Socialism had a late appearance in Indian politics and this was attributed to a preoccupation on the part of political activists with the independence movement. Differences in class, political perspectives, and economic objectives were set aside in favor of securing freedom from the British colonial rule. Specifically, socialist doctrines were even seen as a liability due to its theme of class conflict, which could have weakened national forces in their struggle for freedom.
Once the socialist movement emerged, the Indian concept turned out to be different due to its rejection of the orthodox Marxist dogma or the so-called scientific socialist doctrines that focus on the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The Indian model holds that socialism cannot be achieved through the State apparatus. One of its rationales stated that “If the State is looked upon as the sole agent for social reconstruction, we get nothing but a regimented society in which the State is all powerful and popular initiative is extinct and the individual is made a cog in a vast inhuman machine.
Indian socialism became aligned with the Gandhian principle that right outcomes would only be achieved through the right means. Overall, it has clear links to traditional Indian thought and philosophical traditions.
What Is Socialism?
Socialism is a populist economic and political system based on public ownership (also known as collective or common ownership) of the means of production. Those means include the machinery, tools, and factories used to produce goods that aim to directly satisfy human needs.
Communism and socialism are umbrella terms referring to two left-wing schools of economic thought; both oppose capitalism, but socialism predates the “Communist Manifesto,” a 1848 pamphlet by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, by a few decades.
In a purely socialist system, all legal production and distribution decisions are made by the government, and individuals rely on the state for everything from food to healthcare. The government determines the output and pricing levels of these goods and services.
Socialists contend that shared ownership of resources and central planning provide a more equal distribution of goods and services and a more equitable society.
- Socialism is an economic and political system based on public ownership of the means of production.
- All legal production and distribution decisions are made by the government in a socialist system. The government also determines all output and pricing levels and supplies its citizens with everything from food to healthcare.
- Proponents of socialism believe that it leads to a more equal distribution of goods and services and a more equitable society.
- Socialist ideals include production for use, rather than for profit; an equitable distribution of wealth and material resources among all people; no more competitive buying and selling in the market; and free access to goods and services.
- Capitalism, with its belief in private ownership and the goal to maximize profits, stands in contrast to socialism, but most capitalist economies today have some socialist aspects.
Common ownership under socialism may take shape through technocratic, oligarchic, totalitarian, democratic, or even voluntary rule. A prominent historical example of a socialist country, albeit one run by communists, is the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.), also known as the Soviet Union.
Due to its practical challenges and poor track record, socialism is sometimes referred to as a utopian or “post-scarcity” system, although modern adherents believe it could work if only properly implemented. They argue that socialism creates equality and provides security—a worker’s value comes from the amount of time they work, not in the value of what they produce—while capitalism exploits workers for the benefit of the wealthy.
Socialist ideals include production for use, rather than for profit; an equitable distribution of wealth and material resources among all people; no more competitive buying and selling in the market; and free access to goods and services. Or, as an old socialist slogan describes it, “from each according to ability, to each according to need.”
Origins of Socialism
Socialism developed in opposition to the excesses and abuses of liberal individualism and capitalism. Under early capitalist economies during the late 18th and 19th centuries, western European countries experienced industrial production and compound economic growth at a rapid pace. Some individuals and families rose to riches quickly, while others sank into poverty, creating income inequality and other social concerns.
The most famous early socialist thinkers were Robert Owen and Henri de Saint-Simon, and later Karl Marx and then Vladimir Lenin. It was primarily Lenin who expounded on the ideas of earlier socialists and helped bring socialist planning to the national level after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.
Following the failure of socialist central planning in the former Soviet Union and Maoist China during the 20th century, many modern socialists adjusted to a high regulatory and redistributive system sometimes referred to as market socialism or democratic socialism.
Socialism vs. Capitalism
Capitalist economies (also known as free-market or market economies) and socialist economies differ by their logical underpinnings, stated or implied objectives, and structures of ownership and production. Socialists and free-market economists tend to agree on fundamental economics—the supply and demand framework, for instance—while disagreeing about its proper adaptation.
Several philosophical questions also lie at the heart of the debate between socialism and capitalism: What is the role of government? What constitutes a human right? What roles should equality and justice play in society?
Functionally, socialism and free-market capitalism can be divided on property rights and control of production. In a capitalist economy, private individuals and enterprises own the means of production and the right to profit from them; private property rights are taken very seriously and apply to nearly everything. In a purely socialist economy, the government owns and controls the means of production; personal property is sometimes allowed, but only in the form of consumer goods.
In a socialist economy, public officials control producers, consumers, savers, borrowers, and investors by taking over and regulating trade, the flow of capital, and other resources. In a free-market economy, trade is conducted on a voluntary, or nonregulated, basis.
Market economies rely on the separate actions of self-determining individuals to determine production, distribution, and consumption. Decisions about what, when, and how to produce are made privately and coordinated through a spontaneously developed price system, and prices are determined by the laws of supply and demand. Proponents say that freely floating market prices direct resources towards their most efficient ends. Profits are encouraged and drive future production.
Socialist economies rely on either the government or worker cooperatives to drive production and distribution. Consumption is regulated, but it is still partially left up to individuals. The state determines how main resources are used and taxes wealth for redistributive efforts. Socialist economic thinkers consider many private economic activities to be irrational, such as arbitrage or leverage, because they do not create immediate consumption or “use.”
Socialism vs. Communism
Socialism and communism are both economic philosophies that advocate for public ownership, particularly over the means of production and the distribution and exchange of goods in a society. Both philosophies run contrary to free market capitalism, which, they contend, exploits workers and creates a widening gap between rich and poor.
There are differences between socialism and communism, however. Under communism, all property is communally owned; private property doesn’t exist. Under socialism, individuals can still own private property. Also, Marx predicted that a violent worker uprising against the middle and upper classes would bring about the communist state, whereas socialists tend to seek change and reform without overthrowing the prevailing social and political structure. And according to communist theory, workers should be given what they need, while under socialist theory, they are to be compensated for their level of contribution to the economy.2
Bones of Contention
There are many points of contention between socialists and capitalists. Socialists consider capitalism and the free market to be unfair and possibly unsustainable. Most socialists contend that market capitalism is incapable of providing enough subsistence to the lower classes. They contend that greedy owners suppress wages and seek to retain profits for themselves.
Proponents of market capitalism counter that it is impossible for socialist economies to allocate scarce resources efficiently without real market prices. They claim that the resultant shortages, surpluses, and political corruption will lead to more poverty, not less. Overall, they say, socialism is impractical and inefficient, suffering in particular from two major challenges.
The first challenge, widely called the “incentive problem,” says no one wants to be a sanitation worker or wash skyscraper windows. That is, socialist planners cannot incentivize laborers to accept dangerous or uncomfortable jobs without violating the equality of outcomes.
Far more serious is the calculation problem, a concept originating from economist Ludwig von Mises’ 1920 article “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth”. Socialists, wrote Mises, are unable to perform any real economic calculation without a pricing mechanism. Without accurate factor costs, no true accounting may take place. Without futures markets, capital can never reorganize efficiently over time.
Can a Country Be Both Socialist and Capitalist?
While socialism and capitalism seem diametrically opposed, most capitalist economies today have some socialist aspects. Elements of a market economy and a socialist economy can be combined into a mixed economy. And in fact, most modern countries operate with a mixed economic system; government and private individuals both influence production and distribution.
Economist and social theorist Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote that there are only two archetypes in economic affairs—socialism and capitalism—and that every real system is a combination of these archetypes. But because of the archetypes’ differences, there is an inherent challenge in the philosophy of a mixed economy and it becomes a never-ending balancing act between predictable obedience to the state and the unpredictable consequences of individual behavior.4
How Mixed Economies Develop
Mixed economies are still relatively young and theories around them have only recently been codified. “The Wealth of Nations,” Adam Smith’s pioneering economic treatise, argued that markets were spontaneous and that the state could not direct them, or the economy.5 Later economists, including John-Baptiste Say, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Joseph Schumpeter, would expand on this idea.
However, in 1985, political economy theorists Wolfgang Streeck and Philippe C. Schmitter introduced the term “economic governance” to describe markets that are not spontaneous but have to be created and maintained by institutions. The state, to pursue its objectives, needs to create a market that follows its rules.
Historically, mixed economies have followed two types of trajectories. The first type assumes that private individuals have the right to own property, produce, and trade. State intervention has developed gradually, usually in the name of protecting consumers, supporting industries crucial to the public good (in fields like energy or communications), providing welfare, or other aspects of the social safety net. Most western democracies, such as the United States, follow this model.
The second trajectory involves states that evolved from pure collectivist or totalitarian regimes. Individuals’ interests are considered a distant second to state interests, but elements of capitalism are adopted to promote economic growth. China and Russia are examples of the second model.
Transitioning From Socialism
A nation needs to transfer the means of production to transition from socialism to free markets. The process of transferring functions and assets from central authorities to private individuals is known as privatization.
Privatization occurs whenever ownership rights transfer from a coercive public authority to a private actor, whether it is a company or an individual. Different forms of privatization include contracting out to private firms, awarding franchises, and the outright sale of government assets, or divestiture.
Over the last few years, Cuba has moved towards privatizing many aspects of its economy, incorporating more capitalism into its society. In early 2021, it approved the ability for people to work in jobs in over 2,000 private sectors, up from 127.
In some cases, privatization is not really privatization. Case in point: private prisons. Rather than completely ceding a service to competitive markets and the influence of supply and demand, private prisons in the United States are actually just a contracted-out government monopoly. The scope of functions that form the prison is largely controlled by government laws and executed by government policy. It is important to remember that not all transfers of government control result in a free market.
Privatizing a Socialist Economy
Some nationwide privatization efforts have been relatively mild, while others have been dramatic. The most striking examples include the former satellite nations of the Soviet Bloc after the collapse of the U.S.S.R. and the modernization of the post-Mao Chinese government.
The privatization process involves several different kinds of reforms, not all of them completely economic. Enterprises need to be deregulated and prices need to be allowed to flow based on microeconomic considerations; tariffs and import/export barriers need to be removed; state-owned enterprises need to be sold; investment restrictions must be relaxed; and the state authorities must relinquish their individual interests in the means of production. The logistical problems associated with these actions have not been fully resolved and several different theories and practices have been offered throughout history.
Should these transfers be gradual or immediate? What are the impacts of shocking an economy built around central control? Can firms be effectively depoliticized? As the struggles in Eastern Europe in the 1990s show, it can be very difficult for a population to adjust from complete state control to suddenly having political and economic freedoms.
In Romania, for example, the National Agency for Privatization was charged with the goal of privatizing commercial activity in a controlled manner. Private ownership funds, or POFs, were created in 1991. The state ownership fund, or SOF, was given the responsibility of selling 10% of the state’s shares each year to the POFs, allowing prices and markets to adjust to a new economic process. But initial efforts failed as progress was slow and politicization compromised many transitions. Further control was given to more government agencies and, over the course of the next decade, bureaucracy took over what should have been a private market.
These failures are indicative of the primary problem with gradual transitions: when political actors control the process, economic decisions continue to be made based on noneconomic justifications. A quick transition may result in the greatest initial shock and the most initial displacement, but it results in the fastest reallocation of resources toward the most valued, market-based ends.
Is There Socialism in the U.S. Today?
Yes. Social welfare programs such as food stamps, unemployment compensation, and housing assistance can be described as socialist. It can also be argued that government programs like Medicare and Social Security are too. There are also socialist organizations in the U.S., such as the Democratic Socialists of America, which counts among its members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), and Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y., all members of the House of Representatives. And Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vt) is a self-described democratic socialist.
The Great Recession and the coronavirus pandemic have increased interest in the government creating more opportunities and increasing the social safety net for all Americans, which are hallmarks of socialist policy, but not everyone agrees with these ideas.
What’s the Difference Between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism?
Social democracy is based on maintaining a capitalist economic system but blunting its excesses via regulation and addressing inequality with government-run social programs—in a sense, humanizing capitalism. Social democracies exist today in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.9
Democratic socialism has a vision of a society and economy that is democratic, not authoritarian, but in which individuals have more of a say than large corporations in how the economy is run. It is committed to finding ways to transform an economy from capitalism to socialism. As the website of the Democratic Socialists of America notes, “Our vision pushes further than historic social democracy and leaves behind authoritarian visions of socialism in the dustbin of history…. We want to collectively own the key economic drivers that dominate our lives, such as energy production and transportation.”
Where Does Socialism Come From?
Its intellectual roots date back to Plato’s “Republic,” in which he described a collective society. Centuries later, Thomas More’s “Utopia” echoed Platonic ideals in its depiction of an imaginary island where people live and work communally. But socialism was a direct response to the Industrial Revolution, which brought enormous economic and social change to Great Britain and the rest of the world. As industrialists grew wealthy on the labor of workers who increasingly lived in poverty, socialism emerged as an alternative to capitalism, one that could improve life for the working class.
Socialism is a form of government in which most forms of property, including at least the major means of production and natural resources, are owned or controlled by the state. The aim of public ownership is to ensure that production is responsive to the needs and desires of the general population and that goods and services are distributed equitably.
No. Societies that were socialist to varying degrees have existed or been imagined (in the form of utopias) since ancient times. Examples of actual socialist societies that predated or were uninfluenced by Karl Marx were Christian monastic communities during and after the Roman Empire and Robert Owen’s utopian social experiments in the 19th century. Premodern or non-Marxist works envisioning ideal socialist societies include Plato’s Republic, Thomas More’s Utopia, and Charles Fourier’s Social Destiny of Man.
Under capitalism, the means of production are privately owned, and wages, prices, and the amounts and kinds of goods and services produced, as well as their distribution, are ultimately determined by individual choices within a free market. Under socialism, at least the major means of production are owned or controlled by the state, and wages, prices, and the production and distribution of goods and services are subject to some degree of state regulation or planning.
Communism is both a form of government and an ideology. As the latter, it predicts a dictatorship of the proletariat established through violence and the eventual disappearance of class and state. As the former, it is equivalent in principle to the dictatorship of the proletariat and in practice to the dictatorship of communists. Socialism is not tied to any specific ideology, it presupposes the state, and it is compatible with democracy and peaceful political change.