In a recent conversation with a friend, we discussed whether charity could be considered a form of socialism. Charity is the distribution of goods or services at no upfront cost to those who require them, done on a voluntary basis. A government which can choose to implement policies or revoke them could be considered performing a sort of charity when it provides social services.

But to me, the philosophical purpose of socialism is, in theory, to distribute not material goods but power more evenly in society. Early socialists called for democratic governments and workers control over the means of production. The purpose of this was to enable people to live lives free of coercive control.

Historically speaking, any powerful individual or organisation which has any sense will find some way to appeal to the masses. Often they may turn to what I described above as charity. Granting out favours in exchange for loyalty and obedience. This approach can be described as populism.

Populism is an appeal to the masses through addressing widespread concerns, as a means to accumulate power.

Socialism is an attempt to redistribute power to the masses, as a means of addressing widespread concerns.

Now of course you may immediately object that the vast majority of socialist governments have more closely followed my definition of populism. But a populist must necessarily pretend to be on the side of the masses rather than out for their own gain. Calling yourself a socialist has historically been a great excuse to seize all power and centralise it within your own hands.

If an ideology which is intended to distribute power instead allows for its accumulation, it is not fit for purpose. Most common interpretations of socialism will inevitably produce populism instead. This is a product of fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of power at best, and deliberate intent at worst. Any organisation which claims to value democracy and freedom, yet operates in an undemocratic fashion, both internally and through its interactions with the world, cannot be trusted.

It is a clear fact that right now that the general population of the Western world has major concerns with the way things are being run. Neoliberalism and neoconservatism have failed to address these concerns over the course of successive governments.

Populists are on the rise because they offer cheap and easy solutions to difficult problems. They are perfectly happy to make promises they can never fulfil. So far, establishment parties have tried to contain this rise by adopting populist tactics themselves.

Our choices, then, will merely be between populist parties. The destruction of democracy and independent living will be inevitable regardless of who we vote for.

That’s why we need the return of socialism according to the above definition. An actual shift in power, both economic and political, away from the governments and corporations and back to the ordinary person. Beyond total revolution, the only mainstream proposal I’ve seen for this is a universal basic income combined with a land value tax. It’s somewhat heartening to see basic income being trialed in many places across the globe, but there is a lot riding on the details of its implementation, and I’ve seen no moves towards a land value tax so far.

Unless we can deal with the rapid increase in global inequality in a structured manner, through socialism as I defined it above, the only alternative will be the rise of populism, and all that entails. Regardless of previous political alignments, my hope is to build the largest coalition possible in favour of redistributing power downwards, for fear of it being redistributed upwards instead.