20.1 Introduction
Socialism is a set of doctrines, a cluster of ideas, and a political programme that emerged at the beginning of the 19th century. It arose out of a revolt against bourgeois property. In bourgeois society, property loses its sacred character but gains a new type of sanction — it becomes an inalienable right.
The right to private property has been regarded by much of liberal theory as the key to individual liberty. For John Locke (father of liberal philosophy), the right to “life, liberty and property” is a natural right — human beings enter a contract to create a state for its protection. From Adam Smith to Jeremy Bentham to modern proponents of capitalism (now in its globalised form), private property has been politically sacrosanct and considered an essential condition of social progress.
20.2 The Doctrine of Social Progress, Individualism and Capitalism
The doctrine of social progress assumes that the pursuit of rational self-interest by every individual will lead, over time, to social good. General social welfare will be the result of individual maximisation of interest. This was captured by Alexander Pope: “Thus God or nature formed the general frame / And bade self-love and social be the same.” Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” is the most famous formulation.
Everyone is not only a maximiser of self-interest but an infinite appropriator and infinite consumer of goods. Property is the measure of man. The picture of man under such a social arrangement is an egoistic person, dissociated from all other individuals, alone in the marketplace.
Locke (Two Treatises of Government): “Though the earth be common to all men, yet every man has a ‘property’ in his own ‘person’. This nobody has a right to but himself.” Bourgeois property is exclusively individual — it legitimises the exclusion of others. (Unlike feudal property, where other members also had entitlements on the fruits of property.) There is no sense of social obligation to others or of sharing in the benefits of a system created by social cooperation.
Consequences of capitalist production:
- Investment decisions — which commodities to produce and in what quantities — are determined by a small group of owners of means of production. Profitability is the sole consideration, not social benefit. Whether luxury cars are produced over needed public buses, or guns over hospitals — all left to the profit motive. Production is without plan and can be of a wasteful nature.
- Class division — the capitalist system creates a class freed from labour obligations (the capitalists) who impose the burden of productive labour on the rest. The majority live solely on wages determined by the cost of reproducing their labour power and by demand and supply. Society is sharply divided between those who own capital and those with nothing but their labour power.
A society with such class division cannot respect the person who labours — property and possession are the basis of esteem. The bourgeoisie in capitalist societies are rightly called the ruling class — with the power to determine the main features of society. Class determines the structure of society, which in turn conditions values, attitudes, actions, and the overall articulation of civilisation.
20.3 Socialism: Meaning and Early Strands
Meaning
In the early 19th century, the common elements of the emerging socialist outlook crystallised around the conviction that:
“The uncontrolled concentration of wealth and unbridled competition was bound to lead to increasing misery and crises, and that the system must be replaced by one in which the organisation of production and exchange could do away with poverty and oppression and bring about a redistribution of the world’s gifts on a basis of equality.” — Leszek Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism
Early socialism did not form a clear-cut doctrine but a set of values and beliefs held together by the view that private ownership of production should be replaced — though there was no unanimity about “replaced by what.” The common thread was that some form of common ownership of productive property should be the basis of social organisation.
Socialism is not against all property — owning consumable items (a flat, car, refrigerator) does not militate against socialism. When socialism targets private property, it means productive property that yields profit or rental income — i.e., private ownership of means of production.
Early socialists: Property is theft — owners cheat the direct producers of whatever is produced above the wages paid to them. This denial of what they produce is theft. The accumulation of this theft constitutes property as we know it. Being morally unacceptable, private ownership must be abolished and converted into common ownership.
Later socialists: Property is not theft but the appropriation and accumulation of surplus value — it is internal and structural to the capitalist process, instituted in law and therefore legal. But it remains from a normative point of view illegitimate and unacceptable — hence must be abolished and common social ownership instituted.
What unites all socialists: the common notion about the unwelcome nature of private ownership of means of production, and the idea of some form of common ownership. Schumpeter (Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy) defined socialism as:
“That organisation of society in which the means of production are controlled, and the decisions on how and what to produce and on who is to get what, are made by public authority instead of by privately-owned and privately managed firms.”
The differences within socialism arise over: (a) how to replace capitalism, and (b) what exactly is the version of social ownership.
Historical Context of Early Socialism
Two important post-French Revolution developments:
- The French Revolution enthroned equality (and fraternity) as equally important as liberty — egalitarianism became a creed with the masses.
- The Industrial Revolution created a fast-emerging working class, large and growing but living in deep misery.
Early socialism grew as a popular movement with a festive play of ideas. The earliest voices were Robert Owen (1771–1858), Saint-Simon (1760–1825), Charles Fourier (1772–1837), and Proudhon (1809–65).
Robert Owen — First to use the word “Socialist” (1827, Cooperative Magazine). Self-made Scottish cotton manufacturer who believed industry could liberate mankind from poverty and ignorance, but only if production is organised on cooperative principles rather than competition. He carried out many experiments in cooperative organisation. He believed human nature could be transformed by reconstructing the environment, with education as a powerful conditioning influence. He advocated “villages of cooperation” for the unemployed. He was a strong advocate of the right to work. His ideas inspired popular movements in Britain eventually leading to the formation of trade unions (then considered illegal). Owen criticised competition as bad for the common good.
Charles Fourier — From an impoverished merchant family. Appalled by waste, inefficiency, boredom, and inequality of modern work. His main interest was making work pleasant and adjusted to individual character. He found division of labour unacceptable as it broke work into minute repetitive operations. Unlike Owen, he did not believe in big industry. Work should be concentrated in the countryside and small shops where family life can be lived in communities. He advocated cooperatives of small producers where goods can be varied, enjoyable, well crafted, and made to last. He was a spokesman of the fast-dwindling craft manufacturers who conceived and executed work all by themselves.
Saint-Simon — A man of science, industry, and large administration. Like Owen, a great believer in science, technology, and industry. Foresaw the 19th century as the era of science and industry leading to unity of mankind and prosperity. He believed social reconstruction should follow the advice of a learned elite he called “luminaries” — working towards redesigning social institutions for the moral, intellectual, and physical improvement of the poorest (also the most numerous class). The state must find work for all. What made him a socialist was his conviction that there is room for only one class in society — the workers. Wages should correspond to capacity to work for the good of society. Non-workers should be weeded out.
Proudhon — Explicitly referred to property as theft. Had a polemical argument with Marx on the nature of property and poverty (Marx replied to his Philosophy of Poverty with Poverty of Philosophy, pointing to the inadequacies of his philosophical convictions). His central concern was the liberty of ordinary people — he saw inequality as the greatest obstacle to liberty. Equality was sought as a precondition of liberty. An egalitarian ethos can only be achieved in a classless society. He shunned class war for social change — advocated voluntary agreement of the working people to move towards a classless society through a nation-wide system of decentralised workers’ cooperatives bargaining with each other for mutual exchange of goods and services.
Marx’s Assessment of Early Socialism
Marx called early socialism “Utopian” — criticising it on two grounds:
- No conception of revolutionary action — no identification of the forces within capitalist society that will fight to replace it and how.
- An assortment of vague and diffuse ideas — all early socialists were sceptical of class struggle; they relied on voluntary agreements, change of heart, propaganda, and practical experiments rather than organised proletarian action.
However, Marx appreciated their contribution. He thought that by their “instinctive yearning for the reconstruction” of society, they had succeeded in creating an atmosphere in favour of socialism. As he remarked in the Communist Manifesto, these ideas became “valuable materials for the enlightenment of the working class.” Marx’s attitude was one of criticism without being dismissive.
20.4 Karl Marx and Socialism
Marx’s importance lies in being the first to compound a theory of socialism that could rival Adam Smith’s and Ricardo’s theories of capitalism. He developed a doctrine that unified theory with practice — theory guiding practice; practice correcting errors in theory. He built up a theory of revolutionary action identifying the class that will carry out the revolutionary task of replacing capitalism with socialism.
Historical Materialism — Framework
In his theory of historical materialism, Marx showed that historical change is neither accidental nor a result of sheer will — it has laws which are dialectical. Contradiction is the essence of dialectics — not logical contradiction (incompatibilities in an argument) but an inner attribute of reality — ontological contradiction. This inner contradiction impels movement in reality. Like in feudalism, so in capitalism, it is internal contradictions which propel it towards change.
Two Poles of Marxist Analysis
First pole — Class Struggle: Every mode of production (sum total of forces and relations of production) gives rise to two classes in perpetual opposition: the ruling/exploiting class and the oppressed/exploited class. The constant conflict between these two is class struggle. Communist Manifesto: “Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps… Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.”
After detailed study of the capitalist mode of production (Capital, Vol. I), Marx concluded that contradictions within it would go on intensifying, leading to increasingly intense struggle between capitalists and working class. This would give rise to revolutionary consciousness among the workers, teaching them that only a takeover of power from the minority of capitalists could free the working class from exploitation.
Second pole — Accumulation of Capital and Rate of Exploitation:
- The labourer is paid wages at the cost of reproducing his labour power (subsistence goods for living). He reproduces that much value in 4–5 hours of work, yet normally works 8–10 hours. The extra hours produce additional value — surplus value — appropriated by the capitalist. This is exploitation: a built-in, structural, and relational feature of capitalist production, legal and necessary for capitalism.
- Over time, the cost of machinery and fixed capital (Constant Capital, C.C.) increases relative to the cost of hiring labour power (Variable Capital, V.C.). This leads to the centralisation of capital (big fish eating small ones) and a fall in the rate of profit.
- To compensate, the capitalist intensifies exploitation — workers resist — leading to the impoverishment of the working class in both relative and absolute terms.
- This will necessarily lead to greater and greater class struggles eventually culminating in the overthrow of capitalism and capture of power by the workers.
Marx concluded in the Manifesto: “What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers.“
Sequence: Proletarian Revolution → Dictatorship of Proletariat → Socialism → Communism
- Dictatorship of the proletariat: the first stage of working class rule, preparing the way for socialism.
- Socialism: “from each according to capacity, to each according to work.”
- Communism: “from each according to capacity, to each according to need” — the world of choice; a classless society where everyone works according to capacity and takes according to need.
20.5 Critiques of Marxism and Democratic Socialism
When the workers’ revolution did not take place as Marx had foreseen, strong reservations about Marxism emerged. Two lines of critique developed — both eventually converging on democratic socialism.
Eduard Bernstein — Evolutionary Socialism
In Evolutionary Socialism, Bernstein (a long-time German Marxist) argued:
- Wages of workers are not falling but relatively rising because the rate of profit is not declining as Marx argued.
- The expected impoverishment of workers and consequent uprising will not come about.
- Workers would get more and more integrated into the capitalist system.
- The working class has already become the majority — by proper organisation, it is possible to win a parliamentary majority and strive towards socialist ideals.
- The need is to work within the capitalist system by accepting its institutional framework of parliament, elections, and open political activity.
- No need for revolution.
(This viewpoint came to be termed, in organised Marxism, as “revisionism” and “reformism” — a pejorative reference to those who abandoned working for revolution.)
Fabian Socialism (Britain)
A large group of British socialists had intrinsic reservations about Marxism — they believed some of its goals and methods would result in authoritarian, despotic politics. They objected to the dictatorship of the proletariat, class warfare, violent overthrow of capitalism, etc.
Leading socialists formed the Fabian Society in the mid-1880s. Key figures: Sydney and Beatrice Webb, G.D.H. Cole, Bernard Shaw, Laski, Tawney. (Indian nationalist leaders led by Nehru during the Freedom Struggle were deeply influenced by this current — after independence, giving birth to the idea of a “Socialist Pattern of Society” in the mid-1950s.)
Core Tenets of Democratic Socialism
Both critiques converged on four core tenets:
- Socialism as moral need, not historical necessity: Socialism is not, as Marx thought, a historical inevitability but a moral need for the good of humanity. People will have to be won over for socialism and parliamentary majorities gained through political education among the masses.
- Entire people, not only the working class: In a transition to socialism, not only the working class but the entire people will play a part. The working class remains strategic, but the middle classes too can be imbued with socialist ideas and can play a major role in building public opinion.
- Gradual ascent, not violent rupture: The route to socialism will not be through violent overthrow but through a gradual ascent — by degrees, through closely interconnected legislative measures, the structure of a socialist economy can be put in place. Equal opportunity of effective participation, cooperation rather than competition, equality to fully develop human personality will become social norms.
- State as instrument of socialisation: Through a series of nationalisation measures, the state will ensure that private ownership of means of production is socialised — different forms of state and cooperative ownership in industry and public services (health care, education, electricity, railways, etc.) will be instituted. Everyone will have equal access and entitlement to goods and services. A planned economy of public ownership combined with deepening of democracy and freedom of intellect will be the path to human emancipation.
Summary Assessment
Socialism is no simple, monolithic doctrine like Soviet communism — it represents a variation upon variation, a multiplicity of viewpoints sharing core assumptions:
- Every human being is capable of making an equal contribution to the common good.
- This can only be done when human beings exert together for common welfare.
- Socialism is a special form of democracy extending freedom from civil and political rights to equal claims on economic wellbeing and social status.
- This can only be achieved when human beings cease to be egoistically competitive as under capitalism.
So long as capitalism exists with its exploitation and disregard for human dignity in favour of production efficiency and market equilibrium, the yearning for socialism will persist — the revolt against bourgeois property will not come to an end.
