Well, socialism is a mixed bag and comes in many flavors. In general, socialism is a political philosophy that emphasizes the redistribution of power toward the people. And, again in general, it envisions the replacement of capitalist, concentrated, private ownership of the “means of production” with the people owning and operating those means of production. This can mean collective ownership, this can mean worker ownership, and in some cases state ownership of the various enterprises and resources. Regardless, socialism proposes the end of what we know as capitalism. This is also a nebulous term—it’s debatable whether we in fact have capitalism; we do have corporatism, which I guess is a type of capitalism. The society, in various configurations, would take control of the corporations. Apple, for example, would be owned by the people or the state.
One can have market socialism, so, there would still be a money-based market within a socialist framework. One could also have a non-market socialist arrangement where Apple (owned by the people) would no longer be motivated by the accumulation of capital and profit.
Socialism has a long history. Thinkers and writers have explored the idea for many centuries. In “The Republic,” Plato talks about the guardian class sharing everything, living in a giant coop. Sir Thomas More, in the sixteenth century, in his book “Utopia,” describes a society where things are shared. Oscar Wilde’s essay, “The Soul of Man under Socialism” explores the concept of socialism and the first sentence is as follows:
Of course, Karl Marx was a major theorist on the socialism (communism) front. He did not map out a plan for a socialist system. Nevertheless, Marx did make major contributions to this way of thinking. He did not have patience with what is called “utopian socialism.” His was more of a scientific approach. Marx was influenced by German philosophy and, as a result, viewed history as a process. He judged capitalism as a stage in that process, but one that was exploitative and one that alienated everyone involved. Alienation is a central issue with Marx.
So, he viewed capitalism as something that, based on a contradiction, would fail because of that contradiction. It would be the proletariat that drove the stake through the heart of this terrible system. They would overthrow it, implement a dictatorship of the proletariat, and put humanity on the path toward communism—something he had little to say about.
Other socialist theorists were the anarchists. Thinkers like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, and Peter Kropotkin are among the major theorists here. They did not look favorably on Marx’s revolutionary model, instead looked toward economic takeover, not political takeover.
For the anarchists, political power corrupted and any state-based configuration spelled further misery for the workers. Marx’s philosophy was for the proletariat to secure the power of the state for itself—for a time. Both Marx and the anarchists envisioned a very similar end goal, but the routes there were quite different, as was the undergirding theory.
Another group I’ll mention is the syndicalists. Syndicalism emphasizes the workers, direct action by the workers to unionize, take control of the economy, and the state. This worker-based philosophy has its roots in anarchism, and one frequently hears talk of anarcho-syndicalism. See Rudolf Rocker’s book “Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice.”
As I say on page 48 in my new book in a footnote:
So, can we not join Bernie in describing him as a socialist? And maybe we could use the word a lot less, in general. There is zero movement in its direction, as we do not have leftist politics in the United States. When we use the word, what exactly are we talking about? Something that does not exist and will likely not exist in our lifetimes. That’s a funny thing to talk about.
One can have market socialism, so, there would still be a money-based market within a socialist framework. One could also have a non-market socialist arrangement where Apple (owned by the people) would no longer be motivated by the accumulation of capital and profit.
Socialism has a long history. Thinkers and writers have explored the idea for many centuries. In “The Republic,” Plato talks about the guardian class sharing everything, living in a giant coop. Sir Thomas More, in the sixteenth century, in his book “Utopia,” describes a society where things are shared. Oscar Wilde’s essay, “The Soul of Man under Socialism” explores the concept of socialism and the first sentence is as follows:
The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody.
Of course, Karl Marx was a major theorist on the socialism (communism) front. He did not map out a plan for a socialist system. Nevertheless, Marx did make major contributions to this way of thinking. He did not have patience with what is called “utopian socialism.” His was more of a scientific approach. Marx was influenced by German philosophy and, as a result, viewed history as a process. He judged capitalism as a stage in that process, but one that was exploitative and one that alienated everyone involved. Alienation is a central issue with Marx.
So, he viewed capitalism as something that, based on a contradiction, would fail because of that contradiction. It would be the proletariat that drove the stake through the heart of this terrible system. They would overthrow it, implement a dictatorship of the proletariat, and put humanity on the path toward communism—something he had little to say about.
Other socialist theorists were the anarchists. Thinkers like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, and Peter Kropotkin are among the major theorists here. They did not look favorably on Marx’s revolutionary model, instead looked toward economic takeover, not political takeover.
For the anarchists, political power corrupted and any state-based configuration spelled further misery for the workers. Marx’s philosophy was for the proletariat to secure the power of the state for itself—for a time. Both Marx and the anarchists envisioned a very similar end goal, but the routes there were quite different, as was the undergirding theory.
Another group I’ll mention is the syndicalists. Syndicalism emphasizes the workers, direct action by the workers to unionize, take control of the economy, and the state. This worker-based philosophy has its roots in anarchism, and one frequently hears talk of anarcho-syndicalism. See Rudolf Rocker’s book “Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice.”
As I say on page 48 in my new book in a footnote:
I am probably well left of center in my personal political orientation. However, on my blog, in the articles I write, and in casual discussions of politics (with students, with friends, et al.) I never really talk about it. Careful readers of this book will notice there is not a single leftist sentence in this whole text. The reason that I tend to keep schtum on the subject of leftist politics, is it causes more problems than it’s worth. When you move into left-of-center territory, things get theoretical and philosophical quite quickly. And I do not see the point of sitting around, using big words, having academic discussions, and contemplating notional futures when we have real, concrete problems to deal with. That said, I do not encounter many people who are versed in Marxist and classical anarchist literature and who are familiar with terms like syndicalism. That is not because I am really smart and everyone else is dim, but it is a literature. And in order to be conversant in it, one needs to be acquainted with those works and that writing. So, I feel it is best to focus on real-world problems that would improve the United States today. We can talk about syndicalism once we have universal healthcare and universal basic income.
So, can we not join Bernie in describing him as a socialist? And maybe we could use the word a lot less, in general. There is zero movement in its direction, as we do not have leftist politics in the United States. When we use the word, what exactly are we talking about? Something that does not exist and will likely not exist in our lifetimes. That’s a funny thing to talk about.
