Abstract
In the last chapter I analyzed the orthodox marxist version of socialism—socialism Russian-style, as it was called—and explained its effects on the process of production and the social moral structure. I went on to point out that the theoretically foreseen consequences of relative impoverishment proved to be so powerful that in fact a policy of socializing the means of production could never actually be carried through to its logical end: the socialization of all production factors, without causing an immediate economic disaster. Indeed, sooner or later all actual realizations of Marxist socialism have had to reintroduce elements of private ownership in the means of production in order to overcome or prevent manifest bankruptcy. Even moderate “market” socialism, however, cannot prevent a relative impoverishment of the population, if the idea of socialized production is not abandoned entirely, once and for all.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Cf. L. Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism, 3 vols., Oxford, 1978; also W. Leonhard, Sovietideologie heute. Die politischen Lehren, Frankfurt/M., 1963.
Cf. note 16 below on the assessment of the somewhat different practice.
Cf. E. Bernstein, Die Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie, Bonn, 1975, as a major expositor of the reformist-revisionist course; K. Kautsky, Bernstein und das sozialdemokratische Programm, Bonn, 1976, as exponent of the Marxist orthodoxy.
On the idea of a “market-socialism” cf. one of its leading representatives, O. Lange, “On the Economic Theory of Socialism,” in M. I. Goldman (ed.), Comparative Economic Systems, New York, 1971.
On the ideology of the German Social Democrats cf. T. Meyer (ed.), Demokratischer Sozialismus, Muenchen, 1980; G. Schwan (ed.), Demokratischer Sozialismus fuer Industriegesellschaften, Frankfurt/M., 1979.
Indicators for the social-democratization of the socialist movement are the rise of the socialist party and the corresponding decline of the orthodox communist party in France; the emergence of a social-democratic party as a rival to the more orthodox labour party in Great Britain; the moderation of the communists in Italy as the only remaining powerful communist party in Western Europe toward an increasingly social-democratic policy; and the growth of the socialist-social-democratic parties in Spain and Portugal under Gonzales and Soares, both with close ties to the German SPD. Furthermore, the socialist parties of Scandinavia, which traditionally had closely followed the German path and which later provided safe haven to a number of prominent socialists during the Nazi persecution (most notably W. Brandt and B. Kreisky), have long given credence to the revisionist beliefs.
On the social-democratic position regarding the North-South conflict cf. North-South: A Programme for Survival, Independent Commission on International Development Issues (Chair: W. Brandt), 1980.
Note again that this characterization of social-democratic socialism has the status of an “ideal type” (cf. Chapter 3, n. 2). It is not to be taken as a description of the policy or ideology of any actual party. Rather, it should be understood as the attempt to reconstruct what has become the essence of modern social-democratic style socialism, underlying a much more diverse reality of programs and policies of various parties or movements of different names as the ideologically unifying core.
On the following cf. L. v. Mises, Socialism, Indianapolis, 1981, esp. part V; Human Action, Chicago, 1966, esp. part 6.
Cf. M. N. Rothbard, Power and Market, Kansas City, 1977.
In addition, it should not be overlooked that even if it led to increased work by those taxed, a higher degree of taxation would in any case reduce the amount of leisure available to them and thereby reduce their standard of living. Cf. M.N. Rothbard, Power and Market, Kansas City, 1977, pp.95f.
A fictional account of the implementation of such a policy, supervised by ‘the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General” has been given by K. Vonnegut in “Harrison Bergeron,” in: K. Von-negut, Welcome to the Monkey House, New York, 1970.
On the phenomenon of politicalization cf. also K. S. Templeton (ed.), The Politicalization of Society, Indianapolis, 1977.
On the concern of orthodox and social-democratic socialism for equality cf. S. Lukes, “Socialism and Equality,” in: L. Kolakowski and S. Hampshire (eds.), The Socialist Idea, New York, 1974; also B. Williams, “The Idea of Equality,” in P. Laslett and W. G. Runciman (eds.), Philosophy, Politics, and Society, 2nd series, Oxford, 1962. For a critique of the socialist concept of equality cf. M. N. Rothbard, “Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism and the Division of Labor,” in K. S. Templeton (ed.), The Politicalization of Society, Indianapolis, 1977; and Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, (title essay), Washington, 1974; H. Schoeck, Envy, New York, 1966; and I st Leistung unanstaendig?, Os-nabrueck, 1971; A. Flew, The Politics of Procrustes, London, 1980; and Sociology, Equality and Education, New York, 1976.
Traditionally, this approach has been favored, at least in theory, by orthodox Marxist socialism-in line with Marx’ famous dictum in his “Critique of the Gotha Programme,” (K. Marx, Selected Works, vol. 2, London, 1942, p.566), “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Economic reality, however, has forced the Russian-style countries to make considerable concessions in practice. Generally speaking, an effort has indeed been made to equalize the (assumedly highly visible) monetary income for various occupations, but in order to keep the economy going, considerable difference in (assumedly less visible) nonmonetary rewards (such as special privileges regarding travel, education, housing, shopping, etc.) have had to be introduced. Surveying the literature, P. Gregory and R. Stuart (Comparative Economic Systems, Boston, 1985), state: “... earnings are more equally distributed in Eastern Europe, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union than in the United States. For the USSR, this appears to be a relatively new phenomenon, for as late as 1957, Soviet earnings were more unequal than the United States.” However, in Soviet-style countries “a relatively larger volume of resources... is provided on an extra market bases...” (p.502). In conclusion: “Income is distributed more unequally in the capitalist countries in which the state plays a relatively minor redistributive role... (United States, Italy, Canada). Yet even where the state plays a major redistributive role (United Kingdom, Sweden), the distribution of incomes appears to be slightly more unequal than in the planned socialist countries (Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria). The Soviet Union in 1966 appears to have a less egalitarian distribution of income than its East European counterparts” (p.504). Cf. also, F. Parkin, Class Inequality and Political Order, New York, 1971, esp. Chapter 6
This approach is traditionally most typical for social-democratic socialism. In recent years it has been given much publicized support-from the side of the economics profession-by M. Friedman with his proposal for a “negative income tax” (Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago, 1962, Chapter 12); and by J. Rawls-from the philosophical side-with his “difference principle” (Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, 1971, pp.60, 75ff, 83). Accordingly, both authors have received much attention from social-democratic party intellectuals. Generally, Friedman was only found “guilty” of not wanting to set the minimum income high enough-but then, he had no principled criterion for setting it at any specific point anyway. Rawls, who wants to coerce the “most advantaged person” into letting the “least advantaged one” share in his fortune whenever he happens to improve his own position, was at times even found to have gone too far with his egalitarianism. Cf. G. Schwan, Sozialismus in der Demokratie. Theorie eine konsequent sozialdemokratischen Politik, Stuttgart, 1982, Chapter 3. D.
A representative example of social-democratically inclined research on equality of opportunity, in particular regarding education, is C. Jencks, and others, Inequality, London, 1973; the increasing prominence of the idea of equalizing opportunity also explains the flood of sociological studies on “quality of rife” and “social indicators” that has appeared since the late 1960s. Cf., for instance, A. Szalai and F. Andrews (eds.), The Quality of Life, London, 1980.
On the following cf. also R. Merklein, Griff in die eigene Tasche, Hamburg, 1980; and Die Deutschen werden aermer, Hamburg, 1982.
Cf. as a representative example, W. Zapf (ed.), Lebensbedingungen in der Bundesrepublik, Frankfurt/M., 1978.
Cf. on this A. Alchian, ‘The Economic and Social Impact of Free Tuition” in: A. Alchian, Economic Forces at Work, Indianapolis, 1977.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1989 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hoppe, HH. (1989). Socialism Social-Democratic Style. In: A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7849-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7849-3_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-015-7851-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-7849-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive