National problems in the works of the ideologists of the German Social Democracy. Theoretical premises of the social democratic doctrine Classical social democracy
National problems in the works of the ideologists of the German Social Democracy
German Social Democrats in the period before the First World War paid little attention to both national problems in general and the German national question in the Bohemian lands in particular. Most of the publications on this subject belonged to immigrants from the court-then-German regions, such as K. Kautsky and F. Stampfsr. Editor, since 1916 - editor-in-chief of the central press organ of the SPD "Foreverts" was born and raised in Brunn, Moravia. Stampfer, closely followed the development of the situation in the Bohemian lands. He, in particular, stood up for a special state right for Bohemia.
Another native of the Sudetenland, born in 1854 in Prague, in the family of the Czech theater designer Jan Vaclav Kautsky, married to a German woman, K. Kautsky was closely associated with the socialist movement in Bohemian lands, Kautsky was a recognized theoretician of German social democracy. At the same time, he always emphasized his Czech origin and in his youth was fond of Czech nationalism. Touching directly on the German national question, Kautsky saw no prospects for preserving Austria in its former form, having correctly noted that a democratic solution to the national question in this country would lead to its transformation "into a union of national states." He also objected to the inclusion of non-German nationalities in the German state as a result of the war. The specificity of Kautsky's ideological and theoretical views on the national question consisted in the fact that he did not put the German national question at the forefront, did not believe that it could arise as such. Against. Kautsky drew attention to the position of the German nationalities in Austria-Hungary. Only after 1918 did he come to grips with the analysis of the Sudeten-German problem.
The leaders of the Austrian Social Democracy also acted as theorists of the national question and at the same time took concrete steps towards its solution, in particular, Bauer and Renner during the struggle for the socialist Anschluss in 1918-1919. In Germany, however, there was a significant differentiation between theorists, such as K. Kautsky, G. Kunov, and party functionaries who used the slogan of resolving the national problem in political practice. The most active propagandist of the Anschluss among the German Social Democracy was P. Loebe. Originally from the Breslau region bordering Poland, Loebe himself was in a position similar to the leaders of the Su-child-German Social Democracy, as he took part in the city government of Breslau in the workers' district of the German National Assembly, where he had to fight for the right of Germans to self-determination. Until Hitler's coup, Loebe constantly emphasized the need to achieve German national unity and the formation of a Greater German Republic that would stretch from the Alps to North Sea and from the Danube to the Rhine.
Describing the German and Austro-Hungarian empires, Loebe recognized both of them as multinational states. The main difference between them was that many peoples living throughout its territory were united under the rule of the Habsburgs. Germany, on the other hand, was "more of a nation state," and representatives of national minorities occupied the border regions of the empire. The Anschluss movement 1918-1919 Loebe was assessed as an objectively inevitable tendency to transform multinational states into "purely national states." This trend continued to develop after the Second World War. But the transformation of the European states took place, according to Loebe, by forcibly ousting the Germans from Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Poland. In addition to Loebe, E. Bernstein, R. Breitscheid, R. Hilferding, and A. Crispin also acted as active promoters of the idea of general German unity.
In describing the history of the German revolution of 1918, E. Bernstein also touched upon the Sudeten-German problem, which he considered from the point of view of the possibility of establishing unity with Austria. He pointed out that due to the Czechoslovak occupation of the Sudeten-German regions, Germany was cut off from Austria and could not provide that timely assistance.
R. Hilferding emphasized that he is a supporter of the idea of a "single state" of all Germans. At the Kiel Congress of the SPD in 1927, he declared that "we must fight with increasing vigor for the creation of a single state." The main result of the war, Hilferding considered the establishment of "the hegemony of the Anglo-Saxon world." On the other hand, the war led to the emancipation of national identity in many countries of Europe, Asia, North Africa. Hilferding linked the preservation of peace with the recognition of the "right of nations to self-determination" and the granting of national autonomy to national minorities.
In addition to major, recognized theorists, topical problems of the German national question in the countries of Central and Southeastern Europe were also touched upon by a number of German social democratic publicists, writers, historians who did not claim to be leading positions in the party. G. Fehlinger covered the national problems in Czechoslovakia. This author paid special attention to the development of the socialist movement in the Czech Republic. Analyzing the question of the reasons for the split and the separation of the communist opposition, Fehlinger emphasized that communist ideas were not widespread among the masses. He deduced the split of the Sudeten German and Czechoslovak Social Democracy parties from the internal party struggle, emphasizing the clear predominance of the Czechs in the communist movement. Describing the NSDLP (Ch), Fehlinger noticed an interesting detail: the party was constituted on the basis of large IE1 industrial regions of former Austria, in which the trade union movement was highly developed. And it was yesterday's trade union leaders who made up the majority among the political leadership of the new party. This, in turn, predetermined the fact that the communist influence within the German trade unions was weaker than in the Czech ones. Fehlinger in moderate forms supported the idea of the unity of the socialist movement in the Czech Republic.
Among the more original thinkers can be attributed the German Social-Democratic writer and publicist G. Wendel, who considered the problems of the national question in the newly formed countries, in particular, in Yugoslavia, and general position Germans outside the borders of Germany. Wendel paid special attention to the Slavic-German contradictions. Seeking their reasons, he drew attention to the events of 1848, when "the Germans, who so often acted as oppressors in world history, put forward the demand for the freedom of peoples." However, the struggle of the Germans for freedom met with the resistance of the Slavic peoples, who became one of the factors in the failure of the democratic revolutions of 1848/49. Wendel noted that this fact largely explained the antipathy of the founders of Marxism and the leaders of the First International to the Slavs.
Wendel noted the difference between the South Slavs and Czechs and Poles, who were at a much higher level of cultural and industrial development. Of no small importance was the fact that the South Slavic regions were predominantly part of the more backward Hungary, so that interethnic contradictions between the Hungarians and the Slavs were based on feudal foundations, on the confrontation of the feudal nobility. Analyzing the reasons for the collapse of the Habsburg monarchy, Wendel pointed out that this process was based on the "national-political demands" of its individual nationalities.
Wendel saw the goal of his research in explaining to the Western, first of all, the German proletariat the essence of the changes that took place in Europe after the war, since "the new states in the East and the peoples who created them remain unknown to us." In the works of Wendel given general characteristics the German national question, as well as the position of the German national minority in Hungary, and, which should be attributed to the author's undoubted merits, an attempt was made from within (as a correspondent for the Berlin Forverts, Wendel visited many states of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe) to characterize the process of disintegration Austria-Hungary and education on its fragments of national states. At the same time, he proceeded from the traditional point of view that it was the awakening of national consciousness during the First World War that was the decisive factor that predetermined the collapse of the multinational monarchy of the Habsburgs.
The greatest attention to questions of theory and history of the national problem and interethnic contradictions was given in the works of the greatest theoreticians of German social democracy K. Kautsky and G. Kunov. The latter considered the problems of the national question in the framework of a reassessment of the ideological attitudes of the period of the Second International. Kuhnov especially emphasized the importance of the national idea in the labor movement in Ireland and Austria. Describing the process of the formation of new independent states after the end of the world war, Kunov wrote: "The demand for a national state after unification with national groups located outside its borders is the most important in the course of the general development process and determines its historical course."
Discussing the national character and national consciousness, Kunov emphasized that after the end of the world war, many peoples, especially the Germans, have a clear tendency towards "national revival", which was inherent in many other European peoples, such as the Irish, Italians, Poles and Czechs. Kunov was forced to reflect on the dilemma that arose in the Marxist approach to the national problem. On the one hand, Marxist theory provided grounds for supporting the rights of peoples to national definition. On the other hand, a contradiction arose between the desire of individual peoples for independence and secession from the advanced, developed states, for example, the movement for the independence of the Irish against the British, in which the proletariat faced the difficult task of giving priorities.
Another problem that Coon also faced with the curtain was defining the content of the concept of "nation". Starting from the works of Marx and Engels, Kunov came to the conclusion that the founders of Marxism themselves ranked among the nations not only Slovaks, Croats, Ukrainians, Czechs, Moravians, Bretons, Basques, etc., but also the Welsh and the population of the Isle of Man ... In this regard, Kuhnov did not give a detailed commentary and criticism of this postulate, which clearly needed clarification. Equally vague, at the level of stating the problem, Kunov reacted to the problem of German unity. He admitted that this problem is "a very complex phenomenon" because "parts of the German nation" developed differently in different states. Kunow referred to the example of Swiss Germans who "openly sympathize with England and France", as well as the numerous German communities in England and America that had lived there for several centuries, which made them more than problematic. national identification... He considered the process of loss of a sense of belonging to a common national unification on the part of those ethnic German groups that for a long time developing outside the borders of their historical homeland to be natural. This position of Kunov should be recognized as generally correct in relation to the distant perspective, which could also be attributed to the situation of the Sudeten Germans, who, following the logic of the reasoning of this German Social-Democrat, should also gradually distance themselves from the German people in Germany and Austria. However, Kunov could not in this case see the presence of a persistent and growing Great German orientation, not only among the Sudeten people, but also among other German-speaking ethnic groups: Carpathian Germans, Germans in Poland, which was associated with the specific situation in which they found themselves after 1918.
Kunov, therefore, proceeded from the principle of the historical justification of the demand for the right to self-determination of nations and the creation of a mono-national state for practically all nations and nationalities, it was for this that K. Kautsky criticized him, who had a special relationship with the social democrats of Czechoslovakia. The ambiguity inherent in Kautsky's assessment of the German-Czech contradictions persisted in assessing the Sudeten problem during the end of the world war and the post-war peace settlement. Kautsky played a special, connecting role between Social Democrats of various nationalities in European countries; he can not with good reason be ranked either with the German Social Democracy, from which he actually distanced himself since the early 1920s, or with the Austrian: living in Vienna since 1924, he was never able to integrate into the Austrian Socialist Party. Thus, the figure of Kautsky stood apart, which manifested itself in his assessment of the Sudeten-German problem. Since Kautsky and his family developed a special relationship with Czechoslovakia, he played a special role in Sudeten German history, it seems possible to dwell on the problems of relations between Kautsky and the Social Democrats of the Chechen Republic.
K. Kautsky found himself involved in a conflict situation in the multinational socialist movement in Czechoslovakia. Representatives of the Czechoslovak and German Social Democratic parties considered Kautsky to be their ideological mentor and tried to use his authority in the fight against opponents. The Sudeten German Social Democrats were jealous of Kautsky's relations with the Czech Social Democrats, with other German political parties, organizations, and publications. In the early 1920s. a small scandal erupted over the publication of Kautsky's work in the Prager Press.
Further development of relations between Kautsky and the socialists of the Chechen Socialist Republic took place during the period of his foundation in Vienna (1924). At that time, there was an attempt by the Czechoslovak Social Democrats and the Czechoslovak leadership to use Kautsky's authority to support the Czechoslovak state. An important point was the use of Kautsky's Czech origin. The latter, not without irritation, perceived the statements often repeated in the Czech bourgeois and socialist press about his Czech origin and his adherence to the ideas of Czech nationalism in his youth. "The question of Kautsky's nationality was widely debated in Germany and other European countries... Thus, according to the Czechoslovak representative in Berlin, during the period of Kautsky's activity as an adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the German Republic, German nationalists equally used the epithets "Jew", "Czech" and "independent" * in his attitude, which for them was tantamount to the definition as an enemy of the German people. And later, in the 1920s and 1930s, German fascists and nationalists speculated on Kautsky's international pedigree. They called him "a Jew, a friend of the Jews", blamed him for the humiliating conditions of the Versailles Peace, pointed to his "participation in the Jewish conspiracy." However, no reliable data confirming or refuting the fact of the presence of Jews among his ancestors is unknown. True, for some time the Kautsky family lived in the Jewish quarter (ghetto) of Prague. However, as K. Kautsky himself argued, this was due to purely financial considerations.
The Czechoslovak Social Democrats counted on Kautsky's visit to Prague in order to promote reconciliation between the various national organizations of the Czechoslovak proletariat. The Sudeten German Social Democrats were also at first ready to accept Kautsky. However, as contacts between Kautsky and the Czechoslovak socialists and President Masaryk intensified, the position of the German socialists in the Czech Republic changed. L. Cech wrote to Kautsky in December 1924 that in the conditions of the protracted conflict between the Czech and German parties, Kautsky's visit would bring him little pleasant impressions.
Czechoslovak President T. Masaryk also invited the "Pope of Marxism" to Prague many times. Masaryk reminded Kautsky of their chance meeting in October 1914 and suggested continuing the conversation that had begun at that time. Kautsky, however, heeded the advice of the Sudeten German Social Democrats and refrained from visiting the Czechoslovak capital. During the first half of 1925, there was an active correspondence between Masaryk and Kautsky on the question of the possibility of Kautsky's visit to the Chechen Republic and his meeting with Masaryk. The Czechoslovak president believed that, if he so wished, Kautsky could play the role of a peacemaker between the warring parties of the Czechoslovak proletariat. Kautsky and Masaryk, despite their differences of opinion, felt great sympathy for each other. Both were guardians of the democratic system, both came from mixed German-Czech families.
In the second half of the 1920s. Kautsky occupied an intermediate position between the Czechoslovak and Sudeten German Social Democrats. He maintained close relations with the leaders of the NSDLP (Ch), including E. Paul, K. Cermak, L. Cech and E. Strauss. On the other hand, he had extensive contacts with the Czechoslovak Social Democrats, and actively corresponded with A. Nemets, F. Soukup, and others.
It turned out by the mid-1920s. isolated from the German and Austrian labor movement, Kautsky continued to be the leading socialist theorist and ideologue for socialists in Eastern and Southeastern Europe. Both Czechoslovak and German Social Democrats in Czechoslovakia listened to his recommendations and advice. But, while the latter often expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that Kautsky was published in Czechoslovak publications, that he did not refute reports about his past as a Czech nationalist, the Czechoslovak Social Democrats expressed their complete agreement with all of Kautsky's ideas. Of no small importance to Kautsky was the issue of royalties for his publications in Czechoslovak publications. The rates in the press organs of the CSDLP were higher, and Kautsky was more often and more willingly published in them.
Despite the formal reconciliation of the Social Democratic parties in Czechoslovakia after 1928, there was an unspoken struggle between the Czechoslovak and Sudeten German party publications for the right to publish Kautsky's works. Kautsky had little understanding of all the complexities and twists and turns of relations between the various organizations of the Czechoslovak proletariat. He retained the traditional position of a supporter of the golden mean, advocated the reconciliation of all national social democratic organizations in the Chechen Republic. However, torn away for decades from his historical homeland, Kautsky was never able to understand and comprehend the entire complexity of interethnic contradictions in this country. Kautsky did not hesitate to use his connections with the Sudeten German and Czechoslovak Social Democrats in the interests of his family. The Czechoslovak publications also published articles by K. Kautsky's wife Louise and his sons.
The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany changed the tone of relations between Kautsky and the Social Democrats of Czechoslovakia. In the first months after Hitler's victory in Germany, the Sudeten German Social Democrats did not express their opinion on this event in any way. Only at the beginning of March 1933 did Kautsky receive a stream of correspondence from the German socialists in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, who were united by a single question: "What is to be done?" The defeat of the Austrian Social Democracy in February 1934 added even more pessimism to the Sudeten socialists.
The Sudeten German Social Democrats found themselves involved in a polemic between K. Kautsky, who condemned the tactics of the Austrian Social Democracy, which had risen to an armed struggle, and O. Bauer, who defended it. Immediately in hot pursuit, on February 19, Bauer wrote in Bratislava the work "The Rise of the Austrian Proletariat", in which he analyzed in detail the lessons of the February battles. The paper concluded that an anti-fascist uprising took place in Austria. Unlike the German working class, the Austrian proletariat was able to offer worthy resistance to the forces of reaction, Bauer believed. On this point, a polemic developed between him and K., Kautsky. In the pamphlet Borders of Violence, published anonymously in Carlsbad, Kautsky admitted that in Germany the working class "capitulated without a struggle." The Austrian proletariat has proved that it is more than German "healthy" morally and organizationally united, but only in the capital - in Vienna. The bulk of the Austrian working class remained passive. "The majority of the Austrian workers who did not take part in the uprising are wrong," wrote Kautsky; they capitulated without a struggle, "just like their German comrades.
In letters to the Czechoslovak and Sudeten German Social Democrats, opposing the tactics of an armed uprising and the idea of establishing a dictatorship of the working class. Kautsky interpreted Czechoslovakia as "the last bulwark of democracy."
Kautsky shared the convictions of the Czechoslovak and Sudeten German Social Democrats that it was impossible to establish a fascist dictatorship in that country. He linked the "moral bankruptcy" of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany with its terrorist nature, which should have alienated the Germans in Switzerland, Czechoslovakia and Austria from supporting Nazism. At the same time, Kautsky saw the greatest difficulties in Austria, considering that in Czechoslovakia rejection of fascism is self-evident, and that the Nazis in these countries have little chance of popular support. At the same time, Kautsky proceeded from his traditional arguments in favor of democracy, hoping that the Sudeten Germans would reject the ideas of National Socialism after their anti-democratic character was evident. These hopes did not come true.
After the Nazis came to power in Germany, Kautsky, who remained formally a German subject, on July 10, 1933, applied for Czechoslovak citizenship. Kautsky's petition was supported by the Czechoslovak Social Democrats: F. Soukup, as well as T. Masaryk himself, whom Kautsky called in his letters "my president," comparing the current situation in Czechoslovakia with the period of the Hussite movement, greatly helped. As a result, after more than two years of waiting, on July 19, 1935, K. Kautsky and his wife received Czechoslovak citizenship.
One of the last episodes in the active political activity of K. Kautsky is also associated with Czechoslovakia: being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1938. Kautsky was nominated as a candidate for his merits in the development of the question of the origin of the First World War and for pacifist activities. His candidacy was supported by prominent scientists and polygists of that time: L. Blum, A. Bracke, J. W. Albarda, K. Renner, B. Nikolaevsky and others. A recommendation in support of Kautsky's candidacy was also given on behalf of the Social Democratic representatives of the Czechoslovak government ; it was signed by A. Gampl, F. Soukup, L. Cech, Z. Taub and other Czechoslovak and Sudeten German Social Democrats. However, the Nobel Committee rejected Kautsky's candidacy, preferring the Nansen Refugee Organization.
Only once Kautsky visited his historical homeland: after the Anschluss of Austria, on March 13, 1938, the Kautsky couple managed to escape from Austria occupied by the Nazis and arrived in Prague. However, without living in the capital of Czechoslovakia for a week, the Kautskys were forced to leave here, this time to Amsterdam. Kautsky noted his short stay in the Czechoslovakia with a number of meetings with the leaders of the Czechoslovak and Sudeten German Social Democracy. On the 60th anniversary of the founding of the Czechoslovak Social Democratic Party, he timed the article "The Prague Program of 1878" Having characterized the first program document of the Czechoslovak Social Democracy in many respects close to the Gotha Program of the German Social Democracy of 1875, Kautsky in conclusion repeated his theses on the modern significance of Czechoslovakia as a bastion of democracy in Central Europe. “This future is threateningly gloomy for the last state east of the Rhine.” That is why Czechoslovakia is so important for the whole of Eastern Europe as the starting point of a new upsurge of our great movement for the liberation from slavery of all working mankind. " The same idea became the main idea in Kautsky's last major unpublished work, "Changes in the Labor Movement Since the World War."
The last days of K. Kautsky's life fell on the period of the Munich agreements. According to the correspondence preserved in K. Kautsky's archive, we can state how hard he and his relatives and friends experienced the dismemberment of the ChSR. It can be assumed that the Munich agreements became one of the factors that hastened the death of K. Kautsky: he died on October 17, 1938.
Kautsky summarized his views on the German national question in the interwar period in a number of fundamental studies, such as The Materialist Understanding of History (1927), War and Democracy (1932), Socialists and War (1937) ... Kautsky linked the formation of the multinational power of the Habsburgs with Turkish expansion, when the question was being decided on the basis of which state, Austria or Turkey, the development of individual peoples of Central and Southeastern Europe would take place. Regarding the historical roots of the German-Czech contradictions, Kautsky proceeded from the fact that the events of the 1848 revolution in Vienna, "the March battles prompted the Slavs of the Austrian Empire to take a revolutionary course of action." At the same time, Kautsky drew a line between a democratic revolution in the Austrian capital and an attempt to "revive national consciousness" on the part of the Czechs during the revolution, despite the fact that talking about the national character of this revolution from Kautsky's point of view was problematic, since even ten years after the revolutionary events the Czech population of Prague was only a few percent higher than the German. The Czechs, according to Kautsky, were moved during the revolution of 1848/49. not the Czech national idea, but the ideas of Pan-Slavism, the desire to achieve a certain Slavic community, which was sharply criticized by them.
Kautsky emphasized that "in reality, Pan-Slavism was not associated with the national principle, since there really is no Slavic nationality, just as there is no Germanic or Romanesque nation." The reasons for the emergence of Pan-Slavism, Kautsky called politics Russian Empire, striving to push the national upsurge of foreign Slavic peoples on the basis of all-Slavic unity led by Russia. Kautsky attributed the second rise of Pan-Slavism to the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, and here the main driving force was no longer the Czechs, who by that time were guided by national principles and had moved away from Pan-Slavism, but the South Slavs. However, this surge of ideas of the Slavic community was quickly extinguished during the Balkan Wars, in which the Slavic states fought with each other.
Developing the views on the problem of the formation of new national states set forth in his pre-war works, Kautsky considered the collapse of Austria-Hungary and the creation of such states as Czechoslovakia on its basis as a natural phenomenon taking place in the canvas of the "process of differentiation of small nations." At the same time, Kautsky again repeated his assertions, arguing against Kunov that not every nation can achieve autonomy "in the form of state independence." Kautsky regretted the division of the German people within the framework of different states, including within Czechoslovakia, without sharing the views of Bauer, who saw in Czechoslovak imperialism one of the main culprits in the collapse of the Habsburg empire and discrimination against the Germans in its former outskirts. Kautsky considered the solution of national problems in Europe possible on the basis of the principle of the right to self-determination. He considered the implementation of this principle to be real through the League of Nations, which should develop "understanding and sympathy" between different nations, which, according to Kautsky, should have become a guarantee of "peace among peoples."
K. Kautsky is a unique figure in the history of the international socialist movement, which once again proves his attitude to the Sudeten German problem. Apart from him, in the ranks of the German Social Democracy there were no major Social Democratic theorists who would subject the national problems in Czechoslovakia to such a close analysis. Most theorists of German social democracy considered it only in relation to, within the framework of more general problems, primarily in the context of the German national problem in Europe as a whole and from the point of view of the possibilities of achieving general German unity.
One of the main differences between Austrian and German socialist theorists on the national question was that the latter were mainly engaged in a critical analysis of the works of the former, practically without creating major works themselves. This trend continued in the interwar period, with the only difference that the national question played an order of magnitude less role for the SPD than for the Austrian Social Democrats. Hence - a significant decrease in interest in the national problem in general and in the German national problem, in particular, which, in our opinion, was one of the main omissions of the German Social Democracy, especially in the confrontation with fascism. The Austrian Social Democrats, who actively worked out the problems of the national question in the late 1910s to the 3920s, also sharply reduced interest in this issue in the late 1920s, which again was a mistake in the conditions of the onset of the right forces, the growth nationalism and separatism. This, in turn, put the Sudeten German Social Democrats in a difficult position, who ideologically oriented themselves towards their Austrian and German comrades.
The economic thought of Western countries also includes social democratic theories that are being developed by the ideologists of the social democratic, socialist and labor parties that are part of the Socialist International.
Economic theories of social democracy, expressing trade unionism, ideas " social partnership»Labor and capital, are closely related to bourgeois political economy, but not identical to it. The specificity of the social base of the Social Democratic movement, which consists mainly of hired labor, its ability to express some of the current interests of the working people, deep internal differentiation in the parties of the Socialist International determine the relative isolation of these views from the concepts of bourgeois political economy proper, and the degree of their isolation can increase or decrease depending on from specific historical conditions.
In the social democratic movement, there are three main ideological and political currents, a current that reflects the views of the petty-bourgeois, intermediate layers of capitalist society, often adjoins the positions of the right wing, but shows a relatively greater readiness for trade-union reforms. Left-wing social democrats, expressing the sentiments of a part of the working class, office workers and the intelligentsia, express a negative attitude towards capitalism, often referring to the analysis of the mechanism of capitalist exploitation by Marx, reveal a desire for anti-monopoly reforms and from these positions criticize bourgeois theorists on many issues.
Thus, the economic ideology of social democracy does not fit into the framework of either bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, or proletarian political economy, including elements of each of them, mainly the first and the second. The politics of the Socialist International parties, especially where they are in power, are influenced, as a rule, by right-wing or centrist views.
In the first years after the Second World War, the right-wing leaders of the Socialist International and its leading parties embarked on a course of a complete break with Marxism. In the declaration of the Socialist International in 1951, Marxism was declared only one of the possible ideologies of social democracy along with various bourgeois teachings, including those of a religious nature. The said declaration proclaimed “ de-ideologization Social Democracy, which actually meant not rejection of any ideology, but capitulation to bourgeois political economy and philosophy. As in the period of relative stabilization of capitalism in the 1920s, the Social Democrats interpreted the comparatively favorable economic situation in the 1950s and 1960s as evidence of “ transformations"Capitalism in" crisis-free"A society based on" social harmony". The 1962 Socialist International declaration proclaimed “ elimination of the worst vices of capitalism", Including mass unemployment.
However, in the 70s and 80s, under the influence of the deepening crisis processes, “ leideologization"Changed" re-ideologization”, Ie, attempts to once again strengthen the specificity of social reformism in comparison with bourgeois theories proper, especially economic ones. " Reideologization" includes " renaissance of Marxism". The indiscriminate denigration of Marxism, typical of the period “ deideologization”, Is currently unpopular even among the right, and even more so the centrist ideologues who form the official doctrines of the parties of the Socialist International. Thus, the editor-in-chief of the theoretical body of the SPD of the journal “ Neue Gesellschaft"Stressed that" social democracy cannot afford and will not allow itself to simply reject Marx».
While forcibly paying tribute to certain aspects of Karl Marx's activities, the right-wing social democrats still sharply reject his revolutionary ideas of scientific socialism. Under the flag " Renaissance Marxism"They are ready to admit only an updated version of" legal Marxism"Acceptable to the bourgeoisie and designed to paralyze the anti-monopoly aspirations of the left wing. The ideologists of the right-wing social democracy categorically reject Marxism as a revolutionary, scientific theory of the working class. Thus, the well-known leader of the Socialist Party of Austria does not correspond to reality. "
The centrists, as well as some of the left-wing Social Democrats, are actually reviving not Marxism, but traditional revisionism, adapting it to the conditions of the modern stage of capitalist development. V last years on the pages of the theoretical journals of the SPD and SPA, supporters of these trends have repeatedly spoken out in favor of more active use of the works of E. Bernstein and “ Austro-Marxists". However, many representatives of the left in social democracy do not want to be content with a new edition “ legal Marxism”, Expressing a critical attitude towards Bernsteinism and other varieties of traditional revisionism. Left social democrats often emphasize the enduring importance of Marxism as a theory that transforms the world in the interests of the working class and all working people.
TO " re-ideologization"Also refers to the recognition of the Social Democracy at the X Congress of the Socialist International under the pressure of obvious facts stated that until recently the Social Democracy was in captivity of euphoric illusions about the changed capitalism, which have now become" a pile of debris". With this in mind, attempts are being made to develop new anti-crisis recommendations concerning the economic and social policy of the bourgeois states.
The theories of social democracy as a whole are largely inherent in many vices of bourgeois economic thought: idealism, metaphysics, eclecticism, technological determinism, the exchange concept. At the same time, her ideas are not devoid of a certain originality. Thus, bourgeois political economy abstracts from the social aspects of capitalist reproduction and mainly analyzes only the quantitative, functional relationships of the latter in order to bypass the antagonistic contradictions of capitalism. In bourgeois literature, this methodological device was called “ social vacuum". The Social Democrats, however, cannot use this method, for the working people who follow them demand answers to acute social and economic questions. Therefore, the economic theories of social democracy always contain a certain analysis of social, class problems, albeit with “ conciliatory»Positions. Moreover, the left-wing Social Democrats try to partially use the Marxist methodology of the class approach, due to which the anti-monopoly orientation of their views can be traced.
Economic doctrines promoting " democratic socialism"As a model" transformations"Capitalism, imbued with the ideas of the philosophy of neo-Kantianism about the priority of consciousness over matter and form over content, they represent them as a set of such values, as a standard for developing a position on current issues, as a decision process" permanent task"Which is never brought to a certain final state. This approach makes it possible to interpret even rather limited reforms within the framework of capitalism as measures of a socialist nature.
Thus, under “ democratic socialism"Is actually understood as reformist" improved», « transformed"Capitalism, the basis of which is depicted as" mixed economy"Only because a relatively small part of the means of production is legally assigned to the bourgeois state. At the same time, the actual appropriation of these means of production by the bourgeoisie, primarily the monopoly, is ignored. Democratic socialism "is presented as" third way”Between capitalism and real socialism and emphasizes that this traditional ideological attitude should be preserved in the future.
At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the Social Democracy theoretically develops and, to a certain extent, implements such reform projects that take into account some of the current needs of the working people and therefore cause attacks from bourgeois economists. The implementation of such reforms allows the parties of the Socialist International to spread their influence over broad strata of the working population in the capitalist and some developing countries Oh.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the leaders of the Social Democracy abandoned the demand for the nationalization of the main means of production, which had been put forward in the interwar period. For this, the well-known theories were used “ democratization of capital», « popular capitalism», « governing revolution», « social market economy”And others. Moreover, the problems of property were declared in the majority of the Socialist International parties to be insignificant and have lost their relevance.
In the 1970s and 1980s, these problems, on the contrary, moved to the fore in the theoretical developments of social democracy. The above theories began to be criticized, especially by the left-wing Social Democrats. The ideologists of social democracy were forced to admit, directly or indirectly, that the crisis phenomena in economics and politics are closely associated with the growth of social instability caused by the deepening of class antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. In order to counteract this process, social democracy theoretically develops and tries to one degree or another to implement projects "" in the following directions.
Firstly, in the program documents of a number of parties of the Socialist International and the Union of Social Democratic Parties of the EEC countries, in numerous publications of individual Social Democrats, especially the left, there are provisions on the possibility and advisability of increasing the public sector through partial nationalization of large private property or the expansion of existing state enterprises. ... In the first half of the 1980s, the socialist parties of France and Spain, while in power, carried out fairly large measures in the field of nationalizing monopoly property and expanding the public sector. Since the mid-1980s, the Socialist International parties have resisted the policy of reprivatization pursued by neo-conservative circles in many developed capitalist countries.
Secondly, it is recommended to expand cooperative ownership. Thus, the leaders of the Labor Party of Great Britain N. Kinnock and R. Hattersley in this regard attach paramount importance to the development of cooperatives of workers and consumers.
Thirdly, reform projects are being put forward in the spirit of the concept “ functional socialism»Going back to Bernsteinism and most thoroughly developed by the Swedish Social Democrat G. Adler-Karlsson. This concept is based on the interpretation of property as a purely legal category in isolation from its economic content. Theorists " functional socialism"Claim that there is a certain" feature set"(Product production, investment, technical re-equipment of production potential, etc.) and that capitalist property undergoes significant" transformation"As a result of government regulation of these" functions", In other words, forms of use of the means of production by the bourgeoisie and the incomes it receives. Insofar as " function"They choose arbitrarily, insofar as the Social Democrats get the opportunity to interpret" functional»Reforms as a step towards socialism or even a socialist action.
True, some of the recommended reforms run counter to the narrowly selfish interests of monopoly capital and take into account the current needs of the working people. However, they do not undermine the foundations of bourgeois society and do not ensure real progress towards socialism.
Fourthly, models of parity " complicity"Representatives of hired labor in the governing bodies of capitalist companies, creating illusions" equal partnership"The proletariat and the bourgeoisie, while the tycoons of capital actually retain their decisive rights.
Fifth, projects are put forward for hired workers.
The concepts discussed above “ transformation of property from within"Designed to breathe new life into the theory " economic democracy”, Provide for the reorganization of some forms of the economic mechanism through which capitalist ownership of the means of production is economically realized. They pursue the goal of creating in broad strata of the proletariat the illusion of a direct, direct connection with the means of production, the absence of exploitation. At the same time, they contain requirements of a democratic nature that can help intensify the anti-monopoly struggle of the working class, for example, for increased participation in production management at the enterprise level.
Equally ambiguous and contradictory are the concepts of state regulation of the economy put forward by the social democracy, connected with the provision of effective anti-crisis recommendations to the ruling circles of the West. If until the mid-70s, social democracy gave preference to boosting economic growth as the main goal of state economic policy, then later, as emphasized by the 15th Congress of the Socialist International, “ full employment"Acquired for her" central priority". This approach differs markedly from the orientation of the neo-conservative bourgeois economists, who consider a fairly high level of unemployment acceptable to limit wages and increase profits for big business.
Neoconservative views, including monetarism and the doctrine “ supply economy”Are subjected to sharp and sometimes quite convincing criticism from the Social Democrats. “The danger of neoconservative experiments, emphasizes one of the leading economic experts of the SPD X. Krupp, is that. that the failure of such plans is revealed only when the production potential is irretrievably destroyed and social structures that cannot be restored are broken. " As opposed to neoconservative concepts “ deregulation»Social Democrats, as a rule, are in favor of maintaining and further intensifying the economic role of the state.
The tools recommended by the theoreticians of social democracy to reduce unemployment, stabilize prices, and ensure moderate economic growth, taking into account the quality of life, goes beyond the notions of bourgeois theoreticians - Keynesians, and even more so neoclassicists. So, to combat unemployment, it is proposed to reduce in one form or another work time per person employed, increase the state's share in the total investment, develop economic programming. Dutch Social Democrat P. Kalma, expressing the opinion of the left forces in the parties of the Socialist International, emphasizes that the efforts of these parties “ should be aimed at shaping democratic planning". The concepts of democratic planning of the left social democracy have an anti-monopoly orientation and are in many ways in contact with the economic programs of the communists of the Western countries.
Realizing that the roots of inflation should be sought in the dominance of monopoly business, the ideologues of the Sointern parties often recommend introducing some form of public control over pricing in large firms. In contrast to bourgeois political economy, these theories as a whole are characterized in the 1980s not by the praise of militarization as an imaginary means of reviving the economy, but, on the contrary, by identifying its negative consequences for the economy and arguments for limiting military expenditures for economic and social problems... Thus, a prominent theorist of the British Labor Party S. Holland emphasizes that military spending “ means placing large resources in industrial sectors that do not provide direct returns". They also exacerbate the imbalance between lagging and technologically advanced industries. With a few exceptions, government spending on the development of new weapons tends to reduce government assistance for the modernization and diversification of crisis sectors of industry in the context of their regional problems. ”
Regulatory models and “ planning Theorists of social democracy are often embodied in no more than half measures. At the same time, the implementation of such models sometimes gives a greater effect in comparison with the recommendations of bourgeois political economy, especially its neoconservative trends.
In the economic theories of modern social democracy, great attention is paid to world economic problems. Thus, its leadership is aware that the contradiction between the internationalization of the processes of capitalist reproduction and attempts to regulate these processes mainly by national and state funds in the 70s-80s sharply aggravated and is now one of the main factors in the deepening of cyclical and structural crises, complication of the forms of regulation of the economic system. capitalism. It acts as one of the most active champions of the development of international forms of state-monopoly regulation. Moreover, such forms are designed to partially take into account the specific interests and requirements of developing countries in order to ensure the retention of the latter in the world capitalist economy.
The attitude of social democracy to real socialism is still largely predetermined by the desire to ideologically dissociate itself from real socialism. In some documents, for example in the program of the Social Democratic Party of Switzerland, it was stated that "from the point of view of democratic socialism, the Soviet system cannot be characterized as socialist." Social Democrats are often inclined to assess the state and prospects of the socialist economy, the course of its restructuring in the USSR through the prism of distorted ideas of the bourgeois " Sovietology».
At the same time, the leaders of social democracy are forced to take into account the deep interest of broad strata of the population of the capitalist countries in strengthening peace and, on the whole, have a positive approach to the development of economic relations between the states of the two systems. As a rule, social democratic ideologists, especially in Western Europe, estimate economic ties East-West as mutually beneficial and often subject to reasoned criticism of the fabrications of bourgeois economists, as if only the East derives one-sided benefits from these ties. Thus, the majority of Socialist International parties took a negative stance on American economic " sanctions»In relation to the socialist countries.
On the whole, in the 70s and 80s, the relative isolation of the economic concepts of social democracy from the theory of bourgeois political economy intensified. This is one of the important factors conducive to closer interaction between communists and social democrats, despite the ideological differences between them, in the struggle against the oppression of the monopolies, for peace and social progress. “An unbiased acquaintance with the positions and views of each other is undoubtedly useful for both communists and social democrats. It is useful, first of all, for stepping up the struggle for peace and international security ”, noted in the Political Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the XXV Party Congress.
Social Democracy has communist roots. Like communism:
Condemns capitalism considering it a socially unjust society. In the program documents of the Social Democrats it is written: "Socialism seeks to overcome the capitalist system with an economic system in which the interests of society are higher than the interests of profit."
Declares itself an ideology protecting interests working classes.
It proclaims socialism as its goal. He considers it the only just society, but calls it, in contrast to the Marxist-Leninists (which is fundamentally important) "Democratic". Hence the name of the ideology - "social democratic".
For reference
The first Marxist party in Russia was called the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP), which in 1903 split into RSDLP (m) (Mensheviks) and RSDLP (b) (Bolsheviks). Subsequently, the RSDLP (b), headed by V.I. Lenin, began to be called the RCP (b) (Russian Communist Party of the Bolsheviks), ie, as its founder claimed, "consistently Marxist."
The founders of the social democratic ideology - the former supporters of K. Marx – E. Bernstein (1850-1932), K. Kautsky, as well as Adler, Bauer. They completely abandoned the theory of Marxism at the beginning of the 20th century. And in the middle of the 20th century. completed and the political formation of the social democracy.
In 1951, the social democratic parties of the world united in the Socialist International. Today the Socialist International is the largest international association, numbering about 170 Social Democratic and Labor parties from more than 100 countries of the world. Among them are countries in which eSDeks systematically come to power in elections. These are Germany, France, Austria, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and, especially, the Scandinavian countries (in which, as it is believed, democratic socialism has already been built), etc. The most famous social democrats among statesmen modern era- W. Brant (former Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany), W. Palme (former Prime Minister of Sweden), B. Kreisky (former head of the Austrian government), Francois Mitterrand (former President of France). Among the living Western influential Social Democrats and Laborists, G. Schroeder (FRG), T. Blair and G. Brown (Great Britain), and others.
The first and only president of the USSR, M.S. Gorbachev, who, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, proclaimed the creation of a Social Democratic Party in Russia. Currently, the political party Fair Russia is declaring its adherence to the social democratic ideology, which in 2007 was among 4 out of 11 parties participating in the elections to the State Duma.
The fundamental differences between the social democratic ideology and the communist one lie in a different understanding of the methods of transition from capitalism to socialism, as well as socialism itself.
Social Democrats as opposed to communists:
Deny the need for class struggle insisting on social solidarity all classes and strata of society .
Reject the idea of revolution as a way of forcible removal by workers state power and property of the bourgeoisie, preferring reforms to it.
Insist on evolution those. on the gradual transformation of capitalism into socialism through reforms through the development and improvement of democracy and universal suffrage. "Socialists strive to create a society of freedom by democratic means."
Deny the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat as political freedom and democracy only for the workers, working classes and insist on freedom and democracy for all classes and social groups.
Thus, social democracy- a political ideology that proclaimed democratic socialism as its ideal, the basic values of which are freedom, justice and solidarity, based on the principles of political, economic, social and international democracy. Democratic socialism is "a just society in which free people work together as equals."
What are the means and ways of forming such a society in which the principles of democratic socialism will triumph?
From the point of view of Marxism, as we remember, this is the class struggle of the working people for property and power against the bourgeoisie until it is completely destroyed. As a result of the revolution, property and power will be in the hands of those who work, who produce material goods, i.e. the majority of the population, in the hands of the people. From the point of view of the Social Democrats class struggle and revolution is an unnatural road to nowhere. Socialism must mature naturally, i.e. by evolution, gradually within the framework of capitalism by improving comprehensive democracy, i.e. expanding the participation of workers in the management of all (and not just the political, as in the case of liberals), the main spheres of society's life - political, economic, social and international. "Socialism can be realized only through democracy, democracy can be fully realized only through socialism" 20 - this is the original basic political principle of social democratic ideology. At the same time, democracy will turn out to be the power of not one class (only working people), but democracy for all classes and strata of society, cooperating with each other on an equal basis.
Hence the fundamental principles or - criteria for the maturity of a society of democratic socialism:
Political democracy. Means the implementation of the entire range of liberal political rights and freedoms of a person set forth in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, including:
The whole complex of political freedoms and human and civil rights;
Free elections are the main political lever, method or means of advancing capitalist society towards socialism (not revolution);
Majority rule while respecting minority rights;
Multiparty system;
Equality of all citizens before the law;
The right of ethnic groups (nations and nationalities) to cultural autonomy
Independent court, etc.
The Purpose of Political Democracy- expanding the participation of workers in government.
2. Economic democracy means:
Priority of public interests over private interests;
Diversity, equality and cooperation of various forms of ownership (private, collective, state, etc.);
Real participation of workers and their associations in the management of the economy and production;
Democratic state control over the planned economy, etc.
The goals of economic democracy- ensuring employment, raising the living standards of workers, equitable distribution of income.
3. Social democracy means:
the triumph of social freedom, justice and solidarity;
implementation social rights all groups and sectors of society;
satisfaction of basic life needs of all members
society, etc.
Note: in essence, this is the implementation of the principles of the welfare state.
The goals of social democracy- ensuring the real rights of citizens to work, rest, housing, education, health care, provision in old age and when it is impossible to work; elimination of inequality between men and women, ethnic communities of people, city and village, center and regions, etc.
4. International democracy means:
Voluntary cooperation and peace between peoples;
Partnership and solidarity to overcome the inequality of countries and continents, international conflicts and global problems, etc.
The goal of international democracy- creation of favorable foreign policy conditions for the formation and development of a society of democratic socialism in all countries of the world. Socialism, written in the program documents of the Socialist International "... from the very beginning was an international movement ... It is international because it recognizes that no people can solve their economic and social problems alone."
These are the main provisions of the social democratic ideology and the social ideal proclaimed by it - the society of democratic socialism. Achieving this ideal is a task for the distant future. And the ideal itself, according to the adherents of social democracy, in the course of time will inevitably be renewed, filled with new content. Therefore, the main efforts and political will must be directed towards solving everyday problems, having in mind only a general idea of the future structure of socialist society. This is exactly what the founder of the social democratic ideology E. Bernstein had in mind when he stated: "The ultimate goal is nothing, movement is everything."
doctrine ideology social reformism
For more than a century, one of the most effective and viable ideologies has been social democracy. It originated in the last third of the 19th century. within Marxism, but over time acquired a centrist orientation.
The unorthodox and plasticity of the provisions allowed the social democratic ideology to transform in accordance with the changes taking place in the world and to integrate many achievements of political thought of different directions (including Marxism and liberalism).
At present, the ideology of social democracy expresses the interests of broad strata of Western society - workers, business intelligentsia. This circumstance largely explains the interest in it all over the world, including Russia, where parties of social democratic orientation are being formed. Knowledge of the basic principles and evolution of social democratic ideology is an important factor in the training of highly erudite specialists.
The political ideology of social democracy is a product of a long evolution. In addition to Marxism, other concepts of socialism in the 19th and early 20th centuries, primarily cooperative socialism, guild socialism, Fabian socialism, state socialism, Christian socialism and catheter socialism. Let's consider the main ideas of these concepts.
Cooperative socialism its roots go back to the communist utopias of the turn of the 18th-19th centuries. The cooperative movement originated primarily in England and was largely a reaction of the poorest strata of the population to exploitation by large commercial capital.
Therefore, initially, the attention of theorists of cooperative socialism was directed exclusively to the sphere of consumption. They believed that the basis for the creation of cooperative societies and enterprises is the community of cooperative members as consumers. This community of interests should ultimately lead to a commonwealth of broad strata of the population not only in the sphere of exchange, but also in production.
The founder of cooperative socialism was the English economist William King (1786-1865), who saw in the emerging cooperative societies and enterprises a means of changing society. W. King and his associates believed that capitalism with its class antagonisms should be replaced by a society based on the harmony of interests and cooperation of workers. In their opinion, social justice can be achieved through the development of the cooperative movement and the gradual transformation of the property of its participants into the predominant one. As a result, wage labor and capitalist exploitation will disappear, and cooperators will work for themselves.
W. King was guided primarily by the English working class. He believed that the workers themselves would create cooperative societies, which would then be able to accumulate the necessary capital to acquire the means of production. According to W. King, the starting point for the formation of public funds could be cooperative shops, where members of cooperatives would acquire consumer goods for themselves. W. King and other theorists of cooperative socialism believed that their goals were achievable without political struggle in the process of gradual evolution of existing social relations.
The ideas of cooperative socialism had many supporters in other countries, especially in France. It was in this country, still under the influence of the ideas of the utopian socialists early XIX v. A. Saint-Simon and C. Fourier developed production cooperation.
The most famous French theoretician of cooperative socialism was Louis Blanc (1811-1882), who proposed transforming the capitalist system into a socialist one with the help of production workshops. He believed that as capital accumulates, workshops will become predominant in all branches of production, relations of solidarity and cooperation will be established between them. Ultimately, the entire industry will become cooperative and it will be possible to overcome unemployment.
K. Marx and F. Engels, with their emphasis on the revolutionary transformation of society, assessed the plans of the theoreticians of cooperation as utopian and fantastic. However, the cooperative movement has yielded tangible practical results and today remains an important factor in the economic life of many countries of the world.
In the interwar and postwar periods, the ideas of cooperative socialism developed in the Belgian Socialist Party, the Labor Party of Great Britain, and the Labor Party of Israel.
Another trend of socialist thought, close to cooperative socialism, arose in England - guild socialism... It emerged in the first half of the 1920s. XX century in the depths of the organized labor movement. The most prominent theoretician of guild socialism is J. Cole.
The theoretical sources of guild socialism were various socialist concepts, including Marxism. But politically, the supporters of guild socialism were opponents of the Marxist trend in the labor movement.
The very name - "guild socialism" - testifies to the fact that the creators of this socialist theory saw their social ideal in medieval guilds that united artisans-producers. In their opinion, guilds are able to control and regulate production, to return to workers the opportunity to participate in the management of production, to overcome their alienation from labor and its results. It was assumed that the activities of the guilds would be based on democratic foundations (election from top to bottom of all functionaries, the implementation of public control over their activities).
Guild socialism was originally a heterogeneous trend. Some of its ideologues were inclined to immediately abandon large-scale industry in favor of a return to simple handicraft production as the most suitable for the guild organization. Most of the supporters of this theory considered large-scale machine production a given, but believed that thanks to the establishment of guild socialism, machines would be gradually withdrawn as not providing for the individual needs of people and a return to handicraft production would take place.
The guild organization of the society provided for its conditional division into two large groups- producers and consumers. The supreme body of all producers should be the National Council of Guilds, and the interests of citizens should be represented by the state. The latter was considered by adherents of guild socialism as the nominal owner of the means of production, since real economic rights would be transferred to the guilds.
It was assumed that in the event of a conflict between the guilds and society, the mission of the mediator as a whole would be assumed by the state, which through the courts, relying on public opinion, will strive to solve the problem. A special body was also envisaged for resolving the most acute situations, in which both producers and consumers should be represented.
Early guild socialism advocated a gradual nationalization of the means of production that would not cause economic chaos. The decisive role in the transformation of capitalist relations was assigned to trade unions (in England - to trade unions). Supporters of guild socialism believed that by attracting the most capable and active workers to the management of production in trade unions, it was possible to push the capitalists out of economic management and force them to give up their property rights. At the same time, full compensation for the cost of enterprises to their former owners was provided, which could be carried out both through participation in profits and in the form of a lump sum payment.
The theoreticians of guild socialism saw their main task not only in protecting the material interests of the working class, but more broadly in overcoming the lack of rights of man in the capitalist enterprise, his alienation from the process and results of labor. This, in their opinion, could be achieved by eliminating the status of wage labor, transforming workers into production owners participating in the management of enterprises. The transformation of capitalism was conceived through the creation of a system of industrial democracy in production and self-government in all spheres of society.
The provisions of guild socialism on "economic democracy", "workers' control", "self-governing socialism" became elements of social democratic ideology. Some ideas of guild socialism can be used in solving the problems of modernization of Russian society.
A special place in the formation of social democratic theory and practice was occupied by Fabian socialism... This is a complex of concepts developed by the socialist-minded intelligentsia of Great Britain, who founded the Fabian Society in January 1884. It got its name from the name of the ancient Roman commander Fabius Maximus, known for his slowness and evasion from decisive battles in the war with Hannibal.
The founders and members of the Fabian Society included playwright Bernard Shaw, science fiction writer Herbert Wells, and the wife of Sydney and Beatrice Webb. The Society took an active part in the creation of the British Labor Party.
The Fabians advocated the gradual replacement of capitalist society by socialist reforms in the sphere of distribution and exchange. They considered the state to be the most important instrument of these reforms, which, in their opinion, should express the interests of the poorest strata and actively intervene in economic processes in order to smooth out inequality in property, eliminate or at least reduce unemployment. Such measures were viewed by them as socialist.
The Fabians saw the prototype of the future collectivist organization in consumer cooperation. In the views of the members of the Fabian Society, for the first time, such basic ideas of municipal socialism as the development of the social sphere in cities, the socialization of communal services, and the expansion of the rights of local self-government were identified.
The Fabians advocated a change in the forms of functioning of private property through the creation of joint-stock companies and partial nationalization. It was assumed that thanks to these measures, private property is transformed into socialist property.
Even at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. The Fabians substantiated the need for state intervention in the relationship between labor and capital, regulating the level of wages, and providing loans to farmers. They proposed putting monopolies, transport, and infrastructure in general under state control.
The Fabian Society still exists today, influencing the formation of the ideology and politics of the Labor Party of Great Britain, at the origins of which it was and is a collective member of.
Concept creator state socialism was the Prussian economist Karl Robertus (1805-1875). He did not use this term, but relied on the "ideal state" as the main means of social transformation. In his opinion, using “ state laws”, It is necessary to gradually take away from the propertied classes the ownership of land and capital and transfer it into the hands of the state. The state must assume the function of regulating the economy, replace the laws of bourgeois society with "free, moral and vital laws."
Ferdinand Lassalle, one of the predecessors of social democracy, adhered to a similar position. Unlike K. Robertus. who after 1848 did not participate in political life, F. Lassalle was closely associated with the German workers' movement and made a real contribution to its organization.
The main element of the socio-economic views of F. Lassalle was the idea of "uncut labor income." He believed that the spread of cooperative principles of organizing production with the help of the state could lead to the creation of associations that would open the way to socialism. New social order, according to F. Lassalle, and was supposed to provide "uncut labor income."
A special place in the Lassallean plans for social reconstruction was given to "state aid". According to him, the ideal "state of the future" should ensure the flourishing of human qualities and the progressive development of peoples. The way to such a state was seen in the introduction of universal suffrage, securing a working majority in parliament, which would turn the state into a "large association of poor classes."
A definite contribution to the formation of the ideological and theoretical foundations of social democracy was made by the catheder socialism and Christian socialism.
Name catheder-socialism comes from the German transcription of the word "department", since most of the representatives of this trend were teachers of higher education. The cateder socialists believed that existing social antagonisms could lead to revolution and feared its destructive consequences. Therefore, they advocated state intervention in the economy, the establishment of paternalistic relations between capitalists and workers, the introduction of "morality" into economic relations between these classes. In their opinion, the social issue could be solved with the help of reforms, wage increases, and tax regulation.
The Kateder Socialists had a strong influence on the evolution of German Social Democracy in its departure from Marxism. Their views may well be regarded as one of the sources modern concept democratic socialism.
The spread of the ideas of socialism in the XIX century. reflected in the position of the church, in the bosom of which in the first half of the 19th century. formed Christian socialism... This trend sought to prove the possibility of combining the ideas of Christianity and socialism, appealing to the Gospel texts.
Christian socialism preached class peace based on love for one's neighbor, called for the transformation of society through moral improvement. He placed at the center of his doctrine not economic and political, but moral and ethical problems, thereby exerting a significant influence on the formation of the ideological and theoretical foundations of social democracy.
All of the above provides a basis for the conclusion that by the turn of the XIX and XX centuries. formed a powerful layer of socialist ideas that contributed to the emergence of the political ideology of social democracy.
Social Democracy Is a socio-political doctrine and trend focused on evolutionary development, democratic socialism and its achievement through gradual reforms and the peaceful conquest of power.
Social Democracy characterized by a materialistic interpretation public life; an approach to the analysis of social phenomena from the standpoint of the interests of the working masses, of the entire people; the humanistic nature of the current and ultimate goals; social collectivism; historical optimism.
Theory social democracy was created in the writings of Bernstein (he also deviated from the ideas of Marx: he believed that socialism enters life gradually, and not through a revolution; he spoke of coming to power under socialism through elections). The name "social democracy" belongs to Bernard Shaw.
Basic principles of social democracy:
- - freedom
- - equality
- - solidarity
Its main features:
- - denial of any dictatorship as a form of political power;
- - adherence to the principles of democratic parliamentarism;
- - orientation towards political pluralism
- - the priority of peaceful, democratic means of achieving socialist goals;
- - participation of the state in the regulation of the economy and the development of market mechanisms (this clause came into force after the 20s of the 20th century);
- - adherence to the concept of social security of the population;
- - orientation towards the peaceful coexistence of various states and their sufficient security.
Until 1952, social democracy was considered a branch of Marxism. Then they abandoned Marxism, since the communists continued to insist on the dictatorship of the proletariat. In terms of its ideological content, Social Democracy began to differ from Marxism. After the Second World War, in some European countries, social democrats began to come to power through parliamentary mechanisms and implement reform programs, thereby proving the correctness of their theoretical principles. And the historical dispute that has developed over more than 100 years between the Social Democrats and the Communists can be considered resolved in favor of the Social Democracy.
Practice: Sweden, Austria, Israel - all these are countries that consider themselves social democratic. There are 6 Scandinavian countries among the ten most convenient countries for life.
For a long time, the Social Democratic Party of Germany has been a role model for social democrats in other countries. In the history of sots.-democr. Party of Germany, a special role was played by the Bad Godesberg party congress in 1959, during which a course towards the "leftist people's party" was announced. This meant abandoning the narrow-class approach. The German Social Democrats declared their intention to represent the interests of all sectors of German society. This by no means signified disregard for the interests of the working class and the trade unions, the traditional social democratic base; but the party "opened up" to the middle class and the intelligentsia. The correctness of this approach has been confirmed in our time in the context of the structural restructuring of industry and the transition to an information society, when the proportion of employees and representatives of the service sector with a special system of values inherent in the latter has increased in the social structure (attention to their own career, striving for self-realization, interest in the state ecology).
