Basic requirements of socialism

[SeaSpeck]

What are the basic requirements to call something socialist? Because having the state run the major means of production and having an economy based on worker's councils are two totally different things. But, as far as I know, they can both be called socialist.

[AK]

What are the basic requirements to call something socialist? Because having the state run the major means of production and having an economy based on worker's councils are two totally different things. But, as far as I know, they can both be called socialist.
IMO, state-ownership is shitty - but it's better than private ownership. Many on the boards define socialism as the democratic control of economy and the state. Ideally, socialism should have direct democracy as an integral part - remembering that socialism is not only the transition from capitalism to communism but the very early days of socialism will ultimately shape the future of socialism and communism.

[Q]

I'll quote Friedrich Engels from The Principles of Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm) to give an idea of the material grounds for socialism.


Second: That big industry, and the limitless expansion of production which it makes possible, bring within the range of feasibility a social order in which so much is produced that every member of society will be in a position to exercise and develop all his powers and faculties in complete freedom.


So long as it is not possible to produce so much that there is enough for all, with more left over for expanding the social capital and extending the forces of production – so long as this is not possible, there must always be a ruling class directing the use of society’s productive forces, and a poor, oppressed class. How these classes are constituted depends on the stage of development.

This of course has implications for how society is run. Especially Marx's adagium that the liberation of the working class can only be the work of itself, presupposes a fight for the most radical democracy possible.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Before socialism, we must first gain democracy.

[Red Commissar]

Socialism is can be seen as an democratic means of managing the economy if you want to simplify it.

The approach over how to implement it is what causes problems between different camps of socialists. Those who favor nationalization and other forms of state control will typically argue that their government is formed by and works for the people, has the potential to better allocate resources and better respond to changes in the economy.

Those who favor more decentralized forms usually do so because they feel that capital and the means of production should not be too heavily concentrated all in one source. They feel that the state controlling such a thing would just result in creating the same conditions they say socialism should prevent.

Again, what approach is taken is largely dependent on what view/tendency you adhere to.

Now say one wants to regulate capitalism. While they think they might be pursuing a progressive goal, it is still capitalism. They are merely bringing it inline with what they feel is a greater good or national goal.

Personally, I'd say what we are ultimately looking at is whether the means of production are commonly owned between the people of a community, and what people are getting out of the process is proportional to the labor they contribute to the system. Where we have private ownership of means of production, it is possible for one person or a handful to maneuver themselves into owning means of production and doing little actual work themselves while reaping a disproportionately large profit. Over time it will be possible for larger such groups to accumulate and amass capital.

People need to realize there is a problem and the system is inherently favorable towards those who control the capital, to get beyond the delusion that capitalism benefits those who work hard, and that the solution lies with them rather than the ruling class. They must bring themselves out of the capitalist wilderness and not rely on a figurehead that might lead them right back into capitalism.

But again, how to bring about socialism comes back to your personal views.

[Comrade Akai]

I know this thread is still new, but I'm still surprised that nobody mentioned massive public support yet.

[AK]

I know this thread is still new, but I'm still surprised that nobody mentioned massive public support yet.
A revolution requires that. Not only support but participation.

[flobdob]

I think this is an important question, and goes down to the roots of where you stand and assess situations both in the present day and the past.

To me, however, socialism is a form of society where both base and superstructure are in the hands of the working class. This means that the state is a representative of the working class (led by a vanguard presumably but of course there's always other ways of working the specifics), and the workers interact in the organisation of their economy to establish a planned economy. The working class and the interests of the working class play the dominant role in social life, and are popularly involved in the revolution, supporting their own liberation.

[mikelepore]

To those who already said democratic control by the workers, I would suggest this addition. Socialism cannot be composed of separate companies that have to buy their materials with funds obtained by selling products. That kind of system would be capitalism, based on a competitive market, even if the separate companies were owned and controlled by groups of workers. Socialism must have all of the products going into one pot, and all of the industries supplied with their materials out of that common source.

[Comrade Akai]

A revolution requires that. Not only support but participation.

Yes, exactly. People's War ftw?


I don't think we can achieve socialism through the so-called "democratic" corporate-owned electoral process.

[AK]

To those who already said democratic control by the workers, I would suggest this addition. Socialism cannot be composed of separate companies that have to buy their materials with funds obtained by selling products. That kind of system would be capitalism, based on a competitive market, even if the separate companies were owned and controlled by groups of workers. Socialism must have all of the products going into one pot, and all of the industries supplied with their materials out of that common source.
I'm confused as to what you support, then. Do you support democratic workers' control of the economy or not :confused:

[AK]

I don't think we can achieve socialism through the so-called "democratic" corporate-owned electoral process.
Agreed. What I originally thought you were talking about in the previous post was that only during socialism would the issue of massive public support need to be addressed. I then realised that this is stupid as revolution and it's establishment of socialism itself requires massive public support. For any revolution to work, there needs to be massive public support.

[ZeroNowhere]

I'm confused as to what you support, then. Do you support democratic workers' control of the economy or not :confused:
Well, 1 + 1 = 2, rather than 1. All that seemed to have been said was that a mutualist society, for example, is still a capitalist one, rather than a communist (aka. socialist) society, despite worker-owned factories.


A system of commercial exchange between free and autonomous enterprises such as might be supported by cooperators, syndicalists, libertarians, has no historical possibility nor any socialist character. It is even a step backward compared with numerous sectors already organised on a general scale in the bourgeois epoch, as required by technology and the complexity of social life. Socialism, or communism, means that the whole of society is a single association of producers and consumers.-Amadeo Bordiga.

[Tablo]

Democratic control of the economy and the workplace.

So that means no state to ever have claimed to be socialist actually was. :cool:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Socialism, in it's most basic and vague sense, is the emancipation of the working class from poverty, squalor, destitution and disease.

There will always be a variation, due to the particular political, social, economic and cultural contexts, of implementation between countries, nations and continents, so it is quite difficult, and in some cases pointless to establish an across-the-board benchmark.

So i'll personally speak for the part of the world where I live, what I would consitute as a basically Socialist, albeit imperfect, society:

Replacement of the dictatorship of Capital with a mix of Co-operative, worker-owned/controlled factors, shops and other outlets.

Assemblies at national, regional and local town levels, annually elected, to replace the centralised quasi-democratic institution that we call Parliament.

The former being the most basic economic demand, and the latter the most basic political demand. That is not Socialism defined, but it is a step towards Socialism. I thought that might be more enlightening than listing off the usual Socialist demands.

[Q]

While I of course completely agree that socialism needs democracy, the two are not the same of course. Socialism/communism is a form of economic order, as I showed in my previous post with the citations of Engels. To achieve this we need to first win the battle of democracy, bringing to power the working class. Without complete democracy, there can be no socialism/communism, as the USSR showed for example.

[AK]

While I of course completely agree that socialism needs democracy, the two are not the same of course. Socialism/communism is a form of economic order, as I showed in my previous post with the citations of Engels. To achieve this we need to first win the battle of democracy, bringing to power the working class. Without complete democracy, there can be no socialism/communism, as the USSR showed for example.
Seriously, what is this battle of democracy crap? The proletariat wins democracy after it wins the revolution.

[RATM-Eubie]

Democratic control by the people.
There is no need fore a violent revolution unless absolutely needed

[AK]

Democratic control by the people.
There is no need fore a violent revolution unless absolutely needed
Which it unfortunately almost certainly will be.

[mikelepore]

I'm confused as to what you support, then. Do you support democratic workers' control of the economy or not :confused:

Yes, of course. My comment was that a classless society shouldn't be composed of distinct companies controlled by workers, "cooperatives" or "communes" or whatever people variously call them, which would be required to negotiate trade with each other. Instead, I agree with the suggestion near the end of Marx's pamphlet _Critique of the Gotha Program_. Out of the inventory of all of society's products, there would be direct allocation of the materials needed to operate all the industries and services. Then what remains in society's inventory of all products is for use by individuals.

[Q]

Seriously, what is this battle of democracy crap? The proletariat wins democracy after it wins the revolution.

The two are closely interlinked. Taking the battle for democracy out of the revolutionary struggle and you either fall back into ultra-leftist tactics and strategy or economistic formulas. Either way, you will fail to organise the working class as a class in its own right.