Essay:What is socialism?

Socialism is a classless, and hence stateless society, also known as 'communism'. This essay shall aim to correct common misconceptions on the subject, as well as clarify the meaning of the above definition.

Common Misconceptions
Before answering the question in the title, I shall first seek to dismiss common misconceptions about socialism.

Socialism is the redistribution of money by the state
"We shall either have Socialism -- and that means that the State shall have vanished; or we shall preserve the State, and then we shall have no Socialism." -Daniel De Leon.

This is a common misconception nowadays, due mainly to the whole 'call Obama a socialist and people will vote for us' tactic that the Republicans managed to come up with during the 2008 elections.

Now, even our usually logical friends in Conservapedia seem to share this misconception, stating that, "socialist ideas such as the provision of unemployment benefits, state pensions, universal health care, and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era". The only problem with that statement is that none of those are actually 'socialist ideas'. So, what are socialist ideas? That the means of production are taken by the working class, thus leading to the abolition of the working class and bourgeoisie. Now as for the 'socialist ideas' cited, these ideas are hardly socialist, and, while some socialists may support, say, universal healthcare, these 'socialist ideas' are mostly merely reformist ideas. Any or all can be applied to capitalism, and it would remain capitalist. A socialist may say, "After socialism, healthcare and food should be free," but this doesn't make them 'socialist ideas' any more than it makes them 'capitalist ideas', as they change the form rather than the inner workings of society.

Conservapedia surprisingly makes even more than the single error on their page, claiming that, "As an economic theory, socialism calls for redistribution of wealth, through taxation of private wealth coupled with "progressive" social policy". Again, this is ridiculous. Not only is this also a feature of reformism, but many socialists, including Marx himself, believed that the current system of currencies should be replaced. Marx's belief, shared by many others, is that labour vouchers (in modern times, digital 'labour credits') must be given to workers based on their work done, with none given to those who are capable of work, but refuse, and are over a certain age. These would be used to 'purchase' goods that are not basic necessities (basic necessities including things such as food, water, appliances, electicity, etc), as well as basic necessities over a certain limit. They are differentiated from money in that they are given out (automatically) based on labour done, though this is measured in different ways, which I shall cover later, and do not circulate. Other socialists, such as members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, believe that immediately after revolution a system of 'free access' should be implemented, except with some degree of rationing where necessary. 'Free access' is used to describe a gift economy, in which goods could be accessed freely.

I am beginning to suspect that this Conservapedia article is vandalized, as it contains yet another error, "In his [Marx's] view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."" It is true, Marx had said this, and if there is a quote that has been mined more than any other, it is this one. The quote, in fact, originated from Louis Blanc, a French leftist. Socialism, of course, predated Marx, though Marx developed theory-based socialism, as opposed to utopian socialism:

"'after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!'"

This was basically saying that, in fact, the slogan 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' (describing a system of 'free access'), could only be implemented after 'labour has become not only a means of life but life's prime want', with unpleasant jobs becoming obsolete due to technology. He said that this could only come after the "initial stage of communism", in which labour credits would be necessary. Therefore, it seems evident that he did not hold 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs' as part of the definition of socialism. Also, it is used to describe a 'free access' society, rather than a welfare state.

And in case you don't quite get this, there is no sliding scale between socialism and capitalism. They are both self-contained systems, with many possible forms. Sure, there can be some variations within each, such as government regulation in capitalism or 'free access' under socialism, but this does not make it less capitalistic, nor any more socialistic. There's no sliding scale between feudalism and capitalism, why should there be one between socialism and capitalism?

Socialism is the system of Stalin's USSR
After looking at the history, I believe that the vandal is somebody named 'Ed Poor'. I shall report him to the sysops after I finish this essay. For example, let us look at this accusation: "Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the Soviet Union and National Socialist Germany." Why Nazi Germany were not socialist should be obvious to most of you, as this is, after all, 'RationalWiki'.'National socialism' is not actually socialism, but highly nationalist capitalism, as Hitler put it, ""We stand for the maintenance of private property." It is possible that it was named 'National socialism' due to the rising communist movement in Germany at the time, so that it could somehow appeal to them. Still, they aren't socialist, and the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea isn't a 'democratic people's republic'.

As for Stalin, it's time to define what socialism actually is. Socialism is a classless society, where the means of production are owned by all. As Engels put it, "Possession of the Means of Work — Raw Material, Factories, Machinery — By the Working People Themselves."

So, anyways, the USSR. The workers did not control the means of production, it had classes as a result, and a capitalist class at that, it had a very centralized top-down power structure, it did not sprout from a developed capitalist economy, etc. As Daniel De Leon said, "Socialism is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled and administered by the people, for the people, and under which, accordingly, the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at end. That is socialism, nothing short of that." I am of the firm belief that the word 'opinion' really means 'monkey', and that every word in the English language means 'genitals'. For more information on the subject, check out Paresh Chattopadhyay's book 'The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience'.

Also, to quote the Socialist Labour Party, "Accordingly, the view that the U.S.S.R. is a socialist society is advanced mainly by 1) those who wish to discredit the idea of socialism; 2) those with an interest in making servile apologies for the Soviet state; or, 3) those who conclude “pragmatically” that Soviet society must be what socialism looks like in practice, while all other conceptions are utopian dreams."

This, of course, must be false, as Conservapedia never has any agendas. However, I believe that there is still that brilliance in Conservapedia that leads many of us to consult it, in this quote:

"'From a conservative perspective, socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.'"

This quote illustrates the ignorance of conservatives, subtly, and yet in an ironically 'classy' fashion. It is perhaps the most insightful passage on Conservapedia, which is an incredibly impressive feat.

To be continued...