Historia del socialismo

Historia del socialismo


Socialismo

El socialismo surgió junto con la Revolución Industrial como un medio para proteger los derechos de los trabajadores y de los trabajadores. A medida que avanzaban los siglos XIX y XX, el socialismo siguió siendo una forma de gobierno popular y eficaz en todo el mundo. Los sitios a continuación describen las teorías que dieron origen al socialismo, destacando los principales eventos y figuras a lo largo de su historia.

Perspicacia de Dulcinea

  • El socialismo y el comunismo tienen orígenes y filosofías similares. Los escritos de Karl Marx y Friedrich Engels son fundamentales para ambos sistemas. Visite la Guía web del comunismo de FindingDulcinea para obtener más información histórica sobre el desarrollo del socialismo.

Selecciones de Dulcinea


La victoria de Bernie Sanders en New Hampshire es un gran cambio para el socialismo en Estados Unidos. Esto es lo que debe saber sobre la historia de la idea

Bernie Sanders, el único socialista democrático en la carrera presidencial de 2020, se impuso en las primarias del Partido Demócrata en New Hampshire, ganando alrededor del 26% de los votos. Su victoria siguió a una carrera cuerpo a cuerpo con el ex alcalde de South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg, en los caucus de Iowa. El éxito principal del senador de Vermont # 8217 es el último desarrollo en una larga y accidentada historia del socialismo político en los Estados Unidos.

La polémica filosofía política ha tenido presencia en Estados Unidos desde el siglo XIX. Los primeros experimentos comunales utópicos que comenzaron en la década de 1830 sentaron las bases para una era dorada del socialismo político a principios del siglo XX, un período marcado por la histórica carrera presidencial de Eugene Debs y las elecciones de candidatos socialistas en todo el país. Una serie de factores, incluida la persecución política de los socialistas, una imagen global desagradable de los socialistas revolucionarios y el surgimiento del comunismo, se combinaron para llevar al socialismo al margen político a principios del siglo XX, donde permaneció durante casi un siglo.

A raíz de la crisis financiera de 2008, los políticos que se identificaron como socialistas disfrutaron de una oleada de apoyo renovado. En las elecciones de mitad de período de 2018, decenas de miembros de los Socialistas Demócratas de América (DSA) fueron elegidos para cargos estatales y locales, y las Representantes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez y Rashida Tlaib fueron elegidas para la Cámara de Representantes de los Estados Unidos. Si bien Sanders no es miembro de DSA, durante mucho tiempo se ha identificado como un socialista democrático, una filosofía que describe como parte integrante de su apoyo a los grandes programas financiados por los contribuyentes, como Medicare para todos.

El éxito de Sanders & # 8217 tanto en Iowa como en New Hampshire puede indicar que una versión del socialismo estadounidense está nuevamente en aumento.

Mire el video para obtener más información sobre la historia matizada de Estados Unidos con el socialismo.


La historia del socialismo, parte 1: Venezuela

Un hombre caminaba por la calle con lo que parecía ser un bate de béisbol de madera. Venezuela tiene una larga historia de grandes jugadores de béisbol, pero él no iba a jugar béisbol. Venezuela tiene una alta tasa de criminalidad, pero no iba a hacer justicia por autodefensa a un enemigo.

No, el hombre estaba buscando comida para alimentar a su familia hambrienta. Ya sea una rata, un perro, un pájaro o cualquier otra criatura que pudiera ser asesinada y devorada, este hombre, armado solo con el armamento más básico, estaba dispuesto a correr el riesgo de mantener a su familia con vida un día más.

Esta escena se ha repetido innumerables veces en Venezuela. Los ciudadanos están sufriendo por la falta de alimentos, agua y medicinas. Cualquier ingreso que obtengan les permite comprar menos alimentos al final de su jornada laboral que al principio. (Por hiperinflación de su moneda). La tasa de criminalidad está aumentando y el gobierno de Nicolás Maduro se ha vuelto cada vez más autoritario.

¿Por qué los ciudadanos sufren de esta manera?

La respuesta es simple: socialismo.

En la década de 1970, Venezuela era uno de los países más prósperos de América Latina. Sin embargo, en los últimos cuatro años, su economía se ha contraído un 35%. Este colapso se remonta a 1999 cuando el socialista Hugo Chávez asumió la presidencia. Chávez fue anunciado como el proveedor de un "paraíso socialista". Recibió visitas de los actores Danny Glover y Sean Penn. Recibió elogios de Bernie Sanders, quien afirmó que era "más probable que lograras el Sueño Americano en Venezuela que en los Estados Unidos".

Chávez se puso a trabajar nacionalizando la industria petrolera. Puso a compinches sin experiencia a cargo de las refinerías de petróleo, lo que provocó múltiples accidentes fatales e incendios. A pesar de los altos precios del petróleo, la producción de petróleo cayó un 25 por ciento durante el reinado de Chávez. Chávez diezmó la industria manufacturera del país. Al nacionalizar la industria, hizo que la producción retrocediera a los niveles de 1965.

Tomó el control de las granjas y supermercados, provocando escasez de alimentos. Impuso controles de precios a muchos bienes, lo que incitó a los productores a producir menos. Instituyó programas de bienestar social que provocaron grandes déficits presupuestarios. Los pobres obtuvieron alimentos subsidiados y vivienda gratuita. Los políticamente conectados recibieron hasta $ 30 mil millones al año en subsidios.

La atención médica y otros servicios se proporcionaron a expensas del gobierno. Estos servicios obligaron al gobierno a pedir préstamos a tasas elevadas. En ese momento, se creía que las grandes reservas de petróleo de Venezuela continuarían sosteniendo el alto gasto. Pero el precio del petróleo se hundió, al igual que la economía venezolana.

El sucesor de Chávez, Nicolás Maduro, continuó donde lo dejó su predecesor. Su régimen se ha vuelto cada vez más autoritario en su gobierno. La escasez de alimentos, la hiperinflación, la disminución del estado de derecho, un sistema de salud deficiente y la represión de la oposición se han convertido en la norma bajo su gobierno.

Los venezolanos son pobres, brutalmente pobres. Casi el 90 por ciento del país vive en la pobreza según los estándares económicos mundiales. No pueden pagar comida u otros bienes básicos. Nueve de cada diez venezolanos no pueden pagar suficiente comida para alimentar a sus familias. Esto ha provocado que algunos padres abandonen a sus hijos que los están dejando en albergues y orfanatos con la esperanza de que allí se alimenten.

Los niños mueren a un ritmo alarmante. Un número récord de niños han sido ingresados ​​en el hospital por desnutrición severa, y la mortalidad infantil aumentó un 100 por ciento entre 2012-2015.

Los venezolanos informaron haber perdido casi 25 libras en promedio el año pasado, y el 60 por ciento informó que se despertó con hambre porque no tenía suficiente dinero para comprar comida.

Una gran razón de esta pobreza es la hiperinflación de la moneda, el bolívar. El FMI informó recientemente que la inflación podría aumentar a un millón por ciento (¡Eso no es un error tipográfico!) La razón de esto es simple: el gobierno ha gastado grandes cantidades de dinero en financiar programas sociales y nacionalizar industrias. Para financiar estos programas, el gobierno comenzó a imprimir dinero para pagar el gasto. Sin embargo, el aumento de la oferta monetaria provocó que los precios subieran.

Por ejemplo, el costo de un solo huevo fue de 200.000 bolívares el año pasado, con un salario de un mes solo se compraría una taza de café y un dólar estadounidense se puede cambiar por 3,5 millones de bolívares en el mercado negro. Para mantenerse al día con el aumento de precios, Maduro ha elevado el salario mínimo a 5 millones de bolívares, que es el equivalente a 41 dólares estadounidenses.

La hiperinflación ha provocado que los consumidores recurran cada vez más al trueque. Los lugares de estacionamiento se pagan con barras de granola, se cambia un corte de pelo por huevos, se intercambian cigarrillos por un viaje en taxi y se puede cambiar un burrito por servilletas de papel en un restaurante. Su moneda se está volviendo tan inútil que algunos artistas la usan para hacer arte y venderlo a los coleccionistas.

Una de las afirmaciones de los partidarios del socialismo es que conducirá al fin de los ciudadanos ricos y políticamente conectados que se beneficiarán a expensas de las clases bajas. Sin embargo, el socialismo no acaba con la clase alta, solo reemplaza a la clase alta con los favorecidos por el gobierno.

En Venezuela, el Gobierno decide quién recibe agua corriente, se apoderan de los camiones cisterna y le dicen a los conductores dónde entregar el agua. (A menudo los obligan a entregarlo en los hogares de los funcionarios del gobierno). El ejército protege el suministro de alimentos subsidiado y decide quién se alimenta.

El socialismo conduce invariablemente al desarrollo de un mercado negro donde se venden bienes que escasean. En Venezuela, los funcionarios del gobierno también toman su parte del mercado negro. Se llevan la mitad de las ganancias de los productos, lo que deja a los revendedores con menos, y las personas a las que se destinaron originalmente los productos a menudo reciben una fracción, si es que reciben alguna, de lo que pidieron originalmente.

El reportero Anatoly Kurmanaev escribió sobre la asistencia a un evento realizado por el presidente del Banco Central de Venezuela, Nelson Merentes. Merentes es el hombre responsable de incrementar la oferta monetaria a niveles que han causado tanta miseria a los venezolanos. Kurmanaev describió el evento como una "fiesta en la playa donde fluía vodka y ron, y donde Merentes agitaba maracas y bailaba con un grupo de mujeres jóvenes con pantalones cortos de mezclilla ajustados". Mientras su política monetaria hacía sufrir a sus conciudadanos, Merentes estaba celebrando una fiesta que esperarías ver en la Mansión Playboy.

En Venezuela, como en otros países socialistas, el estado de derecho se ha derrumbado. Caracas se ha convertido en la capital mundial de los asesinatos, mientras que los paramilitares acorralan a los presos políticos todos los días. Se suprime la oposición al gobierno. Los ciudadanos temen hablar en contra del gobierno por temor a ser arrestados o asesinados. La escena en Venezuela recuerda a la de George Orwell 1984.

Los oficiales de seguridad siguen a los reporteros. Un corresponsal de ABC News y su equipo de producción fueron arrestados durante cinco días por informar sobre escasez de médicos y condiciones bárbaras en un hospital. Los funcionarios intimidaron al equipo de ABC amenazando con llamar a la policía secreta venezolana si no les pagaban un soborno. Escenas como estas se reproducen a diario en Venezuela.

Venezuela sigue el patrón de otros países socialistas (muchos de los cuales cubriremos en esta serie). Su país está gobernado por un autoritario, Nicolás Maduro. Su gente se muere de hambre debido a la escasez de alimentos causada por el gobierno que dicta lo que se produce y a qué precio. Los ciudadanos venezolanos están sufriendo y viviendo en condiciones inhumanas, y la violencia se ha vuelto desenfrenada.

Esa es la verdadera cara del socialismo, y muestra exactamente por qué no se puede permitir que eche raíces en los Estados Unidos.

Estén atentos a FreedomWire mañana para la Parte 2, en la que analizaremos uno de los ejemplos más conocidos de socialismo: la Unión Soviética.


Historia del socialismo - Historia

"Ahora todos somos socialistas". Sir William Harcourt

Introducción

El socialismo ictoriano, o socialismos victorianos porque tomó tantas gradaciones diferentes, surgió en Gran Bretaña junto con otros movimientos, como el nuevo conservadurismo, el nuevo liberalismo, el nuevo sindicalismo, el anarquismo, el darwinismo social, el secularismo, el espiritualismo y la teosofía. Se desarrolló a partir de diversas tradiciones, ideologías y orígenes, pero la intensa aversión por los efectos sociales de la Revolución Industrial subyace a las diversas vertientes del socialismo victoriano, que era esencialmente un proyecto casero de clase media con poca influencia extranjera.

Los socialistas victorianos se basaron en gran medida no en las obras de Karl Marx, sino en el legado de autores que tenían puntos de vista románticos, radicales e incluso conservadores, como Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Robert Southey, Percy Bysshe Shelley, William Cobbett, Thomas Carlyle, Benjamin Disraeli y John Ruskin. Sin embargo, las raíces del socialismo británico también se pueden buscar en tiempos más remotos. Algunos de los lejanos precursores del socialismo victoriano incluyen a William Langland, John Wycliffe, John Ball, Thomas More, Francis Bacon, Gerrard Winstanley y James Harrington.

Orígenes del socialismo británico

El socialismo británico surgió en el momento en que la sociedad victoriana comenzó a superar los principios de la economía clásica, la laissez-faire sistema, y ​​estaba inmerso en una crisis de fe. El liberalismo y el radicalismo británicos tradicionales jugaron un papel mucho más importante en la configuración del socialismo en la Gran Bretaña victoriana que las obras de Karl Marx. Aunque el marxismo tuvo algún impacto en Gran Bretaña, fue mucho menos significativo que en muchos otros países europeos, y pensadores como David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill y John Ruskin tuvieron una influencia mucho mayor. Los historiadores no marxistas especulan que esto se debió a que Gran Bretaña estaba entre los países más democráticos de Europa de la época, donde las urnas proporcionaron un instrumento para el cambio, por lo que las reformas parlamentarias parecían una ruta más prometedora que el socialismo revolucionario defendido por Marx. Como dijo Sir Ivor Jeggins, "el socialismo británico siempre ha sido tan británico como socialista". (429)

Las ideas socialistas se convirtieron en el resultado natural de las condiciones industriales modernas, y sus orígenes pueden buscarse en los inicios de la industria moderna. En Inglaterra, las ideas socialistas se formaron como subproducto de la Revolución Industrial. La palabra "socialismo" se utilizó por primera vez en inglés en 1827 en la publicación de la clase trabajadora, Co-operative Magazine, y significaba cooperación en lugar de competencia. (Garner et al. 115) En la década de 1830, la palabra socialismo se usó indistintamente con la palabra owenismo, y Robert Owen (1771-1858) se convirtió en la figura central del socialismo británico en la primera mitad del siglo XIX.

El auge del radicalismo de la clase trabajadora

El primer movimiento político de la clase trabajadora fue lanzado por la London Corresponding Society, fundada en 1792 por Thomas Hardy (1752-1832), zapatero y radical metropolitano. La Sociedad, compuesta en su mayoría por miembros de la clase trabajadora, agitó entre las masas la reforma parlamentaria, el sufragio universal masculino y la representación de la clase trabajadora en el Parlamento. La Sociedad se reunió abiertamente durante seis años a pesar del hostigamiento de los magistrados de la policía y los arrestos de sus miembros, pero finalmente fue ilegalizada en 1799 por una ley del Parlamento como resultado del temor de que hiciera un desafío peligroso al gobierno establecido.

Robert Owen y el socialismo cooperativo

Robert Owen (1771-1858), que fue propietario de una fábrica textil, filántropo, reformador social y laboral, es considerado el padre del socialismo cooperativo británico. Él y sus seguidores fundaron varias comunidades cooperativas en Gran Bretaña y Estados Unidos que ofrecían a los trabajadores condiciones de vida dignas y acceso a la educación. Aunque todas las comunidades owenitas finalmente fracasaron, la tradición comunitaria persistió en la Inglaterra victoriana y en otros lugares. El owenismo ejerció una influencia significativa en varias vertientes del socialismo británico, incluido el socialismo cristiano, el socialismo ético, el socialismo de gremios, el fabianismo y el movimiento obrero socialista. Estas organizaciones percibieron el socialismo cooperativo como un reemplazo del injusto sistema capitalista competitivo.

Socialistas ricardianos

Otro grupo de pensadores que ejerció una influencia directa en el socialismo victoriano fueron los llamados socialistas ricardianos. Basaron sus teorías en el trabajo del economista David Ricardo (1772-1823), quien afirmó que la economía avanza hacia el conflicto social porque los intereses de las clases propietarias se oponen directamente a los de las clases pobres. En este aspecto, Ricardo y los socialistas ricardianos anticiparon la concepción de Karl Marx sobre las relaciones de clase antagónicas.

Los principales miembros de este grupo fueron Charles Hall (1740-1820), William Thompson (1785-1833), Thomas Hodgskin (1783-1869) y John Gray (1799-1883). Paradójicamente, los socialistas ricardianos rechazaron algunos de los supuestos de Ricardo y argumentaron que la propiedad privada de los medios de producción debería ser reemplazada por la propiedad central de los medios de producción, organizada como una sociedad anónima controlada por los trabajadores. (Toler 46)

Socialismo marxista

El socialismo marxista tuvo poco impacto en varias vertientes del socialismo británico. Karl Marx (1818-83), que vivió y escribió sus obras en Londres desde 1849, no era muy conocido en Inglaterra hasta su muerte. Conoció a pocos ingleses y no estaba muy interesado en conocer a los radicales ingleses. Los únicos ingleses que expresaron un interés serio en las ideas de Marx durante su vida fueron Ernest Jones, un cartista revolucionario, que hizo un vano intento de revivir ese agonizante movimiento cartista, y Henry Mayers Hyndman, el fundador de la Federación Socialdemócrata, el primero Partido socialista marxista en Gran Bretaña. Sin embargo, el marxismo apenas atrajo a los socialistas victorianos en su forma ortodoxa.

Socialismo tardío victoriano

Socialistas de William Strang R.A. (1859-1921). 1891. Aguafuerte y punta seca sobre papel. [Haga clic en la imagen para ampliarla.]

El movimiento socialista británico resurgió en la década de 1880. Una fuerte crítica del capitalismo, que fue expresada por varios grupos de críticos sociales, figuras literarias y militantes de la clase trabajadora, llevó a la formación de tres ramas distintas del socialismo victoriano tardío: (1) la Federación Socialdemócrata (SDF) y la Socialista League, (2) la Sociedad Fabiana y su predecesora, la Comunidad de la Nueva Vida, y (3) los socialistas éticos, junto con el Partido Laborista Independiente.

La Federación Socialdemócrata, que se convirtió en el primer partido político marxista en Gran Bretaña en 1884, abogó por una revolución y una nacionalización inminentes. Su pequeña rama, la Liga Socialista, formada por William Morris en 1884 después de su secesión de la Federación Socialdemócrata, atrajo a algunos socialdemócratas, pero en 1990 quedó dominada por los anarquistas, lo que llevó a Morris a retirarse de ella.

La Sociedad Fabiana, también fundada en 1884, no fue radical, pero trató de impregnar pacíficamente las instituciones existentes y el Parlamento para implementar sus reformas socialistas. Los fabianos apoyaron el llamado 'socialismo del gas y el agua', es decir, la propiedad estatal de los servicios públicos municipales, así como la municipalización y nacionalización de la tierra y muchas industrias, canales, ferrocarriles, empresas de agua y gas, tranvías, muelles, hospitales, mercados, bibliotecas e incluso casas de hospedaje. (Demacrado 94)

El socialismo ético no se asoció con ningún partido en particular y se superpuso con otras corrientes del socialismo victoriano. Incluía un grupo dispar de activistas sociales y figuras literarias que defendían las ideas del socialismo ético, enfatizando el desarrollo moral de los individuos por encima de las reformas económicas y sociales. El socialismo ético surgió en la década de 1880, floreció en la década de 1890 e inspiró la formación del Partido Laborista Independiente y también del Partido Laborista. (Bevir 1999: 218)

Los representantes más característicos del socialismo ético fueron Thomas Hill Green, Edward Carpenter, John Ruskin y William Morris. Otras figuras importantes fueron el líder sindical pionero, Keir Hardie, Robert Blatchford, el editor del semanario The Clarion y el autor del exitoso tratado socialista Merrie England (1893), John Bruce-Glasier, uno de los líderes de el Partido Laborista Independiente. Como dijo Mark Bevir, los socialistas éticos creían en el ideal del compañerismo moral y pensaban en una sociedad civil cooperativa y descentralizada donde los individuos pudieran ejercer el control total de sus propias actividades diarias. (McDonald 58-59)

El movimiento de nacionalización de la tierra

Las raíces del movimiento británico de nacionalización de la tierra, que influyó fuertemente en la tradición dominante del socialismo victoriano tardío, se pueden buscar en la actividad de Thomas Spence (1750-1814), un militante autodidacta, que dedicó la mayor parte de su vida adulta a diversas actividades. formas de agitación política. En la década de 1770, argumentó que toda la tierra no debe ser propiedad de individuos sino de corporaciones parroquiales. (Parssinnen 135) A principios del siglo XIX, Spence se convirtió en el líder de un grupo de radicales que defendían la revolución social en Gran Bretaña. Después de su muerte, los seguidores radicales de Spence formaron la Sociedad de Filántropos de Spencean (1815). Sus miembros se reunieron en secreto en pequeños grupos en cervecerías y discutieron el plan agrario socialista de Spence y la mejor manera de lograr una sociedad igualitaria. También distribuyeron tratados, panfletos, folletos, carteles y poemas y fichas de metal que anunciaban las ideas de Spence (Benchimol 153).

La reforma agraria fue uno de los temas más candentes entre los radicales británicos y los reformadores sociales desde la década de 1860 hasta la Primera Guerra Mundial. A mediados de la Inglaterra victoriana, James Bronterre O'Brien (1805-64), un líder cartista y reformador de la clase trabajadora, propuso un plan para la compra de tierras por parte del gobierno y luego su redistribución por alquiler. (Bronstein 107) Los seguidores de O'Brien, agrupados en la National Reform League, continuaron propagando la idea de la nacionalización de la tierra después de su muerte en 1864. La Land and Labor League, que surgió de la National Reform League en 1869, avanzó un programa que pidió la nacionalización de la tierra, pero tuvo poco impacto público.

En la Inglaterra victoriana tardía, Alfred Russel Wallace, el co-descubridor con Charles Darwin de la teoría de la selección natural, revivió el movimiento de nacionalización de la tierra. Wallace creía que la tierra debería ser propiedad del estado y arrendada a la gente. En 1881, fue elegido como el primer presidente de la Sociedad de Nacionalización de Tierras, que diseñó un plan de tierras de propiedad y arrendamiento del Estado. La visión de Wallace de la reforma agraria estaba cerca del espíritu del tratado de Henry George, Progreso y pobreza (1879), que promovía un único impuesto progresivo sobre el valor de la tierra para reducir la desigualdad económica.

La Sociedad de Nacionalización de la Tierra y la Federación Socialdemócrata brindaron un apoyo total a los programas de nacionalización de la tierra. La Land Restoration League y la Land Reform Union (LRU) también abogaron por la apropiación de tierras estatales. Todos estos esquemas fortalecieron el movimiento de nacionalización de la tierra en la Gran Bretaña victoriana tardía y despertaron la conciencia de la necesidad de una reforma agraria. Tanto las ideas de Wallace como las de George sobre la reforma agraria fueron aprobadas por los sindicatos e inspiraron tanto al Partido Liberal como al Laborista a formar una política de redistribución de la tierra a principios del siglo XIX.

La Iglesia Laborista

Las últimas dos décadas de la era victoriana también vieron el surgimiento de la Iglesia Laborista, que fue iniciada en Manchester en 1891 por un ministro unitario, John Trevor (1855-1930), y tenía un mensaje socialista distintivo. La Iglesia Laborista pronto se convirtió en un movimiento nacional y reclamó 100 iglesias con congregaciones entre 200 y 500. (Worley 154) La conferencia celebrada en Bradford en 1893 para formar el Partido Laborista Independiente estuvo acompañada por un servicio de la Iglesia Laborista al que asistieron 5.000 personas. Sin embargo, el movimiento de la Iglesia Laborista comenzó a desvanecerse después de 1900. En la conferencia anual de 1909, celebrada en Ashton-under-Lyne, el nombre de Iglesia Laborista se cambió a Iglesia Socialista, pero al comienzo de la Primera Guerra Mundial la Iglesia Laborista, recientemente renombrada habia desaparecido.

Conclusión

El término socialismo era generalmente sinónimo en la Gran Bretaña victoriana de reforma social, colectivismo, comunitarismo y mejora de las condiciones de vida de la clase trabajadora y no tenía fuertes connotaciones marxistas. De hecho, pocas personas estaban interesadas en la revolución socialista en la Gran Bretaña victoriana, pero un gran número estaba fascinado por las características místicas del socialismo. A diferencia del marxismo, que criticaba la democracia liberal y defendía la lucha de clases revolucionaria, las principales vertientes del socialismo victoriano pueden caracterizarse por una perspectiva ética, no marxista y anticapitalista que combinaba el radicalismo tradicional inglés con el tradicional respeto inglés por la democracia.

Referencias y lecturas adicionales

Beer, M. Una historia del socialismo británico. Londres: G. Bell and Sons, Ltd., 1919.

Benchimol, Alex. Política intelectual y conflicto cultural en el período romántico: Whigs escoceses, radicales ingleses y la creación de la esfera pública británica. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2010.

Berlín, Isaías. Karl Marx: su vida y medio ambiente. Nueva York: Time, 1963.

Bevir, Mark. La fabricación del socialismo británico. Princeton, Nueva Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2011.

_____. & ldquoThe Labor Church Movement, 1891-1902, & rdquo Journal of British Studies, 38 (2) 1999, 217-245.

Gran Bretaña, Ian. Fabianismo y cultura: un estudio del socialismo británico y las artes 1884-1918. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Bronstein, Jamie L. Reforma agraria y experiencia de la clase trabajadora en Gran Bretaña y Estados Unidos, 1800-1862. Stanford, CA: Prensa de la Universidad de Stanford, 1999.

Carter, M. T. H. Green y el desarrollo del socialismo ético. Exeter, Reino Unido: Imprint Academic, 2003.

Christensen, Torben. El origen y la historia del socialismo cristiano, 1848-54. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1962.

Claeys, Gregory. Maquinaria, dinero y el milenio: de la economía moral al socialismo, 1815-1860. Princeton, Nueva Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1987.

____. Ciudadanos y santos: política y antipolítica en el socialismo británico temprano. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Claeys, Gregory, ed. Socialismo owenita. Folletos y correspondencia: 1832-1837. Nueva York: Routledge, 2005.

Cole, Margaret. La historia del socialismo fabiano. Londres: Heinemann, 1961.

Ely, Richard T. Socialismo: un examen de su naturaleza, su fuerza y ​​su debilidad, con sugerencias para la reforma social. Nueva York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1894.

Fremantle, Anne. Esta pequeña banda de profetas: la historia de los gentiles fabianos. Londres: Allen y Unwin, 1960.

Garner, Robert, Peter Ferdinand, Stephanie Lawson. Introducción a la política. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Haggard, Robert F. La persistencia del liberalismo victoriano: la política de la reforma social en Gran Bretaña, 1870-1900. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001.

Himmelfarb, Gertrude. Pobreza y compasión: la imaginación moral de los victorianos tardíos. Nueva York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1991.

Hobsbawm, E. J. Primitive Rebels: Estudios en formas arcaicas de movimiento social en los siglos XIX y XX. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959.

Hyndmann, H. M. La base histórica del socialismo en Inglaterra. Londres: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1883.

Inglis, Kenneth S. Iglesias y las clases trabajadoras en la Inglaterra victoriana. Londres: Routledge y Kegan Paul, 1963.

Jennings, Ivor. Política de partidos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962.

Lawrence, J. & ldquoPopular Radicalism and the Socialist Revival in Britain, & rdquo Journal of British Studies, 31 (1992) 163-86.

McBriar, Alan M. Fabian Socialismo y política inglesa 1884-1918. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962.

Mackenzie, Norman y Jeanne Mackenzie. Los primeros fabianos. Londres: Weidenfeld y Nicolson, 1977.

Mc Donald, Andrew, ed. Reinvención de Gran Bretaña: cambio constitucional bajo el nuevo laborismo. Prensa de la Universidad de California, 2007.

Manton, Kevin. & ldquoThe Fellowship of the New Life: English Ethical Socialism Reconsidered, & rdquo History of Political Thought, 24 (2) 2003, 282-304.

Milburn, Josephine Fishel. & ldquoThe Fabian Society and the British Labor Party, & rdquo The Western Political Quarterly, 11 (2), 1958, 319-339.

Norman, Edward. Los socialistas cristianos victorianos. Cambrige: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Parssinnen, T. M. & ldquoThomas Spence and the Origins of English Land Nationalization & rdquo Journal of the History of Ideas, 34 (1) 1973, 135-141.

Pease, Edward R. La historia de la sociedad fabiana. Nueva York: E.P. Editores de Dutton & Company, 1916.

Cuervo, Charles E. Socialismo cristiano, 1848-1854. 1920. Nueva York: Augustus M. Kelley, Publishers, 1968.

Shaw, George Bernard, ed. Ensayos de Fabián sobre el socialismo. Londres: Sociedad Fabiana, 1889.

____. La sociedad fabiana: su historia temprana. Londres: Sociedad Fabiana, 1892.

Thompson, E. La formación de la clase trabajadora inglesa. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1981.

Toler, Pamela. La guía Todo para entender el socialismo: los conceptos políticos, sociales y económicos detrás de esta compleja teoría. Avon, MA: Everything Books, 2011.

Ward, P. Red Flag y Union Jack: ingles, patriotismo y la izquierda británica, 1881-1924. Woodbridge, Reino Unido: Royal Historical Society, 1998.

Waters, C. Socialistas británicos y la política de la cultura popular 1884-1914. Manchester: Manchester Univerrsity Press, 1990.

Webb, Sidney y Beatrice Webb. Una Constitución para la Commonwealth Socialista de Gran Bretaña. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1920.

___. Democracia industrial. Londres: Longman, 1897.

White, R. E. O. Ética cristiana. Leominster, Herefordshire: Gracewing Publishing, 1994.

Worley, Matthew, ed. Los fundamentos del Partido Laborista británico: identidades, culturas y perspectivas, 1900-39. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2009.

Yeo, S. & ldquoA New Life: The Religion of Socialism in Britain, 1883-1896, & rdquo History Workshop, 4 (1977) 5-56.


La triste historia del socialismo

Y las tácticas siniestras que utilizan los socialistas para apoderarse de un sistema político.

Nota del editor: a continuación se muestra la parte 8 de un nuevo ensayo escrito por Bruce Hendry: Demócratas, progresistas y socialistas. Estén atentos a los capítulos siguientes. [Vea los enlaces a los capítulos anteriores debajo de este artículo].

19. Fundamentos económicos.

Uno de los peligros para nuestra democracia es la falta total de comprensión de la economía básica. La mayoría de los profesores de K-12 no pueden enseñar economía porque no lo saben. Sin embargo, todas las organizaciones, desde un puesto de limonada para niños hasta la empresa más grande, y por supuesto hasta un país, están sujetas a leyes económicas inmutables e invisibles. ¿Cómo es posible que comprenda las implicaciones de sus decisiones políticas si no comprende su impacto económico?

La economía es simplemente la cuantificación de las conductas y decisiones humanas. Los conservadores económicos creen en la toma de decisiones basadas en hechos, lógica y la idea de un sistema de libre mercado. Los demócratas creen en la toma de decisiones basadas en ilusiones, emociones y socialismo. Ambos grupos dicen que están a favor de la igualdad para todos los ciudadanos y están en contra de la discriminación en sus sociedades, pero tienen diferentes puntos de vista sobre lo que se entiende por "igualdad". El grupo conservador del libre mercado piensa que todo el mundo debería tener las mismas oportunidades de triunfar, mientras que el grupo socialista demócrata cree en resultados iguales, reforzados por el poder del gobierno.

Comprender la teoría económica inicial es fundamental para comprender lo que realmente funciona en una sociedad. Esta comprensión es necesaria para disipar las ilusiones, la negación y las mitologías comunitarias que resultan en la elección de funcionarios que codifican cosas que no funcionan o que en realidad son perjudiciales para aquellos a los que se supone que las leyes deben ayudar.

En un sistema de libre empresa, tendrá grandes disparidades económicas entre sus ciudadanos. Cuanto más libre es el país, mayores son las disparidades. El socialismo y el comunismo nivelarán estas disparidades al llevar a los ricos y educados al nivel de los pobres y sin educación, pero entonces no tendrá un modelo económico que produzca la calidad o cantidad de bienes y servicios que disfrutamos hoy en un mercado libre. sociedad. Democrats do not teach, and perhaps do not know that wealth does not exist, but is created, and that the free enterprise system is the supercharged engine of wealth creation.

Communists, socialists, collectivists, the Left, the New Left, Democrats, progressives, Democratic Socialists, the Socialist Workers Party -- these are all members of basically the same political ideologies. They just go by different names. The name changes because socialist theories don’t work and to pretend that they are something different from the socialist failures of the past, they are constantly giving themselves and their agendas new names. But the fundamental schemes they have for implementing their wish lists remain the same. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. That describes modern-day communists, socialists and progressives.

In a socialist economy, the rich are pulled down to the level of the poor so that everyone is the same. Politicians and government officials become the new elite, and the free enterprise engine of wealth creation is shut down. In a socialist society there are only two classes, the rulers and the ruled.

Why is there an economic disparity? For lots of reasons, some to do with the luck of being born smart or having parents that care. Other causes are that some people invent, create, and/or get a better education than their competition other people delay pleasures for longer term advantages. These are society's producers and we should embrace and treasure this group, rather than vilify them as the Left does.

The danger of believing in this imaginary future of equal outcomes is that in order to achieve this goal, individual freedoms will have to be given over to governments who can then force the ideal of equal outcomes. The Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela -- all impoverished socialist states -- are modern examples of the failed ideology of the Left.

The Soviet Union was a socialist system. The state owned the factories, and all employees were government employees that were paid in the same way no matter how good or bad they were. These workers couldn’t be fired. This is the system that we use today in the public schools, and its failure should not be a surprise to anyone who understands that the public school system is a socialist system – and therefore destined to fail.

Although this socialist idea gets tried over and over again and fails over and over again, the experiments in socialism continue to this day and it has an army of advocates. In the Soviet Union it took 70 years for the socialist system to collapse. In the process it ruined hundreds of millions of lives.

The same can be said of modern-day Cuba, where thousands risk their lives each year to escape that socialist paradise. We can say the same thing for England before Margaret Thatcher, communist China and socialist India. Argentina and Venezuela should be the wealthiest countries in South America because of their natural resources, but they are impoverished because of their socialist system.

A real life experiment that matches capitalism with socialism is in Korea. After the Korean war, both North and South Korea lay in ruins. North Korea chose socialism and South Korea chose capitalism. South Korea now has 40 times the GDP per capita as socialist North Korea. That’s not a misprint. South Korea has 40 times the production per person as the socialist North Korea. North Korea has reached the progressive dream of equal outcomes by bringing everyone except the dictators into poverty. North Korea did this by creating two classes in their society, the rulers and the ruled. Cuba suffered the same fate. That is always where a progressive agenda leads.

In 1998, a Bernie Sanders-type politician from Venezuela named Hugo Chavez promised free stuff to poor people and they elected him and loved him for his false promises. But in the next 18 years the number of people who were considered poor rose from 58%, when Chavez was elected in 1998, to 78% today. This despite the fact that Venezuela is sitting on one of the largest oil deposits in the world. Bernie’s and Hugo’s pretend-world-of-socialism and free stuff sounds good, but history has shown us that it just does not work.

The poor are not poor because the rich are rich. Nor are the rich undeserving. Most of the rich have contributed brilliant innovations or other expertise to America’s well-being. We all live better because of people who were rewarded with wealth, like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Sam Walton. It’s always been that way, and historically we could say the same about Henry Ford, Thomas Edison and Andrew Carnegie who all got very rich, because they left all of us better off. When the rich consume wealth, they provide jobs and business for others. But they produce much more than they can consume, which leaves billions to invest in businesses that benefit everyone else as well. Taking away their wealth kills their investments and hurts everyone. This is the sad story of socialism wherever it has been tried.

Politicians on the left say that millionaires and billionaires are not “paying their fair share.” That statement is a bold lie. Let’s take a look at the actual figures as to who pays the bills from the IRS web site: The top 20% of taxpayers earn 50% of the national income and pay 84% of the tax collected. The bottom 20% of taxpayers pay no tax, but still get an “earned tax credit” refund. One way to look at this is that the top 20% of the taxpayers pay their own way and also pick up the “fair” share that the bottom 20% don’t pay. Who then is not “paying their fair share?”

Socialism is the false god for the poor. It sounds good, especially if presented by a good salesman like Fidel Castro or Bernie Sanders. But the system is an eventual disaster for everyone, especially the poor. It’s the false promise to the poor that there is something for them for nothing and that the rich are rich because they have stolen something from the poor, something that they didn’t have in the first place. Jealousy is a normal human emotion and that plays a role here too. All of these socialistic political and social constructs revolve around the idea of an imaginary future not tempered by common sense, human nature, or the lessons of history, in which everyone gets along and is taken care of.

The American idea of equal opportunity is dismissed as racist, sexist, and the white man’s construct. The Left and so-called progressives are at war with traditional American values of individual freedom and the idea that people should be judged on their character and not the color of their skin or their political views. All politicians ignore the realities of basic economics, at the expense of the community, in order to get votes. But Democrats have made it a religion.

Progressives will say that their dream world will be more like Norway, Sweden or Finland than North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela. Here’s the problem with that idea:

Norway, for instance, is rich from its North Sea oil deposits and has a common culture. In other words, its citizens are united in their culture and not diverse. The words diverse and divisive come from the same root word for a reason. Because of the military protection provided by the United States through NATO [Americans pay 68% of NATO’s budget], Norway's budget is tiny, thus freeing up money that can be spent on social projects.

Norway has a population of just 5 million. New York City, by comparison, has a population of almost 9 million people. To apply a political system that works for a tiny, rich, homogenous population to a multiracial society of 330 million people is just plain silly.

Free enterprise, also called capitalism, has lifted more people out of poverty than all of the socialist experiments and all of the religious efforts in the history of mankind. Everybody, especially the poor, are beneficiaries of a free enterprise system of government and people like Bernie Sanders do the poor a great disservice with his false promises of free health care and education.

20. Consequence of Ignoring Economic Fundamentals.

Politicians and the voting public either don’t know fundamental economic realities or ignore them for personal or political gain. Three of these economic realities are:

1. The law of supply and demand.
2. If you tax something, you’ll have less of it.
3. If you subsidize something you’ll get more of it. A real life example of this is that if you subsidize being a single mother, you’ll have more single mothers.

Let’s see how ignoring economic fundamentals plays out in our society, which has certain values such as education, home ownership and health care that translate into political support for directing public funds into promoting these values.

In every case, you initially get more of what you subsidize and at a price that starts out with the unsubsidized price. Therefore, the early recipients of a subsidized commodity get a good deal. The two realities that we talked about now come into play. First, we’ll get more of what we subsidized and segundo, the price will go up because of the increased demand.

These are simple immutable economic facts, and unfortunately, legislatures can’t legislate against the immutable laws of economics. Sorry about that, guys. Let’s look at what happened in each case.

Higher Education: In my day, you could pay for a college degree by working full time in the summer and part time during the school year. You can’t do that anymore - not even close. So what happened? Lots of things, but mostly subsidized easy-to-get student loans created a new demand for education which raised the price. [Remember the law of supply and demand.] Politicians responded to this increased cost of education by increasing the ease and amounts of student loans which further raised the cost of education.

In the end, this well-meaning effort to lower the cost of education actually raised the cost for everybody and left a legacy of debt with many students, and encouraged some to go to college who may have been better off going to a trade school.

Home ownership:The Government basically took over the home mortgage market and made it possible for many who didn’t qualify to get a home loan anyway. This artificially increased the demand for houses and guess what? the increased demand increased the prices for homes.

This well-meaning effort to help those who couldn’t afford a home to get one artificially raised the price of all homes to unsustainable levels, and saddled many with debt burdens that brought on personal economic ruin. The housing prices collapsed in 2008 and almost brought down the U.S. economy with it. Unfortunately, the law of supply and demand raises its ugly head, and that’s what happens when politicians either don’t know or ignore simple economic rules. By the way, Democrats and their national media supporters blamed the "greedy Wall Streeters" for the home mortgage collapse when it was actually government policy and easy government home loans that caused it.

Health care: is the biggest disaster of all. Nothing is more important to us all than our health and our life, but the government has been stuffing money into the health care system for decades. The results were predictable: costs escalated faster than inflation for all of those decades. Now the government says that costs are too high for the average person so it took over the health care system in order to make health care more affordable. Of course prices will continue to rise as even more money is poured into the system. It’s that old problem of supply and demand again. Not knowing or ignoring Economics 101 will always produce a bad outcome.

21. The Sorry History of Socialism.

We study history to get insights into our own time. We know from that study that socialism doesn’t work in the real world. It sounds great, the idea that everybody lives equally well, but that is a fantasy and is not validated by any historical precedent. I think that there is a deep-seated need in human beings – call it “human nature” - that keeps this disastrous idea alive over the generations. It may be the deep emotional human need to be taken care of by a strong, caring and wise person or government. One of the socialist founders, August Comte, called socialism “the religion of humanity” for good reason. In place of God the Father it puts God the State.

Historically speaking, here is a snapshot of the steps that socialists use to take over a political system that gives them the power to impose their political ideology on the population.

Step One is to take political control of the country. Saul Alinsky, the radical father of the modern Democratic Party, taught that political change cannot come about if society is peaceful and if people are engaging each others differences in a civilized manner. Therefore, as he explains in his book, Rules for Radicals, you should never let a crisis go to waste and if there isn’t a real crisis, you should create one.

Obama and Hillary are both Alinsky disciples. In fact, Obama was trained in his school and Hillary did her college thesis on him. Obama created crisis after crisis by taking local or regional race issues and elevating them to national prominence by weighing in, as President, and then sending the DOJ to investigate.

The crisis in Ferguson Missouri was a good example of this. Here’s what happened: A petty criminal who was black got caught shoplifting and while resisting arrest was shot and killed. There was no evidence that the police officer was the aggressor or that he shot him because of his race. Seven black eyewitnesses testified to the Grand Jury that the shooting was in self-defense.

Democrats just made up the story that the culprit was murdered because he was black. It was not true. President Obama weighed in and sent Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice to investigate, making it into a national crisis. As it turned out, the DOJ concluded that the police officer acted in self defense but it came up with a rationale for the rioting that destroyed the town that Blacks were targeted for more traffic tickets than whites. Sounds ridiculous, and it is, but this is pure Alinsky. If you don’t have a real crisis, start one.

Alinsky taught that to effect political change you have to infiltrate the institutions of the State and once you are in, to sabotage them. This is a good strategy, but one that can take years to accomplish. Unfortunately for the United States, the Left has been working at this objective for decades, largely out of the view of the average person. Until the advent of Donald Trump.

The infiltration of our public schools, universities and the national press by the Left is now an accomplished fact, and they are now in a position of power to indoctrinate young minds. In a recent survey of students at public universities, it was found that more than 50% of those surveyed thought that socialism is a better system than free enterprise. These are our future leaders and such a widespread belief, in my opinion, is dangerous to the long term health of our democracy.

Step Two is to take over the institutions such as the IRS, the Department of Justice and the FBI. If you have control of law enforcement, then your own misdeeds will not be accounted for because you control the organization that is charged with discovering them. Of course, this is exactly what happened in the Obama administration - it took over these agencies simply by putting in its own people at the top. It is frightening to see how easy it was for the Obama administration to accomplish this.

Step Three is to disarm the population.The Communists did it, the Nazis did it, the Chinese did it, and the Democrats in the USA are trying to do it too. The Democrats say that the murder rate in the United States is too high when compared to Europe and other developed countries and the way to stop these murders is to control guns. It’s true that the murder rate in the USA is much higher than other developed countries and even many undeveloped countries. What’s not talked about is that if you subtract the murder rates from the five most violent US cities, the ones controlled by Democrats, the murder rate for the rest of the United States is lower than most European countries.

The five most murderous cities in the United States have these things in common:

1. They have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
2. They are all controlled by Democrats.
3. Most the murders are blacks killing other blacks.

Step Four is to control the newspapers and TV. If you can control what people hear and see, you can fashion their opinions. CNN, for instance, has negatively reported on the Trump Presidency 93% of the time. It has been 70 years since the NY Times has endorsed a Republican for President. In today’s media, only the Wall Street Journal y Fox News have maintained their journalistic standards. All of the other news organizations are now reporting their opinions as actual news, screening out any news that might be favorable to the right or unfavorable to the Left.

News that is embarrassing to the Left is simply not reported except on zorro and the WSJ. It’s called “omission bias” and a viewer simply cannot know what hasn’t been reported. Proverbs 18:17 says, “Every story seems true until you hear the other side”. Many Democrats never get to hear the other side because they rely upon the national press for their information, and therefore are not fully informed on the issues.

Step Five is the courts. Conservative judges are those judges that come to their opinions based upon the law as written and not on their personal opinions. Democrats hate conservative judges because their own judges base their legal opinions on what they think the law should be and are not afraid to legislate from the bench. Democrats do not have the support of the voters to change the country to a socialist state, so they need to rely upon the judiciary to do that work for them. That is why the recent appointment of Judge Kavanaugh, a constitutionalist, to the US Supreme Court, was such a disaster to the Left’s long term agenda.

If you can pack the courts with your political operatives, the courts will affirm the politicians. This happened very recently in Venezuela and that country is now paying the price in a national meltdown which is throwing millions more into poverty. In “Trump v. Hawaii,” four Democrat Judges were willing to ignore the plain language of the law and come up with a political decision.

If Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 Presidential election and had appointed another liberal judge to the US Supreme Court, the trajectory of our country would have been altered toward the disaster of socialism.

Even if you hate Donald Trump and you hated every one of his policies, conservatives and progressives alike should be forever grateful for his appointment of two judges to the US Supreme Court who will follow the law, rather than make it.

Bruce Hendry is a retired businessman who began from humble origins to become a highly successful investor and captain of industry. He embodies the American dream, having earned his way to becoming the president and chairman of the Erie Lackawanna Railroad and Kaiser Steel. He is one of the leaders of the economic revolution that has made America the envy of the world, and also the target of resentful and spiteful leftists who want to destroy it.


The Stomach of Man Under Socialism: A Culinary History of Socialist America

On the other hand, if you managed to avoid the dust bowl or something similar, it probably means you have a more robust agriculture that hasn't fallen prey to the monoculture and soil exhaustion traps?

Unless you decide to merely delay it and have the 50s be your dust bowl equivalent wake up call about failing agricultural management. I could see that, if things remained smooth before that.

Some kind of Potato Blight or grasshopper invasion?

You know what works well for a modern industrial Socialist America that believes in knowledge of its scientists?
A new chemical fertiliser that is mixed so well and yet so badly it turns out to be a slow acting crop killer.

Sam R.

An IWW (Chicago) / Homesteader / 40 acres and a mule / Sharecropper / Crossborder hand & fruitpicker alliance isn’t impossible.

This will walk straight into scale of production and mechanisation issues: the allies aren’t producing tens of thousands of head of cattle millions of tonnes. Their scale of production is human not machine.

A Deleonist IWW (Detroit) alliance isn’t capable.

JesterBL

Organizing farmworkers is not organizing farmers (and is in fact, antagonistic to most farmers who have to use any amount of seasonal labor). A system of political and economic organization based around industrial unions is going to naturally exclude most American farmers who are effectively, self-employed property owners.

To be clear, I agree with you about OTL's Detroit IWW (which like the SLP itself never had a chance once it was rejected by the trade unions, a pattern and tension likely important ITTL's America)- but I think an IWW that managed to keep De Leon and thread the needle between political action and direct action would have stood a chance of becoming something bigger.

Nyvis

"Farmer" is a very specific word, often distinguishable from "farm worker" and I think it's worth keeping that in mind. The US may have been a land of settler-farmers, and frankly labeling those as likely reactionary for propertarian reasons is probably accurate. But it also had a bunch of land trusts that reduced rural people to employed farm workers, who are proletarian and any Marxist should recognize that. Because of that, it's less likely to hit a wall of peasant class interests.

American Marxism could easily be antagonistic to farmers, but I don't think that extends to a general disdain of agriculture. Instead it's likely to invest in farmworkers as the answer.

Sam R.

All you’d need, and what you’d see on good country from the ag IU, is a displacement collectivisation by “teams,” resulting in the twenty district machine farms (owner operator) being run by a 40-80 adult work team collective.

The scale of production is still too low for machine survival (elevators and collectives). Socialist displacement will happen only on good land. The northern Scands and Finns will voluntarily reorganise even harder towards collectivisation with individual incentive, take over the regional IU, and achieve scale of production.

It’s the involuntary bad land “collectives” made up of the railway IU dictating to small holders and single family capitalists that’ll be the ugliness. Nobody *wants* to steal their land for socialisation.

JesterBL

"The duration and extent of this entente cordials, or co-operation, of the two classes, one of which is still largely imbued with individualistic ideas of private property in the means of production, would largely depend on economic developments under the new conditions. If the immediate result of the new measures were a marked relief in the situation of the farming class as indebted property holders, we might expect the latter to become every day more conservative whereas any improvement in the condition of the wage workers would inevitably tend to render these more radical. Then, of course, co-operation would cease, until the temporary relief gained by the small farmers had been lost again through the natural operation of the fundamental laws of the capitalistic system, which nothing short of its complete removal can permanently prevent."- Daniel De Leon, The People Volume I No. 10 "Farmers and Wage-Workers"

"In the first place, is the farmer movement, as Mr. Wright asserts, a revolutionary movement? We must answer, No. Far from being a revolutionary movement, it is one of the most conservative and even retrograde attempts ever recorded in the history of economic evolution. Its object is to perpetuate a class that modern progress has doomed, and its only result can be to prolong the agony of the poor people who belong to it by deferring the day of their complete emancipation. Mr. Wright mistakes blind rebellion for intelligent revolution."- Daniel De Leon, The People Vol. II No. 3 "Socialism and The People's Party"


The history of socialism

Where did Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders get his political philosophy? Here's everything you need to know:

What is socialism?Broadly, it's a political and economic system under which the means of production are owned by the community as a whole, with government ensuring the equitable distribution of wealth. But socialism has taken many forms. "'Socialism' is an exceedingly fuzzy term used to label an extraordinarily wide array of political and economic beliefs," says scholar Paul Brians. Socialism has morphed into Soviet-style communism and spawned Latin American dictatorships, while in Europe, many countries combine socialistic principles with capitalism and democracy. In the U.S., programs that opponents once condemned as socialism, such as Social Security and Medicare, are now deeply embedded in our society. Still, socialism has largely dwelled on the margins of American politics, until it was revived by the campaign of Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders.

What is Sanders' preferred form of socialism?A self-described "democratic socialist," Sanders believes government should aggressively use taxes and social programs to limit income inequality and provide health care, day care, and a college education to all without charge. But he doesn't spurn private enterprise. "I don't believe government should own the means of production," the Vermont senator says. "I do believe the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth deserve a fair deal." Sanders' model social democracy is Denmark, which tops polls of the world's happiest countries — but also has one of the world's highest tax rates, averaging about 60 percent.

When did socialism arise?It began as a response to the dire poverty and inhumane working conditions in industrialized Europe in the early 19th century. One of the first thinkers called a "socialist" was Robert Owen, an idealistic Welsh mill owner who in the 1820s created a number of short-lived "utopian" communities — basically, collectives — in Britain and the American Midwest. But socialism really took off in midcentury, spurred by the writings of German philosopher Karl Marx and the rise of labor unions. "Socialists rejected the argument that the wealthy deserve their wealth because they created it," Brians says, "instead believing that wealth is created by the working class and wrongfully appropriated by the rich."

How did it spread to the U.S.? Mainly via Marxist German immigrants, who spearheaded the establishment of the Socialist Labor Party (SLP) in 1876. The first socialist to hold public office in the U.S. was Fred Haack, a shoe-store owner elected to the Sheboygan, Wisconsin, city council in 1897. Four years later, ex-SLP members and others formed the Socialist Party of America, which over the next two decades elected two U.S. congressmen, dozens of state legislators, and more than 100 mayors. "They pushed for public ownership of utilities and transportation facilities," says political scientist Peter Dreier, as well as expanded parks, libraries, and playgrounds "and a living wage for workers." The face of the party was Eugene V. Debs (see below), a fiery railroad-union leader who ran for president five times. But by the 1920s, U.S. socialism had fallen far out of favor.

What happened?The Socialist Party opposed America's entry into World War I, and was widely condemned as unpatriotic. In 1917, Congress passed the Espionage Act, making it a crime to speak out against the war or oppose the draft. Thousands of socialists, including Debs, were subsequently arrested. At the same time, Russia's Bolshevik Revolution caused a "red scare" in the U.S. — a panicky fear that a similar worker revolt might occur here. Suspected radicals were rounded up and jailed, and nativists demanded an end to immigration from Italy and Eastern Europe, which they saw as hotbeds of communist sentiment.

Is socialism the same as communism?No. Marx envisioned communism as a higher and purer form of socialism, in which all private property would become obsolete, class distinctions would dissolve, and goods and services would flow freely, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." In the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and other communist countries, Marx's idealistic vision produced a grim reality, with economic growth stalling and an authoritarian ruling class appropriating much of the meager wealth for itself while murderously suppressing all dissent. During the Cold War, "socialist" and "communist" were often used interchangeably in the U.S., in what political scientist Lawrence Quill calls "shorthand for all things un-American."

Is socialism un-American?Many Americans have conflicted attitudes about socialism, best illustrated by the Tea Party activists who demanded that "government get its hands off my Medicare." But when a Gallup poll asked Americans last year whether they would consider voting for 11 categories of presidential candidate, "socialist" ranked last, garnering 47 percent, behind "Muslim" and "atheist." Among 18- to 29-year-olds, however, 69 percent had no problem voting for a socialist. Why the huge disparity? People in their 20s have no memory of the Soviet Union or the Cold War, but did come of age during and after the 2008 financial crisis. To young people feeling great economic insecurity, sharing the wealth sounds less like a threat than like a promise.

Sanders' socialist heroEugene V. Debs received 919,799 votes in the 1920 presidential election — while serving a 10-year sentence for his passionate opposition to America's entry into World War I. "The working class, who freely shed their blood and furnish the corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace," Debs had said. A rousing speaker, he made four other White House bids, garnering 6 percent of the vote in 1912. Debs embraced the Russian Revolution, but was appalled by the Soviets' violent suppression of dissent pardoned by President Warren G. Harding in 1921, he remained a vociferous anti-communist until his death in 1926. Many of Debs' ideas — such as banning child labor, social security for retired workers, and unemployment insurance — were later co-opted by the major parties. He was the subject of an admiring 1979 documentary — Eugene Debs: Trade Unionist, Socialist, Revolutionary — produced and narrated by his political descendant, Bernie Sanders.


The History Of Socialism And Capitalism

The Hoover Institution presents an online virtual speaker series based on the scholarly research and commentary written by Hoover fellows participating in the Human Prosperity Project on Socialism and Free-Market Capitalism. This project objectively investigates the historical record to assess the consequences for human welfare, individual liberty, and interactions between nations of various economic systems ranging from pure socialism to free-market capitalism. Each session will include thoughtful and informed analysis from our top scholars.

The History of Socialism and Capitalism
THE DISCUSSION IS BELOW

/p>

Niall Ferguson, MA, D.Phil., is the Milbank Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a senior fellow of the Center for European Studies, Harvard, where he served for twelve years as the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History.

Victor Davis Hanson is the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution his focus is classics and military history.

Click HERE to read papers or watch videos that have been released for this project.


THESE Are the Most Telling Failures of Socialism

COMMENTARY BY

Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought

Karl Marx has been wrong about nearly everything he predicted. Bettmann / Contributor / Getty Images

Some conservatives may be discouraged by the latest surveys confirming that nearly one-half of millennials are receptive to living under socialism and regard capitalism as a captive of greed. In fact, they present us with a golden opportunity to educate all Americans about the manifold failures of socialism and the miraculous advances the world has made under free enterprise.

For example, the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson revealed at a Heritage Foundation event that between 2000 and 2012, “the rate of absolute poverty in the world fell by 50 percent.” That is, “the poor in the world are getting rich at a rate that is absolutely unparalleled in all of human history.” Heritage’s 2019 Index of Economic Freedom reported that the greatest advances came in African and Asian countries (such as Botswana and Taiwan) that limited rather than expanded the role of government. More than 100 countries, many of them with less developed or emerging economies, showed marked advances in economic growth and individual prosperity.

Such good news is seldom reported by the mainstream media, Dr. Peterson said, because of the technological revolution that’s occurring in every form of media. All the broadcast networks, leading newspapers and magazines exist in a shrinking market with dwindling margins of profit. To attract attention they are turning to an old journalism axiom: “If it bleeds, it leads.”

The news media obsess over the latest school shooting and bloody street riot. And yet, Dr. Peterson pointed out, the rates of violent crime in the United States and in most places “have plummeted in the last 50 years.” The U.S. is now safer than it has been since the early 1960s, but the reporting of violent crime in America has materially increased as the mainstream media, in pursuit of ratings and revenue, have highlighted the dark side of society.

Conservatives must step forward to tell the truth about capitalism: the better life it has brought to billions of people, the diversity and freedom of choice it celebrates, the individual responsibility it encourages, the continuing miracle of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” its rejection of government planning that always leads to dictatorship.

Which brings us to the urgent task of exposing the chimera that socialism is just another political system. Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and their fellow socialists carefully omit any mention of the principles laid down by Karl Marx, the founding father of Socialism, such as the abolition of private property and the centralization of the means of production and of decision-making. But make no mistake: there are radical socialists waiting in the wings to promote these extreme initiatives.

It’s up to us to tell the truth. Socialists promise a classless society but create the prison camps of the Gulag and the Isle of Pines. They assure peace but engage in wars of national liberation. They abolish private property but depend upon the underground economy. They stamp out religion but worship Big Brother. They bring down corrupt dictators but institute a dictatorship of the Party.

Here are some of the most telling failures of socialism.

One, socialism has never succeeded anywhere, including the Marxism-Leninism of the Soviet Union, the National Socialism of Nazi Germany, the Maoism of Communist China, the Chavez-Maduro socialism of Venezuela. It has never come close anywhere to Marx’s ideal of a classless society.

Two, Karl Marx has been wrong about nearly everything he predicted. The nation-state has not withered away. Capitalism didn’t break down as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Workers haven’t become revolutionaries but capitalists. The middle class hasn’t disappeared indeed, it has expanded exponentially around the world (see the above about the sharp decline in global poverty). Marx’s attempt to use Hegel to create a “scientific socialism” has been an abject failure.

Three, socialism denies the existence of an essential human trait – human nature. Marx borrowed from the Enlightenment to declare that human nature was malleable, not constant. Christian theology with its idea of a fixed God-given nature infuriated Marx. The socialist state established by Lenin tried for seven decades to create an entirely new human being – Soviet Man. In December 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev gave up trying and dissolved the world’s most spectacular failure in human engineering.

Four, socialism depends not upon the will of the people but on the dictatorship of the Party to remain in power. In “The God That Failed,” six famous Western intellectuals describe their journey into socialism and their exit when they encountered the gigantic gap between their vision of a socialist utopia and the totalitarian reality of the socialist state.

After visiting the Soviet Union, the French Nobel Laureate writer Andre Gide said: “I doubt where in any country in the world – not even in Hitler’s Germany – have the mind and spirit ever been less free, more bent, more terrorized and indeed vassalized than in the Soviet Union.”

What price socialism? The Chinese philosopher Lin Yutang listed the “little terrors” that prevailed in China – making children of 12 subject to capital punishment, sending women to work in underground coal mines, harassing workers during their lunchtime with threats of prison if they were late returning to work. A Soviet defector said of the perpetual surveillance: “We lived in a world swarming with invisible eyes and ears.”

Given the ignorance of so many of our fellow especially young Americans, telling the truth about socialism has become an imperative. If we do not, Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and their fellow travelers will fill the vacuum with their misleading rhetoric. This is the truth about socialism: It is a pseudo-religion founded in pseudo-science and enforced by political tyranny.


Trump claims Biden will try to impose 'socialism plus' if elected

Likewise, when JFK unveiled what would become the Civil Rights Act of 1964, opponents denounced it too as socialism. Segregationist organizations in the South, for instance, took out large newspaper ads denouncing it as “the Socialists’ Omnibus Bill of 1963.” “What is being piously presented as a humane effort to redress past wrongs — the ‘Civil Rights’ bill — is, in fact, a cynical design to make even the least of us … subject to the whim and caprice of government bureaucrats.”

Once the Civil Rights Act and Medicare had been enacted, some conservatives still denounced them — and the larger Great Society programs of the Johnson administration — as more socialism. “This will be only the beginning,” warned conservative journalist Walter Trohan of the Chicago Tribune, “because once a country embarks on such a welfare or socialistic program, there is virtually no avenue for retreat.”

Ironically, if there has been “creeping socialism” in America, it’s apparently crept up on those who keep shouting about it.

Today, of course, all these policies that were once denounced as dangerously “socialist” have become mainstays of the American political scene. As he warns that his opponent will bring dangerous new forms of socialism to America, Trump has promised to preserve the programs that previous generations of conservative Republicans warned were dangerous new forms of socialism. “We will protect Medicare and Social Security,” he promised in his acceptance speech at this year’s Republican National Convention. Ironically, if there has been “creeping socialism” in America, it’s apparently crept up on those who keep shouting about it.

Kevin M. Kruse is a professor of history at Princeton University. A specialist in modern American political, social and urban/suburban history, he is the author and editor of several books, including "White Flight" (2005), "One Nation Under God" (2015) and "Fault Lines: A History of the United States since 1974" (2019). He grew up in Nashville, Tennessee, and earned his bachelor's degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and his master's and doctoral degrees from Cornell University.


Ver el vídeo: historia del partido socialista