Approfondimento: Socialism

The term socialism is commonly used to refer both to an ideology--a comprehensive set of beliefs or ideas about the nature of human society and its future desirable state--and to a state of society based on that ideology. Socialists have always claimed to stand above all for the values of equality, social justice, cooperation, progress, and individual freedom and happiness, and they have generally sought to realize these values by the abolition of the private-enterprise economy (see CAPITALISM) and its replacement by "public ownership," a system of social or state control over production and distribution. Methods of transformation advocated by socialists range from constitutional change to violent revolution.

ORIGINS OF SOCIALISM

Some scholars believe that the basic principles of socialism were derived from the philosophy of Plato, the teachings of the Hebrew prophets, and some parts of the New Testament (the Sermon on the Mount, for example). Modern socialist ideology, however, is essentially a joint product of the 1789 French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution in England--the word socialist first occurred in an English journal in 1827. These two great historical events, establishing democratic government in France and the conditions for vast future economic expansion in England, also engendered a state of incipient conflict between the property owners (the bourgeoisie) and the growing class of industrial workers; socialists have since been striving to eliminate or at least mitigate this conflict. The first socialist movement emerged in France after the Revolution and was led by Francois BABEUF, Filippo Buonarrotti (1761-1837), and Louis Auguste BLANQUI; Babeuf's revolt of 1796 was a failure. Other early socialist thinkers, such as the comte de SAINT-SIMON, Charles FOURIER, and Etienne CABET in France and Robert OWEN and William Thompson (c.1785-1833) in England, believed in the possibility of peaceful and gradual transformation to a socialist society by the founding of small experimental communities; hence, later socialist writers dubbed them with the label utopian.

THE EMERGENCE OF MARXISM

In the mid-19th century, more-elaborate socialist theories were developed, and eventually relatively small but potent socialist movements spread. The German thinkers Karl MARX and Friedrich ENGELS produced at that time what has since been generally regarded as the most sophisticated and influential doctrine of socialism. Marx, who was influenced in his youth by German idealist philosophy and the humanism of Ludwig Andreas FEUERBACH, believed that human beings, and particularly workers, were "alienated" in modern capitalist society; he argued in his early writings that the institution of private property would have to be completely abolished before the individual could be reconciled with both society and nature. His mature doctrine, however, worked out in collaboration with Engels and based on the teachings of classical English political economy, struck a harder note, and Marx claimed for it "scientific" status.

The first important document of mature MARXISM, the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO (1848), written with Engels, asserted that all known human history is essentially the history of social classes locked in conflict. There has in the past always been a ruling and an oppressed class. The modern, or bourgeois, epoch, characterized by the capitalist mode of production with manufacturing industry and a free market, would lead according to Marx and Engels to the growing intensity of the struggle between capitalists and workers (the proletariat), the latter being progressively impoverished and as a result assuming an increasingly revolutionary attitude.

Marx further asserted, in his most famous work, Das KAPITAL, that the capitalist employer of labor had, in order to make a profit, to extract "surplus value" from his employees, thereby exploiting them and reducing them to "wage-slavery." The modern state, with its government and law-enforcing agencies, was solely the executive organ of the capitalist class. Religion, philosophy, and most other forms of culture likewise simply fulfilled the "ideological" function of making the working class contented with their subordinate position. Capitalism, however, as Marx claimed, would soon and necessarily grind to a halt: economic factors, such as the diminishing rate of profit, as well as the political factor of increasing proletarian "class consciousness" would result in the forcible overthrow of the existing system and its immediate replacement by the "dictatorship of the proletariat." This dictatorship would soon be superseded by the system of socialism, in which private ownership is abolished and all people are remunerated according to their work, and socialism would lead eventually to COMMUNISM, a society of abundance characterized by the complete disappearance of the state, social classes, law, politics, and all forms of compulsion. Under this ideal condition goods would be distributed according to need, and the unity of all humankind would be assured because of elimination of greed.

VARIETIES OF EUROPEAN SOCIALISM

Marxist ideas made a great impact on European socialist movements. By the second half of the 19th century socialists in Europe were organizing into viable political parties with considerable and growing electoral support; they also forged close links in most countries with trade unions and other working-class associations. Their short-term programs were mainly concerned with increasing the franchise, introducing state welfare benefits for the needy, gaining the right to strike, and improving working conditions, especially shortening the work day.

Moderate Socialism

Ideas other than those of Marx were at this time also becoming influential. Such ideas included moderate socialist doctrines, for example, those of the FABIAN SOCIETY in England, founded by Sidney WEBB and including among its adherents the writers H. G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw; those of Ferdinand LASSALLE in Germany; and of Louis BLANC in France. These moderates sought to achieve socialism by parliamentary means and by appealing deliberately to the middle class. Fabianism had as one of its intellectual forebears the utilitarian individualism of Jeremy BENTHAM and John Stuart MILL, and it became a doctrine that sought to reconcile the values of liberty, democracy, economic progress, and social justice. The Fabians believed that the cause of socialism would also be aided by the advancement of the social sciences, especially economics and sociology. These doctrines, collectively known as social democracy, did not, like Marxism, look toward the complete abolition of private property and the disappearance of the state but instead envisaged socialism more as a form of society in which full democratic control would be exercised over wealth, and production would be controlled by a group of responsible experts working in the interests of the whole community. The achievement of socialism was seen by social democrats as a long-term goal, the result of an evolutionary process involving the growth of economic efficiency (advanced technology, large-scale organization, planning), education in moral responsibility, and the voluntary acceptance of equal shares in benefits and burdens; socialism would be the triumph of common sense, the inevitable outcome of LIBERALISM, the extension of democracy from politics to industry.

CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM spread from its beginnings in England to France and Germany. Charles KINGSLEY, John Malcolm Forbes Ludlow (1821-1911), and Frederick Denison MAURICE were among its founders. They in the main supported moderate social democracy, emphasizing what they understood as the central message of the church in social ethics, notably the values of cooperation, brotherhood, simplicity of tastes, and the spirit of self-sacrifice. Their ideas proved fertile in both the short and the long runs, although in actual political terms Christian socialism never succeeded in altering the predominantly secular orientation of most socialist movements.

Radical Socialism

On the other hand, many doctrines and movements were decidedly more militant than Marxism. Anarchists (see ANARCHISM), influenced mainly by the ideas of the Frenchman Pierre Joseph PROUDHON and later of the Russian emigres Mikhail Aleksandrovich BAKUNIN and Pyotr Alekseyevich KROPOTKIN, were intent on immediately overthrowing the capitalist state and replacing it with small independent communities. Unlike the Marxists, whom they bitterly criticized, anarchists were against the formation of socialist parties, and they repudiated parliamentary politics as well as the idea of revolutionary dictatorship. Their followers, never very numerous, were and are found mainly in the Latin countries of Europe and America. SYNDICALISM, an offshoot of anarchism, was a movement of militant working-class trade unionists who endeavored to achieve socialism through industrial action only, notably by using the weapon of the general strike. Their doctrine was similar to Marxism in that they also believed that socialism was to be achieved only by and for the working class, but unlike the Marxists they rejected the notion of a future centralized socialist state. Their most eminent theorist was Georges SOREL. Syndicalist ideas also had intermittent success in the British and American trade union movements, for example, the INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD, an American-based syndicalist union active around the turn of the century. Guild socialism in England, dominated by George Douglas Howard Cole (1889-1959), the academic economist and historian, represented a modified and milder form of syndicalism.

In Russia, where it was impossible to organize openly a popular socialist movement under the tsarist regime, socialism became mainly the ideology of young militant intellectuals whose favored means of furthering the cause were secret conspiracies and acts of individual terrorism. Debate raged between those who believed in the native socialist ethos of the Russian village community and those who wanted to adopt Western ideas of modernization. The latter party, which eventually emerged victorious, soon came under Marxist influence. Among its adherents was V. I. LENIN, who emerged as the leader of a small but dedicated group of "professional revolutionaries," the Bolshevik (see BOLSHEVIKS AND MENSHEVIKS) wing of the illegal Russian Social Democratic Workers' party. Lenin was also the theorist who irrevocably gave a markedly elitist and authoritarian twist to Marxism: he worked out the theory of the proletarian vanguard--that is, the Communist party--which was destined to lead the masses toward socialism, irrespective of the masses' inclinations.

SCHISM AND CONTROVERSY

Throughout the 19th century the socialist movement was beset by a number of ever-deepening conflicts and doctrinal controversies.

The Internationals

The International Workingmen's Association (First International; see INTERNATIONAL, SOCIALIST), founded in 1864, was expected to achieve unity among various socialist and militant trade union organizations, but its efforts were greatly hindered by, among other things, the conflict between the followers of Bakunin and those of Marx. It came to an end soon after the suppression of the COMMUNE OF PARIS (1871).

The Second International (1889-1914) assumed for a time at least an outward appearance of unity, in that it represented the high watermark of classical Marxist influence in West European socialism. It was dominated by the largest socialist parties then in existence, the French--led by Jean JAURES, Jules Guesde (1845-1922), and Paul Lafargue (1842-1911)--and the German--led by August BEBEL, Karl Johann KAUTSKY, and Wilhelm Liebknecht (see LIEBKNECHT family)--who agreed at least in their broad understanding of the aims and methods of socialism. Their spokesmen emphasized the need to foster international solidarity among the mass of the working class and thus to avert the threat of a major war in Europe. This effort proved singularly unsuccessful: NATIONALISM in 1914 and later proved a much stronger mass emotion than socialism. Apart from a few exceptions, such as Lenin and his Bolshevik group, socialist movements supported the war effort of their respective governments. As a result of the general conflagration in 1914 the Second International disintegrated and therewith also the hopes of socialist unity.

Revisionism

Another important controversy broke out in the 1890s within Marxism, involving the German Social Democratic party. This party was divided then between a militant revolutionary left wing, an orthodox center that held to the classical Marxist doctrine of economic determinism, and a right wing moving rapidly toward a position of open reformism. The right wing had as its most renowned spokesman Eduard BERNSTEIN, a personal friend of Marx and Engels, who was, however, also influenced by English Fabian ideas.

Bernstein repudiated the notion of violent revolution and argued that conditions in civilized countries such as Germany made possible a peaceful, gradual transformation to socialism. He sought to reinterpret Marxist doctrine in the light of fresh advances made in economic science, such as those also embraced in Fabian doctrine, and argued that socialism was compatible with individual economic responsibility. He rejected, furthermore, the idea of "class morality," which judged all actions according to their revolutionary import. Instead he advocated a code of individual morality, derived from Kant's moral philosophy. Consequently, Bernstein asserted the need for socialists to concentrate on immediate tasks instead of ultimate and remote objectives; the movement, he wrote, was everything; the goal, nothing.

This doctrine, henceforward called revisionism, immediately became the subject of bitter attacks by the revolutionary left wing, represented above all by Rosa LUXEMBURG, which on this issue was supported by the orthodox center and its principal theorist, Karl Kautsky. The terms of the debate on revisionism centered on the facts, noted by Bernstein, of considerable improvement in the living standards of the working class, its resultant political integration in the constitutional (republican or monarchical) state, the purely reformist stance of trade unions, and the virtual absence of any desire for a radical change on the part of the great majority of workers.

The opponents of revisionism, while acknowledging these tendencies, argued that material improvements were insufficient and ephemeral. They felt that if the working class and its organizations accepted the constitutional state they were merely postponing indefinitely the change to socialism. According to them, the principal tasks of the socialist leader are to arouse dissatisfaction with existing conditions and to reemphasize constantly the worth of the ultimate goal. The arguments on both sides continue with only slight changes in the debate between reformist and revolutionary socialists everywhere. In Marxist jargon the term revisionism became synonymous with treason. Ironically--but in a way that pointed toward the subsequent fate of Marxist doctrine--the orthodox center in the German party was soon to be denounced by left-wingers as revisionist. Lenin, too, came to condemn sharply the German social democrats and the "renegade" Kautsky. The latter, in turn, vehemently denounced Lenin and the Bolsheviks for their adoption of terrorist methods in the consolidation of their revolutionary gains in Russia. Marxist unity, like the Second International, thus also fell victim to World War I and its aftermath: from then on Marxists have tended to be either Marxist-Leninists--that is, communists embracing the elitist doctrine of the vanguard party--or moderate revisionists moving ever closer to reformist social democracy.

MODERN MARXIST SOCIALISM

Modern socialism owes its shape and fortune at least as much to secular events as to the continuing attraction of its various doctrines. The major upheavals caused by two world wars greatly contributed to the success of the Russian (1917) and Chinese (1949) revolutions, and the governments of these two powerful countries thereafter endeavored by diverse means to spread the Marxist revolutionary doctrine further afield, resorting to military methods (as in Eastern Europe), economic pressures, and military and economic aid, as well as subversion and propaganda. Indigenous Marxist movements also succeeded in gaining and maintaining power in Cuba (1959) and Nicaragua (1979). During most of the 20th century, Marxist socialism meant the dictatorial rule of the Communist party, intensive industrialization, central state direction of the economy, and the collectivization of agriculture. These were accompanied, particularly during the dictatorship of Joseph STALIN in the USSR, by a reign of terror and the general absence of individual freedom. The Stalinist system, though shorn of some of its worst brutalities, essentially remained in place until the rise to power of Mikhail GORBACHEV in 1985. In a few short years, Gorbachev's policies of GLASNOST (openness) and PERESTROIKA (restructuring) created irresistible demands for liberalization in both the USSR and Eastern Europe. As the Soviet regime loosened its grip, the countries of Eastern Europe threw off the Communist governments that had been imposed on them after World War II. In the USSR itself long-cherished doctrines of Leninism were jettisoned with bewildering speed, and, following an abortive coup by party hard-liners in 1991, the Soviet regime collapsed.

EUROPEAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY

In Western Europe, despite the presence of large Marxist parties (as in Italy and France) and the Marxist influence among intellectuals, socialism was, and still is, principally represented by widely based social democratic and labor movements, which generally enjoy the active support of trade unions. This predominance of reformist trends over revolutionary aspirations undoubtedly was occasioned by economic stability and the deterrent example of Marxist rule in the East. The social democratic parties of Sweden, Britain, France, and the Federal Republic of Germany (the former West Germany and present reunified state), in particular, governed their respective countries for lengthy periods during the postwar era through constitutional means, fully accepting the principles of parliamentary liberal democracy. The spirit of these Western European parties has tended to be pragmatic and tolerant, seeking accommodation rather than confrontation. Their programs repudiate the doctrines of the class war, revolution, and communism. Instead, they have relied on the expedients of progressive taxation, deficit financing, selective nationalization, the mixed economy, and vast welfare programs in order to bring about socialism; their political success has depended on considerable middle-class support. Although most of these parties have recently accommodated themselves to free-market reforms, they remain committed to the social democratic vision of a "middle way" between the extremes of communism and unfettered capitalism.

Social democratic foreign policy has generally been pacific and until recently was mainly concerned with defusing the cold war and accelerating the processes of decolonization and the banning of nuclear weapons. In domestic politics, European social democrats generally refused to cooperate with communist parties and other extremist socialist groups. The Social Democratic party (SPD) in Germany, although at one time the citadel of orthodox Marxism, has since 1959 been a purely reformist party, abandoning its original goals. The British LABOUR PARTY, socialist in its aims (its constitution since 1919 has had reference to "public ownership"), has never had any serious doctrinal or organizational links with Marxism, although its powerful left wing consistently advocates radical policies. A dispute with the leftists prompted a group of Labour moderates to secede (1981) and found the Social Democratic party, which later merged (1988) with the Liberal party to form the Social and Liberal Democrats (later, Liberal Democrats). The French Socialist party, which had long since abandoned its orthodox Marxism, allied itself with the Communists during the 1960s, but under the leadership of Francois MITTERRAND, it won the presidency on its own and gained a majority in the National Assembly in 1981. In the same year, the Greek Socialists came to power under Andreas PAPANDREOU, and in 1982, Felipe GONZALEZ MARQUEZ formed Spain's first Socialist government since the Spanish Civil War. Bettino CRAXI became Italy's first Socialist premier, heading a coalition government from 1983 to 1987. Although Scandinavia's social democrats suffered electoral defeats in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the political parties of Europe's moderate left retained broad popular support.

The French Communist party was long known for its subservience to the USSR and its rigid Stalinism. The Italian Communist party, on the other hand, relied on an indigenous Marxist tradition associated mainly with the teaching of Antonio GRAMSCI, one of the party's founders, who is widely regarded as one of the most significant of European Marxist thinkers. The Italian party, at one time the largest in Western Europe, frequently obtained the highest percentage of the popular vote in Italy's parliamentary elections and continuously governed a number of Italian municipalities (Bologna is a prime example).

During the 1970s the Italian Communists under Enrico BERLINGUER, the French Communists under Georges Marchais, and the Spanish Communists under Santiago Carillo embraced a doctrine known as Eurocommunism. The Eurocommunists, breaking not only with Stalinism but with some aspects of the Leninist tradition, began moving toward full acceptance of parliamentary democracy and the multiparty system, in many ways prefiguring the glasnost-perestroika reforms that dramatically changed the Communist world in the Gorbachev era. To the left of the Communists were a number of new groups of militant revolutionaries, such as West Germany's Red Army (Baader-Meinhof) Faction and Italy's Red Brigades, which carried out campaigns of abduction, subversion, and terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s.

SOCIALISM IN THE UNITED STATES

In North America, Marxist influence never spread very far. In the United States no socialist movement ever held a very large following, and although the country has produced renowned socialist authors and popular leaders, they have not been distinguished for their originality or for their impact on the worldwide development of socialism. Socialism has not taken a firmer root in the United States for several reasons, of which the country's cultural traditions and its wealth in natural resources are the most important. Whereas in Europe the distribution of wealth was a pressing problem, facilitating the rise of socialist movements, in the United States the moving "frontier" meant the constant creation of new land and wealth and its accessibility for those endowed with initiative and a spirit of individual enterprise. Thus in the United States even radical thinkers tended to be "individualists" and "anarchists," rather than socialists. In this development the country's tradition of republican self-government and its ethos of egalitarianism and democracy also played a decisive role: unlike Europe, the United States had no entrenched aristocratic privileges or monarchical absolutism and consequently no need for democratic aspirations to be combined with the socialist demand for economic equality and security. LABOR UNIONS also, for the most part, concentrated on the achievement of higher earnings and were not greatly interested in economic and social organization.

Numerous, although small, utopian socialist communities did flourish, however, in the United States, mostly during the early 19th century. Also, a celebrated economist, Henry GEORGE, and writers of repute, such as Edward BELLAMY, advocated socialism, and socialist political leaders, such as Victor L. BERGER, Eugene V. DEBS, Daniel DE LEON, and Norman THOMAS, had at one time considerable popular appeal. The U.S. SOCIALIST PARTY, founded in 1901, reached its greatest strength in the 1912 and 1920 presidential elections, when its candidate, Debs, received more than 900,000 votes. In 1932, Norman Thomas, running on the Socialist ticket, polled more than 800,000 votes. Thereafter the party's strength ebbed. The New Deal in the 1930s, although not socialist in inspiration, also tended to draw votes away from the party. The New Deal's policies of economic redistribution seemed to meet demands of those who previously supported the Socialists.

In the economic boom following World War II and especially in the cold-war era of the 1950s and 1960s, U.S. socialism was at a low ebb. Later, however, socialist ideas made considerable, although indirect, impacts on various radical (see RADICALISM) and liberal movements. In the United States many people no longer discuss socialism in its conventional political and economic sense, but rather as a remote ethical and social ideal.

SOCIALISM IN THE THIRD WORLD

Socialism has assumed a number of distinct forms in the Third World. But only in Israel has moderate social democracy proved successful for long periods, mainly as a result of the European socialist tradition brought in by immigrants. There the Labor party in various forms has had a large following and has governed the country longer than any other party. Israel has other socialist parties as well, including a militant Marxist party. At least of equal significance, however, are the cooperative agricultural communes (kibbutzim), which have flourished since 1948. Commentators have argued that kibbutzim more than anything else show the viability of socialist principles in practice; however, the peculiarities of Israeli conditions (for example, religious tradition and constant war readiness necessitated by the hostility of Israel's Arab neighbors) could not easily be duplicated.

Elsewhere in the Third World, Marxism and various indigenous traditions have been predominant in socialist movements. In developing countries socialism as an ideology generally has been fused with various doctrines of nationalism, also a European cultural import but enriched by diverse motifs drawn from local traditions and cast in the idiom of indigenous cultures. In India, for example, the largest socialist movement has partially adapted the pacifist teaching of Mahatma Gandhi, and distinct native brands of socialism exist in Japan, Burma (Myanmar), and Indonesia. Similarly, in black Africa native traditions were used in the adaptation of socialist, mainly Marxist, doctrines and political systems based on them. Noteworthy instances were the socialist system of Tanzania (decentralized under an internationally supported economic reform program of the early 1990s) and the socialist theories of intellectual leaders such as Kwame NKRUMAH of Ghana, Julius K. NYERERE of Tanzania, Leopold Sedar SENGHOR of Senegal, and Sekou TOURE of Guinea. Socialism in these theories is usually understood as a combination of Marxism, anticolonialism, and the updated tradition of communal landownership and tribal customs of decision making. Most of sub-Saharan Africa's socialist countries adopted free-market reforms in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Arab socialism likewise represents an effort to combine modern European socialist ideology with some Islamic principles. The BAATH PARTY in Iraq and Syria and the Destour party in Tunisia have held power for considerable periods; Algeria also has had a socialist system since its independence. In the Third World, however, socialism has often been simply an ideology of anticolonialism and modernization. Overtly Marxist movements, aided by the USSR, China, or Cuba, nevertheless seized power in such African countries as Angola, Ethiopia, and Mozambique. South Africa's AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS (ANC) was also strongly influenced by Marxist ideas.

THE NEW LEFT

In the West in the 1960s a radical socialist movement, known as the New Left, arose principally out of the disaffection of young people with the way of life of advanced industrial society, and not least with its prosperity and conformism. The movement, which was apolitical in nature, sought to expose the growing "alienation" of the individual in advanced industrial conditions, castigating the values of the "consumer society" and attacking many prevailing social institutions. The beliefs of this movement, particularly strong in France, West Germany, and the United States, sprang from many diverse sources. Most important among these were the ideas found in Marx's early writings; the idea of "alienation," as interpreted by such contemporary socialist philosophers as Gyorgy LUKACS and Herbert MARCUSE; EXISTENTIALISM; romantic and utopian ideas adapted from earlier socialist writers (for example, Fourier); sexual radicalism derived from the teaching of Sigmund Freud; and some aspects of Eastern religious traditions, such as ZEN BUDDHISM. Despite its initial appeal and successes, however, the New Left did not prove to be a significant or lasting influence on socialism in its worldwide context or even within advanced industrial societies where conventional varieties still dominated.

It could well be argued that socialism as an alternative system of society and government failed to live up to its promises; by and large it is today no more than a dream or at best a set of ideal criteria whereby to judge the shortcomings of existing institutions. Socialist ideology, however, remains a popular and widely held political belief, and it has deeply penetrated other ideologies, as can be seen, for example, in the acceptance by many conservatives of the WELFARE STATE and limited planning. The worldwide spread of socialist ideas has also been accompanied by a process of dilution of original principles, as in Western social democracy, and by the degeneration and falsification of its values, as in Marxist states.

R. N. Berki

Bibliography: Berki, R. N., Socialism (1975); Brzezinski, Zbigniew, The Grand Failure (1990); Cole, G. D. H., A History of Socialist Thought, 5 vols. (1953-60); Crossman, R. H. S., The Politics of Socialism (1965); Harrington, Michael, Socialism: Past and Future (1989); Howe, Irving, ed., Essential Works of Socialism (1970); Lerner, Warren, History of Socialism and Communism in Modern Times, 2d ed. (1993); Lichtheim, George, A Short History of Socialism (1970); Lindeman, Albert S., A History of European Socialism (1983); Naarden, Bruno, Socialist Europe and Revolutionary Russia (1992); Sternberg, Fritz, Capitalism and Socialism on Trial, trans. by Edward Fitzgerald (1968); Uttig, Peter, Economic Reform and Third World Socialism (1992); Vetterli, Richard, and Fort, William E., The Socialist Base of Modern Totalitarianism (1968); Wilde, Lawrence, Modern European Socialism (1994).

(da: Grolier Electronic Publishing)

Approfondimento: Liberalism

Liberalism, a political philosophy that emphasizes individual freedom, arose in Europe in the period between the Reformation and the French Revolution. During the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries the medieval feudal order gradually gave way as Protestantism, the nation-state, commerce, science, cities, and a middle class of traders and industrialists developed. The new liberal order--drawing on Enlightenment thought--began to place human beings rather than God at the center of things. Humans, with their rational minds, could comprehend all things and could improve themselves and society through systematic and rational action.

Liberal thinking was hostile to the prerogatives of kings, aristocrats, and the church; it favored freedom--a natural right--from traditional restraints. These notions did much to precipitate the American and French revolutions and were important factors in various uprisings in the 19th century. Liberalism sought to expand civil liberties and to limit political authority in favor of constitutional representative government and promoted the rights to property and religious toleration. In the economic sphere, classical liberalism was opposed to direction by the state, arguing with Adam SMITH and David RICARDO that the forces of the marketplace were the best guide for the economy (see LAISSEZ-FAIRE).

One of the first thinkers to formulate a comprehensive liberal philosophy was the Englishman John LOCKE. As a political philosopher, Locke was widely influential. Thomas Jefferson drew upon his ideas in framing the Declaration of Independence, and the French Enlightenment philosophers VOLTAIRE and MONTESQUIEU were indebted to him. Leading liberal voices in the 19th century included Jeremy BENTHAM, John Stuart MILL, Alexis de TOCQUEVILLE, and Thomas Hill Green.

In its full flower in the 19th century, liberalism stood for limited government with a separation of powers among different branches such as the legislative, executive, and judicial and for economic free enterprise. Because of the reaction against the excesses of the French Revolution, however, liberalism shed some of its reliance on rationalism and began to base itself on utilitarianism. A link was thus forged between early revolutionary individualism and a new idealistic concern for the interests of society. In England the Liberal party, which espoused liberal doctrines, came into being (1846) under the leadership of Lord John Russell (later Earl Russell) and William E. GLADSTONE. In France, liberalism developed in opposition to the policies of the restored Bourbon kings and became a major force in the Third Republic; leading French liberals were Leon GAMBETTA and Georges CLEMENCEAU. In the United States the most characteristic representative of liberalism was Woodrow WILSON.

By the 20th century, political and economic thinking among liberals had begun to shift in response to an expanding and complex economy. Liberals began to support the idea that the government can best promote individual dignity and freedom through intervention in the economy and by establishing a state concerned about the welfare of its people. With the rise of the WELFARE STATE, the new liberals also looked to government to correct some of the ills believed to be caused by unregulated capitalism. They favored TAXATION, MINIMUM WAGE legislation, SOCIAL SECURITY, ANTITRUST LAWS, public education, safety and health laws, and other measures to protect consumers and preserve the environment (see GOVERNMENT REGULATION). Some liberals became socialists, although opposing doctrinaire Marxism and communism. The more traditional free-market liberals found themselves classed as conservatives.

Lennart Frantzell

Bibliography: De Ruggiero, Guido, The History of European Liberalism, trans. by R. C. Collingwood (1927; repr. 1977); Eccleshall, Robert, British Liberalism (1986); Gerber, William, American Liberalism, rev. ed. (1987); Gray, John, Liberalism (1986); Hamby, Alonzo, Liberalism and Its Challengers (1985); Macedo, Stephen, Liberal Virtues (1990; repr. 1991).


(da: Grolier Electronic Publishing)

Approfondimento: Il sistema politico

1. La scienza della politica e il paradigma del S. politico - 2. Definizioni - 3. L'analisi sistemica della politica - 4. Critiche e sviluppi.

1.Per l'approccio sistemico allo studio della politica e' stato scritto ormai ben piu' di un epitaffio, ora dolente, ora compiaciuto. Quell'insieme eterogeneo di teorie, caratterizzate dalla centralita' del concetto di S. politico, che politologi per lo piu' americani elaborarono nel corso degli anni Cinquanta e Sessanta sull'onda lunga' della rivoluzione comportamentista, non sembra trovare alcun riscontro nei contributi maggiori della scienza della politica dell'ultimo decennio. Eppure, i lavori di Almond, Deutsch e Easton, o di Mitchell, e di Caplan e Rosenau per quanto concerne gli studi di politica internazionale, rappresentarono, complessivamente considerati, uno dei piu' importanti tentativi di fornire alla scienza della politica un linguaggio comune e originale, che fosse in grado di fondarne la distintivita' rispetto alle discipline a essa contigue. Tale linguaggio fu in gran parte mutuato dalla teoria generale dei sistemi, ma non mancano nozioni e concetti derivati da teorie che negli anni Sessanta si stavano affermando in vari altri campi, come la cibernetica, che in ambito politologico fu coniugata con la teoria dei sistemi da Deutsch, o il funzionalismo, sviluppato nei lavori di Almond. Nella seconda meta' degli anni Sessanta, dopo la pubblicazione dei lavori di Easton, la scienza della politica fini' per essere identificata con la teoria sistemica della politica, che rappresento' inoltre il principale veicolo di diffusione del comportamentismo negli studi politici e segno' il momento di massima affermazione della scienza politica statunitense. Al declino della teoria sistemica corrisposero, parallelamente, la definitiva eclisse del behaviorism e un recupero di identita' della scienza politica europea. Ma la decade of disillusionment che ha dato origine negli Stati Uniti allo svuotamento analitico dell'armamentario teorico comportamentista, ha anche segnato l'inizio di quella "tragedia della scienza politica" dovuta all'assenza di paradigmi in grado di vantare un almeno equivalente potenziale euristico.
Intorno alla meta' degli anni Sessanta il S. politico si presenta dunque come il paradigma dominante nella disciplina. L'adozione di tale paradigma risponde da un lato all'esigenza di formulare una teoria generale della politica, dall'altro, e preliminarmente, all'individuazione dell'unita' di analisi in grado di costituire il nucleo della teoria stessa. In questa prospettiva, la nozione di S. politico viene assunta quale nozione centrale della scienza della politica per la sua capacita' di conferire autonomia analitica alla politica, e quindi alla scienza politica; per il suo presupporre sia una distinzione tra l'oggetto di studio e il suo ambiente esterno, che consente di studiare le interazioni tra il S. politico e i sistemi sociali con esso confinanti, sia l'esistenza di un'articolazione interna al sistema, che consente lo studio delle relazioni tra i sottosistemi dello stesso S. politico; infine, perche' ritenuta in grado di guidare la ricerca empirica. Il S. politico assurge dunque a unita' di analisi fondante la disciplina, a elemento in grado di fissare l'identita' della scienza politica: in quanto elemento centrale della definizione di politica lo diviene, indirettamente, anche della scienza della politica stessa.
2. Il S. politico viene definito genericamente, attingendo al quadro teorico della General Systems Theory; e in modo particolare alla definizione di sistema elaborata da Rapoport, come insieme di "parti" collegate reciprocamente da "interrelazioni". Al di la' della convergenza di fondo su tale definizione, gli autori si differenziano pero' molto nella concreta delimitazione dei "confini" del sistema, e dunque nella sua definizione operativa. Per Easton, influenzato dal Lasswell degli studi sul potere, il S. politico e' costituito da un insieme di interazioni, astratte dalla totalita' del comportamento sociale, attraverso il quale i valori vengono allocati autoritativamente a favore di una societa'. Per Almond e Powell si tratta invece, molto weberianamente, dell'insieme di tutte le interazioni che riguardano l'uso o la minaccia dell'uso della forza legittima. Per Dahl e' S. politico ogni insieme rilevante di relazioni umane che implicano, in misura non irrilevante, potere, comando o autorita'; Urbani lo definisce l'insieme analiticamente rilevante dei processi osservabili come interdipendenti, mediante i quali una qualsiasi comunita' sociale prende decisioni politiche. Tale eterogeneita' e' giustificabile all'interno di un quadro teorico come quello sistemico, che fornisce nozioni e ipotesi generali e astratte, di cui si pretende l'applicabilita' a qualsiasi tipo di interrelazione. La definizione di cio' che costituisce un sistema di interrelazioni e' dunque del tutto arbitraria e puramente nominale. Costruire un sistema consiste, tautologicamente, nel definirne i confini. La scelta di tali confini, e dunque degli elementi che fanno parte del sistema, e' soggetta soltanto a considerazioni di utilita' operazionale.
Costruzione arbitraria per eccellenza, un sistema non ha significato, se non in rapporto alla totalita' dalla quale lo si e' estrapolato. Una volta fissati i confini del S. politico, l'analisi sistemica si concentra sulle transazioni tra il Sistema e il suo ambiente. In cio' risiede, secondo Easton, la portata innovatrice dell'approccio, rispetto alla tradizionale analisi istituzionalista, che si era fino ad allora concentrata sullo studio delle strutture e dei meccanismi decisionali interni al S. politico.
In A Systems Analysis of political life, pubblicato nel 1965, Easton propone, rifacendosi alla cibernetica wieneriana, di considerare il S. politico come una black box, una scatola nera della quale e' possibile analizzare unicamente le interazioni con l'esterno, ed e' su tali interazioni che deve concentrarsi l'analisi sistemica della politica. e' invece l'aderenza al paradigma comportamentista che consente di spiegare l'emergere, quale tema centrale di tale analisi, la persistenza e l'adattamento del sistema, in seguito a stimoli provenienti dall'ambiente esterno. Qual e' la natura degli stimoli ambientali, e quali sono i processi attraverso cui tali stimoli vengono comunicati al sistema? Da dove deriva la capacita' del sistema di mantenersi in equilibrio, nonostante le pressioni ambientali? Come dar conto della persistenza dei S. politici in un mondo caratterizzato dal mutamento? Queste le domande principali per le quali i teorici del S. politico si preoccupano di formulare risposte soddisfacenti.
3. Chi si e' occupato di analisi sistemica della politica si e' quasi sempre concentrato sui lavori di Easton, in quanto unico, tra i diversi autori che assumono il S. politico quale paradigma teorico comune, disposto a sviluppare una teoria generale della politica basandosi esclusivamente su nozioni elaborate in un quadro sistemico coerente. Della sua proposta teorica ripercorreremo qui in sintesi i tratti principali. L'autore descrive le relazioni tra il S. politico e il suo ambiente come un circuito cibernetico chiuso: tutte le transazioni possibili tra sistema e ambiente sono incluse nel circuito, che si trova in uno stato di moto incessante. Di tale movimento non e' dato peraltro cogliere il momento iniziale: un'esigenza una decisione o una retroazione sono sempre infatti il frutto di movimenti o stimoli anteriori. La concezione del circuito cibernetico e' stata acclamata da alcuni autori, causa il suo rompere con l'analisi statica tradizionale, come una conquista teorica di dirompente portata innovatrice.
L'ambiente del S. politico comprende due categorie: l'ambiente infra-societario, composto dall'insieme dei sistemi sociali inclusi nella societa' della quale il S. politico e' un aspetto, e l'ambiente extra-societario, che comprende i sistemi sociali e politici esterni a tale societa'. Dall'ambiente, cosi' delineato, confluiscono al S. politico apporti di diversa natura (inputs), differenziabili secondo le categorie della domanda e del sostegno. Le domande (demands), basate su bisogni (aspettative, ideologie, interessi, motivazioni, opinione pubblica), premono sul sistema, dal quale pretendono che una qualche allocazione autoritativa di valori sia posta in essere. L'accumulazione di domande, spesso contraddittorie, che insistono sui confini sistemici in attesa di soddisfazione, puo' causare un sovraccarico (stress) tale al S. politico, da limitarne o, in una situazione limite, impedirne l'attivita' di allocazione dei valori alla societa'. Tuttavia, ciascun S. politico sviluppa una (maggiore o minore) "capacita'",da un lato di sopportare, dall'altro di contrastare lo stress da sovraccarico di domande: se infatti attraverso vari meccanismi di filtraggio/riduzione/regolazione (operati dai gatekeepers -"guardiani" di kafkiana memoria - e dalle norme culturali) o di soddisfazione delle esigenze (ma le risorse del sistema non sono illimitate) il sistema riesce parzialmente a ridurre, contrastandola, la tensione sui propri confini, attraverso lo sviluppo del sostegno crea invece le condizioni per sopportare quella parte di sovraccarico non altrimenti regolabile.
Il sostegno (support) costituisce la seconda categoria di immissione (input) nel S. politico. Al contrario della domanda, che lo indebolisce, il sostegno rafforza il sistema, ed e' indispensabile per la trasformazione delle domande in emissioni (outputs). Oggetto del sostegno sono tre componenti del S. politico: la comunita' politica, il regime e le autorita'. Ma la principale distinzione del sostegno e' quella tra "sostegno diffuso", derivante sia dal senso di identificazione nella comunita' politica, sia dalla convinzione della legittimita' del regime, e "sostegno specifico", indirizzato alle decisioni, alle azioni e alle manifestazioni delle concrete autorita' politiche.
Le emissioni del sistema consistono in azioni e decisioni delle autorita' in risposta agli inputs provenienti dall'ambiente. Esse retroagiscono sull'ambiente, con effetti che originano nuovi stimoli, sotto forma di nuove domande e nuovo sostegno, che a loro volta origineranno azioni e decisioni da parte del S. politico. Si chiude cosi' il circuito cibernetico di feet-back che, in quanto processo che mette in grado il sistema di controllare e regolare i disturbi portati al sistema stesso, se si dimostra in grado di spiegarne la persistenza, rivela pero' anche la propria inadeguatezza teorica a rendere conto del mutamento del S. politico.
4. L'obiettivo dell'analisi sistemica di spiegare "la persistenza attraverso il mutamento" non sembra dunque essere stato centrato. La stessa categoria di persistenza, uno dei fondamenti dell'epistemologia sistemica, e' stata attaccata a piu' riprese dai suoi critici. L'attribuizione alle scienze sociali del compito di dare conto della persistenza dei sistemi, subordinando a tale compito l'interpretazione della realta' sociale, e' stata ricondotta alla tradizione organicista della sociologia ottocentesca, e quindi sottoposta alle stesse critiche, sotto i cui colpi quella tradizione si era rivelata in tutta la sua portata mistificatrice.
Un altro limite dell'analisi sistemica e' stato individuato nell'eccesso di astrazione concettuale, e nel conseguente difetto di applicabilita' e di traducibilita' empirica. Sebbene l'effetto prodotto dal ricorso alla nozione di S. politico abbia contribuito in misura consistente a modificare gran parte dei fondamenti interpretativi degli ordinamenti politici, sostituendo al tradizionale bagaglio giuridico-istituzionale una concettualizzazione largamente autonoma, e incoraggiando tensione dell'ambito e della tipologia dei fenomeni presi in esame dalla ricerca empirica, fino a includervi aspetti sociali, culturali ed economici precedentemente trascurati, secondo alcuni critici avrebbe fallito l'obiettivo di arricchire gli strumenti osservativi della realta' politica. L'eterogeneita' dei lavori prodotti in tale orizzonte teorico ha inoltre reso difficile la cumulabilita' complessiva dei contributi.
In definitiva, se e' vero che negli anni Settanta la nozione di S. politico e' l'approccio sistemico, con le sue conseguenze in termini di linguaggio e priorita' di ricerca, si sono diffusi nelle scienze sociali (si vedano in Italia i lavori di Sartori e Farneti), e' anche vero che nessun autore ha seguito Easton nello sviluppo di uno schema concettuale sistemico "ortodosso". Le numerose teorie a medio raggio sviluppate a partire dalla categoria di S. politico, come le teorie sulla crisi (Pasquino), o sul rendimento dei sistemi politici occidentali Eckstein, pur utilizzando una terminologia sistemica, prescindono largamente dalle ipotesi postulate da quell'approccio.
Nel decennio successivo, la continuita' di una percezione sistemica si coniuga dunque all'esaurirsi delle sue premesse epistemologiche. Piu' successo sembrano aver sortito invece i tentativi di combinare nozioni sistemiche con nozioni di derivazione funzionalista, come nella produzione di Almond e di Luhmann o, nel caso di Offe, con la teoria marxista.
Secondo Urbani "lo sviluppo di teorie fondate sul paradigma del S. politico e stato molto spesso frenato, oltre che da un insufficiente approfondimento/sfruttamento del sostantivo (il sistema), [...] anche da una insufficiente definizione dell'aggettivo (politico)". Ma se la definizione corretta dei confini del sistema, cosi' come dell'influenza degli outputs sull'ambiente circostante, e' decisiva al fine di ostruire una teoria sistemica della politica, allora, a fronte degli esiti emersi dal recente dibattito sulla complessita' dei S. sociali delle societa' industriali avanzate, il paradigma del sistema politico non puo' che rivelarsi inservibile per cogliere gli aspetti caratterizzanti del mondo contemporaneo.

(da: Politica, vocabolario a cura di Lorenzo Ornaghi, Milano, ed. Jaca Book, 1996)

Approfondimento: What exactly is power?

Power

The word power is a common word in everyday speech and we think little of its meaning. Its meaning is for many unproblematic, so unproblematic that it's hardly worth consideration. The concept of power is self evident, part of our commonsense (taken for granted) knowledge about the world in which we live. We talk of some people having power while others do not. Power is talked of as if it was something inherent in people! Yet as we shall see power is many thing to many people. Once we have come to some understanding of what power is, or what Marxists believe it to be, we will look at the more important question of how is power distributed and the mechanisms of power.

Before we go any further some features of the commonsense definition of power must be taken to task. We are apt to think of power as something that some people have, just like some people have physical strength or a bad temper. This is not the most useful way to think of power. Power should be thought of as existing in social relationships, that is, within the realm of social interaction. To put it simply, Robinson Crusoe did not have power until he met Man Friday, then he became a powerful man, at least with regard to his newly found "friend". Power exists within social relationships not outside of them. Power does not reside within people nor does it float about landing on the unsuspecting. Thus, when I speak of people or classes having power what I mean is power within a social relationship.

Max Weber

One of the most influential definitions of power has been that given by the German sociologist Max Weber. Weber holds a constant sum model of power, that is, he defines power as something that some have at the expense of others. As we shall see later Marxists also hold a constant sum definition of power. Everyone cannot be powerful, if some group of people has power then this means that some other group does not. Power is thus a finite resource. He defines power thus:
the chance of a man or a number of men to realize their own will in a communal action even against the resistance of others who are participating in the action
This is perhaps the most influential definition of power and as we shall see forms part of the pluralist theory of the distribution of power in capitalist society. But first we must look more closely at this definition.

Power according to Weber is a finite resource. Some have power while others do not. Power also involves people doing things that they would not otherwise do: getting your way "even against the resistance of others". Thus, it is implicit in his definition that power is only exercised when people are forced to do things that they would not otherwise do. For example, let's say that there are a group of students who want to go out for the night. Some of them want to go to a pub, the others want to go to a club. An argument ensues and the relative merits of both options are discussed. Perhaps even certain threats are made, alliances are created and so on. Eventually one half accepts to do what the other half wants but does so only under duress. This would be an exercise of what Weber calls power. Power thus involves a conflict of wants. Implicit in this definition is that where consensus freely exists we are not to find power.

The Distribution of Power

The dominant political and academic view of the distribution of power rests upon this definition of power as outlined by Weber. But what is this dominant view of the distribution of power within capitalist society? The dominant conception of the distribution of power is known as pluralism. Those who hold this theory see capitalist society as being divided or fragmented up into a whole range of different interest groups. With increased specialisation, industrialisation, so society becomes more complex. Different categories of people have different interests and policy preferences which may not involves interests at all. These different categories of people can establish interest groups or pressure groups which can in turn influence the decision making process. Power is fragmented between these different interest groups thus the term pluralism.

The role of the state in this fragmentation of power is seen in a very positive light. The state is conceived as akin to the diplomat, an honest broker. The state mediates between these different interest groups. It attempts to (within reason) come to some sort of compromise. This comprise may well come down on the side of one interest group at any given time but over the long run all interest groups will have their policy preferences reflected in the decisions of the state. But as we shall see there is a certain bias (a certain answer is more likely) inherent in their theory which results from their conception of power, and the method they use to determine the distribution of power. Let's now examine some pluralist research and the premises/methods upon which it is based.

Pluralist Research

As we noted before implicit in the definition of power as given by Max Weber is that the exercise of power involves not just people, social relationships, but also a conflict of desires. Where consensus exists, real consensus, power does not manifest itself. Pluralists therefore reason that if the decision taken by a government, or state, were to reflect the wishes of a given interest group, or social group or class, then this would mean that this group had power in its relationship with the state. As a result of such reasoning their empirical research concentrates upon decision making, comparing decisions reached with the stated wishes of the interested parties. For example, lets say the CBI wanted to cut down on labour rights while the trade unions, TUC, wanted greater worker rights. If the government, or state, consistently took up the position of cutting back such rights we might argue that the CBI has greater power, with regard to the state than the trade unions.

Perhaps the best way to explain the method of pluralist research is to give an example of empirical research. Christopher Hewitt has conducted pluralist research into the political decision making process in Britain. His research is typical of most pluralist research. Hewitt examined the decisions reached by the British parliament, with regard to a wide range of policies, from the 1940s until the 1960s. He compared the decisions reached by Parliament with the policy preferences of the various interest groups involved and also with public opinion. His conclusion was that no one interest group consistently got its own way all of the time. Thus he concluded that the pluralist view of power was the most accurate with regard to Britain.

So as we see the pluralist method is now laid bare before us. Power is to be gauged by the overt decision making of the various state bodies and judged in its distribution by comparison with interest groups preferences and public opinion. The method argue Marxists determine the outcome to a large extent.

The Marxist or Radical View of Power

Marxists and conflict theorists criticize this pluralist definition of power, and their methods of determining the distribution of power, for a number of reasons.

1. Non-decision making
2. Outcome of decisions
3. Shaping desires

Non-Decision making

Marxists criticize the pluralist method/conception of power because it ignores non-decision making. Power is more than just the ability to make sure certain decisions reflect your own preferences. Power is also the ability to make sure that certain decisions are never reached, the ability to set the agenda. By controlling what is discussed, what issues and what solutions, you can control the eventual outcome of any decision making process. Marxists would argue that the fact that there has never been a genuine debate about the relative merits of the two systems, socialism and capitalism, as evidence that some can set the agenda.

A good example of setting the agenda, one that I personally experienced, is with regard to the local press and education. In Northern Ireland we still have the education system that Britain got rid of many decades ago. The education system is so unjust and unfair that a majority of all teachers and the population now oppose it. The local media, however, support it with every column inch printed. When interested parties, those who wish to see a change in the local education system, write into the paper in order to start some sort of debate the letters are not printed. The editor simply gets the letters and puts them in the bin. As a result the agenda is set and a change in the education system is not on it. You can discuss the state of the roads (how important!) but not the state of your child's education.

Outcome of Decisions

Marxists are also critical of the pluralist method of determining the distribution of power because they look only at the decision itself. It may well be that many decisions (this can be disputed!) reflect the interests of the working-class, and other less "powerful" pressure groups, yet this means little. To give a rather good contemporary example, the Foreign Secretary may well decide upon an ethical foreign policy but his actions would suggest otherwise. The state may well reach a number of decisions but what is important is if they are put in place, their effectiveness. For example, the government (not the present Labour one!) might decide to try and achieve a more equitable distribution of wealth by taxing the wealthy and making employers pay more. They might legislate this policy through parliament. Yet, the wealthy may just get their accountants to work the books so that they pay as little as possible. Employers may just break the law and refuse to pay their workers anymore. If the government does not enforce the legislation, or does not enforce it strongly enough, then their decision is null and void.

Marxists argue that it is not enough to simply look at the decision reached you also have to look at the results of such decisions. We might reason that if a given decision is never really put into effect that the social group concerned has the power to prevent it.

Shaping Desires

The last aspect of the Marxist or Radical criticism of the pluralist method neatly dovetails with Steven Lukes radical definition of power. Steven Lukes has formulated a definition of power that most Marxists would probably accept. Power for Lukes has three aspects or as he calls them "faces". First, this is how Lukes defines power:
"A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B's interests." (even if B is unaware of this).
The first face is that of decision making which we already know about. Lukes would accept, to a certain extent, that if an interest groups interests are reflected in the decision making process than they have a degree of power in relation to the decision making body.

The second face is that of non-decision making which we have also examined. Lukes would also accept that power is more than just the ability to shape decisions it can also involve setting the agenda so that certain decisions are never reached.

The third face of power involves something of a radical departure from the Weberian definition of power. Power is also according to Luke the ability to shape the desires of others so that they accord with your own, and are contrary to the individuals or social groups interests.

Marxists and the Third Face

Lukes definition of power is a definition that most Marxists could probably agree with. Most Marxists would agree with the view that power is more than mere decision making, it is also the ability to shape desires. Where there is agreement pluralists call it consensus Marxists prefer to call it what it is, false consciousness. In order to understand this shaping of desires we must first examine the concept of interests. What are interests?

By interests I do not mean their hobbies! Interests refer to certain things which are beneficial to a given individual, social group or class.  For Marxists classes have certain interests, members of classes thus have interests in common. Classes, however, do not share common interests because they do not share a common relationship to the means of production. In capitalist society some own the means of production (capitalists) while other must sell their labour-power for a wage (the workers). One seeks to raise profits by keeping wages low the other seeks high wages in order to keep their living standard high. Marxists hold an objective conception of interests, that is, there are certain interests which are the workers real interests whether they realise it or not. The worker may well think that a minimum wage and good working conditions are not in their interest but for Marxists it is obvious that such measures are in their interests.

Let's say that a person is told to stick their head in the fire. This person is utterly convinced that sticking their head in the fire is what they should do. Those around the person have told them that by doing this they will benefit themselves to a great extent. The Marxist is the kind of person who stands up and says: "Don't stick your head in the fire it will burn you!" The Marxist thus has an objective conception of interests. Is the worker who votes for a conservative party time after time, while opposing every effort by the trade unions to increase wages, any different from the man or woman who wishes to stick their head in the fire?

The Marxist View of the Distribution of Power

Marxists do not believe that power is fragmented in capitalist societies like the pluralists argue. For Marxists, such as Ralph Miliband, power is held by the capitalist class. Power derives from wealth making political equality one of the many myths that dominate our conception of capitalist society. Those who own the means of production form a ruling class. The state is not the honest broker but an instrument of the capitalist class or at the very least the state takes those decisions which in the majority favour the interests of the capitalist class. But how is ownership of capital translated into power?

The Mechanisms of Power

The capitalist class, those who own and/or control the means of production it is true do not "govern but contents itself instead with ruling the government". There are three mechanisms by which this can be achieved:

Control Over Resources

The capitalist class has at its disposal certain resources, that is, the means of production. It controls the means of production or to put it slightly differently it controls the flow of capital. It can if it wishes invest its capital but equally if it so wishes it can withdraw its capital from circulation. The decision of when to invest, where to invest and how much to invest is one that is made by the capitalist class. If the state were to seriously challenge the interests of the capitalist class then the capitalist class could quite conceivably withdraw its capital from circulation. As a result capital accumulation would slow, output would fall, and unemployment would soar. The government of the day would be ruined. Even if it survived it would be promptly voted out of office at the next general election. The state also has its own project which it can only achieve with the cooperation of the capitalist class. As a result the state will not take decisions that go against the interests of the capitalist class.

Capitalist control over the means of production also means that one class has much greater wealth than the other. This wealth, in the form of profit, can be used in the political sphere. It is well known that the conservative parties of the world are financed largely by private industry. It now appears that many former Left wing parties, such as the British Labour party, are increasingly attracting big business investment. This money acts as a kind of tacit bribe, in some cases a rather explicit and manifest bribe. If you don't annoy the capitalist class they will reward you generously. Any party receiving large sums of money from private industry is unlikely to be critical towards the same system that brings such money flowing into their funds.

Control over Ideas

Any regime which rules by might alone is never a regime that will last the course of time. Might must, to give a cliché, be turned into right. compulsion into duty. The process by which this is achieved, whether it be in China or  "free" America, can be called indoctrination. The means of mental production, the media, do not have to be totally monopolized in order that indoctrination occur. There need only be a one sided domination of the media, and other institutions of civil society, in order that indoctrination occur. In capitalist societies we find that, as in China, the media is owned, and controlled, by a particular section of society. The capitalist class control the means of mental production and through this control they propagate and foster what Marxists call a ruling class ideology.

What exactly is this ideology? Marxists use the term in a slightly different way to how most people would use the term. For Marxists ideology is a set of beliefs and values which mask and distort the truth, and which function to preserve the status quo. Such beliefs might include the belief that capitalism is the most efficient economic system or that the free market ensures democracy.

With this in mind even a cursory glance at the national press reveals that the vast majority of newspapers, judged in terms of circulation and number of titles, reflect the interests of the capitalist class. It may well appear, in the case of the tabloids, that political news is almost completely lacking from the newspaper. This is a misleading argument as even within the most sleazy tabloid newspaper there is to be found political journalism. In some articles that appear not to favour any political party it is clear that a certain state of affairs, parliamentary democracy and the free market economy, are supported. Implicit within many "apolitical" articles is to be found a subtext.

By controlling the beliefs and values of a population you control their actions. Control over the thoughts of an entire population is the most complete form of control. If people are convinced enough of the virtues of capitalism and the free market economy then they will never question any aspect of it. The capitalist class need never actually intervene in any given situation as those who occupy positions of political power hold the same outlook as they do. The state need never shoot down a single protesting worker if the worker so encultured with ruling class ideology never actually protests about any issue. Ideology is both an example of the power of the capitalist class and a mechanism for maintaining that power.

Control of the State

Many people use the term state and government interchangeably. One potential consequence of this is the assumption that a change in government equals a change in the whole state system. This is not the case. Only a certain number of institutions and positions of power within the state system are ones based on election. Ralph Miliband, in his early work at least, argues that one of the reasons why the state is an instrument of the ruling-class is because those who occupy state elite positions are predominantly drawn from the ranks of the upper and middle classes.

There are a given number of positions within the state system which bring with them power and authority. Such positions are what Miliband calls the state elite. The state elite consists of: judges, cabinet ministers or government, senior civil servants, top military officers and senior ranking police officers. Those who occupy such positions tend to be drawn from a certain background. Many will actually come from the capitalist class itself and there is no shortage of former businessmen in politics.

In his book, The State in Capitalist Society, Miliband points to the fact that as you ascend the hierarchy of any political party you find that as you go up each level there are less and less people from humble backgrounds. Even those from humble backgrounds will have to have gone through a process of bourgeoisification, that is, they must have become like the capitalist class in their outlook. The capitalist class is also a ruling class because it seeks, and occupies, the state elite positions. Its power derives from the fact that it has assumed the positions of authority and power within the state system.

Conclusion

As we see there are two competing theories on the distribution of power. Their results, it would seem, are very much entangled with their conception of power and the methodology used in their empirical research. My own view is that their are certain interests, which are peoples real interests. It is easy enough, in many cases, to know what these interests are. Any definition of power which overlooks objective interests by concentrating solely upon the first face of power is simply not adequate. Any definition that leaves out the possibility that one section of society can shape the desires of the other is also inadequate. Power is more than simply the ability to get your way against the will of others, power is also the ability to shape the desires of others, against their own objective interests.

La camicia della trisavola di Guido Gozzano

"Quando (il tempo non ricordo!)
cani, gatti, topi a schiera
ben si misero d'accordo
c'era, allora, c'era... c'era...

... un orfano detto Prataiolo, tardo e trasognato, tenuto da tutti per un mentecatto. Prataiolo mendicava di porta in porta ed era accolto benevolmente dalle massaie e dalle fantesche, perche' tagliava il legno, attingeva al pozzo; e quelle lo compensavano con una ciotola di minestra. Ma quando Prataiolo compi' i diciott'anni, il vicinato comincio' ad accoglierlo meno bene ed a rimproverargli il suo ozioso vagabondare.
Tanto che egli decise di lasciare il paese e di mettersi pel mondo alla ventura.
Ando' a salutare la sua sorella di latte, Ciclamina, e questa gli disse:
- Voglio darti una piccola cosa, per mio ricordo. Non sono ricca e non posso fare gran che. Aggiungero' al tuo fardello una logora camicia della mia trisavola, che era negromante.
Prataiolo non pote' nascondere un sorriso di delusione.
- Non sdegnare il mio dono, o Prataiolo. Ti sara' piu' utile che tu non pensi. Ti bastera' distendere la camicia per terra e comandare cio' che vorrai: e cio' che vorrai sara' fatto.
Prataiolo prese il dono, abbraccio' la sorella, e parti'. Verso sera sentiva appetito e trovandosi senza provviste e senza denaro, cominciava ad inquietarsi, perche' aveva ben poca fiducia nella tela miracolosa.
Volle provare, tuttavia; la distese in terra e mormoro':
- Camicia della trisavola, vorrei un pollo arrosto!
Ed ecco disegnarsi a poco a poco l'ombra di un pollo, leggiera dapprima e trasparente, poi piu' densa e concreta, solida e dorata come un pollo naturale. E un profumo delizioso si diffondeva intorno.
Prataiolo non osava toccarlo, temendo un malefizio. Poi si chino', lo palpo', ne strappo' un'ala, la porto' alla bocca.
Era un pollo autentico e squisito. Ordino' allora una torta allo zibibbo, un piatto di pesche, una bottiglia di Cipro.
E tutto si disegnava leggiero, si concretava a poco a poco sulla camicia miracolosa.
Prataiolo mangiava tranquillo, seduto sull'erba, quando vide sulla strada maestra un mendicante che lo fissava muto e supplichevole.
- Posso offrirti, compagno?
Il vecchio non si fece pregare e divise il banchetto con lui.
Ma quando vide la comparsa meravigliosa delle portate, prego' il ragazzo di donargli la tela magica.
- Ti daro' questo mio bastone in compenso.
- E che vuoi che ne faccia?
- Se tu sapessi la virtu' di questo mio bastone, accetteresti con gioia. Contiene mille piccole celle ed ogni cella racchiude un cavaliere armato e un cavallo bardato di tutto punto. Ogni volta che avrai bisogno d'aiuto ti bastera' comandare: " Fuori l'armata!".
Prataiolo aveva sempre sognato d'essere generale e non pote' resistere a quella tentazione: accetto' il cambio e si mise in cammino. Ma dopo poche ore era gia' pentito.
- Ho fame e non ho piu' la mia camicia! A che puo' giovarmi un 'armata quando lo stomaco e' vuoto?
L'appetito cresceva e per distrarsi egli punto' in terra il bastone e comando':
- Fuori l'armata!
Ed ecco un frusci'o dal di dentro, poi aprirsi nel legno tante piccole finestre e da ogni finestra uscir fuori un cosino minuscolo come un'ape; poi crescere in pochi secondi, crescere, formare all'intorno una muraglia di cavalli scalpitanti e di cavalieri armati.
Prataiolo guardava trasognato.
- Che cosa comandate, signor generale?
Egli ebbe un'idea.
- Che mi sia riportata la camicia della trisavola!
L'armata parti' di gran galoppo, sparve all'orizzonte, e poco dopo era di ritorno con la tela miracolosa.
- L'armata rientri in caserma! ...
Prataiolo punto' il bastone in terra. Cavalli e cavalieri presero a rimpicciolire, in pochi secondi ritornarono minuscoli come api, rientrarono nelle cellette che si rinchiusero sul legno senza lasciar traccia.
Prataiolo era felice.
Riprese la via e giunse ad un mulino.
Il mugnaio era sulla soglia e suonava il flauto: la moglie e i suoi nove figli danzavano intorno. Prataiolo senti' che avvicinandosi gli cresceva una voglia irresistibile di muover le gambe; poi fu costretto da una forza ignorata a ballare con gli altri ballerini.
Sentiva intanto la moglie del mugnaio che danzando gridava furibonda al marito:
- Basta! Basta! Uomo senza cuore! Dacci del pane invece che costringerci a ballare!
Poi rivolgendosi a Prataiolo che ballava con loro:
- Vedete? Questo mascalzone di marito, quando lo si prega di sfamarci, prende il suo flauto dannato e ci costringe a ballare!
Il mugnaio, quando gli piacque, smise di suonare e la moglie, i figli, Prataiolo caddero sfiniti dalla ridda vertiginosa. Prataiolo, riprese le forze, distese la camicia della trisavola e comando' un pranzo magnifico. Invito' il mugnaio e la sua famiglia sbigottita a dividere il pasto. Quelli non si fecero pregare, e giunti alle frutta il mugnaio disse:
- Cedimi la camicia ed io ti do il mio flauto.
Prataiolo accetto' il cambio, gia' sicuro di cio' che doveva fare poco dopo. Giunto, infatti, a dieci miglia dal paese, spedi' i mille cavalieri che gli riportarono la tela.
- Ed eccomi ora possessore della camicia, del bastone, del flauto magico... Non posso desiderare di piu'.
Arrivo' verso sera in una citta' e vide grandi annunci a vivi colori. Si accordava la mano della figlia del Re a chi sapeva guarirla della sua insanabile malinconia.
Prataiolo si presento' subito alla Reggia. Il Re dava quella sera un banchetto di gala agli ambasciatori del Gran Sultano, ma, udita la profferta dello sconosciuto, lo fece passare all'istante. Prataiolo entro' nella sala immensa, e fu abbagliato dallo sfolgorio degli ori e delle gemme.
Sedevano a mensa piu' di cinquecento persone, con a capo il Re, la Regina e la Principessa, bella ed assorta, pallida come un giglio.
Prataiolo fece legare da un servo le gambe della Principessa, senza che i commensali se n'avvedessero, poi si rifugio' in un angolo e comincio' le prime note. Ed ecco un agitarsi improvviso fra i commensali, un fremere di gambe e di ginocchia... Poi tutti s'alzano d'improvviso, scostano le sedie, cominciano a ballare guardandosi l'un l'altro, spaventati.
Principi, baroni, ambasciatori panciuti, baronesse pingui e venerabili, servi e coppieri, e financo i veltri, i pavoni, i fagiani farciti nei piatti d'oro, tutti si animarono, cominciarono a ballare la danza irresistibile.
- Basta! Basta! Per pieta'! - gridavano i piu' vecchi e i piu' pingui.
- Avanti! Avanti ancora! - dicevano i piu' giovani, tenendosi per mano.
La Principessa, legata alla sua sedia, tentava anch'essa d'alzarsi e guardava gli altri, e rideva giubilante. Quando piacque a Prataiolo, il suono cesso' e i cinquecento ballerini caddero sfiniti sulle sedie e sui tappeti, le dame senza scarpette e senza parrucca. La Principessa rise per un'ora e quando pote' parlare disse al Re:
- Padre mio, costui mi ha risanata ed io sono la sua sposa.
Il Re acconsenti', ma Prataiolo esitava.
- Ho lasciata al paese la mia sorella di latte, bella come il sole e alla quale devo la mia fortuna; vorrei farvela conoscere.
- Partite, dunque, e portatela fra noi - dissero i commensali.
I mille cavalieri comparvero, occupando la sala immensa, fra lo stupore generale.
- Mi sia portata Ciclamina, la mia piccola sorella -. E l'armata attraverso' la Reggia, le sale, gli scaloni, con gran fragore. Poco dopo era di ritorno con la sorella Ciclamina. La fanciulla fu trovata cosi' bella, che un ambasciatore se ne innamoro' all'istante.
E in uno stesso giorno furono celebrate le doppie nozze.

L'apologo di Menenio Agrippa

... nel tempo in cui nell'uomo non regnava come ora una perfetta armonia fra tutte le parti, ma ogni membro aveva un suo particolare modo di pensare, un suo particolare modo di esprimersi, si sdegnarono le altre parti che tutto cio' ch'esse si procuravano con la loro attivita', con la loro fatica, con la loro funzione andasse a vantaggio del ventre, mentre questo se ne stava tranquillo nel mezzo, e ad altro non pensava che a godersi i piaceri che gli venivano offerti.
Fecero dunque una congiura, e convennero che le mani non portassero piu' cibo alla bocca, che la bocca rifiutasse quello che le veniva offerto, che i denti non masticassero quello che ricevevano. La conseguenza di questa ribellione fu che, mentre si proponevano di domare il ventre con la fame, non soltanto questo, ma insieme con esso anche le membra e tutto il corpo si ridussero a un estremo esaurimento.
Risulto' quindi evidente che anche il ventre non se ne stava in ozio, ma aveva una sua funzione, e che non era nutrito piu' di quanto non nutrisse restituendo a tutte le parti del corpo, equamente distribuito per le vene, questo sangue cui dobbiamo la vita e le forze e che si forma con la digestione del cibo...

Mobilitazione di docenti e studenti universitari contro le penalizzazioni previste dalla Finanziaria per l'Universita' e la Ricerca

23-27 OTTOBRE SETTIMANA DI MOBILITAZIONE NEGLI ATENEI
27 OTTOBRE ASSEMBLEA NAZIONALE A ROMA

Le Organizzazioni e le Associazioni dei docenti e degli studenti universitari si sono riunite, con la partecipazione della RNRP, per una valutazione della proposta di Legge Finanziaria.

Le OO.AA. valutano in modo del tutto negativo quanto finora previsto dal Governo, sia sul piano del metodo sia sul piano dei contenuti.
Sul piano del metodo, le OO.AA. considerano improprio l'inserimento in una legge finanziaria di norme che disciplinano contenuti, come lo stato giuridico, che devono trovare la loro disciplina in una legge ordinaria ad essi solo finalizzata. Altrettanto impropria e' la introduzione in un decreto legge dell'Agenzia di valutazione. Dietro questi provvedimenti vi sono poi deleghe generiche e gravi manchevolezze.

La politica governativa sull'Universita' e la Ricerca appare per ora fortemente deludente:
- sul piano delle risorse, il FFO riceve meno della meta' dell'inflazione reale, e viene mantenuto il taglio alle spese per consumi intermedi previsto dal Decreto Bersani;
- permane molto alto il numero degli studenti idonei (oltre un quarto) che non beneficiano delle borse di studio;
- il reclutamento straordinario di ricercatori giovani e' del tutto insufficiente; e inoltre per questi ricercatori si prevede un'idoneita' nazionale, istituendo cosi' un secondo canale di reclutamento incompatibile con quello ordinario, e senza peraltro indicare il successivo meccanismo di inquadramento presso gli Atenei;
- nuove assunzioni sono praticamente impossibili per il 2007, e fortemente limitate per gli anni successivi;
- agli Enti di Ricerca viene sottratta autonomia attraverso la modifica degli Organi di governo e di gestione.

Le OO.AA. si fanno carico del profondo allarme che ha creato in tutto il mondo universitario la previsione del dimezzamento degli scatti biennali: a parte l'indubbio e oggettivo valore punitivo di questa norma, le OO.AA. rilevano come il Governo non abbia compreso che quell'apparente automatismo era ed e' parte essenziale dell'intera struttura retributiva e funzionale dello stato giuridico del docente universitario. Qualsiasi intervento sulle retribuzioni non puo' avvenire al di fuori e prima di un nuovo quadro normativo complessivo dello stato giuridico, ivi compresa la valutazione individuale.

Appare infine urgente e necessario procedere ad un vero monitoraggio dell'attuazione e degli effetti della riforma didattica, ritenendo inopportuna l'accelerazione dell'iniziativa normativa (i decreti applicativi del D.M. 270/2004) in assenza di una discussione approfondita.

Le OO.AA. esprimono l'auspicio che il Governo e il Parlamento vogliano imprimere un segno di radicale cambiamento alla politica per l'Universita', per chi vi lavora, per chi vi studia.

In questa situazione cosi' grave, le OO.AA. chiamano tutte le componenti universitarie alla mobilitazione locale e nazionale, nelle forme che ogni sede scegliera' tenendo conto del seguente calendario:
- una settimana di iniziative locali, dal 23 al 27 ottobre, con assemblee di Facolta' e di Ateneo;
- un'assemblea nazionale a Roma per il 27 ottobre;
- una manifestazione nazionale a Roma, il giorno 17 novembre 2006, giorno di sciopero nazionale nelle Universita'.

ADU, ANDU, APU, AURI, CISAL- Universita', CISL-Universita', CNRU, CNU, FIRU, FLC-CGIL, SNALS-Universita', SUN, UDU, UILPA-UR

Roma, 13 ottobre 2006

Domani 5 ottobre non c'e' lezione

Rinviata la lezione di giovedi', si riprende martedi' prossimo.