The Problem Is Not “Socialism” but the Term Itself: A Theoretical Analysis of the Conceptual Incoherence of Socialist Ideas

Boris M. Shekhtman

MPRA Paper from University Library of Munich, Germany

Abstract: The aim of this article is to demonstrate the theoretical incoherence and practical futility of the longstanding public debate “Capitalism vs. Socialism”. The paper offers a conceptual and theoretical analysis of the term “socialism” within the framework of Marx’s philosophical–economic theory. It argues that contemporary discussions of capitalism and socialism are distorted by entrenched terminological errors that were consolidated and institutionalised within the Soviet ideological model, whose influence continues to shape political and intellectual discourse today. By drawing a systematic distinction between Marx’s scientific theory—comprising dialectical materialism, historical materialism, and political economy—and the ideological construct developed during the Soviet period and commonly known as Marxism, the author demonstrates that the concept of a “socialist social formation” is theoretically inconsistent and lacks any foundation within the framework of historical materialism. The analysis shows that, according to Marx’s theoretical system, the type of social formation is determined by the mode of production and, therefore, by the type of labour employed. From this standpoint, both private and state ownership are capitalist in character when the production process is based on wage labour. Hence, the so-called “socialist” states of the twentieth century should be regarded as systems of absolute state capitalism—a form of capitalism in which the state is the sole and monopolistic owner of all means of production. The article further argues that the modern use of the term “socialism” results from a semantic substitution: instead of denoting a theoretically invalid type of social formation, it now refers to a social function of the capitalist state—namely, redistributive policy within the capitalist economic system. Clarifying these distinctions enables a more accurate understanding of Marx’s theoretical legacy and shows that, unlike the ideological doctrine of Marxism, his philosophical–economic theory supports rather than rejects the principles of a free society: private property, free labour, and economic efficiency.

Keywords: Capitalism; Socialism; Soviet Marxist ideology; terminological confusion; Marx’s philosophical–economic theory; Historical Materialism; wage labour; Absolute State Capitalism; Semantic Substitution; free society. (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: B24 P12 P2 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2026-04-23
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/128837/1/MPRA_paper_128837.pdf original version (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pra:mprapa:128837

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in MPRA Paper from University Library of Munich, Germany Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Joachim Winter ().