The development of socialism; from fantasy to science

Modern socialism is, first of all, in its content, the result of observing, on the one hand, the class opposition between the wealthy and the unemployed, capitalists and wage-labourers, who dominate modern society, and the anarchy that dominates production, on the other. But modern socialism, in terms of its theory, is at first nothing more than a more thorough development of the principles laid down by the great Enlightenment thinkers of 18th century France. Socialism, like all new theories, had to start from the material of ideas accumulated in the past, even if its roots were deeply connected with the material foundation.

The great men in France who had enlightened the minds of the coming revolution, themselves acted very revolutionary. They disapproved of any external authority of any kind. Religion, view of nature, society, and state institutions were all criticized most mercilessly. Everything had to either justify its existence before the judgment of reason or give up. The thinking understanding became the only measure of all that exists. It was, in Hegel's words, an age when the world stood on its head. At first it was in the sense that the human brain and the propositions developed through its thinking set out to demand acceptance as the basis of all human action and social relations, but later the contradictory reality of these propositions was virtually reversed from top to bottom. It was so in the broader sense of overturning. All past social and national forms, and all traditional ideas, were recognized as unreasonable and thrown away like old trash. The world has hitherto been grounded in one prejudice, and all things of the past have been sympathized and despised. Only now did the sun rise, and the kingdom of reason came. From now on, superstition, injustice, privilege and oppression had to give way to eternal truth, eternal justice, equality from nature itself, and inalienable human rights.

We now know that the kingdom of reason was nothing more than the rationalization of the bourgeois kingdom, that eternal justice was realized by the bourgeois legal order, that equality was ultimately bourgeois equality before the law, and that bourgeois property was declared as one of the most essential human rights. I am well aware that it was The rational state --- Rousseau's social contract theory --- had to be realized as a bourgeois democratic republic. The great thinkers of the eighteenth century, like all their predecessors, could not escape the limits set upon them by the times.

But there was a general opposition between the exploiter and the exploited, the lazy rich and the working poor, as well as the antagonism between the feudal aristocracy and the bourgeoisie who emerged as representative of the rest of society. It was precisely this circumstance that allowed the bourgeoisie to appear not as representatives of any individual class, but as representatives of all suffering humanity. Not only that, but the bourgeoisie, from its inception, contained its own opposition. That is, capitalists cannot exist without wage-labourers. As medieval trade union artisans developed into the modern bourgeoisie, trade union artisans and non-union day laborers developed into the proletariat. In general, in the struggle of the bourgeoisie with the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie had a certain right to claim to be representatives of the various working classes of the time, but whenever there was a large-scale bourgeois movement, whatever the degree of development, an independent movement of the class, the precursor of the modern proletariat, was accompanied by it. used to wake up Such were the movements of the Anabaptists and Thomas Müncher during the German Reformation and the Peasants' War, the movements of the Horizontalists during the English Revolution, and the movement of Babeeuf during the French Revolution. This revolutionary armed uprising of the inexperienced class was followed by a corresponding theoretical advance. In other words, in the 16th and 17th centuries, texts describing the ideal social system appeared, and in the 18th century, direct communist theories (Morelli, Mablei) already appeared. The demand for equality has already expanded not only in the realm of political rights, but also in the social status of individuals. It has been proven that not only class privileges, but class discrimination itself must be abolished. The new doctrine first appeared in the form of ascetic Spartan communism, which forbids all pleasures. Next came the three great visionaries, Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen. Saint-Simon still attached some significance to the bourgeois tendencies along with the proletarian ones, and Owen, in the countries where capitalist production was most developed, and stimulated by the confrontations that arose from such production, directly linked the plan to abolish class discrimination with French materialism. systematized.

What these three had in common was that they did not represent the interests of the proletariat that had historically arose around that time. Like the Enlightenment thinkers, they did not seek to liberate any particular social class in the first place, but to liberate all mankind at once. However, their kingdom was far from the kingdom of reason claimed by the French Enlightenment thinkers. The bourgeois world, formed according to the principles of the Enlightenment thinkers, was, like feudalism and all social institutions of the past, absurd and unfair, and therefore had to be thrown in the trash. However, the reason true reason and true justice have not so far dominated the world is only because they have not been accurately grasped. In short, a genius has now appeared and has come to recognize the truth, but there was no such thing as a genius before. However, the fact that such a genius has appeared now and has come to recognize the truth right now is by no means an inevitable result or unavoidable event in the course of historical development, but a pure fluke. If so, such a genius could have appeared as many times as 500 years ago, and if so, he would have been able to alleviate 500 years of human error, struggle, and suffering.

As we have already seen, the philosophers of the eighteenth century, preparing for revolution, appealed to reason as the sole judge of all that exists. They demanded the establishment of a rational nation, a rational society, and mercilessly eradicated everything that contradicted eternal reason. As we have already seen, this eternal reason was in fact nothing more than the idealized understanding of a middle-class citizen who was developing into a bourgeoisie at that time. Therefore, when the rational society and rational state were established by the French Revolution, this new system was very reasonable compared to the previous system, but it was not at all rational. The rational nation was completely bankrupt. Rousseau's social contract theory was realized in the era of the reign of terror, in which the bourgeoisie, distrustful of its own political powers, found refuge first by bribing the magistrates and later by seeking asylum in the Napoleonic tyranny. The promised eternal peace was replaced by a constant war of aggression. The society of the opposite sex was not going very well either. The conflict between the rich and the poor was not resolved by general prosperity, but rather became more acute. In other words, the privileges of trade associations, which served as a bridge between these conflicts, were abolished, and the church's charitable facilities, which had moderated the conflict to some extent, were abolished. 'Freedom of possession' was now achieved out of feudal tyranny, but this freedom meant, in the case of the petty bourgeoisie and the small peasant, the freedom to sell their small possessions to these very wealthy people, overwhelmed by the fierce competition between large capital and large landowners. . Thus, this 'freedom' became, in the case of the petty bourgeoisie and the small peasant, the freedom to lose possessions. With the rapid development of industry on a capitalist basis, the poverty and deprivation of the working masses became essential conditions for the existence of society. According to Carlyle, cash has become more and more the only thing that connects society. The number of crimes increased every year. Although the former feudal sins, committed shamelessly in broad daylight, have been swept away, instead, bourgeois sins, which in the past only occurred secretly, have become more prevalent. Commerce became more and more fraudulent. The revolutionary slogan of 'fraternity' was realized through the morale and jealousy of competition. Instead of violent oppression, bribery appeared, and instead of knives, money became the chief lever of social power. The dynasty passed from the feudal lords to the bourgeois factory owners. The brothel has grown on an unprecedented scale. Marriage itself, as in the past, was a legally authorized form of prostitution, an official mask of prostitution, supplemented by countless adultery. In a word, the social and political system filled with the 'victory of reason' was a caricature of bitter disillusionment compared to the brilliant promises of the Enlightenment thinkers. But there were still no people who could confirm this disillusionment. Such people appeared as the new century entered. In 1802, Saint Simon's Letters to Geneva was published, and in 1808 Fourier's first work---although the foundations of his theory had already been laid in 1799-------and by Robert Owen on January 1, 1800. He was in charge of the management of New Lanark.

However, at that time the capitalist mode of production and the opposition between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat were not yet developed. Large industry only arose in England and was not yet known in France. But only large industry, on the one hand, is a conflict that desperately calls for a transformation of the mode of production, that is, to abolish the capitalist character of the mode of production---not only the clash between the classes formed by it, but also the It develops the conflict---between the productive forces and the forms of exchange, and on the other hand provides the means for resolving such conflicts in the development of this very great productive force. Therefore, in 1800 the conflicts arising from the new social system had only just begun to occur, and the development of means of resolving these conflicts was minimal. Although the proletarian masses of Paris during the reign of terror at one time usurped power and led to victory in bourgeois revolutions against the bourgeoisie itself, in the end the proletarian masses only proved that they could not rule for long under the conditions of the time. . The proletariat, as the seed of the class, had only been separated from the masses of the general proletariat and had not yet been able to carry out any independent political action, but was merely a class suffering oppression and suffering. This class, unable to save itself, had at best to seek help from outside or from above.

This historical situation defined the views of the founders of socialism. In response to the immature capitalist state of production and immature class relations, immature theories emerged. He had to come up with a solution to the social problem that was still hidden in the underdeveloped economic relationship. Social institutions have only shown flaws. It was the task of reason to think about getting rid of these flaws. Inventing a new system of more complete social institutions and, if possible, through propaganda, they had to impose on the existing society from the outside by showing best practices. Thus, this new social institution was destined to be fantasies from the outset, and the more detailed it was, the more pure it was.

Now that you know the above, let's stop arguing about these aspects that are now a thing of the past. Let's leave it up to the bubbly writers who brag about this fantasy, which is now nothing more than a joke, and boast that their way of thinking is sound compared to these 'fantasy'. Rather, we are the sea that welcomes the germ of the genius idea, which cannot be seen by snobs, because we are coming out of various places through the shell of fantasy.

Saint-Simon was the son of the French Revolution, who was not yet thirty when the revolution took place. The revolution was a triumph of the third rank, that is, the majority of the masses of the people engaged in production and livelihood, over the previously privileged finite ranks--monks and nobility---. However, the triumph of the Third Estate was only a triumph of some of them, and it soon became clear that in the Third Estate, the privileged class of society, the heritage bourgeoisie, had seized power. Not only that, but this bourgeoisie developed rapidly during the revolution by speculating on the property of the nobles and churches, once confiscated and then sold, and tricking the people into buying munitions. The domination of these very speculators during the time of the monarchy brought ruin to France and the Revolution, and finally gave Napoleon the pretext for a coup. So, in Saint-Simon's mind, the opposition between the third class and the privileged class appeared in the form of a confrontation between the 'working class' and the 'limited class'. The finite class was referring not only to the former representatives of the privileged class, but also to all those who lived on interest rates without participating in production or commerce. Also, 'working class' was a term used not only for wage workers, but also for factory owners, merchants, and bankers. The fact that the finite classes lost their ability to lead spiritually and to rule politically was confirmed beyond doubt by the revolution. Also, experience during the reign of terror proved that, in the eyes of Saint-Simon, even the prostitutes do not have this ability. Who, then, is to lead and rule in such cases? It was, in Saint-Simon's view, a scientific industry joined by a new religious bond, an inevitably mystical and strictly caste 'New Christianity' with the mission of unifying religious ideas that had been confused since the Reformation. it was And science was a scholar, and industry was first and foremost an active bourgeoisie, a factory owner, a merchant, and a banker. Of course, this bourgeoisie had to be a kind of civil servant, a person who was trusted by society as a whole, but compared to workers, they had to enjoy a position of command and economic privilege. As for the bankers, it was they who had the task of regulating the whole of social production by regulating credit. This view fully corresponded in France to a period when large industry and, at the same time, the opposition between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat was still in the process of emerging. But Saint-Simon emphasized in particular that he was always and everywhere concerned first with the fate of the 'most and poorest class'.

Understanding the French Revolution as a class struggle, not merely as a struggle between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, but between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie and the poor was a very ingenious discovery for 1802. In 1816, Saint-Simon proclaimed politics as the science of production and prophesied that political science would be fully absorbed into economics. Here, the view that the state of the economy is the basis of political institutions is still expressed only in embryonic form, but the idea that political domination of man must be replaced by the management of things and the guidance of the production process, that is, ' The idea of ​​'abolition of the state' has already been clearly expressed. In addition, Saint-Simon had a foresight that surpassed his contemporaries, and in 1814, right after the Allied troops entered Paris, and in 1815, the 100th century, the alliance of France and England, and furthermore, the alliance between these two countries and Germany, led to the peaceful development and prosperity of Europe. Declaring that it is the only guarantee for It took great courage and historical foresight to tell the French in 1815 that they should form an alliance with England, the winner of Waterloo.

Whereas in the case of Saint-Simon, whose insight possessed a genius clarification, it contained almost all ideas except the strict economic ideas of later socialists, in Fourier we have a genuine French wit and seriousness for the existing social system. The analysis encounters a combined critique. Fourier captures the essence of the bourgeoisie, the prophets who adored them before the revolution, and the courtiers who were bribed by them after the revolution. He unforgivably exposes all the material and spiritual poverty of the bourgeois world, and this is a society dominated by reason alone, the establishment of a civilization that will bring happiness to all, the brilliant promises of the Enlightenment thinkers of the past, and the endless ability of human beings to perfect. Confronting their declarations, they exposed the falsity of the vague claims of contemporary bourgeois thinkers. Thus, he pointed out how miserable the reality was compared to their noisy communist death, and scoffed at the complete collapse of this public death story. In addition to being a critic, Fourier was always an optimist and was one of the greatest satirists of Malmayim's history. He brilliantly describes not only the speculative fraud that prevailed during the decline of the revolution, but also the general petty spirit of the French commercial activity at the time as a ridiculed phrase. With even greater skill, he criticizes the bourgeois form of the relationship between men and women and the position of women in bourgeois society. He was the first to think that the degree of women's liberation in any society is the natural measure of general liberation. But Fourier's great side is most evident in his views on social history. He divides all the processes of social history up to now into four stages of development: barbarism, patriarchy, savagery, and civilization. The civilization he refers to is consistent with today's so-called bourgeois society, and hence the social order that has been developing since the 16th century, he argues as follows.

The civilized system gives complex, ambiguous, ambivalent, and hypocritical forms of existence to the various sins committed in a simple form in all times.

It is also arguing that civilization is driven by 'vicious circles' and contradictions, and civilization reproduces these contradictions all the time and cannot overcome them, which leads to the opposite result, either genuinely or prettier. So, for example, "Poverty in civilized times arises from wealth itself."

It can be seen that Fourier grasped dialectics as adeptly as his contemporaries, Hegel. He opposes the public theory of mankind's never-ending capacity for perfection, asserts that there are also ascending and descending lines in the historical stage, also dialectically, and applies this view to the future of mankind as a whole. Just as Kant introduced the natural sciences and the idea of the future destruction of the earth, Fourier brings the idea of the future extinction of mankind into the view of history.

As the winds of revolution were sweeping across France, a quiet but no less great change was taking place in England. Steam and the new working machine turned the manufacture into modern heavy industry, thus transforming all the foundations of bourgeois society. The slow development process of the Manufacture Era has rapidly changed from production to an age of raging fury. Society was more rapidly divided into large capitalists and proletarians. And between the two, instead of the stable middle class of the old days, the unstable masses of very unstable craftsmen and small merchants, that is, the most mobile part of the population, were living a turbulent life. The new production method is still only in the first stage of its upward development. It was still the only way of production that could exist under normal, legitimate, then-current conditions. But it was already producing a dreadful social disaster at the time. In other words, the slums are concentrated in the slums of large cities, and all traditions in origin, patriarchal customs, and family relationships are destroyed. In particular, the working hours of women and children are dramatically increased. , from agriculture to industry, and from stable living conditions to precarious living conditions that change from day to day---the mass degeneration of the working class, which has suddenly been brought into existence. At this time, a 29-year-old factory owner emerged as a reformer. He had a childlike naivety and noble character, and was a rare natural leader. Robert Owen adopted the doctrine of the materialist Enlightenment that human personality is a product of innate constitution and the product of various environmental conditions throughout human life, especially during his development. Most people in Owen's social position saw the Industrial Revolution as nothing more than disorder and chaos, worthy of being pawns like catching fish in muddy waters. However, Owen saw the Industrial Revolution as a good opportunity to realize the ideas he longed for and establish order in this chaos. Already in Manchester, he applied this idea to fruition as manager of a factory with over 500 workers. From 1800 to 1829, he took the same line in managing the large textile mills of New Lanark, Scotland, both as manager and as one of his business partners. This time he acted much more freely, and it was not long before his name was known throughout Europe. Neuranak's population grew to 2,500, and which at first consisted of a very miscellaneous and mostly very corrupt people, Owen turned it into a completely exemplary group of inhabitants. There was no need for binge drinking, police, criminal trials, litigation, poor relief and philanthropy. He was able to do this because he puts people in a more humane environment, especially in order to educate the rising generation. The first kindergarten created by Owen was established in New Lanark. It took in children over the age of two, and the children got along so well in the kindergarten that it was difficult for parents to take them home. Owen's rivals forced their workers to work 13 or 14 hours a day, but in New Lanark they only worked 10 and a half hours. Even when they were forced to close for four months due to the cotton panic, they continued to pay the full amount of wages to the workers on leave. Nevertheless, the value of the plant more than doubled and guaranteed many benefits to the owner until the end.

The move to communism was a turning point in Owen's life. While he remained simply philanthropic, he only reaped wealth, admiration, respect, and honor. He was the most famous man in Europe. He listened with favor to politicians and monarchs, as well as those in similar social situations. However, when he appeared with his communist theory, his situation changed drastically. What stood in the way of social change, in his opinion, was above all three major obstacles: private property, religion, and the existing institution of marriage. From the moment he began to struggle with these obstacles, he knew that he would be ostracized from public society and would lose his social status. But considering this, Owen could not stop his relentless attack on the obstacle. And it happened just as he had predicted. Kicked out from public society, ignored by the newspapers, and poor as a result of the failure of the communist experiments he had carried out in the United States at the expense of all his fortune, Owen directly relied on the working class to work among them for 30 years. All social movements in England for the benefit of the working class, and all actual achievements of these movements, are linked to Owen's name. In 1819, for example, the first legislation to restrict women's and children's labor in factories was passed, thanks to his five years of hard work. He was the chairman of the first congress, where all trade unions in England were united into one general union. He also organized cooperatives (consumer and production unions) on the one hand as a transitional measure to a completely communist social organization. This has since proven practically that at least merchants and factory owners are not socially necessary at all. On the other hand, he organized a labor market, in which the products of labor were exchanged for labor certificates equal to one hour of working time. This market was inevitably bound to fail. But it was a precursor to Proudhon's exchange bank that appeared much later, with the difference that the former did not appear as a cure-all for all social evils, but merely as a first step toward a far more radical reform of society as a whole. .

The way of thinking of these visionaries has long dominated and, in part, continues to dominate nineteenth-century socialist thought. Until recently, socialists in France and England, as well as former German communism, including Weitling, followed this mindset. For all of them, socialism was an expression of absolute truth, reason, and justice that, if discovered, could conquer the world by its own power. And since absolute truth does not depend on time and space and the development of human history, when and where it will be found was truly regarded as a pure coincidence. At the same time, the absolute truth, reason, and justice also differ according to the founders of each school, and the specific forms of absolute truth, reason, and justice of the founders of each school depend on the founder's subjective understanding, living conditions, the breadth of perception, and the degree of development of thought. was constrained accordingly. Therefore, when there was a conflict between these absolute truths, this conflict could be resolved only by annihilating the difference between them (that is, only through compromise and compromise). From such a mindset, nothing could emerge but a special kind of eclectic, average socialism that, to this day, effectively dominates the heads of the majority of socialist workers in France and England. This eclectic socialism was a colorful mixture of the more moderate critical comments of the founders of the various factions, a haphazard mix of economic propositions and views of the future society. The mixture is more easily obtained as each component loses its sharpness, like a pebbles in a stream in the wave of controversy. 

To make socialism a science, it had to first be built on the basis of reality.