Utopian Socialism

[Chomskyan]

I have three questions on Utopian Socialism, first, is there anyone who has read and is familiar with their arguments? Secondly, what were their arguments? Lastly, what were Marxist/Anarchist objections to their arguments?

I have Robert Owen, Charles Fourier and Hanri de Saint-Simon on my ever long reading list.

[Creative Destruction]

Well, a lot of the utopian socialists took the labor theory of value to heart and mistakenly thought that if you just pegged currency to labor hours, then all would be well. That, in conjunction with coordinating production through cooperatives. There was still a market based element to their theories, IIRC. They also had the idea that you could set up little "laboratories" of socialism and have them spread around once people saw how well it worked.

Some anarchists fall into the utopian socialist trap. I am not familiar with a plainly Anarchist criticism, other than the anarcho-communists criticizing them for retaining market-based elements. Marxists criticize them for not realizing that history doesn't move along peacefully, and socialism can't be brought about in "laboratories," so to speak. Also, he criticized them for applying the labor theory of value to a socialist conception of society, when the LTV was strictly capitalist. Since the underpinning mechanism of capitalism is value, it is necessary to get rid of it in order to get rid of capitalism. Thus, no law of value in a socialist society.

There were other arguments made, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/

eta. also, a big one: the utopian socialists did not focus on class as a motivator in social relations. per Engels:


One thing is common to all three [Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen]. Not one of them appears as a representative of the interests of that proletariat which historical development had, in the meantime, produced. Like the French philosophers, they do not claim to emancipate a particular class to begin with, but all humanity at once. Like them, they wish to bring in the kingdom of reason and eternal justice, but this kingdom, as they see it, is as far as Heaven from Earth, from that of the French philosophers.

[Chomskyan]

Bump. Is there anyone here who can define what "scientific socialism" means?

[Tim Cornelis]

" communism presents itself as the transcendence of the systems of utopian socialism which seek to eliminate the faults of social organisation by instituting complete plans for a new organisation of society whose possibility of realisation was not put in relationship to the real development of history." (bordiga)

So scientific socialism is the socialism elaborated consistent with the real development of history as discovered through the materialist conception of history.

[Collective Reasons]

So scientific socialism is the socialism elaborated consistent with the real development of history as discovered through the materialist conception of history.

The struggle between the various forms of socialism in the early 19th century was arguably a struggle over what forms of analysis would get to count as "scientific" in socialist circles. Long before Engels' book, folks like Proudhon were attacking the "utopian" aspects of figures like Fourier, Comte, Pierre Leroux, etc. and arguing for the need to ground socialism in solid social science. But in those early stages of the debate, the tendency of those figures to take their specific taxonomies (Fourier's passional gamut, Leroux's triad, etc.) for reality was treated more or less separately from their more general insights and their practical experiments. For an anarchist like Proudhon, some of the "utopians" seemed to have done solid social science in portions of their work, and then screwed things up by turning a few of their observations into the basis of a new form of governmentalism.

Reading the "utopians" now, with the draw of some new phalanstery or Icaria being pretty much nonexistent, we can more easily focus on those general observations. Cabet makes intelligent and entertaining arguments for communism in principle, however disastrous the colony movement was. Fourier is full of interesting observations about any number of topics, if you're willing to wade through the fanciful presentation. He, at least, remains a lot of fun to read, which I couldn't say about Saint-Simon or Comte, although both of them had important influences that it is useful to be able to recognize. Pierre and Jules Leroux mixed a lot of very solid observation and analysis with their utopian experiments, and sifting the wheat from the chaff might be worthwhile. Some of the others who were influential in radical circles (Stephen Pearl Andrews, the "Mahpah" Ganneau, the various Owenite prophets, etc.) are simply entertaining now, giving us glimpses into just how weird some of our traditions got.

The arguments of the "utopians" run a pretty wide gamut, and we lump them (whether by Proudhon's or Engel's criteria) because they let certain fixed ideas hijack their scientific pursuits. Of the bunch, Fourier and the Lerouxs are probably the ones that might still contain salvageable bits. Knowing a little of Comte and Saint-Simon is useful so you can recognize their influence, but I'm not sure their use goes beyond that.

[Illegalitarian]

I'm not mega familiar with the term but I think it simply refers to those who believe we can just "build communism" within the current structure and make it work, such as those who cling to communes as an alternative to capitalism. I don't think you'll find many on the revolutionary left who agree with this

[David Warner]

I think the best thing you can read on this topic is Friedrich Engels' Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

www . marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/

Basically, utopian socialists didn't like the capitalist system and presented criticisms of this from an idealist / liberal point of view but they had absolutely no scientific -- materialist -- understanding of how the system works, how it's a particular stage in the evolution of human society, and how it will, like every other previous system be inevitably replaced by a superior -- more productive one. Neither did most of them understand the role of the proletariat and other oppressed classes in bringing about this revolutionary transformation.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think the best thing you can read on this topic is Friedrich Engels' Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

www . marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/

Basically, utopian socialists didn't like the capitalist system and presented criticisms of this from an idealist / liberal point of view but they had absolutely no scientific -- materialist -- understanding of how the system works, how it's a particular stage in the evolution of human society, and how it will, like every other previous system be inevitably replaced by a superior -- more productive one. Neither did most of them understand the role of the proletariat and other oppressed classes in bringing about this revolutionary transformation.

Yeah, this, i think.

The "utopian schemes" are really just a symptom of a more fundamental issue of seeing socialism as a "rational" project (sometimes a moral project). So while they could be highly scientifically-minded, the specific "unscientific" aspect of them from a revolutionary perspective is not understanding class. They understood that workers suffered (sometimes they saw this in highly elitist ways... Socialism would be imposed over workers to uplift them) but they generally saw history progressing in an idealist way of "better ideas". For some then, you lecture rulers and the middle class and rationally explain why socialism would be a better way of organizing things; for others, you create a model to show it and then everyone will agree that it's the best idea.

At best it was socialism from above through reforms or "pockets of socialist communities" but it could sometimes also represent really reactionary and ugly ideas. Actually imo their wierd plans and schemes are the most entertaining part of them. Nothing wrong with utopian yearnings in that sense imo as long as it's understood that ultimately only workers have the social power and potential interest in achieving and organizing it collectively.

[jullia]

Are there some actual utopia project, community who try to organize themself as it?

[consuming negativity]

i was trying to be able to read fourier's théorie de l’unité universelle after seeing it quoted in something i was reading the other day (think it was by engels) but i was unable to find an english translation. guess i need to go work on my french. :rolleyes:

and no offense to good-intentioned posters ITT but reading engels to learn more about the utopian socialists is a lot like recommending lenin to learn more about marx or engels. i mean, it's not that you can't do it, it's just why would you go through a middle-man before you even read about their stuff yourself? why not recommend some of their actual works, even if you give a critical analysis along with it?