The Crisis of Socialism and Czechoslovak Social Democracy
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Crisis of Socialism and Czechoslovak Social Democracy ERAZIM V. KOHAK A. THE CRISIS OF SOCIALISM The idea of socialism has had a chequered history. To the men who first raised it as a battle cry for a better tomorrow, socialism stood for an ideal of freedom, social justice, and economic security. Their hopes contrast sharply with the actual practice of present-day socialist states, which have destroyed all vestiges of freedom, made justice a tool for a ruling minority, and, by their own admission, came close to an economic disaster. Yet in spite of this reversal of all early socialist hopes, the idea of socialism has retained its hold on the minds of millions, and once again it appears as a brave young hope to newly emerging nations the world over. Thus, the problem with which we must attempt to deal here has three aspects. First, we need to inquire what gives the socialist idea its durability, Why, we shall ask, do men return to it even after it has been, to all appearances, thoroughly discredited in the practice of states which call themselves socialist? This consideration leads to our second question: If the ideal is in principle so enduring, why does it fail in practice? - and why, we might add, has it failed in Eastern Europe, yet succeeded in Great Britain and Sweden? And, finally, we shall raise the specific question of what, if anything, there is in the experience of Czechoslovak Republic and Czechoslovak social democracy which might direct the persistent socialist idea in newly emerging nations and in the transformations beyond the Iron Curtain towards building a free and just society rather than an industrial police state after the model of the Soviet Union. For this, finally, is the crisis of socialism. On the one hand, its ideals persist in men's hopes and aspirations, yet the actual practice of socialist countries produces results diametrically opposed to the hopes which gave them their force. Thoughtful students of Marxism have been aware of this problem for 1504 Erazim V. Kohdk some time. Thus, in 1898, T. G. Masaryk pointed out that the rising theory of socialism bore the seeds of basic crisis within itself.1 Its fundamental ambiguity, as Masaryk saw it, was not restricted to any one aspect of Marxist thought. It underlay its theoretical conceptions - such as dialectical materialism and historical determinism, as well as its economic theories-and its tactical conceptions, such as class struggle, proletarian revolution, and dictatorship of the proletariat. Basically, socialism bore within itself a conflict between the individualism of its aspirations and the collectivism of its practice, between the free in- dividual in a free society, set forth as its goal, and the collectivist state through which it thought it could reach this goal. As Masaryk saw it, socialism sought to free society from an oppressive state, yet depended on a far more comprehensive state machinery to do so.2 It struggled for humanity, yet its doctrine of that struggle was itself basically anti- humanitarian.3 It revolted against an aristocratic conception of society, yet its revolution was in itself aristocratic.4 It failed throughout to resolve the conflict between its individualistic, democratic view of a free and just society, and the claims of the totalitarian revolutionary movement and collectivistic state on which it depended to bring that society about. B. SOCIALISM AND SOCIALIZATION In the two-thirds of a century which have passed since the publication of Masaryk's articles on the "Crisis of Marxism", the world has changed almost beyond recognition. It has grown to include continents which in 1898 were still unexplored trading outposts. It has seen a series of wars of global magnitude, working out changes which were accumulating beneath the apparently calm surface of Europe since 1815. It has also seen socialism grow from an obscure doctrine argued in hypothetical 1 In a series of articles outlining the argument of his forthcoming Otdzka socialni, published as "Die wissenschaftliche und philosophische Krise innerhalb gegenwärtigen Marxismus", in Die Zeit (Vienna, 1897), issues 177-179. Pamphlet edition, same title (Vienna, 1898). 2 T. G. Masaryk, The Ideals of Humanity, tr. by W. P. Warren (London, 1938), hereinafter Ideals; p. 28. 3 Ibid., p. 70. 4 T. G. Masaryk, Grundlagen des Marxismus (Vienna, 1899), hereinafter Grund- lagen]; p. 547. The volume in question is the German edition of Otdzka socialni, published in Prague in 1898. I have been able to locate a copy of the 1936 revised Czech edition (hereafter cited as Otdzka socialni), but had to rely on the German edition for material from the second half. Translations from sources in languages other than English are mine throughout. Socialism and Czechoslovak Social Democracy 1505 terms at workers' meetings to a world-wide battle cry performing a function analogous to that of nationalism in Masaryk's Europe. Yet Masaryk's analysis is no less relevant today than in 1898.5 For in spite of its advances, socialism never overcame its internal contradictions. Its growth has served only to accentuate them. Thus, today, societies as different as the Soviet Union and Great Britain consider themselves "socialist". Similarly, in Czechoslovakia, the party which added the designation "socialist" to the name of the country carries on an intensive campaign against "social democratism", its polemic term for socialism as understood, for instance, in Sweden. Nor does the advance of socialism throughout the world today, especially in Africa and South America, come any closer to resolving this basic contradiction.6 Leaders of former colonial nations, although imbued with Western ideas of freedom and justice, still look for tutelage to Moscow and Peking. Thus, the threat of the hidden time bomb built into present socialist thought assumes global proportions, and there is no task more urgent than its resolution. With each passing year, the problem becomes more acute, because the advance of socialism - though not the resolution of its ambiguities - is rooted in the very nature of present social develop- ment. Perhaps the most characteristic aspect of this development is what John Dewey described as socialization, that is, the growing participation of increasingly broad social strata in the life of the community.7 This, even more than the emergence of the proletariat, is the major factor on the modern scene. The trend itself is old, yet its incredible acceleration during the last century gives it the force of radical change. Karl Marx and his followers were keenly aware of its economic aspect. Socialization of production, represented by large-scale industrial and commercial enterprise, is one of the basic motifs of socialist thought. But the phenomenon cannot be restricted or even reduced to its economic aspect. As R. H. Tawney pointed out in Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, the material aspect of socialization depends on its intellec- tual, moral, religious, and philosophical counterparts. The process is one of growing democratization: increasingly broader strata of the world's 5 E. V. Kohak, "T. G. Masaryk's Revision of Marxism", in The Journal for the History of Ideas, XXV .4 (Oct.-Dec. 1964) pp. 519-542). An English edition of Otazka socialni is currently being prepared for publication. 6 Perhaps the most interesting attempt to resolve it is the work of Leopold S. Senghor, who states his basic view as "Le socialisme est un humanisme", very much along Masaryk's lines. Nation et voix africaine de socialisme, (Paris, 1961), p. 42. 7 John Dewey, Individualism: Old and New (New York, 1930), pp. 48-49. 1506 Erazim V. Kohak population demand and, in effect, assume an active role in the life of their community. Thus, socialism persists in one form or another, because it is an articulation of the ongoing process of increasing socialization of the human community. Unfortunately, not only socialism itself, but also the ambiguity of socialism is rooted in social reality. The process of socialization is itself ambiguous and self-contradictory. On the one hand, it offers an opportunity for individual self-realization and full participa- tion in the life of the community to numbers of broad social strata which for centuries could hope, at best, for a marginal subsistance. Not only surviving, but being human in the fullest sense becomes a distinct possibility for all men. Earning a livelihood, until recently a dawn-to- dusk, all-week occupation for an entire family in all but the most privi- leged social strata, has become a part-time occupation for one of its members. At the same time, improved communications place the cultur- al, educational, and political resources of the entire community at each individual's disposal. In this respect, socialization represents distinct progress in man's struggle to rise. Yet on the other hand, the possibilities for individual self-realization become possibilities in the context of a highly organized state. Individualism may not be impossible, but it is now inevitably individualism in a social context, depending on the good graces of a collectivistic state for the very possibility of its existence. The individual needs the state, yet must reject its absolute claim. The in- escapable and unresolved problem of all socialization is the problem of individualism and collectivism, of the individual and society. Both the process and the basic ambiguity of socialization become clearer when we see them in a historical perspective. While the process is continuous, its focus shifts with the changing conception of what constitutes the key to individual self-realization and the full, good, human life. Thus, we can see a foreshadowing of the process and the problem in the religious articulation of socialization during the period of the re- formation culminating in the religious wars of the 17th century.