The words “socialism” and “communism” are usually
ill-defined words. For example, the name socialist has been used by many
political parties since the early 19th century. And not only by parties of the
“left” but also parties of the centre and even the far right. The most
notorious case of this is the National German Socialist Workers Party, better
known as the Nazi party.
Robert Owen’s followers in Britain are usually credited with
introducing the word “socialism” in 1827 and the term “socialism” arose in
France around 1830 and was counterposed to the word “individualism.” Again it
was followers of Owen that helped introduce the word ‘communism’ which arose
from a conversation, around 1840, between Goodwyn Barmby, a follower of Robert
Owen and followers of Babeuf.
In the mid-19th century, “socialism” was used to describe
the various opponents of the “political economists”—who all supported
capitalism—and criticised political economists from a more or less
working-class viewpoint. The utopian socialists designed various “ideal
societies” that they believed would eliminate the evils of capitalist society.
Not all these designs involved the collective ownership of the means of
production by the workers themselves. The latter solution was considered a
subset of socialism. But it was by far the most radical form of socialism and
the form most feared by the capitalist class. And the name of that subset of
“socialism” was “communism.” By the late 19th century, the words “communism,” or
“communist,” had largely died out and been replaced by the far more respectable
term “social democrat” or “socialist.” Engels on one occasion pointed out that
the term “social democrat” was actually incorrect, because it implied that the
aim of the workers’ movement was to achieve a socialist democracy when in fact
the aim was to achieve communism in the means of production and distribution.
Such a society would have no need of the state or even functions analogous to
the state. Such a society would have moved far beyond even the most democratic
state conceivable—a democratic workers’ republic. The parties of the Second
International, including the Russian section that Lenin belonged to, used the
words “socialist” or “social democratic” to describe themselves. When the October Revolution occurred, the
name of the party that led it was still officially the Russian Social
Democratic Labor Party (Bolshevik). But following Lenin’s suggestion, “Social
Democratic” was replaced by “Communist” in 1918. When the Third International
was founded in 1919, one of the 21 conditions that a party had to meet to gain
admission was to call itself Communist Party of such and such country. “Social democratic” was from then on used to
describe their reformist opponents who remained in the rump Second
International, who often still call themselves “social democrats.” To
differentiate their policies from the Bolshevik “dictatorship of the
proletariat”.
The term “socialist”, however, continued to be used despite
its ambiguity, by all and sundry. But importantly it came to be attached to
what Marx had called the lower stage of communist society. This usage was
promoted by Lenin in “State and Revolution.” As far as Lenin was concerned,
socialist society and the first stage of communist society were identical,
completely contrary to what Marx wrote in his Gotha Critique. The distinction between the lower and higher
phase of communism is like the distinction between a partially constructed
building and a fully constructed one. Whatever the stage of construction, at a
given point in time the construction workers are constructing the entire
building.
Though this is a matter of pure speculation, perhaps the
next great workers’ revolution will ditch the word “socialist” and “socialism”
just like Lenin and the Bolsheviks dropped “social democrat” in describing
themselves.
There are also previous similar ideas to
socialism/communism/social democracy throughout history:
CLICK READ MORE FOR FULL POST
The Stoics
The materialists of the stoics (3rd century BC) believed in "world
city" where all are brothers. The Stoics, took Diogenes' statement 'I am a
citizen of the world” and developed it into a full blown concept, that stressed
each human being "dwells in two communities – the local community of our
birth, and the community of human argument and aspiration" One of the
important teachers of Stoicism for the Roman Stoics was Epictetus (50-130), a
slave freed when his master died who went on to teach in Rome "What is a
human being? A part of a commonwealth; first and chiefly of that which includes
both gods and men; and next, of that to which you immediately belong, which is
a miniature of the universal city... You are a citizen of the universe, and a
part of it; not a subordinate, but a principal part. You are capable of comprehending
the Divine economy; and of considering the connections of things. What then
does the character of a citizen imply? To hold no private interest; to
deliberate of nothing as a separate individual, but rather like the hand or the
foot, which if they had reason, and comprehended the constitution of nature,
would never pursue, or desire, but with a reference to the whole. Hence the
philosophers rightly say, that, if it were possible for a wise and good man to
foresee what was to happen, he would [even] co-operate in bringing on himself
sickness, and death, and mutilation, being sensible that these things are
appointed in the order of the universe; and that the whole is superior to a
part, and the city to the citizen."
In other words, put your ego in its place, and subordinate
your interests to what is good for humanity and the universe in the long run.
All humans have an obligation to take into account the point of view of other
persons. There is a natural law which applies even when there is no government
to enforce it, a law based on the Golden Rule, that people should not do to
others what they don't want done to themselves. Given this outlook, it should
come as no surprise that the Stoics were the first philosophers to condemn all
kinds of slavery and to talk about the oneness of the whole human community
regardless of national and ethnic differences.
Early Christianity
Some have argued that Christianity was originally
‘socialist’ in its belief in that the poor were as worthy of respect as the
rich, and in its view that what matters is not wealth but a ‘good’ i.e.
Christian life. Broadly speaking, there are two aspects of communism. One
involves the collective ownership of the means of production, “from each
according to bility”. Another form of communism involves the collective
distribution of the means of consumption, “to each according to need.” Under a
communism of consumption, the individual members of the communist community
withdraw products from the common store according to their needs. This form of
communism prevailed, or rather was the ideal of, early Christian communities.
Christian communism is described quite vividly in the book of the Christian
Bible entitled “Acts of the Apostles.”
“Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and
soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own,
but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles gave their
testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them
all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of
lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid
it at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need.”
(Acts 4: 32-36,)
So the expression “to each according to their need” should
not be credited to Marx but the Bible. Notice that this author wrote about the
distribution of goods according to “need,” and not the equal distribution of
goods. In this respect, the author of “Acts” was well ahead of many of today’s so-called
socialists seeking a re-distribution of wealth for an egalitarian society of
more equal shares
However, unlike Marx, the early Christians were unconcerned
with the question of who produced the material use values that the apostles
distributed communistically in their communities. This author lived in a
society where much of the produce were produced by slave labour. Therefore, the
author shows no interest in communism in the sphere of production.
Feudal 'Socialists' (14th and 15th centuries)
There were many instances of uprisings of the poor, often
based on the Christian view that we are all created equal e.g. John Ball a
wandering preacher during the English Peasants Revolt offering sermon themes
such as:
“When Adam delved and
Eve span, Who was then a Gentleman?”
And astutely expressing revolutionary sentiments:
“Ah ye good people, the matters goeth not well to pass in
England, nor shall do till everything be common, and that there be no villains
nor gentlemen, but that we are all united together, and that the lords be no
greater masters than we. What have we deserved, or why should we be thus kept
in servage? We be all come from one father and mother, Adam and Eve: whereby
can they say or show that they be greater lords than we, saving by that they
cause us to win and labour for that they dispend?”
In the 1300s the Bishop of Strasbourg mentioned how a group
calling itself Free Spirits, “believe that all things are common, whence they
conclude that theft is lawful for them”. In the Fifteenth Century a group of
calling themselves the Taborites, an off-shoot of the Hussite movement, tried
to put communism into practice. They went one step further than most:
“Everything will be common, including wives; there will be free sons and
daughters of God and there will be no marriage as union of two — husband and
wife.” In 1419 the Taborites instituted a communist society in Usti with a
common storage house.
16th century
religious wars
During the Reformation, Anabaptists and various other
religious sects pushed non-conformism
(in the religious sense) in a radical direction, and advocated equality ‘in the
sight of God’. Martin Luther’s was particularly hostile to the Anabaptists as
they represented ‘disorder’. One historian referred to them as “the Bolsheviks
of the Reformation”. Various socialist writers applauded the Anabaptists, for instance,
the socialist writer, Karl Kautsky, would make Anabaptism either “the
forerunner of the modern socialism” or the “culminating effort of medieval
communism.” Although the main Anababist adherents did not adopt communal
lifestyle, some of the other groups in this general social movement did. Hutterties
said, “private property is the greatest enemy of love”
Thomas Müntzer, a scholarly theologian was enamored with the
old Taborite teachings. After several years of preaching he had collected a
group of followers and in February 1525 took control of the town of Muhlhausen
where he imposed a communist community in the name of Christianity. The princes
of the realm were not particularly pleased and sent an army to wipe out
Müntzer.
Jan Matthys took control of the town of Munster. Since the
New Testament said money is the root of all evil these good Christians
abolished private ownership of money. Instead it was collected and put in the
hands of the Church which used it to hire “outside” workers. Food was also
collectivized and rationed out by the Church. Communal dining-halls were
created and private homes were declared public property open to the countless
poverty-stricken seeking God’s kingdom.
The English Civil
War (17th century)
During the English
Civil War, (1640s), disputes arose over extending the struggle and is a veritable
gold mine for people looking for anti-capitalist proto-socialist writings and
thoughts.
The Levellers in Cromwell's army wanted the vote extended
beyond those with property. Overton in 1647:
“For by naturall birth, all men are equally and alike born
to like propriety, liberty and freedom, and we are delivered of God by the hand
of nature into this world, every one with a naturall, innate freedome and
propriety (as it were writ in the table of every mans heart, never to be
obliterated) even so are we to live, every one equally and alike to enjoy his
Birth-right and privilege; even all whereof God by nature had made him free. If
the vote was not given to everyone it would be “a mere vassalage of the nation,
as if the nation could have nothing by right, but all by favour; this cannot
hold with the rule of Mine and Thine, one to have all and another nothing:
one’s a gentleman, th’other a beggar.”
The favors given to the small landowners by Cromwell led to
increases in the price of land rent, which condemned tenant farmers to hire
themselves out as day laborers or shepherds. Starting in 1649, the Levelers,
under the leadership of John Lilburne (1614-1657), formed the leftwing of
Cromwell’s troops.
Whilst food prices reached famine levels, the Levelers
demanded re-election of Agitators and recall of the General Council of the
Army:
“We were before ruled
by King, Lords and Commons, now by a General, a Court Martial and House of
Commons; and we pray you what is the difference?”
At the end of March
1649, Lilburne, Overton, Walwyn and Prince were arrested. A Leveler pamphlet,
More Light Shining in Buckinghamshire, appealed to the soldiers “to stand
everyone in his place, to oppose all tyranny whatsoever,” particularly that of
the lawyers, enclosed lords of manors and the Army Grandees who have rejected
social reform and have done nothing for the poor.
While the "Diggers" (or the “True Levellers”) protested at the enclosure of common land,
using direct action, and proposing through Gerard Winstanley writings the
abolition of money.
“Every tradesman
shall fetch materials… from the public store-houses to work upon without buying
and selling; and when particular works are made… the tradesmen shall bring
these particular works to particular shops, as it is now the practice, without
buying and selling. And every family as they want such things as they cannot
make, they shall go to these shops and fetch without money.” (The Law of
Freedom)
"...buying and selling is the great cheat that robs and
steals the earth from one another. It is that which makes some lords, others
beggars, some rulers, others to be ruled; and makes great murderers and thieves
to be imprisoners and hangers of little ones, or of sincere hearted men" (A
Declaration from the Poor Oppressed People of England)
“The earth is to be planted, and the fruits reaped and
carried into barns and store-houses, by the assistance of every family. And if
any man or family want corn or-other provision they may go to the store-houses
and fetch without money. If they want a horse to ride, go into the fields in
summer, or to the common stables in winter, and receive one from the keepers;
and when your journey is performed, bring him where you had him, without money.
If any want food or victuals, they may either go to the butchers' shops, and
receive what they want without money; or else go to the flocks of sheep or
herds of cattle, and take and kill what meat is needful for their families,
without buying and selling.”
Winstanley, in his writings, as in the few writings of other
Diggers, realises the need to propagate his ideas and to gain support for them
from a majority of the people. But none of them challenged the political
supremacy of the wealthy capitalists. Instead they appealed for a change of
heart.
There was also a more extreme religious group, the Ranters –
Christian communists. “Have all things in common, or else the plague of God
will rot and consume all that you have.” declared Abiezer Coppe.
The central idea of the Ranters was "pantheistic."
In other words, God was seen as being in every living creature. The
"Ranters" saw free love, drinking, smoking and swearing all as signs
of spiritual liberation. So too was
nudity. As a result of the moral panic the Adultery Act was passed by
Parliament in May 1650. This was
followed, in August 1650, by the Blasphemy Act. Thomas Tany maintained that all
religion was “a lie, a fraud, a deceit, for there is but one truth and that is
love.” He also demanded that the people’s lands were rendered to the people.
Also around this time several ‘utopias’ were written, which
often but not always contain socialistic ideas:
Sir Thomas More - wrote first utopia (= "no
place") 1516, specifying ideal city layout, family size, routine (only a
few hours work each day), and based on the abolition of private property. Some
say it was not a serious proposal. Other utopian writings: James Harrington:
Oceana, John Bellers: Proposal for raising a colledge of industry, 1695.
18th century:
Tom Paine (1737 - 1809) pressed for the "rights of
man" and contributed to both the French and American Revolutions. He argued
that sovereign power lies with the people, constitution should be based on the
rights of man, privilege should be abolished, wars are "hobbies of
privilege and despotism", man has innate common sense which brings about
peace, it is right to abolish bad government. ‘The Rights of Man’ 1791.
William Godwin (1756
- 1836) was an anarchist who stressed
the negative effects of government in his book ‘Political Justice’ written in1793.
- William Blake (1757 – 1827), the artist and poet,
advocated freedom to the human imagination, against the ‘repression’ of natural
emotions; and attacked the poverty and exploitation that he saw around him
especially in London. He wrote what was to become one of the anthems of the
socialist movement, “Jerusalem”.
Gracchus Babeuf, a French Jacobin, arrested for ‘conspiracy
of equals’. Although the words ‘socialist’, and ‘anarchist’ didn’t exist at the
time, his ideas have been linked to them. Barmby introduced Engels to French
‘communists’ and later turned his own communist movement into a church.
19th century
It is in this period with the growth of the Industrial
Revolution industry that ‘socialist’
ideas gained currency, e.g. Fourier, Saint-Simon, Robert Owen - many of these
writers described "ideal" societies. The Communist Manifesto by Marx
and Engels criticize these as "utopian” , lacking the popular motive power
of the working class to achieve them.
Robert Owen:: a mill-owner born and brought up in Wales,
from a prosperous farming family, then moved to Glasgow and bought New Lanark,
becoming manager of the mills believed we are products of our upbringing and
environment hence he emphasised the importance of education He opposed all
religions as they kept their followers weak or bigoted or hypocritical. He
developed a rudimentary ‘labour theory of value’ – arguing that ills such as
war (Napoleonic wars) and poverty resulted from the competition of men and machines
– machines must be subservient to the workers using them
While most workers were kept in rotten conditions and worked
for excessive hours, he gave the workers in his mill good conditions and a
shorter working day – idyllic for the time. He provided a shop where goods of a
good quality and reasonable price could be bought – as against the ‘truck’
system, where employers paid their workers in tokens which could only be used
in their ‘truck shops’ (legislation ended this practice at the end of the 19th
century). Co-operative shops today are descended from Owen’s initiative He
provided a school for their children, and at New Lanark there was no
drunkenness. Even though he gave his workers better conditions, his profits
were still very good. (“good business is good for business”). He realised it
was not enough for him as an individual to improve workers’ conditions, whilst
the rest of his class did not and began to see that private property, religion
and marriage (and the nuclear family) all reinforced the current order so he
argued for social change. This included the idea of common ownership, and
communities: communities of about 1200 persons should be established, living in
one square building, with public kitchen and dining rooms, the children to be
brought up by the community until age 3, work and produce to be held in common
– they should be as far as possible self-sufficient, and federations should be
formed so the whole country was organised this way
Two communities were set up: one near Glasgow (Orbiston,
under his friend Abram Combe) in 1825, and one at New Harmony, Indiana (USA) –
both failed after a few year. Owen did
not try to guide or govern them, and they held a variety of different types of
people (rough and educated…), or perhaps they failed because there was no
private property. Josiah Warren, was one
of the members of New Harmony – ‘we had
a world in miniature’ but didn’t cater for the variety of individuals – he went
on to become an individualist anarchist
Another radical in the 19th century was the Anglo-Irish
landowner William Thompson who came under the influence of the ideas of J.S.
Mill, and also advocated a theory that labour creates value. In ‘Labour
Rewarded’, 1827, he argued that profit is the value added by workers, and that
a network of Owenite communities should be set up. Under the influence of Anna
Wheeler, he also spoke up for women’s rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment