Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts

quite. I am just arguing that it is in no way exclusive to socialism, and that state-controlled businesses (as opposed to state-controlled business, see below) alone make no socialist system.




I should like to remind any reader that I am in no way an adherent of socialism, and therefore not trying to argue in its favor.

The first, and most rudimentary definition of socialism, is the pre-marxian socialism (blanquists, communards, ...), which can be subsumed under the desire to create a society without class distinction - the ideal of class-less society is the first ingredient of any socialist theory. We must remind ourselves, that this early stage of 'socialism' was in no way as clear about its goals or even backgrounds as we would like it for the sake of a precise definition; hence Sombart's quip about socialism having over 260 definitions.

With the advent of Marxism, and its direct antipode, Lassallean state-socialism, other ingredients were added, which form much of the present-day perception and definition of socialism. To both Marxists and Lassalleanites it was of utmost import, that the means of production be transferred into the hands of the proletariat, because capitalism always meant that the lion's share of any expected profit would always remain in the hands of the prosperous few, whereas the workers would always only receive a wage that would barely allow them survival.

Marx saw socialism as a stage between capitalism and communism; socialism as the dictatorship of the proletariat, a state of revolution, the de-privatization of the means of production was to him the necessary step forward, before communism (i.e., a global class-less society) could be attained. At this stage (socialism), class-differences were not yet entirely abolished and not all traditions of "bourgeois society" were yet done away with, but it would be marked by the slow transition to the communist mode of production - wherein the "good of all" (i.e. social improvement), as determined by science would replace "profit" as predominant business goal.

In Marxist thought, socialism needn't necessarily be the one-man dictatorship we would think of when someone mentions socialism; early revolutionaries in Russia (sailors, soldiers, workers) formed councils ("soviets"), where decision-making was a democratic process. But, the advent of Leninism added yet another important ingredient to our definition of "socialism": Lenin denounced these worker's and soldier's soviets as both ineffective and counter-revolutionary and abolished them. Leninism called for the shock troops and vanguard of the proletariat,embodied by the party cadre, to take control. Lenin established a tight planned economy model, wherein all aspects of industrial and agrarian production were centralized and subjected to party-directed command: For example, plants were assigned production targets by the party and were expected to meet them, no matter the actual demand for goods, etc.

The final bits were added to the mix by Stalinism: The total collectivization of agrarian and industrial production, (i.e. the abolishment of small, independent farms, plants, mines, etc.; instead, they were grouped into large-scale operations (kolkhoz - sovkhoz - combinate) for the sake of synergy - or so the party's line of argumentation) and the establishment of justice as "the faithful maidservant of the party on the march to communism".


SUMMARY:

Therefore, it is in my opinion not impudent to define socialism as a policy as follows† :
-ideal of class-less society
-transfer of means of production into hands of proletariat
-dictatorship of the proletariat
-de-privatization of means of production
-transition to communist mode of production, "common good" replacing profit, "scientific management" replacing supply/demand
-single party rule, with party cadre controlling the state centrally
-planned economy
-collectivized production
-instrumentalisation of judicial system as means of revolution†¡

† I'm not including things such as "personality cult", because I believe that this is much more a hallmark of despotism in general than socialism in particular. Socialism is but one form of tyranny.
†¡Included in the definition on the following grounds: While every tyranny will bend the law to its whim, they usually try to uphold the illusion of legality (cf. Hitlerites, Fascists, etc.) - socialism openly does away with it.

Sources:
A. I. Vyshinskiy: Speeches (1952)
V. I. Lenin: What is to be done (1903)
I. W. Dzhugashvili: Questions of Leninism (1939)
F. Lassalle: On the worker's problem (1863)
K. Marx: Class struggle in France (1850)