ABSTRACT
After the end of the Second World War, the new geopolitical division of the world into a Soviet dominated ‘East’ and an American-centred ‘West’, and the associated Cold War rhetoric, very much shaped the public discourse on the meaning of ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’. This discourse varied depending on whether seen from ‘within’ or ‘without’ the countries experiencing socialist/communist regimes in practice. From an outside, western perspective, little difference was made between the two concepts. Both were associated with ‘Moscow’ and the ‘Eastern bloc’, and were thus by definition negative, inferior and hostile, or, in other words, the antidote to a democratic market-based society. And it is the Soviet context that socialism was closely associated with, ‘both by anti-socialist ideologists in the West and by many in the East too’ (Nove, 1991). State domination, authoritarian excesses, Siberian Gulags and continuous shortages (Carson, 1990) in almost every aspect of consumption were the most frequent images projected about the perceived reality of a communist regime. Of course, there were also socialist parties in the West, campaigning on the platform of fighting against ruthless capitalism on behalf of the exploited workers, and even communist parties, proclaiming allegiance with ‘Moscow’, not least in the form of the weekly Marxism Today, but they were largely kept outside mainstream politics by the political elites. The key justification for an envisaged ‘regime change’ from capitalism to socialism by this group was a ‘morally informed vision of a better life’ (Luntley, 1989, p. 3). In this ‘armchair’ socialism, greater morality, rather than a free market system, counted as the main driver of improving people’s quality of life and ‘happiness’, however defined (see, for example, Miliband, 1977; a good collection of Marxist and recent ‘post-Marxist’ papers is provided by Sim, 1998; and a much earlier collection by Miliband and Saville, 1974). But ‘socialism is not a moral theory that offers a particular vision of the good life, instead it is a theory about how the good life is possible’ (Luntley, 1998, p. 15). In other words, this understanding views socialism as an instrument, as a means of getting to a ‘better’ form of society shaped by ‘good’ moral values, such as equality. Consequently, Luntley contrasts two complementary theses about the nature of ‘socialism’, one emphasising its pro-active nature shaping society through a set of moral values, and one taking a more passive role, where it is threatened as a morally superior form of society by the emergence by capitalism. It
is this latter understanding – the contrast in social values and the nature of society – that has underpinned the discussions on post-socialist transition and the contrast between the ‘communist’ starting point and ‘neo-liberal’ end point of this shift.
