Neo-Utopians: Reinventing Socialism?

It seems like there has been a rise in what I’m going to call “Anything But Communist” socialists on the American “Left” lately. This isn’t about liberals claiming to be “on the left” as my “Nothingness of ‘Leftism’” post was about, rather these are so-called socialists who have no basis in existing theory and practice and are rather reinventing socialism from the ground up under a misguided conception of what socialism actually is. From these ABC socialists (the reference to Parenti’s Anything But Class theorists is intentional, as class is often devoid from their outlook) you’ll hear a whole suite of phrases; from “I’m a socialist, but I’m not a communist” to “Socialism is good, but communism took it too far.” There’s a lot to say about these two statements, but I think the kernel of this lies in the words of someone I was talking to recently, where it was said that (paraphrasing) “there are other forms of socialism than Marxism.” And this is exactly where the heart of this tendency lies.

It may be better to say that American ABC socialists aren’t “reinventing” socialism, as they do not seem to be contributing to any new theory (or doing anything for that matter), rather they are “rediscovering” a form of socialism that predated Marx, the forms of socialism that were realized to be utopian and not based in reality centuries ago. It’s true that there were other forms of socialism before and after Marx, but there’s a reason Marxism became “the” method by which communists based their theory and practice upon; Marxism is based in materialism and presents a scientific method of analysis of reality, it does not provide a blanket—utopian—solution to the issues we face in capitalist society, it is a dynamic practice. There are a few main reasons I believe that the ABC socialists reject Marx and Marxism: First is a fundamental misunderstanding of the term “socialism” itself, second is the misguided perception of class to these ABC socialists, and third is the perception of “socialism” as peaceful and reformist and communism as violent and evil.

I’m sure many of you saw this section coming, but I need to reiterate this for those who I might classify as ABC socialists to understand. Socialism and communism are two parts of the same process. Socialism is characterized by Marx as the “lower stage of communism” and what we might call full communism as the “higher stage of communism” (1). That “stateless, classless, moneyless society,” as bad of a descriptor of communism as it is, is that higher stage of communism; socialism is the interim stage where a country—a state—is to create the conditions for the higher stage to come into being. Socialism, while there is no one descriptor of what it should be and what it should look like, is not “when the government does stuff” or when social services exist as the ABC socialists may believe, rather it is broadly referred to as when the working classes tear down the old state machinery and create a new one with their interests in mind—that of the broad majority of humanity.

This leads into my second point, that of the issue of class. Parenti has covered the “Anything But Class” theorists extensively, but there are a couple of points to be made here (2). I’m mostly referring back to the idea that is held by many of these ABC socialists that better labor conditions and benefits from the state = socialism. This idea usually leads to the conclusion that the social-democratic Nordic States are socialist and should be the template for our movements going forward. This, however, completely disregards the class character (and imperialist nature) of the Nordic States. These states are not run by the working class and are not run in the interests of the working class, rather they are based on concessions to the working class by the capitalist class in order to dissuade working class wants for autonomy. The modern social-democratic welfare state came as a reaction to the successes of actually existing socialism—from states run by communist parties—as workers gained more rights and control over their production in socialist countries, workers in capitalist countries took interest in socialism, so their national bourgeoise (capitalist class) pushed through labor reforms to prevent a revolution. These are still capitalist states with capitalist labor relations. The capitalist class still exploits the worker, and the workers have very little real democracy where it matters—in the economic realm. More than just exploiting their own working classes, these welfare states often build their concessions and wealth off the backs of the working classes of the Global South, further disqualifying them from being socialist (3). Socialism as a movement has class at its heart; it is the overthrow of the capitalist class minority and the ascendancy of the working class majority into a position of power and equalizing the differences between the two classes until there is no meaningful distinction. 

The preference of social democratic states to these ABC socialists reveals what I believe to be the kernel of the “Not communism, socialism” movement. If the Nordic States are socialist, but the China, Cuba, and the former USSR (and many others) are communist, that creates a dichotomy between a “nice, passive” socialism through reform and an “aggressive, evil” communism by revolution to the ABC socialists. This has a couple of origins to take into consideration. The first is the Red Scare, which conditioned the entire country into a deep fear and disdain for communism, which made “socialism” a more appealing term for our political movements—even the more radical parties like the FRSO. Second is the “anti-authoritarian” tendencies in much of the western left. The idea of “exerting authority” onto another group of people (even if they are our oppressors) and then making sure that they cannot return to their status of oppressor once a new state has been established is unthinkable to the ABC socialists, who believe that everything they believe to be socialism can be obtained through reforms, which is the pinnacle of utopianism that is rearing its head. The reality is, however, that this kind of violence is a necessary outlet of the state, which is why communists seek to create the conditions for the state to “wither away” once it is not needed anymore. The state is a “special coercive force” that puts one class down over another, and it is exactly that force that the capitalist class exerts onto the working class, and it is that force which the working class will necessarily have to use against the former oppressor to ensure its gains are kept (4). It is true that no communist would oppose a peaceful transfer of power, but the very idea of a peaceful revolution is why this neo-utopianism is so problematic (5).

Is it possible that these neo-utopian ABC socialists are reverse-engineering Marxism to create a better socialism? Probably not. Even if they were, they’d likely come to the same conclusions Marxists have been making for centuries, decades too late. They could prove me wrong and create new theory and put it into practice, of which I encourage wholeheartedly, but the term “socialism” itself when used by the ABC socialists isn’t even clearly defined; everyone’s definition is different and contradicts each other. The origins of utopian socialism mimic the origins of this neo-utopianism today; there’s chaos and uncertainty everywhere in the mode of production—for the original utopians, the recent development of industrial capitalism, for the neo-utopian ABC socialists, late-stage capitalism (6). The utopians had no theory or practice to reference, so had to make their own (which modern socialism owes to), yet the neo-utopians reject the theory and practice we have today due to its negative perception created by the capitalist class, so they choose to “start over” in a way. The mass prevalence of the ABC socialist as of late is a win for the capitalist class, as there is no real action to take if you rid yourself of actual theory and practice, rather creating a “vibes-based socialism” that each individual interprets differently. I suggest that if you hold the belief that “socialism is good, but communism went too far,” it may be good to think about why you believe that. Why is a socialism that never existed so great, but there’s nothing to learn from the countries which were actually socialist? 

Socialism is the means to the end of communism, and though I may only be fighting for socialism in my lifetime, I do not conceal that I am an avowed communist. 

References

1) Karl Marx (1875), Critique of the Gotha Program. https://foreignlanguages.press/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/C16-Critique-of-the-Gotha-Program-1st-Printing.pdf

2) Michael Parenti (1997), Blackshirts and Reds. https://www.studycommune.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/michael-parenti-blackshirts-and-reds-rational-fascism-and-the-overthrow-of-communism-1.pdf

3) Review of African Political Economy (2021), Lieutenants of imperialism: social democracy’s imperialist soul. https://roape.net/2021/07/15/lieutenants-of-imperialism-social-democracys-imperialist-soul/

4) V.I. Lenin (1917), State and Revolution. https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/lenin/state-and-revolution.pdf

5) Frederick Engels (1847), The Principles of Communism. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

6) Frederick Engels (1880), Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm