181
edits
m
grammar
m (→The Dual Revolution and the Social Question: added citation, cut two unnecessary paragraphs) |
m (grammar) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Socialism was never premised on a definition; rather, it was a real phenomenon only later given this name.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbu-AAlqDJg&list=PLAJIhnd1mbiCVeVI3Pu8NihIZzfWMhg5h&index=5 The New Era of Socialism] this article draws heavily on this Infrared Vision video</ref> Socialism was the spontaneous response of consciousness to an objective apocalypse of traditional order and meaning in every sense which took place in late 18th and 19th century Europe. Concretely, this apocalypse took dual form as the Industrial Revolution in England and the political revolution in France. This gave rise to the '''Social Question'''. As the "feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations" which formed the fabric of Ancien life were torn asunder, the cold brutality of all against all, dog eat dog, and every man for himself took their place. Socialism was simply the practical recognition of this fact and some corresponding program to remedy it. Production had to be reconciled with the majority of people's actual lives, serving social ends to guarantee a minimum of dignified, human life. | Socialism was never premised on a definition; rather, it was a real phenomenon only later given this name.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbu-AAlqDJg&list=PLAJIhnd1mbiCVeVI3Pu8NihIZzfWMhg5h&index=5 The New Era of Socialism] this article draws heavily on this Infrared Vision video</ref> Socialism was the spontaneous response of consciousness to an objective apocalypse of traditional order and meaning in every sense which took place in late 18th and 19th century Europe. Concretely, this apocalypse took dual form as the Industrial Revolution in England and the political revolution in France. This gave rise to the '''Social Question'''. As the "feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations" which formed the fabric of Ancien life were torn asunder, the cold brutality of all against all, dog eat dog, and every man for himself took their place. Socialism was simply the practical recognition of this fact and some corresponding program to remedy it. Production had to be reconciled with the majority of people's actual lives, serving social ends to guarantee a minimum of dignified, human life. | ||
For Utopians like '''Simon''' and '''Fourier''', this was an intellectual problem, one which they considered themselves to have solved. Marx departs with the simple premise that capitalism would never voluntarily annihilate itself in service of better angels, as the Utopians suggested, that instead it would ''involuntarily but automatically'' annihilate itself as a mode of production due to objective contradictions essential to its very process of reproduction. Circulation of commodities at exchange value would lead to a falling rate of profit and economic crises which trigger the consolidation of capital under fewer and fewer firms. Somewhere along the line this process would no longer be sustainable as a free system without intervention. | For [[Utopian socialism|Utopians]] like '''Simon''' and '''Fourier''', this was an intellectual problem, one which they considered themselves to have solved. Marx departs with the simple premise that capitalism would never voluntarily annihilate itself in service of better angels, as the Utopians suggested, that instead it would ''involuntarily but automatically'' annihilate itself as a mode of production due to objective contradictions essential to its very process of reproduction. Circulation of commodities at exchange value would lead to a falling rate of profit and economic crises which trigger the consolidation of capital under fewer and fewer firms. Somewhere along the line this process would no longer be sustainable as a free system without intervention. | ||
Marx and Engels recognized capitalism as a force of disruption and immiseration, but in it they recognized also the forces which would inevitably lead to socialism. Never did they assert this trajectory as voluntaristic, self-conscious construction of a new system by individuals subjectively opposed to capitalism. Rather, socialism was the inevitable conclusion of tendencies integral to capitalism itself. '''''Capitalism was for them the process by which Socialism constructed itself,'' independent of any individual subjective will.''' | Marx and Engels recognized capitalism as a force of disruption and immiseration, but in it they recognized also the forces which would inevitably lead to socialism. Never did they assert this trajectory as voluntaristic, self-conscious construction of a new system by individuals subjectively opposed to capitalism. Rather, socialism was the inevitable conclusion of tendencies integral to capitalism itself. '''''Capitalism was for them the process by which Socialism constructed itself,'' independent of any individual subjective will.''' | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
See main page: [[Utopian socialism]] | See main page: [[Utopian socialism]] | ||
The systems of '''Owen''', '''Fourier''', and '''Saint-Simon''' (which Marx explicitly called properly Communist or Socialist) did not lack historical vision. These men understood that the crisis was both irreversible and progressive, and therefore that the only way out was foreword. They differed from Marx chiefly in their understanding of class, a difference which Marx ascribes to their prematurity. Utopians saw their theories as ''above'' class antagonism, and sought a new social science with which to improve the condition of all classes. They appealed to society at large, with particular emphasis on the role, not of the proletariat, who they deemed significant only insofar as they suffered more than others, but of the upper class | The systems of '''Owen''', '''Fourier''', and '''Saint-Simon''' (which Marx explicitly called properly Communist or Socialist) did not lack historical vision. These men understood that the crisis was both irreversible and progressive, and therefore that the only way out was foreword. They differed from Marx chiefly in their understanding of class, a difference which Marx ascribes to their prematurity. Utopians saw their theories as ''above'' class antagonism, and sought a new social science with which to improve the condition of all classes. They appealed to society at large, with particular emphasis on the role, not of the proletariat, who they deemed significant only insofar as they suffered more than others, but of the upper class, to the benevolence of whom they entrusted their historical mission. They saw socialism as a naturally and universally appealing idea, the realization of which required nothing but for level-headed men to read their book. | ||
== "We already live in socialism" == | == "We already live in socialism" == | ||