Book Review: Marcel Van Der Linden (ed.) The Cambridge History of Socialism: Volumes 1 and 2

It is high time that the history of one of the most influential human movements in the modern era got the scholarly attention it deserves. Marcel Van Der Linden’s two-volume Cambridge History of Socialism aims to achieve that goal, and delivers. There are, after all, at least four major problems with socialist histories today: ‘they focus exclusively on Europe and its settler colonies; they focus only on a subset of cases; they neglect the social movement aspect; and/or they neglect the gender aspect’ (p. 26).

This review focuses on the first volume, which looks at anti-state socialisms (or anarcho-socialisms) in all their variety, such as libertarian socialism, syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism, anarchism, anarcho-communism, Marxist-libertarianism, mutualism, communitarianism, cooperativism, and others. Despite these many ‘isms’, it should be noted that the introduction and last two essays are theoretical, while the rest are mostly historical in nature. The volume contains 26 essays in two parts: ‘Beginnings’ which covers egalitarianisms and early socialisms, and ‘Negating State Power’ which covers the North Atlantic Region, Africa, Asia, Latin America, and worldwide connections. For this short review, my aim is to capture impressions and insights that make the work distinctive and particularly useful.

Readers should first of all appreciate that the Editor has chosen to incorporate an entire volume on the history of socialism that – as indicated earlier – is not focused on political parties, on Europe, on communism or other trends that have dominated the discourse and have skewed perceptions. Granted, there is already Fürst et al.’s (2017) The Cambridge History of Communism so it would not make sense to repeat that material, but it would still be tempting for many writers to obsess over the Soviet and Chinese experiment of the 20th century as if they in any way define socialism (they do not). Modern socialism originates in the late 1700s and early 1800s long before Marx began writing, and the variety of socialisms are practically infinite by 1900. The twin dilemmas of capitalism (concentration of economic power that oppresses workers) and statism/monarchy (concentration of political power that oppresses citizens) were a dual concern for those living in evolving economies by the end of the 19th century and early-20th century – all of which gave rise to various varieties of anarchist socialisms.

I would have liked to have seen more on ancient socialisms (i.e. pre-capitalist, pre-liberal state and indigenous economies), since it is difficult for many today to grasp that socialisms and communisms formed the economic model of all human societies for over 10,000 years – and successfully preserved our species under the harshest of conditions. However, two essays are exceptional. The first is ‘Mazdak and Late Antiquity “Socialism”’, which looks at land redistribution and revolt under Mazdak’s religious dictums in the Sasanian Empire. The second is ‘Mexican Socialism’, an essay which connects the pueblo communes and cooperatives under colonialism (1521–1821) to contemporary movements of independence and the anarcho-syndicalism of the Zapatistas (pp. 490–499). Readers can otherwise fill in their knowledge in this area by reading such works as Graeber and Wengrow’s (2021) The Dawn of Everything.

This leads to a second observation, which is the prominence of religion in the development of early socialisms. Whether one turns to Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Unitarianism, or the Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace in the Taiping Land Programme of pre-Maoist China, it is often difficult to separate the material economic conditions of working people with their spiritual experiences, transcendental values, religious participation, and theological philosophy. People resisted oppressive political and economic structures within the worldviews in which they lived and even developed new ones along the way.

Third, the editor’s choice regarding the study of gender was evident in that each chapter addressed the subject. This was a natural fit, because anarchist socialisms frequently led the way in creating societies and worlds in which men no longer oppressed women. The same for arts, music and culture: anarchism produced unique opportunities for people to develop new ways of expression that would undergird the reforms of later generations (like those who lived through the 1960s). The constructed language of Esperanto, for example, was important in the history of Chinese anarchist and syndicalist leftism (ch 24), and as a politically neutral, international language for the working classes, the language finds itself connected to the First International and a variety of other related movements (Delalande 2023: 50). (It’s strange and perhaps unfortunate that Esperanto continues to grow today through TikTok, YouTube and apps like Duolingo, but has largely become disconnected from progressive movements – ones that are now seemingly more rehearsed in orthodox Marxism than the big tent of historic global leftism). Whatever one’s impression of ‘anarchist’, it is undeniable that anarchism was culturally powerful and positively productive in social, economic and political ways – a fermenting pot that created new forms of life while the gears of industrialism tried to smash them (and never ultimately succeeded).

There unfortunately was not much time to explore how anarcho-socialisms actually worked, so readers must turn to works like Leval’s (2018) Collectives in the Spanish Revolution. In any case, the sheer variety of socialist forms was almost overwhelming – especially as one covers multiple continents and two centuries. In reading the book, anarcho-socialisms make frequent run-ins with Marxism and the cooperative movement. They are also notoriously factional. In my reading, the internal debates seem to always revolve around: (1) how much should the group politically compromise (e.g. to vote or not)? (2) how much should the group economically compromise (e.g. to unionize and make capitalism tolerable, or not)? (3) how can organizers be organized without a formal organization (that involves consequences for breaking commitments – aka coercion without coercion)? (4) how does the group deal with social situations involving gender and race? ¹

The success and legacy of anti-state socialism/anarcho-socialism is felt today in countless ways, such as in the cooperative movement (which has over 1 billion members worldwide), ² Rojava (the Democratic Confederation of North Syria; see Guneser 2021; Knapp et al. 2016), the Zapatista autonomous municipalities (Mexico), the Occupy Wall Street Movement (2011; Schneider 2013), a variety of organizations around the globe, and of course in countless policies in the west that are now considered ‘normal’ (like the 8-hour work day, female elementary education, etc.; cf. Hubner 2022). Volume 1 of the Cambridge History of Socialism is a tremendous success, far too delayed in its arrival, and sure to expand the purviews of those on both the political right and left.