What is socialism?

Carolina Red said:
That’s really cool. Thanks for that.

At what age can kids drop out of school there?
Click to expand...

Germany in general has compulsory school attendance, but it's up to the states to flesh out the details. Afaik it's basically until you're 18 years old.
 
do.ob said:
Germany in general has compulsory school attendance, but it's up to the states to flesh out the details. Afaik it's basically until you're 18 years old.
Click to expand...
We have compulsory attendance as well, but kids can drop out after they turn 17. It is a state by state issue here also.
 
Synco said:
I'd say anyone who understood the emancipatory impetus of communism had to be in opposition to the totalitarian state-socialist regimes of that time. And these people existed, although they obviously were a minority, caught in the middle of Cold War idiocy after 1945. It also meant to acknowledge that the predominant outcome of the worldwide revolutionary worker's movement was in large parts a practical and moral failure. Which in turn raised far-reaching questions on why things have turned out that way.

A very unattractive position to be in, and the sway of power, identitarianism and false loyalty meant the clear majority of socialists were on the side of the authoritarian regimes. Either because they were full-on party communists, or because they blinded themselves to the violence and oppression these regimes (and their partial social achievements) rested upon.

I don't know much about Cuba, btw.
Click to expand...

I would like to understand how you arrive at this conclusion.
 
PedroMendez said:
I would like to understand how you arrive at this conclusion.
Click to expand...
Because there is an understanding of the essence of communism as liberation from exploitation, violence, alienation, disenfranchisement, and unreason. That's what I understand as its emancipatory impetus. The state-socialist regimes offered neither, and whatever partial social progress could be found was negated by totalitarian brutality and its legitimizing ideologies. So whoever took these ideals seriously, and was honest about the reality of authoritarian socialism, had to acknowledge the gross violation of these ideals inside these societies.
 
Synco said:
Because there is an understanding of the essence of communism as liberation from exploitation, violence, alienation, disenfranchisement, and unreason. That's what I understand as its emancipatory impetus. The state-socialist regimes offered neither, and whatever partial social progress could be found was negated by totalitarian brutality and its legitimizing ideologies. So whoever took these ideals seriously, and was honest about the reality of authoritarian socialism, had to acknowledge the gross violation of these ideals inside these societies.
Click to expand...
A lot of very prominent communist activists and partisans from the times of before WW2 in my country were killed by their own party due to Stalin's orders in the post-war era. At that point, if Stalin didn't approve of you, the least worst fate was death - it didn't matter how devoted you were to the cause or what you have already done to fight for it.

As I said, my grandfather was the first in his territorial region to leave the local organisation of the ruling communist party and he was in a very high position, so could have faced heavy repercussions, however people knew him as a strong supporter of the communist ideology, the family in general had strong ties to the communist party and the Committee for State Security (basically the secret service agency at that time, which was also used to spy on the citizens to find out people who are against the regime) - and he was a very vital mining engineer, so he didn't face any punishments.
 
Synco said:
Because there is an understanding of the essence of communism as liberation from exploitation, violence, alienation, disenfranchisement, and unreason. That's what I understand as its emancipatory impetus. The state-socialist regimes offered neither, and whatever partial social progress could be found was negated by totalitarian brutality and its legitimizing ideologies. So whoever took these ideals seriously, and was honest about the reality of authoritarian socialism, had to acknowledge the gross violation of these ideals inside these societies.
Click to expand...

I am genuinely curious about the point so I'll try to lay out in my problems with this view so you can comment on it/correct me.
I am a bit uneasy to use the term communism/communist, because I think its quite ambivalent and not particularly well defined. I prefer to talk about about socialism/socialist tradition, because I think at least historically the term had a fairly specific meaning.

My view: The justification of extreme violence as means to an end and the use of the state to drive progress are both deeply rooted in the socialist tradition at the time. I see a direct connection between the establishment of totalitarian state-socialist regimes at the time and some of their worst excesses and the teachings of the socialist ideology. Stalin wouldn't have been able to collectivize farms without crushing the peasants, so to speak.
While there always have been alternative interpretations, the "totalitarian state-socialists" dominated because they called for/proposed explicit, feasible and concrete political and social action that promised to be impactful. At least on the face of it their arguments and actions were also in line with the ideology at the time.
They didn't share your understanding about the essence of communism, but still identified (genuinely) as part of the same tradition and favoured some of the same outcomes. I am unconvinced that a peaceful/benign/utopian interpretation of communism is more authentic/correct than the actual manifestations, that were able to rally the masses.
In this context I wonder what sources/ideas/people informed your view on the essence of communism and why you think that this understanding is universal.
 
DoomSlayer said:
A lot of very prominent communist activists and partisans from the times of before WW2 in my country were killed by their own party due to Stalin's orders in the post-war era. At that point, if Stalin didn't approve of you, the least worst fate was death - it didn't matter how devoted you were to the cause or what you have already done to fight for it.
Click to expand...
The murder of partisans and other anti-fascist resistance fighters was one of the most grotesque aspects of Stalinism.
DoomSlayer said:
As I said, my grandfather was the first in his territorial region to leave the local organisation of the ruling communist party and he was in a very high position, so could have faced heavy repercussions, however people knew him as a strong supporter of the communist ideology, the family in general had strong ties to the communist party and the Committee for State Security (basically the secret service agency at that time, which was also used to spy on the citizens to find out people who are against the regime) - and he was a very vital mining engineer, so he didn't face any punishments.
Click to expand...
It's not unthinkable that it might have been remotely similar for my girlfriend, who was born in Romania under Ceausescu. It's all speculation now luckily, as the regime collapsed in her early teens, but she had the traits and idealism necessary for a certain rise inside the party ranks - and also the reality awareness and morality to become disillusioned and disgusted sooner or later. Even the family-internal rifts you talked of might have turned out similar, as Ceausescu was widely despised there.
 
PedroMendez said:
I am genuinely curious about the point so I'll try to lay out in my problems with this view so you can comment on it/correct me.
I am a bit uneasy to use the term communism/communist, because I think its quite ambivalent and not particularly well defined. I prefer to talk about about socialism/socialist tradition, because I think at least historically the term had a fairly specific meaning.

My view: The justification of extreme violence as means to an end and the use of the state to drive progress are both deeply rooted in the socialist tradition at the time. I see a direct connection between the establishment of totalitarian state-socialist regimes at the time and some of their worst excesses and the teachings of the socialist ideology. Stalin wouldn't have been able to collectivize farms without crushing the peasants, so to speak.
While there always have been alternative interpretations, the "totalitarian state-socialists" dominated because they called for/proposed explicit, feasible and concrete political and social action that promised to be impactful. At least on the face of it their arguments and actions were also in line with the ideology at the time.
They didn't share your understanding about the essence of communism, but still identified (genuinely) as part of the same tradition and favoured some of the same outcomes. I am unconvinced that a peaceful/benign/utopian interpretation of communism is more authentic/correct than the actual manifestations, that were able to rally the masses.
In this context I wonder what sources/ideas/people informed your view on the essence of communism and why you think that this understanding is universal.
Click to expand...
I'd say I agree with your opinion. The communist international movement also used inhumane methods even before getting power in certain countries.

In 1925, the biggest terrorist attack at that point of time happened in Bulgaria and was done by the Bulgarian Communist Party, which was being helped and funded by the then Communist International. More than 200 people died and a lot more were injured. A seriously heinous and inhumane act.
Synco said:
The murder of partisans and other anti-fascist resistance fighters was one of the most grotesque aspects of Stalinism.

It's not unthinkable that it might have been remotely similar for my girlfriend, who was born in Romania under Ceausescu. It's all speculation now luckily, as the regime collapsed in her early teens, but she had the traits and idealism necessary for a certain rise inside the party ranks - and also the reality awareness and morality to become disillusioned and disgusted sooner or later. Even the family-internal rifts you talked of might have turned out similar, as Ceausescu was widely despised there.
Click to expand...
My father was almost at war with my grandfather since his teenage years. He ended up leaving the household at the age of 14 to go to sailor academy/school because they had huge ideological differences - my grandfather even threatened him he would "fight him on the barricade" if the so called resistance against the regime of the younger generations ever really happened. People in general had no trust towards each other in those times as you never knew who was working as a spy for the ruling party and saying even a small little joke about it could really put you in big trouble. Really crazy times, I have a lot more stories and could never imagine living in such way.
 
PedroMendez said:
I am genuinely curious about the point so I'll try to lay out in my problems with this view so you can comment on it/correct me.
I am a bit uneasy to use the term communism/communist, because I think its quite ambivalent and not particularly well defined. I prefer to talk about about socialism/socialist tradition, because I think at least historically the term had a fairly specific meaning.

My view: The justification of extreme violence as means to an end and the use of the state to drive progress are both deeply rooted in the socialist tradition at the time. I see a direct connection between the establishment of totalitarian state-socialist regimes at the time and some of their worst excesses and the teachings of the socialist ideology. Stalin wouldn't have been able to collectivize farms without crushing the peasants, so to speak.
While there always have been alternative interpretations, the "totalitarian state-socialists" dominated because they called for/proposed explicit, feasible and concrete political and social action that promised to be impactful. At least on the face of it their arguments and actions were also in line with the ideology at the time.
They didn't share your understanding about the essence of communism, but still identified (genuinely) as part of the same tradition and favoured some of the same outcomes. I am unconvinced that a peaceful/benign/utopian interpretation of communism is more authentic/correct than the actual manifestations, that were able to rally the masses.
In this context I wonder what sources/ideas/people informed your view on the essence of communism and why you think that this understanding is universal.
Click to expand...
I would have to think quite a bit about the issues you raised there, so it will take time for me to answer. But a few remarks upfront:

1. The questions you raise are certainly valid, and what I meant to address in this section of the post you originally quoted:
Synco said:
It also meant to acknowledge that the predominant outcome of the worldwide revolutionary worker's movement was in large parts a practical and moral failure. Which in turn raised far-reaching questions on why things have turned out that way.
Click to expand...
I can't say I have a definite answer to these questions as of now, but I take them very seriously.

2. I'm not claiming this particular understanding was universal in practise - quite the opposite. It was for most parts of the 20th century a minority position in opposition to what I called "the sway of power, identitarianism and false loyalty" earlier on. Significant parts of the history of social-democratic/socialist ideology of that century are marked by conformism, populism, the rationalization and legitimization of the unacceptable. But what I say is there's a strand in the tradition of communist thought that can be related to. At the same time the necessity to gain political power is obvious, and the potential for fundamental contradictions between both principles are as clear as day. Just as liberal capitalism once had an utopian promise of universal equality and freedom, accompanied by an overwhelming history of the execution of economical, political, military power.

3. Regarding the terminology communist/socialist: I don't have a particular fondness for labels - as long as it's clear what is talked about I'm fine with both. Here's an earlier post on the label "left" in a similar thread, which - probably not by coincidence - also addresses many of the issues from above. (It starts out as a reply to another post.)
Synco said:
In the end, your generalisation is not different from the one you criticise. The problem is the label itself. "Left" has meant an awful lot of things for several centuries, and all these grand, all-encompassing labels are quite useless to accurately describe the multitude of things that fall under them. You get the Red Khmer and the fight against child labour under that label. You get both violent state authoritarianism and resistance against it.

That's why that moniker means little to me, you can find the most horrible things under it, as well as the most noble intentions, thoughts and actions. Sometimes they even appeared together in a contradictory fashion. Although it's not surprising that in a world largely built on power, gained and secured by the ability to excercise violence, the variants complicit with these principles were the more successful and popular ones over history.

The only way for me to adhere to a left tradition after the 20th century is to focus on the aspect of emancipation, without regard to ideological self-stylisation of the various actors. That way, the dividing criterion isn't some broad label, but the question of serious attempts on emancipation from intolerable circumstances without creating new kinds of oppression, and effective prevention of the worst in the meantime (which is often dirty business). You'll have historical and present-day leftists on both sides of that dividing line.
Click to expand...


[Edit: removed an irrelevant part]
[Another edit: amended the 2nd paragraph]
 
Last edited:
One mistake I see a lot among the undereducated in the Americas is that they mistake Marx's prediction for a prescription. From my understanding, Marx view communism entirely through his Hegelian influenced lens - that is communism was the next evolutionary state of dialectical materialism. It was not supposed to be a prescription for a system to be artificially installed and enforced by a nation-state from the top-down.

This article was from almost 10 years ago but it highlights one aspect that some of this view of dialectic is happening, although its also interesting to read this and see how the corporate elites and the reactionary far right have fought back against these trends in the past 10 years. (and Kelly is guilty of being representative of the sometimes idealistic technological optimism that is a Wired hallmark)

Kevin Kelly said:
Bill Gates once derided open source advocates with the worst epithet a capitalist can muster. These folks, he said, were a "new modern-day sort of communists," a malevolent force bent on destroying the monopolistic incentive that helps support the American dream. Gates was wrong: Open source zealots are more likely to be libertarians than commie pinkos. Yet there is some truth to his allegation. The frantic global rush to connect everyone to everyone, all the time, is quietly giving rise to a revised version of socialism.

We're not talking about your grandfather's socialism. In fact, there is a long list of past movements this new socialism is not. It is not class warfare. It is not anti-American; indeed, digital socialism may be the newest American innovation. While old-school socialism was an arm of the state, digital socialism is socialism without the state. This new brand of socialism currently operates in the realm of culture and economics, rather than government—for now.

The type of communism with which Gates hoped to tar the creators of Linux was born in an era of enforced borders, centralized communications, and top-heavy industrial processes. Those constraints gave rise to a type of collective ownership that replaced the brilliant chaos of a free market with scientific five-year plans devised by an all-powerful politburo. This political operating system failed, to put it mildly. However, unlike those older strains of red-flag socialism, the new socialism runs over a borderless Internet, through a tightly integrated global economy. It is designed to heighten individual autonomy and thwart centralization. It is decentralization extreme.

Instead of gathering on collective farms, we gather in collective worlds. Instead of state factories, we have desktop factories connected to virtual co-ops. Instead of sharing drill bits, picks, and shovels, we share apps, scripts, and APIs. Instead of faceless politburos, we have faceless meritocracies, where the only thing that matters is getting things done. Instead of national production, we have peer production. Instead of government rations and subsidies, we have a bounty of free goods.

I recognize that the word socialism is bound to make many readers twitch. It carries tremendous cultural baggage, as do the related terms communal, communitarian, and collective. I use socialism because technically it is the best word to indicate a range of technologies that rely for their power on social interactions. Broadly, collective action is what Web sites and Net-connected apps generate when they harness input from the global audience. Of course, there's rhetorical danger in lumping so many types of organization under such an inflammatory heading. But there are no unsoiled terms available, so we might as well redeem this one.

When masses of people who own the means of production work toward a common goal and share their products in common, when they contribute labor without wages and enjoy the fruits free of charge, it's not unreasonable to call that socialism.
Click to expand...

https://www.wired.com/2009/05/nep-newsocialism/

And here is Kelly's brief timeline
Socialism: A History

1516
Thomas More's Utopia
1794
Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason
1825
First US commune
1848
Marx & Engels' The Communist Manifesto
1864
International Workingmen's Association
1903
Bolshevik Party elects Lenin
1917
Russian Revolution
1922
Stalin consolidates power
1946
State-run health care in Saskatchewan
1959
Cuban Revolution
1967
Che Guevara executed
1973
Salvador Allende deposed
1980
Usenet
1985
Mikhail Gorbachev's glasnost
1991
Soviet Union dissolves
1994
Linux 1.0
1998
Venezuela elects Hugo Chavez
1999
Blogger.com
2000
Google: 1 billion indexed pages
2001
Wikipedia
2002
Brazil elects Lula da Silva
2003
Public Library of Science
2004
Digg
2005
Amazon's Mechanical Turk
2006
Twitter
2008
Facebook: 100 million users
2008
US allocates $700 billion for troubled mortgage assets
2009
YouTube: 100 million monthly US users
 
Stanley Road said:
Its a wide umbrella, if you look up economic socialism you will find some of the richest countries in western Europe. I'm quite sure the caf is devided as there are quite a lot of ignorant members. You only have to read 'Venezuela, failed socialist state' to know these people have not researched or do not know the difference between socialism and corruption.

I am a socialist.
Click to expand...

Good. And as a socialist, which political party do you see as the one that aligns with your beliefs.
 
It’s bizarre that Capitalism as a societal philosophy has managed to take credit for all the mainstream successes of socialism. As if public services and protective legal rights are just eternal natural ever presents, and not things that had to be fought for by similarly demonised and ridiculed socialistically minded people over the years.

But then, taking credit for stuff is what Capitalism tends to do...

A Capitalst emergency service, for example, would basically be gangsterism (as it was when NY tried it in the 1800s!) but rather than admit that some things are better managed for the common good (essentially, the short vers of what socialism is) the centre right (and beyond) have deviously absorbed and co-opted it, and convinced whole swathes of politically incurious, comfortable enough people that Socialism is nothing more than “forcibly taking your shit!” and that all these beloved, intrinsic altruistic laws and institutions would just “like, probably have happened under Capitalism anyway, innit”...
 
To me socialism in the mainstream has become a wrap around word to express disagreement at social expansion policies - greater investment in public infrastructure, affordable housing and more housing, stronger welfare net + greater and broader education accessibility that can help people gain the skills to stand on their own feet without having their dignity shredded by being treated as do nothing welfare queens because they need some help to get there.
 
Stanley Road said:
Its a wide umbrella, if you look up economic socialism you will find some of the richest countries in western Europe. I'm quite sure the caf is devided as there are quite a lot of ignorant members. You only have to read 'Venezuela, failed socialist state' to know these people have not researched or do not know the difference between socialism and corruption.
Click to expand...
Those western European countries you're referring to aren't really socialist though, are they? They're welfare states. Socialism occurs when the workers own the means of production.
 
Stanley Road said:
The term is broad, thats what makes claims on here so ridiculous.
Click to expand...

But surely, even if we concede that it is broad, there must be some borders to distinguish socialism from other ideologies or systems?

And if we accept that one of those defining aspects is that socialism is revolutionary in the way it transforms ownership over the means of productions, as opposed to reformist systems that operate within capitalism's boundaries, then European countries cannot be socialist

Also, how do you explain the fact that governments in European "socialist" countries have in the past been led by conservative/liberal/other non-socialist parties? How can these countries be socialist? Or do they change their economic system/ideology every time one of the other parties wins an election?
 
HarlanEiffler said:
And if we accept that one of those defining aspects is that socialism is revolutionary
Click to expand...
All socialist ideologies aren’t revolutionary, though.

Though I agree in general that Western European countries are social democracies to varying degrees, with Norway probably coming closest to a form of liberal socialism.
 
Man of Leisure said:
Those western European countries you're referring to aren't really socialist though, are they? They're welfare states. Socialism occurs when the workers own the means of production.
Click to expand...

Only if you’re intent on defining broad historical political philosophies, that have been appropriated and amalgamated in a plethora of different ways throughout the ages, to adapt to changing modern circumstances, in incredibly narrow semantic terms... which absolutely no one actually does.

Even an aggressively super-Capitalist nation like the US isn’t actually a philosophically pure free market state, is it?...in fact it’s incredibly Socialist in its schooling, transport and emergency services for a country that demonises it so much...if it was truly the free market Randian utopia the right imagines it is, it would have an (even more) horrendously gangsterised turf war of competing police forces...which it doesn’t, for obvious reasons. Because “paying taxes to the government for basic common public services” or, if you like, “regulatory ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the benefit of the community as a whole.” is actually pretty good and necessary in some instances...

In fact it’s genuinely super weird that the right wing terrahawks who are (at least performatively) fine with all this established public service socialism, don’t get called out on their hypocrisy, or chastised for being unfaithful to the strict definition of their politics nearly as much as those on the left who call for the meagre and moral inclusion of healthcare into this already established group do for being “basically Stalin because Socialism technically means everyone is forced to be a farmer, or something...”
 
Carolina Red said:
All socialist ideologies aren’t revolutionary, though.

Though I agree in general that Western European countries are social democracies to varying degrees, with Norway probably coming closest to a form of liberal socialism.
Click to expand...

Are you thinking of democratic socialism?
 
Carolina Red said:
Because he isn’t the only economic *********** to come up with socialist ideas.
Click to expand...
Eurocentrism got the better of me once again! But could you name one that is relevant in the world, or has been since the dawn of capitalism? I must admit I am not very strong on non-European political theory.
 
HarlanEiffler said:
No

Now I'm lost. How can socialism be non-marxist?
Click to expand...

How can Capitalism exist with publically funded education, police forces or healthcare? Why don’t the majority of the “free” Western World have competing privatised fire services, racketeering their respective customers to death in the name of unregulated freedom?

Why does “socialism” alone need to defend itself as some all or nothing extreme philosophy, detached from practical application?
 
HarlanEiffler said:
Eurocentrism got the better of me once again! But could you name one that is relevant in the world, or has been since the dawn of capitalism? I must admit I am not very strong on non-European political theory.
Click to expand...
Many of them are/were Europeans.

You had the Utopian socialists who came before Marx... Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen, Ricardo, etc.

You have reformist socialists who were contemporaries of or came after Marx... liberal socialists like John Stuart Mill, libertarian socialists like GDH Cole, guild socialists like Bertrand Russell, Christian socialists like RH Tawney, the Fabians, etc.
 
Has anyone mentioned Bernstein yet? Though I guess the revisionist movement is seen as a subset of Marxism so to speak, I always feel it deserves its own discussion as there are some clear distinctions...most notably capitalism “adapting” rather than being replaced.
 
HarlanEiffler said:
Eurocentrism got the better of me once again! But could you name one that is relevant in the world, or has been since the dawn of capitalism? I must admit I am not very strong on non-European political theory.
Click to expand...

the “dawn of Capitalism” was built on the successes of socialism. The ability of the masses to access healthcare, education, housing etc, allowed a basic level of comfort on which the promise of meritocratic success could thrive.... And I’m not claiming there’ve been no benefits whatsoever from that (a mixture of philosophies has always been the practical basis of government)... but it’s odd (not to mention insidiously pervasive) how Capitalism has managed to absorb all the credit for the existing stability of these very un-Capitalist institutions, whilst avoiding taking the blame for the catastrophic failures of the business and property markets it’s almost entirely responsible for.

In fact the biggest social upheavals of the 21st century have been entirely the product of rampant capitalism, and yet here we are, debating the merits of socialism as if it’s a controversial topic, for some reason...
 
Charlie Foley said:
Has anyone mentioned Bernstein yet? Though I guess the revisionist movement is seen as a subset of Marxism so to speak, I always feel it deserves its own discussion as there are some clear distinctions...most notably capitalism “adapting” rather than being replaced.
Click to expand...
I thought of mentioning him in my post above, but he wouldn’t really fall into the “non-Marxist camp” I don’t think... he is an example of a non-revolutionary socialist though.
 
Carolina Red said:
I thought of mentioning him in my post above, but he wouldn’t really fall into the “non-Marxist camp” I don’t think... he is an example of a non-revolutionary socialist though.
Click to expand...
Agreed-he’s not a non-Marxist so much as a Marxist who...critiques Marx. Back in my uni days I always found his arguments more impressive than Marx though
 
Mockney said:
the “dawn of Capitalism” was built on the successes of socialism. The ability of the masses to access healthcare, education, housing etc, allowed a basic level of comfort on which the promise of meritocratic success could thrive.... And I’m not claiming there’ve been no benefits whatsoever from that (a mixture of philosophies has always been the practical basis of government)... but it’s odd (not to mention insidiously pervasive) how Capitalism has managed to absorb all the credit for the existing stability of these very un-Capitalist institutions, whilst avoiding taking the blame for the catastrophic failures of the business and property markets it’s almost entirely responsible for.

In fact the biggest social upheavals of the 21st century have been entirely the product of rampant capitalism, and yet here we are, debating the merits of socialism as if it’s a controversial topic, for some reason...
Click to expand...

This is a good post but the thing missing (and a blind spot with most older theorists) is the environment. Surplus value, IMO, doesn't all derive from labor. A lot of surplus value also results from, in the words of Francis Bacon, the "rape of nature". We see this a lot in the last 40 years how corporations profit but the associated costs to the environment or even poisoned communities fall on society as a whole.

In my view this is really an extension of the tragedy of the commons where the privatization forces strip public resource value out of the environment and leave all of us to bear the costs of unsustainable wanton 'economic growth'.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Surplus value, IMO, doesn't all derive from labor. A lot of surplus value also results from, in the words of Francis Bacon, the "rape of nature". We see this a lot in the last 40 years how corporations profit but the associated costs to the environment or even poisoned communities fall on society as a whole.

In my view this is really an extension of the tragedy of the commons where the privatization forces strip public resource value out of the environment and leave all of us to bear the costs of unsustainable wanton 'economic growth'.
Click to expand...
Pretty much.

Some poor feckers made a similar mistake and sent it to Marx(It didn't turn out well for them)

First part of the paragraph: "Labor is the source of all wealth and all culture."

Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power. the above phrase is to be found in all children's primers and is correct insofar as it is implied that labor is performed with the appurtenant subjects and instruments. But a socialist program cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that lone give them meaning. And insofar as man from the beginning behaves toward nature, the primary source of all instruments and subjects of labor, as an owner, treats her as belonging to him, his labor becomes the source of use values, therefore also of wealth. The bourgeois have very good grounds for falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to labor; since precisely from the fact that labor depends on nature it follows that the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission.

Let us now leave the sentence as it stands, or rather limps.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
Click to expand...
 
Carolina Red said:
Many of them are/were Europeans.

You had the Utopian socialists who came before Marx... Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen, Ricardo, etc.

You have reformist socialists who were contemporaries of or came after Marx... liberal socialists like John Stuart Mill, libertarian socialists like GDH Cole, guild socialists like Bertrand Russell, Christian socialists like RH Tawney, the Fabians, etc.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the answer and the list! I understand what you mean now...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.