thesis paper on socialism

Socialism: A short primer

Subscribe to governance weekly, e.j. dionne, jr. and e.j. dionne, jr. w. averell harriman chair and senior fellow - governance studies william a. galston william a. galston ezra k. zilkha chair and senior fellow - governance studies.

May 13, 2019

• 21 min read

In this essay, E.J. Dionne, Jr. and Bill Galston give a primer on socialism in three parts: its definition, the age gap in perceptions of socialism among Americans, and how socialism evolved to social-democratic systems in the U.K. and Germany.

Something new is happening in American politics. Although most Americans continue to oppose socialism, it has reentered electoral politics and is enjoying an upsurge in public support unseen since the days of Eugene V. Debs . The three questions we will be focusing on are: Why has this happened? What does today’s “democratic socialism” mean in contrast with past versions? And what are the political implications?

It’s worth recalling how important socialism once was at the ballot box to understand that this tradition has deeper roots in our history than many imagine. In the 1912 presidential election, Debs secured six percent of the popular vote, and Socialists held 1,200 offices in 340 cities, their ranks including 79 mayors. Socialism declined after this peak and faced repression during World War I because of the party’s opposition to the war. (Debs secured almost a million votes in the 1920 presidential election, running from a jail cell). After the war ended, the Communist seizure of power in what became the Soviet Union contributed to a “red scare” that further weakened America’s indigenous socialist tradition.

Socialism never lost its intellectual influence, however. The New Deal drew on proposals pioneered by socialists, and it was a young socialist named Michael Harrington whose book The Other America helped launch the war on poverty. But when it came to electoral politics, socialism was largely shunned or irrelevant.

Until now. The crash of 2008, rising inequality, and an intensifying critique of how contemporary capitalism works has brought socialism back into the mainstream—in some ways even more powerfully than in Debs’ time, since those who use the label have become an influential force in the Democratic Party. Running as a democratic socialist, Sen. Bernie Sanders received 45 percent of the Democratic primary vote in 2016, and in the 2018 mid-term elections, members of Democratic Socialists of America were among the prominent Democratic victors. Their ranks included Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who quickly became one of the country’s best-known politicians. One measure of her influence: As of early May, Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer had 1.7 million Twitter followers; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had 2.5 million; Ocasio-Cortez had 4 million.

The generational divide

Although President Donald Trump declared war on socialism in his 2019 State of the Union address, its champions felt no pressure to back down. It is not hard to see why.

During the heyday of the industrial era, growth was rapid, its fruits were broadly shared across income and wage classes, and upward mobility was widespread. Capitalism was popular. Socialism was not. In recent decades, however, growth has been episodic and slow, wages have stagnated for working-class and many middle-class families, mobility has slowed, and inequality has soared. The economic and financial collapse of 2008-2009 undermined the claim that the economy had entered a new era of stability and moderation. Experts who had preached the virtues of self-regulation were forced to recant. The slow recovery from the Great Recession left many Americans wondering whether they would ever regain the income and wealth they had lost.

The Great Recession especially shaped the outlook of young adults. The younger working class entered a job market that provided far fewer stable opportunities than their parents had enjoyed. And as revenues fell, many state governments slashed public support for higher education, forcing public colleges and universities to raise tuition sharply. Students had to abandon college hopes or take out larger loans that that consumed a substantial portion of their incomes. And particularly in the years immediately after the crash, many of them had trouble finding the jobs their degrees once promised. As the profits and share prices of large corporations recovered from their recessionary lows, enriching executives and investors, many young adults began wondering whether they would ever share the fruits of 21 st century capitalism. They became increasingly open to the idea that the system was rigged against them and that incremental reform was not enough. Only transformational systemic change could get the job done, many concluded, and socialism was the available alternative to the failed “neo-liberal” model of contemporary capitalism.

The generational effect is dramatic. A 2018 YouGov survey found that 35 percent of young adults under 30 were very or somewhat favorably inclined toward socialism, while just 26 percent registered unfavorable sentiments. (40 percent were not sure.) By contrast, only 25 percent of voters 65 and older had favorable views of socialism, while 56 percent were unfavorable.

Table 1: The impact of age on attitudes toward socialism

(Source: YouGov, August 2018)

Competing definitions of socialism

The growing popularity of socialism reflects a change in its image. Viewed in the past under the dark shadow of the Soviet system, it is now seen in light of the achievements of social democratic governments in Scandinavia and elsewhere in Europe.

In 2018, the Public Religion Research Institute offered respondents two definitions of socialism. One described it as “a system of government that provides citizens with health insurance, retirement support, and access to free higher education.” The other characterized it as “a system where the government controls key parts of the economy, such as utilities, transportation and communications industries.” The first definition effectively refers to the Scandinavian model—and the ideas popularized by Sanders. Most proponents of social democracy see it as a way of smoothing capitalism’s rough edges, making it more humane, egalitarian, and protective, rather than replacing the market outright. The second definition corresponds to the classic understanding of socialism that dominated public consciousness after World War II, when the challenge from the Soviet Union was at its peak.

As one might expect, young adults, for whom Cold War memories are dim to non-existent, were strongly inclined to define socialism as social democracy rather than public ownership of key industries. Fifty-eight percent of them picked the social-democratic option, and just 38 percent the dominant post-war understanding. By contrast, Americans 65 and older, whose views of socialism reflected the post-war conflict with communism, were somewhat more inclined to focus on government control of the economy, although even the oldest Americans now tilt toward the social-democratic definition, too.

Other survey research confirms this shift. In 1949, the Gallup Organization probed Americans’ understanding of the term “socialism.” More Americans picked government ownership or control as socialism’s defining feature than all the other options combined. Almost seven decades later in 2018, Gallup posed the same question, with very different results. The share of respondents who focused on government control fell by half, to just 17 percent. By contrast, the share who emphasized egalitarianism and generous public services rose from 14 percent in 1949 to 33 percent in 2018.

Table 2: Changes over time in Americans’ understanding of socialism

(Source: Gallup organization, 1949, 2018. Because of rounding, the items total to more than 100%.)

In the post-war period, Americans viewed socialism through the prism of Soviet communism. Today, they view it through the prism of the welfare state.

In the post-war period, Americans viewed socialism through the prism of Soviet communism. Today, they view it through the prism of the welfare state, the system that Western democracies developed to make market economies more broadly acceptable and to blunt the appeal of communism, which had powerful support throughout Europe in the post-war decades. The Soviet Union threatened liberty. Norway, Sweden and Denmark do not.

There was an important distinction, however, between Soviet-style communism and the system that socialist parties advocated after World War II. The Soviet system was undemocratic and totalitarian. The state (that is, the Communist party) controlled not only the entire economy but also civil society. As a “vanguard” party, the CPSU claimed to represent, infallibly, the “real interests” of the working class, even though average citizens of the Soviet Union might well disagree with the party’s “line” at any given moment.

By contrast, the program of Western socialist parties was both democratic and non-totalitarian. Western socialists acknowledged the importance of the individual liberties that Communists dismissed as “bourgeois.” These parties distinguished between the parts of the economy that needed to be brought under public control and those that did not. In the main, they did not seek government control of civil society, and they were willing to submit to the electorate’s democratic verdict on an ongoing basis.

From socialism to social democracy

The post-war British Labour Party offers a vivid example of democratic socialism in action—and also of the transition from state ownership to greater equality as socialism’s core goal. As World War II neared its end in the summer of 1945, the United Kingdom held its first general election in nearly a decade. The Labour Party campaigned on a bold program of economic and social change. “The Labour Party is a Socialist Party, and proud of it,” declared its election manifesto. “Its ultimate purpose . . . is the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain.”

The manifesto was serious, even literal, in its choice of the noun “commonwealth.” The key assumption was that everything in the U.K.—not just land and natural resources, but also productive facilities and wealth—should be seen as jointly owned by the people as a whole and could be directed to purposes determined by the people through democratic processes.

Not content with ringing generalities, the manifesto spelled out its socialist program in considerable detail. It called for public ownership of the fuel and power industries, the iron and steel industries, and all modes of domestic transportation (rail, road, air, and canal). Other key provisions included the nationalization of the Bank of England, eventual nationalization of land holdings, a National Investment Board to plan and shape public and private investment, and a government-funded and operated National Health Service.

Related Books

Andrew Yeo, Isaac B. Kardon

August 20, 2024

Mara Karlin

January 19, 2018

Tom Wheeler

July 1, 2024

One other theme suffuses the manifesto—the proposition that building socialism is akin to the wartime mobilization that directed all the nation’s energies toward a single overriding goal. “The nation and its post-war Governments will be called upon to put the nation above any sectional interest, above any free enterprise,” the manifesto asserts. “The problems and pressures of the post-war world threaten our security and progress as sure as—though less dramatically than—the Germans threatened them in 1940. We need the spirit of Dunkirk and of the Blitz sustained over a period of years.”

This said, the Labour Party’s version of socialism was entirely consistent with the British system of individual liberty and parliamentary democracy. The manifesto goes out of its way to underscore Labour’s commitment to freedom of worship, speech, and the press. It rejected the proposition that wartime restrictions on individual liberties should carry over into peacetime. The Labour Party won power peacefully and democratically in the 1945 parliamentary election and when Labour lost the subsequent election, it yielded power to the victorious conservatives.

In many respects, the Labour Party’s postwar program represented a high-water mark for democratic socialism.

In many respects, the Labour Party’s postwar program represented a high-water mark for democratic socialism. Beginning in the 1950s, after they lost power, Labour leaders deemphasized, without formally repudiating, the aspects of their program that focused on nationalization of key industries. The 13 years of Conservative government between 1951 and 1964 saw the rise of Labor’s “revisionists,” who moved the party away from the nationalization of industry as a central goal. In his seminal book, “The Future of Socialism,” Anthony Crosland, a major figure in the party, argued that a focus on nationalization confused means and ends and that the purpose of socialism was greater equality, not government ownership of industry. The party’s leader in the period, Hugh Gaitskell, was a revisionist who regularly battled with the party’s left. And when Harold Wilson led Labor back to power in 1964, he stressed the power of technological change to transform society and the promise of the “white heat” of the “scientific revolution.” It was a long way from taking over the coal mines.

In Germany, the transformation of democratic socialism was formal and explicit. As late as the mid-1950s, Germany’s Socialist Party (the SPD) continued to espouse classic socialist ideology. A key SPD leader declared that the crucial point of the party’s agenda was “the abolition of capitalist exploitation and the transfer of the means of production from the control of the big proprietors to social ownership.” But after a series of electoral defeats at the hands of a center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) that itself supported a significant welfare state, the SPD came to understand that its post-war program had been outrun by events. Rapid economic growth based on private property and regulated markets during the 1950s had sparked the emergence of a new middle class and rendered obsolete an economic program centered on nationalization of key industries. The Soviet Union was a threat to social and political freedom, not an economic model to be emulated.

The SPD’s famous Bad Godesberg Program, adopted in November 1959, represented a fundamental change of course. It castigated Soviet Communism and repudiated Marxism. The proletariat was no longer the sole engine of progress; the SPD had changed from being a “party of the working class” to a “party of the people.” Henceforth, democracy, freedom, equality, and the fullest possible development of each individual would be the guiding principles.

The Program defined the social function of the state as “provid[ing] social security for its citizens to enable everyone to be responsible for shaping his own life freely and to further the development of a free society.” While achieving this aim would require substantial government regulation, it would not necessitate government ownership except in the rare cases in which “sound economic power relationships” could not be guaranteed by any other means.

The new economic vision rested on freedom—“free choice of consumer goods, free choice of working place, freedom for employers to exercise their initiative as well as free competition.” Where excessive concentration restricted competition, government must intervene to restore competition. The task of a freedom-based economic policy was to contain the power of big business, not to replace the private sector. In some instances, they suggested that what we would now call a “public option” could be used to broaden choices for consumers and diminish corporate power. But in a remarkable break with socialist orthodoxy, the Program stressed that “every concentration of economic power, even in the hands of the state, harbors dangers.” Widespread government ownership of the means of production is not always the solution; it may be part of the problem.

The Program focused, not on government taking control of the economy, but on using government to improve the lives of all citizens.

The Program focused, not on government taking control of the economy, but on using government to improve the lives of all citizens. Key planks included full employment, generous wages and shorter working days, a redistributive system of taxation, secure retirement with a state-guaranteed minimum pension, universal access to health care, and decent and affordable housing. These are among the building blocks of the system of “social democracy” that developed and spread throughout the West as the alternative to both socialism and unregulated capitalism. As scholar Sheri Berman puts it, “Capitalism remained, but it was a capitalism of a very different type—one tempered and limited by political power and often made subservient to the needs of society rather than the other way around.”

From social democracy to the Third Way

Although social democracy came to represent the dominant political program in most democracies, its triumph was short-lived. Starting in the late 1970s, conservative leaders who challenged key tenets of social democracy scored electoral victories in the U.K., U.S., Germany, and elsewhere. They argued that excessive government intervention and spending had slowed economic growth, impeded innovation, and promoted inflation. Moreover, excessive deference to organized labor had reduced private sector profits and investments, while the pursuit of equal outcomes had deprived the “job creators” of needed incentives to take risks. Government was not the solution for the problems of capitalism, the new conservative wisdom held, but rather the principal obstacle to the success of a market economy. Industries had to be deregulated; spending on programs of social protections had to be curtailed; taxes had to be slashed; and unions needed to be brought to heel.

The political success of conservative policies persuaded many center-left leaders that their social democratic programs needed to adjust to new circumstances. As this movement gathered strength, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union transformed the political situation. It seemed that every alternative to capitalism had faded. The future lay in a dynamic and increasingly global market economy with the fewest possible fetters on the free flow of capital, goods, services, workers, and information. Appropriate fiscal, trade, investment, immigration, and education policies would enable Western democracies to seize the commanding heights of the new economy. The future for workers lay in lifetime education and training, not in organized labor’s efforts to thwart needed change. Regulations that impeded efficiency in key sectors such as banking needed to be swept away. Competition would promote “self-regulation” as an alternative to the heavy hand of the state. Programs to promote economic and retirement security were acceptable—as long as they did not break the bank, raise interest rates, and squeeze out private investment.

Led by key figures such as Bill Clinton in the United States, Tony Blair in the U.K., and Gerhardt Schroeder in Germany, this new economic vision—dubbed the Third Way by its friends and neo-liberalism by its foes—guided changes in center-left parties. As long as the new economy delivered ample jobs and broad-based income gains, center-left parties enjoyed political success. But the financial crisis of 2008 and the ensuing severe global recession undermined public confidence in the institutions and policies that permitted the disaster. On the Right, populist forces began to stir. (In retrospect, the Tea Party was a harbinger of things to come.) On the Left, the failure of post-Cold War globalized capitalism opened the door to critics of the status quo. Occupy Wall Street targeted the “1 percent”—the wealthy elites whose greed and myopia, they said, triggered the crisis and left those of lesser means to suffer the losses and pay the costs.

By 2016, right-wing populism had taken over the previously center-right Republican Party in the U.S., while Sanders gave Hillary Clinton, the establishment center-left candidate, a surprisingly tough race. Throughout Europe, traditional center-left and center-right parties suffered heavy losses while both right-wing populists and far-left parties gained support. In the U.S., U.K., and elsewhere, insurgents have rejected what they see as the Third Way’s objectionable and ineffective compromises with conservative principles and programs. It is against this historical backdrop that young adults in America embraced programs that promised more than incremental change—and that they were not afraid to call themselves socialists.

What’s in a word?

Medicare and Social Security are, in a sense, socialist, and so are our public schools and universities, our community colleges, our water supplies and sewers, and our mass transit systems.

There has always been a gap between rhetoric and reality in discussions of (and, especially, attacks on) socialism. Not one economically advanced society can be described as purely capitalist; every one of them is a mixed economy that includes some elements of socialism. Medicare and Social Security are, in a sense, socialist, and so are our public schools and universities, our community colleges, our water supplies and sewers, and our mass transit systems. Municipally owned and built sports stadiums are forms of socialism. North Dakota still has a publicly-owned bank, created during the years when agrarian populism and socialism overlapped. The Tennessee Valley Authority is a form of socialism, as conservatives never tire of pointing out.

Ideas rooted in socialism have often been deployed to save capitalism from its excesses—usually in the face of opposition from capitalists themselves. The political scientist Mason Williams points to a comment from New Deal lawyer Jerome Frank as capturing this history nicely. “We socialists are trying to save capitalism,” Frank said, “and the damned capitalists won’t let us.”

And from Franklin Roosevelt to Barack Obama, conservatives have made it a point to charge their Democratic foes with being socialists, no matter how many speeches they made in praise of the market. In attacking the program of his erstwhile friend FDR, Al Smith declared: “There can be only one national anthem, the Star Spangled Banner or the Internationale.” In the 1950 mid-term elections, Republicans briefly used the slogan “Liberty versus socialism.” (It turned out not to test very well.) Ronald Reagan’s 1964 speech on behalf of Barry Goldwater that made The Gipper a hero to conservatives argued that Goldwater’s victory over Lyndon Johnson was necessary to stop the advance of socialism. And, of course, Barack Obama’s health care plan, which was a very long way from a single payer system, was regularly denounced as socialist.

For the most part, Democratic politicians have regularly denied they were socialists—and even in this campaign cycle, marked by socialism’s resurgence, most Democrats earnestly pronounce themselves capitalists. The ranks of proud capitalists include Elizabeth Warren, who is by most measures as progressive as Sanders and has issued even more comprehensive proposals than he has to restructure contemporary capitalism. The fact that Sanders calls himself a socialist and Warren does not suggests that socialist/capitalist divide tells us less about policy than we might think and more about the valence assigned to the labels by different parts of the electorate.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the term socialism has lost its once-automatic linkage to the United States’ mortal enemy. The embrace of socialism no longer incurs the taint of treason, and proposals advanced by avowed socialists have expanded the perimeter of acceptable debate. As recent comments on the imperiled future of capitalism by Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co, and Ray Dalio of Bridgewater Associates suggest, the sharper critiques of capitalism are gaining attention from capitalists themselves. In the past—from the New Deal years through the 1960s—fears for the system’s future have led important voices within the business world to embrace social reform as necessary to saving the system. Socialists might once again be the forerunners of capitalist reform.

There are three bottom lines here. The first is that attitudes toward socialism now divide the two parties. In a 2018 YouGov survey, 46 percent of Democrats had a somewhat or very favorable view of socialism, while only 25 percent held an unfavorable view. Among Republicans, only 11 percent viewed socialism favorably, while 71 percent viewed it unfavorably—including 61 percent who had a “very” unfavorable view. Tellingly, the breakdown among Independents was 19 percent favorable, 40 percent unfavorable. Among Americans who voted for Hillary Clinton, 53 percent of had a favorable opinion of socialism, a view held by just 7 percent of Trump voters.

Second, sympathy for socialism is still a minority view. In the YouGov survey, overall, socialism was viewed favorably by only 26 percent of American adults and unfavorably by 46 percent. Among registered voters, the breakdown was 30 percent favorable, 50 percent unfavorable. As Warren’s self-labeling shows, most politicians trying to win national elections will continue to resist the S-word. If socialism is more popular than ever, it is still, on net, a troublesome word for a large share of the electorate. But whatever it is called, the impulse to use public power to smooth the market economy’s rough edges and to enhance opportunity and security for all Americans is a powerful current in today’s post-Great Recession politics.

Table 3: Partisanship and attitudes toward socialism

Third, decades of rising inequality and the shock of the 2008 crash have led large numbers of Americans —whether they call themselves socialists or not— to call the fundamentals of our economic system into question. The resurgence of socialism is a warning sign for those who want to preserve this system and an opportunity for those who would reform it. And, as has happened before, their two causes may come to overlap.

The authors want to thank Amber Herrle for her contributions to this piece.

Related Content

William A. Galston

September 11, 2019

April 17, 2018

Tom Bjorkman

July 1, 2001

Governance Studies

Center for Effective Public Management

Online Only

2:00 pm - 3:00 pm EDT

Linda Peek Schacht

August 29, 2024

Russell Wheeler, Benjamin Wittes, Kathryn Dunn Tenpas

• Student Opportunities

About Hoover

Located on the campus of Stanford University and in Washington, DC, the Hoover Institution is the nation’s preeminent research center dedicated to generating policy ideas that promote economic prosperity, national security, and democratic governance. 

• The Hoover Story
• Hoover Timeline & History
• Mission Statement
• Vision of the Institution Today
• Key Focus Areas
• About our Fellows
• Research Programs
• Annual Reports
• Hoover in DC
• Fellowship Opportunities
• Visit Hoover
• David and Joan Traitel Building & Rental Information
• Newsletter Subscriptions
• Connect With Us

Hoover scholars form the Institution’s core and create breakthrough ideas aligned with our mission and ideals. What sets Hoover apart from all other policy organizations is its status as a center of scholarly excellence, its locus as a forum of scholarly discussion of public policy, and its ability to bring the conclusions of this scholarship to a public audience.

• Peter Berkowitz
• Ross Levine
• Michael McFaul
• Timothy Garton Ash
• China's Global Sharp Power Project
• Economic Policy Group
• History Working Group
• Hoover Education Success Initiative
• National Security Task Force
• National Security, Technology & Law Working Group
• Middle East and the Islamic World Working Group
• Military History/Contemporary Conflict Working Group
• Renewing Indigenous Economies Project
• State & Local Governance
• Strengthening US-India Relations
• Technology, Economics, and Governance Working Group
• Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region

Books by Hoover Fellows

Economics Working Papers

Hoover Education Success Initiative | The Papers

• Hoover Fellows Program
• National Fellows Program
• Student Fellowship Program
• Veteran Fellowship Program
• Congressional Fellowship Program
• Media Fellowship Program
• Silas Palmer Fellowship
• Economic Fellowship Program

Throughout our over one-hundred-year history, our work has directly led to policies that have produced greater freedom, democracy, and opportunity in the United States and the world.

• Determining America’s Role in the World
• Answering Challenges to Advanced Economies
• Empowering State and Local Governance
• Revitalizing History
• Confronting and Competing with China
• Revitalizing American Institutions
• Reforming K-12 Education
• Understanding Public Opinion
• Understanding the Effects of Technology on Economics and Governance
• Energy & Environment
• Health Care
• Immigration
• International Affairs
• Key Countries / Regions
• Law & Policy
• Politics & Public Opinion
• Science & Technology
• Security & Defense
• State & Local
• Books by Fellows
• Published Works by Fellows
• Working Papers
• Congressional Testimony
• Hoover Press
• PERIODICALS
• The Caravan
• China's Global Sharp Power
• Economic Policy
• History Lab
• Hoover Education
• Global Policy & Strategy
• Middle East and the Islamic World
• Military History & Contemporary Conflict
• Renewing Indigenous Economies
• State and Local Governance
• Technology, Economics, and Governance

Hoover scholars offer analysis of current policy challenges and provide solutions on how America can advance freedom, peace, and prosperity.

• China Global Sharp Power Weekly Alert
• Email newsletters
• Hoover Daily Report
• Subscription to Email Alerts
• Periodicals
• California on Your Mind
• Defining Ideas
• Hoover Digest
• Video Series
• Uncommon Knowledge
• Battlegrounds
• GoodFellows
• Hoover Events
• Capital Conversations
• Hoover Book Club
• AUDIO PODCASTS
• Matters of Policy & Politics
• Economics, Applied
• Free Speech Unmuted
• Secrets of Statecraft
• Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century
• Libertarian
• Library & Archives

Support Hoover

Learn more about joining the community of supporters and scholars working together to advance Hoover’s mission and values.

What is MyHoover?

MyHoover delivers a personalized experience at  Hoover.org . In a few easy steps, create an account and receive the most recent analysis from Hoover fellows tailored to your specific policy interests.

Watch this video for an overview of MyHoover.

Log In to MyHoover

Forgot Password

Don't have an account? Sign up

Have questions? Contact us

• Support the Mission of the Hoover Institution
• Subscribe to the Hoover Daily Report
• Follow Hoover on Social Media

Make a Gift

Your gift helps advance ideas that promote a free society.

• About Hoover Institution
• Meet Our Fellows
• Focus Areas
• Research Teams
• Library & Archives

Library & archives

Events, news & press, capitalism vs. socialism.

Over the last century countries have experimented with variations on both capitalism and socialsm. So how do socialism, capitalism, and their many variants compare?

From economic shutdowns to trillions of dollars in new government spending, the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic led to a dramatic increase in government action. While much of the increase was temporary, there is now a growing desire to further expand government. We see calls for single-payer health care systems, expanded child-care subsidies, and trillions of dollars in federal infrastructure investments.

Arguments about what government should and should not do are not new. We regularly see them in the debates over the merits of socialism versus free market capitalism. While these debates are often in the abstract, over the last century countries have experimented with variations on both economic systems. The  Hoover Institution’s Human Prosperity Project  critically examined many of these experiments to see which economic system is best for human flourishing. The video below describes the project’s objectives:

So how do socialism, capitalism, and their many variants compare?

Part 2: How do socialism and capitalism affect income and opportunities?

Delivering broad-based prosperity should be the primary goal of all economic systems, but not all systems deliver the same results. Supporters of capitalism argue that free markets give people—entrepreneurs, investors, and workers—the right incentives to create goods and services that people value. The result is higher standards of living. Those sympathetic to socialism, however, respond that capitalism may produce wealth for some, but without government involvement in the economy many are left behind.

In his Human Prosperity Project essay  Socialism, Capitalism, and Income  economist Edward Lazear analyzed decades of income trends across 162 countries. He studied how incomes for low and high earners changed as countries shifted from government-controlled economies to more market-oriented economies. His conclusion?

The historical record provides evidence on how countries have fared under the two extreme systems as well as under intermediate cases, where countries adopt primarily private ownership and economic freedom but couple that with a large government sector and transfers. The general evidence suggests that both across countries and over time within a country, providing more economic freedom improves the incomes of all groups, including the lowest group.

Lazear points to several specific examples. First, China: in the 1980s, the Chinese Communist government began to adopt market-based reforms. Lazear finds that the market reforms, as skeptics of capitalism would predict, did increase income inequality. But, more importantly, the market reforms lifted millions of people out of poverty. Lazear notes:

Today, the poorest Chinese earn five times as much as they did just two decades earlier. Throughout the 1980s and before, a large fraction of the Chinese population lived in abject poverty. Today’s poor in China remain poor by developed-country standards, but there is no denying that they are far better off than they were even two decades ago. Indeed, the rapid lifting of so many out of the worst state of poverty is likely the greatest change in human welfare in world history.

As the video below highlights, market reforms led to similar economic miracles in India, Chile, and South Korea:

Part 3: What about mixed economies?

Of course, most modern-day critics of capitalism are not advocating for complete government control over the economy. They don’t want the economic policies of the Soviet Union or early Communist China; instead, they point to nations with mixed economies to emulate, such as those featuring social democracy. So how do these policies affect incomes and opportunities?

Economist Lee Ohanian compares the labor market policies of Europe and the United States in his essay The Effect of Economic Freedom on Labor Market Efficiency and Performance . Compared to the United States, European nations have higher minimum wages, stricter rules that prevent the firing of workers, and high rates of unionization. These rules are intended to protect workers, but Ohanian finds that they discourage employment and result in lower compensation rates. His analysis indicates:

These findings have important implications for economic policy making. They indicate that policies that enhance the free and efficient operation of the labor market significantly expand opportunities and increase prosperity. Moreover, they suggest that economic policy reforms can substantially improve economic performance in countries with heavily regulated labor markets and high tax rates.

The video below highlights some of Ohanian’s key findings:

What about the effects of income redistribution and the taxes that pay for it? Supporters argue that these programs keep people out of poverty. Critics, however, argue that financing these systems comes with high costs both to taxpayers and to recipients.

In their essay Taxation, Individual Actions, and Economic Prosperity: A Review , Joshua Rauh and Gregory Kearney consider the effects of raising tax rates on high-income Americans to finance new government spending. They examine the effects of income and wealth taxes in Europe. They find that wealth taxes and high income tax rates discourage high-income filers from investing in a country, which ultimately reduces economic growth. Thus, calls in the United States to increase income and wealth taxes “come despite a body of evidence showing that the country is already one of the more progressive tax regimes in the world, that wealth confiscation results in worse outcomes for the broader economy.”

The long-term consequences of redistribution don’t fall just on taxpayers. Such transfer systems also create incentives for individuals to leave or stay out of the work force. In their contribution to the Human Prosperity Project , economist John Cogan and Daniel Heil consider the effects of Universal Basic Income (UBI) programs, which would provide a “no-strings-attached” cash benefit to families. They find that modern UBI proposals in the United States would either prove costly—requiring tax rates that would reduce incentives to work and invest—or would require steep phase-out provisions that punish recipients who try to re-enter the workforce. In either case, the result is that UBI programs are likely to reduce employment rates, ultimately depriving recipients of long-term economic opportunities.

Part 4: What about other aspects of human flourishing?

Human flourishing is more than material prosperity. For example, it requires a clean environment and access to good health care.

It might seem that socialist economies—where government controls the means of production—would have better environmental track records. Yet the evidence suggests the opposite. In his essay Environmental Markets vs. Environmental Socialism: Capturing Prosperity and Environmental Quality Economist , Terry Anderson summarizes the literature on economic systems’ effects on the environment. He points to research showing that countries with more economic freedom tend to have better environmental outcomes:

Seth Norton calculated the statistical relationship between various freedom indexes and environmental improvements. His results show that institutions—especially property rights and the rule of law—are key to human well-being and environmental quality. Dividing a sample of countries into groups with low, medium, and high economic freedom and similar categories for the rule of law, Norton showed that in all cases except water pollution, countries with low economic freedom are worse off than those in countries with moderate economic freedom, while in all cases those in countries with high economic freedom are better off than those in countries with medium economic freedom. A similar pattern is evident for the rule-of-law measures.

Anderson explains this surprising result with the adage that “no one washes a rental car.” In free-market societies, property rights give individuals incentive to protect and preserve the resources they own. In countries without these property rights provisions, no one has the right incentives, much like no one has the incentive to wash a rental car (except the rental car companies). The video below further explains why free markets and cleaner environments go hand and hand.

What about health care? Many developed nations that have generally free economies have still opted for government-run health care. The programs vary by country. Even in the United States, the government plays a large role in health care. Large government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid provide health care to low-income families, the disabled, and seniors. Nevertheless, relative to most developed nations, the United States relies far more heavily on the private sector and markets.

In his essay  The Costs of Regulation and Centralization in Health Care  Dr. Scott Atlas compares health care in the United States with that in other developed nations. The United States consistently ranks high across a variety of quality metrics. The system offers shorter wait times and faster access to life-saving drugs and medical equipment. The result is that the US system tends to deliver better medical outcomes than other developed nations. Watch this video to learn more:

Part 5: Conclusion

We’ve seen that whether we look at income statistics or environmental outcomes, economies with freer markets tend to have better outcomes. Nevertheless, there still may be unseen dimensions of economic systems that these statistics don’t address. Is there another way to determine which system is best for human flourishing?

Perhaps the best method is to observe where people choose to live when offered the choice. In his essay  Leaving Socialism Behind: A Lesson from German History ,  Russell Berman catalogues widespread immigration from East Germany to West Germany during the Cold War. Watch this video to learn its causes:

Citations and Additional Reading

• Why did liberal democracies succeed while communist nations failed in the twentieth century? Hoover Institution senior fellow Peter Berkowitz provides an answer in his essay  Capitalism, Socialism, and Freedom .
• In his essay  Socialism vs. The American Constitutional Structure: The Advantages of Decentralization and Federalism , John Yoo highlights the constitutional provisions that would make it difficult for the United States to adopt widescale socialist policies.
• Explore the other Human Prosperity Project essays  here .

View the discussion thread.

Join the Hoover Institution’s community of supporters in ideas advancing freedom.

101 Socialism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best socialism topic ideas & essay examples, 👍 good essay topics on socialism, ⭐ simple & easy socialism essay titles, ❓ research questions about socialism.

• Socialism and Liberalism Comparison From aristocracy to socialism, equality and equitable distribution of wealth has been the reason for conflict between the masses and their leaders.
• Similarities Between Capitalism and Socialism. Compare & Contrast In this system, the government manages the overall means of production but the members have the duty of choosing the best setting for the production, the amount to produce and which product should be produced.
• Similarities and Differences Between Communism and Democratic Socialism This is because, according to the proponents of both ideologies, in Capitalist countries, the majority of ordinary citizens are denied the right to have a fair share in the national wealth.
• Differences Between Capitalism and Socialism In capitalist economic models, the rate of employment is determined by the pressures of demand and supply in the labor markets.
• The Original Tenets of Socialism The notion of moderate socialism is one that incorporates the basic tenets of socialism wherein there are economic and political arrangements within the government which focus on the public or community ownership of the materials […]
• Charles Fourier and Count Saint-Simon’ Socialism Although today the majority of political thinkers are more skeptical about the idea of utopian socialism in general and versions of this ideology represented in the works of Charles Fourier and Count Saint-Simon, in particular, […]
• Corporate Social Responsibility: Socialist and Capitalist Perspective The state should ensure that tranquility and calmness is in the society. The role of the state is to provide guidelines that would bring sanity in business.
• How Does Revolutionary Communism Compare With Democratic Socialism? Revolutionary communism holds it that the capitalism would never let go of their hold on community and political power and as such, only a violent revolution can result in the changes that communism calls for.
• American Dream and Socialism in the Book “The Jungle” by Sinclair The main idea of the book lies in upholding the Marxist belief of the inevitable collapse of capitalism and the accession of the proletariat, or industrial working class.
• Different Aspects of Socialism and Communism After the collapse of the largest country in the world, the USSR, covering almost half of the continent, with the regime performing within this country, people tend to analyze the mistakes, which were made by […]
• Socialist Health Care System Advantages Arguably, the socialist health system is the best of the three health system. This will be well taken care of in scenario of a socialist health system because it is a government policy to have […]
• Rhetorical Analysis of Socialism vs. Capitalism by Thompson In order to convey this message, the author uses several rhetorical devices, the discussion of which is part of this analysis.
• Infrastructure in Capitalism and Socialism Systems The Garden City concept, based on building around the decentralized plant, does not reduce the pressure on the central part of the city and the growing population of the modern world.
• Socialism: Quantitative Aspects of the Group Socialism is an example of a group that works best when members are alike such that they can individually see the contributions of others despite the division of labor.
• Liberalism, Socialism, and Anarchism For instance, the existence of anarchic views that deny the superiority of the law and the power of the government is acceptable from the liberal point of view when the person does not infringe the […]
• Economic Crisis: Debate on Socialism Therefore, blaming socialism alone is not sufficient to explain the crisis in Venezuela and the risks to the United States. Thomas Sowell states that promising wealth tax is a politician’s means of capitalizing on the […]
• The Washington Consensus and 21st-Century Socialism The relation between market trade and the involvement of the state from one of the primary aspects upon which such models are compared. Both policies demonstrate particular differences in the context of the balance between […]
• “Twenty-First Century Socialism” Ellner believes that Chavez is still supported by his people, at least the majority of them, in support of this claim Steve points to the fact that Chavez’ party won a majority of the gubernatorial […]
• Research of Utopian Socialist Ideas The early socialists fail to make changes because the system that they proposed did not deliver its promises of security, prosperity, and equality. However, scientific socialists held that revolution and socialism were the major components […]
• The Dramatic Events of Socialist Ukraine The chaos continued until the end of the Soviet-Polish war and the signing of the Peace of Riga in 1921. One of the most dramatic events in the history of Ukraine and the USSR as […]
• The Relations Between Capitalism and Socialism On the other hand, Marx defined socialism as a principle that ensures the most of these production factors are owned and controlled by the society or the state for the benefit of the whole community […]
• Phenomenon of the Capitalism and Socialism The system values private ownership with the price system as the system of determining the rate of exchange of goods and services.
• Overview and History of Communism: New Socialist System After 1917 It contributed to the decline of the empires of the European powers while giving a tremendous boost to the influence of the united state of America; it led to the overthrow of Russian tsarism and […]
• Climate Change During Socialism and Capitalistic Epochs The exclusion of utopian component of the first epoch socialism leading to capitalistic epoch is responsible for the current state of affairs in climate change hence creating the need for second epoch socialism Climate change […]
• Socialism in Chile, Cuba, and Venezuela It has been observed that at present the socio-economic systems of Cuba and Venezuela is very much inclined with the ideologies and philosophies of socialism; Chile, on the other hand seems lagging behind in attaining […]
• Economics: Socialism vs. Liberal Capitalism Karl Marx, a great proponent of socialism, refers to the ethical, economic, and political contribution of socialism to the welfare of the society in asserting his position on the debate of the best economic model.
• Astrology in Socialist, Capitalist, Psychological Views The fact that many people overlook what astrologers do or say has resulted in the unavailability of information in the area of study.
• Economy of Capitalism, Communism, Fascism and Socialism Government structure: the structure of the government in the two countries, involves federal governments that are led by the political elites in the countries. The government has the duty of formulating policies that regulate the […]
• Conservatism, Nationalism, Socialism as Ideologies From the time of its establishment, the term has been used in the description of a broad range of views about political science.
• Urbanization Processes in Post-Socialist China To explain this phenomenon, this paper answers three questions what is the cost of forming this middle class what led to the emergence of this middle class how has the formation of the middle class […]
• Socialism Practice in Successful Countries To some people, a successful political system is the one that offers a high level of satisfaction and the quality of living to its citizenry.
• Human Nature in Socialist View Since 1800 The work by Robert Owen, “Lectures on the Rational System of Society”, is written in the middle of the 19th century.”Socialism and Human Nature” is created by Arnold Peterson in the middle of the 20th […]
• Canadian Technological Socialist Party’s Ideology The main focus of the party is on the provision of industrial automation reform, social programs, and the creation of non-market socialism based on the manufacturing of products through the most efficient automated means, their […]
• The Cultural Revolution at the Margins Chinese Socialism The significant influence on the beginning of the Cultural Revolution was provoked by the head of the Chinese Communist Party, Mao Zedong, who attempted to consolidate the communist concepts and views as the official ideology […]
• Socialism: H. White’s and J. Keynes’ Ideas The validity of this statement can be well illustrated, in regards to White’s strive to work out a strategy for making the U.S.economy less sensitive to the externally induced stimuli.
• Socialism with Chinese Characteristics The impacts of modernization in china is largely attributed to the emergence of socialism before the reform and as well as opening-up policy in the year spanning from 1949 to 1979.
• Venezuela and Struggle for Socialism Power struggles and inequality perpetuate into modern society because of the affluent, and powerful people enjoy more privileges than the poor and the powerless individuals.
• Chinese Path of Socialism One of the most common definitions of democracy is that it is ‘a government of the people, by the people, and for the people’.
• Socialist Market Economy of China Shift Toward Capitalism In fact, the United States is currently the largest world economy though it could be surpassed by the second biggest global economy of China by the financial year 2015 in terms of the PPP.
• Socialist Market Economy and Communism in China A socialist economy is defined as an economy whose main objective is to create equality and ensure that the means of production in the market is owned by the working class of the state. The […]
• Ritzer and Zelizer Exploration of Weber’s Socialist Theory Upon critical review of the texts, it is notable that the authors use different perspectives to examine Weber’s arguments on the division of labor and modes of production.
• Market Structure during Post-Mao China: Capitalism or Socialism? One of the major changes is the increase in the gap between the rich and the poor in the Chinese community.
• Transition from communism to socialism The change in the country’s governance would imply that the ideas and behaviors that people hold to must also change. The importance of religion and civil freedom in relation to our behaviors becomes manifest.
• Women Liberation during the Socialist Era A federation was started, Women’s Federation, to better the status of women in the society. With this sort of confidence and the backup of the law, women were empowered to bargain even at the household […]
• Could Socialism ever Work? Socialism advocates for the abolition of the private-enterprise economy favoured by capitalism and the establishment of a system where public ownership maintains a dominant position in the economy.
• Liberal and Socialist Feminist Theories The development and growth of feminist movements and gender roles were accompanied with the emergence of various theoretical models that explained the roles of women and their positions in the society.
• Socialist Market Economic System of China To efficiently deal with the historical question on socialism when in the process of practicing of the transformation of China, the Chinese society emphasized on improvement of the road and distinguished market system.
• Macroeconomics: Socialism, Totalitarism and US Economics Compare and contrast the approach to economics of the U.S.system of government to Socialism Capitalism, which is the economic system in the U.
• 20th Century Socialism According to Debs, the Socialist Party was to be the party of the working class irrespective of the race and color.
• Socialism and Communism after Marx However; Karl Marx failed in his Marxism theory as a result of the establishment of the middle class. Following Karl Marx’s demise in 1844, Friedrich Engels who was became the narrator of the Marxism theory […]
• Liberalist and Socialist Responses to Khomeini The main point of his work is based on the idea that government should be guided by divine laws and there should be executive and administering organs that would implement laws and ordinances of Islam.
• Nikolai Ostravasky’s “How the Steel Was Tampered” and Chinese Literature One front is the gun while the other front is the use of the pen meaning that the forum was emphasizing the use of literature to perpetuate the socialist agenda as well as to control […]
• Running Economies: Capitalism and Socialism In this regard, the control of the means of production is with the people as a whole and not any individual. To begin with, capitalism insists on the maximization of individual profits by the owners […]
• Political Ideologies: Capitalism vs. Socialism Capitalism dominates the western countries with its headquarters being the United States, while socialism dominates most of the former Soviet States and the majority of states in the Far East. This initial accumulation of wealth […]
• Fascism and Socialism: Conceptual Study The movement aimed at intertwining the Church, the State and the Party into a single entity, which, supposedly, could make the state stronger and eventually turn it invincible to the attacks of the enemies was […]
• Compare of Capitalism and Socialism In light of this definition and description, one would argue that this is the most convenient system of economic governance because individuals have the freedom to conduct business in a manner that best meets their […]
• Thinking Government: Conservatism, Liberalism and Socialism in Post World War II Canada This leads to the second implication which was summarized by political scientists in the following statement: “nothing can be guaranteed in life and that all individuals are also free to fail, to stumble to the […]
• How Capitalism Beat Communism/Socialism This is exactly the reason why USSR was doomed to collapse in just about every society, the functioning of which is being concerned with the observance of Socialist principles, the prolonged continuation of social, cultural […]
• To what extent did the text promote socialism? The negative effects of the capitalist form of government are identified to be one of the themes that the writer of the book dwelt on.
• The Cold War Between the Union Soviet Socialist Republic and the United States of America The Americans believed in the principles of democracy and free enterprise while the Russians believed that the whole world must convert to a system of governance according to the teachings of Karl Marx and Lenin.
• Socialism & Democracy: Fundamental Believes and Concepts The most distinct difference between the socialism and democracy is that in socialism we are mostly focusing our energies on the governance of the economic activities and the economic systems of a given country while […]
• What Were the Important Differences Between Socialism in the Soviet Block and Socialism in the Third World?
• How Does National-Socialism Fit Within the Model of Italian Fascism?
• Has Third Way Abandoned Socialism?
• Why Does Marx Believe That Capitalism Will Inevitably Give Way to Socialism?
• How Far Has “Socialism” Simply Meant State Control in Britain?
• Are the Similarities Between Italian Fascism and German National Socialism More Significant Than the Differences?
• Why Has Socialism Failed?
• How Does Socialism Solve Economic Problems?
• Does Socialism Differ That Much From Liberalism?
• How Was the Status Quo Challenged by Marxism and Socialism in Russia at the Beginning of the 20th Century?
• Are Women Better off Under Socialism?
• What Were the Ideas Associated With the Ideology of Liberalism, Nationalism, and Early Utopian Socialism During the 19th Century?
• Why Do Fascists Reject Both Liberalism and Socialism?
• Has Socialism Been Defeated by Capitalism?
• Why Did China Choose the Socialism Instead of Capitalism as the Country’s Political System?
• How Does Capitalism Differ From Socialism and Communism?
• Why Didn’t Socialism Thrive in America?
• What Was the Role of the First World War on Mussolini’s Transition From Socialism to Fascism?
• Why Bulgaria Was the Closest Ally of the USSR in the Time of Socialism?
• Won’t Libertarian Socialism Destroy Individuality?
• Why Is Socialism Feared in the United States?
• Was Socialism a Result of the Need for a Safer, More Ideal Living Environment for People?
• Socialistic Ideas: Can They Be Viewed as a Progressive Form of Human Existence?
• How Did Socialism Impact the Growth in More Human-Oriented, Liberal Attitudes From Government to Citizens?
• What Additional Factors Facilitated the Promotion of Socialism at the Beginning of the 20th Century?
• Why Was the Socialist Movement Constantly Interrupted and Blocked in the 20THE Century by More Democratic Countries?
• Is the Depiction of Socialism in Dystopian Literature a Prospective Future of This Social and Political Regime?
• How Can Socialism Serve as a Veil for Implementing Harsh Totalitarian Regimes?
• Why Does Capitalism Win Over Socialism in Terms of the Favored Political Development of a Country?
• How Has Socialism Influenced the Economic Development of the Modern World?
• Imperialism Questions
• Existentialism Paper Topics
• Communism Topics
• Dictatorship Topics
• Conservatism Essay Titles
• Karl Marx Questions
• Max Weber Questions
• Nazism Topics
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 29). 101 Socialism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/socialism-essay-topics/

"101 Socialism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 29 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/socialism-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '101 Socialism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 29 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "101 Socialism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/socialism-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "101 Socialism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/socialism-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "101 Socialism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/socialism-essay-topics/.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Socialism is a rich tradition of political thought and practice, the history of which contains a vast number of views and theories, often differing in many of their conceptual, empirical, and normative commitments. Going back a century, Angelo Rappoport in his 1924 Dictionary of Socialism canvassed no fewer than forty definitions of socialism, telling his readers in the book’s preface that “there are many mansions in the House of Socialism” (Rappoport 1924: v, 34–41). To take even a relatively restricted subset of socialist thought, Leszek Kołakowski could fill over 1,300 pages in his magisterial survey of Main Currents of Marxism (Kołakowski 1978 [2008]). Our aim is of necessity more modest. In what follows, we are concerned to present the main features of socialism, both as a critique of capitalism, and as a proposal for its replacement. Our focus is predominantly on literature written within a philosophical idiom, focusing in particular on philosophical writing on socialism produced during the past forty-or-so years. Furthermore, our discussion concentrates on the normative contrast between socialism and capitalism as economic systems. Both socialism and capitalism grant workers legal control of their labor power, but socialism, unlike capitalism, requires that the bulk of the means of production workers use to yield goods and services be under the effective control of workers themselves, rather than in the hands of the members of a different, capitalist class under whose direction they must toil. As we will explain below, this contrast has been articulated further in different ways, and socialists have not only made distinctive claims regarding economic organization but also regarding the processes of transformation fulfilling them and the principles and ideals orienting their justification (including, as we will see, certain understandings of freedom, equality, solidarity, and democracy). [ 1 ]

1. Socialism and Capitalism

2. three dimensions of socialist views, 3.1 socialist principles, 3.2.1 exploitation, 3.2.2 interference and domination, 3.2.3 alienation, 3.2.4 inefficiency, 3.2.5 liberal egalitarianism and inequality in capitalism, 4.1 central and participatory planning, 4.2 market socialism, 4.3 less comprehensive, piecemeal reforms, 5. socialist transformation (dimension diii), other internet resources, related entries.

Socialism is best defined in contrast with capitalism, as socialism has arisen both as a critical challenge to capitalism, and as a proposal for overcoming and replacing it. In the classical, Marxist definition (G.A. Cohen 2000a: ch. 3; Fraser 2014: 57–9), capitalism involves certain relations of production . These comprise certain forms of control over the productive forces —the labor power that workers deploy in production and the means of production such as natural resources, tools, and spaces they employ to yield goods and services—and certain social patterns of economic interaction that typically correlate with that control. Capitalism displays the following constitutive features:

(i) The bulk of the means of production is privately owned and controlled . (ii) People legally own their labor power. (Here capitalism differs from slavery and feudalism, under which systems some individuals are entitled to control, whether completely or partially, the labor power of others). (iii) Markets are the main mechanism allocating inputs and outputs of production and determining how societies’ productive surplus is used, including whether and how it is consumed or invested.

An additional feature that is typically present wherever (i)–(iii) hold, is that:

(iv) There is a class division between capitalists and workers, involving specific relations (e.g., whether of bargaining, conflict, or subordination) between those classes, and shaping the labor market, the firm, and the broader political process.

The existence of wage labor is often seen by socialists as a necessary condition for a society to be counted as capitalist (Schweickart 2002 [2011: 23]). Typically, workers (unlike capitalists) must sell their labor power to make a living. They sell it to capitalists, who (unlike the workers) control the means of production. Capitalists typically subordinate workers in the production process, as capitalists have asymmetric decision-making power over what gets produced and how it gets produced. Capitalists also own the output of production and sell it in the market, and they control the predominant bulk of the flow of investment within the economy. The relation between capitalists and workers can involve cooperation, but also relations of conflict (e.g., regarding wages and working conditions). This more-or-less antagonistic power relationship between capitalists and workers plays out in a number of areas, within production itself, and in the broader political process, as in both the economic and political domains decisions are made about who does what, and who gets what.

There are possible economic systems that would present exceptions, in which (iv) does not hold even if (i), (ii) and (iii) all obtain. Examples here are a society of independent commodity producers or a property-owning democracy (in which individuals or groups of workers own firms). There is debate, however, as to how feasible—accessible and stable—these are in a modern economic environment (O’Neill 2012).

Another feature that is also typically seen as arising where (i)–(iii) hold is this:

(v) Production is primarily oriented to capital accumulation (i.e., economic production is primarily oriented to profit rather than to the satisfaction of human needs). (G.A. Cohen 2000a; Roemer 2017).

In contrast to capitalism, socialism can be defined as a type of society in which, at a minimum, (i) is turned into (i*):

(i*) The bulk of the means of production is under social, democratic control.

Changes with regard to features (ii), (iii), and (v) are hotly debated amongst socialists. Regarding (ii), socialists retain the view that workers should control their labor power, but many do not affirm the kind of absolute, libertarian property rights in labor power that would, e.g., prevent taxation or other forms of mandatory contribution to cater for the basic needs of others (G.A. Cohen 1995). Regarding (iii), there is a recent burgeoning literature on “market socialism”, which we discuss below, where proposals are advanced to create an economy that is socialist but nevertheless features extensive markets. Finally, regarding (v), although most socialists agree that, due to competitive pressures, capitalists are bound to seek profit maximization, some puzzle over whether when they do this, it is “greed and fear” and not the generation of resources to make others besides themselves better-off that is the dominant, more basic drive and hence the degree to which profit-maximization should be seen as a normatively troubling phenomenon. (See Steiner 2014, in contrast with G.A. Cohen 2009, discussing the case of capitalists amassing capital to give it away through charity.) Furthermore, some socialists argue that the search for profits in a market socialist economy is not inherently suspicious (Schweickart 2002 [2011]). Most socialists, however, tend to find the profit motive problematic.

An important point about this definition of socialism is that socialism is not equivalent to, and is arguably in conflict with, statism. (i*) involves expansion of social power—power based on the capacity to mobilize voluntary cooperation and collective action—as distinct from state power—power based on the control of rule-making and rule enforcing over a territory—as well of economic power—power based on the control of material resources (Wright 2010). If a state controls the economy but is not in turn democratically controlled by the individuals engaged in economic life, what we have is some form of statism, not socialism (see also Arnold in Other Internet Resources (OIR) , 2022; Dardot & Laval 2014).

When characterizing socialist views, it is useful to distinguish between three dimensions of a conception of a social justice (Gilabert 2017a; Gilabert 2023a: ch. 4). We identify these three dimensions as:

(DI) the core ideals and principles animating that conception of justice; (DII) the social institutions and practices implementing the ideals specified at DI; (DIII) the processes of transformation leading agents and their society from where they are currently, to the social outcome specified in DII.

The characterization of capitalism and socialism in the previous section focuses on the social institutions and practices constituting each form of society (i.e., on DII). We step back from this institutional dimension in section 3, below, to consider the central normative commitments of socialism (DI) and to survey their deployment in the socialist critique of capitalism. We then, in section 4 , engage in a more detailed discussion of accounts of the institutional shape of socialism (DII), exploring the various proposed implementations of socialist ideals and principles outlined under DI. We turn to accounts of the transition to socialism (DIII) in section 5 .

3. Socialist Critiques of Capitalism and their Grounds (Dimension DI)

Socialists have condemned capitalism by alleging that it typically features exploitation, domination, alienation, and inefficiency. Before surveying these criticisms, it is important to note that they rely on various ideals and principles at DI. We first mention these grounds briefly, and then elaborate on them as we discuss their engagement in socialists’ critical arguments. We set aside the debate, conducted mostly during the 1980s and largely centered on the interpretation of Marx’s writings, as to whether the condemnation of capitalism and the advocacy for socialism relies (or should rely), on moral grounds (Geras 1985; Lukes 1985; Peffer 1990). Whereas some Marxist socialists take the view that criticism of capitalism can be conducted without making use—either explicitly or implicitly—of arguments with a moral foundation, our focus is on arguments that do rely on such grounds.

Socialists have deployed ideals and principles of equality, democracy, individual freedom, self-realization, and community or solidarity. Regarding equality , they have proposed strong versions of the principle of equality of opportunity according to which everyone should have “broadly equal access to the necessary material and social means to live flourishing lives” (Wright 2010: 12; Roemer 1994a: 11–4; Nielsen 1985). Some, but by no means all, socialists construe equality of opportunity in a luck-egalitarian way, as requiring the neutralization of inequalities of access to advantage that result from people’s circumstances rather than their choices (G.A. Cohen 2009: 17–9). Socialists also embrace the ideal of democracy , requiring that people have “broadly equal access to the necessary means to participate meaningfully in decisions” affecting their lives (Wright 2010: 12; Arnold n.d. [OIR] : sect. 4; Love 2020). Many socialists say that democratic participation should be available not only at the level of governmental institutions, but also in various economic arenas (such as within the firm). Third, socialists are committed to the importance of individual freedom . This commitment includes versions of the standard ideas of negative liberty and non-domination (requiring security from inappropriate interference by others). But it also typically includes a more demanding, positive form of self-determination, as the “real freedom” of being able to develop one’s own projects and bring them to fruition (Elster 1985: 205; Gould 1988: ch. 1; Van Parijs 1995: ch. 1; Castoriadis 1979). An ideal of self-realization through autonomously chosen activities featuring people’s development and exercise of their creative and productive capacities in cooperation with others sometimes informs socialists’ positive views of freedom and equality—as in the view that there should be a requirement of access to the conditions of self-realization at work (Elster 1986: ch. 3; Gilabert 2023a: ch. 3; Kandiyali 2020). Finally, and relatedly, socialists often affirm an idea of community or solidarity , according to which people should organize their economic life so that they treat the freedom and well-being of others as intrinsically significant. People should recognize positive duties to support other people, or, as Einstein (1949) put it, a “sense of responsibility for [their] fellow men”. Or, as Cohen put it, people should “care about, and, where necessary and possible, care for, one another, and, too, care that they care about one another” (G.A. Cohen 2009: 34–5; see also Arnold 2020). Community is sometimes presented as a moral ideal which is not itself a demand of justice but can be used to temper problematic results permitted by some demands of justice (such as the inequalities of outcome permitted by a luck-egalitarian principle of equality of opportunity (G.A. Cohen 2009)). However, community is sometimes presented within socialist views as a demand of justice itself (Gilabert 2012). Some socialists also take solidarity as partly shaping a desirable form of “social freedom” in which people are able not only to advance their own good but also to act with and for others (Honneth 2015 [2017: ch. I]).

Given the diversity of fundamental principles to which socialists commonly appeal, it is perhaps unsurprising that few attempts have been made to link these principles under a unified framework. A suggested strategy has been to articulate some aspects of them as requirements flowing from what we might call the Abilities / Needs Principle , following Marx’s famous dictum, in The Critique of the Gotha Program , that a communist society should be organized so as to realize the goals of producing and distributing “From each according to [their] abilities, to each according to [their] needs”. This principle, presented with brevity and in the absence of much elaboration by Marx (Marx 1875 [1978b: 531]) has been interpreted in different ways. One, descriptive interpretation simply takes it to be a prediction of how people will feel motivated to act in a socialist society. Another, straightforwardly normative interpretation construes the Marxian dictum as stating duties to contribute to, and claims to benefit from, the social product—addressing the allocation of both the burdens and benefits of social cooperation. Its fulfillment would, in an egalitarian and solidaristic fashion, empower people to live flourishing lives (Carens 2003, Gilabert 2015, 2023a: ch. 3). The normative principle itself has also been interpreted as an articulation of the broader, and more basic, idea of human dignity. Aiming at solidaristic empowerment , this idea could be understood as requiring that we support people in the pursuit of a flourishing life by not blocking, and by enabling, the development and exercise of their valuable capacities, which are at the basis of their moral status as agents with dignity (Gilabert 2017b; Gilabert 2023a: chs. 1 and 3).

3.2 Socialist Charges against Capitalism

The first typical charge leveled by socialists is that capitalism features the exploitation of wage workers by their capitalist employers. Exploitation has been characterized in two ways. First, in the so-called “technical” Marxist characterization, workers are exploited by capitalists when the value embodied in the goods they can purchase with their wages is inferior to the value embodied in the goods they produce—with the capitalists appropriating the difference. To maximize the profit resulting from the sale of what the workers produce, capitalists have an incentive to keep wages low. This descriptive characterization, which focuses on the flow of surplus labor from workers to capitalists, differs from another common, normative characterization of exploitation, according to which exploitation involves taking unfair, wrongful, or unjust advantage of the productive efforts of others. An obvious question is when, if ever, incidents of exploitation in the technical sense involve exploitation in the normative sense. When is the transfer of surplus labor from workers to capitalists such that it involves wrongful advantage taking of the former by the latter? Socialists have provided at least four answers to this question. (For critical surveys see Arnsperger and Van Parijs 2003: ch. III; Vrousalis 2018; Wolff 1999).

The first answer is offered by the unequal exchange account , according to which A exploits B if and only if in their exchange A gets more than B does. This account effectively collapses the normative sense of exploitation into the technical one. But critics have argued that this account fails to provide sufficient conditions for exploitation in the normative sense. Not every unequal exchange is wrongful: it would not be wrong to transfer resources from workers to people who (perhaps through no choice or fault of their own) are unable to work.

A second proposal is to say that A exploits B if and only if A gets surplus labor from B in a way that is coerced or forced. This labor entitlement account (Holmstrom 1977; Reiman 1987) relies on the view that workers are entitled to the product of their labor, and that capitalists wrongly deprive them of it. In a capitalist economy, workers are compelled to transfer surplus labor to capitalists on pain of severe poverty. This is a result of the coercively enforced system of private property rights in the means of production. Since they do not control means of production to secure their own subsistence, workers have no reasonable alternative to selling their labor power to capitalists and to toil on the terms favored by the latter. Critics of this approach have argued that it, like the previous account, fails to provide sufficient conditions for wrongful exploitation because it would (counterintuitively) have to condemn transfers from workers to destitute people unable to work. Furthermore, it has been argued that the account fails to provide necessary conditions for the occurrence of exploitation. Problematic transfers of surplus labor can occur without coercion. For example, A may have sophisticated means of production, not obtained from others through coercion, and hire B to work on them at a perhaps unfairly low wage, which B voluntarily accepts despite having acceptable, although less advantageous, alternatives (Roemer 1994b: ch. 4).

The third, unfair distribution of productive endowments account suggests that the core problem with capitalist exploitation (and with other forms of exploitation in class-divided social systems) is that it proceeds against a background distribution of initial access to productive assets that is inegalitarian. A is an exploiter, and B is exploited, if and only if A gains from B ’s labor and A would be worse off, and B better off, in an alternative hypothetical economic environment in which the initial distribution of assets was equal (with everything else remaining constant) (Roemer 1994b: 110). This account relies on a luck-egalitarian principle of equality of opportunity. (According to luck-egalitarianism, no one should be made worse-off than others due to circumstances beyond their control.) Critics have argued that, because of that, it fails to provide necessary conditions for wrongful exploitation. If A finds B stuck in a pit, it would be wrong for A to offer B rescue only if B signs a sweatshop contract with A —even if B happened to have fallen into the pit after voluntarily taking the risk to go hiking in an area well known to be dotted with such perilous obstacles (Vrousalis 2013, 2018). Other critics worry that this account neglects the centrality of relations of power or dominance between exploiters and exploited (Veneziani 2013).

A fourth approach directly focuses on the fact that exploitation typically arises when there is a significant power asymmetry between the parties involved. The more powerful instrumentalize and take advantage of the vulnerability of the less powerful to benefit from this asymmetry in positions (Goodin 1987). A specific version of this view, the domination for self-enrichment account (Vrousalis 2013, 2018, 2022), says that A exploits B if A benefits from a transaction in which A dominates B . (On this account, domination involves a disrespectful use of A ’s power over B .) Capitalist property rights, with the resulting unequal access to the means of production, put propertyless workers at the mercy of capitalists, who use their superior power over them to extract surplus labor. A worry about this approach is that it does not explain when the more powerful party is taking too much from the less powerful party. For example, take a situation where A and B start with equal assets, but A chooses to work hard while B chooses to spend more time at leisure, so that at a later time A controls the means of production, while B has only their own labor power. We imagine that A offers B employment, and then ask, in light of their ex ante equal position, at what level of wage for B and profit for A would the transaction involve wrongful exploitation? To come to a settled view on this question, it might be necessary to combine reliance on a principle of freedom as non-domination with appeal to additional socialist principles addressing just distribution—such as some version of the principles of equality and solidarity mentioned above in section 3.1 (Gilabert 2023a: ch. 5).

Capitalism is often defended by saying that it maximally extends people’s freedom, understood as the absence of interference. Socialism would allegedly depress that freedom by prohibiting or limiting capitalist activities such as setting up a private firm, hiring wage workers, and keeping, investing, or spending profits. Socialists generally acknowledge that a socialist economy would severely constrain some such freedoms. But they point out that capitalist property rights also involve interference. They remind us that “private property by one person presupposes non-ownership on the part of other persons” (Marx 1991: 812) and warn that often, although

liberals and libertarians see the freedom which is intrinsic to capitalism, they overlook the unfreedom which necessarily accompanies capitalist freedom. (G.A. Cohen 2011: 150)

Workers could and would be coercively interfered with if they tried to use means of production possessed by capitalists, to walk away with the products of their labor in capitalist firms, or to access consumption goods they do not have enough money to buy. In fact, every economic system opens some zones of non-interference while closing others. Hence the appropriate question is not whether capitalism or socialism involve interference—they both do—but whether either of them involves more net interference, or more troubling forms of interference, than the other. And the answer to that question is far from obvious. It could very well be that most agents in a socialist society face less (troublesome) interference as they pursue their projects of production and consumption than agents in a capitalist society (G.A. Cohen 2011: chs. 7–8).

Capitalist economic relations are often defended by saying that they are the result of free choices by consenting adults. Wage workers are not slaves or serfs—they have the legal right to refuse to work for capitalists. But socialists reply that the relationship between capitalists and workers actually involves domination. Workers are inappropriately subject to the will of capitalists in the shaping of the terms on which they work (both in the spheres of exchange and production, and within the broader political process). Workers’ consent to their exploitation is given in circumstances of deep vulnerability and asymmetry of power. According to Marx, two conditions help explain workers’ apparently free choice to enter into a nevertheless exploitative contract: (1) in capitalism (unlike in feudalism or slave societies) workers own their labor power, but (2) they do not own means of production. Because of their deprivation (2), workers have no reasonable alternative to using their entitlement (1) to sell their labor power to the capitalists—who do own the means of production (Marx 1867 [1990: 272–3]). Through labor-saving technical innovations spurred by competition, capitalism also constantly produces unemployment, which weakens the bargaining power of individual workers further. Thus, Marx says that although workers voluntarily enter into exploitative contracts, they are “compelled [to do so] by social conditions”.

The silent compulsion of economic relations sets the seal on the domination of the capitalist over the worker…. [The worker’s] dependence on capital … springs from the conditions of production themselves, and is guaranteed in perpetuity by them. (Marx 1867 [1990: 382, 899])

Because of the deep background inequality of power resulting from their structural position within a capitalist economy, workers accept a pattern of economic transaction in which they submit to the direction of capitalists during the activities of production, and surrender to those same capitalists a disproportional share of the fruits of their labor. Although some individual workers might be able to escape their vulnerable condition by saving and starting a firm of their own, most would find this extremely difficult, and they could not all do it simultaneously within capitalism (Elster 1985: 208–16; G.A. Cohen 1988: ch. 13).

Socialists sometimes say that capitalism flouts an ideal of non-domination as freedom from being subject to rules one has systematically less power to shape than others (Gourevitch 2013; Arnold 2017; O’Shea 2020; Cicerchia 2022; Gilabert 2017b: 566–7—on which this and the previous paragraph draw). Capitalist relations of production involve domination and the dependence of workers on the discretion of capitalists’ choices at three critical junctures. The first, mentioned above, concerns the labor contract. Due to their lack of control of the means of production, workers must largely submit, on pain of starvation or severe poverty, to the terms capitalists offer them. The second concerns interactions in the workplace. Capitalists and their managers rule the activities of workers by unilaterally deciding what and how the latter produce. Although in the sphere of circulation workers and capitalists might look (misleadingly, given the first point) like equally free contractors striking fair deals, once we enter the “hidden abode” of production it is clear to all sides that what exists is relationships of intense subjection of some to the will of others (Marx 1867 [1990: 279–80]). Workers effectively spend many of their waking hours doing what others dictate them to do. Third, and finally, capitalists have a disproportionate impact on the legal and political process shaping the institutional structure of the society in which they exploit workers, with capitalist interests dominating the political processes which in turn set the contours of property and labor law. Even if workers manage to obtain the legal right to vote and create their own trade unions and parties (which labor movements achieved in some countries after much struggle), capitalists exert disproportionate influence via greater access to mass media, the funding of political parties, the threat of disinvestment and capital flight if governments reduce their profit margin, and the past and prospective recruitment of state officials in lucrative jobs in their firms and lobbying agencies (Wright 2010: 81–4). At the spheres of exchange, production, and in the broader political process, workers and capitalist have asymmetric structural power. Consequently, the former are significantly subject to the will of the latter in the shaping of the terms on which they work (see further Wright 2000 [2015]). This inequality of structural power, some socialists claim, is an affront to workers’ dignity as self-determining, self-mastering agents (Gilabert 2023a: ch. 7).

The third point about domination mentioned above is also deployed by socialists to say that capitalism conflicts with democracy (Wright 2010: 81–4; Arnold n.d. [OIR] : sect. 4; Bowles and Gintis 1986; Meiksins Wood 1995). Democracy requires that people have roughly equal power to affect the political process that structures their social life—or at least that inequalities do not reflect morally irrelevant features such as race, gender, and class. Socialists have made three points regarding the conflict between capitalism and democracy. The first concerns political democracy of the kind that is familiar today. Even in the presence of multi-party electoral systems, members of the capitalist class—despite being a minority of the population—have significantly more influence than members of the working class. Governments have a tendency to adapt their agendas to the wishes of capitalists because they depend on their investment decisions to raise the taxes to fund public policies, as well as for the variety of other reasons outlined above. Even if socialist parties win elections, as long as they do not change the fundamentals of the economic system, they must be congenial to the wishes of capitalists. Thus, socialists have argued that deep changes in the economic structure of society are needed to make electoral democracy fulfill its promise. Political power cannot be insulated from economic power. They also, secondly, think that such changes may be directly significant. Indeed, as radical democrats, socialists have argued that reducing inequality of decision-making power within the economic sphere itself is not only instrumentally significant (to reduce inequality within the governmental sphere), but also intrinsically significant to increase people’s self-determination in their daily lives as economic agents. Therefore, most democratic socialists call for a solution to the problem of the conflict between democracy and capitalism by extending democratic principles into the economy (Fleurbaey 2006). Exploring the parallel between the political and economic systems, socialists have argued that democratic principles should apply in the economic arena as they do in the political domain, as economic decisions, like political decisions, have dramatic consequences for the freedom and well-being of people. Returning to the issue of the relations between the two arenas, socialists have also argued that fostering workers’ self-determination in the economy (notably in the workplace) enhances democratic participation at the political level (Coutrot 2018: ch. 9; Arnold 2012; see survey on workplace democracy in Frega et al. 2019). A third strand of argument, finally, has explored the importance of socialist reforms for fulfilling the ideal of a deliberative democracy in which people participate as free and equal reasoners seeking to make decisions that actually cater for the common good of all (J. Cohen 1989).

As mentioned above, socialists have included, in their affirmation of individual freedom, a specific concern with real or effective freedom to lead flourishing lives. This freedom is often linked with a positive ideal of self-realization , which in turn motivates a critique of capitalism as generating alienation. This perspective informs Marx’s views on the strong contrast between productive activity under socialism and under capitalism (Marx 1844 [1978a]; 1844 [2000]; see also Kandiyali 2000; Brixel, forthcoming). In socialism, the “realm of necessity” and the correspondingly necessary, but typically unsavory, labor required to secure basic subsistence would be reduced so that people also gain increasing access to a “realm of freedom” in which a desirable form of work involving creativity, cultivation of talents, and meaningful cooperation with others is available. This realm of freedom would unleash “the development of human energy which is an end in itself” (Marx 1991: 957–9). This work, allowing for and facilitating individuals’ self-realization, would enable the “all-round development of the individual”, and would in fact become a “prime want” (Marx 1875 [1978b: 531]). The socialist society would feature “the development of the rich individuality which is all-sided in its production as in its consumption” (Marx 1857–8 [1973: 325]); it would constitute a “higher form of society in which the full and free development of every individual forms the ruling principle” (Marx 1867 [1990: 739]). By contrast, capitalism denies the majority of the population access to self-realization at work. Workers typically toil in tasks which are uninteresting and even stunting. They do not control how production unfolds or what is done with the outputs of production. And their relations with others are often not ones of fellowship, but rather of domination (under their bosses) and of competition (against their fellow workers). When alienated,

labor is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his essential being; … in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. … It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it. (Marx 1844 [1978a: 74])

Recent scholarship has developed these ideas further. Elster has provided the most detailed discussion and development of the Marxian ideal of self-realization. The idea is defined as “the full and free actualization and externalization of the powers and the abilities of the individual” (Elster 1986: 43; 1989: 131). Self-actualization involves a two-step process in which individuals develop their powers (e.g., learn the principles and techniques of civil engineering) and then actualize those powers (e.g., design and participate in the construction of a bridge). Self-externalization, in turn, features a process in which individuals’ powers become visible to others with the potential beneficial outcome of social recognition and the accompanying boost in self-respect and self-esteem. However, Elster says that this Marxian ideal must be reformulated to make it more realistic. No one can develop all their powers fully, and no feasible economy would enable everyone always to get exactly their first-choice jobs and conduct them only in the ways they would most like. Furthermore, self-realization for and with others (and thus also the combination of self-realization with community) may not always work smoothly, as producers entangled in large and complex societies may not feel strongly moved by the needs of distant others, and significant forms of division of labor will likely persist. Still, Elster thinks the socialist ideal of self-realization remains worth pursuing, for example through the generation of opportunities to produce in worker cooperatives.

Others have construed the demand for real options to produce in ways that involve self-realization and solidarity as significant for the implementation of the Abilities / Needs Principle (Gilabert 2015: 207–12; Gilabert 2023a: 105-15), and defended a right to opportunities for meaningful work against the charges that political views oriented by an ideal of self-realization violate a liberal constraint of neutrality about conceptions of the good, rest on problematic assumptions about human nature, or are prone to supporting paternalistic impositions (Gilabert 2023a: 51–3, 92–5, 103–5, 224–37)

Kandiyali meanwhile has defended a reciprocal social interpretation of the Marxian ideas of self-realisation and non-alienation according to which unalienated production would involve workers’ achieving self-realisation precisely through helping to provide each other with the goods and services that those others need for their self-realisation (Kandiyali 2020). On this view, there is an internal relationship between the preconditions for one’s own self-development and the requirement that one stand in a relationship of mutual care and support with others. In other recent work on alienation, Maguire has advanced the view that efficient markets are unavoidably sources of alienation, insofar as they inhibit the ability of market participants to manifest relations of care with their fellow market participants; hence on this view market efficiency always carries an opportunity cost in terms of its undermining the manifestation of mutual care, and thereby alienates individual agents from valuable opportunities to realise a broader range of important values in the course of their productive activity (Maguire 2022).

Further scholarship explores recent changes in the organization of production. Boltanski and Chiapello argue that since the 1980s capitalism has partly absorbed (what they dub) the “artistic critique” against de-skilled and heteronomous work by generating schemes of economic activity in which workers operate in teams and have significant decision-making powers. However, these new forms of work, although common especially in certain knowledge-intensive sectors, are not available to all workers, and they still operate under the ultimate control of capital owners and their profit maximizing strategies. They also operate in tandem with the elimination of the social security policies typical of the (increasingly eroded) welfare state. Thus, the “artistic” strand in the socialist critique of capitalism as hampering people’s authenticity, creativity, and autonomy has not been fully absorbed and should be renewed. It should also be combined with the other, “social critique” strand which challenges inequality, insecurity, and selfishness (Boltanski and Chiapello 2018: Introduction, sect. 2). Other authors find in these new forms of work the seeds of future forms of economic organization—arguing that they provide evidence that workers can plan and control sophisticated processes of production on their own and that capitalists and their managers are largely redundant (Negri 2008).

The critique of alienation has also been recently developed further by Forst (2017) by exploring the relation between alienation and domination. On this account, the central problem with alienation is that it involves the denial of people’s autonomy—their ability and right to shape their social life on terms they could justify to themselves and to each other as free and equal co-legislators. (For further discussion on alienation and self-realization, see Jaeggi 2014: ch. 10. See also the general analysis of the concept of alienation in Leopold 2022a.)

A traditional criticism of capitalism (especially amongst Marxists) is that it is inefficient. Capitalism is prone to cyclic crises in which wealth and human potential is destroyed and squandered. For example, to cut costs and maximize profits, firms choose work-saving technologies and lay off workers. But at the aggregate level, this erodes the demand for their products, which forces firms to cut costs further (by laying off even more workers or halting production). Socialism would, it has been argued, not be so prone to crises, as the rationale for production would not be profit maximization but need satisfaction. Although important, this line of criticism is less widespread amongst contemporary socialists. Historically, capitalism has proved quite resilient, resurrecting itself after crises and expanding its productivity dramatically over time. It might very well be that capitalism is the best feasible regime if the only standard of assessment were productivity.

Still, socialists point out that capitalism involves some significant inefficiencies. Examples are the underproduction of public goods (such as public transportation and education), the underpricing and overconsumption of natural resources (such as fossil fuels and fishing stocks), negative externalities (such as pollution), the costs of monitoring and enforcing market contracts and private property (given that the exploited may not be so keen to work as hard as their profit-maximizing bosses require, and that the marginalized may be moved by desperation to steal), and certain defects of intellectual property rights (such as blocking the diffusion of innovation, and alienating those who engage in creative activities because of their intrinsic appeal and because of the will to serve the public rather than maximize monetary reward) (Wright 2010: 55–65). Really existing capitalist societies have introduced regulations to counter some of these problems, at least to some extent. Examples are taxes and constraints to limit economic activities with negative externalities, and public funding and subsidies to sustain activities with positive externalities which are not sufficiently supported by the market. But, socialists insist, such mechanisms are external to capitalism, as they limit property rights and the scope for profit maximization as the primary orientation in the organization of the economy. The regulations involve the hybridization of the economic system by introducing some non-capitalist, and even socialist elements.

There is also an important issue of whether efficiency should only be understood in terms of maximizing production of material consumption goods. If the metric, or the utility space, that is taken into account when engaging in maximization assessments includes more than these goods, then capitalism can also be criticized as inefficient on account of its tendency to depress the availability of leisure time (as well as to distribute it quite unequally). This carries limitation of people’s access to the various goods that leisure enables—such as the cultivation of friendships, family, and community or political participation. Technological innovations create the opportunity to choose between retaining the previous level of production while using fewer inputs (such as labor time) or maintaining the level of inputs while producing more. John Maynard Keynes famously held that it would be reasonable to tend towards the prior option, and expected societies to take this path as the technological frontier advanced (Keynes 1930/31 [2010]; Pecchi and Piga 2010). Nevertheless, in large part because of the profit maximization motive, capitalism displays an inherent bias in favor of the second, arguably inferior, option. Capitalism thereby narrows the realistic options of its constituent economic agents—both firms and individuals. Firms would lose their competitive edge and risk bankruptcy if they did not pursue profits ahead of the broader interests of their workers (as their products would likely be more expensive). And it is typically hard for workers to find jobs that pay reasonable salaries for fewer hours of work. Socialists concerned with expanding leisure time—and also with environmental risks—find this bias quite alarming (see, e.g., G.A. Cohen 2000a: ch. XI). If a conflict between further increase in the production of material objects for consumption and the expansion of leisure time (and environmental protection) is unavoidable, then it is not clear, all things considered, that the former should be prioritized, especially when an economy has already reached a high level of material productivity.

Capitalism has also been challenged on liberal egalitarian grounds, and in ways that lend themselves to support for socialism. (Rawls 2001; Barry 2005; Piketty 2014; O’Neill 2008a, 2012, 2017, 2020, 2021; Ronzoni 2018). While many of John Rawls’s readers long took him to be a proponent of an egalitarian form of a capitalist welfare state, or as one might put it “a slightly imaginary Sweden”, in fact Rawls rejected such institutional arrangements as inadequate to the task of realizing principles of political liberty or equality of opportunity, or of keeping material inequalities within sufficiently tight bounds. His own avowed view of the institutions that would be needed to realize liberal egalitarian principles of justice was officially neutral as between a form of “property-owning democracy”, which would combine private property in the means of production with its egalitarian distribution, and hence the abolition of the separate classes of capitalists and workers; and a form of liberal democratic socialism that would see public ownership of the preponderance of the means of production, with devolved control of particular firms (Rawls 2001: 135–40; O’Neill and Williamson 2012). While Rawls’s version of liberal democratic socialism was insufficiently developed in his own writings, he stands as an interesting case of a theorist whose defense of a form of democratic socialism is based on normative foundations that are not themselves distinctively socialist, but concerned with the core liberal democratic values of justice and equality (see also Edmundson 2017; Ypi 2018; O’Neill 2020).

In a similar vein to Rawls, another instance of a theorist who defends at least partially socialist institutional arrangements on liberal egalitarian grounds was the Nobel Prize winning economist James Meade. Giving a central place to decidedly liberal values of freedom, security and independence, Meade argued that the likely levels of socioeconomic inequality under capitalism were such that a capitalist economy would need to be extensively tempered by socialist elements, such as the development of a citizens’ sovereign wealth fund, if the economic system were to be justifiable to those living under it (Meade 1964; O’Neill 2015 [OIR] , 2017; O’Neill and White 2019). Looking back before Meade, J. S. Mill can also be seen as a theorist who traveled along what we might describe as “the liberal road to socialism”, with Mill in his Autobiography describing his own view as the acceptance of a “qualified socialism” (Mill 1873 [2018]), and arguing for a range of measures to create a more egalitarian economy, including making the case for a steady-state rather than a growth-oriented economy, arguing for workers’ collective ownership and self-management of firms in preference to the hierarchical structures characteristic of most firms under capitalism, and endorsing steep taxation of inheritance and unearned income (Mill 2008; see also Ten 1998; O’Neill 2008b, Pateman 1970). The recent scholarship of Helen McCabe has both provided a clearer picture of the depth and centrality of J. S. Mill’s socialist thinking, and provided a clearer account of the ways in which Mill’s position can be viewed as work jointly authored with Harriet Taylor Mill, whose influence seems to have radicalised Mill’s political thinking (McCabe 2021, 2023)

Within recent liberal egalitarian political philosophy, the argument has been advanced that as capitalist economies tend towards higher levels of inequality, and in particular with the rapid velocity at which the incomes and wealth of the very rich in society is increasing, many of those who had seen their normative commitments as requiring only the mild reform of capitalist economies might need to come to see the need to endorse more radical socialist institutional proposals (O’Neill 2020; Ronzoni 2018). Other philosophers have begun to put some pressure on mainstream liberal egalitarian assumptions about freedom of occupational choice. For example, the argument has been advanced that traditional liberal occupational freedoms, when viewed against the background of significant economic inequalities, can to the under-provision of vital public services to those in certain deprived areas. The absolute protection of freedom of occupational choice could also to an unjust distribution of effective freedom, whereby those with access to income from capital can live free of the demands of the labour market, while those from less privileged backgrounds find themselves forced to take whatever jobs the market pushes them towards. Lucas Stanczyk has argued that there are therefore compelling liberal grounds both for condemning existing ways of organising the division of labour (Stanczyk 2022) and for accepting some degree of “labour conscription” on grounds of social justice (Stanczyk 2012; see also Walzer 1984; Nielsen 1985; Gomberg 2007; Kandiyali 2023; by contrast, for the canonical liberal rejection of “the central direction of labour” see Rawls 1999, §42; see also Cohen 2008, p. 186, where he states that on this issue his own “inclinations are more liberal” in contrast to “Old-style Stalinistically inclined egalitarians” who would allow coercive imposition of occupational roles).

Meanwhile another significant strand in recent liberal egalitarian thinking has emphasised the degree to which mainstream liberal egalitarianism has unjustifably neglected the role of the value of community (or solidarity). Cohen’s emphasis in Why Not Socialism? (Cohen 2009) on the need to endorse parallel normative commitments to both equality and community can be seen as a response to the shortcomings of a trend in luck egalitarian and related views that had emphasised the first value too often at the expense of the latter (e.g. Arneson 1989; Dworkin 2000). More recent work on the place of community within liberal egalitarianism has explored the ways in which social and economic institutions may need to be reimagined and redesigned so as to avoid “pitting people against each other” (Hussain 2020; see also Gilabert 2023b). These concerns with the value of community align more closely with the traditional socialist value of solidarity, as compared to the rather different approach taken in earlier ‘communitarian’ critiques of mainstream liberal egalitarianism (for guides to those earlier debates, see Mulhall & Swift 1996; Kymlicka 2002, Ch 5).

Alongside this return to considerations of solidarity within liberal egalitarian thought (on which see also Kolers 2016; Sangiovanni 2023; Sangiovanni and Viehoff 2023, 2024) there has also been a move towards more careful consideration of the institutional preconditions for nurturing and developing citizens’ shared sense of commitment to the collective project of creating just institutions, seen as potentially necessitating support for a range of institutions designed either to bring collective deliberation into market processes or to give citizens spaces to encounter each other outside the market (Hussain 2012; O’Neill 2020). Hussain has also recently made the case that, in order for free market economies to be rendered consistent with the value of human freedom, there is a need to embed deliberative “intermediary institutions” within markets, as with Nordic or Rhenish forms of industrial codetermination. On Hussain’s view, even a freedom-based defence of free markets should, when pursued seriously, lead us towards a range of more collective economic institutions that have more often been associated with forms of social democracy or democratic socialism (Hussain 2023).

4. Socialist Institutional Designs (Dimension DII)

The foregoing discussion focused on socialist critiques of capitalism. These critiques make the case that capitalism fails to fulfill principles, or to realize values, to which socialists are committed. But what would an alternative economic system look like which would fulfill those principles, or realize those values—or at least honor them to a larger extent? This brings us to dimension DII of socialism. We will consider several proposed models. We will address here critical concerns about both the feasibility and the desirability of these models. Arguments comparing ideal socialist designs with actual capitalist societies are unsatisfactory; we must compare like with like (Nove 1991; Rawls 2001; Brennan 2014; Corneo 2017). Thus, we should compare ideal forms of socialism with ideal forms of capitalism, and actual versions of capitalism with actual versions of socialism. Most importantly, we should entertain comparisons between the best feasible incarnations of these systems (Gilabert 2023a: ch.8). This requires formulating feasible forms of socialism. Feasibility assessments can play out in two ways: they may regard the (degree of) workability and stability of a proposed socialist system once introduced, or they may regard its (degree of) accessibility from current conditions when it is not yet in place. We address the former concerns in this section, leaving the latter for section 5 when we turn to dimension DIII of socialism and the questions of socialist transition or transformation.

Would socialism do better than capitalism regarding the ideals of equality, democracy, individual freedom, self-realization, and solidarity? This depends on the availability of workable versions of socialism that fulfill these ideals (or do so at least to a greater extent than workable forms of capitalism). A first set of proposals envision an economic system that does away with both private property in the means of production and with markets. The first version of this model is central planning . This can be understood within a top-down, hierarchical model. A central authority gathers information about the technical potential in the economy and about consumers’ needs and formulates a set of production objectives which seek an optimal match between the former and the latter. These objectives are articulated into a plan that is passed down to intermediate agencies and eventually to local firms, which must produce according to the plan handed down. If it works, this proposal would secure the highest feasible levels of equal access to consumption goods for everyone. However, critics have argued that the model faces serious feasibility hurdles (Corneo 2017: ch. 5: Roemer 1994a: ch. 5). It is very hard for a central authority to gather the relevant information from producers and consumers. Second, even if it could gather enough information, the computation of an optimal plan would require enormously complex calculations which may be beyond the capacity of planners (even with access to the most sophisticated technological assistance). Finally, there may be significant incentive deficits. For example, firms might tend to exaggerate the resources they need to produce and mislead about how much they can produce. Without facing strong sticks and carrots (such as the prospects for either bankruptcy and profit offered by a competitive market), firms might well display low levels of innovation. As a result, a planned economy would likely lag behind surrounding capitalist economies, and their members would tend to lose faith in it. High levels of cooperation (and willingness to innovate) could still exist if sufficiently many individuals in this society possessed a strong sense of duty. But critics find this unlikely to materialize, warning that “a system that only works with exceptional individuals only works in exceptional cases” (Corneo 2017: 127).

Actual experiments in centrally planned economies have only partially approximated the best version of it. Thus, in addition to the problems mentioned above (which affect even that best version), they have displayed additional defects. For example, the system introduced in the Soviet Union featured intense concentration of political and economic power in the hands of an elite controlling a single party which, in turn, controlled a non-democratic state apparatus. Despite its successes in industrializing the country (making it capable of mobilizing in a war effort to defeat Nazi Germany), the model failed to generate sufficient technical innovation and intensive growth to deliver differentiated consumer goods of the kind available within advanced capitalist economies. Furthermore, it trampled upon civil and political liberties that many socialists would themselves hold dear.

Responding to such widespread disempowerment, a second model for socialist planning has recommended that planning be done in a different, more democratic way. Thus, the participatory planning (or participatory economy, “Parecon”) model proposes the following institutional features (Albert 2003, 2016 [OIR] ). First, the means of production would be socially owned. Second, production would take place in firms controlled by workers (thus fostering democracy within the workplace). Third, balanced “job complexes” are put in place in which workers can both engage in intellectual and manual labor (thus fostering and generalizing self-realization). Fourth, in a fair and solidaristic fashion, remuneration of workers would track their effort, sacrifice, and special needs (and not their relative power or output—which would likely reflect differences in native abilities for which they are not morally responsible). Finally, and crucially, economic coordination would be based on comprehensive participatory planning. This would involve a complex system of nested worker councils, consumer councils, and an Iteration Facilitation Board. Various rounds of deliberation within, and between, worker and consumer councils, facilitated by this board, would be undertaken until matches between supply and demands schedules are found—with recourse to voting procedures only when no full agreement exists but several promising arrangements arise. This would turn the economy into an arena of deliberative democracy.

This proposal seems to cater for the full palette of socialist values stated in section 4.1 . Importantly, it overcomes the deficits regarding freedom displayed by central planning. Critics have warned, however, that Parecon faces serious feasibility obstacles. In particular, the iterative planning constituting the fifth institutional dimension of the Parecon proposal would require immense information complexity (Wright 2010: 260–5). It is unlikely that participants in the operations of this board, even with the help of sophisticated computers, would manage it sufficiently well to generate a production plan that satisfactorily caters to the diversity of individuals’ needs. A defense of Parecon would retort that beyond initial stages, the process of economic decision-making would not be too cumbersome. Furthermore, it might turn out to involve no more paperwork and time devoted to planning and to assessment behind computer terminals than is found in existing capitalist societies (with their myriad individual and corporate budgeting exercises, and their various accounting and legal epicycles). And, in any case, even if it is more cumbersome and less efficient in terms of productivity, Parecon might still be preferable overall as an economic system, given its superior performance regarding the values of freedom, equality, self-realization, solidarity, and democracy (Arnold n.d. [OIR] : sect. 8.b).

Some of the above-mentioned problems of central planning, regarding inefficiency and concentration of power, have motivated some socialists to explore alternative economic systems in which markets are given a central role. Markets generate problems of their own (especially when they involve monopolies, negative externalities, and asymmetric information). But if regulations are introduced to counter these “market failures”, markets can be the best feasible mechanism for generating matches between demand and supply in large, complex societies (as higher prices signal high demand, with supply rushing to cover it, while lower prices signal low demand, leading supply to concentrate on other products). Market socialism affirms the traditional socialist desideratum of preventing a division of society between a class of capitalists who do not need to work to make a living and a class of laborers having to work for them, but it retains from capitalism the utilization of markets to guide production. There has been a lively debate on this approach, with several specific systems being proposed.

One version is the economic democracy model (Schweickart 2002 [2011], 2016 [OIR] ). It has three basic features. First, production is undertaken in firms managed by workers. Worker self-managed enterprises would gain temporary control of some means of production (which would be leased out by the state). Workers determine what gets produced and how it is produced, and determine compensation schemes. Second, there is a market for goods and services. The profit motive persists and some inequalities within and between firms are possible, but likely much smaller than in capitalism (as there would be no separate capitalist class, and workers will not democratically select income schemes that involve significant inequality within their firms). Finally, investment flows are socially controlled through democratically accountable public investment banks, which determine funding for enterprises on the basis of socially relevant criteria (such as efficiency and environmental sustainability). The revenues for these banks come from a capital assets tax. This system would (through its second feature) mobilize the efficiency of markets while also (through its other features) attending to socialist ideals of self-determination, self-realization, and equal opportunity. To address some potential difficulties, the model has been extended to include further features, such as a commitment of the government as an employer of last resort, the creation of socialist savings and loans associations, the accommodation of an entrepreneurial-capitalist sector for particularly innovative small firms, and some forms of protectionism regarding foreign trade.

Self-management market socialism has been defended as feasible by pointing at the experience of cooperatives (such as the Mondragón Corporation in the Basque Country in Spain, often described as the world’s largest cooperative, which has (as of 2015) over 70,000 worker-owners participating in a network of cooperative businesses (see O’Neill and Etxeberria 2019 [OIR])). But it has also been criticized on five counts (Corneo 2017: ch. 6). First, it would generate unfair distributions, as workers doing the same work in different enterprises would end up with unequal income if the enterprises are not equally successful in the market. Second, workers would face high levels of financial risk, as their resources would be concentrated in their firm rather than spread more widely. Third, it could generate inefficient responses to market prices, as self-managed enterprises reduce hiring if prices for their products are high—so that members keep more of the profit—and hire more if the prices are low—to cover for fixed costs of production. Given the previous point, the system could also generate high unemployment. Having the government require firms to hire more would lead to lower productivity. However, the further features in the model discussed above might address this problem by allowing for small private enterprises to be formed, and by having in the background the government play a role as an employer of last resort (although this might also limit overall productivity). Finally, although some of the problems of efficiency could be handled through the banks controlling investment, it is not clear that the enormous power of such banks could be made sufficiently accountable to a democratic process so as to avoid the potential problem of cooptation by elites. (See, however, Malleson 2014 on democratic control of investment.)

Another market socialist model, proposed by Carens (1981, 2003), does not impose worker self-management. The Carensian model mirrors the current capitalist system in most respects while introducing two key innovative features. First, there would be direct governmental provision regarding certain individually differentiated needs (via a public health care system, for example). Second, to access other consumption goods, everyone working full time would get the same post tax income. Pre-tax salaries would vary, signaling levels of demand in the market. People would choose jobs not only on the basis of their self-regarding preferences, but also out of a sense of social duty to use their capacities to support others in society. Thus, honoring the Abilities / Needs Principle , they would apply for jobs (within their competencies) in which the pre-tax income is relatively high. If it worked, this model would recruit the efficiency of markets, but it would not involve the selfish motives and inegalitarian outcomes typically linked to them in capitalism.

One worry about the Carensian model is that it might be unrealistic to expect an economic system to work well when it relies so heavily on a sense of duty to motivate people to make cooperative contributions. This worry could be assuaged by presenting this model as the long-term target of a socialist transformation which would progressively develop a social ethos supporting it (Gilabert 2011, 2017a), by noting empirical findings about the significant traction of non-egoistic motives in economic behavior (Bowles and Gintis 2011) and the feasibility of “moral incentives” (Guevara 1977, Lizárraga 2011), and by exploring strategies to mobilize simultaneously various motivational mechanisms to sustain the proposed scheme. Two additional worries are the following (Gilabert 2023a: 117-22). First, the model makes no explicit provision regarding real opportunities for work that fosters self-realization and proceeds in self-managed firms. (Shoikhedbrod 2021 specifically criticizes the Carensian model for failing to give centrality to the socialist demand that firms be democratically run by workers.) To cater more fully for ideals of self-realization and self-determination, a requirement could be added that the government promote such opportunities for those willing to take them. Second, the model is not sufficiently sensitive to different individual preferences regarding leisure and consumption (requiring simply that everyone work full time and wind up with the same consumption and leisure bundles). More flexible schedules could be introduced so that people who want to consume more could work longer hours and have higher salaries, while people who want to enjoy more free time could work fewer hours and have lower salaries. Considerations of reciprocity and equality could still be honored by equalizing the incomes of those working the same number of hours.

Many forms of market socialism allow for some hierarchy at the point of production. These managerial forms are usually defended on grounds of greater efficiency. But they face the question of how to incentivize managers to behave in ways that foster innovation and productivity. One way to do this is to set up a stock market that would help to measure the performance of the firms they manage and to push them to make optimal decisions. An example of this approach (there are others—Corneo 2017: ch. 8) is coupon market socialism . In Roemer’s (1994a) version, this economic system operates with two kinds of money: dollars (euros, pesos, etc.) and coupons. Dollars are used to purchase commodities for consumption and production, and coupons are used in a stock market to purchase shares in corporations. The two kinds of money are not convertible (with an exception to be outlined below). Each person, when reaching adulthood, is provided with an equal set of coupons. They can use them in a state-regulated stock market (directly or through mutual investment funds) to purchase shares in corporations at market price. They receive the dividends from their investments in dollars, but they cannot cash the coupons themselves. When they die, people’s coupons and shares go back to the state for distribution to new generations—no inherited wealth is allowed—and coupons cannot be transferred as gifts. Thus, there is no separate class of capital owners in this economy. But there will be income inequality resulting from people’s different fortunes with their investments (dividends) as well as from the income they gain in the jobs they take through the labor market (in managerial and non-managerial positions). Coupons can however be converted into dollars by corporations; they can cash their shares to pay for capital investments. The exchange is regulated by a public central bank. Further, public banks or public investment funds, operating with relative independence from the government, would steer enterprises receiving coupons so that they maximize profit in the competitive markets for the goods and services they produce (so that they maximize the returns on the coupons invested). Part of that profit is also taxed for direct welfare provisions by the state.

This model caters for ideals of equality of opportunity (given equal distribution of coupons) and democracy (given the elimination of capitalist dynasties that have the ability to transform massive economic power into political influence). It also gives people freedom to choose how to use their resources and includes solidaristic schemes of public provision to meet needs regarding education and health care. Via the competitive markets in consumption goods and shares, it also promises high levels of innovation and productivity. (In some versions of the model this is enhanced by allowing limited forms of private ownership of firms to facilitate the input of highly innovative entrepreneurial individuals—Corneo 2017: 192–7). The model departs from traditional forms of socialism by not exactly instituting social property in means of production (but rather the equal dispersal of coupons across individuals in each generation). But defenders of this model say that socialists should not fetishize any property scheme; they should instead see such schemes instrumentally in terms of how well they fare in the implementation of core normative principles (such as equality of opportunity) (Roemer 1994a: 23–4, 124–5). Critics have worries, however, that the model does not go far enough in honoring socialist principles. For example, they have argued that a managerial (by contrast to a self-management) form of market socialism is deficient in terms of self-determination and self-realization at the workplace (Satz 1996), and that the levels of inequalities in income, and the competitive attitudes in the market that it would generate, violate ideals of community (G.A. Cohen 2009). In response, a defender of coupon market socialism can emphasize that the model is meant to be applied in the short-term, and that further institutional and cultural arrangements more fully in line with socialist principles can be introduced later on, as they become more feasible (Roemer 1994a: 25–7, 118). A worry, however, is that the model may entrench institutional and cultural configurations which may diminish rather than enhance the prospects for deeper changes in the future (Brighouse 1996; Gilabert 2011).

The models discussed above envision comprehensive “system change” in which the class division between capitalists and wage laborers disappears. Socialists have also explored piecemeal reforms that stop short of that structural change. An important historical example is the combination of a market economy and the welfare state . In this model, although property in the means of production remains private, and markets allocate most inputs and outputs of production, a robust governmental framework is put in place to limit the power of capitalists over workers and to improve the life-prospects of the latter. Thus, social insurance addresses the risks associated with illness, unemployment, disability, and old age. Tax-funded, state provision of many of those goods that markets typically fail to deliver for all is introduced (such as high-quality education, public transportation, and health care). And collective bargaining gives unions and other instruments of workers’ power some sway on the determination of their working conditions, as well as providing an important foundation for the political agency of the working class (O’Neill and White 2018).

This welfare state model was developed with great success during the three decades after World War II, especially in Northern Europe, but also, in weaker but significant forms, in other countries (including some in the Global South). However, since the 1980s, this model has been in significant retreat, or even in crisis. Wealth and income inequality have been increasing dramatically during this time (Piketty 2014; O’Neill 2017). The financial sector has become extremely powerful and able largely to escape governmental regulation as globalization allows capital to flow across borders. A “race to the bottom” features states competing with each other to attract investment by lowering tax rates and other regulations, thus undermining states’ ability to implement welfare policies (see, e.g., Dietsch 2015, 2018). Some socialists have seen this crisis as a reason to abandon the welfare state and pursue more comprehensive changes of the kind discussed above. Others, however, have argued that the model should be defended given that it has been proven to work quite well while the alternatives have uncertain prospects.

One example of the approach of extending or retrenching the mixed economy and welfare state proposes a combination of two moves (Corneo 2017: ch. 10, Epilogue, Appendix). The first move is to revamp the welfare state by introducing mechanisms of greater accountability of politicians to citizens (such as regulation of the dealings of politicians with private companies, and more instances of direct democracy in order to empower citizens), an improvement of the quality of public services delivered by the welfare state (introducing exacting audits and evaluations and fostering the training and recruitment of excellent civil servants), and international coordination of tax policies to prevent tax competition and tax evasion. The second move in this proposal is to run controlled experiments of market socialism to present it as a credible threat to the powerful actors seeking to undermine the welfare state. This threat would facilitate the stabilization of the welfare state in a way analogous to how the specter of expansion of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe after World War II encouraged countries in Western Europe to implement social reforms to the benefit of their citizens, which also brought political stability and did much to limit the political attraction of communism. Specifically, welfare states could create new institutions that would be relatively independent from governments and be run by highly competent and democratically accountable civil servants. “Sovereign Wealth Funds” would invest public money in well-functioning enterprises, to yield an equal “social dividend” for citizens (on Sovereign Wealth Funds, see also Cummine 2016, O’Neill and White 2019). The second institution, a “Federal Shareholder”, would go further by using some of these funds to buy 51% of the shares of selected enterprises and take the lead within their boards of directors or supervisory boards. The objective would be to show that these enterprises (which would include significant participation of workers in their management, and ethical guidelines regarding environmental impacts and other concerns) maximize profits and thus offer a desirable and feasible alternative to the standard capitalist enterprise. Effectively, this strategy would run controlled experiments of shareholder market socialism. The working population would learn about the feasibility of market socialism, and capitalist opponents of welfare entitlements would be disciplined by fear of the generalization of such experiments to settle again for the welfare state.

Another strategy is to introduce various experiments seeking to expand the impact of social power (as different from state and economic power) within society (as defined in sect. 1). (See survey in Wright 2010: chs. 6–7). A set of mechanisms would target the deepening of democracy. Forms of direct democracy could foster citizens’ deliberative engagement in decision-making, as exemplified by the introduction of municipal participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre, Brazil (which features citizens’ assemblies identifying priorities for public policy). The quality of representative democracy can be enhanced (and its subservience to the power of capitalists decreased) by introducing egalitarian funding of electoral campaigns (e.g., by giving citizens a sum of money to allocate to the parties they favor, while forcing parties to choose between getting funding from that source and any other source—such as corporations), and by creating random citizen assemblies to generate policy options which can then be subject to society-wide referenda (as in the attempt to change the electoral system in British Columbia in Canada). Finally, forms of associational democracy can be introduced that feature deliberation or bargaining between government, labor, business, and civil society groups when devising national economic policies or when introducing regional or local (e.g., environmental) regulations. A second set of mechanisms would foster social empowerment more directly in the economy. Examples are the promotion of the social economy sector featuring economic activity involving self-management and production oriented to use value (as displayed, e.g., by Wikipedia and child care units in Quebec), an unconditional basic income strengthening people’s ability to engage in economic activities they find intrinsically valuable, and the expansion of the cooperative sector. None of these mechanisms on its own would make a society socialist rather than capitalist. But if we see societies as complex “ecologies” rather than as homogeneous “organisms”, we can notice that they are hybrids including diverse institutional logics. An increase in the incidence of social empowerment may significantly extend the socialist aspects of a society, and even eventually make them dominant (a point to which we return in the next section).

We can also mention the vision of socialism offered by Piketty (2020: ch. 17; see also O’Neill 2021). Although Piketty’s “participatory socialism” does not recommend the complete elimination of private property in the means of production, it proposes significant reforms that would make property significantly more “social” and “temporary”. Thus, large firms would include schemes of codetermination that give workers a say on how production proceeds. Capital would be dispersed through progressive taxation on property, inheritance, and income, with the proceeds being used to fund a capital grant for young people, a secure basic income for all, and the public services of a social sate (such as education and health care). Piketty also envisions changes to the structure of democratic politics to reduce inequalities of influence among citizens, and proposes new international institutions that restrict capital flight.

A final point worth mentioning as we close our discussion of dimension DII of socialism concerns the growing interest in addressing not only the economic arena, but also the political and personal-private ones. Some scholars argue that classical socialists neglected the increasing “functional differentiation” of modern society into these three “spheres”, concentrating in an unduly narrow way on the economic one (Honneth 2015 [2017]). Thus, recent socialist work has increasingly explored how to extend socialist principles to the organization of relatively autonomous governmental institutions and practices and to the shaping of intimate relationships among family members, friends, and lovers, as well as to the relations between these diverse social arenas (see also Fraser 2009, 2014, 2022; Albert 2017). There is, of course, also a long-standing tradition of feminist socialism that has pushed for a wide scope in the application of socialist ideals and a broader understanding of labor that covers productive and reproductive activities beyond the formal workplace (see, e.g., Arruzza 2013, 2016; Dalla Costa and James 1972; Federici 2012; Ehrenreich 1976 [2018]; Gould 1973–4; Rowbotham et al 1979; Rowbotham 1998).

We turn now to the last dimension of socialism (DIII), which concerns the transformation of capitalist societies into socialist ones. The discussion on this dimension is difficult in at least two respects which call for philosophical exploration (Gilabert 2017a: 113–23, 2015: 216–20; 2023a: 157-68, 122-31). The first issue concerns feasibility. The question is whether socialist systems are accessible from where we are now—whether there is a path from here to there. But what does feasibility mean here? It cannot just mean logical or physical possibility, as these would rule out very few social systems. The relevant feasibility parameters seem instead to involve matters of technical development, economic organization, political mobilization, and moral culture. (For some discussion on these parameters see Wright 2010: ch. 8; Chibber 2017.) But such parameters are comparatively “soft”, in that they indicate probability prospects rather than pose strict limits of possibility, and can be significantly changed over time. When something is not feasible to do right now, we could have dynamic duties to make it feasible to do later by developing our relevant capacities in the meantime. The feasibility judgments must then be scalar rather than binary and allow for diachronic variation. These features make them somewhat murky, and not straightforwardly amenable to the hard-edged use of impossibility claims to debunk normative requirements (via contraposition on the principle that ought implies can).

A second difficulty concerns the articulation of all things considered appropriate strategies that combine feasibility considerations with the normative desiderata provided by socialist principles. The question here is: what is the most reasonable path of transformation to pursue for socialists given their understanding of the principles animating their political project, viewed against the background of what seems more or less feasible to achieve at different moments, and within different historical contexts? Complex judgments have to be formed about the precise social systems at which it would be right to aim at different stages of the sequence of transformation, and about the specific modes of political action to deploy in such processes. These judgments would combine feasibility and desirability to assess short-term and long-term goals, their intrinsic costs and benefits, and the promise of the former to enhance the achievement of the latter. The difficulty of forming such judgments is compounded by the uncertainty about the prospects of large societal changes (but also about the long-term consequences of settling for the status quo).

Marx (1875 [1978b]) himself seemed to address some of these issues in his short text “The Critique of the Gotha Program” of 1875. Marx here envisioned the process of socialist transformation as including two phases. The final phase would fully implement the Abilities / Needs Principle . But he did not take that scenario to be immediately accessible. An intermediate step should be pursued, in which the economy would be ruled by a Contribution Principle requiring that (after some provisions are put aside to fulfill basic needs regarding health care, education, and support for those unable to work) people gain access to consumption goods in proportion to how much they contribute. This lower phase of socialist transformation would be reasonable because it would enhance the prospects of transitioning away from capitalism and of generating the conditions for the full realization of socialism. The implementation of the Contribution Principle would fulfill the promise systematically broken by capitalism that people would benefit according to their labor input (as in capitalism capitalists get much more, and workers much less, than they give). It would also incentivize people to increase production to the level necessary for the introduction of socialism proper. Once such level of development is in place, the social ethos could move away from the mantra of the “exchange of equivalents” and instead adopt a different outlook in which people produce according to their diverse abilities, and consume according to their diverse needs. This sequential picture of transformation features diachronic judgments about changes in feasibility parameters (such as the expansion of technical capacity and a change in patterns of motivation). Marx also envisioned political dimensions of this process, including a “dictatorship of the proletariat” (which would not, as some popular interpretations hold, involve violation of civil and political rights, but a change in the political constitution and majoritarian policies that secure the elimination of capitalist property rights (Elster 1985: 447–9)). In time, the state (understood as an apparatus of class rule rather than, more generally, as an administrative device) would “wither away”.

History has not moved smoothly in the direction many socialists predicted. It has not been obvious that the following steps in the expected pattern materialized or are likely to do so: capitalism generating a large, destitute, and homogeneous working class; this class responding to some of the cyclical crises capitalism is prone to by creating a coherent and powerful political movement; this movement gaining control of government and resolutely and successfully implementing a socialist economic system (G.A. Cohen 2000b: ch. 6; Laclau and Mouffe 1985). Given the fact that this process did not materialize, and seems unlikely to do so, it turns out that it would be both self-defeating and irresponsible to fail to address difficult questions about the relative feasibility and moral desirability of different strategies of potential socialist transformation. For example, if the process of transformation involves two or more stages (be they the two mentioned above, or some sequence going, say, from the welfare state to shareholder or coupon market socialism and then to a version of the Carensian model), it might be asked who is to evaluate and decide upon what is to be done at each stage of the process, on what grounds can it be expected that earlier stages will enhance the likelihood of the success of later stages rather than undermine them (e.g., by enshrining institutions or values that will make it hard to move further along the path), what transitional costs can be accepted in earlier stages, and whether the costs expected are outweighed by the desirability and the increased probability of attaining the later stages. Such questions do not want for difficulty.

Addressing questions such as these dilemmas of transitional strategy, socialists have envisaged different approaches to social and political transformation. Four significant examples (extensively discussed in Wright 2010: Part III, 2015b, 2016—which we follow here) are articulated by considering two dimensions of analysis regarding (a) the primary goal of the strategy (either (i) transcending the structures of capitalism, or (ii) neutralizing the worst harms of it) and (b) the primary target of the strategy (either (i) the state and other institutions at the macro-level of the system, or (ii) the economic activities of individuals, organizations, and communities). (See Wright 2019: 38-53 for a slightly more complex framework, and its discussion in Leopold 2022: sect. 5.4.)

The first strategy, smashing capitalism , picks out the combination of possibilities (a.i) and (b.i). A political organization (e.g., a revolutionary party) takes advantage of some of the crises generated by capitalism to seize state power, proceeding to use that power to counter opposition to the revolution and to build a socialist society. This is the strategy favored by revolutionary socialists and many Marxists, and pursued in the twentieth century in countries such as Russia and China. If we look at the historical evidence, we see that although this strategy succeeded in some cases in transitioning out of previously existing capitalist or proto-capitalist economic systems, it failed in terms of building socialism. It led instead to a form of authoritarian statism. There is debate about the causes of these failures. Some factors may have been the economically backward and politically hostile circumstances in which the strategy was implemented, the leaders’ deficits (in terms of their tactics or motives), and the hierarchical frameworks used to suppress opposition after the revolution which remained in place for the long-term to subvert revolutionaries’ aims. Large system changes normally have to face a “transitional trough” after their onset, in which the material interests of many people are temporarily set back (Przeworski 1985). A political dilemma arises, in that, if liberal democratic politics is retained (with a free press, liberty of association, and multiparty elections) the revolutionaries may be unseated due to citizens’ political response to the “valley of transition”, while if liberal democratic politics are supplanted, then authoritarian statism may be the consequence, eradicating the possibility of a socialist outcome to which it would be worthwhile to seek to transition.

A second strategy, picking out the combination of possibilities (a.ii) and (b.i), has been taming capitalism . It mobilizes the population (sometimes in sharp political struggles) to elect governments and implement policies that respond to the worst harms generated by capitalism, with the aim of neutralizing them. New policies include social insurance responding to risks faced by the population (e.g., illness and unemployment), tax funded, state provision of public goods which markets tend to fail to provide (e.g., education, public transportation, research and development, etc.), and regulation of negative externalities produced in markets (e.g., regarding pollution, product and workplace hazards, predatory market behavior, etc.). The strategy, implemented by social-democratic parties, worked quite well during the three decades of the “Golden Age” or Trente Glorieuses following World War II. However, progress was halted and partly rolled back since the retreat of social democracy and the introduction of neoliberalism in the 1980s. Possible explanatory factors are the financialization of capitalism, and the effects of globalization, as discussed above in section 4.3 . There is a debate as to whether capitalism is really tameable—it may be that the Golden Age was only a historical anomaly, borne out of a very particular set of political and economic circumstances.

The third strategy, escaping capitalism , picks out the combination of possibilities (a.ii) and (b.ii). Capitalism might be too strong to destroy. But people could avoid its worst harms by insulating themselves from its dynamics. They could focus on family and friendships, become self-subsistence farmers, create intentional communities, and explore modes of life involving “voluntary simplicity”. However, this strategy seems available mostly to relatively well-off people who can fund their escape with wealth they have amassed or received from capitalist activities. The working poor may not be so lucky.

The final strategy, eroding capitalism , picks out the combination of (a.i) and (b.ii). Economic systems are here seen as hybrids. People can introduce new, socialist forms of collective activity (such as worker cooperatives) and progressively expand them, eventually turning them from marginal to dominant. Recently this kind of strategy of the erosion of capitalism through institutional transformation rather than piecemeal changes within existing economic structures, has been referred to as “the institutional turn” in leftist political economy (see Guinan and O’Neill 2018, 2019). Wright (2015b, 2016) suggests the analogy of a lake ecosystem, with the introduction of a new species of fish that at first thrives in one location, and then spreads out, eventually becoming a dominant species. Historically, the transformation from feudalism to capitalism in some parts of Europe has come about in this way, with pockets of commercial, financial, and manufacturing activity taking place in cities and expanding over time. Some anarchists seem to hold a version of this strategy today. It offers hope for change even when the state seems uncongenial, and likely to remain so. But critics find it far-fetched, as it seems unlikely to go sufficiently far given the enormous economic and political power of large capitalist corporations and the tendency of the state to repress serious threats to its rules. To go further, the power of the state has to be at least partially recruited. The fourth strategy then, according to Wright, is only plausible when combined with the second.

As discussed by Wright, this combined strategy would have two elements (we could see Corneo’s proposal discussed in section 4.3 as another version of this approach). First, it would address some important, problematic junctures to expand state action in ways that even capitalists would have to accept. And second, the solutions to the crises introduced by state action would be selected in such a way that they would enhance long-term prospects for socialist change. One critical juncture is global warming, and the social and political problems of the Anthropocene era (Löwy 2005; Purdy 2015; Wark 2016; Forrester and Smith 2018; Lawrence and Laybourn-Langton 2021; Saito 2017, 2023, 2024). Responding to its effects would require massive generation of state-provided public goods, which could remove neoliberal compunctions about state activism. A second critical juncture concerns the large levels of long-term unemployment, precariousness, and marginalization generated by new trends in automation and information technology. This involves threats to social peace, and insufficient demand for the products corporations need to sell on the consumption market. Such threats could be averted by introducing an unconditional basic income policy (Van Parijs and Vanderborght 2017), or by the significant expansion of public services, or by some other mechanism that secures for everybody a minimally dignified economic condition independent of their position within the labor market. Now, these state policies could foster the growth of social power and the prospects for socialist change in the future. Workers would have more power in the labor market when they came to be less reliant upon it. They could also be more successful in forming cooperatives. The social economy sector could flourish under such conditions. People could also devote more time to political activism. Together, these trends from below, combined with state activism from above, could expand knowledge about the workability of egalitarian, democratic, and solidaristic forms of economic activity, and strengthen the motivation to extend their scope. Although some critics find this strategy naïve (Riley 2016), proponents think that something like it must be tried if the aim is democratic socialism rather than authoritarian statism. (For specific worries about the political feasibility of a robust universal basic income policy as a precursor to rather than as a result of socialism, see Gourevitch and Stanczyk 2018; see also Gourevitch 2022).

Other significant issues regarding dimension DIII of socialism are the identification of appropriate political agents of change and their prospects of success in the context of contemporary globalization. On the first point, socialists increasingly explore the significance not only of workers’ movements, but also their intersection with the efforts of activists focused on overcoming gender- and race-based oppression (Davis 1981; Albert 2017). On many views, forms of gender-based injustice and racial injustice are ineradicably linked to the explanation of what is wrong with capitalism, and these connections also hold with regard to the forms of political agency that would be needed in order to overcome and replace capitalism (Basevich 2020; Gomberg 2007, 2024; Fraser 2022; Laurence 2021; Mills 2017). Some argue that the primary addressee of socialist politics should not be any specific class or movement, but the more inclusive, and politically equal group of citizens of a democratic community. For example, Honneth (2015 [2017: ch. IV]), following in part John Dewey and Jürgen Habermas, argues that the primary addressee and agent of change for socialism should be the citizens assembled in the democratic public sphere. Although normatively appealing, this proposal may face serious feasibility difficulties, as existing democratic arenas are intensely contaminated and disabled by the inequalities socialists criticize and seek to overcome. The second issue is also relevant here. There is a traditional question whether socialism is to be pursued in one country or internationally. The tendency to embrace an internationalist horizon of political change is characteristic among socialists as they typically see their ideals of freedom, equality, and solidarity as having global scope, while they also note that, as a matter of feasibility, the increasing porousness of borders for capitalist economic activity make it the case that socialist politics may not go very far in any country without reshaping the broader international context. A difficulty here is that despite the existence of international social movements (including workers’ movements, international NGOs, human rights institutions and associations, and other actors), institutional agency beyond borders that can seriously contest capitalist frameworks is not currently very strong. In addressing these difficulties, action and research on socialist justice must interact with ongoing work in the related areas of gender, race, democracy, human rights, and global justice. [ 2 ]

• Akyeampong, Emmanuel, 2018, “African Socialism; or, the Search for an Indigenous Model of Economic Development?”, Economic History of Developing Regions , 33(1): 69–87. doi:10.1080/20780389.2018.1434411
• Albert, Michael, 2003, Parecon: Life After Capitalism , London: Verso.
• –––, 2017, Practical Utopia: Strategies for a Desirable Society , Oakland: PM Press.
• ANC (African National Congress), 1955, The Freedom Charter: Adopted at the Congress of the People at Kliptown, Johnannesburg, on June 25 and 26, 1955 . [ ANC 1955 available online , from Wits Historical Papers, University of Witwatersrand.]
• Aricó, José, 2017, José Aricó: dilemas del marxismo en América Latina, antología esencial , Martín Cortés (ed.), Buenos Aires: CLACSO. [ Aricó 2017 available online ]
• Arneson, Richard, 1989, “Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare,” Philosophical Studies , 56(1): 77–93
• –––, 2016, “Exploitation, Domination, Competitive Markets, and Unfair Division: Exploitation, Domination, Competitive Markets, Unfair Division”, The Southern Journal of Philosophy , 54(S1-Exploitation): 9–30. doi:10.1111/sjp.12182
• Arnold, Samuel, 2012, “The Difference Principle at Work”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 20(1): 94–118. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2010.00393.x
• –––, 2017, “Capitalism, Class Conflict, and Domination”, Socialism and Democracy , 31(1): 106–124. doi:10.1080/08854300.2016.1215810
• –––, 2020, “No Community without Socialism: Why Liberal Egalitarianism Is Not Enough”, Philosophical Topics , 48(2): 1–22.
• –––, 2022, “Socialisms,” in Routledge Handbook of Philosophy, Politics, and Economics , C. B. Melenovsky (ed.), New York: Routledge.
• Arnsperger, Christian and Philippe Van Parijs, 2003, Éthique économique et sociale , Paris: La Découverte.
• Arruzza, Cinzia, 2013, Dangerous Liaisons: The Marriages and Divorces of Marxism and Feminism , (IIRE Notebook for Study and Research 55), Pontypool, Wales: Merlin Press.
• –––, 2016, “Functionalist, Determinist, Reductionist: Social Reproduction Feminism and Its Critics”, Science & Society , 80(1): 9–30. doi:10.1521/siso.2016.80.1.9
• Barry, Brian, 2005, Why Social Justice Matters , Cambridge: Polity.
• Basevich, Elvira, 2020, “W. E. B. Du Bois’s Socialism: On the Social Epistemology of Democratic Reason”, Philosophical Topics , 48(2): 23–50.
• Blackburn, Robin, 2011, “Reclaiming Human Rights: Review of The Last Utopia by Samuel Moyn”, New Left Review , 69(May/June): 126–138. [ Blackburn 2011 available online ]
• Boltanski, Luc and Eve Chiapello, 2018, The New Spirit of Capitalism , London: Verso.
• Bowles, Samuel and Herbert Gintis, 1986, Democracy and Capitalism: Property, Community and the Contradictions of Modern Social Thought , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 2011, A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. doi:10.23943/princeton/9780691151250.001.0001
• Brennan, Jason, 2014, Why Not Capitalism? New York: Routledge.
• Brighouse, Harry, 1996, “Transitional and Utopian Market Socialism”, in Wright 1996: 187–208.
• Brixel, Pascal, forthcoming, “The Unity of Marx’s Concept of Alienated Labor”, Philosophical Review .
• Cabral, Amílcar, 2016, Resistance and Decolonization , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• –––, 2022, Tell No Lies, Claim No Easy Victories , Johannesburg: Inkani Books.
• –––, 2023, Return to the Source: Selected Texts of Amílcar Cabral , New York: Monthly Review Press.
• Carens, Joseph H., 1981, Equality, Incentives, and the Market: An Essay in Utopian Politico-Economic Theory , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 2003, “An Interpretation and Defense of the Socialist Principle of Distribution”, Social Philosophy and Policy , 20(1): 145–177. doi:10.1017/S0265052503201072
• Castoriadis, Cornelius, 1979, Le Contenu du Socialisme , Paris: Éditions 10/18.
• Chakrabarty, Bidyut, 2014, Communism in India: Events, Processes and Ideologies , New Delhi: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199974894.001.0001
• –––, 2018, Left Radicalism in India , New York: Routledge
• Chibber, Vivek, 2017, “Rescuing Class from the Cultural Turn”, Catalyst , 1(1).
• Cicerchia, Lillian, 2022, “Structural Domination in the Labor Market”, European Journal of Politcal Theory , 21(1): 4-25. doi:10.1177/1474885119851094
• Cohen, G. A., 1983, “The Structure of Proletarian Unfreedom”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 12(1): 3–33.
• –––, 1988, History, Labour, and Freedom , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1995, Self-ownership, Freedom, and Equality , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2000a, Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defense , expanded edition, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2000b, If You’re an Egalitarian, How Come You’re So Rich? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2008, Rescuing Justice and Equality , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2009, Why Not Socialism? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2011, On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice and Other Essays in Political Philosophy , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Cohen, Joshua, 1989, “The Economic Basis of Deliberative Democracy”, Social Philosophy and Policy , 6(2): 25–50. doi:10.1017/S0265052500000625
• Cohen, Joshua and Joel Rogers, 1995, Associations and Democracy: The Real Utopias Project, Volume 1 , London: Verso.
• Cole, G. D. H., 1929, The Next Ten Years in British Social and Economic Policy , London: Routledge.
• Collins, Hugh, Gillian Lester, and Virginia Mantouvalou (eds.), 2018, Philosophical Foundations of Labour Law , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198825272.001.0001
• Corneo, Giacomo, 2017, Is Capitalism Obsolete? A Journey through Alternative Economic Systems , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Coutrot, Thomas, 2018, Libérer le travail , Paris: Seuil.
• Cummine, Angela, 2016, Citizens’ Wealth , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Dalla Costa, Mariarosa and Selma James, 1972, The Power of Women & the Subversion of Community , Bristol: Falling Wall Press Ltd. ( Dalla Costa and James 1972 available online )
• Dardot, Pierre and Christian Laval, 2014, Commun. Essai sur la révolution au XXIe siècle , Paris: La Découverte.
• Davis, Angela, 1981, Women, Race and Class , New York: Random House.
• Dietsch, Peter, 2015, Catching Capital: The Ethics of Tax Competition , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190251512.001.0001
• –––, 2018, “The State and Tax Competition: A Normative Perspective”, in Taxation: Philosophical Perspectives , Martin O’Neill and Shepley Orr (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, chapter 12.
• Dussel, Enrique, 1998, Etica de la liberación , Madrid: Trotta.
• Dworkin, Ronald, 2000, Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Edmundson, William A., 2017, John Rawls: Reticent Socialist , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ehrenreich, Barbara, 1976 [2018], “What is Socialist Feminism?” WIN Magazine . Reprinted with a new introduction in Jacobin , 07.30.2018. [ Ehrenreich 1976 [2018] available online ]
• Einstein, Albert, 1949, “Why Socialism?”, Monthly Review , 1. Reprinted in 2009, Monthly Review , 61(1): 55–61. doi:10.14452/MR-061-01-2009-05_7
• Elster, Jon, 1985, Making Sense of Marx , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1986, An Introduction to Karl Marx , Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1989, “Self-Realization in Work and Politics: The Marxist Conception of the Good Life”, in Elster and Moene 1989: 127–158.
• Elster, Jon and Karl Ove Moene (eds.), 1989, Alternatives to Capitalism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Fanon, Frantz, 1952, Peau noire, masques blancs , Paris: Seuil.
• –––, 1961, Les damnés de la terre , Paris: Maspero.
• Federici, Silvia, 2012, Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, Reproduction and Feminist Struggle , Oakland, CA: MP Press.
• Fleurbaey, Marc, 2006, Capitalisme ou démocratie? L’alternative du XXIe siècle , Paris: Grasset & Fasquelle.
• Forrester, Katrina and Sophie Smith (eds.), 2018, Nature, Action and the Future: Political Thought and the Environment , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Forst, Rainer, 2017, “Noumenal Alienation: Rousseau, Kant and Marx on the Dialectics of Self-Determination”, Kantian Review , 22(4): 523–551. doi:10.1017/S1369415417000267
• Frega, Roberto, Lisa Herzog, and Christian Neuhäuser, 2019, “Workplace Democracy—The Recent Debate”, Philosophy Compass , 14(4): e12574. doi:10.1111/phc3.12574
• Fraser, Nancy, 2009, “Feminism, Capitalism and the Cunning of History”, New Left Review , 56(Mar/Apr): 97–117. [ Fraser 2009 available online ]
• –––, 2014, “Behind Marx’s Hidden Abode: For an Expanded Conception of Capitalism”, New Left Review , 86(Mar/Apr): 55–72. [ Fraser 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2022, Cannibal Capitalism , London: Verso Books.
• Fraser, Nancy and Rahel Jaeggi, 2018, Capitalism , Cambridge: Polity.
• Gargarella, Roberto, 2010, The Legal Foundations of Inequality: Constitutionalism in the Americas, 1776–1860 , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511750618
• Geras, Norman, 1985, “The Controversy about Marx and Justice”, New Left Review , 1/150(Mar/Apr): 47–85. [ Geras 1985 available online ]
• Getachew, Adom, 2019, Worldmaking after Empire: The Rise and Fall of Self-Determination , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. doi:10.23943/princeton/9780691179155.001.0001
• Gilabert, Pablo, 2011, “Debate: Feasibility and Socialism”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 19(1): 52–63. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2010.00383.x
• –––, 2012, “Cohen on Socialism, Equality and Community”, Socialist Studies/Études Socialistes , 8: 101–121. doi:10.18740/S4W019
• –––, 2015, “The Socialist Principle ‘From Each According To Their Abilities, To Each According To Their Needs’”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 46(2): 197–225. doi:10.1111/josp.12096
• –––, 2017a, “Justice and Feasibility: A Dynamic Approach”, in Political Utopias: Contemporary Debates , Michael Weber and Kevin Vallier (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 95–126. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190280598.003.0006
• –––, 2017b, “Kantian Dignity and Marxian Socialism”, Kantian Review , 22(4): 553–577. doi:10.1017/S1369415417000279
• –––, 2018a, Human Dignity and Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198827221.001.0001
• –––, 2018b, “Dignity at Work”, in Collins, Lester, and Mantouvalou 2018: 68–86.
• –––, 2019, Human Dignity and Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198827221.001.0001
• –––, 2023a, Human Dignity and Social Justice , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780192871152.001.0001
• –––, 2023b, “Self-Esteem and Competition”, Philosophy & Social Criticism , 49(6): 711-742. doi:10.1177/01914537221150464
• Gomberg, Paul, 2007, How To Make Opportunity Equal: Race and Contributive Justice , Oxford: Blackwell.
• –––, 2024, Anti-Racism as Communism , London: Bloomsbury Academic.
• Goodin, Robert, 1987, “Exploiting a Person and Exploiting a Situation”, in Modern Theories of Exploitation , Andrew Reeve (ed.), London: SAGE, 166–200.
• Gould, Carol C., 1973–4, “The Woman Question: Philosophy of Liberation and the Liberation of Philosophy”, Philosophical Forum , 5: 5–44.
• –––, 1981, “Socialism and Democracy”, Praxis International , 1: 49–63.
• –––, 1988, Rethinking Democracy: Freedom and Social Cooperation in Politics, Economy, and Society , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gourevitch, Alex, 2013, “Labor Republicanism and the Transformation of Work”, Political Theory , 41(4): 591–617. doi:10.1177/0090591713485370
• Gourevitch, Alex and Lucas Stanczyk, 2018, “The Basic Income Illusion”, Catalyst , 1(4).
• Guevara, Ernesto, 1977, El Socialismo y El Hombre Nuevo , Mexico DF: Siglo XXI.
• Guinan, Joe and Martin O’Neill, 2018, “The Institutional Turn: Labour’s New Political Economy”, Renewal: A Journal of Social Democracy , 26(2): 5–16. [ Guinan and O’Neill 2018 available online ]
• –––, 2019, The Case for Community Wealth Building , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Harnecker, Marta, 2015, A World to Build. New Paths towards Twenty-First Century Socialism , New York: Monthly Review Press.
• Holmstrom, Nancy, 1977, “Exploitation”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 7(2): 353–369. doi:10.1080/00455091.1977.10717024
• Honneth, Axel, 2015 [2017], Die Idee des Sozialismus. Versuch einer Aktualisierung , Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag. Translated as The Idea of Socialism: Towards a Renewal , Joseph Ganahl (trans.), Cambridge: Polity.
• Hussain, Waheed, 2012, “Nurturing the Sense of Justice: the Rawlsian Argument for Democratic Corporatism”, in Property-Owning Democracy: Rawls and Beyond , Martin O’Neill and Thad Williamson (eds.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 180-200.
• –––, 2020, “Pitting People Against Each Other”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 48(1): 79–113. doi: 10.1111/papa.12158
• –––, 2023, Living With the Invisible Hand: Markets, Corporations, and Human Freedom , ed. Arthur Ripstein and Nicholas Vrousalis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Jaeggi, Rahel, 2014, Alienation , New York: Columbia University Press.
• James, C. L. R., 1984, At the Rendezvous of Victory: Selected Writings , London: Allison and Busby.
• –––, 2001, The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L’ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution , new edition. London: Penguin Books [original publication 1938]
• Kandiyali, Jan, 2020, “The Importance of Others: Marx on Unalienated Production”, Ethics , 130(4): 555–587. doi:10.1086/708536
• –––, 2023. “Sharing Burdensome Work”, Philosophical Quarterly , 73(1): 143-63. doi:10.1093/pq/pqac023
• Keat, Russell and John O’Neill, 2011, “Socialism”, in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy , London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-S058-2
• Keynes, John Maynard, 1930/1931 [2010], “Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren”, The Nation and Athenaeum) and reprinted in his, 1931, Essays in Persuasion . Reprinted 2010, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2010, 321–332. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-59072-8_25
• Kołakowski, Leszek, 1974 [2008], Main Currents of Marxism , London: W. W. Norton & Company.
• Kolers, Avery, 2016, A Moral Theory of Solidarity , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kymlicka, Will, 2002, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction , 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Laclau, Ernesto, and Mouffe, Chantal, 1985, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy , London: Verso.
• Lal, Priya, 2015, African Socialism in Postcolonial Tanzania: Between the Village and the World , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316221679
• Laurence, Ben, 2021, Agents of Change: Political Philosophy in Practice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Lawrence, Mathew and Laurie Laybourn-Langton, Planet on Fire: A Manifesto for the Age of Environmental Breakdown , London: Verso Press
• Le Bot, Yvon, 1997, Subcomandante Marcos. El sueño Zapatista. Entrevistas con el Subcomandante Marcos, el mayor Moisés y el comandante Tacho, del Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional , Barcelona: Plaza & Janés.
• Leopold, David, 2022a, "Alienation", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/alienation/ >.
• –––, 2022b, "Analytical Marxism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/marxism-analytical/ >.
• Lewis, Su Lin, 2019, “Asian Socialists and the Forgotten Architects of Post-Colonial Freedom, 1952–56”, Journal of World History , 30 (1&2): 55–88.
• Lizárraga, Fernando, 2011, El marxismo y la justicia social. La idea de igualdad en Ernesto Che Guevara , Chile: Escaparate Ediciones.
• Lohia, Ram Manohar, 1963, Marx, Gandhi and Socialism , Hyderabad: Navahind.
• Love, S. M., 2020, “Socialism and Freedom,” Philosophical Topics , 48(2): 131–158.
• Löwy, Michel, 2005, Ecosocialism. A Radical Alternative to Capitalist Catastrophe , Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.
• Lukes, Steven, 1985, Marxism and Morality , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• McCabe, Helen, 2021, John Stuart Mill, Socialist , Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
• –––, 2023, Harriet Taylor Mill , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Maguire, Barry, 2022, “Efficient Markets and Alienation”, Philosophers’ Imprint , 22: 14. doi:10.3998/phimp.545
• Malleson, Tom, 2014, After Occupy: Economic Democracy for the 21st Century , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199330102.001.0001
• Manley, Michael, 1990, The Politics of Change: a Jamaican Testament , Washington DC: Howard University Press [first published 1974]
• –––, 1991, The Poverty of Nations: Reflections on Underdevelopment and the World Economy , London: Pluto Press.
• Mariátegui, José Carlos, 1928, Siete Ensayos de Interpretación de la Realidad Peruana , Caracas, Venezuela.
• –––, 2010, La tarea americana , Buenos Aires: Prometeo.
• Marx, Karl, 1857–8 [1973], Grundrisse , London: Penguin. Original composition 1857–8.
• –––, 1844 [1978a], “Economic and Philosophic Manuscript of 1844”, in in The Marx-Engels Reader , R. Tucker (ed.), second edition, New York: Norton, 66–125. Original composition 1844.
• –––,1844 [2000], “On James Mill”, in Karl Marx: Selected Writings , D. McLellan (ed.), revised edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 124-1333. Original composition 1844.
• –––, 1875 [1978b], “Critique of the Gotha Program”, in The Marx-Engels Reader , R. Tucker (ed.), second edition, New York: Norton, 525–541. Original composition 1875.
• –––, 1867 [1990], Capital 1 , London: Penguin. Original publication 1867.
• –––, 1991, Capital 3 , London: Penguin. Original composition: incomplete manuscript later edited and released by Friedrich Engels.
• Meade, James, 1948, Planning and the Price Mechanism , London: Routledge.
• –––, 1964, Efficiency, Equality and the Ownership of Property , London: Routledge.
• –––, 1967, An Intelligent Radical’s Guide to Economic Policy , London: Routledge.
• Meiksins Wood, Ellen, 1995, Democracy Against Capitalism: Renewing Historical Materialism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted by Verso in 2016.
• Mill, John Stuart, 2008, Principles of Political Economy and Chapters on Socialism , Jonathan Riley (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. [ Principles of Political Economy originally published 1848; Chapters on Socialism originally published 1879]
• –––, 1873 [2018], Autobiography , Oxford: Oxford University Press. [originally published 1873]
• Mills, Charles W., 2017, Black Rights/White Wrongs: The Critique of Racial Liberalism , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Morsink, Johannes, 1999, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Origins, Drafting and Intent , Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Mulhall, Stephen and Adam Swift, 1996, Liberals and Communitarians , 2nd edition, Oxford: Blackwell.
• Narayan, Jayaprakash, 1980, A Revolutionary’s Quest: Selected Writings of Jayaprakash Narayan , Bimal Prasad (ed.), New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
• Negri, Antonio, 2008, Goodbye Mr. Socialism , New York: Sever Stories Press.
• Nell, Edward and Onora O’Neill, 1992 [2003], “Justice Under Socialism”, in Transformational Growth and Effective Demand , by Edward J. Nell, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 663–674. Reprinted in Justice , fourth edition, J. Sterba (ed.), Toronto: Thomson-Wadsworth, 2003, 77–85. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-21779-3_28
• Nielsen, Kai, 1985, Equality and Liberty , Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.
• Nkrumah, Kwame, 1961, I Speak of Freedom: a Statement of African Ideology , New York: Frederick A. Praeger.
• –––, 1963, Africa Must Unite , New York: International.
• –––, 1965, Neocolonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism , New York: Internationalism.
• Nove, Alec, 1991, The Economics of Feasible Socialism Revisited , London: Harper Collins.
• –––, 2008, “Socialism”, in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics , Steven N. Durlauf and Lawrence E. blume (eds.), London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. doi:10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_1718-2
• Nyerere, Julius, 1967, Freedom and Unity: A Selection from Writings and Speeches 1952–1965 , Dar es Salaam: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1968a, Freedom and Socialism: A Selection from Writings and Speeches 1965–1967 , Dar es Salaam: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1968b, Ujamaa: Essays on Socialism , London: Oxford University Press.
• Okoth, Kevin Ochieng, 2023, Red Africa: Reclaiming Revolutionary Black Politics , London: Verso Press.
• O’Neill, Martin, 2008a, “What Should Egalitarians Believe?”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 36(2): 119–156. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2008.00130.x
• –––, 2008b, “Three Rawlsian Routes towards Economic Democracy”, Revue de Philosophie Économique , 9(1): 29–55
• –––, 2012, “Free (and Fair) Markets without Capitalism. Political Values, Principles of Justice, and Property-Owning Democracy”, in O’Neill and Williamson 2012: 75–100.
• –––, 2017, “Survey Article: Philosophy and Public Policy after Piketty”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 25(3): 343–375. doi:10.1111/jopp.12129
• –––, 2020, “Social Justice and Economic Systems: On Rawls, Democratic Socialism, and Alternatives to Capitalism”, Philosophical Topics , 48(2): 159–202. doi: 10.5840/philtopics202048219
• –––, 2021, “Justice, Power, and Participatory Socialism: On Piketty’s Capital and Ideology”, Analyse & Kritik , 43(1): 89–124. doi:10.1515/auk-2021-0006
• O’Neill, Martin and Stuart White, 2018, “Trade Unions and Political Equality”, Collins, Lester, and Mantouvalou 2018: 252–268.
• –––, 2019, “James Meade, Public Ownership, and the Idea of a Citizens’ Trust”, International Journal of Public Policy , 15(1/2): 23–37. doi:10.1504/IJPP.2019.099052
• O’Neill, Martin and Thad Williamson (eds.), 2012, Property-Owning Democracy: Rawls and Beyond , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444355192
• O‘Shea, Tom, 2020, “Socialist Republicanism”, Political Theory , 48(5): 548–572. doi:10.1177/0090591719876889
• Pateman, Carole, 1970, Participation and Democratic Theory , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511720444
• Pecchi, Lorenzo and Gustavo Piga (eds.), 2010, Revisiting Keynes , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Peffer, Rodney, 1990, Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Piketty, Thomas, 2014, Capitalism in the Twenty-First Century , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2020. Capital and Ideology , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Przeworski, Adam, 1985, Capitalism and Social Democracy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Purdy, Jedediah, 2015, After Nature: A Politics for the Anthropocene , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rappoport, Angelo, 1924, Dictionary of Socialism , London: T. Fischer Unwin.
• Rawls, John, 2001, Justice as Fairness. A Restatement , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Reiman, Jeffrey, 1987, “Exploitation, Force, and the Moral Assessment of Capitalism: Thoughts on Roemer and Cohen”, Philosophy and Public Affairs , 16(1): 3–41.
• Renault, Emmanuel, 2023. Abolir l’exploitation. Expériences, théorie, stratégies , Paris: La Decouverte.
• Riley, Dylan, 2016, “An Anticapitalism That Can Win”, Jacobin , 1.7.16. ( Riley 2016 available online )
• Roemer, John E. (ed.), 1986, Analytical Marxism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1994a, A Future for Socialism , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1994b, Egalitarian Perspectives: Essays in Philosophical Economics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511528293
• –––, 2017, “Socialism Revised”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 45(3): 261–315. doi:10.1111/papa.12089
• Ronzoni, Miriam, 2018, “How Social Democrats May Become Reluctant Radicals: Thomas Piketty’s Capital and Wolfgang Streeck’s Buying Time ”, European Journal of Political Theory , 17(1): 118–127. doi:10.1177/1474885115601602
• Rowbotham, Sheila, 1998, “Dear Dr. Marx: A Letter from a Socialist Feminist”, in The Communist Manifesto Now. Socialist Register 1998 , Leo Panitch (ed.), London: Merlin Press, 1-17.
• Rowbotham, Sheila, Lynne Segal, and Hilary Wainwright (eds.), 1979, Beyond the Fragments: Feminism and the Making of Socialism , London: Merlin Press.
• Sassoon, Donald, 1996 [2013], One Hundred Years of Socialism: The West European Left in the Twentieth Century , London: I. B Tauris. New edition 2013.
• Saito, Kohei, 2017, Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism: Capital, Nature, and the Unfinished Critique of Political Economy, New York: Monthly Review Press.
• –––, 2023, Marx in the Anthroprocene: Towards the Idea of Degrowth Communism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2024, Slow Down: How Degrowth Communism Can Save the Earth, London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
• Sangiovanni, Andrea, 2023, Solidarity: Nature, Grounds, and Value, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
• Sangiovanni, Andrea and Juri Viehoff, 2023, “Solidarity in Social and Political Philosophy”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/solidarity/
• ––– (eds.), 2024, The Virtue of Solidarity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Satz, Debra, 1996, “Status Inequalities and Models of Market Socialism”, in Wright 1996: 71–89.
• Schweickart, David, 2002 [2011], After Capitalism , Lantham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Second edition 2011.
• Shelby, Tommie, 2016, Dark Ghettos: Injustice, Dissent, and Reform , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Shoikhedbrod, Igor, 2021, “G.A. Cohen, the neglect of democratic self-management, and the future of democratic socialism”. Journal of Social Philosophy ,54(1): 6–22. doi:10.1111/josp.12439
• Stanczyk, Lucas, 2012, “Productive Justice”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 40(2): 144–64. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2012.01212.x
• –––, 2022, “Marginal Liberalism” in Keith Breen and Jean-Philippe Deranty (eds.), The Politics and Ethics of Contemporary Work: Whither Work? New York: Routledge.
• Steiner, Hillel, 2014, “Greed and Fear”, Politics, Philosophy & Economics , 13(2): 140–150. doi:10.1177/1470594X14528649
• Svampa, Maristella, 2016, Debates Latinoamericanos. Indianismo, desarrollo, dependencia y populismo , Buenos Aires: Edhasa.
• Sypnowich, Christine, 2017, Equality Renewed. Justice, Flourishing and the Egalitarian Ideal , New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315458335
• Ten, C. L., 1998, “Democracy, Socialism, and the Working Classes”, in The Cambridge Companion to Mill , John Skorupski (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 372–395. doi:10.1017/CCOL0521419875.011
• Van Parijs, Philippe, 1993, Marxism Recycled , (Studies in Marxism and Social Theory), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1995, Real Freedom for All: What (If Anything) Can Justify Capitalism? Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198293577.001.0001
• Van Parijs, Philippe and Yannick Vanderborght, 2017, Basic Income. A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Veneziani, Roberto, 2013, “Exploitation, Inequality and Power”, Journal of Theoretical Politics , 25(4): 526–545. doi:10.1177/0951629813477275
• Vrousalis, Nicholas, 2013, “Exploitation, Vulnerability, and Social Domination”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 41(2): 131–157. doi:10.1111/papa.12013
• –––, 2018, “Exploitation: A Primer”, Philosophy Compass , 13(2): e12486. doi:10.1111/phc3.12486
• –––, 2022, Exploitation as Domination: What Makes Capitalism Unjust , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Walzer, Michael, 1984, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality , New York: Basic Books.
• Wark, McKenzie, 2016, Molecular Red: Theory for the Anthropocene , London: Verso.
• White, Stuart, 2015, “Basic Capital in the Egalitarian Toolkit?”, Journal of Applied Philosophy , 32(4): 417–431. doi:10.1111/japp.12129
• Williams, Eric, 1944 [1994], Capitalism and Slavery , Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
• Wolff, Jonathan, 1999, “Marx and Exploitation”, The Journal of Ethics , 3(2): 105–120. doi:10.1023/A:1009811416665
• Wright, Erik Olin (ed.), 1996 Equal Shares. Making Market Socialism Work , London: Verso.
• –––, 2000 [2015], “Working-Class Power, Capitalist-Class Interests, and Class Compromise”, American Journal of Sociology , 105(4): 957–1002. Reprinted in his Understanding Class , London: Verso, 2015, 85–230. doi:10.1086/210397
• –––, 2010, Envisioning Real Utopias , London: Verso.
• –––, 2015a, “Eroding Capitalism: A Comment on Stuart White’s ‘Basic Capital in the Egalitarian Toolkit’: Eroding Capitalism”, Journal of Applied Philosophy , 32(4): 432–439. doi:10.1111/japp.12128
• –––, 2015b, “How to Be an Anticapitalist Today”, Jacobin 12.2.15. ( Wright 2015b available online )
• –––, 2016, “How to Think About (And Win) Socialism”, Jacobin , 4.27.16. ( Wright 2016 available online )
• –––, 2019, How to Be an Anticapitalist in the Twenty-First Century , London: Verso.
• Ypi, Lea, 2018, “The Politics of Reticent Socialism”, Catalyst , 2(3): 156–175.
• Žižek, Slavoj, 2005, “Against Human Rights”, New Left Review , 34(July/Aug): 115–131. [ Žižek 2005 available online ]

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Albert, Michael, 2016, “What’s Next? Parecon, or Participatory Economics”. [ Albert 2016 available online ]
• Arnold, Samuel, n.d., “Socialism”, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy , Accessed 20 June 2019. [ Arnold n.d. available online ]
• O’Neill, Martin, 2015, “James Meade and Predistribution: 50 Years Before his Time”, Policy Network: Classics of Social Democratic Thought , 28 May 2015. [ O’Neill 2015 available online ]
• O’Neill, Martin and Ander Etxeberria, 2019, “On Mondragon - Solidarity, Democracy, and the Value of Work: an Interview with Ander Etxeberria”, Renewal - A Journal of Social Democracy , 19 July 2019. [ O’Neill and Etxebrria 2019 available online ]
• Schweickart, David, 2016, “Economic Democracy: An Ethically Desirable Socialism That Is Economically Viable”, The Next System Project , October. URL = < https://thenextsystem.org/economic-democracy >
• Marxists Internet Archive , (primary texts from various Marxist thinkers)
• Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe (German), includes much of Marx’s and Engels’s correspondence
• New Left Review
• Marx bibliography , maintained by Andrew Chitty (University of Sussex)

alienation | common good | critical theory | democracy | domination | economics [normative] and economic justice | egalitarianism | equality | exploitation | feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on class and work | justice | justice: distributive | liberty: positive and negative | markets | Marx, Karl | Marxism, analytical | Mill, John Stuart | Mill, John Stuart: moral and political philosophy | property and ownership | revolution

Acknowledgments

For helpful discussion, comments and suggestions we thank the Editors and two referees, Samuel Arnold, Elvira Basevich, Christopher Brooke, Lee Churchman, Michaela Collord, Chiara Cordelli, Katrina Forrester, Roberto Gargarella, Carol Gould, Alex Gourevitch, Alex Guerrero, Daniel J. Hill, Brendan Hogan, Juan Iosa, Jan Kandiyali, Bruno Leipold, Su Lin Lewis, Fernando Lizárraga, Barry Maguire, Tom O’Shea, Romina Rekers, Indrajit Roy, Sagar Sanyal, Igor Shoikhedbrod, Claire Smith, Lucas Stanczyk, Roberto Veneziani, Nicholas Vrousalis, Stuart White, Jonathan Wolff, Gabriel Wollner, and Lea Ypi.

Copyright © 2024 by Pablo Gilabert < pablo . gilabert @ concordia . ca > Martin O’Neill < martin . oneill @ york . ac . uk >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology

Philosophy, One Thousand Words at a Time

Arguments for Capitalism and Socialism

Author: Thomas Metcalf Category: Social and Political Philosophy Wordcount: 993

Editor’s Note: This essay is the second in a two-part series authored by Tom on the topic of capitalism and socialism. The first essay, on defining capitalism and socialism, is available here .

Listen here

Suppose I had a magic wand that allowed one to produce 500 donuts per hour. I say to you, “Let’s make a deal. You use this wand to produce donuts, and then sell those donuts for $500 and give me the proceeds. I’ll give you $10 for every hour you spend doing this. I’ll spend that time playing video games.”

My activity—playing video games—seems pretty easy. Your job requires much more effort. And I might end up with a lot more money than $10 for every hour you work. How is that fair?

In the story, the magic wand is analogous to capital goods : assets (typically machinery and buildings, such as robots, sewing machines, computers, and factories) that make labor, or providing goods and services, more productive. Standard definitions of ‘capitalism’ and ‘socialism’ indicate that, in general, capitalist systems permit people to privately own and control capital goods, whereas socialist systems do not. And capitalist systems tend to contain widespread wage labor, absentee ownership, and property income; socialist systems generally don’t. [1]

Capital goods are morally interesting. As in the case of the magic wand, ownership of capital goods can allow one to make lots of money without working. In contrast, other people have to work for a living. This might be unfair or harmful. This essay surveys and explains the main arguments in this debate. [2]

1. Capitalism

Arguments for capitalism tend to hold that it’s beneficial to society for there to be incentives to produce, own, and use capital goods like the magic wand, or that it’s wrong to forcibly prevent people from doing so. Here are four arguments for capitalism, stated briefly:

(1) Competition: ‘When individuals compete with each other for profits, this benefits the consumer.’ [3]

Critique : Competition also may encourage selfish and predatory behavior. Competition can also occur in some socialist systems. [4]

(2) Freedom: ‘Preventing people from owning capital restricts their freedom. Seizing their income in the form of taxes may constitute theft.’ [5]

Critiques : Maybe owning property, itself, restricts freedom, by excluding others from using it. [6] If I announce that I own something, I may be thereby announcing that I will force you not to use it. And maybe “freedom” requires the ability to pursue one’s own goals, which in turn requires some amount of wealth. [7] Further, if people must choose between work and starvation, then their choice to work may not be really “free” anyway. [8] And the general distribution of wealth is arguably the result of a morally arbitrary “natural lottery,” [9] which may not actually confer strict property-rights over one’s holdings. [10] I didn’t choose where I was born, nor my parents’ wealth, nor my natural talents, which allow me to acquire wealth. So perhaps it’s not a violation of my rights to take some of that property from me.

(3) Public Goods: [11] ‘When objects, including capital, must be shared with others, then no one is strongly motivated to produce them. In turn, society is poorer and labor is more difficult because production is inefficient.’ [12]

Critique : People might be motivated to produce capital for altruistic reasons, [13] or may be coerced in some socialist systems to do so. Some putatively socialist systems allow for profitable production of capital goods. [14]

  (4) Tragedy of the Commons: ‘When capital, natural resources, or the environment are publicly controlled, no one is strongly motivated to protect them.’ [15]

Critique : As before, people might be motivated by altruism. [16] Some systems with partially-private control of capital may nevertheless qualify as socialist. [17]

2. Socialism

Arguments for socialism tend to hold that it’s unfair or harmful to have a system like in the story of the magic wand, a system with widespread wage labor and property income. Here are four arguments for socialism, stated briefly:

(1) Fairness: ‘It’s unfair to make money just by owning capital, as is possible only in a capitalist system.’ [18]

Critique : Perhaps fairness isn’t as morally important as consent, freedom, property rights, or beneficial consequences. And perhaps wage laborers consent to work, and capital owners have property rights over their capital. [19]

(2) Inequality: ‘When people can privately own capital, they can use it to get even richer relative to the poor, and the wage laborers are left poorer and poorer relative to the rich, thereby worsening the inequality that already exists between capital-owners and wage-laborers.’ [20]

Critiques : This is a disputable empirical claim. [21] And perhaps the ability to privately own capital encourages people to invest in building capital goods, thereby making goods and services cheaper. Further, perhaps monopolies commonly granted by social control over capital are “captured” by wealthy special-interests, [22] which harm the poor by enacting regressive laws. [23]

(3) Labor: ‘Wage laborers are alienated from their labor, exploited, and unfree because they must obey their bosses’ orders.’ [24]

Critiques : If this alienation and exploitation are net-harmful to workers, then why do workers consent to work? If the answer is ‘because they’ll suffer severe hardship otherwise,’ then strictly speaking, this is a critique of allowing poverty, not a critique of allowing wage labor.

(4) Selfishness: ‘When people can privately own capital, they selfishly pursue profit above all else, which leads to further inequality, environmental degradation, non-productive industries, economic instability, colonialism, mass murder, and slavery.’

Critique : These are also disputable empirical claims. Maybe when people are given control over socially -owned capital, they selfishly extract personal wealth from it. [25] Maybe when the environment is socially controlled, everyone is individually motivated to over-harvest and pollute. [26] State intervention in the economy may be a major cause of the existence of non-productive industry, pollution, and economic instability. [27] Last, some of the worst perpetrators of historical evils are governments, not private corporations. [28]

  3. Conclusion

It is difficult to justifiably draw general conclusions about what a pure capitalism or socialism would be like in practice. [29] But an examination of the merits and demerits of each system gives us some guidance about whether we should move a society in either direction.

[1] See my Defining Capitalism and Socialism for an explanation of how to define these systems.

[2] For much-more-extensive surveys, see Gilabert and O’Neill n.d. and Arnold n.d.

[3] By analogy, different people might try to construct even better magic wands, or use them for better purposes. Typically the benefits are thought to include lower prices, increased equality, innovation, and more options. See Smith 2003 [1776]: bk. 1, ch. 2 and Friedman and Friedman 1979: ch. 1.

[4] Schweickart 2011 presents an outline of a market socialism comprising much competition.

[5] By analogy, if I legitimately own the magic wand, then what gives you the right to threaten violence against me if I don’t give it to you? Nozick 1974: ch. 7 presents a general discussion of how socialism might restrict freedom and how taxation may be akin to theft or forced labor.

[6] Spencer 1995 [1871]: 103-4 and Zwolinski 2015 discuss how property might require coercion. See also Scott 2011: 32-33. Indeed, property in general may essentially be theft (Proudhon 1994 [1840]).

[7] See Rawls (1999: 176-7) for this sort of argument. See John Rawls’ ‘A Theory of Justice’ by Ben Davies for an introduction.

[8] See e.g. Burawoy 1979 for a discussion of whether workers consent to work. See also Marx 2004 (1867): vol. IV, ch. VII.

[9] Rawls 1999: 62 ff.

[10] Relatedly, while one may currently hold capital, one may greatly owe the existence of that product to many other people or to society in general. See e.g. Kropotkin 2015 [1913]: chs. 1-3 and Murphy and Nagel 2002.

[11] A public good is a good that is non-excludable (roughly, it is expensive to prevent people from using it) and non-rivalrously consumed (roughly, preventing people from using it causes harm without benefiting anyone) (Cowen 2008).

[12] By analogy, why bother building magic wands at all if someone else is immediately going to take it from me and start using it? Standard economic theory holds that public goods (non-excludable and non-rivalrous goods) will, on the free market, be underproduced. This is normally taken to be an argument for government to produce public goods. See e.g. Gaus 2008: 84 ff.

[13] For example, according to Marxist communism, the ideal socialist society would comprise production for use, not for profit. See e.g. Marx 2004 [1867]: vol. 1 ch. 7. See also Kropotkin 1902, which is a defense of the general claim that humans will tend to be altruistic, at least in anarcho-communist systems.

[14] In a market-socialist system (cf. Schweickart 2011), it is possible to make capital goods and sell them at a profit that gets distributed to the laborers.

[15] By analogy, if I know that anyone in the neighborhood can use the magic wand, I might not invest my own time and money to maintain it. But if it’s mine alone, I care a lot more about maintaining it. This is the basis of the well-known ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ alleged problem. See, e.g., Hardin 1968.

[16] Kropotkin 1902.

[17] As before, in Schweickart’s (2011) system, firms will be motivated to protect capital if they must pay for capital’s deprecation, even though the capital is owned by society.

[18] By analogy, as noted, the wand-owner might make lots of money for basically doing no work. Sherman 1995: 130; Schweickart 2011: § 3.2.

[19] See e.g. Friedman 2002 for a collection of consequentialist arguments for capitalism, and Nozick 1974: chs. 3 and 7 for some arguments concerning freedom and capitalist systems.

[20] By analogy, the wand-owner might accumulate so much money as to start buying other magic wands and renting those out as well. See e.g. Piketty 2014.

[21] Taking the world as a whole, wealth in absolute terms has been increasing greatly, and global poverty has been decreasing steeply, including in countries that have moved in mostly capitalist directions. See e.g. World Bank Group 2016: 3. Friedman 1989: ch. 5 argues that capitalism is responsible for the improved position of the poor today compared to the past.

[22] See e.g. Friedman 1989: ch. 7 for a discussion of regulatory capture.

[23] Friedman 2002: chs. IV and IX; Friedman 1989: ch. 4.

[24] By analogy, the person I’ve hired to use the wand might need to obey my orders, because they don’t have a wand of their own to rent out, and they might starve without the job I’ve offered them. Marx 2009 [1932] introduces and develops this concept of alienation. See Dan Lowe’s 2015 Karl Marx’s Conception of Alienation for an overview. See also Anderson 2015 for an argument that private corporations coercively violate their workers’ freedom.

[25] See n. 21 above. This result is most-obvious in countries in which dictators enrich themselves, but there is nothing in principle preventing rulers of ostensibly democratic countries from doing so as well. Presumably this worry explains the presence of the Emoluments Clause in the U. S. Constitution.

[26] See n. 14.

[27] See e.g. Friedman 2002: chs. III and V and the example of compliance costs for regulations.

[28] See Huemer 2013: ch. 6 ff.

[29] All or nearly all large-scale economies have been mixed economies. In contrast, a pure capitalism would be an anarcho-capitalism (see e.g. Gaus 2010: 75 ff. and Huemer 2013), and a pure socialism wouldn’t permit people to privately own scissors. See also the entry “Defining Capitalism and Socialism.”

Anderson, Elizabeth. 2015. Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don’t Talk about It) . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Arnold, Samuel. N. d. “Socialism.” In The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed.), The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy , URL = < https://www.iep.utm.edu/socialis/ >

Burawoy, Michael. 1979. Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process under Monopoly Capitalism . Chicago, IL and London, UK: The University of Chicago Press.

Cohen, G. A. 2009. Why Not Socialism? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Cowen, Tyler. 2008. “Public Goods.” In David R. Henderson (ed.), The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics . Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.

Dagger, Richard and Terence Ball. 2019. “Socialism.” In Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. (ed.), E ncyclopædia Britannica . Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism

Dahl, Robert A. 1993. “Why All Democratic Countries have Mixed Economies.” Nomos 35: 259-82.

Dictionary.com. N.d. “Capitalism.” URL = < https://www.dictionary.com/browse/capitalism >

Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. 2019. “Henri de Saint-Simon.” In Encyclopædia Britannica , Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Henri-de-Saint-Simon

Friedman, David D. 1989. The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism , Second Edition. La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing Company.

Friedman, Milton. 2002. Capitalism and Freedom . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Friedman, Milton and Rose Friedman. 1979. Free to Choose: A Personal Statement . New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.

Gaus, Gerald. 2010. “The Idea and Ideal of Capitalism.” In George G. Brenkert and Tom L. Beauchamp (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Gaus, Gerald. 2008. On Philosophy, Politics, and Economics . Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Gilabert, Pablo and Martin O’Neill. 2019. “Socialism.” In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/ .

Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162(3859): 1243-48.

Herzog, Lisa. 2019. “Markets.” In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , Spring 2019 Edition, URL =https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/markets/

Huemer, Michael. 2013. The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey . Houndmills, UK and New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Investopedia. 2019. “Mixed Economic System.” Retrieved from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mixed-economic-system.asp

Kropotkin, P. 1902. Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution . New York, NY: McClure Phillips & Co.

Kropotkin, Peter. 2015 [1913]. The Conquest of Bread. London, UK: Penguin Classics.

Lowe, Dan. 2015. “Karl Marx’s Conception of Alienation.” 1000-Word Philosophy . Retrieved from https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2015/05/13/karl-marxs-conception-of-alienation/.

Marx, Karl. 2009 [1932]. “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.” In Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 and the Communist Manifesto , tr. Martin Milligan (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books), pp. 13-202.

Marx, Karl. 2004 [1867]. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume One . New York, NY: Penguin Classics.

Merriam-Webster. N.d. “Capitalism.” URL = < https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism >

Mill, John Stuart. 1965 [1848]. Principles of Political Economy with Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy, Volume I: The Principles of Political Economy I , ed. J. M. Robson. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Murphy, Liam and Thomas Nagel. 2002. The Myth of Ownership: Taxes and Justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Oxford English Dictionary, N.d. a. “Capital.” Retrieved from http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/27450

Oxford English Dictionary. N.d. b. “Capitalism.” Retrieved from http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/27454

Oxford English Dictionary. N.d. c. “Mixed Economy.” Retrieved from http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/120348

Oxford English Dictionary. N.d. d. “Socialism.” Retrieved from http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/183741

Piketty, Thomas. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century , tr. Arthur Goldhammer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. 1994 [1840]. What is Property? Ed. Donald R. Kelley and Bonnie G. Smith. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Rawls, John. 1999. A Theory of Justice, Revised Edition . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schweickart, David. 2011. After Capitalism , Second Edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Scott, Bruce R. 2011. Capitalism: Its Origins and Evolution as a System of Governance . New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.

Sherman, Howard J. 1995. Reinventing Marxism . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Smith, Adam. 2003 [1776]. The Wealth of Nations . New York, NY: Bantam Dell.

Wikipedia. N.d. “Capitalism.” URL =

Wiktionary. N.d. “Capitalism.” URL =

World Bank Group. 2016. Global Monitoring Report 2015/2016: Development Goals in an Era of Demographic Change. Washington, DC: World Bank Group and The International Monetary Fund.

Zwolinski, Matt. 2015. “Property Rights, Coercion, and the Welfare State: The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income for All.” The Independent Review 19(4): 515-29

Related Essays

Defining Capitalism and Socialism by Tom Metcalf

Marx’s Conception of Alienation by Dan Lowe

Karl Marx’s Theory of History by Angus Taylor

On Karl Marx’s Slogan “From Each According to their Ability, To Each According to their Need”  by Sam Badger

John Rawls’ ‘A Theory of Justice’ by Ben Davies

Social Contract Theory by David Antonini

Ethical Egoism: The Morality of Selfishness  by Nathan Nobis

Reparations for Historic Injustice by Joseph Frigault 

George Orwell’s Philosophical Views by Mark Satta

PDF Download

Download this essay in PDF . 

About the Author

Tom Metcalf is an associate professor at Spring Hill College in Mobile, AL. He received his PhD in philosophy from the University of Colorado, Boulder. He specializes in ethics, metaethics, epistemology, and the philosophy of religion. Tom has two cats whose names are Hesperus and Phosphorus. shc.academia.edu/ThomasMetcalf

Follow 1000-Word Philosophy on Facebook , Twitter and subscribe to receive email notifications of new essays at 1000WordPhilosophy.com

Share this:, 13 thoughts on “ arguments for capitalism and socialism ”.

• Pingback: Ethical Egoism: The Morality of Selfishness – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Karl Marx’s Conception of Alienation – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: George Orwell’s Philosophical Views – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Business Ethics – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Distributive Justice: How Should Resources be Allocated? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Political Philosophy: A collection of articles, videos, and podcasts - The Daily Idea
• Pingback: John Rawls’ ‘A Theory of Justice’ – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Reparations for Historic Injustice – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Online Philosophy Resources Weekly Update - Daily Nous
• Pingback: The Week’s End // A Thought-Provoking Round-Up – Lisa Marie Blair

Reblogged this on SIPAHOUSEPRESS .

• Pingback: Defining Capitalism and Socialism – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology

Comments are closed.

The Philosophers' Magazine

The Case for Socialism

Introduction

Much of the best political philosophy has been produced in periods when our basic institutions were under some sort of attack, and it became practical and urgent to think, at the most fundamental level, about how society should be organised. Plato wrote the Republic in the aftermath of Athenian democracy; Confucius lived and taught during the Warring States period; Hobbes wrote in response to the English Civil War; Marx wrote in response to the Industrial Revolution; Rawls wrote A Theory of Justice during the Vietnam War; Fanon wrote in response to the dissolution of the European empires. These theorists found themselves in moments in history where, all of a sudden, radical new options were on the table.

It’s too soon to tell, but it certainly feels like we live in such a moment now. The post-colonial global liberal order, which was once called “the end of history,” is debated daily by pundits and politicians. This order is being challenged from the right by nationalist movements in countries across the world, from Brazil to Hungary to India; the left is ascendant in the United States for the first time in generations, with a surge in labour militancy and candidates from groups like Democratic Socialists of America winning elections around the country. New options are on the table.

So what do we do? What sort of society do we want to live in? What basic social order is best?

I think the answer – a big part of the answer, at least – is socialism. Different people use the word “socialism” in different ways, but I take socialism to be the view that more goods should be owned and managed collectively and democratically.

That leaves us with a few big questions. Which goods? (All private property? Natural resources? Land? Real estate? Particular businesses? Entire industries? The means of production, whatever those are?) Which collectives? (Workers at particular businesses? Labour unions representing entire industries? Subjects of a municipal, state, federal, or world government?) What sort of democratic management? (Representative democracy? Something more participatory?)

Different socialists will give different answers to these questions, advocating for worker cooperatives, small communes, national ownership, or something else. My own view is that different sorts of goods should be socialised in different ways, and some goods, like the contents of your refrigerator, shouldn’t be socialised at all. But for now, to whatever extent I can, I’d like to avoid the messy details of how we ought to socialise any particular set of goods.

Some popular arguments for socialism rest on questionable empirical premises or values that aren’t widely shared. Questionable empirical premises include the belief that socialism is inevitable, and that the basic structure of a society is determined by the organisation of its productive capacities. Dubious values include the Marxist concepts of contradiction and alienation, or the labour theory of value, more generally. Other popular arguments for socialism rest on values that many of us share, but which we each understand in very different ways – freedom, fairness, democracy.

But we don’t need to appeal to any vague, ambiguous, or tendentious values or premises in order to argue for socialism. I believe the best arguments for socialism start from clear, widely shared values and premises that any reasonable person should believe.

Here are the arguments for socialism that I find most convincing:

The argument from inequality

Capitalism – the view that goods and services should be provisioned primarily by private entities interacting through markets – leads to massive inequality of wealth, education, and political power. You might think this is intrinsically bad because it is unfair. But I think of the badness of inequality in terms of waste and domination. Inequality leads to waste because resources that would be better off in the hands of the poor are put in the hands of people who don’t need them; inequality leads to domination because when some people are much richer than others, they can manipulate the basic institutions of society so that things keep going their way.

Here’s another way to think about it. To a first approximation, when a society provides a good or service via the market, that is its way of saying that it’s OK if poor people don’t have access to it. (Yes, the U.S. has a mixed economy, where people who can’t afford certain goods and services get them through means-tested government subsidies or public services, like public housing. But means-tested services are always precarious and underfunded, because they’re always stigmatised. Compare food stamps with social security.) Of course, we’ve already decided that there are some goods that it is not OK to deny poor people – roads, the postal service, K-12 education, social security, libraries. But why stop there? Are we really okay if poor people don’t have food, shelter, clothing, medical care, or access to toilets, the internet, or higher education? Not me.

The argument from global warming

Capitalism depends on constant growth, and, at least as a rule, constant growth means constant increase in the use of energy and natural resources. This is unsustainable.

Not every form of socialism is environmentally sustainable – look at states whose economies are built around a nationalised fossil fuel industry, like Venezuela or Norway. But some form of political-economic system that isn’t based on perpetual growth is necessary if we are going to avoid the existential risk that climate change poses. (This is not to say that some sectors of the economy can’t grow while others shrink – we might produce more nutritious food and durable clothing and entertainment, but spend less on poison, disposable junk, military equipment, and deforestation, for example.)

The limits of markets

Since Adam Smith, economists have used the idea of the invisible hand to describe the ways in which individual people acting in their own self-interest can, through their interactions in a market, benefit each other. Consider the iPhone. Apple is primarily interested in making money. One way they can make money is by continually developing fun and useful new features for their phones, and selling their phones at prices that won’t scare too many consumers away. Individual consumers buying iPhones are also acting primarily in their own self-interest, but the money that they pay Apple funds further development. Everyone wins! (At least as long as we don’t look too hard at the working conditions in factories that manufacture iPhone parts, or the environmental costs of mining for the rare minerals used in iPhones.) Defences of free markets often appeal to the power of the invisible hand.

But think about the range of conditions or types of markets under which the invisible hand fails to work, even in theory – when we’re dealing with monopolies and cartels, unequal information between buyer and seller, negative externalities, tragedies of the commons, public goods, planned obsolescence, rent-seeking, cronyism, markets that manufacture the preferences they satisfy. Most markets, I would suggest, fall under at least one of these categories. We can always try to regulate our way towards better markets, but in capitalist societies, regulators tend to work for the businesses they’re supposed to regulate. Why not think of other ways of getting people the goods they need?

The argument from automation

Something incredible has happened! We now have robots and machines to do a lot of the mindless jobs no one wanted to do before. But people are terrified of this. This might be a familiar point, but we should really reflect on how bizarre it is. And it’s all because we have privatised the benefits of automation.

The argument from labour allocation

Anyone who has worked at a medium- to large-sized business knows that lots of jobs that do exist shouldn’t. To some extent, this is because managers solve problems by hiring new managers. To some extent, it’s because once you create a job, it can be hard to get rid of. And as the anthropologist David Graeber has shown, an enormous number of people think that their own jobs shouldn’t exist – telemarketers, debt traders and collectors, secretaries and assistants for people who don’t need secretaries or assistants, and so on.

By contrast, think seriously about the most important jobs that you could possibly do. Here are some candidates: researching clean meat, existential risk research, carbon capture and renewable energy research, low-cost overseas public health interventions. Most of the funding for most of these jobs comes from private charity and public grants. Or think of the difference in funding for research, treatment, and prevention of diseases of poverty like malaria versus diseases of affluence like hypertension. That is because they are not, in the short term, profitable, or because they run contrary to the interests of the fabulously wealthy. A better political and economic system, in which profit and the interests of the wealthy mattered less, would fund these things more generously. (We could make a similar, but slightly different argument about vital but wildly underpaid professions – social workers, home attendants, janitors, farm workers, warehouse workers, childcare providers, etc.)

The argument from moral shiftiness

Many of the early supporters of free markets believed in them because they thought they would lead to a more equal society. This was plausible because (a) free markets challenged many of the greatest sources of inequality at the time (feudal property laws and guild monopolies, for example), and (b) these early supporters generally thought of each person as self-employed – this was before the Industrial Revolution.

Capitalism has failed spectacularly at accomplishing those goals. But as the philosopher Elizabeth Anderson argues in her book Private Government , instead of working towards a better form of political economy, we have changed the underlying morality of capitalism. Now it’s about personal desert, meritocracy, and freedom from government interference. This should at least give us pause.

Intersections with other social issues

To a hard to specify extent, capitalism exacerbates social problems that aren’t entirely economic in nature – factory farming, war, ableism, racism, police brutality, sexual violence, the exclusion of women from various dimensions of public life. Socialism is not the complete solution to these problems, but it is one key part of the solution.

Objections and Responses

Even if you accept the arguments given above, you might think that the arguments against socialism outweigh them. Let’s consider a few of those arguments, and why I don’t ultimately find them convincing.

Socialism is theft.

It’s true that socialism requires certain people and organisations to relinquish their private property. But private property is, at least in many instances, created by the law. Copyrights and trademarks and patents, for example, don’t exist in the wild. When we realise that facts about who owns what are determined by the law, not by nature, then changing the property relations in a society might start to seem more like a democratic decision, and less like a violation of the natural order of things.

Often when people are called on to justify strong private property rights, they appeal to the value of desert. If you invest your money in the right way, say, you have earned that money, and you deserve to keep it. But desert is a dubious value. After all, none of us deserves to be born into the circumstances that we find ourselves in. I didn’t deserve to be born white, or male, or born with my natural strengths and weaknesses, or born in New York City in 1986. But if I don’t deserve all of my natural gifts and inheritances, how can I deserve the profit that I make using those gifts and inheritances?

In any case, even if you believe in desert, for the wealthiest people in the world today, most income is capital income. That is, they make their money not from making anything or doing anything for the world, but from already owning stuff. How could people who don’t work deserve more than people who do?

Capitalism has lifted a lot of people out of poverty.

It’s hard to know how much of the decline in global poverty is the result of the rise of capitalism, and how much is the result of other factors – technological progress, economies of scale, peace. But fair enough – capitalism does some things well. The question isn’t whether capitalism does some things well, though. The question is whether we can do better.

Capitalism drives technological and scientific innovation.

Sure, sometimes, although it also sometimes impedes technological and scientific innovation. Take, for example, the pharmaceutical firm Valeant, which all but gave up on medical research when they realised there was more money to be made in buying up patents and gaming the insurance industry. Or take the chemical imbalance theory of mental illness, which has stuck around for as long as it has in large part because it serves the needs of drug companies.

We might also note all the examples of technological innovation that are not driven by the profit motive. The Soviet Union beat the U.S. to outer space; the internet was largely invented by the U.S. government; many medical researchers are motivated by altruism and the desire for recognition, rather than by money.

Again, though, my answer is the same as above. The question is whether we can do better.

Socialist states have a bad track record.

Not all socialist states – Chile under Allende, Grenada under Bishop, Burkina Faso under Thomas Sankara, arguably the Nordic states today – but sure.

One thing to note is that socialism doesn’t necessarily mean handing control over any particular enterprise to the state. It might be handed over to, say, workers, unions, consumers, or community groups. Another is that we need to ask why the socialist states of the past have failed. It’s a bit glib, but important, to remind ourselves here that most states have failed. In the case of the socialist states, I would argue that many of them failed largely for reasons that have little to do with socialism, per se. One factor in the failure of the Soviet Union, for example, is that the economy was devoted single-mindedly to developing the military, rather than, say, producing consumer goods. Another factor in the downfall of many socialist states is that civil liberties were highly restricted. Another factor is that the central planners of the economy didn’t have access to accurate, real-time information about supply and demand. Another factor is that the U.S. and other world powers isolated and covertly undermined the socialist states. But these factors are inessential to socialism. Socialism doesn’t require military spending, or restrictions on civil liberties, or global conflict, or widespread disinformation about the economy.

Of course, some socialist policies or initiatives have had disastrous effects – land collectivisation under Stalin, the Great Leap Forward, and so on. But learning from these mistakes doesn’t necessarily mean giving up on socialism. It might just mean doing socialism better.

Ian Olasov is a commissioning editor for TPM. His most recent book is A Companion to Public Philosophy (Wiley-Blackwell, 2022), co-edited with Lee McIntyre and Nancy McHugh.

Substack Newsletter

Mailing List

Popular Now

• The Fact/Opinion Distinction 1536 views
• Reading as a Philosopher 896 views
• The Meaning of “Asshole” 464 views
• The Transgender-Rights Issue 360 views
• How Does Infidelity Harm the Other Woman? 346 views
• Privacy Policy

The Best Socialism Essay Topics

Socialism is a substantial political and social system that provides an outstanding theory and set of rules and principles for regulating a country. This political and economic practice changed the way people approached life in its different layers and spheres. Although a little raw and unadapted to the progressive forms of living, socialism is a unique historical phenomenon that echoes even today in the modern world of informational technologies. Given that socialism is an attractive subject to study for academics, the specialists at EssayShark thought you might consider using some of our socialism essay topics!

Socialism argumentative essay topics

• The origins of socialism.
• Why socialism is feared in the United States.
• The theoretical background of socialism developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
• The preconditions that contribute to the emergence of socialism.
• The distinctive features of socialism in European countries.
• Was socialism a result of the need for a safer, more ideal living environment for people?
• How socialism impacted the rise and development of other political systems.
• Socialistic ideas: can they be viewed as a progressive form of human existence?
• The differences between Marxism and Leninism as theoretical frameworks for socialism.
• The hypotheses and principles underlying Christian socialism.
• Socialist propaganda as one of the major aspects of the advancement of socialism.
• Karl Marx as the main contributor of socialist ideology and culture.
• Socialism in China promoted by Mao Zedong.
• The portrayal of socialism in literature and cinematography and how it influenced the way people view this phenomenon.
• The rise of the socialist idea in the Soviet Union.

Informative essay topics on socialism

• How socialism impacted the growth in more human-oriented, liberal attitudes from government to citizens.
• What additional factors facilitated the promotion of socialism in the beginning of the 20th century?
• The downsides to socialism that make it difficult to establish properly as an optimal system of government.
• The challenges of socialism and how they have hindered its development within countries.
• Soviet socialism as one of the most colossal forms of a socialist regime.
• The socialist ideology in North Korea as an example of a destructive, distorted form of socialism.
• Why the socialist movement was constantly interrupted and blocked in the 20th century by more democratic countries.
• The USA was one of the most powerful and influential opponents of socialism.
• Is the depiction of socialism in dystopian literature a prospective future of this social and political regime?
• Socialism vs. capitalism: what underlies the colossal differences between these two major political and economic systems?
• The issues surrounding the proper implementation of socialism and why the system is difficult to establish especially in the modern word.
• How socialism can serve as a veil for implementing harsh totalitarian regimes.
• What makes socialism a system that is ignored and rejected by democratic and forward-thinking countries?
• How socialism influenced the economic development of the modern world.
• Why capitalism wins over socialism in terms of the favored political development of a country.

Socialism essay thesis statement examples

Get ready to write your essay

Did you like our top selection of socialism essay topics? As one of the most controversial political topics these days, socialism continues to draw attention from researchers, inspiring them to explore the subject more deeply and productively. And you can as well, armed with the refined topics that the EssayShark experts have provided!

EssayShark is here to help with socialism essay writing

Our recognizable organization delivers first-class writing assistance to students from across the world. Our writing experts specialize in a wide spectrum of academic disciplines and are ready to provide professional help with any troubling assignment you face! As with these socialism essay topics, the EssayShark experts approach every task they get with attention and diligence, leaving no chance for academic failure – something students often experience after dealing with other services.

Working with us, you’ll receive cultivated writing help at low prices and get to know what genuine academic assistance looks like. Apply for our write my essay help to succeed with your academic endeavors!

Photo by 3093594 from Pixabay

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

What our customers say

Our website uses secure cookies. More details

Get professional help from best writers right from your phone

Grab our 3 e-books bundle for $27 FREE

Socialism: Foundations and Key Concepts

What is the political, philosophic, and economic system known as socialism? Some starting points for further study.

Depending on whom you ask, socialism might be described as historically inevitable, evil incarnate, a utopian fantasy, or a scientific method. Most fundamentally, socialism is a political, philosophic, and economic system in which the means of production—that is, everything that goes into making goods for use—are collectively controlled, rather than owned by private corporations as they are under capitalism, or by aristocrats under feudalism.

In seeking to make the case for socialism—and to understand impediments to a world governed by people’s needs rather than corporate profits—thinkers in the socialist tradition have grappled with topics as varied as colonialism, gender, race, art, sex, psychology, economics, medicine, ecology, and countless other issues. As such, this Reading List makes no claim of being exhaustive; rather, it seeks to achieve two modest goals: to acquaint readers with a handful of key socialist preoccupations, and to demonstrate how the core concepts of socialist thought have been articulated at different historical moments and taken up by women and people of color.

Eugene W. Schulkind, “ The Activity of Popular Organizations during the Paris Commune of 1871. ” French Historical Studies , (1960)

What kind of society do socialists want? Many unfamiliar with the socialist tradition assume the Soviet Union or other putatively communist states represent socialist ideals come to fruition. But for many socialists throughout history, the most generative and compelling model is the seventy-two-day social experiment known as the Paris Commune. During their brief time ruling Paris, the communards eliminated the army, secularized education, equalized pay, and implemented numerous feminist initiatives, including establishing child care centers and abolishing the distinction between “legitimate” and “illegitimate” children.

Rosa Luxemburg,  “Reform or Revolution” (1900) Socialists uniformly believe that different social arrangements are needed to address social problems, but how might those transformations most effectively come to fruition? One of the major questions that has animated socialist debates throughout the centuries is whether it is possible to achieve socialism through progressive reforms, or whether reforms would only serve to strengthen capitalism. Here the revolutionary presents her thoughts.

Clara Zetkin,  1914 Preface to Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward (1887) in Utopian Studies , 2016 Karl Marx was famously opposed to rigidly outlining what future socialist societies should look like, claiming that this would be like writing “recipes for the kitchens of the future.” Despite his reticence, many artists, frustrated by the constraints of capitalism and captivated by the promises of socialist futures, have contributed to imagining alternative worlds. Edward Bellamy’s early science fiction novel Looking Backward presents one attempt at envisioning a socialist society of the future—free from war, poverty, advertisements, and other unpleasantries. Here, Clara Zetkin, a prominent socialist and feminist activist of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (best known for her efforts to establish International Women’s Day ), introduces the novel.

Eric Foner,  “Why Is There No Socialism in the United States?” History Workshop , 1984 One of the country’s best living historians examines questions that have preoccupied generations: How does the political and economic exceptionalism of the United States shape its historical relationship to socialism? Why does the U.S. working class appear less inclined toward socialist class consciousness than in other “advanced” capitalist countries?

Cedric Robinson,  “C.L.R. James and the Black Radical Tradition.” Review (Fernand Braudel Center ), 1983 Telling the story of C.L.R. James, one of the most important socialist intellectuals of the twentieth century, Cedric Robinson (an intellectual giant in his own right) traces the history of socialism as it crosses continents and oceans. Centering Black radicals, not as a homogenous group but as members of a multifaceted tradition who write as seamlessly about cricket, anticolonial struggles, and class formation, Robinson takes the reader through issues at the heart of socialism.

Combahee River Collective, “A Black Feminist Statement” (1978) in Women’s Studies Quarterly , 2014  “Identity politics” has become a controversial and often derided topic in recent years. In this groundbreaking text, the Combahee River Collective—a group of Black feminist socialists named for the location from which Harriet Tubman launched one of her major military missions—underscores the necessity of rooting anti-capitalist projects in people’s lived experiences: “We believe that the most profound and potentially most radical politics come directly out of our own identity.”

Sarah Leonard,  “What is Socialist Feminism?” Teen Vogue , 2020 Teen Vogue may have once evoked adolescent frivolity, but in recent years the magazine has repositioned itself as a serious contributor to the rising popularity of leftist politics among bright young people, thanks to its rigorous and accessible political analysis. Here, socialist feminist writer Sarah Leonard draws from bell hooks , Congressperson Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the 1970s feminist collective Wages for Housework to outline a few key socialist feminist insights . For those interested in pursuing the topic further, Leonard encourages readers to connect with the extensive resources generated by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)’s Socialist Feminist working group.

Brett Clark and John Bellamy Foster,  “Marx’s Ecology in the 21st Century.” World Review of Political Economy , 2010 Marx may have written in the nineteenth century, but his insights are still used by contemporary thinkers to understand many of today’s most pressing issues. Here Clark and Foster draw from central concepts in Marx’s oeuvre to understand how capitalism has led to climate catastrophe and, eventually, might inspire ecosocialism. In their words, “The power of Marx’s ecology is that it provides a rigorous approach for studying the interchange between society and nature, while taking into consideration the specific ecological conditions of an ecosystem (and the larger web of nature), as well as the particular social interactions as shaped by the capitalist mode of production.”

Michael Lowy and Penelope Duggan,  “Marxism and Romanticism in the Work of Jose Carlos Mariategui.” Latin American Perspectives , 1998 A compelling introduction to Mariategui, the Peruvian socialist philosopher who merged precolonial history, romanticism, and a trenchant analysis of capitalism. In contrast to the austere world many antisocialists imagine, “[s]ocialism according to Mariategui lay at the heart of an attempt at the reenchantment of the world through revolutionary action.”

Red Nation,  “Communism Is the Horizon”  (2020) In their recent pamphlet, the Indigenous collective Red Nation expounds upon the centrality of queer, Indigenous feminism to their understanding of socialism and their struggle toward a communist horizon.

Editor’s Note: This list has been updated to include journal titles.

Support JSTOR Daily! Join our new membership program on Patreon today.

JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.

Get Our Newsletter

Get your fix of JSTOR Daily’s best stories in your inbox each Thursday.

Privacy Policy   Contact Us You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking on the provided link on any marketing message.

More Stories

• Labor Day: A Celebration of Working in America

• A Selection of Student Confessions

• Thurgood Marshall

The Bawdy House Riots of 1668

Recent posts.

• Playing It Straight and Catching a Break
• Finding Caves on the Moon Is Great. On Mars? Even Better.

Support JSTOR Daily

Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

• Liberty Fund
• Adam Smith Works
• Law & Liberty
• Browse by Author
• Browse by Topic
• Browse by Date
• Search EconLog
• Latest Episodes
• Browse by Guest
• Browse by Category
• Browse Extras
• Search EconTalk
• Latest Articles
• Liberty Classics
• Search Articles
• Books by Date
• Books by Author
• Search Books
• Browse by Title
• Biographies
• Search Encyclopedia
• #ECONLIBREADS
• College Topics
• High School Topics
• Subscribe to QuickPicks
• Search Guides
• Search Videos
• Library of Law & Liberty
• Home   /  

ECONLIB Books

Fabian Essays in Socialism

By george bernard shaw.

In 1884 The Fabian Society was founded in England with the aim of bringing about a socialist society by means of intellectual debate, the publication of books and pamphlets, and the “permeation” of socialist ideas into the universities, the press, government institutions, and political parties. This was in marked contrast to the other means of bringing about socialism which was adopted by Marxist parties, namely the use of violence and revolution to overthrow capitalism. The Fabian Society was named after the Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus who used tactics of attrition and delay (what we might now call guerrilla tactics) rather than direct military confrontation to defeat the enemy. Thus one might describe the tactics of the Fabian Society as one of “intellectual guerrilla warfare” against free market societies. Some of the Society’s early members included the playwright George Bernard Shaw, the writers and educators Sidney and Beatrice Webb, the feminist Emmeline Pankhurst, and the novelist H. G. Wells.The Fabian Society has been enormously influential in British and Australian politics over the past 120 years: it used a bequest to found the London School of Economics in 1895 (it is rather ironic then that this is where Friedrich Hayek taught from 1931 to 1950), it joined with the trade unions to found the British Labour Party in 1900, it founded the magazine the New Statesman in 1913, it laid the intellectual foundations for the creation of the welfare state after the Second World War (over 220 Labour MPs elected in the landslide victory of 1945 were members of the Fabian Society), and it was important in the revitalisation of the Labour Party in the 1990s by publishing Tony Blair’s pamphlet on the “Third Way.”In 1889 the Fabian Society published a collection of essays, Fabian Essays in Socialism edited by George Bernard Shaw, in order to present their ideas in a coherent form. The first print run was a conservative 1,000 copies but after 2 years the Society had sold over 27,000 copies of the book.Two years before the founding of the Fabian Society a group of supporters of individual liberty and free markets led by the Earl of Wemyss had founded the Liberty and Property Defense League. Whereas the Fabian Society wanted to turn socialism from a minority intellectual and political movement into a mainstream movement, the Liberty and Property Defense League was trying to prevent the slow degeneration of classical liberalism into a new form of liberalism which supported increasing amounts of government intervention in the economy. The League quickly recognised the importance of the Fabian Society’s intellectual challenge to free market ideas with the publication of the Fabian Essays in Socialism and in response asked the ex-wine merchant and author Thomas Mackay to put together a collection of essays to defend the free market from the Fabians’s critique. The result were two volumes of essays, A Plea for Liberty which appeared in 1891 and A Policy of Free Exchange which appeared in 1894.Historically one might argue that the Fabian Society “won” the intellectual and political war against the individualists and free marketeers as classical liberalism was largely a spent force by 1914. For the next 75 years socialism in its various forms (Marxist, National, Fabian) was to be the dominant intellectual force. However, I would argue that the arguments put forward by the Liberty and Property Defense League have found a new significance and relevance after the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991, the discrediting of the idea of centrally planned economies, and the rediscovery of market liberalism in the 1980s. Perhaps if societies had heeded the warnings and predictions of the dire consequences of socialism made by Mackay and his co-authors in the early 1890s some of the economic and political catastrophes of the 20th century might have been avoided. Dr. David M. Hart

Library of Economics and Liberty

April 2003 Further Reading “The Fabian Society” at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) website. “A Short History of the Fabian Society” at the Fabian Society website “A History of the Fabian Society” at the Fabian Society website

Translator/Editor

H. G. Wilshire, American editor.

First Pub. Date

New York: The Humboldt Publishing Co.

Collected essays, various authors. Includes "Industry under Socialism," by Annie Besant.

The text of this edition is in the public domain.

Table of Contents

Preface to the american edition, by h. g. wilshire.

• Preface to the English Edition, by G. Bernard Shaw

THE Fabian Society, which has already issued twenty-five thousand copies of this collection of essays, is an association of Socialists, including in their ranks some of the ablest of England’s economic writers, and having their headquarters in London, with affiliated independent branches in most of the principal cities and large towns of Great Britain and Ireland.

From the official statement of their principles, I quote as follows:

“The Fabian Society aims at the reorganization of Society by the emancipation of Land and industrial Capital from individual and class ownership, and the vesting of them in the community for the general benefit. In this way only can the natural and acquired advantages of the country be equitably shared by the whole people.

The Society accordingly works for the extinction of private property in land and of the consequent individual appropriation, in the form of Rent, of the price paid for permission to use the earth, as well as for the advantages of superior soils and sites.

The Society, further, works for the transfer to the community of the administration of such industrial Capital as can conveniently be managed socially. For, owing to the monopoly of the means of production in the past, industrial inventions and the transformation of surplus income into Capital have mainly enriched the proprietary class, the worker being now dependent on that class for leave to earn a living.

If these measures be carried out, without compensation (though not without such relief to expropriated individuals as may seem fit to the community), Rent and Interest will be added to the reward of labor, the idle class now living on the labor of others will necessarily disappear, and practical equality of opportunity will be maintained by the spontaneous action of economic forces with much less interference with personal liberty than the present system entails.

For the attainment of these ends the Fabian Society looks to the spread of Socialist opinions, and the social and political changes consequent thereon. It seeks to promote these by the general dissemination of knowledge as to the relation between the individual and Society in its economic, ethical, and political aspects.

The work of the Fabian Society takes, at present, the following forms:—

1. Meetings for the discussion of questions connected with Socialism. 2. Meetings of a more public character, for the promulgation of Socialist opinions. 3. The further investigation of economic problems, and the collection of facts contributing to their elucidation. 4. The publication of pamphlets containing information on social questions, or arguments relating to Socialism. 5. The promotion of Socialist lectures and debates in other Societies. 6. The representation of the Society in public conferences and discussions on social questions. 7. The organization of conferences of Social reformers, with a view to common action.

The purely political work of the Society is in the hands of its Political Committee.

The members, divided into local groups, are pledged to take part according to their abilities and opportunities in the general work of the Society, especially as regards their own localities, and although there is no compulsory subscription, are expected to contribute annually to the Society’s funds. The amount of each member’s subscription is known only to the Executive Committee.

The Society seeks recruits from all ranks, believing hat not only those who suffer from the present system, but also many who are themselves enriched by it, recognize its evils and would welcome a remedy.

The Society meets on the first and third Fridays in the month, at 8 p.m. Further information may be obtained from the Secretary, E. R. Pease, 276 Strand, W. C., London, England.”

To the American reader of these essays, it may prove a matter of surprise to learn that English Socialists find in the United States the most pronounced economic phenomena, which, to their eyes at least, seem to prognosticate the near approach of the coming social revolution. I refer to the “Trusts.”

It may be remarked, however, that while they consider the “Trust” as a symptom that the competitive system is in its last throes, they wait for the appearance of similar industrial combinations in England to stir Englishmen to a revolt; and that Americans, as if to square the account of ’76, are to learn revolution from their trans-Atlantic cousins.

By “revolution” is to be understood, of course, not violence, but a complete change of system; and by “revolutionists,” those who advocate such a complete change. As Lassalle reminded us years ago, trifling reforms may be, and often have been, accompanied by excessive bloodshed, while revolutions have worked themselves out in the profoundest tranquillity.

It seems to be typical of all social revolutionists that national pride always asserts itself, no matter how much patriotism may be decried as mere racial selfishness whenever discussion arises as to which nation is to be the first to throw off the shackles of capitalism.

The Fabian essayists certainly make out a strong case in England’s favor.

The German points with pride to the million and a half votes polled by the Socialists at the last elections for the Reichstag.

France, the mother of revolutions, sings the Marseillaise.

The Belgian asks but for universal suffrage to show the world what he will do in the way of revolution.

I, as an American Socialist, put forth my patriotic plea in favor of my own country’s prospects of being the first to inaugurate the era of industrial emancipation.

There is one point upon which I think all Socialists are agreed, namely, that it is one and the same golden chain that fetters the proletariat of all nations, and that the weakest link in that chain is the measure of the strength of the present social system. Snap but one link in any country, and at the same moment the proletariat of the world are free.

The social revolution, when it does come, must soon be international, (though resting perhaps for a period upon national Socialism). I imagine, for instance, that on gaining universal suffrage, Belgium’s proletariat should expropriate the capitalists and inaugurate a successful coöperative commonwealth. Is it possible to conceive that workingmen of all nations would not make a successful demand for the establishment of a like social system in their own respective countries? Moreover, the general industrial condition of the great nations is approximately the same. All complain of overproduction. All are vainly trying to solve the question of the unemployed; in all the tendency to great social change is a marked feature. In all the great capitalists, crushing out their smaller rivals and concentrating wealth into fewer and fewer hands, are the true progenitors of the revolution.

The proletariat of the United States, the nation that certainly furnishes the best educational facilities for demonstrating the advantages of the concentration and crystallization of capital, should naturally and logically be the first to strike for economic freedom. To-day, in the United States, 50,000 people, out of a population of over sixty-three millions, own everything worth having in the whole country.

Four men, viz.: Gould, Astor, Vanderbilt and Rockefeller, practically control, and, what is more important, are rapidly absorbing the wealth of this 50,000. The day is not so very far distant, and a sociologist can predict almost its exact appearance, just as an astronomer calculates the date of an eclipse of the sun, when, if no structural change in society takes place, these four men will be the sole owners of the United States. I think that, if such a state of affairs should come about, no one would differ with me when I say that it would force a reconstruction of society. In other words, the sixty odd millions of people in the United States may now rest undisturbed, and allow a plutocracy of 50,000 to own their country; but when it shall come to having only four own it, patience will cease to be a virtue.

That the tendency of the wealth of the United States is to concentrate into larger and larger masses, held by a constantly diminishing number of capitalists, is not disputed by anyone at all familiar with the statistics of the case. This process continued and followed to its logical conclusion must lead inevitably to Socialism. If Jay Gould & Co. are not to own the railways and telegraphs, the land and machinery, there can be but one possible successor, viz.: the people, as represented by the National government. Hence, the only possible chance of retarding the approach of Socialism, is to stop the tendency of capital to congeal in a few hands. Some plan must be devised to prevent Gould and Vanderbilt gobbling up more railways; to keep Astor’s hands off city lots, and to check Rockefeller’s insatiable and omnivorous appetite for industrial plants. It requires but slight intelligence to comprehend that neither a high nor a low tariff, nor free trade, would appreciably affect Vanderbilt’s income. Fiscal legislation, whether it takes the form of free coinage of silver, lending money on crops, or increasing paper money until the circulation is $50 or $5,000 per capita, will never divert the Pactolian stream which flows into Mr. Gould’s golden reservoir.

Even the nationalization of the railways and telegraphs, although proposed as a reactionary measure calculated to enable farmers, by obtaining lower freight rates, to increase their margin of profit sufficiently to enable them to hold their own as independent producers, would, if put into effect, but precipitate the very event which it is hoped to retard. Governmental ownership of railways would involve the payment of several thousand million dollars to the present owners of railway securities, all of which must seek reinvestment. Senator Carlisle’s objection as to the difficulty of raising the money for such a purchase is trivial. The credit of the United States is good enough to float bonds for many times the amount required, although to purchase at their present fancy valuation of watered stocks would be utterly unwise and unnecessary. The great problem to be solved is, as stated, for the present owners to find a safe and profitable place to reinvest the thousands of millions of dollars received in exchange for their railways. The channels for profitable investment of such a large amount of money are certainly not visible. It could not be spent in building new oil refineries, as Mr. Rockefeller, of the Standard Oil Trust, is armed with statistics to prove that there are too many oil refineries already. The same blockade to the entrance of fresh capital into the building of more sugar refineries is also sure to be encountered, as Mr. Havemeyer, of that trust, says that he is compelled to shut down part of the refineries already in existence, to prevent the unprofitable overproduction which would otherwise ensue. That there is absolutely no chance at all to-day to invest any considerable amount of capital in building new machinery of production in the United States, is a palpable truism with financiers. The only chance for an individual to invest is to purchase existing plants, but that simply is shifting the solving of the investment problem from one capitalist to another, and usually from the large capitalist to the small one.

Nationalization of the railways in the United States would mean the immediate expropriation of all small capitalists by the big ones. If Gould, Vanderbilt & Co. cannot own railways, they will invest their money, both principal and income, in flour mills, gas works, cotton mills, etc., and the pseudo-owners of those industries will soon be enlisted in the ranks of the proletariat under the banner of Socialism. Nationalization of the railways could not possibly be effected without causing the crystallization of all capital invested in the other industries of the United States in the hands of such a comparatively small number of owners that the advent of Socialism would certainly be almost instantaneous.

The problem of giving work to the unemployed, although just at present not a threatening one in the United States, is, however, destined soon to become one of the utmost importance, and at any time liable to come to the front.

There are, at present, according to Carroll D. Wright’s governmental statistics, on an average, over one million able-bodied men in the United States willing to work, yet unable to find employment. The pressure of these upon the ranks of the employed effectually prevents wages rising above the point of mere subsistence. Hence the very fact that we in the United States have such a fertile soil, in such unlimited quantities, such ingenious labor-saving machinery, together with an industrious and intelligent population, tends to make the problem of the unemployed but the more threatening, since these very elements only conduce to an enormous product per capita, with no corresponding methods of distribution. The old-time argument, that our great farming population, with its members all owning their own homes, would always prove an inseparable barrier to Socialism in the United States, is completely out of date, now-a-days, seeing that the greater part of our farmers are already proletarians, while the few that still own their own farms are hopelessly in debt, and even they are demanding the most Socialistic measures, such as national warehouses for grain, and nationalization of railways. Considering how near at hand is the great social metamorphosis, I would earnestly advise the readers of these exceedingly clever and able essays to give them deepest thought. They express clearly the nature of the crisis through which we are now passing, a crisis in which none who well understand it can fail to be vitally interested. We are now swinging on the hinge of destiny, we are in the transition state of the greatest sociologic event that history has yet recorded. Let him who runs, read.

The Basis of Socialism, Historic, by Sidney Webb.

The Politics Shed- A Free Text Book for all students of Politics.

How to answer an Edexcel exam question on socialism

You could get asked two questions on socialism in Paper 1. There is no guarantee that the two questions will be on more than one idea. All questions start with ‘To what extent…?’, so they are looking for you to evaluate the extent of agreement or disagreement.

Question topics

Questions will focus on the agreement and disagreement within the various strands. In socialism this is more complex, as you have three strands: revolutionary (Marxist), social democracy and the Third Way. Within these strands you also have division over the means (how to achieve goals) and ends (what kind of society you are trying to create). Do not worry about the strands within social democracy — you do not need to explore the difference between democratic socialism and social democracy. Questions may ask generally about agreement or disagreement between strands or will focus on specific areas such as the state. Make sure you are clear which type of question you are answering.

Divisions in socialism

·          Human nature: How collectivist is human nature? How important is the concept of common humanity ? To what extent are we the product of our environment? Marxists examine how human nature is damaged by capitalist society, but supporters of the Third Way believe that individuals can flourish within the globalised free market.

·         Society : Revolution or evolution as a means to achieve goals? Are socialists aiming for a completely equal society (in economic terms) or a more equal society? Socialists do not agree on what is meant by equality: while revolutionaries want social equality, social democrats wish to narrow the gap and Third Way supporters favour equal opportunities and reducing poverty.

·         State : Should the state — as a tool of the bourgeoisie, according to revolutionary socialists — be abolished by revolutionary means? Or, as social democrats believe, can you use the neutral state to achieve equality of outcome using intervention, such as nationalisation and progressive taxation?

·          Economy: Should capitalism be abolished via revolution or other means? Or can it be tamed and regulated, and economic growth used to help the many and not the few? Third Way supporters go even further and pragmatically support the free market.

Introduction

These essays are quite short (Edexcel 24 marks so about 25-30 minutes) So a one or two-line introduction will do. E xplain the debate, e.g.:

Although all socialists agree that society should be much more equal, there is significant disagreement over how to achieve it and what exactly it would mean.

Then add your line of argument, e.g.:

The divisions within socialism over the role of the state far outweigh the areas of agreement.

Socialists used to disagree significantly over the means of achieving their goals — revolution or evolution — but there is now much less disagreement, as revolutionary socialism has been discredited.

This is AO3, and must not be left to your conclusion — the examiner will expect to see it throughout the essay.

Main body of essay

The danger here is that you focus on the areas of division, as there are so many within socialism. Another hazard is that you simply describe the three strands in separate paragraphs and lose focus on the question until your conclusion. As all questions ask ‘To what extent…?’ you must look at agreement as well as disagreement (AO2). If your line of argument is that there is more disagreement than agreement, then start with a paragraph highlighting all the areas socialists agree on, in relation to the topic.

Use an agree disagree sandwich. This means three paragraphs in the main body of your essay with agree/disagree/agree or disagree/ agree/ disagree- depending on your line of argument. Your middle paragraph i.e. the line you are not arguing should be qualified - e.g distance yourself with phrases like 'It can be argued....' and end the middle paragraph with a restatement of your line. e.g 'Granted there are some differences/agreements  over ........however more fundamental differences/ agreements are 

 Add in a key thinker.

Areas of agreement:

·        A critique of capitalism as fundamentally damaging to human nature and society.

·        Common humanity and cooperation are natural.

·        A belief that inequality is not due to differing ability or effort but is the result of the fundamentally unfair structure of a society based on inherited privilege.

·        The plasticity, sociability and malleability of human nature — a positive and optimistic view of the possibility of improvement and the role of our surroundings in creating our personalities.

·        Equality of outcome — the need to eradicate or narrow the gap between rich and poor to ensure fairness, freedom and justice for all.

Finish your paragraph with a clear judgement (AO3) and link back to the exact wording of the question, such as:

Although there are significant areas of agreement over capitalism, the areas of disagreement between the strands are much more significant.

Then move onto the areas of division and pick out 2–3 significant aspects to write on. Use key thinkers to show contrast, e.g.:

Marx argued that capitalism created two classes, whose interests were utterly in conflict and irreconcilable. However, Crosland, writing in the mid-twentieth century, updated this view to argue that there was now a large and growing managerial class in the middle, and that instead of focusing on capitalism, socialists should focus on how to create a more equal society using progressive taxation and a generous welfare state.

Differences within socialism

Make sure you use the Edexcel specification terminology. For example, ‘bourgeoisie and proletariat’ is much more accurate than ‘rich and poor’ or ‘upper and lower class’.

Integrating the thinkers

You need to cite at least two thinkers or your mark will be capped. Three would be wiser. Use them to support and explain your ideas, rather than adding them to the end of a paragraph as an afterthought. For example, you can use Marx’s analysis of capitalism to explain the revolutionary socialist approach to the economy. Beatrice Webb is useful, as she bridges the gap between revolutionary and evolutionary socialism, rejecting violence and revolution but seeking radical alternatives to capitalism. She could be used to show how socialists agree in terms of their analysis of capitalism, even if they don’t agree on methods.

Do I need examples?

It is not necessary to include recent examples in socialism, such as Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn. There is probably no time, although you could include them in a conclusion if linked to the question, for example mentioning Sanders to show how Third Way ideas have not necessarily triumphed. Examples can be used to develop your AO2 evaluation and analysis points, such as showing how the creation of the welfare state by the postwar Labour government demonstrates how social democrats used the mixed economy and state intervention in order to create a more equal society. That said, you are very limited for time and it is much more important to include the key thinkers.

Do not sit on the fence. To get those AO3 marks you cannot argue that there is both disagreement and agreement. For example:

Socialists do agree that capitalism is deeply flawed and damaging to human nature and society. Therefore the agreement is more significant than the disagreement, which focuses on the alternatives.

clearly comes down on the side of agreement. You will have already mentioned your viewpoint in the introduction and in each paragraph, so it should not come as any surprise to the examiner.

How to write an essay on socialism and common humanity

A CRITIQUE OF UJAMAA VERSION OF AFRICAN SOCIALISM: TOWARDS ADVANCEMENT OF AFRICAN CAPITALISM [PhD Dissertation]

• October 2018
• Thesis for: Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in African Political Philosophy
• Advisor: Dr. Emmanuel Eyo and Dr. Emmanuel Etta

• University of Calabar

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• ENVIRON ETHICS

• Baruch A. Hazan
• J. Clyde Mitchell
• Abner Cohen
• West Polit Q
• Frank Untermyer
• Ronald Segal
• Colin Legum
• Kyrian Ojong
• Asira Asira

• Somik V. Lall
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Historical Study & Educational Resources

Sorry, there was a problem.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

Fabian Essays In Socialism Paperback – September 10, 2010

• Print length 268 pages
• Language English
• Publisher Kessinger Publishing
• Publication date September 10, 2010
• Dimensions 6 x 0.56 x 9 inches
• ISBN-10 1162938668
• ISBN-13 978-1162938660
• See all details

Product details

• Publisher ‏ : ‎ Kessinger Publishing (September 10, 2010)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Paperback ‏ : ‎ 268 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1162938668
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1162938660
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 12.8 ounces
• Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 6 x 0.56 x 9 inches

About the author

George bernard shaw.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Customer reviews

• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 5 star 56% 25% 0% 0% 19% 56%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 4 star 56% 25% 0% 0% 19% 25%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 3 star 56% 25% 0% 0% 19% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 2 star 56% 25% 0% 0% 19% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 1 star 56% 25% 0% 0% 19% 19%

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

• Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top review from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. please try again later..

• About Amazon
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell products on Amazon
• Sell on Amazon Business
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Become an Affiliate
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Host an Amazon Hub
• › See More Make Money with Us
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Amazon and COVID-19
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices

• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

In Their Own Words: Behind Americans’ Views of ‘Socialism’ and ‘Capitalism’

Socialism’s critics say it weakens work ethic; those with positive views say it fosters equality.

For many Americans, “socialism” is a word that evokes a weakened work ethic, stifled innovation and excessive reliance on the government. For others, it represents a fairer, more generous society.

Critics of socialism point to Venezuela as an example of a country where it has failed. People with positive views of socialism cite different countries, such as Finland and Denmark, as places where it has succeeded.

Earlier this year , Pew Research Center found that 55% of Americans had a negative impression of “socialism,” while 42% expressed a positive view. About two-thirds (65%) said they had a positive view of “capitalism,” and a third viewed it negatively.

But what’s behind these opinions? To find out, we asked people to describe – in their own words – why they had positive or negative impressions of socialism and capitalism.

Some who view socialism negatively portray it as a serious threat to capitalism in the U.S., while others who view it positively say the opposite – that it builds upon and improves capitalism. And some who have a positive view of socialism express an explicit preference for a system that blends socialism and capitalism.

The survey found that Republicans, in particular, viewed socialism and capitalism in zero-sum terms. A large majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (68%) had both a positive impression of capitalism and a negative view of socialism. However, Democrats and Democratic leaners were more likely to view both terms positively; a plurality (38%) had a positive impression of both socialism and capitalism.

While many of the open-ended impressions are revealing, a sizable share of people either did not share their views or articulated their reasons in simple terms, stating that socialism or capitalism is “good” or “bad,” or that one is better than the other. A quarter of those with a negative opinion of socialism – and 31% with a positive view – declined to offer a reason for their opinion.

But others mentioned history, the experiences of other nations, personal experiences or their own understandings of the terms in explaining the reasons behind their opinions of socialism and capitalism.

Socialism’s critics say it weakens work ethic; some point to Venezuela

Among the majority of Americans who have a negative impression of socialism, no single reason stands out. About one-in-five (19%) say that socialism undercuts people’s initiative and work ethic, making people too reliant on the government for support. As a 53-year-old man put it: “I believe in individual freedoms and choice. Socialism kills incentives for people to innovate and climb the ladder of success.”

About as many critics of socialism (18%) refer to how socialism has failed historically or in other countries, such as Venezuela or Russia. A comparable share of those with negative impressions of socialism (17%) say it is not consistent with democracy in the United States or is simply not right for the U.S.

Many with positive views of socialism say it fosters equality

About four-in-ten Americans (42%) have positive views of socialism. Among this group, the most frequently cited reason is that it will result in fairer, more generous society (31% say this). This includes 10% who specifically express a belief that it is important for the government to take care of its citizens or for fellow citizens to care for each other.

A smaller share of Americans who have a positive view of socialism say it would build upon and improve capitalism (20%). Some in this group say the U.S. already has socialism, in the form of government programs. Others specifically say they prefer a blend of socialism and capitalism. “A blend can ensure a thriving productive society for all,” said a 42-year-old woman.

Just 2% of those who have a positive view of socialism explicitly mention the phrase “democratic socialism” as the reason.

While some who express a negative view of socialism link it with countries like Venezuela, some of those with a positive view point to different countries – such as Denmark or Finland – as models. Among those with a positive impression, 6% say it has been a historical or comparative success, with most of these people citing how it has worked in European countries.

‘Capitalism’ viewed positively by about two-thirds of Americans

Among the 65% with a positive view of capitalism, many give reasons that contrast with criticisms of socialism. For example, while many who hold a negative view of socialism say it undermines initiative and makes people too dependent on government, nearly a quarter of those with a positive view of capitalism say it promotes individual opportunity (24% say this).

And while those with a positive view of socialism say it could bring increased equality, a common theme among critics of capitalism is that it has led to unequal distribution of wealth in this country.

Nearly a quarter of Americans who have a positive view of capitalism (24%) say they hold their views because the system provides opportunity for individual financial growth. A similar share (22%) expresses general positivity towards capitalism, saying that the system works.

One-in-five adults with positive views of capitalism associate the system with the foundation of America: They mention that capitalism has advanced America’s economic strength, that America was established under the idea of capitalism, or that capitalism is essential to maintaining freedom in the country.

Another 14% say that although they view capitalism positively overall, the system is not perfect. This includes 5% who say capitalism has caused economic inequality and corruption and 4% who express a desire to see more regulation or a mixed system with socialism.

“Capitalism is the worst way to set up a society, except for all the other ways,” said a 44-year-old man. “Free markets allow for more innovative solutions and for more people to succeed.”

When those who hold negative views of capitalism are asked why they hold this view, about a quarter (23%) say that capitalism creates an unfair economic structure, mentioning that the system only benefits a small number of people or that wealth in this country is distributed poorly.

A similar share (20%) says that capitalism has an exploitative and corrupt nature, often hurting either people or the environment.

A smaller share of Americans who have negative views of capitalism (8%) mention that corporations and wealthy people undermine the democratic process by having too much power in political matters. And 4% of those with a negative view say that capitalism can work, but to do so it needs better oversight and regulation.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Economic Systems
• Federal Government
• Politics & Policy

Modest Declines in Positive Views of ‘Socialism’ and ‘Capitalism’ in U.S.

East germany has narrowed economic gap with west germany since fall of communism, but still lags, the future of jobs and jobs training, china’s government may be communist, but its people embrace capitalism, the public supports a transatlantic trade pact – for now, most popular, report materials.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

The Thesis Statement

In Gordon Harvey’s  Elements of the Academic Essay , he makes a succinct attempt to define the thesis statement, stating that it is “your main insight or idea about a text or topic, and the main proposition that your essay demonstrates” (Harvey 1). He also places it foremost in his list of elements, with the implication that it is the most crucial component. The fact that Harvey uses the second person, “your main insight” and “your essay,” is significant. Rather than rehashing what has been discussed in class, a student presents her or his opinion in a hopefully simple sentence, and then devotes the following paragraphs to supporting it, defending against counters, and ideally convincing the reader.

This expected format of the academic essay, with the thesis statement, is contentious, as opined by Anne Berggren, who complains that “only in student writing is the writer expected to place at the end of the first paragraph a one-sentence of the conclusion the writer is aiming for and then, as students often put it, ‘prove’ that point” (Eisner, Caroline, ed. 54) While Berggren laces this statement with her own opinions, it is true from a personal standpoint, and it is also true that students do seek to create a single sentence meant to achieve numerous expectations, from presenting a provocative argument to conveying a general sense of the direction of the paper.

In  Writing Your Thesis , Paul Oliver establishes arguably neutral expectations of a thesis statement, stipulating that it have a “structure and format which help the reader to absorb the subject matter” and an “intellectual coherence which starts with precise aims” (Oliver 13). The ambiguity of these definitions is no coincidence; throughout the book, Oliver offers similar direction such as theses’ being “original contributions to knowledge” (20). It is important to acknowledge that Oliver is clearly part of the system in that the thesis is prevalent, that it is should presented as this “single sentence,” and that it is something that any student is capable of formulating. In  Avoiding Thesis and Dissertation Pitfalls , R. Murray Thomas and Dale L. Brubaker recognize this predicament by recording actual conversations between Professor and Student, with a professor allegorically explaining to a mystified student that “writing a thesis is rather like a strategy you adopt for helping someone find a place on a map. The strategy involves starting with a broad area that you are confident the person already knows, and then by gradual steps leading the person to the place you want to talk about” (Thomas and Brubaker 154). Though this reasoning is definitely clearer, thanks to lay analysis, it still is a broad concept that does little to investigate the means by which a student creates a good thesis statement.

Beyond these philosophical ideals, little natural proficiency at thesis statement composition should be expected among novice writers. In Virginia Perdue’s “Authority and the Freshman Writer: The Ideology of the Thesis Statement,” she addresses this understandable disparity and encourages that the writing instructor aim to think of different approaches to explain the purpose of thesis statement. She complicates the issue by pointing out that there are changing perceptions of academic argument that may be more apposite for first-year writing, and—taking a page from Berggren—that the format itself, in the form of a “simple” single sentence, is paradoxically complicated for students to engage in. In  Writing Research Papers , James D. Lester attempts to tackle this paradox by positing an approach to the thesis statement that divides it into a two-step process: first with the preliminary thesis that allows the writer to neatly prepare arguments, and then with the final thesis that is presented to the reader. “The two differ slightly because the preliminary thesis helps you explore issues for discussion while the final thesis sentence informs your audience of the particular issue being discussed” (Lester 24). While this process may seem helpful on the surface, it in actuality further elucidates the troublesome mystique that perplexes students.

The thesis statement and expectations of it bring forth a larger problem in the academic society in general. Novice student writers feel pressured to conform to this broad notion of what a thesis statement is. Tutors should be aware about allowing their students to be able to write effective academic papers without sacrificing their originality.

Works Cited

Eisner, Caroline and Martha Vicinus, ed. Originality, Imitation, and Plagiarism: Teaching Writing in the Digital Age. U Michigan Press, 2008.

Kellogg, Ronald T and Bascom A. Raulerson III. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Volume 14, Number 2, April 2007, pp. 237-242.

Lester, James D. Writing Research Papers: A Complete Guide. Scott, Foresman and Company, 1986.

Oliver, Paul. Writing Your Thesis Statement. London: SAGE, 1994.

Perdue, Virgina. “Authority and the Freshman Writer: The Ideology of the Thesis Statement.” Writing Instructor, v11 n3 p135-42 Spr-Sum 1992

Thomas, R. Murray and Dale L. Brubaker. Avoiding Thesis and Dissertation Pitfalls: 61 Cases of Problems and Solutions. Bergin & Garvey, 2001.

Mailing Address

Pomona College 333 N. College Way Claremont , CA 91711

Get in touch

Give back to pomona.

Part of   The Claremont Colleges

Political philosophy

C L R James and America

The brilliant Trinidadian thinker is remembered as an admirer of the US but he also warned of its dark political future

Harvey Neptune

Progress and modernity

The great wealth wave

The tide has turned – evidence shows ordinary citizens in the Western world are now richer and more equal than ever before

Daniel Waldenström

Neuroscience

The melting brain

It’s not just the planet and not just our health – the impact of a warming climate extends deep into our cortical fissures

Clayton Page Aldern

Falling for suburbia

Modernists and historians alike loathed the millions of new houses built in interwar Britain. But their owners loved them

Michael Gilson

Thinkers and theories

Rawls the redeemer

For John Rawls, liberalism was more than a political project: it is the best way to fashion a life that is worthy of happiness

Alexandre Lefebvre

Computing and artificial intelligence

Mere imitation

Generative AI has lately set off public euphoria: the machines have learned to think! But just how intelligent is AI?

Anthropology

Your body is an archive

If human knowledge can disappear so easily, why have so many cultural practices survived without written records?

Helena Miton

Illness and disease

Empowering patient research

For far too long, medicine has ignored the valuable insights that patients have into their own diseases. It is time to listen

Charlotte Blease & Joanne Hunt

Seeing plants anew

The stunningly complex behaviour of plants has led to a new way of thinking about our world: plant philosophy

Stella Sandford

Sex and sexuality

Sexual sensation

What makes touch on some parts of the body erotic but not others? Cutting-edge biologists are arriving at new answers

David J Linden

Nations and empires

The paradoxes of Mikha’il Mishaqa

He was a Catholic, then a rationalist, then a Protestant. Most of all, he exemplified the rise of Arab-Ottoman modernity

Knowledge is often a matter of discovery. But when the nature of an enquiry itself is at question, it is an act of creation

Céline Henne

After hiding the tool, if you would like to re-enable it, just press CTRL+U to open this window. Or, move your cursor near the tool to display it.

College Prep 101 Virtual Series

Office of Admission

• Important Dates

Contact Information

Phone: 253-535-7151

Fax: 253-536-5136

Email: [email protected]

Pacific Lutheran University 12180 Park Ave S Tacoma, WA 98447-0003

Social Media

• Request Information
• COVID-19 Information

College Prep 101: Expert Tips on Search, Applications & Essays

Feeling a little overwhelmed about how to find (and then successfully apply to) colleges.

This College Prep 101 webinar series – led by our admission counselor experts – is designed for you to feel confident going into your college search and make sure you’re putting your best self forward in the application process.

Watch one, two, or all of them to learn how to navigate this exciting (and sometimes stressful) next step in your education!

FYI: We’re using Zoom Webinar – no Zoom account, microphone, or camera is needed, but you will be able to ask live questions in the Q&A section. Just plan to access the webinar from a device of some kind (phone, laptop, chrome book, etc).

The College Search Process: Where do I start?

Tuesday, september 17, 6:30-7:00pm pt.

How do you choose a college? How do you pick the right type of school? What questions should you be asking to narrow down your search and how do you decide where to apply? These questions are common ones we hear at the beginning of the college search process. It can feel overwhelming, but after this webinar, you’ll know how to make a solid start.

College Applications: How to Land in the 'Yes' Pile

Wednesday, september 18, 6:30-7:00pm pt.

Have you wondered what the college application process is really like? How does an admission counselor at a 4-year university review your application? What classes should you be taking in high school? What experiences are important? Will a bad grade in one class ruin your chances of getting into your dream college? And what helps you as an applicant stand out from the crowd? If you are curious how to land in the ‘yes’ pile, then this webinar is for you!

The College Essay: Writing with Confidence

Thursday, september 19, 6:30-7:00pm pt.

Does a college essay really make a difference? Absolutely! But the hardest part is often deciding where to start and what to write about. We will cover how to pick a topic, how to sound authentic, and how to engage a reader (while also staying within the word count)! You’ll leave this webinar equipped with tips to make writing your admissions essay a breeze.

EXPLORE MORE

Schedule visit, meet your counselor, student videos.