The Socialization Question of the British Labour Party: Origins, Evolution and Future

Throughout the more than 120-year history of the British Labour Party, the question of socialization has held special significance. Socialization both embodies the Labour Party’s socialist beliefs and political ideals, serving as the ideological guide that defines the party’s character and direction of action; it is also the focal point of factional contradictions and struggles within the party, reflecting the process of contention among different forces — the left and right wings, trade union groups and decision-making elites — over positions, viewpoints and political propositions; moreover, it constitutes the most distinctive and representative content of the Labour Party’s political agenda, influencing and even determining the scope of policy choices and the limits of reform for the British Labour Party.

纵观英国工党120余年的历史，社会化问题具有特殊意义。社会化既体现了工党社会主义的信仰和政治理想，是界定工党党派特征和行动方向的思想指南；又是其党内派系矛盾与斗争的焦点，反映了党内左派与右派、工会团体与决策精英等不同力量立场观点与政治主张的博奕过程；还是工党政治议程中最有特色、最具代表性的内容，它影响甚至决定了英国工党的政策选择空间与改革限度。

Socialization is a concept that requires constant clarification. In the process of putting socialization theory into practice, the European social democratic parties, of which the British Labour Party is a representative, have continuously enriched its connotations. At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, socialization, expressed as “social ownership” or “collective ownership,” was the economic principle and goal of social democratic parties and an inherent requirement of socialism. After the First World War, under the influence of the Soviet Union, many social democratic parties, including the British Labour Party, simplistically understood socialization as nationalization or collectivization. However, after roughly half a century of practice, most of these schemes failed. Social democratic parties gradually accepted the idea of “economic democracy,” believing that socialization “should also include partially returning planning and regulatory functions to consumers and producers themselves, and integrating enterprise production with the general interests of society” — a scheme regarded as “indirect socialization.” Thus, the socialization policies of European social democratic parties, on the basis of public ownership, also incorporated welfare systems, state intervention and other elements; the British Labour Party is a typical example. After the 1970s and 1980s, the means of “indirect socialization” basically replaced the ownership reform of “direct socialization,” and economic democracy gradually came to be regarded as the main policy connotation of socialization.

社会化是一个需要不断澄清的概念。以英国工党为代表的欧洲社会民主党在将社会化理论付诸实践的过程中，不断丰富其内涵。19世纪末20世纪初，表述为“社会所有制”或“集体所有制”的社会化是社会民主党的经济原则与目标，是社会主义的内在规定。一战以后，在苏联的影响下，众多社会民主党包括英国工党将社会化简单理解为国有化或集体所有化。但是，经过约半个世纪的实践，这些方案大多失败了。社会民主党逐渐接受了“经济民主”的设想，认为社会化“还应包括把计划和调节职能部分地交还给消费者和生产者本人承担，并且使企业生产与社会普遍利益相结合”——一种被视为“间接社会化”的方案。所以，欧洲社会民主党的社会化政策在公有制的基础上，又纳入了福利制度、国家干预等内容，英国工党就是典型代表。20世纪七八十年代后，“间接社会化”的手段基本取代了“直接社会化”的所有制改革，经济民主逐渐被认为是社会化最主要的政策内涵。

Unlike other social democratic parties on the European continent, the British Labour Party developed out of reformist thought. From the very beginning, it closely revolved around electoral politics. Socialization, as its main political goal and agenda, was also brought into the legal institutional framework relatively early. Facing the problems of inequality and injustice in British society, the Labour Party, based on its value appeals and political philosophy, formulated specific socialization measures through the deliberation of its activity institutions and organizational procedures, and turned them into reality. This process is the process of modernization of the British Labour Party’s socialization program, also the process of its historical transformation, and it contains its future imagination regarding socialization and social democracy.

与欧洲大陆其他社会民主党不同，英国工党是从改良主义思想中发展起来的，它从一开始就紧紧围绕选举政治开展活动，社会化作为其主要政治目标和议程，也较早地被纳入合法的制度框架内。面对英国社会的不平等、不公正问题，工党依据其价值诉求和政治哲学，经过其活动机构、组织程序等的酝酿，制定出具体的社会化措施并使之转化为现实。这一过程是英国工党社会化方案现代化的过程，也是其历史转型的过程，还蕴含着关于其对社会化、对社会民主主义的未来想象。

I. The Early British Labour Party and Socialization to Protect Labour Interests (1900–1918)

一、早期英国工党与维护劳工利益的社会化（1900—1918年）

The British Labour Party was not the product of the combination of Marxism and the workers’ movement, but rather an organization formed by the union of various trade unions and socialist societies. Its purpose was to establish an independent parliamentary group of workers responsible for the political struggle of the working class in parliament. The early British Labour Party had no clear program or constitution. Organizationally, it was characterized by “pluralism, coexistence of cooperation and conflict, with trade unions as the main body,” and practiced a system of collective membership. That is, the trade unions affiliated with the British Labour Party, some cooperatives, trade associations, the Independent Labour Party, and the Fabian Society all joined the party collectively. The basic procedure was that a trade union or trade union council, or some members or committees of socialist societies, proposed joining the Labour Party, whereupon an internal vote was held, and a decision was made based on the simple majority principle. Through this mechanism, the Labour Party indirectly recruited members. This is what Duverger called a “party of indirect structure.” [1]1 A reference to the classification of political party structures by French political scientist Maurice Duverger (1917–2014), who distinguished between direct and indirect membership parties. The hidden danger created by this structure was that groups within the trade unions that did not originally agree with the Labour Party’s positions were also counted as Labour Party members. This obviously transplanted the organization and operation mode of trade union struggle into the Labour Party, and was also an institutional cause of the Labour Party’s subsequent disagreements and even splits. It lacked a unified, institutionalized national organizational system. It was merely an electoral alliance composed of trade unions and socialist societies, not a strictly independent modern parliamentary party organization.

英国工党并非马克思主义与工人运动相结合的产物，而是各工会和社会主义团体联合的组织，其目的是组建一个独立的工人议会党团，负责议会中工人阶级的政治斗争。早期英国工党没有明确的纲领和章程，组织上具有“多元化、合作与冲突并存、以工会为主体”的特点，实行集体党员制，即英国工党所属各工会、一部分合作社、行业协会、独立工党、费边社，都是集体入党，基本程序是，工会或工会理事会、社会主义团体的部分会员或委员会提议加入工党，于是举行内部投票，根据简单多数原则作出决定。通过这一机制，工党间接地吸收党员。这就是迪维尔热所说的“间接结构的政党”。这一结构造成的隐患是，工会中原本并不赞同工党主张的群体，也被当做工党党员，这显然是将工会斗争的组织和运作方式移植到了工党，也是造成工党日后发生分歧甚至分化的一个制度性起因。，缺乏统一的制度化的全国性组织体系。它只是一个由工会和社会主义团体组成的选举联盟，不是一个严格意义上的独立的现代议会政党组织。

Organizational unity led to the pluralism of the early British Labour Party’s socialization policies, encompassing both direct nationalization and the struggle for industrial management rights reflecting the demands of economic democracy. On the one hand, nationalization was the primary goal of the early British Labour Party’s socialization proposals. It was both a common demand of all socialists at the time and a simple political appeal of British trade unions and the workers’ movement. In 1906, Labour Party MPs first proposed nationalization schemes for mines and railways in parliament; in 1908, the Labour Party passed a resolution believing that the time had come to achieve “the socialization of the means of production, distribution and exchange, to be managed by a democratic state in the interests of the whole society”; in 1914, the associations of British miners, railway workers and transport workers formed a huge triple alliance with 1.5 million members, and vigorously conducted propaganda and agitation for the nationalization of mining and railways, achieving great social impact. On the other hand, with changes in the strike struggle situation and the propaganda of Guild Socialists, workers’ demands for autonomous management of industry became increasingly common. Striving for industrial management rights became another component of the early British Labour Party’s socialization proposals, reflecting the “economic democracy” proposition within British socialism. During the First World War, the *Whitley Report on Works Committees* and the Garton Foundation’s *Summary of Post-War Industrial Conditions* both called on employers’ groups and trade union representatives to resolve disputes through consultation and cooperation; from 1915 onwards, successive Trades Union Congresses also began to use concepts reflecting higher demands, such as “protecting labour interests” and “economic democracy,” to call for the realization of industrial management rights, explicitly demanding labour participation in factory management, pointing out that “industrial democracy is the only way to social peace.”

组织上的联合导致了早期英国工党社会化政策的多元化，既包括直接的国有化，又包括体现经济民主要求的对工业管理权的争取。一方面，国有化是早期英国工党社会化主张的首要目标，它既是当时所有社会主义者的共同主张，也是英国工会和工人运动朴素的政治诉求。1906年，英国工党议员首次在议会中提出了矿山和铁路国有化方案；1908年，英国工党通过决议，认为实现“生产、分配和交换手段的社会化，由民主国家根据整个社会利益加以管理”的时机已经到来；1914年，英国矿工、铁路工人和运输工人协会组成了拥有150万会员的庞大的三方联盟，并大力进行矿业、铁路国有化的宣传鼓动，取得了极大的社会影响。另一方面，随着罢工斗争形势的变化和基尔特社会主义者的宣传，工人自主管理工业的要求越来越普遍，争取工业管理权成为早期英国工党社会化主张的另一项内容，体现了英国社会主义中“经济民主”的主张。一战期间的《怀特莱关于工作委员会的报告书》与加顿基金会的《战后工业状况摘要》均呼吁雇主团体和工会代表通过协商合作来解决纠纷；自1915年起，历届职工大会也开始使用“维护劳工利益”与“经济民主”这样反映更高要求的概念来呼吁实现工业管理权，明确要求劳工参与工厂的管理，指出“工业的民主主义是社会和平的不二法门”。

However, there was no direct connection between the early British Labour Party’s socialization and socialism; its goal was merely to protect labour interests, adhering to labourism (also called “trade unionism”) originating from the trade unions. This labourism, formed under the specific historical conditions of Britain, was far removed from the Marxist theory of proletarian emancipation. Although it opposed capitalist exploitation, it did not demand the abolition of the socio-economic system based on private ownership of the means of production. At that time, trade union leaders were more influenced by liberalism in thought and were mostly “Lib-Lab” [2]2 From the 1870s onwards, MPs belonging to the Liberal Party but representing the interests of the labouring class gradually appeared in the British Parliament; they were called “Lib-Lab” MPs. This was a cooperation between the British Trades Union Congress and the Liberal Party. Although the two sides did not sign a formal agreement, they recognized a basic principle: trade unions would support the Liberal Party in national and local parliamentary elections, and in return, the latter would elect a certain number of candidates representing labour interests into parliament. This cooperation ultimately broke down with the growth and strengthening of the Labour Representation Committee (the Labour Party). in politics. They trusted the Liberal Party in parliament, and their strike struggles were mostly aimed at raising wages and improving working conditions, hoping to achieve their goals through “free collective bargaining” within the existing capitalist society, rather than overthrowing it. This shows that the early British Labour Party understood “nationalization” and “economic democracy” only in a literal sense — that the means of production should be owned by the state representing the entire nation, and that workers should participate in the management and decision-making of enterprises. However, on questions such as who should be responsible for the organization and management of the production process, through what channels workers should participate in decision-making, and how to ensure the effectiveness of worker participation, the British Labour Party was unclear internally, and there were even differences. That is to say, the early British Labour Party’s socialization proposals were not truly socialist reforms, because they did not define the ultimate goal of socialism, focusing only on a short-term objective — protecting labour interests.

不过，早期英国工党的社会化与社会主义之间并没有直接联系，其目标只是维护劳工利益，信奉的是源自于工会的劳工主义（labourism，也称“工会主义”）。这种在英国特定历史条件下形成的劳工主义与马克思主义的无产阶级解放学说相去甚远，它虽然反对资本主义剥削，但并不要求取消以生产资料私人占有为基础的社会经济制度。当时工会领袖思想上更多受自由主义的影响，政治上多是“自由—劳工”（Lib-Lab）派自19世纪70年代起，英国议会中逐渐出现了属于自由党党员却代表劳工群体利益的议员，他们被称为“自由—劳工”议员。这是英国职工大会同自由党达成的一项合作，双方虽然没有签署正式的协议，却认同一条基本原则：各工会在全国和地方议会选举中支持自由党，作为回报，后者要将一定数量的代表劳工利益的候选人选入议会。这项合作最终随着劳工代表委员会（工党）的成长壮大而破裂。，他们在议会中信任自由党，罢工斗争也多是为了提高工资和改善工作条件，希望在现存的资本主义社会中通过“自由的集体谈判”达到目的，而不是推翻这个社会。这说明，早期英国工党仅仅是从字面意义来理解“国有化”和“经济民主”的，即生产资料应该由代表整体国民的国家占有、工人应该参与工厂管理与决策，但对于生产过程的组织和管理应该由谁负责、工人应该通过何种途径参与决策、如何保证工人参与的有效性等问题，英国工党内部并不明确，甚至存在分歧。也就是说，早期英国工党的社会化主张并非真正意义上的社会主义改革，因为它没有确定社会主义的最终目标，只关注短期目的——维护劳工利益。

Through the struggles of the early British Labour Party, the authorities adopted a series of social reforms favorable to labor, but these were merely concessions won by the workers’ movement within the framework of capitalist politics. As these concessions reached the limit tolerable to capital, both the workers’ movement and the early British Labour Party fell into political difficulties. The working class called for an independent modern party organization that could truly represent its own interests; the British Labour Party needed to establish its own partisan character and irreplaceability. Under these circumstances, the British labor movement and the socialist movement only then began to truly converge.

经过早期英国工党的斗争，当局采取了一系列有利于劳工的社会改革，但这些不过是工人运动在资本主义政治框架内争得的让步而已。随着这种让步走到资方所能容忍的极限，无论是工人运动还是早期英国工党，双双陷入了政治困境。工人阶级呼唤一个能够真正代表自身利益的独立的现代政党组织，英国工党需要建立党派特色和不可替代性，在此情况下，英国的劳工运动与社会主义运动才开始真正走向联合。

II. The Rising British Labour Party and Socialization as a Socialist Goal (1918–1945)

二、崛起中的英国工党与作为社会主义目标的社会化（1918—1945年）

Until early 1918, the British Labour Party was composed merely of tightly organized workers’ groups and a small number of socialists from the middle strata; the Party conference and the Parliamentary Labour Party were both controlled by the huge textile and coal miners’ groups, and socialists played little role. As workers’ conditions grew increasingly dire and the strike situation became ever more severe, the British labor movement began to combine with socialism. In February 1918, the Party conference adopted a new constitution, Article IV of which set forth the Party’s ultimate goal: “To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible, upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.” This was the first time the Labour Party had explicitly set a socialist goal in its constitution. From this point on, “the British labor movement merged into the mainstream of the European socialist movement.”

直到1918年初，组成英国工党的不过是各个组织严密的工人团体和少数中间阶层的社会主义者，工党年会和议会工党都被庞大的纺织和煤矿工人团体所操控，社会主义者并不起多大作用。随着工人处境的日益困顿和罢工形势的日益严峻，英国的工人运动开始与社会主义相结合。1918年2月，工党年会通过了新党章，其中第四条阐明了该党的最终目标：“在生产资料公有制和对每一工业和事业所能做到的最佳民众管理和监督的基础上，确保体力劳动者或脑力劳动者获得其辛勤劳动的成果和可行的最公平的分配”，这是工党第一次明确在党章中提出具有社会主义性质的目标，从此时起，“英国工人运动才融入欧洲社会主义运动的主流”。

The new party program subsequently adopted by the British Labour Party, *Labour and the New Social Order* (hereinafter “the New Program”), provided an in-depth explanation of the connotation of socialization and its relationship with socialism. The New Program stipulated that nationalization could be realized in two ways: first, by abolishing private capital control and reorganizing enterprises under state ownership according to the principle of public ownership of the means of production and fair distribution of products; second, by nationalizing and municipalizing surplus wealth. The New Program included “public ownership of the means of production” in order to incorporate the Fabian Society’s “municipalization,” but in subsequent concrete argumentation and implementation, it in fact “equated nationalization with socialization.” This shows that at this time the British Labour Party’s understanding of socialization was relatively narrow and rigid: it simply equated socialization with nationalization, viewing it both as a reform measure to promote economic development and as an important means of achieving the socialist goal, and even as the socialist goal itself. This could be expressed in a rough formula: “socialism = socialization = nationalization.”

英国工党随后通过的新党纲《工党与新社会秩序》（以下简称“新党纲”）对社会化的内涵及其与社会主义的关系进行了深入阐释。新党纲规定，国有化可以从两个方面实现：一是废除私人资本控制，按照生产资料公有制和公平分配产品的原则，将企业改组为国家所有；二是对剩余财富进行国有化和地方公营化。新党纲规定“生产资料公有制”是为了纳入费边社的“市政化”，但在后来的具体论证与执行中，实际上是把“国有化等同于社会化”了。这说明，此时英国工党对社会化的理解是相对单一且僵化的：把社会化简单地等同于国有化，既把它看做促进经济发展的改良措施，也看做实现社会主义目标的重要手段，乃至当做社会主义目标本身，甚至可以用不太严谨的公式进行表达：“社会主义=社会化=国有化”。

The New Program evaded another element of the early British Labour Party’s advocacy of socialization—the struggle for industrial management rights. This approach sparked heated debate at the time: supporters argued that this demand could be realized by the trade unions, and that collective bargaining by the unions was also a way for workers to manage enterprises; opponents argued that changes in the ownership of the means of production were not decisive for the realization of economic democracy. Although this economic form could restrict employers and grant the working class certain economic and social rights, it was merely “shop-floor democracy,” not genuine economic democracy, because the economic privileges of capitalists in state-owned enterprises were not abolished. Clearly, the New Program “concealed the demand for economic democracy.” At this time, the British Labour Party narrowed the connotation of socialization to changes at the level of ownership—that is, from capitalist private ownership to socialist public ownership, primarily state ownership. This understanding not only affected the Party’s policy proposals and practices in participating in national political life, but also influenced its understanding of socialism as a guiding ideology, and reflected the basic understanding of socialization among European social democratic parties at the time.

新党纲回避了早期英国工党社会化主张的另一项内容——争取工业管理权。这一做法在当时引起了激烈讨论：支持者认为，这一要求可以由工会来实现，工会的集体谈判也是实现工人管理企业的一种方式；反对者认为，生产资料所有制的改变对于经济民主的实现并不起决定性作用。尽管这种经济形式能够限制企业主并给予工人阶级一定的经济和社会权利，但它只是一种“商店民主”，不是真正的经济民主，因为国有企业中资本家的经济特权并没有被废除。显而易见，新党纲“隐藏了经济民主的要求”。英国工党此时将社会化的内涵窄化为所有制层面的改变，即由资本主义私有制改为社会主义公共所有制，且主要是国有制。这种认知既影响了工党参与国家政治生活的政策主张与实践，也影响了它对社会主义作为指导思想的认识，也反映了当时欧洲社会民主党关于社会化的基本认知。

Despite a certain contraction or regression on the issue of socialization, the 1918 constitution marked the British Labour Party’s establishment of socialism as its guiding ideology and its adoption of the goal of overthrowing the capitalist system and achieving socialism, albeit to be realized through a gradual, permeating Fabian socialist approach. It gave the British Labour Party a distinct and unique ideology for the first time, expanded its room for development, and attracted a large number of talented non-labor figures. After the 1923 parliamentary election, the British Labour Party broke the traditional pattern of alternating Conservative and Liberal governments, won the opportunity to govern for the first time, and entered the ranks of mainstream British political parties.

纵然在社会化问题上有一定收缩或退步，但1918年党章标志着英国工党确立了社会主义的指导思想，提出了颠覆资本主义制度、实现社会主义的目标，不过要通过渐进的、渗透的费边社会主义的方式来实现。它使英国工党第一次有了鲜明独特的意识形态，拓展了其发展空间，吸引了一大批才华横溢的非劳工人士。1923年议会选举后，英国工党打破了保守党、自由党轮流执政的传统格局，首次赢得执政机会，跻身英国主流政党行列。

The brief periods in government between the two world wars placed the British Labour Party in an awkward position on the issue of socialization, especially nationalization. On the one hand, the working class had a very urgent desire for immediate improvement in their living conditions and hoped that the Labour Party, once in power, would implement large-scale nationalization; on the other hand, the Labour Party was powerless and even dared not propose nationalization reforms, because both of its two cabinets were formed with the support of the Liberal Party, and obtaining that support came with conditions—its policies had to be limited to a scope that did not attack the fundamental system of capitalism. Consequently, the British Labour Party’s reflection focused on: how to satisfy the interests of the trade unions and the working class, promote nationalization reforms, and adhere to the socialist goal, while at the same time not threatening the dominance of private capital, so as to avoid creating an uncontrollable situation.

两次世界大战期间短暂的执政使英国工党在社会化尤其是国有化问题上陷入了尴尬。一方面，工人阶级对于立刻改善生活的愿望非常迫切，希望工党上台后可以实施大规模国有化；另一方面，工党无力甚至不敢提出国有化改革，因为它的两次组阁都是在自由党的支持下实现的，而获得后者的支持是有条件的——需要将其政策限制在不攻击资本主义根本制度的范围内。因而英国工党的反思集中于：如何既满足工会和工人阶级的利益，推动国有化改革，坚持社会主义目标；同时又不威胁私人资本的支配权，以免造成失控的局面。

The British Labour Party found that Keynes’s theory of state intervention and Beveridge’s theory of the welfare state seemed to resolve this awkward situation. The government could control or manage the economy by regulating key economic parameters, protect the interests of the working class by guiding capital owners to change their modes of production and operation, guide consumption tendencies through fiscal and tax policies or adjustments to the level of public consumption, and correct certain market failures through policies such as income transfers and social services, which were considered welfare state policies. This could both ease class antagonism and alleviate social injustice, meeting the demands of the working class, while also addressing the problems of inequality and inefficiency that were “chronic ills” of capitalism, without challenging the fundamental system of capitalism. As for the socialist goal, it could be ignored or postponed to the distant future. In this way, the British Labour Party gradually accepted the strategies of economic intervention and the welfare state, treating them as “clumsy patches” for nationalization, and jointly promoting social change in a socialist direction. This flexible attitude in dealing with the dilemma of socialization indicated that the British Labour Party had begun its transition to the stage of democratic socialism.

英国工党发现，凯恩斯的国家干预理论和贝弗里奇的福利国家理论似乎可以解决这种尴尬局面。政府可以通过调控重要的经济参数来控制或管理经济，通过引导资本所有者改变生产经营方式来维护工人阶级的利益，通过财税政策或调整公共消费水平来引导消费倾向，通过收入转移和社会服务等被认为是福利国家的政策来矫正市场的部分失灵。这样既可以缓和阶级对抗、缓解社会不公，满足工人阶级的要求，又可以在不挑战资本主义根本制度的前提下，解决作为资本主义“痼疾”的不平等和无效率问题。至于社会主义的目标，可以弃之不理，或者推迟到遥远的将来来实现。这样，英国工党逐渐接受了经济干预、福利国家策略，并将之作为国有化的“笨拙的修补”，共同推动社会主义方向的社会变革。这种在处理社会化困境上的灵活态度说明英国工党开始向民主社会主义阶段过渡了。

III. The Expanding Labour Party and Socialization as a Means of Achieving Socialism (1945–1979)

三、扩张中的工党与作为实现社会主义手段的社会化（1945—1979年）

In the 1945 British general election, the Labour Party under Clement Attlee won a victory on the strength of a distinctive political platform—the promise of nationalization, full employment, and the welfare state—obtaining an absolute majority in Parliament for the first time. The British Labour Party entered an “expansion period” and began large-scale socialization practices.

在1945年英国议会选举中，艾德礼领导下的工党凭借独特的政治纲领——国有化、充分就业和福利国家的承诺——取得了胜利，第一次在议会中获得绝对多数席位，英国工党进入“扩张期”，开始进行大规模社会化实践。

Nationalization, the welfare state, and economic planning were known as the “three pillars” of the Attlee government’s socialist reforms. In terms of nationalization reform, the British Labour government in a short period brought basic economic sectors such as banking, coal, railways, roads, civil aviation, electricity, and steel under public ownership, and set up specialized state departments to manage state-owned enterprises. By November 1951, the number of employees in British state-owned enterprises reached 2.188 million, and the total share of state-owned assets reached 20%, a proportion that was maintained until the 1980s. The Attlee government established the basic institutional framework of the British welfare state, enabling Britain to form a framework system composed of a social security system, a national health service system, a personal life care system, and numerous other projects, ensuring that every citizen could live a relatively secure life not falling below the national minimum living standard throughout their life. This universalist welfare based on redistribution transcended the means-testing principle in the “Beveridge Plan,” embodying an expanded form of citizenship rights—social rights. T. H. Marshall divided citizenship rights into three types: civil rights, political rights, and social rights. He argued that since social rights are a type of citizenship right, welfare should not stop at eliminating deprivation (eradicating poverty) at the bottom of society, but should change the entire mode of social inequality (establishing universalist welfare based on individual need). This reflected the British Labour Party’s transcendence over the welfare concepts of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. The Attlee government’s economic planning was mainly concentrated on state-owned enterprises, lacking management and planning for the private sector. On this, critics remarked: “Until 1947, he still had not formulated any decent reform plan for the private sector.” In fact, the “three pillars” policies had different political statuses; nationalization was the most fundamental and core policy, while the other two were considered supplementary measures helpful for changing capitalist private ownership and achieving socialism.

国有化、福利国家与经济计划化被称为艾德礼政府社会主义改革的“三大支柱”。在国有化改革方面，英国工党政府短时期内将银行、煤炭、铁路、公路、民用航空、电力、钢铁等基本经济部门收归国有，并设置了专门的国家职能部门来管理国有企业。截至1951年11月，英国国有企业人数达218.8万，国有资产总额占比达到20%，这个比例一直保持到20世纪80年代。艾德礼政府制定了英国福利国家的基本制度框架，使英国形成了一个由社会保障系统、国民医疗保健服务系统、个人生活照料系统及其他众多项目构成的框架体系，以保证每一位国民一生都能过上一种不低于国民最低生活标准的、较为安全的生活。这种基于再分配的普遍主义的福利超越了“贝弗里奇计划”中基于经济情况调查（means-testing）的原则，体现了一种扩大了的公民权利——社会权利。T.H.马歇尔将公民权利划分为三种：民事权利、政治权利和社会权利，认为既然社会权利属于公民权的一种，那么福利就不应停留于消除社会底层的匮乏（消除贫困），而是要改变整个的社会不平等方式（建立基于个人需要的普遍主义福利）。这就体现了英国工党对自由党、保守党福利观念的超越。艾德礼政府的经济计划主要集中于国有企业，缺乏对私营部门的管理和规划，对此人们批评道：“直到1947年，他仍没有制定出任何像样的私有部门改革计划”。事实上，“三大支柱”政策具有不同的政治地位，国有化是最根本、最核心的政策，其他两项被认为是有助于改变资本主义私有制、实现社会主义的补充措施。

However, after the 1950s, the status of the “three pillars” policies began to change: the welfare state and economic planning, previously seen as “clumsy repairs,” gradually replaced nationalization as the policy focus of the British Labour Party. This shift mainly stemmed from setbacks in nationalization practice. Its theorists recognized that: on the one hand, ownership is not an indivisible right that must be held entirely by private individuals or public authorities; a mixed-ownership economy containing both private and public parts could be established. On the other hand, ownership is not that important; it is not the basic element defining the nature of society. What matters is who controls it; the management power over production is a more important right than the ownership of the means of production. Under the influence of revisionists within the party at the time, the British Labour Party began to avoid nationalization, gradually abandoning the method of achieving social change through common ownership.

然而，20世纪50年代后，“三大支柱”政策的地位开始发生改变：此前作为“笨拙的修补”的福利国家、经济计划逐渐取代国有化，成为英国工党的政策重点。这种转变主要源于国有化实践的受挫，其理论家认识到：一方面，所有权并非一种不可分割的权利，并非只能整个地由私人或公共当局来掌握，可以建立一种既包含私有部分又包含公有部分的混合所有制经济；另一方面，所有权并没有那么重要，它不是界定社会属性的基本要素，重要的是归谁控制，生产的管理权是比生产资料的所有权更重要的权利。在当时党内修正主义者的影响下，英国工党开始回避国有化，逐渐放弃通过实现共同所有权来实现社会变革的方式。

However, the success of the welfare state and economic planning also exposed an old problem of European social democratic parties, including the British Labour Party—the disconnection between theory and practice. They formally still adhered to socialization and nationalization, and theoretically still regarded socialism as the “ultimate goal,” but in fact no longer pursued public ownership of the means of production, instead placing greater emphasis on the welfare state and economic planning, which fell outside the traditional category of socialization. Yet the latter made capitalism “more perfect” and “more humane,” which undoubtedly deviated from the goal of socialism. As Gøsta Esping-Andersen said, after World War II, “all left-wing parties in Western Europe faced, in a relatively less extreme form, an increasingly stark contrast between socialist rhetoric and their moderate practice.” To weaken this contrast, the British Labour Party in the 1960s and 1970s avoided socialization and instead played up “modernity,” but this did not carry the significance of highly summarizing the characteristics of the era and did not become the political philosophy defining the Labour Party during this period. “Wilsonism” (a peculiar technocratic reformist ameliorism) and Callaghan’s rightward turn toward monetarism were more like short-term strategies reluctantly adopted by the British Labour Party, lacking theoretical innovation, to maintain governance.

然而，福利国家和经济计划的成功也暴露了包括英国工党在内的欧洲社会民主党的一个老问题——理论与实践的脱节。它们在形式上仍然坚持社会化、国有化，在理论上仍将社会主义作为“最终目标”，但事实上已不再追求生产资料的公共所有，而是更重视非传统社会化范畴的福利国家、经济计划，不过后者却使资本主义“更完善”“更人道”了，这无疑偏离了社会主义的目标。就像戈斯塔·埃斯平-安德森所说的，二战后，“西欧所有左翼政党以一种相对较不极端的形式面临着社会主义修辞与其温和主义实践之间日益强烈的对比”。为了弱化这种对比，20世纪六七十年代的英国工党回避社会化而围绕“现代性”做文章，但它并不具备高度概括时代特征的意义，并未成为这一时期界定工党的政治哲学。“威尔逊主义”（一种特殊的技术统治改良主义）与卡拉汉向右转选择货币主义，更像缺乏理论创新的英国工党为了维持执政而不得已采取的短期策略。

During this historical period, European social democratic parties, represented by the British Labour Party, evolved into people’s parties that believed in democratic socialism. Democratic socialism thoroughly separated the goals of socialism from the means, no longer substituting means for goals: nationalization was only one means of socialization; mixed economy and other public enterprises were also important pathways to socialization, even more effective pathways than nationalization. Socialization was only one means of achieving socialism; economic planning and the welfare state were also effective means of achieving socialist goals, even more effective means than socialization. In democratic socialism, only basic values could be regarded as ends; socialism is a set of value principles, the most important being equal opportunity for everyone, redistribution of wealth and property, etc. The development of mass democratic politics required that the party’s policies target all the people, no longer pointing to the “working class” as a separate group. In terms of policy, it recognized the effectiveness of the market and private ownership, but sought to harmonize individual interests with the public interest through economic democracy, wealth redistribution, protection of labor rights, and democratically determined macroeconomic regulation. In this way, nationalization and even socialization were merely means serving the value goals of socialism; when proven unsuccessful in practice, they could be calmly revised or even abandoned. This fully reflected the reformist essence of democratic socialism.

这一历史时期，以英国工党为代表的欧洲社会民主党演变为信奉民主社会主义的人民党。民主社会主义彻底区分了社会主义的目标与手段，不再用手段代替目标：国有化只是社会化的手段之一，混合经济、其他公有企业也是社会化的重要途径，甚至是比国有化更有效的途径；社会化也只是实现社会主义的手段之一，经济计划、福利国家也是实现社会主义目标的有效手段，甚至是比社会化更有效的手段。在民主社会主义中，只有基本价值才能被看成目的，社会主义是一系列的价值原则，最重要的是每个人的机会平等、财富和财产的再分配等；大众性民主政治的发展要求党的政策要针对全体人民，而不再指向作为单独群体的“工人阶级”；在政策上承认市场、私有制的有效性，但要通过经济民主、财富再分配、保护劳动权利、民主决定的宏观经济调控使个人利益与公共利益相协调。这样一来，国有化乃至社会化就只是服务于社会主义价值目标的手段，当被实践证明不成功时可以坦然修改甚至舍弃它。这充分体现了民主社会主义的改良主义本质。

IV. The British Labour Party in Transition and “De-Socialization” (1980–2010)

四、转型中的英国工党与“去社会化”（1980—2010年）

After the British Labour Party fell into opposition in 1979, the left wing within the party rarely seized power. They attributed the Labour Party’s defeat to the compromises of the right wing, so they proposed a radical socialization reform plan—the “Alternative Economic Strategy”—and sought organizationally to expand the power of the left wing within the party and the trade unions, aiming to “revive socialism” in Britain. This plan, which ignored reality, was doomed to fail. Subsequently, the moderate reformist leaders Neil Kinnock and John Smith worked to reverse the party’s image and heal internal divisions, implementing a series of anti-radical socialization measures. By advocating social ownership, mixed economy, economic democracy, etc., they reinterpreted the British Labour Party’s socialization stance. But this change was carried out without touching the British Labour Party’s fundamental propositions, such as the socialist ideal and the goal of public ownership; they rejected old policies and old means, but did not reject old goals and old principles. Four consecutive electoral defeats made the British Labour Party realize that simply changing its image was not enough; it also needed to fundamentally transform the party. This opened the prelude to the New Labour Party’s “de-socialization.”

1979年英国工党沦为在野党后，党内左派罕见地执掌了权力。它们将工党的失败归咎为右派的妥协，所以提出了一项激进的社会化改革方案——“替代经济战略”，并在组织上力求扩大党内左派和工会的权力，以求在英国“复兴社会主义”。这种罔顾现实的方案注定失败。随后上台的温和改革派领导人尼尔·金诺克、约翰·史密斯致力于扭转党的形象、弥合党内分裂，实施了一系列反激进社会化的措施，通过倡导社会所有制、混合经济、经济民主等，重新诠释英国工党的社会化主张。但这种改变是在不触及英国工党的根本主张，如社会主义理想、公有制目标的前提下进行的，他们拒绝旧政策、旧手段，但不拒绝旧目标、旧原则。连续四次的选举失败使英国工党认识到，单纯改变形象是不够的，还需要从根本上改造党。这就拉开了新工党“去社会化”的序幕。

The core of the “Blair revolution” was to renew the British democratic socialist political tradition, concentratedly reflected in the process of “de-socialization.” Blair went straight for the theoretical forbidden zone that moderate reformers dared not touch, revising Clause IV of the Party Constitution, which stipulated the “aims of the party.” According to the new Clause IV, New Labour still pursued “democratic socialism,” with freedom, justice, solidarity, etc., remaining its value goals; it recognized market principles, advocated promoting “the prosperity of private enterprise,” and sought to “combine the enterprise of the market and the tough discipline of competition with the forces of partnership and cooperation”; it advocated limiting the scope of public ownership and the role of the state, allowing public ownership only in “areas where private enterprise is ineffective and which concern the public interest,” or establishing systems accountable to the public, with a mixed economy as the main form; New Labour was no longer solely the party of the working class and trade unions, but a “party for all the people” aimed at winning elections. These updates were concentrated in New Labour’s political proposition of the “Third Way”: abandoning public ownership while continuing privatization, abandoning Keynesian economic intervention, and reforming the welfare state. These propositions almost completely overturned the “three pillars” of the Labour Party during the democratic socialist period. As historian Eric Shaw summarized, the “Third Way” “freed the Labour Party from its old values and goals, adapting it to existing institutions and modes of thought.” The “Third Way” brought huge political returns; from 1997 to 2007, many of Britain’s economic indicators outperformed those of other EU countries, and the Labour Party won three consecutive general elections, setting a record for the longest continuous period in government. But the costs it brought were also enormous: unclear political objectives, indistinct party characteristics, unstable electoral coalitions, and its effects persist to this day.

“布莱尔革命”的核心就是更新英国民主社会主义政治传统，集中反映为“去社会化”的过程。布莱尔直奔温和改革派不敢触碰的理论禁区，修改规定了“党的目标”的党章第四条。根据新的第四条，新工党依然追求“民主社会主义”，自由、公正、团结等仍是其价值目标；认可市场原则，主张促进“私营企业的繁荣”，将“市场中的企业和严酷的竞争与伙伴关系和合作形成的力量联合起来”；主张限制公有制的范围和国家的作用，只有在“那些私营企业效果不理想且又关乎公共利益的领域”才可以实施公有制，或者建立对公众负责的制度，且应以混合经济为主；新工党不单单是工人阶级和工会的党，而是以赢得选举为目标的“全体人民的党”。这些更新集中体现为新工党“第三条道路”的政治主张：抛弃公有化而延续私有化，抛弃凯恩斯主义经济干预，改革福利国家。这些主张几乎将民主社会主义时期工党的“三大支柱”全部推翻。就像历史学家埃里克·肖总结的，“第三条道路”“使工党摆脱旧有的价值观和目标，适应现存的制度和思想模式”。“第三条道路”带来了巨大的政治回报，1997—2007年，英国多项经济数据均好于欧盟其他国家，工党连续三次赢得大选创造了连续执政的最长纪录。但它带来的代价也是巨大的：政治目标不明确，党派特色不鲜明，选举联盟不稳固，其影响甚至延续至今。

During this period, the British Labour Party became a “catch-all party” pursuing “new” social democracy with the goal of winning elections. This “new” social democracy, on the basis of transcending the political philosophies of the old left and the new right, developed a new radical political agenda, including a “new mixed economy” scheme, a “social investment” welfare state, and an emphasis on “social exclusion” rather than traditional poverty issues. Relatedly, after 1997, British Labour Party policy documents and theoretical articles gradually replaced “democratic socialism” with “social democracy,” aiming “to give the current democratic system a ‘social’ content, rather than seeking to replace (capitalist) democracy or (democratic) capitalism with socialism as a system”; this marked its formal abandonment of systemic replacement, with its socialist goal becoming merely ethical in nature; it signified another transformation of social democracy, another compromise with market values and liberalism. However, this cannot be simply understood as “the neoliberalization of social democracy”; what Blair accepted was not the neoliberalism espoused by new conservatives like Thatcher and Reagan, but the liberalism embraced by the center-left: the former strongly emphasizes individualism, reflecting the liberal philosophies of Locke, Kant, and Mill; the latter focuses on “what society needs to do to make everyone free,” placing greater emphasis on the mutual complementarity and constraints of social relations, reflecting Rawls’s liberal view. In terms of party positioning, the British Labour Party no longer sought to represent only the interests of the working class and lower-middle social strata, but to represent the interests of all social strata, using the political goal of winning elections as the basis for building consensus within the party, rather than achieving this through implementing the party’s platform.

这一时期，英国工党成为追求“新”的社会民主主义的、以赢得选举为目标的“全方位的党”。这种“新”的社会民主主义在超越老左派和新右派政治哲学的基础上，发展出了一种新的激进主义政治议程，包括“新的混合经济”方案、“社会投资型”福利国家、对“社会排斥”而非传统贫困问题的重视等。与此相关的是，1997年以后，英国工党相关政策文件与理论文章逐渐用“社会民主主义”取代了“民主社会主义”，“赋予当前的民主主义制度以‘社会的’内容为目标，而不再企求作为制度的社会主义取代（资本主义的）民主主义或（民主主义的）资本主义”；标志着其正式放弃了制度替代，其社会主义目标仅仅是伦理意义上的；意味着社会民主主义的又一次转型、又一次向市场价值和自由主义妥协。但是，不能将其简单地理解为“社会民主主义的新自由主义化”，布莱尔接受的并不是撒切尔、里根等新保守主义者信奉的新自由主义，而是中左派信奉的自由主义：前者极力强调个人主义，体现了洛克、康德和密尔的自由主义哲学；后者关注“社会需要做什么来使所有人获得自由”，更强调社会关系的相互补充和制约，体现了罗尔斯的自由主义观。在政党定位上，英国工党也不再寻求只代表工人阶级和社会中下层群体的利益，而是代表社会各阶层利益，用赢得选举这一政治目标作为凝聚党内共识的基础，而不是通过践行党的纲领来实现。

Regarding the results of the “new” social democratic program, academia still holds two completely different views to this day. Critics argue that the Labour Party’s governing achievements were offset by its concessions and compromises to liberalism, and that New Labour “achieved nothing in shifting the discourse of British political debate”; supporters, however, emphasize that Britain’s center-right political forces have had to accept the “new” social democratic agenda, and that the right wing of the Conservative Party has had to “bury Thatcher’s legacy,” with no party able to win an election by openly advocating right-wing policies; “redefining the basic tone of British politics” is the most fundamental victory New Labour achieved. In any case, “new” social democracy did compromise with liberalism. In the post-“Third Way” era, to regain voter favor, the British Labour Party faces multiple tasks, including rebuilding its belief system, reshaping radical political programs, and improving the party’s image.

关于“新”的社会民主主义方案的结果，学术界至今仍有两种截然不同的看法。批评者认为，英国工党的执政成绩被它对自由主义的退让和妥协抵消了，新工党在“诱导英国的政治辩论话语发生转变方面毫无建树”；支持者却强调，英国的中右翼政治势力已经不得不接受“新”的社会民主主义议程了，保守党右翼也不得不“掩埋撒切尔留下的遗产”，再也不可能有政党在公开宣称奉行右翼政策的情况下赢得选举，“重新确定了英国政治的基本基调”才是新工党所取得的最根本的胜利果实。无论如何，“新”的社会民主主义确实向自由主义进行了妥协，在后“第三条道路”时代，为了重获选民青睐，英国工党面临着重建信仰体系、重塑激进政治方案、改善政党形象等多方面的任务。

V. The Confused British Labour Party and “Re-socialization” (2010–present)

五、迷茫的英国工党与“重新社会化”（2010年至今）

In 2010, Ed Miliband, a moderate leftist, was elected leader of the British Labour Party. He hoped to correct the identity crisis caused by New Labour’s “de-socialization” and “de-socialistization” through a slight leftward turn, but achieved only modest success. He first embraced the “Blue Labour” proposition—one that rejected public ownership while emphasizing a civic economy, was skeptical of the state while emphasizing virtue, and opposed welfare dependency while emphasizing civic autonomy. This proposition, full of romanticism and radical localism, was quickly replaced by “One Nation Labour.” The latter emphasized both the role of the state and the responsibilities of families and communities, raised the banner of Keynesianism while emphasizing shared prosperity in the era of globalization, and insisted on both universalism in welfare and pluralism in responsibility—a “theoretical hodgepodge” encompassing everything. These overly philosophical, ethical, and inconsistent, short-term policies failed to win over voters or unify party thought; in the 2015 general election, the Labour Party suffered another heavy defeat. Even Miliband’s resignation was considered ill-timed; he was accused of plunging the party prematurely into a leadership struggle, losing time for policy reflection and healing divisions. Whoever became leader, the Labour Party might face a split.

2010年，温和左派的埃德·米利班德当选为英国工党领袖。他希望通过小幅左转来矫正新工党“去社会化”“去社会主义化”后造成的身份危机，但只取得了微小的成功。他首先接受了“蓝色工党”（Blue Labour）的主张——一个拒绝公有制而强调公民经济、怀疑国家而强调美德、反对福利依赖而强调公民自治的主张。这一充满浪漫主义和激进本土主义色彩的主张迅速被“一国工党”（One Nation Labour）所取代。后者既强调国家的作用又强调家庭、社区的责任，既祭出凯恩斯主义大旗又强调全球化时代的共享繁荣，既坚持福利方面的普遍主义又坚持责任多元主义，是个无所不包的“理论大杂烩”。这两个过于哲学化、伦理化且缺乏一致性、长期性的政策既未能征服选民，也未能统一党内思想，在2015年议会选举中，英国工党再度惨败。就连米利班德的引咎辞职都被认为是不合时宜的，他被指责使工党过早地陷入了领导权之争，而失去了反思政策和弥合分裂的时间。无论谁成为领袖，英国工党都可能面临分裂。

Miliband’s most influential reform was perhaps the implementation of a thorough one-person-one-vote system in the election of the party leader, which allowed the radical leftist Jeremy Corbyn to “unexpectedly” seize power within the party. But all contingency is also necessity; the fundamental reason for Corbyn’s victory was his criticism of the British Conservative government in line with public opinion. He criticized the latter’s austerity policies, xenophobia, and hostility to the welfare state, and translated these criticisms into the Labour Party’s policy proposition—“re-socialization.” This proposition was concentratedly reflected in the economic sphere as “economic democratization,” demanding democracy at two levels: “ownership” and “economic decision-making power.” He proposed that the most important way to promote the democratization of ownership was to establish ownership models with genuine representativeness and collectivist nature: in areas with natural monopolies, private enterprises were unwilling and unable to bear huge investment expenditures and risks, requiring public ownership as a “basic system” to maintain; in some inefficient industries, cooperative systems could be implemented; the development of municipal or local enterprises in various regions should be encouraged, and the role of communities should be particularly highlighted. Additionally, Corbyn emphasized the democratization of economic decision-making power, i.e., worker participation in enterprise decision-making and management; in the current era of separation of ownership and management, “democracy of decision-making power” seemed more important than “democracy of ownership.” However, under the influence of the media and political opponents, “re-socialization” was simplistically understood as “nationalization.” In fact, “Corbynism” did not hold that what currently constrains workers is merely certain specific enterprises or capitalists, but a series of interlocking economic production and decision-making systems that unequally distribute increasing amounts of capital and destroy people’s lives and moral character. Corbyn’s interpretation of “economic democracy” reflected new developmental trends and political implications of the traditional issue of socialization.

米利班德最具影响力的改革或许就是在党领袖选举中推行彻底的一人一票制，这使激进左派的杰里米·科尔宾“意外”地掌握了党内权力。但一切的偶然也是必然，科尔宾胜出的根本原因在于其对英国保守党政府作出了符合民意的批评，他批评后者的紧缩政策、排外心理和对福利国家的敌视，并将这些批评转化为英国工党的政策主张——“重新社会化”。这一主张在经济领域集中反映为“经济民主化”，要求在“所有权”和“经济决定权”两个层面实现民主。他提出，推动所有权民主化最重要的途径是建立具有真正代表性和集体主义性质的所有权模式：在存在自然垄断的领域，私营企业不愿也无法承担庞大的投资支出与风险，需要国有制这一“基础性制度”来维系；在一些生产低效的行业可以开展合作社制度；鼓励各地区发展市镇或地方企业，更应突出社区的作用。此外，科尔宾还强调经济决定权的民主化，即工人参与企业决策与管理，在当前所有权与管理权分离的时代，“决定权的民主”似乎比“所有权的民主”更加重要。但是，在媒体和政治对手的渲染下，“重新社会化”被简单地理解为“国有化”了。其实，“科尔宾主义”并不认为当前束缚工人的仅仅是某些具体的企业或资本家、而是一系列错落交织的经济生产与决策体系，它不平等地分配着越来越多的资金，并摧毁着人们的生活和道德品质。科尔宾关于“经济民主”的诠释体现了社会化这一传统议题新的发展趋向与政治寓意。

After Corbyn took the helm, the British Labour Party’s membership doubled, making it the largest party in Europe. Supporters hoped Corbyn could bring change — improving working conditions, restoring public services, challenging capital’s privileges, and even building a left-wing government. The defeat in the 2019 parliamentary election shattered these illusions; the British Conservative Party won by a landslide. Corbyn’s personal factors played a role, but the deeper causes were structural social factors, making the failure of “re-socialization” seem inevitable. First, Corbyn’s program itself was crude and imprecise. In the era of general austerity after the financial crisis, this program failed to offer a convincing answer to the question “where will the money come from?” Instead, it deepened the public impression that the British Labour Party was “wasteful and extravagant.” Second, this program did not transcend the democratic socialist plan of the British Labour Party after World War II. Moreover, it abandoned direct state intervention in the economy, emphasizing effective regulation of the market through legal and tax means. This was in fact an inheritance from Miliband and even from New Labour, reflecting the Labour Party’s lack of theoretical innovation — the state is a role that needs to be redefined, yet left-wing theorists have still not produced a forceful response. Third, Corbyn’s sharp leftward “U-turn” was subversive even among social democratic parties across Europe, let alone the shock it delivered to Britain’s tradition of moderate, gradual politics. Moreover, the two-party system and first-past-the-post electoral system in Britain’s electoral institutions are safety-net systems designed to guard against unexpected political risks. This political culture and these political institutions together constituted the macro-political environment that led to the failure of “re-socialization.” As the British Labour Party made mistakes on the “Brexit” issue and internal party divisions intensified, “Corbynism” was formally brought to an end in April 2020. Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary considered “farthest from Corbynism,” became the new party leader.

科尔宾上台后，英国工党党员人数翻番，成为欧洲第一大党，支持者希望科尔宾能够带来改变——改善工作条件、恢复公共服务、挑战资本特权，甚至建立一个左翼政府。2019年议会选举的失败打破了人们的幻想，英国保守党以压倒性优势获胜。这其中有科尔宾的个人因素，但更多是社会结构性因素，“重新社会化”的失败似乎不可避免。其一，科尔宾的方案本身是粗糙且不严密的，在后金融危机普遍紧缩的年代，这一方案并没有令人信服地回答“资金从何而来”的问题，反而加深了人们对英国工党“铺张浪费”的印象。其二，这一方案并未超越二战后英国工党的民主社会主义计划，而且放弃了国家对经济的直接干预，强调通过法律、税收等手段对市场形成有效监管，这其实是对米利班德甚至是对新工党的继承，反映了工党在理论创新方面的缺乏——国家是一个需要被重新定义的角色，而左派理论家至今仍未作出有力回应。其三，科尔宾的向左“急转弯”在整个欧洲的社会民主党中都是颠覆性的，更别提给具有温和渐进政治传统的英国造成的冲击，而且英国选举制度中的两党制、简单多数制，都是防范意外政治风险的兜底性制度，这种政治文化和政治制度都是导致“重新社会化”遭遇失败的宏观政治环境。随着英国工党在“脱欧”问题上的失误和党内分裂的加剧，“科尔宾主义”在2020年4月正式被画上句号，被认为“离科尔宾主义最远的”影子“脱欧”大臣基尔·斯塔默成为新一任的党领袖。

On issues related to socialization, the center-left Starmer has not proposed any innovative program. He only vaguely emphasizes that socialism should be “rooted in the daily lives of the people” and understood from the perspective of “ethics and morality,” arguing that economic justice, social justice, and environmental justice are the three pathways to achieving social democracy. He focuses on organizationally limiting the power of the radical left within the party, eliminating the influence of “Corbynism,” and reshaping the Labour Party’s image as a catch-all party with a center-left stance. It is no surprise that some commentators have said: “Starmer is more concerned with expelling socialists than with winning power.” In fact, this also reflects the breadth and diversity of the Labour Party’s reflections in the “post-Corbyn era”: divisions persist between the left and right wings of the party, between elites and ordinary members, and between the trade unions and the Parliamentary Labour Party on many issues. Not establishing a clear political line for the time being also facilitates the clash and fusion of different viewpoints. According to current polling data, the Labour Party is likely to “make a comeback” in the 2024 British general election, either governing alone or forming a coalition government with the Green Party and the Liberal Democrats. But in any case, the importance and influence of traditional party competition issues — socialization, state intervention, the welfare state — have declined markedly. Non-traditional issues such as climate, environment, and immigration will become the key points of policy contestation.

在与社会化相关的议题上，中左派的斯塔默并没有提出任何有新意的方案，只笼统地强调应“扎根于人民日常生活”、从“伦理道德”层面理解社会主义，认为经济正义、社会正义与环境正义是实现社会民主主义的三大途径。他聚焦于从组织方面限制党内激进左派的力量，消除“科尔宾主义”的影响，重塑工党中左立场的全民党形象。无外乎有评论认为:“比起赢得权力，斯塔默更关心驱逐社会主义者。”其实，这也反映了“后科尔宾时代”工党反思的广泛与多元：党内左派与右派、精英与普通党员、工会与议会工党之间在很多问题上仍然存在分歧，暂时不确立明确的政治路线也有助于不同观点之间的交锋与融合。根据目前民调数据预测，工党很可能在2024年英国中议会选举“东山再起”，或单独执政，或与绿党、自由民主党组成联合政府。但无论如何，社会化、国家干预、福利国家作为传统政党竞争内容的重要性与影响力显著下降，气候、环境、移民等非传统议题将成为政策角力的关键点。

Even though Corbyn proposed “re-socialization” and “economic democratization,” this did not change the nature of the current British Labour Party’s social democratic ideology. In fact, during this period, the British Labour Party adopted a “conservative” approach to reshaping its own values, emphasizing the protection of tradition, a return to the past, and methods of unity. This was concentrated in its focus on the issue of socialization — that is, nostalgia for and attachment to Keynesianism, the welfare state, and public ownership. As Anthony Giddens said twenty years ago: “Now, conservatism, which has become radical, has encountered socialism, which has become conservative.” What he meant was that when social democracy becomes fixated on tradition, it loses its natural connection with radicalism, and thus loses its consistent progressive stance. This means its capacity to adapt to historical change and control the direction of change is called into question. This is a considerable blow to social democracy as a progressive force. However, this does not mean that social democracy as a political ideal has lost its value; rather, the means and vehicles for realizing these goals have been constrained.

即使科尔宾提出“重新社会化”“经济民主化”，也并未改变当前英国工党社会民主主义思想的性质。其实，这一时期的英国工党采取了一种“保守主义”的方式来重塑自身价值观，强调对传统的保护、对过去的复归和团结的方法，集中体现为对社会化议题的关注，即对凯恩斯主义、对福利国家、对公共所有权的怀旧与留恋。就像20年前安东尼·吉登斯所说的：“现在，已经变得激进的保守主义遇到了已经变得保守的社会主义了。”他想要表达的是，当社会民主主义变得固守传统时，就失去了与激进主义的天然联系，也就失去了其一贯的进步主义立场，也就意味着它适应历史变革与控制变革方向的能力遭到了质疑。这对于作为进步主义力量的社会民主主义来说是不小的打击。但是，这并不意味着社会民主主义作为政治理想失去了价值，而是实现这些目标的手段、载体受到了限制。

In the above process, the relationship between socialization and socialism has also changed. Initially, social democrats regarded socialization — the abolition of capitalist private ownership and the realization of public ownership — as the foundation and goal of socialism, the essential feature distinguishing socialism from capitalism. After World War I, most democratic socialists understood socialization as the main program for a non-revolutionary, non-violent transition from capitalism to socialism. The dominant idea behind various socialization programs at the time was: gradually strip capitalists of part of their power in the economic sphere and transfer enterprise leadership to the workers. After World War II, they largely abandoned replacing private ownership with comprehensive public ownership. The welfare state and Keynesian state management became supplementary programs to the socialization strategy, and later socialization was once again treated as the main program. This meant a compromise by the social democratic parties on the goal of socialism. They no longer sought to institutionally replace capitalism with socialism; socialism became a set of values to be continuously pursued, and the socialist movement became a series of historical processes. This is Bernstein’s revisionist formula: the final goal is nothing, the movement is everything. But people always have to ask: where is your movement or path leading me? The current social democratic parties have no answer. Because they have abandoned the ultimate goal of socialism, the freedom, justice, and solidarity they pursue are so “universal” that almost any social movement can claim to be striving for them. When a party’s political goals are nearly a social consensus, it is hard to say it still represents progress. This is in fact determined by the reformist nature of social democracy: the more capitalism and democracy spread and develop, the more constrained and narrowed its space for reform becomes.

在以上过程中，社会化与社会主义的关系也发生了变化。最初，社会民主主义者把废除资本主义私有制、实现公有制的社会化视为社会主义的基础和目标，是社会主义区别于资本主义的本质特征。一战后，大多数民主社会主义者把社会化理解为不经过革命、非暴力地从资本主义向社会主义过渡的主要方案，当时各种社会化方案的主导思想是：逐步剥夺资本家在经济领域的部分权力，把企业领导权交给工人。二战后，他们基本放弃了用全盘公有制取代私有制，福利国家、凯恩斯主义国家管理成为社会化策略的补充方案，之后又将社会化作为主要方案。这就意味着社会民主党在社会主义目标上的妥协，它不再追求在制度上用社会主义取代资本主义，社会主义就是一系列需要不断追求的价值观念，社会主义运动也就成了一系列历史过程。这就是伯恩施坦的修正主义公式：最终目的是微不足道的，运动就是一切。但人们总要去追问：你的运动或者道路将把我引向何处？目前的社会民主党是没有答案的。因为它放弃了社会主义的最终目标，其所追求的自由、公正、团结是如此“普世”以至于几乎所有社会运动都可以说在为之奋斗。当一个政党的政治目标几乎是社会共识的时候，很难说它仍代表着一种进步。这其实是由社会民主主义的改良主义本质决定的：资本主义和民主越是传播、越是发达，它的改革空间也将越受限、越缩小。

In sum, historically speaking, socialization has tempered social democracy. The workers’ movements of the 19th century made people realize that legal or political equality alone is insufficient to guarantee genuine equality, because new de facto privileges always create social injustice through other means. Private ownership of the means of production is the root cause of these new de facto privileges, so property privileges must be abolished and private ownership eliminated, and this can only be achieved by organizing society. This is the origin of the historical principle and socialization mission of socialist parties. Social democrats, deeply influenced by Bernstein’s revisionism, believed that social transformation should be actively promoted with a realistic orientation, rather than waiting for that day to arrive on its own. Therefore, they understood socialization as a “non-violent transition to socialism,” holding that “the movement is everything.” In the view of social democrats, to achieve this transition, winning power comes first; only then can the bourgeois state and political machinery be relied upon to drive relevant social changes. This socialization program, which was both transcendent and continuous, attracted lower- and middle-class voters, and social democracy thus became a stable force in European political thought and power. Thereafter, social democratic parties sought a balance in the dilemma between adhering to faith and winning power. Socialization, socialism, and social democratic parties have all demonstrated political resilience through this continuous process of revision.

总之，历史地看，社会化淬炼了社会民主主义。19世纪的工人运动使人们认识到，仅仅依靠法律上或政治上的平等还不足以保证人们享受到真正的平等，因为新的实际上的特权总会通过其他方式造成社会不公，生产资料私有制就是造成这种新的实际上的特权的根本原因，所以必须取消财产特权，消灭私有制，而这只有通过将社会组织起来才能实现。这就是社会主义政党的历史原则和社会化使命的由来。深受伯恩施坦修正主义影响的社会民主主义者认为，要积极主动并且着眼现实地推动社会转型，而不能等那一天自己到来，所以他们把社会化理解为“非暴力地向社会主义过渡”，认为“运动就是一切”。在社会民主主义者看来，为了实现这种过渡，赢得权力是第一位的，然后才可以依靠资产阶级国家和政治机器推动相关的社会变革。这种既有超越性又有延续性的社会化方案吸引了中下层选民，社会民主主义进而成为欧洲政治思潮和力量中稳定的一方。此后，社会民主党在坚持信仰还是赢得权力的两难选择中寻找平衡，社会化、社会主义、社会民主党也在这种不断修正中体现着政治韧性。

So, does socialization still have political significance in the contemporary era? In the view of social democrats, the answer is yes. To borrow the words of former Swedish Prime Minister and former Social Democratic Party leader Olof Palme: to a certain extent, socialization, like socialism, “is symbiotic with capitalism; the labor movement is a response to capitalism.” As long as the fundamental contradictions of capitalist society persist, and as long as the tension between market, society, and democracy remains unchanged, socialization will not become an outdated topic.

那么，社会化在当代还有政治意义吗？在社会民主主义者看来，答案是肯定的。借用瑞典前首相、社会民主党前主席奥洛夫·帕尔梅的话：一定程度上，社会化与社会主义一样，“同资本主义是共生的，劳工运动就是对资本主义的一种回应”。只要资本主义社会的基本矛盾依然存在，只要市场、社会和民主的张力关系仍未改变，社会化就不会是个过时的话题。

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心