Editing Socialism (section)

=== 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>