💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › document › m-isidine-the-problems-of-tomorrow captured on 2023-07-22 at 16:20:25. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: The Problems of Tomorrow
Date: 1919–1920
Source: [[http://mariegoldsmith.uk/archives][Marie Goldsmith Project]]
Notes: Translated by Christopher Coquard. Edited by Søren Hough & Christopher Coquard. <br>
Authors: M Isidine
Published: 2023-07-18 07:15:14Z

the Marie Goldsmith Project. These articles were translated by Alexandra

Agranovich (Russian) and Christopher Coquard (French) and then edited by

Christopher Coquard and Søren Hough with the goal of preserving

Goldsmith’s original meaning and stylistic emphases. Modern footnotes by

the translator or editors are prefaced “Ed:” while all other footnotes

are from Marie Goldsmith. This translation was originally published in

[[https://irp.cdn-website.com/3fa68967/files/uploaded/BlackFlag-vol3-no2.pdf][Black

Flag Vol. 3 No. 2]].*

<br> Ed: Marie Goldsmith frequently wrote under pseudonyms. M. Isidine,

Part I — The Reasons for our “Maximalism”[1]

July 15, 1919

The old question of *maximalism* and *minimalism* takes on a completely

different aspect today than it did a few years ago. Half is due to a

lack of faith in the realization of the socialist ideal in a tangible

future, and half is for tactical reasons, the socialist parties having

previously elaborated minimalistic compromises in the past making them

the only real content of their platforms. Against this reformism,

against this compromise, rose the anarchists, convinced that nothing can

replace the whole ideal and that any fractionation of this necessarily

total action can only harm it. And the conflict between these two points

of view has filled the whole history of the socialist movement, from the

International to the present.

But the situation has now been completely reversed, due to the

revolutions that have broken out in the countries of Europe which, only

a few years ago, were considered the least susceptible. The clearly

social character of these revolutions indicates that the fall of

bourgeois domination is no longer a subject of theoretical propaganda or

historical predictions: it is tomorrow’s reality. In Russia, in Austria,

in Germany, the movement involves the great masses; it already terrifies

the bourgeoisie of the countries that this contagion has not yet

reached. Once again, the question of maximalism and minimalism arises.

Among the militants of the socialist and trade unionist movement, some

of them welcome with joy all the attempts at economic emancipation and

strive to realize them; others stop, hesitating, in front of the

enormity of the task to be accomplished and wonder if they will be up to

the task; they would like to run away from this responsibility,

preferring to choose some other opportune time for the movement. It

seems to them that the masses are not yet ready, and they would like to

gain even only a few more years to be better prepared. And for that,

they may task themselves with giving the movement a calmer course, so

that in the meantime they may work toward improvements of the workers’

legislative rights within the existing system or for purely corporative

struggles.[2]

In order to choose between these two conflicting points of view, it is

not enough to let ourselves be guided by our revolutionary feelings, nor

even by our devotion to the ideal. We have to look back to the lessons

of History, we have to mitigate our feelings by criticism, we have to go

back to the fundamental principles of our doctrine.

In resuming the publication of *Temps Nouveaux*, in the midst of these

entirely changed conditions, we must, from the very outset, from our

very first issue, give a clear answer to this vital question.[3] Our

answer to this question will determine our stance on all future events

to come.

-----

Let us remember our understanding of the process of all great social

movements, a conception which is entirely different than that which

inspires the parties who divide their objectives into ‘immediate’ and

‘final’ objectives.

How have the great movements of emancipation been carried out in the

past? The struggle against the existing class order begins only among a

small minority, which has acutely felt the oppression — and hopes to end

it — more than others. Oppression weighs too heavily on this small

minority to wait until enough of those in other social groups manage to

free themselves mentally and enter into the struggle. The number of

people from other classes who join the ranks of this first wave will not

be considerable at first. But the revolutionary minority fights at its

own risk and peril without worrying whether it is supported or followed

by other classes. However, little by little, it begins to garner broad

support; and this can be seen, if not in action, then at least

intellectually in other classes. The courageous actions of some

diminishes the fear of others; and so the spirit of revolt grows. We do

not always understand well the goal pursued by those who revolt, but we

do understand what they are fighting against, and this brings them

sympathy. Finally, the moment comes when an event, sometimes

insignificant in itself — for example, a determined act of violence or

something more arbitrary — provokes a revolutionary explosion. The

following events are propulsive, new experience is acquired every day,

and in the midst of this intense agitation, the mindset of the public

shifts greatly. The abyss between social classes narrows.

At the end of the revolutionary period — and this is true whether the

revolution is victorious or defeated — the general mentality of the

masses is raised to a level which all of the efforts of long years of

patient propaganda had not been able to reach beforehand. The ideal of

the revolutionary minority may not have been fully realized, but what

has been realized (in deed or in mind) comes closer to it, and this all

the more so because this minority had put more conviction and

intransigence into its revolutionary activity. Whatever was achieved now

becomes a piece of its heritage for future generations; the rest will be

the duty of the next generation, new avenues to be conquered by new eras

inaugurated by the revolution. A revolution is not only the conclusion

of the evolutionary period that preceded it: it is also the starting

point of the one that will follow, the one that will be devoted

precisely to the realization of the ideas that, in the course of

previous revolutions, could not find sufficient public support.

Even when a revolution is defeated, the principles it proclaims never

perish. Each revolution of the nineteenth century was defeated, but each

was a step forward toward a broader victory. The revolution of 1848,

which disappointed the hopes of the workers, definitively dug, in the

days of June, an abyss between the workers and the republican

bourgeoisie; it also stripped socialism of its mystical and religious

character and attributed to it a realistic social movement.[4] The Paris

Commune, drowned in blood, undermined the cult of statist centralization

and proclaimed the universal principles of autonomy and federalism. And

the Russian revolution? Whatever its future destiny, it will have

proclaimed the fall of capitalist domination and championed the rights

of labor; in a country where the state of oppression of the masses was

more conducive to revolt than anywhere else, it proclaimed that it is

these very masses who must henceforth be masters of their own lives. And

whatever the future may hold, nothing can take this idea away from any

future struggles: the reign of the contemporary owner classes is

virtually over.

-----

It is these general considerations that will dictate the answer to the

question: are the conditions ready yet for social revolution?

All debates on the question of whether the masses are “ready” or “not

ready” are always tainted with error, whether they are pessimistic or

optimistic. We have no way of ascertaining which factors could make a

social milieu ready. And besides, how do we define “being ready”? Will

we wait until the majority of the population has become socialist? But

we know perfectly well that this is impossible under present conditions.

If one could bring about by propaganda, by education alone, a radical

transformation of the mind, of feelings and sentiments, of the whole

mentality of humanity, why should one want a violent revolution, with

all its sufferings? At whatever moment in history that one considers it,

the mass is never “ready” for the future and it will never become so: a

revolutionary event must occur beforehand. It is not in the power of

revolutionaries to choose their moment beforehand, to prepare everything

and to make the revolution explode according to their will, like

fireworks.

Those who always consider the great movements premature generally

support the point of view that the certain “objective historical

conditions” are essential: i.e., the degree of capitalist evolution, the

state of industry, the development of productive forms, etc... But they

do not see that these dogmas evaporate before their eyes — as have their

minimum programs — under the pressure of real life. The most convinced

Marxists are now obliged to recognize the fact that the social

revolution has begun, not in a country of advanced capitalism, but in a

country that was very backward from this point of view and that is

especially agricultural, and that, consequently, there are other factors

at play for revolution than the development of productive forces.

Moreover, if they really wanted to penetrate a little further into the

substance of the question, they could have drawn this conclusion from

Marxism itself, thus transforming it into its opposite: into a theory of

active progression, achieved by the efforts of individual members of

society. To corroborate this, we can find, in Marx, a precious sentence:

“Humanity only ever asks itself riddles that it can solve.”[5] In other

words, if an ideal is conceived within a community, it is only because

the necessary conditions for its realization are present. Continuing

this train of thought, we will say that from this moment, from the

moment when an ideal is formulated by the minority of the vanguard, its

realization is only a question of the relationship between the forces at

play: the past, which has achieved its task, and the inevitable future.

Gradually, at the price of painful struggles and of innumerable

sacrifices, the scale leans toward the future.

At present, after a centuries-long secular struggle for economic

equality, after centuries-long secular propaganda of socialist ideas, we

are now witnessing a bold attempt to achieve it. Our progress will still

have its setbacks both in its struggle against the enemies and within

our inner evolution, and we should not think that we will find ourselves

tomorrow in an anarchist society such as we conceive it. However, we

cannot achieve a better life without actively trying to reach it;

experience is the only way forward, there is no other way. Instead of

asking ourselves: are the conditions ripe? Are the masses ready? We

should rather ask: *are we ready ourselves*? What practical measures can

we propose in the aftermath of victory, for the realization of *our*

socialism, of communism organizing itself without the help of, and

against, any State interference? What are the measures that should be

developed, and under what conditions should be studied beforehand and

implemented?” This should be our greatest preoccupation; what we must do

is not to fear being overtaken by events, but to actively prepare

ourselves for them now, always remembering the truth that an ideal is

realizable only to the extent that people believe in its possibility and

devote their energy to it.

Part II — The Dictatorship of the Proletariat[6],[7]

November 15, 1919

The realization of socialism has left the realm of dreams and

theoretical propaganda; it has become nearer to us, it has become an

urgent problem. And if it is important to answer the question of the

methods that lead to this realization, and that are the most suitable to

assure its victory, it is even more important to have a clear idea of

what must be done immediately *after* victory so that the revolution

brings the greatest amount of happiness with the least amount of

suffering possible.

The idea of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” currently has a great

influence on people’s minds. It appears to mean that the workers are now

masters of social life, masters of their own destiny, without any

exploiters or oppressors above them. It seems to be the direct and

immediate realization of socialism. In France especially, where the

labor movement has not yet been penetrated by Marxist theory and jargon,

this formula leads to misunderstanding. It contains, within itself, a

contradiction: a dictatorship “is always the unlimited power” of a

single or small group; what can the dictatorship of a class be? It is

obvious that a class cannot exercise its authority but through its

representatives, through someone it has specifically delegated, or, more

simply stated, someone that it believes has the right to act in its

interest. In short, a new power is established, the power of the

socialist party or of its most influential factions, and this power then

takes charge of regulating and legislating the destiny of the working

class. And this is not an abuse or a re-interpretation of the concept of

a “dictatorship of the proletariat”; it is in fact its very essence. It

is completely derived from Marxist theory, from the way that this theory

conceives the evolution of society. Let us summarize it in a few words.

By definition, political power lies in the hands of the economically

dominant class. The bourgeoisie, after having replaced the feudalists

economically, have also taken their place politically, at least in the

most industrialized countries of Europe and America. Since then, the

entire political activity of the bourgeois class has been aimed at

safeguarding its interests and consolidating its domination. But now, in

the course of economic evolution, the proletariat is taking the place of

the bourgeoisie as the class most capable of assuring the development of

productive forces; from this point of view alone, political power must

also be returned to them. This new State, the State of the proletariat,

will henceforth be concerned only with the interests of this specific

class, which will in turn become the dominant class. This is the

the dominated class supersedes the dominant class; now, the economic

exploitation abolished by elevating the previously most exploited

classes brings into existence more strife. Thereafter, new class

struggles emerge since previously conceived classes become a thing of

the past — and so the cycle continues endlessly. This cyclical

contradiction is solved partly thanks to the Marxist conception of the

way in which a socialist transformation can be carried out. It begins

with the seizure of power by a socialist party; but what does a

socialist government do next?

Marxist literature does not abound in future projects: social democrats

are too utopia-phobic for that. But the little we know about them is

enough for us to understand that socialism will have to be realized

gradually, during entire historical epochs. During this period, classes

will not have ceased to exist, and capitalist exploitation will not have

ended: it will only be attenuated and softened with regard *to the needs

of the proletariat*. They then become the class protected by the State,

while the circumstances of the bourgeoisie are made increasingly more

difficult. And so now here we are, at the dawn of Marxism, and Marx

himself, where the *Communist Manifesto* enumerates these gradual

measures that the socialist government will have to adopt:

1. Expropriation of landed property and confiscation of land rent for

2. Highly progressive taxation.

3. Abolition of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State by means of a

6. Centralization, in the hands of the State, of all the means of

7. Increase of the national factories and of the instruments of

8. Compulsory work for all, organization of industrial armies,

9. Combination of agricultural and industrial work.

10. Free public education for all children, abolition of child labor in

The application of this program will be done in a peaceful or violent

way, according to the circumstances, but in any case it will be done

with the help of strong political power. Defining political power as

“the organized power of one class for the oppression of another,”

Marxism thus envisages, as its ultimate goal, a society that is only an

“association of men” without any power. It is indeed a march toward

anarchy, but by way of its opposite, an all-powerful State.

Fifty years later, Kautsky, in *The Social Revolution*, proclaims that

“the conquest of political power by a hitherto oppressed class, that is

to say, the *political revolution*, constitutes the essential nature of

the *social revolution*.”[8] He then indicates a series of legislative

measures intended to operate little by little, with or without financial

compensation, the “expropriation of the expropriators”: progressive

taxation on large incomes and fortunes, measures against unemployment,

the nationalization of transportation and of large landed property, etc.

What is the possible regime of this “dictatorship of the proletariat”? A

State stronger than it ever was, because it holds in its hands the whole

economic life of the country; it is the master of everything and can

literally deprive every citizen of their livelihood at any given moment.

As a means of fighting any opposition, it is very effective. The workers

are the employees of the State; and it is therefore against it that they

must assert their rights. The struggle against this gigantic employer

becomes very intense; strikes quickly turn into political crimes. A

workers’ control council could be created, but it will only be exercised

to the extent that the employing State will allow it. It is however

possible that the workers could enjoy other advantages of a political

nature from this situation, such as the exclusive right to vote, for

example, or in being privileged in the distribution of products. But, if

we reflect carefully on it, these advantages do not constitute any

progress because they do not bring any justice into society and only

serve to give rise to more hatred. Instead of abolishing the bourgeoisie

where they could and should provide useful work, they are allowed (even

if only “temporarily”) to live off the work of others, but are also

furthermore punished by being deprived of certain things to which they

are entitled as human beings.

The bourgeoisie must be put into a situation where it is impossible for

them to harm; the class must be deprived of its armed forces and of

everything that constitutes its economic domination. Repressive measures

which target only individual members of the bourgeoisie are a useless

means of revenge. It is also a dangerous slope: we think that we are

doing revolutionary work, but instead, we are contributing nothing

toward the construction of a new life. Furthermore: this civil war

against the internal enemy, against an evil that we have neglected to

entirely uproot, increases the prestige of the militaristic elements of

society, of the leaders of military brigades of all factions that

dominate both sides. The struggle therefore becomes uniquely a question

of military strength. And in all evidence, any and all construction of

our future finds itself postponed to calmer times. But we are missing

the opportunity, the people are getting tired, and the danger of

reaction increases...

-----

That is why, regarding the method of implementation, we propose a

different method in opposition to this view towards the realization of

socialism.

The opposition between these two points of view dates from the early

days of the International, from the dispute between Marx and Bakunin. It

was Bakunin who first proclaimed in his “The Policy of the

International” that true socialism differs from “bourgeois socialism” in

that the former affirms that the revolution must be an “immediate and

direct implementation concerning the entirety of all aspects of social

life,” while the latter affirms that “the political transformation must

precede the economic transformation.”[9] The tendency that continued

the tradition of the first Federalist International — our tendency —

developed and clarified this idea of a direct economic revolution in the

years that were to follow. First in *Le RĂŠvoltĂŠ*, then in *La RĂŠvolte*,

Kropotkin showed by historical examples that the progress of humanity is

due to the spontaneous activity of the people and not because of the

action of the State; and, at the same time, he developed the program of

free communism, the principle “to each according to his needs,” which is

the only one that is compatible with a stateless society.[10] He also

showed that the economic revolution cannot be realized *little by

little* and by fragments, and that one would thus only end up disrupting

the economic life without allowing space to rebuild it on new

foundations; that the communist distribution must be, in the interest of

the revolution, inaugurated immediately after a victory. He juxtaposed

his “Conquest of Bread” against the other idea of “Complete Power” and

showed the necessity, for the socialists, to actively look for new

avenues outside the tired old formulas.

The anarchist movement as a whole was inspired by these fundamental

ideas. Their field of action was especially expanded from the moment

when the workers’ movement in France, slowed down after the fall of the

Commune, started to breathe the revolutionary spirit once again. First,

under the influence of F. Pelloutier, and then consequently with the

numerous anarchists who entered the unions, was born the great movement

of revolutionary syndicalism, which, during the first ten years of the

twentieth century, carried within it the seeds of all of the hopes for

workers’ emancipation.[11] Syndicalism has already accepted the idea of

the immediate takeover of the means of production, and, even more, has

made it more precise: the means by which they are to be realized already

exist, they are the unions. The general strike, the prelude of

revolutionary expropriation, became the final goal. Let us recall that

in this respect its preparation seemed at a given moment a work so

important and so urgent that the *Voix du Peuple* opened (around 1902,

if I am not mistaken) a specific section in which the unions were

invited to indicate what each one of them could do in the immediate days

after victory to assure the continuity of the production in their

respective fields, to establish relationships with other unions and

consumers, etc., etc. This initiative, which did not seem to have found

sufficient popularity, was nonetheless very important; even more

important would be the task of taking it up again now that we are closer

to practical achievements.

Thus was, from that time until the war, the fundamental character of

revolutionary syndicalism. From France, it spread to other countries, to

other international workers’ movements. Anarcho-syndicalist ideas

penetrated into the writings of sociologists, jurists, economists; even

scholars foreign to the labor movement began to find that the renovation

of economic life with, as its foundation, a free association of

producers, is perhaps not utopian, that it is perhaps in this way that

capitalism will be overthrown and that a new form of political existence

will be inaugurated in the State.

The war stopped this evolution and made the course of things deviate

toward another direction. The State suddenly became stronger, its

competence expanded; the workers’ organizations, on the contrary, slowed

down their struggles or directed them, because of practical

difficulties, toward more immediate achievements. The reformist tendency

became preponderant.

The revolutionary spirit reappeared in the world with the Russian

revolution, but in a different form: that of State Socialism.

The time has not yet come to draw definitive conclusions from the

communist experiment tried in Russia; we do not know many things and it

is difficult for us to evaluate the role of the different factors in its

successes and failures. But what we can say is this: what we know does

not affect our fundamental point of view. We do not intend to develop

here all the arguments that make us believe that the governmental

apparatus is unfit to carry out a social revolution, that only the

action of the workers’ groups, which have become in turn producer

groups, are solely able to accomplish such tasks. This demonstration has

been made in our literature many times. But we believe it useful to

recall the general conclusions.

We think, as we have always thought, that immediately taking possession

of the land and the instruments of production and the management of the

economic life by peasant and worker organizations is more likely to

assure the material well-being of Society than will State decrees.

We think that this mode of social and political transformation is better

suited to mitigate conflict and avoid civil war because it includes

greater freedom and greater varieties of organization than the simple

introduction by authority of some unitary reform.

We think that the direct participation of the population in the

construction of new economic forms makes the victories of the revolution

more stable and better ensures their endurance.

We think, finally, that in addition to economic and political conquests,

a higher stage of civilization has been prepared from both the

intellectual and moral perspectives.

The French workers possess a sufficient heritage of ideas and experience

of struggle to find the path that leads most directly toward total

emancipation. To proclaim the fall of capitalism and the reign of

socialism is a great thing, and we give credit for this to the socialist

government of Russia. But we also want socialism to be put into

practice, we want a new era to open up before humanity, and we want no

weapons to be provided to the reactionaries through the faults of the

socialists. For this reason, we who work in France must take advantage

of the moment when there is still time *to prepare* ourselves by

studying what the workers’ organizations can and must do “the day after”

the revolution.

We consider of the utmost importance the most serious and complete

discussion of all questions concerning the reorganization of the economy

toward the moment when the workers will finally be able to make

themselves masters of their own destinies. This is not a mere question

of debate, nor even of propaganda; it is rather a question of careful

study. It is no longer enough to say that such and such an order of

things is desirable, nor even to demonstrate it: it is now necessary to

indicate the practical measures which are *immediately* realizable with

the means we presently have at our disposal.

It is to this undertaking to which we now call upon our comrades.

Bibliography

<biblio>

Pierrot, Marc. “Marie Goldsmith.” *Plus Loin* [*Further*], March 1933.

The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, “Karl Kautsky,” October 13,

2022.

[[https://www.britannica.com/biography/Karl-Kautsky][britannica.com/biography/Karl-Kautsky]].

</biblio>

Part III — Some Economic Milestones[12],[13]

April 15, 1920

The future forms that the production and distribution of products will

take are of the utmost significance concerning our future projections:

upon these will be founded the entire nature of the society that

replaces the capitalist regime. This question did not suddenly appear

yesterday, but its solution has become urgent; and furthermore, the

experience of the Russian revolution provides us with useful

indications, sometimes confirming, sometimes reversing certain

conceptions that were formulated in the past in a completely theoretical

way.

To solve these questions in a concrete form, that is to say, to

elaborate a *plan* of economic organization for “tomorrow,” to indicate

the frameworks and institutions to be created for its realization, is a

task that goes far beyond the competence not only of the author of this

article, but also of a publication like *Les Temps Nouveaux*. This is

the work of specialists: workers, technicians of all kinds, directly

involved in production; only their professional organizations and their

colleagues can discuss, in full knowledge of the facts, the concrete

measures to be taken in the present as in the future.

But every socialist, and every group of propagandists, has not only the

right, but the duty to establish for themselves and for their comrades

an idea toward a general point of view, to reflect on the experience

that is unfolding before our eyes, and to draw certain general lines

according to which they would like to see the more competent thought of

the specialists work. It is considerations of this kind that will be

dealt with in the present article.

-----

Of the existing conceptions of the mode of organization of production in

socialist societies, *nationalization* is the most accessible and widely

accepted. The passage of the means of production to an egalitarian

society is conceived in the programs of all the Statist socialist

parties as their handing-over to the State, because society is, by their

definition, represented by the State. No matter what form it takes,

whether parliamentary, Soviet, or in other forms, it is always this

centralized organization that holds political power that is also the

master of natural resources, the means of production, and the means of

product distribution.

We can clearly see to what degree the State finds itself strengthened by

all of this. In addition to political power, it now controls every facet

of life. The dependence of each citizen upon it reaches its zenith. The

boss-State is a particularly authoritarian boss: and like any boss, it

wants to be a complete master of its business and tolerates the

interference of workers only when it is absolutely impossible to avoid

it. In the economic domain, the State won’t even tolerate the idea of

being a constitutional monarchy: it will always tend toward autocracy.

The concept of Jaurès: that of the gradual democratization, by means of

the State, of the economic regime, analogous to the political

democratization accomplished in the past, now more than ever appears to

be a utopia.[14] In the capitalist regime, the workers and employees of

the State are the most dependent of all, and on the opposite pole of the

social organization, in the collectivist regime of the Bolsheviks, it is

the same: the workers lose little by little both the right of control

and their factory Committees and even their great means of struggle: the

right to strike. And as a crowning achievement, it is the mobilization

of labor, “armies” of workers governed by a militaristic discipline. And

this is fatal: no power ever restricts itself if nothing forces it to do

so; and when the people in power pursue an idea, when they are convinced

that it can only be achieved by coercion, they will show themselves to

be even more intractable, more absolute in their right to dispose of the

existence of its citizens.

It is generally the need to increase production that justifies the

suppression of all individual and collective rights of the workers. This

is how the Bolshevik power explains the creation of its compulsory labor

armies. However, apart from any question of principle, the mere

consideration of just the expenses — both in terms of human forces and

in money — that any such massive bureaucracy requires, which is a

necessary condition of such a vast extension of the power of the State,

shows that this calculation is erroneous. In Russia, bureaucratic

administration of factories absorbs most of their income, not to mention

the number of workers it takes away from other more useful work. And the

desired result is far from being achieved. The boss-State is

ill-equipped to fight against this decrease in labor productivity which

necessarily follows great catastrophes, such as war, famine, lack of

necessities, etc., etc. Additionally, the socialist powers of the

Bolsheviks are not able to find other means to fight against this issue

other than with measures that have always been known, and against which

workers and socialists of all countries have always resisted: piecework

wages, the bonus system, the Taylor system, etc…[15] Thus everywhere

hourly work is replaced by piecework, the twelve-hour day replaces the

eight-hour day, the age of compulsory work is lowered from sixteen to

fourteen. And, finally, this mobilization of work (a measure of which a

few years ago, no socialist party would have been believed capable of

implementing) which reminds us well of the times of serfdom...

If socialists, who certainly do not aim at the degradation of workers’

personality and take such measures only as a last resort, are obliged to

go so far against all their ideals, it should only be because within the

limits of their choices, which has for framework and for a tool

exclusively the benefit of the State, no other way out exists. And yet

here is a fact, small in itself, but significant. In the course of the

very opinionated struggle of the Soviet government against the

disorganization of industry, only one measure was taken which proved to

be effective. It is *voluntary work on Saturdays*.

“The Communist Party has made voluntary Saturday work mandatory for its

members ... Every Saturday, in various regions of the Soviet Republic,

barges and fuel wagons are unloaded, railroads repaired, wheat, fuel,

and other goods for the population and the war front are loaded, wagons

and locomotives repaired, etc. Gradually the great mass of workers and

peasants began to join the ‘Saturday workers,’ to help the Soviet power,

to contribute with their voluntary work to fight the cold, hunger and

general economic disorganization.”[16] From other sources we learn that

the productivity of voluntary work far exceeds that of paid factory

work. There is no need to say how instructive this example is. In the

midst of all the measures by which workers were sometimes attracted by

high wages, according to the traditional principle of the capitalist

regime, and sometimes subjected to military discipline, only one has

proved effective: it is the call to work — free and conscious work by

people who know that they are doing something useful. This is a striking

example in support of the truth that the most “utopian” solutions are at

the same time the most practical, and that if we want to obtain

“realizations” today, the surest way is still to start from the final

goal.

But these considerations proceed from a mindset foreign to the idea of

the State and obligatory work in its service.

Here is another formula, at first sight more seductive. It is the

transfer of businesses into the hands of the workers or of their

corresponding professional organizations. This is the system which, in

France, is expressed by the formula “the mines to the miners.” During

the first year of the Russian revolution, even before the Bolsheviks

came to power, there were a number of such examples of the workers

taking over their factories. This was easy for them (the workers),

because the bosses, during that time, wanted nothing better than to

abandon their businesses. Later, the Bolsheviks introduced “workers’

control”’ in all factories; but this control was only momentary and had

no practical effect: where the workers were weak and poorly organized,

it remained an unrespected moot point; and where the workers were aware

of their rights, they said to themselves — quite logically — that if

they already had control of the factories, they had no further need to

leave them to their former owners. And so they took it over, declaring

it the property of those who work there. But it was always the property

of a group of people who merely replaced the original bourgeois owner.

This could only result in a production cooperative in the best of

circumstances. The collective owners were concerned — like the previous

ones — solely with their own interests; like the others, they competed

against one another in order to attract contracts from the State, etc.

Egoism and the thirst for gain, to be the characteristic of any of these

groups, new or old, were no less strong.

Another consideration, a practical one, makes it impossible to extend

such a system to the entirety of society. There are businesses which

receive large profits: those which produce widely spread goods, or are

in the business of transporting said goods; the workers who are employed

in them and who become their owners are, in this context, privileged.

But there are many sectors of the economy which give no profit at all,

requiring instead continuous expenditures: schools, hospitals, road

maintenance, street cleaning, etc., etc. What will be the yields of

those who are employed in these fields of work? How will they be able to

live if these businesses become the source of their livelihood? With

what means will they be able to operate them and who will pay their

wages? Obviously, the principle of cooperative ownership must be

modified as far as they are concerned. We can imagine, it is true that

it will be the consumers who will pay; but this would be a step

backwards instead of being considered a progress, because one of the

best results of economic evolution is the free access to certain

historical conquests of civilization: hospitals, schools, bridges,

roads, water pipes, water wells, among others. To ask people to pay for

them would be to add some new privileges to those that are already well

possessed, and to take away the means of meeting the most essential

needs from everyone else.

All these considerations — and many others — make such a system

undesirable. In the current context — to which we are always obliged to

refer to as if it were the only socialist experience that has ever been

created so far — the disadvantages of this system, introduced at the

beginning of the Bolshevist period, have led the Soviet government to

adopt, as the only possible remedy, nationalization.

We should have, it is true, explored for a third solution: a system that

could give workers direct control of their economic lives, without the

inconveniences of cooperative property. The Bolsheviks, however, were

too imbued with social democratic and statist ideas which suggested to

them only the well-known system of nationalization. And it is there that

they ended their revolution.

-----

Let us try then, for our part, to find this third way out: a system

which would give the workers the management of economic life, but

without the disadvantages of corporate ownership. And, first of all,

let’s go back to our fundamental principles: our communism, true

communism, and not that already outdated communism of 1848 that the

Bolsheviks have recently rediscovered and adopted as the name of their

party to replace the other name, too dishonored by compromises, of

“social democrats.”[17] Let us try then, in the light of these

principles, to orient ourselves a little in the questions that arise.

If we recognize neither nationalization in the hands of the State, nor

the formula “the mines to the miners,” what alternate forms can the

transfer of the means of production to the hands of workers’

organizations (unions, summits, factory committees, or such others)

take?

First of all, the means of production cannot become the *property* of

these organizations: they must only have the *functional use* of them.

The wind or the water that turns the wings or the wheels of a mill are

not the property of anyone; they are simply harnessed for the purposes

of production. In the same vein, the earth should not be the property of

anyone; one who cultivates it *uses it*, but it belongs to the whole

community — that is, to no one in particular. Likewise, the instruments

of labor made by the hands of workers: they are a collective wealth, a

common property, *used* by those who need to use them at any given

moment for any given task. This being accepted, how can we then imagine:

first, the future organization of production, and then that of

distribution?

-----

It is obvious that only the whole of the professional organizations

concerning any branch of production can plan their production; these

professional organizations will include both the workers themselves and

the more learned specialists — engineers, chemists, etc. Each branch of

production is closely linked, on the one hand, with those who supply it

with raw materials, and on the other hand, with the organizations or the

public who consume its products. And since in these types of

relationships the most critical role is the understanding of all needs

and possibilities, there must be groups or Committees that will be able

to concentrate, compile, and manage all the necessary statistical

information. Their role must be strictly limited to that of suppliers of

statistical input; the subsequent use of this material would no longer

be their concern in the future. They would not be able to issue any

decree; those decisions belong exclusively to the larger professional

associations. The opinions of these statistical Committees would be of

no more coercive a nature than the indications given by an architect,

the advice of a hygienist, or that of a pedagogue, etc.

As for the various branches of production, their modes of organization

can vary greatly according to the technical particularities of each

association: some can accept complete autonomy of their constituent

groups, while others can exact perfectly coordinated action. All that is

to be desired is that there should be, in each specialty, not just one

central organization that governs *everything*, but a large number of

course, foresee the various ways in which this style of organizing work

may be envisioned in future contexts. However, adapting it to the needs

of the moment may not be an excessively difficult task.

-----

But there are much thornier questions which require continuous

innovation because nothing like this has ever been attempted before. Who

will be the *owner* of these means of production, which the professional

organizations will manage, and of the objects produced — that is to say,

of all collective wealth? If not the State, if not the corporations,

then who? What does the sentence: “The means of production belong to the

community” *concretely* represent? Who will represent these communities?

Who and by what right will they dispose of the products? To whom will

the profits of these sales be given? Who will pay the wages?

It is in these questions that it is necessary to fully develop our

communist idea, our great principle “from each according to his

abilities, to each according to his needs,” and to draw all its

subsequent consequences.

Who will dispose of the products of these works? These products must

constitute a common wealth available to each person for his or her own

consumption, either if they are objects of immediate consumption, or if

they belong to the professional organizations that use these products

(if they are raw materials or instruments of work). Individuals or

organizations can draw upon these stocks to the extent of their needs

and, in the case of insufficient quantities, after reaching a fair

agreement with other interested consumers or organizations. No one

will be responsible for fulfilling any orders.

In the same way, the question arises: who will profit from the sales?

There is no issue here, because there is actually no sale, because the

products are not commodities, but simply objects of consumption, equally

accessible to all. Communism does not recognize the distinction between

objects of consumption —*private* property and the means of production —

and *collective* property. It does not even recognize a difference in

configuration between them; coal, for example, where would it be

classified? It is an indispensable element of production, and yet it is

also one of the most necessary objects of individual consumption. The

tendency of communism is to make all objects free. Everyone will agree

that housing, food, necessary clothing, heating, etc., must be made

available to everyone in the same way as medical aid or street lighting,

which even today’s capitalist society provides. Every human being has

the right to these basic necessities by the mere fact of their

existence, and no one has the right to deprive them. The individual’s

share of this social consumption can be determined by many factors,

individual and/or social: first of all, by the needs of each person, and

for everything that is in excess of that: alas!

In today’s Europe, instead of an abundance of products, there is rather

a scarcity, and this will force us to be better prepared for future

needs. A necessary minimum (calculated as much as possible on some kind

of average consumption), will be to establish and to organize fair

distribution of needs based on common agreement. Rations can and should

be different for different categories of people. To establish these

categories, it is again on the differences of needs that there must be

discretion; there will be taken into account: the age, the state of

health, their ability to defend themselves, etc… Many considerations

will have to be taken into account, moreover and especially in the

distribution of the products: the needs of the community, the need to

make reserves for the future and to keep a certain quantity of products

for any potential exchanges with other communities, etc., etc. There is

only one factor that we refuse to introduce into these calculations: it

is the sum of work spent by each individual.

Here we can foresee the protests coming. The spectacle of *today’s*

society, where those who produce the least consume the most, revolts our

sense of justice and makes us declare immediately: to each person the

fruits of their labor and to each proportionally according to the labor

provided.

But, in spite of this seemingly natural progression of thinking, we

think that it is not on this principle — however legitimate it may seem

in contrast to the flagrant injustices of our time — that the society of

the future must be founded. The revenge that the people may exercise

against their oppressors at the time of the revolution is perhaps

historically just, but it is not upon this revenge that the future reign

of the people can be founded after victory: it is rather on the

principle of human solidarity. Likewise in questions of land and

resource distribution.

And we should not be told that the bourgeoisie must first be repressed

and that the victory of the working class must first lead to a mode of

distribution that places labor at the proper position it deserves. The

class struggle *ends* with the workers’ victory and the distinction

between workers and parasites no longer exists. With the possibility of

free work in a free society being provided to everyone, the number of

those who refuse it will be so small that it will not justify the

creation of a new class of parasites in the form of an invasive

bureaucracy, and in the next generation the traces of this old

parasitism will have disappeared.

To give to each one in proportion to their work is, if you like, a just

principle; but it is a justice of a lower order, such as, for instance,

the idea of rewarding merit and punishing vice. We shall not dwell upon

all the philosophical and practical reasons which lead us to reject this

stance. What could we possibly add, moreover, to the arguments that

Kropotkin provided when he laid the foundations of communist

anarchism?[18] Let us only say — for those comrades who are unaware of

it — that at the other edge of socialist thought, Marx agreed with him,

saying that “the narrow horizon of bourgeois law will only be overcome”

when the remuneration of work has given way to the distribution of the

tiller according to the needs of each individual.[19] We want to go

beyond bourgeois law and bourgeois justice. Every human has a right to

existence by the mere fact that they are human. Then, and also because

they are human beings living in society, they will apply themselves to

bring their share of work to the common treasure. This is the only

possible guarantee against any further exploitation and against endless

conflicts.

We therefore reject the very idea of a *wage* lifestyle; we

differentiate the two questions: that of production and that of

consumption, leaving between them only the link which results from the

fact that the total quantity of manufactured products must be regulated

according to the needs of consumption. This is the only order of things

compatible with a system in which professional organizations can

It is also the only one compatible with a free society, free from the

coercive power of a State.

We do not believe, of course, that the very day after the next

revolution, all of this will work out so well: without conflicts,

without mixing with our past bourgeois elements. We know that it is

highly unlikely that this complete and pure communism can be achieved at

once. But we also know that that is only by being inspired that any

future advancements can be made. And that is why it seems so important

to us, so infinitely desirable, that it is in this spirit that the

milestones of the future are laid.

Bibliography

<biblio>

Braverman, Harry. *Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work

in the Twentieth Century*. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1998.

</biblio>

[1] Ed: Isidine, M. “Les problèmes de demain — I — Les raisons de notre

[2] Ed: “Corporative” is a term used to refer to a

[3] Ed: After *Les Temps Nouveaux* went out of print at the onset of

[4] Ed: The Revolutions of 1848 were a widespread set of European

[5] Ed: This partial quote comes from the preface of Karl Marx’s *A

[6] See the first issue.

[7] Ed: Isidine, M. “Les problèmes de demain — II — La Dictature du

[8] Ed: Karl Kautsky (1854 – 1938) was a leading orthodox Marxist

[9] Ed: This article was published in the newspaper *L’Égalité* in

[10] Ed: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his

[11] Ed: Fernand Pelloutier (1867 – 1901) was a French Marxist labor

[12] See issues 1 and 5.

[13] Ed: Isidine, M. “Les problèmes de demain — III — Quelques jalons

[14] Ed: Jean Jaurès (1859 – 1914) was a French social democrat and

[15] Ed: “Scientific management,” also known as Taylorism, is the system

[16] Official organ of the Bolshevik Government Ecconomitches kaĂŽa Jiza

[17] Ed: Goldsmith alludes to the fact that the Bolsheviks, once a part

[18] Ed: For further elaboration from Marie Goldsmith on Kropotkin’s

[19] K. Marx, “Critique of the Gotha Program.”

Home