is it socialism?

[wait]

Here is a question I have been struggling with -

How do you know if a society is socialist or not? How should we define socialism?

I dont agree that having socialized ownership of the means of production is enough to define something as socialist.

I recently heard it put this way - when labor becomes subordinated to dead labor, then you no longer have socialism. However, I'm not clear on what this means or how one would know if that was the case.

Also I have heard that what determines if a society is socialist or not is what line is leading - yet how do we know if the line that is leading is revolutionary or not? How should we evaluate that?

[honky tonk]

let's (for once) get into the question of what is socialism on the high theoretical plane that it deserves.

As you point out, far too often socialism is defined by "state ownership" of the means of production (a definition that both the extreme right and the revisionist left embrace.)

Here is a different and compact set of approaches to capital and socialism -- written by Bob Avakian in his work "Cnquer the World."

1)

"Capital is a social relation and a process, whose essence is the domination by alien, antagonistic interests over labor power and the continual (and extended) reproduction of that... It means that... labor power is controlled and utlizied on an expanded basis to reproduce relations that are alien to the workers and opposed to them."

2) Applying this understanding to its negation (i.e. socialist society):

"If ownership has been (in the main) socialized, if a correct line is in command... which means that the division of labor as well as differences in distribution are being resticted to the greatest degree possible... if the motion is toward eliminating these things, then how can it be said that a force opposed to the proletariat has domination over its labor power or even a force alien to it in a fundamental sense?"

3)

Elaborating on these writings, the RCP wrote (in The Soviet Union: Socialist or Social Imperialist volume 1)

p. 147:
"The RCP has long emphazied that the existance of socialism is a question of the socialist road rather than a question of certain fixed attributes. It is a question of the direction society is moving in. In other words, in determining whether the capital relations is dominent in the Soviet Union, it is necessary, first and foremost, to examine what social labor is in the service of, whether the masses are being mobilized to transform society in the direction of communism and for the purpose of contributing to world revolution....Socialism is a contradictory entity in which newly developed production and social relations are in conflict with regenerated capitalist relations. Socialism... is a coherent system and yet, at the same time, a checkboard of contested zones, with bourgeois forces in control here and proletarian forces in control there. What mkes such a society socilist is the fact that a proletarian line is overall in command, that society is on the socialist road, and, most important, functioning as a base are for world revolution."

[redstar2000]

The RCP wrote: The RCP has long emphazied that the existance of socialism is a question of the socialist road rather than a question of certain fixed attributes. It is a question of the direction society is moving in.

Actually, that's not a bad try. The problem is making an accurate assessment of what direction the self-proclaimed "socialist" country is actually moving in.

If the railroads were re-nationalized in the U.K., no one (I think) would argue that the U.K. is moving in a "socialist" direction.

And it's pretty obvious that the remaining nominally "socialist" countries are all moving back towards capitalism...the growing weight of foreign investment in their economies makes it an inescapable conclusion.

It's the ones where the direction is not at all clear that are the problem; Stalin's Russia and Mao's China being the outstanding examples. Certainly there were things going on there that you could point to and say "that's going in the right direction!". But there were also things that were clearly going in the wrong direction.

From a distance, how does one tell? You can't just "take the leader's word for it"...unless you are very naive.

I would therefore suggest an amendment to the RCP's definition that may help clarify matters.

A socialist society that is not visibly making progress towards communism is invisibly degenerating into capitalism.

The "process" must go forward...or it will go backwards.

That seems to be "the lesson of history" in this regard.

[Deleted]

I tend to agree with the Socialist Labor Party's "What is Socialism?" section of their website:

What is Socialism?

Who owns What?

Socialism is the collective ownership by all the people of the factories, mills, mines, railroads, land and all other instruments of production.

Who benefits?

Socialism means production to satisfy human needs, not as under capitalism, for sale and profit.

Who runs things?

Socialism means direct control and management of the industries and social services by the workers through a democratic government based on their nationwide economic organization.
Under socialism, all authority will originate from the workers, integrally united in Socialist Industrial Unions. In each workplace, the rank and file will elect whatever committees or representatives are needed to facilitate production. Within each shop or office division of a plant, the rank and file will participate directly in formulating and implementing all plans necessary for efficient operations.

Local and National Government

Besides electing all necessary shop officers, the workers will also elect representatives to a local and national council of their industry or service--and to a central congress representing all the industries and services. This all-industrial congress will plan and coordinate production in all areas of the economy.

Democratic Control

All persons elected to any post in the socialist government, from the lowest to the highest level, will be directly accountable to the rank and file. They will be subject to removal at any time that a majority of those who elected them decide it is necessary.
Such a system would make possible the fullest democracy and freedom. It would be a society based on the most primary freedom--economic freedom.

Individual Rights

For individuals, socialism means an end to economic insecurity and exploitation. It means workers cease to be commodities bought and sold on the labor market, and forced to work as appendages to tools owned by someone else. It means a chance to develop all individual capacities and potentials within a free community of free individuals. It means a classless society that guarantees full democratic rights for all workers.

What Socialism is not:

*Socialism does not mean government or state ownership.
*It does not mean a closed party-run system without democratic rights.
*It does not mean "nationalization," or "labor-management boards," or state capitalism of any kind.
*It means a complete end to all capitalist social relations.

Socialism Never Tried

Socialism has never existed. It did not exist in the old U.S.S.R., and it does not exist in China. Socialism will be a society in which the things we need to live, work and control our own lives--the industries, services and natural resources--are collectively owned by all the people, and in which the democratic organization of the people within the industries and services is the government. Socialism means that government of the people, for the people and by the people will become a reality for the first time.

How we can get socialism:

To win the struggle for socialist freedom requires enormous efforts of organizational and educational work. It requires building a political party of socialism to contest the power of the capitalist class on the political field, and to educate the majority of workers about the need for socialism. It requires building Socialist Industrial Union organizations to unite all workers in a classconscious industrial force, and to prepare them to take, hold and operate the tools of production.

[wait]

In another thread it was said : Socialism under Stalin was not a "command economy" (regardless of what his enemies, and even his supporters!, think.) And Mao's approach was not some knee-jerk subset of the Soviet experience (as most academics and euro-chauvinist lefties think -- and I'm not referring to you here!)

This has tripped me up before. Exactly what should that type of economic structure be called? I understand that it was too centralized and that was one of the problems with it. From what I have read recently about it, it seems to be very close to this description. I'm not even exactly sure how the economic structure under Stalin could be said to have been socialist - especially toward the end of his life when he was no longer relying on the masses.

I've read 'Conquer the World' and in fact I'm really struggling with it at the moment. The quotes you pulled I found very hard to 'get at'.

1)

"Capital is a social relation and a process, whose essence is the domination by alien, antagonistic interests over labor power and the continual (and extended) reproduction of that... It means that... labor power is controlled and utlizied on an expanded basis to reproduce relations that are alien to the workers and opposed to them."

I think part of this is that I am unclear on exactly what is meant by a 'social relation'. At one point i felt that I understood this. Could you give some examples? Looking at this quote it seems like that 'social relation' is both the cause and the end result.

[wait]

I want to add, that my question about Stalin has to do with 'what direction was society moving in?' -- since he relied less on the mass later on than he did at an earlier point. This is in fact one of the things that I find very confusing despite the fact that until the reforms after his death, investment and production was not decided on the basis of profit indicators and the law of value's functioning in society was being restricted.

[honky tonk]

The RCP wrote: "The RCP has long emphazied that the existance of socialism is a question of the socialist road rather than a question of certain fixed attributes. It is a question of the direction society is moving in."

And Redstar wrote: "Actually, that's not a bad try. The problem is making an accurate assessment of what direction the self-proclaimed "socialist" country is actually moving in."

Of course.

Knowing the definition of something doesn't mean you automatically recognize that something when you see it in real life.

You have to analyze, study, investigate, and understand the (often hidden and complex) dynamics of development.

When capitalism was restored in Russia (in 1956) the Chinese Communist Party did not automatically *know* it had happened. It had never happened before! And they watched for years, studied the changes carried out by revisionists etc. And (in 1963) after diplomatic struggle, hidden conflict, line struggle within their Chinese party, and pathbreaking analysis by Mao, they publicly announced that they believed capitalism had been restored.

Similarly when capitalism was restored in China (1976) it was far from obvious. Many Maoist parties did not see what was going on, many were confused. There was intense struggle (and even a split) within the RCP (and its central committee) over how to sum it up. Again, it required some *Marxist* analysis (in this case by Bob Avakian) to inject clarity into this difficult and complex event.

So it is important to have some deep theoretical clarity, and then (in a related but separate process) that theory has to be applied to living practice and real-world events.

By the way, while we are talking: This is another of Bob Avakian's rather important contributions (to the whole world communist movement). His penetrating analysis of the restoration of capitalism in China was unique, and urgently needed -- and helped forge the basis (and even the very possibility) for reconsituting a world Maoist movement on a correct basis.

[RosaRL]

SoR's post gave me the feeling that his definition of socialism is more democracy in all areas of life. I found this very disturbing :

Socialism will be a society in which the things we need to live, work and control our own lives--the industries, services and natural resources--are collectively owned by all the people, and in which the democratic organization of the people within the industries and services is the government. Socialism means that government of the people, for the people and by the people will become a reality for the first time.

In the entire piece that SoR posted there is nothing about the dictatorship of the proletariat OVER the disposed bourgeoisie.

We get the image that this would simply be, from the very start a 'state of the whole people.' Is that possible? Is Democracy under socialism simply the full assertion and extension of democracy under capitalism as implied by "Socialism means that government of the people, for the people and by the people will become a reality for the first time"?

I dont think so as this reduces the fundamental question of transforming the entire economic base of society to eliminate classes to a question of "democratizing" the foundation of society. It denies that under socialism there is class conflict and that the proletariat is locked in a life and death struggle to determine the direction that society will move in.

Lenin explained that not only is it the case that democracy under socialism means democracy among the masses and dictatorship over the exploiters; but beyond that it means a struggle to uproot the conditions - material, political, ideological - that make exploitation and class division possible; and finally, the very advance and the ultimate victory of this struggle will lead to the elimination of democracy itself, its "withering away."

Something else that stands out to me in this piece is this lil bit:
To win the struggle for socialist freedom requires enormous efforts of organizational and educational work. It requires building a political party of socialism to contest the power of the capitalist class on the political field, and to educate the majority of workers about the need for socialism.

While I dont deny the need for both organizational work and educational work - but work to what end? for what aims? It seems to me that the task of revolution is being reduced to nothing more than building some mass party and fielding candidates. What else could be meant by "requires building a political party of socialism to contest the power of the capitalist class on the political field"?

In fact, my feeling is that this is nothing more than the same old formulation of 'peaceful transition' in which all efforts are focused on winning a majority through peaceful means and on using such peaceful means to get government positions and move (or nudge) society in the direction of socialism.

Once again I feel that this denies that the state itself is a dictatorship of one class over another. It treats the state as if it were neutral and can simply be taken over by those with the most votes and then used to serve their interest.

'If voting changed anything, it would be illegal'

Now SoR (and others here), one more thing - since this is about socialism - what is your vision of what Socialism would 'look like'?

How would you prevent the rise of competition between industries or within the same industries? What would be the mechanism by which you would restrict profits in society -- especially if you say - "Such a system would make possible the fullest democracy and freedom. It would be a society based on the most primary freedom--economic freedom."

What if reactionaries whip up sections of the masses against socialism and are able to mobilize their social base in elections to re-institute capitalism? What will prevent this?

[Deleted]

Chiang said:

SoR's post gave me the feeling that his definition of socialism is more democracy in all areas of life. I found this very disturbing

Yes, silly me. I do love that Democracy! ;D

Socialism will be a society in which the things we need to live, work and control our own lives--the industries, services and natural resources--are collectively owned by all the people, and in which the democratic organization of the people within the industries and services is the government. Socialism means that government of the people, for the people and by the people will become a reality for the first time.

In the entire piece that SoR posted there is nothing about the dictatorship of the proletariat OVER the disposed bourgeoisie.

That's because I don't believe in a 'dictatorship of the proletariat.' If everyone isn't free, then no one is free.

We get the image that this would simply be, from the very start a 'state of the whole people.' Is that possible? Is Democracy under socialism simply the full assertion and extension of democracy under capitalism as implied by "Socialism means that government of the people, for the people and by the people will become a reality for the first time"?

I absolutely believe so. Once the mean's of production are no longer under the control of the ruling class, they aren't a threat. The people will be able to defend it, because everyone will be in power. As Bakunin wrote, "Where all rule, there are no more ruled, and there is no State.

I dont think so as this reduces the fundamental question of transforming the entire economic base of society to eliminate classes to a question of "democratizing" the foundation of society. It denies that under socialism there is class conflict and that the proletariat is locked in a life and death struggle to determine the direction that society will move in.

I don't think that's true at all. This conflict is not denied, I just reject the notion of a centralized dicatorship and coercion being needed to ensure that remnants of the ruling classes do not resurrect the old society.

Lenin explained that not only is it the case that democracy under socialism means democracy among the masses and dictatorship over the exploiters; but beyond that it means a struggle to uproot the conditions - material, political, ideological - that make exploitation and class division possible; and finally, the very advance and the ultimate victory of this struggle will lead to the elimination of democracy itself, its "withering away."

That never quite worked out did it? The "proletarian dicatorship" becomes the new ruling class, and the revolution is betrayed.

Something else that stands out to me in this piece is this lil bit:
To win the struggle for socialist freedom requires enormous efforts of organizational and educational work. It requires building a political party of socialism to contest the power of the capitalist class on the political field, and to educate the majority of workers about the need for socialism.

While I dont deny the need for both organizational work and educational work - but work to what end? for what aims? It seems to me that the task of revolution is being reduced to nothing more than building some mass party and fielding candidates. What else could be meant by "requires building a political party of socialism to contest the power of the capitalist class on the political field"?

Education and political agitation in order to reach the masses. You can't have some party come along and "lead" people to socialism. You need to win them to it. It you don't believe in the power of your own ideas, then maybe they aren't worth so much.

In fact, my feeling is that this is nothing more than the same old formulation of 'peaceful transition' in which all efforts are focused on winning a majority through peaceful means and on using such peaceful means to get government positions and move (or nudge) society in the direction of socialism.

Once again I feel that this denies that the state itself is a dictatorship of one class over another. It treats the state as if it were neutral and can simply be taken over by those with the most votes and then used to serve their interest.

I don't think that's true at all. Just because I don't want some party dictatorship, doesn't mean I'm a reformist social democrat.

'If voting changed anything, it would be illegal'

Now SoR (and others here), one more thing - since this is about socialism - what is your vision of what Socialism would 'look like'?

As Daniel De Leon said:

"So with Socialism. It does not consist merely in the overthrow of private ownership in any or all of the necessaries of life. If such overthrow of private ownership were Socialism, then the overthrow of the one-time private ownership of military forces, and the present State-ownership of the same, would be Socialism. Obviously, that is not Socialism. A limb of a human being is not a human being. Socialism is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled, and administered by the people, for the people, and under which, accordingly, the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at end. ”That is Socialism, nothing short of that."

How would you prevent the rise of competition between industries or within the same industries? What would be the mechanism by which you would restrict profits in society -- especially if you say - "Such a system would make possible the fullest democracy and freedom. It would be a society based on the most primary freedom--economic freedom."

Simple: abolish the wage system, abolish money.

What if reactionaries whip up sections of the masses against socialism and are able to mobilize their social base in elections to re-institute capitalism? What will prevent this?

The collective power of all people. The state would immedietly be in the process of "whithering away" so there wouldn't be any central body for them to take over (unlike what has happened in every Leninist state). The wage and monetary system would be abolished as well.