Nevertheless, the anarchist preference for a stateless society in which free individuals manage their own affairs through voluntary agreement and cooperation has been developed on the basis of two rival traditions: socialist communitarianism and liberal individualism. Anarchism can thus be thought of as a point of intersection between socialism and liberalism: a form of both 'ultra-socialism' and 'ultra-liberalism'. This is reflected in two rival anarchist traditions, collectivistanarchism and individualist anarchism. Collectivist anarchism, or classical anarchism, is rooted in the idea of social solidarity or what Peter Kropotkin (1842-1912) called 'mutual aid', the belief that the natural and proper relationship amongst people is one of sympathy, affection and harmony. Collectivist anarchists have typically stressed the importance of social equality and common ownership, supporting Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's (1809-69) famous assertion that 'Property is theft', most radically expressed in the form of anarcho-communism. Individualist anarchism is based upon the idea of the sovereign individual, the belief that individual conscience and the pursuit of self-interest should not be constrained by any collective body or public authority. Individualist anarchism overlaps with libertarianism and is usually linked to a strong belief in the market as a self-regulating mechanism, most obviously manifest in the form of anarcho-capitalism.
Anarchism is unusual amongst political ideologies in that it has never succeeded in winning power, at least at a national level. As no society or nation has been re-modelled according to anarchist principles, it is tempting to regard anarchism as an ideology of lesser significance. As a political movement, anarchism has suffered from three major drawbacks. First, its goal, the overthrow of the state and all forms of political authority, is often considered to be simply unrealistic. The most common criticism of anarchism is that it is an example of utopianism in its negative sense, in that it places excessive faith in 'human goodness' or in the capacity of social institutions, such as the market or social ownership, to maintain order and stability. Second, in viewing government as corrupt and corrupting, anarchists have rejected the conventional means of political activism, such as forming political parties, standing for elections and seeking public office, and have had to rely instead upon the capacity of the masses to engage in spontaneous rebellion. Third, anarchism does not constitute a single, coherent set of political ideas, apart from anti-statism, anarchists disagree profoundly about the nature of an anarchic society and particularly about property rights and economic organization.
However, the significance of anarchism is perhaps less that it has provided an ideological basis for acquiring and retaining political power, and more that it has challenged, and thereby fertilised, other political creeds. Anarchists have highlighted the coercive and destructive nature of political power, and in so doing have countered statist tendencies within other ideologies, notably liberalism, socialism and conservatism. In this sense, anarchism has had growing influence upon modern political thought. Both the New Left and New Right, for instance, have exhibited libertarian tendencies, which bear the imprint of anarchist ideas. Indeed, the continuing importance of anarchism is perhaps merely concealed by its increasingly diverse character. In addition to, and in some ways in place of, established political and class struggles, anarchists have come to address issues such as ecology, transport, urban development, consumerism, new technology and sexual relations. To argue that anarchism is irrelevant because it has long since lost the potential to become a mass movement maybe misses the point. As the world becomes increasingly complex and fragmented, it may be that it is mass politics itself that is dead.
back to top
However, there are significant divisions within conservative thought. Authoritarian conservatism is starkly autocratic and reactionary, stressing that government 'from above' is the only means of establishing order, and thus contrasts with the more modest and pragmatic Anglo-American conservatism that stems from the writing of Edmund Burke (1729-97). Paternalistic conservatism draws upon a combination of prudence and principle in arguing both that 'reform from above' is preferable to 'revolution from below', and that the wealthy have an obligation to look after the less well-off, duty being the price of privilege. Such ideas were most influentially expressed by Benjamin Disraeli (1804-81). This tradition is most fully developed in the form of One Nation conservatism, which advocates a 'middle way' approach to state-market relations and gives qualified support to economic management and welfarism. Libertarian conservatism advocates the greatest possible economic liberty and the least possible government regulation of social life, echoing laissez-faire liberalism, but harnesses this to a belief in a more traditional, conservative social philosophy that stresses the importance of authority and duty. This tradition provided the basis for New Right theories and values.
Conservative ideas and doctrines first emerged in the late eighteenth century and the early nineteenth century. They arose as a reaction against the growing pace of economic and social change, which was in many ways symbolised by the French Revolution (1789). In trying to resist the pressures unleashed by the growth of liberalism, socialism and nationalism, conservatism stood in defence of an increasingly embattled traditional social order. Authoritarian conservatism took root in continental Europe but was increasingly marginalized by the advance of constitutionalism and democracy, and eventually collapsed with the fall of fascism, with which it had often collaborated. The Disraelian form of conservatism ultimately proved to be more successful, using Burke's notion of 'change in order to conserve', it allowed conservatism to adapt values such as tradition, hierarchy and authority to the emerging conditions of mass politics, thereby broadening its social and electoral base. Conservatism's remarkable resilience stems from its ideological caution and political flexibility, enabling it, at different times, to embrace welfarist and interventionist policies as manifestations of the One Nation ideal, and to advocate 'rolling back the state' as recommended by the New Right.
Conservative thought, however, has always been open to the charge that it amounts to nothing more than ruling class ideology. In proclaiming the need to resist change, it legitimises the status quo and defends the interests of dominant or elite groups. Other critics allege that divisions between traditional conservatism and the New Right runs so deep that the conservative tradition has become entirely incoherent. In their defence, conservatives argue that they merely advance certain enduring, if at times unpalatable, truths about human nature and the societies we live in. That human beings are morally and intellectually imperfect, and seek the security that only tradition, authority and a shared culture can offer, merely underlines the wisdom of 'travelling light' in ideological terms. Experience and history, conservatives warn, will always provide a sounder basis for political action than will abstract principles such as freedom, equality and justice.
back to top
Nevertheless, there are different strains and tendencies within ecologism. Some ecologists are committed to 'shallow' ecology, which attempts to harness the lessons of ecology to human ends and needs. Such a stance embraces both modernist ecology and social ecology. Modernist ecology is reformist in that it seeks to advance ecological principles and promote 'environmentally sound' practices, but without rejecting the central features of capitalist modernity. Social ecology, by contrast, encompasses a range of views that (albeit in different ways) link the advance of ecological principles to radical social change. The most important traditions of social ecology are ecosocialism, eco-anarchism and ecofeminism. 'Deep' ecologists, on the other hand, completely reject any lingering belief that the human species is in some way superior to, or more important than, any other species. 'Deep' ecologists therefore embrace ecocentrism and fundamentally reject anthropocentrism, and also believe in ideas such as wilderness preservation, population control, bioregionalism and the promotion of simple living.
The main achievement of ecologism is that it has generated an environmental consciousness that extends well beyond the green movement and has an impact on 'grey' parties from across the political spectrum. Ecological thinking and activism has also been strongly associated with the wider anti-globalization or anti-capitalist movement, helping to ensure that anti-capitalism has a marked ecological dimension. However, major factors stand in the way of the worldwide spread of the green movement, making it difficult for ecologism to develop into a truly global ideology. One of these factors is that, although effective action over the environment has to be international or global in character, cooperation at this level is difficult to bring about because states tend to prioritize national interests over the collective good. A further problem is that the environment may be destined to remain a concern mainly for the developed world, as economic growth and poverty reduction are likely to remain more pressing concerns in the developing world than ecological balance (despite attempts to link the two through the idea of 'sustainable development'). Finally, support for ecological ideas and policies is hampered in all contexts by the emphasis on reducing, and perhaps abandoning, economic growth, making it difficult to envisage how ecologism, especially radical ecologism, could be advanced through democratic means.
back to top
Fascism has nevertheless been a complex historical phenomenon, and it is difficult to identify its core principles or a 'fascist minimum'. For instance, although most commentators treat Mussolini's Fascist dictatorship in Italy and Hitler's Nazi dictatorship in Germany as the two principal manifestations of fascism, others regard Fascism and Nazism as distinct ideological traditions. Italian Fascism was essentially an extreme form of statism that was based upon unquestioning respect and absolute loyalty towards a 'totalitarian' state. As the Fascist philosophy Gentile (1875-1944) put it, 'everything for the state; nothing against the state; nothing outside the state'. German Nazism, on the other hand, was constructed largely on the basis of racialism. Its two core theories were Aryanism (the belief that the German people constitute a 'master race' and are destined for world domination) and a virulent form of anti-Semitism that portrayed the Jews as inherently evil and aimed at their eradication. Neo-fascism or 'democratic fascism' claims to have distanced itself from principles such as charismatic leadership, totalitarianism and overt racialism. It is a form of fascism that is often linked to anti-immigration campaigns and is associated with the growth of insular, ethnically or racially based forms of nationalism that have sprung up as a reaction against globalization and supranationalism.
Although the major ideas and doctrines of fascism can be traced back to the nineteenth century, they were fused together and shaped by the First World War and its aftermath, in particular by a potent mixture of war and revolution. Fascism emerged most dramatically in Italy and Germany, manifest respectively in the Mussolini regime (1922-43) and the Hitler regime (1933-45). Some historians regard fascism as a specifically inter-war phenomenon, linked to a historically unique set of circumstances. These circumstances included the First World War's legacy of disruption, lingering militarism and frustrated nationalism; the fact that in many parts of Europe democratic values had yet to replace older, autocratic ones; the threat to the lower middle classes of the growing might of big business and organised labour; the fears generated amongst propertied classes generally and elite groups in particular by the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia; and the economic insecurity of the 1920s which deepened into a full-scale world economic crisis in the early 1930s. According to this view, fascism died in 1945 with the final collapse of the Hitler and Mussolini regimes, and it has been suppressed ever since by a combination of political stability and economic security. The late twentieth century nevertheless witnessed a revival of fascism in the form of neo-fascism. Neo-fascism has been particularly influential in eastern Europe, where it has sought to revive national rivalries and racial hatreds, and has taken advantage of the political instability that resulted from the collapse of communism. However, it is questionable whether fascism can meaningfully adopt a 'democratic' face, since this implies an accommodation with principles such as pluralism, toleration and individualism.
back to top
Feminist theory and practice is highly diverse, however. Distinctive liberal, socialist/Marxist and radical forms of feminism are conventionally identified. Liberal feminism reflects a commitment to individualism and formal equality, and is characterised by the quest for equal rights and opportunities in 'public' and political life. Socialist feminism, largely derived from Marxism, highlights links between female subordination and the capitalist mode of production, drawing attention to the economic significance of women being confined to the family or domestic life. Radical feminism goes beyond the perspectives of established political traditions in portraying gender divisions as the most fundamental and politically significant cleavages in society, and in calling for the radical, even revolutionary, restructuring of personal, domestic and family life. Radical feminists proclaim that 'the personal is the political'. However, the breakdown of feminism into three traditions â€“ liberal, socialist and radical â€“ has become increasingly redundant since the 1970s as feminism has become yet more sophisticated and diverse. Amongst its more recent forms have been black feminism, psychoanalytic feminism, eco-feminism and postmodern feminism.
The so-called 'first wave' of feminism was closely associated with the women's suffrage movement, which emerged in the 1840s and 1850s. The achievement of female suffrage in most Western countries in the early twentieth century meant that the campaign for legal and civil rights assumed a lower profile and deprived the women's movement of a unifying focus. The 'second wave' of feminism arose during the 1960s and expressed, in addition to the established concern with equal rights, the more radical and revolutionary demands of the growing Women's Liberation Movement. Since the early 1970s, feminism has undergone a process of both de-radicalisation and fragmentation, the former leading to the emergence of what is sometimes called post-feminism. Growing fragmentation has been evident in 'third wave' feminist trends that emphasise difference over than equality, both differences between women and men and differences between women themselves.
The major strength of feminist ideology is that it has exposed and challenged the gender biases that pervade society and which have been ignored by conventional political thought. As such, feminism has gained growing respectability as a distinctive school of political thought. It has shed new light upon established concepts such as power, domination and equality, but also introduced a new sensitivity and language into politics related to ideas such as connection, voice and difference. Feminism has nevertheless been criticised on the grounds that its internal divisions are now so sharp that feminist theory has lost all coherence and unity. Postmodern feminists, for example, even question whether 'woman' is a meaningful category. Others suggest that feminism has become disengaged from a society that is increasingly post-feminist, in that, largely thanks to the women's movement, the domestic, professional and public roles of women, at least in developed societies, have undergone a major transformation.
back to top
Significant differences nevertheless exist between classical liberalism and modern liberalism. Classical liberalism is distinguished by a belief in a 'minimal' state, whose function is limited to the maintenance of domestic order and personal security.Classical liberals emphasise that human beings are essentially self-interested and largely self-sufficient; as far as possible, people should be responsible for their own lives and circumstances. As an economic doctrine, classical liberalism extols the merits of a self-regulating market in which government intervention is seen as both unnecessary and damaging. Classical liberal ideas are expressed in certain natural rights theories and utilitarianism, and provide one of the cornerstones of libertarianism. Modern liberalism (sometimes portrayed as social or welfare liberalism) exhibits a more sympathetic attitude towards the state, born out of the belief that unregulated capitalism merely produces new forms of injustice. State intervention can therefore enlarge liberty by safeguarding individuals from the social evils that blight their existence. Whereas classical liberals understand freedom in 'negative' terms, as the absence of constraints upon the individual, modern liberals link freedom to personal development and self-realization. This creates clear overlaps between modern liberalism and social democracy.
Liberalism has undoubtedly been the most powerful ideological force shaping the Western political tradition. Indeed, some portray liberalism as the ideology of the industrialised West, and identify it with Western civilisation in general. Liberalism was the product of the breakdown of feudalism and the growth, in its place, of a market or capitalist society. Early liberalism certainly reflected the aspirations of a rising industrial middle class, and liberalism and capitalism have been closely linked (some have argued intrinsically linked) ever since. In its earliest form, liberalism was a political doctrine. It attacked absolutism and feudal privilege, instead advocating constitutional and, later, representative government. In the nineteenth century, classical liberalism, in the form of economic liberalism, extolled the virtues of laissez-faire capitalism and condemned all forms of government intervention. From the late nineteenth century onwards, however, a form of social liberalism emerged, characteristic of modern liberalism, which looked more favourably upon welfare reform and economic intervention. So-called 'end of ideology' theorists such as Francis Fukuyama (1992) argued that the twentieth century had culminated with the final, worldwide triumph of liberalism. This supposedly reflected the collapse of all viable alternatives to market capitalism as the basis of economic organisation and to liberal democracy as the basis of political organization.
The attraction of liberalism is its unrelenting commitment to individual freedom, reasoned debate and the balance within diversity. Indeed, it has become fashionable to portray liberalism not simply as an ideology but as a 'meta-ideology', that is, as a body of rules that lays down the grounds upon which political and ideological debate can take place. This reflects the belief that liberalism gives priority to 'the right' over 'the good'. In other words, liberalism strives to establish the conditions in which people and groups can pursue the good life as each defines it, but it does not prescribe or try to promote any particular notion of what is good. Criticisms of liberalism nevertheless come from various directions. Marxists have argued that, in defending capitalism, liberalism attempts to legitimize unequal class power and so constitutes a form of bourgeois ideology. Radical feminists point to the linkage between liberalism and patriarchy, which is rooted in the tendency to construe the individual on the basis of an essentially male model of self-sufficiency, thereby encouraging women to be 'like men'. Communitarians condemn liberalism for failing to provide a moral basis for social order and collective endeavour, arguing that the liberal society is a recipe for unrestrained egoism and greed, and so is ultimately self-defeating.
back to top
There are a number of competing models of multiculturalism. Liberal multiculturalism is rooted in a commitment to freedom and toleration: the ability to choose one's own moral beliefs, cultural practices and way of life, regardless of whether these are disapproved of by others. Liberalism and multiculturalism can be reconciled through the idea of multicultural citizenship, based on the belief that cultures are valuable and distinctive and provide a context in which individuals are provided with meaning, orientation, identity and belonging. Pluralist multiculturalism provides firmer foundations for a theory of cultural diversity because it is based on the idea of value pluralism. This holds that people are bound to disagree about the ultimate ends of life. As values conflict, the human predicament is inevitably characterised by moral conflict. Pluralist multiculturalists also tend to link diversity to the overthrow of oppression and warn that cultural mixing may advantage dominant or majority cultural groups. Cosmopolitan multiculturalism endorses cultural diversity and identity politics, but views them more as transitional states in a larger reconstruction of political sensibilities and priorities. It emphasises what each culture can learn from other cultures as well as the extent to which a world of wider cultural opportunity and lifestyle choices expands the prospects for personal self-development.
The strength of multiculturalism is that it both recognises that trends towards cultural diversity are perhaps irreversible and that, unlike conventional nationalism, it explains how cultural diversity can be reconciled with civic unity. Enthusiasm for multiculturalism is by no means universal, however. Liberal individualists warn against the core assumption of multiculturalism, which is that personal identity is embedded in a group or social identity. Cultural belonging is therefore always, from this perspective, the enemy of personal autonomy. Conservatives and nationalists attack multiculturalism on the grounds that shared values and a common culture are the necessary preconditions for a stable and successful society. In this view, multicultural societies are inevitably fractured and conflict-ridden societies. Social progressives have pointed out that, by virtue of its emphasis on cultural distinctiveness, multiculturalism serves to divide, and therefore to weaken people who have a common economic interest in alleviating poverty and promoting social reform. Feminists, for their part, have highlighted the extent to which minority rights and the politics of recognition have served to preserve and legitimise patriarchal and traditionalist beliefs that systematically disadvantage women, an argument that may equally be applied to gays and lesbians.
back to top
Political nationalism is a complex and diverse phenomenon. Its major forms are liberal nationalism, conservative nationalism, expansionist nationalism and anticolonial nationalism. Liberal nationalism assigns to the nation a moral status similar to that of the individual, meaning that nations have rights, in particular the right to self-determination. As liberal nationalism holds that all nations are equal, it proclaims that the nation-state ideal is universally applicable. Conservative nationalism is concerned less with the principled nationalism of self-determination and more with the promise of social cohesion and public order embodied in the sentiment of national patriotism. From this perspective, patriotic loyalty and a consciousness of nationhood is largely rooted in the idea of a shared past, turning nationalism into a defence of traditional values and institutions that have been endorsed by history. Expansionist nationalism is an aggressive and militaristic form of nationalism that is invariably associated with chauvinistic beliefs and doctrines, which tends to blur the distinction between nationalism and racialism. In its extreme form, sometimes referred to as 'integral' nationalism, it arises from a sentiment of intense, even hysterical nationalist enthusiasm. Anticolonial nationalism links the struggle for 'national liberation' in Africa and Asia in particular to the desire for social development, and was typically expressed through socialist doctrines, most commonly through the vehicle of revolutionary Marxism. However, developing-world nationalism has since the 1970s assumed a postcolonial character, which has been expressed most clearly through religious fundamentalism.
It would be difficult to overestimate the significance of nationalism to modern politics. For over two hundred years, nationalism has helped to shape and reshape history in all parts of the world, making it perhaps the most successful of political creeds. The rising tide of nationalism redrew the map of Europe in the nineteenth century as autocratic and multinational empires crumbled in the face of liberal and nationalist pressures. This process was continued in the twentieth century through the Treaty of Versailles (1919) and culminated in 1991 with the collapse of the political successor to the Russian Empire, the USSR. Both the First and Second World Wars were arguably the result of an upsurge in aggressive nationalism, and most regional and international conflicts are to some extent fuelled by nationalism. The political face of the developing world has been transformed since 1945 by the rise of anticolonialism and a subsequent postcolonial process of 'nation building', both of which are essentially manifestations of nationalism On the other hand, there have been claims since the late twentieth century that nationalism is becoming an anachronism. These claims are variously based upon the fact that nationalism has achieved its aim in that the world is now mainly composed of nation-states; that nation-states are themselves losing authority as a result of globalization and the growth of supranationalism; and that ethnic and regional political identities are displacing national ones.
The normative character of nationalism is notoriously difficult to judge. This is because nationalism has a changeable political character. At different times, nationalism has been progressive and reactionary, democratic and authoritarian, rational and irrational, and left-wing and right-wing. Nationalists argue that a 'higher' loyalty and deeper political significance attaches to the nation than to any other social group or collective body because nations are natural political communities. Nationalism is merely the recognition of this fact given ideological form. Supporters of nationalism, moreover, view nationalism as a means of enlarging freedom and defending democracy, since it is grounded in the idea of self-government. Such a defence of nationalism is most easily developed in relation to liberal nationalism and anticolonial nationalism. However, opponents of nationalism argue that it is implicitly and sometimes explicitly oppressive, and that it is invariably linked to intolerance, suspicion and conflict. Nationalism is oppressive both in the sense that it submerges individual identity and conscience within that of the national whole, and because of the potential it gives political leaders and elites to manipulate and control the masses. The argument that nationalism is inherently divisive stems from the fact that it highlights differences amongst humankind and legitimises an identification with, and preference for, one's own people or nation; in short, it breeds tribalism. This may be implicit in conservative nationalism and explicit in expansionist nationalism, but all forms of nationalism may harbour a darker face that is essentially chauvinistic and potentially aggressive.
back to top
Although all religions have spawned fundamentalist or fundamentalist-type movements, certain religions may be more prone than others to fundamentalist developments. The most politically significant of modern fundamentalism is undoubtedly Islamic fundamentalism. Although distinctive Sunni and Shi'a versions of political Islam have developed, certain common themes can be identified within Islamism. These include the ideas that society should be reconstructed in line with the religious principles and ideals of Islam; that the modern secular state should be replaced by an 'Islamic state', in which religious principles and authority have primacy over political principles and authority; and that the West and western values are corrupt and corrupting, justifying, for some at least, the notion of a jihad against them. Christian fundamentalism has been expressed, particularly in the USA, through the emergence of a 'new Christian right', whose emphasis on traditional values often amounts to a strident form of social conservatism. In cases such as Judaism in Israel, Hinduism and Sikhism in India, and Buddhism in Sri Lanka, religious fundamentalism has largely been vehicle for ethnic nationalism.
The appeal of religious fundamentalism is closely linked to its capacity to advance a politics of certainty in a world of growing doubt and moral confusion. It is little surprise, therefore, that fundamentalism arises in deeply troubled societies, particularly ones afflicted by an actual or perceived crisis of identity. Critics of fundamentalism nevertheless argue that the treatment of certain principles as sacred and above criticism, and the rejection of the distinction between religion and politics, invest in fundamentalism a strong tendency towards intolerance and totalitarianism. A state founded on religious principles is, almost by definition, unencumbered by constraints that arise out of the public/private divide. Such concerns are all the more intense when fundamentalism assumes a militant and combative character, often rooted in a Manichaen world-view that emphasises a stark contrast between good and evil.
back to top
Socialism, however, contains a bewildering variety of divisions and rival traditions.Utopian socialism, or ethical socialism, advances an essentially moral critique of capitalism. In short, socialism is portrayed as morally superior to capitalism because human beings are ethical creatures, bound to one another by the ties of love, sympathy and compassion. Scientific socialism, undertakes a scientific analysis of historical and social development, which, in the form of Marxism, suggests not that socialism 'should' replace capitalism, but predicts that it inevitably 'would' replace capitalism. A second distinction is about the 'means' of achieving socialism, namely the difference between revolution and reform. Revolutionary socialism, most clearly reflected in the communist tradition, holds that socialism can only be introduced by the revolutionary overthrow of the existing political and social system, usually based upon the belief that the existing state structures are irredeemably linked to capitalism and the interests of the ruling class. Reformist socialism (sometimes termed evolutionary, parliamentary or democratic socialism), on the other hand, believes in 'socialism through the ballot box', and thus accepts basic liberal democratic principles such as consent, constitutionalism and party competition. Finally, there are profound divisions over the 'end' of socialism, that is, the nature of the socialist project. Fundamentalist socialism aims to abolish and replace the capitalist system, viewing socialism as qualitatively different from capitalism. Fundamentalist socialists, such as Marxists and communists, generally equate socialism with common ownership of some form. Revisionist socialism aims not to abolish capitalism but to reform it, looking to reach an accommodation between the efficiency of the market and the enduring moral vision of socialism. This is most clearly expressed in social democracy.
Socialism arose as a reaction against the social and economic conditions generated in Europe by the growth of industrial capitalism. The birth of socialist ideas was closely linked to the development of a new but growing class of industrial workers, who suffered the poverty and degradation that are so often a feature of early industrialisation. For over two hundred years, socialism has constituted the principal oppositional force within capitalist societies, and has articulated the interests of oppressed and disadvantaged peoples in many parts of the world. The principal impact of socialism has been in the form of the twentieth-century communist and social-democratic movements. However, in the late twentieth century, socialism suffered a number of spectacular reverses, leading some to proclaim the 'death of socialism'. The most spectacular of these reverses was the collapse of communism in the Eastern European Revolutions of 1989-91. Partly in response to this, and partly as a result of globalisation and changing social structures, parliamentary socialist parties in many parts of the world re-examined, and sometime rejected, traditional socialist principles.
The moral strength of socialism derives not from its concern with what people are like, but with what they have the capacity to become. This has led socialists to develop utopian visions of a better society in which human beings can achieve genuine emancipation and fulfilment as members of a community. In that sense, despite its late-twentieth century setbacks, socialism is destined to survive if only because it serves as a reminder that human development can extend beyond market individualism. Critics of socialism nevertheless advance one of two lines of argument. The first is that socialism is irrevocably tainted by its association with statism. The emphasis upon collectivism leads to an endorsement of the state as the embodiment of the public interest. Both communism and social democracy are in that sense 'top-down' versions of socialism, meaning that socialism amounts to an extension of state control and a restriction of freedom. The second line of argument highlights the incoherence and confusion inherent in modern socialist theory. In this view, socialism was only ever meaningful as a critique of, or alternative to, capitalism. The acceptance by socialists of market principles therefore demonstrates either that socialism itself is flawed or that their analysis is no longer rooted in genuinely socialist ideas and theories.
back to top