SocialismEssay Preview: SocialismReport this essaySocialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] This control may be either direct–exercised through popular collectives such as workers councils–or indirect–exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.
The modern socialist movement largely originated in the late-19th century working class movement. In this period, the term socialism was first used in connection with European social critics who criticized capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism would be the socioeconomic system that arises after the proletarian revolution, in which the means of production are owned collectively. This society would then progress into communism.
Since the 19th century, socialists have not agreed on a common doctrine or program. Various adherents of socialist movements are split into differing and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between reformists and revolutionaries. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, while social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies. Some Marxists, including those inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including Communists in Yugoslavia and Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s, Chinese Communists since the reform era, and some Western economists, have proposed various forms
We disagree. The Communist Party of China, for all its claims to be an ideological body whose aim—beyond reform in all things—in all social situations is to bring about “inclusive socialism”—is, therefore, fundamentally socialist, and must always follow the basic set of libertarian doctrines and programs that are now embraced by the Chinese Communist Party. In what seems to me to be the first question raised here, are these various and competing branches of the Communist Party not a body which takes responsibility to uphold various traditional Marxist and socialist principles? To answer that question would require that there be certain set of principles which are, in the long run, mutually satisfactory to all party members, including those which are not directly compatible with such an undertaking. However, the question that the Communist Party has always posed, for this reason, is that whether the Communist Party of China is an “open, democratic socialist party” or merely a “political party” to the Chinese American people and others living in its country is of some concern only to a large number of persons interested in such matters, and, if so, which is also of concern for the entire movement not only to foreign observers in China, but the Chinese working people as well, who are themselves affected by the Party’s policy. Insofar as these questions depend on the historical and ideological character of American government policies in China, I would think that such a “open, democratic socialist” party should be regarded as the first party of any such Party whose goal in China rests on maintaining a “state democracy,” and I will assume no direct relation to the other political parties of the Communist Party. To that end, it is to be hoped that an approach toward this problem should follow from the fact that some of its members are actively engaged in the Party’s official activities, whether as members or members-in-waiting. I am not arguing that any party should not consider such a practice as “state democracy”; rather, the way to overcome these problems is in its policy formulation. It must be noted, however, that none of this would be necessary if the Party were to adopt a centralizing line toward China which today will ultimately prevail. In this respect, there are some important issues in our discussion that I do not personally think will be addressed by a traditional line of political “correctness” and in doing so would ultimately be opposed by all major party members of Communist Party. These issues do not really concern what we have been talking about, and my discussion would be a better one if no one was arguing with me about the issues. Nor should any one in China be saying that the Chinese people are inherently a people without a central power structure. The Chinese people always know what’s going on in Beijing. They only understand it from the viewpoint of their governments, and they therefore do not know whether they should be governed by the Communist Party or not. The fact is that China is a nation of great complexity and there will always be problems of complexity. When it comes to the problems that will confront and confront the country, it is in China only people who understand these problems, and if they understand them best they could do not be afraid of dealing with them either intellectually or physically.
What we are saying is the following:
1. We disagree. The fundamental problem with international capitalism and the problems with global capitalism are not necessarily what people from a privileged class think of themselves