Editing Socialism (section)

== Social and political theory ==
{{main|Types of socialism}}
Early socialist thought took influences from a diverse range of philosophies such as civic [[republicanism]], [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] [[rationalism]], [[romanticism]], forms of [[materialism]], Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant), [[natural law]] and [[natural rights theory]], [[utilitarianism]] and liberal political economy.<ref>Andrew Vincent. Modern political ideologies. Wiley-Blackwell publishing. 2010. pp. 87–88</ref> Another philosophical basis for a great deal of early socialism was the emergence of [[positivism]] during the [[European Enlightenment]]. Positivism held that both the natural and social worlds could be understood through scientific knowledge and be analysed using scientific methods.

[[File:Claude Henri de Saint-Simon.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Henri de Saint-Simon|Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon]], early French socialist]]
The fundamental objective of socialism is to attain an advanced level of material production and therefore greater productivity, efficiency and rationality as compared to capitalism and all previous systems, under the view that an expansion of human productive capability is the basis for the extension of freedom and equality in society.<ref>{{cite book |title=Socialism and the Market: The Socialist Calculation Debate Revisited |series=Routledge Library of 20th Century Economics |publisher=[[Routledge]] |date=2000 |page=12 |isbn=978-0415195867}}</ref> Many forms of socialist theory hold that human behaviour is largely shaped by the social environment. In particular, socialism holds that social [[mores]], values, cultural traits and economic practices are social creations and not the result of an immutable natural law.<ref>{{cite book |last=Claessens |first=August |title=The logic of socialism |publisher=Kessinger Publishing, LLC |date=2009 |isbn=978-1104238407 |page=15 |quote=The individual is largely a product of his environment and much of his conduct and behavior is the reflex of getting a living in a particular stage of society.}}</ref><ref>Ferri, Enrico, "Socialism and Modern Science", in ''Evolution and Socialism'' (1912), p. 79. "Upon what point are orthodox political economy and socialism in absolute conflict? Political economy has held and holds that the economic laws governing the production and distribution of wealth which it has established are natural laws ... not in the sense that they are laws naturally determined by the condition of the social organism (which would be correct), but that they are absolute laws, that is to say that they apply to humanity at all times and in all places, and consequently, that they are immutable in their principal points, though they may be subject to modification in details. Scientific socialism holds, the contrary, that the laws established by classical political economy, since the time of Adam Smith, are laws peculiar to the present period in the history of civilized humanity, and that they are, consequently, laws essentially relative to the period of their analysis and discovery."</ref> The object of their critique is thus not human avarice or human consciousness, but the material conditions and man-made social systems (i.e. the economic structure of society) which give rise to observed social problems and inefficiencies. [[Bertrand Russell]], often considered to be the father of analytic philosophy, identified as a socialist. Russell opposed the class struggle aspects of Marxism, viewing socialism solely as an adjustment of economic relations to accommodate modern machine production to benefit all of humanity through the progressive reduction of necessary work time.<ref>{{cite web |last=Russell |first=Bertrand |url=http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html |title=In Praise of Idleness |year=1932 |access-date=30 November 2013 |archive-date=22 August 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190822071656/http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html}}</ref>

Socialists view creativity as an essential aspect of human nature and define freedom as a state of being where individuals are able to express their creativity unhindered by constraints of both material scarcity and coercive social institutions.<ref>Bhargava. ''Political Theory: An Introduction''. Pearson Education India, 2008. p. 249.</ref> The socialist concept of individuality is intertwined with the concept of individual creative expression. Karl Marx believed that expansion of the productive forces and technology was the basis for the expansion of human freedom and that socialism, being a system that is consistent with modern developments in technology, would enable the flourishing of "free individualities" through the progressive reduction of necessary labour time. The reduction of necessary labour time to a minimum would grant individuals the opportunity to pursue the development of their true individuality and creativity.<ref>{{cite web |last=Marx |first=Karl |url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch14.htm |title=The Grundrisse |year=1857–1861|quote=The free development of individualities, and hence not the reduction of necessary labour time so as to posit surplus labour, but rather the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific etc. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them.}}</ref>

=== Criticism of capitalism ===
{{main|Anti-capitalism|Criticism of capitalism}}
Socialists argue that the accumulation of capital generates waste through [[Externality |externalities]] that require costly corrective regulatory measures. They also point out that this process generates wasteful industries and practices that exist only to generate sufficient demand for products such as high-pressure advertisement to be sold at a profit, thereby creating rather than satisfying economic demand.<ref name="Use not profit">{{cite web |url=http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/may10/page23.html |title=Let's produce for use, not profit |publisher=[[Socialist Party of Great Britain]] |date=May 2010 |access-date=18 August 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100716140329/http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/may10/page23.html |archive-date=16 July 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |last1=Magdoff |first1=Fred |last2=Yates |first2=Michael D. |url=http://www.monthlyreview.org/091109magdoff-yates.php |title=What Needs To Be Done: A Socialist View |magazine=Monthly Review |access-date=23 February 2014 |date=November 2009}}</ref> Socialists argue that capitalism consists of irrational activity, such as the purchasing of commodities only to sell at a later time when their price appreciates, rather than for consumption, even if the commodity cannot be sold at a profit to individuals in need and therefore a crucial criticism often made by socialists is that "making money", or accumulation of capital, does not correspond to the satisfaction of demand (the production of [[use-value]]s).<ref name="Use not profit"/> The fundamental criterion for economic activity in capitalism is the accumulation of capital for reinvestment in production, but this spurs the development of new, non-productive industries that do not produce use-value and only exist to keep the accumulation process afloat (otherwise the system goes into crisis), such as the spread of the [[Financialization|financial industry]], contributing to the formation of economic bubbles.<ref>{{cite web |first=Richard D. |last=Wolff |author-link=Richard D. Wolff |url=http://www.rdwolff.com/content/economic-crisis-socialist-perspective |title=Economic Crisis from a Socialist Perspective &#124; Professor Richard D. Wolff |publisher=Rdwolff.com |date=29 June 2009 |access-date=23 February 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140228090631/http://www.rdwolff.com/content/economic-crisis-socialist-perspective |archive-date=28 February 2014}}</ref> Such accumulation and reinvestment, when it demands a constant rate of profit, causes problems if the earnings in the rest of society do not increase in proportion.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.818838886883514|journal=Australian Socialist|title=What is capitalism|first=Chris|last=Warren|issn=1327-7723 |date=December 2022 |volume=28 |issue=2/3}}</ref>

Socialists view [[private property]] relations as limiting the potential of [[productive forces]] in the economy. According to socialists, private property becomes obsolete when it concentrates into centralised, socialised institutions based on private appropriation of revenue''—''but based on cooperative work and internal planning in allocation of inputs—until the role of the capitalist becomes redundant.<ref>{{cite book |last=Engels |first=Friedrich |author-link=Friedrich Engels |url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm |title=Socialism: Utopian and Scientific |access-date=30 October 2010 |via=[[Marxists Internet Archive]] |quote=The bourgeoisie demonstrated to be a superfluous class. All its social functions are now performed by salaried employees.}}</ref> With no need for [[capital accumulation]] and a class of owners, private property in the means of production is perceived as being an outdated form of economic organisation that should be replaced by a [[Free association (communism and anarchism)|free association]] of individuals based on public or [[common ownership]] of these socialised assets.{{sfnp|Horvat|1982|loc=1: Capitalism, The General Pattern of Capitalist Development|pp=15–20}}<ref name="Engels Selected Works 1968, p. 40">{{cite book |title=Marx and Engels Selected Works |first=Lawrence |last=Wishart |date=1968 |pages=40 |quote=Capitalist property relations put a "fetter" on the productive forces}}</ref> Private ownership imposes constraints on planning, leading to uncoordinated economic decisions that result in business fluctuations, unemployment and a tremendous waste of material resources during crisis of [[overproduction]].{{sfnp|Horvat|1982|p=197}}

Excessive disparities in income distribution lead to social instability and require costly corrective measures in the form of redistributive taxation, which incurs heavy administrative costs while weakening the incentive to work, inviting dishonesty and increasing the likelihood of tax evasion while (the corrective measures) reduce the overall efficiency of the market economy.{{sfnp|Horvat|1982|pp=197–198}} These corrective policies limit the incentive system of the market by providing things such as [[minimum wage]]s, [[unemployment insurance]], taxing profits and reducing the [[reserve army of labour]], resulting in reduced incentives for capitalists to invest in more production. In essence, social welfare policies cripple capitalism and its incentive system and are thus unsustainable in the long run.{{sfnp|Schweickart|Lawler|Ticktin|Ollman|1998|pp=60–61}} Marxists argue that the establishment of a [[socialist mode of production]] is the only way to overcome these deficiencies. Socialists and specifically Marxian socialists argue that the inherent conflict of interests between the working class and capital prevent optimal use of available human resources and leads to contradictory interest groups (labour and business) striving to influence the state to intervene in the economy in their favour at the expense of overall economic efficiency. Early socialists ([[utopian socialists]] and [[Ricardian socialists]]) criticised capitalism for concentrating [[Power (philosophy)|power]] and wealth within a small segment of society.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |chapter-url=http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551569/socialism |chapter=Socialism |encyclopedia=Britannica |date=2009 |access-date=14 October 2009 |quote=Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society.|title=Socialism &#124; Definition, History, Types, Examples, & Facts &#124; Britannica}}</ref> In addition, they complained that capitalism does not use available technology and resources to their maximum potential in the interests of the public.<ref name="Engels Selected Works 1968, p. 40"/>

=== Marxism ===
{{main|Marxism}}
{{quote box|quote=At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or—this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms—with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>|author=—Karl Marx, ''[[Critique of the Gotha Program]]''|align=left|width=246px|bgcolor=#c6dbf7}}
[[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]] argued that socialism would emerge from historical necessity as capitalism rendered itself obsolete and unsustainable from increasing internal contradictions emerging from the development of the [[productive forces]] and technology. It was these advances in the productive forces combined with the old [[social relations of production]] of capitalism that would generate contradictions, leading to working-class consciousness.<ref name="ComparingEconomic">{{cite book |title=Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First Century |date=2004 |last1=Gregory |first1=Paul |last2=Stuart |first2=Robert |page=62 |chapter=Marx's Theory of Change |publisher=George Hoffman |isbn=0618261818}}</ref>

[[File:Karl Marx 001.jpg|thumb|upright|The writings of [[Karl Marx]] provided the basis for the development of [[Marxist]] political theory and [[Marxian economics]].]]
Marx and Engels held the view that the consciousness of those who earn a wage or salary (the working class in the broadest Marxist sense) would be moulded by their conditions of [[wage slavery]], leading to a tendency to seek their freedom or [[emancipation of labour|emancipation]] by overthrowing ownership of the means of production by capitalists and consequently, overthrowing the state that upheld this economic order. For Marx and Engels, conditions determine consciousness and ending the role of the capitalist class leads eventually to a [[classless society]] in which the [[withering away of the state|state would wither away]].

Marx and Engels used the terms socialism and [[communism]] interchangeably, but many later Marxists defined socialism as a specific historical phase that would displace capitalism and precede communism.<ref name="Steele 1992 44-45"/><ref name=Hudis/>

The major characteristics of socialism (particularly as conceived by Marx and Engels after the [[Paris Commune]] of 1871) are that the [[proletariat]] would control the means of production through a [[workers' state]] erected by the workers in their interests.

For [[orthodox Marxists]], socialism is the lower stage of communism based on the principle of "from each according to his ability, [[to each according to his contribution]]", while upper stage communism is based on the principle of "[[from each according to his ability, to each according to his need]]", the upper stage becoming possible only after the socialist stage further develops economic efficiency and the automation of production has led to a superabundance of goods and services.<ref name="KS">{{cite book |last=Schaff |first=Kory |title=Philosophy and the Problems of Work: A Reader|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |location=Lanham, Md |year=2001 |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=mdLh5EMehwgC&pg=PA224 224] |isbn=978-07425-07951}}</ref><ref name="WA">{{cite book |last=Walicki |first=Andrzej |title=Marxism and the leap to the kingdom of freedom: the rise and fall of the Communist utopia |publisher=Stanford University Press |location=Stanford, Calif |year=1995 |isbn=978-0804723848 |page=95}}</ref> Marx argued that the material productive forces (in industry and commerce) brought into existence by capitalism predicated a cooperative society since production had become a mass social, collective activity of the working class to create commodities but with private ownership (the relations of production or property relations). This conflict between collective effort in large factories and private ownership would bring about a conscious desire in the working class to establish collective ownership commensurate with the collective efforts their daily experience.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite book |first=Karl |last=Marx |author-link=Karl Marx |chapter=Preface |title=[[A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy]] |date=1859}}</ref>

=== Role of the state ===
{{see also|Anti-statism|Marx's theory of the state|State socialism}}
Socialists have taken different perspectives on the [[State (polity)|state]] and the role it should play in revolutionary struggles, in constructing socialism and within an established socialist economy.

In the 19th century, the philosophy of state socialism was first explicitly expounded by the German political philosopher [[Ferdinand Lassalle]]. In contrast to Karl Marx's perspective of the state, Lassalle rejected the concept of the state as a class-based power structure whose main function was to preserve existing class structures. Lassalle also rejected the Marxist view that the state was destined to "wither away". Lassalle considered the state to be an entity independent of class allegiances and an instrument of justice that would therefore be essential for achieving socialism.{{sfnp|Berlau|1949|p=21}}

Preceding the Bolshevik-led revolution in Russia, many socialists including [[reformists]], [[orthodox Marxist]] currents such as [[council communism]], anarchists and [[libertarian socialists]] criticised the idea of using the state to conduct central planning and own the means of production as a way to establish socialism. Following the victory of Leninism in Russia, the idea of "state socialism" spread rapidly throughout the socialist movement and eventually state socialism came to be identified with the [[Soviet economic model]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Screpanti |first1=Ernesto |last2=Zamagni |first2=Stefano |title=An Outline on the History of Economic Thought |edition=2nd |year=2005 |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |quote=It should not be forgotten, however, that in the period of the Second International, some of the reformist currents of Marxism, as well as some of the extreme left-wing ones, not to speak of the anarchist groups, had already criticised the view that State ownership and central planning is the best road to socialism. But with the victory of Leninism in Russia, all dissent was silenced, and socialism became identified with 'democratic centralism', 'central planning', and State ownership of the means of production. |page=295}}</ref>

[[Joseph Schumpeter]] rejected the association of socialism and social ownership with state ownership over the means of production because the state as it exists in its current form is a product of capitalist society and cannot be transplanted to a different institutional framework. Schumpeter argued that there would be different institutions within socialism than those that exist within modern capitalism, just as [[feudalism]] had its own distinct and unique institutional forms. The state, along with concepts like [[Private property|property]] and taxation, were concepts exclusive to commercial society (capitalism) and attempting to place them within the context of a future socialist society would amount to a distortion of these concepts by using them out of context.<ref>{{cite book |last=Schumpeter |first=Joseph |title=Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy |publisher=Harper Perennial |date=2008 |isbn=978-0-06156161-0 |page=169 |quote=But there are still others (concepts and institutions) which by virtue of their nature cannot stand transplantation and always carry the flavor of a particular institutional framework. It is extremely dangerous, in fact it amounts to a distortion of historical description, to use them beyond the social world or culture whose denizens they are. Now ownership or property—also, so I believe, taxation—are such denizens of the world of commercial society, exactly as knights and fiefs are denizens of the feudal world. But so is the state (a denizen of commercial society).}}</ref>

=== Utopian versus scientific ===
{{main|Scientific socialism|Utopian socialism}}
Utopian socialism is a term used to define the first currents of modern socialist thought as exemplified by the work of [[Henri de Saint-Simon]], [[Charles Fourier]] and [[Robert Owen]] which inspired [[Karl Marx]] and other early socialists.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.pbs.org/heavenonearth/synopsis.html |title=Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism |publisher=[[PBS]] |access-date=15 December 2011 |archive-date=4 January 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060104041306/http://www.pbs.org/heavenonearth/synopsis.html}}</ref> Visions of imaginary ideal societies, which competed with revolutionary social democratic movements, were viewed as not being grounded in the material conditions of society and as reactionary.<ref name=Draper>{{cite book |last=Draper |first=Hal |title=Karl Marx's Theory of Revolution, Volume IV: Critique of Other Socialisms |year=1990 |publisher=[[Monthly Review Press]] |location=New York |isbn=978-0853457985 |pages=1–21}}</ref> Although it is technically possible for any set of ideas or any person living at any time in history to be a utopian socialist, the term is most often applied to those socialists who lived in the first quarter of the 19th century who were ascribed the label "utopian" by later socialists as a negative term to imply naivete and dismiss their ideas as fanciful or unrealistic.{{sfnp|Newman|2005}}

Religious sects whose members live communally such as the [[Hutterites]] are not usually called "utopian socialists", although their way of living is a prime example. They have been categorised as [[religious socialists]] by some. Similarly, modern [[intentional communities]] based on socialist ideas could also be categorised as "utopian socialist". For Marxists, the development of capitalism in Western Europe provided a material basis for the possibility of bringing about socialism because according to ''[[The Communist Manifesto]]'' "[w]hat the bourgeoisie produces above all is its own grave diggers",<ref>{{cite book |last1=Marx |first1=Karl |author1-link=Karl Marx |last2=Engels |first2=Friedrich |author2-link=Friedrich Engels |title=[[The Communist Manifesto]]}}</ref> namely the working class, which must become conscious of the historical objectives set it by society.

=== Reform versus revolution ===
{{main|Reformism|Revolutionary socialism}}
Revolutionary socialists believe that a social revolution is necessary to effect structural changes to the socioeconomic structure of society. Among revolutionary socialists there are differences in strategy, theory and the definition of ''revolution''. Orthodox Marxists and left communists take an [[impossibilist]] stance, believing that revolution should be spontaneous as a result of contradictions in society due to technological changes in the productive forces. Lenin theorised that under capitalism the workers cannot achieve class consciousness beyond organising into trade unions and making demands of the capitalists. Therefore, [[Leninists]] argue that it is historically necessary for a [[Vanguardism|vanguard]] of class conscious revolutionaries to take a central role in coordinating the social revolution to overthrow the capitalist state and eventually the institution of the state altogether.<ref>{{cite web |title=The Leninist Concept of the Revolutionary Vanguard Party |url=http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/socialistvoice/partyPR46.html |author=Workers Revolutionary Group |via=[[Marxists Internet Archive]] |access-date=9 December 2013}}</ref> ''Revolution'' is not necessarily defined by revolutionary socialists as violent insurrection,<ref>{{cite journal |last=Schaff |first=Adam |title=Marxist Theory on Revolution and Violence |journal=[[Journal of the History of Ideas]] |volume=34 |number=2 |date=April–June 1973 |pages=263–270 |doi=10.2307/2708729 |jstor=2708729}}</ref> but as a complete dismantling and rapid transformation of all areas of class society led by the majority of the masses: the working class.

Reformism is generally associated with [[social democracy]] and [[gradualist]] [[democratic socialism]]. Reformism is the belief that socialists should stand in parliamentary elections within capitalist society and if elected use the [[machinery of government]] to pass political and social reforms for the purposes of ameliorating the instabilities and inequities of capitalism. Within socialism, ''reformism'' is used in two different ways. One has no intention of bringing about socialism or fundamental economic change to society and is used to oppose such structural changes. The other is based on the assumption that while reforms are not socialist in themselves, they can help rally supporters to the cause of revolution by popularizing the cause of socialism to the working class.<ref name="Parker">{{cite news |url=http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2002/no-1171-march-2002/reformism-or-socialism |title=Reformism – or socialism? |last=Parker |first=Stan |date=March 2002 |work=Socialist Standard |access-date=26 December 2019}}</ref>

The debate on the ability for social democratic reformism to lead to a socialist transformation of society is over a century old. Reformism is criticized for being paradoxical as it seeks to overcome the existing economic system of capitalism while trying to improve the conditions of capitalism, thereby making it appear more tolerable to society. According to [[Rosa Luxemburg]], capitalism is not overthrown, "but is on the contrary strengthened by the development of social reforms".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/hallas/works/1973/01/reform.htm |title=Do We Support Reformist Demands? |last=Hallas |first=Duncan |work=Controversy: Do We Support Reformist Demands? |publisher=[[International Socialism]] |date=January 1973 |access-date=26 December 2019 |via=[[Marxists Internet Archive]]}}</ref> In a similar vein, Stan Parker of the [[Socialist Party of Great Britain]] argues that reforms are a diversion of energy for socialists and are limited because they must adhere to the logic of capitalism.<ref name="Parker"/> French social theorist [[André Gorz]] criticized reformism by advocating a third alternative to reformism and social revolution that he called "[[non-reformist reforms]]", specifically focused on structural changes to capitalism as opposed to reforms to improve living conditions within capitalism or to prop it up through economic interventions.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://socialistreview.org.uk/363/do-we-need-reform-or-revolution |title=Do we need reform of revolution? |last=Clifton |first=Lois |work=Socialist Review |date=November 2011 |access-date=26 December 2019 |archive-date=24 September 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180924191657/http://socialistreview.org.uk/363/do-we-need-reform-or-revolution |url-status=dead}}</ref>