Open full sized image

A poster made in the Soviet Union in 1945 shows an idealized view of a factory worker and a peasant. It is an example of a style called socialist realism, in which workers and farmers are portrayed as purposeful, muscular, and youthful.

Photo 12/Alamy

World War II forged an uneasy alliance between communists and socialists—and between liberals and conservatives—in their common struggle against fascism. The alliance soon disintegrated, however, as the Soviet Union established communist regimes in the eastern European countries it had occupied at the end of the war. The Cold War that ensued deepened the fissure between communists and other socialists, the latter seeing themselves as democrats opposed to the one-party rule of the Soviet Union and its satellites. The Labour Party, for example, won a parliamentary majority in the British elections of 1945 and subsequently established a national health care system and public control of major industries and utilities; when the party lost its majority in 1951, it peacefully relinquished the offices of government to the victorious Conservatives.

The communists also claimed to be democrats, but their notion of “people’s democracy” rested on the belief that the people were not yet capable of governing themselves. Thus, Mao declared, after Chiang Kai-shek’s forces were driven from mainland China in 1949, that the new People’s Republic of China was to be a “people’s democratic dictatorship”; that is, the CCP would rule in the interests of the people by suppressing their enemies and building socialism. Freedom of expression and political competition were bourgeois, counterrevolutionary ideas. This became the justification for one-party rule by other communist regimes in North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and elsewhere.

Meanwhile, the socialist parties of Europe were modifying their positions and enjoying frequent electoral success. The Scandinavian socialists set the example of “mixed economies” that combined largely private ownership with government direction of the economy and substantial welfare programs, and other socialist parties followed suit. Even the SPD, in its Bad Godesberg program of 1959, dropped its Marxist pretenses and committed itself to a “social market economy” involving “as much competition as possible—as much planning as necessary.” Although some welcomed this blurring of boundaries between socialism and welfare-state liberalism as a sign of “the end of ideology,” the more radical student left of the 1960s complained that there was little choice between capitalism, the “obsolete communism” of the Marxist-Leninists, and the bureaucratic socialism of western Europe.

Elsewhere, the withdrawal of European colonial powers from Africa and the Middle East created opportunities for new forms of socialism. Terms such as African socialism and Arab socialism were frequently invoked in the 1950s and ’60s, partly because the old colonial powers were identified with capitalist imperialism. In practice, these new kinds of socialism typically combined appeals to indigenous traditions, such as communal land ownership, with the Marxist-Leninist model of one-party rule for the purpose of rapid modernization. In Tanzania, for example, Julius Nyerere developed an egalitarian program of ujamaa (Swahili: “familyhood”) that collectivized village farmlands and attempted, unsuccessfully, to achieve economic self-sufficiency—all under the guidance of a one-party state.

Open full sized image

Michos Tzovaras/UN Photo

In Asia, by contrast, no distinctive form of socialism emerged. Aside from the communist regimes, Japan was the only country in which a socialist party gained a sizable and enduring following, to the point of occasionally controlling the government or participating in a governing coalition.

Nor has there been a peculiarly Latin American contribution to socialist theory. The regime of Fidel Castro in Cuba tended to follow the Marxist-Leninist path in the 1950s and ’60s, though with increasing moderation in later years, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Liberation theology called on Christians to give priority to the needs of the poor, but it has not developed an explicitly socialist program. Perhaps the most distinctively Latin American expression of socialist impulses was Venezuelan Pres. Hugo Chávez’s call for a “Bolivarian Revolution” (see “Socialism in the 21st century” below). Apart from the appeal to Simón Bolívar’s reputation as a liberator, however, Chávez did not establish a connection between socialism and Bolívar’s thoughts and deeds.

In many ways, however, the attempt by Salvador Allende to unite Marxists and other reformers in a socialist reconstruction of Chile represented a distinctive Latin American approach to socialism. Elected by a plurality vote in a three-way election in 1970, Allende tried to nationalize foreign corporations and redistribute land and wealth to the poor. These efforts provoked domestic and foreign opposition, which led, in the midst of economic turmoil, to a military coup and Allende’s death—though whether by his or someone else’s hand is not clear.

The most important development in the recent history of socialism is undoubtedly the collapse of communism, first in eastern Europe in 1989 and then in the Soviet Union itself in 1991. Communist parties continued to exist, of course, and some of them remained in power—e.g., in North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and China. But by the late 20th century little of Marxism remained in the policies of the CCP, as economic reforms increasingly favored private ownership of productive property and encouraged market competition. What did remain was the Leninist insistence on one-party rule.

Open full sized image

The fall of Communism in Eastern Europe and the subsequent breakup of the Soviet Union led to the emergence of several new countries in Europe during the late 20th century.

Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

Mikhail Gorbachev’s attempts at glasnost (“openness”) and perestroika (“restructuring”), initiated after he became general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1985, signaled a move away from one-party rule and the inefficient command economy, in which wages, prices, production, and distribution were determined by bureaucrats. Gorbachev intended perestroika to increase productivity and raise living standards without going far in the direction of a market economy. But glasnost created political opportunities for those who were unhappy with communism, as the downfall of the eastern European regimes indicated; ultimately it prompted a reaction—an attempted coup by a group of hard-line communists in 1991—that failed so swiftly and spectacularly that the Soviet Union itself disintegrated. By the end of the 20th century, communism, though not quite dead, certainly seemed to be dying.

Beginning in the late 20th century, the advent of what many considered a “postindustrial” economy, in which knowledge and information count for more than labor and material production, raised doubts about the relevance of socialism, which was in theory and in practice primarily a response to industrial capitalism. This conviction led to much talk of a “third way”—that is, a center-left position that would preserve the socialist commitment to equality and welfare while abandoning class-based politics and public ownership of the means of production.

In 1995 the British Labour Party under Tony Blair embraced the third way by forsaking its long-standing commitment to the nationalization of basic industries; in general elections two years later, the Labour Party won a landslide victory, and Blair served as prime minister for the next 10 years. Other heads of government who professed the third way in the 1990s included Pres. Bill Clinton of the United States, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany, and Prime Minister Wim Kok of the Netherlands.

Critics on the left complained that the third way reduced equality to an equal chance to compete in economies in which the rich were growing ever richer and the poor were increasingly disadvantaged. Such a position, they insisted, is hardly socialist. But even these critics seldom called for a return to a centralist form of socialism; instead, they were more likely to advocate a decentralist form of market socialism. As the name implies, market socialism blends elements of a free-market economy with social ownership and control of property.

By the beginning of the 21st century, some countries still governed by communist parties had begun fusing capitalist-style practices into their economies, with China being the most prominent example. Economic reforms begun under Deng Xiaoping had encouraged private enterprise, foreign investment, and market competition, creating what the CCP called a “socialist market economy.” The state continued to control important industries, and the Communist Party maintained its monopoly on political power, but private businesses and market prices had become major parts of the Chinese economy. Vietnam had traveled much the same path since introducing its doi moi (“renovation”) reforms in 1986. Cuba moved more cautiously, gradually allowing more self-employment and privately owned businesses.

Open full sized image

Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez became the central figure of Latin America’s “Pink Tide,” a wave of left-leaning governments that sought to reduce inequality often through state-led social programs funded by commodity exports.

Eskinder Debebe/United Nations

Meanwhile, Venezuelan Pres. Hugo Chávez was giving socialism a new name. In 2005 he began calling his Bolivarian Revolution “socialism of the 21st century.” Chávez had been elected president in 1998, and his government went on to nationalize companies in the oil, electricity, and telecommunications industries. Revenues from Venezuela’s enormous oil reserves helped pay for health, education, housing, and antipoverty programs.

Chávez was also part of the “Pink Tide” of left-wing governments elected across Latin America, but there was no single program behind the label. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil and Michelle Bachelet in Chile largely worked within market-based economies. Evo Morales, elected president of Bolivia in 2005, increased state control of the country’s oil and natural gas resources, while Ecuadoran Pres. Rafael Correa expanded public spending and state involvement in the economy. Venezuela went further, and with very different results. Chávez and his successor, Nicolás Maduro, increasingly concentrated political power in the presidency, while the country entered a prolonged economic and humanitarian crisis.

The global financial crisis of 2007–08, followed by a slow recovery and growing concern about economic inequality, helped revive socialist ideas in places where they had long been politically marginal, including the United States. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 and 2020 on proposals that included universal health care, stronger labor rights, and higher taxes on the wealthy.

Open full sized image

Members of the Democratic Socialists of America, gathered on May Day, May 1, 2019, in New York City.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Although many argued that Sanders’s proposals more closely resembled European social democracy than traditional socialism, his campaigns reignited interest and helped spur rapid growth in the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which had about 6,500 members in 2014. DSA went beyond Sanders’s reform program by continuing to advocate worker and social ownership of the economy. The organization received another boost in 2018, which continued to advocate worker and social ownership of the economy. DSA membership grew from about 6,500 in 2014 to nearly 79,000 in 2021, and members including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won election to Congress. Ocasio-Cortez also became a leading advocate of the Green New Deal, which linked climate policy with many of the economic goals embraced by democratic socialists.

The Green New Deal also drew attention to ecosocialism, which combines socialist and environmental thought. Ecosocialists argue that an economy driven by private profit and continued growth cannot adequately address climate change and other negative externalities associated with economic growth. They have also criticized the environmental record of highly centralized socialist economies, which often pursued industrial growth as aggressively as capitalist ones.

More than two centuries after Karl Marx developed his theoretical framework, socialists remain divided over the role of markets, private vs. public ownership of assets, economic planning, and the distribution of wealth. The evolution of socialism in the 21st century has done little to settle those arguments. But the questions at the heart of socialism have remained remarkably consistent: Who should own and control the resources used to produce society’s wealth, and how should that wealth be shared?

Bernard Crick, Socialism (1987), is brief and uneven but insightful. Slightly longer and considerably more thorough are R.N. Berki, Socialism (1975); and George Lichtheim, A Short History of Socialism (1970, reissued 1983). Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition: Moses to Lenin (1946, reissued 1968), is especially good on the precursors to modern socialism; and G.D.H. Cole, A History of Socialist Thought, 5 vol. in 7 (1953–60, reissued 2002), is the standard work on socialism from the late 18th to the mid-20th century. Warren Lerner, A History of Socialism and Communism in Modern Times, 2nd ed. (1993), carries the story through the collapse of the Soviet Union; and Michael Newman, Socialism: A Very Short Introduction (2005), brings it in a highly concise fashion into the 21st century. Albert Fried and Ronald Sanders (eds.), Socialist Thought: A Documentary History, rev. ed. (1992), is an excellent collection of primary sources.

Standard works on the utopian socialists are Frank E. Manuel, The Prophets of Paris (1962); and Keith Taylor, The Political Ideas of the Utopian Socialists (1982).

Eugene Kamenka (compiler and trans.), The Portable Karl Marx (1983), is a well-rounded collection of Marx’s writings. Leszek Kołakowski, Main Currents of Marxism, 3 vol., trans. by P.S. Falla (1978, reissued 2005; originally published in Polish, 1976–78), is an unsurpassed study of the varieties of Marxist thought; and Terence Ball and James Farr (eds.), After Marx (1984), offers sophisticated assessments of Marx’s theory and of Marxism. For Bernstein and revisionism, the classic work is Peter Gay, The Dilemma of Democratic Socialism: Eduard Bernstein’s Challenge to Marx (1952, reissued 1983). For the International, Julius Braunthal, History of the International, 3 vol. (1967–80; originally published in German, 1961–71), sets the standard.

Two older works—Edmund Wilson, To the Finland Station (1940, reissued 2003); and Bertram D. Wolfe, Three Who Made a Revolution (1948, reissued 2001)—deserve their reputations as accessible accounts of the transformation of Marx’s theory into Soviet communism.

George Woodcock, Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements (1962, reissued 2004), combines biographical sketches with surveys of anarchist movements in several countries.

Scholarly analysis and classic statements by African leaders are collected in William Friedland and Carl G. Rosberg, Jr. (eds.), African Socialism (1964). Sami A. Hanna and George H. Gardner (eds.), Arab Socialism: A Documentary Survey (1969), is a useful collection. Latin American socialism is discussed in Richard L. Harris, Marxism, Socialism, and Democracy in Latin America (1992).

Michael Harrington, Socialism: Past and Future (1989, reissued 1993), makes a case for the continuing relevance of socialism. Recent attempts to link socialism to democracy include Robert A. Dahl, A Preface to Economic Democracy (1985); and Carol C. Gould, Rethinking Democracy: Freedom and Social Cooperation in Politics, Economy, and Society (1988). Dahl and Gould advocate forms of market socialism, as do David Miller, Market, State, and Community (1989); Alec Nove, The Economics of Feasible Socialism Revisited, 2nd ed. (1991); and John E. Roemer, A Future for Socialism (1994). Christopher Pierson, Socialism After Communism (1995), concludes that the arguments against market socialism are stronger than the arguments for it. G.A. Cohen, If You’re an Egalitarian, How Come You’re So Rich? (2000), blends autobiography with analysis of Marxism and socialist ethics.