What is socialism?

What will such a socialist society look like?

 In Wages, Price and Profit, Marx writes “that false and superficial radicalism that accepts premisses and tries to evade conclusions”, and he goes on: “To clamour for equal or even equitable retribution on the basis of the wages system is the same as to clamour for freedom on the basis of the slavery system. What you think just or equitable is out of the question.”
Marx is being critical of those who direct attention away from our revolutionary goal - the abolition of the wages system.

 There is nothing at all either reformist to Marx’s thought. He is less interested in the social division of income and more about the distribution of free time, of opportunities for fulfilling activity, of unpleasant or rebarbative work; with the distribution of welfare more generally, of social and economic benefits and burdens. And he is concerned, in particular and above all, with the distribution of productive resources, on which according to him this wider distribution depends. It is universal freedom and self-development that he envisages and looks forward to at the end of the line. Marx claims that the revolution will put an end to alienation, that it will enable every member of society to develop his or her capacities, that it will promote community and solidarity between people, and that it will facilitate the expansion of human productive powers and the universal satisfaction of human needs. Marx upholds the principle of collective control over resources and he envisaged an end to scarcity. All people, equally, will be able to satisfy their needs. But the means of consumption will not be divided into exactly equivalent individual shares and even equal labour contributions will not be matched by such shares being of the same size. Only those who need drugs or medical treatment will have access to them, for instance, the vulnerable young an the elderly frail receiving priority,  responding to the specific needs of each individual — must, in some senses, mean unequal individual treatment. Satisfying needs is not the  fantasy of an abundance without limits. Needs does not mean every want or fancy but goes far beyond the absolute minimum subsistence level. Marx disparaged the type of socialism where there is “equality of wages paid by the common capital, (that is) the community as the general capitalist.” Even without a capitalist, there is still wage-slavery.

No more classes or state, so no more private property. The end of politics, since there are no-one to be governed. No more leaders and no more followers. There is the administration of things.  No opposition between town and country, humanity is spread harmoniously over the earth's surface. The disappearance of the division between manual and intellectual labour, a reflection of the class struggle. Social man uses the productive machine to create a social product. What socialism would be is a free association of completely free men, where no separation between private and common interest exist: a society where “everyone could give himself a complete education in whatever domain he fancied”. For “man’s activity becomes an adverse force which subjugates him, instead of his being its master” when there is a division of labour where everyone must then have a profession that he has not chosen and in which he is forced to remain if he does not want to lose his means of existence. In socialism, on the contrary, a man would be given “the possibility to do this today and that tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, to go fishing in the afternoon, to do cattle breeding in the evening, to criticise after dinner”, as he choses. [German Ideology]
Socialist society provides to men and women to develop all their capacities in their own interests and in the interests of society as a whole. It is clear that there is not the slightest relation between Marx’s vision of socialism and what passed for it in the Soviet Union or the social-democracies welfare state.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain is a voluntary union of people who share a common outlook and the common desire to work to realise its principles in life —the establishment of socialism. The unity and the understanding of the working class is essential if the working class is to prevail against the capitalists. Reformism is the idea that socialism can be achieved through a gradual addition of reforms won by constitutional means and without the overthrow of capitalism. This we reject. The aim of the Socialist Party is to achieve a socialism in which the common ownership of the means of production and distribution shall replace the existing capitalist system. It found expression in the teachings of men like John Ball, Gerald Winstanley, Robert Owen and those pioneers of the British labour movement, the Chartists. We must move forward for we cannot go back. Capitalism, in the search for greater profits, expanded the production of goods on an enormous scale into highly developed, large-scale production, thus establishing the basis on which socialism can be built. But capitalism does not evolve into socialism. It has to be transformed into socialism by the conscious action of people. The age-long dream of those thinkers and the fighters of the past can only become reality when the working class wages the struggle to take political and economic power from the capitalist class and sets about building a socialist society. The means of production—the factories, mines, land and transport—are taken away from the capitalists. They are transformed into social property. This means that they belong to and are worked by the whole of the people, that the fruits of production likewise become social property, used to advance the standard of life of the peoples. No longer can the capitalists by virtue of the fact that they own the means of production, live off the labour of the working class. No longer are the workers compelled to sell their labour power to the capitalists in order to live. Production is planned to meet the material and cultural needs of the people which is only possible because the means of production have been taken out of the hands of competing private owners, whose only concern was to produce what was profitable, not what was needed by the people. Socialism means a wider, more purposeful life for all. The definition of democracy as “government of the people, by the people, for the people” becomes a reality. Today’s “democracy” is government of the people by the capitalists in the interests of the capitalists. The basis for socialism is the initiative of the people, the active processes of self-government and social life. Without this the building of socialism is impossible.

A parliamentary majority is of key importance in beginning the advance to socialism. But by itself it cannot bring about socialism. Economic power  means ownership and control of all the means of production—the factories, mills, mines, land,  etc. So long as these remain in the private hands of the capitalist class, society remains capitalist society irrespective of the character of the government in power. The workers continue to be exploited. Production continues to be production for profit. Planned production is impossible. The essence of the Marxist view of the transition to socialism is that unless political and economic power is taken out of the hands of the capitalist class and transferred into the hands of the majority of the people no advance to socialism is possible. Parliament is rooted in history. Through it the British people have expressed their aspirations for social progress for centuries (English Revolution 1640; Chartism 1840). Political power means control of the State apparatus, which is more than Parliament. It is the control of the armed forces, the police, law and justice, education, propaganda, etc. — all of which are headed by defenders of capitalism. The state apparatus is the machinery of coercion and government established by every ruling class to maintain its rule over the subject classes. Experience in the past has shown that the defenders of capitalism  are ready to use their power to thwart any move which might be disadvantageous to the capitalist class as a whole or to any individual section. Parliament could play a key role in the development of socialism but a Parliament not resting on a passive people whose task was ended with voting it into power. It would rest on and be impelled by a politically active people, whose struggle for socialism outside Parliament would continue and be part of the political activities. In short, it would be a Parliament reflecting the will of the people and giving the sanction of its authority to their struggle. Once the ruling class have been dispossessed and their power has evaporated, the State’s role and the Socialist Party’s function are finished. Both disappear.