Here I would like to make distinction between the use of “socialism” as applied to States (i.e., the governments of countries) and as applied to, what today are called, “intentional communities.” I believe that Marx and Engels referred to speculation about such communities as “utopian socialism.” That is an unfortunate phrase because it suggests that these communities saw themselves as living in the best of all possible communities — which I don’t think they did. They simply thought this was a better way to live for them.
Anyway, there are three early books about these communities. They are:
John Humphrey Noyes, History of American Socialisms, 1870;
Charles Nordhoff, The Communistic Societies of the United States, 1875;
William Alfred Hinds, American Communities, 1878, revised 1902
The earliest of these books is by Noyes, and it is about types of communities as “socialisms.” And he distinguishes two types of socialistic communities: communistic and joint-stock communities. (Joint-stock communities are what Richard Wolff refers to as “worker-owned enterprises.”)
It is interesting to note which communities succeeded and which failed. To find out, read at least one of the books!
What Marx and Engels call “scientific socialism” has nothing to do with communal societies, but is rather a phrase equivalent to “social science,” which includes sociology, economics, and political study. But, in short, it is a critique of capitalism.
“Socialism” nowadays is used to refer to State interference with “laissez-faire capitalism.” Because the term “capitalism” is used in the sense that an individual should be free to trade with anyone for anything, “socialism” is seen as a constraint on this freedom. And this constraint can take the form of a government either taking over production, restraining and regulating trade and ownership, or providing welfare. From this perspective, a State is socialistic if it takes over the industries (nationalizes them), if it regulates production and distribution, and if it provides for people such things as old age pensions, free health care, free food, or free anything.
The most pernicious form of socialism to capitalism is a State which gives a free access to subsistence land. The reason this is so pernicious is that such a measure deprives capitalists (i.e. people with money to invest) from obtaining cheap laborers or even laborers at all.
______________________
chat GPT says:
The piece you’ve shared discusses the disambiguation of the term “socialism,” offering insights into its varying uses and meanings in different contexts. Here’s an evaluation of its key points:
1. Socialism as a Derogatory Term
The author suggests that for much of the public, the term “socialism” — like “fascism” and “communism” — has become a word of derision. This usage is often detached from any critical understanding of its actual meaning and is used primarily to label a state or government as “evil” or undesirable. The comparison to insults like “asshole” or “bastard” highlights the reduction of complex political ideologies to simple, negative labels.
Evaluation: This is a valid critique of how political terminology, especially complex ones like “socialism,” can lose their nuanced meanings in popular discourse. It points to a tendency in everyday language to use labels without engaging with their intellectual content or historical context.
2. Distinction Between Socialism as Applied to States vs. Communities
The author makes a distinction between the use of “socialism” when referring to state practices (e.g., nationalization, regulation) and its use in describing intentional communities or small-scale communal experiments. The reference to Marx and Engels’ distinction between “scientific socialism” and “utopian socialism” is significant. “Scientific socialism” refers to a critique of capitalism grounded in social science, while “utopian socialism” refers to idealistic visions of how communities could organize themselves.
Evaluation: This is a useful distinction, as it clarifies that “socialism” can be used in multiple ways: as an economic and political critique of capitalism (Marx’s view) and as a vision for organizing society at smaller scales (e.g., intentional communities). The critique of the term “utopian socialism” is also insightful, as it highlights how certain communal movements were not necessarily claiming to have found “the best possible society” but were experimenting with alternatives to capitalist norms.
3. The Historical Context of Socialist Communities in the U.S.
The reference to historical texts, such as John Humphrey Noyes’ History of American Socialisms (1870) and others, introduces the idea that there were diverse and practical experiments in communal living in the U.S. during the 19th century. Noyes, in particular, categorizes these experiments as either “communistic” or “joint-stock communities,” the latter of which he ties to the modern concept of worker-owned enterprises.
Evaluation: This historical reference is valuable because it adds depth to the understanding of how socialism was implemented in specific communities in the past. The distinction between communistic and joint-stock communities further illustrates the variety within socialist experiments. It also provides insight into how such communities were seen not necessarily as utopias, but as alternatives to capitalist social organization.
4. Scientific Socialism vs. State Socialism
The author then shifts to the modern conception of socialism, where the term is often used to describe state intervention in markets and capitalism. This includes nationalization of industries, regulation of trade, and provision of welfare services like healthcare and pensions. The author highlights that the most disruptive form of socialism from a capitalist perspective is a state providing access to subsistence land, which deprives capitalists of cheap labor.
Evaluation: This explanation reflects a key critique of modern socialism, particularly in its state form. By highlighting the tension between state interference and capitalism, the author underscores the fundamental opposition between capitalist freedom (in the form of free trade) and the constraints imposed by socialist policies. The specific reference to subsistence land access is intriguing because it focuses on how capitalism depends on access to cheap labor, and how socialist policies that empower individuals (e.g., land access) can undermine this economic system.
5. Conclusion
Overall, the text provides a nuanced critique of how “socialism” is used in different contexts, particularly distinguishing between its use as a government policy and its application to communal living or small-scale experiments. The text also serves as a reminder of how political terms can become distorted over time when disconnected from their historical and theoretical roots. This evaluation of the term “socialism” encourages a more thoughtful and reflective approach to understanding the word’s diverse meanings, especially in political discourse.
Evaluation: The overall argument is insightful and well-grounded in historical and theoretical analysis. The distinction between various uses of “socialism” helps clarify the complex and often contentious debate surrounding this term, while the discussion of its historical applications adds depth to the reader’s understanding of socialist thought and practice.