Registered user login:

TheFaithColumn

The Faith Column

Every week a different believer gives the inside track on their religion or philosophy.

The Faith Column Homepage

Socialism - what is it?

  • Posted by Zain Sardar
  • 23 July 2007

Often dismissed as idealism, socialism has values and a vision that are too practical to ignore

Socialism, for me, is not merely a socio-economic/political system, but way of looking at the world. At the heart of socialism lie the ideas of change, togetherness and friendship. Leon Trotsky puts it in a way that speaks to me for its brevity 'Socialism, if it is worthy of the name, means human relations without greed, friendships without envy and intrigue, love without base calculation' ('The revolution betrayed' pg 117).

Its main conceptual principles correspond to this; equality, cooperation and community. Socialism, a primarily egalitarian system, has as its central point equality of outcome. We all require certain basic material things in life- food, a home to live in, clothes...etc, and these things should be had by everyone. Hence, if people had the basic needs that human beings require at least to live a reasonably comfortable existence, the gap between the rich and poor would be greatly reduced. To push up the standard of living of those in utmost poverty (by ensuring they have basic needs); money needs to come from somewhere; one of the most popular forms is through a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor.

Additionally, nationalisation of industries and businesses and the management of companies by the working class can create equality. In this way, goods and products can be distributed to people in terms of what they need, or need basis. This replaces the need to sell products for profit or selfish ends as all of humanity benefits here.

The way a society like this will be run is through the cooperation of everybody in running society, both democratically through direct democracy within the community or communes and in the workplace. The sense of community and cooperation is important in a socialist society as, as John Donne eloquently put it, ‘no man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main’.

Although these key ideas are particularly salient within socialist thought, the implementation of them in society, through policies, changes from society to society depending on what the state thinks is the best way to practice socialism. The end result of socialism is what Marx envisioned as the ‘withering away’ of the state and the emergence of a classless society with no social antagonisms- or communism. He saw this as the ‘end of history.’

This thus leads may people to take the viewpoint that socialism is an idealistic creed that is totally out of sync with reality. However, it is clear from years gone past that idealists have a continued strength through history; they have continued to struggle for socialism, to resist the injustices of society and fight for change. Tony Benn sums this up well when he said in modern society he sees ‘two burning lights’ the light of anger over injustices and the light of hope (Marxism 2007). Socialism is thus the emancipation from the injustices of the capitalism system; greed, profit, poverty...etc. It is the understanding that what unites human beings is deep rooted and differences only appear on the surface, socialism is a love for one another widened in a way to structure society.

Marx’s ideal society is most definitely utopian, that I don’t deny. It resembles a Platonic ideal form or perfect entity/ concept floating around in space, of which reality is only a pale imitation. True, we will never get to this ideal society, but what does it matter? It acts as a target for the continued self-improvement of society, we can reach out and strive to get as close as we can to this ideal society, even if we’ll never get there. What this doesn’t mean is that the end justifies the means. For all the good of Marx, all-encompassing systems should never distract from the people socialism is meant to benefit. Socialism then, fills me with the hope that, as John McDonnell's Labour Party leadership campaign slogan has it, "another world is possible".

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

8 comments from readers

Marco
23 July 2007 at 17:54

Good article, specially the 5th and last paragraphs

tomzaye
23 July 2007 at 21:26

An interesting article, it examines the key principles behind socialism, Principles I feel has been lost and become unseen largely due to being tared with same brush and lumped together with interpretations of soviet style 'socialism' and other totalitarians regimes.

dave.baxter6
24 July 2007 at 10:55

Interesting but delusioned, Human beings can never be equal no matter what race or creed for the simple reason that there are always some that want more than someone else, so socialism will never work no matter what form it takes, its an idealistic dream.

Bambi
24 July 2007 at 11:20

It seems to me Socialism relies heavily on the tenet that for all human beings "differences only appear on the surface" as stated in the article. For me such a world (if it could exist) would be a mighty bland one.

This is an attempt to magic-away the differences between people and label them as trivial. It shows (I believe) a contempt for the very real and tricky problem that different people desire different things.

James
24 July 2007 at 13:53

"It shows (I believe) a contempt for the very real and tricky problem that different people desire different things."

A misunderstanding of the debate. Surely what is being argued here is that some facets of socialism are about doing away with the things no one wants.

Of course people want different things, on one level. However there is not an infinate number of human wants and the number of wants diminishes as our socially constructed culture develops. There are a finite number of wants, the subjects of which are also finite.

You can disagree with many tenents of socialism, universial unity, equality etc but what it really boils down to is that whatever the current distribution of wants and subjects of wants is, can always be refined. Always.

Bambi
25 July 2007 at 10:05

You would want a socialist state to refine your wants for you as an individual? I would consider that an complete invasion of freedom and privacy! Under such a state would I be allowed to think for myself?!

I disagree that number of wants diminishes as culture develops. Wherever culture flourishes you find a massive diversity of ideas, desires and wants. For example more and more people today want to publish their own music, videos, blogs, opinion etc and our culture is all the better for it. Would you want to see these wants refined/redistributed by the state?

Doing away with what no one wants is hardly the sole-preserve of Socialism.

James
25 July 2007 at 12:47

I didn't say that the state should refine peoples wants (ie choices, preferences etc). What I said was that the distribution ratio between wants and the subject of those wants (objects) can always be refined.

The reason why I say that wants are finite and diminishing is because more and more people want the same things. We want cars, ipods, houses, holidays, educations, entertainment. And these are our wants because they are socially avalible. Today more then ever societies are spheres of shared experiences which means shared aspirations. Human wants are constructed together not in isolation.

I did not say that doing away with things that no one wants is the sole-preserve of socialism. I said that it was a very attractive tenent of socialism. No one wants poverty , exploitation or misery, least of all for themselves but they majority of solutions put forward to these prevailent curses are usually to be found on the left, a sigmatised set of ideas in todays interelltual positioning.

servicesocialist
04 September 2007 at 21:19

There's only two political philosophies worth debating: socialism and liberalism.

Socialism regards people as essentially equal (liberals see them as essentially different); Socialism favours collaboration (liberals favour individual action mediated by law and the free market); Socialists believe people will do the right thing in the right conditions (liberals say the conditions will never be right and the best you can do is deter bad behaviour and reward good); Socialists believe action to remedy a social injustice is always justifiable (liberals tend to want to see a learned report first).

Socialism is indubitably more noble, but harder to achieve practically than liberalism, but liberalism invariably degenerates into authoritarianism by the state or the individual. Liberalism is far less appealing. It is hegemonically dominant because belief in Socialism has collapsed because of the failure of Socialist action. It's not that it's a better idea. The burden is now on Socialists to come up with a new programme of action that shows how Socialist action can work in practice. Do that, and liberalism is on the run for good.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Zain Sardar studies philosophy at the University of Kent at Canterbury, and heads the group Socialist Students. He has worked for various charities, and currently works as an editorial collaborator for 'Naked Punch' magazine.

Recent Posts

Judaism and the meltdown

  • By Shraga Zaltzman
  • 20 November 2008

Compassion during the crisis

  • By Matthew Jee
  • 19 November 2008

The church in the crunch

  • By Simon Barrow
  • 18 November 2008

White Poppies

  • By Symon Hill
  • 07 November 2008

Quakers and the UN

  • By Chris Walker
  • 06 November 2008

Walking the talk

  • By Eoin McCarthy
  • 05 November 2008

Quakers for prison reform

  • By Helen Drewery
  • 04 November 2008