critique of "scientific" "utopian" socialism distinction

16 posts / 0 new
Last post
TomChomsky
Offline
Joined: 29-07-15
Oct 14 2017 16:37
critique of "scientific" "utopian" socialism distinction

I came across a text which criticized in a very natural way, this distinction, but cannot seem to remember now, I need it for a project I am doing, if any one can provide me a text that deals with this topic, please link me.

Thank you.

jondwhite's picture
jondwhite
Offline
Joined: 23-10-12
Oct 14 2017 16:41

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm

Anarcho
Offline
Joined: 22-10-06
Oct 20 2017 20:49

Ironically, Marxism is just as utopian as those it criticised... the notion of central planning was always doomed to failure. Perhaps if Marx and Engels had written about it a bit more then they would have realised that.

comrade_emma
Offline
Joined: 16-09-17
Apr 21 2018 17:54

deleted

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Oct 20 2017 22:10

In addition, with a planned economy Marx also meant a rational economy, i.e. not one geared towards the irrationality of making money and destroying people and planet.

You may be a close reader of Proudhon Anarcho, but what you accuse Marx of doing to him, you constantly and consistently do to Marx...

mn8
Offline
Joined: 21-06-16
Oct 31 2017 13:39

I would also be interested in a criticism of the distinction.

Do you recall any of the specific criticisms?

Marxism being 'unlikely' does not make it 'utopian' in Marx's sense. You're right that that's what the word should mean. Otherwise it is just a Marxist slur. The general use means that it tries to set off from some analysis of capitalism (Proudhon also used that), and then get to communism. Of course, Marxists have problems with many historical developments, so ultimately their communism is the same... Also 'central planning' means people imposing their vision of society!!

Anyway, I let the OP explain themselves.

jondwhite's picture
jondwhite
Offline
Joined: 23-10-12
Nov 1 2017 13:01

I too hope OP returns to elaborate.

hierarchy is chaos
Offline
Joined: 12-11-17
Nov 19 2017 14:36

http://bit.ly/2yqoD1m

Craftwork's picture
Craftwork
Offline
Joined: 26-12-15
Nov 19 2017 16:29

I suppose one of the problems with the 'utopian socialist' label is it leads communists to rather lazily overlook or simply dismiss the works of Owen, Saint-Simon or Fourier without engaging with them.

It also lumps together some radically different thinkers.
e.g.
Owen: writes about Factory legislation.
Fourier: writes about sexual relations between the planets. grin

yourmum
Offline
Joined: 9-03-10
Nov 23 2017 19:29

In capitalism people plan to make money and they do that planning as well as possible, all the time and everywhere, from proletarian to capitalist to statesman. The (bad) results for most people concerning provisioning are according and necessary to that plan of making money. Thinking the bad provisioning of the many is due to misplanning or because planning is terribly difficult in itself is entirely wrong.

Vlad The Inhaler's picture
Vlad The Inhaler
Offline
Joined: 17-04-15
Nov 23 2017 21:46

As comrade_emma pointed out Anarcho has completely misunderstood the Marxist meaning of Utopian Socialism. Marx (whether you agree with his conclusions or not) built his Socialism from a painstaking study of the Capitalist system as it is and then, following the course of that logic deduced that the change from Capitalism to Socialism would require certain prerequisites, certain conditions and would follow a certain process. To point out that the "Utopians" were in a quite different category to Marx and his thinking doesn't seem to me to be a contentious or erroneous point.

Utopian thinking: The maximally just/free/liberated society will look as follows.
Marxist thinking: Social change is constrained by certain laws of history and Socialism will inevitably obey the laws inherent therein.

yourmum
Offline
Joined: 9-03-10
Nov 24 2017 16:01

"Marx (whether you agree with his conclusions or not) built his Socialism from a painstaking study of the Capitalist system"

From what i read of Marx i find this highly exaggerated even when considering the communist manifesto which you probably have in mind. Not only is it a tiny little piece of Marx writing which can be considered to contradict much of what else he wrote, it is also written a lot earlier in his life than the undertaking of those painstaking studies you mention.

comrade_emma
Offline
Joined: 16-09-17
Apr 21 2018 17:54

deleted

yourmum
Offline
Joined: 9-03-10
Nov 25 2017 07:45

1. There is no argument in "Marx thought otherwise". You should ask me what i got.
2. Nobody claimed that it is, i claimed that the stuff in 2.16 of the manifesto is not necessary conclusions out of the study of capitalism. Also you won't find a word about socialism in most of the texts you mention so why would give me that reading advice concerning my claim?

Anyways, all i wanted to do is to contradict that anarchist notion of planning and the Marx scholastics was my fault from the beginning and i got what i deserved here, a debt I'm not willing to pay.

TomChomsky
Offline
Joined: 29-07-15
Nov 26 2017 16:17
jondwhite wrote:
I too hope OP returns to elaborate.

I think I found what I was looking for, but not the original text which probably was by Bertrand Russell or Rocker. Rockers' opening chapter of Nationalism and Culture talks about it. I think what Marxist label "scientific" is their understanding of historical materialism and economic reductionism. So pretty much everyone who disagrees with these assumptions is a utopian. What the utility of this distinction boils down to is, I believe, providing propagandistic edge to the secular priesthood.

Vlad The Inhaler's picture
Vlad The Inhaler
Offline
Joined: 17-04-15
Nov 26 2017 19:33
TomChomsky wrote:
jondwhite wrote:
I too hope OP returns to elaborate.

I think I found what I was looking for, but not the original text which probably was by Bertrand Russell or Rocker. Rockers' opening chapter of Nationalism and Culture talks about it. I think what Marxist label "scientific" is their understanding of historical materialism and economic reductionism. So pretty much everyone who disagrees with these assumptions is a utopian. What the utility of this distinction boils down to is, I believe, providing propagandistic edge to the secular priesthood.

If that's how you want to view it, that's fine, but I don't think its very accurate.

As I and others have pointed out Marx's distinction uses Marx's criteria. Its not an invalid distinction, and it doesn't use logically invalid criteria. One takes as its starting point a radically different future society which to me almost sounds definitionally utopian, even using the common definition.

Marx's entire schema is in the persuit of, not an imagined future, but a way to understand the way change actually occurs within society. He emphasis the route he thinks that change will and must take; ie - the proletarian overthrow of Capitalism and the establishment of a stateless, classless, moneyless society but he bases his projections, and they are projections rather than exultations - which was the tendency amongst those who predate Marx, on his observations of societal transition. His method seems to me to be explicitly scientific.