communism vs socialism essay

The Differences Between Communism and Socialism

Public Domain/Wikipedia Commons

• History & Major Milestones
• U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights
• U.S. Legal System
• U.S. Political System
• Defense & Security
• Campaigns & Elections
• Business & Finance
• U.S. Foreign Policy
• U.S. Liberal Politics
• U.S. Conservative Politics
• Women's Issues
• Civil Liberties
• The Middle East
• Race Relations
• Immigration
• Crime & Punishment
• Canadian Government
• Understanding Types of Government
• B.S., Texas A&M University

The difference between communism and socialism is not conveniently clear-cut. The two terms are often used interchangeably, but these economic and political theories are not the same. Both communism and socialism arose from protests against the exploitation of the working class during the Industrial Revolution.

While applications of their economic and social policies vary, several modern countries—all ideologically opposed to capitalism —are perceived as either communist or socialist. In order to understand contemporary political debates, it's important to know the similarities and differences between communism and socialism.

Communism Vs. Socialism

In both communism and socialism, the people own the factors of economic production. The main difference is that under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens); under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government. This difference and others are outlined in the table below.

Key Similarities

Communism and socialism both grew out of grass-roots opposition to the exploitation of workers by wealthy businesses during the Industrial Revolution . Both assume that all goods and services will be produced by government-controlled institutions or collective organizations rather than by privately-owned businesses. In addition, the central government is mainly responsible for all aspects of economic planning, including matters of supply and demand .

Key Differences

Under communism, the people are compensated or provided for based on their needs. In a pure communist society, the government provides most or all food, clothing, housing and other necessities based on what it considers to be the needs of the people. Socialism is based on the premise the people will be compensated based on their level of individual contribution to the economy. Effort and innovation are thus rewarded under socialism.

Pure Communism Definition

Pure communism is an economic, political, and social system in which most or all property and resources are collectively owned by a class-free society rather than by individual citizens. According to the theory developed by the German philosopher, economist, and political theorist Karl Marx , pure communism results in a society in which all people are equal and there is no need for money or the accumulation of individual wealth. There is no private ownership of economic resources, with a central government controlling all facets of production. Economic output is distributed according to the needs of the people. Social friction between white and blue-collar workers and between rural and urban cultures will be eliminated, freeing each person to achieve his or her highest human potential.

Under pure communism, the central government provides the people with all basic necessitates, such as food, housing, education, and medical care, thus allowing the people to share equally from the benefits of collective labor. Free access to these necessities depends on constant advances in technology contributing to ever-greater production.

Karl Marx and the Origins of Communism

Socialism arose as a response to the struggles of the working class amidst the extreme social and economic changes caused by the Industrial Revolution in Europe and later in the United States. As many workers grew increasingly poor, factory owners and other industrialists accrued massive wealth.

During the first half of the 19th century, early socialist thinkers like Henri de Saint-Simon, Robert Owen and Charles Fourier proposed ways in which society might be reorganized in a manner embracing cooperation and community, rather than the competitiveness inherent in capitalism , where the free market controlled the supply and demand of goods.

In 1848, the German political philosopher and economist Karl Marx , with his collaborator Friedrich Engels, published The Communist Manifesto , which included a chapter criticizing those earlier socialist models as utterly unrealistic “utopian” dreams.

Marx argued that all history was a history of class struggles, and that the working class, or the “proletariat,” would inevitably triumph over the capital class, or the “bourgeoisie,” and win control over the means of production, forever erasing all classes.

“The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones,” wrote Marx and Engels.

Often referred to as “revolutionary socialism,” Communism also originated as a reaction to the Industrial Revolution, and came to be defined by Marx’s theories—taken to their extreme end. Marxists often refer to socialism as an early necessary phase on the way from capitalism to communism. Marx and Engels themselves didn’t consistently or clearly differentiate communism from socialism, which helped ensure lasting confusion between the two terms.

In 1875, Marx coined the phrase used to summarize communism, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

The Communist Manifesto

The ideology of modern communism began to form during the French Revolution fought between 1789 and 1802. In 1848, Marx and Friedrich Engels published their still-influential thesis “ Communist Manifesto .” Rather than the Christian overtones of earlier communist philosophies, Marx and Engels suggested that modern communism demanded a materialistic and purely scientific analysis of the past and future of human society. “The history of all hitherto existing society,” they wrote, “is the history of class struggles .”

The Communist Manifesto depicts the French Revolution as the point at which when the “bourgeoisie,” or merchant class took control of France’s economic “means of production” and replaced the feudal power structure, paving the way for capitalism . According to Marx and Engels, the French Revolution replaced the medieval class struggle between the peasant serfs and the nobility with the modern struggle between the bourgeois owners of capital and the working class “proletariat.” 

Pure Socialism Definition

Pure socialism is an economic system under which each individual—through a democratically elected government—is given an equal share of the four factors or economic production: labor, entrepreneurship, capital goods, and natural resources. In essence, socialism is based on the assumption that all people naturally want to cooperate, but are restrained from doing so by the competitive nature of capitalism.

Socialism is an economic system where everyone in society equally owns the factors of production. The ownership is acquired through a democratically elected government. It could also be a cooperative or public corporation in which everyone owns shares. As in a command economy , the socialist government employs centralized planning to allocate resources based on both the needs of individuals and society as a whole. Economic output is distributed according to each individual’s ability and level of contribution.

In 1980, American author and sociologist Gregory Paul paid homage to Marx in coining the phrase commonly used to describe socialism, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution.”  

What Is a Social Democracy?

Democratic socialism is an economic, social, and political ideology holding that while both the society and economy should be run democratically, they should be dedicated to meeting the needs of the people as a whole, rather than encouraging individual prosperity as in capitalism. Democratic socialists advocate the transition of society from capitalism to socialism through existing participatory democratic processes, rather than revolution as characterized by orthodox Marxism. Universally-used services such as housing, utilities, mass transit, and health care are distributed by the government, while consumer goods are distributed by a capitalistic free market. 

The latter half of the 20th century saw the emergence of a more moderate version of socialist democracy advocating a mixture of socialist and capitalist control of all means of economic production supplemented by extensive social welfare programs to help provide the basic needs of the people.

What Is Green Socialism?

As a recent outgrowth of the environmental movement and the climate change debate, green socialism or “eco-socialism” places its economic emphasis on the maintenance and utilization of natural resources. This is achieved largely through government ownership of the largest, most resource consumptive corporations. The use of “green” resources, such as renewable energy, public transit, and locally sourced food is emphasized or mandated. Economic production focuses on meeting the basic needs of the people, rather than a wasteful excess of unneeded consumer goods. Green socialism often offers a guaranteed minimum livable income to all citizens regardless of their employment status.

Communist Countries

It is difficult to classify countries as being either communist or socialist. Several countries, while ruled by the Communist Party, declare themselves to be socialist states and employ many aspects of socialist economic and social policy. Three countries typically considered communist states—mainly due to their political structure—are Cuba, China, and North Korea.

The Communist Party of China owns and strictly controls all industry, which operates solely to generate profits for the government through its successful and growing export of consumer goods. Health care and primary through higher education are run by the government and provided free of charge to the people. However, housing and property development operate under a highly competitive capitalist system.

The Communist Party of Cuba owns and operates most industries, and most of the people work for the state. Government-controlled health care and primary through higher education are provided free. Housing is either free or heavily subsidized by the government.

North Korea

Ruled by the Communist Party until 1946, North Korea now operates under a “Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.” However, the government owns and controls all farmland, workers, and food distribution channels. Today, the government provides universal health and education for all citizens. Private ownership of property is forbidden. Instead, the government grants people the right to government-owned and assigned homes.

Socialist Countries

Once again, most modern countries that identify themselves to be socialist may not strictly follow the economic or social systems associated with pure socialism. Instead, most countries generally considered socialist actually employ the policies of democratic socialism.

Norway, Sweden, and Denmark all employ similar predominantly socialist systems. The democratically chosen governments of all three countries provide free health care, education, and lifetime retirement income. As a result, however, their citizens pay some of the world’s highest taxes.   All three countries also have highly successful capitalist sectors. With most of their needs provided by their governments, the people see little need to accumulate wealth. As a result, about 10% of the people hold more than 65% of each nation’s wealth.  

Additional References

• Engels, Frederick (1847). " Principles of Communism .”
• Bukharin, Nikoli. (1920). " The ABCs of Communism .”
• Lenin, Vladimir (1917). " The State and Revolution Chapter 5, Section 3 ."
• "The Difference Between Communism and Socialism." Investopedia (2018).
• Marx, Karl (1875). " The Critique of the Gotha Programme (From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs)"
• Paul, Gregory and Stuart, Robert C. " Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First Century ." Cengage Learning (1980). ISBN: 9780618261819.
• Heilbroner, Robert. " Socialism ." Library of Economics and Liberty.

Kallie Szczepanski  contributed to this article.

Pomerleau, Kyle. "How Scandinavian Countries Pay for Their Government Spending." Tax Foundation . 10 June 2015.

Lundberg, Jacob, and Daniel Waldenström. "Wealth Inequality in Sweden: What Can We Learn from Capitalized Income Tax Data?" Institute of Labor Economics, Apr. 2016.

• What Is Communism? Definition and Examples
• What Is Socialism? Definition and Examples
• Socialism vs. Capitalism: What Is the Difference?
• The Main Points of "The Communist Manifesto"
• What Is a Traditional Economy? Definition and Examples
• Command Economy Definition, Characteristics, Pros and Cons
• What Is Anarchy? Definition and Examples
• A Brief Biography of Karl Marx
• What Is Capitalism?
• What You Need to Know About the Paris Commune of 1871
• Understanding Karl Marx's Class Consciousness and False Consciousness
• Karl Marx's Greatest Hits
• Mode of Production in Marxism
• 15 Major Sociological Studies and Publications
• A List of Current Communist Countries in the World
• What Is Social Class, and Why Does it Matter?

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

How Are Socialism and Communism Different?

By: Sarah Pruitt

Updated: November 4, 2020 | Original: October 22, 2019

Both socialism and communism are essentially economic philosophies advocating public rather than private ownership, especially of the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods (i.e., making money) in a society. Both aim to fix the problems they see as created by a free-market capitalist system, including the exploitation of workers and a widening gulf between rich and poor.

But while socialism and communism share some basic similarities, there are also important differences between them.

Karl Marx and the Origins of Communism

Socialism emerged in response to the extreme economic and social changes caused by the Industrial Revolution , and particularly the struggles of workers. Many workers grew increasingly poor even as factory owners and other industrialists accrued massive wealth.

In the first half of the 19th century, early socialist thinkers like Henri de Saint-Simon, Robert Owen and Charles Fourier presented their own models for reorganizing society along the lines of cooperation and community, rather than the competition inherent in capitalism, where the free market controlled the supply and demand of goods.

Then came Karl Marx , the German political philosopher and economist who would become one of the most influential socialist thinkers in history. With his collaborator Friedrich Engels, Marx published The Communist Manifesto in 1848, which included a chapter criticizing those earlier socialist models as utterly unrealistic “utopian” dreams.

Marx argued that all history was a history of class struggles, and that the working class (or proletariat) would inevitably triumph over the capital class (bourgeoisie) and win control over the means of production, forever erasing all classes.

Communism , sometimes referred to as revolutionary socialism, also originated as a reaction to the Industrial Revolution, and came to be defined by Marx’s theories—taken to their extreme end. In fact, Marxists often refer to socialism as the first, necessary phase on the way from capitalism to communism. Marx and Engels themselves didn’t consistently or clearly differentiate communism from socialism, which helped ensure lasting confusion between the two terms.

Key Differences Between Communism and Socialism

Under communism, there is no such thing as private property. All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on what they need. A strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production, and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.

By contrast, under socialism, individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.

Another key difference in socialism versus communism is the means of achieving them. In communism, a violent revolution in which the workers rise up against the middle and upper classes is seen as an inevitable part of achieving a pure communist state. Socialism is a less rigid, more flexible ideology. Its adherents seek change and reform, but often insist on making these changes through democratic processes within the existing social and political structure, not overthrowing that structure.

In his 1875 writing, Critique of the Gotha Program , Marx summarized the communist philosophy in this way: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” By contrast, socialism is based on the idea that people will be compensated based on their level of individual contribution to the economy.

Unlike in communism, a socialist economic system rewards individual effort and innovation. Social democracy, the most common form of modern socialism, focuses on achieving social reforms and redistribution of wealth through democratic processes, and can co-exist alongside a free-market capitalist economy.

Socialism and Communism in Practice

Led by Vladimir Lenin , the Bolsheviks put Marxist theory into practice with the Russian Revolution of 1917, which led to the creation of the world’s first communist government. Communism existed in the Soviet Union until its fall in 1991. 

Today, communism and socialism exist in China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos and Vietnam—although in reality, a purely communist state has never existed. Such countries can be classified as communist because in all of them, the central government controls all aspects of the economic and political system. But none of them have achieved the elimination of personal property, money or class systems that the communist ideology requires.

Likewise, no country in history has achieved a state of pure socialism. Even countries that are considered by some people to be socialist states, like Norway, Sweden and Denmark, have successful capitalist sectors and follow policies that are largely aligned with social democracy. Many European and Latin American countries have adopted socialist programs (such as free college tuition, universal health care and subsidized child care) and even elected socialist leaders, with varying levels of success.

In the United States, socialism has not historically enjoyed as much success as a political movement. Its peak came in 1912, when Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs won 6 percent of the vote. But at the same time, U.S. programs once considered socialist, such as Medicare and Social Security , have been integrated into American life.

What Is Democratic Socialism? 

Democratic socialism, a growing U.S. political movement in recent years, lands somewhere in between social democracy and communism. Like communists, democratic socialists believe workers should control the bulk of the means of production, and not be subjected to the will of the free market and the capitalist classes. But they believe their vision of socialism must be achieved through democratic processes, rather than revolution. 

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Communism vs. Socialism

In a way, communism is an extreme form of socialism . Many countries have dominant socialist political parties but very few are truly communist. In fact, most countries - including staunch capitalist bastions like the U.S. and U.K. - have government programs that borrow from socialist principles.

Socialism is sometimes used interchangeably with communism but the two philosophies have some stark differences. Most notably, while communism is a political system, socialism is primarily an economic system that can exist in various forms under a wide range of political systems.

In this comparison we look at the differences between socialism and communism in detail.

Comparison chart

Economic differences between socialists and communists.

In a Socialist economy, the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. On the other hand, in a communist society, there is no centralized government - there is a collective ownership of property and the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

For a Capitalist society to transition, the first step is Socialism. From a capitalist system, it is easier to achieve the Socialist ideal where production is distributed according to people's deeds (quantity and quality of work done). For Communism (to distribute production according to needs ), it is necessary to first have production so high that there is enough for everyone's needs. In an ideal Communist society, people work not because they have to but because they want to and out of a sense of responsibility .

Political differences

Socialism rejects a class-based society. But socialists believe that it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to socialism without a basic change in the character of the state. They hold this view because they do not think of the capitalist state as essentially an institution for the dictatorship of the capitalist class, but rather as a perfectly good piece of machinery which can be used in the interest of whichever class gets command of it. No need, then, for the working class in power to smash the old capitalist state apparatus and set up its own—the march to socialism can be made step by step within the framework of the democratic forms of the capitalist state. Socialism is primarily an economic system so it exists in varying degrees and forms in a wide variety of political systems.

On the other hand, communists believe that as soon as the working class and its allies are in a position to do so they must make a basic change in the character of the state; they must replace capitalist dictatorship over the working class with workers’ dictatorship over the capitalist class as the first step in the process by which the existence of capitalists as a class (but not as individuals) is ended and a classless society is eventually ushered in.

Video: Socialism vs. Communism

The following is a very opinionated video that explains the differences between communism and socialism:

• World Socialist Movement
• Wikipedia: Socialism
• Wikipedia: Communism

Related Comparisons

Share this comparison via:

If you read this far, you should follow us:

"Communism vs Socialism." Diffen.com. Diffen LLC, n.d. Web. 26 Feb 2024. < >

Comments: Communism vs Socialism

Anonymous comments (5).

September 5, 2010, 5:47pm No political system works the way it should because in every system there are always going to be those who have the power and change the system to make themselves more powerful. That is the way of Humanity. Politics is a twin to religion in that no person agrees with every tenet of their party/group/sect and has their own views as to how things should be, or what is the truth. People thrive on conflict/competition and because of that there is no "system" that will work for everyone, or in every situation, because we all seem to "agree to disagree" about almost all issues. Everyone wants more...most cannot be content just being content and need to feel "better" than someone to feel good about their own situation. Political leaders are usually in it for the power that comes with the office, not to really make a change for the good of the many. NO decision is for the good of everyone, except possibly the "keep the stupid from breeding" thing, but, good luck with that! — 98.✗.✗.193

March 23, 2014, 3:51am Socialism is a non-profit system in which people pay only for the cost of something, without paying extra to enrich a shareholder who didn't actually do any work. Imagine replacing corporations with nonprofit cooperatives. The workers benefit, because they keep the money they receive for their labor. The consumers benefit, because they get things at cost. We already do this for certain services, like public roads, police and fire departments, libraries, and public parks. Socialism is compatible with democracy and freedom. Corporate capitalism is an insane system that adds a third party into the transaction who overcharges the consumer, underpays the workers, and pockets billions for himself. Those billionaires use the money they steal to bribe politicians and hire lobbyists who then write the rules to benefit the billionaires and harm you. Billionaires also hire armies of propagandists to get gullible rubes to vote against their own interests, and support policies that give the billionaires more control over the economy. (Some of the comments here are rantings from the brainwashed minions of Roger Ailes.) This is why capitalism is not compatible with democracy and freedom. It degrades into a plutocracy (or oligarchy of the wealthy) in which the masses serve the needs of the elite few. Workers in the US have steadily increased in their productivity since WWII, while their standard of living has decreased. All of the benefit of that extra productively has been siphoned off to create a parasitic class of billionaires. (Billionaires are not something to be proud of, but rather a symptom of a failed economic system in which profits are distributed according to authority, rather than contribution.) Marx believed that socialism was a transition to communism, but he was wrong about that, and many other things. Communist movements have all quickly degraded into facist dictatorships. Stalin for example executed the communists and hijacked the Russian revolution. Communism is not a realistic system for any group larger than a small tribe. — 76.✗.✗.223

March 26, 2010, 2:19pm 24.21.84.143 stated the following on 2009-10-12 23:05:18 "I wish Americans would become more educated and less slaves to the false idea that everyone can be rich. It is entirely illogical and immoral." IT ISN'T "EVERYONE" CAN BE RICH -- IT IS "ANYONE" CAN BE RICH!! THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES - BUT ALL HAVE A CHANCE TO REACH FOR SOMETHING BETTER, AND A GREATER PERCENTAGE WILL SUCCEED UNDER CAPITALISM THAN UNDER SOCIALISM OR COMMUNISM. EACH OF US MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SITUATION - THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH, IN SPITE OF WHAT IS BEING PREACHED TODAY. SOMEONE HAS TO BE PRODUCTIVE IN ORDER TO GENERATE THE WEALTH TO PROVIDE THE BENEFITS! — 64.✗.✗.90

March 30, 2010, 12:58pm "These ideologies are used in powerplays, much like religion and racism, by those that believe they are more intelligent than everyone and want to feed on the labor of others like Clinton, Pelosi and Reid want."...and Nixon, and Reagan, and Bushes, and Greenspan, and Gingrich, and Limbaugh, Beck, Leiberman, Palin, McCain... — 72.✗.✗.130

December 16, 2009, 10:33am @ 98.219.54.147 who says: Which system do you think offers you a better chance? One where an all-powerful government tells you what to do and when and for how long, or you being able to chose your own path through a free-market system. Except that in a Social Democracy, the PEOPLE are the government -- perhaps you are referring to a Social tyranny, and then I'd agree with you. Since I am the vehicle of my own power in a Social Democracy, and I along with a majority favor, say, government building roads, then that is majority rules. There is no big bad bugaboo government because WE are the government. — 71.✗.✗.106

• Capitalism vs Socialism
• Joe Biden vs Donald Trump - On All Issues
• Liberal vs Conservative
• Left Wing vs Right Wing
• Democrat vs Republican
• Communism vs Fascism
• Communism vs Democracy

Edit or create new comparisons in your area of expertise.

Stay connected

© All rights reserved.

Advertisement

What's the Difference Between Socialism and Communism?

• Share Content on Facebook
• Share Content on LinkedIn
• Share Content on Flipboard
• Share Content on Reddit
• Share Content via Email

The Soviet Union was the world's first communist country, so why was its official name the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)? Are socialism and communism actually the same thing?

Yes and no, says Norman Markowitz , a history professor at Rutgers University who has taught a course on the history of socialism and communism for the past 40 years.

"' The Communist Manifesto ,' published by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848, became the foundation of both socialism and communism," says Markowitz, but there are clearly differences between authoritarian communist regimes like the Soviet Union and China, and far more democratic forms of socialism practiced in countries like Sweden, Canada and Bolivia.

To understand the differences between socialism and communism, we have to start with their common enemy: capitalism.

Capitalism and the Class Struggle

The rise of socialism, communism as 'revolutionary socialism', from marxism to leninism, socialist and communist countries today.

Marx and Engels viewed the entirety of human history as a " history of class struggles ." In ancient Rome, there were patricians, plebeians and slaves. In feudal societies, there were lords, apprentices and serfs. In the 18th century, political and economic revolutions in England, America and France had done away with feudalism and replaced it with capitalism.

"By the 1820s and 1830s, capitalism had produced a world of progress and poverty," says Markowitz, meaning that the Industrial Revolution and the creation of free-market economies had greatly benefited the wealthy classes, who owned the factories and farms (the "means of production"), while leaving the average worker even worse off than the feudal serf.

Marx and Engels divided the modern world into two classes: the bourgeoisie who owned the means of production, and the proletariat or the working class. Capitalism, with its emphasis on cheap labor, had created an ever-widening gulf between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, a problem that could only be fixed by completely dismantling the politico-economic system that created it.

What's important to point out is that Marx and Engels weren't the first to have these ideas. They were the latest in a long line of economic and political theorists who all identified as socialists.

Socialism as a movement began in the early 19th century with thinkers like Henri de Saint-Simon, Robert Owen and Charles Fourier. Disgusted with the inequalities created by capitalism and competition, early socialists proposed the creation of workers' collectives with shared ownership of property, farms and factories.

"From the 1820s through the 1840s, there were various different socialist movements that attracted workers, farmers and alienated intellectuals," says Markowitz, "and all kinds of plans and programs to establish socialist collectives."

Owen, a wealthy Scottish industrialist, even founded such a community called New Harmony in Indiana in 1825, which eventually failed.

Socialism, both then and now, advocates for cooperation rather than competition, by opposing an unrestricted market economy. Under a socialist system, citizens pay high income taxes in exchange for free access to government-run programs and services. In some socialist models, all industry and means of production are state-owned, while other models allow for private ownership of businesses with public control of certain sectors like health care, energy, education and transportation. The goal of socialism is to create a more egalitarian society.

Marx and Engels were fierce critics of the earlier "utopian" forms of socialism that were "doomed to failure," in their words, because they were based on the naive belief that the class struggle could be resolved through peaceful means.

"Marx and Engels believed that eventually the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat would create a crisis in which the capitalist system would need to be abolished and replaced with a socialist system," says Markowitz. "It wouldn't be a utopian system, but a system in which the working class have the political power."

"The Communist Manifesto" was a socialist call to arms. In it, Marx and Engels argued that the only way to end the class struggles that had defined history was through a socialist revolution. After the revolution, society would be ruled by a " dictatorship of the proletariat ." Under capitalism, the bourgeoisie called the shots, but a government ruled by the workers would put the workers' interests first and not those of a wealthy elite.

For Marx and Engels, communism was the most advanced form of socialism. They saw the evolution of advanced societies as starting with capitalism, moving to socialism and finally reaching the ultimate goal of communism. Under proletariat rule, the communists would abolish private ownership of land, farms and factories, and hand all control over to the state. Housing, medical care and education would all be free, and every worker would have a job.

In a way, Marx and Engel's vision of a truly communist society was also utopian. They believed that at some point the state itself would cease to exist, and the workers would simply share everything. As Marx famously wrote : "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

"In that higher stage of communism, there would be general equality and general abundance," says Markowitz. "People could do whatever they want without harming others. They would be genuinely free."

But Marx and Engel's version of revolutionary socialism, also known as Marxism, was never really put into practice. Instead, the world's first communist revolution happened in an unlikely place, Tsarist Russia, and its political mastermind was Vladimir Lenin .

Lenin was a Marxist, but he put his own twist on communist theory. Lenin was a champion of the workers, but he wasn't confident that a "dictatorship of the proletariat" would spontaneously form after the revolution. In place of a "dictatorship" elected or appointed by the workers, Lenin preferred a dictatorship of the Communist Party .

Under Leninism, all power was put in the hands of a political elite that controlled all aspects of Soviet economic, cultural and intellectual life with the goal of creating a more equitable socialist society. In reality, Leninism slipped into authoritarianism and totalitarianism with violent crackdowns on dissent or opposition.

The ideas put forth in "The Communist Manifesto" inspired generations of political thinkers and economic theorists. Some of those individuals formed socialist political parties to win power by democratic means, while others, like Lenin and Mao Zedong, launched communist revolutions. The result, today, are countries and governments that identify as either socialist or communist or both!

Scandinavia is home to a cluster of democratic socialist countries. Countries like Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark have elected socialist democrat parties into power, and their legislatures have passed laws establishing expansive "welfare states." In a socialist welfare state, citizens pay high taxes, but enjoy generous social services including free education (including college), free health care, retirement pensions, paid parental leave, subsidized housing and more.

"While the traditional liberal model of democracy only emphasizes individual liberty, the social democratic model, according to its proponents, stresses both liberal and egalitarian ideals," wrote John Patrick in " Understanding Democracy, A Hip Pocket Guide ." Critics of democratic socialism, he added, would claim that "positive state action to provide egalitarian social programs requires extensive redistribution of wealth and excessive government regulation of the society and economy." This, in turn, would minimize the principles of individual liberty.

It's important to point out that in democratic socialist countries, private ownership of business and free-market capitalism are also allowed to exist. And while socialist parties are currently in power, they are not one-party governments. Other political parties are allowed to campaign and run for office.

That's not the case in so-called communist countries like China, Cuba and Vietnam, and wasn't true in the former Soviet Union, either. Those nations are one-party regimes where the authority of the Communist Party is unquestioned and the party chooses government officials, not the people. While there is no real democracy in these countries, capitalism has made significant inroads, particularly in China and Vietnam.

Meanwhile, just to keep things confusing, all of the countries that we call "communist" still think of themselves as socialist, just different flavors of socialism.

"China is developing its own model of socialism that's very different from the Soviet Union," says Markowitz. "China's model retains power in the hands of a government controlled by the Communist Party, but it's also created a capitalist sector that's become the second biggest economy in the world over the last 40 years."

The truth, says Markowitz, is that there has never been a truly "communist" country in Marx's sense of the word, just as there has never been a true democracy. "These are ideals that one works toward and struggles to achieve."

Socialism hasn't had much success in American politics since Eugene Debs ran for president in the early 20th century, but there are now four members of the House of Representatives who belong to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rashida Tlaib from Michigan. The organization has over 92,000 members in the U.S.

Please copy/paste the following text to properly cite this HowStuffWorks.com article:

Communism Vs. Socialism: Peeling Back the Layers of Collective Thought

This spirited essay breaks down the distinctions between communism and socialism, painting them as distinct yet interconnected ideologies aiming for collective prosperity. Communism is portrayed as a radical vision advocating for a classless society, where everything is shared, inspired by figures like Karl Marx. On the other hand, socialism is depicted as a more measured approach that seeks to refine, rather than overhaul, existing structures, promoting public ownership and democratic governance within the framework of a structured society. The essay acknowledges the tumultuous history and diverse outcomes of these ideologies in practice, emphasizing their complex journey from theory to real-world application. It also addresses the contemporary usage of these terms, encouraging a deeper understanding beyond political rhetoric. The piece invites readers to view communism and socialism not just as political labels but as rich, thought-provoking concepts that challenge us to envision and debate different pathways to social justice and collective well-being.

Also at PapersOwl you can find more free essay examples related to Communism.

How it works

Let’s get real about communism and socialism – two terms that often get tossed around like hot potatoes in political chat rooms and dinner table debates. While they both rock the boat of traditional capitalism and share a vibe of collective good, they’re not just two peas in a pod. They’ve got their own flavors, histories, and recipes for shaking up society.

Communism, the brainchild of big thinkers like Karl Marx, dreams of a world where everyone’s on the same level – no class divides, no private property, just one big collective where everything’s shared.

Sounds pretty out there, right? It’s all about flipping the script on the current system, and historically, it’s had its moment with revolutions that tried to turn this vision into reality, though not without a fair share of bumps (or boulders) along the way.

Now, slide over to socialism. It’s like communism’s more chill cousin. Socialism says, “Hey, let’s take things slow.” It’s not about tossing the state or private property out the window but making sure they play nice for the benefit of everyone. It’s about tweaking the system, adding a dash of democracy here, a pinch of public ownership there, all to cook up a society that’s fair but still keeps its structure.

But let’s not sugarcoat it – the journey from theory to practice for both these ideologies has been a wild ride. From the Soviet Union’s take on communism to the cozy welfare states that have a socialist twist, the world’s seen it all. It’s a mixed bag of results that shows just how tricky it is to take these big ideas and make them work in the real, messy world.

And nowadays, ‘communism’ and ‘socialism’ often get thrown around more like political slurs than actual discussion points. But if you dig into their stories, their struggles, and their aspirations, there’s a whole world of thought there. They’re not just political buzzwords; they’re visions of how we might live together, share the wealth, and build a society that’s got each other’s backs.

So next time you hear ‘communism’ or ‘socialism,’ think beyond the red flags and the Cold War vibes. Think about the people, the ideas, and the endless debates on how to make a world that’s a bit fairer, a bit kinder, and a lot more interesting. Whether you’re all in or skeptical, understanding these ideologies is like adding a new lens to your worldview camera – it’s all about getting the bigger picture.

Cite this page

Communism vs. Socialism: Peeling Back the Layers of Collective Thought. (2024, Jan 26). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/communism-vs-socialism-peeling-back-the-layers-of-collective-thought/

"Communism vs. Socialism: Peeling Back the Layers of Collective Thought." PapersOwl.com , 26 Jan 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/communism-vs-socialism-peeling-back-the-layers-of-collective-thought/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Communism vs. Socialism: Peeling Back the Layers of Collective Thought . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/communism-vs-socialism-peeling-back-the-layers-of-collective-thought/ [Accessed: 19 Apr. 2024]

"Communism vs. Socialism: Peeling Back the Layers of Collective Thought." PapersOwl.com, Jan 26, 2024. Accessed April 19, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/communism-vs-socialism-peeling-back-the-layers-of-collective-thought/

"Communism vs. Socialism: Peeling Back the Layers of Collective Thought," PapersOwl.com , 26-Jan-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/communism-vs-socialism-peeling-back-the-layers-of-collective-thought/. [Accessed: 19-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Communism vs. Socialism: Peeling Back the Layers of Collective Thought . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/communism-vs-socialism-peeling-back-the-layers-of-collective-thought/ [Accessed: 19-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, socialism vs communism: a comprehensive guide.

General Education

Socialism vs communism: you probably see these terms pop up in many places, from your social media timeline to the evening news. Many times, people use them interchangeably to talk about politics and economics. But these terms actually mean different things! They may seem similar, but there are actually some key differences between socialism and communism (and other similar forms of government!).

So what do these terms really mean? What are the factual differences between socialism vs communism vs Marxism? How do they compare to other political systems, like fascism and capitalism?

We know: these are tough questions! We’ve done the research to bring you credible answers to these complex questions about socialism vs communism and other political systems. In this article, we’ll give you a detailed guide to socialism vs communism, as well as the following:

• A deep dive into socialism, and a deep dive into communism
• A socialism vs communism chart with side-by-side comparisons
• A brief comparison of fascism vs communism vs socialism vs Marxism vs capitalism 

When you’re done reading this article, you’ll understand the differences between socialism and communism, how each system works, and how they compare to other government and political systems. 

Socialism vs Communism: A Quick Overview

Socialism generally refers to any social, economic, or political system that is based on public, social ownership of property and the means of production (such as mines, mills, and factories) and democratic control of business. The overarching purpose of socialism is to create more equality by ensuring the public--not private citizens--own the means of production.

In other words, socialism takes the aspects of society that affect everyone and brings them under the control of government, such as utilities, education, and healthcare. But the government doesn’t control everything: socialism also allows for private enterprise and business ownership, too. 

Socialism is a flexible philosophy that has many forms that range from democratic socialism to communism that differ based on how much control the government exerts over social and economic systems. But the big takeaway is this: all forms of socialism are based on the common idea that the government— and by extension, the citizens the government represents—should own and regulate the aspects of society that provide for basic human needs.  

In contrast, communism is a philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology that ultimately aims to establish a society based on the idea that all property, resources, and goods (aka the means of production) should be owned by the public. These things become communally owned--hence the name commun ism--and are distributed by the government since the government represents the people.  In a communist society, private property, profit-based economy, and social classes are eliminated, and each individual is provided for according to their needs. 

Just like socialism, there are different communist schools of thought that vary based on how many rights citizens have in relation to the government. But one view they all share is that capitalism and its two-class system (i.e. the working class/proletariat and the ownership class/bourgeoisie) is the root cause of society’s problems and inequalities . As a result, communism calls for an overthrow of capitalism and the social class system through social revolution. 

The biggest similarity between socialism vs communism is that they are based on a similar core principle: to give power and control back to the working class people that build and sustain society. But while socialism maintains some form of private enterprise and ownership, communism abolishes that system and transfers social ownership to the government. In that way, communism is a more extreme form of socialism . 

We’ll dig into more of the differences between these systems a bit later in the article (we’ve even put together a handy table for you). But first, let’s take a more in-depth look at both socialism and communism. 

Socialism believes that a society's means of production--like health and education systems--should be owned by the public, rather than by private individuals. 

What Is Socialism? 

Below, we’ll go into the specifics of socialism, give you a brief history of the term, and provide some examples of socialist governments around the world. 

Socialism: Overview and Definition

Socialism is a social, economic, and political doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership and control of property and natural resources. Those publicly owned resources are then managed and distributed by the government. 

Like we mentioned above, there are different types of socialism, and they differ based on how much the government controls and how much is left to private industry. Some socialist systems will only give government ownership of social institutions that are considered basic human rights. Other socialist systems may eliminate the private sector entirely. 

But why does socialism advocate for public ownership of property and goods? As an economic theory for how society should be organized, socialism states that the means of producing wealth should be controlled by the workers in a society, not by the elite or ownership classes. Socialists believe that the money made belongs to workers who make the products. 

History of the Term

The contemporary term “socialism” has its origins in the early 19th century, coming from the French word socialisme. The word finds its roots in the Latin sociare, which means to combine or to share. It also has ties to the term societas, which is found in Roman and medieval law and refers to a consensual contract of fellowship between free people. These roots reflect the core philosophy of socialism: that the means of production and its profits should be shared among and controlled by the public. 

The term “socialism” or “socialized” is often used by modern political parties and the media to describe political platforms, government policies, politicians, or even entire countries. But at its core, socialism is a type of economic system that is designed to eliminate inequality and improve quality of life by placing power in the hands of society’s workers .

Socialism has been around in some form since classical times, and its meaning has changed some over time. Below, we’ll briefly cover the two most important points in the history of socialism, namely socialism in the Industrial Revolution and in the 20th century. 

Socialism in the Industrial Revolution

While socialist ideas date back much further, the earliest use of the term “socialism” used to refer to economic reform can be pinpointed in the 1820s and 1830s. 

The modern term “socialism” was originally coined by French theorist Henri de Saint-Simon toward the end of the Industrial Revolution between 1820 and 1840. Saint-Simon and other prominent philosophers were the first to critique the poverty and inequality of the capitalist system that was ushered in by the Industrial Revolution. In response, socialist thinkers advocated the transformation of society into small communities without private property. 

As a political movement, modern day socialism started with the revolutionary attitude of 18th century philosophers that advocated for the rights of the working class and pushed for social change.

As socialism rose in popularity throughout the end of the 19th century, movements split into two main groups: a reform movement, which advocated a social democratic form of socialism, and a revolutionary movement, which advocated uprising against existing capitalist economies in favor of communism. 

Socialism in the 20th Century

During the 20th century, socialism began to spread throughout the world as socialist parties began winning elections.  

For example, take Socialist Party of Argentina, which was established in the 1890s. It was the first mass socialist party in Argentina and Latin America. The British Labour Party--also socialist!--first won seats in Parliament in 1902. And in 1904, the first democratically elected socialist took office as the first Labor Party Prime Minister in Australia. These widespread elections of socialist representatives were the first of the kind on an international scale, bringing socialism into view as the most influential secular movement of the 20th century. 

Socialism became more prominent following the international conflicts of World War I . In 1917, the Bolshevik Revolution occurred in Russia, led by philosopher Vladimir Lenin . Lenin and the Bolshevik faction of socialists overthrew the Russian monarchy and installed the first ever constitutionally socialists state, known as the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic. 

Around the world, other socialist parties began to gain importance in their national politics. By the 1920s, communism and socialist democracy had become powerful political ideologies. It was also during this time that the key distinction between socialism and communism was solidified. While socialism allowed for, and even encouraged, a private sector within an economy, communism embraced its anti-capitalist foundations. 

Denmark is an example of a country with a socialist government.

Examples of Socialist Governments Today

Today, socialist ideals can be implemented in almost any kind of government, because socialism is not tied to a specific form of government or political ideology. Socialism can be incorporated into democratic, republic , capitalist, and other systems of government as part of an economic system, domestic policy, or a political party’s ideology. In other words, a government doesn’t need to be set up in a special way for it to be “socialist .” 

It’s important to recognize that “socialist” can be used to refer to a philosophy, form of government, political party, and economic system. This is why it isn’t necessarily accurate to refer to a country as socialist. In most cases, it’s probably more accurate to call a country’s economy socialist, or to say that a socialist political party is in power in a particular country. Some countries might have socialism heavily embedded in one aspect of their societal structure, but not necessarily in others.

Here are a few countries that incorporate socialism into their governing structure but still allow for private enterprise and ownership: 

• Germany 
• Iceland 

We can look more closely at one country that combines both socialist and capitalist structures: Denmark. This will help you understand what aspects of socialism look like in practice. 

Denmark follows the Nordic Model , which refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. 

Denmark’s version of the Nordic Model fits the description of democratic socialism for two main reasons. First, it supports a comprehensive welfare state where things like healthcare and higher education are owned by the people and run by elected government officials. But Denmark also operates a capitalist, market-based economy that relies on private enterprise. 

Denmark’s robust social benefits are funded by taxpayers and administered by the government. Denmark’s social benefits include free education, universal healthcare, and public pension plans for retirees. Additionally, 66 percent of Danish workers belong to a labor union, and in 2014, Denmark was the only nation to receive a perfect score for protecting workers’ rights on the International Trade Union Confederation's Global Rights Index. Because of these policies, Denmark is known for its high standards of living and low income disparity. 

At the same time, Denmark has a capitalist economy. Private ownership and free trade--trademarks of capitalist economies--are heavily supported. Denmark offers strong property rights for its citizens and allows companies to do business without overwhelming government oversight.

So Denmark combines socialist policies that promote social equality with capitalist economic systems like those you would find in countries like the United States! The result is that Denmark has a low concentration of top incomes and low levels of inequality. It also ranks high globally for healthy life expectancy, generosity, and freedom from corruption. Denmark is consistently in the top 10 of countries on the World Happiness Report . 

Communism believes that all  aspects of society should be owned by the public so that everyone is provided for equally. 

What Is Communism?

Now let’s take a closer look at communism. Like we mentioned earlier, communism falls under the umbrella of socialism because it also argues that the public should own and control a country’s means of production. Just like socialism, communism believes this philosophy lowers inequality and increases people’s quality of life. 

However, communism takes this concept one step further in its belief that capitalist and class systems should be completely rejected in favor of total public ownership. In other words: the public should own everything to ensure a fair distribution of wealth, goods, and services. The government--which represents the public’s interests--manages these institutions, which include everything from schools, to hospitals, to copyrights or trademarks . Doing so eliminates inequality perpetuated by a class system where the workers’ labor builds the wealth of a very few. 

To help clarify these differences, we’ll take a deeper dive into communism as an ideology, give you the history of the term, and provide some examples of communist governments today. 

Overview of Communism and Definition

Communism is a social, economic, and political doctrine that aims to establish a society based on collective ownership. As an economic theory for how society should be organized, communism states that the socioeconomic order must be structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state. 

The goal of communism is total equality between citizens, which is maintained by the government. Because the government represents the people, it is able to distribute the country’s collective resources in a way that ensures everyone has equal access to the things they need. 

Communists believe that capitalism is the root cause of society’s inequalities , and that it has divided society into two diametrically opposed classes: the ruling class, or the bourgeoisie, and the working class, or the proletariat . According to communism, true equality can only happen when the working class rises up to overthrow the ruling class...and capitalism is abolished. 

The contemporary term “communism” is derived from the French communisme which developed out of the Latin roots communis , or “for the community,” and the suffix isme, or “as a state or doctrine . ” Thus, communism can be understood to mean “the state of being of or for the community.” 

Because of this broad definition, communism can describe many different social systems , from the state system of entire countries to the organizing ideology of small, informal communities. For instance, some medieval Christian monastic communities shared their land and resources and were considered communist! 

Today, the term “communism” or “communist” is often used by political parties and the media to describe economic and political organizations that are Marxist, totalitarian, or authoritarian. While sometimes these descriptions are apt, like in the case of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, the term “communist” can also be used as a misnomer applied to people or ideas that challenge capitalist ideologies. So for example, sometimes concepts like the Affordable Care Act are labeled “communist” not because they are actually communist, but because they advocate for a less capitalist approach to an industry or service.  

Now let’s take a closer look at the history of communism. In the next sections, we’ll briefly cover the following important stages in the development of communism: 

• Early communism
• Marxist communism 
• 20th century communism

Early Communism

The idea of a class-free, egalitarian society first emerged in ancient Greece . The Greek philosopher Plato incorporated communist ideals into The Republic , his famous dialogues on what makes a just society. The Republic describes an ideal society in which the ruling class serves the interests of the whole community. 

Many of the earliest communist communities were based on the teachings of the Christian scriptures . Their model of communist living is outlined in the Christian Bible, which describes the early church in Jerusalem's communal ownership of land and possessions.  

Communism also popped up in Puritan communities during the 17th century in England. This group, called “the Diggers,” supported the abolition of private ownership of land . Unlike modern forms of communism, which focus on urban and industrial life, communities like the Diggers were concerned with promoting communal ownership and use of land in agrarian and rural societies. 

The French Revolution was one of the final major turning points in the development of communism before the 20th century. During this period, the French aristocracy lived lavish lives while the French working class suffered through unemployment, homelessness, and soaring food prices. The working class rose up against the monarchy, advocating for the abolishment of the aristocracy and equal redistribution of wealth among the French people. 

Inspired by the revolutionary spirit and successful uprisings of the French people, communist ideas took root across Europe and East Asia in the 19th century and beyond. 

Communism vs Socialism vs Marxism 

In the 1830s and 1840s, the communist ideas of German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels became popular with socialist thinkers and revolutionaries throughout Europe. 

Marx and Engels were deeply disturbed by what they saw as the injustices of a society divided by class. They claimed that the subjugation of the proletariat/working class was inevitable under capitalism because in capitalist societies, the people who own systems of production end up controlling most of the wealth. Marx and Engels argued that under capitalism, the ruling class--made up of people like industry moguls and factory owners--would become richer while the working class struggled to make ends meet. If capitalism were replaced by communism, they maintained, these structural and systemic issues would be solved. 

Marx and Engels wrote and distributed The Communist Manifesto in order to advance their vision of a revolutionary socialism that would unseat capitalism. Their purpose in writing the manifesto wasn’t to describe an ideal communist society, but to argue that the collapse of capitalism and uprising of the working classes were inevitable. To them, communism was the next step toward a more equal society. 

It’s important to recognize that Karl Marx didn’t create communism. Marxism (this variety of communism) is popular, but it’s not the only type of communism out there. Leninism , Maoism , and anarchist communism are all different communist schools of thought, too.   

However, Marx’s take on communism became very popular at the beginning of the 20th century, and many well-known revolutions of that period were rooted in Marx’s communist ideology. Because of this, Marx became one of the most influential proponents of communism during the 20th century, and that legacy still influences many people’s understanding of communism today. 

20th Century Communism

After World War I, communism started to spread internationally. Revolutions based on communist thought occurred during this time, and the first communist governments were instituted in Europe and other parts of the world. 

For example, Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin led the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 to overthrow the Russian monarchy. Lenin was a major supporter of Marx’s views of socialism and communism, and this perspective shaped his revolutionary ideas and the government he installed in Russia after the revolution. 

Lenin believed that communism was the ideal way to run a society. So in 1918, Lenin’s political party--which was now in power--renamed itself the All-Russian Communist Party. This was the beginning of the Soviet Union , the most well-known communist state of the 20th century. 

The emergence of the Soviet Union as the world's first communist state led to communism's widespread association with Marxism, Leninism, and the Soviet economic model . Other countries’ communist governments were modeled after the Soviet Union during the mid-20th century. These communist states included Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Albania, and Romania. 

The Soviet Union was the premier communist superpower on the global stage for most of the 20th century . Because of the Soviet Union’s influence, communism was increasingly viewed as a threat to capitalism until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. The ongoing conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War plays a significant role in shaping people’s perceptions of communism today. 

China is an example of a modern country that has a (mostly) communist government. 

Examples of Communist Governments Today

There are several communist governments in the world today. These countries typically have a communist political party in power, and the government controls all aspects of the economic and political system. 

One thing to keep in mind: there’s never really been a purely communist state. All of the communist governments that have existed have not accomplished the elimination of personal property, money, or class systems. This means they’ve never achieved the ultimate goal of communist ideology and, thus, can’t be considered purely communist states. 

However, there are countries whose most prominent governing ideologies are communist. Today, communism exists in the following five countries: 

• China, or the People’s Republic of China
• Cuba, or Republic of Cuba
• Laos, or Lao People’s Democratic Republic
• Vietnam, or Socialist Republic of Vietnam
• North Korea, or Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

We can look more closely at one country that has a communist government and a socialist market economy: China, or the People’s Republic of China. This will help you visualize what a communist government looks like in action. 

In 1949, Mao Zedong took control over China and proclaimed the nation a communist country , calling it the People's Republic of China . China has been called "Red China" ever since due to the Communist Party's control, and the country remains communist today. 

But China is not a purely communist country . It has other political parties besides the ruling Communist Party of China (CPC) that aren’t expressly communist. China also holds local, open elections throughout the country. Because of the CPC’s long legacy, though, it rarely faces opposition from other political parties during elections. 

Because China’s government is run by a largely unopposed communist party, a significant portion of its economy is government-controlled. However, China has opened up its economy in recent years and transitioned from a socialist economy to a socialist market economy, where private enterprise is allowed but heavily regulated by the government. 

Unlike a pure communist state, China’s constitution recognizes private property as of 2004. Privately-owned firms generate a significant percentage of China’s GDP, and investors and entrepreneurs can take profits within parameters set by the state. China’s economy also supports international trade. Today, China is the second largest economy in the world. 

Socialism vs Communism Chart: Key Points Comparison

Now that we’ve done a deep dive into the meaning and history of socialism vs communism, let’s condense these philosophies down to their core differences. Check out our Socialism vs Communism chart for a side-by-side comparison of these systems below. 

Socialism and communism are just two types of governments. Here's how they stack up to some other well-known government systems. 

Socialism vs Other Major Political Systems

You now understand the differences between socialism vs communism, but did you know that these philosophies are often confused with other social and political movements? We’ll briefly clarify the differences between socialism, communism, and three other prominent philosophies: Marxism, fascism, and capitalism. 

Let’s start with communism vs socialism vs Marxism. Marxism refers to the communist political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marxism argues for the dissolution of capitalism--including private ownership, social systems, and money--to eliminate inequality and improve people’s quality of life. 

Marxism is a type of communism, but it’s not the only type out there. Communist systems like Leninism, Maoism, and Marxism are slightly different from one another, usually on the basis of how much--or what type--of control government should have over distributing communal property. 

Fascism 

What about fascism vs communism vs socialism? Fascism is a political ideology that promotes authoritarianism and ultra-nationalism. Fascist states are run by dictators, which are individual people who run the entirety of the government according to their will. Dictators and fascist leaders forcibly suppress opposition and maintain tight control of society and the economy, usually through increased militarization. 

Actually, neither communism nor socialism are considered fascist. That’s because fascism is all about giving power to one individual who controls everything, whereas socialism and communism want to distribute power to every citizen through collective ownership. 

Having said that, many people mistakenly assume that both socialist and communist governments are always fascist . That’s due in part to two reasons. The first is that the Nazi party in Germany called itself the “National Socialist German Workers' Party.” Unfortunately, that means some people automatically assume all socialism is akin to Nazism, which isn’t true. (In fact, Nazis are in many ways opposed to socialism, which advocates that everyone should be equal regardless of race or class.) 

The second reason has to do with the history of communism globally. Many--but not all!--communist governments have been authoritarian, meaning that one appointed leader wields governmental power and makes decisions for the entire nation. This isn’t an inherent characteristic of communism, but the history of authoritarian communist governments means that people sometimes believe that communism and fascism go hand in hand. 

Finally , capitalism is an economic system based on private rather than state control of a country's trade and industry for profit. Countries that have a capitalist system can coexist with elements of socialism, but the free market remains mostly unhindered by socialist policies. In other words, the government controls little--if any!--of the country’s economic structures. Instead, it’s up to private enterprise to maintain the means of production. 

In most cases, communism is incompatible with capitalism because the ultimate goal of communism is abolishing capitalism. But countries that embrace socialist social ideals can also have capitalist economies. France, Australia, and New Zealand are examples of countries that do this. 

What's Next?

If you’re interested in government, don’t miss our article on democracies vs republics. We’ll explain all the key differences to help you understand the ins and outs of these governing systems. 

There’s a lot more to learn about how the U.S. government works, too. For instance, did you know that the U.S. government is set up based on a checks and balances system? You can learn more about this balancing mechanism here. If you’re interested in a specific example of how this works, don’t miss our explainer on how the executive branch checks the judicial branch of government. 

If you’ve found this article because you’re prepping for your AP Government exam, we have lots more resources for you on our blog. Here’s a huge list of awesome study resources, and our experts can even help you figure out how to answer those pesky FRQs. 

Ashley Sufflé Robinson has a Ph.D. in 19th Century English Literature. As a content writer for PrepScholar, Ashley is passionate about giving college-bound students the in-depth information they need to get into the school of their dreams.

Student and Parent Forum

Our new student and parent forum, at ExpertHub.PrepScholar.com , allow you to interact with your peers and the PrepScholar staff. See how other students and parents are navigating high school, college, and the college admissions process. Ask questions; get answers.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

• For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

• 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. In his 1924 Dictionary of Socialism , Angelo Rappoport 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 n.d. in Other Internet Resources (OIR) ; Dardot & Laval 2014).

When characterizing socialist views, it is useful to distinguish between three dimensions of a conception of a social justice (Gilabert 2017a). 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). 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). 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). 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). 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).

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), 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 4.1 .

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; 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.

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. 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 access 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 is not one 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), and defended a right to opportunities for meaningful work against the charge that it violates a liberal constraint of neutrality about conceptions of the good (Gilabert 2018b: sect. 3.3). (For more discussion on alienation and self-realization, see Jaeggi 2014: ch. 10.)

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. (See also the general analysis of the concept of alienation in Leopold 2018.)

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. In 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; 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).

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). More recently, 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 (Ronzoni 2018).

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; 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. 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 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], 2015 [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. 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, which has (as of 2015) over 70,000 worker-owners participating in a network of cooperative businesses). 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 other worries are the following (Gilabert 2015). First, the model makes no explicit provision regarding real opportunities for work in self-managed firms. To cater more fully for ideals of self-determination and self-realization, 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 help stabilize the welfare state as the menace of communist revolution did after 1945. 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).

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; 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). 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 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).

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 tamable—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). 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). 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).

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). 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 Juergen 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, 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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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).
• Cohen, G. A., 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.
• 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.
• 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 ]
• 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.
• 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 ]
• 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.
• 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]
• 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.
• 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
• 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, 2018, “Alienation”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/alienation/ >
• 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.
• Löwy, Michel, 2005, Ecosocialism. A Radical Alternative to Capitalist Catastrophe , Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.
• Lukes, Steven, 1985, Marxism and Morality , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• 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.
• –––, 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]
• Morsink, Johannes, 1999, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Origins, Drafting and Intent , Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• 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.
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
• White, Stuart, 2015, “Basic Capital in the Egalitarian Toolkit?”, Journal of Applied Philosophy , 32(4): 417–431. doi:10.1111/japp.12129
• 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
• Wark, McKenzie, 2016, Molecular Red: Theory for the Anthropocene , London: Verso.
• 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 )
• 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 )
• Schweickart, David, 2015, “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 a referee, Samuel Arnold, Christopher Brooke, Lee Churchman, Michaela Collord, Chiara Cordelli, Katrina Forrester, Roberto Gargarella, Carol Gould, Alex Gourevitch, Alex Guerrero, Daniel Hill, Brendan Hogan, Juan Iosa, Bruno Leipold, Su Lin Lewis, Fernando Lizárraga, Romina Rekers, Indrajit Roy, Sagar Sanyal, Claire Smith, Lucas Stanczyk, Roberto Veneziani, Nicholas Vrousalis, Stuart White, Jonathan Wolff, and Lea Ypi.

Copyright © 2019 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 © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Socialism Vs Communism Differences and Similarities

The socialism vs communism essay is aimed at making comparisons and contrasts on the two economic systems. In this article, we will explain in detail the similarities and differences that exist between socialism and communism. For a better understanding of socialism vs communism, we will explain the two economic systems (socialism and communism) as well as their advantages and disadvantages.

Table of Contents

What is socialism?

Socialism is an economic system in which the government is in full ownership and control of trade and industry. In essence, it is the government that owns and controls all means of production . The economic system is after basic societal needs, it is not based on self-interest. Competition does not have a place in this system due to the focus on basic societal needs. So in essence, this system is for the good of society, everyone. A major characteristic is that the government has full control over the economy. Another name for socialism is a centrally planned economy.

Theoretically, the socialist economy is classless. Most economies are neither pure capitalists nor pure socialists. The classless economic feature of socialism is not totally fulfilled.

Who is a socialist?

A socialist is someone who advocates for or supports the idea of socialism. Socialists believe that in society, everything comes about through the cooperative efforts of the state through the help of citizens and the people of the economy.

In essence, a pure socialist economy permits no private ownership and control of legal production. The government is in charge of all legal productions and distribution. That means the government makes all economic decisions. Even if socialism permits private ownership, individuals may possess just little property. By implication, no individual has the right to own large means of production such as companies and factories. This feature of the direct opposite of capitalism .

Socialism is a centrally planned economy, it is the government that provides answers to the basic economic problems in society. They make decisions pertaining to the prices of goods and services which they should charge.

The rule of engagement here is that all individuals receive an in their efforts or contributions according to their ability. For this reason, individuals in this economy work very hard. As the description of this economic system works for the good of everyone, the implication is that the government takes care of those that do not have the ability to contribute to economic development . This category of people includes the aged, children, disabled, less privileged, etc.

Socialist countries

Examples of socialist countries include;

• Soviet Union
• Turkmenistan

Socialism pros and cons

1. advantages of socialism, absence of exploitation.

This economic system does not give any room for exploitation. That means the government makes sure that nobody exploits another. So each individual will receive and contribute according to their potentials/abilities. The government guarantees access to everyone’s basic needs. Those that cannot contribute especially the disabled have the privilege to enjoy this access. The good thing about it is that it is a mechanism for reducing the poverty level in an economy. Everyone enjoys equal rights to health facilities and other social welfare.

Minimize poverty

As a result of the fact that people who cannot contribute also enjoy certain access to basic needs helps to minimize poverty. In essence, minimizing poverty comes as a result of the fact that everyone is equal. So everyone has equal rights to social welfare.

Rejection of discrimination

Because everyone has equal rights, this system does not approve of any form of discrimination. Everyone can do what they are best at with higher pay for those jobs that no one is available to do but yet needs to be done.

Encourages selflessness and social welfare

This economic system is not based on selfish interest, the focus is on the needs of society. Capitalism bases on consumers’ purchasing power which makes the poor to be worse off. Socialism on the other hand works towards preventing such things from happening. Socialism tends to be selfless, carrying out products based on the people’s basic needs and necessities. In essence, the system places more priority on the people’s needs. The citizens have no cause to worry about what happens tomorrow. This factor tends to lead to an increase in productivity.

In this system, the government makes provision for a conducive working environment. This aims at reducing the risks that are peculiar to the jobs, and this also provides a comfortable working condition for them. That is, the government is responsible for any accident that occurs in the course of a job operation.

Reduced hidden taxes

Hidden taxes are those taxes on consumer goods that describes the incidence of taxation . This is a case in which firms transfer their taxes to consumers without their knowledge. More weight of the tax burden rests on the final consumer. So, a real socialist economy does not have taxes. This is because the government is in possession of everything and pays allowances to the people.

Social justice

There are lots of benefits and advantages attached to social justice. This is because the system reduces inequalities thereby easing equitable distribution of national income . Everyone has the right to enjoy their own share of the national wealth and equal opportunities. This facilitates the elimination of consumer exploitation. In simple terms, equal distribution of wealth and income is present.

Rapid and balanced economic development

The centrally planned nature of this economic system makes the state make prompt plans and decisions with regard to the allocation of resources. So, the plan tends to foster efficient use and utilization of resources which helps to minimize wastage. his leads to rapid economic growth. The development of the USSR in the early years is a typical example.

We can say that the system eases balanced economic growth and development. It also means that an imbalance in focusing on development is minimal. That is, the central planners will not focus on some aspects of development while leaving others behind. So, economic growth and development in various areas are commensurate.

Minimal exploitation and class conflict

One of the major aims of socialism is to create a classless society that fosters equality for every individual. A situation in which the rich will exploit the poor does not exist in this case. No discrimination and no favoritism but this can only happen if the government is transparent. Everyone is equal in the economy. This, in turn, helps to eliminate any form of class struggles that is common in the capitalist economic system.

2. Disadvantages of socialism

Over-dependenc e.

When people are over-dependent on corporate pooling for things to be done is a big disadvantage. Such an economy expects everyone to be cooperating constantly without any form of competition. In this system, competitive individuals are seen as the cause of social catastrophe for their self-interests.

It kills innovation

Because competition is absent here, people do not have the incentives to be innovative. Competitors and business ventures do not have any reward for competing. This tends to amount to the production of sub-standard products.

No choices and freedom

Socialism makes no provision choices to the people in terms of the products to purchase as well as the brands like capitalism do. Due to the monopolistic nature of this system, people face coercion to buy a particular product at a particular price. Also, the system takes away people’s freedom of enterprise and free choice of occupation. The central planning committee assigns jobs to workers. With this, no worker has the right to change his job without the government’s consent.

Lack of incentives

A typical socialist economy should not have taxes levied on people. But here, higher progressive taxation tends to cause disincentives to work harder or set up businesses. In such cases, entrepreneurs have this feeling that the government is taking a high proportion of their profits. As a result of this, some people avoid risks and migrate to other countries instead. Extra efforts will not constitute an added advantage as the system kicks against individual wealth accumulation. This negatively affects the incentive to hard work and innovation.

Government failure

Though the idea is that the government will succeed in regulating all sectors of the economy. Government intervention may be prone to government failure and inefficient resource allocation. For instance, the regulation of the labor market such as minimizing or maximizing the working period can lead to unemployment. This can amount to a lack of flexibility. Also, a corrupt government will only jeopardize the economy. Due to the high rate of government regulation on firms, it discourages investment and this lowers economic growth and development.

No suitable basis for calculating cost

Under capitalism, market forces (demand and supply) determine the cost of production as well as the subsequent prices of commodities. Under socialism, this is not the case. The government owns and controls everything, that is the role of an entrepreneur. This means that the means of production do not have a market price. So because of this, there is no suitable basis for calculating the cost of production as well as the price of goods and services.

Most times, people use socialism and communism interchangeably but they do not mean the same thing. The two terms are distinct from each other, not the same philosophy. The reason for this confusion is that both socialism and communism seek to establish a classless society where everyone has equal opportunities. Also, both systems have to do with the public ownership of capital or productive resources as well as the contribution based on one’s ability. These features mentioned above made the two terms look like the same thing.

Communism refers to a social and economic system in which the community owns and controls the trade and industry of a country. Each individual’s share greatly depends on their ability and needs. In essence, the state owns and controls all means of production and distribution as well as properties. Everyone contributes or produces according to his ability and resource allocation is according to their needs. Like socialism, communism is a classless economic system where everyone is regarded as equal. The entire community owns and controls all means of production and properties. In essence, it is all about communal ownership and control of factors of production rather than individual ownership.

Who is a communist?

A communist is someone who believes that the challenges of an economy are not a result of capitalism, not the individuals’ faults. It can also mean a person who believes that the solutions to economic depressions, inflation, poverty, etc. lie in the establishment of socialism. A communist is someone who believes in total equality, that is people having equal rights and opportunities regardless of tribe, religion, nationality, or race. A communist also means a person who believes in, advocates for, or supports communism.

Communist countries

Communist countries that exist in the world include;

• Vietnam (Socialist Republic of Vietnam)
• North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea)

Communism pros and cons

1) advantages of communism.

Communism helps to cover up the gap that exists between the rich and the poor. This is a result of the fact that the system creates a classless society and economy. Most countries of the world have a very wide gap between the rich and the poor. This makes it so obvious that only a minority group of people are able to gather almost all the wealth while the general public or the masses possess little and almost nothing. It makes the whole thing look unfair and this calls for bridging this wide gap.

One of the possible ways to narrow this gap is to introduce the idea of communism. In this economy, individuals can own almost nothing. This implies that the wealthy will have to lose their wealth while the masses will enjoy the benefits of wealth distribution.

Food and medical supply assured

The system guarantees food supply, medical facilities, and other infrastructure to the masses. In an event of a health emergency, there is no cause to worry about because medical facilities are assured. Also, there is no cause to worry about the issue of hunger because the system has assured food supply. This happens so because the state is totally in charge of all production processes. With this, the system helps to protect the local population against health challenges and hunger. This tends to enable the government to expand its production which eases optimal distribution of food supply and health facilities. With this, the masses will be able to survive.

Enhancement of the education infrastructure

Here, the government is in total control of all education facilities. They are responsible for funding educational institutions which assures a high level of education. As a result of this, people who have low-income opportunities will also have the privilege to access adequate education. So, a higher level of educational equality is possible through communism.

Investments in infrastructure

Because the ownership of private property is almost non-existent, the government is responsible for maintaining and expanding infrastructural facilities within the locality. Of course, this greatly benefits the general public. In this case, the government places more consideration on important projects that they should achieve within a short period of time. It is true that most infrastructural facilities gear towards benefiting the majority of the local population, that is the masses instead of just small interest groups.

Greater priority on social goals

This economic system prioritizes more on social goals than that of few people. The system places more importance on social benefits and welfare than on personal interests. There is absolutely nothing like lobbying when it comes to the issue of political decisions for the benefit of just a few people. Under this economy, the government makes sure that general public benefits are in place. That is, communism tends to be a great means of presenting the needs of the masses and avoiding lobbying in political decisions.

Lower unemployment rates

Every individual is meant to contribute their own share to the benefit of the masses. So this implies that no single individual is unemployed. So this means that virtually everyone has the ability to contribute positively in their own unique ways. With this, everyone remains busy and contributes immensely towards improving the overall standard of living within a country.

Overall safety level improvement

As the state has full control over production and employment, it also has the power to improve the overall level of safety and security in a country. For example, the government may decide to waive certain benefits for an individual who goes against the laws. It can as well engage such a person in jobs that do not have a conducive and favorable atmosphere. This strategy helps to discourage violations of the law.

Avoidance of corporate monopolies

Higher tendencies of corporate monopolies exist in the free-market economy. This is a result of the low level of regulations on the economy and politics. These monopolies are usually harmful to an economy and the general public due to the high prices of goods and services. This monopoly also means losing social welfare. Communism is an important tool for preventing this unfavorable circumstance. This, in turn, helps to increase social welfare by lowering the prices of products and services.

Minimal discrimination

Communism is basically characterized by a classless society where every single person enjoys equal opportunities. This helps in minimizing the problem of discrimination against some groups of persons. The impact of this is that it helps ease the opportunity to succeed and have access to proper education. In turn, the system increases the chances of minority groups in different areas of life.

In other words, every single person has similar opportunities to achieve success in life. That is, even those with disabilities and handicaps will not lag behind because communism helps to provide more opportunities for a better and comfortable life for them.

2) Disadvantages of communism

Free market malfunctioning.

One disadvantage of the communist economy is that the free market can no longer function properly. In the free-market economy, the forces of supply and demand are the major determinants of prices. The reverse is the case in the communist economy. The government is in full control of prices as well as determines the price to charge for a product and service.

Though communism pursues general/social welfare, when the forces of the free market stop working, it can lead to a serious economic welfare loss. This is an effect that usually happens in the long run and this lowers the efficiency of a country’s production processes.

Inefficient spending

In this system, the government tends to be inefficient in spending funds. That is, the government will always spend in a wasteful manner. In this case, they spend money on unnecessary projects. In actual terms, government projects are usually more expensive compared to private companies. This means that the government has a higher chance of spending the money of taxpayers in an inefficient manner.

Sovereign default

The emergence of communism can amount to sovereign defaults. This is absolutely not sustainable in the long run. Too many frictions will result in this case. Inefficient government spending will cause the state to run into bankruptcy in the future.

Currency problems

Economies that operate under communism usually have currencies that are weak and unstable. This makes institutional investors lose their trust in such currencies. Instead of buying these currencies, they sell them. Also, the local population also loses trust in their own currency. Such economies have problems with their currencies which make them try exchanging these currencies. They do this in order to protect themselves against currency depreciation.

Communism may deter international investors

It is very difficult for institutional investors to invest in communist economies because private individuals own almost nothing. Most times, private corporations , sole proprietorships , partnerships , and private limited liability companies do not exist. So, there is almost no place for foreign investors to invest. These investors are scared of the deprivation of their private assets for public use. This usually amounts to a low rate of the overall private investment. Of course, no one wants to lose his wealth. As a result of this, serious problems arise. It may be impossible for the government to run important projects due to poor financial opportunities.

Difficulties in wealth accumulation

People under this economy find it almost impossible to accumulate wealth as the system does not permit private ownership of assets. Even working for longer hours does not make them better off. This makes people pay less attention to saving since they cannot acquire wealth. This will result in biased consumption decisions. In turn, it will hurt the overall welfare of a country in the long run.

The system makes people get demotivated to work hard. This is due to the fact that the system does not provide a forum for individual wealth accumulation. People do not put in their best. The effect of this, in the long run, is a massive loss of working power. Of course, no one wants to use his full potential to hard work as there is no reward for putting in the extra effort.

Confinement of overall freedom

Communism is a system that greatly confines individual freedom. Generally, there is no freedom to choose an occupation. The state determines job vacancies for people. This means that the system forces people to work in certain places in a lifetime. Individuals must work in those areas even if they are not interested in such jobs. Another area in which the system confines freedom is the freedom of speech. The government may imprison people for airing out their opinion especially when it goes contrary to the decisions of the government.

Self-fulfillment difficulty

Self-fulfillment is very difficult for people under the communist economy. This is so because one can rarely do the things he desires to do. The rule under this system is that one should only do those things that will benefit the community as well as the government. The point here clarifies that pursuing individual interests contradicts the goals of the community. People under this economy face so many deprivations of their self-interests.

A narrow view of the world

Under this economy, people usually have a narrow perspective about life and the world. The current political regime forces people to behave in a specific manner. There is no room for people to question things. Children grow in that doctrine and this causes them to reject other lifestyles. So, this builds a myopic thought in the minds of individuals.

Poor international trade relationships

The nature of communism tends to make other countries lose interest in trading with communist countries. This happens as a result of the conflicts in values as well as lack of trust in such administration. in turn, communist countries suffer as a result of a lack of international trade thereby reducing a country’s economic power.

As a result of many restrictions, many individuals thrive to migrate to other countries. This migration leads to a significant decrease in such countries. This will also lead to a corresponding decrease in the country’s overall GDP and other economic problems.

Information handicap

There is usually a restriction on information flows because the government controls virtually all media channels. As a result of this, people only receive information that is only sustainable to the current government administration. This means that information that is harmful to the political leaders is usually not available to the general public. The effect of withholding information is that people will not have a clear understanding of what life generally is. This polarizes the perspective people have about the world.

General public manipulation

When the flow of information is biased, it becomes easier for the government to manipulate the people. Through the mass media, the government suggests certain actions to individuals. One thing is that these actions do not favor the masses, it only favors the government. The motive behind which the government manipulates people is to sustain the current regime.

Dictatorship

Government control over everything in a communist economy amounts to excessive levels of power. This leads to dictatorship because they can do anything they wish. Too much power has so many negative impacts on an economy. Those in authority can do whatever they feel like doing because they feel they have the right to do anything. This excessive level of power can amount to unfair political outcomes in the long run.

Slow technological progress

Communism has the negative effect of slowing down technological progress. Usually, private investment is absent in communist economies and there is no room for expansion. The overall technology experiences limitations because the financial capacity is low. Countries operating under this system will actually lose their competitive edge over capitalist countries. This, in turn, weakens the country’s economic position.

Socialism vs communism

Socialism vs communism similarities, central planning.

• Collective ownership/Control and ownership

Classless society

Social welfare, non-exploitation, concentration of power, no profit motive.

Both socialism and communism possess a notable feature of central planning. In both economic systems, all economic activities are centrally planned. It is the central planners that make decisions with regard to what to produce, at what quantity, for whom to produce, when to produce, and efficiency in the use of resources. So central planning is a common similarity between socialism vs communism. That is, the two economies are both centrally planned.

Collective ownership/Ownership and control

Another feature that makes the two economic systems look similar is collective ownership. That is all productive assets, factories, heavy machinery, public transportation facilities, etc are owned collectively. The only area of difference between socialism and communism is that in socialism, the state owns and controls all these means of production while in the case of communism, it is the entire community that owns them.

Meanwhile, both systems do not approve of private ownership and control of the means of production. The government is in full control here.

The two economic systems have a classless society. Everyone is equal, classes do not exist. Because of this, class conflicts and struggles are absent. Both socialism and communism aim at bridging the gap that exists between the rich and the poor. Also, they aim at curtailing discrimination. In other words, both socialism and communism are equalitarian societies.

Both economic systems are not based on selfish interests but focus on the needs of society. They try to carry out production processes based on the basic needs and necessities of the people. So, their priority is on the needs of the people such as social security and social justice. By doing this, the systems help in reducing inequalities among different categories of people.

The government employs all citizens so there is no permission for private ownership of factories as well as other factors of production. Because of this, no one will be able to exploit another as it is possible in the capitalist economy. The abuse of monopoly power is absent under socialism and communism.

All economic and political power is concentrated in the hands of a single authority, that is one existing political party. Leaders under such economies tend to be very powerful. In other words, the concentration of power in a single authority amounts to a very strong political power or excess power.

The profit motive is absent under socialism and communism. As a result of this, workers tend to lose their personal motivation. Wealth accumulation is almost absent as the government controls everything. Also, putting in extra effort to work harder yields no reward. This in turn causes people under these systems to lose incentives to be more creative and innovative.

Differences between socialism and communism

Socialism vs communism chart.

The socialism vs communism comparison chart summarizes the differences between the two economic systems.

Key differences between socialism and communism

We looked at the socialism vs communism similarities above. It is factual that many people use the two economic systems interchangeably. The key differences between socialism vs communism. This will help in making it clear that the two systems do not mean the same thing. We shall look at the areas in which these systems differ, these include;

Political system

Social structure, economic coordination.

• Private property ownership

Discrimination

Means of control, economic system.

Under socialism, the central authority is in total control of the economy, it is a liberal system. The central authority is elected by the people and that gives the people a say in running the economy. On the other hand, communism is more authoritative in nature. This means that the people have no say when it comes to the running of the economy.

Can coexist alongside various political systems. In most cases, most socialists agitate for participatory democracy/social democracy/parliamentary democracy. On the other hand, communism is a stateless and classless society. The people directly govern the economy. Well, practically, this achievement has never been successful. The system is totalitarian in nature and it possesses a central party governing society. In simple terms, socialism is more flexible than communism. This also means that communism is more authoritative and dictatorial in nature.

Under socialism, every individual should be able to access basic articles of consumption as well as public goods to provide room for self-actualization. Large-scale industries are collective efforts and their returns must be of benefit to society as well. On the other hand, communism suggests that everyone is equal which makes classes become senseless. Government has to own all means of production. everyone has to work for the government and let the distribution of this collective output be equal.

Socialism diminishes class distinctions but does not totally eliminate them. The system achieves the derivation of more status from political distinctions rather than class distinctions with some mobility. Communism on the other hand eliminates all forms of class distinctions. Everyone owns all means of production, they also own their employees. The basic structure of communism is communal ownership of factors of production and other assets such as housing.

Socialism facilitates the freedom of religion though it usually promotes secularism. Communism on the other hand abolishes religion, that is, the system rejects all religion and metaphysics. Communists agreed that religion was a drug and spiritual booze. They proposed that religion should be combated. Also, they suggested the practice of atheism and forcefully overthrow every social condition that exists. This is not the case in socialism.

The philosophy of socialism is that everyone is to contribute according to his ability and each individual is to receive according to his contribution. Under communism, everyone is to contribute according to his ability but receive according to his needs.

Planned socialism is principally dependent on planning to determine production and investment decisions. Market socialism is dependent on markets for the allocation of capital to different socially-owned enterprises. On the other hand, planning takes place in terms of physical units rather than money under communism. Economic planning coordinates every decision with regard to production, investment, and resource allocation.

Private property

The approach of property ownership also makes the two systems differ. Though under socialism, the government/state owns and controls all means of production, the system still allows individuals to enjoy ownership of personal properties. For example, an individual can own furniture but cannot own a furniture-producing factory.  Communism, on the other hand, everything is publicly owned but individuals only have the right to use these properties. The state still owns every property, this implies that there is no right to private ownership of property whether  capital  resources or not. This system looks like when one is living in a military barracks.

This implies that the state can assign a house for you to live in and a motor vehicle to use, but you do not personally own these properties. Going back to the example of a military barrack, when you leave these properties, the military will still be in control of the properties and assign them to another military personnel.

Socialism considers everyone equal and enacts necessary laws to protect people from all forms of discrimination. Also, there is tight control of immigration. Under communism, It is theoretical that every member is equal to one another.

Under socialism, the means of control is through the usage of a government. Theoretically, in communist economies, there is no state control.

Under socialism, public enterprises/cooperatives own means of production. The system compensates individuals based on individual contributions. Coordination of production can take place either through economic planning or markets. Under communism, it is the community that holds all means of production in common. This negates the concept of ownership of capital goods. The system organizes production such that it meets human needs without making use of money. The prediction of communism is based on the condition of material abundance.

Wealth distribution

Socialism gears towards the distribution of the wealth which the economy produced according to the productivity of each individual. The workers earn their wages and they have the right to spend on anything they want thereby encouraging them to work harder. Communism on the other hand distributes wealth to the people based on the assessment of the needs of individuals by the government. There is little or no incentive to be innovative as well as to achieve more. Because of this, communism usually possesses the attribute of low productivity, no advancement (or limited), and massive poverty.

Frequently asked questions

How is socialism different from communism.

One major difference between socialism and communism is that communism is more authoritative in nature than socialism. While communism totally abolishes religion, socialism does not. Under socialism, the distribution of wealth is based on the people’s ability and contribution while under communism, it is based on ability and needs. Socialism diminishes class distinction while communism eliminates it completely. While the ownership and control of means of production are government-based, under communism, it is communal ownership and control. A Socialist economy is a classless society while a communist economy is both stateless and classless. In essence, communism is an extreme form of socialism.

Which countries are socialists?

The following countries are socialist;

Soviet Union, Cuba, China, Venezuela, Vietnam, Syria, Venezuela, Zambia, Belarus, Turkmenistan, Laos, etc.

What’s bad about socialism?

Socialism is good because it reduces class distinctions and bridges the gap that exists between the rich and the poor. Out of many advantages, there are disadvantages attached to the economic system.

Competition is absent in this system. As a result of this, there is no incentive to be more creative and innovative. The system does not provide for choices to the people especially with regard to the purchase of commodities and their prices. There is no choice of occupation and there is no free enterprise . The government may fail especially in the aspect of resource allocation and regulation.

What is the difference between socialism and communism and capitalism?

While socialism and communism are centrally planned economies, capitalism is a free market economy. Socialism and communism are characterized by collective ownership of property. Capitalism on the other hand is characterized by private ownership of property, that is individuals possessing assets. Capitalist economies have class distinctions, no equality. Socialist and communist economies are classless societies. While socialism and communism gear towards social welfare, capitalists are after self-interest. There is no profit motive under the socialist and communist economies as the case is in the capitalist economies. Unlike capitalism, exploitation of consumers is absent under socialism and communism.

Related posts:

• What is Communism? Examples of Communist Countries
• Socialism Vs Democracy Differences and Similarities
• Capitalism Vs Democracy Differences and Similarities
• Communism Vs Democracy Differences and Similarities

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

What Is Marxism?

Understanding marxism, marxian economics.

• Class Conflict
• Communism/Socialism/Capitalism

Critiques of Marxism

• Marxism FAQs

The Bottom Line

Marxism: what it is and comparison to communism, socialism, and capitalism.

What you need to know about these social, political, and economic theories

Ivestopedia / Zoe Hansen

Marxism is a social, political, and economic philosophy named after the 19th-century German philosopher and economist Karl Marx . His work examines the historical effects of capitalism on labor, productivity, and economic development, and argues that a worker revolution is needed to replace capitalism with a communist system.

Marxism posits that the struggle between social classes—specifically between the bourgeoisie, or capitalists, and the proletariat, or workers—defines economic relations in a capitalist economy and will lead inevitably to a communist revolution.

Key Takeaways

• Marxism is an economic and political theory that examines the flaws inherent in capitalism; it's primarily based on the work of German philosopher and economist Karl Marx.
• Marxist theories were influential in the development of socialism, which requires shared ownership by workers of the means of production.
• Communism outright rejects the concept of private ownership, mandating that "the people," in fact the government, collectively own and control the production and distribution of all goods and services.

Marxism is both a social and political theory, and encompasses Marxist class conflict theory and Marxian economics . Marxism was first publicly formulated in 1848 in the pamphlet The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels , which lays out the theory of class struggle and revolution.

Marxian economics focuses on criticism of capitalism, detailed by Marx in his book Das Kapital , published in 1867.

Generally, Marxism argues that capitalism as a form of economic and social reproduction is inherently flawed and will ultimately fail.

Capitalism is defined as a mode of production in which business owners (the capitalists) own all of the means of production (the factory, the tools and machinery, the raw materials, the final product, and the profits earned from their sale). Workers (labor) are hired for wages and have no ownership stake and no share in the profits.

Moreover, the wages paid to workers are lower than the economic value that their work creates for the capitalist. This is the source of capitalists' profits and it is at the root of the inherent class struggle between labor and capital.

Another theory developed by Marx is historical materialism. This theory proposes that society at any given point in time is ordered by the type of organization and technology used in the processes of production. In the modern era of industrial capitalism, capitalists organize labor in factories or offices where they work for wages using modern tools and machines.

Like other  classical economists , Karl Marx believed in a  labor theory of value  (LTV) to explain relative differences in market prices. This theory stated that the value of a product can be measured objectively by the average number of hours of labor required to produce it. In other words, if a table takes twice as long to make as a chair, then the table should be considered twice as valuable. What Marx added to this theory was the conclusion that this labor value represented the exploitation of workers.

Marx claimed that there are two major flaws in capitalism that lead to the exploitation of workers by employers: the chaotic nature of free market competition and the extraction of surplus labor.

Marx predicted that capitalism would eventually destroy itself as more people become relegated to working-class status, inequality rises, and competition drives corporate profits to zero. This would lead, he surmised, to a revolution after which production would be turned over to the working class as a whole.

Class Conflict and the Demise of Capitalism

Marx’s class theory portrays capitalism as one step in a historical progression of economic systems that follow one another in a natural sequence. They are driven, he posited, by vast impersonal forces of history that play out through the behavior and conflict among social classes. According to Marx, every society is divided into social classes, whose members have more in common with one another than with members of other social classes.

The following are some key elements of Marx’s theories of how class conflict would play out in a capitalist system:

• Capitalist society is made up of two classes: the bourgeoisie , or business owners, who control the means of production , and the proletariat , or workers, whose labor transforms raw commodities into goods that have market value.
• Ordinary laborers, who do not own the means of production, such as factories, buildings, and materials, have little power in the capitalist economic system. Workers are also readily replaceable in periods of high unemployment, further devaluing their perceived worth.
• To maximize profits, business owners have to get the most possible work out of their laborers while paying them the lowest possible wages. This creates an imbalance between owners and laborers, whose work is exploited by the owners for their own gain.
• Since workers have little personal stake in the process of production, Marx believed they would become alienated from their work, and even from their own humanity, and turn resentful toward business owners.
• The bourgeoisie are able to leverage social institutions, including government, media, academia, organized religion, and the banking and financial systems, as tools and weapons against the proletariat with the goal of maintaining their positions of power and privilege.
• Ultimately, the inherent inequalities and exploitative economic relations between these two classes will lead to a revolution in which the working class rebels against the bourgeoisie, takes control of the means of production, and abolishes capitalism.

Thus, Marx thought that the capitalist system contained the seeds of its own destruction. The alienation and exploitation of the proletariat that are fundamental to capitalist relations would inevitably drive the working class to rebel against the bourgeoisie and seize control of the means of production.

This revolution would be led by enlightened leaders, known as “the vanguard of the proletariat,” who understood the class structure of society and would unite the working class by raising awareness and class consciousness.

After the revolution, Marx predicted, private ownership of the means of production would be replaced by collective ownership, first under socialism and then under communism .

In the final stage of human development, social classes and class struggle would no longer exist.

Karl Marx believed that the proletariat would overthrow capitalism in a violent revolution.

Communism vs. Socialism vs. Capitalism

Marx and Engels' ideas laid the groundwork for the theory and practice of communism, which advocates for a classless system in which all property and wealth are communally (rather than privately) owned.

China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam are the only nations that have communist systems today. Notably, most of these nations have relaxed some of their most rigid policies in the name of economic progress and global trade.

The Soviet Union was an experiment in communism that was created in 1921 and collapsed in 1991, leaving behind 15 former Soviet Socialist Republics to rebuild their economies from scratch. None chose communism as a model.

Notably, Marx and Engels didn't consistently differentiate between socialism and communism. Today, there is often confusion about the ways they are distinct.

Socialism predates communism by several decades. Its early adherents called for a more egalitarian distribution of wealth, solidarity among workers, better working conditions, and common ownership of land and manufacturing equipment.

Socialism is based on the concept of public ownership and regulation of the means of production, but individuals may still own property. Rather than rising out of a class revolution, socialist reform has taken place within existing social and political structures, whether they are democratic, technocratic, oligarchic, or totalitarian.

Both communism and socialism oppose capitalism, an economic system characterized by private ownership and a system of laws that protect the right to own or transfer private property.

In a capitalist economy, private individuals or the companies they create own the means of production and the right to profit from them.

Communism and socialism aim to right the wrongs of capitalism’s free-market system. These include worker exploitation, inequities between classes, and outright poverty.

Marx inspired multitudes of followers, but many of his predictions have not come to pass. Marx believed that increasing competition would not produce better goods for consumers but would lead to bankruptcies and the rise of monopolies, with control of production in fewer and fewer hands.

Bankrupt former capitalists, he thought, would join the proletariat, eventually creating an army of the unemployed. In addition, the market economy , which by its nature is unplanned, would experience crippling supply-and-demand problems and cause severe economic depressions.

Capitalism has not collapsed, but it has changed since Marx's time. Governments in many capitalist countries, including the U.S., have the power to crack down on monopolies and monopolistic business practices. Governments set minimum wages and regulatory agencies set standards for worker protection.

Economic inequality has increased in many capitalist societies. There have been recessions periodically as well as one Great Depression, but they are not thought to be an inherent feature of free markets.

Indeed, a society entirely without competition, money, or private property has not materialized in the modern world, and recent history suggests it is unlikely to emerge in the future.

What Kind of Philosophy Is Marxism?

Marxism is a philosophy developed by Karl Marx in the second half of the 19th century that unifies social, political, and economic theory. It is mainly concerned with the consequences of a society divided between an ownership class and a working class and proposes a new system of shared ownership of the means of production as a solution to the inevitable inequality that capitalism fosters.

What Did Marx Predict for the Future?

Marx thought that the capitalistic system would inevitably self-destruct. Competition would grow so fierce that most businesses would fold and be absorbed into unwieldy monopolies. Workers would reject a system that exploited them. The oppressed workers would ultimately overthrow the owners to take control of the means of production, ushering in a classless society of shared ownership.

Was Karl Marx Right?

Not so far. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the most successful of the few remaining communist countries, notably China and Vietnam, have reformed some of their most rigid practices. None has been able to entirely eliminate personal property, money, and class systems in the way that Karl Marx envisioned.

Capitalism, in its various forms, remains the dominant economic system. But it has changed, too, since Marx's time, with some of the worst excesses addressed. Worker safety standards, child labor laws, minimum wage laws, and anti-poverty programs are all examples.

Is Marxism the Same Thing As Communism?

Marxism is a philosophy, while communism is a system of government based on Marxist principles. Marx envisioned a society in which workers owned the means of production. In real-world communism, governments own the means of production.

Marxism is the social and economic theory developed by Karl Marx in the 19th century. Marxian economics describes the capitalist system of production as inherently unfair to the workers, who represent most of the population.

Marx's social theories connected these flaws of capitalism with a growing class conflict between labor and business owners, ultimately leading to a revolution that would empower the working class and create communal ownership of the means of production.

His theories have been tested in the real world. The communist experiment in the Soviet Union ended in 1991. It continues to be tested in China, which is creating a hybrid social and economic system that Marx might not recognize.

Correction—Dec. 21, 2023 : This article has been corrected to more accurately define Marxism.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. " Karl Marx "

American Journal of Public Health. " Friedrich Engels: Businessman and Revolutionary ."

Marxists.org. " Karl Marx: Capital A Critique of Political Economy Volume I, Book One: The Process of Production of Capital ."

Marxists Internet Archive. " Works of Karl Marx 1843, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right ."

ThoughtCo. " A List of Current Communist Countries in the World ."

History. " How Are Socialism and Communism Different? "

The Library of Economics and Liberty. " Marxism ."

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

• Study Guides
• Homework Questions

Essay Capitalism vs Communism