Edexcel 6GP03A Government and Politics Unit 3 Exam 09/06/2014

•

The easiest thing to argue here is that: The goals of socialism have not been retreated from. The means of socialism have changed, but not necessarily been retreated from, merely updated to be relevant to the modern day.

•

Initially, to answer this question it is important to define exactly what we mean by ‘socialism’. There are two definitions, one quite precise and the other much more broad:

•

Socialism as defined initially by Marx is a period of history in which there is common ownership of the means of production and production is planned to fit the needs “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – Karl Marx

•

This definition puts socialism in juxtaposition to capitalism; socialism is the Hegelian antithesis of capitalism. This is important as later developments of socialism put socialism in collaboration with capitalism, which is clearly a retreat from principle.

•

Later forms of socialism tend to be goal orientated. That is to say, they focus on the social and human effects of socialism rather than purely the theory. For example, Social Democracy has focused on social mobility and redistribution of wealth; if the wealth creation of capitalism is the best vehicle with which to achieve this goal, then so be it.

•

The four main retreats of socialism:

•

Marx lays out his critique of capitalism and envisions a socialist utopia. For Marx, the transition from the capitalist epoch to the socialist epoch would be naturally occurring as the proletariat overcame their false consciousness.

•

Lenin who agrees largely with the aims of socialism does not agree with the means of arriving at a socialist society. Lenin moves away from the naturally occurring socialism of Marx toward ‘vanguardism’, in which a small elite group seize power from the bourgeoisie and create a socialist society for the good of the workers.

•

The labour movement sees groups such as the Fabien Society in Britain with socialist sympathies, seek to achieve socialist goals such as common ownership of production through the means of democracy. This retreats from the ideas of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ which occurs following the fall of capitalism. This period, possibly in response to an empirical example of what a planned economy might look like, in the form of the Soviet Union, sees a large shift in the means of achieving socialism; gradualism.

•

Neo-revisionism; following the new-right / monetarist era of the 1970s/80’s, and the now accepted democratic means of achieving socialism, socialist parties shifted to the centre. Neo-revisionists still stick to the goals of social mobility, but instead of redistribution, there is more of a focus on raising economic welfare and living standards in general terms across the whole scope of society. New Labour appealed to the middle classes and professionals as well as the traditional socialist demographic (the working classes). This could be said to a response to the failures of gradualism and the assumption that the working classes would necessarily vote for a socialist party, therefore the labour party (in the UK) following electoral defeat during the 70s/80s had to move to a more centrist political philosophy. One of the more iconic and visible symptoms of this underlying ideological shift is the change seen in the UK Labour parties ‘Clause IV’ which goes from a very socialist ‘to secure for the workers… the fruits of their labour… upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production’, to the more populist ‘to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential’, and other slightly passive phrases.

•

How Socialism has not retreated from principle:

•

Socialism hasn’t retreated from principle, it has merely updated to the modern era. Marx’s criticism of capitalism was in response to Victorian capitalism, which was a very different beast to the capitalism of the 21^st century. Today we have minimum wages, benefits provided to those who are in need, free health care, free education, and fairly good social mobility. The resources needed to provide all this care are generated through capitalism, capitalism has proven itself over time, and the living standards we have today could not have been achieved without this. Socialists realise this and so have merely adapted the means of socialism to fit the goals of redistribution and better living standards for the poor.

•

One of the ways in which socialism has retreated is the change from a ‘spontaneous revolution’ to socialism through democracy, or gradualism. However, this isn’t really a retreat, because the ‘spontaneous revolution’ simply does not exist. History has shown that purist socialism has been achieved only through totalitarianism. As nations have modernised since Marxs and the vote has been extended to more people, democracy has become more and more valuable to people. Marxism leaves no room for democracy, and the consent for Marxism is only given through an imagined ‘spontaneous revoltion’. Modern revisionists of traditional socialism merely adopt modern attitudes toward democracy and fit socialist principle around these.

•

Marx himself is generally accepted as being a moral relativist. This being the case, Marx himself would be more interested in the outcomes and goals of his socialist ideology, rather than the means of achieving it.

•

Conclusion: On one hand, it could be argued that socialism as we know it now, has not only retreated majority from a lot of Marxist theory, it has also abandoned the very definition of socialism, instead adopting capitalism to achieve its goals; one could argue this is analogous to adopting black in order to achieve white – the two are opposed and the one cannot be with the other.

•

Having said this, capitalism does provide wealth and living standards increases, and arguably the goal of socialists right from the outset – Saint-Simon and Robert Owen et al was to increase the welfare of the poor. If capitalism is the best way of achieving this, then Social democracy and neo-revisionism are triumphs not retreats.

•

On what grounds have liberals defended constitutionalism?

•

Explain the link between liberalism and constitutionalism.

•

Why do liberals support constitutionalism and consent?

•

Why do liberals fear concentrations of power and how do they propose to limit such concentrations?

•

Liberals do not believe that society will be good if it is left to come about naturally. This is because if every one is totally free, the liberty of one person can infringe on the liberty of another eg; theft, or breaking a contract.

•

This idea comes from Social Contract Theory proposed by Locke / Hobbes, which suggests that because individuals are self interested, without rules and without a sovereign state, life would not be good, because we would always be under threat from others. (1)

•

Therefore liberals believe that there needs to be a state which can provide rules to restrain individuals from harming each others freedom. (2)

•

A constitution is in effect the 'social contract' which establishes the state for the benefit of all. Thinkers such as Thomas Paine believed that for government power to be at all legitimate, it must be based on a constitution, which represented the will of the people (3).

•

Having favoured the creation of the state for protecting individual liberty, liberals are then face with the problem that centralised sovereign power has the potential to threaten individual liberty to an even great degree if it is corrupted (4).

•

Liberals believe that self interested individuals with lots of power, are likely to use that power for their own gain. In Andrew Haywood's words 'the liberal position is that egoism plus power equals corruption'.

•

Therefore liberals believe a constitution also has the role of protecting individual liberty. This is done by ensuring that constitution allows for the rule of law, and then having done so protects individuals with a set of rights / freedoms that cannot be infringed upon (5), in the US constitution this is known as the Bill of Rights.

•

For liberals, the constitution ought to be written down (codified) because it is a social contract between citizens and state and must be the sovereign power.

•

With fear of concentrated power at the forefront of liberal thinking, constitutions are also important to liberals, because they disperse power through out society, and throughout various institutions of government.

•

This is achieved through the separation of powers as from French mathematician Montesquieu (6) who proposed that the executive, legislature and judiciary branches of state be separated and all given power with which to check each other.

•

Constitutions have also allowed for democracy as a check on power, where law makers are elected and accountable to the people; this again prevents tyranny.

•

Other forms of separating power include: bicameralism (two houses of the legislature), cabinet government (cabinet members provide a check on the prime minister) and federalism (a two tier system where central federal government is checked by regional government).

1.

“an unending civil war of all against all”... in which life would be... “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” - Thomas Hobbes

2.

“observance of the law is the eternal safeguard of liberty and defiance of law is the surest road to tyranny” - John F. Kennedy

1.

“A constitution is not the act of a government, but of the people constituting a government, and a government without a constitution is power without right” - Thomas Paine

2.

“Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” - Lord Acton

3.

“All men have the right to life, liberty and property” - John Locke

1.

“Power should act as a check on power” - Montesquieu