Utopian socialism is an unscientific political philosophy which emerged in the first half of the 19th century as a response to the Social Question. Unlike reactionary socialists, who sought to turn back the clock, Utopians recognized Capitalism as both progressive and irreversible. Utopian socialists believed that the problems of society, such as poverty, inequality, and exploitation, could be solved without class struggle. This is their main difference from Marx, and it is also what makes them fundamentally idealist and unscientific. To them, Socialism was an idea, one which would prevail the moment beneficent members of the upper class read their book and adopted their philosophy. To Fourier and Owen this could be solved by creating small, self-contained communities that operated according to principles of cooperation, equality, and social justice. Saint-Simon had a broader vision in which bankers directed production at a meta level. Only Marx had the courage to search for Socialism in the world as an already existing movement, one developing out of extant contradictions latent in Capital.
Ironically, the ideologies of libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism can be considered forms of utopian socialism because they present idealistic views of how society should be organized.
Key Figures[edit | edit source]
Charles Fourier[edit | edit source]
Of the bunch, Charles Fourier (1772-1837) was the most grandiose in his vision. Self importance was hardly unusual among early socialists (or contemporary ones, for that matter), but Fourier was uniquely open about it, a fact made plain by the account he gives of the genesis of his system. Traveling through France in 1798 he noticed the discrepancy in apple prices in areas of similar climate. He became fixated upon the injustice of price inflation brought upon by middlemen, and from this kernel developed his system. From this, he concluded that in all history "there had been two pernicious apples, those of Adam and Paris (the apples of discord), and two beneficial ones, Newton's and his own."[1] His vision matched his self-conception in its fantastic scope. Humanity was to be arranged in 'Phalanxes,' each stocked with men whose occupations would be commensurate with their personalities (categorized in his own baroque schema comprising 810 types generated from 12 passions) and constituting a self-sufficient agricultural and industrial unit. Freedom was to be absolute: no job would be kept longer than it was desired; with the family abolished, children would be raised in common, and brothels sanctified. Grand transformation was not to confine itself to the realm of man; Kolakowski summarizes:
The seas would turn into orangeade, deserts would blossom and glaciers melt, spring would be eternal, and wild beasts would die out or become friends of man, 'anti-lions' and 'anti-whales' to do his bidding. There would be a single language for all mankind; all would live life to the full, developing their personality in all directions, in a happy and harmonious community embracing every kind of sentiment and avocation.
Robert Owen[edit | edit source]
Like Fourier, Robert Owen (1771-1858) considered his ideas hardly less than a product of divine grace. But unlike Fourier, Owen was a practical man, full of that spirit which seeks truth in nothing but the Deed. He owned a large New England textile factory, where he lowered the workday to ten and a half hours, provided education, and refused to employ children below the age of ten. To the shock of his contemporaries, improving the conditions of workers actually increased productivity. Like Fourier, the scale at which Owen's New Harmony Utopia operated was unmistakably that of the factory. For both men, the factory was taken as the highest expression of industrial capitalism, and was therefore the model and the scaffolding of their socialist projects.
Saint-Simon and his followers[edit | edit source]
Saint-Simon (1760-1825) operated on another scale entirely. With him, according to Engels, "we find a comprehensive breadth of view."[2] Engels even places him alongside Hegel as "the most encyclopaedic mind of his time."[3] With him Socialism graduates from an imagined outcome to an observable, historical process. Simon operates at the level of the bank, rather than the factory.
He fought alongside Lafayette in the American War of Independence, studied engineering and hydraulics at the Ecole de Mézières, speculated on land during the French Revolution (which he supported), and afterward became involved with the recently organized Ecole Polytechnique. In 1802 he advocated a religion of science with Isaac Newton as a Saint and in 1814 sent a proposal to the Congress of Vienna for a European supranational assembly. His socialist writing began in 1817.
Saint-Simon saw a contradiction between two classes, not bourgeois and proletariat, but producer and idler. He proposed a system in which production would be organized according to social needs. After his death, his followers gave a series of lectures (1828-29), making the case for rational management of capital.
...if industry is to attain the maximum possible perfections: first, the instruments must be distributed according to the needs of each locality and each branch of industry; second, they must be distributed according to the individual capacities so that they are put to work by the most capable men ... [4]
Private property would still exist, but would be severely limited by the abolition of inheritance and other factors. Social hierarchy would be preserved but stripped of heredity and passive ownership. At the top would be bankers, technocratic philosopher kings allocating investment to supervise the general development of society.
For the bankers, because of their knowledge and connections, are much more in a position to appraise the needs of industry and the ability of the industrialists than are idle and isolated individuals.[4]
In the Final State, banking will gain a "total view" of the World Economy, using this information to allocate wealth as "trustee of all instruments of production; in brief, of that which today composes the entire mass of individual properties ... everything is interlocked and all is planned" in the "interest of all."[4] At the apex of the system is a Central Bank, representing "government in the material order," which would draw the "most skillful bankers into a unitary and directing bank dominating them all."[4] In this it will be assisted by a tiered structure of regional secondary banks through which "the central bank would keep in touch with the principal localities to know their needs and productive power."[4] Below these are tertiary banks specializing in particular fields or functions.
Through their benevolence, the conditions of the working class would be improved. If it is not already obvious, Saint-Simon did not look to the working class or to mass politics for the fruition of his ideas. The upper class would be organically persuaded, and the structural changes they ushered in would be peaceful reforms. Many of his ideas (a European superstate, a world network of banking targeting development) have been realized. His followers were uniquely successful, in particular Isaac and Emile Pereire, who pioneered the use of the Société Anonyme (a joint stock company with limited liability and anonymous shareholders). Their Credit Mobilier played a decisive role in the early history of Finance capital and the railroadization of Europe.
In Germany Credit Mobilier was decisive in the inspiration and funding of the Darmstadter Banks, first of the German 'Great Banks.' In Austria they brought Ecole Polytechnique Engineers to bear on a state railroad line. In Spain, the Credtio Mobilario Espaniol (capitalized 1856 at 60 million francs), apart from supervising their railroad interests and underwriting government loans, "founded and operated coal and iron mines, coke and briquette factories, sugar refineries, potteries, dock and warehouse companies, the leading insurance company of Spain (the Phenix Espaniol), and the Madrid gasworks."[4] In Italy the Credito Mobiliare Italiano (formed 1863) "underwrote government bonds, formed a holding company for public utilities, organized the construction of and later directed four Italian railroads."[4] In Russia they formed the Great Russian Railway Company at the assent of the Tsar.
That the heights of finance were transformed is demonstrated by the transformation of the Rothschilds, whom Credit Mobilier competed against and who, in their struggle, found it necessary to adopt the same pattern of organization as Credit Mobilier. Eckalbar cites Alexander Gerschenkron, who gives the example: "When the Rothschilds prevented the Pereires from establishing the Austrian Credit-Anstalt, they succeeded only because they became willing to establish the bank themselves and to conduct it not as an old fashioned banking enterprise but as a credit mobilier, that is, as a bank devoted to railroadization and industrialization of the country."[4] Marx, who found the Second Republic and Saint-Simonian stockjobbers repellant, could not deny that "the application of joint-stock companies to industry marks a new epoch in the economical life of modern nations."[5]
See Also[edit | edit source]
- ↑ Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism, V1 p.199
- ↑ https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch01.htm
- ↑ https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch02.htm
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 "The Saint-Simonians in Industry and Economic Development," John C. Eckalbar, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Jan., 1979 Annas-Archive link
- ↑ http://marxengels.public-archive.net/en/ME0978en.html#Pe