What is socialism?
Arguably, the most commonly used definition of socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are collectively or publicly owned (by the state or other polities), in contrast to a capitalist system in which most of these means are privately owned. This does not mean that private property does not exist at all in a socialist system: socialist systems have commonly allowed individuals to own durable and non-durable consumer goods, personal items, savings, houses for their own use, and even small plots of land. However, in the context of large-scale production, a socialist system assigns formal ownership to the collective of a polity’s citizens.
However, apart from the fact that defining socialism (only) as the collective ownership of the means of production can lead to absurdities, it does not do justice to the rich vein of thinking and ideas associated with socialism as an ideology and social movement. Socialism, like all ideologies, offers an interpretation of social reality and a range of principles and ideas for the changes (if any) considered necessary or desirable to create or move toward a better society or world. However, like most ideologies, socialism is a diverse school of thought, encompassing a wide variety of streams.
Despite the many different views of what socialism is or stands for, one can, beyond collective control over the means of production, identify three other features commonly shared: anti-capitalism, egalitarianism, economic democracy, and rational planning.
However, there are many streams within socialism, including utopian socialism, the Marxist school of thought, revolutionary socialism or communism, Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Socialist Anarchism, Syndicalism, Feminist Socialism, Market Socialism, Eco-Socialism, Democratic Socialism and Socialism for the 21st Century, among others. This variety partially reflects the different trajectories of socialism in actual socialist systems. Still, much of the diversity originates from the fractious nature of the socialist movement(s) and differences in interpretations of the ideas and writings of socialist thinkers, notably Marx.
Main principles of socialism
At the risk of oversimplification, I identify three tenets or principles that I think most, if not all, self-proclaimed socialists share: anti-capitalism, economic democracy and egalitarianism, and rational planning.
Anti-capitalism
First, anti-capitalism. Socialism emerged primarily in response to the problems caused by capitalism. In the 18th and 19th centuries, a range of political thinkers emerged, including Charles Fourier and Henri de Saint-Simon in France and Robert Owen in England, who were sometimes, following a label used by Marx and Engels, referred to as utopian socialists.[1] They shared indignation about the extreme poverty and social misery caused by unbridled capitalism. They advocated the collectivisation of the means of production, especially in small communities and cooperatives, to transform societies.[2] While sharing their indignation about the plight of the working class, Marx considered their ideas utopian as they were not grounded on what he believed to be a scientific analysis of capitalism and developments in the sphere of production, an approach he referred to as historical materialism.[3] In his view, socialism was the inevitable next stage in this development, as capitalism was fraught with contradictions that would lead to its demise, with the coup de grâce administered by the working class (the proletariat) through revolution.[4]
Thus, socialism emerged from the socio-economic conditions created by capitalism and the resentment these conditions sparked against the capitalist class and its practices. Capitalism was, and is still, seen as responsible for the exploitation of workers, inhumane working and living conditions, extreme inequality and poverty, the destruction of families and the disintegration of communities and society, the cultivation of individualism and greed, for being a source of anomie and alienation from society and nature, and last but not least, the destruction of nature. A key element in socialist thinking is the rejection of the commodification of (wage) labour as the primary means of human exploitation (profit-making from “surplus value”).[5] Eco-socialist theorists have argued that capitalism’s neglect and destruction of the ecological and resource bases on which it depends constitute additional inherent contradictions.[6] Hence, capitalism is seen as the cause of many of the ills of modern societies, which initially led most socialists to view the abolition of capitalism as necessary to address them.
Economic democracy and egalitarianism
Second, consistent with the previous point, socialists advocate transferring control over work and working conditions to workers and, more broadly, creating economic democracy, more egalitarian societies, and better working and living conditions for all. These are understood as conditions that enable people to cultivate their creativity and the social dimensions of human nature, thereby stimulating cooperation rather than conflict. In this respect, socialism is rooted in the Enlightenment, particularly in the belief in progress and the notion that humans can create better societies. Rather than accepting existing societies and conditions as God-given, unchangeable, or natural, socialism is based on the belief that societies can be improved and that people need not accept their plight or be content to place their hope and faith in a better life after death.[7] Such ideals were not held only by “utopian” socialists but also by Marx and many other self-proclaimed socialists. For instance, Przeworksi argues that socialism was/is about the abolition of “wage slavery”, collective deliberation and rational choice, and people acquiring control over their lives, free from want, to develop their potential.[8] These arguments illustrate that socialism is about more than abolishing capitalism and rests on the belief that, collectively, people can create better societies, even though it is left to people themselves to determine what this means, as diverse views may exist on this.
Rational planning
Third, socialism advocates establishing an economic system based on rationality and planning. Capitalism is often viewed as an irrational and anarchic system prone to crises that cause numerous problems, which can be mitigated by adopting a rational, scientific, and values-based approach to the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Capitalist economic theory and management (based on free-market ideology) serve only the interests of capitalists and capitalism at a high cost to society. The abolition of private ownership of (most of) the means of production, and their socialisation, is seen as a necessary condition for orienting economic decisions about production and consumption towards goods and services for their use-values and towards collective needs and public goods rather than letting the profit-driven private owners of capital determine such matters, which leads to the exploitation of people and nature and the neglect of collective interests. The economy must be (re-)embedded in society and serve collective ends and needs rather than the interests of the few and/or the system.
Varieties of socialism
However, there have always been different streams within socialism, including utopian socialism, the Marxist school of thought, revolutionary socialism or communism, Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Socialist Anarchism, Syndicalism, Feminist Socialism, Market Socialism, Eco-Socialism, Democratic Socialism and Socialism for the 21st Century, among others. This variety partially reflects the different trajectories of socialism in actual socialist systems. Still, much of the diversity originates from the fractious nature of the socialist movement(s) and differences in interpretations of the ideas and writings of socialist thinkers, notably Marx.
Socialist thinkers and actual socialist systems differ in their interpretations of the three common tenets or principles described above and on how these can or should be put into practice. While revolutionary socialists have pursued the abolition of capitalism through force, revisionist socialists have adopted the view that socialist ends can and should be pursued gradually through peaceful, parliamentary means. Socialist advocates and regimes have adopted different views on the kind of institutions by which socialist ideals and aspirations should be pursued, for instance, through small, decentralised communities, cooperative systems, national-level planning systems, workers’ councils, and democratic or authoritarian institutions. A significant difference concerns the specific form in which collective ownership should or must be institutionalised, such as state ownership (nationalisation), workers’ ownership, or social ownership by communities or newly created councils. Many of these points of difference relate to the political dimension of political-economic regimes. Some argue that to overcome the powerful opposition against socialism, power must be centralised and concentrated. In contrast, others consider democracy the best means of achieving and safeguarding socialism.
Although there is much variety within both socialism and capitalism, there is a significant difference in the extent to which this variety has (had) its counterparts in really existing political-economic regimes. While the varieties of capitalism manifest themselves primarily in existing systems and less at the ideological level only, many varieties of socialism have (had) no counterparts in reality or much less enduringly so. While capitalism has been the dominant economic system in much of the world before and after the Soviet Union, truly existing national-level socialist systems have been relatively few. Apart from the Soviet Union and the countries that were more or less under its control, socialist systems (as defined above) have been relatively rare, with China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and a handful of African states (including Tanzania, Angola, Zimbabwe, and Ethiopia) having been self-proclaimed socialist states.
Really-existing socialism
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia’s transition, and the introduction of capitalism in many countries that were, or still are, self-proclaimed socialist states, the question arises whether any “really-existing” socialist countries remain. Although China, Vietnam, and North Korea, among others, still refer to themselves as socialist states (or People’s Republics), it is questionable whether they deserve this label.
In this context, the three tenets of socialism described above can provide guidance on which states merit the label ‘socialist’. This is not a meaningless question. To those who believe in the value of socialist principles, it is essential to assess whether or to what extent political systems or regimes (still) genuinely pursue these principles beyond formally expressing their commitment to socialism.
In this context, it is also worth reiterating that public ownership of most means of production is not a sufficient criterion. Applying this as the sole criterion would lead to misleading or even absurd assessments, as in the case of Saudi Arabia and several other Middle Eastern countries whose economies are dominated by government-owned oil companies, and, moreover, whose governments do not profess a commitment to socialism.
Is China still a socialist country?
Mainland China is a highly contestable case. In the late 1970s, after Mao’s death, China began introducing a form of (state) capitalism in which private and semi-private ownership was combined with predominantly state ownership of strategic sectors. As a result, much of China’s economic decision-making was relegated to the “market” (supply and demand, profit-driven investors). However, the state is commonly regarded as retaining ultimate control. Nonetheless, the economy now operates foremost on capitalist principles set in a (global) market environment in which profit, competition and economic growth have become the main drivers. This makes it debatable whether China still has a socialist political-economic system to what extent. Clearly, the Chinese regime is no longer anti-capitalist, and it has allowed significant inequality to arise, throwing the egalitarian principle out the window. Although the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) retains ultimate control over major economic decisions, production is no longer based on rational planning, nor is it characterised by economic democracy. Hence, one can justifiably argue that “communist” China (despite the regime’s formal commitment to socialism or even communism) is far from a socialist state. Yet, Chinese capitalism is unlike that which prevails in liberal-democratic countries, with the State playing a much stronger role in managing the economy as a whole, softening the adverse effects of economic crises, a system often referred to as “capitalism with Chinese characteristics”.[9] Thus, while it seems uncontroversial to refer to China’s political-economic system until the late 1970s (Mao’s death) as an authoritarian-socialist system, it is much less clear how the system that has evolved since then should be classified. I characterise it as an authoritarian-hybrid (capitalist-socialist) system, but recognise that there is scope for labelling it as a form of state-guided capitalism.
Embedding socialism
Arguably, whether China or any other self-proclaimed socialist system (still) deserves that label depends on whether its economic system is embedded in—subjected to the collective interests of—society or the reverse, whether society is embedded in—subjected to the imperatives of—capitalism. Political systems play a crucial role in determining one of the two.
Economic systems develop in interaction with political systems, creating different political-economic systems in which economics is more or less embedded within the political system or vice versa, the political system is held more or less in the grip of economic actors based on the economic power (and other forms of power) that they have accumulated. Socialist systems, by definition, exercise control over economic institutions, policies, and the systems of production and consumption, all in the collective interest of society. However, the crux of the matter is who determines society’s collective interests. Real-existing socialist states have all been more or less authoritarian, making authoritarian-socialist political-economic systems the prevailing mode through which socialism has been shaped and developed. This raises serious questions about the extent to which self-proclaimed socialist systems have subjected (or still subject) their economic systems to the collective interests of their societies. One of the main critiques of such systems has been that they have led to systemic corruption favouring private interests, reintroduced sharp inequalities, environmental degradation, and created new privileged classes. In brief, they have betrayed their socialist values and principles.
This highlights the need to integrate socialist systems into democratic political systems, through which society’s collective interests can be debated and determined. This does not imply that socialist systems must or should adopt liberal-democratic political systems. That liberal democracies are embedded in (and subjected to) capitalist systems has been amply demonstrated during the past 250 years. Introducing liberal democracy in socialist countries has only served the restoration of capitalism (Cuba, be warned!). Restoring capitalism entails subordinating society’s collective interests to its imperatives. This means, among other things, ignoring or downplaying the urgent need to tackle the environmental challenge facing societies.
Instead, embedding socialist systems within democratic political systems requires adopting more genuine forms of representative democracy through which the collective interests of societies can be identified, articulated, debated, and decided. Creating Sovereign People’s Authorities and introducing other fully representative bodies at various levels and across multiple areas of governance, including the economic realm (the advancement of economic democracy), would be significant steps toward creating democratic socialist systems that are also sustainable.
References
[1] Engels, Friedrich (1892, 1970), “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific”, in Marx/Engels Selected Works. Volume 3. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
[2] Wikipedia (2019), Socialism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism (Accessed: 15 April 2019); Engels, Friedrich, “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific”.
[3] Engels, Friedrich, “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific”, Part III.
[4] Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels (1848; 2006), The Communist Manifesto, Marxist Internet Archive.
[5] It has been argued that the rejection of “wage slavery” and its replacement by the “free association of producers” was, in Marx’s view, the keystone of socialism, more so than the collective ownership of the means of production. Kovel, Joel (2002), The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World? New York: Zed Books, 200; Hutchinson, Frances, et al. (2002), The Politics of Money. Towards Sustainability and Economic Democracy. London: Pluto Press, 100-103.
[6] O’Connor, James (1994), “Is Sustainable Capitalism Possible?”, in M. O’Connor (ed.) Is Capitalism Sustainable? Political Economy and the Politics of Ecology. New York and London: Guilford Press, 152-175; O’Connor, James (ed.) Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism. New York: Guilford Press; Kovel, Joel (2014), “Ecosocialism as a Human Phenomenon”, Capitalism Nature Socialism, Vol . 25, No.1, pp.10-23; Pepper, David, Eco-Socialism. From Deep Ecology to Social Justice. London and New York: Routledge; Sarkar, Saral, Eco-Socialism or Eco-Capitalism? A Critical Analysis of Humanity’s Fundamental Choices. London and New York: Zed Books.
[7] This tenet of socialism appears in the earliest currents of “utopian” communism and socialism, particularly in the ideas of Robert Owen, de Saint-Simon, and Charles Fourier. See Hobsbawm, Eric (2011), How to Change the World. Reflections on Marx and Marxism. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, Chapter 2.
[8] Przeworski, Adam (1985), Capitalism and Social Democracy. Cambridge and Paris: Cambridge University Press, Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’Homme, Postscript.
[9] Cai, Meina (2012), “Yasheng Huang, Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics: Entrepreneurship and the State”, Journal of Chinese Political Science, Vol.17, No.2, 215-216; Shih, Victor (2010), “Review Of: Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics: Entrepreneurship and the State. By Yasheng Huang. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008”, The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol.69, No.2, 554-556.