What Is Socialism?

[Rival]

Title.

 

[Sunstone]

Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are owned and/or regulated by the workers, or at least by the public. That's not quite precise, though, because there are too many forms of socialism to fit neatly into one definition.

 

[Rival]

Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are owned and/or regulated by the workers, or at least by the public. That's not quite precise, though, because there are too many forms of socialism to fit neatly into one definition.

What would you say are other forms of socialism?

 

[Nakosis]

Title.

(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

 

[Rival]

(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

Indeed, but what is it that this transition phase entails?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What would you say are other forms of socialism?

Mixed economy with socialism and capitalism is the most common. But from there it's pretty much all across the spectrum from Anarchist-Socialism to National-Socialism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are owned and/or regulated by the workers, or at least by the public. That's not quite precise, though, because there are too many forms of socialism to fit neatly into one definition.

It's probably the best generalized summary of it.

 

[Revoltingest]

From me favorite, dictionary.com.....
"a theory or system of social organization that advocates
the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of
production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the
community as a whole."

I consider a capitalist economy with a social safety net
to not be socialism.

 

[YmirGF]

From me favorite, dictionary.com.....
"a theory or system of social organization that advocates
the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of
production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the
community as a whole."

I consider a capitalist economy with a social safety net
to not be socialism.

Indeed. Canada's nifty universal health care was enshrined by the highly conservative government of John Diefenbaker. (Granted, he stole the idea from the nutty CCF party, but hey, any good idea is worth stealing!)

 

[Nakosis]

Indeed, but what is it that this transition phase entails?

Wage slaves (the working class) overthrow the capitalist elite. Ownership and the means of production comes under democratic control. Each individual contributes what they are capable of. What they receive is still dependent on what they contribute.

VS communism where it's from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Which is necessary for a true classless society to exist.

In socialism there are still incentives and classes though to a lesser degree than capitalism has.

 

[Revoltingest]

Indeed. Canada's nifty universal health care was enshrined by the highly conservative government of John Diefenbaker. (Granted, he stole the idea from the nutty CCF party, but hey, any good idea is worth stealing!)

It seems a very practical & successful policy.
But I'm just regurgitating right wing talking points, eh.

 

[sun rise]

Mind boggle if you don't know this: Types of socialism - Wikipedia

• 4 Market socialism
  • 4.1 Socialist market economy
• 5 Socialist ideologies
  • 5.1 Utopian socialism
  • 5.2 Marxist communism
    • 5.2.1 Marxism–Leninism
  • 5.3 Stalinism
  • 5.4 Maoism
  • 5.5 Trotskyism
  • 5.6 Council and Left communism
  • 5.7 Autonomism
  • 5.8 Anarchism
    • 5.8.1 Mutualism
    • 5.8.2 Collectivist anarchism
    • 5.8.3 Anarchist communism
    • 5.8.4 Anarcho-syndicalism
  • 5.9 Social democracy
  • 5.10 Democratic socialism
  • 5.11 Liberal socialism
    • 5.11.1 Ethical socialism
  • 5.12 Libertarian socialism
  • 5.13 Religious socialism
    • 5.13.1 Christian socialism
    • 5.13.2 Christian anarchism
    • 5.13.3 Islamic socialism
  • 5.14 Regional socialism
    • 5.14.1 Arab socialism
    • 5.14.2 Irish republican socialism
  • 5.15 Eco-socialism
    • 5.15.1 Green anarchism
  • 5.16 Nationalist and ethnocentric socialism
    • 5.16.1 Ba'athism
    • 5.16.2 Ezker abertzalea
    • 5.16.3 Kuomintang and Việt Nam Quốc Dân Đảng

 

[suncowiam]

Socialism is where I'm breaking my back so someone else can sun bathe.

LOL

But someday, I will get to sun bathe while someone else is breaking their back.

 

[Stevicus]

Socialism is where I'm breaking my back so someone else can sun bathe.

I think you just described capitalism.

 

[blü 2]

היום אתה חש מרומם. אל תיתן לימות האתמול והמחר להשפיל את רוחך
Today you feel uplifted. Let not yesterday and tomorrow bring you down.

Ah, but my Computations, People say,
Have squared the Year to human compass, eh?

If so, by striking from the Calendar​

Unborn To-morrow, and dead Yesterday.

(FitzGerald's Omar Khayyam, 2nd edn, LIX.)​

 

[suncowiam]

I think you just described capitalism.

Touche!

I had to think about it but you're right.

Lol

 

[Laika]

Indeed, but what is it that this transition phase entails?

Let's save some time and head straight for the primary sources...

Lenin, State and Revolution. (1917) Chapter 5. Part 3 The First Phase of Communist Society

Lenin wrote State and Revolution before taking power in the Russian Revolution and so is the first attempt at a blueprint for what Socialism and Communism actually are as a political practice. The Parts in bold are probably the most directly relevant to the question but I've kept the context so it remains clear how those conclusions were reached.

3. The First Phase of Communist Society

In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx goes into detail to disprove Lassalle's idea that under socialism the worker will receive the “undiminished” or "full product of his labor". Marx shows that from the whole of the social labor of society there must be deducted a reserve fund, a fund for the expansion of production, a fund for the replacement of the "wear and tear" of machinery, and so on. Then, from the means of consumption must be deducted a fund for administrative expenses, for schools, hospitals, old people's homes, and so on.

Instead of Lassalle's hazy, obscure, general phrase ("the full product of his labor to the worker"), Marx makes a sober estimate of exactly how socialist society will have to manage its affairs. Marx proceeds to make a concrete analysis of the conditions of life of a society in which there will be no capitalism, and says:

"What we have to deal with here [in analyzing the programme of the workers' party] is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes."

It is this communist society, which has just emerged into the light of day out of the womb of capitalism and which is in every respect stamped with the birthmarks of the old society, that Marx terms the “first”, or lower, phase of communist society.

The means of production are no longer the private property of individuals. The means of production belong to the whole of society. Every member of society, performing a certain part of the socially-necessary work, receives a certificate from society to the effect that he has done a certain amount of work. And with this certificate he receives from the public store of consumer goods a corresponding quantity of products. After a deduction is made of the amount of labor which goes to the public fund, every worker, therefore, receives from society as much as he has given to it.

“Equality” apparently reigns supreme.

But when Lassalle, having in view such a social order (usually called socialism, but termed by Marx the first phase of communism), says that this is "equitable distribution", that this is "the equal right of all to an equal product of labor", Lassalle is mistaken and Marx exposes the mistake.

"Hence, the equal right," says Marx, in this case still certainly conforms to "bourgeois law", which,like all law, implies inequality. All law is an application of an equal measure to different people who in fact are not alike, are not equal to one another. That is why the "equal right" is violation of equality and an injustice. In fact, everyone, having performed as much social labor as another, receives an equal share of the social product (after the above-mentioned deductions).

But people are not alike: one is strong, another is weak; one is married, another is not; one has more children, another has less, and so on. And the conclusion Marx draws is:

"... With an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, the right instead of being equal would have to be unequal."

The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production--the factories, machines, land, etc.--and make them private property. In smashing Lassalle's petty-bourgeois, vague phrases about “equality” and “justice” in general, Marx shows the course of development of communist society, which is compelled to abolish at first only the “injustice” of the means of production seized by individuals, and which is unable at once to eliminate the other injustice, which consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not according to needs).

The vulgar economists, including the bourgeois professors and “our” Tugan, constantly reproach the socialists with forgetting the inequality of people and with “dreaming” of eliminating this inequality. Such a reproach, as we see, only proves the extreme ignorance of the bourgeois ideologists.

Marx not only most scrupulously takes account of the inevitable inequality of men, but he also takes into account the fact that the mere conversion of the means of production into the common property of the whole society (commonly called “socialism”) does not remove the defects of distribution and the inequality of "bourgeois laws" which continues to prevail so long as products are divided "according to the amount of labor performed". Continuing, Marx says:

"But these 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. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby."

And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) "bourgeois law" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent--and to that extent alone--"bourgeois law" disappears.

However, it persists as far as its other part is concerned; it persists in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) in the distribution of products and the allotment of labor among the members of society. The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois law", which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products.

This is a “defect”, says Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change.

Now, there are no other rules than those of "bourgeois law". To this extent, therefore, there still remains the need for a state, which, while safeguarding the common ownership of the means of production, would safeguard equality in labor and in the distribution of products.

The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed.

But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary.

If by any chance you want Stalin's contribution, he did a text on the problems of transition titled "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR" (1951). I don't think you'll read it all but even having a look at it will give you an idea of the way that the question was approached. Given the extent to which Marxist theory is reduced to crude stereotypes, it will probably throw up a few surprises.

 

[Milton Platt]

What would you say are other forms of socialism?

Socialism can be adopted in degrees. The state can own all forms of production and distribution, or some combination of the two. For instance, the government can own all forms of energy production, but not all forms of food production. There aren't many "forms" so much as many different shades.