💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › saverio-merlino-dangerous-fallacies.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:05:10. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Dangerous Fallacies Author: Saverio Merlino Date: January 1896 Language: en Topics: individualism Source: https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/progress-reports/saverio-merlino-dangerous-fallacies-1896/ Notes: S. Merlino, “Dangerous Fallacies,” Liberty (London) 3 no. 1 (January, 1896): 2-3.
Anarchists, whether individualistic or communistic, and even some Social
Democrats, are fond of speaking of the “absolute sovereignty of the
individual,” and they claim for each individual “free access to the
means of production.” “Let everybody do whatever he likes,” they say,
and the implication is that society will then be organized to
perfection, or rather that it will do without organization, individuals
will agree or disagree, groups will cooperate spontaneously, without any
coercive power, without any settled plan, and without any permanent
individual initiative. Every man will go to his work, will choose his
own accord or be allowed the occupation most congenial to his own
aptitudes, and yet that will happen to be the very sort of work society
at that moment is peculiarly in need of. Each individual will likewise
consume what he may take a fancy to, consulting but his own pleasure,
and yet he will not waste the resources of society—he will not destroy
the means for further production, nor appropriate to his secondary needs
that which is essential to the subsistence of his fellow men. And it is
also said, that in spite of the complications of social relations—of
individual interests, in spite of the variety of needs, capabilities,
climates, customs, civilizations, etc., no man would try and get the
best of his neighbor, each would act in a true spirit of solidarity, and
no conflict of any kind would arise, but perfect order and harmony would
prevail. And it is sometimes assumed that science would suggest to each
individual the right function to perform in society, would prescribe his
food, measure his volume of air, light, etc., and would indicate the
best purpose to which might be turned each parcel of the soil and each
stock of commodities. Indeed, each individual would carry in his head
the whole plan of social economy, and, wonderful enough, the plan of
each would exactly coincide with those of the hundreds of millions of
his fellow men. And ultimately there would be such an abundance of all
the good things of this world—each region, perhaps each group if not
each individual, would supply all necessary requirements, that even
exchanges would not be any longer requisite.
Such things have been said and repeated with an insistence and a good
faith worthy of a better cause. No doubt many a great truth underlies
such paradoxes—truths which it is all-important to bring home to the
people. For instance, it should be known that human society is not even
now altogether led by the weak threads called laws, rules, and
punishments, handed down by cunning and rapacious men to suit their own
interests. There are other forces at play besides police and
tribunals—besides rent, profit, and interest. There are ignored or
suppressed energies in the masses of the people, the powerful spring of
common interests, the manifest advantages of cooperation, and lastly,
but not least, the sentiment of solidarity; and these may grow by
education and constant practice to become part and parcel of human
nature.
But, this admission having been made, we must look the practical
difficulties of a social re-organization square in the face, and admit
that society is much more complicated than it appears to some people to
be. We have to discard the notion of the “perfect individual,” which is
at the bottom of many of the views just referred to.
We must also, however unwillingly, refuse to believe that science can
provide us with an incontrovertible ready-made solution of the problem
of the organization of labor and distribution of the produce. Science
may perhaps one day give us the data for such a solution, or rather for
a variety of solutions, the number of possible combinations being
infinite, but the practical solution must be found out by man in each
particular case.
We must also dismiss the supposition of such an abundant supply of the
various commodities being at once obtained that men shall have more than
they require for the actual satisfaction of their needs. Of course if
such an abundant supply of commodities were the immediate result of new
social surroundings things might proceed smoothly enough under almost
any system. Men’s needs, however, are not a fixed quantity—they admit of
indefinite expansion. The production of superfluous commodities is not
likely to occur, but as soon as there be enough of a certain commodity
other commodities will be produced and the standard or life will be
raised.
There is but one argument left in favor of the views which I am
criticizing—that the individual will exercise discretion in his choice
of labor, and in his choice of consumption—that he will not shirk work,
nor take more than his legitimate share of the common stock—that labor
will be a pleasure and consumption will be a matter of indifference to
him.
Speaking however of the immediate future we must expect there will still
be people who, by education, tradition, and instinct, will be willing to
live at other people’s expense. It will suffice that a few such people
set an example: many more will follow.
But let us waive this objection, and suppose a society composed of the
very best men. How could the individual know what particular labor his
fellow-men expect of him at any time? How could he know what commodities
he might consume without injury to them? How could each group know what
raw materials it might receive of other groups? How could it be
prevented that one or many groups, severally or jointly, took advantage
either of the more favorable situation of their land, factory, mine, or
railway, of a new invention, the opening of a road, or even of their own
greater industry, skill, or thrift, in order to dictate harsh terms to
other groups or individuals, accumulate wealth, and ultimately become a
menace to the liberty and well being of the people?
These problems admit of no solution so long as we take our stand on the
principle of liberty or the will or the needs of the individual, and
leave social interests—(by which I men the permanent interest of a
community, in the continuity of its existence over and above the
monetary or apparent interests of the individual)—to chance arrangements
of individuals.
What the real Anarchist-Socialist solution of these problems might be I
will try to explain in another article.