The amount of people who cannot accurately define Capitalism and Socialism is absolutely astounding. Not only have politicians managed to fool those who don't know any better, some otherwise intelligent people cannot give an accurate definition of either, nor do they understand you can have both. I almost wish I could do a film documentary, going around asking people what they think Capitalism and Socialism mean. But since I don't have money for a camera, you'll have to read this instead.

Socialism and Capitalism (the technical term being Free Enterprise) are both very broad terms to describe an economic theory (I emphasize the word theory because many economic beliefs turn out to be fallacy, or are utilized at the wrong time; how often do you hear politicians say "seemed like a good idea at the time"?). Socialism, in short, favors state ownership over private ownership as a means of production and distribution (which includes trade), Capitalism being the opposite. So when you hear the terms "big government" and "socialism" in the same sentence, in a way, it's true, but what they don't understand is that there have been many great achievements in American Socialism. As one journalist put it, "Socialism is apparently what is created when a president you do not like spends money on things of which you do not approve".

Yes, if a country constantly pushes more and more toward Socialism, it becomes a dictatorship, but even the most Socialistic countries, like China, have elements of capitalism as well. It's called a Mixed Economy, and today, nearly every economy around the world is Mixed. For example, most economists blame the economic expansion of China on their deprivatization. In other words, they nationalized; embraced the global economy; became more open to trade. Their economy went through an expansionary phase (we'll talk expansionary and contractionary phases in just a moment). But without some elements of Socialism, greed begins to take over, and just as too much Socialism leads to a dictatorship, too much Capitalism leads to anarchy, and in many cases, poverty.

Here's a quick slideshow of some achievements in American Socialism: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/02/06/new_deal/slideshow. html Our taxpayers money at work, being redistributed for the better of America.

Now there are many who are outraged by our taxpayers money going toward "wasteful spending" and that somehow, the spending will lead to a dictatorship where wire tapping and the Patriot Act somehow didn't (which kind of proves that both parties favor Socialism, just in different forms. Like I said, it's a very broad term). They preach Reaganomics, shrinking government to the point where you could drown it in a bath tub, and no taxes. What they don't understand is A. In 1982, Reagan imposed the largest peacetime tax increase in history; B. Where do you think funding for recovery from national disasters comes from? Sure as hell ain't privately funded! And C. Reagonomics itself did not work. What worked was Reagan imposed a contractionary phase for the economy.

Quick history lesson: in the 1970's, there was a lethal economic phenomenon occurring in the U.S. and the U.K. known as Stagflation, a combination of unemployment and inflation. This was a time when Keynesian economics set the standard, the clearest example being Nixon's "War on Prices." Nixon wanted to lower prices without waiting for the economy to sort itself out. So he thought that you could throw money at producers so that government spending could make up for companies lowering their prices (keep in mind, they're lowering prices not as a result of supply or demand, just lowering for the sake of lowering, sounds nice right?).

But what happens when you force prices to change like that, you create massive surpluses that producers cannot get rid of as there are many other factors to take into account. A forced price change does not all of the sudden make people buy things if unemployment rates are still soaring; it was fallacious logic and a failure in American Socialism. All factors were not taken into account. So essentially, every president during the 70's was trying to spend to stop the economic downturn caused by inflation, which is directly caused by too much spending. So it was like trying to bleed on someone else's wound and hoping your blood clots faster so they won't need stitches. When Reagan took office, he tightened the money supply, which caused a recession (a necessary one at that in order to get back on track, it's just that no politician wanted to put their chance of getting reelected on the line by putting us through a recession), which ended the inflation, which allowed companies to hire more people as it didn't cost as much to produce and sell goods, and gradually, unemployment numbers reduced as a result. This massive spending reduction and tightening of the money supply was what as known as a Contractionary phase of the economy.

What is happening nowadays I don't believe has a specific term, but it is a combination of Deflation and unemployment as opposed to Inflation and unemployment. So when you hear Republicans talk about what worked when Reagan was president, that's the key thing you gotta look at: When Reagan was President. These are two completely different economic crises, and one cannot use the same techniques as were used in the early 80's.

The point of a stimulus is to have broad spending. Sure you have some categorization as to where you're putting what money, oversight is very important in that respect, but you give money to industries and corporations as a whole, which is like the trickle-down theory, only instead of trickling down it's a full irrigation system for the economy, for all industries and all companies. Tax cuts help to some extent, but if you're talking about fixing markets within the U.S., tax cuts don't put enough money back in the consumer's pocket on their own as all around tax cuts don't have as big of influence on the market as the consumer itself. If the market is no different, the consumers will spend no different, which is why the government needs to act as the consumer and spend instead of us right now. In other words, there is less demand for products, and the government needs to get demand up by spending where consumers cannot.

Tax cuts have to be a part of it once the stimulus gets the economy's demand rolling so that the consumers can continue to spend as opposed to the government coming up with more stimulus bills. However, the government needs to do the spending first, and they need to spend all-around. I know it almost sounds irresponsible to not have every dime focused in some specific manner, and in most cases that's common logic, but right now, everyone is suffering. Everyone needs some help. We need to make a stimulus that involves spending everywhere, and then later we can give the appropriate tax breaks to our citizens so that they can continue what the government jump-started because consumers spend everywhere. Consumers don't just spend so specifically, keeping in mind that they could spend money in a way that could help create jobs. They spend money on everything; things that are of personal benefit, and right now, nobody can spend on what benefits them the same way. The key is pumping money into everything, and allowing our citizens to continue that spending as opposed to the government continuously spending over and over again.

When government puts forth large amounts of money toward something, prices goes up, and if used too much, results in inflation (or even hyperinflation, Germany once experienced inflation upwards of 10,000%). However, the analogy I always use is this: If someone needs an injection of epinephrine (the fight or flight hormone; adrenaline essentially) because their blood pressure or pulse is significantly low, you give it to them. If you give them too much, they die. If you don't give them enough (or if you don't give them any at all), that will kill them as well. John McCain proposed a spending freeze, which would be the equivalent of not giving the patient any epinephrine, and would have continued this deflationary downward spiral. So what we need right now is lots of government spending.

In other words, spending, technically, is a form of Socialism. But enough using such a broad, empty word for the sake of fear. I know, the threat of Communism doesn't make people quiver with fear the same way it used to and ya gotta come up with something else to scare the pants off people to get reelected (which by the way, if you've looked at any poll known to man, it's not working), but this is just silly. And I hope you too realize just how silly it is now.

Preachin to the choir here but there are many on here who will disagree with you I am sure.

Welcome to the forums. A proper response to your lengthy post would be long so I will just summarize it with "balance is the key" and "whatever works is the the right thing."

I must disagree, socialism is what comes about when a president, whether you like him or not, begins to promote policy that handles the same things as the free market.


must disagree here too, socialism is an economic model whereas a dictatorship (fascism) is a social model. While the two often go hand in hand, it is a fallacy to believe that one causes the other.


again, disagreement here as the patriot act was facism, not socialism.


I'd love to hear your full explanation on this section. My arguments are that A, Reagan's tax hikes that were so large were following one of the (if not the, I'm not positive) largest tax cuts in history. Also, care to explain how reaganomics failed? I mean, within the first term of his presidency, unemployment, interest rates, and inflation fell dramatically. How is that failure? The turning off the money spigot was part of the Reaganomics philosophy.


While I can understand the frustration you have in the term socialism being thrown around without the knowledge to back it up, There are many of us with full knowledge that still use it. What is it when the government owns over half a bank? What is it when the government wants to convert that preferred, non-voting stock into common, voting stock? What is it when the federal government asks the chairman of a major corporation to step down? What is it when the federal government places pay restrictions on a private entity?

It's all socialism. There's no other way to put it.

You argue that we must spend in order to escape this crisis but have no logical reason why. While stagflation in the 1970s is not the same as today, the cycle is. Economies rise and fall under capitalism. It can be traced back as far as records have been kept. Never in our history has government spending lifted us up from a downswing.

You use the analogy of hormone injection, I'll give you a couple too: If you touch a hot stove, you get burned. You learn not to do it, and you don't do it again. Right now, mommy government keeps stopping us from touching the stove and tells us it's hot. We are not allowed to make the mistake in order to learn from it. We need to let the dominoes fall and build back up from where the bottom is.

We are putting a band-aid on a bullet wound. Nothing has changed. There is no difference between now and 4 years ago. We are treating symptoms. We need to deal with the Fed and the control of the money supply but Obama's administration is doing nothing. We are spending our way into failure.

This spending will ultimately result in hyperinflation when the economy begins to recover and we are currently starting programs that are not sustainable in the long term. Obama says his administration will halve the deficit by 5 years. Unfortunately, he's talking about the record deficit year, it'll still be higher than any of the prior 7 years, each setting a new record.

Spending is not the answer. It never has been and it never will be. Until we control the money supply, we are doomed to repeat.

See I told ya Domino...lol

For what is it worth you hit the nail on the head as far as I am concerned.

I have found that most of the people that post in these forums don't know what capitalism or socialism are.Only a few know.

Are you one of the few Mirror?

Most of the time but not tonight

Seriously,think Im gonna take a pass on this discussion.I've done been thru this rodeo 5 or 6 timesNot feeling like it tonight


And Im sure your one of the people that knows what they are Metalwing

Just about time to squeeze in some sweet propaganda about how nice socialism is.

Who is this "learned" author? There isn't much "knowledge" that he evidently possesses. Typical, post-1904-education b.s. designed for an easy consumption by a post-1904-educated reader.

Capitalism has served this country very well.No other country on this planet has come close to the wealth and profits made by the companies in the United states.What other country could possibly rival the United states in terms of business,profits,and growth?We can look at Socialist countries and what that has got them.Russia is a good example.No matter what they do they are always broke.Is it any wonder when the United states goes into a recession the rest of the world follows.Socialism will not work in this country.Our government sucks at making money and Obama's ideas on Socialism is only causing nothing but multi trillion dollars of debt and bankrupt companies.

Socialism was a way of life for millenniums. Now, it is being replaced by a newly invented, capitalism. This transformation will take centuries.

The thing is, you can't put the paste back into the tube. Once learned capitalism, people will never return to socialism. I am speaking in historical time scale here.

Attempts to revive, and reimpose the old, dying order, are just that, attempts. They will fail.

This is all very good news.

The only bad news is that in our short lifetime, there is a big chance to be stuck in a momentary revival attempt, and never see the sunshine of freedom.

Let;s expose the lies, at least in the very title:



Oh, I see. So, if we find, by some magic, through our rigorous investigation, that no amount of socialism is good, then according to a setup of the title, we will end up not having a "balanced" economy.

That doesn't sound very good already! Nobody wants to be unbalanced.

How about titles like this:

Topic: Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality: The Battle for a Balanced Sexual Life

or:

Topic: Truth vs. Lies: The Battle for a Balanced Morality

Historically wrong Capitalism was invented before socialism The savage working conditions of Pure capitalism lead to socialist revolutions in several major countries. You obviously dont know what socialism is and how it was formulated by Karl Marx in the Victorian Era

Mirror, with your educational level, I would not argue with mine. Rather keep posting smirks. Yes, I am aware of the actively pushed "history". By the way, next time, try not to read directly from socialist textbook. It sound to familiar to those who studied them.

Socialism was formulated in the Victorian Era by Karl Marx. That doesn't have anything to do with me or you. Its just the facts

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with an egalitarian method of compensation.Modern socialism originated in the late 19th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticized the effects of industrialization and private ownership on society.Karl Marx posited that socialism (the disappearance of class and therefore state) would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution after a transitional stage from capitalism called the Dictatorship of the proletariat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

socialism was termed by Marx. As a practice, it is far older than capitalism.

As far as I remember about early civilization (and any ancient history buffs may freely correct me), it was common to have designated jobs for everyone in the tribe for the good of the whole. There was no personal ownership or property. That, in itself, is socialism. It may have not had a term, but it was socialism.

OMFNG!!!!Another person that doesnt know what it is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

Here is the history of Socialism in my next four posts.

The history of socialism finds its origins in the French Revolution of 1789 and the changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution, although it has precedents in earlier movements and ideas. Like the concept of capitalism, it embraces a wide range of views.[1]

The term 'socialism' is variously attributed to Pierre Leroux in 1834, who called socialism "the doctrine which would not give up any of the principles of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" of the French Revolution of 1789[2] or to Marie Roch Louis Reybaud in France, or else in England to Robert Owen, who is considered the father of the cooperative movement.[3]

Most socialists of that period opposed the dislocations brought by the Industrial Revolution. They criticized what they conceived to be the injustice, inequalities and suffering which the Industrial Revolution brought into being and the laissez faire free market on which it rested.[4]

Saint Simon, who is called the founder of French socialism, argued that a brotherhood of man that must accompany the scientific organization of industry and society.[5] Proudhon pronounced that "Property is theft" and that socialism was "every aspiration towards the amelioration of society". Proudhon termed himself an anarchist, as did Bakunin, the father of modern anarchism, who is also termed a libertarian socialist, a theory by which the workers would directly manage the means of production through their own productive associations.[6]

The Communist Manifesto, was written by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in 1848 just before the Revolutions of 1848 swept Europe, expressing what they termed 'scientific socialism'. In the last third of the 19th century in Europe social democratic parties arose in Europe drawing mainly from Marxism.

In first half of the twentieth century the Soviet Union and the Communist parties of the Third International around the world mainly came to represent socialism in terms of the Soviet model of economic development, the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production, although other trends condemned what they saw as the lack of democracy.

Communists in Yugoslavia in the 1960s and Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s, Chinese Communists since the reform era, and some Western economists, have proposed various forms of market socialism, reconciling the cooperative or state ownership of the means of production with market forces, letting the market guide production and exchange rather than central planners.[7]

In 1945 European Socialist Parties in power were considered socialist administrations by some. In the UK Herbert Morrison said "Socialism is what the Labour government does", whereas Aneurin Bevan argued that socialism requires that the "main streams of economic activity are brought under public direction", with an economic plan and workers' democracy.[8] Some argued that capitalism had been abolished.[9] Socialist governments established the 'mixed economy' with partial nationalisations and social welfare.

By 1968 the prolonged Vietnam War (1959-1975), gave rise to the New Left, socialists who tended to be critical of the Soviet Union and social democracy. Anarcho-syndicalists and some elements of the New Left and others favored decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils.

In recent decades Socialist Parties in Europe have redefined their aims.[10] and reversed their policy on nationalisations.

At the turn of the 21st century, in Latin America Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez championed what he termed 'Socialism of the 21st Century', which included a policy of nationalisation of national assets such as Oil, anti-imperialism, and termed himself a Trotskyist supporting 'permanent revolution'.[11]


[edit] Origins of socialism
The appearance of the term "socialism" is variously attributed to Pierre Leroux in 1834,[12] or to Marie Roch Louis Reybaud in France, or else in England to Robert Owen, who is considered the father of the cooperative movement.[13]

The first modern socialists were early 19th century Western European social critics. In this period, socialism emerged from a diverse array of doctrines and social experiments associated primarily with British and French thinkers—especially Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Louis Blanc, and Saint-Simon. These social critics criticised the excesses of poverty and inequality of the Industrial Revolution, and advocated reforms such as the egalitarian distribution of wealth and the transformation of society into small communities in which private property was to be abolished. Outlining principles for the reorganization of society along collectivist lines, Saint-Simon and Owen sought to build socialism on the foundations of planned, utopian communities.

According to some accounts, the use of the words "socialism" or "communism" was related to the perceived attitude toward religion in a given culture. In Europe, "communism" was considered to be the more atheistic of the two. In England, however, that sounded too close to communion with Catholic overtones; hence atheists preferred to call themselves socialists.[14]

By 1847, according to Frederick Engels, "Socialism" was "respectable" on the continent of Europe, while "Communism" was the opposite; the Owenites in England and the Fourierists in France were considered Socialists, while working class movements which "proclaimed the necessity of total social change" termed themselves "Communists". This latter was "powerful enough" to produce the communism of Étienne Cabet in France and Wilhelm Weitling in Germany.[15]


[edit] Henri de Saint-Simon
Henri de Saint-Simon, who is called the founder of French socialism, argued that a brotherhood of man must accompany the scientific organization of industry and society. He proposed that production and distribution be carried out by the state, and that allowing everyone to have equal opportunity to develop their talents would lead to social harmony, and the state could be virtually eliminated. "Rule over men would be replaced by the administration of things."[16]


[edit] Robert Owen
Robert Owen advocated the transformation of society into small, local collectives without such elaborate systems of social organization. Owen was a mill manager from 1800-1825. He transformed life in the village of New Lanark with ideas and opportunities which were at least a hundred years ahead of their time. Child labor and corporal punishment were abolished, and villagers were provided with decent homes, schools and evening classes, free health care, and affordable food.[17]

The UK government's Factory Act of 1833 attempted to reduce the hours adults and children worked in the textile industry. A fifteen hour working day was to start at 5.30 a.m. and cease at 8.30 p.m. Children of nine to thirteen years could be worked no more than 9 hours, and those of a younger age were prohibited. There were, however, only four factory inspectors, and this law was broken by the factory owners.[18] In the same year Owen stated:

“ Eight hours' daily labor is enough for any [adult] human being, and under proper arrangements sufficient to afford an ample supply of food, raiment and shelter, or the necessaries and comforts of life, and for the remainder of his time, every person is entitled to education, recreation and sleep.[19] ”

In a Paper Dedicated to the Governments of Great Britain, Austria, Russia, France, Prussia and the United States of America written in 1841, Owen wrote: "The lowest stage of humanity is experienced when the individual must labor for a small pittance of wages from others."[20]


[edit] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon pronounced that "Property is theft" and that socialism was "every aspiration towards the amelioration of society". Proudhon termed himself an anarchist and proposed that free association of individuals should replace the coercive state.[21][22] Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker, and others developed these ideas in a free-market direction, while Mikhail Bakunin, Piotr Kropotkin, and others adapted Proudhon's ideas in a more conventionally socialist direction.

In a letter to Marx in 1846, Proudhon wrote:

“ I myself put the problem in this way: to bring about the return to society, by an economic combination, of the wealth which was withdrawn from society by another economic combination. In other words, through Political Economy to turn the theory of Property against Property in such a way as to engender what you German socialists call community and what I will limit myself for the moment to calling liberty or equality. ”


[edit] Mikhail Bakunin
Mikhail Bakunin, the father of modern anarchism, was a libertarian socialist, a theory by which the workers would directly manage the means of production through their own productive associations. There would be "equal means of subsistence, support, education, and opportunity for every child, boy or girl, until maturity, and equal resources and facilities in adulthood to create his own well-being by his own labor."[6]

While many socialists emphasized the gradual transformation of society, most notably through the foundation of small, utopian communities, a growing number of socialists became disillusioned with the viability of this approach and instead emphasized direct political action. Early socialists were united, however, in their desire for a society based on cooperation rather than competition.


The French Revolution of 1789, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote, "abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property".[23] The French Revolution was preceded and influenced by the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose Social Contract famously began, "Man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains."[24] Rousseau is credited with influencing socialist thought, but it was François-Noël Babeuf, and his Conspiracy of Equals, who is credited with providing a model for left-wing and communist movements of the 19th century.

Marx and Engels drew from these socialist or communist ideas born in the French revolution, as well as from the German philosophy of GWF Hegel, and English political economy, particularly that of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism, more commonly called Marxism. Marxism comprised a theory of history (historical materialism) as well as a political, economic and philosophical theory.

In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, written in 1848 just days before the outbreak of the revolutions of 1848, Marx and Engels wrote, "The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property." Unlike those Marx described as utopian socialists, Marx determined that, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles". While utopian socialists believed it was possible to work within or reform capitalist society, Marx confronted the question of the economic and political power of the capitalist class, expressed in their ownership of the means of producing wealth (factories, banks, commerce - in a word, 'Capital'). Marx and Engels formulated theories regarding the practical way of achieving and running a socialist system, which they saw as only being achieved by those who produce the wealth in society, the toilers, workers or "proletariat", gaining common ownership of their workplaces, the means of producing wealth.

Marx believed that capitalism could only be overthrown by means of a revolution carried out by the working class: "The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority."[25] Marx believed that the proletariat was the only class with both the cohesion, the means and the determination to carry the revolution forward. Unlike the utopian socialists, who often idealised agrarian life and deplored the growth of modern industry, Marx saw the growth of capitalism and an urban proletariat as a necessary stage towards socialism.

For Marxists, socialism or, as Marx termed it, the first phase of communist society, can be viewed as a transitional stage characterized by common or state ownership of the means of production under democratic workers' control and management, which Engels argued was beginning to be realised in the Paris Commune of 1871, before it was overthrown.[26] Socialism to them is simply the transitional phase between capitalism and "higher phase of communist society". Because this society has characteristics of both its capitalist ancestor and is beginning to show the properties of communism, it will hold the means of production collectively but distributes commodities according to individual contribution.[27] When the socialist state (the dictatorship of the proletariat) naturally withers away, what will remain is a society in which human beings no longer suffer from alienation and "all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly." Here "society inscribe[s] on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"[27] For Marx, a communist society entails the absence of differing social classes and thus the end of class warfare. According to Marx and Engels, once a socialist society had been ushered in, the state would begin to "wither away",[28] and humanity would be in control of its own destiny for the first time.

While the various socialist groups championed many different socialist ideas, Marxism appeared to offer a coherent strategy which, within a few decades, began to draw mass support, and some alliances between trade unionism and socialism began to form.


[edit] International Workingmen's Association (First International)
The International Workingmen's Association (IWA), also known as the First International, was founded in London in 1864. Victor Le Lubez, a French radical republican living in London, invited Karl Marx to come to London as a representative of German workers.[29] The IWA held a preliminary conference in 1865, and had its first congress at Geneva in 1866. Marx was appointed a member of the committee, and according to Saul Padover, Marx and Johann Georg Eccarius, a tailor living in London, became "the two mainstays of the International from its inception to its end".[29] The First International became the first major international forum for the promulgation of socialist ideas.

The Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany was founded in 1869 under the influence of Marx and Engels. In 1875, it merged with the General German Workers' Association of Ferdinand Lassalle to become what is known today as the German Social Democratic Party (SPD). Socialism became increasingly associated with newly-formed trade unions. In Germany, the SPD founded unions. In Austria, France and other European countries, socialist parties and anarchists played a prominent role in forming and building up trade unions, especially from the 1870s onwards. This stood in contrast to the British experience, where moderate New Model Unions dominated the union movement from the mid-nineteenth century, and where trade unionism was stronger than the political labour movement until the formation and growth of the Labour Party in the early twentieth century.

Socialist groups supported diverse views of socialism, from the gradualism of many trade unionists to the radical, revolutionary theory of Marx and Engels. Anarchists and proponents of other alternative visions of socialism, who emphasized the potential of small-scale communities and agrarianism, coexisted with the more influential currents of Marxism and social democracy. The anarchists, led by the Russian Mikhail Bakunin, believed that capitalism and the state were inseparable, and that one could not be abolished without the other.


[edit] Paris Commune
In 1871, in the wake of the Franco-Prussian War, an uprising in Paris established the Paris Commune. According to Marx and Engels, for a few weeks the Paris Commune provided a glimpse of a socialist society, before it was brutally suppressed by the French government.

“ From the outset the Commune was compelled to recognize that the working class, once come to power, could not manage with the old state machine; that in order not to lose again its only just conquered supremacy, this working class must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself, and, on the other, safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment. ”
— Engels' 1891 postscript to The Civil War In France by Karl Marx[30]

In Paris Commune, large-scale industry was to be "based on the association of the workers" joined into "one great union", all posts in government were elected by universal franchise, elected officials took only the average worker's wage and were subject to recall. For Engels, this was what the dictatorship of the proletariat looked like (as opposed to the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", which was capitalism). Engels goes on to state: "In reality, however, the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than in the monarchy; and at best an evil inherited by the proletariat after its victorious struggle for class supremacy", and a new generation of socialists, "reared in new and free social conditions, will be able to throw the entire lumber of the state on the scrap-heap".[31]

After the Paris Commune, the differences between supporters of Marx and Engels and those of Bakunin were too great to bridge. The anarchist section of the First International was expelled from the International at the 1872 Hague Congress and they went on to form the Jura federation. The First International was disbanded in 1876.


[edit] The Second International
As the ideas of Marx and Engels took on flesh, particularly in central Europe, socialists sought to unite in an international organisation. In 1889, on the centennial of the French Revolution of 1789, the Second International was founded, with 384 delegates from 20 countries representing about 300 labour and socialist organizations.[32] It was termed the "Socialist International" and Engels was elected honorary president at the third congress in 1893.

Just before his death in 1895, Engels argued that there was now a "single generally recognised, crystal clear theory of Marx" and a "single great international army of socialists". Despite its illegality due to the Anti-Socialist Laws of 1878, the Social Democratic Party of Germany's use of the limited universal male suffrage were "potent" new methods of struggle which demonstrated their growing strength and forced the dropping of the Anti-Socialist legislation in 1890, Engels argued.[33] In 1893, the German SPD obtained 1,787,000 votes, a quarter of votes cast. However before the leadership of the SPD published Engels' 1895 Introduction to Marx's Class Struggles in France 1848-1850, they removed certain phrases they felt were too revolutionary.[34]

Marx believed that it was possible to have a peaceful socialist transformation in England, although the British ruling class would then revolt against such a victory.[35] America and Holland might also have a peaceful transformation, but not in France, where Marx believed there had been "perfected... an enormous bureaucratic and military organisation, with its ingenious state machinery" which must be forcibly overthrown. However, eight years after Marx's death, Engels argued that it was possible to achieve a peaceful socialist revolution in France, too.[36]


[edit] Germany
The SPD was by far the most powerful of the social democratic parties. Its votes reached 4.5 million, it had 90 daily newspapers, together with trade unions and co-ops, sports clubs, a youth organization, a women's organization and hundreds of full time officials. Under the pressure of this growing party, Bismarck introduced limited welfare provision and working hours were reduced. Germany experienced sustained economic growth for more than forty years. Commentators suggest that this expansion, together with the concessions won, gave rise to illusions amongst the leadership of the SPD that capitalism would evolve into socialism gradually.

Beginning in 1896, in a series of articles published under the title "Problems of socialism", Eduard Bernstein argued that an evolutionary transition to socialism was both possible and more desirable than revolutionary change. Bernstein and his supporters came to be identified as "revisionists" because they sought to revise the classic tenets of Marxism. Although the orthodox Marxists in the party, led by Karl Kautsky, retained the Marxist theory of revolution as the official doctrine of the party, and it was repeatedly endorsed by SPD conferences, in practice the SPD leadership became increasingly reformist.


[edit] Russia
Bernstein coined the aphorism: "The movement is everything, the final goal nothing". But the path of reform appeared blocked to the Russian Marxists while Russia remained the bulwark of reaction. In the preface to the 1882 Russian edition to the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels had saluted the Russian Marxists who, they said, "formed the vanguard of revolutionary action in Europe". But the working class, although many were organised in vast modern western-owned enterprises, comprised no more than a small percentage of the population and "more than half the land is owned in common by the peasants". Marx and Engels posed the question: How was Russia to progress to socialism? Could Russia "pass directly" to socialism or "must it first pass through the same process" of capitalist development as the West? They replied: "If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development."[37]

In 1903, the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party began to split on ideological and organizational questions into Bolshevik ('Majority') and Menshevik ('Minority') factions, with Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin leading the more radical Bolsheviks. Both wings accepted that Russia was an economically backward country unripe for socialism. The Mensheviks awaited the capitalist revolution in Russia. But Lenin argued that a revolution of the workers and peasants would achieve this task. After the Russian revolution of 1905, Leon Trotsky argued that unlike the French revolution of 1789 and the European Revolutions of 1848 against absolutism, the capitalist class would never organise a revolution in Russia to overthrow absolutism, and that this task fell to the working class who, liberating the peasantry from their feudal yoke, would then immediately pass on to the socialist tasks and seek a "permanent revolution" to achieve international socialism.[38] Assyrian nationalist Freydun Atturaya tried to create regional self-government for the Assyrian people with the socialism ideology. He even wrote the Urmia Manifesto of the United Free Assyria. However, his attempt was put to an end by Russia.