Author Topic: Ancient candidates for socialism  (Read 539 times)

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 563
    • View Profile
Re: Ancient candidates for socialism
« on: March 14, 2022, 02:07:55 am »
Quote
In contrast to the Marxist notion that primitive communism was stateless, our conception of early socialism should be presented as categorically statist, and specifically monarchist (imagine the chaos that would ensue if there were two or more water administrators instead of just one!).

So, we can say that in pre-modern socialism: statism* is embodied by monarchism, and the "social idea" is embodied by a religious philosophy, a non-religious philosophy, or just general populist attitudes. In practice, this results in the various policies I outlined in the first post being put into practice.


* Or, we can word it more strongly, and call this the "national idea", like Hitler did. Especially considering--as Hitler pointed out--because a truly sovereign monarch is basically the state itself, a noble monarch has no higher interest than to serve the nation as a whole.

On this basis, Hitler claimed Frederick the Great was the first socialist ruler. However, perhaps it is more accurate to say Frederick the Great was the last in a long line of pre-modern socialist monarchs.

Wikipedia says Frederick the Great was an "enlightened absolutist", and Wikipedia claims this philosophy was influenced by the "Enlightenment". However, since the "Enlightenment" is most widely known for its democratic principles, it seems the "enlightened absolutists" were in fact the predecessors to the Romanticist movement instead. (The phrase itself was coined during the Romanticist era as well).

It seems the only real "Enlightenment" idea is that the enlightened absolutists did not base their claim to rule on divine right (i.e. traditionalism), but on the "social contract". (Ironically, the social contract theory originated with Thomas Hobbes prior to the main part of the "Enlightenment", and Hobbes himself arrived at the conclusion that monarchy/autocracy was the best form of government to uphold the social contract. ...Then John Locke had to come around and make social contract theory synonymous with democracy.)

Quote
Enlightened absolutism (also called enlightened despotism) refers to the conduct and policies of European absolute monarchs during the 18th and early 19th centuries who were influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment, espousing them to enhance their power.[1]
[...]
The enlightened despotism of Emperor Joseph II of the Holy Roman Empire is summarized as, "Everything for the people, nothing by the people".[4]

Enlightened absolutism is the theme of an essay by Frederick the Great, who ruled Prussia from 1740 to 1786, defending this system of government.[5]
[...]
Enlightened absolutists held that royal power emanated not from divine right but from a social contract whereby a despot was entrusted with the power to govern through a social contract in lieu of any other governments. The monarchs of enlightened absolutism strengthened their authority by improving the lives of their subjects. The monarch’s taking responsibility for his subjects precluded their political participation.
[...]
The concept of enlightened absolutism was formally described by the German historian Wilhelm Roscher in 1847[8] and remains controversial among scholars.[9]
[...]
Frederick explained, "My principal occupation is to combat ignorance and prejudice ... to enlighten minds, cultivate morality, and to make people as happy as it suits human nature, and as the means at my disposal permit".[12] He wrote an essay on "Benevolent Despotism" defending this system of government.[13]
[...]
For a brief period in Denmark Johann Friedrich Struensee attempted to govern in terms of Enlightenment principles. After issuing 1,069 decrees in 13 months covering many major reforms, his enemies overthrew him and he was executed and quartered.[19]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_absolutism

Socialist absolutist vs traditionalist dynasts:
Quote
Johann Friedrich Struensee (5 August 1737 – 28 April 1772) was a German physician, philosopher and statesman. He became royal physician to the mentally ill King Christian VII of Denmark and a minister in the Danish government. He rose in power to a position of "de facto" regent of the country, where he tried to carry out widespread reforms.
[...]
At first, Struensee kept a low profile as he began to control the political machine. However, in December 1770 he grew impatient, and on the 10th of that month he abolished the council of state. A week later he appointed himself maître des requêtes. It became his official duty to present reports from the various departments of state to the king. Because King Christian was scarcely responsible for his actions, Struensee dictated whatever answers he pleased. Next, he dismissed all department heads, and abolished the Norwegian viceroyship. Henceforth the cabinet, with himself as its motive power, became the one supreme authority in the state. Struensee held absolute sway for almost thirteen months, between 18 December 1770 and 16 January 1772. During this time he issued no fewer than 1069 cabinet orders, or more than three a day.[5]

Reforms initiated by Struensee included:[6]

    abolition of torture
    abolition of unfree labor (corvée)
    abolition of the censorship of the press
    abolition of the practice of preferring nobles for state offices
    abolition of noble privileges
    abolition of "undeserved" revenues for nobles
    abolition of the etiquette rules at the Royal Court
    abolition of the Royal Court's aristocracy
    abolition of state funding of unproductive manufacturers
    abolition of several holidays
    introduction of a tax on gambling and luxury horses to fund nursing of foundlings
    ban of slave trade in the Danish colonies
    rewarding only actual achievements with feudal titles and decorations
    criminalization and punishment of bribery
    re-organization of the judicial institutions to minimize corruption
    introduction of state-owned grain storages to balance out the grain price
    assignment of farmland to peasants
    re-organization and reduction of the army
    university reforms
    reform of the state-owned medical institutions
[...]
Critics of Struensee thought that he did not respect native Danish and Norwegian customs, seeing them as prejudices and wanting to eliminate them in favor of abstract principles.
[...]
While initially the Danish people favored his reforms, they began to turn against him. When Struensee abolished all censorship of the press, it mostly resulted in a flood of anti-Struensee pamphlets.[7]

During the initial months of his rule, middle class opinion was in his favor.[8]" What incensed the people most against him was the way in which he put the king completely on one side; and this feeling was all the stronger as, outside a very narrow court circle, nobody seems to have believed that Christian VII was really mad, but only that his will had been weakened by habitual ill usage;
[...]
A palace coup took place in the early morning of 17 January 1772 ... The chief charge against Struensee was that he had usurped the royal authority in contravention of the Royal Law (Kongelov).
[...]
On 27 April/28 April Struensee and Brandt were condemned first to lose their right hands and then to be beheaded; their bodies were afterwards to be drawn and quartered. The Kongelov had no provisions for a mentally ill ruler who was unfit to govern. However, as a commoner who had imposed himself in the circles of nobility, Struensee was condemned as being guilty of lèse majesté and usurpation of the royal authority, both capital offences according to paragraphs 2 and 26 of the Kongelov.
[...]
The King himself considered Struensee a great man, even after his death. Written in German on a drawing the king made in 1775, three years after Struensee’s execution, was the following: "Ich hätte gern beide gerettet" ("I would have liked to have saved them both"), referring to Struensee and Brandt.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Friedrich_Struensee


Quote
It is perfectly possible to believe that someone is better without believing that the better person should have more stuff! If anything, we would expect that the better someone is, the less stuff they would want!

Plato even found this concept important enough to put into law in his ideal state:
Quote
An important feature that distinguishes Plato's ideal society in the Republic is that the ban on private property applies only to the superior classes (rulers and warriors), not to the general public.


Quote
The ideal communist citizen would be one who is unselfishly hedonistic: they will spend their energy trying to increase luxury as much as possible while rigorously avoiding uneven distribution of luxury.

That seems like a reasonable definition. I don't have anything more to add to this, but I do think that definition captures what communists in Western societies imagine. E.g. this is a meme, but I haven't seen any serious communist arguments against such an 'ideal'*:
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cultures/fully-automated-luxury-gay-space-communism

* (Other than Communists pointing out the practical matter that there are not yet enough "productive forces" for the "third world" to share that standard of luxury, and therefore such a meme is Eurocentric bougie escapism--but only for now--eventually production may reach high enough levels, and they are therefore not opposed to it in principle.)