Robert Owen

El debate de las izquierdas antes de 1917. Revolución Industrial y mundo obrero.
Rasgos generales.
Los socialistas románticos: utopistas, filántropos y activistas.
La propuesta dialéctica de Karl Marx (1818-1883).
Las disputas entre anarquistas y marxistas.
La vía británica: del cartismo a los fabianos.
El pensamiento socialista tras la muerte de Marx.
El gran debate revisionista:  Bernstein / Lenin / Rosa Luxemburgo.

Robert Owen (1771 – 1858), významný anglický humanista, waleský textilný výrobca, sociálny reformátor, utopista-vizionár, komunitárny filozof, zakladateľ kolónií, pedagóg, spiritualista. Svoje idey „zhmotnil“ do praxe experimentovaním so sociálnym podnikaním (New Lanark) a experimentálnymi kolóniami v USA (New Harmony). Owen sám seba označil za „hovorcu chudobných a nevedomých“, a myšlienky o budovaní novej spoločnosti v USA prednášal aj pre amerických prezidentov (Adamsa, Jeffersona, Monroa, Madisona). V Británii presadil obmedzenie detskej a ženskej práce, zaslúžil sa o reformu vzdelávania (presadil výchovné osnovy pre dospievajúcu mládež, založil aj prvú verejnú škôlku na svete, inicioval vznik národného školstva a všeobecnej školskej povinnosti a duálne vzdelávanie). ... Owen navrhuje model, v ktorom dominuje výchova ako základný determinant rozvoja spoločnosti popri zvýšení materiálneho zabezpečenia človeka. Egalitárny rozmer Owenovej sociálnej filozofie a pedagogiky vychádza z opatrenia zabezpečiť základné materiálne a duchovné predpoklady pre rozvoj každého občana. Každý človek môže byť vychovaný k cnostiam, a tak môže byť nastolená spravodlivá spoločnosť.

An examination of the manner in which alchemy has been used as a metaphor for radical political discourse in recent Australian installation, digital art and performance photography. Artists discussed include Brett Whiteley, Robert Owen, Luke Roberts, Tom Arthur, Janet Lawrence, David Moses. The main issue concerns land ownership in post colonial Australia.

The subject of doctoral thesis "The idea of ​​a social justice in selected utopia concepts." reflects on the issue of justice applied to comparative analysis of selected projects of ideal commonwealths/utopias (Thomas More, Tomasso Campanella, Charles Fourier, Saint-Simon, Robert Owen, Étienne Cabet, Wilhelm Weitling, Bernard Bolzano) from the perspective of contemporary social-philosophy concepts. The work from the subject of the history of philosophy oscillates between social and political philosophy and the history of philosophy. The basic thesis is which elements of historical, utopian theories of justice can be applied to contemporary socio-philosophical discourse (social liberalism of John Rawls and communitarism of Michael Sandel). The fundamental scientific problems of the submitted work are questions linked to justice, equality and freedom in the context of ideal communities. The thesis uses methods, procedures and techniques of explanation, analysis, historical-comparative methods and at the end of synthesis of knowledge.

The book Utopians, Visionaries of the World of the Future (The History of Utopias and Utopianism) consists  of  three  parts:  in  the  first  one  the  reader  reads  about  the  definitions  of  utopia  and utopianism and its division. The following, the most extensive chapter analyzes the history of utopianism, compares  the  various  concepts  and ideas. In the introduction,  the  reader has the opportunity  to  gain  knowledge  of  the  prehistory  of  utopianism  and  the  oldest  evidence  of utopian egalitarianism in human history. This is followed by the ancient and Christian tradition of  utopianism,  which  leads  the  emergence  ofutopia  as  a  literary  genre  in  modern  times. Following  are  descriptions  of  the  most  important  modern  utopias  and  their  authors  (More, Campanella, Bacon),but also less known utopias at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries. This is  followed  by  the  period of  the  Enlightenment  Utopia  and  the  natural  law  theory  of  Mably, Rousseau, Morelly and Babuef. This chapter ends with Babeuf’s influence in the revolutionary theories of the 19th century. The largest part of Utopian history is devoted to the three greats of Utopian socialism: Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owenand also authors such as Etienne Cabet and Robert de  Lamennais. Marginally,  the  book  also  deals  with German  utopia  and  utopian elements  in  the  works  of  Kant,  Hegel,  Bolzano,  Weitling,  with  a  continuation of  Marxism.  A novelty in the present research is utopianism in the Slovak context, which focuses primarily on Messianism as a specific form of philosophy of history and practical social activities of national revivalists and social revolts. The epilogue to history is followed by the last, third chapter, which deals with utopia and utopianism in the context of philosophical reasoning for the problems of the21st century.

Nos adentramos en los dos proyectos principales de Robert Owen, abordados cronológicamente: New Lanark, y New Harmony. Se exponen brevemente las razones por las cuales ambos proyectos caen, debido a un contexto sociopolítico no favorable para el incipiente movimiento obrero inglés, que en estos tiempos suele estar dirigido por personalidades ricas con capacidad adquisitiva bastante mayor que las de esta nueva clase obrera. Estas personalidades, como Owen, tienen un acentuado matiz de utopismo y de falta de comprensión de lo que supondrá la dialéctica de la lucha de clases, lo que les supondrá que asienten una base para lo que será el movimiento obrero europeo e internacional, pero que fracasará en su contexto, aún demasiado inmaduro para la época.

The “sharing economy” wasn’t supposed to be this way. Aided by the tiny computers most of us carry with us all day, every day, we would be free from the burdens of ownership and making money in our spare time by renting out our unused possessions. The vision was—or at least appeared to be—an idealistic one. Even before they enter kindergarten, every child learns the value of sharing, and here were the beneficent forces of Silicon Valley bringing us innovative new tools to strengthen our communities, disrupt outdated ways of doing business, and maybe even reduce our carbon footprints.

The reality turned out to be a little different. Sure, Uber and its ilk offer remarkable convenience and a nearly magical user experience, but their innovation lies just as much in evading regulations as in developing new technology. Behind the apps lies an army of contract workers without the protections offered to ordinary employees, much less the backing of a union. This new economy is not really about sharing at all. Rather, as Trebor Scholz argues in this study, it is an on-demand service economy that is spreading market relations deeper into our lives.

With these new middlemen sucking profits out of previously un-monetized interactions, creating new forms of hyper-exploitation, and spreading precarity throughout the workforce, what can we do? Scholz insists that we need not just resistance but a positive alternative. He calls this alternative “platform cooperativism,” which encompasses new ownership models for the Internet. Platform cooperativism insists that we’ll only be able to address the myriad ills of the sharing economy—that is to say platform capitalism—by changing ownership, establishing democratic governance, and reinvigorating solidarity. In this paper, Scholz breathes life into this idea by describing both actually existing and possible examples of platform co-ops, outlining basic principles for fairly operating labor platforms on the Internet, and suggesting next steps.

Trebor Scholz has lived and worked in co-ops for over a decade. The author of The Internet as Playground and Factory (2013) and Uberworked and Underpaid: How Workers Are Disrupting the Digital Economy (2016, forthcoming), Scholz is an associate professor at The New School, where he teaches courses on Internet and society. Together with Nathan Schneider, he has been focused on creating a campaign to challenge the system of value extraction that fuels the “sharing economy.” In November 2015, The New School hosted “Platform Cooperativism: The Internet, Ownership, Democracy,” which brought together more than one thousand people to plant the seeds for a new kind of online economy. The results of this conference are reflected in this study. Platform cooperativism is possible, and it is necessary, but it is by no means inevitable. The current owners of online platforms are willing to offer us seemingly everything except ownership. It is time for us to instead create an online economy based in democracy and solidarity.

-Stefanie Ehmsen and Albert Scharenberg
Co-Directors of Rosa Luxemburg Foundation
New York Office, January 2016

Apoiando-se no método marxista, Henrique Wellen analisou a função social da "economia solidária" nas suas relações com as determinações do capitalismo brasileiro atual. Além de expor seus principais pressupostos teóricos e metodológicos, o autor pesquisou diversos tipos de empreendimentos a partir de suas conexões com outros projetos sociais atualmente relevantes, como o "terceiro setor". Foram examinadas as condições de trabalho dentro dessas organizações, assim como suas relações com o mercado capitalista e, no que concerne à transformação social, Wellen demonstrou que a "economia solidária" representa um retrocesso na luta dos trabalhadores contra os imperativos do capital. Além de contribuir para o debate sobre esse projeto social, "Para a crítica da 'economia solidária'" conduz a uma importante reflexão na luta coletiva pela construção de uma sociedade emancipada.

This is Chapter 5 in the collection:

Cultures of Improvement in Scottish Romanticism, 1707-1840, ed by Alex Benchimol and Gerard Lee McKeever, Routledge, 2018.
https://www.routledge.com/Cultures-of-Improvement-in-Scottish-Romanticism-1707-1840/Benchimol-McKeever/p/book/9781138482937

This chapter reads the iconic model village of New Lanark as a node in a global history of cotton, arguing that textiles, but cotton in particular, represents a potent way to re-think Scotland’s ‘Age of Improvement’ with specific attention to the ‘Problem of Slavery’. The first section situates New Lanark at the cross-section of the resurgence of interest in cotton as a centrepiece of global history, and the current recovery of the memory of slavery in Scotland more specifically: at New Lanark it identifies the global in the local. The second section re-evaluates the ideology of ‘gradual improvement’ espoused by New Lanark’s key owners. First, David Dale who founded the mill in 1785 and was chair of Glasgow's Abolitionist Society in the 1790s. Second, Robert Owen who pioneered factory reform but often endorsed pro-slavery arguments in the context of the movement for emancipation in the late 1820s. During his travels in the United States and the Caribbean Owen recorded observations on slavery which are reproduced here. Finally, this chapter considers some of the tensions produced where the ideology of ‘gradual improvement’ meets a world system in which racialized chattel enslavement forms an extreme pole on the spectrum of labour.

RESUMEN: Primero, este artículo en torno a Robert Owen, el territorio de Texas y la República de México presenta una investigación y hace un breve comentario sobre fuentes.  Segundo, este texto hace referencia a la relación de la utopía en Occidente con la modernidad, con la modernidad industrial y con América. Finalmente, estas mismas líneas ofrecen alguna información más sobre lo que puso en relación a Robert Owen con el territorio de Texas y con la República de México.

A chapter of the book Utopian Field in writing, on Robert Owen's social experiments in New Lanark (UK) and New Harmony (USA).Published in Frontiers Magazine,  January 2020 and One Way Street Journal, Vol 23, January 2020. Chinese language with self-illustrated version and scanned versions. The subtitle is quoted from Robert Owen.

RESUMEN: Nuestra aproximación a Robert Owen pasará primero sobre algunos asuntos concernientes a la
ubicación de Owen en su contexto cultural. En segundo término, pasaremos a decir algo en relación con la
peculiar evolución de Robert Owen entre la vida, el pensamiento y la historia. Finalmente, haremos llegar algunas
notas en torno a una interpretación de Robert Owen entre el lenguaje, el pensamiento y la historia.

RESUMEN: En términos expositivos, se ha decidido presentar un trabajo dividido en tres partes.
En la primera parte de nuestro estudio, el lector encontrará una sucinta presentación en torno a lo que ha sido Robert Owen, y a lo que ha sido el contexto histórico de Occidente en el que estudiarlo.
En la segunda parte del texto, comenzamos a explorar la figura de Robert Owen en las fuentes y en los libros. Aquí, Owen es un autor estudiado y leído de diferentes e interesantes maneras entre el siglo diecinueve y nuestro propio tiempo.
Más allá, en un tercer lugar,  presentamos la importancia concreta de los proyectos de New Lanark y New Harmony, para asimilar la preocupación central en Robert Owen por el problema de la racionalidad-irracionalidad, asunto el último que se irá definiendo en diferentes etapas entre continuidades y discontinuidades de interés.
En un sentido intelectual, una de nuestras principales aportaciones sobre Robert Owen es la de hacer ver el modo en el que el autor evoluciona en relación con el lenguaje, la razón, y la historia de Occidente.

XIX. yüzyılın ilk otuz yılı gerek sosyalist düşüncenin, gerekse işçi hareketlerinin gelişimi için önemli bir döneme tekabül eder. Bu dönemde gelişen, daha sonraları Karl Marx ve Friedrich Engels tarafından “ütopyacı sosyalizm” olarak adlandırılacak olan akımın en önemli temsilcileri Fransa’da Saint-Simon ve Charles Fourier, Büyük Britanya’da ise Robert Owen’dır. Dönemin sosyalist düşünürleri bir yandan içinde yaşadıkları toplumsal, iktisadi ve siyasal koşullara dair sistemli bir eleştiri geliştirmiş, diğer yandan da bu düzeni aşmak için çeşitli projeler geliştirmiş, hatta bazı durumlarda bu projeleri uygulamaya çabalamışlardır.
Bu dönemde işçi hareketlerinin ve erken dönem sosyalist düşüncenin gelişim çizgilerinin incelenmesi, bu iki çizginin birbirlerinden ayrı yollar izlese de bütünüyle bağlantısız olmadığını göstermektedir. Dönemin sosyalist yazını temelde kapitalizmin sınai gelişmesinin getirdiği toplumsal sorunlara bir çözüm bulma amacı güder. Ayrıca bu dönemde kitle hareketine öncülük etme çabasında olan ve Jakobenizm’den esinlenen bir siyasal hat mevcuttur. Bu hareketin önderlerinin basın-yayın alanında faal olması, sınıf hareketine dair çok sınırlı bir düzeyde de olsa kuramsallaştırma çabasını ortaya çıkarmıştır.

*

During the first three decades of the nineteenth century, socialist thought and workers’ movements attained an important level of development. This period gave rise to stream of thought that was subsequently called “utopian socialism” by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Saint-Simon and Charles Fourier in France, and Robert Owen in Great Britain were the most important representatives of the utopian movement. Early socialist thinkers attempted to develop a systematic criticism of the social, economic and political conditions, and they also launched actual projects for overcoming the existing social and economic system, and even tried, in some cases, to apply these projects. However, their socialist thought was not directly related to the workers’ movement. Instead, it was a response to the economic and social problems generated by industrial capitalism. This same period also gave rise to a revolutionary tendency inspired by Jacobinism. Neo-Jacobine and radical politicians and agitators were especially active in the press and in publishing. However, the revolutionary element was mainly absent from socialist thought before the 1830s.

RESUMEN: El trabajo presenta la figura de Robert Owen de manera muy breve, aludiendo a los elementos que constituyen el sustrato intelectual del autor, entre lo cristiano, lo moderno y lo industrial. Más allá, presta atención a una de las etapas definidas en lo relativo a vida y obra de Robert Owen: la etapa de los años treinta a cuarenta del siglo diecinueve. En ese contexto cronológico, ofrecemos alguna información en torno a las propuestas owenitas epocales en sexualidad, política y religión.

Marx ve Kooperatifçilik

Karl Marx, partisinin en önemli metinlerinden biri olan, 1850 Mart’ında yayınlanan, Kuruluş “Çağrısı’’nda kapitalizmin proletaryanın mutlak yoksullaşmasına değil göreli yoksullaşmaya doğru bir eğilim olduğunu ifade etmekteydi. “Çağrı” Britanya sermaye sınıfına karşı proletaryanın iki önemli zafer elde ettiğini ilan etmişti. Bu zaferlerden ilki işçilerin çalışma sürelerini sınırlandıran On Saat Yasası’nın İngiliz parlamentosunda kabul edilmesiydi.  İkinci zafer ise Robert Owen’ın öncülüğündeki kooperatif hareketinin zaferiydi. Bu kooperatif deneyimi tüm eksikliklerine rağmen ortaklaşa emeğin kölelik ve ücretli emek karşısındaki üstünlüğünü net bir şekilde ortaya koymuştu. Keza Marx o günkü deneyimlerin ortaklaşa emeğin “yığınları özgürleştirmesi” için “ulusal boyutta geliştirilmesi ve dolayısıyla ulusal araçlarla desteklenmesi” gerektiğini ifade etmişti. Bununla birlikte, burjuva devletin ulusal kooperatifleşmenin önüne koyacağı engelleri işçilerin ancak ulusal sınırları aşarak birleşmesi ve siyasal iktidarı ele geçirmesiyle aşabileceğinin vurgusunu da yapmıştı Marx.

Kooperatifçilik ve Devrim
Bernstein ve Luxembourg tartışması

Revizyonizmin kurucusu Eduard Bernstein’in yazılarına cevap vermek için kaleme aldığı Reform mu Devrim mi? kitabında Rosa Luxemburg, Bernstein’ın kooperatifleri sosyalizmin gerçekleşeceği iki yoldan biri-diğeri sendikacılıktır-  olarak görmesi karşısında kooperatifçilik meselesine de bir başlık ayırmıştı. Luxemburg’a göre kooperatifler ve özellikle üretim kooperatifleri kapitalizmin ortasında melez bir form oluşturur ve kapitalist mübadele içindeki küçük sosyalistleşmiş üretim birimleri olarak tanımlanabilirler. Ona göre kapitalist ekonomi içinde sermaye çıkarları için yoğun sömürü koşullarında üretim yapan işletmelerle rekabet etmek işçi kooperatiflerini birtakım çelişkilere iter. İşçiler hem kendi çalışma koşullarını iyileştirmek, hem de kapitalist girişimci rolünü oynamak zorunda kalır. Bu çelişki de işçi kooperatiflerinin sonu olur, bu kooperatifler ya yeniden kapitalist gelişime dönüşürler ya da işçi çıkarları ağır geldiği durumlarda dağılırlar. Üretim kooperatiflerinin kapitalist üretim içindeki üretim biçimiyle mübadele biçimi arasındaki bu çelişkiyi ortadan kaldırıp yaşamını sürdürebilmesinde ancak tüketim kooperatifleri destek olabilir. Ama tüketici ve üretici kooperatifleri sermaye üretiminin en önemli dallarının- tekstil, madencilik, metalurji ve petrol endüstrileri, makine, lokomotif ve gemi yapımı- dışında olup neredeyse gıda alanıyla sınırlandığı için tek başına, genel bir toplumsal dönüşümün aracı olamaz.  Çünkü mücadele üretim sermayesine karşı savaştan, yani kapitalist ekonominin temeline karşı savaştan, ticaret sermayesine, küçük ve orta ticaret sermayesine karşı, yani kapitalizmin küçük unsurlarına karşı savaşa indirgenir. 

Lenin ve Kooperatifçilik Üzerine

Lenin Ekim Devrimi sonrasında ve NEP’in (Yeni Ekonomi Politikaları) uygulama koyulması sonrasında kaleme aldığı Kooperatifçilik Üzerine yazısında politik iktidarın ve üretim araçlarının işçi sınıfının eline geçmesinden sonra en önemli işin halkı kooperatif kolektiflerinde örgütlemek olarak tanımlamıştır. Halkın kooperatiflerde örgütlenmesiyle sosyalizm hedefine ulaşacaktır. Kooperatifler “sosyalist toplumun kuruluşunun bizzat kendisi değildir; ama bunun için gerekli ve yeterli olandır.” Lenin açısından kooperatiflerin önemi iki şeyden kaynaklanmaktadır. İlki üretim araçlarının devletin elinde bulunması, ikincisi de “köylüler açısından en basit en kolay ve en benimsenebilir” yol olması. Bu sebeple kooperatiflere bir dizi ekonomik, mali ve bankacılık konusunda ayrıcalık tanınmalı ve halk kooperatiflere katılmasının yararlarını göreceği şekilde “aydın” konuma yükseltilmelidir. Çünkü üretim araçlarının toplumsal mülkiyeti sağlandığında “çağdaş kooperatif sistemi bir sosyalizm sistemi olacaktır”. 

Holloway vs Harvey

Yukarıda gördüğümüz gibi Lenin üretim araçlarının işçi sınıfına geçtiği bir aşamada, devrim sonrasında kooperatifçiliğin muazzam önemine dikkat çekmektedir. Peki kooperatifçilik devrimci bir dönüşümü mümkün kılabilir mi? Zapatista deneyimleri üzerine yoğunlaşan John Holloway’e göre devrimi ancak kapitalist tahakküm içerisindeki çatlakların genişletilmesi ve çoğaltılması üzerinden düşünülebilir. Bu çatlaklar da hiyerarşik olmayan, yereldeki otonom faaliyetler, fabrika işgalleri, kooperatifler gibi özyönetimci hareket ve gruplarla mümkün kılınabilir.  David Harvey ise işçi özyönetimi, dayanışma ekonomileri, yerel ticaret sistemleri yoluyla sistemi değiştirme girişimlerinin küresel ölçekte kapitalizm karşıtı çözümler üretmede başarısız olduğunu ifade etmektedir. Bu tür deneyimlerin başarısız olma nedeni ise Harvey’e göre çok basittir: Kapitalist dünyada varlığını sürdüren bütün işletmeler ‘rekabetin zorunlu yasaları’na tabidirler. Rakipleri kendilerine benzer bir ürünü çok daha düşük fiyata satarsa bu kooperatifler ya iflas ederler ya da verimliliği artırmaya veya üretim maliyetlerini düşürmeye, yani emek, ara mal ve ham madde maliyetini azaltmaya çalışırlar. Böylece bu yapılar kapitalist rakiplerini taklit ederler. Hatta, işçiler “en az sermaye tarafından dayatılan kadar ezici bir kolektif öz-sömürü durumuna” düşebilirler. Harvey’e göre işçi denetimine veya kolektif üretim ve tüketime dayanan bu tür deneyimlerin kapitalist değer yasasının dünya genelindeki işleyişine karşı çıkabilmesi için “makro-iktisadi ilişkiler hakkında teorik bir kavrayış”a sahip olmakla birlikte “farklı bir tür teknik ve örgütsel gelişkinlik düzeyi”ne ulaşması gerekmektedir.  Oysa kapitalist pazarlara bağımlılık ilişkisinden tamamen kopup kendi alternatif dünyasını yaratabilmesi için gelişkin üretim araçlarını elinde bulundurması, A’dan Z’ye her bakımdan kendi kendisine yetebilmesi gerekmektedir. Bu ise dünya genelinde siyasi bir hâkimiyet kurmadan pek mümkün görünmemektedir.

In age of egregious inequality and rising authoritarian, many call for a new “moral economy” and turn to Karl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation for inspiration. Yet Polanyi’s great insight is that those who cannot reckon with the moral economy of “market justice”—the claim that market outcomes, however unequal, are morally just—fail to understand the power of capitalism. Justified by its original claim to rest on natural science, market justice laid the predicate for democracy as mortal threat. Polanyi reveals market justice as based not on natural law but on predistributive political power, and builds his democratic socialist vision on the “reality of society.”

I add a new item to a reconstruction of Ricardo’s philosophical background. His methodological ideas are, by now, less obscure than they still were at the times when Schumpeter, Hutchinson and Stigler classifies him as a busy mind leaving room enough for ‘no philosophy at all’, an ‘illettered pater familias’ and as ‘unphilosophical’. His ideas in ethics, politics and religion/theology are still less easily defined and occasionally Halévy’s opinion is still repeated that he was a faithful disciple of James Mill.
Here I try to exploit evidence overlooked by Sraffa, namely his Commonplace Book, where he took notes of his reading verging partly on history, politics, and travellers’ reports on non-European countries, and partly  on pure philosophy, that is, epistemology and philosophy of mind, and philosophical and theological topics such as theodicy. Then I combine the evidence assembled with some less unknown evidence found in the correspondence, mainly on toleration, ‘natural’ morality, and again theodicy in connection with poverty and the social question. Finally, I try to illustrate the intellectual context of opinions he disclosed on several occasions on the ethical essence of religion, infertility of theology, impossibility of a theodicy, the unbounded right to religious freedom for everybody, atheists included. I conclude that:

i) Ricardo was apparently far from being an ‘unbeliever’; but belief or disbelief are existential attitude, not theoretical ones; so, one should better say: his own philosophy was a limited kind of scepticism leaving room for religious belief for whoever would like to avail himself of that option;

ii) toleration was justified not by the crude argument that religion is a fake but on the more sensible argument that nobody’s truth is the unique truth a reasonable person may adopt;

iii) he believed speculative theology to be irrelevant; it is an attempt to formulate as scientific truth what is unknowable; this is not an argument for atheism, but it is one more argument for toleration;

iv) morality is independent of revelation, there is a natural morality accessible to every reasonable mind; this is the Enlightenment’s staple, but also is far from being an atheist or exclusively modern view; it was simply an anti-Augustinian and anti-Calvinist doctrine defended in the Middle Ages by Aquinas and William of Ockham, and in modern Britain by every enemy of religious fanaticism. 

v) theodicy is impossible for the same reasons why it is so for Kant; this – unlike James Mill, Ricardo’s friend and former Presbyterian minister – is for Ricardo no argument for unbelief; it is instead one more argument for moral responsibility vis-à-vis poverty and also against dogmatic Laissez-Faire optimism of the kind atheist Mill was prone to adopt; 

vi) a sense of duty – including a duty to wage war to poverty – derives thus from ‘reason without hope’;

vii) last of all: social science has to be a secular science precisely for theological reasons; or, in other words, the anti-dogmatic kind of religious belief he declared legitimate (independently of the fact of his own belief or doubt – who doesn’t doubt? –) ruled out any kind of dogmatic atheist theology like all kind of Laissez-Faire Metaphysics.

free access to the full paper at:

http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/9gIFxkEdWcJBqV4CRvU5/full

Résumé

Le présent article examine la postérité de Robert Owen (1771-1858) au sein de la gauche britannique, entre mythification et conflits d’interprétation non résolus. Le principal point d’achoppement concerne la critique marxiste de l’owénisme, qui a rattaché de façon canonique la pensée d’Owen au champ du « socialisme utopique ». Nous posons que, depuis la fin du XIXe siècle, les socialistes modérés ont utilisé Owen contre Marx afin de fonder une tradition politique nationale, sans pour autant parvenir à dépasser un horizon utopique toujours sous-jacent.

Abstract

This paper examines the legacy of Robert Owen (1771–1858) in the British left, between mythicization and unresolved conflicting interpretations. The chief stumbling block was the Marxist critique of Owenism, which, as a matter of canon, classified Owen’s thought as “utopian socialism.” We posit that since the late 19th century, moderate socialists have used Owen against Marx in order to found a national political tradition, but have not managed to get beyond an always underlying utopian horizon.

Dans les Principes d’économie politique (1848), puis dans son ouvrage posthume et inachevé Sur le socialisme (1879), John Stuart Mill propose une défense ambiguë du « communisme », théorie qui vise selon lui à réformer radicalement le régime de propriété. Cet article entend analyser le statut de l’expérimentation dans l’évaluation millienne de la collectivisation des moyens de production. Il donne ainsi à voir en quoi l’appel à l’expérience – d’abord à petite échelle – de l’hypothèse communiste, que l’on retrouve d’un texte à l’autre, peut se lire comme une invitation positive à réaliser cette doctrine, mais comporte en même temps des limites et des réserves profondes.

RESUMEN: La existencia de Robert Owen fue la de un hombre preocupado por la posibilidad de construir una respuesta a una crisis muy relevante desde el punto de vista de lo racional - irracional. Nuestro artículo mostrará cómo  Robert Owen afrontó los asuntos cristiano-moderno-industriales, para explicar desde ahí el tipo de respuesta racional-irracional histórica y práctica dada por Robert Owen en diferentes momentos  lo largo y ancho de distintos momentos entre New Lanark y New Harmony. Robert Owen, un autor preocupado por lo racional, se forjó entre la  tradición judeo-cristiana y el industrialismo moderno entre Gales e Inglaterra, pero se vio marcado definitivamente y de manera muy especial por Escocia. Escocia representa mucho para un Robert Owen que llevaría ya consigo para siempre la ilustración escocesa, tan orientada a la experiencia práctica. Por otra parte, Robert Owen también se puso allí en contacto con la peculiar y poco ortodoxa religiosidad del contexto escocés. Aquí, nosotros estudiaremos la modernidad y su cima industrial haciendo énfasis en asuntos espaciales. Desde ahí, veremos cómo entendió Robert Owen su encrucijada entre la cristiandad y la modernidad industrial, para lanzar propuestas entre la espacialidad y la racionalidad y entre la historia y la razón.

Happiness is political. The way we think about happiness affects what we do, how we relate to other people and the world around us, our moral principles, and even our ideas about how society should be organized. Utilitarianism, a political theory based on hedonistic and individualistic ideas of happiness, has been dominated for more than two-hundred years by its founder, Jeremy Bentham. In Happiness, Democracy, and the Cooperative Movement, Mark J. Kaswan examines the work of William Thompson, a friend of Bentham’s who nonetheless offers a very different utilitarian philosophy and political theory based on a different conception of happiness, but whose work has been largely overlooked. Kaswan reveals the importance of our ideas about happiness for our understanding of the basic principles and nature of democracy, its role in society and its character as a social institution. In what is the closest examination of Thompson’s political theory to date, Kaswan moves from philosophy to theory to practice, starting with conceptions of happiness before moving to theories of utility, then to democratic theory, and finally to practice in the first detailed account of how Thompson’s ideas laid the foundations for the cooperative movement, which is now the world’s largest democratic social movement.

“This is an original and impressive piece of scholarship that calls attention to an important but neglected figure (Thompson) and provides an innovative and timely reading of his work. In the author’s hands, applied theory is given new life and new purpose.” — Stephen Engelmann, editor of Selected Writings: Jeremy Bentham

“In this remarkable book, Mark Kaswan rescues and rehabilitates the reputation of a long-forgotten and unjustly neglected thinker—the radical Irishman, feminist, non-Benthamite Utilitarian, and a writer of remarkable range and power—William Thompson. In Kaswan, Thompson has finally found the expositor he so richly deserves. And we might in turn find in Thompson a vision of democratic possibilities that we so sorely need.” — Terence Ball, author of Reappraising Political Theory: Revisionist Studies in the History of Political Thought

RESUMEN:  En el texto que se presenta, vamos a introducir una serie de apuntes en torno a la actividad de Robert Owen en América. Así, intentaremos acercarnos a un Robert Owen que ofrece un perfil de interés en Méjico más allá de lo meramente filosófico. De modo especial y a través del estudio de la figura del galés, aportaremos información relevante en lo relativo al interés del Reino Unido en la región.

Il controllo sui consumi e lo sviluppo di nuovi bisogni umani sarebbe impossibile senza una rapida rottura dei limiti d'azienda. Nella società futura, già all'inizio, non saranno più i lavoratori a migrare verso le aree industriali: al contrario, saranno i mezzi di lavoro liberati a distribuirsi secondo gli insediamenti dell'uomo sulla superficie terrestre (cfr. punto "e" del Programma rivoluzionario immediato, riunione di Forlì del Partito Comunista. Internazionale, 28 dic. 1952).

The main aim of this article is to investigate the reception of Owen’s ideas in the nineteenth-century Polish context. I argue that Owen’s ideas did not attract as much attention as those of, amongst others, Charles Fourier, Félicité de Lamennais, or – in the second half of the century – Karl Marx. Despite being overshadowed by other Romantic socialists, Owen’s reception in Poland can be described as having been marked by three phases. Though we can determine the general direction of this reception, we can only demarcate the rough time frames of it. The first phase may be traced from 1830 until around 1860. It was marked by Polish radicals’ rejection of Owen’s ideas. The phase, which may be dated from roughly 1848, saw the reception of and critical engagement with Owen’s ideas by Polish conservatives. Ironically, conservatives represented the first political current in the Polish context, which made a real effort to analyse and engage with his ideas seriously. Finally, the third phase of reception was constituted by Marxist and modern socialists, who, in seeing themselves at the end of an historical teleology, read Owen, and other early socialists, as their ideological forefathers.

The text will focus on: the French visionary Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825), who prophesied industrial science and technology utopia, the European Federation, eternal peace and a new vision of Christianity; the French business traveler and at the same time the greatest critic of commerce, the utopian socialist and philosopher François Marie Charles Fourier (1772-1837), and finally the Welsh textile merchant, social and educational reformer, visionary, co-founder Robert Owen (1771-1858).

This paper explores very briefly how Kantian Individualism, the Market Revolution, and the Second Great Awakening converged to influence the philosophies of the early American Republic, and which also led to attempts in social reform like the communitarian societies, abolitionism, women's rights, and many others.

RESUMEN: El estudio sobre David Dale (1739-1806) que sigue, intenta presentar un apunte biográfico sobre este hombre de negocios escocés. El interés del trabajo reside en el hecho de que presenta la evolución de David Dale contra aspectos importantes de la historia de Escocia y de la historia del Reino Unido. Como resultado, vemos que la figura de Dale resulta ilustrativa respecto al modo en el que los itinerarios de modernidad británicos acogieron aspectos peculiares relativos a religión, pensamiento, filantropía, política, economía, educación y otros asuntos que, relacionados entre sí y unidos al trabajo de personas e instituciones concretas, ayudan a explicar el desarrollo escocés entre los siglos dieciocho y diecinueve.