Utopian and Scientific Socialism

[Entrails Konfetti]

I read the first section of Utopian and Scientific Socialism,
I still dont understand the different. So if Socialism is looked at a historical dilatectical perspective and proves that the proletariat must overthrow the bourgeosie,that confirms it scientific ?

Isn't the idea of self-government and a world without antagonism a utopian idea ?

[KC]

Utopian socialism is what earlier socialist thinkers talked about. They talked about what socialist society was without addressing how to create or sustain it.

Scientific socialism:


Scientific Socialism is a socio-political-economic theory pioneered by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The reason why this socialism is "scientific socialism"(as opposed to "utopian socialism") is because, like science, observation is essential in this theory.

SOURCE: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism)


Try using wikipedia if you don't know something. You'll learn to love it.

[Severian]

Utopian socialists come up with a idea, which seems good to them, and figure that if they convince enough people, it can be implemented.

Marx and Engels recognized that the objective development of society is heading towards socialism and communism, and that ideas and political movements need to be the conscious product of that objective development. They saw it's necessary to seek to advance the historical process, not just dream up a blueprint for a perfect society and seek to implement it.

[Redvolution]

I thought this was somewhat relevant and cool :lol:

Zimbabwe at one time (or perhaps still) had a population of Utopian Socialists. So, to say hello and how are you in Zimbabwean (that's probably not the language's name, oops :lol: ) it would go a little like this:

"Hello, how are you?"
"I am well if you are well."
"I am well. We are all well."

Something along those lines. Sorry it's not precisely relevant but I just thought that was cool.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 05:01 AM
Utopian socialists come up with a idea, which seems good to them, and figure that if they convince enough people, it can be implemented.

Marx and Engels recognized that the objective development of society is heading towards socialism and communism, and that ideas and political movements need to be the conscious product of that objective development. They saw it's necessary to seek to advance the historical process, not just dream up a blueprint for a perfect society and seek to implement it.
So basically Marx and Engles figured socialism/Communism is an inevitability ?

I still think that we need a blue-print after the Revolution,and these mechanisms need to be adjusted to each country.Otherwise without ideas for plans we just have another death-cult. I for one don't want to be apart of a revolution unless I know how things should be ran and what kind of structure they should run under.

[Severian]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 25 2005, 01:09 PM
Otherwise without ideas for plans we just have another death-cult. I for one don't want to be apart of a revolution unless I know how things should be ran and what kind of structure they should run under.
Any blueprint is going to be flawed. It's impossible for anyone or any group to be so brilliant as to know how to set up society.

The whole utopian approach implies a petty-bourgeois sect deciding the organization of society, not the masses of working people deciding things in the course of the living class struggle.

That guarantees a Khmer Rouge-like "death cult", as you put it. They were a petty-bourgeois sect who thought they knew best and tried to cram their version of instant communism down the throats of the workers and peasants.

[Clarksist]

Any blueprint is going to be flawed. It's impossible for anyone or any group to be so brilliant as to know how to set up society.

The whole utopian approach implies a petty-bourgeois sect deciding the organization of society, not the masses of working people deciding things in the course of the living class struggle.


That's true to a point. You have to have some idea of what this society will look like, or there is no way to convert people.

"Well if we revolt what society will you put in place?"

"Uh... I don't know."

[Severian]

Sure, there's some things we can say based on the direction that social evolution is going, and the experience of struggle so far. We can say more about the early stages than the final result, since we have more experience with the early stages.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 10:31 PM

Any blueprint is going to be flawed. It's impossible for anyone or any group to be so brilliant as to know how to set up society.





Okay,maybe the phrase I used ,"blue-print" was the wrong one.What I meant to say is any Revolutionary should have some educated ideas as to how to build the new society after the Revolution. Every idea is flawed,the point is not to give-up on it, try to fix flaws as best as you can.

I just wish,that on this board people would share their ideas of creating the new society and hang loosey with their ideas with an open mind for others. I'm not accusing anybody, all I really want is to hear some ideas and I think theory is nice and all but, when it comes to saying someones theory such as Stalin's or Lenin's will work in todays society and their ideas didn't even work in their own,I just find it pointless to bicker on about it.I will say some of Lenins ideas did work but, to say we should keep with his ideas in entirty just ignores the present state of things.


The whole utopian approach implies a petty-bourgeois sect deciding the organization of society, not the masses of working people deciding things in the course of the living class struggle.

Pretty nieve of them to think no one would have different ideas. So, for the fact that they might have some good ideas but,for the fact the bringers of the revolution i.e the workers would have no say so this idea made it impracticle,therefore utopian.I-Motherfuckin'-gotcha !


Sure, there's some things we can say based on the direction that social evolution is going, and the experience of struggle so far. We can say more about the early stages than the final result, since we have more experience with the early stages.

Is it wrong to say I want to hear everyones ideas of what they would like the civic mechanism to be like and how they picture it operating ?