richard-day-gramsci-is-dead

Utopian Socialism Then ... 105was much more critical of capitalism than Saint-Simon, of course,and knew from his own experience the problems that attended theexpert management of industrial relations. ‘The people were slavesat my mercy’, he noted after 30 years of his New Lanark experiment,‘liable at any time to be dismissed; and knowing that, in that case,they must go into misery, compared with such happiness as theynow enjoyed’ (1973/1849: 21). But he too did not reject governmentor the state form as such. His paradise on earth in fact assumed aclear distinction between government and governed; in it, the statewould ‘devise and execute’ what it saw as being necessary for ‘humanhappiness’ (58). He also saw no need for democracy, participatoryor even representative. Rather, he imagined that decisions could bemade for everyone by those who were between the ages of 30 and40, for local matters, or between 40 and 60 for issues external to thetownship. These ageist elites would have ‘full power of governmentin all things under their respective directions, so long as they shallact in unison with the laws of human nature’ (67).Owen’s lack of faith in youth is just one aspect of a general tendencyto devalue the popular and the uneducated. When he first set outto transform the mill at New Lanark, he found many ‘disadvantagesin the character of the population … their habits were intemperate,immoral, dirty, and most inferior’ (1973/1849: 11). However, oneway in which Owen represents an advance on Godwin and Saint-Simon—and in which he proves himself to be some kind of socialist,if not an anarchist—is his belief that every member of every townshipshould possess ‘similar advantages’, with the only divisions beingthose of age (as already seen in his conception of government bythe eldest). Thus, those at the same stage of life would have similaraccommodations and access to goods and services. ‘Perfect equalitythroughout life is the only foundation for a certain bond of unionamong men [sic]’, he argued, ‘and for an elevated state of society’(1973/1849: 123). Fourier, of course, begged to differ. He held that ‘theassociative regime is as incompatible with equality of fortune as withuniformity of character’, and derided ‘Owen’s scheme of communism’as ‘a mask for party spirit, a veil to cover the secret plan whichtends to destroy the clergy and religion’ (1971a: 128). Fourier alsoconsidered the holding of common property to be an idea ‘so pitifulthat it is not worthy of refutation’ (128). Within the phalansteries heargued that there must be differences of fortune ranging from abjectpoverty to the possession of ‘hundreds of millions’ (125), and heldthat those with more money were a ‘higher’ type than those with