💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › james-guillaume-ideas-on-social-organization.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:16:47. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Ideas on Social Organization Author: James Guillaume Date: 1876 Language: en Topics: after the revolution, education, organization Source: Retrieved on 23 April 2011 from http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/guillaume/works/ideas.htm Notes: Written: August 1874; Source: Bakunin on Anarchy, translated and edited by Sam Dolgoff, 1971.
The ideas outlined in the following pages can be effectively achieved
only by means of a revolutionary movement. It takes more than a day for
the great flood to break the dyke; the floodwaters mount slowly,
imperceptibly. But once the crest of the flood is reached, the collapse
is sudden, the dyke is washed away in the winking of an eye. We can
distinguish, then, two successive acts, the second being the necessary
consequence of the first. At first there is the slow transformation of
ideas, of needs, of the motives for action germinating in the womb of
society; the second begins when this transformation is sufficiently
advanced to pass into action. Then there is a brusque and decisive
turning point — the revolution — which is the culmination of a long
process of evolution, the sudden manifestation of a change long prepared
for and therefore inevitable.
No serious-minded man would venture to predict exactly how the
Revolution, the indispensable condition for social renovation, will come
about. Revolution is a natural fact, and not the act of a few persons;
it does not take place according to a preconceived plan but is produced
by uncontrollable circumstances which no individual can command. We do
not, therefore, intend to draw up a blueprint for the future
revolutionary campaign; we leave this childish task to those who;
believe in the possibility and the efficacy of achieving the
emancipation of humanity through personal dictatorship. We will confine
ourselves, on the contrary, to describing the kind of revolution most
attractive to us and the ways it can be freed from past errors.
The character of the revolution must at first be negative, destructive.
Instead of modifying certain institutions of the past, or adapting them
to a new order, it will do away with them altogether. Therefore, the
government will be uprooted, along with the Church, the army, the
courts, the schools, the banks, and all their subservient institutions.
At the same time the Revolution has a positive goal, that the workers
take possession of all capital and the tools of production. Let us
explain what is meant by the phrase “taking possession.”
Let us begin with the peasants and problems concerning the land. In many
countries, particularly in France, the priests and the bourgeoisie try
to frighten the peasants by telling them that the Revolution will take
their land away from them. This is an outrageous lie concocted by the
enemies of the people. The Revolution would take an exactly opposite
course: it would take the land from the bourgeoisie, the nobles, and the
priests and give it to the landless peasants. If a piece of land belongs
to a peasant who cultivates it himself, the Revolution would not touch
it. On the contrary, it would guarantee free possession and liquidate
all debts arising from the land. This land which once enriched the
treasury and was overburdened with taxes and weighed down by mortgages
would, like the peasant, be emancipated. No more taxes, no more
mortgages; the land becomes free, just like the man!
As to the land owned by the bourgeoisie, the clergy, and the nobles —
land hitherto cultivated by landless laborers for the benefit of their
masters — the Revolution will return this stolen land to the rightful
owners, the agricultural workers.
How will the Revolution take the land from the exploiters and give it to
the peasants? Formerly, when the bourgeois made a political revolution,
when they staged one of those movements which resulted only in a change
of masters dominating the people, they usually printed decrees,
proclaiming to the people the will of the new government. These decrees
were posted in the communes and the courts, and the mayor, the
gendarmes, and the prosecutors enforced them. The real people’s
revolution will not follow this model; it will not rule by decrees, it
will not depend on the services of the police or the machinery of
government. It is not with decrees, with words written on paper, that
the Revolution will emancipate the people but with deeds.
We will now consider how the peasants will go about deriving the
greatest possible benefit from their means of production, the land.
Immediately after the Revolution the peasants will be faced with a mixed
situation. Those who are already small proprietors will keep their plots
of land and continue to cultivate it with the help of their families.
The others, and they are by far the most numerous, who rented the land
from the big landowners or were simply agricultural wage laborers
employed by the owners, will take collective possession of the vast
tracts of land and work them in common.
Which of these two systems is best?
It is not a matter of what is theoretically desirable but of starting
with the facts and seeing what can be immediately achieved. From this
point of view, we say first that in this mixed economy the main purpose
of the Revolution has been achieved: the land is now the property of
those who cultivate it, and the peasants no longer work for the profit
of an idle exploiter who lives by their sweat. This great victory
gained, the rest is of secondary importance. The peasants can, if they
wish, divide the land into individual parcels and give each family a
share. Or else, and this would be much better, they can institute common
ownership and cooperative cultivation of the land. Although secondary to
the main point, i.e., the emancipation of the peasant, this question of
how best to work the land and what form of possession is best also
warrants careful consideration.
In a region which had been populated before the Revolution by peasants
owning small farms, where the nature of the soil is not very suitable
for extensive, large-scale cultivation, where agriculture has been
conducted in the same way for ages, where machinery is unknown or rarely
used — in such a region the peasants will naturally conserve the form of
ownership to which they are accustomed. Each peasant will continue to
cultivate the land as he did in the past, with this single difference:
his former hired hands, if he had any, will become his partners and
share with him the products which their common labor extracts from the
land.
It is possible that in a short time those peasants who remain small
proprietors will find it advantageous to modify their traditional system
of labor and production. If so, they will first associate to create a
communal agency to sell or exchange their products; this first
associated venture will encourage them to try others of a similar
nature. They would then, in common, acquire various machines to
facilitate their work; they would take turns to help each other perform
certain laborious tasks which are better accomplished when they are done
rapidly by a large team; and they would no doubt finally imitate their
brothers, the industrial workers, and those working on big farms, and
decide to pool their land and form an agricultural association. But even
if they linger for sonic years ill the same old routine, even if a whole
generation should elapse before the peasants ill some communes adopt the
system of collective property, it would still not constitute a serious
hindrance to the Revolution. The great achievements of the Revolution
will not be affected; the Revolution will have abolished agricultural
wage slavery and peonage and the agricultural proletariat will consist
only of free workers living ill peace and plenty, even in the midst of
the few remaining backward areas.
On the other hand, in large-scale agricultural operations, where a great
number of workers are needed to farm vast areas, where coordination and
cooperation are absolutely essential, collective labor will naturally
lead to collective property. An agricultural collective may embrace an
entire commune [autonomous regional unit] and, if economically necessary
for efficiency and greater production, many communes.
In these vast communities of agricultural workers, the land will not be
worked as it is today, by small peasant owners trying without success to
raise many different crops on tiny parcels of unsuitable land. There
will not be growing side by side oil one acre a little square of wheat,
a little square of potatoes, another of grapes, another of fodder,
another of fruit, etc. Each bit of land tends, by virtue of its physical
properties, its location, its chemical composition, to be most suitable
for the successful cultivation of certain specific crops. Wheat will not
be planted on soil suitable for grapes, nor potatoes on soil that could
best be used for pasture. The agricultural community, if it has only one
type of soil, will confine itself to the cultivation of crops which can
be produced ill quantity and quality with less labor, and the community
will prefer to exchange its products for those it lacks instead of
trying to grow them in small quantity and poor quality on unsuitable
land.
The internal organization of these agricultural communities need not
necessarily he identical; organizational forms and procedures will vary
greatly according to the preferences of the associated workers. So long
as they conform to the principles of justice and equality, the
administration of the community, elected by all the members, could be
entrusted either to an individual or to a commission of many members. It
will even be possible to separate the different administrative
functions, assigning each function to a special commission. The hours of
labor will be fixed not by a general law applicable to an entire
country, but by the decision of the community itself; but as the
community contracts relations with all the other agricultural workers of
the region, an agreement covering uniform working hours will probably be
reached. Whatever items are produced by collective labor will belong to
the community, and each member will receive remuneration for his labor
either in the form of commodities (subsistence, supplies, clothing,
etc.) or in currency. In some communities remuneration will be in
proportion to hours worked; in others payment will be measured by both
the hours of work and the kind of work performed; still other systems
will be experimented with to see how they work out.
The problem of property having been resolved, and there being no
capitalists placing a tax on the labor of the masses, the question of
types of distribution and remuneration become secondary. We should to
the greatest possible extent institute and be guided by the principle
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. When,
thanks to the progress of scientific industry and agriculture,
production comes to outstrip consumption, and this will be attained some
years after the Revolution, it will no longer be necessary to stingily
dole out each worker’s share of goods. Everyone will draw what he needs
from the abundant social reserve of commodities, without fear of
depletion; and the moral sentiment which will be more highly developed
among free and equal workers will prevent, or greatly reduce, abuse and
waste. In the meantime, each community will decide for itself during the
transition period the method they deem best for the distribution of the
products of associated labor.
We must distinguish different types of industrial workers, just as we
distinguished different kinds of peasants. There are, first of all,
those crafts in which the tools are simple, where the division of labor
is almost nonexistent, and where the isolated worker could produce as
much alone as he would by associated labor. These include, for example,
tailors, shoemakers, barbers, upholsterers, and photographers. It must,
however, be remarked that even in these trades, large-scale mass
production can be applied to save time and labor. What we say,
therefore, applies primarily to the transitional period.
Next in order are the trades requiring the collective labor of numerous
workers using small hand-operated machinery and generally employed in
workshops and foundries, printing plants, woodworking plants,
brickworks, etc.
Finally, there is the third category of industries where the division of
labor is much greater, where production is on a massive scale
necessitating complicated and expensive machinery and the investment of
considerable capital; for example, textile mills, steel mills,
metallurgical plants, etc.
For workers operating within the first category of industry, collective
work is not a necessity; and in many cases the tailor or the cobbler may
prefer to work alone in his own small shop. It is quite natural that in
every commune there will be one or perhaps several workers employed in
each of these trades. Without, however, wishing to underestimate in any
way the importance of individual independence, we think that wherever
practical, collective labor is best; in a society of equals, emulation
stimulates the worker to produce more and heightens morale; further,
work in common permits each worker to learn from the experience and
skill of the others and this redounds to the benefit of the unit as a
whole.
As to the workers in the remaining two categories, it is evident that
collective labor is imposed by the very nature of the work and, since
the tools of labor are no longer simple individual tools but machines
that must be tended by many workers, the machines must also be
collectively owned.
Each workshop, each factory, will organize itself into an association of
workers who will be free to administer production and organize their
work as they think best, provided that the rights of each worker are
safeguarded and the principles of equality and justice are observed. In
the preceding chapter, while discussing the associations or communities
of agricultural workers, we dealt with management, hours of labor,
remuneration, and distribution of products. The same observations apply
also to industrial labor, and it is therefore unnecessary to repeat them
here. We have just said that particularly where an industry requires
complicated machinery and collective labor, the ownership of the
machinery of production should also be collective. But one point remains
to be clarified. Will these tools belong to all the workers in each
factory, or will they belong to the corporation comprising all the
workers in each particular industry? [Corporation here is equivalent to
industrial union.]
Our opinion is that the second of these alternatives is preferable.
When, for example, on the day of the Revolution, the typographical
workers of Rome take possession of all the print shops of Rome, they
will call a general meeting and proclaim that all the printing plants in
Rome are the property of the Roman printers. Since it will be entirely
possible and necessary, they will go a step further and unite in a pact
of solidarity with all the printing workers in every city of Italy. The
result of this pact will be the organization of all the printing plants
of Italy as the collective property of the typographical federation of
Italy. In this way the Italian printers will be able to work in any city
in their country and have full rights and full use of tools and
facilities.
But when we say that ownership of the tools of production, including the
factory itself, should revert to the corporation, we do not mean that
the workers in the individual workshops will be ruled by any kind of
industrial government having the power to do what it pleases with the
tools of production. No, the workers in the various factories have not
the slightest intention of handing over their hard-won control of the
tools of production to a superior power calling itself the
“corporation.” What they will do is, under certain specified conditions,
to guarantee reciprocal use of their tools of production and accord to
their fellow workers in other factories the right to share their
facilities, receiving in exchange the same right to share the facilities
of the fellow workers with whom they have contracted the pact of
solidarity.
The commune consists of all the workers living in the same locality.
Disregarding very few exceptions, the typical commune can be defined as
the local federation of groups of producers. This local federation or
commune is organized to provide certain services which are not within
the exclusive jurisdiction or capacity of any particular corporation
[industrial union] but which concerns all of them, and which for this
reason are called public services. The communal public services can be
enumerated as follows:
All houses are the property of the commune. The Revolution made,
everyone continues for the time being to live in the same quarters
occupied by him before the Revolution, except for families which had
been forced to live in very dilapidated or overcrowded dwellings. Such
families will be immediately relocated at the expense of the commune in
vacant apartments formerly occupied or owned by the rich.
The construction of new houses containing healthy, spacious rooms
replacing the miserable slums of the old ghettos will be one of the
first needs of the new society. The commune will immediately begin this
construction in a way that will not only furnish work for the
corporations of masons, carpenters, ironworkers, tilers, roofers, etc.,
but will also provide useful work for the mass of people who, having no
trade, lived in idleness before the revolution. They would be employed
as laborers in the immense construction and road-building an d paving
projects which will then be initiated everywhere, especially in the
cities.
The new housing will be constructed at the expense of the commune, which
means that in exchange for the work done by the various building
corporations these corporations will receive from the commune vouchers
enabling them to acquire all commodities necessary for the decent
maintenance and well-being of their members. And since the new housing
has been constructed at public expense, this system will enable and
require free housing to be available for all.
Free housing might well cause serious disputes because people living in
bad housing will compete with each other for the new accommodations. But
we think that it would be a mistake to fear serious friction, and for
the following reasons: First we must concede that the desire for new and
better housing is a legitimate and just demand; and this just demand
will stimulate the building workers to make even greater efforts to
speed construction of good housing.
But while awaiting new construction people will have to be patient and
do the best they can with the existing facilities. The commune will, as
we have said, attend to the most pressing needs of the poorest families,
relocating them in the vast palaces of the rich; and as to the rest of
the people, we believe that revolutionary enthusiasm will stimulate and
inspire them with the spirit of generosity and self-sacrifice, and that
they will be glad to endure for a little longer the discomforts of poor
housing; nor will they be inclined to quarrel with a neighbor who
happens to have gotten a new apartment a little sooner. In a reasonably
short time, thanks to the prodigious efforts of the building workers
powerfully stimulated by the demand for new housing, there will be
plenty of housing for all and everyone will be sure to find satisfactory
accommodations.
All this may seem fantastic to those whose vision goes no further than
the horizon of bourgeois society; these measures are, on the contrary,
so simple and practical that it will be humanly impossible for things to
go otherwise. Will the legions of masons and other building workers be
permanently and incessantly occupied with the construction of new
housing worthy of a civilized society? Will it take many years of
incessant labor to supply everyone with good housing? No, it will take a
short time. And when they will have finished the main work, will they
then fold their arms and do nothing? No, they will continue to work at a
slower pace, remodeling existing housing; and little by little the old
somber quarters, the crooked filthy streets, the miserable houses and
alleys that now infest our cities will disappear and be replaced by
mansions where the workers can live like human beings.
In the new society there will no longer be communes in the sense that
this word is understood today, as mere political-geographical entities.
Every commune will establish a Bank of Exchange whose mechanics we will
explain as clearly as possible.
The workers’ association, as well as the individual producers (in the
remaining privately owned portions of production), will deposit their
unconsumed commodities in the facilities provided by the Bank of
Exchange, the value of the commodities having been established in
advance by a contractual agreement between the regional cooperative
federations and the various communes, who will also furnish statistics
to the Banks of Exchange. The Bank of Exchange will remit to the
producers negotiable vouchers representing the value of their products;
these vouchers will be accepted throughout the territory included in the
federation of communes.
Goods of prime necessity, i.e., those essential to life and health, will
be transported to the various communal markets which, pending new
construction, will use the old stores and warehouses of the former
merchants. Some of the markets will distribute foodstuffs, others
clothes, others household goods, etc.
Goods destined for export will remain in the general warehouses until
called for by the communes.
Among the commodities deposited in the facilities of the Bank of
Exchange will be goods for consumption by the commune itself, such as
food, lumber, clothes, etc., and goods to be exchanged for those
produced by other communes.
At this point we anticipate an objection. We will probably be asked:
“the Bank of Exchange in each commune will remit to the producers, by
means of vouchers, the value of their products, before being sure that
they are in demand; and if these products are not in demand, and pile up
unused, what will be the position of the Bank of Exchange? Will it not
risk losses, or even ruin, and in this kind of operation is there not
always the risk that the vouchers will be overdrawn?”
We reply that each Bank of Exchange makes sure in advance that these
products are in demand and, therefore, risks nothing by immediately
issuing payment vouchers to the producers.
There will be, of course, certain categories of workers engaged in the
construction or manufacture of immovable goods, goods which cannot be
transported to the repositories of the Bank of Exchange, for example,
buildings. In such cases the Bank of Exchange will serve as the
intermediary; the workers will register the property with the Bank of
Exchange. The value of the property will be agreed upon in advance. and
the bank will deliver this value in exchange vouchers. The same
procedure will be followed in dealing with the various workers employed
by the administrative services of the communes; their work resulting not
in manufactured products but in services rendered. These services will
have to be priced in advance, and the Bank of Exchange will pay their
value in vouchers.
The Bank of Exchange will not only receive products belonging to the
workers of the commune; it will correspond with other communes and
arrange to procure goods which the commune is obliged to get from
outside sources, such as certain foodstuffs, fuels, manufactured
products, etc. These outside products will be featured side by side with
local goods. The consumers will pay for the commodities in the various
markets with vouchers of different denominations, and all goods will be
uniformly priced.
It is evident from our description that the operations of the Bank of
Exchange do not differ essentially from the usual commercial procedures.
These operations are in effect nothing but buying and selling; the bank
buys from the producers and sells to the consumers. But we think that
after a certain length of time the functions of the Banks of Exchange
will be reduced without inconvenience and that a new system will
gradually replace the old system: exchange in the traditional sense will
give way to distribution, pure and simple. What do we mean by this?
As long as a product is in short supply it will to a certain extent have
to be rationed. And the easiest way to do this would be to sell these
scarce products at a price so high that only people who really need them
would be willing to buy them. But when the prodigious growth of
production, which will not fail to take place when work is rationally
organized, produces an oversupply of this or that product, it will not
be necessary to ration consumption. The practice of selling, which was
adopted as a sort of deterrent to immoderate consumption, will be
abolished; the communal banks will no longer sell commodities, they will
distribute them in accordance with the needs of the consumers.
The replacement of exchange by distribution will first, and in a
comparatively short time, be applied to articles of prime necessity, for
the workers will concentrate all their efforts to produce these
necessities in abundance. Other commodities, formerly scarce and today
considered luxuries, will in a reasonable length of time be produced in
great quantity and will no longer be rationed. On the other hand, rare
and useless baubles, such as pearls, diamonds, certain precious metals,
etc., will cease to have the value attributed to them by public opinion
and will be used for research by scientific associations, as components
of certain tools, e.g., industrial diamonds, or displayed as curios in
museums of natural history.
The question of food supply is a sort of postscript to our discussion of
exchange. What we said about the organization of the Bank of Exchange
applies in general to all products, including foodstuffs. However, we
think it useful to add in a special section a more detailed account of
the measures dealing with distribution of the principal food products.
At present the bakeshops, meat stores, wine and liquor shops, imported
food stores, etc., are all surrendered to private industry and to
speculators and these, by all kinds of fraud, enrich themselves at the
expense of the consumers. The new society must immediately try to
correct this situation by placing under communal public service the
distribution of all the most essential foodstuffs.
This must be borne in mind: we do not mean to imply that the commune
will take possession of certain branches of production. No. Production
in the true sense of the term will remain in the hands of the
associations of producers. But, for example, what is involved in the
production of bread? Nothing beyond the growing of wheat. The farmer
sows and reaps the grain and transports it to the warehouses of the Bank
of Exchange; his function as producer ends at this point. Grinding grain
into flour or changing flour into bread is not production; it is work
similar to that performed by various employees in the communal markets,
work designed to put a food product, bread, at the disposal of the
consumer. The same goes for meat, etc.
Thus viewed, it is only logical that the processing and distribution of
foodstuffs — baking, slaughtering, winemaking, etc. — should be
performed by the commune. Thus, wheat from the warehouses of the commune
will be ground into flour in the communal flour mill (which will be
shared with several communes); the flour will be transformed into bread
in the communal bakeries and delivered to the consumers in the communal
markets. It will be the same for meats: the animals will be slaughtered
in the communal slaughterhouse and cut up in the communal butcher shops.
Wines will be preserved in the communal wine cellars and bottled and
distributed by special employees. Finally, all the other perishable food
commodities will be kept fresh in communal warehouses and kept in glass
enclosures in the communal markets.
Above all, immediate efforts must be made to institute the free
distribution of certain essential foods, such as bread, meat, wine,
dairy products, etc. When abundant food is available and free for all,
civilization in general will have taken a giant step forward.
The main function of the Communal Statistical Commission will be to
gather and classify all statistical information pertaining to the
commune. The various corporations or associations of production will
constantly keep up-to-date records of membership and changes in
personnel so that it will be possible to know instantly the number of
employees in the various branches of production.
The Bank of Exchange will provide the Statistical Commission with the
most complete figures and all other relevant facts on the production and
consumption of goods. By means of statistics gathered from all the
communes in a region, it will be possible to scientifically balance
production and consumption. In line with these statistics, it will also
be possible to add more help in industries where production is
insufficient and reduce the number of men where there is a surplus of
production. Statistics will also make it easy to fit working hours to
the productive needs of society. It will be equally possible to
estimate, not perfectly, but enough for practical purposes, the relative
value of the labor time involved in the various products, which will
serve as the criteria for the prices of the Banks of Exchange.
But this is not all. The Statistical Commission will be able to perform
some of the functions that are today exercised by the civil state, for
example, recording births and deaths. We do not include marriage because
in a free society, the voluntary union of a man and a woman will no
longer be an official but a purely personal matter, not subject to, or
requiring, public sanction.
There are many other uses for statistics: in relation to diseases,
weather phenomena, in short, all facts which regularly gathered and
classified can serve as a guide to the development of science and
learning in general.
Under the general heading Hygiene, we have assembled the various public
services which are indispensable to the maintenance of public health.
First, of course, are medical services, which will be free of charge to
all the inhabitants of the commune. The doctors will not be like
capitalists, trying to extract the greatest possible profits from their
unfortunate patients. They will be employed by the commune and expected
to treat all who need their services. But medical treatment is only the
curative side of the science of health care; it is not enough to treat
the sick, it is also necessary to prevent disease. This is the true
function of hygiene....
This service embraces the necessary measures to guarantee to all
inhabitants of the commune the security of their person and the
protection of their homes, their possessions, etc., against deprivation
and accident (fire, floods, etc.).
There will probably be very little brigandage and robbery in a society
where each lives in full freedom to enjoy the fruits of his labor and
where almost all his needs will be abundantly fulfilled. Material
well-being, as well as the intellectual and moral progress which are the
products of a truly humane education, available to all, will almost
eliminate crimes due to perversion, brutality, and other infirmities. It
will nevertheless still he necessary to take precautions for the
security of persons. This service, which can be called (if the phrase
has not too bad a connotation) the Communal Police, will not be
entrusted, as it is today, to a special, official body; all able-bodied
inhabitants will be called upon to take turns in the security measures
instituted by the commune.
It will doubtless be asked how those committing murder and other violent
crimes will be treated in the new equalization society. Obviously
society cannot, on the pretext of respect for individual rights — and
the negation of authority, permit a murderer to run loose, or wait for a
friend of the victim to avenge him. The murderer will have to be
deprived of his liberty and confined to a special house until he can
without danger be returned to society. How is the criminal to be treated
during his confinement? And according to what principles should his term
be fixed? These are delicate questions on which opinions vary widely. We
must learn from experience, but this much we already know: that thanks
to the beneficent effects of education (see below) crimes will he rare.
Criminals being an exception, they will be treated like the sick and the
deranged; the problem of crime which today gives so many jobs to judges,
jailers, and police will lose its social importance and become simply a
chapter in medical history.
The first point to be considered is the question of child support (food,
clothes, toys, etc.). Today parents not only support their children but
also supervise their education. This is a custom based on a false
principle, a principle that regards the child as the personal property
of the parents. The child belongs to no one, he belongs only to himself;
and during the period when he is unable to protect himself and is
thereby exposed to exploitation, it is society that must protect him and
guarantee his free development. It is also society that must support him
and supervise his education. In supporting him and paying for his
education, society is only making an advance “loan” which the child will
repay when he becomes an adult producer.
It is society and not the parents who will be responsible for the upkeep
of the child. This principle once established, we believe that we should
abstain from specifying the exact manner in which this principle should
be applied: to do otherwise would risk trying to achieve a Utopia.
Therefore the application must be left to free experimentation and we
must await the lessons of practical experience. We say only that
vis-Ă -vis the child, society is represented by the commune, and that
each commune will have to determine what would be best for the
upbringing of the child; here they would have life in common, there they
would leave children in care of the mother, at least up to a certain
age, etc.
But this is only one aspect of the problem. The commune feeds, clothes,
and lodges the children, but who will teach them, who will develop their
best characteristics and train them as producers? According to what plan
and principles will their education be conducted?
To these questions we reply: the education of children must be
integrated; that is, it must at the same time develop both the physical
and mental faculties and make the child into a whole man. This education
must not be entrusted solely to a specialized caste of teachers; all
those who know a science, an art, or a craft can and should be called
upon to teach.
We must distinguish two stages in the education of children: the first
stage, where the child of five or six is not yet old enough to study
science, and where the emphasis is on the development of the physical
faculties; and a second stage, where children twelve to sixteen years of
age would be introduced to the various divisions of human knowledge
while at the same time learning one or more crafts or trades through
practice.
The first stage, as just mentioned, will be devoted to development of
the physical faculties, to strengthening the body and exercising the
senses. Today the powers of hearing, seeing, and manual dexterity are
incompletely and haphazardly developed: a rational education, on the
contrary, will by special systematic exercises develop these faculties
to the highest possible degree. And as to hands, instead of making
children only right-handed, attempts will be made to render children
equally proficient in the use of the left hand.
And while the senses are developed and bodily vigor is enhanced by
intelligent gymnastic exercises, the culture of the mind will begin, but
in a spontaneous manner; the child win naturally and unconsciously
absorb a store of scientific knowledge. Personal observation, practical
experience, conversations between children, or with persons charged with
teaching — these will be the only form of instruction children will
receive during this first period.
No longer will there be schools, arbitrarily governed by a pedagogue,
where the children wait impatiently for the moment of their deliverance
when they can enjoy a little freedom outside.
In their gatherings the children will be entirely free. They will
organize their own games, their talks, systematize their own work,
arbitrate disputes, etc. They will then easily become accustomed to
public life, to responsibility, to mutual trust and aid. The teacher
whom they have themselves chosen to give them lessons will no longer be
a detested tyrant but a friend to whom they will listen with pleasure.
During the second stage, the children, being ages twelve to sixteen,
will successively study in a methodical manner the principal branches of
human knowledge. They will not be taught by professional teachers but by
lay teachers of this or that science, who are also part-time manual
workers; and each branch of knowledge will be taught not by one but by
many men, all from the commune, who have both the knowledge and the
desire to teach. In addition, good books on the subject studied will be
read together, and intelligent discussion will follow, thereby lessening
the importance attached to the personality of the teacher.
While the child is developing his body and learning the sciences, he
will begin apprenticeship as a producer. In the first stage of his
education, the need to repair or modify toys will introduce the child to
the use of simple tools. During the second stage, he will visit
different factories and, stimulated by his liking for one or more
trades, will soon finally choose the trade in which he will specialize.
The apprentices will be taught by men who are themselves working in the
factories, and this practical education will be supplemented by lessons
dealing with theory.
In this way, by the time a young man reaches the age of sixteen or
seventeen he will have been introduced to the range of human knowledge,
learned a trade, and chosen the discipline he likes best. Thus he will
be in a position to reimburse society for the expenses involved in his
education, not in money but by useful work and respect for the rights of
his fellow human beings.
In conclusion, we should make a few remarks on the relationship between
the child and his family. There arc people who assert that the program
of placing the child in the custody of society means “the destruction of
the family.” This doctrine is devoid of sense. As long as the
concurrence of two individuals of different sexes is necessary for
procreation, as long as there are fathers and mothers, the natural
connection between the parents and the child can never be obliterated by
social relations.
Only the character of this connection will be modified. In antiquity the
father was the absolute master of the child. He had the power of life
and death over him. In modern times paternal authority has been subject
to certain restrictions. What, then, could be more natural, than that a
free egalitarian society should obliterate what still remains of this
authority and replace it with relations of simple affection?
We do not claim that the child should be treated as an adult, that all
his caprices should be respected, that when his childish will stubbornly
flouts the elementary rules of science and common sense we should avoid
making him feel that he is wrong. We say, on the contrary, that the
child must be trained and guided, but that the direction of his first
years must not be exclusively exercised by his parents, who are all too
often incompetent and who generally abuse their authority. The aim of
education is to develop the latent capacities of the child to the
fullest possible extent and enable him to take care of himself as
quickly as possible. It is painfully evident that authoritarianism is
incompatible with an enlightened system of education. If the relations
of father to son are no longer those of master to slave but those of
teacher to student, of an older to a much younger friend, do you think
that the reciprocal affection of parents and children would thereby be
impaired? On the contrary, when intimate relations of these sorts cease,
do not the discords so characteristic of modern families begin? Is not
the family disintegrating into bitter frictions largely because of the
tyranny exercised by parents over their children?
No one can therefore justly claim that a free and regenerated society
will destroy the family. In such a society the father, the mother, and
the children will learn to love each other and to respect their mutual
rights; at the same time their love will be enriched as it transcends
the narrow limits of family affection, thereby achieving a wider and
nobler love: the love of the great human family.
Social organization cannot be restricted to the local commune or the
local federation of producers’ groups. We will see how social
organization is expanded and completed, on the one hand by the
establishment of regional corporative federations comprising all the
groups of workers in the same industry; and on the other by the
establishment of a federation of communes.
We have already indicated in Section III what a corporative federation
is. Such organizations in a rudimentary form exist in present society.
All workers in a given trade or craft belong to the same organization,
for example, the federation of typographical workers. But these
organizations are a very crude sketch of what they will become in the
new society. The corporative federations will unite all workers in the
same industry; they will no longer unite to protect their wages and
working conditions against the onslaughts of their employers, but
primarily to guarantee the mutual use of the tools of production which
are the property of each of these groups and which will by a reciprocal
contract become the collective property of the whole corporative
federation. In this way, the federation of groups will be able to
exercise constant control over production, and regulate the rate of
production to meet the fluctuating consumer needs of society.
The corporative federation will operate in a very simple fashion. On the
morrow of the revolution, the producers’ groups [local unions] belonging
to the same industry will find it necessary to send delegates from city
to city to exchange information and learn from each other’s experience.
These partial conferences will prepare the way for a general congress of
the corporative federation to be held at some central point. This
congress will formulate a federative contract which will be submitted
for the correction and approval of all the groups of the corporative
federation. A permanent bureau, elected by the congress and responsible
to it, will serve as the intermediary link between the groups of the
federation and between the federation and all the other corporative
federations.
When all the branches [industries], including the agricultural
organizations, have been organized in this manner, they will constitute
a vast federative network spanning the whole country and embracing all
the producers, and therefore all the consumers. The statistics of
production, coordinated by the statistical bureaus of every corporative
federation, will permit the determination in a rational manner of the
hours of labor, the cost price of products and their exchange value, and
the quantities in which these products should be produced to meet the
needs of the consumers.
People impressed by the hollow declamations of the so-called democrats
will perhaps demand that all these details should be settled by a direct
vote of all the members of the corporative federations. And when we
reply in the negative they will accuse us of despotism; they will
protest against what they consider to be the authority of the bureaus,
arguing that the bureaus should not be invested with the exclusive power
to deal with such grave problems and to make decisions of the greatest
importance. Our answer will be that the tasks performed by the permanent
bureaus do not involve the exercise of any authority whatsoever. They
concern only the gathering and classification of information furnished
by the producers’ groups. Once this information is combined and made
public, it will be used to help fix prices and costs, the hours of
labor, etc.
Such operations involve simple mathematical calculations which can yield
only one correct result, verifiable by all who have access to the
figures. The permanent bureau is simply charged to ascertain and make
the facts known to everyone. Even now, for example, the postal service
performs a somewhat similar service to that which the bureaus of the
corporative federations will render in the future; and we know of no
person who complains that the post office abuses its authority because
it collects, classifies, and delivers the mail without submitting every
operation to universal suffrage.
Furthermore, the producers’ groups forming the federation will intervene
in the acts of the bureau in a far more effective and direct manner than
simply by voting. For it is they who will furnish all the information
and supply the statistics, which the bureau only coordinates. The bureau
is merely the passive intermediary through which the groups communicate
and publicly ascertain the results of their own activities. The vote is
a device for settling questions which cannot be resolved by means of
scientific data, problems which must be left to the arbitrary decision
of numbers. But in questions susceptible to a precise scientific
solution there is no need to vote. The truth cannot be decided by vote;
it verifies and imposes itself by the mighty power of its own evidence.
But we have only dealt with one half of the extracommunal organization;
the federative corporations will be paralleled by the establishment of
the Federation of Communes.
The revolution cannot be confined to a single country: it is obliged
under pain of annihilation to spread, if not to the whole world, at
least to a considerable number of civilized countries. In fact, no
country today can be self-sufficient; international links and
transactions are necessary for production and cannot be cut off. If a
revolutionary country is blockaded by neighboring states the Revolution,
remaining isolated, would be doomed. just as we base ourselves on the
hypothesis of the triumph of the Revolution in a given country, we must
also assume that most other European countries will make their
revolutions at the same time.
In countries where the proletariat has managed to free itself from the
domination of the bourgeoisie, the newly initiated social organizations
do not have to conform to a set pattern and may differ in many respects.
To this day there are many disagreements between the socialists of the
Germanic nations (Germany and England) and those of the Latin and Slavic
countries (Italy, Spain, France, and Russia). Hence, it is probable that
the social organization adopted by the German revolutionists, for
example, will differ on some or many points from what is introduced by
the Italian or French revolutionaries. But these differences are not
important insofar as international relations are concerned; the
fundamental principles of the Revolution (see Sections I and II above)
being the same, friendly relations and solidarity will no doubt he
established between the emancipated peoples of the various countries.
It goes without saying that artificial frontiers created by the present
governments will be swept away by the Revolution. The communes will
freely unite and organize themselves in accordance with their economic
interests, their language affinities, and their geographic
circumstances. And in certain countries like Italy and Spain, too vast
for a single agglomeration of communes and divided by nature into many
distinct regions, there will probably be established not one but many
federations of communes. This will not be a rupture of unity, a return
to the old fragmentation of petty, isolated, and warring political
states. These diverse federations of communes, while maintaining their
identity, will not be isolated. United by their intertwining interests,
they will conclude a pact of solidarity, and this voluntary unity
founded on common aims and common needs, on a constant exchange of
informal, friendly contacts, will be much more intimate and much
stronger than the artificial political centralization imposed by
violence and having no other motive than the exploitation of peoples for
the profit of privileged classes.