Has Socialism Been Defeated by Capitalism?

HAS SOCIALISM BEEN DEFEATED BY CAPITALISM?

THE RELEVANCE OF SOCIALISM IN THE 21st CENTURY

One of the events that have most affected history in the past century has been the end of the cold war and the collapse of state communism of the Soviet Union. After years of a psychological and physical barrier between Western and Eastern Europe, and, in a broader picture, the "East" and "West" in the whole world, the Perestroika at the end of the 1980Ð'Ò's, leading to the fall of the Berlin wall, changed the climate of global politics, economy and ideology. When Mikhail Gorbachev became the leader of the Soviet Union in 1985, the economy and politics of its Socialist States were already going downhill and few socialists in capitalist countries continued to believe that Soviet-style communism was a model to emulate (Newman 2005:129). Today, nearly two decades later, the belief that socialism, and communism in particular, have lost the fight to capitalism is widely spread. In a world where the USA is the most powerful country and we talk about "westernization" in terms of way of life, ideology and politics, Marx's theories seem no longer applicable. On the other hand, many authors and activists criticise the nature of capitalism, claiming that it leads to inequality and exploitation and that socialism still plays an important role in today's politics and struggle for a better world. Thus, to what extent can one argue that socialism is "dead"? How relevant is the socialist ideology today? What aspects of the ideology can be applied to "modern" society and which will only remain a memory? In the following essay, I shall find possible answer to these questions looking at publications by different authors and current affairs.

Not only is it often assumed that the collapse of the USSR stands for the end of socialism. There has even been the claim that this historical event marked the end of history. In his infamous and much criticized article published 1989, Fukuyama argues that in the time he wrote it, Ð''what we may be witnessing Is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government' (Fukuyama 1989:4). The author does not necessarily mean that nothing "new" is going to happen in the world, or that problems such as poverty and wars will disappear from the earth. He is rather referring to the fact that in the future, history will not be characterized by ideological struggles or the birth of a major political ideology that will change the world, and that therefore, the West has ideologically arrived to the highest point of evolution and that the rest of the world will sooner or later adapt to it's political system. As Krishan Kumar puts it, Ð''Fukuyama projected a triumphant Western civilization whose principles now held undisputed sway the world over. The contest of ideologies, the substance of "history" as Hegel understood it, was over. The West had won and history was now at end'. He goes on further adding that Ð''all of the really big questions had now been settled. The world had agreed that what the West had accomplished over many centuries of struggle Ð'- the establishment of liberal democracy and free markets Ð'- was the best possible system for mankind; all that remained Ð'- history as "events" Ð'- was for those societies that had not yet reached that goal to strive to arrive here' (Kumar 2000:60-61).

According to Fukuyama, what implies the end of history is the actual end of socialism. Even though Fukuyama's argument is highly controversial and has been criticized by many, he is not the only one with the opinion that socialism no longer enjoys the presence it used to have. Even Eric Hobsbawm who is not as drastic as to claim that socialism is dead, still observes that Ð''the end of the Cold War proved to be not the end of an international conflict, but the end of an era; not only for the East, but for the entire world. There are historic moments which may be recognized, even by contemporaries, as marking the end of an age. The years around 1990 clearly were such a secular turning-point' (Hobsbawm 1995:256).

Similarly, although not as radical and not in the belief that the Western model finds itself at the top of the evolution, Dahrendorf agrees with the fact that capitalism and social democracy historically triumphed over socialism. He accuses state socialism for having been a dictatorship that brought misery to the people and defines communism in the affected societies as a "developing country phenomenon" that has to advance and change sooner or later, economically and politically. He finally argues that really existing socialism cannot lastÐ'...In this sense [and inverting the historical logic of Marxism], capitalism succeeds socialism (Dahrendorf 1990:46). To sum up, a majority of authors perceive socialism as dead, not only in practice but also in theory as it could never provide the freedom and happiness in all levels of society. Therefore, there is no doubt that capitalism is the "ruling" form of economy today, having a large impact on most societies. Ð''Capitalism rules, whether or not we accept its ideological legitimation. As so often in the past, the absence of ideologies merely conceals the dominance of one system, which by its very power can substitute itself for ideology in any formal sense' (Kumar 2000: 62-63).

However, whether it is true or not that socialism is no longer relevant today, Fukuyama's claim that the West is the "holder of the truth" being the ultimate example of how a society ought to be organized politically and economically, is often seen as being characterized by arrogance and false assumptions, making international relations overly simplified. In fact, it is argued that Fukuyama's thesis is too western-centred. As Kumar observes, Ð''communism was, after all, a Western invention. Marx was a German who settled in England and whose doctrines, based largely on Western European experience, were adopted and adapted by radicals in a variety of countries, several of them non-Western. But communists of all hues had supped at the West's tableÐ'...Hence the triumph Ð'- if such it was Ð'- of liberal democracy and capitalism over communism and the command economy could be seen simply as the victory of one modern Western ideology over another. It did not necessarily represent a worldwide victory, a conversion of the entire world to the principles