Were the "Utopian Socialists" Really Socialists?

[Rêve Rouge]

It's been awhile since I've logged on here. But anyways, I've been looking around the forums recently. And a lot of people are throwing terms around like "socialism is where the workers themselves control the economy", or "socialism is where the MoP are controlled by the workers themselves". Basically everything is in the power of the workers themselves. I personally feel these ideas hold true for anarchism, communism, and syndicalism. Socialism although is a fuzzy word that people like to play around with.

Anyways, this made me wonder; were the people, who first used the term socialism, be considered socialists? Utopian socialists such as Owen, Saint Simon, and Fourier as far as I know, didn't mention anything about workers taking control of the economy. In fact, Saint Simon for example believed in a proto-technocratic society where there would be three classes; (1) the scientists, artists and engineers who would lead society, (2) the managers and "proprietors" who would manage production, and (3) the workers who would run production.

Here's some characteristics that the utopian socialists all had in common:
1. Society should undergo change through the power of reason (reformism)
2. The poor should be alleviated from the top-down.
3. The MoP should be owned by some centralized entity (e.g. the state)
4. Cooperation, rather than collaboration is emphasized.
5. "From each according their ability, to each according to their contributions"

These characteristics seem contrary to the ideas of everything under the control of the workers themselves.

So what do you all think? Would you consider the utopian socialists as socialists? If not, why not?

[Jose Gracchus]

They may be considered a kind of socialists in their own time; however with the emergence of the real workers' movement, it is not progressive.

[jake williams]

They don't follow the criteria by which movements are considered "socialist" today, but they're where we get the term from.

[syndicat]

"socialism" is a very vague word that refers to social or collective ownership of the means of production. Proudhon may have been the first socialist to advocate collective worker management and ownership. Marx & Engels regarded the utopian socialists as "utopian" because they did not have a realistic view as to how capitalism could be replaced with some form of socialism, and also because M&E believed that the agent of that change would determine the character of what socialism was to be...views that were shared by the Bakuninist or libertarian wing of the First International.

The First International was built on the assumption that it was the working class that would be the agent of change to a form of socialism and the character was defined by the first principle of the international: "the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves."

this defines the movement as a movement of working class self-liberation and also says that the working class is the agent of that change. it was at that time that radical workers began to think in terms of workers running the economy as the character of socialism, that is, a socialism that would implement "the self-emancipation of the working class."

[RED DAVE]

Read and learn:

Socialism, Utopian and Scientific - by Engels (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm)

Really good archive of utopian writing (http://www.marxists.org/subject/utopian/index.htm)

RED DAVE

[Rêve Rouge]

Fair enough responses. I'll just take it here that there really isn't a single definition no one can agree on, since there has been many theorists tossing around the word socialism.

But taking from the reading from Hal Draper, I believe socialism splits off into two main routes; from above (state socialism), and from below (libertarian socialism). It's just a matter of which method works best. From there, many ideologies branch off. And as I can see from the responses here, and the majority of revleft, socialism from below seems to be the favorite pick. Like anarchism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism, syndicalism...and the list goes on.

[Kiev Communard]

Saint-Simone was indeed a progenitor of the technocratic wing in the (broadly defined) socialist movement, while Fourier put faith in the moral persuasion of all "people of good will" (including the capitalists) for joining his phalanstère autarkic communities which would have been self-sufficient. Of course, none of such concepts corresponds well to modern ideas on socialism (although, ironically enough, lifestylist ideas, with their "dropping out of the present society" quip, could be traced to Fourier).

Owen, on the other hand, was the only one among the Utopians who paid attention to the actual conditions on the ground, and instead of indulging into portraying the new world as something pre-conceived (as Fourier and, to a lesser extent, Saint-Simone did), he tried to provide for the establishment of the new societal institutions out of the workers' co-operative production. However, it was his hopes for "good governments" assistance that would make him a Utopian.

On the other hand, Proudhon (despite all usual vilifications) was the first of the pre-IWMA socialist thinkers whose ideas were derived from the immediate observation and analysis of the real working-class movement (his mutualism was ultimately a mere theoretical summary of the practices of then-workers' co-operative movement in France, in particular in Lyons), and he eschewed drawing the elaborate plans of the new utopian society. In that sense, for all his faults, Proudhon may be regarded as the first scientific socialist.

[RED DAVE]

But taking from the reading from Hal Draper, I believe socialism splits off into two main routes; from above (state socialism), and from below (libertarian socialism). It's just a matter of which method works best.It's not a matter of which works best.

State socialism is not socialism. Draper should have been clearer on that.

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

On the other hand, Proudhon (despite all usual vilifications) was the first of the pre-IWMA socialist thinkers whose ideas were derived from the immediate observation and analysis of the real working-class movement

actually the first socialist to talk about workers building unions and organizing for socialism that way was a pioneer socialist-feminist of Peruvian origin: Flora Tristan y Moscozo. she worked in France as a printer. she was also the first socialist to propose the formation of an international federation of unions, that is, a worker international. however, Tristan had originally been a follower of Fourier and had not entirely broken clear of utopian influences.


State socialism is not socialism. Draper should have been clearer on that.


well, what we've learned is that an authentically collective, social economy cannot be brought about by putting power into the hands of some minority of would-be saviors or leaders, to implement a program top-down thru the state. the failure of both social democracy and Leninism in practice has shown that state socialism simply preserves the class system, and thus minority control, in one form or another.