The Kinds of Socialism

The argument between them, in one line each. The revolutionary says that a class which owns the economy will not permit a parliament to expropriate it, and that reforms are concessions that stabilise the system. The evolutionary says that a revolution destroys the constitutional protections the working class also needs, and that a century of legislation has delivered more than any insurrection.

The other varieties

State socialism. Productive resources are owned and directed by the state through public ownership and central planning. Its criticism, made by socialists as much as by liberals, is that it replaces the private owner with an official who is no more accountable.

Fabian socialism. Gradual, constitutional and administrative, working through research, publication and the persuasion of decision makers, on the expectation that socialism would arrive by the accumulation of measures rather than by a single change. Its name comes from a Roman general noted for delay, and it names its own method.

Guild socialism. Industries are to be run by guilds of the workers in them, on the ground that state ownership merely changes the master. It is the ancestor of every argument for workers' control.

Syndicalism. Trade unions, or syndicates, are to take over and run production directly, the general strike being the means. Its distinguishing feature is hostility to the state and to political parties alike.

Market socialism. Enterprises are socially or cooperatively owned and compete in a market, which is an attempt to keep the information and incentives a market supplies while removing private ownership of capital.

Christian socialism, and its counterparts in other traditions, which derive the same conclusions from religious teaching about justice and the poor.

Gandhian socialism, which belongs in an Indian answer. It reaches socialist conclusions about inequality from an entirely different premise: non-violence, decentralisation, trusteeship instead of expropriation, and the village rather than the factory. Chapter 750 sets it against communism, which MU marks (Specified).

Democratic socialism in India. The Congress Socialist Party of the 1930s, and later socialist parties, argued for socialism through parliamentary means, and their influence on the Constitution's Directive Principles is real.

How the varieties differ, systematically

Ask each variety three questions and the classification becomes usable rather than a list.

What is to be owned in common? Everything productive, or the commanding heights, or nothing so long as it is regulated and taxed.

By whom? The state, the workers in each industry, cooperatives, or the community.

By what means? Revolution, election, administration, the general strike, or voluntary transfer.

Apply those three to the list and each variety is a set of three answers. State socialism: everything productive, by the state, by election or revolution. Guild socialism: industry, by its workers, by transfer. Syndicalism: industry, by unions, by the general strike. Fabian: the commanding heights, by the state, by administration. Gandhian: nothing formally, by the holder as trustee, by voluntary change of heart.

A worked example

A country nationalises its coal industry. Ask each variety whether this is socialism.

A state socialist says yes, and that this is the model.

A Fabian says yes, and that it should have been done a decade earlier and by stages, with a public corporation and professional management.

A guild socialist says only partly: the mines are now owned by the state, and the miners have exchanged a private employer for a public one, so the relation of subordination is unchanged. The test is whether the miners run the mines.

A syndicalist says no: the state has taken the industry, and the state is the enemy. The union should have taken it.

A revolutionary socialist says it is a real gain and is not socialism, because one industry has changed hands while the class relations of the economy as a whole are untouched, and because a capitalist state nationalises what is unprofitable and returns it when it is not.

A market socialist says the question is not who holds the title but whether the enterprise faces a market and whether its surplus goes to those who work in it.

A Gandhian asks whether the mine should be worked at that scale at all, and whether the community whose land it is has any say.

Seven answers to one fact, and none of them is confused about socialism. That is why the first sentence of any answer on this topic should name the branch.

Distinctions that carry marks

What this classification is NOT

It is not a ranking. Each variety is an answer to a defect the others have.

The utopian and scientific labels are not neutral. They are Engels's, and both are compliments to one side.

Revolutionary is not the same as violent by definition, though in practice the two have gone together.

"Socialism failed" is not an assessment of a doctrine. It is an assessment of one variety, state socialism with central planning, in particular countries, and it says nothing about Fabian, guild, market or Gandhian socialism, none of which was tried in those places.

Quick revision

1. Engels's distinction: utopian socialism, Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owen, which invents an ideal and appeals to reason and benevolence; scientific socialism, derived from the development of capitalism and from class relations. The word scientific is a claim, and Popper's objection is directed at it.
2. Revolutionary against evolutionary: overthrow against election. Bernstein's revisionism is the classical statement of the second, and every social democratic party descends from it.
3. The argument: an owning class will not let a parliament expropriate it, against a revolution destroying the protections the working class also needs.
4. Other varieties: state socialism, Fabian, guild (workers' control), syndicalism (unions, general strike, hostile to the state and to parties), market socialism, and Gandhian socialism with trusteeship.
5. Three questions make the classification usable: what is owned in common, by whom, and by what means.
6. "Socialism failed" assesses one variety in particular countries and says nothing about the others.

Test yourself

1. Explain Engels's distinction between utopian and scientific socialism. Utopian socialism describes the early socialists, chiefly Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owen, who denounced the injustice of industrial society, designed model communities and appealed to the reason and benevolence of the wealthy. Engels's criticism was of the method rather than the diagnosis: they treated socialism as a good idea needing only persuasive explanation, appealed to all classes indifferently, and failed to see that the transformation depended on the development of productive forces and on the class industrial production had itself created. Scientific socialism is his name for socialism derived from an analysis of capitalism's actual development rather than from an ideal invented in someone's head.

2. State the argument between revolutionary and evolutionary socialism. The revolutionary holds that the state is an instrument of the owning class which will not be surrendered by consent, that a fundamental change of ownership therefore requires the existing order to be overthrown, and that reforms are concessions which stabilise the system. The evolutionary holds that where there is universal suffrage the working class is a majority and can achieve its ends by winning elections, that a revolution destroys the constitutional protections the working class also needs, and that a century of legislation has delivered more than any insurrection.

3. What are guild socialism and syndicalism, and what do they have in common? Guild socialism holds that industries should be run by guilds of the workers in them, on the ground that state ownership merely changes the master. Syndicalism holds that trade unions or syndicates should take over and run production directly, the general strike being the means, and it is hostile to the state and to political parties alike. What they share is the objection that transferring ownership to the state leaves the worker subordinate to somebody else's direction, so that the real question is not who holds the title but who controls the work.

4. What three questions make the classification of socialisms usable? What is to be owned in common, whether everything productive, only the commanding heights, or nothing so long as it is regulated and taxed. By whom, whether the state, the workers in each industry, cooperatives or the community. And by what means, whether revolution, election, administration, the general strike or voluntary transfer. Each variety is then a set of three answers, and a question about socialism can be answered by identifying which set is being discussed.

5. Is it accurate to say that socialism failed? Not as stated. The claim assesses one variety, state socialism with comprehensive public ownership and central planning, as it operated in particular countries in the twentieth century, and its failure there is a matter of record. It says nothing about Fabian socialism, whose gradual legislative programme produced much of the modern welfare state, nor about guild socialism, market socialism or Gandhian socialism, none of which was tried in those places. A question about socialism therefore requires the branch to be named before anything can be said about success or failure.