Socialism FAQ Part 1: What is Classical Marxian Socialism?

And Why is it Necessary for the Working Class to Establish it?

(Image courtesy of AZ Quotes)

This is the first of a multi-part series delivered to you that will explain exactly what socialism/Marxism is, how Karl Marx and his close friend & intellectual collaborator Frederick Engels envisioned it, and how it differs from the numerous other tendencies that co-opted the word between the 20th century up to the present.

Moreover, I will use this info to argue why the original conception is more relevant today than ever before and should be supported by the international working class in place of all the other tendencies claiming the mantle of “socialism,” including the genuinely worker-friendly but badly flawed Social Democracy.

Let’s start the series off with a short FAQ. To distinguish this original conception from all subsequent usurpations of the term to emerge, I will call it Classical Marxism (or Classical Socialism).

So, in short, what is Classical Marxism/Socialism?

It is the full utilization of modern post-Industrial technology to create a classless, stateless, and moneyless economy. Any system claiming to be “socialism” or “Marxist” that retains a powerful political state, money/currency/wage system, and clear class divisions with top-to-bottom control of the system by a privileged few is not Classical Marxism/Socialism.

Note that Classical Marxism was intended from the outset to be a doctrine, and not a dogma; hence, it was always subject to a modification of its tactical implementation as technological advancement and political circumstances permitted. This is why, for instance, Marx’s early description of using the existing state apparatus to establish a “dictatorship of the proletariat” — his archaic usage of terms that often give modern readers an unintended negative interpretation will also be addressed in future installments — has since been abandoned by socialists as a viable means of launching a classless society.

This is particularly the case when a nation attempts to implement it prior to full industrialization — as the failed and authoritarian Leninist experiment that was the Soviet Union and many “Third World” nation offshoots have proved.

What it basically means is that all the industries and services providing us with everything we need for physical comfort and psychological health (which will vary from person to person to some degree) will be socially owned by everyone. There will only be workers running everything from bottom to top, with no money, state apparatus, or ruling class of privileged individuals calling the shots over and above us — in fact, there will be no class divisions or political parties at all.

What about the Soviet Union, China, etc.? Didn’t they implement the system described by Marx & Engels?

What I described above was most certainly not what the former Soviet Union, China, or any Third or Second World nation claiming the “socialism” mantle — or any nation at all — has ever had or tried. Those were all close variations of Leninist/Stalinist systems of class rule by an all-powerful and very privileged bureaucratic class. It retained a variation of the wage system that included money/currency which greatly limited worker access to the material goods created by everyone, with all movement of resources dependent on a fiscal “budget” that focused huge amounts of it on building a military for imperialist ventures and for enforcing class rule domestically.

This state apparatus was not “representing” the will of people but that of the handful of bureaucrats that controlled everything essentially for themselves, calling the shots as a state without capitalists much as unregulated capitalism has capitalists doing that without bureaucrats thrown into the mix.

Sound familiar? It certainly doesn’t resemble the classless, stateless, moneyless society described by Marx and Engels in their various 19th century works.

So, why did this happen? It’s because of “human nature” like we’re always told, right?

The above situation came about not due to indelible flaws in “human nature” but because when the Soviet Union began in 1917 it lacked the industrial capacity to establish a system that was technologically capable of producing an abundance for all and enabling full worker control — a prerequisite that Marx & Engels were very clear about.

As a result of the primitive productive capacity of Russia in 1917, and because they received none of the hoped-for help from the international community of the time for obvious reasons, the Bolsheviks had no choice but to allow Lenin and his “vanguard” party to create an oppressive state apparatus with the intention of gradually industrializing the nation with the stated end goal of turning that advanced apparatus over to the people once it was established. In other words, the common people had to trust the ruling class of the not-too-distant future to do that. But how often does a ruling class relinquish power because it’s the right thing to do, and because they may have promised to?

The country rapidly industrialized itself to a sufficient level under this model. But is anyone surprised that by the time Stalin took the reins he refused to relinquish control to the working class, and now relegated the establishment of a true classless society to a perpetual “distant goal”? Doesn’t this sound familiar too?

And is anyone surprised that the American ruling class conveniently used that system to portray it as something vastly different from capitalism as we know it, and as “proof” that Marxian Socialism “doesn’t work in practice”? Yes, I’m sure they can be trusted to give us the facts. I mean, when have politicians ever lied to us or wanted anything other than what’s best for the workers it purports to “represent”?

Proponents on the Right ignore the vast differences between Classical Marxism/Socialism and the assemblage of pretenders to the name for obvious reasons when deriding socialism as a possibility for workers: they support capitalism and believe (incorrectly) that it was intended to be an eternal system.

Some factions of the Left claim that the Soviets created a worker’s state because they favor authoritarianism and try to pass that style of class rule off as something viable for the working class to support.

Others simply consider anything that calls itself “socialism” to be the Classical version, sort of like arguing that what is clearly an ostrich can be considered a duck if you keep calling it by that term and claiming that a “duck” can be any type of bird that you want it to be as long as you keep calling it that (these members of the Regressive Left are often referred to as “tankies”).

And of course, there are others on the Left — social democrats — who insist that a classless society would be a “bad” and destructive thing for reasons they never fully explain or that it’s “too idealistic” to achieve (the “human nature” thing again). Hence, they present an alternative brand of “socialism” that is actually capitalism with some liberal social welfare reforms (that are mostly good for workers but do not stand the test of time due to leaving the capitalist class and its general mode of private ownership of production for profit and the requirement of money to move resources intact). This is because they believe a leashed version of capitalism is best for workers; I deal with Social Democracy here.

Because of all of the above, the American working class tragically became heavily indoctrinated with the belief that a classless society was not possible; that it would lead to a dictatorship; that capitalism was a better if “imperfect” alternative; that workers had more “freedom” under capitalism while they would lose all freedom of choice under socialism. As a result, for a long time American workers would basically have an emotionally-charged cringe reaction to the very word “socialism” while European workers were conditioned to automatically think of Social Democracy when the word “socialism” was mentioned.

American workers on the Left became more receptive to the term during the once-popular but rigged Bernie Sanders campaigns of 2016 and 2020. However, they still either confuse it with Social Democracy, some type of worker co-op business model, or think of it as something progressive for workers without really understanding what it is.

And of course, some would-be leaders on the Left abused the term to the advantage of authoritarian, capitalism-supporting factions within to bamboozle the handfuls of workers who respected what Marx described into following them in supporting more vanguardist movements that had no intention of ending class rule.

That unfortunately continues to this day, not only with the “tankies” described above but with the SJWs who sometimes hi-jack Marx’s name and works by twisting his description of achieving racial & gender equality via class unity & establishing a classless society into supporting divisive identity politics in its place that only seek to elevate more members of marginalized groups into positions of power within the existing system (this sometimes being referred to by academics as “Cultural Marxism” or “Neo-Marxism”).

What would an actual classless and moneyless society do for us, and why is it the working class’s logical destiny to establish it?

This system will guarantee all people a meaningful job congruent with their individual talents and preferences. Workers will be expected to simply make a reasonable contribution to the useful and necessary work required to keep our technologically advanced society functioning. This will vary depending upon individual skill sets and personal choice but will in every case entail considerably less hours of work per week and year than under capitalism, and thus a far lower level of both physical and emotional stress.

This would be greatly aided by the fact that everyone would be contributing their share of the work in every necessary field, with the now socially owned automation and A.I. generators taking up the task of much of the drudge work while greatly reducing direct human participation and hours spent doing such work that human labor still had to perform.

Further, the number of workers currently caught up in fields dealing with fiscal matters or “national security” such as banking, loan sharking (legal or otherwise), debt collection or management, accounting, the war industry, insurance, and bureaucracy would not be needed in a system that does not run on money and does not require enforcement of class rule & elimination of crime via show of force.

This will free up vast portions of labor to contribute only to the necessary work required to keep an industrial society operating. Further, labor-saving technology would be used to the fullest extent without the fear of displacing workers and creating involuntary loss of work. Human physical labor made unnecessary by new advances in technology would simply result in these workers being trained for new work requiring similar talents, with no loss of material compensation during the training period.

More advances in the now socially-owned automation and A.I. systems would result in exponentially less hours of human labor required. This would free us for artistic pursuits of our choice; travel, leisure, & time with the family & friends; ample time for physical pursuits and fun physical games that would maintain our physical acumen & fitness along with our mental clarity.

The medical field, now free of the profit motive, would be geared towards preventing and curing illness, along with reducing the detrimental effects of advancing age, rather than simply treating and managing such conditions because that is more profitable.

Compensation for everyone would be the full fruit of our labor. That means, in short, that everyone will have full access to the social store we collectively contribute to, and which automation owned by everyone helps us acquire what we collectively produce to fulfill their material needs and reasonable wants.

This will serve to free everyone from material want and the fear of want; allow everyone to focus upon work that compliments their personal talents and interests; and as noted above to have much more leisure time to enjoy the fruits of our collective labor than we do under capitalism. We would never have to fear losing a home; being unable to afford utilities like electricity, heating, or water; or being unable to “pay” for the type of recreation that satisfies our psychological needs as we do under a system that runs on money and profit.

The detrimental-to-health-and-happiness anxieties and concerns connected to the stressful requirement of “making a living” and having enough money to afford a decent life will be eliminated. Family life and human social relations can flourish free from the rampant envy, dissatisfaction, mistrust, alienation, and inequalities that result from being forced to subjugate our needs and interests to a small ruling class of ultra-privileged plutocrats or bureaucrats who take & hoard the lion’s share of the wealth that our labor collectively produces.

All industries and services would be socially owned by all the workers for the purpose of meeting the needs and wants of society as a whole (including the need for a healthy biosphere and environment), not the profit interests of a handful of owners that operate these facilities solely for personal enrichment and limit access to workers based on the latter’s individual ability to pay via the use of money.

Management would be elected by all workers in each workplace (be it physical or virtual). Such managers would not receive compensation above and beyond that of other workers, and would be fully re-callable at any time if they fail to do their jobs.

Work as a whole would be based on cooperation, not the type of ruthless competition that brings out the worst character traits in us and actually provides a competitive advantage to sociopaths or those with the least scruples about doing what they have to do to in order to “get ahead” (which includes the all-too common and nasty office politics we’re all forced to engage in for that purpose).

War based on competition for control of valuable resources between separate groups of ruling class controlled nation-states would become completely pointless. As would divisive identity politics between different factions within the working class competing for the biggest share of the crumbs.

Common criminal acts from all levels of labor, such as stealing and general crimes against property, would become equally pointless. Moreover, the levels of violence and mental illness we see under capitalism due to all the stresses and inequalities imposed upon us by struggling to “make a living” and competing against each other for a limited number of available jobs would be enormously diminished.

People would no longer feel compelled to turn to anti-social acts such as crime due to honest work not providing them with sufficient material comfort. All they would need to do to achieve good material comfort & security was a reasonable share of the useful work in an area of endeavor that they were suited for in terms of individual talents and personality traits.

In the meantime, socially owned automation & A.I. would care of most of the tedious & time-consuming drudge work that few people want to do for more than short periods of time — but without concern that those comparatively few hours spent would not provide them with good material compensation. As a result, the cruel and bloated prison system as we know it today and professional policing on the scale we see under capitalism would become unnecessary.

Additionally, the main environmental factors contributing to the rampant mental illness we see today would be eliminated while competent, compassionate, free of charge, and free from the profit motive medical care could help greatly alleviate the physical/biological components that some forms of mental illness have.

Sociopathic tendencies would get someone nowhere under such a cooperative system. And on the environmental side of things, contributing to the development of such individuals would be abolished while, as mentioned above, and possible contributing physical aspects of the issue could be medically treated in a non-coercive, compassionate manner.

What other issues rampant under capitalism would be resolved under Classical Marxian socialism?

Overproduction, planned obsolescence of mechanical products, and artificial scarcity would be eliminated. Rare cases of real scarcity would result in such resources being rationed on the basis of individual need, not individual ability to pay for it via money.

Automation that is feared under capitalism because it may eliminate paying jobs would be fully embraced for its ability to save labor time and shorten required hours of work with no loss in material compensation via access to the social store. Socially owned A.I. generators would become a tool for creative people to use to enhance their craft rather than job-displacing tools used under capitalist control to eliminate or reduce the need for human thespians, writers, artists, software developers, etc.

How would a worker-controlled government function?

This bottom-to-top worker control of the economy will not be equivalent to anarchy (more on that in a future installment), but will replace the current capitalist-funded, moribund political government run by politicians (who have power above the workers while claiming to “represent” them) with an industrial government run by the workers directly.

Majority decisions backed up by objective computer data will make the major economic decisions to offset the rule of a privileged oligarchy. The equivalent of a constitutional Bill of Rights will be maintained to protect the lifestyles, expression, and opinions of various minorities regardless of how the majority may feel, thus offsetting the possibility of “mob rule.” There would be no central authority controlling human behavior, and there would be no need for it under a system that did not require force or coercion to maintain social stability, order, and humane behavior between people.

Although local community-run security forces may sometimes be needed to quell personal squabbles here and there, there will be no professional police force controlled by a small number of officials to preserve class rule (which would no longer exist) or to enforce acquiescence to the will of either a privileged oligarchy or a misguided majority.

News outlets would belong to the commons, with no corporate or bureaucratic overseers to control the dissemination of information. Hence, all media in every form will be socially owned. The levels of hatred, vitriol, and shaming we see plaguing social media today due to the manner in which different factions of the working class are pitted against each other by corporate and government entities (e.g., identity politics) will have its main fuel source stripped from society.

Is a classless society anti-American or somehow disparaging of what the Founders of America created?

No, it isn’t. That concern by the Right and even some on the Left who correctly see the establishment of the American Constitution as a gain for society is unfounded.

The manifold problems, including the horrors of chattel slavery earlier in American history and the widespread poverty that existed throughout its existence was largely due to the continued presence of class rule, not because of white supremacy existing outside that framework; or because of human nature being too flawed to rise above all that; or an indication that capitalism was established by the Founders because it was the best system possible under any possible circumstances; or because it best complimented Democracy as described in the Bill of Rights or the intangible goals of the American experiment to establish liberty and the pursuit of happiness for everyone (it wasn’t).

Capitalism was selected because it was the best and most advanced system possible at the level of technological advancement extant at the time, replacing the previous global economic order of feudalism that had long outgrown the material advances it provided to the world before it.

Hence, class rule was still inevitable in that largely agrarian world where business was conducted by small individual artisans and farmers rather than big corporations. The world at the time revolved around actual scarcity, private ownership of the relatively simple tools of production someone acquired for personal usage and a barter system using money to pay for scarce items made sense.

Also as a result, the Constitution, despite its progressive nature for the time, was bound to include numerous provisions enabling class rule and respecting the power & privilege of the few. It is only most of what was written in the Bill of Rights that are timeless in their basic essence.

But the inherent flaws in such a system and limited level of production did not enable human civilization to fully implement the lofty but noble intangible mission statement that America was founded upon. This should be understood to be due to the material limits of the time and had nothing to do with human nature.

Saying that humanity cannot rise above class rule because they didn’t do it over the past ten thousand years of human civilization is like saying we will never be able to travel to Mars because if it was possible our ancestors would have done it at some point over the past several thousand years.

Like space travel, the elimination of class rule once it was established thousands of years ago could not be accomplished because it was not technologically possible to do so. And it did not become possible from a material standpoint until the Industrial Revolution was established in the latter half of the 19th century. In fact, the ability to mass produce items and create an abundance for all was not even truly conceivable to a human frame of reference when America was established towards the end of the 18th century.

It wasn’t quite possible during Marx’s time either, but enough progress had occurred by then that it could be readily envisaged as being possible to achieve within the following several decades, much as travel to Mars has not yet been achieved but is now seen as reasonably possible within the next few decades.

Capitalism made the Industrial Revolution possible… at which point it outlived his historical, material, and progressive usefulness to society much as feudalism eventually did before it (and ancient chattel slavery once did before that, et al).

Hence, by the time the Industrial Revolution progressed to the point where it was materially possible to produce an abundance for all capitalism had fulfilled its historic purpose and became utterly archaic, regressive, and destructive to the future progress of humankind in a world of technological development far different from the era in which it was established.

Why didn’t the working class end capitalism at that point then? Because of human nature, right?

Flaws in human nature didn’t prevent the end of class rule when the Industrial Revolution was fully established roughly 130 years ago. Rather, it was the stubborn tendency throughout history for people to fear change; to assume at any point in time that progress had nearly reached a zenith and could go no further; and vulnerability to propaganda by the ruling class of the prevailing era.

Thomas Jefferson himself said as much in the Declaration of Independence regarding how much longer than materially necessary the lower economic classes tolerated feudalism with the following words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

— Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

Is replacing capitalism with socialism somehow betraying and repudiating the American experiment and what it’s supposed to represent to Freedom and Democracy?

As Jefferson’s above-quoted proclamation made clear, contrary to what the Right and even some elements of the Left will claim, capitalism was never intended to be the zenith of human economic development or an eternal system. It was the best system established at the time, nothing more.

In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson acknowledged this along with considering the possibility that such a revolution to an entirely new system may become necessary again if conditions changed sufficiently to make that prudent.

Those conditions have long ago come about, but that stubborn resistance to change aided and abetted by ruling class-controlled propaganda that Jefferson griped about has caused a delay in the working class of the capitalist era from rising to the occasion, let alone recognizing the need en masse thus far. This is by no means unusual in history, and this type of apathy is by no means permanent despite how frustrating the length of time it could take to happen, something Jefferson also noted in the final passage quoted above.

Thus, the working class making this next revolutionary change is not something that the Founders like Jefferson would have disapproved of or seen as the political or philosophical equivalent of sacrilege. It is not shitting all over what America is supposed to be and what its essence represents. Rather, it constitutes the continuation of the American experiment and the achievement of the Founders to its next logical step, to a new system that could better realize that essence in practice rather than simply in feel-good sentiment.

Jefferson also noted this as a sacred duty of the American people, and by extension all working class people, once the prevailing system is no longer serving the greater good or no longer progressive in nature. America was born in revolution, as were so many other nations, and we should not consider another revolution to be heretical or against what the essence of this nation is about. Our loyalty must never be to one specific system, or even once specific nation, but to each other and to the greater good for everyone and our planet as a whole.

Capitalism is no longer doing that for the world; it’s no longer materially necessary and thus no longer morally justifiable. We need to move past it, and those among our class who agree need to grow in number and do our best to convince the vast majority of workers to establish what would be an economic democracy before a truly fascist system or cataclysmic war sets us back many generations — assuming a potential nuclear exchange between warring factions of the international ruling class does not end that possibility for us permanently.