SOCIALISM (see25.301^[1]).—Socialism is at once a theory, orrather a whole body of theories, and a movement, or rather anumber of movements more or less closely connected. The namehas been used during the past century to describe many differentsocial theories, in all of which a common character has beenperceived. In recent times it has come to be used less with referenceto any definite theory than for the purpose of describing themovements in various countries which have adopted the nameor have declared their adhesion to Socialism. It is thus possible,in setting out to give a summary account of Socialism, to describeit either by its connotation, that is to say, in terms of the ideasfor which it stands, or by its denotation, that is, in terms of thegroups and parties which profess allegiance to it. But neither ofthese methods of description is by itself satisfactory, nor is itpossible by either, or even by a combination of both, to arrive ata satisfactory or adequate definition of Socialism. The word isused, and has been used increasingly in recent years, in a numberof different and frequently overlapping senses. It has changedits meaning with time: but the changes have not served to clarifyit, but rather to increase the number of different senses in whichthe term is used.

It would be well to begin by ruling altogether out from thescope of this article certain popular uses of the term which havebeen current especially during the past generation. Thewell-known phrase, “We are all Socialists now,” and the constantreferences to “socialistic legislation,” only serve to obscure thereal meanings which attach to the word. When it is said that,“We are all Socialists now,” all that is meant is that everybodynowadays is prepared to agree that a greater measure of governmentalintervention both in industry and in the affairs of societygenerally is necessary than was currently regarded as necessaryor even possible 100 years ago.

The phrase “socialistic legislation” again is frequently usedto cover almost any extension of governmental activity in thesphere either of industry or of provision under the State or underlocal government auspices for the needs of the people. Thephrase “socialistic taxation” is used, with a greater approximationto accuracy, in reference to those forms of taxation whichaim not merely at producing revenue for the public authorities,but at bringing about an actual readjustment in the distributionof income in the community, arrived at by the unregulated operationof capitalist economic forces. Again, almost any extensionin the sphere of local government action, such as the taking overof a tramway system or the establishment of banking or insurancefacilities by a local authority, is frequently referred to as“municipal socialism,” even if the public body which inauguratesthis policy does not consist of members who profess anyallegiance to, or have any sympathy with, the doctrines of anySocialist party or group. All these and similar uses of the word“Socialism” are here ruled out of consideration.

The word “Socialism” first came into use in the third or fourthdecade of the 19th century in England and France. Thefirst-known literary reference to it occurs in the “Poor Man'sGuardian” in 1833; but it is believed that the word was occasionallyused at an earlier date in both France and England. In GreatBritain it was most frequently used during the first half of the19th century in reference to the doctrines associated with thename of Robert Owen and his disciples, and to the theories of theanti-capitalist economists, such as W. Thompson, who werelargely affected by Owenite teaching. In France the name similarlyattached itself to the doctrines of thinkers of whom the mostimportant were followers of St. Simon and Fourier. Its use thenspread much more rapidly on the continent of Europe than inGreat Britain, and it was mainly in connexion with the growth ofcontinental Socialist movements (Louis Blanc in 1848; the FirstInternational Working Men's Association in the 'sixties and theParis Commune of 1871) that it was used by English writers,until it was reimported into Great Britain as the name applied toa constructive body of doctrines in the early 'eighties, especiallyunder the auspices of H. M. Hyndman and the DemocraticFederation (subsequently the Social Democrat Federation).

It is important to realize that in all its modern meanings theword “Socialism” refers definitely to doctrines and movementswhich owe their rise to the growth of large-scale production andthe capitalist system in industry. It is, indeed, sometimesapplied to theories and Utopian speculations, such as those of SirThomas More, which have no direct reference to any particularstage of social evolution and are merely attempts to outline thestructure of an ideal commonwealth. But, although suchUtopias as those of Plato and More may present features ofresemblance to the doctrines of modern Socialism, there is no realconnexion between these and the theories or attitudes towardsproperty which are sometimes comprehended under the terms“mediaeval Socialism” and “mediaeval Communism.”Socialism, as a body of doctrine and as a movement applicable tomodern conditions—and these are the senses of the term whichmatter to the student—made its appearance when the changesin methods of production and transport, which are usuallydescribed as the “Industrial Revolution,” had created the modernworking class or “proletariat,” and had caused this class tomake the attempt to organize for common protection against thethe evil effects of new industrial conditions.

Modern Socialism, although it has claimed many adherentsbelonging to other classes, is thus essentially a working-class or“proletarian” movement, in that it is based upon and directlydue to the rise of the “proletariat” as a distinct social classcapable of independent class organization and suffering under a senseof injustice and inhibition. The Socialism of the Owenite periodserves in certain respects very clearly to reveal this essentialcharacter of the movement. Owen himself has indeed beendescribed by subsequent social thinkers—by Marx, for example—as a “Utopian” Socialist; but the rise of the Owenite movementis very clearly and directly traceable to the actualeconomic conditions of the early 19th century. It was out of hisexperience as a factory manager and owner at New Lanark andelsewhere that Owen developed his Socialist doctrines; and, inthe minds of most of his followers even more than Owenhimself, these doctrines possessed always a close and definite relationto the rise of the working class to social consciousness andto the possibility of social power. Thus, while Owen wasexpounding his doctrine of ideal Coöperative or Socialistcommunities, and endeavouring to demonstrate by practical experimentpossibilities of achieving Socialism by the foundation of suchcommunities in the midst of a rapidly developing capitalistenvironment, many of those who were most affected by hisdoctrines were engaged either, as economists, in developing theircritique of the current economic theories based on capitalism, or,as leaders in the new-born working-class movement, in endeavouringto organize the “proletariat” for the winning of controlover industry and over the machinery of Society. The GrandNational Consolidated Trades Union, in which Owenite ideasplayed so large a part, was organized by men who were aimingnot merely at the protection of the working class in face ofthe adverse conditions created by the new factory system, butat a definite transformation of the industrial order and thewinning of control over industry for the “productive classes.”This aim was even more clearly defined in the other great“Owenite” union of the period, the Builder's Union, and itsabortive plan of 1833 for the formation of a Grand National Gildof Builders. The Chartist movement, which was largelyinfluenced by Owenite and Socialist ideas, was definitely aiming atthe conquest of political power by the organized working classwith a view to social transformation.

Socialism in Great Britain thus came into existence as: (1)a challenge to the orthodox economic theories of Ricardo andother writers; and (2) an attempt to win power in Society for theorganized working class. It was, however, left for later thinkers,and above all for Karl Marx (1818-83), to take up where theyhad been dropped by the original English pioneers both theanti-capitalist economic teachings and the endeavour to build up theworking-class movement into a constructive force aiming at thetransformation of the social order. The Socialism of Karl Marxis frequently contrasted with the Socialism of previous thinkersas being “scientific,” whereas their Socialism was “Utopian.”But, in fact, Marx's Socialism was very largely based upon thatof the earlier thinkers and working-class leaders, although he forthe first time formulated into a definite system the views and thepolicy which they had only suggested and sought after.

All modern Socialism, even that of the schools which repudiateor at least profess no allegiance to Marx, has been profoundlyinfluenced by him. This applies even to those schools ofAnarchist Communists and French and Italian Syndicalists whoseem to have least in common with Marxian teaching; for, evenin their case, many Marxian ideas have blended with the ideaswhich they have derived from other Socialist andquasi-Socialistthinkers, such as P. J. Proudhon; and, although they haveinterpreted the Marxian teaching differently, a great deal of it hasfound its way into their systems and policies.

Marx's first important contribution to Socialist thinking,TheCommunist Manifesto (1847), which was drafted jointly byhim and Friedrich Engels, is generally recognized as the startingpoint of the modern Socialist movement. HisDas Kapital, ofwhich the first volume was published in 1867, is the working-outinto a system of the most vital ideas originally presented inTheCommunist Manifesto. These works have, of course, been translatedinto practically all European languages, and their ideashave generally passed into the common stock of European Socialistthought. This has hitherto been true of Great Britain in aless degree than of any other important industrial country; buteven English Socialism began in the 'eighties on an essentiallyMarxian foundation, and, although Marx fell into disfavour withBritish Socialists in the 'nineties and in the earlier years of thepresent century, there has recently been an important revival ofthe study of his works among the more radical section of theBritish working-class movement. In other countries theorganized Socialist movement is in practically all cases definitelyMarxian, and bases its thinking and its propaganda throughouton Marxian terminology and Marxian ideas. Thus we findthat, as divergent currents have again and again appeared inEuropean Socialism, the name of Marx and his fundamentalconceptions have been invoked, for the purpose of justifyingwidely divergent policies and conceptions. During the past fewyears, for example, a great pamphleteering controversy has beenproceeding between Nikolai Lenin on the one side and KarlKautsky on the other, representing two very different tendenciesin European Socialism. Each of these writers bases his contentionson an almost theological reverence for the words of Marx,and seeks to justify his position by copious quotations fromMarx's books and manifestos.

In the criticism which has been directed against Marx byorthodox economists in many countries, attention has been paidmainly to his theory of value, and only in a considerably lessdegree to his theory of history. This is unfortunate; for there isno doubt that the theory of value has played a quite secondarypart to the so-called “materialist conception of history” in theinfluence which Marx's teaching has exercised on the modernworking-class movement. The theory of value, as it waspresented by Marx, and his attempt to build a theoretical economicsystem on the idea of labour as the source of value andexploitation as consisting in the appropriation by a privileged class,the owners of the means of production, of the surplus valuecreated by labour, was mainly a criticism and inversion, to suitSocialist ends, of the current economics of Marx's own day. LikeThompson and the earlier English economists to whom he owedso much, Marx took the Ricardian theory of value and drewfrom it conclusions by no means acceptable to orthodox economictheorists. Undoubtedly his ideas of “surplus value,” andexploitation resulting from the individual appropriation of“surplus value,” played an important part in creating the sense ofinjustice and oppression among the workers; but by themselvesthey would never have sufficed to give Marx his dominant positionas the theorist of modern Socialism.

This position depends far more on his theory of history, theeffect of which was to give to those members of the workingclass who encountered his teaching the sense of possessing amission and of having on their side the great world forces of socialtransformation. Interpreting historical changes as the result ofthe operation of economic forces, Marx insisted that to each stagein the evolution of the means of production there corresponds anevolution in the forms of political society and in the class structureof society. The industrial system of the 19th century, heclaimed, had called into existence a new social class, the propertyless,wage-earning “proletariat”; for, although there had beencapitalists and wage-earners in earlier stages of social evolution,the economic structure of Society had not before been basedupon the dominance of the capitalists as a class. Nor had the“proletariat” been called into existence as a class, confrontingthe possessing capitalists throughout the industrial system inall the countries of the world which had reached the capitalistphase. The next stage in social evolution, according to Marx,would be the rise to power of the “proletariat,” and, just as thecapitalists had risen to power and displaced or absorbed theprivileged classes with which social authority had previouslyrested, so the “proletariat” under the system of large-scaleindustry would improve its organization and increase its strengthuntil it was able to do battle with, and to overthrow, the capitalistclass. In expounding this theory of “economic determinism”or the “materialist conception of history,” Marx made a numberof prophecies concerning the actual future of capitalistindustrialism which have not thus far been at all completely verified.The progressive elimination of the small capitalist, the aggregationof the control of capital into fewer and fewer hands, theprogressive “misery” of the “proletariat,” which Marxprophesied, are forecasts in which truth and falsehood are intertwined.But these prophecies concerning the actual course of events arein no sense vital to his central idea, which is that of the gradualrise to power of the “proletariat” or working class, and theconquest by it of economic authority, resulting necessarily in thetransformation of the political structure of Society and in theabolition of social classes.

It is easy to see that this doctrine was bound to exercise astrong fascination over the minds of those men and women ofthe working classes who were brought into contact with it.Whereas, without some such theory they were conscious only ofthe enormous strength of the forces to which they were subject,and of their manifest weakness as almost property-lesswage-earners, living in constant insecurity, at the mercy of tradefluctuations which resulted periodically in widespread unemployment,Marx gave them the sense of fulfilling an historic mission,and of having on their side a world-force far more powerful thanthe huge economic and political strength which seemed to be inthe possession of the ruling classes of the day. It is this onething, and one thing only, that explains the veneration in whichMarx is held throughout practically the whole Socialist movement.It was he, who, more than anyone else, gave the workingclass a sense of power, and imported into their efforts towardsorganization and concerted resistance to the evils to which theyfound themselves subject a conscious purpose not merely ofcombating capitalism, but also of replacing it.

In the earlier article some account was given of the rise ofSocialist parties in various European countries. This rise continuedat an increasing pace in later years, a great impetus havingbeen given to the Socialist forces in almost all parts of Europe bythe circumstances of the World War.

There was in 1921 in every industrialized country at least oneSocialist party, possessing in the majority of cases a considerablerepresentation in its national Parliament. Indeed, in manycountries there had come into being more than one Socialist party;for the process of unification of Socialist political forces whichhad been proceeding steadily up to the outbreak of the war gaveplace to a separatist tendency, which resulted in a regrouping offorces in most of the countries in which the movement was strong.The first cause of these divisions was the attitude of Socialiststowards the outbreak of the World War. In almost all belligerentcountries the Socialist parties became divided over theissues of the war. In some cases these divisions of opinionresulted in actual cleavages within the various parties; in othersthe parties held together, but acute divisions of opinion continuedinside them. These differences were greatly accentuated by theRussian revolutions of 1917, which inevitably exercised a verypowerful influence on Socialist opinion throughout the world.Just as, in its earlier days as an organized political movement,Socialism always tended to look back to the Paris Commune of1871, it now even more definitely looks back to the Russianrevolutions of 1917, upon which the most acute divisions ofopinion in the world of Socialism to-day are based. Any attempt,therefore, to analyze the forces at work in the Socialist movementof the various countries in 1921 must begin by taking into accountthe new alignment of opinion caused by the Russian revolutions.

The first Russian revolution of 1917 was universally acclaimedby Socialists throughout the world. It meant for them theoverthrow of Tsardom and the destruction of the most powerful andcomplete absolutist monarchy left in the world. Moreover,refugees from Russia had played an important part in the Socialistmovement in almost all countries in which it had become organized.It was not the first of the Russian revolutions but thecoup of Nov. 1917 that divided acutely the Socialists of the variouscountries. Everywhere the left wing of the Socialists acclaimedthe Bolshevik Revolution, while the right wing was hostile towhat it regarded as the overthrow of the “democratic” institutionswhich had been introduced under the Kerensky regime.

During the following years, from 1918-21, the differences withinthe Socialist ranks resulting from the Bolshevik Revolutionwere steadily accentuated. Under the auspices of the RussianBolsheviks, or Communists as they now call themselves, witha definite reference back toThe Communist Manifesto of 1847, anew international organization of Socialism, the Third or MoscowInternational, was inaugurated, and an appeal was made tothe “proletariat” in all countries to rally to this new body, ofwhich the fundamental ideas were the overthrow of the capitalistregime by the intensive prosecution of the class war, involvingthe use of force, and the assumption by the “proletariat” ofdictatorship over Society during the “transitional period,”which would be necessary both for the combating of theattempts of the “counter-revolution” to regain power, and for thelaying of the foundations of a Socialist or Communist societyfree from class distinctions. During the years after the BolshevikRevolution these Communist doctrines gradually spread overEurope, and resulted in the formation in most countries ofCommunist groups and parties of varying degrees of importance.Sometimes these began by working as groups within the existingSocialist parties, and sometimes they succeeded in winning overto their side a majority of the older Socialist parties, which thusbecame Communist. In other cases, however, the Communists,unable to command a majority in the Socialist parties in othercountries, founded new and rival parties of their own.

Thus in 1921 the position of European Socialism wasextraordinarily complicated, as a reference to the state of affairs in afew of the principal countries will readily indicate. In Francethe Communists had succeeded in securing a majority in theranks of the French Socialist party, and it had thereupon changedits name to the French Communist party. The minority, whichrefused to accept the change in name and policy, thereuponreformed the Socialist party as a coalition of right wing and centralelements. In Italy the Socialist party, which was throughoutopposed to Italian participation in the war, at first affiliated tothe Moscow International; but subsequently differences arose asto the strategy to be adopted, and these led to a split in theranks of the party, the extreme Communists, who were in aminority, seceding and forming a Communist party of theirown, while the right and centre, including many Communists,held together as the Italian Socialist party. In Germany theSocial Democratic party split during the war. A majoritysection of the party supported the German Government in theprosecution of the war and voted war credits. Gradually aminority party formed, and finally the anti-war elements leftthe Social Democratic party and formed the Independent Socialistparty. After the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia two smallCommunist parties were also formed in Germany. In 1920 themajority of the Independent Socialist party resolved uponadhesion to the Moscow International and united with theCommunist factions to form the German Communist party.The right wing of the Independent Socialist party continued inexistence under the old name; and there were thus in Germany,in 1921, three distinct parties, Social Democrats or MajoritySocialists, Independent Socialists, and Communists. In GreatBritain the position was somewhat different; for political actionwas taken through the Labour party, a federation of trade unions,Socialist societies and kindred bodies. Of the Socialist societies,the British Socialist party, the direct descendant of the SocialDemocratic Federation, the earliest Socialist body in Great Britain,affiliated to the Moscow International and became thenucleus of a Communist party which applied for affiliation to theLabour party, but was refused. The Independent Labour party,which, unlike the Labour party as a whole, was hostile toparticipation in the war, nevertheless remained affiliated to theLabour party. There were thus only two groups undertakingpolitical action in Great Britain—the Labour party, includingthe Independent Labour party, on the one hand, and the small,but militant, Communist party on the other.

These instances, drawn from a very much larger number,serve to illustrate the general character of the divisions which hadarisen in the world Socialist movement since the RussianRevolutions of 1917. As the movement has been divided nationally, soa division has taken place in the international organization ofSocialism. Before the war most of the Socialist parties of theworld were loosely held together by the Congresses of the “SecondInternational,” of which the first was held in 1889. Outof the Congresses developed the International Socialist Bureau,which was formed in 1900. The Bureau was unable to functioneffectively during the war, both because communications were toa large extent interrupted, and because of the differences ofopinion between and among the various national sections.Various attempts were made to secure united action by all thenational Socialist parties; but, in face of the opposition of theGovernments and of internal differences, these produced littleresult, the attempt to call an International Socialist conferenceat Stockholm in 1918 breaking down. The Socialist parties ofthe Allied countries, however, held a number of conferences, anddrew up a declaration of war aims, which exercised a certaininfluence. Immediately on the conclusion of hostilities stepswere taken to convene a full International Socialist conference,and an attempt was made to reform the pre-war SocialistInternational. The reformed body, however, known as the “SecondInternational,” never became, in face of acute differencesof opinion, at all fully representative, and during 1919 and 1920there were numerous secessions from it, until it came to consistprincipally of the British Labour party, the German SocialDemocratic party (Majority Socialists), and the Socialist partiesof a number of small countries such as Sweden, Poland, Belgiumand Holland. A number of Socialist parties held aloof both fromthe Second and from the Third International, and these bodiesin 1920 formed a provisional International “Working Union,”of which the aim was the reconstitution at a later stage of afully representative and inclusive Socialist International. Thisprovisional body, sometimes known as the “Vienna International,”includes the British Independent Labour party, the GermanIndependent Socialist party, the French and Swiss Socialistparties, and a number of others. The Italian Socialists were in1921 unconnected with any of the three Internationals.

There can be no doubt that the division of opinion in theSocialist ranks which is reflected in these divisions in nationaland international organization is very profound. With the growthof parliamentary representation, the political Socialist partiesof the various countries have been becoming steadily moremoderate and constitutional in their outlook. But the Moscowrevolution, accomplished by insurrectionary methods and by“proletarian” direct action, represented a challenge to thecenstitutional political attitude of the more orthodox Socialistparties. Those which have rallied to the call of Moscow professto be the only true inheritors of the Marxian tradition and thelegitimate successors of the International Working Men'sAssociation, or “First International,” of 1864. It is stillimpossible in 1921 to forecast the result of the conflicts between thissection and the older Socialist parties; but it seems likely thatthe divisions which have come into existence will be to aconsiderable extent permanent, even if the ultimate point of cleavagehas not yet been discovered.

James Bonar on p. 301 of vol. 25 defines Socialism as “thatpolicy or theory which aims at securing by the action of thecentral democratic authority a better distribution and, in duesubordination thereunto, a better production of wealth than nowprevails.” It will be clear from what has been said above that thisdefinition is certainly no longer adequate or correct in 1921,even if it could be regarded as adequate at the time at which itwas made. It is as true now as then that all schools of Socialismare united in seeking a better distribution and also a betterproduction of wealth; but it cannot be assumed that this is soughtsolely or even mainly “through the action of the centraldemocratic authority,” or that many Socialists would agree thatany such body as a “central democratic body” exists in thecommunity as it is organized to-day. Any present-day definition ofSocialism would certainly have to emphasize the fact that it seeksnot merely a better distribution and production of wealth, but afundamental reorganization in the whole system of organizedSociety, political as well as economic. At the time when Bonarwrote, Socialists, especially in Great Britain, were largelyengaged in combating the still prevalent doctrines oflaissez-fairepoliticians and economists, and in seeking to emphasize thenecessity for a greater measure of collective regulation of thesocial and economic life of the community. In Great Britain,more than elsewhere, many Socialists came to regard the politicalState, or machinery of government, as the principal instrumentof this regulation, and to look forward to the transition toSocialism mainly through the nationalization, or transference toState ownership, of all vital industries and services, togetherwith an extension of municipal ownership in the sphere of localpublic-utility services. This idea of the form of the transition toSocialism fitted in well with the stress which was laid, duringthe 'nineties and the earlier years of the 20th century,upon political action. This period witnessed the formation, firstof the Independent Labour party, and then in 1900 of the LabourRepresentation Committee, which subsequently became theLabour party. It was also the period during which the FabianSociety, with its propaganda of political permeation, largelyinfluenced British Socialism, and diverted it from the Marxismof its earlier development in the 'eighties.

But from 1910 onwards new currents of opinion were increasinglyaffecting these accepted dogmas of Socialism, both inGreat Britain and elsewhere. Important, in this connexion, isthe rise of the Syndicalist movement in France, which was at itszenith in the earlier years of the 20th century, and of the SocialistLabour party and the Industrial Workers of the World in theUnited States of America. There were important differencesbetween the standpoints of French Syndicalism, which wasderived largely from the semi-Anarchist doctrines of Proudhon andhis school, and American Industrial Unionism, based by DanielDe Leon and his followers upon the large-scale and “trustified”American capitalist system. But they were alike in stressingrather the economic than the political character of the transitionto a Socialist system, and in demanding more aggressiveaction by the workers in the industrial field. In Great Britainand in other European countries these doctrines, although theywere not accepted in their completeness, exercised a powerfulinfluence, seen especially in Great Britain in the rise of theGuild Socialist movement after 1912 (seeGuild Socialism).

Whereas Syndicalism and, in some of its forms, IndustrialUnionism directly challenged the utility of Socialist politicalaction and demanded an exclusive concentration upon the industrialfield, the Guild Socialists never took up this attitude, butsought, without disparaging political action, to secure an intensificationof industrial activity, and in particular a change in theattitude of Socialists towards the problem of industrial control.Their influence in this direction has extended far beyond theirown ranks, and it is not too much to say that the effect of thevarious movements possessing largely an industrial character—Syndicalism, Industrial Unionism, Guild Socialism, etc.—has been to bring about a revolution in Socialist thinking on thisquestion. It is no longer assumed by Socialists that nationalizationis necessarily desirable, or that the transference of industryto the State, even if it be accomplished by a political victory ofSocialists, furnishes an adequate solution of the industrial prob-lem. Most Socialists are agreed in desiring, in a greater or lessdegree, as an integral part of any Socialist system, the control ofthe administration of industry by the organized workers by handand brain who are engaged in it.

Nor has this change in the attitude of Socialists towards theproblem of industry been without its effect in other spheres ofpolicy. As Socialism passed from its earlier revolutionary intoits middle purely constitutional and political phase, it camegradually to be assumed that the realization of Socialism wouldinvolve only the capture of political power by the Socialistparties and the use of the existing machinery of Society—modifiedperhaps in certain particulars, but remaining essentially thesame—for socialist instead of for individualist ends. There isnow acute division of opinion on this question; but most Socialistsare far more ready than in 1910 to agree that the realizationof Socialism would involve not a mere conquest of political powerand the assumption of control over the machinery of governmentby the workers, but also a profound transformation in themachinery of government itself. By Lenin and the Communists(see Lenin'sThe State and Revolution for the best statement ofthis point of view) the State is regarded as purely a “capitalistorgan,” the tool of a dominant class in Society. In the words ofThe Communist Manifesto, they regard the State as “anExecutive Committee for administering the affairs of the wholegoverning class.” Such an instrument, essentially coercive in itscharacter, will in their view become unnecessary with the realizationof Socialism. During the transitional period of “dictatorship”the “proletariat” will indeed require an instrument fullyas coercive as the capitalist State. But the Communist view ofthe existing machinery of the State cannot be adapted for thispurpose, but must be destroyed and replaced by a “quasi-State”based definitely and exclusively upon the power of the workersthemselves. Gradually, as the realization of Socialism comesnearer, they hold that this “quasi-State” will “wither away” andgive place to a free organization of Society in which “government,”which they understand to imply a system based on coercion, willbe replaced by “administration.” Even among those Socialistswho do not accept this Communist view, keen criticism has beendirected in recent times upon the structure of the present-dayState and upon the conception of political democracy which wasalmost universally accepted in the 19th century. Universalpolitical suffrage is no longer held to furnish any adequate basis,or even necessarily any basis at all, for truly democraticinstitutions; for it is pointed out that, as long as great inequalities ofwealth and power exist in the community, and as long as theindustrial system is based on an acute division of classes, this“political democracy” is in fact inoperative, since the powerand wealth of the few can be used in order to prevent the will ofthe people from finding expression, and, indeed, to prevent thepeople from developing any conscious or clearly formulated willof its own. By the Guild Socialists and by many others of thenewer schools of Socialist thought, stress is laid upon the importanceof securing a system of democratic self-government in theindustrial sphere as the necessary condition of democracy in politicsor in Society as a whole.

These changes in the conception of Socialist aim and methodhave resulted in a much closer relationship between Socialistideas and the definitely economic forms of working-classorganization, such as Trade Unionism and Coöperation. No longerbasing their hopes of Socialism entirely upon action in the politicalsphere, Socialists are driven more and more to rely on thedevelopment of the organizations created by the working classesthemselves for the protection of their interests and standard oflife, under capitalism. Whereas the earlier Socialists appealedto Trade Unionists and Coöperators to realize the necessityfor Socialism and to embark upon political action, the newerschools of Socialism are endeavouring also to influence the policyof the Trade Unions and of the Coöperative movement in thedirection of Socialism applied to industry—that is, of the developmentand expansion of working-class industrial control (seeTrade Unionism andGuild Socialism).

The organization of the Socialist movement in Great Britain isoften exceedingly bewildering to those who approach it for thefirst time. There are a large number of bodies of varying degreesof importance, and often with names which bear a closeresemblance one to another. The Labour party, which is by far thelargest political body, may be regarded as definitely Socialistin the sense in which the majority of continental EuropeanSocialist parties are Socialist. Its annual conference has repeatedlypronounced, in general terms, in favour of Socialism, andits policy on the whole coincides with that of the “right wing”Socialist parties of Europe. At the same time, its main strengthis drawn from the trade unions. In 1920 it consisted of 126affiliated trade unions with a total affiliated membership of 3,511,000.In addition it included the Independent Labour party and theFabian Society and one or two smaller Socialist bodies. Locallyit was organized in several hundred Local Labour parties, whichin their turn consisted mainly of affiliated branches of tradeunions, Socialist societies and kindred bodies. These LocalLabour parties, under the new constitution of 1918, also admitindividual members who accept the aims of the party. There isa very considerable individual membership enrolled in this way;but no figures are available. In 1920 the Labour party had 66members in the House of Commons.

Apart from the Labour party, although in some cases affiliatedto it, are the various Socialist societies, of which the largestis still the Independent Labour party, which has been mentionedabove. This party had in 1920 35,000 members organized inlocal branches throughout the country. It had returned fivemembers as Independent Labour party members to the Houseof Commons; and these sat as members of the Labour party.In addition a considerable number of members who werereturned under the auspices of the trade unions, affiliated tothe Labour party, belonged to the Independent Labour party.

Next in point of size stands the Communist party of GreatBritain, formed in 1920 by a fusion of the British Socialist partywith a number of local Communist organizations. This party isaffiliated to the Third or Moscow International. It was gainingadherents in 1921. Its total membership, however, certainly didnot at that date exceed 10,000. Of minor Socialist parties thefollowing deserve mention. The Social Democratic Federation,formerly the National Socialist party, is the result of a splitwhich took place during the war in the British Socialist party.A section of the British Socialist party, including H. M. Hyndman,the veteran Socialist leader, and many of the older membersof the earlier Social Democratic Federation, resigned from theBritish Socialist party as a protest against its anti-war attitudeand formed a separate body of their own. The SocialDemocratic Federation (the name was again assumed at the end of 1920)is affiliated to the Labour party. It is very small, its membershipin 1920 being returned as 2,000.

The Fabian Society, founded in 1883-4, nas been principallyassociated with certain intellectual leaders of the right wingof British Socialism, especially Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb andMr. Bernard Shaw. It had about 2,000 members in 1920 andwas affiliated to the Labour party. Its pamphlets and otherpropagandist work exercised a powerful influence on the formationof Socialist opinion during the period from 1889 to 1910,but it has since ceased to count as an effective influence; for,although Mr. and Mrs. Webb and other leaders remained active,they had transferred their main activities to other bodies, suchas the Labour party itself.

The Socialist Labour party is an offshoot of the American“De Leonite” Socialist Labour party. It gained considerablyin membership and influence during the war, when its leadingmembers took a prominent part in the shop-stewards' movement,and in other rank-and-file trade-union and anti-warmovements. Most of its more active members, however, passedover to the Communist party in 1920; and it then ceased toexercise any considerable influence. The Socialist party ofGreat Britain is a very small and unimportant body of rigidMarxians of the extreme left wing. The National GuildsLeague, the propagandist organization of the Guild Socialists, isdescribed in the articleGuild Socialism.

It will be seen from the foregoing account that the Socialistmovements of the world were in 1921 in a state of unrest andtransition, due largely to the events of the war and to therevolutions in Russia. It is impossible to forecast what will be theultimate result of this ferment of forces and ideas, or in whatmanner the Socialist parties and societies of the world willeventually regroup themselves. Two clearly defined tendenciescan be seen in the movement. The first is a constitutionalist andparliamentary tendency, expressing itself in the activities of theMajority Socialist parties of many countries. Its adherentsrepudiate for the most part recourse to revolutionary methodssave under quite exceptional circumstances. At the otherextreme is the tendency represented by Communism and theCommunist parties which have arisen in most countries in recentyears. Its adherents favour the use of political as well as industrialaction, but regard the transition to Socialism essentially interms of force to be generated by the uprising of the “proletariat.”They envisage the transformation of Society by a catastrophicoverthrow of the existing political and economic system, and thesubstitution for it of a new system based on the “dictatorshipof the proletariat.” Between these two extremes there is noequally definite central body of opinion extending to a numberof countries; but in almost every country there are “centrist”groups and tendencies, bearing in some cases a closer resemblanceto the constitutionalist right wing (e.g. the IndependentLabour party in Great Britain), and in others to the revolutionaryleft wing (e.g. the Socialist party in Italy).

The Guild Socialists and, in a less degree, the FrenchSyndicalistes stand to a considerable extent in a different position, sincein their case the main stress is laid neither on revolution nor onconstitutional political action, but on the extension of the industrialpower of the workers towards control over industry.

A marked feature of the more recent developments of theSocialist movement has been the growing closeness of therelationship between it and the economic organizations created bythe workers for the defence of their interests and aspirations asproducers and consumers. It has become far more manifestin the later years of the igth and the early years of the 20thcentury that Socialism is not solely, or even mainly, a politicalmovement, but at least equally an industrial movement, aimingat a fundamental transformation not simply in the ownership,but also in the control and administration of industry, and inthe motives upon which the industrial system depends. This is,indeed, to some extent a harking back to earlier conceptions ofSocialism, such as those of Robert Owen in Great Britain and ofLouis Blanc in France. It has resulted in a far closer affiliationbetween the Socialists of all schools, “right wing,” “left wing”and “centre” alike, and the trade-union movement; and thestruggles between the rival schools of Socialism now largelyreproduce themselves in the industrial sphere, as the variousSocialist sections seek to influence the policy and to secure theallegiance of the trade-union organizations. This is true to aless extent of the cooperative movement; but it is becomingincreasingly true in this case also.

Based, as it is, mainly upon the organized working-class movement,Socialism has necessarily, to a large extent, an economicbasis; but it is important to realize that a great deal of its drivingforce comes from the fact that it is not only an economicmovement, but also a movement based on certain clear anddefinite ideas which are largely shared by Socialists of all schools.

The differences between Socialists are far more differencesas to method than differences as to ideal. Thus all Socialists areagreed that the carrying-on of industry on a basis of privateprofit produces anti-social results, and that the idea that theinterests of the whole are best served by the enlightened pursuitby each private citizen of his own interests is fundamentallywrong. Although they differ widely as to the structure which aSocialist society should assume, and as to the forms of industrialadministration which would best express the new communityspirit, Socialists are agreed in demanding that all importantindustries and services should pass over from private hands intosome form of social ownership and control, whether into the handsof the State or of local authorities, or of self-governing guilds, orof the coöperative movement, or of other forms of organizationdesigned to express the communal spirit. They are agreed inbelieving the individual ownership of the means of production,distribution and exchange to be undesirable, and in holding thatboth the extent and the character of production should be determined,not by any anticipation of individual profit, but byconsiderations of social need. Moreover, all Socialists insist thatwith the change from the system of private ownership andcontrol in industry to social ownership and control must go a changein the motives which operate in the industrial system. Theyhold that, if industries and services are conducted under forms oforganization designed in the interests of the whole community,the motive of public service, which is at present thwarted andinhibited by the existence of capitalism, will be brought intoplay, with the result that the members of the community will bemore ready to render willing and efficient service. They arealso increasingly of the opinion, first strongly urged by theGuild Socialists, that in order to bring this motive of socialservice into play it will be essential to democratize the industrialas well as the political system, by providing for a largemeasure of self-government in industry by the “workers byhand and brain.”

The charge used to be brought against the Socialist partiesand groups of dwelling almost exclusively upon the economicconcerns of Society, and of caring little or nothing for otherquestions of social and political policy. This charge can hardlybe made nowadays; for the Socialist and Labour parties of theworld have in almost all cases been led to formulate inclusiveprogrammes and policies, and to take an active part in furtheringsocial reorganization in all spheres of both national andinternational policy. Perhaps the best exposition of the nationaland international policy of Socialism of the constitutionaltype is contained in the pamphletLabour and the New SocialOrder, issued by the British Labour party in 1918. Thispamphlet has had an important international influence. TheCommunist wing, more fully preoccupied with questions of revolutionthan with plans for reform under the existing system, has notissued any quite comparable declaration of its aims; but the newCommunist Manifesto of the Third (Moscow) Internationalfurnishes the clearest indication of its aims and policy as aninternational movement.

(G. D. H. C.)

1. ↑These figures indicate the volume and page number of the previous article.

• 75%

• Subpages
• Pages with contributor