Here is a term paper on ‘Socialism’ for class 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Find paragraphs, long and short term papers on ‘Socialism’ especially written for school and college students.
Term Paper on Socialism
Term Paper Contents:
- Term Paper on the Introduction to Socialism
- Term Paper on the History of Socialism
- Term Paper on the Birth of Socialist Planning
- Term Paper on the Problems in Socialism
- Term Paper on the Types of Socialism
- Term Paper on the Effects of Socialism
- Term Paper on the Criticisms of Socialism
Term Paper # 1. Introduction to Socialism:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Socialism is a socio-economic system in which properly and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the workers, either directly through popular collectives such as workers’ councils, or indirectly exercised on behalf of the people by the state, and in which Egalitarianism or equality is an important goal.
Thus, under Socialism, the means of production are owned by the state, community or the workers (as opposed to privately owned as under Capitalism).
The term ‘socialism’ is variously attributed to Pierre Leroux (1798-1871) or to Marie Roch Louis Reybaud (1799-1879) or to Robert Owen (1771-1858) in the mid-19th century. According to Frederick Engels (1820-1895), by 1847, the term ‘socialism’ was considered quite respectable on the continent of Europe, while ‘communism’ was the opposite.
Some socialist religious movements, such as the Shakers in America, also date from this period, as does the Chartist movement for political and social reform in the United Kingdom (possibly the first mass working class movement in the world).
ADVERTISEMENTS:
It was Karl Marx, though, who first employed systematic analysis (sometimes known as ‘scientific socialism’) in an ambitious attempt to expose capitalism’s contradictions and the specific mechanisms by which it exploits and alienates.
His ambitious work ‘Das Capital’, the first volume of which was published in 1867 with two more edited and published after his death by Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), is modelled to some extent on Adam Smith’s ‘Wealth of Nations’, one of the cornerstones of capitalist theory.
In it, he transforms Smith’s labour theory of value into his own characteristic ‘Law of value’ (that the exchange value of a commodity is actually independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities), and reveals how commodity fetishism obscures the reality of capitalist society.
In 1864, the International workingmen’s Association (IWA) or First International, was founded in London, and became the first major international forum for the promulgation of socialist ideas, under the leadership of Marx and Johann Georg Eccarius.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Anarchists, like the Russian Mikhail Bakunin (1814— 1876), and proponents of other alternative visions of Socialism which emphasized the potential of small-scale communities and agrarianism, coexisted with the more influential currents of Marxism and social democracy. Much of the development of socialism is indistinguishable for the development of communism, which is essentially an extreme variant of socialism.
Marx and Engels, who together had founded the social democratic worker’s party of Germany in 1869, were also responsible for setting up the Second International (or Socialist International) in 1889, as the ideas of Socialism gained new adherents, especially in Central Europe, and just before his death in 1895, Engels boasted of a ‘single great international army of socialists’.
When the First World War started in 1914, the socialist social democratic parties in the UK, France, Belgium and Germany supported their respective states war effort, discarding their commitment to internationalism and solidarity, and the second International dissolved during the war.
In Russia, however, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870— 1924) denounced the war as an imperialist conflict, and urged workers worldwide to use it as an occasion for proletarian revolution. In February 1917, revolution broke out in Russia and the workers, soldiers and peasants set up councils (or soviets in Russian).
The Bolsheviks won a majority in the soviets in October 1917 and, at the same time; the October Revolution was led by Lenin and Leon Trotsky (1879-1940). The new soviet government immediately nationalized the banks and major industries, repudiated the former Romanov regime’s national debts, sued for peace and withdrew from the First World War, and implemented a system of government through the elected worker’s councils or soviets.
The Third International (also known as the communist International or Comintern) was an international communist organization founded in Moscow in 1919 to replace the disbanded Second International.
Not everyone saw socialism as necessarily entailing revolution, and non-revolutionaries such as the influential economists John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) and John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006), took inspiration from the work of John Stuart Mill as well as Marx, and provided theoretical justification for (potentially very extensive) state involvement in an existing market economy.
This kind of social democracy (and the more left-wing democratic socialism) can be considered a moderate form of socialism (although many socialists would not), and aims to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of state-sponsored programs and organizations which work to ameliorate or remove injustices purportedly inflicted by the capitalist market system.
After Lenin’s death in 1924, the communist party of the Soviet Union, under Josef Stalin declared a policy of ‘socialism in one country’, taking the route of isolationism. This led to a polarization of socialism around the question of the Soviet Union and adoption of socialist or social democratic policies in response, or in other cases the vehement repudiation of all that it stands for.
Term Paper # 2. History of Socialism:
Certain elements of socialist thought long predate the socialist ideology that emerged in the first half of the 19th Century. For example, Plato’s ‘The Republic’ and Sir Thomas More’s ‘Utopia’, dating from 1516, have been cited as including socialist or communist ideas.
Modern socialism emerged in early 19th century Britain and France, from a diverse array of doctrines and social experiments, largely as a reaction or protest against some of the excesses of 18th and 19th century capitalism. Early 19th century socialist thought was largely Utopian in nature, followed by the more pragmatic and revolutionary socialist and communist movements in the later 19th century.
Social critics in the late 18th century and early 19th century’ such as Robert Owen (1771-1858), Charles Fourier (1772-1837), Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865), Louis Blanc (1811-1882) and Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825) criticized the excesses of poverty and inequality of the Industrial Revolution, and advocated reforms such as the egalitarian distribution of wealth and the transformation of society into small Utopian communities in which private property was to be abolished.
Term Paper # 3. Birth of Socialist Planning:
It is often thought that the idea of socialism derives from the work of Karl Marx. In fact, Marx wrote only a few pages about socialism, as either a moral or a practical blueprint for society. The true architect of a socialist order was Lenin, who first faced the practical difficulties of organizing an economic system without the driving incentives of profit seeking or the self-generating constraints of competition.
Lenin began from the long-standing delusion that economic organization would become less complex once the profit drive and the market mechanism had been dispensed with—’as self- evident,’ he wrote, as ‘the extraordinarily simple operations of watching, recording, and issuing receipts, within the reach of anybody who can read and write and knows the first four rules of arithmetic.’
In fact, economic life pursued under these first four rules rapidly became so disorganized that within four years of the 1917 revolution, soviet production had fallen to 14 percent of its prerevolutionary level. By 1921 Lenin was forced to institute the New Economic Policy (NEP), a partial return to the market incentives of capitalism.
This brief mixture of socialism and capitalism came to an end in 1927 after Stalin instituted the process of forced collectivization that was to mobilize Russian resources for its leap into industrial power.
The system that evolved under Stalin and his successors took the form of a pyramid of command. At its apex was Gosplan, the highest state planning agency, which established such general directives for the economy as the target rate of growth and the allocation of effort between military and civilian outputs, between heavy and light industry, and among various regions.
Gosplan transmitted the general directives to successive ministries of industrial and regional planning, whose technical advisers broke down the overall national plan into directives assigned to particular factories, industrial power centers, collective farms, and so on.
These thousands of individual subplans were finally scrutinized by the factory managers and engineers who would eventually have to implement them. Thereafter, the blueprint for production re-ascended the pyramid, together with the suggestions, emendations, and pleas of those who had seen it. Ultimately, a completed plan would be reached by negotiation, voted on by the Supreme Soviet, and passed into law.
Thus, the final plan resembled an immense order book, specifying the nuts and bolts, steel girders, grain outputs, tractors, cotton, cardboard, and coal that, in their entirety, constituted the national output. In theory such an order book should enable planners to reconstitute a working economy each year provided, of course, that the nuts fitted the bolts; the girders were of the right dimensions; the grain output was properly stored; the tractors were operable; and the cotton, cardboard, and coal were of the kinds needed for their manifold uses. But there was a vast and widening gap between theory and practice.
Term Paper # 4. Problems in Socialism:
The gap did not appear immediately. In retrospect, we can see that the task facing Lenin and Stalin in the early years was not so much economic as quasi-military, mobilizing a peasantry into a workforce to build roads and rail lines, dams and electric grids, steel complexes and tractor factories.
This was a formidable assignment, but far less formidable than what would confront socialism 50 years later, when the task was not so much to create enormous undertakings as to create relatively self-contained ones, and to fit all the outputs into a dovetailing whole.
Through the 1960s the soviet economy continued to report strong overall growth, roughly twice that of the United States—but observers began to spot signs of impending trouble. One was the difficulty of specifying outputs in terms that would maximize the well-being of everyone in the economy, not merely the bonuses earned by individual factory managers for ‘over fulfilling’ their assigned objectives.
The problem was that the plan specified outputs in physical terms. One consequence was that managers maximized yardages or tonnages of output, not its quality. A famous cartoon in the satirical magazine Krokodil showed a factory manager proudly displaying his record output, a single gigantic nail suspended from a crane.
As the economic flow became increasingly clogged and clotted, production took the form of ‘stormings’ at the end of each quarter or year, when every resource was pressed into use to meet pre-assigned targets. The same rigid system soon produced expediters, or tolkachi, to arrange shipments to harassed managers who needed unplanned—and therefore unobtainable—inputs to achieve their production goals.
Worse, lacking the right to buy their own supplies or to hire or fire their own workers, factories set up fabricating shops, then commissaries, and finally their own worker housing to maintain control over their own small bailiwicks.
It is not surprising that this increasingly Byzantine system began to create serious dysfunctions beneath the overall statistics of growth. During the 1960s the Soviet Union became the first industrial country in history to suffer a prolonged peacetime fall in average life expectancy, a symptom of its disastrous misallocation of resources. Military research facilities could get whatever they needed, but hospitals were low on the priority list.
By the 1970s the figures clearly indicated a slowing of overall production. By the 1980s the Soviet Union officially acknowledged a near end to growth that was, in reality, an unofficial decline. In 1987 the first official law embodying perestroika—restructuring—was put into effect.
President Mikhail Gorbachev announced his intention to revamp the economy from top to bottom by introducing the market, reestablishing private ownership, and opening the system to free economic interchange with the west. Seventy years of socialist rise had come to an end.
Term Paper # 5. Types of Socialism:
Some of the types of socialism are given below:
I. Revolutionary Socialism:
It advocates the need for fundamental social change through revolution or insurrection (rather than gradual reform) as a strategy to achieve a socialist society. The Third International, which was founded following the Russian Revolution of 1917, defined itself in terms of Revolutionary socialism but also became widely identified with communism.
Trotskyism is the theory of Revolutionary Socialism as advocated by Leon Trotsky (1879-1940), declaring the need for an international proletarian revolution (rather than Stalin’s ‘socialism in one country’) and unwavering support for a true dictatorship of the proletariat based on democratic principles.
Luxemburgism is another Revolutionary socialist tradition, based on the writings of Rosa Luxemburg (1970-1919). It is similar to Trotskyism in its opposition to the totalitarianism of Stalin, while simultaneously avoiding the reformist politics of modern social democracy.
II. Democratic Socialism:
It advocates socialism as an economic principle (the means of production should be in the hands of ordinary working people), and democracy as a governing principle (political power should be in the hands of the people democratically through a co-operative commonwealth or republic).
It attempts to bring about socialism through peaceful democratic means as opposed to violent insurrection, and represents the reformist tradition of socialism. It is similar, but not necessarily identical (although the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably), to social democracy.
This refers to an ideology that is more centrist and supports a broadly capitalist system, with some social reforms (such as the welfare state), intended to make it more equitable and humane. Democratic socialism, by contrast, implies an ideology that is more left-wing and supportive of a fully socialist system, established either by gradually reforming capitalism from within, or by some form of revolutionary transformation.
III. Utopian Socialism:
It is a term used to define the first currents of modern socialist thought in the first quarter of the 19th century. In general, it was used by later socialist thinkers to describe early socialist, or quasi-socialist, intellectuals who created hypothetical visions of perfect egalitarian and communalist societies without actually concerning themselves with the manner in which these societies could be created or sustained.
i. They rejected all political (and especially all revolutionary) action, and wished to attain their ends by peaceful means and small experiments, which more practical socialists like Karl Marx saw as necessarily doomed to failure.
ii. But the early theoretical work of people like Robert Owen (1771-1858), Charles Fourier (1772-1837) and Etienne Cabet (1788-1856) gave much of the impetus to later socialist movements.
IV. Libertarian Socialism:
It aims to create a society without political, economic or social hierarchies, in which every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production. This would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions and private property, so mat direct control of the means of production and resources will be gained by the working class and society as a whole.
Most libertarian socialists advocate abolishing the state altogether, in much the same way as Utopian socialists and many varieties of anarchism (including social anarchism, Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho- Collectivism and Anarcho-Syndicalism).
V. Market Socialism:
It is a term used to define an economic system in which there is a market economy directed and guided by socialist planners, and where prices would be set through trial and error (making adjustments as shortages and surpluses occur) rather than relying on a free price mechanism.
By contrast, a socialist market economy, such as that practiced in the People’s Republic of China, in one where major industries are owned by state entities, but compete with each other within a pricing system set by the market and the state does not routinely intervene in the setting of prices.
VI. Eco-Socialism (or Green Socialism or Socialist Ecology):
It is an ideology merging aspects of Marxism, socialism, green politics, ecology and the anti-globalization movement. They advocate the non-violent dismantling of capitalism and the state, focusing on collective ownership of the means of production, in order to mitigate the social exclusion, poverty and environmental degradation brought about (as they see it) by the capitalist system, globalization and imperialism.
VII. Christian Socialism:
It generally refers to those on the Christian left whose politics are both Christian and socialist, and who see these two things as being interconnected. Christian socialists draw parallels between what some have characterized as the egalitarian and anti-establishment message of Jesus, and the messages of modern socialism.
Term Paper # 6. Effects of Socialism:
In context to today’s world and economies, socialism may appear as a primitive thought, but it was one of the few radical notions which came into existence due to the effects of modern industrial revolution. Ironically, the fertilizer for the growth of socialism was nothing, but the negative impacts of capitalism born out of industrial revolution.
Though, Marxist and non-Marxist socialists agree on this fact, they seldom agree to the actions of each other. Socialism was portrayed as a villain, an evil idea and the antonym to development by the western capitalist powers during the cold war era. Still it marked a huge presence in both pre-war and post wars periods and continued to hold strong till the end of the last century.
It was the advent of Lenin and his call for ‘All power to the soviets’ that kick started the rise of socialism as a political power. In the post war period, many countries adopted socialism along with its sibling communism into their governments. Capitalism widened the divide of rich and poor in many economies.
As such, socialism was seen as a tool to terminate this divide. However, unfortunately, it was also the radical nature of socialism that led to its downfall. After the downfall of U.S.S.R and enormous economic growth in the capitalist countries, socialism has primarily taken a back seat.
Many socialist ruling parties have become more liberal or left socialism completely. In the following lines, we have listed pros and cons of this radical political and economic theory. Have a look at the advantages and disadvantages of socialism!
i. Positive Effects:
a. Fair System:
Socialism gives equal distribution of national wealth and provides everyone with equal opportunities, irrespective of their, color, caste, creed or economic status. Socialism, in its truest sense, means equality by all means.
b. Reducing Disparities:
Socialism reduces the social, economic, and political inequalities that exist within capitalist societies. By taking the ownerships of production units from the rich and presenting them to the workers, the government gives the workers a chance to earn more profits and thus rise to levels of economic well being
c. More Humane and True:
The effort to make everybody equal in economic, social, and political terms makes socialism more morally worthwhile than capitalism. It reinforces the fact that everyone was created equally and it was only through human actions that disparities arose.
d. Eliminates Social Evils:
Socialism reduces poverty with eatable wealth distribution. It also eliminates ill health, as it lays the foundation for the availability of proper health facilities for everyone. Socialism eliminates other forms of social deprivation too, by caring for everyone.
e. Improved Standard of Living:
The idea behind socialism is to bring up the living standards of the poorest. It actually works towards raising the living standards to similar levels, as the better-off members of the respective societies.
f. Creates Better Human Resources:
As all people, irrespective of their differences, are provided extensive public services and better facilities, they achieve their full potential. Better education facilities for all also help in creating better human resource. Manpower doubles, thus doubling the country’s economic growth, as everyone works towards a life of betterment.
g. Unity:
As people work for a common cause and all the profits are shared equally, the feeling of selfishness is eliminated and a united feeling is gained. Plus, since socialism bars the difference caused on the grounds of color, sex, creed or religion, harmony and unity become the keywords for the countrymen.
ii. Negative Effects:
a. Unreal Theory:
True socialism is an imaginative theory and cannot be implemented as it is. Today, socialism is not adopted in the same way, as it was advocated by Karl Marx and other socialists. The original form of socialism is neither preached nor practiced.
b. Improper Implementation:
In socialist countries today, there are a handful of bureaucrats who control and use the power of the state. They redistribute and regulate wealth and decide on taxation for the people. Thus, in reality, people do not have control over wealth. This limits people’s political freedom and reverses the overall concept.
c. Negatively Influences Growth of Economy:
Socialism is actually economically inefficient, as it puts off entrepreneurs from generating wealth, because they usually have to pay higher taxes.
d. Poverty and Social Evils are not Eliminated:
Socialism might redistribute some of the wealth of the richest members of the society to the poor, but this move does not eliminate poverty as a whole. The overall growth of economy suffers considerably. If there is not enough wealth, then distribution can be hampered.
e. No Real Increase in Standard of Living:
Instead of improving the living standards for all, socialism actually lowers the income of the richest to reduce the divide and make them fall close to the income levels of the poorest.
f. Boosts Incompetence:
As socialism provides the poorest with higher levels of income via social security payments, it deters them from working hard, if at all. It also creates a negative feeling in the minds of hard working fellows, as they gain no extra incentives for working hard. Adding to their woes, lazy people get paid equally as they do. This negatively impacts productivity and thus economic growth.
Term Paper # 7. Criticisms of Socialism:
Criticisms of socialism range from disagreements over the efficiency of socialist economic and political models, to outright condemnation of socialist states. Some critics dispute that the egalitarian distribution of wealth and the nationalization of industries advocated by some socialists can be achieved without loss of political or economic freedoms.
Some argue that countries where the means of production are socialized are less prosperous than those where the means of production are under private control. Yet others argue that socialist policies reduce work incentives (because workers do not receive rewards for a work well done) and reduce efficiency through the elimination of the profit and loss mechanism and a free price system and reliance on central planning.
They also argue that socialism stagnates technology due to competition being stifled. The tragedy of the commons effect has been attributed to socialism by some, whereby when assets are owned in common, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship (i.e. if everyone owns an asset, people act as if no-one owns it).
There has also been much focus on the economic performance and human rights records of communist states, although this is not necessarily a criticism of socialism. Socialists have counter-argued that socialism can actually increase efficiency and economic growth better than capitalism or that a certain degree of efficiency can and should be sacrificed for the sake of economic equality or other social goals.
They further argue that market systems have a natural tendency toward monopoly or oligopoly in major industries, leading to a distortion of prices, and that a public monopoly is better than a private one. Also, they claim that a socialist approach can mitigate the role of externalities in pricing. Some socialists have made a case for socialism and central planning being better able to address the issue of managing the environment than self-serving capitalism.