УКРАЇНСЬКИЙ СОЦІОЛОГІЧНИЙ ІНСТИТУТ В ПРАЗІ
МИХАЙЛО ДРАГОМАНОВ
ВИБРАНІ ТВОРИ
ЗВІРКА ПОЛІТИЧНИХ ТВОРІВ З ПРИМІТКАМИ
під загальною редакцією
ПАВЛА БОГАЦЬКОГО
Том І
ПРАГА — НЮ ЙОРК
НАКЛАДОМ УКРАЇНСЬКИХ ПОСТУПОВИХ ТОВАРИСТВ В АМЕРИЦІ
1937
Andrew Chrucky
УКРАЇНСЬКИЙ СОЦІОЛОГІЧНИЙ ІНСТИТУТ В ПРАЗІ
МИХАЙЛО ДРАГОМАНОВ
ЗВІРКА ПОЛІТИЧНИХ ТВОРІВ З ПРИМІТКАМИ
під загальною редакцією
ПАВЛА БОГАЦЬКОГО
Том І
ПРАГА — НЮ ЙОРК
НАКЛАДОМ УКРАЇНСЬКИХ ПОСТУПОВИХ ТОВАРИСТВ В АМЕРИЦІ
1937
“Quest for the New Moral World: Robert Owen and the Owenites in Britain and America” is a comprehensive examination of the 19th-century social reformer Robert Owen and the movement he inspired, authored by historian J.F.C. Harrison.
Robert Owen, born in the late 18th century in the United Kingdom, was a pioneering advocate for radical societal reform. He championed the establishment of utopian, cooperative communities aimed at improving the human condition. One of his most notable endeavors was the New Lanark Mill in Scotland, which became a model for his progressive ideas on education and labor.
Harrison’s book delves into the origins and development of Owenism, exploring its philanthropic roots and the definition of socialism during that era. It discusses the concept of community, the economy of cooperation, and Owen’s vision for a rational system of society. The book also examines the transmission of Owenite ideas, including their millennial aspirations and educational reforms.
The work further investigates the practical implementation of Owen’s vision, such as the establishment of experimental communities in both Britain and America, and analyzes the anatomy of the Owenite movement, highlighting the roles of working-class cooperators and the inclusivity of the movement’s slogan, “All Classes of All Nations.”
In summary, Harrison’s “Quest for the New Moral World” provides an in-depth analysis of Robert Owen’s contributions to social reform and the impact of the Owenite movement on the pursuit of a more equitable society in the 19th century.
Sources
Is this conversation helpful so far?
Instead of the contrived Original Position, a more historically realistic situation is envisioned by John Stuart Mill. He imagines a group of colonists arriving at some uninhabited land.
Book II, Chapter 1. Principles of Political Economy:
In considering the institution of property as a question in social philosophy, we must leave out of consideration its actual origin in any of the existing nations of Europe. We may suppose a community unhampered by any previous possession; a body of colonists, occupying for the first time an uninhabited country; bringing nothing with them but what belonged to them in common, and having a clear field for the adoption of the institutions and polity which they judged most expedient; required, therefore, to choose whether they would conduct the work of production on the principle of individual property, or on some system of common ownership and collective agency.
If private property were adopted, we must presume that it would be accompanied by none of the initial inequalities and injustices which obstruct the beneficial operation of the principle in old societies. Every full grown man or woman, we must suppose, would be secured in the unfettered use and disposal of his or her bodily and mental faculties; and the instruments of production, the land and tools, would be divided fairly among them, so that all might start, in respect to outward appliances, on equal terms. It is possible also to conceive that in this original apportionment, compensation might be made for the injuries of nature, and the balance redressed by assigning to the less robust members of the community advantages in the distribution, sufficient to put them on a par with the rest. But the division, once made, would not again be interfered with; individuals would be left to their own exertions and to the ordinary chances, for making an advantageous use of what was assigned to them. If individual property, on the contrary, were excluded, the plan which must be adopted would be to hold the land and all instruments of production as the joint property of the community, and to carry on the operations of industry on the common account. The direction of the labour of the community would devolve upon a magistrate or magistrates, whom we may suppose elected by the suffrages of the community, and whom we must assume to be voluntarily obeyed by them. The division of the produce would in like manner be a public act. The principle might either be that of complete equality, or of apportionment to the necessities or deserts of individuals, in whatever manner might be conformable to the ideas of justice or policy prevailing in the community.
Examples of such associations, on a small scale, are the monastic orders, the Moravians, the followers of Rapp, and others: and from the hopes, which they hold out of relief from the miseries and iniquities of a state of much inequality of wealth, schemes for a larger application of the same idea have reappeared and become popular at all periods of active speculation on the first principles of society. In an age like the present [1848], when a general reconsideration of all first principles is felt to be inevitable, and when more than at any former period of history the suffering portions of the community have a voice in the discussion, it was impossible but that ideas of this nature should spread far and wide. The late revolutions in Europe have thrown up a great amount of speculation of this character, and an unusual share of attention has consequently been drawn to the various forms which these ideas have assumed: nor is this attention likely to diminish, but on the contrary, to increase more and more.
Anarchism and socialism seem to be a mixture of political and economic factors. If analyzed anarchism is mainly political, while socialism is mainly economic. expand
You’re right that anarchism and socialism are often seen as a blend of political and economic ideologies, but they differ in focus and their approach to societal organization.
Anarchism is primarily a political ideology, though it has significant economic implications as well. The core of anarchism is the rejection of hierarchical structures—especially the state, which anarchists see as inherently coercive and oppressive. Anarchists believe that authority should be dismantled in favor of self-managed, voluntary associations and direct democracy. Anarchism tends to focus on the political aspect of this transformation, advocating for the abolishment of institutions like the state, capitalism, and any centralized power. Economically, anarchists are often anti-capitalist and call for decentralized systems of production and distribution (such as mutual aid, worker cooperatives, and collective ownership), but the emphasis is usually on the means of organizing society in a way that eliminates coercive authority and power structures.
Socialism, on the other hand, is primarily an economic system that advocates for collective ownership of the means of production. Socialism seeks to address economic inequalities by redistributing wealth and ensuring that the economy serves the needs of everyone, rather than profit-driven motives. While socialism can exist in different political frameworks (democratic socialism, for example, or more authoritarian forms like Marxist-Leninist socialism), its central focus is on the economic organization of society—such as planning, public ownership, or workers’ control over industry. Socialists argue that by controlling the means of production, workers can eliminate the exploitative nature of capitalism and create a fairer, more equitable society.
Where the two overlap is in their common critique of capitalism and the belief in a world without inequality. However, anarchists generally reject the state as a means to achieve socialism, while socialists might see the state as a necessary tool to implement socialism (at least in the transition period). Anarchists argue that a “state” version of socialism could still be oppressive, while socialists often argue that a strong state is necessary to protect social gains and redistribute resources fairly.
In summary:
The two ideologies can, in theory, complement each other, but their key difference lies in how they view the role of the state in achieving their vision of a just society.
So “anarchistic socialism” is not a bad phrase
No, anarchistic socialism isn’t a bad phrase at all—it’s actually a meaningful and well-established term in political theory.
The phrase anarchistic socialism combines the core principles of anarchism and socialism into a coherent vision. It refers to a form of socialism that rejects the state as a means of implementing socialist economic principles. Anarchistic socialists (often just called anarchists or anarcho-socialists) believe in the abolition of both capitalism and the state, advocating for a society where resources and power are managed collectively by workers and communities, without the need for a central government or authoritarian structures.
Anarchistic socialism emphasizes both the political goal of decentralization and direct democracy (which anarchism focuses on) and the economic goal of collective ownership and equality (which socialism focuses on). In this vision, the economic system would be based on voluntary cooperation, mutual aid, and non-hierarchical forms of production and distribution, such as worker cooperatives or community-based resource management.
Anarchistic socialism can be seen as a direct rejection of state-centered forms of socialism, like those seen in some forms of Marxist-Leninist governance, where the state plays a central role in organizing the economy. Anarchists argue that even in a socialist state, the concentration of power in the hands of a government would inevitably lead to oppression and hierarchy, so they advocate for creating a stateless society with socialism at its heart.
Some well-known historical figures and movements associated with anarchistic socialism include:
So, while the phrase anarchistic socialism may sound contradictory at first glance (since anarchism rejects the state and socialism has historically involved state intervention), it reflects a specific ideological blend that advocates for both the abolition of hierarchical power structures and the creation of a more equitable, cooperative economy.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
______________________________________
List these Owenite communities
Here are some of the notable Owenite communities established in the 19th-century United States:
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.
_______________________________________
What about Rappists?
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.
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.
___________________________________
What other communistic societies were successful in the US?
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:
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
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:
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.
____________________________________
Didn’t the intentional communities in the US call rhemselves Owenite or Fourinite?
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:
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.