Category: Socialism

Is socialism preferable to capitalism?

ChatGPT said:

The question of whether socialism is preferable to capitalism depends on the criteria, values, and goals you prioritize. Here’s a balanced breakdown of the core advantages and disadvantages of each system to help clarify the debate:

1. Economic Equality

  • Socialism: Prioritizes reducing economic inequality. Resources, wealth, and opportunities are distributed more equally through mechanisms like progressive taxation, social safety nets, and public ownership of key industries. Supporters argue that this leads to a fairer society where basic needs (like healthcare, education, and housing) are universally guaranteed.
  • Capitalism: Encourages economic inequality as a natural outcome of competition, with the idea that individuals have the freedom to achieve as much as they are capable of. This inequality is seen as a driver for innovation and efficiency, rewarding hard work and creativity with greater wealth.

Which is better? If reducing inequality and providing universal access to essential goods and services is a priority, socialism may be seen as preferable. If rewarding individual achievement and incentivizing economic growth is more important, capitalism may be favored.

2. Economic Efficiency and Innovation

  • Socialism: Criticized for inefficiency due to centralized planning and potential bureaucratic slowdowns. Some argue that it reduces incentives for innovation and individual ambition if profit motives are diminished. However, there are examples of successful socialist-leaning economies that blend market mechanisms with public goals (e.g., Scandinavian countries).
  • Capitalism: Praised for economic efficiency, innovation, and rapid growth due to competition and profit incentives. Private ownership encourages risk-taking and entrepreneurial spirit, leading to technological advancements and a dynamic economy.

Which is better? If rapid innovation and economic efficiency are top priorities, capitalism may be seen as preferable. If slower, steady growth with a focus on sustainability and long-term planning is valued, socialism might be preferred.

3. Freedom and Individual Autonomy

  • Socialism: Emphasizes collective well-being, which can sometimes mean greater government involvement in the economy and regulation of private property. Critics argue this can reduce individual freedoms, especially if personal wealth or property ownership is restricted.
  • Capitalism: Strongly emphasizes individual autonomy and personal choice, including the freedom to own private property, start businesses, and make economic decisions without much government interference. Critics, however, point out that economic freedom in capitalism often favors those with more resources, leading to power imbalances.

Which is better? If individual autonomy and personal freedom are highly valued, capitalism might be seen as preferable. If collective well-being and social safety nets are prioritized, socialism may offer more security.

4. Stability and Security

  • Socialism: Tends to provide greater economic stability for citizens, as it focuses on ensuring that everyone has access to basic needs and is protected from economic shocks. Public ownership and regulation can buffer against market fluctuations.
  • Capitalism: Market economies are more prone to cycles of boom and bust, with recessions and financial crises being common. However, proponents argue that this volatility is a sign of a dynamic economy that adjusts and recovers.

Which is better? If economic stability and security are paramount, socialism might be preferable. If flexibility and a rapidly adjusting economy are desired, capitalism may be favored.

5. Quality of Life and Social Welfare

  • Socialism: Aims to provide a higher baseline quality of life for everyone, with strong welfare programs, universal healthcare, education, and other public services. This can lead to better outcomes in terms of health, education, and overall well-being, as seen in countries with strong social safety nets.
  • Capitalism: Often linked to higher economic growth rates, which can lead to higher living standards for some. However, it can also result in stark differences in quality of life between the wealthy and the poor, depending on the strength of public services and welfare policies in place.

Which is better? If ensuring a high quality of life for all is a priority, socialism might be seen as preferable. If maximizing wealth creation and economic opportunity for individuals is the goal, capitalism could be favored.

6. Examples in Practice

  • Socialist and Social-Democratic Systems: Countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark use a blend of capitalism and socialism. They have high taxes, robust welfare states, and public services but still operate with private markets. These countries often rank high in terms of happiness, education, and healthcare quality.
  • Capitalist Systems: The United States is often cited as a prime example of capitalism, with strong private enterprise, less government intervention, and lower taxes. This has resulted in significant innovation and economic growth, but also higher levels of inequality and variable access to healthcare and education.

Conclusion

The debate between socialism and capitalism isn’t about one being inherently better, but about what kind of society is desired. Socialism tends to prioritize equity, stability, and collective welfare, while capitalism focuses on efficiency, innovation, and individual freedom.

In reality, many successful economies blend elements of both, using capitalist markets to drive growth while employing socialist policies to ensure social safety nets and reduce inequality. This mix, often termed a “mixed economy” or “social democracy,” aims to combine the strengths of both systems while mitigating their weaknesses.

Describe the Owenite communities in 19th century US

ChatGPT said:

Owenite communities in the 19th-century United States were utopian socialist experiments inspired by the ideas of Robert Owen, a Welsh industrialist and social reformer. These communities sought to create a new social order based on cooperation, communal living, and the abolition of private property, as a response to the perceived injustices and inequalities of industrial capitalism.

Key Aspects of Owenite Communities

  1. Founding Vision:
    • Robert Owen believed that the moral character of individuals was shaped by their environment. He argued that a community organized around cooperation, shared property, and egalitarian principles would cultivate a more ethical and rational society.
    • Owen was particularly critical of the competitive and exploitative nature of capitalism, advocating instead for a society based on mutual aid and the collective ownership of resources.
  2. The New Harmony Experiment (1825-1829):
    • The most famous Owenite community in the U.S. was New Harmony, established in 1825 in Indiana. Robert Owen purchased land previously owned by a religious sect called the Rappites.
    • New Harmony was intended to be a model for other communities, emphasizing education, scientific knowledge, and communal living. It sought to eliminate poverty, crime, and social strife through shared resources and decision-making.
    • Despite its ambitious goals, New Harmony faced internal disagreements, lack of clear leadership, and economic difficulties. It dissolved by 1829, though it left a lasting impact on future social reform movements.
  3. Structure and Principles:
    • Owenite communities emphasized collective ownership of land and goods, aiming to eliminate the need for money or profit-driven incentives.
    • Labor was to be distributed according to ability, with each member contributing to the community’s welfare.
    • Communities were often democratically governed, with decision-making through councils or general assemblies.
    • Education was a central focus, emphasizing practical knowledge, science, and moral development without religious dogma.
  4. Influence and Legacy:
    • While New Harmony was the most notable, other smaller Owenite-inspired communities were founded in the U.S., including in Ohio and New York.
    • The Owenite movement had a significant influence on American labor movements and later socialist and communist ideologies.
    • Owen’s ideas about education and communal living laid the groundwork for public education reforms and cooperative movements.
    • Owenism introduced ideas like the labor theory of value and early versions of women’s rights advocacy, including greater access to education and the idea of gender equality within the community.
  5. Challenges and Decline:
    • Owenite communities faced several challenges, such as economic self-sufficiency, conflicts over governance, and differing visions among members about communal practices.
    • The lack of skilled labor, difficulties in producing enough food, and external pressure from capitalist systems contributed to the decline of many Owenite experiments.
    • Many of these communities were short-lived, often dissolving within a few years due to practical difficulties and ideological splits.
  6. Cultural and Social Impact:
    • Owenite communities sparked debates about social reform, the role of property, and the organization of labor, influencing broader utopian socialism and anarchist thought.
    • The focus on education, secular morality, and rationalism became a part of progressive movements in the 19th century.
    • Even though they largely failed as self-sustaining communities, Owenite experiments provided a blueprint for later cooperative ventures and intentional communities, such as the Fourierist and Icarian movements.

Overall Assessment

Owenite communities in 19th-century America were ambitious but ultimately unsuccessful attempts to create a cooperative society free from the inequities of capitalism. Despite their failures, they were a crucial early expression of socialist thought in the U.S., influencing later labor and social justice movements.

______________________________________

You said:

List these Owenite communities

ChatGPT said:

Here are some of the notable Owenite communities established in the 19th-century United States:

1. New Harmony (Indiana, 1825-1829):

  • Founder: Robert Owen
  • Overview: The most famous and ambitious of the Owenite communities. It was intended as a model for a new society based on cooperative living, shared property, and egalitarian principles. Despite initial enthusiasm, New Harmony struggled with internal disagreements and economic challenges, leading to its dissolution within four years.
  • Significance: It left a lasting legacy on educational reforms and social movements in the U.S.

2. Yellow Springs Community (Ohio, 1825):

  • Founder: Robert Owen and his son, Robert Dale Owen
  • Overview: A small community in Ohio that followed the principles of New Harmony. It was another short-lived experiment that faced similar problems of organizational and economic sustainability.
  • Significance: Despite its brief existence, it contributed to the spread of Owenite ideas in Ohio.

3. Kendal Community (Ohio, 1826-1829):

  • Founder: Owenite settlers inspired by Robert Owen’s ideas
  • Overview: Located near present-day Massillon, Ohio, Kendal was organized around cooperative labor and communal living. However, disputes over governance and the division of labor led to its dissolution within a few years.
  • Significance: Kendal was a notable attempt to establish a self-sustaining community, but like New Harmony, it struggled with practical challenges.

4. Nashoba Community (Tennessee, 1825-1828):

  • Founder: Frances Wright (a close associate of Robert Owen)
  • Overview: Nashoba was an Owenite-inspired community with a unique focus: it aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of racial integration and to provide a path to freedom for enslaved people through communal labor. The community faced severe challenges, including conflicts over leadership and harsh living conditions, leading to its early collapse.
  • Significance: It was one of the first intentional communities in the U.S. to address issues of race and slavery, despite its failure.

5. The Valley Forge Community (Pennsylvania, 1826-1827):

  • Founder: George Rapp, sold the land to Robert Owen’s followers
  • Overview: An Owenite-inspired community that sought to replicate the New Harmony experiment in Pennsylvania. Like many other Owenite efforts, it faced difficulties with attracting skilled labor and maintaining economic stability.
  • Significance: It illustrated the challenges of scaling up Owenite ideals in different regions of the U.S.

6. Haverstraw Bay (New York, 1826-1827):

  • Founder: Robert Owen’s followers
  • Overview: An Owenite settlement established along the Hudson River, aiming to implement the ideals of communal living and shared property. It was short-lived, facing similar issues as other communities, including internal disagreements and financial sustainability.
  • Significance: Part of the broader movement of Owenite communities attempting to spread cooperative ideas in the Northeast.

7. The Licking Company (Ohio, 1826-1827):

  • Founder: Robert Owen’s son, William Owen
  • Overview: Another attempt to establish a self-sufficient cooperative community in Ohio. Despite some initial success, the community struggled with practical management issues and disbanded after a brief period.
  • Significance: The Licking Company was part of the larger Ohio-based Owenite movement, demonstrating both the promise and pitfalls of communal experiments.

Common Challenges Across Owenite Communities

  • Internal Disagreements: Many communities faced ideological splits among members about how to implement communal practices.
  • Economic Viability: Most Owenite communities struggled to become self-sustaining due to poor management, lack of skilled labor, and external economic pressures.
  • Organizational Difficulties: The absence of clear leadership or unified goals often led to disputes and fragmentation.

Impact and Legacy

While most of the Owenite communities were short-lived, they played a significant role in the history of American utopian experiments, influencing later intentional communities and cooperative movements. These efforts also contributed to the development of progressive ideas in education, labor rights, and social reform.

_______________________________________

You said:

What about Rappists?

ChatGPT said:

The Rappists, also known as the Harmonists or Harmony Society, were a German-American religious communal group led by George Rapp, a charismatic preacher from Württemberg, Germany. They established a series of successful utopian communities in the United States during the early 19th century, distinguished by their communal living, industriousness, and religious devotion.

Key Aspects of the Rappists

  1. Founding Vision:
    • The Rappists were a group of Lutheran separatists who sought religious freedom and a chance to build a society based on their interpretation of Christian teachings. They emphasized pietism, communal ownership, celibacy, and strict religious observance.
    • George Rapp preached that the end of the world was imminent, and the community was to live a life of purity, simplicity, and dedication to preparing for Christ’s return.
    • In their communities, they practiced a form of Christian communalism, where property and resources were shared, and economic activities were centrally managed.
  2. Major Rappist Communities:
    • The Rappists established three major settlements in the United States:A. Harmony, Pennsylvania (1805-1814):
      • Location: Butler County, Pennsylvania
      • Overview: This was the first settlement of the Rappists in America, established shortly after their emigration from Germany. The community prospered through agriculture, milling, and manufacturing, quickly becoming self-sufficient and economically successful.
      • Significance: The town was a well-organized, self-contained community that demonstrated the viability of communal living. In 1814, the group sold the land and moved west to find better agricultural opportunities.
      B. New Harmony, Indiana (1814-1824):
      • Location: Along the Wabash River, Indiana
      • Overview: The Rappists established their second settlement in Indiana, calling it New Harmony. This location allowed them to expand their agricultural and industrial operations, and they continued to thrive economically.
      • Significance: New Harmony was known for its well-developed industries, including textile manufacturing, brewing, and farming. In 1824, George Rapp decided to sell the community to Robert Owen, who attempted to establish his own utopian community there, marking a transition from religious communalism to secular socialism.
      C. Economy, Pennsylvania (1824-1906):
      • Location: Beaver County, Pennsylvania
      • Overview: After selling New Harmony, the Rappists moved back east and founded the town of Economy (now Ambridge, Pennsylvania). This was their most enduring settlement, where they continued to practice their communal way of life.
      • Significance: Economy became famous for its industriousness, with the community excelling in textile manufacturing, winemaking, and trade. The society reached its economic peak during this period, amassing wealth and becoming a respected economic power.
  3. Organization and Beliefs:
    • The Rappists practiced celibacy, believing that abstaining from marriage and sexual relations was necessary to maintain spiritual purity.
    • The community was hierarchical, with George Rapp as the unquestioned spiritual leader, guiding both religious practices and economic decisions.
    • Communal living was central to their way of life, with all property owned collectively and each member contributing to the community’s labor force.
    • Rappists believed in self-sufficiency, producing their own food, clothing, and other necessities. They became known for their high-quality goods, including wool, wine, and furniture.
  4. Economic Success:
    • Unlike many other utopian communities of the time, the Rappists were highly economically successful, thanks to their industrious nature and skilled craftsmanship.
    • Their success was based on a strong work ethic, efficient organization, and the ability to adapt to market demands while maintaining a closed community.
  5. Challenges and Decline:
    • The practice of celibacy led to a declining population, as no new members were born into the society. The community relied on recruitment, but this became increasingly difficult over time.
    • After George Rapp’s death in 1847, leadership struggles and internal disagreements began to weaken the community.
    • By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the population dwindled, and the society eventually dissolved in 1906, with its remaining assets divided among the last surviving members.
  6. Impact and Legacy:
    • The Rappists were one of the most successful and long-lasting of the American communal groups, demonstrating that religiously motivated communal living could be economically viable.
    • Their emphasis on high-quality manufacturing, particularly in textiles and other goods, set a standard for craftsmanship.
    • Although their religious and celibate lifestyle limited their long-term sustainability, they left behind a legacy of well-planned communities and an example of successful utopianism.

Overall Assessment

The Rappists were unique among 19th-century utopian communities for their economic success, religious fervor, and commitment to celibacy. They contrasted sharply with other utopian experiments like the Owenites, who focused on secular cooperation rather than religious motivations. The Rappists’ ability to maintain a stable, prosperous community for nearly a century makes them one of the more enduring and impactful examples of American utopianism.

___________________________________

You said:

What other communistic societies were successful in the US?

ChatGPT said:

Several other communistic or communal societies in the U.S. found relative success, particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries. These communities often shared property, emphasized cooperation over competition, and practiced various forms of communal living. Here are some of the most notable examples:

1. The Shakers (United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing)

  • Founded: 1770s in England; came to America in 1774, with significant growth in the early 19th century.
  • Leader: Ann Lee (also known as “Mother Ann”)
  • Overview: The Shakers were a religious community that emphasized celibacy, communal living, pacifism, and a simple lifestyle. They believed in equality between the sexes and practiced a form of communal ownership, where all property was shared.
  • Success: At their peak in the mid-19th century, the Shakers had over 20 communities across the United States, with thousands of members. They became known for their high-quality craftsmanship, particularly in furniture, agriculture, and inventions.
  • Challenges: Their commitment to celibacy meant they relied on converts to sustain their population. As recruitment declined, so did their numbers, but some Shaker communities still exist today, making them one of the longest-lasting communal societies in U.S. history.
  • Legacy: The Shakers left a significant impact on American design, architecture, and agriculture, with their innovative tools and functional yet elegant furniture still highly regarded.

2. The Amana Colonies

  • Founded: 1855 in Iowa, but originally formed in Germany in the early 18th century as the Community of True Inspiration.
  • Overview: The Amana Colonies were founded by German immigrants seeking religious freedom and a communal way of life based on their beliefs. They practiced communal ownership of property, worked collectively in agriculture and manufacturing, and followed a strict, pious lifestyle centered around their faith.
  • Success: The Amana Colonies thrived economically, especially in agriculture and manufacturing. They created high-quality goods like woolens, furniture, and household products. Their cooperative economic model and communal way of life persisted until 1932.
  • Challenges: The Great Depression and the changing American economy led the Amana Colonies to transition to a more capitalist economic model in 1932, though the community continued to value cooperation.
  • Legacy: The Amana Colonies are now a popular tourist destination, preserving their unique cultural and historical heritage. The community successfully transitioned from a communal society to a corporation that still values cooperation.

3. The Hutterites

  • Founded: In the 16th century in Europe; migrated to the U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
  • Overview: The Hutterites are a religious Anabaptist group that practices strict communal living based on their interpretation of Christian teachings. They emphasize agricultural and industrial self-sufficiency, living in colonies of around 60 to 150 people.
  • Success: The Hutterites are one of the most enduring communal societies, with a high degree of economic success in farming and manufacturing. They use advanced agricultural techniques and cooperative labor to maintain prosperity.
  • Challenges: While the Hutterites have remained economically stable, they face challenges related to modernity and maintaining their traditional ways in a rapidly changing world. However, they have continued to thrive due to their adaptability.
  • Legacy: The Hutterites are still active today, with over 500 colonies in North America, mostly in the U.S. and Canada, making them one of the longest-lasting and most successful communal groups.

4. The Oneida Community

  • Founded: 1848 in Oneida, New York
  • Leader: John Humphrey Noyes
  • Overview: The Oneida Community was a religious communal society that practiced “complex marriage” (where all members were considered to be married to each other), communal child-rearing, and shared property. They emphasized the perfectionist idea that humans could achieve spiritual perfection in this life.
  • Success: The Oneida Community was economically successful, particularly through the production of silverware, animal traps, and other goods. They became well-known for their high-quality products.
  • Challenges: Internal conflicts over marriage practices and leadership, as well as external pressure from broader society, led to the dissolution of the communal living aspect in 1881. However, their economic ventures, especially in silverware manufacturing, continued.
  • Legacy: The Oneida silverware brand persisted well into the 20th century and remains a recognized name. The community’s experiment in social structures and cooperative labor has left a lasting mark on American utopian thought.

5. The Ephrata Cloister

  • Founded: 1732 in Pennsylvania
  • Leader: Johann Conrad Beissel
  • Overview: The Ephrata Cloister was a semi-monastic religious community that practiced communal living, celibacy, and strict asceticism. The members devoted themselves to prayer, music, and religious study, while also producing textiles, paper, and other goods.
  • Success: The Cloister was economically self-sufficient, producing high-quality paper, books, and textiles, and becoming a center for spiritual music and printing.
  • Challenges: Declining membership due to its celibate lifestyle led to the community’s decline in the late 18th century, but it survived in a reduced form until the mid-19th century.
  • Legacy: The Ephrata Cloister is now a preserved historical site, reflecting the early German-American religious communal experience and their contributions to early American culture.

6. Brook Farm

  • Founded: 1841 in West Roxbury, Massachusetts
  • Leader: George Ripley
  • Overview: Brook Farm was a transcendentalist community that sought to combine manual labor with intellectual pursuits. It was inspired by the ideas of transcendentalism and sought to create a balance between physical labor, intellectual development, and social equality.
  • Success: Brook Farm attracted prominent intellectuals like Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Margaret Fuller. It was known for its progressive education system and efforts to integrate intellectual and manual labor.
  • Challenges: Financial difficulties, a failed attempt to reorganize as a Fourierist phalanx (a type of utopian communal structure), and internal disagreements led to its collapse in 1847.
  • Legacy: Although short-lived, Brook Farm was influential in American literature and philosophy, and its ideals contributed to the broader social reform movements of the 19th century.

7. The Icarians

  • Founded: 1848 in Illinois, with origins in France led by Étienne Cabet.
  • Overview: The Icarians were inspired by Cabet’s utopian novel Voyage en Icarie, seeking to establish a communal society based on equality, shared property, and rationalism. They settled in Nauvoo, Illinois, and later in various locations like Iowa and California.
  • Success: The Icarians were relatively successful for several decades, with flourishing agricultural activities and communal enterprises. They emphasized education, secularism, and democratic decision-making.
  • Challenges: Internal divisions over governance and ideology, along with economic difficulties, led to the community’s fragmentation. The last Icarian settlement dissolved in 1898.
  • Legacy: The Icarian movement was one of the longest-lasting secular communal experiments in the U.S., emphasizing ideals of equality and cooperation.

Overall Assessment

While many of these communities eventually dissolved or transitioned to different organizational forms, their successes and longevity varied. The economic prosperity of groups like the Hutterites and the Amana Colonies, as well as the cultural impact of communities like the Shakers and Oneida, demonstrate that religious and secular communistic societies could thrive under the right conditions, leaving a profound influence on American social, economic, and cultural history.

4o

ChatGPT can

By “utopian socialism” did Marx and Engels have in mind the intentional communities in the US?

ChatGPT said:

When Marx and Engels referred to “utopian socialism,” they were not specifically targeting the intentional communities in the United States, though those communities were part of the broader phenomenon they critiqued. Instead, they had in mind a variety of early socialist thinkers and movements, primarily European, who advocated for socialism through idealistic, often non-revolutionary means. These figures included thinkers like:

  1. Charles Fourier – Known for proposing self-sustaining communities called “Phalansteries,” which would operate on cooperative principles.
  2. Henri de Saint-Simon – Emphasized the idea of a planned society led by industrialists and scientists, with a focus on improving the welfare of all.
  3. Robert Owen – A British industrialist who created model communities, such as New Lanark in Scotland and later attempted similar projects in the United States, like New Harmony in Indiana.

Marx and Engels critiqued these “utopian socialists” because they believed their approach was too idealistic and failed to address the material conditions and class struggles that, according to Marx and Engels, were the true engines of historical change. They saw the utopians as attempting to create socialism through moral persuasion and small-scale experiments, rather than through a mass movement rooted in the working class and economic realities.

The intentional communities in the U.S., like those inspired by Fourier and Owen, were certainly part of the trend of utopian socialism, and Marx and Engels were aware of them. However, their primary critique was directed at the theoretical and philosophical foundations of utopian socialism, which they felt lacked a scientific understanding of historical materialism and class dynamics. They contrasted “utopian socialism” with their own “scientific socialism,” which emphasized the role of class struggle and economic forces in achieving social change.

____________________________________

You said:

Didn’t the intentional communities in the US call rhemselves Owenite or Fourinite?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, many of the intentional communities in the United States did identify as Owenite or Fourierist (often called “Fourierite”). These communities were directly inspired by the ideas of Robert Owen and Charles Fourier, and they attempted to implement their visions of cooperative and egalitarian living. Here’s a bit more detail:

  1. Owenite Communities:
    • Followers of Robert Owen, called “Owenites,” sought to create communities based on cooperative labor, communal ownership, and egalitarian principles.
    • One of the most famous Owenite experiments in the U.S. was New Harmony, Indiana, which was founded by Owen himself in 1825. Although it eventually failed due to practical challenges, it was an influential early attempt at communal living.
    • Owen’s followers in America established various other small communities inspired by his ideas.
  2. Fourierist Communities (Fourierites):
    • Inspired by Charles Fourier, Fourierists in the United States sought to create self-sufficient, cooperative communities known as Phalanxes or Phalansteries, based on Fourier’s concept of harmonious living.
    • In the 1840s, several Fourierist communities were established in the U.S., including Brook Farm in Massachusetts (initially a Transcendentalist community that later adopted Fourierist ideas) and the North American Phalanx in New Jersey.
    • These communities sought to overcome the competitive and alienating aspects of capitalism through cooperative labor and shared resources, following Fourier’s detailed guidelines for social organization.

While these communities did not represent the entirety of utopian socialism, they were concrete manifestations of the ideals critiqued by Marx and Engels. The founders and members of these communities explicitly linked themselves to the ideas of Owen and Fourier, giving rise to the terms “Owenite” and “Fourierite.” This link illustrates why Marx and Engels associated such movements with “utopian socialism”—they were seen as idealistic experiments that did not address the underlying capitalist structure or advocate for a broader revolutionary change.

4o

ChatGPT ca

On Richard Wolff and worker-owned enterprises

Richard Wolff focuses on the issue of what is called, “exploitation.” This is the fact that, for example, a factory owner, or a CEO of some corporation receives an income many times greater than an employee. This greater income is due to receiving the “surplus value” or “profit” from an enterprise.

Wolff’s proposal is to legally convert private enterprises [I take it of some large size] into worker-owned enterprises on the model of the Mondragon enterprise in Spain.

Wolff is trying to satisfy a principle of equality in outcome.

I, in contradistinction, am not driven by any principle of an equality of outcome, but rather I am driven by a principle for an equality of opportunity. I want a universal right for access to subsistence, and I see this demand being satisfied by allowing everyone a right of free access to subsistence land.

Thus, I do not propose barring free enterprises, nor exploitation, nor surpluses, nor profits. In my arrangement, a private entrepreneur could actually be beneficial to those who cannot help themselves, i.e., those who cannot survive independently, but can do so by being directed.

And concerning those who can help themselves independently, the entrepreneur will have to lure them with a reward which is greater than that which they could eke out by their own efforts, or efforts of those who have combined in some co-operative manner. In other words, he will be compelled by the circumstances to minimize his profits. Thus, Wolff’s desire for eliminating “exploitation” in factories will tend to be achieved by my proposal.

In my thought experiment with Crusoe and Friday on an island, I imagined that they agreed to a division of the island into two equal parts, but that Crusoe possessed a rifle with bullets, and that the island had many feral pigs. Crusoe would let Friday use the gun on the condition that Friday share his kills with Crusoe.

Since this arrangement was better than what Friday could manage on his own without a rifle, he agreed to the deal. This is an example of an agreed to exchange where Crusoe is “exploiting” Friday. But this is not an example of capitalism because Friday is not forced to accept the deal at the cost of starvation (by not having free access subsistence land), because, after all, he still can hunt pigs with a spear, a bow, or some form of trap. It is simply that he can more easily shoot two pigs in a much shorter time than it would take to get even one pig by an alternative method.

We can generalize from this example to say that Crusoe will be “rewarded” if he can come up with some appealing invention or idea — including some form of entertainment. [As does Wilt Chamberlain in Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974)] But the reward will tend to be short-lived. For example, Friday could — hypothetically speaking — make his own rifle and bullets. And someone else can become more entertaining than Wilt Chamberlain.

In our current society, there are patent laws, which ensure a monopoly and profits. On the island, there are no patent laws.

_______________________________________

chatGPT summarizes:

This excerpt presents a comparison of two approaches to addressing economic inequality and exploitation: Richard Wolff’s proposal of worker cooperatives and the author’s own proposal based on providing a universal right to access subsistence land. The core difference here revolves around how exploitation is viewed and how it can be mitigated.

Richard Wolff’s Approach:

Wolff’s theory is rooted in Marxist economics, where the main issue is exploitation, specifically the extraction of “surplus value” or profits from workers by owners of capital. According to Wolff, in a capitalist system, factory owners, or CEOs, make profits by paying workers less than the value they produce, with this surplus being appropriated by the capitalist class. His solution is to transform enterprises into worker-owned cooperatives, where employees collectively own and manage the business, thereby eliminating exploitation by ensuring that workers share in the profits they generate.

The Author’s Proposal:

In contrast, the author rejects the idea of equalizing outcomes (such as eliminating profits or wealth inequality) and focuses on equality of opportunity. The author’s central proposal is based on granting universal access to subsistence land—meaning that everyone should have a right to access land that enables them to survive independently. This idea is meant to ensure that no one is left in a position of forced dependency, making it a guarantee of basic subsistence for all.

However, unlike Wolff, the author is not against private entrepreneurship or profit-making. The proposal suggests that entrepreneurs could still profit, but only if they offer rewards or incentives that are greater than what individuals could secure by their own efforts or in cooperative arrangements. This means entrepreneurs would be naturally compelled to minimize their profits to attract workers who could otherwise survive independently. In this sense, it aligns somewhat with Wolff’s desire to reduce exploitation, even though the approach is different.

The Crusoe and Friday Thought Experiment:

The author uses the Crusoe and Friday scenario to illustrate their idea. On a deserted island, Crusoe possesses a rifle and agrees to let Friday use it on the condition that Friday shares his kills. This is an example of exploitation, as Crusoe is extracting a portion of Friday’s labor, but the key difference from capitalist exploitation is that Friday is not forced into the arrangement—he has the option of hunting pigs without Crusoe’s help, albeit with more difficulty. The idea here is that exploitation does not necessarily imply coercion; it can be a voluntary exchange where both parties benefit.

This scenario also suggests that, in the absence of coercive laws (like patent law or monopolies), individuals could choose to improve their circumstances independently. For example, Friday could make his own rifle, or someone else could develop more appealing entertainment than Wilt Chamberlain, as referenced from Nozick’s thought experiment in Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

Key Differences in Perspective:

  1. Exploitation and Voluntary Exchange: The author argues that exploitation doesn’t always mean coercion or inequality of outcome. Instead, it can be a voluntary arrangement where both parties benefit, and the exploited party has an alternative means of survival. This contrasts with Wolff’s view, where exploitation is inherently tied to the unequal distribution of wealth and power.
  2. Equality of Outcome vs. Opportunity: Wolff is concerned with reducing inequality in outcomes (by redistributing profits and wealth to workers), while the author is more focused on ensuring equality of opportunity, particularly by guaranteeing access to basic resources, such as land. In the author’s view, if everyone has access to the means of subsistence, they are free to enter into voluntary economic exchanges without coercion.
  3. Private Entrepreneurship: The author is not opposed to the existence of private enterprises or profits, but believes that entrepreneurs will be forced to minimize their profits in order to compete with independent individuals or cooperatives who can survive without them. This is a kind of natural check on exploitative behavior, in contrast to Wolff’s call for legal and structural changes to eliminate private ownership of enterprises.
  4. Patent Law and Monopoly: The author points out that in the absence of patent laws, the natural competition would lead to innovation and reduce monopolies, making it harder for individuals or corporations to exploit others through exclusive control of intellectual property.

Conclusion:

The author’s proposal is a distinctive take on economic fairness, focused on providing universal access to subsistence rather than equality of outcome. By guaranteeing the basic right to land and survival, the author suggests that people would not be forced into exploitative labor conditions, and the need for coercive state intervention (e.g., worker cooperatives or redistribution) would be reduced. The emphasis is on freedom of opportunity and the idea that voluntary exchange (even if it involves exploitation in some cases) can still be fair if the parties involved have alternative ways to sustain themselve

The Right to be a Free Peasant = The Right to a Free Homestead

Recently I have discovered Distributism. This is a position defended by Hillaire Belloc in The Servile State, 1912, and by G.K Chesterton in The Outline of Sanity, 1926. And I have been listening and watching Laurie M. Johnson talking about Distributism.

Distributism is the recommendation that everyone should have a right to free subsistence land. [It abstracts from the problem of the type of government, which is addressed by anarchism.]

As I followed this discussion, three things struck me as being missed. The first, is that there were many writers who expressed the same view, but who are not known or ignored. The second is the myopic focus of the discussion to what is occurring in the United States and Great Britain. But the reality is that there are indigenous people and people without states who live off the land. Also there are all sorts of populations within states that live off the land in villages or homesteads. The third thing which is not taken account of is anthropology and the origin of the State.

(1) Here is some literature advocating a free access to subsistence land:

Thomas Spence, The Real Rights of Man, 1775.

William Ogilvie, The Right of Property in Land, 1781.

Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice, 1795-6.

Charles Hall, The Effects of Civilization on the People in European States, 1805.

Thomas Skidmore, The Rights of Man to Property, 1829,

William Thomas Thornton, A Plea for Peasant Proprietors, 1848.

John Stuart Mill, Socialism, 1879.

Anton Menger, The Right to the Whole Produce of Labour, 1899. [See: Critical remarks on Anton Menger’s approach to Socialism]

George Cadbury (and Tom Bryan), The Land and the Landless, 1908.

(2) People all over the world live in subsistence villages. Below is an example of life in an Eastern European village:

See also: We have everything but we have no money

(3) Concerning anthropology: Marshall Sahlins (1930-2021)

Concerning the State: Franz Oppenheimer, The State, 1914.

Let’s take a look at Distributism

Let me start with a confession. I have been prone to commit a genetic fallacy — namely, not to bother reading some writings simply because they were by self-proclaimed Catholic authors. One could also call this a prejudice. Well, I am going to correct this mistake.

Generally, it is a fallacy to dismiss a conclusion of an argument because the argument is fallacious. In other words, a person may be defending something which is true or sensible, but for bad reasons. Also, it would be some kind of fallacy of bad association to think that because a person is wrong about some subject X, that this person is also wrong about subject Y.

Specifically, I reject superstitions, including religions. So for me to ignore writers who proclaim an adherence to a religious faith, is narrow minded.

For a bird’s eye view of Distributism, let’s start with the Wikipedia entry: Distributism. [It is generally wise to start an investigation by looking at a Wikipedia entry. But it is foolish to stop there.]

I found the following video on G. K. Chesterton by Laurie M. Johnson helpful — though I would like to add some commentary later on. She is talking about the following book: G. K. Chesterton, THE OUTLINE OF SANITY, 1927.

Introduction to G.K. Chesterton and Distributism

This video introduces you briefly to GK Chesterton and then discusses his definitions of Capitalism, Socialism and Distributism. I point out that Aristotle’s views on property in The Politics may be the origin of distributist thought, and give some background information that may help understand why Chesterton defines Capitalism and Communism as he does. Chesterton criticizes Capitalism for really being “Proletarianism” or a system of wage dependency. He criticizes Socialism for being dangerous because it places all resources and decisions into the hands of the state. Both of them concentrate property into a few hands, whereas Distributism calls for spreading property ownership more evenly. Spain’s Mondragon corporation is used as an example of contemporary distributism at work.

More of her videos on Distributism can be found here: Laurie M. Johnson

Commentary:

In the above video, Laurie Johnson claims that Chesterton did not really mean that everyone should have 3 acres and a cow. Well, what he probably meant is that people should have a private plot sufficiently large for self-sufficient subsistence. But Laurie thinks that this today is unrealistic, and offers a worker-owned enterprise such as the Mondragon Corporation as an example of Distributionism. Well, this may be Laurie’s proposal, but it was not what Chesterton had in mind.

However, in the following video with her participants she is more reflective of what is involved in sustaining subsistence farming (as in India), and the problems involved in switching to a more agrarian form of life.

Disambiguation of “socialism”

Instead of a heading such as “types of socialism” as is found on Wikipedia, which assumes there is a common genus, a better heading would be “the different uses of the word socialism.” I think that for the non-reflective public, the word “socialism” — as also such words as “fascism” and “communism” — are just words of derision, as are the words “asshole” or “bastard” — and nothing more. So when a country or the government of a country is called “socialistic,” “communistic,” or “fascistic,” it is enough for the unreflective person to condemn the country or its government as evil. [In a previous blog “The Tyranny of Words” I posted the findings of Stuart Chase about the use of the word “fascism.”]

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.

Marshall Sahlins (1930-2021)

Marshall Sahlins, Stone Age Economics, 1972.

Chapter 1: The Original Affluent Society

If economics is the dismal science, the study of hunting and gathering economies must be its most advanced branch. Almost universally committed to the proposition that life was hard in the paleolithic, our textbooks compete to convey a sense of impending doom, leaving one to wonder not only how hunters managed to live, but whether, after all, this was living? The specter of starvation stalks the stalker through these pages. His technical incompetence is said to enjoin continuous work just to survive, affording him neither respite nor surplus, hence not even the “leisure” to “build culture.” Even so, for all his efforts, the hunter pulls the lowest grades in thermodynamics-less energy/capita/year than any other mode of production. And in treatises on economic development he is condemned to play the role of bad example: the so-called “subsistence economy.”

The traditional wisdom is always refractory. One is forced to oppose it polemically, to phrase the necessary revisions dialectically: in fact, this was, when you come to examine it, the original affluent society. Paradoxical, that phrasing leads to another useful and unexpected conclusion. By the common understanding, an affluent society is one in which all the people’s material wants are easily satisfied. To assert that the hunters are affluent is to deny then that the human condition is an ordained tragedy, with man the prisoner at hard labor of a perpetual disparity between his unlimited wants and his insufficient means.

For there are two possible courses to affluence. Wants may be “easily satisfied” either by producing much or desiring little. The familiar conception, the Galbraithean way, makes assumptions peculiarly appropriate to market economies: that man’s wants are great, not to say infinite, whereas his means are limited, although improvable: thus, the gap between means and ends can be narrowed by industrial productivity, at least to the point that “urgent goods” become plentiful. But there is also a Zen road to affluence, departing from premises somewhat different from our own: that human material wants are finite and few, and technical means unchanging but on the whole adequate. Adopting the Zen strategy, a people can enjoy an unparalleled material plenty-with a low standard of living.

That, I think, describes the hunters. And it helps explain some of their more curious economic behavior: their “prodigality” for example-the inclination to consume at once all stocks on hand, as if they had it made. Free from market obsessions of scarcity, hunters’ economic propensities may be more consistently predicated on abundance than our own. Destutt de Tracy, “fish-blooded bourgeois doctrinaire” though he might have been, at least compelled Marx’s agreement on the observation that “in poor nations the people are comfortable,” whereas in rich nations “they are generally poor.”

This is not to deny that a preagricultural economy operates under serious constraints, but only to insist, on the evidence from modern hunters and gatherers, that a successful accomodation is usually made. After taking up the evidence, I shall return in the end to the real difficulties of hunting-gathering economy, none of which are correctly specified in current formulas of paleolithic poverty.

…………………………..

Free Access to Subsistence Land = Socialism

If Socialism is to be viewed as the antithesis of Capitalism, then the following must serve as foundational axioms of each. Socialism is a political system which allows (i.e., gives a right to a) free access to subsistence land. Capitalism is a political system which does not allow (i.e., forbids) a free access to subsistence land.

Why is this important? Because human beings are animals, and all animals must eat to live. And all animals get their food from their environment, as do all foraging human beings and those who have learned to cultivate their source of food. But with the establishment of States and industrial production, humans have been driven into cities, which Desmond Morris, in the following video views as Human Zoos.

Whether such laws allowing or denying free access to subsistence land are enacted by a single individual (a monarch, a dictator, a president, a prime minister) or a group (a parliament, a congress, a council) is irrelevant.

How power is exercised (i.e., who grants or denies this right) is a different question from whether you are granted this right or not. And one answer to this question of power is given by the word “democracy.” But I distinguish Mass Democracy in which thousands and millions vote for some official (as is practically a universal political practice), from Micro Democracy where the units of government are about 150 voters. A federated Micro Democracy is the ideal of theoretical Anarchism (as expounded, for example, in Proudhon’s The principle of federation, 1863.)

Charles Hall: A Quintessential Socialist

Commentary on Charles Hall, “The Effects of Civilisation on the People in European States,” 1805.

Let me start by saying that socialism is concerned with providing people with food, shelter, clothing (i.e., their economic needs). It is not concerned with the way this is done. It seeks an end; and is silent about the means. Anarchism, by contrast, is focused on the means, which it proposed to be by democratic decisions by small communities. Combining anarchism with socialism, we get anarcho-socialism. And the model for anarcho-socialism are hunter/gatherer tribes. Their economy is based on a free access to land.

Charles Hall was a physician and his ultimate concern was with the physical and mental health of people. Writing in 1805, he did not challenge the existence of the State, and by this token he was not an anarchist. [Reminder: The French Revolution had occurred in 1789. Napoleon made himself emperor in 1804.]

While focusing on the health of people, he used the American Indians as examples of healthy people and a healthy society. [He was, thus, a precursor to Marshall Sahlins’ idea that hunter-gatherers had an “affluent society.”]
His diagnosis was that the main cause of suffering by the poor in England was due to lack of nurishment (malnutrition). So the main problem was the lack of food. This, he thought, could be solved by giving people free access to land.

He goes into detail about horticulture, giving prescriptions of how and what to grow.

He contrasted the demographics of England with that of the United States. Even though the fertility of both was substantially the same, the mortality rate of children was much higher in England than in the United States. The main difference was, he concluded, in nutrition.

He also noted that work in manufactures was unhealthy because of the conditions of work, such as exposure to noxious chemicals, and the type of bodily movements required in manufacture.

He made a distinction between crude and fine manufactures. Crude manufactures which aided the acquisition of food and diminishing necessary work were welcomed. On the other hand, he was against fine manufactures, i.e., the manufacture of luxuries.

Also too much time spent at work, did not allow time for leisurely activities, such as reading.

He was also quite aware that the State was the result of conquest. But he did not propose a change in government, he merely proposed that the State take particular measures to alleviate the condition of the poor, namely giving them access to free land. In this sense, he was a State-socialist.