Part 1 is an exploration of the first wave of European socialism. According to Engels, modern socialism is the natural product of class antagonism between the owning and laboring classes, as well as a “logical extension of the principles laid down by the great French philosophers of the 18th century” (36). He identifies these proto- and first-wave socialists as utopian socialists and presents “the three great Utopians” (38). Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen.

One thing is common to all three. Not one of them appears as a representative of the interests of that proletariat which historical development had, in the meantime, produced. Like the French philosophers, they do not claim to emancipate a particular class to begin with, but all humanity at once. Like them, they wish to bring in the kingdom of reason and eternal justice, but this kingdom, as they see it, is as far as Heaven from Earth, from that of the French philosophers. (38)

Before exploring the Utopians’ philosophies in more depth, Engels describes the general culture of 18th Century Western Europe. The Enlightenment (note: Engels does not use this term) took hold, and the idea of a perfectly reasonable, just society became popular among philosophers. Engels rejects this as “the idealized kingdom of the bourgeoisie; […] this eternal Right found its realization in bourgeois justice; […] this equality reduced itself to bourgeois equality before the law; […] bourgeois property was proclaimed as one of the essential rights of man” (37). The society that produced utopian socialists was one defined by class antagonism, social stratification, poverty, and violence.

Engels details how the state that emerged in France in the wake of the French Revolution was by no means rational, despite the lofty, reason-based Enlightenment philosophies often cited in defense of the Revolution. Instead, the Revolution led first to the Reign of Terror, during which tens of thousands were executed and imprisoned, and later the tyranny of the military dictator Napoleon. Moreover, while the Revolution is often framed as a triumph of the working classes over the privileged clergy and nobility, only a tiny portion of these workers claimed the spoils of victory: the property-owning bourgeoisie. Meanwhile, the chasm deepened between increasingly privileged bourgeoisie and the less privileged workers of the proletariat, whom Engels refers to as “non-possessors.”  

Engels presents Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen in succession, simultaneously pointing out their weaknesses, acknowledging their influence on scientific socialism, and praising their attempts at social reform. In Engels’s view, Saint-Simon believed that “science and industry” should rule, with science represented by academia and industry represented by manufacturers, bankers, merchants, and other members of the so-called “working bourgeois.” Although Engels credits Saint-Simon with predicting the extent to which economic conditions influence politics, the author also criticizes Saint-Simon for believing that the “working bourgeois”—particularly the bankers—should wield such profound control over the means of production.

Engels casts Fourier largely as a satirist, whose depictions of the “material and moral misery” of the bourgeoisie are juxtaposed against the Enlightenment philosophers’ promises of a utopia rooted in reason. To Fourier, all civilizations operate within a “vicious circle” of ascent and decline.

Finally, Owen was a British manufacturer who, as he reaped the material benefits of the Industrial Revolution, sought to improve the lives of his workers by shortening their workday and paying them even during downturns in cotton production. Even still, Owen was dissatisfied that the workers remained, essentially, “slaves at [his] mercy.” Owen began to call explicitly for the creation of Communist colonies, and as a result he lost much of his fortune and virtually all of his social standing.

What brings these three figures together as Utopians, Engels writes, is that they believed Socialism was “the expression of absolute truth, reason, and justice, and has only to be discovered to conquer all the world by virtue of its own power” (50). However, by speaking of Socialism is such exalted, almost-religious terms, it divorces the concept from reality and its challenges. Also, such characterizations of Socialism as “absolute truth” inevitably leads to subjectivity and an ideological “mish-mash,” as each person’s definition of “absolute truth” is different. Engels closes the section by stating: “To make a science of Socialism, it had first to be placed upon a real basis” (50).