How relevant is socialism to today's politics?

A critical analysis of socialism and the way forward for a happier human experience.

Capitalism won against the Soviet bloc and got to write the war's history. Consequently, most of humankind's view of Marxism or socialism is skewed. On the other hand, many socialists have adopted a doctrinal, quasi-religious viewpoint, which further taints society's knowledge and appreciation of socialism, which limits a reality-based capacity for political analytical action (praxis). This poses at least three questions: What is socialism and how is it relevant today? What about common objections that it is frivolous or outdated? And since we aim to understand today's politics, in order to change them, how are prevalent socialist views and arguments coming up short?

Bringing the lens of production and labor to the table

Many definitions of capitalism and socialism miss the point about what they are, oftentimes getting lost in descriptions that do not define the two systems. In a nutshell, the fundamental difference between the two revolves around what Marx called the "means of production", which are everything workers use to produce goods and services, such as land, machines, tools or resources, the key question being: Should these means of production belong to private individuals or corporations, or must they be the property of society as a whole?

Capitalism states that the means of production can be the property of private individuals or corporations. Consequently it states that the price paid for a good or service goes to the owners of the company that produced them, meaning they receive benefits, not from their work in producing the goods or services, but for the money they used to buy the means of production (this is the definition of "capital"). Workers who produce the goods or services then receive their wage as part of an agreement between them and the capital owners. Socialism states the means of production should be the property of society as a whole; and that the value of the goods or services produced belongs fully to the workers who produced them.

The above question might seem like a theoretical one, best left to economic "experts". But by focusing on the question of means of production and the value of labor, Marx and others both before and after him brought the lens on a key area, one that deeply —even tragically— affects society and human life. He showed that because capitalism allows some to make money without producing anything (what is today often called "passive income"), it effectively creates a parasitic class.

Capitalism is fundamentally anti-democratic, even criminal

This theft of workers' labor is not just morally unjust, it is actually tragic for humankind. Because capitalism allows for the accumulation of extreme wealth in the hands of a few individuals and corporations, it ends up giving these few people unparalleled control of society by at least three means: First, clientelist control. For example, Amazon employs around 1.5 million individuals, which limits their freedom to take stances against Amazon's policies. We have recently seen cases where those taking public stances against the genocide in Palestine lose their jobs in academic institutions or IT megacorporations.

Second, media monopoly. For example, 90% of French media is controlled by a few billionaires. A similar situation exists in the UK and even worldwide. This monopoly enabled tolerance of the genocide in Palestine and has hidden countless other genocides from European and North American populations.

Third, organizational capacity, including by means of lobbying. Capitalist industries support virtually all major political parties, which is a key reason why the US and the UK have only had two main political parties over hundreds of years. This allows these capitalists to enact policies that benefit them, such as the 1% lowering taxes on their businesses, the food and pharma industry legalizing harmful foods and drugs, the armament industry making sure war candidates attain power or AIPAC making sure all key US presidential candidates are zionists.

For all these reasons, a system that allows the accumulation of capital is fundamentally antidemocratic. The genocide is Palestine has shown capital's capacity to override popular will: While most Republican and Democratic party members were against the flow of US weaponry to the colony in 2024, both Republican and Democratic party candidates sided with it.

Theft of workers' labor and capital's undemocratic control are not the only problems with capitalism. Marx also analyzed its effect on human happiness—a word scarcely used in capitalist slogans, although it is arguably a key human endeavor. For example, by separating workers from owning the means of production and from business decision-making, capitalism alienates workers from their work. The result is that instead of our work being something we enjoy, something we derive pleasure, satisfaction and meaning from, it is more often than not something we do because we must. Interestingly, this in turn leads to flawed conclusions, such as that humans are naturally lazy and would not work without financial incentive—a view that fails to explain hobbies (where we produce happily, on our "leisure" time after work), not to mention millennia of human history, production and creativity.

But, isn't socialism unrealistic?

All life, human or otherwise, is tainted with suffering—at best, we grow sick, grow old and die. So there is no perfect economic or political model, and we must be able to critique socialism (more on that below). However, a number of objections to socialism are the product of capitalist hegemony over the discourse. Here are answers to four common objections.

"How can we live without private property? I want to own a house and a TV!" — Socialism criticizes private property of means of production, not personal property. In a socialist country or world, we can own houses, TVs and as much as society is able to produce. Actually, the non-accumulation of wealth in the hands of a capitalist class means there is more to redistribute among the population.

"But competition is good and monopoly is bad" — There definitely is value to competition, and a number of socialist models allow for it. What it doesn't allow for is the control of means of production that inevitably ends in precisely what capitalism claims to abhor: Monopoly. Just think of the very limited number of brands in fields such as electronics, automobile or distribution (such as Amazon). Even the thousands of brands we see in key sectors such as the food industry actually belong to just a handful of companies. Add that to the abovementioned monopoly of political parties and media. And as mentioned, the accumulation of wealth allows these multibillionaire corporations to repel anti-monopoly laws.

"Isn't socialism authoritarian?" — Almost all aspects of human rule have been authoritarian, and this includes the Stalinist version of "socialism" which dominated the socialist bloc during the 20th century. However, authoritarianism is not inherent to socialism as it is to capitalism, as it does not allow a capitalist class to exist and use its wealth to influence and/or reach power. The struggle to establish a polity where humans are equal and exercise democratic control of their affairs is ongoing and has yet to succeed.

"Sure, but socialism has failed" — Indeed, the socialist bloc lost the war to the capitalist bloc. This shows the socialist bloc was weaker, but it doesn't show that a capitalist class should own the means of production. By means of comparison, European settlers have succeeded at genociding entire populations and have largely been succeeding at it in Palestine since 1948—Does this mean settler colonialism is a good idea?

Critique of socialism

As mentioned, there is no perfect economic or political model. Many socialists today, however, still present themselves as Marxists or, in practice, tend to copy/paste ready-made classical socialist doctrines as quasi-religious truths. Critiquing socialist tools of analysis and political work is therefore key to remaining in touch with reality and presenting effective alternatives to capitalism.

This critique should include obvious mistakes such as failed Marxist predictions. For example, Marx predicted that due to rising inequalities under capitalism, the working class would inevitably revolt. He further predicted this would start in countries where capitalism was most advanced such as Germany or the UK, and that it would spread, override national identities and eventually become a global movement. Today's socialists need, not only to recognize these doctrinal flaws, but to understand what caused them and avoid repeating the same mistakes.

Among the mistakes are aspects of human society that fall outside the frame of Marxism. This includes Grasmci's concept of cultural hegemony, which is a set of convictions and thinking patterns that society views as natural or normal and therefore does not attempt to challenge. This can include normalizing private ownership of means of production or thinking that elections are the primary way of change. Classical socialism also takes little note of the effect of weaponizing religious, ethnonational, sexual, gender or other identities. Identity can easily appeal to primal instincts and trigger emotions that eclipse even direct material interests, particularly true in group settings such as collective identities. Other political projects, such as settler colonialism, can also include aspects that fall outside the lens of production and labor. For example, in Palestine, working class settlers occupy the lands of an ethnically razed Palestinian bourgeoisie.

Finally, some aspects of classical socialism are no longer as relevant as they used to be. The industrialization of agriculture means that most of what Marx taught regarding farmers is now irrelevant. The prevalence of self-employed freelancers, particularly those who work online, means that traditional analyses focused on ownership of means of production are no longer valid, as the means of production (often just a laptop and an Internet connection) can cost as low as a week's wage. A copy/pasted Marxism would consider billionaires like Lionel Messi to be working class, since he only sells the value his labor. Classical tools of analysis are also inadequate for a proper understanding of technofeudalism, an economic system where tech companies function like modern feudal lords: Not owning means of production but making businesses pay for the right to use the electronic spaces they control and that are necessary for these businesses to thrive. The growth and prevalence of artificial intelligence, which threatens to render much of human labor itself irrelevant, is further likely to exacerbate the irrelevance of classical socialist tools.

All of the above can be summed up in two key concepts: First, capitalism cannot be reformed. As long as capital can be accumulated, capitalists will control society. True democracy is contingent on the defeat of capitalism. Second, classical —and particularly doctrinal— socialism cannot bring about radical change. This means that revolutionary individuals and organizations must build the capacity to analyze the dynamics sustaining existing political systems, prepare relevant and adapted revolutionary roadmaps and engage in such work. This capacity can be built when revolutionaries grasp analytical tools, but also develop the critical capacity required to keep in touch with reality instead of doctrinalizing tools as ready-made solutions.

Although the capitalist system is heavily entrenched and has so far managed to survive all of its contradictions, many crises await it in the near future. These might include AI replacing human labor, the possibility of AI going rogue, a confrontation between the US and China, the environmental crisis, new and possibly harsher Covid-like plagues, or other human-made or natural disasters. At that point, revolutionary organizations that are capable of grasping what is happening and that have built the capacity to act decisively toward revolutionary changes might be able to turn such crises into opportunities. Now is the time to build such organizations. This is a call to action.