I think that the libertarian socialist concepts, and by that I mean a range of thinking that extends from
Left-Wing Marxism through Anarchism; I think that these are fundamentally correct and that they are the proper and natural
extension of classical liberalism into the era of Advanced industrial Society in
contrast it seems to me that the ideology of state socialism, that is what has become of bolshevism and
of state Capitalism, the Modern Welfare state.
These of course are dominant in
the Industrial countries and industrial societies
but I believe that they are regressive and
highly inadequate social theories and that a large number of our really fundamental problems stem from A
kind of incompatibility and
inappropriateness of these social forms to a modern industrial society
a French writer rather sympathetic to Anarchism once wrote that Anarchism has a broad back like paper it endures anything and
There are many shades of anarchism
And I'm concerned here only with one namely the anarchism of Bakunin who wrote in his anarchist
Manifesto of 1865 that to be an anarchist one must first be a socialist
I'm concerned with the anarchism of Adolph Fischer one of the martyrs of the
Haymarket affair in 1886 who said that every anarchist is a socialist, but not every socialist is necessarily an anarchist a
Consistent anarchist must oppose private ownership of the means of production
such property is indeed, as
Proudhon, his famous remark asserted, a form of theft
But a consistent anarchist will also oppose
the organization of production by government
I'm quoting, it means state socialism, the command of the state officials over production and the command of
managers, scientists, shop officials in the shop the goal of the working class is liberation from
Exploitation and this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class
Substituting itself for the bourgeoisie it is only realized by the workers themselves being master over production by some form of workers councils
These remarks, it happens, are quoted from the Left-wing Marxist Anton Pannekoek and in fact radical Marxism
What Lenin once called infantile ultra leftism
merges with anarchist currents
There's an important point. I think and let me give one further illustration of this convergence between Left-wing Marxism and
socialist anarchism
Considering the following
characterization of
revolutionary Socialism
The revolutionary socialist Denies that state ownership can end in anything other than a bureaucratic despotism
We have seen why the state cannot democratically control industry
Industry can only be democratically owned and controlled by the workers electing directly from Their own ranks
Industrial administrative committees
Socialism will be fundamentally an industrial system its constituencies will be of an industrial character
Thus those carrying on the social activity and industries of society will be directly represented in the local and central councils of social administration
In this way the powers of such delegates will flow upwards from those carrying on the work and conversant with the needs of the community
When the Central administrative industrial committee meets it will represent every phase of Social activity
Hence the capitalist political or geographical state will be replaced by the industrial administrative committee of socialism
The transition from One social system to the other will be the social revolution
The political state throughout history has meant the government of men by ruling classes
The Republic of Socialism will be the government of industry
administered on behalf of the whole community
the former meant the economic and political
Subjection of the many the latter will mean the economic freedom of all it will be therefore a true democracy
These remarks are taken from a book called the state its origins and function written by William Paul in early
1917 just prior to Lenin's State and Revolution, which is his most libertarian work
William Paul was one founders of the British Communist party later the Editor the British Communist party journal
And it's interesting that his critique of state socialism
Resembles very closely I think the libertarian doctrine of the anarchists in
particular in its principle that the state must disappear
To be replaced by the industrial organization of society in the course of the social revolution itself
Proudhon in 1851 wrote that what we put in place of the government is industrial
organization and many many similar comments can be cited that in a sense is the
fundamental idea of
Anarchist revolutionaries
What's more important than the fact that many such statements can be cited is that these ideas have been realized in Spontaneous revolutionary action
several times for example in Germany and Italy after the first world war in Catalonia in 1936
One might argue at least I would argue that
Council Communism in this sense in the sense of the long quotation that I read is
the natural form of Revolutionary Socialism in an industrial society
It reflects the intuitive understanding that democracy is largely a sham when the industrial system is controlled by any form of autocratic elite
whether of owners managers
technocrats a vanguard party a state bureaucracy or whatever
under these conditions of Authoritarian domination the classical liberal ideals
Which are expressed also by Marx and Bakunin and all true revolutionaries
Cannot be realized man will in other words not be free to inquire and create to develop his own
potentialities to their fullest the worker will remain a fragment of a human being
Degraded a tool in the productive process directed from above
the ideas of Revolutionary Libertarian Socialism in this sense they've been
submerged in the industrial societies of the past half century the
dominant ideologies have been those of state Socialism and state capitalism
But there's been an interesting resurgence in the last couple of years
fact the theses that I quoted from Anton Pannekoek they were taken from a recent pamphlet of a radical French workers group and
the quotation that I read from William Paul on revolutionary Socialism was taken from a paper by
Walter Kendall at the National Conference on workers control in Sheffield, England Last March
both of these groups the French and the English one represents something significant the workers control movement in England in particular
Has developed into a I think remarkably significant force in the last few years it includes some of the largest trade unions for example
the amalgamated engineering federation which I think is the second largest trade unit in England and
which has taken these principles as its
fundamental ideas
It's had a series of successful conferences putting out an interesting Pamphlet literature and on the continent there are parallel developments May
1968 in France of course accelerated the growing interest in
Council Communism and similar ideas other forms of Libertarian Socialism in France and Germany as it did in England
given the general
Conservative cast of our highly ideological Society it not too surprising that the united states is relatively untouched by these currents
but that too may change
the erosion of the Cold War mythology
At least makes it possible to discuss some of these questions
And if the present wave of repression [can] be beaten back
if the left can overcome its more suicidal tendencies and build on the achievements of the past decade the
[problem] of how to organize industrial society on truly democratic lines with democratic control in the workplace as [well] as in the [community]
this should become the dominant intellectual issue for those who are alive [for] the problems of contemporary Society and
and as a mass movement for revolutionary Libertarian Socialism develops as I hope it will
speculation should proceed to action
Now [it] may seem
quixotic to group left Marxism and Anarchism under the same rubric as I've done given the antagonism throughout the past century between
marxists and anarchists beginning with the
Antagonism between
Marx and Angles on the one hand and for example Proudhon and Bakunin on the other in the 19th century at least their differences
with regard to the question of the state was
significant but in a sense it was tactical the
Anarchists were convinced that capitalism and the state must be destroyed together
Angles in a letter of 1883 Expressed his opposition to this idea as follows
The anarchists put the thing upside down they declare that the proletarian revolution must begin by doing away with the political organization of the state
But to destroy it at [such] a moment [would] be to destroy the only organism by means of which the victorious
Proletariat can assert its newly conquered power
Hold down its adversaries and carry out that economic revolution of society without which the whole victory must end in a new
defeat and a mass slaughter of the workers similar to those after the Paris commune
the Paris commune I think it's fair to [say] did represent the ideas [of] Libertarian socialism of anarchism if you like and
Marx of course wrote about it with great enthusiasm
He in fact the experience of the commune led him to modify his concept for the role of the state
As you can see for example by looking at the introduction to the Communist Manifesto the the addition of it was published in 1872
And to take on something like a more anarchist
perspective of the Nature of Social revolution
well the commune was of course drowned in blood as the anarchist communes of Spain were destroyed by Fascist and Communist armies and
It might be argued that more dictatorial structures would have defended the revolution against such forces
But I doubt this very much
at least in the case of Spain
Seems to me that a more consistent libertarian policy might have provided the [only] possible defense of the revolution
Of course this can be contested, and it's a long story which I don't [wanna] go into here, but [at] the very least
It's clear [that] one would have to be rather naive after the events of the past half century
To fail to see the truth in Bakunin's repeated warnings that the red bureaucracy would prove the most vile and terrible lie of the century
He once said take the most radical revolutionary and place him on the throne of all the Russia's, to all Russia,
He said in 1870 or give him a dictatorial power and before a year has passed he will become worse than the Tsar himself
I'm afraid in this respect [Bakunin] was all too perceptive and this kind of warning was repeatedly voiced from the from the left
For example the anarcho-syndicalist Fernand Pelloutier asked
1890s must even the transitory state to which we have to submit
Necessarily and fatally be the collectivist
Jail? Can't it assist in a free organization limited exclusively by the needs of production and consumption all political institutions having disappeared?
I don't pretend to know the answer to that question
But I think it's tolerably clear that unless the answer is positive
The chances for a truly democratic revolution that will achieve the humanistic ideals of the left are perhaps rather slight
I think Martin Buber put problem quite succinctly when he said
One cannot in the nature of things expect a little tree that has been turned into a club to put forth leaves
for just this reason
It's essential that a powerful revolutionary movement exists in the united states if there are to be any reasonable
possibilities for democratic social change of a radical Sort any within a capitalist world and
Comparable remarks, I think undoubtedly hold for the Russian Empire
Lenin till the end of his life stressed the idea
I quote that it is an elementary truth of Marxism
that the victory of Socialism requires the joint effort of workers in a number of Advanced countries at
the very least it requires that the great centers of world imperialism be impeded by
Domestic pressures from Counter Revolutionary intervention only such possibilities will permit any revolution to overthrow
its own
Coercive state institutions as it tries to bring the economy under direct democratic control
I've mentioned so far two reference points for a discussion of the state classical liberalism and libertarian socialism
They're in agreement that the functions of the state are repressive and that state action must be limited
The Libertarian socialist goes on to insist that the state power must be eliminated in favor of the democratic organization of industrial society
With direct popular control over all institutions by those who
Participate in as well as those who are directly affected by the workings of these institutions
So one might imagine then a system of workers' councils, consumers' Councils, Commune assemblies, regional Federation's, and so on
With the kind of representation that's direct and revocable in the sense that
Representatives are directly answerable to and returned directly to the well-defined and integrated social group
for which they speak in some higher-order
organization something obviously very different than our system of representation
Now it might very well be asked whether such a social structure is feasible in a complex highly technological society
There are counter arguments
and I think they fall into two [main] categories first category is that such an organization is contrary to human Nature and
The second category says roughly that it's incompatible with the demands of efficiency, and I'd like to briefly consider each of these
Consider the first that a free society is contrary to human nature
It's often ask do men really want freedom? Do they want the responsibility [that] goes with it?
Or would they prefer to be ruled by a benevolent master?
Consistently apologists for the existing [distribution] of power have held to one or another version of the idea of the happy slave
200 Years ago Rousseau denounced the sophistic politicians and intellectuals
Who searched for ways to obscure the fact, so he maintained, that the essential and defining property of man is freedom
They attribute to man a natural inclination to servitude without thinking that it is the same for freedom as for innocence and virtue
Their value is felt only as long as one enjoys them oneself and the taste for them is lost
As soon as one has lost them
As proof of this doctrine he refers to the marvels done by all free peoples to guard themselves from oppression
True, he says, those who have abandoned the life of a free man
Do nothing but boast incessantly of the peace and repose they enjoy in their chains
But when I see the other sacrifice pleasures repose wealth power and life itself for the preservation of this soul good
Which is so disdained by those who have lost it when I see multitudes of entirely naked Savages scorn European voluptuousness
and endure hunger fire the sword and death to preserve only their independence
[I] feel it does not behoove slaves to reason about freedom a
comment which
To which we can perhaps give a contemporary interpretation
Rather similar thoughts were expressed by [Immanuel] Kant 40 years later
He cannot he says accept the proposition that
certain people are not right [for] freedom for example the serfs of some landlord if
one accepts this assumption he writes freedom will never be achieved
For one cannot arrive at the maturity for freedom without having already acquired it
One must be free to learn how to make use of one's powers freely and usefully
The first attempts will surely be brutal and will lead to a state of affairs more painful and dangerous than the former condition
under the dominance
but also the protection of an external authority
However one can achieve reason only through one's own experiences and one must be free to be able to undertake them
To accept the principle that freedom is worthless for those under one's control and that one has the right to refuse it to them forever
Is an infringement on the right of God himself who has created man to be free
this particular remark is
Interesting because of its context as well. Kant, in this occasion, was defending French revolution during terror
against those who claimed that it showed the masses to be unready for the privilege of freedom and
His remarks to I think have obvious contemporary Relevance
No rational person will approve of violence and terror and in particular the terror of the post-revolutionary state
Which is fallen into the hands of a grim autocracy has more than once reached indescribable levels of savagery
at the same time no person of
Understanding or humanity will too quickly condemn the violence that often occurs when long subdued masses
Rise against their oppressors or take their first steps towards liberty and social reconstruction
Humboldt just a Few years before Kant had expressed the view very similar to that he also said that freedom and variety are the
preconditions for human self-realization
Nothing promotes this ripeness for freedom so much as freedom itself
This truth perhaps may not be acknowledged by those who have so often used this unripeness as an excuse for continuing repression
But it seems to me to follow unquestionably from the very nature of man
The incapacity for freedom can only arise from a want of Moral and intellectual power
to heighten this power is the only way to supply the want but to do so
presupposes the freedom which awakens spontaneous activity and those who do not comprehend this he says may justly be suspected of
Misunderstanding Human Nature and wishing to make men into machines
Rosa Luxemburg's
fraternal sympathetic Critique of Bolshevik ideology and practice was given in very similar terms
Only the active participation of the masses [in] self-government [and] social reconstruction
Could bring about what she described as the complete spiritual transformation
in the masses degraded by centuries of bourgeois class rule
just as only their creative experience and spontaneous action can Solve the myriad problems of creating a
Libertarian Socialist Society
she went on to
Say that historically the [errors] committed by a truly revolutionary movement are infinitely more fruitful than the infallibility of the Cleverest central
committee and
[I] think that these remarks
Can be translated immediately for the somewhat parallel ideology of the soulful corporation
Which is now fairly popular among American academics for example Carl Kaysen who writes
No longer the agent of proprietorship seeking to maximize return on investment
Management sees itself as responsible to stockholders, employees, customers, the general public, and perhaps most important, the firm itself as an institution
There is no display of Greed or grasping this
There's no attempt to push off on the workers of the community at least part of the social costs of the enterprise
The Modern Corporation is a Soulful corporation
Similarly the [vanguard] party is a soulful party and in both cases those who urge [that] men submit to the rule of these benevolent
Autocracies may I think justly be accused of wishing to make men into machines
Now the correctness of the view which is expressed by rousseau and Kant and Humboldt and luxembourg and innumerable others
I don't think that the correctness of this is at the moment
Susceptible to scientific proof -- one can only evaluate it in terms of experience and intuition
But one can also point out the social consequences of adopting the view that men are born to be free
Or that they are born to be ruled by Benevolent Autocrats
[what] of the second question the question of efficiency is democratic control of the industrial system down to its smallest functional units
Incompatible with efficiency? This is very frequently argued on several grounds some say for example that centralized management is a technological
imperative
But I think the argument is exceedingly weak when one looks into it
The very same technology that brings relevant information to the board of managers
Can bring it at the time that it is needed to everyone in the Workforce
The technology that's now capable of eliminating the stupefying labor that turns men into specialized tools of production
this technology permits in Principle leisure and the educational opportunities that make them able to use this information in a rational way and
Furthermore even an
Economic elite which is dripping with soulfulness to use Ralph Miliband's phrase
Is constrained by the system in which it functions to organize production for certain ends: power, growth, profit
But not in the nature of the case human needs, needs that to an evermore critical degree can be expressed only in collective terms
It's surely conceivable and perhaps It's even likely that
Decisions made by the collective itself will reflect these needs and interests as well as those made [by] various Soulful elites in
Any event it's a bit difficult to take seriously
Arguments about efficiency in a society that devotes such enormous resources to waste and destruction
As everyone knows the very concept of efficiency is dripping with ideology
Maximum maximization of commodities is hardly the only measure of a decent existence the point is familiar and no elaboration is necessary
