Many pretenders to the mantle of socialism have emerged in the 20th century, and one, the Utopian, mostly hails from the 19th century, yet is still erroneously connected with socialism by capitalist pundits in an attempt to discredit genuine socialism. Hence, this section is designed to point out and describe the various political tendencies that have referred to themselves as "socialist," but in reality bear no resemblance to genuine socialism. Hopefully, this will succeed in ending most of the confusion over what socialism is as formulated by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. I will attempt to cite examples of various U.S. political parties which resemble each tendency below.
LENINISM/STALINISM
This is the system of state ownership and control of the economy as first initiated in the late Soviet Union after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. At this time, Russia was still mired in rural feudalism and under the iron fist of the Czar. The Bolsheviks truly wanted to establish a genuine socialist society, but Russia lacked the technology to produce an abundance for all at the time. As a result, Vladimir Lenin, a student of the works of Karl Marx and a strong revolutionary, inaugerated a system whereby the nation would attempt to skip the next stage of economic development for his nation, which should have been capitalism. The result wasn't socialism, but a new type of class-divided society that in many ways resembled capitalism, including the division of society into two contending social classes. The only difference from pure capitalism was that instead of the ruling class owning the industries as individuals or in small groups, as they do in America, the ruling class collectively owned the industries as a whole. The working class, as in capitalism, owned nothing, and were forced to work for the ruling bureaucratic class for a wage...just as we do under capitalism. Thus evolved an inefficient system, often called a "command economy" by capitalist pundits, which also embraced the basic ideas of a capitalist market.
When it was taken over by Josef Stalin in the 1920's, this dictator saw to it that the system remained a class divided society as it took the capitalist route of indusrializing the country. Stalin euphemistically referred to the system as "communism" and "socialism" in order to convince the world that genuine socialism had been established there, or at least that this system was intended as a stepping stone to true socialism at some distant point in the future. This was not true. This phony "communism" lasted for roughly 70 years, spread to other nations who hoped to utilize it to industrialize themselves and engaged in a 40 year long "Cold War" with the United States over dominance of the world markets, each nation claiming to be the moral superior of the other, when in reality, the primary goal of both ruling classes--power and dominance--was the same, and no major differences existed between the two economies.
The resulting arms buildup by both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. bolstered the economic "health" of both nations while endangering the safety of the world, and also served the purpose of propagandizing the working classes of each nation into willingly opposing each other as being "evil", a divisionary tactic worthy of Hitler's admiration (the infamous "Us against Them" ideology that made Nazism get as far as it did). This also resulted in one of the capitalist government's most notorious social "hysterias," initiated to cause the public such terror that they willingly agreed to give up many of their civil rights in order to help the government combat the "menace," as Mcarthyism and the "Red Scare" of the 1950's resulted in large amounts of censorhip, derailed the careers of anyone fighting for civil rights for minority groups (by accusing them of being "communists" who were in league with the "evil empire" of the Soviet Union) or that the government personally disliked and resulted in nefarious finger-pointing and mud-slinging. Further, as mentioned before, the aforementioned arms buildups between the two "superpowers" resulted in a still not dismantled stockpile of nuclear weapons, which threatens the safety of every human being on the planet, as well as the biosphere of the planet itself, which fully displays the folly of a world based on seperate class-divided nations whose ruling classes compete against each other for control of the world's economic resources when the world has reached the technological level to construct weapons of mass destruction.
This system is thereby alternately referred to as Leninism, as Lenin was the persona who conceived it, or Stalinism, as Stalin was the man who "perfected" it. People in such a society live in much the same way, economically, that they do in a capitalist nation. The majority of the country are members of a working class that is exploited and forced to work for a wage, given to them in the form of physical paper or metal coins, that greatly limits how much goods and services they may acquire in that society. They are told what to do and how to do it by the ruling class of all-powerful bureaucrats, who despotically lives off of their labor in the same manner as the capitalists do in capitalist economies of private ownership. A professional police and military exists, and are completely under the control of the ruling bureaucratic class. In the Soviet Union, however, a bourgious democracy did not exist as it did in America. This was highly tauted by the U.S. ruling class to make them seem morally superior to the U.S.S.R., despite the ability of the former ruling class to subvert its political democracy in many ways, particularly through its economic dictatorship. The U.S.S.R. ruling class, however, guaranteed every one of its working class citizens a home, a job and a minimal amount of food, unlike the U.S. ruling class, and the former used this to attempt to convince its working class that it was morally superior. In reality, both systems mirror each other as economic dictatorships, and both create numerous hardships on the vast majority of people in the society, and continually create wars that kill thousands of working class folk.
Leninism/Stalinism is the system most people in America think of when they hear the word "socialism", and it is still referred to as "communism" by the capitalist controlled media whenever it is mentioned, despite the fact that it has absolutely nothing in common with the classless, moneyless economic democracy written about by Marx and Engels. Hence, the Soviet Union, and other Leninist nations such as China, are enormous lies of the 20th century that, in the name of "socialism," betrayed everything socialism stands for. Under a genuine socialist society, there would be no politcal state, no money or currency of any kind, no seperate social classes and no people forced to work at unsatisfying jobs for a wage which limited their access to society's produce. All of these things existed in the Soviet Union, and currently in China, Cuba and several other small states that claim to be socialist or communist. They are not socialist! Further, Leninist parties in the USA and abroad believe that political unity alone, with no economic organization, is all that is needed to establish socialism. Genuine socialists recognize that both are equally important.
Further, Leninists believe that the majority of the population doesn't need to understand socialism in order to have it. All they must do is form a small "vanguard party" to take control of the government for the people and then hand it to them. History has repeatedly demonstrated that when a minority of the population takes control, it only leads to continued class rule, not socialism. A mere change in masters is not what socialism is about. Hence, genuine socialists do not believe in vanguard parties, but instead realize that to establish genuine socialism the vast majority of the working class must become class conscious and form a political party for socialism which the vast majority supports, and to capture the political state, not for the purpose of running it in the "interests" of all the people, but to dismantle it entirely. The economic organizations of the people will then take its place as the new government; an industrial government, not a political government, which would serve no purpose in a genuine socialist society. A genuine socialist world would have no use for the coercive force known as the political state.
Political parties in the U.S. that advocate Leninism, while referring to it as "socialism", include the Communist Party USA, the Workers World Party and the now defunct Socialist Party (not to be confused with the Socialist Labor Party, which does advocate genuine socialism).
TROTSKYISM
This political tendency is virtually identical to that of Leninism, except that it carries with it certain of the ideas of Leon Trotsky, who also advocated a state controlled economy. Supporters of Trotskyism therefore believe in a similar system of state control of the economy as the Leninists.
An example of a political party in the U.S. that supports this political tendency include the Socialist Workers Party (not to be confused with the Socialist Labor Party, who represent genuine socialism), who now seem to adhere to the state control of Castro's Cuba as the model economic system for the U.S. to emulate [!?].
REFORMISM
This is another popular tendency used by Americans to define socialism. In fact, like Leninism, reformists often refer, incorrectly, to themselves as "socialists," or very often as "social democrats." Many individuals attempting to make a career in politics form a liberal view of capitialism, believing that certain social reform policies, such as welfare, unemployment insurance, food stamps and subsidized housing should be given to the poorest victims of capitalism, and the government often agrees for the purpose of avoiding a possible social uprising, though the government often later removes such programs when conservative elements take over, and when it manages to turn the working class against those policies by spreading rhetoric that they are a huge burden on the tax dollars of the citizens (ignoring the far more enormous drain on taxes that is the military; 50% of every tax dollar spent in the U.S. goes to the Pentagon, while no more then 4 cents per dollar goes to welfare for the poor), and that the poorest elements are "taking advantage of the system" (wouldn't that be a turnabout of the actual circumstances?) and are becoming lazy as a result of the assistance that their lives and families depend on (again ignoring the fact that a high level of unemployment will always be a factor under capitalism, for several reasons that I describe under one of the questions in the FAQ section).
In short, reformism is the belief that socialism can be gained by putting liberal politicians in office who will pass laws and develop social policies that will gradually change capitalism in increments until it becomes socialism. Such reformist politicians, even when gaining national control, such as in Great Britain and Sweden, have never succeeded in bringing society one step closer to socialism. Such politicians have always proven to be pure careerists who feather their own nests but care little for the working class. Social reforms may make capitalism a bit easier to live with, but they do not lead to socialism. They are the equivalent to crumbs being thrown to the working class and the fight for reforms also serve the ruling class by diverting the workers' attention from fighting for genuine socialism. The Contract With America from the late 1990's that was formulated by the Republicans and Clinton's Welfare Reform Bill show how such reforms can be taken away as soon as the state deems it safe and the working class passive enough to make it "safe" for the state to do so. Further, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt passed the most elaborate social reform policy in the history of this nation, which he called the New Deal, which instituted much of the social programs described above, as well as having the political state regulate the economy, and was designed to both save capitalism by diverting a possible realization of the workers about the true nature of capitalism (and possibly causing them to fight for a socialist revolution) as well as an attempt to end the Great Depression of the 1930's. During this time, FDR gave the capitalist class his famous statement, "reform if you are to preserve" (it's nice to see that FDR was so concerned about the capitalist class losing its position of power and privilege that caused the Great Depression in the first place...you have to admit, the man was all heart). Of course, the New Deal, despite its sweeping social reforms and government regulation of the economy (which, among things like establishing a minimum wage and other benefits to workers, created numerous government jobs known as "public works" to employ desperate workers), it failed to end the Great Depression. Luckily for FDR and the capitalist class, but unluckily for the working classes of the world, World War II came along and did it instead (yep, nothing like a good old brutal war which culminates in the atomic bombing of two large cities full of millions of innocent men, women and children to get the economic juices flowing, as many conservatives have often pointed out to me, which shows exactly the type of measures that capitalism resorts to in preserving its ruthless system).
Of course, today FDR's programs and policy of government regulation of the capitalist economy are largely criticized by capitalist pundits and "economists," who refer to them contemptuously as "big government," who attempt to say that the time has come to put an end to the policies of a man who saved their beloved system of class exploitation. However, many other nations have instituted these liberal reform programs as a matter of course. That is why countries such as Sweden and France, and formerly Great Britain, have been referred to as "socialist" in the past. Socialism does not mean reforms to capitalism, or in tinkering with the system as it is and then letting it be, hoping it will eventually become socialism. It only means diversionary, temporary tactics used by politicians to distract the working class from fighting for genuine socialism. It also further clouds workers' understanding of socialism, making them believe that socialism resembles capitalism, which is doesn't. Genuine socialism does not resemble capitalism in any way, shape or form. Warmed over, liberal capitalism with social reform programs is not socialism, and history has proven countless times that fighting for reforms, however beneficial they may be, instead of fighting for socialism, will not result in the establishment of a classless society, but simply in the continuation of class rule.
The two major political parties of the U.S. capitalist class, the Democrats and the Republicans, would never fight for socialism. They are props for capitalism, nothing more. All of their politicians serve the wealthy minority that owns and controls the economy, and which literally purchases their loyalty with huge campaign contributions that the working class could never hope to match, and reforms are nothing but steps taken to cover the malevolent nature of the system by easing the pain of living under it somewhat (and often only temorarily). Genuine socialists do not fight for reforms to capitalism...they fight for the abolition of capitalism altogether.
Also, like the Leninists, reformists do not advocate the economic organization needed that will lead the working class to socialism (embodied in the De Leonist program of Socialist Industrial Unionism by the SLP and NUP). Instead, they believe in political unity only. Genuine socialists believe that both political and economic organization are needed.
An example of such a political party of reformists are the Democratic Socialists of America. This party works within the Democratic Party, proving that it is not truly socialist.
ANARCHY
Anarchists have never truly called themselves "socialists," but they have spoken of establishing a classless, stateless society, just as socialists do. However, their way of doing so greatly differs from socialists. They believe in economic organization only, and that the politcal unity necessary for socialism should be ignored. In fact, one of the famous catch phrases of anarchists is to "hit the ballot with an ax." They do not believe that a classless society can be obtained by the working class through any type of democratic political means, so they disregard the civilized method of obtaining a classless society altogether. Instead, they believe that any means necessary should be used, including assassination, terrorist tactics and sabotage. As a result, revolutionaries in general, including socialists, have often been blacklisted in the U.S. as being advocators of violence and anti-democracy, whereas socialists firmly believe that the ballot box should be used, as well as Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which states that a majority of the people can legally institute a revolution democratically at anytime a vast majority of the people feel that the current system is no longer serving their needs. Socialists do not believe, as both capitalists and anarchists do, that the end justifies the means, and that undemocratic means can lead to democratic goals. Violence must only be used as a last resort, such as in the likely event that the state refuses to comply with the majority vote, but the economic organization of labor (the SIU program, see the section on The Union Question) is designed to enforce the revolutionary ballot with an absolute minimum of bloodshed. Violent tactics merely give the state an excuse to further encroach on our civil rights (such as 9/11 duly attests), and to pose as the champion of law and order who is looking out for the safety of all the people.
Further, anarchists do not believe in replacing political government with indusrial government...instead, they believe in no form of government (they have a popular saying amongst themselves that goes, "there's no government like no government"). Socialists believe that a central administrative body, albeit one of an entirely different sort then we have under class-ruled societies like capitalism, is necessary for us to continue to enjoy the benefits of industrial production. Anarchists believe that all forms of government are inherently corruptable and will eventually become an oligarchy, a sentiment echoed by many revolutionaries, who subsequently turn to anarchy. As explained in the FAQ section elsewhere on this site, whether a government is corruptible or not depends on the economic framework of society. Socialist industrial government will be based on the administration of things, not the administration of people, as the political state of capitalism does, and in a system totally devoid of money, and with the industrial government bereft of a professional police force to carry out its personal directives, there will be no basis for an oligarchy to emerge.
Needless to say, anarchists have succeeded in giving a black eye to all revolutionary movements with their non-democratic methods of achieving a revolution, and even the word "anarchy" has been incorrectly interpreted as "chaos" and a "violent reactionary movement." In reality, anarchy simply means a state of no government, which socialists disagree with.
An example of such a political party who supports anarchistic tendencies is the original IWW (Industrial Workers of the World), which once advocated genuine socialism and nearly became the very first SIU until it was taken over by anarcho-syndicalist elements in the early part of the 20th Century.
UTOPIANISM
This tendency has all but died out by the end of the 19th century, but because it is so strongly connected with socialism, and incorrectly at that, I decided to include it here. Very few utopians exist today, if any at all. The utopians believed that a small community could be created in isolation from the capitalist society proper and start a self-governing, economically self-supporting mini-society that would free itself from the depredations of capitalist society surrounding it. Such a mini-society would then grow and prosper without the amoral greed inherent in capitalism. The word "utopia" has incorrectly grown to mean a society with no problems of any kind, or some type of idyllic social paradise, and such a society will never exist, not even under socialism. Socialism will be far superior, ethically and practically, than capitalism, but no society will be completly without problems, and a society with no type of intellectual challenge whatsover, but based purely on idle hedonism would probably not be desirable to the human race, as we are intellectual creatures by nature.
In actuality, utopia means a "planned society", and socialism will certainly be a planned economy, unlike capitalism, which is unplanned, and moves with the random flow of market forces which are the entire basis of the system's production decisions. However, all of the several utopian experiments of the 19th century went awry and were eventually subsumed by the hostile capitalist world that surrounded them. Socialists do not believe that socialism can be achieved in a tiny, isolated community. Socialism will not be relegated to one society, or even one country, but will be a worldwide system. In order for the capitalist tendencies to be eliminated from the human psyche, the entire world must be changed. A small, isolated community would lack the material and technological means to establish socialism (as these utopians quickly realized)...an economic democracy requires a large industrial base with channels coming in from across the globe (and maybe beyond), and cannot function in a small, enclosed bioverse. Further, such small and isolated communities would be easy prey for the capitalist world outside, and they all became subverted by opportunists within who were influenced by the capitalist system outside, thus dooming such utopian experiments from the start.
There are no political parties in the U.S. today which advocate utopian principles, though socialism has continually been attacked for having "utopian" ideals.
