💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › wayne-price-anarchism-utopian-or-scientific.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:48:02. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Anarchism: Utopian or scientific
Author: Wayne Price
Date: 2006
Language: en
Topics: utopianism, utopian socialism, scientific socialism
Source: *The Utopian* Vol. 5 (2006), p. 62. Retrieved on 2020-04-07 from http://www.utopianmag.com/archives/anarchism-utopian-or-scientific

Wayne Price

Anarchism: Utopian or scientific

Together with the revival of anarchism in the last decades, there has

been an increased interest in Utopia. This is largely due to the crisis

in Marxism, long the dominant set of ideas among the radical left. After

the Soviet Union imploded and China turned to an openly market-based

capitalism, Marxism became discredited for many. This resulted in a

revived interest in Utopia from two apparently contradictory directions,

for and against. What these views have in common is that they take

utopianism seriously. Utopianism must be taken seriously if socialism is

to get out of the dead end it has reached through established Marxism,

but what revolutionary socialists need is much more than simply a return

to Utopia.

On one side, there has been an increased desire to find utopian aspects

of socialism, including Marxism (Geoghegan, 1987). This includes looking

at the the work of Walter Benjamin or Ernst Bloch. There is a greater

concentration on Marx’s critique of alienation and of his scattered

hints of what a communist society might look like, as in his Critique of

the Gotha Program. More and more, socialists refer to the utopian

meanings of their socialist faith, the original vision of a liberated

humanity. From this point of view, the failure of pseudosocialism in the

Communist-run countries was supposedly due to their downplaying

utopianism.

Recognition of the value of utopianism was made by the reformist

Marxist, Michael Harrington: “Utopian socialism...was a movement that

gave the first serious definition of socialism as communitarian, moral,

feminist, committed to the transformation of work, and profoundly

democratic. If there is to be a 21^(st) century socialism worthy of the

name, it will...have to go 200 years into the past to recover the

practical and theoretical ideals of the utopians” (quoted in Hahnel,

2005, p. 139).

Especially interesting has been the revival of the utopian project, that

is, the effort by radicals (influenced by both anarchism and humanistic

Marxism) to work out how a libertarian-democratic socialism could

work—what a post-capitalist society might look like without either

markets or centralized, bureaucratic, planning. This includes the

“libertarian municipalism” of Murray Bookchin and his “social ecologist”

followers (Biehl, 1998; Bookchin, 1986) and Michael Albert and Robin

Hahnel’s “participatory economics” or “parecon” (Albert, 2003; Hahnel,

2005).

On the other side, there are those disillusioned ex-Marxists and

ex-socialists, who blame the totalitarianism of the Marxist states on a

supposed utopianism. The goal of Marxist socialism was of a classless,

stateless, cooperative, society, with production for use rather than

profit, without alienated labor, without national boundaries or wars—the

realization of solidarity, equality, and freedom. This goal (which is

the same as socialist anarchism) is condemned as an impossibility, a

Utopia, which contradicts inborn human nature. Humans are supposedly

naturally competitive, aggressive, and unequal. Attempts to force them

to fit a cooperative, benevolent, society, it is said, can only be done

by totalitarian means. Therefore, by this view, the failure of socialism

was due to its utopianism. So this anti-socialist trend also focuses on

the inherent utopianism of socialism.

Political critics have denounced me as a utopian myself, perhaps because

I write for a journal titled The Utopian. And indeed I am a

utopian...among other things. My earliest political influences were such

books as Paul Goodman’s Utopian Essays and Practical Proposals (1962)

and Martin Buber’s Paths in Utopia (1958), and other works on Utopia and

utopian socialism. These works started me on a path toward

anarchistpacifism, and then to a libertarian-democratic version of

Marxism, and finally to revolutionary anarchism (in the libertarian

socialist or anarchist-communist tradition, which has been refered to as

“socialist anarchism”).

In common speech, “utopian” means ideas which are fantastically

unrealistic, absurdly idealistic, and impossibly dreamy. The

anti-utopian spirit is expressed in the movie “Rudy,” when a priest

sneers at Rudy, a working class youth who wants to play football for

Notre Dame University (I quote from memory), “You’re a dreamer. Nothing

great was ever accomplished by a dreamer.” Actually, nothing great was

ever accomplished except by dreamers—even though dreaming, by itself, is

never enough.

Originally, “Utopia” was the title of a 16^(th) century book by Thomas

More, which presented an ideal society, partly seriously and partly

humorously. It comes from the Greek words for “no place.” The idea is

the same as Samuel Butler’s Erewhon, a picture of an ideal society whose

name is “nowhere” spelled backwards. It is as if the utopian authors

agree that such an ideal social system does not exist anywhere and

perhaps will not exist anywhere. But the word is also close to

“eutopia,” which means “the good place.” It took the horrors of the

twentieth century to produce negative-utopias, or “dystopias,” such as

Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, George Orwell’s 1984 , or Jack London’s

even earlier The Iron Heel.

Utopia may be rejected as a program for a perfect society, without

conflicts or mistakes, managed by perfect people. There never will be

such a society; humans are inheritantly finite and fallible and will

always be so (and right after a revolution, a new society will have to

be built by people deeply marked by the distortions of the old one).

However, it is possible to think of Utopia as a program for a society

which makes it easier for people to be good, which makes their

selfinterest be in relative harmony with that of others, and which

limits the opportunities for people to become corrupted by having power

over others. Utopia may be a vision based on trends and possibliities

which exist right now in society and which could come to fruition under

different social circumstances. If we wish people to risk their lives

and families for a fundamental change, socialist-anarchists have to be

able to present a vision of a new society which is possible, workable,

and worth risking everything for.

Marxism and Utopianism

Much confusion has been caused by the Marxists’ use of “utopian” in a

specialized way. This was first spelled out in The Manifesto of the

Communist Party (or Communist Manifesto) by Karl Marx and Fredrich

Engels (1955) in the section on “Critical-Utopian Socialism and

Communism.” Their concepts was elaborated in Engel’s Anti-Dühring: Herr

Eugen Dühring’s Revolution in Science (1954). Parts of this book were

taken out during Engels’ lifetime and made into a famous pamphlet,

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Sentences and paragraphs which Engels

added to the pamphlet were then typically placed in brackets in later

editions of Anti-Dühring. (There has been a controversy over this book,

with some Marxists being embarrassed by the mechanical flavor of Engels’

exposition of dialectics; they claim [absurdly in my opinion] that

Engels did not really understand Marxism, or not as well as they [the

critics] do. In fact, Engels went over the whole of the book with Marx

beforehand, and Marx wrote a chapter for it, which he would hardly have

done if he had disapproved of it. This is not to deny that Engels was a

different person from Marx, and more of a popularizer of their joint

views. But the mechanistic aspects of Marxism which appear in

Anti-Dühring are a real aspect of Marx’s thinking.)

Marx and Engels claimed that, at the beginning of capitalism’s take-off,

there were a few brilliant thinkers who had insights into the evils of

capitalism and the possibilities of socialism. Such thinkers included

Henri de SaintSimon, Charles Fourier, and Robert Owen. Because the class

struggle of capital versus labor had barely begun, these could not have

had a wellrounded theory of how society operated. But, said Marx and

Engels, they could and did have sharp insights into the evils and

problems of capitalism. They developed their insights into systems of

thought, which their later followers organized into closed,

quasi-religious sects. Unable to make a fully “scientific” view of the

world, they tended to start from moral precepts and then work out how a

society might be built on such ethical rules.

By the mid-19^(th) century, Marx and Engels argued, capitalism had

developed much further. There was now a large industrial working class

(the proletariat), engaged in class struggle, and a new, industrial,

technology which potentially made possible a world of plenty for all. It

was now possible to have an objective, “scientific,” analysis of how

capitalism worked, how it would develop, and how the working class would

replace it with socialism. In this view, the earlier socialists had been

“utopian,” not because they were idealistic but because they were

premature, unable (yet) to make a scientific analysis.

It has been often noted that Marxism is a synthesis of three traditions:

German (Hegelian) philosophy, British economics, and mostly-French

socialism (the utopian socialists and also Proudhon the anarchist).

Readers of Marx are often surprised to discover that he did not condemn

the so-called utopians for their advocacy of ideal societies in their

time. On the contrary, Engels and he praised them as pioneers of

socialism. They praised Saint-Simon for raising the end of the state,

which he discussed, in Engels’ words, as “the future conversion of

political rule over men [note] into an administration of things and a

direction of the processes of production” (Engels, 1954, p. 358; this

formulation has problems which I will not get into). They praised

Fourier for his condemnation of capitalist “civilization”, for

his”dialectical” approach, and for his criticism of the oppression of

women under capitalism. “He was the first to declare that in any given

society the degree of woman’s emancipation is the natural measure of the

general emancipation” (same, p. 359). (They did not go on to discuss

Fourier’s support for homosexuality and other sexual variations.) They

praised Owen for his materialist philosophy, his vision of communism,

and his criticism of marriage under capitalism.

Engels and Marx noted that both Fourier and Owen had proposed the end of

the current division of labor, replacing it with a variety of

occupations for each person, making labor attractive, and developing

everyone’s productive potentialities. Similarly, the two utopians had

raised the goal of an end to the division between city and countryside,

proposing the spread of industry across the country, integrated with

agriculture, in communities of human scale. Engels noted the ecological

implications: “The present poisoning of the air, water, and land can be

put an end to only by the fusion of town and country...” (same, p. 411).

Like anarchists, he believed that this could only happen in a socialist

society; unlike anarchists, he believed this required centralized

planning, needing “one single vast plan” (same).

However, Marx and Engels critiqued the earliest socialists because they

did not (and could not yet) base their programs on the struggle of the

workers and oppressed. Instead they looked to upper class saviors to

come along and aid the workers. The infant class of workers existed for

them as a suffering class, not as a class capable of changing the world.

Along with these criticisms of the utopians (with which I agree), Marx

and Engels also, unfortunately criticized them for their moral appeal.

Rather than making an appeal to the self-interest of the workers, Marx

and Engels complained, the utopians made broad appeals to justice and

moral values, which could attract anyone from any class. Marx and Engels

rejected moral appeals. “From a scientific standpoint, this appeal [by

the utopians—WP] to morality and justice does not help us an inch

further; moral indignation, however justifiable, cannot serve economic

science as an argument, but only as a symptom” (Engels, 1954, p. 207).

In their voluminous writings they never say that people should be for

socialism because it is good, just, and moral. Indeed, they never

explain why anyone should be for socialism at all.

The Marxist Hal Draper accurately summarizes Marx’s views: “Marx saw

socialism as the outcome of tendencies inherent in the capitalist

system...whereas the utopians saw socialism simply as a Good Idea, an

abstract scheme without any historical context, needing only desire and

will to be put into practice....

“Marx and Engels habitually stated their political aim not in terms of a

change in social system (socialism) but in terms of a change in class

power (proletarian rule)....For Marx the political movement was in the

first place the movement of the working classes to take over state

power, not primarily a movement for a certain scheme to reorganize the

social structure”

(Draper, 1990, pp. 18, 44; his emphasis).

But if socialism is just a matter of class interest rather than the

vision of a better world, then the interest of the capitalists is as

justifiable as that of the workers. Why should anyone from the

capitalist or middle classes go over to the working class (as did Marx

and Engels)? Why should not individual workers go over to the side of

the capitalists (as so many do, such as union leaders)? Why should

workers risk a revolution without some moral (and political and

economic) goals? Why should they fight for “class power” (let alone “to

take over state power”!) without the goal of “a change in social system

(socialism)”?

Contrast the Marxist view with that of Kropotkin: “No struggle can be

successful if it does not render itself a clear and concise account of

its aim. No destruction of the existing order is possible, if at the

time of the overthrow, or of the struggle leading to the overthrow, the

idea of what is to take the place of what is to be destroyed is not

always present in the mind” (Kropotkin, 1975, p. 64).

Engels justified “proletarian morality” because “in the present [it]

represents the overthrow of the present, represents the future...”

(Engels, 1954, p. 131). But why should we automatically support

something just because it leads to the future? How do we decide that the

future will be good, will be what we should want? Engels declares that

it will only be in a classless society that “a really human morality”

will be possible. This may be so, but it again begs the question: why

should we commit ourselves to the goal of a classless society of freedom

and equality, of really human values? None of this makes sense unless we

accept, in some way, the historical values of justice, compassion, and

kindness, as well as equality and freedom.

Instead, the founders of Marxism argue that their “science” tells them

that socialism is inevitable and therefore, they imply, should be

accepted. The Communist Manifesto declares, “What the bourgeoisie

therefore produces, above all, are its own gravediggers. Its fall and

the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable” (Marx and Engels,

1955, p. 22). To advance beyond the utopian socialists, Engels wrote,

“...it was necessary...to present the capitalistic method of

production...and its inevitableness during a particular historical

period and therefore, also, its inevitable downfall...” (Engels, 1954,

pp. 42–43).

Marx’s determinism, or (as I will call it) “inevitabilism,” is defended

by his claim to have created a “scientific socialism.” Some excuse

Marx’s scientism by pointing out that the German word which is

translated as “science” (Wissenschaft) means any body of knowledge or

study, including not only chemistry but also philosophy and literary

criticism (Draper, 1990). While this is true, it is also true that Marx

and Engels repeatedly compared their theories to biology or chemistry,

saying that Marx’s discoveries were comparable to those of Darwin.

Engels’ Anti-Dühring (1954) itself is the best-known example of this

equation of Marx’s theories with the natural sciences.

The Limits of Marxist Inevitablism

Sometimes this inevitabilism is modified by statements that there is an

alternative, either socialism or the degeneration of society, the

destruction of all social classes. The Communist Manifesto states in its

beginning that historic class struggles “...each time ended, either in a

revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin

of the contending classes” (Marx & Engels, 1955, p. 9). They were

probably thinking of the collapse of the Roman Empire; however, that

these alternatives exist is not repeated in the Manifesto. Engels

declared, “...if the whole of modern society is not to perish, a

revolution in the mode of production and distribution must take place, a

revolution which will put an end to all class distinctions” (1954, p.

218; my emphasis). Rosa Luxemburg summarized this as the alternatives of

“socialism or barbarism.”

In this day of economic decline and the worldwide spread of nuclear

weapons, these probably are the alternatives. For example, to a great

extent the economic crisis of capitalism has turned into an ecological

and environmental crisis. One report concludes, “It may seem impossible

to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in

essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process

of doing” (Kolbert, 2005, p. 63). It may still be possible to

permanently reverse this biological self-destruction, if we replace

capitalism with a cooperative social system. But this is a choice, not

an inevitable future. It is hard to see how it can be addressed without

an appeal to the very moral standards which Marx and Engels had ruled

out.

From the beginning, the Marxist view of utopianism and scientific

socialism had certain limitations. For one thing, with all his rejection

of moral appeals, Marx’s writings breathe with a moral indignation, a

deep love of freedom and justice, and a burning hatred of suffering and

oppression. This does Marx credit, but it makes his objection to moral

appeals into hypocrisy. This weakness of Marxism, its lack of an

explicit moral viewpoint, has often been pointed out, by supporters and

opponents of Marxism, on the right and on the left.

For another thing, these early socialists did not call themselves

utopians. They emphasized that they were being scientific and

materialistic. Saint-Simon is usually recognized as one of the founders

of modern sociology. “The utopian socialists saw themselves as social

scientists. ‘Utopian’ was for them a pejorative term....Time and again

in their work they asserted their hardheaded, scientific, realistic, and

practical approach to society....The description of their work as

‘utopian’ is therefore a retrospective judgment and not a

self-definition” (Geoghegan, 1987, p. 8).

Anarchist thinkers, who were politically closer to these early

socialists than were Marx and Engels, also emphasized how scientific

they were. Proudhon insisted he was being scientific. Unlike Marx,

Kropotkin tried to develop a naturalistic ethics. But Kropotkin (who had

been a geologist) also claimed that anarchism was the conclusion of

scientific understanding of the world, as he wrote in his essay “Modern

Science and Anarchism.” “Anarchism is a world concept based on a

mechanical explanation of all phenomena, embracing the whole of

nature....Its method of investigation is that of the exact natural

sciences” (Kropotkin, 1975, p. 60). Therefore he rejected describing

anarchism with “the word ‘Utopia’” (same, p. 66).

Malatesta was to criticize Kropotkin for this very scientism, which he

felt left out the importance of will and consciousness. “Kropotkin, who

was very critical of the fatalism of the Marxists, was himself the

victim of mechanistic fatalism, which is far more inhibiting....Since,

according to his philosophy, that which occurs must necessarily occur,

so also the communist-anarchism he desired must inevitably triumph as if

by a law of nature” (Malatesta, 1984, pp. 263, 265). So, rather than

being simply utopian, anarchists were just as capable of scientism and

inevitablism as Marxists, although there were some, such as Malatesta,

who opposed this approach.

The Rejection of Scientific Socialism

The revival of moral and utopian thinking has been based on a rejection

of Marxist “scientific socialism.” Robin Hahnel, co-inventer of

“parecon,” has concluded, “...New evidence from the past 30 years has

weakened the case for scientific socialism even further and greatly

strengthened the case for utopian socialism...” (2005, p. 390). It has

been argued that Marx’s supposedly scientific predictions did not work

out as he expected, that his so-called science has been a bust. The

capitalist countries have (it is said) become prosperous and stable,

with attenuated business cycles and a well-off working class—at least in

the industrialized, imperialist, countries. The working class has not

become revolutionary. There have been no workers’ revolutions. The

revolutions led by Marxists which did happen, became miserable

totalitarian states, oppressors of their workers, and nothing like the

socialist democracies Marx and Engels had envisaged. These criticisms of

Marxism have led many to accept capitalism and others to look for

alternate approaches to socialism—including the present spread of

anarchism.

There is a great deal of truth in these criticisms of “Marxist science.”

World War II was followed by a capitalist boom, up until the late

sixties. The great revolutions of Russia and China, as well as others

led by Marxists, ended up with new bureaucratic ruling classes, rather

than human liberation (although they did not become a new type of

society but were, rather, statified versions of capitalism). There have

been no successful working class revolutions, since the ambiguous

Russian revolution of 1917. There is no longer a working class with a

significant revolutionary movement, anywhere, certainly not in the

United States.

However, there is also a great deal of untruth in these common views. In

particular, the post-World War II boom has been over for some time. From

the seventies onward, the world economy has been going downhill—with

fluctuations up and down, and with lopsided and uneven development in

different parts of the world. But the overall direction has been

negative. Writing about the decline of the U.S. economy, the editorial

page of the New York Times, the voice of a major wing of the U.S. ruling

class, predictes a general worsening of the U.S. economy. Under the

headline, “Before the Fall,” it wrote about the weakening of the dollar

and the U.S. economy, and predicted, “The economic repercussions could

unfold gradually, resulting in a long, slow decline in living standards.

Or there could be a quick unraveling, with the hallmarks of an

uncontrolled fiscal crisis. Or the pain could fall somewhere inbetween”

(April 2, 2005). One libertarian Marxist, Loren Goldner, has written of

the breakdown of capitalism in our time, “If there is today a ‘crisis of

Marxism,’ it cannot be in the ‘analytic-scientific’ side of Marx’s

prognosis of capitalist breakdown crisis, wherein current developments

appear as a page out of vol. III of Capital” (Goldner, 2000, p. 70).

The image of a fat and happy capitalism with a fat and happy working

class comes from the fifties and sixties (and was not fully true even

then). It became the dominant conception of the left during the

radicalization of the sixties. It justified the liberalism and reformism

which was the main trend among U.S. leftists. It also justified the

Stalinist politics of the many who became subjectively revolutionary.

These revolutionaries admired Cuba, China, and North Vietnam. In these

countries middle-class intellectuals led revolutions in which the

workers played minor roles at best, and then established the leaders as

new, bureaucratic, classes who exploited the workers (and peasants) in a

state-capitalist fashion. These radicals regarded themselves as

Marxists, as did such theoreticians as Herbert Marcuse, while more or

less consciously abandoning any belief in a working class revolution in

either the industrialized nations or the oppressed countries.

While the image of a perpetually prosperous capitalism has been shown to

be false, this does not “prove” that “Marx was right.” However correct

Marx was in his “analytic-scientific analysis” of capitalism, it should

now be clear that socialism is not inevitable. There is no way to be

absolutely sure that socialism will come before nuclear war or

ecological catastrophe or perhaps a perpetual capitalism that grinds on

and on until it produces “the common ruin of the contending classes.” At

best we are dealing with probabilities, which are almost irrelevant in

terms of making commitments to one side or the other. “Marxist

scientific socialism” is not the issue, in the abstract, but whether or

not to make a class analysis of current society and to commit to working

class revolution for a better social system. Loren Goldner concludes

that the real crisis of socialism is not in terms of Marxist science.

Rather it is “...a crisis of the working-class movement itself, and of

the working class’ sense, still relatively strong in the 1930’s, that it

is the class of the future” (Goldner, 2000, p. 70).

A Revival of Utopian Socialism and Its Class Limitations

The rejection of “scientific socialism” has often led to a socialism

which claims to be based essentially on moral principles, on a universal

appeal for a better society, rejecting appeals to class self-interest.

This is a return to utopianism. In rejecting the weaknesses and

strengths of Marxism, these thinkers revive both the strengths and

weaknesses of utopianism. Such views have been developed by

theoreticians with Marxist backgrounds, sometimes giving themselves

good-sounding names such as “post-Marxists,” “pluralists,” or “radical

democrats” (there is a thorough review in Wood, 1998). Similarly, the

theoreticians of “participatory economics” start with abstract moral

principles and develop an economic system which would fulfill them,

without any discussion of how such a society would develop out of

capitalism (Albert, 2003). I have heard Michael Albert presenting his

system (at a workshop at the Global Left Forum 2005), beginning by

describing “parecon” (he rejects the label “socialism”) as happening

“after the bump.” The “bump” is his term for the change of systems,

covering reform or revolution or whatever. How the change happens is not

important to his vision.

There are also many who come out of the anarchist tradition who reject a

“scientific” approach for one based solely on morality and abstract

values. Perhaps the purest example is the “social ecology”/“libertarian

municipalist” program developed primarily by Murray Bookchin. These

views are clearly summarized by Chuck Morse (2001). Writing in

opposition to reformists within the global justice movement, he rightly

proposes a revolutionary perspective. However, he also rejects the class

perspective of “many anarcho-syndicalists and communists” who accepted

“the analysis of capitalism advanced by late 19^(th) century and early

20^(th) century socialists,” presumably Marx as well as the

anarchist-syndicalists. They believed, he claims, that “capitalism

creates an industrial proletariat that must, in turn, fight for its

interests as a class...not only...for immediate benefits but also

against the social order that has produced it as a class...” (Morse,

2001, p. 26).

Instead, “it is possible to imagine revolution in a democratic populist

sense, in which people draw upon shared values (as opposed to class

interests) to overthrow elites. This vision of revolution is not

premised upon the exacerbation of class conflict, but rather the

emergence of a democratic sentiment that rejects exclusive,

non-participatory social institutions ... focusing on the ideals, not

class positions, of activists within the movement.... This value-based

approach is a precept of any revolutionary democratic politics” (same,

pp. 27, 29).

As Morse says, the views of Marx and the anarchist-syndicalists were

indeed developed in the late 19^(th) and early 20^(th) centuries.

Therefore they bear the imprint of their time, including their

scientistic and determinist concept of social science. Nevertheless, the

social system which they first analyzed, at the time when it took off,

remains the basic social system of today—despite its development and

changes. Morse still calls it “capitalism” rather than calling it some

new form of society (such as “neo-feudalism”) or claiming that the

problem was not capitalism but something else (such as “industrialism”

or “civilization”). This is not to deny that the analysis of capitalism

has to be expanded to cover later developments and must be integrated

with analyses of gender, race, sexual orientation, ecology, and other

areas. But capitalism remains as a system of commodity production,

market exchange, competition of capitals, the law of value, the selling

and buying of the human ability to labor (treating working capacity as a

commodity), and the use of workers to produce a surplus for the

capitalists (that is, exploitation). In its essence, capitalism, as

capitalism, remains the capital-labor relationship as it was analyzed a

century and a half ago.

Morse notes that this 19^(th) century theory postulated a working class

“that must fight.” The “must” is the important point. Implicitly but

correctly, he is criticizing the dominant interpretation of Marxism (one

rooted in Marx’s work) that it is “inevitable” that the workers will

come to fight for socialist revolution. It is not inevitable. Such

determinism is essentially authoritarian. How can an oppressed class

create a self-conscious and self-organized society through the automatic

processes of history? To fight their exploitation, the workers need to

want something new. If they are to be free, they must cease to submit to

the laws of history and become conscious of what they can achieve.

This does not mean a rejection of all objective analysis, however,

Sailors may take a sailboat to different ports, depending on their

goals, but only by using their knowledge of wind and seas, not by

ignoring this scientific knowledge. But the seafarers’ knowledge does

not decide their goal.

Marxist analysis (consistent with anarchist goals) may be interpreted

(or re-interpreted) differently than in an inevitablist manner. It could

be said that Marx demonstrated that there is a tendency for workers to

rebel against their exploitation—what else? But there are also

counter-tendencies. For example, better-off workers tend to become

bought off and to accept the system. Poorer, worse-off, workers tend to

become overwhelmed and demoralized, to give up. Bookchin argues that

factory discipline itself teaches the workers to accept hierarchy. Which

tendencies will win out: struggle, to the point of revolution, or

acceptance of capitalist authority? We do not know; it is not

inevitable. As Morse writes, “many anarcho-syndicalists and communists”

have believed that it is inevitable that the workers “must fight,” and

eventually make a socialist revolution. Others, such as Bookchin, argue

that it is inevitable that the workers, as workers, will not make a

revolution. Both are wrong. It is a living choice for the workers.

Elaborating on the ideas of Bookchin, Morse, as quoted, rejects a

working class orientation. Instead he calls for a “vision of

revolution...premised upon...the emergence of a democratic

sentiment...focusing on...ideals, not class positions...” (same, p. 27).

As stated here, this is rather vacuous, but this would not be a valid

criticism, since Bookchin has elsewhere worked out a utopian vision of a

post-capitalist, (small-c) communist, society—a federation of communes

managed by directly democratic assemblies (Biehl, 1998; Bookchin, 1986).

This is done in much greater detail than Marx or Engels ever did.

Bookchin deserves credit for this.

However, the social ecologists’ ethical approach, as described here, has

certain weaknesses. To begin with, it has no study of how capitalist

society works, what are its contradictions and conflicts. This is not a

matter of reviving the mechanical “science” and determinism of the worst

of Marxism. It is making a theoretical analysis of society, including

economic and other factors (race, gender, ecology, etc.), laying the

basis for a strategy for bringing utopian goals into reality. It is true

that Bookchin has made an analysis of society in terms of a supposed

conflict, the remnants of town and community versus the national state,

but it is hard to take this seriously as the basic conflict of society.

Lacking a social analysis, the ethical vision approach lacks a strategy

for implementing its (worthwhile) goals. More specifically, it lacks an

agent, a social force which could overturn capitalism and replace it

with a new society. All it has are people who are idealistic, of every

class and sector of society. From this point of view, there is no reason

why socialism could not have been implemented at any time in human

existence, from hunter-gatherer society until now, since people have

always had moral values and visions of a better world. Bookchin has

argued that a free society is possible now since it is only now that we

have the technology to possibly create a society of plenty for all,

including enough time without toil for people to participate in the

managing of society (a view which was raised by Marx). However, this

still leaves the question of who will make the revolution.

As opposed to this vague appeal to idealists, Marx and Engels, and later

the anarchist-syndicalists as well as most anarchistcommunists, looked

to the struggle of the workers. This did not necessarily mean ignoring

the struggles of other sectors of society, such as women and “racial”

groupings. I have already noted how Engels valued the utopians’

criticisms of the oppression of women. In the same work, he commented,

“It is significant of the specifically bourgeois character of these

human rights that the American constitution, the first to recognize the

rights of man [note], in the same breath confirms the slavery of the

colored races existing in America; class privileges are proscribed, race

privileges sanctioned” (Engels, 1954, pp. 147–148). Not that Marx and

Engels had a sufficient analysis of either gender or race, but it is now

possible to see the interaction and overlap of racial, gendered, and

other forms of oppression with the economic exploitation of the working

class.

However, the working class has a particular strategic importance for

revolutionaries. Of all the oppressed groupings, only the workers can

stop society in its tracks, due to their potential control of the means

of production. And only the working class can start society up again by

occupying the workplaces and working them in a different way. This does

not make workers, as workers, more oppressed than, say, physically

disabled people, or women, as women (two categories which mostly overlap

with the working class). It just points up the workers’ potential

strategic power.

Unlike the capitalists or the “middle class” managers who work for them,

the workers (that is, most of the population, when they go to work for

some boss) do not have anyone under them to exploit. They do not live

off of the exploitation of others. The workers have a direct interest in

ending the system of exploitation—that is, the pumping of wealth from

them to the capitalist rulers. Ellen Meiksins Wood argues against the

views of certain ex-Marxists who have rejected a working class

orientation in favor of an ethicalonly approach similar to that of Morse

and Bookchin (Bookchin himself being an ex-Marxist who has rejected a

working class orientation):

The implication is that workers are no more effected by capitalist

exploitation than are any other human beings who are not themselves the

direct objects of exploitation. This also implies that capitalists

derive no fundamental advantage from the exploitation of workers, that

the workers derive no fundamental disadvantage from their exploitation

by capital, that the workers would derive no fundamental advantage from

ceasing to be exploited, that the condition of being exploited does not

entail an ‘interest’ in the cessation of class exploitation, that the

relations between capital and labor have no fundamental consequences for

the whole structure of social and political power, and that the

conflicting interests between capital and labor are all in the eye of

the beholder.

(Wood, 1998, p. 61)

Contrary to the middle class myth of working class quiescence, workers

do stuggle against capital. Every day there is a tug-of-war, a guerrilla

conflict, in every workplace, sometimes breaking out into open rebellion

but mostly kept at a low simmer. From time to time there have been great

eruptions when workers rose up and demonstrated the possibility of

overthrowing capitalism and its state, of replacing these institutions

with the self-management of society. I will not review the history of

workers’ revolutionary upheavals here, but workers have shown more

ability to struggle in the brief history of industrial capitalism (about

200 years) than any other oppressed class in history. Without slighting

other oppressions, the struggle of the workers should be a major focus

of any revolutionary strategy.

Utopianism or Science...or Both?

In Utopianism and Marxism, Geoghegan concludes, “The distinction between

utopian and scientific socialism has, on balance, been an unfortunate

one for the Marxist tradition” (1987, p. 134). He demonstrates how both

wings of Marxism—social democracy and Leninism—have been affected by

their mechanical scientism and their rejection of visionary utopianism.

He recommends that Marxists look into the alternate tradition of

anarchism, as well as other traditions, such as democratic liberalism,

feminism, and Gay liberation. However, it seems to me that a Marxism

which accepts utopianism and the insights of anarchism, radical

democracy, feminism, and Gay liberation would cease to be Marxism, even

if much remained of Marx’s project (especially his class analysis). That

is, the particular synthesis of ideas which Marx created would be

drastically reorganized. Anarchists too have historically sometimes been

too scientistic or have more often been anti-theoretical and

anti-intellectual. But it is anarchism which has been more open to both

a moral vision and a theoretical analysis of capitalism. However, there

is a great deal of overlap between class-struggle anarchism and

libertarian Marxism.

I reject having to chose between either utopianism or science (using

“science” to mean an analysis of society, done as realistically as

possible, and not an attempt to treat society as if it were chemistry).

I will not chose between raising moral issues and appealing to the

self-interest of oppressed people. I reject the alternatives of either a

moral vision or a practical strategy. I refuse to chose between Utopia

and support for workers’ class struggles.

What is the Utopia of socialist anarchism? It has many interpretations,

but some things seem central: It includes a cooperative economy with

production for use, which is planned democratically, from the bottom up.

It means the end of the division (in industry and in society as a whole)

between mental and manual labor, between those who give orders and those

who carry them out. This would be part of a complete reorganization of

technology to create an ecologically sustainable society. It includes an

economy and polity managed by direct democracy, in assemblies and

councils, at workplaces and in communities. It has no state, that is, no

bureaucractic-military machine with specialized layers of police,

soldiers, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and politicians, standing above the

rest of the population. If defense of the people is needed,this would be

done by the people— the armed people—in a popular militia. Instead of a

state, local councils would be federated at the regional, national,

continental, and international levels, wherever needed. In this freely

federated world, there would be no national borders. The socialist

vision has always been that of a classless society and the most

exploited class has an interest in winning this. Whether the working

class will seek this vision remains an open question, in my

opinion—neither a guaranteed outcome not a guarantee that it will not.

It is a choice, not an inevitability.

In his Paths in Utopia, the Jewish theologian Martin Buber (1958)

compares two types of eschatological prophecy. One is the prediction of

apocalypse, an inevitable end of days which is running on a strict

timetable. God and the devil will fight and God will win. Human choice

is reduced to a minimum...people may decide individually to be on the

automatically winning side or to be on the guaranteed losing side.

That’s it. Such a view is presented in the Left Behind novels,

expressing a conservative interpretation of Christianity. In a secular

fashion, it also appears in the mainstream interpretation of Marxism

(and also in aspects of Kropotkin’s anarchism). In comparison, Buber

says, the prophets of the Old Testament presented the people with a

collective choice. Disaster was looming, the prophets warned, but it

could be averted. To do so, the people would have to change their ways

and follow an alternate path. Prophesy was a challenge, not an

inevitable prediction. Human choice could make a difference.

Leaving theology aside, today there is a prophetic challenge. It is both

“utopian” and “scientific.” Humanity faces probable disasters:

increasing wars (including eventual nuclear wars), ecological and

environmental catastrophe, economic decline, and threats to democracy

and freedom. But an alternate society, a utopian goal, may be

envisioned, with a different way for humans to relate to each other—if

not a perfect society than one that is much better. There exists the

technology to make it possible. There exists a social class whose

self-interest may lead it to struggle for this goal, alongside of other

oppressed groupings. Those who accept this analysis, and who believe in

the values of this goal, may chose to take up the challenge—and to raise

it for others. It is a matter not only of prediction but of moral

commitment.

June 2005

References

<biblio> Albert, Michael (2003). Parecon: Life after capitalism. NY:

Verso.

Biehl, Janet (1998). The politics of social ecology; Libertarian

municipalism. (with Murray Bookchin). Montreal: Black Rose Books.

Bookchin, Murray (1986). The limits of the city. Montreal: Black Rose

Books.

Buber, Martin (1958). Paths in utopia. (R. F. C. Hull, trans.). Boston:

Beacon Press.

Draper, Hal (1990). Karl Marx’s theory of revolution; Vol. IV: Critique

of other socialisms. NY: Monthly Review.

Engels, Frederick (1954). Anti-Dühring; Herr Eugen Dühring’s revolution

in science. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House.

Geoghegan, Vincent (1987). Utopianism and Marxism. London & NY: Methuen.

Goldner, Loren (2000). Ubu saved from drowning: Class struggle and

statist containment in Portugul and Spain, 19741977. Cambridge MA:

Queequeg Publications.

Goodman, Paul (1962). Utopian essays and practical proposals. NY: Random

House.

Hahnel, Robin (2005). Economic justice and democracy; From competition

to cooperation. NY/London: Routledge.

Kolbert, Elizabeth (2005, May 9). The climate of man—III. What can be

done? The New Yorker. Pp. 52–63.

Kropotkin, Peter (1975). The essential Kropotkin. (Emile Capouya &

Keitha Tompkins, eds.). NY: Liveright.

Malatesta, Errico (1984). Errico Malatesta; His life and ideas. (Vernon

Richards, ed.). London: Freedom Press.

Marx, Karl, & Engels, Friedrich (1955). The communist manifesto;

Manifesto of the communist party. Northbrook, IL: AHM Publishing Corp.

Morse, Chuck (2001). Theory of the anti-globalization movement. The New

Formulation; An Anti-Authoritarian Review of Books. Vol. 1, no. 1,

November. Pp. 22–31.

Wood, Ellen Meiksins (1998). The retreat from class; A new “True”

Socialism. London: Verso.