Definitions of Socialism (1952)

From the April 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Those who are comparatively new to the ideas of the Socialist Party will perhaps wonder why we attach great importance to terminology. Unless there is agreement over terms, misunderstandings must follow. We don't wish to be pedantic, but the history of political movements indicates the enormous amount of confusion caused directly through the lack of satisfactory definitions. Because of this the Socialist Party always makes a point of defining what it means by socialism in every publication which goes out from the party. When we claim that the Labour Party is not a socialist party, and that the Communist Party is also not a socialist party it is because we have at least a clear idea of what we mean by socialism, and from this we don't intend on departing for any momentary political gain. Socialism has been defined by others as “The state control of exchange and a system of equal wages for all.” Such a definition we could not accept for four reasons. Under socialism there will be no state, for the state exists as an organisation for suppression, and for maintaining existence of a class or hierarchy. Secondly there will be no exchange under socialism, for exchange signifies buying and selling mid therefore ownership. Thirdly there will be no wages under socialism, because the wage system signifies that somebody is being exploited (and not getting the real fruits of their labour). And fourthly there will be no money under socialism, because money will not be needed. So for all these reasons we could not accept such a definition of socialism.

Von Scheel has defined socialism as "The economic philosophy of the suffering classes.” Such a definition is very inadequate; at all events the suffering classes have no philosophy in common even though they have poverty m common. G. Belot's definition was “The common entente with a view to social welfare. ” There are many such vague definitions. Even Wm. Morris was also vague in “The realisation for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of all these equalities.” and Hyndman "Socialism is an endeavour to substitute for the anarchical struggle or fight for existence an organised co-operation for existence.”

Chas. Bradlaugh who was a champion of free speech was never a Socialist, by his own or others definition, and said “Socialism denies individual private property and affirms that society organised as the state should own all wealth, direct all labour, and compel the equal distribution of all products ”

John Stuart Mill in his “Political Economy” gives us “Socialism is any system which requires that the land and instruments of production should be the property not of individuals but of communities or associations of the government. ” This definition comes a little nearer to the ideas of Socialism which we hold. Marx on the other hand wrote that socialism was"Substitution of conscious development of humanity for the unconscious development.” This is of course more of a philosophical than an economic definition not designed for use in day to day socialist propaganda and because of this could not be used by an organisation as the Socialist Party. Engels’ definition was also a bit philosophical “Mental reflection of the conflict existing in reality between the productive forces and the modes of production.”

A. Schäffle in “Quintessence of Socialism” writes “The Alpha and Omega of socialism is the transformation of private and competing capitalism into united collective capital.” Such definitions, which are common enough, have been the cause of a large amount of real confusion between nationalisation and socialism, and have been deliberately fostered by the labour parties throughout the world, as indeed it is their idea of socialism. Ramsay MacDonald was equally confused in his “Socialism is the application of mutual aid to politics and economics.” Proudhon's definition was likewise inadequate “Socialism is every aspiration towards the amelioration of society.” We might all argue with justification as to what constitutes an amelioration of society. Bebel in his “Woman and Socialism," invokes science and takes us up into the clouds with, “Science applied with clearer conscious and full knowledge to every sphere of human activity.” In “Le Mouvement Socialiste," T. De Wyzewa defines socialism as "A doctrine which demands the suppression of the proletariat and the complete control of wealth and power by the collectivity.” Such an adverse definition savours of influence from Russian Bolshevism. Another from K. Diehl in “Uber Socialisms, Kommunismus und Anarchisms,” “Negatively Socialism is the abolishing of private property in land or capital; positively it postulates personal income derived from labour only, and the abolishing of private possessions of capital” Again the Socialist Party could never work on such an inadequate definition.

There have been no lack of adverse definitions of socialism, and although these are not accepted except by anti-socialists, a few are interesting and can be given to show that even socialists have a sense of humour. “Socialism, like every other social system, when stripped of its emotional trimmings, gets down to a formula for living without work.” The author, was perhaps a little biased for it was Henry Ford. Mrs. Fawcett authoress of a little book on political economy renders the follow amusing verse.

“ What is a Communist?

Why one that hath yearnings,

Of equal division of unequal earnings,

Idler, or bungler, or both, he is willing,

To fork out his penny, and to pocket your shilling!” 

Winston Churchill left one to go down in history after him, when he declared a few years ago that, "Socialism was the equalisation of poverty and the organisation of misery.”

One of the most curious was perhaps Lenin’s serious definition that “Socialism is Soviet Power plus Electrification.”

So when you read our literature again we hope you will appreciate the very sound reasons why we always print our definition and declaration of principles in all party material, and we don’t mind being pulled up on them because they are what we believe.

Horace Jarvis

What is Socialism? (1948)

From the January 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

What is Socialism? Socialism is a new form of society; a form in which the whole of the people of the world will own in common the means to produce wealth and will distribute it according to the needs of each.

All that people want is the satisfaction of their needs, but private ownership has given its own particular slant to what some people need today. To be wealthy today not only means to live in comfort and security, it also means to be the subject of social approbation. Hence the wealthy ostentatiously display their wealth, live in huge mansions, attend lavish balls bespattered with jewels, own numerous motor cars and so forth in order to inspire the admiration of their fellows. Millionaires without a trace of artistic culture accumulate quantities of pictures and other works of art, as well as patronising artistic movements, for the same purpose. When the possession of jewels, motor cars, and pictures is open to anyone who wishes to weigh themselves down with these things the desire to accumulate them will vanish because society will only look upon the accumulator as a lunatic. Water is one of the most precious things in the world to the human race yet no one attempts to hoard up and display huge tanks of fresh water, nor do they carry air balloons to balls and Command Performances. Water and air, except under extreme circumstances, have not been denied to all but those that can purchase them. Under Socialism the products of human ingenuity will be as free to all as water and air are now, and the badges of vanity and superiority will vanish.

One of the fundamental needs of humanity is occupation for the mental and physical faculties. As work at present is a badge of inferiority most of those who belong to the privileged section of society try to find other means of employing their energies; of these sports, dancing, dinners and philandering appear to be the most popular. But a surfeit of aimless pleasures becomes wearying and there is an endless search for new thrills. Under Socialism this wasted energy would he directed towards objects that would bring permanent enjoyment to the individual and to his fellows.

Socialism would not be a dull, dreary, state-regulated system as so many of its opponents suppose. As the whole of the people in free association would control the conditions of existence the aim would be to make that existence as satisfying as human ingenuity could contrive. Productive operations would be carried out under the best conditions that could be devised and harmful occupations would be abolished; people would be prepared to do without those few. things that could only he obtained at the cost of evil consequences to the producers. Humanity is essentially reasonable and where free to act reasonably does so. Educational facilities would be of the best, open to all, and not clouded by the necessity of learning in order to find the right road to employment and social security.

There are workers who, while agreeing that Socialism is desirable, despair of its accomplishment because they believe it would not work owing to the evil propensities which they think Capitalism has bred into the mass of the people. The basis of this view is “I am alright, but the other fellow is hopeless”; it is unconscious vanity. The evils about which complaints are made are the direct product of Capitalist conditions and will disappear with the latter. For example it does not require much imagination to appreciate that when money is no longer needed no one will sell his self respect for it; when bread and other things are as free to all as air is now no one can become a thief; when each participates equally in arranging social affairs no one can become a despot; when all the avenues of happiness are open to everybody no one can gain by bribery or corruption. And so one could go through the whole of the evils that have a corrupting influence today and lead to social misery.

Today the workers of the world produce the wealth of the world but they do so under oppressive conditions on behalf of a privileged class—the Capitalist class. In return for their labours the workers only receive, at best, on an average what it costs them to live meagrely ; but even this condition is doubtful, and the workers follow their occupations with shadow of unemployment darkening their lives and threatening to cast them into the depths of poverty. When the workers desire to cast off their backs the idle and privileged class that lives in comfortable security upon the results of the workers’ labours they will be able to so organise society that essentials of life will be produced with ease and all will he able to live in comfort and security. Then mankind will be on the road to universal happiness, but not before.

Gilmac.

What is Socialism? (2004)

From the December 2004 issue of the Socialist Standard

What does it take to produce all of the things we need in order to live? Human labour applied to nature given raw materials. Money enters the equation only because the means to life are owned by a privileged minority – the capitalist class.

Socialism will mean everything necessary for human welfare being produced solely for use, instead of sale and profit. For example, food will be grown and processed simply because we need to eat, and homes built to be lived in. Human need will be the only motive for production, and proper care will be taken of the environment. There will be an end to poverty, and the conditions which lead to war will no longer exist.

How will all this be possible?

Because the means of production – land, factories, transport, communications and so on – will be owned and democratically controlled by and in the interest of the whole worldwide community. When the means of production are owned in common, so indeed are the products. Therefore buying and selling will not take place; money and financial institutions will be unnecessary. We will contribute to the community according to our ability, and take according to our self determined need.

The class which now does all of the work of society can achieve this revolutionary change in the way we live, by consciously taking the political action to abolish capitalism, and end class rule. Thus gaining not only working class emancipation, but the emancipation of all humankind; and a world where – as Karl Marx put it – “the free development of each, is the condition for the free development of all”.

The Socialist Case — Part 2 (1960)

From the November 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1

The superstructure of society today, after many years of development, has reached a high stage of efficiency. It is the direct outcome of the economic foundation of society, the capitalist mode of production, and functions almost exclusively in its interests. This does not appear to be self-evident unless one examines the basic factors of the organisation of society.

We are constantly being told that our “great and good” men are earnestly striving to bring about changes in which all will benefit considerably. Social morality, legality in its civil and criminal aspects, and politics, are features of this superstructure and are held to be eternally good and true. The machinery of government, the armed forces and police are allegedly neutral and impartial and are claimed to regulate the affairs of society on the highest principles of “justice.”

We Socialists do not accept that point of view. We see in this whole structure the capitalist class organised as the ruling class. This state machinery with its attachments does not stand on the sidelines. The maintaining of law and order, the advocacy of this morality, the dispensing of “justice," and the politics pursued, are all definitely capitalistic in character and are intended to enhance, preserve and maintain the system in the interests of the class who own. The channels of education are controlled and the class of. education is designed to maintain the fallacy that this is the best of all possible forms of social organisation. Add to this the general propaganda of the press, radio and pulpit and we have a formidable array. This deception has been carried on for a long, long time, but Socialists are not taken in by it.

Furthermore, a constantly growing and larger number of people are also realising the truth that social systems must also change. The so-called virtues, in workers only, of meekness, humility and servility, are receding to a greater extent. The surface appearance of capitalist society seems to indicate that the commercial transactions of men are. in all cases, strictly honest. No one apparently takes advantage of another. People go to their bakers, butchers, tailors, etc., select their merchandise, pay and depart, each in most cases pleased with the transaction. Money, which is the universal or social form of value, is paid in exchange for an equal quantity value in some commodity. It appears that in all cases everyone has had a fair exchange and generally speaking this is true. The error arises in the claim that the worker who sells his labour power gets the full value of his labour. To repeat—he does not and cannot get the value of his labour. Labour power is a unique commodity, the sole commodity which can produce more than it itself consumes. The worker in fact gets the value of this labour power, but produces probably twice that amount, one-half of which total is profit to the capitalist.

Profit is the keystone of capitalism. The capitalist mode of production, commodity production, creates the basic social relationships of capital and value. These relationships arise directly out of man's productive circumstances. They are social phenomena particular to the present mode of productive activity. In the industrial field the capitalist—an owner, but non-producer—meets the worker, a non-owner who has only his labour power to sell. Here the sale of labour power takes place. The worker, having received his wages, becomes a buyer of the goods required, but which are owned by and in possession of the capitalist. This cycle keeps on repeating itself and is exclusive to commodity production.

Buying and selling, or, in other words, value relationships, are social relationships concerning the sale or exchange of commodities or things. Money is the social, or material form of value and. whatever the need may be. this need is almost certain to be provided for cash. This capital relationship — employer and employee, and value relationship—buyer and seller, are specially evolved to wring rent, profit and interest out of the sweat and toil of the working-class. From our Socialist point of view they can never do anything else and should be abolished forthwith. The State machinery with its armed forces and police functions mainly to protect the private property institution and secure its continuity.

Man has travelled a long, long way since his simian ancestors, but there is one aspect which it is relevant and important to mention. It has taken him countless thousands of years to learn and train his brain to think. But he has succeeded and the highest product of nature, the mind, has been developed from his lowly and comparatively speaking, non-thinking ancestors. In this regard man stands unique in the field of intellectual attainment. He alone among all the animals is capable of thinking abstractly. A fundamental distinction is his ability to accumulate and organise knowledge and utilise it to change and improve his living conditions and his environments.

This basic distinction has created an unbridgeable gulf between him and the other animals. The problems arising from the material conditions of his life in the past were eventually understood and solved. We are certain that he is capable of understanding and eventually solving the social and other problems of the present and future. Because of this we are firmly convinced that a majority of the working-class will eventually consciously deal with the social re-organisation of society.

The social solution is in itself very simple. Much of our time is devoted to argument arising expressly from the complexities of aspects of capitalism we have already mentioned—money, banking, etc. The major question is—can mankind produce sufficient food, clothing, houses, cultural and recreational requirements to meet its needs? The answer is “ Yes’’—positively an abundance. Society’s capacity to produce is limited only by the extent of the productive equipment, raw materials and available labour.. At today’s stage of development it is more than sufficient. Once freed from the restrictions of private property, society can solve its problems in an amazingly short time. When this structure of private property is removed there is nothing to prevent the available productive machinery from being used to the fullest extent for the sole purpose of satisfying human needs.

The overwhelming majority of each generation are doomed from birth. They are condemned to a life of hard work, drudgery, poverty and slums. At any given period in the life of society only a definite amount of unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled jobs are available. In this great industrial organisation this number may vary slightly from time to time. But it does mean that approximately 85 per cent. of the total population are unable to radically improve their lot. The grandiose schemes and plans of youthful ambition are doomed from birth. In addition, at the moment we stand in constant fear of the outbreak of a third World War with its devastating atomic weapons. The future is indeed, “prosperous, happy and bright.”

The abolition of capitalism is therefore, a proposal which merits your determined and serious immediate attention. The reorganisation of society on a Socialist basis is the only solution and, as the S.P.G.B. is the only Socialist Party, it demands your active support in our task of Socialist propaganda. This task of abolishing capitalism is the historic mission of the working class. It requires the conscious and determined action of a majority of workers and for practical purposes is their exclusive job. Capitalism presents the best of all worlds to the ruling class and their hirelings. They are not therefore likely to approve or assist in effecting any social change which involves its abolition.

In order to transform existing society into a Socialist society, the working class must organise themselves politically on the basis of a majority who understand and desire to bring about Socialism. When they reach this stage of social consciousness they, the workers, will establish their political supremacy, take control of the machinery of government and effect the social re-organisation of society. To develop this class-consciousness is the immediate job of the S.P.G.B. Our propaganda activities in this direction are very limited both physically and financially.

If you believe that a system of society wherein human need and not profit should be the object of production; that the economic and social equality of man should prevail; and that from each according to his ability and to each according to needs should be a first principle: then let’s have your support. The measure of your sincerity and determination is your physical and financial aid to us.

John Higgins

[Concluded]

Editorial: Socialism defined (2025)

Editorial from the November 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last month we recorded that two MPs who had said they were socialists had not replied to a request to say what they meant by socialism. In the meantime, one has replied indirectly while Jeremy Corbyn himself has had a stab at it.

Addressing a Your Party rally in Liverpool on 9 October Zarah Sultana declared:

‘We’re not here for lowering a few bills here and there, and the sprinkling of a wealth tax. We are here for a fundamental transformation of society, the means of production controlled by workers. And another very simple idea, the working class controlling the wealth that they produce. It’s called socialism.’

While Corbyn wrote in an article in the Guardian (13 October):

“Undemocratic parties produce undemocratic societies, where a small section of society owns the resources we all need to survive. Democratic parties produce democratic societies; where wealth and resources are owned by us all”.

Both definitions – while not completely wide of the mark – have their weakness. Sultana’s because she only talks of ‘control’ and not ownership; which could leave her words open to being interpreted as ‘workers control’ of nationalised industry. Also, even if ownership is meant as well as control, socialism is not ownership just by ‘workers’, but ownership by all members of society including those who for one reason or another are not working. They too will have a say on what is produced and how it is distributed.

Besides the nonsense of what parties of a different type produce, Corbyn’s is open to the objection that he doesn’t make it clear that socialism means that all the means of production would belong to all of us, leaving open the interpretation that he is talking about the so-called ‘public’ ownership of just some industries or services; which in fact is how he did mean it to be interpreted.

However, combining the strengths of both we can reach a reasonably good definition of socialism:

‘A fundamental transformation of society where the resources we all need to survive — the means of production — will be owned and controlled by all of us’.

However, we have to express our serious doubts that the new party will adopt this as its aim and that, even if it did, this would be nothing more than rhetoric for ceremonial occasions, its practice being the pursuit of sprinklings such as a wealth tax and other reforms.

Some implications of Socialism (1949)

From the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since the end of the war the workers have been the target of production campaigns, on the screen, on the platforms and in print, urging them to work harder because the world at large was suffering from a tremendous shortage of goods; a shortage that it was claimed would continue for many years. In the last few weeks, however, the tune has begun to change and there are ominous whispers that we are on the verge of another crisis of “overproduction”; this in spite of rationing and of the genuine shortage suffered by the mass of the population. It is the old old story of capitalism that will continue as long as capitalism lasts; its basis is the class ownership of the means of production under which goods are only produced for the purpose of realising a profit to the class that owns the means of production and distribution.

When the Labour Party took over the government and commenced nationalising some industries many workers were misled into the belief that capitalist private ownership was passing away. It was overlooked that the wage system in all its vileness still remained and that the former shareholders in the industries that had been nationalised had simply changed into holders of government securities, the interest on which had to be provided out of the nationalised industry; that these securities were, on the whole, as lucrative as the former shares had been and, moreover, were much safer because the interest was guaranteed at a fixed rate by the government.

Nationalisation has been a good thing for the capitalists but it has tied the worker more firmly to the wheels of industry, limiting the range of employment for those who cannot keep up the pace and tightening up the system of recording how, where and when each worker employs his energy.

The threatened onset of another crisis in a world where the mass of the people are still going short is irrefutable proof that capitalism cannot solve the problems it throws up, including the terrible problem of war for which all nations are at present preparing by building up gigantic armaments with a despairing fatalism.

Only the Socialist has the answer to these major social problems because only Socialism, the common ownership of the means of production and distribution, can guarantee to the whole of the people of the earth comfort, security, and a world freed for ever from the shadows of war and the perplexities of economic crises.

Let us consider some of the implications of Socialism.

As the means for meeting the needs of all the people will be commonly owned and democratically controlled, everyone being on an equal footing economically and politically, there will be no privileged groups, nor will there be privileged individuals, except of course the old, the infirm and the young.

From this it also follows that there will be no State nor will there be State ownership of anything, A State only exists where there is privilege, and it is the purpose of a State to make and administer laws that are based upon the existence of privilege; to defend the privileged group from attacks upon their privileges, either by the unprivileged or by an external privileged group. The crimes that give occupation to thousands upon thousands of police, lawyers, judges and other legal functionaries are crimes against property, or arising out of private property based society, which would disappear with the disappearance of private property. Thus, when we see that every country in the world, including Russia and its satellites, has either a strongly organised state or one in the process of development, we know, without the need for further evidence, that in every country there are privileged and unprivileged classes, and all the evils that flow from this class division.

Under Socialism there will be no buying, no selling and no money; the latter only exists as a means to buy and sell. As each person will have free access to what is produced, in the same way as he has free access to air, there will be nothing to buy, nothing to sell and, therefore, money will have no function to perform. There was a time, in the primitive communistic groups that flourished before civilisation began, when money was unknown; it only came into existence when property, and with property buying and selling, invaded and finally broke up the old tribal communities. Books of the last century contain the innocent amazement of travellers in backward areas who came across groups of natives who knew nothing whatever of money or its uses.

Another implication of Socialism is that there will be no class distinctions of any political or economic kind. Class distinctions are an attribute of privilege. The class distinction of modern times, that is between capitalist and worker, is reflected in many forms of snobbery that have caused disunion in the working class movement. These forms of snobbery are slowly passing away as the bonds of wage slavery sear the flesh of all with equal fierceness, but they still have some influence on the outlook of sections of the working class. Two forms of snobbery, in particular, still persist both of which are based upon the false distinction between the so-called professional worker and those that are not included in this category; the scientist, the artist, and the rest of the workers. Although commercialism is gradually killing these fictitious distinctions they still have considerable sway. Both derive from the past when the professional groups were hangers-on, or panderers to the whims and luxuries of the ruling aristocracies. The growing body of scientists is greatly afflicted with the idea that they are a class apart from and above the sordid everyday struggle. When it suits the members of the ruling class they foster this idea— when it does not suit them the scientist is brought to heel. There was an example of this in recent cases connected with the disclosure of atom bomb secrets. It may be added that under Socialism there will be no “secrets”; all information and all steps forward in conquering the forces of nature will be spread as widely and as rapidly as possible to assist the people of the world to take full advantage of the inexhaustible fertility of the human brain. All the people of the world being on an equal footing there will be none of the distinctions, false or real, that trouble the world today.

Still another implication of Socialism is that there will be no national frontiers as the people of the world will be one vast family, regardless of colour or alleged race. Each will be free to wander over the earth as the primitive savage was to wander in the primeval forests before the growth of property placed bars across his path, eventually secluding some into reservations and driving others, the unluckier ones, into the bosom of eternity.

From the foregoing it will be seen that Socialism signifies a fundamental social revolution, a complete change in the basis of society from private ownership to its opposite. There can be no half-way house between private ownership and common ownership. Private ownership cannot be abolished little by little and bit by bit. Some supporters of the Labour Party claim that it can, but after four years of Labour Government, jewels, fur coats and fortunes are still the lot of the privileged and there are rich harvests for burglars, both the legal and the illegal. The burglars, like the poor, we always have with us, and for the same reason.

Finally let us mention one more implication of Socialism—that democracy is essential. The Socialist movement is a movement of the working class in the interests of society as a whole and, therefore, freedom of discussion, freedom of expression, freedom of meetings and the like are essential in order that the foundations of the new society may be laid in lasting fashion.

There is no productive bar to the establishment of Socialism tomorrow; the only bar is lack of understanding and desire on the part of the workers of the world. The capacity to meet the needs of every man, woman and child in the world exists today but most of this capacity is wasted. One need only look at the vast amount of energy wasted on war preparations, on materials such as coal and steel that are only connected with war purposes, as well as the energy wasted on the multitudinous matters solely connected with buying and selling, to realize what a vast amount of productive and distributive capacity slumbers in the bosom of capitalism. And, further, what inventive capacities will be released when no longer curbed by the system that demands the production of only those articles which can command sufficient paying customers to provide unearned incomes for the class that lives like leeches on the backs of the workers.

Gilmac.

Capitalist Values in the Modern World (1995)

From the March 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

The long stated aim of the Labour Party is to run the market economy better than the Tories. What they really mean is that they want to try and run capitalism better — though, as yet, they haven't mustered the courage to use that word. To most people now, the Labour Party is an alternative to the Conservative Party only in the same way that Pepsi is an alternative to Coca Cola

There is a profound dishonesty about the Labour Party’s discussion document, Labour's Objects: Socialist values in the modern world, which is the basis for discussion throughout that party and for its special conference abandonment of Clause Four next month. We use the term dishonesty advisedly, for, the document is a work of confidence trickery, designed to convince Labour’s rank-and-file that it is about “strengthening socialist values”, when in fact it is a total capitulation to the ideology of capitalism.

Of course, Labour has always been a capitalist party in the sense that it has never sought to abolish production for profit and establish production for use. Even veteran left-winger, Tony Benn, whose knowledge of the Labour Party is rather longer and broader than that of Tony Blair, has repeated persistently that "the Labour Party is not — and probably never was — a socialist party” (Independent, 17 May 1989) and that "Socialism has been explicitly repudiated. Capitalism is hardly ever mentioned. The only political choice seems to be between two management teams, both committed to . . . the status quo. " (Tribune, 8 April 1994). Most Labour activists know that Benn is right, so the current talk of “socialist values” is nothing more than fraudulence.

Neither democratic nor socialist

Never in recent times has the term “socialist” and“socialism”appeared so often in a Labour Party document as in this latest one. It is there as a sop to the party's members. It is an insult to their political intelligence, treating them as mugs who will be won over by empty words. Sadly, in many cases it will succeed. But the mugs will pay their price, for once the leaders have their new constitution you can be sure that the term “socialism” will be as absent from future speeches and literature as it has been from every recent Labour Party manifesto. The truth is that these power-seeking politicians are embarrassed by those of their “comrades” who joined the party thinking (mistakenly) that it was socialist.

Not only is it dishonest, but also undemocratic. Blair announced that he wanted to change the objective of his party. Having stated this and called for debate, when the first response to his view came in a Guardian ad placed by a number of Labour MEPs who totally repudiated his position he admonished them for daring to criticise him in public, declaring such action to be “immature”. Is that Blair’s idea of a democratic discussion? According to polls, the overwhelming majority of constituency Labour parties are opposed to scrapping Clause Four. Blair’s response is to move the goalposts and insist that all book-members of his party have a vote, ensuring that the constituency activists will be outvoted. When the current document was circulated there was no invitation to opponents of the leader to circulate their points of view' in the same mail-out. Such democracy would not even occur to a fundamentally undemocratic party like Labour. Indeed, worse than that, on the green “Response Sheet” within the bogus consultation document, incredibly, there exists no place to state any support for Clause Four.

Contrast this with the Socialist Party where all policy is made by conference, which is mandated by all members, or by a party poll of each and every. member. Any move to change our Object or Declaration of Principles would be thoroughly debated, undoubtedly the subject of a party poll in which all sides would have their views published and circulated at the party’s expense, and then decided by a vote of members after full discussion without any priority being given to leaders (we have none) or officials That is the only way to conduct socialist debate and those who stray from the ways of democracy have absolutely no right to call themselves socialists.

Capitulation to capitalism

On page two we are told that “The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party” which is a lie: it is neither democratic nor socialist. But you have only to read on to page eight to see just what that means to them: "We believe in an economy that works in the public interest. A competitive market economy, with a strong industrial and wealth generating base is in the public interest. ”

Now, you are either in favour of production "in the public interest” (i.e. for need) or within “a competitive market” (i.e. for sale and profit). The two aims are mutually exclusive. The market cannot be run in the public interest because it is a market in which most of the public are themselves on sale, as items of labour power to be bought for less than the cost of what they produce. Profit arises out of the difference between what workers produce and what we are paid. So, in supporting the market Labour is necessarily opposing the workers’ interests. We are prepared to accept that Blair and his co-leaders are quite ignorant of this point and really believe that you can run a socialist society on the basis of market competition. They are theoretically shallow people whose sole political experience has been gained in vote-trading and devising policies for capitalism. But surely many of their followers, some at least of whom will have joined Labour in revulsion against the market and profits, will see the absurdity of the position they are being asked to vote for.

Again dishonestly, the document explains that talk of “common ownership” only came about because "there was a genuine revulsion at the sheer anarchy and exploitation associated with the free market of Victorian capitalism”. The reference to “Victorian capitalism” is a clever piece of trickery, leading readers to assume that of course 1990s’ capitalism is free from economic anarchy, the exploitation of wage labour and the vandalism of “the free market”. Many Labour members and supporters will know just how much this applies to capitalism in 1995, especially when looked at as a global system.

We offer no advice to Labour's membership as to whether they vote for or against Clause Four. If it is retained the party’s leaders, including Blair, have already declared it to be meaningless and to have meant nothing to them for years. (So much for what is written on every' Labour Party membership card!) If it is scrapped the process of turning Labour into a more successful version of Owen’s SDP will be completed No self-respecting worker seeking the end of the market-capitalist economy will remain in the Labour Party.

Power at any cost

But there is one reason for supporting anything that Blair proposes, however dishonest, undemocratic, confused and at odds with what you actually believe it might be, and that is spelt out in the second paragraph of the document:

"There are those who will ask why it is necessary to have this debate. The answer is simple. We will not win an election unless we win the trust of the people. ”

But what precisely is winning “the trust of the people”? Is it really the case that millions of workers (who, oddly enough, have put Labour in a massive poll lead because they are so desperate to get rid of the Tories) are saying “Well, we would vote Labour, but not until they can convince us that they support a competitive market economy”? We think not. But you can be quite sure that the Murdoch Empire and the Stock Exchange are after a firm assurance. Remember, in the last election the crook’s own daily, the Financial Times, urged its readers to vote Labour. Blair’s job is to convince as many of these people as possible that his government can provide a low-taxed, low-waged, highly-policed competitive market economy in Britain. The increasingly obnoxious Daily Mirror on 30 January carried an editorial entitled “There's No Clause for Concern” in which readers are urged to "be cheered by (Blair’s) determination to create a just and equal society”. This is fraud, not that different from the tradition of the Mirror's unlamented old crook of a proprietor (himself an ex-Labour MP).

There will be those workers within the Labour Party who will reluctantly bow to their leaders and do simply anything to get a Labour government elected. Anything, they will tell themselves, must be better than the Tories. Must it? What about a party of Blair-led Labour-Tories, funded by union money and acting like recent Labour governments in Australia and New Zealand which, according to workers there, are worse, if anything, than their conservative rivals? Power at any cost is a very foolish course to adopt.

It is not as if there is no choice. There is a Socialist Party. Our Object is what any self-respecting and principled socialist would support. Tony Benn says that he will stick with the Labour Party until he dies: an act of dogmatic commitment worthy of religious zealotry. But what about workers who are young enough to want something more than loyalty to a dishonest capitalist party for their future? You owe it to yourselves to find out more about what genuine socialists are saying and doing.

Steve Coleman

What is socialism? (2025)

From the January 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Over the years, the word ‘socialism’ has been used to mean many different things – in particular to describe the aims and principles of many different organisations and the policies of many different governments and regimes. Nowadays, in the UK, socialism is associated in most people’s minds with small left-wing organisations or at a stretch even the Labour Party, or with countries like China, Cuba, Venezuela and the former Soviet Union.

We have always denied that socialism means any of these things. Since our foundation in 1904, we have always defined socialism as a world-wide, democratic, moneyless society in which everyone will have free access to all goods and services according to their needs. We have further maintained that socialism can only come about through a majority of people consciously choosing it, ideally through voting at the ballot box.

However, before our definition of socialism and the way it can be achieved can be meaningfully understood, we must explain our view on the present system of society and why we consider it must be abolished and replaced.

Present-day society

The present system of society, based on minority ownership and buying and selling, is commonly known as capitalism. It exists all over the world, in China, Cuba, Venezuela and Russia for example, as well as in the UK, America and Europe. It has not always existed, and it will not exist for ever. It is not an evil conspiracy but a type of social order which has been necessary for the progress of mankind. It has developed science and technology to a previously undreamed-of degree, done wonders for global health, united the world in communications and educated more people than ever before to a high degree of knowledge and adaptability.

But capitalism has not fully applied its advances for the full benefit of the majority of the population, and it cannot. It has not united the world politically. Wars go on all the time essentially due to the competition within or between nations over resources, raw materials and trade routes. The threat of a big war which would wipe us all out still remains. Nor has it used the sophisticated knowledge and technology it has created to ensure useful, dignified and happy productive activity for the majority. In fact it has put a curse on work. Work for most people is equated with something unpleasant in life.

What capitalism has done is to create a potential abundance of wealth capable of satisfying everyone’s needs, but without being able to realise that potential. This is because it is not geared to distributing wealth freely but to the rationing of it by means of the market and the wages system.

It operates by exploiting the majority of the population. By exploitation we do not mean that the majority earn starvation wages or live in 19th century conditions, though some do, especially in the global South. What we mean is that those who work are a source of wealth that is taken from them, that they produce a greater amount of wealth than they get back in wages or salaries. Unfortunately, most people do not see this, misled as they are by the culture of acceptance in which they grow up, their education and the media they are exposed to. They tend to see the world as a place in which we should all count ourselves lucky if we are given a chance to earn enough to enable us to exist from day to day.

The fact is that the world’s wealth is produced but not owned by that large majority who, in order to live, are obliged to hire themselves to an employer for a wage or salary. So while no one would deny that, in most countries, conditions of life have vastly improved over the last century, it is still, for example, the case that millions of children live in poverty even in 40 of the world’s richest countries.

The working class

This large majority of people who produce most of the wealth but own none of it to speak of we refer to as ‘the working class’. To many people class is defined by such things as upbringing or education or occupation. These may be useful classifications for some purposes, but to socialists the working class is composed of all those who through economic necessity are obliged to sell their energies to an employer in order to live, ie, the vast majority of the population. The working class is therefore a class of wage and salary earners and as such includes not only manual workers but also people who are often referred to as ‘middle class’ such as office workers, civil servants, engineers, doctors, teachers, etc.

The interests of the working class are diametrically opposed to the interests of the other class in society, the employing or capitalist class, comprising those who own enough to live (land, shares in companies, farms, offices, etc.) without needing to sell their energies to an employer. Another possible arrangement for capitalism is one in which the state, via its bureaucrats, takes over capital, wholly or in part, in order to exploit workers. This can consist either in selective nationalisation of certain industries or complete state control. We call this state capitalism.

Socialists have no personal grudge against capitalists either as individuals or as a class. We simply point out that their interests will always be opposed to the people they employ. In short, society today is a class-divided society.

Reforms

Apart from the continual battle inherent in the capitalist system between employee and employer over pay and working conditions, capitalism also produces a host of other intractable problems. Among these are wars and the threat of war, unemployment, poor housing, homelessness, anxiety, loneliness and unsatisfying work, all of which add up to a society in which there is much strife and dissatisfaction and, for many, a generally insecure and frustrated existence. Suggestions for reforms to improve things come continually from the political parties involved in running the system. But once brought in, reforms rarely have the beneficial effect claimed. At best they tinker at the edges of problems and can even create new problems requiring further reform. And of course they may be reversed when a new party comes to power.

Well-meaning individuals often say that you can have socialism as your long-term aim but still campaign for reforms in the meantime. We say that this is merely putting off the day and channelling energies that could be usefully employed in bringing socialism nearer into activities whose results are uncertain and which may have the effect of bolstering capitalism rather than help get rid of it. So we do not consider it our function to campaign for reforms or seek support on the basis of reforms.

So far it has been comparatively easy for the dissatisfaction of workers to be channelled in a reformist rather than a socialist direction. Some people might even say that there is not that much dissatisfaction among workers at all, that on the whole they are quite happy with things as they are. But perhaps what they should say is not ‘happy’ but ‘resigned’. What most people want is a quiet secure life for themselves and their families, but capitalism tends to deny them this. Their plans are constantly being put in jeopardy by crises, job reorganisations, new government policies, disruption of various other kinds, and, depending on which part of the world they live in, wars and day-to-day violence.

Socialism comes from capitalism

What makes us think workers will ever take action? Well, there is certainly no guarantee, but capitalism has already created a large, organised, highly trained working class which carries out by itself all essential productive, administrative and educative activity throughout most of the world and which has an increasing interest, because of its subordinate social and economic position and its conditions of work, in challenging the status quo. Capitalism has also produced, and carries on producing, the material conditions necessary for the establishment and practical organisation of a united world-wide society, ie, rapid world-wide communications and a potential abundance of goods and services. In addition many of the problems of modern capitalism (pollution, climate change, threat of war, terrorism, recessions, etc.) are world problems that can only be approached on a world scale even within the present system and that tend therefore to spread a consciousness of the need for world solutions generally.

We know that none of this means socialism is just around the corner. And socialists at present are a tiny minority. But, as we have pointed out, capitalism is a system of constant agitation and rapid change in which nothing is constant or sacred and which itself has provided, and will continue to provide, fuel for the spreading of socialist ideas.

How to get socialism

Because socialism will be a fully democratic society in which the majority will prevails, though with full rights of dissent for minorities, it follows that socialism can only be set up democratically, ie, when a majority have come to want and understand it. Socialism cannot be handed to people by an elite which thinks it knows what is good for them. Such a minority revolution could only fail and lead to minority rule, as happened in Russia, China and those other countries which are often called socialist (or communist), but which we call state capitalist.

And being a majority revolution, socialism has no need to initiate violence. The street-fights-and-barricades vision of revolution belongs to a romantic past and anyway could not possibly stand up to the might of the modern state. In any case, in most of the economically advanced countries of the world where workers are the most numerous and highly trained, capitalism has been forced to give them certain elementary political rights, in particular the vote. This means that, when a majority decide they want socialism, they can organise themselves as a leaderless democratic political party and use the ballot box to send their delegates to legislative assemblies with a mandate not to form a new government to oversee the capitalist system but to abolish capitalism and its whole machinery of minority rule.

Sceptics may ask: will the capitalist class allow this to happen? Our reply is: what can they do against a politically conscious majority from all sections (including police, army, etc.) of the working class?

What socialism will be like

What will socialism be like once established? Well, we obviously cannot provide a blueprint for it, as the precise details of its organisation will be democratically worked out by the majority who decide to establish that society and to live in it. But we can make certain general statements about its nature.

We can say that it will mean the end of buying and selling and of all the other financial and commercial institutions like money, prices, wages, banks and insurance.

We can say that, with the disappearance of such factors as financial cost and competition, it will mean people planning production democratically and using the highly sophisticated technology in existence to provide for their wants and taking freely what they need from the abundance of resources made available by that technology.

We can say that it will mean voluntary cooperation, work as pleasure not toil, and all human beings as social and economic equals.

We can say that it will mean complete democracy in all departments of life with freedom to choose one’s activities and occupations and without people being pushed around by decisions from above or by any kind of arbitrary authority.

We can say that socialism will be world-wide – it cannot be anything else. ‘Socialism in Britain’, for example, is a contradiction in terms, and anyway the world is now so closely united in terms of communications, fashions and the rapid flow of ideas that, if people in one country were ready for socialism, the rest of the world could not be far behind.

The establishment of this world community founded on common ownership and democratic control is the only solution to the major problems of modern life. It may seem some way off, but if you agree with us and help spread socialist ideas, you will bring it nearer. And if you join the Socialist Party, you will find yourself a member of a unique political organisation, one which is completely democratic, has no leaders and no secrets, and in which all members have an equal say; one, in other words, that foreshadows the way in which socialist society itself will be organised.

South Wales Branch

What is socialism? (2024)

From the July 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the beginning of the election campaign Starmer was reported as saying that he considered himself a socialist. According to Chris Mason, the BBC’s Political Editor, ‘Starmer told me today he sees himself as a socialist. For those scared of that label, he said he saw it as putting “the country at the service of working people”’ (27 May 18.04).

Few can have believed that Starmer is in any sense a socialist, but it at least provoked the media into talking about ‘socialism’. In an ‘explainer’ article, the Guardian (28 May) even asked ‘What is Socialism?’ Their answer reflected dictionary definitions, which describe how a word is used rather than how it should be:

‘Like many political philosophies it means different things to different people. But broadly socialists believe all human beings are of equal worth and that society should be organised to reflect that. Fairness, equality, justice and the common good are the foundations of socialism. The wealth created by humans should be used to benefit everyone. Some socialists believe that key industries and sectors, such as utilities, transport and housing, should be owned by the state and run in the public interest rather than for private profit. Other socialists believe that all industries and sectors should be run this way’.

We have inherited a definition of socialism which we consider to be both logically and historically correct — a system of society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of living by and in the interest of the whole community. But we can go along with some of the things the Guardian says. For instance, that ‘all human beings are of equal worth and that society should be organised to reflect that’ and ‘that wealth created by humans should be used to benefit everyone’.

On the other hand, describing the foundation of socialism as fairness, equality, justice and the common good doesn’t tell us anything as different people have different opinions as to what is fair, just or in the common interest. Supporters of capitalism could — and in fact do — claim this for capitalism.

The question is: on what basis would society have to be organised to ensure everybody is of equal worth and wealth used to benefit everyone? In our view it could only be on the basis of the means of living (land, industry, transport, communications, etc) being the common property of the whole community. In other words, belonging to everybody but this is the same as belonging to nobody. A socialist society is one where no individual or group of individuals has ownership or controlling rights, in law or in fact, over the resources to produce what society needs to survive as this puts them in a privileged position vis-à-vis the rest of society.

A classless society means that everybody stands in the same relationship to the means of living as everybody else, each having the same opportunity to have a say in how society is run, through democratic procedures of one kind or another. Without the means of living being commonly owned and democratically controlled, the wealth that humans create cannot be used to benefit everyone. Only once freed from the constraints of sectional ownership and the economic forces set in motion when there is production for the market, can society be in a position to do this.

The Guardian (and dictionaries) attempt to grasp the idea of common ownership, which is indeed the basis of socialism, by equating this with ‘public/government ownership’ defined as ownership by the state. But the state is not the same as the community. The state is an institution standing above society controlled by and for a section only of the members of society. Under capitalism it is controlled by that section that owns and controls the means of living. The ‘public interest’ is their interest and ‘public ownership’ is ownership by them as a class. What government ownership amounts to is state capitalism.

Ever since our foundation in 1904 we have consistently argued that government ownership is not socialism. See, for instance, ‘Nationalisation not Socialism’, March 1908 and ‘Evolution and State Capitalism’, April 1910.

That state capitalism is the same as socialism is the most common misunderstanding as to what socialism means. It can even be described as the illusion of the epoch. It is only on the basis of this mistake that the Labour Party (at one time, a long time ago) and Russia when it was the USSR could be described as socialist.

What Starmer thought socialism is was not clear, but he did mention to Chris Mason that it meant ‘the country in the service of working people’. That’s not socialism either. In fact it’s how the Conservatives might describe conservatism and the Lib Dems liberalism. But at least it is something that a Starmer Labour government can be judged by.

The trouble for him is that a country with a capitalist economy simply cannot be made to serve the interest of ‘working people’, or the social class made up of people who, through being excluded from ownership and control of the means of living, are forced by economic necessity to sell their working skills to some employer. A society based on minority ownership and production for profit can never be made to work in their interest as making profits for capitalist enterprises ahead of satisfying people’s needs is built into it. Hence the problems that the working class face. As these arise from capitalism, they cannot be solved without getting rid of capitalism.

We confidently predict, therefore, that Starmer will fail in his endeavour to make capitalism serve the working class. Socialism, properly understood as the common ownership and democratic control of the means of living, is the only framework in which people can be social equals and production re-oriented to serve people’s needs.

Adam Buick

Video review: Illustrate to Educate? (2023)

Video Review from the December 2023 issue of the Socialist Standard

Illustrate to Educate is the overall title of a collection of short YouTube videos which try to explain in simple terms and with the aid of colourful pencil illustrations and diagrams a wide range of ideas and topics as diverse as Buddhism, Halloween, Democracy, Easter, Climate Change, and, most recently, the Israel-Hamas conflict. The presenter of these videos, Dan Zimmerman, has been much praised for the clear and non-partisan nature of his videos (viewed by many thousands of people) and for the way he generally strives to present more than one side to a subject or an argument. We can see this confirmed in two of his recent videos, ‘What is Socialism’ and ‘Marxism Explained’. So definitely a good idea, but what about the actual content of these videos?

Socialism

Well, unfortunately, the content does not always stand up to scrutiny. In the one on socialism, for example, the presenter fails to develop one of the key ‘meanings’ (in fact the original meaning) of the term itself: a co-operative, moneyless society based on common ownership. He does hint at it at the beginning by stating that socialism ‘advocates for the collective ownership and control of the means of production and distribution’. But then he veers off, suggesting that ‘socialism’ can mean all sorts of different variations of the buying and selling society that we already have. Take your pick – ‘nationalisation of industries’, ‘public-private partnerships’, ‘a planned economy’, ‘more equal’ distribution of wealth. We are then told that ‘socialism’ has been ‘implemented in various forms in countries around the world’. The examples given here are – perhaps inevitably – the state capitalist systems of the former Soviet Union, of China and of Cuba, all heralded as ‘collective ownership’ (which it isn’t) and as ‘a more co-operative approach to economic decision-making’ (which it isn’t either). But, at least, the presenter does then rightly go on to say that such regimes may create ‘loss of individual freedom’ and oppression (even while continuing to call them ‘socialist’).

Marxism

So the educational value of that particular ‘Illustrate to Educate’ video is definitely open to question, given its only passing mention of the original meaning of the idea of socialism, the one originally popularised by one of its key advocates, Karl Marx. However, the opportunity to make up for this presents itself in the ‘Marxism Explained’ video in the series. And this one is certainly a lot better. In it, Dan Zimmerman correctly states Marx’s analysis that the struggle between society’s two classes, capitalists and workers, defines economic relations in capitalism and goes on to explain that, according to Marx, the imbalance in the monopoly of ownership and control of the means of production and resources by the capitalist class means that workers have little power and are often easily replaceable. He further talks about how capitalism employs social institutions such as government, education and the media to reinforce the status quo.

So far, so good. But then, unfortunately, this video too starts to go astray. For example, it refers to Marx foreseeing two stages of the development of future society, first socialism and then communism – this despite the fact that in his writings Marx makes clear that his use of the two terms is interchangeable and both mean a moneyless, wageless society based on common ownership.

The maker of the video also needs to reassess the question of the possible collapse of capitalism. He presents Marx as arguing for an inevitable collapse of capitalism either through its tendency to monopoly of ownership and consequent stifling of competition or because of the effects of the economic crises or depressions it is subject to. But nowhere in Marx is there a claim that concentration or monopoly of ownership will automatically bring with it the collapse of the capitalist system. As for crises or depressions, Marx did see them as an inherent feature of capitalism – something confirmed by history since his time – but, rather than these signalling the end of capitalism, his argument was that they would simply lead to a realignment of the existing system. Nothing, therefore, in Marx’s writings to support the view that he was in any way an ‘inevitabilist’. His argument was simply that a new social system would happen only with a conscious and democratic majority ending it to replace capitalism with socialism. Nothing in Marx either to support the view of his ideas on revolution put forward by Dan Zimmerman that a revolution will happen by an ‘enlightened vanguard’ using capitalism’s failures to seize control of the means of production and lead workers to socialism (or communism). Such an idea, common among those on the left of capitalist politics, did not originate in Marx but came much later – from Lenin and Trotsky in fact when they distorted Marx’s ideas.

In its final minute, this video does at least make clear that Marx’s vision is of a society ‘without competition, money and private property’ and one in which ‘social classes and class struggle would not exist’. But then it spoils things again by expressing the view that such a society ‘has never materialised and history suggests it is an unlikely and unworkable concept’. It has not happened so far and so never can – a lame argument to say the least.

Objective?

So, despite Dan Zimmerman’s claim to present videos that are ‘objective’, with this one he is at best only part way there. It is obviously good to be presented with more than one side to an argument, as Dan Zimmerman attempts to do, but you can only be truly even-handed if you have a detailed grasp of the topic you are presenting. This involves consulting, understanding and absorbing the writings of your subject of study, and one can’t help wondering to what extent this has happened here.

Howard Moss

About Socialism (1987)

From the September 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

1. What is the Socialist Party of Great Britain?

It is a political party, separate from all others, Left, Right or Centre. It stands for the sole aim of establishing a world social system based upon human need instead of private or state profit. The Object and Declaration of Principles printed in this introductory leaflet were adopted by the Socialist Party in 1904 and have been maintained without compromise since then. In other countries there are companion parties sharing the same object and principles, and they too remain independent from all other political parties.

2. What is capitalism?

Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world. Under this system, the means of production and distribution (land, factories, offices, transport, media, etc.) are monopolised by a minority, the capitalist class. All wealth is produced by us, the majority working class, who sell our mental and physical energies to the capitalists in return for a price called a wage or salary. The object of wealth production is to create goods and services which can be sold on the market at a profit. Not only do the capitalists live off the profits they obtain from exploiting the working class, but, as a class, they go on accumulating wealth extracted from each generation of workers.

3. Can capitalism be reformed in our interests?

No: as long as capitalism exists, profits will come before needs. Some reforms are welcomed by some workers, but no reform can abolish the fundamental contradiction between profit and need which is built into the present system. No matter whether promises to make capitalism run in the interests of the workers are made sincerely or by opportunist politicians they are bound to fail, for such a promise is like offering to run the slaughter house in the interests of the cattle.

4. Is nationalisation an alternative to capitalism?

No: nationalised industries simply mean that workers are exploited by the state, acting on behalf of the capitalists of one country, rather than by an individual capitalist or company. The workers in nationalised British Leyland are no less the servants of profit than workers in privately-owned Ford. The mines no more belong to "the public" or the miners now than they did before 1947 when they were nationalised. Nationalisation is state capitalism.

5. Are there any “socialist countries”?

No: the so-called socialist countries are systems of state capitalism. In Russia and its empire, in China, Cuba, Albania, Yugoslavia and the other countries which call themselves socialist, social power is monopolised by privileged Party bureaucrats. The features of capitalism, as outlined above, are all present. An examination of international commerce shows that the bogus socialist states are part of the world capitalist market and cannot detach themselves from the requirements of profit.

6. What is the meaning of socialism?

Socialism does not yet exist. When it is established it must be on a worldwide basis, as an alternative to the outdated system of world capitalism. In a socialist society there will be common ownership and democratic control of the earth by its inhabitants. No minority class will be in a position to dictate to the majority that production must be geared to profit. There will be no owners: everything will belong to everyone. Production will be solely for use, not for sale. The only questions society will need to ask about wealth production will be: what do people require, and can the needs be met? These questions will be answered on the basis of the resources available to meet such needs. Then, unlike now, modern technology and communications will be able to be used to their fullest extent. The basic socialist principle will be that people give according to their abilities and take according to their self-defined needs. Work will be on the basis of voluntary co-operation: the coercion of wage and salary work will be abolished. There will be no buying or selling and money will not be necessary, in a society of common ownership and free access. For the first time ever the people of the world will have common possession of the planet earth.

7. How will socialism solve the problems of society?

Capitalism, with its constant drive to serve profit before need, throws up an endless stream of problems. Most workers in Britain feel insecure about their future; almost one in four families with children living below the official government poverty line; many old people live in dangerously cold conditions each winter and thousands die; millions of our fellow men and women are dying of starvation — tens of thousands of them each day. A society based on production for use will end those problems because the priority of socialist society will be the fullest possible satisfaction of needs. At the moment food is destroyed and farmers are subsidised not to produce more: yet many millions are malnourished. At the moment hospital queues are growing longer and people are dying of curable illnesses; yet it is not "economically viable" to provide decent health treatment for all. In a socialist society nothing short of the best will be good enough for any human being.

8. What about human nature?

Human behaviour is not fixed, but determined by the kind of society people are conditioned to live in. The capitalist jungle produces vicious, competitive ways of thinking and acting. But we humans are able to adapt our behaviour and there is no reason why our rational desire for comfort and human welfare should not allow us to co-operate. Even under capitalism people often obtain pleasure from doing a good turn for others; few people enjoy participating in the "civilised" warfare of the daily rat-race. Think how much better it would be if society was based on co-operation.

9. Are socialists democrats?

Yes: the Socialist Party has no leaders. It is a democratic organisation controlled by its members. It understands that Socialism can only be established by a conscious majority of workers — that workers must liberate themselves and will not be liberated by leaders or parties. Socialism will not be brought about by a dedicated minority "smashing the state", as some left-wingers would have it. Nor do the activities of paid, professional politicians have anything to do with Socialism — the experience of seven Labour governments has shown this. Once a majority of the working class understand and want Socialism, they will take the necessary step to organise consciously for the democratic conquest of political power. There will be no Socialism without a socialist majority.

10. What is the next step?

Many workers know that there is something wrong and want to change society. Some join reform groups in the hope that capitalism can be patched up, but such efforts are futile because you cannot run a system of class exploitation in the interests of the exploited majority. People who fear a nuclear war may join CND. but as long as nation states exist, economic rivalry means that the world will never be safe from the threat of war. There are countless dedicated campaigns and good causes which many sincere people are caught up in, but there is only one solution to the problems of capitalism and that is to get rid of it, and establish Socialism. Before we can do that we need socialists; winning workers to that cause requires knowledge, principles and an enthusiasm for change. These qualities can be developed by anyone — and are essential for anyone who is serious about changing society. Capitalism in the 1980s is still a system of waste, deprivation and frightening insecurity. You owe it to yourself to find out about the one movement which stands for the alternative.


If you have read this set of principles and agree with some or all of them, contact the Socialist Party with your questions and ideas about what you can do to help speed the progress towards Socialism.

50 Years Ago: What Socialism Means (2023)

The 50 Years Ago column from the July 2023 issue of the Socialist Standard

The object of socialism is to unite humanity and to solve social problems by building a society which can satisfy the universal need for co-operation and material security.

Socialism involves a creative outlook concerned with the quality of life. In association with others, the individual will develop himself as a social being. With enlightenment and knowledge, man will replace the ignorance, false illusions and prejudice from which he suffers in our own day. Socialism is the form of society most compatible with the needs of man. Its necessity springs from the enduring problems, the economic contradictions and social conflicts of present-day society. Socialist society must be based upon the common ownership and democratic control by the whole community of the means of life.

Life will be based on human relationships of equality and co-operation. Through these relationships, man will produce useful things, construct amenities and establish desirable institutions. Socialism will resolve the conflicts which at present divide man from man. Regardless of ethnic or cultural differences, the whole world community will share a common interest.

Under capitalism the whole apparatus of production are either privately owned, as in America, or state controlled by a privileged minority, as in Russia. The economies of some countries combine both private and state control. Both forms are alien to the interests of the majority, since the priorities of trade and commerce, exploitation and profit-making, dominate life. Under both forms, production for sale on the market is organized primarily for the benefit of a privileged minority.

The building of Socialism requires a social reorganization where the earth’s resources and the apparatus of production are held in common by the whole community. Instead of serving sectional interests, they are made freely accessible to society as a whole. Production will be organized at world level with co-ordination of its differing parts down to local levels.

In Socialism there will be no market, trade or barter. In the absence of a system of exchange, money will have no function to perform. Individuals will participate freely in production and take what they need from what is produced . . . 

(Socialist Standard, Special issue on Socialism, July 1973)

Letter: What is Socialism? (1927)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following is a letter from a correspondent, and our reply :—

London, October 20th, 1927.

Dear Sir,

I attended the debate at the Battersea Town Hall on “Socialism.”

Rather unfortunately, neither party defined Socialism, so the debate was rather a failure. Perhaps you can help me. “Socialism means the entire absence of private property. The State is to own and control everything.”

Would my P.O. bank account be confiscated ? Would they take away my little shop ? Should I be compelled, with a Grey Ticket, B.2, 48392, to deal at only one shop and take the goods they offer ?

Can I own a £5 note? Bernard Shaw says no, that would make me a capitalist. I heard him say that, at a lecture in answer to a question. Could I buy a cricket bat, and call it my very own ? How should I get the money ?

Could I buy a joint of beef without money ?

I am quite in a fog. Please discuss this and get the next Socialist Standard—a good paper—to reply.

Yours truly,

A.B. Firmin.

Our Reply:

Mr. Firmin claims acquaintanceship with the Socialist Standard, but he surely does not read it very carefully. If he did, he would have observed that the debate in question centred round the question which of the two parties should the working class support, and further, that every issue of the “S.S.” contains the definition of Socialism. Socialism does not mean anything so negative and silly as “the entire absence of private property,” nor is “the State” to “own and control everything.” The latter is a distorted description of State Capitalism which may justly be attributed to one section of the Labour Party. It is not Socialism, and has never received the support of the Socialist Party as our “Object” states (see last page). Socialism is “a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interests of the whole community.”

Mr. Firmin will see here that ownership and control will be vested in the whole community, not in the “State,” that common ownership is concerned with means of production which, as our “Principles” go on to explain, refers to land, factories, railways, etc. We hasten to relieve our correspondent of the horrible fear that we propose the communal ownership and control of his toothbrush and collar-stud.

Far from abolishing “all private property/’ Socialism will place it in the power of all of the population to share in the varied kinds of wealth which society can produce—something which at present is denied in large measure to most of them.

As for Mr. Firmin’s “little shop,” we suggest that he probably wants it only as a means to an end, the end being the obtaining of food, clothing, shelter, recreation, amusements, etc. Socialist society will place these things at the disposal of Mr. Firmin as for the rest of the members of society. As it is to obtain these useful articles that we all at present endeavour to secure £5 notes, we shall most of us lose interest in the means, e.g., the £5 notes, when the end can be secured otherwise. (The exceptions will be those who have a taste for collecting useless oddities. Speaking for myself, Mr. Firmin may at that time have all my £5 notes, then as valueless as old Mark or Rouble paper money.)

We are not responsible for the reported vagaries of Mr. Bernard Shaw. Mr. Firmin would not need to BUY a cricket bat, but we assure him he could have one for his very own.

We ask our correspondent to remember that buying and selling, and the use of money as the basis of the economic activities of human society are relatively recent acquirements. They have served their useful purpose, and the means now exist (as a result of the development of Capitalism), for society to arrange the production and distribution of wealth without the intervention of money. We do not know what Mr. Firmin sells in his little shop, nor whether he is the father of young children, but supposing that a hypothetical Tommy Firmin occasionally asks for food and clothes, etc., it is most unlikely that Mr. Firmin would insist on the production of money from members of his family (if any) before he allows them to eat or dress at his expense.

We trust that our correspondent is no longer in a fog, but if he is, we shall be pleased to answer any further questions or criticisms.

Edgar Hardcastle

Blogger's Note:

The debate that Mr. Firmin attended was the one below.