-
Can They Bring Real Happiness?Awake!—1981 | December 8
-
-
Is Socialism a Better Way?
The word “socialism” comes from the Latin word socius, meaning “companion.” It was first used in England at the beginning of the 19th century, and a little later in France. It was applied to the social theories of Englishman Robert Owen (1771-1858) and Frenchmen Saint-Simon (1760-1825) and Charles Fourier (1772-1837).
Owen criticized the capitalist organization of industry, based on competition and on the exploitation of the workers. He recommended a cooperative system in which men and women would live in “Villages of Unity and Cooperation,” enjoying the fruits of their labor in both agriculture and industry. Several Owenite communities were set up in Scotland, Ireland and even in the United States. But they eventually disintegrated.
In France, Fourier advocated the creation of model communities called phalansteries, consisting of people who would work according to their preferences. Unlike Owen, who accepted state intervention to set up his “villages,” Fourier believed his system would work on an entirely voluntary basis. Moreover, members of his communities would be paid according to their efforts and would be allowed to own property. Fourier thought he had discovered a social organization that corresponded with men’s natural desires in their search for happiness. Fourierist communities were actually set up in Europe and in the United States. But they also failed.
Nearer to modern socialism were the ideas of Frenchman Saint-Simon. He advocated the collective ownership of the means of production and their administration by experts in the fields of science, technology, industry and finance. Saint-Simon believed that cooperation between science and industry would produce a new society in which people would have equal opportunity of finding prosperity according to their abilities and the amount and quality of their work.
While none of these early socialist ideologies succeeded, they paved the way for later movements. They were the early voices of modern-day socialism, which has been defined as a system of social organization based on public ownership and control of the principal means of production and distribution of goods. While its fundamental aims are similar to those of communism, present-day social democracy differs from Marxism in that it advocates progressive reforms but not revolution and a one-party system.
Although more respectful of individual freedom than communism, socialism has not succeeded in bringing about international peace and happiness. Why?
Why the Failure?
For one thing, socialism has not proved itself more powerful than nationalism. Concerning the Second International, a federation of Socialist parties and trade unions founded in 1889, we read that it “issued many moving and stirring manifestoes against war, but when war broke out [in 1914] it disclosed its paralysis. Most of its national components sided with their own governments and abandoned the idea of international working-class solidarity.”—Encyclopædia Britannica.
Since then, the socialist movement has continued to be fragmented and to mean different things to different people. The name socialist is used by various governments throughout the world, some of which differ very little from progressive conservative governments, whereas others are authoritarian and even totalitarian. The word “socialist” has therefore lost much of its meaning for many sincere people who thought it would lead to a worldwide brotherhood in a classless society of material prosperity and happiness.
Little wonder that French trade-union leader Edmond Maire wrote in Le Monde: “The historic failure of the labor movement in its ambition to build socialism . . . [has] led a number of militants—both workers and intellectuals—to give up even the long-term hopes. . . . The young appear to be particularly affected by this weakening of the socialist hope.”
Thus, whether it be by means of capitalism, communism or socialism, mankind’s quest for a system that will bring material prosperity and real happiness has failed. American sociologist Daniel Bell admits: “For the radical intelligentsia, the old ideologies have lost their ‘truth,’ and their power to persuade. Few serious minds believe any longer that one can set down ‘blueprints’ and through ‘social engineering’ bring about a new utopia of social harmony.”—The End of Ideology.
-
-
Can They Bring Real Happiness?Awake!—1981 | December 8
-
-
Socialism
A system of social organization based on public ownership and control of the principal means of production and distribution of goods; distinguished from communism in the Western world in that it advocates progressive reforms within a democratic society
-
-
Is Material Prosperity Enough?Awake!—1981 | December 8
-
-
THE desire for material prosperity is not wrong in itself. But is it enough to bring true happiness? Have capitalism, communism and socialism forgotten the primary ingredient for true happiness? And could this important lack explain, at least in part, why these systems have failed to make people really happy?
The sincerity of men who devote their entire lives to efforts aimed at making capitalism, communism or socialism succeed cannot be denied. And each system has succeeded in raising the standard of living in certain countries, for certain people. But have they brought genuine happiness to the majority of those lands? Have they ended crime, violence and war? Has any one of these systems wiped out suicide, drug addiction or alcoholism? Do happy people commit suicide, “escape” by means of drugs, or “drown their sorrows” in alcohol?
The avowed purpose of these various human systems is to further a way of life that is considered to be the best for all or, at least, for “the greatest number.” They attach more or less importance to freedom or to equality as being basic to human happiness. Capitalism is willing to sacrifice equality in favor of freedom. Communism puts equality above freedom. Social democracy tries to make the best of both worlds. But not one of them has succeeded in changing human nature. Human selfishness brings out the worst in capitalists, making many of them unjust exploiters; it has converted communist experiments into state capitalism, the common people being exploited by the state instead of by individual capitalists or huge corporations; it has ruined socialist Utopian dreams.
-