Frederick Engels on the Theoretical Development of Modern Socialism

[Starry Messenger]

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/frederick-engels-on-the-theoretical-development-of-modern-socialism/

Engels discusses the theories of modern socialism in chapter two of part three of his book Anti-Dühring: Herr Eugen Dühring's Revolution in Science. We are informed that socialism is a politico-economic theory based on the materialist conception of history. Unlike idealist conceptions that history is based on the great ideas and actions of famous individuals, or guided by spiritual forces, or the expression of a grand plan set up by some deity or other (there are several choices as to which deity came up with the plan). Materialists believe that the existence of the various institutions and social structures that have developed over time, and by which various groups of humans arrange their social institutions, belief patterns, and social relations are to be understood, in the last analysis, by a study of how they interact to make their daily bread (production) and how they come to distribute what they made to each other (distribution). Thus, the causes of the different phases of human development , Engels says, "are to be sought, not in the philosophy but in the economics of each particular epoch."

Today, Engels says (he means the 1870s in Europe but his comments are still as true now as then) there is a growing sense that something is basically wrong and unfair in how our national and international economic system operates. It can't employ all who wish to work, millions of people are living in poverty, famines and droughts brought about by human activity engulf large sections of the globe, and hunger stalks the streets of many of our largest cities, families are homeless and uprooted, and our schools and colleges fail to properly educate the youth to understand the world they live in. Yet a very small group of wealthy people grow richer and richer while the vast majority of humanity suffers and wastes away.

This shows, according to Engels, that new ways of production and distribution have evolved and that the social order we live in has not kept up with these developments. In fact, our social order has become dysfunctional and is holding back all the possible potential improvements in human welfare that the new productive and distributive powers could provide. It is the task of socialists to discover and point out the current impediments which prevent the productive system from reaching its full potential and to discover the means of benefiting all humanity rather than just a small portion. And, he says: "These means are not to be invented, spun out of the head, but discovered with the aid of the head in the existing material facts of production."

<snip>

This mode of production, the creation of commodities for a market, has come to be called capitalism. The first capitalists found themselves subservient to a powerful ruling class of nobles consisting of feudal lords and (mostly) hereditary monarchs who lived by means of the agricultural exploitation of serfs and taxation of the income of the developing bourgeoisie. This ruling class stifled the productive capacity of the of the bourgeoisie and prevented it from reaching its true potential. In other words, the bounds within which the feudal system restricted the capitalists were incompatible with that class's growing mode of production and so, Engels says, the "bourgeoisie broke up the feudal system and built upon its ruins the capitalist order of society."

I thought with 76 admitted socialists on DU today, this might be fun to post. (Poll from today: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2434087)

[RickFromMN]

1. Not being a historian, may I make a few lay comments. Please take my comments with a grain of salt.

It seems we are predisposed to having a powerful ruling class.

Engel mentions the Feudal lords and hereditary monarchs that were overthrown.

Can I assume the developing bourgeoisie happened during Engel's time.
What has become of these bourgeoisie?
They have become captains, dare I say feudal lords, of industry.
Their wealth is passed down, from generation to generation, like hereditary monarchs.

I have a view of corporations, small or large, that go something like this.
We pretend to live in a democracy until we go to work.
At work, we have a small group of leaders who make the decisions.
These leaders are the corporate feudal lords.
Most of us are the serfs who follow orders.
Among the serfs, some are elevated to manager status, to control the other serfs.

Corporations want to concentrate power and grow ever more powerful.
Corporations concentrate power at the top of the corporation.
Corporations integrate together to gain power and market share.
Corporations are our current feudal system.

Small corporations can and do fail all the time.
Many large corporations can and do fail over time...but some are deemed too big to fail.

I think this is one of my problems, but not the only problem, with our present system.
There must be a way to prevent corporations from becoming too big to fail.

I have a second problem with our present system.
A corporation cares only for itself, its management, and sometimes, its shareholders.
Some corporations try to care for their employees, with varying success.
Some corporations try to care for their communities, to varying degrees.

I feel, if we let corporations exist, and with the power corporations have,
corporations should have a special duty, not only to their employees,
but also to the communities, the country, and the world as a whole.

Corporations don't feel this duty exists, which is why many feel, and I feel,
the government should take over these duties and tax the corporations to pay
for these duties corporations refuse to do.

I'm sure those who defend corporations will cite efficiency as one argument for corporations.
Another argument is the ability to do things on a much larger scale.
These arguments don't sway me when corporations fail in their social duty,
or refuse to believe they have a social duty, to begin with.

I don't fully understand what Engel's is proposing regarding government.
It sounds to me like he is saying the government will replace the bourgeoisie.

If this is true, people of power will gravitate to, and try to control, the government.
All the appointees from Goldman Sachs, in both the Bush and Obama administrations,
come to mind.

A corrupt government, or a government run by a corporate elite, may not,
probably will not, feel there is a duty to the people, to the communities,
to the country, or to the world as a whole.

Engel speaks of government fading away. I'm not sure this is practical.
If we had Engel's world where the government owned the means of production,
and government slowly faded away, groups of people would come together,
and form corporations from the remnants of the fading government.
These corporations would become feudal, and we would have the problem start again.

Can't we keep corporations from becoming too big or too important too fail?
Can't we impose social duties on corporations, because corporations gain so much power?

I expect our government will not fade away any time soon anyway.
Our government owns a core means of production, specifically, waging war, keeping peace.
Our government directs the manufacture of weapons, and has a military or police force.

I'm not saying our government doesn't do other things, but this is specific to government.
I wish our government did more social duties and had a more social conscience.

I think of myself as a socialist because I believe health care is a right, not a privilege.
I believe people should have a place to live and food to eat.
I'm certain Republicans don't share my view.
I'm not certain about Democrats or other groups any more.
I used to think Democrats shared my beliefs; I think FDR shared my beliefs.

[Starry Messenger]

3. That's a really great post Rick.

I know from reading other Engels' work that the socialist plan is a worker-run government, however that would look under present conditions in the US. Probably different from what it might have looked like at the time Engels was writing. But yeah, we'd have to unchain the relationship that exists between the corporations and the government first. There is a school of thought that wants to move straight to a direct change of government to bring us to socialism, and another one that says that in order for that to be effective, we need to defang the power of the corporations and gotten rid of first. I've been reading about the Spanish Civil War, and evidently the reason Franco rose to power there was in part because the monopoly corporate forces still had too much power in society and managed to overturn the elected socialist government. I don't know if that answers your questions, but it is something I've been thinking about lately.

Hey, have you been going to OccupyMN? I have a socialist friend there who has been really involved in going there, you might have run into him. He gives people copies of the Communist Manifesto.

I think of myself as a socialist because I believe health care is a right, not a privilege.
I believe people should have a place to live and food to eat.

Same here.

[RickFromMN]

4. I live in Moorhead, near Fargo, North Dakota. I assume your friend is in the Twin Cities.

[Starry Messenger]

5. Minneapolis actually.

I guess that's pretty far away though. I'm in CA so I'm never sure of the relative distances anywhere else.

[Odin2005]

8. This fellow Moorheadite loves your post!

I have an old Yankee view of government. IMO government ideally is the agent that enforces the People's Will for the common good. Office holders are public servants who work at the pleasure of the people who elected them.

I have that same view regarding business. IMO the big problem today is that profit is seen as the end itself, rather than simply the reward for doing a good job at providing goods and services. Businesses have a moral duty to fulful the needs of society, and the business is to be rewarded if it does that well.

In my ideal economy most businesses would be co-ops, with the workers deciding how much of the profit is reinvested in the company and how much is divvied up as bonuses.

[northoftheborder]

9. I like this kind of analysis and thought.

[TBF]

2. Pinned this thread (just practicing)

[OswegoAtheist]

6. 80 now.

Including my reply.

Oswego "Socialist Butterfly" Atheist

[Starry Messenger]

7. Right on!

Nice to meet you!