š¾ Archived View for library.inu.red āŗ file āŗ ricardo-mella-anarchic-collectivism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:41:02. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
ā”ļø Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anarchic Collectivism Author: Ricardo Mella Date: 1945 Language: en Topics: Darwinism, Property Rights, Collectives, Mutual Associations, collectivism, mutualism, scientific socialism Source: National Library of Spain Notes: Originally published as āEl Colectivismo, sus fundamentos scientificosā in āCuadernos De Estudios Sociales, Num. 2, Argel, Agosto 1945ā by āEdiciones Libertarias Africa del Norteā. Translated from Spanish by F. E. Moser moserfrede@yahoo.com
At the end of the last century [19^(th)], with Anarchists on one side,
and on the other, the faction of Libertarians at the heart of the
Spanish workers movement, belonging to the International [workers
movement], ideologues vehemently advanced critiques of diverse socialist
tendencies, so as to set down in the form of a manifesto the advantages
of their favored social compact. The concepts of Collectivism and
Communism were largely those which polarized the currents of opinion.
At that time, many fine things were said in support of both ideological
tendencies. All this cultivated interest, and the energy of militant
workers was channeled into the noble conflict, generations of laborers
were educated in the struggle for emancipation, the zeal of studious
revolutionaries was powerfully incited, and ultimately, new horizons
were revealed to the working classes in their longing for emancipation.
Some of the texts which summarized their principal teachings are still
preserved; but, since time has dissipated the uproar of those oral
tournaments, we cannot animate them with the same heat of the noble
passion which their authors expended. Nevertheless, they preserve their
doctrinal value, demonstrating and proving their fecundity, and we
should take advantage of them.
This rhetoric has been excluded from our media for some time. The
āLibertarian Movement of Iberiaā proclaimed itself mainly in favor of
Libertarian Communism [non-state, decentralized, voluntary]. Thereafter,
Collectivism had been relegated in regard to theoretical formulation. In
practice, however, Collectivism took its revenge on Communism in the
previous decade [1930s]: When Francoās military coup of 1936 gave rise
to the July 19 revolutionary movement, and with that a wide field of
experimentation was initiated, we saw that the majority of the partial
attempts at socialization were spontaneously created in the mold of
collectivism.
We are not trying to bring this argumentation back to life (although it
wouldnāt hurt if it left us time for other activities), nor to take the
side of one determinate ideological tendency. In now offering this
magisterial study from Mella, our intention is to provide a work of
edification; as we will later do in offering works of other ideological
tendencies.
We are convinced that social transformation will not function by
automatically replacing the timeworn capitalist system with some other
of rigid uniformity. We believe that the experiments will be multiple
and multiform, and, moreover, we think that there is magic in the
harmonic variation.
For that reason we offer, as one more variation, this essay presented by
Ricardo Mella at the Second Socialist Competition, organized in
Catalonia by some anarchist groups there in 1889. The theme, āThe
Scientific Foundations on which Collectivism is Basedā, had been
proposed by the āGrupo Cosmopolitoā of Buenos Aires. Ricardo Mella and
J. Llunas presented works on this theme, the first getting the award.
The topic is always timely, like all those which discuss the norms of a
social compact with greater fairness and freedom than those which govern
the system that we currently endure. It is much more timely in finding
ourselves in a period of upheaval, generating social transformations
which can be far-reaching, if the will and intelligence of workers are
applied to it.
Argel, August 1945
The importance of the troublesome issue that I am determined to discuss
is not unknown to me. I know that my inadequacy will produce an
incomplete, perhaps useless, work. Naturally, I would like to possess
the scientific knowledge pertaining to the subject so perfectly that it
would make the work coming from my hands a veritable source of radiating
light, the messenger or missionary of conviction and universal
acceptance of the truth. But notwithstanding my scarce capacity, I donāt
have enough will-power to resist a theme of my personal preference.
Like many other convinced revolutionary socialists, I find myself
entreated by two distinct, and even contrary ideological tendencies, and
in my aspiration for harmony between both such tendencies, neither one
in itself has the power to pull me into its faction. This resistance of
mine is not the result of a blind passion or preoccupation; it is, on
the contrary, in my concept, the result of an analysis, if not
sufficiently logical, at least sincere and honest.
For that reason, I am extremely pleased that the primordial idea which
serves as the basis of one of the solutions to this complex social
problem had been introduced into the arena of discussion. I am even more
pleased that this idea is the same as what, in my opinion, establishes
the harmony of both tendencies previously indicated, and my enthusiasm
for that idea or principle persuaded me to take part in the competition.
With the plain title of, āThe Scientific Foundations on which
Collectivism Is Basedā, there is realistically taken into the public
square, if not that social problem in totality, the most important part
of it, as doubtless the fraught issue of ownership is. Of course,
judgment on such an issue remains premature, at least in reference to
its current form, in the content of the theme submitted to the
controversy. A special mode is asserted in it, a total economic
organization radically opposed to other known forms, and nothing more is
asked for than its fundamental scientific bases. This might seem to
reduce all work to a brief review, but in reality it is not that way.
Without prior discussion, without precise analysis, we would not be able
to methodically and rationally arrive at discovering those fundamental
bases, and for that reason, the discussion and analysis of said issue
are understood in hypothetical presupposition.
To my mind, another important point also remains understood as
presupposition. I refer to the indispensable basis of any human
organization: freedom. To assume an equitable and egalitarian order of
things outside of absolute freedom would be a contradiction, a complete
aberration, and I will examine the subject in this way by binding myself
absolutely to that condition of unlimited freedom, without however
entering into an examination of such and so necessary condition, unless
incidentally.
Even now in the field of science, as well as in that of philosophical
speculation, it is only too evident that the most liberated procedures
of association must replace the diverse forms of social subordination. A
critique of political systems is now definitively complete, and
everyone, somewhat more, somewhat less, asserts freedom as the condition
āsine qua nonā of social organization. Frequently missing in science and
philosophy is the indispensable supplement of free association, because
their eminent representatives have not ventured into the economic
problem as decidedly as into the political. Such a supplement is
essentially equality of conditions, and at the present time it is left
entrusted exclusively, or almost exclusively, to the working masses who,
deprived of influential men of science, are seen dedicated to the long
and arduous work of diffusion and propaganda.
A Proudhon and a Spencer, confronting the problem of ownership, would
resolve the matter on scientific and philosophical grounds in the same
way as they resolved it insofar as the political problem is referred to.
Being that both philosophers were much more definitive in the criticism
of the social order than in the economic order, much more forceful in
the analysis of authoritarianism than in the analysis of inequality,
they produced a deficient work, having nonetheless to keep in mind that
the first was, out of all the publicists of our epoch, the one who
struck the harder blows against ownership, and the only one who
formulated a rational solution to the problem, leaving aside the
solution of an antiquated and discredited communism.
But as long as we lack the participation of men of science, or at least
the most eminent, we must take up our work with more determination, and
supplant their silence by launching our modest studies and works of
propaganda into the winds of publicity.
My justification [for being here] is rooted precisely in what was said
in the previous paragraph.
I know very well that among all of you here, I will have to fight
against those who, from the viewpoint of voluntary communism, consider
our solution to the economic problem as not being radical enough, or,
according to certain ideological tendencies, our idea of collectivism as
being overly systematic. I know very well that both schools, in Spain
the same as abroad, count on great men and superior intellects who
naturally bring sufficient benefit in propaganda to us all. But,
whatever the case, this is an incentive which inclines us to the fight
with greater determination, owing to our conviction, and the love of
what we believe to have greater fairness, and is more in harmony with
freedom and human nature.
For those reasons, the enterprise that we have in our charge is great;
insignificant and worthless those who endeavor to attack it.
Be bold, be bold, and always be bold!
To analyze ownership, such as it is now constituted, is a chore little
more than superfluous. Its justification has yet to be formulated;
nobody has ventured to defend it as anything more than something
necessary. Conversely, attacks on ownership are countless. Publicists
who work outside of conventional ideologies have dealt mortal blows to
that institution. Few have frankly dared to attack it directly, many
more keep undermining its foundations little by little, and it is
understood that, with no great effort, it soon will collapse, along with
other no less sacred institutions.
From our side we note that the working class is mainly turned against
ownership. For us, it is beyond doubt that as an institution, it is a
simple organized plunder by the privileged classes against the classes
of the dispossessed. Monopoly and exclusivity are its general
characteristics. Larceny, exploitation, and illicit speculation are its
immediate consequences. It excludes a part of the citizenry, doubtless
the greater part, from the enjoyment of the general wealth, and this is
enough to condemn it.
Everything that has no characteristic of inclusive generality,
everything that tends to exclusivity in the domain of a right, is
irrational and unjust.
The scientific aspect of the issue will clearly prove it to us. In the
natural sciences, the theory of evolutionary development is already in
evidence, and is no less so in sociology. Darwin and Spencer, each
completing the other, have universalized this law, satisfactorily
explaining the phenomena of nature the same as those of life, by the
simple process of evolution. Evolutionary development in the social
order has that characteristic of inclusive generality which I previously
mentioned. This right has continued to become more popular by the day,
and universal participation, with its benefits and entitlements, has
replaced exclusivity. The political tendency is increasingly favorable
for all individuals of the community to take an active role in the
government, in the appointment of representatives, in the administration
of justice, etc., an evolution which has doubtless made clear to our
mind the concept of total freedom or autonomy, by means of which
inclusive generality reaches a maximum by the elimination of government
and legislation. Likewise in the economic order, the tendency is
represented in the proposition of extending ownership to all members of
society. Each turn or change of the system goes accompanied by a
liquidation which extends and diffuses ownership. It is certain that, on
the other side, the habit of appropriation is resistant to this movement
and tends to concentrate ownership, but this is precisely the force
opposing this evolution, as in the political order it is centralization
by the State, and says nothing against the hypotheses that we keep
demonstrating. A right, in its highest expression, is developed in
social life by force of inclusive generality, and is extended despite
all resistance. Any privatization of a right, any exclusion to its
entitlement, is contrary to the advancement of society, and ownership in
its current form of exclusivity and monopoly is necessarily irrational
and unjust.
But otherwise, is it admissible to formulate a judgment of condemnation
against ownership āper seā, as philosophers say? Wouldnāt it rather be
that what we understand by ownership definitively amounts to qualities
which are arbitrarily assigned?
The word ownership is generally used in the sense of exclusive
possession, and we have just seen how the evolution of the right goes
openly and decisively against that. Ownership, outside of the qualities
that the dominant ideas and laws attribute to it, is reduced to simple
possession of a thing. And so as evolution proceeds in opposition to
exclusivity of ownership, for that same reason it can be asserted that
evolution favors the tendency toward possession. For the individual,
possession is, in effect, any act by means of which one enters into the
usage of a part of the general wealth; and for society it is the
distributive function of the general wealth, and in this way there is no
idea or school which does not see itself obliged to recognize,
voluntarily or by force, that possession is as much a natural fact as a
universal right for the human race. Possession is a principle common to
all economic systems. From this principle, individualism deduces
ownership such as it is now constituted. Communism reduces the principle
to the precise moment of consumption, but even in this perspective,
possession exists as a fact and as a right, because any individual
consumption presupposes an absolute possession by a person for that
intended function.
If the issue is examined outside of any kind of system and according to
a strict principle of freedom and equality of conditions, then ownership
in its possessive form is imposed on the intellect as an indispensable
condition, without which the integration of that right would turn out to
be illusory. Said one illustrious collaborator on āThe Alarmā [an
anarchist newspaper published in Chicago], āTo deny me the right to
possess what I had produced, would be a negation subsequent to the
fundamental principle of freedom and a blatant assertion of governmental
intervention or rule.ā.
It is necessary, then, not to be deceived about the meaning of words.
Ownership insofar as it means an exclusivity, a privilege, and a
monopoly of things, is outside of any right. It is much more so when it
is applied to what we could call the natural and societal resources.
Ownership, when it means possession of what is produced, is
unassailable; it is the decisive consecration of the right when it
amounts to the common or general utilization of the natural or social
resources.
In the same way that it is necessary to distinguish between ownership in
its current sense and ownership āper seā, that is, possession, it is
likewise also necessary to take into account the very notable difference
that exists between appropriation of the natural or societal resources
and the appropriation of a created product. All our differences are
derived from the confusion between these two terms. Unquestionable is
the right that resides in āeveryoneā to the beneficial utilization of
the natural resources, and of what has ended up being called the social
resources by its characteristic of inclusive generality. Unquestionable
is the right of āeach oneā to freely dispose of his work, of his
productions, how and when it might please one, under penalty of
curtailing personal sovereignty. To persist in demonstrating the social
reality or the individual reality in isolation is a futile intention.
Nature is not unitary, it is essentially a duality. The schools of
individualism and communism, do nothing more than follow metaphysics in
their pedantry concerning the unity of Being. Individualism finds this
unity in the person. Communism, more metaphysical if possible than
individualism, finds unity in the agglomeration of people, or society,
in the same way that some philosophers reduce the universe to the unity
of the Cosmos or to the unity of the Idea.
As in the universe we observe general laws and particular laws, forces
of attraction and forces of repulsion, movements of rotation and
movements of relocation, so in humanity there coexists the general and
particular, love and aversion. progress and reaction. With the same
grandeur of anything cosmic, the social totality, the community, is
imposed on us. The same infinite plurality of the universe is shown to
us in the plurality of individuals. If you try to plumb this mystery of
the whole and the part, reason is lost because its relations as
ānoumenalā are and will eternally be unknown to us. Only the phenomenal
is accessible to us. And a phenomenon in human life demonstrates to us
that, individuality and generality, person and community, have their own
spheres of action, of life and of movement; that the particular
existence of the one does not necessarily imply the abstraction of the
other, that the interests, ends, and functions are essentially distinct
between both orders of things; that, in summary, humanity, like the
idea, the sentiment, the natural order, is anti-nominal, a duality [as
abstractions of particulars(?)], and only by the harmony of the contrary
terms, necessarily coexistent, can it arrive at a rational solution to
the tremendous problem that they posit.
To persist in demonstrating that all work from the individual is
absolutely a product of the collective is as useless as the intention of
proving that all social works originate exclusively from the individual.
There is a certain point at which our efforts are dashed. In all work
from the individual there is certainly the participation of the
community; all work of society doubtless originates from personal effort
and impulse; but, not in such a way that this reciprocal intervention
allows us to decide the issue in one direction or the other, we can
always observe that all work from the individual bears as many personal
as social characteristics, and reciprocally. It is always an individual
who, in opposition to the dominant trends in the community, initiates a
reform or asserts a truth until then unknown. It is always society which
furnishes knowledge to us and the means of conceiving a new principle.
The individual and the community will always coexist within their own
spheres of action, each one claiming for itself its right and freedom.
Reduce the one to the other and you would immediately have rebellion.
Give to Caesar what is of Caesar and to God what is of God, Christ said.
Give to the individual what is of the individual and to society what is
of society, is the motto of modern socialism.
In this way, natural and social resources are the right of āallā; the
created product is the right of āeach oneā. Let possession, ownership,
be realized within that right, and the problem remains resolved.
The principle of individual and collective autonomy, the essence of
freedom, demands neither more nor less.
Against the privilege of ownership, with all its consequences of
subdivision and monopolization, the right of society powerfully arises
to reclaim the integrity of society. Against usurpation by the
community, the right of the individual arises in rebellion, to resist
abdicating the prerogatives of the individual.
And regarding this natural dualism, I limit myself, in the interest of
the superior principle of freedom, to asking: What does man need to be
free? And I reply with the very same words utilized in the instance of a
similar study:
āWe will resolutely reply: to be free, man needs ownership.
āPerhaps an exclamation of surprise might leave the lips of our audience
on hearing this apparent heresy of socialism; but there is no reason to
be surprised; we will endeavor to demonstrate our proposition.
āAny basis of the social question amounts to reclaiming property
currently retained illegally by the monopolists and the privileged. The
Revolution, in fact, is no more than in this: give back to everyone the
ownership of his work. Each worker who protests and remonstrates, each
socialist who fulminates against the current situation, each
revolutionary who heroically fights for new ideas, each one and everyone
at the same time does nothing else but fight so that his product, his
work, should not be stolen by anyone. The principle of reform, exception
made for doctrinal preferences, is no more than this.
āThe masses by intuition have a clearer view on this subject, as on
others, than the firmest of intellects. Justice for the masses goes no
further than this thought: leave my ownership to me and I will be free;
my ownership and my freedom are all that I need to develop myself for
myself.
āThe free man wants to have absolute dominion over āwhat is hisā, and he
would consider this āhisā in the spiritual, intellectual, and physical
orders. Only in this way is he truly free. If he can not dispose as he
would like of āhisā thoughts, āhisā feelings, āhisā works, he can not be
said to be free: an alien force, getting between subject and object,
would annul his freedom. The subject is man, the object ownership, and
the solution to this natural dualism: man and ownership in the logical
and philosophical unity of the social being in the plenitude of all his
powers.
āWhen a man loves, he loves because of the possession of the being
loved; when a man works, he does so for the possession of his product;
when man studies, it is because he covets the possession of the
knowledge. The same occurs in a woman. Only in possessing each other
mutually, can love arrive at its culmination, the conjugal pair.
Likewise, man and product identify and own each other, the student and
the science, amalgamating into the synthesis of the physical function
and intellectual function.
āIf a man can not possess and be possessed in spirit, if he can not
physically own and be owned by his work, if he can not take control of
knowledge and knowledge of him, his freedom remains limited, we prefer
saying, negated.
āThese three modes of possession, physical, spiritual, and intellectual,
comprise all the life of a man.
āLove creates the owner of the being loved, the production of the object
produced, the study of the knowledge acquired: its freedom is in all
modes. May those in love resolve their conflicts and differences as
sovereigns; may producers and the production regulate themselves as they
prefer; may the student and the study amply communicate with each other.
Prior to anything else, a man is a free being, sovereign of himself, who
rejects all imposition, and only in this way can he be so.
āYet you are shocked. A man the owner of a woman, the woman owner of a
man, you say, what a horror!
āNever give words more worth than what they can have. Two beings who
love each other, possess each other, and against this natural fact
nobody can go further than the fanatics who, in suppressing words,
believe to be suppressing facts. A man and a woman who love each other
will always have faith in each other, will always possess each other
spiritually, in the order of sentiments, never in that other order that
would reduce them to things able to be owned. Here ownership is nothing
but a reciprocity of affections, and whoever says reciprocity, names a
principle of Justice; otherwise, the freest reciprocity of which there
is not, and never will be, a force capable of destroying.
āAs such, then, our argument remains standing without any motive for
being shocked, since whoever is alarmed by words indicates not having a
very elevated idea of the things signified.
āFor that reason, ownership is what a man needs in order to be free. If
he can not dispose of his thoughts and his works as he would like, he
can not call himself free. The principle of Anarchy can not declare him
free in regard to his thoughts and sentiments, and rob him at the same
time of the freedom to dispose of his works as he would like, under
penalty of falling into economic slavery.ā
Once the right of ownership is demonstrated and affirmed, or what is the
same thing, the necessity of appropriation for the individual, which
results in integrating his freedoms, through which he can in this way
dispose of his sentiments, his thoughts, and his works as he pleases, we
can now initiate a preliminary outline of the collectivist idea.
Being supported by the exigency of that right, we assert: [1^(st)] the
common possession of the natural and social resources, the free usufruct
of the land, the seas, machines or large instruments of work, railroads,
etc., and [2^(nd)], we equally assert the private possession of the
product individually or collectively manufactured. And in conformance
with the universal principle of autonomy, we assert in conclusion, the
free functioning of all associations of producers. Such is our
synthesis.
It is not necessary to amass reasons in demonstration of the first part
of this synthesis. Having made universal the right realized through it
is sufficient to deflect being criticized as individualism, and being
identified with the synthesis of communism.
In regard to the second affirmation, I will not make much effort to
prove that either. Only one adversary from the socialist faction rejects
it. And it is necessary to remind this same adversary that, prior to
anything else, and above all, a person wants to be free, and we have
already seen how this is not realized when his sovereignty goes no
further than his thoughts and his sentiments. It is necessary that his
sovereignty is also extended to his works. We demand it like this: the
inclusive generality in the right [of ownership] that we have recognized
in the evolutionary process of society and which is an egalitarian
guarantee of Justice. The individual free to produce, will be able to be
associated or remain independent, his work will be able to be reserved
to himself or given over to the community. If he recognizes that
producing and consuming in common results in real advantages, his work
will end up at the community. But in this way communism amounts to a
primitive proceeding for the individual and for the association, and in
this case we will be very much on guard to fight against it. But what it
really is a question of is knowing the fundamentals, the general
principles on which society is to rest, and in this case communism is a
system, a dogma not capable of being associated with our criterion of
freedom, because it assumes a universal renunciation of a right, when
not already a forced annulment of it. In this way we are to limit
ourselves to saying: in this I have the right, fear not the outcome. And
the right is that each producer can trade, consume, or donate his
products when and how he pleases, that each individual can reserve the
result of his work to himself or not, and in this way can, with his
ownership, enter into relations of transaction and of friendship and
fraternity.
And be assured that there is no reason to be concerned about the overly
debated issue of the āwhole productā [of labor, see Anton Menger]. This
locution is nothing more than a war cry, with which the collectivist
worker indicates that what he wants is for nobody to usurp any part of
his work, in such way that, if the salary system should disappear, from
that moment we would find ourselves to be in full possession of the
product of our labor.
For a reason and for a purpose, we assert the free functioning of
collectives. In a state of liberty, āa prioriā determinant formulas have
no place, and for that reason we reject at the same time the principle
that each individual is to obtain remuneration from his work conforming
to his necessities, and the principle from which, on the contrary, he is
to receive it from a semi-State, according to the unit of time, the hour
of work, or according to the unit of the product manufactured. We do not
concede that a commission or administration might tax our work. Such
would amount to conceding the intervention of authority, to invoke a
system of government in our relations.
If it is necessary to evaluate production, if it is necessary to
determine the work product of each individual, freedom is what should
resolve it. The diversity of labor will produce a diversity of
solutions. On one such work product, the individual will prefer
communism. On another, an equitable and egalitarian distribution. On yet
another, a proportional share, whether demanded by the individual, or
agreed to by the association, or whatever the case, freedom of contract.
We can not give you a theory of value such as you might want, because
economic science has not arrived at so much. But this very day you can
enter into workshops where your companions will give you a preliminary
outline of that theory. They calculate, apart from what overhead
carries, the cost of each production and the participation corresponding
to each individual. Also ask engineers and architects, and they in this
same way will tell you that modern advancements enable them to affirm
little less than what is a complete theory of value. Eliminate all of
what keeps the revolution from being realized, and surely our
differences will disappear.
In any case, if we donāt yet have a theory of value, this says nothing
against the principle asserted. Up to the present day we donāt know more
than a hypothesis about the formation of the Universe, and nevertheless,
not for that reason is our logic any less in deciding against theology
and its gods.
Collectivism is the preliminary outline of a scientific aspiration, and
science walks too slowly for it to be able to give us the solution to
all problems in one day. Nevertheless, the collectivist principle stands
up to the rash attacks of its critics.
Collectivism is more powerful in its logic than communism when it is
argued against by the partisans of individualism.
When, on the contrary, the attacks come from the camp of the partisans
of community, it is sufficient for collectivism to invoke Right and
Freedom. In this way, we have already seen how the obstacles claimed in
the valuation of work amount to nothing, because this is equivalent to
entering into the field of applications, and what is needed is to show
the principle in itself to be erroneous. To those who argue, from an
inexcusable triviality, that sick people and invalids, children and the
elderly, would not be able to survive according to the collectivist
principle, it is enough to point out to them that the issue is a matter
of constituting a society of capable men, in the fullness of their
faculties and in possession of all their rights. Such arguments donāt
even deserve the honor of refutation, because they put such little faith
in freedom, that, to believe them, the emancipated man would only have
to take care of himself. On this road, the negation of freedom can be
reached, because the insane person and the idiot would infer the
impossibility of living without a government. And the logic of those who
refute collectivism is certainly not otherwise. They confuse the general
with the particular, the scientific law with the phenomenon, the rule
with the exception, the right with the sentiment, justice with
solidarity, and in this way they look for the only principle which
comprises everything, in the same way that the theologian looks for the
one cause that explains everything.
From the moment that the State is assumed to be eliminated, from the
instant that society is no longer the source of rights and duties, but a
simple association of free men, only freedom is what can resolve the
conflicts of the economy, of justice, and of humanity. Whatever was
previously expected from a governmental source, will then have to be
expected from individual and collective spontaneity. Credit
associations, educational associations, mutual insurance associations,
will spontaneously emerge in order to realize and complete the work of
human emancipation.
Just as in the political field we proclaim anarchy and in the economic
field we preach collectivism, so in the order of human sentiments, of
universal cooperation, we spread the message of solidarity.
What? Do you suppose, perhaps, that we would abandon the disabled? Do
you suppose, perhaps, that we would set aside alms for him? The credit
facility for the mutual guarantee of security, the foresight of the
individual which through the association shelters one from the
unexpected, is not sentimentality, nor charity, nor alms; it is the
manifestation of a right, the fruit of liberty, the consecration of
dignity.
There are concepts that completely explain an entire order of ideas. In
this way our detractors, believing to have resolved the problem, shout:
āOne for all: all for one!ā And this clearly means, in the first term,
the subordination of the one to the all, and in the second, that of the
all to the one, that is, reciprocity in economic slavery. What sarcasm
from the mouth of the defenders of liberty!
We say, on the contrary, in accord with nature and liberty: āEach one
for himself; everyone for everyone else!ā And we see in effect that in
this way we assert in the first term the integrity of a right and
personal autonomy, and in the second term, universal solidarity and the
inclusive generality of freedom. Science and nature bring us priceless
elements of demonstration. In the progression of human life, these two
forces are constantly manifested, for all eternity these two coexistent
tendencies: specialization or determination of the individual āmeā;
generalization of the social āmeā; homogeneity of the simple element;
heterogeneity of the composite total; differentiation of the
indivisible, integration of the divisible. In the development of organic
life, there is an absolutely identical parallel. Each organism is
strongly individualized and absorbs all the sap indispensable for its
growth, to the exclusion of the rest of like organisms. Nature as a
whole, for its part, tends to a more complete heterogeneity and enriches
its manifold organism and consolidates its aesthetic unity by means of
taking up a part of the life of its simple components, inferior
organisms made subservient to it by relations of necessity. Finally, in
the physical order, the Cosmos and the atom are the different modes of
individuality in powerful manifestation.
When it is a matter of scientific solutions, how is it possible, then,
to be apart from that which science itself manifestly posits, or to
establish āa prioriā principles which are in conflict with the natural
world?
Collectivism, as we have already said, is the preliminary outline of a
scientific aspiration. Donāt ask for details, applications, and the
complete formulas that freedom rejects. Donāt be dogmatic, donāt build a
system. Provide general principles in accord with nature and science,
and that is enough. In this way there is a place within collectivism for
all manners of production, trade, and consumption, all forms of
cooperation, all modes of association for the purpose of the universal
enjoyment of all the wealth and gratifications. Science, art, industry,
and agriculture have the guarantee of their free development within
collectivism, and it can be affirmed, for what remains to be said, that
if this economic principle constitutes a system, it is certainly the
only system gratifying to the human race, because it is the system of
freedom.
Those reading this work will have seen in the preceding chapters that
the economic solution that we support is in accordance with human nature
and the lessons of experience. Avoiding any dogmatic exclusivity, we
have arrived at a rational conception of things and ideas, at a
positivist science of the biological development of society. Leaving out
all doctrinaire formulas, we have determined it unnecessary to resolve
difficult problems of psychology, and independently of them, only taking
as its basis the reality of the human race, we concluded in determining
the organization of a free society along general lines.
From another perspective, logical reasoning, the philosophy of the right
[of ownership], enabled us to discover the judicial principle in virtue
of which the inclusive generality of ownership is ordained for us in
parallel to the inclusive generality of freedom and that of solidarity.
The symmetric evolution of these three modes of social life is realized
in such a way that it can be assured to be, in essence, the realization
of progress in its highest expression.
Is there any room for doubt that this principle, this idea of
collectivism, has real scientific foundations, given its conditions of
the amalgamation of human nature with a social right?
As we have already said, philosophical positivism was able to explain,
by means of the principle of evolution, most of the phenomena of the
universe and establish the general laws of life. Naturalists have
satisfactorily determined the relations and origins of living things,
the motive and the nature of species, and owing to that, today we can
laugh at the theological nonsense which previously had us partaking of
the sacraments. In the same way, geologists have furnished enough data
so as to formulate the timeline of the composition and development of
the planet. In the same way, astronomers explain to us in a rational
mode the successive spans which stars traverse, the reason for nebulae,
the regularity of the movement and progression of atmospheric phenomena.
In this way also sociology is beginning to establish its basic
principles in a scientific mode, and so for the principle of evolution
to constitute its primordial basis, the essence of investigation in all
its forms. The analysis of social evolution is, consequently, the first
condition of all knowledge of the laws through which human associations
are ruled.
The scientific basis which comes as first principle in support of
collectivism, is necessarily the same basis which facilitates our social
evolution.
With only a little study of the history of ownership, one fact is
constantly offered to our reflection. From the origin of society until
the current day, private property and community or State have lived and
keep living in permanent conflict, despite the appearance of a false
harmony. Every day the collective increasingly takes away the
individualās property and rights. Every day the individual strives more
persistently to attribute to himself the right of possession in absolute
terms, and tries to wrest his principal attributes from the State.
Individualism and communism thus live in eternal conflict, without
history deciding in favor of one or the other. Every day private
property is seen to be more taken over by the State, and even with full
individualism, there are many things common to all citizens. Conversely,
communal goods are seen being continually sought by individual
interests, and even with things of more universal enjoyment, more in
common, there arises private usurpation in its form of exclusion, at
times by the individual, at times by the collective. The constancy of
this back and forth, of this social phenomenon, speaks very eloquently
against both solutions. Society, not finding the expression of its
desires in either of these ends, seems to find itself in that first
period [of evolution] in which forces fight for determining the
necessary outcome. But in the end, material progress, the great progress
of science and industry, arrives to hasten the moment of evolutionary
initiation, and society begins to enter into a new phase. Individual
production and isolated capital is replaced by production in common and
capital on a grand scale. Corporations of agriculture, industry, and
trade arise everywhere, and personal efforts are replaced by the titanic
effort of the collective. The proliferation of producer associations,
the general tendency towards cooperation for consumption, the initiation
of mutual insurance and credit associations, indicate that society is
close to a rapid change. The only thing needed is for the evolution to
pass through what remains for it to do in the work undertaken, the only
thing necessary is for that evolution, being made aware of itself, to
determine the moment of the Revolution, and collectivism will be a fact.
Eliminating the broker and exclusive ownership, or any monopoly of
wealth, the Revolution will knock down all obstacles which are now in
opposition to the evolution being fully realized. Instead of the
landowner who exploits the serf on a plot of land, instead of the public
corporation which squeezes the industrial worker, in place of the
entrepreneur who exhausts the laborer, you will see spontaneously
appearing the association of agricultural workers exploiting the ground
for their own profit, the association of industrial workers working in
their own factories, the association of machinists, or mechanics, etc.,
having usufruct of the railroads, the proletarians, in brief, at the
present time dispersed and dispossessed, associated in that future with
diverse objectives and in possession of all the elements of work.
Whoever does not see that this, and nothing else, is the social
tendency, whoever does not see and understand that evolution is
essentially collectivist, is blind, or fakes being so.
And social evolution is completely collectivist, because nothing in it
is found which advocates community. It appears in such way that the
individual, holding his right as something indisputable, understanding
that the whole of his work is his one legitimate property, has no worry
whatsoever about anything other than entering into the possession, into
the usufruct, of what corresponds to everyone equally.
The social evolution of ownership, then, is one of the scientific
foundations of collectivism.
Can it be explained in some way that the communist element would in no
way play a part in this evolution?
Certainly. Another scientific principle, also owing to the evolutionary
school, will give us the reason for that phenomenon. It is the general
law of living things, that all organisms have as the condition of their
existence the necessity of individual differentiation. Each individual
living organism inevitably develops itself through this means. As it
becomes enriched in its component elements, as it becomes more
heterogeneous, it endeavors to accentuate its special individual
characteristics, to radically distinguish itself from its opposites.
This fact of experience, verifiable on any occasion, has its origin in
the principle called the fight for survival. In the animal kingdom this
principle is manifested in obvious ways. Even species that live in a
community, are not free from the fight, since what they really do with
their organizational procedures, in many of which slavery plays a part,
is to be better prepared, to be arranged in more favorable conditions
for the fight.
This principle which science has popularized, for which reason Iām not
obliged to demonstrate it, is what, in a clear and definite manner,
explains that the communist element plays no part at all in evolution.
Man naturally tends towards differentiation, towards individual against
individual, through this principle. All our progress is realized, and
our best works are produced, through this principle. Without the fight
for life, without that sentiment which sets us into the necessity of
outperforming anyone who catches up or goes ahead, our passions would be
dormant and activity for advancement would be null, the outcome for the
betterment of society, zero. It is necessary for a man to get into a
struggle with other men and with nature, that is to say, with all that
which is not āmeā, so that work, science, and art might be produced and
embellished with all the marvels that we now acknowledge. For that
reason, invention, improvement, and progress always originate from
spontaneous individual initiative; for that reason, the collective,
weaker in what we could call its individual conscience, frequently
resists the push given by the individual because the law, the principle
of the fight for existence, makes a collective much less inclined
towards differentiation than an individual.
As such, communism is not contagious to the social evolution, which
tends, contrary to communism, to maintain that other principle that
gives motivation to all our manifestations of activity. The movement of
transformation, then, is realized independently of the right of the
individual, and is even conserved through every change in the
established order. Does this not explain why society, by necessity,
equally avoids those two extremes that continually entreat it?
Collectivism, consecrating the inclusive generality of the right on one
side, and the guarantee of the ownership of work on the other, can take
pride in satisfying two scientific principles: that of evolution and
that of the fight for existence.
But there is still more. This latest acquisition from science is
amplified and developed in human societies in a more perfected way than
in the rest of the zoological tree. Irrational beings, and even human
beings of the present day, live, in part, at the expense of that law in
an open conflict of reciprocal and total destruction. Only a few species
come to an understanding of the necessity of association for the purpose
of battle. Most are disposed to individual conservation, with the
exclusion of all sentiment of reciprocity that is not that of the
ferocious and permanent war. In the same way, our current individualism
understands no more than half of the law that all beings obey. Our
society is one that is rudimentary, where the negative element of
humanity, the animal, dominates. But as our knowledge grows, as
biological development keeps adding to the body, likewise the human
element is expanded, and the savage war instinctual to the beast, is
replaced by the noble contest of reason, art, knowledge, and work. Then
the necessary complement of the principle of the fight for life is seen
emerging, and from the exclusion which previously characterized it,
there follows the attraction of the fighters. Humanity understands that
the previously mentioned principle, with one individual against another,
is a negative element, and plans to direct the fight against nature,
associating all opposing forces among them. As such, the general idea
originates of association for the fight for existence, and what began
being the product of savagery, ends up determining the highest level of
human perfection, social solidarity. What can not be realized unless in
an instinctual mode between beasts, is realized consciously among
humans. The sentiment of individual preservation, which so strongly
rules us, is identified in this way with the sentiment of societal
preservation, and becomes more powerful, more intelligent, more
knowledgeable. Where there was no more than war of man against man, we
see emerge a society confronting nature. To subjugate it, to dominate
it, is the purpose of humanity. Join forces, associate men, form a
cooperative association, channel the common power and direct it to that
determinate end.
The fight for existence and the association for the fight, such is the
law that reigns over society. Individual and group, ownership and
solidarity, differentiation and association, are the terms of a logical
series from the scientific method, to which collectivism is accommodated
according to that law.
It is useless to reduce the terms individualism and solidarity,
obviously in opposition, to a synthetic unity which would annihilate
them. This could be attained in the order of ideas by successive
abstractions from reality, but in fact they will exist eternally in the
same mode where there will always be noumena and phenomena, the real and
ideal, molecular attraction and repulsion, reason and sentiment, simple
unity and collective unity, homogeneity and heterogeneity.
Collectivism is completely in accord with science. The land free for the
liberated farmer; the factory free for the liberated factory worker; the
element of work always free for the liberated producer. May freedom be
the universal instrument which resolves all the problems of life, for
the individual and likewise for society. May the association, or in
other words, the contract of federation, be what would resolve all the
conflicts of freedom. May solidarity in the end be what would defend us
against all alterations from natural laws. There you have everything.
Supporting this latest human ideal are the following:
ownership], or in other words, parallelism and symmetry in the
development and integration of freedom, ownership, and solidarity;
the association for the fight;
individual sovereignty and the collective;
of any law that does not originate from nature or science and is not
voluntarily accepted.
Each one of these tendencies, principles, or necessities has been
examined, at times separately and in a special mode, at other times
simultaneously and alternatively, on analyzing ownership, studying
collectivism, and defining in detail some of their most essential
foundations.
What remains for us to do, in the meantime? Absolutely nothing; but if
something might be needed, in the last word, it would originate from our
inadequacy.
Scientific positivism and experience will keep demonstrating with
greater fidelity each day the certainty of the general principles here
established. Such is our belief in view of known history. But if it were
not this way, since our minds are not closed to the Truth, we would
gladly throw out our mistakes and candidly confess our lamentable error.
The most recent positivist principles and the study of human nature,
give, day by day, the firmest base to the collectivist aspiration, in
opposition to both individualism and communism. And whoever has left
behind religious faith, political faith, and economic faith necessarily
has to follow science and nature. Reasoned analysis is our only guide.
May the light of analysis appear, may the radiant focus of reason
appear, may the science resulting from one or the other arrive to
illuminate us, to persuade us if we are mistaken, to strengthen us if we
are at the truth.
With all that, let us continue propagating and demonstrating our
principles, let us continue popularizing our ideals, may we remain
steadfast in the discussion and the criticism of the present social
order, that in the end Truth will triumph over all the mists which
shroud it in error, and Justice will prevail, in spite of all
prejudices, all dogmas of faith, and all the aberrations of the human
spirit.
We will continue our work, firm in our convictions, supported by science
and experience, maintaining our ideals of political freedom, economic
freedom, and total freedom for the human race.
Freedom, we want nothing more than freedom, since what freedom does not
do, not one institution whatsoever will be able to make possible.
For that reason we are Anarchic Collectivists, for that reason we
support the definitive emancipation of the proletariat, and for that
reason we dedicate all our efforts to that.
May the present work be useful in some way for what we pursue: such is
our desire.