History has shown us often enough that the numerical strength of a
movement has very often been bought at the expense of its originalaspirations, and unfortunately the situation is no better with the
socialist movement. - Background By: Rudolf Rocker
When Gustav Landauer came to the conclusion in his "Call for Socialism"
that the realization of socialism does not depend on certain "laws of
the economy" but primarily on the conscious will of people who long to
escape the dreariness of today's life in order to create something new
on completely different foundations, he expressed a truth that is
perhaps more understood today than before. For the quiet people in the
country who cannot allow themselves to strengthen the stupid army of
party politicians and loudmouth demagogues, it is becoming ever clearer:
"Socialism is the will of united people to create something new for the
sake of an ideal."
This does not mean, however, that the intellectual and material
environment has no influence on the development of socialism, or that
its realization is left solely to the inner enthusiasm and goodwill of a
handful of idealists. Landauer did not think so either, because he felt
only too well that the drive for community and the creative urge that
longs to create something new must first flare up powerfully from the
depths and unfold powerfully among people before the new can take
tangible form. His main concern was to strike at that bourgeois fatalism
that rejects every practical attempt in the spirit of socialism from the
outset on the grounds that it contradicts the laws of economic
development and should only be viewed as fruitless utopianism. And
precisely because he felt this, he spoke of "the moment may come, if the
peoples hesitate for a long time, when the statement must be: socialism
can no longer come to these peoples."
Have we come any closer to socialism? That is the question we must
seriously ask ourselves today. More than a hundred years have passed
since the call for modern socialism was first heard, and a workers'
movement with more or less socialist leanings has existed for more than
seventy years. What are the results as far as the realization of
socialism is concerned? We ask once again: have we come closer to
socialism in practice, or have we moved further away from it? Have the
possibilities for its realization become fewer today, or are there
greater obstacles to it than was previously the case?
Please understand me correctly. The question is not whether the general
movement which we now call socialist has grown in numbers, whether it
has acquired a certain political influence on social life, or whether it
now has widespread organizations and numerous cultural institutions
which it could not have imagined fifty years ago. None of that is the
question. History has shown us often enough that the numerical strength
of a movement has very often been bought at the expense of its original
aspirations, and unfortunately the situation is no better with the
socialist movement. The only question here is whether we have come
tangibly nearer to the great ultimate goal of socialism, the abolition
of all economic and social monopolies and the reorganization of social
life on the basis of communal work and communal enjoyment of the values
produced.
After the long and tireless educational work of socialist propaganda, is
the intellectual and spiritual attitude of the working classes today
such that they are penetrated by the magnitude of the problem and their
creative minds are looking for ways and means to pave the way for the
practical realization of socialism? Is the urge for something new, the
inner enthusiasm for a complete transformation of society finally so
strongly developed today, if not among all, then at least among the
outspoken supporters of one or the other socialist trend, that all that
remains is to overcome the bulwark of state power in order to gain entry
to socialism?
We are of the opinion that anyone who has seriously thought about this
question and whose mind has not yet been completely distorted by the
boring slogans of the parties must have come to the conclusion that all
the former prerequisites have not been fulfilled, that we are now
further away from socialism than ever before, that the workers, who
should be most interested in social transformation, have been wasting
their energies for decades in hopeless political party intrigues, so
that they can hardly understand the great questions of socialism. Above
all, however, they have become bogged down in such sterile and dreary
doctrinaireism that they have lost all practical prospects for direct
action in the interests of socialism.
During the same period, capitalism has developed into a formidable,
all-leveling power, without encountering any significant resistance from
the organized working class. From the private capitalism of the past, we
have now entered the phase of collective capitalism, with its national
and international trusts and cartels, its sales companies spread over
all countries, and its dictatorship of the economy. From this point of
view, the practical realization of socialism today appears much more
difficult than ever before, and any direct attempt on a small scale is
now confronted on all sides by obstacles which were previously unknown
to such an extent. There is no doubt, then, that we have today moved
further away from socialism, not only in spirit but also in practical
possibilities, instead of coming closer to it in one form or another. It
is certainly not a pessimistic tendency that leads us to state this
fact, but rather the sober assessment of the situation, the effort to
present things as they really are and not as pleasing whitewashing would
like to present them.
It will certainly be objected that we completely misunderstand the
latest development of economic conditions. They will try to prove to us
that national and international trusts, the rationalization of the
economy and the attempts to replace so-called free competition with a
regulated and organized market are the first, indispensable
preconditions for the realization of socialism. We know the way, we know
the text! But we also know that people who make such claims have never
understood the spirit and cultural content of socialism, that what they
envision as socialism is, at best, a disguised state capitalism, the
realization of which would overshadow all the defects and all the evil
spirit of the present capitalist system. Only the complete lack of any
feeling of freedom explains such an attitude, which will never
understand that socialism can only exist on the basis of the greatest
possible freedom and that any attempt in any other direction can only
lead to unlimited despotism.
There was a time when socialism was sharply separated from political
radicalism, as the champions of socialist views clearly recognized that
socialism had its own sphere of action and had to find its expression
primarily in the reorganization of the economy. The experimental
socialism of the first period developed under this premise. Today the
relationship is quite different. The socialist movement has adopted all
the aspirations of political radicalism in a weakened form, to such an
extent that its original ideas have become increasingly dull and their
realization has become increasingly distant. But it has not made the old
world of ideas of political radicalism more comprehensive and deeper; on
the contrary, the unlimited faith of its supporters in the state has
broken the momentum of these ideas and had a degenerating effect on
them, so that ultimately it was no longer surprising when the ranks of
the most extreme state socialists described freedom as a "bourgeois
prejudice."
When the old socialists of various stripes made their first practical
attempts, they were a small group whose ideas were completely alien to
the world around them and who had no significant organization at their
disposal, and especially no organization in the sense of the present-day
labor movement, which could help them in their practical activities and
in the manipulation of public opinion. They had to rely almost entirely
on their good will and their inner urge to create something new.
Today the picture has changed significantly. In all countries the
workers have created large organizations whose members number in the
millions. In addition to the numerous socialist cultural societies in
all possible fields, from scientific associations to sports clubs, the
workers are now united in large socialist parties and trade union
associations, which extend to all professions and are linked to each
other both nationally and internationally. In addition to this there are
the co-operative organizations in all countries, which are almost
exclusively geared towards consumption, but which also have millions of
members today.
All these organizations have a widespread press, significant financial
resources, and a number of public institutions serving a variety of
purposes. Thus, conditions exist today that the socialists of the first
period could not even dream of, conditions both for the possibility of
practical socialist experiments and for the continued influence of the
public in order to convince them of the justice, usefulness, and
necessity of socialism.
About twenty years ago, Kropotkin once remarked in an article in Freedom
that the English working class today had an organizational apparatus
which enabled it to undertake a complete transformation of social life
in the spirit of socialism at any time. He referred to the three great
movements of the English working class: the trade unions, the
co-operatives and municipal socialism. In his opinion, the trade unions
were the most suitable instrument for a socialist transformation of
production, the co-operatives for a socialist transformation of
consumption, while municipal socialism, in conjunction with the
innumerable voluntary organizations for all possible purposes, could
best serve the satisfaction of general cultural needs. The main task at
present was to synthesize these three movements and give them a common,
constructive socialist goal.
Kropotkin was undoubtedly right. The organizational prerequisites for
constructive socialist activity do exist, not only in England but in
many other countries as well. What we lack today, however, is the
socialist spirit and the will to socialism. We foresee the inevitable
result of every idea of an experiment and are then surprised when the
obstacles of our imagination grow into real obstacles. Or, as Landauer
so beautifully expressed it: "The destruction of all obstacles comes
when they are real obstacles, when we have moved so close to them that
there is not even the slightest space between us. Now they are only
obstacles of foresight, imagination, fear. We can already see that this
and that will be put in our way when the time comes - and in the
meantime we prefer to do nothing at all."
The worst thing is that these various forms in which the socialist
workers' movement finds its expression today have adapted themselves
completely to the status quo and have become, so to speak, components of
it, without their supporters having the slightest idea of this.
Political socialism, which has directed all its efforts towards the
conquest of power, cannot be considered for constructive socialist work
for this reason alone. The trade unions have adapted themselves so
completely and so exclusively to the conditions within the bourgeois
state that they shrink back from any attempt to exceed the limits of the
wage system and for this very reason must increasingly fail in the fight
for momentary improvements. For only those who demand great things are
granted small things. But those who only concern themselves with small
and minute things must ultimately be satisfied with the meager crumbs
that fall from the table of the powerful.
But the co-operatives have long since forgotten the original
preconditions for their efforts and have transformed themselves into
organs of capitalist society. We do not deny that even in this form they
can still be of modest use to the individual worker; but they have lost
the socialist vision that Robert Owen once had, and with it the urge for
constructive socialist activity.
And yet today we are again facing a turning point where the need for
constructive action in the spirit of socialism is becoming more and more
apparent and is being understood. In every country, the beginnings of
such action can already be seen. For this reason, we consider it
necessary to take a serious look at the various forms of constructive
socialism, from the first attempts at experimental socialism to modern
guild socialism. This will be the task of later discussions. RR
EXPERIMENTAL SOCIALISM
From: Die Internationale, No. 2, Vol. 1 (1927)
If one wishes to judge correctly the character and practical attempts of
the older experimental socialism, one must first of all try to
understand its supporters in the spirit of their time and evaluate their
constructive work accordingly. Even the greatest and most far-sighted
mind is chained to its time with a thousand chains and must be measured
in its actions by its standard, if one does not want to distort it into
a caricature.
Fourier and his circle, Saint-Simon and the Saint-Simonists (strictly
speaking, Saint-Simon can only be counted as an experimental socialist
to a limited extent, but the Saint-Simonists can, whose efforts should
not be confused with the master's ideas), Leroux, Buchez and the
supporters of the association idea, Cabet and the Icarian communists, as
well as Owen, Thompson, Grey and the other representatives of
experimental socialism in England, held different opinions on social
life and its institutions. Some of them were decidedly inclined towards
liberal ideas, others were strictly authoritarian, and still others
oscillated between the two poles without ever being able to bring
themselves to a definite view.
However, there are certain common features between them that cannot be
overlooked. These include, first and foremost, the peaceful nature of
their efforts, their pronounced antipathy to all revolutionary solutions
and the inner urge to convince the world of the correctness of their
ideas by practical example.
This attitude was often used later as evidence of their backwardness and
lack of practical experience. There is certainly no doubt that we have a
whole series of experiences behind us today which the pioneers of modern
socialism could not possibly have had; and we also have certain
preconditions for the spread of socialist ideas which were not even
dreamed of at that time. But on the other hand, it cannot be denied that
the first bearers of modern socialist thought also had a series of
valuable experiences which we later lost completely. Many of these men
had experienced the storms of the great French Revolution themselves;
the younger among them were still under the spell of its immediate
aftermath. This practical experience had an unmistakable influence on
their thinking, which found clear expression in their later socialist
activities.
Much that we were previously reluctant to understand has become more
humanly clear to us through the practical experience we have had with
the revolutions in Russia and Central Europe. The false and one-sided
representations of the great French Revolution by the historians of
bourgeois radicalism have also had a strong influence on most socialists
of our time. They have surrounded the dictatorship of Jacobinism with a
revolutionary aura, which was further strengthened by the violent death
of the most outstanding leaders of that party.
We had become so accustomed to seeing the revolutionary convention as
the driving force of the revolution that its representatives had lost
all human standards in our imagination and had become titans who stamped
history with the stamp of their will. Thus arose in our minds the idea
of a revolutionary superman whose human bondage was completely lost in
the fog of abstract principles and therefore never reached our
consciousness. It might be objected that only a lack of understanding of
the economic processes of history could lead to such hero worship, if
our own time had not taught us otherwise. Think of the events at Lenin's
funeral, of the wild fanaticism unleashed among a section of the workers
and intellectuals all over the world, who did not hesitate to clap their
hands enthusiastically when the revolutionary sailors of Kronstadt were
shot like dogs and thousands of honest revolutionaries were buried alive
in the dungeons of the Bolshevik state. No materialistic conception of
history could prevent this modern hero cult, which even overshadows the
cult that had previously been practiced with the men of the French
Convention.
Today, when we ourselves have witnessed great social changes and have
had the opportunity more than once to observe the inadequacies of the
new rulers, the more insightful among our contemporaries also look at
the period of the great French Revolution with different eyes. We have
seen with our own eyes how people were made into gods and we have
experienced how these same people stripped their chosen ones of all
divinity and exposed them to contempt and ridicule. Nothing has such a
sobering effect on people as the sudden fall of the powerful who were
raised to their heights by the favor of the moment. Every twilight of
the gods shakes the very foundations of the principle of authority.
And today we see how Trotsky, the new "organizer of victory," and
Zinoviev, before whose greatness so-called revolutionaries shuddered in
the dust, like Persian satraps before the despot of the empire, are
suddenly torn from the atmosphere of inaccessibility and branded as
traitors to the very revolution that had raised them to their heights.
Whereas in the past no word was too pompous and too exuberant to praise
their deeds and to trumpet them to the world, today no accusation or
meanness is great enough to kick them and denounce them to the world as
counter-revolutionaries and party marauders.
The "revolutionary" hurricane crew is still roaring "Bravo!" today, just
as they did back then when the fallen were still enthroned at the zenith
of their glory; just as they did back then, when the same crowd that
yesterday cheered Robespierre and Saint Just clapped its hands the next
day when their heads fell under the knife of the guillotine. That was
always the case when gods died.
But the serious minds who did not degrade themselves to blind
worshippers of momentary success, and whose searching eyes recognized
behind the external draperies and facade decorations the snares and
traps of political intrigue and party intrigue, had the scales fall from
their eyes, and their inherited reverence for the "Titans" was shattered
forever.
This is precisely why we understand better today than ever before why
men like Saint-Simon, Fourier, etc., had a different opinion of the
revolutionary events of their time from ours. They were, after all,
powerfully affected by the impression of a time which we saw only from
the broadest perspective and which we were therefore unable to grasp in
its human and all too human qualities.
The French Revolution had really established the belief in the
omnipotence of the state. It had made the subject into a citizen and
instilled in him the conviction that he was now called upon to work for
the good of the nation. Whereas previously one person forged the chains
for all, from now on everyone forged his own chains and believed that he
was free. It was Jacobinism that had developed to the extreme this
delusional belief in the state, which still holds the great majority of
people in its spell today. Its supporters actually believed that with
the help of the law they could put an end to all human suffering and
social maladies. For them, legislation had become earthly providence,
the legislator the unlimited master of the nation's fate.
"The legislator determines the future!" explained Saint Just. "It is up
to him to want what is good and to shape people as he sees fit."
And the men of the "immortal convention" repeated this phrase every day
in every possible variation. It is quite incomprehensible how little
sense these people had of the real conditions of social life. They
reveled in abstract ideas and believed that they could master all
difficulties by decrees, just like our modern Jacobins in Russia, who in
the short time of their existence sent more decrees into the country
than all other governments put together.
This astonishing lack of worldliness was most evident when the
Convention negotiated economic problems. Here its representatives lacked
any deeper understanding, any foresight, indeed any sense of the issues
of daily life.
Like every great upheaval in society, the French Revolution also caused
a profound upheaval in the economic balance, a situation which was made
even worse by the hostile attitude of foreign countries towards France.
In Paris and the other major cities in the country in particular, social
misery took on monstrous forms and showed itself in its most blatant
form as unemployment increased.
But the Convention believed that it could counteract this terrible
phenomenon, the further development of which would seriously jeopardize
the achievements of the Revolution, by means of pompous decrees. It
solemnly declared misery to be a crime and entrusted the State with
organizing public charity to help those who were unable to earn a living
by their own work. And with all the theatrical attitude that was
characteristic of it, the "revolutionary parliament" set aside a special
holiday each year to honor misfortune and to give moral encouragement to
public charity.
The government was in debt and had no way of implementing such a system
of state philanthropy. The very attempt to eliminate social misery
through public charity shows with alarming clarity how little these men
were able to understand even the most everyday questions of economic and
social life. As long as revolutionary phraseology had not lost its
effect on the broad masses, the government could afford such things; but
in the long run the theatrical gestures and pathos of revolutionary
rhetoric could not take hold. Sooner or later the phrase was bound to be
shattered by the reality of practical life. The moment this
disillusionment set in, the end was clearly in sight; the road to the
9th Thermidor was no longer blocked by any obstacle.
The great pioneers of socialism, who, like Saint-Simon and Fourier, knew
from their own experience the course of the revolution from the fall of
the old dynasty to the establishment of the first empire, or, like the
others, were still freshly impressed by the great events, had learned to
recognize that the root of social evil lay much deeper than could be
dealt with by purely political means. In contrast to the supporters of
political radicalism, they saw the economic basis of society as the real
cause of political and social processes, and therefore logically strove
for a complete change in economic conditions. They recognized that even
the revolution could not create a world out of nothing, but could only
develop the seeds that were already there and that had not yet had the
opportunity to break through.
It was precisely for this reason that they were skeptical of the
revolution, because they could only see its destructive side and not its
constructive and creative tendencies, which, however, were revealed only
in the actions of the people and not in the legislative activity of the
Convention.
A thinker of the depth of Saint-Simon's had to look with inner contempt
upon the conduct of a "revolutionary" government which had proved itself
totally incapable of dealing with all economic and social problems. He
had once compared society to an individual and developed the idea that
just as the guardianship of parents over their offspring came to an end
when the latter matured, so too would the government of people only last
until they reached inner maturity through the development of science and
industry.
But then the art of governing men must give way to the art of managing
things. It goes without saying that a man who entertained such daring
ideas at a time when belief in the omnipotence of the state was so
powerfully developed could not find any favour in the omnipotence of the
legislator or the revolution of decrees. He who, on his deathbed, said:
"My whole life can be reduced to the single idea of guaranteeing all men
the free development of their faculties" could not possibly have
accepted Rousseau's idea that the legislator
must "take away man's own powers and replace them with foreign ones", an
idea which had become the political gospel of Jacobinism and which all
modern Jacobins still envision as the great ideal of their aspirations.
Saint-Simon, who was a passionate admirer of science, welcomed industry
with passionate joy, whose social role he foresaw with clear vision, but
the idea of turning man into automaton horrified him. For this reason he
is not responsible for the subsequent actions of his disciples, hardly
any of whom were able to follow the master's bold flights of thought.
But Fourier could not have felt any differently in this respect. He, who
saw in association the means of removing the character of slavery from
work, who wanted to make every inclination and passion of man serve the
good of the community through a new education, he, who with his theory
of "attractive work" gave socialism its deeper psychological character
and who imagined the world of the future as a federation of free
productive communes whose network extended over the whole earth, could
certainly not, in the depths of his heart, be enthusiastic about the
ordering wisdom of the legislator. After all, he knew only too well
where the real roots of social slavery were to be found.
It is therefore clear why the first proponents of modern socialist ideas
could not be revolutionary in the ordinary sense of the word, although
their ideas were of outstanding revolutionary significance. Their
primary concern was to revolutionize people's minds, to make them
receptive to the possibility of a different social situation and to
awaken in them the will to change social conditions.
But in this work they lacked almost all the preconditions that exist for
us today and seem quite natural to us. Although it was precisely the
working classes in society that had to be most interested in these new
ideas, the socialists of that period could almost without exception only
appeal to small circles of intellectuals, since a workers' movement in
the modern sense did not yet exist at all, except in England, where the
beginnings of one were already there. There was no system of meetings as
there is today, no socialist press, no organized movement. All of this
had to be created first. For this reason alone, the idea of drawing the
world's attention to the new ideas by practical example and of
convincing people of their inner rightness by peaceful propaganda of
action was very logical.
This laid the foundation for the experimental socialism of that period.
R. Rocker.
https://direkteaktion.org/konstruktiver-sozialismus-i/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten