Technically utopianism refers to the practice of imagining a better society and thinking you can implement it through fiat, ie by convincing everyone to agree with you. It’s like theorycrafting a society and thinking that you just need to convince everyone it’s the way.
Examples include the Owenites and Saint-Simone, both of which tried their own little isolated societies that they tried to get others to copy, but they fizzled and died. Marxism advanced upon this by looking at socialism not as something to create in a vacuum, but as the logical next step in class struggle, ie feudalism gave way to capitalism which gives way to socialism which gives way to communism due to the unfolding of dialectical processes and relationships (in example, the centralization of production into monopoly in capitalism kills competition, increases the proletariat with ratio to capitalists, and paves the way for central planning and collectivization of production and distribution).
Utopianism is unrealistic, but it isn’t defined by that.
That’s a strict Engelsian application of the term. Maybe i should’ve used idealistic. Particularly in reference to this portion of their comment:
Anarchism requires belief in people. That whatever system they come up with will work and compliment others who will be able to build their own systems: Economic, social or political.
Also i think it’s best if Marxists abandon this framing:
feudalism gave way to capitalism which gives way to socialism which gives way to communism due to the unfolding of dialectical processes and relationships
It sounds teleological and gave rise to the many erroneous anarchist critiques we’re now dealing with. You can say that the internal contradictions that capitalism present create the possibility for socialism, but that by no means guarantees it
I’d agree that idealistic (vs “idealism”) would be more accurate.
As for the bit on historical progression, it was a simplification. Russia was semi-feudal when it became socialist, China and Vietnam were colonized agrarian countries, Cuba was essentially a plantation, etc. Progression in modes of production isn’t so much a strict order but instead a natural progression, and moreover the point is that the driving factor behind their development has been class struggle and evolution in technology changing how we live, produce, and distribute.
Utopian here meaning unrealistic, not what’s ideal
Technically utopianism refers to the practice of imagining a better society and thinking you can implement it through fiat, ie by convincing everyone to agree with you. It’s like theorycrafting a society and thinking that you just need to convince everyone it’s the way.
Examples include the Owenites and Saint-Simone, both of which tried their own little isolated societies that they tried to get others to copy, but they fizzled and died. Marxism advanced upon this by looking at socialism not as something to create in a vacuum, but as the logical next step in class struggle, ie feudalism gave way to capitalism which gives way to socialism which gives way to communism due to the unfolding of dialectical processes and relationships (in example, the centralization of production into monopoly in capitalism kills competition, increases the proletariat with ratio to capitalists, and paves the way for central planning and collectivization of production and distribution).
Utopianism is unrealistic, but it isn’t defined by that.
That’s a strict Engelsian application of the term. Maybe i should’ve used idealistic. Particularly in reference to this portion of their comment:
Also i think it’s best if Marxists abandon this framing:
It sounds teleological and gave rise to the many erroneous anarchist critiques we’re now dealing with. You can say that the internal contradictions that capitalism present create the possibility for socialism, but that by no means guarantees it
I’d agree that idealistic (vs “idealism”) would be more accurate.
As for the bit on historical progression, it was a simplification. Russia was semi-feudal when it became socialist, China and Vietnam were colonized agrarian countries, Cuba was essentially a plantation, etc. Progression in modes of production isn’t so much a strict order but instead a natural progression, and moreover the point is that the driving factor behind their development has been class struggle and evolution in technology changing how we live, produce, and distribute.
ah. alright. okay. got it. that’s on me. what i was describing would be more eutopian then
No worries👍