Home History 203 lecture list Wallace G. Mills Hist. 203 6 Socialism

SOCIALIST TRADITIONS

 Four Main Streams
  1. Utopian socialism (in many varieties, usually communalism of some sort),
  2. Marxism and its variants,
  3. Social democracy and its variants,
  4. The ‘Social Gospel’ or Christian Socialism.

- utopian socialism was the first to emerge, while Marxism was next.

- social democracy often accepts a good deal of Marxist analysis but usually rejects the idea of the necessity of revolution.

- the ‘Social Gospel’ is a development out of late 19th Century ‘liberal’ theology and postmillennialism.

Common Element

 - all streams opposed ‘competition’ as the guiding principle of society (they tended to see competition as the source of most ‘evil’ in society).

- instead, they had a commitment to ‘cooperation’ as the right principle around which to organise society.

Concept of ‘Change’

 - Utopian socialism tended (there are exceptions) to oppose change, particularly economic, industrial and social change involved in industrialisation and urbanisation. Often they wanted to create or to restore a small-scale, integrated and face-to-face community; at the very least, they wanted to moderate the effects of change.

- the other streams tended to see change as a fundamental element in human existence; in fact, an idea of ‘progress’ or progressive development was central to most other forms of socialism.

Traditional attitudes or conceptions of change

 - we are accustomed to incessant, on-going, linear, technological and social change; it is hard for us to imagine life being different! However, in other eras, people have perceived change differently. In the past, most people could expect to live much as their parents and grandparents had done, no better and, hopefully, no worse. There could be upheavals, invasions, conquests, plagues, etc. which could bring enormous effects to the lives of people, but in normal circumstances, most people experienced the same routine year after year. Our idea of ‘progress’ as a continuous, upward trending line of development simply did not accord with their lives.

- this little digression will indicate some of the possible attitudes to change other than our own. This is important in many ideologies. What is the direction of change—better or worse, forward or backward, etc.? Where is change leading, if anywhere?

  1. Static—over time, society remained pretty much the same;
    - some families prospered; others didn’t.
    - individuals might experience drastic changes of fortune without much change in society. In this view, things had always been the way they are and always would be the same in the future.

  2. Repeating cycles

    1. empires rise and decline—might see this as circular as some Greeks did; eventually, it would all come around and be repeated again.

    2. pendulum movement—yin and yang of Chinese thought. This image seemed especially appropriate to political aspects; Chinese history shows swings between strong, central imperial gov’t alternating with periods of breakdown during which warlords emerged amid great turmoil.

    3. Indian idea of countless life cycles of reincarnation;

      - although there was an element of change (both up and down) and an overall concept of progress towards ‘nirvana’, there was no change during an individual life cycle. An individual lifetime is only a brief episode in a much larger cycle and therefore should not be regarded too significantly from the overall point of view.

  3. Decline

    - this view is premised on some sort of golden age in the past when things were perfect or nearly so. The story of the Garden of Eden is in this category.

    - even more illustrative is Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream as interpreted by Daniel in the Bible. [This story was actually current around the middle east area during this time (i.e., c. 6th C BCE) and a version was recorded by Greeks as well.] In the dream, Nebuchadnezzar (the Babylonian king) saw a great statue with head of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass, legs of iron, feet of clay and iron mixed. The interpretation of this was that the statue depicted a series of empires beginning with Babylon that would follow in succession. However, the value and quality of the metal were declining (indicating declining worth of the civilisations of the succeeding empires as well) until the final one of iron and clay was almost worthless.

    - as you can see, this view is the opposite of ‘progress’, a perspective of ‘decline’.

Why is it important to study attitudes to change?

 - with conservatives such as Metternich, we saw a dislike and distrust of change. Frequently, this arose from an assumption that change was more likely to be retrogressive than progressive. While Metternich’s conservatism was not totally pessimistic or backward-looking, it did aim to maintain things as they were as the best possible outcome.

- liberals accepted and welcomed change, but, as we saw, many believed that there were limits. Thus, the classical economists welcomed ‘progress’, but felt that sooner or later the ‘stationary state’ would halt further ‘progress’.

- later in the 19th C however, liberals came to adopt the idea of ‘progress’, both material and moral.

Socialists and change

 - traditions 2, 3 and 4 of socialism not only welcomed change but also were convinced of the necessity for change; their ideal society was in the future.

- furthermore, they believed that change was purposive (i.e., that it had a purpose and was leading somewhere) rather than arbitrary or quirky—in fact that it was leading to a perfect (or near perfect) society (i.e., a utopia).

- the term ‘Utopian Socialism’ was coined by Karl Marx; it was his contemptuous dismissal of what he regarded as naive ideas. (See Karl Marx on Utopian and Scientific Socialism 1M)

- he termed his own ideas ‘scientific socialism’. Marx’s distinction has stuck and is widely used so we will continue to use it but

  1. all forms of socialism are utopian, especially Marxism (social democracy may be less so), because they are consciously working to implement an improved or even perfect society. There is nothing more utopian than the idea of the ‘communist’ society, as we’ll see.

  2. in his claim to be ‘scientific’ Marx used very elaborate (and often tedious) systems of analysis. However, these systems rest upon assumptions (theory) which are ultimately matters of belief (i.e., faith) and not ‘facts’ which can be verified empirically. Marxists often claimed to put forward ‘objective reality’ in their analyses, but that objective reality was always in the form of assertions that required an act of faith to accept.

    - as a result, Marxism is much less ‘scientific’ and more religious than Marx, or his followers, admit; moreover, Marxist predictions have been notoriously unreliable, and as science is supposed to involve predictability, it cannot claim to be scientific on the basis of its record of predictions.

Human Nature

 - most socialists have an environmentalist view; i.e., the major determinants of human nature and behaviour are environmental rather than hereditary. Traits, whether good or bad, are a product of conditions, training, experience, society, etc., rather than congenital.

- at birth, humans are like a blank page (a ‘tabula rosa’). It is the experience and environmental influences which determine which character traits are written and embedded in human nature.

Problem of Evil

 - both for society and for individuals (because individuals are products of their society) the sources of evil lie in the structures and orientation of society itself.

- improvements in individuals are dependent upon improvement and change in society. In particular, socialists felt that greed, selfishness and like traits were a result of the principle of ‘competition’ which dominated existing society. Until ‘competition’ was replaced by ‘cooperation’, people could not be expected to be different or better.

Reaction to Individualism

Reaction against Industrialisation and Urbanisation

 - this was a theme of only some socialists (especially utopian socialists).

- some opposed mechanisation; they argued that:

  1. it made people the slaves of machines. Machines were tireless; they did not have to rest. Humans were tied to the pace of the machine.
  2. it placed people in dirty, noisy, unhealthy factories and away from a more healthy outdoor life;
  3. it imposed uniformity—providing customers with monotonous, standardised products and robbing workers of the chance to develop and display personal craftsmanship and creativity;
  4. urbanisation tended to reduce or destroy a sense of community with close personal relations and to replace these with impersonal, anonymous relationships.

Origins of Socialism

 - many origins can be cited (some of great antiquity); communes appeared among early Christians and were perpetuated in the monastic orders for hundreds of years; communes had reemerged among some Protestant millenarian sects from time to time, especially in the 17th C (the Hutterites originated in this way).

- various Enlightenment writers also contributed ideas; e.g., Rousseau criticised private property as one of the early, pernicious departures from original, natural, pre-civilised society (in the latter, presumably everything was held communally).

- however, utopian socialism is usually dated from early in the 19th century (Comte de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, Robert Owen, etc.).

Comte de Saint-Simon, Claude Henri de Rouvroy (1760-1825)

 - he was probably the most influential of the early socialists; he influenced many utopian socialists but also contributed a good deal to Marx.

- he was appalled by the apparent chaos of laissez-faire and argued that what was needed was a scientific approach to structuring society.

- he was not a democrat, more a technocrat. Experts should determine what should be done and how; their plan and arrangement should then be imposed upon the population.

- he is usually credited with this famous slogan about production and distribution of wealth:

“To each according to his need; from each according to his ability.” i.e., everyone should produce and contribute in line with his/her ability and capacity; need should determine distribution.

 - in short, he was in favour of engineering society, a proponent of ‘technocratic’ society. [It is argued that the Soviet Union under Stalin represented a technocratic approach.]

(1) Utopian Socialism

 - usually utopian socialism involved some sort of commune. There was a flood of schemes and proposals in first half of the 19th century with diminishing interest to the end of the century.

- it was a very weak tradition (although not extinct) in the 20th century until the 1960s; then, especially in North America, there was a replay of the early 19th century (almost exactly the same themes and variations).

- usually, there was great difficulty and opposition to establishing communes in Europe so they turned to the New World; the U.S. was the area where most schemes were actually tried out.

Robert Owen (1771-1858)

 - Owen had a fascinating career; he was born into a poor, large family (13 children) and began working at age 9. At 18 years, he went into business initially in Manchester in cotton, but he bought mills in New Lanark, Scotland later.

- he was self-educated and read the enlightenment writers. He was a great innovator and entrepreneur but felt that new technology should be used to improve the lot of the general population.

- he tried to establish a model community at New Lanark—not a commune, he was still a capitalist at that point, albeit, a very idealistic one:

- to the surprise of most observers, he proved that he could still make a profit.

- Owen was a visionary; his objective in New Lanarck was to provide an example which would then be copied and transform society. In fact, many people did visit New Lanark to observe, but few tried to follow his example.

- after disputes with fellow shareholders, he sold out and embarked on a more activist and radical career. This is when he became an utopian socialist.

- in 1825 he was invited to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress. This shows how great his fame had grown.

- he wanted to form communes; his advocacy of a more rational religion in place of Christianity and the abolition of both private property and the family alienated many Christians.

- he spent his fortune on these communes (the best known was New Harmony in the U.S.)—all failed.

- later in the 1830s, Owen tried other schemes.

- the Owenite movement was almost a crusade:

Charles Fourier (1772-1837)

 - Fourier was preoccupied with the idea of an ‘ideal community’—about 1600-1800 people with exact proportions of different age groups, sexes, occupations and psychological types. This was small enough for most members to get to know each other. Buildings were planned carefully with communal and family areas; the rules of behaviour were elaborately detailed. He was a ‘social planner’. Some commentators have noted that the scheme was very monastic in conception.

- while most utopians focused on rural villages, as did Fourier, he thought the idea could also be implemented in urban areas.

- the scheme would end evil, make work enjoyable and render government superfluous. He advertised for a rich benefactor to finance the project. All attempts to implement his ideas were short lived.

Achievement by Evolution

 - none of the early utopian socialists advocated change by violent revolution (one reason for Marx’s hostility); instead, they believed that transformation of society would be gradual and evolutionary.

- they were so confident of the value and attractiveness of their schemes that they were convinced that all they had to do was to demonstrate them in operation. Then others would rapidly follow the example and in short order society would be transformed as most people voluntarily joined communes.

- in a society of communes, governments would decline greatly in importance and might even become superfluous and disappear (many utopian socialists tended towards anarchism).

Failure

 - few attempted communes were successful for very long (very few even got off the ground); the main exceptions were religious communes (even these were small in number).

- outside hostility was a factor, esp. in Europe; not only was there opposition from authorities, but land was very expensive. However, the success rate in North America where internal factors were most prevalent (bickering, personality conflicts, theological disputes, etc.) was also low.

- modern day communes are remarkably similar in their concerns, aims, means employed, variations and success ratios. Even communes that have survived for longer periods of time (such as residential communes) usually have high rates of turnover; few people stay for very long.

(2) Marxism and Karl Marx (1818-1883)

 - Marx attempted a completely materialistic (i.e., no god or supernatural) interpretation of the world and of history. His theory claimed to explain everything: past, present, and (because it was ‘scientific’) future—very comprehensive!

- Marxism is very like Christianity and other religions; in the Christian scheme, there is God and the Divine Plan to explain pattern and dynamic (i.e., change and the direction of change).

- Marx also had an explanation for dynamic change and the direction of society—the dialectic (this was borrowed from Hegel. Hegel was interested in the evolution and development of ideas and philosophies.)

- the diagram below is a representation of Hegel’s theory of how ideas evolve and develop. Each orthodoxy (thesis) provokes an alternative theory (antithesis); the 2 contend with each other, but also begin to influence each other. Eventually, parts of each are melded together to form a synthesis (a bringing together of elements of both).


- the synthesis in turn becomes the new orthodoxy which eventually provokes a new antithesis; the process is repeated to produce a new synthesis. This (what Hegel called the dialectic) was Hegel’s explanation of how philosophies and ideologies developed.

- Marx argued that only the material world was ‘real’; thus, ideas and philosophies were the product of something in the real world. That something was usually a particular ‘class’. He went on to apply Hegel’s construct to the ‘real’ (i.e., material) world and this supplied him with an explanation for change and evolution. It also supplied him with a theory of history.

- Marx argued that every society or stage in society embodied a ‘thesis’. Each thesis had at its core a particular ‘class interest’ which was then surrounded by an appropriate supporting ideology and buttressed with the political, social and economic power to enforce that ‘class interest’ at the expense of other ‘class interests’ (i.e., one class interest always dominated and exploited others).

- however, every ‘class interest’ or thesis had a fatal flaw or weakness (what Marx called a ‘contradiction’) which gave opportunity to a rival ‘class interest’ and alternative thesis (the antithesis).

- conflict would grow until the antithesis overthrew the thesis and established itself and altered society (the new synthesis). The new triumphant ‘class’ would reorder the priorities and power structures of society to benefit its members. However, because of the ‘contradictions’ of the newly dominant class and its interests, another class would begin to evolve and challenge that class in its turn, etc. etc. Thus, the dialectic applied to the material world (Marx’s theory became labelled ‘dialectical materialism’).

- class struggle was the dynamic or power source of the dialectic. Unless one argues that change is completely random and without any purpose or plan, it is necessary to provide some explanation; this is why ‘god’ or ‘the gods’ are so frequently invoked to explain this. Marx, as an atheist, needed to find an alternative explanation—the dialectic which was inherent in matter and was, therefore, inevitable. The dialectic was purposeful and progressive; it tended to lead society to higher and more advanced forms (i.e., similar to the theory of evolution).

- furthermore, Marx had a very clear eschatology (i.e., study of end times—the end of the world or of history).

- in Marxism, the ultimate end or goal of history, of humanity and of social organisation was “The Communist Society”. This is very similar to the idea of the ‘millennium’ in Christianity.

- Marx also outlined the various stages by which the goal will be reached.

 - the theory was utterly deterministic; the ultimate goal and the steps to the goal were irresistible, inevitable and unchangeable.

Outline—Marxist Interpretation of European History

 - of course, societies had existed before capitalism had emerged, but we won’t deal with those. It was the evolution of capitalism that Marx thought was leading to its own downfall, and in its destruction would come socialism and communism. As we’ll see, Marx was convinced that the end of capitalism was rapidly approaching.

- in the evolution of capitalism, the dialectic was at work. Capitalism existed in different forms (each embodying a specific class interest). Each new form had its seeds of origins in some contradiction or flaw in the preceding form. It emerged and was forced to struggle; the new, more progressive form ultimately triumphed and assumed (seized) political and social power.

Feudalism

 - following the breakdown of the Roman Empire, manufacturing had declined to negligible levels; the main area of production (and source of wealth) was agriculture. A class of armed, mounted warriors had seized ownership of the land (the means of production) and thus expropriated most of the wealth. Most of the ‘surplus’ (everything above what is required to keep the workers and their families alive) goes to the owners of the means of production.

[Marx’s Axiom: the distribution of wealth is determined by the ownership of the means of production. (John Stuart Mill’s idea that the distribution of wealth could be separated from ownership of the means of production drove Marx around the bend.)]

 - the excess wealth of the warrior class produced the fatal flow (i.e., the desire for more goods and luxuries). The towns grew, manufacturing revived and trade developed to supply the goods and luxuries this privileged class wanted; this caused the growth of mercantile capitalism.

- at first, the new capitalists were subservient (serving the needs of the dominant feudal class); however, these capitalists began to find that the warring, taxing, etc. of feudalism were disrupting and limiting their activities.

- there was a long and protracted struggle.

Merchant Capitalism

 - finally triumphed; it did not mean abolition or destruction of former relationships (land-owning aristocracies continued), but now mercantile interests took precedence; this can be seen in the policies which benefited trade and commerce (e.g., mercantilism).

- internal contradiction—success meant the need for more goods but production remained static. There was the desire to increase and diversify production and they had the capital to invest.

- thus, the merchants began to invest in factories, etc.—birth of industrial capitalism.

Industrial Capitalism

 - laisser-faire liberalism was the ideology of this class.

- industrial capitalism achieved its profits by exploiting wage labour.

[Marxist Axiom—profit = unpaid labour. This is true of all capitalism. When something is sold for more than the cost of the labour (wages) used to make it, this provides profit. However, the value of anything is the value of the labour used to produce it. Land and capital by themselves produced nothing; only labour added value. Thus, in a Marxist view, profit comes from the difference between the real value of a good and the wages paid to the workers. In other words, profit is derived only because the capitalists do not pay workers the full value in wages for the labour they provide.]

 - in industrial capitalism, the workers who provide the labour are urban, industrial workers. Increasingly, these workers are separated from the land in the growing cities. They have no way to live without working for wages. Marx named this class of industrial, urban workers entirely dependent on wages the ‘proletariat’.

- Marx was very excited by the development of industrial capitalism and the proletariat; capitalism was approaching a serious crisis and the proletariat was the class of destiny. It was preparation for the great eschatological turning point (i.e., it set the stage for the great transition).

- competition produced the great contradiction in industrial capitalism. It caused continual increase in scale and innovation. Successful enterprises were getting bigger and bigger as they grew or swallowed others; others (smaller ones) often went out of business or were absorbed by the more successful. In fact, the process of concentration could even lead to the reduction of competition.

- there were 2 important effects:

  1. ownership of the means of production was concentrated in fewer and fewer hands—thus increasing the disparities in the distribution of wealth; it also increased greatly the role of capital in the means of production.

  2. as capital involved in production increased as a proportion, the labour component was decreasing.

    - however profit was derived only from exploiting (using but not paying fully) the labour. If the labour component was declining, then sooner or later, profits would also have to decline. This last was Marx’s explanation of why profits tended to decline and was the contradiction in industrial capitalism. Profit is the life blood of capitalism and a decline of profitability could be fatal to capitalism.

- Marx argued that there were ways to stave off the decline temporarily:

  1. continued concentration of the ownership of the means of production in fewer and fewer hands; however, there were finite limits.
  2. taking advantage of less industrialised parts of the world; i. e., trade and imperialism with unindustralised areas of the world produced greater profits and these could help for a short time to stave off the decline of profits, kind of like a blood transfusion.
  3. however, the principal means was to intensify the exploitation of labour—grind the workers ever harder (this was a treadmill; capitalists were having to run faster and faster just to remain in the same place!).

- Marx argued that the great crisis of capitalism was rapidly approaching; profits were declining, wealth was being concentrated into a few hands, and the social structure was being simplified into only two classes:

  1. there was the large mass of the proletariat; this was the urban working class who were entirely dependent on wage labour; as industrial capitalism grew, so did this class. Unsuccessful, failed capitalists and other middle classes were being or would be gradually pushed down among the proletariat. The Iron Law of Wages in capitalism ensured that this class would enjoy, at best, bare subsistence.

  2. a smaller and smaller class of very wealthy capitalists was concentrating all wealth in their hands while everyone else’s condition was getting worse and worse as exploitation intensified.

- eventually (sooner rather than later), the masses’ misery would become intolerable; they would revolt and overthrow their oppressors—THE REVOLUTION would occur.

- when the revolution failed to happen, later Marxists continued the analysis.

Finance Capitalism

 - industrial capitalism’s need for capital (for new machinery, larger factories, etc.) grew rapidly; soon reinvested profits were inadequate. Thus banks and other financial institutions arose to collect and aggregate savings and to funnel this capital to industrialists as loans, etc.

- at first, the finance capitalists were subordinate to the industrial capitalists, but soon they began to have the power of life and death over industrial capital; without capital to upgrade and expand, industrial enterprises would fall behind and eventually fail. Thus, financiers became dominant.

- however, finance capitalists wanted to avoid the losses from failure which competition tended to foster; thus for finance capitalists, competition tended to be counter-productive. As a result, finance capitalists began to work to lessen competition by forcing mergers and helping to establish cartels and monopolies.

- this is how Marxists explained cartels, trusts, monopolies and the reemergence of protectionism in the late 19th century (however, these developments were most notable in Germany and the U.S., not in Britain and France).

- they made the same predictions as Marx—greater concentration of wealth and greater misery for the masses would shortly lead to rebellion and revolution.

- however, the later Marxists were also arguing that the creation of cartels, monopolies & trusts were not eliminating competition; such developments were merely moving competition to a higher, international level (i.e. were reducing or eliminating competition within nations, but as each nation followed suit, international competition was intensifying). The reemergence of protectionism after 1870 in the US, Germany and (after 1879) France, was one form of evidence they offered in support of their claims.

- further evidence was the building of empires (imperialism) and growing militarism of the late 19th and early 20th century. It proved, they argued, that a decaying capitalism was playing its last, desperate cards in an attempt to ward off collapse; war was the logical, inevitable outcome of this international competition.

- World War I seemed to prove the Marxists correct and gave them great prestige. Lenin’s book, Imperialism: The Last Stage of Capitalism (1916), argued that World War 1 was the natural development and the proof of Marxist eschatology.

Marxist Eschatology

 - change was possible only through violence and revolution as no dominant ruling class would give up power without a struggle.

- existing states and governments were controlled by a dominant capitalist class which was unwilling to give up power; indeed, it used any and all means to retain power. Thus, change was possible only if control of the state were seized and power wrested from the capitalist class; this could be done only by violent revolution.

THE REVOLUTION

 - this was the ‘socialist revolution’. All previous revolutions were declared to be misnamed; Marx declared that they were simply ‘palace coups’ because all that happened was that one class or clique overthrew or replaced another but nothing significant changed. Thus, the only true Revolution, which had not yet happened, was the socialist revolution. [Marxists have several times tried to expropriate terms and exploit them for their own purposes—e.g., contradiction and imperialism by Lenin).]

- this socialist revolution was raised almost to the level of a deity; it was not just an event (the initial seizure of power) but a force (may the revolution be with you?), in effect a supernatural entity, one with a life and power of its own.

- morality came to be almost entirely determined by reference to the Revolution—anything (terrorism, assassinations, even mass murders) that prepares the way for, promotes or preserves the Revolution is good; everything and everyone that in any way countered or failed to contribute to the Revolution was worthless or evil and should be gotten rid of.

The Proletariat

 - Marx believed that the proletariat was the class of destiny—the instrument of destiny. This was the class to bring about the Revolution

- the socialist or proletarian revolution would initiate a fundamental transformation of society—the great watershed in human history (like the birth of Christ or of Mohammed in Christianity and Islam). For Marxists, the Revolution is like the 2nd Coming of Christ for Christian premillennialists; i.e., it is looked for momentarily and longed for. It is longed for because it is necessary before the existing order and arrangements (capitalism) can be gotten rid of and the hoped for utopian society (the communist society) can come into existence. As a result, Marxists are constantly searching for signs that the Revolution is about to take place.

- every previous class had seized power only to further its own class interests; the proletariat, however, would not do this (the exact basis for this faith is not clear; partly though, Marxists argued that everyone except the few capitalists and those described as their lackeys—politicians and such—would be members of the proletariat. They argued that this would be first time in history that power had been seized by the majority class.).

- the proletariat would seize control of the state and establish the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This seizure of power is, however, only the initial, transitional stage of the Revolution which would be completed only when society had been reconstructed into the Communist Society. While the Revolution is an event, it is seen also as a process. It is the means to get from what is in the present to the ideal future—the communist society.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat

 - during this transition phase, there were a number of roles and functions for the government or state:

  1. the power of the state would be used to dismantle capitalism and all elements of capitalist society; capitalism must be destroyed before socialism could be built.

  2. at the same time, the power of the state would be used to introduce socialism and to create the socialist society. In the socialist society, ‘competition’ would be eliminated and replaced by ‘cooperation’; private ownership would be abolished and replaced by ‘collective ownership of the means of production’. Ownership of the means of production determines distribution of wealth; only by collective ownership could there be equitable and equal distribution of wealth.

    [There has always been ambiguity about what ‘collective ownership’ meant:

    1. state or government ownership;
    2. large communes (like those in China);
    3. by employees of the factory or enterprise?]

  3. as environmentalists, Marxists felt that once socialist, or better, the Communist Society was in place, people would also be transformed (i.e., they would be moulded into ‘socialist man’—unselfish, free from the evil, greed, etc. which had been inculcated by capitalist society).

    - however, in the transition, many people would have been born and reared under capitalism; these people would have to be ‘resocialised’. This was another role for the state under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

  4. also, leaders would have to ensure that reactionary capitalist elements did not undo the Revolution and reestablish capitalism—guarding against reaction was a role for the state.

- the term, dictatorship, is not clear. Marx seemed to intend the Roman idea (i.e., dictatorship was the granting of extraordinary powers on a short term basis in order to deal with a crisis).

- Marx seemed to mean the temporary use of the full powers of the state on behalf of the proletariat in order to destroy capitalism and to implement socialism. (Marx was a bit vague on this and it’s not clear that he intended, necessarily, an all-powerful elite party; he never tried to form a party or organisation. Creating an elite, ‘vanguard’ party seems to have been Lenin’s contribution. The totalitarian, terroristic state was Stalin’s creation, although Lenin must share the responsibility.) How was the proletariat to exercise and direct this power? Marx was never clear.

- as Marx had argued that the vast majority of the population would be proletarians, it may have been intended as a fairly democratic arrangement. In practice, under Marxists following Marx’s prescriptions, it never has been.

Socialist Society

 - in this stage, cooperation would completely displace competition; private ownership of the means of production and property would be abolished. Society and the environment would be altered accordingly. Totally new, non-exploitive relationships would emerge and replace the old ones.

- as this happened, human nature would be transformed (good, without evil, etc.). As a result, the need for police, government, etc. would diminish.

Communist Society

 - as the processes at work in the socialist society matured, society would gradually evolve into this final, perfect condition.

- the state (government) would gradually become superfluous and would wither away; i.e., according to Marx, the Communist Society would be an anarchy.

What could (should) a good communist do?

 - the processes were deterministic and thus relatively impervious to human control; could a Marxist do anything except wait?

- most were too eager to wait passively; while they agreed that the process was inexorable and unchangeable, most felt that the timing could be influenced (speeded up or slowed down). Of course, they wanted to speed it up!

- in particular, the proletariat had to awaken to its historic mission; it had to become conscious of its exploitation and misery before it would rise up to overthrow its oppressors.

- thus communists could (& should) spread the word, ‘politicise the masses’, raise the consciousness of the workers, etc. (thus, they founded newspapers, wrote tracts, gave lectures and speeches, etc., etc.—propagandised).

- some later marxists began to be discouraged; many of the proletariat failed to recognise the ‘historic mission’ and failed to respond to calls for revolution. Many workers were in fact hostile to communist theory and programmes. Marxists argued that they were hoodwinked by the capitalists and their ‘lackeys’—politicians, newspapers, educators, ministers of religion, etc.

- thus, some marxists began to argue that there needed to be a leadership cadre (small group) to inform and guide the proletariat, to keep it on the right track—Lenin and his idea of an elite, vanguard party.

- this idea can easily lead to coercive measures:

III Social Democracy or Moderate Socialism

- often, people in this tradition accepted a great deal of the criticism of capitalist society and even shared the vision of the socialist or communist society in the future (i.e., they wanted to see competition and capitalism abolished and be replaced by cooperation and socialism).

- however, at various points, they would reject or deviate from Marxist exposition (promptly labelled ‘deviationists’, ‘revisionists’ or worse. These terms tended to be used indiscriminately whenever anyone disagreed with them. There were also violent disputes about who represents the ‘true’ Marxist tradition—like heresy in Christianity).

The Necessity of Violent Revolution

 - failure to accept this idea was the most serious deviation and the one that separated and created two distinct camps. Marx had insisted that violent revolution by the proletariat was an absolute necessity, a prerequisite for the transformation of society (to seize control of the state, etc.).

- moderate socialists argued that violent revolution was not necessarily unavoidable. There was an alternative possibility; i.e., control of the state could be achieved by political action. Through political parties and legal political activities, people could be persuaded to vote a socialist party into power.

- in many cases, the goals would remain the same (capitalism would be dismantled and socialism would be built); however, there was often much less emphasis on violence and even tended to use less violent imagery (less tendency to talk about ‘destroying’ society, or ‘wiping out’, ‘liquidating’ certain classes—in many cases such phrases were meant in a figurative, not a literal, sense and yet the violence and hatred were there).

- moderate socialists emphasised gradual, evolutionary change rather than cataclysmic, revolutionary change.

- also, some had moved from a utilitarian position (“The greatest happiness of the greatest number.” They were not as absolutist and they had less tendency to be so deterministic (they saw alternative paths to achieve the same objectives).

- many moderate socialists did not see socialism as an absolute (i.e., as a utopia—perfection; they recognised the possibility of imperfections but still regarded ‘socialism’ as a better system than capitalism).

- they had too much respect for freedom and liberty to accept the coercion of more extreme Marxism and often were committed democrats—hence the term ‘social democrats’.

Relations Between ‘Revolutionists’ and ‘Evolutionists’

 - the ‘evolutionists’ (revisionists and deviationists according to the ‘revolutionists’) have often been disliked and attacked more vigorously by extreme Marxists than their supposed enemies (the capitalists).

- ‘revolutionists’ tend to see the ‘evolutionists’ as heretics and traitors. Capitalists are simply doing what economic factors and forces determine that they must do. The evolutionists, however, have seen the light but have wilfully refused to go all the way (very like fundamentalist Christians who often criticise what they call ‘liberal’ Christians more harshly than people who do not claim to be Christians at all; the ‘liberal’ Christians are apostates, ‘backsliders’).

- as a result, revolutionary Marxists have often spent more time fighting and even killing moderate socialists than their avowed enemy.

- in Britain, socialist tradition has tended to be less influenced by Marx (except in class analysis) and more by the utilitarian tradition; this is especially true of Fabian socialism. Thus, revolutionary Marxism has never been more than a fringe tradition.

- in Europe, the two streams have, since the late 19th century, unusually been bitter and hostile enemies. In the 1920s and 30s in Germany and Austria especially, they were often fighting each other instead of the fascists. It happened in Spain during the Civil War also. Occasionally, they did join a ‘Common Front’, but often too late or the parties remained too suspicious of each other to be really effective.

- moderate socialists were more inclined to accept ameliorating changes and reforms (pensions, welfare measures, etc.) as a step in the right direction; revolutionary Marxists tend to oppose and reject these because they believed such measures relieved the worst misery without changing things fundamentally, distracted the attention of the proletarian masses from the historic mission, and thus postponed the Revolution. Like an aspirin, such things reduced the pain a bit, but didn’t do anything to cure the problems!

- the creation of the modern welfare state has been, largely, a joint achievement of reform liberalism and moderate socialism:

IV Social Gospel or Christian Socialism

 - this tradition grew out of 2 developments:

A. Christian Eschatology:

 - in Christian eschatology, 2 events have special importance:

  1. The Second Coming or Second Advent;
  2. The millennium—1000 years of peace, Kingdom of God.

- there are other ideas also (time of troubles [the tribulation] as in the Book of Revelation in the Bible; the Final Judgment; a new Creation and a new world).

- however, the relationship between (a) and (b) has given rise to 2 separate traditions:

premillennialism and postmillennialism as illustrated in the diagram below.

- these traditions embody very different perceptions of the world and the trend of events. The expectations for the future are almost opposite; one tends to be pessimistic and the other much more optimistic.


Premillennialism

 - in this cosmology, the world is evil and getting worse (i.e., the trend is down); the world (i.e., existing societies and the social order) is not redeemable. It is heading for damnation.

- premillennialists expect the Second Coming momentarily, at any minute. This expectation from time to time convinces individuals that they have noted all the signs and causes them to make a prediction of when this will take place. Just a few years ago, a fundamentalist preacher in Korea decided that 1992 was the year and many of his followers sold their property etc. in preparation. [A similar incident occurred in 1914; many of the people who had joined later concluded that the prediction was false. However, the leader maintained that he was correct and that the Second Coming had taken place; those who accepted this came to be known as Jehovah’s Witnesses.]

- immediately after the Second Coming will be an extended period of troubles, including the 7 plagues foretold in the Book of Revelation, great loss of life and culminating in the great Battle of Armageddon. After this, all the existing political entities will all be destroyed and the Kingdom of God will be established throughout the entire world. This will inaugurate the Millennium.

- in this view then, achievement of the millennium requires cataclysmic transition, involving destruction of the existing world, the deaths of enormous numbers of people and the establishment of the Kingdom of God. [You can see how closely similar this cosmology is with revolutionary Marxism.]

- most (but not all) Christian fundamentalist preachers are premillennialist, including Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, etc. Most avoid politics because it is seen as being a waste of time (the world can’t be saved) and it distracts the fundamentalist Christian from doing what he/she should be doing—staying prepared and in a state of Grace for the Second Coming and trying to save as many other people from damnation as they can. As a result, this tradition is to a considerable degree apolitical.

Postmillennialism

 - this is the tradition that led to the social gospel. People in this tradition believe that the world can and will be improved until it reaches a state where the Kingdom of God will be achieved (i.e., in an evolutionary, gradual fashion); this involves the idea of progress.

- this improvement and progress will be achieved in 2 ways:

  1. reform of individuals by conversion and evangelism; as this takes place on a large scale and large numbers of people change their behaviour, conditions in society will improve. Thus, attempts to evangelise and convert as many people as possible is just as strong as in premillennialism.

  2. reform of society to eliminate evils which tend to promote sin and evil (such as, drink, slavery, prostitution, etc.); this reform could, and often did, require political activism and produced a wide range of movements and actions in the 19th century. Thus, people in this tradition can be very active politically.

    B. “Liberal” Theology

     - several influences underlay ‘liberal’ theology—the ‘higher criticism’ of the Bible, the theory of evolution and the impact of science.

    - the ‘higher criticism’ began with philological studies of the Biblical languages. By this means, they were able to date when different parts were written (at least to determine chronological order) and made some surprising discoveries (e.g., the Books of Moses had not been written for hundreds of years after Moses). Historical knowledge began to be applied and this frequently had big effects on interpretations of things in the Bible. Literal interpretations began to be questioned more frequently.

    - evolution and science were also often difficult to reconcile with literal interpretations of the Bible.

    - thus, theological ‘liberals’ began to redefine many theological notions: God was seen as immanent rather than transcendent (i.e., part of rather than apart or separate from creation). [For example, Creation was not seen as a one-time event taking 6 days; rather it was a process, one that is on-going. God was in and part of Nature and God directed the process. God was still the Creator. However, this view could accept evolution as being the means of Divine Creation.]

    - the idea of eternal rewards and punishments was downplayed; ‘sin’ began to be defined in relative rather than absolute terms or sometimes in social rather than moral/legal terms. [This view does not completely absolve individuals of responsibility for evil actions, but it does put a great deal more emphasis on social influences.]

    - literal interpretations of the Bible began to be replaced by interpretations emphasising myth and symbolism.

    Social Gospel

     - this was a logical extension and combination of postmillennialism and “liberal” theology.

    - if God is immanent rather than transcendent, then ‘original sin’ becomes relatively unimportant because God is present in all life and in everyone; even the most depraved has some spark of the divine.

    - everyone has the potential to be a good person. Obviously, not everyone is good. Why not? The divine spark can be nourished and grow or it can be stifled and even perhaps snuffed out entirely. What determines what happens? The environment of the family and society determines what happens.

     - the purpose of life and of society, as well as of religion, is to foster and develop this divine spark by encouraging people to do good and by creating a better and ideal environment for people in order to permit this.

    - in this view, sin and evil came about because the divine spark not only did not grow and blossom but because society frequently created conditions which inhibited people from doing good; the divine spark was dampened and in some cases, practically extinguished (i.e., poverty and poor conditions brutalise people).

    -as a result, reform of society is a prerequisite if the divine in people is to be developed and realised. Also, the achievement of the Kingdom of God, the elimination of sin, etc. is possible only by changing and improving society.

    - as a result, many Christians (especially clergymen) began to have a good deal in common with many socialists; they were repelled by the evils of industrial, competitive society, they looked to cooperation as a better alternative and some even looked back to the early Christian Church as a kind of ‘communist’ society—at least an example of communalism. In fact, many were prepared to join with socialists in political action to reform and transform society from greedy and selfish capitalism to cooperative socialism. This was the social gospel.

    - the social gospel first affected Protestants in the 19th century; it was strong in Germany, Britain, and North America. In Canada, the C.C.F. and N.D.P. owe a very great deal to this tradition—J. S. Woodsworth and Tommy Douglas are only two examples of a large number of former clergymen in this tradition.

    - it emerged much later in Catholicism as it was restricted and condemned by the Vatican; yet flickers emerged in 1920s. Much of revolution in the Catholic Church since the 1950s has been an eruption of ‘social gospel’ concepts—priests and nuns who joined the U.S. civil rights marches, worker priests, support for asbestos strikers in Quebec in early 1950s, and recently, the ‘Marxist’ priests in Latin America. About 1980, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops developed a policy statement on social policies which contains strong criticisms of capitalism and capitalist society. That statement has a number of strong social gospel elements in its basic concepts.

    Socialism Summary

     Socialist View of Human Nature

     - mankind is moulded and made by its environment.

    - essentially, people are born as a blank page upon which almost any characteristics or traits can be engraved. Social behaviour and values are inculcated by the culture and by the relationships in society; evil and undesirable characteristics are a product of society’s influence. The only way to improve and eliminate bad or undesirable characteristics in people is by changing society.

    - socialists are particularly concerned about the impact and effects of competition; they want to replace competition with cooperation.

    The Ideal Society

    - that is one in which this change has been effected (i. e., cooperation has replaced competition) and in which people have been inculcated with the associated values from childhood.

    - the Marxist view of the communist society is very much part of this and most socialists (even Christian socialists or ‘social gospellers’) have essentially the same vision except that Christian socialists want a Christian socialist society while atheist Marxists want to see all religions abolished entirely. [we shall consider whether or not the Soviet Union achieved or even moved towards the communist society—as defined by Marx—under Bolshevik and Communist Party rule after the 1917 Revolution].

    Differences

     - the main points of difference among socialists relate to questions of MEANS not questions of GOALS—the ideal society or utopia where cooperation is dominant is pretty much the same for all;

    How is existing society with its competition, evil, etc. to be transformed into the ‘socialist society’?

    - Marxists have been the most uncompromising and dogmatic; because of their claim to ‘scientific’ analysis, they have been very rigid about the processes, stages and means for effecting the transformation. Thus, many of them have insisted that violent revolution and the destruction of capitalism are prerequisites for creating socialism and communism.

    - moderate Socialists and Christian Socialists believed that socialism can be achieved by gradual, evolutionary transformation and that power can be achieved by peaceful, political action.

    - Utopian Socialists also see socialism being achieved in a gradual, evolutionary fashion; as a larger and large proportion of the population join cooperatives, society will evolve into socialism.

    Determinism in Marxism
    1. human nature is determined by the environment exclusively;

    2. wealth and power are determined by the relationship to the means of production (i.e., ownership determines who has power and wealth);

      - Marx rejected Mill’s separation of production and distribution of wealth.

      - social welfare programmes are not of any efficacy; they are mere palliatives at best, like religion—‘an opiate to the masses’; in fact, by easing misery, they probably delay the REVOLUTION and are, therefore, undesirable.

      - the only way to produce true equality and equity is to abolish private ownership of the means of production (“Private property is theft.”—famous old socialist slogan).

    3. direction and stages of change—as atheists, many Marxists reject the supernatural as a director of change, but they also reject chance and the idea of no specific direction in change; instead, they substitute the idea of an inexorable and immutable dialectic which is dynamic and directing society inevitably and irresistibly towards the ‘communist society’.

    4. Capitalism cannot be gradually altered or transformed into socialist society;

      - CAPITALISM and SOCIALISM stand as diametrically opposed opposites—mutually exclusive (like the Judeo-Christian view of ‘good’ and ‘evil’—God and Satan).

      - neither one can tolerate the other; like oil and water, they do not and can not mix.

      - the consequence is that only revolution can effect change; before socialism can be implemented, capitalism must be dismantled and destroyed utterly. Socialism can only be built from scratch.

    Effects of ‘scientific’ analysis in Marxism

    - in the most dogmatic forms, Marxism abstracts totally from human beings or people. People who lose track of what it is to be human in the name of some higher truth often end up being inhuman. That is how inquisitions and witch hunts happened. That is often how terrorism and savage political purges happen.

    - instead, Marxism focuses upon ‘classes’ as the ultimate reality and proceeds to define class stereotypes; people are then fitted into the ‘class’ pigeon holes and characteristics are assigned on the basis of the stereotype not by actual behaviour or characteristics.

    - in this way, many things are dehumanised; very great crimes can be contemplated (and even carried out)—those are ‘classes’ not people being eliminated; revolution is no longer seen in terms of the bloodshed and violence but rather as ‘an historical process’; as a result, one often finds ‘drawing room revolutionaries’—mild people (often intellectuals) who normally would not harm a fly but who will blithely advocate revolution; often, when they see the real thing, they are horrified.

    - the Marxist claim to be ‘scientific’ is a delusion (this is true of much ‘social science’ too). It is based upon Newtonian science and its belief that scientific methods discover ‘truth’ (in universal ‘laws’ and regularities) which allows predictability and certainty. As we shall see, in the physical sciences, this notion has pretty well been exploded since the late 19th C. Now the physical sciences deal much more with uncertainty and relativism (i.e., at best, ‘laws’ are applicable only to certain contexts and situations). Science no longer predicts; at best, it establishes probabilities.

    - thus, it is strange to see ‘social scientists’ claiming the kind of certainty (Marxists frequently claimed their interpretations were based on ‘objective reality’) that physical scientists abandoned as inappropriate. Yet this claim to be ‘scientific’ is a major explanation for the absolutism and the dogmatism of many Marxists.

    - also, Marx attempts to pull an intellectual fast-one on everyone. A number of basic principles of Marxist theory, what Marxists often refer to as ‘objective facts’ or ‘objective truths’, are nothing of the sort. They are very subjective axioms which have never and can never be proved. In fact, acceptance of these so-called ‘objective truths’ is a matter of faith. This doesn’t mean that they should be absolutely rejected; it does mean that they should be treated critically and skeptically, just as one does with other ideas.

     - Social Democrats, on the other hand, tend to regard people as people; thus, while they may be opposed to capitalists as capitalists, they can still see them as individuals and human beings who are involved with a bad and unjust system.

    Socialist Internationalism<

     - most socialists believed in the identity and unity of the interests of all workers; they had a common interest in relieving their misery and improving their lot; they had a common interest in opposing capitalism and its effects.

    - thus, the slogan, “Workers of the world, unite.”

    - in the late 19th century, socialists formed a number of international associations, especially the Socialist International (it still exists and meets regularly). Socialists were encouraged to take a pledge not to support or participate in (capitalist) wars in the future.

    - this internationalism and pacifism thoroughly frightened national governments; it caused most governments to foster nationalism and to make social welfare concessions to try to wean the working classes away from support for socialist movements and parties; this was especially true in Germany where social welfare programmes were implemented to halt criticism of the military budget.

    - when war came in 1914, the international unity collapsed and most socialists (not all on either side, however) tended to support the war efforts of their respective governments; only later as the terrible costs mounted, did criticisms reemerge on a significant scale.


    - in a way, this socialist internationalism was a counterpart to conservative internationalism. We saw this in Metternich who argued that the monarchs and other members of the dominant classes in Europe had a common interest in suppressing all challenges to authority and the status quo. Metternich abhorred nationalism and promoted the international League of Emperors instead.

    - however, as we noted, after the Revolutions of 1848, conservatives increasingly turned to nationalism as a means of winning popular support for their continued domination of power.

     - liberals always embraced nationalism, but it was not a narrow, extreme nationalism in many cases. Also, the idea of ‘free trade’ was international in the belief that the maximum freedom of international trade was beneficial to all participants; ‘free trade’ would promote international friendship and an end to hostilities and wars. Thus, liberalism could often embrace both nationalism and internationalism

    - however, as more extreme forms of nationalism evolved in the 19th C, this became harder and less possible. Extreme nationalism tended to become more and more illiberal.

    HOME History 203 list Top of the page