"What is socialism" in one line

[DecDoom]

I get a lot of people asking me what socialism is, and I can never think of a good way to answer that easily. Most people I talk to aren't looking for a 10 minute explanation.

So how can I sum up socialism in one easy sentence?

[which doctor]

workers democracy

or maybe workers state, but hopefully a workers state would assume a democratic form

Socialism is a difficult word to define, especially given the various countries that have called themselves "socialist" at one point or another in time. Many people believe socialism only means government nationalization of the means of production, which is an idea we should distance ourselves from.

[Wobblie]

Socialism isn't something that can be summed up in one sentence. But you could have a very brief intro paragraph. Something like:

Socialism is about radical democracy. It would give people democratic control over political as well as economic matters, rather than the system we have now that concentrates the control of these areas into the hands of a small group of people at the top of the socio-economic ladder. It means giving you control over your workplace rather than in the hands of some board of trustees, the stock holders, or the bosses who are only interested in profit and not your livelihood. And under socialism people have the right to a job with a living wage, decent housing, health care, education, etc.

But if you need just one sentence, there is the old adage:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution."

[mikelepore]

I usually use this definition:

Socialism means collective ownership, and democratic control by the people, of the factories, farms, mines, mills, and all other industries and services.

[el_chavista]

Socialism is direct democracy (no intermediary representatives) and democracy at the work places (workers' participation in the taking of decisions).

[robbo203]

I get a lot of people asking me what socialism is, and I can never think of a good way to answer that easily. Most people I talk to aren't looking for a 10 minute explanation.

So how can I sum up socialism in one easy sentence?

A moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth based on common ownership and democratic of the means of wealth production

[mykittyhasaboner]

Socialism is the rule of the revolutionary working classes of society, who can only come to power by overthrowing the rule of the bourgeoisie (capitalists), and use their power to abolish exploitation, develop more advanced economic relations, and defend themselves from capitalist reaction-in hope of one day finally defeating them and establishing communism.

It may be a bit of a run on sentence but hey it's as good as many of these replies.

[Muzk]

A (moneyless) (wageless) (stateless)

You're getting something mixed here. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a state, and there will be money until much later

If you think you can get rid of the beaurocracy and change the system over night, you're nice at spitting words, but when it comes down to real politics, you'd fail.

[Bandito]

Don't learn any definition by heart. One is not a Marxist if he/she uses Marxism just as something to help him/her be a smartass in a discussion.

[Zanthorus]

Democratic control by the workers over the means of production.

[robbo203]

You're getting something mixed here. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a state, and there will be money until much later

If you think you can get rid of the beaurocracy and change the system over night, you're nice at spitting words, but when it comes down to real politics, you'd fail.


The dictatorship of the proletariat denotes a state, yes, but who said anything abpout the dictatorship of the proletariat being socialism? Come to that who said anything about changing the system "overnight"? If we are to talk about a transition it will be a transition within capitalism. When we have reached the point when we are ready to get rid of capitalism, when the global movement is strong enough and in a position to do it then, yes , residual capitalism will be got rid of more or simultaneously . I think Marx was substantially correct when he wrote
Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples "all at once" and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm)

He was talking about socialist/communist revolution happening simultaneously in the advanced capitalist countries. Today I think we would have to talk about this happening globally since capitalism is now a global system of production

[cb9's_unity]

The definition's people are giving here may be a little too specific to be historically accurate. We should remember that Owen and Saint-Simon's followers were socialists before Marx was. So while I may be a marxist I don't think the specific marxist version of socialism itself is necessarily the historically correct definition of socialism.

For me socialism is the progressive and egalitarian opposition to capitalism. I think this definition is true to the original socialists as well the scientific socialists who followed.

It would just be easier to state what you believe while recognizing that your a socialist.

[AnthArmo]

An economy that is Democratically run in order to serve the needs of the people.

[cb9's_unity]

An economy that is Democratically run in order to serve the needs of the people.

This comes dangerously close to allowing modern social democrats to call themselves socialists.

To be a socialist you must reject the entire structure of capitalism. If workers don't gain class-consciousness and private property isn't explicitly abolished some amount of 'democracy' could still be used to run the economy. People like Michael Moore are calling for 'democracy in the economy' in a very unsocialistic manner.

[whore]

a society without moralistic bullshit around sex and related issues, resulting in there always being an orgy if you have more than 10 people in a room together.

[Weezer]

Democracy.

[syndicat]

Direct worker management of industries with common ownership of the means of production by the whole society and democratic popular self-governance of society.

[AnthArmo]

This comes dangerously close to allowing modern social democrats to call themselves socialists.

To be a socialist you must reject the entire structure of capitalism. If workers don't gain class-consciousness and private property isn't explicitly abolished some amount of 'democracy' could still be used to run the economy. People like Michael Moore are calling for 'democracy in the economy' in a very unsocialistic manner.

Good point, perhaps adding something like "and the abolition of Private Property" would help?

or maybe just stuff it, mikelepore's one-liner sounds so overwhelmingly sexy I think I might just use it myself.


Socialism means collective ownership, and democratic control by the people, of the factories, farms, mines, mills, and all other industries and services.:tt1:

[Floyce White]

I get a lot of people asking me what socialism is, and I can never think of a good way to answer that easily. Most people I talk to aren't looking for a 10 minute explanation.

So how can I sum up socialism in one easy sentence?


Socialism is a radical (revolutionary), leftist (liberal-oriented) movement of petty proprietors to nationalize the properties of their bigger competitors, which will maximize state ownership and will minimize (not eliminate) private (family) ownership.

As opposed to:

Anarchism is a radical (revolutionary), leftist (liberal-oriented) movement of petty proprietors to disperse the properties of their bigger competitors, which will minimize (not eliminate) state ownership (since the state is always the single biggest owning institution) and will maximize private (family) ownership.

Radical liberalism is a radical (revolutionary), leftist (liberal-oriented) movement of petty proprietors that is not concerned with the ratio of public to private ownership, but solely in reducing ownership by the richest families and in increasing ownership by petty-proprietor families.

Communism is the opposition of the dispossessed, lower (working) class to all manifestations of the property system; communism is not concerned with radical transformation of property relations, but in their immediate abolition.

Liberalism is one of the two competing movements of nonradical capitalism; liberalism seeks small changes to the benefit of competitors of the biggest, ruling proprietors.

Conservatism is one of the two competing movements of nonradical capitalism; conservatism resists changes that would benefit the competitors of the biggest, ruling proprietors.

Radical conservatism is a radical (revolutionary), rightist (conservative-oriented) movement of petty proprietors to increase their property and power by supporting a restoration of power to the biggest proprietors (or resist an imminent loss of power by the biggest proprietors).

The forms of radical rightism (radical conservatism, fascism, religious fundamentalism, and monarchism) differ from each other only in their method.

Forms of radicalism do not differ on the goal, but only have an unprincipled disagreement on the method.

[The Idler]

Power to the people.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

But if you need just one sentence, there is the old adage:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution."
I'd say this, but with needs instead of contribution. Also "their" instead of "his" cos of gender.

[The Vegan Marxist]

A moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth based on common ownership and democratic of the means of wealth production

Actually, I wouldn't consider this to be socialism, but rather the end goal, which is communism. In a socialist economy there is still money, there is still a state, & there are still wages being formed. The only thing that might be present would be the common ownership & democratic of the means of wealth production.

[Ovi]

No bosses.

[Durruti's Ghost]

A moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth based on common ownership and democratic of the means of wealth production

That's communism, which is the highest form of socialism. A society could be socialist and still have money and the state, provided it also had common ownership and democratic control of productive processes.

[ZeroNowhere]

A moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth based on common ownership and democratic of the means of wealth production
Correct, though I prefer Mike's, as it seems more clear, but what was the main purpose of introducing 'wealth' into 'means of production'? I'm not criticizing, just curious.


No bosses.No, one could have capitalism with 'no bosses'. It would still have the same economic laws, and it would still be shite.

Anyhow, a rather long sentence, but a pretty good one:

If co-operative production is not to remain a sham and a snare; if it is to supersede the capitalist system; if united co-operative societies are to regulate national production upon common plan, thus taking it under their own control, and putting an end to the constant anarchy and periodical convulsions which are the fatality of capitalist production – what else, gentlemen, would it be but communism, “possible” communism?


A society could be socialist and still have money and the state, provided it also had common ownership and democratic control of productive processes.Money presupposes exchange-value, which is the form of expression of value.

[revolution inaction]

I'd say this, but with needs instead of contribution. Also "their" instead of "his" cos of gender.

i prefer "from each according to ability, to each according to need"

[ZeroNowhere]

I wouldn't define socialism by a mode of distribution at all.

[robbo203]

That's communism, which is the highest form of socialism. A society could be socialist and still have money and the state, provided it also had common ownership and democratic control of productive processes.


Money implies exchange and exchange implies the sectional or private ownership (if I exchange my apple for your orange we are really exchanging property title to these things). Therefore money is incompatible with common ownership and hence socialism

[revolution inaction]

I wouldn't define socialism by a mode of distribution at all.

nor would i, but i think "from each according to ability, to each according to need" is better and more realistic than "from each according to ability, to each according to contribution"

If i was defining socialism i'd say something about direct workers control of the means of production.

[syndicat]

Mike Lepore:

Socialism means collective ownership, and democratic control by the people, of the factories, farms, mines, mills, and all other industries and services.

But the working class could still be subordinate to some dominating class with this principle being satisfied. Consider that people think there can be "democratic states". States have a hierarchical control bureaucracy, which is a class to which workers are subodinate.

The emancipation of the working class from domination and exploitation has to have been achieved for genuine socialism to exist. Or to put it another way, there can't still be a class system.

Of course, if we're trying to capture how "socialism" is used by people in general, well, then all bets are off. It might end up being something like "the state runs everything."

[Durruti's Ghost]

Money implies exchange and exchange implies the sectional or private ownership (if I exchange my apple for your orange we are really exchanging property title to these things). Therefore money is incompatible with common ownership and hence socialism

I would agree if this quote ended with the word "communism" and not "socialism". You don't seem to draw a distinction between the two; I do.

[mikelepore]

Socialism means collective ownership, and democratic control by the people, of the factories, farms, mines, mills, and all other industries and services.

But the working class could still be subordinate to some dominating class with this principle being satisfied. Consider that people think there can be "democratic states". States have a hierarchical control bureaucracy, which is a class to which workers are subodinate.

The emancipation of the working class from domination and exploitation has to have been achieved for genuine socialism to exist. Or to put it another way, there can't still be a class system.

Of course, if we're trying to capture how "socialism" is used by people in general, well, then all bets are off. It might end up being something like "the state runs everything."

If we want to emphasize the classless character, I would suggest modifying my version to say "Socialism means a classless society based on collective ownership......", etc., etc.

However, I recommend not using any definition that specifies in any detail how the system is run. I say that because how each of us thinks it should be run is the subject of our personal preferences and not part of the definition.

I feel that to say "democratic" is fundamental, and no system would deserve the name socialism at all if it isn't democratic. When that democratic system is finally achieved, the people will determine how it will be run. What structure they will then choose will not be the condition for democracy, but what they will be using the democracy for. The democracy is in the processing of choosing itself, not in the specific choices.

I have several systematic preferences that are so strong that I often argue that socialism can't function unless it does certain things or has certain features; however, in writing a definition of socialism, I am suppressing these preferences of mine. Even if I'm right and certain features are essential, they aren't part of the definition.

[syndicat]

yeah, well, for me direct worker management of production is an essential feature of anything worthy of being called socialism. without that workers are subordinate to some dominating and exploiting class...and that ain't authentic socialism.

[ZeroNowhere]

But the working class could still be subordinate to some dominating class with this principle being satisfied. Consider that people think there can be "democratic states". States have a hierarchical control bureaucracy, which is a class to which workers are subodinate.
I'm fairly sure that if a 'hierarchical control bureaucracy' (which can't be democratic by virtue of being, well, a bureaucracy) perpetuated wage labour and such, then that's not quite collective ownership and democratic control. Of course, it does to some extent depend on what one means by 'collective ownership', but if this means that labour is directly social, and not private, then it's incompatible with capitalism.

[mikelepore]

yeah, well, for me direct worker management of production is an essential feature of anything worthy of being called socialism. without that workers are subordinate to some dominating and exploiting class...and that ain't authentic socialism.

The workers might find out that managing everything directly requires the workers to sit in meetings for thirty hours a day, and there isn't enough time. I believe the workers will manage a certain amount directly, and find it necessary to manage the rest indirectly, that is, to delegate responsibilities to elected committees.

There are also issues where it's debatable whether there should be worker control or public control. Who should have the power to vote to discontinue the use of a dangerous style of baby carriage, the entire population or the baby carriage manufacturing workers? Anticipating the need for many forms of of public control rather than worker control, I prefer to say "democratic control by the people."

[syndicat]

The workers might find out that managing everything directly requires the workers to sit in meetings for thirty hours a day, and there isn't enough time. I believe the workers will manage a certain amount directly, and find it necessary to manage the rest indirectly, that is, to delegate responsibilities to elected committees.

There are also issues where it's debatable whether there should be worker control or public control. Who should have the power to vote to discontinue the use of a dangerous style of baby carriage, the entire population or the baby carriage manufacturing workers? Anticipating the need for many forms of of public control rather than worker control, I prefer to say "democratic control by the people."

This is a bad argument, tho. The principle of self-management, from which the justification for collective democratic control is justified, doesn't say everyone should make every decision. That's because some people are more affected by some decisions than others. Self-management means that those mainly affected by a decision, or governed by it, should have an equal say in making it. There is a large sphere of decisions about the operation of workplaces that mainly affect the people who work there. Your sophistical argument could be used to set up some class of bosses, supposedly in the public interest, to control and manage them. That would mean a continuation of class domination and exploitation.

Altho there are many decisions about workplaces that mainly affect the people working there, there are some decisions that affect others...such as pollution or the quality of the product or what is produced. This implies that there also need to be institutions of community self-management which can decide about proposals to reduce or eliminate adverse enviro effects. It also implies that communities and individuals who consume products and services need to have a say over the decisions about the plans about what is to be produced. Our town's decision to request production of several health clinics makes sense as a decision that we, the residents of the town, control because it primarily affects us. But it doesn't follow that we need to set up some group of bosses to control the work of the workers building the clinics.

Although workers self-management of industries does presuppose control by general meetings, it does not require that all decisions by made in meetings. Some decisions may only affect one person...and that person can make that decision. Tasks can be delegated for various purposes.

[Raúl Duke]

Socialism: egalitarian (mostly politically, with communism we achieve total economic egalitarianism; although control of production by workers will be in place under socialism) workers' democracy.

[FSL]

The principle of self-management, from which the justification for collective democratic control is justified, doesn't say everyone should make every decision. That's because some people are more affected by some decisions than others. Self-management means that those mainly affected by a decision, or governed by it, should have an equal say in making it.


In this self-management at what level is the plan of production made? Is there a plan encompassing the whole of the economy or not?

[syndicat]

Yes. But you have to consider that different elements of the plan need to be developed by different groups, and over larger or smaller scope. For example, something that affects an entire region like the railway and electric power systems, it makes sense to have the proposals for that wend their way to some regional congress from the base.

But in regard to how the plan as a whole is put together, it's best to think of this as being due to some process of adjustment or negotiation between various groups...worker groups managing industries, assemblies and community congresses for what they want for public goods, etc. Workers propose to do various things, the community bodies may request something different, and there is a back and forth interaction.

This is the idea of participatory planning, which does eventuate in a social plan. It's just that there is not one single body, such as a national congress to make it, because not all the component decisions affect everybody the same.

[desperadoy]

Power to the masses.

[mikelepore]

To Syndicat:

I argue against a system of back-and-forth interaction between worker groups and the general community to make decisions. I support a strict form of appelate jurisdiction. By default, the workers should manage all workplace matters until such time that the general public overrides a workers' decision. If the general public takes an affirmative step to declare that something other than the workers' choice is more convenient, more heathy, more ethical or more aesthetic, that decision should be a higher power than workers' self-management.

The statement that decisions should be made by whomever is "affected by" them is too ambiguous to be applicable, and would make it necessary to have a huge system of courts that spends all their time deciding which is most affected by everything. Every action affects anyone who has a strong preference about it. As soon as the general public believes that some prior direction is wasteful, unethical, etc., that establishes the general public as the affected party.

Advancing technology and the borderless global society increases the need for frequently placing public control above workers' control. For example, new ethical debates arise out of new science. The biotech workers may have the technical ability to clone monster babies, but the whole population must not leave the ethical decisions up to the biotech workers.

The purpose of this forum topic is to consider a one-line definition of socialism. My lengthy remarks go to explain why I assert that the phrase "democratic control by the people" is better than saying "democratic control by the workers."

[syndicat]

The statement that decisions should be made by whomever is "affected by" them is too ambiguous to be applicable, and would make it necessary to have a huge system of courts that spends all their time deciding which is most affected by everything. Every action affects anyone who has a strong preference about it. As soon as the general public believes that some prior direction is wasteful, unethical, etc., that establishes the general public as the affected party.


There is a distinction between decisions that govern someone's activity and decisions that affect someone only because of their preferences in regard to what other people are doing. But, yes, it is a vague principle to some extent. And ultimately the entire population has to decide where the boundary lines are even to establish a social arrangement. Once such boundary lines of authority of different decision-making bodies are established, however, I don't see why there would be a need for constant judicial intervention.

Irrespective of what someone may argue in public debates, there is clearly a large realm of decisions that mainly do affect and govern the activities of people in work, and thus there needs to be a substantial realm of worker management. Without this, the class system will continue.

Any system in which political structure is dominant and worker management is subordinate has the danger of leading to the re-imposition of a class system and exploitation through workers being subordinated to a bureaucratic structure of hierarchical control.

[LeninistKing]

In plain words, i think that socialism is this: It is a system in which all corporations are owned by workers thru the administration system of workers-ownership and at the same time the nation is ruled by workers. So socialism requires for 100% of the businesses of that country to be owned by their own workers who work in those corporations, and on the political government side, the workers would have to be the President, vice-president, ministers and congressmembers

.



workers democracy

or maybe workers state, but hopefully a workers state would assume a democratic form

Socialism is a difficult word to define, especially given the various countries that have called themselves "socialist" at one point or another in time. Many people believe socialism only means government nationalization of the means of production, which is an idea we should distance ourselves from.

[Left-Reasoning]

Socialism is the claim that labor should be put in possession of its own.

[JAH23]

Socialism is a society where everyone participates and makes decisions which benefit the good of humanity.

[ls]

Socialism in one sentence, sounds like a new policy. :tt2: What robbo said is almost right.

"A .. commonwealth based on common ownership and democratic means of wealth production."

Should suffice.

[Tatarin]

No, no, no and no. You're all talking economics and politics. No one will listen to that. You have to speak today's language: "Socialism is playing World of Warcraft, for free."

[Comrade Anarchist]

a system under which everybody is enslaved to everybody

[gorillafuck]

a system under which everybody is enslaved to everybody
You can go on and on about how you are opposed to collectivism and capitalism, but I haven't ever seen you explain one actual thing about your "egoist communism".

[robbo203]

I would agree if this quote ended with the word "communism" and not "socialism". You don't seem to draw a distinction between the two; I do.

No I dont. But hey - whats in a word? I go along with the pre-leninist definition of socialism as a synonym of communism. I would also contend that your "socialism" (Im not suggesting that you actually advocate it) insofar as it does not have common ownership is neccesarily a class society and thereore almost certainly a variant of capitalism - probably state capitalism. I see absolutely no merit in this "socialism". It doesnt lead, and hasnt led, to what I call socialism (aka communism) in any way. Its only effect has been to shore up capitalism

[ls]

No I dont. But hey - whats in a word? I go along with the pre-leninist definition of socialism as a synonym of communism. I would also contend that your "socialism" (Im not suggesting that you actually advocate it) insofar as it does not have common ownership is neccesarily a class society and thereore almost certainly a variant of capitalism - probably state capitalism. I see absolutely no merit in this "socialism". It doesnt lead, and hasnt led, to what I call socialism (aka communism) in any way. Its only effect has been to shore up capitalism

Do you consider anything to be socialist? Even the Paris Commune? Anything at all?

Do you honestly think money can be completely abolished, then replaced with a gift economy overnight? If not, do you think that using labour vouchers is actually "communism", because I don't. If you don't draw a line between a lower and higher stage, then you are either advocating permanent socialism or immediate communism, both of which are wrong in my view.

[Misanthrope]

Socialism is workers ownership of the means of production.

[Floyce White]

Socialism is workers ownership of the means of production.

If there is ownership, there is the property system, and there cannot be the absence of property. The presence of forms of ownership is proof of the lack of advancement of the workers' cause. Rather, it is proof of the advancement of the cause of some faction of the bourgeoisie.

State ownership under the socialist form of capitalism is no more "workers' ownership" than is state ownership under the alternating liberal/conservative form of capitalism.