Democratic control over the means of production by workers
It provides a safety net by pooling the resources of the community to support the less fortunate. This prevents people from having to sacrifice their long term goals because their short term needs may not be otherwise met.
Also in contrast to capitalism that treats society as a zero sum game (“I can’t get ahead unless I take something from someone else”) socialism is a benefit multiplier (“I’m part of the community. By making the life of everyone in the community better I’m also improving my own life”).
Few movements self-identify as “Socialist”, at best it’s a taxonomical label. Attempting to talk about the finer points of socialism is akin to debating the pros/cons of “Animals” – it’s an overly broad topic and doomed to spiral into bike-shedding over semantics as soon as the conversation starts to look interesting.
With that being said, let’s talk about some more concrete terms – apologies in advance for wielding only slightly less clumsy terminology in my bullets:
- Socialized Medicine: Healthcare is a human right. I am pro human rights.
- Unions: Mostly positive. Nothing’s perfect, but come on… you’d have to be blind not to see and feel for how exploited lower-class workers are without them
- Democratic Socialists of America: I’m a member – that means I like them. I think their platform represents the ideal incrementalist approach to improving the current status quo
- European Welfare States (e.g.: Denmark): Too fuzzy to have a solid opinion on, but certainly a battle-tested template. I like most of their ideas most of the time
- Marxism: A genius body of economic philosophy, but increasingly out of place as time marches onward. I’d be for a by-the-book implementation (insofar as that’s possible) in 1923, but not 2023
- Maoism/Leninism: Not exactly success stories. It’s easier to appreciate their noble ideas & intentions with the distance lent by history, but that’s altogether different from “liking”
- Communism: As a whole? I think the template holds promise and can be made to work in a modern context, but viability =/= realizability. The world would have to get turned upside-down first and it’s questionable exactly how many of us would live through that… but never say never.
Marxism: A genius body of economic philosophy, but increasingly out of place as time marches onward. I’d be for a by-the-book implementation (insofar as that’s possible) in 1923, but not 2023
One of the most insightful critiques of Marxism I’ve ever seen is that there is literally no solidly prescribed actual economic policy. Marx spoke at length about social policy and issues. Freeing the workers from the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie from themselves. But almost never and nowhere. Did he ever go into in-depth detail about economics. Or the economies that we would specifically have to go through to achieve his social vision. Which is what allowed bastardizations like those of Lenin, Mao, and the Ill families neptocracy.
Specifically ignoring the stateless part of his stateless, classes communism. Conflating the state that shouldn’t exist with the workers who were supposed to own the means and tools they used for production themselves. Etc.
FWIW: Marxists weren’t blind to this obvious omission. The International was what we’d call a “big tent” coalition, so contentious questions were frequently hand-waved away in this fashion. Individual Marxists – including those as foundational as Engels – absolutely had opinions on the subject and they were not afraid to do the 19th century equivalent of Twitter dunking on those who would fantasize over establishing stateless utopias. Quoting Engels circa 1872 (bolded emphasis is my own, italicised emphasis preserved from original translation):
While the great mass of the Social-Democratic workers hold our view that state power is nothing more than the organisation with which the ruling classes, landlords and capitalists have provided themselves in order to protect their social prerogatives, Bakunin maintains that it is the state which has created capital, that the capitalist has his capital only by favour of the state. As, therefore, the state is the chief evil, it is above all the state which must be done away with and then capitalism will go to hell of itself. We, on the contrary say: do away with capital, the appropriation of the whole means of production in the hands of the few, and the state will fall away of itself. The difference is an essential one. Without a previous social revolution the abolition of the state is nonsense; the abolition of capital is in itself the social revolution and involves a change in the whole method of production. Further, however, as for Bakunin the state is the main evil, nothing must be done which can maintain the existence of any state, whether it be a republic, a monarchy or whatever it may be. Hence therefore complete abstention from all politics. To perpetrate a political action, and especially to take part in an election, would be a betrayal of principle. The thing to do is to conduct propaganda, abuse the state, organise, and when all the workers are won over, i.e., the majority, depose the authorities, abolish the state and replace it by the organisation of the International. This great act, with which the millennium begins, is called social liquidation.
[…]
Now as, according to Bakunin, the International is not to be formed for political struggle but in order that it may at once replace the old state organisation as soon as social liquidation takes place, it follows that it must come as near as possible to the Bakunist ideal of the society of the future. In this society there will above all be no authority, for authority = state = an absolute evil. (How these people propose to run a factory, work a railway or steer a ship without having in the last resort one deciding will, without a unified direction, they do not indeed tell us.) The authority of the majority over the minority also ceases. Every individual and every community is autonomous, but as to how a society, even of only two people, is possible unless each gives up some of his autonomy, Bakunin again remains silent.
Yes though those would definitely be the Lenin Mao etc camp. Not the overarching ideology as a whole. So it’s confusing that they’re applied twice. But yes those of us even on the libertarian anarchist side do have our own concepts as well. They just aren’t baked in to the ideology as a whole.
I’ve lived in a country with socialism for my entire life, and have studied the laws in my own and other countries without socialism.
I will talk about socialism as it is in Scandinavia, more specifically Denmark. Here’s a few things other than paid education and free healthcare:
-
Getting paid to study: You get paid to study as soon as you turn 18. In that way you don’t need a job while you studying. Basic salary when living away from parents: 1.000 USD/month.
-
UBI: In Denmark we have UBI for people being poor, basically. If you don’t have a job, is sick and can’t work, or any other reason you might be screwed, you get paid by the government to… well yeah, exist basically. You have to meet some requirements and actively trying to get better or find a job though, which seems fair I think. If the government thinks it’s not possible to get better, you can get the money permanently for the rest of your life without doing anything. (this is used for people with disabilities, both mental and physical, both born with it or obtained later in life)
-
Shared heating system: This is maybe the biggest “socialism” thing I can mention. In Denmark your house or apartment can be hooked up to a country wide heating system, which means we all share the same heat. This is a way to make heat distribution centralised, which has major advantages such as; price, availability, maintenance. (Fun fact: every data center build in Denmark needs to be hooked up to this system, as they will “donate” all their excess heat from their servers to the central heating system)
-
Flex jobbing: If you are no longer able to work 37 hours a week, you can be a flex worker. This basically means that you can work 15 hours a week and still get paid a full salary. The government will cover the rest of the pay and also cover some expenses for the company having the flex worker. This system is great for peoples mental health, as they still can feel a part of society even though they can’t work full time. While they still can live a worthy life because their pay is fine. It’s a win-win for the country, the companies and the people needing this.
I could go on, but I don’t want to be that guy praising my own country all the time. We Scandinavians tend to do that.
Sounds like the Danish welfare system is more robust than the one we have here in Sweden - however, I would like to point out that what we have is not socialism. The central ethos of socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production (usually through the government), and our economies are first and foremost rather successful capitalist mixed market economies with strong regulations and a certain degree of government ownership in limited (usually critical) areas of society. With the help of our capitalist economies, we create and tax the wealth and productivity needed to fund a rather robust welfare system.
In general Sweden and Denmark is mostly run the same way. Non of the countries are pure socialism, but they are sure very successful on physical and mental well-being for their citizens, and giving them a high living standard because of this welfare driven from ideologies of socialism.
I love how people think that benefits are now called UBI.
I guess the billionaires successfully stamped that idea out.
I think it’s right to call it UBI when you get a basic income. The universal part is maybe not true though.
And I don’t get what you mean about billionaires.
The universal part is basically the point of UBI. It’s income for everyone, no strings attached. So calling it UBI is definitely misleading I’m afraid
Denmark is not socialist, nor is it capitalist. It like essentially every other “capitalist” country is a mixed economy. In some aspects countries like the US are more “socialist” like in agricultural policy.
Can you explain how the US has a more socialist agricultural policy? I don’t think I’m familiar with it.
US agriculture policy isn’t Socialist in that workers control the production, but “socialist” in the since that the government controls the markets through subsidies.
For example, in the 70s their was a crash in dairy prices. To the point where farmers were dumping milk down the drain. (yay capitalism) The Carter admin, seeing the dairy industry as essential to national security (dairy was a way bigger part of the diet back then), bought massive amounts of milk at above market price to keep the farmers afloat.
You may have heard of “government cheese” as a pejorative toward welfare. Well, that’s where the cheese came from, all that milk that the government owned. People remember the children that got free cheese, but not the farmers who got government cash.
I like working and feeling like I’m helping others or working towards a larger goal without the constant ever present exploitation of myself and others.
