Utopian Socialism and Historical Materialism: Key Concepts
Utopian Socialism and Historical Materialism
The term “utopian socialism” was coined in 1839 by Louis Blanqui, but achieved notoriety after the work of Marx and Engels in their Communist Manifesto. They thought that utopian thinkers, though well-intentioned, were guilty of idealism and ingenuity. To avoid being confused with them, they labeled their own theory with the adjective “scientific.” Chronologically, the ideas of utopian socialism reached maturity between 1815 and 1848 (the date of publication of the Communist Manifesto).
Utopian Socialists formed a group of thinkers with heterogeneity. However, they shared a common set of features largely influenced by the ideas of Rousseau:
- The importance of nature was very much present in their ideals.
- They dedicated their efforts to creating an ideal and perfect society.
- Their goals would be achieved by the mere will of men, that is, peacefully; hence, their followers opposed revolutions and actions such as strikes.
- They uncovered and denounced the pernicious effects of capitalism but did not investigate its root causes.
- In order to alleviate the injustices and inequalities, they launched various schemes in which solidarity, philanthropy, and fraternal love prevailed.
The name utopian socialists corresponds to a later differentiation, to distinguish them from so-called scientific socialism, as it was assumed that the proposals of these authors did not explain or understand the historical development of capitalism, and their solutions often did not take into account the existing relations of domination. The most notable figure was Robert Owen, who tried to put into practice his ideas on work organization and distribution of wealth, establishing social insurance, libraries, and schools for children and adults.
Historical Materialism
For Marxism, material circumstances, not ideas or the will of men, determine historical facts. In this sense, there is a difference between infrastructure (the economy) and superstructure (the State organization, political, legal, ideological, etc.). There is a close dialectical relationship between these two instances. The economic infrastructure is the basis of history and generates certain relations of production. Changes in infrastructure, in turn, result in changes in the superstructure, but not mechanically or automatically; each instance has a peculiar influence over the other. In the long term, however, the primary role is for the infrastructure. This dynamic is influenced by Hegel’s dialectic process in Marxist theory. According to this philosophy, every fact or circumstance (thesis) carries within it its own contradiction (antithesis). In the struggle between the two, a new reality (synthesis) arises that involves overcoming the above and which, in turn, becomes a new thesis. Humanity has gone through several stages with different structures and their own contradictions: community-tribal society, slave society, feudal society, and capitalist society. In the latter, the bourgeoisie has created conditions that allow it to prosper materially and socially, but at the expense of the proletariat. The development of the labor movement depends on the working class truly recognizing their interests and fighting for them through revolutionary action.
The mode of production, according to Marxist theory, is the set of productive forces and relations that people in a given society establish among themselves to produce the goods needed for their development. The term was first used in the unpublished prospectus German Ideology by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.