Here's a copy of my book review of Tony Smith's A Socialism for the Twenty-First Century, as published in Marxism and Philosophy Review of Books, October 6th 2025:
Tony Smith
Brill, Leiden, 2025. 496 pp., USD 195.00 hb
ISBN 9789004738126
Stephen Darling
In A Socialism for the Twenty-First Century, Tony Smith argues for “a feasible and superior alternative” (120) to capitalism in the form of republican socialism. At its core, republicanism rests on two principles: self-governance and freedom from domination (4–8). For Smith, these principles express an explicitly anti-authoritarian stance, summed up in the formulation “self-governance without domination” (24). The result is a vision of socialism that is clearly anti-authoritarian—unlike the state-socialist models of the former USSR or present-day China.
From the outset, Smith aims to develop a model that goes beyond historical instances of “really existing socialism.” Because those experiences shaped both popular perceptions and rejections of socialism—captured in Thatcher’s “There Is No Alternative” (TINA) and Hayek’s “road to serfdom”—Smith’s republican socialism corrects the misconception that socialism entails an authoritarian state that curtails individual freedom.
The book is divided into two parts. In the first, drawing on Marx’s critique of political economy and his own analysis of contemporary global capitalism, Smith argues that capitalism should be abolished and replaced with a socialist alternative. In the second, based on Marx’s “assertion principle”—that “the full and free development of every individual [should form its] ruling principle” (121)—Smith outlines a socialism that goes beyond “self governance without domination” and “production for social needs” to secure “human flourishing” (24). Overall, he aims to formulate a conception of socialism that “would count as a world-historical advance” (120) over capitalism.
Smith sets himself a momentous task. Whether he ultimately succeeds is another question. But the project is worth pursuing. Contrary to the Thatcherite line, there appears to be no alternative to socialism given the current state of capitalism, marked by world poverty, staggering concentrations of wealth, uneven development, and severe environmental destruction.
Smith frames his intervention around several concerns (Ch. 1). First, liberal-democratic republicanism has failed to provide either an adequate theoretical framework for comprehending capitalism or a coherent response to its social pathologies (2–3). Second, social republicanism has not offered viable alternatives that overcome these problems. Finally, he seeks to contribute to the Marxist debate about how a “republican socialist framework might actually work” (22) in practice. The “last word” on socialism has not been written; his aim is to advance it.
Smith’s model draws on Marx’s critique of political economy (Ch. 2) and a critical analysis of contemporary global capitalism (Ch. 3), which together provide theoretical and empirical grounds for a socialist alternative. Capitalism rests on a capital/wage-labour relation that is inherently oppressive and exploitative. It is driven by structural imperatives—valorisation and accumulation—rooted in “generalised commodity production and exchange” (50–51, 43 65). These generate predictable harms: overaccumulation and financial crises, uneven development, and ecological destruction (65–75). It is not enough to mitigate the effects, as liberal-democratic republicanism proposes (34–43). One must abolish the features that produce them: the capital/wage-labour relation, core property and production relations, and capital itself. That in turn requires abolishing the market system that sustains capital. On Smith’s reading, social republicanism fails here because it leaves markets intact. We must abolish not only capitalists but capital (14–18).
Market socialists might agree with the critique of capitalism but insist that abolishing capitalists is sufficient. Smith replies that without abolishing capital and markets, cooperatives will still be subordinated to accumulation and valorisation. Instead of producing for social needs, they will compete to meet the needs of capital. Genuine self-governance without domination requires eliminating the market form itself.
Turning to the present, Smith argues that capitalism has reached its “historical limits” (79) as a dynamic system. Historically, competition tied technological and economic dynamism; innovation brought productivity gains, lower prices, and broad improvements in material well-being (32). Today, however, many regions possess “reasonably effective national innovation systems” (83). Rapid diffusion of innovations erodes surplus profits (84–85), reducing incentives to invest and weakening the link between technological and economic dynamism (85). Accumulation continues, but increasingly through other strategies, including a neoliberal “war on labour” (92–112). Since the 1970s, the system has moved from a “golden age” to a “global slump,” with persistent overaccumulation crises (88–92). Capitalism persists, Smith argues, but is no longer a viable economic system.
The decisive test, however, is whether a superior and feasible socialist model can be specified (Ch. 4–11). Smith begins from Marx’s normative principle: “the full and free development of every individual forms the ruling principle” (122). This demands universal emancipation from domination and exploitation—master/slave, landlord/serf, and capital/wage-labour— and explicitly aims at human flourishing (121–126). Smith treats this principle as the Lakatosian “hard core” of a “socialist constitution” (122–123).
Grounding his model here, Smith underscores Marx’s non-authoritarian commitments. As William Clare Roberts argues in Marx’s Inferno (14), Marx can be read as a radical republican rather than a Platonic authoritarian. Smith’s framework helps dispel the caricature of Marx as inherently authoritarian.
Within the legal frame of a socialist constitution, Smith articulates core action-guiding principles (Ch. 4). The “free” and the “full” are inseparable: individuals fully develop only if they are simultaneously free to do so (121). “Free development” means collective self governance without domination, and the ability to choose the kind of life one wishes to live (126–150, 158). “Full development” requires production for social needs across three dimensions: community needs (infrastructure, parks, hospitals), common basic needs (food, shelter, clothing), and particular needs (a violin for a musician; a computer for a writer) so that talents can be developed (121, 150–158, 473). He also adds two “solidarity constraints”—investment and environmental—to ensure equity and sustainability (159–161). In sum, the society is “a solidarity society based on self-governance without domination and social production for social needs” (395).
Principles alone are insufficient; they must be realised institutionally (24, 120). Here Smith argues for feasibility (Ch. 5–11). Following Marx’s distinction between the “realm of necessity” and the “realm of freedom” (24–27, 433, 460–461)—understood as the socially necessary labour required to reproduce society over time, and the expansion of free time as necessary labour declines—he sketches the model’s architecture. Individuals work cooperatively and freely in non-privately owned Workers’ or Production Collectives to produce social goods for social needs (202, 475). Money does not function as a general equivalent, and there are no retained earnings (Ch. 7). Production is coordinated by “indicative planning,” as in post-WWII Europe, not by Soviet-style central planning (194 196).
Collectives operate within a network of self-governed institutions: a Democratic Assembly, Community Associations and Activist Groups, (National) Sector Agencies, Local Research Centres, Local Social Investment Centres, a Judicial System, Local Producer Review Boards, Local Community Agencies, and local branches of an (International) Social Transaction Centre (251). Smith develops the model at the local level (Chs. 5–6) and then scales it to regional, national, and international levels (Chs. 8–9). There is no “socialism in one country”: historical experience suggests socialism requires global integration.
Smith closes the architecture by returning to “free time.” Human flourishing depends on reducing necessary labour so that people have expanding leisure to pursue their own ends— including, if they wish, doing nothing. The model thus combines institutional feasibility with a distinct account of the good.
Overall, Smith’s model is grounded in real institutions rather than utopian abstraction. Many components transform familiar capitalist institutions—banking and finance into local social investment centres and international transaction centres, for example—reoriented toward social needs and run on principles of self-governance without domination. Judicial systems and research centres are similarly repurposed. The model also retains and redirects technologies developed under capitalism (such as the internet). It proceeds from an analysis of capitalism’s property and production relations and structural tendencies. In this sense, Smith builds from what exists rather than “out of nothing.”
Smith addresses standard objections about incentives and efficiency (Ch. 10) and ends with a programmatic discussion of transition—how to get from here to there (Ch. 12). On efficiency, he notes that capitalism may remain unmatched at lowering costs and prices, but argues that efficiency in a socialist framework should be assessed by whether production for social needs secures human flourishing—an aim capitalism does not set for itself.
Finally, the model excludes capitalists and, more importantly, is not based on generalised commodity production and exchange. Without that market form, capital cannot re-emerge to dominate via accumulation and valorisation. This is crucial to claiming an advance over market socialism and, ultimately, over capitalism.
In the end, Smith offers a significant and path-breaking contribution to the socialist project. The book will interest Marxists working on alternatives to capitalism and philosophers of varied persuasions concerned with the kinds of institutions that best enable human flourishing.
No comments:
Post a Comment