[This is Chapter Twenty-One of Murphey’s book Socialist Thought.]

Chapter 21

Suggested Economic and Political Models

Socialists have shared a common hostility to an economic system that allocates resources and income through the contractual nexus of a market. They have also abhorred the "wage relation."

They have been unable, however, to arrive at a consensus about the economic and political model that should be installed in place of the market.

Laslett and Lipset have said that "the Soviet Union has socialism. And China has socialism. But that's different. And the Scandinavian countries have socialism. That's still more different. The Labour Party of Britain is for socialism. And their socialism is a completely different animal."¹ The absence of consensus will be significant in our later discussion of a definition of "socialism."

This chapter will review the broad spectrum of socialist viewpoints about preferred economic and political systems, together with some important associated issues. We will see the differing views about what role, if any, private property should play in a socialist economy. We will note, too, the varied preferences about whether income should be distributed with absolute equality as against a distribution that would take performance into account.

The Spectrum of Models

1. Those that have favored virtually total government ownership and control, although in some instances involving a delegation of functions to a network of collectives.

As I initially prepared this chapter, I planned to treat separately the models that call for the state to run everything and those that see the state as the central coordinator of a network of collectives. During the past century, the advocates of each model have tended to be hypersensitive to the distinctions between their model and any other even though often the differences have to an outsider seemed small. Where I agree that the distinction is significant, I will want to avoid blurring it.

Just the same, I have decided to treat both as parts of a single category. As I have reviewed the literature, I have found it artificial to distinguish between something done by the organs of the "state" and the same thing done by a network of collectives acting under the central supervision of the state. When are the collectives to be considered mere arms of the state? The distinction turns on a semantic choice about what we mean by "state."

A good example is Mussolini's "corporative state." Richard Child described the governing apparatus Mussolini established to reflect his "national syndicalist" position:

"On February 5th, 1934, Mussolini constituted the Corporazioni in their final form... There were twenty-two Corporazioni represented, one for each great production cycle... Some were agricultural-industrial-commercial Corporazioni... others represented similar processes in many fields... They were all ruled by representatives of the employers, the workers, the technicians, the Fascist, Party, and the Government... The Corporazioni were given powers to conciliate, coordinate, regulate the economic activities of the nation..., their power being subordinated, however, to a decision of the General Assembly of the National Council of all Corporazioni. Their legislative power was still divided with Parliament and the Government, but at a later date it was thought that the Chamber of Deputies would disappear, leaving the legislative field entirely to the Corporazioni…The State would watch over the smooth functioning of Corporazioni, interfere whenever the interests of the nation had to be defended… There is talk of a similarity between Fascism and Bolshevism. The difference is that Bolshevism believes in the dictatorship of one class, Fascism in the dictatorship of the State over many classes cooperating.”²

Even those systems that might consider themselves “state controlled” involve some sort of organization that extends into the various parts of the economy. Many decisions will necessarily be made at lower levels or involve interaction by those at the lower levels. We can see how difficult it becomes to distinguish between that type of state control and a coordinated system of collectives. Within either, there can be significant differences in the amount of decentralization or participativeness.

Adam Ulam has described the British Fabian Socialist preference: “The Fabian vision of industrial organization under socialism includes formation of national boards of managers for socialized industries. The boards would be accountable to the nation, just as a private board is accountable to a crowd of shareholders.”³ Here is Ulam’s description of Harold Macmillan’s plan during the 1930s: “The key to Macmillan’s plan is industrial self-government in major industries. Every such industry is to have a council including the industrialists, representatives of labor, scientists, and technicians. All the industrial councils are to join in a central economic council to be linked firmly and unmistakably with the government.”

Michael Harrington says “Louis Blanc… is usually identified as the father of the statist tradition of socialism.”⁴ Kirkup described Blanc’s proposals, which Blanc made in 1848: “Louis Blanc demanded that the democratic State should create industrial associations, which he called social workshops, and which were destined gradually and without shock to supersede individual workshops. The State would provide the means; it would draw up the rules for their constitution, and it would appoint the functionaries for the first year. But, once founded and set in movement, the social workshop would be self-supporting, self-acting, and self-governing. The workmen would choose their own directors and managers; they would themselves arrange the division or the profits….”⁵ This sounds as though the state was intended to have a relatively minor role once the system was established..

In the United States, Edward Bellamy envisioned the consolidation of all economic activity in one “Great Trust.” “The industry and commerce of the country, ceasing to be conducted by a set of irresponsible corporations and syndicates of private persons at their caprice and for their profit, were entrusted to a single syndicate representing the people, to be conducted in the common interest for the common profit. The nation, that is to say, organized as the one great business corporation in which all other corporations were absorbed....”⁶

Central planning is, of course, a hallmark of the Soviet Union's economic system. This description appeared in the May, 1979, issue of the World Marxist Review: “Soviet economico-mathematicians are developing an optimal functioning system for the economy... The world's first-ever, inter-branch balance, based on Marx's patterns of extended reproduction, began to be evolved in 1923-4 in the then young Soviet Union. Subsequently, this method, developed in the West by, in particular, the well-known American economist Wassily Leontief, became widespread as the input-output method. When the first five-year plan was being drawn up the Soviet economist Grigory Feldman created economico-mathematical models... Lastly, mention must be made of an immensely significant discovery made by the Soviet mathematician Leonid Kantorovich... who in 1939 substantiated the principles for the optimal distribution of economic resources and laid the foundations for linear programming.” The article speaks of “the future State Automated Information Collecting and Processing System for Planning and Managing the National Economy," and calls this one of the "greatest projects of our time."⁷

Salvador Allende’s book Chile’s Road to Socialism tells of the plans Allende had for the Chilean economy. He spoke of "a national system for planning" and said that "workers' committees will have a fundamental role in the planning system." He wanted to establish a "dominant public sector, composed of firms already owned by the state and also by firms which will be expropriated." a These firms were to have included those in mining, banking, insurance, foreign trade, electricity, transportation, communications, oil, steel, cement, chemicals, paper, and large-scale distribution. He said that "planning bodies will work out the National Economic Plan for 1971-6. We propose that no investment project shall be carried out that is not part of a government-approved scheme. In this way, we hope to put an end to experiment." He went on to say that "establishing an area of public ownership does not mean that we are creating a system of state capitalism... The public sector will be controlled jointly by workers and by representatives of the state, which will be the essential link between each firm and the entire national economy."⁸

Yugoslavia has used a form of organization known as "social self-management" which is often praised by "socialist humanists." Lucien Goldmann says: “Seeking to react against bureaucratic or Stalinist centralization, Yugoslavia has integrated to socialist thought the discovery that the socialization of the means of production does not necessarily imply, as Marx and later Marxists had thought, integral centralized planning and the suppression of the market. The greatest achievement of Yugoslav Socialist Democracy, self-management by the workers, is a means of ensuring an effective democracy."⁹

The Scandinavian socialist regimes have used cooperatives extensively.¹⁰ This comports with Norman Thomas' prescription for a "humanistic" socialism: "What is required of humanistic socialism?... It will recognize that while it must provide and use a strong state, the state must always exist for man, not man for the state; that good government demands more than universal suffrage; that it requires the existence of balancing forces of real strength -- labor unions, professional societies, co-operatives, etc. -- which are not puppets of the state."¹¹

Certainly, in tone and in its hope for a balance that will check the state, Thomas' model seems different than Mussolini's. I have not attempted a clear-cut differentiation, however, since to me, at least as an outsider looking on from a distance, it is by no means clear just what elements will be present to harness the state in Thomas' socialism to prevent it from being similar to Mussolini's.

2. Those who have favored a powerful center occupying the “commanding heights” of the economy, but who have wanted to leave a system of nominally private property or even a substantial autonomous market.

Many socialists have felt it is not necessary to nationalize all enterprises or to turn them into collectives. Central planning can be achieved, they feel, through control rather than through direct ownership or reorganization. Ralph Miliband has written that socialism "would leave a considerable area of economic activity open to various forms of' small-scale enterprise. It is not part of the socialist purpose to establish wholesale and total collectivism under which every corner shop and independent garage would be nationalized… It is part of their purpose to bring the 'commanding heights' of the economy and a good many of the lesser heights as well under one form or other of public ownership and control.”¹²

Laslett and Lipsett say that "if you just see socialism as... government ownership, it only exists really in the Soviet countries. In other countries, we have socialism or semi-socialism in the form of collectivism. And the old concept of what socialism is today is out."¹³

Michael Harrington argues that "socialists cannot abandon their insistence upon social ownership"; but, significantly, he finds it necessary to add that "it might seem quixotic to raise such a point just as the socialist parties of Europe have abandoned it. The Continental social democrats have almost all adopted the idea of a ‘social market economy’ in which the state controls, but does not own, the crucial means of production." ⁴ David Caute says "the Frankfurt Declaration of the Socialist International in 1952 stated that socialist planning 'does not presuppose public ownership of all the means of production...' The Social Democratic Parties have committed themselves to the acceptance of a mixed economy, often in its present form."¹⁵ This was the culmination of a tendency that had begun several years before, as we see when William Paterson and Ian Campbell inform us that in the mid-l930s the social democrats in Belgium began emphasizing planning over public ownership, and that this "had a great influence on Dutch, Swiss and Czech social democrats."¹⁶

Although these passages have spoken of the continental socialists, the same movement has occurred within British socialism. Miliband speaks of "the abandonment of public ownership as a major commitment," and says that "this was the defining stress of Gaitskellism and of 1950s Labour 'revisionism,' of which Anthony Crosland was the most accomplished exponent."¹⁷ Paterson and Campbell say that Hugh Gaitskell tried in 1959 to obtain the deletion of Clause IV of the Labour Party's Constitution, which calls for public ownership, but was unsuccessful.

A major development occurred in Germany in 1959. The Social Democrats broke sharply with Marxism and public ownership. Paterson and Campbell say “the Bad Godesberg Programme recognized Christian ethics, humanism and classical philosophy, rather than Marxism, ‘as the primary source of values for the SPD’” (the German Socialist Party). In this, the Social Democrats “totally ignored Marx and accepted the principle of private ownership in so far as it did not hinder the creation of a just social order.”¹⁸

Adam Ulam points out that “the argument about the danger of an important part of the national economy remaining subject to private whims and interests lost much of its significance during the war when the state could control and direct industries without actually owning them.”¹⁹

The purposes for which the Nazis used their regime were, of course, very different than the purposes stated by European social democrats, but this should not obscure the fact that the principle regarding the role of the state in the economy was the same. In 1937, Werner Sombart wrote that "in the field of economy for profit, the general endeavor must be so directed that no higher interest will be impaired through the application of the profit-principle. The manipulation of credit is the most important weapon at the disposal of the state to keep this sector in order... (T)he state must have the right to eliminate industries which show themselves as inexpedient, by withdrawing their rights."²⁰ David Schoenbaum has written about Nazism that "what characterized its socialism was not the ownership of capital but its relationship to the State. Capital remained in private hands because this seemed expedient. But the threat of intervention was always present... In a discussion of civil rights, E. R. Huber defined the right of property as a function of duty. If he did not fulfill his duty, the farmer could be forced from his land, the businessman expropriated, the worker fired." Schoenbaum goes on to say that "National Socialism claimed total control of the economy; total command over resources; total direction of wages, prices, production; total organization of credit, manpower, transportation and planning." He adds that "the Third Reich was notable for the far-reaching transfer of managerial decisions from the managers: none of these was left to managerial decision, let alone to the market."²¹

About socialist thinking in the United States, Thomas writes that "American socialists nowadays generally accept, as they should, a mixed economy, controlled by the overall concept that production should be for the good of all. For the state, under any system, to try to own and operate everything, would deprive us of some of the important values of private initiative and responsibility." He does, however, advocate government ownership of the steel, coal, iron, copper and oil industries; large forests; public utilities; and "all banks of issue."²²

3. Those who have wanted an economy consisting of collectives, but who have either not wanted a central mechanism or have wanted a weak or transitional one.

A prominent segment of socialist thought has not wanted any state at all, or one that is quite weak or is purely transitional to collectivist anarchy. This segment is "anti-statist." Ironically, at least from a non-socialist's point of view, Marx and Lenin are to be counted among these, since they called for an eventual "withering away of the state" that would leave "the armed workers" in charge of the society. Kirkup paraphrased Marx as saying that "after the proletariat have seized political power and transformed the means of production into State property, the State will cease to exist.” He said that such as society “is not fundamentally different from that contemplated by the anarchist school. Both look forward to a period when men will live in free associations, and when the administration of social affairs will be conducted without the exercise of compulsion.”²³

Lewis Feuer writes that “the dream of decentralized communist societies on the model of the American Utopias has always remained alive as a recessive theme in the socialist unconscious. Allow Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Trotsky to speculate as to their true goal, and despite their authoritarian drives, they will fall back into a vision of society as a collection of Brook Farms. Engels, at the end of his life, was angered by what he called the ‘State socialism’ of Jean Jaures.”²⁴

Some of the leading names in nineteenth century socialist thought are associated with one or another form of anarchist or semi-anarchist vision. They include Proudhon, Lassalle, Fourier, Chernyshevsky and Herzen.

I have had some difficulty determining clearly what it was that Proudhon wanted under the term "mutualism." George Woodcock says the term described "various forms of mutual credit systems which might eventually make governmental administration unnecessary; he envisaged such association as becoming world-wide." A flexible federation of "communes and industrial associations" would replace the state.²⁵ Fried and Sanders say Proudhon favored "small individual holdings, each worked by the proprietor alone. The mutualist idea that Proudhon developed... was basically a program for maintaining a socially regulated system of such small holdings, through the administration of mutual aid -- by freely extending credit, for example, without charging interest."²⁶ In his Selected Writings, Proudhon speaks of "the principle of association, through which all over Europe they are preparing to organize legal workers’ companies to compete with bourgeois concerns.” Then he mentions “the more general and widespread principle of Mutualism, through which working-class Democracy, putting a premium on solidarity and groups, is preparing the way for the political and economic reconstruction of society.”²⁷ One of the features of his scheme is a “People’s Bank.” The bank would issue “circulating vouchers.” The subscribers would act as a cooperative, buying from and selling to only each other.

Ferdinand Lassalle wanted manhood suffrage so that it could induce the Prussian state to create “state-aided producers’ associations.” These would eventually lead to a “cooperative commonwealth.”²⁸

Charles Fourier wanted cooperatives known as “phalanges” in which the life of the community would be centered in a large dwelling known as a “phalanstery.” Each member would be a part-owner. Work would be turned into play, with no single job being performed “for more than two hours at a time,” according to Fried and Sanders.²⁹ Kirkup says “love would be free.”

N. G. Chernyshevsky described a communal, cooperative way of life in his What Is To Be Done? that has much in common with Proudhon and Fourier. “I have established a workshop in order that the profits resulting from the work may go to the workers.” And then: “Everyone understood, in the first place, that loans would be made to those of the participants who should chance to have a great need of money, and no one wanted to lend at interest: poor people believe that financial aid should be extended without interest. The establishment of this bank was followed by the foundation of a purchasing agency… About eighteen months later almost all the working girls were living in one large house, had a common table, and bought their provisions as they do in large establishments.”³⁰

“Alexander Herzen, the ideological progenitor of Populism (in Russia),” says David Caute, “began to convey his theory of peasant socialism in The Bell, insisting that the ‘mir,’ or traditional commune, provided the natural basis for Russian socialism.”³¹

Nor have these been all the figures who have advocated decentralized communal or cooperative life as the basis for socialism.

The anarchist Emile Gautier, at his trial in 1883, spoke of “free associations (that) will be formed for industrial and other purposes… The process of social reconstruction is, in short, the free federation of free associations.”³²

Syndicalism is favored by D. Novak, who writes that “anarcho-syndicalism… believes that the trade unions, or syndicates, can serve both as leading units in the present-day struggles… and as the bases of a new economic organization of society after a victorious revolution… The anarcho-syndicalists intend to abolish the State and carry on the activities of society through the syndicates, associated by the industries and localities.”³³ It is interesting that from an outsider’s point of view we come full circle here: a society organized by such syndicates appears thereby to have a “state” of its own even though under another name, so that this model looks similar to that favored by Mussolini.

In England, syndicalism took the form of “Guild Socialism.” This, according to Fried and Sanders, looked to “the autonomous medieval guild, with its emphasis on craftsmanship and group solidarity” as its model. A leading author from this point of view was Samuel Hobson, who wanted each industry “organized by the appropriate guild… The government, lacking coercive power, would be a confederation of industries.” Guild Socialism was a major movement prior to World War I, but collapsed after that war.³⁴

G. D. H. Cole was a prominent supporter of Guild Socialism. Fried and Sanders say his Guild Socialism Restated is “the best summary of its doctrine.”

Roles Assigned to Property Ownership

The variation we have just seen in the economic models suggests that the views that have been entertained by socialists about private property have also varied.

Some socialists have wanted no private property. All goods would be free. Others have wanted to retain the private ownership of property, but to establish a principle that the ownership is conditional. Precisely what the conditions are will depend upon the type of socialism. Still others talk in terms of gradations of types of property, with some forms being collectivized while others are being allowed to remain in private hands.

Many socialists have objected to any form of “absentee ownership,” where the owner is not the individual actively working the property. This relates in part to the objection that has often been raised to the ownership of land.

Sir Thomas More, in his Utopia, wrote that all goods would be laid out in a storehouse, and that each family could take whatever it needed “without paying for it or leaving anything in exchange.”³⁵ Edward Bellamy advocated a similar scheme in Looking Backward. George Bernard Shaw wrote that “socialism… absolutely denies any private right of property whatever.”³⁶

Kirkup says, though, that “the system of Fourier admitted of private capital under social control.”³⁷ In Emile, Rousseau says the rich hold their wealth conditionally: “The rich only exist through the good-will of the poor, so they have promised to feed those who have not enough to live on.”³⁸ We have seen before that Schoenbaum says about Nazism that “what characterized its socialism was not the ownership of capital but its relationship to the State… The right of property (was) a function of duty.”³⁹ The important thing was not the taking of title; it was control.

During his Nazi phase, Sombart wrote that “private property and common property will continue to exist side by side. To which, of course, must also be added, that private property will not be an unlimited, but a restricted possession in fee, at least so far as ownership of the means of production and of the soil are concerned. I can fully agree with the setting which Othmar Spann has given to the problem when he says: ‘There is, formally, private property.’ The right of property will no longer determine the principles of economic control, but the principles of economic control will determine the extent and kind of property rights.”⁴⁰

R. H. Tawney was among the socialists who have talked in terms of gradations of property. Forms of property closest to personal consumption or to being worked actively by the owner have been considered acceptable. Accumulated property, being neither consumed nor actively worked by the owner, has been opposed. Accordingly, Tawney spoke of “property (that) may be called passive property, or property for acquisition, for exploitation, or for power,” which he distinguished from “property which is actively used by its owner for the conduct of his profession or the upkeep of his household.” On this basis he approved of “property in payments made for personal services, property in personal possessions necessary to health and comfort, property in land and tools used by their owners, and property in copyright and patent rights owned by authors and inventors.” He disapproved of “profits of luck and good fortune, monopoly profits, urban ground rents, and royalties.” He said that “pure interest, including much agricultural rent,” was a middle category.⁴¹

Even those who want extensive state ownership are willing to allow small private holdings. Edward Bellamy excluded personal and household belongings from his mandate for total state ownership.⁴² Galvano della Volpe tells us that Soviet law permits private property “for personal use.”⁴³ Salvador Allende’s regime in Chile in the early 1970s expropriated most farms, but left those of 170 acres or less in private hands.⁴⁴

Preferences About Income Distribution

The variety of socialist models suggests that there has also been a wide spectrum of suggestions about how income should be distributed in a socialist society. Several socialists, of course, have favored a purely egalitarian apportionment, with everyone receiving the same, although perhaps varying according to the person’s respective needs. Others have favored differentials of one kind or another.

In Aristophanes’ spoof, the character Praxagora says that all property “shall be common and free, one fund for the public; then out of it we will feel and maintain you, like housekeepers true, dispensing, and sparing, and caring for you.”⁴⁵ In keeping with this, the anarchist George Woodcock has written that “men would get, not according to their worth, for social worth cannot be estimated, but according to their need, which is the only just means of sharing the goods of society.”⁴⁶ But George Bernard Shaw saw that “need” is subject to considerable latitude. “What is enough for a gipsy is not enough for a lady,” he said. “The only way out of this difficulty is to give everybody the same, which is the Socialist solution of the distribution problem.”⁴⁷

Lenin saw the Marxian formula “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” as an ideal that will be reached only when the dialectic of history carries humanity to a higher level of productivity and character. Such distribution, he said, will be possible “when people have become so accustomed to observing the fundamental rules of social intercourse and when their labor becomes so productive that they will voluntarily work according to their ability.”⁴⁸ Until then, payment would have to be made to them according to their work.

Fourier argues that “hard and common or necessary work should be best paid; useful work should come next, and pleasant work last of all.”⁴⁹ Kirkup tells us that to Proudhon, however, every hour’s labor is equivalent to every other hour of labor: “It was his principle that service pays service, that a day’s labor balances a day’s labor – in other words, that the duration of labor is the just measure of values. He did not shrink from any of the consequences of this theory, for he would give the same remuneration to the worst mason as to a Phidias.”⁵⁰

Those socialist ideologies that have adopted a welfare statist approach based on a mixed economy have tended to advocate a policy of income redistribution combined with the guarantee of a floor under all members of the society. It is along these lines that Adam Ulam has spoken of “a new and vastly different social philosophy which holds that the state owes a minimum of maintenance to every member of the community.”⁵¹

NOTES

1. John H. M. Laslett and Seymour Martin Lipset (ed.s), Failure of a Dream? Essays in the History of American Socialism (Garden city: Anchor Press, 1974), p. 4.

2. Benito Mussolini, My Autobiography (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1939), pp. 317, 318.

3. Adam B. Ulam, Philosophical Foundations of English Socialism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951), pp. 75, 147.

4. Michael Harrington, Socialism (New York: Saturday Review Press, 1970), p. 68.

5. Thomas Kirkup, History of Socialism (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1909), p. 45.

6. Edward Bellamy, Looking Backward (New York: Signet Classic, 1960), pp. 53-54.

7. Article on “New Frontiers of Soviet Economic Science,” World Marxist Review, May, 1979, pp. 116-119.

8. Salvador Allende, Chile’s Road to Socialism (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1973), p. 35, 38, 163.

9. Article by Predrag Vranicki, “Socialism and the Problem of Alienation,” Socialist Humanism, Erich Fromm (ed.) (Garden City: Anchor Books, 1965), p. 313; article by Lucien Goldmann, “Socialism and Humanism,” Socialist Humanism, p. 50.

10. Article by Leopold Senghor, “Socialism is a Humanism,” Socialist Humanism, p. 60.

11. Article by Norman Thomas, “Humanistic Socialism and the Future,” Socialist Humanism, p. 351.

12. Ralph Miliband and John Saville (ed.s), The Socialist Register 1977 (London: The Merlin Press, 1977), p. 44.

13. Laslett and Lipset, Failure?, p. 12.

14. Harrington, Socialism, p. 295.

15. David Caute, The Left in Europe (Since 1789) (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966), p. 43.

16. William E. Paterson and Ian Campbell, Social Democracy in Post-War Europe (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1974), pp. 9, 46.

17. Miliband and Saville, Socialist Register 1977, p.44.

18. Paterson and Campbell, Social Democracy, p. 40.

19. Ulam, Philosophical Foundations, p. 159.

20. Werner Sombart, A New Social Philosophy (New York: Greenwood Press, 1969), pp. 284, 285.

21. David Schoenbaum, Hitler’s Social Revolution (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1966), pp. 55, 119, 157.

22. Norman Thomas, Socialism Re-examined (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1963), pp. 137, 138, 141.

23. Kirkup, History of Socialism, pp. 150, 151.

24. Lewis S. Feuer, Marx and the Intellectuals (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1969), p. 193.

25. Entry on “Proudhon” by George Woodcock in Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 6, pp. 507-508.

26. Albert Fried and Ronald Sanders (ed.s.), Socialist Thought (Garden City: Anchor Books, 1964), p. 200.

27. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Selected Writings (Garden City: Anchor Books, 1969), pp. 181, 77.

28. The German Classics (Albany,: J. B. Lyon Company, 1914), Vol. X, p. 389; George Lichtheim, A Short History of Socialism (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970), p. 91.

29. Fried and Sanders, Socialist Thought, p. 128; Kirkup, History of Socialism, pp. 36, 37.

30. N. G. Chernyshevsky, What Is To Be Done? (New York: Vintage Books, 1961), pp. 155, 158-159.

31. Caute, The Left in Europe, p. 64.

32. Kirkup, History of Socialism, p. 247.

33. Leonard I. Krimerman and Lewis Perry, Patterns of Anarchy (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1966), p. 10.

34. Fried and Sanders, Socialist Thought, pp. 364.

35. Famous Utopias (New York: Tudor Publishing Co., no year given), pp. 174-75.

36. George Bernard Shaw, The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism (New York: Brentano’s Publishers, 1928), p. 101.

37. Kirkup, History of Socialism, p. 13.

38. Jean Jacques Rousseau, Emile (New York: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1911), p. 68.

39. Schoenbaum, Hitler’s Social Revolution, p. 55.

40. Sombart, New Social Philosophy, p. 286.

41. R. H. Tawney, The Acquisitive Society (New York: Harvest Book, 1920), pp. 63-64.

42. Edward Bellamy, Looking Backward (New York: Modern Library, 1942), p. 92.

43. Article by Galvano della Volpe, “The Legal Philosophy of Socialism,” Socialist Humanism, p. 437.

44. Allende, Chile’s Road to Socialism, p. 19.

45. Joseph B. Gittler, Social Thought Among the Early Greeks (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1941), p. 151.

46. Krimerman and Perry, Patterns, p. 42.

47. Shaw, Intelligent Woman’s Guide, pp. 47, 49.

48. Fried and Sanders, Socialist Thought, pp. 475-477.

49. Kirkup, History of Socialism, p. 38.

50. Kirkup, History of Socialism, p. 54.

51. Ulam, Philosophical Foundations, p. 154.