As we learned, capitalism rose with industrialization. Merchants became industrialists and capitalists, far more free than in earlier ages to seek profit for self-interest. As Adam Smith argued, this created much productivity and competition that fueled advancement and ever-increasing numbers of products and services. While this had great benefits and continues to fuel innovation today, it also caused problems such as great inequalities and periods of economic depression and collapse. Industrialization not only allowed capitalists to mobilize for themselves and their new class, it also mobilized labor, allowed it to be more coordinated, and develop several movements in counter-reaction to the domination of capitalists and the cultural groups to which they belong. For the rest of this class, we will be studying these, including socialism, communism, anarchism, fascism, post-colonialism, and feminism.
Equality vs. Freedom
In
many ways, while all people appreciate the values of freedom and
equality, capitalism leans toward freedom while socialism leans toward
equality. Industrialization created great freedom for those who are
positioned to take advantage of it, particularly the middle and upper
classes, but it also created great inequalities. Consider that
neo-conservatives and free-market capitalist thinkers such as Milton
Friedman took Adam Smith’s position farther in arguing that businesses
should be for the purpose of profits, not jobs. This would mean that we
should be striving in economic theory for the freedom of individual
interest, not equality as social purpose. In America, a country that
has leaned more towards capitalism than any so far, the demonstrators of
the Civil Rights Movement were called communists for seeking federal
laws that ensured equality across ethnic groups.
Social Use vs. Individual Interest
Saint-Simon,
Marx and Engels all argued that cycles of overproduction lead to
depressions and poverty, and so industry should be planned in accord
with maximizing social advancement. This is entirely in line with
Mill’s idea of Utilitarianism and taking both the long term and social
view of society. Socialists also advocate the redistribution of wealth
to benefit society as a whole rather than individuals who hold the
wealth. This is put in balance with meritocracy such that those who
work gain through redistribution while those who merely hold (either
poor or rich) lose. Jobs should be provided not in accord with
individual profit but social welfare and maximizing the potential of all
members of society. A good example of this can be found in the
beginning of War on Democracy: Hugo Chavez provided grocery stores for
the poor of Venezuela that offered cheap government subsidized food
funded by a nationalized oil industry, with constitutional rights in
large print on back of each product.
Planned vs. Free Economies
While
communists have an entirely planned economy (such as Soviet sneakers
and jeans out of fashion by the time they are state made) socialism,
like capitalism, is mixed economics with some industries and products
made cheap by the state for the support of equality of people. In this
sense, socialism is to communism as capitalism is to radical free-market
capitalism and libertarianism. Industries that are often nationalized
in such mixed economies include natural resources (water, electricity,
oil), basic goods (bread, milk, corn, steel) and basic services (mail,
transportation, housing, police, fire-departments, healthcare, quality
control). Today, China and Vietnam are overall successful with
socialist leaning mixed economics, mixing private corporations with
state-controlled industries. Social Democrats, such as the Democratic
party in America and many political parties all over the world often
following European and American models, believe in some degree of
government and public control over market driven forces, capitalism with
some socialist steering, but no entirely nationalized/socialized
industries (ex: corporation for public broadcasting, PG&E having
monopoly on power in California as a corporation, BART).
Reform vs. Revolution
Some
socialists believe in gradual reform from within, such as the social
democrats who took over Russia after the Tsar abdicated but were tossed
out as not radical enough by the Russian Revolution. Other socialists
believe in radical reform and revolution, such as Lenin and Trotsky who
formed the vanguard party to overthrow the social democrats. Revolution
need not be violent, but involves rapid change in a short amount of
time.
Authoritarian & Democratic Economics
Mill’s
idea of Economic Democracy, unions, co-ops, everyone having a say in
the business, is particularly important to socialism. Some want to live
more socialist in a capitalist society: many communes are socialist
this way, communist if the whole society becomes a single commune. The
co-op housing arrangements in Berkeley are communes in that they are
living arrangements rather than business like Cheeseboard co-op. Saint
Simon, Engels & Marx believed technology would make the anarchy of
capitalism gradually unnecessary. There remains, however, a split in
socialism between those who seek socialism from above through
centralized planning (Saint-Simon’s champions in the meritocracy, Lenin
and Trotsky’s vanguard Bolshevik party) and those who seek socialism
from below through de-centralized planning (co-ops, soviets, direct
democracy). Both have advantages and disadvantages. From the top down,
the government can take the overall view of the situation and the long
term view, but there is a danger in centralized control hoarding power
and advantage. From the bottom up, the democratic decisions of labor
unions, co-ops and communes ensure the autonomy and interests of the
group, but there is a danger that each group can lose sight of the
social view and long term view and produce for their group interests
rather than the interests of society. Anarchism, which we will study in
two weeks, is similar if not identical to bottom-up socialism,
especially when leaning to the left.
Mazdak, Persian Socialist
While
socialism is often confused with hard-line communism, especially when
religion and atheism are discussed, the earliest socialists were
religious thinkers who believed that common purpose and property were
the fulfillment of the teachings of their religion. Monasteries, for
Buddhists, Christians and others, are communes in which much of the
resources are commonly owned and distributed. Mazdak (450 – 525 CE) was
a Zoroastrian priest living in Persia before Mohammed and Islam when
Zoroastrianism was still the Persian religion. He believed that
socialism was the true Zoroastrian way of life, and argued that the
Zoroastrian clergy had oppressed the people rather than raised them up.
He taught that God wanted everyone to share everything equally, but as
the strong had come to dominate the weak, wealth must be redistributed
such that it is shared in common. He advocated reforming and
simplifying religion and replacing many religious rituals with community
life and altruism. Like Plato, and Marx/Engels, he argued that
families should be held in common such that individual families were not
hoarding for themselves. Needless to say, many of his fellow
Zoroastrian clergy found his teaching radically heretical, but he
received royal patronage and his ideas flourished in Persia for a brief
period. While his ideas were counteracted by later rulers, small
Mazdaki communities survived in Persia for centuries long after Persia
was converted to Islam.
Saint-Simon’s ‘Socialisme’
Henri
de Saint-Simon (1760-1825) was a French thinker who many believe coined
the term ‘socialism’ (socialisme in the French). He was a big
influence on Marx and Engels, arguing that the anarchism of individual
interest driven capitalist control should be transformed by science,
technology and social planning such that poverty is eliminated and the
powerful are the worthy (meritocracy, like Plato) rather than the
wealthy (oligarchy, like often). Born an aristocrat in Paris, he fought
for Washington in the American Revolution and worked hard in the early
and more peaceful years of the French Revolution to build an industrial
society for the French people.
Renouncing
his aristocratic title, he believed in meritocracy (those who achieve
become great). Like Robespierre’s Cult of Reason, like Marx &
Engels and the Soviet Union in Russia, Saint-Simon believed that
scientific advancement would allow society to achieve meritocracy and
egalitarianism. Because he was an aristocrat and attempted to finance
his plans for France with land deals, he was imprisoned under
Robespierre’s Reign of Terror and released at its end. Unfortunately,
as we will see with Communism next week, similar suspicion and
punishment faced many of the strongest supporters of the Russian
Revolution.
Against
Adam Smith, who argued that individual interest is better than social
planning, Saint-Simon argued that power struggles, both those between
workers and capitalists and those between capitalists, limit and harm
production and prosperity. Individuals should think of themselves as
laborers who work for themselves and others rather than owners who work
for themselves. Note that this is similar to the swing of Hegel’s
Master/Slave Dialectic, as the slave progresses because he does work for
both self-interest and the master’s interest while the master stagnates
because he acts only for self-interest. While Adam Smith used the term
‘invisible hand’, Saint-Simon used the term ‘hand of greed’. Much like
the debate between Mencius and Xun Zi and like Hobbes, Saint-Simon
believed that people were naturally greedy and self-advancing and this
must be countered with education and society. Saint-Simon argued that
only working people should have voting rights, and he divided society
into workers and thieves (including both the wealthy and beggars into
this latter category).
Unlike
the Jacobins or Marxists, Saint-Simon was a Christian who believed in
simplifying Christianity, boiling it down to its essential teachings and
clearing it of the doctrines of both Catholics and Protestants. This
way, without factions, Christianity can be used for its true purpose:
the elimination of poverty and the equality of humanity. Thus, unlike
Robespierre or Marx, Saint-Simon did not propose eliminating religion
but rather using it as an essential part of the socially-purposed state.
Some revered Saint-Simon after his death as a prophet, both religious
and political.
The Young Hegelians
Marx
was a student of Hegel, and believed that society evolves in stages
based on the previous stage building its way towards completion through
the tensions of class conflict. Marx and Engels argued that socialism
is a lower and imperfect form of communism based on the principle of
“from each according to ability, to each according to productivity”.
This would, once socialism is firmly entrenched and established,
gradually be transformed into communism, based on the principle, “from
each according to ability, to each according to need”. Clearly, Marx
and later Marxists believe that once society is based on utilitarianism,
everyone would be raised in productivity such that Saint-Simon’s
“thieves” would be eliminated on both top and bottom.
At
the university of Berlin, the center of Hegel’s following, the Young
Hegelians including Marx and Engels began circulating their views about
politics and religion around 1840, only a few years after the death of
Hegel. They were fond of reason, science and the French Revolution and
deeply critical of class conflict and religion. Just like Hegel’s idea
of a war between North and South America, they believed that a great and
final conflict would come before the final political unity, that one
political party would inevitably be left standing alone uniting all
people. They gradually evolved from philosophical criticism of
conservative noble-supported Christianity to atheism as the final and
reasonable position.
Engels: Socialism Utopian & Scientific
In
this work, Engels contrasts utopian socialism such as that of
Saint-Simon, an ideal socialism in ideal conditions, with that of
scientific socialism of Marx, his comrade and friend. This is very
similar to the difference that Machiavelli sees between Plato and
Aristotle creating ideal city models and his own examinations of how
power works in real-world conditions. Engels argues that he and Marx
use socialism as a science to examine society and improve it rather than
creating an idealized model. He also saw socialism as acceptable in
Europe of his day, but communism, the true final form of socialism for
Marx and Engels, was not yet acceptable to the intellectual culture.
Engels
praises the French for a revolution that strove to make reason rather
than domination the way of society, but he argues the revolution and
Rousseau had to be realized in an imperfect false society that protects
the property of the upper and middle classes rather than true
egalitarianism. He criticizes Saint-Simon’s antagonism between workers
and the idle/thieves as a precursor of his and Marx’s antagonism between
the capitalists and the laborers, but Saint-Simon had not realized that
each side works in its own way for its own ends. He then proceeds to
summarize Hegel’s Logic and method of dialectic suggesting that
Saint-Simon’s thought as well as that of other socialist precursors
would be set right through Hegel’s methods. However, he criticizes
Hegel’s idealism and just like his praise/criticism of Saint Simon, says
that Hegel’s ideas were to be realized later when the time was right
and conditions had developed. He then goes on to praise Marx as the
culminating stage, and argues that a proletarian workers revolution will
resolve the contradictions of society that have developed over time.
Marcuse
Marcuse
(1898-1979), who some call the father of the New Left (progressive
thought since the 60s), was born in Berlin, the center of Hegelian
thought and the home of the Young Hegelians. He worked in publishing
until returning to graduate school to study philosophy, particularly
Hegel, under Husserl and Heidegger. Unfortunately, as we will discuss
for fascism week, Marcuse and Husserl were Jewish and Heidegger was not,
and in 1933 Heidegger joined the Nazi party and took the position that
Husserl, his old professor, was kicked out of by the incoming regime.
With other fellow Jewish intellectuals such as Adorno and Horkheimer,
he formed the Frankfurt School which moved to Geneva, Switzerland in
1933 as the Nazis rose to power and then to New York where it became
affiliated with Columbia University. The Frankfurt School became famous
for Critical Theory, a rationalism that attacked the positivism, by
name, of the Vienna Circle and others that had recently grown popular at
German, British, and American universities.
At
this time Marcuse began writing on Marxism and the new situation of
corporate capitalism very influenced by his criticism of German fascism.
Marcuse became a US citizen in 1940, the year he published Reason and
Revolution, and he never lived in his native Germany again. In fact, he
worked with the OSS, the precursor to the CIA, on anti-Nazi propaganda
campaigns. After the war in 1945, he worked with the US State
Department as head of the central Europe branch. In 1952 he left, just
as China became communist and the cold war began to intensify, to teach
at Columbia, then Harvard, then Brandeis, and finally UC San Diego.
Throughout this time, he identified himself as a Hegelian and a
Marxist. He was critical of both capitalism and communism for failing
to live up to their ideals, comparing both with Nazi fascism. His first
two books, Eros & Civilization and One Dimensional Man, as well as
his Essay on Liberation, were revered by the 60s New Left and the hippie
movement. He was an influence on countless left wing thinkers and
artists, notably Angela Davis and Abbie Hoffman.
One Dimensional Man (1964)
Marx
argued that capitalism alienates labor through industrialization,
objectifying labor and turning people into objects and tools much like
feminists speak of the objectification of women. Marcuse took this idea
and applied it to post 50s America. In One Dimensional Man, published
in 1964, the year the Civil Rights Act was passed, he argues that people
are being turned into automata, into machines, finding their meaning of
life in their car, television and commercial products. Critical of
both US capitalism and Russian communism, he argued that people were
being alienated and objectified by capitalism and technology such that
they increasingly identified with the consumer products more than they
did with each other making them increasingly incapable of resisting
fascist tendencies of society. Consumerism is a form of social control
that creates false needs through mass media and advertising that bind
individuals to maintaining the modes of production and make them fear
social revolution and critical thought. This is very opposite
Saint-Simon. Like Thoreau, Marcuse argues for radical refusal to
participate in society. Like his Frankfurt School, he argues for
skeptical rationalism that challenges positivism, capitalism and
authoritarianism. Like Gramsci, who we will read next week, he
criticized orthodox Marxism’s reduction of class struggle to a single
labor-capitalist struggle and argued that minorities and other outsiders
are valuable for the generation of critical thought and social
progress.
An Essay on Liberation (1969)
In
this work, published in 1969 at the height of the 60s counter-cultural
movement, Marcuse argues that corporate capitalism is a neocolonial
empire that has socialism on the defensive. In Asia and Latin America
and in the student movements (Marcuse was known to speak at student
protests of the time) there are movements for social liberation under
the red flag of socialism and the black flag of anarchism, but the
fortress of corporate capitalism is only slightly strained. Marcuse
dedicates the work to the student protests in France of 1968/69, and
suggests they are a step towards a new liberation that is needed before a
free society can be established.
How
can individuals satisfy their needs without harming, alienating and
enslaving themselves and others? The needs and structures of society,
the “Establishment”, must be transformed such that domination and
brutality are no longer tolerated. Marcuse argues with Saint-Simon
(though opposed to his positivism) that technology has acquired a stage
that makes such a transformation possible such that it bridges the gap
between middle class student protests and the struggle for survival of
“the wretched of the earth” (a phrase borrowed from Fanon, who we will
study under Post-Colonialism, to describe the people of the third world
impoverished countries).
The understanding of obscene must be revealed as repressive and
reversed such that war and not nudity or hippies is understood to be the
obscene. Even so, it is possible for society to use sexual liberation
for its own solidification and the furthering of domination rather than
counter-cultural criticism of war and economic slavery. The
understanding of the “natural” and biological must be criticized, as
consumerism becomes an extension of humanity and a natural need.
This
is very similar to Rousseau arguing that humanity is liberty by nature
and thus can be easily turned into subservience to society and its
brutality. Individuals must be rounded out such that they can
participate in many various activities, not specialized the way Plato
and Aristotle thought proper. We must turn our conception of causation
from necessary causation to free causation, symbolized in art as the
turn from realism to surrealism. In the final words of the essay,
quoting a “young black girl” who very well may be Angela Davis who met
Marcuse at a protest at Brandeis and became his student, one of the only
black girls on campus at the time, Marcuse says that when we have
obtained a free society, “we shall be free to think about what we are
going to do”.
