WHAT IS SOCIALISM? - An Attempt At A Definition

[redstar2000]

This is the other piece that I wrote while the Che-Lives Board was down...again with the idea of having a ready response when people new to the board and to the left raise the question.
-------------------------------------


This is a far more complicated matter than defining communism...because the word has been used by so many different groups and individuals to mean so many different things. I will attempt to define the word coherently, and you shall judge whether what I have to say "makes sense"...or not.

Socialism is a form of class society in which all or at least all of the important means of production are owned and managed by a "central public authority" or state. The people that control the state make up the "ruling class" of such a society.

In such a society, goods and services may be produced for use (freely distributed to the population) or as commodities for sale in a market. Most if not all labor is wage-labor, and surplus-value may or may not be extracted from workers. That's another way of saying that state-owned enterprises may be operated to generate a "profit" or not. The circulation and use of currency (money) prevails. Differences in standards-of-living are normally far less than that which prevails under capitalism...but are still significant.

So far, so good, I trust. Now it gets tricky.

The "communist" regimes of the 20th century actually never claimed to be anything but "socialist". Their argument was that "socialism" was "necessary" as a "transitional stage" to communism.

They further claimed that the working class "was" the ruling class in their countries...even though it was self-evident that ordinary workers had little or no input into any important decisions but were rather expected to obey their leaders.

This suggests that "socialism", far from being a "transitional stage to communism", is rather a method by which an old ruling class (usually a landed aristocracy with a small and weak "colonial" bourgeoisie) can be overthrown and replaced with a more vigorous native ruling class...that over time becomes openly capitalist.

At least, this is what we have seen happen in the USSR, China, eastern Europe, and even now in Vietnam.

Why then the confusion? Why do people think that "socialism" is "progressive", a stage on the way to communism?

One reason, of course, is that Lenin and all his followers (Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, etc.) said so...and their prestige in the 20th century made disagreement difficult and rarely heard in public.

Another part of the difficulty must be attributed to a certain terminological "laxness" on the part of Marx and Engels in their old age. Both were inclined to give shoulder-shrugging approval to the decision of the early "Marxist" parties in Europe to use the less "inflammatory" term "socialism" instead of the more "dangerous" word "communism" in the attempt to win votes for those parties.

On a few occasions, they did speak out publicly against the confusion between state-owned enterprises and their own goals...but mostly, they just let it slide. Unfortunate.

One can certainly imagine a version of socialism that might be transitional to communism. What would it look like?

The state would still "own and manage" everything of importance in the economy. But the state itself would have to be "ultra-democratic"...every public official in a position of authority subject to more or less "instant" recall. Central economic plans would have to be subject to frequent referendums. Many independent groups of workers would have to have access to the mass media and criticism of the central authority would have to be encouraged.

There would have to be a more or less conscious plan to gradually reduce the power of the central public authority and the privileges of the political elite...it would not be sufficient to just sit back and wait for those things to happen spontaneously.

In particular, the "police powers" of the central public authority would have to be carefully overseen by large collectives of workers...we have far too much sad evidence from the 20th century about what happens when "the state secret police" get out of hand.

The production of commodities would have to be phased out in a more or less deliberate fashion and the production of goods and services for use phased in.

People defend this idea of a "transition stage" (different from now but not "too" different) on the grounds that workers who successfully overthrow the capitalist system "still" carry many capitalist ideas and habits in their heads...and are really incapable of "leaping" directly into communist society.

I am suspicious of this assumption; the tiny number of brief examples that we have had thus far in history suggest rather that class-conscious workers show a marked ability to innovate communist practices immediately following their revolution.

So the problem that faces communists and those who want to be communists is: do we go for a formal "transitional stage" called "socialism" or do we press for communism from day one after the revolution?

The latter seems like the way to go, in my opinion. But I have to confess that I could be wrong.

In any event, any "version" of "socialism" that fails to meet the criteria I outlined above is just a waste of time and not worth fighting for at all.

:cool:

[RedComrade]

I am also working on an essay type deal to break it down to all my crew (bunch of a-political, apathetic adolescents) what socialism is; ive been busy as of late and havent added on but this was my definition of socialism:
What is Socialism?-

Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production (factories, assembly lines, etc.) are controlled by society instead of individuals. More often then not this means state controlled production although there are some cases (such as anarcho-syndicalism) where this is not the case. Socialism originated as a solution to alleviate the innate contradictions of Capitalism, namely the individual seizure of socially produced goods (Example: 10 workers on the assembly line make a car, when the car is complete it becomes the property of a single individual, the lucky person who owned the assembly line but did not necessarily have anything to do with the work involved in making the finished product). Contrary to popular beleif Socialism is not a political system, it is neither a dictatorship nor a democracy, it is Exclusively an Economic system. There are different types of Socialism (examples:Communism also known as Scientific Socialism, Leninism, Stalinism, Dubcek Socialism also known as Market Socialism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, etc.) and therefore it is wrong to associate the actions of one particular brand (such as the Leninist and later Stalinist model of the USSR) with the entire theory in general. Not only is it foolish too asociate the general theory of the many diverse types of Socialism with the general concept it is also wrong to associate the results of one particular brand with the possible results of a different brand of the theory (example: Because the USSR collapsed(even though it was doing much better economically under the USSR then it is today under capitalism) this does not somehow mean all socialist aplication is doomed to failure).

[Severian]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 4:34 pm on June 22, 2003
Socialism is a form of class society in which all or at least all of the important means of production are owned and managed by a "central public authority" or state. The people that control the state make up the "ruling class" of such a society.

You can define a word any way you want, of course.

This isn't how Marx defined "socialism, the first phase of communism", however. As your other post, on communism, draws on Marx's definitions (Critique of the Gotha Programme, I think), maybe you should state that you aren't doing that here.

It's pretty clear in Marx that by socialism, he's talking about a classless society. Part of the bourgeois mode of distribution remains, though: "From each according to his contribution, to each according to his ability." (Rather than "according to his needs.")

As a consequence, the state has not yet withered away in "socialism, the first phase of communism".

By this definition, of course, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was never socialist, any more than it was Soviet or a Union of Republics after the early 20s.

Kinda like the Holy Roman Empire: neither holy, nor roman, nor an empire.

Your definition of socialism, with the "ruling class" business and so forth, seems a little bit like the "socialism is bad, let's jump straight to communism, somehow, by fiat" doctrine of some (ex?) Maoists and others, rather than something that might be generally agreed on.

[RedComrade]

I read somewhere that Marx never actually said to "each according to his need...blah", I heard it was one of the anarchists, maybe Kropotkin, I'll try and dig up where I read that.

[Severian]

Critique of the Gotha Programme - text (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

This article has everything I was talking about in my last post, about the first phase of communism and so forth. He doesn't use "socialism" and "first phase of communism" in the same sentence, but he's criticizing an alternate definition of socialism (Lasalle's) and in the following decades it was standard among Marxists (including Engels and Lenin) to define socialism as the first phase of communism.

[Lardlad95]

You know alot of "socialism" depends on if you see it as a step to communism or as a system within it's self.

personally once socialism is reached I see no need to "try"(the predominate word here) for communism

[apathy maybe]

Socialism is an economic system where the government (as a representation of the people) owns & controls industry, utilities etc. The people then get the benefits of this ownership. In a complete socialist society, everybody works for the government and money is purely used as a voucher for goods.
In many countries, there is a mix of socialist and capitalist ideas. The government owns utilities (such as power, water) and services (airlines and banks) while other things (such as farms) are owned by individuals or corporations.
As to how the government is selected, this determines what kind of socialism it is. In Sweden and Britain (which are both partial socialist nations), there is a form of democracy. In the former USSR, it was a self perpetuating dictatorship of a select group of people. These are the only two types of socialism that has been practised in recent history on a large (more then a few hundred people) scale.

Communism is a system that could be compared to completely democratic socialism. Which is probably where the 'state will wither away' came from. Once you have true democratic socialism there is no need for the state as everyone is working for each other anyway.

In both these systems (communism and democratic socialism), there should be no need for restriction on speech or belief or so forth. However, in totalitarian socialism the government may need a way of holding power against the will of the people. (Even if the people are not starving or dieing for no good reason.)

When people say they are socialist or communist don't think of the USSR think of what the terms really mean.

[redstar2000]

It's pretty clear in Marx that by socialism, he's talking about a classless society.

Yes, in the terminological confusion of the late 19th century, Marx and Engels did interchange the words rather too freely (in my view) and so did everyone else. Bakunin, for example, referred to his version of anarcho-communism as "stateless socialism".

But in my opinion, the "strong-state" versions of socialism seem to be what most people comprehend when they try to put together a coherent definition. One can be a Leninist (Stalinist, Trotskyist, Maoist) or one can be a Social Democrat (pre-World War I model) or one can even be, as I suggested, an "ultra-democratic socialist" who wants a centralized state but one that would be permeated with mechanisms of working class control.

It is quite possible that something like that third option is really what Marx and Engels had in mind when they were in the mood to speculate about "transition", but we know that on the single occasion when they had the opportunity to observe an actual proletarian revolution--the Paris Commune--they passed up the opportunity to criticize the Communards for their "failure" to establish a "strong state" and went so far as to amend the Communist Manifesto to make it explicitly clear that the working class must smash the old bourgeois state machinery.

Your definition of socialism, with the "ruling class" business and so forth, seems a little bit like the "socialism is bad, let's jump straight to communism, somehow, by fiat" doctrine of some (ex?) Maoists and others, rather than something that might be generally agreed on.

If your characterization of their views (whoever they might be) is accurate, then I agree, of course. Nothing useful is ever done "by fiat"...the Maoists in general have always suffered from an exaggerated conception of the "powers" of their "great leader" of the moment.

What "communism from day one" would actually mean in practice would depend on the initiative of the class itself, which in turn might be reflective of what we communists had spent several decades or longer telling them prior to the revolution.

If we've told them "you need a strong state with us running things on your behalf", communism is unlikely to result...to put it mildly. If, on the other hand, we've told them to take direct control of everything in sight and run things in a cooperative fashion with your fellow workers, different kinds of initiatives will result...with consequences impossible to predict from where we stand now.

The "communism from day one" option doesn't mean that a magic wand is employed...it means that your conscious goal is to establish communism as quickly as possible and that all of the initiatives that you take are guided by that purpose. It might still take many decades or longer to really "nail it down"...that's as may be.

The "strong state" version of socialism--the only version that still has credibility in my opinion--has not served us well, again to put it mildly. Perhaps it still has some utility in pre-capitalist countries, but in the "first world", its appeal seems to have "withered away" (to coin a phrase).

Perhaps a sufficiently well-thought-out ultra-democratic version could revive that appeal; I frankly do not know. But my "gut feeling" is that it's time to put "socialism" in the museum.

It's time for communists to be communist.

:cool:

[The Feral Underclass]

I was being dragged away from the computer so I didnt get to read all of RED STARS post but what I did read is this:

It's time for communists to be communist.

I absolutly agree with this. Maybe what we dont need to be thinking about these transitional stages to socialism, but simply how we awaken the consciousness of the masses. Once the proletariat begin to educate themselves and begin to understand their material signigicance within society, these question answer themselves. Human beings begin to operate in a different manner. The running of society becomes clearer, and as communist ideology and its somehwat romatic principles begin to take effect within a mass movment, the idea of socialism may become irrelevant.

[Severian]

OK, so it's not a board FAQ kinda thing but rather your personal opinin.

BTW, if you reject the idea of a transition period that erases the distinction between Marxism and anarchism.

[The Feral Underclass]

I dont understand what you mean?

[redstar2000]

...if you reject the idea of a transition period that erases the distinction between Marxism and anarchism.

Perhaps it does; the idea of "purity of doctrine", as you know, does not rank high on my list of priorities.

My impression is that anarchist theory makes the "state" an "independent actor" in history; whereas Marxist theory emphasizes the state as an organ of "class rule".

The two conceptions merge, of course, when the state itself owns and manages the means of production; whoever occupies the positions of authority in the "strong state" version of socialism are, at one and the same time, a "ruling class" in Marxist terms and a "political elite" in anarchist terms.

The only exception, if it is a realistic possibility, would be the hypothetical "ultra-democratic" "workers' state".

And no serious person would deny that there would be a "transition period" in any event; the question is what would be the characteristics and features of the transition?

And, of course, within the range of possibilities, what should communists advocate.

:cool:

[革命者]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 5:34 pm on June 22, 2003
This is the other piece that I wrote while the Che-Lives Board was down...again with the idea of having a ready response when people new to the board and to the left raise the question.
-------------------------------------


This is a far more complicated matter than defining communism...because the word has been used by so many different groups and individuals to mean so many different things. I will attempt to define the word coherently, and you shall judge whether what I have to say "makes sense"...or not.

Socialism is a form of class society in which all or at least all of the important means of production are owned and managed by a "central public authority" or state. The people that control the state make up the "ruling class" of such a society.

In such a society, goods and services may be produced for use (freely distributed to the population) or as commodities for sale in a market. Most if not all labor is wage-labor, and surplus-value may or may not be extracted from workers. That's another way of saying that state-owned enterprises may be operated to generate a "profit" or not. The circulation and use of currency (money) prevails. Differences in standards-of-living are normally far less than that which prevails under capitalism...but are still significant.

So far, so good, I trust. Now it gets tricky.

The "communist" regimes of the 20th century actually never claimed to be anything but "socialist". Their argument was that "socialism" was "necessary" as a "transitional stage" to communism.

They further claimed that the working class "was" the ruling class in their countries...even though it was self-evident that ordinary workers had little or no input into any important decisions but were rather expected to obey their leaders.

This suggests that "socialism", far from being a "transitional stage to communism", is rather a method by which an old ruling class (usually a landed aristocracy with a small and weak "colonial" bourgeoisie) can be overthrown and replaced with a more vigorous native ruling class...that over time becomes openly capitalist.

At least, this is what we have seen happen in the USSR, China, eastern Europe, and even now in Vietnam.

Why then the confusion? Why do people think that "socialism" is "progressive", a stage on the way to communism?

One reason, of course, is that Lenin and all his followers (Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, etc.) said so...and their prestige in the 20th century made disagreement difficult and rarely heard in public.

Another part of the difficulty must be attributed to a certain terminological "laxness" on the part of Marx and Engels in their old age. Both were inclined to give shoulder-shrugging approval to the decision of the early "Marxist" parties in Europe to use the less "inflammatory" term "socialism" instead of the more "dangerous" word "communism" in the attempt to win votes for those parties.

On a few occasions, they did speak out publicly against the confusion between state-owned enterprises and their own goals...but mostly, they just let it slide. Unfortunate.

One can certainly imagine a version of socialism that might be transitional to communism. What would it look like?

The state would still "own and manage" everything of importance in the economy. But the state itself would have to be "ultra-democratic"...every public official in a position of authority subject to more or less "instant" recall. Central economic plans would have to be subject to frequent referendums. Many independent groups of workers would have to have access to the mass media and criticism of the central authority would have to be encouraged.

There would have to be a more or less conscious plan to gradually reduce the power of the central public authority and the privileges of the political elite...it would not be sufficient to just sit back and wait for those things to happen spontaneously.

In particular, the "police powers" of the central public authority would have to be carefully overseen by large collectives of workers...we have far too much sad evidence from the 20th century about what happens when "the state secret police" get out of hand.

The production of commodities would have to be phased out in a more or less deliberate fashion and the production of goods and services for use phased in.

People defend this idea of a "transition stage" (different from now but not "too" different) on the grounds that workers who successfully overthrow the capitalist system "still" carry many capitalist ideas and habits in their heads...and are really incapable of "leaping" directly into communist society.

I am suspicious of this assumption; the tiny number of brief examples that we have had thus far in history suggest rather that class-conscious workers show a marked ability to innovate communist practices immediately following their revolution.

So the problem that faces communists and those who want to be communists is: do we go for a formal "transitional stage" called "socialism" or do we press for communism from day one after the revolution?

The latter seems like the way to go, in my opinion. But I have to confess that I could be wrong.

In any event, any "version" of "socialism" that fails to meet the criteria I outlined above is just a waste of time and not worth fighting for at all.

:cool:
are you writing a dictionary, Redstar??

[redstar2000]

are you writing a dictionary, Redstar??

In a way. My "plan" is that when the next newbie starts a thread "what is socialism?" or "what is communism", I will reply with a link to these two threads...if they're serious, then they will learn something about the "certainties" and "uncertainties" involved when you try to briefly summarize those ideas.

They're not "simple" or "easy"...they're complicated. And I think people should be aware of that.

:cool:

[Severian]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 9:51 pm on June 23, 2003
[iThe two conceptions merge, of course, when the state itself owns and manages the means of production; whoever occupies the positions of authority in the "strong state" version of socialism are, at one and the same time, a "ruling class" in Marxist terms and a "political elite" in anarchist terms.

Silly, in light of recent events; the "apparatchiks" or "nomenklatura" lasted only a few decades, a blip in history. Clearly they were not a historic ruling class. A cancer, not an organ.

[redstar2000]

the "apparatchiks" or "nomenklatura" lasted only a few decades, a blip in history. Clearly they were not a historic ruling class. A cancer, not an organ.

I'm not in a position to verify this, of course, but I think it practically certain that the new capitalist class in Russia and its political representatives are either ex-nomenklatura or the sons and daughters of same.

A rather substantial "blip", if you ask me.

:cool: