Socialism: Definition And History Of The Social Movement

Socialism: Definition and history of the Social Movement

How to define socialism?

Socialism is a rather complicated social movement to define because it has been endowed with different meanings over the years, since depending on the culture or continent the problem changes;For this reason we often talk about "socialisms". Despite the large number of existing socialisms, such as authoritarian, libertarian, utopian, scientific, democratic, among others;The vast majority have remained only in theory.

We can try to give a more homogenized definition of what socialism is: as a basic and main idea we can say that as opposed to liberals they are contrary to individualism, they do not believe in private property, but their maxim is shared, and it is freedom. According to liberals, private property was necessary to reach freedom, but the socialists consider it an obstacle. Rousseau categorizes private property as the cause of inequality;Progressive socialists and liberals, are rational (inheritance of the French revolution) and believe both in legal and political-social equality, but moreover, socialists also believe economic equality to reach a freer society to reach a freer society. Then it is worth asking, are the poor? But really to know that it is liberalism we should look back and thus discover its origin and evolution.

Socialism in Europe arises at the end of the 18th century – the beginning of the nineteenth century with the revolutions that occurred in this period and their respective changes in society;the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution, which meant the great transformation.

So the origin is Anglo-French;This double origin divides socialism into new labor and renewed socialism, English and French version respectively.

François n. Babeuf in his work raises the foundations of a socialist society. Following the industrial revolution, a new social class arises, the proletariat. This revolution was not initially well received but was necessary, since it was an unequal system in which the bourgeois dominated and exploited the proletariat and possessed both economic and political power. As we have mentioned earlier, the Socialists pursued a free society, and for this it was necessary. To be free you have to prohibit?

As a result of this situation of misery, famines and inequalities, socialism is born that intends to be social welfare and the full realization of the individual. It is worth differentiating between two socialisms: utopian socialism represented by R. Owen and Saint-Simon, and scientific socialism represented by Karl Marx (and Friedrich Engels).

The British roots of utopian socialism came from the hand of Robert Owen, while the French came from Saint-Simon. As the name indicates, socialism begins as a utopia, which had a classes without classes in mind, and in which there were no dominated classes, but remained in a mere criticism since it did not propose real solutions. Robert Owen promotes social reforms, cooperation as opposed to private property, free association, and also stood out for rejecting violence. Saint-Simon believes necessary to introduce sociology in society for better economic, social and political planning, the objective of sociology is to study crises to find a solution. Another of Saint-Simon’s ideas is a harmonious society, which would be achieved with the passage of the existing feudal system focused on God, where there was a separation between working or industrial class and the parasitic class (as Saint-Simon called the classfeudal), to an industrial and scientific system. This step wanted to do it through positive science based on empiricism, constructive criticism and as an indispensable moral principles. There is another important thinker within utopian socialism, Charles Fourier;C. Fourier made a criticism of capitalist society, was one of the first to promulgate equality between both sexes and created the phalansteries (cooperative farms self-regulated by the proletariat itself).

After the failure of this first socialism arises from the hand of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels scientific or also known Marxism. What do they have in common? Both socialisms agree that the passage to an industrial society (Saint-Simon) or capitalist (Marx) leads to a crisis. What is the difference between them? Marxism differs from utopian socialism because they are able to analyze economic, social and political crises. Marx says that the three crises are interconnected and to explain one you have to understand the others. For Marx, the history of society is the history of class struggle and there is no science in society, which was called Sociology. They also differ in the idea of the result of reaching a capitalist or industrial society;According to utopian socialists, industrial society would lead us to a common welfare and social justice, against Marx believes that reaching capitalist society would open a new social gap between capital owners and those who only offer workforce, which, whichIt could lead to a revolution again due to the exploitation to which workers would be subjected by the capitalist’s desire to achieve benefits;This would inevitably lead to a blockbuster, the true cause of the crisis according to Marx.

Marx believes that this new capitalist system enhances the individual’s reification, because the worker will be forced to a purchase-sale (at market price) of his labor force, for this reason he defends a cohesion between morals and economy. So, the capitalist society is equal as they intended to be or has caused, if possible, more inequality between men? Are we subject or object in capitalist society?

At the end of the 19th century, an increase of national consciousness between the population begins to emerge, in turn, two new ideologies that start from Marxism;Fabianism and democratic revisionism or socialism.

As we have said fabianism is a bifurcation within Marxism that was born thanks to Sidney Webb. Fabians criticize capitalist society and their objective is to reach a collective society through the evolution of society (education) and not with the revolution. What they try to get is that the State is the full responsible for social welfare. First he will be responsible for administering both the means of production and natural resources (he decides that it is done and when it is done);In addition, it also has to be responsible for a fair redistribution of wealth through progressive taxes, and income control and interest, etc;All this collectively in objective to a common good. That is, it is sought that there is an economic-political-social planning by the State.

At this time, democratic revisionism or socialism is also born, which, as Fabianism arises as a criticism of the capitalist system. In this case, Eduard Bernstein arises when he doubts Karl Marx’s ideas about the reality of the capitalist system. It had been believed so far that socialism was something necessary and inevitable but e. Bernstein says no, it is actually voluntary after a reform period. Bernstein believes in a liberal state of law, based on populism and democracy eliminating class society, that is, a form of power where power resides in the people. A protection of the rights of people and minorities seeks.

Root of the Russian Revolution in 1917 a new division of socialism arises, in this period between wars face the previous democratic socialism and the communism of Lenin. The connection between the two was democracy, the fact is that each of these branches discerned in their interpretation. The Lenists believed that a democracy was necessary where the people had the power, is what was called the dictatorship of the proletariat, destined to disappear once they achieved their objectives;Also root of this 1917 revolution the Soviets arise, such as workers’ associations, which act parliamentally. In democratic socialism, the model of the liberal state of law is followed that is based on universal suffrage, respect for individual minorities and rights, and the division of powers. Really the communism that initially pursued free oppression ended up being very repressive as it was seen with Lenin and its subsequent successor Stalin that started the stage of terror in Russia. Democratic socialism in turn also had a tendency towards fascism, as we observed a few years ago (today) in Germany with Adolf Hitler, in Italy with Mussolini, and in Spain with General Francisco Franco.

What enhancing socialism and communism, in a way, was the freedom of the individual and the end of class society. Casa the fact that by wanting to achieve an egalitarian society your freedom is diminished?

Once World War II and fascisms have exceeded, the two previous currents flourish again. Democratic socialism at this time may, after all, be completely distancing from Marxism. How? With economic planning focused on human needs. A nationalization of all kinds of companies and an economic decentralization in which there is an indispensable requirement, the participation of state and citizen in the economy is carried out in the economy. To cover the needs of individuals, the right to work, education, health and home are created. At this time they rectify in their initial position that private property is not home with freedom and equality, they are now compatible;The only thing to keep in mind is that there is a control for balance. The Social Democratic system had some claims with the economic crises between the eighties and ninth, France was the promoter of new changes, that is, socialism renewed, with proposals such as: economic and business centralization, decentralization and democratization of the State, reorganizationsocial, etc.

To conclude with socialism we could say that its future is uncertain. It is very true that each and every one of the branches of socialism have ended in a defeat, either well having private property or democracy, perhaps because they all lead to the loss of one of the most important rights ofPerson, freedom? Nowadays the problems that socialism fought at the time, and socialism seeks better answers both in theory and practice.

In my opinion I do not consider this movement, perhaps this example is a bit absurd, but let’s get in a situation, let’s imagine that the class does an exam and the notes obtained are made an average and everyone is assigned to all the same. If the average note is a seven and I have taken a three, I will be happy and satisfied with my note, but now and if I have taken a nine? Do I deserve that they put a seven for the equal system imposed?, Does my effort not take into account? I know that it is perhaps absurd, but what I try to reflect with this example is that socialism in my opinion as theory or utopia is fine but at the time of practice it has incongruities. The human being tends to greed, as Hobbes said: "Man is a wolf for man". In a capitalist system, which we have arrived theoretically to avoid classes, the powerful capitalist will always be above the worker. And in a socialist system, the people are grouped to break the estates, but the need for a "leader" inevitably makes the strongest impose their strength to the rest. In both cases, a repression of each other has been reached.