "communist states" (though they do not use this term to refer to themselves). "Socialist state" is widely used by Leninists and Marxist–Leninists in reference to a state under the control of a vanguard party that is organizing the economic, social, and political affairs of said state toward the construction of socialism. This often includes at least the "commanding heights" of the economy to be nationalized, usually operated according to a plan of production, at least in the major production and social spheres. Under the Leninist definition, the socialist state presides over a state capitalist economy structured upon state-directed accumulation of capital, with the goal of building up the country's productive forces and promoting worldwide socialist revolution, with the eventual long-term goal of building a socialist economy. These "Communist states" often don't claim to have achieved socialism in their countries; rather, they claim to be building and working toward the establishment of socialism (and the development towards communism thereafter) in their countries. For example, the preamble to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's constitution states that Vietnam only entered a transition stage between capitalism and socialism after the country was re-unified under the Communist
party in 1976, and the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Cuba states that the role of the Communist Party is to "guide the common effort toward the goals and construction of socialism (and the progress toward a communist society)". The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) used to be a Marxist–Leninist state. In 1972, the country adopted a new constitution, which changed the official state ideology to "Juche", which is held to be a distinct Korean re-interpretation of the former ideology. Similarly in Laos, direct references to communism are not included in its founding documents, though it gives direct power to the governing ruling party. Features of Socialism: The features of socialism are as under. 1. Public Ownership: A socialist economy is categorised by public ownership of the means of production and distribution. There is collective ownership whereby all mines, farms, factories, financial institutions, distributing agencies (internal and external trade, shops, stores, etc.), means of transport and communications, are owned, controlled, and regulated by government departments and state corporations. A small private sector also exists in the form of small business units which are carried on in the villages by local artists for local consumption. 2. Central Planning: A socialist economy is centrally planned which operates under the supervision of a central planning authority. It lays down the various objectives and targets to be accomplished during the plan period. Central economic planning means "the making of major economic decisions such as type of goods and quantity is to be produced, how, when and where it is to be produced, and to whom it is to be allocated by the conscious decision of a determinate authority, on the basis of a wide-ranging survey of the economic system as a whole." The central planning authority establishes and utilises the economic resources by deliberate direction and control of the economy for attaining definite objectives and targets laid down in the plan during a specified period of time.
3. Definite Objectives: A socialist economy functions within definite socio-economic objectives. These objectives "may concern aggregate demand, full employment, satisfaction of communal demand, allocation of factors of production, distribution of the national income, the amount of capital accumulation, economic development." To accomplish, these objectives laid down in the plan, priorities and gallant targets are fixed to include all features of the economy. 4. Freedom of Consumption: In socialism ideology, consumer's independence infers that production in state- owned industries is generally governed by the inclinations of consumers, and the available merchandises are distributed to the consumers at fixed prices through the state-run department stores. Consumer's autonomy under socialism is limited to the choice of socially beneficial commodities. 5. Equality of Income Distribution: In a socialist economy, there is great equality of income distribution as compared with a free market economy. The removal of private ownership in the means of production, private capital accumulation, and profit motive under socialism avert the accrual of large wealth of a few wealthy persons. The unearned incomes in the form of rent, interest and profit go to the state which utilises them in providing free education, public health facilities, and social security to the people. "As far as wages and salaries are concerned, most modern socialists do not aim at complete and rigid equality. It is now generally understood that the maintenance offered choice of occupation implies wage differentials." 6. Planning and the Pricing Process: The pricing process under socialism ideology does not operate freely but works under the control and regulation of the central planning authority. There are administered prices fixed by the central planning authority. There are also the market prices at which consumer goods are sold. There are also the accountings prices on the basis of which the managers decide about the production of consumer goods and investment goods, and also about the choice of production procedures. Merits of Socialism: There are numerous advantages of socialism ideologies in society.
Prof. Schumpeter stated many arguments to support socialism. 1. Greater economic efficiency 2. Welfare due to less inequality 3. Absence of monopolistic practices 4. Absence of business fluctuations. Types of Socialism: Democratic Socialism: It promotes Socialism as an economic principle (the means of production should be under control of ordinary working people), and democracy as a governing principle (political power should be in the hands of the people democratically through a co-operative commonwealth or republic). Reformist socialism believes in 'socialism through the ballot box', and thus accepts basic liberal democratic principles such as consent, constitutionalism and party competition. This ideology attempts to bring about Socialism through peaceable democratic means as opposed to violent insurgence, and represents the reformist tradition of Socialism. It is similar to Social Democracy. This refers to an ideology that is more centrist and supports a broadly Capitalist system, with some social reforms (such as the welfare state), intended to make it more impartial and humane. Democratic Socialism, by contrast, suggests an ideology that is more left-wing and supportive of a fully socialist system, established either by gradually reforming Capitalism from within, or by some form of radical transformation. Revolutionary Socialism: This types of ideology advocates the need for central social change through revolution or than insurgence instead of gradual reform as a strategy to accomplish a socialist society. Revolutionary socialism reflected in the communist tradition, holds that socialism can only be initiated by the revolutionary overthrow of the existing political and social system. It is based upon the belief that the existing state structures are incurably linked to capitalism and the interests of the ruling class. The Third International, which was founded following the Russian Revolution of 1917, described itself in terms of Revolutionary Socialism but also became broadly identified with Communism. Trotskyism is the theory of Revolutionary Socialism as supported by Leon Trotsky (1879 - 1940), stating the need for an international grassroots revolution (rather than Stalin's "socialism in one country") and firm support for a factual dictatorship of the proletariat based on democratic philosophies. Luxemburgism is
another Revolutionary Socialist tradition, based on the writings of Rosa Luxemburg (1970 1919). It is similar to Trotskyism in its opposition to the Totalitarianism of Stalin, while concurrently avoiding the reformist politics of modern Social Democracy. Utopian Socialism: It described the first currents of modern socialist thought in the beginning of the 19th Century. Generally, it was used by later socialist philosophers to define early socialist, or quasi-socialist, scholars who created hypothetical visions of perfect egalitarian and communalist societies without actually concerning themselves with the manner in which these societies could be created or sustained. They precluded all political (and especially all revolutionary) action, and wanted to attain their ends by peaceful means and small experiments, which more practical socialists like Karl Marx saw as necessarily doomed to failure. But the early theoretical work of philosophers such as Robert Owen (1771-1858), Charles Fourier (17721837) and Etienne Cabet (1788-1856) gave more push to later socialist movements. Libertarian Socialism: This type of socialism ideology has aim to create a society without political, economic or social hierarchies, in which every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production. This would be attained through the eradication of authoritarian institutions and private property, so that direct control of the means of production and resources will be gained by the working class and society as a whole. Most Libertarian Socialists support abolishing the state altogether, in much the same way as Utopian Socialists and many varieties of Anarchism. Market Socialism: This ideology elucidates an economic system in which there is a market economy directed and guided by socialist planners, and where prices would be set through trial and error (making adjustments as shortages and surpluses occur) instead of relying on a free price mechanism. By contrast, a Socialist Market Economy, such as that practiced in the People's Republic of China, in one where major industries are owned by state entities, but compete with each other within a pricing system set by the market and the state does not routinely interfere in the setting of prices. Eco-Socialism: It is a philosophy amalgamating aspects of Marxism, Socialism, Green politics, ecology and the anti-globalization movement. They promotes the non-violent dismantling of Capitalism and the State, focusing on collective ownership of the means of production, in order
to alleviate the social exclusion, poverty and environmental degradation brought by the capitalist system, globalization and imperialism. Christian Socialism: It denotes to those on the Christian left whose politics are both Christian and socialist, and who visualize these two things as being interconnected. Christian socialists draw parallels between what some have characterized as the egalitarian and anti-establishment message of Jesus, and the messages of modern Socialism. Scientific socialism: It undertakes a scientific investigation of historical and social development, which, in the form of Marxism, proposes not that socialism 'should' replace capitalism, but forecasts that it inevitably 'would' replace capitalism. Fundamentalist socialism: This ideology aims to abolish and replace the capitalist system, observing socialism as qualitatively different from capitalism. Fundamentalist socialists, such as Marxists and communists, generally associate socialism with common ownership of some form. Revisionist socialism: This ideology believe in reform, looking to reach an accommodation between the efficiency of the market and the enduring moral vision of socialism. This is most clearly articulated in social democracy. The moral power of socialism originates not from its concern with what people are like, but with what they have the capacity to become. This has led socialists to develop utopian visions of a better society in which human beings can attain sincere emancipation and fulfilment as members of a community. In this regard, socialism is intended to persist because it serves as a reminder that human development can extend beyond market individualism.
ESTABLISHING A SOCIALISTIC STATE BY REFORMISM OR REVOLUTION: Reformist socialists, exemplified by Eduard Bernstein, take the view that a socialist state will evolve out of political reforms won by the struggle of the socialists. "The socialist movement is everything to me while what people commonly call the goal of Socialism is nothing."These views are considered a "revision" of Marxist thought.
Revolutionary Marxists, following Marx, take the view that the working class grows stronger through its battle for reforms (such as, in Marx's time, the ten-hours bill): "Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers... it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the ten-hours’ bill in England was carried." — Marx and Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Chapter I. Bourgeois and Proletarians Nevertheless, according to the orthodox Marxist conception, these battles of the workers eventually reach a point at which a revolutionary movement arises. A revolutionary movement is required, in the view of Marxists, to sweep away the capitalist state, which must be smashed, so as to begin to construct a socialist society: "In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat." — Marx and Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Chapter I. Bourgeois and Proletarians In this view, only through revolution can a socialist state be established. CHAPTER VI CHALLENGES TO THE SOCIALISTIC STATE 1. A socialist state is based on the international category of class, which enables a new approach to the ‘national question’. Only through a resolute focus on class is the recognition of and equality between nationalities fully achieved. To be clear: by ‘national question’ I mean not the ‘nation’ as it is understood now (as an imagined community) but the question of nationalities (minzu), which should not be translated as ‘ethnic minorities’. In each state a number of nationalities exist together. One may approach such a reality either by prioritising ‘cultural-national’ factors (what may be called ‘culturism’) or by focusing resolutely on class. Only with class does one enable the dialectical
position in which class unity produces not merely recognition and equality, but a whole new level of diversity. In other words, a socialist state enables a new approach to the dialectic of the universal and particular. 2. This dialectic is embodied in the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasants. This is a totalising unity based on class that produces new levels of diversity, and it requires a linking of liberation from class oppression with liberation from national oppression. When this link is made, the role of the dictatorship of the proletariat becomes clear: it is the necessary foundation for the equality between and indeed diversity of peoples of different nations, after liberation has been achieved. The dictatorship of the proletariat does so by guaranteeing the rights of national minorities. 3. A socialist state is the source and embodiment of what may be called affirmative action (polozhitel’naia deiatel’not’). This was first enacted in the Soviet Union on a vast scale and has been followed, with modifications, by all socialist states since – especially China. The program involves a comprehensive effort at social, cultural and economic recreation. Nationalities, no matter how small, are identified, named and established in territories, where local language, culture, education and governance are fostered. Dispersed minorities with no territory are provided with strong legal protections. I use the term ‘recreation’ quite deliberately, for it is very much a creative act entailing the creation of groups, peoples and nations – to the point of creating new nationalities out of groups that had never dreamed of such an existence. The process involves the deliberate intervention by socialists into the process of producing and developing a new society, among which national groups play a central role. 4. A socialist state undertakes cultural revolution. By this I mean the raising of the many people of the state to a new socialist level. In the Soviet Union ‘cultural revolution’ meant ‘the cultural development of the working class and of the masses of the working peasantry, not only the development of literacy, although literacy is the basis of all culture, but primarily the cultivation of the ability to take part in the administration of the country’. In China, we need to reclaim the meaning of cultural revolution in this sense, and not in terms of the period of the 1960s and 1970s. In other words, cultural revolution means Marxism’s influence on and infiltration into social and cultural assumptions. This
is increasingly clear in China, where Marxism is becoming a cultural force, indeed a part of the long history of Chinese culture. 5. A socialist state is anti-colonial. This crucial insight first appeared in the Soviet Union: the October Revolution and the affirmative action program of the Soviet Union functioned as a microcosm of the global struggle against colonialism. This insight is a logical extension of the argument I noted earlier, in which a focus on class provides a distinct, dialectical, approach to the national question that leads to the world’s first affirmative action program. Once this logic is applied to national minorities, it also may be applied to gender, religion, and then anti-colonial struggles. The logic is clear: socialism has led to a new approach to nationalities, liberating them and fostering them through the affirmative action program; further, socialism is opposed on a global scale to capitalist imperialism; therefore, global socialism engages in and fosters anti-colonial struggles throughout the world. No wonder the Soviet Union actively supported anticolonial struggles around the world, so much so that what we call post-colonialism, as both an era and a theory, could not have happened without such anti-colonial action. This also applies to China, whose socialist revolution was also an anti-colonial revolution, finally throwing off European semi-colonialism (which dated from the nineteenth century) and Japanese colonialism. China’s involvement today in formerly colonised countries in the world is a continuation of this anti-colonial policy by the most powerful socialist state in history. 6. A socialist state must deal with counter-revolutionary forces within and especially international efforts to undermine it (the two are often connected). Whenever a socialist revolution happens, we do not find international capitalist countries saying, ‘Wonderful! Go ahead, construct your socialist country. We will leave you in peace; indeed, we are enthusiastic bystanders’. Instead, historical reality reveals consistent efforts to undermine and overthrow socialist states, including the fostering of counter-revolutionary forces within. We need only recall the ‘civil’ wars in Russia and China, the international blockades, sabotage, efforts at destabilisation in Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong, and the international pastime – found even among international Marxists – of ‘China bashing’. 7. The communist party is integral to a socialist state. This is a relationship of transcendence and immanence: the party arises from and expresses the will of the masses of workers,
farmers and intellectuals, while it also directs the masses. From the masses, to the masses – as Mao Zedong stated. If the relationship is broken, the party loses its legitimacy and the project is over. Thus, the party undergoes constant renewal and reform in order to maintain legitimacy. If a communist party accedes to a bourgeois or liberal democratic system, it is soon out of power, for bourgeois democracy is one of the most effective weapons against socialism. 8. A socialist state develops socialist democracy. Integral to socialist democracy is the communist party in terms of transcendence and immanence in relation to the masses. In contrast to Greek democracy, liberal (or bourgeois) or illiberal democracy, socialist democracy includes the majority of the population – workers, peasants and intellectuals. Socialist democracy is a constantly evolving process and may, as Mao Zedong pointed out, include – among others – stages of new democracy, democratic dictatorship and democratic centralism. The latter is the reality in China today. 9. In a socialist state we find the growth of socialist civil society. This is in contrast to bourgeois civil society, which entails a basic alienation between private individual and the state, as well as a systemic exclusion of the majority. Instead of this alienation, socialist civil society operates in a new way, in the dialectical space between official discourse and individual expression, in which the individual finds freedom through the collective. Indeed, socialist civil society is based on a redefinition of freedom, which provides a new universal based on the particularity of the majority, in an explicitly open way. This freedom is a freedom from bourgeois civil society and freedom for the socialist project. Eventually, the category of freedom itself will become an everyday habit. Conclusion In this free market world socialism has become nothing short of history the concepts of equal distribution of wealth among the citizens and common ownership of the forces have become a distant dream . but yet socialism still lives on within the new founded concept of a welfare state. Ensuring certain fundamental rights of the citizens are protected and making sure the state works towards the progress of the society are the main elements of this welfare state . yet this is not enough as more than half of the world has fallen prey to the greed of the liberalistic capitalist ideologies. But certain
Scandinavian states and theexception of cuba have made sure that their countries stay a socialistic as possible.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Edmund Fawcett, LIBERALISM, The life of an idea, 2nd edition. 2. Michael Freedon, Liberalism: A very short introduction, oxford. 3. Alan Ryan, The making of modern liberalism 4. Larry Siedentop , Inventing the individual, The origins of western liberalism. 5. Ludwig von mises, Socialism: an economic and sociological analysis 6. www.4pt.su/en/content/critique-liberal-ideology
