Search

In this article the author presents his views on Communism and Socialism in the U.S. A utopia, in which wealth would be distributed for the equal benefit of all, is not for men, because they are men, no matter under whose rule they exist, moreover, there is no possible way of distributing wealth to men in equal shares. Those who advocated such a system were honest, sincere thinkers, who put it forward as an alternative to the system of an unequal distribution of wealth. It ought not to be necessary to point out that the Socialists themselves have always been the bitterest critics of those who enter the political field, who would try to bring it about increment by increment, and temporize with the catalytic principle. The student has only to read the works of Philosophical Anarchists and Socialists at the time when economist Karl Marx published his paper, to realize that the bitterest controversies raged among them for many years as to what gospel should be advocated and the means by which it could be established.

This article focuses on ideology and sociology in Soviet Union as of March 1970. The author is concerned not only to show how Marxism has been so adapted to the needs of Soviet Union's elites, but also to examine the impact in that country of western sociology. Not only have there been significant changes in the Soviet elite's use of Marxism but, in company with the development of sociology in western societies, the role of Marxism as a radical critique of industrial society has been replaced by a pragmatic empirical approach to social problems. In both societies, this change is related to the specialization of sociology, to its separation from philosophy and to the shift in emphasis which takes place when a subject becomes professionalized and moves from a speculative to a scientific discipline. After the October Revolution, the study of sociology in Soviet Union was strongly dependent on Marxist philosophy. Marxist sociology was synonymous with historical or economic materialism. But economic materialism is open to different interpretations. It has both a positivistic, empirical component, and a dogmatic one: the first emphasizes the priority of matter over mind and actual social relations, the second is didactic showing the course and predicting the direction of social change. In the U.S.S.R. both these tendencies have been adopted.

Patterns of Chinese family life are changing under Communism. This paper is a descriptive report on the dating and courtship practices, husband-wife adjustment patterns and problems of the working mother in Communist China. Due to the increasing number of women participating in labor, most young people meet through working together under various circumstances, in offices, factories, or on farm cooperatives. Introductions by friends at parties, dances and pre-arranged meetings are not uncommon. In general, the wedding ceremony consists of obtaining a certificate from the local People's Council or registering at the Commune's registration office. According to informants, sometimes "Dutch treat" wedding celebrations are held by friends of the newly-weds, thus keeping the traditional value of rejoicing without putting too much financial burden on the new couple. The Communist leaders find that there is a new trend toward "early" marriage among the Communist youth. One of the relatively crucial problems working wives encounter is the readjustment of relationships between spouses resulting from the drastic change in the wife's roles.

The article discusses the book "Essays by Karl Marx, Selected from the Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts," translated by Ria Stone. This work makes available for the first time in English translation three essays by Karl Marx which deal with basic positions in his system. They are his papers on alienated labor, private property and communism and a critique of the Hegelian dialectic.

Recent trends in historical scholarship view askance the reformers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Analyses, which range from the Pluralism of a Richard Hofstadter to the neo-Marxism of a James Weinstein or Gabriel Kolko differ markedly, yet contain similar viewpoints about the worth of a variety of American reform movements. Status anxieties, naive urges for capitalistic efficiency, racialist assumptions, and individual psychological make-ups, are imputed to the reformers of the Populist and Progressive eras. It is alleged that they failed to understand the forces of industrialization, and in time capitulated to the corporate powers that they apparently opposed. It is possible that by concentrating too strongly on the alleged failures of varied reformers, there is some misunderstanding of their accomplishment. The career of the businessman-reformer, Nelson Olsen Nelson, can sharpen one's awareness of those times, which gave various reform urges scope. It can trace a curve of acceptability, and provide a gauge for changing perceptions of debate and action. Nelson's persistent cooperative endeavors shed light on a complex strand of American reform, which has survived to play a continuing role in the formation of the world.

The postwar period has been an epoch of far-reaching structural changes in rural society. Agrarian reforms carried out in many states of Central and Eastern Europe have abolished the landowner class. In these countries, the peasant class has become dominant in rural areas. On the other hand, as a result of the world depression, in several countries, the productive activity of villages has been subjected to compulsory organization. The rise of Totalitarian States, which was simultaneously the revival of the Corporative State of Middle Ages, transformed free rural producers in Italy and Germany into members of Rural Guilds. Structural changes came into rural Soviet Union due to the impact of communism. The peasant class was abolished and replaced by a hybrid class which united the half-free hired workers of small land tenants and of shareholders in large agricultural enterprises. But this change did not happen all of a sudden. It was the result of years of agitation in the history of Soviet Union.

The article focuses on the rise and decline of socialism in the U.S. This article has the following objectives: (1) to survey briefly the growth of socialism in America; (2) to present and analyze the Marxian position on the role of the socialists, and (3) to discuss the institutional and economic factors retarding the growth of socialist parties in the United States. Between 1901, when the new Socialist Party was established in the United States, and 1912, the tide of socialism seemed to be reaching a swell in the U.S. and in Europe, and many were predicting that in a short time all industrial nations would be engulfed. From very meager beginnings, the U.S. party grew into an organization with 150,000 affiliated members and with a voting strength of nearly one million. In 1910 Victor Berger became the first socialist ever to win election to Congress. But, just as the various national philosophies in Europe produced Marx, Bakunin and the Fabians, so did American socialism suffer from the divisions brought by a failure to achieve anything resembling unity. Perhaps the basic conflict centered on the role of trade unions and political organizations in meeting the challenge of a growing capitalism.

The article presents influence of the ideas of Henry George, a land reformer of the U.S., upon modern Japan. The social ideas of Henry were introduced into Japan as one of the European and American systems of social thought which were imported during the early days of the Meiji period. Thus the social conditions in modern Japan were very favorable for the introduction of Henry George's ideas, and moreover, the importation and spread of the ideas of liberty and civil rights since the early part of the Meiji era facilitated the understanding of George's ideas. According to a learned, George's ideas are false both in theory and fact. The progress of civilization somewhat increases the demand for land, but it increases the demand for labor still more, and by means of improvements in transportation things are brought from distant lands. As his opinion of common ownership of land attempts realize its object by an indirect means, it is neither radical nor rough, and is more skillful and advantageous than socialism or communism.

The article discusses doctrines of Marxism, which are utterly irreconcilable with free private enterprise. The first is that private income from capital is surplus value and is exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. Capital which depreciates or which becomes obsolete can be replaced only as there is private saving. Thus the doctrine that private income from capital is unjust leads inevitably to State ownership of capital, compulsory saving through a five-year plan or a four-year plan, State construction of capital, State repair of capital, State and, therefore, compulsory provision for replacement of capital. The second doctrine is the doctrine that the State should take from each according to his capacity and give to each according to his need. Those professed defenders of income from efficiency and thrift who are unwilling to suggest any substitute for taxes that heavily penalize incentive, except increased burdens on the comparatively poor, are adopting a strategy that is certain to appear, in the minds of many of those they seek to persuade, the reverse of disinterested.

The article focuses on the politics of the Italian land reform. The author states that the results of the 1953 Italian elections were disappointing. The most disturbing fact was the tremendous growth of Communism and Neo-Fascism. Americans took it too much for granted that, if the growth of Communism were checked, people would automatically vote for Christian Democrats. Italy has snapped out of postwar depression and with considerable American push has reached a stage of mild prosperity. The Italian masses saw things otherwise. The Communists think too little has been done. The local administrators, influenced by the aristocracy, permitted many of the holdings to remain under the control of great landlords. Such land as peasants did acquire was in many instances soon lost because of lack of capital. The land thus passed back to the old aristocracy or into the hands of urban proprietors. Absentee owners continued to rule the South and hold the peasantry in economic and political subjection, in poverty, and in ignorance.

The article informs that for some forty years there has existed in Palestine a uniquely functioning form of social and economic organization. These are the collective settlements whose members practice an internally consistent communistic way of life. On the whole, studies of and worthwhile documentation on the settlements are difficult to find. To writers on Palestine, the noisy political clashes, the tension between Jew and Arab, and the analysis of empire politics have usually seemed more immediately interesting and have attracted attention away from the slow and unexciting development of the communal settlements. This short study, inquires into two major aspects of the settlements, their practical workings, the ideology behind their formation and growth. Afterwards, we shall pose some questions as to what general significance may be attached to the example of the settlements. The communal settlements contain approximately one-fourth of the rural inhabitants of Jewish Palestine. And the farm population of Jewish Palestine embraces over one-fourth of the Yishuv, an interesting contrast to the generally overwhelming preponderance of city-dwellers in every other Jewish community.

The article informs that there is little doubt that Soviet Union aspires to dominate the continent of Europe. The United States appears to be determined not to allow that aspiration to succeed. This conflict between the two giants is also revealed in the internal politics of England, France and Italy, particularly in that of the Latin Sisters. Symbolic of the weakness of both in post-war world politics are similar passages in their new constitutions. So far, the current internal politics of the three countries has been set forth in terms of its relation to world politics. Only a rash foreigner would expect a high degree of success in attempting to appraise British French or Italian politics as it is viewed internally in each country. The trouble is that France cannot stabilize her currency. This is no new problem and de Gaulle himself tried his hand at it and failed before he retired in January 1946. All things are remembered in France. And in spite of de Gaulle's bitter present opposition to the Communists, they were in his own cabinets while he was in power. It was Ramadier, a Socialist, who threw the Communists out. For some months now there have been plans for balancing the budget and dealing with the franc. But all plans contain proposals that one or more political groups have been unable to accept. In spite of the split between the Socialists and Communists on the question of world politics, both parties represent the workers of France.

The article debates on the issues related to Socialism. When, in 1907, Victor Grayson was elected to Great Britain Parliament as a declared Socialist, in a three-cornered election, he was unable to define the terms "Socialist" and "Communist." Today, in the U.S., it is not unusual to find Socialists protesting that they are liberals, and as Socialists demanding a restoration of rights. The charge that was often made against the political Socialist was that he was illiterate so far as a knowledge of his subject' was concerned. During the campaign in Great Britain. many preachers of that gospel admitted that they learned more about Socialism at Liberal meetings than they could from their own speakers. Much has been made of the sweeping victory achieved by the workers in the recent general election in Great Britain. Many of U.S. weeklies have hailed it as a Socialist triumph, and some of conservative publicists have condemned it as such. It is nothing of the kind. Although the term Socialism has covered the party platform and the majority of the candidates elected have stood as Socialists, the program calls for nothing more than schemes for nationalizing the Bank of England, some industries, and certain services.

The article focuses on the communist ideology. It is worth while to note, in this connection, that communism and socialism are in many respects the same. Both envisage an economic system operated by the State. Protagonists of both contemplate an economic regime in which private ownership of productive goods and enjoyment of the income from them by their owners are prohibited. And, indeed, the terms "communism" and "socialism" have often enough been used interchangeably. The believer in the virtues of the free enterprise price system does not hold, however, that government has no economic functions. He does hold that the price system cannot operate successfully unless government maintains the conditions essential for such operation. Another probable reason for the appeal of communistic--and socialistic ideology is its apparent simplicity in regard to the explanation of inequality and to unfairness in the sharing of the product of industry. Further strengthening the appeal of communism to the common man is the fact that one or more of its subsidiary doctrines fall in with a very common mode of economic reasoning.

In his work, sociologist Karl Marx appears as a thorough going humanist and it is from this point onwards that a whole Marx industry developed. Sociologist David McLellan's intention is to convince his readers that any interpretation of Marx which does not take his work "Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie," seriously into account must by virtue of omission be radically mistaken. The work given by McLellan is not Marx's Grundrisse but McLelIan's Grundrisse. There is no proper explanation presented by McLellan of why from one thousand pages, a selection of one hundred and fifty two was done. The last chapter of "Marx Before Marxism," and the introduction to the Grundrisse are taken up with the crucial but rather easy task of textually refuting the break in Marx thesis. In the preface to his extremely useful selection from the early texts McLellan indicates the importance of the manuscripts and other works. McLellan's presentation of Marx is cautious, erudite and clever, but he rarely commits himself completely. McLellan demonstrates "Capital," which is only the elaboration of the first of the six sections outlined in the Grundrisse. In a sense, none of Marx's works is complete, but the completest of them is the Grundrisse.

This article is concerned with an analysis of some meanings that can be given the word 'group'. By an analysis of this concept, the author hopes to outline the form of association that can be expected to lead to sociologist Karl Marxist-type formulations. The problem raised by living in groups is that of having to put up with the proximity of other individuals in the group. The fear of being observed keeps them apart. The article is mainly concerned with the manner by which individuals cope with shame. The author argues that there are three ways in which group relationships can be attained and categorically names them as Fascism and the Acceptance of Authority, Communism and the Rejection of Authority, and finally Science and the Irrelevance of Authority. The author further states that Marxists have not yet awoken to the existence of another possible third party. He says that if Marxists stress social origins of beliefs, they must acknowledge social origins of their own.

One of the most sociologically intriguing issues highlighted by the recent debate on the convergence of industrial societies is that concerning differences in the class system of socialist and capitalist countries as of December 1969. Sociologists have summarized a number of arguments in support of the view that class stratification in totalitarian systems of the communist variety is fundamentally different from that typically found in modern western capitalist societies. Taking the Soviet Union as their model, writers have argued that communist states are not properly thought of as being stratified in the usual sense, for a variety of reasons. One of the most important is that the major social cleavage in this kind of system occurs between party and non-party personnel. Because of the coercive nature of the police state, differences in income or occupation or social background do not give rise to sentiments and behaviour of a class kind amongst non-party members of the population. Thus, although material inequalities could be expected to stem from the occupational hierarchy, there would be no horizontal clustering of groups similarly located in the rewards structure. Different sectors of the population would exhibit no sharp variations in values and outlook such as people typically find between classes in western capitalist society.

Marxism is still the main ideological issue nowadays. The past few decades witnessed a growing interest for scientific research in the Social Sciences and its institutionalization as a legitimate field of academic inquiry in several Western countries. These very decades also witnessed the transformation of Marxism from a sociological and economic theory into the official ideology in several countries and into the prevalent socioeconomic doctrine in certain academic subcultures in Western countries as well. As a result of circumstances over which social scientists have limited or no control, the controversy about Marxism went from theoretical and academic grounds to political and ideological ones. Ironically, this transition took place when the Social Sciences first began to develop instruments and coherent theoretical frameworks capable of settling the dispute on academic terms. Many Western social scientists unconsciously played an important ideological role by taking Marxism as a scientific theory. The scientific analysis of Marxism had negative consequences for Marxism itself. Several specific Marxist predictions, as the ones dealing with increasing misery, the proletarization of the middle classes, the end of social mobility and the growing revolutionary activities as consequences of industrialization under capitalism, all were mercilessly turned down by subsequent historical events and modern Social Science.

The article reports that the institution of insurance has survived the fluctuations of changing centuries because the administration of insurance has been capable of adaptation to new conditions. A good example of this adaptation is the development of Yugoslav insurance since 1945. The geographic position and a delicate balance of forces in international politics have made it possible for the country to achieve an independence of action which has been denied other Central European nations. The Yugoslav government began to formulate a theory of a new communism to be founded on certain basic principles which are the individual worker's human rights, collectivity of ownership rights and the organization of productive units.

This article inquires into John Stuart Mill's beliefs concerning alternative economic systems; that is, the systems popularly called capitalism, socialism, and communism. It also examines the influence and effect of Mill's thought in these controversial areas. The view of the article is that only by the very broadest definition of socialism can one properly describe Mill as a socialist. A consistent theme of the article is the thesis that Mill's criticisms demanded only minor modifications in the economic system--modifications which Mill suggested for the purpose of retaining and re-vitalizing the basic institutional framework of capitalism. To describe Mill as a socialist and mean much more than one who protested against certain existing defects would be to commit a misleading error. Contemporary texts, however, seem to suggest that Mill was a socialist in the original sense, but rather in the contemporary sense which requires an abandonment of the institutions of capitalism in favor of a new order. Mill was a man of perception open to new ideas. He was receptive to change and urged an attack on the ills of his day. As a reformer, however, he was most interested in working within the established framework rather than abandoning it.