Socialism

Socialism is a term with conflicting definitions. Although originally defined by Karl Marx, it has been used by many different groups to mean different things. The different meanings and uses of the term "socialism" over history and in different places have lead to much political misunderstanding and confusion.

Socialism as in the original Marxist definition

Although current definitions of socialism have radically different meanings, they all are historically derived from an original definition by Karl Marx.

In Marxism, "socialism" refers to the stage of history and class structure immediately following the next revolution, in which power has passed to the rural peasantry and the urban proletariat.

Karl Marx specifically focused on control of the means of production, which he saw as passing from monarchs under feudalism, to bourgeois professionals and an upper-middle-class facilitating capitalists under capitalism, and then to the workers themselves, whose contributions he saw as under-valued.

According to Marx, socialism is the period of transition between the overthrow of bourgeois rule and the development of a classless, communist society. While somewhat vague about specifics, Marx described the function of socialism as completing the process of equalizing society, building and developing industry and farming, and militarily defending the revolution from external attack. As this process was completed, the socialist state would "wither away" in favor of the final stage of history, the classless "Communism of Abundance".

Socialism as used Social Democrats and left-Liberals

One of the first modifications of Marx's definition occurred in the late nineteenth century, when many political theorists broke with the Marxist notion that revolution was the only way to advance beyond capitalism and that socialism was incompatible with democracy. These social democrats argued that the transition to socialism could occur peacefully through the ballot box.

Among most mainstream commentators in the North America and western Europe, the term it generally refers to an economic system based on corporate capitalism, but where the state is an active market intervenor, responsible for broad economic planning in the long term and for protecting the vulnerable from any exploitative or destructive aspects of the market economy. In this sense it is not as much a successor or challenge to capitalism as a refinement.

Social Democrats regard such a system as desirable and achievable, indeed, many would argue it already exists in some states. Conservatives, however, view this type of socialism as bureaucratic, inefficient, and likely to create lazy, dependent people who gain unfairly.

Among a number of right-wing conservatives, particularly in the United States, this type of "socialism" is regarded as essentially equivalent to the almost universally disliked Soviet style (communist-run) economic system. In the US, and to a degree in Canada, and the UK this has made moderate leftists quite reluctant to use the term socialism even when advocating policies most Europeans would immediately identify as "socialist".

To an extent all capitalist states incorporate elements of these social democratic policies. The term mixed economy is often used to describe this practical reality. Among those of major countries, the economy of the United States closest approximates a free market, while other economies such as those of Germany or France are closer to a 50/50 split.

Many argue that a truly laissez-faire state, with no labour or environmental laws and no role for the government in long term planning, would quickly collapse. However, the "Libertarian" political movement believes that all government economic intervention is both a priori morally wrong and economically counter-productive. It is probably fair to say that most people in the West desire some kind of balance between unrestrained markets and direct government control over large sectors of the economy.

However the view of economies as occupying a continuum between absolute government control and none, does not have universal support. Some economists, particular those who study post-Communist transitions argue that the economies of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China were different from the economies of the United States and Western Europe in kind rather than only in degree. Although, Western European governments intervene heavily in the economy, they do so within the context of a market pricing system. Governments in western Europe issue regulations, subsidies, tax, and spend, but they do not generally set prices or production quotas on most goods. By contrast, the Soviet-modelled economies did set prices and production, and this created an economy that many economists argue, had fundamentally different characteristics than those in Western Europe.

In the era of so-called globalization most mixed economies are shifting towards more capitalistic arrangements.

Socialism as used by Soviet-modelled states

Governments such as those of Cuba, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union and its satellites officially regarded themselves as "socialist" in the true Marxist sense, though many other Marxists hotly contested this. In such states economics are co-ordinated centrally through a hierarchical structure. Decision making power rests almost exclusively with central planners in the capital city, whose own objectives are set by elite committees or even individual rulers.

The theoretical justification offered for a totalitarian structure is that the central planners are not ruling in their own interests, but acting as servants of the workers as a whole. They have not clawed their way to the top of the power structure, but have been called upon by the people to perform a duty. However, critics both internal and external to such societies have described the Marxist-Leninist brand of "socialism" as a highly class-structured society in which Party planners and intellectuals rule.

Socialism as used in the People's Republic of China

The official economic system used in the People's Republic of China is "socialism with Chinese characteristics." In Chinese Marxist ideology, socialism remains the stage after capitalism, however the official ideology is that socialism must be reinterpreted to meet Chinese circumstances and can include elements such as a market economy.

In fact, because of the open nature of the Chinese definition of socialism, it has become very different from the definition used by Western social democrats. In contrast to the definition of socialism used by social democratics, the Chinese definition does not require state control over the economy or imply generous social benefits by the state, and some socialist government policies are resemble those those of conservatives in the West.

Also because of the loose definition of socialism, economic arguments in the People's Republic of China are almost never evaluated in terms of socialism or anti-socialism.

Socialism as used by Western Left thinkers

Other political and economic theorists have used the term "socialism" to describe their as-yet unrealized social visions. In general their definition of socialism could be "the control of production, consumption, allocation, and distribution of goods and services through democratic means". Exactly how this broad description would translate into practical institutions is a subject of contention.

Some socialists argue that the concept of a centrally planned economy is essentially sound, but that it must be subject to well-structued democratic controls and not allowed to descend into dictatorship. This description fits many dissidents within the Soviet bloc of Marxist-Leninist states, such as Czechoslovakian president Alexander Dubcek, who attempted to implement "Socialism with a Human Face" before his country was invaded and occupied by Warsaw Pact troops. It could also be said to apply to many "socialists" in capitalist countries up into the 1990s, when most people who had previously held this position decided that the collapse of Soviet central planning proved that command economics in general were doomed to failure.

Others have proposed socialist economies based not on markets or command planning, but on novel types of institutions they believe will serve better. "Participatory Economics", a system first described by Micheal Albert and Robin Hahnel, attempts to co-ordinate local and largely self-governed councils representing workers and consumers through a few basic rules about how economic institutions may relate to each other. Council Communists and Social Ecologists, like some Anarchists before them, have argued that the basic organization of production and consumption ought to happen on the very small scale, with economic activity across communities handled on a case-by-case basis.

Still other socialists have argued that, once the means of production and the political system are in the hands of the working class, the free market is a perfectly good economic system. They believe that if individual workplaces are owned and controlled by the workers, economic exchanges between buyer, seller, and nobody else will efficiently and equitably allocate resources without the need for a government bureaucracy.

Socialism and Democracy

Essentially everyone who describes themselves as "socialist" describes themselves as "democratic" as well. However, it should be noted that the definition of "democracy" used is hardly consistent.

Marxist-Leninists believe that what is important is not periodic elections, but the class interest represented by the political vanguard which is in power. In the Leninist analysis, representative democracy as seen in the West is a sham because the real reins of power are held by the moneyed class, who would simply ignore the results if an unacceptably radical leader was ever elected. Critics allege that whatever the faults of Western-style democracy, the Leninist plan only works if the leaders are incorruptible and infinitely altruistic, an incredibly naive idea. They see Leninist claims of respect for democracy as cynical propaganda and nothing more.

Most other socialists see some form of political democracy as integral to the existence of socialism itself. This may be a representative democracy in the style of European parliaments and congresses, or another type, usually described as closer to direct democracy.

Conservative critics often charge that all socialist governments are anti-democratic, because the increased "size" and power of such governments represents a concentration of power unseen in capitalist socities. In addition, some believe that all economic organization not consistent with the free market is inherently in violation of individual human rights and by extension democratic principles.