Varying definitions of "Socialism"

[False Consciousness]

Hello all, I'm not sure if this should be in history instead, as the definitions of socialism has certainly changed throughout time, but I figured this'd be as good a place as any.

I'm wondering how and why there seems to be so many definitions of socialism floating around out there, as well as if there's one single definition most people can agree on.

There seems to be one which is something along the lines of "worker's democratic control of the means of production,"

One in which production is socialized or under control of a state rather than a private company,

One in which a society is only socialist if the monetary system has been abolished, and I'm sure countless others I'm forgetting.

Also, I just thought of a sort of side question, is a worker's state (degenderated or otherwise), as I've heard Leninists and Trotskyist say, considered socialist? Or simply the dictatorship of the proletariat?

Thank you!

[Q]

I think the article The phases of communism (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004099) was quite helpful in this regard as it engages with the confusion that is surrounding the subject. A must read.

As for the definition: Socialism is the moment the working class seizes power until the beginning of communism, it emerges from capitalist society but also has characteristics of the new communist order. This is how Marx used the term (although he used "the lower phase of communism" instead). So, was the Russian revolution socialist or the Paris Commune? Yes. But it was aborted very early in its development, either by bloodshed (in Paris) or by counterrevolution (in Russia).

The dictorship of the proletariat that you mention is a specific form of state expressing working class rule. The dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism are closely interlinked, they are not separate stages.

Welcome :)

[Zanthorus]

As for the definition: Socialism is the moment the working class seizes power until the beginning of communism, it emerges from capitalist society but also has characteristics of the new communist order. This is how Marx used the term (although he used "the lower phase of communism" instead).

No it isn't, and I believe Conrad was duely hammered on this point by an article a few weeks later, although I've forgotten which one it was. Marx uses 'socialism' interchangeably with 'communism' to refer to the society in which there is no state or classes in the Marxian sense, except in the Manifesto where 'socialism' refers to various breeds of political ideology who want to reform capitalism in some way but not abolish it. The 'lower phase' of communism is precisely what it says on the tin, a phase of communism.


So, was the Russian revolution socialist or the Paris Commune? Yes.

This would certainly make sense according to your interpretation of Marx, however he himself was quite clear on the latter subject that "the majority of the Commune was in no sense socialist, nor could it be."

[Q]

No it isn't, and I believe Conrad was duely hammered on this point by an article a few weeks later, although I've forgotten which one it was. Marx uses 'socialism' interchangeably with 'communism' to refer to the society in which there is no state or classes in the Marxian sense, except in the Manifesto where 'socialism' refers to various breeds of political ideology who want to reform capitalism in some way but not abolish it. The 'lower phase' of communism is precisely what it says on the tin, a phase of communism.
Yes, as the article points out, the use of "socialism" equalled to "lower phase of communism" came later, with the Second International, which Lenin adopted as well. I'm using this variety of the word and so is, I believe, Conrad in the particular article. I can't quite remember him being hammered on it though.


This would certainly make sense according to your interpretation of Marx, however he himself was quite clear on the latter subject that "the majority of the Commune was in no sense socialist, nor could it be."
Do you have some reference for me to read? I'd be interested.

[Ocean Seal]

General Definition: Means of production collectively owned
Left-Communist definition: Means of production collectively owned and operated by the workers democratically
Social Democrat Definition: Capitalism + welfare state characteristics and some parliamentary government ownership of the means of production

If I got anything wrong please correct me guys.

[Zanthorus]

Yes, as the article points out, the use of "socialism" equalled to "lower phase of communism" came later, with the Second International, which Lenin adopted as well.

Apologies, but you did explicitly claim that this was Marx's usage.


Do you have some reference for me to read? I'd be interested.

On what? That the Commune wasn't socialist? That should be fairly evident from the fact that they didn't even seize the bank. That Marx didn't understand Socialism in the same way that Conrad does? Chattopadhyay covers it in his article on Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme (Skip to the last paragraph which goes over the difference between Lenin and Marx on the definition of socialism. I should probably note that I find his interpretation of Marx on the state somewhat dubious though):

http://marxmyths.org/paresh-chattopadhyay/article.htm

[Gorilla]

No it isn't, and I believe Conrad was duely hammered on this point by an article a few weeks later, although I've forgotten which one it was.

Big gratitude to anyone who posts a link to it.

[Q]

Apologies, but you did explicitly claim that this was Marx's usage.
Yes, I was a little cryptic in my formulation apparently.


On what?

The use of quotation marks implied you quoted a bit of Marx on the Paris Commune. I was wondering about this quote and its context.

[syndicat]

i don't give a shit about those other defintions. nothing is worthy of being called "socialism" if it isn't the workers directly running production and directly making the decisions about how their society should be run.

[ZeroNowhere]

The use of quotation marks implied you quoted a bit of Marx on the Paris Commune. I was wondering about this quote and its context.That would be from Marx's letter (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/letters/81_02_22.htm) to Domela Nieuwenhuis.


Marx uses 'socialism' interchangeably with 'communism' to refer to the society in which there is no state or classes in the Marxian sense, except in the Manifesto where 'socialism' refers to various breeds of political ideology who want to reform capitalism in some way but not abolish it.The other exception is the 1844 manuscripts, and to some degree also 'The German Ideology' where 'communism' is simply the movement negating capitalism ("We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things"), whereas the actual society set up is called 'socialism'. Communism has no existence independent of capitalism, being only the negation of this, and ceases to be as soon as capitalism ends and socialism is established. Or, to borrow Marx's terminology, communism is the position as negation of the negation, but not yet the self-supporting positive.

Funnily enough, when Marx actually did distinguish between 'communism' and 'socialism', it was essentially the opposite of the division later attributed to him.

[Savage]

nothing is worthy of being called "socialism" if it isn't the workers directly running production and directly making the decisions about how their society should be run.
Nothing is worthy of being called socialism if workers exist :D

[ZeroNowhere]

Nothing is worthy of being called socialism if workers exist :DClearly this is the real reason for the purges.

But no, a society may be perfectly worthy of being called socialist if workers exist.

[Savage]

But no, a society may be perfectly worthy of being called socialist if workers exist.
How so?

[Q]

How so?

Because socialism (in its "modern" use, Zant ;) ) is the transition from capitalism to communism, class society still exists and the class struggle still continues, be it under very different circumstances.

Marx explains (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm) how the “bourgeois” form of inequality continues under the “first phase of communism”; ie, you receive back from society according to what labour you contribute. Such “defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth-pangs from capitalist society”, admits Marx. Only in the “higher phase of communist society”, after the “enslaving” subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and with that also the “antithesis between mental and physical labour”, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the cultural level of the population has been qualitatively raised - only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”.

[hatzel]

Through a strange coincidence, I've spent the morning reading, again and again, that "Socialism is the tendency of will of unified men to create something new for the sake of an ideal"...something tells me that's not quite specific enough a definition for this thread, though :lol:

[ZeroNowhere]

How so?Because socialism consists in "socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature". Producers, you know.

Of course, it may well be that you meant 'workers' to refer to proletarians, which would be a rather idiosyncratic usage. In that case, yes, the working class ceases to exist in socialism. However, that would not be what syndicat was talking about.


Because socialism (in its "modern" use, Zant ) is the transition from capitalism to communism, class society still exists and the class struggle still continues, be it under very different circumstances.I will accept this as a part of the 'modern use', but only because the modern use is incoherent. The initial phase of communist society does not feature class.

[Q]

The initial phase of communist society does not feature class.

So, you believe there are three phases too? Be it in the form of a transition, a lower phase and a higher phase of communism? If so, why do you make this difference?

[Rss]

General Definition: Means of production collectively owned
Left-Communist definition: Means of production collectively owned and operated by the workers democratically
Social Democrat Definition: Capitalism + welfare state characteristics and some parliamentary government ownership of the means of production

If I got anything wrong please correct me guys.

American mainstream definition: Da Big Gub'ment jackbooted thugs

[syndicat]

Nothing is worthy of being called socialism if workers exist

if there is still work being done the people doing it are "workers".

there may not be a "working class" as such because the class system has been demolished.

[The Idler]

The establishment of a system of a classless, stateless, wageless, moneyless society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.

[Savage]

Of course, it may well be that you meant 'workers' to refer to proletarians, which would be a rather idiosyncratic usage. In that case, yes, the working class ceases to exist in socialism. However, that would not be what syndicat was talking about.

Well, yes, I was referring to 'workers' explicitly as members of the working class, so I apologize (mind you, I only used the term as such because it's done so often around here). Syndicat probably wasn't refering to a transitional society in his comment, but just in case he was I thought that it was appropriate to point out a mistake.


if there is still work being done the people doing it are "workers". there may not be a "working class" as such because the class system has been demolished.

Sorry, I thought that you were referring to a society in which classes still exist.

[False Consciousness]

Yikes....though I guess I expected as much. It still seems that there are multiple definitions of the word, and people can't seem to come to an agreement. Though a lot of the references cited and points made have really help me understand the varied definitions. Thank you, comrades! :lol: