The Different Kinds of Socialism

The Different Kinds of Socialism

The Non-Specific Kinds of Socialism

The Different Kinds of Socialism

There are many ways to organize a communist/socialist economic system. Just as there are multiple styles of capitalism, with some capitalist nations leaning more towards neoliberalism and others towards social democracy, a socialist world would likely not be uniform. Cultural, political, and geographical differences influence the way societies are organized. I want to note that I am not differentiating socialism and communism as Marx never did himself, just keep in mind that when I am referring to one I am referring to both.

Centralized & Decentralized

One way of organizing a socialist economy is through a central body. This may be a government, a special organization, or an informal group. Centralized socialism involves central planning, this is when a group gathers data and keeps records about the economy and then uses that information to direct production. Centralized socialism should not be equated with authoritarianism and decentralized socialism should not be equated with libertarianism. These are only approaches to organization, whether one or the other is more conducive to authoritarianism is a different debate. With a state, the planning and gathering of information would be done by one or more governmental departments. Without a state, the same can be achieved by special organizations. Centralized socialism can be done at smaller, informal scales, a group of friends running a commune is centralized but informal. Centralized socialism can be done on large and small scales as can decentralized, it only relies on the existence of a single body to manage resources.

Decentralized socialism is organized by many actors, like centralized socialism, it can be formal or informal, on small scales or large. It can be practiced by an informal group of people or be the economic system of a society. You could have a decentralized socialist state or a decentralized anarchist society as long as resources are being managed through multiple channels, people may manage them themselves or in small groups.

Formal & Informal

Socialism can be practiced formally and informally, by formally I mean that it is implemented by systems, institutions, and publicly recognized organizations. Informally, socialism can look like the relationship between family members, spouses, friends, neighbors etc. It is not enforced by a recognized power for the entirety of society but is based on an agreement between members of the group. Some arrangements seem to blur the lines, but they can fit into one or the other category. For example, a town that manages its economy with a central congress of the townspeople is formal if the town is independent and informal if done within the jurisdiction of a larger society.

Personal & Spacial

Socialism can be practiced between people directly or between people indirectly through interfaces (stores, websites). Socialism of a personal variety is easy to imagine, people ask and receive directly through social interaction. This is very intuitive if we are imagining informal socialist arrangements between people who know each other.

State Socialism

In state socialism the economy is managed by a state. Whether a state can exist under socialism and whether or not such a society could be said to have a state under Marxist definitions remains to be articulated. Under state socialism, the state would organize production and distribute resources through the use of departments that work with workers from various fields to meet demand.

Anarchist Socialism

Anarchist socialism involves an economy which is not managed by a central authority but instead through other systems. It can be very informal, consisting of groups of communities distributing resources among themselves. It could also be formal, with organizations that work with people to figure out what needs to be produced and how it needs to be distributed. Such a system may be federated, with branches throughout society and at everyone’s local level.

That all being said, we should not dwell too much on the language used here because under capitalism a state exists to defend property law. Without a ruling class to protect authority the arrangement of political power would surely have to change. It remains to be seen how useful this distinction would actually be when true socialism is being practiced. While I believe that authoritarianism is always possible its likelihood under socialism would seem to be low.

As mentioned, resources can be distributed through interfaces instead of between people directly. People can, through websites, order things to be produced and delivered to them or they can exchange items electronically. Physical “stores” could exist where items are stored and given to people who come in. The point of drawing all these tendencies out is to show that there are different approaches to socialism in practice. In reality, no society or community would stick with one they would likely look like a patchwork of different approaches. People are not helpless and we already take a great deal of care of each other. Under socialism we would likely see this tendency intensify because people simply have a greater ability to do so. There would likely be tightly knit communities which are greatly invested in caring for their environment as agriculture shifts to smaller scales of local production. It is likely that socialism would actually result in the proliferation of local networks and supply chains and would be quite decentralized in practice. I suspect that this tendency would be present in other ways, with people settling back on fertile lands or near wildlife because there is no incentive to ship over long distances. Centralization may be necessary and the better option for certain needs, specialized equipment that only a few people know how to make properly would have to have production handled by those people. Organizations which maintain standards will likely need to exist to keep people safe.