Socialist politics has been both internationalist and nationalist in orientation; organised through political parties and opposed to party politics; at times overlapping with trade unions and at other times independent and critical of them; and present in both industrialised and developing nations. Social democracy originated within the socialist movement, supporting economic and social interventions to promote social justice. While retaining socialism as a long-term goal, since the post-war period it has come to embrace a Keynesianmixed economy within a predominantly developed capitalist market economy and liberal democratic polity that expands state intervention to include income redistribution, regulation and a welfare state. Economic democracy proposes a sort of market socialism, with more democratic control of companies, currencies, investments and natural resources.
The socialist political movement includes a set of political philosophies that originated in the revolutionary movements of the mid-to-late 18th century and out of concern for the social problems that were associated with capitalism. By the late 19th century, after the work of Karl Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels, socialism had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for a post-capitalist system based on some form of social ownership of the means of production. By the 1920s, communism and social democracy had become the two dominant political tendencies within the international socialist movement, with socialism itself becoming the most influential secular movement of the 20th century. Socialist parties and ideas remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence on all continents, heading national governments in many countries around the world. Today, many socialists have also adopted the causes of other social movements such as environmentalism, feminism and progressivism.
Foro de São Paulo (FSP; English: São Paulo Forum) is a conference of leftist political parties and other organizations from Latin America and the Caribbean. It was launched by the Workers' Party of Brazil in 1990 in the city of São Paulo. The Forum of São Paulo was constituted in 1990 when the Brazilian Workers' Party approached other parties and social movements of Latin America and the Caribbean with the objective of debating the new international scenario after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the consequences of the implementation of what were taken as neoliberal policies adopted at the time by contemporary right-leaning governments in the region, the stated main objective of the conference being to argue for alternatives to neoliberalism.
The first meeting, held in São Paulo, on July 1990, was attended by members of 48 parties and organizations from Latin American and the Caribbean. The original name given to the meeting was Meeting of Left and Anti-imperialist Parties and Organizations of Latin America. In 1991, in Mexico City, the meeting started being called, alternatively, Foro de São Paulo, in reference to the location of the first meeting. The following meetings were held in Managua (1992), Havana (1993), Montevideo (1995), San Salvador (1996), Porto Alegre (1997), Mexico City (1998), Managua (2000), Havana (2001), Antigua Guatemala (2002), Quito (2003), São Paulo (2005), San Salvador (2007), Montevideo (2008), Mexico City (2009), Buenos Aires (2010), Managua (2011), Caracas (2012), São Paulo (2013), La Paz (2014), Mexico City (2015), San Salvador (2016) and Managua (2017).
Ever since FSP's first meeting (1990), the Declaration which was approved expressed the participants' "willingness to renew leftist and socialist thought, to reaffirm its emancipating character, to correct mistaken conceptions, and to overcome all expressions of bureaucratism and all absence of true social and massive democracy."
Louis Auguste Blanqui (French pronunciation: [lwi oɡyst blɑ̃ki]; 8 February 1805, in Puget-Théniers, Alpes-Maritimes – 1 January 1881, in Paris) was a French socialist and political activist, notable for his revolutionary theory of Blanquism.
Of course we shall be told in refutation that we are transferring the laws of capitalism to the socialist economy, that a planned economy does not require regulation by means of crises or even by means of predetermined lowering of tempos. The repertory of proofs at the disposal of the Stalinist bureaucracy and its theoreticians is so restricted that it is always possible to forecast beforehand the particular generalization they will resort to. In this case, a pure tautology: we have entered socialism and therefore we must always act “socialistically,” that is, we must regulate the economy so as to obtain ever-increasing planned expansion. But the gist of the matter is that we have not entered into socialism. We have far from attained mastery of the methods of planned regulation. We are fulfilling only the first rough hypothesis, fulfilling it poorly, and with our headlights not yet on. Crises are not only possible, they are inevitable. And an impending crisis has already been prepared by the bureaucracy.
The laws that govern the transitional society are quite different from those that govern capitalism. But no less do they differ from the future laws of socialism, that is, of a harmonious economy growing on the basis of tried, proven, and guaranteed dynamic equilibrium. The productive advantages of socialism, centralization, concentration, the unified spirit of management are incalculable. But under faulty application, particularly under bureaucratic misuse, they may turn into their opposites. And in part they have already become transformed, for the crisis now impends. Any attempt to force the economy by further lashing and spurring ahead is an attempt to redouble the misfortunes in the future. It is impossible to foretell the extent that the crisis will assume. The advantages of planned economy remain during crises as well, and one may say they show themselves with special clarity precisely in a crisis. Capitalist governments are compelled to wait passively until the crisis spends itself on the backs of the people, or to resort to financial hocus-pocus in the manner of von Papen. The workers’ state meets the crisis with all its resources. All the dominant levers – the budget credit, industry, trade – are concentrated in a single hand. The crisis may be mitigated and afterwards overcome not by strident command but by measures of economic regulation. After the adventuristic offensive, it is necessary to execute a planned retreat, thought-out as fully as possible. This is the task of the coming year, the sixteenth year of the proletarian dictatorship. Il faut reculer pour mieux sauter: Let us retreat in order the better to.
Image 6Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin opposed the Marxist aim of dictatorship of the proletariat in favour of universal rebellion and allied himself with the federalists in the First International before his expulsion by the Marxists (from History of socialism)