Karl Marx's Theory of Revolution Vol IV

Hal Draper

• Publisher: Monthly Review Press
• Year: 1990
• ISBN:
  9781583675205
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Communism, Post-Communism & Socialism
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Much of Karl Marx's most important work came out of his critique of other thinkers, including many socialists who differed significantly in their conceptions of socialism. The fourth volume in Hal Draper's series looks at these critiques to illuminate what Marx's socialism was, as well as what it was not. Some of these debates are well-known elements in Marx's work, such as his writings on the anarchists Proudhon and Bakunin. Others are less familiar, such as the writings on "Bismarckian socialism" and "Boulangism," but promise to become better known and understood with Draper's exposition. He also discusses the more general ideological tendencies of "utopian" and "sentimental" socialisms, which took various forms and were ingredients in many different socialist movements.

1 OF UTOPIAN SOCIALISM

The types or schools of socialism considered here are grouped mainly as a convenient way to organize Marx’s views on the subject of movement alternatives. They certainly are not an attempt at an exhaustive listing in these pages. They seldom appear as pure schools or consciously organized tendencies. They are often simply common currents or strains or ingredients in the socialist movements of the time.

The names or labels usually assigned to them have most often been given by others—critics, rivals, enemies—rather than by themselves. This is surely true of the ingredient called utopian socialism.

1. ACCENTING THE POSITIVE

When the Communist Manifesto was written, the modern socialist movement had been in existence only a few decades, but it already exhibited virtually all of the currents that were to become prominent in the next century in more developed form. The spectrum of possible socialisms was in active creation before anyone could turn around and say Karl Marx. And by the 1840s all the rival tendencies were already heatedly denouncing each other, especially the righteous exponents of unity who denounced everyone else for denouncing them. In other words, the situation was normal; there was a lively forum of ideas. Compared with much of the resulting polemical literature, Section III of the Manifesto, which looked critically at the socialist field, was as sober as a dissertation.

This section of the Manifesto presented five schools of socialism that needed discussing, and what it called “Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism” was only one of these, the fifth and last. Marx clearly did not agree with the later writers on socialist history who lump all pre-Marxian socialism under the label of utopian socialism. The utopian element had to be analyzed out of the picture.

Socialist history, as it is written, has not been fortunate in its account of utopian socialism. Cole’s History of Socialist Thought (widely quoted) states erroneously that “in 1839, the economist, Jérôme [Adolphe] Blanqui, in his pioneer History of Political Economy, characterised them all as ‘Utopian Socialists’—a name which was to become lastingly attached to them through its adoption by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto.”¹ But in point of fact the book by the elder Blanqui did not use the term ‘utopian socialist’ at all, but only “utopian economists.”* Indeed, the term ‘socialist’ itself was still so new that it appeared here only twice, as a designation for Owen only.² The word ‘utopian’ had already been around for a long time, and had been hitched to a variety of nouns before this; getting hitched to ‘economist’ was no great innovation. In 1845 a then-noted book by Karl Grün actually counterposed “utopianism” (Utopismus) to “scientific socialism.”³

And the Manifesto itself did not use the term ‘utopian socialism’ but a hyphenated one, “critical-utopian socialism.” This may be taken as quibbling, perhaps, but we point out that all this matters mainly because of the marxological myth that Marx invented the term ‘utopian socialism’ merely as a contemptuous denunciation. Marx’s actual term, “critical-utopian socialism,” is at odds with the myth.

If we concern ourselves with what is really in the Manifesto, a characteristic that leaps to the eye is the thoroughgoing distinction that Marx made between the innovative founders of the schools and the sects that later operated in their names. This was especially true of the Saint-Simonian and Fourierist sects, which became active after the founder’s death; but it was precisely the writings of Fourier and Saint-Simon themselves that had the greatest impact on the young Marx. Long afterward, as in Socialism Utopian and Scientific, Marx and Engels continued to speak with utmost admiration of the contributions made by the germinal thinkers at the same time that they criticized the retrogressive role of the sect followers. This combination is found in full force in the Manifesto.

The combination is signaled to the reader by the hyphenated name that the Manifesto confers on this socialist current: critical-utopian socialism (and communism), not ‘utopian socialism.’ The valuable positive contribution of these socialists, it says, lies in their “critical element”:

They attack every principle of existing society. Hence they are full of the most valuable materials for the enlightenment of the working class. Their positive propositions on the future society* … point solely to the disappearance of class antagonisms which were, at that time, only just cropping up, and which, in these publications, are recognized in their earliest, indistinct and undefined forms only. Their proposals, therefore, are of a purely utopian character.⁴

In The German Ideology Marx and Engels repeatedly identified the strong side of the utopians: “the Saint-Simonian criticism of existing conditions” was “the most important aspect of Saint-Simonism”; and “The critical side of Fourier” was “his most important contribution.”⁵ This explains the contrast between the founders and their sect followers, who hardened the fanciful side into a dogma:

Fourier’s orthodox disciples of the Démocratie Pacifique [their organ] show most clearly how little the real content of these systems lies in their systematic form; they are, for all their orthodoxy, doctrinaire bourgeois, the very antipodes of Fourier.⁶

The Manifesto further emphasized this contrast: “although the originators of these systems were, in many respects, revolutionary, their disciples have, in every case, formed mere reactionary sects.”⁷

No one has praised the contributions of the early utopians more enthusiastically than Engels, who repeatedly wrote that Marxism itself

rests on the shoulders of Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owen—three men who, in spite of all their fantastic notions and all their utopianism, have their place among the most eminent thinkers of all times, and whose genius anticipated innumerable things the correctness of which is now being scientifically proved by us.…⁸

Engels’ Socialism Utopian and Scientific begins with this appreciation of their revolutionary roles, an appreciation broadly applied not only to the early utopians but also to the Enlighteners who inspired them:

The great men who in France prepared men’s minds for the coming revolution were themselves extreme revolutionists. They recognized no external authority of any kind whatever. Religion, natural science, society, political institutions—everything was subjected to the most unsparing criticism.…⁹

For criticism—uninhibited analysis—was inherently revolutionary.¹⁰

In Socialism Utopian and Scientific, Part 1, the part dealing with the utopians, overwhelmingly accents the positive. After a single paragraph stating their utopian-fantasy side, Engels declares: “These facts once established, we need not dwell a moment longer upon this side of the question, now wholly belonging to the past. We can leave it to the literary small fry to solemnly quibble over these phantasies.… For ourselves, we delight in the stupendously grand thoughts and germs of thought that everywhere break out through their phantastic covering.…”¹¹ And it is to the “grand thoughts” that the rest of this part is devoted.

Without losing sight of their negative sides, Engels shows how the foundations of socialist thought were laid in their writings—in Saint-Simon’s historical view of the class struggle, of the economic basis of politics, of the coming abolition of the state; in Fourier’s witty and insightful critique of bourgeois society and its miseries, his genial social satire, his dialectical view of the stages in the history of society; in Owen’s materialist teachings, his belief in the regenerating power of humanized conditions of labor, his educational innovations, his understanding of the relation between the growing productive forces and the need for rational economic planning and organization, his stimulus to cooperatives.¹² Cabet is not discussed here along with these great innovators, for, coming in the wake of the great three, he rigidified the utopian side without opening new critical vistas.

Marx, like Engels, paid little heed to Cabet as a thinker; he mentions Cabet’s name more usually as an example of the ready-made system, the negative side of utopianism.¹³ He gave Cabet more attention and respect as the leader of a significant pre-1848 group of French workers.¹⁴ Marx’s emphasis on the difference between a founding ideologist and the movement he founds is well expressed in The German Ideology, where he explains that the first utopian writings had “propaganda value as popular novels” in the early days. Cabet

should on no account be judged by his system but rather by his polemical writings [previously quoted, against Buchez]¹⁵, in fact his whole activity as a party leader.… As the party [i.e., the movement] develops, these systems lose all importance and are at best retained purely nominally as catchwords. Who in France believes in [Cabet’s] Icaria … ?¹⁶

So Cabet’s name was separated from the three great innovators. In fact, so heavy was Engels’ emphasis on the positive contributions of Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen that, when this part of Anti-Dühring was taken over into the first part of the booklet Socialism Utopian and Scientific, Engels had to write an additional critical paragraph to strike a reasonable balance in terms of the modern movement. This addition discussed how the utopian mode of thought fostered the later mishmash of eclectic socialist ideas that rubbed the sharp edges off the revolutionary aims of socialism.¹⁷ The new passage took the place of a couple of pages of Anti-Dühring in which Engels forcefully denounced Dühring for his contemptuous attitude toward and ignorant undervaluation of the three great utopians, in language so enthusiastic that one must wonder whether Engels gives them too much credit.¹⁸

Engels has been emphasized here because his Socialism Utopian and Scientific is often referred to as if it were mainly a denunciation of the utopians, apparently after an exhaustive study of all four words of its title. This is associated with the marxological myth that ‘utopian’ is simply a “term of opprobrium” in Marx or Engels, or that they simply “cavalierly dismissed” the utopians.¹⁹ (To be sure, when you run across this sciolism, you know you are looking at a particularly ignorant marxologist.)

Marx’s references to Fourier and Saint-Simon were in the same spirit as Engels’ encomiums. For example, in a note for publication in the French press, Marx wrote that Proudhon “poured gross insult over the utopian socialists and communists whom [I] honored as precursors of modern socialism.”²⁰ It is easy for us to verify this: Proudhon’s Cornets, published only in our own times, show that alleged “libertarian” foaming at the mouth as he blackguards Fourier et al.

As Engels wrote, “Marx spoke only with admiration of the genius and encyclopedic mind of Saint-Simon,” but this statement occurs in an interesting context. In Volume 3 of Capital Marx mentions that Saint-Simon and his disciples lumped workers and capitalists together under the head of travailleurs (workers) as distinct from the idle aristocracy. Here Marx reminds us that only in his last work did Saint-Simon address himself to the working class and adopt its emancipation as a goal; his previous writings had been “encomiums of modern bourgeois society in contrast to the feudal order.… What a difference compared with the contemporaneous writings of Owen!” This judgment by Marx is quite accurate; it states a negative side of Saint-Simon’s theorizing. Marx had recognized as early as 1844 that Saint-Simon himself never proposed a socialistic form of society.²¹

At this point, as editor of Capital, Engels appends a longish footnote, lest a reader think that this passage in Marx’s manuscript expressed the sum total of Marx’s opinion of the great utopian; and Engels virtually apologizes for Saint-Simon’s shortcoming, blunting Marx’s critique.²² So sensitive was Engels to even the appearance of derogation.

Actually, Marx’s passage was concerned mainly with the Saint-Simonian disciples who became the manipulators of the Credit Mobilier and “Bonapartist socialism.”²³ Engels, in his excess of pious regard for Saint-Simon’s reputation, gives the impression of glossing over the founder’s degree of responsibility for the direction taken by the disciples. Or perhaps he did not rightly understand, as Marx did, that Saint-Simon stopped well short of proposing the abolition of bourgeois society.²⁴ In any case, here Engels was wrong and Marx was right. The irony lies in the fact that Engels tended to be too soft on the utopians, not that he “cavalierly dismissed” them.

While Marx and Engels paid homage to the “critical” (social-analytical) element in these great innovators, it was the utopian element that was subsequently hardened into sects as socialism took organized form. We have to separate this utopian element out, especially since utopianism by no means died with its three great exponents.

2. “SCIENTIFIC SOCIALISM”

The counterposition of ‘utopian socialism’ to ‘scientific socialism’ has been associated with a widespread misconception. The special difficulty here is that the term ‘scientific socialism’ is often taken askew, especially in English.

In modern English, more than in the Continental languages, the word ‘science’ and its derivatives have tended to become specialized as references to the natural sciences. As Raymond Williams notes, “This causes considerable problems in contemporary translation, notably from the French.”²⁵ The case is just as true of German, in particular socialist writings in German—not just Marx’s usage. Even where the English ‘science’ is allowed to refer to social studies, the problem has stimulated hazy debates over something called “scientism” and over the applicability of scientific method to society, or over the mechanical derivation of social principles from physical-scientific analogues. These are not the problems that concern us here.

It is a question of what the term wissenschaf...