Chapter I. Ideal Commonwealths

CHAPTER I IDEAL COMMONWEALTHS

INTRODUCTION

HOW IS THE SOCIALIST world order to be accomplished? Most reformers know it cannot be established in one stroke. They are also aware of the two main obstacles to its realization: individual selfishness, and the traditional institutions and customs which are embodied in the existing State. This new world order must therefore be implemented outside the spheres which are dominated by these two factors, at some distant place beyond the oceans. What mainly interests us here is not the geographical location, but the intellectual elaboration of that basic unit which is to form the kernel of future order.

“Let us found a State” said Socrates when opening discussion in “Politeia.” In this work Plato endeavors to design a model state which may one day be turned into reality by men of action. The Utopias treated in this chapter are not unbridled phantasies of their authors; rather the authors are, as H. Freyer rightly points out, animated by a responsible political will. Their commonwealths—calculated to exercise a manifest influence on their contemporaries—are therefore “a closed, consistent, convincing and so to speak viable world . . . which, if non-existent, could at least be real in theory.”1 This world is consciously organized and balanced. As Johann Gottlieb Fichte writes:

In government, as well elsewhere, everything possible must be conceptualized; whatever can be computed must cease to be left to blind chance, in the hope that chance will make it.2

Thus, utopian writers do not propose to overcome the State, but only to change its structure. A utopia is a state that possesses the proper solution to all human problems—and more than that: it is identical with this solution. Human conflicts cease to exist; individual and community, dominium and imperium, all merge into one. Every part is bound together by the common, righteous cause, and the one derives its perfection from the other. The old antinomy between personal freedom and central control, manifested by constraint and even terror, is replaced by perfect harmony.

The citizens of such a Utopian State, whose lives are spent between collective work and leisure, are so happy, so free from fear and worry, that they eagerly encourage other peoples, and eventually all mankind, to follow their example.

Freyer compares the inner organizational structure of an ideal commonwealth with the “cosmos of the Greek philosophers: finite, round and numerically ordered so that it can simply and clearly be governed by static laws.”3 To this self-inclusive system all forces not rooted in its laws, and which therefore threaten to interfere with its proper functioning, must appear hostile and dangerous. The only choice a Utopian author leaves his reader is an uncompromising take it or leave it.4 Hence, a utopia must be strictly isolated from the rest of the world; “all factors and forces which by their nature transgress borderlines and join countries, must at the outset be viewed suspiciously in utopias.”5

PLATO: POLITEIA AND NOMOI

Mankind will always be indebted to Plato for the prototype of the ideal commonwealth. This author lived at a time when democracy, the long cherished political order of Athens, had degenerated into a “bustle of rancour and baseness.”6 In this period of political disintegration and liberated individualism, Socrates had been sentenced to death and executed by the Athenian authorities. The rising philosophical school of the Sophists relativized all moral institutions as being solely dependent on human will in general, and that of the strong in particular.

Against this philosophical anarchism Plato set his theory of the objective existence of absolute principles, the highest of which was justice. Justice may be recognized by an intelligible act and thus refuses to tolerate any authority besides itself, not even that of laws. “What is just can only be discerned for each individual case with respect to the Idea and by the one who possesses the necessary capability; that is, by the philosopher. . . . The just in the highest sense, hence the one who discerns, is therefore himself the law and thus above the rigid letter.”7

Human domination is thus openly admitted, but it must be domination by the chosen few endowed by nature, as an old Greek legend has it, with golden hearts. Plato’s goal is to found a state which would personify the moral Idea. The first prerequisite for such a state is unity of purpose, directed at the attainment of absolute justice. The second step is to devise a way of life for the “lovers of wisdom” which would bring them into closest communication with the Idea and its dictates. To achieve this end, Plato established severe rules for the philosophers, forbidding them to have families and private possessions and forcing them into a life of military discipline.8 Here, for the first time, the ideal of asceticism was linked with the denunciation of gold and silver which was identified with wealth and was regarded as the last cause of human greed and egoism.

Plato, well aware that his Politeia was not realizable on this earth, designed, in his “Nomoi,” a second-best State in which the rulers were less enlightened and therefore, as the title indicates, in need of a coherent framework of guiding laws. Plato retains the military structure in the interior, he even defines “the well-constituted State” as one which “ought to be organized in such a way as to be victorious in war over all other States.”9 Elsewhere he writes:

The main principle is this: that nobody, male or female, should ever be left without control, nor should anyone, whether at work or in play, grow habituated in mind to acting alone and on his own initiative, but he should live always, both in war and peace, with his eyes fixed constantly on his commander and following his lead.10

For this purpose, it is necessary to liberate the citizens from their “lust for wealth which allows a man no leisure time for attention to anything else save his own private property.”11 And the author continues: “That the laws previously ordained serve to repress the majority of desires, is not surprising.”12 This is so because “all our laws must always aim at one single object which, as we agreed, is quite rightly named ‘Virtue.’”13 The State and its citizens are identical in that they both require “the salvation of laws;”14 therefore, “everyone shall regard the friend or enemy of the State as his own personal friend or enemy.”15

Internal economic life is strictly regimented. Thus, “each several craftsman in the State shall have one single craft and gain from it his living.”16 Or again:

The Law-wardens must meet in consultation with experts in every branch of retail trade, and at their meetings they must consider what standard of profits and expenses produces a moderate gain for the trader, and the standard of profits and expenses thus arrived at they must prescribe in writing; and this they must insist on—the market stewards, the city stewards and the rural stewards, each in their own sphere.17

By the location Plato gives to his State—it is to be situated on a lonely stretch of Crete, eighty stades away from the sea—he implies that he aims at maximum self-sufficiency. Thus, we read:

Most of the Greeks arrange for their food to be derived from both land and sea, but our people will derive it only from the land. This makes the lawgiver’s task easier.18

And again:

For if the State was to be on the sea-coast, and to have fine harbors, and to be deficient in many products, instead of productive of everything—in that case it would need a mighty savior and divine lawgivers, if, with such a character, it was to avoid having a variety of luxurious and depraved habits. As things are, however, there is consolation in the fact of that eighty stades. Still, it lies unduly near the sea, and the more so because, as you say, its harbors are good; that, however, we must make the best of. . . . Our State has compensation in the fact that it is all-productive; and since it is hilly, it cannot be highly productive as well as all-productive; if it were, and supplied many exports, it would be flooded in return with gold and silver money—the one condition of all, perhaps, that is most fatal, in a State, to the acquisition of noble and just habits of life.19

What remains of foreign trade is severely guarded by the State. It is true that “no toll shall be paid in the State by anyone either on exported goods or on imports,”20 but this is practically meaningless since

Frankincense and all such foreign spices for use in religious rites, and purple and all dyes not produced in the country, and all pertaining to any other craft requiring foreign imported materials for a use that is not necessary, no one shall import; nor, on the other hand, shall he export any of the stuff which would of necessity remain in the country. . . .21

In regard to arms and all instruments of war, if there is need to import any craft or plant or metal or rope or animal for military purposes, the hipparchs and generals shall have control of both imports and exports, when the State both gives and takes, and the Law-wardens shall enact suitable and adequate laws therefor; but no trading for the sake of gain, either in this matter or in any other, shall be carried on anywhere within the boundaries of our State and country.22

It can be seen that foreign transactions are to cover only “essentials” and that they are to be conducted on the basis of strict barter. Foreign exchange reserves—in the form of precious metals—are therefore unnecessary.

As with the movement of commodities, the lawgiver must also concern himself with the movement of men across the State’s frontiers. His prescriptions are a compromise between two antagonistic tendencies. On the one hand,

the intermixture of States with States naturally results in a blending of characters of every kind, as strangers import among strangers novel customs: and this result would cause immense damage to peoples who enjoy a good polity under right laws.23

On the other hand, the State must not “get the reputation of adopting harsh language,” since

reputation in the eyes of others, whether for goodness or the reverse, is a thing that should never be lightly esteemed.24

The State may send out “inspectors,” i.e. men over fifty years of age and of great merit, “who desire to survey the doings of the outside world in a leisurely way.”25 But they must be “incorruptible, so as to confirm thereby such of his native laws as are rightly enacted, and to amend any that are deficient.”26 On their return, the inspectors will report to a “mixed body of young men and old” on “anything important they may have learnt elsewhere.”27

But if, on the other hand, such an inspector appears to be corrupted on his return, in spite of his pretensions to wisdom, he shall be forbidden to associate with anyone, young or old; wherein if he obeys the magistrates, he shall live as a private person, but if not, he shall be put to death.28

All foreigners—whether in a public capacity or on a private visit—are, immediately upon their arrival, taken care of by State officials or by priests. Plato is especially distrustful of that “inevitable emigrant” choosing “summer, as a rule, for his annual visits.”29

SIR THOMAS MORE: UTOPIA

“Plato was the intellectual father of socialists as well as of philosophers.”30 But whereas he “had a more general abstract end in view . . . , More was interested in the practical solution of actual and present social problems, and busied himself with plans to alleviate existing unfortunate conditions.”31 These conditions resulted from the enclosure movement in sixteenth-century England. Therefore, “the appearance of ‘Utopia’ marks the beginning of the modern social problems as they show themselves in the incipient stages of the capitalistic period.”32

The sixteenth-century was also the age of overseas discoveries. The living conditions of the newly found lands and peoples, as they were related by the tales and reports of the explorers, seemed to be a challenging contrast to the misery which was thought to be provoked by the progress of productive methods based on private property. The qualities of primitive society began to be studied and soon became identified, especially by the “natural” philosophers of the eighteenth century, with happiness and equality. It was believed that nature had granted every man equal access to the fruits of the land, originally owned in common. The influence of this philosophy can be seen in Thomas More’s work.

The Island of which Hythloday enthusiastically reports is in the form of a horseshoe and its shores are washed by a calm and friendly sea. However, when Utopus first conquered “Abraxa,” it was a peninsula. This wise king made it an island by cutting an isthmus of fifteen miles.33 The entry into Utopia’s inviting bay is, moreover, made treacherous by nature because of dispersed rocks and shallows—the safe passages being known only to the fortunate inhabitants themselves.

The secret of the Utopians’ joyful life lies in the fact

that they do not think felicity to rest in all pleasure, but only in that pleasure that is good and honest. . . . They define virtue to be a life ordered according to nature . . . and that he does follow the course of nature who in desiring and refusing things is ruled by reason.34

This greatly simplifies the economic process. Both men and women work and, since private property is unknown, there is no distinction between rich and poor. Hence, an idle class which must be supported does not exist. In addition, the demand for goods and services is reduced because homespun garments “are throughout all the Island of one fashion . . . seemly and comely to the eye, fit both for winter and summer.”35 Simple but abundant meals are taken in common, and whatever else is produced is done so in good and lasting quality. Hence, six hours of daily work are sufficient to provide for the Utopians’ necessities; the rest of the time is devoted to common recreation, games, and studies. But even so, the inhabitants cannot help producing surplus. All commodities are stored in warehouses or markets;

from hence the father of every family or every householder fetches whatsoever he and his have need of, and carries it away with him without money, without exchange, without any gage or pledge. For why should anything be denied to him; seeing there is abundance in all things, and that it is not to be feared lest any man will ask more than he needs.36

To provide against poor harvests, stocks sufficient for two years are accumulated. When the present and possible future requirements of the community are thus met,

then of those things whereof they have abundance, they carry forth into other countries great plenty; as grain, honey, wool, flax, madder, purple dye, felles, way, tallow, leather and livestock. And the seventh part of all these things they give frankly and freely to the poor of that country. The residue they sell at a reasonable and mean price. By this trade of traffic or merchandise, they bring into their own country not only great plenty of gold and silver, but also all such things as they lack at home, which is almost nothing but Iron. And by reason they have long used this trade, now they have more abundance of these things than any man will believe.37

Here More implies that Utopia’s balance of payments shows a permanent surplus. However, in this respect, she is also behaving like an ideal creditor country:

Now, therefore, they do not care whether they sell for ready money or else upon trust to be paid at a day, and they have the most part in debts. But in so doing they never follow the credence of private men, but the assurance or warrantise of the whole city, by instruments and writings made in that behalf accordingly. . . . The most part of it they never ask. For that thing which is to them of no profit, to take it from others to whom it is profitable, they think it no right nor conscience. But if the case so stand that they must lend part of that money to another people, then they require their debt; or when they have war.38

Of course, the Utopians will never go to battle because of unsettled trade matters.39 But they will do so

in defence of their own country or to drive out of their friends’ land the enemies that had come in or . . . to deliver from the yoke and bondage of tyranny some people that be oppressed with tyranny. Which things they do by mere pity and compassion.40

There may be still another occasion for war. It may happen that the Utopian population (despite institutional attempts at regulation) so increases that it “exceeds the due number throughout the whole island.”41 In such a case,

they build up a town under their own laws on the nearest part of the mainland where the inhabitants have much waste and unoccupied ground, receiving also the inhabitants to them, if they will join and dwell with them. . . . But if the inhabitants of that land will not dwell with them, to be ordered by their laws, then they drive them out of those boundaries which they now mark out for themselves. . . . For they account this the most just cause of war when any people holds a piece of ground void and vacant to no good nor profitable use, keeping others from the use and possession of it which notwithstanding by the law of nature ought thereof to be nourished and relieved.42

The Utopians readily observe this law by returning the colonizers to their native cities as soon as the Island’s number of inhabitants has become deficient. Beyond that, only “very few” go to foreign countries and this only “for some reasonable cause”43 such as trading.

Utopia’s chief instruments of war are gold and silver. These precious metals are used to hire mercenaries and to lavishly reward foreign agents charged with the outright murder of a hostile prince or to “procure occasions of debate and dissention to be spread among their enemies.”44 The Utopians themselves, though well trained and prepared for war, fight only if they must to defend their country.

JOHANN GOTTLIEB FICHTE: DER GESCHLOSSENE HANDELSSTAAT

“The first socialistic theorist, Sir Thomas More,”45 wrote his Utopia as a reaction against the social evils of his time. General humanitarian feelings and a strong empathy with the miserable lot of the poor classes merged, in the eighteenth century, into the powerful current of thought which was set free by the Enlightenment. History and politics were now subjected to the analysis of reason. A natural and reasonable social, political, and economic order was supposed to exist, derivable from the knowledge of human character. The “social contract” offered a normative formula which indicated how society should be built if its construction were influenced only by reason and not also by error, lust for power, and custom.

Johann Gottlieb Fichte, at the turn of the century, combined French rationalism and radicalism with German nationalism. Unlimited freedom, he wrote, means no freedom at all since “no one may appropriately put something into effect and rely for one moment on its duration. This antagonism of the free forces can only be counteracted by the individuals making a mutual agreement.”46 This agreement restricts the liberty of its participants equally and contains the assignment of an exclusive right to a determined “free” activity to each participant. The agreement thereby constitutes property.47

The outward manifestation of this multilateral contract and of the corresponding unification of human activity is, as Fichte sees it, the Vernunftsstaat (Rational State). To the customary assumption “that property exists independently of the State, and that the latter needs only to safeguard the present state of property in which it finds its citizens without inquiring into the lawfulness of the acquisition,” Fichte opposes the idea that

it is the State’s function to assign property to each and then only to protect his corresponding rights.48

In the Vernunftsstaat, agriculture, manufacture, and commerce form the three main categories of economic activity. The groups of citizens engaged in these fields are bound by a network of contracts that contain the “negative” provision that each group stick exclusively to its own profession and the “positive” stipulation that each group supply the others with what they require to carry out their trade to common satisfaction. It is the State which gives a legal status to these contracts and watches over their execution. By doing so, however, it cannot remain a passive observer. On the contrary, it actively participates in the economic process to the point of comprehensively planning it. Fichte distinguishes four aspects of this activity:

1. The membership of the three main corporations must be calculated in proportion to the production possibilities of agriculture. Furthermore, the State cannot guarantee work to everyone

unless it fixes the exact number of those who are permitted to work in a given branch and provides for production of the necessary means of subsistence for all. It is only through this closure that a branch of activity becomes the property of the class which works in it.49

2. Each citizen is to be assured his proportional share of all agricultural and manufactured products of the country in such a way that all members of the State may live on an “equally agreeable” standard. This implies that

the superfluous is always to be set behind the things which are indispensable or hard to dispense with. . . . All should first have enough to eat and be permanently accommodated before anyone decorates his dwelling; all should have warm and comfortable clothes before anyone puts on a sumptuous gown. . . . It is inadmissible to say ‘I can pay for it.’ It is very unjust that one person is able to afford the unnecessary whereas his fellow citizens lack the essentials.50

3. The government guarantees not only work, but also a ready market to its citizens. This is possible on the basis of the general plan.51 Prices are fixed by the State, and have a legal character.

4. Fichte now comes to the fourth and principal aspect of his Vernunftsstaat:

The State is obligated to guarantee to all citizens, by law and coercion, the conditions resulting from this equilibrium of mutual intercourse. Yet it is unable to do so if any person outside its laws and dominion has any influence on this equilibrium. It is therefore imperative to cut off the possibility of such an influence. All intercourse with foreigners must be forbidden and made impossible to its subjects.52

This is because

the government, in order to continuously guarantee its subjects the fulfillment of their customary needs, must be able to rely on the fact that a certain quantity of goods is being traded. How can it count on the foreigner’s contribution to this quantity since he is outside the government’s dominion? It is to fix and warrant the price of a commodity. How can it succeed with respect to the foreigner if it is unable to determine those prices which prevail in his country and at which he buys the raw materials? If the government sets him a price which he cannot afford, he will henceforth avoid its market and deficiency in the satisfaction of customary needs will result. It is to guarantee to each subject the sale of his products at the due price. How can it do so if the subject sells on foreign markets where different commodity relations prevail which it can neither survey nor influence?53

Fichte is very emphatic on the external consequences of the Rational State. It is

a closed commercial state just as it is a closed imperium of laws and individuals.54

Each man as well as each commodity belongs either to its jurisdiction or it does not: “there is no third choice.”55 It follows that any foreign trade that may be judged necessary falls to the exclusive competence of the government “just as it alone is to decide on war, peace, and alliances.”56

This has important consequences for the monetary system in that the State becomes free from all ties resulting from customary international economic intercourse:

A closed commercial state . . . can turn into money whatever it desires, provided only that it declares to accept this and no other money. . . . It would thus create a national currency without even raising the question as to whether this money would or would not be accepted abroad, since for a closed commercial state foreign countries are as good as nonexistent.57

Furthermore,

A closed commercial state is utterly indifferent to whether there is, to speak in customary language, a large or a small circulation of money. The total sum of circulating money simply represents the total quantity of publicly traded goods.58

Fichte gave clear policy directives by which to achieve the closed commercial state. His rigorous and analytic mind distinguished the following mutually complementary government actions and decrees:

In the first place private foreign trade is to be made impossible by depriving citizens of all international means of payment.59 This deprivation must be preceded by the following measure:

Immediately before the promulgation of the new national currency, the government buys all foreign goods existing in the country. . . . This purchase takes place partly in order to assess the available stock and the present needs for these commodities, and partly in order to centralize their price fixing.60

As a third measure, the government sets up a foreign trade monopoly:

By the same stroke with which it introduces the new national currency, it is to take over all assets and liabilities resulting from foreign trade.61

Henceforth, the government will decide which commodities will continue to be exported and imported.62

Fourthly, the government creates a central clearing agency which immediately takes control of and liquidates all international claims to and from its citizens. The method hereby adopted is the following:

The government pays to or claims world currency from the foreigner and then pays to or claims national currency from the citizen.63

The same method of control will be applied to all foreign trade transactions and their corresponding payments. The separation of currencies will be paralleled by a separation of the internal price level from that prevailing on the world market.64 Therefore,

the citizen does not buy at the price the government pays to the foreigner for a commodity, but at the one prescribed by internal law with due consideration for the citizen’s fair subsistence during the time he resells it.65

Exports are to be similarly regimented. The prices of foreign goods are gradually raised so as to break the citizens of their habit of desiring them, the final aim being “that the State completely isolates itself from any foreign trade.”66

Fifthly, “simultaneously with the execution of these measures the State is to move into its natural frontiers.”67 This leads us to an interesting point of Fichte’s political theory. He writes:

Certain areas of the earth’s surface, including their inhabitants, are clearly destined by nature to form political units. They are separated from the rest of the earth by large rivers, seas, inaccessible mountains. . . . It is these indications of nature as to what is to remain united and what is to be separated that one has in mind when speaking, in modern politics, of the natural frontiers of empires; a consideration which should be taken far more seriously than is commonly done. Nor is sole emphasis to be placed on strong and militarily well protected frontiers, but much rather on productive independence and self-sufficiency.68

The author concludes: governments

will speak of the necessity of rounding off their borders and assert that, in view of their other lands, they cannot exist without this fertile province and that mine or salt work, always dimly thinking of the acquisition of their natural frontiers.69

Wars are therefore inevitable and must be fought by the State, though “not properly speaking by the peoples, to whom, if only they are united, it can be indifferent under whose name or dynasty this takes place.”70

The State, once it has reached its legitimate goal,

must give and be able to give its neighbors the guarantee that it will henceforth refrain from further expansion. However, it can give this guarantee only on the condition of becoming a closed commercial state. Closure of territory, and closure of commercial intercourse are mutually interrelated and complementary measures. A state which adheres to the ordinary system of commerce and aims at supremacy in world trade, retains a continuing interest in expanding beyond its natural frontiers in order to increase its trade and hence its wealth. . . . To the closed commercial state, on the other hand, not the slightest advantage can accrue from an expansion beyond its natural frontiers since its whole constitution is calculated only for its given extension.71

The Vernunftsstaat, finally, establishes the foundations of the future closed economic order. It does so by systematically exploring the production possibilities of the country with respect to import substitutes and by setting up plans accordingly. In its calculations, the government must, on the one hand, distinguish “between such needs which can really contribute to well-being and others which merely serve prestige purposes.”72 On the other hand, it will not be difficult to find adequate substitutes for foreign products if neither trouble nor costs are spared.73 The government

has enough means to try everything at its own costs and calmly await success. Within the country, this costs nothing more than a piece of money which it can easily produce.74

At this time, foreign trade is still being transacted so that the State can use all foreign exchange reserves for building up the fundaments of the present and future economy.75 Fichte has so much confidence in the size and efficiency of the Rational State’s gold and silver stock that the latter’s purposeful devotion to the preparation of war—the acquisition of raw materials and armaments—may exclude any serious resistance of its enemies

so that it may reach its goal without bloodshed and almost without striking a blow, and that its operation is more like an occupational campaign than a war.76

Fichte imagines the future world to be divided among a number of closed commercial states that have reached their natural frontiers. Their mutual trade is severely restricted to those commodities which, for climatic reasons, cannot be produced in certain countries. It is to be conducted on a bilateral basis:

Between such states, destined by nature to a continuing barter, a trade agreement could be reached according to which one partner is pledged for eternal times to grow for the other a certain quantity of wine in exchange for the delivery of a specified quantity of corn. Neither partner is to aim at a profit, but at an absolute equality of value. Hence, there would be no need for money for such trade, only for clearing.77

Beyond that, each nation must content itself with the level of production made possible by the natural and social conditions within its borders.

Questions such as: why should I not have a commodity in the same perfection as that manufactured in another country, comes down to asking: why am I an inhabitant of this country, and amounts to the same as if the oak tree should ask: why am I not a palm tree and vice versa. Every man must content himself with the sphere in which nature has placed him and with everything that comes from this sphere.78

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A study of ideal commonwealths leads to two important insights: first, it sheds light on our problem regarding the internal nature of a socialist state and its external consequences. The community, or rather its top representatives, allocate resources and productive tasks, distribute income and consumption goods, and conduct relations with the outside world. Hence, the forces of dominium are completely paralyzed; international trade and foreign policy are considered as one single field, belonging more than anything else to the exclusive competence of the State. Fichte’s treatise on the closed commercial state is, in its clarity and consistency, as yet unsurpassed as a textbook on the theory of socialist foreign economic relations.

But secondly, by reading Utopian authors, one already encounters the particular method of socialist reasoning. It basically consists of placing concreteness on abstract terms. By regarding the State, as Plato does, as a model of human perfection, the State acquires a higher form of reality than that possessed by the individual. From this comes the postulate to give utmost freedom to the State and “repress the majority of desires” of its citizens. The intellectual design of a perfect institution, its endowment with unlimited power, and the belief that this institution suddenly awakens to independent life is the device which permits these authors to turn their backs on the real source of social problems: the weaknesses of human character. By subjecting the imperfect individual to the perfect state, the individual either becomes perfect himself, as in More’s Utopia, or, at least, his selfish impulses are brought under the stern control of virtue, as embodied by the State.

Just as the individual has control only over his proper body and soul, so the State’s actions, as Fichte emphasized, must necessarily be limited strictly to the territory under its control. Thus, the decisive question is this: what principles will govern the relationships between the various States? If all States have become ideal commonwealths, founded upon the same internal principles, governments should play the same role on the international level as individuals do within the State; for a world order can only be established if the various communities readily submit to the interests of the whole. These interests, and this follows from the inherent logic of Utopias, must be embodied in the decrees of a central world authority possessing a power over the States similar to the power the States possess over the citizen. But this implies the complete disappearance of the hitherto sovereign States, i.e. their merging with and therefore subjection to a comprehensively planned world community. If, however, the individual States should refuse to sacrifice themselves in this way—if they insist on their freedom of action and on their being the last resort of truth and virtue—international tensions and eventually war would become inevitable, unless international relations were strictly minimized. In Part II of this study we shall go more deeply into the analysis of “closed commercial States” and their implications for peace and international order.

If, however, the ideal commonwealth is thought of as a single unit, surrounded by “ordinary” peoples and countries, its establishment signifies a disruption of the existing international order. Utopia becomes a heterogeneous body within this order, and both must view each other with increasing mutual suspicion. More than that, the outside world is forced, if it wishes to entertain relations with Utopia, to introduce certain features alien to its system, but typical for that of this strange, isolated community (such as state trading). It must constantly fear hostile propaganda, subversive activities, and “wars of liberation.”

Thus, the assumption of war is by no means absent from the works of Utopian authors. On the contrary, the internal structure of the ideal commonwealth, as is most impressively illustrated by Plato’s State, corresponds to strict military discipline, eased only by the citizens’ preparedness to accept it joyfully. Living space and “natural frontiers” are regarded as the legitimate goals of warfare.

NOTES TO CHAPTER I

79Freyer, H., Die politische Insel. Eine Geschichte der Utopien von Platon bis zur Gegenwart. Leipzig, Biographisches Institut, 1936, pp. 22-23.

80Fichte, J. G., Der geschlossene Handelsstaat. Jena, Fischer, 1920 (originally published in 1800), p. 12.

81Freyer, H., op. cit., p. 26.

82“It follows from what has been said that the system here established, if it is to be realized, should be adopted or rejected in entirety.” Fichte, J. G., op. cit., p. 103.

83Freyer, H., op. cit., p. 26.

84Heuss, A., “Hellas. Die archaische Zeit.” Propyläen Weltgeschichte, ed., G. Mann and A. Heuss, Berlin, Propyläen Verlag, 1962, III, p. 373.

85Ibid.

86“They will go to mess and live together like soldiers in a camp. . . . They alone of all the citizens may not touch or handle silver or gold, or be under the same roof with them or wear them, or drink from them. And this will be their salvation, and they will be the saviors of the State.” Quoted from Republic, Book I, in Gray, A., The Socialist Tradition. Moses to Lenin. London, Longmans, 1946, p. 19.

87Plato, Laws. With an English translation by R. G. Bury, London, Heinemann, 1926, Vol. I, Book I, p. 9.

88Ibid., Vol. II, Book XII, p. 477.

89Ibid., Book VII, p. 135.

90Ibid., p. 149.

91Ibid., Book XII, p. 547.

92Ibid., p. 537.

93Ibid., p. 521.

94Ibid., Book VII, p. 185.

95Ibid., Book XI, p. 413.

96Ibid., Book VIII, p. 171.

97Ibid., Vol. I, Book IV, pp. 257-59, italics added.

98Ibid., Vol. II, Book VIII, p. 185.

99Ibid.

100Ibid., p. 187.

101Ibid., Book XII, p. 503.

102Ibid. Plato lays down the following rules: “First, no man under forty years old shall be permitted to go abroad to any place whatsoever; next, no man shall be permitted to go abroad in private capacity, but in a public capacity permission shall be granted to heralds, embassies, and certain commissions of inspection. . . . These men, when they return home, will teach the youth that the political institutions of other countries are inferior to their own.” Ibid., p. 505.

103Ibid., p. 507.

104Ibid.

105Ibid., p. 509.

106Ibid., p. 511.

107Ibid. “The officials . . . shall have a care lest any such strangers introduce any innovation, and they shall duly dispense justice to them, and shall hold such intercourse as is necessary with them, but to the least extent possible.” Ibid., p. 513.

108Guthrie, W. B., op. cit., p. 64.

109Ibid.

110Ibid., p. 68.

111More, Sir Thomas, The Utopia. In Latin from the edition of March 1518 and in English from the first edition of Ralph Robynson, translated in 1551, edited by J. H. Lupton. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1895, p. 118.

112Ibid., p. 119.

113Ibid., p. 140.

114Ibid., p. 157.

115Ibid., pp. 170-71.

116Ibid., pp. 171-72.

117Ibid., p. 245.

118Ibid., p. 244.

119Ibid., p. 154.

120Ibid., pp. 154-55, italics added.

121Ibid., p. 179.

122Ibid., p. 251.

123Guthrie, W. B., op. cit., p. 54.

124Fichte, J. G., op. cit., pp. 4-5.

125“I have described property as the exclusive right to actions, by no means to things.” Ibid., pp. 5-6, italics original.

126Ibid., p. 4.

127Ibid., p. 56, italics original.

128Ibid., p. 14.

129Ibid., p. 19.

130Ibid., p. 26, italics added.

131Ibid.

132Ibid., p. 27, italics original.

133Ibid.

134Ibid.

135Ibid., p. 41, italics original.

136“The wealth of a person does not depend on how many pieces of money he possesses, but on how large a part of total circulating money he holds.” Ibid., p. 42.

137“Every possibility of world trade presupposes the availability of a universally accepted means of exchange. . . . Hence, our task should be solved in the following way: all world money possessed by the citizens, that is all gold and silver, should be brought out of circulation and exchanged for a new national currency which would be valid only inside the country.” Ibid., pp. 99-100, italics original.

138Ibid., p. 111.

139Ibid.

140“The import and use of commodities which serve prestige purposes only can at once be prohibited.” Ibid., p. 115.

141Ibid., p. 113, italics original.

142Fichte clearly realized this and also the danger of inflation it implies. Therefore, in order to assure the success of the monetary reform, “the government formally renounces, for eternal times, to increase arbitrarily and to its own advantage the quantity of circulating national money.” Ibid., p. 103. The author goes so far as demanding that the centrally fixed prices must be constitutionally laid down and guaranteed.

143Ibid., p. 114.

144Ibid., p. 90, italics original.

145Ibid., p. 119.

146Ibid., pp. 94-95, italics added.

147Ibid., pp. 95-96.

148Ibid.

149Ibid., p. 98.

150Ibid., p. 94.

151Ibid., p. 93.

152Ibid., p. 118 (note). This, however, is in contradiction to Fichte’s apprehensions against inflation. Cf. footnote 64 of this chapter.

153“Foreign machines should be bought and imitated at home. Promise of money defeats any prohibition.” Ibid., p. 117. Moreover, the government “should attract, from abroad, at whatever cost, great personalities who are competent in the applied sciences. . . . By paying rewards which no other governments can afford, people will hurry to offer their services.” Ibid., p. 116.

154Ibid., p. 119.

155Ibid., pp. 122-23.

156Ibid., p. 16.

1.“Socialism, then, will flourish in proportion as the consciousness grows that there is something vitally wrong in the industrial organization of society.” Guthrie, W. B., Socialism Before the French Revolution. New York, Macmillan, 1907, p. 68. As Robert Owen expresses it: “Until society can be made to understand the impracticability of improving its conditions under the existing circumstances and can be induced to change these circumstances in toto, no real advantages can be obtained for mankind.” Lectures on an Entire New State of Society. London, 1820, p. 138.
2.Cf. Karl Marx’s 11th Thesis on Feuerbach. In Borkenau, F. (ed.), Karl Marx. Frankfurt/M., Fischer, 1956, p. 42.
3.The term “liberal” is used here in its original European sense. “Liberalism is a belief in the value of human personality, and a conviction that the source of all progress lies in free exercise of individual energy; . . . it therefore involves a readiness to use the power of the state for the purposes of creating the conditions within which individual energy can thrive, of preventing all abuses of power, of affording to every citizen the means of acquiring mastery of his own capacities and of estabhshing a real equality of opportunity. . . .” Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. XIII, 1959, p. 999d.
4“It follows from what has been said that the system here established, if it is to be realized, should be adopted or rejected in entirety.” Fichte, J. G., op. cit., p. 103.
5Freyer, H., op. cit., p. 26.
6Heuss, A., “Hellas. Die archaische Zeit.” Propyläen Weltgeschichte, ed., G. Mann and A. Heuss, Berlin, Propyläen Verlag, 1962, III, p. 373.
7Ibid.
8“They will go to mess and live together like soldiers in a camp. . . . They alone of all the citizens may not touch or handle silver or gold, or be under the same roof with them or wear them, or drink from them. And this will be their salvation, and they will be the saviors of the State.” Quoted from Republic, Book I, in Gray, A., The Socialist Tradition. Moses to Lenin. London, Longmans, 1946, p. 19.
9Plato, Laws. With an English translation by R. G. Bury, London, Heinemann, 1926, Vol. I, Book I, p. 9.
10Ibid., Vol. II, Book XII, p. 477.
11Ibid., Book VII, p. 135.
12Ibid., p. 149.
13Ibid., Book XII, p. 547.
14Ibid., p. 537.
15Ibid., p. 521.
16Ibid., Book VII, p. 185.
17Ibid., Book XI, p. 413.
18Ibid., Book VIII, p. 171.
19Ibid., Vol. I, Book IV, pp. 257-59, italics added.
20Ibid., Vol. II, Book VIII, p. 185.
21Ibid.
22Ibid., p. 187.
23Ibid., Book XII, p. 503.
24Ibid. Plato lays down the following rules: “First, no man under forty years old shall be permitted to go abroad to any place whatsoever; next, no man shall be permitted to go abroad in private capacity, but in a public capacity permission shall be granted to heralds, embassies, and certain commissions of inspection. . . . These men, when they return home, will teach the youth that the political institutions of other countries are inferior to their own.” Ibid., p. 505.
25Ibid., p. 507.
26Ibid.
27Ibid., p. 509.
28Ibid., p. 511.
29Ibid. “The officials . . . shall have a care lest any such strangers introduce any innovation, and they shall duly dispense justice to them, and shall hold such intercourse as is necessary with them, but to the least extent possible.” Ibid., p. 513.
30Guthrie, W. B., op. cit., p. 64.
31Ibid.
32Ibid., p. 68.
33More, Sir Thomas, The Utopia. In Latin from the edition of March 1518 and in English from the first edition of Ralph Robynson, translated in 1551, edited by J. H. Lupton. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1895, p. 118.
34Ibid., p. 119.
35Ibid., p. 140.
36Ibid., p. 157.
37Ibid., pp. 170-71.
38Ibid., pp. 171-72.
39Ibid., p. 245.
40Ibid., p. 244.
41Ibid., p. 154.
42Ibid., pp. 154-55, italics added.
43Ibid., p. 179.
44Ibid., p. 251.
45Guthrie, W. B., op. cit., p. 54.
46Fichte, J. G., op. cit., pp. 4-5.
47“I have described property as the exclusive right to actions, by no means to things.” Ibid., pp. 5-6, italics original.
48Ibid., p. 4.
49Ibid., p. 56, italics original.
50Ibid., p. 14.
51Ibid., p. 19.
52Ibid., p. 26, italics added.
53Ibid.
54Ibid., p. 27, italics original.
55Ibid.
56Ibid.
57Ibid., p. 41, italics original.
58“The wealth of a person does not depend on how many pieces of money he possesses, but on how large a part of total circulating money he holds.” Ibid., p. 42.
59“Every possibility of world trade presupposes the availability of a universally accepted means of exchange. . . . Hence, our task should be solved in the following way: all world money possessed by the citizens, that is all gold and silver, should be brought out of circulation and exchanged for a new national currency which would be valid only inside the country.” Ibid., pp. 99-100, italics original.
60Ibid., p. 111.
61Ibid.
62“The import and use of commodities which serve prestige purposes only can at once be prohibited.” Ibid., p. 115.
63Ibid., p. 113, italics original.
64Fichte clearly realized this and also the danger of inflation it implies. Therefore, in order to assure the success of the monetary reform, “the government formally renounces, for eternal times, to increase arbitrarily and to its own advantage the quantity of circulating national money.” Ibid., p. 103. The author goes so far as demanding that the centrally fixed prices must be constitutionally laid down and guaranteed.
65Ibid., p. 114.
66Ibid., p. 90, italics original.
67Ibid., p. 119.
68Ibid., pp. 94-95, italics added.
69Ibid., pp. 95-96.
70Ibid.
71Ibid., p. 98.
72Ibid., p. 94.
73Ibid., p. 93.
74Ibid., p. 118 (note). This, however, is in contradiction to Fichte’s apprehensions against inflation. Cf. footnote 64 of this chapter.
75“Foreign machines should be bought and imitated at home. Promise of money defeats any prohibition.” Ibid., p. 117. Moreover, the government “should attract, from abroad, at whatever cost, great personalities who are competent in the applied sciences. . . . By paying rewards which no other governments can afford, people will hurry to offer their services.” Ibid., p. 116.
76Ibid., p. 119.
77Ibid., pp. 122-23.
78Ibid., p. 16.
79SOCIALISTS HAVE CONCLUDED that something is fundamentally wrong with the “society” in which they live. Consequently, they feel compelled to change it.
80SOCIALISTS HAVE CONCLUDED that something is fundamentally wrong with the “society” in which they live. Consequently, they feel compelled to change it.
81The main target of socialist criticism, therefore, is the liberals’ stress on individual freedom and utility. Such freedom and utility, it is argued, lead to particularism and chaos. Since the profit motive is founded on considerations of individual as distinct from collective welfare, it is, in the opinion of socialists, totally unsuitable as a means of regulating the economy. Unlike the liberals, therefore, the socialists are primarily preoccupied with the exaltation of the community, and the subordination of the individual to it.
82Freyer compares the inner organizational structure of an ideal commonwealth with the “cosmos of the Greek philosophers: finite, round and numerically ordered so that it can simply and clearly be governed by static laws.” To this self-inclusive system all forces not rooted in its laws, and which therefore threaten to interfere with its proper functioning, must appear hostile and dangerous. The only choice a Utopian author leaves his reader is an uncompromising take it or leave it. Hence, a utopia must be strictly isolated from the rest of the world; “all factors and forces which by their nature transgress borderlines and join countries, must at the outset be viewed suspiciously in utopias.”
83Freyer compares the inner organizational structure of an ideal commonwealth with the “cosmos of the Greek philosophers: finite, round and numerically ordered so that it can simply and clearly be governed by static laws.” To this self-inclusive system all forces not rooted in its laws, and which therefore threaten to interfere with its proper functioning, must appear hostile and dangerous. The only choice a Utopian author leaves his reader is an uncompromising take it or leave it. Hence, a utopia must be strictly isolated from the rest of the world; “all factors and forces which by their nature transgress borderlines and join countries, must at the outset be viewed suspiciously in utopias.”
84Mankind will always be indebted to Plato for the prototype of the ideal commonwealth. This author lived at a time when democracy, the long cherished political order of Athens, had degenerated into a “bustle of rancour and baseness.” In this period of political disintegration and liberated individualism, Socrates had been sentenced to death and executed by the Athenian authorities. The rising philosophical school of the Sophists relativized all moral institutions as being solely dependent on human will in general, and that of the strong in particular.
85Against this philosophical anarchism Plato set his theory of the objective existence of absolute principles, the highest of which was justice. Justice may be recognized by an intelligible act and thus refuses to tolerate any authority besides itself, not even that of laws. “What is just can only be discerned for each individual case with respect to the Idea and by the one who possesses the necessary capability; that is, by the philosopher. . . . The just in the highest sense, hence the one who discerns, is therefore himself the law and thus above the rigid letter.”
86Human domination is thus openly admitted, but it must be domination by the chosen few endowed by nature, as an old Greek legend has it, with golden hearts. Plato’s goal is to found a state which would personify the moral Idea. The first prerequisite for such a state is unity of purpose, directed at the attainment of absolute justice. The second step is to devise a way of life for the “lovers of wisdom” which would bring them into closest communication with the Idea and its dictates. To achieve this end, Plato established severe rules for the philosophers, forbidding them to have families and private possessions and forcing them into a life of military discipline. Here, for the first time, the ideal of asceticism was linked with the denunciation of gold and silver which was identified with wealth and was regarded as the last cause of human greed and egoism.
87Plato, well aware that his Politeia was not realizable on this earth, designed, in his “Nomoi,” a second-best State in which the rulers were less enlightened and therefore, as the title indicates, in need of a coherent framework of guiding laws. Plato retains the military structure in the interior, he even defines “the well-constituted State” as one which “ought to be organized in such a way as to be victorious in war over all other States.” Elsewhere he writes:
88The main principle is this: that nobody, male or female, should ever be left without control, nor should anyone, whether at work or in play, grow habituated in mind to acting alone and on his own initiative, but he should live always, both in war and peace, with his eyes fixed constantly on his commander and following his lead.
89For this purpose, it is necessary to liberate the citizens from their “lust for wealth which allows a man no leisure time for attention to anything else save his own private property.” And the author continues: “That the laws previously ordained serve to repress the majority of desires, is not surprising.” This is so because “all our laws must always aim at one single object which, as we agreed, is quite rightly named ‘Virtue.’” The State and its citizens are identical in that they both require “the salvation of laws;” therefore, “everyone shall regard the friend or enemy of the State as his own personal friend or enemy.”
90For this purpose, it is necessary to liberate the citizens from their “lust for wealth which allows a man no leisure time for attention to anything else save his own private property.” And the author continues: “That the laws previously ordained serve to repress the majority of desires, is not surprising.” This is so because “all our laws must always aim at one single object which, as we agreed, is quite rightly named ‘Virtue.’” The State and its citizens are identical in that they both require “the salvation of laws;” therefore, “everyone shall regard the friend or enemy of the State as his own personal friend or enemy.”
91For this purpose, it is necessary to liberate the citizens from their “lust for wealth which allows a man no leisure time for attention to anything else save his own private property.” And the author continues: “That the laws previously ordained serve to repress the majority of desires, is not surprising.” This is so because “all our laws must always aim at one single object which, as we agreed, is quite rightly named ‘Virtue.’” The State and its citizens are identical in that they both require “the salvation of laws;” therefore, “everyone shall regard the friend or enemy of the State as his own personal friend or enemy.”
92For this purpose, it is necessary to liberate the citizens from their “lust for wealth which allows a man no leisure time for attention to anything else save his own private property.” And the author continues: “That the laws previously ordained serve to repress the majority of desires, is not surprising.” This is so because “all our laws must always aim at one single object which, as we agreed, is quite rightly named ‘Virtue.’” The State and its citizens are identical in that they both require “the salvation of laws;” therefore, “everyone shall regard the friend or enemy of the State as his own personal friend or enemy.”
93For this purpose, it is necessary to liberate the citizens from their “lust for wealth which allows a man no leisure time for attention to anything else save his own private property.” And the author continues: “That the laws previously ordained serve to repress the majority of desires, is not surprising.” This is so because “all our laws must always aim at one single object which, as we agreed, is quite rightly named ‘Virtue.’” The State and its citizens are identical in that they both require “the salvation of laws;” therefore, “everyone shall regard the friend or enemy of the State as his own personal friend or enemy.”
94Internal economic life is strictly regimented. Thus, “each several craftsman in the State shall have one single craft and gain from it his living.” Or again:
95The Law-wardens must meet in consultation with experts in every branch of retail trade, and at their meetings they must consider what standard of profits and expenses produces a moderate gain for the trader, and the standard of profits and expenses thus arrived at they must prescribe in writing; and this they must insist on—the market stewards, the city stewards and the rural stewards, each in their own sphere.
96Most of the Greeks arrange for their food to be derived from both land and sea, but our people will derive it only from the land. This makes the lawgiver’s task easier.
97For if the State was to be on the sea-coast, and to have fine harbors, and to be deficient in many products, instead of productive of everything—in that case it would need a mighty savior and divine lawgivers, if, with such a character, it was to avoid having a variety of luxurious and depraved habits. As things are, however, there is consolation in the fact of that eighty stades. Still, it lies unduly near the sea, and the more so because, as you say, its harbors are good; that, however, we must make the best of. . . . Our State has compensation in the fact that it is all-productive; and since it is hilly, it cannot be highly productive as well as all-productive; if it were, and supplied many exports, it would be flooded in return with gold and silver money—the one condition of all, perhaps, that is most fatal, in a State, to the acquisition of noble and just habits of life.
98What remains of foreign trade is severely guarded by the State. It is true that “no toll shall be paid in the State by anyone either on exported goods or on imports,” but this is practically meaningless since
99Frankincense and all such foreign spices for use in religious rites, and purple and all dyes not produced in the country, and all pertaining to any other craft requiring foreign imported materials for a use that is not necessary, no one shall import; nor, on the other hand, shall he export any of the stuff which would of necessity remain in the country. . . .
100In regard to arms and all instruments of war, if there is need to import any craft or plant or metal or rope or animal for military purposes, the hipparchs and generals shall have control of both imports and exports, when the State both gives and takes, and the Law-wardens shall enact suitable and adequate laws therefor; but no trading for the sake of gain, either in this matter or in any other, shall be carried on anywhere within the boundaries of our State and country.
101the intermixture of States with States naturally results in a blending of characters of every kind, as strangers import among strangers novel customs: and this result would cause immense damage to peoples who enjoy a good polity under right laws.
102reputation in the eyes of others, whether for goodness or the reverse, is a thing that should never be lightly esteemed.
103The State may send out “inspectors,” i.e. men over fifty years of age and of great merit, “who desire to survey the doings of the outside world in a leisurely way.” But they must be “incorruptible, so as to confirm thereby such of his native laws as are rightly enacted, and to amend any that are deficient.” On their return, the inspectors will report to a “mixed body of young men and old” on “anything important they may have learnt elsewhere.”
104The State may send out “inspectors,” i.e. men over fifty years of age and of great merit, “who desire to survey the doings of the outside world in a leisurely way.” But they must be “incorruptible, so as to confirm thereby such of his native laws as are rightly enacted, and to amend any that are deficient.” On their return, the inspectors will report to a “mixed body of young men and old” on “anything important they may have learnt elsewhere.”
105The State may send out “inspectors,” i.e. men over fifty years of age and of great merit, “who desire to survey the doings of the outside world in a leisurely way.” But they must be “incorruptible, so as to confirm thereby such of his native laws as are rightly enacted, and to amend any that are deficient.” On their return, the inspectors will report to a “mixed body of young men and old” on “anything important they may have learnt elsewhere.”
106But if, on the other hand, such an inspector appears to be corrupted on his return, in spite of his pretensions to wisdom, he shall be forbidden to associate with anyone, young or old; wherein if he obeys the magistrates, he shall live as a private person, but if not, he shall be put to death.
107All foreigners—whether in a public capacity or on a private visit—are, immediately upon their arrival, taken care of by State officials or by priests. Plato is especially distrustful of that “inevitable emigrant” choosing “summer, as a rule, for his annual visits.”
108“Plato was the intellectual father of socialists as well as of philosophers.” But whereas he “had a more general abstract end in view . . . , More was interested in the practical solution of actual and present social problems, and busied himself with plans to alleviate existing unfortunate conditions.” These conditions resulted from the enclosure movement in sixteenth-century England. Therefore, “the appearance of ‘Utopia’ marks the beginning of the modern social problems as they show themselves in the incipient stages of the capitalistic period.”
109“Plato was the intellectual father of socialists as well as of philosophers.” But whereas he “had a more general abstract end in view . . . , More was interested in the practical solution of actual and present social problems, and busied himself with plans to alleviate existing unfortunate conditions.” These conditions resulted from the enclosure movement in sixteenth-century England. Therefore, “the appearance of ‘Utopia’ marks the beginning of the modern social problems as they show themselves in the incipient stages of the capitalistic period.”
110“Plato was the intellectual father of socialists as well as of philosophers.” But whereas he “had a more general abstract end in view . . . , More was interested in the practical solution of actual and present social problems, and busied himself with plans to alleviate existing unfortunate conditions.” These conditions resulted from the enclosure movement in sixteenth-century England. Therefore, “the appearance of ‘Utopia’ marks the beginning of the modern social problems as they show themselves in the incipient stages of the capitalistic period.”
111The Island of which Hythloday enthusiastically reports is in the form of a horseshoe and its shores are washed by a calm and friendly sea. However, when Utopus first conquered “Abraxa,” it was a peninsula. This wise king made it an island by cutting an isthmus of fifteen miles. The entry into Utopia’s inviting bay is, moreover, made treacherous by nature because of dispersed rocks and shallows—the safe passages being known only to the fortunate inhabitants themselves.
112that they do not think felicity to rest in all pleasure, but only in that pleasure that is good and honest. . . . They define virtue to be a life ordered according to nature . . . and that he does follow the course of nature who in desiring and refusing things is ruled by reason.
113This greatly simplifies the economic process. Both men and women work and, since private property is unknown, there is no distinction between rich and poor. Hence, an idle class which must be supported does not exist. In addition, the demand for goods and services is reduced because homespun garments “are throughout all the Island of one fashion . . . seemly and comely to the eye, fit both for winter and summer.” Simple but abundant meals are taken in common, and whatever else is produced is done so in good and lasting quality. Hence, six hours of daily work are sufficient to provide for the Utopians’ necessities; the rest of the time is devoted to common recreation, games, and studies. But even so, the inhabitants cannot help producing surplus. All commodities are stored in warehouses or markets;
114from hence the father of every family or every householder fetches whatsoever he and his have need of, and carries it away with him without money, without exchange, without any gage or pledge. For why should anything be denied to him; seeing there is abundance in all things, and that it is not to be feared lest any man will ask more than he needs.
115then of those things whereof they have abundance, they carry forth into other countries great plenty; as grain, honey, wool, flax, madder, purple dye, felles, way, tallow, leather and livestock. And the seventh part of all these things they give frankly and freely to the poor of that country. The residue they sell at a reasonable and mean price. By this trade of traffic or merchandise, they bring into their own country not only great plenty of gold and silver, but also all such things as they lack at home, which is almost nothing but Iron. And by reason they have long used this trade, now they have more abundance of these things than any man will believe.
116Now, therefore, they do not care whether they sell for ready money or else upon trust to be paid at a day, and they have the most part in debts. But in so doing they never follow the credence of private men, but the assurance or warrantise of the whole city, by instruments and writings made in that behalf accordingly. . . . The most part of it they never ask. For that thing which is to them of no profit, to take it from others to whom it is profitable, they think it no right nor conscience. But if the case so stand that they must lend part of that money to another people, then they require their debt; or when they have war.
117Of course, the Utopians will never go to battle because of unsettled trade matters. But they will do so
118in defence of their own country or to drive out of their friends’ land the enemies that had come in or . . . to deliver from the yoke and bondage of tyranny some people that be oppressed with tyranny. Which things they do by mere pity and compassion.
119There may be still another occasion for war. It may happen that the Utopian population (despite institutional attempts at regulation) so increases that it “exceeds the due number throughout the whole island.” In such a case,
120they build up a town under their own laws on the nearest part of the mainland where the inhabitants have much waste and unoccupied ground, receiving also the inhabitants to them, if they will join and dwell with them. . . . But if the inhabitants of that land will not dwell with them, to be ordered by their laws, then they drive them out of those boundaries which they now mark out for themselves. . . . For they account this the most just cause of war when any people holds a piece of ground void and vacant to no good nor profitable use, keeping others from the use and possession of it which notwithstanding by the law of nature ought thereof to be nourished and relieved.
121The Utopians readily observe this law by returning the colonizers to their native cities as soon as the Island’s number of inhabitants has become deficient. Beyond that, only “very few” go to foreign countries and this only “for some reasonable cause” such as trading.
122Utopia’s chief instruments of war are gold and silver. These precious metals are used to hire mercenaries and to lavishly reward foreign agents charged with the outright murder of a hostile prince or to “procure occasions of debate and dissention to be spread among their enemies.” The Utopians themselves, though well trained and prepared for war, fight only if they must to defend their country.
123“The first socialistic theorist, Sir Thomas More,” wrote his Utopia as a reaction against the social evils of his time. General humanitarian feelings and a strong empathy with the miserable lot of the poor classes merged, in the eighteenth century, into the powerful current of thought which was set free by the Enlightenment. History and politics were now subjected to the analysis of reason. A natural and reasonable social, political, and economic order was supposed to exist, derivable from the knowledge of human character. The “social contract” offered a normative formula which indicated how society should be built if its construction were influenced only by reason and not also by error, lust for power, and custom.
124Johann Gottlieb Fichte, at the turn of the century, combined French rationalism and radicalism with German nationalism. Unlimited freedom, he wrote, means no freedom at all since “no one may appropriately put something into effect and rely for one moment on its duration. This antagonism of the free forces can only be counteracted by the individuals making a mutual agreement.” This agreement restricts the liberty of its participants equally and contains the assignment of an exclusive right to a determined “free” activity to each participant. The agreement thereby constitutes property.
125Johann Gottlieb Fichte, at the turn of the century, combined French rationalism and radicalism with German nationalism. Unlimited freedom, he wrote, means no freedom at all since “no one may appropriately put something into effect and rely for one moment on its duration. This antagonism of the free forces can only be counteracted by the individuals making a mutual agreement.” This agreement restricts the liberty of its participants equally and contains the assignment of an exclusive right to a determined “free” activity to each participant. The agreement thereby constitutes property.
126it is the State’s function to assign property to each and then only to protect his corresponding rights.
127unless it fixes the exact number of those who are permitted to work in a given branch and provides for production of the necessary means of subsistence for all. It is only through this closure that a branch of activity becomes the property of the class which works in it.
128the superfluous is always to be set behind the things which are indispensable or hard to dispense with. . . . All should first have enough to eat and be permanently accommodated before anyone decorates his dwelling; all should have warm and comfortable clothes before anyone puts on a sumptuous gown. . . . It is inadmissible to say ‘I can pay for it.’ It is very unjust that one person is able to afford the unnecessary whereas his fellow citizens lack the essentials.
129The government guarantees not only work, but also a ready market to its citizens. This is possible on the basis of the general plan. Prices are fixed by the State, and have a legal character.
130The State is obligated to guarantee to all citizens, by law and coercion, the conditions resulting from this equilibrium of mutual intercourse. Yet it is unable to do so if any person outside its laws and dominion has any influence on this equilibrium. It is therefore imperative to cut off the possibility of such an influence. All intercourse with foreigners must be forbidden and made impossible to its subjects.
131the government, in order to continuously guarantee its subjects the fulfillment of their customary needs, must be able to rely on the fact that a certain quantity of goods is being traded. How can it count on the foreigner’s contribution to this quantity since he is outside the government’s dominion? It is to fix and warrant the price of a commodity. How can it succeed with respect to the foreigner if it is unable to determine those prices which prevail in his country and at which he buys the raw materials? If the government sets him a price which he cannot afford, he will henceforth avoid its market and deficiency in the satisfaction of customary needs will result. It is to guarantee to each subject the sale of his products at the due price. How can it do so if the subject sells on foreign markets where different commodity relations prevail which it can neither survey nor influence?
132a closed commercial state just as it is a closed imperium of laws and individuals.
133Each man as well as each commodity belongs either to its jurisdiction or it does not: “there is no third choice.” It follows that any foreign trade that may be judged necessary falls to the exclusive competence of the government “just as it alone is to decide on war, peace, and alliances.”
134Each man as well as each commodity belongs either to its jurisdiction or it does not: “there is no third choice.” It follows that any foreign trade that may be judged necessary falls to the exclusive competence of the government “just as it alone is to decide on war, peace, and alliances.”
135A closed commercial state . . . can turn into money whatever it desires, provided only that it declares to accept this and no other money. . . . It would thus create a national currency without even raising the question as to whether this money would or would not be accepted abroad, since for a closed commercial state foreign countries are as good as nonexistent.
136A closed commercial state is utterly indifferent to whether there is, to speak in customary language, a large or a small circulation of money. The total sum of circulating money simply represents the total quantity of publicly traded goods.
137In the first place private foreign trade is to be made impossible by depriving citizens of all international means of payment. This deprivation must be preceded by the following measure:
138Immediately before the promulgation of the new national currency, the government buys all foreign goods existing in the country. . . . This purchase takes place partly in order to assess the available stock and the present needs for these commodities, and partly in order to centralize their price fixing.
139By the same stroke with which it introduces the new national currency, it is to take over all assets and liabilities resulting from foreign trade.
140Henceforth, the government will decide which commodities will continue to be exported and imported.
141The government pays to or claims world currency from the foreigner and then pays to or claims national currency from the citizen.
142The same method of control will be applied to all foreign trade transactions and their corresponding payments. The separation of currencies will be paralleled by a separation of the internal price level from that prevailing on the world market. Therefore,
143the citizen does not buy at the price the government pays to the foreigner for a commodity, but at the one prescribed by internal law with due consideration for the citizen’s fair subsistence during the time he resells it.
144Exports are to be similarly regimented. The prices of foreign goods are gradually raised so as to break the citizens of their habit of desiring them, the final aim being “that the State completely isolates itself from any foreign trade.”
145Fifthly, “simultaneously with the execution of these measures the State is to move into its natural frontiers.” This leads us to an interesting point of Fichte’s political theory. He writes:
146Certain areas of the earth’s surface, including their inhabitants, are clearly destined by nature to form political units. They are separated from the rest of the earth by large rivers, seas, inaccessible mountains. . . . It is these indications of nature as to what is to remain united and what is to be separated that one has in mind when speaking, in modern politics, of the natural frontiers of empires; a consideration which should be taken far more seriously than is commonly done. Nor is sole emphasis to be placed on strong and militarily well protected frontiers, but much rather on productive independence and self-sufficiency.
147will speak of the necessity of rounding off their borders and assert that, in view of their other lands, they cannot exist without this fertile province and that mine or salt work, always dimly thinking of the acquisition of their natural frontiers.
148Wars are therefore inevitable and must be fought by the State, though “not properly speaking by the peoples, to whom, if only they are united, it can be indifferent under whose name or dynasty this takes place.”
149must give and be able to give its neighbors the guarantee that it will henceforth refrain from further expansion. However, it can give this guarantee only on the condition of becoming a closed commercial state. Closure of territory, and closure of commercial intercourse are mutually interrelated and complementary measures. A state which adheres to the ordinary system of commerce and aims at supremacy in world trade, retains a continuing interest in expanding beyond its natural frontiers in order to increase its trade and hence its wealth. . . . To the closed commercial state, on the other hand, not the slightest advantage can accrue from an expansion beyond its natural frontiers since its whole constitution is calculated only for its given extension.
150The Vernunftsstaat, finally, establishes the foundations of the future closed economic order. It does so by systematically exploring the production possibilities of the country with respect to import substitutes and by setting up plans accordingly. In its calculations, the government must, on the one hand, distinguish “between such needs which can really contribute to well-being and others which merely serve prestige purposes.” On the other hand, it will not be difficult to find adequate substitutes for foreign products if neither trouble nor costs are spared. The government
151The Vernunftsstaat, finally, establishes the foundations of the future closed economic order. It does so by systematically exploring the production possibilities of the country with respect to import substitutes and by setting up plans accordingly. In its calculations, the government must, on the one hand, distinguish “between such needs which can really contribute to well-being and others which merely serve prestige purposes.” On the other hand, it will not be difficult to find adequate substitutes for foreign products if neither trouble nor costs are spared. The government
152has enough means to try everything at its own costs and calmly await success. Within the country, this costs nothing more than a piece of money which it can easily produce.
153At this time, foreign trade is still being transacted so that the State can use all foreign exchange reserves for building up the fundaments of the present and future economy. Fichte has so much confidence in the size and efficiency of the Rational State’s gold and silver stock that the latter’s purposeful devotion to the preparation of war—the acquisition of raw materials and armaments—may exclude any serious resistance of its enemies
154so that it may reach its goal without bloodshed and almost without striking a blow, and that its operation is more like an occupational campaign than a war.
155Between such states, destined by nature to a continuing barter, a trade agreement could be reached according to which one partner is pledged for eternal times to grow for the other a certain quantity of wine in exchange for the delivery of a specified quantity of corn. Neither partner is to aim at a profit, but at an absolute equality of value. Hence, there would be no need for money for such trade, only for clearing.
156Questions such as: why should I not have a commodity in the same perfection as that manufactured in another country, comes down to asking: why am I an inhabitant of this country, and amounts to the same as if the oak tree should ask: why am I not a palm tree and vice versa. Every man must content himself with the sphere in which nature has placed him and with everything that comes from this sphere.

Socialism and International Economic Order