Knowt
19th Century Ideology
The Conservative Era (Age of Metternich)
The conservative aristocratic monarchies of Russia, Austria, and Great Britain were known as the Quadruple Alliance. France was defeated, but many other international questions were pressing and needed attention.
The Congress of Vienna’s first order of business was to establish a European Balance of Power. Austrian Foreign Minister, Klemens Von Metternich, assumed leadership.
Metternich’s conservatism was based on the conclusion that he believed that liberalism caused the American and French Revolutions and was responsible for a generation of war, bloodshed, and suffering.
He believed strong governments were necessary to protect society and guard against liberal and nationalist aspirations of ethnic groups seeking self -determination.
Remember Metternich’s “geographic expression”?
Metternich’s policies dominated the Habsburg-enriched Italian peninsula, Austria, and the German Confederation. As a testimony to his resolve to hold the line on conservatism, he passed the Carlsbad Decrees in the German Confederation in 1819.
The decrees required the 38 German states to root out subversive ideas in their universities and newspapers. These two sources are the roots of liberalism.
Liberalism (defined): This movement’s principle ideas were equality and liberty based on…
Representative government
Equality before the law
Individual freedoms: press, speech, assembly, etc.
(Discuss: What would happen if the countries succeeded at achieving liberalist/ nationalist ideals?)
Economic Liberalism: Also appeared as a new idea to deal with the monetary issues created by the Industrial Revolution. The principle, often called laissez-faire economics, is the liberal belief in unrestricted private enterprise and no government interference in the economy.
Under the Conservative order and guided by Metternich, the Powers tried to patch-up “Humpty Dumpty.”
The Greek Revolution put conservatism on notice. The Greek struggle for freedom and independence won the enthusiastic support of liberals, nationalists, and romantics. The Ottoman Turks were portrayed as cruel oppressors who were on the wrong side of the course of History. Why did Europeans support Greece?
(Discuss the “Eastern Question.”)
The Greeks were successful in their quest for independence. The European nations’ interest in the Balkans was building as the Ottoman Empire faded.
The Greek Revolution set the stage for the turmoil to come—a series of nationalistic and liberalistic revolutions swept across Europe like the plague. Other changes were so profound that they were revolutionary in nature.
All events seemed to apex toward a single historical point. That was the year of Revolutions….1848.
Britain During the Age of Metternich
Eighteenth century Britain was very stable. Although it was dominated by the landowning aristocracy, others could buy land meaning the “common people” had more opportunities than other states. The French Revolution changed that and backed Britain into conservative mode.
After the Napoleonic Wars, Britain was able to import cheap grain, bringing down the price of foodstuffs, thus benefitting almost everyone -- except the land aristocracy. They were positioned to earn millions or lose millions ...why?
As a result (remember, the land aristocracy controls Parliament) Parliament passed the Corn Laws (Grain Laws), which prohibited the importation of foreign grain unless the price at home rose to “improbable” levels. Seldom has a class legislated more selfishly.
High unemployment and post-war stress added to the sudden high-price in foodstuffs. Thus the passage of the Corn Laws sparked a series of events that broke the power of the land aristocracy.
The Corn Laws triggered protests and demonstrations by urban laborers. One orderly protest at St. Peters Fields in industrial Manchester was savagely broken up by armed cavalry. The incident was scornfully nicknamed “The Battle of Peterloo” (1815) or Peterloo’s Massacre, in reference to the British victory at Waterloo. This incident demonstrated the government's determination to repress dissenters.
In response, Parliament passed the Six Acts in 1817. This series of laws practically eliminated all mass meetings and limited the rights of people to criticize government.
Shortly after the Six Acts were passed, the Cato Street Conspiracy was exposed. Under the misguidance of an extreme radical, Arthur Thistlewood, a group plotted to kill several members of Parliament. The plot was uncovered and several of the conspirators were hanged since they planned to blow up Parliament.
The snowballed events of the Peterloo Massacre and the passage of the Six Acts placed common Britons into an anti-government mood that could have led to revolution (liberalistic), but the Cato Street Conspiracy actually discredited the anti-government grassroots movements. British citizens began to gravitate away from thoughts of revolution and seek change through political and social reform.
The most pivotal turning point of change was the passage of the Reform Bill of 1832. As we know, the Industrial Revolution and the Enclosure Movement forced mass migration to Britain’s cities. The mass exodus created “Rotten Burroughs,” districts controlled by the land-aristocracy but with little population.
The Reform Bill of 1832 increased the number of male voters and shifted the power of political representation to new industrial areas. Burroughs went from equal representation to representation based on population, thus favoring highly populated industrial centers.
Britain continued to reform.
Prison Reform—the American Plan: “Transportation” systems exported serious offences to Australia in lieu of capital punishment. Others were now isolated in jail. (Auburn System: isolated at night, together during day)
The Test Acts were repealed and the Catholic Emancipation Act passed. The Test Acts were 1673 legislation designed to secure the dominance of the Anglican Church by stripping Puritans, Catholics, and other dissenters of rights to vote, assemble, hold public office, or teach at universities.
Professional police forces began to appear in Europe such as the British “Bobbies” named after Robert Peel (notable statesman/prime minister).
Removed from the disastrous effects of the Napoleonic Wars, Great Britain flourished under their policy of “Splendid Isolationism.” Territorial gains throughout the British Empire in the upcoming Imperialistic Age brought economic prosperity and paved the way for industrialization.
But prosperity came at a cost, and the African Slave Trade was at its height in the late 1700s-early 1800s. William Wilberforce led the call for the abolition of slavery in the British Empire, and the government finally heeded his call, passing the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833.
But Great Britain was not entirely free from internal conflict following this important reform. As we know, Britain controlled Ireland, but Ireland did not benefit from industrial prosperity or political reforms. The great masses of Irish Catholics rented most of their land from the Protestants of Ulster in Northern Ireland.
The condition of Irish Catholics around 1800 was abominable, the worst in Western Europe. In spite of the hopelessly poverty-stricken population, growth spiraled due to the extensive cultivation of the potato, brought to Europe during the Columbian Exchange.
Nothing else mattered. Every means was based on the life-sustaining potato. Then from 1845 to 1848, the blight hit. Wide-spread starvation and epidemics followed.
The Great Famine had a profound effect on Ireland.
1 million fled Ireland--most immigrated to the United States
1 ½ million starved to death
Anti-British feelings increased and Irish nationalism increased because, with Corn Laws in place, affordable grain was not possible. The call for Irish independence was now burned into the popular consciousness.
Britain was influenced in 1846 by the Anti-Corn Law League to abolish the law. British manufacturers wanted their goods to be more “world competitive” and Robert Peel, Prime Minister, was concerned about the disaster taking place in Ireland. The repeal of the Corn Laws did not help Ireland (as Ireland had no money to purchase the lower-priced grain), but it marked the Era of Free Trade.
France During the Age of Metternich
As we know, the legitimacy principle placed the Bourbon King Louis XVIII on the French throne in 1814. The government document was called the Charter of 1814. The charter was not very democratic as only about 100,000 of the wealthiest out of 30 million Frenchmen could vote due to the influence of returning émigrés. However, the charter did protect basic civil liberties, quieting the masses for a time.
After the death of Louis XVIII, his brother Charles X inherited the throne. His goal was to return to strict absolutism. Charles attempted to substitute French nationalism for French liberalism in reaching his goal. He invaded across the Mediterranean into Algeria, took the Muslim land, and began a rebirth of French expansionism.
Emboldened by the taking of Algeria, he repudiated the 1814 Constitutional Charter. In substitution, he passed the July Ordinance of 1830 that stripped people of their civil liberties.
The people quickly caught the Quadruple Alliance off-guard. (Remember, it was supposed to put down any revolution- especially in France.) They reacted to save their liberties. However, they were slow to react when it came to killing their own people.
Led by the middle class, artisans, small businesses, traders, lawyers, journalists and others, the people of Paris took to the streets during the July Revolution of 1830.
The liberalistic nature of the 1830 revolution is best illustrated by French romantic painter Eugene Delacroix in his work entitled “Liberty Leading the People” (Liberty at the Barricades). The painting expresses the military strategy of choice Parisians.
In three short days, Charles X abdicated, and the upper middle class skillfully placed Louis Philippe on the throne. He proclaimed himself “the Citizen King.” For the most part, Republicans, Democrats, Socialist reformers, and the poor had waged the revolution for naught.
Louis Philippe was supported by his Prime Minister Francois Guizot who challenged the upper-middle class to take advantage of the new government.
After the 1830 Revolution, another ideological doctrine emerged with the intention of transforming society. French socialism developed in reaction to…
the capitalistic, selfish individualism of the industrial (bourgeoisie) class.
the splitting of the communities into isolated fragments (distinction of the have and the have-nots)
French socialists wanted…
greater economic planning
state regulated property
and a cooperative community
The foundation of French socialism was built on the ideological beliefs of two men: Count Henri de Saint-Simon and Charles Fourier.
Saint-Simon believed that workers, not the “idle” class, should get the highest income. He also believed that to establish a better social order, industrial and scientific leaders, as well as poets, should guide society and re-organize the state because they understood the times better than the political powers did. This system of government is called a technocracy.
Even though Saint-Simon set up no programs to achieve his goals, he did inspire others. One of his disciples, Charles Fourier, actually detailed plans to restructure society into model communities called phalansteries (or phalanxes). This utopian socialist concept grouped communities of about 1,600 people to live and work together. Each person was allowed to what they did best. The ones doing the hardest or less desirable jobs received the highest rewards. Sexual activity would be free--people could rotate from work task to work task...partner to partner…thus stimulating the passionate side of human nature.
Another advocate of French socialism was Louis Blanc, a journalist who published Organization of Labor in 1839. He voiced giving the working class the right to vote, and they would vote to create “workshops” to employ the poor. Such “workshops” would replace private industry; thus government industry would be organized to assure jobs. The state would become the “Great Employer.”
Another Frenchman, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, authored What is Property? (1840). Proudhon represented the anarchist view of the French socialist reform movement. He rejected the ownership of property and proclaimed that property ownership was theft from the worker. He advocated getting rid of the “state” as well as private property and replacing it with “social workshops” and cooperatives factories operated by and for workers.
French socialism, as well as socialistic views throughout Europe will be later influenced by German radical Karl Marx.
Karl Marx will scoff at the utopias attempt to piecemeal society’s problems by authoring The Communist Manifesto in 1848. The Communist Manifesto did not influence the rash of 1848 revolutions. Their causes (nationalistic, liberalistic, and labor-driven) were already in motion.
As more evidence of corruptness mounted against King Louis Philippe and his Chief Minister Guizot, a series of political banquets were scheduled to give a forum for political opponents to criticize the government.
When Guizot and Philippe showed total support for the upper-middle class against the working class by forbidding the banquet system, again Parisians went to the streets and erected the barricades.
Guizot resigned, and the Citizen King abdicated.
France now had no government, and it would have been foolish for a monarchy claim to step up. Only two options were viable as a provisional government tried to organize:
Republicans wanted a conservative legislative branch based on universal male suffrage; best defined as a republic minus Robespierre and the Terror.
The Louis-Blanc socialists immediately began to organize their National Socialist workshop concept of total employment as the cornerstone of the provisional government.
The June Days: As elections approached, a great fear swept the countryside. Small peasant farmers, conservative church loyalists, and republicans dominated the election process in fear of the Parisian socialists, who might confiscate the small farms of the peasants.
In June 1848, workshop socialists took to the streets again and clashed over their loss and rejection of the socialist dreams. The difference was the French Army who sided with the new conservative republic. Over 3,500 were killed as the barricades came down. French Socialist dreams were stalled.
The “June Days” confirmed the dominance of property owners in France. The populace wanted a state that was safe for small property. They elected a familiar “name” as president to newly proclaimed 2nd French Republic -- Louis Napoleon Bonaparte.
The election of “Little Napoleon” doomed the 2nd French Republic:
He was not a supporter of democratic institutions.
He consolidated power by plebiscite approved by the voters approving a new constitution.
He used the plebiscite again in 1852 to set aside the 2nd French Republic and proclaim the Second French Empire. He became Emperor Napoleon III. The French again had the “go ahead” for their nationalistic intentions in Europe.
Within a half-century period, France went from monarchy to republic (1st/ Republic of Virtue) to empire (1st/ Napoleon) to Second French Republic to the Second Empire. And concerning the 1848 Revolutions…. when France sneezes, Europe catches a cold.
Revolution in Austria
The Vienna Uprising of 1848:
In the Austrian Empire, a Magyar nationalist named Louis Kossuth called for an independent Hungary. Students, inspired by Louis Kossuth’s speeches, led a series of demonstrations in Vienna that got out of control. Metternich was forced to flee.
Frans Ferdinand abdicated in favor of his nephew Francis Joseph. Fearing uprisings everywhere, Austria emancipated the serfs, one of the most lasting results of all of the revolution of 1848.
The Hungarian Magyar Uprising of 1848:
Meanwhile on the eastern side of Austria, the Hungarians took the confusion in Vienna as a cue to go ahead with their nationalistic intentions.
Francis Joseph’s new minister, Prince Felix Schwarzenberg, used the full force of the army to crush Kossuth’s nationalistic movement, beginning the Germanification movement in Austria.
Tsar Nicholas I of Russia gladly furnished 200,000 troops to assist the Austrian government in putting down the Magyar Revolt. Russia was more than happy to have an extremely weak Austrian Empire on its border as opposed to a strong nationalistic Hungary.
Revolution in Italy
As in Austria, the Habsburgs were trying to hold on to their domains. A brief war between the Italian Kingdom of Piedmont and Austria marked the first stage of the Italian Revolution.
King Charles Albert abdicated in favor of his son, Victor Emmanuel II. A deal was made to give Piedmont’s people a liberal constitution to let Emmanuel II rule. (Piedmont will have its place in history.)
Political radicalism was on the rise elsewhere on the Italian peninsula. In Rome as well as other Italian cities, radicals proclaimed the Roman Republic.
Nationalists from all over Italy, including the leader of the Young Italian Movement, Giuseppe Mazzini, came to Rome to declare the republic and the desire to oust foreign influence.
The nationalistic Mazzini voiced, “Republican -- because theoretically every nation is destined by God and humanity to form a free and equal community of brothers, and the Republic is the only form of government that assures this future.”
The Republic of Rome was short lived. Napoleon III sent a French army into Rome to provide safety for the Pope, who fled during the Republican uprising but returned when the Republic fell to the French forces. The French army stayed at the Pope’s request (the French occupation of Rome).
Italy’s unification movement had to wait for its future destiny.
Revolution in Prussia
As we know, Metternich called the Germanies a “geographic expression.” Why?
A crack appeared in the Metternich system in the newly formed German Confederation in 1819. The “crack in Humpty Dumpty” was patched with the Carlsbad Decrees. When France experienced their revolution in 1848 (“France sneezed”) wide-spread discontent swept the Germanies.
Frederick William IV of Prussia managed to save his monarchy by dodging the liberal “bullets” that were shot during the Berlin Uprising. But other events were unfolding that affected Germany as a whole.
In 1848, representatives met from all German states at the Frankfurt Assembly but floundered over the issue of unification, which was their main mission.
Members of the Frankfurt Assembly differed over whether to include Austria in a united Germany.
The “Large German Plan” (Grossdeutsch) favored Austria’s inclusion.
The “Small German Plan” (Kleindeutsch) wanted Austria excluded.
The latter Kleindeutsch plan prevailed because Austria itself was against a unified Germany.
The Frankfurt Assembly also ran into nationalistic problems concerning who truly ruled the Germanies: Habsburgs / church issues / Catholics / Protestants / national borders, etc. Finally the dysfunctional Frankfurt Assembly offered the German crown representing a united Germany to Frederick William IV.
He rejected their offer to be their king placed under their constitution. He believed that kings rule by the grace of God -- not by the permission of man. He replied that he “would not pick up a crown from the gutter.”
With an excluded Austria and negative support from Prussia… the Frankfurt Assembly collapsed.
The revolutions of 1848 were monuments to many things to many people:
To liberals: dreams of constitutions
To nationalists: dreams of unification.
To workers / socialists: dreams of classlessness and equality.
The European elites of the merchant bourgeoisie and the landowning aristocracy still dominated Europe after 1848.
Opponents to these elites were divided, unsure of their goals, and politically inexperienced.
Inherited privilege, the basis of European political dominance in Europe for centuries, was no longer self-justifying!
Also acquired privilege based on acquiring wealth through capitalism was suspect.
The same year that the revolutions of 1848 warned Europe of the events to come, Karl Marx, the founder of scientific socialism, authored The Communist Manifesto, urging all workers of the world to unite!
Even though The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848, the European revolutions were not influenced by it. The revolutions were well into their causes and results, but because of the atrocities of the Industrial Revolution, scientific socialism became a very attractive road to travel after 1848.
Economic Responses to the Industrial Revolution
The Industrial Revolution created a new aristocracy, the middle class, and a new struggle-- how to get into the middle-class.
Cumbersome mercantilism was giving way to a new absolute also--capitalism.
Capitalism redefined wealth. Capitalism is most simply put as an economic system in which the factors of production (land, labor, capital) are privately owned. Capitalism creates money and wealth.
Capitalism combined with liberalism to produce laws of economics that, in the mind of the capitalist...
rewarded the most efficient and intelligent individuals (those that worked efficiently and were educated)
would keep society in proper order as government would maintain a appropriate place by achieving its ultimate purpose which is, according to the capitalist, to protect life and property.
Classical Economists
The laws of economics that were produced by capitalism were best defined by Scottish economist Adam Smith in his 1776 book, Wealth of Nations. Smith argued that economic activity in a capitalist economy would be regulated by two natural laws:
supply and demand--determines price
competition--lowers price and raises quality
Also according to Smith, natural laws, even in economics, must be allowed to operate without restrictions. The only power that can interfere is government, and for natural economic laws to work, government must practice a hands-off policy called laissez-faire (French, for “leave alone”).
If the laws of supply/ demand and competition are allowed to operate in a laissez-faire environment, the results would benefit all of society because more and better goods would be produced at the lowest possible price.
Smith believed that individuals promoted society best by promoting their own economic self-interest. (For example if you promote Americanism by only buying U.S. products, U.S. products would become bad, and prices would increase. Competition is healthy for an economy.)
Adam Smith’s belief in competition was the cornerstone in an economic theory called classical economics. This is the belief that even though individuals solely behave to benefit themselves in “spending” money, competitive markets (Adam Smith’s invisible hand) ensure the efficient allocation of resources and production, with no excessive profits.
Several other classical economists attempted to explain capitalism through their economic theories.
British classical economist David Ricardo explained his two economic theories in his book, The Principles of Political Economics and Taxation (1817).
His first economic theory was called the Iron Law of Wages. This theory stated that in capitalism, wages could not rise above the lowest level needed for subsistence.
According to Ricardo, wages were determined by supply and demand causing an economic cycle that which workers could not escape, as this is natural law.
When labor is plentiful, wages would be low.
When wages are low, workers would have less children.
As less children are born, wages would increase because of fewer workers.
Wages would become high because labor would be low.
Higher wages = more children
More children = labor increases = lower wages
As his second economic theory, Ricardo also defined the value of a product. According to Ricardo, the value of a product was measured by the amount of labor it took to produce that product.
This theory is called the Labor Theory of Value. This definition becomes better defined under Karl Marx.
Another “doom and gloom” classical economist who led people to call economics the “dismal science” was Thomas Malthus. He believed that even though labor cycled, population always increased, and population would outgrow the world’s food supply leading to disaster. He explained his theory in his work An Essay on the Principle of Population.
Food supply increased arithmetically: 1,2,3,4,5,6
People increased geometrically: 1,2,4,8,16,32,64
Thomas Malthus’s theories didn’t pan out because he assumed there was no ability to increase food production or create new food sources. (The Agricultural Revolution really took advantage of the Industrial Revolution and Enclosure Movements.)
Some people began to call for reform in the new middle-class economic structure. To rise above the lowest level needed for subsistence was nearly impossible. These people were not going as far as forming a new socio-economic system, but they realized laissez-faire attitudes of government toward the social results to capitalism were letting the lowest levels of society fall through the cracks.
One such classical economist was Jeremy Bentham, founder of utilitarianism. He promoted the concept of utility, “the greatest good for the greatest number,” meaning that laws should be passed to benefit the majority. According to Bentham, the results of this decision-making would overcome laws serving special interests and the privileged, thus leading to rational government. He regarded the existing legal and judicial systems as burden by traditional practices that harmed the very people the law should serve. The application of reason and utility would remove the legal clutter that prevented justice from being realized. The application of utility will be discussed later.
Another English contemporary of Bentham was philosopher John Stuart Mill, one of the most prominent advocates of political liberalism in the nineteenth century. Mill was educated in the Benthamite tradition, but suffered a mental crisis as a result of his early education. In his autobiography, Mill recounts this crisis. Imagine every social change necessary to better man’s happiness, Mill asked. Would you be happy? Mill’s answer was an astounding NO!
On Liberty (1859), Mill’s most famous work, has long been regarded as a classic statement on the liberty of the individual. Mill argued for an “absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects” that needed to be protected from both government censorship and the tyranny of the majority.
(Mill was also instrumental in expanding the meaning of liberalism by becoming an enthusiastic supporter of women’s rights, publishing an essay titled “On the Subjection of Women” with his wife, Harriet Taylor.)
Early Socialism
In the 18th and 19th centuries, social problems were enhanced by the Industrial Revolution and the capitalistic system that attached itself to it. The people who wanted to “fix the system” by reorganizing human society as a community instead of just a bunch of selfish, everyone-for-himself individuals called themselves socialists.
To solve the problems of society, an early group of utopian socialists began to voice their opinions in their writings. They were called “utopian socialists” because they advocated creating ideal communities as examples by which to reorganize human society.
Claude Saint-Simon(ism) (1760-1825): known as the Father of French Socialism. He believed society should be organized under the leadership of industrialists, scientists, and poets representing action, thought, and feeling. This concept or a “technocracy” was only logical since because of the Industrial Revolution, new technology was the new driving force of society.
Charles Fourier (ism) (1772-1837): a French commercial-salesman turned socialist-reformer planned the construction of small (1600 population) communities called phalanxes (phalansteries). He advocated workers should seek their natural passions, and profit would be divided according to one’s worth to society. Agrarian rather than industrial production would dominate these type of communities. None were constructed but the idea became noted.
Louis Blanc: “Workshop socialism,” government industry organized around the workshop concept to assure jobs for all workers in early nineteenth century France.
Robert Owen(ism) (1771-1858): a British socialist who tried to actually put his beliefs into practice by attempting to “socialize” his cotton factory at New Lanark, Scotland. Factory reforms:
workers had good quarters
factory had recreational activities
free schooling for the children of workers
good pay
visitors flocked from all over Europe to see the results of “Enlightened” management
New Lanark was so successful that Owen sold the factory and attempted a larger experiment in New Harmony, Indiana. The experiment failed because of “social conflict” in the community.
The Anarchists
Anarchism is the belief that government and law should be abolished and society organized by voluntary means, but often anarchism is associated with destruction as a reaction to the Industrial Revolution.
For example, the Luddites, led by their leader Ned Ludd, were a protest group in Britain who destroyed machinery that they believed was depriving them of their livelihood. The attacked English cotton and wool factories power looms. In response, the British government made such vandalism punishable by death.
The loudest voice of anarchism was a French socialist, Pierre Joseph Proudhon. In 1840 he published, What is Property?, a pamphlet that explained property ownership was theft because property was the denial of justice, liberty, and equality since it enabled some men to exploit the labors of others.
Classical Economists
Adam Smith
David Ricardo
Thomas Malthus
Jeremy Bentham (utilitarianism)
John Stuart Mill
Anarchists
Ned Ludd
Pierre Joseph Proudhon
Utopians
Claude Saint-Simon
Charles Fourier
Robert Owen
Louis Blanc
Charles Darwin
Georg Hegel
Friedrich Engels
Karl Marx
As the Industrial Revolution spread, many people believed the existing social/economic system could not be mended by tweaking laws controlling economic factors such as
supply/demand
competition
wages
distribution
and more
Anarchy seemed not a viable option, given the responses to radicals by European governments.
Thus if the socio-economic system cannot be fixed, it must be changed.
The most dominant influence in changing the system was a German philosopher, writer, and founder of scientific socialism: Karl Marx.
Marx destroyed his own academic ambition by his anti-governmental radicalism in Germany in the 1840s. Afterward, he moved to Paris and met Friedrich Engels.
Engels was a famous social philosopher, also German, who also left Germany to experience the Industrial Revolution in England. He authored The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844. He was so impressed with Marx that he became his patron, allowing Marx to concentrate on his writings.
Marx scoffed at the “community” attempts to establish socialism. He is responsible for naming the idealistic “utopian socialists.”
Scientific Socialism
Marx named his brand of socialism, scientific socialism. It is derived from the observation that all of human history is based on the struggle between classes.
Marx based his concepts on the thought processes of German philosopher Georg Hegel and the discoveries of English scientist Charles Darwin.
Karl Marx was an evolutionist even before he encountered Darwin's On the Origin of Species. Like Darwin, Marx thought he had discovered the natural law of development. He saw history in stages just as Darwin saw successive forms of life. Both Marx and Darwin made “struggle” the means of development. Just as Darwin had discovered the law of evolution in nature so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history. Marx felt his own work to be the exact parallel of Darwin's.
Another crucial influence on Marx’s philosophy was Hegel. Georg Hegel’s philosophy was a form of logic philosophy called dialectics. Dialectics is a logical dialogue or discussion to expose false beliefs and elicit truth. The tools of dialectics are the thesis, antithesis, and the synthesis.
This method of historical and philosophical progress postulates (1) a beginning proposition called a thesis, (2) a negation of that thesis called the antithesis, and (3) a synthesis whereby the two conflicting ideas are reconciled to form a new proposition, advancing the reasoning process toward absolute truth by grappling or struggling with opposing theses.
Example:
Thesis: The Earth is round.
Antithesis: The Earth is flat.
Synthesis: The Earth is elliptical (truth).
Marx agreed with Hegel in that the moving force of history is class struggle, but he believed that economics was the basis of all class struggle.
Using the concept of dialectics to move history forward and knowing that all conflict (class struggle in laws, social systems, customs, religion, art, etc.) is about economics, Marx, in what he describes as scientific socialism, is able to trace the evolution of class struggle to its end (absolute truth).
According to Marx, European (and world) history had moved through four stages of economic life with a fifth and final stage left to go. Dialectics provided historical movement through these stages via class conflict.
Stages:
Primitive Stage: People produced (gathered) only what they needed. Tools were developed and from that point surpluses could be produced and people could be exploited--synthesis through conflict.
Slave Stage: exploitation of masses as an extension of empire building, vying for dominance.
During the next stage, the Feudal Stage, classes were divided into nobility, clergy, merchants, artisans (those who were skilled), and serfs. As commerce expanded, the developing middle class came into conflict with the unproductive feudal system, destroying it and synthesising into capitalism.
Capitalistic Stage: the system of the industrial order, the private ownership of land capital and labor.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat would be the last step of historical conflict in the economic evolution of mankind as it made its way toward truth and absolute human fulfillment.
The proletariat was the newest class, the factory worker, the industrial worker, whose only asset was their labor.
So naturally, the final conflict between the haves and the have nots would be between the capitalists and the proletariat. This would be the final conflict and the end of Hegel’s dialectic process.
According to Marx, the workers were being exploited by the capitalists. Like Ricardo, Marx believed in the Labor Theory of Value, but the difference in what workers were paid and what they were actually worth he called surplus value. This was the capitalist profit--and theft from the worker (Proudhon).
Also, like Ricardo, Marx described a cycle of economics. Ricardo’s cycle identified why workers could not rise above their lowest level of subsistence. Expanding on Ricardo’s cycle, Marx described how the gap between the rich (capitalists) and poor (proletarians) would widen until the final conflict completes the evolution of economic development.
Marx’s Economic Cycle:
Since workers were not being paid what they were worth, they could not afford what they produced.
Since they could not afford to buy what they produced, inventory would increase; production would be slowed after inventory increased, and workers would be laid off.
Prices would fall, profits would be less, and a recession would occur. (Despite the decline in economic activity, capitalists still make profits due to surplus value.)
Once the “unsold” goods that were stockpiled in inventory were sold, prices would rise, profits would increase and the cycle would repeat.
With each cycle, the capitalists would gain power and profit, the workers would grow poorer, and the gap between the haves and the have nots would widen.
Each time the gap widened, hostilities would increase. The final synthesis would be a worker’s revolution, taking place in a highly industrialized country first, where the gap is the widest, leading to world revolution.
Once the workers (proletariat) had control…
The “people” would own everything.
“Private” property would not exist.
Therefore, no exploitation of workers would take place.
Everyone would become equal without capitalism.
Classes and class struggle would disappear.
Governments, whose primary purpose is protection of the “haves” and their property, would disappear.
The artificial governments of “family” and “religion” would also disappear, replaced by the world’s classless community.
Marx viewed this proletarian revolution as the end of history because after the revolution there would be no more dialectical change. The division of society into classes would have ended.
The means of production would be owned by all and operated in the interest of all. Society, being class-free, would be conflict free. There would be no need for government or private ownership, only minimal administration of affairs. Human beings would be released from conflict, free to fulfill themselves.
It became important for Marxists to believe that the dialectic view of calculating the last stage of history was scientific, in the same sort of way as Newton’s physics.
The scientific basis of Marx’s “economic laws of motion” distinguished Marxists and not only gave them a scientific view of the past, but it also made true Marxists intolerant to all alternative views and opinions.
Since the future was “known” to the Marxists, the philosophy had a hypnotic appeal to large numbers of intellectuals, so the movement became a planned role of revolution, a catalyst of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Marx himself encouraged worldwide revolution of workers. He pleaded his case in The Communist Manifesto (1848). He emphatically stated: “working men of all countries--unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.”
Marx’s complete works were published in 1885 after his death by Engels. The name of the complete works was Das Kapital.
Essay: Analyze the socialist response to the Industrial Revolution from the beginnings of the utilitarianism movement through scientific socialism as described by Karl Marx.
