Why has socialism failed to transform Western civilization?
The short answer is that socialism hasn’t completely failed to change civilization, but the effect hasn’t been transformative. Old age pensions, universal healthcare and various measures to support families with children have been widely adopted. Labor unions are still relevant in some places.
But the full promise has not been fulfilled. There have been several reasons, which I list in descending order of importance.
- Authoritarian socialism or communism. There has been no instance of authoritarian socialism that wasn’t a humanitarian disaster. The reasons that authoritarian socialism developed are doubtless complex, but it does seem that a country has to have a functioning democracy and the norms of a civil society before socialism is introduced. Socialism depends on the premise that individuals have a responsibility to society, and people who grew up in, say, Czarist Russia may have had trouble internalizing that premise, since they didn’t vote or otherwise have any control over the direction of their country. Short of re-socializing the entire nation, the Soviet Communist Party had to resort to autocracy to get anything done, not that it seemed to mind in the least.
- Socialism assumed that replacing capitalism would be simple, and actually more efficient economically, by eliminating the boom-and-bust cycle of capitalism. This was a serious mistake, aggravated by the fact that capitalism itself was learning how to moderate the boom-and-bust cycle. Socialism had no appreciation for the dynamism of capitalism, for its innovative side. Over time the democratic socialists learned somewhat better, but they struggled to find the right balance between protecting people from capitalism while still allowing capitalism the flexibility it needs to create wealth. And they still do.
- Socialism often failed to appreciate the role of productivity in improving capitalism. Socialism does have something unique to offer capitalism, something capitalism cannot do for itself, and that is to improve worker productivity on a scale that few companies can imagine, and on a timeframe inconsistent with most corporations’ business plans.
- Socialism became associated with anti-clericalism and atheism. Although the churches in Europe were shameless in their defense of capitalism and even of absolute monarchy, socialism didn’t need to fight that battle, and they failed to recognize the spiritual benefits of religious practice. The liberals handled this issue more adeptly.
- Socialism adopted bureaucratic state methods uncritically. It was truly a child of the nineteenth century in this respect.
But the big problems were authoritarianism and a failure to confront capitalism in a realistic way. Capitalism does have some notable strengths, and replacing it completely was a costly mistake.
The history of socialism from, say, 1848 to 1949 is one of dramatic victories and defeats, of tragic mistakes and incredible resilience. Like World War II, this history is difficult to grasp in its entirety—it is too much to hold in your head without consulting notes. From Spain to China, the struggle for socialism became the struggle for humanity at large. For the human race to reach “the broad sunlit uplands” of the future, in Churchill’s phrase, we had to free ourselves from absolute monarchies, from titled aristocracies that monopolized wealth and public office, from fascism, military rule, theocracy and dictatorships of all kinds, and from colonialism and intensely hierarchical social structures—particularly the class structure that resulted from the industrial revolution, with its extremes of poverty and luxury.
We had to free ourselves, in short, from political and social arrangements that rested on force or fraud rather than on the responsible and uncoerced consent of the people.
And socialism took the lead in this struggle from 1848 to 1949. It also tragically and famously fell victim to governing based on force, as with Stalin and Mao Zedong. Not that authoritarian socialism is simply a matter of a few personalities gone astray.
Still, even communism has some honor to claim. Without the Soviet Union, by 1949 the Nazis and the Japanese would have controlled Eurasia. Think what that would have meant for humanity.
But there were also examples of socialist parties that were not authoritarian. The most interesting example is the SPD, which was founded in 1863—before Germany became a unified nation. It was often the object of repression. From 1878 to 1890, for example, meetings to discuss socialist ideas were illegal, and yet the SPD continued to grow, by running its candidates as independents. In fact, it became the largest party in the Reichstag by 1892. It grew more influential in subsequent years, becoming a cultural movement. From Wikipedia:
“In the states of Bavaria, Wurttemberg, Hesse, and Baden, the SPD was successful in extracting various socio-political and democratic concessions (including the replacement of the class-based electoral systems with universal suffrage) through electoral alliances with bourgeois parties, voting for parliamentary bills and state budgets. In the Reichstag, the SPD resorted to a policy of tactical compromise….. In 1894, the parliamentary SPD voted for a government bill for the first time ever. It reduced the import duty on wheat, which led to a reduction in the price of food. In 1913, the votes of SPD parliamentarians helped to bring in new tax laws affecting the wealthy, which were necessary due to the increase in military spending.[6]
The Social Democrats gave particular attention to carrying out reforms at the local level …. which intensified after 1945. The establishment of local labour exchanges and the introduction of unemployment benefits can be credited in part to the SPD. In 1913, the number of Social Democrats on municipal and district councils approached 13,000. As noted by Heinrich Potthoff and Susanne Miller,
‘Here, and in their work in the administration of industrial insurance, in community employment offices and courts of arbitration, lay one of the roots of the gradual penetration by the Social Democrats of the imperial German state.’
As Sally Waller wrote, the SPD encouraged great loyalty from its members by organising educational courses, choral societies, sports clubs, and libraries. The party also ran welfare clinics, founded libraries, produced newspapers, and organised holidays, rallies, and festivals. As also noted by Weller, they played a role in shaping a number of progressive reforms:
‘The SPD also helped promote Germany’s extensive system of welfare support giving Germany the most comprehensive system of social insurance in Europe by 1913. They pressed successfully for …… the secret ballot (1904) and payment of MPs (1906), which permitted lower middle and working-class men, with no other income, to put themselves forward as deputies for the Reichstag. In 1911, they supported measures whereby Alsace-Lorraine was given Reichstag representation and universal male suffrage at 21 years was introduced. They also successfully resisted the taxation proposals that would hit the working man harder and promoted progressive taxes….’
And in this from historian Richard M. Watt:
‘The political and organizational success of the Social Democrats had enabled them to demand and obtain a respectable body of legislation incorporating social reform, outlawing child labor and improving working conditions and wages, to the point where the German Social Democratic Party was the model for socialist parties in every other nation, and the German worker the most envied in Continental Europe.’ “
This success was all the more remarkable because the SPD never achieved an absolute majority in the Imperial Reichstag….and the Reichstag had only limited powers. Most critically, it lacked the power to dismiss or select ministers. Nevertheless, a Reichstag with good ideas always had a chance to influence public policy, and the SPD never ran short of good ideas before 1914.
The SPD was formally committed to revolution, and the Imperial German state concentrated most power in the hands of the Kaiser and his inner circle; some of the Kaisers believed in the divine right of kings. Neither the SPD nor the monarchy accepted the existence of the other, and yet they played a game of parliamentary chess for decades., in which the SPD was generally successful beyond all expectations. It consistently focused on what the German people needed, and on what could be done within the existing system. Then the SPD worked year after year for change on specific issues. They never abandoned their principles, and they never failed to change their tactics as circumstances required.
They even convinced Kaiser Wilhelm II to care about the working conditions of miners—and the Kaiser used that issue against Bismarck, ousting him in 1892. So the SPD even brought down their most powerful adversary.
In 1914, however, the SPD gave way to nationalism. In the run-up to the war they transferred funds to Switzerland in case the party were outlawed in Germany and had to continue operations abroad. They organized demonstrations against the war and there was talk of a general strike. But in the end the SPD voted money for the war and went along. This had far-reaching effects for the SPD, Germany and the world.
What went wrong? Or was this the best option available? It seems that the SPD forgot that for Germany to progress politically sooner or later it had to become a republic or at least a constitutional monarchy. The SPD had become so skilled at ameliorating the German class structure that it forgot the need for more basic changes.
And the SPD leadership, like German public opinion in general, saw the war against Russia as a defensive one which Germany could not escape. German Socialists hated and feared the Czar for his treatment of political dissidents and Jews.
On the other hand, no German Socialist wanted war with France. And yet Germany declared war on France, and the SPD voted money for an invasion of that country.
Amazingly enough, the SPD, which had been so masterful at negotiating with Imperial Germany during peacetime, did not ask for anything in return for its support for war. It might have asked for a constitutional monarchy after the war, with a cabinet entirely responsible to the Reichstag. If the government had accepted, then the SPD could have told its membership that a constitutional monarchy accountable to the people was worth fighting for. And likewise, if the Kaiser had refused, the SPD could have called a general strike against a Kaiser bent on war today and on absolute power forever.
In any case, the party’s support for the war resulted in a deep split in the SPD and the founding of the German Communist party and other far-left groups. That split weakened the German Left and ultimately made it easier for the Nazis to take power.
It’s one thing to reject violent revolution as a means of change, but it’s something else again to assert that basic change is optional, and that incrementalism will always work. A general strike in 1914 probably would have resulted in the suppression of the SPD, but at least the Left would have remained united, and when the war turned into a disaster, people would have remembered that the SPD tried to stop it.
After WWI, a republic was proclaimed and a revolt by the Communists and the Spartacists, another far-left group, was suppressed by an SPD government, using right-wing Freicorps paramilitary groups. This involved hundreds, perhaps thousands, of summary executions.
And yet, despite the SPD’s failures in 1914 and 1919, and its considerable loss of credibility, particularly among the left-wing public, and the intense hostility to the SPD by German nationalists, the SPD continued to succeed at incrementalism. It just had too many good ideas to ignore:
“As noted by Edward R. Dickinson, the [1918] Revolution and the democratisation of the state and local franchise provided Social Democracy with a greater degree of influence …. than it had been able to achieve before 1914. As a result of the reform of municipal franchises, socialists gained control of many of the country’s major cities. This provided Social Democrats with a considerable degree of influence in social policy, as most welfare programmes (even those programmes mandated by national legislation) were implemented by municipal government. By the Twenties, with … the reformist and revision element dominant in the SPD, Social Democrats regarded the expansion of social welfare programmes, and particularly the idea that the citizen had a right to have his or her basic needs met by society at large, as central to the construction of a just and democratic social order. Social Democrats therefore pushed the expansion of social welfare programmes energetically at all levels of government, and SPD municipal administrations were in the forefront of the development of social programmes. As remarked by Hedwig Wachenheim in 1926, under Social Democratic administration many of the country’s larger cities began to become experimental “proletarian cooperatives.”[25]
Protective measures for workers were vastly improved, under the influence or direction of the SPD, and members of the SPD pointed to positive changes that they had sponsored, such as improvements in public health, unemployment insurance, maternity benefits, and the building of municipal housing.[26] During its time in opposition throughout the Twenties, the SPD was able to help push through a series of reforms beneficial to workers, including increased investment in public housing, expanded disability, health, and social insurance programmes, the restoration of an eight-hour workday in large firms, and the implementation of binding arbitration by the Labour Ministry.[27] In 1926, the Social Democrats were responsible for a law which increased maternity benefit “to cover the cost of midwifery, medical help and all necessary medication and equipment for home births.”[28] “
The SPD was so successful that the Nazis could only compete through assassination and street violence. A number of SPD officials were killed before the Nazis took control in 1933, and the German political system was not outraged—nor was international public opinion.
After the Reichstag Fire Hitler outlawed the Communist Party and pushed an Enabling Act through the Reichstag, giving him absolute power. Since the Reichstag building had burned, the meeting was convened in the nearby Kroll Opera House. When the vote came, there were S.A. troopers present to intimidate the deputies. That is, some of the most murderous thugs in history were on the floor to ensure that the vote went Hitler’s way.
All the Communist deputies and 28 of the SPD deputies had already been arrested or were in hiding. This suppression was accomplished with the active help of the German court system.
Every political party voted for the Enabling Act—the Zentrum (a centrist Catholic party with the stated purpose of representing Christian values in politics), the DNVP (a conservative nationalist party with a Prussian mystique and an appeal limited to Protestants), and all the smaller parties voted for the Nazi dictatorship—except for the SPD. The final vote was 444 in favor, 94 opposed. All of those opposed were members of the SPD, which voted unanimously against the Enabling Act. Every other party voted unanimously for it.
Only the SPD chairman, Otto Wels, spoke against the Enabling Act. He said:
“At this historic hour, we German Social Democrats pledge ourselves to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and socialism. No Enabling Law can give you the power to destroy ideas which are eternal and indestructible … From this new persecution too German social democracy can draw new strength. We send greetings to the persecuted and oppressed. We greet our friends in the Reich. Their steadfastness and loyalty deserve admiration. The courage with which they maintain their convictions and their unbroken confidence guarantee a brighter future.”
The SPD deputies, whatever their mistakes and illusions, still had the hearts of heroes—and Deutsche Helder at that.
Let us pause here to square up the accounts of history. Once the Enabling Act had passed, World War II was inevitable, and the fate of European Jews was settled. And it must have been apparent to most in the Kroll Opera House that war was the likely outcome. The fifty million (or so) who would die in World War II might have felt a chill, as if someone had walked across their grave.
Catholicism, Protestantism, nationalism and the German judiciary were all “weighed in the balances, and found wanting.” The Army and the industrialists had already been compromised. Every major institution in Germany (aside from the SPD and the Communists) actively supported giving Hitler absolute power. This wasn’t mere complicity.
Only the socialists tried to block the path between fascism and the future.
Afterwards, the SPD leaders and officials either fled the country or were sent to concentration camps, where thousands died. Some went underground in Germany. The SPD was formally outlawed a few months after the Enabling Act passed. There was an SPD exile group, which fled first to Prague, then to Paris, and finally to London.
And yet after WWII ended, the SPD re-emerged in Germany in 1946 and began taking over municipal governments. The Americans—indeed all the occupying powers, including the USSR—did not want the socialists to have any real power, but their efforts were useless. The CDU had to adopt many of the SPD’s proposals, and the Americans had to accept that the SPD was part of the landscape.
The CDU/CSU was really just the pre-war Zentrum party, but because of Zentrum’s support for the Enabling Act and their overall complicity with the Nazis, it had to be “re-branded.” The reader may note that the SPD had no need to change its name.
And if you read the history of Germany since WWII, what you come to realize is that the modern German state—and culture—are largely the work of the SPD. The socialists created modern Germany; even when they didn’t have much power, they had the rare ability to set the agenda and to influence others: Bismarck (on old age pensions), Kaiser Wilhelm II (on worker safety), and Zentrum and the CDU on a wide range of issues.
And they did this in a country cursed with absolute monarchy, and with an aristocracy that was proverbial for its harshness, where fascism reached the height of its power and efficiency, with an entire array of adverse social and cultural conditions: patriarchy, high alcohol consumption, social isolation, racism, anti-Semitism and militarism. And yet out of that, the socialists created modern Germany.
The SPD’s influence was like “the action of grace in territory held largely by the devil,” in Flannery O’Connor’s words.
I started this essay with the question: “Why has socialism failed to transform Western Civilization?” And I was looking for a set of mistakes or errors in thinking when I asked that question.
And yet socialism has transformed Germany, and other countries as well. And while I do believe that authoritarian socialism was an enormous and tragic mistake, perhaps I wasn’t asking all right questions. “What did socialists do wrong?” is a good question, but so is “What did they do right, and how can we build on that?”
The SPD did a lot right, and their faith and courage in the midst of disaster are not the least of it.
(All quotes from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Wels )
The Socialist Investor 