Study Guide to Marxist and Utopian Socialists

Intelligent Education

• Publisher: Influence Publishers
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781645423393
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Studienhilfen
• Subtopic: Studienführer

A comprehensive study guide offering in-depth explanation, essay, and test prep for socialist and communist systems, including the Critique of Political Economy by Karl Marx. These several philosophers are recognized for creating socioeconomic analysis to view social conflict and class relations.

As ideologies of the nineteenth-century, they helped to develop, inspire, and revolutionize elements of the labour and socialist movements and became the basis of Marxism-Leninism and Maoism and the dogma developed by Vladimir Lenin in Russia. Moreover, these ideas have had a profound impact on the scholarly world and have influenced fields such as archaeology, art history, media studies, political science, and sociology. This Bright Notes Study Guide includes notes and commentary on literary classics such as Babeuf's Philosophy Of Equality, Saint Simon's Doctrines, and The Labor Theory Of Value, helping students to thoroughly explore the reasons they have stood the literary test of time. Each Bright Notes Study Guide contains:

- Introductions to the Author and the Work

- Character Summaries

- Plot Guides

- Section and Chapter Overviews

- Test Essay and Study Q&As

The Bright Notes Study Guide series offers an in-depth tour of more than 275 classic works of literature, exploring characters, critical commentary, historical background, plots, and themes. This set of study guides encourages readers to dig deeper in their understanding by including essay questions and answers as well as topics for further research.

INTRODUCTION

PREFACE

 

The terms “socialism” and “communism” have many implications. Here the main emphases will be on the economic aspects. However the many movements calling themselves Socialist or Communist envisaged not only economic, but also social and political goals. Therefore, from time to time, all of these will have to be examined. Socialism and communism as practiced under different circumstances will be scrutinized. Since the scope of this book is limited, but the material extensive, it is necessary to select only some of the most representative movements and systems for review.

The new rising socialist and communist systems, as well as many other important factors, which are developing in many parts of the world, had to be neglected for the time being.

INTRODUCTION

Socialism Defined

To define Socialism is one of the most difficult tasks. It is practically impossible to find a common denominator for the innumerable movements which call themselves Socialist. Very often they do not have anything more in common than the epithet “Socialist.”

The term defies a uniform definition. For some groups it might mean the collective ownership of the means of production and distribution. Another group might advocate state-ownership of banks, public utilities and heavy industry. Some believe themselves socialists because they confuse social reform with socialism. Radical groups sometimes refer to socialists as those who do not accept unconditionally the idea of public ownership of the means of production and distribution. In the political and social spheres the variations run from those who advocate the use of the state to those who want to eliminate it. Some are revolutionary, others evolutionary. Some advocate class struggle, others class cooperation.

However, whatever may be the goal, Socialism’s base is primarily economic. In a broad sense, it involves a more equitable distribution of wealth. Socialist ideas can already be detected in the Old Testament and in the writings of the ancient Greek philosophers. But the word “socialism” proper came into use only in the beginning of the nineteenth century. Socialism was the opposite of the then prevailing individualism of laissez - faire. It stressed the human element the social conscience in this age of the Industrial Revolution. It expressed its hostility against a system that exploited the misery of the poor and was the reaction against classical liberalism. In the 1830s the word socialist was used mainly to denote the followers of St. Simon, Fourier and Owen. In 1841 the latter started to call his movement socialist. Socialism meant a system of collectivization of the means of production. However, wages or income as well as personal property, such as homes, were recognized as legitimate.

EVOLUTION OF SOCIALISM

Socialism has also undergone an evolutionary process in the course of the years. All economic theories, and therefore also socialist ideas, are influenced by the political, economic, and social forces of their time. One idea builds upon another and modern socialism is a combination of the thought that preceded it. The Utopian Socialists were the first inspiration of those who strove to rid the world of the social inequalities and inequities. They left an indelible imprint on the many subsequent movements. All Marxists, Revisionists or Fabians aimed to attain an equalization of wealth and the elimination of the insecurity of the industrial order and the inherent unfairness of the social structure.

The question of how to attain these goals also underwent significant changes. Many socialists believed that the state was the expression of the general will of society and could best protect the people from vested interests. Marx’s concept of the state as the coercive medium of the ruling class implied the conquest of the state by the proletariat. But with the advent of political democracy in the nineteenth century Marxist concepts softened. Marx himself indicated that a transition from capitalism to socialism in England and the U.S.A. would be by democratic means. In 1884 Fabian Socialism and in the 1890s Eduard Bernstein were responsible for the democratization of socialism and for giving it an evolutionary outlook.

MODERN SOCIALISM

Modern Socialism has come a long way from Utopian ideals and Marx’s teachings. There are many brands of socialism. They are all kinds of things: combinations of the predecessors, alterations or dilutions of traditional aims. Socialism today is in a steady flux and the diversities are significant especially among the many kinds practiced by the developing countries.

The traditional classical meaning of socialism as a system of collective ownership of the means of production and distribution is no longer of primary validity. The German Social Democratic party program speaks of safeguarding private ownership but advocates public ownership to ensure freedom from domination by large economic concerns. In India socialism aims to provide equal opportunities to all. To Nehru socialism meant the elimination of differences between rich and poor by peaceful means. The many African Socialisms are geared to the special task of transforming a reluctant society and to develop new economic institutions. President Nkrumah of Ghana, preaching socialism, practices a mixed economy based on practical considerations. State enterprise co-exists with cooperative and private enterprise. Despite all differences between the many brands of socialism, a certain resemblance in attitudes, patterns, and goals can be detected. In a broad sense, except in a minority of cases, socialism does not involve the nationalization of all means of production but only of certain segments of the economy.

With a few exceptions this process is hoped to be achieved by democratic means.

The many and different socialisms in Africa and Asia seem sometimes exasperating to their old Western counterparts. One thing, however, all have in common - the dedication to the ideal of social equality.

Just like the word “socialism,” the term “communism” originated in France. In the beginning of the nineteenth century it denoted the extreme wing of the socialist movement. These extreme leftists looked back to Gracchus Babeuf’s “Conspiracy of Equals.” They believed that communism was the only genuine sequel to the French Revolution. The word “communism” suggests having things in common, common ownership. In the 1840s communism was often used in connection with socialism, but to express a more militant form. In 1848 Marx and Engels chose “Communism” for their Manifesto, for it implied revolutionary struggle more deeply than the word “socialism.” Engels later explained that socialism was a respectable movement at that time and connected with Utopian Socialism, for which Marx had no respect.

Until 1917 it was relatively easy to determine what communism meant. But even than it was not too certain. Marx did not express himself clearly about the stage of “full communism.” He dreamed not only of collectivization but also of distribution of the social product according to need.

Marx’s works were interpreted and searched in an attempt to reconcile the first stage of his transition from capitalism to communism with the changing conditions of Western Europe. Marx and Engels tried to adjust their teachings to the political and economic changes not only in Western Europe but also in Russia. Up to then Communism had meant a faraway goal. The question was how this ideal could become reality. Interpretations and reinterpretations created many factions and distortions.

AFTER 1917

The developments after 1917 led to still greater confusion than before. At the beginning of this century Lenin split with the Russian Social Democrats and started to build his own elite organization of revolutionaries. Finally after the revolution the old Bolsheviks called themselves communists in order to emphasize their ultimate goal. They, however, never claimed nor do now claim that the transition from capitalism to full communism has been completed. But the consequence of the adoption of the new name was that communism now meant whatever the Russians did, the communist parties everywhere owed absolute obedience to the principles announced and promulgated by the Russian leaders.

Lenin, and Stalin after him encountered new problems which Marx and Engels could not have foreseen. Quite often they had to make far-reaching decisions which they somehow tried to reconcile to Marxist doctrines. The result was, of course that they made out of Marx not only a god but also an empty shell.

Matters became still more confused and complicated after World War II. There were now Communist States in Eastern Europe, in the Balkans, and in Asia. While they were forced for years to copy Russian policies, they faced problems the Russians did not have. In some cases their economics were very different from those of the Russians. Therefore they had to look for their own national solutions. The results were wide differences in approach and now most Communist countries do not recognize Russian Communist policies as their own. In 1947 Yugoslavia and in 1956 Poland developed their own brand of Communism. In 1963 China embarked on a bitter feud with Russia accusing the latter of “Revisionism” while Russia scoffed at China as doctrinaire.

The fact is that all warring parties claim to be defenders of true Communism. Therefore what Communism is has become a matter of preference. In many countries there are two or three parties each claiming to be the true party, swearing allegiance to Russia or to China or to their own program. Communism today is polycentric.

A study of the economic systems of Communism is a complicated undertaking that involves several widely different approaches to Communism.

INTRODUCTION

EARLY COMMUNISTS

BACKGROUND

Although the ideas of Socialism and Communism can be traced far into the past, the French Revolution is the point where thoughts and movements began being expressed and where ideologies of the nineteenth century had their roots.

The eighteenth-century “socialists” (the word did not exist then) were mainly reformers who deplored the co-existence of riches and poverty and traced the evils of their time to the inequality of men and to the bad political and social institutions. Besides Jean Jacques Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality,” it was mainly Morelly’s Le Code de la Nature,” which appeared anonymously in 1755, that was influential in the second half of the eighteenth century.

Morelly advocated in his book a common society which during his time was considered inapplicable and only a utopian plan for the future.

Morelly, as do most of the writers of his time, starts from the premise that man is naturally good but is perverted by institutions that cause misery. Private property is more responsible for the inequality and misery of men than anything else. Therefore, he urged the common ownership of productive goods. In his ideal society there would be no idlers and each would work for the community according to his strength, his talents and his age. The citizens would be maintained and employed at the expense of the public and goods distributed from public warehouses. Each would labor according to his ability and share according to his needs.

Morelly’s ideas were a major source of inspiration to the man who is regarded as the first propagator of proletarian Communism, of class warfare and of the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat-Francois Noel Babeuf.

BABEUF

Francois Noel Babeuf (1764-1797) was a product of the revolutionary period. His life and death are part of the revolutionary history. Born in 1764 as the son of a local tax collector, the future conspirator had no great prospect for a better career. Following a position as a land surveyor he became a provincial journalist in Amiens. Then the French Revolution drew him to Paris. There he represented the extreme left. Assuming the name of Gracchus he called himself as his Roman model “Tribune of the People.” In the course of time he founded a newspaper the Tribune of the People (probably the first communist newspaper, as it would be called today), which periodically had to go underground. Babeuf violently attacked the reaction, the policies of the Directory, and the treason of the revolution. He formed a secret organization, the famous Conspiracy of the Equals, with the goal to overthrow the existing government and the establishment of complete equality. It seems that he was quite successful. It has been said that in 1796 some 17,000 men were ready to join the insurrection. At the last moment the plot was betrayed by a member of the inner circle. Babeuf was arrested, put on trial and, after a famous speech in his own defense, was condemned to death. He died on the guillotine in 1797.

The leaders of the French Revolution believed firmly in the property rights of the individual. True, they stood for the break-up of the large estates, the abolition of feudal privileges and ecclesiastical properties. However, they never aimed at abolishing private property, but rather at destroying the laws which they believed to interfere with the legitimate rights of property of the mass of the population. Therefore the revolutionary leaders, whether Jacobins or Girondists made no attack on property rights except against feudal and ecclesiastical claims. They aimed at diminishing the most glaring inequalities by abolishing the ancient forms of privilege. They hoped that enough economic forces would be freed by their actions to stimulate a maximum of production of wealth for the greatest wellbeing of the greatest number. The right of property was one of the natural rights of man. The French constitution of 1793 stated so expressly.

Those who attacked property therefore were a minority. And Babeuf was their spokesman. In a world that proclaimed the equality of men there was no equality and could not be as long as property existed. This minority of revolutionaries had hoped for so much good to come from the revolution. And now the revolution was betrayed. True, the peasants were poor but they still had their land. However, the urban population was hungry, there was unemployment, poverty and disease while the rich had not suffered at all. As Babeuf’s appeal was against the spirit of his time, his slogans did not inspire much of a response.

BABEUF’S PHILOSOPHY OF EQUALITY

Babeuf’s doctrines were not only expressed in his Tribune of the People. He also was an avid writer of letters, some quite long, and there he extolled his ideas. Sylvain Marechal, a poet, was the author of the Manifesto of the Equals, which had been issued in April 1796, and which announced Babeuff’s...