Page 76

  PART 7

THE FAILURE OF UTOPIAN SOCIALISM

If the destiny of mankind has been controlled by a few and private ownership of the means of production and distribution, more than any other material factor (other material factors such as heredity, climate, geography play a lesser role) has accounted for the absence of brotherhood, how, then, do the masses extricate themselves from this predicament?  How do they eradicate the ills that have plagued them for so many centuries?

Prior to Marx many solutions were proposed but none proved viable.  In the early formative period of socialist theory many people believed that one need only gather a group of like-minded individuals, retire to the countryside, and construct a socialist community.  Robert Owen, Fourier and Saint-Simon are, of course, the most prominent protagonists of this approach--Utopian Socialism.162   They believed that common ownership and brotherhood could be manufactured artificially.  Through changing the ideology of people and creating a propertyless community in conformity with their ideological changes, a society of universal brotherhood would emerge.  Yet, their communities failed.  They collapsed not because a mythical human nature was not taken into account but because an ideology which these men formulated was superimposed on inadequate material conditions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 77

Unlike scientific materialists, who realize ideology develops according to the dictates of material conditions and do not attempt to alter the former without a prior rearrangement of the latter, the utopians developed the ideas for their future society with very little consideration for the material arrangement. 163   Briefly stated, their beautiful plans for an ideal society said yes while conditions said no.164

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 78

The early utopian societies collapsed, as did the primitive communes, primarily because the general level of production and technology was quite low.  As long as the productive capability of any society or group of people is not very large and, thus, an even division of the surplus of production does not provide each individual with an amount of produce far in excess of his needs, so far in fact that he have no fear about the security of his future, individuals, especially those who are more productive or resourceful, will drop out believing that their future will be more secure by laboring alone or by exploiting the labor of others through the employment of private property.  This may appear to be some sort of human nature coming to the fore.  But any animal, indeed, any form of life would act in this manner.  Every form of life thinks first of its own survival when material conditions dictate that any other form of behavior is potentially suicidal.  This is to be expected.  People can not be asked to think of others by donating their produce to a common fund when their own future is constantly in doubt.  To ask them to so act is to seek what few will willingly provide.  Conditions, not people, are blameworthy.

Changing the organization of society, abolishing private property and dividing the produce equally can not create a superabundance of production without which other utopian changes were destined for failure.  Only when a secure future is guaranteed to each member of society, only when every person possesses far more of the necessities of life than he can possibly consume or employ, can material conditions again, as in primitive communal times, draw men together in brotherhood and harmony.  A superabundance for everyone does not automatically produce brotherhood since factors of less importance (the correct education, etc.) must also be present.  But the possibility of rapidly fading egotism and growing social concern is tremendously increased by its realization.  Harmony prevailed in the period of primitive communes because conditions existed which excluded any viable alternative.  Total production was so low that society could only be organized on a classless communal basis which necessarily produced brotherhood.  The latter will only reappear when the requisite conditions again emerge.  Only when the future of each member of society is so secure that concern for the welfare of others not only fails to jeopardize his own security but actually contributes to, indeed, accounts for his own survival and enhancement, will universal harmony be feasible if not unavoidable.

The utopian experiments were bound to fail for two additional reasons as well.  Firstly, even if their authors had recognized the need for a superabundance of production, the low level of technological development precluded the production of an abundance for all.165   The decisive factor--material conditions--prevented any possibility of massive production even if the desire had been present.  Secondly, the ruling class in the area concerned would have crushed them physically or financially if they had ever presented a serious challenge to the prevailing system.  Property owners will destroy any contrasting life-style that has attained serious proportions within private ownership.  The failure of their creators to recognize the importance of force and opposing wealth in any undertaking of this kind166 sealed their fate from the beginning.  They never had a chance.

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 79

Section II

THE ONLY REAL FORCE FOR SOCIALISM IS THE PROLETARIAT

If a group of men can not artificially manufacture the ideal community, if attempts to teach people that they should practice brotherly love can not significantly overcome counteracting material factors, how, then, is the future harmonious society to be created?  More than anyone else Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, and Vladimir Lenin put the answer to this question on a solid scientific foundation.167

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 80

They took socialism out of the realm of fantasy, dreams and desires 168 and put it into the arena of science and rational analysis. 169

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 81

Without emotionalism, histrionics, or fanfare they analyzed reality with all the dispassionate objectivity of a chemistry professor working in his laboratory.170   Their analysis of life is correct; their conclusions are profound, yet rarely obscure.  Praise, however, does not demonstrate the accuracy of their analysis.  So let us turn from Utopian Socialism to Scientific Socialism (Marxism)171 and observe the progression of society.

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 82

Marx and Engels showed that the harmonious community of the future will no be created by a small group of men sitting down before a blueprint and altering history as they so desired,172 but will emanate from the inexorable tide of history and mass movements. 173   Its materialization can be accelerated or retarded but not prevented. In a sense, history or material forces are controlling mankind, both exploiters and exploited, more than man is directing them.  History is necessarily developing in such a manner as to lead to only one possibility.  Marx's conclusion in this regard is based upon observations obtained from years of closely studying the inner workings of private property systems, especially capitalism.174

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 83

He discovered that within the latter lie irresolvable contradictions which must eventually spell collapse175 and the catalyst of destruction will be a particular class of people whose well-being is no longer compatible with the continued existence of private ownership.176   Understanding the nature of this class and the contradictions within the system are crucial to a correct appraisal of capitalism and the future of the masses.  Failure to realize the importance of each is a major shortcoming of utopian ideology.177

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 84

The class should be discussed first as this will allow the contradictory aspects of the system to be more easily described later.  Several major factors contribute to its crucial importance.  Firstly, because its membership is large, constantly growing and absorbing other classes, it offsets the increasing strength of the property owners.  Secondly, because its members have no wealth-producing property, they have no interest in seeing that the latter continues to survive in private hands.  Material conditions are not compelling them to work for the preservation of private ownership.  Thirdly, because its members have become accustomed to discipline by the nature of their material surroundings and daily activities, 178 they are a potentially powerful revolutionary force.  Discipline is an inseparable part of any successful revolutionary activity.  And lastly, because its membership is composed of the only individuals whose interests must inevitably clash with the continued existence of private ownership, it is the only class that can be relied upon to be a revolutionary force at some time in the future.  Although not always revolutionary or more militant than other classes, it is the only group whom the inexorable tide of events is driving toward a war with property owners.  It is the only growing class to whom history has said, "You must someday destroy the last private property system--capitalism."

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 85

What then is this class?  Is it the slaves for they are certainly propertyless?  No, because the number of slaves in the world is minuscule and declining.  Perhaps it is the serfs or peasants for most assuredly they are quite numerous, propertyless, and widespread throughout the world today.  Again, no!  There is no denying that the world's peasants often display strong revolutionary tendencies as has been shown in China, Vietnam, and the Soviet Union and should be supported, led, and activated whenever possible, but the fact remains that they belong to a dying system (feudalism) and their class has been fading throughout the world.  As capitalism has been replacing feudalism, because the former is more progressive, the overall percentage of serfs and peasants has been decreasing.  Perhaps the disgruntled students of the world will perform the noble deed?  No, because they lack discipline, a common ideology179 and numbers.  Moreover, material conditions are not so unpleasant that their very existence is in doubt.  The stultifying, boring, deceitful, contradictory material world in which they live may be making them miserable and alienated,180 but it is not telling them, indeed, compelling them, to act eventually or risk extinction.

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 86

To be miserably alienated is one thing; to be so miserable as a result of material conditions as to be willing to risk death by revolt is another.  Although students are generally the first group to show signs of discontent and participate in various forms of social protest,181 a much larger group actually executes the revolution which follows.  Many students, like intellectuals in general, will desert the movement when disciplined, persistent toil is needed or conditions become difficult.  To employ the vernacular, "They will cut out when the going gets rough."  Material conditions are not compelling them to be dependable and, thus, their revolutionary rhetoric often far exceeds what they are willing to perform.  Perhaps social scientists, professional people, bureaucrats or "white collar" employees will launch the attack.  Or perhaps the intelligentsia (professors, writers, artists, etc.) will lead the onslaught.  Again, the response must be negative.182

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 87

Many of these groups will contribute to the encounter, many will be members of the attacking body, but alone or as a unit they lack the required numbers, force, and dedication.  The intelligentsia is especially noteworthy for its lack of discipline.183 Perhaps the small store owners, the shop keepers, the small landowners, the small investors or the self-employed (i.e., those groups belonging to the petty bourgeoisie--small capitalists), are destined to eradicate private property.

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 88

No, because they are property owners and, thus, have a direct material reason for supporting private ownership.  Why should they surrender their means of production for the betterment of others or fight for an overthrow which would produce the same result.  Moreover, their status is moving toward extinction as their members continue to lose out in competition with the more affluent capitalists--the big bourgeoisie.  Who, then, will perform the deed?  What group is destined by the natural forces of history to overthrow the capitalist system.  The answer: The Proletariat. 184

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 89

Throughout world history landowners, businessmen, industrialists, financiers, and all other property owners have been competing in the private property systems of slavery, feudalism, and capitalism.  Each has been seeking the wealth of the other.  War and violence have always been quite secondary, however, to the economic competition of the market place.  Far more property has been changing hands by the latter method than the former.  As in any prolonged contest, the weaker contestants have been losing out and facing the choice of either laboring for another property owner or somehow becoming property owners again.  In the early stage of capitalist history many of the defeated sought to repossess property by migrating from Old World areas to Australia, the United States and other virgin regions where they could obtain private ownership of land and other resources.  Yet, competition became as fierce in the New World as the Old and again many lost out.  Eventually running from defeat was no longer possible because nearly all of the world's land and other material resources were the property of another.  Once the latter situation materialized, those who continued to lose out in the vast worldwide economic competition of property owners were forced to sell out, hire out, and work for another, in other words, to become proletarians.  Although the proletarian class has existed in nearly every society in history, only since the advent of heightened struggle under capitalism has it been rapidly growing and absorbing other classes.

Since the law of the jungle (survival of the fittest) dominates all private property systems, the production of every item (autos, homes, steel, oil, sugar, copper, etc.) has been gravitating toward control by only two or three companies owned by the rich.  When fifty or sixty businesses initially produce a particular product or many farmers produce a certain crop (corn, cotton, oats, barley, etc.), the defeat of all but two or three is unavoidable.  Those individuals who have been losing have been joining the proletariat and those who have been winning have been obtaining the wealth of those who lost.  The seemingly endless migration of small farmers to the cities for employment has exemplified this process.185   Unable to compete, they have been yielding to large corporations (agribusiness) and big farmers.186   Centralization of more and more wealth into fewer hands has been an inexorable movement.

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 90

The entire history of all private property systems has been leading to a stupendous concentration of wealth in the hands of a few owners of the world's monopolies, oligopolies, cartels, and trusts187 (the big bourgeoisie) and the proletarianization, if not pauperization, of the masses.188   The degree of proletarianization and financial concentration is greater now than at any other time in the history of private ownership.  The enactment and enforcement of anti-trust laws to stem the tide has been virtually useless because political leaders are the handpicked agents of the richest property owners.189

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 91

As peasants190 throughout the world have been losing out in economic competition with the larger landowners,191 they have been selling their lands, hiring out to others and joining the proletariat.192   As feudalism has been succumbing to capitalism, landless peasants have also been assuming the status of wage workers.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 92

In many areas, such as the United States, the proletariat has been receiving most of its recruits from the class lying between the propertyless proletarians and the wealthy property owners--the petty bourgeoisie.  Unlike during the early stage of capitalism when the number of small property owners was rapidly growing, small businessmen, small shop keepers, small farmers, 193 the self-employed and others with a moderate amount of private property, who often employ proletarians as well as labor themselves, have been increasingly losing out in economic competition with the owners of large farms and corporations.  With all the economic competition somebody must eventually surrender and weaker competitors have nearly always been the victims. 194

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 93

The tendency toward economic concentration and centralization has been unmistakable.195   The high rate of business failures, bankruptcies, and mergers in the United States and other capitalist countries over the years has been leading to fewer and fewer corporations and their owners controlling ever more of the total production and wealth-producing property.  And as the smaller or weaker businesses have been folding, especially during economic crises (recessions and depressions), or undergoing absorption by others through mergers and acquisitions, their owners have been relinquishing their petty bourgeois status and entering the employment of another person, that is, joining the exploited proletariat.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 94

A few members of the petty bourgeois have been successfully climbing the economic ladder to the class of big property owners--the big bourgeoisie--but the vast majority are destined for failure and will eventually drop into the proletariat.196

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 95

The overall trend throughout the latter stage of capitalism has been a constant diminution in the number of petty bourgeoisie, an incessant growth of the proletariat197 and a steady reduction in the number of wealthy property owners relative to the total population.198

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 96

Unfortunately, "working class" is sometimes employed as a synonym for the proletariat.  The latter includes far more people than those laboring in the factories or acting as wage laborers on farms.  Most professional (lawyers, doctors, researchers, professors,199 etc.), white collar, clerical, administrative, salaried and bureaucratic groups, which are given the highly deceptive title of "middle class," are clearly proletarians,200 even though their yearly wages, salaries, commissions, and bonuses may be several thousand dollars above those of factory workers.  Those who consider themselves to be "middle class" are proletarians because they own no significant wealth-producing property--the means of production--and are exploited by those who do.  They work for other individuals; other individuals do not work for them.  If they should ever become wealthy enough to live entirely on their income from dividends, interest, capital gains, etc., in other words, live entirely on income received through part ownership of the means of production, their exodus from the proletarian class would be assured.  But for the overwhelming majority of Americans this will never be possible and is becoming less feasible with every passing day.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 97

The phrase "middle class" is also imaginary because it implies that those who are included occupy a position half-way between the top and the bottom financially, which is preposterous.  Any American earning under $100,000 per year is far closer to the ghetto dweller, homeless beggar, or Vietnamese peasant in yearly income, total wealth, and security than he is to the American financial czars.  To those previously-mentioned billionaires, of which there are many, who receive at least $20,000,000 a year, anyone earning less than $100,000 per year is verging on poverty.  Since only a small minority of Americans receive over $100,000 per year and an even smaller number earn enough to be included in the ruling class, the middle class is myth.

Karl Marx used the phrase "middle class" to describe the rising property owners, the bourgeoisie, of the emerging capitalist system as they ousted the landowners, the aristocracy,201 who dominated the pre-industrial European society of feudalism. 202   As the bourgeoisie grew it was a class between the more powerful landowners and the weaker proletariat; it was a middle class. 203   Only when used in this context, which is quite different from its employment today, is the phrase used correctly.  Today's use of the term marks a clear intention to divide the proletariat by teaching the somewhat better off proletarians that their interests lie with supporting the property owning bourgeoisie, in other words, the system, as opposed to the propertyless.  As used today, the phrase "middle class" is deceptive, fictitious, divisive, and nonsensical.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 98

Section III

PETTY-BOURGEOIS VACILLATION

The most indecisive persons in the class struggle are the petty bourgeois capitalist and the petty bourgeois intellectual.  The latter is an intellectual who thinks like the petty bourgeois.  The petty bourgeois tends to constantly vacillate between the proletariat and the wealthy property owners (the big bourgeoisie) because he isn't sure where his interests lie.  On the one hand, he works for a living and resembles a proletarian, while, on the other hand, he owns private property and has a definite stake in seeing that private ownership of the means of production continues. 204   Vacillation exemplifies his behavior205 until material conditions (he either succeeds or fails in economic competition) solve his dilemma.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 99

As long as he believes he will ascend to the ruling class and not fall into the proletariat206 the petty bourgeois supports the system.207   But once he is defeated and forced into the proletariat his interests no longer lie with the perpetuation of private ownership and the possibility that he will advocate or participate in its overthrow increase tremendously.208

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 100

Section IV

BEING CLASS-CONSCIOUS IS CRUCIAL

In any modern capitalist society there are three major struggling classes--the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie, and the proletariat.  The first group owns a great deal of private property and has a definite interest in seeing that the system continues.  The second group is composed of people who own some private property and hope to own more, but nearly always lose out in competing with the more affluent.  And the third group is made up of people who own no significant private property whatever. 209   One should always be aware of their existence, their struggles, their interests, and the group to which he belongs.  Unfortunately, because of a stupendous amount of miseducation,210 many of the exploited do not even realize they are in a class struggle.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 101

Those unaware resemble a man who is being cheated and deceived while simultaneously being assured by immense propaganda that his existence is secure, his valuables are safe, and the rewards of his labor are just.  Those who fail to recognize the class struggle and to realize where their interests lie will invariably be taken advantage of by those who know better. 211   The ruling class has no illusions about the overriding dominance of class conflict throughout all facets of life.212   It's extremely class conscious.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 101

As long as an individual believes that society is nothing more than an amorphous mass of individuals, some of whom are just higher up the social scale than others, as long as he is unaware of the class struggle and class interests--lacks a CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS, he will forever be led astray.  BEING CLASS CONSCIOUS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL PRE-REQUISITES FOR A CORRECT APPRAISAL OF MAN'S CONDITION.213

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TO GO TO PART 8 ( CLICK HERE )