Socialism

The term Socialism or Socialist can refer to many different things:

An ideology or a group of ideologies.
An economic system.
A state that exists or has existed.
In Marxist theory, the society that would succeed capitalism, and would be a precursor to Communism

The word has a history dating back at least to the early Nineteenth Century, and has been used differently in different times and places, both by various individuals and groups that consider themselves socialist and by their opponents. The picture is further complicated by the fact that a few groups have chosen at times to call themselves socialist even while holding views that most self-declared socialists would consider abhorrent, and that politicians on the political right have, at times, chosen to use the word "socialist" as an epithet for individuals who did not consider themselves to be socialists and policies that were not considered socialist by their proponents.

Table of contents

1 An ideology or a group of ideologies

1.1 Branches of Socialism

2 What distinguishes the various types of socialism
3 An economic system
4 A state that exists, or has existed
5 The Socialist society that will succeed Capitalism
6 Related articles

An ideology or a group of ideologies

The term "socialism" has been (and is) used to refer to a number of related ideologies. It appears to have a double origin: according to Elie Halevy, the term was coined independently by two groups advocating two rather different ways of organizing society and economics: the Saint-Simonianss, and most likely Pierre Leroux, in the years 1831-33, and the followers of Robert Owen, around 1835. [Elie Halevy, Histoire du Socialisme Européen (Paris, Gallimard, 1948, pp. 17-18, note); originally published 1937] By the time of the Revolution of 1848 there were a variety of competing "socialisms", ranging from the utopian socialism of Charles Fourier to the self-described "scientific" socialism of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Depending on the context, the term socialism may refer either to these ideologies or any of their many lineal descendants. While these cover a very broad range of views, they have in common a belief that society ought to be run for the broad common good rather than for the benefit of a small economic elite.

Branches of Socialism

Since the 19th century, socialist ideas have developed and separated into many different streams. Notable ideologies that have been referred to using the label "socialism" are:

The National Socialists (Nazis) under Adolf Hitler claimed to be "socialist". However, many consider these to be conflicting ideologies (See Socialism and Nazism). Authoritarian Socialism and Nazism are both viewed under the term "Totalitarianism".

Similarly, the political party of Saddam Hussein in Iraq was called the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party, and its members claimed themselves to be of a tradition of non-Marxian, though secular as well, socialists. This is closely related to the idea of Pan-Arabism.

Various Catholic clerical parties have at times referred to themselves as Christian Socialists. An example is the Christian Social Party of Karl Lueger in Austria before and after World War I. Some dispute their inclusion as �Socialists�. That is not to say that there aren't parallels between, what some have characterized as, the egalitarian and anti-establishment, anti-church message of Jesus Christ, and the egalitarian, anti-establishment, andti-church message of most contemporary socialisms.

The socio-political or intellectual movements basing themselves in the Marxist-Socialist tradition can generally be further divided into:

What distinguishes the various types of socialism

While there is little chance in this article of fully characterizing each branch of the socialist tree (see the various articles named in the preceding section for information on each) there are a few questions that point up some of the big differences among socialisms:

Do advocates of this ideology say that socialism should come about through revolution (e.g. Maoism, Leninism, Trotskyism, revolutionary Marxism), or through reform (e.g. Fabianism, reformist Marxism), or do they view both as possible (e.g. syndicalism, various Marxisms) or are do they fail to address the question of how a socialist society would be achieved (e.g. utopian socialisms, some anarchisms)?
Do they advocate centralized state control of the socialized sectors of the economy (e.g. Leninism), or control of that sector by worker councils (e.g. syndicalism, left and council communism, anarcho-communism)? This is usually cast by socialists in terms of "ownership of the means of production." None of the social democratic parties of Europe advocate total state ownership of the means of production in their contemporary demands and popular press, but most contain language and ideas in their platform which state that in the event the capitalists fail to meet up to their end of the social contract, that the workers have the legitimate historical basis to assume or seize total control of the means of production, should those conditions ever arise in the future. Most all Social-Democratic parties hold that state control of certain sectors of the economy is vital for the general public interest.
Do they advocate that the power of the worker's councils should itself constitute a state form as socialism in the form of a direct democracy and the use of the referendum and the proposition, or do they state that socialism entails that there should be a legislative body adminstered by people who would be elected as a representative or republican form of government? In other words, through what legal and political apparatus will the worker's maintain and further develop this socialization of the means of production?
Do they advocate total or near-total socialization of the economy (e.g. revolutionary Marxism, Stalinism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Left and Council Communism, anarcho-syndicalism and syndicalism), or a mixed market economy (e.g Bernsteinism, reformism, reformist Marxism)? Mixed economies, in turn, can range anywhere from those developed by the social democratic governments that have periodically governed Northern and Western European countries to the inclusion of small cooperatives in the economy of Yugoslavia under Josip Broz Tito. In a related, but not identical, question, do they advocate a fairer society within the bounds of capitalism (e.g. most social democrats) or the total overthrow of the capitalist system (most Marxists).
Did the ideology arise largely as a philosophical construct (e.g. libertarian socialism), or in the heat of a revolution (e.g. early Marxism, Leninism), or as the product of a ruling party (e.g. Castroism, Stalinism), or as the product of a party or other group contending for political power in a democratic society (e.g. social democracy).
Does the ideology systematically say that the "bourgeois liberties" (such as those guaranteed by the U.S. First Amendment or the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights) are to be preserved (or even enhanced) in a socialist society (e.g. social democracy), or are undesirable (e.g. Maoism), or have they said different things at different times (e.g. Marx and Engels), or is this a dividing point within the ideology (e.g. different strains of Trotskyism)?
Does their critique of the existing system center on the ownership of the means of production (e.g. Marxism), on the nature of mass and equitable distribution (e.g. most forms of utopian socialism), or on opposition to industrialism as well as capitalism (common where socialism intersects green politics)? Utopian Socialists, like Robert Owen and Saint-Simon argued, though not from exactly the same perspective, that the injustices and poverty of the societies they lived in was a problem of distribution of the goods created. Marxian Socialists, on the other hand, determined that the root of the injustices is based not in the function of distribution of goods already created, but rather that the ownership of the means of production was in private hands. Also, Marxian Socialists maintain, in contrast to the Utopian Socialists, that the root of injustice is not in how goods (commodities) are distributed, but for whose economic benefit are they produced and sold.

Note also that while many would say that socialism is defined by state ownership of the means of production, a certain degree of such state ownership is reasonably common in economies that would almost universally be considered capitalist. In Canada, Crown Corporations are responsible for various sectors of the economy deemed to be of strategic importance to the people (for example power generation). Even in the U.S., the federal government continues to run the post office, many local governments own power companies and other utilities, and various governments frequently intervene to subsidize or otherwise influence (though not to own) various sectors of the economy.

An economic system

A Socialist economy is an economy that is controlled democratically by the people (popular usage for 'workers', or in the case of developing countries, 'workers and peasants'). The economy itself my be run according to 'naturally' arising market pressures, or can be run according to a central plan based strictly on demand, or, any shade in between. What is crucial though, is that private or estate ownership of the means of production be outlawed. Whether market forces or a central plan are utilized is a question of distribution and not of ownership of production. Ownership of an economy results in control of it. Therefore, it follows that in a Socialist economy, whatever form it takes, is the economy that is owned and controlled by the people as the majority, and not by capitalists who are a minority. It has been claimed, both by Socialists and non-Socialists, that the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc had Socialist economies as those economies were controlled and owned by the state. Other Socialists object to that label because the people in those countries had little or no control over the government, and instead posit that these societies were state-capitalist, or in the case of Trotskyites, a "Deformed Worker's State". Those states in question, according to those who contest that Stalinism was Socialism, fulfilled one criteria of the Socialist economy as it was controlled by the state, but not the other criteria, that the state must be in turn Democratically controlled by the population or citizenry. Many Socialists therefore label these economies "real socialist" to differentiate them from Socialist economies. Other socialists don�t use any of the terms at all. (Editor's note: Please provide references for these assertions).

A state that exists, or has existed

Most of the states ruled by parties of Communist orientation (with the exception of China which called itself Communist) called themselves Socialist. In the western world they were usually referred to as "Communist states". Once again, whether they were Socialist states or not is disputed, with the large majority of today�s Socialists not thinking that they were Socialist.

The Socialist society that will succeed Capitalism

According to Historical materialism, which is a theory that is part of Marxism, the Capitalist society will sooner or later be replaced with a Socialist one. That society will, according to Marxism, be controlled by the workers (proletariat in Marxist ideology). It will be a dictatorship of the proletariat contrasted by today�s dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (the Capitalists).

After a while the Socialist society will wither away and be replaced by the classless Communist society. This is the sense in which Communists and Marxists use the word "Socialism". Anarchists on the other hand, do not use the term in this way. (Editor's note: This conflates the terms socialism, communism and anarchism. Why do we bother to have separate articles?)

The key ideas of socialism include: a) placing at least some of the means of production and distribution of goods and services into collective ownership, and b) cooperation in place of competition.

In some versions of socialism, collective ownership is limited to control of natural resources and utilities. In such states, there is a mixed economy with varying degrees of government ownership and private ownership. In others, there is a view that economic planning and control should be centralized in the state. A centrally planned socialist state is generally referred to as a communist state. For the sake of clarity, this distinction will be maintained in this article.

Many socialist thinkers argue that free market economics, a hallmark of capitalist systems, generally results in profits for a few at the expense of the many. Many advocates of free markets, particularly in America, dispute this contention, claiming that people generally prosper as a result of free market economies; hence, that Capitalism works for the benefit of all.

While Communist Socialists rarely would support any scheme upholding private property over the means of production, Socialists are split over this, arguing over whether to only moderate its workings to produce a more equitable distribution of wealth, to expropriate the entire owning class to guarantee this distribution. Communists, particularly in the dozen decades before the breakup of the Soviet Union, were adamantly opposed to "Capitalism", claiming that any economic system, which permitted the private accumulation of wealth, was inherently unjust (see: labor theory of value).

Many aspects of the Socialist worldview and Socialist policy have thus been integrated with capitalism in many European countries and in other parts of the world. These systems are referred to as mixed economies. Social Democratic, as well as the reform oriented Euro-communist parties (the Stalinist and Marxist). Social democracy typically involves state ownership of some corporations (considered strategically important to the people) and participation in ownership of the means of production by workers. This can include profit sharing and worker representation on decision-making boards of corporations. Social services are important in social democracies. Such services include social welfare for the disadvantaged and unemployment insurance.

Likewise, market economies have integrated some aspects of socialist economic planning in the United States and other democratic countries. Democratic countries typically place legal limits on the centralization of capital through anti-trust laws and limits on monopolies, though the extent to which these laws are actually enforced has to do with the balance of power between the actually existing or emerging monopoly firms. Ownership of stock has become common for middle class workers, both in companies they work for and in other companies (see mutual fund). Unionization has led to profit sharing. Social welfare and unemployment insurance are mandated by law in the US, UK, Canada and other market economies. There is a lively debate today as to whether the world is moving closer to or farther away from "socialism", as defined by different people. Another component of this debate is whether or not these developments are to be hailed.