1640 words essay on Socialism

Socialism is the antithesis of individualism, which gave birth, to the capitalistic system of society. Socialism came as a countering force against the injustice and incompetence of capitalism, which involved exploitation of peasants and workers by those who own the instruments of production.

The advocates of Socialism regard the State as the instrument of achieving the greatest good of the largest community. It does not minimise the importance of the individual but seeks to subordinate the individual to the community.

Gandhiji also looks upon the state as an instrument of oppression of the common people. It attaches importance to such liberty only as may be necessary’ for the fullest development of the personality of the individual, consistent with the total need of the community. It thinks that the interest of the individual can be best safeguarded and promoted by maximising the control of the State. But according to the latter, i.e. the democrats, the above end may be secured by curtailing the functions of the State to the lowest possible minimum. Thus, the two schools of thought differed more in their political methods than in the legitimacy of ends.

Socialism is both an economic and a political doctrine. It seeks to abolish private ownership of the means of production on the ground that such ownership and management lead to social inequalities and incompetence.

Hence, the socialists want to promote the common economic, political and moral interests of the people by replacing the present individualistic society with public ownership and public control of the means of production and distribution. The present order of society in the West is marked by private ownership of land, mines, factories, railways etc. In our country, State-ownership seeks to look after developments.

Private proprietors of these use them for the purpose of making the largest amount of profits for themselves. The decision as to what and how much to produce depends entirely on the sole consideration of private profit, the whole of which is appropriated by a small section of the people, .he owners. Thus under capitalism, the few roll in riches, while the many wallow in poverty. But under socialism, the means of production will be operated by the community through a highly democratic State-owned machinery, with a view to securing the maximum benefit to the society. Ownership is vested in the actual workers.

Hence, the socialist management of production will not only prevent the exploitation of the many by the few, but it will bring into existence a new order of society where every decision with regard to what and how much to produce will be made by considerations of usefulness of such things to society. Each citizen will then set according to his capacity to achieve this The State will maintain a central planning committee, which will develop and co-ordinate the different branches of produc­tion. Thus socialism, which grew out of the discontent among the toiling mass against the present social system, seeks to reconstruct society economically and politically on a new basis.

But the methods of achieving this object are many and varied, and differences as to these, have given rise to several schools of socialists, each of which prescribes different methods for the reali­sation of the socialistic ends of the state.

The oldest type of socialism, which appeared for the first time in the writings of Plato, is known as Utopian Socialism. Plato, in his Republic described the State as it ought to be, rather than as it is. Plato’s ‘Republic’ furnished a basis for many later socialistic writers, notable among whom was Sir Thomas More who, in his Utopia, published in 1515, gave us the picture of an ideal state in an island of plenty where there was to be no private property. Utopian socialism found its advocate in St. Simon of France and Roberts Owen of England. These ardent exponents of socialism drew out novel schemes of society for the amelioration of the condition of the poor. But all these schemes turned out to be impracticable chimera and therefore are dubbed as Utopian.

Socialism passed from a speculative and idealist doctrine to a practical theory with Karl Marx whose classical works—Das Capital’ and ‘Communist Manifesto’ (with Engles, 1848) are regarded as the Bible of socialism. According to Marx, workers produce more than what they get as their wages from their employers. The capitalist employers get the services of labour cheap but they sell the goods, produced by labour, at a rate higher than the amount spent on wages and upkeep of the factory. They appropriate this excess or surplus value by exploiting the labour as profit. Thus profit, according to Marx, is nothing but legalised robbery. Marxian socialism, therefore, seeks to root out this capitalistic system of production.

Marx’s second proposition is based on the materialistic and dialectical interpretation of history. This explains the practical means and process, which govern the inevitable transition from capitalism to socialism.

Human society, according to Marx, is not static but is constantly moving towards new order, according to the needs of new economic conditions. The entire social structure of a country is determined largely by the material conditions of life, which is nothing but a struggle for possession between ‘the haves’ and the have-nots’. As such, all social and political history is the outcome of the conflict of economic classes, i.e. class conflict. The existence of this class struggle is nothing new.

In every age this class-conflict gave rise to two opposing economic classes—the owners and the toilers, the exploiters and the exploited. This class struggle will terminate only with the over-throw of the capitalists by the workers. The feudal system based on exploitation of labour and land slaves or serfs, was replaced by the capitalists through Bourgeoisie Democratic Revolution. Marx, therefore, urges upon the workers the imperative necessity of organising themselves into a powerful body with a view to capturing power by overthrowing capitalists, the bourgeoisie. The victory of the working class will be followed by the elimination of the capitalist class from the field of production like the new phoenix coming out of the old bird.

A new order of classless society with industries directed by the proletariat will emerge. In the new order of society, the guiding economic principle will be—”He who does not work neither shall he eat’. Thus, the transition from socialism to communism is one from ‘each according to his capacity’ to ‘each according to his need’.

Marx’s socialism has been subjected to searching criticism in recent times. His materialistic interpretation of history is said to be a narrow view, which ignores the importance of forces like religion, geography, and great men, all of whom have played their part, in shaping class-conflict, and rooting out the class enemies by dictator­ship of the proletariat.

They are criticised as out and out pessimistic, and contrary to the fundamental social nature of man. But as against these, it has been said that religion in practice has more often than not sided with the men in power and in exploiting the working class has usually been indifferent to fundamental human values, in their ruthless pursuit of profit; what they have conceded is rather due to force than to religion or reason. Orthodox economists have also criticised Marx’s theory of value as fanciful and unscientific, based on a wilful disregard of many other forces.

Socialism in practice—in former Soviet Union or in China—is also shown to be anti-democratic and totalitarian. The latest devel­opment is that the great Soviet Socialistic Union of Russia has broken down in 15 nation-states; China has accepted roundly market economy and Cuba of Castro is gasping economically.

The chief danger of socialism lies in attaching too much importance to the State and minimising the role of the individual. In a socialistic State, the individual is liable to be considered merely a unit of the State, a cog in the machine and without initiative or freedom of action of its own. Such denial of freedom of thought and action to the individual will remove one of the principal stumuli to progress and reduce man to the position of a machine. The achieve­ments of Russia in the fields of arts and sciences, however, seem to make such criticism as prejudiced.

Within the unit of commune the creative urge of the individual has its due place and recognition.

In spite of hostile criticism, socialistic ideals have captured the imagination of the people, and States, which functioned so long on capitalistic basis, are being obliged to concede to the Socialist pattern. Britain under the rule of the Labour Party took up the policy of gradually socialising basic industries, though, later on, the tide has been reversed. The reason for this is not far to seek.

Socialism as a doctrine, which is based on the claim of the many for recognition of their inherent rights against the unjust privileges of the few. It has rendered a valuable service by not only bringing into prominence but also by driving into public consciousness the evils that came in the wake of the modern industrial system. It is being recognised that political democracy without its economic counterpart is meaningless, and a socialist programme is needed for the success of democracy.

Socialism stands not for any particular interest, but aims at promoting the interest of the entire community by socialising the means of productions, distribution and exchange. It therefore helps secure the emancipation of labour from the domination of capitalism and landlordism, and the establishment of social and economic equality of the sexes. Socialism is, therefore, based on altruistic and moral principles in as much as it seeks to establish a regime in which no one is excluded but everyone is given an opportunity to reach his best self, fullest stature, in which the governing principle of life -‘Live and let live’.