The invention of the term 'socialism' was claimed by Pierre Leroux, a follower of Saint-Simon, who used it in the journal Le Globe in 1832; it was also used in Britain in the 1830s by the disciples of Robert Owen. As the name and the concept became widely known, theorists and adherents of the new doctrine naturally turned their attention to its antecedents in Plato's Republic, the communist ideas of medieval sectarians and the Renaissance utopianists, especially Thomas More and Campanella. . . .

The first active manifestation of socialism after the Revolution of 1789 was the conspiracy of Gracchus Babeuf. . . . Babeuf and the Babouvists took their philosophy in the main from Rousseau and the utopianists of the Enlightenment, and regarded themselves as the successors of Robespierre. Their basic premise was the idea of equality. . . . As all men have by nature the same right to all earthly goods, the source of inequality is private property and this must be done away with. In the future society wealth will be distributed equally to all, irrespective of what they do. . . . The Babouvist movement was one of the first attempts at an economic criticism of private property as the foundation of society.

The Babouvist movement is also important because it reflected for the first time a conscious conflict between the revolutionary ideal of freedom and that of equality. Freedom meant not only the right of assembly and the abolition of legal differences between estates of the realm, but also the right of every man to carry on economic activity without hindrance and to defend his property; freedom, therefore, meant inequality, exploitation, and misery. . . . Equality is the supreme value, and in particular equality meant the enjoyment of material goods. Taken to an extreme, this means that it matters less whether people have much or little so long as they all have the same. If there is a choice between improving the lot of the poor but allowing inequality to subsist, or leaving the poor as they are and depressing everyone to their level, it is the second alternative that must be chosen. The various communist and socialist groups did not actually envisage the matter in these terms, since they were all certain that the equalization of wealth would produce, if not abundance, at any rate a sufficiency for all. . . . In the first age of socialist ideas, however, moral indignation at poverty and inequality was not distinguished from economic analysis of capitalist production, but rather took the place of such analysis. As with the utopianists of the Enlightenment . . . the principle of the community of goods was deduced from a normative theory according to which human beings, simply as such, have an identical right to whatever the earth provides. . . . [T]he conclusion was . . . [that] inequality of consumption is contrary to human nature, and so is rent, interest, and any unearned income.

After 1830, in both France and England--the parent countries of socialism--socialist ideas and the embryonic workers' movement appeared in combination in various ways. Even before this, however, ideas of a radical reform of society on socialist . . . lines were ventilated in both countries in the form of theoretical reflections on the development of industry. This type of socialism, in which the chief names are Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Robert Owen . . . was not itself a protest by the deprived classes, but sprang from the observation and analysis of social misery, exploitation, and unemployment.

. . . [T]he socialist writers of the first half of the nineteenth century can be classified in various ways. . . . [But in general] their Utopia is founded on the premise that all human beings possess the same dignity by virtue of their humanity, and that, whatever the innate differences among individuals, they are identical as far as their rights and duties are concerned. This conception of human nature is both descriptive and normative. We may deduce from it what a man needs, and is entitled to receive, in order to be truly a man, but we know in advance that the answer will be the same for every individual. The idea of human nature presupposes equality, whatever its other implications may turn out to be.

The conception of human nature is at the same time a description of man's proper calling. Throughout utopian literature it is assumed that men are intended to live in a state of equality and mutual love, and that exploitation, oppression, and conflict of all kinds are contrary to nature's ordinance. The question of course arises: how can it be . . . that men have lived for centuries in a manner at variance with their true destiny? . . . On the Utopian view, the whole of human history is a monstrous calamity, and incomprehensible to boot. For traditional Christianity there is no problem [in accounting for the evils of history], on account of the doctrine of original sin and the corruption of humanity at its source. But the utopians of this period, even when they called themselves Christians, did not believe in original sin; they were thus deprived of this explanation, and had no other to offer. They wanted the good, but evil was to them inconceivable and inexplicable. They fell back, without exception, on a confused idea of human nature as something already 'given' and not a mere arbitrary norm (for in that case there would be no reason to expect people to conform to it)--a kind of reality or 'essence,' dormant in every individual. . . .

It is . . . [possible] to select from the works of the utopian socialists a series of propositions that seem to anticipate the most important ideas of Marx, though they are not set out in the same order or expounded in the same way. They comprise three main topics: historiosophical premises, the analysis of capitalist society, and the depiction of the future socialist order.

Under the first two headings we may list the following points:

No essential change is possible in the system of the distribution of wealth without a complete change in the system of production and property relations.
Throughout history, constitutional changes have been conditioned by technological ones.
Socialism is the outcome of inevitable historical laws.
The organization of capitalist society is in contradiction with the state of development of productive forces.
Wages, under capitalism, tend naturally to remain at the minimum level consistent with survival.
Competition and the anarchic system of production lead inevitably to exploitation, overproduction crises, poverty, and unemployment.
Technical progress leads to disaster, not for inherent reasons but because of the property system.
The working class can only free itself by its own efforts.
Political freedom is of little value if the mass of society is enslaved by economic pressure.

As regards the socialist future--whether this goes by the name of Harmony, mutualism, or the industrial system--we may enumerate the following ideals:

The abolition of private ownership of the means of production.
A planned economy on a national or world scale, subordinated to social needs and eliminating competition, anarchy, and crises.
The right to work, as a basic human entitlement.
The whole-hearted, voluntary co-operation of associated producers.
Free education of children at public expense, including technical training.
The abolition of the division of labour and the degrading consequences of specialization; instead, the all-round development of the individual, and free opportunity for the use of human skills in every direction.
Abolition of the difference between town and country, while permitting industry to concentrate as at present.
Political power to be replaced by economic administration; no more exploitation of man by man, or rule of one man over another.
Gradual effacement of national differences.
Complete equality of rights and opportunities as between men and women.
The arts and sciences allowed to flourish in complete freedom.
Socialism as a boon to humanity as a whole; the exploitation of the proletariat as the chief factor tending to bring about socialism.

Impressive as these analogies are, there is a basic difference between Marx and all other socialist thinkers of the first half of the nineteenth century. Moreover, this difference affects the meaning of many ideas which, in themselves, show a striking similarity and no doubt testify to the utopians' influence on Marx's thought. . . . The starting point of . . . [the reflections of the other socialist thinkers] is poverty, especially that of the proletariat, which they are bent on relieving.

Marx's starting point, however, is not poverty but dehumanization--the fact that individuals are alienated from their own labour and its material, spiritual, and social consequences in the form of goods, ideas, and political institutions, and not only from these but from their fellow human beings and, ultimately, from themselves. The germ of socialism in capitalist society consists [for Marx] in the working class's awareness of dehumanization, not of poverty. This comes about when dehumanization has reached its uttermost limit, and in that sense the proletariat's class consciousness is an effect of historical development. But it is also a revolutionary consciousness, the awareness of the working class that its liberation must come from its own efforts. . . .

[For Marx], utopian socialism or communism as preached by Saint-Simon, Owen, and Fourier, while aware of the class struggle and the oppression of the proletariat, fails to perceive the latter's key historical role and makes it a mere passive object of reformist plans. These theories reject the prospect of revolution and fix their sights on the community as a whole or on the privileged classes. They have played a useful part in criticizing bourgeois society and advocating reforms, but, having attempted to rise above the actual class struggle, their successors in later generations turn into reactionary sects whose aim is to extinguish class antagonisms and prevent independent political action by the proletariat.

With the appearance of The Communist Manifesto, we may say that Marx's theory of society and his precepts for action had attained completion in the form a well-defined and permanent outline. His later works did not modify what he had written [then] in any essential respect. . . . [But as] the socialist movement and socialist theory [later] progressed, it often happened that Marx's views on this or that subject--historical determinism, the theory of classes, of the state, or of revolution--were understood differently by different people. This is the natural fate of all social theories without exception--at all events those that have been a real force in politics and social development, and from this point of view no modern theory can rival Marxism. However, the most important controversies as to the exact interpretation of Marx's theory took place after his own lifetime.