Owen, Blair and Utopian Socialism: On the Post-Apocalyptic Reformulation of Marx and Engels

Brian A. McGrail
{"title":"Owen, Blair and Utopian Socialism: On the Post-Apocalyptic Reformulation of Marx and Engels","authors":"Brian A. McGrail","doi":"10.1080/03017605.2011.561631","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article argues for utopianism, an activity which has all too often been denigrated by socialists. Its starting point is Donnachie and Mooney's article for issue 35(2) of Critique on the connection between Robert Owen and Tony Blair, in which their shared utopianism is viewed as a key element in their class collaborations and flight from the reality of capitalism's voracities. Whilst I do not argue against most of the criticisms made of Owen and Blair, I take issue with the implied anti-utopianism of Donnachie and Mooney's critique, a position they draw on from Marx and Engels. In contrasdistinction I argue that Marx and Engels (in spite of themselves) were great utopians, that utopianism needs to be seen as a broad method of social investigation (being counter-revolutionary as well as revolutionary but ground worth fighting for—not just a flight of fancy), and that socialism is and always has been impoverished by attempts at discursive closure or, as the dystopian Zamyatin would put it, Fantasiectomy (the surgical removal of the imagination). Whereas the utopian imagination has come to be associated with the monographic fantasy of a powerful or charismatic individual, our solution should lie in the democratization of the political imagination, of the imagining of the ‘best of all possible worlds’, rather than in its abandonment. The latter approach merely leaves fallow ground to be occupied by those already with a voice, such as Owenites and Blairites, rather than encouraging the historically silent to speak for the first time, freed from the anti-utopian restraint of ‘well, you can only speak this way, because this is the way it has always been done’.","PeriodicalId":81032,"journal":{"name":"Critique (Clandeboye, Man.)","volume":"25 1","pages":"247 - 269"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critique (Clandeboye, Man.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03017605.2011.561631","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This article argues for utopianism, an activity which has all too often been denigrated by socialists. Its starting point is Donnachie and Mooney's article for issue 35(2) of Critique on the connection between Robert Owen and Tony Blair, in which their shared utopianism is viewed as a key element in their class collaborations and flight from the reality of capitalism's voracities. Whilst I do not argue against most of the criticisms made of Owen and Blair, I take issue with the implied anti-utopianism of Donnachie and Mooney's critique, a position they draw on from Marx and Engels. In contrasdistinction I argue that Marx and Engels (in spite of themselves) were great utopians, that utopianism needs to be seen as a broad method of social investigation (being counter-revolutionary as well as revolutionary but ground worth fighting for—not just a flight of fancy), and that socialism is and always has been impoverished by attempts at discursive closure or, as the dystopian Zamyatin would put it, Fantasiectomy (the surgical removal of the imagination). Whereas the utopian imagination has come to be associated with the monographic fantasy of a powerful or charismatic individual, our solution should lie in the democratization of the political imagination, of the imagining of the ‘best of all possible worlds’, rather than in its abandonment. The latter approach merely leaves fallow ground to be occupied by those already with a voice, such as Owenites and Blairites, rather than encouraging the historically silent to speak for the first time, freed from the anti-utopian restraint of ‘well, you can only speak this way, because this is the way it has always been done’.
欧文、布莱尔与乌托邦社会主义:论马克思、恩格斯的后启示录式重新表述
这篇文章为乌托邦主义辩护,这是一种经常被社会主义者诋毁的活动。它的起点是Donnachie和Mooney在《批判》第35期(2)上关于罗伯特·欧文和托尼·布莱尔之间联系的文章,在这篇文章中,他们共同的乌托邦主义被视为他们阶级合作和逃离资本主义贪婪现实的关键因素。虽然我并不反对对欧文和布莱尔的大多数批评,但我对Donnachie和Mooney的批评中隐含的反乌托邦主义持异议,这是他们从马克思和恩格斯那里借鉴来的立场。与此相反,我认为马克思和恩格斯(尽管他们自己)是伟大的乌托邦主义者,乌托邦主义需要被视为一种广泛的社会调查方法(既是反革命的,也是革命的,但值得为之奋斗的基础,而不仅仅是一种幻想),社会主义一直被话语封闭的企图所贫瘠,或者,正如反乌托邦的扎米亚金所说,幻想切除术(切除想象力的手术)。鉴于乌托邦想象已经与一个强大或有魅力的个人的专著幻想联系在一起,我们的解决方案应该在于政治想象的民主化,想象“所有可能世界中最好的”,而不是放弃它。后一种方法只会让那些已经有发言权的人占据空闲的土地,比如欧文主义者和布莱尔主义者,而不是鼓励历史上沉默的人第一次说话,从反乌托邦的束缚中解放出来,“好吧,你只能这么说,因为这是一直以来的做法”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信