Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair
Socialism is more favorably viewed these days, especially by younger people. What is socialism? Nobody knows. There is no official definition of socialism. Diverse ideas, institutions, and several nations have been considered socialist. Whatever variety, socialism needs to confront the world of today. It must relate to our most urgent problems, not merely those of the 1820s (many still with us) when the term first appeared from critics of society. Even so, we can learn from history: ideas, experiments, and efforts to create socialist nations.
Here are some thoughts, not a complete manifesto, from the perspective of an eclectic ecosocialist. Of the problems, war is the worst, as it threatens human existence; kills, wounds, and poisons millions of people; and devastates the environment even by its preparations. Resources the world over are increasingly devoted to military arsenals, institutions, and propaganda rather than human and planetary survival; militarism is growing in culture, economy, society, and education. War enables fantastic profits for some industries, and serves capitalism generally by distracting people from exploitative and unjust economic systems, yet it is a threat to all. How do socialists propose to end war?
Industrialization and urbanization also degrade an environment that needs to sustain human health and well-being. There is enough labor, now wasted on war and other destructive as well as frivolous industries, to say nothing of idleness. For a socialist society, the occupational structure must be drastically reformed, and the many affected must be retrained, relocated, or retired, and provided with a copious standard of living. Many workers in any case would be surplus in a socialist economy—not simply due to AI. In addition to those employed in war industries, there are millions in finance, real estate, insurance, and advertising (including robo callers). The vast array of the NGO world, much of which exists to humanize, prop up, or denounce capitalism, would also be greatly diminished.
Now many worldwide make a living from criminal activities: prostitution, pornography, illegal drugs, gambling, scams, smuggling, and other rackets. This has also increased the workforce of police, detectives, prisons, and crime reporters. We can’t simply enable proletarians to own or control the existing means of production; we have to produce for the good life.
A supersize crew is producing and dispensing junk food and junk of all kinds. Fashion, boutiques, and fads waste resources, energy, and labor, and produce voluminous waste themselves. Elaborate wedding decorations often last longer than the marriages, and commercial holiday paraphernalia supports booming industries, including fireworks. Hobbies that do not enhance the common good, health, safety, or the environment are nevertheless a source of income for some workers, e.g., children’s flight instructors.
Today’s workers include entertainers of all types: professional athletes, ballerinas, stand-up comics, et al. Those in the arts may love their work, but many are struggling to make a living. Tourism is a major polluting industry, and its workers are often deprived of rights, decent wages, and benefits. How do we socialize these kinds of work?
Now there are numerous retired people, and those disabled, dropped out, or homeless. Socialists must figure out a way to integrate them into society. The most exploited workers, including undocumented immigrants and many foreign contract workers, should not be expelled, but their situations must be changed.
Obvious problems and well-reported are the deplorable amount of poverty and homelessness in a supposedly rich country. Also, affecting even the well-off, our infrastructure is crumbling. Schools, even private ones, are infused with decaying and toxic materials, medical care is shrinking and often many miles away, and violent crime is normal.
I am not suggesting that fun, arts, frivolity, leisure, or sports be abolished—only that they be redistributed. Necessary work to feed, clothe, house, educate and maintain the health of the world’s population and the restoration of the earth should be shared by everyone. It is not enough to provide equality of income; status and labor must be greatly equalized. This was a principle of the brilliant, somewhat mad, pre-Marxian socialist, Charles Fourier.
We need to protect and reclaim land (and possibly the seas) to provide clean food and water for the world, as well as clothing, building materials, medicines, and some of our energy needs. Even if organically grown, food transported long distances is chemicalized, and all use much fuel and infrastructure. Before we revert to lab-produced food we can better use the resources we have; the Centrality of Agriculture deserves more consideration by socialists.
The family needs reconstruction, as it is not doing well in its supposed traditional functions, while those who have little or none of it are also in need. The increase in one-person households puts great stress on housing and resources, and not contributing much joy. Housing is so obviously unsuited to the “free market.” It is not simply a problem of “greedy landlords” as many moderate-income people buy up houses for the rental income. “Demand” can rarely produce an affordable “supply.”
Perhaps not unprecedented but now more obvious is the chronic unhappiness affecting people of all income levels. The use of antidepressants, other legal drugs, and illegal ones is considerable, and surprising in the countries that are most affluent and are considered most democratic. Children, remarkably in the great U.S., continue to be beset with homicide, suicide, chronic illness, bullying, exploitation, sexual and physical abuse, depression, and loneliness.
Equality in wealth is especially important for political power; democracy does not work in nations or institutions where there is a vast difference in resources. Not only is every kind of propaganda, education and civil society organization financed by the wealthy, even progressive and radical political candidates can be co-opted. There are many other ills of the world; these are mentioned here because they don’t get much attention in current socialist discussion.
What can we learn from history? Early socialists were somewhat “reactionary,” seeking to restore values that had been lost. Some regarded the monastic structure as a model of a cooperative economy, not only for those choosing a life of poverty and celibacy. Along with community and security for single and aged people, they were generators of technological innovation and high-grade crafts. Socialists wanted to universalize the positive aspects of such communities for a population that reproduces, for they did not believe that the end was near. Marx and Engels were impressed by the Shakers’ economic structure, although not their reproductive rules. The pre-Marxist French socialists were in part motivated by a desire to replace the ideals of Catholicism (however unrealized), as after the Revolution a new national ideology seemed necessary.
Unpopular and neglected ideas and practices, often dismissed as not socialism at all, may furnish useful clues for our times. Charles Fourier cataloged the ills of society that needed to be remedied—not only economic ones. He thought war was the most horrible and wasteful aspect of humanity.
He regarded the laissez-faire economy as a prime cause of misery that the French Revolution had not merely overlooked, but had intensified. Furthermore, and very relevant to today’s all-class drugged “brave new world” he thought the “free” market hurt all people. He also believed that there could not even be liberal democracy in a nation if there were a class of people condemned to menial work for their entire lives. Unrelenting physical toil as well as generally boring work suppressed the true human multidimensional personality. Everyone should perform some of the necessary tasks; the type could be chosen according to one’s proclivities. Furthermore, a Fourierist diet, based on market gardening and small animals, would require less land than field crops and large animal pastures. It would also be “attractive labor.”
Fourier’s observations of domestic life led him to conclude that marriage and the family were the source of much unhappiness and dysfunction, as well as environmental stress due to wasted resources for heating and furnishing individual households. In his ideal communities (called phalansteries) all non-violent sexual orientations (for adults only) were not only accepted but often facilitated
Fourier’s ideas (cleaned up) infused the U.S. 19th century communitarian societies via his disciple, Victor Considerant, whose work was translated and propagated by journalist Albert Brisbane. Brisbane had a thrice-weekly column in The New York Tribune and an influential 1840 book, The Social Destiny of Man. The “Associationist” movement of Fourierists was a broad church, which included fundamentalist Christians and atheistic socialists. The communities, especially the longer-lived religious societies, offered more personal security, social services, health and dental care than that experienced by the general population. Ageing members could be cared for by the whole community rather than the sole responsibility of a family member; many elders didn’t even have such a person.
A number of the communities deliberately created a “new improved model” of the family. This was the case of the Shakers, the Mormons, and the Oneida Community. There are memoirs and archives that can give us a rounded view of how these worked out, and what useful tips we might gain for family reform or replacement.
Appropriate technology was not shunned (unlike the Amish who were not communal). Although some of the communities relocated because of adverse conditions, members regarded their land and structures as permanent assets to be protected, in contrast to the common method of individual Western settlement: use up the land, sell the place, and move on. All eyes could observe work hazards or domestic violence so there was more protection than in the isolated family farm. These were not communities nostalgic for peasant life, although some of the religious societies believed that the “saved” should withdraw from a wicked world. Many communities saw themselves as models to be followed for settling the country while avoiding the evils of slavery or capitalism. They were the 19th century counterparts of agro-industrial communities; strongly influenced by negative experiences and reports of conditions in 19th century cities.
Sharing of necessary work was generally a principle and sometimes succeeded. Notable was the pacifism of most communities, opposing militarism as well as nationalism. There is no denying that they were often situated on land illegally seized from Native Americans. In addition, only the Shakers and the short-lived Nashoba community had black members. We can still learn from their positive practices. These experiments might be more studied by socialists had Zinn mentioned them in his People’s History.
Another source of ideas for today, the British Fabians, made detailed plans for converting existing institutions to socialism. These included transforming industries into control by local or national government, and a parliament for the environment. Fabian G. B. Shaw wrote that he wouldn’t mind performing his national service by washing dishes for a few hours a day; he could be scrubbing pots and thinking of plots. Others have suggested that a “service tax” could be paid by working for a few weeks each year, or for one year full-time, etc., as one’s preferences dictated.
The Fabians also advocated for personal freedom, and supported gradual, peaceful, change rather than violent revolution. Even Lenin found some Fabian ideas useful for creating a socialist economy. Granted there were some Fabians who were racist, imperialist, perhaps antisemitic, but these negative views do not negate the useful ideas. They have also been held by Marxists and other socialists.
What we can learn from the history of Marxism: how was it able persuade so many people of different lands and statuses (not merely the proletariat) to act for radical change, often at great risk to their lives and current status? How can we motivate the many who are doing ok or others so demoralized and propagandized that they don’t see any hope for radical change?
In past and current socialist countries there were major failures, some horrific. Exploitation and immiseration often resulted from very rapid industrialization, which was prompted by ideology as well as a realistic expectation of military attack. As in the capitalist democracies, there was repression of those suspected of subverting the system. However, disaffection was magnified by overt and covert interventions by the capitalist nations and organizations, and effective consumerist propaganda.
The project of transforming traditional cultural traits into those of a “new socialist person” was not very successful, and younger generations were barely aware of pre-revolutionary miseries. Nevertheless, these nations were (and are) trying to implement socialism. They provided a better life for the many than their situation before and after, especially for women, minorities, poor peasants, workers, and pensioners.
The socialist nations employed varied forms of ownership—national, local, cooperative, public and privately owned housing, small businesses, allotment gardens, et al. Collective farms worked well in some countries. Cuba discovered that some crops were better suited to national ownership, e.g., livestock breeding and sugar, and others were better as collectives or private, e.g., tobacco. Mongolia herded herders into collectives, but they worked there for only a limited number of days and also owned animals for their own profit.
Although a deviation from the strict equality demanded by some socialist theories, the provision of a basic income for all was often supplemented with incentives for amount and quality of work. There was a safety net for co-operative workers or collective farm workers, whose income could vary because of weather, pests, or market changes. The basics for all workers might include housing, health care, education, parental leave, and pensions; and also subsidized transportation, entertainment, and vacations. There were fancy resorts and apartment complexes with pools, theaters, et al for the elite (political, artistic, or athletic). However, by the 1980s most people e. g., in the USSR, could engage in sports (equipment provided), go to sanitoria, or vacate at a dacha with garden space, which were often former country houses divided into small apartments.
The young pioneer organizations aimed to integrate and socialize children of all backgrounds. They provided constructive activities for children’s free time, along with sports, art, music, dance, and fun, but also military training. Urie Bronfenbrenner’s 1970 Two Worlds of Childhood contrasts USSR and US children’s socialization:
Dr. Bronfenbrenner finds that the Soviet child, both in and out of school, grows up in an environment that encourages him to look beyond his own immediate gratification to the needs and expectations of Soviet society. By contrast, the American child is exposed to a largely accidental process of development by which he is actually brought up by his peers, in an atmosphere pervaded by subtle opposition to the standards of adult society, and by the ubiquitous television set which significantly contributes to his potential for antisocial behavior. (John H. Fischer, Teachers College, Columbia University. Blub on book back.)
In 1983, Soviet educator Yuri Azarov, in A Book About Bringing Up Children, argued that if children were left alone in their spare time there would be bullying, gangs, ostracism, and other anti-social behavior; gang or clique members would be subject to the despotism of the “leaders.” He maintained that children’s leisure time should be directed by adults. In view of U.S. children’s shocking situation today, subjection to adult authority is surely a lesser evil.
Socialist nations’ experiments in abolishing the division of labor were not very impressive, but we can learn from them. In Kazakhstan, office workers were released to join the cotton harvest; in China academic students took a turn working in the countryside; some liked it so much that they gave up their elite education and stayed there. These and other arrangements involved coercion, but the invisible hand of capitalism’s supply and demand has never produced free choice of occupation for the many. Slaves, expropriated and indigenous people, indentured servants, immigrants, landless peasants, and others with no options have done the demeaning and dangerous work. It is still a goal of socialism to permit full expression of the human personality, not only in leisure time but also in work.
There is open land in the US and many other countries although it is often degraded. While millions are overworked, human labor is an underutilized source of energy; many people do no physical work or else expend their energy in sports and gyms. Agriculture, now highly industrialized at the expense of human health, fossil fuel and fertile soil, needs more workers—and much shorter work hours. This suggests a Fourierist solution to problems resulting from globalization, industrial agriculture, meaningless work, loneliness, and the decline of community.
Despite Fourier’s arguments for voluntarism, it is unlikely that necessary work can be accomplished without planning and coercion. How planning could be carried out and democratically structured remains a mystery, although information technology might obviate some of the past planning dysfunctions.
Coercion can be fairly gentle, especially when compared to military service where even if one doesn’t get near an enemy, maimed or killed, one faces harsh training, pollution, and hazing. It can be a more democratic tax than the current situation, whereby many have no freedom and others lots of it. With appropriate technology, short shifts, and attention to health and safety, work could be less onerous. Furthermore, choice can be offered. We have clues based on what people do voluntarily: garden, make things, hike, fix things, care for people, make them laugh, et al. The resulting spare time could be devoted to art, music, drama, standup comic, needlework, loafing, healthful sports, etc., or philosophizing about the next improvements of society.
As for war, who knows. It existed before capitalism. Socialist nations generally refrain from starting foreign wars, although they have used violence in defense and civil wars. Fourier proposed Peace Corps-like alternatives to war. Competition, adventure, and consensual sexual activities would engage world armies and crusades would be dedicated to environmental restoration. His scenario has been translated as The World War of Small Pastries. In a similar spirit, almost a century later, William James proposed a “Moral Equivalent of War.”
If now—and this is my idea—there were, instead of military conscription, a conscription of the whole youthful population to form for a certain number of years a part of the army enlisted against Nature, the injustice [of inequality in toil] would tend to be evened out, and numerous other goods to the commonwealth would follow.
James’ “youth army” would surely require some modification in the light of today’s values. We wouldn’t want a corps that was enlisted “against Nature,” but one that worked with nature and appropriate technology to achieve the best outcomes for humans and the planet. James also ignored the psychological needs of women, whose role has often been that of supporting the male warriors. A civilian corps would need to be inclusive, all races, all genders, new immigrants and Mayflower descendants, three-homers and homeless. James was concerned that “development” activities would not be considered heroic enough. Today both ecological devastation and rampant, planet-threatening militarism require superhuman efforts.
Here’s one suggestion. Primary education for all would include a half day of the usual subjects, including indoor learning such as computer skills. In the other half day children of all backgrounds would be assembled into groups where they would learn the basics of growing, processing, and cooking food; foraging for food, building materials, and medicinal herbs; sewing and care of clothing; carpentry and maintenance skills; and nursing, child care, and elder care. Directed by teachers, scientists (surplus from war work), craftspeople, and indigenous people, the children might even invent some techniques. There could be fun and games, even team sports if the teams are resorted each game. At age 18 all would be drafted and serve three years according to preferences, in child care, elder care, health aides, farming, forestry, remediation, food service, and the small military necessary. They would work under the supervision of experts, some from a national department of civilian infrastructure rather than Army engineers. Pay would be adequate and shifts short. Afterwards, they could attend college, professional or technical training, or enter one of the occupations experienced. All would have reserve army status, with a few weeks service required, or emergency work.
As James wrote: “The war against war is going to be no holiday excursion or camping party.” Furthermore, remediating environmental damage and transforming our food, fiber, and forestry systems will be no easy walk.
