Utopian socialism is a theory and teaching that precedes scientific communism about a radical transformation and a fair structure of society on a socialist basis, not based on knowledge of the laws of social development and its driving forces.
Although the ideas of the great utopian socialists often represented a fantastic description of the future system, they were nevertheless generated by the conditions of the material life of society and reflected the aspirations of certain classes. The working masses and the working class, which had already been formed by that time, were interested in a radical restructuring of the emerging capitalist mode of production.
It is difficult to say exactly when and by whom the word “socialism” was first used. It is generally accepted that this happened in 1834, when the book “On Individualism and Socialism” by the French writer Pierre Leroux was published. At the same time, one of the “heroes” of this topic, Robert Owen, used this term.
The word socialism did not have a strictly defined meaning at that time. It denoted a very motley set of beliefs and hopes for the establishment of a just social order, in which the egoism and self-interest of the owning classes would be overcome on a basis that excluded inequality in the distribution of property and income.
This set of socialist theories is usually defined by the concept of “utopian”. The word utopia was first uttered by the author of the book of the same name, Thomas More, in the 16th century. He came up with this word, literally translated from Greek it means “a place that does not exist.” The word “utopian” characterizes ideas and ideas, the implementation of which is either impossible or extremely difficult.
What are the reasons for the emergence of these ideas and their popularity? Historians explain the birth of the socialist ideal by historical conditions.
Social utopias were important for the development of economic thought in the Western Middle Ages. Origin utopian ideas can be found among all nations in the legend of the past “golden age”,
which idealized the communal system and the social equality of people that prevailed in it. In Ancient Greece, thinkers debated social inequality and the “natural” state of society, the legendary egalitarian reforms of Sparta and Plato’s utopia of caste-slave communism.
The formation of the ideas of utopian socialism was greatly influenced by the teachings of early Christianity, which preached social human equality, brotherhood and consumer communism.
In the conditions of the classical Middle Ages, utopian ideas are reflected in heresies, in particular those in which the struggle of the masses against oppression takes the form of chiliasm. The chiliastic doctrine was developed in the 12th century by the Calabrian monk Joachim of Flora, who dreamed of a “millennial kingdom” of the future, ignorant of wars, poverty, slavery and private property.
In the late Middle Ages, social utopias turned out to be more numerous and presented in more detail. Many special works appear. The role of the mystical element is reduced; the authors paint a more realistic picture of the society of the future.
The socialist ideal arose in the 19th century, when capitalism was established in the economies of developed European countries. His first steps were accompanied by the destruction of the traditional foundations of life for many segments of the population (peasantry, small traders, nobility). A working class was born, whose position in those years was extremely difficult. The pursuit of profit excluded the very idea of the need for social support for the disadvantaged sections of the population. The socialist ideal arose as a reaction to the difficulties and deprivations of large masses of the European population, from the desire to create a society in which guarantees of well-being were provided to all. F. Engels wrote that early socialism became the predecessor of the proletariat that emerged later.
In my work I want to pay special attention to the English utopian socialist Thomas More, because... he is considered the founder of utopian theories.
Thomas More.
(1478-1535)
Biography.
The history of humanism in England constitutes the most striking page in the culture of the Renaissance. The new, humanistic worldview was an early form of bourgeois ideology, or, more precisely, the first form of bourgeois enlightenment. The central figure in the humanistic movement of England in the first third of the 16th century. was Thomas More, a follower of John Colet and a companion of Erasmus. Thomas More came from a wealthy family of hereditary citizens of London. By in my own words Mora, his family was “although not from a noble family, but an honorable one.” The whole life of his ancestors was closely connected with the life of the City of London. Young More received his initial education at St. Anthony's Grammar School, where he was taught to read and speak Latin. Then he studied for about two years at Oxford University, from where, at the behest of his father, More transferred to one of the law schools in London, successfully completed a course in legal sciences and became a lawyer. The young lawyer's extraordinary conscientiousness and humanity brought More great popularity among London townspeople. In 1504, under Henry VII, 26-year-old Thomas was elected to Parliament. But More's parliamentary career was short-lived. After his bold speech against the introduction of new taxes, under the threat of royal reprisals, he was forced to leave politics for a long time and return to judicial affairs.
More's life in London during the first decade of the 16th century. - this is a time of intense searching. While still a student, he became close to a circle of outstanding Oxford humanists - W. Grotian, T. Linacre and J. Colet. Erasmus was also closely associated with this circle, and became one of More’s closest and most beloved friends. Under the guidance of his friends, the Oxford humanists, More enthusiastically and persistently studied the works of the church fathers - Jerome and Augustine. Studying Greek language gave Thomas the opportunity to become acquainted with the works of great ancient philosophers, historians, and writers: Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Lucian. Reading ancient authors, together with his friends and mentors, I thought about the calling in life and the moral duty of a person to society, about how to reform Catholic Church, mired in vices and superstitions, how to make life less cruel, more reasonable and fair. That's what worried Mora and his friends. Humanists tried to find the answer to all these questions in the works of ancient philosophers, in the Gospel, on the basis of which, in their opinion, it was only possible to create a just society. This is what More, Erasmus and their friends, the Oxford humanists, thought. However, the strength of the humanists was not only in their deep knowledge of ancient languages and ancient authors, but in a clear understanding of the vices modern society and the state, in their intransigence to superstitions, the ignorance of falsely learned scholastics, the class arrogance of the propertied, in a sincere desire, through enlightenment and moral education of the people and rulers, to achieve a fair and reasonable reorganization of society. These are the best features of 16th century humanism. reflected in his "Utopia". The story of its creation is as follows.
The position of deputy sheriff of London brought More into even closer contact with the influential merchant circles of the City. In 1515, he was entrusted with the responsible mission of speaker from the City at the meeting of the Venetian ambassador. In May of the same year, at the suggestion of London merchants, More was included in the royal embassy to Flanders. The history of this embassy was subsequently described by More himself in the first book of Utopia.
More coped admirably with the mission of a merchant intermediary and diplomat. During the trip, Mora met the outstanding Dutch humanist Peter Aegidius. The latter was chief secretary and member of the Antwerp city hall. One of Erasmus's close friends, a brilliant expert ancient literature, Greek and Latin languages and law, the author of translations into Latin of Aesop's fables and a treatise on the sources of Justinian's Code, Aegidius was connected by ties of personal friendship with many humanists of Europe. A close friendship began between More and Aegidius, which was reflected in their correspondence, and most importantly, immortalized in Utopia.
Utopia.
At the same time, far from his homeland, More begins work on Utopia. As Erasmus testifies, “first at his leisure,” More “wrote the second book, and then ... added the first to it. More completed work on the book only upon returning to England. Thomas More’s Utopia was a direct reflection of the acute class contradictions of the time, caused by the agrarian revolution in England.
Since in Utopia the entire population is engaged in socially useful labor, there is an abundance of products necessary “for life and its conveniences,” and a fair principle of distribution of all material goods- according to needs.
More paid great attention to the organization of labor in a perfect society, specifically considering the problem of the length of the working day. The latter has always been important for small peasant farming. The problem of working time acquired particular beauty during the period of the emergence of capitalist manufacturing and farming. In the 16th century This is an equally important problem for the workshop industry. The masters sought to extend the working day as much as possible, forcing journeymen and apprentices to work from dawn to dusk. Manufacturing entrepreneurs (for example, in the cloth industry) increased working hours to 12-15 hours a day.
It is no coincidence that, touching on the situation of working people in England during the era of primitive accumulation of capital, T. More pointed to the unusually cruel exploitation of the people. Pestilence establishes a six-hour work day. The officials (syphogrants), who ensure that “no one sits idle,” also make sure that no one “works from early morning until late at night” and does not get tired “like beasts of burden.” Everyone is allowed to spend all their free time at their own discretion, and the majority prefer their leisure time to science.
So, designing a new organization of labor, considered as the duty of every citizen, More argued that such a system of labor service, as in Utopia, does not at all turn labor into a heavy burden, which it was for the workers of all of Europe at that time. On the contrary, More emphasized, the “authorities” in Utopia do not at all want to force citizens to unnecessary labor. Therefore, when there is no need for six hours of work, and in Utopi this happens quite often, the state itself reduces the “number of working hours.” The system of organizing labor as universal labor service pursues “only one goal: as far as social needs allow, to free all citizens from bodily slavery and to give them as much time as possible for spiritual freedom and enlightenment. For in this... lies the happiness of life.”
More solves the problem of hard and unpleasant work by using slavery or appealing to religion. For example, during public meals, all the dirtiest and most labor-intensive work is performed by slaves. Slaves are engaged in such types of labor as slaughtering and skinning livestock, repairing roads, cleaning ditches, cutting down trees, transporting firewood, etc. But along with them, “slave labor” is also carried out by some free citizens of Utopia, who do this by virtue of their religious beliefs. In his theories, T. More proceeded from the level of development of the production forces and traditions of his era.
This partly explains the deliberate modesty and unpretentiousness of the Utopians in meeting their everyday needs. At the same time, emphasizing the simplicity and modesty of the life of the Utopians, More expressed a conscious protest against social inequality in his contemporary society, where the poverty of the majority coexisted with the luxury of the exploiters. More's theory is close to the ideas of primitive egalitarian communism of the Middle Ages. More has the burden of medieval traditions of Christian preaching about the need for self-restraint, respect for poverty and asceticism behind him. However, the main explanation of the problem lies in a peculiar humanistic attitude towards work. For humanists of the XV-XVI centuries. labor to provide a means of subsistence is “bodily slavery,” to which they contrasted spiritual, intellectual activity, worthy of filling a person’s leisure time (otium). Not a single humanist, including More, with all his respect for ordinary working people, will find labor, we will not find an apology for labor as such.
A humanist considers only mental work worthy of a person, to which one should devote one’s leisure time. It was in this that humanists, in particular More, saw the meaning of the very concept of “leisure”, which in “Utopia” and in his correspondence with friends he in every possible way contrasts with bodily slavery - negotium. In this historical uniqueness of the understanding of physical labor by humanists as a bodily burden, overcoming which only a person gains true freedom for spiritual activity aimed at improving his mental and moral nature, we find an explanation of many aspects of the utopian ideal of T. More, in particular voluntary asceticism, ability be content with the bare necessities in order to have as much time as possible to engage in the “noble sciences.” This is the only way More understands real leisure, which is so valued by his Utopians, who prefer to have one simple dress for two years, but then enjoy leisure time filled with sciences and other spiritual pleasures. As a real thinker, More understands that in a society where a person must work for his daily bread, leisure for spiritual activity must be paid for by someone else's labor, and this is unfair. Creating a project for a communist society in Utopia, More prefers universal labor service and a modest, but provided with all necessary life on the basis of equality, rather than the implementation of elite leisure for selected members of society.
Economy and division of labor.
The main economic unit of Utopia is the family. Upon closer examination, however, it turns out that the family of the Utopians is unusual and is formed not only according to the principle of kinship. The main feature of a Utopian family is its professional affiliation with a particular type of craft. “For the most part,” writes More, “everyone is taught the craft of their elders. For this is what they are most often drawn to by nature. If someone is attracted to another occupation, then he is accepted by another household, the craft of which he would like to learn.”
T. More repeatedly emphasizes that relations in the family are strictly patriarchal, “the eldest is at the head of the household. Everyone is engaged in crafts - both men and women. However, women have easier occupations, they usually process wool and flax. Involvement of women in social production on an equal basis with men, this is undoubtedly a very progressive fact, since it is here that the foundations of equality between the sexes are laid, which, despite the patriarchal nature of the family structure, is still evident in Utopia.
Patriarchal relations in the family, as well as its pronounced professional attribute, allow the historian to discern the real prototype of the Utopian family community - the idealized craft community of the Middle Ages. We say “idealized”, meaning that by the beginning of the 16th century, when More wrote, the guild organization was undergoing a very significant evolution. The crisis of the guild system at the birth of capitalist manufacture led to a sharp aggravation of intra-guild relations - between the master, on the one hand, and the journeyman and apprentice, on the other. At the end of the Middle Ages the workshop
the organization acquired an increasingly closed character so that the guilds could withstand the competition of growing capitalist manufacture. The position of apprentices and journeymen was increasingly approaching that of hired workers.
Creating his economic ideal of a family craft community, Thomas More, naturally, was forced to build on the contemporary dominant form of organization of urban craft. The author of Utopia certainly idealized the craft organization of the Middle Ages with its system of division of labor and specialization, as well as the features of a family-patriarchal community. In this, T. More reflected the moods and aspirations of urban artisans, for whom difficult times had come due to the disintegration of the guild craft system and sharp social stratification within the guilds. The question arises: why did T. More give preference to the guild organization of craft, which was already half obsolete at that time, over capitalist manufacture, to which the future undoubtedly belonged? The answer, in our opinion, should be sought in the specifics of T. More's worldview as a humanist and the founder of the utopian movement.
The main production unit in Utopian agriculture is a large community of at least 40 people - men and women, and two more assigned slaves. At the head of such a rural “family” are the “venerable in years” manager and manager.
Thus, the family-patriarchal collective artificially created and maintained in Utopia is, according to Mora, the most acceptable form of labor organization both in crafts and in agriculture. In contrast to the traditional order of things, when the city acted as an exploiter and competitor in relation to to the village district, More proceeds from the fact that in Utopia the city residents consider themselves in relation to the village district “more like holders than owners of these lands.”
The author of "Utopia" tried in his own way to overcome the historical opposition between city and countryside. T. More saw that agricultural labor in the conditions of England in the 16th century. and the agricultural technology of that time was a heavy burden for those who had been engaged in it all their lives. In an effort to ease the work of the farmer in his ideal society, T. More turns agriculture into a compulsory service for all citizens. T. More attaches almost no importance to technical progress to overcome the backwardness of the countryside and ease the work of the farmer. The problem of developing the productive forces of society on the basis of technical progress was clearly underestimated by him. And although the Utopians successfully used artificial breeding of chickens in special incubators, nevertheless, their agricultural technology in general was quite primitive. But even at a low level, the Utopians sow grain and raise livestock in much greater quantities than is required for their own consumption; they share the rest with their neighbors. T. More considered this order of things to be quite possible and reasonable in a state like Utopia, where there is no private property and where relations between the city and the rural district are based on mutual labor support. The farmers of Utopia “without any delay” receive everything they need for the countryside from the city. The solution to the problem of the opposition between city and countryside and the creation of an abundance of agricultural products is achieved not through the improvement of technology, but through a more equitable, from a utopian point of view, organization of labor.
The absence of private property allows T. More to build production relations in Utopia according to a new principle: on the basis of cooperation and mutual assistance of citizens free from exploitation - this is his greatest merit. Thomas More also poses the problem of overcoming the opposition between physical and mental labor. In addition to the fact that most Utopians devote all their leisure time to the sciences, those who wish to devote themselves entirely to science receive full praise and support and praise from the entire society as persons who benefit the state. People who have demonstrated aptitude for science are freed from everyday work “for the thorough pursuit of science.” If a citizen does not live up to the expectations placed on him, he is deprived of this privilege. Every citizen of Utopia has all the conditions for successful mastery of science and spiritual growth. The most important of these conditions is the absence of exploitation and the provision of everything necessary for the majority.
Slavery.
So, according to More, Utopia is a classless society consisting of a majority free from exploitation. However, while designing a just society, More turned out to be insufficiently consistent, allowing the existence of slaves in Utopia. Slaves on the island are a powerless category of the population, burdened with heavy labor duties. They are "chained" and "constantly" busy with work. The presence of slaves in Utopia appears to have been largely due to the low level of modern Moru production technology. The Utopians need slaves to save citizens from the most difficult and dirty labor. This undoubtedly revealed the weak side of More's utopian concept.
The existence of slaves in an ideal state clearly contradicts the principles of equality on the basis of which More designed the perfect social system of Utopia. However, the share of slaves in the social production of Utopia is insignificant, since the main producers are still full-fledged citizens. Slavery in Utopia has a specific character; In addition to the fact that it performs an economic function, it is a measure of punishment for crimes and a means of labor re-education. The main source of slavery in Utopia was a criminal offense committed by any of its citizens.
As for the external sources of slavery, this is either capture during the war, or (and most often) the ransom of foreigners sentenced to death in their homeland. Slavery - forced labor as a punishment replacing the death penalty - More contrasted with the brutal criminal legislation of the 16th century. More was a strong opponent of the death penalty for criminal offenses, because, in his opinion, nothing in the world can be compared in value to human life. Thus, slavery in Utopia should be viewed specifically historically, as a call to mitigate the widespread medieval Europe cruel system of criminal penalties and in this sense as a measure that was more humane for that time. The lot of slaves in Utopia was obviously much easier than the position of the majority of peasants and artisans oppressed by poverty and exploitation in Tudor England. Therefore, More apparently had every reason to assert that some “industrious” poor people from other people preferred to go into slavery to the Utopians voluntarily and that the Utopians themselves, accepting such people as slaves, treated them with respect and treated them gently, releasing them back to their homeland at their first request, and even rewarding them at the same time.
As a result, we can conclude that Thomas More, in his communist Utopia, made an important step forward from the ideas of community consumption to the idea of public ownership and the organization of the economic life of society as a single whole. From the ideal of a closed patriarchal community to the ideal of a large political entity in the form of a city or federation of cities, to the recognition of the most important role of state power in establishing the foundations of a reasonable social order.
Mor eloquently showed the misfortunes of the masses, the disastrous consequences for them of the exporation of the peasantry, the transformation of arable land into pastures, and the development of agricultural production. More was also history's first critic of capitalism. He showed concern for hired workers and considered private property the primary source of all evil. Marx referred to More as a critic of the agrarian revolution in England in the 16th century.
Robert Owen.
Robert Owen is considered the main representative of utopian socialism in England. Owen was born into a petty bourgeois family. From the age of ten he earned his own livelihood. By the age of twenty he was already a factory director. From 1800, Owen operated as part owner a large textile business in New Lanark, Scotland. Owen's activities in New Lanark brought him wide fame as a manufacturer-philanthropist. Owen introduced a relatively short working day for that time at the factory, 10.5 hours, created a nursery, kindergarten and a model school for children and workers, took a number of measures to improve the working and living conditions of workers. In 1815, Owen proposed a law that limited the working day for children and established compulsory schooling for working children. In 1817, Owen compiled a report to a parliamentary commission in which he put forward the idea of a labor commune as a means of combating unemployment. By 1820, Owen's social ideas had finally taken shape: he came to the conviction of the need for a radical restructuring of society on the basis of community of ownership, equality of rights and collective labor.
Owen's utopian ideas.
English utopian socialism has some features compared to French, since in England capitalism and the class struggle of the proletariat were more developed. R. Owen opposed all large private owners. He believed that the new social system could exist without capitalists, because “private property was and is the cause of countless crimes and disasters experienced by man,” it causes “incalculable harm to the lower, middle and upper classes.”
Owen imagined the future “rational” society as a free federation of small socialist self-governing communities of no more than 3 thousand people. The main occupation in the community is agriculture; but Owen was against the separation of industrial labor from agricultural labor (the community also organizes industrial production). With community of ownership and common labor there cannot be either exploitation or classes. Work is distributed among citizens according to needs. Believing, following the French materialists of the 18th century, that human character is a product of the social environment surrounding a person, Owen was convinced that a new person would be born in his new society. Proper upbringing and a healthy environment will teach him to feel and think rationally, and eradicate selfish habits in him. Courts, prisons, punishments will no longer be needed.
Owen was convinced that it was enough to found one community, and its advantages would inevitably give rise to the desire to organize others. In an effort to show the practical feasibility and advantages of labor communes, Owen went to the USA in 1824 to organize an experimental colony there on the basis of community ownership. However, all of Owen's experiences in the United States served only as proof of the utopian nature of his plans. After a series of failures, Owen returned to England, where he took an active part in the co-operative and trade union movements.
Simultaneously with the reorganization of circulation, Owen promoted a broadly conceived utopian reorganization of production, also as an event for a peaceful transition to a socialist system. Owen assumed that professional organizations of workers could take control of the relevant industries and organize production in them on a cooperative basis, without resorting to any violent measures. In 1834, the “Great National United Union of Industries” was organized, which set itself the task of implementing this Owen plan. Capitalist reality dashed Owen's utopian hopes. A series of organized lockouts by entrepreneurs, as well as unsuccessful strikes and harsh court sentences led to the liquidation of the “Great Alliance” in the same 1834.
Owen's labor theory of value.
Owen was an opponent of the class struggle and approached the powers that be with plans for the reconstruction of society. In developing projects for the future social system, Owen was very scrupulous. He carefully thought through what food rations should be in the future society, how rooms should be distributed for married, single, etc. Of course, in such an elaborate setting there were elements of fantasy. But Robert put forward a number of practical proposals, initiated the adoption of factory legislation to limit the working day, prohibit the night work of women and children, and demanded that the state actively intervene in economic life in the interests of workers. The fantastic element is generally less expressed than in the teachings of Saint-Simon and Fourier.
In his works, R. Owen acted as a critic of capitalism, but unlike the French utopian socialists, he relied on classical bourgeois political economy, in particular on Ricardo’s labor theory of value. Owen agreed with Ricardo's position that the main source of value is labor. However, unlike Ricardo, Owen believed that in the existing society this important law does not apply, because if labor is the source of wealth, then it should belong to the working people. R. Owen noted that in his contemporary society the product of labor does not completely go to the worker, but is distributed among workers, capitalists and farmers, with workers receiving only an insignificant share. Owen considered such a distribution of products to be unfair and demanded a reorganization of society that would ensure that the producer received the full product of his labor. The merit of R. Owen is that he drew a socialist conclusion from Ricardo’s theory of labor value and tried, based on this theory, to prove the need for radical changes in society.
R. Owen and his followers argued that the value of goods is measured not by labor, but by money. Money distorts the true value of value, is not a natural, but an artificial measure, masks the true labor costs for the production of goods, and this creates a situation where some become rich, while others go bankrupt and beggar. “The interests of society, properly understood,” wrote Owen, “require that the man who produces values should receive a fair and fixed share of them. This can only be done by establishing an order in which the natural measure of value will be applied practically.” He considered labor to be such a natural measure, believing that production costs are the amount of labor contained in a product. The exchange of some objects for others must take place in accordance with the “costs of their production,” using a means that will represent their value, and, moreover, a “real and unchangeable” value. “The new standard,” wrote Owen, “will quickly eliminate poverty and ignorance from society ... will make it possible to gradually improve the conditions of existence of all social groups.”
One of Owen's merits in criticizing capitalism is that he pointed out the worsening conditions of workers in connection with driving machines. On this issue, he took the correct position, noting that the world is saturated with wealth with enormous opportunities for their further increase. However, poverty reigns everywhere. Since the introduction of machines worsens the situation of workers, R. Owen saw the cause of economic crises of overproduction in the underconsumption of the working masses, the fall in their wages, and the reduction in domestic demand for consumer goods.
Owen's important contribution was his criticism of the Malthusian “law of population.” Refuting Malthus's concept, Owen, with numbers in hand, argued that the growth of productive forces significantly exceeded population growth, and the cause of poverty is not a lack of food, but improper distribution. Owen wrote that “by proper management of manual labor, Great Britain and the countries dependent on it can provide the means of subsistence to an infinitely increasing population, and with greater profit.”
R. Owen brought his criticism of capitalism and bourgeois political economy to the recognition of the need to create a new social system in which there will be no poverty and unemployment. He called this system socialist, and considered its unit to be a cooperative community in which the population would be engaged in both agriculture and industrial work.
Although R. Owen played a huge role in the propaganda of communist ideas, his theory and practical activities were contradictory. After all, Owen objectively fought for the interests of the working class, but at the same time spoke on behalf of all humanity. He believed that material wealth was created by workers, but assigned them a passive role in transforming society. Owen denounced the bourgeois order and at the same time believed that the capitalists were not to blame for this, since they were poorly educated.
Saint-Simon Claude Andry de Rouvois.
One of the most prominent representatives of utopian socialism in France is Saint-Simon Claude Andry de Rouvois, an aristocrat by birth, a contemporary of the Great French Revolution. The most important of his works are “Letters from a Geneva resident to his contemporaries” (1802), “On the Industrial System” (1821), and New Christianity (1825).
Saint-Simon attached great importance to political economy. He pointed out that before Adam Smith this science was subordinated to politics. In the future, political economy will take its true place when politics is based on it. And from this position, Saint-Simon criticized Say, who considered political economy and economic policy as separate sciences.
Saint-Simon was attracted mainly by sociological problems. Nevertheless, when studying methodological issues in the history of human society, he also contributes to political economy. Saint-Simon viewed the history of society as a process in which one period is replaced by another, of a higher level. Saint-Simon contrasted the bourgeois idea of natural order with the idea of development.
At the early stage of the development of society, the main efforts of people were aimed at obtaining food. Then, when they have developed an interest in arts and crafts, slavery comes. The latter, according to Saint-Simon, during the period of its inception was “beneficent” for humanity and progressive in comparison with the previous society, since it created the conditions for the progress of the human mind.
Classification of social strata in the theory of Saint-Simon.
He considered the Middle Ages inevitable and progressive for his time, since people were freed from slavery. Feudalism, according to Saint-Simon, is characterized by two features: the despotism of the military class and the dominance of the clergy. Industry was then in an “infant state,” and war was the main means of enrichment and protection from attack. Therefore, the military had complete power, and the industrialists played a subordinate role.
However, in the depths of feudalism, Saint-Simon emphasized, elements of a new social system developed. The gradual rise of industry and the decline of feudalism were accompanied by the continuous growth of the political influence of the industrial class at the expense of the feudal class. Criticism of feudalism by scientists brought its death closer. At the same time, there was a struggle between real social forces - the rising class of industrialists entered into a struggle with the class of feudal lords. The result of this struggle was the French Revolution, the goal of which was to finally establish the industrial system. Saint-Simon believed that the revolution was not over. She put in power not industrialists and scientists, but an “intermediate class” consisting of officials, lawyers and military men of a non-noble family. Saint-Simon considered the only productive class to be the class of industrialists, to which he included entrepreneurs, scientists and workers.
The industrial class of the future.
The task of the period contemporary to Saint-Simon was, in his opinion, to create a party of industrialists, which, in alliance with the royal power, should establish a system that would meet the interests of the working majority. He considered the future system to be the result of his own progress and tried to justify the historical inevitability of his victory. Saint-Simon firmly believed in the movement of humanity towards a better future, towards a “golden age” that was ahead, and not behind, as many 18th century enlighteners thought, calling for a return to past orders.
Saint-Simon argued that "the only means for a radical change in the social order is to create a new political doctorate." He wanted to create a new social system, which he called industrialism, because he believed that large-scale industry should be its basis. They put forward many projects for the creation and development of large-scale production, plans for colossal structures. According to Saint-Simon, large-scale industry must be controlled from a single center in the mastaba of the entire society and work according to a specific plan.
According to Saint-Simon, production management should be carried out by industrialists, to whom he included everyone who is engaged in work useful to society. Scientists will develop plans for the production and distribution of products. An important role was assigned to industrial capitalists who have extensive experience in organization and management. He assumed that capitalists would remain with their capital, opposed the confiscation of private property, and expelled only landowners and moneylenders from the future society. Therefore, some scientists did not find anything socialist in his ideal. In reality, Saint-Simon advocated organized labor, not organized capitalism. He placed at the head of the system those capitalists who knew how to organize labor activity.
The central place in Saint-Simon's system is occupied by the principle of compulsory labor. “All people,” he wrote, “will work... everyone has the responsibility to constantly direct their energies for the benefit of humanity.”
The radical reorganization of society, according to Saint-Simon, should begin with partial reforms, the elimination of the hereditary nobility; purchase of land from landowners not engaged in agriculture; easing the situation of the peasantry, etc. After this preparatory work has been carried out, it will be possible to undertake a complete reorganization of the political system by removing the unproductive classes from power and transferring power to the industrialists. At the same time, the people should not take part in the reorganization and remain passive. Here the main features of utopian socialism are most clearly manifested: a negative attitude towards the movement of the masses, erroneous thoughts of solidarity between the interests of capitalists and workers.
After the death of Saint-Simon, his teaching was developed by scientists - O. Rodrigue, B. Aanfantin, S. Bazaar and others. The Saint-Simonists called their main work “Exposition of the Doctrine of Saint-Simon.” They went a step further than Saint-Simon by demanding the destruction of private property by abolishing the right of inheritance.
Charles Fourier
Another important French utopian socialist is Charles Fourier. He was a sales clerk, was unable to receive a solid education, and became a self-taught genius. His main works: “The Theory of Four Movements and Universal Destinies” (1808), “The Theory of World Unity (1838), “The New Industrial and Social World.”
Fourier's theory of passions.
The starting point of Fourier's teaching is his theory of passions. All human passions and attractions are divided into three groups:
· Material and sensory passions associated with the senses (taste, touch, hearing, smell)
· Attachments of the “attraction of the soul” (friendship, love, ambition)
· Supreme, distributive passions, the discovery of which he attributes to himself (innovation, competition, enthusiasm)
Fourier believed that man by nature has such qualities as the desire to work, ambition, etc. Man was created by God as a harmonious being and he has no other inclinations and passions. But the positive inclinations that a person is endowed with from birth can turn into negative ones. For example, ambition turns into self-interest - the pursuit of increasing wealth at the expense of other people. Instead of the desire to work, there is laziness, but not from birth, but as a result of abnormal social conditions. Fourier's goal was to change social conditions and make possible the harmonious development of all human abilities and inclinations.
In general, the interpretation of human nature is not consistently scientific. But the idea of harmonious development of a person’s inclinations and feelings had a progressive meaning.
Fourier also owes serious credit to the interpretation of the history of human society. He believed that to achieve harmony of human passions, it is not enough just to open the code social life, a certain level of production development is also necessary. Considering the main stages of the history of society, Fourier went much further than Saint-Simon.
Historical stages of human society.
Fourier divided the entire previous period of history into four stages: savagery, patriarchy, barbarism And civilization, and each major period into four stages: childhood, growth, decline, decrepitude.
Fourier characterized some stages in a very unique way. Thus, he identified patriarchy as a special stage; in fact, he classified the slave system and feudalism as barbarism. Giving such a classification, Fourier did not clearly distinguish the differences in the method of production of material goods and, even more so, in the nature of production relations. Therefore, it cannot be said that he distinguished between socio-economic formations. But his merit lies in the fact that he connected the stages in the development of society with the development of production. For example, the period of savagery, according to Fourier, is characterized by the fact that there was no industry yet, people did not produce products, but only collected what was available ready-made in nature. He associated patriarchy with the emergence of small industry, and civilization with the development of large-scale industry.
Large industry, according to Fourier, constitutes the basis for achieving harmony of human passions. Only in the era of civilization does the necessary level of production exist to ensure such harmony.
Another major contribution of Fourier is his criticism of capitalism. Here too he surpassed the achievements of Saint-Simon. The criticism of capitalism in his works turned out to be more profound.
Fourier wrote that the aggravation of social contradictions between rich and poor is fraught with revolution. But he was not a supporter of the revolution. He believed that the new system must be achieved through agitation. It is possible to move to a new social system by discovering the law on the basis of which society should live and develop.
Future social order.
Fourier considered agriculture to be the basis of the future social system. Industry was given a subordinate place. This is a big drawback of Fourier’s project, because the leading branch of socialist production is large-scale machine industry. Fourier's concept reveals elements of physiocratism, under whose frequent influence he was.
The future society, according to Fourier's plan, should break up into separate communities of 2000 people. Each community will work on a specific piece of land and determine what and how it will produce. Private property and capital are preserved in the community. Part of the product produced here will be divided among the capitalists. This situation will not cause harm, because capitalists will become workers, and workers will become capitalists. Thus, Fourier mistakenly assumed that without revolution, differences between classes would disappear. He assumed that competition would take place between people, which would increase productivity.
In the 30-40s, Fourier's teaching became quite widespread. The greatest propagandist of Fourierism was Victor Considerant. He called for an end to the struggle and called on the workers and bourgeoisie to follow a peaceful path to socialism. But the teaching soon fell apart.
Conclusion.
The great merit of utopian socialism is its fundamental criticism of the capitalist mode of production. The great utopian socialists were the first to point out that relationships are neither eternal nor natural. They made valuable contributions to economic science, viewing the development of human society as historical process, where one stage is replaced by another, higher than the previous one. Essentially, they raised the question of the transitory nature of the capitalist mode of production. This is their difference from representatives of bourgeois political economy, who considered it an eternal and natural form of production. Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owen pointed out the contradictions of capitalism, the poverty and misery of the working people, etc.
The general conclusion of utopian socialists from criticism of the capitalist mode of production is that this system cannot provide happiness for the vast majority of people and that capitalism must be replaced by a new social order.
Unlike the creators of previous utopian theories, the great utopian socialists in their plans were not limited to the demand for the reorganization of consumption and distribution, but raised the question of the reorganization of production itself. In the new society they do not have private property, and if it is retained somewhere, it does not play a special role. The utopian socialists proceeded from the fact that under the new social order there will be no exploitation, no opposition between mental and physical labor.
The teachings of the utopian socialists also reflected concern for the fate of the small producer, who was on the verge of ruin. The theories of the utopian socialists contain petty-bourgeois elements that are intertwined with the anticipation of the socialist ideal. The main features discussed are characteristic of most theorists of utopian socialism. But the views of its individual representatives differ, which is due to the historical situation, the level of development of capitalist relations and class struggle in the countries where they lived.
In general, even taking into account the fallacy of many conclusions and the failure of communist experiments, the great utopian socialists played an outstanding role in the development of social activities. Assessing their activities, F. Engels wrote that “theoretical socialism will never forget that it stands on the shoulders of Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owen - three thinkers who, despite all the fantasticness and all the utopianism of their teachings, belong to the greatest minds of all times and which brilliantly anticipated countless such truths, the correctness of which we are now proving scientifically.”
List of used literature.
1. The World History economic thought, vol. 1, 2., Moscow State University, Mysl Publishing House, M., 1988. 574 pp.
2. Utopian socialism, Publishing House of Political Literature, M., 1982. 511 pp.
3. Thomas More, Nauka Publishing House, M, 1974, 165 pp.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of receiving a consultation.
Evgeny Fineshin. 2013
1. Introduction
2. Political and legal ideas of European utopian socialism
XVI-XVII centuries
1. General characteristics
2. T. More. "Utopia"
3. Tommaso Campanella. "City of Sun"
3. Utopian socialism of the era of bourgeois revolutions and formation
capitalism (XVII-XVIII centuries)
1. Theories of utopian socialism in England in the 17th century.
2. Theories of utopian socialism in France in the 17th-18th centuries.
2.2. Morelli
2.3. Gabriel Bonneau de Mably
2.4. Jean Meslier
2.5. Gracchus Babeuf
4. Political and legal teachings of utopian socialism in Europe in
XIX century
1. General characteristics
2. Henri Claude de Rouvroy Saint-Simon
3. Charles Fourier
4. Robert Owen
5. Conclusion
6. List of sources
Introduction
The ideas of social reconstruction as a vision of a better, fair society exist in any society among classes whose position does not suit their representatives, but they reach a particularly significant number of adherents in times of economic troubles and crises. The origin of utopian ideas can be found among all peoples in the legend of the past “golden age,” which idealized the communal system and the social equality of people that prevailed in it. The socialist ideal arose as a reaction to the difficulties and deprivations of large masses of the European population, from the desire to create a society in which guarantees of well-being were provided to all. Although the ideas of the great utopian socialists often represented a fantastic description of the future system, nevertheless, they were generated by the conditions of the material life of society and reflected the aspirations of certain classes. The working masses and the working class were interested in a radical restructuring of the emerging capitalist mode of production.
The word “socialism” was first used in 1834, in the book “On Individualism and Socialism” by the French writer Pierre Leroux. Then it denoted a set of beliefs and hopes for the establishment of a fair social order in which the egoism and self-interest of the owning classes would be overcome on a basis that excluded inequality in the distribution of property and income. This set of socialist theories is usually defined by the concept of “utopian”, which characterize ideas and ideas, the implementation of which is either impossible or extremely difficult. Even in ancient times, individual representatives of advanced socio-political thought tried to look into the society of the future, based on the principles of equality. However, the first socialist teachings appeared in the era of primitive accumulation of capital. They were closely connected with the movement of the oppressed masses for their social liberation. Utopian socialism is the ideological basis of these movements. There are certain signs that allow one or another doctrine to be classified as a socialist utopia. Among these features, one can highlight the presence of the idea of eliminating exploitation, achieving not only political but also social equality, the universal obligation of work, purposeful education, public ownership, etc. Similar ideas can already be found in the works of the Greek thinker Thaleus of Chalcedon, information about which is given by Aristotle in his “Politics”: according to the teachings of Phaleus, all landed property should be equal; there should be equal education for all citizens; artisans must be state slaves.
Utopian socialism is the doctrine that preceded Marxism about the possibility of transforming society on socialist principles, about its just structure. The main role in the development and introduction into society of ideas about building socialist relations in a non-violent manner, only through the power of propaganda and example, was played by the intelligentsia and layers close to it. The first ideas about a more just society most likely arose at the stage of dividing society into classes and the emergence of property inequality. Traces of similar views are found in the study of both folklore and mythology of the peoples of Asia, Europe and North Africa. In Ancient Greece and Rome, the beginnings of the ideas of utopian socialism appeared in the dream, dating back to Hesiod, of the return of the past “golden age”, when happy people did not know inequality, property and exploitation. The topic of achieving a just political system was one of the most discussed by Greek philosophers who were looking for a solution to the problem of wealth inequality and the “natural state” of society in which it existed in pre-class times. It should also be noted the role of equalizing reforms in Sparta, as well as Plato’s model of slave-owning “communism”, which condemned private property (“State”). A significant contribution to the development of the doctrine of utopian socialism was made by the egalitarian social ideology of early Christianity, which brought to society the preaching of brotherhood, universal equality and consumer communism. The impact of these ideas remained strong until the 19th century, when they formed the basis of the theory of Christian socialism.
Utopia is, of course, something more than “a place that does not exist.” Utopia is a dream, a desire to change the world. The power of utopia lies in its transformative potential. An ideal and seemingly unrealistic construction, utopia sets the vector of development. It expands the boundaries of the conceivable and, accordingly, the boundaries of the possible. This ability of utopia to change reality, bringing it closer to its ideas about a perfect society, was confirmed by the teachings of the utopian socialists - who laid the foundation for the transformation of the early European capitalist system into a modern one, providing social guarantees to every citizen.
All of the above indicates that today it remains relevant to continue the study of the theories of utopian socialism. The purpose of this work is to trace the development and characteristics of the ideas of utopian socialism in Europe at various historical stages.
Political and legal ideas of European utopian socialism of the 16th-17th centuries.
General characteristics.
The development of issues of power, state and law acquires a special, anti-bourgeois meaning within the framework of such a social movement as socialism. It was in the XVI–XVII centuries. he began to occupy an independent and quite noticeable place in the mental life of European society. Socialist thinkers turn to the problems of state, law, and power in search of an answer to the question of what should be the political and legal institutions that can adequately implement a system based on the community of property, ending private property, material inequality between people, and the former tyrannical forms of government. The revival of the ancient heritage has increased interest in Plato's book "The Republic". The development of Plato's ideas about the community of property led to the appearance of works that laid the foundations of modern communism. A significant innovation of such theories was the speculative extension of the community of property to all citizens (and not just philosophers and warriors, as in Plato), as well as the justification of democratic institutions in states based on public property.
Within this movement, which expressed the eternal aspirations of the lower classes for social justice, very different views and ideas developed and circulated. These ideological formations differ from each other not only because the projects they defend for organizing the public power of the future are different. The principle contained in them is also different, in accordance with which it should be created and function. new world order. In some cases, rationality comes to the forefront and is recognized as such a principle, in other cases - freedom, in others - equality, etc. d. Such projects reflect very different socio-historical experiences. The same must be said about the methodology of designing a system of political and legal institutions by socialists, suitable - from their point of view - for the future society. There are important differences in the manner, techniques, and style of presentation of the political and legal ideals that appear among these thinkers. The most prominent socialist writers in the period under review were Thomas More (1478–1535) and Tommaso Campanella (1568–1639). T. Mop is the author of the epoch-making work “Utopia” (1516). T. Campanella created the world famous "City of the Sun" (1602, first publication - 1623).
Essays of this profile usually begin with a sharp criticism of the social and state-legal orders of the modern civilization of the authors. The pages of such works are permeated by hatred of the social order, political and legal institutions generated by private property and protecting it. It is seen as the root of all social evils. She is blamed for the poverty of the masses, crime, all sorts of injustices, etc. More argues in Utopia that as long as private property exists, there is no chance of recovery of the social organism. Moreover: “Where there is private property, the correct and successful course of public affairs is hardly possible.” Humanity has only one way out - “the complete destruction of private property.”
T. Mohr. Utopia.
T. More was influenced by the humanistic ideas of the Renaissance, adopted Plato’s critical attitude towards private property, and adhered to the ideals of early Christians about universal compulsory labor. Utopia is a term coined by More. The play on Greek words in Latin transcription allows two translations: “non-existent country” or “blessed country”.
Society, according to T. More, is the result of a conspiracy of the rich. The state is their simple instrument. They use it to oppress the people, to protect their selfish material interests. By force, cunning and deceit, the rich subjugate the poor people and dispossess them. This is also done with the help of laws and government regulations that are imposed on the people on behalf of the state. In reproach to the real society of that time, T. More draws an imaginary country (Utopia), which managed to get rid of private property and its attendant vices and which, as a result, was able to live an almost problem-free, blissful life. There is no private property in Utopia. The land there is public property. The company also owns all the products produced in it. It is produced in the family. Each family is engaged in a certain craft. The family-craft organization constitutes the production structure of Utopian society. Agricultural work is carried out on the basis of labor service, which all citizens are required to serve. The working day lasts 6 hours. Special officials monitor how the Utopians work.
Utopia is a kind of unification of 54 cities. The Utopian Senate (three representatives from each city) discusses the general affairs of the island - redistribution of products, labor, reception of foreign embassies, etc. The structure and management of each city are the same. Officials in Utopia are elected. The most important affairs of the city are decided by the people's assemblies; They also elect most of the officials and hear their reports. When describing the state institutions of Utopia, More largely followed ancient models (city-state, mixed republic, etc.). The authorities of Utopia exercise general management of the national economy and education. That is why officials are elected from among scientists; for the same reason, special institutions are created to coordinate production and consumption throughout the country (all-utopian senate). Utopia is a state-organized society. True, More does not clearly show what kind of utopian statehood it is: federal or unitary. The form of government favored by More can hardly be attributed to just one traditional form: democratic, oligarchic or monarchical. It is rather a kind of “mixed government”, which was supposed to incorporate the positive features of the traditional forms mentioned above. However, the entire social project is ambiguous in a number of respects, “mixed”.
Utopians live without knowing need; people in Utopia are prosperous. However, this wealth is achieved in a very specific way. Firstly, by forced labor of almost all men and women. Secondly (which is very important to note), the reduction of needs associated with the extreme undemandingness of the Utopians. The presence of the institution of slavery in Utopia seems paradoxical. In this ideal country there are (and most importantly, there should be) slaves, who are also required to wear shackles. For the author of “Utopia,” it was unthinkable that the joy of life of the Utopians would be overshadowed by the need to perform various unpleasant jobs: slaughtering livestock, removing sewage, etc.
However, the slavery discussed in Utopia is not at all the slavery that was known to the Ancient World - it is not lifelong and not hereditary. It is quite severe for criminals and more beneficial for the state than rushing to kill the guilty and immediately eliminate them. The work of these persons brings more benefit than their execution, and, on the other hand, their example scares others away for a longer time from committing such a shameful act." Prisoners of war, taken with weapons in their hands, also become slaves (although More had a negative attitude towards wars themselves ), and condemned criminals bought in other countries. Slaves are chained in gold chains (to instill public contempt for precious metals).
Generally, ideal state Mora is built on principles that are directly opposite to the principles of all existing European states: collective property; universal compulsory labor; ascetic lifestyle; centralized distribution of manufactured products.
With private property, according to More, neither justice nor social welfare is possible. In such conditions, everyone strives to appropriate everything they can. No matter how great public wealth is, it falls into the hands of a few; the lot of the rest is want. To establish a just order, the complete destruction of private property is necessary. In Utopia, only citizens engaged in other activities necessary for society are free from physical labor, and only as long as they bear duties recognized as generally useful.
More's reasoning about law in Utopia is new and original. Since there is no private property in Utopia, disputes between Utopians are rare and crimes are few; therefore, Utopians do not need extensive and complex legislation. “With the Utopians, everyone is a lawyer. After all... they have few laws, and, in addition, they recognize every law as more just, the simpler its interpretation.” More solves the problem of punishment in a very unique way for his time. Utopians who have committed a serious crime are turned into “slavery.” More's main idea is that forced labor is a more humane punishment than the death penalty, which was widespread in his time.
More expressed the thesis about the social determinacy of crime, according to which the commission of some crimes can be determined not only by the individual characteristics of the criminals, but also by the unjust structure of society: “No punishment is so strong as to deter those who have no other way from committing robbery. to find food for themselves." The dominance of public property, according to More, excludes those crimes with which a world built on private property abounds. It is she who feeds such bad human passions as greed, greed, the all-out desire to increase one’s wealth at any cost, selfishness, and so on. Crime as such still occurs in Utopia, and the fight against it, according to More, is one of the main concerns of the state.
T. More considered the main obstacle to the establishment of a new system to be the greed and pride of the rich. He relied on reason (rationalistic justification for the advantages of public property, universal equality and common labor) and chance (in More's work, the philosopher Utopus, who founded a new state and established its laws).
Until the French bourgeois revolution of the 18th century. history cannot note a single work equal to “Utopia” in significance. More can rightfully be recognized as one of the founders of utopian socialism. Political and social literature knows few works that have had such a lasting influence as More's Utopia. In this book, a number of provisions characteristic of utopian socialism were formulated for the first time.
T. Campanella "City of the Sun".
In describing the social system of the City of the Sun, Campanella largely follows Thomas More's Utopia. The city is located somewhere on an island near the equator. It was founded by a people who decided to “lead a philosophical community life.” There is no private property here, everyone works in accordance with their natural inclinations, work is honorable. Education and training are related to productive labor and are organized and regulated by the state.
Unlike More, Campanella in “City of the Sun” does not directly and openly castigate socio-economic and political-legal orders that are unacceptable to him. Their sharp criticism is given by the Italian socialist as if “behind the scenes”, in subtext. In the foreground he puts a panorama of the life of the city-state of solariums.
Campanella's thoughts about the best social order differ from More's views in that Campanella, like Plato, tried to extend the principle of community to marriage and family relations; Accordingly, the production unit in the City of the Sun is not a family, but a workshop or team. Most likely, the main argument for the need to abolish the family was the following: the usual forms of marriage and the entire existing way of family life should be abolished, first of all, due to the highest considerations for the state - its concern for the best offspring. Emphasizing in every possible way, following More, the honorability of labor, Campanella condemns slavery; Therefore, criminals in the City of the Sun are not sentenced to community service. At the same time, in the description of the order of the City of the Sun, barracks and asceticism, inspired by the ideas of Plato, were much more pronounced than in Utopia. The entire life of solariums (residents of the City of the Sun) is carefully regulated. They wear the same clothes, receive the same food (only in public canteens), and go out in military formation to work, eat, relax, and have fun. Campanella believed that in a society based on common property the state would remain. However, the state he described was different from everything that was known in the history of political thought and government institutions.
T. Campanella in “The City of the Sun” identifies three branches of government created in relation to three main types of activity and the “heads” of each of them. These types of activities include, firstly, military affairs; secondly, science; thirdly, reproduction of the population, providing it with food and clothing, as well as educating citizens. The branches (branches) of power are led by three rulers, named respectively: Power, Wisdom, Love. Three chiefs are directly subordinate to them, each of whom, in turn, controls three officials. The administrative pyramid is crowned by the supreme ruler - the Metaphysician, who surpasses all fellow citizens in scholarship, talents, experience, and skill. He is the head of both secular and spiritual power; he has the right of final decision on all issues and disputes. The Metaphysician does not remain in the post of supreme ruler for life, but only until a person appears among the solarians who surpasses him in knowledge, scientific success, and ability to govern the state. Once such a person appears, the Metaphysician himself is obliged to renounce power in his favor. The metaphysician exercises supreme power, relying on his three highest advisers, rulers: Power, Wisdom, Love. These four are the only magistrates who cannot be removed by the will of the people and whose relationships among themselves are not influenced by the people. The remaining chiefs and officials undergo an election procedure before being assigned to one or another official post.
As for the political system of the City, this question remains somewhat obscure for Campanella. “What is it: a republic, a monarchy or an aristocracy?” Most likely, the very formulation of the question of the best government in the form traditional for that time did not satisfy Campanella, who was close to the organic concept of human community (the power of the monarch is likened to that given by nature in relation to children).
In the City of the Sun there is law, justice, and punishment. The laws are few, short and clear. The text of the laws is carved on the pillars at the doors of the temple where justice is administered. Tanning salons argue with each other almost exclusively on matters of honor. The process is public, oral, fast. For incrimination, five witnesses are required (this is determined by the fact that tanning salons always walk and work in squads). Torture and judicial duels, characteristic of the feudal process, are not allowed. Punishments are given according to justice and according to the crime. Campanella condemned the immorality of politicians and tyrants who came up with the concept of “state necessity,” which boils down, as he wrote, to a rule beneficial only to them: “to maintain and acquire power, you can break any law.” Campanella wrote with bitterness: “Sovereigns honor Machiavelli for the Gospel.”
Campanella argued that the orders he depicted in the city of the sun are most consistent with natural law and human nature. According to natural law, everything is common. Division is a violation of natural law: “mine” and “yours” are words of lies. Private property and selfishness contradict the moral requirement of love for one's neighbor. Wealth and poverty, these main shortcomings of human societies, create all vices. Greed is the root of all evil. The communal system of the “City of the Sun,” eliminating all the vices caused by selfishness, replaces them with love for the community. Everyone passionately desires such an organization of the state, Campanella declares; everyone dreams of such an order as a “golden age.” If it has not yet been implemented anywhere, then the reason for this is the malicious intent of the sovereigns, subordinating the state to their arbitrariness. All nations suffer from three evils: tyranny, sophistry, hypocrisy, and the source of these evils is selfishness.
In the “City of the Sun”, where there is no longer private property, agriculture, crafts, etc. are the work of the joint labor of solariums, which are in charge of the rulers and their subordinate officials - specialists. What is collectively produced is distributed fairly, according to the standards of necessity. Whatever the tanning salons need "they get from the community, and officials are careful to see that no one gets more than he should." Not only providing each solarium with the required share of material benefits and taking care of its leisure, communication, and health are included in the responsibilities of officials of the “City of the Sun”. They also systematically train and educate community members and take care of their state of mind. T. Campanella assigns them a significant role in caring for the continuation of the family of solariums. The state intervenes (of course, in the interests of the common good) even in the work of poets, prescribing for them the forms in which they should clothe their inspiration.
This is not the place to examine the question of whether and to what extent “City of the Sun” had at least an indirect influence on the famous dystopias of the 20th century. - novel “We” by E.I. Zamyatin, “Brave New World” by O. Huxley and “1984” by J. Orwell. One way or another, even the most repulsive features for the modern reader, such as “scientifically organized” reproduction of offspring, cannot be compared with the current dehumanization of our planet, when before our eyes the right to life is trampled with impunity and global tyrannical encroachments are growing stronger.” the only superpower." On one side is an incorrigible dreamer, one of the last sons of the Renaissance, on the other are crazy technocrats, intoxicated by the feeling of their own power.
In general, early socialist doctrines contain two practically incompatible principles. A correct assessment of the intellectual, moral, etc. merits of a person as factors designed to determine his position in society is often intertwined with attitudes towards authoritarianism, asceticism, with neglect of the individual human personality, with indifference to the creation of appropriate organizational and legal conditions for it. free all-round development. Here is one of the most striking examples of this contradiction. Solariums participate in the political process, but they participate rather as extras, since their voice is not decisive, but in best case scenario only advisory. Essentially, all affairs in the state are carried out by the ruler-high priest (Metaphysician) and the three co-rulers who help him (Power, Love, Wisdom).
Another detail typical of the political and legal views of the socialists of the period under review. Rightly paying close and necessary attention to issues of legislation that should be established in a state-organized society based on community property and the principles of collectivism, they spoke extremely sparingly (if at all) about the rights and freedoms of the individual, about the legal relations between the citizen and the state, about the system reliable guarantees of such rights and freedoms, etc. This, by the way, is very characteristic of the views of subsequent generations of socialists. Raising the banner of the struggle for the interests of the disadvantaged working masses, representatives of early utopian socialism inevitably introduce into the image of the social ideal elements of the moods and aspirations of other social classes with which they are connected either by origin or other relations. On the other hand, the lower the social activity and consciousness of those masses on whose behalf the utopians speak, the more clearly the specific, group moods of people of intellectual labor are reflected in their utopias. This influence of group interests was clearly felt until the beginning of the 19th century. It becomes obsolete only in the era of developed industrial capitalism, in the era of the greatest nakedness of class contradictions.
Utopian socialism of the era of bourgeois revolutions and the formation of capitalism (XVII-XVIII centuries)
Theories of utopian socialism in England in the 17th century.
Next stage The development of utopian socialism unfolds in the conditions of preparation and conduct of bourgeois revolutions. The emergence and development of the ideas of utopian socialism is closely connected with the process of primitive accumulation of capital and with the forms of exploitation characteristic of early capitalism. The earliest consequences of capital's penetration into production, which were painful for the masses, were felt in England. A prominent representative of English utopian socialism was the leader of the Digger movement, Gerard Winstanley (1609 -1652), who published his main work, “The Law of Liberty,” in 1652. Winstanley continued and significantly updated the tradition coming from T. More. Based on an analysis of the contemporary socio-economic situation and events in the political life of England, he developed a draft constitution for a republic that would be based on relations of common, collective property (primarily common ownership of land). No one else came forward with this kind of project in the English revolution.
Winstanley interpreted the concept of natural law in an anti-bourgeois spirit. His interpretation of this concept reflected the thoughts of the proletarianizing masses of working people. He believed that people are equal by nature and have a natural right to the land, their labor is the original and only source of all wealth. Hence his conclusion: the existence of private ownership of land and the receipt of unearned income is a violation of natural law, which is the ultimate cause of all social disasters (including evils and injustices in the state-legal system). To get rid of them, it is not enough to change only the form of government, to improve political and legal institutions, norms, and procedures. The very building of the state must be erected on a fundamentally new foundation - on the “laws of general freedom.” The understanding of freedom that Winstanley proposed covers two points at once. Firstly, the actual possession and use by people of a set of rights that belong to them. Secondly, the real provision of people with the material wealth necessary for their normal existence. True freedom can take place where and insofar as the land is the common property of the people. The state in which such collective property is established will be invincible, the strongest in the world, because its citizens will be united by a genuine community of interests. Winstanley was a supporter of republican government, the election (not appointment) of all officials, the adoption of laws only with the consent and knowledge of the people, etc.
Yet the political ideal outlined in the “Law of Freedom” was not flawless. He was burdened by elements of the paternazi understanding of the state. According to Winstanley, the cell of the magistrate system should be the father of the family; even “parliament itself comes from the lowest office of the country, that is, from the power of the father in the family.” The “Law of Freedom” preserved the institution of slavery in the state of the future (as a punishment for some antisocial actions); the death penalty was provided for the purchase and sale of land and its fruits, for an attempt to turn worship into a profession, and religious preaching into a source of income. Winstanley hoped that existing social injustices would be eliminated by a peaceful movement of the poor that developed from below.
Theories of utopian socialism in France in the 17th-18th centuries.
In the stormy process of ideological ferment that preceded the French bourgeois revolution of the late 18th century, along with the currents that reflected the sentiments of various groups of the bourgeoisie, the communist movement also received significant development. French communism of the 18th century arose in that historical period when the proletariat had not yet formed as a class, when the entire historical movement was concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Theories that emerge under such social conditions are inevitably utopian in nature. Ideologically, they are adjacent to the traditions of utopias of the 16th-17th centuries. But, developing the positions put forward by More and Campanella, they at the same time rely on the dominant formulas and principles developed by the bourgeois thought of their time. The French bourgeoisie, in its struggle against the feudal-absolutist order, acted as a defender of national interests. The 18th century can be considered a new phase in the history of socialism. The old traditional forms of expression of communist ideas - the utopian novel, were very popular in the 18th century, but along with them a new form emerged - the communist theory of society, which had a significant influence on the further development of social thought.
In the process of discussing the problems of freedom, equality and property, some educators substantiated communist ideals. The 18th century in Europe far surpassed the two centuries that preceded it in the quantity and level of socialist literature of various kinds that appeared in this century. Among the works of a strictly theoretical nature, the most notable are the “Code of Nature, or the True Spirit of Its Laws” (1755), published in France, the author of which is considered Morelli, and the works of G. Mabley: “On the Rights and Duties of the Citizen”, “On legislation, or Principles of Laws”, etc. Both writers took the position of denying private property and everything connected with it and believed that the ideal system was based on the community of property.
Morelli's main work, “The Code of Nature,” is a major milestone in the history of socialist teachings. Among many other legal provisions, it also sets out “Laws on the form of government, which should prevent any tyranny” and “Laws on government”. The "Code of Nature" contains a theoretical justification for a system based on public property, and something like a draft constitution for a future society: "A model of legislation consistent with the intentions of nature." Morelli shared the ideas of the natural school of law and the ideas of the Enlightenment. The ideal system for Morelli is communism: a system that corresponds to “human nature” and which is based on the principle of universal compulsory labor and the principle of public ownership.
In Morelli’s political and legal concept, the influence of Plato’s ideas is noticeable, contained not only in the book “State” (criticism of private property, justification of the community of property and state leadership by social ideology), but also in the essay “Laws” (detailed regulation by laws of all aspects of the lives of citizens) . Morelli depicts the state of nature as a golden age, when people obeyed only the laws of nature, which prescribe the community of property and the universal obligation of labor. The society was ruled by the fathers of the families, who were in charge of organizing labor and education. Morelli wrote that the end of the state of nature (the rejection of the laws of nature) was brought about not by the agreement of the people, but by the process of accumulating errors, the main one of which was the “monstrous division of the works of nature.” At some point in history, Morelli reasoned, someone had once divided up the property. The establishment of private property distorted the passions of people and gave rise to greed. A "general plague - private interest - this debilitating disease of every society" arose. As a result, in order to subjugate people to order, it was necessary to issue a great many “cruel and bloody laws, against which nature never ceases to rebel.” While maintaining private property, Morelli reasoned, the concentration of wealth inevitably leads to the fact that democracy turns into aristocracy, aristocracy into monarchy, and that into tyranny; so it's completely pointless to search best shape boards; Until property and the private interests generated by it are destroyed, no political transformations will lead to a positive result.
In Morelli's discussion of political institutions and norms designed to guarantee the nation against the recurrence of tyranny, it is not difficult to detect silence regarding the system of elections. This silence is not accidental. It seems to the thinker that electability violates the principle of equality, since in a society of equals everyone is equally worthy of being elected. Here you can clearly see what strange conclusions the absolutization of one or another principle can lead to. In this particular case - the principle of equality. Morelli’s intention is clear to include the entire people in the process of exercising public power functions, to substantiate democracy as a “natural” state form, the only acceptable one for a society where “nothing will belong separately or be the property of anyone, except those things that each uses to satisfy his needs, for pleasure or for his daily work.” The unhindered and fearless use by everyone of what can satisfy his natural and, therefore, legitimate desires constitutes, according to Morelli, the true political freedom of man. But such freedom simply cannot exist if there are no appropriate public, government and legal mechanisms for its implementation. It is precisely these mechanisms that have bad luck in the Code of Nature. “Exemplary order, without confusion, without confusion” Morelli builds bypassing the principle of election, with the recognition of the occupation of a number of managerial posts (chiefs of tribes) for life. This is only one (and probably not the main) side of the problem. The other side is the almost total regulation of all spheres of social and personal life in a society that has managed to correct “the shortcomings of politics and morality in accordance with the laws of nature.” The intention to erect the building of the future exactly in accordance with these laws, according to purely rationalistic canons, is embodied in a mass of diverse and meticulous directives. The watchful eye of the state vigilantly monitors the “exemplary order” in the field of spiritual culture. “There will be no other moral philosophy except that which treats of a plan and a system of laws.”
Morelli sets out an understanding of freedom similar to the ideas of Winstanley: “The true political freedom of man consists in the unhindered and fearless enjoyment of everything that can satisfy his natural and, therefore, legitimate desires.” Such freedom is ensured only by the restoration of public property consistent with human nature. Therefore, the first “fundamental and sacred” law of the future society says: “In society, nothing will belong separately or be the property of anyone, except those things that he will actually use for his needs and pleasures or for his daily work.” “Basic and sacred” also include laws that define the right and duty of every citizen to work “according to his strengths, talents and age,” and the right to receive food and maintenance at the public expense. In addition to the “fundamental and sacred” laws, the “Code of Nature” contains distributive laws, or economic laws, land laws, general rules, luxury, the form of government, education, scientific pursuits, punishments, etc.
After the implementation of the Nature Code, the legislative function of the state will be exhausted. The main function of the state will be economic and organizational, which means: centralized distribution of work in society among its members in a certain proportion; supervision of the supply and distribution of manufactured products. To carry out the economic and organizational functions, the following must be created: 1) individual management bodies; 2) collegial governing bodies. Individual governing bodies are formed taking into account territorial characteristics. Morelli identifies the following administrative-territorial units: tribes, cities, provinces, nations. Each administrative-territorial unit has its own head, or chief. Collegial governing bodies are structured according to territorial and production characteristics. Collegial territorial governing bodies: each city has a senate; The Supreme Senate of the nation operates throughout the nation. Production-territorial collegial governing bodies: each city has a council. Consists of masters from various corporations; The Supreme Council of the Nation operates throughout the nation. Subordinate to the Supreme Senate of the nation.
Morelli is a supporter of nationally centralized production and distribution, strictly regulated by law and controlled by state power. The main task of the state is to protect laws, preventing the repetition of mistakes that once gave rise to the emergence of private property and the disasters associated with it. The state is organized as an instrument for implementing the laws of nature, that is, only as an executive and supervisory power. Peculiarity government structure is that all positions are filled “in turn” - the vacated position is occupied (for a year or for life) by one of those in the previous position whose turn has come (the father of the family becomes the head of the tribe, the head of the tribe becomes the head of the city, etc.). Morelli envisioned the preservation of criminal laws in the future society. The most serious crimes are murder, as well as an attempt “through intrigue or other means to destroy sacred laws in order to introduce cursed property.” The culprit is imprisoned “for life, as a violent madman and enemy of humanity, in a cave built in a cemetery.” Less serious crimes (disobedience to officials or parents, insult by word or action) should be punishable by imprisonment from one day to several years. Punishments include deprivation of the right to hold certain positions for a time or forever. Morelli saw the path to restoring the violated laws of nature in enlightenment. Like other educators of that time, he hoped for philosopher-rulers who could correct the mistakes of politics and morality.
Unlike Morelli, Gabriel Bonneau de Mably (1709-1785) refrained from a scrupulous description of the organization of all spheres of life in the communist society of the future. He paints a general picture of a utopian republic of equality, partially cured of the evils generated by inequality of wealth. Describing (following Morelli) a republic “where the first law would be the prohibition of owning property,” Mably notes that such a happy system of society could now be founded only on some deserted island by people free from the prejudices and ineradicable passions of Europe. Mably argued that community of property is ideal for humanity, but it is not feasible not only because of the “depravity” of people, but even more so because of the division of society into opposite classes and the lack of forces capable of “taking upon themselves to implement the communist ideal. famous for his book “On Legislation or the Principles of Laws” (1776), Mably rejected the ideas of community of property, but even more sharply than in previous works, he condemned the vices and disasters arising from private property. It inevitably gives rise to inequality of property, inevitably leading to. despotism, Mably argued: “As soon as wealth acquires some weight, the rich try to seize state power. Unbeknownst to itself, the state finds itself in the grip of despotism, and the stupidity of the people forever cements its enslavement." Mably concludes: it is best for the nation to be so poor that there would not be and could not be any rich people at all.
Mabli proceeds primarily from the fact that a fundamentally new social system is necessary to ensure happiness for the people and humanity. He places his trust primarily in peaceful political action and in laws as the means that can ensure such happiness. Mably advocates the adoption of a number of laws that are egalitarian in nature. Mably considered it impossible to eliminate private property, which gave rise to greed. But he proposed limiting private property by laws: “Arrange your laws so that I am content with a moderate fortune. Show me that wealth is useless.” To do this, Mably believed, it was necessary to prohibit trade, instead of cash contributions (taxes), require services from citizens, and cancel wills; split up fortunes between heirs, determine by law the limit of ownership of each citizen, introduce agrarian laws. Useless arts should not be allowed. According to the teachings of Mably, laws against luxury are very important. Detailed regulation by laws of economic and many everyday relations, artificial maintenance of poverty, eradication of luxury and the arts, total state supervision and strict punishments should, according to Mably, ensure universal equality of citizens while maintaining strictly limited private property.
The construction of political power. According to Mably, the people are the only creator of the political system, the original bearer of supreme power and its distributor, entrusting it in full or in shares to their officials. The people are free only when they are legislators and have the opportunity “through reasonable orders to force the government to serve only as an instrument and faithful executor of the laws.” The sovereignty belonging to the people finds institutional consolidation in the election by citizens (each time for a certain period) of deputies who form the highest legislative body of the country - the National Assembly. It forms the government, which acts as the executive authority at the center. At the local level, this power is represented by magistrates, also elected by the population. Institutions of the executive branch are accountable to the legislative branch (“general subordination connects all parts of society”). Without a doubt, G. Mabli considers a democratic republic the most suitable political shell for a society that has managed to “develop” into a communist system. The writer's sporadic nods towards monarchism cannot be taken seriously, because he deliberately deprives the monarch of truly significant powers of power, leaving him with mainly decorative and symbolic functions.
In France in the 18th century. theories of communal stateless communism arose and developed. One of them is set out in the work of the village priest Jean Meslier (1664-1729), which went down in history under the name “Testament”. Among the French communists of the 18th century. Jean Meslier is a highly peculiar figure. While for Mably or for Morelli socialism is a bright dream, the implementation of which is possible only in an uncertain future, if not completely impossible, for Meslier socialism is a matter of modernity, the struggle for socialism is a task of immediate activity. A modest rural priest, he is at the same time the most decisive and consistent atheist, for whom any religion is just a hypocritical fairy tale, invented by the higher ones to keep the lower ones in line, he is one of the earliest preachers of materialism in France in the 18th century.
In Meslier's concept there is no idea of a social contract that laid the foundation for society and the state. Since for common labor it is necessary to unite the efforts of the people and control them, it is impossible to assume the real existence of isolated, separate individuals, and thereby a “natural state” that preceded the social one. As for the modern state, it began not with a “general agreement”, but with deception, violence, coercion, with the help of which a whole colossus of tyrants, priests, nobles, and officials was loaded onto the backs of the working people. The Testament condemns private property. It breeds greed; hence the enrichment of the most powerful, cunning and dexterous, evil and unworthy, on the one hand, and the impoverishment of the masses, on the other. The condemnation of feudalism and the private property system in Meslier’s teaching is connected with the idea of popular revolution. Meslier imagined the future society in the most general terms. Residents of every village, city, town must form a community. They will “share the same or similar food, have equally good clothing, equally good housing, equally good lodging and equally good shoes; on the other hand, they must all be equally engaged in business, that is, labor or some other an honest and useful occupation." Mellier wrote briefly about the organization of management in the future society: “All this should happen not under the leadership of persons who want to tyrannically command others, but exclusively under the leadership of the wisest and most well-intentioned persons striving for the development and maintenance of the people’s well-being.”
One of the most remarkable figures among the socialists (communists) of the era European Enlightenment is Gracchus (real name Francois Noel) Babeuf (1760-1797). The totality of his views (babouvism), based on the ideas of Morelli and the Jacobins, can be considered the culmination of the development of socialist thought in revolutionary France at the end of the 18th century. Gracchus Babeuf - French theorist of communism, organizer of a secret society, leader of the “Conspiracy for Equality” (1796). The ideas of Morelli’s “Code of Nature”, taking into account the experience of the Jacobin dictatorship, the ideas of natural law were the basis political and legal views Babeuf and other participants in the conspiracy. Main works; "Permanent Cadastre", "Manifesto of the Plebeians".
Babeuf and his like-minded people wrote that the rich took possession of the state “and, in the role of masters, dictate tyrannical laws to the poor, shackled by poverty, humiliated by ignorance and deceived by religion.” The Babouwists criticized private property and legislation on property inheritance: “the institution of private property is a deception perpetrated on many simple and good people”; “property is the cause of all disasters on earth”; “The inheritance law is extremely unfair. It creates disadvantaged people from the second generation onwards.” Program for the transition to communism. The goal of the Babuvists: to establish de facto equality in society through the introduction of the institution of public property. This goal was justified by reference to natural law: “Nature has given everyone an equal right to enjoy all benefits.” The means for the transition to communism is a violent revolution, during which the people must: take possession of the state treasury, post office, government buildings, all public and private warehouses. In the Plebeian Manifesto, Babeuf planned to establish a republic in the future France.
The programmatic and political attitude of Babeuf - a fierce opponent of private property and everything connected with it - is the demand to “build a people’s state” in place of the previously existing anti-people statehood. He is confident that “people's government must and can ensure the prosperity and happiness of every person, the indestructible well-being of all members of society.” The path to such rule lies through a transition period. It begins with an uprising of the popular masses, prepared by a secret organization of revolutionaries. The rebels eliminate the former bodies of supreme power and take possession of all government institutions; the people are immediately provided with a number of economic and social benefits. The fullness of power during the transition period is entirely concentrated in the hands of the provisional revolutionary government - the National Assembly, proclaimed by the insurgent people and implementing the dictatorship of the plebeians. This Assembly includes among its members the most devoted to the revolution and wise people. At the end of the transition period, with the establishment of collectivist principles and social life - on the basis of the Constitution of 1793 - a unified republican form of government will emerge for the entire country. The French Constitution of 1793 is acceptable for the “people's state” because “the political rights of citizens are clearly stated in it and firmly guaranteed.” Babeuf has a positive assessment of democratic institutions. He, for example, attaches great importance to publicity. In the new political community, the rule will strictly apply: none of the rulers and the governed can “become richer or have more power than any of their fellows.”
At the same time, the Babouwists sharply condemned the provisions contained in the Jacobin Constitution on private property as a natural inalienable human right; Other clarifications were also prepared in the text of the Constitution, aimed at its democratization and harmonization with the principles of the communist system.
Babeuf and his supporters created a revolutionary organization that advocated a coup d'état and the establishment of a revolutionary dictatorship with the aim of establishing a communist society in France. In contrast to the communist projects of Plato, More and Morelli, the Babuvistists developed a new strategy for the transition to communism: the seizure of state power by a group of revolutionaries. Therefore, the Babouvists can be called the first active communists, and Babeuf is the leader of the party that first declared the interests of the working people.
Babeuf and his supporters built their attractive plans for achieving the “indestructible well-being of all” and “the happiness of every person” with a direct expectation of decisive and tough leadership from above, from the center (mainly by strong-willed, command methods) for all aspects of the life of the republic (economic, political, legal, cultural, everyday, etc.) with the strictest obedience of citizens to the laws, instructions of the supreme administration, with the obligatory participation of everyone in the events carried out by it. The recommendations to build “people's government” like an army were far from accidental. The choice of the army order as a prototype of the “people's state” results in the fact that the latter is conceived of as an extremely centralized organization with the primacy of the principle of unity of command, with comprehensive regulation of people’s behavior and normative distribution of goods, with unquestioning obedience to all orders of higher authorities, etc. “ "in the people's state" a person will be assigned - in accordance with his talent - to the skill (work) that he knows, and will be obliged to hand over what he has produced to a common warehouse. A great national community will support all its members in an equal and fair average standard of living, providing each with everything he needs. The movement of workers from one commune to another is carried out only by order of the supreme administration. Members of the national community receive public rations only in the district in which they live. In each commune, public meals are held at certain times, and attendance at them is obligatory for all members of the given commune. Persons who lack “civic feelings” are “sentenced by the supreme administration to forced labor.”
The theory of Babeuf and his associates was the most detailed concept of communism, based on state regulation of all aspects of public life. Production, consumption, education and training, social and personal life of citizens of the future society should, in their opinion, be totally regulated with the help of law and the state. Their ideas about the future system were largely prompted by the ideas of Mably and Morelli’s “Code of Nature”. The idea of the eternity of the state and law also stemmed from the exaggeration of the idea of equality. They carried hostility towards private property to the point of denying a number of achievements of culture and civilization, and the demand for material equality to the point of the sameness of people, the equalization of needs and talents.
For Babeuf, the essence of democracy, its emancipatory meaning in relation to workers, is the uncompromising destruction of the system of private property, the triumph of collectivism and egalitarianism. They will triumph, in his opinion, when, with the help of appropriate public institutions, everyone is forever deprived of the opportunity (and hope) “to become richer, more influential, superior in knowledge to any of their fellow citizens.” The intention to achieve such a goal is logically connected with the orientation of Babeuf and the Babouvists towards a fairly broad application of various repressive measures to the citizens of the “people's state”. Raising the sword of dictatorship and leveling in the name of liberating humanity from exploitation, poverty, the “war of all against all,” tyranny, etc., the Babouwists simultaneously take aim at human individuality, ignore the originality of every individual, his need for the unhindered realization of his normal aspirations. In their minds, this human individuality is a serious obstacle to democracy and is incompatible with it. Babeuf's ideas had a great influence on the development political ideology 19th century communism
Political and legal teachings of utopian socialism in Europe in the 19th century.
General provisions.
In the first decades of the 19th century, when liberals sought to strengthen, improve and glorify the bourgeois order (the system of capitalist private property, freedom of enterprise, competition, etc.), thinkers appeared in Western Europe who subjected these orders to impartial criticism and developed projects for society, which (in their opinion) will be able to get rid of exploitation and oppression and provide each individual with a decent existence.
Among the galaxy of utopians, the most important place is occupied by the French socialist utopians of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Henri Claude de Rouvroy Saint-Simon (1760-1825) and Charles Fourier (1772-1837) - and the English socialist utopian Robert Owen (1771-1858). These utopians devoted their entire lives, all their energy and material resources to the cause of liberating humanity from the shortcomings of human society. They dreamed of a just society, the ideal of which they looked for not in the past, but in the future. Such a society should be characterized by social harmony and common interests of all citizens, free creative work and equality in the use of their abilities. It was also assumed that industrial production and agriculture would develop on the basis of state planning. All members of society will definitely begin to work, and the benefits they create will be distributed according to their work. Exploitation of man by man will be eliminated in society.
To understand the social and theoretical meaning of these systems of views, one must take into account that they arose in the initial period of the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, at a stage when the conflict of these opposing classes had not yet reached a sufficiently high level of maturity. This (plus their own position in life) gave Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owen the illusion that they were above the antagonism of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and would benefit the entire society as a whole with their projects. Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen rejected any serious political and especially any revolutionary action. In the works they wrote, relatively little attention was paid to politics, state and law. The decisive fact is that these works are distinguished by an underestimation of the importance of state and legal institutions. Nevertheless, an analysis of the belief systems currently being characterized is urgently needed. It allows us to more fully reveal the specifics of very important phenomena in the spiritual life of Europe in the 19th century, which had a huge impact on the subsequent fate of social, political and legal thought. Paris became the historical center for the development and discussion of collectivist (socialist) and communist theories in the 20-40s of the 19th century. Semi-legal or secret societies were created here, communist newspapers, magazines and books were published, and meetings of supporters of socialism and communism were held. All socialists and communists condemned developing capitalism and sharply criticized its inherent vices. Projects of an ideal system were opposed to capitalism. Socialist and communist theories of the 19th century. contained new ideas that distinguished them from previous doctrines. Most socialists and communists attached great importance to the industrial revolution. The founders of scientific socialism characterized the ideological heritage of Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owen as “critical-utopian socialism”, as “proper socialist and communist systems”.
The views of Claude Henri de Rouvroy Saint-Simon (1760-1825) on the state and law were primarily determined by his concept of historical progress. He believed that human society naturally develops in an ascending line. Moving from one stage to another, it strives forward, towards its “golden age”. The theological stage, which covered the times of antiquity and feudalism, is replaced by a metaphysical stage (according to Saint-Simon, the period of the bourgeois world order). Following this, the positive stage will begin; a social system will be established that will make “the lives of the people who make up the majority of society the happiest, providing them with maximum means and opportunities to satisfy their most important needs.” If at the first stage the dominance in society belonged to priests and feudal lords, at the second - to lawyers and metaphysicians, then at the third it should pass to scientists and industrialists. However, historical progress is not, from the point of view of Saint-Simon, a smooth, monotonous process. Organic epochs of calm development are interspersed with turbulent critical epochs, which are accompanied by a disruption of the previous balance of social groups and a sharp intensification of the struggle of opposing social forces. But in general, for Saint-Simon the idea always remained the demiurge of history. The progress of knowledge and morality was invariably interpreted by him as the decisive engine of social development. " The big picture development of the human race, including Jewish monotheism, Greco-Roman polytheism and Christianity down to the present day, clearly reveals this law of progress.” “Man has exploited man until now. Masters, slaves; patricians, plebeians; lords, serfs; land owners, tenants; idlers, toilers - such is the progressive history of mankind up to the present time. The World Association is our future. To each according to his ability, to each ability according to his deeds - this is a new right that will replace the right of conquest and the right of birth; man will no longer exploit man; a person, in partnership with another person, will exploit the world given to him in power.”
The same factor (progress) creates the preconditions for the onset of a positive stage, at which humanity will be able to organize itself into a society “most beneficial to the greatest mass.” Saint-Simon proposed to begin the radical transformation of the old system with partial reforms: the elimination of the hereditary nobility, the purchase of lands from owners who are not involved in agriculture, alleviating the situation of the peasants, etc. After such gradually carried out work, it will be possible to undertake a major overhaul of the political system, i.e. e. remove the unproductive classes (feudal lords and the “middle class”: lawyers, military, rentier landowners) from power and transfer the leadership of politics into the hands of the most talented “industrialists”, representatives of the “industrial class”. Speaking about the need to transfer control of the state and the economy to highly talented individuals from among the “industrialists,” Saint-Simon meant by them “the most prominent industrialists,” and not at all “people from the people.” As for the people directly, they have no need to interfere in the matter of reorganizing society: “The task will be resolved in their interests, but they themselves remain on the sidelines, remaining passive.” It is not surprising that representatives of the working class of that time were repulsed by the ideas of hierarchy, anti-democracy and authoritarianism. They openly expressed doubts about the wisdom of such an order, in which the “chosen ones” determined the position in society of all other citizens.
The introduction of a system of industrialism at a positive stage of history will not require the destruction of traditional state and legal forms. The institution of the monarch will remain, the government (ministries) and representative institutions will remain. But the fullness of secular power will actually be concentrated in the newly created parliament - the Council of Industrialists. According to Saint-Simon, private property relations are quite compatible with the system of industrialism. However, industrialism will surpass the existing bourgeois system and transform the country into a single, centrally controlled industrial association.
Strict centralization and discipline will make it possible to use with maximum efficiency the labor obligatory for all for the benefit of the nation, and will protect society from useless waste of energy and material resources. The same factors will make ensuring freedom, guaranteeing personal rights, maintaining a fair order, etc., unnecessary as goals of a social organization. Therefore, under the system of industrialism, there will be no need for political institutions of various kinds, burdensome to society, with all their numerous institutions and positions. This system will limit political power in the proper sense of the word to the limit and will reduce politics and the activities of central bodies primarily to simple administration: the management of things and production processes. It will provide “people with the greatest measure of general and individual freedom.”
It is interesting to note that the socialist teachings of Saint-Simonism and Fourierism, while sharply criticizing capitalist society, however, opposed themselves to communist teachings and theories.
Unlike Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier (1772-1837) was of little interest in issues related to public power. Politics and political activity seemed to him a useless activity. Fourier sharply and caustically criticized the political and legal system of bourgeois society. The contemporary state is condemned for always siding with the rich and zealously defending their dominant position in society. Those who hold the reins of government in their hands arm a small number of poor slaves (that is, slavishly oppressed workers) and with their help force the masses of unarmed poor people into obedience. The poor class, completely pushed out of power, is deprived of political and social freedom. The state, which is so harsh and biased towards the poor, obediently follows the interests of the privileged minority - people with wealth. The most characteristic feature of civilization is the “tyranny of individual property over the masses” (as Fourier called the omnipotence of bourgeois private property). The various rights and freedoms proclaimed in declarations and laws under the dominance of private property relations remain, according to Fourier, for the overwhelming majority of individuals only pompous phrases written on paper. He believes that society must first of all officially recognize and actually ensure “the right to work, which is truly impossible in civilization, but without which all other rights are worthless.” Assessing the structure of civilization (especially in its last stage) as abnormal, Fourier tried in his own way to determine a reliable way to get rid of it.
Fourier developed his plan for a new, “harmonious” society, which provided for the unification of the entire population in agricultural and industrial associations - phalanxes, i.e., productive-consumer partnerships based on joint-stock and share principles. Neither popular sovereignty, nor universal suffrage, nor republican institutions, etc. will change the miserable condition of the people. It will change dramatically if only the basis of society consists of the above-mentioned associations, which will include members of various social groups (owners and proletarians, people of liberal professions, workers and farmers, etc.). The cell of the associative system - this “new economic and societal world” - will be the phalanx. The network of phalanxes (collectives of approximately 1,600 people each), fundamentally equally organized, generally independent and self-sufficient from each other, will cover all countries, continents, and the globe as a whole. The “New Economic Societary World” (1829) does not provide for the socialization of all means of production. The phalanxes in a certain way “inherit” private property, unearned income, and maintain a certain property inequality. However, the forms of labor (industrial and agricultural), service and education, according to Fourier, are such that they allow members of the phalanx to increase social wealth to colossal proportions, harmonize the interests of the collective and the individual, gradually erase class antagonisms, live together, freely indulging in their passions and inclinations. The personal freedom of everyone is the first commandment of the existence of the Fourierist phalanx. It “does not allow any compulsory regulations, no monastic restrictions.” For Fourier, freedom is a greater value than equality. He places a very high value on the equality of personal freedoms. But he is disgusted by such equality, which is not based on freedom, but is ensured only by harsh and scrupulous regulation of all aspects of people's lives. The phalanx knows, of course, its generally binding norms, but they are issued with the consent of the entire collective and therefore are observed by everyone consciously, voluntarily. Fourier's phalanxes are autonomous and independent of each other social formations. They are not interconnected into a single integral system, although they coordinate their activities. The central government and its apparatus, which nevertheless remain in the future society, have no right to seriously interfere in the internal life of the phalanxes, to patronize them, to guide them, etc. This Fourier installation, which was guilty of anarchism, clearly ran counter to the objective trends of the political development that was taking place in New Times.
However, in the future society the existence of such an institution as the army is envisaged. But the association will create armies that will serve productive purposes. These armies will be formed voluntarily, according to the general characteristics of the phalanx: voluntariness and attractiveness of labor. The family as an economic unit loses all meaning in the phalanx. Agricultural and industrial labor is organized in a system of series; housekeeping is replaced by a community kitchen and public services. A woman is an equal member of the phalanx and takes part on an equal basis with a man in the work of various series. The tasks of raising children are also taken away from the family. In Fourier's ideal society, private ownership of the means of production in the form of phalanx shares is preserved, and the class division of society is preserved.
In comparison with his French contemporaries A. Saint-Simon and C. Fourier, the largest English socialist Robert Owen (1771-1858) appeared already during the period of the industrial revolution and the resulting aggravation of class conflicts inherent in the then capitalist society. These circumstances, as well as a number of biographical facts, determined the specificity of Owen’s system of reformist views. It took shape by the 20s. XIX century; in subsequent decades it was developed and commented on by both Owen himself and his supporters. Owen set himself the task of “discovering ways in which the conditions of the poor and working classes could be improved to the benefit of entrepreneurs. »
The central link of this belief system is the doctrine of human character. Owen proceeded from the fact that human character is the result of the interaction between the natural organization of the individual and his environment, which plays a major role in such interaction. In a similar way, that is, under the determining influence of external conditions of life, the characters of entire social classes are formed. Owen was confident that his proposed doctrine of human character would open people to the true path to a rational and just society. If the character, consciousness and destinies of people are shaped by the external environment, and this is capitalist relations, then they are responsible for the darkness and ignorance of the masses, the decline of morals, the dominance of the spirit of greed and hatred, and are responsible for human lives crippled by all kinds of vices. The main culprit of all social evils is private property. Owen opposed the system of private property relations much more energetically and consistently than Saint-Simon and Fourier. Condemning the socio-economic order of his time, Owen at the same time realized that the progress of productive forces, the growth of large-scale industry (the spread of the factory system), and the rise and widespread use of scientific and technical knowledge taking place under capitalism give rise to “the need for a different and higher structure of society.” . Owen emphasized that the introduction of machines into production created a completely new society in England (and throughout the world) and prepared the conditions for the transition to the system of communes (associations). He believed that all these changes occur objectively, according to the laws of nature, and are obligatory preparatory steps “leading to the great and important social revolution that is approaching.”
A rational social system must be based on the laws of nature. In the existing system, according to Owen, it is not the laws of nature that dominate, but the evil human laws, in the world of which force and deceit rule and which protect injustice and give power to the oppressors. Their goal is to keep the people in ignorance and poverty. The reason for the long existence of such a vicious system is the strength of human delusions, the fact that consciousness only gradually grows in the world. For people to be happy, their consciousness must be freed from wrong ideas, it must be “born again.”
Addressing the problem of means and methods of bringing about “a beneficial change in human affairs,” Owen counts primarily on the revolution in people’s consciousness that can be produced by the propaganda of the basic truths of the “science of character formation,” as well as examples of the practical creation of individual parts of the “higher structure of society “within the framework of the existing “irrational”, “bad system of lies, poverty and misfortune.” Owen hoped, for example, that by means of laws enacted by the state it would be possible to go some way towards introducing extensive reforms in favor of workers. He advocated, in particular, for “humane factory legislation” and advocated for a nationwide system of “educating the poor, the lower classes of the population with the sanction of the government, but under the supervision of the country and under its leadership.” Owen was very concerned that the revolution, which had already begun, in his opinion, took the form of exclusively peaceful and gradual transformations. However, he really wanted to avoid two things. Firstly, turning the revolution into a violent coup. Secondly, the revolution was carried out in the darkness of lack of culture by dark, ignorant people. According to Owen, the transition to the bright kingdom of reason will be facilitated by individuals and groups of people who have the capital necessary to found communist settlements and are guided by good will. These people could include monarchs, ministers, archbishops, landowners, industrialists (Owen counted especially on them), wealthy philanthropists in general, as well as entire counties, parishes, associations of the middle classes, farmers, merchants, artisans, and factory workers themselves. The utopianism of such an assumption is too obvious.
The main unit of an ideal society is a small working community. In Owen’s plans, it acts as a unit, a “molecule” of the future system; it is a kind of self-sustaining commune, a “village of community.” “Community villages” are grouped into federations on a national scale (powers), and then united on an international scale. Over the course of several years, they spread throughout the planet. At the same time, one set of laws, one order of government begins to operate throughout the entire globe. The population of the Earth is becoming one big family. Owen drafted a constitution for "common villages". According to which, these communes (with a number of members from 300 to 3000 people each) were to be built and function on the basis of collective labor, public property, equality of rights and responsibilities of all individuals included in them. Relationships of sincere mutual assistance are established between members of the commune. Collective care is shown for the sick, elderly, disabled, etc. A rational and humane system of training and education of the younger generations is being introduced. Morals are improved, and the need for rewards and punishments disappears.
It is interesting to note that Owen was a principled opponent of government reform. Fourier, Owen and their followers believed that in an ideal society there would be neither state nor law.
In the 30-40s. In the 19th century, the concepts of revolutionary utopian communism played a significant role in the spiritual life of Western Europe. James Bronter O'Brien (in England), Auguste Blanqui and Theodore Desami (in France), Wilhelm Weitling (in Germany) and others spoke directly and directly on behalf of the struggling working class with a demand for a radical restructuring of society. Their political program synthesized revolutionary traditions, laid down by G. Babeuf, with a meaningful critique of the then bourgeois civilization undertaken by Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen. The most significant points of this program are the following. Existing states, legal systems, laws, legal procedures, etc. are instruments of violence in the service of private property. the rights and freedoms proclaimed during the bourgeois revolutions turned out to be in fact inaccessible to the dispossessed and oppressed people. In fact, they only hide the dominance of the money bag, the power of capital. Bourgeois revolutions do not eliminate (and cannot eliminate) the suffering and grief of the people caused by the regime of private property. , which is protected by a soldier’s bayonet, a policeman’s saber, an official’s rescript and a judge’s verdict. Another, this time the final, revolution is absolutely necessary, which will eliminate private property and destroy all the social evils it generates; it will finally ensure the true prosperity of working people, proletarians.
Conclusion
In the 16th century, theories began to emerge that denied not only the feudal class society, but also any system based on private property and property inequality. The view of Plato's community of property as the basis of a rationally organized society from the very beginning was a corrective to the bourgeois image of civil society and contained the idea of its socialization. The Age of Enlightenment, as the 18th century is often called, was a time of the highest development of humanistic and rationalistic principles that existed in political and legal ideology. The acute crisis of feudalism, the inevitability and proximity of revolutionary changes in the most developed countries, the unity of the third estate in the common struggle against feudalism led to the widespread spread of the idealistic conviction that after the destruction of feudal inequality and despotism, an era of general happiness, peace and prosperity would come. By the first half of the 19th century. almost all the ideas that formed the content of the main directions of the political and legal ideology of socialism and communism of subsequent times originate. However, on the basis of these ideas, mass movements and political parties had not yet emerged. Up to several dozen people belonged to the most influential theoretical movements of that time. Moreover, the numerous variants of socialist and communist theories in the 20-40s of the 19th century. sometimes gave rise to their fierce struggle.
Thus, utopian socialism is a stage in the development of the doctrine of a society based on community of property, compulsory labor for all and equal distribution of benefits. Utopias should not be assessed from the point of view of the correctness (or falsity) of the ideas they contain. Their cognitive and historical significance lies elsewhere - they are a characteristic of social thought from the point of view of the level of critical awareness it has achieved of the existing state of affairs and the ability to contrast it with a social ideal designed to “wake up” the masses, to give them a “point of social support” that they no longer find in the reality around them. In general, even taking into account the erroneousness of many conclusions and failures, the utopian socialists played an outstanding role in the development of social thought.
List of sources:
1. History of political and legal doctrines. Textbook for universities / Edited by Dr. legal Sciences, Professor O. E. Leist. M.: Publishing house "Zertsalo", 2006. - 568 p.
2. History of political and legal doctrines: Textbook for universities / Ed. ed. acad. RAS, D. Yu. Sc., prof. V. S. Nersesyants. - 4th ed., revised. and additional - M.: Norma, 2004. - 944 p.
3. History of political and legal doctrines / Ed. ed. Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Science Sc., prof. V. S. Nersesyants. – M.: Publishing house NORMA (Publishing group NORMA–INFRA M), 2000. –352 p. – (Short training courses in legal sciences).
4. Machin I.F. History of political and legal doctrines: lecture notes. - M.: Yurayt-Izdat, 2007. - 208 p.
5. V.A. Voznesenskaya. Economic views of the great utopian socialists of the West. M.: Publishing House of Socio-Economic Literature. 1958. URL: http://istmat.info/node/28377
6. Volgin V.P. Essays on the history of socialist ideas from antiquity to the end of the 18th century. M.: Science. 1975. URL: http://istmat.info/node/27220
7. V.P. Volgin. Essays on the history of socialist ideas. First half of the 19th century M.: “Science. 1976. URL: http://istmat.info/node/27203
8. V.P. Volgin. Development of social thought in France in the 18th century. M.: Publishing house of the USSR Academy of Sciences. 1958. URL: http://istmat.info/node/27218
9. V.P. Volgin. Revolutionary communist of the 18th century (Jean Meslier and his testament). Press Department of the Moscow Council of R. and K. D. Moscow. 1918. URL: http://istmat.info/node/27224
10. V.P. Volgin. Saint-Simon and Saint-Simonism. M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences. 1961. URL: http://istmat.info/node/27222
11. V.P. Volgin. Social and political ideas in France before the revolution. M.: Publishing house of the USSR Academy of Sciences. 1940. URL: http://istmat.info/node/27221
12. V.P. Volgin. Social teaching of early Saint-Simonism. Exposition of the teachings of Saint-Simon. M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences. MCMLXI. URL: http://istmat.info/node/28574
13. V.P. Volgin. French utopian communism. M.: Publishing house of the USSR Academy of Sciences. 1960. URL: http://istmat.info/node/27219
14. A.R. Ioannisyan. On the history of French utopian communism in the first half of the 19th century. M.: “Science”. 1981. URL: http://istmat.info/node/27339
15. G.S. Kucherenko. Saint-Simonism in the social thought of the 19th century. M.: Science. 1975. URL: http://istmat.info/node/27388
16. On the way to modern civilization. L.F. Ivanova, A.Yu. Lazebnikova. L.V. Polyakov, Yu.E. Sokolov; Ed. L.N. Bogolyubova, A.Yu. Lazebnikova. M.: Education, 1992. 96 p.
17. Maria Krol. Utopia is like a dream that explodes the existing order of things. URL: http://cloudwatcher.ru/analytics/1/view/29/
18. Chekalov K. A. Transformation of Renaissance architectural thinking in the 17th century (“City of the Sun” by T. Campanella and “Adonis” by G. Marino) // Space and time of imaginary architecture. Synthesis of arts and the birth of style. Tsaritsyn Scientific Bulletin. Vol. 7 – 8. M.: Probel-2000, 2005. URL: 19. A.E. Stekli. Nightmares of the City of the Sun: the tyranny of community or the omnipotence of science? Renaissance culture and power. - M.: Nauka, 1999, p. 84-94. URL: http://ec-dejavu.ru/s-2/Sun_city.html
20. Utopian socialism.
URL: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian_socialism
21. Leroux, Pierre. URL: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leroux,_Pierre
Utopian socialism- socialist teachings, which, in contrast to the theory of scientific socialism of Marx, built broad and comprehensive plans for the reconstruction of society, divorced from real life society and class struggle. The utopian socialists justified their socialist ideals purely idealistically, not understanding the primary role of the conditions of the material life of society in historical development. Utopian socialism appeared during the period of decomposition of feudalism and is associated with revolutionary movements. The founder of utopian socialism was (q.v.), an outstanding utopian socialist was (q.v.). Utopian socialism received its further development in the 18th century. (see, Chablis). The great utopian socialists in early XIX V. were (see), (see) and (see).
Utopian socialism arose when the class struggle of the proletariat was not yet sufficiently developed. “All socialists - the founders of sects,” wrote Marx, “belong to that period when neither the working class was sufficiently trained and organized by the course of development of capitalist society itself to appear as a historical actor on the world stage, nor the material conditions for its liberation were ripe sufficiently in the depths of the old world itself. The poverty of the working class existed, but the conditions for it own movement didn't exist yet." Therefore, the preaching of socialism inevitably took on a utopian, that is, dreamy, unrealistic character. Utopian socialism deeply and vividly criticized the contradictions of capitalism, convinced of the need to replace it with socialism, foresaw the abolition of the opposition between city and countryside, the abolition of private property, etc.
However, representatives of utopian socialism could not understand and explain the essence of the capitalist mode of production and those objective conditions that lead to the victory of socialism. They did not see the force that is capable of becoming the creator of a new society. In the proletariat, the utopians saw only the oppressed masses, who must be sympathized with and helped, and not a great historical force, which alone is capable of ensuring the implementation of socialist ideas through its struggle. The Utopians “wanted to create happiness on earth through legislation, declarations, without the help of the people (workers) themselves”
Therefore, the theories of the utopians remained only theories passing by the proletariat, while among the masses the great idea was ripening that the liberation of the working class could only be the work of the working class itself.
In Russia, the ideas of utopian socialism were expressed by such outstanding minds, ideologists of the revolutionary peasantry as (see), (see), and others. The socialist ideas of the great Russian revolutionary democrats of the 19th century. stood significantly above the ideas of Western European pre-Marxist socialism. These ideas were distinguished by their consistent revolutionary spirit and the fighting spirit of revolutionary democracy. The revolutionary democrats understood that peaceful preaching alone could not realize socialist ideals, that only the working people are vitally interested in replacing the old society with a new one. However, their socialism was also utopian.
The historical conditions of feudal Russia were not yet ripe for the emergence of scientific socialism; the proletariat was still in its infancy. Because of this, revolutionary democrats could not come to the scientific conclusion that only the proletariat is the force that can build socialism, which means they could not come to the theory of scientific socialism. The revolutionary democrats dreamed of a transition to socialism through the old peasant community. Only Marx and Engels turned socialism from a utopia into a science. They proved that socialism is not an invention of dreamers, utopians, but a necessary result arising from the development of capitalist society and the class struggle of the proletariat, whose task is to destroy capitalism and build socialism (see.
I. The emergence of utopian socialism. 2
II. Continuers of utopian socialism. 3
2.1. Saint-Simon. 4
2.2. Charles Fourier. 6
2.3. Robert Owen. 7
In the late Middle Ages (XVI-XVII centuries), significant changes occurred in the economic thought of Western Europe, caused by the profound process of development of manufacturing production. Great geographical discoveries and the robbery of colonies accelerated the process of capital accumulation.
During this period, social utopias arise. One of the founders of utopian socialism was Thomas More (1478-1532), an outstanding humanist thinker, political figure in Tudor England, executed for opposition to absolutism (he refused to take the oath to the king as the head of the church). The son of a wealthy judge and himself a lawyer by training, More held high government positions. But despite this, he sympathized with the misfortunes of the masses.
More sharply criticized the prevailing social order in England and the methods of primitive accumulation of capital. He saw the root cause of poverty in private property and opposed it.
More was the first critic of capitalism. More's views did not represent a particular scientific theory. These were just dreams.
Among the early representatives of utopian socialism is the Italian thinker Tommaso Campanella (1568-1639), who came from among the poor peasantry. He is known as an active participant in the struggle for the liberation of Southern Italy from the yoke of the Spanish monarchy. Finding himself in the hands of enemies, Campanella spent 27 years in dungeons. There he wrote his famous essay “City of the Sun” (1623), in which he sharply criticized the social system of Italy at that time.
In it, Campanella put forward a project for an ideal utopian state - the city of the Sun, the basis of which was the community of property. Reflecting the traditions of economic thought of the Middle Ages, he focused on subsistence farming. The society of the future was pictured to him as a set of agricultural communities, in which all citizens were involved in work. Campanella recognized the individuality of housing and family, the universality of work, and rejected the thesis that after the abolition of property no one would work. Consumption in the city of the Sun, he believed, would be social with an abundance of material goods, and poverty would disappear. Relations between people should be based on the principles of friendship, comradely cooperation and mutual understanding.
However, neither a utopian state with unusual orders, which showed the historical limitations of their economic projects, T. More, nor T. Campanella knew the real paths to a new society. They limited themselves to description.
Expressing the dreams of the nascent proletariat about the future society, the great utopian socialists Henri Claude , Saint-Simon , Charles Fourier And Robert Owen made a revealing critique of capitalism. The great utopians made a valuable contribution to economic science by first pointing out the historically transitory nature of capitalism, noting that capitalist relations are not eternal and natural. They viewed the development of human society as a historical process in which a previous stage is replaced by another, more highly developed one. Representatives of utopian socialism, wrote V.I. Lenin, “looked in the same direction where actual development was going; they were ahead of this development.”
The classics of bourgeois political economics considered capitalism to be an eternal and natural system. In contrast, the utopian socialists exposed the vices and ulcers of capitalism, its contradictions, pointing to the poverty and misery of the working masses. Criticizing the capitalist mode of production, the great utopian socialists declared that it should be replaced by a social order that would bring happiness to all members of society. Their criticism of capitalism was sharp and angry, contributed to the education of workers and prepared the conditions for the perception of the ideas of scientific socialism.
In their projects for the future justice of the social system, the utopian socialists foresaw many features of a socialist society; they did not limit themselves to the demand for the reorganization of consumption and distribution, but came up with the idea of transforming production itself. They called the ideal social system differently.
So Saint-Simon called it industrialism, Fourier - harmony, Owen - communism. But they all proceeded from the absence of exploitation, the elimination of the opposition between mental and physical labor, from the fact that private property would disappear or would not play a special role in the future society.
In Western Europe at the end of the 17th and beginning of the 19th centuries, manufacturing dominated, and factory production was just beginning. The material conditions of capitalism and the formation of the proletariat as a distinct working class were at an early stage. The proletariat was still a fragmented mass and was not ready for independent action; it acted as an ally of the bourgeoisie in the fight against the remnants of the absolute monarchy and feudal exploitation. Under these conditions, socialism and the labor movement developed independently in isolation from each other.
Utopian socialists did not see real ways of transition to a society of social justice, did not understand the historical mission of the proletariat, although they noted the opposition of class interests. They looked at the proletariat as an oppressed, suffering mass. They considered their task to be the development of consciousness, the propaganda of their ideas, and their implementation by creating a commune, a “phalanstery” or “fair exchange markets.” The imperfection and inconsistency of the socialist theories of the utopians corresponded to immature capitalist production and undeveloped class relations. Since the material conditions for the liberation of the working people had not yet been created, representatives of utopian socialism put forward fantastic projects for a future society. They placed themselves above classes, declaring that they reflected the interests of all members of society, but in the propaganda of their projects they appealed to the ruling classes. They rejected political struggle and revolution, relying on the transformation of society through propaganda and agitation of the ideas of social justice. This was the utopianism of ideas. However, despite the limitations of utopian socialism, during the formation of capitalism it was a progressive teaching, reflecting the aspirations of the emerging proletariat, and was one of the sources of Marxism.
Saint-Simon called the future just society an industrial system. He believed that industrial society would develop on the basis of large-scale industrial production, industry - according to a specific plan, and management - carried out from a single center by industrialists. Plans for the development of industrial production and distribution of products will be drawn up by scientists; industrial capitalists, having rich experience, will lead the management organization, and workers will directly work on the implementation of the developed plans. By creating a new public organization, Saint-Simon intended to achieve the elimination of the anarchy of production and the establishment of planning and centralism in economic management.
In his industrial system, Saint-Simon maintained capitalist property, opposing landowners and moneylenders. But capitalists, in his opinion, will also work in the “golden age”, organizing labor. He believed that they would not have any power, and naively assumed the voluntary transformation of a capitalist owner into a capitalist worker. For the capitalist, Saint-Simon also retained the right to receive unearned income as a reward for capital, but in general his social utopia was directed against the rule of the bourgeoisie, and not at protecting capitalist interests and the power of technocracy, as supporters of the modern bourgeois theory of “industrial society” try to present. . Saint-Simon did not advocate “organized capitalism,” but for organized labor and did not notice that capitalists can organize labor only in a capitalist way.
Describing the economic processes that he observed when analyzing civilization, Fourier predicted the replacement of free competition with monopolies. He even gave his own classification of monopolies, highlighting such types as colonial monopoly, simple maritime monopoly, cooperative or closed association monopoly, state monopoly, or public administration.
Fourier, exposing civilization, showed the doom of the capitalist system, but, like other utopian socialists, he did not see real paths to a “harmonious society.” He was an opponent of the revolution, a supporter of reforms, the transition to justice and the elimination of exploitation through agitation and example. Fourier believed that the transition to a new social system could be achieved through the discovery of a law on the basis of which society should live and develop. He stated that it was he who discovered this law and that his “theory of destinies will fulfill the demand of nations, ensuring abundance for everyone.”
A just society, Fourier dreamed, would consist of associations of producers (phalanxes), created without coercion, based on the principle of satisfying the needs of all people. This society, in his opinion, should be classless and harmonious. With the establishment of “universal unity,” he wrote, poverty, injustice and war would disappear. Each phalanx will occupy a certain plot of land on which its members will produce products and then distribute them themselves. According to Fourier's plan, agriculture should become the basis of the future system, and industry should play a subordinate role. This revealed Fourier's petty-bourgeois illusions. In the phalanx he retained private property and capital, and distribution was partially to be carried out according to capital. But Fourier believed that this would not bring any harm, because all workers would become capitalists, and capitalists would become workers. Thus, through reforms, Fourier mistakenly assumed to establish a classless society.
The emergence of utopian socialism
In the late Middle Ages (XVI-XVII centuries), significant changes occurred in the economic thought of Western Europe, caused by the profound process of development of manufacturing production. Great geographical discoveries and the robbery of colonies accelerated the process of capital accumulation. During this period, social utopias arise. One of the founders of utopian socialism was Thomas More (1478-1532), an outstanding humanist thinker and political figure in England, who was executed for his opposition to absolutism (he refused to take the oath to the king as the head of the church). The son of a wealthy judge and himself a lawyer by training, More held high government positions, despite this, he sympathized with the plight of the masses. In 1516, he published the famous book "Utopia", which laid the foundation for utopian socialism and gave it its name. More sharply criticized social orders and methods of primitive accumulation of capital in England. He saw the root cause of poverty in private property and opposed it. More was the first critic of capitalism. More's views were of little scientific value. These were just dreams. Among the early representatives of utopian socialism is the Italian thinker Tommaso Campanella (1568-1639), who came from among the poorest peasantry. He is known as an active participant in the struggle for the liberation of Southern Italy from the yoke of the Spanish monarchy. Finding himself in the hands of enemies, Campanella spent 27 years in dungeons. There he wrote his famous work “City of the Sun” (1623), in which he sharply criticized the social system of Italy at that time. In it, Campanella put forward a project for an ideal utopian state - the city of the Sun, the basis of which was the community of property. Reflecting the traditions of economic thought of the Middle Ages, he focused on subsistence farming. The society of the future seemed to him as a collection of agricultural communities in which all citizens were involved in work. Campanella recognized the individuality of housing and family, the community of labor, and rejected the thesis that after the abolition of property no one would work. Consumption in the city of the Sun, he believed, would be social, provided there was an abundance of material goods, and poverty would disappear. Relations between people should be based on the principles of friendship, comradely cooperation and mutual understanding. However, neither T. More nor T. Campanella knew the real paths to a new society. They limited themselves to describing a utopian state with unusual orders, which revealed the historical limitations of their economic projects. The essence of the utopian concepts of the early utopian socialists was their attraction to the primitive ideal social order on the principles of equality of needs and equality of abilities. However, in the first half of the 19th century. under the influence of the works of representatives of classical political economy, the doctrines of the utopian socialists underwent significant qualitative changes. For utopian socialism, this period, associated with the completion of the industrial revolution, is significant for the comprehension of new economic realities, which are reflected in the developments of the leaders of this school, G. Owen in England, A. Saint-Simon and PI. Fourier in France. It was these authors and their followers who began to connect their ideas with those that had developed by the beginning of the 19th century. the then prevailing principles of the classical school of political economy. They, like the classics, are inclined to further acceleration scientific discoveries and technical inventions, any possible increase in productivity.
The classics considered capitalism to be an eternal and natural system. In contrast, utopian socialists criticized capitalism, pointing to the poverty and misery of the working masses. They believed that capitalism would be replaced by a social order that would bring happiness to all members of society. They called the ideal social system differently: for example, A. Saint-Simon called it industrialism, PI. Fourier - harmony, G. Owen - communism. They considered their task to be the development of consciousness, the propaganda of their ideas, and their implementation by creating a commune, “falaster,” or “fair exchange bazaars.” Utopian socialism represented the opposite of class interests, but rejected political struggle and revolution, hoping for transformations of the social system in a peaceful, evolutionary, compromise way.
Claude Henri de Rebroy Saint-Simon (1760-1825) - a French utopian socialist who, due to his convictions, refused the title of count and noble title, is one of the authors of this direction of economic thought. He owns such famous works as “Letters from a Geneva resident to his contemporaries” (1803), “On the Industrial System” (1821), “Catechism of Industrialists” (1823-1824), etc.
In their judgments, the transition from feudalism to an industrial socially just system is inevitable due to the coming changes and such growing factors as science, reason and advanced ideas.
In his opinion, in the new society antagonistic (opposite) classes will disappear and the government will find economic functions instead of political ones.
However, it should be noted that, unlike all other representatives of utopian socialism, he was the only one who did not deny the existence of private property in the new society. Saint-Simon believed that “it is this institution that is the basis of the social structure” and that “a law establishing property and regulating its use” is necessary.
He assigns an important role in society to “industrialists,” thanks to whom “the vast majority of the nation” will live “in happier conditions.” He calls three large classes industrialists: 1) farmers (peasants); 2) workers and engineers, scientists; 3) traders. They are the ones who produce all the wealth. The non-industrial class includes nobles (landowners) and financiers (bankers).
In building a new society, Saint-Simon defended by all means the close interests of royal power and industrialists. The royal power must unite with industrialists in the fight against the remnants of feudalism. Saint-Simon rejected a forced transition to a new society and believed that education and consciousness of people would contribute to the development of a new society.
Robert Owen (1771-1858) - English utopian socialist, author of works containing projects for socialist transformations. Among them are such works as: “On the Education of Human Character” (1813-1814), “Report to the County of New Lanark” (1820), “Book of a New Moral World” (1836-1844), etc. .
His interpretation of the economic category “value” is close to the classical interpretation of D. Ricardo. He unconditionally accepted the labor theory of value, but did not allow the position that the value of a product also includes profit. It is the injustice of its occurrence, in his opinion, that is the cause of worker deprivation and economic crises.
G. Owen, being a large manufacturer for a long time, predicted many social events in the conditions of the factory organization of social production. Thus, for his workers in New Lanark back in the 19th century, he built special comfortable housing, a dining room, a trading store, a savings bank, a kindergarten and nursery, etc. And the established labor order of R. Owen was half a century ahead of factory labor legislation:
By reducing the working day for adults from 17 to 10 hours;
By eliminating child labor (children under 10 years of age) and creating schools that were secular for the first time;
Eliminated fines at work, which were previously commonplace.
In his works, G. Owen tries to substantiate the concept of a “reasonable structure of society.” During the transition to a new society, according to the scientist, it is necessary, with the help of “smart laws,” to correct the old system without any violence. The dominance of private property, the scientist believed, is the main cause of countless “injustices, crimes and misfortunes” experienced by man, and machines, which could be “the greatest blessing,” become “the greatest curse.” The replacement of the "unjust social order will be carried out "gradually, peacefully and wisely" implementation" scientific principles". Owen proposed to buy up private land for "its market price from those who wish to sell it, thereby turning it into public property in the future. It will be a source of government revenue." On these lands, the scientist proposes to create villages with a population of 500-3000 people. All these activities should be carried out by a smart government and provide reasonable conditions for society, which, according to Owen, will be 26 laws - the so-called smart constitution :
Widespread use of machines to replace manual labor, including household work;
Transformation of labor into the only measure of value;
Ensuring the abundance of human wealth by replacing metallic money with “labor bonds”;
Using various means to educate the population, especially printing;
Elimination of “useless private property”, and, accordingly, profits thanks to contacts between producers without intermediaries, etc.
World Harmony;
Establishment of one language, money, measures, etc. throughout the world;
Consistently high yields;
Liberation of blacks and slaves;
Achieving high cultural morals;
Opportunity to increase income from smart management. Utopian socialism is a movement that originated at the beginning of the 19th century and was intended to combat exploitation in society. Utopian socialism reflected the future society as a society of abundance, ensuring the satisfaction of human needs and the flourishing of the individual. This trend is characterized by the use of the hypothetical method “what would happen if...”.
However, this direction economic science It still has quite significant elements in terms of predictions that came true, of a social and economic nature. This seems especially relevant given the current realities of modern society, which require the development of socially oriented concepts for the development of the country's economy.
Dream Interpretation
