Today's Topics:
1. Bangladesh Anarcho Syndicalist Federation: The Insufficiency
of Economic Materialism (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. France, Alternative Libertaire AL #287 - Climate: When the
mobilization takes everyone by surprise (fr, it, pt)[machine
translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
The deeper we trace the political influences in history, the more are we convinced that
the "will to power" has up to now been one of the strongest motives in the development of
human social forms. The idea that all political and social events are but the result of
given economic conditions and can be explained by them cannot endure careful
consideration. That economic conditions and the special forms of social production have
played a part in the evolution of humanity everyone knows who has been seriously trying to
reach the foundations of social phenomena. This fact was well known before Marx set out to
explain it in his manner. A whole line of eminent French socialists like Saint-Simon,
Considerant, Louis Blanc, Proudhon and many others had pointed to it in their writings,
and it is known that Marx reached socialism by the study of these very writings.
Furthermore, the recognition of the influence and significance of economic conditions on
the structure of social life lies in the very nature of socialism.
It is not the confirmation of this historical and philosophical concept which is most
striking in the Marxist formula, but the positive form in which the concept is expressed
and the kind of thinking on which Marx based it. One sees distinctly the influence of
Hegel, whose disciple Marx had been. None but the "philosopher of the Absolute," the
inventor of "historical necessities" and "historic missions" could have imparted to him
such self-assurance of judgment. Only Hegel could have inspired in him the belief that he
had reached the foundation of the "laws of social physics", according to which every
social phenomenon must be regarded as a deterministic manifestation of the naturally
necessary course of events. In fact, Marx's successors have compared "economic
materialism" with the discoveries of Copernicus and Kepler, and no less a person than
Engels himself made the assertion that, with this interpretation of history, socialism had
become a science.
It is the fundamental error of this theory that it puts the causes of social phenomena on
a par with the causes of mechanistic events in nature. Science concerns itself exclusively
with the phenomena which are displayed in the great frame which we call Nature, which are
consequently limited by space and time and amenable to the calculations of human thought.
For the realm of nature is a world of inner connections and mechanical necessities where
every event occurs according to the laws of cause and effect. In this world there is no
accident. Any arbitrary act is unthinkable. For this reason science deals only with strict
facts; any single fact which runs contrary to previous experiments and does not harmonise
with the theory can overthrow the most keenly reasoned doctrine.
In the world of metaphysical thought the practical statement that the exception proves the
rule may have validity, but in science never. Although the forms nature produces are of
infinite variety, every one of them is subject to the same unalterable laws. Every
movement in the cosmos occurs according to strict, inexorable rules, just as does the
physical existence of every creature on earth. The laws of our physical existence are not
subject to the whims of human will. They are an integral part of our being and our
existence would be unthinkable without them. We are born, absorb nourishment, discard the
waste material, move, procreate and approach dissolution without being able to change any
part of the process. Necessities eventuate here which transcend our will. Man can make the
forces of nature subservient to his ends, to a certain extent he can guide their operation
into definite courses, but he cannot stop them. It is just as impossible to sidetrack the
separate events which condition our physical existence. We can refine the external
accompanying phenomena and frequently adjust them to our will, but the events themselves
we cannot exclude from our lives. We are not compelled to consume our food in the shape
which nature offers it to us or to lie down to rest in the first convenient place, but we
cannot keep from eating or sleeping, lest our physical existence should come to a sudden
end. In this world of inexorable necessities there is no room for human determination.
It was this very manifestation of an iron law in the eternal course of cosmic and physical
events which gave many a keen brain the idea that the events of human social life were
subject to the same iron necessity and could consequently be calculated and explained by
scientific methods. Most historical theories have root in this erroneous concept, which
could find a place in man's mind only because he put the laws of physical being on a par
with the aims and ends of men, which can only be regarded as results of their thinking.
We do not deny that in history, also, there are inner connections which, even as in
nature, can be traced to cause and effect. But in social events it is always a matter of a
causality of human aims and ends, in nature always of a causality of physical necessity.
The latter occur without any contribution on our part; the former are but manifestations
of our will Religious ideas, ethical concepts, customs, habits, traditions, legal
opinions; political organisations, institutions of property, forms of production, and so
on, are not necessary implications of our physical being, but purely results of our desire
for the achievement of preconceived ends. Every idea of purpose is a matter of belief
which eludes scientific calculation. In the realm of physical events only the must counts.
In the realm of belief there is only probability: It may be so, but it does not have to be so.
Every process which arises from our physical being and is related to it, is an event which
lies outside of our volition. Every social process, however, arises from human intentions
and human goal setting and occurs within the limits of our volition. Consequently, it is
not subject to the concept of natural necessity.
There is no necessity for a Flathead Indian woman to press the head of her newborn child
between two boards to give it the desired form. It is but a custom which finds its
explanation in the beliefs of men. Whether men practice polygamy, monogamy or celibacy is
a question of human purposiveness and has nothing in common with the laws of physical
events and their necessities. Every legal opinion is a matter of belief, not conditioned
by any physical necessity whatsoever. Whether a man is a Mohammedan, a Jew, a Christian or
a worshipper of Satan has not the slightest connection with his physical existence. Man
can live in any economic relationship, can adapt himself to any form of political life,
without affecting in the slightest the laws to which his physical being is subject. A
sudden cessation of gravitation would be unthinkable in its results. A sudden cessation of
our bodily functions is tantamount to death. But the physical existence of man would not
have suffered the slightest loss if he had never heard of the Code of Hammurabi, of the
Pythagorean theorem or the materialistic interpretation of history.
We are here stating no prejudiced opinion, but merely an established fact. Every result of
human purposiveness is of indisputable importance for man's social existence, but we
should stop regarding social processes as deterministic manifestations of a necessary
course of events. Such a view can only lead to the most erroneous conclusions and
contribute to a fatal confusion in our understanding of historical events.
It is doubtless the task of the historian to trace the inner connection of historical
events and to make clear their causes and effects, but he must not forget that these
connections are of a sort quite different from those of natural physical events and must
therefore have quite a different valuation. An astronomer is able to predict a solar
eclipse or the appearance of a comet to a second. The existence of the planet Neptune was
calculated in this manner before a human eye had seen it. But such precision is only
possible when we are dealing with the course of physical events. For the calculation of
human motives and end results there is no counterparts because these are not amenable to
any calculations whatsoever. It is impossible to calculate or predict the destiny of
tribes, races, nations, or other social units. It is even impossible to find complete
explanations of their past. For history is, after all, nothing but the great arena of
human aims and ends, and every theory of history, consequently, a matter of belief founded
at best only on probability; it can never claim unshakeable certainty.
The assertion that the destiny of social structures is determinable according to the laws
of a so called "social physics" is of no greater significance than the claim of those wise
women who pretend to be able to read the destinies of man in tea cups or in the lines of
the hands. True, a horoscope can be cast for peoples and nations but the prophecies of
political and social astrology are of no higher value than the prognostications of those
who claim to be able to read the destiny of a man in the configuration of the stars.
That a theory of history may contain ideas of importance for the explanation of historical
events is undeniable. We are only opposed to the assertion that the course of history is
subject to the same (or similar) laws as every physical or mechanical occurrence in
nature. This false, entirely unwarranted assertion contains another danger. Once we have
become used to throwing the causes of natural events and those of social changes into one
tub, we are only too inclined to look for a fundamental first cause, which would in a
measure embody the law of social gravitation, underlying all historical events. When once
we have gone so far, it is easy to overlook all the other causes of social structures and
the interactions resulting from them.
Every concept of man which concerns itself with the improvement of the social conditions
under which he lives, is primarily a wish concept based only on probability. Where such
are in question, science reaches its limits, for all probability is based only on
assumptions which cannot be calculated, weighed or measured. While it is true that for the
foundation of a world-view like, for instance, socialism, it is possible to call upon the
results of scientific investigation, the concept itself does not become science, because
the realisation of its aim is not dependent upon fixed, deterministic processes, as is
every event in physical nature. There is no law in history which shows the course for
every social activity of man. Whenever up to now the attempt has been made to prove the
existence of such a law, the utter futility of the effort has at once become apparent.
Man is unconditionally subject only to the laws of his physical being. He cannot change
his constitution. He cannot suspend the fundamental conditions of his physical being nor
alter them according to his wish. He cannot prevent his appearance on earth any more than
he can prevent the end of his earthly pilgrimage. He cannot change the orbit of the star
on which his life cycle runs its course and must accept all the consequences of the
earth's motion in space without being able to change it in the slightest. But the shaping
of his social life is not subject to this necessary course because it is merely the result
of his willing and doing. He can accept the social conditions under which he lives as
foreordained by a divine will or regard them as the result of unalterable laws not subject
to his volition. In the latter case, belief will weaken his will and induce him to adjust
himself to given conditions. But he can also convince himself that all social forms
possess only a conditioned existence and can be changed by human hand and human mind. In
this case he will try to replace the social conditions under which he lives with others
and by his action prepare the way for a reshaping of social life.
However fully man may recognise cosmic laws he will never be able to change them, because
they are not his work. But every form of his social existence, every social institution
which the past has bestowed on him as a legacy from remote ancestors, is the work of men
and can be changed by human will and action or made to serve new ends. Only such an
understanding is truly revolutionary and animated by the spirit of the coming ages.
Whoever believes in the necessary sequence of all historical events sacrifices the future
to the past. He explains the phenomena of social life, but he does not change them. In
this respect all fatalism is alike, whether of a religious, political or economic nature.
Whoever is caught in its snare is robbed thereby of life's most precious possession; the
impulse to act according to his own needs. It is especially dangerous when fatalism
appears in the gown of science, which nowadays so often replaces the cassock of the
theologian; therefore we repeat: The causes which underlie the processes of social life
have nothing in common with the laws of physical and mechanical natural events, for they
are purely the results of human purpose, which is not explicable by scientific methods. To
misinterpret this fact is a fatal self-deception from which only a confused notion of
reality can result.
This applies to all theories of history based on the necessity of the course of social
events. It applies especially to historical materialism, which traces every historical
event to the prevailing conditions of production and tries to explain everything from
that. No thinking man in this day can fail to recognise that one cannot properly evaluate
an historical period without considering economic conditions. But much more one-sided is
the view which maintains that all history is merely the result of economic conditions,
under whose influence all other life phenomena have received form and imprint.
There are thousands of events in history which cannot be explained by purely economic
reasons, or by them alone. It is quite possible to bring everything within the terms of a
definite scheme, but the result is usually not worth the effort. There is scarcely an
historical event to whose shaping economic causes have not contributed, but economic
forces are not the only motive powers which have set everything else in motion. All social
phenomena are the result of a series of various causes, in most cases so inwardly related
that it is quite impossible clearly to separate one from the other. We are always dealing
with the interplay of various causes which, as a rule, can be clearly recognised but
cannot be calculated according to scientific methods.
There are historical events of the deepest significance for millions of men which cannot
be explained by their purely economic aspects. Who would maintain, for instance, that the
invasions of Alexander were caused by the conditions of production of his time? The very
fact that the enormous empire Alexander cemented together with the blood of hundreds of
thousands fell to ruin soon after his death proves that the military and political
achievements of the Macedonian world conqueror were not historically determined by
economic necessities. Just as little did they in any way advance the conditions of
production of the time. When Alexander planned his wars, lust for power played a far more
important part than economic necessity. The desire for world conquest had assumed actually
pathological forms in the ambitious despot. His mad power obsession was a leading motive
in his whole policy, the driving force of his warlike enterprises, which filled a large
part of the then known world with murder and rapine. It was this power obsession which
made the Caesaro-Papism of the oriental despot appear so admirable to him and gave him his
belief in his demigod-hood.
The will to power which always emanates from individuals or from small minorities in
society is in fact a most important driving force in history. The extent of its influence
has up to now been regarded far too little, although it has frequently been the
determining factor in the shaping of the whole of economic and social life.
The history of the Crusades was doubtless affected by strong economic motives. Visions of
the rich lands of the Orient may have been for many a Sir Lackland or Lord Have-Naught a
far stronger urge than religious convictions. But economic motives alone would never have
been sufficient to set millions of men in all countries in motion if they had not been
permeated by the obsession of faith so that they rushed on recklessly when the cry, "God
wills it!" was sounded, although they had not the slightest notion of the enormous
difficulties which attended this strange adventure. The powerful influence of religious
conviction on the people of that time is proved by the so-called Children's Crusade of the
year 1212. It was instituted when the failure of the former crusading armies became more
and more apparent, and pious zealots proclaimed the tidings that the sacred sepulchre
could only be liberated by those of tender age, through whom God would reveal a miracle to
the world. It was surely no economic motive which persuaded thousands of parents to send
those who were dearest to them to certain death.
But even the Papacy, which had at first only hesitatingly resolved on calling the
Christian world to the first Crusade, was moved to it far more by power-political than by
economic motives. In their struggle for the hegemony of the church it was very convenient
for its leaders to have many a worldly ruler, who might have become obstreperous at home,
kept busy a long time in the Orient where he could not disturb the church in the pursuit
of its plans. True, there were others, as, for instance, the Venetians, who soon
recognised what great economic advantages would accrue to them from the Crusades; they
even made use of them to extend their rule over the Dalmatian Coast, the Ionic Isles and
Crete. But to deduce from this that the Crusades were inevitably determined by the methods
of production of the period would be sheer nonsense.
When the Church determined upon its war of extermination against the Albigenses, which
cost the lives of many thousands, made waste the freest, intellectually most advanced land
in Europe, destroyed its highly developed culture and industry, maimed its trade and left
a decimated and bitterly impoverished population behind, it was led into its fight against
heresy by no economic considerations whatsoever. What it fought for was the unification of
faith, which was the foundation of its efforts at political power. Likewise, the French
kingdom, which later on supported the church in this war, was animated principally by
political considerations. It became in this bloody struggle the heir of the Count of
Languedoc, whereby the whole southern part of the country came into its hands, naturally
greatly strengthening its efforts for centralisation of power It was, therefore,
principally because of the political motives of church and state that the economic
development of one of the richest lands in Europe was violently interrupted, and the
ancient home of a splendid culture was converted into a waste of ruins.
The great conquest by the Arabs, and especially their incursion into Spain which started
the Seven Hundred Years' War, cannot be explained by any study, however thorough, of the
conditions of production of that time. It would be useless to try to prove that the
development of economic conditions was the guiding force of that mighty epoch. The
contrary is here most plainly apparent. After the conquest of Granada, the last stronghold
of the Moors, there arose in Spain a new politico-religious power under whose baneful
influence the whole economic development of the country was set back hundreds of years. So
effective was this incubus that the consequences are noticeable to this day over the whole
Iberian Peninsula. Even the enormous streams of gold, which after the discovery of America
poured into Spain from Mexico and the former Inca Empire, could not stay its economic
decline; in fact, only hastened it.
The marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon with Isabella of Castile laid the foundation of a
Christian monarchy in Spain whose right hand was the Grand Inquisitor. The ceaseless war
against the Moorish power waged under the banner of the church had fundamentally changed
the mental and spiritual attitude of the Christian population and had created the cruel
religious fanaticism which kept Spain shrouded in darkness for hundreds of years. Only
under such pre-conditions could that frightful clerico-political despotism evolve, which
after drowning the last liberties of the Spanish cities in blood, lay on the land like a
horrible incubus for three hundred years. Under the tyrannical influence of this unique
power organization the last remnant of Moorish culture was buried, after the Jews and
Arabs had first been expelled from the country. Whole provinces which had formerly
resembled flowering gardens were changed to unproductive wastes because the irrigating
systems and the roads of the Moors had been permitted to fall into ruin. Industries, which
had been among the first in Europe, vanished almost completely from the land and the
people reverted to long antiquated methods of production.
According to the data of Fernando Garrido there were at the beginning of the sixteenth
century in Seville sixteen hundred silk weavers' looms which employed one hundred and
thirty thousand workers. By the end of the seventeenth century there were only three
hundred looms in action.
It is not known how many looms there were in Toledo in the sixteenth century but there
were woven there four hundred and thirty-five thousand pounds of silk annually, employing
38,484 persons. By the end of the seventeenth century this industry had totally vanished.
In Segovia there were at the end of the sixteenth century 6,000 looms for weaving cloth,
at that time regarded as the best in Europe. By the beginning of the eighteenth century
this industry had so declined that foreign workers were imported to teach the Segovians
the weaving and dyeing of cloth. The causes of this decline were the expulsion of the
Moors, the discovery and settling of America, and the religious fanaticism which emptied
the work rooms and increased the number of the priests and monks. When only three hundred
looms remained in Seville the number of monasteries there had increased to sixty-two and
the clergy embraced 14,000- persons. 1
And Zancada writes concerning that period: "In the year I655 seventeen guilds disappeared
from Spain; together with them the workers in iron, steel, copper, lead, sulphur, the alum
industry and others." 2
Even the conquest of America by the Spaniards, which depopulated the Iberian Peninsula and
lured millions of men away into the new world, cannot be explained exclusively by "the
thirst for gold," however lively the greed of the individual may have been. When we read
the history of the celebrated conquista, we recognise, with Prescott, that it resembles
less a true accounting of actual events than one of the countless romances of knight
errantry which, in Spain especially, were so loved and valued.
It was not solely economic reasons which repeatedly enticed companies of daring
adventurers into the fabled El Dorado beyond the great waste of waters. Great empires like
those of Mexico and the Inca state which contained millions, besides possessing a fairly
high degree of culture, were conquered by a handful of desperate adventurers who did not
hesitate to use any means, and were not repelled by any danger, because they did not value
their own lives any too highly. This fact becomes explicable only when we take a closer
view of this unique human material, hardened by danger, which through a seven hundred
years' war had been gradually evolved. Only an epoch in which the idea of peace among men
must have seemed like a fairy tale out of a long-vanished past and in which the
centuries-long wars, waged with every cruelty, appeared as the normal condition of life,
could have evolved the wild religious fanaticism characteristic of the Spaniards of that
time. Thus becomes explicable that peculiar urge constantly to seek adventure. For a
mistaken concept of honour, frequently lacking all real background, a man was instantly
ready to risk his life. It is no accident that it was in Spain that the character of Don
Quixote was evolved. Perhaps that theory goes too far which seeks to replace all sociology
by the discoveries of psychology, but it is undeniable that the psychological condition of
men has a strong influence in the shaping of man's social environment.
Hundreds of other examples might be cited from which it is clearly apparent that economics
is not the centre of gravity of social development in general, even though it has
indisputably played an important part in the formative processes in history, a fact which
should not be overlooked any more than it should be excessively overestimated. There are
epochs when the significance of economic circumstances in the course of social events
becomes surprisingly clear, but there are others where religious or political motives
obviously interfere arbitrarily with the normal course of economics and for a long time
inhibit its natural development or force it into other channels. Historical events like
the Reformation, the Thirty Years' War, the great revolutions in Europe, and many others,
are not comprehensible at all as purely economic. We may however readily admit that in all
these events economic factors played a part and helped to bring them about.
This misapprehension becomes still more serious when we try to identify the various social
strata of a definite epoch as merely the typical representations of quite definite
economic interests. Such a view not only narrows the general field of view of the scholar,
but it makes of history as a whole a distorted picture which can but lead us on to wrong
conclusions. Man is not purely the agent of specific economic interests. The bourgeoisie,
for instance, has in all countries where it achieved social importance, frequently
supported movements which were by no means determined by its economic interests, but often
stood in open opposition to them. Its fight against the church, its endeavours for the
establishment of lasting peace among the nations, its liberal and democratic views
regarding the nature of government, which brought its representatives into sharpest
conflict with the traditions of kingship by the grace of God, and many other causes for
which it has at some time shown enthusiasm are proofs of this.
It will not do to argue that the bourgeoisie under the steadily growing influence of its
economic interests quickly forgot the ideals of its youth or basely betrayed them. When we
compare the storm and stress period of the socialistic movement in Europe with the
practical politics of the modern labor parties, we are soon convinced that the pretended
representatives of the proletariat are in no position to attack the bourgeoisie for its
inner changes. None of these parties has, during the worst crisis which the capitalist
world has ever passed through, made even the slightest attempt to influence economic
conditions in the spirit of socialism. Yet never before were economic conditions riper for
a complete transformation of capitalistic society. The whole capitalistic economic system
has gotten out of control. The crisis, which formerly was only a periodic phenomenon of
the capitalistic world, has for years become the normal condition of social life. Crisis
in industry, crisis in agriculture, crisis in commerce, crisis in finance! All have united
to prove the inadequacy of the capitalistic system. Nearly thirty million men are
condemned for life to miserable beggary in the midst of a world which is being ruined by
its surplus. But the spirit is lacking‹the socialistic spirit that strives for a
fundamental reconstruction of social life and is not content with petty patchwork, which
merely prolongs the crisis but can never heal its causes. Never before has it been so
clearly proved that economic conditions alone cannot change the social structure, unless
there are present in men the spiritual and intellectual prerequisites to give wings to
their desires and unite their scattered forces for communal work.
But the socialist parties, and the trade union organisations, which are permeated with
their ideas, have not only failed when it became a question of the economic reconstruction
of society; they have even shown themselves incapable of guarding the political legacy of
the bourgeois democracy; for they have everywhere yielded up long-won rights and liberties
without a struggle and have in this manner aided the advance of fascism in Europe, even
though against their will.
In Italy, one of the most prominent representatives of the Socialist Party became the
perpetrator of the fascist coup d'etat) and a whole group of the best-known labor leaders,
with D'Aragona at their head, marched with flying banners into Mussolini's camp.
In Spain, the Socialist Party was the only one which made peace with the dictator, Primo
de Rivera. Likewise today, in the glorious era of the Republic, whose hands are red with
the blood of murdered workers, that party proves itself the best guard of the capitalistic
system and willingly offers its services for the limitation of political rights.
In England, we witness the peculiar spectacle of the best-known and ablest leaders of the
Labor Party suddenly turning into the nationalistic camp, by which action they inflicted
on the party, whose advocates they had been for decades, a crushing defeat. On this
occasion Philip Snowden charged against his former comrades that "they had the interest of
their class more in view than the good of the state," a reproach which unfortunately is
not justified but which is very characteristic of "His Lordship," as he is now called.
In Germany, the social democracy as well as the trade unions have supported with all their
powers the notorious attempts of the great capitalist industrialists at the
"rationalisation" of industry, which has reacted so catastrophically upon labor and has
given a morally stagnated bourgeoisie the opportunity to recuperate from the shocks which
the lost war had given them. Even a pretentiously revolutionary labor party like the
Communist Party in Germany appropriated the nationalistic slogans of reaction, by which
contemptuous denial of all socialistic principles they hoped to take the wind out of the
sails of threatening fascism.
To these examples many more might be added to show that the representatives of the great
majority of organised socialistic labor hardly have the right to reproach the bourgeoisie
with political unreliability or treason to its former ideals. The representatives of
liberalism and bourgeois democracy showed at recent elections at least a desire to
preserve appearances, while the pretended defenders of proletarian interests abandoned
their former ideals with shameless complacency in order to do the work of their opponents.
A long line of leading political economists, uninfluenced by any socialistic
considerations, have expressed their conviction that the capitalistic system has had its
day and that in place of an uncontrolled profit economy a production-for-use economy based
on new principles must be instituted if Europe is not to be ruined. Nevertheless, it
becomes even more apparent that socialism as a movement has in no wise grown to meet the
situation. Most of its representatives have never advanced beyond shallow reform, and they
waste their forces in factional fights as purposeless as they are dangerous, which in
their idiotic intolerance remind us of the behaviour of mentally petrified church
organisations. Small wonder that hundreds of thousands of socialists fell into despair and
let themselves be caught by the rat-catchers of the Third Reich.
It could be objected here that the necessities of life itself, even without the assistance
of the socialists, were working toward the alteration of existing economic conditions,
because a crisis with no way out becomes at last unendurable. We do not deny this, but we
fear that with the present cessation in the socialistic labor movement there may occur an
economic reconstruction about which the producers will have absolutely nothing to say.
They will be confronted with the accomplished facts which others have created for them, so
that in the future, too, they will have to be content with the part of coolies which had
been planned for them all the while. Unless all signs deceive us, we are marching with
giant strides toward an epoch of state capitalism, which is likely to assume for the
workers the shape of a modern system of bondage in which man may be regarded as merely an
instrument of production, and all personal freedom will be absolutely extinguished.
Economic conditions can, under certain circumstances, become so acute that a change in the
existing social system is a vital necessity. It is only a question in which direction we
shall then move. Will it be a road to freedom, or will it result merely in an improved
form of slavery which, while it secures for man a meagre living, will rob him of all
independence of action? This, and this only, is the question. The social constitution of
the Inca Empire secured for every one of its subjects the necessary means of subsistence,
but the land was subject to an unlimited despotism, which cruelly punished any opposition
to its command and degraded the individual to a will-less tool of the state power.
State capitalism might be a way out of the present crisis, but most assuredly it would not
be a road to social freedom. On the contrary, it would submerge men in a slough of
servitude which would mock at all human dignity. In every prison, in every barrack there
is a certain equality of social condition. Everyone has the same food, the same clothes,
renders the same service, or performs the same task; but who would affirm that such a
condition presents an end worth working for?
It makes a difference whether the members of a social organization are masters of their
fate, control their own affairs and have the inalienable right to participate in the
administration of their communal interests, or are but the instruments of an external will
over which they possess no influence whatsoever. Every soldier has the right to share the
common rations but he is not permitted to have a judgment of his own. He must blindly obey
the orders of his superior, silencing, if need be, the voice of his own conscience, for he
is but a part of a machine which others set in motion.
No tyranny is more unendurable than that of an all-powerful bureaucracy which interferes
with all the activities of men and leaves its stamp on them. The more unlimited the power
of the state over the life of the individual, the more it cripples his creative capacities
and weakens the force of his personal will. State capitalism, the most dangerous
antithesis of real socialism, demands the surrender of all social activities to the state.
It is the triumph of the machine over the spirit, the rationalisation of all thought,
action and feeling according to the fixed norms of authority, and consequently the end of
all real intellectual culture. That the full scope of this threatening development has not
been grasped up to now, that the idea that it is necessitated by current economic
conditions has even been accepted, may well be regarded as one of the most fateful signs
of the times.
The dangerous mania which sees in every social phenomenon only the inevitable result of
capitalistic methods of production has implanted in men the conviction that all social
events arise from definite necessity and are economically unalterable. This fatalistic
notion could only result in crippling men's power of resistance, and consequently making
them receptive to a compromise with given conditions, no matter how horrible and inhuman
they may be.
Every one knows that economic conditions have an influence on the changes in social
relations. How men will react in their thoughts and actions to this influence is of great
importance, however, in determining what steps they may decide to take to initiate an
obviously necessary change m the conditions of life. But it is just the thoughts and
actions of men which refuse to accept the imprint of economic motives alone. Who would,
for instance, maintain that the Puritanism which has decidedly influenced the spiritual
development of Anglo-Saxon people up to the present day tas the necessary result of the
economic capitalistic order then in its infancy, or who would try to prove that the World
War was absolutely conditioned by the capitalistic system and was consequently unavoidable?
Economic interests undoubtedly played an important part in this war as they have in all
others, but they alone would not have been able to cause this fatal catastrophe. Merely
the sober statement of concrete economic purposes would never have set the great masses in
motion. It was therefore necessary to prove to them that the quarrel for which they were
to kill others, for which they were to be killed themselves, was "the good and righteous
cause." Consequently, one side fought "against the Russian despotism," for the "liberation
of Poland"‹and, of course, for the "interests of the fatherland," which the Allies had
"conspired" to destroy. And the other side fought "for the triumph of Democracy" and the
"overthrow of Prussian militarism" and "that this war should be the last war."
It might be urged that behind all the camouflage by which the people were fooled for over
four years there stood, after all, the economic interests of the possessing classes. But
that is not the point. The decisive factor is that without the continuous appeal to men's
ethical feelings, to their sense of justice, no war would have been possible. The slogan,
"God punish England!" and the cry, "Death to the Huns!" achieved in the last war far
greater miracles than did the bare economic interests of the possessing classes. This is
proved by the fact that before men can be driven to war they must be lashed into a certain
pitch of passion and by the further fact that this passion can only be aroused by
spiritual and moral motives.
Did not the very people who year after year had proclaimed to the working masses that
every war in the era of capitalism springs from purely economic motives, at the outbreak
of the World War abandon their historic-philosophical theory and raise the affairs of the
nation above those of the class? And these were the ones who, with Marxist courage of
conviction, supported the statement in The Communist Manifesto: "The history of all
society up to now has been the history of class struggles."
Lenin and others have attributed the failure of most of the socialist parties at the
beginning of the war to the leaders' fear of assuming responsibility, and with bitter
words they have flung this lack of courage in their faces. Admitting that there is a great
deal of truth in this assertion‹although we must beware in this case of generalising too
freely‹ what is proved by it?
If it was indeed fear of responsibility and the lack of moral courage which induced the
majority of the socialist leaders to support the national interests of their respective
countries, then this is but a further proof of the correctness of our view. Courage and
cowardice are not conditioned by the prevailing forms of production but have their roots
in the psychic feelings of men. But if purely psychic motives could have such a compelling
influence on the leaders of a movement numbering millions that they abandoned their
fundamental principles even before the cock had crowed thrice, and marched with the worst
foes of the socialistic labor movement against the so-called hereditary enemy, this only
proves that men's actions cannot be explained by conditions of production, with which they
often stand in sharpest contrast. Every epoch in history provides superabundant evidence
of this.
It is, then, a patent error to explain the late war solely as the necessary result of
opposing economic interests. Capitalism would still be conceivable if the so called
"captains of world industry" should agree in an amicable manner concerning the possession
of sources of raw materials and the spheres of market and exploitation, just as the owners
of the various economic interests within a country come to terms without having to settle
their differences on each occasion with the sword. There exist already quite a number of
international organisations for production in which the capitalists of certain industries
have gotten together to establish a definite quota for the production of their goods in
each country. In this manner they have regulated the total production of their branches by
mutual agreement on fundamental principles. The International Steel Trust in Europe is an
example of it. By such a regulation capitalism loses nothing of its essential character;
its privileges remain untouched. In fact, its mastery over the army of its wage slaves is
considerably strengthened.
Considered purely economically, the War was therefore by no means inevitable. Capitalism
could have survived without it. In fact, one can assume with certainty that if the
directors of the capitalistic order could have anticipated the war's results it would
never have happened.
It was not solely economic interests which played an important part in the late war, but
motives of political power, which in the end did most to let loose the catastrophe. After
the decline of Spain and Portugal, the dominant power in Europe had fallen to Holland,
France and England, who opposed each other as rivals. Holland quickly lost its leading
position, and after the Peace of Breda its influence on the course of European politics
grew gradually less. But France also had lost after the Seven Years' War a large part of
its former predominance and could never recover it, especially since its financial
difficulties became constantly more acute and led to that unexampled oppression of the
people from which the Revolution sprang. Napoleon later made enormous efforts to recover
for France the position she had lost in Europe, but his gigantic efforts were without
result. England remained the implacable enemy of Napoleon, who soon recognised that his
plans for world power could never come to fruition as long as the "nation of shopkeepers,"
as he contemptuously called the English, was unconquered. Napoleon lost the game after
England had organised all Europe against him. Since then England has maintained its
leading position in Europe, indeed in the whole world.
But the British Empire is not a continuous territory as other empires were before it. Its
possessions are scattered over all the five continents, and their security is dependent
upon the position of power which Britain occupies in Europe. Every threat to this position
is a threat to the continued possession of colonies by England. As long as on the
continent the formation of the modern great states, with their gigantic armies and fleets,
their bureaucracy, their capitalistic enterprises, their highly developed industries,
their foreign trade agreements, their exports and their growing need of expansion could
still be overlooked, Britain's position as a world power remained fairly untouched; but
the stronger the capitalistic states of the continent became, the more had Britain to fear
for its hegemony. Every attempt by a European power to secure new trade, or territory
supplying raw materials, to further its export by trade agreements with foreign countries,
and to give its plans for expansion the widest possible room, inevitably led sooner or
later to a conflict somewhere with British spheres of interest and had always to look for
hidden opposition by Britain.
For this reason it necessarily became the chief concern of the British foreign policy to
prevent any power from obtaining predominant influence on the continent, or, when this was
unavoidable, to use its whole skill to play one power against the other. Therefore, the
defeat of Napoleon III by the Prussian army and Bismarck's diplomacy could only be very
welcome to Britain, for France's power was thereby crippled for decades. But Germany's
development of its military power, the initiation of its colonial policy and, most of all,
the building of its fleet and its steadily growing plans for expansion (as its "urge to
eastward" became increasingly noticeable and distasteful to the English) conjured up a
danger for the British Empire that its representatives could not afford to disregard.
That British diplomacy unhesitatingly used any means to oppose the danger is no proof that
its directors were by nature more treacherous or unscrupulous than are the diplomats of
other countries. The idle talk about "perfidious Albion" is just as silly as the chatter
about "a civilised warfare." If British diplomacy proved superior to that of the Germans,
if it was cleverer in its secret intrigues, it was so only because its representatives had
had much longer experience and because, fortunately for them, the majority of responsible
German statesmen from Bismarck's time were but will-less lackeys of imperial power. None
of them had the courage to oppose the dangerous activities of an irresponsible psychopath
and his venal camarilla.
However, the foundation of this evil is to be sought not in individual persons but in
power politics itself, irrespective of who practices it or what immediate aims it pursues.
Power politics is only conceivable as making use of all means, however condemnable these
may appear to private conscience, so long as they promise results, conform to reasons of
state and further the state's ends.
Machiavelli, who had the courage to collect systematically the methods of procedure of
power politics and to justify them in the name of reasons of state, has set this forth
already in his "Discorsi" clearly and definitely: "If we are dealing with the welfare of
the Fatherland at all, we must not permit ourselves to be influenced by right or wrong,
compassion or cruelty, praise or blame. We must cavil at nothing, but we must always grasp
at the means which will save the life of the country and preserve its freedom."
For the perfect power politics every crime done in the service of the state is a
meritorious deed if it is successful. The state stands beyond good and evil; it is the
earthly Providence whose decisions are in their profundity as inexplicable to the ordinary
subject as is the fate ordained for the believer by the power of God. Just as, according
to the doctrines of theologians and pundits, God in his unfathomable wisdom often uses the
most cruel and frightful means to effect his plans, so also the state, according to the
doctrines of political theology, is not bound by the rules of ordinary human morality when
its rulers are determined to achieve definite ends by a cold-blooded gamble with the lives
and fortunes of millions.
When a diplomat falls into a trap another has set for him, it ill becomes him to complain
of the wiles and lack of conscientiousness of his opponent, for he himself pursues the
same object, from the opposite side, and only suffers defeat because his opponent is
better able to play the part of Providence. One who believes that he cannot exist without
the organised force which is personified in the state must be ready also to accept all the
consequences of this superstitious belief, to sacrifice to this Moloch the most precious
thing he owns, his own personality.
It was principally power-political conflict, growing out of the fateful evolution of the
great capitalistic states, which contributed importantly to the outbreak of the World War.
Since the people, and especially the workers, of the various countries neither understood
the seriousness of the situation nor could summon the moral courage to put up a determined
resistance to the subterranean machinations of the diplomats, militarists and profiteers,
there was no power on earth which could stay the catastrophe. For decades every great
state appeared like a gigantic army camp which opposed the others, armed to the teeth,
until a spark finally sprung the mine. Not because all happened as it had to happen did
the world drive with open eyes toward the abyss, but because the great masses in every
country had not the slightest idea what a despicable game was being played behind their
backs. They had to thank their incredible carelessness and above all their blind belief in
the infallible superiority of their rulers) and so-called spiritual leaders, that for over
four years they could be led to slaughter like a will-less herd.
But even the small group of high finance and great industry, whose owners so unmistakably
contributed to the releasing of the red flood, were not animated in their actions
exclusively by the prospect of material gain. The view which sees in every capitalist only
a profit machine may very well meet the demands of propaganda, but it is conceived much
too narrowly and does not correspond to reality. Even in modern giant capitalism the
power-political interests frequently play a larger part than the purely economic
considerations, although it is difficult to separate them from each other. Its leaders
have learned to know the delightful sensation of power, and adore it with the same passion
as did formerly the great conquerors, whether they find themselves in the camp of the
enemies of their government, like Hugo Stinnes and his followers in the time of the
Germany money crisis, or interfere decisively in the foreign policy of their own country.
The morbid desire to make millions of men submissive to a definite will and to force whole
empires into courses which are useful to the secret purposes of small minorities, is
frequently more evident in the typical representatives of modern capitalism than are
purely economic considerations or the prospect of greater material profit. The desire to
heap up ever increasing profits today no longer satisfies the demands of the great
capitalistic oligarchies. Every one of its members knows what enormous power the
possession of great wealth places in the hands of the individual and the caste to which he
belongs. This knowledge gives a tempting incentive and creates that typical consciousness
of mastery whose consequences are frequently more destructive than the facts of monopoly
itself. It is this mental attitude of the modern Grand Seigneur of industry and high
finance which condemns all opposition and will tolerate no equality.
In the great struggles between capital and labor this brutal spirit of mastery often plays
a more decided part than immediate economic interests. The small manufacturers of former
times still had certain rather intimate relationships to the masses of the working
population and were consequently able to have more or less understanding of their
position. Modern moneyed aristocracy, however, has even less relationship with the great
masses of the people than did the feudal barons of the eighteenth century with their
serfs. It knows the masses solely as collective objects of exploitation for its economic
and political interests. It has in general no understanding of the hard conditions of
their lives. Hence the conscienceless brutality, the power urge, contemptuous of all human
right, and the unfeeling indifference to the misery of others.
Because of his social position there are left no limits to the power lust of the modern
capitalist. He can interfere with inconsiderate egoism in the lives of his fellowmen and
play the part of Providence for others. Only when we take into consideration this
passionate urge for political power over their own people as well as over foreign nations
are we able really to understand the character of the typical representatives of modern
capitalism. It is just this trait which makes them so dangerous to the social structure of
the future.
Not without reason does modern monopolistic capitalism support the National Socialist and
fascist reaction. This reaction is to help beat down any resistance of the working masses,
in order to set up a realm of industrial serfdom in which productive man is to be regarded
merely as an economic automaton without any influence whatsoever on the course and
character of economic and social conditions. This Caesarean madness stops at no barrier.
Without compunction it rides roughshod over those achievements of the past which have all
too often had to be purchased with the heart's blood of the people. It is always ready to
smother with brutal violence the last rights and the last liberties which might interfere
with its plans for holding all social activities within the rigid forms set by its will.
This is the great danger which threatens us today and which immediately confronts us. The
success or failure of monopolistic capitalistic power plans will determine the structure
of the social life of the near future.
1. Fernando Garrido, "La Espana contemporaneo." Tome 1. Barcelona, 1865. This work
contains rich material, as do Garrido's other writings, especially his worl:, Historia de
las Clases Trabajadores.
2. Praxedes Zancada, El obrero en Espana: Notas para su hisoria politcia y social.
Barcelona 1902
http://www.bangladeshasf.org/news/the-insufficiency-of-economic-materialism/
------------------------------
Message: 2
Some 150,000 people in France, in more than 100 cities. The mobilization of September 8 is
the largest ever known in France on climate issues. What is the origin of this
mobilization? What form did she take ? What possible consequences for it really weighs on
government policies? ---- The mobilization that some hoped for at the COP21, end of
November 2015, therefore took place on September 8, 2018. The Climate March 2015,
organized by the Coalition Climate 21, was banned following the attacks of November 13:
instead there had been " human chains " and 317 police guards for those who had dared to
go round the Republic Square and not disperse at the announcement of an order no one had
heard . ---- The spark ---- On August 28, Nicolas Hulot resigned as Minister of Ecology
and Transition. Taking everyone by surprise, he denounced his inability to make things
happen. It was not the government or the precedents that it incriminated, but on the one
hand the lobbies of the productive and energy industries, and on the other hand the lack
of mobilization of the society. Thus, it invited everyone to question themselves
personally, in the context of the amazement of our society in the face of climate change
and the fall of biodiversity.
Coming after a new summer in which global warming has given very concrete signs of its
reality (heat waves, fires, floods, melting of the ice cap ...), this announcement caused
a strong emotion. When Maxime Lelong, 27, a journalist with no particular activist
activity, launched a Facebook event called " Walk for Climate ", the craze was
immediate: in two days, 20,000 people had already indicated their interest. The
announcement of his resignation by Nicolas Hulot has served as a spark.
In this respect, it is interesting to note that it had been months since NGOs had been
working to make September 8th the " World Day for Local Action for the Climate ". It was
about organizing international pressure on GCAS, the Climate Summit that would take place
the following week in California. If, seen from France, this date did not make sense, some
thirty actions were however already planned, and a rally on the Place de l'Hotel-de-Ville
had been declared to the prefecture, announcing the presence of about 500 people.
A " I'm Charlie " Walk for Climate
But with the spark sparked by the resignation of Nicolas Hulot, the mobilization has
changed scale and surprised everyone. Organizations committed to World Climate Day,
however, quickly put their infrastructure at the service of the growing movement. Thus,
the NGO 350.org has proposed multiple online resources (models of posters and leaflets
claiming the release of fossil fuels, videos to be broadcast on social networks to promote
mobilization, numerous coordination tools, etc.). and support for those wishing to
organize a local action (budget allocation to print leaflets and banners, collective
training for organizers and collectives, etc.). However, until the morning of September 8,
On Saturday, September 8th, tens of thousands of people took to the streets for whom this
mode of action is far from being a habit. We saw all ages, young as well as old. Few
racialized, few popular classes. A crowd quite comparable to the one who took to the
streets on January 11, 2015 for the " I am Charlie " walk .
" Stop the fossil industry "
These two marches have more than one common point. They come after a spark, a specific
event that marked the spirits and caused a need to go down the street. They group around a
generic slogan " I am Charlie " / " March for the climate ", but do not defend a
specific political project. They are of the order of indignation, denunciation,
ras-le-bol, " that's enough ".
There were few flags in the processions. Few slogans, almost no claims, recommendations.
On the individual placards, one could read " Planet in danger ", " There is no planet B
", " Less plastic, more bio ", and even " Thank you Nicolas Hulot for having tried "
or " I'm hotter and hotter, and you ? ". On the side of NGOs, Attac and Alternatiba
carried the slogan " Let's change the system, not the climate ", while 350.org had
prepared in Paris a huge banner " For justice, stop the fossil industry ". Our local
collectives of AL have been present in several rallies, and collective struggles were
present everywhere in France (against Europacity, in support of Notre-Dame-des-Landes,
against the central Gardanne, against the shale gas ... ). However, the crowd was largely
made up of unorganized people, who certainly made the promise of not waiting for the
change to come from above, but whose good resolution all too often seemed to be " peeing
in the shower " .
The good news is that a sizeable part of the population is very concerned about climate
change, and is ready to change its behavior, starting by going down the street on a
Saturday when it is not its place. habit.
The question that tarnishes us on the other hand, is whether this concern will help to
change the reality in terms of effective organization of the fight. This is how we can and
must act in at least two directions. On the one hand, we actively involve ourselves in
local communities of struggle, especially those that are radically radical in terms of
ambition for social transformation, while not being immune to recovery and integration. by
the capitalist system. On the other hand, act especially in our unions so that the
environmental issue is, permanently and non-negotiable, taken into account in our
strategies and demands, and that we can no longer say that the defense of employment is
done at the expense of ecological issues.
Adeline (AL Paris North East)
The next dates of environmental struggles
September 29th and 30th: Weekend of support to the ZAD Notre-Dame-des-Landes
Saturday, October 6: Walk against pesticides
6th and 7th of October: Arrival of the Alternatiba Tour (in progress since last June) in
Bayonne
Monday 8 October: Release of the new report of the IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change)
Saturday, October 13, in 27 cities in France: Monthly walk for the climate
25th to 29th October: Ende Gelände movement: blocking of the coal mine and protection of
the Hambach forest in Germany
December 3 to 14: COP 24 in Poland
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Climat-Quand-la-mobilisation-prend-tout-le-monde-par-surprise
------------------------------
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten