izzy

During the middle ages, the economic and political system of Europe was feudalism. In this system, the results of your labor were usually owned by whoever owned the land you were working on (very overgeneralized). Starting in the 16th century, most elements of feudalism slowly began to change.

Before the 19th century, most labor was agricultural labor. But with the industrial revolution, land ownership became less and less important in regards to labor. So the economy changed: Before, the results of your labor were owned by the ones owning the land you were working on. Now, the results of your labor belonged to the ones owning the machines you were working with – Capitalism was born.

This did have positive results: It was now technically possible to choose which boss you worked for (while you could not at all have chosen which feudal landlord you lived under)

But this was far from enough for many people. Because whether the fruits of your labor belong to a feudal landlord or your boss – they still don't belong to you.

One person with this view was Karl Marx. He described capitalism as a system with two classes: The “bourgeoisie”, the people who owned property that others worked with, and the results of their labor. And the “proletariat”, the people who worked for the bourgeoisie.

(Note: you should google the correct spelling of “bourgeoisie” bc im not guaranteeing anything)

Out of this emerged the movement of communism, an ideology that rejects money, the state, and class (or, to be specific, the two classes of capitalism)

Socialism was seen as a transitioning period between capitalism and communism.

As communism and socialism became more popular, it began to divide into different beliefs.

The main idea behind socialism: The results of my labor – i.e. the products I make – are owned and controlled by the person owning the machines I use. But since I'm the one doing the work, I should get to own and control the results of that work.

Authoritarian Socialism: Our biggest problem is that the bourgeoisie isn't on its own – the government is on their side too. The proletariat is powerless against both, so we (the workers) need to take over the government. That way, both “sides” will have equal amounts of power. The state can only be abolished once it's not needed as a force against the beourgeoisie anymore

Libertarian Socialism: Our biggest problem is that power corrupts – the ones in power will always use it for their own advantage, no matter if they're actually “good people”. Because of this, we need to get rid of all positions of power – including the state

In many socialist revolutions, libertarian and authoritarian socialists fought side by side – until the authoritarian socialists came to power. Then, libertarian socialists were persecuted just like any other political opposition

Those two are probably the most “radical” forms of socialism. A less radical one would be democratic socialism.

And this is the point when the distinction between socialism and communism becomes relevant. Because as I said, socialism was originally thought of as a transitioning period between capitalism and communism. Therefore, any socialist would also be a communist.

But there are people who agree with the “main idea behind socialism” I described – but who do not agree that money and the state should be abolished. This often applies to democratic socialists.

Democratic Socialism: Revolution is too much. Instead, we as workers should gain more rights through gradual democratic reform. The more rights we get, the smaller the difference between the two classes – until at some point, it only takes one vote to control the results of our labor ourselves.

However, democratic socialism rarely stays socialism for a long time. Democratic socialist candidates/parties who gained more power often adopted social democratic views after some time.

Social Democracy: We don't need socialism; the people who own the machines should also be able to own everything created with them. BUT, the state should ensure that everyone's basic needs – food, healthcare, education, etc – are met.

Now, there isn't a way to clearly distinguish social democratic states from other capitalist states. It's more like a scale from less to more welfare. In addition to that, people tend to confuse social democracy with democratic socialism (similar names, and democratic socialism tends to turn into social democracy, so it's an easy mistake to make)

That's why people tend to make the mistake of saying “every country is a bit socialist”. What they actually mean is “every country has some policies meant to benefit the workers” – and that idea definitely originated from socialism, but it's far from the same.

Scandinavian countries are prime examples of social democracy, not socialism