What does socialism mean?

[Louis MacNeice]

Arising from another thread here are two takes on what socialism might be; they are meant as a starting point for some debate over what the S word really could/should/does mean:

1.

So what are some of the main features of socialism?

Social justice
Equality
Homes
Jobs
A free health service (and certainly one that is free of the notions of the internal market or simulated markets which prevent proper delivery of service - in other words, targets have become more important that patient care. That isn't socialist).
Education for all
A properly integrated publicly owned public transport system
Publicly-owned utilities​

2.

Socialism needs to be able to address questions of material provision, it needs to be thorough going in its commitment to democracy, it needs to be able to accommodate notions of both individual and collective responsibility and it needs to get to grips with challenges of environmental sustainability.​

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[TremulousTetra]

Politics is the decision-making process with which we decide how what we produce is divided amongst us. Socialism is one political brand of that decision-making process, that ensures production and division is for human need rather than ruling class profits. Communism carries on the above, but without the need for a state. In my humble and succinct opinion.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Politics is the decision-making process with which we decide how what we produce is divided amongst us. Socialism is one political brand of that decision-making process, that ensures production and division is for human need rather than ruling class profits. Communism carries on the above, but without the need for a state. In my humble and succinct opinion.

Thanks RMP3 - lets have some more from the rest of you...it's a discussion not a quiz!

Louis MacNeice

 

[dennisr]

Politics is the decision-making process with which we decide how what we produce is divided amongst us. Socialism is one political brand of that decision-making process, that ensures production and division is for human need rather than ruling class profits. Communism carries on the above, but without the need for a state. In my humble and succinct opinion.

Agreed the list in the OP are just some of the practical stepping stones whereby individuals can begin to develop in cooperation with each other, where they are no longer alienated from themselves and those around them or from what they do and experience, and where they can begin to genuinely be themselves.

I think the idea of capitalist 'freedom' we are frequently given is one of the plainest and most obvious examples of orwell's double-speak that exists. How can individuals begin to develop themselves when they are, in the majority, dominated by the need to survive day to day - money, shelter, even food - in a completely artificial and unnatural way that distorts and stunts people.

There is plenty of resources to cover all people - its just poorly managed and controlled

 

[nino_savatte]

I think you need to define democracy too. Also, what do we mean by "material provision"?

Shouldn't this thread be in History, Theory and wotsit?

 

[bluestreak]

Politics is the decision-making process with which we decide how what we produce is divided amongst us. Socialism is one political brand of that decision-making process, that ensures production and division is for human need rather than ruling class profits. Communism carries on the above, but without the need for a state. In my humble and succinct opinion.

sounds good to me.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I think you need to define democracy too. Also, what do we mean by "material provision"?

Shouldn't this thread be in History, Theory and wotsit?

Can representative democracy be socialist; or does socialism require mandated recallable delegates, or should it sit on the basis of mass meetings? I think in different situations all three of the above could be contained within socialism.

As for material provision, well lets split the question into three; what would be the limits in scope of material provision (houses, schools, food, health care and transport?), what would be the depth or quality of those provisions and what would be the qualification for accessing those provsions? Again I think the answers may differ within a system which could call itself socialist.

Louis MacNeice

 

[nino_savatte]

Can representative democracy be socialist; or does socialism require mandated recallable delegates, or should it sit on the basis of mass meetings? I think in different situations all three of the above could be contained within socialism.

As for material provision, well lets split the question into three; what would be the limits in scope of material provision (houses, schools, food, health care and transport?), what would be the depth or quality of those provisions and what would be the qualification for accessing those provsions? Again I think the answers may differ within a system which could call itself socialist.

Louis MacNeice

I think it is all a matter of interpretation. Can representative democracy be socialist? Why not? Though, in most cases, it tends not to be.

As has been suggested, it is about a better management of resources but, also, understanding what the real priorities are...that is to say, education and homes are more important than starting wars overseas.

So what is the real purpose of this thread and why is it here in UK P&P, Louis?

 

[mk12]

Three things for me:

1) Extreme democracy in all spheres of life.
2) Abolition of hierarchical social relations
3) Common ownership of production [and reproduction?!].

These things are interlink I think.

 

[Knotted]

The description of the goals of a variety of different political traditions.

The only common thread running through these different traditions that I can think of is an identity with the (Social Democratic) Second International in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Trying to find the true meaning of 'socialism' or trying to claim the word as your own is pointless. Its usefulness is in its vagueness.

 

[Prince Rhyus]

I prefer this way of looking at it:

Basically it separates the authoritarians from the libertarians on the economic left, and it separates the left-wing environmentalists from the right-wing environmentalists on the social scale.

Socialists on these boards and others seem to agree on the economics bit - about taking things into public ownership. However, that seems to be as far as it goes and the left has never dealt with the "social" side of things. Party discipline vs open debate.

People when discussing "what socialism means" need to make clear whether they are libertarian or authoritiarian in their disposition.

 

[mk12]

Good post.

 

[Prince Rhyus]

The test is here and it's one of those that I think could be quite eye-opening for some.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

 

[mk12]

It's been done many times on here I think.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I think it is all a matter of interpretation. Can representative democracy be socialist? Why not? Though, in most cases, it tends not to be.

As has been suggested, it is about a better management of resources but, also, understanding what the real priorities are...that is to say, education and homes are more important than starting wars overseas.

So what is the real purpose of this thread and why is it here in UK P&P, Louis?

The real purpose is to dig into what we mean when we talk about socialism, so that hopefully debates involving the S word can be a little better informed and a little more informative.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Three things for me:

1) Extreme democracy in all spheres of life.
2) Abolition of hierarchical social relations
3) Common ownership of production [and reproduction?!].

These things are interlink I think.

MK what about hierarchies of skill or esteem that are agreed and voluntarily entered into; you might agree who is to lead a particular piece of work or captain a netball team on the basis of that persos's skills and the regard with which they are held by others. Surely socialism won't preclude these sorts of hierarchical soical relations; and if that is the case what is it that marks them out from hierarchical relationships that you would want done away with?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Socialists on these boards and others seem to agree on the economics bit - about taking things into public ownership. However, that seems to be as far as it goes and the left has never dealt with the "social" side of things. Party discipline vs open debate.

People when discussing "what socialism means" need to make clear whether they are libertarian or authoritiarian in their disposition.

Hello PR - I agree that the libertarian authoritarian distinction is useful - not in defining what real socialism is but in marking out the terrain of socialisms plural - and I hope your point re. party discipline v open debate will be picked up on (maybe in particular by those who support the various forms of democratic centralism on offer). What I want to highlight at the moment is the notion of public ownership; is this the same as social ownership (i.e. are you using it in the same way)? If not how does it differ?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

The description of the goals of a variety of different political traditions.

The only common thread running through these different traditions that I can think of is an identity with the (Social Democratic) Second International in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Trying to find the true meaning of 'socialism' or trying to claim the word as your own is pointless. Its usefulness is in its vagueness.

Great post - what do others think; what about socialisms that don't identify with the 2nd international? I would also really appreciate why you think the 'vagueness' is useful (which I'm not sure I really agree with, although I can see an attraction) when so often people and orgganisations put great energy into circumscribing a particular socialism?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. the intention of this thread is most certainly not to arrive at some UK P&P definiton of socialism...even if such a thing were possible.

 

[nino_savatte]

The real purpose is to dig into what we mean when we talk about socialism, so that hopefully debates involving the S word can be a little better informed and a little more informative.

Louis MacNeice

The word "socialism" means different things to different people. For a Marxist it could mean one thing, for a Xtian it could mean something else.

I don't see how this is going to "improve" anything. The thing that needs to change is the way in which leftist groups relate to one another.

What I find quite interesting about this exercise is how you used something that I had posted on another thread as material for this thread. I wonder what would happen if I were to pop over to MATB and had a wee look? I didn't give a definition of socialism, I listed a few things. I suspect that you have ulterior motives for starting this thread.

Where's your pal, torres?

 

[newbie]

2.

Socialism needs to be able to address questions of material provision, it needs to be thorough going in its commitment to democracy, it needs to be able to accommodate notions of both individual and collective responsibility and it needs to get to grips with challenges of environmental sustainability.​

As our society is gradually waking up to the depth and breadth of the consequences of environmental degradation (only a few decades late!) it's also starting to recognise the boundaries of the cult of individualism. Finding solutions to a global crisis isn't something for each of us to do separately, driven by a market devoted to profit, there's a clear recognition of the need for collective action.

Meanwhile China & the ex-Soviet Union are on the opposite trajectory, from all-embracing collectivism towards individual aspiration and reward through mass-production of commodities, because they've recognised that humans aren't ants and don't flourish in anthill society. The environmental consequences of that don't bear thinking about.

Those two major trends seem set to determine the shape of global society over the next few decades (along, maybe, with the rise in religious dogmatism, but I hope that's shortlived). Africa and the rest of Asia seem likely to remain bit part players.

We in the west need to reduce our environmental impact, ie our standard of living, in the face of a flood of commodities. If socialism is to mean anything it has to address the those, very real, challenges facing us as well as the more traditional issues of social justice, inequality and so on.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

The word "socialism" means different things to different people. For a Marxist it could mean one thing, for a Xtian it could mean something else.

I don't see how this is going to "improve" anything. The thing that needs to change is the way in which leftist groups relate to one another.

What I find quite interesting about this exercise is how you used something that I had posted on another thread as material for this thread. I wonder what would happen if I were to pop over to MATB and had a wee look? I didn't give a definition of socialism, I listed a few things. I suspect that you have ulterior motives for starting this thread.

Where's your pal, torres?

If you went to MATB you would find nothing what so ever to do with this thread. (My latest contribution to that board is a photo - it's on the June photos thread - of me sprinting to the finish of a 15 mile cross country race I did on Sunday...I came 48th out of some 530 odd entrants in a time of 1.44.05 if anyone's interested)

I haven't said you have given a definition of socialism.

The motives I have for starting this thread are those I have given

I have no idea where torres is.

I hope it will prove useful for leftist contributors to this board to have a discussion of what is meant when the terms socialist and socialism are used; the proof will be in the pudding.

Louis MacNeice

 

[nino_savatte]

If you went to MATB you would find nothing what so ever to do with this thread. (My latest contribution to that board is a photo - it's on the June photos thread - of me sprinting to the finish of a 15 mile cross country race I did on Sunday...I came 48th out of some 530 odd entrants in a time of 1.44.05 if anyone's interested)

I haven't said you have given a definition of socialism.

The motives I have for starting this thread are those I have given

I have no idea where torres is.

I hope it will prove useful for leftist contributors to this board to have a discussion of what is meant when the terms socialist and socialism are used; the proof will be in the pudding.

Louis MacNeice

That's what you say but it is easy to hide one's insincerity behind a veil of politeness.

So why is this thread in UK P&P and not where it should be?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

That's what you say but it is easy to hide one's insincerity behind a veil of politeness.

So why is this thread in UK P&P and not where it should be?

That's what I say because it is all true.

The thread is here for the reasons I have given.

Let's just let it run and we'll see if it has legs/proves useful.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Knotted]

Great post - what do others think; what about socialisms that don't identify with the 2nd international? I would also really appreciate why you think the 'vagueness' is useful (which I'm not sure I really agree with, although I can see an attraction) when so often people and orgganisations put great energy into circumscribing a particular socialism?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. the intention of this thread is most certainly not to arrive at some UK P&P definiton of socialism...even if such a thing were possible.

I'm struggling to think of any socialist tendencies which don't identify with the 2nd international in one way or another. SPGB maybe?

On vagueness, if we were interested in speaking clearly we would use the word 'communism' rather than 'socialism'. Of course the c-word has connotations of stalinism, but even then you can say that this is a subversion of its meaning. However with the s-word its difficult for anyone to claim a legitimate meaning.

Its to do with sounding as if you are part of a broad church I suppose. Not alienating social democrats and all.

I suppose there are three categories of socialist. There's revoultionary socialists, there's those who believe that socialism can come through reforms, and there are those who believe that capitalism is here to stay but needs socialistic reforms. All three of these broad groupings necessarily have very different ideas of what they are ultimately trying to achieve, but will nevertheless use the same word to describe themselves. In the immediate they are all roughly on the same side give or take a degree of opportunism or sectarianism.

I think its more illuminating to look at traditions rather than textbook definitions.

Incidently I find the idea of anyone advocating 'authoritarian socialism' or 'libertarian socialism' mildly alarming. None of the three broad tendencies I outline above are either authoritarian or libertarian. I don't even think anarchists are libertarian, how else are you supposed to guarantee an individual's liberties if you don't have a state?

 

[nino_savatte]

That's what I say because it is all true.

The thread is here for the reasons I have given.

Let's just let it run and we'll see if it has legs/proves useful.

Louis MacNeice

Of course, you don't have to do any posting over there. I'm sure either butchersapron or Mr Lustbather will do it all for you.

Sorry mate but I don't trust you.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Politics is the decision-making process with which we decide how what we produce is divided amongst us. Socialism is one political brand of that decision-making process, that ensures production and division is for human need rather than ruling class profits. Communism carries on the above, but without the need for a state. In my humble and succinct opinion.

What about the decision making process about what we produce as well as how it is distributed; or were you making a distinction between socialism (which is concenred with socialising questions of production) and other brands of decision making which aren't?

Also, what about socialism outside of collective decision making processes (which I take it is what you are talking about above...please correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick); that is socialism as a way of taking and justifying individual choices - choices which may go against majority decisions?

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Of course, you don't have to do any posting over there. I'm sure either butchersapron or Mr Lustbather will do it all for you.

Sorry mate but I don't trust you.

They haven't refered to this thread or the Politics of the SWP one either.

'Sorry' and 'mate' aren't really appropriate things to be saying to someone you don't trust.

This is my last off topic posting on this thread - Louis MacNeice

 

[nino_savatte]

'Sorry' and 'mate' aren't really appropriate things to be saying to someone you don't trust.

Louis MacNeice

You don't understand irony or sarcasm in that case, do you? I even call my enemies "friend".

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I'm struggling to think of any socialist tendencies which don't identify with the 2nd international in one way or another. SPGB maybe?

On vagueness, if we were interested in speaking clearly we would use the word 'communism' rather than 'socialism'. Of course the c-word has connotations of stalinism, but even then you can say that this is a subversion of its meaning. However with the s-word its difficult for anyone to claim a legitimate meaning.

Its to do with sounding as if you are part of a broad church I suppose. Not alienating social democrats and all.

I suppose there are three categories of socialist. There's revoultionary socialists, there's those who believe that socialism can come through reforms, and there are those who believe that capitalism is here to stay but needs socialistic reforms. All three of these broad groupings necessarily have very different ideas of what they are ultimately trying to achieve, but will nevertheless use the same word to describe themselves. In the immediate they are all roughly on the same side give or take a degree of opportunism or sectarianism.

I think its more illuminating to look at traditions rather than textbook definitions.

Incidently I find the idea of anyone advocating 'authoritarian socialism' or 'libertarian socialism' mildly alarming. None of the three broad tendencies I outline above are either authoritarian or libertarian. I don't even think anarchists are libertarian, how else are you supposed to guarantee an individual's liberties if you don't have a state?

I think you're right re. communism; for many who use the S word, communism would be a more accurate description of where they want to get to (if not their immediate goals).

In terms of the broad church argument; it may be useful to keep a divergent range of groups and people on board in particular campaigns/projects, how sustainable it is in terms of long term organisation I'm far less convinced. The vast difference in their appreciation of the means of socialist change between reformist and revolutionary socialists, would seem to militate against them remaining in the same organisation over the long-term.

The authoritarian/libertarian distinction is useful in identifying tendencies re. who is to be relied upon to promote and sustain socialism, but again I'm less convinced how useful it is with regards to defining socialism. Going back to the OP there needs to be some sort of creative tension between individual and collective (including state collective) responsibilities.

I'll leave your last point re. anarchists, libertarianism and the need for a state to the anarchists and libertarians...come on in!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[TremulousTetra]

Originally Posted by mk12
Three things for me:

1) Extreme democracy in all spheres of life.
2) Abolition of hierarchical social relations
3) Common ownership of production [and reproduction?!].

These things are interlink I think.

MK what about hierarchies of skill or esteem that are agreed and voluntarily entered into; you might agree who is to lead a particular piece of work or captain a netball team on the basis of that persos's skills and the regard with which they are held by others. Surely socialism won't preclude these sorts of hierarchical soical relations; and if that is the case what is it that marks them out from hierarchical relationships that you would want done away with?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

I did like, and agreed with mk12's post, but I think you have developed the SW position even clearer.