What determines Utopianism?

[Comrade Jandar]

What exactly differentiates utopian socialism and the socialist thought that developed out of the First International? Is it the materialist rather, than idealist argument for socialism? Is it the idea that socialism is tied to specific classes rather than humanity as a whole? Many claim that anarchism is utopian and is based on bourgeois idealism. Is this true? I'm looking forward to the discussion as these are questions I've been wrestling with. Thank you.

[Rooster]

You could read the communist manifesto and Engel's Socialism: Utopian and Scientific about this topic. Basically, utopian socialists kinda dismiss the idea of class struggle and revolution so that society can be reformed some way into a different mode of production. It's a set of ideas that removes itself from the forces in society, so that they think that they can change things with propaganda or presenting their ideas carefully (sounds like a certain tendency ...). Anyway, if you want to learn more, you should read those two works. You should read them anyway if you haven't.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What exactly differentiates utopian socialism and the socialist thought that developed out of the First International? Is it the materialist rather, than idealist argument for socialism?Yes, that's it in my opinion. Utopian socialists essentially believe that building socialism is a question of planning. Can you plan a perfect or at least better and more rational society? So how they see achiving this could be almost anything from a coup where enlightened leaders reorganize society, an elected government that institutes this new society, setting up communes outside of society to show how the new model works better, or even trying to appeal to the rich to rebuild society in a more egalitarian and rational way.

Marxism takes a scientific (materialist) approach and identifies how and why this society is organized as it currently is and also what (who actually) potentially can change this and bring about a more democratic and egalitarian society.


Is it the idea that socialism is tied to specific classes rather than humanity as a whole?I'd disagree with this. Like I said above, Marxism identifies the working class as the class in society that doesn't need to oppress other in order to produce what society needs to function - their position in society means that they can potentially overthrow the owners and bosses and run society cooperatively and democratically. But this also means that by liberating themselves, workers hold the key to liberating all of humanity (ending all classes).


Many claim that anarchism is utopian and is based on bourgeois idealism. Is this true? I'm looking forward to the discussion as these are questions I've been wrestling with. Thank you.This depends in my opinion. Both anarchism and marxism are subject to ideological pressure from other classes and so you end up with things like social-democracy where the starting point might be marxism, but it's been adapted to petty-bourgeois ideas (not often consciously - at least at first). Socialism in general and anarchism in general did not spring fully from a well-defined class perspective - both had appeal to workers and the petty-bourgeois and intellectuals and so there was a mix of different tendencies and ideas about what these things meant and how to achieve them. So workers might not like industrial capitalism because of exploitation and so on, artisans or small shop owners might also resent big capitalism and the massive inequality that became increasingly apparent with its development, but the class interests of these different groups also diverge in important aspects. As class struggle intensified with industrial capitalism, marxism and various anarchist trends more explicitly drew the connections between working class struggle and the fight for socialism. But with the ups and downs of class struggle, groups and individuals or movements often adapt to the interests of other classes (particularly after defeat or stagnation in class struggle).

So are there some ideas among some anarchists or stains of anarchist thought that are idealist or petty-bourgeois. I think that's true: there's a lot of individual and moralist arguments, "lifestylism" if you look at anarchism broadly - there are many people who are radical-liberals but describe themselves as "anarchist". But if you look at socialism in similarly broad terms, you see the same thing, many people who view socialism as just reformism or "more fair" or a series of protections for workers etc.

[piet11111]

Definition of UTOPIAN

1
: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a utopia (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/utopia); especially : having impossibly ideal conditions especially of social organization

2
: proposing or advocating impractically ideal social and political schemes <utopian idealists>

3
: impossibly ideal : visionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/visionary) <recognised the utopian nature of his hopes — C. S. Kilby>

4
: believing in, advocating, or having the characteristics of utopian socialism <utopian doctrines> <utopian novels>




maybe helpful.

[Marvin the Marxian]

My understanding is that, yes, utopian socialism is primarily idealist in nature, whereas Marxist socialism is primarily materialist in nature. Materialism has a scientific foundation, whereas idealism has an ethical foundation.

[Soseloshvili]

Is it the materialist rather, than idealist argument for socialism?

"Idealist" is not the word I would use to describe the opposite of Materialist, but yes. Utopian Socialists are those who reject a Materialist world view - they prefer a subjective ideal of the future that can be obtained via individuals changing their habits.

For example, those who believe that if we all move out into communes and build another society Capitalism will fade away are Utopian. They operate in the realm of what could happen, not what we can do.


Is it the idea that socialism is tied to specific classes rather than humanity as a whole?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you explain? Do you mean some Anarchist tendencies which make broad violent statements such as "kill the rich", saying that if we simply kill off all the oppressors, oppression will go away?

In that case, yes. It is. In a very screwed up way.


Many claim that anarchism is utopian and is based on bourgeois idealism. Is this true?

Anarchism can be Utopian. Anarchism is a very broad term though. There are many Anarchists with a class analysis that believe in a proletarian revolution, and they are not Utopian.

[Rafiq]

Utopianism is essentially a belief that our end goal is communism and several things (socialism, revolution, etc.) are a means of achieving this specific, new society.

Scientific Socialists, on the contrary, recognize communism as a movement that is a reflection of the interests of the proletarian class, and that planning, or setting up blueprints for a future society is rubbish.

Remember, Men and Women make history, but not as they please.

Proletarian domination over it's enemy via the state is the highest expression of it's class interest, thus, we see communism as a means of attaining such interests.

Communism is a weapon of the workers, not the other way around.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Scientific Socialists, on the contrary, recognize communism as a movement that is a reflection of the interests of the proletarian class, and that planning, or setting up blueprints for a future society is rubbish.[quote]I totally agree

[quote]Proletarian domination over it's enemy via the state is the highest expression of it's class interest, thus, we see communism as a means of attaining such interests. Maybe this is a semantic "huh?", but... Huh?

[Paul Cockshott]

You could read the communist manifesto and Engel's Socialism: Utopian and Scientific about this topic. Basically, utopian socialists kinda dismiss the idea of class struggle and revolution so that society can be reformed some way into a different mode of production. .
This is too simple, Owen did not reject class struggle, he paid key role in organising Grand National CONSOLDATED uNION, was something of early syndicalist.

[Rafiq]

[QUOTE=Rafiq;2359755]Scientific Socialists, on the contrary, recognize communism as a movement that is a reflection of the interests of the proletarian class, and that planning, or setting up blueprints for a future society is rubbish.[quote]I totally agree

Maybe this is a semantic "huh?", but... Huh?

Ideologically, speaking.

[blake 3:17]

I think Utopian thought is necessary for socialist struggle.

By its roots it means no place & beautiful place.

An excellent book on the Owenite movement is Eve and the New Jerusalem. http://books.google.ca/books/about/Eve_and_the_new_Jerusalem.html?id=S2XUwNcJr0AC&redir_esc=y

A review of Michael Lowy's book on surrealism: http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/2438

[Ostrinski]

Since utopians have an idealistic method of understanding historical developments, they necessarily believe that all things non-material (ideas and so on) develop independently of environmental factors, that they are conceived artificially through sheer human will in the independent image of humans, and most importantly, that ideas are the vehicle of history, as opposed to interests.

So it follows that they perceive class consciousness as a completely different paradigm than Marxists do. The utopian views class consciousness as a gift of knowledge, something to be spread through discourse, a mere pillar of an idea conceived by socialist intellectuals themselves. Marxists, on the other hand, see class consciousness as an organic development, something that evolves parallel to the intensification of class struggle, and a realization that reflects the direct interests of the conscious class.

As far as anarchists go, they vary. There are utopian variants of anarchists, that use bourgeois liberal philosophy as the framework for their ideology, while there are also anarchists that are staunch materialists. Neither method is inherent in anarchism.

Hope this helps.

[NewLeft]

I think Utopian thought is necessary for socialist struggle.

I think you're right, dystopia is discouraging.

Post 420.

[blake 3:17]

Post 420.

That's what I should be doing...