The following article provides a short explanation of socialism, communism, syndicalism and anarchism. It is meant for beginners who want to learn more about these ideas. Please share with your friends or family.
Socialism is the idea that all means of production – land, factories, offices and so on – should be held in common by society as a whole. How those means of production are used will be collectively determined by nearly all members of society. In this state of affairs, people will work together to provide for each other’s needs and desires, everything from housing to food and clothing, and more. It is a radical alternative to what we have now, in which in order to survive, people have to have something to sell in order to make money. If they don’t have any means of production to make a product they can sell, they are compelled to sell their ability to work to an employer. This is capitalism and it is based on exploitation. Socialism, on the other hand, is based on cooperation and freedom.
Communism is not an alternative to socialism; it is a type of socialism. In fact, it is one of two types of socialism one can conceive of, the other being collectivism. The two terms refer narrowly to the ways in which the wealth of society – the products of production – can be distributed. Communism would have wealth distributed according to needs – that is free of charge. People can enter common storehouses and take whatever they want without having to give up something. Collectivism would have wealth distributed according to deeds – that is work done. It is believed people’s labor can be measured and represented by labor vouchers, which can be used to purchase the things we need. This could be seen as a transitional phase toward communism, adopted mainly due to a lack of abundance in goods and services.
Syndicalism is also not an alternative to socialism, but rather a method for achieving socialism. Syndicalism seeks the organization of the entire working class into revolutionary unions, vehicles for fighting for improvements in the here and now, while providing a practical basis for a future socialist society. At its simplest, it is the application of anarchist principles to labor organizing; principles such as federation, direct action, anti-statism and belief in social revolution.
Anarchism, our final idea, seeks to abolish the state and capitalism simultaneously, and eventually all other unjustified hierarchies. Anarchism is inherently a socialist tradition, as Adolph Fischer once said, “every anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not necessarily an anarchist.” Some anarchists have defined it as the “no government system of socialism” and the term is practically synonymous with libertarian socialism or communism (the name of this website). Though the latter could be seen as a tautology, as I will explain briefly. Anarchists desire socialism to be realized on an entirely voluntary basis, when the vast majority of humanity are convinced socialists, and act together to bring it about. This is the only way socialism – any type of socialism – could be realized. This view puts them at odds with those political tendencies (Leninism for example) which believe socialism could be enacted by a minority taking power.
That leads to our next and last point; that socialism – any type of socialism – should have no role for the state. The state is a set of institutions that is the product of the division of society into classes. Today, the state is based on capitalist social relations, and whatever act abolishes these relations, and hence class divisions, will be the same act that abolishes the state. Instead of a situation where some people have power over others, a free society will be created in which people work together face to face as equals. That is the world insisted upon by anarchism and syndicalism.
What do you think? I would like to hear your thoughts on these ideas in the comment section below.
Comments
I see what you're going for,
I see what you're going for, but I would honestly just give up on promulgating the "true definition" of socialism, communism or whatever, since their meanings always depend both historically and now on the person using them. (This is also how I would introduce terminology to people, which doesn't mean you can't still tell them what you mean by "socialism," and so on.) Otherwise they might become confused when they encounter some other use of a word. Like if we're going to use an anarchist definition of Bakunin's "collectivism," referring to distribution according to deed (and not to Stalin's collectivization of agriculture or something else), then we should also note that Bakunin often identified "authoritarians" like Marx as "communists."[1] Marx and Engels also never distinguished between "socialism" and "communism," preferring the one over the other at certain points (unlike Lenin who saw socialism as some lower stage). Similarly we encounter trouble if we identify "social democrats" as some historically-fixed term only ever referring to reformist-socialists, since in the early 20th century it was a general term for socialists including those who favored revolution (and was used by both Luxemburg and Lenin—who were certainly not reformists). Lenin for example would later abandon the term, as we see in his April Theses: "Instead of 'Social-Democracy', whose official leaders throughout the world have betrayed socialism . . . we must call ourselves the Communist Party."
1. See in Bakunin's Whom am I? and elsewhere: "This is the point which is the main bone of contention between the revolutionary socialists or collectivists and the authoritarian communists who argue in favor of absolute initiative on the part of the State."
Quote: This view puts them at
And it's not really helping to introduce "socialism" to people by saying that Marxism is about "a minority taking power"; nowhere does Marx advocate such a thing.