Book Review: "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" by Friedrich Engels

A Great Introduction to Marxism, but not Very Scientific

Overall Rating: 3/5

Overview

This book provides a very short introduction to "scientific socialism," aka dialectical materialism, aka Marxism. The writing is clear, at least to the extent that that is possible, given how nebulous some of the ideas underlying Marxism are. Many Marxists feel that this book is the best introduction to Marxist thought. Although there has been some debate as to whether or not Engels' writings can be taken to 100% accurately reflect Marx's thoughts, the truth is that Engels was Marx's lifelong patron and was, essentially, familiar with all of his writings. Many believe that when one reads Engels, they are effectively reading Marx. Engels' writing style is less caustic than Marx's, which will, presumably, be looked at favorably by some Marxists and unfavorably by others.

Part I: The French Revolution; Utopian Socialists

Part I of the book starts with Engels giving his overview of Enlightenment thinking leading into the French Revolution and the disappointments that followed. Along the way, we learn who Engels' heroes during this period were: for instance, Fourier for his ability to critique society. As will come as a surprise to nobody, Engels feels that the French Revolution's failures were ultimately due to it being a bourgeois revolution. Engels then briefly discusses early "pre-scientific" or utopian socialist thought and shows a particular admiration for Robert Owen. Although a great admirer of Owen, Engels feels that Utopian Socialism ultimately was limited in its implementation by not having a scientific foundation and, thus, was subject to the idiosyncrasies of particular individuals who tried to implement it. Scientific socialism, he claims, gets rid of this problem.

Part II: Dialectics

Part II of the book deals with "dialectics," which Engels believes was the way to get socialism onto a scientific footing. The most interesting thing to learn here is how, despite striving for a scientific foundation, the dialectic is nebulous and without a clear definition. It has something to do with "contradictions." In the case of the dialectic, however, the definition of "contradiction" differs from what it is in science. In logic and, hence, science, a contradiction cannot be true and, thus, cannot exist because it violates the laws of logic. In the dialectic, however, contradictions exist, and the dialectic is a historical force that works to resolve them and move evolution forward. For example, capitalism's enormous productivity increases, providing the ability to provide abundantly for all, but it fails to do so. 

Too Fuzy to be Real Science?

Another aspect of the too-loose-to-be-scientific non-definition of the dialectic is that it has something to do with how truth is not really a crisp set of "true" and "false" binaries or even definite concepts or objects. Engels gives the example of the fact that what constitutes the atoms in one's body is constantly changing and, eventually, completely replaced over time. Is one then the same person? This fuzziness is an idea that has greatly influenced Marxist and post-modernist philosophy right up to the present day. 

If we look at modern-day science, however, it is clear that at the most fundamental level, physics, all the reasoning is done with logic which is quite binary. In contrast to the dialectic, there are crisp opposites and non-fuzzy sets: For example, fermions and bosons. It did not take new laws of logic invented after Engels to get science on a crisp foundation. Indeed, it has always been like that. Thus, here Engels shows that despite feeling the dialectic puts Marxists above physical scientists, they do not seem to have a scientific mindset at all. Indeed, it is rather anti-scientific.

For Marxists, the dialectic entails a belief that through scientific study in which scientific socialists use the dialectic to resolve "contradictions," the economy and society can be run in a manner superior to the "anarchy" of capitalism.

A Higher Science?

One of the most important things to learn from Engels' discussion of the dialectic is that it is something that advocates believe exists above science. This is because they believe that their "dialectical reasoning" implies that history is necessarily progressive, whereas physical science is silent on the matter. Indeed, if the dialectic were true, it would constrain the conclusions that physical science could draw. In addition, their fuzzier dialectical reasoning allows them to reach conclusions that more "restrictive" reasoning in the physical sciences would rule out as non-sequiturs. 

Part III: Historical Materialism

An Anachronistic Notion of Ownership of the Output of Labor?

In part III, Engels discusses his view of capitalism. The central claim here is that capitalism is fatally flawed because it is trying to apply a notion of ownership of the results of labor production that was valid in the middle ages but no longer is. A contradiction has emerged, and the dialectic will work it out. In the middle ages, the final product of labor was due almost entirely to the laborer, and as such, the laborer owned it. Occasionally laborers would be hired by others, but only occasionally. Thus, wage labor was not a problem. Most people owned most of their own land and, hence, kept most of the output of their labor. 

Engels believes that capitalism changed all that. Now labor was spread out among many people. Hence, it became a social instead of an individual phenomenon, and none of the workers ended up owing the final output of their labor. This allowed capitalists to take away as much labor value as possible to increase their wealth to ridiculous extremes. This, Engels claims, even they recognized. Meanwhile, the proletariat received barely enough to get by as their numbers and conditions worsened over time.

Increasing Misery?

Engels cites machinery and the productivity booms it enabled as being primarily responsible for the misery of capitalism. Since machinery was continuously evolving and able to displace workers and competition was fierce to sell goods at the lowest price, misery increased over time. Also, to the benefit of capitalists, an increasing army of reserve labor was created. 

Engels also criticizes capitalism for expanding infinitely, including into other countries across the globe, as part of its insatiable appetite for new markets to sell into.

The Nature of the Modern State

True to the dialectic, Engels points out how capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction. First, it creates a cycle of booms and busts that become increasingly intolerable. To alleviate this, temporarily, capitalists create monopolies and trusts (think Standard Oil). However, that is too blatantly exploitative. Hence, the next step is to control the modern state. Engels insists the state exists to protect the bourgeoisie from the proletariat and, occasionally, capitalists who are so bad that even their fellow capitalists feel they have gone too far. That, too, becomes intolerable, and Engels sees the proletariat rising up to seize political power and the means of production. To Marx and Engels, the modern state only exists to help the bourgeois exploit the proletariat. 

Withering Away of the State... And then?

Exceeding even his vagueness in discussing what the dialectic is, Engels is particularly vague in describing how things would work once the proletariat seized political power and the means of production. All social ills would then be resolved through the scientific application of dialectical reasoning. Productive forces that capitalism held back could then be unleashed such that everyone's needs were met, and now they could live above the level of animals. In a truly bizarre sentence, and unintentionally demonstrating an actual contradiction, Engels contends that by working out how to administer everything scientifically, class and the need for the state would wither away to nothing over time. 

Some Major Marxist Themes Missing

Although the book nicely captures most significant Marxist themes, some are missing. Having read Sowell, for instance, and given the title, I expected more discussion of how naive Marx thought Utopian socialists were; how Marx ridiculed the idea that everyone would be paid the same flat rate multiplied by how many hours they clocked in. How Utopians foresaw the free market going away, whereas, by contrast, Marx thought there would always be a need for one to some degree. Also, although alienation was a central theme of Marx's work, Engels only spends a few sentences discussing it. 

Challenges Rating the Book

Deciding how to rate a book like this is challenging. Certainly, it does, indeed, give an excellent overview of Marxism. It is short. It is cheap: 99 cents for the Kindle edition. Most can probably read it in a day or two. (I am a very slow reader and like to take notes, so it took me four sittings.) Triangulating with Thomas Sowell's Marxism: Philosophy and Economics, I could not find any inconsistencies. This suggests that both Engels and Sowell knew Marx's work well. Thus the book is an invaluable introduction to Marxism and seems a must-read for that reason.

On the other hand, Engels' approach is completely unscientific and, indeed, even anti-scientific. Engels ignores that at the time he wrote the book, in 1892, the predictions of Marxism were not coming true. There was not getting to be more proletariat. Their conditions were improving. Yes, there were still booms and busts in the capitalist economic cycles, which continue even now 130 years later, but they were not bringing Western societies closer to a communist revolution. Engels was aware of all these things, having corresponded with Marx about them, but fails to mention the problems he realized in this overview. That is certainly not a scientific approach! Real scientists make a point of highlighting the limitations of their theories. To Engles, it is all roses.

 Final Verdict

Due to all the flaws, I can only rate the book 3 out of 5 stars. Despite this, everyone who wants to understand classical Marxism, which should be everyone these days, should read it.