What is socialism?

Socialism is hard to describe, partly because it has changed over the last two centuries, and partly because no distinctively socialist template has ever become a successful method of organizing a modern nation. If you ask a socialist what socialism is, you are likely to be told what it is not. Socialism is not capitalism. It is not exploitation. It does not mean that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. That is all very fine, but what is it? No one seems to know. The one thing that all socialists have in common is a deep sympathy for the plight of the working class in oligarchic society.

Two centuries ago socialists focused on the idea of self-sufficient agricultural communities. The intention was to take working class families out of the poverty stricken and crime ridden, urban slums and relocate them to the fresh clean air of the countryside. They would live together in a community somewhat similar to the old peasant village, except there would be no aristocrat to demand a portion of the harvest. They would share the land, the work, and the food that was produced. In theory everyone would be healthy, happy, and self fulfilled. No one would be uncertain about where their next meal would come from.

In the 19th century hundreds of these rural communes were established in Europe and the United States. Most of them did not last. They all suffered from the same basic problems. Some of the inhabitants would be hard workers and dedicated to the socialist ideals. Others would be lazy and primarily looking for an easy place to live. The majority would fall somewhere in between these two extremes. There were arguments over who should do what work, arguments over the decision making process, and arguments over religion.

The original intention of the communes was supposed to be cooperation and sharing. The reality tended to be jealousy, factionalism, and petty quarrels. Since no one was paid for their work, many people tried to do as little as possible. Attempts were made to remedy this in various ways, but they were not very successful. Most communes broke up after a few years or a few decades.

When it became obvious that rural communes were not the solution to the plight of the working class, the socialists did not give up. They deplored the poverty and misery of the urban slums and were sure that reason and enlightenment could find a solution. Many of them turned their attention to the new arena of electoral politics and the growing labor union movement. Socialist political parties appeared to champion the rights of the working class. This brought a new set of problems.

The ruling oligarchs had not objected to the rural communes, but labor unions and socialist politics were an entirely different matter. Employers were determined to quash the unions, and they rigorously opposed social legislation, which they believed must inevitably cost them money. As the capitalist oligarchs became more anti-socialist, the socialists became more anti-capitalist. They began to support class conflict and proletarian revolution. Political battles between socialist workers and ruling oligarchs began in mid 19th century Europe, and continue to this day in many developing nations. Venezuala is a current example of this problem.

The political battle between capitalist oligarchs and the socialist faction of the working class is something of a paradox. The socialists have evolved along two separate lines. The trade union socialists have concentrated their efforts on pragmatic reforms. These include universal suffrage, an eight-hour workday, health insurance, workman’s compensation, unemployment insurance, pensions, and social security. Most of these reform programs have in fact been adopted by the more advanced capitalist nations. The paradox is that even though these programs were primarily supported by socialists and opposed by capitalists, they have made capitalism stronger and better.

The more militant wing of the socialist movement is convinced that capitalism is evil and that mere reforms are not a solution. They have focused their efforts on the destruction of capitalism and the socialization of the means of production. This is the program of the socialist faction that turned to communism, but there are many socialists who are still looking for some non-capitalist and non-communist method of organizing a modern economy. These people have still not accepted the fact that the modern world uses markets as the primary mechanism for distributing food, and that capitalism is a necessary part of any market economy. If capitalism and markets are destroyed, how will people eat?

Modern socialists have no answer to that question. There is no known socialist method of agriculture. There is no specific socialist mechanism for distributing food to non-food producers. There is no socialist method for building housing and producing consumer goods.

In the wealthy industrial countries all of this is essentially a philosophical debate, but in developing nations with an entrenched oligarchic class, it is a major problem. In many of these countries, the main political opposition to the ruling oligarchs is still led by socialists. They are not interested in reforming capitalism. They want to end it. This has led to a sterile political struggle between oligarchs who want to defend and maintain their wealth and power versus socialists who want something that does not exist.

The real solution to poverty in developing nations is not less capitalism; it is more capitalism. The oligarchic monopoly on capitalism must be broken. The market economy must be opened to everyone. Ordinary people must be encouraged to become capitalists and small business owners. The small business owners who work hard and have good ideas must be allowed to prosper and become large business owners. Aside from striking oil, this is the only way for modern nations to become wealthy and prosperous.

Many socialists believe that ordinary people in developing countries are much too poor to become capitalists and business owners. This shows a lack of understanding about how modern business is financed. Bill Gates founded Microsoft when he was a 24-year-old college drop out. Henry Ford had little or no personal wealth when he built his first automobile. In a properly functioning market economy, it is usually possible to find capital to finance a good idea.

The political struggle between oligarchs and socialists is a dead end. Neither side is encouraging ordinary people to become capitalists. The oligarchs retain their monopoly on wealth and political power and use it to exploit the rest of society. The socialists continue to denounce capitalist exploitation and use that issue to maintain their leadership of the working class. As this goes on decade after decade, the people continue to suffer.

The socialists use strikes, demonstrations, and riots to put pressure on the employers and the government for change. The oligarchs use their control of the government to fight back with the army and police force. The resulting battles have led to chaos and near civil war on many occasions. Germany, Italy, and France between the world wars are examples of this, as are the political problems and death squads in Latin America during the 1970s.