THE GENERAL NATURE OF SOCIALISM
121. SOCIALISM IS A VAGUE TERM.--It is often said that the term
"socialism" is so vague that it is useless to attempt to define it.
The word is used to cover all sorts of schemes of industrial and
social reform. Sometimes a person whose viewpoint concerning politics
or business has become more liberal appears to himself or to others as
a socialist. From the standpoint of many individuals, all those who
advocate the extension of government control are socialists. Still
others label as socialists all reformers with whose ideas they are not
in accord. It very often happens that persons who pass in the
community for socialists are not recognized as such by the official
socialist parties. Indeed, certain official socialist groups go so far
as to declare that other official socialist groups are "not really
socialists," either in thought or in action.
122. A DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM.--In spite of this confusion it is
possible to formulate a rather precise definition of socialism.
Leaving until later the distinction between the chief socialist
groups, we may say that the following definition covers all who are
strictly socialists: Socialism is an economic theory which aims to
abolish the capitalistic system, and to substitute for it "a system of
collective ownership and democratic management of the socially
necessary means of production and distribution." In rather more simple
language, socialism intends that all income-producing property shall
be owned and directed by the state. The state is to own and operate
land, factories, workshops, railroads, and all other means of
production. Private property and the competitive system are to be
abolished. [Footnote: Socialism does not seek to abolish the private
ownership of food, clothing, and other forms of consumers' goods, yet
both socialists and non-socialists accept the unqualified statement
that "socialism seeks to abolish private property." because it is the
private ownership of producers' goods rather than of consumers' goods,
which constitutes a cornerstone of the capitalistic system.] All
business is to be conducted by the government, and all persons are to
be employees of the government. The distribution of wealth is to be
directed by the government.
123. RELATION OF SOCIALISM TO OTHER RADICAL THEORIES.--The terms
"communism" and "socialism" call for careful distinction. What is now
known as socialism was formerly known as communism. For example, Karl
Marx, the founder of modern socialism, called himself a communist. His
followers later abandoned the name, and began calling themselves
socialists. Still later, during the World War, a group of Russian
socialists, popularly known as the bolshevists, revived the term
communist in the sense used by Marx. Strictly speaking, however,
communism is generally thought of to-day as a type of small community
organization in which all wealth, including both the instruments of
production and consumers' goods, is owned by the community. Socialism,
on the other hand, proposes that the state own and operate only the
instruments of production, leaving food, clothing, and other
consumers' goods to be owned and enjoyed by individuals.
Socialism is often thought of in connection with the doctrine of
anarchy. Anarchism and socialism are alike in that both object to one
man having authority over another. Anarchism agrees with socialism
that capitalism is bad because it gives the employer power over the
laborer. But at this point the two theories begin sharply to diverge.
Socialism desires to abolish private property and to concentrate all
authority in the hands of the state. The anarchist maintains that this
is simply a transference of authority, and declares that authority in
any form is an evil. Thus where socialism seeks to enlarge the powers
of the state, anarchism objects to the existence of any governmental
authority whatsoever.
In addition to communism and anarchism, there are a number of
interesting theories that are more or less closely associated with the
socialist movement. These will not be discussed here, for two reasons:
first, an adequate treatment of them would permit the problem of
industrial reform to take up a disproportionate share of our time;
second, many of these theories, while interesting, are relatively
unimportant, from the standpoint of American democracy at least. We
may, therefore, confine ourselves to socialism proper, as defined in