A History of Socialism
“That city, then, is best ordered in which the greatest number use the expression ‘mine’ and ‘not mine’ of the same things in the same way.”
Who was it that spoke these words? Many may be tempted to say Marx, but these sentiments actually belong to Plato.
I was surprised at his socialist leanings; however, a quick skim through Plato’s Republic proves that this idea was not an anomaly. Socialist ideology dominated much of Plato’s thinking, as it did for many of the ancients. A few other edicts that stand out in The Republic include:
“They possess nothing in private possession but their bodies, all else is held in common.”
“These women shall all be common to all these men.”
“Parents ought not to know their children.”
Pillars of Socialism
A closer look at the socialism of the ancients is how Igor Shafarevich begins his monumental study, The Socialist Phenomenon. The book traces the history of socialism, beginning in antiquity, and sets out to prove that socialism is a consistent phenomenon, stretching across cultures and epochs.
Shafarevich shows that socialism is present in societies that are often little related to each other or occupy distant time periods. This suggests that there exists something in socialism that appeals to the human condition. As David Koigen, a Ukrainian philosopher, remarked, “Socialism is as old as human society itself – but not older.”
To identify historical moments characterized by socialism , Shafarevich defines four essential tenants of the ideology. These include:
Abolition of private property
This is part of every socialist ideology and the basic feature of all socialist states. Doctrines often promote the communality of property while socialist states are often based on state property.
Abolition of the family
While socialist doctrines may not explicitly promote the abolition of the family — though some do — there is a de-emphasis on the role of the family and an effort to weaken family ties, often with the express purpose of promoting closer ties to the state or the community.
Abolition of religion
In socialist states, the abolition of religion is rarely codified; however, states are governed on this principle and doctrines often take a hostile attitude towards spiritual practices.
Communality or Equality
The most common vocabulary employed by socialist doctrines is that which encompasses communality and/or equality. All ideology is aimed at destroying the hierarchy — though many are apt to point out that hierarchy often, ironically, still occurs in socialist states. This is also expressed in a hostility towards culture as an outlet for intellectual inequality.
Socialism of the Heretics
Moving into the Middle Ages, socialism manifests itself frequently in the heretical sects of Christianity. These groups rejected the teachings of the Catholic Church, often expressing not just a mere difference of interpretation but, in fact, an intense hatred for the Church itself.
One such example was the Cathars. This group believed in a dualistic world: one physical and one spiritual. The physical world was the source of evil, and thus proved the existence of an “evil God”, while the spiritual world was the source of goodness, a product of the “good God.” One of their most important beliefs was that of universal suicide; since evil was the driving force of the physical world, it was essential to refrain from bearing children and thus continuing the propagation of the species. Other facets of the movement included renouncing marriage and private property.
Another example was the Brethren of the Free Spirits. This movement believed in the ability of man to achieve a state of Godliness, since, they argued, our souls contain something of a divine substance. Members were required to renounce all property and family ties. They also believed that they were liberated from any kind of moral constraints on earth. Ultimately, it was through such practices that all hierarchy, both on earth and in heaven, would be eliminated.
In a striking parallel to Marx’s theory of history, Joachim of Flore, a member of the Free Spirits movement, preached that history was divided into three eras: the first was an age of slavish submission, the second an age of filial obedience, and the third an age of freedom. It was during this third age that humanity would reach its peak, consisting of the humble and poor who would not know the existence of private property.
A sampling of ideas from other heretical groups highlights how socialist ideals were promulgated across the Middle Ages.
The Taborites preached:
“The lofty and powerful must be bent down like tree branches and cut off and burned in furnaces like straw, leaving neither root nor branch, they must be thrashed like sheaves of grain, their blood drained to the last drop, they are to be exterminated with the scorpions, serpents and wild beasts, and put to death everywhere.”
The Anabaptists, which eventually would give rise to the modern Baptist denomination, would assert:
“For the godless have no right to live except when the Chosen give their permission.”
And
“The poorest among us, who earlier were scorned as paupers, now wear rich clothing like the highest and noblest. The poor have become, by God’s grace, as rich as burgomasters.”
Gerrard Winstanley, part of the heretical group the Diggers, which were active during the middle of the 1600s, wrote:
“And that this civil property is the curse is manifest thus: those that buy and sell land, and are landlords, have got it either by oppression or murder or theft; and all landlords live in the breach of the 7th and 8th commandments, ‘Thou shalt not steal nor kill.’”
And
“The cursed thing, called private property, which is the cause of all wars, bloodshed, theft and enslaving wars, that hold the people under misery.”
The Rise of Marxism
After the English Revolution, socialism began to take on a new form. It became disconnected from religion and, rather, became essentially tied to science. Much of this alteration is owed to the Enlightenment. People started to advocate for a belief in science, the knowability of all things, and, most importantly, in man. A new kind of socialism emerged, one which interpreted the world not through the lens of religion but rather through the perfectibility of man. Socialism began to deify man and man’s labor. Moreover, socialists argued that such a perspective could be readily concluded through an objective study of history.
The best example of this is seen in Marxism, which argues that socialism is a specific phase in human development. Marx argued that this could be deduced by scientific analysis, and its success ultimately stems from its appeal to science and objectivity. Marxism, Shafarevich argues, is successful because it claims to answer two important questions: Where to seek the chosen people? The proletariat. And, what is the supreme authority sanctioning the movement? Science.
However, if Marxism is truly scientific, it, like all branches of science, should follow the scientific method to verify its claims. And it is here, Shafarevich points out, that Marxism proves itself to be antithetical to science — rather than the objective pursuit of truth, Marxism begins with a certain standpoint and sets out to prove this through specific examples. By claiming to be a result of scientific research, Marxism gained the appearance — important during the 19th century and its obsession with the scientific method — of objectivity and inevitability.
Although Marxism attempts to pass as a scientific concept, it lacks one of the essential components: a definition free of contradictions. How, Shafarevich considers, can an ideology both strive to eliminate the suffering of future generations and achieve lasting happiness for humanity while being indifferent to the current, actual sufferings of people? Indeed, many 20th century socialists actually advocated for making life worse for the people — Lenin, for example, encouraged both famine and war — in order to drive people into such despair that they would beg for a socialist system.
Shafarevich argues that such cognitive dissonance is hardly plausible:
“We are asked to believe that man can be indifferent to the suffering of those around him and at the same time devote his life to the happiness of a future world he will not see.”
Marx and Engels showed no interest in alleviating the terrible working conditions of the 19th century, though they would try to convince us that they care deeply about the working conditions of theoretical workers in the future. In reality, Shafarevich reminds us, the significant achievements in social justice in the last century, including the improvement of conditions for the worker, were accomplished with very little participation from socialist movements.
In many ways, socialism defines itself as the quest for social justice. If socialism was, however, a way to achieve social justice, we should see numerous confirmations of this both within socialist states and, at the very least, in the doctrines themselves. We should see compassion for those experiencing injustice and attempts to remedy this; however, it is often the exact opposite. Remedying current suffering is set aside until the socialist ideal can be achieved, and attempts to improve present life are often condemned as preventing the socialist victory. This is evidenced in Lenin’s hostility to famine relief or in the Cathars’ forbiddance of charity.
Though socialism is often seen as the antithesis to capitalism, this depiction lacks an important distinction: unlike capitalism, socialism is not just an economic theory but also an ideology. As Shafarevich points out, there does not exist “capitalist parties” or “capitalist doctrines” as there does socialist parties and socialist doctrines. Socialism is a world view, comprising of, explaining, and influencing numerous aspects of life; in this way, it is not surprising that socialism has often been compared to religion in its scope and fervor.
Escaping the Yawning Abyss
Shafarevich concludes his study with what he believes to be socialism’s main goal: the suppression of individuality. The French modernist thinker Sartre described this aim perfectly:
“I always considered group thinking to be better than thinking alone… I don’t believe a separate individual to be capable of doing anything.”
Socialism seeks to commit violence against the self, to subjugate it to party or ideology. Bolshevik Communism would proclaim:
“This sort of violence against the self is acutely painful, but such violence with the aim of breaking oneself so as to be in fully accord with the party constitutes the essence of a truly principled Bolshevik Communist.”
Socialism aims to reduce humanity to its most primitive levels; it seeks to make man into no more than part of a social group. It is, essentially, anti-human. Socialist leaders have often used language that suggests the people are merely part of a machine: Stalin called Soviet Union citizens “nuts and bolts,” Mao referred to the “stainless-steel cog” of society. Man has no purpose, use, or identity as a single individual; rather, he is defined only as part of a class. This is why socialism often seeks to destroy the aspects of life that support and strengthen human individuality, namely in religion, culture, family and individual property.
Shafarevich lived in the Soviet Union — he witnessed one of the darkest manifestations of socialism. Despite this, he leaves us with a poignant and optimistic declaration for mankind:
There is no doubt that if the ideals of Utopia are realized universally, mankind … shall find the strength to regain its freedom and to preserve God’s image and likeness – human individuality – once it has glanced into the yawning abyss.
This article was inspired by my reading of The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich.
Below are recommended books that are mentioned in the post or provide great additional insight into the topic.
