What is socialism?

A frequently arising matter in various ideological and political discussions is the economic advocations of the system of socialism, its practicality, and how to achieve it. Oftentimes, one has to foremost explain the scientific basis of socialism as a mode of production, without which it becomes difficult to clarify our agitation for it. Perhaps a basic question would be; what is socialism?

A thorough understanding of socialism is critical to understanding the reasons for our advocation for the same. But this is needless to mention. Foremost, contrary to what most people think, socialism is not a ‘wonderful idea’ created by some ‘would be’ world reformers or humanitarians. Socialism, contrary to the perception of many people, some even within our ranks as the African Socialists, is not an economic system based on charity, helping the poor or promoting welfare programs. It is not an economic model simply geared towards providing social amenities such as housing, healthcare, education, transport and the like and stopping at that. Socialism is an economic mode of production that arises out of the contradictions present in the capitalist system. It is a higher and more advanced mode of production, distribution and exchange of commodities. It is a progressive stage of development in the existence of the human society, and is the product of the advancement of mankind through the use of science and technology to increase his chances of survival in his environment.

But what are these contradictions in the capitalist mode of production, that lead to its downfall and the advent of socialism?

It is fundamental that one grasps the basic idea behind the system of capitalism, its history and the role it has played in the human society. Capitalism came into existence slightly over two centuries ago, with its roots in the kingdoms and empires of Western Europe. Then, much of Europe was ruled by kings, emperors and their noblemen. The economic mode of production then was feudalism, in which the king owns all the land and resources in his kingdom, which he divides among his noblemen. The rest of the people, the serfs, were mere servants; tenants within his land. They sold their labour, created wealth for the aristocracy after which they were paid small amounts to keep themselves alive.

It is out of this system that capitalism arose. The people, having challenged the absolute authority of the monarch, went on to smash their supremacy, establish parliaments for their representation and enact laws curtailing the dominance of the aristocracy over property and creating the basis of free private property. The group of people leading this revolution were the capitalists, who wanted a chunk of the property controlled by the monarchs. The capitalists then proceeded to create a new mode of production, based on the concept of ‘free market’, whereby commodities are produced individually and bought and sold on the basis of free competition. This was the essence of capitalism.

At the time, this mode of production represented a great leap in the human society. It stimulated the industrial revolution, in which mankind witnessed the application of scientific knowledge to technological progress at a rate unprecedented in history. Scientific discoveries were everywhere. Inventions were coming up rapidly. Mankind was able to assert his dominance over nature in a more assertive way. Most importantly, mankind was able to combine his technological advancement with his labour power to produce wealth in unimaginable proportions.

But the production of wealth is one thing; its distribution and appropriation is another. With the advancement of the market system, it became clear that the concept of ‘free market’ was a mirage. There gradually arose bigger and bigger production units; monopolies which swallowed up or kicked out of competition the smaller producers. With time, the immense wealth being produced began to be concentrated in the hands of a few monopoly capitalists, controlling a huge chunk of the means of production. The rest of the population, ever increasing, had to retort to merely selling their labour power to earn a living. Thus, we have on the one hand the majority of the population; over nine tenths of the world’s population, toiling hard, working to create wealth and get their means of livelihood, and on the other, a tiny group of capitalists, who often don’t participate in any wealth creating activity, controlling and owning the wealth produced by the workers. This forms the basic contradiction within the system of capitalism.

It is on the basis of this major contradiction that the agitation towards socialism is born. This contradiction, inevitably, produces a struggle for existence between two sharply opposing classes on different ends of the economic spectrum; the workers and the capitalists. The workers, the proletariat, struggle for a higher standard of living and better working conditions, whereas the capitalists, the bourgeoisie, struggle to keep wages down, increase their profits and generally control the wealth produced.

There is thus a clear class struggle that exists within the society, and it is this struggle that forms the basis of the socialist movement.

It is the recognition of this struggle between classes that distinguishes the socialist movement from any other movement, as it demonstrates their correctness in the analysis of the society.

Further, in examining the class struggle, a fundamental question often asked is; is it reconcilable? Can’t there be anything done to easen the tension between these two classes of workers and capitalists? Response to this question would require an honest and realistic view of the society. The struggle between these two classes is a product of economic interests; both want to control the wealth produced. A concession by the workers, in terms of their agitation for better working conditions, means a gain by the capitalist employers. Similarly, if the capitalists make a concession, and improve the conditions of the workers, they reduce their profits and thus cede some of the wealth produced. We can liken it to a see-saw; there can never be a balance. One class always has to prevail over the other.

Having realized, thus, that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable, the socialists thus choose to advance the interests of the workers. It is through the workers that mankind produces his means of livelihood, and the progress of humankind to the next phase requires that wealth be distributed on the basis of labour put in production.

Human society has arrived at an interesting place in history. Centuries of class society have developed science and technology to a high stage; the point has been reached whereby this development should be translated into a very high standard of living and the subjugation of nature in a more advanced way. This can only be achieved by a leap from the current class society to a higher, richer and more advanced society.

In summary, therefore, the socialists recognize that society is plagued by two sharply opposing classes of people, and that this antagonism is irreconcilable, and thus resolve to solve this struggle by means of a socialist revolution. The socialist revolution will place the workers in control over the means of production, and lead to a higher standard of living among the people of the world.

As is characteristic with every system-changing revolution, the socialist revolution puts the property question to the fore; in light of the above mentioned relations of production. Just as the capitalists made a revolution that crushed the aristocrats’ authority over property, the socialists challenge the authority of the capitalists over property accrued from other people’s labour. In the socialist system, property produced would be used to enrich and further advance the interests of the workers. This is the essence of socialism, and these are the tasks that now face the human society if it is to survive.