الاشتراكية

الاشتراكيون الأوائل الآخرون

بدأ الاشتراكيون الآخرون في فرنسا في التحريض والتنظيم في ثلاثينيات وأربعينيات القرن التاسع عشر. وكان من بينهم لويس بلانك ولويس أوغست بلانكي وبيير جوزيف برودون. بلانك ، مؤلف كتاب "تنظيم العمل" (1839 ؛ منظمة العمل) ، روّج لخطة "ورش عمل اجتماعية" تمولها الدولة لكن يسيطر عليها العمال والتي ستضمن العمل للجميع وتؤدي تدريجياً إلى مجتمع اشتراكي. على النقيض من ذلك ، كان بلانكي ثوريًا أمضى أكثر من 33 عامًا في السجن بسبب أنشطته المتمردة. وجادل بأن الاشتراكية لا يمكن تحقيقها بدون الاستيلاء على سلطة الدولة ، ويجب أن يكون هذا الغزو من عمل مجموعة صغيرة من المتآمرين. بمجرد وصولهم إلى السلطة ، سيشكل الثوريون ديكتاتورية مؤقتة ستصادر ممتلكات الأغنياء وتقيم سيطرة الدولة على الصناعات الرئيسية.

في Qu'est-ce que la propriété؟ (1840 ؛ ما هي الملكية؟) ، أعلن برودون أن "الملكية هي سرقة!" لم يكن هذا التأكيد جريئًا تمامًا كما يبدو ، نظرًا لأن برودون لم يكن في ذهنه الملكية بشكل عام ولكن الممتلكات التي يعمل بها أي شخص آخر غير مالكها. على النقيض من المجتمع الذي يسيطر عليه الرأسماليون والملاك الغائبون ، كان المثل الأعلى لبرودون هو المجتمع الذي كان لكل فرد فيه مطالبة متساوية ، سواء بمفرده أو كجزء من تعاونية صغيرة ، بامتلاك واستخدام الأراضي والموارد الأخرى حسب الحاجة لكسب العيش. سيعمل مثل هذا المجتمع على أساس مبدأ التبادلية ، والذي بموجبه يتبادل الأفراد والجماعات المنتجات مع بعضهم البعض على أساس عقود مرضية للطرفين. كل هذا سيتم تحقيقه ، من الناحية المثالية ، دون تدخل من الدولة ،كان برودون فوضويًا اعتبر الدولة مؤسسة قسرية في الأساس. ومع ذلك ، لم تمنعه ​​أناركيته من حث نابليون الثالث على توفير الائتمان المصرفي المجاني للعمال لإنشاء تعاونيات متبادلة - وهو اقتراح رفض الإمبراطور اعتماده.

اشتراكية ماركسية

على الرغم من خيالهم وتفانيهم من أجل قضية العمال ، لم يلتق أي من الاشتراكيين الأوائل بالموافقة الكاملة من كارل ماركس ، الذي هو بلا شك أهم منظّر للاشتراكية. في الواقع ، كان ماركس وصديقه والمتعاون معه منذ فترة طويلة مسئولين إلى حد كبير عن إرفاق العلامة "اليوتوبية" ، التي كانوا ينوون أن ينتقصون منها ، إلى سانت سيمون ، فورييه ، وأوين ، الذين يتناقضون مع "صورهم الرائعة للمجتمع المستقبلي" لنهجهم "العلمي" تجاه الاشتراكية. لا يسير الطريق إلى الاشتراكية من خلال إنشاء مجتمعات نموذجية تضع أمثلة على التعاون المتناغم للعالم ، وفقًا لماركس وإنجلز ، ولكن من خلال صراع الطبقات الاجتماعية. "إن تاريخ كل المجتمعات الموجودة حتى الآن هو تاريخ الصراعات الطبقية ،أعلنوا في بيان الحزب الشيوعي. يظهر الفهم العلمي للتاريخ أن هذه النضالات ستتوج بانتصار الطبقة العاملة وتأسيس الاشتراكية.

According to Engels, the basic elements of Marx’s theory are to be found in German philosophy, French socialism, and British economics. Of these, German philosophy was surely the formative influence on Marx’s thinking. Born in Trier in the German Rhineland, Marx was a philosophy student at the University of Berlin when the idealism of G.W.F. Hegel dominated German philosophy. Hegel maintained that history is the story of the unfolding or realization of “spirit”—a process that requires struggle, agony, and the overcoming of obstacles to the attainment of self-knowledge. Just as individual persons cannot realize their potential—especially the potential for freedom—if they remain forever in a childish or adolescent condition, so spirit must develop throughout history in a dialectical fashion. That is, individuals and even nations are characters in a drama that proceeds through the clash of opposing ideas and interests to a greater self-awareness and appreciation of freedom. Slavery, for example, was long taken for granted as a natural and acceptable practice, but the slave’s struggle to be recognized as a person was bringing an end to slavery as master and slave came to recognize their common humanity—and thus to liberate themselves, and spirit, from a false sense of the master’s superiority.

Like Hegel, Marx understood history as the story of human labour and struggle. However, whereas for Hegel history was the story of spirit’s self-realization through human conflict, for Marx it was the story of struggles between classes over material or economic interests and resources. In place of Hegel’s philosophical idealism, in other words, Marx developed a materialist or economic theory of history. Before people can do anything else, he held, they must first produce what they need to survive, which is to say that they are subject to necessity. Freedom for Marx is largely a matter of overcoming necessity. Necessity compels people to labour so that they may survive, and only those who are free from this compulsion will be free to develop their talents and potential. This is why, throughout history, freedom has usually been restricted to members of the ruling class, who use their control of the land and other means of production to exploit the labour of the poor and subservient. The masters in slaveholding societies, the landowning aristocracy in feudal times, and the bourgeoisie who control the wealth in capitalist societies have all enjoyed various degrees of freedom, but they have done so at the expense of the slaves, serfs, and industrial workers, or proletarians, who have provided the necessary labour.

For Marx, capitalism is both a progressive force in history and an exploitative system that alienates capitalists and workers alike from their true humanity. It is progressive because it has made possible the industrial transformation of the world, thereby unleashing the productive power to free everyone from necessity. Yet it is exploitative in that capitalism condemns the proletarians, who own nothing but their labour power, to lives of grinding labour while enabling the capitalists to reap the profits. This is a volatile situation, according to Marx, and its inevitable result will be a war that will end all class divisions. Under the pressure of depressions, recessions, and competition for jobs, the workers will become conscious that they form a class, the proletariat, that is oppressed and exploited by their class enemy, the bourgeoisie. Armed with this awareness, they will overthrow the bourgeoisie in a series of spontaneous uprisings, seizing control of factories, mines, railroads, and other means of production, until they have gained control of the government and converted it into a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. Under socialism or communism—Marx and Engels drew no clear or consistent distinction between the two—government itself will eventually wither away as people gradually lose the selfish attitudes inculcated by private ownership of the means of production. Freed from necessity and exploitation, people will finally live in a true community that gives “each individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions.”

Marx maintained that the revolution by which socialism would be achieved was ordained by the logic of capitalism itself, as the capitalists’ competition for profits led them to create their own “grave diggers” in the proletariat. Even the role of the revolutionary, such as Marx, was confined to that of “midwife,” for revolutionaries could do no more than speed along the inevitable revolution and ease its birth pangs.

This, at least, was Marx’s more or less “official” doctrine. In his writings and political activities, however, he added several qualifications. He acknowledged, for example, that socialism might supplant capitalism peacefully in England, the United States, and other countries where the proletariat was gaining the franchise; he also said that it might be possible for a semifeudal country such as Russia to become socialist without first passing through capitalist industrialism. Moreover, Marx played an important part in the International Working Men’s Association, or First International, formed in 1864 by a group of labour leaders who were neither exclusively revolutionary nor even entirely committed to socialism. In short, Marx was not the inflexible economic determinist he is sometimes taken to be. But he was convinced that history was on the side of socialism and that the equal development of all people to be achieved under socialism would be the fulfillment of history.