[The following is a transcription of Igor Shafarevich's The Socialist Phenomenon
. This work was originally published in Russian
in France under the title Sotsializm kak iavlenie mirovoi istorii
in 1975, by YMCA Press. An English translation was subsequently published in 1980 by
Harper & Row. This work is now out of print and difficult to find.
As a public service, I have transcribed this important work
and I am making it available for free via the Internet.
Notes on format:
- Horizontal lines mark page boundries in the original.
- Numbers appearing within square brackets at the end of each page denote page numbers in the original.
- Words or bibliographic references spanning page boundries in
the original now appear in their entirety at the bottom of the
lower-numbered page.
- Blank pages in the original have been deleted from this transcription.
- The OCR software I used for this transcription tends to drop
diacritical marks. I manually restored them wherever I could during
proofreading, but I'm sure many are still missing.
- Robert L Stephens]
Igor Shafarevich
The Socialist Phenomenon
TRANSLATED FROM THE RUSSIAN BY William Tjalsma
Foreword by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
[iii]
Contents
|
|
Foreword vii
|
|
|
Preface xi
|
|
|
PART ONE
CHILIASTIC SOCIALISM
|
|
|
Introduction 2
|
|
I.
|
The Socialism of Antiquity 7
|
|
II.
|
The Socialism of the Heresies 18
|
|
|
1. General Survey 18
|
|
|
Appendix: Three Biographies 46
|
|
|
2. Chiliastic Socialism and the Ideology of the Heretical Movements 67
|
|
III.
|
The Socialism of the Philosophers 80
|
|
|
1. The Great Utopias 80
|
|
|
2. The Socialist Novel 101
|
|
|
3. The Age of Enlightenment 106
|
|
|
4. The First Steps 120
|
|
|
Summary 129
|
|
|
PART TWO
STATE SOCIALISM
|
|
IV.
|
South America 132
|
|
|
1. The Inca Empire 132
|
|
|
2. The Jesuit State in Paraguay 142
|
[v]
|
V.
|
The Ancient Orient 152
|
|
|
1. Mesopotamia 152
|
|
|
2. Ancient Egypt 161
|
|
|
Appendix: Religion in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia 166
|
|
|
3. Ancient China 168
|
|
|
Appendix: Was There Such a Thing as an "Asiatic Social Formation"? 185
|
|
|
Summary 189
|
|
|
PART THREE
ANALYSIS
|
|
VI.
|
The Contours of Socialism 194
|
|
|
1. The Abolition of Private Property 195
|
|
|
2. The Abolition of The Family 195
|
|
|
3. The Abolition of Religion 195
|
|
|
4. Communality or Equality 196
|
|
VII.
|
Survey of Some Approaches to Socialism 202
|
|
VIII.
|
The Embodiment of the Socialist Ideal 236
|
|
|
1. Economy 239
|
|
|
2. The Organization of Labor 241
|
|
|
3. Family 243
|
|
|
4. Culture 248
|
|
|
5. Religion 251
|
|
IX.
|
Socialism and Individuality 258
|
|
X.
|
The Goal of Socialism 270
|
|
XI.
|
Conclusion 286
|
|
|
|
Bibliography 301
|
|
|
|
Index 309
|
[vi]
Foreword
It seems that certain things in this world simply cannot be discovered without extensive
experience,
be it personal or collective. This applies to the present book with its
fresh and revealing perspective on the millennia-old trends of
socialism. While it makes
use of a voluminous literature familiar
to specialists throughout the world, there is an undeniable logic in
the fact that it emerged from the country that has undergone (and is
undergoing) the harshest and most prolonged socialist experience in
modern history. Nor is it at all incongruous that within that country
this book should not have been produced by a humanist, for scholars in
the humanities have been the most methodically crushed of all social
strata in the Soviet Union ever since the October Revolution. It was
written by a mathematician of world renown: in the Communist world,
practitioners of the exact sciences must stand in for their annihilated
brethren.
But this circumstance has its compensations. It provides us with a
rare opportunity of receiving a systematic analysis of the theory and
practice of socialism from the pen of an outstanding mathematical
thinker versed in the rigorous methodology of his science. (One can
attach particular weight, for instance, to his judgment that Marxism
lacks even the
climate of scientific inquiry.)
World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with
it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or
concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores
them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds
socialism and from its
instinctive aversion to scientific analysis, features which the
[vii]
author of this volume points out repeatedly and in many contexts. The
doctrines of socialism seethe with contradictions, its theories are at
constant odds with its practice, yet due to a powerful
instinct--also
laid bare by Shafarevich--these contradictions do not in the least
hinder the unending propaganda of socialism. Indeed, no precise,
distinct socialism even exists; instead there is only a vague, rosy
notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and
justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a
social order beyond reproach.
The twentieth century marks one of the greatest upsurges in the
success of socialism, and concomitantly of its repulsive practical
manifestations. Yet due to the same passionate irrationality, attempts
to examine these results are repelled: they are either ignored
completely, or implausibly explained away in terms of certain "Asiatic"
or "Russian" aberrations or the personality of a particular dictator, or
else they are ascribed to "state capitalism." The present book
encompasses vast stretches of time and space. By carefully describing
and analyzing dozens of socialist doctrines and numerous states built on
socialist principles, the author leaves no room for evasive arguments
based on so-called "insignificant exceptions" (allegedly bearing no
resemblance to the glorious future). Whether it is the centralization of
China in the first millennium B.C., the bloody European experiments of
the time of the Reformation, the chilling (though universally esteemed)
utopias of European thinkers, the intrigues of Marx and Engels, or the
radical Communist measures of the Lenin period (no wit more humane than
Stalin's heavy-handed methods)--the author in all his dozens of examples
demonstrates the undeviating consistency of the phenomenon under
consideration.
Shafarevich has singled out the invariants of socialism, its
fundamental and unchanging elements, which depend neither on time nor
place, and which, alas, are looming ominously over today's tottering
world. If one considers human history in its entirety, socialism can
boast of a greater longevity and durability, of wider diffusion and of
control over larger masses of people, than can contemporary Western
civilization. It is therefore difficult to shake off gloomy
presentiments when contemplating that maw into which--before the century
is out--we may all plunge: that "Asiatic formation" which Marx hastened
to circumvent in his classification, and before which contemporary
Marxist thought stands baffled, having discerned its own hideous
countenance
[viii]
in the mirror of the millennia. It could probably be said that the
majority of states in the history of mankind have been "socialist." But
it is also true that these were in no sense periods or places of human
happiness or creativity.
Shafarevich points out with great precision both the cause and the
genesis of the first socialist doctrines, which he characterizes as
reactions:
Plato as a reaction to Greek culture, and the Gnostics as a reaction to
Christianity. They sought to counteract the endeavor of the human
spirit to stand erect, and strove to return to the earthbound existence
of the primitive states of antiquity. The author also convincingly
demonstrates the diametrical opposition between the concepts of man held
by religion and by socialism. Socialism seeks to reduce human
personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest,
most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even
equality
itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout
the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of
opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality
qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity.
Even though, as this book shows, socialism has always
successfully avoided truly scientific analyses of its essence,
Shafarevich's study challenges present-day theoreticians of socialism to
demonstrate their arguments in a businesslike public discussion.
ALEKSANDR I. SOLZHENITSYN
[ix]
Preface
This book is inspired by the conviction that the cataclysms which
humanity has experienced in the twentieth century are only the
beginning of a much more profound crisis--of a radical shift in the
course of history. To characterize the scope of this crisis, I had
thought of comparing it to the end of ancient civilization or to the
transition from the Middle Ages to the modern period. But later I
became acquainted with a bolder and, it seems to me, more penetrating
approach. For example, F. Heichelheim in his fascinating
An Ancient Economic History
expresses the supposition that the present period of history, which has
lasted over three thousand years, is coming to an end. It had its
beginnings in the Iron Age, when tendencies rooted in the free
development of personality led to the creation of the spiritual and
cultural values upon which contemporary life is based:
It is quite possible that the economic state controls of the last
decades, produced by immanent trends of our Late Capitalist Age of the
twentieth century, mean the end and conclusion of the long development
in the direction of economic individualism, and the beginnings of a
novel organization of labor which is closer to the Ancient Oriental
models of five thousand years ago than to the ideals for which the
foundations were laid at the beginning of the Iron Age. (90: pp.
115-116)*
It is hardly necessary to demonstrate that one of the basic forces
influencing the developing crisis of mankind is socialism. It both
promotes
* Throughout this work, Arabic numbers within parentheses refer to entries in the bibliography beginning on page 301. Roman numerals indicate volume numbers.
[xi]
this crisis, as a force destroying the "old world," and undertakes to
show a way out. Therefore the attempt to comprehend socialism--its
origins, its driving forces, the goal toward which it leads--is dictated
quite simply by the instinct for self-preservation. We fear the
possibility of finding ourselves at the crossroads with blinders on, at a
time when choosing which road to take may determine the whole of
mankind's future.
But it is precisely such attempts to understand which seem to curtail
all discussion. The fact that the adherents of socialism themselves
have expressed so many contradictory views ought to put us on guard. In
addition, notions about the nature of socialism are as a rule strikingly
vague, and yet they do not elicit doubt and are perceived as truth
needing no verification. This is especially apparent in attempts to make
critical evaluations of socialism. Pointing out the tragic facts that
so frequently have accompanied the socialist experiments of the
twentieth century usually evokes the objection that an idea cannot be
judged by the unsuccessful attempts at its implementation. The task of
rebuilding society is so immeasurably complicated, it is said, that in
the initial stages errors are inevitable; they are, however, due to the
shortcomings of certain individuals or the heritage of the past; in no
sense do they follow from the fine principles enunciated by the founders
of the doctrine. The fact that even in the earliest declarations of
socialist doctrine there are schemes which in their cruelty far exceed
any real system is dismissed as insignificant. It is argued that the
determining factor is real life and hardly the constructions of
theoreticians or the fantasy of utopian thinkers. Life, it is said, has
its own laws. It will temper and smooth out the extremes of the fanatics
and create a social structure which, even if it does not quite
correspond to their original plans, will be at least viable, and in any
case closer to perfection than that which now exists.
In attempting to break out of this vicious circle, it is useful
to compare socialism to some other phenomenon which has had an influence
of similar magnitude on life; for example, religion. Religion may have a
social function, supporting or destroying social institutions; it may
have an economic function (as the temples of the ancient East did with
their landholdings, or as in the case of the Catholic Church in the
Middle Ages); or it may have a political role, and so on. But this is
possible only because there are people who believe in God and because
there is a striving for a union with God which religion creates.
[xii]
Without taking this fundamental function of religion into account, it is
impossible to understand how it influences life generally. It is this
aspect that must be clarified before one can examine the question of how
it interacts with other spheres of life.
It is natural to suppose that socialism, too, contains a fundamental
tendency which makes possible its phenomenal influence on life. But it
is unlikely to be identified by studying, for example, the Western
socialist parties, in which basic socialist tendencies are hopelessly
entangled with practical politics. It is necessary, first, to study this
phenomenon over a sufficiently long time span in order to ascertain its
basic characteristics and, second, to examine its most striking and
consistent manifestations.
In pursuing this method we shall be astonished to find that
socialism (at least at first sight) turns out to be a glaring
contradiction. Proceeding from a critique of a given society, accusing
it of injustice, inequality and lack of freedom, socialism proclaims--in
the systems where it is expressed with the greatest consistency--a far
greater injustice, inequality and slavery! Noble Utopias and golden
dreams about the City of the Sun usually evoke nothing more than a
reproach for their "utopian" nature, for their ideals that are too high
for mankind at present. But it is enough merely to open these books to
be astonished by the scene: disobedient citizens turned into slaves;
informers; work and life in paramilitary detachments and under close
supervision; passes that are needed even for a simple stroll, and
especially the details of general leveling, depicted as they are with
great relish (identical clothing, identical houses, even identical
cities). A work entitled "The Law of
Freedom" describes an ideal
society where in each small commune there is a hangman and anyone who
has been remiss or disobedient is flogged or turned into a slave and
where each citizen is considered a soldier. The revolutionaries who drew
up the "Conspiracy of
Equals" understood equality in such a way
that they alone formed the government, while others were to obey
implicitly--and those who did not were to be exiled to certain islands
for forced labor. In the most popular work of Marxism, the
Communist Manifesto, one of the first measures of the new socialist system to be proposed is the introduction of
compulsory labor. And
it is predicted that this will lead to a society in which "the free
development of each will be the condition of the free development of
all"!
Attempts to establish the happy society of the future by means of
[xii]
executions may perhaps be explained by the discrepancy between vision
and reality, by the distortion that the idea undergoes in being put into
practice. But how to understand a teaching which in its
ideal version includes both an appeal to freedom and a program for the establishment of slavery?
Or how to reconcile the impassioned condemnation of the old order and
quite justified indignation at the suffering of the poor and the
oppressed with the fact that the same teachings envisage no less
suffering for these oppressed masses as the lot of whole generations
prior to the triumph of social justice? Thus Marx foresees fifteen,
perhaps even
fifty years of civil war for the proletariat, and Mao Tse-tung is ready to accept the loss of
half of
humanity in a nuclear war for the sake of establishing a socialist
structure in the world. A call for sacrifices on this scale might sound
convincing on the lips of a religious leader appealing to a truth beyond
this world. But not from convinced atheists.
It would seem that socialism lacks that feature which, in
mathematics, for example, is considered the minimal condition for the
existence of a concept:
a definition free of contradictions. Perhaps
socialism is only a means of propaganda, a set of several contradictory
conceptions, each of which appeals to a given group? The entire history
of socialism speaks against such a view. The monumental influence it
has had on mankind proves that socialism is in essence an internally
consistent view of the world. One needs only to uncover the true logic
of socialism and to find that vantage point from which it can be seen as
a phenomenon without contradiction. The present book is an attempt to
accomplish such a task.
In the search for this vantage point, I propose to treat the
works of socialist ideology not as the writings of supermen to whom the
past and the future of mankind are known, nor as mere journalistic
propaganda. One ought not accept all their pretensions as truth, but on
the other hand, one need not deny the accuracy of their views in areas
where they may well be competent--first of all, in pronouncements
bearing on themselves. If, for example, Marx repeatedly expresses the
thought that man exists only as a representative of the interests of a
definite class and has no existence as an individual, of course we are
not obliged to believe that the essence of man was revealed to Marx. But
why not accept that he is describing a view of the world inherent in
certain people, himself in particular, who regard man not as a
personality having an independent significance in the
[xiv]
world but merely as a
tool of forces outside his control? If we
read that society (and the world) must be destroyed, "razed to the
ground," that life cannot be improved or corrected and that history may
be assisted only by its midwife Violence, it would be incautious to
trust the prophetic gift of the authors of such predictions. But it is
quite possible that they are conveying a view of life in which the
entire world evokes malevolence, loathing and nausea (as in Sartre's
first novel,
Nausea). Life reeks of death and by force of a strange dualism is just as loathsome as death and decay under normal circumstances.
The perception of the world that may be inferred in this way from the
study of socialist ideology appears to be accurate and true to life.
And it is natural to aSsume that this is precisely what moves the
adherents of socialist ideology. Furthermore, since socialism is capable
of inspiring mass movements, it follows that many are subject to the
influence of
such a world view, perhaps even all people are to a greater or lesser
degree. If socialism is viewed as the ultimate truth about man, then it
unquestionably disintegrates into contradictory elements. But if we
consider it to be a manifestation of only one of the tendencies in man
and mankind, then it appears possible to remove the contradictions and
to understand socialism as a basically cohesive and consistent
phenomenon. Only then may the question be raised as to the role of
socialism in history. The considerations set forth in the last
paragraphs of this book do not constitute a definitive answer to this
question. Rather, they indicate the direction in which, so it seems to
me, the answer should be sought.
In the present work, the problem is considered in its most
abstract form: What are those basic features of socialism which,
interwoven as in each case they are with the individual peculiarities of
various countries and epochs, engender the multiplicity of its
manifestations? Therefore, although a considerable number of facts and
concrete historical situations are examined, we shall abstract from the
specific nature of these situations in order to delineate basic features
common to all of them. As a result, the conclusions to which this
discussion leads are not directly applicable to any concrete
situation--not until socialist ideals find their absolute and
unconstrained realization. In all existing historical realizations of
the socialist ideal, we are dealing not with a pure phenomenon but with a
fusion of socialist and many other tendencies. Therefore, in order to
apply our views to a specific historical situation, it would be
necessary to take the opposite approach:
[xv]
to elucidate how the general tendencies of socialism singled out by us
are reflected in the peculiarities of historical epochs and national
traditions. Such is not the purpose of this book. However, it seems to
me that without making a distinction between the phenomenon in its
general aspect and the specifics generated by concrete historical
conditions, all attempts at understanding are hopeless.
Parts One and Two of the book are an exposition of concrete facts
from the history of socialist teachings and socialist states. Only in
Part Three is there an attempt to analyze these facts and to draw
certain conclusions. This structure entails a number of difficulties for
the reader. If he does not wish to go into the details of the various
historical epochs, he may simply skim Parts One and Two and move quickly
into Part Three. For the convenience of such a reader, several
summaries review those conclusions from the historical sections which
are of special importance for the subsequent discussion.
Working on this book without official permission, under the
conditions prevailing in our country, I encountered constant
difficulties in obtaining the necessary literature. Given this
situation, I am aware of the likelihood (and perhaps even the
inevitability) of error in certain specific questions and of the
shortcomings of my arguments, which may have been presented earlier and
more effectively by others. My only justification is the urgency of the
theme and the special historical experience of our country.
The latter circumstance was the basic stimulus for my work,
inspiring me with a certain hope of success. Russia's experience in the
twentieth century has been unique among modern nations; perhaps there
are few precedents in the whole of world history. We became witnesses to
events and changes which we would hardly have thought possible before
this time. A new field of phenomena, formerly attainable only through
artistic or mystical intuition, now became open to rational
investigation, based on a study of facts and their logical analysis. We
have had the opportunity of seeing history in a new aspect--an advantage
that can outweigh many difficulties.
This book would never have been written were it not for the
assistance rendered me by numerous people. At the moment, it is not
possible for me to name them all and to express to each my debt of
gratitude. But I can thank two of them here: A. I. Solzhenitsyn, under
whose influence I undertook to write this book, and V. M. Borisov, whose
criticism was invaluable.
[xvi]
PART ONE
CHILIASTIC SOCIALISM
[1]
Introduction
The word "socialism" often implies two quite different phenomena:
- A doctrine and an appeal based on it, a program for changing life, and
- A social structure that exists in time and space.
The most obvious examples include Marxism as contained in the
"classic" writings of Marx and others and the social structure that
exists in the U.S.S.R. and the People's Republic of China. Among the
fundamental principles of the state doctrine in these countries is the
assertion that the connection between the two phenomena is very simple.
On the one hand, it is asserted, there is a scientific theory which
proves that after achieving a definite level in the development of
productive forces, mankind will pass over to a new historic formation;
this theory points the way to the most rational paths for such a
transition. And on the other hand, we are assured, there is the
embodiment of this scientific prognosis, its confirmation. As an example
of quite a different point of view we cite H. G. Wells, who visited
Russia in 1920 and, though infected by the worship of socialism,
fashionable then as now, nevertheless almost instinctively refused to
accept Marxism, in this sense reflecting the antipathy toward all
scholastic theories typical of an Englishman. In his book
Russia in the Shadows, Wells
writes: "Marxist Communism has always been a theory of revolution, a
theory not merely lacking in creative and constructive ideas but hostile
to creative and constructive ideas." (1: p. 60) He describes the
communism that governed Russia as "... in so many matters like a
conjurer who has left his
[2]
pigeon and his rabbit behind him and can produce nothing whatever from the hat." (1: p. 64)
From this point of view, Marxism does not set itself any goal other
than that of preparing for the seizure of power. The state system
established as a result is therefore defined and shaped by the necessity
of holding power. Since these tasks are entirely different, the
official theory and the actual implementation have nothing in common.
It would be incautious to take either of these assertions on
faith. On the contrary, it would be desirable, first, to study both
"socialisms" independently, without any a priori hypotheses, and only
then attempt to come to conclusions about the connections that exist
between them.
We shall begin with socialism understood as a doctrine, as an appeal.
All such doctrines (and as we shall see, there were many of them)
have a common core--they are based on the complete rejection of the
existing social structure. They call for its destruction and paint a
picture of a more just and happy society in which the solution to all
the fundamental problems of the times would be found. Furthermore, they
propose concrete ways of achieving this goal. In religious literature
such a system of views is referred to as belief in the thousand-year
Kingdom of God on earth--chiliasm. Borrowing this terminology, we shall
designate the socialist doctrines of this type as "chiliastic
socialism."
In order to give some sense of the scale of this phenomenon and
of the place it occupies in the history of mankind, we shall examine two
doctrines that fit the category of chiliastic socialism, as they are
described by their contemporaries. In doing so, we shall attempt to
extract a picture of the future society envisaged, leaving to one side
for the moment the motivation as well as the concrete means recommended
for achieving the ideal.
The first example takes us to Athens in 392 B.C. during the great urban Dionysia, when Aristophanes presented his comedy
Ecclesiazusae or
The Congresswomen. Here
he depicts a teaching fashionable in the Athens of the time. The plot
is as follows: The women of the city, wearing beards and dressed in
men's clothing, come to the assembly and by a majority vote pass a
resolution transferring all power in the state to women. They use this
power to introduce a series of measures, which are expounded in a
dialogue between Praxagora, the leader of the women, and her husband,
Blepyros. Here are several quotations.
[3]
- PRAXAGORA:
- Compulsory Universal Community Property is what I propose to
propose; across-the-board Economic Equality, to fill those fissures that
scar our society's face. No more the division between Rich and Poor.
...
...We'll wear the same clothes, and share the same food. ...
...My initial move will be to communalize land, and money, and all other property, personal and real.
- BLEPYROS:
- But take the landless man who's invisibly wealthy...because he hides his silver and gold in his pockets. What about him?
- PRAXAGORA:
- He'll deposit it all in the Fund. ...
...I'll knock out walls and remodel the City into one big happy household, where all can come and go as they choose. ...
...I'm pooling the women, creating a public hoard for the use of every man who wishes to take them to bed and make babies.
- BLEPYROS:
- A system like this requires a pretty wise father to know his own children.
- PRAXAGORA:
- But why does he need to? Age is the new criterion: Children will henceforth trace their descent from all men who might have begot them. ...
- BLEPYROS:
- Who's going to work the land and produce the food?
- PRAXAGORA:
- The slaves. This leaves you just one civic function: When the shades of night draw on, slip sleekly down to dinner. ...
...The
State's not going to stint. Its hand is full and open, its heart is
large, it'll stuff its menfolk free of charge, then issue them torches
when dinner's done and send them out to hunt for fun.
(2: pp. 43-51)
The reader will of course already have noticed many of the features
of a familiar doctrine. Let us attempt to specify the associations that
arise by considering a second example--the classic statement of the
Marxist program contained in the
Communist Manifesto. Here are
some quotations characterizing the future society as the authors imagine
it: "...the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single
sentence: Abolition of private property. ..." (3: V: p. 496) " Abolition
of the family! Even the most radical Hare up at this infamous proposal
of the Communists. ...On what foundation is the present
[4]
family, the bourgeois family based? On capital, on private gain. In its
completely developed form, this family exists only among the
bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the
practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public
prostitution.
"The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its
complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
"But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations when we replace home education by social.
"And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by
the social conditions under which you educate? ..." (3: V: p. 499)
That last thought is somewhat clarified in "Principles of
Communism," a document written by Engels in the course of preparing the
Communist Manifesto.
Among the first measures to be taken after the revolution, we find:
"8. The education of all children, from the moment that they can
get along without a mother's care, shall be at state institutions and at
state expense." (3: V: p. 475)
The
Communist Manifesto again:
"But you Communists would introduce communality of women, screams the whole bourgeoisie in chorus." (3: V: p. 499)
Answered by: "The Communists have no need of introducing communality of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
"Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters
of proletarians at his disposal, not to speak of Common prostitutes,
takes the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives.
"Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in Common and
thus, at the worst, what the Communists might possibly be reproached
with is that they desire to introduce, in the place of a hypocritically
concealed, an openly legalized communality of women." (3: V: p. 500)
In the
Communist Manifesto there is no reference to the other material aspects of life. In "Principles of Communism" we find:
"9. The building of large palaces in the national estates as
common dwellings for the Communes, whose citizens will be busy in
industry, agriculture; these structures will combine the merits of urban
and rural life and avoid their defects." (3: V: p. 475)
[5]
We see concealed in Marx's Hegelian phraseology and Aristophanes' buffoonery almost the same program:
1. Abolition of private property.
2. Abolition of the family--i.e., communality of wives and disruption of the bonds between parents and children.
3. Purely material prosperity.
It would even be possible to say that both programs coincide perfectly, were it not for one place in the
Ecclesiazusae. In
answer to Blepyros's question as to who will do the plowing, Praxagora
replies: "Slaves!" Here she proclaims the fourth point of the program,
and a most significant one--liberation from the necessity of work.
Interestingly enough, on this point Herbert Marcuse, the best-known of
the neo-Marxists and one of the leaders of the New Left in the U.S.A.,
differs from Marx.
For instance, in his essay "The End of Utopia," Marcuse says that
"it is no accident that for modern avant garde left intellectuals the
works of Fourier have become relevant again. Fourier did not flinch
where Marx was insufficiently bold. He spoke of a society where work
would become play." And elsewhere in the same essay: "New technical
potentialities lead to oppression unless there develops a vital need for
the abolition of alienating work." (4: pp. 75, 77)
Supplementing the program of the
Communist Manifesto in
this fashion, we obtain a description of the ideal which fully coincides
with what had been the object of Aristophanes' derision on the stage of
the Athenian theater in 392 B.C.
We are confronted by a set of ideas with certain strikingly
durable features which have remained almost unchanged from antiquity to
our day. The term "chiliastic socialism" will be applied to such ideas.
Below, we shall attempt to outline this concept more precisely, to point
out the main stages of its historical development and to take note of
the broader ideological framework within which the doctrines of
chiliastic socialism came into being.
[6]
I.The Socialism
of Antiquity
In classical Greece we encounter the concept of chiliastic
socialism in its full-fledged, one might even say ideal, form. Plato's
enunciation of this concept in itself had an enormous influence on the
subsequent history of chiliastic socialism. Two of Plato's dialogues are
devoted to this theme:
The Republic and
Laws. In the
former, Plato depicts what he considers an ideal state structure, while
the latter shows the best practical approximation of this ideal.
The Republic was written during the middle years of Plato's life,
Laws in
his old age. It seems possible that the failures Plato experienced
trying to put his views into practice are reflected in these works.
We begin with an overview of the picture of the ideal society that is given in
The Republic, a
work that Sergius Bulgakov calls "wondrous and perplexing." Indeed, the
ten books of this dialogue reflect almost all aspects of Plato's
philosophy--his conception of being (the world of ideas), cognition (the
visual world, the world accessible to the mind), the soul, justice, art
and society.
The Republic may at first sight seem too narrow a
title for such a work. Nevertheless, it is fully justified, since the
question of the structure of society is the center around which Plato's
many-sided philosophy revolves, as well as serving as the principal
illustration of his teaching. Understanding the concepts of Good and
Beauty is essential for ruling a state. The doctrines of the immortality
of the soul and of retribution after death promote the development of
the spiritual qualities essential for rulers, the state must be founded
on justice, and art is one of the major instruments for the education of
citizens.
[7]
Plato expounds on the possible forms of a state (he names five
structures) and speaks about the corresponding spiritual qualities. All
the states that existed contemporary to him he classifies as belonging
to four
corrupt types. Division, hostility, discord, willfulness and striving for riches reign in these states.
"...such a city should of necessity be not one, but two, a city
of the rich and a city of the poor, dwelling together, and always
plotting against one another." (5:551d)*
The fifth form of state structure is, according to Plato, the
perfect state. Its
basic quality is justice, which permits it to partake of virtue. In
answer to the question what constitutes justice in a state, Plato says:
"...what we laid down in the beginning as a universal requirement
when we were founding our city, this I think, or some form of this, is
justice. And what we did lay down, and often said, if you recall, was
that each one man must perform one social service in the state for which
his nature was best adapted." (433a)
On the basis of this proposition, the population of the state is
divided into three social groups; we may even call them castes. They
are: philosophers, guardians or soldiers, artisans and peasants. The
children of artisans and peasants belong to the same group as their
parents and may never become guardians. The children of guardians as a
rule inherit their fathers' occupation, but if they show negative
inclinations they are made into either artisans or peasants. But the
philosophers may supplement their numbers from the best of the
guardians, but not until the latter reach the age of fifty.
Plato's conception is not at all materialistic: his concern is
not with the manner in which production is organized in his state. Thus
he speaks very little about the daily life of the artisans and peasants.
He believes that the life of the state is determined by its laws, hence
he is concerned above all with the life of those castes that create and
guard the law.
The philosophers have unlimited power in the state. (Bulgakoveven
suggests that the word "philosophers" should be translated "the
righteous men" or "saints.")
They are the people "...enamored of the kind of knowledge which
reveals to them something of that essence which is eternal, and is not
wandering between the two poles of generation and decay." (485b)
* In subsequent references to Plato's Republic, only the marginal sigla will be quoted.
[8]
A philosopher possesses "...a mind habituated to thoughts of grandeur
and the contemplation of all time and all existence. ...such a man will
not suppose death to be terrible." (486b)
Once the philosophers have understood their high mission, they will
structure their lives in accordance with it, "...devoting the greater
part of their time to the study of philosophy, but when the turn comes
for each, toiling in the service of the state and holding office for the
city's sake, regarding the task not as a fine thing but a necessity.
And so, when each generation has educated others like themselves to take
their place as guardians of the state, they shall depart to the Islands
of the Blessed and there dwell." (540a, b)
The guardians are under the philosophers' command. Plato's
favorite image in describing the guardians is that of the dog. Thus, as
with pure-bred canines, the guardians' "...natural disposition is to be
most gentle to their familiars and those whom they recognize, but the
contrary to those whom they do not know." (375e) Their children should
be taken on campaigns in order to accustom them to war... "give them a
taste of blood as we do with whelps." (537a) Youthful guardians possess
the qualities of pure-bred pups: "...each of them must be keen of
perception, quick in pursuit of what it has apprehended, and strong too
if it has to fight it out with its captive." (375a) Women are to enjoy
equal rights with men and are to have the same obligations, allowing
only for the fact that they have less physical strength than men. Plato
argues by analogy: "Do we expect the females of watchdogs to join in
guarding what the males guard and to hunt with them and share all their
pursuits, or do we expect the females to stay indoors. ...?" (451d) The
whole of the guardian caste is compared with a pack of hard and wiry
hounds. (422d)
But a guardian should also possess other, higher qualities: "And
does it seem to you that our guardian-to-be will also need, in addition
to being high-spirited, the further quality of having the love of wisdom
in his nature?" (375e) And: "...never by sorcery nor by force can be
brought to expel from their souls...this conviction that they must do
what is best for the state." (412e)
These qualities are attained by means of a carefully thought-out
system of education guided by the philosophers and lasting until age
thirty-five. A fundamental role in education is reserved for art, which,
for the benefit of the state, is subjected to strict censorship. "We
must begin, then, it seems, by a censorship over our story-makers, and
what
[9]
they do well we must pass and what not, reject." (377c) "What they do
well" applies here not to the esthetic qualities of stories and myths
but to their educational function, Bad stories are those "that Hesiod
and Homer and the other poets relate to us," (377d) Furthermore, "Shall
we, then, thus lightly suffer our children to listen to any chance
stories fashioned by any chance teachers and so to take into their minds
opinions for the most part contrary to those that we shall think it
desirable for them to hold when they are grown up?" (377b)
All stories that might inspire a false impression of divinity are
forbidden, as well as those that describe the cruelty of the gods, their
quarrels or love adventures, and stories which suggest that gods may be
the cause of misfortune. "...we must contend in every way that neither
should anyone assert this in his own city if it is to be well governed,
nor anyone hear it, neither younger nor older, neither telling a story
in meter or without meter." (380b) All poetic works that speak about the
horrors of the nether world and of death are to be eliminated, as well
as those that involve any manifestation of fear or sorrow--all that
hinders the development of courage. Guardians should see nothing
frightening about death. It is forbidden to speak about the injustice of
fate--that righteous people can suffer misfortune and unrighteous ones
can lead happy lives. It is forbidden to criticize the leaders or to
write about any manifestation of fear, grief, famine or death. "We will
beg Homer and the other poets not to be angry if we cancel those and all
similar passages, not that they are not poetic and pleasing to most
hearers, but because the more poetic they are, the less are they suited
to the ears," (387b)
Other arts are also to be kept under surveillance. "It is here,
then, I said, in music, as it seems, that our guardians must build their
guard-house and post a watch." (424d) Polyphony and the combining of
various scales are forbidden. There are to be no flutes or makers of
flutes in the state; only the lyre and the kithara are permitted. Plato
expands on these principles: "Is it, then, only the poets that we must
supervise and compel to embody in their poems the semblance of the good
character or else not write poetry among us, or must we keep watch over
the other craftsmen, and forbid them to represent the evil disposition,
the licentious, the illiberal, the graceless, either in the likeness of
living creatures or in buildings or in any other product of their art,
on penalty, if unable to obey, of being forbidden to practice their art
among us? ..." (401b) The answer is obvious for Plato.
[10]
On the other hand, new myths are created, with the purpose of
instilling in the guardians a spirit necessary to the state, For
instance, to inculcate in them love for one another and the state, they
are told that they are all brothers, sons of the single mother earth of
their land. But to reinforce the idea of castes, it is stressed that in
the process philosophers received an admixture of gold, guardians of
silver, peasants and artisans of iron.
The entire education of the guardians, beginning with children's
games, is supervised by the philosophers, who subject them to various
tests, checking their memory, endurance, moderation and courage. Adults,
as well as children, are severely punished for lying. But lying is
permitted the philosophers. "It seems likely that our rulers will have
to make considerable use of falsehood and deception for the benefit of
their subjects." (459d)
It has already been noted that Plato perceives the major defect
of faulty states in the absence of unity among citizens, in animosity
and discord. He seeks to find the cause of these phenomena,
"And the chief cause of this is when the citizens do not utter in
unison such words as 'mine' and 'not mine,' and similarly with regard
to the word 'alien'?
"Precisely so,"
"That city, then, is best ordered in which the greatest number
use the expression 'mine' and 'not mine' of the same things in the same
way." (462c)
The guardians' life is regulated accordingly. They possess
"nothing in private possession but their bodies, but all else in
common." (464e)
"Secondly, none must have any habitation or treasure house which
is not open for all to enter at will. Their food, in such quantities as
are needful for athletes of war sober and brave, they must receive as an
agreed stipend from the other citizens as the wages of their
guardianship, so measured that there shall be neither superfluity at the
end of the year nor any lack, And resorting to a common mess like
soldiers on campaign they will live together." (416d)
"...for these only of all the dwellers in the city it is not
lawful to handle gold and silver and to touch them nor yet to come under
the same roof with them, nor to hang them as ornaments on their limbs
nor to drink from silver and gold," (417a)
Guardians live in their own state as hired guard detachments.
"... and what is more, they serve for board wages and do not even
receive
[11]
pay in addition to their food as others do, so that they will not even
be able to take a journey on their own account, if they wish to, or make
presents to their mistresses, or spend money in other directions
according to their desires like the men who are thought to be happy."
(420a)
Property, however, is only one of the things by which private
interests may distract the guardians from their duty. Another factor
that could set them apart is the family; therefore it is also
eliminated.
"These women shall all be common to all these men, and that none
shall cohabit with any privately, and that the children shall be common,
and that no parent shall know its own offspring nor any child its
parent." (457d) Marriage is replaced by a temporary union of sexes for
purely physiological satisfaction and propagation of the species. This
aspect of life is carefully regulated by the philosophers, which permits
the introduction of a perfect system of sex selection. The union of
couples is conducted solemnly and is performed to the accompaniment of
songs composed by poets especially for these occasions. Who is to be
joined to whom is decided by lot so that no one can blame anyone but
fate. But the leaders of the state carefully manipulate the process to
achieve the desired results.
As could be expected, the education of children is in the hands
of the state. "...the children...will be taken over by the officials
appointed for this. ..." (460b)"...but the offspring of the inferior,
and any of those of the other sort who are born defective, they will
properly dispose of in secret, so that no one will know what has become
of them." (460c) As for a child born of unregulated sexual union, the
following is indicated: "...to dispose of it on the understanding that
we cannot rear such an offspring." (461c) Parents ought not know their
children: "...conducting the mothers to the pen when their breasts are
full, but employing every device to prevent anyone from recognizing her
own infant." (460c) As to the question how parents and children shall
recognize one another, the answer is as follows: "They won't ...except
that a man will call all male offspring born between the seventh and the
tenth month after he became a bridegroom his sons, and all female,
daughters, and they will call him father." (461d)
Deprived of family, children and all property, the guardians live
exclusively for the benefit of the state. Any violation of the
interests of the state is punished. Soldiers who show cowardice are
turned into
[12]
artisans or peasants; prisoners taken are not to be ransomed out of
slavery. Medicine is also used as a means of control. Physicians and
judges "...will care for the bodies and souls of such of your citizens
as are truly well-born, but those who are not, such as are defective in
body, they will suffer to die, and those who are evil-natured and
incurable in soul they will themselves put to death." (410a)
Why would the guardians undertake such a life? One of the
participants in the dialogue says: "What will be your defense, Socrates,
if anyone objects that you are not making these men very happy, and
that through their own fault? For the city really belongs to them and
yet they get no enjoyment out of it as ordinary men do." (419a)
However, from Plato's point of view happiness is not determined
by material well-being. II) discharging their duties, the guardians will
achieve the respect and love of other citizens, as well as the hope for
reward after death. He says:
"...they will live a happier life than that men count most happy, the life of the victors at Olympia.
"How so?
"The things for which those are felicitated are a small part of
what is secured for these. Their victory is fairer and their public
support more complete. For the prize of victory that they win is the
salvation of the entire state, the fillet that binds their brows is the
public support of themselves and their children--they receive honor from
the city while they live and when they die a worthy burial.
"A fair guerdon, indeed, he said." (465e)
Though giving a detailed account of the life of the philosophers
and guardians, Plato says almost nothing about the rest of the
population--the artisans and peasants. Laws for them are determined by
the philosophers in accordance with the basic principles expressed in
the dialogue: "Nay, 'twould not be fitting...to dictate to good and
honorable men. For most of the enactments that are needed about these
things they will easily, I presume, discover." (425d)
Clearly, the entire population is subjected to the philosophers
and the guardians. The guardians set up their camp in the city: "...a
position from which they could best hold down rebellion against the laws
from within." (415e)
Everyone is bound to his profession:
"...we were at pains to prevent the cobbler from attempting to be at the same time a farmer, a weaver, or a builder instead of
[13]
just a cobbler, to the end that we might have the cobbler's business
well done, and similarly assigned to each and everyone man one
occupation, for which he was fit and naturally adapted and at which he
was to work all his days." (374c) The life of the artisans and the
peasants is regulated on the basis of a greater or lesser degree of
leveling, since for them both poverty and riches lead to degradation,
and "the work that he turns out will be worse, and he will also make
inferior workmen of his sons or any others whom he teaches."
(421e) But
it is not clear to what extent the socialist principles that govern the
life of the two other groups extend to artisan and peasant.
In conclusion, it is interesting to note that religious problems are
given a good deal of space in the dialogue, and are clearly connected
with the question of the ideal state. However, this linkage is treated
in a quite rationalistic fashion--religion does not set the state any
goals, but rather plays a protective and educational role. Myths, many
of which are specially invented, as Plato says, with this purpose in
mind, facilitate the development of characteristics useful to the state.
Almost everyone who has written on Plato's
Republic has
remarked on the ambiguous impression produced by this dialogue. Plato's
scheme for the destruction of the subtlest and most profound features of
human personality and the reduction of human society to the level of an
ant hill evokes revulsion. And at the same time one cannot help being
impressed by the almost religious impulse to sacrifice personal
interests to a higher goal. Plato's entire program is founded on the
denial of personality--but on the denial of egoism as well. He
understood that the future of mankind is not dependent on the victory of
this or that contending group in the struggle for material interests,
but rather on the changes within people and on the development of new
human qualities.
It is difficult to deny that Plato's
Republic is morally,
ethically and in purely aesthetic terms far superior to other systems of
chiliastic socialism. If we can suppose that Aristophanes'
Ecclesiazusae is
a parody of ideas such as Plato's--presumably widely discussed in
Athens at the time--then modern systems like that of Marcuse seem much
nearer to the caricature than to the original. Marcuse's "turning work
into play," his "socio-sexual protest," the struggle against the
"necessity of suppressing one's instincts," are shockingly primitive in
comparison with the lofty asceticism described by Plato.
In spite of their unique role in the history of socialist ideas, Plato's
[14]
Republic and his
Laws are but one of many expressions of
ancient chiliastic socialism. Attic comedy abounds with references to
ideas of this kind. For example, out of the eleven surviving comedies of
Aristophanes, two
(Ecclesiazusae and
Plutus) are devoted to socialist themes.
During the Hellenistic epoch there came into being an extensive
utopian socialist literature, partially serious, in part meant as
entertainment, where the ascetic ideal of the Platonic
Republic was
replaced by "the land of milk and honey" and by the happy state of free
love. The plots of a number of these works are known to us from the
Historical Library by the first century B.C. writer Diodorus.
One of the most vivid descriptions tells of a traveler to a state
situated on "sunny islands" (apparently in the Indian Ocean). This
state consists of socialist communes of four hundred people each. Labor
is obligatory for all members of society, moreover, with "all serving
the others in turn, fishing, engaging in crafts, arts or public
service." (6: p. 323) Food is regimented in a similar manner; the menu
for each day is regulated by law. "Marriage is unknown to them; instead
they enjoy communal wives; children are brought up in common as they
belong to the whole of the community and are equally loved by all.
Frequently, it so happens that nurses exchange babies they are suckling
so that even mothers do not recognize their children." (6: p. 63) Due to
the excellent climate, the inhabitants of the islands were much taller
than ordinary mortals. They lived to the age of 150. All who were
incurably ill or suffered from some physical defect were supposed to
commit suicide. Those who reached a certain age were also to kill
themselves.
Socialist ideas in one or another form frequently played a role
in the movements and sects that arose around emerging Christianity. Even
in the first century A.D., the sect of the Nicolaites preached the
communality of property and wives. The Christian writer Epiphanes
considers the sect's founder to be Nicolas--one of the seven deacons
chosen by the community of the disciples of the Apostles in Jerusalem
(as recounted in Acts of the Apostles 6: 5).
Irenaeus of Lyons and Clement of Alexandria describe the gnostic
sect of Carpocratians which appeared in Alexandria in the second century
A.D. The founder of this sect, Carpocrates, taught that faith and love
bring salvation and place man above good and evil. These ideas were
elaborated by his son Epiphanes, who died at the age of seventeen,
having written a work "On Justice." According to Clement of
[15]
Alexandria, he was later worshiped as a god in Samos, where a sanctuary was erected to him.
Some quotations from Epiphanes follow:
"God's justice consists in community and equality."
"The Creator and Father of all gave everyone equally eyes to see
and established laws in accordance with his justice without
distinguishing female from male, wise from humble and in general one
thing from any other."
"The private character of laws cuts and gnaws the community
established by God's law. Do you not understand the words of the
Apostle: 'Through law I knew sin' (Romans 7: 7)? 'Mine' and 'thine' were
spread to the detriment of community by virtue of the law."
"Thus, God made everything common for man; according to the
principles of communality, he joins man and woman. In the same way, he
links all living beings; in this he has revealed justice demanding
communality in conjunction with equality. But those begotten in this way
deny the community that has created them, saying: 'He who takes a wife,
let him possess her.' But they can possess all in common as the animals
do."
"It is therefore laughable to hear the giver of laws saying: 'Do
not covet' and more laughable still the addition: 'that which is your
neighbor's.' For he himself invested us with desires, which moreover
must be safeguarded as they are necessary for procreation. But even more
laughable is the phrase 'your neighbor's wife,' for in this way that
which is common is forcibly turned into private property." (7: p. 117)
The members of this sect, which extended as far as Rome, followed
principles of complete communality, including communality of wives.
The appearance of Manicheism gave rise to a great number of sects
that professed doctrines of a socialist character. St. Augustine
informs us of the existence of such sects at the end of the third and
the beginning of the fourth centuries A.D.
The movement inspired by Mazdak, which was widespread at the
beginning of the fifth century in Persia, was also of Manichean origin.
Mazdak taught that contradictions, anger and violence are all related to
women and material things. "Therefore," in the words of the Persian
historian Mohammed Ibn Harun, "he made all women accessible and all
material wealth common and prescribed that everyone had an equal share,
just as each has an equal share of water, fire and pastures." (8: p. 20)
[16]
This movement spread over the entire country, and for a time even King
Kawadh I supported it. Another historian, Tabari, writes: "Frequently, a
man did not know his son nor the son his own father, and no one
possessed enough to be guaranteed life and livelihood." (8: p. 35) In
the disturbance which subsequently arose, the followers of Mazdak were
defeated.
The extent of social dislocation caused by this movement can be
appreciated from the information (8: pp. 32-33) that Kawadh's heir
issued a law ensuring the welfare of fatherless children and legislating
the return of abducted women to their families.
We encounter here the phenomenon of broad masses of people
affected by a socialist doctrine. This was unknown in antiquity,
although it is typical of the Middle Ages, to which Mazdak's movement
brings us chronologically.
[17]
II.
The Socialism
of the Heresies
During the Middle Ages and the period of the Reformation, doctrines of
chiliastic socialism often fomented broad popular movements in Western
Europe. Such a situation did not obtain in antiquity, when these ideas
were expressed by individual thinkers or within narrow groups. As a
result of this evolution, the socialist doctrines, in turn, acquired new
and extremely important traits, which they have preserved to this day.
The survey below provides a very general and schematic overview
of the development of socialist ideas in this epoch. In order to
compensate somewhat for the abstract character of the presentation and
to help make more concrete the atmosphere in which these ideas arose, we
introduce (in the Appendix following the General Survey) three
biographies of eminent representatives of the chiliastic socialism of
the period. In the subsequent section, an attempt is made to delineate
the ideological framework within which the doctrines of chiliastic
socialism developed.
1. General Survey
Beginning with the Middle Ages and the Reformation, doctrines of
chiliastic socialism in Western Europe appeared under religious guise.
As varied as they were, all these doctrines had in common a
characteristic trait--the rejection of numerous aspects of the teachings
of the Catholic Church and a fierce hatred for the Church itself. As a
result , they developed largely within the framework of the heretical
movements. Below we shall review several characteristic Medieval
heresies.
[18]
Cathars.
The movement of the Cathars (Greek for "the pure") spread in
Western and Central Europe in the eleventh century. It seems to have
originated in the East, arriving from Bulgaria, the home of Bogomil
heresy in the preceding century. The ultimate origins of both, however,
are more ancient.
Among the Cathars there were many different groups. Pope Innocent
III counted as many as forty Cathar sects. In addition, there existed
other sects that had many doctrinal points in common with the Cathars;
among the best known were the Albigenses. They are all usually
categorized as gnostic or Manichean heresies. In order to avoid
unnecessary complexity, we shall describe the beliefs and notions common
to all groups, without specifying the relative importance that a
particular view might have in a given sect. (For a more detailed
account, see 9 [Vol. I], 10, and 11.)
The basic contention in all branches of the movement was the
belief in the irreconcilable contradiction between the physical world,
seen as the source of evil, and the spiritual world, seen as the essence
of good. The so-called dualistic Cathars believed this to be caused by
the existence of two Gods--one good, the other evil. It was the God of
evil who had created the physical world--the earth with everything that
grows upon it, the sky, the sun and the stars, and human bodies as well.
The good God, on the other hand, was seen as the creator of the
spiritual world, in which there is another, spiritual sky, other stars
and another sun. Other Cathars, called monarchian Cathars, believed in
one beneficent God, the creator of the universe, but assumed that the
physical world was the creation of his eldest, fallen son--Satan or
Lucifer. All the Cathars held that the mutual hostility of the realms of
matter and spirit allowed for no intermingling. They therefore denied
the bodily incarnation of Christ (asserting that his body was a
spiritual one, which had only the appearance of physicality) and the
resurrection of the flesh. They saw a reflection of their dualism in the
division of the Holy Scriptures into Old and New Testaments. They
identified the God of the Old Testament, the creator of the physical
world, with the evil God or with Lucifer. They professed the New
Testament as the teaching of the good God.
The Cathars did not believe that God had created the world from
nothing; they held that matter was eternal and that the world would have
no end. So far as people were concerned, they considered their bodies
to be the creation of the evil force. Their souls, though, did
[19]
not have a single source. The souls of the majority of men, just like
their bodies, were begotten by evil--such people had no hope for
salvation and were doomed to perish when the entire material world
returned to a state of primeval chaos. But the souls of some men had
been created by the good God; these were the angels led into temptation
by Lucifer and thus imprisoned in earthly bodies. As a result of
changing into a series of bodies (Cathars believed in the transmigration
of souls), they were destined to end up in their sect so as to receive
liberation from the prison of matter. The ultimate goal and the ideal of
all mankind was in principle universal suicide. This was conceived
either as in the most direct sense (we shall encounter the practical
realization of this .view later) or through ceasing to bear children.
These views determined the attitude toward both sin and salvation.
The Cathars denied the existence of freedom of will. The doomed children
of evil could not avoid their fate. But those who were initiated into
the highest rank of the sect could no longer sin. The stringent rules to
which members had to subject themselves were justified by the danger of
being defiled by sinful matter. Nonobservance of these rules merely
indicated that the initiation had been invalid, since either the
initiates or those who had initiated them did not possess angelic souls.
Before initiation, no restrictions of any kind were placed on behavior:
the only real sin was the fall of the angels in heaven; everything else
was considered to be an inevitable consequence. After initiation,
neither repentance for sins committed nor their expiation was considered
necessary.
The Cathars' attitude toward life followed consistently from
their view that evil permeated the physical world. Propagation of the
species was considered Satan's work. Cathars believed that a pregnant
woman was under the influence of demons and that every child born was
accompanied by a demon. Hence the prohibition against eating meat and
against anything that came from sexual union. The same tendency led to a
complete avoidance of social involvement. Secular power was considered
to be the creation of the evil God and hence not to be submitted to, nor
were they to become involved in legal proceedings, the taking of oaths,
or the carrying of arms. Anyone using force was considered a murderer,
be he soldier or judge. It follows that participation in many areas of
life was completely closed to the Cathars. Moreover, many considered
that any contact whatever with people outside the sect was a sin, with
the exception of attempts to proselytize. (12: p. 654)
[20]
All Cathars were united in their hatred of the Catholic Church. They
regarded it not as the Church of Jesus Christ but as the church of
sinners, the Whore of Babylon. The Pope was held to be the source of all
error and priests considered sophists and pharisees. In the opinion of
the Cathars, the fall of the Church had taken place in the time of
Constantine the Great and Pope Sylvester, when the Church had violated
the commandments of Christ by encroaching upon secular power. They
denied the sacraments, particularly the baptism of children (since they
were too young to believe), but matrimony and Communion as well. Some
branches of the movement systematically plundered and defiled churches.
In 1225, Cathars burned down a Catholic Chruch in Brescia; in 1235, they
killed the Bishop of Mantua. A certain Eon de l'Étoile, head ofa
Manichean sect (1143-1148), proclaimed himself the son of God and the
Lord of everything on earth. In this capacity, he called upon his
followers to plunder churches.
The Cathars hated the cross in particular, considering it to be a
symbol of the evil God. As early as about 1000 A.D., a certain Leutard,
preaching near
Châlons, called for the smashing of crosses and religious images. In the
twelfth century, Pierre de Bruys made bonfires of broken crosses, until
finally he himself was burned by an angry mob. The Cathars considered
churches to be heaps of stones and divine services mere pagan rites.
They rejected religious images, denied the intercession of the saints
and the efficacy of prayer for the departed. A book by the Dominican
inquisitor Rainier Sacconi, himself a heretic for seventeen years,
states that the Cathars were not forbidden to plunder churches.
Although the Cathars rejected the Catholic hierarchy and the
sacraments, they had a hierarchy and sacraments of their own. The basic
division of the sect was into two groups--the "perfect"
(perfecti) and the "faithful"
(credenti). The
former were few in number (Rainier counted only four thousand in all),
but they constituted the select group of the sect leaders. The clergy
was drawn from the
perfecti, and only they were privy to all the
doctrines of the sect; many extreme views that were radically opposed to
Christianity were unknown to the ordinary faithful. Only the
perfecti were
obliged to observe the many prohibitions. In particular, they were not
allowed to deny their faith under any circumstances. In case of
persecution, they were to accept a martyr's death. The faithful, on the
other hand, were allowed to go to regular church for form's sake and,
when persecuted, to disavow the faith.
[21]
In compensation for the rigors imposed on the
perfecti, their position was far higher than that occupied by Catholic priests. In certain respects, the
perfecti were as gods themselves, and the faithful worshiped them accordingly. The faithful were obliged to support the
perfecti. One
of the important rites of the sect was that of "submission," in which
the faithful performed a threefold prostration before the
perfecti. The
perfecti had
to renounce marriage, and they literally did not have the right to
touch a woman. They could not possess any property and were obliged to
devote their whole lives to service of the sect. They were forbidden to
keep a permanent dwelling of any kind and were required to spend their
lives in constant travel or to stay in special secret sanctuaries. The
consecration of the
perfecti, the "consolation"
(consolamentum), was
the central sacrament of the sect. This rite cannot be compared to
anything in the Catholic Church. It combined baptism (or confirmation),
ordination, confession, absolution and sometimes supreme unction as
well. Only those who received it could count on being freed from the
captivity of the body and having their souls returned to their celestial
abode.
The majority of the Cathars had no hope of fulfilling the strict commandments that were obligatory for the
perfecti and
intended, rather, to receive "consolation" on their deathbed. This was
called "the good end." The prayer to grant "the good end" under the care
of "the good people" (the
perfecti) was recited together with the Lord's Prayer.
Sometimes, having received "consolation," a sick person
recovered. He was then usually advised to commit suicide (called
"endura"). In many cases, "endura" was in fact a condition for receiving
"consolation." Not infrequently, the aged or the very young who had
received "consolation" were subjected to "endura"--i.e., in effect,
murdered. There were various forms of "endura." Most frequently it was
by starvation (especially for children, whom the mothers simply stopped
suckling); bleeding, hot baths followed by sudden chilling, drinking of
liquid mixed with ground glass and strangulation were also used. I.
Dollinger, who studied the extant archives of the Inquisition in
Toulouse and Carcassonne, writes: "Whoever examines the records of the
above-mentioned courts attentively will have no doubt that far more
people perished from the 'endura' (some voluntarily, some forcibly) than
as a result of the Inquisition's verdicts." (10: p. 226)
These basic notions were the source of the socialist doctrines disseminated
[22]
among the Cathars. They rejected property as belonging to the material world. The
perfecti were
forbidden to have any personal belongings, but as a group they
controlled the holdings of the sect, which often were considerable.
Cathars enjoyed influence in various segments of society, including
the highest strata. Thus it is said that Count Raymond VI of Toulouse
always kept in his retinue Cathars disguised in ordinary attire, so they
could bless him in case of impending death. For the most part, however,
the preaching of the Cathars apparently was directed to the urban lower
classes, as indicated in particular by the names of various sects:
populicani (i.e., populists, although certain historians see this name as a corruption of "Paulicians"),
piphlers (derived from "plebs"),
texerants (weavers),
etc. In their sermons, the Cathars preached that a true Christian life
was possible only on the condition that property was held in common.
(12: p. 656) In 1023, a group of Cathars were put on trial in
Monteforte, charged with promulgating celibacy and communality of
property and with attacking the accepted religious traditions.
It seems that the appeal for communality of property was rather
widespread among the Cathars, since it is mentioned in certain Catholic
works directed against them. In one of these, for instance, Cathars are
accused of demagogically proclaiming this principle while not adhering
to it themselves: "You do not have everything in common. Some have more,
others less." (13: p. 176)
Celibacy among the
perfecti and the general condemnation
of marriage are common to all Cathars. But in a number of cases, only
marriage is considered sinful--not promiscuity outside marriage. It
should be recalled that "Thou shalt not commit adultery" was considered
to be a commandment of the God of evil. By the same token, these
prohibitions had as their aim not so much mortification of the flesh as
destruction of the family. In the writings of contemporaries, the
Cathars are constantly accused of "free" or "holy" love, and of having
wives in common.
Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, between 1130 and 1150, accused the
Cathars of preaching against marriage while cohabiting with women who
had abandoned their families. (10: p. 16) Rainier supports this
contention. (9: pp. 72-73) The same accusation against a Manichean sect
that was making inroads into Brittany around 1145 can be found in the
Chronicle of Hugo d'Amiens, Archbishop of Rouen. A book
[23]
against heresies by Alain de Lille, which was published in the twelfth
century, ascribed the following view to the Cathars: "Marital bonds are
contrary to the laws of nature, since these laws demand that everything
be held in common." (13: p. 176)
The Cathar heresy swept over Europe with extraordinary swiftness. In
1012, a sect of Cathars is recorded in Mainz, in 1018 and again in 1028
in Aquitaine, in 1022 in Orleans, in 1025 in Arras, in 1028 in
Monteforte (near Turin), in 1030 in Burgundy, in 1051 in Goslar, etc.
Around 1190, Bonacursus, who had previously been a bishop with the
Cathars, wrote of the situation in Italy: "Are not all townships, cities
and castles overrun with these pseudo-prophets?" (12: p. 651) And in
1166, the Bishop of Milan asserted that there were more heretics than
faithful in his diocese. One work from the thirteenth century enumerates
seventy-two Cathar bishops. Rainier Sacconi speaks of sixteen Churches
of Cathars. They were all closely associated and apparently headed up by
a Cathar Pope, who was located in Bulgaria. Councils were called, which
were attended by representatives from numerous countries. For example,
in 1167, a council was openly held in St. Felix near Toulouse; it was
summoned by the heretical Pope Nicetas and was attended by a host of
heretics, including some from Bulgaria and Constantinople.
The heresy was particularly successful in the south of France, in
Languedoc and Provence. Missions for conversion of the heretics were
repeatedly sent there, one of which included St. Bernard of Clairvaux,
who reported that churches were deserted and that no one took communion
or was baptized. The missionaries and the local Catholic clergy were
assaulted and subjected to threats and insults.
The nobles of southern France supported the sect actively, seeing
an opportunity to acquire church lands. For more than fifty years
Languedoc was under the control of the Cathars and seemed lost to Rome
forever. A papal legate, Pierre de Castelnau, was killed by heretics.
The Pope announced several crusades against the Cathars. The first of
these failed because of support given to the heretics by the local
nobility. It was only in the thirteenth century, after more than thirty
years of the
guerres albigeoises, that the heresy was suppressed. However, the influence of these sects continued to be felt for several centuries.
Brethren of the Free Spirit and the Apostolic Brethren.
In the creation of the doctrines of these sects a special role was played by two thinkers
[24]
whose ideas were destined to exert a continuous influence on the
heretical movements of the Middle Ages and the Reformation: Joachim of
Flore and Amalric of Bena. They both lived in the twelfth century and
died soon after 1200.
Joachim was a monk and an abbot. His doctrine, as he claimed, was
based partly on the study of the Holy Scriptures and partly on
revelation. It is based on the view that the history of mankind involves
the progressively greater comprehension of God. Joachim divided history
into three epochs: the Kingdom of the Father, from Adam to Christ; the
Kingdom of the Son, from Christ until 1260; and the Kingdom of the
Spirit, which was to begin in 1260. The first was an age of slavish
submission; the second, an age of filial obedience; while the third was
to be an age of freedom. For in the words of the Apostle: "Where the
Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." In this last epoch, God's
people would abide in peace, freed from labor and suffering. This would
be an age of the humble and the poor; people would not know the words
"thine" and "mine." Monasteries would embrace the whole of mankind, and
the Eternal Gospel would be read and understood in its mystical
dimension. An era of perfection would be attained within the framework
of earthly life and human history--and by the hand of mortal human
beings. This epoch was to be preceded by terrible wars, and the
Antichrist would appear. Joachim saw proof of this in the decay of the
Church in his time. The Last Judgment would begin with the Church, and
the Antichrist would become Pope. The elect of God, reverting to
apostolic poverty, would make up the host of Christ in this struggle.
They would defeat the Antichrist and unite the whole of mankind in
Christianity.
A characteristic feature of Joachim's doctrine is the view of
history as a predetermined process whose course can be foreseen and
calculated. He calculates, for example, that the first epoch in his
scheme lasted forty-two generations, the second would last fifty. ...
During his life, Joachim was a faithful son of the Church; he
founded a monastery and wrote against the Cathars. But a collection of
excerpts from his works was later condemned as heretical, probably
because of his influence on the heretical sects.
Amalric taught theology in Paris. He did not expound his system
in full, only its more inoffensive propositions. Nevertheless, a
complaint Was lodged against him in Rome and the Pope condemned his
systeln and, in 1204, dismissed him from his chair. Amalric died soon
thereafter.
[25]
Amalric was ideologically linked to Joachim of Flore. He also saw
history as a series of stages in divine revelation. In the beginning,
there was Moses' law, then Christ's which superseded it. Now the time of
the third revelation had come. This was embodied in Amalric and his
followers, as previously revelation had been embodied in Christ. They
had now become as Christ. Three basic theses of this new Christianity
have been preserved. First of all: "God is all." Second: "Everything is
One, for everything that is is God." And third: "Whoever observes the
law of love is above sin." These theses were interpreted in such a way
that those who followed the teachings of Amalric could attain identity
with God through ecstasy. In them, the Holy Spirit became flesh, just as
in Christ. Man in this state is incapable of sin, for his deeds
coincide with the will of God. He rises above the law.
Thus the followers of Amalric perceived the Kingdom of the Spirit
more in terms of a spiritual state of the members of the sect than in
terms of a world to be actively transformed. The second interpretation
was not entirely foreign to them, however.
In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, a sect with views
very similar to those of Amalric spread over France, Germany,
Switzerland and Austria. Its members called themselves the Brothers and
Sisters of the Free Spirit or simply the "Free Spirits."
The key doctrine of this sect was belief in the possibility of
"transfiguration into God." Since the soul of each man consists of
divine substance, any man in principle can achieve a state of
"Godliness." To attain this end he must pass through many years of
novitiate in the sect, renounce all property, family, will, and live by
begging. Only then does he attain the state of Godliness and become one
of the "Free Spirits." Numerous descriptions of the sect's world view
have been preserved. There are accounts by Free Spirits or by Free
Spirits who later repented, as well as those in the archives of the
Inquisition. (See 14: p. 56; 15: p. 136; 16: pp. 110,119; 17: p. 160;
etc.) All sources agree on one point--that Godliness is not a temporary
state but a continuous one. Johann Hartmann from a town near Erfurt
characterized this ecstasy as "a complete disappearance of the painful
sting of conscience." (15: p. 136) In other words, the Free Spirit was
liberated from all moral constraints. He was higher than Christ, who was
a mortal man who attained Godliness only on the cross. The Free Spirit
was the complete equal of God, "without distinctions." Hence his will is
the will of God, and to him the notion of sin becomes meaningless.
[26]
This sinlessness and freedom from moral restrictions was
characterized in a number of ways. The Free Spirit is the king and
sovereign of all that is. Everything belongs to him, and he may dispose
of it at will. And whoever interferes with this may be killed by him,
even if it is the emperor himself. Nothing performed by the flesh of
such a man can either decrease or increase his divinity. Therefore, he
may give it complete freedom. "Let the whole state perish rather than he
abstain from the demands of his nature," says Hartmann. (15: p. 141)
Intimacy with any woman, even with a sister or his mother, cannot stain
him and will only increase her holiness. Numerous sources dating from
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries report on rituals of the sects,
which included indiscriminate sexual union. In Italy, such "masses" were
called
barilotto. In Germany, there were reports of special sanctuaries called "paradises" for this purpose.
The contemporary scholar H. Grundmann (18) points out in this
regard that in the late Middle Ages there was no need to belong to a
sect in order to adhere to any sort of free views in sexual matters. The
basis of the "orgiastic mass" was strictly ideological. The Free
Spirit, who had attained "Godliness," broke completely with his former
life. What had been blasphemy for him in the past (and remained so for
"rude" folk) now became a sign of the end of one historical epoch and
the beginning of another--the new Eon. In this way he was able to
comprehend and to express his new birth and the break with the old Eon.
It is clear that the Free Spirits had no use for the path of
salvation proposed by the Catholic Church--penance, confession,
absolution of sins, communion. Moreover, they saw the Church as a
hostile organization, since it had usurped the right to examine and to
decide, which they considered solely their own prerogative. A bitterly
anti-ecclesiastical sentiment pervades the views of the Free Spirits and
finds expression in their frequent worship of Lucifer.
In the center of the sect's ideology stood not God but man made
divine, freed from the notion of his own sinfulness and made the center
of the universe. As a result, Adam played a central role in their
teaching, not Adam the sinner depicted in the Old Testament, but Adam
the perfect man. Many of the Free Spirits referred to themselves as the
"New Adams," and Konrad Kanler even called himself Antichrist ("but not
in the bad sense"). It seems possible to argue that here, within the
confines of this relatively small sect, we encounter the first prototype
[27]
of the humanist ideology which would later attain worldwide significance.
The uprising against the Pope in Umbria, in the 1320s, serves as a
vivid example of the influence the sect had on social life. The
teachings of the Free Spirits were widespread among the nobility of this
region and became the ideology of the anti-papal party. In the struggle
against the Pope and the urban communes, the doctrine justified the
application of all means and the rejection of mercy of any kind. The
entire populations of captured towns were slaughtered, including women
and children. The head of the uprising, Count Montefeltro, and his
followers prided themselves on plundering churches and violating nuns.
Their supreme deity was Satan. (17: p. 130)
But the most far-reaching influence that the sect had was among
the poor, especially among the Beghards and the Beguines--unions of
celibate men and women who engaged in crafts or begging. The external,
exoteric circle of participants in the sect was made up from these
social elements, while the Free Spirits, those who had attained
"Godliness," formed a narrow, esoteric circle. The division into two
categories recalls the Cathars with their chosen circle of the
perfecti.
The broad masses that formed the exoteric circle of the sect were
poorly informed about the radical nature of the doctrine, as numerous
surviving records of the proceedings of the Inquisition make clear. The
ordinary followers felt that the divinity of the Free Spirits justified
their right to be spiritual guides. For this group, the most significant
aspects of the doctrine were those that proclaimed the idea of
communality in its most extreme form and rejected the fundamental
institutions of society: private property, the family, the church and
the state. It is here that we can see the sect's socialist aspects. The
assertion that "all property ought to be held in common" is cited
frequently as one of the elements of the doctrine (e.g., 15: p. 53).
Appeals for sexual freedom were often directed against marriage--indeed,
sexual union in marriage was considered sinful. Such views were
expressed, for example, by the "Homines Intelligentia" group, which was
active in Brussels in 1410-1411. (9: II: p. 528) The equality proclaimed
between Free Spirits and Christ had the aim of destroying hierarchy,
not only on earth but in heaven as well. All of these ideas were common
mainly among the mendicant Beghards, whom their "divine" leaders called
to a complete liberation from this world. For instance, Aegidius
Cantoris of Brussels taught: "I am the liberator of mankind. Through
[28]
me you will know Christ, as through Christ you know the Father." (9: II: p. 527)
The Brethren of the Free Spirit exerted an influence on a sect that
emerged in Italy in the second half of the thirteenth century. The
members of this Italian movement called each other" Apostolic
Brethren."
This sect taught that the coming of the Antichrist foretold by Joachim
was drawing near. The Catholic Church had fallen away from Christ's
commandments and had become the Whore of Babylon, the beast of seven
heads and ten horns of the Apocalypse. Its fall dated from the time of
Emperor Constantine and Pope Sylvester, who had been possessed by the
Devil. The times of trouble were coming, which would end in victory for
anew, spiritual Church--that of the Apostolic Brethren, a community of
saints. The world would be governed by a saint, a Pope elevated by God
and not elected by cardinals (all the cardinals would have been killed
by then, in any case). And the sect was already thought to be headed by a
God-appointed leader. Implicit obedience was due him. Everything was
permitted in defense of the faith, any violence against enemies, while,
at the same time, the persecution inflicted by the Catholic Church on
the Apostolic Brethren was considered to be the gravest of crimes. The
sect preached communality of property and of wives.
The doctrine was spread among the people by itinerant "apostles."
The letters of the leader of the sect, Dolcino, were disseminated by
way of proclamations. Finally in 1404, an attempt was made to put the
teaching into practice. Gathering some five thousand members of the
sect, Dolcino fortified himself and his army in a mountainous area of
northern Italy, from where he sallied forth to plunder the surrounding
villages and destroy the churches and monasteries. War went on for three
years, until Dolcino's camp was taken and he was executed.
This episode is described at greater length in the biography of Dolcino in the Appendix.
Taborites.
The burning of Jan Hus in 1415 gave the impetus to the
anti-Catholic Hussite movement in Bohemia. The more radical faction of
the Hussites was concentrated in a well-protected town near Prague. They
called the place Tabor. Preachers from heretical sects gravitated there
from allover Europe: Joachimites (followers of Joachim of Flore),
Waldensians, Beghards. Chiliastic and socialist theories were prevalent
[29]
among the Taborites, and there were numerous attempts to bring theory
into practice. We shall give a brief outline of the views of the
Taborites based on the writings of their contemporaries (the future Pope
Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, Pržíbram, Vavřinec, Laurence of Březin).
The end of the world--the
consumatio saeculi--was to occur in
1420. The term, however, covers only the end of the old world and of the
"dominion of evil." All the "wicked" would be removed forthwith. "The
day of vengeance and the year of retribution" were drawing near. "The
lofty and powerful must be bent down like tree branches and cut off and
burned in furnaces like straw, leaving neither root nor branch, they
must be thrashed like sheaves of grain, their blood drained to the last
drop, they are to be exterminated with scorpions, serpents and wild
beasts, and put to death everywhere." (19: p. 78)
Christ's law of mercy was to be abolished, since "its
interpretation and written tenets contradict in much the opinion cited
above." (20: p. 235) On the contrary, one was to act "resolutely and
with zeal and with just retribution." Furthermore: "It is necessary for
each of the faithful to wash his hands in the blood of the enemies of
Christ." (20: p. 231) Moreover: "Anyone who protests against the
shedding of the blood of Christ's enemies shall be cursed and punished
just as these enemies are. All peasants who refuse to join the Taborites
shall be destroyed together with their property." (19: p. 81)
God's Kingdom on earth will be established, but not for all--only
for the "elect." "Evil" will not be eliminated from the world but will
be subjected to the control of those who are "good." All the faithful
were to congregate in five cities; those who remained outside would not
be spared the Last Judgment. From these cities the faithful were to rule
the world, and those cities and towns opposing them were to be
"destroyed and burnt like Sodom." (20: p. 236) In particular: "In this
year of retribution, Prague must be destroyed and burnt by the faithful
like Babylon." (19: p. 82)
The period was to culminate in the coming of Christ. Then the
chosen of God would "reign with the Lord visibly and physically for a
thousand years." (19: p. 94) When Christ had descended to earth with his
angels, pious souls who had died for Christ were to be resurrected in
order to judge the sinners with Him. Wives would conceive without
knowing a man and give birth without pain. No one would sow or reap.
"The fruit of the earth shall no longer be consumed." (19: pp. 85)
[30]
The call went out from the preachers "to do no work, to pull down
trees and destroy houses, churches and monasteries." (19: p. 85) "All
human institutions and human laws must be abolished, for none of them
were created by the Heavenly Father." (19: p. 110) It was taught that
the Church was "heretical and unrighteous and that all its wealth must
be taken away and given to laymen." And: "The houses of priests and all
church property must be demolished, and the churches, altars and
monasteries destroyed." (19: p. 83) "Church bells were taken down and
broken to pieces and then sold away to foreign lands. Church objects,
candlesticks, gold and silver were smashed." (19: p. 84) "Everywhere
altars were smashed, the sacraments cast out, God's temples defiled and
turned into stalls and stables." (19: p. 127) "The sacrament was trodden
underfoot. ...The Blood of Christ was poured out, chalices stolen and
sold." (19: p. 139) One of the Taborite preachers stated that he "would
sooner pray to the Devil than bend his knee before the Holy Eucharist."
(19: p. 153) "A great multitude of priests were killed, burned and
slaughtered, and the greatest joy for them was to seize somebody and
murder him." (19: p. 84) The favorite song of thc Taborites was: "Come
on, monks, let's see you dance for us!" (18: p. 84) It was said that
when the Kingdom of the Righteous came there would be "no need for
anyone to teach another. There would be no need for books or scriptures,
and all worldly wisdom will perish." (19: p. 159) In monasteries the
Taborites invariably destroyed the libraries. "All belongings must be
taken away from God's enemies and burned or otherwise destroyed." (19:
p. 81)
"This winter and summer the preachers and elder headmen have been
persistently duping the peasants to pour money into their barrels."
(19: p. 101) In this manner all money in the community was socialized.
Supervisors of the barrels were appointed to oversee the strict delivery
of money and to distribute the communal fund. "In the town of Tabor
there is nothing which is mine or thine, but all possess everything in
common and no one is to have anything apart, and whoever does is a
sinner." (19: pp. 99-100) One point of the Taborite program stated: "No
one shall possess anything, but everything must be communal." (19: p.
106) The preachers taught: "Everything will be common, including wives:
there will be free sons and daughters of God and there will be no
marriage as union of two--husband and wife." (19: p. 113)
Among the Taborites, a Beghard from Belgium founded a sect of
Adamites who established themselves on a small island in the Lužnice
[31]
river. He pronounced himself Adam and the Son of God, called upon to
resurrect the dead and to carry out what was foreordained in the
Apocalypse. The Adamites considered themselves to be the incarnation of
the omnipresent God. They expected the world soon to be flooded with
blood as high as a horse's bridle. On this earth they saw themselves as
God's scythe sent to take vengeance and to destroy all that is vile in
the world. Forgiveness was a sin. They killed and they burned towns and
villages at night, citing the phrase from the Bible: "At midnight there
was a cry made." In the town of Prčic they "killed people, young and
old, and burned the town." (19: p. 464) At their gatherings they wore no
clothing, believing that only in this way would they become pure. They
had no marriage; every man could choose women at will. It was enough to
say about a woman "She inflames my spirit" for Adam to give his
blessing: "Go and give fruit and multiply and populate the earth."
According to certain sources, their sexual relations were completely
indiscriminate. "The sky they call a roof and say there is no God on
earth as there are no devils in hell." (19: p. 478) On orders from Jan
Žižka, Adamites were exterminated by more moderate Taborites.
For a long time, the stories about the Adamites (as well as many
reports about the Taborites) were thought to be the inventions of their
enemies. Such a view was first posited by the French Huguenot Isaac de
Beausobre, a representative of the Age of Enlightenment, and in its most
extreme form it finds expression in the works of the Czech Marxist
historian J. Macek. The question of the Adamites has recently been
subjected to thorough critical review by the Marxist historians E.
Werner and M. Erbstösser. (15, 16, 17) They demonstrate the existence of
an earlier "Adamite" tradition, a cult of Adam, within the Brethren of
the Free Spirit. If we take into account certain unavoidable distortions
due to the hermetic nature of the teaching, information about the
Bohemian "Adamites" is in full accord with the picture of the European
movement of "Free Spirits" which we have drawn in the preceding section.
For example, Macek considers the passage "All shall be in common, wives as well" (from the
Old Chronicle) to
be "the height of filthy slander." (19: p. 113) In his opinion, this
passage is contradicted by another in Pržíbram, who asserts that in
Tabor intimacy between husband and wife was prohibited: "If husband and
wife were seen together or their meeting became known, they were beaten
to death; others
[32]
were thrown into the river." However, these two passages actually are in
full accord with the tradition of the Free Spirits, who preached
unlimited sexual liberty and the sinfulness of marriage at one and the
same time. This was also the position of the "Homines Intelligentia"
group in Brussels at about the same period. We note in this connection
that Engels had pointed out: "It is a curious fact that in every large
revolutionary movement the question of 'free love' comes to the
foreground." (3: XVI: p. 160)
The emperor and the Pope appealed for a crusade against the
Taborites. But the latter not only crushed the crusaders but carried war
over into neighboring countries. These raids, which received the name
"The Splendid Campaigns" in the Hussite tradition, were undertaken on a
yearly basis between 1427 and 1434. Some countries were devastated and
looted; in others--for example, Silesia--garrisons were established. A
song of the time runs: "Meissen and Saxony are destroyed, Silesia and
Lauschwitz lie in ruins, Bavaria has becn turned into a desert, Austria
is devastated, Moravia stripped, Bohemia turned upside down."
Detachments of Taborites went as far as the Baltic Sea, the walls
of Vienna, Leipzig and Berlin; Nuremberg paid tribute. Czechia was
ravaged. In the
Old Collegiate Chronicle it is said: "In these
campaigns the majority of soldiers were foreigners who felt no love for
the Kingdom." And: "Fires, robberies, murders and acts of violence are
on their conscience." (21: p. 161) The whole of Central Europe was
subjected to terrible devastation. The Pope was forced to make
concessions. At the Basel Council of 1433, an agreement with the
Hussites was reached, as a result of which they returned to the Catholic
Church. But the more radical, Taborite, faction of Hussites did not
recognize the agreement and was annihilated in the battle at Lipany, in
1434.
During the wars of 1419-1434, the impact of the Hussites went
beyond the devastation of neighboring countries. They also carried their
chiliastic and socialist ideas abroad. Their manifestoes were read in
Barcelona, Paris, Cambridge. In 1423 and 1430, there were disturbances
by Hussite adherents in Flanders. In Germany and Austria, Hussite
influence was still felt a century later, during the period of the
Reformation. Inside Bohemia itself, the defeated Taborites gave rise to
the sect of "Bohcmian Brethren" or "Unitas Fratrum," who combined the
previous intolerant attitude toward the Catholic Church
[33]
and secular authority with a complete renunciation of violence--even for
self-defense. We shall have occasion to speak of this sect, which is
still in existence, later in this work.
Anabaptists.
The Reformation called forth a new upsurge of socialist
movements. Even in pre-Reformation times, Germany was full of chiliastic
sentiment. Wandering preachers exposed the sins of the world and
foretold the forthcoming vengeance. Astrological predictions of calamity
were common--famine, rebellion, "when the rivers will flow with blood."
There was a saying: "Who does not die in 1523, is not drowned in 1524,
is not killed in 1525, shall say that a miracle has happened to him."
The invention of printing enormously magnified the effect of
these ideas. Any peasant or artisan could be exposed to leaflets showing
a peasant army marching toward the future revolution, with a frightened
Pope, princes and prelates fleeing before it.
This sentiment was given especially strong expression in the
Anabaptist movement, which spread to Germany, Switzerland, Austria,
Czechia, Denmark and Holland and which, in the following century,
spilled over into England. The sect's name, as so often happened, was
given to it by its enemies. It seems that the term was coined by
Zwingli. The movement as such had existed long before, its members
calling each other "Brother." The designation Anabaptist ("the
rebaptized") is to be explained by the fact that the sect refused to
recognize the baptism of children and often performed a second baptism
of adults. In later times, members of this sect came to call themselves
Baptists.
Basically, the doctrine of the Anabaptists (see 22, 23, 24, 25,
26) derived from the notion, already familiar to us, of the falling away
of the Catholic Church, in Emperor Constantine's time, from the true
teachings of Christ. These sectarians considered themselves direct
successors of the Christianity of Apostolic times. They denied the
entire tradition of the Catholic Church--that is, every aspect of its
doctrine and organization not specifically identified in the Gospels.
They refused to recognize the supreme authority of the Pope, believed
that salvation of the soul was possible outside the Church and professed
a universal priesthood. Of the Scriptures, they recognized only the
Gospels as sacred and only the words spoken by Christ himself, at that.
The Sermon on the Mount had particular significance for them, and they
believed that its commandments should be observed to the letter.
According
[34]
to their doctrine, the meaning of the Gospels is revealed through
inspiration to anyone worthy of it, now just as in Apostolic times.
Anabaptists believed murder to be a cardinal sin under any
circumstances and rejected oaths of any kind. For this reason, they
refused to participate in many aspects of life. In general, the
opposition of "true Christians" to the "world of false Christians"
played a large role in their teachings. This led at critical periods to
militant appeals for "extermination of the impious."
In organization the Anabaptists largely resembled the Cathars.
The movement was guided entirely by a society of "Apostles" who, having
renounced marriage and property, led the life of pilgrims. They wandered
in pairs, the older Apostle devoting himself to matters of faith and
the sect's organization, with the younger Apostle helping him with
practical matters. The Apostles elected bishops from among their own
ranks, the latter guiding the activity of the sect in various regions.
Councils of bishops, "synods" or
capituli, were convened to
discuss questions of principle. For example, in his invitation to the
synod at Waldshut in 1524, Balthazar Humbayer wrote: "The ancient custom
of Apostolic times is such that, in circumstances hard for the faith,
those to whom God's word is entrusted gather to take a Christian
decision." (24: p. 376)
Often bishops from the whole of Europe came together. For instance, the
capituli in
Basel between 1521 and 1523 were attended by Brethren from Switzerland,
Flanders (Beltin), Saxony (Heinrich von Eppendorf), Franconia (Stumpf),
Frankfurt-am-Main (the Knight Hartmut von Kronberg), Holland (Rode),
England (Richard Crock, Thomas Lipset), and other places. (24: p. 378
f.) At the Augsburg synod of 1526, more than sixty "elder Brethren" were
present.
The social views of the Anabaptists were not uniform throughout. The
Chronicle by
Sebastian Franck (sixteenth century) says about them: "Some believe
themselves to be holy and pure; they have everything in common. ...
Others practice communality only to the extent that they do not permit
need to arise among themselves. ... Among them a sect appeared which
wished to make wives, as well as belongings, communal." (25: p. 306)
There is much data on Anabaptists to be found in the book by
Bullinger, also written in the sixteenth century. In describing the sect
of "Free Brethren" that appeared in the vicinity of Zürich, he writes:
"The Free Brethren, whom many Anabaptists called 'crude Brethren,'
[35]
were quite widespread in the early days of the movement. They understood
Christian freedom in a carnal sense. For they wished to be free of all
laws, presuming that Christ had liberated them. Therefore, they regarded
themselves as free of tithe, of the corvée and of serfdom. Some of
them, desperate libertines, seduced silly women into believing that they
could not become spiritual without breaking wedlock. Others believed
that if all things must be in common, then also wives. Still others said
that after the new baptism they had been born anew and could not sin:
only flesh sins. These false teachings were the source of shame and
obscenity. And yet they dared to teach that such was the will of the
Father." (40: p. 129)
Elsewhere Bullinger reports: "And they say in earnest that no one
should have property and that all wealth and patrimony should be in
common, as it is impossible to be Christian and wealthy at the same
time. ...They set forth as a new monastic order rules regarding clothing
as to the fabric, shape and style, length and size. ...They set forth
rules as to eating, drinking, sleeping, leisure, standing and walking
about." (25: p. 284)
In the early 1520s, the Anabaptists renounced the conspiratorial
character of their activities and entered into an open struggle with the
"world" and the Catholic Church. In 1524, a large-scale secret
conference was held in Nuremberg and attended by Denck, one of the most
influential Anabaptist writers, by the "Picard" Hetzer, by Hut of the
old Waldensian Brethren, and by other Brethren. Many were seized, but
Denck fled to Switzerland. Here a new assembly of Brethren from various
countries took place. It was decided to begin to practice the second
baptism openly. This decision was put into effect in Zurich and St.
Gall. This was apparently symbolic of the shift to outright
struggle--precisely the course taken by the Czech Brethren in the
village of Lota, in 1457, when they decided to demonstrate openly their
split with Catholicism.
In St. Gall in 1525, a uniform of coarse gray fabric and a broad
gray hat were introduced as obligatory for all members of the community.
All forms of participation in public life and entertainment were
forbidden. Anabaptists were called "monks without hoods." The leaders of
the Anabaptist community in Zurich preached that "all property must be
held in common and together." These events were accompanied by strange
happenings. Members of some of the groups went naked at their gatherings
and, to be like children, crept around on the ground, playing. Others
burned the Bible, and with shouts of "Here!
[36]
Here!" beat themselves on the breast to show the place where the
life-giving spirit dwells. One of them, on orders from his father,
killed his brother in imitation of Christ's sacrifice. (23: p. 701)
The Anabaptists did not succeed in taking control of the Reformation
movement in Switzerland (thanks in large part to Zwingli's opposition to
them). Exiled Swiss Anabaptists fled to Bohemia and joined the Bohemian
Brethren there. Large combined communities were founded on collectivist
principles.
Communal property was introduced. Everything earned by the
Brethren was handed over to the common treasury, which was supervised by
a special "distributor ." The "good police" controlled the whole of the
life of the community--clothing, lodging, upbringing of children,
marriage and work.
The type of men's and women's clothing, the hour for going to
bed, the time for work and rest were all strictly prescribed. The life
of the Brethren took place before the eyes of others. It was forbidden
to cook anything for oneself; meals had to be taken in common. The
unmarried slept in common bedrooms, men and women separately. Children
(from the age of two) were separated from their parents and brought up
in common "children's houses." Marriages were arranged by the elders.
They also assigned to everyone his or her occupation. Members of the
community refused to have any contact with the state; they did not serve
in the army, never went to court. They did, however, retain a passively
hostile attitude while rejecting violence of any kind. (See 27, 39.)
In Germany, Anabaptism began to take on an increasingly
revolutionary character. In Thuringia, near the Bohemian border, the
city of Zwick au became the center of the movement. The so-called
Zwickau Prophets, headed by the Anabaptist Apostle Klaus Storch,
believed that the elect of the Lord could communicate with Him directly,
as the Apostles of old could, and denied that the Church was capable of
giving salvation. Their teaching considered science and the arts
unnecessary for man, for everything essential to his salvation was
already given to him by God.
In imitation of Christ, Storch surrounded himself with twelve
Apostles and seventy disciples. The "Prophets" predicted an invasion by
the Turks, the reign of the Antichrist, destruction of the impious and
finally the arrival of the thousand-year Kingdom of God, when there
would be one baptism and one faith.
An exposition of Storch's teachings has been preserved in a work
[37]
by Wagner published in the late sixteenth century in Erfurt. It is
titled "How Niklaus Storch Instigated Sedition in Thuringia and the
Neighboring Regions" and was written on the basis of eyewitness
accounts. It cites the following points of his doctrine:
1. That no matrimonial union, whether secret or open, should be observed. ...
3. That on the contrary, each may take wives whenever his flesh
demands it and his passion rises, and may live with them in intimacy at
his will.
4. That everything ought to be held in common, for God has sent
all men equally naked into the world. And likewise, He has given them
equally everything that is on the earth: the birds of the air and the
fish of the water.
5. Therefore it ought to be that all authorities, secular and
clerical, be deprived of their offices once and for all or killed by the
sword, for they alone live as they will and suck the blood and sweat of
the poor, glutting themselves and drinking day and night.
"Hence everyone must rise up, the sooner the better, arm himself
and attack the priests in their cozy nests, massacre and exterminate
them. For once the sheep are deprived of a leader, it will go easy with
the sheep. Next it will be necessary to attack also those who fleece
others, to seize their houses, plunder their property, and raze their
castles to the ground." (28: p. 53)
This first surge of the Anabaptist movement coincided with the
1525 Peasant War in Germany. The socialist teachings of the time are
most vividly mirrored in the activity of Thomas Müntzer. His biography
is presented at greater length in the Appendix; we shall therefore limit
ourselves to a brief comment on his doctrine here. Müntzer taught that
the only Lord and King of the earth is Christ. He assigned to princes a
function very like that of hangmen and even this prerogative was to be
exercised only on direct orders from the elect of the Lord. If the
princes refused to obey, they were to be executed. The authority of
Christ was seen as truly embodied in the society of the elect, a narrow
union sharply separated from the rest of the population. Müntzer did
indeed attempt to organize such a union.
He seized power in the town of Mühlhausen, where rebellious
inhabitants had driven out the municipal council. In the city and the
surrounding area, monasteries were laid waste, sacred images destroyed,
monks and priests killed. Müntzer taught that all property
[38]
was to be held in common. An identical demand was part of the program of
his union. A chronicle written at the time relates that a practical
attempt at implementing these principles was undertaken at Mühlhausen.
However, an army gathered by the local princes soon approached the town.
Müntzer and his followers were overwhelmingly defeated; he was
executed. (See the more detailed account in 28 and in 39: pp. 199-253.)
The Anabaptists' participation in the Peasant War called forth the
particular ire of the authorities. A violent and extremely cruel wave of
persecution of Anabaptists swept across south and central Germany. This
temporarily weakened militant and socialist sentiments, but around 1530
they surfaced again. In his
Chronicle, Sebastian Franck reports
that about 1530 (in Switzerland), Brethren who believed in the
possibility of self-defense and war under certain circumstances began to
gain the upper hand in the organization. "Such Brethren were in the
majority."
At the Anabaptist synods, the influence of the more moderate
"Apostle" Denck waned, while a former associate of Müntzer's, Hut, who
preached complete communality of worldly goods, came to the forefront.
He proclaimed: "The saints must be joyful and must take up double-edged
swords in order to wreak vengeance in the nations." (23: p. 703) Hut
created a new union whose goal was "slaughter of all overlords and
powers that be." He also proposed "establishing the rule of Hans Hut on
earth" and making Mühlhausen the capital. A majority of the members of
the union knew nothing of his radical plans. Only a narrow circle of
members, called the "knowers," was initiated into these secrets.
In 1535, counselors to Emperor Charles V submitted a report
stating that "Anabaptists, who call themselves true Christians, wish to
divide all property. ..." (24: p. 395) The increasingly explosive
situation found expression in some preposterous incidents which were,
however, destined to be outstripped by later events. For example, the
furrier Augustin Bader proclaimed himself king of the New Israel and
made himself a crown and kingly garments. He was tried in Stuttgart.
(23: p.703)
In 1534-1535, this rise of Anabaptist militancy led to an
outbreak of violence which can be seen as an attempt to bring about an
Anabaptist revolution in northern Europe. The main events were played
out in northern Germany; Anabaptists had gravitated there earlier,
having
[39]
been driven out of southern and central Germany. The town of Münster became the center of these events.
Taking advantage of the struggle going on between Catholics and
Lutherans, the Anabaptists gained control in the municipal council and
then completely subjugated the town. All who refused to accept a second
baptism were expelled after being stripped of their possessions.
Thereafter all property in the city was appropriated for the common lot,
everyone being obliged to deliver his possessions under the supervision
of special deacons. Next polygamy was introduced, and women of a
certain age were forbidden to stay unmarried.
Anabaptist Apostles fanned out from Münster across Germany,
Denmark and Holland, preaching the second baptism and calling the
faithful to come to the aid of the city. Revolt gripped a number of
towns, and Anabaptists gathered by land and by sea to support Münster.
Terrified by developments Bishop Waldeck, whose diocese included
Münster, called up an army together with the neighboring princes and
surrounded the town. The siege lasted for over a year. Within the town
in the meantime, one of the Anabaptists, J an Bokelson, also called
Johann of Leyden, was proclaimed the king of Münster and of the whole
world. He surrounded himself with a luxurious court and a multitude of
wives, and he personally beheaded recalcitrants in the town square. At
the same time, uprisings of Anabaptists broke out all over northern
Germany and in Holland, where they even succeeded in seizing the
Amsterdam town hall for a short time.
The authorities finally began to regain control. In 1535, Münster
was taken by assault and Bokelson and other Anabaptist leaders were
executed. A more detailed description of this episode is given in the
Appendix.
Sects in the English Revolution of 1648.
After the fall of Münster, a schism again appeared between the
more peaceable and the more belligerent tendencies of the Anabaptist
movement. In 1536, a synod took place in the vicinity of the town of
Buchholz in Westphalia. Batenburg, a leader of the militant faction,
supported the views of the Münster Anabaptists on armed struggle, on the
approaching Kingdom of God, and so on. The followers of Ubbo Phillips
took the opposite position. This latter group gained the upper hand,
although its adherents did not condemn their opponents in principle,
saying only that even if Batenburg was right, the time of the "Kingdom
of the Elect" had not yet arrived, and that it was therefore not yet
time to attempt
[40]
to wrest power from the godless. This episode marks the beginning of
decreased political involvement of Anabaptists on the Continent. Its
more extreme representatives, the Familists, emigrated (via Holland) to
England. It is worth noting that some Englishmen had attended the
Buchholz synod. One of them, Henry by name, took an active part in
organizing the synod and paid traveling expenses for the delegates. (30:
pp. 76-77)
At the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Anabaptists who had
migrated to England began to merge with the movement of the Lollards,
which had existed there for a long time. The English revolution of 1648
coincided with a flurry of activity by all these sects. The example of
Münster and Johann Bokelson gripped the popular imagination once again. A
book originating in Quaker circles stated the following, for example:
"No Friend has reason to be ashamed of his Anabaptist origins. Even in
Münster they rebelled merely against the cruelty of the German tyrants,
who literally like devils oppressed the souls and the bodies of the
common folk. They were defeated and therefore declared mutineers. Their
uprising was violent because their oppressors were still more violent."
(33: p. 25) Among the apologists for the Münster rebellion was Lilburne,
a highly popular leader of the radical wing in the Puritan army (see
his pamphlet "The Basic Laws of Liberty").
In another pamphlet of the day (entitled "Heresiography"), the
following Anabaptist doctrine is cited: "A Christian may not with a safe
conscience possess anything proper to himself but whatsoever he hath he
must make common." (31: p. 99)
In the middle of the seventeenth century, the sect of Ranters
appeared in England; its doctrine is strikingly akin to that of the
Brethren of the Free Spirit. The Ranters believed that all which exists
was divine and that the division between Good and Evil was a man-made
concept. In mystical terms this was perceived as an identity: "The Devil
is God, Hell is Heaven, Sin Holiness, Damnation Salvation." (32: p. 77)
This led to a denial of morals and to ostentatious amorality.
Thus Clarkson says of the period when he was a Ranter: "The very motion
of my heart was to all manner of theft, cheat, wrong or injury that
privately could be acted, though in tongue I professed the contrary, not
considering I brake the law in all points (murder excepted) and the
ground of this my judgment was, God made all things good, so nothing
evil but as man judged it." (32: p. 78)
In the social field, the Ranters rejected property and marriage.
[41]
In the pamphlet "The Ranters' Last Sermon," we find the teaching "that
it was quite contrary to the end of Creation to Appropriate anything to
any Man or Woman; but that there ought to be a Community of all things.
...They say that for one man to be tied to one woman, or one woman to be
tied to one man, is a fruit of the curse; but they say we are freed
from the curse; therefore it is our liberty to make use of whom we
please." (32: p. 90)
In his pamphlet "A Wonder," Edward Hide ascribes to the Ranters the
following view: "That all the women in the world are but one man's wife
in unity and all the men in the world are but one woman's husband in
unity; so that one man may lie with all the women in the world in unity,
and one woman may lie with all men in the world, for they are all her
husband in unity." (32: p. 90)
Ranters were accused of performing rituals which involved a parody of Communion and indiscriminate sexual union, similar to the
barilotto and the "paradise" of the Brethren of the Free Spirit.
An act of Parliament was directed against the Ranters. It
condemned those who preached "that such men and women are most perfect
or like to God or Eternity which do commit the greatest sins with least
remorse or sense." (32: p. 103)
In the 1650s, the majority of Ranters joined the Quakers, so that
it became difficult to draw a distinct line between the two currents.
Religious upheavals of the day were exacerbated by the indignation
aroused by Cromwell's foreign policy--the conclusion of peace in the
Netherlands, which frustrated the hope of spreading the reign of the
"saints" throughout Europe.
James Nayler, a Quaker preacher, acquired a considerable
following even within Cromwell's retinue. It was rumored that he was a
second Christ. People wrote to him, saying: "Henceforeward your name is
not James but Jesus." When a visit by him was announced in Bristol, such
excitement was aroused that contemporaries considered it likely that
Bristol would become a "New Jerusalem," a second Münster. When Nayler
rode into town on horseback, thousands followed him. But he was met by
Cromwell's soldiers, seasoned by their service in the Civil War, and
they dispersed the crowd, seized Nayler and took him to jail. His case
was debated in Parliament for several months. It seems to have had
political implications: it is possible that an uprising of Anabaptists
was feared. Nayler's execution seemed imminent, but there were
disturbances and an outpouring of pleas for mercy. Cromwell
[42]
spoke in favor of mitigating the sentence. Nayler was publicly Rogged
and branded. A crowd of adherents surrounded the scaffold, kissing his
feet, hands and hair. (33: pp. 264-274, 34: pp. 256-263)
Interestingly, the name Ranters reappears 150 years later, in the
1820s, when the term was applied to a certain group of Methodists. From
their midst came the first organizers of the English trade union
movement, men who had acquired the skills of popular orators in the
sect. (31: p. 167)
The movement whose members became known as Diggers had sharply
defined socialist characteristics. Externally, it expressed itself
(beginning in 1649) in the seizure of communal land by small groups of
people for joint tillage. This attempt at organizing communes, however,
was a mere gesture, which led to no practical consequences, and it was
the Diggers' literary activity that proved to have lasting significance.
Gerrard Winstanley was the most important figure among them. In
several pamphlets he proclaimed his basic idea--the illegitimacy of
private ownership of land. He reported that he had had a vision, "a
voice and a revelation," and was preaching what had been revealed to
him: "And so long as we or any other maintain this civil property, we
consent still to hold the creation down under that bondage it groans
under, and so we should hinder the work of restoration and sin against
light that is given unto us, and so through the fear of the Resh (man)
lose our peace. And that this civil property is the curse is manifest
thus: those that buy and sell land, and are landlords, have got it
either by oppression or murder or theft; and all landlords live in the
breach of the seventh and eighth commandments,
"Thou shalt not steal nor kill. "("The True Levellers' Standard Advanced: or, The State of Community opened, and Presented to the Sons of Men.") (35: p. 85)
Winstanley viewed trade and money in equally negative terms: "For
buying and selling is the great cheat that robs and steals the earth
one from another. ...We hope," he says, "that people shall live freely
in the enjoyment of the earth, without bringing the mark of the Beast in
their hands or in their promise; and that they shall buy wine and milk
without money or without price, as Isaiah speaks." (" A Declaration from
the Poor Oppressed People of England.") (35: p. 101)
The socialist demands of Winstanley were confined to the denial
of private property, trade and money. He was explicitly opposed to
[43]
more extreme views: "Likewise they report that we diggers hold women to
be common, and live in that bestialness. For my part I declare against
it. I own this to be a truth, that the earth ought to be a common
treasury to all; but as for women, Let every man have his own wife, and
every woman her own husband; and I know none of the diggers that act in
such an unrational excess of female community. If any should, I profess
to have nothing to do with such people, but leave them to their own
master, who will pay them with torment of mind and diseases in their
bodies." ("A New-year's Gift for the Parliament and Army.") (35: p. 177)
Winstanley constantly declared himself an enemy of violence as well,
persuading his readers that the Diggers would seek their ends only by
peaceable means. But the emotional thrust of his message sometimes
carried him beyond the point, and he raised his voice against any kind
of private property: "the cursed thing, called private property, which
is the cause of all wars, bloodshed, theft and enslaving wars, that hold
the people under misery." (32: p. 108) He says to his opponents: "But
now the time of deliverance is come, and thou proud Esau and
stout-hearted covetousness, thou must come down and be lord of the
creation no longer. For now the King of righteousness is rising to rule
in and over the earth. Therefore, if thou wilt find mercy,
Let Israel go free; break in pieces quickly the bond of particular property." ("The True Levellers' Standard Advanced ...") (35: p. 93)
The Diggers comprise only a single group in a wider movement during
the period of the English revolution. Supporters of the general movement
were called Levellers. One of them, the London merchant William Walwyn,
asked "that throughout the country there be no fences, nor hedges, nor
moats." A contemporary pamphlet ascribes to Walwyn the following views:
"It would never be well until all things were common; and it being
replied, will that be ever? answered, we must endeavor it; it being
said, that this would destroy all Government, answered, that then there
would be no thieves, no covetous persons, no deceiving and abusing of
one anothe,r, and so no need of Government." (32: pp. 185-186) The
author informs us that Walwyn never disproved these assertions. "A few
diligent spirits may turn the world upside down if they observe the
seasons and shall with life and courage engage accordingly," Walwyn
proposes. (32: p. 185)
The Moderate, a newspaper espousing the views of the Levellers, wrote on the occasion of the execution of certain robbers: "Many an
[44]
honest man tries to prove that it is only private property which governs
the lives of people of such condition and forces them to violate the
law in order to sustain life. Further, they explain with much conviction
that property is the prime cause of all clashes between parties." (36:
p.62)
A pamphlet of the day says: "Let us establish in regard to those who
are called Levellers the following: They wish that no one call anything
whatsoever his own, and, in their words, the power of man over land is
tyranny, and, in their opinion, private property is the work of the
devil." (33: pp. 168-169)
Unlike Winstanley, who preached renunciation of violence, the
extreme Leveller groups agitated for terror. One of their pamphlets is
entitled "Removal Is Not Murder." Their effort to foment rebellion was,
however, easily crushed by Cromwell's troops.
In almost all Leveller groups, socialist aspirations were
combined with some form of atheism. Even Winstanley, who referred to
voices and revelation and was fond of quoting the prophets, wrote of
Christianity: "This divine teaching that you call 'spiritual and
celestial' is in truth the thief who comes and plunders the vineyards of
human peace. ...Those who preach this divine teaching are the murderers
of many poor souls." Overton published a book entitled: "Man is wholly
mortal, or a treatise wherein 'tis proved both theologically and
philosophically that as whole man sinned, so whole man dies contrary to
that common disinclination of soul and body." (31: p. 94) His followers
formed the sect of the "Sleeping Souls." They believed that the soul
falls into the sleep of death along with the body.
The period of the English revolution represents the last great
surge in the fortunes of the sectarian movement. In later years, the
characteristic figure of the prophet-cum-apostle* disappears from the
historical scene. The sects themselves also vanish, after having so
persistently preserved all their typical traits for more than six
hundred years.
The socialist currents of this period reflect the characteristics
of a time of transition. On the one hand, they retain clear traces of
their sectarian origin. This is exemplified by Winstanley's references
to visions, revelation and voices and his attempts to derive his views
from
* The last representative of this type may be
seen in Wilhelm Weitling, who had such a great influence on Marx, In
Weitling's career we encounter the characteristically endless journeys
allover Europe (and to America) to preach his doctrine, and the
phenomenon of a Christian vocabulary employed to propound socialism and
violence, including a project for arming forty thousand brigands.
[45]
the Scriptures. Direct ties with the sectarian movement on the Continent
can also be demonstrated. Some of the routes by which Anabaptism came
to England have been mentioned above. These direct contacts were
maintained throughout the period preceding the revolution. For example,
it was at this time that a bishop of the Bohemian Brethren, Jan Komensky
(Comenius), settled in England. He was expelled from England in 1642,
but his influence lingered for a long time afterward. The works of
Komensky were translated into English by the influential Leveller
pamphleteer Samuel Hartlib.
On the other hand, many works produced by the Levellers exhibit a
purely rationalist spirit and show no trace of any religious
consideration. Certain of these writings belong to the new literary
genre of socialist utopias. Such was Hartlib's "Kingdom of Macaria,"
which presents a picture of life wholly subordinated to the state. The
most important of Winstanley's works, "The Law of Freedom," is also
written in this style. For this reason it will be more properly
discussed in the next chapter.
Appendix
Three Biographies
Dolcino and the Apostolic Brethren.
The sect of Apostolic Brethren was founded by a young peasant
from near Parma, Gerard Segarelli. Contemporaries portray him as
combining the features of a crafty peasant and a simpleton, but judging
by his success, he possessed other qualities as well. In any case he was
in 1248 refused admittance to the Franciscan order because of his
"simplicity." He thereupon entered a neighboring church and remained for
a long time contemplating pictures of the Apostles. From then on, he
stopped shaving and let his hair grow long, so as to resemble the
Apostles in the depictions of the time, and dressed accordingly. He sold
his house, went out into the town square and threw the money from the
sale on the ground, saying, "Take it, whoever wants to." He left the
town and began to live on alms, gathering around him a small band of
followers, who dressed and lived as he did.
The times were favorable for the birth of new sects. The year
1260 was approaching, the time Joachim of Flore had predicted would
bring world cataclysms and the appearance of the Antichrist.
Furthermore, in 1259, a terrible plague had befallen Italy,
strengthening the belief in Joachim's prophecy. Crowds of penitents led
by monks and priests moved half-naked along the roads, scourging
themselves and leaving a bloody trail behind. Singing hymns, the
penitents would enter a town and a ceremony of purging would begin.
Everyone was to repent, to make peace with his
[46]
enemies and to give back anything gained by unjust means. Amnesty for all exiles would generally be announced. (38: pp. 288-289)
Segarelli's sect emerged from this troubled period with added
strength and influence. It was supported by many rich and powerful men.
Segarelli even submitted a request to the Pope to recognize his order,
in the manner of the Franciscans. The Curia refused, but in an extremely
benevolent tone. At this point, Segarelli sent his Apostles to remote
corners of Italy and into France. It seems that the teaching of the
Apostolic Brethren at the time differed little from that of numerous
other religious groups. The Pope was forced to tolerate most of these
sects, and Segarelli himself came under the protection of the Bishop of
Parma, in whose palace he resided for twelve years, playing the role, as
his opponents asserted, of parasite, almost of a jester.
Little by little, the sect's relations with the Curia began to
sour. The sect insisted on exposing corruption among priests and
enumerating the ways in which they had strayed from Apostolic ideals.
Meanwhile the Curia pointed to the heretical trends of the sect. This
seems to have coincided with an increased influence of the views of the
Brethren of the Free Spirit upon the Apostolic Brethren. The importance
the sect attained can be judged by the fact that it was condemned in
England by the Chichester Synod in 1286, and again in Würzburg, in 1289.
(38: p. 310) The Inquisition finally took up the matter. In 1294,
Segarelli was arrested; after six years of imprisonment, he was
condemned and burned at the stake in 1300.
But by this time, the sect was headed by a leader of an entirely
different type. His name was Dolcino. He was the illegitimate son of a
priest and was studying for the priesthood when he was caught stealing
money from his teacher and forced to flee. He was admitted to a
Franciscan monastery as a novice, and it was here that he apparently
became acquainted with the teachings of the Apostolic Brethren. He left
the monastery and met Margaret, a novice in the St. Catherine convent in
Trento. Entering the convent as a workman, Dolcino persuaded her to run
away with him. The two became wandering preachers of the Apostolic
Brethren. A contemporary says that Dolcino taught that "in love
everything must be common--property and wives." Mosheim writes: "They
called one another brothers and sisters, in the manner of the first
Christians. They lived in poverty and could have neither houses nor
provisions for tomorrow or anything that could serve as a convenience.
When they experienced hunger, they asked for food of the first person
they met and ate whatever was offered. Well-off people who joined them
were obliged to give their property over to be used by the sect.
...Brothers who went into the world to preach penitence were allowed to
take with them a sister, as the Apostles did. But not as a wife, only as
an assistant. They called their female companions 'sisters in Christ'
and denied that they lived with them in marital or impure intimacy, even
though they slept together in one bed." (Quoted in 37)
Krone, who wrote a history of the Apostolic Brethren using contemporary
[47]
sources, denies the accusations of sacrilegious violations of the cross
and of sexual excesses, but he believes that Dolcino's preaching did
include an appeal for communality of property and of wives. (37: p. 224)
A description of the ceremony for admission to the rank of Apostle
has been preserved. As a token of his renunciation of his previous life,
the initiate would throw off his clothes and take an oath that he would
always live in evangelic poverty. He was forbidden to touch money and
was to live exclusively on alms--bread from heaven. Any work, any
subordination to others, was likewise forbidden. Like the first
Apostles, he was to pay heed only to God.
The new Apostle was then sent out into the world to spread the
sect's teachings, which by this time had become vehemently hostile to
the Church. The falling away of the Church from the commandments of
Christ and of the first Apostles had rendered invalid what had been
prophesied for it. The Roman Church, with its Pope and cardinals, its
abbots and monks, was no longer the Church of God but had become the
Whore of Babylon. The power that Christ had given to the Church had now
passed over to the Apostolic Brethren. The validity of Church rituals
was denied. A consecrated church was no better for communion with God
than a stable or a pigsty. Oaths taken in church or sworn on the Gospel
need not be binding. A man might hide his beliefs or renounce them, if
in his heart he remained faithful to them.
It is not surprising that such tenets provoked a fierce
persecution on the part of the Inquisition. During his wanderings,
Dolcino fell into the hands of the Inquisition on more than one
occasion, but he always denied his ties with the sect and was released.
He finally fled from Italy and took refuge in Dalmatia. There he wrote
letters which his followers disseminated in Italy. Three of these
letters have come down to us in detailed citations. (37: p. 32 f., 38:
p. 342 f.)
The letters can be summarized as follows: Dolcino and his
followers are called to proclaim the coming of the final days and to
urge repentance. In this they are opposed by the host of the
Antichrist--the Pope, the bishops, Dominicans and Franciscans, all of
them servants of Satan. But the day of vengeance is at hand. The Pope
and the prelates will be killed. No monk, nun or priest will survive
except those who join the Brethren. The Church will be deprived of all
its riches. The whole land will be converted to the new faith by the
Apostolic Brethren, upon whom the Lord will lavish his grace. God
Himself will give to the world a new and holy Pope in place of Boniface
VIII, who will surely be killed. In his third letter, Dolcino states
that he himself will be this new Pope.
Victory in the wars with the Antichrist Pope, Dolcino foretells,
will be won thanks to the interference of a foreign monarch. He pins his
hope on Frederick, the King of Aragon and Sicily, who at the time was
engaging in a fierce conflict with the Pope. (He had just strung up all
the monks in Sicily who were suspected of supporting the papacy.)
Dolcino derived all this from his interpretation of the Biblical prophets
[48]
and of the Apocalypse, where, he claimed, the past and the future were
revealed. He applied to his time, for instance, texts such as these:
"What hast thou here? and whom hast thou here, that thou hast hewed thee out a sepulchre here? ...
"Behold, the Lord will carry thee away with a mighty captivity, and will surely cover thee.
"He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country." (Isaiah 22: 16, 17, 18)
"For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever." (Obadiah 1: 10)
"And I will punish Bel in Babylon, and I will bring forth out of
his mouth that which he hath swallowed up: and the nations shall not
flow together any more unto him: yea, the well of Babylon shall fall."
(Jeremiah 51: 44)
From these prophecies Dolcino also extracted the dates for their
fulfillment: in 1304, Frederick of Aragon would kill the Pope and the
cardinals, and the common priests would be exterminated in 1305. This
prediction was based on the text: "But now the Lord hath spoken, saying,
Within three years, as the years of an hireling, and the glory of Moab
shall be contemned, with all that great multitude; and the remnant shall
be very small and feeble." (Isaiah 16: 14)
In 1303 or early 1304, Dolcino and his followers entered Italy.
Fresh adherents came flocking to him from all sides--rich and poor,
noble opponents of the Pope, villagers and townfolk. Apart from Italy,
they came from France and Austria as well. Several thousand gathered in
his camp. Contemporaries called Dolcino "the father of a new people,"
and it was rumored that he worked miracles. The members of the sect
decided to establish a new settlement; they sold their property and
gathered around Dolcino.
A camp was established in a mountain valley. Provisions were
obtained from the neighboring villages, more and more by means of force.
Soon the nearby regions were in panic. The citizens of one town wrote:
"The godless heretics, the Gazars [Cathars?], have seized the upper
reaches of the valley of the river, fortified themselves there and are
godlessly plundering the neighboring regions, devastating the land with
fire and sword, committing all kinds of impieties." (38: p. 364) The
forces of the citizens were far from sufficient for defense against
Dolcino's army of some five thousand men, a large force for that time.
Soon the area was plundered and burned for dozens of miles around.
The townfolk raised an army and collected funds to hire soldiers
for protection against Dolcino's troops. When planning their campaign,
they brought in a local priest whose nose, ears and hands had been cut
off: Dolcino had punished him in this way on suspicion of treason.
Finally, the army was ready, but Dolcino's forces defeated it
overwhelmingly. They fell upon the neighboring towns, plundering them
and carrying away the inhabitants. The prisoners were exchanged later
for provisions, but tortured
[49]
if no one agreed to ransom them (according to one contemporary, even children were treated in this fashion). (38: p. 374)
At last, the Pope called for a campaign against the heretics. But
this, too, ended in failure. The river on the banks of which the Pope's
army was annihilated flowed red with blood. Other campaigns followed and
the war went on for three years. Dolcino armed women, who fought side
by side with men. He nurtured the faith of his supporters by ever new
prophecies that victory was at hand. In camp he was revered as a saint
and as the Pope, and the custom of kissing his slipper was introduced.
Contemporary accounts tell of the ferocity with which Dolcino's
men persecuted priests and monks. His soldiers viewed themselves as the
"avenging angels" mentioned in the Apocalypse. They believed that they
had been called to exterminate the priesthood in its entirety. Churches
were defiled, sacred vessels and vestments stolen, sacred images
smashed, priests' houses set on fire, bell towers pulled down and bells
destroyed. An eyewitness reported: "Nowhere could you see a Madonna
whose hands had not been broken off or a picture not besoiled." (38: p.
374)
After a prolonged struggle, in which Dolcino repeatedly eluded
his pursuers, he was finally surrounded. Famine set in in his camp.
Dante hints at this episode in the Inferno (Canto 28, 55-60).
Among the "sowers of discord" Dante meets Mohammed, who, wishing to
perpetuate dissent on earth, passes this advice to Dolcino: "Tell Fra
Dolcino, then, you who perhaps will see the sun before long, if he would
not soon follow me here, so to arm himself with victuals that stress of
snow may not bring victory to the Novarese, which otherwise would not
be easy to attain."*
In 1307, Dolcino's camp was overrun and a majority of the
defenders massacred. Dolcino was subjected to horrible torture. Margaret
was burned before his eyes, but he was paraded around town, scourged
with a red-hot iron at every crossroad and finally burned.
Thomas Müntzer.
Müntzer was born in 1488 or 1489 of fairly well-to-do parents and
received a theological education. He led a restless life, changing work
several times a year; he was at various times teacher, preacher and
chaplain. Finally in 1520, he was appointed preacher in Zwickau, where
he met the "Zwickau Prophets." The sermons of Storch had a lifelong
impact on him. The notion of the possibility of direct communication
with God, which was held to be far more important than the letter of the
Scriptures; the condemnation of priests and monks, of the rich and the
noble; the belief in the coming of the Kingdom of God on earth and in
the imminent reign of the elect--these subjects formed the basis of
Müntzer's world outlook, In his sermons he supported Storch and attacked
the monks and other preachers. Disorders began in the town, and the
authorities banished the "Prophets" and Müntzer.
Müntzer then transferred his activities to Prague. We note that he
* Translation by Charles S. Singleton
[50]
gravitated to the traditional seats of the chiliastic movement--first to
Zwickau and then to the homeland of the Taborites. A sermon delivered
by Müntzer in Prague has been preserved. In it he asserts that after the
death of the disciples of the Apostles, the Church, which had been
pure, became a lecherous whore. The priests teach the external forms of
the Scriptures, which they steal from the Bible "like thieves and
murderers." (28: p. 59) He then proceeds to the core of his
teaching--his concept of the Church of the Chosen. "Never will it
happen, and for this glory to God, that priestlings and apes should
represent God's Church, but the Chosen of God shall preach His word.
...To preach this doctrine I am ready to sacrifice my life. ...God has
wrought miracles for His Chosen, especially in this country. For here a
new Church will arise, and this people will be the mirror of the whole
world. Therefore, I appeal to everyone to protect the word of God. ...If
you fail to do this, God will give the Turks the force to annihilate
you even in this year." (28: p. 61)
Müntzer's teaching did not meet with success in Prague, however, and
he again took up a vagrant and hungry life. At last, in 1523, he was
appointed preacher in the small town of Allstedt, and here he entered
upon the first memorable phase of his career.
Müntzer rapidly gained influence in the town. He introduced the
German language in the religious service (one of the first to do so in
Germany) and he preached not only from the Gospel but from the Old
Testament. Crowds of people flocked to his sermons, from Allstedt and
from the neighboring towns and villages. The municipal official Zeiss
wrote in a report: "Some of the local nobles have forbidden their
subjects to attend the sermons here but the folk do not comply. They are
thrown into jail and, when released, run hither again." Müntzer grew
ever bolder, calling the lords who had forbidden their people to attend
his sermons "big geese." He wrote to Zeiss: "The power of the princes
will come to an end and soon it will pass to the common folk." (28: p.
66) His attitude is characterized by the phrase: "Whoever wants to
become a building block in the new Church ought to risk his neck or the
builders will throw him away." (28: p. 67)
Soon matters were out of hand. Instigated by Müntzer, a mob
burned down a chapel at Müllerbach (near Allstedt) which housed a
miracle-working image of the Virgin. When one of the participants in the
riot was arrested, armed crowds of people appeared on the streets. More
supporters arrived from the neighboring towns. Zeiss, who represented
the Duke of Saxony, reported to the duke that Müntzer's preaching was at
fault. He suggested that Müntzer be summoned to court and banished if
found guilty. "Otherwise, his preaching, so popular with the simple
folk, will cause us much toil and trouble."
At this point, Luther, who had been disturbed by the actions and
preaching of Müntzer for some time, spoke out against him. He reproached
Müntzer for using the success of the Reformation to attack it. He
concluded by challenging Müntzer to a debate in Wittenberg. Müntzer
agreed to
[51]
take part in the dispute only if the witnesses would be "Turks, Romans
and Pagans." At the same time, he printed two works in the neighboring
town of Eilenburg, where he had his own print shop: "Protestation of
Thomas Müntzer" and "Exposure of the Contrived Faith." These tracts
bitterly attacked numerous aspects of Luther's teaching, as well as that
of "scholars and erudites" who concoct false faith.
Strangely, we still hear nothing about measures on the part of the
authorities against Müntzer, despite writings in which, for example, he
characterized the Kurfürst of Saxony as "a bearded fellow with less
brains in his head than I've got in my behind." He also calls upon the
inhabitants of the neighboring town of Sangerhausen to rise up against
the authorities. In spite of such actions, Kürfurst Frederick of Saxony
and his brother Johann themselves decided to listen to the renowned
preacher on a trip through Allstedt.
Müntzer took this to be a sign of readiness on the part of the
princes to become a tool in his hands and in their presence delivered a
sermon in which he expounded his views openly. He attacked Luther, whom
he called "Brother Swine" and "Brother Sluggard," and attempted to win
the princes to his cause. He told them that they were called upon to
annihilate the foes of the true faith, the faith of the Chosen who are
guided by God. "Dearest and beloved rulers, know your destiny from the
mouth of God, and do not let the boastful priests cheat you by imaginary
patience and kindness. For the stone that has been cast down from the
mountain not by hands has grown big. Poor peasants and laymen see it far
better than you. ..." The day of the last reckoning approaches, and
"Oh, how gloriously will the Lord smash the old pots with an iron rod."
(28: p. 158) In this terrible hour one can learn the true way and
foresee the future by one means only: through dreams and revelation.
"This is in the true spirit of the Apostles, the Patriarchs, and the
Prophets--to wait for visions and to trust in them." (28: p. 156)
Müntzer cites example after example from the Bible. The chief
difficulty, however, is to distinguish whether a vision is from God or
from the Devil. For this, the princes ought to have faith in the new
Daniel, the Chosen man. "Therefore, a new Daniel must rise and set forth
revelation and must march at the head." (28: p. 159)
Müntzer urges relentless extermination of the enemies of the new
teaching. "For the godless have no right to live except when the Chosen
give their permission. ...If you want to be true rulers, drive out the
enemy of Christ, for you are the instrument to achieve this end. ...Let
the wicked who divert us from God live no longer." (28: p. 160) "It was
not in vain that God commanded through Moses: 'You are the holy people
and must not pity the godless. Smash their altars, smash to pieces their
idols and burn them, lest I be wrathful with you." (28: p. 161)
At this point, Müntzer's sermon begins to shade into threats.
Just as food and drink provide the means of living, he asserts, so, too,
"is the sword needed for extermination of the godless. But for this to
be done true, it must be done by our dear fathers, the princes, who
profess Christ
[52]
with us. But if they will not do it, their sword shall be taken away
from them." (28: p. 161) "If they fail to believe in God's words, they
ought to be removed, as Paul saith: 'Expel the depraved from amongst
you.' And if they behave in contrary fashion, kill them without mercy.
...Not only godless rulers, but priests and monks must be killed who
call our Holy Gospel a heresy and claim to be the best Christians
themselves." (28: p. 162)
It is a perplexing episode. How could an insignificant preacher
undertake to lecture and threaten the most important princes of the
empire? Some consider this proof of Müntzer's short-sightedness; for
others it testifies to the princes' forbearance. Could there not be a
more substantial explanation? Müntzer was a force to be reckoned with at
the time. We learn this from other sources--from his letters and from
the testimony presented before his execution. At the time of the sermon
to the princes, he had organized a union "for the protection of the
Gospel" and ''as a warning to the godless" in Allstedt. He had some
experience at such activities. While still a young man, Müntzer had
founded a secret union directed against the Primate of Germany,
Archbishop Ernst. But his new union was far larger in scope. At one
gathering three hundred new members were inducted; at another, five
hundred. Furthermore, Müntzer advised the citizens of neighboring towns
to establish similar unions; reports were received that this plan was
meeting with success. His contacts were very extensive, reaching even
into Switzerland. Luther accused Müntzer of "sending to all countries
messengers who fear light." In his letters, Müntzer emphasized the
purely defensive nature of the union "against the oppressors of the
Gospel." But after being captured, he testified that he caused the
disturbances with the aim that "all Christians should become equal and
the princes and lords reluctant to serve the Gospel be driven out or put
to death." (28: p. 82) The motto of the Allstedt union was: Omnia sunt communia (Everything
is common). Everyone was to share with others ''as much as he could."
And if a prince or a count refused to do so, "he was to be beheaded or
hanged." (28: p. 82) Müntzer's union can be seen as the realization of
his doctrine of the supremacy of the Chosen, as he calls the members of
his union.
The situation in Allstedt grew ever more explosive. The
neighboring knight von Witzleben forbade his subjects to attend
Müntzer's sermons and dispersed a crowd of them, who nevertheless set
out for Allstedt. Some of them fled to Allstedt and an order was sent
for the fugitives to be returned to their lord. In a vehement sermon,
Müntzer called Witzleben an "archbrigand" and referred to his enemies as
"arch-Judases," saying that the princes were "acting not only against
the faith but against natural law," and that they "must be killed like
dogs." Crowds of local citizens and new arrivals filled the streets of
Allstedt. The authorities lost all control over the town and could only
appeal to Duke Johann of Saxony, who summoned Müntzer to Weimar for
questioning.
The interrogation took place in the presence of the duke and his
[53]
counselors. Müntzer denied having assailed the authorities and described
his union as legal and purely defensive. Numerous witnesses, however,
spoke against him. As a result, he was ordered to close his print shop,
and the citizens of Allstedt were forbidden to form unions. A
contemporary source describes how Müntzer, pale and trembling after the
inquest, came out and, in reply to a question by Zeiss, answered: "It
seems that I'll have to look for another state."
But upon returning to Allstedt, Müntzer took heart, refused to close
the print shop and started writing protests. Kürfurst Frederick of
Saxony intervened at this point and summoned Müntzer to Weimar for the
second time. At first Müntzer surrounded himself with armed guards,
apparently thinking to put up resistance, but in the night he climbed
over the town wall and slipped away, leaving behind a letter in which he
said that he was going to a village but would be back soon. After his
flight, Müntzer wrote his compatriots another letter, calling for them
to stand firm and be brave; he promised that he would be together with
them soon "to wash hands in the blood of tyrants."
Müntzer went next to Mühlhausen, a town in central Germany. The
choice was not accidental. For a year this place had been in a state of
paralysis, without authority and on the verge of rebellion. A
contemporary account of what was called the "Mühlhausen Disturbances" is
extant. (28: pp. 85-115) It describes the events prior to Müntzer's
arrival and his activities there. The disorders began with assaults on
monasteries and churches. All the monasteries were robbed and religious
objects in the churches smashed. The movement was headed by a fugitive
monk, Heinrich Pfeiffer, who urged in his sermons rejection of the
authority of the municipal council. On July 3, 1523, the alarm was
sounded. A crowd surrounded the town hall and shots were fired. The
council was compelled to make concessions, which were set forth in
fifty-three points. In particular, complete freedom of preaching was
announced. The insurgents were headed by a "council of eight," which
retained its power on a par with the municipal council even after the
agreement. Dual authority ruled in the town--people jailed by the
municipal council were not infrequently released by the eight. The
signing of the fifty-three points did not, however, pacify the town; in
fact, it further aggravated the situation. Many priests' houses were
robbed; leaflets were circulated telling that if the priests did not get
out of town their houses would be burned. Priests who ventured into the
streets were killed.
Such was the situation in Mühlhausen when Müntzer appeared there
on August 24, 1524. He joined with Pfeiffer and their activity together
soon began to bear fruit. Within a month, the town was in an uproar.
This time the insurgents' demands mirrored Müntzer's ideas--no authority
to be obeyed, all taxes and levies to be abolished, priests to be
exiled. The burgomaster and some councillors fled the town and appealed
for support from the peasants of the neighboring villages. At this time
fires swept the villages, in all likelihood set by supporters of Müntzer
and Pfeiffer. But the peasants stood firm on the side of the council.
Promises of support
[54]
also came in from towns round about. The insurgents were forced to
yield. The authority of the council was restored and Pfeiffer and
Müntzer were banished from Mühlhausen.
Müntzer set off for Nuremberg, where he printed two of his works. One
of these, "An Interpretation of the First Chapter of St. Luke," had
been written toward the end of his stay in Allstedt and revised in
Mühlhausen. The other, "Discourse for Defense," was written in reply to
Luther. Shortly before, Luther had written his "Letter to the Princes of
Saxony Against a Rebellious Spirit," in which he drew their attention
to the dangerously aggressive character of Müntzer's teaching. "It
begins to seem to me that they wish to destroy all authority so as to
become the lords of the world. ...They say that they are led by the
Spirit. ..but this is an ill spirit, one which is manifested in the
destruction of churches and monasteries." (28: p. 204) "Christ and his
Apostles never destroyed a single temple nor smashed a single holy
image." Let them preach, argues Luther, "but those are not good
Christians who pass from words to fists." (28: p. 209)
In his reply, Müntzer brought down a veritable cascade of abuse
on Luther. He called him a basilisk, a dragon, a viper, an archpagan, an
archdevil, a bashful Whore of Babylon and finally, in a fit of
cannibalistic frenzy, he predicted that the devil would boil Luther in
his own juice and devour him. "I would like to smell your frying
carcass." (28: p. 200)
But Müntzer's Nuremberg works are especially interesting in that
they demonstrate his social ideas in their most mature form. His
"Discourse for Defense" begins with a dedication "To the Serenest,
First-born Prince, the Mighty Lord Jesus Christ, the Gracious King of
Kings, the Mighty Duke of All the Faithful." (28: p. 187) Here Müntzer
expresses one of his basic conceptions--that power on this earth can
belong only to God. The message ends with the following words: "The
people will be free, and God will be the sole Lord over them." (28: p.
201) Princes had usurped power belonging to God. "Why do you call them
serene princes? This title belongs not to them but to Christ." And: "Why
do you call them highborn? I thought you were a Christian, but you are a
Pagan!" (28: p. 197) Müntzer had forgotten that only a few months
before, he had looked to the princes for aid. Now he says: "Princes are
not lords, but servants of the sword. They must not do what they deem
well but rather implement the truth." (28: p. 192) The role assigned to
the princes was no more than that of executioner. It was not for nothing
that Paul said .that princes were not for the good but for the wicked.
However, in Müntzer's view, they fail to fulfill even this function.
"Those who ought to set an example for Christians, to which end they
bear the name of princes, prove to the highest degree by all their deeds
their unfaith." (28: p. 183) "Their hearts are vain and, therefore, all
these mighty and arrogant godless ones must be thrown down from their
throne. ...God gave the princes and lords to men in His wrath and in His
bitterness He will destroy them." (28: p. 171)
Müntzer also does not recall that shortly before, he saw in poverty
[55]
and suffering a cross sent from above. Now the call to oppose the
oppressors becomes one of the chief themes in his teaching: "The very
stuff of usury, theft and robbery are our lords made of. Fish in the
water, birds in the air, the fruits of the earth--they want to take
everything. And beyond that they order that God's word be preached to
the poor thus: 'God has commanded you not to steal' ...and if a poor man
takes the smallest thing, then he is hanged and Doctor Liar says,
'Amen.' The lords are themselves guilty of making the poor their foe.
They do not wish to remove the cause of the indignation. How can the
matter be set right? Since I speak so, perhaps I, too, rebel--well, so
be it." (28: p. 192) By all their misdeeds the princes have deprived
themselves of the right to the sword. "At the solicitation of the
Chosen, God will no longer tolerate suffering." (28: p. 171) In
actuality, the power of God on earth is pictured as the power of the
Chosen, who are conceived of as a narrow, closed union. "It would be a
wondrous Church in which the Chosen would be separated from the
godless." (28: p. 182) The Chosen receive God's behests directly, by
which means they execute his will on earth. (In various periods of his
life, Müntzer asserted that he himself communicated directly with God.)
From Nuremberg, Müntzer set off for Switzerland and the border lands
of Germany, where the Peasant War was already raging. While his role of
agitator seems to have met with success, he did not stay long in the
area. Seidman, the author of one of the most complete biographies of
Müntzer, suggests that since disturbances had already broken out,
Müntzer feared that he would be unable to gain an important enough place
for himself. In February 1525, Müntzer returned to Mühlhausen.
By this time, the peasant rebellion was already spreading from
the south into central Germany, toward the town of Mühlhausen. Authority
had begun to slip from the hands of the municipal council. The "eight"
demanded the keys to the city gates and the council had to comply.
Anyone who disagreed with Müntzer and Pfeiffer's party was under
constant threats of being banished. Monasteries and churches were
robbed, sacred objects destroyed and monks and nuns assaulted. Finally,
all Catholic clergy were driven from the town.
The sermons of Müntzer and Pfeiffer revolved around the ideas
outlined earlier: princes and lords have no right to their power,
authority must pass to the society of the Chosen, men have been created
equal by nature and so must be equal in life, all who do not comply must
be put to the sword. They preached that the rich cannot attain
salvation; whoever loves beautiful chambers, rich ornaments and, above
all, money cannot receive the Holy Spirit.
Finally, after the council refused to admit Müntzer and Pfeiffer
into their number, it was decided at a huge gathering that the council
be dismissed. A new, "eternal" council was elected.
The "History of Thomas Müntzer," a contemporary account long attributed to Melanchthon, describes the situation as follows:
[56]
This was the beginning of the new Kingdom of Christ. First of all,
they drove out all monks, took over the monasteries and all their
property. There was a monastery of Johannites with large holdings: it
was taken over by Thomas.
And in order to take part in all proceedings, he came to the
council and announced that all resolutions must be taken in accordance
with God's revelation and on the basis of the Bible. And so whatever he
liked was deemed just and a special commandment of God.
He also taught that all property must be common, as it is written
in the Acts of the Apostles. ...With this he so affected the folk that
no one wanted to work, but when anyone needed food or clothing he went
to a rich man and demanded it of him in Christ's name, for Christ had
commanded that all should share with the needy. And what was not given
freely was taken by force. Many acted thus, including those who lived
with Thomas in the Johannite monastery. Thomas instigated this
brigandage and multiplied it every day and threatened all the princes.
(28: p. 42)
According to the same document, Müntzer's teaching included the
destruction of authority and the communality of property: "According to
the requirements of Christian love, no one ought to be superior to
another, all must be free and there must be communality of all
property." (28: p. 38)
Luther wrote that Müntzer had become a king and sovereign ruling in Mühlhausen.
Arms were produced in the town, the citizens given military
training, and mercenaries (lansquenets) were hired. By this time, the
peasant rebellion had enveloped all the neighboring areas. Large groups
of Mühlhausen citizens and inhabitants of nearby villages assaulted
castles round about. These they robbed, burned or destroyed. Müntzer
ordered that "all castles and houses of nobility be destroyed and razed
to the ground." (20: p. 519) Special arson units were organized. Booty
was carried off to the town by the cartload.
Müntzer sent out messengers and issued detailed instructions on
the torture of "villains" apprehended and the destruction of monasteries
and castles. He called on other towns to join the uprising.
Here is what he wrote to the citizens of Allstedt:
Dear Brethren, will you sleep even now? The time is ripe. All German,
French and Italian lands have risen. ...Be there only three of you, but
if you put your hope in the name of God--fear not a hundred thousand.
...Forward, forward, forward! It is high time. Let not kind words of
these Esaus arouse you to mercy. Look not upon the sufferings of the
godless! They will entreat you touchingly, begging you like children.
Let not mercy seize your soul, as God commanded to Moses; He has
revealed to us the same. ...Forward, forward, while the iron is hot. Let
your swords be ever warm with blood! (28: pp. 74-75)
[57]
Though not "all German, French and Italian lands" had risen, the
whole of central Germany-Thuringia, Saxony and Hessen--was in rebellion.
Toward the beginning of May 1525, the princes began to gather in
force. A major part here was played by Luther's communication "On
Disorderly and Murderous Peasant Gangs." By mid-May, two armies began to
assemble in the environs of Frankenhausen. They were of approximately
equal size--about eight thousand men each.
Müntzer rode out at the head of his army, surrounded by three
hundred bodyguards and holding aloft a naked sword, which symbolized the
goal of the rebels--annihilation of the godless. Some nobles had joined
his camp. Müntzer wrote to others, threatening them and urging them to
ally themselves with him. He wrote to Count Ernst Mansfeld: "So that you
know that we have the power to command, I speak: The eternal, living
God hath commanded that you be thrown off the throne and hath given to
us the might to accomplish this. It is about you and those like you that
God saith, 'Your nest must be torn down and trodden underfoot.' " The
letter ends with the words: "I am marching after. Müntzer with Gideon's
sword." (28: p. 78)
Nevertheless, panic began to spread through Müntzer's army. There
were attempts at negotiating with the enemy, and executions of those
suspected of treason took place. Müntzer sought to encourage his
followers: "Sooner will the nature of the earth or of heaven be changed
than God desert us." (28: p. 45) He promised that he would catch bullets
in his sleeves. But when the first shots were fired, the rebel army
broke and ran. Thousands of them were slaughtered on the field of
battle.
In his hour of defeat, "Müntzer with Gideon's sword" lost all
presence of mind. (For details, see 22: p. 225. He is the first of a
long list of revolutionary leaders to act in this fashion.) Müntzer ran
for the city, found an empty house and got into bed, feigning illness. A
looting soldier came upon a packet of letters addressed to Müntzer that
the latter had dropped in his haste, and Müntzer was seized. At the
inquest, when asked about a certain execution of four men, Müntzer
replied: "It was not I who executed them, my dear brothers, but God's
truth."
Müntzer was subjected to torture, and when he cried out, the
interrogator told him that those who had perished because of him had
suffered worse. Müntzer burst out laughing and replied: "They wished for
no different themselves." He was sent to the castle of the very Count
Mansfeld to whom he had written: "I am marching after." Müntzer
confessed everything and betrayed the names of his comrades in the
secret union. Before his execution, he wrote a letter to the citizens of
Mühlhausen, appealing to them not to rebel against authority, according
to Christ's commandment. "I wish to say in my farewell address, so as
to unburden my soul, that you should avoid riot, lest innocent blood be
shed in vain. ...Help my wife if you can, and especially avoid
bloodshed, of which I warn you sincerely." (28: pp. 83-84)
[58]
Müntzer took communion and died as a son of the Catholic Church. His head was put on a stake for show.
Contemporaries considered Müntzer to be the central figure in the
Peasant War. Luther and Melanchthon believed him to be its most
dangerous leader. Sebastian Franck referred to the war as the "Müntzer
Uprising," and Duke Georg of Saxony wrote that with Müntzer's execution
the war could be considered finished. (20: p. 257) This appreciation of
Müntzer's role, however, could hardly have been meant to describe his
activities as organizer; rather, the commentators most likely had in
mind his function as the originator of an ideology of hatred and
destruction. Luther must have been thinking along these lines when he
wrote to Hans Rügel: "Whoever has seen Müntzer can say that he has seen
the devil in the flesh, at his most ferocious." (28: p. 222)
Johann of Leyden and the "New Jerusalem" in Münster.
In 1534-1535, the persecuted Anabaptists in Switzerland and
southern and central Germany fled north, to northern Germany, Holland,
Sweden and Denmark. The center of their activity became the town of
Münster, where they established themselves at the time of the struggle
between the Catholics and the Lutherans. They gained a strong position
in the town by allying themselves with the Lutherans.
But when the Lutherans won, they found they had to reckon with
the "Prophets," as the leaders of the Anabaptists described themselves.
The latter had even succeeded in winning over the head of the Lutheran
party.
At this time, a new and striking figure appeared among the
Anabaptists--Jan Matthijs, a Dutch baker from Haarlem. In his preaching,
the chiliastic and militant tendencies in Anabaptism were resurrected
with their previous force. Matthijs called for armed rebellion and the
universal extermination of the godless. "Apostles" sent by him went in
pairs to all lands and provinces. They told about the miracles wrought
by this new prophet and predicted the annihilation of all tyrants and
godless people in the world. In Germany and in Holland, people underwent
the second baptism and founded new communities. In Münster, fourteen
hundred persons were baptized in eight days. In keeping with the growing
success of the Anabaptists there, adherents from other countries,
especially from Holland, streamed into Münster. The Dutch arrivals were
headed by the Münster citizen Knipperdolling.
One of Matthijs's Apostles to arrive in Münster was Jan Bokelson
(Beukels), who, under the name Johann of Leyden, was to become a central
figure in later developments. Beginning as a tailor's apprentice,
Bokelson married a rich widow but soon lost her fortune. He had traveled
much, having been to England, Flanders and Portugal, had read fairly
extensively and knew the Holy Scriptures as well as Müntzer's writings.
In Münster he took up with Knipperdolling and soon married his daughter,
thereby bringing the Anabaptist community under the influence of
Matthijs. By this time, leadership of the Anabaptist movement in Münster
had passed
[59]
over from the local citizens entirely into the hands of the Dutch
Prophets, preacher-conspirators who had been uprooted from their
homeland.
Clashes between Anabaptists and Lutherans occurred in Münster, and
Anabaptists raided monasteries and churches. Matthijs's Apostles
proclaimed that the thousand-year kingdom was at hand for those who had
accepted the second baptism: a happy life with community of property,
without authority, laws or marital bonds. As for those who opposed the
new kingdom, they could expect annihilation and death at the hand of the
Chosen. The Chosen were prohibited to greet the faithless or to have
anything whatever to do with them.
The municipal council banished some Anabaptist preachers from the
town and arrested one who had violated the ban imposed on their
sermons. This was early in 1534. Crowds of Anabaptists ran through the
city, shouting: "Repent or God will punish you! Father, Father,
annihilate the godless." On the ninth of February, armed mobs appeared
in the town; they blocked off streets and occupied part of the city. The
Lutherans also took up arms, occupied another part of town and began to
push the Anabaptists back. Their forces proved to be greater and they
surrounded the Anabaptists and brought up cannon. Victory was in the
hands of the Lutherans, but the burgomaster Tilbeck, who sympathized
with the Anabaptists, negotiated an agreement on religious peace: "So
that everyone be free in his faith and every man come back to his own
house and live in peace." (23: p. 701) This was the beginning of
Anabaptist rule in the town. Anabaptists flocked to Münster from all
sides. In an account that originated in Anabaptist circles, we read:
"The faces of Christians again blossomed forth. Everyone in the
marketplace, even seven-year-old children, began prophesying. The women
made extraordinary jumps. But the godless said that they were demented,
that they were drunk on sweet wine." (23: pp. 707-708)
On February 21, a new election was held for the municipal
council, in which the Anabaptists won a majority. They took over the
municipal administration and appointed their adherents Knipperdolling
and Kibbenbrock as burgomasters.
The Anabaptists made a display of their power almost immediately
in a terrible outburst of violence that took place on February 24, three
days after the election. Monasteries and churches were destroyed,
religious objects smashed and saints' relics thrown into the streets.
Not only religion but everything connected with the old culture evoked
their ire. Statues in the market square were smashed to pieces. A
precious collection of old Italian manuscripts which had been collected
by Rudolf von Langen was solemnly burned in the square. Paintings of the
Westphalian school, famous at the time, were destroyed so thoroughly
that at present this school of painting is known only by reputation.
Even musical instruments were smashed.
Three days later, on February 27, the Anabaptists proceeded to
one of the major points of their program--the expulsion of the godless,
that
[60]
is, of those citizens who refused to accept the teachings of the
"prophets." Matthijs insisted that all the godless be put to death. The
more wary Knipperdolling objected: "All peoples will then unite against
us to revenge the blood of those killed." Finally, a decision was taken
to drive out of town anyone who refused to accept second baptism. A
meeting of armed Anabaptists was called. The Prophet sat in a trance
while prayers were being said. At last, Matthijs rose and called for the
expulsion of the faithless: "Down with Esau's offspring! The
inheritance belongs to the children of Jacob." A shout of "Down with the
godless!" rolled through the streets. Armed Anabaptists broke into
houses and drove out everyone who was unwilling to accept second
baptism. Winter was drawing to a close; it was a stormy day and wet snow
was falling. An eyewitness account describes crowds of expelled
citizens walking through the knee-deep snow. They had not been allowed
even to take warm clothing with them, women carrying children in their
arms, old men leaning on staffs. At the city gate they were robbed once
more.
The next action was the socialization of all property. A chronicle of
the time reads: "They decided unanimously that all property must be
held in common and that everyone must hand in his silver, gold and
money. In the end all did so." (29: p. 201) It is known that this
measure was accomplished with some difficulty and only in the course of
two months. Matthijs appointed seven deacons to watch over the
socialized property.
To suppress discontent aroused by these measures, the Anabaptists
began to resort to terror on an ever wider scale. One day Matthijs
gathered all the men in the town square and ordered everyone who had
taken baptism on the last day (mass baptism had gone on for three days)
to step forward. There were three hundred; they were ordered to put down
their arms. Matthijs spoke: "The Lord is wrathful and calls for
sacrifice." The accused men prostrated themselves before the Prophet, in
the manner of the Anabaptists, and begged for mercy. But they were
locked in a deserted church, from which their appeals for mercy could be
heard for hours. Finally, Jan Bokelson appeared and announced: "My dear
brethren, the Lord has taken pity upon you!" And all were released.
But things did not always end so benignly. For example, a report
was received that the blacksmith Hubert Ruscher had spoken against the
actions of the Anabaptists. He was brought to a meeting; Matthijs
demanded his death. Some of those present interceded for the man and
asked that he be pardoned. But Bokelson shouted: "To me the power of the
Lord is given so that by my hand everyone who opposes the commands of
the Lord be struck down." And he struck Ruscher with a halberd. The
wounded man was led away to jail. Disputation as to his fate continued.
Finally, the man was again brought to the town square, where Matthijs
killed him with a shot in the back.
Streams of incendiary Anabaptist literature flowed from Münster,
calling the brethren to come together in the "New Jerusalem." For: "Bed
and shelter are ready for all Christians. If there will be too many
people, we
[61]
shall use the houses and the property of the faithless. ...Here you will
have everything in abundance. The poorest among us, who earlier were
scorned as paupers, now wear rich clothing like the highest and the
noblest. The poor have become, by God's grace, as rich as burgomasters."
(29: p. 147) It was reported that at Easter the world would be struck
by a terrible plague and that, outside Münster, only every tenth person
would be spared. "Let no one think either of husband or of wife or of
child, if they are faithless. Do not take them with you; they are
useless to God's community. ...If anyone remains behind, I am innocent
of his blood." Thus ends a leaflet signed "Emmanuel." (29: p. 148) The
book Restitution or Revival of the True Christian Teaching was
sent far and wide. It asserts that truth had been only partly open to
Erasmus, Zwingli and Luther, but that it shone forth in Matthijs and
Johann of Leyden. Much importance is attached to the Old Testament. The
Kingdom of Christ on earth is conceived of in a purely physical fashion.
It includes communality of property and polygamy. The book ends with
the words: "In our time, Christians are allowed to turn the sword
against godless authorities." The Booklet Concerning Vengeance was
another popular work. It is nothing less than a call to murder and
revenge. Only after vengeance had been carried out would the new earth
and the new heaven appear to God's people. "Remember what they have done
unto us; all this must be visited upon them in a like manner. Heed this
and do not consider a sin what is no sin." (29: p. 149)
Apostles were sent from Münster to propagandize insurrection and to
drum up support for the new Jerusalem. They were particularly successful
in Holland. Erasmus Schet wrote to Erasmus of Rotterdam: "Hardly is
there a town or a city where the ashes of rebellion are not smoldering.
The communism that they preach attracts masses from all sides." (29: p.
153) In many towns the rebaptized were counted in the hundreds, among
them many influential people. In Cologne it was reported that seven
hundred had been newly baptized and in Essen, two hundred. Turbulence
grew apace. One day five naked men, with swords in hand, ran through
Amsterdam foretelling the imminent end of the world. Large crowds of
armed Anabaptists were moving toward Münster. Sixteen hundred gathered
in Vollenhove. Thirty ships with armed Anabaptists aboard left Amsterdam
and landed near Genemuiden. This was followed by twenty-one more ships
with three thousand men, women and children. The Dutch authorities were
able to disperse these crowds only with great difficulty. In the town of
Warenburg, an Anabaptist community began accumulating weapons, and the
burgomaster became so frightened that he would appear only accompanied
by a hundred guards. In Münster the Prophet Johann Dusentschur compiled a
list of towns which were soon to be controlled by the "Children of
God." First on the list was Soest. A delegation of Prophets set out for
this city. They entered the town openly and solemnly, preaching
insurrection. The authorities managed to oust them with great
difficulty.
It is not surprising that this movement alarmed Bishop Franz von
[62]
Waldeck, in whose domain Münster was situated, as well as the rulers of
the neighboring areas. Slowly an army was raised and Münster besieged.
The town was well fortified and had large stores of provisions. The
siege was a hard one, lasting fourteen months. One of the first victims
of the war turned out to be the Anabaptist leader Matthijs. During a
common meal, he exclaimed: "Let Thy will be done and not mine!" Then he
bade the others farewell, kissing them. It appears that he had had a
vision that he was to challenge the unfaithful to a fight in the manner
of Samson. The next day he actually went outside the city wall with a
small group of volunteers and was hacked to pieces by the lansquenets.
His comrade in arms Bokelson (Johann of Leyden) thereupon delivered a
sermon: "God will give you another Prophet who will be more powerful.
God desired the death of Matthijs, lest you should believe in him more
than in God." Within several days, Bokelson became that new Prophet, the
heir to Matthijs. (29: p. 207) Once the Lord closed Johann's lips for
three days. Upon recovering his speech, he proclaimed that he had had a
revelation about a new order for the town. The power of the council was
to be abolished, and twelve elders were to govern under the leadership
of the Prophet. The names of the elders were announced; they turned out
to be the most influential Dutch Prophets, and they were installed
without any election.
Next came what was perhaps the most radical
innovation--establishment of polygamy. Ideas of this sort are
encountered earlier in Anabaptist preachings. They were supported by
reference to the customs of the patriarchs of the Old Testament. The new
law was facilitated by the fact that after banishment of the godless,
there were two or three times as many women in Münster as men. The
introduction of polygamy was accompanied by a regulation in accordance
with which all women whose age did not prevent it were obligated to have
a husband. The sharing out of women began. Eyewitnesses tell of
violence and suicides. The atmosphere in which the law was implemented
is intimated by another law, which forbade men to break into houses in
groups to choose wives. One can only imagine what life was like in the
new families. The authorities also interfered by staging frequent public
punishment of recalcitrant wives.
The socialization of property and polygamy evoked considerable
opposition in the town. The disaffected seized the chief Prophets and
demanded abolition of these regulations. But they were surrounded by
Anabaptists still loyal to Bokelson--mostly Dutchmen and Frisians--and
compelled to surrender. They were tied to trees and shot. "Whoever fires
the first shot does a service to God," Bokelson cried.
The defeat of the opposition within coincided with a major
military victory--a large force assaulting the town had been beaten
back. The army of the attackers was badly organized, and apparently
there were Anabaptists in its ranks, for the time set for the assault
had become known in Münster. The losses of the besieging army were such
that a daring sally could have destroyed it entirely.
[63]
These events strengthened Johann's position considerably. The Prophet
Dusentschur reported that he had had a vision that Johann would become
king of the world and take the throne and the scepter of his father
David until the coming of the Lord Himself. Bokelson confirmed that he
had had the same vision. The election of the king culminated in the
singing of psalms.
Bokelson surrounded himself with a splendid court, created court
posts of various kinds and a detachment of bodyguards. He took new wives
constantly, among whom the first was "the most lovely of all women,"
Divara--Matthijs's widow. Two crowns encrusted with precious stones--one
royal, the other imperial--were made for Bokelson. His emblem was the
globe with two swords crossed, a symbol of his power over the world.
The king appeared with a fanfare and accompanied by a mounted guard. A Hofmeister marched
in front, carrying a white staff; splendidly dressed pages followed,
one bearing a sword, the other the Old Testament. Next came the court,
dressed in silk. Everyone they met had to kneel. At the same time,
Johann had a vision from which he learned that no one should possess
more than one coat, two pairs of stockings, three shirts and so on.
Everyone outside the royal court was bound by this revelation.
One day 4,200 citizens were called to a royal banquet. The king
and queen played host, and everyone sang the hymn "Glory to God in the
Highest." Suddenly Johann noticed among the guests someone who seemed
alien to him: "He was not in nuptial dress." Deciding that this must be
Judas, the king cut off his head on the spot. Thereupon the banquet
resumed.
Theatrical performances were staged for the townspeople; some of
these parodied the holy service, others took a social turn--for
instance, the dialogue of the rich man with Lazarus.
Streets and all important buildings in the town were renamed. Babies were given newly invented names.
Meanwhile executions took place almost daily: for example, on the
third of June, 1535, fifty-two persons were executed; on the fifth of
June, three; eighteen persons on both the sixth and the seventh, etc.
Obstinate wives were executed, as well as a woman who had spoken against
the new order. One woman who refused to become the king's wife, in
spite of his several proposals, had her head chopped off in the town
square by the king's own hand, while his assembled wives sang "Glory to
God in the Highest."
The entire episode has the appearance of mass pathology, a
madness to which the Prophets themselves eventually fell victim, when
with blind fanaticism they joined their destinies to a doomed cause. But
was it really? The Münster episode demonstrates a multitude of traits
typical of all revolutions but where, confined to a single town and
compressed into a single year, tragedy turns into a grotesque farce. The
Swiftian device of attributing the vices of the world to tiny
Lilliputians was here employed by history. In actual fact, the most
eccentric of actions prove to have been entirely consistent with the
inner logic of the movement. Extreme fanaticism stirred the Anabaptist
mob and spread to larger and larger masses
[64]
of people. Behind the absurd posturings of J an Bokelson we can often
discern a sly and calculating mind, examples of which we shall encounter
later. Apparently, both he and the other Prophets had a very concrete
goal in mind--"universal" rebellion and the establishment of themselves
in power, if not over the "entire world," then at least over a large
part of Europe. Although these hopes were not realized, they should not
be dismissed as having been entirely groundless. Unrest was rampant in
the whole of northwestern Germany and in Holland. It was widely thought
at the time that if Johann would succeed in breaking through the siege,
he would foster a change in the course of history comparable to the
great migration of peoples. Anabaptist emissaries were active as far
away as Zürich and Bern; in Münster they enticed lansquenets to their
side with large salaries. The besieging force was once seized by panic
over the rumor that the Anabaptists had taken Lübeck. This turned out to
be untrue, but it is symptomatic of the prevailing sentiment.
There was, apparently, a plan to raise rebellion in four places
simultaneously; it was partially implemented. In Frisia, Anabaptists
seized and fortified a monastery, where they held out against a
prolonged siege. Victory cost the imperial army nine hundred men killed.
A squadron of Anabaptist ships approached Deventer intent on taking the
town, but it was intercepted by the Duke of Heldern's fleet. Outside
Groningen, an Anabaptist force of some one thousand men gathered,
intending to break through to Münster. It, too, was scattered by the
duke's men.
But the Anabaptists were strongest in Holland, the homeland of
Matthijs and Jan Bokelson. In 1535, several large detachments of
Anabaptists assembled there. They even succeeded in seizing the
Amsterdam town hall for a time, although the authorities soon had the
situation in hand. One of the reasons for the movement's failure was
that its plans became known to the enemy. One of Johann's Apostles fell
into the hands of the bishop and promised to disclose the Anabaptists'
battle plans in exchange for his life. He returned to Münster,
pretending to have escaped, then set out again on an Apostolic mission
and informed the bishop of everything.
We can conclude that Bokelson's aspirations were far from
illusory. He had amassed an army and was ready to break the siege,
should the Dutch come to his aid. He was constructing a mobile barricade
made of carriages. At night he ran around the town barefoot, wearing
nothing but a shirt and shouting: "Rejoice, Israel, salvation is at
hand." At one point he summoned the entire army to the square in order
to move out of the town. He then appeared, wearing his crown and royal
garments, and declared that the day had not yet come and that he had
simply wanted to check the readiness of his forces. A feast was prepared
for the populace-- there were some two thousand men and eight thousand
women altogether. After the meal Johann suddenly announced that he was
stepping down. But the Prophet Dusentschur proclaimed that God called
upon his brother Johann of Leyden to remain king and to punish the
iniquitous. Bokelson was reelected.
There were apparently real frictions behind this masquerade. On
[65]
another occasion, for instance, Knipperdolling started to leap and dance
about strangely; he even stood on his head. But in the midst of these
antics he suddenly cried out: "Johann is king of the flesh, but I shall
be king of the spirit." Bokelson ordered him locked in the tower, as a
result of which Knipperdolling soon thought better of things and the two
were reconciled. Another political move in a similarly fantastic guise
was the "election" of dukes. A secret vote was taken in the twelve
districts into which the town had been divided. The names of candidates
were put into a hat and drawn out by specially appointed young boys. The
dukes elected in this manner all turned out to be Prophets close to
Bokelson. Each received a dukedom of the empire, that is, one of the
town districts, together with control of the town gate located in the
corresponding district. This last point was the real meaning of the
whole enterprise, for the lansquenets, whom Johann could no longer
trust, were thereby removed from strategic positions in defense of the
town.
These political maneuvers were supplemented by the sight of the royal
guards engaging in daily military exercises on the main square.
In the end, however, the large stockpile of provisions ran out
and famine set in. The horses were eaten, and this destroyed any hope of
breaking the siege. The deacons confiscated all stores, and under
threat of death it was forbidden to bake bread at home. All houses were
searched and no one had the right to lock his door. The citizens began
to eat grass and rootS. The king pronounced that this was "no worse than
bread." At this moment, he called together the dukes, the court and all
his wives to a luxurious feast in the palace. An eyewitness who later
escaped from the town reported: "They behaved as though they were
planning to rule for the rest of their lives." (29: p. 237)
Fanaticism served as a lightning rod. The king commanded that
"all that is high shall be destroyed." And the citizens began to destroy
belfries and the tops of towers. Repression was practiced ever more
widely. New conspiracies were revealed constantly. One of those accused
was hacked into twelve parts, and a Dutchman ate his heart and liver.
The town was doomed. More and more of the defenders fled, despite
the fact that trial, torture and possible execution awaited them in the
besiegers' camp. Finally, on July 25, 1535, Münster was taken. The
reign of the Anabaptists, who had come to power February 21, 1534, had
lasted for a year and a half. Many of them were massacred by the
lansquenets during the final assault; others were tried and many
executed. Münster was no longer an evangelic city; it had returned to
the realm of the Catholic bishop.
Jan Bokelson hid in the most impregnable tower but later gave
himself up. Under torture, he renounced his faith and acknowledged that
he "deserved death ten times over." He promised that if his life was
spared he would bring all Anabaptists to obedience. But to no avail. In
the square where once he had sat on a throne, he was tortured with hot
irons, and then his heart was pierced with a red-hot dagger.
[66]
2. Chiliastic Socialism and the Ideology of the Heretical Movements
Above we have tried not to yield to the temptation to select from
the sources on the history of the heretical movements of the Middle
Ages and Reformation only those passages in which socialist ideas are
expounded--the communality of property, the destruction of the family,
etc. On the contrary, we tried to give a full review, though a
necessarily schematic one, of the major aspects of the heretical
doctrines. It will now be our task to determine the link between these
two phenomena--i.e., to ascertain the role that the ideas of chiliastic
socialism played in the overall ideology of the heretical movements.
To do this, it is first necessary to determine whether it is
possible to speak of a single, unified world view in these movements,
whether there are sufficient features common to the chaotic mass of
heresies which appeared over the course of some seven centuries. In
other words, we are dealing with the question of the interrelationship
among different heretical doctrines. Beginning with the second half of
the last century, this question became the object of much research which
not only showed the existence of close ties between various heretical
gro,ups but also greatly extended the history of heresies into the past.
It became clear that there is a direct continuity between the teachings
of the medieval sects and the heresies of the first centuries of
Christianity.
In most general terms, it is possible to divide the heresies of
the Middle Ages into three groups: (1) "Manichean" heresies--the
Cathars, Albigenses, Petrobrusians (from the eleventh to the fourteenth
centuries). (2) "Pantheistic" heresies: Amalricians, Ortliebarians,
Brethren and Sisters of the Free Spirit, Adamites, the Apostolic
Brethren and the related groups of Beghards and Beguines (from the
thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries). (3) Heresies which, long before
the Reformation, developed ideas that were close to
Protestantism--Waldensians, Anabaptists, Moravian Brethren (from the
twelfth to the seventeenth centuries).
The majority of these doctrines have the same source--the gnostic
and Manichean heresies which, as early as the second century A.D.,
spread through the Roman Empire and even beyond its borders, for
example, into Persia.
[67]
The heresies of the "Manichean" group entered Western Europe
primarily from the East. Very similar doctrines (dualism, belief in the
connection of the Old Testament with the evil God, the division into
narrow esoteric and broad exoteric circles) can be found in the gnostic
sects of the second century, for example among the Marcionites, but
these views achieved their full expression in Manicheanism.
The Paulicians, who appeared in the Eastern Roman Empire in the
fourth and fifth centuries, served as a link between the early gnostic
heresies and the medieval sects. They professed pure dualism,
considering original sin to be a heroic deed: a refusal to obey the evil
God. This led to a rejection of moral law and the denial of the
difference between good and evil. This in turn was manifested in the
various excesses of the sectarians, as described by their
contemporaries. (One of the Paulician leaders was called Baan the Dirty,
for instance, and there are accounts of brigandage.) In the ninth
century, Paulicians occupied an area of Asia Minor, from which they
carried out raids on neighboring towns, looting and selling captives
into slavery to the Saracens. In 867, Ephesus was captured and sacked;
the temple of St. John WaS turned into a stable. Defeated in the tenth
century by the armies of the Byzantine emperor, the Paulicians were
resettled wholesale in Bulgaria. Here they came into contact with the
Bogomils, who derived from the Messalian sect (mentioned as early as the
fourth century). Bogomil teaching was close to the views of the
monarchic Cathars; it held that the physical world was created by God's
apostate eldest son, Satanael. Paulicians and Bogomils alike rejected
the baptism of children, hated and destroyed churches, sacred images and
crosses.
From the Eastern Roman Empire, the Paulician and Bogomil
doctrines penetrated into Western Europe. (See 10 and 12 for a more
detailed account.)
The doctrines of the "pantheistic" trend can also be traced to
the gnostic heresies. Epiphanes, a Christian writer of the fourth
century, describes sects which are strikingly similar to the medieval
Adamites. (He himself belonged at one time to such a group.) One hundred
years later, Hyppolitus reports an analogous teaching among the sect of
Simonians. In both cases, black masses were practiced, accompanied by
an ostentatious disregard for moral norms, all of which was meant to
reveal the superhuman character of "the possessor of gnosis." (16: p.77)
There is ample evidence of numerous links among the doctrines
[68]
of the different sects. We have already mentioned, for example, that the
notion of the "divinity" of the Free Spirits was a development of the
exclusive position of the
perfecti among the Cathars. Some
historians believe that the Free Spirits actually originated among the
Cathars. In this connection we also note J. Van Mierlo's argument that
the terms
beginus and
begine derive from "Albigensis."
(15: p. 24. The Beghards and Beguines were the main source from which
followers of the "Free Spirits" were drawn.)
It has furthermore been established that the Free Spirits influenced
the Waldenses, specifically in the organization of the latter into a
narrow circle of leaders or Apostles (who, according to the doctrine of
the sect, received their authority from the angels, regularly visited
paradise and contemplated God). The closeness of the two sects is
illustrated by the example of Nicholas of Basel, who is variously
assigned, by scholars thoroughly versed in the material, to either the
Free Spirits or the Waldenses.
The Petrobrusian sect is another link between the Cathars and the
Waldenses. Döllinger and Runciman consider them to be part of the
Cathar movement, while other historians refer to them as predecessors of
the Waldenses. Finally, there are numerous indications that Waldenses
and Anabaptists are two names given at different periods to people in
the same movement. Ludwig Keller devoted a number of works to
elucidating the connections between the Waldenses and the Anabaptists.
He brings forward numerous arguments to prove that they are in fact the
same. (See 24 and 26.)
The impression of diversity created by the great variety of names
cannot be taken as proof of the sects' distinctness. Their names were,
for the most part, coined by their enemies after an influential preacher
at a given time (Petrobrusians from Peter of Bruys; Heinrichians from
Heinrich of Toulouse; Waldensians from Valdes; Ortliebarians from
Ortlieb, etc., just as the term Lutheran later derived from Luther). The
members of the sects called one another "Brethren," "God's people,"
"friends of God." The last term was used, for instance, by Waldenses and
Anabaptists in Germany as late as the sixteenth century--
Gottesfreunde, which also happens to be an exact translation of the Word "Bogomil."
A striking feature that characterizes almost all the groups in
the heretical movement is the rejection of baptism of the young and the
related introduction of a second baptism for adults. The Justinian Code
[69]
(sixth century) already contains clauses against heretics who preach a
second baptism. Second baptism is mentioned repeatedly in the
proceedings of the Inquisition and in the writings denouncing the
Cathars and the Waldenses. The practice gives the Anabaptists their name
and survives today among the Baptists.
The sectarians themselves insisted on the continuity of the heretical
movement. In the first place, they asserted their ancient origins--from
the disciples of the Apostles or from the Christians who refused
obedience to Pope Sylvester and did not accept the bequest of Emperor
Constantine. In the annals of the Toulouse Inquisition for 1311, there
is the testimony of a Waldensian weaver who presented such a version of
the sect's origin, quite traditional already at that time. (24: pp.
18-19) According to the Waldensian tradition, Valdes was not the founder
of their church. For example, they called Peter of Bruys, who lived in
the first half of the twelfth century, "one of ours." (Valdes preached
in the second half of the century.) This point of view is typical not
only for the Waldenses; for instance, the Anabaptist list of martyrs
(which was also accepted by the Mennonites as early as the seventeenth
century) begins with descriptions of the persecution of Waldenses which
took place centuries before the Reformation. (24: p. 364)
Finally, the heretics' enemies, those who assailed their
doctrines, as well as the representatives of the Inquisitors, all
emphasized the unity of the heretical movement. St. Bernard of Clairvaux
(twelfth century), who was well versed in the contemporary heresies,
declared that the teaching of the Cathars contained nothing new but
merely repeated ancient errors. In the work of a Roman Inquisitor known
as the "pseudo-Raynier" (1250), we read the following: "Among the sects
there is none more dangerous to the Church than the Leonites. And for
three reasons: First, it is the most ancient of sects. Some say that it
goes back to the time of Pope Sylvester, others to the Apostles.
Further, there is no country where they are not met with." (24: p. 5)
Bullinger, who wrote about the Anabaptists in 1560, says: "Many basic
and grave errors of theirs they share with the ancient sects of
Novatians, Cathars, with Auxentius and Pelagius." (25: p. 270) Cardinal
Hosius (1504-1570), who fought the heretics of his day, wrote: "Still
more harmful is the sect of Anabaptists, of which kind were the
Waldensian Brethren also, who still recently practiced the second
baptism. It is not yesterday nor the day before yesterday that this
heresy grew up; it has existed since Augustine's time." (25: p. 267) In
the
Substantial
[70]
and Concise History of the Münster Rebellion (1589), the Anabaptists are referred to by several names, including Cathars and Apostolic Brethren. (25: p. 247) In his
Chronicle (1531),
Sebastian Franck speaks of the connection among the Bohemian Brethren,
the Waldenses and the Anabaptists: "Picards, who originate with V aIdes,
form a special Christian folk or sect in Bohemia. ...They are divided
into two or three groups--the largest, a smaller one and the smallest.
These resemble Anabaptists in everything. ...They number about eighty
thousand." (26: p. 57) Similar evidence could be cited at length.
The notion of a unity among organized heretical movements is also
tempting in that it makes more comprehensible the miracle of the
Reformation, when within a few years organizations, leaders and writers
crop up all across Europe. Links between the leaders of the Reformation
(in its early phase) and the heretical movements are quite probable.
This was asserted by opponents of the Reformation. For instance, during a
disputation at the Reichstag in Worms, the papal nuncio reproached
Luther: "Most of your doctrines are the already discarded heresies of
the Beghards, Waldensians, Lyons Paupers, Wyclifites and Hussites." (25:
pp. 122-123) Neither did the leaders of the Reformation deny these
ties. For example, in the epistle "To the Christian Nobility of the
German Nation" (1520) Luther writes: "It is high time for us to take up
seriously and frankly the cause of the Bohemians so that we can unite
with them and they with us." (25: p. 126) And Zwingli writes to Luther
in 1527: "Many people, even earlier, understood the essence of evangelic
religion as clearly as you do. But of all Israel no one dared to enter
the battle, for they feared this mighty Goliath." (26: p. 9) It is
thought likely that Zwingli belonged to the community of Brethren in
Zürich, breaking with them around 1524. Luther apparently also had
contacts in these circles. The first impetus to his subsequent rupture
with the Catholic Church was given him when he was still an unknown
young monk. Johann Staupitz, the general vicar of the Augustinian Order,
took notice of him in one of his tours of inspection. Staupitz was
highly esteemed among the Brethren. In a work of the day, for example,
it is even said that he might be destined "to lead the New Israel out of
Egyptian captivity," i.e., to save the societies of the Brethren from
persecution. Staupitz's influence on Luther was exceptional at the time.
Luther later said that it was he who "first lit the light of the
Gospel" in his heart and raised his "dander against the Pope." Luther
wrote to Staupitz: "You leave me
[71]
too often. Because of you, I was like a deserted child pining for its
mother. I beseech you, bless the Lord's creation in me also, a sinful
man." (25: p. 133) It was only beginning with 1522 that certain
differences between the two came to light, culminating, in 1524-1525, in
a final break.
A striking picture emerges of a movement that lasted for fifteen
centuries despite persecution by the dominant Church and by secular
authorities.*
A precisely fixed set of religious ideas affecting the general attitude
toward life was preserved virtually unchanged, often down to the
smallest detail. Throughout this period, the tradition of secret
ordination of bishops was unbroken; general questions of import to the
movement were decided at "synods," and wandering Apostles took the
decrees to distant societies. On admittance to the sect, the initiates
were given new names known only to their closed group. Secret signs were
used (for instance, when shaking hands) so the brethren could recognize
one another. Houses were also marked by secret signs so that traveling
members could find accommodations with their kind. Among the sectarians
it was said that you could travel from England to Rome, staying only at
houses of fellow sectarians along the way. There were close ties among
the national branches of the movement. Synods were attended by
representatives from allover Western arId Central Europe; literature was
sent from country to country. There was mutual financial assistance
during times of calamity; people would stream in from other countries to
help their brethren.
Thus there are grounds for attempting to establish a common
ideological underpinning for the entire movement in order to determine
the place of the ideas of chiliastic socialism in these doctrines.
One of the fundamental traits observed throughout the history of
the sects was their hostility toward secular authority--the "world"--and
especially toward the Catholic Church. This could be active or passive,
and could find expression in calls to "exterminate the godless," to
kill the Pope or annihilate the Whore of Babylon (the Church), or in
prohibitions of any kind of intercourse with the outside world.
This was the issue that led to the break between the leaders of
the Reformation, Luther and Zwingli, and the "Brethren." The Anabaptist
* Our aim is to determine the fundamental
principles that relate the doctrines of the various sects. We must,
therefore, leave to one side the interesting question of precisely how
the resemblance came into being: where it was a matter of direct
succession, where of literary influence and in what cases it was
engendered by similarity of historical circumstance.
[72]
"Chronicles" for 1525 read: "The Church, long suppressed, has begun to
raise its head.. ..As though they had used thunderbolts, Luther, Zwingli
and their followers have destroyed everything, but they did not create
anything better. ...They let in a little light, but they did not go on
to the end but joined the secular powers. ... And therefore, although
there had been a good beginning by God's will, the light of the truth
was again extinguished in them." (29: p. 364)
The heretical movement, thoroughly hostile to the surrounding world,
flares up from time to time with an all-consuming blaze of hatred. Such
outbreaks are separated by intervals of a little more than a century:
the movement fostered by Dolcino around 1300, the Hussite movement that
started after Hus was burned at the stake in 1415, the aggressive form
that Anabaptism assumed in the 1520s, and the English revolution of
1640-1660. In these periods we also observe socialist ideas in their
starkest forms. At other times these tendencies are muffled, and we
encounter sects that reject violence and teachings that contain no
socialist ambitions whatsoever. (The Waldensian doctrine is an extreme
example.) It is interesting, however, that the two extremes of the
heretical movement were closely interwoven; they cannot be clearly
distinguished. At times, in fact, a sect switched from one extreme to
the other overnight. Thus we learn that the Cathars, whose doctrine
forbade any violence, in 1174 attempted a coup in Florence. Merely
touching a weapon, even for self-defense, was considered a sin, yet at
the same time there were groups among the Cathars who permitted plunder
and expropriation of churches. Historians explain events foreshadowing
the Albigensian wars in terms of this sort of abrupt reversal, as more
peaceful groups come under the influence of more aggressive ones: the
Cathars, who had been forbidden even to kill an animal, suddenly erupted
in a militant spirit that swept them into a war lasting more than
thirty years. At certain periods, the Waldenses, considered the most
peaceful group, burned the houses of priests who preached against their
doctrine. They also killed individuals who left the ranks, or they
placed prices on their heads. A similar abrupt shift can be seen in the
Apostolic Brethren. Among the teachings ascribed to them is a
prohibition against violence; killing a man Was considered a mortal sin.
This principle was soon transformed so that persecution of the sect was
the capital sin, while any kind of action against the foes of the true
faith was permitted. And a call for
[73]
the destruction of the godless was raised as well. (9: II: p. 397) The
same abrupt shift occurred with the Anabaptists in Switzerland and in
southern Germany at the beginning of the Reformation. Apparently it was
possible for a sect to exist in two states, "militant" and "peaceful,"
and the transition from one state to the other could happen suddenly,
and for all practical purposes instantaneously.
The heretical world view, in its hatred for the Church and the way of
life it engendered, can be understood ultimately as an antithesis to
the ideology of medieval Catholicism. The Middle Ages represent a
stupendous effort on the part of Western European humanity to build its
life on the basis of lofty spiritual values, to comprehend life as a way
toward achieving the ideals of Christianity. It was a question of
reforming human society and the world, with the aim of their
transfiguration into a higher state. The religious principle that
underlay this world view was the doctrine of the incarnation of Christ,
an event that illuminated the physical world by means of a union of the
divine and the material. In this way, the course of human action was
indicated. Actual direction was in the hands of the Catholic Church and
rested upon the doctrine of the Church as a mystical union of the
faithful, embracing the living and the dead. Prayers for the dead were
based on this teaching, as were appeals for the intercession of the
saints, since all this was seen as various forms of communication
between members of one Church.
The goals Western man had set for himself were not achieved.
Undoubtedly, in this case as with any phenomenon of such scope, the
basic cause of failure was
internal, a
result of free choice, of that which in relation to the Catholic Church
may be called its sin. Much has been said on this subject, and we shall
only mention the frequently encountered point of view according to
which the fateful decision for the Church had been in choosing the
means for
achieving the goal. The forces of the world became such means-power,
wealth, coercive authority. But it must not be forgotten that this
choice was made in an atmosphere of unceasing struggle against forces
hostile to Catholicism. Furthermore, these forces were
external, and
served as a substantial though not a main cause of the failure that had
overtaken the Catholic Church. Among such forces, not the least were
the heretical movements. Their activities belong to that border area
where it is so difficult to distinguish between the free seeking after
spiritual truth and a conspiracy having as its aim the forcible
diversion
[74]
of mankind from its chosen path. We have seen instances of the way that
abstract mystical teachings could be interpreted, even a single
generation later, as a basis for the destruction of churches and
crucifixes, as a license for the killing of monks and priests. The
common people, in turn, responded to heretical teaching with outbreaks
of violence against the heretics. These were at first condemned by the
Church, but gradually mutual bitterness, fear of the heretics' growing
influence and, above all, the temptation of worldly power led to
campaigns against the heretics and the institution of the Inquisition.
The course that medieval society had set for itself became more and more
twisted and the ideals it held became ever more blurred.
There is no doubt that the Middle Ages provided no less reason than
other periods of history for dissatisfaction with life and for protest
against its darker aspects. But even though criticism of society and of
the Church played a great role in the heretics' message, it seems
impossible to regard the heresies as mere reactions to injustice and the
imperfection of life. In any case, the heresies that we have discussed
did not call for the reform of the Church or an improvement in worldly
life. The Anabaptists, for example, did not ally themselves either with
the Protestant Reformation or the Catholic Counter-Reformation (th'e
latter was quite effective). Instead, the doctrine of these sects called
for the complete destruction of the Catholic Church, for the
destruction of society as it was known, and, until this end could be
accomplished, for withdrawal from the world.
It was against the
fundamental ideas of the Middle Ages,
which we have outlined above, that all the heresies were cast. Their
teachings amounted to a downright denial of the propositions enumerated
above, occasionally presented in mystical form. The Cathar doctrine of
the creation of the material world by a wicked God or a fallen spirit
was designed to destroy the belief that the incarnation of Christ had
blessed the flesh and the world. The effect was to create a gap between
material and spiritual life and to tear the members of the sect away
from participation in life as it was guided by the Church. In a more
symbolic form, this juxtaposition of God and world was expressed in
hatred for material representations of Christ and God the Father. It is
interesting that one of the most ancient of the known heresies of
Western Europe is connected with this. Claudius, Bishop of Turin
(814-839), ordered crucifixes and sacred images to be removed from
churches. (9: II: p. 50) Agobard, the Bishop of Lyons, who died in A.D.
842,
[75]
also called for the destruction of sacred objects. (9: II: pp. 43-46)
Undoubtedly, the iconoclast movement which spread throughout the
Byzantine Empire in the eighth century was of the same origin. We
mention only in passing that a leading role in this movement was played
by Paulicians, the immediate predecessors of the Cathars. The same
tendency to sever the ties between God and the world, between spirit and
matter, led to the denial of resurrection of the flesh typical of the
Cathars. The Waldensian hostility to graveyards and their tradition of
burying their dead in wastelands or courtyards are also relevant.
The Cathar doctrine that good acts do not lead to salvation and, as a
source of pride, are positively harmful was directed against individual
participation in life. The prohibitions against carrying arms, taking
oaths and going to court, which were common among Cathars and Waldenses,
had a similar function. Cathars of some groups were forbidden all
contact with laymen, except for attempts to convert them.
The ideas of the Free Spirits and the Adamites were even more
radical--denial of property, family, state and all moral norms. The
"divine" leaders of the sect clearly pretended to a much higher position
in life than did the Catholic clergy. At the same time, their ideology
denied all hierarchy, not only on earth, but in heaven as well. The
polemical declarations that they were equal to God in all things, that
they could perform miracles and that Christ had achieved a state of
"godliness" only on the cross are to be taken in precisely this sense.
The denial of baptism for young children, common to almost all
the sects, was based on their rejection in principle of the Church as a
mystic union. In its place they set their own sect, admission into which
was accompanied by baptism permitted solely to adults who consciously
accepted its principles. Thus, in contrast to the Catholic Church, the
sect was a conscious union of like-minded people.
All these individual theses can be reduced to one aim: overcoming
the conjunction of God and the world, God and Man, which had been
accomplished through Christ's incarnation (the fundamental principle of
Christianity, at least in its traditional interpretation). There were
two ways to achieve this: denial of the world or denial of God. The
first path was taken by the Manicheans and the gnostic sects, whose
teachings conceded the world to the domain of an evil God and recognized
as the sole goal of life the liberation from matter (for those capable
of it). The pantheistic sects, on the contrary, not only did not
renounce the world, but proclaimed the ideal of the dominion
[76]
over it (again, for a chosen few, while others, the "rude" folk, were
included in the category of the world). In their teachings it is
possible to find the prototype of the idea of "subjugating nature" which
became so popular in subsequent periods. The dominion over the world
was considered possible not through the carrying out of God's will--but
by denying God and by transformation of the "Free Spirits" themselves
into gods. The social manifestation of this ideology can be seen in the
extreme trends of the Taborite movement. Finally, the Anabaptists
apparently tried to find a synthesis of these tendencies. In their
"militant" phase, they preached the dominion of the elect over the
world; moreover, the ideas of dominion completely overshadowed the
Christian features of their world view (for example, Müntzer wrote that
his teachings were equally comprehensible to Christians, Jews, Turks and
heathens). In their "peaceful" phase, as can be seen in the example of
the Moravian Brethren, withdrawal from the world was predominant: a
condemnation of the world and a breaking of all ties with it.
The ideas of chiliastic socialism constituted an organic part of this
outlook. The demands to abolish private property, family, state and all
hierarchies in the society of the time aimed to exclude the
participants of the movement from the surrounding life. This had the
effect of placing them in a hostile, antagonistic relationship with the
"world." In spite of the fact that these demands did not occupy a
quantitatively large place in the overall ideology of the heretical
sects, they were so characteristic of it that they could serve to a
great extent as an inherent distinguishing feature of the whole
movement. Thus Döllinger, whom we have already cited, characterizes the
attitude of the sects toward life as follows: "Each heretical doctrine
that appeared in the Middle Ages bore, in open or concealed form, a
revolutionary character; in other words, had it come to power, it would
have been obliged to destroy the existing state structure and implement a
political and social revolution. The gnostic sects, Cathars and
Albigenses, who provoked the severe and implacable medieval laws against
heresies by their activities, and with whom a bloody struggle was
carried on, Were socialist and communist. They attacked marriage, the
family and property. Had they been victorious, the result would have
been a traumatic social dislocation and a relapse into barbarism. It is
obvious to anyone familiar with the period that the Waldenses with their
doctrinal denial of oaths and criminal law could also not have found a
place for themselves in the European society of the day." (41: pp.
50-51)
[77]
In the period when socialist ideas were developing within the
framework of the ideology of the heretical movements, they acquired a
series of new features which cannot be found in antiquity. In this
epoch, socialism turned from a theoretical, scholastic doctrine into a
rallying point and a motivating force behind broad popular movements.
Antiquity knew harsh national catastrophes that culminated in the
ruination of states. The most impoverished groups of the population did
on occasion seize power, kill the rich or oust them from towns; property
was taken and divided: in Kerkira in 427 B.C., in Samos in 412 and in
Syracuse in 317. In Sparta, King Nabis, in 206 B.C., divided among his
followers not only the property but also the wives of the rich. However,
the popular movements of antiquity did not know the slogans of
communality of property,
communality of wives, and they were not directed against religion. All these traits emerge in the Middle Ages.
Socialist doctrines themselves change, acquiring an intolerant, embittered and destructive character.
The idea of dividing mankind into the "doomed" and the "elect"
makes its appearance, followed by calls to destroy the "godless" or the
"enemies of Christ," i.e., the opponents of the movement.
Socialist ideology is imbued with the notion of a coming
fundamental break, of the end and destruction of the old world and the
beginning of a new order. This concept is interwoven with the idea of
"imprisonment" and "liberation," which, beginning with the Cathars, is
understood as imprisonment of the soul in matter and as liberation in
the other world. Later, the Amalricians and the Free Spirits saw the
idea as spiritual liberation through the achievement of "godliness" in
this world. And finally, the Taborites and the Anabaptists conceived of
it as material liberation from the power of the "evil ones" and as the
establishment of the dominion of the "elect."
Furthermore, socialist ideas in this epoch merge with the concept
of universal history derived principally from Joachim of Flore. The
realization of the socialist ideal is connected not with the decision of
a wise ruler, as in Plato's conception, but is understood as the result
of a predetermined process encompassing all history and independent of
the will of individuals.
A new organizational structure is evolved as well; socialist
ideas develop within it and attempts are made to implement them. This is
a sect with the standard "concentric" structure--a narrow circle of
[78]
leaders who are initiated into all aspects of the doctrine and a wide
circle of sympathizers who are acquainted only with some of its aspects.
The latter group tends to be linked with the sect by ties of an
emotional character which are difficult to describe precisely.
The leading role in the development of socialism passes to a new type
of individual. The hermetic thinker and philosopher is replaced by the
fervent and tireless publicist and organizer, an expert in the theory
and practice of destruction. This strange and contradictory figure will
reappear in subsequent historical epochs. He is a man of seemingly
inexhaustible energy when successful, but a pitiful and terrified
nonentity the moment his luck turns against him.
In closing this chapter, we turn our attention to an interesting
and apparently essential matter--something the reader has undoubtedly
noted: the profound dependence of socialist ideology (in the forms it
attained in the Middle Ages) on Christianity. In almost all socialist
movements, the idea of equality was founded on the equality of all
people before God. It was standard practice to refer to the community of
Apostles in Jerusalem as a model founded on the principles of
communality. It is to Christianity that socialism owes its concept of a
historic goal, the idea of the sinfulness of the world, its coming end
and the Last Judgment. Such a close link can hardly be explained by the
desire to be in accord with accepted authority or (as Engels has argued)
by the fact that the language of religion was the only available idiom
in which to express general historical conceptions. The fact that
socialism borrowed some of its fundamental ideas from Christianity shows
that this was a matter not of mere transference but of a deeper
interaction. The existence of certain related elements in Christianity
and socialism is indicated, for example, by the phenomenon of the
monastery, which seems to realize socialist principles within
Christianity (e.g., the abolition of private property and of marriage).
It would be extremely important to discern the aspects shared by
Christianity and socialism, to trace how the Christian concepts are
redirected within socialism and ultimately turn into a denial of the
fundamental principles of Christianity (for example, when God's judgment
over the world is reinterpreted as the judgment of the "elect" over
their enemies, or when the resurrection of the dead is translated into
"deification" in the sect of Free Spirits). Such an analysis would
undoubtedly explain a great deal about socialist ideology.
[79]
III.
The Socialism
of the Philosophers
1. The Great Utopias
The English revolution of the seventeenth century was the last
occasion when the heretical movement appeared as one of the major forces
shaping the course of history.
In later years, the chiliastic sects that had shaken Europe
became transformed into such peaceable movements as those of the
Mennonites, the Baptists and the Quakers. The socialist ideas of the
medieval sects live on, albeit in peaceful form, in their successors.
The most graphic manifestation of these ideas are the numerouS communist
settlements founded by these sects in America during the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries. Here we encounter attempts to implement familiar
socialist ideals: communality of property, the ban on marriage and
family (expressed either as celibacy or as communality of wives and
communal upbringing of children). But the socialist ideas themselves
acquire a new coloration; they lose their aggressiveness. A lesser role
is assigned to propagandizing the doctrine, and the center of gravity is
transferred to the life of the isolated community. Thanks to this, the
influence of the socialist doctrine does not in these cases extend
beyond the limits of the communities that profess them. In this form,
socialist ideas lose their incendiary force and cease to inspire massive
popular movements.
The development of socialist ideas did not cease, of course. On
the contrary, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, socialist
writings literally flooded Europe. But these ideas were produced by
[80]
different circumstances and by men of a different mentality. The
preacher and the wandering Apostle gave way to a publicist and
philosopher. Religious exaltation and references to revelation were
replaced by appeals to reason. The literature of socialism acquired a
purely secular and rationalistic character; new means of popularization
were devised: works on this theme now frequently appear under the guise
of voyages to unknown lands, interlarded with frivolous episodes. By the
same token, the audience to whom the message is addressed is also
different. It is no longer pitched to peasants or craftsmen but to the
well-read and educated public. Thus socialism renounces for a time a
direct influence on the broad masses. It is as if after failing in its
direct assault on Christian civilization, the movement launches an
evasive maneuver which lasts for several centuries. It is only at the
very end of the eighteenth century that socialism once again comes out
into the street, and we meet with a fresh attempt to create a popular
movement based on its ideology.*
This break in the development of socialist ideas had begun to take
shape far earlier than the English revolution of the seventeenth
century. In the beginning of the sixteenth century, at the time of the
first tentative steps of the Reformation, a work appeared that exhibited
numerous features of the new socialist literature--Thomas More's
Utopia.
In this work we first meet the literary devices that are later to
become standard--e.g., a description of travel to a far-off land and the
discovery of a previously unknown, exotic place where the ideals of
socialism have been realized. Not surprisingly, the title of this work
has become one of the terms denoting the teaching as a whole--"utopian
socialism."
* It would be interesting to investigate the
relation between these two periods in the development of socialist
ideas--within the heretical movement and within the framework of
Enlightenment literature. What is the influence of the former period on
the latter? Through what channels was the tradition transmitted? The
author is aware of only one historian who has studied this
question--Ludwig Keller, who devoted a series of works to it. Keller
points out two avenues by which this occurred; the first being the
guilds and workshops, which were closely tied to the heretical movements
throughout the Middle Ages and provided a refuge for persecuted
heretics. This channel of influence leads to the Masonic movement and
through it to the writers and philosophers of the Enlightenment. The
second involves the academies of "poets" and "philosophers" of the
Renaissance and Humanism. Of particular interest are the causes of such a
sharp and sudden break in the character of chiliastic socialism and the
decline of heretical mOvements in general. As one obvious explanation,
we can point to the victory of the Reformation, which had achieved much
of that which the sects had demanded (in particular, it satisfied those
sects that had not set themselves the goal of destroying the entire
social structure) and thereby decreased the destructive force of the
sectarian movement.
[81]
Utopia by Thomas More.
This book was first published (in Latin) in 1516, and its
complete title is: "A Truly Golden Handbook, No Less Beneficial than
Entertaining, About the Best State of the Commonwealth and the New
Island of Utopia." At the time, its author was an influential English
statesman with a brilliant career. In 1529, More became Lord Chancellor
of England, the first office below the king. But in 1534 he emerged as a
strong opponent of the Church reform that was being carried out by
Henry VIII. He refused to swear allegiance to the king as head of the
newly created Anglican Church, was accused of high treason and beheaded
in 1535. Four centuries later, in 1935, he was canonized by the Catholic
Church.
Utopia is written in the form of a conversation among the
author, his friend Peter Giles, and the traveler Raphael Hythloday
(Hythlodaeus). Hythloday had seen the world and was a keen observer of
life. Taking part in the voyage of Amerigo Vespucci, he was left, at his
own request, with a few companions "near the limits of the last
voyage." After wandering over seas and wastelands, Hythloday came upon
the island of Utopia, where he found a state organized according to the
just laws established long ago by the wise legislator Utopus. In order
to appraise correctly the impression made by
Utopia on
contemporaries, we ought to bear in mind that it was written in the very
beginning of the age of discovery, before Defoe's and Swift's great
novels.
The whole of
Utopia relates one way or another to two
subjects: criticism of contemporary European society and a description
of the ideal state on the island of Utopia. This corresponds roughly to
the division of the work into two parts. The central thesis of the first
section is that contemporary European states are tools of the mercenary
interests of the rich:
"When I weigh in my mind all the other states which flourish
today, so help me God, I can discover nothing but a conspiracy of the
rich, who pursue their own aggrandizement under the name and title of
the Commonwealth." (42: p. 138)*
The true source of this situation is private property and money:
"But, Master More, to speak plainly what is in my mind, as long
as there is private property and while money is the standard of all
things, I do not think that a nation can be governed either justly or
* Quotations from More are based primarily on
the English translation of H. V. S. Ogden. Page references are to the
Russian edition.
[82]
happily." (42: p. 73) "As long as private property remains, the largest
and by far the best part of mankind will be oppressed with an
inescapable load of cares and anxieties." (42: p. 74)
By way of an example, criminal behavior is discussed; it is
attributed entirely to flaws in the social system. "What else is this, I
ask, but first making them thieves and then punishing them for it?"
(42: p. 57) The laws of the day which punished thieves with death are
considered to be not only unjust but ineffective as well. Instead,
Hythloday offers the customs he had observed among people living in the
mountains of Persia, the Polylerites. "I can find no better system in
any country." (42: p. 59) The custom calls for a thief to be turned into
a state slave. As a sign of his status, a thief's ear lobes are
notched. The lazy "are sooner prompted with blows than punishment with
fetters." (42: p. 60) Finally, as a measure against the escape of
slaves, informing is encouraged--and rewarded by liberty (for slaves) or
money (for a free man). A runaway slave who is caught is executed and
any free man who helped him is turned into a slave. "You can easily see
how humane and advantageous these laws are," concludes the narrator.
(42: p. 61)
The gloomy depiction of contemporary Europe is contrasted with the ideal state on the island of Utopia. More's
Utopia is
no dry treatise on political systems, but a vivid picture of life. The
clothing worn by the inhabitants is described, as are their occupations
and amusements, the appearance of their towns, houses and temples. This
enables us to discern those traits the author wishes to single out as
essential.
Utopia is a republic governed by elected officials who are called
"Fathers" by their subjects. All of life is regulated by the state.
There is no private property and no money. The economy is based on
universal labor conscription. In the first place, everyone (or almost
so) is obliged to work for a certain period of time in agriculture: "For
all men and women there is one common occupation--agriculture, from
which no one is exempted." (42: p. 83) Upon reaching a certain age,
citizens are sent to work in the countryside, where they labor for two
years before being transferred back to the city. Apart from this,
everyone learns some craft, which he practices when he is not at his
assigned work. Work is done under the supervision of officials called
"syphogrants." "The main and sole occupation of the syphogrants is care
and observation lest anyone sit idle." (42: p. 84) The state also
regulates the distribution of the population by means of mass
resettlements.
[83]
"Each community consists of households for the most part made up of
kinsfolk. ...In order that their cities may not have too many or too few
inhabitants, they allow no city to have over six thousand households.
...If the population of any of their cities happens to decline so much
that it cannot be made good from other parts of the island. ..the
population is built up with citizens from the colonies. This has
happened only twice in all their history, both times the result of a
devastating plague." (42: p. 88)
The narrator notes enthusiastically the uniformity and
standardization of dress and way of life. "People wear the same sort of
clothes throughout the island, except for the distinctions which mark
the difference between the married and the unmarried. The fashion of the
clothing never changes." (42: p. 83) "The color of the cloak is the
same throughout the island. Furthermore, it is the natural color of
wool." (42: p. 87) There is uniformity in other things as well. "There
are fifty-four cities on the island, all large and well built, and with
the same language, customs, institutions, and laws. All of them are
built on the same plan, as far as the location permits." (42: p. 77)
"Whoever knows one of the cities, will know them all, since they are
exactly alike insofar as the terrain permits." (42: p. 80)
All products for consumption are distributed at public
storehouses; moreover, everyone may take as much as he needs. Meals are
taken in centralized facilities. "It is not forbidden to eat at home,
though it is not thought proper. Besides no one would be so foolish as
to prepare a poor meal at home when there is a sumptuous one ready for
him so near at hand." (42: p. 90) The description of these common meals
recalls food rationing more than simple distribution. "The best of each
kind of food is first served to the elders, whose places are
distinguished by some mark. Then the rest are served alike. The elders
divide the choice bits, of which there is not enough to go around, as
they wish. Thus due respect is paid them, yet all the rest fare as well
as they." (42: p. 91)
Common meals are typical of the general tendency of the whole of
life for the Utopians. "So you see no loafing is tolerated, and there
are no pretexts for laziness, or opportunities. There are no tavernS or
ale houses, no brothels, no chances for corruption, no hiding places, no
secret meetings. Because they live in full view of all, they must do
their accustomed labor and spend their leisure honorably." (42: p.92)
[84]
Every home has folding doors which, "easily opened by hand and then
closing of themselves, give admission to anyone. As a result, nothing is
private property anywhere. Every ten years they actually exchange their
very home by lot." (42: p. 81)
In order to take a walk outside the town, it is necessary to get
permission from one's father; a wife must ask her husband and a husband
his wife. To leave for another town, permission must be obtained from
the proper officials. "Several travel together, taking a letter from the
prince, which certifies that permission to travel has been granted and
states the day of return. ...If any man goes outside his district
without leave and is caught without a passport from the prince, he is
treated scornfully, brought back as a fugitive and severely punished. If
he does it again, he is made a slave." (42: p. 93) (We shall give more
details on slavery in Utopia somewhat later.)
In Utopia marriage is monogamous, but there is nothing to
indicate whether it is contracted at the will of the bride and groom or
is decided by parents or officials. The state does supervise strictly
the observance of chastity prior to marriage and the faithfulness of the
spouses after. Anyone guilty of infraction of these rules is sold into
slavery. Utopians compare the contracting of marriage to the selling of a
horse, and for this reason, prior to entering into wedlock, the bride
is shown to the bridegroom naked--and he to her--for, it is argued, is
not the blanket taken off a horse before it is sold?
Utopians are not burdened with heavy work; they spend only six
hours a day on the job, in fact, devoting the rest of the time to the
sciences, the arts and "decent entertainment." In spite of this, they
experience no material need. This is explained by the fact that in
Europe the labor of the poor creates riches which go to support the
idle, while in Utopia everyone works. (The enumeration of European idle
folk is curious: "almost all the women" are first on the list, next come
priests and monks, followed by landlords and their servants.)
Utopians seem to be equal in everything--universal obligatory
labor, the color and cut of dress, housing. But this equality is by no
means absolute. Officials are exempted from obligatory work, as well as
those who have been officially "exempted for profound study of the
sciences." (42: p. 86) From this exempted class the scholars,
ambassadors, priests and high officials ("tranibors") are selected. Yet
elsewhere it is stated that "for the most part everyone grows up
learning his father's craft." (42: p. 83) It seems to follow that a
closed class,
[85]
almost a caste, controls the government. As for the rest of the
citizens, the narrator has this to say of them (speaking of the
necessity of making laws that are simple and require no complicated
interpretation): "The common folk with their slow wits are unable to
arrive at such conclusions, and their whole life would not suffice for
it, as they spend it earning their living." (42: p. 116)
And the picture of equality is utterly destroyed when we learn that
life in Utopia is largely based on slavery. Slaves do all the dirty
work. But slavery seems to have more than just an economic function.
Slaves are obtained from two sources: "Their slaves are either their own
citizens who have been sentenced to bondage for some crime, or men of
other nations who have been condemned to death. The Utopians buy these
men at a low price, or more often obtain them free of charge and bring
them home." (42: p. 110) "All kinds of slaves are kept constantly at
work and are always chained. The Utopians treat their native slaves more
harshly than the others, thinking them baser and deserving of greater
punishment." (42: p. Ill) It is thought that the labor of such people
brings more use than their death would. At the same time, their example
deters others. "If even after this treatment they still rebel and put up
resistance, they are slaughtered like wild beasts." (42: p. 114)
The account of the Utopians includes a description of the
prevailing philosophical views of the citizens, based as they are on the
notion that pleasure is the supreme goal of life. But pleasure can be
renounced: "Finally, they believe what religion easily persuades a
well-disposed mind to believe, that God repays the loss of a short and
transitory pleasure with great and endless joy." (42: p. 107)
Perfect freedom of conscience prevails in Utopia, with only this
one reservation instituted by Utopus: "He made a solemn and severe law
against any who sink so far below the dignity of human nature as to
think that the soul dies with the body, or that the universe is carried
along by chance without an over-ruling providence. The Utopians believe
that after this life there are punishments for wickedness and rewards
for virtue." (42: p. 128) Some Utopians consider the sun to be a god,
others the moon, and still others, certain ancient heroes. But they all
recognize some "universal deity, unknown, eternal, unfathomable,
inexplicable, exceeding human intelligence, penetrating all this world
not by its bulk but by its force. Him they call The Father." (42: p.
126)
[86]
The holy services of the Utopians are in keeping with this kind of
abstract theism. The temples have no images of deities. The service
consists of the faithful joining the priests in singing praise to God,
to musical accompaniment. Women and married men may become priests, and
priests may marry.
Of late, the narrator informs us, Christianity has become known
in Utopia and has found many adherents there. It is true, however, that a
preacher who had called other religions pagan and threatened their
adherents with eternal fire was arrested and convicted. Of particular
interest is the narrator's opinion that the rapid spread of Christianity
in Utopia is explained by the resemblance between the communist
structure of the Utopian state and the practices of the ancient
Apostolic community which "are retained even now in the purest of
Christian communities." (42: p. 127)
The reference to the communist character of the community
described in the Acts of the Apostles was a favorite argument of the
heretical sects. It is difficult to imagine what the author could have
had in mind when he spoke of the "purest of Christian communities,"
except one or another of the heretical sects.
If we look upon More as a martyr who gave his life for the ideals
of the Catholic Church, it is striking how remote his Utopia is from
any such ideals. In addition to the sympathetic description of a
hedonistic world view and of a colorless theistic religion, it is
possible to find direct, if discreet, attacks on Christianity and the
Pope. Apparently no one has yet succeeded in explaining away this
disparity.
But if
Utopia is considered as a work of chiliastic
socialist literature, it seems surprisingly moderate. There is no
mention of any abolition of the family or of communality of wives; there
is no public upbringing of children. It seems that the new and secular
movement in socialism did not at first base itself on the extreme
beliefs that had been formulated within the heretical movement.
City of the Sun by Tommaso Campanella.
Almost a century passed after the first "Utopia" before Utopian
socialism was able to absorb and assimilate the more radical principles
developed in antiquity and the heretical movements. Campanella's
celebrated work illustrates the new synthesis.
Campanella lived at the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of
the seventeenth centuries. Up to the age of thirty-four, he was a
[87]
Dominican monk; he was then arrested and spent the next twenty-seven
years in prison. The remaining years of his life he spent in France.
Campanella was a philosopher, a religious thinker and a poet. He
proclaimed (earlier than Bacon) the empirical nature of science,
advocated the independence of science from Church authority and defended
Galileo (while he himself was imprisoned by the Inquisition). In the
theory of knowledge he was interested in the question of the means by
which human consciousness, basing itself solely on subjective
sensations, arrives at objective truth. His views on this subject are
close to those later elaborated by Kant. His religious views, affirming
that all things are with God, were pantheistic in character.
In Calabria in 1597, Campanella organized a conspiracy against
the Spaniards, to whom the country belonged at that time. The conspiracy
failed, and in 1599 Campanella was arrested and put to torture; in 1602
he was condemned to life imprisonment. In 1602, while in prison, he
wrote his book
City of the Sun.
The very title of the work--
Civitas Soli--recalls St. Augustine's
Civitas Dei--City
of God. It is written in a sparse style, without any embellishments
like exotic adventures in strange lands. The book takes the form of a
dialogue between two speakers whose names are not even given: the Chief
Host (apparently a reference to the Grandmaster of the Knights
Hospitalers) and the Seafarer (of whom it is only said that he is a
citizen of Genoa). The dialogue begins without any explanation with the
words of the Host: "Please tell me of all your adventures during your
last voyage." In reply, the Seafarer recounts that on an island in the
Indian Ocean he visited the City of the Sun, the life of which he
thereupon begins to describe.
The political system of the City of the Sun externally resembles a
theocracy. "Their supreme ruler is a priest who is called Hoh, meaning
'Sun' in their language, but in our tongue we would call him the
'Metaphysic.' " (43: p. 146) This curious translation--Metaphysic for
Sun--is not accidental. The role of the Sun priest could profitably be
compared to the head of a technocratic hierarchy. The post is occupied
by the most erudite inhabitant of the city. He knows "the history of all
nations, their customs, religious rites and laws" and is well versed in
all crafts, physical, mathematical and astrological sciences, and is
especially knowledgeable in metaphysics and theology. He holds his
office until "another man is found wiser than his predecessor and better
capable to govern." (43: p. 153)
[88]
The Metaphysic has three co-rulers--Pon, Sin and Mor, meaning Might,
Wisdom and Love. Each presides over the corresponding aspects of life.
In some of its unexpected details, this division is reminiscent of
Orwell. For instance, the area of Love's responsibility includes not
only the supervision of the relations between men and women (of which,
later) but also "agriculture, stock breeding and, in general, everything
which pertains to food, clothing and sexual relations." (43: p. 149)
The Metaphysic confers with his three co-rulers, but in major questions
his decision is final. Numerous other officials are also mentioned; they
are appointed by the four chief rulers or other members of the
administration. There is also a Council, to which all citizens over
twenty years of age belong, but it seems to possess only an advisory
function. Candidates for office are nominated by the Council and
confirmed at a conference of officials and finally by the four rulers.
In this connection, one of Campanella's sentences remains unclear:
"Officials are replaced according to the will of the people." (43 p.
175)
The social organization of the city is based on communal life, the implementation of which is directed by the administration.
"All things are common with them. The distribution of everything
is in the hands of the officials, but since knowledge, honor and
pleasure are common to all, no one can take anything for himself. They
assert that among us property derives from and is maintained by our each
having an individual dwelling and a wife and children of his own. From
this self-love arises." (43: p. 149)
In the author's opinion, the communal principle is at odds with
many other relations between men: "I am persuaded that the friars and
monks and clergy of our country, if they were not seduced by love for
their kin and friends, would be ...more imbued with the spirit of
charity." In the City of the Sun, citizens "get everything they need
from the community, and the officials take care to see that no one
should get more than he deserves and that no one be refused a
necessity." (43: p. 150)
"Houses, dormitories, beds and all necessities they have in
common. But every six months the superiors decide who is to sleep in
what circle, and who in the first dormitory, who in the second. .." (43:
p. 154)
The Solarians (citizens of the City of the Sun) take their meals
together, as in "monastery refectories," but the officials get "larger
and better portions." (43: p. 155) The latter reward the children who
[89]
excel in studies with part of the most desirable rations.
Production is based on universal obligatory labor. "There are no
slaves among them," we read in one place. In another passage, however,
there is the additional comment that "slaves taken at war are either
sold away or used for digging ditches or other heavy work outside the
city." (43: p. 169) Everyone has the duty of working four hours per day.
(Like More, the author believes that with universal obligatory labor,
this amount of work would suffice to provide the state with all the
necessities.) However, only menial labor seems to be meant here, for
later we read: "The remaining hours are spent in pleasant occupation
with the sciences, in discourse and in reading." (43: p. 162) Thus
scientific endeavors are not included in the four obligatory hours of
"work."
That this labor is truly obligatory can be seen from the following description:
"But what is excellent and worthy of imitation with them is this:
no bodily flaw compels them to idleness, excepting advanced age, when,
however, they are still invited to consultations. The lame stand on
guard since they have eyesight, the blind card wool and pluck fowl for
cushions and featherbeds; those who are deprived of both eyes and hands
serve the state with their ears, voice and so on. Finally, if someone
possesses but a single limb, he makes use of it for work in the
countryside, earning a good salary and serving as an informer to report
to the state everything that he hears." (43: p. 163)
The Solarians work in detachments headed by a commander. "The
commanders of both men's and women's detachments, that is, the heads of
ten, fifty or a hundred persons," constitute the administrative body of
the city immediately below the four supreme rulers. (43: p. 175) In the
chapter on judicial procedures, we read that since the Solarians "always
walk and work in detachments, there must be five witnesses to convict a
criminal." (43: p. 177) It seems to follow that division into
detachments continues even after work. At any rate, there is no question
that Solarian life is regulated after work as well. For instance,
during hours set aside for rest, even sedentary games are prohibited.
The uniformity of life is carried even further. Men and women
wear almost identical attire; only the length of the cloak differs
slightly. The form and color of clothing is prescribed, whether for wear
inside or out of the city. Even the frequency with which clothes are to
be
[90]
changed is fixed. Violation of such prescriptions is a grave crime: "And
they would certainly put to death a woman who in order to appear
beautiful started to rouge her face or in order to appear tall began to
wear shoes with high heels, or took to wearing long dresses in order to
hide her unattractive legs." (43: p. 160)
The prescriptions concerning celebration of feasts are equally
detailed, as are those covering the arts. At celebrations, "poets hymn
the glorious commanders and their victories, but if one of them adds
something of his own--even if adding to the glory of the hero--he is
liable to penalty. Unworthy of the name of poet is he who engages in
false fabrications." (43: p. 180)
The relations of the sexes are kept under a still stricter
control. "The production of offspring bears directly on the interests of
the state, and involves the interests of private persons only to the
extent to which they are part of the state. And since individuals for
the most part bear offspring wrongly and bring them up badly, to the
peril of the state, the sacred duty of supervising this matter, which is
considered the fundamental principle of state welfare, is entrusted to
state officials, for it is only the community that can vouchsafe this
and not private persons." (43: p. 160)
The procreation of children is compared to the breeding of
livestock: "And they mock us in that we zealously care for improved
breeds of dogs and horses but, at the same time, neglect the human race.
...Therefore, male and female breeders of the best natural qualities
are chosen in accordance with the rules of philosophy." (43: p. 160)
A series of officials--the heads of labor brigades, an astrologer
and a physician--decide which man should share the bed of which woman
and how often. Copulation itself takes place under the supervision of a
special official. In this connection a number of rules are set forth
which we will refrain from quoting. Relations between the sexes are
considered to have--apart from procreation--only one other function:
satisfaction of a purely physiological need. Therefore, in cases of
extreme need, men are permitted to copulate with sterile or pregnant
Women. This is, however, possible only with the permission of a special
Chief of Childbearing and on application from lower officials of the
same agency, who keep this aspect of life in the city under constant
Supervision. The rights of a woman are determined by similar
considerations: "If a woman does not conceive from one man she is joined
with another; if she turns out to be sterile in this case too, she
passes
[91]
into common use but no longer enjoys respect." (43: p. 157)
It goes without saying that the upbringing of children is also in the
hands of the state. "The children, once weaned, are placed in the
charge of the mistresses, if they are girls, or with the masters, if
they are boys." (43: p. 159) Children being educated are also divided
into detachments. After their seventh year they start natural sciences,
then proceed to other disciplines at the discretion of the
administration. Less capable children are sent to the countryside, but
some who prove to be more capable are accepted back in the city. (43: p.
152) Finally, education ends and the young individuals are ready to
perform their basic function--to become officials in the state:
"Subsequently, they all receive positions in the area of those sciences
or crafts for which they have the greatest aptitude, in each case as
advised by the leader or supervisor." (43: p. 152)
In this society, naturally, there are no kinship relations. "All
persons of the same age call one another brother; those who are
twenty-two years older they call father, and those who are twenty-two
years younger, son. And the officials attend to it carefully that no one
offends another in this brotherhood." (43: p. 149)
The last sentence shows that in order to maintain communal life
in the City of the Sun, the abolition of family, property, freedom of
work and creativity are insufficient. Campanella realizes this clearly
and gives a detailed description of the system of punishments which
guarantee the stability of the social structure.
Considered as crimes are: "Ingratitude, malice, failure to give
due respect to another, sloth, despondency, anger, buffoonery and
falsehood, which they hate more than the plague. And the guilty are
deprived of the common table, or relations with women, or other honors
and advantages." (43: p. 151) Sodomy is punished by forced wearing of
disgraceful clothing and, if repeated, by death. "Those guilty of
violence are subject to execution or punishment according to the
principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and so on." (43: p.
176)
The punishments for military crimes are severe: "The first man
who takes flight can avoid death only if the entire army pleads for his
life and certain soldiers take it upon themselves to suffer punishment
for the guilty party. But this indulgence is given rarely and only when
there are extenuating circumstances. A man who failed to bring help when
needed to an ally or a companion is punished by the rod;
[92]
for failure to follow orders, the culprit is thrown into a pit, to be
torn to pieces by wild beasts; he is given a truncheon and if he
succeeds in killing the lions and bears that attack him, which is almost
impossible, he is pardoned." (43: p. 167) Particularly noteworthy here
is this early formulation of the idea that the accused should be granted
a semblance of rights in order to give the appearance of justice to his
sentence.
There is no separation between the judicial and executive branches:
"Everyone is judged by the senior master of his or her craft. Thus all
the senior masters are judges and can sentence a person to exile,
flogging, reprimand, deprivation of the common table and exclusion from
the company of women." (43: p. 176) There are no professional
executioners, either. "They have no hangmen. ..so as not to defile their
state. ...The death penalty is carried out only by the hand of the
people, who kill or stone the transgressor. ...Some are allowed to take
their own lives: such persons surround themselves with small bags of
powder which they set on fire and burn, while those present encourage
them to die with dignity. All citizens meanwhile lament and beseech God
to appease His wrath, grieving that they have been brought to the
necessity of cutting off a rotten limb of the state. However, they
persuade and cajole the transgressor until he himself acquiesces to his
punishment and wishes for his death; otherwise he may not be executed.
But if the crime is committed either against the liberty of the state or
against God or the supreme authorities, then the sentence is carried
out without delay or mercy." (43: pp. 176-177)
Punishment is regarded as an element in the education of
citizens. "The defendant makes peace with his accusers and the witnesses
as though with physicians who had treated his disease, embracing and
kissing them.. ..And the sentences are genuine and reliable remedies and
are seen as something pleasant rather than as punishment." (43: pp.
176, 173)
A religion of the sun is practiced in Campanella's state: "And in
the Sun they perceive and recognize God, calling the Sun an image, a
likeness and a living effigy of God from whom proceeds light, warmth,
vital power and all things good. Therefore, they have erected an altar
in the form of the Sun and their priests worship God in the Sun and the
stars, regarding these as His altars and the sky as His temple." (43: p.
182)
Two specific aspects of these religious beliefs can be noted. First
[93]
of all, this is a state religion, and the governing of the state
coincides with the priestly function. Therefore, the head of state is
simultaneously the chief priest, and since he is called "Sun" he is
apparently perceived as an incarnation of God. "Of the officials, only
the senior ones are priests. Their duties include purging the
consciences of the citizens; the whole City in secret confession (which
is also practiced among us) reveals its offenses to the authorities, who
thus simultaneously purify souls and come to know the sins to which the
people are particularly given." (43: p. 178) Hence administrative and
priestly functions are concentrated in the same hands which, as we have
seen earlier, possess the authority to impose any kind of penalty.
At the same time, the religion of the sun can be seen as veneration
of the universe, rationalistically perceived as an ideal mechanism. In
other words, it is a synthesis of religion and natural science (with an
astrological bias). This accords with what we noted earlier: the title
of the chief priest, "Sun," is translated as "Metaphysic," and the right
to this post is determined by vast scientific knowledge.
A similar impression is produced by the description of the Temple
of the Sun, which occupies the central position in the city. It
resembles a museum of natural history far more than a church. "At the
altar only a large globe representing the sky and another representing
the earth are seen. Furthermore, on the vault of the main dome all
celestial stars from the first to the sixth magnitude are depicted, with
their names and their power to influence terrestrial events inscribed
below each in three lines of verse." (43: p. 145) "The smaller dome is
crowned only by a kind of weathervane showing the directions of the
wind, of which they distinguish up to thirty-six." (43: p. 146) The word
"only" seems to emphasize that the weathervane occupies the place given
to the cross in Christian churches. In general, one gets the impression
that throughout his work Campanella scattered remarks indicating
hostility to the Catholic Church or to Christianity; moreover, these
seem close in spirit to the attitude of some heretical sects. These
hints are tendered obliquely and cautiously--and necessarily so, since
City of the Sun was
written in the prison of the Inquisition where Campanella was being
kept in a cagelike cell. A veiled taunt of this type seems to have been
intended by the enumeration of strange fish depicted on the town walls:
the list begins with the "bishop fish" and ends with the "male-member
fish." The following passage probably serves a similar function: "Dead
bodies are not buried, but to prevent
[94]
pestilence are burned and turned into fire, a noble and living element
that comes from the sun and returns to the sun. By this method no chance
is given for idolatry." (43: p. 180) The last sentence is clearly
directed against the veneration of relics. This is an early attempt to
reinforce the ideological objections to Christian rites by purely
utilitarian and hygienic arguments.
The following ironic sentence is also intended as a thrust at
Christianity: "After all is said and done, they recognize that happy is
the Christian satisfied with the belief that such great confusion [the
appearance of evil in the world] happened because of Adam's fall." (43:
p. 186) And a gnostic concept in concealed form seems to be presented in
the following sentence: "They also considered it possible that the acts
of the lower world are governed by some lower deity at the connivance
of the primary deity but now suppose this opinion to be ridiculous."
(43: p. 185)
It is undoubtedly no accident that Jesus Christ is depicted on a
wall of the city, in a gallery together with "all the inventors of the
sciences and of armament and the legislators." True, Christ occupies "a
most honorable place" next to Moses, Osiris, Jupiter, Lycurgus, Solon
and others.
Several years after
City of the Sun, Campanella wrote another work,
On the Best State, in
which he analyzes certain objections to the social concept expressed in
his first book. He justifies, in particular, the communality of
property by reference to the Apostolic community, and cautiously defends
the communality of wives by quoting various Fathers of the Church.
Especially interesting is the passage where he asserts that the
possibility of such a state is confirmed by experience: "And this,
moreover, has been demonstrated by monks and lately by the Anabaptists
who live in communes; if they possessed the true dogma of the faith,
they would have succeeded in this even more. Oh, were they not heretics
and should they do justice as we preach it, then they would serve as an
exemplar of this truth."
"The Law of Freedom" by Gerrard Winstanley.
In the previous chapter, we spoke about the socialist movement of
the Diggers of the time of the English revolution. We also quoted from
pamphlets by the most important theoretician of this movement, Gerrard
Winstanley. "The Law of Freedom" is the most systematic and complete
exposition of his ideas. This work belongs to utopian literature and
contains a detailed
[95]
plan of the new society that is based, to a significant degree, on socialist principles.
"The Law of Freedom" was published in 1652. It begins with a
salutation to "His Excellency Oliver Cromwell, General of the
Commonwealth's Army in England, Scotland and Ireland." Winstanley points
out to Cromwell that despite the victory of the revolution and the
execution of the king, the position of the common folk has not improved.
They continue to be burdened with taxes and to suffer under the sway of
the rich, the lawyers and the priests. The promise that "all popery and
episcopacy and tyranny should be rooted out" has not been kept; the
soldiers now ask what they were fighting for. And Winstanley appeals to
Cromwell to give true liberty to the oppressed common people.
The main part of the work begins with an attempt "to find out
where true freedom lies." Winstanley believes that it resides in the
free use of the fruits of the earth. "A man had better to have had no
body than to have no food for it." (35: pp. 295) More specifically, true
freedom consists of the free use of land. For the sake of land, kings
declare wars, ministers preach, and the rich oppress the poor. And this
"outer bondage" engenders "inner bondage": "the inward bondages of the
mind, as covetousness, pride, hypocrisy, envy, sorrow, fears,
desperation and madness, are all occasioned by the outward bondage that
one sort of people lay upon another." (35: p. 295)
Proceeding from this materialist view of society, Winstanley
develops a plan for a new social structure in which private land use is
abolished and where "external" and "internal" bondage disappear as a
result. Subordination of private interests to common interests is put
forward as the basic principle of social organization. "There is but
bondage and freedom, particular interest or common interest; and he who
pleads to bring in particular interest into a free commonwealth will
presently be seen and cast out, as one bringing in kingly slavery
again." (35: p. 342)
More specifically, according to Winstanley's scheme, private land
ownership, trade and money are done away with. Land is tilled by
individual large families under the supervision and control of state
officials. Implements are kept in each family but not as private
possessions: the head of the family is responsible for their care, under
penalty of law. Horses are allotted by the state. After the harvest,
all produce is brought to a state warehouse.
[96]
Craftsmen are in the same position; they get raw materials from state
storehouses and deliver their products there. They work either in
families or in communal workshops. Citizens are transferred by the
administration from one family to another, depending on the demand for
manpower or their skills for a specific job.
Besides free citizens, those who have been deprived of their
freedom by the courts also work. Sometimes Winstanley refers to them as
bondsmen. They work at the same jobs as the free men but generally do
the more menial tasks. They are supervised by officials called
task-masters.
"If they do their tasks, [the task-master] is to allow them
sufficient victuals and clothing to preserve the health of their bodies.
But if they prove desperate, wanton or idle, and will not quietly
submit to the law, the task-master is to feed them with short diet, and
to whip them,
for a rod is prepared for the fool's back, till such time as their proud hearts do bend to the law. ...
"And if any of these offenders run away, there shall be hue and
cry sent after him, and he shall die by the sentence of the judge when
taken again." (35: p. 335)
The status of slave does not automatically extend to relatives,
if they have done no wrong. The purpose of slavery is to reeducate
citizens who have strayed in order to "kill their pride and
unreasonableness, that they may become useful men in the commonwealth."
(35: p. 386)
All necessities are obtained from state shops free of charge.
Here, a difficulty clearly arises, for "covetous, proud and
beastly-minded men desire more, either to lie by them to look upon, or
else to waste and spoil it upon their lusts; while other brethren live
in straits for want of the use thereof. But the laws and faithful
officers of a free commonwealth do regulate the unrational practice of
such men." (35: p. 369) Indeed, according to the law, the head of a
family that consumes more than it needs is punished first by public
reprimand and then by being made a bondsman for a fixed term. The same
solution is proposed for another difficulty--how to provide motivation
for everyone to work the necessary time and with the necessary
productivity in the absence of a material incentive. A citizen who
refuses to carry out assigned work or a youth avoiding apprenticeship in
a craft is first punished by public reprimand. If this does not help,
he is then whipped, and should he repeat his offense once more, he is
made a bondsman.
[97]
The basic economic and administrative unit of the state is the
family. It is headed by a "father" or "master." The list of the
officials of the free commonwealth begins thus: "In a private family, a
father or master is an officer." (35: p. 324) Regarding his relationship
to other family members, he is "to command them their work and see they
do it, and not suffer them to live idle; he is either to reprove by
words or whip those who offend, for the rod is prepared to bring the
unreasonable ones to experience and moderation." (35: p. 325)
Apparently, blood relationships do not play a substantial role.
The "father" can get dismissed for some offense and be replaced by
another person; family members can be transferred to another family if
necessary.
Beginning with the family, the state is built up of bigger and
bigger units that are administered by the officials listed by
Winstanley. Those who govern the unit immediately superior to the family
are: "a peacemaker, a four-fold office of overseers, a soldier, a
task-master, an executioner." The peace-maker is obliged to appeal to
the conscience of offenders or to dispatch them to a province or county
at the discretion of a judge. The task-masters supervise production and
consumption within the families. As for soldiers, the author states that
in fact, "all officials are soldiers." (35: p. 333) The function of
soldiers (in the direct sense of the word) is to offer assistance to
officials and to provide defense for them during times of disorder. The
task-master is in charge of those sentenced to forced labor. The
executioner is obliged to "cut off the head, hang or shoot to death, or
whip the offender according to the sentence of law." (35: p. 335)
All posts, from the lowest to the highest, are filled by election
on a yearly basis. The country is governed by a parliament, also
reelected annually. All citizens may vote from the age of twenty and are
eligible for election at forty. Many citizens, however, are deprived of
active participation in governing; some are even disenfranchised. "All
uncivil livers, as drunkards, quarrellers, fearful ignorant men, who
dare not speak truth lest they anger other men; likewise all who are
wholly given to pleasure and sports, of men who are full of talk; all
these are empty of substance, and cannot be experienced men, therefore
not fit to be chosen officers in a commonwealth; yet they may have a
voice in the choosing.
"Secondly, all those who are interested in the monarchical power
and government ought neither to choose nor be chosen officers to
[98]
manage the commonwealth's affairs, for these cannot be friends to common
freedom." (35: p. 321) Others deprived of rights include: "All those
who have been so hasty to buy and sell the commonwealth's land, and so
to entangle it upon a new account.. ..These are covetous men, not
fearing God, and their portion is to be cast without the city of peace
amongst the dogs." (35: pp. 322, 323)
Earlier, during the first period of the Digger movement, Winstanley
had been an opponent of all coercion and state power. He believed that
law was necessary for those living under the curse of property but that
it becomes unnecessary for those who live under principles of justice
and community. In the pamphlet "Letter to Lord Fairfax," he asserts that
no one who obeyed just law would dare to arrest or enslave a neighbor.
Following the logic of all such movements, however, Winstanley,
in his "Law of Freedom" (published just three years later), readily
grants that in the state he is planning it will be possible to arrest
and (literally) enslave one's neighbor. His work contains a detailed
account of the punishments to be invoked: "He who strikes his neighbour
shall be struck himself by the executioner, blow for blow, and shall
lose eye for eye, tooth for tooth, limb for limb, life for life; and the
reason is that men may be tender of one another's bodies, doing as they
would be done by." (35: pp. 375-380) Striking an official is punishable
by a year of forced labor. "He who endeavours to stir up contention
among neighbours, by tale-bearing or false report," is at first
reproved, then whipped; third offenders become servants for three
months, and if the offense is reported once again, "he shall be a
servant forever." (35: p. 380) Forced labor is the penalty for failing
to render assistance to the task-master or for attempting to engage in
buying and selling. An actual sale or purchase of land is punishable by
death. A man who calls land his own is to be "set upon a stool" and held
up to ridicule, and if he becomes abusive, he can be executed.
The army is fundamental to the state. It is divided into the
officers Corps, made up of all officials, and the soldiers, made up of
the general population.
"The use or work of a fighting army in a commonwealth is to beat
down all that arise to endeavor to destroy the liberties of the
commonwealth." It must defend the state against those who "seek their
own interest and not common freedom, and through treachery do endeavor
to destroy the laws of common freedom, and to enslave both the land
[99]
and people of the commonwealth to their particular wills and lusts."
(35: p. 357) The army also opposes foreign enemies; it has one more
function--the establishment of the "Law of Freedom" in other lands. "If a
land be conquered and so enslaved as England was under the kings and
conquering laws, then an army is to be raised with as much secrecy as
may be, to restore the land again and set it free, that the earth may
become a common treasury to all her children." (35: p. 358)
In many respects, Winstanley's socialist concepts, as we have seen,
are much more moderate than those of his predecessors More and,
especially, Campanella. Only private ownership of land, labor products
and, partly, that which later came to be called the "means of
production" are abolished. There is no mention of communal wives or the
communal upbringing of children. In fact, Winstanley frequently objects
to more extreme views, obviously attacking other more radical trends. In
the section "A short declaration to take off prejudice," he writes:
"Some, hearing of this common freedom, think there must be a community
of all the fruits of the earth whether they work or no, therefore strive
to live idle upon other men's labor. Others, through the same
unreasonable beastly ignorance, think there must be a community of all
men and women for copulation, and so strive to live a bestial life."
(35: p. 302) The author asserts that, on the contrary, families will
live separately and own their own furnishings in peace. (35: p. 288)
Laws must insulate citizens from those who hold such "false opinions"
and punish such "ignorant and insane behavior."
In one area, however, Winstanley went much further than More and
Campanella--in his attitude toward religion. The lukewarm attitude
toward religion and the Church of the earlier two writers goes hand in
hand with their slant toward pantheism and their tendency to deify the
"mechanism of the Universe." In Winstanley, on the other hand, we meet
with an open hostility to the Church and a complete replacement of
religion by ethics and rational science. He sees the chief goal of the
religion of his day as assisting the rich in exploiting the poor. "This
divining doctrine, which you call spiritual and heavenly things, is the
thief and the robber." (35: p. 351) "This doctrine is made a cloak of
policy by the subtle elder brother, to cheat his simple younger brother
of the freedoms of the earth." Winstanley asserts: "They who preach this
divining doctrine are murderers of many a poor heart who is bashful and
simple." (35: p. 352) "So that this divining spiritual doctrine is a
cheat; for while men are gazing up to heaven, imagining
[100]
after a happiness or fearing a hell after they are dead, their eyes are
put out, that they see not what is their birthright, and what is to be
done by them here on earth while they are living." (35: p. 353) But the
end of this deception is near, according to the author:
"And all the priests and clergy and preachers of these spiritual and
heavenly things, as they call them, shall take up the lamentation, which
is their portion, 'Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty
city divinity, which hath filled the whole earth with her sorcery and
deceived all people, so that the whole world wondered after this Beast;
how is it fallen, and how is her judgment come upon her in one hour?'
And further, as you may read, Rev. 18:10." (35: p. 354)
In
Winstanley's future society, ministers of religion will be elected for
one year, just as all the officials are. The duties of the
commonwealth's clergy consist of carrying out functions that, from the
usual point of view, have nothing whatever to do with religion. The
minister is obliged to give sermons on "the affairs of the whole land,
as it is brought in by the postmaster" and on "the law of the
commonwealth," and to comment on "the acts and passages of former ages
and governments, setting forth the benefits of freedom by well-ordered
governments," as well as on "all arts and sciences. ..physic,
chirurgery, astrology, astronomy, navigation, husbandry and such like."
Finally, speeches "may be made sometimes of the nature of mankind, of
his darkness and of his light, of his weakness and of his strength, of
his love and of his envy." (35: pp. 345-346) Moreover, any experienced
person may deliver a sermon, not only a minister.
Thus, under the name of clergy, Winstanley intends a class of
people engaged in propagandizing the official world view and fulfilling,
to an extent, the role of educators. To the objections of a
hypothetical "zealous but ignorant professor," Winstanley replies: "To
know the secrets of nature is to know the works of God; and to know the
works of God within the creation is to know God himself, for God dwells
in every visible work or body." (35: p. 348)
2. The Socialist Novel
In the sixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth
century, We encounter several works of socialist thought separated by
lengthy intervals of several decades or even longer. Toward the end of
the seventeenth century and in the eighteenth, the situation changes; a
steady stream of socialist literature comes into being. Socialist
ideology
[101]
comes into fashion and acquires an influence; in one form or another, a majority of the thinkers of the time are affected by it.
We can distinguish two trends in the general course of things:
entertaining socialist novels intended for a broad audience and the
drier socialist literature of a philosophical and sociological
character. The sources of both types of writing are in More and
Campanella, but by the late seventeenth century the differences become
substantial and the two currents each attain a distinct character.
History of the Sevarites (L 'Histoire des Sévarambes) by
Denis Vairasse may be considered the first of the typical socialist
novels. Volume I, particularly interesting as a specimen of this new
literature, was published in 1675. Adventures at sea are recounted, a
shipwreck, landing on all unknown continent and the story of the
travelers' life on shore. Finally, the travelers meet the inhabitants of
the continent and become acquainted with their strange life. Instead of
the dry descriptions of More and Campanella we are given vivid travel
impressions rendered by the narrator, Captain Siden. Almost the entire
book is devoted to the account of his travels across the land of the
Sevarites and what he saw there. Only the last ten pages contain a
description of the state and economic structure of the place.
The state was founded by a Persian named Sevarias, who discovered
the continent and encountered the savage tribes living there in
conditions of primitive communism--with communality of property and
wives. By a series of ruses, he convinces them that he has arrived from
the sun to tell them the laws and the will of the God of the Sun. These
laws were accepted by the people and have shaped the structure of their
state.
The religion of the Sun is accepted and the Sun itself is
proclaimed king of the land. The Sun appoints a viceroy from among the
inhabitants. In practice, the post of viceroy is filled by lot from
among four candidates proposed by the council of high officials. The
viceroy has absolute power, limited only by the right of the council to
declare him mentally incapacitated. Beneath the viceroy there is a
complex hierarchy of officials, partly elected by the people and partly
appointed from above. These officials enjoy numerous privileges: they
have more wives than other citizens, personal slaves, better houses,
food and clothing.
The great mass of the population (all handsome and well-built
people) live a carefree and happy life in well-organized cities and
magnificent
[102]
communal abodes. A third part of the day they work under the supervision
of officials and spend the rest of the time sleeping or enjoying
themselves.
Beneath them on the social ladder are the state and private slaves,
who are obtained as tribute from conquered nations. They do the heavy
work and their women serve as concubines to citizens and foreign guests.
The economy is based on complete state ownership: Sevarias
"abolished the right of property, deprived private persons of it and
willed it so that all land and wealth should belong exclusively to the
state to dispose of it in such a way that subjects could receive only
what was granted them by officials." (44: p. 422) The entire population
lives and works in communes of a thousand persons; these are located in
large square houses. The communes turn in the products of their work to
the state warehouses, where they also receive all their necessities. In
particular, they are all issued standard clothing; it varies only in
color, depending on the age group of the owner.
"The state takes care of all this, demanding neither taxes nor
tolls, and the whole people under the government of the monarch lives in
happy affluence and with well-secured rest." All citizens are obliged
to work to maintain the state warehouses and "for fear lest they grow
restive in plenty and entertainment or be softened by idleness." (44: p.
423)
All the citizens of the land are beautiful and of fine bearing. Cripples are exiled to remote towns, as are sterile women.
The government painstakingly sees to the complete isolation of
the country from the external world, but the Sevarites are aware of the
latest developments in engineering and the sciences in Europe and Asia.
This is possible because people are sent regularly to foreign lands in
order to learn languages and all other useful knowledge. When abroad,
citizens are forbidden to tell anything at all about their country. To
guarantee that they return home, they are not permitted to leave their
native land until they are able to put up at least three children as a
pledge.
History of the Sevarites gives us a notion of the
socialist novels that followed it. We shall therefore only briefly note a
few other examples that illustrate various aspects of this genre.
The Southern Land (La Terre australe connue), ascribed by Bayle to Gabriel de Foigny, a monk from Lorraine, appeared in 1676. It is
[103]
the story of a voyage to the still unknown fifth part of the globe, in
the Southern Hemisphere. The land discovered by the travelers is
inhabited by an androgynous people--the "Australians." Their life is
founded on complete freedom. Everyone acts as his reason dictates. There
is only a single law according to which all must give birth to at least
one child.
The inhabitants exist in complete innocence, knowing neither clothing
nor government nor the words "thine" and "mine." Everyone receives an
identical upbringing, which from early infancy instills in the
inhabitant the idea that all are equal. (45)
The Adventures of Telemachus (Les Aventures de Télémaque) by
Fenelon appeared in 1699. The interest of this book lies in the fact
that it surveys not only the ideal socialist society but intermediate
forms as well. The "first" and "second" phases of socialism are
discussed. In quest of Odysseus, Telemachus visits two different
communities: Boetica and Salentum. Land tenure in Boetica is communal.
All property--Iand, fruit of the earth and trees, cows' and goats'
milk--is held in common. Most of the inhabitants are tillers or
herdsmen. The arts are considered harmful and there are almost no
craftsmen. The citizens see their happiness in simplicity, thanks to
which no one feels any deprivation. They live in families in conditions
of perfect equality.
Salentum had been brought to economic ruin by the extravagant and
proud King Idomeneus. Mentor, the wise old man who accompanies
Telemachus, and who is in reality the goddess Minerva in disguise,
establishes a new regime which is an intermediate stage on the path to
complete communality. The population is divided into seven classes, each
with its own prescribed type of dwelling, clothing, food, furniture and
parcel of land. Private ownership is preserved, but in a limited form;
no one possesses more land than is necessary for his subsistence. Trade
is also permitted. (46)
The Republic of Philosophers or the History of the Ajaoiens, attributed
to Fontenelle, appeared in 1768. A storm tosses some travelers onto an
unknown shore, the island of Ajao. The island had many years before been
conquered by the Ajaoiens, who annihilated a large part of the
indigenous population and made slaves of the rest. Production is based
on slave labor. The slaves live in barracks, where they are locked in at
night. The number of slaves is strictly controlled; excess children
[104]
were once killed, but at present they are taken to the shore of China and abandoned there.
The free population of the island--the Ajaoiens--live in complete
communality. The words "mine" and "thine" are unknown to them. The
entire land belongs to the state, which regulates its cultivation and
distributes its products. Everyone is obliged to work in agriculture for
a certain length of time. Crafts are organized in the same way.
It is the duty of all citizens to enter into marriage; moreover,
every man has two wives. Children are brought up not by their parents
but in state schools. The Ajaoiens have no cults, no priests or sacred
books. They worship nature as their good mother. They recognize no
supreme being but believe that everything living has intelligence. They
believe that the soul is material and mortal. (47)
The Southern Discovery by a Flying Man or the French Daedalus: Very Philosophical Novel by
Restif de la Bretonne appeared in 1781. The complicated plot (a love
story, the invention of a means of flying with artificial wings, the
founding of a new state in the Southern Hemisphere) leads to the
discovery of Megapatagonia--the antipode of France. The basic law of
this country is communality: "Without perfect equality there is neither
virtue nor happiness. ...Let everything be held in common among equals.
...Let everyone work for the common good." (48: p. 133) Twelve hours
daily are given over to work in common and the other twelve to
relaxation and sleep. Meals are taken in common. All social distinctions
are determined solely by age: power is in the hands of the old men.
Marriage is temporary, contracted for one year. Emotions are not
much taken into account; only services to the state entitles one to
beautiful girls. The right of first choice therefore belongs to old men
of 150 years or more.
When the wife becomes pregnant, the marriage is dissolved. The
Woman nurses her child at first, then hands it over to official tutors.
The relations between fathers and children are "essentially the same as
between persons who hardly know one another. All children are children
of the people." (48: p. 138)
Dramatic works and painting are forbidden. The Megapatagonians
assert that they "wish only real things and only have time to enjoy the
genuine pleasures, never thinking of imaginary ones." However, there is
music among them, and they sing songs glorifying great men,
[105]
pleasure and love. All other subjects are banned from poetic expression.
The ethics of this society is based on obtaining the greatest
possible pleasure: "Get rid of all unpleasant sensations; use everything
that legitimately supplies pleasure, but without weakening or
overstraining the organs." (48: p. 149) "What especially strengthens
sound morals among us is the fact that moral questions are not left to
the whim of private persons. Thanks to our equality and our communality,
the accepted morality is uniform and public." (48: p. 151)
Megapatagonians describe the content of their religious doctrine
thus: "To use one's organs in accordance with the intention of nature,
abusing nothing and neglecting nothing." (48: p. 140) In answer to the
question of temples, they point to the sky and to the earth. They esteem
the sun as the universal father and the earth as the universal mother.
3. The Age of Enlightenment
We now turn to sociological and philosophical socialist
literature, once again touching on but a few works which exerted the
greatest influence on the development of chiliastic socialism.
Jean Meslier's
Testament stands out among writings of this
type by many aspects of its composition, by its unusual fate, as well
as by the astonishing figure of its author. Throughout his adult life,
Jean Meslier (1664-1729) was a priest in Champagne. His
Testament became
known in copies and excerpts only in 1733, after his death. Voltaire
and other representatives of the Enlightenment found the book of great
interest, but so dangerous that they never dared to publish its complete
text. The first full edition appeared only in 1864, in Amsterdam.
The main distinguishing feature of the
Testament is that
its socialist conception is merely an outgrowth of the central idea of
the work: the struggle with religion. Meslier saw nothing in religion
other than a social role, which consists, in his opinion, of the
furtherance of violence and social inequality by means of deceit and
propagation of superstitions:
"In short, all that your theologists and priests preach to you
with such eloquence and fervor. ..all this is in reality nothing but
illusion, error, falsehood, fabrication and deception: these things were
first invented
[106]
by sly and cunning politicians, repeated by impostors and charlatans,
then given credence by ignorant and benighted men from the common folk,
and finally supported by the power of monarchs and the mighty who
connived at the deceit and error, superstitions and fraudulence, and
perpetuated them by their laws so as to bridle the masses in this way
and make them dance to their tune." (49: I: pp. 67-69)
These two passions--hatred for God and for any kind of inequality or hierarchy--are the driving forces of the
Testament. Meslier
considers religion to be responsible for the majority of human
misfortunes. In particular, it sows dissent and promotes religious wars.
But at the same time, he himself calls with sincere conviction for an
uprising, the killing of kings, and the annihilation of all who could be
considered more fortunate and prosperous.
"In this connection, I am reminded of the wish of one man who
expressed the desire that 'all the mighty of this world and the noble
lords be hanged and strangled with loops made of priests' bowels.' This
judgment is certainly somewhat coarse and harsh, but there is some naive
frankness about it. It is brief but eloquent and in a few words
expresses what people of this kind really deserve." (49: I: p. 71)
To Meslier religion was an absurd superstition that cannot
survive the slightest brush with reason. Of all the religions, the most
absurd is the religion of the Christians, whom he calls
Christ-worshipers. But it would be wrong to seek the reason for this
attitude in an overly rationalistic turn of mind of the author. Refuting
Christianity, Meslier is at the same time ready to believe the wildest
superstitions and to repeat the most absurd rumors. For instance, it
seems nonsensical to him that God could have had but a single Son, while
much lesser creatures are much better endowed. Many animals bear ten or
twelve offspring at once.
"They say that a Polish countess named Margaret has given birth
to thirty-six babies at once. And a Dutch countess, also Margaret, who
had laughed at a poor woman burdened with children, gave birth to as
many children as there are days in the year, that is, 365, and all of
them later got married. (See the Annals of Holland and Poland.)" (49:
II: p. 19)
It is clear that Meslier's point of departure is a hatred for God
and that his arguments are merely an attempt to justify this sentiment.
[107]
The person of Christ is especially hateful to him, and here he literally
runs out of terms of abuse. "And what of our God--and
Christ--worshipers? To whom do they ascribe divinity? To the paltry man
who had neither talent, nor intelligence, nor knowledge, nor skill, and
was utterly scorned in the world. Whom do they ascribe it to? Shall I
say? Indeed I shall: they ascribe it to the lunatic, demented, wretched
bigot and ill-starred gallows-bird." (49: II: p. 25) The champion of the
rights of the poor perceives irrefutable proof of Christ's teaching in
the fact that "he was always poor, and was merely the son of a
carpenter." (49: II: p. 26)
Religion is the source of most social evils and, in particular, of
inequality, which is maintained solely by its authority. Meslier
recognizes the need for "some dependence and subordination" in every
society. But at present, power is based on violence, murder and crime.
In his
Testament there is nothing said about concrete measures
for improving the position of the poor nor about the rich doing
something to help. The book merely fans the hatred of the former for the
latter.
"You are told, dear friends, about devils; they frighten you with
the devil's name alone; you are forced to believe that devils are the
most evil and repulsive of creatures, that they are the worst enemies of
humankind, that they strive only to ruin people and render them unhappy
in hell forever. ...But know, dear friends, that for you the most evil
and true devils, those you ought to fear, are those people of whom I
speak--you have no worse and no more evil enemies than the noble and the
rich." (49: II: p. 166)
The essence and true cause of inequality is private property, which also is justified by religion.
"For this reason some drink and stuff themselves, wallowing in
luxury, while others die from starvation. For this reason some are
almost always happy and gay, while others are eternally sad and
grieving." (49: II: p. 201)
Meslier's entire social program comes down to a few lines:
"What a great happiness it would be for people if they used all life's blessings together." (49: II: p. 209)
In a just society, Meslier feels, production and consumption must be organized according to principles of communality.
"People ought to possess all wealth and riches of the earth together
[108]
and on equal terms and also use them together and equitably." (49: II: p. 198)
Food, clothing, education for children, ought not to differ greatly
in different families. Everyone ought to work under the guidance of wise
elders (in another passage, Meslier speaks about elected officials).
These measures would lead to miraculous results. No one would be
in need; everyone would love his neighbor. Heavy work, deceit, vanity,
would all disappear. Then, Meslier says, "no unhappy people would be
seen on earth, whereas at present we come across them on every hand."
(49: II: p. 217)
Family relations would also change, for a great evil introduced
by the church would fall away--the indissolubility of marriage. "It is
necessary to provide the identical freedom to men and to women to come
together without hindrance, following their own inclination, and the
freedom also to separate and leave one another when life together
becomes intolerable or when a new attraction moves them to contracting a
new union." (49: II: p. 214)
Meslier's
Testament leaves the impression of a profoundly
personal work revealing intimate aspects of its author's personality.
Therefore, the passages that bear directly on this personality are
especially interesting.
The book opens with Meslier addressing his parishioners:
"Dear friends, during my lifetime I was unable to say openly what
I have thought about the order and method of governing men, of their
religion and their rights, for this would have been fraught with highly
dangerous and lamentable consequences. Therefore, I decided to tell you
this after my death." (49: I: p. 55) Meslier says of himself: "I never
was so foolish as to attach any significance to the sacraments and
absurdities of religion; I have never felt bent to take part in them or
even to speak of them with respect and approval." (49: II: p. 73) "With
all my heart I detested the absurd duties of my profession and
especially the idolatrous and superstitious masses and nonsensical and
ridiculous holy communion that I was obliged to perform." (49: I: p. 77)
The book ends with these words:
"After all I have said, let people think about me, let them judge
me and say of me and do whatever they please. I do not care. Let people
adapt themselves and govern themselves as they please, let
[109]
them be wise or mad, let them be kind or evil, let them speak of me as
they please after my death. I will have nothing to do with it at all. I
have given up almost any participation in the things of the world. The
dead with whom I will travel the same road are troubled by nothing, they
care for nothing. And with this
nothing I shall end here. I myself am not more than nothing and soon will be, in the full sense of the word, nothing." (49: II: p. 377)
These were not idle words: Meslier committed suicide at the age of sixty-five.
The history of the
Testament is curious. Its full text (or
perhaps a series of extracts) came into the hands of Voltaire, who was
greatly impressed. He wrote of the work: "This is a composition of
absolute necessity for demons, an excellent catechism of Baal-zebub.
Know that it is a rare book, a perfection." (49: III: p. 405)
To those he called "brethren," Voltaire wrote repeatedly, urging them to circulate extracts from the
Testament.
"Know that God's blessing is on our nascent church: In one of the
provinces, three hundred copies of Meslier have been distributed, which
has produced many new converts." (49: III: p. 417)
The work was thought to be dangerous. In arguing for its publication, Voltaire wrote:
"Is it impossible, without compromising anyone, to turn to that
good old soul Merlin? I would not wish for any of our brethren to take
the slightest risk." (49: III: p. 416)
"Let us thank the good people who distribute it gratis and pray to the Lord to bless this useful reading." (49: III: p. 419)
"You have clever friends who would be not unwilling to have this
book in a safe place; moreover, it is suitable for the edification of
youth." (49: III: p. 408)
"Jean Meslier must convince the whole world. Why is his Gospel so
little circulated? You are too retiring in Paris! You are hiding your
lamp." (49: III: p. 410)
"In a Christian fashion, I wish for the
Testament of the priest to be multiplied like the five loaves to nourish four or five thousand souls." (49: III: p. 411)
Later, in 1793, when the Convention was carrying out a program of
de-Christianization and introducing the cult of Reason, Anacharsis
Cloots proposed putting up in the temple of Reason a statue of the
[110]
first priest to reject religious error--"the brave, magnanimous and great Jean Meslier."
The Code of Nature or the True Spirit of the Law by Morelly
appeared in 1755. Almost nothing is known about the author; arguments
are still going on as to whether he ever existed or whether "Morelly" is
simply a pseudonym.
At the root of Morelly's system is a notion about the natural
state or the "code of nature" to which mankind should adhere in order to
live a moral and happy life. The breaking away from the natural state
was caused by private property, the cause of all human misery. Only by
abolishing it will mankind return to its natural and happy state.
Part four of the work contains a system of laws which, according
to Morelly, ought to serve as the foundation of an ideal society.
A central place is occupied by three "fundamental and inviolable
laws." The first abolishes private property. An exception is made only
for things which a person uses "for his needs, his pleasures, or his
daily work." The second law proclaims all the citizens to be public
persons whom the state provides with work and maintenance. The third law
proclaims universal obligatory service "in conformity with the
Distributive Laws."
All citizens from the age of twenty to twenty-five are obliged to
be engaged in agriculture; they are then either retained in their place
or made artisans. At the age of forty, everyone has the right of free
choice of profession.
Everything produced is distributed through communal storehouses. Trade and barter are forbidden by the "inviolable law."
The population lives in towns broken up into equal blocks. All
buildings are of the same shape. Everyone wears clothing of the same
fabric.
On reaching a certain age, everyone is to marry. Children are
brought up in the family until the age of five, then they are placed in
institutions designated for their further upbringing. The training (as
well as the food and clothing) of all children is absolutely the same.
At the age of ten, children move to workshops to continue their
training.
The number of persons who devote themselves to science and the
arts is strictly limited "for each type of occupation and for each town
as well."
[111]
"Moral philosophy" is limited once and for all to the propositions worked out in Morelly's treatise:
"Nothing will be added beyond the limits prescribed by law." (50: p. 202)
On the other hand, unrestricted freedom of investigation is granted in the area of natural science.
The laws set forth by Morelly are to be engraved on columns or pyramids erected in the main square of each town.
Anyone attempting to change the sacred laws is to be declared mad and immured in a cave for life:
"His children and all his family will renounce his name." (50: p. 238)
We have already come across all these propositions in More and
Campanella. But Morelly's system is of interest in that it contains the
idea of the development of society from a primitive state to socialism.
Mankind once lived in a natural state, the Golden Age, the memory
of which is preserved among all peoples. But this state was lost due to
the mistaken introduction of private property by legislators. A return
to a condition where no private property exists will take place thanks
to progress, which Morelly considers to be the basic driving force of
history.
"The phenomena that I observe demonstrate everywhere, even in a
gnat's wing, the presence of a consistent development. I experience, I
feel the progress of reason. I am justified, therefore, to say that by
some miraculous analogy there also exist favorable transformations in
the moral field, and that despite their power and pleasantness, the laws
of nature do only gradually gain complete power over mankind." (50: p.
159)
Only after having experienced various forms of rule will the
people understand what is truly good. The society described by Morelly
will arise ultimately, as an inevitable triumph of reason, and mankind
will come to the end of its journey from the unconscious Golden Age to
the conscious one.
The spread of socialist ideas in the Age of Enlightenment may be
judged by the open sympathy with which they are referred to in the most
influential work of the day--the famous
Encyclopédie. In an
article on "The Legislator" (IX, 1765), the author of which is
apparently Diderot, the fundamental goal of every legislator is
described as the replacement of the "spirit of property" by the "spirit
of community."
[112]
If the spirit of community is dominant in a state, its citizens do not
regret that they have rejected their own will for the sake of the common
will; love for their homeland becomes their only passion. These
somewhat vague pronouncements are rendered more concrete by references
to the laws of Peru as models of laws based on the spirit of community. *
"The laws of Peru strove to unite the citizens by bonds of humanity;
while the legislation of other countries forbid doing harm to another,
in Peru the laws prescribe tirelessly doing good. Laws establishing (to
the extent possible in the limitations of a natural state) the
communality of property weakened the spirit of property--the source of
all evil. The most festive days in Peru were those days when the common
field was being tilled, the field of an old man or an orphan. He who was
punished by not being permitted to work in the common field considered
himself a most unhappy man. Each citizen worked for all the citizens and
brought the fruits of his labor to state granaries and received the
fruit of other citizens' labor as reward." (Quoted in 51: p. 127)
Later, in 1772, Diderot returned to thoughts on the socialist form of state organization. In his work
Supplement au voyage de Bougainville, he describes the life of the people of Tahiti, whose island the traveler is supposed to have visited.
The savages have everything in common. They work their fields
together. Marriage does not exist and children are brought up by the
community. Addressing the traveler, an old Tahitian says:
"Here, everything belongs to all, while you have preached a
difference between 'mine' and 'thine.' " (52: p. 43) "Leave us our
morals. They are wiser and more virtuous than yours. We do not want to
exchange what you call ignorance for your useless knowledge. We have
everything that we need and whatever is useful to us. Do we deserve
contempt merely because we did not invent superfluous necessities? Don't
inspire in us either your false necessities or your chimerical
virtues." (52: p. 44)
"Our girls and women belong to all. ...A young Tahitian girl
giving herself up to the delights of a young Tahitian boy's embrace
would wait impatiently for her mother to undress her and bare her
* In the first chapter of the next section of
this book, the reader will find information on the social and economic
structure of the Inca empire, which is what is meant here by Peru.
[113]
breasts. ...Without shame or fear she accepts in our presence,
surrounded by innocent Tahitians, to the sound of flutes and the dance,
the caresses of him who was chosen by her youthful heart and the secret
voice of her feelings. Are you capable of replacing with a more worthy
and greater feeling the feeling that we instilled in them and which
inspires them?" (52: pp. 43-45)
Diderot's attitude toward socialist theories may also be judged by the fact that when Morelly's
Code of Nature was
included in various collections of his works, he did not protest. This
testifies not only to Diderot's moral principles but to his sympathy for
socialist ideas as well.
Deschamps's
Truth or the True System. In conclusion, we
will take note of one of the theoreticians of socialism in the
eighteenth century, the Benedictine monk Deschamps. During his lifetime,
he published
Letters on the Spirit of the Times (1769) and
The Voice of Reason Against the Voice of Nature (1770), both anonymously. But his most original ideas are contained in his
Truth or the True System, which remained in manuscript and was published only in our century (and in complete form only in the last few years; see 53).
Deschamps is the author of one of the most striking and
internally consistent socialist systems. He is also a philosopher of the
highest order, and is sometimes referred to as a precursor of Hegel.
That is unquestionably correct, but while following a path similar to
the one Hegel would take later, Deschamps also developed many concepts
which were to be enunciated by Hegel's disciples of the left--Feuerbach,
Engels, and Marx. And in his conception of Nothingness he anticipates
in many respects the contemporary existentialists.
Deschamps's outlook is very close to materialism, although it
does not coincide with materialism entirely. He sees only matter in the
world, but his understanding of it is unusual.
"The world has existed always and will exist eternally." (53: p.
317) In it there is an unending process going on of the appearance of
certain parts out of others and their destruction. "All beings emerge
one out of the other, enter one into the other, and all the various
species are essentially only aspects of a universal type. ...All beings
have life in them no matter how dead they seem, for death is merely a
lesser manifestation of life and not its negation." (53: p. 127)
Life for Deschamps is equated to various forms of motion. He says
of nature: "Everything in it possesses a capacity for feeling, life,
[114]
thought, reason, i.e., motion. For what do all these words mean if not
the action or motion of the particles we consist of?" (53: p. 135)
This determines man's place in the universe and, in particular, his
freedom of action: "If we believe that we possess a will and freedom,
that results, first, from the absurdity that forces us to believe in a
God and consequently to believe that we have a soul which has its merits
and faults before God, and, secondly, because we cannot see the inner
springs of our mechanism." (53: pp. 136-137)
Deschamps considers God to be an idea created by mankind, a
product of definite social relations based on private property. Religion
did not exist before these relations took shape, and it will no longer
exist when they are destroyed. Religion itself is not only the result of
the oppression of people but also a means facilitating this oppression.
It is one of the basic obstacles to the transition of mankind to a
happier social condition.
Deschamps says: "The word 'God' must be eliminated from our
languages." (53: p. 133) Nevertheless, he was a passionate opponent of
atheism. Of his system he has the following to say: "At first glance, it
might be possible to think that it is a concise formulation of atheism,
for all religion is destroyed in it. But upon consideration, it is
impossible not to be convinced that it is not a formulation of atheism
at all, for in place of a rational and moral God (whom I do subject to
destruction, for he merely resembles a man more powerful than other men)
I set being in the metaphysical sense, which is the basis of morality
that is far from arbitrary." (53: p. 154)
Deschamps has in mind his understanding of the universe, to which he ascribed three specific aspects. The first is
totality [le tout], that
is, the universe as a unity of all its parts. This totality is the
"basis whose manifestations are all visible beings," but which has
another, nonphysical nature which is unlike its parts. Therefore, it
cannot be seen but can be comprehended by reason. The second aspect is
everything [tout], that is, the universe as a single concept.
"Totality presupposes the presence of the parts.
Everything does not presuppose this.. ..I understand
everything as existence in itself, existence by itself. ..in other words. ..existence through nothing but itself." (53: pp. 87-88)
"Everything, not consisting of parts, exists; it is inseparable from
totality, which consists of parts and of which
everything is simultaneously a confirmation and a negation." (53: p. 124)
But perhaps the most striking of Deschamps's three aspects of the
[115]
universe is the third; it stresses the negative character of definitions of
everything. "Everything is
no longer a mass of entities but a mass without parts. ..not a single
entity existing in many entities. .. but a singular entity which denies
any existence apart from itself. .. about which it is possible only to
deny that which is asserted in the other--for it is not sentient and not
the result of sentient entities but, rather,
nothing [rien], nonbeing itself, which alone cannot be anything but the negation of what is sentient." (53: pp. 125-126)
"Everything is
nothing." (53: p. 129) "No doubt no one before me has ever written that
everything and
nothing are
one and the same." (53: p. 130) For Deschamps, this principle is basic
to his doctrine on existence: "What is the cause of existence? Answer:
Its cause resides in the fact that
nothing is something, in that it is existence, in that it is
everything." (53: p. 321) Here he finds a place for God as well: "God is
nothing, nonexistence
itself." (53: p. 318) Apparently, these principles, along with the
deductions resulting from them, are what Deschamps opposes to atheism,
which he declares a purely negative, destructive doctrine. He calls it
the "atheism of cattle," i.e., of beings who have not
overcome religion, and who have not even developed to the level of religion.
Deschamps's arrogant and scornful attitude toward contemporary
philosophers of the Enlightenment is connected with this view. He
accuses them of creating unscientific schemes based on fantasy.
"Let our destroyer-philosophers realize how futile and worthless
were their efforts directed against God and religion. The philosophers
were powerless to carry out their task, until they touched upon the
existence of the civil condition, which alone is the cause of the
appearance of the idea of a moral and universal being and of all
religions." (53: p. 107) "The condition of universal equality does not
derive logically from the doctrine of atheism. It always seemed, to our
atheists as well as to the majority of people, to be a product of
fantasy." (54: p.41)
And fantasies of this sort are by no means harmless. There are
only two ways out: the path proposed by religion and Deschamps's system.
To undermine religion before the ground is prepared for the author's
system is to hasten the coming of a destructive revolution. In
The Voice of Reason, Deschamps says:
"This revolution will obviously have its source in the
contemporary philosophical trends, although the majority does not
suspect this. It will have much more lamentable consequences and bring
much more
[116]
destruction than any revolution caused by heresy. But is this revolution
not already beginning? Has destruction not already befallen the
foundations of religion, are they not ready to collapse, and all the
rest as well?" (Quoted in 54: p. 6)
To the negative character of the
philosophes' atheism Deschamps opposes what he sees as the positive character of his own system:
"The system I am proposing deprives us of the joys of paradise
and the terrors of hell--just like atheism--but, in contrast to atheism,
it leaves no doubt as to the rightness of the destruction of hell and
paradise. Beyond that, it gives us the supremely important conviction,
which atheism does not and can never give, that for us paradise can
exist only in one place, namely, in this world." (53: p. 154)
Deschamps's social and historical doctrine is based on
metaphysics. It is derived from a conception of the evolution of mankind
in the direction of the greatest manifestation of the idea of oneness,
of
totality:
"The idea of
totality is equivalent to the idea of order,
harmony, unity, equality, perfection. The condition of unity or the
social condition derives from the idea of
totality, which is itself unity and union; for purposes of their own well-being, people must live in a social condition." (53: p. 335)
The mechanism of this evolution is the development of the social
institutions which determine all other aspects of human life--Ianguage,
religion, morality. ...For example:
"It would be absurd to suppose that man came from the hands of
God already mature, moral and possessing the ability to speak: speech
developed along with society as it became what it is today." (53: p.
102)
Deschamps considers various manifestations of evil to be the
result of social conditions; he includes even homosexuality, for
example.
The social institutions themselves take shape under the influence
of material factors such as the necessity of hunting in groups and the
guarding of herds, as well as the advantages of man's physical
structure; in particular, that of his hand.
Deschamps divides the entire historical process into three stages or states through which mankind must pass:
"For man there exist only three states: the savage state or the
state of the animals in the forest; the state of law,* and the state of
morals. The first is a state of disunity without unity, without society;
the second
* Elsewhere Deschamps calls this the civil state.
[117]
state--ours--one of extreme disunity within unity, and the third is the
state of unity without disunity. This last is without doubt the only
state capable of providing people, insofar as this is possible, with
strength and happiness." (53: p. 275)
In the savage state people are much happier than in the state of law, in which contemporary civilized mankind lives:
"The state of law for us ...is undoubtedly far worse than the
savage state." (53: p. 184) This is true with respect to contemporary
primitive peoples: "We treat them with disdain, yet there is no doubt
that their condition is far less irrational than ours." (53: p. 185) But
it is impossible for us to return to the savage state, which had to
collapse and give birth to the state of law by force of objective
causes--first and foremost, by the appearance of inequality, authority
and private property.
Private property is the basic cause of all the vices inherent in the state of law: "The notions of
thine and
mine in
relation to earthly blessings and women exist only under cover of our
morals, giving birth to all the evil that sanctions these morals." (53:
p. 178)
The state of law, in Deschamps's opinion, is the state of the
greatest misfortune for the greatest number of people. Evil itself is
considered an outgrowth of this state: "Evil in man is present only due
to the existing civil state, which endlessly contradicts man's nature.
There was no such evil in man when he was in a savage state." (53: p.
166)
But those very aspects of the state of law that make it
especially unbearable prepare the transition to the state of morals
which seems to be that paradise on earth about which Deschamps spoke in a
passage quoted earlier. His description, replete with vivid detail,
contains one of the most unique and consistent of socialist utopias.
All of life in the state of morals will be completely
subordinated to one goal--the maximum implementation of the idea of
equality and communality. People will live without
mine and
thine, all specialization will disappear, as will the division of labor.
"Women would be the common property of men, as men would be the
common possession of women. ...Children would not belong to any
particular man or woman." (53: p. 206) "Women capable of giving suck and
who were not pregnant would nurse all children without distinction.
...But how is it, you will object, that a woman is not to have her own
children? No, indeed! What would she need that property for?" (53: p.
212) The author is not alarmed by the fact that
[118]
such a way of life would lead to incest. "They say that incest goes
against nature. But in fact it is merely against the nature of our
morals." All people "would know only society and would belong only to
it, the sole proprietor." (53: pp. 211-212)
For transition into this state, much that is now considered of value
would have to be destroyed, including "everything that we call beautiful
works of art. This sacrifice would undoubtedly be a great one, but it
would be necessary to make." (53: p. 202) It is not only the
arts--poetry, painting, architecture--that would have to disappear, but
science and technology as well. People would no longer build ships or
study the globe. "And why should they need the learning of a Copernicus,
a Newton and a Cassini?" (53: p. 224)
Language will be simplified and much less rich, and people will
begin to speak one stable and unchanging language. Writing will
disappear, together with the tedious chore of learning to read and
write. Children will not study at all and, instead, will learn
everything they need to know by imitating their elders.
The necessity of thinking will also fall away: "In the savage
state no one thought or reasoned, because no one needed to. In the state
of law, one thinks and reasons because one needs to; in the state of
morals, one will neither think nor reason because no one will have any
need to do this any longer." (53: p. 296) One of the most vivid
illustrations of this change of consciousness will be the disappearance
of all books. They will find a use in the only thing that they are in
reality good for--lighting stoves. All books ever written had as their
goal the preparation for the book which would prove their
uselessness--Deschamps's study. It will outlive the rest, but finally
it, too, will be burned.
People's lives will be simplified and made easier. They will
scarcely use any metals; instead, almost everything will be made of
wood. No large houses will be built and people will live in wooden huts.
"Their furniture would consist only of benches, shelves and tables."
(53: p. 217) "Fresh straw, which would later be used as cattle litter,
would serve them as a good bed on which they would all rest together,
men and women, after having put to bed the aged and the children, who
would sleep separately." (53: p. 221) Food would be primarily vegetarian
and, thus, easy to prepare. "In their modest existence they would need
to know very few things, and these would be just the things that are
easy to learn." (53: p. 225) This change of life style is connected
[119]
to fundamental psychic changes, which would tend to make "the
inclination of each at the same time the common inclination." (53: p.
210) Individual ties between people and intense individual feelings
would disappear. "There would be none of the vivid but fleeting
sensations of the happy lover, the victorious hero, the ambitious man
who had achieved his goal, or the laureled artist." (53: p. 205) "All
days would be alike." (53: p. 211) And people would even come to
resemble one another. "In the state of morals, no one would weep or
laugh. All faces would be almost identical and would express
satisfaction. In the eyes of men, all women would resemble all other
women; and all men would be like all other men in the eyes of women!"
(53: p. 205) People's heads "will be as harmonious as they now are
dissimilar." (53: p. 214) "Much more than in our case, they would adhere
to a similar mode of action in everything, and they would not conclude
that this demonstrates a lack of reason or understanding, as we think
about animals." (53: p. 219)
This new society will give rise to a new world view. "And they would
not doubt--and this would not frighten them in the least--that people,
too, exist only as a result of the vicissitudes of life and someday are
destined to perish as a consequence of the same vicissitudes and,
perhaps, to be eventually reproduced once more by means of a
transformation from one aspect to another." (53: p. 225) "Because they,
like us, would not take into account that they were dead earlier, that
is, that their constituent parts did not exist in the past in human
form; they would also, being more consistent than we, not place any
significance on the termination of this existence in this form in the
future." (53: p. 228) "Their burials would not be distinguishable from
those of cattle." (53: p. 229) For: "their dead fellows would not mean
more to them than dead cattle. ...They would not be attached to any
particular person sufficiently so that they would feel his death as a
personal loss and mourn it." (53: p. 230) "They would die a quiet death,
a death that would resemble their lives." (53: p. 228)
4. The First Steps
We have seen how socialism was nurtured by the philosophy of the
Enlightenment. The new infant came into the world at the time of the
Great Revolution and was suckled by Mother Guillotine. But it took its
first steps down life's path after the heroic epoch of the Terror
[120]
had already passed. It is touching to see traits of the future shaker of
kingdoms and shatterer of thrones emerge from the charming infantile
awkwardness.
In 1796, after Robespierre's fall and during the rule of the
Directoire, a secret society was founded in Paris. It planned a
political coup and worked out a program for a future socialist
organization of the nation. The society was headed by the Secret
Directory of Public Salvation, which relied on a network of agents.
Among its leading members were Philippe Buonarroti and François Emile
(who later called himself Caius Gracchus) Babeuf. A military committee
was created to prepare for the uprising. The conspirators hoped for the
support of the army. According to their calculations, seventeen thousand
men would come to their active aid. After an informer's tip, the
leaders of the conspiracy were arrested; two of them, including Babeuf,
were exiled.
When he returned from exile, Buonarroti continued to propagandize
his views. The majority of the socialist revolutionaries of the day
were under his influence. In particular, he founded a circle in Geneva
which was to exert a great influence on Weitling (whose role in the
formation of Marx's views is well known).
Numerous documents in which the society set forth its views were
published by the government immediately after the conspiracy was
uncovered. A detailed description of the conspiracy and its plans was
later given by Buonarroti in his book
Conspiracy of Equals.
The central principle of this society's program was the need for
equality at any cost. This was reflected in the very title of the work.
The principle of equality was laid down in their "Manifesto" with
invulnerable Gallic logic:
"All men are equal, are they not? This principle is irrefutable,
for only a man who has lost his reason can in full earnestness call
night day." (55: II: p. 134)
Having established this unshakable foundation, the "Manifesto" proceeds to draw conclusions from this axiom:
"We truly want equality--or death. This is what we want." (55:
II: p. 134) "For its sake, we are ready for anything; we are willing to
sweep everything away. Let all the arts vanish, if necessary, as long as
genuine equality remains for us." (55: II: p. 135) "Let there be an
end, at last, to the outrageous differences between the rich and the
poor, the high and the low, the lords and the servants, the governors
and the governed." (55: II: p. 136)
[121]
This led directly to the communality of property:
"The agrarian law, that is, the division of arable land, was a
temporary requirement of unprincipled soldiers, of certain tribes, who
were prompted more by instinct than by reason. We aspire to something
more lofty and just--the community of property." (55: II: p. 135)
The right of individual property was to be abolished. The country
was to be turned into a single economic unit built exclusively on
bureaucratic principles. Trade, except for the smallest transactions,
was to be stopped and money withdrawn from circulation.
"It is necessary that everything produced on the land or in
industry be kept in general storehouses for equitable distribution among
citizens under the supervision of the appropriate officials." (55: II:
p. 309)
Simultaneously, universal obligatory labor is introduced.
"Individuals who do nothing for the fatherland cannot enjoy
political rights of any kind; they are as foreigners afforded the
hospitality of the Republic." (55: II: p. 206)
"To do nothing for the fatherland means not to serve it by useful
labor.. ..The law treats as useful labor the following endeavors:
agriculture, stock raising, fishing, navigation, mechanical and artisan
crafts, petty trade, transportation of men and goods, military arts,
education and scientific activities. ...Persons engaged in teaching or
science must submit certificates of loyalty. Only in this case is their
labor considered useful. ...Officials supervise work and see to it that
jobs are equitably distributed. ...Foreigners are forbidden to take part
in public gatherings. They are under the direct supervision of the
supreme administration, which can deport them to a place of corrective
labor." (55: II: pp. 296-297) Under pain of death they are forbidden to
possess weapons.
The creators of this plan were aware that carrying it out would
entail an unprecedented growth in the number of officials. They pose
this question in broad terms:
"Indeed, never before has a nation possessed them in such great
numbers. Apart from the fact that in certain circumstances every citizen
would be an official supervising himself and others, it is beyond doubt
that public offices would be very numerous and the number of officials
very great." (55: I: p. 372)
Here is how the interrelationship of individuals with the bureaucracy is conceived:
"In the public structure devised by the Committee, the fatherland takes control of an individual from his birth till his death."
[122]
The authorities begin by educating the child:
"Protect him from dangerous false tenderness and by the hand of
his mother lead him to a state institution where he will acquire the
virtues and knowledge necessary for the true citizen." (55: I: p. 380)
Youths are transferred from state schools to military camps; only
later, under the guidance of officials, do they undertake "useful
labor."
"The municipal administration is to be kept constantly aware of
the position of the working people of every class and of the assignments
they are fulfilling. It is to inform the supreme administration in this
regard." (55: II: p. 304) "The supreme administration will sentence to
forced labor. ..persons of either sex who set society a bad example by
absence of civic-mindedness, by idleness, a luxurious way of life,
licentiousness." (55: II: p. 305)
This punishment is described lovingly and in great detail:
"The islands of Marguerite and Honoré, the Hyères, Oléron and Ré
are to be turned into places of corrective labor, where foreigners who
are suspicious and persons arrested for addressing proclamations to the
French people will be sent. There will be no access to these islands.
They will be administered by an organization directly subordinate to the
government." (55: II: p. 299)
After these dark pictures, the section called "Freedom of the Press" is a positive joy.
"It will be necessary to devise means by which all the assistance
that can be expected of the press can be extracted from it, without the
risk of once again endangering the justice of equality and the rights
of the people or of abandoning the Republic to interminable and fatal
discussions." (55: I: p. 390)
The "means" turn out to very simple:
"No one will be allowed to utter views that are in direct
contradiction to the sacred principles of equality and the sovereignty
of the people.. ..The publication of any work having a psuedo-critical
character is forbidden. ...All works are to be printed and disseminated
only if the guardians of the will of the nation consider that its
publication may benefit the Republic." (55: I: p. 391)
One cannot but admire how the creators of this system managed to
Concern themselves with the slightest need of the citizen of the future
Republic.
"In every commune, public meals will be taken, with compulsory attendance for all community members. ...A member of the national
[123]
community will be able to obtain his daily ration only in the district
of his residence, except when he is traveling with the permission of the
administration." (55: II: pp. 306-307)
"Entertainment that is not available to everyone is to be strictly
forbidden." (55: I: p. 299) This is explained in another passage: ". ..
for fear lest imagination, released from the supervision of a strict
judge, should engender abominable vices so contrary to the commonweal."
(55: I: p. 348)
The "Equals" inform us that they are friends of all nations. But
temporarily, after their victory, France is to be stringently isolated.
Until other nations would adhere to the political principles of
France, no close contacts with them can be maintained. Until then,
France will only see a menace for herself in their customs, institutions
and, especially, their governments." (55: I: p. 357)
It appears that there was disagreement among Equals over one
question. Buonarroti felt that a divine principle and immortality of the
soul should be recognized, since for a society "it is essential that
citizens recognize an infallible judge of their secret thoughts and
acts, which cannot be persecuted by law, and that they should believe
that a natural result of faithfulness to humanity and the fatherland
will be eternal bliss." (55: I: p. 348) "All so-called revelation ought
to be banished by law, together with maladies the germs of which ought
to be gradually eradicated. Until that occurs, all were to be free to
give vent to whims, so long as the social structure, universal
brotherhood and the force of the law would not be disrupted." (55: I:
pp. 348-349) Buonarroti believed that "the teaching of Jesus, if
depicted as flowing out of the natural religion from which it does not
differ, could become a support of a reform based on reason." (55: I: p.
168) But Babeuf held a more narrow view: "I attack relentlessly the main
idol, until now venerated and feared by our philosophers, who dared to
attack only his retinue and surroundings. ...Christ was neither a
sans-culotte nor an honest Jacobin nor a wise man nor a moralist nor a philosopher nor a legislator." (55: II: p. 398)
Academician V. P. Volgin, an eminent specialist on the literature
of utopian socialism, notes the important innovation introduced by
Babeuf and the Equals in comparison with other socialist thinkers. While
predecessors like More, Campanella and Morelly focused on a picture of a
fully formed socialist community, Babeuf pondered the problems of the
transitional period as well, suggesting methods for
[124]
establishing and strengthening the newly born socialist system. Indeed,
the records of the Equals yield much that is fascinating and instructive
in this connection.
It goes without saying that in an already established socialist
society, legislative power is to be entirely in the hands of the people.
In all districts, "assemblies of popular sovereignty" are created; each
is made up of all the citizens of a given district. Delegates appointed
directly by the people constitute the "Central Assembly of
Legislators." (The procedure for "appointment" is not further
specified.) The legislative power of these assemblies is restricted,
however, by certain basic principles which "the people themselves are
not empowered to violate or to alter." In addition to legislative
assemblies, and parallel to them, senates consisting of old men are to
be instituted. Supreme power was to be given over to a corporation of
"Guardians of the National Will." This was conceived as a kind of
"tribunal responsible for overseeing the legislators, so that those who
abuse the right of issuing decrees would not encroach upon legislative
power." (55: I: p. 359)
In the period immediately following the revolution, however, a different structure of government was envisaged.
"What kind of authority would this be? Such
was the delicate question that the Secret Directory has subjected to
thorough scrutiny." (55: I: p. 216) The answer to this "delicate
question" could be summed up as follows: power would be concentrated in
the hands of the conspirators or partly shared with individuals
appointed by them.
"It will be proposed to the people of Paris to institute a
National Assembly vested with supreme power and consisting of democrats,
one from every department; meanwhile the Secret Directory will
investigate thoroughly as to which of the democrats ought to be put
forward after the revolution is completed. The Directory will not cease
to act but will carryon supervision of the new Assembly." (55: I: p.
293) After prolonged hesitation, the conspirators almost made up their
minds to "ask the people for a decree which would entrust the
legislative initiative and the implementation of laws" to them alone.
(55: I: p. 290)
In the section entitled "In the Initial Stage of Reform the Agencies Must Be Entrusted Only to Revolutionaries," we read:
"A true Republic should be founded only by those selfless friends
of humanity and the fatherland whose wisdom and courage exceed the
wisdom and courage of their contemporaries." (55: I: p. 375)
[125]
Therefore, a committee composed of these "selfless friends of
humanity" would see to it that "public institutions consisting solely of
the best revolutionaries" should have only a very gradual change of
personnel. (55: I: p. 375)
In more concrete terms, sixty-eight deputies chosen from among
those serving in the Convention of the day were designated by the
Committee to be left in place. To these were to be added another one
hundred deputies "selected by us jointly with the people."
Beginning with the first day of the revolution, economic reforms
were to be undertaken, as set forth in their "economic decree." How good
to learn that implementation was to be on a purely voluntary basis. All
those who would renounce their property voluntarily would make up a
large national community. But everyone would retain the right not to
join this community. Those who did not would acquire the status of
"foreigners" with all the attendant rights and duties sketched in above.
The economic position of "foreigners" is defined in the "Decree on
Taxation," which contains, among other points, such things as:
"1. The sole taxpayers are the individuals who do not join the community. ...
"4. The sum of tax payments in each current year is twice the amount of the preceding year. ...
"6. Persons not party to the national community may be required,
in case of necessity and against payment of future taxes, to supply
produce and manufactured goods to the storehouses of the national
community." (55: II: pp. 312-313)
The decree "On Debts," article three, states that debts owed by
"any Frenchman who has become a member of the national community to any
other Frenchman are annulled." (55: II: p. 313)
Other measures designed to strengthen the newly established
regime and to promote its reforms were elaborated. For instance,
"distribution of the possessions of emigrants, conspirators and enemies
of the people to defenders of the fatherland and to the poor." (55: II:
p. 253)
It is tempting to think that it was profound knowledge of life,
based on personal tragic experience, that prompted the "selfless friends
of humanity" to plan instituting the following highly important
reforms, on the very first day of the revolution:
"Objects belonging to the people [!] and in hock will be
immediately returned without charge. ... On completion of the uprising,
indigent
[126]
citizens now residing in poor lodgings will not return to their habitual
abodes; they will be immediately installed in the houses of the
conspirators." (55: II: p. 281) (The reader should note that the
participants in the "Conspiracy of Equals" used the term "conspirator"
not to refer to themselves but rather to the government and to
representatives of hostile classes.)
Unfortunately, the disciples of the Age of Reason did not leave a
more detailed account of this operation. Had the economy of the time
attained so high a level that the number of indigent citizens no longer
surpassed that of the "conspirators"? Or, if the lodgings of the
"conspirators" would not suffice to accommodate all the indigent, in
what way would the lucky new owners of apartments be chosen? The
documents of the "Conspiracy of Equals" are of little help on these
points,* but we learn some other interesting details.
"The furniture of the above-mentioned rich will be confiscated as necessary for the adequate furnishing of the dwellings of the
sans-culottes. "(55: II: p. 282)
Finally, terror was envisaged as one of the measures of
strengthening the regime. The tribunals which had acted during the
Jacobin terror until the ninth of Thermidor, 1794, were to be restored.
And: "On pain of being held outside the law, return to prison all
persons who were held there until the ninth of Thermidor of year II, if
they have not complied with the call to limit themselves to the
necessities for the benefit of the people." (55: I: p. 404) "Any
resistance must be immediately suppressed by force; the persons involved
are to be exterminated. Also liable to capital punishment are persons
sounding an alarm themselves or causing others to do so; and foreigners,
no matter what their nationality, who are apprehended on the street."
(55: II: p. 232) Members of the existing government--members of the two
Councils and of the Executive Directorate--were to be executed. "The
crime was evident and the punishment had to be death--a great example
was essential." (55: I: p. 283)
"In the Insurgent Committee, views were current to the effect
that the condemned were to be buried under the rubble of their palaces,
whose ruins would serve to remind future generations of the just
punishment meted out on. the enemies of the people." (55: I: p. 284)
In elaborating their system of reforms and practical measures, the
* Although there is the following remark: "It
would be an error to confuse the systematic distribution of lodgings and
clothes with pillage." (55: I: p. 282)
[127]
activists of the "Conspiracy of Equals" did not close their eyes to
objections which they might encounter: "Disorganizers, rebels, they say
to us, all you want is massacre and plunder." Such charges are swept
aside, however: "Never has so broad a plan been conceived and brought
into existence." (55: II: p. 136) "Let them show us," they would
exclaim, "another political system with which such great results could
be obtained with more easily implemented means." (55: I: p. 339)
We note with sorrow how such a perfectly conceived system was
constantly hampered in practice by a host of petty and squalid
difficulties. First of all, the conspirators did not avoid what Rabelais
called "the incomparable grief," that is, lack of money. In the section
entitled "The Participants in the Conspiracy Despised Money,"
Buonarotti says:
"Certain steps were undertaken to obtain means, but the greatest
sum that the Secret Directory ever had at its disposal was 240 francs in
cash, contributed by the ambassador of an allied [?] republic." (55: I:
251)
We cannot help but sympathize when Buonarotti laments: "How
difficult it is to do good armed only with means acknowledged by
reason." (55: I: p. 251)
And a second misfortune befell our heroes--internal discord over
dividing power not yet seized. The Committee was at first joined by a
small group that called itself the Montagnards. But soon, "the Committee
was informed that they had secretly undertaken maneuvers to get around
the conditions which had been agreed upon so as to guarantee that
supreme power in the Republic would be in the Montagnards' hands. The
Committee was so thoroughly convinced they could do no good that it
considered the slightest movement which gave them any power to be an
unforgivable crime." (55: I: p. 286)
And finally, a third misfortune: The Committee turned out to be under the influence of an
agent provocateur. Grisel,
a member of the military committee, "hurried his trusting colleagues
along, overcame obstacles, suggested new measures and never forgot to
encourage those around him with exaggerated pictures of the loyalty of
the Grenelle democratic camp." (55: I: p. 265) And it was this Grisel
who was denouncing the Committee to the authorities!
The Insurgent Committee was already working out the details of
the uprising. One of its members was writing a proclamation called:
"The Insurgent Committee of Public Salvation. ..The people have triumphed, tyranny is no more. ..." (55: I: p. 400)
[128]
"At this point, the writer was interrupted and seized," says
Buonarotti, who seems not to have lost his French wit. The army and the
people had not supported the conspirators: "The standing army, with
weapons in hand, helped the campaign against democracy, while the
population of Paris, persuaded that those arrested were thieves,
remained a passive witness." (55: I: p. 417)
The circumstances of this astonishing episode prompted us to
resort to a form of presentation that perhaps seems out of place in our
narrative. But this dissonance reflects a curious objective property of
the phenomenon under study. At the moment of their inception, socialist
movements often strike one by their helplessness, their isolation from
reality, their naIvely adventuristic character and their comic,
"Gogolian" features (as Berdyaev put it). One gets the impression that
these hopeless failures haven't a chance of success, and that in fact
they do everything in their power to compromise the ideas they are
proclaiming. However, they are merely biding their time. At some point,
almost unexpectedly, these ideas find a broad popular reception, and
become the forces that determine the course of history, while the
leaders of these movements come to rule the destiny of nations. (In this
way a frightened Müntzer climbed over the Allstedt city wall, having
deceived his supporters, only to become, soon thereafter, one of the
leading figures in the Peasant War which shook Germany.) It would seem
that there was no contradiction when Dostoyevsky peopled his novel
The Possessed with
"three and a half' nihilists incapable of making a serious disturbance
in a provincial town, while at the same time predicting an imminent
revolution that would carry away one hundred million lives.
Summary
We shall attempt to sum up those new features of socialist
ideology that we have encountered in utopian socialism and in works of
the Enlightenment.
1. If in the Middle Ages and during the Reformation socialist
ideas developed within movements that were religious, at least formally,
utopian socialism tends to break with religious form and gradually
acquire a character hostile to religion. In More and Campanella we were
able to point out an alienated and at times ironic attitude toward
Christianity. Winstanley is openly hostile to contemporary religions.
[129]
Deschamps rejects all religion, declaring the idea of God to be a human
invention, the result of mankind's oppressed state and an instrument of
oppression. In its stead, he puts forward the enigmatic conception of
God who is Nothing. Finally, Meslier bases his world outlook on a hatred
of religion and Christianity--and of Christ in particular. Thus one can
speak of a gradual merging of socialist ideology and atheism.
2. The Socialism of this epoch borrows the idea derived from medieval
mysticism (Joachim of Flore's, for instance) that history is an
immanent and orderly evolutionary process. However, the goal and the
driving force invested in this process by the mystics--knowledge of God
and merging with Him--is eliminated. Instead,
progress is recognized as the motivating force of history, and human reason is seen as its supreme product.
3. Socialist doctrines preserve the notion of the medieval mystics about the
three stages in the historical process, as well as the scheme of the
fall of
mankind and its return to the original state in a more perfect form.
The socialist doctrines contain the following components:
a. The myth of a primordial "natural state" or "golden age," which was destroyed by that bearer of evil called private property.
b. A castigation of the way things are. Contemporary
society is pronounced incurably depraved, unjust and meaningless, ready
only to be scrapped. Only on its ruins can a new social structure be
built, a structure that would guarantee people every happiness of which
they are capable.
c. The prophecy of a new society
built on socialist principles, a society in which all present
shortcomings would disappear. This is the only path for mankind to
return to the "natural state," as Morelly put it: from the unconscious
Golden Age to the conscious one.
4. The idea of "liberation," which was understood by the medieval
heresies to be liberation of the spirit from the power of matter, is
transformed into an appeal for liberation from the morality of
contemporary society, from its social institutions and, most of all,
from private property.
At first, reason is recognized to be the driving force of this
liberation, but gradually its place is taken over by the people, the
poor. In the world view of the participants in the "Conspiracy of
Equals," we can see this conception in finished form. As a result, new
concrete features appear in the plan for the establishment of the
"society of the future": terror, occupation of the apartments of the
rich by the poor, confiscation of furniture, abolition of debts, etc.
[130]
PART TWO
STATE SOCIALISM
[131]
IV.
South America
1. The Inca Empire
In the first part of this study, we have seen how the stable set
of social ideas that we have called chiliastic socialism was expressed
in various periods of human history, over the course of at least two and
a half millennia. We shall now try to trace the attempts to implement
these ideas in particular social structures. Our primary goal is to show
that here, just as in the case of chiliastic socialism, we are dealing
with a universal phenomenon, one by no means limited to our century. We
shall review several examples of states whose life was built, in great
part, on socialist principles.
We encounter here a far more difficult task than the one that
occupied us in Part I of this study. After all, an author of a work in
which socialist principles are propounded must proceed from the notion
that these ideas are novel and unusual to his reader. He is therefore
compelled to explain them. But in the scant economic and political
documentation that has been preserved from remote epochs (and sometimes
cultures without written languages are involved), the meanings of the
terms used are not elucidated for the reader of the future. Such
documents were intended for people to whom the terminology would have
been understandable. To reconstruct from scattered hints the way of
life, to comprehend the legal and economic relations of the members of a
society far removed in time, is therefore a task of extreme difficulty,
much more difficult than to reconstruct the appearance and behavior of a
prehistoric creature from the fossil remains. In most cases, we
[132]
see the historians offering a series of opinions rather than any definitive formulation.
If the present epoch is excluded, it was only once that Europeans
were able to observe at first hand a state of this type. Many
intelligent and observant travelers left accounts of this state, and
certain of its natives acquired European culture and left narratives
about the way of life of their fathers. This phenomenon, which is far
more important for the historian of socialism than descriptions of the
appearance and behavior of a dinosaur would be for a paleontologist, is
Tawantinsuyu--the Inca empire conquered by Spanish invaders in the
sixteenth century.
The Spaniards discovered the Inca state in 1531. At that time, it
had existed for some two hundred years and had achieved its peak,
encompassing the territory of contemporary Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, the
northern half of Chile and the northwestern part of Argentina. According
to several sources, its population was twelve million.
The empire, as the Spaniards found it, was as well organized as
it was huge. According to their accounts, the capital, Cuzco, rivaled
the biggest European cities of that time. It had a population of about
200,000. The Spaniards were struck by the magnificent palaces and
temples, with façades as much as two hundred meters long, the aqueducts
and the paved streets. The houses were built of large stones so finely
polished and fitted together that they seemed to be of one piece.
Outside, Cuzco, there was a fortress that was built of stones weighing
twelve tons each; it so amazed the Spaniards that they refused to
believe it could have been made by men, without the help of demons. (56:
p. 114, 57: pp. 72-82)
The capital city was joined to the outlying parts of the empire
by excellent roadways, in no way inferior to Roman roads and far better
than the ones in Spain at the time. The roads ran along dikes in swampy
terrain, cut through rock and crossed gorges by means of suspension
bridges. (56: pp. 106, 113,57: pp. 93-96) An efficiently organized
service of foot messengers guaranteed communications between the capital
and the rest of the country. Around the capital and other towns, as
well as along the roads, there were state storehouses full of produce,
clothing, utensils and military equipment. (56: pp. 61-67,57: pp.
100-101, 58: pp. 61-67)
In stark contrast to the superb organization of the Inca state,
its level of technical knowledge was astonishingly primitive. Most tools
[133]
and weapons were made of wood and stone. Iron was unknown, as was the
plow, and land was tilled with a wooden hoe. The only domestic animal
was the llama, from which meat and wool were obtained but which was not
used for farming or transportation. All farm work was performed
manually, and travel was either by foot or by palanquin. Finally, the
Incas had no writing system, although they could transmit great amounts
of information by means of quipu, a complex system of knotted strings.*
Hence the low level of technology had to be compensated for by
perfect organization of huge masses of the population. As a natural
result, private interests were to a considerable extent subordinated to
those of the state. And so, as we might expect, we encounter certain
socialist features in Inca society.
What follows is a brief sketch of its structure. Fortunately,
much information is available. The conquistadors proved to be more than
mindless military men; they grasped much of what they saw and some of
their accounts have survived. In their wake came Catholic priests, who
also left detailed descriptions. Finally, the conquistadors married
girls from the Inca ruling circles, and the children of these unions,
who belonged to the Spanish aristocracy, at the same time retained close
ties with the local population. To them belong the most valuable
descriptions of life in the Inca state prior to the Spanish conquest.
The population of the Inca state was divided into three strata:
1. Incas--the ruling class, descendants of a tribe that in the
past had conquered an ancient state near Lake Titicaca. Various authors
refer to them as aristocracy, the elite, the bureaucracy. From this
class came the administrators, the army officer corps, priests and
scholars--and of course, the absolute ruler of the country, the Inca.
This class was hereditary, but chiefs of conquered tribes and even
soldiers distinguished in war might occasionally enter it.
2. The bulk of the population--peasants, herdsmen, artisans. They
had two types of obligation to the state: military and labor. Both of
these will be described below. Sometimes they were utilized in other
ways by the state, for instance to settle a newly conquered territory,
or to provide material (women) for human sacrifices.
3. The state slaves--yanacuna. According to legend, they descended from a tribe that had once rebelled against the state, had
* Cf. 58: p. 358. According to legend, writing had been prohibited by the founder of the Inca empire.
[134]
been crushed, and had been sentenced to extermination. But in response
to a plea by his wife, the Inca changed the sentence to perpetual
slavery. Thereafter the members of this group occupied the lowest
position in the country. They worked the state lands, herded the llamas
belonging to the state and served as servants in the houses of the
Incas. (57: pp. 124-125)
The basic form of property in the Inca empire was land.
Theoretically, all land belonged to the Inca and was distributed by him
to the Incas and peasants for their use. The lands received by the Incas
were hereditary, but they were apparently managed by administrators,
while the Incas themselves merely made use of the produce. These lands
were worked by peasants in a manner described below. Peasants also
received land for use from the state. The basic unit was the
tupu--a
plot large enough to sustain one person. Every Indian received one tupu
at marriage, another for each son and half a tupu for each daughter.
After the death of a tenant, the land reverted to the state. (56: pp.
68-69, 57: pp. 126-127, 58: p. 274) Land not divided into tupu was
treated as belonging to the Sun God and served to support the temples
and the priests. The remaining land belonged to the Inca class or
directly to the state. All these lands were worked by peasants according
to a detailed schedule. Control over all farm work was exercised by
clerks. For example, they gave the daily signal for the peasants to
begin work by sounding a conch from a specially constructed tower. (56:
pp. 70-71, 58: p. 247)
The peasants were liable to military service and to obligatory
labor--tilling the land of the temples and the Incas, building new
temples and palaces for the Inca or the Incas, mending roads, building
bridges, working in the gold and silver mines owned by the state, and so
on. Some of these duties required moving the peasants to distant areas
of the empire, in which case the state undertook to feed them. (56: p.
88-89)
The raw materials for crafts were provided by the state; finished
products were delivered to it. For example, llamas were shorn by state
slaves, the wool distributed by officials to peasants for spinning and
the finished material subsequently collected by other officials.
The law divided the life of a male peasant into ten periods and
prescribed the obligations of each age group. Thus, from age nine to
sixteen, the peasant was to be a herdsman, from sixteen to twenty, a
messenger or a servant in the house of an Inca, etc. Even duties of
[135]
the last age group (over sixty) were specified: spinning rope, feeding
ducks, and so on. Cripples formed a special group, but they too, as
Guamán Poma de Ayala reports, were designated for certain work. Similar
prescriptions existed for women. The law required constant activity from
the peasants. A woman on her way to another house was to take wool with
her and to spin on the way. (56: p. 80, 57: pp. 129-131) According to
the chronicle of Cieza de León, peasants were sometimes made to perform
completely useless work simply so as not to be idle--for example, they
were forced to move a hill of dirt from one place to another. (56: p.
81, 57: p. 132) Garcilaso de la Vega informs us that work was found for
cripples. (58: p. 300) He also cites a law against idlers--a man who
tilled his field badly was hit several times with a stone in the
shoulders or flogged with a rod. (56: p. 276) The completely
incapacitated and the aged were maintained by the state or the rural
community.
For work, the peasants were joined into groups of ten families, five
such groups into a larger group, etc., up to ten thousand families.
There was an official head for each group. The lower members of this
hierarchy were appointed from the peasantry; higher posts were occupied
by Incas. (57: pp. 96-97, 59: p. 77)
Not only work but the whole life of the citizenry was controlled
by officials. Special inspectors continuously traveled about the country
observing the inhabitants. To facilitate supervision, peasants, for
instance, were obliged to keep their doors open during meals (the law
prescribed the time of meals and restricted the menu). (56: p. 96, 57:
p. 132) Other aspects of life were also strictly regimented. Officials
issued every Indian two cloaks from the state stores--one for work and
the other for festivals. Within each individual province, the cloaks
were indistinguishable in style and color and differed only according to
the sex of their bearers. The cloak was to be used until it was worn
out. Changes in cut and color were forbidden. There were laws against
other extravagances: it was forbidden to have chairs in the house (only
benches were allowed), to build houses of a larger size than authorized,
etc. Each province had a special obligatory hair style. (55: p. 91, 57:
p. 132) Such prescriptions extended to other classes, for instance, the
quantity and size of gold and silver vessels that an official of lower
rank could possess were strictly limited according to his station. (56:
pp. 91-92)
The inhabitants of newly conquered areas were under especially
[136]
severe control. Residents from central provinces were dispatched to new
regions, where they were entitled to enter the houses of the subjugated
people at any time of day or night and were obliged to report on any
sign of discontent.
Peasants were not allowed to leave their villages without special
permission. Control was made easier by the differences in the color of
clothing and the varied hair styles. Special officials supervised
traffic on bridges and at gates. The state itself, however, carried on
compulsory resettlement on a large scale. Resettlement sometimes was
occasioned by economic factors--people were moved to a province
devastated by an epidemic or transferred to a more fertile area.
Occasionally, the reason was political, as with the resettlement of
inhabitants from the original provinces of the empire to newly conquered
lands or, on the contrary, the dispersion of a newly conquered tribe
throughout the more loyal population of the empire. (56: pp. 99-100, 59:
p. 58)
Family life was also under the control of the state. All men were
obliged to enter into marriage upon reaching a certain age. Once each
year, every village was visited by a special official who conducted a
public marriage ceremony, in which everyone who had come of age the
previous year took part. Spaniards who described the customs of the Inca
state often asserted that the preference of the person being married
was not asked for. And Santillan, writing at the end of the sixteenth
century, reports that objections were punishable by death. On the other
hand, Father Morúa reports that a man could indicate that he had already
promised to marry another girl, and the official would then review the
matter. It is clear, however, that the opinion of the bride was never
solicited. (57: pp. 158, 160)
Members of the top social group--the Incas--had the right to
several wives, or more precisely, concubines, since the first wife had a
special position while the others were relegated to the role of
servants. Marriage with the first wife was indissoluble; concubines
could be driven out and would thereafter not be allowed to marry again.
(57: p. 156) The number of concubines permitted by law depended on the
social status of the man; it could be twenty, thirty, fifty, etc. (57:
p. 134) For the Inca and his immediate family, there was no limitation
whatever. The multitude of wives and the consequently large number of
offspring resulted in an ever increasing proportion of Incas in the
general population.
There was a special category of women--the so-called elect. Each
[137]
year, officials were sent to all sections of the country to select girls
eight or nine years old. These were called the "elect." They were
brought up in special houses (called "convents" in some Spanish
accounts). Every year during a special celebration, those who had
reached thirteen years of age were sent to the capital, where the Inca
himself divided them into three categories. Some, called Solar Maidens,
were returned to the "convent," where they were to engage in activities
associated with the worship of the gods of sun, moon and stars. They had
to observe chastity, although the Inca could give them to his circle as
concubines or take them for himself. Girls from the second group were
distributed by the Inca as wives or concubines. A gift of this kind from
the Inca was regarded as a high distinction. Finally, a third group was
intended for the human sacrifices that took place regularly, but on a
particularly large scale at the coronation of a new Inca. The law
provided for the punishment of parents who showed their grief when their
daughters were chosen for the "elect." (57: pp. 161-162)
Apart from the "elect," all unmarried women were also at the disposal
of the Incas, but not as private property; rather, they were allotted
to them by government officials for use as concubines and servants. The
oppressed status of women in the Inca state is particularly notable
against the background of the neighboring Indian tribes, where women
enjoyed much independence and authority. (57: p. 159)
It is clear that such total regulation of life and the
omnipresent state control would have been impossible without a
multifaceted bureaucratic apparatus. The bureaucracy was built on a
purely hierarchical principle. Every official had contact only with his
superior and his subordinates; officials of the same rank could
communicate only through their common chief. (56: p. 96) The main
function of this bureaucracy was the keeping of accounts by means of the
sophisticated and as yet undeciphered system of knotted strings.
The idea of the quipu was a curiously accurate reflection of the
hierarchical structure of the state machinery. A hierarchy was
introduced into the material area as well; for instance, all types of
arms were arranged by "seniority." The lance was considered to be senior
to other weapons; next came the arrow, then the bow, and so on.
According to the seniority of these objects, they were denoted by knots
tied higher or lower on a string. Learning the art of quipu began with
learning the principles of "seniority" by rote.
Information encoded in this way was passed up the bureaucratic
[138]
ladder to the capital, where it was examined and preserved by types:
military, population, provisions, etc. In the Spanish chronicles it is
asserted that even the number of stones for slings, the number of
animals killed in hunting and other such data were kept. Guamán Poma de
Ayala writes: "They keep an account of everything that occurs in their
state, and in every village there are secretaries and treasurers for
that. ...The state is governed with the help of quipu." (56: pp. 94-95)
There are accounts of truly remarkable administrative achievements,
such as the creation of armies of workers numbering 20,000 men or an
operation in which 100,000 bushels of maize are distributed among a
population of a large region according to strictly fixed norms. (56: p.
102)
The workers in the bureaucracy were trained in schools that only
children of the Incas were permitted to attend. (The law forbade
education for the lower levels of the population.) Teaching was
performed by the
amautas or "scholars." Their duties included the
writing of history in two versions: one, objective records in the form
of quipu, which were preserved in the capital and intended only for
special authorized officials, and the other in the form of hymns to be
narrated to the people at festivals. If a dignitary was deemed unworthy,
his name was removed from the "festival" history. (56: pp. 75-76, 78)
The laws regulating life in the Inca state relied on a
sophisticated system of punishment. Penalties were severe--almost always
death or torture. This is to be expected: when all life is regulated by
the state, any infringement of the law is a crime against the state
and, in turn, affects the very foundation of the social system. Thus a
man guilty of cutting down a tree or stealing fruit in a state
plantation was subject to the death penalty. Abortion was punished by
death for the woman and for anyone who may have assisted her. (59: p.
173)
The system provided for an extraordinary variety of capital
punishments: the victim could be hanged by the feet or stoned or thrown
into a gorge or hanged by the hair over a cliff or thrown into a pit
with jaguars and poisonous snakes. (57: p. 42) For the most serious
offenses, there were provisions for the execution of all relatives of
the accused. Guamán Poma de Ayala's manuscript contains a drawing of the
slaughter of a whole family whose chief member had been determined to
be a sorcerer. Burying the bodies of executed criminals could be
prohibited as a further punishment. Burial of the bodies of mutineers
[139]
was forbidden, for example. Their flesh was thrown to wild beasts, and
drums were made of their skin, bowls of the skulls and flutes of the arm
and leg bones. Finally, a victim could be put to torture before
execution. "He who kills another to rob him will be punished by death.
Before the execution he will be tortured in jail so that the penalty
should be harder. Then he will be executed." (57: p. 143)
Many forms of punishment differed little from execution. For
instance, Cieza de León, Cobo, Morúa and Guamán Poma de Ayala describe
jails in underground caves in which jaguars, bears, venomous snakes and
scorpions were kept. Incarceration in this type of prison was used as a
test of guilt. Generally, this form of trial was used in the case of
people suspected of plotting rebellion. Persons sentenced to life
imprisonment were kept in other underground jails. (57: p. 142) A
penalty of five hundred lashes (provided by law as a punishment for
theft) probably was the equivalent of a death sentence. There was a
punishment called the "stone execution," where a huge stone was tossed
onto the victim's shoulders. According to Guamán Poma de Ayala, this
killed many and crippled others for life.
Other punishments consisted of forced labor in state gold and
silver mines or on coca plantations in difficult tropical climates.
Forced labor could be either for life or for a fixed term. Finally,
minor offenders were subject to various corporal punishments. (57: p.
144)
It goes without saying that equality before the law did not
exist. For one and the same crime a peasant might be executed, while an
Inca would get off with a public reprimand. As Cobo reports: "The
premise here was that for an Inca of royal blood (all Incas were
theoretically related), a public reprimand was a heavier penalty than
death for a pleebeian." (56: p. 79, 57: p. 143)
Seduction of another's wife was accorded corporal punishment. But
if a peasant seduced an Inca woman, both were executed; as Guamán Poma
de Ayala recounts, both were hanged naked by the hair over a cliff until
they died. (57: p. 146)
A crime against property was also punished differently depending
on whether the interests of the state or a private party were involved.
Someone guilty of picking fruit on a private estate could avoid
punishment, if he could prove that he had done so out of hunger. But if
the owner was an Inca, the guilty party was subject to death. (57: p.
145)
The complete subjugation of life to the prescriptions of the law
[140]
and to officialdom led to extraordinary standardization: identical
clothing, identical houses, identical roads. Repetition of the same
descriptive details is characteristic of the old Spanish accounts. The
capital city, built of identical houses made of identical block stone
and divided into identical blocks, undoubtedly created the impression of
a prison town. (56: p. 117)
As a result of this spirit of standardization, anything the least bit
different was looked upon as dangerous and hostile, whether it was the
birth of twins or the discovery of a strangely shaped rock. Such things
were believed to be a manifestation of evil forces hostile to society.
Events were to show that the fear of unplanned phenomena was quite
justified: the huge empire proved powerless against less than two
hundred Spaniards. Neither their firearms nor their horses (animals
unknown to the Indians) can explain this extraordinary turn of events.
The same difference in armaments was after all involved in the
subjugation of the Zulus, but they were able to mount a long and
successful resistance to large detachments of English forces. The reason
for the collapse of the Inca empire must apparently be sought
elsewhere--in the complete atrophy of individual initiative, in the
ingrained habit of acting only at the direction of officials, in the
spirit of stagnation and apathy.
Ondegardo, a Spanish judge who served in Peru in the sixteenth
century, noted a similar phenomenon. In his books, he constantly laments
the complete regimentation of life and the removal of all personal
stimuli which led to a weakening of and, sometimes, the complete
destruction of family relationships. Grown children, for instance, often
refused to take care of their parents. (56: p. 127) Baudin, a French
student of Latin American history, sees in many traits of the
contemporary Indians the aftermath of Inca rule--indifference to the
fate of the state, lack of initiative, apathy. (56: pp. 124-125)
To what extent is it possible to call the Inca state socialist?
Without any doubt, it is much more entitled to this designation than any
of the contemporary states that regard themselves as belonging to this
category. Socialist principles were clearly expressed in the structure
of the Inca state: the almost complete absence of private property, in
particular of private land; absence of money and trade; the complete
elimination of private initiative from all economic activities; detailed
regulation of private life; marriage by official decree; state
distribution of wives and concubines. On the other hand, we do not
encounter
[141]
either communal wives or communal upbringing of children. A wife, though
given by the state to the peasant, was his alone, and children grew up
in the family (if the special class of girls chosen to be "elect" is
excluded). Nevertheless, the Inca state seems to have been one of the
fullest incarnations of socialist ideals in human history.
This is indicated by the striking similarity between the Inca way of
life and numerous socialist utopias, sometimes down to the smallest
detail. In his work
The Incas of Peru, Baudin tells that during a
report on the Inca state at the Paris Academy of Sciences, a member
asked whether it would not be possible to show an influence of the Incas
on Thomas More's
Utopia. (56: p. 165) This would have been quite impossible, of course: More's
Utopia was
written in 1516, while Peru was discovered by the Spaniards in 1531.
The similarities are, therefore, all the more striking and show how
socialist principles inevitably led to the same conclusions in the
centuries-long practice of the Inca administrators and in the mind of
the English philosopher.
But later socialist writers undoubtedly were under the strong
influence of what they had heard of the "Peruvian Empire." In one of his
works, Morelly describes a society that lives in "natural conditions"
and without distinction between "thine" and "mine," and says that the
"Peruvians" had laws of this kind. We have already quoted (in Part I) a
similar passage from the article "The Legislator" in the
Encyclopédie, and
we invite the reader to compare Diderot's description (pp. 112-114
above) with the historical facts. It is quite possible that the Inca
model provided numerous details in the depiction of the future society
by the writers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It is easy
enough to imagine how readily they absorbed the stories then current in
Europe of a real society so close in spirit to their ideals. This leads
to a general problem of great interest--that of the influence exerted on
the socialist literature, beginning with Plato, by the "socialist
experiment," that is, by the practical implementation of socialist
ideals in Egypt, Mesopotamia and Peru.
2. The Jesuit State in Paraguay
Although one would have thought that the Spanish conquistadors
had written an end to socialism in South America, it had a continuation
nevertheless. Some one hundred to one hundred fifty years later, in an
area not far from the former Inca state, a political system in the
[142]
Inca tradition was established in Paraguay by the Jesuits.
The history of Spanish penetration into Paraguay begins in 1516, when
Don Juan Díaz de Solís discovered the mouth of the Paraná river and
conquered the surrounding territories. In 1537, Juan de Salazar de
Espinoza founded Asunción, the capital of the new province of Paraguay.
The native inhabitants of Paraguay were Indians of the Guarani
tribe. Missionary work among them was first undertaken by the Dominican
monk Las Casas. The Jesuits took part in this effort later. With the
realistic approach so typical of their order, they decided to make
acceptance of Christianity practically advantageous and so attempted to
protect their converts from the Indians' main enemy, the slave traders
called paulistas (from the state of Sao Paulo, the center of the slave
trade at the time). Suppression of the slave trade had been beyond the
Spanish crown's capabilities for years. Yet the Jesuits succeeded in
providing security against raids for Indians in large areas of Paraguay.
To achieve this, they accustomed the Indians to a sedentary life,
placing them in large settlements called reductions. The first reduction
was set up in 1609. It seems that a plan existed at first for the
creation of a great state with access to the Atlantic Ocean, but
paulista raids made this impossible. Beginning in 1640, the Jesuits
armed the Indians and fought through to an area where they settled their
flock. It was almost inaccessible, bordered on one side by the Andes
and on the other by the rapids of the rivers Parana, La Plata and
Uruguay. The entire territory was covered with a network of reductions.
As early as 1654, the Jesuits Macheta and Cataladino obtained from the
Spanish crown an exemption of the realm of the Society of Jesus from
subordination to the Spanish colonial forces and from paying tithes to
the local bishop. The authorization to arm the Indians was a further
exception to the absolute ban introduced by the Spanish government in
all parts of South America. The Jesuits soon had a strong fighting force
at their disposal.
In their dealings with the Spanish government, the Jesuits
steadfastly denied that they had created an independent state in
Paraguay. It is true that certain accusations were exaggerated, as for
example the book about the "Emperor of Paraguay," which included his
portrait, as well as coins allegedly minted at court, both being nothing
but a contrivance of the Jesuits' enemies. But it is also a fact that
the area controlled by the Jesuits was so isolated from the external
world that
[143]
it could in fact be considered an independent state or a dominion of
Spain. Jesuits were the only Europeans in the region. They prevailed on
the government to pass a law that allowed no European to enter the
territory of the reductions without the Jesuits' permission. In any
case, no visitor was allowed to stay longer than three days. The Indians
were not able to leave their reductions except in the company of the
Fathers. In spite of numerous government demands, the Jesuits refused to
teach the Indians the Spanish language; they devised a writing system
for the local Guarani language. The Jesuits who lived in the area were
not Spaniards for the most part, but included Germans, Italians and
Scots. The territory had an army of its own and engaged in independent
foreign trade. All this does tend to justify the term "Jesuit state,"
which is used by most scholars who have written on the subject.
The population of the Jesuit state at the height of its development
was 150,000 to 200,000 inhabitants. Most of these were Indians; in
addition, there were some twelve thousand black slaves and between one
hundred fifty and three hundred Jesuits. The state came to an end in
1767-1768, when the Jesuits were driven out of Paraguay as part of the
general campaign of the Spanish government against the movement. In
1773, the Society of Jesus was abolished altogether by Pope Clement XIV.
The main organizational principles of the reductions were worked
out by Father Diego de Torres. It is significant that he began his
missionary work in Peru, where the Inca state had not yet been entirely
forgotten. The Spanish authorities were exploiting the rich silver mines
in the area, and they were concerned about keeping the Indians in one
place. To this end, it was proposed that the social structure of the
Inca period be maintained in its essentials. As he called for the
setting up of reductions in Paraguay, Diego de Torres wrote that "the
locality must be governed by the same system as in Peru." (61: p. 117)
Many observers have come to the conclusion that the Jesuits consciously
copied the structure of the Inca empire.
As already mentioned, the entire population of Jesuit Paraguay
was concentrated in the reductions. These usually numbered some twO
thousand to three thousand Indians, with the smallest ones containing
about five hundred inhabitants and the biggest mission (St. Javier)
numbering thirty thousand. Each reduction was run by two Jesuit Fathers,
one being as a rule much older than the other. There were generally no
other Europeans in the settlement. The senior Father, or "confessor,"
[144]
devoted himself primarily to religious functions, while the younger
acted as his assistant and directed economic matters. Together the two
possessed absolute power in the reduction. As the Jesuit Juan de Escadón
states, in a letter written in 1760: "Secular power belongs totally to
the Fathers, as much as or even more than spiritual power." (61: p. 146)
The priests normally appeared before the Indians only at divine
services. At other times, they communicated with them through
intermediaries drawn from the local population. These local officials,
called corregidors and alcaldes, were selected annually from a list
compiled by the Fathers. Election was by a show of hands. The
corregidors and alcaldes were completely subordinate to the Fathers, who
could abolish or change any of the formers' orders. De Escadón writes
that the corregidors and alcaldes reported to one of the Fathers every
morning to get their decisions approved and to receive instructions as
to the work order of the day. "This was accomplished as in a good
family, where the father tells everyone what he must do for the day."
(61: p. 148) "The limited intelligence of the Indians compelled the
missionaries to take care of all affairs and to guide them in secular as
well as in spiritual matters," as the Jesuit Charlevoix (in
History of Paraguay) quotes his contemporary Antonio de Ulloa.
There were no laws--only the decisions made by the Fathers. They
heard confession, which was obligatory for the Indians, and assigned
penalties for all offenses. Penalties included: face-to-face reprimand,
public reprimand, flogging, imprisonment, and banishment from the
reduction. Many authors assert that there was no capital punishment,
although Charlevoix writes about a certain unsubmissive local official
who was burned up in a fire sent by God. (62: p. 13) An offender was
first made to repent in church, was dressed as a heretic, and was then
subjected to the punishment. De Ulloa writes: "They had such great
confidence in their pastors that they regarded even an unprovoked
penalty as deserved." (60: p. 140, 62: p. 31)
The entire life of the reduction was based on the principle that
the Indians were to possess practically nothing of their own--neither
land nor houses nor raw materials nor handicraft tools. The Indians did
not even belong to themselves. Thus, de Escadón writes: "These plots, as
with the other lands of the mission, belong to the community and no
inhabitant has more than the right to use them. Therefore, they never
sell anything to one another. The same is true of the houses
[145]
in which they live. ...The community takes care of all the houses, makes repairs and builds new ones as needed." (61: p. 148)
The reduction was divided into two parts: tupambé (God's land) and
abambé (private land). The difference was not in the form of tenure,
since both types belonged to the mission, but simply that tupambé was
tilled collectively, while abambé was divided into plots and distributed
among individual families.
Muratori writes that abambé was
lent to the Indians for
working. (60: p. 145) A plot of land was granted to an Indian when he
married. It was not hereditary, and if the man died, his widow and
children did not retain the plot. The land reverted to a common fund and
the dependents became wards of the mission. Charlevoix says that work
on individual plots was regulated by the administration in the same way
as on common land. (60: p. 145) In the monthly
Catholic Missions, it
was reported that seeds and tools for working the individual plots were
lent by the community. In the majority of missions, families lived on
crops harvested from their individual plots. However, in certain
reductions they were required to deliver a part of their harvest to the
mission, with rations later dispensed in return. In any case, work on
the individual plots and the crops produced on them were under strict
control everywhere. Charlevoix writes: "It was known how much a plot of
land yielded and the crops from it were under the supervision of those
who were particularly concerned with looking after it. And if there had
been no strict hand over the Indians, they would soon have found
themselves with no means of subsistence." (62: p. 37)
Work on the communal land was obligatory for all Indians,
including administrators and artisans. Before work, one of the Fathers
delivered a sermon. The Indians then set out for the fields in columns,
to the sound of drum and flute. They returned from work singing
uplifting songs. Work was supervised at all times by inspectors and
spies who apprehended idlers. "Culprits were severely punished," writes
Muratori. (60: p. 159)
All crops essential to the mission's economy were grown on
communal land. Eyewitnesses are unanimous in pointing out differences in
the cultivation of individual and communal lands: while communal lands
were carefully tilled, the individual plots looked neglected. The
Jesuits constantly complained of the indifference of the Indians to
working
[146]
their own fields; they preferred to be punished for a badly cultivated
plot and to live on the communal stores. The Indians were capable of
eating the seed grain distributed to them and coming back for more--and a
sound flogging--several times over. The Jesuits saw the reason for this
not in the peculiarities of the social system they had established but
in the "childish" nature of the Indians. Father J. Cardiel wrote in
1758: "For 140 years we have been fighting this, but there has hardly
been any improvement. And so long as they have but a child's
intelligence, things will not get better."
The communities possessed huge herds of horses and oxen that were
pastured in the pampas. Communal oxen were given to the Indians to work
their plots. "Sometimes the Indian kills one or both oxen to eat meat at
his pleasure. He later reports that they have become lost and pays for
the loss with his back." (Escadón, 61: p. 149)
The meat of communal oxen was distributed among the residents two
or three times a week. On the appointed day, the inhabitants came to
the storehouse, where the storekeeper called everyone's name and
dispensed a standard portion of meat. Indians also received a ration of
local tea.
Various crafts were encouraged in the reductions, and a high
level of workmanship was achieved. Wool was dispensed to the women to be
spun at home, the finished cloth being collected on the following day.
All tools and raw materials belonged to the reduction and not to the
individual craftsman. Moreover, a large part of the craftsmen worked in
communal workshops. José Cardiel writes: "All craft work is done not in
the home, since that would be very ineffective; it is performed in the
courtyards of the collegium." (61: p. 164) The missions had stonemasons,
brickmakers, arms makers, millers, clockmakers, artists, jewelers and
potters. Construction included brick factories, kilns for producing
quicklime, mills powered by horses and by men. Organs were made, bells
cast, books printed in foreign languages (for export). By the beginning
of the eighteenth century, every reduction had a Sundial or a mechanical
clock of local manufacture, according to which the workday was
regulated.
All products were delivered to the storehouses, where Indians who
could write and keep accounts were employed. Part of the production Was
distributed to the population. Fabrics were divided into equal pieces
and distributed by name, one day to girls, the next to boys,
[147]
then to men and finally to women. Each man was given 5.5 meters of
canvas for clothing a year and each woman, 4.5 meters. Each received a
knife and an ax once a year.
The major portion of the articles produced in the reduction was for
export. Given the large herds, vast amounts of tanned skins were
produced; there were tanning and shoemaking shops in the missions, with
the entire production being exported--Indians were not allowed to wear
shoes.
The artisan skills of the Indians amazed many observers.
Charlevoix writes that the Guarani succeeded "as though instinctively in
any craft they undertook.. ..For instance, it was enough to show them a
crucifix, a candlestick, an amulet and to give them the necessary
material for them to make an identical copy. Their work could be
distinguished from the original model only with difficulty." (60: pp.
115-116) Other observers also stress the imitative character of the
Indian craftsmanship.
Trade did not exist either within reductions or between them.
There was no money. Each Indian held a coin in his hands only once in
his lifetime--during the wedding ceremony, when he handed it as a gift
to his bride, the coin being returned immediately thereafter to the
priest.
On the other hand, foreign trade was conducted on a large scale.
Reductions exported, for instance, more local tea than all the rest of
Paraguay. The Jesuit state was also compelled to import some
items--above all, salt and metals (especially iron).
All reductions were built according to one plan. In the center
there was a square plaza on which a church was situated. The square was
bordered by the jail, the workshops, storehouses, the armory, a weaving
shop in which widows and female offenders worked, a hospital and a
guesthouse. The rest of the territory was broken up into equal square
blocks of houses.
Clay-plastered cane cabins served as dwellings for the Indians. A
hearth was located in the middle of the structure; smoke was allowed to
go out through the door. People slept without beds, either on the floor
or in a hammock. The Austrian Jesuit Sepp, who came to Paraguay in
1691, describes these houses as follows: "The dwellings of the natives
are simple one-room cabins made of earth and brick. They have little to
recommend them. Inside, father, mother, sisters and brothers crowd
together with the dog, cats, mice, rats, etc. There are cockroaches
[148]
everywhere. The stench is unbearable to someone unaccustomed to it." Funes writes in
The Civil History of Paraguay that
"the houses had neither windows nor any means of ventilation; there was
also no furniture--all residents of the missions sat on the ground and
ate on the ground." (63: p. 26) It was only shortly before they were
driven out of Paraguay that the Jesuits began to build more suitable
quarters for the Indians. The dwellings were not considered private
property, and an Indian was not permitted to give his house away.
In contrast to the Indian dwellings, the churches were impressive in
their splendor. They were built of stone and richly decorated. The
church in the mission of St. Javier accommodated between four thousand
and five thousand persons; its walls were overlaid with shiny plates of
mica, the altars were covered with gold.
At dawn a bell was rung to wake up the Indians and to call them
to prayers (obligatory for all). They then went to work to another peal
of the bells. They retired to bed on signal also, and after dark the
settlement was patrolled by detachments of the most reliable Indians.
Special permission was required to be outside at night. (61: p. 176,62:
p. 29)
The reduction was surrounded by a wall and a moat. Gates were
guarded carefully; entry and exit was forbidden without a pass. Contact
among Indians from different reductions was not permitted. None of the
Indians, except for soldiers and herdsmen, had the right to ride
horseback. All means of conveyance--boats, canoes, carriages--belonged
to the community. (63: p. 44)
All Indians wore identical clothing made from material obtained
from the communal stores. Only officials and officers dressed
differently, but only when on duty. At other times, their uniforms and
their arms were kept in a storehouse.
Marriages were contracted twice a year at solemn ceremonies. The
choice of a wife or husband was under control of the priests. If a youth
took a liking to a girl or vice versa, this was taken into account and
the party concerned was informed. But the Fathers, apparently, also
functioned independently and decided on marriages themselves, regardless
of the young people's preferences. In at least one recorded instance, a
large group of young men and women took flight in protest over these
practices. After prolonged negotiations, they returned to the reduction,
but the Fathers were forced to sanction the marriages they demanded.
(63: p. 43)
[149]
Children began working at an early age. Charlevoix writes that "as
soon as a child reached the age at which he could work, he was brought
to a workshop and assigned to a craft." (60: p. 116) The Jesuits were
concerned that the population of the reductions grew very little,
despite unusually good conditions from the Indian point of view, such as
medical aid and safeguards against famine. To stimulate the birth rate,
they did not allow Indian males to wear long hair (a sign of adulthood)
until the birth of a child. The same purpose was sought by ringing a
bell at night summoning them to perform their "marital duties." (64: p.
31)
The Jesuits justified their control over all aspects of the
Indians' lives by reference to the latter's low development. The
following judgment by Funes is typical: "Never acting according to
reason, they ought to have several centuries of social childhood before
reaching that maturity which is the preliminary condition of the full
enjoyment of liberty." (62: p. 371) In the letter quoted earlier, the
Jesuit Escadón writes: "In truth and without the slightest exaggeration,
none of them has greater faculty, intelligence and capacity of common
sense than as we observe in Europe in children who can read, write and
learn, but who are nevertheless in no condition to decide for
themselves." (61: p. 146) Meanwhile the Jesuits themselves were doing
everything possible to stifle the Indians' initiative and interest in
the results of their labor. In the Reglamento of 1689, we find the
following advice: "It is permissible to give them something to make them
feel satisfied, but this needs to be done in such a way that they do
not develop a sense of interest." Only toward the end of their rule did
the Jesuits try (no doubt for economic reasons) to promote private
initiative, for instance, by turning over cattle to individuals. But
these experiments failed to bring any results. One exception, recorded
by Cardiel, was a case in which a small herd was built up, though its
owner was a mulatto. (60: p. 146)
The Jesuits' enemies, the anti-clerical writer Asara in
particular, reproached them for having starved the Indians and burdened
them with work. But the impression gained from Jesuit sources seems more
convincing and logical: hunger-free existence, rest every Sunday,
guaranteed dwelling and a cloak. ...Yet this almost successful attempt
at reducing hundreds of thousands of people to a life as lived in an ant
hill seems far more terrible a picture than that of a hard-labor camp.
[150]
The Jesuits in Paraguay (and elsewhere in the world) fell victim to
their own success. They became too dangerous: in the reductions, they
had created a well-equipped army of up to twelve thousand men, which was
apparently the predominant military force in the region. They
interfered in internal conflicts and took the capital of Asunción by
assault on more than one occasion. They defeated Portuguese troops and
delivered Buenos Aires from a British siege. During a mutiny, the
viceroy of Paraguay, Don José de Antequera, was defeated by them.
Several thousand Guarini participated in the battles, equipped with
firearms and including some cavalry units. The Jesuit army began to
inspire more and more apprehension in the Spanish government.
The fall of the Jesuits was greatly hastened by the widespread
rumors of the enormous riches they were supposed to be accumulating.
There was talk of gold and silver mines and of fabulous revenue from
foreign trade. The latter rumor seemed particularly plausible in view of
cheap Indian labor and the unusual fertility of the land.
After driving the Jesuits out, government officials rushed in to
look for hidden treasure--and discovered nothing. The storehouses in the
reductions proved bitterly disappointing and contained none of the
riches that they were supposed to yield: the economy had not been
profitable!
After the collapse of the Jesuit state, most of the Indians
drifted away from the reductions and returned to their former religion
and their nomadic way of life.
It is interesting to note the appraisal given to Jesuit activity
in Paraguay by the spokesmen of the Enlightenment. Although the Jesuits
were considered their greatest enemies, the
phi1osophes could not find lofty enough terms to characterize the Paraguayan state. In
The Spirit of the Laws (Book
4, Chapter 6), Montesquieu writes: "The Society of Jesus had the honor.
..of proclaiming for the first time ever the idea of religion in
combination with the idea of humanity. ... The Society attracted tribes
scattered in villages, provided them with secure livelihood and clothed
them. It will always be admirable to govern people so as to make them
happy."
And Voltaire, in this case speaking about
"l'infâme," expressed even greater respect in his
Essay on Rights: "The spread of Christianity in Paraguay by the efforts of the Jesuits alone was, in a certain sense, a triumph of humanity."
[151]
V.
The Ancient Orient
The Inca empire (as well as the other states of pre-Columbian
America, the Aztecs and the Mayans) developed in complete isolation from
the Old World and exerted no appreciable influence on our civilization.
Therefore, it is much more important for us to study the manifestation
of socialist tendencies in those ancient civilizations which are
directly linked to our cultural tradition. In this chapter, we present
certain facts that bear on ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt.
1. Mesopotamia
The state structure in Mesopotamia developed out of the holdings
of individual temples that were able to gather together great numbers of
farmers and artisans thanks to the widespread use of irrigation. This
social pattern took shape in ancient Sumer toward the end of the fourth
and the beginning of the third millennia B.C. Extant inscriptions (most
of them were pictographs predating cuneiform writing) provide little
information about this society. It was headed by a priest--sangu--while
the main work force consisted of peasants who were tenants on the land
around the temple, which provided them with draft animals and seed
grain.
Toward the middle of the third millennium B.C., a new type of
social organization emerged--small regions coalesced into separate
"kingdoms" headed by a king called ensi or patesi. The economic system
of this period is usually called royal or ensial. Inside each kingdom,
the temples remained the basic economic units. A classic example
[152]
of an economic center of this kind is the estate of the temple of the
goddess Bau in Lagash (twenty-fifth and twenty-fourth centuries B.C.).
Detailed accounts and records have been preserved in the form of a huge
number of cuneiform tablets. The data permits a reconstruction 'of many
features of life in Sumer during this epoch.
There were two means of providing for the people employed in the
domain of the goddess Bau: allowances in kind and the granting of land
plots for "sustenance." The lesser part of the temple's land was given
over to the latter function; the bulk of the land was tilled by parties
of workers under the supervision of the temple. These workers were
looked upon as part of the estate and were called "people of the estate
of the Bau goddess." (65: p. 142) They received a monthly allowance in
kind from the temple stores. In the temple's records numerous lists of
these workers have been preserved; some lists were reproduced year after
year. Here we meet such groups as "porters" and
"men-who-do-not-raise-their-eyes" (interpreted as unskilled laborers),
"slave women and their children," "men who receive their allowances
according to separate tablets." All received approximately the same
allowance. In the lists, workers figure in parties headed by a
foreman--"the chief farmer ." Men did not receive subsistence for their
families, but appeared only as individuals. Women and children are
mentioned separately; orphans formed a special category. (65: p. 166)
The workers seem to have had no private holdings; they could not store
provisions for themselves, but neither were they obliged to buy what
they needed elsewhere. The temple storehouses provided them with all the
necessities. Tablets record the names of the party chief, the recipient
and the dispensing official. Evidently, workers (usually every month)
came to the storehouses in parties to get their rations, which consisted
primarily of grain. (65: p. 151)
Another group consisted of "men getting sustenance." They
received allowances less frequently (three or four times a year), but as
a rule the amount was proportionally larger. In addition, they received
plots of land, which in most cases were tiny. These plots were
redistributed frequently. (65: p. 174) The most numerous category in
this group consisted of "shub-Iugal," who also worked on the temple
estate under "chief farmers." They carried out irrigation work and
performed military duties. They received plows and grain for working the
allotted plots from the temple storehouses. Their position changed from
time to time. Thus, for example, the "reformer-king" Urukagina granted
[153]
them the right to have their own houses and cattle. The group of "men
getting sustenance" also included clerks and officials who supervised
the agricultural work in the fields. Their plots were frequently many
times larger (65: pp. 154-155)
A certain amount of land was rented. However most of it was tilled by
the work force of the temple estate. (65: p. 175) The management of
agricultural work was in the hands of the ensial administration. Workers
did not till separate plots individually, but worked in parties under
the supervision of a chief farmer. The plots allotted to individuals
were also worked in this manner. (65: pp. 170-171) We note that the same
system was employed in the Inca state. Workers delivered all produce to
the administration. All implements of production, including draft
animals, were issued to the foremen of the working parties from the
storehouses on a daily basis. Plows, hoes, flails, packs, collars and
yokes for oxen were all kept in the stores. Skins of animals that had
died were delivered by the "chief farmers" to the storehouse. The
central store provided fodder for the oxen and donkeys. All these
transactions were recorded in great detail. (65: pp. 176-177)
The harvested grain was delivered by the individual chief to the
administration of the estate, and after milling, it was brought to the
storehouse for distribution. Accounts were kept of everything, including
the size of the fields from which the grain had been received.
Date plantations and vineyards were cultivated in the same
manner. It seems that fixed norms existed. One document lists an amount
of dates received in excess of the norm as "arrears" from the previous
year. (65: p. 179) The foresters, who got sustenance in kind, worked in
detachments in wood lots, from which timber (highly valued in a lightly
forested country) was brought to the storehouses. Livestock was raised
in the same way, herdsmen of temple cattle receiving food rations for
themselves and fodder for the animals according to fixed norms.
(Fishermen also worked in parties and had norms to fill and the
obligation of delivering their entire catch to the storehouses.) (65: p.
184)
Artisans worked in the same fashion. Animal skins, metal (copper
and bronze), and wool were received from the stores; manufactured
articles were in turn delivered there. They, too, received food supplies
from the estate. (65: p. 187)
All workers employed by the temple of the goddess Bau were guaranteed clothing or material for clothing. (65: p. 192)
[154]
In the documentation on the temple estates, prisoner-of-war slaves
are rarely mentioned. Inscriptions speaking of victories in battle tell
of enemies killed but not of prisoners taken. And the names of the farm
workers are of purely Sumerian origin. Slaves are seldom treated as a
separate group, and when they are, women are generally meant.
Apart from workers permanently employed on the temple estate,
there was another group of inhabitants who were recruited for irrigation
and farm work or military service only occasionally. It is possible
that these were semi-independent farm workers. Since the character of
their work outside the temple estate is not recorded, we know nothing
about it. The number of these workers is estimated differently by
various historians. A. Deimel, who has translated and commented upon a
great number of cuneiform inscriptions from this period, believes that
the temple economy was typical of the "entire economic life of that
time. ...Almost all property was in the possession of the temple.
...Almost the entire little kingdom of Urukagina* was, in all
likelihood, divided among temples." (67: p. 78) Many historians today do
not share this view. (66, 68, 69) I. M. Diakonov cites a number of
calculations estimating the amount of temple land in the entire state.
(66: Chapter 1) He believes that "in the time of Urukagina, the temple
economy comprised perhaps half the total territory of the state." (66:
p. 251) The size of the populations of this epoch can also not be
determined exactly. The work force of the Bau estate is estimated at
1,200 persons. (67: p. 78) But this was only a single small temple
estate in the kingdom of Lagash. The king of Lagash, Urukagina, was
himself the head of a far larger temple estate belonging to the god
Mingirsu. Using deliveries as a measurement, it may be assumed that this
temple alone had dozens of times more workers than the temple of the
goddess Bau.
The epoch of small states and royal households in Mesopotamia
(the twenty-fifth and twenty-fourth centuries B.C.) was followed by a
period of fierce warfare which ended in the conquest of Mesopotamia by
the Akkadian king Sargon, who subjugated the ensi of the other cities.
It was about this time, apparently, that the idea of a "world empire"
first arose, something which later inspired Cyrus, Alexander and Caesar.
Sargon's state was truly huge in comparison with the small city-states
of the preceding epoch. It extended from the Persian Gulf
* The temple of the goddess Bau was part of this kingdom.
[155]
to the Mediterranean. A high price had to be paid for the creation of
this empire; famine spread in the land and there were numerous
rebellions which did not cease even under Sargon's successors. The state
ultimately disintegrated under the impact of the mountain tribe of
Gutiyas, who seized part of Mesopotamia.
In the twenty-second century, Mesopotamia was again united under
Utuchegal, the ruler of the city of Uruk, who took the title "King of
the Four Lands of the World." After his death, a new dynasty was
established by King Ur-Nammu; this is referred to as the third dynasty
of Ur. Mesopotamia, Elam and Assyria came under its rule in the
twenty-second and twenty-first centuries. It was a centralized state
with a single economy managed by an imperial bureaucracy.
The king headed the state as an absolute sovereign. He was
surrounded by a bureaucracy of "king's men" or "slaves to the king,"
among whom the highest post belonged to the "great emissary." (66: pp.
256, 259, 262) In this epoch, we no longer encounter a nobility aware of
its genealogy and tracing its roots to a deity. The top element in the
state consisted of bureaucrats, administrators, royal war chiefs,
priests, all living on government allowances. The governing body itself
did not reflect the former city-states. The ensi, although retaining
their title, were merged with the royal officials; they were appointed
by the king, sometimes only for a limited period, and were shunted about
from one town to another. Their primary duty was to manage the royal
estates and perform administrative, judicial and religious functions.
Temples began to lose their economic independence and came under the
protection of the king. (65: pp. 247, 250)
Production was centralized to the same degree as the
administration of the country. Former ensial estates entered into the
state economy as subordinate units. Parties of workers, in cases of
necessity, were shifted from one town to another. Numerous records have
been preserved concerning the distribution of allowances to such newly
arrived parties (from Lagash to Ur, from Ur to Uruk, etc.) (65: pp. 248,
264) All lines of authority came together in the capital, Ur. Control
was accomplished by means of envoys, inspectors and messengers of
various ranks. These obtained supplies in the towns through which they
passed. A small tablet, for instance, records a routine transaction in
which a messenger was supplied with provisions. Local records were kept
by scribes, who affixed their signature to almost all archival
documents: "Scribe at the Storehouse," "Scribe at the Granary," etc.
(65: p. 251)
[156]
The system of accounting developed to the point of virtuosity. The
chiefs of large (former ensial) estates submitted annual reports to the
capital, while certain artisan workshops had to present reports several
times per month. Descriptions of all fields and households were kept,
together with maps characterizing individual plots: stony, fertile,
clayey, etc. Date plantations were registered, with indications of the
yield of each tree. There were inventories of the goods in the
storehouses--grain, raw materials, finished articles. (65: p. 249, pp.
253-254, 255) An equally detailed record of manpower was kept: there
were separate lists of workers of full strength, of two-thirds strength,
of one-sixth strength. Norms for their allowances were adjusted
accordingly. Lists of the sick, the deceased and those absent from work
(including the cause of absence) were submitted regularly. (65: pp.
256-257)
State agriculture was based almost exclusively on cultivation of
land by parties of workers receiving permanent allowances from the
state. Rental of plots is met with only as an exception. (65: pp. 339,
312-313) The fact that certain fields are identified with a particular
person or group indicates only that crops harvested from the fields in
question supported these persons--not that they were the owners of them.
Thus there were fields for supplying high priests, scribes, foremen of
workers, diviners (a lower order of priests), craftsmen, herdsmen, etc.
All these lands, as well as land intended for sustaining farm workers,
were under the direction of supervisors. (65: pp. 301, 316-317, 398,
411)
Groups of ten to twenty men worked in the fields all year round.
The workers were sometimes transferred from one supervisor to another or
even from one city to another or sent to the workshops. With the work
quotas, the notion of a "man day" of work was introduced (it was
determined by dividing the work done by the norms). These figures were
reported in accounts. The ration allowance depended on the amount of
work performed. Foremen received seed, draft animals, plows, hoes and
other tools from the central stores. (65: pp. 271, 273, 274, 275,
299-300, 302)
The same system existed in cattle breeding. Dairy products,
cattle and hides delivered by herdsmen to the storehouses were recorded.
A basket of tablets has been preserved that contains the records on a
certain estate's animals that had died or had been slaughtered over a
period of thirteen years. Feed for livestock also was dispensed at the
storehouses.
In the crafts, a new form of large state workshop appeared. In
[157]
Ur, eight big workshops were united under the supervision of a single
person. This manager inscribed all accounts (submitted several times a
month). The products of the workshop's went to the state stores, from
which the manager received, in turn, raw materials and half-finished
goods, as well as the craftsmen's provisions. (65: p. 286, 343) For
instance, wool and linen fabrics from the weavers went to sewers for
borders and hems, then to fullers and finally to the storehouses. Plain
clothing was made for the workers and a better sort of dress for
administrators. Reports from the workshops contain data on the output,
expenditure on linen, expenditure on grain for the sustenance of the
craftsmen and figures on numbers absent and deceased. (65: pp. 349, 350)
For dispensing metals and receipt of metal articles there were
special officials who weighed the goods and inscribed the records.
Craftsmen were divided into parties headed by foremen. Workers
could be transferred from one foreman to another. The allowance a
craftsman received depended on his production (relative to the norm) and
his skill. Chiefs of workshops could obtain manpower from outside in
case of necessity. By the same token, craftsmen from the state workshops
could be sent to work on the land, in river transportation, etc. The
same term (gurushi) was often used to denote craftsmen and farm workers.
(65: pp. 267, 299-300, 346)
The construction of ships was organized on the same principles as the crafts.
Like the crafts, trade was a monopoly of the state. (66: p. 262)
In both state and temple records, slaves are mentioned--but slave women
appear much more frequently. At first these were mostly weavers, but
later they came to be employed in other work as well. Male slaves are
mentioned almost exclusively in reference to the capital. Evidently, the
children of slave women were absorbed into the general mass of
unskilled labor. (65: pp. 279-280)
As earlier (for example, in the estate of the Bau temple), there
existed workers who were not fully tied to the state but were recruited
only for the height of the working season and paid in grain. Their
proportion in the overall population is unclear.
A. I. Tiumenev cites data according to which hired workers
constituted from 5 to 20 percent of the work force. (65: p. 362) I. M.
Diakonov believes that the "percentage of the land seized for the king's
household (including the temple household) was enormous." For the third
[158]
dynasty of Ur, he argues, we must take 60 percent as a minimum figure.
(66: p. 151) Diakonov does not, however, substantiate this calculation.
A series of extant documents testifies to the fact that private
property played a certain role in economic life: for example, certain
bills of sale for children sold into slavery. But in the main sphere of
economic life, agriculture, the significance of private property could
not have been great. Among the huge number of surviving records of
business transactions of that epoch, there is not a single one extant
that deals with land sales. (66: p. 250) Specialized handicraft existed
only within the king's household; I. M. Diakonov asserts that there
existed no trade workshops other than those of the state. (66: p. 262)
During the third dynasty of Ur, material inequality reached
extraordinary proportions. The allowances for administrators exceeded
those of the workers by a factor of ten or twenty. (65: p. 405) The
difficult existence led by the lower segments of the population is
reflected in the great number of records dealing with escapes. We have
reports (with an indication of the names of the relatives of the
escapee) on the flight of a gardener, a fisherman's son, a herdsman's
son, a barber, a priest's son, a priest, etc. (65: pp. 367-368)
Another index of the conditions is the striking mortality figures
preserved in the archives. In connection with the apportioning of
grain, it is recorded that, in one party, 10 percent of all workers died
in one year's time; in another party, 14 percent; in a third, 28
percent. One tablet states that two women out of seventeen died during a
certain month, and in a year's time, eighteen of 134. In one list the
death of more than 100 women out of 150 is reported. Still higher was
the mortality rate for children, who (together with women) were employed
in heavy work, such as barge hauling. In general, the notation
"deceased" is encountered with extraordinary frequency. The general
mortality rate is estimated at 20 to 25 percent, and in field work it is
thought to have been even higher--up to 35 percent. (65: pp. 365-367)
This system of exploitation undermined the foundations of the
state, which abruptly began to disintegrate under the onslaught of the
Amorite tribes. The fall of Ur is dated 2007 B.C. A hymn describing this
event was later incorporated into a liturgy; it tells of corpses
rotting in the streets, of gutted storehouses, of towns turned to ruins,
and of women abducted to foreign cities. The destruction of temples in
Nippur,
[159]
Kish, Uruk, Isin, Eridu, Lagash and Umma is also mentioned. The
catastrophe was all-inclusive. The state crumbled into small
principalities, and there followed a period of internecine conflict
which came to an end only in 1760 B.C. with the accession to the throne
of Hammurabi in Babylon. (65: pp. 269-271)
The question of the social structure in ancient Sumer and of the
social position of its rural population has long interested historians.
The view of Soviet scholars that Sumer belonged to a slave-owning type
of system is not generally accepted elsewhere, nor is the usual Soviet
designation of Sumer as a kind of
patriarchal slave state with
two economic sectors (a state sector, where slaves belonged to the
state, and an independent sector based on family membership). (See, for
example, 69.) The most widely accepted point of view assigns the main
part of the work force to the status of the half-free gurushi. According
to I. J. Gelb, these were native inhabitants who were "undoubtedly free
at first but gradually lost their means of sustenance for some reason
or other and as a result of direct or indirect force were compelled to
work continually or periodically in other households." (69: p. 84) They
were not slaves and could not be sold; they had families of their own.
But they had no right to move freely from place to place and were
obliged to work on state lands, for temples or for the aristocracy (in
the latter's capacity as state officials). Along with these, there was
another category of workers (mentioned in the "gemé-duma" texts), who
apparently had no families and were permanently employed in temple
households. The great majority of war prisoners could not have been
effectively utilized in the economy. The gap between the large figures
reported for prisoners taken and the small number of such persons in the
household records leads Gelb to the conclusion that
most captured
enemy soldiers were killed. On the basis of a certain text, I. J. Gelb
even argues that war prisoners were driven to special "death camps" and
killed later. (70: p. 74) Those who managed to survive were turned into
state slaves, but their status gradually changed from that of slaves to
that of the semi-free workers. (70: pp. 95-96) McAdams also believes
that the economy of ancient Sumer was a kind of amalgam of several kinds
of dependence--from an obligation to work on state fields permanently
to a dependence based on allowances of water, grain and tools--with only
a small contingent of actual slaves.
[160]
There were few slaves in the service of the elite, and their
condition did not differ substantially from the numerous other forms of
dependence. (68: p. 117) The bulk of the work force, at least in the
larger estates, consisted of the semi-free gurushi. Even the small plots
of land not belonging to the temple or to the state were nevertheless
subject to controls. Purchases had to be sanctioned by the
administration; cultivation depended on obtaining grain and plows from
the central storehouses. (68: pp. 105-106) The majority of records
dealing with land transactions consists of notations of transfer of
small plots of land to the large estates belonging to representatives of
ruling families. (68: p. 106)
2. Ancient Egypt
The period of history to which the preceding section is devoted
was not an anomaly or a paradox discontinuous with the basic development
of history. On the contrary, we have seen an example, perhaps the most
striking one, of a style of life
typical of the third and second
millennia B.C. in the region that takes in Crete, Greece, Egypt and Asia
Minor. These were the most developed countries of the ancient world. To
a great extent, the same tendencies were apparent in the states of the
Indus basin.
This epoch marks the rise of a
new social structure which was destined to play a decisive role in the future history of mankind: the
state. The
basic social unit of the earlier period was a settlement around a
temple or a village closely tied to territory familiar to the fathers
and grandfathers of the inhabitants. All this was now replaced by the
state, which frequently united heterogeneous ethnic groups and
controlled vast territories, which it constantly strove to increase
still further. "World empires" appeared, pretending to hegemony over the
"whole" world and actually succeeding in gaining control over a
considerable part of the civilized world of the time.
The first such empire was that of Sargon. Instead of
comparatively small groups in which most members knew each other
personally, a society appeared for the first time in history that united
hundreds of thousands or millions of individuals who were ruled from a
single center.
This upheaval in the course of history cannot be explained by
technological or cultural progress, despite such achievements as the
invention
[161]
of writing, the widespread use of irrigation, the construction of
cities, the use of the plow and the potter's wheel, and the systematic
use of metals. In spite of these advances, the new epoch was based
chiefly on the mass application of the achievements of the neolithic and
bronze ages. The force that provoked the changes must be sought
elsewhere: it resulted from the uniting of human masses on an
unprecedented scale and the subjugation of these masses to the will of a
central power. The "technology of power" and not the "technology of
production" was the foundation upon which the new type of society was
based. (68: p. 12) The state, by means of its bureaucracy of scribes and
clerks, took control of the fundamental aspects of economic and
spiritual life, justifying this by the idea of the king's absolute power
over his subjects and over all sources of income.
To illustrate the general tendencies of this epoch, we shall cite some data on two periods in the history of ancient Egypt.
The Ancient Kingdom (First-Sixth Dynasties).* All land was
considered to be the pharaoh's. Part was transferred to temporary
individual use, but most of it made up the king's domain--i.e., it was
used directly by the state. The peasants were looked upon for the most
part as fruit of the earth and were transferred together with land. Acts
of transfer typically contain formulations like "the land with men is
given," or "land with men and cattle." Peasants worked under the
supervision of officials. The officials determined the norms for
delivery (calculated anew each year, depending on the harvest and the
annual flood). Moreover, the peasants were subjected to obligatory labor
("the hours") for building and other state work, most notably for
construction of the pyramids. According to Herodotus (later confirmed by
F. Petri's research), the scale of building was such that to construct
the Cheops pyramid, 100,000 men worked for twenty years. The peasants
did mandatory work for the king's relatives as well, and for the
nobility. All these "hours" and norms were regulated and recorded in
each region by four departments, which were in turn subordinated to the
central storehouses and central offices.
It seems that the category of agricultural worker, denoted by the word
mrt, was especially common. Pharaoh Pepi II decreed the removal of these workers to other regions to provide for the fulfillment
* A survey of the period can be found in 71, which is the source of most of our information.
[162]
of their state duties. According to some sources, these laborers lived in special workers' houses.
The crafts were concentrated, for the most part, in state and temple
workshops, where the workers were supplied with tools and raw material,
while the finished products were turned over to storehouses.
Shipbuilders, carpenters, joiners, masons, potters, metal workers, glass
and ceramics workers, either worked in palace and temple shops or
depended on them for raw materials and orders. Highly skilled artisans
with the status of hired free workers were in the minority. A number of
important branches of craft production were monopolized by royal and
temple workshops. For example, the temples manufactured papyrus for
writing material as well as for mats, ropes, footwear and shipbuilding.
While Meyer (72) considers it possible that the Ancient Kingdom
had a number of independent artisans and traders, Kees (73: p. 164)
thinks there was no such category.
Trade was exclusively in the form of barter. Gold, copper and
grain were used sometimes as a measure of value, but the entire process
of exchange was based on real value. Exchange of this sort is depicted
in numerous tomb frescoes. And among the objects donated to the cult for
the repose of the dead, none seems to have a monetary character. The
famous "Palermo Stone" enumerates the pharaoh's donations to the
temples. These include a most diverse list of valuables, including land,
people, rations of beer and bread, cattle and fowl.
Officials also were paid in produce. At court "they live from the
king's table"; in the provinces, on the deliveries due to them, in
keeping with their rank.
Certain persons of high standing received grants of land. But
such lands did not form single holdings (with the exception of instances
near the end of the period); they were scattered in various parts of
the country. The persons to whom lands were assigned had no political
rights within these territories.
The social structure was built around the bureaucracy. Beginning
with the Second Dynasty, an inventory of all property in the state took
place every two years. (It was called the "inventory of gold and fields"
or the "inventory of large and small livestock.") To accomplish this
task, the king's scribes were sent from house to house, accompanied by a
detachment of soldiers. Norms for deliveries and taxes were established
on the basis of the inventory. The representatives of central
[163]
authority in the villages were the "village judge" and the "village scribe."
The multitude of titles for the officials is an indication of the
degree of bureaucratic control over life: village scribe, village judge,
chief of canals, lake scribe, chief of sea construction (the fleet),
builder of palaces, overseer of grains and granaries, etc. Beginning
with the Fourth Dynasty, the economic life of the country was regulated
by two departments: one for fields, the other for personnel.
The officials who governed separate regions were not its rulers
in the feudal sense. Although they usually came from the "aristocracy"
by birth, and their official title was not infrequently passed from
father to son, nevertheless the position of an official was determined
not by his birthright but by the king's grace--in other words, by the
given official's position in the bureaucratic hierarchy. No one
possessed the automatic right to rule by birth. Service began usually in
the lower ranks, and a successful official moved from one province to
another frequently, without acquiring stable connections anywhere. On
official seals, the name of an official was never indicated--only his
position and the pharaoh's name. Inscriptions found in tombs make no
reference to the social origin of the deceased or even to his father's
name (except in the case of princes of the blood). An official's career
and material welfare depended entirely on the state as personified by
the pharaoh, who could even grant immortality (by allowing construction
of a tomb near his own burial place). As Meyer says: "Egypt by the time
of Mena [creator of a united state comprising Upper and Lower Egypt] was
not an aristocratic state but a bureaucratic state." (72: p. 156)
Furthermore: "The Ancient Kingdom is an extreme example of a centralized
absolute monarchy ruled by a bureaucracy that depended only on the
royal court and was educated in state schools for the training of
officials." (72: p. 193)
The Eighteenth Dynasty (Sixteenth-Fourteenth Centuries B.C.)*
More than a millennium later, we observe a system of economic relations
based on almost identical principles. The state, in the person of the
pharaoh, owned all sources of income, and anyone making use of them was
under his permanent control. Periodic censuses were used to keep track
of land, property, occupations, positions. All activity was to be
sanctioned by the state; any change of occupation could take place
* Based on the survey presented in 74.
[164]
only with official authorization. With the exception of the priests and
the military nobility, the population--both urban and rural--was united
into communities or guilds controlled by state officials.
Land relations during this epoch were shaped by the recent war for
the liberation of the country from the Hyksos invaders. The military
nobility, which arose during this struggle, possessed a small portion of
the land. Their holdings were passed down, as a rule, by right of
primogeniture from father to son, but ultimate control of even these
lands belonged to the pharaoh. Thus heirs assumed possession of land
only after this was confirmed by the central authorities.
With the exception of these lands and the temple lands, other
land belonged to the state in the person of the pharaoh and was tilled
by peasants under state control. In the tomb of Vizier Rekhmara, for
example, the agricultural workers are shown along with their wives and
children getting sacks of grain and returning empty ones in exchange,
under the supervision of an official.
The norms for delivery of agricultural goods were determined in advance on the basis of the Nile floods.
Cattle breeding was also subordinated to a broad governmental
administration headed by the "overseer of horned cattle, hoofed and
feathered livestock."
With the rare exception of individuals in some crafts that
required special skill, all artisans were united in guilds and
controlled by officials. The heads of agricultural communities and craft
workshops were responsible for the timely fulfillment of the plan for
state deliveries. If the plan was not carried out, those responsible
were punished by being sent to agricultural and construction work.
Merchants sent abroad acted as the state's agents. All imports
were also controlled by the administration; often foreign merchants were
obliged to deal only with state officials. The administration
controlled internal trade as well; all markets were under its
supervision.
Despite the fact that almost the entire population was to a great
extent directly dependent on the state, the society of the time cannot
be called either a slave system, as in classical antiquity, or a feudal
system. Written records contain numerous terms indicating dependence on
the state--i.e., people sent to compulsory work or war prisoners used in
building and other state works. However, not one of these terms can be
interpreted as slave under the personal control of another individual
and employed in economic activity.
[165]
Appendix
Religion in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia
While there is some documentation that throws light on the economic
structure of the ancient states of Egypt and Mesopotamia, it is much
more difficult to form an idea of the intellectual life and general
outlook of these societies. The only sources of information at our
disposal bear on religion.
Characteristic of the religions of the ancient East is the
special role that the king played both in a given cult itself and in all
religious notions of the time. Not only was he an earthly incarnation
of a god, but godhood was the king's second, heavenly nature, his soul.
Hence, religion was to a large extent transformed into worship of a
deified king.*
Hocart (75) has amassed a great amount of material on the cult of
king worship. However, his observations refer to more primitive
societies when the deified king played an almost exclusively cult role.
It was characteristic of Mesopotamia and Egypt to merge this function
with the role of an absolute ruler of the country.
A great number of facts supporting this point of view are
available in J. Engnell's study (76), from which we shall quote several
examples.
Egypt. The king is held to be divine from birth and even
before birth; he is conceived by god who became incarnated in his
earthly father. The gods form the child in the mother's womb. He has no
earthly parents. As one hymn reads: "Among the people thou hast no
father that conceived thee, among the people thou hast no mother that
conceived thee." (76: p. 4)
The main function of the king is to be the high priest; all other
priests are only his surrogates. The main goal of the cult is the
identification of the king with god. The king is identified with Ra--the
Sun. This identification is reflected in the so-called royal
name--Horus. That which is characteristic of the supreme god is relevant
to the king--by the might of his words he creates the world, he is the
support of worldly order, he is all-seeing and all-hearing. "Thou art
like father Ra arising in the firmament. Thy rays of light penetrate to
caves, and there is no place on earth not lit by thy beauty." (76: p. 6)
To the pharaoh is attributed the dual nature of the supreme god, both
good and wrathful.
The king is also identified with Horus, the son of Osiris, hence
with Osiris as well. Horus is the living king; Osiris is the dead king.
Osiris is the personification of the function of fecundity in the
supreme god and in that capacity was incarnate in the pharaoh. The death
of Osiris was depicted in ritual festivities--his passage through the
underworld and his resurrection, his incarnation in Horus, the earthly
king. This was simultaneously the festivity of the pharaoh's coronation.
* At least this is true of the official religion. Touching inscriptions
uncovered in barracks occupied by the builders of the pyramids show that
there also existed a popular religion based on deep feelings of
personal merging with the deity.
[166]
The identification of the pharaoh and Osiris has even given rise to
speculation (Sothe, Blackman) that Osiris is the deified image of a real
king whose archetypal activities and death serve as the basis of the
cult of Osiris. (76: p. 8)
The pharaoh's function as defender of the state against its
enemies is identified with a mythical struggle between Ra and a dragon.
The pharaoh's victories are described in vivid metaphors: he attacks
like a storm, like a devouring flame, dismembering his enemies' bodies;
their blood flows like water during the flood, their bodies are heaped
higher than the pyramids, etc. The pharaoh's enemies are called children
of destruction, the condemned, wolves, dogs. They are identified with
the dragon Apopi.
In his state activities the pharaoh is likened to a good
shepherd, shelter, a rock, a fortress. The very same epithets are
applied to the supreme god.
Hymns addressed to the pharaoh include such sentiments as:
"He hath come to us, he hath made the people of Egypt to live, he hath opened the throats of the people."
"Rejoice, thou entire land: the goodly time hath come, the Lord hath appeared in the Two Lands." (76: p. 13)
"The water standeth, and faileth not, the Nile is running high.
"The days are long, the nights have hours, the months come aright.
"The gods are content and happy of heart, and life is spent in laughter and wonder." (76: pp. 13-14)
Mesopotamia. The king was considered to be born of a
goddess; his father was Anu, Enlil or some other god who was called the
"father conceiver." In his mother's womb, the king's body and soul are
endowed with divine qualities. (76: p. 16)
During the ritual celebration of the coronation, the king dies symbolically and is reborn as a god.
It is interesting that the more ancient texts are the more
definite about the divinity of the king. In visual representations, the
king often cannot be distinguished from a god; he might have the same
hair style, for instance. The king's name has a divine character and is
used as an oath. (76: p. 18) In the god-king identity there are two
aspects. The king is the supreme sun god and, at the same time, the god
of fertility.
Thus the king Pursin of Ur is called the "true god," the sun over
his land. Hammurabi says: "I am the sun god of Babylon, who causes
light to rise over the land of Sumer and Akkad." (76: p. 23) During
ritual ceremonies the king acted as the god of the sun--Marduk. This
identification was proclaimed as dogma in relation to the role of the
king in the cult, but in an earlier period it evidently was seen in
literal terms.
On the other hand, the notion of the king as an embodiment of the
god of fertility Tammuz seems so fundamental that scholars like Feigin
consider Tammuz a historical king whose deification initiated the cult.
(76: p.24)
In the religion of Mesopotamia, the image of a tree of life that grants
[167]
the water of life plays a great role. The king is often identified with
it. Thus it is said of King Shulgi: "Shepherd Shulgi, thou who hast the
water, shed water...God Shulgi is the seed of life...the aromatic plant
of life." The lives of people are from the king: "The King gives life to
men ...life is with the King." (76: p. 28)
In a certain hymn the king speaks: "I am the king, my reign is
endless. ...I am he who rules over all things, the master of the stars."
(76: p. 29)
Identical epithets are usually applied to king and to god:
master, ruler, shepherd, lawful shepherd, ruler of lands, ruler of the
universe.
We quote several more fragments from the hymns:
"He that overfloweth the face of the land with the flood..." (76: p. 39)
"He whom the great gods look upon with bright regard..." (76: p. 42)
"Who brings back life to those who have been sick for many days..." (76: p. 44)
And in connection with nature:
"The corn grew five ells high in its ears."
3. Ancient China
The history of China is an extraordinarily interesting example of how
the tendencies of state socialism find expression in a multitude of
forms over a tremendous span of time. Below we shall cite some data
bearing on the period between the thirteenth and the third centuries
B.C. This epoch is divided into two parts: the ancient (the Yin and the
early Chou of classical Chinese historiography) and the late Chun-Chiu
and Ch'in. The boundary between them lies in the fifth century B.C.
The Yin era comprises the earliest nonmythic period in Chinese
history. Songs and chronicles supply some information on it, in addition
to archaeological evidence. Some of the most important knowledge about
the Yin comes from inscriptions on bones and tortoise shells used for
divining. These inscriptions are assigned by Maspero (77) to the twelfth
to eleventh centuries B.C. and by Kuo Mo-Jo (78) to the fourteenth to
thirteenth centuries. The sources point to a society based on hunting
and agriculture. Cultivation was by and large confined to riverbanks;
artificial irrigation was little used. The manufacture of bronze
utensils and spinning and weaving achieved a high level of technical
proficiency. A writing system had been developed and the calendar was in
use.
Power belonged to the king or wang. In a later chronicle a legendary
[168]
king, Pan-Keng, in ordering his people to populate new areas, says: "You
are all my cattle and people." (78: p. 22) He warns that in case of
disobedience they will have their noses cut off and all their
descendants will be destroyed "so that bad seed should not get into the
city." (78: p. 22) The commentary to an ancient chronicle (sixth-fifth
centuries B.C.) states that "Chou [the wang of Yin] had hundreds of
thousands, millions of people." (78: p. 22) That the wang occupied a
central place in Yin society is indicated by the huge number of human
sacrifices that accompanied his burial. The grave of a wang was
surrounded by up to one thousand corpses. On the other hand, such mass
slaughter, apparently of war prisoners, made the spread of slavery
rather improbable.
In agriculture no trace of individual land allotment has been found.
Control over work on the land was in the hands of agricultural
officials. The bureaucratic nature of agriculture is suggested by
inscriptions on dice used in fortune-telling. For example, the augury
directs the wang "to order the common folk to go to the fields for the
harvest." Or: "The common folk are to be ordered to sow millet." (79: p.
125)
The conquest of the Yin empire by the nomadic Chou tribe
transformed the latter into a privileged class of society, but little
changed in the general structure of life. As before, work on the land
was controlled by officials subordinate to the king. Numerous songs
describe agriculture based on the use of large groups of peasants
directed by officials who indicate where, when and what to sow. For
example, land officials were instructed as follows: "our ruler summons
us all ...orders you to lead the plowmen to sow grain. ..quickly take
your instruments and begin to plow. ...Let ten thousand pairs go out.
..this will be enough." (79: p. 125) Elsewhere a similar scene is
pictured: "A thousand pairs of people on the plain and on the mountain
slope weed and plow the field." (79: p. 129) Of the harvest it is said:
"There are large granaries everywhere. ...In them, millions of
tan of
grain. ..A thousand granaries must be prepared. ...Ten thousand grain
baskets must be prepared." Finally, the wang gives his approval--the
ultimate goal of labor: "All the fields are completely sown. ...The
grain is truly good. ...The wang was not angry; he said, 'You peasants
have labored gloriously.' " (79: pp. 128, 134)
The historical book
Han-Shu, written in the first century
A.D., describes the organization of agricultural work thus: "Before the
population went out to work, the village head took up his place on the
right
[169]
of the exit, the agricultural officials on the left; they left their
places after everyone had departed for the fields. In the evening, the
same thing was repeated." (78: p. 31)
A line in a song runs: "Rain falls on our common land and on our own
fields." (79: p. 135) Thus, apart from the fields in which thousands
toiled under the supervision of officials, there were individual plots
analogous to those that existed in Peru and in the Jesuit state.
Historical sources point to the state distribution of land. "At
definite times the population was counted and the land distributed."
(80: p. 149) And: "The individual at the age of twenty received a field,
at the age of sixty returned it, at an age over seventy lived in state
dependency, up to ten years of age was brought up by elders, on reaching
age eleven was forced to work by the elders." (78: p. 31)
All land and all people were considered to be the wang's
property: "Under-the-heavens, there is no land that does not belong to
the wang, in the whole world from one end to the other there are no
people who are not the wang's underlings." (78: p. 29)
Land and folk were granted by the wang to the aristocracy for
temporary use, without the right of sale or transfer even by
inheritance. Many cases are recorded of land being confiscated and even
of aristocrats being reduced to the rank of the common people.
Officials, scholars and artisans got their sustenance from specific
plots of land tilled by the peasants who lived on them.
Besides their immediate obligations, peasants had a number of
other duties. In case of war, they were to "put on armor and take
poleaxes in hand." (78: p. 32) They were obliged to work on construction
projects. In one song, it is said: "Tillers!. ..This year the harvest
is already in. ...It is time to build a palace. ...By day make ready
reeds. ...In the evening weave rope. ...Hurry and finish the building."
(79: p. 147)
The crafts were partly the peasants' obligation as well. In the
Han-Shu it
is said: "In winter, when the population returned to the village, the
women gathered together in the evenings and were engaged in spinning. In
one month they fulfilled the norm set for forty-five days." (78: p. 31)
There were, however, professional artisans also. They belonged to
a special organization in which the artisans of similar specialties
formed closed corporations directed by overseers. Artisans and
overseers, as well as merchants, received allowances from the state.
[170]
All the essential aspects of life were under the control of the
king's administration. There were three basic areas of supervision:
agriculture, war and public works. The heads of these three departments
were called the three elders and were regarded as the highest-ranking
officials of the empire. All agricultural production was subordinated to
the department of agriculture or "plenty."* Its officials scheduled the
rotation of crops, the time of sowing and of harvesting. They assigned
the duties to groups or to individual peasants and supervised the
private exchange of agricultural products at the markets. The life of
the peasant was also under their control: marriage, village holidays and
litigation.
The primary task of the military department was the suppression
of uprisings. Also among its functions were recruiting and training and
all questions of the conduct of and preparation for war--the arsenal,
food stores, horses. This department also organized the huge hunting
expeditions that took place four times each year. The department of
public works had authority over the land (while the people who worked
the land were managed by the department of "plenty"). It established
"boundary lines," that is, undertook the periodic redistribution of
land; it directed irrigation work, the building of roads, the
cultivation of virgin lands. Artisans, architects, sculptors and
armorers were at its disposal. (77: pp. 73-75)
Although there were objects (shells, copper bars) that were used
as convenient means of exchange, all deliveries to the state consisted
of produce: grain, canvas, etc. Private transactions, in most cases,
also had the character of exchange in kind.
In many respects, marriage had nontraditional forms. Among the
inscriptions from the Yin period, we find listings of wives belonging to
two husbands. (81: p. 12) In the Chou epoch, marriage among the
peasants was to a large extent regulated by the state. For example, in
one source we read: "Men are ordered to marry by age thirty, girls, by
age twenty. This means that the deadline for marriage both for men and
for women cannot be extended." (80: p. 147) At a specific time in
spring, the emperor announced the day for weddings. A special official
called a mediator informed the peasants that the time for "the joining
of youths and girls" had come. The French Sinologist Maspero believes
that marriage in the true sense existed only for the aristocracy, for
which it had the effect of sustaining the religious cult. Common
* This translation was suggested by Maspero (77) in 1927, long before Orwell's 1984.
[171]
folk did not establish clans and the family did not have a religious
character. Marriage was denoted by different terms for the aristocracy
and the peasantry; Maspero translates the former term as "marriage" and
the latter as "union." (77: p. 117)
Legal functions were divided between the civil administration and the
legal department. Civil authorities assigned penalties for minor
crimes--a specific number of blows with a stick. In cases of repeated
offense, the guilty party was handed over to the law department. Five
kinds of punishment were provided for by law for serious offenses:
capital punishment, castration (or, for women, incarceration), cutting
off of the heel, cutting off of the nose, branding. A codex attributed
to King Mu of the beginning of the Chou period contains a list of three
thousand offenses, of which two hundred were punishable by death, three
hundred by castration, five hundred by cutting off the heel, one
thousand by cutting off the nose and one thousand by branding. The codex
from the end of this epoch lists 2,500 offenses, five hundred in each
of the five categories of punishment. (77: p. 77)
In many respects, the society of the Chou period resembles that
of the Inca empire at the time of the Spanish invasion. But in China,
history made possible a further elaboration of the social structure. The
Chou state did not fall victim to a foreign invader, but rather
developed under the influence of internal factors. And quite unexpected
features appeared. By the fifth century B.C., the empire, officially
under the dominion of the Chou king, broke up into what were in reality
small independent states that engaged in permanent warfare. (This age
is, in fact, called the "epoch of the fighting kingdoms.") But the
collapse of the monolithic state mechanism was compensated for by the
development of individual factors. The teachings of Confucius proclaimed
man's primary goal to be the moral and ethical perfection of his
personality and the integration of culture with such spiritual qualities
as justice, love of mankind, loyalty, nobility. A multitude of
philosophical schools came into being; vagrant scholars began to playa
great role in the life of society.
This is a period of rapid cultural and economic growth. The
language and writing systems of the different kingdoms was codified. The
number of cities and towns increased rapidly, and they began to playa
greater role in the life of the country. The chronicles tell of cities
in which carriages collided in the streets and the crowds were such that
clothing put on in the morning got worn out by evening. Large
irrigation systems were constructed. A network of canals was
[172]
built, connecting all the kingdoms of China. Implements made of iron
came into wide use. Almost all agricultural instruments, such as hoes,
spades, axes, sickles, were made of iron. Throughout China large iron
deposits were being worked; there were huge smelting furnaces run by
crews of hundreds of slaves. Cities and whole regions specialized in
producing different articles: silk, arms, salt. Under the influence of
increasing trade links, almost all kingdoms began to mint identical
coins. (83: pp. 24-32)
Somewhat later, however, a new tendency appeared: the desire to make
use of the higher technical and intellectual level in order to create a
strictly centralized society in which the individual, to a far greater
degree than before, would be under control of the state. It seems that
this is not the only time in history that developments have taken such a
turn. For example, H. Frankfort (83) believes that the first states in
Mesopotamia and Egypt arose in an analogous fashion, i.e., as a result
of subjecting the economic and intellectual achievements of the temple
economies to the goals of a central government.
A unique place in the thought and activity of the China of the
"fighting kingdoms" period is occupied by Kung-sun Yang, better known as
Shang Yang. He was the ruler of Shang province in the middle of the
fourth century B.C. and his theoretical views are set forth in
The Book of the Ruler of Shang. (84) This work is believed to have been written in part by Shang, in part by his disciples.
According to Shang's teaching, two forces determine the life of
society. One of them Shang calls the ruler or the state, evidently
regarding them as different terms for essentially the same thing. Shang
identifies himself with this force. The aim of the whole treatise is to
point out the best paths and means for achieving the goals of this force
in the most perfect fashion. The goal consists essentially of
increasing to the maximum degree possible the ruler's influence and
power both inside the country and beyond its borders through expansion.
The ideal is full dominion under-the-heavens. The other force is the
people. The author describes the interrelations between the ruler and
the people as analogous to those between the artisan and his raw
material. The people are likened to ore in the hands of a metal worker
or to clay in the hands of a potter. And even more--the aspirations of
the two forces are diametrically opposed; they are enemies, the one
getting stronger only at the expense of the other. "Only he who has
conquered his own people first can conquer a strong enemy." (84: p. 210)
"When the people are weak the state is strong; when the state is weak
the
[173]
people are strong. Hence the state that follows a true course strives to
weaken the people." (84: p. 219) The section in Shang's book from which
the last quotation is taken is in fact entitled: "How to Weaken the
People."
In order to transform his people into clay in his hands, the ruler is
advised to renounce love of man, of justice and of the
people--qualities that the author categorizes collectively as virtue.
These qualities should not be assumed among the people either; they must
be ruled like a collection of potential criminals with an appeal made
only to fear and selfish advantage. "If the state is governed by
virtuous methods, large numbers of criminals are sure to appear." (84:
p. 156) "In a state where the depraved are treated as if they were
virtuous, sedition is inevitable. In a state where the virtuous are
treated as if they were depraved, order shall reign and the state surely
shall be powerful." (84: p. 163) "When the people derive profit from
the ways in which they are used, they can be made to do anything the
ruler wishes. ...However, should the ruler turn away from the law and
begin to rely upon his love for the people, there will be an outbreak of
crime in the land." (84: p. 220)
The law is at the basis of life; it rules over the people through
fear and, to a lesser extent, through the profit motive: "The law is
the basis for the people.. ..A situation is considered just when
dignitaries are loyal, when sons are respectful to their parents, when
juniors are observant of their seniors, when the distinction between man
and woman is established. But all this is achieved not through justice
but by means of immutable laws. And then, even a starving man will not
strain to reach for food, just as a condemned man will not cling to
life. He who is perfectly wise does not value justice, but he values
laws. If the laws are absolutely clear and decrees are absolutely
obeyed, nothing more is needed." (84: pp. 215-216)
Of the two key factors, punishment and reward, with the help of
which the law governs the people, considerable preference is given to
the first: "In a state striving for dominion under-the-heavens, there
are nine punishments to one reward, and in states doomed to
disintegrate, there are nine rewards to one punishment." (84: p. 165) It
is only punishment that breeds morality: "Virtue originated with
punishment." (84: p. 165) Speaking of how to apply punishment, the
author sees only the following alternatives: mass punishment applied
across the board or the less frequently used but particularly harsh
punishment. He definitely recommends the second course: "People can be
made
[174]
worthy without mass punishment, if the punishment is severe." (84: p.
212) In this he even discerns a mark of the ruler's love for his people:
"Should punishments be severe and rewards few, the ruler loves his
people and the people are ready to give up their lives for the ruler.
Should rewards be considerable and punishments mild, the ruler does not
love his people, and the people will not give up their lives for his
sake." (84: pp. 158-159)
The primary goal of punishment is to sever the ties that bind people
together; therefore, a whole system of informers must supplement
punishment. "If the people are ruled as virtuous, they will love those
closest to them; if they are ruled as depraved, they will become fond of
this system. Unity among people and their mutual support spring from
the fact that they are ruled as virtuous; estrangement among the people
and mutual surveillance spring from their being ruled as depraved." (84:
pp. 162-163) The ruler "should issue a law on mutual surveillance; he
should issue a decree that the people ought to correct each other." (84:
p. 214) "Regardless of whether the informer is of the nobility or of
low origin, he inherits fully the nobility, the fields and the salary of
the senior official whose misconduct he reports to the ruler." (84: p.
207) Denunciation is tied to a system of extended mutual liability. "A
father sending his son to war, the elder sending his younger brother, or
the wife seeing off her husband, shall all say: 'Don't come back
without victory!' And they will add 'Should you break the law or disobey
an order, we shall perish together with you.'" (84: p. 211) "In a
well-regulated country, husband, wife and their friends will not be able
to conceal a crime one from the other without courting disaster for the
relatives of the culprit; the rest will not be able to cover each other
either." (84: p. 231)
The author pictures this entire system as a more profound and
significant form of humanity, a path toward the dying away of
punishment, execution and denunciation, almost a withering away of the
state--through its maximum increase in strength. "If punishment be made
severe and a system of mutual responsibility for crime is established,
people will not dare to expose themselves to the force of law. And when
people begin to fear the results, the very necessity of punishment will
disappear." (84: p. 207) "Therefore, if by war, war can be abolished,
then even war is permissible; if by murder, murder can be abolished,
then even murder is permissible; if by punishment, punishment can be
abolished, then even harsh punishment is permissible." (84: p. 210)
"Such is my method of returning to virtue, by the path
[175]
of capital punishment and reconciliation of justice and violence." (84: p. 179)
What is the social structure that Shang Yang proposes to achieve by
these means? He singles out two concerns for the sake of which other
human interests should be suppressed and to which everything should be
subordinated: agriculture and war. He ascribes such exclusive importance
to these entities that he introduces a special term to define them,
translated as "concentration on the One Thing" or "unification." The
whole future of the country depends upon this factor: "The country that
achieves unification, be it for one year, will be powerful for ten
years; the state that achieves unification for ten years will be
powerful for a hundred years; the state that achieves unification for a
hundred years will be powerful for a thousand years and will achieve
dominion under-the-heavens." (84: p. 154) Only the following activities
must be encouraged by the state: "He who wants the flowering of the
state should inspire in the people the knowledge that official posts and
ranks of nobility can be obtained only by engaging in the One Thing."
(84: p. 148)
All economic activity was to have a single goal--agriculture. Two
explanations are given for this: in the first place, "when all thoughts
are turned to agriculture, people are simple and easily governed." (84:
p. 153) Secondly, agriculture helps feed the army during prolonged
wars. Colonization and cultivation of virgin lands is proposed; peasants
are to be attracted from other lands to this end by promises of release
from labor and military duties for three generations. It seems that the
peasants who settled on virgin lands were usually under greater control
and belonged to a "royal domain." Thus the proposal to be free for
three generations must have sounded especially attractive. Over and
over, proposing this or that official measure, Shang Yang concludes the
passage with the words: "And then the virgin lands are certain to be
cultivated."
For the nobility, the only way to riches and a career must be
through military service: "All privileges and salaries, official posts
and ranks of nobility, must be given only for service in the army; there
must be no other way. For only by this path is it possible to take a
clever man and a fool, nobles and common folk, brave men and cowards,
worthy men and those good for nothing, and extract all that is in their
heads and their backs and force them to risk their lives for the sake of
the ruler." (84: p. 204)
In military activity there is no place for moral considerations. On
[176]
the contrary: "If the army commits actions that the enemy would not dare
to commit, then this means that the country is strong. If in war the
country commits actions the enemy would be ashamed of committing, then
it will have gained an advantage." (84: p. 156)
The ruler, too, is released from moral obligations toward his
soldiers. He rules over them, as over all people by means of rewards and
punishments. Three enemy heads cut off results in a promotion to the
rank of nobility. "If after three days a commander has not conferred
this title upon anyone, he is sentenced to two years hard labor. ...A
warrior displaying cowardice is torn to pieces by carriages, a warrior
daring to disapprove of an order is branded, his nose is cut off and he
is thrown down at the city wall." (84: pp. 218-219) As with the general
population, the warrior is bound by extended responsibility. Soldiers
are divided into fives and for ail offense by one all are executed.
Thus: "It is necessary to drive people into such a state that
they should suffer if not engaged in agriculture, that they should live
in fear if they are not engaged in war." (84: p. 234) Therefore, all
"external" occupations (that is, not part of the One Thing) are
systematically suppressed. As a result, activities outside direct state
control, those in which personal initiative and individuality were
displayed, were the first to be cut off. Hence the abolition of private
trade in grain is proposed. Then merchants will be compelled to turn to
working the land, and "wastelands are certain to be cultivated." Taxes
were to be raised sharply so as to make trade unprofitable. And in
general the role of gold was to be diminished so that it should play the
least possible role. "When gold appears, grain disappears--and when
grain appears, gold disappears." (84: p. 161) Merchants and their people
should be drawn into performing state labor duties. The crafts are also
not to be encouraged: "Common people are engaged in trade and are
masters of various crafts so as to avoid agriculture and war. If such
things take place, the state is in danger." (84: p. 148) Hired labor
should be abolished so that private persons would not be able to
undertake construction work. Mining and water transportation should
become state monopolies: "If the right of ownership to mountains and
reservoirs is concentrated in the same hand, then lands lying fallow
will certainly be cultivated." And inhabitants should be attached to the
land. "If the people are deprived of the right of free migration, then
lands lying fallow will certainly be cultivated." (84: pp. 144-145) All
these measures can be summed up in one general principle:
"Under-the-heavens there hardly was ever a case where a state did not
perish
[177]
when infested with worms or when a crack appeared. That is why a wise
ruler makes laws eliminating private interests, thereby delivering the
state from worms and cracks." (84: p. 198)
The implementation of these principles, however, is prevented by a
force which the book deals with at length. To denote this force Shang
Yang uses a term that is translated as "parasites" or (literally)
"lice." Sometimes six parasites are enumerated, sometimes eight, in
still other instances ten. These are the
Shih Ching and the
Shu Ching (The Book of Songs and
The Book of History, the
sources of artistic and historical education), music, virtue,
veneration of old customs, love of mankind, selflessness, eloquence,
wit, etc. Elsewhere, knowledge, talent and learning are added. What
seems to be meant is culture in its broadest understanding and involving
a certain level of ethical and moral demands. The existence of such
"parasites" is incompatible with the One Thing that the author
elaborates, as well as with his whole program. "If there are ten
parasites in a state. ..the ruler will not be able to find a single man
whom he might use for defense or to wage war." (84: p. 151) "Wherever
there exist these eight parasites simultaneously, the authorities are
weaker than their people." (84: p. 162) In this case, the state will be
torn apart. "If knowledge is encouraged and not nipped in the bud, it
will increase, and when it will have increased, it will become
impossible to rule the land." (84: p. 182) "If the eloquent and the
intelligent are valued, if vagrant scholars are brought into the service
of the state, if a man becomes well known thanks to his learning and
personal glory, then ways are open in the land to the unrighteous. If
these three kinds of persons are not checked in their path, it will be
impossible to engage the people in war." (84: p. 224) And Shang Yang
warns darkly: "The people in the whole country have changed, they have
taken to eloquence and find pleasure in study; they have started to
engage in various crafts and trade; they have begun to neglect
agriculture and war. If this trend continues, the hour of death is near
for the land." (84: p. 152) In olden times, he says, things were not
this way: "The gifted were of no use and the ungifted could do no harm.
Therefore, the art of ruling well consists precisely in the ability of
removing the clever and the gifted." (84: p. 231) Finally, this idea is
expressed in its most naked form: "If the people are stupid, they can be
easily governed." (84: p. 237)
Shang Yang's teaching is reminiscent of a social utopia, a
description of an "ideal state," in which "private interests are
eliminated," love
[178]
for kindred beings is replaced by love for state order, all aspirations
are concentrated on the One Thing and the entire structure is maintained
by a system of informers, guilt by association and harsh punishments.
But in one respect Shang Yang occupies a special place among authors of
such treatises. Many of them made attempts to implement their ideals.
Plato, for instance, sought a ruler who would organize a state in the
spirit of his teaching. Plato's attempts ended when the Syracuse tyrant
Dionysius, upon whom he had set his hopes, sold him into slavery. Shang
Yang, however, found his ruler and had the opportunity to realize his
ideals. The prince of the state of Ch'in made him first minister and
Shang Yang succeeded in carrying out a number of reforms. Here is what
is known of Shang Yang's legislation:
1. Farmers ("those engaged in the essential thing") were freed from obligatory service.
2. Those discovered engaging in "nonessential" activities were turned into slaves.
3. Ranks of nobility were obtainable only through military
service. High positions in the government could be given only to those
who had already earned the rank of nobility. Those without rank were
forbidden to display luxuries. (In this way, the ruling class was
transformed from a hereditary aristocracy into officials dependent on
the favor of their superiors and the monarch.)
4. The state was divided into provinces ruled by state officials.
5. Large families were split up, and grown sons were forbidden to
live with their fathers. (This measure is seen as an attempt to destroy
the village community.)
6. Fields were marked offwith boundary lines. A number of
historians see in this the destruction of community and the
subordination of the peasantry directly to officials; others view it as
indicative of the freedom to buy and sell land. (The spirit of Shang
Yang's book would seem to render the latter interpretation quite
unlikely.)
7. Capital punishment was introduced for the theft of a horse or an ox.
8. Every five households were united into a unit of shared
responsibility and linked to another five. If one member of the group of
ten households committed a crime, the others were to report
him--otherwise they were to be cut in half. The informer was to be
rewarded in the same manner as one who had killed an enemy.
These laws met with great resistance, but Shang Yang managed
[179]
to cope with the opposition. Individuals expressing their discontent
were removed to the frontier regions. Danger struck from quite a
different quarter. His patron died and the heir to the kingdom, who
hated Shang Yang, executed him along with his entire family. But Shang
Yang's reforms were left in effect and led, as he had asserted , to the
achievement of hegemony under-the-heavens by the Ch'in kingdom. In the
third century B.C., China was united in the highly centralized Ch'in
empire in which the ideas of Shang Yang were implemented even more
consistently and on a greater scale.
At the head of the state stood the ruler, who took the title
Huang-ti, a term which existed right up until 1912. It is translated as
"emperor ," although it has more elevated connotations, something like
"Divine Sovereign of the Earth." The first emperor proclaimed that he
should be called Shih Huang-ti; his heirs were to be called the Second
shih, the Third shih, and so on up to ten thousand generations. (In
fact, the dynasty was overthrown in the reign of his son.) The emperor
was proclaimed the sole high priest of the state. Inscribed on a stele
erected by the emperor are the words: "Within the limits of the six
points [the four directions, plus up and down] everywhere is the land of
the Emperor. Wherever man's foot has trodden there are no people who do
not submit to the Emperor." (82: p. 162)
A historical concept current at the time held that the history of
under-the-heavens consisted of a succession of five epochs,
corresponding to the five elements: earth, wood, metal, fire and water.
Black was designated the state color, corresponding to water, and the
word "people" was replaced by the term "the black-headed." The number
six, which indicated water, was declared to be sacred, and counting was
to be based on this number. The "responsible unit," which had contained
five people, now included six.
The historically produced division of the country was abolished.
Instead, the empire was divided up into thirty-six regions, and those in
their turn into districts. The country was run by a centralized
bureaucracy. Inspectors, who were directly responsible to the emperor,
supervised the work of all officials and reported on it to the capital.
During critical periods such inspectors were also appointed to the army.
District authorities were in charge of the rural elders, of the keepers
of public morals, of the keepers of barns and granaries, of watchmen
and postmasters. Cults and rituals were unified and local observances
suppressed; temples directly subordinated to the state were built.
Officials
[180]
of special departments were charged with keeping track of these
activities. Other special officials were in charge of military and
economic affairs, or of service to the person of the emperor. The
overwhelming majority of officials received regular allowances in grain.
Only high officials and the emperor's sons utilized the income of
certain regions, in which, however, they did not enjoy any political
rights.
In accordance with Shang Yang's teaching, agriculture was proclaimed
to be the "essential thing." On the emperor's stele it said: "The
emperor's merit consists in his having forced the population to engage
in the essential thing. He encouraged agriculture and eradicated the
secondary." (82: p. 161)
The emperor was considered to be the owner of all land. It seems
that when the Emperor Wang Mang proclaimed all land to belong to the
crown (first century A.D.), he was only calling to mind an already
established tradition. This arrangement was reflected in obligatory
deliveries and a series of military and labor duties the peasants
performed. Nevertheless, there exists information concerning the buying
and selling of land by private persons. Still, agriculture was
apparently based on the commune, which was used as a means of
subordinating the peasantry to the state. Commune officials were obliged
to see that the peasants went to the fields on time and were not to
allow back into the village a peasant who had not fulfilled his norm.
One treatise of the day relates that during an illness of one of the
Ch'in kings, communes that sacrificed oxen for his recovery were
punished. Evidently, the central authorities did not consider that
communes had the right to dispose of livestock in any way. A historical
record of later times tells about an inscription someone cut on a stone:
"When Emperor Ch'in Shih Huang dies, the land will be divided." The
guilty party was not found, but the stone was ground to powder and all
inhabitants of the vicinity were executed. (82: p. 180) This incident
suggests that in Ch'in Shih Huang's reign certain measures taken to
socialize the land provoked discontent among the populace.
An important means by which subordination of agriculture to state
control was implemented was the emperor's monopoly on water. A special
department oversaw sluices, dikes and irrigation canals. (It should be
kept in mind that in the Ch'in epoch, irrigation began to play an
extremely important role in agriculture.) Another measure that served
the purpose of extending the authority of the state was the resettlement
of great masses of peasants to newly conquered territories,
[181]
where they were evidently under more direct control.
Little information about private crafts in the Ch'in empire has
survived. There are references to owners of iron-smelting workshops who
became extremely rich. On the other hand, there are descriptions of
large state arms-manufacturing works, whose entire production went to
state storehouses. It is known that the state confiscated iron arms from
the populace, and it is therefore likely that all production of arms
was concentrated in the hands of the state. An imperial stele reads:
"All implements and arms were made after one pattern." (82: p. 161) The
state had a monopoly on the mining of salt and ore. Whole armies of
workers labored in state workshops and on state construction sites. It
is known that some of them were state slaves; the status of others is
unclear. The state carried out construction projects on an unprecedented
scale. Immensely long roads, the so-called imperial highways, were
built, crisscrossing the country from one end to the other. The width of
these roads reached fifty paces, and there was a raised section in the
middle some seven meters wide. This latter was intended for use by the
emperor and his court. The fortifications erected earlier by the various
states were demolished and the celebrated Great Wall of China
constructed to defend the northern frontier. The region of the Wall was
connected with the capital by a road that went directly from north to
south without attempting to bypass the natural obstacles. ("Mountains
were dug through; valleys filled in, and a straight road was built.")
(82: p. 171) Tremendous resources were expended on the building of
palaces (in the vicinity of the capital, 270 were erected) and on
constructing the emperor's mausoleum.
These activities of the state, as well as the wars that were
being constantly waged on the southern and northern frontiers, required
the employment of colossal masses of people. The state resorted to a
policy of resettlement on a wide scale; unreliable segments of the
population were moved to the former Ch'in kingdom and more reliable
groups sent to the newly conquered regions. The resettlement of 120,000
families is recorded in one place; 50,000 in another case, 30,000
elsewhere.
The entire population, except officialdom, was subject to
innumerable military and labor duties. Military service included an
obligatory month of training for all men at age twenty-three, one year
of service in the regular army, and border patrol apart from
mobilization. The number of men employed in military service was
immense: armies
[182]
of 500,000 and 300,000 are mentioned. Even more people were involved in
labor duties. In the building of a single palace, 700,000 were employed.
The basic labor obligations included the building of canals, palaces,
the Great Wall, etc.; the transportation of goods for the state (mainly
military supplies), transportation work on canals and rivers. Military
and labor duties were not always distinguished one from the other. In
the south, the army built canals for transport of supplies; in the
north, a 300,000-man army, alongside mobilized inhabitants and state
slaves, were engaged in the building of the Great Wall. One source gives
the following picture: "Men who had come of age were being driven to
work. ...Along the roads there lay so many corpses that they could have
filled the ditches." (79: p. 395)
Such measures evoked mass flight of the population to forests,
mountains and marshy regions. Others joined the northern nomads, or
migrated to the Korean state. A new term appears in the sources--the
category of "people in hiding." It was not only the poor who fled. The
emperor who came to power after the overthrow of the Ch'in Dynasty
decreed that those who returned to their districts would get back their
fields and ranks.
The Ch'in penal code was consistent with the ideas of Shang Yang.
It is based on the principle of guilt by association. Six relatives
answered for each person. The criminal was executed; the others made
into state slaves. Officials were bound by another form of mutual
liability: the official who had appointed a guilty party and any others
who knew of the crime but did not report it were subjected to the same
punishment as the culprit. In other cases, execution of "relatives of
the three branches" could be carried out--i.e., relatives on the
father's side, the mother's and the wife's. This edict reads: "First,
brand all the criminal's relatives of the three branches of
relationship, cut off their left and right heels and beat them to death
with sticks. Their heads are then to be cut off and their flesh and
bones thrown on the city square. If the criminal was a slanderer or a
conjurer, his tongue is first cut out. This is known as execution
through the five punishments." (79: p. 379) A milder form of punishment
was the extermination of the criminal's immediate relatives only.
There existed an extraordinary variety of execution: quartering,
cutting into halves, cutting into pieces, decapitation with exhibition
of the head on the square, slow strangulation, burying alive, boiling in
a cauldron, breaking of ribs, smashing of the crown of the head.
[183]
Other kinds of punishment included the cutting off of the kneecap or of
the nose, castration, branding and beating with sticks. Conviction to
hard labor for from several months to several years was widely used, as
was enslavement. One chronicle recounts: "All the roads were crowded
with the condemned in scarlet shirts. And the jails were filled to
overflowing like markets crowded with people." (85: p. 58)
Perhaps the most notorious event in the reign of Ch'in Shih Huang is
the so-called book burning. The idea was to suppress any thought
independent of the state and to obliterate historical sources that
differed from official ones. The emperor's chief counselor proposed the
form of the decree. In his letter he wrote: "At present, Your Majesty
has performed great deeds whose glory will spread through ten thousand
generations. This, of course, cannot be understood by foolish scholars.
...At present, when You the Emperor have united the country, separated
black from white and established unity, they honor their science and
associate with people who disapprove of laws and directives. When they
learn of an edict they discuss it in accordance with their scholarly
principles. When they enter the palace they disapprove in their souls;
when they come out again they engage in open discussion. ...And if this
is not forbidden, then the condition of the ruler at the top will become
worse, and at the bottom the parties will gain strength. It would be
useful to forbid it." (81: pp. 150-152)
There follow suggestions for concrete measures that were, in
fact, acted upon by the emperor. The edict in question reads: "All books
which are not concerned with the official history of the Ch'in state,
except books which are under the keeping of high officials, are to be
burned. ...All who still dare under-the-heavens to conceal [books deemed
seditious] are to be brought to the chiefs and the guards and burned
together with their books. All who discuss these works are to be
publicly executed. All who use the examples of the past to condemn the
present are to be executed. ...Officials seeing or knowing anything
about the hiding of books who do not take measures are to be treated
like those who conceal books. ...Those who do not turn in books within
thirty days after the proclamation of this edict are to be branded as
criminals and exiled to the building of the Wall. ... Books on medicine,
divination and plant growing are not subject to destruction." (79: p.
381)
The point of these measures was to deprive the population of the
means of independent study. Private persons had no right to possess any
books except those devoted to very narrow utilitarian problems.
[184]
Many books were preserved in state depositories to which only special
officials had access. But historical works on kingdoms other than the
Ch'in empire were completely destroyed.
Books were not the only victims of persecution. At the order of the
emperor, 460 Confucian scholars were buried alive, and a far greater
number were exiled to frontier regions.
Subsequently, when Confucianism became the official ideology of
the Chinese empire, Ch'in Shih Huang's persecutions came to be seen as
an epitome of barbarism. But hostility toward Confucian teachings on the
part of rulers manifested itself in the later periods as well. It is
said of the founder of a dynasty that succeeded the Ch'in that he "does
not like Confucian scholars. When a man in the headdress of a 'guest' or
a Confucian enters, he quickly tears the headdress off and urinates
into it on the spot." (79: p. 389)
In our day, the Communist Party of China has called the people to
a struggle against the "followers of Confucius and Lin Piao." And back
in 1958, at the second plenary meeting of the Central Committee of the
Chinese Communist Party (Eighth Congress), Mao Tse-tung said of Emperor
Ch'in Shih Huang:
He issued an order that read: "The kin of him who for the sake of
antiquity rejects the present will be eradicated to the third
generation." If you adhere to antiquity and do not recognize the new,
all your family will be slaughtered. Ch'in Shih Huang buried only 460
Confucians alive. However, he has a long way to go to catch up with us.
During the purge, we did away with several tens of thousands of people.
We acted like ten Ch'in Shih Huangs. I assert that we are better than
Ch'in Shih Huang. He buried alive 460 people, and we, 46,000--one
hundred times more. Indeed, to kill, then to dig a grave and bury
someone--this also means to bury alive. We are abused and called Ch'in
Shih Huangs and usurpers. We accept this and consider that we have still
done little in this respect--much more can be done.
Appendix
Was There Such a Thing as an "Asiatic Social Formation"?
Everyone who has ever passed an examination on "historical
materialism" is familiar with the basic outline of human history.
History is seen as a sequence of social formations: primitive-communal,
slave-owning, feudal, bourgeois and communist. This fundamental
historical law, however, did not crystalize with perfect clarity at once
and certain comrades still have confused ideas on the question.
The problem is that the Founders of the Scientific Method of
History occasionally referred to one other type of information--the
"Asiatic,"
[185]
elsewhere referred to as the "Asiatic Mode of Production." (See the
correspondence between Marx and Engels, Marx's essay "British Rule in
India" and his preface to "Toward a Critique of Political Economy.") The
distinguishing feature of this formation, the trait that constitutes
the basis of the political and religious history of the East and the
"key to the Eastern sky," was identified as the absence of private
ownership of land.
There was lively discussion of this question in Soviet historical
scholarship in the twenties and thirties, especially in connection with
the history of the ancient Near East. The argument was won by
academician V. V. Struve and his followers, who maintained the correct
Marxist point of view, according to which the ancient kingdoms of the
Near East were slave-owning societies. The question might have been
considered completely closed with the publication of Stalin's famous
Chapter 4 of the Short Course on the History of the CPSU (1938),
wherein the now universally familiar "fivefold" scheme of historical
development was enunciated: it did not include any" Asiatic formation."
This atmosphere of perfect clarity was clouded by the appearance
in print, in 1939, of a manuscript by Marx that the author had not
originally intended for publication: "The Forms Preceding Capitalist
Production." (86) Marx here places "Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern
bourgeois modes of production" in a single line of development as the
"progressive epochs of economic social formation." Soon after this
publication, an article designed to prevent any misinterpretation
appeared in Vestnik drevnei istorii. (87) It was by academician
Struve, who wrote: "By this, once and for all, an end is put to the
attempts of certain historians to ascribe to Marx the idea of a special'
Asiatic' socioeconomic formation." He warns sternly: "Asiatic society
is a slave-owning society." What Marx says about .slavery in the East in
the work in question is of course very good, but he unfortunately uses
the rather vague concept of "universal slavery," which is difficult to
fit into a historical framework that is based on the idea of class.
Representatives of various other schools of thought were quick to
respond. The Communist renegade and reactionary K. Wittfogel stooped to
filthy insinuations about an alleged analogy between the "Asiatic" and
"socialist" formations. He even attempted to use this analogy to explain
why Marx and Engels, by the end of their lives, had stopped mentioning
the" Asiatic mode of production."* Needless to say, the slanderous
character
* Reference to Wittfogel's argument (in 89) that Marx borrowed the
notion of a specific "Asiatic" type of state from the works of Adam
Smith, James Mill, John Stuart Mill, Richard Jones (the concept itself
goes back to Montesquieu and Bernier), and used it in his scheme of the
development of society on the basis of production. From the 1860s on,
however, Marx and Engels engaged in sharp polemics with Bakunin and his
adherents. Bakunin asserted that Marx and Engels' ideal of state
socialism would "engender despotism at one extreme and slavery at the
other." In this context, the analogy to Asiatic despotism became too
obvious for comfort. Here is the reason, Wittfogel believes, why Marx
and Engels refrained from mentioning the "Asiatic mode of production" in
their later works.
[186]
of Wittfogel's statements was thoroughly exposed by Marxist historians,
although a number of them also started to show an interest in this
question, which, one would have thought, had been fully settled. In
foreign Marxist journals, dozens of authors took part in the discussion.
The response came in the form of a collection of articles. (88) (In
this collection see the survey entitled "Discussion of the Asiatic Mode
of Production in the Foreign Marxist Press," which is the source of the
information given below.)
One of the first contributions to this discussion was an article
published in 1957 by B. WeIskopf, a historian from the German Democratic
Republic. She expresses the opinion that the ancient Orient cannot be
adequately categorized by either the concept of "classical" slavery or
the concept of "patriarchal" slavery. Those societies, the author
believes, fit the rubric of "Asiatic mode of production" in the same way
as ancient China, India and America. In 1958, F. Tökei, reviewing
property relationships in the Chou epoch, came to the conclusion that
there was no private ownership of land at the time. And in studies
published in 1963, he characterizes this epoch as a period of "Asiatic
mode of production." R. Pokora comes to the same conclusion regarding
ancient China.
Studies in which the "Asiatic mode of production " is discovered
in ever new countries and new historical periods have been multiplying
rapidly. J. Suret-Canale, a "Marxist-Africanist" (and the author of the
survey under review here) sees this formation in precolonial, tropical
Africa. P. Boiteau discerns it on Madagascar; R. Gallissot, in
precolonial Maghreb and Algiers (in the latter, however, in an imperfect
form); M. Tchechkov, in precolonial Vietnam; K. Manivanna, in Laos of
the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries; M. Olmeda, in pre-Columbian
Mexico; S. San tis, in Inca, Aztec and Mayan states; S. Divitcioglu, in
the Ottoman empire of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It turns
out that traces of the "Asiatic mode of production" can be found in
present states (but of course not in the sense proposed by the renegade
Wittfogel). J. Chesneaux writes of the "Asiatic mode of production ":
"It does not belong only to the past, however. No doubt it has
left deep traces on subsequent history. The tradition of 'supreme unity'
is an example. Has it not, in numerous Afro-Asian countries, prompted
the establishment of a system controlled by an all-powerful head of
state who also enjoys the confidence of the masses?" (88: p. 55)
These historians acribe the following new features to the "Asiatic mode of production":
1. A special concept of property. First of all, this is expressed
in the absence of private ownership of land, as noted in WeIskopf's
first study. Tökei even asserts that no private land ownership ever
existed in Asia. Gallissot speaks about "public property." And L. Sedov
writes: "That which distinguishes all stages in the development of the
Asiatic mode of production ...is an almost complete absence of private
property as a system of relations."
2. A minor role for trade. Chesneaux believes that commercial turnover
[187]
and commercial exchange played only secondary roles and were limited to
"additional foodstuffs" in the consumption of the communities.
3. A special means of exploitation that was, as Chesneaux puts it,
"fundamentally different from classical slavery or from
serfdom--universal slavery." C. Perrin singles out the basic features of
this means of exploitation:
a. Use of a large mass of essentially unpaid peasants temporarily cut off from their farms and families.
b. Extravagant use of the labor force not only on the building of
canals, dikes, and so on, but on construction of the despot's palaces,
pyramids, etc.
c. The masses forced into hard, unskilled physical labor.
d. Peasant communities compelled by the despot to provide labor for public works on a grand scale.
e. Such exploitation is implemented by means of collectives
formed from the rural communities; this requires a despotic, centralized
rule.
4. A special role for the state when it acts as "supreme unity" to
exploit rural communities (WeIskopf, Perrin) and "controls directly the
basic means of production" (Gallissot).
The "Asiatic formation" presents extraordinary difficulties for
scientific Marxist study. In particular, it has proved almost impossible
to subject it to class analysis. Chesneaux, for instance, is compelled
to come to the conclusion that class contradictions are present here "in
an original way," viz., they exist without any clear appropriation by
the ruling class of the ownership of the means of production. The ruling
class turns out to be not a group of people (!) but "the state itself,
in its essence."
Tökei writes: "Of all the related problems, the most frequently
discussed is the question of how societies of the Asiatic mode of
production were divided into classes." (88: p. 62) Tökei and Chesneaux
come to a "functional class theory," according to which the division
into antagonistic classes is based not on the exploiters' ownership of
the means of production but rather on "socially useful functions"
defined by the ruling class. Sedov shares this view and advocates a
theory of a "state as a class." Finally, Tchechkov asserts that the term
"class" is not applicable at all to the ruling social group in
precolonial Vietnam. There was instead a hierarchy of "functionaries,"
with the emperor as "first among functionaries." This elite was
constantly replenished through a system of examinations and tests. For
this group of elite "scholar functionaries," ownership of the means of
production did not determine their place in the hierarchy, but on the
contrary, their rank in the hierarchy determined their economic
position. The ruling "state as a class" exploited the peasant members of
the community not by owning the means of production but by virtue of
its functional role in governing society and the economy.
The tried and tested tool of scientific research--quotation from
the Marxist classics--proved to be of no help in solving this extremely
difficult problem:
[188]
"What was Marx's opinion on social stratification and the class
structure under the 'Asiatic mode of production'? We search the works of
Marx in vain for a formula or a simple and clear analysis bearing on
this question. Due to the press of time, Marx did not even give a
complete analysis of the class structure under capitalism. In Chapter
52, Volume III, of his Capital, Marx began to expound his ideas
on the subject* but was able to write only the first lines of a
preface." (88: p. 63) One cannot help sharing Tökei's sad thoughts on
this score.
Why is the matter so complicated that it does not yield even to the refined tool of the Marxist scientific method?
Apparently this is to be explained by the fact that we are
speaking about phenomena that are so remote in time and so alien to our
way of thinking that the modern Marxist historian finds it exceptionally
difficult to visualize all these unknown and strange social relations.
Summary
We have brought forward a series of examples which allow us to
draw some conclusions on the character of socialist tendencies in the
economics (and to an extent, in the ideologies) of certain states of
South America and the ancient East. All these states were of a very
primitive type, more so than the ancient classical civilizations or the
medieval and capitalist societies. (We did not touch on the socialist
states of the twentieth century, assuming them to be familiar to the
reader.) In the literature on the subject we find indications of
analogous states elsewhere (for example, the ancient states of the Indus
valley or of pre-Columbian Mexico). We now wish to summarize the basic
features of this type of society, relying mainly on Heichelheim (90).
All economic relationships were based on the assumption that the
state, in the person of the king, was the proprietor of all sources of
income. Any use of these sources was to be redeemed by deliveries to the
state or by performance of obligatory work. Labor conscription by the
state was considered just as natural as universal military conscription
is today. Laborers were organized into detachments and armies (often
under the command of officers) and were set to work on tremendous
construction projects. They worked state fields, repaired, dug and
cleaned irrigation and navigation systems, built roads, bridges, city
walls, palaces and temples, pyramids and other tombs. They were used in
transporting the goods of the state. Sometimes such duties were imposed
on conquered peoples, and, as Heichelheim believes,
* I.e., the class structure of capitalist society.
[189]
it was precisely this that gave rise to the whole system of
duties--i.e., the state began to take the exploitation of conquered
peoples as a model in the treatment of its own subjects. (90: p. 176)
Most land either belonged to the state or was controlled by it.
Temple lands were usually under the control of the state officials who
directed work on them. The peasants got tools, seeds and cattle from the
state and were often told exactly what to sow. They were obliged to
work the state and temple fields on a set schedule. The bulk of the
agricultural population depended to a large degree on the state, but in
most cases the peasants were neither slaves nor private chattel. I. J.
Gelb (69) applies the term "serfs" to them--i.e., "attached" and
"protected peasants." He writes: "The productive labor population of
Mesopotamia and the ancient East in general, in Mycenaean and Homeric
Greece, later in Sparta and on Crete, in Thessalia and in other parts of
Greece (with the exception of Athens), as well as in India, China,
etc., is the basic work force employed either all the time or part of
the time on the public lands of the state, of the temple or of the large
landowners, who as a rule acted simultaneously as state officials. This
work
force was half independent." (69: p. 83)
Slaves in the majority of cases were house servants. In
connection with the classical East, Meyer says: "It is hardly possible
that slavery ...played a basic role in the economy." (91: p. 190, quoted
in 89)
Trade and handicrafts were controlled by the state in an
analogous way. To a great extent, the state supplied artisans with their
tools and raw materials, and merchants with money. Both artisans and
merchants were organized into guilds headed by state officials. In
Egypt, for instance, all foreign trade was monopolized by the state,
right up to the time of the Middle Kingdom. Internal trade was strictly
controlled by the state, including the pettiest dealings. Most goods
were distributed directly by the state.
Money did not play any significant role in trade. Even quite
valuable objects were frequently exchanged without money payment,
although a price was mentioned in the records. M. Weber calls this
"exchange with money valuation." From twelve to twenty forms of
primitive money were usually employed, their value strictly regulated by
the state. This was one more important lever in controlling the
economy.
The king's household was the basic economic force in the country. Weber describes this structure as the king's
oikos, underlining the fact that the entire state was ruled from one center as the estate of
[190]
a single master. In Egypt, the name Pharaoh ("big house") corresponds literally to the word
oikos. Heichelheim asserts that the state controlled about 90 percent of the whole economy. He writes:
"The kings of the ancient Orient were economically the center points
from which the greater part of the capital investment and the economic
life of the empires radiated. From here only capital surplus which had
been amassed by the people could be reinvested or distributed, for
productive purposes, among individuals or to whole groups of people.
Scholars have attempted, and not without some justification, to describe
the system of government of the ancient Orient as a patriarchal
socialism." (90: pp. 169-170)
Just as economic life was directed by the state, as embodied in
the king, so too the dominant pattern in ideology was the concept of a
deified king, seen as the benefactor and savior of mankind. In another
passage Heichelheim characterizes this concept:
"He saved the human race by becoming a human being, an
eschatological breakthrough for each generation which made the king
completely different from even the most powerful high priest or noble.
The king saved mankind by his overpowering mystical strength in peace
and war, by his justice in upholding a fair and benevolent law, and by
sharing and investing the enormous capital at his disposal to the
benefit of his poorer subjects." (90: p. 166)
Naturally, such an ideological and economic centralization made
the most drastic measures of suppression of the population both morally
permissible and technically necessary. Thus in India, in the laws of
Manu, it is said: "Order in the world is maintained through punishment.
...Punishment is the king." (Quoted in 89: p. 138) In Egypt every
official had the right to impose physical punishment on his
subordinates. The awe inspired by the pharaoh is symbolized by the snake
in his crown; he is sometimes depicted as killing, dismembering and
boiling people in the nether world. (Cited in 89: p. 142) The ritual
name of one of the first pharaohs was "The Scorpion."
Socialist tendencies in the ancient states were studied in detail
by Wittfogel (89), from whom we have already borrowed a number of
specific facts. The author's general approach involves uniting a series
of states (in the ancient Orient, pre-Columbian America, East Africa and
some regions of the Pacific, particularly the Hawaiian Islands) into a
special historical formation that he calls "hydraulic society" or
"hydraulic civilization." According to Wittfogel, artificial irrigation
played
[191]
a fundamental role in all these societies.* The author defines the
concept of a "hydraulic society" very broadly, including in this
category almost all noncapitalist countries, with the exception of
Greece, Rome and the states of medieval Europe. But he singles out the
Inca state, Sumer, ancient Egypt and the Hawaiian Islands as "primitive
hydraulic societies"--in other words, almost the same group of states
that interests us. Wittfogel points out numerous features these
societies have in common with the socialist states of the twentieth
century. Thus he notes the similar roles played by irrigation and heavy
industry. Both are activities that do not directly produce any goods but
constitute a necessary basis for production. (89: pp. 27-28) This key
sector of the economy is the property of the state, which in this way
achieves complete control over the economic and political life of the
country.
Heichelheim points to similar parallels:
For scholars who have studied this development in detail, it is no
secret that the planned economy and the collectivism of our modern Age
of Machines has returned subconsciously to ancient Oriental conditions
wherever we try to abolish or to modify the individualistic and
libertarian forms of society which have been characteristic for the Iron
Age of the last three glorious millennia. Instead our turbulent
twentieth century shows a tendency to link together our own traditional
state organization, society, economic and spiritual life with the
rudiments of ancient Oriental collectivist forms of organization as they
have survived subconsciously in the life and customs of many modern
nations.. ..The modern great powers are closer in analogy to the great
empires of the cuprolithic and bronze ages than is generally realized,
or to similar later forms of rule which developed from ancient Oriental
foundations either directly or indirectly. Whenever our century shows
some attempt to achieve not personal liberty but widespread control it
has strong affinities to the planned city life of the kings of
Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, the rule of the pharaohs in Egypt, the early
Chinese emperors. ...The spiritual ties which the nineteenth century
had with. ..Israel, Greece and Rome are more often replaced, to a
greater degree than we know, by a return to ancient Oriental
foundations. (90: pp. 99-100)
* McAdams (68) cites the examples of ancient Mesopotamia and
pre-Columbian Mexico to assert that irrigation, contrary to Wittfogel's
opinion, did not playa determining role in the formation of such
societies (pp. 67-68). It should be noted, however, that Wittfogel does
allow that an "agrodespotic state" could come into existence without an economy based on irrigation. (89: p. 3)
[192]
PART THREE
ANALYSIS
[193]
VI.
The Contours
of Socialism
In the preceding sections of this book we have gathered together
certain data in order to indicate when and in what forms socialism has
appeared in human history. The data presented do not, of course,
constitute a systematic history of socialism. It is rather a dotted
outline, a collection of disparate facts selected in a manner that makes
possible a judgment about some general features of the entire
phenomenon. Utilizing these facts, we can now approach the main subject
of our investigation--socialism as a historical concept.
It is natural enough to begin with an attempt to formulate a
definition of
socialism, if not a formal definition then at least an explanation in
general terms of the meaning that we attribute to this concept. It is of
course not simply a matter of providing empirical data in the first
part of the book, and then extracting common unifying features. After
all, the material was selected on the basis of specific indicators, as
we pointed out in the beginning. Nevertheless, there is nothing circular
here.* We have drawn attention to similar features in a series of
historical phenomena. Now we must try to determine whether these
phenomena possess sufficient unity to make it possible to look on them
as a manifestation of the same general concept. In this way, the problem
of definition converges with the question of the
existence of
socialism as a historical category. Such an approach seems to be
appropriate in the consideration of any general concept, as for example
in the identification of a new biological species.
We begin, therefore, with an enumeration of the basic principles
* Although we did use the term "socialism" long before undertaking to define it.
[194]
manifested in the activities of socialist states and in the socialist ideologies described earlier.
1. The Abolition of Private Property
The fundamental nature of this principle is emphasized, for
instance, by Marx and Engels: "The theory of Communism may be summed up
in a single sentence: 'Abolition of private property,'"
(Communist Manifesto).
This proposition, in its
negative form, is inherent in all socialist doctrines without exception and is the basic feature of all socialist states. But in its
positive form,
as an assertion about the actual nature of property in a socialist
society, it is less universal and appears in two distinct variants: the
overwhelming majority of socialist doctrines proclaim the
communality of property (implemented in more or less radical fashion), while socialist states (and some doctrines) are based on
state property.
2. The Abolition of the Family
The majority of socialist doctrines proclaim the abolition of the
family. In other doctrines, as well as in certain socialist states,
this proposition is not proclaimed in such radical form, but the
principle appears as a de-emphasis of the role of the family, the
weakening of family ties, the abolition of certain functions of the
family. Again, the negative form of the principle is more common. As a
positive statement about specific relationships between the sexes or
between parents and children, it appears in several variants as the
total obliteration of the family, communality of wives and the
destruction of all ties between parent and child to the point where they
may not even know each other; as an impairment and a weakening of
family ties; or as the transformation of the family into a unit of the
bureaucratic state subjected to its goals and control.
3. The Abolition of Religion
It is especially easy for us to observe socialism's hostility to religion, for this is inherent, with few exceptions, in all
contemporary socialist states and doctrines. Only rarely is the abolition of religion legislated,
[195]
as it was in Albania. But the actions of other socialist states leave no
doubt that they are all governed by this very principle and that only
external difficulties have prevented its complete implementation. This
same principle has been repeatedly proclaimed in socialist doctrines,
beginning with the end of the seventeenth century. Sixteenth- and
seventeenth-century doctrines are imbued with cold skeptical and ironic
attitudes toward religion. If not consciously, then "objectively," they
prepared humanity for the convergence of socialist ideology and militant
atheism that took place at the end of the seventeenth century and
during the course of the eighteenth. The heretical movements of the
Middle Ages were religious in character, but those in which socialist
tendencies were especially pronounced were the ones that were
irrevocably opposed to the actual religion professed by the majority at
the time. Calls to assassinate the Pope and to annihilate all monks and
priests run like a red thread through the history of these movements.
Their hatred for the basic symbols of Christianity--the cross and the
church--is very striking. We encounter the burning of crosses and the
profanation of churches from the first centuries of Christianity right
up to the present day.
Finally, in Plato's socialist system, religion is conceived as an
element in the state's ideology. Its role amounts to education, the
shaping of citizens' opinions into the forms necessary to the state. To
this end, new religious observances and myths were invented and the old
ones abolished. It seems that in many of the states of the ancient
Orient, official religion played an analogous role, its central function
being the deification of the king, who was the personification of the
all-powerful state.
4. Communality or Equality
This demand is encountered in almost all socialist doctrines. Its
negative form is seen in the striving to destroy the hierarchy of the
surrounding society and in calls "to humble the proud, the rich and the
powerful," to abolish privilege. This tendency frequently gives rise to
hostility toward culture as a factor contributing to spiritual and
intellectual inequality and, as a result, leads to a call for the
destruction of culture itself. The first formulation of this view can be
found in Plato, the most recent in contemporary leftist movements in
the West which
[196]
consider culture "individualistic," "repressive," "suffocating," and call for "ideological guerrilla warfare against culture."
We see that a small number of clear-cut principles inspired the
socialist doctrines and guided the life of the socialist societies in
the course of several millennia. This unity and interrelatedness of
various socialist doctrines was fully recognized by their
representatives: Thomas Müntzer cites Plato as an authority; Johann of
Leyden studies Müntzer, Campanella considers the Anabaptists as an
example of the embodiment of his system. Morelly and the anonymous
author of the article in the
Encyclopédie point to the Inca state as a corroboration of their social views, and in another article from the
Encyclopédie ("The
Moravians," written by Faiguet), the Moravian Brethren are cited as an
example of an ideal communal order. Among late socialists, Saint-Simon
in his last work,
New Christianity, declares: "The New
Christianity will consist of separate tendencies which for the most part
will correspond to the ideas of the heretical sects of Europe and
America." Further examples of this sense of kinship among the socialist
currents of different epochs could easily be produced. We shall only
point here to the numerous works with titles such as
Forerunners of Scientific Socialism produced
by spokesmen of the socialist camp, where among "forerunners" one can
find Plato, Dolcino, Müntzer, More and Campanella. ...
It is of course true that in different periods the central core
of socialist ideology was manifested in different forms: we have seen
socialism in the form of mystical prophecy, of a rationalistic plan for a
happy society or of a scientific doctrine. In each period, socialism
absorbs certain of the ideas of its time and uses the language
contemporary to it. Some of its elements are discarded; others, on the
contrary, acquire especially great significance. This is not unusual:
such a pattern applies to any other phenomenon of such historical scope.
In another work on socialism, I referred to religion as an
example of the same kind of historical phenomenon which is transformed
in the course of time just as socialism has been. Now, however, it seems
to me that this juxtaposition rather underscores the unique character
of socialist ideology--its unprecedented conservatism. Since the time
when socialism's basic principles were formulated in Plato's system, the
religious concepts of mankind have been completely transformed:
[197]
the idea of monotheism has acquired universal significance in the world;
the concept of a single God in three essences, God-manhood, salvation
by faith and a series of other fundamental ideas have arisen. At the
same time, the basic principles of socialism have not changed to this
day; it has only altered its form and motivation.
The unity and cohesiveness of the system of socialist conceptions
becomes apparent, together with an astonishing conservatism, in the way
that certain
details recur again and again in socialist societies
and doctrines that are little related one to the other and sometimes
widely separated in time. The probability of accidental recurrence is
negligible, unless we assume that the similarities are inexorably
determined by their exceptional spiritual closeness. We shall cite only
four examples from the large number of such coincidences:
a. The coincidence of many details in More's
Utopia and
the accounts of the Inca state, which lead to the question posed in the
French Academy concerning the influence of these accounts on More (which
would have been chronologically impossible).
b. The custom of mummification of the heads of state and burial
in stepped tombs of pyramid-like design, which is met with in states
with strong socialist tendencies (although the states in question may be
separated by many thousands of years).
c. In Deschamps's
True System we find this vivid detail:
Describing the future socialist society, he says that "nearly all people
will have almost the same appearance." Dostoyevsky expresses the same
thought in the notebooks to
The Possessed. The character who is
called Pyotr Verkhovensky in the novel and Nechayev in the notebooks has
this to say about the future society: "In my opinion even men and women
with particularly attractive faces should be prohibited." (92: XI: 270)
Dostoyevsky gathered material for his novel from the ideological
pronouncements of the nihilists and the socialists, but neither he nor
they could have known Deschamps's work, which was published only in our
century.
d. In
The Republic, Plato wrote that, among the guardians,
"none have any habitation or storage area which is not open for all to
enter at will." Aristophanes speaks about this in almost the same words
in his
Ecclesiazusae: "I'll knock out walls and remodel the city into one big happy household, where all can come and go as they choose."
This particular coincidence may be explained by the fact that the
authors lived during the same epoch, but the motif is encountered
[198]
again in More, who, in order to underscore the kind of communality in
which the Utopians lived, describes the entrances to their dwellings:
"The doors are made with two leaves that are never locked or bolted
and are so easy to open that they will follow the slightest touch and
shut again alone. Whoever wishes may go in, for there is nothing inside
the house that is private or any man's own."
More, of course, had read Plato and could have borrowed the
thought from him. But we meet with a law against the closing of doors in
the Inca state as well. Still later, in
Crime and Punishment, the
character Lebeziatnikov expounds on the question of free entry into
rooms in the future society: "It has been debated of late whether a
member of the commune has the right to go into the room of another
member, male or female, at any time. ..well, it was decided that he
does." (92: VI: p. 284) This is not merely an artistic contrivance.
Dostoyevsky understood the nature of socialism and anticipated its
future role perhaps more astutely than any other thinker of the last
century. Of the multitude of petty details that he knew about nihilist
circles, he selected some of the most characteristic, among these the
very same free entrance into dwellings mentioned almost two and a half
thousand years earlier by Plato.
And finally, we encounter this motif in the first years after the
revolution in Russia. The force of the explosion experienced then
dislodged and threw to the surface deeply buried elements of socialist
ideology that had earlier remained almost unnoticed and that were later
again displaced from view. We will therefore be turning frequently to
this period, which presents multiple facets of socialism in an entirely
new light. In particular, there appeared at the time numerous ideas on
how the new forms of life could overcome the old ways and make life more
collective--for example, by replacing individual kitchens with huge
factory-like kitchen facilities, or by housing the population in
dormitories instead of apartments. One enthusiast published a book
based, as he claims, on Trotsky's ideas (93): "It should be made clear
that I do not consider the idea of rooms necessary; I believe that it
will be possible to consider a room only as the living space of an
individual person. After all, isolation in a room is quite unnecessary
for collective man. ...The isolation needed in certain hours of love can
be had in special pleasure gardens where the man and his female
companion will be able to find the necessary comforts."
[199]
It would seem that socialist ideology has the ability to stamp widely
separated or even historically unlinked socialist currents with
indelible and stereotyped markings.
It seems to us quite legitimate to conclude that socialism does
exist as a unified historical phenomenon. Its basic principles have been
indicated above. They are:
- Abolition of private property.
- Abolition of the family.
- Abolition of religion.
- Equality, abolition of hierarchies in society.
The manifold embodiments of these principles are linked organically
by a common spirit, by an identity of specific details and, frequently,
by a clearly discernible overall thrust.
Our perspective on socialism takes into account only one of the
dimensions in which this phenomenon unfolds. Socialism is not only an
abstract ideological system but also the embodiment of that system in
time and space. Therefore, having sketched in its outlines as an
ideology, we now ought to be able to explain in what periods and within
what civilization socialism arises, whether in the form of doctrine,
popular movement or state structure. But here the answer turns out to be
far less clear. While the ideology of socialism is sharply defined, the
occurrence of socialism can hardly be linked to any definite time or
civilization. If we consider the period in the history of mankind which
followed the rise of the state as an institution, we find the
manifestations of socialism, practically speaking, in all epochs and in
all civilizations. It is possible, however, to identify epochs when
socialist ideology manifests itself with particular intensity. This is
usually at a turning point in history, a crisis such as the period of
the Reformation or our own age. We could simply note that socialist
states arise only in definite historical situations, or we could attempt
to explain why it was that the socialist ideology appeared in virtually
finished and complete form in Plato's time. We shall return to these
questions later. But in European history, we cannot point to a single
period when socialist teachings were not extant in one form or another.
It seems that socialism is a constant factor in human history, at least
in the period following the rise of the state. Without attempting to
evaluate it for the time being, we must recognize socialism as one of
the most powerful and universal forces active in a field where history
is played out.
[200]
In a general sense, such an approach is not new. Book titles alone testify to that:
The
Socialist Empire of the Incas; The History of Communism and Socialism
in Antiquity; State Socialism in the Fifteenth Century B.C., and so
on. Wittfogel (in the work quoted above, 89) gathers vast amounts of
material about the states of the ancient Orient, pre-Columbian America,
East Africa and certain areas of the Pacific, for example the Hawaiian
Islands, characterizing the states he describes as "hydraulic societies"
and tracing the multitude of parallels between them and the
contemporary socialist states. The history of the socialist doctrines is
no less thoroughly researched, as can be seen from the numerous
"Histories of Socialist Ideas," which usually begin with Plato. Koigen
has even remarked ironically: "Socialism is as old as human society
itself--but not older." (94)
It would seem that this should be taken as the starting point of
any attempt to understand the essence of socialism. Despite being quite
general, such a point of view strictly limits the range of those
arguments that are applicable: any explanations based on the
peculiarities of a given historical period, race or civilization must be
discarded. It is necessary to reject the interpretation of socialism as
a definite phase in the development of human society which is said to
appear when conditions are ripe. On the contrary, any approach to
socialism ought to be based on principles broad enough to be applicable
to the Inca empire, to Plato's philosophy and to the socialism of the
twentieth century.
[201]
VII.
Survey of Some Approaches
to Socialism
Before we apply the conclusions formulated in the preceding
section to further analysis of socialism, they can be tested in a
simpler procedure of a purely critical character. We shall examine those
points of view which are representative of the majority of conceptions
of socialism that have been formulated in the past.
1.
The Marxist standpoint
Socialism as a state system is a specific phase in the
historical development of mankind; it inevitably replaces capitalism
when the latter reaches a definite level of development. Socialism as a
doctrine constitutes the world view of the proletariat (itself
engendered by capitalism), and at the same time it is the result of
scientific analysis, a scientific proof of the historical inevitability
of the socialist state system.
This view is contradicted by the known facts. If a socialist
state comes into being only under the conditions created by the
development of capitalism, if, as Lenin wrote, "socialism originates in
capitalism, develops historically from capitalism, and results from the
action of a social force that is engendered by capitalism," then whence
did it come and as a result of what social force did it develop in the
Inca empire or the states of the ancient Orient? History only reinforces
the doubts engendered by the contemporary situation: socialist states
have arisen in China, North Korea and Cuba--that is, in the countries
where the influence of capitalism can in no way be considered a
determining factor.
It is just as difficult to see any connection between the ideology
[202]
of socialist movements and the proletariat: for example, in the movement
of Mazdak or the Taborites. Furthermore, the link between the
proletariat and socialism was not at all strong in the nineteenth
century either. Bakunin, for example, felt that socialism was most
congenial to the peasantry; he considered peasants and brigands (at
least in Russia) to be the main revolutionary force. "The brigand is the
true and only revolutionary in Russia." (95: p. 353) "And when these
two kinds of rebellion, the rebellion of the brigands and of the
peasants, are joined together, a popular revolution takes place." (95:
p. 354) In replying to Bakunin, the prominent Marxist historian M. N.
Pokrovsky refers, strange as it may seem, not to the immanent laws of
history with which he is familiar, but to far more concrete
circumstances: "Of course, this was outdated for the sixties, the epoch
of the railroads. ...It was extremely difficult to commit robberies on
the railroads." (96: p. 65) But when even the founders of Marxism,
recognizing the proletariat as the main force of the future social
upheaval, stressed that the proletariat had "nothing to lose but its
chains," their differences with Bakunin were more technical than
theoretical. And in fact, some time later the role of the proletariat
was reconsidered--without any change of basic historical concepts. The
neo-Marxists who make up the New Left believe that the working class has
ceased to be a revolutionary force, that it has been "integrated into
the system" and that the "new working class" is the "favorite child of
the system and ideologically subjugated to it." (4: p. 57)
Hope for the future has been transferred to the peoples of the
developing countries, to disaffected national minorities (for example,
the blacks in the U.S.A.) and to students. On the other hand (or perhaps
it comes to the same thing), the proletariat is apparently assigned a
very modest role in Chairman Mao's concept of the confrontation of the
"world city" with the "world village."
The third proposition in the Marxist view of socialism is that socialism (in the form of Marxism) is a scientific theory.
2.
Socialist teachings as scientific theory
The evident weakness of such a point of view is that it is
applicable only to a few socialist doctrines. Most of them never
pretended to be a part of science and assumed instead the form of
philosophical systems, divine revelation or theories on the most
reasonable social structure. But the nineteenth century was so imbued
with the cult
[203]
of science that even an adventure novel could count on success only if,
as in the Sherlock Holmes stories, the "scientific method" was used.
Only in these circumstances did "scientific socialism" appear.
Hence we need only consider to what extent the socialist doctrines of
the nineteenth century were a product of scientific activity. The
assertions about the scientific character of its conclusions play an
especially large role in Marxism, but other socialist teachings, as
those of Fourier, for example, had similar pretensions. While Marx and
Engels mock Fourier as a "utopian socialist" and apply the term
"scientific socialism" only to their own doctrine, Fourier maintained
that he had made an analysis of social phenomena that was as precise as
Newton's physics and, in fact, constructed in its image. He wrote: "The
theory of passionate attraction and repulsion is something stable to
which geometric theorems are wholly applicable. ...And thus, of the
connection amongst the new sciences: I soon understood that the laws of
passionate attraction correspond at all points to the laws of material
gravitation discovered by Newton and Leibnitz, and that
there exists a unity in the movement of the material and the spiritual worlds." (97: p. 43)
Juxtaposition of these two teachings--Fourier's and Marx's--may
help us to understand what role the theme of science played in both.
Strictly speaking, the founders of Marxism did not always deny
the significance of Fourier's scientific constructions. For example,
comparing them with Saint-Simon's doctrine, Engels wrote:
"It is true that there is in [Fourier's theories] no shortage of
mysticism as well. ...Still, if we set that aside, something remains
which cannot be found among the followers of Saint-Simon--scientific
inquiry, sober, bold and systematic thinking, in a word:
social philosophy." (3: II: p. 395)
It is very difficult today to understand such a point of view.
Fourier's system is far removed from any contemporary notion of what
constitutes a scientific theory. He held that planets and other
celestial bodies are living beings, that they live, die and copulate. "A
planet is a being, having two souls and two sexes. In the act of
conception, just as with animals and plants, two productive substances
are joined together. ...A heavenly body may copulate: (1) With itself,
the south pole with the north pole, as with plants. (2) With another
heavenly body through the emission of fluids from the opposite poles.
(3) With something intermediate." (97: p. 69)
[204]
The life of the planet earth, also perceived as a single organism, is
inherently linked with the life of mankind. There is a correspondence
between the various epochs of their respective developments. There had
been seven epochs up to then, and Fourier speaks of an eighth epoch
which is on the verge of being born: "Meanwhile, the earth thirsts for
creation; the frequent emission of northern light is witness to this, an
indication that the planet is in heat, and a sign of a useless emission
of its fertile fluid. It cannot copulate with the fluid of other
planets until the human race accomplishes certain preliminary tasks.
These tasks can be performed only by the eighth society, which must now
be formed." (97: p. 71)
This eighth society of "combined structure" is to bring socialist
ideas to life. In the description of this society, we encounter the
famous "phalansteries" and numerous forms of free love, together with
Fourier's criticism by contemporary civilization. On entering the
"eighth society," mankind will accomplish the tasks that serve as the
preconditions for a new act by copulation by the earth. This will bring
about changes which, in their turn, will have a fructifying influence on
mankind and will lighten the task of developing the "combined
structure." The seas and oceans will acquire the taste of lemonade;
instead of sharks and whales, there will appear anti-sharks and
anti-whales, together with a multitude of amphibia that will promote
transportation and fishing. And in the deserts, instead of lions and
tigers, there will be anti-lions and anti-tigers, which will carry out
people's wishes.
We have here the ancient and mythological notion according to
which human activity is necessary for the functioning of the universe.
It is precisely the same sort of notion that underlies the ceremony of
the Australian aborigines which aims to assure the fertility of nature.
Similarly, the Aztecs sacrificed thousands of people in order to
preserve the life-giving power of the sun. It would seem that this
ancient notion was the real foundation of Fourier's teaching, and not
"the application of geometric theorems," which are completely absent in
his speculations. His theory seems to have been "revealed" to him, and
in this direct perception there is a sincerity that partly accounts for
his success.* As for the imitation of scientific phraseology, which is
quite clumsy in Fourier, this was only a gesture in the direction of
nineteenth-century
* When Fourier writes of "a ray containing five other [colors] invisible
and unnoticed by us--pink, crimson, chestnut, green with a shade of
dragoon, lilac (I am perfectly sure only of pink and crimson)," one can
readily believe that he saw the pink and crimson with his own eyes. (See
97: p. 104)
[205]
tastes, an attempt to make his system more attractive.
This conclusion, so obvious in the case of Fourier, forces us not to
accept on faith Marxism's claims to being a scientific theory. And the
very feature which the creators of Marxism proclaimed to be
fundamental--the "criterion of practice"--seems to provide the clearest
response to Marxism. According to this criterion, a scientific theory
ought to be tested according to its concrete conclusions. But with
almost perverse consistency, most of the projections of Marxism have
proved to be incorrect. A better percentage of correct predictions could
probably have been achieved by making random guesses. Examples have
been cited repeatedly, and for this reason we limit ourselves to three
in order to underscore the typical and in most cases
fundamental nature of the errors: the truth proved to be not merely different but in fact the opposite to that which had been predicted.
a. The national question: "National differences and antagonistic
interests among various peoples are already vanishing more and more
thanks to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to
the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the
corresponding conditions of life. The supremacy of the proletariat will
accelerate the disappearance of differences." (3: V: p. 500)
b. In particular, the Jewish question, which was to disappear as
soon as financial operations and petty trade became impossible. "The
chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of a merchant, in
general of a man who deals with money." (3: I: p. 382) "An organization
of society which could remove the preconditions of petty trade, and
therefore the possibility of petty trade, would make Jewry impossible."
(3: I: p. 379)
c. The role of the state: "The first act in which the state truly
comes forward as a representative of the whole of society--the taking
possession of the means of production in the name of society--is, at the
same time, its last independent act as a state. Interference of the
state in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after
another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is
replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the
process of production. The state is not 'abolished'; it withers away."
(98: p. 285)
"With the disappearance of classes the state
inevitably disappears. A society which organizes its production in a new
fashion based on
[206]
the free and equal association of producers will send the machine of the
state to the place where it will then belong: the museum of antiquity,
next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax." (3: XVI: p. 149)
The unquestionably immense
success of Marxism in the
nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries by no means
proves its correctness as a scientific theory. Other movements, Islam,
for instance, have enjoyed no less success without ever having laid
claim to being "scientific."
The direct impression left by the works of the founders of
Marxism leads to the same conclusion--they lack the climate
characteristic of scientific inquiry. For the authors, the world of
science is divided into two unequal parts. One part consists of a narrow
circle of followers, the other of enemies, plotting against them and
ready for any crime against the truth for the sake of attaining their
goals. Thus German economists are said to have willfully ignored
Capital for
years, while stealing from it constantly, and English specialists on
primitive society are said to have treated Morgan's book in the same
way. But the founders of Marxism hardly stood on ceremony themselves and
again and again attacked their colleagues for "liberal falsifications,"
"banality and commonplaceness of the worst kind," "virtuosity in
pretentious idiotism," etc.
The basic works of Marxism are utterly alien to the most
fundamental characteristic of scientific activity--the disinterested
striving for truth for its own sake. And although the scientist's duty
is sometimes proclaimed, the truth, in practice, always remains a "party
truth"--i.e., it is subordinated to the interests of the political
struggle. This attitude toward science is expressed, for instance, in
the conclusion of the preface to Marx's
Critique of Political Economy: "My
views, no matter how they are judged and how little they agree with the
egotistical prejudices of the ruling classes, are the result of many
years of conscientious research." (3: XII: p. 9) In this way, Marx
immediately suggests that any objections to his views are the product of
"egotistical prejudices."
Thanks to this indifference toward truth in Marxism, we so often
come across contradictions even a few of which would ruin any genuinely
scientific theory. We have cited, for instance, Wittfogel's remarks on
the appearance and sudden disappearance of the "Asiatic formation" in
the works of Marx and Engels. Numerous examples of this kind could be
brought forward. In the
Communist Manifesto we read:
[207]
"The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the
artisan, the peasant. ..they are all not revolutionary but conservative.
Nay, more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of
history." (3: V: p. 493) Lassalle incorporated the same thought in his
Gotha program: "In relation to the proletariat, all other groups
constitute a single reactionary mass."
But it was precisely at this time that Marx was competing against
Lassalle (and not very successfully) for influence on the German social
democratic movement.
And he writes: "Lassalle knew the 'Manifesto' by heart, and if he
distorted it so grossly, he did so only to justify his own betrayal of
the working class."* (3: XV: p. 277)
Marx's
Capital of course imitates the style of a scientific treatise far better than Fourier's
Theory of Four Movements. Marx includes tables and a great number of quotations (even from Greek, as he was fond of noting). But in its essence, Marx's
Capital is
equally far from being a scientific work, for the basic statements in
it are merely asserted and not deduced. It was Bulgakov who (in 100)
drew attention to a footnote in Volume I of
Capital: "Of course,
it is much easier to find the earthly essence of religious notions by
means of analysis than the other way round, i.e., from the given real
relations to deduce their religious forms. The latter method is the only
materialistic one and, therefore, the only scientific one."
But Marx only remarked on this matter in a note and nowhere
attempted to apply his "only scientific" method. In the same way,
neither Marx nor Engels tried to show in what manner "the hand mill
yields a feudal society with a suzerain at its head." They simply could
not have done so, of course, since the hand mill was known in ancient
Sumer and in other societies as well. Examples such as these could be
cited at length.
The attitude of the classics of Marxism toward science is vividly
illustrated by what Engels wrote about mathematics. Indeed, it is in
this connection that he says (in the preface to
Anti-Dühring):
"Awareness of the fact that I have not sufficiently mastered
mathematics has made me careful: no one will be able to find me
trespassing against the facts." (98: p. 7)
* This example and most of the others in this section are taken from a
study (99) in which the question of the scientific character of Marxism
is analyzed more systematically.
[208]
Nevertheless, in that work we find the following statements:
"We have already mentioned that one of the main principles of
higher mathematics involves a contradiction which consists of the fact
that under certain conditions a straight line and a curve are one and
the same thing. And higher mathematics provides another example of a
contradiction: two lines that intersect before our eyes must nonetheless
be considered parallel lines five or six centimeters from the point of
intersection, i.e., lines that cannot intersect even if extended to
infinity." (98: p. 120)
"The virgin state of absolute signification, the indisputable
proof of everything mathematical, is gone forever; an era of discordant
opinion is upon us, and we have gotten to the point that the majority
perform differentiation and integration not because they understand what
they are doing, but simply because they believe in something that up
till now has always obtained correct results." (98: p. 85) (We must
point out that when this was written,
half a century had already
passed since Cauchy proposed a rigorous foundation for differential and
integral calculus and his ideas had long become textbook knowledge.)
"Mathematical axioms are an expression of an extremely limited
intellectual content, which mathematics is obliged to borrow from logic.
They may be reduced to the following two:
"1. The whole is larger than the part. ...
"2. Two quantities separately equal to a third are equal to one another." (98: p. 34)
(It would seem that even a mediocre secondary school student ought to have remembered at least the axiom on parallels!)
As for political economy or history, Marx and Engels clearly did
not believe that they had "not sufficiently mastered" these subjects;
nothing prompted them to be "careful" as with mathematics. One may well
imagine how resolutely they operated in these areas.
The correspondence between Marx and Engels provides further
striking examples of views that are extremely difficult to reconcile
with the usual understanding of the scientific method. For instance,
Engels points out to Marx one passage in
Capital that would
obviously provoke objections and suggests this objection be taken into
account. Marx replies: "Had I wished to foresee all objections of that
kind I should have spoiled the dialectical method of exposition. On the
contrary. This method has the advantage of setting traps for these
gentlemen
[209]
at every step and compelling them to reveal their impenetrable stupidity." (3: XXIII: p. 425)
Or in another letter to Engels: "Dear Fred! In my opinion you are
unjustly afraid to treat the English philistine reader of the magazine
to such simple formulae as M-G-M, etc. If you were compelled to read, as
I am, the economic articles of Lalor, Herbert Spencer, Macleod and
others in
The Westminster Review, you would see that they all
abound in economic banalities (all the while knowing that their reader
is thoroughly bored with it all) and that they try to spice up their
articles with pseudo-philosophic or pseudo-scientific jargon. Despite
the imagined scientific character, the content (equal to nothing, of
course) becomes in no sense clearer. On the contrary, the trick is to
mystify the reader." This paragraph closes with the advice: "In fact,
you are too shy. The new is required--the new in form and in content."
(3: XXIV: pp. 60-61)
It is interesting to juxtapose the attitude of Marxism toward
science with a closely related question--Marx's use of Hegel's
dialectical method. Here we may again refer to S. Bulgakov. In a work
already cited (100), he shows that
Capital, especially the first
chapter of Volume I, is written in a Hegelian fashion but that, at the
same time, it demonstrates a very superficial grasp of Hegel's
philosophy and of German classical philosophy in general, a quite
primitive manipulation of subtle and profound categories. In fact, Marx
at times seems to see dialectics in a quite unexpected light.
"I took the risk of prognosticating in this way, as I was compelled to substitute for you as correspondent at the
Tribune. Nota
bene--on the supposition that the dispatches we have gotten up till now
are correct. It is possible that I may be discredited. But in that case
it will still be possible to pull through with the help of a bit of
dialectics. It goes without saying that I phrased my forecasts in such a
way that I would prove to be right also in the opposite case." (3:
XXII: p. 217)
Returning to the comparison of Fourier's "scientific method" with
Marx's, it must be stated that in some instances they differ very
little--e.g., in their use of mathematics. Take, for instance, the
argument Fourier gives in support of his idea that society is ruled on
the "basis of geometric principles":
"The properties of friendship duplicate the properties of the circle.
"The properties of love, those of the ellipse.
"The properties of fatherhood, of the parabola.
[210]
"The properties of ambition, of the hyperbola.
"The collective properties of these four passions duplicate the properties of the cycloid."
This is quite comparable with the passage in
Capital in
which Marx writes (in connection with one of his conclusions): "This law
clearly runs counter to experience." But he extricates himself from the
predicament as follows: "The solution of this seeming contradiction
requires many more intermediary links, as in elementary algebra, where
many intermediary links are required to comprehend that 0/0 may
represent a real quantity." (3: XVII: p. 337)* Karl Jaspers is closer to
the truth, no doubt, when he sees Marxism not as science but as
"mythmaking" based on certain notions borrowed from magic, as for
instance the belief that the destruction of the existing world will lead
to the birth of new man. (101)
The concept of "the scientific method" was of extraordinary
importance for the development of nineteenth-century socialism. Hence it
was steadily and persistently elaborated, first by Fourier and
Saint-Simon (in a very naive form), and later in a much more
sophisticated manner by Marx and Engels. The scientific method provided
the socialist doctrines with a "sanction" of the first order.
Furthermore (and this is especially important), the theses of socialist
doctrine thereby
* Marx employs this unusual argumentation in a passage that is by no
means secondary in importance for his system. His theory of value, a
cornerstone of his political-economic theory, proved to be in complete
contradiction to well-known facts of economic life! Concerning Marx's
promises to present further evidence (or "intermediary links") on the
question, the Italian economist Loria wrote: "I have justly asserted
that this second volume with which Marx constantly threatens his
opponents, and which, however, will never appear, was most probably
employed as a cunning subterfuge in those cases where Marx lacked
scientific arguments." In the sixteen years that separate the
publication of Volume I of Capital from his death, Marx did not
offer a continuation of his study. In 1885, Engels published Marx's
manuscripts as the second volume of Capital. In the preface, he
mentions the contradiction cited above and remarks that "because of this
contradiction the Ricardo school and 'vulgar economy' collapsed." Marx,
so Engels claimed, resolved this contradiction in Volume III, which was
to appear in several months. Volume III appeared in 1894--i.e., nine
years later. In his preface, Engels again returns to the "contradiction"
and quotes Loria in this connection. He points out that in the preface
to Volume II, this question was "publicly proposed" by him and that,
therefore, Loria might have taken this into account. ...But Engels does
not mention his own promise that the contradiction would be resolved in
Volume III, nor does he indicate the place where it is resolved. In
reference to Loria, however, he does use such expressions as:
"falsification," "distortion," "mistakes unforgivable in a schoolboy,"
"careerist," "scientific charlatan," "shamelessness," "literary
adventurer who in his heart of hearts spits on the whole of political
economy," "a conscious sophist," "a braggart," "an irresistible rush to
appropriate the works of others," "importunate charlatanism of
self-aggrandizement," "success achieved with the help of clamorous
friends," etc.
[211]
acquired the appearance of objectivity and a certain inevitability,
being presented as a consequence of immanent laws independent of human
will. In calling for the destruction of society, revolutionaries of the
Babeuf and Bakunin type had to argue that it was loathsome and unjust.
But in doing so, they made each person a judge and left open the
opportunity for the counter-argument that the process of destruction
itself was even more loathsome and unjust. But when, for example,
Bukharin (102) proclaimed that execution by shooting constituted one of
the forms for the "elaboration of communist humanity," he was
invulnerable from the Marxist point of view. Indeed, Engels could think
of only one function in history for the concept of justice--as a phrase
useful for agitation. (98: p. 352) How, then, is one to verify an expert
in Marxism like Bukharin? Perhaps his method of elaborating communist
humanity does proceed from the "immanent laws" or the "dialectics of
production?"
In the contemporary world, hypnotized as it is by the notion that
science can solve any question and sanction any action, will many find
the courage in such a situation to adhere to the unscientific ten
commandments rather than to the scientifically proved "immanent law"?
It was natural enough, therefore, that socialist Marxists of the
nineteenth century were highly attracted to science as the supreme
sanctioning authority. In particular, Marx and Engels, with their
prodigious energy and capacity for work, processed huge amounts of data
from the fields of political economy and history. But what they were
seeking in science was not the source but the confirmation and sanction
of the age-old theses of socialist ideology. The logic of their endeavor
is explicitly stated in the preface to
Anti-Dühring:
"In 1831, in Lyons, the first uprising of workers took place; in
the period between 1833 and 1842, the English Chartist movement, the
first national working movement, reached its climax.. ..It was
impossible not to take all these facts into consideration, as well as
French and English Socialism, which constituted their theoretical,
albeit extremely imperfect expression." (98: p. 21) "Although it
criticized the capitalist mode of production and its consequences, the
socialism of earlier periods could not cope with it. It could only
pronounce it to be good for nothing. But the task is twofold: on the one
hand, to explain the inevitability of the appearance of the capitalist
mode of production in its historical context and thus to show why its
death is inevitable;
[212]
on the other hand, to explain the hitherto unclear nature of that
production. Previous criticism has been directed more toward the harmful
consequences than against capitalist production itself." (98: p. 22)
Marxism here emerges not as a result of objective scientific research
but as a response to a set task--to prove the inevitability of the
collapse of capitalism and its replacement by socialism. This task
became relevant for the creators of Marxism as the result of a series of
labor disturbances in Europe.
3.
Socialism is the theory of preparing and implementing
revolution: it is a series of rules which must be followed in order to
seize power. At the same time, it is the technology of power, the
philosophy of the absolute state to which all life is subjected--i.e.,
statism.
In contrast to the views considered earlier, serious arguments
may be brought forward in support of this point of view. It is difficult
to deny that socialist doctrines constitute a powerful driving force
capable of inspiring masses of people and serving as a means of seizing
power. Furthermore, many socialist utopias describe a society in which
all aspects of the citizen's life are controlled by the state, while
socialist states carry out these ideals to a certain extent. In some
cases (for example, in Shang Yang's teaching), it is impossible to draw a
line between certain aspects of socialism and statism taken to an
extreme--if all of life is controlled by the state, the degree to which
private property is legally permitted ceases to be significant.
The first objection aroused by such a definition is not based on
specific arguments but is primarily aesthetic. The characterization
seems far too shallow in comparison with the phenomenon it seeks to
explain; it recalls the view of religion as the "contrivance of
priests." Furthermore, many actual features of socialism cannot be
accounted for by this means.
In fact, viewing the socialist doctrines as a technique for
seizing power leaves the basic principles of socialism unexplained. How
is one to interpret the principle of
communality of property from
this point of view? In order to gain control over a poverty-ridden
tattered mob, it is far more natural to promise a
redivision of
property--such was the character of social upheavals in antiquity. The
slogan of communality could even turn out to be an obstacle to taking
power, as was the case in the revolution of 1917, when the Bolshevik
Party, which until April of that year had advocated nationalizing land,
temporarily
[213]
retreated from this position and accepted the S.R. principle of "equalized land use" in order to assure victory in October.
The call for communal wives is equally inexplicable from this perspective. In the
Communist Manifesto, Marx
and Engels say that the entire bourgeoisie accused the Communists of
intending to introduce communality of wives. Why did they not reply to
this accusation less ambiguously than they did? They wrote: "Bourgeois
marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus at the most,
what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they
desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an
openly legalized communality of women."
This obviously leaves the impression that the reproach is true.
Indeed, this passage caused so much trouble later that numerous
"elucidations" were required. (The sort of problem that arose is
illustrated by the fact that in the second Russian edition of the works
of Marx and Engels, published in 1955, this text was altered to read: ".
.. what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is
the allegation that.
..") Why were these accusations not simply declared bourgeois slander?
And what is most remarkable of all, such an idea did in fact occur to
Engels. He raises precisely this question in "Principles of Communism,"
his first draft of the Manifesto. But later, after he met with Marx, the
text was changed.
There are many other particular features of socialist doctrine
that remain completely incomprehensible, if one looks at socialism
solely as a method of seizing power. One example is the notion of the
"forerunners of scientific socialism," which plays an important role in
Marxism. Why was it necessary for Marx, Engels, Kautsky, Bernstein and
others to declare Plato, Dolcino, Müntzer and More their forerunners?
What strange logic, for example, made Kautsky, speaking of proletarian
movements that came to power "too early," exclaim: "They are all dear to
us, from the Anabaptists to the Paris Communards." (103: p. 166)
Nothing could be more obviously contrary to their view of socialism as a
product of the contradiction between production forces and production
relations under capitalism. It would seem that they should have denied
any connection; any common features could have been declared to be a
matter of coincidence.
It is impossible to suppose that such obvious theoretical
difficulties went unnoticed by the founders of socialism. Evidently, the
concept of forerunners contained something essential to the
ideology--some
[214]
elements that had to be preserved at any cost, even at the risk of
doctrinal inconsistencies. And this indicates that certain strata of
socialist ideology cannot be understood in terms of any coldly
calculated plan for the seizure of power.
It is possible to come to power preaching religious ideas (as the
example of Mohammed shows) or by taking advantage of national feelings,
but we do not therefore think of either of these routes to power as mere
means.
Furthermore, the view of socialism as the ideology of an absolute
state makes incomprehensible one of the main properties of socialist
doctrines--their infectiousness, their capacity to influence the masses.
It would be absurd to suppose that people face torture and the gallows
or go to the barricades for the sake of becoming a soulless cog in the
all-powerful state machine. Moreover, the large proportion of socialist
doctrines belongs to the
anarchical-nihilistic tendency, which is
quite hostile to the idea of state control. Such is the spirit that
informs the medieval heresies, the movements of the Reformation period,
Meslier, Deschamps, Fourier, Bakunin and numerous modern socialist
movements.
4. The last objections apply fully to the view that
socialist states are a manifestation of a social structure based on compulsory labor. This idea is expressed, for instance, by R. Vipper in his book
Kommunizm i
kultura [Communism and Culture], which
was published shortly after the Revolution. (This book is presently
inaccessible to me and I am obliged to cite from memory.) Vipper
suggests that socialism should be regarded not as a prophecy about a
happy
future society but as a real social structure which has appeared
in the past more
than once. His examples: ancient Egypt, the Inca state, the Jesuit
state in Paraguay. ..In his opinion, compulsory labor is the cornerstone
of all these societies.
It is true that noneconomic compulsion, to a greater or lesser
degree, plays a significant role in all socialist states. But one would
like to discover not only the sort of trait that would serve as a
distinguishing feature but some relevant property that would render
their other essential features comprehensible. Yet the presence of
compulsory labor in no way explains either the attraction of socialist
ideology or such of its principles as the destruction of the family or
of hierarchy.
[215]
5.
Socialism as such does not exist. That which is called
socialism is one of the lines of development of capitalism--state
capitalism.
The evident defect of this point of view is that it applies only
to the socialist states of the twentieth century, without any effort to
ascertain the place of these states within the millennia-long tradition
of socialism. But it would be interesting to determine to what degree
this view is applicable even to this admittedly short period of history.
Wittfogel believes that the concept of state capitalism is not
pertinent to contemporary socialist states. From the point of view of
economics, he asserts, it is impossible to consider capitalist a society
in which there are neither private means of production nor any open
market for goods and manpower.
The inadequacy of this approach is even more apparent when one
takes into consideration the basic point that socialism, unlike
capitalism, is not merely an economic formation but is also, and perhaps
first of all, an ideology. Indeed, we have never heard of "capitalist
parties" or "capitalist doctrines." The ideological character of
socialism is a basic factor in the activities of the socialist states.
Their policy is far from being determined only by economic factors or by
state interests. History provided a clear-cut experiment a few years
ago, when the governments of two countries in the same socialist camp
simultaneously permitted themselves to deviate from group policy. The
deviation of one of these states was purely ideological, while the other
state preserved a complete ideological conformity but demonstratively
asserted the independence of its foreign policy. As a result, drastic
measures were taken against the first state, while the other only
benefited from its policy. Another example of political action motivated
by ideological principles is the support given by the socialist states
to revolutionary socialist movements and newly formed socialist states.
And this in spite of considerable experience which shows that this is
the way to create the most dangerous rivals, aggressive and armed with
more radical ideology.
We shall point out only one more crucial peculiarity of socialist
states, something that has no analogy in capitalist society: all
socialist states are based on a "new type" of parity. We have here a
phenomenon that is completely different, despite its name, from the
political parties of bourgeois society. Members of liberal or radical
parties are united by a desire to realize definite political or economic
ends, without circumscribing their conduct or views in other areas. In
this sense, they
[216]
are guided by the same kind of principles as trade unions or animal
protection societies. The "new type" of party, however, not only demands
that its members subordinate
all aspects of their lives to it, but also develops in them an outlook according to which life outside the party seems in general
unthinkable. The
spirit of the special relationship that exists between the individual
and the party may be gleaned from the following three examples.
A German essayist, W. Schlamm, relates that in 1919, at the age of
fifteen, he became a "fellow traveler" of the Communists but never
managed to penetrate into the narrow circle of the party functionaries
(104). Twenty years later, one of these functionaries, who had broken
with the party, explained to Schlamm the reason why. When Schlamm was
invited to join the party, he had said: "I'm ready to give the party
everything but the two evenings of the week when I listen to Mozart."
This answer proved fatal! A man who has interests he does not wish to
subordinate to the party does not fit.
Another aspect of the relationship between party and individual
is revealed by Trotsky's last speech at a Party Congress. He had already
been defeated by his opponents. He said: "I know that it is impossible
to be right against the party. It is possible to be right only with the
party, for history has created no other road for the realization of what
is right." (105: p. 167)
Finally, here is how Piatakov, already expelled from the party
and in disgrace, described his view of the party to his former party
comrade Valentinov. Piatakov reminded him of Lenin's statement that the
"dictatorship of the proletariat is a regime implemented by the party,
which relies on violence and is not bound by any law." (From the article
"The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky.") Piatakov
explained that the central idea here was not "violence" but the fact of
being "unbound by any law." He says:
Everything that bears the imprint of human will must not and cannot be
considered inviolable or tied to any insuperable law. A law is a limit, a
ban, a definition of one phenomenon admissible and another
inadmissible, one action possible and the other impossible. When thought
holds to violence in principle and is psychologically free, unbound by
any laws, limits or obstacles, then the field of possible action expands
to gigantic proportions and the field of the impossible contracts to
the point of zero.. ..Bolshevism is a party whose idea is to bring into
life that which is considered impossible, not realizable and
inadmissible. ...For the honor and happiness of being in its ranks we
must sacrifice our pride and self-esteem and everything
[217]
else. Returning to the party, we put out of our heads all convictions
condemned by it, even though we defended them while in opposition. ...I
agree that non-Bolsheviks and the category of ordinary people in general
cannot make any instantaneous change, any reversal or amputation of
their convictions. ...Weare a party of men who make the impossible
possible. Steeped in the idea of violence, we direct it against
ourselves, and if the party demands it and if it is necessary and
important for the party, we can by an act of will put out of our heads
in twenty-four hours ideas that we have cherished for years. In
suppressing one's convictions or tossing them aside, it is necessary to
reorient oneself in the shortest possible time in such a way as to
agree, inwardly, with one's whole mind. ...Is it easy to put out of mind
things that only yesterday you considered to be right and which today
you must consider to be false in order to be in full accord with the
party? Of course not. Nevertheless, through violence directed against
oneself, the necessary result is achieved. Giving up life, shooting
oneself through the head, are mere trifles compared with this other
manifestation of will. ...This sort of violence against the self is
acutely painful, but such violence with the aim of breaking oneself so
as to be in full accord with the party constitutes the essence of a
truly principled Bolshevik Communist. I am familiar with objections of
the following kind. The party may be absolutely mistaken, it is said, it
might call black something that is clearly and indisputably white. To
all those who try to foist this example on me, I say: Yes, I shall
consider black something that I felt and considered to be white, since
outside the party, outside accord with it, there is no life for me. (106: p. 148)
Some entomologists (see, for example, 107: pp. 110-115) believe that
the functioning of a beehive can only be understood in terms of a
superorganism having
its own metabolism and respiration and capable of reproduction and of
the kind of action quite impossible for individual bees (for instance,
holding the temperature within to the necessary narrow range around
34°C.). The existence of each bee has meaning only to the extent that it
is involved with the life of the entire hive. We are no less justified
in considering the parties of the socialist states to be similar
superorganisms capable
of performing actions impossible and unthinkable for its individual
human cells. Their life has meaning only when they are carrying out the
aims of the superorganism without which they cannot exist.
This enables us to understand the enigmatic psychology, described
so precisely by Solzhenitsyn, of the "orthodox" true believer who even
in a concentration camp continues to glorify Stalin and the party.
Any such world view is, of course, utterly alien to rational
capitalism. It is not among the Tories and Whigs that the forerunners of
the "new
[218]
type" of party must be sought, but in the Society of Jesus or among the
medieval sects, with whom they also have some common organizational
traits.
The presence of such a party seems to be a necessary condition for
the existence of all socialist states of the twentieth century, while in
capitalist countries it serves as one of the main instruments of
destruction. This points to cardinal differences between the two social
structures.
6.
Socialism is
the expression of the quest for social justice.
It is an indisputable fact that almost all socialist doctrines
and movements assign an extremely important role to protest against the
injustices of the contemporary social order. Sympathy for the oppressed
and the condemnation of oppressors are motifs that may be found in the
works of Müntzer (especially in his "Discourse for Defense"), More (in
Part One of
Utopia), Winstanley, Meslier, Fourier, Bakunin, Marx and the Marxists.
Many who are not supporters of socialism (or who accept it only
partially) also see its main driving force in its advocacy of justice.
For example, the prime minister of India, responding to a correspondent
who inquired what the word "socialism" meant to him, answered: Justice.
Yes, socialism means justice, the desire to work in a more equal
society." To a certain extent this point of view is shared by Karl
Jaspers: "Socialism today is seen as that quest, tendency or plan which
has as its aim universal cooperation and coexistence in the spirit of
justice and in the absence of privilege. In this sense, today, everyone
is a socialist--socialism is the main tendency of our time." (108)
But Jaspers distinguishes socialism in the sense of gradual
progress from communism, which preaches total planning and the achieving
of happiness for humanity according to a scientific prognosis.
The view of socialism as an attempt to achieve social justice was
widespread in Russian philosophy. For instance, Vladimir Soloviev
wrote: "The attempt of socialism to achieve the equality of rights in
material welfare, its efforts to transfer this material welfare from the
hands of the minority into the hands of the popular majority, is
absolutely natural and legitimate from the point of view of the
principles proclaimed by the French revolution and which underlie all
modern civilization." (109: III: pp. 7-8) While he rejects socialism's
claim to being a supreme moral force, Soloviev does acknowledge that it
"has
[219]
the character of morality in its demand for social truth. ...In any
case, socialism is right to rise up against existing social untruth."
(109: III: p. 9) It is here that he evidently sees that "truth of
socialism" which must be recognized in order to vanquish the "lie of
socialism."
Bulgakov, a former Marxist himself, developed this view of socialism
in detail, especially in a pamphlet (110) that appeared in 1917, while
the Revolution was at its height. Socialism, in his opinion, is a
reaction to the misery, hunger and suffering of mankind. It is the
thought that "first of all one must defeat hunger and break the chains
of poverty." (110: p. 5) Man is the prisoner of natural forces and his
spirit longs for liberation from that captivity. Socialism shows him the
way. It promises "freedom from economic factors. ..through economic
factors, by means of the so-called development of productive forces."
(110: p. 9) But this is a false promise. "The economic captivity of man
is not a root cause but a consequence; it is called forth by the shift
in man's relation to nature--the result of the sinful corruption of the
human essence. Death came into the world; life became mortal, whence
appeared man's fateful dependence on food and the 'forces of nature,
control over which will not save him from death." (110: p. 11)
The idea of socialism was foreshadowed in Christ's first
temptation. By "turning stones into bread," Christ would have become an
earthly Messiah, who instead of overcoming the sinful condition of the
world would have submitted to that condition. This temptation, to which a
considerable part of modern mankind has yielded, constitutes the
spiritual essence of socialism. But every temptation contains within
itself some truth. In this case, it is a protest against human bondage
to matter and the suffering that ensues from it. The positive meaning of
socialism, however, is extremely limited. Bulgakov writes: "Socialism
cannot be seen as a radical reform of life; it is
philanthropy, or one form of it, evoked by modern life--and nothing more. The triumph of socialism would introduce
nothing essential to life." (110: p. 41)
Let us now move to a consideration of these views. First of all, it seems that socialism can by no means be
identified simply
with a striving for justice nor with a reaction to the suffering of
mankind. This is already clear from the fact that we would not need to
invent a new term for such a desire: "compassion," "sympathy," "active
love," are all old-fashioned words quite suitable for the definition of
this
[220]
equally old aspiration. But let us assume for a moment that socialism is
a definite way to achieve social justice. In that case we should be
able to see numerous confirmations of this fact in the known socialist
doctrines as well as in the experience of the socialist states. Since it
is unquestionably true that appeals to justice and the condemnation of
the defects of contemporary life occupy a central place in socialist
ideology, this question must be formulated more precisely:
Is the aspiration for social justice the goal and the driving force of socialism or is
the appeal to this aspiration only a means to achieve some other goals?
To simplify our argumentation, we exclude from our discussion the
practice of socialist states. After all, if it could be shown that
dreams of socialist justice have not been realized in these states, that
would not in itself contradict the possibility that these dreams did
inspire the participants and the leaders of socialist movements: Life
has a way of deceiving the best-laid plans. But in the socialist
doctrines themselves, at least, we should uncover compassion for the
sufferings of the victims of injustice and the impulse to lighten their
burden. Yet this is precisely what is lacking! The alleviation of
suffering is set aside until the victory of the socialist ideal, and all
attempts to improve life at the present time are condemned as possibly
postponing the coming victory. Particularly in the modern socialist
doctrines proclaiming atheism, this point of view is in no way
compatible with compassion for
today's victims of oppression, who
will have no share in the future just society. It will be objected that
striving to achieve justice in life for
future generations is
the very thing that inspires the followers of socialism. This point of
view seems hardly plausible from a psychological point of view. Weare
asked to believe that a man can be indifferent to the suffering of those
around him and at the same time devote his life to the happiness of a
future world he will never see.
We list below several examples illustrating the approach of socialist doctrine toward the injustice of their day.
The Cathars, whose doctrines included some elements of socialism,
categorically forbade charity, in stark contrast to the theory and
practice of the Catholic Church. In the Cathar sects the "faithful" were
obliged to make numerous donations but only to the leadership, the
"perfect." This doctrinal feature is extremely old and, consequently, is
linked to the sect's fundamental precepts. We meet the same principle
among the Manicheans, in the second century A.D.
[221]
The society of the Moravian Brethren is a vivid example of the
strictest community of property and of all aspects of life. In the
sect's voluminous writings, Christ's law of brotherly love is often
mentioned, but it is never used to justify communality. On the contrary,
the demand for communality is closely linked to the striving for
suffering. Communality is perceived not as an expression of compassion,
but as a "yoke," a voluntary cross. Communist life is a narrow path,
leading through suffering to salvation.
Turning to the humanist literature, we might point to Thomas
More, who gave a detailed commentary on the suffering of the poor; he
condemned unjust life as a "conspiracy of the rich" and formulated a
thesis, which later became popular, to the effect that criminality is in
reality a crime of the unjust society. At the same time, he suggested
what he thought was a more just approach: criminals should be made into
slaves! Just how familiar More was with the life of the common folk is
indicated by his list of idle parasites in society, in which women
appear first.
The history of the socialist movement in Russia serves as another
striking example. The appearance of revolutionary nihilist circles
coincides exactly in time with the abolition of serfdom. The peasants
were liberated in 1861. Chernyshevsky's "Appeal to the Peasants of
Landowners" appeared in the same year and his "To Young Russia," where
the style and spirit of the new movement were formulated, appeared in
1862. Chernyshevsky and others openly explained their antipathy to the
reform of 1861 by asserting that a certain improvement in the peasants'
lot might turn them from the revolutionary path. Somewhat later we have
Nechayev proclaiming the following: "The government itself might at any
moment come upon the idea of reducing taxes or instituting similar
benefits. That would be a real misfortune, because even under the
present terrible conditions the folk are slow to rise. But give them a
little more pocket change, set things up even one cow better, and
everything will be delayed another ten years. And all our work will be
lost. On the contrary, you should use any opportunity to oppress the
people, the way the contractors do, for example." (Ill: p. 137)
Apropos of the attempt to effect a socialist coup in France,
Bakunin wrote: "Frenchmen themselves, even the workers, were not
inspired by it; the doctrine seemed too frightening. It was, in fact,
too weak. They should have suffered greater misery and disturbances.
Circumstances
[222]
are coming together in such a way that there will be no shortage of
that. Perhaps then the Devil will awaken." (Letter to Ogarev, 1871, 95:
p. 246)
This pronouncement coincides with the views contained in the writings
of the Moravian Brothers: there should be no attempt to seek release
from suffering since suffering is essential in achieving the supreme
goal. There is of course an important difference--the Moravian Brethren
saw the goal in Christ, while Bakunin uses different terminology.
Finally we come to Marxism. Despite the role that the exposure of
the injustice, cruelty and inhumanity of capitalism plays in it, we can
encounter quite similar views. Thus, in the article "Expose of the
Cologne Trial of Communists," Marx writes: "We say to workers: you must
survive fifteen, twenty, fifty years of civil war and international
strife not only to change existing relations but to change yourselves
and become capable of political supremacy." (3: VIII: p. 506) If we
recall the cruelty and hunger which were the consequence of three years
of civil war in Russia, we may imagine vaguely what those fifty years of
civil war would mean--the years that the workers
must survive,
according to Marx. In describing the terrible living conditions of the
workers of the day, Marx and Engels showed no interest in any
improvement. On the contrary, they actually tried to see features of the
future society in these conditions. It was impossible for the worker to
have an uninterrupted family life? Well, in the future society the
bourgeois family will wither away. Proletarian children were compelled
to work? In the future society children would "combine education with
productive labor." At a time when "bourgeois philanthropists" such as
Dickens and Carlyle were fighting against child labor, the Geneva
Congress of the First International adopted a resolution composed by
Marx: "The Congress regards the tendency of contemporary industry to
draw on the labor of children and juveniles of both sexes in the great
task of social production as a progressive, sound and lawful tendency,
though under the rule of capitalism it turns into a terrible evil. In a
rationally organized society, each child from the age of nine ought to
be a productive worker." (Cited in 112)
In the correspondence between Marx and Engels there are numerous utterances in the following vein:
"Dear Engels! I have just received your letter which brings up
the very pleasant prospect of a trade crisis." (Marx to Engels, 3: XXI:
p. 228)
[223]
"It would be a good thing to have a bad harvest next year in addition,
and then the real fun will begin." (Engels to Marx, 3: XII: p. 249)
"It's the same with me. Since the beginning of the crash in New York, I
could find no rest in Jersey and feel fine amidst the general breakdown.
The crisis will be as useful for my organism as the sea baths." (Engels
to Marx, 3: XXII: p. 255) "There is an improved mood in the market. May
this be damned!" (Engels to Marx, 3: XXII: p. 295) "Here only two or
three very bad years could help, but it seems that they won't be quick
to come." (Engels to Marx, 3: XXII: p. 368) "Our fatherland presents an
extremely pitiful sight. Without being battered from outside, nothing
can be done with these dogs." (Marx to Engels, 3: XXIII: p. 162)
During World War I, Lenin wrote as follows about war: "If the war now
evokes among reactionary Christian socialists and the whimpering petite
bourgeoisie only horror and fright, only an aversion to any use of
arms, to blood, death and so on, then we must answer that capitalist
society has always been and remains
a horror without end. And if now the most reactionary of all wars is preparing an
end with horror to this society, we have no reason to fall into despair." (113: XXX: p. 136)
It is striking how socialist thinkers, in exposing injustice and
exploitation of the people, refer so often tothese very people with
contempt and even malice. For instance, Meslier wrote on the cover of
his
Testament: "I came to know the errors and the misdeeds, the
vanity and the stupidity of the people. I hated and despised them."
Describing the peasants' suffering, he wrote: "It is justly said of them
that there is nothing more corrupt, more crude and more deserving of
contempt." (114: p. 56) Fourier calls the same French peasants "living
automatons" and adds: "In their extreme crudity, they are nearer to
animals than to the human race." (97: p. 93) In a letter to Marx, Engels
calls the peasants Germanic bumpkins. (3: XXI: p. 39) And the French
peasants are referred to as "a barbaric race," that is "by no means
interested in the form of government, etc., striving first of all to
destroy the tax collector's house. ..to rape his wife and to beat him to
death if they should manage to catch him." (Letter to Marx, 3: XXI: p.
312) About the workers he writes: "The masses are frightfully stupid."
(Letter to Marx, 3: XXIV: p. 160) Speaking of certain unjust contracts,
Marx for his part calls them "contracts to which only the completely
degenerate rabble could agree." (Letter to Engels, 3: XXIV: p. 30)
[224]
Another time he exclaims: "To hell with these popular movements,
especially if they are pacifist into the bargain. The Chartist movement
drove O'Connor mad (have you read his last speech at the trial?) made
Garny weak in the head and caused Johnson to go bankrupt.
Voila Ie dernier but de la vie dans tous les mouvements populaires. " (Letter to Engels, 3: XXI: p. 328)
It is possible to suggest various logical explanations for such
statements, but it is absolutely improbable psychologically to consider
that they are engendered by compassion for the people or by sympathy for
the victims of hunger and war. And we can see that the main
achievements in social justice of the last century in the West--the
reduction of the working day, social insurance, an extraordinary rise in
the living standard of the workers--were accomplished with very little
participation on the part of socialist movements. The main factors were
the struggle of the trade unions (condemned by the socialists as
"economism"), increased productivity of labor due to technological
progress, and the moral influence of "bourgeois philanthropy."
How, then, is socialist ideology connected with the idea of
struggle for social justice? It seems that we have here two quite
different approaches toward life which, nevertheless, intersect in a
certain area. Their point of contact is the condemnation of social
injustice and the exposure of the suffering it brings. From this
starting point, they develop in two entirely different directions, one
being the path of correcting social injustice, the struggle against the
concrete evils of the present. The other path regards social injustice
as an absolute evil, an indication that the existing world is doomed and
must be completely destroyed. Sympathy for the victims of injustice is
more and more squeezed out of the picture by all-consuming hatred of the
existing social structure.
7.
Socialism as a special religion
Bulgakov, among others, formulated this thought in the following
way: "For socialism nowadays emerges not only as a natural area of
social policy but usually also as a religion, one based on atheism and
the deification of man and man's labor and on recognition of the
elemental forces of Nature and social life and as the only meaningful
principle of history." (115: p. 36) More specifically, Bulgakov
believes, socialism can be seen as a rebirth of Judaic Messianism. "Karl
Marx, along with Lassalle, are the pro claimers of the apocalypse in
fashionable
[225]
dress, the announcers of the Messianic Kingdom." (110: p. 17; Bulgakov
treats this idea in greater detail in his "Apocalyptics and Socialism,"
in the collection
Two Cities, Volume II). Semyon Frank also calls
revolutionary socialism "a religion of absolute realization of the
people's happiness" and the "religion of service to material interests."
Frank points to "a train of thought which unites nihilistic morality
with the religion of socialism." (116: p. 192) An analogous point of
view is developed by Berdiaev in the article "Marxism and Religion."
Such a view was expressed occasionally by the adherents of socialism
themselves, for instance, by the social democrat participants in the
"God-building"
[bogostroitel'stvo] tendency at the beginning of
this century. Bazarov, Gorky and Lunacharsky took part in this attempt
to link Marxism and religion. A book by G. Le Bon (117) is based on the
same view. Among more recent works, this approach is taken, for
instance, in 118.
A forceful argument can be made for this definition. For example,
the religious aspects of socialism may explain the extraordinary
attraction of socialist doctrines and their capacity to inflame
individuals and to inspire popular movements. It is precisely these
aspects of socialism which cannot be explained when socialism is
regarded as a political or economic category. Socialism's pretensions to
be a universal world view comprising and explaining everything (from
the transformation of a liquid into steam to the appearance of
Christianity) also make it akin to religion. A characteristic of
religion is socialism's view of history not as a chaotic phenomenon but
as an entity that has a goal, a meaning and a justification. In other
words, both socialism and religion view history teleologically. Bulgakov
draws our attention to numerous and far-reaching analogies between
socialism (especially Marxism) and Judaic apocalyptics and eschatology.
Finally, socialism's hostility toward traditional religion hardly
contradicts this judgment--it may simply be a matter of animosity
between rival religions.
However, all these arguments indicate only that socialism and
religion have some important features in common. They do not prove that
the basic traits of socialism can be
reduced to a religion. And in point of fact, there are a number of cardinal distinctions that set them apart.
In the first place, religion proceeds from concrete experience:
the religious feelings of people who then describe these feelings as an
encounter with God. Such experiences on the part of individuals gifted
[226]
in this respect become fixed and are passed on to others in the form of a
cult, of a tradition and of theological literature. It would be of
great interest if it could be established that similar experiences lie
at the root of socialist philosophy, but we hear nothing of the kind.
And this in itself is a clear objective difference between the socialist
world view and religion. For even if such experiences do occur within
socialism, those to whom it is accessible categorically deny the fact.
The most prominent representatives of socialist ideology either adhere
to a rational outlook (in recent centuries) or profess some other,
nonsocialist religion (earlier).
An even more radical contrast between socialism and religion emerges
from their views of the essence of man and his role in their respective
"anthropologies." All religions proceed from a recognition of some
higher meaning in life, some goal deriving from a higher sphere.
Presupposing the existence of God and the possibility of man's
communication with Him, religion thereby admits a certain
commensurability between God and man, which is indispensable if only to
make possible some sort of contact. (An ant, for instance, cannot enter
into contact with man.) Socialism, on the other hand, proceeds in almost
all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles
guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go
beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. What
is more, this view becomes more explicit, the more clearly formulated
the given socialist ideology. Below, we shall cite several illustrations
of this tendency.
With Plato,
justice was still among the basic organizing
principles in the ideal state. The ideology of medieval heresies
included spiritual goals, although they generally set God and the world
at such odds that the
earthly activity of man came to be devoid
of any higher meaning. But More recognized (or more precisely, he wrote
that the Utopians recognized) satisfaction as the supreme goal in life.
Still, More does believe that a reasonable man can refuse lesser
satisfactions in order to receive greater ones from God. However, this
line of reasoning Soon brings us to Fourier's doctrine, according to
which the satisfaction of instincts (or as he puts it, passions) is the
only goal and even the basic force shaping human society.
According to Fourier, all instincts are equally fruitful and
useful for society--it is only necessary to combine them and direct them
in the proper way: "There is not a single useless or bad passion; all
personalities
[227]
are good as they are." (97: p. 292) "Passions, whatever they might
be--even the most repulsive--both in man and in animals, lead to their
various consequences according to geometrical principles observed by
God." (97: p. 60) As a result, citizens who are most useful to the
societal mechanism are those "who are most inclined to refined pleasures
and who boldly give themselves up to the satisfaction of their
passions." (97: p. 292) The future "combined" social structure is built
along the same lines: "In the eighteen communities of the combined
structure, the trait that is the most useful for the triumph of truth is
love of wealth." (97: p. 95) "The whole arrangement of the combined
structure will be the direct opposite of our habits and will compel the
encouragement of everything we call vice, for instance, the passion for
sweets and the pleasures of love." (97: p. 96)
The moral principles restricting freedom of expression of instincts
are harmful. In particular, there is nothing so harmful as the sense of
duty invented by philosophers. "All these philosophical whims called
duty have
nothing to do with truth; duty proceeds from people, while attraction
proceeds from God. If you want to recognize God's intentions, study
attraction, only nature, and do not accept duty." (97: p. 98) The
functioning of society is to be ensured by placing people in situations
in which what is advantageous for them will be for the benefit of all.
At this point even the most dishonest man will become a useful member of
society. "Show him that he can earn a thousand écus by lying and three
thousand by the truth, and he will prefer the truth no matter what a
cheat he is." (97: p. 96)
It is revealing, however, that Fourier
refuses to
recognize the existence of clearly instinctive attractions if they
engender acts which do not fit an egoistic framework. For instance, he
never speaks about love as such but only about the "delights of love" or
about "amorousness." He considers the feelings of parent for child and
child for parent to be mere invention. "Since he does not know the 'act'
that is at the basis of his paternity, the child cannot experience
filial feelings." Parents, for their part, love only "the recollection
of past delights connected with conception." A child cannot feel
"indebted to parents to whom he has given so much delight unshared by
him, delight of which people want to deprive him at the best time of his
life." (97: p. 100)
It is possible to consider Fourier as an immediate predecessor of
Freud: in his striving to understand man and human society in the
[228]
light of the most primitive instincts, in a pathological
underdevelopment of the emotional sphere which prevents any appreciation
for the higher aspects of the human psyche, in the hypertrophied role
he ascribes to relations between the sexes. (According to Fourier, even
economics ought to be based on attracting young people into labor armies
by the prospect of love affairs; in this way huge industrial building
projects could be carried out.) Of course, Fourier's mythological
construct describing the cooperation of man and the cosmos finds no
continuation in Freud's works. (As we shall see below, Freud had his own
mythology.) But while Fourier, with the infantilism so characteristic
of him, sees amid "the passions we call vices" nothing more terrible
than "passion for sweets and the delights of love," Freud goes much
further. Among the forces to which he attempts to reduce culture and the
spiritual life of man, Freud does not bypass either malice or lust for
domination, destruction or the death wish. He considers all culture to
be based on the suppression of the instincts--the deepest part of the
human psyche, which strives to act according to the "pleasure
principle." Unhappiness, in Freud's view, is a necessary cost for
civilization. Happiness does not fall within the range of cultural
values. Moral norms, elaborated by that part of the psyche that is of
later, cultural, origin, are factors which are destructive and mortally
dangerous to the organism. Freud compares morals with products of decay
which are manufactured by a cell and then become the cause of its death.
The next episode in the history of socialist doctrine after
Fourier--Marxism--was based on analogous concepts of human personality.
Dividing all human activity into "base" and "superstructure," Marxism
assigned to the "base" that mode of production "from which, by force of
inner dialectics and immanent laws, a social and state system is derived
with all its legal, philosophical and religious views." In an even more
striking formulation, Marxism proclaimed that this superstructure is
"given" by the hand or steam mill. The mechanism by which the base
creates a superstructure is held to be the struggle of material and
economic
interests (that is, egotism in the form of the class
struggle). In its more general views of man, Marxism denies the freedom
of will and any independent spiritual life or consciousness, the last
being determined by one's "social existence." In the preface to the
first volume of
Capital, Marx wrote: "For me the ideal principle is a material one that has passed through the brain."
[229]
Still, the negation of the higher aspects of human existence in
Marxism is not as radical as it is in the movement given shape by
Fourier and later developed by Freud. Marxism sees the basic stimulus of
human life and the explanation of the riddle of history in man's baser
actions, but nevertheless in
human activity and even in activity
that unites people in a "social existence." Freud, however, reduces
mankind to a still lower, purely biological level. While Marxism
proclaims the division of
human society into antagonistic classes (at least throughout recorded history), Freud strives to accomplish the same stratification in the
human personality. He
singles out the most ancient and the most extensive area--the id, the
unconscious--which functions exclusively according to the pleasure
principle, outside any notion of time or contradiction. There is no
distinction here between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of
value, save pleasure. Under the influence of the external world a
derivative area--the ego--is formed, and from this, in turn, the
superego takes shape under the influence of social factors. Here we can
observe (under the name of suppression or repressive organization) the
same exploitation and oppression in which Marxism sees the basic factor
of social life. Freud compares the role of the areas of the psyche
created under the influence of civilization to that part of the
population which "seized power and exploits the rest of the population
for its own profit. The fear of an uprising of the oppressed becomes the
source of more severe measures."
(Civilization and Its Discontents) In
particular, sexuality, which has for the id the sole aim of deriving
pleasure from different parts of the body, is forcibly subordinated to
the function of childbearing and is transferred exclusively to the
genitalia. Subconsciously the organism retains a recollection of the
ideal condition of unlimited rule of the pleasure principle (cf.
pre-class society) and attempts to break out of bondage. The ego and
superego create in response the concept of morality and classify such
attempts as "perversion" or "amoral actions." This results in a
civilization where labor brings no satisfaction and instead becomes a
source of unhappiness, a civilization which inevitably breeds suffering.
One may add to this picture the conception of history as a traumatic
reaction to an ancient crime--the murder of the father, the leader of a
primitive band.
It might seem that Freud has distracted us from the main task of
sketching the concept of human personality in socialist ideology. In
fact it would have been a miracle if systems like those of Freud, so
[230]
close to the views elaborated by socialist thinkers (Fourier and Marx),
had not been incorporated into the socialist world view. No miracle
occurred: the attempt to achieve a synthesis of Freudianism with
socialist concepts (called "neo-Marxism" or "neo-Freudianism") became
the biggest event in the development of socialist ideology in the
post-World War II years; it had a very strong ideological impact on
socialist trends that took shape during this time. In this regard
Marcuse's book (119) stands out as the most consistent and vivid attempt
to achieve such a synthesis.
Freud's system is skeptical and pessimistic; he considered suffering
and mental diseases to be the inevitable cost of civilization, which in
its turn is more and more undermined by elements of the psyche that have
broken away from its control. Marcuse, in contrast, undertakes to alter
this view so that its pessimistic evaluation is directed only against
modern society. Furthermore, he adds the prediction of a future
"liberation." To do this, he divides the suppression to which the
instincts are subjected into two parts: the repression that inevitably
comes from the objective claims of the external world on each organism
and another type, which is caused by the striving of certain groups of
individuals to attain privileged positions in society. The second form
of repression he calls
surplus-repression, and he considers the
excessive burden that this factor imposes on the human psyche to be a
peculiarity of modern civilization. Included in surplus-repression by
Marcuse are the following: the necessity of work that does not bring
direct satisfaction and whose reward appears in the form of ever more
delayed pleasure; the repressive role of genital sexuality and the
suppression of more primitive forms of libido, which permit the whole
body to be the instrument of pleasure; the dominant role of reason,
which subjects all life to itself; the transformation of science and
religion into a means of the total mobilization of man; the control
exercised by such categories as "conscience" and "morality" over man's
inner world. Surplus-repression is directly connected to the fact that
the demands of society are not satisfied collectively and in accordance
with individual needs but are
organized by the dominant part of society.
Marcuse is in agreement with Freud that repression is the
necessary price for survival, but he asserts that surplus-repression
with all its consequences may be overcome with the help of the latest
achievements in technology. Without going into the details of this
process
[231]
(as a rule, one word is used: "automation"), Marcuse draws a picture of a
future unrepressed society. It is based on the liberation of the
instincts from the control of "repressive reason." This will lead to
regression, in
comparison to the level of civilization and reason that had been
achieved: "It would reactivate early stages of the libido which were
surpassed in the development of the reality ego, and it would dissolve
the institutions of society in which the reality ego exists." (119: p.
198) "The regression involved in this spread of the libido would first
manifest itself in a reactivation of all erotogenic zones and,
consequently, in a resurgence of pregenital polymorphous sexuality and
in a decline of genital supremacy." (119: p. 201) The body as a whole
will become an instrument of satisfaction. "This change in the value and
scope of libidinal relations would lead to a disintegration of the
institutions in which the private interpersonal relations have been
organized, particularly the monogamic and patriarchal family." (119: p.
201) Reason, which is the instrument of the ego, will to a large extent
give way to fantasy connected with the id. And this will open up new'
ways to understand the future; it will reveal the reality of the
possibilities formerly perceived only as elements of a utopia. The
liberation of sexual instincts will lead to the development of
"libidinal rationality," which will show the way to a higher form of
free civilization.
The satisfaction of needs understood in an ever wider sense will
become possible without heavy--i.e., alienating--work. Working relations
will be simultaneously libidinal relations. "For example, if work were
accompanied by a reactivation of pregenital polymorphous eroticism, it
would tend to become gratifying in itself without losing its
work content."
(119: p. 215) On the other hand, work will become play, "a free play of
human faculties." (119: p. 214) In a later work (4), Marcuse speaks
about "play with automation." Here he considers it essential to correct
Marx, who was not bold enough, and to adhere to Fourier.
Marcuse speaks here of the end of culture in the old sense of the
word: "It would still be a reversal of the process of civilization, a
subversion of culture--but
after culture had done its work and
created the mankind and the world that could be free." (119: p. 198) The
essence of this upheaval Marcuse describes in poetic terms by
juxtaposing Prometheus, the hero of repressive culture, with the heroes
of his own New World--Orpheus and Narcissus. He ends as follows: "The
classical tradition associates Orpheus with the introduction of
homosexuality.
[232]
Like Narcissus, he rejects the normal Eros, not for an ascetic ideal,
but for a fuller Eros. Like Narcissus he protests against the repressive
order of procreative sexuality. The Orphic and Narcissistic Eros is to
the end the negation of this order--the Great Refusal. In the world
symbolized by the culture hero Prometheus, it is the negation of
all order;
but in this negation Orpheus and Narcissus reveal a new reality, with
an order of its own, governed by different principles." (119: p. 171)
The most active socialist current of recent times, the New Left,
proved to be extraordinarily receptive to Marcuse's teaching and was to a
considerable extent influenced by it. Marcuse's basic propositions are
closely paralleled in the slogans of this movement and serve as their
theoretical foundation. For instance, the liberation of sexual instincts
finds expression in the "sexual revolution," and the suppression of
repressive reason is demonstrated in the "psychedelic revolution," that
is, in the mass use of hallucinogens. Even ostentatious slovenliness can
be theoretically justified, for according to the theory, ego and
superego suppress the instincts connected with the sense of smell and
enforce the perception of strong smells as "disgusting." (Furthermore,
the dominant classes associate garbage with the lower classes, which are
perceived negatively as "the dregs of society.") These views also serve
as a theoretical basis for "left art," which fosters the idea of
"anti-cultural" (or "cultural") revolution, of the destruction of
"repressive" or "stifling" culture, up to and including a heightened
interest (in both literature and ,art) in garbage and excrement as means
of "exploding bourgeois culture."
We provided several examples to illustrate the "anthropology of
socialism." Had we considered other developed socialist theories in this
connection (for instance, Deschamps's system), we would have been
obliged to come to the same conclusion, namely, that
socialist
ideology seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive, lowest
levels and, in each epoch, relies upon the most radical "criticism of
man" available. For that reason, the concepts of man in socialism and in religion are diametrically opposed.
So that if socialism is a religion, it must be recognized as a
quite special religion, different in principle from all others and
antithetical to them in many basic questions. (How else are we to
understand Bulgakov's statement that socialism is "a religion based on
atheism"?)
[233]
Otherwise it would be necessary to expand the definition of religion to the point where it would have no meaning at all.
8.
Socialism is the consequence of atheism, the conclusion to which atheism leads in the field of social relations.
Dostoyevsky expressed this view with particular clarity, and his
comments deserve special consideration. The majority of the thinkers of
the nineteenth century completely overlooked the spiritual crisis of
their time, which paved the way for the triumph of socialism in our day.
Dostoyevsky was one of the few who saw clearly that mankind would not
follow the path of liberalism, humanism and progress, and that terrible
calamities awaited it in the not too distant future. He foresaw that
socialism was destined to play the central role in the future
tribulations of mankind, and most of his works touch upon various
aspects of the problem. We shall here limit ourselves to what can be
found on the subject in his essays appearing in
The Diary of a Writer. Here are some of his views:
"French socialism, that is, the assuaging and the arrangement of
human society without Christ and outside Christ. .." (1877, January,
Chapter 1) "For socialism sets itself the task of solving the fate of
mankind, not according to Christ but outside God and outside Christ, and
it was natural for it to arise in Europe, on the ruins of the Christian
principle in proportion to the degree that this had become degenerate
and lost in the Catholic Church itself." (1877, February, Chapter 3)
"When Catholic humanity turned away from the monstrous image in which
Christ was presented to them, then after many centuries of protests.
..there finally appeared, at the beginning of this century, attempts to
arrange things outside God and outside Christ. Without the instincts of
bees or ants that create their beehives and ant hills faultlessly and
precisely, people undertook to create something like a faultless human
ant hill. They rejected the formula for salvation which proceeds from
God and was revealed as 'Love thy neighbor as thyself' and replaced it
by practical conclusions such as
'chacun pour soi et Dieu pour tous' or
by scientific axioms such as 'the struggle for existence.' Lacking the
instincts of animals. ..people placed great confidence in science,
forgetting that for a task like the creation of society, science was
still in its infancy. Dreams appeared. The future tower of Babel became
the ideal and, on the other hand, the fear of all mankind. But the
visionaries were soon followed by other doctrines,
[234]
simple and to the point, such as 'rob the rich, drown the world in blood
and then everything will somehow arrange itself.' " (1877, November,
Chapter 3)
There are two essential points here. First, socialism is seen as the
natural consequence of the decline of religion (Dostoyevsky has in mind
socialism in Western Europe and the decline of Catholicism). Socialism
is in this sense that which remains of the spiritual structure of
mankind if the link with God is lost.
Second, socialism aims at organizing human society according to
new principles which are compared to the instinctive actions of insect
societies.
It appears to us that the second idea is in complete accordance
with all the known facts about socialism, and later we shall try to
specify the attitude of socialism toward the forces that shape human
society.
As far as the first point is concerned, it is certainly true that
socialism is hostile to religion. But is it possible to understand it
as a
consequence of atheism? Hardly, at least if we understand
atheism as it is usually defined: as the loss of religious feeling. It
is not clear just how such a negative concept can become the stimulus
for an active attitude toward the world (its destruction or alteration)
or how it can be the source of the infectiousness of socialist
doctrines. Furthermore, socialism's attitude toward religion does not at
all resemble the indifferent and skeptical position of someone who has
lost interest in religion. The term "atheism" is inappropriate for the
description of people in the grip of socialist doctrines. It would be
more correct to speak here not of "atheists" but of "God-haters," not of
"atheism" but of "theophobia." Such, certainly, is the passionately
hostile attitude of socialism toward religion. Thus, while socialism is
certainly connected with the loss of religious feeling, it can hardly be
reduced to it. The place formerly occupied by religion does not remain
vacant; a new lodger appeared. This is the only true source of the
active principle of socialism, and the aspect which determines the
historical role of this phenomenon.
We may draw the following conclusion from our critical survey:
Socialism can apparently not be reduced to familiar social categories.
The very abundance of such attempts points to the futility of such an
exercise.
[235]
VIII.
The Embodiment of
the Socialist Ideal
In the light of the preceding section, two possibilities remain:
either socialism is a fundamental historical force irreducible to other
factors, or it is a manifestation of forces which up till now have not
received sufficient attention. Our basic goal is a discussion of these
alternatives. To prepare the ground for it, we shall try to look at the
entire question from a new perspective. If earlier we attempted to
specify what the various manifestations of socialism have in common, we
shall now try to dissect this phenomenon into its elements in order to
observe their interrelations and to evaluate the role of each element in
the evolution of socialism.
The starting point for such an analysis is the observation with
which we began the present study: Socialism manifests itself in life in
two forms--as a doctrine (chiliastic socialism) and as a state system
(state socialism). These forms differ so significantly that a question
arises as to whether their content is in fact the same. Is it proper to
categorize them as a single historical phenomenon? For example, the
demand for destruction of the family, which in chiliastic socialism so
often takes the more radical form of community of wives, has been
realized in practice only in narrow circles: the gnostic sects described
by Epiphanes, among the Brethren of the Free Spirit or in contemporary
Berlin's "Commune No.1." But we are not aware of any instance of this
principle's implementation on the level of state policy. The same is
true of another aspect of the abolition of the family--the break-up of
ties between children and parents, with state upbringing of all children
from the earliest age.
[236]
We shall begin with a discussion of this question. We shall argue
that chiliastic and state socialism are two embodiments of one and the
same ideal. Later, the role of these two forms in the historical
evolution of socialism will be examined.
It would be natural to ascribe the difference between the
doctrines of chiliastic socialism and the practice of state socialism to
the fact that the former have as their aim the destruction of an
existing social order and the establishment of a new one, while the
latter aims to preserve an already existing social order. In this case,
the specific features of chili as tic socialism which call for the
destruction of the family could be considered tactical devices designed
to disrupt the hostile system or to arouse fanaticism. It follows that
after the establishment of a new order, these devices are no longer
needed and can be discarded. They must therefore not be taken into
consideration in a discussion of socialism's practical goals. Any
argument about the fundamental difference between chiliastic and state
socialism would probably follow such a pattern.
This point of view seems to us to be unconvincing a priori and
devoid of inner logic. So gigantic a movement as socialism cannot
in principle be based on a deception. For all their superficial demagoguery, these movements are honest at bottom--they proclaim their
fundamental principles
clearly for all to hear (except those who consciously try not to hear).
And those propositions of socialist ideology which we formulated in
chapter VI appear so consistently over such a vast period of time that
they obviously are to be taken as fundamental principles. Moreover, they
are often expressed in writing not by the leaders of popular movements
but by abstract thinkers such as Plato and Campanella, whom it is hard
to suspect of demagogic effects and who evidently produced the entire
complex of basic socialist notions in response to the inner logic of
this world view.
Below, we shall bring forward a number of specific arguments to
support our contention. However, we must not forget that considerable
differences in the spirit of socialist doctrines and the practice of
socialist states are inevitable. We may speak only about the
coincidence in principle of
the ideals proclaimed in each case. The leader of a popular socialist
movement and the representative of a socialist state have to deal with
different practical tasks. The more radical and striking is the form in
which the former expresses his ideal, the more accessible and effective
his ideas will be. But the latter must contend with many
[237]
real and complex difficulties, which limit the possibility of enacting
his ideology in a consistent fashion and which may even threaten the
very existence of his state.
One of the typical limitations imposed by reality is the necessity of
contact with other, differently organized societies. Isolation is
posited as a basic condition for the existence of a socialist state in
the majority of the socialist utopian writings. More, Campanella,
Vairasse and many others placed their utopias on remote islands.
Vairasse, for example, makes the special reservation that only the most
reliable Sevarites may go on "errands" to the outer world and they are
permitted to do so only on the condition that their families remain
behind as hostages. The organizers of the "Conspiracy of Equals"
suggested that France should be surrounded by "spiked hedges" after the
victory. The stability of the Jesuit state, to a marked degree, depended
on its isolation. The unexpectedly high level of the crafts among the
Guarani, in the context of a generally primitive level of life,
apparently was a result of an attempt to make the country independent of
the outside world. On the other hand, the breakdown of isolation
permitted a handful of Spanish adventurers to destroy the Inca empire.
Is not this difficulty reflected in the vexed problem of "building
socialism in one country"? Engels once' answered this question most
categorically: "Nineteenth question. Can the revolution take place in
one country? Answer. No." (3: V: p. 476) Thanks to this factor alone, a
socialist state that is not sufficiently isolated is forced to forgo the
most radical elements of the ideal. And the contrary also holds: when
the socialist movement is on the ascent, taking control in more and more
areas and holding out the promise of the destruction of the old system
in the entire world, the socialist states prove to be much more radical
in their practical activity. From this point of view, the epoch of "War
Communism" in postrevolutionary Russia is extremely interesting for an
understanding of the peculiarities of socialist ideology; the impulses
aroused then, in the hope of world revolution (or at least a European
revolution), continued to be prominent until the middle of the twenties.
We shall cite a necessarily limited number of examples to show how the
realization of socialist principles was conceived at the time.
The term "War Communism" itself is misleading; it is not at all a
description of the measures dictated by wartime needs (as was
suggested, for example, in Stalin's
Questions of Leninism). In fact, at the time this policy was being implemented (1918-1921), the term "War
[238]
Communism" was not used at all. It came into being later, together with
the notion that this policy was conceived as temporary and was forced
upon the Soviet regime by events. In a series of speeches in 1921-1922,
Lenin characterized the policy of the preceding three years as something
consciously undertaken that had perhaps gone too far. He compared it
with the storming of a fortress: if this tactic would not bring victory,
it should be replaced by a systematic siege. For example: "Regarding
our preceding economic policy, although it cannot be said to have been
planned (in such situations one calculates little), it nevertheless
assumed that there would be an immediate transition from the old Russian
economy to state production and to distribution based on Communist
principles." In Lenin's opinion, it was a necessary experiment which
forced the transition to a new policy of "state capitalism," which,
albeit still in vague form, had been considered as early as 1918 as a
possible line of retreat. (See Lenin's "NEP and the Tasks of Political
Enlightenment," "The Report on NEP at the VIIth Moscow Regional Party
Conference," and "Five Years of the Russian Revolution and the Prospects
for World Revolution.")
There were many similar statements by numerous leaders of the state.
In addition, the fact that the most radical measures in implementing the
policies associated with War Communism were taken in the spring of 1920
and the winter of 1920-1921--when there was no military action going
on--leads to the conclusion that the policy of the day was not
necessitated by the Civil War but had been motivated by general
theoretical considerations.
Let us take up a more detailed discussion of the policy in question.
1. Economy
All industry was nationalized, including the smallest operation.
Everything was "supercentralized," subordinated to Central Boards
(Glavki) in which separate plants were deprived of any economic
independence. In agriculture, the proclaimed goal was the most radically
conceived form of collectivization. The decree of the Central Executive
Committee issued on March 1, 1919, reads as follows: "All aspects of
individual land use should be regarded as transient and dying forms."
rOn the Socialist Use of Land and on Measures for the Transition to ,
Socialist Agriculture") The preferred form of organization of peasant
labor was the
commune. For example, in another section of the same
[239]
decree, state farms and communes are listed first among the priorities
in the regulation of land allotments. In a resolution "On the
Collectivization of Agriculture" (adopted by the All-Russian Congress of
Land Sections [Zemotdely]), it is stated that "the main task is
large-scale organization of agricultural communes, of Soviet Communist
farms and of the public cultivation of land, all of which will
inevitably lead to a unified Communist organization of agriculture."
In the commune, as a rule, all means of production were
socialized--buildings, instruments, livestock, land, etc., as well as
consumption and services. What life was supposed to be like may be
gleaned from stories about model communes published, during NEP, in
Izvestia's regular
section called "Competition for the Best Collective Farm." For example:
"No one has his own money; all money is kept in the general treasury."
(September 11, 1923) Some members live in separate houses and take their
meals separately, but when a new building is ready "everything
individual will be done away with." (September 5, 1923) In another
commune, there is a dormitory, a common dining hall and kitchen. "Work
and meals are announced by bells." (September 8, 1923) People eat in
public cafeterias and live in a dormitory, where each family has its own
room. "Children still live with their parents, going out only by day to
the kindergarten. It is only due to the absence of bedding that
children cannot be interned separately." (September 11, 1923) "Children
under school age live and eat separately."
Agricultural products were delivered to the state according to
the "surplus appropriation system," at prices dozens of times lower than
those paid on the black market. In other words, products were taken for
practically nothing. The
Soviet Encyclopedia puts it quite
delicately: "The economic relations of the town and the country were
essentially one-sided in character." In other areas, too, requisitions
and confiscation were regulated. A decree of the Council of People's
Commissars (SNK) from April 16, 1920, allows the Presidium of the VSNKh
(Supreme Council of the People's Economy) and The People's Commissariat
of Produce to carry out requisition and confiscation directly as well as
through local organizations. Another of the SNK's decrees (December 4,
1920) sanctions free distribution of foodstuffs to the population (more
accurately, to those groups of the population that were being supplied
with foodstuffs). Frequently, the complete abolition of money was
formulated as an immediate aim of economic policy. Yu. Larin,
[240]
head of the department of financial policy of the VSNKh wrote: "And now,
after a few years of effort on the part of the victorious proletariat,
the thousand-year-old foundations of the commodity production system are
collapsing like a house of cards. When our children grow up, money will
be nothing but a memory, and our grandchildren will learn about it only
from the colored pictures in history books."
(Pravda, October 17, 1920, "The Transformation of Everyday Life") In an article by L. Obolensky in
The People's Economy (published
by VSNKh), we read: "At the present time in Soviet Russia, a system of
moneyless accounts is the first step toward the abolition of money
relations in general." (No. 1-2, 1920) "Naturalization of the economy"
became a commonly used term, derived from the phrase
platit' naturoi--"to pay in kind."
Pravda states: "The tendency to the
general naturalization of our economy must be consciously undertaken by us with all possible energy." (February 14, 1920)
2. The Organization of Labor
Let us recall that Marx and Engels themselves recommended the
following measure, among others to be carried out immediately after the
socialist revolution: "Identical duties regarding work. Establishment of
industrial armies, especially in agriculture." (3: V: p. 502)
In a note called "Ten Theses on Soviet Power" which was presented
to the Seventh Party Congress, Lenin formulated the task thus: "A quick
beginning of the complete realization of general labor conscription,
with a careful and gradual extension of it to the small peasants living
on their own without hired labor." (113: XXXVI: p. 74) This idea was
developed in great detail somewhat later.
At the Ninth Party Congress, Trotsky proposed a system of
militarization under which workers and peasants would be in the position
of mobilized soldiers. The plan set forth in Trotsky's report is worth
considering in more detail.
He begins with an attack on Smirnov, whose position he formulates as follows:
"Insofar as we have begun a wider mobilization of the peasant
masses in the name of tasks requiring extensive application of labor,
militarization is becoming mandatory. We mobilize the peasantry and from
this mobilized work force we form labor detachments that resemble
military units. We supply commanders and instruction staff. We
[241]
must include Communist cells so that these units are not soulless, but
are inspired by the will to work. This amounts to a close approximation
of military structure. The word 'militarization' is appropriate here,
but Comrade Smirnov says that when we enter the field of industry, the
field of skilled labor where there are professional and production
organizations of the working class, there is no need to apply the
military apparatus for the formation of units--militarization in this
sense is out of the question. The trade unions will fulfill the task of
organizing labor. Such an approach to the question reveals a complete
lack of understanding of the essence of the economic changes that are
taking place at the present." (120: p. 92)
Trotsky's point of view, as expressed in his report, comes to this:
"In the military there is an appropriate mechanism which is set in
motion to make soldiers fulfill their duty. This ought to be introduced
in one form or another in the labor area. It is clear that if we wish to
speak seriously of a planned economy that is directed from the center
by a single design, where the work force is distributed in accordance
with an economic plan at a given stage of development, this work force
cannot be nomadic Russia. It must be capable of being moved quickly, of
being given tasks and commanded just as soldiers are." (120: p. 93)
"This sort of militarization is unthinkable without the militarization
of the trade unions as such, without the establishment of a regime under
which each worker feels he is a soldier of labor who cannot freely
arrange his life. If there is an order for him to be transferred, he
ought to obey it, and if he does not, he will be considered a deserter
who must be punished." (120: p. 94) Trotsky even puts forward a theory
in this regard: "Those arguments which were directed against the
organization of a labor army are wholly directed against the socialist
organization of the economy in our transitional period. If we take at
face value the old bourgeois prejudice--or, to put it more precisely, an
old bourgeois axiom which has become a prejudice, about forced labor
being unproductive--then we must apply this not only to a labor army but
to labor conscription as a whole, to the foundation of our economic
plan and therefore to socialist organization in general." (120: p. 97)
"If labor is organized according to an incorrect principle, according to
the principle of compulsion, if compulsion is hostile to the
productivity of labor, then we are doomed to economic decline no matter
how much we dodge and shift. But this is a prejudice, comrades! The
assertion that free labor, freely hired labor is more productive than
forced labor was undoubtedly correct when applied
[242]
to the feudal and bourgeois systems.. ..But the development of labor
productivity prepared for the shift from a capitalist economy to a new
Communist economy, and to apply to this colossal historic change that
which was correctly applied to the old situation means to remain within
the framework of bourgeois and philistine prejudices. We say: it is not
true that compulsory labor is unproductive under any and all
circumstances and conditions." (120: p. 98)
Trotsky developed the same thoughts in greater detail in his book
directed against Kautsky. (121) Once again we encounter the idea of
militarization, labor armies and the theory according to which forced
labor under conditions created by the dictatorship of the proletariat
will be more productive than free labor. Trotsky supports this
conception by means of the following significant analogy: "Even serfdom
was, under certain circumstances, progressive and led to an increase in
the productivity of labor." (121: p. 119)
The question was posed on a more theoretical plane by Bukharin.
(102) Noneconomic compulsion is presented here not as a measure
necessitated by the war but as an organic feature of the transition from
capitalism to socialism. In Chapter 10, entitled "Extra-Economic
Compulsion in the Period of Transition," we read: "In regard to the
non-kulak peasant mass, compulsion on the part of the proletariat is an
instance of the class struggle, insofar as the peasant is a proprietor
and a speculator." As it turns out, the question has a more elevated
aspect: "From a broader point of view, proletarian compulsion in all its
forms, from execution by shooting to labor conscription, is--no matter
how paradoxical this sounds--a method for the elaboration of Communist
humanity from the human material of the capitalist epoch." (102: p. 146)
These constructs were far from being pure theory. General labor
conscription was actually announced. Instead of passports, which had
been abolished, working papers were introduced for the entire work
force. In Moscow and Petro grad, anyone venturing out on the street was
obliged to have his working papers with him. By the time of the
introduction of NEP (1921), eight labor armies had been organized.
3. Family
Practical actions as well as theoretical considerations in this
field were based on Marxist theory, as set forth in its most complete
form in Engels' book
The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.
[243]
Engels had the following view of the contemporary family: "Monogamy
arose from the concentration of great riches in a single hand--that of
the man--and from the need to bequeath these riches to the children of
that man and not of any other." (3: XVI: p. 56) About the future of the
family he says: "With the transfer of the means of production into
common ownership, the individual family ceases to be an economic unit of
society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry.
The care and education of children become a public affair; society looks
after all children equally, whether they are born in or out of
wedlock." (3: XVI: p. 57)
It would seem that since the family is deprived of all social
functions, it must inevitably disappear, at least from the point of view
of historical materialism. The
Communist Manifesto does in fact
proclaim the abolition of the "bourgeois family." What, then, will
replace it? The answers to that question in the classic writings of
Marxism are strikingly ambiguous. We have already pointed out the
passage in the
Manifesto where the authors, in speaking about the
accusation that Communists wish to introduce communality of wives,
clearly avoid rejecting this explicitly. In another document used by
Marx in writing the
Manifesto ("Proceedings of the German
Workers' Self-Education Society") we read: "Question 20: Will
communality of wives be proclaimed together with the abolition of
private property? Answer: Absolutely not. We shall interfere in the
private relations between man and woman only to the degree that these
relations disrupt the new social order. We know very well that family
relations have been subjected to change in the course of history,
depending on the phase of development of property, and because of this
the very abolition of private property will have a most decisive
influence." (Quoted in 112)
Here again, it is impossible to comprehend what it is that the
author so decisively rejects--the fact that communality of wives will
occur or merely the fact that it would be "proclaimed" and introduced
through the interference of society.
In
The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, a
work written in the least radical period of his activities, Engels
asserts of the future: "Far from disappearing, monogamy will then on the
contrary be fully realized for the first time." (3: XVI: p. 57) But in
what way, if its economic preconditions have disappeared? Answer: "Here a
new factor comes into play. ..individual sex-love." (3: XVI: p. 57) But
one waits in vain for a materialistic analysis of this "factor"
[244]
from the founder of historical materialism. It is not a biological
category because: "Before the Middle Ages individual sex-love was out of
the question." (?!) (3: XVI: p. 58) Then perhaps we should expect an
explanation in the spirit of the "base" and the "superstructure," so as
to show how this "factor" is "given" by the hand mill! But instead, the
author only points mysteriously to adultery as a source of sexual
love--i.e., to a factor which could be ascribed to production
relationships only with great difficulty. To add to the confusion,
Engels speaks, in a note at the end of the book, with sympathy of
Fourier's "brilliant critique of civilization": "I only note that
already in Fourier's writings, monogamy and property in land are treated
as the chief characteristics of civilization." (3: XVI: p. 153)
It is not surprising that these general principles were interpreted
in a multitude of ways in the early postrevolutionary years. But there
is one thing that unites most of the views current then--the attitude
toward the family as an institution opposed to the party, the class or
the state, and therefore dangerous. Here are some examples:
"The frequent conflicts between the interests of the family and
that of the class, as for example during strikes, and the moral standard
that is used by the proletariat in these cases characterize the basis
of the new proletarian ideology with sufficient clarity. ...To the
detriment of individual happiness, to the detriment of the family, the
morality of the working class will demand the participation of women in
the life unfolding beyond the threshold of the house." (122: p. 59)
"From the moment the family begins to oppose itself to society,
enclosing itself in the narrow circle of purely domestic interests, it
begins to playa conservative role in the whole social structure of life.
This sort of family we are certainly obliged to destroy." (123: p. 156)
"The spirit of solidarity, comradeship, readiness to give oneself up to
the common cause is well developed wherever the exclusionary family
does not exist. This has been carefully taken into account by the
leaders of almost all large social movements. ...Under the socialist
system, when there will no longer be a domestic household and children
will be brought up by society from the day of their birth, other forms
of the union of the sexes rather than the family will undoubtedly come
into being." (124: p. 12) "In future socialist society, where the
obligation for the upbringing, education and maintenance of children
will be ,shifted from the parents to society as a whole, it is clear
that the family must wither away." (125: p. 121) "It makes little sense
for us to strive
[245]
for an especially stable family and to regard marriage from that angle." (126: p. 26)
The practical conclusions derived from this general tendency varied
sharply. Aleksandra Kollontai called for the spread of free love with a
frequent change of sexual partners: "For the working class, greater
'fluidity,' less rigidity in the union of the sexes completely coincides
with and even follows from the basic tasks of this class." (122: p. 59)
In the play
Love of the Worker Bees and the article "Make Way
for Winged Eros!" she developed these propositions vividly. Lenin
objected (see Klara Tsetkin's "On Lenin"), as did Solts, who writes: "A
disorderly sex life undoubtedly weakens anyone as a fighter." rOn Party
Ethics") On the other hand, M. N. Liadov (pseudonym of Mandelshtam, a
Bolshevik who had been one of the earliest members of the Social
Democratic Party) called for the abolition of the upbringing of children
within the family. "Is it possible to bring up collective man in an
individual family? To this we must give a categorical response: No, a
collectively thinking child may be brought up only in a social
environment.. ..Every conscientious father and mother must say: If we
want our child to be liberated from that philistinism which is present
in each of us, he must be isolated from ourselves. ...The sooner the
child is taken from his mother and given over to a public nursery, the
greater is the guarantee that he will be healthy." (127: pp. 25-27)
Let us recall here the reference cited above on the "interning of children" in communes.
Finally, extensive state interference in family relations was
proposed and justified on historic grounds: "Wherever the state held
control over all economic resources, as in ancient Peru, it attempted to
control the contracting of marriage as well as the family life of man
and wife." (124: p. 12) Radical eugenic measures also were proposed, for
example: "We have every reason to assume that under socialism
childbearing will be removed from the realm of nature." This dubious
consolation is offered: "But this, I repeat, is the only aspect of
marriage that, in our opinion, socialist society may control." (128: p.
450)
Preobrazhensky, who was extremely influential at the time, wrote:
"From the socialist point of view, it is quite senseless for a separate
member of society to look on his body as his own private property, for
an individual is only an isolated point in the transition of the race
from past to future. But it is ten times more senseless to view one's
[246]
'own' progeny that way." The author recognizes "a full and unconditional
right of society to introduce regulation, including interference in
sexual life for the improvement of the race through natural selection."
("About Moral and Class Norms," cited in 112)
And occasionally the problem was phrased even more radically than in
any of the examples above. For instance, a unit of the Young Communist
League at the Liudinov factory in Briansk adopted the following
resolution concerning a report "On Sexual Intercourse": "We must not
avoid sexual intercourse. If there is no sexual intercourse, there will
be no human society." (123: p. 168)
Practice, of course, lagged behind ideology. But a number of
measures were taken, which, though less far-reaching than theoretical
pronouncements, nevertheless pointed in the same direction. The legal
formalities in contracting and breaking a marriage were greatly
liberalized; registration was regarded merely as one of the means to
confirm marriage. "Registration is a survival of old bourgeois
relations, and it will ultimately cease to exist." (A speech by Larin,
126: p. 210)
Divorce was granted upon the request of either party. Paternity
was ascertained on the basis of the mother's claim: "Our legal practice
...placed responsibility on all the defendants [laughter], giving the
woman the opportunity of recovering something from each. ...The court,
as a general rule, will be guided by the indications of the plaintiff:
whoever is indicated by the plaintiff will be recognized by the court as
the father [laughter]." (From a speech by People's Commissar of Justice
Kursky, 126: pp. 232-233)
New dwellings were not divided into separate apartments but were built as dormitories.
"And one should by no means blame those working men and women who
do not want to move into common quarters. It must always be kept in
mind that the former life of the working class was deeply rooted in
bourgeois society, built as it was on the isolation of separate
families. This individual family of bourgeois origin is what stands in
the way of the collectivization of our existence." (123: p. 12)
Dormitory quarters did not as a rule have kitchens, since it was assumed
that everyone would take his meals at common dining rooms and "factory
kitchen" facilities. In his "Ten Theses on Soviet Power," Lenin suggests
that "steadfast and systematic measures should be undertaken for
replacing the individual food preparation. ..by the common dining of
large groups of families." (113: XXXVI: p. 75) Dormitories, common
[247]
meals, the upbringing of children apart from parents--all these measures
were tried in various communes. And they did in fact lead to a
weakening of the family. In 123, which has already been cited, there is
the following letter from a certain "highly placed member" of the
Komsomol: "Today, marriage between Komsomol members hardly ever takes
place." The author of the letter asserts that sexual relations outside
marriage prevail, but he is taken to task for not understanding that
this is indistinguishable from marriage. After all, "for a Marxist it
would seem that the very fact of sexual intercourse should testify to
matrimonial relations." (123: p. 164) Between 1924 and 1925 in the
European area of Russia, the number of marriages per 100,000 of
population declined from 1140 to 980, while the number of divorces rose
from 130 to 150. In 1924, of those obtaining divorces, a considerable
number had been married for less than a year. (In Minsk this was true of
260 per 1,000 divorces; in Kharkov, 197; in Leningrad, 159. Compare the
same statistic for: Tokyo--80; New York--14; Berlin--11.) (129: pp.
412, 416)
The deplorable situation with regard to homeless children at the time is well known.
"The present number of homeless children may be attributed to a
large degree to the disintegration of the family." (126: p. 255) The
following words seem to come from the heart: "If we continue along this
path, I fear we shall turn Russia into a country where each will be
married to all." (126: p. 270)
4. Culture
In the postrevolutionary period there appeared numerous theories
and plans for the destruction of culture, science and art. Certain of
them originated in anarchist circles. For instance, in a work published
in 1917 (129), the anarchist A. Borovoi asserts that only by overcoming
culture could anarchist ideals be realized. The prolific Gordin brothers
(anarchist writers who in their political activity were close to
Bolshevism) proclaimed the slogan "Down with science!" They meant this
as an appeal for freedom from the oppression of logic: "Down with
spiritual oppression, coercion through science, deception,
pseudo-convictions!" And: "Down with science--with the spiritual
government, and its logical power and army, its logical coercion." (130:
p. 144) The anarchist "proclaims terror against science." (130: p. 137)
Their
[248]
entire book is devoted to the comparison and condemnation of two
superstitions--religion and science. The brothers Gordin consider the
Party to be the church of science, the university its synagogue, the
philosopher a holy fool of intellect. (130: pp. 142, 194,202) "The
history of culture is the history of our superstition. ...The history of
culture once fulfilled its honorable role as the gravedigger of
religion, serving as its tomb at the same time. It must fulfill the same
role in respect to science. After the collapse of science, after the
disenchantment with it as the source of truth, after its extinction as
'civilization,' it must become 'culture' and retire to the museum of
human superstitions." (130: pp. 226-227) Here is the ideal: "At present a
true anarchist, a panarchist, outgrows his petty-negative anarchism
and, rejecting science and social science, thereby rejects his own petty
idols, his shallow and cheap ascetic ideals, replacing them with one
great destructively negative truth which lies at the very base of his
innaturism/ aphysism, of the anti-scientific spirit." (130: p. 137)
In his
The Theory of the New Biology, E. Enchmen, citing Marx
as his authority, comes to even more extreme conclusions. His work,
which is reminiscent of Fourier in spirit, contains a highly ambitious
plan for the biological regeneration of mankind through a change in the
structure of consciousness which will be brought about by a series of
so-called organic cataclysms. "The Revolutionary Scientific Council of
the World Commune will accomplish organic cataclysms both in the masses
of rebels and, systematically and by means of force, in the conservative
organisms of the recent oppressors and their minions." (131: p. 43) As a
result of these cataclysms, almost all received ideas in the human
consciousness will be erased. "All theories of logic, cognition,
scientific methodology will disappear, as will all social and
sociological theories which still label themselves 'humanitarian,' and
all the old biological theories." All are to be replaced by fifteen
concepts which the author calls "analyzers." He explains that "past
mankind divided into thousands of groups of differently reacting
people--groups of more or less 'educated' and 'cultured,' and completely
'uneducated' and 'uncultured.' All will unite under the Communist
economic system and become absolutely equal through the penetration into
all human organisms of anew, completely identical combination of
fifteen analyzers. ..that the epoch of Communism will be regarded by
Communist mankind not according to the modern artistic formula 'from
each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs' but as
an epoch
[249]
of the complete equalization of all human organisms strenuously involved
in 'continuous joy' ...that the Communist economy will be based on a
system of 'physiological passports' for all human organisms ...that such
a 'physiological passport' will serve for the organism, using modern
language, as a 'ration card' both for work and consumption in the broad
sense of these words." (131: p. 34)
Bukharin devoted an article to the criticism of "Enchmenism" in the collection
Attack. Another
author deals with Enchmen in this way: "Of course, it would not have
been worth mentioning had not Enchmenism attracted a number of
students." (132: p. 19)
Whereas in respect to general culture such statements were
sporadic and unsystematic, in the areas of art and philosophy a coherent
system evolved. Some of the most influential groups (LEF--the "Left
Front of the Arts") proclaimed the transformation of art into a branch
of material production. B. Arvatov, a prominent theoretician of this
group, wrote: "The goal of LEF is to transform all art into a
contribution to the material culture of society in close touch with
engineering." (133: p. 90) "When artistic work is structured in this
way, individual artists will become the collaborators of scientists,
engineers, scholars, administrators in organizing the common product;
they will be guided not by personal motives but by the objective needs
of social production, fulfilling the tasks set by the class through
organizational centers." (133: p. 104) Ultimately, the result will be as
follows: "According to the preceding, it is possible to maintain that
in an organized, integrated, socialist order, figurative art as a
special profession will wither away." (133: p. 129)
This same attitude found expression in hostility toward the
treatment of human personality in literature; this was branded
"psychologism," and was generally considered representative of
"bourgeois" values. Osip Brik expressed views typical of this approach
in an article on Fadeyev's novel
The Rout: "One must set
literature the task of describing not people but their deeds, to evoke
interest not in people but in deeds. We value a person not for his
experiences, but for the role he plays in our common cause. Therefore,
interest in the deed is basic for us, while interest in the person is
derivative." (134: p. 79) B. Kushnir, in his article "Why We Are Falling
Behind," writes: "In all its permutations, the slogan 'living man'
always preserved its invariable class essence.. ..According to this
theory, the author is supposed not only to work out the psychology and
the interrelationship of his
[250]
characters but also as it were to metamorphose himself into each of
them. This is clearly a difficult, time-consuming and harmful thing.
Transformation into one's characters can hardly sharpen the author's
class vigilance and class perceptivity. After all, there are characters
and characters. Among them there may even be some unambiguous class
enemies." (134: p. 85) I. Nusinov opines: "The further to the right a
writer is, the stronger his tendency to psychologize." (134: p. 88) I.
Altman, in an article entitled "From the Biography of a Living Man,"
thinks it necessary to "expose utterly the opportunistic slogans of
psychologism--'the living man'--which interfere with the decisive and
triumphant advance of proletarian literature!" (134: p. 91)
A negative attitude toward
philosophy was also supported by
references to the classic writings of Marxism. Kautsky had written:
"Marx did not proclaim any philosophy--but the end of all philosophy."
(135: p. 452)
In Russia, the view of philosophy as a "product of the
bourgeoisie," a "semi-religion," "intellectual atavism," was developed
by S. Minin, particularly in the article "Philosophy Overboard" (136),
and by P. P. Blonsky. (137)
5. Religion
The fate of religion in this period is replete with features that
have no parallel in either Russian history or the history of the world.
A study of this phenomenon would undoubtedly shed light on a number of
aspects of War Communism that remain unclear. A great deal of systematic
research is required.
This was the time when the most decisive attempt was undertaken
to destroy the Russian Orthodox Church (in connection with the so-called
campaign for the removal of church valuables). It was a time when
tribunals were convened to try God and He was sentenced to death by
unanimous vote. At Easter, there were demonstrations with blasphemous
pictures and slogans. ...
This extremely fragmentary survey of War Communism will
nevertheless, we hope, convey a certain impression of that fascinating
period. We see there a system of views and measures that is much more
radical than what is to be found in any other socialist state known to
us. If War Communism is the most striking example of the appearance of
[251]
radical tendencies in a socialist state, it is nevertheless not unique.
Only continuing famine and devastation coupled with "capitalist
encirclement" forced a retreat from this system. The New Economic Policy
was such a retreat and we must believe the sincerity of the
declarations of the day that it would be only a temporary withdrawal.
NEP was indeed temporary. Stalin promulgated a law which foresaw
imprisonment for laborers and office personnel who were absent from work
or merely late: they were "militarized." In the last years of his life,
Stalin "reassigned" more and more scientists and technicians to prison
research institutes
(sharashki). The internal security agency ran innumerable factories and scientific institutions.
But Stalin had visions of even more radical changes ahead. In a work written in the last year of his life,
The Economic Problems of Socialism, he
expresses the thought that money and commodity production contradict
the nature of a socialist state. He also felt that the peasants in the
collective farms were not sufficiently dependent on the state. Stalin
sees this, for instance, in the fact that the collective farms possess
their own seed grain and sell their products to the state (albeit
according to quotas and at a rate fixed by the state).
"But it would be unpardonable blindness not to see that these
phenomena are already beginning to impede the powerful development of
our productive forces, since they create an obstacle to the complete
control of the entire national economy and, especially, of agriculture
by state planning." (138: p. 68) Stalin proposes a new system for the
organization of the economy, under which trade would be replaced by a
"system of product exchange" and all economic life would come under even
greater control by the state. "But this should be introduced
steadfastly, without hesitation, step by step reducing the sphere of
commodity circulation and extending the sphere of product exchange."
(138: p. 94)
This program could not be undertaken, for purely practical
reasons; in particular, it would have involved the risk of falling
economically too far behind the U.S.A.
China's "Great Leap Forward" provides us with one more example.
At the end of the fifties, a transition to communism in three to five
years was proclaimed: "Three years of intense work and ten thousand
years of happiness!" In several months time in 1958, "people's communes"
sprang up allover the countryside; communes were introduced in cities
as well. According to the plan, they were to become the basic
[252]
form of the organization of agriculture, industry, administration,
schools, the army. Militarized labor armies were created. People marched
to work in formation. Everyday life was being socialized, and all
equipment and household goods in the commune were being consolidated.
Unpaid delivery of products was initiated.
We see the same picture in the attitude toward religion. All
socialist states are fundamentally hostile toward religion, but the
opportunities for expressing this attitude vary. Italian fascism at
first came into sharp conflict with the Catholic Church, but was
compelled to come to terms with it and refrain from serious oppression
of religion. In other respects, too, it was the weakest socialist state
of our century and had the least possibility for realizing its socialist
tendencies. China, on the other hand, could permit itself to outlaw the
Christian religion completely. Between these extremes, there is a whole
spectrum of possible approaches toward religion--all of them basically
hostile but only as harsh as given conditions permit.
Neither the abolition of the family nor communality of wives was
fully realized in any known socialist state, but the rudiments of such
an effort can be easily observed. For instance, in Nazi Germany there
was an attempt to produce racially pure children out of wedlock. The
organization
lebensborn, founded by Himmler, selected Aryan sires
for unmarried women. There were officially inspired suggestions about
the desirability of extra wives for men of a racially suitable type.
Bormann's wife propagandized these ideas and herself sanctioned another
wife for her husband.
In all the examples cited, these undertakings were not carried to
completion due to very specific external circumstances, but not because
of ideological inconsistency. It seems that carrying through such
transformations of life requires a definite level of agitation and the
mobilization of a certain kind of spiritual energy. And this, in its
turn, is dependent on the depth of the crisis that the society is
undergoing at the given moment. In particular, the destruction of the
traditional family and state control over family relations, which we
introduced at the beginning of this section as an example of something
peculiar to the doctrines of chiliastic socialism, may prove to be all
too feasible under conditions of the approaching crisis of
overpopulation. (Toynbee suggests this in 139.)
It therefore seems impossible to draw any firm theoretical distinction
[253]
between the doctrines of chiliastic socialism and the practices of the
socialist states. The only difference stems from the fact that in the
first case we have a clearly formulated ideal, whereas the second
presents a series of variants, stretching down through history, where no
more than an attempt can be made to distinguish a certain trend. But
this trend, if extrapolated to its logical conclusion, points toward the
same ideal that is proclaimed by the socialist doctrines.
It is far easier to discern the distinctions between chiliastic and
state socialism as they are revealed in history. To begin with, we
encounter states of the socialist type thousands of years before the
existence of any developed socialist doctrine. Second, socialist states
appear in history in two quite different situations: in primitive
cultural conditions at the very beginning of the state period of history
(in the Mediterranean basin this occurred between the third and the
second millennia B.C.) and in the industrial societies of the twentieth
century. The development of socialist doctrines occurs during the
interval between these two periods. Within chiliastic socialism it is
also possible to distinguish two tendencies--one gives rise to abstract
academic systems, elaborate plans for a future society; the other calls
for the destruction of the existing world, for "liberation," revenge,
and the reign of an elect. These two tendencies also undoubtedly
manifest themselves during different epochs. Plato's
Republic is
most certainly the source of the first current: More, Campanella,
Deschamps are under his obvious influence; even Marcuse in citing the
myths of Narcissus and Orpheus to illustrate his concepts is clearly
attempting to imitate Plato. The second current takes shape in the
Middle Ages among the heretical sects. But if the history of these sects
is traced, it is found that all of them (Cathars and the Brethren of
the Free Spirit) originate in the gnostic sects of the early centuries
A.D. In an admittedly undeveloped form, these earlier sects show some of
the basic features that will appear later in the socialist doctrines.
Let us note, first of all, that socialist doctrines arose
thousands of years later than socialist states. This compels us to
reverse the usual axiom of socialist ideology: the doctrines of
chiliastic socialism cannot be regarded as a prediction (scientific,
mystical or rational) of a future social system. They are far more akin
to
reaction--i.e., to the desire to return mankind to a more primitive archaic condition.
However, this reaction is not simply aimed at restoring that
which was; chiliastic theory goes far beyond the practice of early
socialist
[254]
states. The nature of this process will become clearer if we examine it
in the light of a historical observation made by various authors, Karl
Jaspers among them. It was Jaspers who suggested calling the phenomenon
in question history's "axial time." (140) Jaspers has in mind those
profound shifts which occurred in the period comprising approximately
the first millennium B.C. During the two preceding millennia, the main
force influencing the development of history were the powerful states
organized in the manner of Oriental despotism, with entire populations
under bureaucratic control, permitting them to undertake gigantic
construction projects and to field huge armies. After a long interval,
in the first millennium B.C., other,
spiritual forces again began
to have a decisive influence on the course of history. From Greece to
China, there arose teachings that were directed to the soul of
individual men, asserting individual man's responsibility before reason,
before conscience or else before higher powers. These were: Greek
philosophy, the preaching of the Israelite prophets, Buddhism,
Confucianism. It is not the omnipotent state machine that is pronounced
to be the force capable of determining the fate of mankind, but the
human personality. A godlike despot before whom one could only bow down
and obey loses his position as the creator of history. No less a role is
now played by the teacher who calls on the people to believe in his
message and to follow his example. Whatever approach one takes with
regard to the origin of Christianity--whether "the Word became flesh" or
whether mankind itself came to a new understanding of its fate--the
process we have sketched finds here its highest expression. Jaspers
believes that it is precisely in "axial time" that the conception of
history appears.
In his opinion, we consider historical those peoples who have either
directly participated in this process or who subsequently came to share
the values so created (the Germanic peoples, for example, or the Slavs).
There is no need for us to discuss here this vast and complex
historical phenomenon. We shall only juxtapose it with the stages in the
development of chiliastic socialism that we have noted earlier. Within
the limits of the Mediterranean cultural circles, "axial time" was
expressed in two basic phenomena--in the "Greek miracle," most vividly
embodied in the personality of Socrates, and in the rise of
Christianity. These two phenomena are very close in time to what we have
indicated as the starting points of the two tendencies of chiliastic
socialism. Plato's socialist utopia was promulgated several decades
after Socrates' death,
[255]
while the original gnostic sects appeared as early as the first century
A.D. It is reasonable to suggest that we have here not only a temporal
but also a causal relationship--i.e., the "utopian" chiliastic socialism
of Plato, More, Campanella, Fourier, may perhaps be seen as a reaction
to the vision of the world elaborated in Greek culture, while the
"revolutionary" and "eschatological" socialism of the gnostic and
medieval heresies, of Müntzer and of Marx, may be a reaction to the
appearance of Christianity. Such a view is in fundamental agreement with
the conclusions we came to concerning the general character of
socialism. If socialism is a manifestation of a certain basic and
constantly active force, it is natural that any obstacle to its action
would call forth changes in the form of its manifestation. A profoundly
spiritual understanding of human personality, an assertion of the
central role that it plays in Greek culture and, in particular, in
Christianity--these were the factors that shook the monolithic stability
of the states based on socialist principles and showed mankind the
possibility of another path.
The question of the affinities between primitive Eastern states of
the socialist type and socialist states of the twentieth century is
examined in the last chapter of Wittfogel's book. (89) The author
believes that these are two variants of one and the same social
structure. Primitive agrarian despotism "existed for millennia, until
the time that it felt the impact of the growth of the industrial and
commercial West." (89: p. 360) In the last sections of his book
("Whither Asia?" "Whither Western Society--Whither Mankind?") Wittfogel
views the appearance of socialist states in the twentieth century as a
return of Asiatic countries to the primitive structures that had existed
for millennia. Yet he acknowledges that modern socialist states differ
from their ancient predecessors by the fact that they undertake to
control their citizens not only in economic but in social and
intellectual terms. For that reason modern socialism is much more than
an "Asiatic restoration." The lack of consistency may be explained, so
it seems to us, by the fact that the author views socialism as an
exclusively economic category and a definite form of state organization.
Thus the development of chiliastic socialism (which required two and a
half millennia) remains beyond his field of vision. Yet this is
precisely the link joining the two types of socialist society. The
distinguishing feature of twentieth-century socialist states is their
dependence on an ideology that has been elaborated and forged over the
course of thousands of years (and the better elaborated it is, the more
stable they are). This is exactly
[256]
what the Oriental despots lacked and what prevented them from retaining
power over the world in the spiritual atmosphere created by "axial
time." This ideology was created almost exclusively in the West, and
this fact alone makes it impossible to regard socialism of the twentieth
century as an "Asiatic restoration."
The contemporary socialist states could not have come into existence
without the ideology created by chiliastic socialism. We have already
described its basic features: the abolition of private property,
hostility toward religion, destruction of the family, communality. This
ideology is linked to the mythic concepts (expressed though they are in
modern quasi-scientific terms) of the "golden age," "captivity,"
"liberation" and "the chosen people" destined to be the instrument of
liberation, for which purpose the annihilation of an evil world will be
required. Finally, there is the promise of a new world that will arise
as a result of the catastrophe and where the ideals of chiliastic
socialism will be realized.
It is evidently this system of views which must be examined in order to clarify the historic role of socialism.
[257]
IX.
Socialism and
Individuality
It is natural enough to begin the analysis of this social ideal
by elucidating the interrelationship of its various elements. It is
immediately clear they do not play an equal role. For example, Plato
argues for the necessity of communal property and wives, since only
under these conditions will the citizens take joy in and grieve over the
same things. In other words, he considers the communality of property
and the abolition of the family as means for achieving
equality. He
regards equality, however, not in the usual sense of equality of rights
or opportunities, but as identity of behavior, as the equalization of
personalities. Both these traits--the abolition of private property and
of the family as a means to achieve equality, and this special
understanding of equality--run through the majority of socialist
teachings.
The view that equality is the basic principle from which other
socialist doctrines proceed played an especially large role in the
gnostic sects. "God's justice consists of community and equality"--such a
proposition was used to justify both the abolition of private property
and the demand for communal wives. This theme can be traced in the
medieval heresies and the doctrines of the Reformation. Niklaus Storch
preached: "Everything should be common, for God sent all into the world
equally naked." Müntzer taught: "No one should rise above others; every
man must be free, and there should be community of property." Citing
Plato, More asserted that those laws are best that provide for
"distributing all the good things of life among all equally," and
deduced the need for communality of property. Meslier writes that "all
people are equal by nature" and also deduces the necessity
[258]
of abolishing private property. Representatives of the Enlightenment
supplemented this argument with the notion of a "natural state" in which
all people were equal and the disappearance of which gave rise to
private property and all the vices of contemporary life. The only
significant exception is "scientific socialism," which deduces the need
to abolish private property from objective causes, such as the type of
production. In so doing, Marx deduces the very notion of equality from
the economic conditions of bourgeois society. (See 3: XVII: p. 68) But
how, then, are we to deal with the just cited radical concepts of
equality that were proclaimed in the early centuries A.D.? We have
already shown why we cannot recognize "scientific socialism" as a
genuinely scientific theory and why we must see it merely as a form or
guise in which the socialist ideal appears Gust as it can appear in
mystic garb, for example). For the same reason, we cannot take on faith
the assertion that the demand for abolishing private property is also a
result of scientific analysis of the objective phenomena of social life.
We shall soon return to the evaluation of the role which communality of
property plays in "scientific socialism" and its connection with the
concept of equality.
One of the most striking features of socialist ideology is that quite
special sense which it attributes to the concept of equality. We have
already pointed this out in connection with the rationale for
communality of property, of wives and children proposed by Plato. And
later, in the majority of socialist doctrines, we encounter a conception
of equality which approaches that of
identity. Dwelling lovingly
on the details, authors have described the characteristic monotony and
unification of life in the state of the future. Where More speaks about
identical clothing, except for a difference between male and female
attire, Campanella indicates that the dress of men and women is almost
the same. In Utopia, everyone wears cloaks of the same color; in the
City of the Sun a woman who attempts to alter her mode of dress will be
punished by death. Solarians never have any privacy; they work and relax
in detachments and share common sleeping and dining facilities. All the
cities of Utopia are built according to one plan: "He who recognizes
one will recognize all." The same ideal of life in absolutely identical
cities consisting of identical houses is repeated by Morelly. His people
also wear clothes made of the same material, and all children's
clothing is absolutely identical. They all eat the same food 'and
receive the same education. Babeuf and Buonarotti's circle, whose
[259]
very title included the word "equality," understood this to include common obligatory meals, entertainment, etc. ...
In the examples above, we see an external equalization of living
conditions which symbolizes, as it were, the corresponding leveling of
the inner world. Deschamps gives a more detailed description of the
changes in human personality. Of the people of the future, he writes:
"They would (much more than we) adhere to the same type of action and
would not deduce from this, as we usually do with regard to animals,
that to act thus is to reveal a lack of reason or understanding. Why do
people who find perfection in nature's ever identical type of action
consider this to be a defect in animals? Only because people are too far
removed from this kind of action, and their haughtiness makes them
interpret this very remoteness to their advantage." (53: p. 219)
More specifically, he foresees that people will begin to look
alike: "Identical morals (and true morals can only be identical) would
make, so to say, one man of all men and one woman of all women. I mean
by this that ultimately they would resemble each other more than animals
of the same species." (53: p. 176)
Deschamps proposes changes in language so as "to banish all terms
presently used to express our good and bad qualities, even all terms
unnecessarily distinguishing us from other things." (53: p. 503)
Finally, "scientific socialism" proclaims that the historical
process is controlled by immanent laws which are independent of human
will. An understanding of these laws makes history predictable. This
conception was formed under the obvious influence of the advances of
natural science in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, above all,
the success of astronomy in predicting the discovery of planets, the
return of comets, etc. Fourier asserts that mankind is ruled by the laws
of "attraction of the passions," which are in his view precisely
analogous to Newton's law of gravitation, whereby "the unity of the
physical and the spiritual worlds is manifest." In terms of this
analogy, individuals correspond to the elemental particles of matter,
which must be identical (at least, from the standpoint of properties
essential to the phenomenon under consideration--that is,
history). As
for Marxism, one thinks of an analogy with another physical theory.
This is the kinetic theory of gases, according to which a gas is the
aggregate of molecules that come into collision, with the result of each
collision determined by the laws of mechanics. A very great number of
molecules
[260]
transform the statistical laws of their collision into the general laws
of the physics of gases. The only form of social contact of the
producers of goods in capitalist society is exchange (just as for gas
molecules the only form of interaction is collision). The interaction of
a great number of producers engenders that "social production" which,
in its turn, determines their political, legal and religious notions,
and the "social, political and spiritual processes of life in general."
It is evident that such a conception makes sense only on the assumption
that separate "molecules" (producers) are
identical. Otherwise,
instead of an explanation (or an "understanding," as Marx puts it),
there would be only the individual properties of a huge number of
people, and one enigma would be replaced by a mass of enigmas.
Proceeding from these examples, it is possible to attempt to
formulate the specific concept of equality inherent in socialist
ideology. The usual understanding of "equality," when applied to people,
entails equality of
rights and sometimes equality of
opportunity (social welfare, pensions, grants, etc.). But what is meant in all these cases is the equalization of
external conditions
which do not touch the individuality of man. In socialist ideology,
however, the understanding of equality is akin to that used in
mathematics (when one speaks of equal numbers or equal triangles), i.e.,
this is in fact identity, the abolition of differences in behavior as
well as in the inner world of the individuals constituting society. From
this point of view, a puzzling and at first sight contradictory
property of socialist doctrines becomes apparent. They proclaim the
greatest possible equality, the destruction of hierarchy in society and
at the same time (in most cases) a strict regimentation of all of life,
which would be impossible without absolute control and an all-powerful
bureaucracy which would engender an incomparably greater inequality. The
contradiction disappears, however, if we note that the terms "equality"
and "inequality" are understood in two different ways. The equality
proclaimed in socialist ideology means identity of individualities. The
hierarchy against which the doctrine fights is a hierarchy based on
individual qualities--origin, wealth, education, talent and authority.
But this does not contradict the establishment of a hierarchy of
internally identical individuals who only occupy different positions in
the social machine, just as identical parts can have different functions
in a mechanism. The analogy between the socialist ideal of society and
the machine is certainly not new. For example, speaking about the
ancient states of Mesopotamia and Egypt (which, as we have seen,
[261]
were to a considerable extent based on socialist principles), Lewis
Mumford expresses the view that their social structure was the first to
be based on the idea of a machine. He supports this idea by referring to
the drawings of the time that show warriors and workers as completely
identical, like the stereotyped details of a machine. (141: p. 150) Even
more convincing is the evidence of a man who was clearly competent in
this area: I. V. Stalin. He once expressed his social ideal by calling
the inhabitants of the state ruled by him "nuts and bolts." He proposed a
toast to them. And in contemporary China the papers glorify the hero
Lei Fen, who wrote in his diary about his desire to be Chairman Mao's
"stainless-steel cog."
The preceding considerations lead us to the conclusion that at least
three components of the socialist ideal--the abolition of private
property, the abolition of the family and socialist equality--may be
deduced from a single principle:
the suppression of individuality. There
is also a large body of direct evidence that demonstrates the hostility
of socialist ideology to individuality. Some examples:
Mazdak taught that the confusion of light and dark, as well as
evil in general, derived from individuality and that the ideal condition
cannot be achieved until people rid themselves of their individual
qualities. Fourier believed that the "fundamental core of the passions"
on which the future society will be founded is a passion called
"unitheism." This force is not activated in conditions of civilization.
The passion directly opposed to it is egoism or one's own "I." "This
disgusting inclination has various names in the world of learning:
moralists call it egoism; ideologues, the 'I,' a new term which,
however, does not introduce anything new but is a useless paraphrase of
egoism." (97: p. 105) It should be noted here that egoism in the usual
sense is not at all excluded from Fourier's system. He held that the
most useful people in the future society would be those who are inclined
to enjoyment and who declare duty to be the invention of philosophers.
Fourier offers a list of the most important passions for the new order:
love of fine food, sensuality, a passion for diversity, competition,
self-love. Evidently, "egoism" in the quotation above should be
understood in a broader sense and the "I" in a direct sense.
In Marxism the idea is occasionally expressed that man has no
existence as an individuality but only as a member of a definite
class--individual man is the invention of philosophers. We come across
attacks on the "corrupt" views that hold "instead of the interests of
the proletariat,
[262]
the interests of man, who does not belong to any class and, in general,
exists not in reality but in the clouds of philosophic fantasy." (3: V:
pp. 506-507) Marx says: "The essence of man is not an abstract quality
inherent in a separate individual. In reality it is the aggregate of all
social relations." (3: IV: p. 590) Marx was concerned with the question
of why, under conditions of complete political emancipation, religion
does not disappear. From his point of view, this testifies to the fact
that a certain flaw remains in society, but the reason for this flaw
should be sought in the very essence of the state. Religion is no longer
presented as a cause but as a manifestation of general
narrowmindedness. The essence of this narrow-mindedness and limitation
he sees in the following: "Political democracy is Christian in nature
because man in it--not man in general but each man separately--is
considered a sovereign and supreme being; and this is said of man in his
uncultivated, non-social aspect, of man in a haphazard form of
existence, man as he is in life, man as he is corrupted by the whole
organization of our society, lost and alienated from himself; in a word,
man who is not yet a genuine creature." (3: I: p. 368)
In the contemporary leftist movement, the theme of the struggle
against individuality is particularly strong. The ideologists of this
movement distinguish several aspects of revolution (or of a series of
"revolutions," as they put it): social, racial, sexual, artistic,
psychedelic. Among these, two especially are perceived as means for the
annihilation of "bourgeois individuality"--the psychedelic revolution
(collective use of hallucinogens and deafening rock music) and a
particular aspect of the sexual revolution ("group sex," which goes much
further than the group marriage of primitive tribes, since not only the
personality but also the sex of the partners plays no role).
This tendency leads to attempts to overcome sex distinction. Thus
we read in a contemporary leftist magazine: "Capitalism developed the
ever more inhuman polarization of the sexes. The cult of making
distinctions, which serves only for oppression, is now being swept away
by awareness of resemblance and 'identity.' " The author quotes another
representative of the same current: "Both sexes are moving toward
general Humanity." (142: p. 25)
Marcuse foresees a society in which fantasy, now suppressed by
reason, will open up a new approach to reality. In his understanding ,of
the nature of fantasy Marcuse here follows Freud, citing, in
particular, the latter's idea that fantasy "preserves the structure and
tendencies
[263]
of the psyche prior to its organization by the reality, prior to its
becoming an 'individual' set off against other individuals. And by the
same token, like the id, to which it remains committed, fantasy
preserves a 'memory' of the subhistorical past, when the life of the
individual was the life of the genus, the image of the immediate unity
between the particular and the universal under the rule of the pleasure
principle." (119: p. 142) It is precisely in the process of
disintegration of this unity that there appears the "principium
individuationis" hostile to fantasy. Marcuse believes that one of
Freud's most important services was the destruction of "one of the
strongest ideological fortifications of modern culture--namely, the
notion of the autonomous individual." (119: p. 57)
Sartre's views in this connection are also of interest. He says, for
example: "I believe that the thinking of the group is where the truth
is. ...I have thought this way since childhood. I always considered
group thinking to be better than thinking alone. ...I don't believe a
separate individual to be capable of doing anything." (143: pp. 170-171)
He feels particular antipathy for such individual action as sacrifice.
"The sacrificial type is narrow-minded by nature. ...This is a monstrous
type. All my life I have fought against the spirit of sacrifice." (143:
p. 183)
We meet with the very same features in the historical models of
socialism. Discussing the influence of the Inca system on the Indians'
psyche, Baudin writes: "Life itself was torn out of that geometrical and
sad empire, where everything occurred with the inevitability of
fatum. ...The Indian lost his personality." (56: pp. 135-136)
The depth of the conflict between individuality as a category and
socialist ideology is indicated by the fact that this conflict touches
on the innermost core of individuality. As so much else in man, his
individuality has two strata--one, the more ancient, is of prehuman
origin and man shares it with many animals, while the newer stratum is
specifically human.
Ethologists (scientists investigating the behavior of animals) see the moment when
individual bonding appears
as the first manifestation of individuality in the animal world (i.e.,
when there are relations in which one animal cannot be replaced by any
other). This phenomenon may be observed experimentally by trying to
substitute one animal for another. Certain types of fish, birds and
mammals exhibit this type of bonding; a classic example of the
phenomenon that has been thoroughly
[264]
investigated is the bonding of the graylag goose. In this species,
bonding is accomplished in a complicated ritual performed by parents and
nestlings or by a pair or by two ganders. When one individual dies, the
other calls him and looks for him everywhere, stops avoiding predators,
becomes timid. Lorenz even assures us that in the eyes of such a
creature there appears the same expression as in the eyes of an unhappy
human. (144: Chap. 11)
The presence of individual bonds has great importance for the structure of animal societies, which are divided into
anonymous societies, in which animals do not distinguish each other as individuals (for example, groups of herring or of rats), and
individualized societies,
in which animals are linked by individual relations (e.g., geese).
Astonishingly, among the forces supporting the existence of
individualized animal societies, according to the ethologists, are
precisely those factors (seen in human society) with which socialism is
in conflict: the upbringing of offspring by a family, individually
bonded children and parents and, in general, individual bonds between
members of society. (Deschamps foresees "life without separate bonds" in
the future society.) Other individualized animal behavior includes
animal hierarchies in which individuals have different importance, and
where, for instance, older members can use their experience for the
benefit of the whole group, while stronger individuals defend the weak.
Finally, there is a phenomenon which may be regarded as a prehuman
analogy of property: the notion of territory in animal society.
Socialism is equally hostile to those specifically human factors
which account for the individuality of man, to those aspects of life in
which man can participate only as an individuality and cannot be
replaced by anyone else. Cultural creativity, particularly artistic
creativity, is an example. We have seen how the most outstanding
thinkers of the socialist trend (Plato, Deschamps) elaborate measures
that provide for the complete disappearance of culture. And in periods
when socialist movements are on the increase, the call for the
destruction of culture is heard ever more distinctly. It is sufficient
to recall the regular destruction of books in monastery libraries by the
Taborites and the destruction of works of art by the Anabaptists in
Münster. In the years of War Communism, an anti-culture trend was quite
evident, as we have already indicated. The contemporary left radical
socialist movements ,manifest the same attitude toward culture. Culture
is understood by them to be "bourgeois" and "repressive"; the goal of
art is understood
[265]
as an "explosion" or the destruction of culture. The theoretical
framework is derived from Freud, Adorno and Marcuse, with their notion
of the uncompromising conflict between the instincts and oppressive
culture. The prominent leftist H. M. Enzensberger, for instance,
criticizes literacy and literature as typically bourgeois elements of
culture. He considers literacy to possess "class character" and to be
subordinated to numerous social "taboos." The rules of orthography are
imposed by society as norms and their violation is punished or
condemned. "Intimidation by means of a written text has remained a
widespread phenomenon of class character even in developed industrial
societies. It is impossible to remove these elements of alienation from
written literature." (145: p. 181) Although the author does not foresee a
complete destruction of literacy, literature and books, he assumes that
they will be supplanted by such means of communication as radio and
television (perfected to the point where each receiver will function
simultaneously as a transmitter). In the new information system, the
written word will be preserved only as an "extreme case."
One of the most significant features of spiritual life directly
linked to the existence of individuality is a sense of individual (and
not collective) responsibility for the fate of one's social group, city,
nation, or of all mankind. With Plato being perhaps the only exception,
all socialist ideologists are hostile to such an attitude. The medieval
heretics, as we have seen, called either for a radical break with the
world and life or for their destruction. This point of view was
preserved in other socialist movements from the Reformation until our
day. In recent centuries it has found support in the notion that history
is governed by iron laws as precise as the laws of physics and that its
basic direction could not be affected by human will. Fourier's position
is typical. (Fourier is a forthright and honest writer whose
philosophical views were not distorted by the exigencies of practical
activity, by considerations of party politics or revolutionary
struggle.) In answer to the question what one should do while awaiting
the onset of the future order, he says: "Do not sacrifice the good of
the present to the good of the future; enjoy the moment; avoid any
matrimonial or other union which does not satisfy your passions-now. Why
work for the sake of the future good? For this good will exceed your
most treasured desires in any case, and in the combined social structure
you will be threatened by only one trouble--the impossibility of making
your life twice as
[266]
long so as to exhaust the huge circle of pleasures awaiting you." (97: p. 293)
Finally, human individuality finds its greatest support and its
highest appreciation in religion. Only as a personality can man turn to
God and only through this dialogue does he realize himself as a person
commensurate with the person of God. It is for this very reason that
socialist ideology and religion are mutually exclusive. (Of course, if
either of these world views is underdeveloped, they can coexist for a
certain time.) It is natural to see here the cause of that hatred for
religion which is typical of the overwhelming majority of socialist
doctrines and states.
The same approach makes more comprehensible the curious traits we
observed in the "Conspiracy of Equals" (see Part One, Chapter III,
Section 4, above): the naIve adventurism, the arrogant boastfulness, the
disposition to petty dishonesty and disruptive behavior, a certain
inanity that gave the whole movement a somewhat comic and Gogolian
flavor. These features are inherent in a majority of socialist movements
in the initial period of their development. Among anarchistic and
nihilistic currents in Russia, they found ultimate expression in
"Nechayevism," so brilliantly described by Dostoyevsky in
The Possessed. Early
Marxism exhibits similar traits quite vividly. For example, there is
the incredible history of the writing of the first critical reviews on
Volume I of
Capital--all composed anonymously by Engels. He
offered Marx to write two, then four or five review articles "from
different points of view" or "from a bourgeois point of view." Meanwhile
Marx provided him with detailed instructions on what to praise and what
to disagree with for the sake of authenticity. Marx writes: "In this
way, I should think, it might be possible to hoodwink that Swabian Maier
[the editor of a newspaper]. No matter how insignificant his paper is,
it is still a popular oracle for all the federalists in Germany and is
read abroad as well." "It's hilarious how both magazines have taken the
bait," Engels informs Marx. In the first year after the appearance of
the book seven reviews appeared--five of them by Engels, one each by his
friends Kugelman and Siebel, who followed Engels' lead. As a result,
Marx could say: "The conspiracy of silence in the bourgeois and
reactionary press has been broken!" (Letter to Kugelman, February 11,
1869) He writes to Engels: "Jenny, a specialist in these matters,
asserts that you have developed a great dramatic and even a comic
[267]
talent in this matter of 'different points of view' and various
disguises." (See 3: XXIII: pp. 406, 445, 453, 458, 465, 473, 483, 484;
XXIV: pp. 3, 5, 26, 59, 65, 80, and the general survey in 146)*
Equally bizarre is the episode of the "portraits" of prominent
revolutionary figures in emigration that were put together for
twenty-five pounds sterling for a certain Bann, who later proved to be
an agent of the Austrian and Prussian police. In response to Marx's
proposal, however, Engels immediately warns him that it would be
regarded as "assisting reaction," but concludes: "£25 valent bien un peu
de scandale." (3: XXI: p. 359) Or, finally, take the threats to
blackmail their comrades in arms: "Doesn't this brute understand that if
only I so desire, he would be up to his ears in a stinking swamp? I
have more than a hundred of his letters in my possession. Has he
forgotten that?" (Marx writing about Freiligrath, 3: XXII: p. 493)
The correspondence of the founders of the materialist approach to
history abounds in such passages. The same traits are evident in
today's more extreme left movements in America and Western Europe, and
often give these movements a rather frivolous character. (Cf. 147)
To get a better feeling for the characteristics of these
phenomena, it is worthwhile juxtaposing them with similar episodes from
the sphere of religion, or with nationalistic movements where completely
unknown individuals or small groups first launch their ideas. Take, for
example, Captain Ilyin, the founder of the sect of "Forest Brethren" or
"Jehovists" at the end of the nineteenth century in Russia; he was
persecuted all his life and spent fourteen years in harsh confinement in
the Solovetsky Monastery. One can reject his religious ideas, but it is
impossible not to be struck by his profound dignity and moral strength,
which never left him in the course of his many ordeals. There are
thousands of such examples. It would seem that many people--leaders of
the movements in particular--do not derive from socialist ideology the
same sort of strength and self-confidence. This comes only at the height
of success when the movement attracts the broad masses. Here, as
elsewhere, Marx's words turn out to be to the point, if we understand
them as referring to himself:
"These ideas do not give strength
of themselves but become a force when they hold sway over the masses."
The reasons are clear in the light of the above discussion:
* In this connection, Engels' reproach to Loria appears in a different
light: "The importunate charlatanism of self-aggrandizement," "success
achieved with the help of clamorous friends." See p. 211n., above.
[268]
an ideology that is hostile to human personality cannot serve as a point of support for it.
We can see that all elements of the socialist ideal--the abolition of
private property, family, hierarchies; the hostility toward
religion--could be regarded as a manifestation of one basic principle:
the suppression of individuality. It is possible to demonstrate this
graphically by listing the more typical features that keep appearing in
socialist theory and practice over two and a half thousand years, from
Plato to Berlin's "Commune No.1," and then constructing a model of an
"ideal" (albeit nonexistent) socialist society. People would wear the
same clothing and even have similar faces; they would live in barracks.
There would be compulsory labor followed by meals and leisure activities
in the company of the same labor battalion. Passes would be required
for going outside. Doctors and officials would supervise sexual
relations, which would be subordinated to only two goals: the
satisfaction of physiological needs and the production of healthy
offspring. Children would be brought up from infancy in state nurseries
and schools. Philosophy and art would be completely politicized and
subordinated to the educational goals of the state. All this is inspired
by one principle--the destruction of individuality or, at least, its
suppression to the point where it would cease to be a social force.
Dostoyevsky's comparisons to the ant hill and the bee hive turn out to
be particularly apt in the light of ethological classifications of
society: we have constructed a model of the
anonymous society.
[269]
X.
The Goal
of Socialism
Difficulties in understanding socialist ideology arise when we
try to correlate its doctrinal prescriptions for the organization of
society with the actual forms of these principles as they are realized
in history. For example, the picture of a society "in which the free
development of each will be the precondition of the free development of
all" contains no contradiction. But when the "leading theoretician"
asserts that the creation of this harmonious man is achieved by
shooting, we are face to face with a paradox. The view of socialism to
which we have come encounters the same kind of difficulties and must be
tested by this means for inconsistency. It is not enough to say that all
the basic principles of socialist ideology derive from the urge to
suppress individuality. It is necessary also to understand what this
tendency portends for mankind and how it arises. We shall begin with the
former question.
At the end of the preceding chapter we sketched the "ideal"
socialist society as it appears in the classical writings of socialism.
Of the features enumerated, we shall consider only one: state upbringing
of children from infancy so that they do not know their parents. It is
natural to begin with this aspect of the socialist ideal, if only
because it would be the first thing that an individual born into this
society would face. This measure is suggested with striking consistency
from Plato to Liadov, a leading Soviet theoretician of the 1920s. In the
1970s, the Japanese police arrested members of the "Red Army," a
Trotskyite organization, which was responsible for a number of murders.
Although this group numbered only a few dozen people, it had all the
attributes of a real socialist party--theoreticians, a split on the
[270]
question of whether revolution should occur in one country or in the
entire world at once, terror against dissidents. The group established
itself in a lonely mountain region. And the same trait surfaced here:
they took newborn children away from their mothers, entrusted them to
other women for upbringing and fed them on powdered milk, despite
difficulties in obtaining it.
Let us quote from a book by the modern ethologist Eibl-Eibesfeldt,
which will help us evaluate the biological significance of this measure:
It is especially in the second half of the first year of life that a
child establishes personal ties with its mother or a person substituting
for her (a nurse, a matron). This contact is the precondition for the
development of "primary trust" (E. H. Erikson), the basis for the
attitude toward oneself and the world. The child learns to trust his
partner, and this positive basic orientation is the foundation of a
healthy personality. If these contacts are broken, "primary distrust"
develops. A prolonged stay in the hospital during the child's second
year may, for example, lead to such results. Though the child will try
even there to establish close contact with a mother substitute, no nurse
will be able to devote herself intensively enough to an infant for a
close personal tie to be established. Nurses constantly change, and so
the contacts that arise are constantly broken. The child, deceived in
his expectations of contact, falls into a state of apathy after a brief
outburst of protest. During the first month of his stay in the hospital
he whines and clings to anyone available. During the second month he
usually cries and loses weight. During the third month such children
only weep quietly and finally become thoroughly apathetic. If after
three to four months' separation they are taken home, they return to
normal. But if they stay in the hospital longer, the trauma becomes
irreversible.. ..In one orphanage where R. Spitz studied ninety-one
children who had been separated from their mothers in the third month of
their lives, thirty-four died before they reached the age of two. The
level of development of the survivors was only 45 percent of normal and
the children were almost like idiots. Many of them could neither walk
nor stand nor speak at age four. (148: p.234)
This may be applied to the whole of a society built on the consistent
implementation of socialist ideals. Not only people but even animals
cannot exist if reduced to the level of the cogs of a mechanism. Even
such a seemingly elementary act as eating is not reducible to the mere
satiation of the organism. For an animal to eat, it is not enough that
it be hungry and that food be available; the food must be enticing,
"appetizing," as well. And in more complex actions involving several
,individuals, such as raising of young, the common defense of territory
or hunting, animals establish relations that usually are ritualistic in
[271]
nature and that elicit great excitement and undoubtedly provide deep
satisfaction. For animals, these ties constitute "the meaning of life";
if they are broken, the animal becomes apathetic, does not take food,
and becomes an easy victim for a predator. To a far greater extent, this
applies to man. But for him, all the aspects of life that make it
attractive and give it meaning are connected with manifestations of
individuality. Therefore, a consistent implementation of the principles
of socialism deprives human life of individuality and simultaneously
deprives life of its meaning and attraction. As suggested by the example
of the orphaned children, it would lead to the physical extinction of
the group in which these principles are in force, and if they should
triumph through the world--to the extinction of mankind.
But the conclusion that we have reached has yet to be tested by
history because the socialist ideals have nowhere achieved complete
implementation. The primitive states of the ancient Orient and
pre-Columbian America had a very weakly developed socialist ideology. In
keeping with Shang Yang's principle ("When the people are weak the
state is strong; when the state is weak the people are strong"),
particularly strong, conservative and long-lived state structures were
created. In these states, however, the principle of the "weak people"
was understood only in the sense of external, physical
limitations--choice of work, place of residence, severe limitations on
private property, the large number of official duties. These duties did
not touch the life within the family or cut deeply into man's soul. They
were not ideologically inspired, and it was apparently the same
patriarchal quality that preserved these states from dying out but, on
the other hand, left them defenseless in the face of new spiritual
forces called forth by the abrupt shifts of the first millennium B.C.
The socialist states of the twentieth century are also far from being a model of the
complete realization of socialist ideals. But one must note that when
survival is
at stake, it was achieved in these states precisely by giving up some
fundamental socialist principle. This occurred with the introduction of
the New Economic Policy in Soviet Russia and with the halt ordered by
Stalin in the persecution of religion during World War II.
However, it is possible to point out a number of similar
situations which may serve, though indirectly, to support our point of
view.
It happens not infrequently that a nation or a social group dies
out not because of economic reasons or due to destruction by enemies
[272]
but because the spiritual conditions of its existence are destroyed. For
example, H. G. Wells wrote the following after visiting Petro grad in
1920: "The mortality rate among the intellectually distinguished men in
Russia has been terribly high. Much, no doubt, has been due to general
hardship of life, but in many cases I believe that the sheer
mortification of great gifts become futile has been the determining
cause. They could no more live in the Russia of 1919 than they could
have lived in a Kaffir kraal." (1: p. 57)
Another example of far greater scope involves the confrontation of
primitive peoples with modern civilization. The majority of
ethnographers now agree that the main cause of the dying out of these
peoples was not physical destruction or exploitation by Europeans or
contagious disease or alcohol but the destruction of their spiritual
world, their religion and their rituals. For example, the prominent
specialist in the culture of the Australian aborigines, A. Elkin, paints
the following picture:
What then is this secret life of the aborigines? It is the life
apart--a life of ritual and mythology, of sacred rites and objects. It
is the life in which man really finds his place in society and in
nature, and in which he is brought in touch with the invisible things of
the world of the past, present and future. Every now and then we find
the tribe, or groups from more than one tribe, going apart from the
workaday world. A special camp is arranged where the women remain unless
some of them are called upon to playa subsidiary part in a ceremony.
Then the men go on a mile or so to a secret site or to sites where they
spend hours, or maybe days and weeks and even months, singing and
performing rites, and in some cases even eating or sleeping there. When
they return later to the world of secular affairs they are refreshed in
mind and spirit. They now face the vicissitudes of everyday life with a
new courage and a strength gained from the common participation in the
rites, with a fresh appreciation of their social and moral ideals and
patterns of life, and an assurance that having performed the rites well
and truly, all will be well with themselves and with that part of nature
with which their lives are so intimately linked. (149: pp. 162-163)
...The missionary or civilizing agent may be successful in
putting an end to initiation and other secret rites, or in getting such a
grip over the rising generation that the old men make the initiation a
mere form and not an entry into the full secret life of the tribe. But
this implies a breakdown of tribal authority and a loss of the knowledge
of, let alone the respect for, those ideals, sentiments and sanctions
which are essential , to tribal cohesion; and in Australia, such a
condition is the accompaniment, and a cause of tribal extinction. (149:
p. 161)
[273]
And G. Childe writes: "An ideology, however remote from obvious
biological needs, is found in practice to be biologically useful, that
is, favorable to the species' survival. Without such spiritual
equipment, not only do societies tend to disintegrate, but the
individuals composing them may just stop bothering to keep alive. The
'destruction of religion' among primitive peoples is always cited by
experts as a major cause in their extinction in contact with white
civilization. ...Evidently societies of men cannot live by bread alone."
(150: p. 8)
An example which partly refers to the same sort of phenomenon
and, at the same time, brings us back to the main theme of our
investigation is the fall in the birthrate among the Guarani Indians in
the Jesuit state. The Jesuits were compelled to resort to various means
of pressure on the Indians in the hope of increasing the population. One
can assume that the Draconian laws against abortion in the Inca state
were also connected with a falling birthrate. Finally, should we not
view in the same way the fact that the Russians, who were the most
rapidly growing nation in Europe at the beginning of the century, now
barely maintain their number?
We began with an example in which one can demonstrate experimentally the consequences of implementing only
one principle in the socialist ideal, namely, the abolition of the family. Other examples illustrate the impact on society of the
partial demolition
of its spiritual structure (culture, religion, mythology). What, then,
can be said of the possible situation where the socialist ideal would be
embodied worldwide (since it evidently can reach its full potential
only when it has overrun the entire world)? It is hardly possible to
doubt that the same tendencies would then find their complete expression
in the extinction of all of mankind.
This conclusion may be made more specific in two complementary ways. On the one hand, we may view our hypothetical case as a
limit situation in
the mathematical sense, as something that might never occur in reality.
Just as in mathematics the concept of infinity clarifies the properties
of constantly increasing sequences of numbers, so, too, this ultimate
limit of historical development reveals the basic tendency of socialism:
it is hostile toward human personality not only as a category, but
ultimately to its very existence.
Or else we can assume that the complete victory of socialism is
attainable. There is certainly nothing that suggests the existence of
any kind of limit beyond which socialist principles cannot be applied.
It would seem that everything depends only upon the depth of the
[274]
crisis with which mankind may be faced. In this case, one could regard the death of mankind as the final
result to which the development of socialism leads.
Here we touch on the most profound of all the many questions
socialism evokes: How could a doctrine leading to such an end come into
being and sway such tremendous masses of people over thousands of years?
The answer to this question, to a large extent, depends on the view one
takes of the interrelation of socialist ideology and the end point that
we have postulated above. Are they quite independent of each other in
the way that the improvement of living conditions and the resulting
population crisis are, for instance? (However cruel and disastrous the
effects of a demographic explosion might be, the factors that allow it
to happen are the consequence of other, directly opposite motives.) Or
perhaps there are essential features in socialist ideology that link it
directly with what we have deduced to be the practical result of its
rigorous implementation--the death of mankind? Several arguments incline
us toward the second point of view.
To begin with, most socialist doctrines and movements are
literally saturated with the mood of death, catastrophe and destruction.
For the majority of them, it is this very mood that has constituted
their basic inner motivation. The teaching of the Taborites is typical
here: In the new age that was beginning, they asserted, Christ's law of
charity would be abolished and each of the faithful must wash his hands
in the blood of the godless. This is clearly expressed in a document
that originated in Czech Picard circles but was known as far away as
northern France. The text ends with the following exhortation:
Let each gird himself with the sword and let brother not spare
brother; father, son; son, father; neighbor, neighbor. Kill all one
after the other so that German heretics should flee in mobs, and we
destroy in this world the gain and the greediness of the clergy. So we
fulfill God's seventh Commandment, for according to the Apostle Paul,
greed is idolatry, and idols and idolators should be killed, so we can
wash our hands in their accursed blood, as Moses taught through example
and in his writing, for what is written there is written for our
edification. (16: p. 140)
The same motifs are dominant in the Anabaptist revolution--in
Müntzer's teaching and in Münster. In later years, they accompany the
new upsurge in the activity of socialist movements and are manifest with
equal clarity in the socialist-nihilist movement in the twentieth
century. Thus Bakunin writes, in a proclamation entitled "The Principles
of Revolution":
[275]
Therefore, in accordance with strict necessity and justice we must
devote ourselves wholly and completely to unrestrained and relentless
destruction, which must grow in a crescendo until there is nothing left
of the existing social forms. ...We say: the most complete destruction
is incompatible with creation, therefore destruction must be absolute
and exclusive. The present generation must begin with real revolutions.
It must begin with a complete change of all social living conditions;
this means that the present generation must blindly raze everything to
the ground with only one thought: As fast and as much as possible.
...(95: p. 361)
Though we do not recognize any other activity besides the task of
destruction, we hold to the opinion that the form in which this
activity manifests itself may be quite varied: poison, dagger, noose,
and so forth. The revolution blesses everything in equal measure in this
struggle. (95: 363)
It is striking that the mystique of destruction is here the only
motivation; rapture in it is offered as the only reward, but one which
must outweigh every sacrifice. And this is entirely consistent with a
definition Bakunin and Nechayev constantly repeated: "A revolutionary is
a doomed man." (151: p. 468) Death among universal destruction--this
was subjectively the ultimate goal with which they lured their
adherents. Higher feelings could not have fostered this activity, for
they were utterly denied.
"All tender and gentle feelings of kinship, friendship, love,
gratitude and even honor itself should be choked off in the
revolutionary's breast by the single cold passion of his revolutionary
task. He is not a revolutionary if he has pity for anything in the
world. He knows only one science--the science of destruction. He lives
in the world with a single aim--its total and swift destruction." (151:
pp. 468-470)
Even dreams of the bright future for the sake of which all the
destruction was to occur could not serve as a stimulus and were
forbidden outright.
"Since our generation has itself been under the influence of the
abominable conditions which it is now destroying, creation must not be
its task but the task of those pure forces that will come into being in
the days of renewal. The loathsomeness of modern civilization, in which
we have grown up, has deprived us of the capability of building the
paradise-like structures of the future life, of which we can have but
the vaguest idea, and our thoughts are taken with diametrically
opposite, unpleasant matters. For people who are ready to start the
practical task of revolution, we consider it criminal to have these
thoughts of the dim future, as they hinder the cause of destruction
[276]
and delay the beginning of revolution. ...For the practical task at hand, it is a pointless spiritual corruption." (95: p. 361)
It is often said that certain features so vividly expressed in
nihilism--the goal of complete destruction, neglect of all moral
principles, conspiracy, terror--are peculiar to this movement
specifically, and that it is precisely these features that distinguish
nihilism from its antipode, Marxist socialism. Sometimes this view is
supplemented by the opinion that Bolshevism is a typically Russian
phenomenon, the heritage of Nechayev and Bakunin and a perversion of
Marxism. This view was expressed, for example, by Kautsky in his books
(103 and 135) published in 1919 and 1921. (Kautsky notes that similar
ideas had been expressed by Rosa Luxemburg as far back as 1904.) But
what to do about the striking coincidence of Bolshevik ideology and
practice with numerous statements by Marx and Engels? An attempt is
usually made to explain these coincidences away by asserting that the
particular statements of Marx and Engels are not characteristic and are
at odds with their essential message. (Opinions, however, diverge about
which part of their writing should be considered central. Kautsky
believes that the later corpus of their writings, the works that
appeared after the revolution of 1848, constitute the central core of
Marxism, which was distorted by Bolshevism, while modern
socialists--Fromm, Sartre--see the earlier works this way. Indeed,
Sartre even speaks about those works by Marx that preceded his
"ill-fated meeting with Engels.")
The facts hardly support such a view. Nihilism of the Bakunin
type and Marxism developed from the same source. The differences between
them (which explain, incidentally, why Bakunin has far less influence
than Marx and Engels on history) lie not in the fact that Marxism
renounced elements of nihilism but that it added to them some new and
very significant elements. Marxism is based on the same psychological
foundation as nihilism--a burning hatred for surrounding life that can
be vented only through complete annihilation of that life. But Marxism
finds a means of transferring this purely subjective perception of the
world onto another, more objective plane. As with art, where passion is
kept in check and transformed into creative works, Marxism accomplished a
transformation of the elemental, destructive emotions that ruled
Bakunin and Nechayev into a structure that seemed incomparably more
objective and hence convincing--the concept of man's subordination to
"immanent laws" or "the dialectics of production."
[277]
But the perception of the world on which the Marxist structure is
founded is identical to that in Nechayev and Bakunin. This is
particularly clear in the works of Marx and Engels written for a narrow
circle of collaborators and, in particular, in their correspondence. (3:
XXI-XXIV. It would seem that the full texts of these letters have been
published only in Russian translation.) We encounter here the same
feeling of disgust and seething hatred for the world, beginning with the
writers' parents: "MyoId man will have to pay plenty for this, and in
cash." (Engels to Marx, February 26, 1851) "Your old man is a pig."
(Marx to Engels, November 1848) "Nothing to be done with myoId woman
until I myself sit on her neck." (Marx to Engels, September 13, 1854)
The same feelings are vented on close friends: "The dog has a monstrous
memory for all such muck." (About Heine, Marx to Engels, January 17,
1853.) The same holds for party comrades: Liebknecht is usually called
an ass, a brute, a beast, and so on, even "it." (E.g., in a letter from
Marx to Engels, August 10, 1869.) Their own party gets the same
treatment: "What significance does a 'party' have, i.e., a gang of
asses, blindly believing in us because they consider us equal to
themselves. ...In truth we would lose nothing if we were to be
considered no longer 'a real and adequate' expression of these mediocre
dogs with whom we have spent the last years." (Engels to Marx, February
13, 1851) The proletariat is not excluded:". ..stupid nonsense regarding
his being compelled to defend me from that great hatred the workers
(i.e., fools) feel for me." (Marx to Engels, May 18, 1859) Neither is
democracy: ". ..a pack of new democratic bastards." (Marx to Engels,
February 10, 1851)". ..democratic dogs and liberal scoundrels." (Marx to
Engels, February 25, 1859) The people are sneered at: "Well, as for
loving us,
the democratic, the red, even the Communist mob never will." (Engels to
Marx, May 9, 1851) And even the human race evokes disgust: "Not a
single living
soul visits me, and I am glad of that, for humanity here can go ...The
pigs! With regards. Yours, K. M." (To Engels, June 18, 1862)
The tactical devices that derived from this perception of life
are very similar to those used by Nechayev of Bakunin. Kautsky, who
accuses Bakunin of leading a party to which he had appointed himself
head, might have recalled Marx's letter to Engels (May 18, 1859): "I
declared to them point-blank: we have received our mandate as the
representatives of the proletarian party from no one
but ourselves. And
it is confirmed as ours by the exceptional and universal hatred which
all segments of the old world and all the parties harbor for
[278]
us. You can imagine how these fools were taken aback." In criticizing
Bakunin's penchant for conspiracy, Kautsky should have kept in mind a
letter from Engels to Marx (September 16, 1868): "The method of engaging
in trifles at public meetings and doing real business on the quiet
justified itself brilliantly." And in claiming that the idea of terror
and violence was an error of the
young Marx and Engels, it would have been well to explain why Engels writes in
Anti-Dühring: "It
is only with sighs and groans that he [Dühring] admits the possibility
that force will perhaps be necessary for the overthrow of the economic
system of exploitation--unfortunately, don't you see, because any use of
force demoralizes the person who uses it. And this in spite of the
immense moral and spiritual impetus which has resulted from every
victorious revolution!" (98: p. 185) And how is it that in the preface
to
History of the Peasant War in Germany, Engels advises
contemporary Germans to follow the example of the "healthy vandalism" of
the Peasant War? How can we explain his words in a letter to Bebel:
"If, thanks to war, we should come to power prematurely, the technicians
will become our special enemies, and will deceive and betray us
wherever they can. We will have to resort to terror.. .." (3: XXVIII:
p.365)
And at the same time it is impossible to deny that these ideas came
into being at the very beginning of the activity of Marx and Engels.
"This is at least the best thing that remains for us to do, while we are
compelled to use the pen and cannot bring our ideas into life with the
help of our hands or, if necessary, with our fists." (Engels to Marx,
November 19, 1844) Kautsky undoubtedly knew all these passages and
others like them, since he took part in the editing of the German
edition of the Marx-Engels correspondence, from which most expressions
of this type were eliminated by the editors. It is clear from his books
what it was that evoked such dislike for Bolshevism and the desire to
prove, at any cost, that it distorts Marxism: the astonishing
contagiousness of Bolshevik ideas and their rapid diffusion in the
Western socialist parties raised the old fears of "Russian dominance" in
the International. (This misgiving was first voiced by Engels about
Bakunin.)
The other link connecting socialist ideology with the idea of
humanity's demise is the notion of mankind's inevitable death that is
present in many socialist doctrines. We have seen, for instance, that
the Cathars, whose teaching contained ideas of a socialist character,
believed that after the fallen angels are freed from material captivity,
the remaining
[279]
people will die, and the entire material world will be plunged into primeval chaos.
As a second example, we take the views of the future of mankind held
by three prominent ideologues of socialism: Saint-Simon, Fourier and
Engels. In Saint-Simon's
On Universal Gravitation there is a
section on "The Future of the Human Race." Here, in detail and with
great feeling, he describes the death of mankind--presented in reverse
chronological order for effect, something like a film shown backward.
Our planet has a tendency to desiccation. ...On the basis of these
observations, geologists arrive at the inevitable conclusion that a time
will come when our planet will have dried up completely. It is clear
that it will then become uninhabitable and, consequently, from a certain
point onward the human race will gradually begin to dwindle. ...Section
Two: At the beginning of this section we shall describe the sensations
of the last man, as he dies after having drunk the last drop of water on
earth. We shall show that the sensation of death will be far more
burdensome for him than for us because his own death will coincide with
the death of the entire human race. Then, from the description of the
moral state of the last man, we shall proceed backward to the
investigation of the moral state of the remnants of mankind, until that
point when it shall see the beginning of its destruction and become
convinced that it is inevitable, a conviction that will paralyze all
moral energy. ..the desires of these people will be the same as those of
animals. (153: pp. 275-276)
It is curious that Saint-Simon begins his work with this depiction,
apparently supposing thereby to create a background against which the
meaning and spirit of his system will be clearer.
Engels not only depicts the death of every living thing, but
regards death as the other side of life, or its goal. "It is already
accepted that the kind of physiology which does not consider death an
essential moment of life cannot be regarded as a science; this is the
kind of physiology that does not understand that the
denial of
life is innate to life itself, so that life is always seen in relation
to the inevitable result that is inevitably part of it from the
beginning--death. This is the essence of the dialectical perception of
life." (3: XIV: p. 399) And more succinctly: "To live means to die."
Engels' picture of the end is one of the most vivid pages of his writing:
Everything that arises is worthy of death. Millions of years will pass,
hundreds of thousands of generations will be born and go down into the
grave, but inexorably the time will come when the weakening warmth
[280]
of the sun will not be able to melt the ice advancing from the poles;
when mankind, crowded together at the equator, will cease to find the
necessary warmth even there and the earth--a frozen dead sphere like the
moon--will circle in profound darkness around a sun which is also dead
and into which it will finally fall. The other planets will experience
the same fate, some sooner, the others later than the earth, and instead
of an orderly, bright and warm solar system there will remain a cold
dead ball continuing on its lonely way in the universe. And the fate
that will have befallen our solar system will sooner or later befall all
other systems, even those whose light will never reach the earth while
there is on it a human eye capable of perceiving it." (3: XIV: pp.
488-489)
Fourier, who in other cases seemed to show such a sincere attachment
to life and its pleasures, also gave this idea its due. His "Table of
Social Motion," encompassing the entire past and future of the earth,
concludes thus:
"The end of the animal and vegetable kingdom, after approximately 80,000 years. (The
spiritual death of the earth, the stopping of rotation on its axis, the
violent translocation of the poles to the equators, fixation on the
sun, natural death, fall and disintegration in the Milky Way.)"
Although Engels foresaw the end of life on earth from material
causes that differ greatly from those suggested by Fourier, the basic
idea evoked his obvious approval: "Fourier, as we see, is just as
masterful at dialectics as his contemporary Hegel. In the same
dialectical fashion he asserts, in contrast to statements about man's
capacity for unlimited perfection, that each historical phase has not
only its ascending line but also its descending one, and he applies this
method of perception to the future of mankind as a whole. Just as Kant
introduced into natural science the idea of the future death of the
earth, Fourier introduced into the perception of history the concept of
the future death of mankind." (98: p. 264)
We note how different this notion of the death of mankind is from
the conception of the "end of the world" in a number of religions,
including Christianity. The religious idea of the end of the world
presupposes, in essence, its translation, after human history has
achieved its goal, into some other state. Socialist ideology puts
forward the idea of the complete destruction of mankind, proceeding from
an external cause and depriving history of any meaning.
A new synthesis of socialist ideology with the ideas of death and
destruction appears in Marcuse's works, which have greatly influenced
the contemporary leftist movements. Here, too, Marcuse follows Freud.
[281]
In the Freudian view (first expressed in the article "Beyond the
Pleasure Principle"), the human psyche can be reduced to a manifestation
of two main instincts: the life instinct or Eros and the death instinct
or Thanatos (or the Nirvana principle). Both are general biological
categories, fundamental properties of living things in general. The
death instinct is a manifestation of general "inertia" or a tendency of
organic life to return to a more elementary state from which it had been
aroused by an external disturbing force. The role of the life instinct
is essentially to prevent a living organism from returning to the
inorganic state by any path other than that which is immanent in it.
Marcuse introduces a greater social factor into this scheme,
asserting that the death instinct expresses itself in the desire to be
liberated from tension, as an attempt to rid oneself of the suffering
and discontent which are specifically engendered by social factors. In
the Utopia proposed by him, these goals can be realized, Marcuse
believes. He describes this new state in an extremely general way,
making use of mythological analogies. Against Prometheus, the hero of
repressive culture, he sets Narcissus and Orpheus--bearers of the
principles upon which his Utopia is built. They symbolize "the
redemption of pleasure, the halt of time, the absorption of death;
silence, sleep, night, paradise--the Nirvana principle not as death but
as life." (119: p. 164) "The Orphic-Narcissistic images do explode it
[reality]; they do not convey a 'mode of living'; they are committed to
the underworld and to death." (119: p. 165) About Narcissus he says: "If
his erotic attitude is akin to death and brings death, then rest and
sleep and death are not painfully separated and distinguished: the
Nirvana principle rules throughout all these stages." (119: p. 167)
The less the difference between life and death is, the weaker
will be the destructive manifestations of the death principle: "The
death instinct operates under the Nirvana principle: it tends toward
that state of 'constant gratification' where no tension is felt--a state
without want. This trend of the instinct implies that its
destructive manifestations
would be minimized as it approached such a state." (119: p. 234) "In
terms of the [death] instinct, the conflict between life and death is
the more reduced, the closer life approximates the state of
gratification." (119: p. 235)
This view has a more concrete interpretation: "Philosophy that
does not work as the handmaiden of repression responds to the fact of
death with the Great Refusal--the refusal of Orpheus the liberator.
[282]
Death can become a token of freedom. The necessity of death does not
refute the possibility of final liberation. Like the other necessities,
it can be made rational--painless. Men can die without anxiety if they
know that what they love is protected from misery and oblivion. After a
fulfilled life, they may take it upon themselves to die--at a moment of
their own choosing." (119: pp. 236-237)
There is, finally, the case where the notion of the death of mankind
combines with socialist ideology in such a way as to affect directly the
fate of the individual members of socialist movements. In the Catharist
movement, for example, obvious socialist tendencies were joined to the
practice of ritual suicide. Runciman (11) believes that their ideal was
the suicide of all mankind--either directly or by nonreproduction. We
may place Abbe Meslier's suicide in the same category: so intimately was
suicide linked to his general view of the world that he concludes his
book
(Testament) on this note: "The dead, with whom I intend to
travel the same road, are troubled by nothing; they care for nothing.
And with this nothing I shall finish here. I, myself, am now no more
than nothing, and soon shall be in the full sense of the word nothing."
This frame of mind was particularly apparent in the Russian
revolutionary movement. In the article "On Intellectual Youth" included
in the collection
Landmarks [Vekhi, 1909], A. S. Izgoev wrote:
"No matter what the convictions held by the different groups of Russian
intellectual youth were, in the final analysis, if we go deeper into
their psychology, we see that they are inspired by one and the same
ideal. ...This is an ideal of deeply personal, intimate character, and
it finds expression in the striving for death, in the desire to prove to
oneself and to others the lack of fear of death and a readiness to
accept it at any moment. This is, in essence, the only logical and moral
substantiation of one's convictions that is accepted by the purest
representatives of our revolutionary youth." (154: p. 116) Izgoev points
out that the degree of "leftness" among political groups--Mensheviks,
Bolsheviks, Social Revolutionaries, Anarchists and Maximalists--as this
was evaluated by the intelligentsia, was not based on the political
program of the given party. "It is clear that the criterion of
'leftness' lies elsewhere. 'Further left' is he who is closer to death,
whose work is more 'dangerous'--not for the social system against which
he is struggling, but for the activist himself, the individual in
question." (154: p. 117) ,
He quotes a Maximalist pamphlet: " 'We repeat to the peasant and
to the worker: when you go to fight and to die in the struggle, go
[283]
and fight and die, but for your own rights, your own needs.' In this 'go
and die' is the center of gravity of everything. ...But this is nothing
but suicide, and it is undeniable that for many years the Russian
intelligentsia was an example of a peculiar monastic order of people who
had doomed themselves to death, and the sooner the better." (154: pp.
117-118)
Indeed, the recollections of the terrorists of the day convey a
strange sense of ecstasy persistently interfused with thoughts of death.
Here are, for example, some excerpts from the recollections of Boris
Savinkov (155), speaking about his collaborators in the attempt on
Plehve's life: "Kaliaev loved the revolution as deeply and tenderly as
only those who give up their lives for it can love. ...He came to terror
by his own peculiar and original route and saw in it not only the best
form of political struggle but also a moral and, perhaps, a religious
sacrifice." Kaliaev used to say that "a Social Revolutionary without a
bomb is not a Social Revolutionary." Another participant, Sazonov, felt
"strength beneath Kaliaev's expansiveness, burning faith beneath his
inspired words, and beneath his love of life, a readiness to sacrifice
this life and, even more, a passionate longing for such a sacrifice."
And for Sazonov, too, "terrorist activity meant above all a personal
sacrifice."
After the assassination, Sazonov wrote to his comrades from
prison: "You gave me an opportunity to experience moral satisfaction
incomparable to anything in the world. ...I had hardly come to after the
operation when I sighed with relief. Finally, it's over. I was ready to
sing and shout with delight." A third participant was Dora Brilliant.
For her, just as for the others, "terror. ..was colored, first of all,
with the sacrifice that the terrorist makes. ...Political questions did
not interest her. Perhaps she had left all political activity with a
certain degree of disenchantment; her days passed in silence, in silent
and concentrated contemplation of the inner suffering with which she was
filled. She seldom laughed, and even then, her eyes remained cold and
sad. For her, terror personified the revolution; her whole world was
enclosed within the militant organization." Savinkov recalls a
conversation on the eve of the assassination attempt:
Dora Brilliant arrived. She was silent for a long while, staring in front of her with her black, sad eyes.
"Veniamin!" [Boris Savinkov's pseudonym]
"What?"
"I wanted to say. .." She stopped, as if hesitating to finish the sentence.
[284]
"I wanted ... I wanted to ask again that I be given the bomb."
"You? The bomb?"
"I want to take part in the attempt, too."
"Listen, Dora..."
"No, don't say anything ... I also want to ... I must die. ..."*
A multitude of similar examples leads us to suppose that the dying
and, ultimately, the complete extinction of mankind is not a chance
external consequence of the embodiment of the socialist ideal but that
this impulse is a fundamental and organic part of socialist ideology. To
a greater or lesser degree it is consciously perceived as such by its
partisans and even serves them as inspiration.
The death of mankind is not only a conceivable result of the triumph of socialism--it constitutes the goal of socialism.
One reader of my earlier essay on socialism (156) drew my
attention to the fact that this thought had already been expressed in
Dostoyevsky's "Legend of the Grand Inquisitor." It is true that
Dostoyevsky's argument was directed at Catholicism, but he considered
socialism to be a development of the Catholicism that had distorted
Christ's teachings. (This view is elaborated in his articles that
appeared in
The Diary of a Writer.) Indeed, the picture of life
presented as an ideal by the Grand Inquisitor closely resembles Plato or
Campanella. "Oh, we shall persuade them that they will only become free
when they renounce their freedom to us, and submit to us. ...Yes, we
shall set them to work, but in their leisure hours we shall make their
life like a child's game, with children's songs and innocent dance. ...
And they will have no secrets from us. We shall allow or forbid them to
live with their wives and mistresses, to have or not to have children,
according to whether they have been obedient or disobedient, and they
will submit to us gladly and cheerfully." And the Grand Inquisitor
understands the ultimate goal for whose sake this life will be built:
"He sees that he must follow the counsel of the wise spirit, the
dread spirit of death and destruction, and therefore accept lying and
deception, and lead men consciously to death and destruction, and yet
deceive them all the way so that they may not notice where they are
being led." (157: pp. 325-327)**
* "I know that he was obsessed with the idea of death," says Sartre
about the well-known leftist Nizan. "He had been in the U.S.S.R. and had
spoken about it with his Soviet comrades, and he told me about this on
his return. 'A revolution that does not make us obsessed with death is
no revolution.' An interesting thought." (143: p. 81)
** In his letters, Dostoyevsky says that
in "The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor" he wanted to show a "synthesis"
of the fundamental ideas of contemporary socialism.
[285]
XI.
Conclusion
This paradoxical phenomenon may be understood only if we allow
that the idea of the death of humanity can be attractive to man and that
the impulse to self-destruction (even if it is only one of many
tendencies) plays a role in human history. And there is in fact much
evidence to support this hypothesis, particularly among phenomena that
play an essential role in the spiritual life of mankind. Quite
independently of socialism, each of these leads to the same conclusion.
We can cite several examples.
We have in mind phenomena that relate to a vast and ancient religious and philosophical current:
pessimism or
nihilism. In
the many variants of these doctrines, either the death of mankind and
universal destruction are regarded as the desirable goal of the
historical process, or else Nothingness is pronounced the essence of the
world; the goal is then to understand that all reality is but a
reflection of this essence. Vladimir Soloviev, who devoted an article to
the notion of pessimism, singles out what he calls
absolute pessimism, which
corresponds to the tendency that interests us. (109: X: pp. 254-258)
Its first complete expression is contained in Buddhism. Soloviev
characterizes Buddhism as a doctrine of "the four noble truths: (1)
Existence is
suffering; (2) the cause of suffering is senseless
desire which
has neither basis nor aims; (3) deliverance from this suffering is
possible through destruction of all desire, and (4) the path to
deliverance leads through the
understanding of the ties between
phenomena and observation of the perfect moral commandments given by the
Buddha; the goal of this path is Nirvana, the complete 'extinction' of
existence." (109: X: p. 254)
[286]
Is Nirvana (literally, "extinction" as in the blowing out of a flame)
actually a way to "Nothingness"? Buddha's views on this question have
been interpreted differently. Max Müller, for example, thought that for
Buddha himself Nirvana was the fulfillment and not the elimination of
existence, assuming that a religion that offered
Nothingness as
an ultimate goal could never have existed. H. Oldenberg devotes a
section in his book (158) to this question. He cites a number of
episodes which characterize Buddha's attitude to the question whether
the 'T' exists and what the nature of Nirvana is. The import of these
episodes is the same: Buddha refuses to answer such questions and by his
authority forbids his disciples to consider them. But what is the
meaning concealed here? The author believes that "if the Buddha avoids
denying the existence of the 'I,' he does so only in order not to
perplex the listeners who lack insight. In this denial of the question
concerning the existence or nonexistence of the 'I,' an answer emerges
in any case, something to which all the premises of the Buddha's
teaching inevitably lead: the 'I' does not in truth exist. Or, what is
one and the same thing: Nirvana is simply annihilation. ...But it is
clear that the thinkers who grasped and mastered this view did not want
to promote it to the status of an official doctrine of the Buddhist
community. ...The official doctrine stopped short of questions on
whether the 'I' exists, whether the perfect saint lives on or does not
live on after death. The Great Buddha is said to have given no precept."
(158: p. 227)
The fact that the Buddha left unanswered the questions of the
existence of the 'I' and the nature of Nirvana naturally led to
different interpretations of these problems within Buddhism. The two
main Buddhist sects--Hīnayāna and Mahayana Buddhism--give opposite
answers to the question of Nirvana. In Hīnayāna Buddhism, Nirvana is
considered to be the cessation of the activity of consciousness. A
contemporary Indian author characterizes the Hīnayāna teaching as
follows: "In the Hīnayāna, Nirvana became interpreted negatively as the
extinction of all being.. ..This view is an expression of weariness and
disgust with the endless strife of becoming, and of the relief found in
mere ceasing of effort. It is not a healthy-minded doctrine. A sort of
world hatred is its inspiring motive." (159: pp. 590, 589) In Mahāyāna
Buddhism, Nirvana is understood as a merging with the infinite, with the
Great Soul of the universe, but it is not identified with the
annihilation of existence.
[287]
However, it was to the Mahāyāna trend that Nāgārjuna belonged (he
lived at a time around the beginning of the Christian era). His
followers, the Mādhyamikas, are sometimes called nihilists.
Nāgārjuna proceeds on the assumption that that which is not
understandable is not real. He then proves that the following are
neither understandable nor explicable: motion and rest, time, causality,
the notion of the part and the whole, the soul, the "I," Buddha, God
and the universe. "There is no God apart from the universe, and there is
no universe apart from God, and they both are equally appearances."
(159: p. 655) "There is no death, no birth, no distinction, no
persistence, no oneness, no manyness, no coming in, no going forth."
(159: p. 655) "All things have the character of emptiness, they have no
beginning, no end, they are faultless and not faultless, they are not
imperfect and not perfect, therefore, O Sariputta, here in this
emptiness there is no form, no perception, no name, no concept, no
knowledge." (159: p. 656)
In China, the philosophy of Lao-tse (sixth century B.C.) may be
seen as a part of the nihilist current. This is the teaching of the Tao,
or "The Way." We find here a call for renunciation and quiescence that
verges on the cessation of all activity:*
One who is aware does not talk.
One who talks is not aware.
Ceasing verbal expressions,
Stopping the entry of sensations,
Dulling its sharpness,
Releasing its entanglements,
Tempering its brightness,
And unifying with the earth:
This is called the identity of Tao.
Hence, no nearness can reach him nor
distance affect him.
No gain can touch him nor loss disturb him.
No esteem can move him nor shame distress him.
Thus, he is the most valuable man in the world. ...
Much learning means little wisdom.
...once the Way is lost,
There comes then Virtue;
Virtue lost, comes then compassion;
After that morality;
* The texts are given in the translation of Chang Chung-yuan (Tao: A New Way of Thinking, N.Y., 1977) and Raymond B. Blakney (Lao Tzu, The Way of Life, N.Y., 1955).
[288]
And when that's lost, there's etiquette,
The husk of all good faith,
The rising point of anarchy. ...
Let the people be free from discernment and
relinquish intellection,
Then they will be many times better off.
Stop the teaching of benevolence and get rid of the
claim of justice,
Then the people will love each other once more.
Cease the teaching of cleverness and give up profit,
Then there will be no more stealing and fraud. ...
The Wise Man's policy, accordingly,
Will be to empty people's hearts and minds,
To fill their bellies, weaken their ambition,
Give them sturdy frames and always so,
To keep them uninformed, without desire,
And knowing ones not venturing to act. ...
Ten thousand things in the universe are created from
being.
Being is created from nonbeing. ...
In Tao the only motion is returning;
The only useful quality, weakness. ...
The Way is a void.
"Absolute pessimism" is expressed in a different way in ancient Scandinavian mythology in the collection of songs known as the
Elder Edda. (160)
In this tradition (and especially in the "Prophecy of the Vala," the
so-called "Voluspo"), we see a picture of a world ruled by gods
personifying the forces of order and life and elemental destructive
forces, embodied in the wolf Fenrir, son of Loki, held in check by a
magic net. But at the appointed hour, the Wolf breaks loose and devours
the sun; the world Serpent rises from the bottom of the ocean and gains
victory over Thor. A ship built from the fingernails of the dead sails
the sea, bringing giants who come to fight the gods. All people perish,
heaven is cleft, the earth sinks into the sea, and the stars fall. (The
concluding stanzas of the "Voluspo" describe the birth of a new world,
but differ so sharply from the rest of the text that one tends to agree
with the scholars who see this as a later interpolation, possibly
reflecting the influence of Christianity.)
Returning to Soloviev's article on pessimism, we find
Schopenhauer and Hartmann presented as the major European
representatives of
[289]
this tendency. Schopenhauer considers the World Will to be that essence
which cannot be reduced to anything else. But, at the same time, all
will is desire--unsatisfied desire, since it has stimulated the
manifestation of will; hence will is suffering. "The will now turns away
from life.. ..Man attains to the state of voluntary renunciation,
resignation, true composure and complete will-lessness. ...His will
turns about; it no longer affirms its own inner nature, mirrored in the
phenomenon, but denies it."
(The World as Will and Representation, I: section 68)
The aim of this process is Nothingness, achieved through the voluntary renunciation of will.
"No will: no representation, no world.
"Before us there is certainly left only nothing; but that which
struggles against this flowing away into nothing, namely our nature, is
indeed just the will-to-live which we ourselves are, just as it is our
world. That we abhor nothingness so much is simply another way of saying
that we will life so much, and that we are nothing but this will and
know nothing but it alone.. ..That which remains after the complete
abolition of the will is, for all who are still full of the will,
assuredly nothing. But also conversely, to those in whom the will has
turned and denied itself, this very real world of ours with all its suns
and galaxies, is--nothing."
(op. cit., section 71)
To this system Hartmann adds the idea that the world process
began through an initial irrational act of will and consists of the
gradual preparation for the elimination of real existence. The aim is to
return to nonexistence, implemented by the collective suicide of
mankind and the destruction of the world, both of which are made
possible by the development of technology.
The notion of Nothingness, which entered philosophy from theology
through Hegel's system, plays an increasingly important role in the
nineteenth century, until in the twentieth it becomes one of the
dominant conceptions. For example, Max Stirner ends his famous book
The Ego and His Own with the words: "I am the owner of my might and I am so when I know myself as
unique. In the
unique one the
owner himself returns into his creative nothing, of which he is born.
Every higher essence above me, be it God, be it man, weakens the feeling
of my uniqueness, and pales only before the sun of this consciousness.
If I found my affair on myself, the unique one, then my concern rests on
its transitory, mortal creator, who consumes himself, and I may say:
[290]
I have founded my affair on nothing." (161: p. 246)
But it was within the framework of modern existentialism,
especially in the works of Heidegger and Sartre, that Nothingness found
its most important expression. Heidegger believes that man's
individuality perishes in the leveling and the impulse toward mediocrity
that is produced in society (something that is conveyed by the
untranslatable German locution "man"). The only true individuality is
death, which is always the death of a particular man and in which
nothing links him to others. Therefore, a man can gain genuine existence
only on the verge of death, only in what he calls "being-un to-death."
(162: p. 144 f.) The being of every individuality is, from this point of
view, merely
Noch-nicht [not yet], a sort of period when death
has not yet ripened. (162: p. 244) This concerns existence in general
also: existence is Nothingness and Nothingness is--existence itself.
(163: p. 104) Nothingness is the limit of existence determining its
meaning. For Heidegger Nothingness is evidently an active force, for it
functions--Das Nicht nochtet. It
determines history's meaning, which is revealed in the attempts to
overcome the senselessness of existence and to break through into
Nothingness.
Nothingness is also the central category in Sartre's principal philosophic work,
Being and Nothingness.
It is nothingness that connects consciousness and being. It is a
fundamental property of consciousness; "Nothingness is putting into
question of being by being--that is, precisely consciousness." (164: p.
121) Consciousness penetrates into the core of being as a worm into an
apple and hollows it out. As it is only man who consciously strives for
destruction, he is the bearer of Nothingness. "Man is the being through
whom Nothingness comes to the world." (164: p. 60) Nothingness is so
closely linked to man that, according to Sartre, human being-in-itself
is also one of the manifestations of Nothingness. "The being by which
Nothingness comes to the world must be its own Nothingness." (164: p.
59)
It is interesting to note that of these two best-known
representatives of contemporary nihilism, Sartre adheres to Marxism, and
Heidegger (until the end of World War II) inclined toward National
Socialism. Heidegger, moreover, also views Communism (i.e., socialism of
the Marxist brand) as a sort of incomplete nihilism. (165: pp. 145-395)
It seems to be no accident that the growth of influence of
nihilistic philosophy coincided in Europe and in the U.S.A. with an
extraordinary interest in Buddhism, particularly Zen Buddhism, which is a
product
[291]
of the interaction between the conceptions of Buddhism and Taoism. Zen
typically stresses the illusory nature of life's problems, and their
absurdity. For example, Gustav Mahler's "Kindertotenlieder" presents an
image of a senseless all-consuming death, a black hole into which life
collapses. Conscious of his approaching death, Mahler composed his "Das
Lied von der Erde." This work begins with a poem of Li Po (a Chinese
poet close to Zen) set to music, which is constantly interrupted by a
refrain: "Life is darkness and death is darkness." But the spectacular
spread of Zen occurred after World War II, especially in the U.S.A. It
was propagated by such well-known modern writers as J. D. Salinger. The
hero of a series of his stories dispenses Zen wisdom to those around
him--and commits suicide, not as an act of despair, but for the sake of
the overcoming of the seeming difference between life and death. Zen was
also the favorite philosophy of the American beatniks, who frequently
compared themselves to wandering monks.
Freud's world view is also pessimistic. He discerns a vicious circle
in which society and human culture are locked: cultural activity is
possible only at the expense of the suppression of sexuality, but this
increases the role of aggressive and destructive forces in the psyche,
and to keep them in check, still greater pressures on the part of social
forces is needed. In this way, culture and society are not only
organically tied to misfortune; they are also doomed to destruction.
This is in conformity with Freud's view on the role of the "death
instinct," a view that leaves to life only the choice of the "right path
toward death." Freud's method, especially in establishing his basic
concepts, is far from scientific. In general, Freud cannot be verified
with concrete facts, so he must be accepted or rejected on the basis of
one's inner feeling. In our day, when science is losing its role as an
absolute authority, this characteristic of Freud's theories may not be
regarded as a defect. In connection with Freud's anthropological and
historical ideas, Marcuse writes: "The difficulties in scientific
verification and even in logical consistency are obvious and perhaps
insurmountable." (119: p. 59) "We use Freud's anthropological
speculation only in this sense: for its
symbolic value." (119: p. 60)
In just this way, we may regard Freud's conceptions not as
indisputable scientific truth but as evidence of a certain perception of
the world (the scope of whose influence may be judged by the success
Freudianism has enjoyed).
[292]
Finally, the same tendency may be seen in theories according to which
man (or animal) is regarded as a machine. All the aspects of life in
man (or in animals) can be reduced in this way to the action of several
simple forces. Thus Descartes expressed the opinion that an animal is an
automaton incapable of thinking. The same idea was developed by La
Mettrie in his book
L 'homme machine. He asserts that "the human
body is a self-starting machine" and then extends this principle to the
human psyche. Descartes's idea was later realized in Loeb's theory of
tropisms, according to which the actions of organisms are determined by
certain simple, physical factors (for example, the bending of a plant in
the direction of the sun is explained by the fact that sunlight retards
the growth on the side of the stem that it strikes). According to
Dembowski, this theory regards the organism as "a puppet, whose every
motion depends upon some outward factor pulling a corresponding string."
(166: p. 55) Similar views became popular again in the second half of
the twentieth century, in the wake of the invention of computers.
Theories that hold that man (or animal) is a machine differ completely
in their opinion as to what sort of machine is involved--mechanical,
electric or electronic. And as all these explanations cannot be correct
simultaneously, it is evident that the point of departure in each case
is a similar a priori assumption, an impulse that derives from
elsewhere, to prove that man is a machine.
The conclusions we have drawn as a result of our analysis of
socialism are also confirmed, as we see, by a series of independent
arguments. We may formulate these conclusions as follows:
a.
The idea of the death of mankind--not the death of specific
people but literally the end of the human race--evokes a response in
the human psyche. It arouses and attracts people, albeit with differing
intensity in different epochs and in different individuals. The scope of
influence of this idea causes us to suppose that every individual is
affected by it to a greater or lesser degree and that it is a universal
trait of the human psyche.
b.
This idea is not only manifested in the individual
experience of a great number of specific persons, but is also capable of
uniting people (in contrast to delirium, for example) i.e., it is a
social force. The impulse toward self-destruction may be regarded as an
element in the psyche of mankind as a whole.
c.
Socialism is one of the aspects of this impulse of mankind toward
[293]
self-destruction and Nothingness, specifically its manifestation in
the sphere of organizing society. The last words of Meslier's Testament (".
..with this nothing I shall end here") express the "final mystery" of socialism, to use Feuerbach's favorite expression.
We have arrived at this view of socialism in attempting to account
for the contradictions evident in the phenomenon at first glance. And
now, looking back, we feel confident that our approach indeed accounts
for many of socialism's peculiarities. Understanding socialism as one of
the manifestations of the allure of death explains its hostility toward
individuality, its desire to destroy those forces which support and
strengthen human personality: religion, culture, family, individual
property. It is consistent with the tendency to reduce man to the level
of a cog in the state mechanism, as well as with the attempt to prove
that man exists only as a manifestation of nonindividual features, such
as production or class interest. The view of man as an instrument of
other forces, in turn, makes it possible to understand the astonishing
psychology of the leaders of the socialist movements: on the one hand,
the readiness and even the striving to erase one's own personality, to
submit it completely to the aims of the movement (so obvious in the
statements of Piatakov and Trotsky cited earlier) and, on the other
hand, the complete collapse of will, the renunciation of one's
convictions in case of defeat (Müntzer and Johann of Leyden, Bakunin in
his "Confession," the behavior of Zinoviev, Bukharin and others at the
trials, etc.). In fact, if the instrument is no longer needed, all
meaning for its existence is lost, and in man's soul the source of
courage and spiritual strength runs dry. (Bakunin, for example, both
before and after his imprisonment is quite a different person from the
utterly broken and self-abasing author of the "Confession." And
Bukharin, in his emotional "Testament," says that he has no differences
with Stalin and that he has had none for a long time. He thereby
dismisses his entire activity and even deprives himself of the right to
protest against his own execution, since that would involve a
disagreement.) This point of view is consistent with the calls to
universal destruction, with the attractiveness of destructive forces
like wars and crises, with the allure of death and the idea of
Nothingness.
The same set of facts that has led us to the point of view
expressed above allows us to discern the mechanism of the force of which
socialism is the incarnation and to learn through what channels it acts
on the individual.
It would seem, first of all, that this is an example of activity that
[294]
is not guided by conscious intent. The proposition that a striving for
self-destruction is the main impulse in socialism has been extracted
from a multi-stage analysis of socialist ideology, and is not taken
directly from the writings of socialist thinkers or the slogans of
socialist movements. It seems that those in the grip of socialist
ideology are as little governed by any conscious understanding of this
goal as a singing nightingale is concerned with the future of its
species. The ideology's impact is through the emotions, which render the
ideology attractive to man and induce him to be ready for sacrifice on
its behalf. Spiritual elation and inspiration are the kinds of emotions
experienced by the participants in socialist movements. This accounts,
too, for the behavior of the leaders of socialist movements in the thick
of the fight, down through the ages--their seemingly inexhaustible
reserves of energy as pamphleteers, agitators, and organizers.
For the very reason that the basic driving force of socialist
ideology is subconscious and emotional, reason and rational discussion
of facts have always played only a subordinate role in it. The socialist
doctrines are reconciled with contradictions with an ease reminiscent
of "prelogical," primitive thinking, which functions outside any
framework of consistency, as described by Lévy-Bruhl. They are equally
unconcerned with the fact that socialist conclusions are radically at
odds with experience. Most astonishing of all is that these
contradictions do not diminish the impact of the doctrine in the least.
Marxism reflects all these traits to a remarkable degree.
Well-known thinkers have pointed out numerous fundamental
contradictions, each of which would have been sufficient to demonstrate
the groundlessness of a theory that lays claim to being
scientific. For
example, Berdiaev demonstrated that the concept of dialectical
materialism is contradictory, since it attributes to matter a logical
category--dialectics. Stammler (167) showed that the idea of historical
determinism postulated by Marxism contradicts its own appeal to
influence history, since it is equivalent to taking a conscious decision
to turn with the earth around the sun. (Sergius Bulgakov paraphrased
this thought as follows: "Marxism predicts the onset of socialism just
as astronomy predicts the beginning of a lunar eclipse, and to bring
about the eclipse it organizes a party.") The very heart of Marxist
doctrine--the labor theory of value--was demolished by the work of the
Austrian school (in particular by Böhm-Bawerk) and has been abandoned by
political economy. Yet even without this heart, Marxism proved to be
capable of survival.
[295]
Just as extraordinary is the reaction of Marxist thinkers to the
experimental evidence of history over the last century. Take, for
example, the article by Professor Rappoport of the University of
Michigan. (168: pp. 30-59) He cites a number of Marxist predictions
which history has disproved and asks whether it is possible "to declare
the theory refuted." Such a conclusion, he declares, appeals to people
who view with suspicion any theory based on general philosophical
concepts (people like Berdiaev, Bulgakov, Max Weber or Karl Jaspers). As
for the concrete projections, Rappoport acknowledges that the prognosis
of a total impoverishment of capitalist countries did not come true.
But if one considers poverty on a worldwide scale, then one sees that
the gap between the rich and the poor countries has increased. It is
true that "the confirmation of the Marxist conception of history does
not necessarily follow from this. But there arises a certain possibility
of a new understanding of the vital concepts of Marxist theory
appropriate to our time." After these arguments, which are beyond logic,
it remains unclear whether or not Marxist theory is correct in the
light of historical verification. The author evades this question and,
without benefit of proof, accepts that in some ways it is "viable," as
if it were possible to retain part of a structured world view and
throwaway the rest.
Or consider Sartre, who declared, in the heyday of the Stalin
epoch, that all information coming to the West about concentration camps
in the Soviet Union should be ignored, even if true, as it might cause
despair in the French proletariat (cited in
The Great Terror by
R. Conquest). Sartre now considers Soviet Marxism to be "repressive" and
"bureaucratic," and of the French working class he says: "What is a
proletariat if it is not revolutionary? And it is, indeed, not
revolutionary." (143: p. 166) In what way were his judgments in the
fifties incorrect? He does not inform us. No fundamentally new facts
seem to have come to light in the interim. Therefore the change in his
point of view cannot be attributed to a rational understanding of the
situation, and his new infatuation with the "direct democracy" in China
does not produce that impression either, for it leaves unanswered such
elementary questions as why the details of this "direct democracy"
should be so carefully concealed from foreigners? Why are foreign
reporters forbidden even to read the wall posters?
All these characteristics prompt us to juxtapose the force displayed in socialism with
instinct. Instinctive actions also have an emotional
[296]
coloring, their fulfillment evokes a feeling of satisfaction, and the
impossibility of fulfilling them (the absence of signals "switching on"
an action) causes anxiety, the so-called appetitive behavior.
Ethologists speak of the "state of enthusiasm" to describe a common
instinctive action in man which is connected with the defense of what
one considers most precious.
Furthermore, instincts combine badly with understanding and are even
incompatible with it: if an animal can achieve a goal by virtue of its
understanding, it will never attempt to achieve the same goal by
instinct. Instinctive actions are not altered by the achievement of a
goal, since they are not a result of training. In man, the influence of
instinct is usually to lower critical abilities (for example, in the
behavior of lovers), and arguments against the goal sought by instinct
are not only disregarded but perceived as somehow base. For all these
reasons, the term proposed by Freud--the "death instinct"--reflects many
features of man's impulse toward self-destruction, which, as we have
argued, is the driving force of socialism. (We use Freud's term but do
not accept the meaning Freud ascribed to it; see the earlier discussion
and the considerations offered below.) The term is applied with the
reservation that it only partially describes the phenomenon; this is so
for two reasons. First, the instinct in question is not that of separate
people but of all mankind, which in this case is treated as a kind of
individuality. It is evident that such an approach requires a sound
substantiation. Second, instinct presupposes the achievement of a
certain aim useful for the individual or at least for the species. This
is extremely difficult to reconcile with the "death instinct," and until
it can be shown that the striving for self-destruction plays some
useful role for mankind, the analogy with instinct should be regarded as
partial, illustrating only some aspect of this phenomenon.
Categories such as the striving for self-destruction or the
"death instinct" are popularly associated with dualism, the conception
of two equally powerful forces, the "life instinct" and the "death
instinct," which determine the flow of history. It would be unfortunate
if the views expressed here were interpreted as simply a variety of
dualism, for dualism tends to be an unstable and fragmented world view.
In the present study we examined two dualistic philosophies. One is the
'religion of the Manicheans and the Cathars, which undertakes to explain
the phenomenon of evil by the existence of good and evil gods.
[297]
But by force of this religion's logic, the good God was expelled from
the world, and hence the ground for the existence of good in the world
also disappeared. S. Runciman, a student of this religion, believes that
the Cathars, proceeding from the inexplicability of evil, arrived at
the inexplicability of good. (11: p. 175)
Another dualistic theory, Freudianism, underwent a strikingly similar
process of evolution. Freud began with an assertion of the universal
role of sexuality, regarded as an elementary life force. The development
of this view led him to a dualistic conception of the "life instinct"
or Eros (coinciding with broadly understood sexuality) and the "death
instinct" or Thanatos. But gradually the role of the "death instinct"
(or "Nirvana principle") grew until, in "The Ego and the Id," Freud
calls it "the dominant tendency of all mental life and, possibly, of all
neural activity in general." Marcuse points out a passage in Freud's
essay "Beyond the Pleasure Principle" where the pleasure principle is
described as the "expression of the "Nirvana principle." Freud also
writes that "life is but a long detour to death." Marcuse's estimation
of Freud's conception almost completely coincides with Runciman's views
of the dualism of the Cathars. "The inability to uncover in the primary
structure of the instincts anything that is not Eros, the monism of
sexuality--an inability which, as we shall see, is the sure sign of
truth--now seems to turn into its opposite: into a monism of death."
(119: p. 28)
Evidently dualism is in general a transitional form from one
monism to another, as we have seen in both examples here. But the same
examples show that pure monism--the recognition of a single force which
promotes improvement and development--also contains a contradiction. It
leads eventually to the supposition of the existence of another equally
powerful and active force moving in the opposite direction--i.e., toward
dualism, then toward the monism of the second force. But it is also
true that the idea of two forces acting in the opposite directions does
not necessarily require the recognition of their equality--which would
be fundamental for dualism. To show how the vicious circle of dualism
may be avoided, we should like to point to Plato's splendid
Timaeus. Plato
here develops the notion of two souls--good and evil--innate in every
living being. The whole cosmos is also a living being and also possesses
two souls. Their influence alternates, and this is reflected in an
alternation of cosmic catastrophes. But outside the cosmos and above it
there is divinity--the incarnation of absolute good.
[298]
Returning to our specific theme, we see that the striving for
self-destruction expressed in socialism not only is not analogous or
"equivalent" to other forces acting in history, but is fundamentally
distinct from them in character. For example, in contrast to a religious
or a national ideology, which openly proclaims its goals, the "death
instinct" that is embodied in socialism appears in the guise of
religion, reason, social justice, national endeavors or science, and
never shows its true face. Apparently its action is the stronger the
more directly it is perceived by the subconscious part of the psyche,
but only on condition that consciousness remains unaware.
We would like to propose, in a purely hypothetical manner and
without insisting on this part of the argument, that the striving for
self-destruction may perform a useful function in relation to other,
creative, forces in history, and that humanity needs it in some way to
achieve its goals. The only rational argument in favor of this
supposition is the almost inexorable way, reminiscent of natural and
scientific laws, with which different nations of the world, especially
in our century, have been falling under the influence of socialist
ideology. This could be an indication that it is an experience through
which mankind must necessarily pass. The only question would then be the
level on which this experience will run its course. Will it be on the
spiritual plane? As the physical experience of certain peoples? Or of
humanity as a whole? Soloviev, in his early works, developed an
optimistic theory according to which mankind, in order to build life on
religious principles, would first have to pass through an extreme phase
of concern for individuality, to the point of hostility to God, finally
coming to God by this route through a conscious act of this
individuality. This is the reason for his interest in the pessimistic
philosophies of Schopenhauer and Hartmann, which Soloviev regarded as a
sign of the coming end of the individualistic epoch, as testimony of the
spiritual death toward which the path of areligious development leads.
However, this purely spiritual experience proved to be insufficient.
Soloviev himself came to this realization, as is clear from his last and
perhaps most profound works.
The last hundred years, particularly the twentieth century, have
brought socialism unheard-of success. This has been primarily a success
of socialism in its Marxist form, mostly because Marxism has been able ,
to answer two questions that always stand before socialist movements:
where to seek the "chosen people"--i.e., who is to destroy the old
world--and what is the supreme authority sanctioning the movement?
[299]
The answer to the first question was
the proletariat; to the second,
science. At
present both answers have become ineffective, at least for the West.
"The proletariat has become a support for the system," Marcuse
complains. "What is a proletariat if it is not revolutionary? And it is,
indeed, not revolutionary," Sartre confirms. And science has lost its
prestige and its role as unquestionable authority; it has become too
popular and widespread, and ceased being the secret knowledge of a
select few. Moreover, many of its gifts have recently proved to be far
from beneficial. For this reason, Marcuse calls for replacing science
with a utopia, for granting the role held by reason to fantasy. Until
these fundamental questions find answers adequate to the new epoch, it
will scarcely be possible to expect success for socialism commensurate
with that of Marxism. Meanwhile there have been and continue to be
attempts in this direction. For example, the search for the "chosen
people" seems to be the real meaning behind the "problem of minorities"
which so engages the Western leftist movements: students or homosexuals
or American blacks or local nationalities in France. ...There is no
doubt that other answers will be found--the tendency toward socialism
that grips the West speaks for this.
But if we suppose that the significance of socialism for mankind
consists in the acquisition of specific experience, then much has been
acquired on this path in the last hundred years. There is, first of all,
the profound experience of Russia, the significance of which we are
only now beginning to understand. The question therefore arises: will
this experience
be sufficient? Is it sufficient for the entire world and especially for
the West? Indeed, is it sufficient for Russia? Shall we be able to
comprehend its meaning? Or is mankind destined to pass through this
experience on an immeasurably larger scale?
There is no doubt that if the ideals of Utopia are realized
universally, mankind, even in the barracks of the universal City of the
Sun, shall find the strength to regain its freedom and to preserve God's
image and likeness--human individuality--once it has glanced into the
yawning abyss. But will even
that experience be sufficient? For it seems just as certain that the freedom of will granted to man and to mankind is
absolute, that it includes the freedom to make the ultimate choice--between life and death.
[300]
Bibliography
Russian-language entries are transcribed according to the Library of Congress system.
1. H. G. Wells.
Russia in the Shadows. New York, 1921.
2. Aristophanes.
The Congresswomen (Ecclesiazusae). Trans. Douglass Parker. Ann Arbor, 1967.
3. K. Marx and F. Engels.
Sochineniia (Works, in Russian), vols. 1-15, 17-19, 21-29. Moscow-Leningrad, 1928-48.
4. H. Marcuse.
Psychoanalyse und Politik. Vienna, 1968.
5. Plato.
Republic. Trans. Paul Shorey. Cambridge, Mass., 1930.
6. R. Pohlmann.
Geschichte des antiken Kommunismus und Sozialismus. (Quotations refer to Russian translation,
lstoriia antichnogo kommunizma i sotsialisma, St. Petersburg, 1910.)
7. W. Schultz.
Documente der Gnosis. Jena, 1910.
8. A. Christensen.
Le Règne du roi Kawadh I et communisme mazdakite. In:
Det. Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab: Historisk-filologiske middelelser (Copenhagen), vol. IX, no. 6 (1925).
9. Ch. Hahn.
Geschichte der Ketzer im Mittelalter, besonders im 11, 12
und 13
Jahrhundert, nach Quellen bearbeitet, 2 vols. Stuttgart, 1845-47.
10. J. Dollinger.
Beitrage zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters. Erster Theil.
Geschichte der gnostisch-manichäischen Sekten. Munich, 1890.
11. S. Runciman.
The Medieval Manichee. Cambridge, Mass., 1955.
12. J. J. Herzog.
Abriss der gesamten Kirchengeschichte. Bd. I, Abt. 2.
Die römisch-katholische Kirche des Mittelalters. Erlangen, 1890.
13. M. Beer.
Allgemeine Geschichte des Sozialismus und der sozialen Kämpfe. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation,
Vseobshchaia istoriia sotsializma i sotsial'noi bor'by, Moscow-Leningrad, 1927.) ,
14. H. Grundmann.
Ketzergeschichte des Mittelalters. Gottingen, 1963.
15. M. Erbstösser and E. E. Werner.
ldeologische Probleme des mittelalterlichen Plebejertums. Berlin, 1960.
[301]
16. T. Buttner and E. Werner.
Circumcellionen und Adamiten. Berlin, 1959.
17. M. Erbstösser.
Sozialreligiöse Strömungen im späten Mittelalter. Berlin, 1970.
18. Herbert Grundmann.
Religiöse Bewegungen im Mittelalter. Berlin, 1935.
19. J. Macek.
Tabor v gusitskom revoliutsionnom dvizhenii (Tabor in the Hussite Revolutionary Movement, in Russian; original in Czech), vol. 2. Moscow, 1959.
20. M. M. Smirin.
Narodnaia reformatsiia Tomasa Miuntsera i
velikaia krest'ianskaia voina (The Popular Reformation of Thomas Müntzer
and the Great Peasant War, in Russian). Moscow, 1955.
21. J. Macek.
Gusitskoe revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie (The Hussite Revolutionary Movement, in Russian; original in Czech). Moscow, 1954.
22. L. Ranke.
Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation. Bd. II, Berlin, 1842.
23. F. Bezold.
Geschichte der deutschen Reformation. Berlin, 1886.
24. L. Keller.
Die Reformation und die älteren Reformparteien. Leipzig, 1885.
25. L. Keller.
Johann von Staupitz und die Anfänge der Reformation. Leipzig, 1888.
26. L. Keller.
Die Anfänge der Reformation und die Ketzerschulen. Berlin, 1897.
27. L. Müller.
Der Kommunismus der mährischen Wiedertäufer. Leipzig, 1927.
28.
T Müntzer. Sein Leben und seine Schriften. Ed. Otto H. Brandt. Jena, 1933.
29. L. Keller.
Geschichte der Wiedertäufer und ihres Reichs zu Münster. Münster, 1888.
30. R. Barclay.
The Inner Life of the Religious Societies of the Commonwealth. London, 1879.
31. W. D. Morris.
The Christian Origins of Social Revolt. London, 1949.
32. A. L. Morton.
The World of the Ranters. London, 1970.
33. E. Bernstein.
Sozialismus und Demokratie in der grossen englischen Revolution. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation,
Sotsializm i demokratiia v velikoi angliiskoi revoliutsii, Leningrad, 1924.)
34. G. Weingarten.
Revolutionskirchen Englands. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation,
Narodnaia reformatsiia v Anglii XVII v., Moscow, 1901.)
35. G. Winstanley.
The Law of Freedom and Other Writings. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1973.
36. H. Hollorenshaw.
The Levellers and the English Revolution. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation,
Levellery i angliiskaia revoliutsiia, Moscow, 1947.)
37. J. Krone.
Fra Dolcino und die Patarenen. Leipzig, 1844.
38. A. Hausrat.
Die Weltverbesserer im Mittelalter. Bd. III.
Die Arnoldisten. Leipzig, 1885.
[302]
39. K. Kautsky.
Vorlaufer des neueren Sozialismus, 2 vols. Bd. II.
Der Kommunismus in der deutschen Reformation. Stuttgart, 1913.
40. G. Adler.
Geschichte des Sozialismus und Kommunismus von Plato bis zur Gegenwart. Bd. I. Leipzig, 1920.
41. J. Dollinger.
Kirche und Kirchen: Papstum und Kirchenstaat. Munich, 1861.
42. T. More.
Utopia. (Page references are to the Russian translation,
Zolotaia kniga, stol' zhe poleznaia, kak zabavnaia, o
nailuchshem ustroistve gosudarstva i o
novom ostrove Utopii. In:
Utopicheskii roman XVI-XVII vekov, Moscow, 1971.)
43. T. Campanella.
Civitas Solis. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation,
Gorod Solntsa. In:
Utopicheskii roman XVI-XVII vekov, Moscow, 1971.)
44. D. Vairasse.
L 'Histoire des Sevarambes. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation,
Istoriia severambov. In:
Utopicheskii roman XVI-XVII vekov, Moscow, 1971.)
45.
Les Aventures de Jacques Sadeur. In:
Bibliothèque des voyages imaginaires, vol. XXIV. Paris, 1787-89.
46. Fenelon.
Les A ventures de Telemaque. In:
Oeuvres completes, v. VI. Paris, 1851.
47.
La République des Philosophes ou l'histoire des Ajaoiens. Ouvrage posthume de M. de Fontenelle. Geneva, 1768.
48. Restif de la Bretonne.
La Decouverte australe par un homme volant ou le Dedale français: nouvelle tres philosophique. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation,
Iuzhnoe otkrytie, sdelannoe letaiushchim chelovekom, ili Frantsuzskii Dedal: chresvychaino filosofskaia povest', Moscow-Leningrad, 1936.)
49. Jean Meslier.
Testament. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation,
Zaveshchanie, 3 vols. Moscow, 1954.)
50. Morelly.
Le Code de la nature ou le Véritable Esprit de ses lois de tout temps négligé ou méconnu. (Quotations refer to Russian translation,
Kodeks prirody ili dukh ee zakonov, Moscow, 1947.)
51. V. P. Vol gin.
Razvitie obshchestvennoi mysli vo Frantsii v XVIII veke (The Development of Social Thought in France in the XVIII Century, in Russian). Moscow, 1958.
52. D. Diderot.
Sobranie sochinenii (Works, in Russian), 10 vols. Moscow-Leningrad, 1935-47, vol. II.
53. Dom Léger Marie Deschamps.
La Vérité ou le Véritable Système. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation,
Istina ili istinnaia sistema, Moscow, 1973.)
54. S. Vasil'ev. vvedenie" ("Introduction," in Russian) to an earlier Russian edition of Deschamps' book. Baku, 1930.
55. P. Buonarroti.
Conspiration pour l'egalite. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation,
Zagovor vo imia ravenstva, 2 vols., Moscow, 1963.)
56. L. Baudin.
Les Incas du Perou. Paris, 1947.
57. R. Karsten.
Das Altperuanische Inkareich. Leipzig, 1949.
58. Garcilaso de la Vega.
Comentarios reales de los Incas. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation,
Istoriia gosudarstva inkov, Leningrad, 1974.)
[303]
59. H. Cunow.
Geschichte und Kultur des Inkareiches. Amsterdam, 1937.
60. C. Lugon.
La République communiste chrétienne des Guaranis. Paris, 1949.
61. G. Otruba.
Der Jesuitenstaat im Paraguay. Idee und Wirklichkeit. Vienna, 1962.
62. P. Lafargue.
Der Jesuitenstaat im Paraguay. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation,
Iezuitskie respubliki, St. Petersburg, 1904.)
63. V. V. Sviatlovskii.
Kommunisticheskoe gosudarstvo iezuitov
v Paragvae v XVII i XVIII st. (The Communist State of the Jesuits in
Paraguay in the XVII-XVIII Centuries, in Russian). Petrograd, 1924.
64. A. Kirchenheim.
Geschichte der Dichtung vom besten Staate. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation,
Vechnaia utopiia, St. Petersburg, 1902.)
65. A. I. Tiumenev.
Gosudarstvennoe khoziastvo drevnego Shumera (The Economy of Ancient Sumer, in Russian). Moscow-Leningrad, 1956.
66. I. M. D'iakonov.
Obshchestvennyi i gosudarstvennyi stroi drevnego Dvurech'ia. Shumer (The Social and State System of Ancient Mesopotamia. Sumer, in Russian). Moscow, 1959.
67. A. Deimel.
Sumerische Tempelwirtschaft zur Zeit Urukaginas und seiner Vorläufer. Rome, 1931.
(Analecta Orientalia, no. 2.)
68. R. McAdams.
The Evolution of Urban Society. Early Mesopotamia and Prehistoric Mexico. Chicago, 1966.
69. I. J. Gelb. "From Freedom to Slavery. Gesellschaftsklassen im alten Zweistromland und in den angrenzenden Gebieten." In:
XVIII Recontre assyrologique internationale. München, 29
Juni-3 Juli 1970. Bayerische Akademie der Wisenschaften. Philosophisch-Historisch Klasse. Abhandlungen (Neue Folge), Heft 75, pp. 81-92.
70. I. J. Gelb. "Prisoners of War in Early Mesopotamia."
Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol. 32, nos. 1-2 (January-April, 1973).
71. J. Pirenne.
Histoire des institutions etdu droit prive de l'ancienne Egypte, vols. I-III. Brussels, 1932-35.
72. Ed. Meyer.
Geschichte des Altertums. Bd. I, Abt. II. Stuttgart-Berlin, 1926.
73. H. Kees.
Ägypten. Munich, 1933.
74. S. Dairaines.
Un socialisme d'Etat quinze siècles avant Jésus-Christ. Paris, 1934.
75. A. M. Hocart.
Kingship. London, 1927.
76. J. Engnell.
Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East. Uppsala, 1943.
77. H. Maspero.
La Chine Antique. Paris, 1927.
78. Kuo Mo-jo (Guo Mo-ruo).
Bronzovyi vek (The Bronze Age, in Russian; original in Chinese). Moscow, 1959.
79. Kuo Mo-jo (Guo Mo-ruo).
Epokha rabovladel'cheskogo stroia (The Period of the Slave-Owning Social Structure, in Russian; original in Chinese). Moscow, 1956.
80. M. Kokin and G. Papaian.
"Tsin' Tian '. "
Agranyi stroi drevnego Kitaia ("Chün-T'ien." The Agrarian Structure of Ancient China, in Russian). Leningrad, 1930.
[304]
81. L. I. Duman.
Ocherki drevnei istorii Kitaia (Essays on Ancient Chinese History, in Russian). Leningrad, 1938.
82. L. S. Perelomov.
Imperiia Tsin'(The Ch'in Empire, in Russian). Moscow, 1962.
83. H. Frankfort.
The Birth of Civilization in the Near East. New York, 1956.
84. Shang Yang.
Kniga pravitelia oblasti Shan (Book of the Ruler of Shang, in Russian; original in Chinese). Moscow, 1968.
85.
Qcherki po istorii Kitaia (Essays on Chinese History, in Russian). Ed. by Shang Yü-erh. Moscow, 1959.
86. K. Marx. "Formy, predshestvuiushchie kapitalisticheskomu
proizvodstvu" ("Forms Preceding Capitalist Production," in Russian). In:
Proletarskaia revoliutsiia, 1939, no. 3.
87.
Vestnik drevnei istorii, 1940, no. 1.
88.
Problemy dokapitalisticheskikh obshchestv v stranakh
Vostoka (Problems of pre-Capitalist Societies in the Countries of the
Orient, in Russian). Moscow, 1971.
89. K. Wittfogel.
Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power. New Haven, Conn., 1957.
90. F. Heichelheim.
An Ancient Economic History, v. I. Leiden, 1958.
91. Ed. Meyer.
Kleine Schriften. Bd. I. Halle, 1924.
92. F. Dostoevskii.
Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (Collected Works, in Russian). 30 vols. Leningrad, 1972-.
93. M. V. Shchekin.
Kak zhit' po novomu (How to Live in the New Way, in Russian). Kostroma, 1925.
94. D. Koigen.
Zur Vorgeschichte des modernen philosophischen Sozialismus in Deutschland. Bern, 1901.
95.
Michail Bakunins sozial-politischer Briefwechsel mit Alexander Ivanovitsch Herzen. Stuttgart, 1895.
96. M. Pokrovskii.
Ocherki po istorii revoliutsionnogo
dvizheniia v Rossii XIX i XX v. v. (Essays on the History of the
Revolutionary Movement in Russia in the Nineteenth and Twentieth
Centuries, in Russian). Moscow, 1924.
97. Charles Fourier.
La Theorié des quatre mouvements et des destinées générales. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation,
Teoriia chetyrekh dvizhenii i vseobshchikh sudeb. In:
Izbrannye sochineniia, vol. I, Moscow, 1938.)
98. F. Engels.
Anti-Dühring. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation,
Anti-Diuring, Moscow, 1965.)
99.
Osnovy marksizma (The Foundations of Marxism, in Russian). Samizdat, 1971.
100. S. Bulgakov.
Karl Marks kak religioznyi tip (Karl Marx as a Religious Type, in Russian). Moscow, 1911.
101. K. Jaspers.
Möglichkeiten eines neuen Humanismus. Rechenschaft und Ausblick. Munich, 1951.
[305]
102. N. Bukharin.
Ekonomika perekhodnogo perioda (The Economic Structure of the Transitional Period, in Russian). Moscow, 1920.
103. K. Kautsky.
Von der Demokratie zu der Staats-Sklaverei. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Trotzki. (Quotations refer to Russian translation,
Ot demokratii k gosudarstvennomu rabstvu. [Otvet Trotskomu].) Berlin, 1921.
104. W. S. Schlamm.
Die jungen Herren der alten Erde (Vom neuen Stil der Macht). Stuttgart, 1962.
105.
XIII s"ezd RKP(b) (The Thirteenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party). Moscow, 1924.
106. N. Valentinov. "Piatakov i bol'shevizm" ("Piatakov and Bolshevism," in Russian). In:
Novyi zhurnal (New York), no. 52, 1958.
107. R. Chauvin.
De l'abeille au gorille. (Quotations refer to Russian translation,
Ot pchely do gorilly, Moscow, 1965.)
108. K. Jaspers.
Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte. Zurich, 1949.
109. V. S. Solov'ev (Soloviev).
Sobranie sochinenii v desiati tomakh (Collected Works, in Russian). 10 vols. St. Petersburg, 1911.
110. S. Bulgakov.
Khristianstvo i sotsializm (Christianity and Socialism, in Russian). Moscow, 1917.
111. B. P. Koz'min.
Nechaev i nechaevtsy (Nechaev and the Nechaevists, in Russian). Moscow-Leningrad, 1931.
112. D. Riazanov. "Marks i Engels o brake i sem'e" ("Marx and Engels on Marriage and the Family," in Russian). In:
Letopisi marksizma, v. III, 1927.
113. V. I. Lenin.
Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (Collected Works, in Russian), fifth edition. 55 vols. Moscow, 1958-65.
114. C. Hugo.
Der Sozialismus in Frankreich im XVII und XVIII Jahrhundert. (Quotations refer to Russian translation,
Sotsializm vo Frantsii v XVII i XVIII stoletiiakh, Ivanovo-Voznesensk, 1924.)
115. S. Bulgakov.
Pervokhristianstvo i noveishii sotsializm (Early Christianity and Modern Socialism, in Russian). Moscow, 1911.
116. S. Frank. "Etika nigilizma" ("The Ethics of Nihilism," in Russian). In:
Vekhi (Landmarks), Moscow, 1909.
117. G. Le Bon.
Psychologie du socialisme. (Quotations refer to Russian translation,
Psikhologiia sotsializma, St. Petersburg, 1908.)
118. W. Gurian.
Der Bolschewismus. Freiburg, 1931.
119. H. Marcuse.
Eros and Civilization. A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud. Boston, 1955.
120.
IX s"ezd RKP(b) (Ninth Congress of the Russian Communist Party). Moscow, 1920.
121. L. Trotskii.
Terrorizm i kommunizm. Anti-Kautskii (Terrorism and Communism. Anti-Kautsky, in Russian). 1920. (Quotations taken from 103, which is a response to 121.)
122. A. M. Kollontai.
Novaia moral' i rabochii klass (The New Morals and the Working Class, in Russian). Moscow, 1919.
123. G. Grigorov and S. Shkotov.
Staryi i novyi byt (The Old and the New Way of Life, in Russian). Moscow-Leningrad, 1927.
[306]
124. I. Il'inskii.
Pravo i byt (The Way of Life and the Law, in Russian). Leningrad, 1925.
125.
Sem'ia i byt (The Family and the Way of Life, in Russian). Collection of essays compiled by A. Adol'f, B. Boichevskii, V. Stroev, and M. Shishkevich. Moscow, 1927.
126.
Vserossiiskii Tsentral 'nyi Ispolnitel 'nyi Komitet XII
sozyva. Vtoraia sessia (stenograficheskii otchet) (All-Russian Central
Executive Committee. Second Session of the XII Congress. [Stenographic record]). Moscow, 1925.
127. M. N. Liadov.
Voprosy byta (About the Way of Life, in Russian). Moscow, 1925.
128. S. Ia. Vol'fson.
Sotsiologiia braka i sem'i (Sociology of Marriage and the Family, in Russian). Minsk, 1929.
129. A. Borovoi.
Obshchestvennye idealy sovremennogo chelovechestva (Social Ideals of Contemporary Mankind, in Russian). Moscow, 1927.
130. Brothers Gordin.
Sotsiologiia i sotsiotekhnika (Sociology and Sociotechnology, in Russian). Petrograd, 1918.
131. E. Enchmen.
Vosemnadtsat' tezisov o teorii novoi biologii (Eighteen Theses on the Theory of the New Biology, in Russian). Piatigorsk, 1920.
132. A. Stoliarov.
Dialekticheskii materializm i mekhanisty (Dialectical Materialism and the Mechanists, in Russian). Leningrad, 1929.
133. B. Arvatov.
Iskusstvo i proizvodstvo (Art and Production, in Russian). Moscow, 1926.
134. Rogovin. "Problema tvorcheskogo metoda v
ideino-khudozhestvennoi bor'be 20-kh g.g." ("The Issue of Creative
Method in the Ideological and Artistic Debates of the 1920s," in
Russian.) In:
Voprosy estetiki, Moscow, 1971, no. 9.
135. K. Kautsky.
Ein Brief über Marx und Mach. Der Kampf Vienna, 1909. Bd.2.
136. S. Minin. "Filosofiiu za bort" ("Throwing Philosophy Overboard," in Russian). In:
Pod znamenem marksizma, 1922, nos. 5-6.
137. P. Blonskii.
Sovremennaiafilosofiia (Contemporary Philosophy). Moscow, 1918.
138. I. V. Stalin.
Ekonomicheskie problemy sotsializma (Economic Problems of Socialism, in Russian). Moscow, 1952.
139. A. Toynbee.
An Historian's Approach to Religion. London, 1956.
140. K. Jaspers.
Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte. Zurich, 1949.
141: L. Mumford.
The Myth of the Machine. New York, 1962.
142. M. Walser.
"Über die neusten Stimmungen im Westen." In:
Kursbuch, Bd. 20, 1970, S. 19-41.
143. Ph. Gavi, J.-P. Sartre, P. Victor.
On a raison de se revolter. Paris, 1974.
144. K. Lorenz.
Das sogenannte Bose. Vienna, 1963.
145. H. M. Enzensberger. "Baukasten zu einer Theorie der Medien." In:
Kursbuch, Bd. 20, 1970, S. 159-186.
146.
Letopisi marksizma (Annals of Marxism, in Russian), v. III, 1927. '
147. Jerry Rubin.
Do It! (Scenario of the Revolution). New York, 1970.
148. J. Eibl-Eibesfeldt.
Grundriss der vergleichenden Verhaltensforschung. Munich, 1967.
[307]
149. A. P. Elkin.
The Australian Aborigines. Sydney-London, 1938. (Russian translation, Moscow, 1952.)
150. G. Childe.
What Happened in History. London, 1942.
151. Iu. Steklov.
Mikhail Bakunin (in Russian), v. III. Moscow-Leningrad, 1927.
152. K. Kautsky.
Terrorismus und Kommunismus. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation,
Terrorizm i kommunizm, Berlin, 1919.)
153. S.-H. Saint-Simon.
Izbrannye sochineniia (Selected Works, in Russian), vol. I. Moscow-Leningrad, 1948.
154. A. S. Izgoev. "Ob intelligentnoi molodezhi" ("On the Youthful Intelligentsia," in Russian). In:
Vekhi (Landmarks), Moscow, 1909.
155.
Byloe, no. I, July, 1917. (In Russian.)
156. I. R. Shafarevich. "Socialism in Our Past and Future." In:
From Under the Rubble. Ed. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Boston: Little, Brown, 1975. (Russian edition published in Paris, 1974.)
157. F. M. Dostoevskii.
Sobranie sochinenii (Works, in Russian), 10 vols. Moscow, 1956-58, vol. IX.
158. H. Oldenberg.
Buddha, sein Leben, seine Lehre, seine Gemeinde. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation,
Budda, ego zhizn', uchenie i obshchina, Moscow, 1884.)
159. S. Radhakrishnan.
Indian Philosophy, vol. I. New York and London, 1923.
160.
The Elder Edda. (Russian translation, Moscow-Leningrad, 1963.)
161. M. Stirner.
Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum. (Russian translation, St. Petersburg, 1909.)
162. M. Heidegger.
Sein und Zeit. Halle an der Saale, 1929.
163. M. Heidegger.
Holzwege. Frankfurt am Main, 1950.
164. J.-P. Sartre.
L 'Être et le Néant. Paris, 1943.
165. M. Heidegger.
Nietzsche. Bd. II. Berlin, 1961.
166. J. Dembowski.
Psikhologiia zhivotnykh (Psychology of Animals, in Russian; original in Polish). Moscow, 1959.
167. R. Stammler.
Wirtschaft und Recht nach der materialistischen Geschichtsauffassung, 2nd ed. Berlin-Leipzig, 1906.
168.
Aggression und Anpassung in der Industriegesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main, 1969.
[308]
Index
A
Absolute pessimism concept, 286, 289
Adamite sect, 31-33, 67-68, 75
Adventures of Telemachus, The (Fénelon), 104
Agriculture: in Ch'in empire, 181; Code of Nature, 111;
post-revolutionary Russia and, 239-241, 252; Shang-teaching, 176-178; in
socialist novels, 104-105; in Sumer, 154-155, 157, 159; in Utopia, 83; Yin era, China, 168-171
Agrodespotic state, 192 n.
Ajaoiens, 104-105
Albigensian sect, 19, 67, 69, 73, 77
Altman, I., 251
Amalrician sect, 67, 78
Amalric of Bena, 25-26
American sects, 80, 197, 268
Anabaptist sect, 34-40; destructive elements, 275; as forerunner of
socialism, 78, 197, 214; in Münster, 59-66; name and origin, 67, 69-71;
violence and fanaticism, 37-40, 60-66, 73, 265
Anarchism, 215, 248-249, 267
Ancient Kingdom. See Egypt
Ancient Orient socialist states, 152-185, 196,202; and ideology, 272; summary, 189-192,255. See also "Asiatic Social Formation"
Animal societies, 264-265, 269, 271-272; and instinct, 297
Anonymous society, 265, 269
Anthropology of socialism, 227-234
Antichrist, 25, 27, 29, 46, 48
Anti-Dühring (Engels), 208-209, 212-213
Anti-cultural theme, 178, 184-185, 196-197, 233, 265-266; post-revolutionary Russia, 248-251
Antiquity: labor population, 190; and socialism, 3-18, 78. See also China, ancient; Egypt; Mesopotamia
Apostolic Brethren, 29, 46-50, 67, 71
Aristophanes, 3-4, 6, 14-15
Arts, 2; 18th-century novels, 105-106; Enlightenment literature, 111,
119, 121; in ideal socialist state, 269; of New Left, 233; in Plato's Republic, 9-10, 265; in post-revolutionary Russia, 248, 250-251; Utopians and, 85. See also Anti-cultural theme
Arvatov, B., 250
"Asiatic Social Formation," xi, 185-189, 207,256-257; basic features, 187-188
Atheism: Deschamps and, 115-117; Levellers, 45-46; as "religion" of
socialism, 130, 196, 225, 233-234; socialism as result of, 234-235
Australian aborigines, 205, 273
"Axial time," 255-257
Ayala, Guamán Poma de, 136, 139-140
Aztecs, 205
B
Babeuf, François Emile, 121, 124, 212
Bakunin, M., 186 n., 203, 215, 219, 223; confession of, 294; destruction and terror theme, 212, 275-279
Baptism, 68-70, 75
Baptists, 70, 80
Barilotto, 27, 42
Batenburg, 40
Bau temple, 153-155, 155 n.
Baudin, L., 141-142, 264
Bazarov, V. A., 226
Beehive analogy, 218, 269
[309]
Beghards and Beguines, 28-29, 67, 71
Being concept, 291
Berdiaev, Nikolai, 226, 295-296
Bernard de Clairvaux, Saint, 23, 70
Berlin's Commune No.1, 236, 269
Birthrates, 274
Black masses, 68
Blacks, in America, 203, 300
Blonsky, P. P., 251
Bogomil heresy, 19, 68-69
Bohemia, 29-34, 37, 71
Bokelson, Jan (Johann of Leyden), 40-41, 197, 294; life of, 59-66
Bolsheviks, 213, 217-218, 277-279
Bonding theory, 264-265
Book burning and destruction, 31, 119, 184-185
Bourgeois society. See Marxism Brethren of the Free Spirit, 24,
47; doctrines, 26-29, 41, 69, 76-77; origins, 69, 254; sexual practices,
27-28, 42; and socialist aspects, 28, 32-33, 35, 78, 236
Brik, Osip, 250
Bruys, Pierre de (Peter), 21, 69-70
Buddha, 286-288
Buddhism, 255, 286-288
Bukharin, Nikolai, 212, 243, 250, 294
Bulgakov, Sergius, 7-8, 208, 210, 220; on Marxism, 295-296; on socialism as religion, 225-226, 233
Buonarroti, Philippe, 121, 124, 128-129
Bureaucracy: ancient Egyptian, 162-164; Ch'in empire, 180; in "Equals" state, 122; Inca empire, 138-139
Burial customs, 120, 139-140, 198
C
Campanella, Tommaso, 87-88, 100, 112, 124, 197; City of the Sun, xiii, 87-95, 238, 254, 256, 259, 300; criticism of church, 94-95, 129; and socialist ideals, 237, 285
Capital (Marx), 207-211, 229, 266-268
Capitalism, bourgeois society, 5, 242-243, 250; compared with socialism,
216-219; Marxism and, 202, 212-213; polarization of sexes, 263; and
social justice, 225
Carpocratian sect, 15
Cathars, 19-25,28,73,75,77-78; and charity, 221; death notion, 279-280, 283; dualism, 297-298; origins, 69-71, 254
Catholic Church: Campanella and, 94; and charity, 221; Dostoyevsky on,
234-235, 285; and Italian fascism, 253; medieval heresies and, 18,
21-38, 72-75, 196; More and, 87. See also Inquisition; Reformation period
Censorship, 9-10, 123
Charlevoix, P. F. X. de, 145-146, 148, 150
Chernyshevsky, N. G., 222
Childbearing, 12,20,22,91-92,246
Children: communal upbringing, 80, 87; destruction of parental ties, 4,
12, 15-17,118-119,179,195,236,270-271; in Enlightenment literature, 111,
113, 118; in "Equals," 123; Fourier on, 228; heretical doctrines on,
37, 68-69; Inca empire, 137-138, 141-142; in Jesuit state, 150; in
post-revolutionary Russia, 240-241,244-248; in socialist novel, 103-105;
Solarians and, 91; state regulation and upbringing, 5, 89-92; 269-271;
and Ur, 159
Chiliasm, 3
Chiliastic socialism, 3-130; ancient Greece, 7-15; contradictions, 295;
definition and doctrines, 3-6; early Christianity, 15-17; English
Revolution era, 41-46; Enlightenment literature, 106-120; "Equals" in
France, 121-129; heretical movements link to, 67-79; Hussite movement,
29-34; Middle Ages, 18-29; new features of, 129-130; Reformation period,
34-41; 17th and 18th-century novels, 101-106; State socialism,
differences with, 236, 253-257; Utopians, 82-101; violence, loss of, 80,
81 n.; vision of future society, 254, 257
China, ancient: Ch'in empire, 180-185; labor population, 190; Shang teachings, 173-180; Yin and early Chou era, 168-172
China, contemporary, 252-253, 262, 296
Ch'in empire, 179-185
Christ, 223; Christian beliefs, 74-76; Dostoyevsky on society without,
234-235, 285; "Equals" disagreement on, 124; medieval heresies and, 19,
21, 25-44, 75; Meslier hatred for, 107, 130; temptation of, 220
Christianity: Campanella on, 94-95; decline, 234-235; early sects,
15-17; end-of-world concept, 281; fundamental principle of, 74, 76;
individuality concept, 255-256; medieval heresies and, 17-34,196;
Meslier on, 107, 130; Reformation and, 34-41; socialism as reaction to,
256; socialist ideology and, 79; in Utopia, 87; Winstanley on, 45
City of the Sun (Campanella), 87-95; and identity, 259; isolation of society, 238; sexual regulation, 91
Class struggle, 229-230, 262-263
[310]
Clothing, identical, 4, 269; Anabaptists, 36-37; characteristic of
socialist society, 259,267,269; Incas, 136, 141;Jesuit state Indians,
149; in Morelly's Code of Nature, 111; Sevarites, 103; Solarians, 90-91; Utopians, 84, 259
Code of Nature, The (Morelly), 111-112, 114; and identicalness, 259
Collectivization of agriculture, 239-240, 247,252
Communality idea: and abolition of private property, 195; anti-cultural
bias, 196-197; Aristophanes on, 4; in Buonarroti's society, 122; of
children in City of the Sun, 91; Christians, early, 15-16;
English sects, 41-44; heretical sects and, 35-39,
47-48,57,60-63,67,78-79; in Jesuit state, 145-146; and Marxism, 5; of
men and women, 118; in Republic and Diodorus, 11, 14; 17th and
18th-century literature, 102-105, 108, 118; as slogan, 213; as socialist
principle, 196, 200, 257. See also Private property; Wives; Women
Communes, 43, 103, 123-124, 181, 199; China, 252-253; post-revolutionary Russia, 239-240, 247-248
Communism, 87,195,213-214
Communist Manifesto, xiii, 4-6, 195, 244
Compulsory labor: Anabaptists, 37; in ancient China, 170, 177, 179,
182-183, 189-190; ancient Egypt, 162, 189; ancient Greeks, 4,13-14; and
conscription, 189, 241-243; "Equals" on, 122; Incas, 135; Jesuit state,
146, 150; and meaning of socialism, 215; Mesopotamia, 153-155,
158-161,189-190; Morelly on, 111; post-revolutionary Russia, 240-243;
socialist novel on, 103, 105; Utopians, 83, 85, 90; Winstanley on,
96-97, 99. See also Communes; Work and workers
Concubines, 137-138, 141
Confucianism, 172, 185, 255 Conspiracy of Equals (Buonarroti), xiii, 121-129
Consolamentum (consolation), 22
Counter Reformation, 75
Craftwork and artisanship: ancient China, 170,177-178,182,190; ancient
Egypt, 165, 190; Mesopotamia, 154, 157-158, 163,165,190; Morelly on,
111; Plato on, 8,13-14; socialist novels, 104-105; South American
societies, 135, 147, 190
Credenti, 21-22
Crime and Punishment (Dostoyevsky), 199
Crimes and punishment: ancient China, 172,174-175,179,183,191; "Equals"
on, 123; Incas, 139-140; Jesuits, 145-146; Utopians, 83, 90, 92-93, 97,
99. See also Laws
Critique of Political Economy (Marx), 207
Cromwell, Oliver, 42-43, 45, 96 Culture.
See Anti-cultural theme
D
Death: Cathar doctrine, 22-23; Deschamps on, 114, 120; Diodorus'
communes, 15; Incas, 139-140; Plato on, 9-10, 13; and socialist
ideology, 275-276. See also Extinction of mankind theme; Self-destructive impulse; Suicide
Death instinct, 282-285, 292, 297
Denck, Hans, 36, 39
Descartes, Rene, 293
Deschamps, Dom L. G., 114-120, 198,215; on God, 114-116, 130; on
leveling of man, 260; and Plato, 254; three stages of man, 117-120
Destruction of existing society theme, xii, 3, 78, 130, 217-225,
237-238; injustice and suffering, 221-225; and revolutionary movements,
275-277; tendency of chiliastic socialism, 254, 257
Dialectics, 210, 277, 280-281, 295
Diary of a Writer, The (Dostoyevsky), 234, 285
Diderot, Denis, 112-114, 142
Diggers, 43-46, 95
Diodorus, 15
Divorce, 247-248. See also Marriage customs
Dolcino, Fra, 29, 47-50, 73,197,214
Dostoyevsky, F. M., 129, 198-199,267, 269; Crime and Punishment, 199; Diary of a Writer, The, 234, 285; on failure of Catholicism and socialism, 234-235, 285; "Grand Inquisitor," 285; Possessed, The, 129, 198, 267
Dualism, 297-298
E
East, ancient. See Ancient Orient socialist states
East Africa, 191, 201
Ecclesiazusae (Aristophanes), 3-4, 6; compared with Republic, 14-15, 198
Economic systems: ancient China, 168-185; ancient Egypt, 162-165, 173;
ancient Sumer, 152-161, 173; Asiatic Mode of Production, 185-189;
contemporary China, 252-253; Incas, 133-142; Jesuit state, 142-151; King
as center of, 189-192; Soviet Russia, 239-241, 252; state capitalism
concept, 216, 239
[311]
Education: in Ch'in empire, 184-185; Deschamps on, 119; "Equals" on,
122-123; Inca children, 139; Marxism on, 5; Plato on, 9, 11-12;
socialist novels, 103-106; Winstanley on, 101
Ego and His Own, The (Stirner), 290-291
Egypt, 142, 161, 173, 192; Ancient Kingdom, 162-164, 190-191; compulsory
labor, 215; 18th Dynasty, 164-165; machine analogy, 261-262; religion,
166-167
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, J., 271
Elder Edda, 289
"Elect" (Inca civilization), 137-138
Enchmen, E., 249-250
Encyclopédie, 112, 142, 197
Endura, 22
Engels, Friedrich, 5, 33, 195; on Asiatic Mode of Production, 186; on
family, 243-245; on Fourier and Saint-Simon, 204; on justice, 212; on
Marxist contradictions, 211 n., on mobilization of workers, 241; reviews
of Capital, 267-268; on revolution, 238; and scientific method, 208-210. See also Marx-Engels correspondence
English Revolution of 1648, 41-46, 73, 95
Enlightenment literature, 81 n., 106-120; on equality and nature, 259; on Jesuit state, 151
Enzensberger, H. M., 266
Epiphanes, 15-16, 236
Equality concept: Christian doctrine and socialism, 79; Deschamps on,
118; early Christian sects, 16-17; "Equals" social aim, 121; as
identical behavior, 258-261; in socialist novels, 104-106; socialist
principle, 196,200,219; and suppression of individuality, 262; in Utopia, 85-86
Equals, Society of, 121-129, 238; dispute over religion, 124; and
identical lives, 259-260; naivete and inanity, 129,267; transitional
period, 124-127
Escadón, Juan de, 145-146, 150
Ethology, 264-265, 297
Europe: and nihilism, 291-293; and socialism, 200, 234-235. See also Western Europe
Existentialism, 114-115,291
Extinction of mankind theme, 274-285; self-destructive impulse, 286-300
F
Fadeyev, A., 250
Familist sect, 41
Family: abolition of: American sects, 80; actual realization of,
236-237, 253; ancient Orient, 179, 183; Aristophanes on, 4,6; and
identical behavior, 258-261; Incas, 136-137; and individuality, 262;
Marxist theory on, 5-6, 243-245; medieval heresies, 23, 28, 67,76-77;
and over-population, 253; Plato on, 12; post-revolutionary Russia,
245-248; socialist principle, 195, 200, 257; Utopians and, 87, 98. See also Marriage customs
Fénelon, 104
Feuerbach, Ludwig, 114,294
Foigny, Gabriel de, 103
Fontenelle, 104-105
Food, 11-12, 15, 147, 240
"Forerunners" notion, 197, 214
Forest Brethren, 268
Fourier, Charles, 215, 219, 224, 245, 249; compared to Marxism, 204,
210, 211; and Freud, 228-229, 230-231; inevitable death theme, 280-281;
on instinct and passions, 227-228; on irresponsibility, 266-267; Marcuse
on, 6; planet theory and socialist teachings, 204-206, 256; sincerity
of, 205, 205 n.; "Unitheism," 262
France, 24, 296, 300; Dostoyevsky on, 234; in "Equals," 124, 238
Frank, Semyon, 226
Freedom of will, 20, 115,229,300
Free Spirits. See Brethren of the Free Spirit
Freudian theory, 298; death instinct, 292, 297; human personality concept, 228-231; influence on Marcuse, 263-264, 281-282
Fromm, Erich, 277
G
Germany, 69, 129; and medieval heresies, 27,34,37-40,51-66,74; Nazi lebensborn, 253
Gnostic heresies, 68, 75, 77, 236; and equality, 258; socialist aspects, 254, 256. See also Manichean sects
God: in Buddhism, 288; Cathar beliefs, 19-21,75-76; Deschamps on,
115-117,130; Fourier on, 228; Incas and, 135, 137-138; and individual
man, 267; king worship, 166-168; manicheism and, 68, 76; medieval
heresies and, 25-27, 30, 37, 41; Meslier on, 107-108; Ranters, 141-142;
and Socialism, 234-235; Winstanley's idea of, 101
"God-building" tendency, 226
Gorky, M., 226
"Grand Inquisitor" (Dostoyevsky), 285, 285 n.
[312]
Great Wall of China, 182
Greece, 3-15, 78, 190; human personality concept, 255
Guarani Indians, 143-151,274
Guilds, 81 n., 190
H
Hartlib, Samuel, 46
Hartmann, Eduard von, 290, 299
Hartmann, Johann, 26-27
Hawaiian Islands, 191-192, 201
Hegel, G. W., 114, 210
Heichelheim, F., xi, 189-192
Heidegger, M., 291
Heinrichians, 69
Heretical sects. See Gnostic heresies; Manichean sects; Medieval heresies
Hetzer, 36
Hide, Edward, 42
Hierarchies: animal societies, 265; bureaucratic in socialist state,
261; Incas, 138-139; medieval heresies, 22, 28, 77; Meslier on, 107;
socialism and abolition of, 196, 200
Historical materialism, 185-189
History, concepts of: ancient Chinese, 180; "axial time," 255;
Deschamps's three stages of, 117-118; and dualism, 297-298; evolutionary
progress idea, 130; Freudian view, 230; Heichelheim thesis, xi; iron
laws of, 266; Joachim of Flore view, 25; Morelly's basic force of, 112;
socialist view of, 226
History of the Sevarites (Vairasse), 102-103, 238
"Homines Intelligentia," 28, 33
Homosexuality, 117, 232
Housing arrangements: Anabaptists, 37; Aristophanes, on, 4,198; free
entry, 198-199; Incas, 133, 141, 199; Jesuit reductions, 148-149;
Marxism, 5; Plato on, 11, 198-199; for the poor in "Equals," 126-127,
127 n.; post-revolutionary Russian dormitory, 199,247-248; privacy vs. equality, 199, 259; Utopians, 85, 198, 259; Winstanley's society, 100
Humanism, 27-28, 81 n.
Human personality, concepts of, 227-233; and "axial time," 255-256;
death of mankind idea, 293-294; leveling down of, xiii, 233, 260;
Marcuse on, 231-233; Marx on, xiv; in religion, 233, 255;
post-revolutionary Russian literature, 250-251; in socialist ideology,
227-231. See also Individuality
Human sacrifice, 134, 138
Hussite movement, 29, 71, 73; wars, 33-34
Hut, Hans, 36, 39
Hydraulic societies, 191-192, 201
I
Iconoclasm, 75-76, 95. See also Medieval heresies
Identicality, xiii, 119-120, 198,258-262
Ideology of socialism: coincidences and conservatism, 197-201; and
contradictions, xiii-xv; definition and basic principles, 194-197, 200,
236-237; delusive quality, 295-296, 299; dependence on Christianity, 79;
different conceptions of, 202-235; in Enlightenment and Utopian
writings, 129-130; goal of, 285, 285 n.; and human extinction idea,
274-285; identicality vs. equality, 258-261; and implementation
of, 272-275; and instinct, 296-297; model of ideal society, 269; party
character and, 216-217; reconciliation of doctrine and practice,
236-257; self-destructive impulse and socialist organization, 286-300;
and social justice, 221-225; suppression of individuality, 262; terror
and violent aspects of, 275-279. See also State socialism
Ilyin, Captain, 268
Inca empire, 113 n., 133-142, 144, 192, 197,201; and birthrate, 274;
class structure and peasant life, 134-137,215, 246; collapse of,
141-142; crime and punishment, 139-140; isolation, 238; More's Utopia and, 142, 198; standardization, 141, 264
Individual bonding, 264
Individuality, 255-256, 300; Heidegger on, and death, 291; and
identicality, 258-263; Marx on, xiv-xv; socialist hostility to, 262-265;
Soloviev on, 299; suppression of, 262, 269, 272-285, 294
Informers, xiii, 175, 179
Inquisition, 47-48, 70, 75
Instinct, 227-228, 231-232, 296-298. See also Death instinct
Irrigation systems, 154-155, 171-172, 191-192
Isolation, 103, 124, 199, 238
Italy, 46-50, 253
Izgoev, A. S., 283-284
J
Jaspers, Karl, 211, 219, 255, 296
Jesuit state in Paraguay, 142-151,215,238,274
Jewish nationality question, 206
Joachim of Flore, 25-26, 46, 78, 130
[313]
Johann of Leyden. See Bokelson, Jan
Judaic Messianism, 225-226
Justice: in City of Sun, 92-93; Epiphanes on, 16; in Plato's Republic, 8; Shang on, 174. See also Social justice concept of socialism
K
Kanler, Konrad, 27
Kautsky, Karl, 214, 243, 251, 277-279
Keller, Ludwig, 69, 81 n.
Kinetic theory of gases, 260-261
Kings: centralized economic system and, 189-191; deified, 166-168, 166 n., 191, 196
Kollontai, Aleksandra, 246
Komensky, Jan (Comenius), 46
Kung-sun Yang. See Shang Yang
Kushnir, B., 250
L
Labor. See Compulsory labor; Work and workers
La Bretonne, Restif de, 105-106
La Mettrie, Julien de, 293
Land: Aristophanes on, 4; ancient China, 169-171, 177,
179,181,186-189;ancient Sumer, 153-154, 157, 161, 190; Bolsheviks on
communality, 213-214; Diggers and, 43; Egypt, 162, 165; Incas, 135;
Jesuit state, 145-146; post-revolutionary Russia, 239-240; Winstanley's
scheme, 96
Language, 119, 144, 172, 260
Lao-tse, 288
Lassalle, F., 208, 225
Law of Freedom, The (Winstanley), xiii, 95-101
Laws (Plato), 7, 15
Laws: of history, 266; of Inca empire, 113, 136, 140; of Morelly's
system, 111-112; Shang reforms, 174, 179-180; and socialist party, 217. See also Crimes and punishment; Justice; Scientific socialism concept
Lebensborn, 253
Le Bon, G., 226
Left Front of the Arts (LEF), 250
Leftness, degree of, 283
"Legislator, The" (Diderot), 112-113, 142
Lenin, V. I., 224, 239, 241
L'Étoile, Eon de, 21
Levellers, 44-46
Liadov, M. N. (Mandelshtam), 246
Liberation concept, 130,254,257; Marcuse on instincts, 231-232
Libidinal rationality, 232
Lilburne, 41
Literature: 17th and 18th-century novels, 101-106; Enlightenment
writers, 106-120; in post-revolutionary Russia, 250-251; socialism's
hostility to, 265-266; Utopian socialists, 80-100
Leob's theory of tropisms, 293
Lollard sect, 41
Lorenz, Konrad, 265
Loria, A., 211 n.
Lucifer, 19-20,27-28
Lunacharsky, A., 226
Luther, Martin, 69, 71-73; and Müntzer, 51-53, 55, 57, 59
Lutherans, 40, 59-60, 69
Luxemburg, Rosa, 277
Lyons Paupers, 71
M
Machine symbol: and nature of man, 293; and socialist ideal, 261-262
Mahler, Gustav, 292
Manichean sects, 16, 18,23,67; doctrines, 68, 75, 221; dualism, 297
Mao Tse-tung, xiv, 185,203,262
Marcionites, 68
Marcuse, Herbert: death and destruction themes, 281-283; on Freudian
dualism, 292, 298; and individuality, 264; and Plato, 254; on work and
play, 6,14,231-232; synthesis of Freud and socialist ideology, 231-233,
263-264, 281-283
Marriage customs: American communal settlements, 80; Anabaptists, 35,
37-40; ancient China, Yin era, 171-172; bourgeois society, 5; Cathars,
21-24, 77; 18th-century socialist novels, 105; Incas, 137-138, 141;
Jesuit state, 149; Marxist theory, 5; medieval sects and sex, 28, 32-33;
Meslier on divorce, 109; Morelly on, 111; Plato on, 12; Ranters, 41;
post-revolutionary Russia, 243-248; Solarians, 89; Tahitians, 113;
Utopians, 85. See also Wives, as common property
Marx, Karl, xiii-xv, 251; and Asiatic Mode of Production, 186-189; on
mobilization of workers, 241; on private property, 195; and scientific
method, 204, 208-209; theory of value, 211-213, 211 n.
Marx-Engels correspondence: Capital reviews, and frivolousness,
267-268; contempt and hatred of others, 224-225, 278-279; on scientific
character of Marxism, 209-210; suffering welcomed, 223-224
Marxism: alleged Russian distortion of, 277-278; and child labor, 223; compared with Fourier, 204, 210; compared with
[314]
Marxism (cont'd)
Freudian thesis, 229-231; contradictions, 211 n., 295-296;
and family, 4-6, 244-245; and forerunner" notion, 214; on individual
man, 262; and nihilism, 277-279; and oppression of workers, 219,
223-224; predictions and errors, 206, 295-296; and problem of "Asiatic
social formation," 185-189; as reaction to Christianity, 256; and
religion, 226; as scientific theory, 203-213, 295; socialism concept,
202-203; two ineffective answers, 299-300; Wells on, 2-3
Masonic movement, 81 n.
Maspero, H., 168, 171-172
Mass movements. See Popular socialist movements; Revolutionary movements
Materialism, 6, 96, 114,219,226-227
Matthijs, Jan, 59, 61-64
Mazdak, 16-17, 203, 262
Meals, common, 269; in City of the Sun, 89; "Equals" on, 123-124; Incas, 136; post-revolutionary Russia, 240, 247-248; in Utopia, 84
Medieval heresies, 19-41; characteristics, 72-74; and communism, 87;
concentric structure, 78-79; destruction of society idea, 130, 254, 266;
and Enlightenment socialist writing, 81 n.; equality and
community, 258; hatred of church, 73-74, 196,227; ideology and origins,
67-72; kinship with socialist doctrines, 76, 78, 197; link to socialist
party, 219; naming of, 69; opposition to control, 76, 215; as reaction
to Christianity, 75, 256; secularity and loss of violence, 80-81; and
Utopian socialism, 87, 94-95; world view of, 73-77. See also names of heretical sects
Melanchthon, 56, 59
Mennonites, 70, 80
Meslier, Jean, 130, 215, 219; on equality, 258-259; on peasant suffering, 224; Testament, 106-111,283,294
Mesopotamia, 142, 152-161, 173, 190; machine analogy, 261-262; and religion, 167-168
Messalian sect, 68
Methodists, 43
Middle Ages: Christian values and goals, 74-75; heretical movements, 18-34,67-79; and sexual freedom, 27
Militarization of workers, 241-243, 252
Military organization and armies; ancient China, 171-172, 180-184, 189,
255; ancient Egypt, 165; ancient Sumer, 153, , 155; Incas and peasants,
134-135; Jesuit state Indians, 143, 151; Plato's guardians, 8-13; Shang
on, 176-177, 179; Solarians and crimes, 92-93; Winstanley's state, 99
Mine and thine concept, 104, 113, 118, 142
Minin, S., 251
Minorities, 203, 300
Money: ancient states, 190; Aristophanes on, 4; "Equals" and, 122; Inca
empire, absence of, 141; Levellers and Diggers, 43-44;
post-revolutionary Russia, 240-241,252; in Utopia, 82; Winstanley on, 96
Monism, 298
Monogamy, 44, 85, 244
Montagnards, 128
Montesquieu, C. L., Baron de, 151
Moral values: Fourier on, 227-228; Freud on, 229-230; and identicality,
260; Marcuse on, 231; medieval heresies and, 26-27,41-42,68,76; Shang
and, 176-177; socialist novel, 106; social justice and socialism,
219-220; Tahitians, 113
Moravian Brethren, 67, 77, 197,222-223
More, Thomas, 81-82, 87, 100, 102, 112, 124, 129; on crime, 222; as
forerunner of socialism, 197, 214; and Inca social system, 142, 198; and
isolation, 238; on material satisfaction, 227; Plato and, 254-256, 258;
Utopia, 82
Morelly, 111-112, 114, 124, 197; and identicality, 259
Müller, Max, 287
Mumford, Lewis, 262
Mummification, 198
Müntzer, Thomas, 38-41, 77, 129,256, 258,294; as forerunner, 197,214;
life of, 50-59; and Luther, 51-53, 55; secret union, 53, 59
Music. See Arts
Mysticism, 25, 130, 204-205
Mythology: Narcissus and Orpheus, 232-233,254,282; Plato's Republic, 10-11, 14; Scandinavian, 289
N
Narcissus and Orpheus, 232-233, 254, 282-283
Nature, state of, 111-112, 114, 130
Naylor, James, 42-43
Nazi Germany, 253
Nechayev, S., 198,267,276-278
Neo-Marxism, 6, 203, 231-233
New Christianity, 197
New Economic Policy (NEP), 252, 272
New Left, 6, 203, 233; and culture, 265-266; and individuality, 263
Nicetas, Pope, 24
[315]
Nicolaites sect, 15
Nicolas of Basel, 69
Nihilism, 198-199, 215, 222; destruction and terror themes, 275-279; and
religion of socialism, 226; self-destructive impulse and examples,
286-293
Nirvana principle, 282, 287, 298
Nizan, Paul, 285 n.
Nothingness, 286-294; Deschamps and, 115-116
Novels, socialist, 101-106
Nusinov, I., 251
O
Oldenberg, H., 287
Old Testament, 19, 27, 62-63, 68
"Orgiastic mass," 27
Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, The (Engels), 243-244
Orpheus myth. See Narcissus and Orpheus
Ortliebarians, 67, 69
Orwell, George, 89
Overpopulation, 253
P
Pantheistic heresies, 67-68, 100
Paraguay, 142-143, 151
Paris Communards, 214
Party structure, 216-219
Paternity, 12,247-248. See also Children, destruction of parental ties
Paulicians, 68, 76
Peasantry: ancient Chinese, 169-172, 181-183; ancient Egyptians, 162;
and appeal of socialism, 203; Engels on, 279; in Inca empire, 134-135;
post-revolutionary Russia and mobilization of, 241-243, 252; socialist
leaders view of, 224
Peasant War of 1525, 38-39, 56-59, 129
Perfecti, 21-23
Pessimism, 286, 289
Peru, 113, 113 n., 142, 144
Petrobrusians, 67, 69
Pfeiffer, Heinrich, 54-56
"Phalansteries," 205
Pharaohs, 164-167, 191
Phillips, Ubbo, 40
Philosophers, in Republic, 8-12
Philosophes, 115-117, 151. See also Enlightenment literature
Philosophy, in post-revolutionary Russia, 251
Piatakov, G. L., 217-218, 294
Planet theory (Fourier), 204-206
Plato, 142, 197,200-201,214; and culture, 9-10,196; implementation of
ideal state, 179, 237, 254-256, 285; and justice, 227; and open houses,
198; and religion, 14, 196; Republic, 7-15, 198,254; Timaeus, 298
Pleasure principle: Fourier on, 227-228; Freud and Marcuse, 229-233, 298; Megapatagonians, 106
Poetry, 10, 106
Pokrovsky, M. N., 203
Polygamy, 40, 63-65, 137
Popes and medieval heresies, 21, 24-25, 28-29,33-34,47-50, 196; More on, 87
Popular socialist movements, xv, 2, 78, 200; comic and naive traits,
267-268; contradictions and seizure of power, 213-215; differences with
state socialism, 237-238; "Equals," 121-129; and religious aspects, 226
Population: birthrates, 274; family and overpopulation, 253; Indians in
Jesuit state, 143-144,274; mass resettlements, 83-84, 134-135, 137,
181-182, 191
Possessed, The (Dostoyevsky), 129, 198,267
Power, seizure of, 3, 213-215
Pre-Columbian Americas, 189, 191, 201, 272
Preobrazhensky, G. N., 246-247
Priests and monks: in City of the Sun, 94; persecution of, 31, 47, 49-56, 60; Winstanley on,1Ol. See also Catholic Church
Primitive peoples, 118,205,273-274
Principles of Communism (Engels), 5, 214
Principles of socialism, 195-197,200,236-237; death of mankind and, 275-285; equality vs. identicality,
258-261; ideal society model, 269; implementation and consequences,
272-275; and individualized animal societies, 265; vs. reality, 238-239,253-257
Private property: abolition of, in Enlightenment literature, 108,
111-112, 115, 118; abolition of, in "Equals," 122, 126; abolition of,
and family, 244; abolition of, and identicality, 258-261; abolition of,
as socialist principle, 195,200,257; Aristophanes on, 4; and Asiatic
mode of production, 187; early Christians, 16; Incas, 140-141; Marxism
on, 4, 6; medieval heresies and, 22-23, 28-29, 35-37, 76; in Republic, 12;
state control, 213; suppression of individuality, 262; and territory
idea, 265; in Ur, 159; Utopians, 82-83, 85, 95; Winstanley and Diggers
on, 43-45. See also Land
Production, mode of: Asiatic, 185-189; Marxist theory, 206-207, 229; post-revolutionary Russia, 240-241, 244
[316]
Proletariat: Marx and Engels contempt for, 278-279; Marxist theory, 202-203, 206; revolutionary aspect of, 296, 300. See also War Communism
Promethean myth, 232-233, 282
Protestantism, 67
Psychedelic revolution, 233, 263
Q
Quakers, 41-42, 80
Quipu system, 134, 138-139
R
Ranters sect, 41-43
Rappoport, 296
Reason, 130; lack of, in socialist doctrine, 295-297; Marcuse thesis, 232-233, 263, 300
"Red Army" in Japan, 270-271
Reductions, 143-150
Reformation period: Anabaptists, 34-41, 75; English Revolution, 41-45;
and medieval heretical movements, 18, 25, 71-73, 129, 258; and state
control, 215
Regression concept (Marcuse), 231-232
Religion: abolition of, as basic socialist principle, 195-196; decline
of, 234-235; end of world concept, 281; Enlightenment literature on,
106-109, 115-117, 130; historical change, 197-198; king worship,
166-168, 166 n.; Levellers and atheism, 45-46; Marx on, 263; and nature of man, 227-233; post-revolutionary Russia, 251; in Republic, 14,
196; 17th and 18th-century socialist novels, 102, 105-106; socialism as
a, xii, 225-227, 233-234; socialist hostility to, 235, 251, 253, 257,
267; sun worship, 94-95, 102; Utopian literature, 86-87, 93-95, 100-101,
129. See also Atheism; Christianity; Medieval heresies
Renaissance, 81 n.
Repression concept (Marcuse), 231, 282
Republic, The (Plato), 7-14, 198,254
Republic of Philosophers or the History of the Ajaoiens, The (Fontenelle), 104-105
Revolution: Deschamps prediction, 116-117; in "Equals," 125; scientific
inevitability of, 211-212; socialism and implementation of, 213-215
Revolutionary movements, 203; Anabaptists, 37-40, 60-66, 73, 265; in antiquity, 78; death and destruction mystique, 275-285,285 n.; and free love, 33; Levellers, 45; and medievalheresies, 77, 256; New Left, 263
Ricardo, David, 211 n.
Rights, political, 9, 98-99, 122, 181, 261
Road-building, 134, 141, 182
Russia: birthrate, 274; and culture, 248-251, 273; economy, 239-241,
252, 272; family and children, 243-248; meaning of socialist experience,
300; privacy and housing, 199, 247-248; and religion, 251, 272;
revolutionary youth and death, 283-285; sexual freedom, 246-248; and
social justice, 219; War Communism period, 238-252
Russia in the Shadows (Wells), 2
Russian Orthodox Church, 251
S
Sacconi, Rainier, 21, 23-24
Saint-Simon, C. H., Comte de, 204, 211, 280
Salinger, J. D., 292
Sargon, King of Akkadia, 155-156, 161
Sartre, J.-P., xv, 264, 277, 285 n., 299; on being and nothingness, 291; on Soviet state, 296
Savinkov, Boris, 284-285
Sazonov, N. I., 284-285
Scandinavian mythology, 289
Schlamm, W., 217
Schopenhauer, A., 289-290, 299
Science: loss of authority, 292, 300; Enlightenment literature, 111-112,
119; loyalty proof demanded in "Equals," 122; post-revolutionary Russia
and, 248-249, 252; Utopian writers, 85, 90
Scientific socialism concept, 204-207, 259-260; criticism of Marxist claim to, 206-213, 260-261
Scriptures, 19, 34, 46
Secret Directory of Public Salvation, 121-128
Segarelli, Gerard, 46-47
Self-destructive impulse, 286-293; and socialism, 285, 293-295, 299
Sex: Cathar doctrines, 20, 23; in economic system of Fourier, 229;
Engels on, 244-245; Freudian thesis, 230; in Marcuse thesis, 231-233; in
model of ideal socialist state, 269; New Left and, 263; Plato on, 12;
state control, City of the Sun, 91; state control, Russia, 246-248
Sexes: common ownership of, 118; polarization of under capitalism, 263
Sexual freedom: contemporary revolution, 233,263; medieval heresies and,
27-28, 32-33, 38-40, 42; post-revolutionary Russia, 246-248; and
Ranters, 42; Winstanley's attack on, 100. See also Women, communality of
Shang Yang, 173-180, 272
[317]
Simonians, 68
Sin, 20, 23, 26-27, 41, 74
Slavery: ancient China, 169, 179, 182-183, 190; ancient Egypt, 165;
ancient Sumer, 153, 155, 158-161; Aristophanes and, 4; Asiatic
universality of, 188; Incas, 134-135; Jesuit state, 143-144;
17th-century socialist novels and, 103-104; in Utopian literature, 83,
85-86, 90, 97
"Sleeping Souls" sect, 45
Smirnov, 241-242
Socialism. See Chiliastic socialism; Ideology of socialism; Principles of socialism; State socialism
Socialist political parties, 216-219
Social justice concept of socialism, 219-225
Society of Jesus, 143, 151, 219. See also Jesuit state
Socrates, 255. See also Republic, The
Soloviev, Vladimir, 219, 286, 289, 299
Solts, 246
Solzhenitsyn, A., 218
South American state socialism, 133-151, 189
Southern Discovery ... (la Bretonne), 105-106
Southern Land, The (de Foigny), 103
Soviet Russia. See Russia
Spain, and Jesuit state in Paraguay, 142-143, 151
Spaniards, and Inca empire, 133-137,141-142
Stalin, Iosif, 186, 252, 262, 272, 294
State capitalism, 216
State ownership of property and land, 103, 105, 111, 190; Asiatic Social
Formation, 185-189; positive abolition of private property, 195
State socialism, 132-192; ancient China, 168-185, 189-192, 255; ancient
Egypt, 162-168; "anonymous" society model, 269; compared with chiliastic
socialism, 236,253-257; death of man theme, 272-274; ideology and
reality of, 197-201, 216,236-257; Incas, 133-142; Jesuit state, 142-151;
Mesopotamia, 152, 162, 167-168; and party character, 216-217; and
religion, 253; post-revolutionary Russia, 238-252; and social justice,
221-225; worldwide, 274-275
Statism, absolute, 189-192; ancient China, 168-185; ancient Egypt,
162-165; "Equals" concept of, 122-123; family as unit of, 195; rise of,
in Mesopotamia, 161-162; socialism as means to, 213, 215
Staupitz, Johann, 71
Sterility, in women, 91-92, 103
Stirner, Max, 290
Storch, Niklaus, 37-38, 50, 258
Suffering and oppression, eradication of, 219-225
Suicide: Cathars, 20, 22, 283; collective, 290; death instinct, 282-285
Sumer, 152-155, 192. See also Mesopotamia
Surplus-repression concept, 231, 233
Switzerland, 36-37, 74
T
Taborites, 29-34, 265; destruction of, 275; doctrines, 30-32, 77-78; and Marxist analysis of socialism, 203
Tahitians, 113-114
Taoism, 288-289
Technology, 133, 231-232
Temple estates of Mesopotamia, xii, 153-156, 161, 163, 173
Torres, Father Diego de, 144
Totality aspect (Deschamps), 115, 117
Trade: ancient China, 173, 177-178, 190; ancient Egypt, 163, 165;
Diggers on, 43-44; "Equals" and, 122; Incas, 141; Jesuit state and, 144,
148, 151; Morelly's ban on, 111; and socialist isolation, 238; state
monopoly, Ur, 158; Winstanley on, 96
Trade unions, 42, 225, 242
Travel restrictions, 85, 103, 137, 144, 269
Tropism theory, 293
Trotsky, Leon, 199,217,241-243,294
Truth of the True System (Deschamps), 114-120, 198
Twentieth-century socialism, 256-257, 299-300. See also Russia
U
United States: blacks, 203, 300; communal sects, 80,197,268; and Zen Buddhism, 291-292. See also New Left
Ur dynasty, 156-160
Urukagina, King of Lagash, 153-154, 155 n.
Utopian socialism, xiii, 80-120, 300; compared with Incas, 142, 198; Hellenistic, 15; and isolation, 238; as reaction, 256
V
Vairasse, Denis, 102-103, 238
Valdes, 69-70
Valentinov, N., 217
Violence and terror: Anabaptists, 39-41, 60-66; lessening of, in America, 80; Levellers, 45, 45 n.; as part of socialist ideology, 275-279; Russian revolutionary
[318]
Violence and terror (cont'd)
youth and, 283-285; socialist party concept of, 217-218. See also Medieval heresies; Shang Yang
Vipper, R., 215
Voice of Reason, The (Deschamps), 116-117
Voltaire, 106, 110, 151
W
Waldensians, 29, 36; beliefs, 73, 76-77; origins, 67, 69-71
Walwyn, William, 44
War Communism, 238-252, 265
Weber, Max, 296
Weitling, Wilhelm, 45 n., 121
Wells, H. G., 2-3, 273
Western Europe: contemporary leftist movements, 268; meaning of Russian socialism, 300
Winstanley, Gerrard, 43-46, 95; concept of new society, 96-101, 219
"Withering away of the state" concept, 175, 206-207
Wittfogel, K., 191-192, 192 n., 201, 207; ancient Eastern Socialism, 186-187, 186 n.; on state capitalism, 216
Wives, as common property: American sects, 80; Anabaptists, 36, 38-40;
Apostolic Brethren, 29, 47-48; Cathars, 23-24; in Münster, 63-66; Plato
on, 12,258-259; as revolutionary slogan, 214; and socialism, 195, 236
Women: communality of, 4,12,15-17,91-92, 95; Diggers and Winstanley
against communality, 44, 100; Inca oppression and state regulation, 134,
136-138, 141-142; and men in Deschamps' paradise, 118-120; Meslier's
complete freedom to, 109; in Mesopotamia, 153, 155, 158-159; Plato's
equal rights to, 9; in post-revolutionary Russia, 245; Solarian
regulations, 91-92. See also Family, Marriage customs; Wives, as common property
Work and workers: liberation from, Marcuse thesis, 6, 231-232; and
revolution, 203; socialist goal of social justice and, 223-224. See also Compulsory labor
World empire concept, 161-162
World view: of Deschamps, 120; dualism, 297-298; of "Equals," 130; of
Freud, 292, 297; inevitable death theme, 280-285; Marxism and nihilism,
278-279; of religion, 267; of socialism, xv, 226-227, 231, 237
Writing and recording systems: ancient China, 168, 172; ancient
Mesopotamia, 153-157, 161; Deschamps prohibition, 119; Egyptian scribes,
162-165; Incas, 134, 134 n., 138-139; Jesuit state, 144
Z
Zen Buddhism, 291-292
Zinoviev, G. E., 294
Zulus, 141
Zwickau Prophets, 37
Zwingli, Ulrich, 34, 37, 71, 73
[319]
