Summary
In this section, Marx presents and critiques three subsets of Socialist and
Communist literature. The first subset is Reactionary Socialism. Reactionary
Socialists include the Feudal Socialists, the Petty-Bourgeois Socialists, and
the German, or "True" Socialists; all of these groups fight against the rise of
the bourgeoisie and modern Industry, without realizing the historical
process the bourgeoisie represent. Feudal Socialists were French and English
aristocrats who wrote against modern bourgeois society. However, their chief
complaint about the bourgeois was that it creates a revolutionary
proletariat that will uproot the old order of society. Thus, they objected
to the bourgeoisie because they were a threat to their way of life. The Petty-
Bourgeois Socialists were a class that saw it would eventually lose its separate
status and become part of the proletariat. Marx concedes that the Petty-
Bourgeois publications successfully showed the contradictions of the conditions
of modern production. However, their suggested alternatives to this
contradictory system were either to restore the old means of production and
exchange, or to push the modern means of production and exchange into the
framework of old property relations. Thus, this socialism is "reactionary and
Utopian" and can't accept the facts of history. Third there is German, or
"True" Socialism. These German thinkers adopted some French socialist and
Communist ideas, without realizing that Germany did not share the same social
conditions as France. As contemplated by the German thinkers, the French ideas
lost all practical significance and were "emasculated." These socialists
supported the aristocracy and feudal institutions against the rising
bourgeoisie, forgetting that the rise of the bourgeoisie is a necessary
historical step. The "true" socialists support the interests of the petty-
bourgeoisie, and thus support the status quo. They even reject class struggles.
Marx claims that almost all of the so-called Communist and Socialist literature
in Germany at this time are in fact of this character.
The second subset of Socialism is Conservative, or Bourgeois, Socialism. This
subset reflects the desires of a segment of the bourgeois to redress social
grievances, in order to guarantee the continued existence of bourgeois society.
Followers of this idea include "economists, philanthropists, humanitarians,
improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members
of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics,
[and] hole-and-corner reformers of every kind." They want the advantages of the
social conditions generated by Modern Industry, without the struggles and
dangers that necessarily accompany them. "They wish for a bourgeoisie without a
proletariat." These bourgeoisie believe that the best society is the society in
which they have power; they want the proletariat to keep its weak role, but to
stop hating the dominant bourgeoisie. A second form of this kind of Socialism
recognizes the fact that only changes in economic relations could help the
proletariat. However, the upholders of this kind of socialism do not accept
that such changes necessarily entail a destruction of the relations of
production. Rather, they wish to make administrative reforms, which simply
decrease the cost and amount of administrative work for the bourgeois
government.
The third subset is Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism. This subset
originated with the first attempts of the proletariat to achieve their own ends.
The attempts were reactionary, and the proletariat had not yet reached the
maturity and economic conditions necessary for emancipation. These socialists
therefore looked for new social laws to create the material conditions necessary
to free the proletariat. Their writings are important because they attacked
every principle of existing society, and are thus useful for enlightening the
working class. However, they are of a Utopian character: although their vision
did reflect authentic proletariat "yearnings" to reconstruct society, it was
ultimately a "fantastic" vision, providing no basis for practical action. Thus
the Critical-Utopian Socialists become less significant as the modern class
struggle takes shape; lacking practical significance, their "fantastic" attacks
lose theoretical justification. Thus, while the founders were in many ways
revolutionaries, their followers are mere reactionaries. They oppose political
action by the proletariat.
Commentary
This section is principally a review of other Socialist thinkers. Marx argues
that each approach fails because it misses out on a key component of Communist
theory. The Reactionaries fail to realize that the inevitability of the
bourgeoisie's rise, and of their eventual fall at the hands of the proletariat.
The Conservative Socialists, similarly, fail to see the inevitability of class
antagonism, and of the destruction of the bourgeoisie. The Critical-Utopian
Socialists fail to understand that social change must occur in revolutions, and
not by pure dreaming or words.
For a modern reader, Marx's discussion of the second subgroup perhaps deserves
the most consideration. The Conservative Socialism that Marx condemns is
precisely the attitude embraced by countries like the United States toward the
plight of workers. Welfare, Social Security and a minimum wage are all measures
that Marx would dismiss as attempts to preserve the capitalist system by making
the situation of the proletariat tolerable. It is worth considering, then,
whether Marx's critique is convincing. Basically, Marx seems to argue that
these "reforms" are actually done in the interests of the bourgeois, in order to
placate the proletariat and make them accept their social role. Marx believes
that this form of Socialism is misguided; he contends that the only way to
really address the grievances of the proletariat is through a restructuring of
economic and social relations. This is a revolutionary act; the suggested
reforms of Conservative Socialists are merely palliative. How does Marx's
critique hold up to states such as the U.S. or Western European nations--nations
that have instituted such "Conservative Socialist" programs? Is Marx correct in
stating that these reforms serve the interests of the ruling capitalists, and
not the workers? Looking back from the present, and having thus seen
"Conservative Socialism" in action, does historical evidence still support
Marx's claims of the inevitability of a proletariat uprising? Does it support
the desirability of such an uprising?
