“Socialism is a yearning for something better than capitalism.”

This is the rough definition of “socialism” applied in this book. It further characterizes different socialist currents, analyzing them critically without pure dismissal of any. This is done through a probably fairly shallow, but still illuminating, historical analysis.

Capitalism he defines as the employer/employee relationship, analog to past economic systems, like master/slave or lord/serf (feudal system) relationships. What socialism seeks to improve originated in the French Revolution, in the uprising of serfs against their lords: liberty, equality and brotherhood, along with democracy. But the following system of capitalism only marginally improved these, if at all, being still beholden to the class structure, with opposing incentives, now instead of serf/lord, it was employee/employer.

In his analysis of past and current socialist experiments, like the USSR and the PRC (People’s Republic of China), he therefore labels these systems as different forms of state capitalism, as they have retained a majority of employees and a minority consisting of employers. Whether the employers are part of the state or private citizens only constitutes a difference in state or private capitalism. Alongside many others, one easy and valid criticism is the lack of democracy in these experiments. However, Wolff also notes, that Western-European social-democracies, also do not implement “real” democracies, providing not much power over actual economic change to the individual. Democracy only in form, not in substance.

Moving towards the present, Wolff identifies an old concept that is gaining popularity, that emphasizes the micro- instead of macro-level. Instead of a socialist movement capturing the state’s power or abolishing it entirely, he views the next evolution and approach to be truly bottom-up, through worker cooperatives. Meaning the collective ownership and democratic decision-making inside economic enterprises. This is a practical implementation of socialist thought, enabling both practical experimentation and the growth of the movement and influence.

My opinion

I find this approach to be very reasonable and hopeful. There is, of course, further nuance and details, that need working out or popularization. One thing that comes to mind are concrete democratic models and principles. Democracy as such is a very loosely defined word, and the approach of the author, that everyone gets a single vote and the majority decides, is perhaps not always the best way. But there are already other, more concrete models, like Sociocracy (which is something I’d like to look into more), perhaps. But the basic principles of collective ownership and collective decision-making ring true. Possibly each being able to pave the way for each other, providing implicit approaches to change even inside the capitalist structures.

I wonder, is this enough?

Is the power of the capitalists and (or through) large corporations not too big and would thwart such a movement at some point? This still seems like the only (realistic, but also positive) way and actual combination of simultaneous cultural, economic, and political change. Cultural change, meaning the change away from the (neoliberal?) desire and misguided notion that through hard work one can make it to the top themselves, which is also the ultimate way to personal happiness, to a more sensible desire of collective achievement, alongside of course the fulfillment of the requirement to sustain oneself financially. This recognition may on an individual level also mean sacrifice, which is, in my opinion, not actually a loss though (made up through other gains), of perhaps a lesser pay than working for a large corporation, for example. As a kind of result of this recognition, working in a worker cooperative is a way to sustain oneself financially while also furthering the cause of socialism, building something better, and spreading awareness about it (directly or indirectly), constituting economic change on an individual and systemic level. Political change is furthermore, as is stated in the book as well, both a requirement and a result of multiplying worker cooperatives, but actually imaginable inside the current system. Through policy, a left-wing party can subsidize and protect worker cooperatives, which at some point should have enough power (economic power through mass, similar to unions), to influence politics/parties themselves. Wolff writes that the parties would form along new lines, drawn by the ways of organization of worker co-ops. Even further down the line, this may give way to the actual possibility of the state withering away, as the collective organization takes place more in the workplace and local communities, having spilled out from the enterprises.

To conclude, the approach of change through worker co-ops, is a good one, but certainly can’t stand alone. It is or needs to be part of a more general socialist movement, as political support is very important or perhaps even necessary. Fascism – that is, a government aligned with private capitalism and built upon a movement of regeressive ideologies and policies based on the persecution of an out-group – is a direct and possibly violent threat to any socialist movement and could also gain the power to prohibit and destroy worker co-ops. As such, the question of reform and/or revolution remains, probably subject to circumstance.

I highly recommend this book. It’s an easy read, providing a good and, in my opinion, proper introduction to what “socialism” means, or should mean, but also what it has meant. It doesn’t go into great detail and especially simplifies definitions, at times lacking nuance perhaps, which makes it nicely introductory though. Furthermore, it provides a critical analysis that is not too moralizing or condemning, but neither apologetic of grave mistakes and issues of past “socialist” experiments specifically. I can’t make any statements about the “correctness” of the definitions – according to what, anyway – but they at least seem sensible and, more importantly, are applied consistently in the arguments of the books.