title
stringlengths 57
163
| html
stringlengths 13
1.28M
| content
stringlengths 0
1.26M
|
|---|---|---|
./articles/Meyer-J.-(C.L.R.-James)/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.james-clr.works.1939.11.greatest | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">C.L.R. James</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>J.R. Johnson</h2>
<h3>The Negro Question</h3>
<table width="60%" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="6" border="3" align="center">
<tbody><tr>
<td><br>
<h4>“Labor with a White Skin Cannot Emancipate Itself Where Labor with a Black Skin Is Branded” – Karl Marx</h4>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<h1>The Greatest Event in History</h1>
<h3>(14 November 1939)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info">From <strong>Socialist Appeal</strong>, <a href="../../../../../history/etol/newspape/themilitant/socialist-appeal-1939/index.htm#sa03_87" target="new">Vol. III No. 87</a>, 14 November 1939, p. 3.<br>
Transcribed by Christian Høgsbjerg.<br>
Marked upby <a href="../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Marxists’ Internet Archive</strong>.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<h4>The Greatest Event in History</h4>
<p class="fst">A revolution is the greatest event in the history of any society, and the Russian Revolution is the greatest of all revolutions. By this uprising, the workers and peasants of Russia shattered the capitalist system on one-sixth of the world’s surface and took the road to socialism. On November 8, 1917, the night after the seizure of power, Lenin rose to address the Soviet congress. Gripping the rails before him he spoke the memorable words, “We shall now begin the construction of the socialist order”. On that same night and from that same platform, was sounded the call for the world revolution, uttered many times before, but now, because it came from the leaders of the first workers’ state in history, reverberating across the oceans and mountains from continent to continent. It was heard in Central Europe and in Central Asia, by millions of Indians and Chinese, heard too by the most oppressed people in the world, the Negroes in Africa, in the West Indies, and in the United States of America.</p>
<p>A few days ago the revolution achieved its twenty-second anniversary. Broken and besmirched, attacked from without and betrayed from within, yet it lives. From the great peaks scaled in its early years, it has fallen far. But it remains a basis and a banner, a banner torn and bedraggled, stained with crimes and blood, carried by treacherous hands, but still a symbol of the greatest effort yet made by downtrodden humanity to rid the world of economic exploitation and political tyranny. To rid the world, not only Russia. Today Negroes, weighed down by still heavier burdens than those they carried on November 7, 1917, must celebrate that never-to-be forgotten anniversary, must reflect on what the Russian Revolution has meant, and still means, to them and to all mankind.<br>
</p>
<h4>It Shook the Foundations of Imperialism</h4>
<p class="fst">Twenty-two years ago the great majority of Negroes in Africa and their brothers and sisters in America were little more than slaves, nourishing that hope of freedom which is unquenchable in the hearts of men, but feeding it on the illusions and misconceptions and impotence bred of white domination and the steel walls of imperialist slavery. But the Russian Revolution in 1917 razed to the ground one great fortress of world imperialism, and so shook the whole structure that today, twenty-two years after, it still rocks on its foundations. In the years that followed 1917, the Communist International carried the great message of the world revolution and the example of Russia to the millions of Negroes throughout the world. Negroes for the first time understood that for them, as for all the exploited and oppressed, there was a road out and upward, understood that they were not alone, that in France and in Britain, in Belgium and America, all over the world, there were millions of workers and peasants whose enemy was their enemy, whose aim was their aim, whose destiny was their destiny, not only to destroy tyrants and oppressors, but to destroy the system which gave them birth, not only to overthrow imperialism but to create the socialist society.</p>
<p>The Russian Revolution, the Communist International that grew out of it, by precept of brilliant propaganda and fearless agitation, by example of heroic struggle and self-sacrifice, taught the lessons of imperialist barbarism, of the necessity for proletarian revolutions in the imperialist nations, and national independence in the colonial countries; preached and practiced the unity of all the oppressed, irrespective of religion and race, indefatigably pointed to the two roads that lay before all mankind – imperialist war and capitalist reaction, or victorious socialism in Europe and America and the independence of Asia and Africa.<br>
</p>
<h4>A Blow at Colonial Exploitation</h4>
<p class="fst">There are Negroes who have seen and still see little for their people in the propagation of revolutionary doctrines. They are either selfish or ignorant – selfish because they are anxious only to preserve and extend the mean profits and paltry prestige they have managed to scrape together for themselves; or they are ignorant, not with the ignorance of the masses, which comes from lack of opportunity and which the great school of the class struggle can correct, but learnedly ignorant through too complete an acceptance of imperialist education which is designed to blind and not to open the eyes of the masses, to perpetuate and not to destroy the imperialist system. Let those Negroes who talk so superficially about “Reds” explain why the British government, when Anthony Eden visited Moscow in 1935, demanded as the first condition of British friendship with Russia the discontinuation of revolutionary propaganda in India, in the West Indies, and in Africa. These British imperialists, with the experience of three centuries, know the condition of the people they so mercilessly exploit. They felt and still feel the shock of the Russian Revolution, at home in Britain, and in every corner of their empire. They know that, in Africa for instance, there has arisen no threat to their power during the three hundred years it has lasted, so strong as that represented by a few thousand copies of a Bolshevik paper circulating among the Negroes, and a few men working devotedly to build a Bolshevik party. They can foresee the overwhelming power of the Negro masses when mobilised behind such a party. They know what this revolution will mean to their power and their profits and their privileges. They therefore curse the Russian Revolution and the day it was born.</p>
<p>No Southern capitalist or plantation owner celebrates the anniversary of the Russian Revolution. Should a Negro in the South walk down a public street carrying a banner marked “Long Live the Russian Revolution”, he might be lynched before he had gone fifty yards. And why? Because it stands for the destruction of the rotting capitalist system, with its unnecessary poverty and degradation, its imperialist war and its fascist dictatorships, its class domination and racial persecution. Every Negro with an ounce of political understanding or a spark of revolt against oppression will recognise the significance and celebrate the anniversary of the October revolution in Russia.<br>
</p>
<h4>The Fourth International Carries On</h4>
<p class="fst">True, we have seen the revolution outraged and degraded. We have seen, rising out of the ruins of Bolshevism in Russia, the monstrosity of Stalinism. We have seen the Communist International change from the valiant defender of the international working class into the mere tool of Stalin’s foreign policy. The development and decline of the Russian Revolution are described elsewhere in this issue, and in many of our books and pamphlets. But the principles of the world revolution, which first assumed flesh and blood in 1917, still remain. Today a new international, the Fourth, maintains the tradition and works for the goal. Though we condemn and ceaselessly expose Stalin and all his works, we celebrate the Russian anniversary and we call upon the Negroes and all workers to celebrate with us.</p>
<p>By a curious trick of fortune, Leon Trotsky, whose name is inseparably associated with Lenin’s as the leadership that guided the revolution to success, was born on November 7th, the anniversary of the revolution. This year he celebrates his sixtieth birthday. History is the struggle of economic and social forces expressing themselves in the words and actions of men. And sometimes the life of a single individual epitomizes the history of a movement. Second only to Lenin, Trotsky was at the head of the Russian Revolution during the great days of October, the war of intervention, the founding of the Soviet state, and the organisation of the Communist International. But with the decline of the revolution, he found himself leading the opposition to the bureaucracy of Stalin. He was driven out of Russia and exiled to Turkey. His children and family have been systematically exterminated. He has been slandered as no other man in history has been slandered. He has been driven from country to country and for years has been guarded day and night to save him from Stalin’s assassins. All for one reason only. Because he remains today as he has always been, the enemy of capitalist society, the organiser and theoretician of the world revolution, and the unsparing opponent of the bureaucracy which has betrayed the great revolution; concerned not with personal revenge nor the lust for power but with the liberation of the workers and farmers in all countries from capitalist chains and slavery.</p>
<p>He has written little specifically on the Negro question, as he has written little, for instance, on the Indian question. The circumstances of his life and the necessities of the struggle have compelled him to devote most of his attention to the great centers of proletarian revolution in Europe. But he has always seen and taught that the struggle in the last analysis is one, that the blows he gave and directed at world imperialism in any country, weakened the whole system and thereby facilitated the victory of Indians in India and Negroes in Africa and America. If today the Socialist Workers Party has placed work among the American Negroes as one of the most important tasks before it, and has a clear program and policy on the problems of the Negro, it owes much to the insistence of the importance of the Negro in the American revolution, his sympathy with their oppression, his boundless faith in their power to struggle, their will to conquer, their capacity to aid in the creation of the socialist society. Negroes will join with us in celebrating his anniversary to wish him and his wife Natalia, his devoted helper, many years of life and health to continue their work, of such importance to us today and to the generations yet to come.</p>
<p>This joint anniversary bears for all Negroes a special significance at this time. It comes at a moment when the imperialist barbarians are engaged once more in their periodical orgies of destruction and slaughter, when the masters of Russia have allied themselves with the imperialist criminals, when hopes of liberation seem faint and distant. But in the early days of 1917 just such a pall seemed to rest on the poor and oppressed in all countries everywhere. Yet that gloom was the prelude to such an uprising of the masses as had never been seen before. Negroes were unprepared then. Today, thanks to the Russian Revolution, they and all others who suffer with them can see more clearly. Knowledge is power. Let us celebrate these anniversaries, not only in memory of the great deeds that have been done but of the still greater tasks that face us in the days that are ahead. Negroes more than all the others have nothing to lose but their chains. They more than all others will play their part in the destruction of capitalist society for they have most to win.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on 19 April 2018</p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > C.L.R. James
J.R. Johnson
The Negro Question
“Labor with a White Skin Cannot Emancipate Itself Where Labor with a Black Skin Is Branded” – Karl Marx
The Greatest Event in History
(14 November 1939)
From Socialist Appeal, Vol. III No. 87, 14 November 1939, p. 3.
Transcribed by Christian Høgsbjerg.
Marked upby Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
The Greatest Event in History
A revolution is the greatest event in the history of any society, and the Russian Revolution is the greatest of all revolutions. By this uprising, the workers and peasants of Russia shattered the capitalist system on one-sixth of the world’s surface and took the road to socialism. On November 8, 1917, the night after the seizure of power, Lenin rose to address the Soviet congress. Gripping the rails before him he spoke the memorable words, “We shall now begin the construction of the socialist order”. On that same night and from that same platform, was sounded the call for the world revolution, uttered many times before, but now, because it came from the leaders of the first workers’ state in history, reverberating across the oceans and mountains from continent to continent. It was heard in Central Europe and in Central Asia, by millions of Indians and Chinese, heard too by the most oppressed people in the world, the Negroes in Africa, in the West Indies, and in the United States of America.
A few days ago the revolution achieved its twenty-second anniversary. Broken and besmirched, attacked from without and betrayed from within, yet it lives. From the great peaks scaled in its early years, it has fallen far. But it remains a basis and a banner, a banner torn and bedraggled, stained with crimes and blood, carried by treacherous hands, but still a symbol of the greatest effort yet made by downtrodden humanity to rid the world of economic exploitation and political tyranny. To rid the world, not only Russia. Today Negroes, weighed down by still heavier burdens than those they carried on November 7, 1917, must celebrate that never-to-be forgotten anniversary, must reflect on what the Russian Revolution has meant, and still means, to them and to all mankind.
It Shook the Foundations of Imperialism
Twenty-two years ago the great majority of Negroes in Africa and their brothers and sisters in America were little more than slaves, nourishing that hope of freedom which is unquenchable in the hearts of men, but feeding it on the illusions and misconceptions and impotence bred of white domination and the steel walls of imperialist slavery. But the Russian Revolution in 1917 razed to the ground one great fortress of world imperialism, and so shook the whole structure that today, twenty-two years after, it still rocks on its foundations. In the years that followed 1917, the Communist International carried the great message of the world revolution and the example of Russia to the millions of Negroes throughout the world. Negroes for the first time understood that for them, as for all the exploited and oppressed, there was a road out and upward, understood that they were not alone, that in France and in Britain, in Belgium and America, all over the world, there were millions of workers and peasants whose enemy was their enemy, whose aim was their aim, whose destiny was their destiny, not only to destroy tyrants and oppressors, but to destroy the system which gave them birth, not only to overthrow imperialism but to create the socialist society.
The Russian Revolution, the Communist International that grew out of it, by precept of brilliant propaganda and fearless agitation, by example of heroic struggle and self-sacrifice, taught the lessons of imperialist barbarism, of the necessity for proletarian revolutions in the imperialist nations, and national independence in the colonial countries; preached and practiced the unity of all the oppressed, irrespective of religion and race, indefatigably pointed to the two roads that lay before all mankind – imperialist war and capitalist reaction, or victorious socialism in Europe and America and the independence of Asia and Africa.
A Blow at Colonial Exploitation
There are Negroes who have seen and still see little for their people in the propagation of revolutionary doctrines. They are either selfish or ignorant – selfish because they are anxious only to preserve and extend the mean profits and paltry prestige they have managed to scrape together for themselves; or they are ignorant, not with the ignorance of the masses, which comes from lack of opportunity and which the great school of the class struggle can correct, but learnedly ignorant through too complete an acceptance of imperialist education which is designed to blind and not to open the eyes of the masses, to perpetuate and not to destroy the imperialist system. Let those Negroes who talk so superficially about “Reds” explain why the British government, when Anthony Eden visited Moscow in 1935, demanded as the first condition of British friendship with Russia the discontinuation of revolutionary propaganda in India, in the West Indies, and in Africa. These British imperialists, with the experience of three centuries, know the condition of the people they so mercilessly exploit. They felt and still feel the shock of the Russian Revolution, at home in Britain, and in every corner of their empire. They know that, in Africa for instance, there has arisen no threat to their power during the three hundred years it has lasted, so strong as that represented by a few thousand copies of a Bolshevik paper circulating among the Negroes, and a few men working devotedly to build a Bolshevik party. They can foresee the overwhelming power of the Negro masses when mobilised behind such a party. They know what this revolution will mean to their power and their profits and their privileges. They therefore curse the Russian Revolution and the day it was born.
No Southern capitalist or plantation owner celebrates the anniversary of the Russian Revolution. Should a Negro in the South walk down a public street carrying a banner marked “Long Live the Russian Revolution”, he might be lynched before he had gone fifty yards. And why? Because it stands for the destruction of the rotting capitalist system, with its unnecessary poverty and degradation, its imperialist war and its fascist dictatorships, its class domination and racial persecution. Every Negro with an ounce of political understanding or a spark of revolt against oppression will recognise the significance and celebrate the anniversary of the October revolution in Russia.
The Fourth International Carries On
True, we have seen the revolution outraged and degraded. We have seen, rising out of the ruins of Bolshevism in Russia, the monstrosity of Stalinism. We have seen the Communist International change from the valiant defender of the international working class into the mere tool of Stalin’s foreign policy. The development and decline of the Russian Revolution are described elsewhere in this issue, and in many of our books and pamphlets. But the principles of the world revolution, which first assumed flesh and blood in 1917, still remain. Today a new international, the Fourth, maintains the tradition and works for the goal. Though we condemn and ceaselessly expose Stalin and all his works, we celebrate the Russian anniversary and we call upon the Negroes and all workers to celebrate with us.
By a curious trick of fortune, Leon Trotsky, whose name is inseparably associated with Lenin’s as the leadership that guided the revolution to success, was born on November 7th, the anniversary of the revolution. This year he celebrates his sixtieth birthday. History is the struggle of economic and social forces expressing themselves in the words and actions of men. And sometimes the life of a single individual epitomizes the history of a movement. Second only to Lenin, Trotsky was at the head of the Russian Revolution during the great days of October, the war of intervention, the founding of the Soviet state, and the organisation of the Communist International. But with the decline of the revolution, he found himself leading the opposition to the bureaucracy of Stalin. He was driven out of Russia and exiled to Turkey. His children and family have been systematically exterminated. He has been slandered as no other man in history has been slandered. He has been driven from country to country and for years has been guarded day and night to save him from Stalin’s assassins. All for one reason only. Because he remains today as he has always been, the enemy of capitalist society, the organiser and theoretician of the world revolution, and the unsparing opponent of the bureaucracy which has betrayed the great revolution; concerned not with personal revenge nor the lust for power but with the liberation of the workers and farmers in all countries from capitalist chains and slavery.
He has written little specifically on the Negro question, as he has written little, for instance, on the Indian question. The circumstances of his life and the necessities of the struggle have compelled him to devote most of his attention to the great centers of proletarian revolution in Europe. But he has always seen and taught that the struggle in the last analysis is one, that the blows he gave and directed at world imperialism in any country, weakened the whole system and thereby facilitated the victory of Indians in India and Negroes in Africa and America. If today the Socialist Workers Party has placed work among the American Negroes as one of the most important tasks before it, and has a clear program and policy on the problems of the Negro, it owes much to the insistence of the importance of the Negro in the American revolution, his sympathy with their oppression, his boundless faith in their power to struggle, their will to conquer, their capacity to aid in the creation of the socialist society. Negroes will join with us in celebrating his anniversary to wish him and his wife Natalia, his devoted helper, many years of life and health to continue their work, of such importance to us today and to the generations yet to come.
This joint anniversary bears for all Negroes a special significance at this time. It comes at a moment when the imperialist barbarians are engaged once more in their periodical orgies of destruction and slaughter, when the masters of Russia have allied themselves with the imperialist criminals, when hopes of liberation seem faint and distant. But in the early days of 1917 just such a pall seemed to rest on the poor and oppressed in all countries everywhere. Yet that gloom was the prelude to such an uprising of the masses as had never been seen before. Negroes were unprepared then. Today, thanks to the Russian Revolution, they and all others who suffer with them can see more clearly. Knowledge is power. Let us celebrate these anniversaries, not only in memory of the great deeds that have been done but of the still greater tasks that face us in the days that are ahead. Negroes more than all the others have nothing to lose but their chains. They more than all others will play their part in the destruction of capitalist society for they have most to win.
Top of the page
Last updated on 19 April 2018
|
./articles/Meyer-J.-(C.L.R.-James)/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.james-clr.works.1937.02.moscow-trials1 | <body>
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">C.L.R. James</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>C.L.R. James</h2>
<h1>The Second Moscow Trial<br>
[Part I]</h1>
<h3>(February 1937)</h3>
<hr class="end" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="information"><span class="info">Source:</span> <b>Fight</b>, 1, no. 4, February 1937, pp. 4–5.<br>
<span class="info">Transcribed</span>: by Christian H�gsbjerg.<br>
Marked up for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.</p>
<hr class="end" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">IN 1934, Kirov was assassinated. White Guards were at first said to be instrumental in it, and the Latvian Consul was implicated. But after a matter of six weeks, Zinoviev and Kamenev were found to be “indirectly” responsible, and Trotsky was brought in through a mysterious letter, though like a number of letters that Trotsky was later supposed to have written, this one was never produced.</p>
<p>Over a hundred communists were shot as a result of that assassination, Zinoviev and Kamenev sent into exile in Siberia, and a great “purge” throughout the country took place, which meant more shooting and imprisonment of unknown men.</p>
<p>The trial in August “established” that Zinoviev and Kamenev were directly responsible for the shooting of Kirov, and that they planned to murder Stalin, Voroshilov and Kaganovich and then to seize power themselves. They had no political programme to put in the place of “Socialism in a Single Country,” they had no mass support, they could see that everybody loved Comrade Stalin’s socialism, but, stupid fellows, they had a “lust for power” which led them to terrorism. The attempt to frame-up Trotsky was sharper. He arranged the assassination of Kirov, and attempted the assassinations (over a period of four years with innumerable “agents” to do the job) of Stalin and Vorolishov. But these two bore charmed lives, they were always too far away or their cars went too fast. Trotsky plotted with the secret Nazi police. All this was “established” at the August trial, only no evidence was brought forward except the bare statements of the accused, which were extraordinary fragmentary, often completely contradictory, and easily proved to be the fabrications of the G.P.U. [For a profound and derailed analysis of the “evidence” and testimony in the August trial, we strongly recommend to our readers <b>Behind the Moscow Trial – The Greatest Frame-up in History</b>, by Max Shachtman]. Zinoviev and Kamenev were shot and n other prisoners with them. Tomsky, implicated in the trial, committed suicide. A further purge took place; more shootings, more imprisonments.</p>
<p>Now we have the present trial in which 13 more old revolutionaries, including Piatakov and Serebryakov have been murdered, and Sokolnikov and Radek and two lesser known revolutionaries imprisoned for ten years. The crimes put down to these men grow more extravagant. Not only terrorism now and working with the Gestapo, but working with Japan too, promising to give away large portions of territory at the end of the war, plotting with these enemies of the Soviet Union. These men with their long history as revolutionaries, what was it to them to help in the plans of a new imperialist slaughter to which the blood bath of 1914 would not compare? Nothing at all! To prove that, they are responsible for train wrecks (the <b>Daily Worker</b> tells you all about maimed girls and children they tried to murder) for industrial catastrophes, for ruined crops. Trotsky, of course, is the greatest monster of all. But we have no reasonable motive except “lust for power.” Yet it is well to note that among the accused in these trials, there is not to be found a single former kulak, manufacturer, banker, Czarist, White Guard, Menshevik, Social Revolutionary, anarchist, or any other one-time opponent of the Russian Revolution and the Soviet regime. All of them, except of course the obvious G.P.U. agents, were tried old Bolsheviks.</p>
<p>The purge going on is more far-reaching than before. Everywhere according to the testimony of the Soviet press itself, in every big town, in every agricultural area, in big factories, in all industries, Trotskyists exist. Trotskyism has been liquidated “finally and irrevocably,” as “finally and irrevocably” as Socialism has been established time without number since Trotsky was expelled in 1927. A classless Society exists, according to the official reports, everyone is “happy and joyous” and singing anthems of praise to Stalin, yet everywhere the purge has to go on; more shootings and more imprisonments. And this is not the end. Further frame-ups are being prepared. Bucharin and General Putna – and literally hundreds of lesser known communists – are now under arrest. Any breath of criticism against the system is Trotskyism, is terrorism. This state of affairs is what these shameless bureaucrats of the Soviet Union and their hirelings in the Comintern have the impudence to call socialism. The trial is an indictment not of the socialist system but of the rottenness of the regime of the Soviet bureaucrats. The wide discontent of the masses has been laid bare before the whole world.</p>
<p>The <b>Daily Worker</b>, brazen as ever, says the trial is a blow for peace, for socialism and democracy. For Peace! By the trial and its attendant terrorism, Stalin attempts to wipe out in the Soviet Union any possible rallying centre for working class international action during the next war. That war for him is a war of national defence. He will keep faith with his imperialist allies, and no revolutionary flag will be borne on the bayonets of the Russian army.</p>
<p>Trotskyism stands for world revolution. It is the chief enemy to-day for the bourgeoisie and for the betraying Third International. “Turn imperialist war into civil war.” The Trotskyists alone raise Lenin’s slogan.</p>
<p>The brazen slanderers of the Comintern call Trotsky Fascist, Trotskyists, agents of Fascism. They bring forward no proof in their mock trials, because there is no proof. They know the true revolutionary character of Trotsky’s writing and teaching. But they have to cover up their own vile treachery to the working class, and the further they go along the counter-revolutionary path, the louder they howl against Trotsky, the dirtier the slanders they hurl against him.</p>
<p>They call Trotsky Fascist. They who in the U.S.A. are ready to ally themselves to “sprouting Fascists,” in France with “all sincere Frenchmen” including the Croix de Feu and the National Volunteers, in Italy with the “Old Guard” as well as young Fascists.</p>
<p>The betrayal of the working class can only be done by the working class leaders. In 1914, the bourgeoisie used the Social Democracy. In the coming war, their chief manipulators will be the Communist Party leaders.</p>
<p>Every article in the <b>Daily Worker</b> on the trial ended with an incitement against Trotsky and Trotskyists. Trotsky’s life is in danger from the official communists. We here are prepared for them to attempt the persecution of our comrades. They have done it elsewhere, they will do it here. In Spain today, with lies and slander and demagogy, they incite the workers to shoot the revolutionary fighters of P.O.U.M.</p>
<p>The trials are a pledge from the Stalinists to the bourgeoisie of their good faith as allies in the coming war.</p>
<p>As soon as we have the official account of the trial we shall publish a detailed analysis. Unless one uses their own documents the Stalinists can always escape exposure by denial.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr class="end" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on 11 March 2017</p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > C.L.R. James
C.L.R. James
The Second Moscow Trial
[Part I]
(February 1937)
Source: Fight, 1, no. 4, February 1937, pp. 4–5.
Transcribed: by Christian H�gsbjerg.
Marked up for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
IN 1934, Kirov was assassinated. White Guards were at first said to be instrumental in it, and the Latvian Consul was implicated. But after a matter of six weeks, Zinoviev and Kamenev were found to be “indirectly” responsible, and Trotsky was brought in through a mysterious letter, though like a number of letters that Trotsky was later supposed to have written, this one was never produced.
Over a hundred communists were shot as a result of that assassination, Zinoviev and Kamenev sent into exile in Siberia, and a great “purge” throughout the country took place, which meant more shooting and imprisonment of unknown men.
The trial in August “established” that Zinoviev and Kamenev were directly responsible for the shooting of Kirov, and that they planned to murder Stalin, Voroshilov and Kaganovich and then to seize power themselves. They had no political programme to put in the place of “Socialism in a Single Country,” they had no mass support, they could see that everybody loved Comrade Stalin’s socialism, but, stupid fellows, they had a “lust for power” which led them to terrorism. The attempt to frame-up Trotsky was sharper. He arranged the assassination of Kirov, and attempted the assassinations (over a period of four years with innumerable “agents” to do the job) of Stalin and Vorolishov. But these two bore charmed lives, they were always too far away or their cars went too fast. Trotsky plotted with the secret Nazi police. All this was “established” at the August trial, only no evidence was brought forward except the bare statements of the accused, which were extraordinary fragmentary, often completely contradictory, and easily proved to be the fabrications of the G.P.U. [For a profound and derailed analysis of the “evidence” and testimony in the August trial, we strongly recommend to our readers Behind the Moscow Trial – The Greatest Frame-up in History, by Max Shachtman]. Zinoviev and Kamenev were shot and n other prisoners with them. Tomsky, implicated in the trial, committed suicide. A further purge took place; more shootings, more imprisonments.
Now we have the present trial in which 13 more old revolutionaries, including Piatakov and Serebryakov have been murdered, and Sokolnikov and Radek and two lesser known revolutionaries imprisoned for ten years. The crimes put down to these men grow more extravagant. Not only terrorism now and working with the Gestapo, but working with Japan too, promising to give away large portions of territory at the end of the war, plotting with these enemies of the Soviet Union. These men with their long history as revolutionaries, what was it to them to help in the plans of a new imperialist slaughter to which the blood bath of 1914 would not compare? Nothing at all! To prove that, they are responsible for train wrecks (the Daily Worker tells you all about maimed girls and children they tried to murder) for industrial catastrophes, for ruined crops. Trotsky, of course, is the greatest monster of all. But we have no reasonable motive except “lust for power.” Yet it is well to note that among the accused in these trials, there is not to be found a single former kulak, manufacturer, banker, Czarist, White Guard, Menshevik, Social Revolutionary, anarchist, or any other one-time opponent of the Russian Revolution and the Soviet regime. All of them, except of course the obvious G.P.U. agents, were tried old Bolsheviks.
The purge going on is more far-reaching than before. Everywhere according to the testimony of the Soviet press itself, in every big town, in every agricultural area, in big factories, in all industries, Trotskyists exist. Trotskyism has been liquidated “finally and irrevocably,” as “finally and irrevocably” as Socialism has been established time without number since Trotsky was expelled in 1927. A classless Society exists, according to the official reports, everyone is “happy and joyous” and singing anthems of praise to Stalin, yet everywhere the purge has to go on; more shootings and more imprisonments. And this is not the end. Further frame-ups are being prepared. Bucharin and General Putna – and literally hundreds of lesser known communists – are now under arrest. Any breath of criticism against the system is Trotskyism, is terrorism. This state of affairs is what these shameless bureaucrats of the Soviet Union and their hirelings in the Comintern have the impudence to call socialism. The trial is an indictment not of the socialist system but of the rottenness of the regime of the Soviet bureaucrats. The wide discontent of the masses has been laid bare before the whole world.
The Daily Worker, brazen as ever, says the trial is a blow for peace, for socialism and democracy. For Peace! By the trial and its attendant terrorism, Stalin attempts to wipe out in the Soviet Union any possible rallying centre for working class international action during the next war. That war for him is a war of national defence. He will keep faith with his imperialist allies, and no revolutionary flag will be borne on the bayonets of the Russian army.
Trotskyism stands for world revolution. It is the chief enemy to-day for the bourgeoisie and for the betraying Third International. “Turn imperialist war into civil war.” The Trotskyists alone raise Lenin’s slogan.
The brazen slanderers of the Comintern call Trotsky Fascist, Trotskyists, agents of Fascism. They bring forward no proof in their mock trials, because there is no proof. They know the true revolutionary character of Trotsky’s writing and teaching. But they have to cover up their own vile treachery to the working class, and the further they go along the counter-revolutionary path, the louder they howl against Trotsky, the dirtier the slanders they hurl against him.
They call Trotsky Fascist. They who in the U.S.A. are ready to ally themselves to “sprouting Fascists,” in France with “all sincere Frenchmen” including the Croix de Feu and the National Volunteers, in Italy with the “Old Guard” as well as young Fascists.
The betrayal of the working class can only be done by the working class leaders. In 1914, the bourgeoisie used the Social Democracy. In the coming war, their chief manipulators will be the Communist Party leaders.
Every article in the Daily Worker on the trial ended with an incitement against Trotsky and Trotskyists. Trotsky’s life is in danger from the official communists. We here are prepared for them to attempt the persecution of our comrades. They have done it elsewhere, they will do it here. In Spain today, with lies and slander and demagogy, they incite the workers to shoot the revolutionary fighters of P.O.U.M.
The trials are a pledge from the Stalinists to the bourgeoisie of their good faith as allies in the coming war.
As soon as we have the official account of the trial we shall publish a detailed analysis. Unless one uses their own documents the Stalinists can always escape exposure by denial.
Top of the page
Last updated on 11 March 2017
|
./articles/Meyer-J.-(C.L.R.-James)/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.james-clr.works.1944.10.egad | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">C.L.R. James</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>J.R. Johnson</h2>
<h1>Egad! Stalin Fears “Contamination” of<br>
Red Army by Rumanian “Luxuries”!</h1>
<h3>(October 1944)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info">From <strong>Labor Action</strong>, <a href="../../../../../history/etol/newspape/laboraction-ny/1944/index.htm#la08_41" target="new">Vol. 8 No. 41</a>, 9 October 1944, p 3.<br>
Transcribed & marked up by <a href="../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for <strong>MIA</strong>.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">For some years now Stalinist Russia has maintained the great masses of the Russian people in strict isolation from the rest of the world. The borders of that country are guarded by barbed wire, pill-boxes, machine guns, dogs and men, in peace as well as in. war. Foreign magazines are carefully examined and pages torn out before they are publicly sold.</p>
<p><em>Today, in “one world,” the great masses of the Russian people are as effectively isolated from foreign nations as were feudal serfs or Roman slaves. The difference is that in one case it was due to lack of technical and scientific development ... In the Russian case it is the opposite. Such is the poverty and oppression of the people that all the advantages of science are used to isolate them and keep them at the mercy of their rulers.</em></p>
<p><em>The same thing has taken place in Germany under Hitler. It is the necessary accompaniment of the totalitarian state, which, in all circumstances, is directed against the masses of the people.</em></p>
<p>But alas! The Red Army is now reaching European civilization. True, it is not very advanced civilization. It is miserable, backward Rumania. But Bucharest, poor as it is, is a European capital. The Red Army men are seeing with their own eyes what “bourgeois civilization” is like. And this has caused serious concern in the Kremlin. What if the stalwart men of the Red Army should be driven to make comparisons between Stalin’s “socialism” and “fascist-minded” Bucharest?<br>
</p>
<h4>The <em>Pravda</em> Articles</h4>
<p class="fst">Two articles in <strong>Pravda</strong> raise the alarm. Skobelev, a Russian journalist, describes, the “fat bodies, flabby cheeks and baggy eyes” of the men. But the Russian soldiers would hardly be too interested in the men. The women, unfortunately, are “attractive,” with “cunning” hair-do’s. They wear dark red lipstick, which gives them “sinister mouths.” Shades of Theda Bara and Clara Bow.</p>
<p>Two Russian soldiers in Bucharest discussed these women, and Skobelev reports the discussion:</p>
<p class="fst">“What can you say? They’re very attractive.”</p>
<p>The Russian soldier was unduly bold in expressing this opinion. Who knows? Tomorrow he may be accused of Trotskyism. For his comrade, a true Stalinist, rebukes him. Says this hero:</p>
<p>“<em>Wash off all that paint and then see what they’re like.” (Presumably this unpleasant task would be assigned to the GPU.) But our patriot went on to point an immediate moral which could be drawn without waiting for the results of the washing.</em></p>
<p>“<em>No, brother, the girls from Ryazan (a town near Moscow), are more reliable and without deceit.” More reliable! To which his friend could easily say: “How do you know?”</em></p>
<p>Yet despite the absurdity and propagandistic crudeness of the articles, certain indications are worthy of notice. One soldier attributes the toeless shoe to lack of material. What a story that tells, not only of the poverty – no one laughs at poverty – but of the carefully nurtured ignorance in which the bureaucracy keeps the people!</p>
<p>One house, a soldier notes, is packed with “luxuries.” These luxuries are “toilet articles, cooking utensils and vacuum cleaners.”<br>
</p>
<h4>Hiding the Truth</h4>
<p class="fst">Skobelev does not only deal with Bucharest. He also is preparing the Red Army for what it will see in Germany – ruined, war-torn Germany. He notes that the culture of a country can be measured by the quantity of soap consumed. Then he remarks that Germany normally consumed more soap than any other country in Europe. This is a problem. But he solves it. His conclusion is to note what “well-washed, cultured hands can do.” Ah, this unprincipled manner of living, says Skobelev, can offer few temptations to the Red Army man.</p>
<p><em>The whole thing is a pathetic attempt to make the Russian soldiers glory in their poverty, in the destitution, to which Russia has been subjected.</em></p>
<p>It is obvious that Skobelev is not defending the Kremlin against the devastation of Russia caused by war. If that were so, there would be no need to write as he has done. The Russian soldiers would know and understand. What he is doing is to discredit the pitiable culture of Bucharest in comparison with what the Russian workers accept as their normal way of living. As long as they were cut off from contact with Europe they could be bluffed into thinking that their poverty was nothing exceptional. In fact, Kaganovitch actually had the nerve to say at the opening of the Moscow subway that Russia could have a subway because of socialism. Now, however, the Russian soldiers can see for themselves. The bureaucracy will not find it so easy to deceive them.<br>
</p>
<h4>Deceit and Lies</h4>
<p class="fst">As usual with Stalinist propagandists, there is one thing which they always leave out. We shall remind them of it. There is a class in Russia which uses lipstick freely and wears shoes without toes, To supply this class, a Russian agent made a special trip to Western Europe seeking perfumes and such-like decorations for the Russian rich. The perfume industry of late years had become important. For its head and traveling agent was no less a person than Madame Molotov, the wife of “Fascism Is a Matter of Taste” Molotov. Obviously the Red Army soldier had had no opportunity to wash the paint off the face of her and her friends to see what lay beneath.</p>
<p><em>Ilya Ehrenberg, Skobelev and the other hired apologists of the Kremlin are as crude and scoundrelly defenders of the Russian bureaucracy as the Westbrook Peglers of the American press are of America’s parasitic rich. But history moves on. The Russian soldiers, we hope, will use their eyes and see that if in Europe there is greater wealth than in Russia it is divided in the same way, the great bulk of it for the ruling class and the rest for the workers.</em></p>
<p><em>We hope they will see not only the class divisions but see how class divisions are destroyed, by revolution. We, hope too that they or their representatives will soon have the opportunity of driving out Skobelev and Ehrenberg and their bureaucratic sponsors of the Stalin regime from the columns of <strong>Pravda</strong> and from state power and fill the space with an accurate and balanced account of what they saw in Europe and how they helped their European comrades to change it.</em></p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on 16 February 2016</p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > C.L.R. James
J.R. Johnson
Egad! Stalin Fears “Contamination” of
Red Army by Rumanian “Luxuries”!
(October 1944)
From Labor Action, Vol. 8 No. 41, 9 October 1944, p 3.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for MIA.
For some years now Stalinist Russia has maintained the great masses of the Russian people in strict isolation from the rest of the world. The borders of that country are guarded by barbed wire, pill-boxes, machine guns, dogs and men, in peace as well as in. war. Foreign magazines are carefully examined and pages torn out before they are publicly sold.
Today, in “one world,” the great masses of the Russian people are as effectively isolated from foreign nations as were feudal serfs or Roman slaves. The difference is that in one case it was due to lack of technical and scientific development ... In the Russian case it is the opposite. Such is the poverty and oppression of the people that all the advantages of science are used to isolate them and keep them at the mercy of their rulers.
The same thing has taken place in Germany under Hitler. It is the necessary accompaniment of the totalitarian state, which, in all circumstances, is directed against the masses of the people.
But alas! The Red Army is now reaching European civilization. True, it is not very advanced civilization. It is miserable, backward Rumania. But Bucharest, poor as it is, is a European capital. The Red Army men are seeing with their own eyes what “bourgeois civilization” is like. And this has caused serious concern in the Kremlin. What if the stalwart men of the Red Army should be driven to make comparisons between Stalin’s “socialism” and “fascist-minded” Bucharest?
The Pravda Articles
Two articles in Pravda raise the alarm. Skobelev, a Russian journalist, describes, the “fat bodies, flabby cheeks and baggy eyes” of the men. But the Russian soldiers would hardly be too interested in the men. The women, unfortunately, are “attractive,” with “cunning” hair-do’s. They wear dark red lipstick, which gives them “sinister mouths.” Shades of Theda Bara and Clara Bow.
Two Russian soldiers in Bucharest discussed these women, and Skobelev reports the discussion:
“What can you say? They’re very attractive.”
The Russian soldier was unduly bold in expressing this opinion. Who knows? Tomorrow he may be accused of Trotskyism. For his comrade, a true Stalinist, rebukes him. Says this hero:
“Wash off all that paint and then see what they’re like.” (Presumably this unpleasant task would be assigned to the GPU.) But our patriot went on to point an immediate moral which could be drawn without waiting for the results of the washing.
“No, brother, the girls from Ryazan (a town near Moscow), are more reliable and without deceit.” More reliable! To which his friend could easily say: “How do you know?”
Yet despite the absurdity and propagandistic crudeness of the articles, certain indications are worthy of notice. One soldier attributes the toeless shoe to lack of material. What a story that tells, not only of the poverty – no one laughs at poverty – but of the carefully nurtured ignorance in which the bureaucracy keeps the people!
One house, a soldier notes, is packed with “luxuries.” These luxuries are “toilet articles, cooking utensils and vacuum cleaners.”
Hiding the Truth
Skobelev does not only deal with Bucharest. He also is preparing the Red Army for what it will see in Germany – ruined, war-torn Germany. He notes that the culture of a country can be measured by the quantity of soap consumed. Then he remarks that Germany normally consumed more soap than any other country in Europe. This is a problem. But he solves it. His conclusion is to note what “well-washed, cultured hands can do.” Ah, this unprincipled manner of living, says Skobelev, can offer few temptations to the Red Army man.
The whole thing is a pathetic attempt to make the Russian soldiers glory in their poverty, in the destitution, to which Russia has been subjected.
It is obvious that Skobelev is not defending the Kremlin against the devastation of Russia caused by war. If that were so, there would be no need to write as he has done. The Russian soldiers would know and understand. What he is doing is to discredit the pitiable culture of Bucharest in comparison with what the Russian workers accept as their normal way of living. As long as they were cut off from contact with Europe they could be bluffed into thinking that their poverty was nothing exceptional. In fact, Kaganovitch actually had the nerve to say at the opening of the Moscow subway that Russia could have a subway because of socialism. Now, however, the Russian soldiers can see for themselves. The bureaucracy will not find it so easy to deceive them.
Deceit and Lies
As usual with Stalinist propagandists, there is one thing which they always leave out. We shall remind them of it. There is a class in Russia which uses lipstick freely and wears shoes without toes, To supply this class, a Russian agent made a special trip to Western Europe seeking perfumes and such-like decorations for the Russian rich. The perfume industry of late years had become important. For its head and traveling agent was no less a person than Madame Molotov, the wife of “Fascism Is a Matter of Taste” Molotov. Obviously the Red Army soldier had had no opportunity to wash the paint off the face of her and her friends to see what lay beneath.
Ilya Ehrenberg, Skobelev and the other hired apologists of the Kremlin are as crude and scoundrelly defenders of the Russian bureaucracy as the Westbrook Peglers of the American press are of America’s parasitic rich. But history moves on. The Russian soldiers, we hope, will use their eyes and see that if in Europe there is greater wealth than in Russia it is divided in the same way, the great bulk of it for the ruling class and the rest for the workers.
We hope they will see not only the class divisions but see how class divisions are destroyed, by revolution. We, hope too that they or their representatives will soon have the opportunity of driving out Skobelev and Ehrenberg and their bureaucratic sponsors of the Stalin regime from the columns of Pravda and from state power and fill the space with an accurate and balanced account of what they saw in Europe and how they helped their European comrades to change it.
Top of the page
Last updated on 16 February 2016
|
./articles/Meyer-J.-(C.L.R.-James)/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.james-clr.works.1946.03.tenth1a | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">C.L.R. James</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>J.R. Johnson</h2>
<h4>One-Tenth of the Nation</h4>
<h1>A Warning Against Stalinist Maneuvers</h1>
<h3>(18 March 1946)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info">From <strong>Labor Action</strong>, <a href="../../../../../history/etol/newspape/laboraction-ny/1946/index.htm#la10_11" target="new">Vol. X No. 11</a>, 18 March 1946, p. 3.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">Ben Davis, Jr., Negro Councilman and Stalinist faker, has written
a fierce article against the crimes in Freeport, Long Island, and
Columbia, Tennessee. Ben Davis blames capitalism.</p>
<p class="quoteb">“These conditions,” he says, “have
their roots in capitalism which grows fat on suffering, strife,
disunity and low wages, all of which evils become most acute during
conditions of economic stress and crises.”</p>
<p class="fst">And then he ends:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“How our country needs socialism!”<br>
</p>
<h4>The Stalinist Record</h4>
<p class="fst">Yes, that is perfectly true. The United States and above all
others, the Negroes, need socialism. But who have been the bitterest
enemies of the social revolution and socialism but the Communist
party, the party of Benjamin Davis, Jr.? In this very article of his,
he calls upon the workers to send a stinging protest to “the
second Mississippi Compromise, Harry Truman.”</p>
<p><em>And how did Harry Truman get into the White House? Wasn’t
Harry Truman, second in command and chosen heir of Franklin D.
Roosevelt? The capitalism which grows fat on suffering didn't begin
yesterday. It was there growing fat in 1944 when Ben Davis and his
Communist party rooted for Franklin Roosevelt as President of the
United States. This capitalism was there, growing fat on disunity and
low wages when Roosevelt and Stalin signed the Teheran Pact. During
those days Ben Davis, Jr. did not find that our country needed
socialism so terribly.</em></p>
<p>However, the Stalinist Empire finds the United States in the way
of its expansion. Hitler is defeated. Competition for world
domination is now on the order of the day between Russian imperialism
and American imperialism. Behold, Ben Davis rediscovers how our
country, how badly our country needs socialism.</p>
<p><em>The Workers Party and <strong>Labor Action</strong> from the beginning of
their existence to the present day have been, in the vanguard of the
struggle for socialism. We believe that the first condition for the
overthrow of bourgeois society is a clear recognition by the workers
of all trade union bureaucrats, labor fakers and pseudo-socialists as
the agents of capitalism in the working class movement. Of these, Ben
Davis, Jr. is a notorious example. He and his party practice a
calculated manipulation of Negro suffering and Negro militancy in the
interests of Stalinist politics. One of their most potent weapons of
corruption is the <strong>People’s Voice</strong> where Doxey Wilkerson,
its general manager, organizes the weekly outpouring of Stalinist
corruption. Closely associated with him is Adam Clayton Powell, a
slick Negro Congressman, who in addition to his maneuvers in
Washington, writes a weekly article in <strong>People’s Voice</strong>.
The National Negro Congress, formerly led by Max Yergan, is now under
the leadership of Revels Cayton, a notorious Stalinist from the West
Coast. These Negroes and quite a few others take advantage of their
color to put across the Stalinist line among the Negro people.</em></p>
<p>It is pernicious at all times but when it takes the form of
perverting the struggle for socialism, then above all, it is
necessary for revolutionary socialists to call these people to
account and to expose them.<br>
</p>
<h4>Workers Are Learning</h4>
<p class="fst">The father of revolutionary socialism is Karl Marx. His greatest
disciple was Lenin. It is inconceivable that Marx or Lenin would have
condoned in any way the brutal robberies of which the Stalinist
Empire is guilty in Eastern Europe and Western Asia. Marx and Lenin
were the enemies of imperialism in any shape or form. It is possible
to support imperialist banditry in Europe and Asia and preach
socialism in the United States only by a brazen hypocrisy.</p>
<p><em>Marx and Lenin spent their lives in educating the working class
to the evils and crimes of capitalism. Never were they found boosting
a Roosevelt and a Truman on one day and then denouncing them as
enemies of the working class on the next. They made mistakes and they
changed their policies but such mistakes neither they nor any sincere
socialist could possibly make. Such “mistakes” are the
result of conscious deception and deliberate political maneuvers in
the interests of an imperialist power.</em></p>
<p>Why is it so necessary, why is it so urgent today that the
doctrine of revolutionary socialism be presented to the working class
without contamination and without corruption. Why is it so necessary
that revolutionary socialists maintain a vigilant exposure of these
enemies of socialism?</p>
<p>It is because the workers of this country, whites and Negroes, are
deeply conscious of the crimes of capitalism. They cannot formulate
in scientific terms the ills to which they are subjected but they
fight against them and little by little they learn.</p>
<p>A few days ago a general strike took place in the important city
of Houston, Texas. The majority of the original strikers were
Negroes. Yet the entire labor movement in Houston rallied to their
support. On the eve of the general strike, a meeting was held by the
South Side Civic Council to support the strikers. In the courthouse
where the meeting was held, Negroes are prohibited. But the white
workers insisted fhat this rule be broken and more than a third of
the audience were Negroes.</p>
<p>The <strong>Dallas Morning News</strong>, which recognized the significance
of this action wrote an editorial entitled: <em>Houston and Karl Marx</em>.
Here is an extract:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“There is a theory that working for a living is a
sort of economic war between the boss and the worker. That is Karl
Marx theory. To Karl Marx, the employer is the natural enemy of the
worker and the worker is the natural enemy of the employer. That
theory can have only one outcome – war ... Most of the Houston
employees, of course, never gave Karl Marx a thought. But they are
testing out the Marx theory, whether they so intended or not. They
are learning the hard way.”</p>
<p class="fst"><em>The <strong>Dallas Morning News</strong> is perfectly right. Millions of
American workers including Negroes are learning the hard way. They
are testing out the Marxist theory whether they consciously intend it
or not. What they need is a clear consistent exposition of the
doctrines of revolutionary socialism. By this means they will be able
to draw to the end their practical experiences and thus in time
mobilize themselves to overthrow this rotten society.</em></p>
<p>But for many years now the Communist Party with its army of white
and Negro bureaucrats descends upon just such groups as these
splendid Houston fighters and corrupt and mislead them with Stalinist
maneuvers represented as Marxism and social revolution.</p>
<p><em>We of the Workers Party warn the Negro workers in particular
not to be caught by these glib facile time-servers. For the working
class to fulfill its destiny and lead the nation in the social
revolution, it must not only be prepared to struggle and sacrifice.
It must be prepared to examine scrupulously the claims of all parties
which present themselves for leadership. Any serious examination of
the past of the Communist Party and Ben Davis will show that
repudiation of them and all that they stand for is one of the first
lessons that the revolutionary workers must learn.</em></p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on 6 August 2018</p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > C.L.R. James
J.R. Johnson
One-Tenth of the Nation
A Warning Against Stalinist Maneuvers
(18 March 1946)
From Labor Action, Vol. X No. 11, 18 March 1946, p. 3.
Ben Davis, Jr., Negro Councilman and Stalinist faker, has written
a fierce article against the crimes in Freeport, Long Island, and
Columbia, Tennessee. Ben Davis blames capitalism.
“These conditions,” he says, “have
their roots in capitalism which grows fat on suffering, strife,
disunity and low wages, all of which evils become most acute during
conditions of economic stress and crises.”
And then he ends:
“How our country needs socialism!”
The Stalinist Record
Yes, that is perfectly true. The United States and above all
others, the Negroes, need socialism. But who have been the bitterest
enemies of the social revolution and socialism but the Communist
party, the party of Benjamin Davis, Jr.? In this very article of his,
he calls upon the workers to send a stinging protest to “the
second Mississippi Compromise, Harry Truman.”
And how did Harry Truman get into the White House? Wasn’t
Harry Truman, second in command and chosen heir of Franklin D.
Roosevelt? The capitalism which grows fat on suffering didn't begin
yesterday. It was there growing fat in 1944 when Ben Davis and his
Communist party rooted for Franklin Roosevelt as President of the
United States. This capitalism was there, growing fat on disunity and
low wages when Roosevelt and Stalin signed the Teheran Pact. During
those days Ben Davis, Jr. did not find that our country needed
socialism so terribly.
However, the Stalinist Empire finds the United States in the way
of its expansion. Hitler is defeated. Competition for world
domination is now on the order of the day between Russian imperialism
and American imperialism. Behold, Ben Davis rediscovers how our
country, how badly our country needs socialism.
The Workers Party and Labor Action from the beginning of
their existence to the present day have been, in the vanguard of the
struggle for socialism. We believe that the first condition for the
overthrow of bourgeois society is a clear recognition by the workers
of all trade union bureaucrats, labor fakers and pseudo-socialists as
the agents of capitalism in the working class movement. Of these, Ben
Davis, Jr. is a notorious example. He and his party practice a
calculated manipulation of Negro suffering and Negro militancy in the
interests of Stalinist politics. One of their most potent weapons of
corruption is the People’s Voice where Doxey Wilkerson,
its general manager, organizes the weekly outpouring of Stalinist
corruption. Closely associated with him is Adam Clayton Powell, a
slick Negro Congressman, who in addition to his maneuvers in
Washington, writes a weekly article in People’s Voice.
The National Negro Congress, formerly led by Max Yergan, is now under
the leadership of Revels Cayton, a notorious Stalinist from the West
Coast. These Negroes and quite a few others take advantage of their
color to put across the Stalinist line among the Negro people.
It is pernicious at all times but when it takes the form of
perverting the struggle for socialism, then above all, it is
necessary for revolutionary socialists to call these people to
account and to expose them.
Workers Are Learning
The father of revolutionary socialism is Karl Marx. His greatest
disciple was Lenin. It is inconceivable that Marx or Lenin would have
condoned in any way the brutal robberies of which the Stalinist
Empire is guilty in Eastern Europe and Western Asia. Marx and Lenin
were the enemies of imperialism in any shape or form. It is possible
to support imperialist banditry in Europe and Asia and preach
socialism in the United States only by a brazen hypocrisy.
Marx and Lenin spent their lives in educating the working class
to the evils and crimes of capitalism. Never were they found boosting
a Roosevelt and a Truman on one day and then denouncing them as
enemies of the working class on the next. They made mistakes and they
changed their policies but such mistakes neither they nor any sincere
socialist could possibly make. Such “mistakes” are the
result of conscious deception and deliberate political maneuvers in
the interests of an imperialist power.
Why is it so necessary, why is it so urgent today that the
doctrine of revolutionary socialism be presented to the working class
without contamination and without corruption. Why is it so necessary
that revolutionary socialists maintain a vigilant exposure of these
enemies of socialism?
It is because the workers of this country, whites and Negroes, are
deeply conscious of the crimes of capitalism. They cannot formulate
in scientific terms the ills to which they are subjected but they
fight against them and little by little they learn.
A few days ago a general strike took place in the important city
of Houston, Texas. The majority of the original strikers were
Negroes. Yet the entire labor movement in Houston rallied to their
support. On the eve of the general strike, a meeting was held by the
South Side Civic Council to support the strikers. In the courthouse
where the meeting was held, Negroes are prohibited. But the white
workers insisted fhat this rule be broken and more than a third of
the audience were Negroes.
The Dallas Morning News, which recognized the significance
of this action wrote an editorial entitled: Houston and Karl Marx.
Here is an extract:
“There is a theory that working for a living is a
sort of economic war between the boss and the worker. That is Karl
Marx theory. To Karl Marx, the employer is the natural enemy of the
worker and the worker is the natural enemy of the employer. That
theory can have only one outcome – war ... Most of the Houston
employees, of course, never gave Karl Marx a thought. But they are
testing out the Marx theory, whether they so intended or not. They
are learning the hard way.”
The Dallas Morning News is perfectly right. Millions of
American workers including Negroes are learning the hard way. They
are testing out the Marxist theory whether they consciously intend it
or not. What they need is a clear consistent exposition of the
doctrines of revolutionary socialism. By this means they will be able
to draw to the end their practical experiences and thus in time
mobilize themselves to overthrow this rotten society.
But for many years now the Communist Party with its army of white
and Negro bureaucrats descends upon just such groups as these
splendid Houston fighters and corrupt and mislead them with Stalinist
maneuvers represented as Marxism and social revolution.
We of the Workers Party warn the Negro workers in particular
not to be caught by these glib facile time-servers. For the working
class to fulfill its destiny and lead the nation in the social
revolution, it must not only be prepared to struggle and sacrifice.
It must be prepared to examine scrupulously the claims of all parties
which present themselves for leadership. Any serious examination of
the past of the Communist Party and Ben Davis will show that
repudiation of them and all that they stand for is one of the first
lessons that the revolutionary workers must learn.
Top of the page
Last updated on 6 August 2018
|
./articles/Meyer-J.-(C.L.R.-James)/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.james-clr.works.1946.04.stalinism3 | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">C.L.R. James</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>J.R. Johnson</h2>
<h4>Part III of a Series on Stalinism</h4>
<h1>Imperialist Policy in Iran</h1>
<h2>(22 April 1946)</h2>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info">From <strong>Labor Action</strong>, <a href="../../../../../history/etol/newspape/laboraction-ny/1946/index.htm#la10_16" target="new">Vol. X No. 16</a>, 22 April 1946, p. 4.<br>
Transcribed & marked up by <a href="../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Marxists’ Internet Archive</strong>.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">The treaty between Stalinist Russia and Iran has appeared in the press. It is a document which the American worker should read and examine carefully in all its implications. When he realizes what it signifies, he will be able to watch the Stalinists in his union with new eyes, and throw their lying, corrupt arguments back in their faces.</p>
<p>The treaty arranges for an oil company in which for 25 years 51% of the profits will go to Stalinist Russia. Iran will supply the land (and the oil), Stalinist Russia will supply the equipment and wage and salary expenses for the workers, technicians, etc.</p>
<p>So that is what the struggle is about. An old-fashioned imperialist cut-throat scramble for oil. So that all the talk about democratic rights for the Iranian minorities was just a lot of Stalinist lies. The insurrection of the Azerbaijinian Republic, that, too, was only a Stalinist maneuver to get oil. We expect this sort of. thing from the United States and from Britain. But why from Russia, from what the Socialist Workers Party calls a degenerated workers’ state?</p>
<p>The SWP says that it does not support this. But if war broke out between Russia and the United States and Britain, then, it says, the workers should support Russia in the war. The Workers Party says, “No.” And it says further that however much the SWP may denounce the crimes of Stalinism, by this attitude it only helps the Stalinists and confuses the workers, miseducates them, and drags the conception of the workers’ state in the mud.<br>
</p>
<h4>Lenin and Trotsky’s Policy</h4>
<p class="fst">Listen to the Stalinist in the union. He will point out that Lenin and the Old Bolsheviks made treaties with capitalist states. So they did. But they did something else too. In 1921 Russia was busily engaged in trying to establish trade relations with as many capitalist countries as possible. But in June the Third International met in Congress in Moscow. Trotsky was People’s Commissar of War and Naval Affairs. He wrote an order of the day to the Red Army and signed it with his official title. Here are some extracts:</p>
<p class="quoteb"><em>“It is a great joy and honor for the workers, peasants and Red soldiers of Russia to greet within the walls of the Red capital the best representatives of the world working class ...</em></p>
<p class="quote"><em>“Yon have assured to the representatives of the world working class the opportunity to come together under your protection in order to elaborate the further wars and methods of waging the struggle against capitalist coercion—in the name of the fraternity, liberty and happiness of all oppressed mankind.”</em></p>
<p class="fst">The working class today has forgotten what the Russian government was in the days when it was a workers’ government. It believed in the world revolution. It organized openly for it. Lenin and Trotsky declared that only the world revolution could save mankind from another war, from devastating economic crises and barbarous reaction.</p>
<p>In 1923 there was a revolutionary situation in Germany. The imperialist governments of Poland and France threatened to intervene against the workers. Trotsky, Commissar of War, massed Russian troops on the Polish border and made a declaration which amounted to this:</p>
<p>Let the German workers and the German capitalists fight it out. We do not want war, but if the armies of foreign countries intervene on behalf of the German capitalists, the armies of Soviet Russia will march to defend the German workers.</p>
<p>The revolution failed to materialize. But that does not alter the facts. The workers’ state of Lenin and Trotsky was <em>revolutionary</em>. The workers of the world knew that. The capitalists knew it too.<br>
</p>
<h4>What Stalinism Is</h4>
<p class="fst">In those days Russia was a weak state. Its economy was still half-ruined. It was surrounded by powerful capitalist states, particularly Germany and Japan. Poland was its enemy. Yet it was revolutionary and survived. Today Russia is the most powerful state in Europe. Poland is its satellite. It rules over what was once Austria-Hungary. It sits on half of Germany. Japan is flat on its face. The workers all over the world are crying for help, for leadership, ready to struggle against the crimes, the barbarism, the ruin of imperialism. But not a word comes from the rulers of Russia to them. Stalinist Russia is busy grabbing territory, stealing factories from starving countries, fomenting insurrections for oil and other concessions and telling the workers that socialism is not for them today.</p>
<p><em>The Russian army today exists exclusively for the preservation of the power of the Russian bureaucracy and to carry out its imperialist banditry abroad.</em></p>
<p>That is what Stalinism is as compared to the workers’ state of Lenin and Trotsky. That is what the <strong>Daily Worker</strong> and its noisy supporters in the factories defend. The bureaucrats like Foster and Ben Davis know exactly what the facts are. The rank and file Stalinists are ignorant for the most part, having been educated in the belief that Marxism is what the Stalinist bureaucracy does or orders. But whether they are ignorant or not, their organization is a menace to the working class and to socialism. The American workers should denounce them, repudiate them and shame them if they attempt to pass off this imperialist crime in Iran as something different from the robbery and violence of American and British imperialism.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on 19 January 2019</p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > C.L.R. James
J.R. Johnson
Part III of a Series on Stalinism
Imperialist Policy in Iran
(22 April 1946)
From Labor Action, Vol. X No. 16, 22 April 1946, p. 4.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
The treaty between Stalinist Russia and Iran has appeared in the press. It is a document which the American worker should read and examine carefully in all its implications. When he realizes what it signifies, he will be able to watch the Stalinists in his union with new eyes, and throw their lying, corrupt arguments back in their faces.
The treaty arranges for an oil company in which for 25 years 51% of the profits will go to Stalinist Russia. Iran will supply the land (and the oil), Stalinist Russia will supply the equipment and wage and salary expenses for the workers, technicians, etc.
So that is what the struggle is about. An old-fashioned imperialist cut-throat scramble for oil. So that all the talk about democratic rights for the Iranian minorities was just a lot of Stalinist lies. The insurrection of the Azerbaijinian Republic, that, too, was only a Stalinist maneuver to get oil. We expect this sort of. thing from the United States and from Britain. But why from Russia, from what the Socialist Workers Party calls a degenerated workers’ state?
The SWP says that it does not support this. But if war broke out between Russia and the United States and Britain, then, it says, the workers should support Russia in the war. The Workers Party says, “No.” And it says further that however much the SWP may denounce the crimes of Stalinism, by this attitude it only helps the Stalinists and confuses the workers, miseducates them, and drags the conception of the workers’ state in the mud.
Lenin and Trotsky’s Policy
Listen to the Stalinist in the union. He will point out that Lenin and the Old Bolsheviks made treaties with capitalist states. So they did. But they did something else too. In 1921 Russia was busily engaged in trying to establish trade relations with as many capitalist countries as possible. But in June the Third International met in Congress in Moscow. Trotsky was People’s Commissar of War and Naval Affairs. He wrote an order of the day to the Red Army and signed it with his official title. Here are some extracts:
“It is a great joy and honor for the workers, peasants and Red soldiers of Russia to greet within the walls of the Red capital the best representatives of the world working class ...
“Yon have assured to the representatives of the world working class the opportunity to come together under your protection in order to elaborate the further wars and methods of waging the struggle against capitalist coercion—in the name of the fraternity, liberty and happiness of all oppressed mankind.”
The working class today has forgotten what the Russian government was in the days when it was a workers’ government. It believed in the world revolution. It organized openly for it. Lenin and Trotsky declared that only the world revolution could save mankind from another war, from devastating economic crises and barbarous reaction.
In 1923 there was a revolutionary situation in Germany. The imperialist governments of Poland and France threatened to intervene against the workers. Trotsky, Commissar of War, massed Russian troops on the Polish border and made a declaration which amounted to this:
Let the German workers and the German capitalists fight it out. We do not want war, but if the armies of foreign countries intervene on behalf of the German capitalists, the armies of Soviet Russia will march to defend the German workers.
The revolution failed to materialize. But that does not alter the facts. The workers’ state of Lenin and Trotsky was revolutionary. The workers of the world knew that. The capitalists knew it too.
What Stalinism Is
In those days Russia was a weak state. Its economy was still half-ruined. It was surrounded by powerful capitalist states, particularly Germany and Japan. Poland was its enemy. Yet it was revolutionary and survived. Today Russia is the most powerful state in Europe. Poland is its satellite. It rules over what was once Austria-Hungary. It sits on half of Germany. Japan is flat on its face. The workers all over the world are crying for help, for leadership, ready to struggle against the crimes, the barbarism, the ruin of imperialism. But not a word comes from the rulers of Russia to them. Stalinist Russia is busy grabbing territory, stealing factories from starving countries, fomenting insurrections for oil and other concessions and telling the workers that socialism is not for them today.
The Russian army today exists exclusively for the preservation of the power of the Russian bureaucracy and to carry out its imperialist banditry abroad.
That is what Stalinism is as compared to the workers’ state of Lenin and Trotsky. That is what the Daily Worker and its noisy supporters in the factories defend. The bureaucrats like Foster and Ben Davis know exactly what the facts are. The rank and file Stalinists are ignorant for the most part, having been educated in the belief that Marxism is what the Stalinist bureaucracy does or orders. But whether they are ignorant or not, their organization is a menace to the working class and to socialism. The American workers should denounce them, repudiate them and shame them if they attempt to pass off this imperialist crime in Iran as something different from the robbery and violence of American and British imperialism.
Top of the page
Last updated on 19 January 2019
|
./articles/Meyer-J.-(C.L.R.-James)/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.james-clr.works.1946.01.ikd2 | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">C.L.R. James</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>J.R. Johnson</h2>
<h1>Historical Retrogression or Socialist Revolution?</h1>
<h4>A Discussion Article on the Thesis of the IKD</h4>
<h3>(September 1945)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info">From <strong>New International</strong>, <a href="../../../../../history/etol/newspape/ni/issue2.htm#ni46_01" target="new">Vol. 12 No. 2</a>, February 1946, pp. 59–64.<br>
Transcribed & marked up by <a href="../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Marxists’ Internet Archive</strong>.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<h3>Part II: The Test of Events</h3>
<p class="fst">I propose now to test the retrogressionist theory by analysis of
the events in Europe. The history of Europe in 1914–39 ensured
rapid catastrophe for the bourgeoisie and therefore the immediate
emergence of the socialist proletariat. There is where to begin. The
first shock was the defeat of France, which, coupled with the
subsequent collaboration of the bourgeoisie, drove out the last
illusions about the rotten fabric of bourgeois democracy and gave an
indication of the tempo of development. The defeat of the air blitz
against Britain meant that in the course of the next three or four
years modern production would unloose on one side or the other or on
both such a weight of steel and lead and explosive as would make any
long war impossible. The same would also loosen every bolt of the
bourgeois structure. The performance of the Russian armies in front
of Moscow, Leningrad and the great battle at Stalingrad not only
proclaimed the defeat of Germany but posed to the workers the
imminent reckoning between themselves and the bourgeoisie who had
tortured them so long. But it did more. It underlined the bankruptcy
of the European bourgeois-democracies and posed for the European
workers the question of a “planned economy,” of state-ownership,
of an end to private property. In all the voluminous writings of the
retrogressionists, there has appeared no connected conception of all
this, the fundamental Marxist analysis of the war. German defeat
being on the order of the day, throughout 1943, the resistance
movements all over Europe and Asia and in France and in Poland in
particular, were elaborating a <em>social</em> program. Thus they were
fundamentally posing the question of class rule and state-power. Thus
the masses showed as clearly as possible that they did not want any
“democratic-political revolution.” They wanted Fascism destroyed.
But they wanted, in France for example, (1) a complete purge of the
Administration so that the almost hereditary caste of officials who
had betrayed France should be forever removed, (2) they wanted the
property of the trusts, the banks and insurance companies “returned
to the nation,” (3) they wanted the old official army abolished and
a new army based on the popular militia, (later the FFI, and the
Maquis), (4) they wanted democracy.</p>
<p>It was, for any Marxist, a most moving experience to see the
socialist future thus concretely and courageously emerging, as a
result of the ruin and catastrophe of the bourgeois barbarist war. It
was also in its way one of the most dramatic demonstrations of Marx’s
dialectical method that history has yet given us. For he is incapable
of understanding revolution who does not see that what the
proletariat in its empirical way was demanding was nothing less than
the smashing of the bourgeois state-machine, the abolition of the
bourgeois army, the substitution of collective property for bourgeois
property and democracy, not bourgeois democracy but a democracy based
on this overturn of the fundamentals of bourgeois society. That the
democracy was not the democracy of the Third Republic they made clear
by naming their new republic the Fourth Republic.</p>
<p>In the rest of Europe, the general situation was more or less the
same; for example, more advanced in Poland, less in other countries.
There is no space here to give evidence, but who wishes to deny this
has my very warmest invitation to do so. The overwhelming majority of
observers of Europe today report that the masses want the abolition
of trusts, state ownership, plus democracy. That, in any language,
even Stalinese, is socialism. Everybody knows this except those who
wear retrogressivist spectacles.<br>
</p>
<h4>The Counter-Revolution Takes Charge</h4>
<p class="fst">The resistance leaders, and chiefly the Stalinists in every
country, countered by promising socialism or at least, abolition of
the trusts, in equivocal programs <em>that meant one thing to the
workers and something else to the writers</em>. In France, for
example, the dishonest program for socialism was combined with a
relentless propaganda for a de Gaulle government. To the masses
this government was represented as being determined to institute the
new social order without delay. In March, 1944, the united French
resistance movement endorsed a program which, twist and turn as
it would, could not avoid the demand for the return of the great
sources of wealth to the nation. And when workers with arms in hand
say that, the question is posed in actuality and concretely related
to the actions of the masses. After the “liberation” of France in
August, 1944, the de Gaulle government, as in duty bound, sought to
disarm the workers. Civil war, i.e., the socialist revolution, was
averted only by a hair’s breadth. The Stalinists accomplished it in
1944 in circumstances far more dangerous for bourgeois society than
in 1936 when the workers were ready enough. Enjoying enormous
prestige from the victories of Russia and their devoted work (on
behalf of the USSR) in the resistance movements, they intervened, and
one authority ought to be quoted here. Earl Browder in the <strong>Daily
Worker</strong> of the United States defended his reactionary
class-collaborationist policy in the U.S. by pointing to this
notorious counter-revolutionary act in France. As he said
complacently, “The facts are known.” I hope they are. When Max
Lerner returned from France, he reported the bitterness among some
resistance leaders that they had missed the opportunity to create the
new socialist order immediately on the expulsion of the German
troops. Their self-criticism is not important. The thing is that
social revolution was posed.</p>
<p>Since then the Consultative Assembly has repeatedly called on
de Gaulle to nationalize the great industries, as he promised.
Knowing that they are more terrified of the masses than he, he
refuses. In May, 1945, on the morning of the municipal elections, the
Socialist and Communist Parties issued a joint manifesto calling the
de Gaulle government to fulfill the promise of the resistance
program and nationalize the property of the trusts. Striving to
stifle the revolution in France, these organizations and their
resistance counterparts called a conference (which they had the
impudence to call the States-General) for the week of July 14, 1945.
Over 2,000 delegates attended. Chief result was an oath full of the
most asphyxiating democratic verbiage. But there in the heart of it
are the words “the fundamental rights of economic and social
democracy ... to wit ... national economic sovereignty incompatible
with the existence of private groups such as trusts, whose means of
production and property must be restored to the national heritage.”
The Stalinists dared not leave it out. Many millions of French men
and women have no doubt repeated and subscribed to that oath. The big
bourgeoisie trembles for its property. That is the temper of France.
The CGT has four and a half million members. The Stalinist Party and
the Socialist Party are more powerful than ever they were in 1936.
The phenomenon is European. Yet we are to believe that all this is
the mark of a great historical retrogression of workers just emerging
from slavery.</p>
<p>The proletarian masses all over Europe know and declare that
political democracy is not enough. “Economic democracy” is their
own phrase. So also is: the confiscation of wealth from the trusts
which ruined and betrayed the nation. Since 1942 this has been their
steady cry. In France the Popular Republican Movement, a Catholic
organization and the great hope of the bourgeoisie, has come out for
nationalization. All the moderate parties can only hold their own by
raising the demand for nationalization. And it is since 1942 that the
retrogressionists have declared for their “democratic-political
revolution.” For the past year they present the amazing spectacle
of revolutionary socialists bringing to the front democracy while
bourgeois and Stalinist parties win elections on popular leaflets
demanding the abolition of trusts. While even counter-revolutionary
parties can exist only by shouting nationalization (which <em>for the
workers</em> means socialism), the vanguard of the vanguard sees the
main task as the propaganda of democratic slogans owing to the
historical retrogression.<br>
</p>
<h4>Constituent Assembly. Bourgeois or Proletarian</h4>
<p class="fst">I look back to more than a nodding acquaintance with our movement
during the past hundred years. I cannot find its equal. And yet they
can only get out of it by a radical break with the whole past of
their theory and practice. From the moment they put forward their
theory the retrogressionists were in an inescapable dilemma. Others
have found themselves in it. In 1905 Lenin, facing a
<em>bourgeois-democratic revolution</em>, posed this problem before his
vacillating opponents. “And if we are in earnest in putting forward
the practical demand for the immediate overthrow of the autocratic
government, then we must be clear in our minds <em>as to what
other government</em> we want to take the place of the one that is to
be overthrown.” (<strong>Selected Works</strong>, vol. III, p. 21.)
The retrogressionists have never answered and to this day cannot
answer this question. In France, in Holland, in Belgium, etc., they
proposed to enter the resistance movements. They proposed seriously
to take part in the overthrow of the Nazi or collaborationist
governments. But “<em>what other government</em>” was to take its
place? They had nothing to say, they could have nothing to say, owing
to their great historical retrogression. Their “democratic-political
revolution” was a revolution of a bourgeois type. The Stalinists
and the rest knew what they wanted – a bourgeois government, and
fought fiercely to get it. On this point the retrogressionists could
not distinguish the French proletariat from the French bourgeoisie in
the traditional manner of the Fourth International. Somehow the
relation of bourgeoisie and proletariat in the process of production
had altered. On this all-important question of a government – silence.</p>
<p>But maybe their slogan was “the democratic-political” slogan
of a Constituent Assembly to decide the form of government. If
anything could awaken the Marxist dead, this would. Half of Lenin’s
struggle against the Mensheviks in 1905 was over this very question
of a Constituent Assembly. And this, mind you, was a
bourgeois-democratic revolution. Lenin did not object to the slogan
as a slogan. He wanted a Constituent Assembly, but an “assembly
which would have the power and force to ‘constitute’.” He
wanted a provisional revolutionary government. “By its origin and
fundamental nature such a government must be the organ of the
people’s rebellion. Its formal purpose must be to serve as an
instrument for the convocation of a national Constituent Assembly.”
But, and here the great revolutionary speaks, “Its activities must
be directed toward the achievement of the minimum program of
proletarian democracy.” This program for Russia, 1905, was the
destruction of Czarism, formation of a republic and abolition of
feudal property. Lenin continued: “It might be argued that the
provisional government, owing to the fact that it is provisional,
could not carry out a positive program which had not yet received the
approval of the whole of the people. Such an argument would be sheer
sophistry, such as is advanced by reactionaries ... and autocrats.”
(<strong>Selected Works</strong>, III, p. 51.) Compare this with the
“democratic-political revolution.” Its maximum demand was –
restore democracy.</p>
<p>Trotsky in 1931 solved this problem for Spain by calling the
Constituent Assembly a Revolutionary Constituent Assembly, thereby
cutting it off at one stroke from the petty-bourgeois chatterers and
fakers. He demanded that the <em>Assembly itself</em> confiscate the
railways, mines, etc. No fooling the people with writing academic
constitutions <em>à la</em> Weimar. The armed people should institute
<em>their</em> government, and <em>their</em> assembly which would act.
(This is not merely past history. Later I shall again expose the
retrogressionist “Constituent Assembly” slogan.) But the fact
remains that instead of boldly posing to the revolting workers, and
peasants, in their factory committees, resistance committees, peasant
committees, the formation of a government to carry out immediately –
but to carry out what? There the retrogressionist thesis hung at
their feet like a ball and chain. There was no feudal property. The
only thing a revolutionary government could do was to drive out
Pétain, institute a workers’ government and seize the bourgeois
property. But to say that meant the collapse of the whole
retrogressionist thesis. So retrogression kept quiet.</p>
<p>Let us return to events. In Greece, for three whole days, the
power lay in the streets. It could have been seized, big capitalists
tried and shot, their property confiscated, with incalculable
consequences for Eastern and all Europe. Revolutionists should have
prepared the armed masses to seize precisely such an opportunity and
to set themselves up as the government. As far as it could,
retrogression said-retrogression, and when the British and Greek
reaction massacred the Greek masses, said, “You see, we said so.
Everything and everybody is retrogressive.”</p>
<p>North Italy is perhaps the most striking refutation of
retrogression. There, as we have seen, during the last months of the
war, the workers had to be appeased by decrees (no doubt phoney but
yet significant) which “socialized” industry. Great strikes shook
the Northern provinces and the workers collaborated with armed
partisans. I ask the retrogressionists. Wasn’t it here that the
revolutionaries should have said, “Remember Greece. See what
de Gaulle and Pierlot are doing. At the first sign of German
retreat we shall confiscate these factories, our resistance
committees will deal with the Germans and the bourgeoisie and
establish a workers’ government?” But for the Stalinists, they
would in all probability have done just that. As it was, not knowing
that they were in a great retrogression they negotiated with
Mussolini, executed numbers of fascists and capitalists, purged the
government and, from the latest accounts, not only seized the
factories but are still running them. Thereby they showed in practice
what they thought of the “democratic-political revolution.”</p>
<p>Innumerable examples can be given to show without any contention
or doubt that the objective movement of events in Europe imposed upon
the working masses both the need and the opportunity to seize state
power. Historical development has placed objectively before the
nation the necessity of leadership by the proletariat. This is the
historical movement of our times – not retrogression. The
“screwed-back development” and the “democratic-political
revolution” are in no way substantiated by events.<br>
</p>
<h4>Retrogression Today</h4>
<p class="fst">The whole retrogressionist thesis compelled it to confine itself
to the concept of the “democratic-political revolution,” i.e.,
demanding the <em>restoration</em> of the bourgeois-national state. The
terrible thing is that this is their program for Europe today. Look
at what they’ think of the contemporary European proletariat.
“Political consciousness,” they say, “lives only in ... groups
and individuals (“isolated and decimated propaganda groups,”
i.e., a few hundred Trotskyists). (p. 240) The European
proletariat today has no political consciousness. Obviously, then,
there is no use talking of socialism.</p>
<p>According to retrogressionist accumulation: “The proletariat has
again, as formerly, become an amorphous mass, the characteristics of
its rise and its formation have been lost.” Just pause and
contemplate for a few awed minutes the historic sweep of that
statement. Who says A says B. “Before Europe can unite itself into
‘socialist states,’ it must first separate itself again into
independent and autonomous states.” The retrogressionists have no
conception of revolutionary dynamics. They adhere to fixed and formal
stages which have no application to contemporary Europe. Must
Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland set up free and
independent bourgeois states again before they can become socialist?
Are we, the socialist revolutionaries of the twentieth century, to
become sponsors of bourgeois states created by a
“democratic-political revolution”? And, concretely, what Europe
are these comrade. looking at?</p>
<p>At Yalta and at Potsdam, an American, an Englishman and a Georgian
living in Moscow <em>settled the fate of all Europe</em>. The rulers of
the “independent,” “autonomous” states, like you or me, read
what these three Titans had for lunch, what music they listened to
after dinner, and then learned their own fate in the lying
communiques. During World War I it was one of Lenin’s basic
arguments on self-determination that economic domination did not mean
political domination. Today, and that is the new stage, economic and
political domination go hand in hand. With trifling exceptions (e.g.,
Norway and perhaps Denmark), every single European government in
existence was established by imperialist power, could not have been
established without it and is maintained by it. Stalin maintains the
bourgeois states in Eastern Europe. With the possible exception of
France, Truman is responsible for the maintenance of every government
in Western Europe. That is the new Europe. And today, we, the
Marxists, are to call on the workers to revolt to substitute new
bourgeois governments “independent” and “autonomous” in order
then to prepare for socialism. There is a case where in the phrases
of Blake: the embattled angels must throw down their spears and water
heaven with their tears. For even they could not establish an
independent bourgeois Poland! It would take a volume to show the ruin
which the retrogressionists make of Marxism. For example, a
bourgeois-”democratic-political” revolution in Poland? Which
class is to lead it? The Polish bourgeoisie? In Greece, is the Greek
bourgeoisie to lead the revolution against Britain? Is it? If, in
France, the bourgeoisie moved from German fascism to Anglo-American
imperialism, as it did, is there the slightest reason for thinking
that any revolution anywhere in Europe would not have to fight
against its own bourgeoisie which needs the protection of one
imperialism or another? Are the workers so stupid as to be unable to
understand the simple truth of Europe today? The proletariat must
lead the revolution for national independence, so that the revolution
must be a socialist revolution. The retrogressionist analysis of
nations expropriating other nations drives them, by implication, to
give a revolutionary role to the bourgeoisie which it is incapable of
playing. This is where you land by tampering with the fundamentals of
Marxism. The retrogressionists say with pride that now everybody
repeats their thesis that Europe is Balkanized. What self-delusion!
Everybody says exactly the opposite, that Europe is not Balkanized.
Everybody sees that one power dominates Eastern Europe and one power
or rather a major power and satellite dominate the other half. These
comrades cannot see the difference between Versailles and Potsdam.
Finally let us compare these bold innovations with the Marxism we
still believe in. This was written during World War I by Trotsky:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“If the German armies achieved the decisive victory
reckoned upon in Germany at the outset of the war, then German
imperialism would doubtless make the gigantic attempt of a compulsory
war tariff union of European states which would be constructed
completely of preferences, compromises and heaps of every kind of
outworn stuff in conformity with the state structure of presentday
Germany. Needless to say, under such circumstances, no talk would be
possible of an autonomy of the nations, thus forcibly joined together
as the caricature of the European United States. Let us for a moment
admit that German militarism succeeds in actually carrying out the
compulsory half-union of Europe, what then would be the cardinal
formula of the European proletariat? Would it be the dissolution of
the forced European coalition and the return of all peoples under the
roof of isolated national state! Or the restoration of ‘automatic’
tariffs, ‘national’ coinage, ‘national’ social legislation,
and so forth? Certainly not. The slogan of the European revolutionary
movement would then be the cancellation of the compulsory,
anti-democratic form of the coalition with the preservation and
zealous furtherance of its foundations, in the form of the complete
annihilation of tariff barriers, the unification of legislation and
above all of labor laws. In other words, the slogan of the United
Socialist Europe – without monarchy and standing armies – would
under the foregoing circumstances become the unifying and guiding
formula of the European revolution.” (<em>Proletarian Revolution in Russia</em>)</p>
<p class="fst">Trotsky never moved and never would have moved one inch from that.
A few months before Stalin murdered him he wrote in the <em>Manifesto</em>:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“The shifts in the battle lines at the front, the
destruction of national capitals, the occupation of territories, the
downfall of individual states represent from this standpoint only
tragic episodes on the road to the reconstruction of modern society.”</p>
<p class="fst">Not historical retrogression to the Middle Ages but an episode on
the road to socialism. After Stalingrad the masses saw it more or
less that way too.<br>
</p>
<h4>“The Unifying and Guiding Formula”</h4>
<p class="fst">This is no thesis on Europe today. I have no space for that. But a
few things have to be said, and Germany offers a more than excellent
example. Here the proletariat, if anywhere, is “an amorphous mass.”
Here presumably we must have an “independent, autonomous state”
before the struggle for socialism begins, and this, if you please, by
a revolution. The retrogressionists presumably propose for Germany as
the first slogan: withdrawal of the occupation armies. Good. Next.
Freedom of press and right to organize. Agreed.</p>
<p>Now what next? Constituent Assembly? Constituent Assembly for
what? That is the question. To have some more German professors write
another Weimar Constitution? What do the retrogressionists mean by a
“democratic-political revolution” for Germany? Do they mean the
resurrection of a democratic German capitalism? Here is a new chance
for you to clarify us, comrades. If Germany is to be free, then
production must be free. Are Marxists to give the slightest
countenance to the idea of capitalism once more being given free
scope in Germany? We await your answer.</p>
<p>Marxism in Germany today demands withdrawal of occupying troops,
right of free press and the right to organize. That has not one whiff
of retrogression. But it demands today a revolutionary provisional
government elected by the people <em>to destroy capitalism in
Germany</em>. (And we might say boldly also that if the occupying
armies were to withdraw tomorrow, we would summon the people to arm
themselves and carry out this program in a revolutionary manner.) A
superb slogan, of deep historical significance, has already come out
of Germany. “Not National Socialism, but the Socialist Nation.”
This in the light of their dreadful past has meaning for all Germans.
This is the appeal the German workers must make to Europe. This must
be coupled with slogans embodying ideas such as: Do not take away the
factories. Do not limit our production. Let us join the European
working class in a new European socialist order.</p>
<p>Nothing else but this will counter the bourgeois propaganda that a
free Germany means war once more. This is the way to pose now before
the German people and the rest of Europe a unified Europe, the
Socialist United States of Europe.</p>
<p>The retrogression thesis on Germany today, ridiculous as it is,
merely continues its policy of yesterday. It is obvious that this
thesis could see no sort of proletarian socialist revolution in
Germany or Italy. There, <em>in excelsis</em>, the proletariat was
“amorphous mass,” etc. The European Trotskyist movement saw
Germany as the key to the European situation and to its eternal
credit” and honor never for one moment drew back or equivocated on
its belief in the capacity of the German workers to make a revolution
in the manner envisaged by Trotsky in 1938. The retrogressionists,
however, in full accordance with their theory, obviously had
abandoned the German revolution, even after the altogether
magnificent revolution of the Italian workers, which should have
wiped away all doubts about the recuperative power of the proletariat
under fascism. For them the Socialist United States of Europe was no
unifying slogan but a phrase. Their revolution in the occupied
countries was “democratic-political.” But the formation of
factory committees and soviets for Germany or Italy, the beginning of
the socialist revolution, as Trotsky envisaged it in 1938, that their
conception of the proletariat did not allow them to see at all.<br>
</p>
<h4>The Failure of the German Workers</h4>
<p class="fst">The German workers failed to achieve a coordinated revolt. The
exact reasons for this we do not know and doubtless before very long
they will tell us for themselves. But this much the present writer
has always believed and does not waver from it. After Stalingrad the
German bourgeoisie was doomed. As the climax approached it was
obvious that no class would be able to hold the German nation
together except the proletariat. It has turned out that such was the
destruction and ruin of Germany that the nation, including the
proletariat, collapsed completely. Germany is held together today by
occupying armies. But if tomorrow the occupying armies were to leave,
the proletariat would, as in Italy, reassert itself with the utmost
rapidity. Had there been a revolution in Germany, despite the fact
that invading armies would have entered, the whole European situation
would have been altered. Not only would the German proletariat have
started with a clean slate in its own eyes. It would have won
sympathy and support from the European workers at one stroke. And
this revolution would have immensely altered the relation of forces
in the hitherto occupied countries. As it is, the German failure
hangs heavily not only over Germany, but over Europe also.</p>
<p>Churchill can write and Attlee sign at Potsdam with no reaction
from British workers. The European workers are apathetic in regard to
Germany. The conception of the Socialist United States of Europe did
not get that final reinforcement from the German revolution. The
German workers, in the popular mind, share the responsibility for
Nazi crimes as the Italian workers do not.</p>
<p>The defeat hangs over us all, but on no revolutionary current does
it hang so heavily as on the retrogressionists. What kind of defense
can they make of the German workers today which would square with
their theory of the “amorphous mass”? – None that can hold water.
They do not say that the German workers were fascist-minded, but all
they can do is to apologize. Where the petty bourgeois democrats
claim that the German workers must be educated for democracy, the
retrogressionists claim that the German workers must be organized
with democracy and educated for socialism. It is better, but not much
better. <em>For to this very day</em> they consider the German workers
incapable of a socialist proletarian revolution until they have
passed through the school of democracy. They can only hold up before
them their labor-camp revolution for democracy, the restoration of
bourgeois society, of an “independent, autonomous” German bourgeoisie.<br>
</p>
<h4>The Bourgeoisie and the Constituent Assembly</h4>
<p class="fst">History repeats itself as farce, says Marx. It needs the pen of
the <strong>Eighteenth Brumaire</strong> to describe the shameful farce that is
being played around this slogan of Constituent Assembly in France
today. France had a constitution, free elections and all the bag of
bourgeois tricks-the hated Third Republic. Now de Gaulle
proposes elections to decide whether France should have the
constitution of 1875 over again or whether the newly elected body
should be a Constituent Assembly to draft a new constitution. The
debate is rich. Two chambers or one! Will the executive have more
power, as in the U.S., or will the cabinet be irremovable until a
general election, as in Britain? Will we have proportional
representation? Yes, say the socialists, <em>firmly, very</em> firmly.
No, says some other party, eoually firmly. Will Catholic schools be
state-aided? And so on and so forth. This the professors will babble
about for seven months after October and then produce another Weimar
Constitution in French. Then we shall prepare for some real
constitutional elections. Meanwhile de Gaulle asks that during
this time his government have the power. “No,” says the
Consultative Assembly, “you can have it, but the Constituent
Assembly in the intervals of its constitution-writing will keep an
eye on you and if it doesn’t like what you are doing it will have
the power to turn you out.”</p>
<p>Was ever a device more patently calculated to do what de Gaulle
has done for one year-do nothing, secretly consolidate his power
inside the administration and outside it, and wait for the fatigue
and disgust of the masses? <a href="#n1" name="f1">[1]</a></p>
<p>Can we summon up a little revolutionary imagination or rather
memory and think how Marx, Engels, Lenin or Trotsky would have torn
into this! Are Marxists to lend themselves to it? This is what. we
should say. [We do not want any talking shop” (as Engels called the
constitution-drafting assembly at Frankfort in 1848.)] We do not want
any Constituent Assembly <em>to write any bourgeois
constitution</em>. We want a Revolutionary Provisional Constituent
Assembly or a Revolutionary Provisional Government which will first
and foremost arm the whole people in a national militia to ensure its
own defense. We want it to carry out the program of the resistance
and socialize the property of the trusts. We want it to appoint
people’s courts to complete the purge. We want the FFI and the
Maquis to become the nucleus of a popular army. We want the
representatives of the CGT, the Socialist Party, the Communist Party,
the peasants’ associations, the Radical-Socialist Party, etc., to
formulate a plan of economic action to save France from the
present ruin. We want the workers in the factories to control
production according to this plan. The planners and the workers will
establish universal labor discipline to rebuild France. What we want
is a second revolution.</p>
<p class="quoteb">“We propose freedom for the colonies and a joint
economy with them. We propose the same to the British government.
Europe can never recover as isolated states. Leave the German
factories to the German workers. Atomic energy means that we in
Europe shall live forever in terror and end by being blown to pieces
unless we unite. A workers’ France in a Socialist United States of Europe.”</p>
<p class="fst">Concrete slogans are not my business here. But the above is what
we should say. One cannot call today for workers’ power. That
opportunity was presented at the moment of the “liberation” and
should have been prepared for. Today that would be madness. If an
election for a nasty, stinking bourgeois Constituent Assembly should
intervene, then most certainly we take part. But in the present
period we link the concrete demands and concrete organizations to an
incessant socialist propaganda. How long will it take before the
masses mobilize for direct action? What a question! After World War I
the general strike in France came in 1920. After November, 1918, in
Germany the Kapp Putsch came in 1920, the March Action in 1921.
Trotsky has more than once told us that but for the war the 1917,
crisis in Russia would have been delayed for one or two years. Truman
prepares to suppress “desperate men” this winter. We prepare by
mobilizing the masses. Europe is ruined. It has to be rebuilt. Only
the united efforts of the workers can rebuild it. History will take
its course. That course will never be charted by those who believe
‘that the European proletariat nowhere has any chances of seizing
power in the course of the next five years. The revolutionary
explosions may be delayed. They may come with striking suddenness and
spread like a prairie fire. Trotsky wrote many times about this. Take
up your copy of the <strong>History</strong> and read the first paragraph of
Volume III, Chapter XI, page 250.</p>
<p>What is the retrogressionist view? We must, they say, study
Lenin’s writings in 1908 in order to know how to act in 1945. Here
is the ouintessence of retrogression. Lenin in 1908 was seeking to
rebuild a movement and lift a proletariat which had just been
defeated, after a tremendous revolution. For the retrogressionists,
the would revolution has failed to come. No “if” here, and the
proletariat is in ruins. In the <em>Materials for Revision of the
Party Program</em>, May 1917, Lenin says that precisely because of
“the enormous obstacles in the path of the economic and political
struggles of the proletariat, the horrors of the imperialist war and
the disaster and ruin caused by it, all these factors transform the
present stage of capitalist development into an era of proletarian
socialist revolution. That era has begun.” May 1917. Isn’t it ten
times worse today?</p>
<p>This was Lenin’s perpetual cry in 1917. Russia is ruined. Europe
is ruined. The ruin continues. The misery of the people grows. The
only way out is by moving to’ socialism. What other way out is
there/today? We may have to go underground. We go. Messrs.
Retrogressionists, hat in hand and on my knees, I beg of you. Tell
us. Are you prepared to pose socialism to the European people today?
If not, why not? And so that there can be no fooling, is your
proposal this: That as the French proletariat is an “amorphous
mass,” lacking “political consciousness,” all that we can do is
to propose the “democratic-political” slogan of a Constituent
Assembly to decide the form of bourgeois government, so that the
masses might have time to be educated by the few
politically-conscious people, the isolated and decimated Trotskyists?
Again! Where do you stand on Italy? There the government does not
overcome a crisis in order to function but functions solely by
overcoming crises. Are the Italian workers such an “amorphous mass”
so lacking in political consciousness that Marxists have in 1945 to
shout for a democratic republic? Or do we tell them that nothing,
nothing but the destruction of bourgeois property and their own class
actions can save the nation from ruin? That will take care of the
King? A famous observation of Trotsky during the Spanish revolution
was that we fought willingly in Negrin’s armies, but not even then
would we sponsor the bourgeois republic or any of its works, even its
budget for war against Franco. In India and colonial countries, says
the Founding Conference, we tie together “indissolubly” the
Soviets, the Constituent Assembly and agrarian reform, which means in
reality agrarian revolution. In Europe today what do we tie
indissolubly to the Constituent Assembly? Right of free press and
right to organize or abolition of bourgeois property and workers’
militia? But if you say abolition of bourgeois property and workers’
militia, then where is the retrogression? The more one considers the
retrogressionist theories, the more incredible they become. It seems
that they are firmly convinced that absolutely the greatest mistake a
revolutionary party in Europe can make is to say: “Form soviets,
organize to overthrow bourgeois society. Only socialism can save us.”
You can sum up their whole thesis thus. Above all, no socialist agitation.<br>
</p>
<h4>The Role of the Party</h4>
<p class="fst">The retrogressionists made a pronouncement which has caused a vast
amount of confusion. The task they said and still say was to rebuild
the labor movement. Whereupon proponents and opponents alike took
this to mean labor parties, trade unions, cooperatives, etc. These
were destroyed; obvious retrogression; therefore they had to be
rebuilt. Socialism? Afterward. But, as it was so easy to foresee, the
workers in many countries were rebuilding them even before the
Germans got out. They did not consider themselves defeated as in
Russia of 1908. They seized bourgeois printing houses and printed
their papers. The CGT has four and a half million members. In Italy
the CP and SP have a million and a half members between them.</p>
<p>Now the retrogressionists say that they did not mean the labor
movement, social-democratic parties, etc. They meant scientific
socialism – the revolutionary party. What a mess! But let that pass
(for the time being). They say that since the treachery of the
Stalinists in Spain (1938) there has been no revolutionary party.
Isn’t this pathetic? Since 1934 the Fourth International has as one
of its basic doctrines that there was no revolutionary socialist
party except ourselves. In 1935 Trotsky wrote in <strong>Whither France?</strong>
“But it is a fact that there is no revolutionary party in France.”
Yet in the same article he says:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“Victory is possible! Comrades ... the
Bolshevik-Leninists summon you to struggle and to victory.” (Page 117)</p>
<p class="fst">The Bolshevik-Leninists! Those were our few comrades in France. I
doubt if they were more numerous than today. Today the cadres are
certainly stronger. The whole thesis ends in a grandiose zero and
multitudinous explanations. Push the retrogressionists on their
“amorphous mass,” they say “no labor movement.” Push them on
“the non-existence of the labor movement,” they say “no party.”
Show them Trotsky and the small French party in 1934 onwards
summoning the workers to socialist revolution, they say – <em>Christ
only knows what they say.</em> We ask the retrogressionists: What is
new about scientific socialism and the labor movement in France,
Italy, Belgium, Spain, Britain, since we declared for the Fourth
International in 1934? What has happened to justify a new political
orientation “because there is no party”? They announce with a
luxuriant verbiage that the task is to build the party. We are to
link scientific socialism to the labor movement? Wonderful! How do
you propose to do this? By giving classes? Or by teaching the workers
to preserve democracy I As if the desperate, class struggle will
wait. What, comrades. do you think Trotsky was trying to do between
1934 and his death? What do you think he was doing in France when in
the name of our little party he was putting forward the revolutionary
socialist program and calling the workers to victory. Strange as this
may seem to you, he was building the party, building it with a
correct policy in the concrete circumstances. <em>He didn’t ask
history to wait while parties were being built.</em><br>
</p>
<h4>Scientific Socialism and the Labor Movement</h4>
<p class="fst">In 1934 there was an armed clash in the streets of Paris. How did
Trotsky meet it? All the retrogressionists should either read <strong>Whither
France?</strong> or give away their copies. In March, 1935, seeing in the
clash of 1934 bourgeois reaction and the instinctive socialist
demands of the French proletariat, he writes: “The working masses
understand what ‘the leaders’ do not understand, that under the
conditions of a very great social crisis, a political-economic
struggle alone, which requires enormous efforts and enormous
sacrifices, cannot achieve any serious results.” When was France
ever in such a social crisis as today? When the great strikes broke
out after the elections, Trotsky saw: socialist revolution. “When
one and a half million voters cast their ballots for the Communists,
the majority of them wish to say: ‘We want you to do the same thing
in France that the Russian Communists did in their country in
October, 1917.’” Three months ago the CP had 900,000 <em>members</em>
which today with the YCL and periphery organizations must make them
almost equal to the <em>votes</em> of 1986. What have these people
joined for? Because they have retrogressed into an “amorphous
mass”! Or for Revolution? How are the Stalinists to be defeated?The
people flock to them for revolution and we counter by saying: “They
are counter-revolutionary. Come to us. We shall save you from the
Middle Ages by democracy.”</p>
<p>Trotsky calls for committees of action of striking workers anda
congress of all the committees of action in France. “This will be
the new order which must take the place of the reigning anarchy.” (Page 148)</p>
<p>And seven pages later he calls for an organization to reflect the
will, the “growing will” of the “struggling masses” – the
Soviets of Workers Deputies. According to retrogressionist logic
(today) all this was madness. Trotsky should have said:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“The labor movement does not exist. It is divided
between bourgeois parties, Stalinist and Menshevik. There is no
party. We must struggle to maintain democracy until we once more have
the labor movement linked to scientific socialism.”</p>
<p class="fst">Is this unfair? Then show me.</p>
<p>Thus the great revolutionary. What would we not give for ten
lines, just ten lines, from his pen today?</p>
<p>This spinning out of empty theories about linking scientific
Socialism to the labor movement is the sum total of retrogressionist
wisdom and its last refuge against the interminable contradictions in
which it increasingly finds itself. It heaps an its mistakes upon the
heads of the workers. In January 1938, Trotsky wrote on Spain: <em>The
Last Warning</em>. Of the Spanish revolution he says:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“Throughout the six years its social setting was the
growing onslaught of the masses against the regime of semi-feudal and
bourgeois property.”</p>
<p class="fst">Compare this and a thousand other statements like it with the
retrogressionist analysis of the proletariat during the last forty years.</p>
<p>No man ever insisted upon the importance of the party with greater
urgency than Trotsky. Yet he continues:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“The hounding of the Trotskyists, POUMists,
revolutionary anarchists; the filthy slander, the false documents,
the tortures in the Stalinist offices, the murders from ambush –
without all this the bourgeois regime, under the republican flag,
Could not have lasted even two months.”</p>
<p class="fst">Is this clear?</p>
<p class="quoteb">“The GPU proved to be the master of the situation only
because it defended more consistently than the others, i.e., with the
greatest baseness and bloodthirstiness, the interests of the
bourgeoisie against the proletariat.”</p>
<p class="fst">Compare this with the long list of lamentations of the
retrogressionists, their view of the modern proletariat, their
concentrated hostility to any idea of socialism as a living concrete
alternative to capitalism. Europe seethes with ruin and unrest.
Workers have hidden their arms. The main prop of bourgeois society is
Stalinism, which opposes and demoralizes the revolutionary desires
of the masses. How to meet it? Listen to Trotsky again:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“The renunciation of conquest of power inevitably
throws every workers’ organization into the swamp of reformism and
turns it into a plaything of the bourgeoisie; it cannot be otherwise
in view of the class structure of society.”</p>
<p class="fst">Today, in the terrible crisis of Europe,with the workers looking
for a way out, the retrogressionists renounce the bold posing of the
socialist solution to the workers. For them the workers are defeated
as in Russia of 1908. No, now is the time to remember the Lenin of 1905.</p>
<p class="quoteb">“Revolutions are the locomotives of history, said Marx.
Revolutions are the festivals of the oppressed and the exploited. At
no other time are the masses of the people in a position to come
forward so actively as creators of a new social order as at a time of
revolution. At such times the people are capable of performing
miracles, if judged by a narrow Philistine scale of gradual progress.
But the leaders of the revolutionary party must also, at such a time,
present their tasks in a wider and bolder fashion, so that their
slogan may always be in advance of the revolutionary initiative of
the masses, serve them as a beacon and reveal to them our democratic
and socialist ideal in all its magnitude and splendor, indicate the
shortest, the most direct route to complete, absolute and final
victory.” (Vol. III, p. 128)</p>
<p class="fst">Translated to today that means the socialist program. Of the
retrogressionist thesis as applied to the United States, there is
regrettably no space to speak. It is a credit to our movement that
the retrogressionists are almost completely isolated among all
currents which embrace the program of the Fourth International. It is
only a matter of time before their theory and the ruinous politics
which flow from it will only be an unpleasant memory. If, as appears
from statements in their document, they should make any attempt to
apply it to America, then its exposure in the American movement would
only be swifter and surer.</p>
<table width="100%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3">
<tbody><tr valign="top">
<td width="60%">
<br>
<br>
<p>September 10, 1945</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><em>J.R. Johnson</em></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<hr class="section" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<h3>Footnote</h3>
<p class="note"><a href="#f1" name="n1">1.</a> The actual word
Constituent Assembly is not in question here. I would raise Trotsky’s
slogan the Revolutionary Constituent Assembly. In France the slogan
of a Convention might have a tremendous historical appeal.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on 11 March 2017</p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > C.L.R. James
J.R. Johnson
Historical Retrogression or Socialist Revolution?
A Discussion Article on the Thesis of the IKD
(September 1945)
From New International, Vol. 12 No. 2, February 1946, pp. 59–64.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
Part II: The Test of Events
I propose now to test the retrogressionist theory by analysis of
the events in Europe. The history of Europe in 1914–39 ensured
rapid catastrophe for the bourgeoisie and therefore the immediate
emergence of the socialist proletariat. There is where to begin. The
first shock was the defeat of France, which, coupled with the
subsequent collaboration of the bourgeoisie, drove out the last
illusions about the rotten fabric of bourgeois democracy and gave an
indication of the tempo of development. The defeat of the air blitz
against Britain meant that in the course of the next three or four
years modern production would unloose on one side or the other or on
both such a weight of steel and lead and explosive as would make any
long war impossible. The same would also loosen every bolt of the
bourgeois structure. The performance of the Russian armies in front
of Moscow, Leningrad and the great battle at Stalingrad not only
proclaimed the defeat of Germany but posed to the workers the
imminent reckoning between themselves and the bourgeoisie who had
tortured them so long. But it did more. It underlined the bankruptcy
of the European bourgeois-democracies and posed for the European
workers the question of a “planned economy,” of state-ownership,
of an end to private property. In all the voluminous writings of the
retrogressionists, there has appeared no connected conception of all
this, the fundamental Marxist analysis of the war. German defeat
being on the order of the day, throughout 1943, the resistance
movements all over Europe and Asia and in France and in Poland in
particular, were elaborating a social program. Thus they were
fundamentally posing the question of class rule and state-power. Thus
the masses showed as clearly as possible that they did not want any
“democratic-political revolution.” They wanted Fascism destroyed.
But they wanted, in France for example, (1) a complete purge of the
Administration so that the almost hereditary caste of officials who
had betrayed France should be forever removed, (2) they wanted the
property of the trusts, the banks and insurance companies “returned
to the nation,” (3) they wanted the old official army abolished and
a new army based on the popular militia, (later the FFI, and the
Maquis), (4) they wanted democracy.
It was, for any Marxist, a most moving experience to see the
socialist future thus concretely and courageously emerging, as a
result of the ruin and catastrophe of the bourgeois barbarist war. It
was also in its way one of the most dramatic demonstrations of Marx’s
dialectical method that history has yet given us. For he is incapable
of understanding revolution who does not see that what the
proletariat in its empirical way was demanding was nothing less than
the smashing of the bourgeois state-machine, the abolition of the
bourgeois army, the substitution of collective property for bourgeois
property and democracy, not bourgeois democracy but a democracy based
on this overturn of the fundamentals of bourgeois society. That the
democracy was not the democracy of the Third Republic they made clear
by naming their new republic the Fourth Republic.
In the rest of Europe, the general situation was more or less the
same; for example, more advanced in Poland, less in other countries.
There is no space here to give evidence, but who wishes to deny this
has my very warmest invitation to do so. The overwhelming majority of
observers of Europe today report that the masses want the abolition
of trusts, state ownership, plus democracy. That, in any language,
even Stalinese, is socialism. Everybody knows this except those who
wear retrogressivist spectacles.
The Counter-Revolution Takes Charge
The resistance leaders, and chiefly the Stalinists in every
country, countered by promising socialism or at least, abolition of
the trusts, in equivocal programs that meant one thing to the
workers and something else to the writers. In France, for
example, the dishonest program for socialism was combined with a
relentless propaganda for a de Gaulle government. To the masses
this government was represented as being determined to institute the
new social order without delay. In March, 1944, the united French
resistance movement endorsed a program which, twist and turn as
it would, could not avoid the demand for the return of the great
sources of wealth to the nation. And when workers with arms in hand
say that, the question is posed in actuality and concretely related
to the actions of the masses. After the “liberation” of France in
August, 1944, the de Gaulle government, as in duty bound, sought to
disarm the workers. Civil war, i.e., the socialist revolution, was
averted only by a hair’s breadth. The Stalinists accomplished it in
1944 in circumstances far more dangerous for bourgeois society than
in 1936 when the workers were ready enough. Enjoying enormous
prestige from the victories of Russia and their devoted work (on
behalf of the USSR) in the resistance movements, they intervened, and
one authority ought to be quoted here. Earl Browder in the Daily
Worker of the United States defended his reactionary
class-collaborationist policy in the U.S. by pointing to this
notorious counter-revolutionary act in France. As he said
complacently, “The facts are known.” I hope they are. When Max
Lerner returned from France, he reported the bitterness among some
resistance leaders that they had missed the opportunity to create the
new socialist order immediately on the expulsion of the German
troops. Their self-criticism is not important. The thing is that
social revolution was posed.
Since then the Consultative Assembly has repeatedly called on
de Gaulle to nationalize the great industries, as he promised.
Knowing that they are more terrified of the masses than he, he
refuses. In May, 1945, on the morning of the municipal elections, the
Socialist and Communist Parties issued a joint manifesto calling the
de Gaulle government to fulfill the promise of the resistance
program and nationalize the property of the trusts. Striving to
stifle the revolution in France, these organizations and their
resistance counterparts called a conference (which they had the
impudence to call the States-General) for the week of July 14, 1945.
Over 2,000 delegates attended. Chief result was an oath full of the
most asphyxiating democratic verbiage. But there in the heart of it
are the words “the fundamental rights of economic and social
democracy ... to wit ... national economic sovereignty incompatible
with the existence of private groups such as trusts, whose means of
production and property must be restored to the national heritage.”
The Stalinists dared not leave it out. Many millions of French men
and women have no doubt repeated and subscribed to that oath. The big
bourgeoisie trembles for its property. That is the temper of France.
The CGT has four and a half million members. The Stalinist Party and
the Socialist Party are more powerful than ever they were in 1936.
The phenomenon is European. Yet we are to believe that all this is
the mark of a great historical retrogression of workers just emerging
from slavery.
The proletarian masses all over Europe know and declare that
political democracy is not enough. “Economic democracy” is their
own phrase. So also is: the confiscation of wealth from the trusts
which ruined and betrayed the nation. Since 1942 this has been their
steady cry. In France the Popular Republican Movement, a Catholic
organization and the great hope of the bourgeoisie, has come out for
nationalization. All the moderate parties can only hold their own by
raising the demand for nationalization. And it is since 1942 that the
retrogressionists have declared for their “democratic-political
revolution.” For the past year they present the amazing spectacle
of revolutionary socialists bringing to the front democracy while
bourgeois and Stalinist parties win elections on popular leaflets
demanding the abolition of trusts. While even counter-revolutionary
parties can exist only by shouting nationalization (which for the
workers means socialism), the vanguard of the vanguard sees the
main task as the propaganda of democratic slogans owing to the
historical retrogression.
Constituent Assembly. Bourgeois or Proletarian
I look back to more than a nodding acquaintance with our movement
during the past hundred years. I cannot find its equal. And yet they
can only get out of it by a radical break with the whole past of
their theory and practice. From the moment they put forward their
theory the retrogressionists were in an inescapable dilemma. Others
have found themselves in it. In 1905 Lenin, facing a
bourgeois-democratic revolution, posed this problem before his
vacillating opponents. “And if we are in earnest in putting forward
the practical demand for the immediate overthrow of the autocratic
government, then we must be clear in our minds as to what
other government we want to take the place of the one that is to
be overthrown.” (Selected Works, vol. III, p. 21.)
The retrogressionists have never answered and to this day cannot
answer this question. In France, in Holland, in Belgium, etc., they
proposed to enter the resistance movements. They proposed seriously
to take part in the overthrow of the Nazi or collaborationist
governments. But “what other government” was to take its
place? They had nothing to say, they could have nothing to say, owing
to their great historical retrogression. Their “democratic-political
revolution” was a revolution of a bourgeois type. The Stalinists
and the rest knew what they wanted – a bourgeois government, and
fought fiercely to get it. On this point the retrogressionists could
not distinguish the French proletariat from the French bourgeoisie in
the traditional manner of the Fourth International. Somehow the
relation of bourgeoisie and proletariat in the process of production
had altered. On this all-important question of a government – silence.
But maybe their slogan was “the democratic-political” slogan
of a Constituent Assembly to decide the form of government. If
anything could awaken the Marxist dead, this would. Half of Lenin’s
struggle against the Mensheviks in 1905 was over this very question
of a Constituent Assembly. And this, mind you, was a
bourgeois-democratic revolution. Lenin did not object to the slogan
as a slogan. He wanted a Constituent Assembly, but an “assembly
which would have the power and force to ‘constitute’.” He
wanted a provisional revolutionary government. “By its origin and
fundamental nature such a government must be the organ of the
people’s rebellion. Its formal purpose must be to serve as an
instrument for the convocation of a national Constituent Assembly.”
But, and here the great revolutionary speaks, “Its activities must
be directed toward the achievement of the minimum program of
proletarian democracy.” This program for Russia, 1905, was the
destruction of Czarism, formation of a republic and abolition of
feudal property. Lenin continued: “It might be argued that the
provisional government, owing to the fact that it is provisional,
could not carry out a positive program which had not yet received the
approval of the whole of the people. Such an argument would be sheer
sophistry, such as is advanced by reactionaries ... and autocrats.”
(Selected Works, III, p. 51.) Compare this with the
“democratic-political revolution.” Its maximum demand was –
restore democracy.
Trotsky in 1931 solved this problem for Spain by calling the
Constituent Assembly a Revolutionary Constituent Assembly, thereby
cutting it off at one stroke from the petty-bourgeois chatterers and
fakers. He demanded that the Assembly itself confiscate the
railways, mines, etc. No fooling the people with writing academic
constitutions à la Weimar. The armed people should institute
their government, and their assembly which would act.
(This is not merely past history. Later I shall again expose the
retrogressionist “Constituent Assembly” slogan.) But the fact
remains that instead of boldly posing to the revolting workers, and
peasants, in their factory committees, resistance committees, peasant
committees, the formation of a government to carry out immediately –
but to carry out what? There the retrogressionist thesis hung at
their feet like a ball and chain. There was no feudal property. The
only thing a revolutionary government could do was to drive out
Pétain, institute a workers’ government and seize the bourgeois
property. But to say that meant the collapse of the whole
retrogressionist thesis. So retrogression kept quiet.
Let us return to events. In Greece, for three whole days, the
power lay in the streets. It could have been seized, big capitalists
tried and shot, their property confiscated, with incalculable
consequences for Eastern and all Europe. Revolutionists should have
prepared the armed masses to seize precisely such an opportunity and
to set themselves up as the government. As far as it could,
retrogression said-retrogression, and when the British and Greek
reaction massacred the Greek masses, said, “You see, we said so.
Everything and everybody is retrogressive.”
North Italy is perhaps the most striking refutation of
retrogression. There, as we have seen, during the last months of the
war, the workers had to be appeased by decrees (no doubt phoney but
yet significant) which “socialized” industry. Great strikes shook
the Northern provinces and the workers collaborated with armed
partisans. I ask the retrogressionists. Wasn’t it here that the
revolutionaries should have said, “Remember Greece. See what
de Gaulle and Pierlot are doing. At the first sign of German
retreat we shall confiscate these factories, our resistance
committees will deal with the Germans and the bourgeoisie and
establish a workers’ government?” But for the Stalinists, they
would in all probability have done just that. As it was, not knowing
that they were in a great retrogression they negotiated with
Mussolini, executed numbers of fascists and capitalists, purged the
government and, from the latest accounts, not only seized the
factories but are still running them. Thereby they showed in practice
what they thought of the “democratic-political revolution.”
Innumerable examples can be given to show without any contention
or doubt that the objective movement of events in Europe imposed upon
the working masses both the need and the opportunity to seize state
power. Historical development has placed objectively before the
nation the necessity of leadership by the proletariat. This is the
historical movement of our times – not retrogression. The
“screwed-back development” and the “democratic-political
revolution” are in no way substantiated by events.
Retrogression Today
The whole retrogressionist thesis compelled it to confine itself
to the concept of the “democratic-political revolution,” i.e.,
demanding the restoration of the bourgeois-national state. The
terrible thing is that this is their program for Europe today. Look
at what they’ think of the contemporary European proletariat.
“Political consciousness,” they say, “lives only in ... groups
and individuals (“isolated and decimated propaganda groups,”
i.e., a few hundred Trotskyists). (p. 240) The European
proletariat today has no political consciousness. Obviously, then,
there is no use talking of socialism.
According to retrogressionist accumulation: “The proletariat has
again, as formerly, become an amorphous mass, the characteristics of
its rise and its formation have been lost.” Just pause and
contemplate for a few awed minutes the historic sweep of that
statement. Who says A says B. “Before Europe can unite itself into
‘socialist states,’ it must first separate itself again into
independent and autonomous states.” The retrogressionists have no
conception of revolutionary dynamics. They adhere to fixed and formal
stages which have no application to contemporary Europe. Must
Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland set up free and
independent bourgeois states again before they can become socialist?
Are we, the socialist revolutionaries of the twentieth century, to
become sponsors of bourgeois states created by a
“democratic-political revolution”? And, concretely, what Europe
are these comrade. looking at?
At Yalta and at Potsdam, an American, an Englishman and a Georgian
living in Moscow settled the fate of all Europe. The rulers of
the “independent,” “autonomous” states, like you or me, read
what these three Titans had for lunch, what music they listened to
after dinner, and then learned their own fate in the lying
communiques. During World War I it was one of Lenin’s basic
arguments on self-determination that economic domination did not mean
political domination. Today, and that is the new stage, economic and
political domination go hand in hand. With trifling exceptions (e.g.,
Norway and perhaps Denmark), every single European government in
existence was established by imperialist power, could not have been
established without it and is maintained by it. Stalin maintains the
bourgeois states in Eastern Europe. With the possible exception of
France, Truman is responsible for the maintenance of every government
in Western Europe. That is the new Europe. And today, we, the
Marxists, are to call on the workers to revolt to substitute new
bourgeois governments “independent” and “autonomous” in order
then to prepare for socialism. There is a case where in the phrases
of Blake: the embattled angels must throw down their spears and water
heaven with their tears. For even they could not establish an
independent bourgeois Poland! It would take a volume to show the ruin
which the retrogressionists make of Marxism. For example, a
bourgeois-”democratic-political” revolution in Poland? Which
class is to lead it? The Polish bourgeoisie? In Greece, is the Greek
bourgeoisie to lead the revolution against Britain? Is it? If, in
France, the bourgeoisie moved from German fascism to Anglo-American
imperialism, as it did, is there the slightest reason for thinking
that any revolution anywhere in Europe would not have to fight
against its own bourgeoisie which needs the protection of one
imperialism or another? Are the workers so stupid as to be unable to
understand the simple truth of Europe today? The proletariat must
lead the revolution for national independence, so that the revolution
must be a socialist revolution. The retrogressionist analysis of
nations expropriating other nations drives them, by implication, to
give a revolutionary role to the bourgeoisie which it is incapable of
playing. This is where you land by tampering with the fundamentals of
Marxism. The retrogressionists say with pride that now everybody
repeats their thesis that Europe is Balkanized. What self-delusion!
Everybody says exactly the opposite, that Europe is not Balkanized.
Everybody sees that one power dominates Eastern Europe and one power
or rather a major power and satellite dominate the other half. These
comrades cannot see the difference between Versailles and Potsdam.
Finally let us compare these bold innovations with the Marxism we
still believe in. This was written during World War I by Trotsky:
“If the German armies achieved the decisive victory
reckoned upon in Germany at the outset of the war, then German
imperialism would doubtless make the gigantic attempt of a compulsory
war tariff union of European states which would be constructed
completely of preferences, compromises and heaps of every kind of
outworn stuff in conformity with the state structure of presentday
Germany. Needless to say, under such circumstances, no talk would be
possible of an autonomy of the nations, thus forcibly joined together
as the caricature of the European United States. Let us for a moment
admit that German militarism succeeds in actually carrying out the
compulsory half-union of Europe, what then would be the cardinal
formula of the European proletariat? Would it be the dissolution of
the forced European coalition and the return of all peoples under the
roof of isolated national state! Or the restoration of ‘automatic’
tariffs, ‘national’ coinage, ‘national’ social legislation,
and so forth? Certainly not. The slogan of the European revolutionary
movement would then be the cancellation of the compulsory,
anti-democratic form of the coalition with the preservation and
zealous furtherance of its foundations, in the form of the complete
annihilation of tariff barriers, the unification of legislation and
above all of labor laws. In other words, the slogan of the United
Socialist Europe – without monarchy and standing armies – would
under the foregoing circumstances become the unifying and guiding
formula of the European revolution.” (Proletarian Revolution in Russia)
Trotsky never moved and never would have moved one inch from that.
A few months before Stalin murdered him he wrote in the Manifesto:
“The shifts in the battle lines at the front, the
destruction of national capitals, the occupation of territories, the
downfall of individual states represent from this standpoint only
tragic episodes on the road to the reconstruction of modern society.”
Not historical retrogression to the Middle Ages but an episode on
the road to socialism. After Stalingrad the masses saw it more or
less that way too.
“The Unifying and Guiding Formula”
This is no thesis on Europe today. I have no space for that. But a
few things have to be said, and Germany offers a more than excellent
example. Here the proletariat, if anywhere, is “an amorphous mass.”
Here presumably we must have an “independent, autonomous state”
before the struggle for socialism begins, and this, if you please, by
a revolution. The retrogressionists presumably propose for Germany as
the first slogan: withdrawal of the occupation armies. Good. Next.
Freedom of press and right to organize. Agreed.
Now what next? Constituent Assembly? Constituent Assembly for
what? That is the question. To have some more German professors write
another Weimar Constitution? What do the retrogressionists mean by a
“democratic-political revolution” for Germany? Do they mean the
resurrection of a democratic German capitalism? Here is a new chance
for you to clarify us, comrades. If Germany is to be free, then
production must be free. Are Marxists to give the slightest
countenance to the idea of capitalism once more being given free
scope in Germany? We await your answer.
Marxism in Germany today demands withdrawal of occupying troops,
right of free press and the right to organize. That has not one whiff
of retrogression. But it demands today a revolutionary provisional
government elected by the people to destroy capitalism in
Germany. (And we might say boldly also that if the occupying
armies were to withdraw tomorrow, we would summon the people to arm
themselves and carry out this program in a revolutionary manner.) A
superb slogan, of deep historical significance, has already come out
of Germany. “Not National Socialism, but the Socialist Nation.”
This in the light of their dreadful past has meaning for all Germans.
This is the appeal the German workers must make to Europe. This must
be coupled with slogans embodying ideas such as: Do not take away the
factories. Do not limit our production. Let us join the European
working class in a new European socialist order.
Nothing else but this will counter the bourgeois propaganda that a
free Germany means war once more. This is the way to pose now before
the German people and the rest of Europe a unified Europe, the
Socialist United States of Europe.
The retrogression thesis on Germany today, ridiculous as it is,
merely continues its policy of yesterday. It is obvious that this
thesis could see no sort of proletarian socialist revolution in
Germany or Italy. There, in excelsis, the proletariat was
“amorphous mass,” etc. The European Trotskyist movement saw
Germany as the key to the European situation and to its eternal
credit” and honor never for one moment drew back or equivocated on
its belief in the capacity of the German workers to make a revolution
in the manner envisaged by Trotsky in 1938. The retrogressionists,
however, in full accordance with their theory, obviously had
abandoned the German revolution, even after the altogether
magnificent revolution of the Italian workers, which should have
wiped away all doubts about the recuperative power of the proletariat
under fascism. For them the Socialist United States of Europe was no
unifying slogan but a phrase. Their revolution in the occupied
countries was “democratic-political.” But the formation of
factory committees and soviets for Germany or Italy, the beginning of
the socialist revolution, as Trotsky envisaged it in 1938, that their
conception of the proletariat did not allow them to see at all.
The Failure of the German Workers
The German workers failed to achieve a coordinated revolt. The
exact reasons for this we do not know and doubtless before very long
they will tell us for themselves. But this much the present writer
has always believed and does not waver from it. After Stalingrad the
German bourgeoisie was doomed. As the climax approached it was
obvious that no class would be able to hold the German nation
together except the proletariat. It has turned out that such was the
destruction and ruin of Germany that the nation, including the
proletariat, collapsed completely. Germany is held together today by
occupying armies. But if tomorrow the occupying armies were to leave,
the proletariat would, as in Italy, reassert itself with the utmost
rapidity. Had there been a revolution in Germany, despite the fact
that invading armies would have entered, the whole European situation
would have been altered. Not only would the German proletariat have
started with a clean slate in its own eyes. It would have won
sympathy and support from the European workers at one stroke. And
this revolution would have immensely altered the relation of forces
in the hitherto occupied countries. As it is, the German failure
hangs heavily not only over Germany, but over Europe also.
Churchill can write and Attlee sign at Potsdam with no reaction
from British workers. The European workers are apathetic in regard to
Germany. The conception of the Socialist United States of Europe did
not get that final reinforcement from the German revolution. The
German workers, in the popular mind, share the responsibility for
Nazi crimes as the Italian workers do not.
The defeat hangs over us all, but on no revolutionary current does
it hang so heavily as on the retrogressionists. What kind of defense
can they make of the German workers today which would square with
their theory of the “amorphous mass”? – None that can hold water.
They do not say that the German workers were fascist-minded, but all
they can do is to apologize. Where the petty bourgeois democrats
claim that the German workers must be educated for democracy, the
retrogressionists claim that the German workers must be organized
with democracy and educated for socialism. It is better, but not much
better. For to this very day they consider the German workers
incapable of a socialist proletarian revolution until they have
passed through the school of democracy. They can only hold up before
them their labor-camp revolution for democracy, the restoration of
bourgeois society, of an “independent, autonomous” German bourgeoisie.
The Bourgeoisie and the Constituent Assembly
History repeats itself as farce, says Marx. It needs the pen of
the Eighteenth Brumaire to describe the shameful farce that is
being played around this slogan of Constituent Assembly in France
today. France had a constitution, free elections and all the bag of
bourgeois tricks-the hated Third Republic. Now de Gaulle
proposes elections to decide whether France should have the
constitution of 1875 over again or whether the newly elected body
should be a Constituent Assembly to draft a new constitution. The
debate is rich. Two chambers or one! Will the executive have more
power, as in the U.S., or will the cabinet be irremovable until a
general election, as in Britain? Will we have proportional
representation? Yes, say the socialists, firmly, very firmly.
No, says some other party, eoually firmly. Will Catholic schools be
state-aided? And so on and so forth. This the professors will babble
about for seven months after October and then produce another Weimar
Constitution in French. Then we shall prepare for some real
constitutional elections. Meanwhile de Gaulle asks that during
this time his government have the power. “No,” says the
Consultative Assembly, “you can have it, but the Constituent
Assembly in the intervals of its constitution-writing will keep an
eye on you and if it doesn’t like what you are doing it will have
the power to turn you out.”
Was ever a device more patently calculated to do what de Gaulle
has done for one year-do nothing, secretly consolidate his power
inside the administration and outside it, and wait for the fatigue
and disgust of the masses? [1]
Can we summon up a little revolutionary imagination or rather
memory and think how Marx, Engels, Lenin or Trotsky would have torn
into this! Are Marxists to lend themselves to it? This is what. we
should say. [We do not want any talking shop” (as Engels called the
constitution-drafting assembly at Frankfort in 1848.)] We do not want
any Constituent Assembly to write any bourgeois
constitution. We want a Revolutionary Provisional Constituent
Assembly or a Revolutionary Provisional Government which will first
and foremost arm the whole people in a national militia to ensure its
own defense. We want it to carry out the program of the resistance
and socialize the property of the trusts. We want it to appoint
people’s courts to complete the purge. We want the FFI and the
Maquis to become the nucleus of a popular army. We want the
representatives of the CGT, the Socialist Party, the Communist Party,
the peasants’ associations, the Radical-Socialist Party, etc., to
formulate a plan of economic action to save France from the
present ruin. We want the workers in the factories to control
production according to this plan. The planners and the workers will
establish universal labor discipline to rebuild France. What we want
is a second revolution.
“We propose freedom for the colonies and a joint
economy with them. We propose the same to the British government.
Europe can never recover as isolated states. Leave the German
factories to the German workers. Atomic energy means that we in
Europe shall live forever in terror and end by being blown to pieces
unless we unite. A workers’ France in a Socialist United States of Europe.”
Concrete slogans are not my business here. But the above is what
we should say. One cannot call today for workers’ power. That
opportunity was presented at the moment of the “liberation” and
should have been prepared for. Today that would be madness. If an
election for a nasty, stinking bourgeois Constituent Assembly should
intervene, then most certainly we take part. But in the present
period we link the concrete demands and concrete organizations to an
incessant socialist propaganda. How long will it take before the
masses mobilize for direct action? What a question! After World War I
the general strike in France came in 1920. After November, 1918, in
Germany the Kapp Putsch came in 1920, the March Action in 1921.
Trotsky has more than once told us that but for the war the 1917,
crisis in Russia would have been delayed for one or two years. Truman
prepares to suppress “desperate men” this winter. We prepare by
mobilizing the masses. Europe is ruined. It has to be rebuilt. Only
the united efforts of the workers can rebuild it. History will take
its course. That course will never be charted by those who believe
‘that the European proletariat nowhere has any chances of seizing
power in the course of the next five years. The revolutionary
explosions may be delayed. They may come with striking suddenness and
spread like a prairie fire. Trotsky wrote many times about this. Take
up your copy of the History and read the first paragraph of
Volume III, Chapter XI, page 250.
What is the retrogressionist view? We must, they say, study
Lenin’s writings in 1908 in order to know how to act in 1945. Here
is the ouintessence of retrogression. Lenin in 1908 was seeking to
rebuild a movement and lift a proletariat which had just been
defeated, after a tremendous revolution. For the retrogressionists,
the would revolution has failed to come. No “if” here, and the
proletariat is in ruins. In the Materials for Revision of the
Party Program, May 1917, Lenin says that precisely because of
“the enormous obstacles in the path of the economic and political
struggles of the proletariat, the horrors of the imperialist war and
the disaster and ruin caused by it, all these factors transform the
present stage of capitalist development into an era of proletarian
socialist revolution. That era has begun.” May 1917. Isn’t it ten
times worse today?
This was Lenin’s perpetual cry in 1917. Russia is ruined. Europe
is ruined. The ruin continues. The misery of the people grows. The
only way out is by moving to’ socialism. What other way out is
there/today? We may have to go underground. We go. Messrs.
Retrogressionists, hat in hand and on my knees, I beg of you. Tell
us. Are you prepared to pose socialism to the European people today?
If not, why not? And so that there can be no fooling, is your
proposal this: That as the French proletariat is an “amorphous
mass,” lacking “political consciousness,” all that we can do is
to propose the “democratic-political” slogan of a Constituent
Assembly to decide the form of bourgeois government, so that the
masses might have time to be educated by the few
politically-conscious people, the isolated and decimated Trotskyists?
Again! Where do you stand on Italy? There the government does not
overcome a crisis in order to function but functions solely by
overcoming crises. Are the Italian workers such an “amorphous mass”
so lacking in political consciousness that Marxists have in 1945 to
shout for a democratic republic? Or do we tell them that nothing,
nothing but the destruction of bourgeois property and their own class
actions can save the nation from ruin? That will take care of the
King? A famous observation of Trotsky during the Spanish revolution
was that we fought willingly in Negrin’s armies, but not even then
would we sponsor the bourgeois republic or any of its works, even its
budget for war against Franco. In India and colonial countries, says
the Founding Conference, we tie together “indissolubly” the
Soviets, the Constituent Assembly and agrarian reform, which means in
reality agrarian revolution. In Europe today what do we tie
indissolubly to the Constituent Assembly? Right of free press and
right to organize or abolition of bourgeois property and workers’
militia? But if you say abolition of bourgeois property and workers’
militia, then where is the retrogression? The more one considers the
retrogressionist theories, the more incredible they become. It seems
that they are firmly convinced that absolutely the greatest mistake a
revolutionary party in Europe can make is to say: “Form soviets,
organize to overthrow bourgeois society. Only socialism can save us.”
You can sum up their whole thesis thus. Above all, no socialist agitation.
The Role of the Party
The retrogressionists made a pronouncement which has caused a vast
amount of confusion. The task they said and still say was to rebuild
the labor movement. Whereupon proponents and opponents alike took
this to mean labor parties, trade unions, cooperatives, etc. These
were destroyed; obvious retrogression; therefore they had to be
rebuilt. Socialism? Afterward. But, as it was so easy to foresee, the
workers in many countries were rebuilding them even before the
Germans got out. They did not consider themselves defeated as in
Russia of 1908. They seized bourgeois printing houses and printed
their papers. The CGT has four and a half million members. In Italy
the CP and SP have a million and a half members between them.
Now the retrogressionists say that they did not mean the labor
movement, social-democratic parties, etc. They meant scientific
socialism – the revolutionary party. What a mess! But let that pass
(for the time being). They say that since the treachery of the
Stalinists in Spain (1938) there has been no revolutionary party.
Isn’t this pathetic? Since 1934 the Fourth International has as one
of its basic doctrines that there was no revolutionary socialist
party except ourselves. In 1935 Trotsky wrote in Whither France?
“But it is a fact that there is no revolutionary party in France.”
Yet in the same article he says:
“Victory is possible! Comrades ... the
Bolshevik-Leninists summon you to struggle and to victory.” (Page 117)
The Bolshevik-Leninists! Those were our few comrades in France. I
doubt if they were more numerous than today. Today the cadres are
certainly stronger. The whole thesis ends in a grandiose zero and
multitudinous explanations. Push the retrogressionists on their
“amorphous mass,” they say “no labor movement.” Push them on
“the non-existence of the labor movement,” they say “no party.”
Show them Trotsky and the small French party in 1934 onwards
summoning the workers to socialist revolution, they say – Christ
only knows what they say. We ask the retrogressionists: What is
new about scientific socialism and the labor movement in France,
Italy, Belgium, Spain, Britain, since we declared for the Fourth
International in 1934? What has happened to justify a new political
orientation “because there is no party”? They announce with a
luxuriant verbiage that the task is to build the party. We are to
link scientific socialism to the labor movement? Wonderful! How do
you propose to do this? By giving classes? Or by teaching the workers
to preserve democracy I As if the desperate, class struggle will
wait. What, comrades. do you think Trotsky was trying to do between
1934 and his death? What do you think he was doing in France when in
the name of our little party he was putting forward the revolutionary
socialist program and calling the workers to victory. Strange as this
may seem to you, he was building the party, building it with a
correct policy in the concrete circumstances. He didn’t ask
history to wait while parties were being built.
Scientific Socialism and the Labor Movement
In 1934 there was an armed clash in the streets of Paris. How did
Trotsky meet it? All the retrogressionists should either read Whither
France? or give away their copies. In March, 1935, seeing in the
clash of 1934 bourgeois reaction and the instinctive socialist
demands of the French proletariat, he writes: “The working masses
understand what ‘the leaders’ do not understand, that under the
conditions of a very great social crisis, a political-economic
struggle alone, which requires enormous efforts and enormous
sacrifices, cannot achieve any serious results.” When was France
ever in such a social crisis as today? When the great strikes broke
out after the elections, Trotsky saw: socialist revolution. “When
one and a half million voters cast their ballots for the Communists,
the majority of them wish to say: ‘We want you to do the same thing
in France that the Russian Communists did in their country in
October, 1917.’” Three months ago the CP had 900,000 members
which today with the YCL and periphery organizations must make them
almost equal to the votes of 1986. What have these people
joined for? Because they have retrogressed into an “amorphous
mass”! Or for Revolution? How are the Stalinists to be defeated?The
people flock to them for revolution and we counter by saying: “They
are counter-revolutionary. Come to us. We shall save you from the
Middle Ages by democracy.”
Trotsky calls for committees of action of striking workers anda
congress of all the committees of action in France. “This will be
the new order which must take the place of the reigning anarchy.” (Page 148)
And seven pages later he calls for an organization to reflect the
will, the “growing will” of the “struggling masses” – the
Soviets of Workers Deputies. According to retrogressionist logic
(today) all this was madness. Trotsky should have said:
“The labor movement does not exist. It is divided
between bourgeois parties, Stalinist and Menshevik. There is no
party. We must struggle to maintain democracy until we once more have
the labor movement linked to scientific socialism.”
Is this unfair? Then show me.
Thus the great revolutionary. What would we not give for ten
lines, just ten lines, from his pen today?
This spinning out of empty theories about linking scientific
Socialism to the labor movement is the sum total of retrogressionist
wisdom and its last refuge against the interminable contradictions in
which it increasingly finds itself. It heaps an its mistakes upon the
heads of the workers. In January 1938, Trotsky wrote on Spain: The
Last Warning. Of the Spanish revolution he says:
“Throughout the six years its social setting was the
growing onslaught of the masses against the regime of semi-feudal and
bourgeois property.”
Compare this and a thousand other statements like it with the
retrogressionist analysis of the proletariat during the last forty years.
No man ever insisted upon the importance of the party with greater
urgency than Trotsky. Yet he continues:
“The hounding of the Trotskyists, POUMists,
revolutionary anarchists; the filthy slander, the false documents,
the tortures in the Stalinist offices, the murders from ambush –
without all this the bourgeois regime, under the republican flag,
Could not have lasted even two months.”
Is this clear?
“The GPU proved to be the master of the situation only
because it defended more consistently than the others, i.e., with the
greatest baseness and bloodthirstiness, the interests of the
bourgeoisie against the proletariat.”
Compare this with the long list of lamentations of the
retrogressionists, their view of the modern proletariat, their
concentrated hostility to any idea of socialism as a living concrete
alternative to capitalism. Europe seethes with ruin and unrest.
Workers have hidden their arms. The main prop of bourgeois society is
Stalinism, which opposes and demoralizes the revolutionary desires
of the masses. How to meet it? Listen to Trotsky again:
“The renunciation of conquest of power inevitably
throws every workers’ organization into the swamp of reformism and
turns it into a plaything of the bourgeoisie; it cannot be otherwise
in view of the class structure of society.”
Today, in the terrible crisis of Europe,with the workers looking
for a way out, the retrogressionists renounce the bold posing of the
socialist solution to the workers. For them the workers are defeated
as in Russia of 1908. No, now is the time to remember the Lenin of 1905.
“Revolutions are the locomotives of history, said Marx.
Revolutions are the festivals of the oppressed and the exploited. At
no other time are the masses of the people in a position to come
forward so actively as creators of a new social order as at a time of
revolution. At such times the people are capable of performing
miracles, if judged by a narrow Philistine scale of gradual progress.
But the leaders of the revolutionary party must also, at such a time,
present their tasks in a wider and bolder fashion, so that their
slogan may always be in advance of the revolutionary initiative of
the masses, serve them as a beacon and reveal to them our democratic
and socialist ideal in all its magnitude and splendor, indicate the
shortest, the most direct route to complete, absolute and final
victory.” (Vol. III, p. 128)
Translated to today that means the socialist program. Of the
retrogressionist thesis as applied to the United States, there is
regrettably no space to speak. It is a credit to our movement that
the retrogressionists are almost completely isolated among all
currents which embrace the program of the Fourth International. It is
only a matter of time before their theory and the ruinous politics
which flow from it will only be an unpleasant memory. If, as appears
from statements in their document, they should make any attempt to
apply it to America, then its exposure in the American movement would
only be swifter and surer.
September 10, 1945
J.R. Johnson
Footnote
1. The actual word
Constituent Assembly is not in question here. I would raise Trotsky’s
slogan the Revolutionary Constituent Assembly. In France the slogan
of a Convention might have a tremendous historical appeal.
Top of the page
Last updated on 11 March 2017
|
./articles/Meyer-J.-(C.L.R.-James)/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.james-clr.works.1944.09.french-rats | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">C.L.R. James</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>J.R. Johnson</h2>
<h1>The French Rats and the Sinking Ship</h1>
<h4>A Grave-Digger Indicts His Fellows</h4>
<h3>(September 1944)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info"><span class="info">Source:</span> <strong><em>New International</em></strong>, <a href="../../../../../history/etol/newspape/ni/issue2.htm#ni44_09" target="new">Vol. X No. 9</a>, September 1944, pp. 288–293.<br>
The indication of where note 3 is appears in the text is missing. – <em>ERC</em>.<br>
<span class="info">Transcribed:</span> Ted Crawford.<br>
<span class="info">Proofread:</span> <a href="../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> (december 2015).</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<h3>I – Pertinax Remembers Everything</h3>
<p class="fst">In <strong>The Grave-Diggers of France</strong>, Pertinax holds up Gamelin, Daladier, Reynaud, Pétain and Laval as the men who ruined the Third French Republic. The author is André Géraud, who for nearly thirty years wrote for the <strong>Echo de Paris</strong>, a journal of the Right. In an international situation going to pieces he stood firm for the Anglo-French and, later, the Russian alliance. But this was the foreign policy of the Popular Front, and of liberalism all over Europe. Thus this journalist of the Right became the oracle of the Left. In 1938 the <strong>Echo de Paris</strong> could stand his outspokenness no longer and he started a weekly journal of his own with the leftist title, <strong>L’Europe Nouvelle</strong> (<strong>New Europe</strong>).</p>
<p>Today, an exile in America, he tells all. He writes from the inside with the knowledge of incident and personality possible only to the active contemporary. His thesis is that “The impact of socialism on the Republic unsettled, from one end of the community to the other, the propertied classes, both those long established and those of recent date.” On this he builds his whole intricate structure. He is deeply moved at the collapse and humiliation of his country, but feels that if the political line he advocated had been followed, the catastrophe could never have taken place. Thus strongly based, from a political and moral point of view, this closely-packed book moves with a gathering impetus and cumulative power which is tremendous. And when at the end Pertinax says that what is needed now is a break with the past as clean as was the break of 1789, he appears as the avenging enemy of the old society and the harbinger of a new.</p>
<p>Yet this book is poison, deadly poison. It is no mere historical narrative. It is a political manifesto. “French affairs,” he says, “call for decisions which can hardly be more than a gamble if arrived at in ignorance of out country’s vicissitudes all through the recent years.” While his analysis is clear, his policy is implicit. Neither can be ignored. This is the kind of book that not only relates but makes history. As usual, we shall deal first with the author on his own ground, then later we shall take up his program and the hatred of Marxism which even his disciplined pen cannot totally disguise.<br>
</p>
<h4>The Military Debacle</h4>
<p class="fst">Pertinax insists upon an examination of the Battle of France. Rightly so. That was the most striking manifestation of the essential crisis of French bourgeois society. And this being so, the France which is emerging will at every stage bear upon it the stamp and effects of the military débacle.</p>
<p>Heavy as a bomb-load come down his strictures on Gamelin, Pétain and Weygand for what he calls “their futile defensive doctrine.” But Pertinax does not merely flog a dead horse. He seeks to establish that the catastrophic nature of the French collapse was not due to lack of air power and tanks. <em>With the material on hand, poor as it was, different generals could have done differently</em>. The point is not academic.</p>
<p>The French Maginot Line ended at Montmedy. Any newspaper today can supply a map, but for our purposes let the reader draw a line across a piece of paper and at the center of this line another line perpendicular to it. He will thus have a large T upside down. It is rough but it will do. The center of the T is Montmedy. The line to the right is the Maginot Line. To the left of Montmedy, a very few miles away is Sedan. And to the left of Sedan is a looser fortified line, “Little Maginot,” running to the sea. The Germans broke through at Sedan, attacking down the perpendicular line, which was their left wing. A blind man can see even on this rough map <a name="f1" href="#n1">[1]</a> that their flank was open to the most devastating counter-offensive from the scores of thousands of men inside the Maginot Line. Pertinax shows that the Germans were aware of this and trembled for the success of their enterprise. But no attack was ever made. Pertinax says bitterly that at no previous time in French military history, except perhaps in 1870, would French commanders have missed such an opportunity. Few could disagree. He shows how stupidly Gamelin misconceived the new application of the Schleiffen Plan but, more important, shows repeatedly that the tactical errors were the consequence of pinning the French strategy down in the steel and concrete of the Maginot Line.</p>
<p>The second stage is when Weygand took over from Gamelin. Weygand, he says, should have drawn all the soldiers out of the Maginot Line, abandoned Paris, and swung his forces into the West. From there he could have fought delaying actions and got off a large portion of his army, à la Dunkerque, to Britain, to fight again, instead of rotting in German prisons.</p>
<p>Again this is not wisdom after the event. Weygand and his chief of staff, General Georges, actually discussed this plan before Weygand began operations. They turned it down. Why they did this, we shall see soon. The military consequences we know. The political consequences Pertinax does not draw. We shall draw them for him. <em>The French bourgeois army was destroyed.</em> Thus de Gaulle has to start almost from the beginning. That is why in his first days in Paris he called on Eisenhower to march American troops through the streets in order to show the triumphant FFI that force existed somewhere.</p>
<p>From the battlefields Pertinax then builds up his case against those who prepared France for battle. French rearmament lay largely on paper. The criminal strategy and tactics on the battlefield were merely the climax of the ever-deepening social crisis and the paralysis it caused. On this paralysis the ignorance, incompetence and stupidity of Pétain, Weygand and Gamelin flourished. Of Gamelin, Pertinax concludes that if he could not get his way in preparing France for war, he should have resigned so as to warn the country; Gamelin therefore was a man of weak character. Here endeth the first lesson and the first grave-digger is buried.</p>
<p>But at this point we Marxists, while accepting this <a name="f2" href="#n2">[2]</a>, must interrupt. Not so fast, my friend. What were you doing when all this was going on? Granted that you were no military man, you could have seen the social crisis which produced the bad preparations, the false strategy and the military defeat. What did you do about that?</p>
<p>Not only did the Pertinaxes and the de Gaulles see it. They sat and watched while the highest military men in France laid the foundations of fascism and capitulation to Germany. As far back as 1934 Weygand, then Commander-in-Chief, told Pétain, then Minister of War, that in case of defeat Pétain could become the Hindenburg of France. What a pair of leaders! This, if you please, is in Pertinax’s diary under date of November 4, 1934. Weygand, we are told, had a “burning aversion for the Left, the socialists, the Free Masons, democracy, parliamentary institutions, which became a frenzy after his retirement in January 1935.” Pétain, in turn, “was cut to the heart by that fear of a social upheaval which in so many a conservative had silenced every feeling of patriotism.” Obviously these chiefs believed in the Leninist doctrine that the main enemy was at home.</p>
<p>Pertinax now says that these two “are effects far more than they are causes. They served as a blind for counter-revolutionary forces long held in check by the great majority of Frenchmen and ... put in a position of dominance by military defeat.”</p>
<p>See how an uneasy conscience causes him to slip into superficiality. The military defeat did not fall from the sky. These men and their followers caused it. Pertinax’s whole analysis of the military question has no sense unless this is the lesson to be drawn. And as for Laval! Here in rich detail are his fascist plots against the Republic at home and abroad. Pertinax knew it all.</p>
<p>On October 27, 1935, Laval, then Prime Minister, outlined his “anti-capitalist” party.</p>
<p class="quoteb">“The men of the Left,” said Laval, “have never laid a finger on the insurance companies, the trusts, the power monopoly ... The various direct action groups include a number of anti-capitalist elements. From among these a party could be recruited. And that is my party. The platform would be simple; internally a few steps taken against the plutocrats, externally a Franco-German rapprochement.”</p>
<p class="fst">This conversation, says Pertinax, was repeated to me a few minutes after it had taken place (page 423). So today a few hours after the destruction of the Republic, he reports this conversation and similar ones to us. We are not very grateful. Pertinax, after all, was no mere commentator. He was, in his own <em>way,</em> extremely active in politics. Take the following incident: M. Simond, editor of the <strong>Echo de Paris</strong>, complained that, contrary to Pertinax’s information, Weygand denied that he supported the Franco-Russian pact of 1935.</p>
<p class="quoteb">“By way of reply I invited to luncheon M. Simond, Weygand and his wife, M. Titulescu and two other friends. At my request Titulescu put the question to the general: ‘When M. Barthou bluntly informed me that we all must get nearer to Russia ... I asked you whether the innovation was necessary ...you replied ‘It is necessary.’ Is that a fair account of what took place?”</p>
<p class="quote">“Weygand ... was on the spot. Reluctantly he mumbled ‘Yes.’ ...”</p>
<p class="fst">Titulescu was the Rumanian statesman. Thus Pertinax was part and parcel of the men who ruled and led the corruption which was the Third Republic. If Gamelin was a grave-digger of no character, what about Pertinax himself? He says that de Gaulle in 1934 came to his house to dinner and argued hotly against a representative of the defensive doctrine of the French general staff. This argument Pertinax and his wife found “exceedingly unpleasant to listen to.” We hope it will be equally unpleasant for the French masses to read it at this late hour.</p>
<p>But let us grant that he was no military man and that it took Sedan to expose the military weakness. Pertinax’s direct responsibility is still enormous. The military weakness had social causes. They were known. In 1931, Pétain, the hero of Verdun, was thoroughly exposed for the fraud that he was in a book which was ignored by reviewers and disappeared so quickly from the book shops that its effect was as if it had never appeared. Foch, says Pertinax, had many times told him the truth about Pétain, and Foch died in 1929. <em>Why didn’t Pertinax and all those who knew speak?</em> Of Weygand’s bare-faced lie he says: “If ... I had dared to throw that lie in the teeth of one of our great army leaders, the <strong>Echo de Paris</strong> would have been shaken to its depths.” Pardon me, my friend. That is not the truth at all. What you mean is that “if you had dared” French bourgeois society would have been shaken. There is no need to accuse Pertinax of any personal dishonesty. The dishonesty was social. He and all his tribe conspired to keep the truth from the great masses of the people. According to their bourgeois logic, the crimes and incompetences of the great military leaders had to he hushed up. To have entered upon a task of fearless exposure would have created “panic.” It would help the enemy. So the exposure, such as it was, remained enclosed within the limits of hypocrisy and dishonesty organic to bourgeois society. <a name="f3" href="#n3">[3]</a> Pétain’s World War I reputation was a fake. <a name="f4" href="#n4">[4]</a> From 1935 he made propaganda everywhere for the pro-German, pro-fascist Laval. Who exposed him? To jump on the bandwagon now with a dramatic “J’accuse” does not exculpate the accuser. Pertinax is here a symbol. All who happened to have politically or otherwise opposed Laval, Weygand and Pétain, all who refused to accept Vichy, will use this as a passport by which they will seek status in post-Vichy France. The French masses should turn to them a face of steel and the more devastating their indictments, the more unflinching should be the rejection of those who knew so much and said so little.<br>
</p>
<h4>The Democrats of France</h4>
<p class="fst">Pertinax is a symbol of the democratic “anti-fascists,” Daladier, Reynaud and Blum. Daladier knew both Weygand and Gamelin well. As Prime Minister he protected them. He appointed Pétain ambassador to Franco Spain. In the face of the German danger, he kept proved friends of Laval in his cabinet (page 114). According to Pertinax, Daladier allowed the conservative groups “unbridled license” to undermine the national unity. Marcel Déat of Vichy fame, who signed a manifesto urging soldiers to desert from the army, went free. Rather than give up his personal power, Daladier preferred to have people in his cabinet whom he himself more than once called “traitors” (page 151). In the end his colleagues threw him out and he went into the Foreign Office and would not do any work – said he wanted to go home to the country.</p>
<p>This was the miserable scoundrel who had more power than any man in France between 1930 and 1940. All of them had their personal and political enmities. But all of them, Radical-Socialists and Social-Democrats, were one clique, consorting with proved fascists, appointing them to the highest and most responsible posts, united with them in the exploitation, suppression and deception of the great masses of the French people. Yet when the French Trotskyists said that they were the main enemy, these bourgeois politicians had the audacity to call them “unpatriotic” and “pro-German” and put them into jail.</p>
<p>Reynaud was no party man. For years he said what he thought and attacked his opponents regardless of consequences. But Reynaud, this great democrat, had a mistress, Madame de Portes. That is not important. What is important is that this woman had the ideas of Pétain and she and her friends saw Reynaud as the one who could at a suitable opportunity introduce into France – none could guess – the “New Order.” Thus the “New Order” was represented in the bedroom of the French Prime Minister, symbolical of the intimate relation between fascism and bourgeois democracy. To quote Pertinax, she had the whole night to undo what Reynaud’s democratic friends had done in the day.</p>
<p>She usually succeeded. Reynaud wished to appoint as Secretary of the War Committee de Gaulle, who had been his military adviser for many years and understood the strength of the German army and the weakness of the French. Madame de Portes blocked the appointment and Daladier too prevented it for his own factional reasons. But this must not blind us to the personal and political tie-up. De Gaulle, Reynaud’s man, was Pétain’s nephew. Blum, the socialist, was supporting Reynaud after having collaborated with and supported Daladier. Blum deferred humbly to Pétain at the War Council, but though he distrusted Gamelin’s military capacity did not dare to dismiss him. Reynaud, however, wanted to dismiss Gamelin. But he could think of no one to appoint for the whole French higher command was a mess. Then came the catastrophe of the break-through on May 10. France started up in alarm. Like Daladier, Gamelin collapsed personally and Reynaud appointed as commander-in-chief – Weygand. Then, to give the masses confidence in his government he appointed as vice-chief of the cabinet – Pétain. The people would take courage from the association of the great days of 1916 and 1918 with the name of Pétain – Pétain, commander-in-chief of the counter-revolution, whose ignorance, incompetence and defeatism had been unexposed by Pertinax and his fellow-journalists. Now we can see why Weygand could not take the bold strategic steps necessary when he succeeded Gamelin. Instead (beginning with defeat in his head and Pétain as a prospective Hindenburg) he displayed the most shocking incompetence and then appeared at Reynaud’s cabinet to call for an armistice. “I do not want France to run into the danger of falling into the anarchy which follows military defeat.” Little local governments would be set up “after the Soviet model.” Reynaud had to be quick because “were disorders to spread throughout the army and the population, he (Weygand) would consider the usefulness of the armistice as being already lost. Then the harm would have been clone” (page 263). Pétain sat nodding his head in agreement. In 1870 the miserable Bazaine surrendered at Metz and then asked the Germans for permission to “save France from herself.” No wonder they fought so badly in 1870 and in 1940.</p>
<p>Reynaud at first refused to agree. Pertinax keeps on insisting that a large majority of the cabinet was in favor of continuing the struggle. He misreads the historical logic of the social movement. The fact is that Reynaud, like the woman in Byron, while protesting that he would ne'er consent, consented. It was proposed to carry the government to North Africa and carry on from there. Reynaud agreed. Instead, this friend of Britain broke the alliance with Britain. Finally he resigned and Pétain took over. Blum and the others were all for resistance to the end. But Blum trusted Reynaud. Reynaud trusted Weygand. Weygand trusted Pétain. Pétain firmly believed that France needed Laval. And Laval thought that France needed Hitler.</p>
<p>On July 12, when Laval formally abolished French bourgeois democracy, Reynaud completed his evolution by asking the Socialists in his cabinet to support Pétain and Laval. At this meeting Blum voted against, but did not dare to defend himself (page 471). Herriot did not even vote against. Of 850 legislators, 569 supported Laval.</p>
<p>As could have been foreseen, the arrests began a few months later. Daladier, Gamelin and Blum were among those arrested and at the Riom Trials they were to make fine and courageous speeches against Pétain, Weygand and Laval, speeches as good in their way as this book by Pertinax. But that does not prevent them from being among the deepest diggers of the grave of France. If Pertinax’s guilt is not as great as theirs it is because his pen was not as mighty a spade as the swords which these others wielded.</p>
<p>Thus is democracy in crisis defended by bourgeois democrats. Let us conclude this section with a warning to the organized labor movement in the United States. Your Wallaces and your Willkies, your “progressives” and “sincere men” and “friends of labor” are bourgeois politicians, tied with a thousand threads to the bourgeois capitalist structure. Whenever they face a serious crisis, somehow or other, through “extraordinary powers” to Congress or Parliament, though the cabinet council, through giving the army power to keep order, through the bedroom, through sheer moral weakness, they either hand over the power to reaction or abandon it altogether. That is why the fierce fury of Pertinax against Vichy does not excite us very much. He and Daladier, Reynaud, Blum and de Gaulle all helped to put Vichy where it was. All the democratic supporters of Bonomi in Italy and of de Gaulle in France are busy at the same game today. This is an old, old story, as old as the republics of Greece and Rome.<br>
</p>
<h4>Historical Digression</h4>
<p class="fst">Yet before we leave this extraordinarily powerful denunciation we have to point out the great attraction this book will have for many French people on the whole and French intellectuals in particular. Like Pertinax, the intellectuals have been driven by the cataclysm to recognize that the ruin of France was not accidental. They have rendered splendid service in the underground and they recognize the necessity for drastic change. Apart from the gripping story he tells, Pertinax shows real feeling for French history and repeated flashes of insight and illumination, anti-Marxist though he is. Like all French intellectuals, he is proud of the French intellectual tradition, which he considers the finest European flower of the Graeco-Roman culture. His book is no theoretical mish-mash, as is the pseudo-Marxism of people like Hook and Laski. He himself is a product and uses the style of the best that remains of French classicism. This makes his political tendencies infinitely more mischievous. He is a skillful and subtle propagandist and we propose for a brief moment to challenge him here.</p>
<p>Hard-headed and practical as he is, he uses with telling effect familiar references to Catiline, Varus, Juvenal, driving home his points in terms well suited to his French readers. The climax of his book is the story of Terentius Varro, who had been routed at Cannae, “which Schleiffen considered a model of the victory of extermination” (see how cleverly he sets his case). But when Varro came home “factional strife” subsided. The citizens thanked him for “not having despaired of the Republic.” Pertinax goes on:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“How the antique phrase, stammered out by generations of schoolboys, takes on new life when applied to the French counter-revolutionaries!</p>
<p class="quote">“Reverse every detail of this picture and you have Pétain’s story.”</p>
<p class="fst">And there he ends his long narrative.</p>
<p>This, for France, steeped in the classical tradition, is wonderful propaganda. De Gaulle obviously did not despair of the Republic; French factions should rally behind him. Bur even in such limited space as we have, Pertinax will not get away with that. There is a much more important Roman parallel which applies not to de Gaulle only but to Pertinax himself, illuminates their past and predicts their future. It is worth relating.</p>
<p>Cicero in 63 B.C. was consul of Rome. He was (we quote only from the staid anti-Marxist <strong>Britannica</strong>) “leader of the Italian middle class.” He represented their “antipathy alike to socialistic schemes and to aristocratic exclusiveness.” Catiline and Caesar were aiming at dictatorial power and bidding for the support of the masses in true “fascist” fashion. Cicero, like Blum and Daladier, allowed Catiline the utmost license to carry out his plots against the republic. Space, alas, forbids us to quote from one astonishing speech in which he explains to the obviously angry Roman people why he took no stern measures against Catiline. However, Catiline fled from Rome. He was defeated and, despite the protest of Caesar, his friends were executed. Disorder continues and Cicero is exiled. Pompey, the soldier, has military power, but Cicero is recalled to restore the republic. In the face of growing confusion “even strict constitutionalists like Cicero talked of the necessity of investing Pompey with some extraordinary powers for the preservation of order.” Pathetic, isn’t it? Caesar destroys Pompey, establishes the dictatorship but is murdered. Once more the Romans call on Cicero to restore the republic. Cicero’s new policy “was to make use of Octavian, whose name was all-powerful with the veterans, until new legions had been raised which would follow the republican commanders.” Nothing ever teaches these people. Cicero in the end is murdered by Octavian, who finally abolishes the Roman Republic.</p>
<p>History is littered with the bones of the Ciceros and their modern counterparts. We have to add for Pertinax’s benefit that Cicero’s orations against Catiline have justly been famous as masterpieces of denunciation. It seems the denunciators are the best grave-diggers. <em>For Pertinax in this book advocates a dictatorship for General de Gaulle in order to cleanse France of fascism and strengthen republican institutions</em> (page 585). Our modern Cicero once more turns to the military dictator to save the republic. We repeat: these people never learn.<br>
</p>
<h3>II – Pertinax Learns Nothing</h3>
<p class="fst">When France was in danger, Pertinax’s crime was, by commission and omission, to have shielded the enemies of the Republic. Today, like a duck in water, he is doing the same thing all over again. Today United States imperialism is the enemy of French liberty. Pertinax finds excuses for the long American flirtation with Vichy and Weygand (pages 535–7). And, crime of crimes, he tries to excuse Roosevelt’s backing of Giraud. Backed by Roosevelt, Giraud set up in Algiers a regime of “white terror.” Pertinax is ready with his excuse: it was due to military necessity. He admits that “de Gaulle ... had practically to force a passage to North Africa through numberless obstacles.” But even after D-Day, he writes, “... the Washington and London governments do not yet see more clearly than in 1942–43.” So Roosevelt does not see clearly! Really, one can scarcely contain one’s contempt. It is like reading <strong>PM</strong> and <strong>The Post</strong>. Once more this highly intelligent, well informed man, who is not without character, does not use his influence and reputation to tell the truth in plain, simple language to his countrymen and to the world.</p>
<p>This is the truth: Roosevelt wanted to use American arms to place on the necks of the French people <em>Giraud, a member of the same military gang which had ruined France</em>. In that crime Pertinax shares. The Bourbons had forgotten nothing <em>and</em> learned nothing. Pertinax is worse. He has remembered everything <em>but</em> learned nothing. And why? Because, like those bourgeois whom he condemns in words, he can see workers only as people who work in factories and must do as they are told.</p>
<p>In his Preface, he says that he wrote for a rightist paper for thirty years because he was “temperamentally repelled by abstract political theorizing” (page VI). By “abstract political theorizing” he means, of course, Marxism. So with him it is not property, but temperament. We accept. However, this temperament has been well protected. He does not attack socialism directly but misses no opportunity to dig at anything tinged, <em>however</em> faintly, with the ideas of Marx. Mandel, one of his heroes, is repelled by the men of the Right, but “as for the men of the Left he saw them unfailingly ruin everything they touched.” When Frossard, a Marxist of twenty years before, joined Pétain, in 1942, Pertinax comments: “Still another Marxist converted to social conservatism!” See him then suddenly at the end of the book not only demand vengeance against the men who betrayed France but call for a break with the past as clean as 1789.</p>
<p>The German invasion, ebbing “back to its own boundaries ... will nevertheless leave behind it a state of revolution. It has shaken men’s ideas and their social conditions to the core.” Here is a revolutionary! But experience has taught us to go carefully with these gentlemen. What exactly does he want a de Gaulle dictatorship for? Pertinax himself tells us that Washington distrusted de Gaulle because he talked of “a second revolution.” Revolution today is revolution against the bourgeoisie. “The bourgeoisie,” says Pertinax, “stands condemned,” but only “insofar as it cannot get away from its moral complexion during the last fifty years.” So the bubble is blown. His strong, clear voice breaks down into stammering as soon as he touches the class question. The moral complexion of the bourgeoisie, my friend, is the reflection of the economic position of the bourgeoisie. If they feared socialism for fifty years they will still fear it, and will behave as before. Says Pertinax: “We can vaguely discern a new civilization in the making.” Vaguely.</p>
<p>There is no vagueness about the new society. The first thing is that bourgeois property must be destroyed. That is the conclusion shouting from every page of this book. Pertinax’s ears are deaf to it. What, he discerns only vaguely, the bourgeoisie sees only too clearly. That is why it acts as it does. Pertinax pleads passionately for the punishment of the “gangs responsible for the defeat, the armistice and the policy of collaboration.” Why? Because, unless this is done, “too many Frenchmen, however well meaning, may again be led astray by vested interests.” So there will again be “vested interests”? But it is the “vested interests” whom you yourself said had been so unsettled by socialism that they led the country to disaster. One feels like laughing and turning away. Despite all the big words, there is really nothing to Pertinax. Let us address ourselves to those who may be caught in the trap of his masterly indictment. For, no less than he, we want to see France on her feet again.<br>
</p>
<h4>“Whither France?”</h4>
<p class="fst">We, however, are unashamedly “abstract political theorists.” Our abstract political theory taught us that the French bourgeoisie would abandon democracy for fascism and would seek, yesterday the German bourgeoisie, today the American bourgeoisie, to save it from the destruction of its “vested interests” by the French proletariat leading the nation. Abstract political theorizing taught us that French society, after 1934, faced either the fascist dictatorship or the rule of the workers. Abstract political theorizing taught us that the Radical-Socialists and the Social-Democrats would pretend to lead the people, only to betray them. Abstract political theorizing taught us that we must choose our side and work for it, our theory being but a guide to action. This, however, could be done only by breaking with bourgeois society in all its forms and mercilessly exposing to the people all the crimes, plots, evasions and falsifications of bourgeois society. This is <em>our</em> conception of political journalism. Abstract political theorizing taught us that when a “veritable popular revolution broke out on May 25” (page 367), the thing to do was to help these workers to continue their revolution to the conquest of power. Pertinax admits that the “revolution” was justified but blames Blum for not curbing the workers and sending them back to labor sixty hours a week in the war industries. It is a pity that Pertinax wasn’t given the opportunity to try. Blum, Thorez and the Stalinists had work enough to prevent the revolution from succeeding.</p>
<p>Of the workers themselves, our abstract political theory taught us that they have been conditioned by their development under capitalist society to lead humanity to a new stage, to the socialist society. Bourgeois society today crushes them down. But we know the enormous power that lies in them. Not only brute power. All that is precious in France is now contained in them and in those intellectuals who see that France will rise again only as a workers’ France. What in French history is so splendid as the manner in which the French workers mobilized themselves for the national defense once they recognized that their rulers had betrayed and then deserted them? The ardor for liberty, the spontaneity, the sense of form, the historical consciousness, the wit, the mockery, the blend of sophistication and natural grace, all of which have endeared France to lovers of civilization the world over, these have never shone with more dazzling brilliance than in the crudely printed pages of the underground press, stained with the blood of French working men and women. France, “mother of laws and of civilization,” lives and will live forever, but must purge herself of the corrupt and traitorous bourgeoisie. “France has never had a free and uncensored press until we of the underground made one under the German occupation.” Let that inspired cry from a resistance leader ring in the ears of Pertinax and his brother worshippers of the “vested interests” until the workers establish above ground and in the light of day the free and uncensored press of a socialist France.</p>
<p>Pertinax has only contempt for the men of the Left and the Stalinists. We share it. They ruined France and will continue to drag her down. Why? Because today, as in 1936, like Blum, Daladier and Reynaud, they are pledged to the maintenance of bourgeois society. That way lies only further ruin and shame.</p>
<p>But there were others in France who not only theorized abstractly but worked in accordance with their theories. Their credo is embodied in a small volume entitled <em>Whither France</em>, written by Leon Trotsky. On page 18 this abstract theorizer says: “Only fools can think that the capitulation of Daladier or the treason of Herriot in the face of the worst reaction results from fortuitous temporary causes or from the lack of character in these two lamentable leaders.” You see, learned journalist, there is something to be learned from abstract theorizing.</p>
<p>Of the Social-Democracy and the Stalinists turned traitors to the revolution, Trotsky writes: “All the Jouhaux, Blums, Cachins ... are only phantoms.” Phantoms they proved to be in the great crisis of France. Today they are as busy as Pertinax preparing the destruction of what the French masses are so laboriously trying to build up.</p>
<p>What, then, is to be done? We cannot end better than by repeating the advice of Trotsky as the French strikes of 1936 burst from out of the depths of the masses. (Take note of it, Messrs. French intellectuals in particular. You have experienced one reality – fascism. You didn’t like it. You fought against it. Splendid. Now prepare yourselves for the second.) On June 9, Trotsky wrote:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“The revolutionary general staff cannot emerge from combinations at the top. The combat organization would not be identical with the party even if there were a mass revolutionary party in France, for the movement is incomparably broader than the party. The organization also cannot coincide with the trade unions for the unions embrace only an insignificant section of the class and are headed by an arch-reactionary bureaucracy. The new organization must correspond to the nature of the movement itself. It must reflect the struggling masses. It must express their growing will. This is a question of the direct representation of the revolutionary class. Here it is not necessary to invent new forms. Historical precedents exist. The industries and factories will elect their deputies who will meet to elaborate jointly plans of struggle and to provide the leadership. Nor is it necessary to invent the name for such an organization; it is the <em>Soviet of Workers Deputies</em>.” (<a href="../../../../trotsky/1936/whitherfrance/index.htm" target="new"><strong>Whither France</strong></a>, page 154)</p>
<p class="fst">And after that what will be the form of the new society that Pertinax sees so vaguely? That struggle for power, gentlemen, is the birth-pang of the new society.</p>
<p>Only a week before, Trotsky had written of these Soviets or Committees of Action:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“The Committees of Action cannot be at present anything but the committees of those strikers who are seizing the enterprises. From one industry to another, from one factory to the next, from one working class district to another, from city to city, the Committees of Action must establish a close bond with each other. They must meet in each city, in each productive group in their regions, in order to end with a Congress of all the Committees of Action in France. This will be the new order which must take the place of the reigning anarchy.” (pages 147–8)</p>
<p class="fst">Does anarchy reign? None denies it. Hitler’s New Order has been rejected. A Soviet France – that is the new order for which the country waits. This is the way it will be achieved. That is the only break which will be as clean as 1789. Recent events have shown that the French masses of today are of the same build their fathers were. Soon may they see the Soviet road!</p>
<hr class="section" size="1" noshade="">
<h3>Notes</h3>
<p class="note"><a name="n1" href="#f1">1.</a> On the actual map the German position is worse, for the line of attack sloped from east to west.</p>
<p class="note"><a name="n2" href="#f2">2.</a> We said much the same ourselves. See particularly, <strong>The New International</strong>, <a href="../../../../../history/etol/newspape/ni/issue2.htm#ni40_07" target="new">July 1940</a>.</p>
<p class="note"><a name="n3" href="#f3">3.</a> The story got out however. [<strong>Note by MIA:</strong> In the printed version there is no indication where this note should come, but from the sense of the discussion, this would seem to be an appropriate place.]</p>
<p class="note"><a name="n4" href="#f4">4.</a> The strategic decisions of Verdun were not his. On all critical occasions he was pessimistic to the point of defeatism. Clemenceau and Foch had to speak to him in a way that a commanding officer was never before addressed in public.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on 17 December 2015</p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > C.L.R. James
J.R. Johnson
The French Rats and the Sinking Ship
A Grave-Digger Indicts His Fellows
(September 1944)
Source: New International, Vol. X No. 9, September 1944, pp. 288–293.
The indication of where note 3 is appears in the text is missing. – ERC.
Transcribed: Ted Crawford.
Proofread: Einde O’Callaghan (december 2015).
I – Pertinax Remembers Everything
In The Grave-Diggers of France, Pertinax holds up Gamelin, Daladier, Reynaud, Pétain and Laval as the men who ruined the Third French Republic. The author is André Géraud, who for nearly thirty years wrote for the Echo de Paris, a journal of the Right. In an international situation going to pieces he stood firm for the Anglo-French and, later, the Russian alliance. But this was the foreign policy of the Popular Front, and of liberalism all over Europe. Thus this journalist of the Right became the oracle of the Left. In 1938 the Echo de Paris could stand his outspokenness no longer and he started a weekly journal of his own with the leftist title, L’Europe Nouvelle (New Europe).
Today, an exile in America, he tells all. He writes from the inside with the knowledge of incident and personality possible only to the active contemporary. His thesis is that “The impact of socialism on the Republic unsettled, from one end of the community to the other, the propertied classes, both those long established and those of recent date.” On this he builds his whole intricate structure. He is deeply moved at the collapse and humiliation of his country, but feels that if the political line he advocated had been followed, the catastrophe could never have taken place. Thus strongly based, from a political and moral point of view, this closely-packed book moves with a gathering impetus and cumulative power which is tremendous. And when at the end Pertinax says that what is needed now is a break with the past as clean as was the break of 1789, he appears as the avenging enemy of the old society and the harbinger of a new.
Yet this book is poison, deadly poison. It is no mere historical narrative. It is a political manifesto. “French affairs,” he says, “call for decisions which can hardly be more than a gamble if arrived at in ignorance of out country’s vicissitudes all through the recent years.” While his analysis is clear, his policy is implicit. Neither can be ignored. This is the kind of book that not only relates but makes history. As usual, we shall deal first with the author on his own ground, then later we shall take up his program and the hatred of Marxism which even his disciplined pen cannot totally disguise.
The Military Debacle
Pertinax insists upon an examination of the Battle of France. Rightly so. That was the most striking manifestation of the essential crisis of French bourgeois society. And this being so, the France which is emerging will at every stage bear upon it the stamp and effects of the military débacle.
Heavy as a bomb-load come down his strictures on Gamelin, Pétain and Weygand for what he calls “their futile defensive doctrine.” But Pertinax does not merely flog a dead horse. He seeks to establish that the catastrophic nature of the French collapse was not due to lack of air power and tanks. With the material on hand, poor as it was, different generals could have done differently. The point is not academic.
The French Maginot Line ended at Montmedy. Any newspaper today can supply a map, but for our purposes let the reader draw a line across a piece of paper and at the center of this line another line perpendicular to it. He will thus have a large T upside down. It is rough but it will do. The center of the T is Montmedy. The line to the right is the Maginot Line. To the left of Montmedy, a very few miles away is Sedan. And to the left of Sedan is a looser fortified line, “Little Maginot,” running to the sea. The Germans broke through at Sedan, attacking down the perpendicular line, which was their left wing. A blind man can see even on this rough map [1] that their flank was open to the most devastating counter-offensive from the scores of thousands of men inside the Maginot Line. Pertinax shows that the Germans were aware of this and trembled for the success of their enterprise. But no attack was ever made. Pertinax says bitterly that at no previous time in French military history, except perhaps in 1870, would French commanders have missed such an opportunity. Few could disagree. He shows how stupidly Gamelin misconceived the new application of the Schleiffen Plan but, more important, shows repeatedly that the tactical errors were the consequence of pinning the French strategy down in the steel and concrete of the Maginot Line.
The second stage is when Weygand took over from Gamelin. Weygand, he says, should have drawn all the soldiers out of the Maginot Line, abandoned Paris, and swung his forces into the West. From there he could have fought delaying actions and got off a large portion of his army, à la Dunkerque, to Britain, to fight again, instead of rotting in German prisons.
Again this is not wisdom after the event. Weygand and his chief of staff, General Georges, actually discussed this plan before Weygand began operations. They turned it down. Why they did this, we shall see soon. The military consequences we know. The political consequences Pertinax does not draw. We shall draw them for him. The French bourgeois army was destroyed. Thus de Gaulle has to start almost from the beginning. That is why in his first days in Paris he called on Eisenhower to march American troops through the streets in order to show the triumphant FFI that force existed somewhere.
From the battlefields Pertinax then builds up his case against those who prepared France for battle. French rearmament lay largely on paper. The criminal strategy and tactics on the battlefield were merely the climax of the ever-deepening social crisis and the paralysis it caused. On this paralysis the ignorance, incompetence and stupidity of Pétain, Weygand and Gamelin flourished. Of Gamelin, Pertinax concludes that if he could not get his way in preparing France for war, he should have resigned so as to warn the country; Gamelin therefore was a man of weak character. Here endeth the first lesson and the first grave-digger is buried.
But at this point we Marxists, while accepting this [2], must interrupt. Not so fast, my friend. What were you doing when all this was going on? Granted that you were no military man, you could have seen the social crisis which produced the bad preparations, the false strategy and the military defeat. What did you do about that?
Not only did the Pertinaxes and the de Gaulles see it. They sat and watched while the highest military men in France laid the foundations of fascism and capitulation to Germany. As far back as 1934 Weygand, then Commander-in-Chief, told Pétain, then Minister of War, that in case of defeat Pétain could become the Hindenburg of France. What a pair of leaders! This, if you please, is in Pertinax’s diary under date of November 4, 1934. Weygand, we are told, had a “burning aversion for the Left, the socialists, the Free Masons, democracy, parliamentary institutions, which became a frenzy after his retirement in January 1935.” Pétain, in turn, “was cut to the heart by that fear of a social upheaval which in so many a conservative had silenced every feeling of patriotism.” Obviously these chiefs believed in the Leninist doctrine that the main enemy was at home.
Pertinax now says that these two “are effects far more than they are causes. They served as a blind for counter-revolutionary forces long held in check by the great majority of Frenchmen and ... put in a position of dominance by military defeat.”
See how an uneasy conscience causes him to slip into superficiality. The military defeat did not fall from the sky. These men and their followers caused it. Pertinax’s whole analysis of the military question has no sense unless this is the lesson to be drawn. And as for Laval! Here in rich detail are his fascist plots against the Republic at home and abroad. Pertinax knew it all.
On October 27, 1935, Laval, then Prime Minister, outlined his “anti-capitalist” party.
“The men of the Left,” said Laval, “have never laid a finger on the insurance companies, the trusts, the power monopoly ... The various direct action groups include a number of anti-capitalist elements. From among these a party could be recruited. And that is my party. The platform would be simple; internally a few steps taken against the plutocrats, externally a Franco-German rapprochement.”
This conversation, says Pertinax, was repeated to me a few minutes after it had taken place (page 423). So today a few hours after the destruction of the Republic, he reports this conversation and similar ones to us. We are not very grateful. Pertinax, after all, was no mere commentator. He was, in his own way, extremely active in politics. Take the following incident: M. Simond, editor of the Echo de Paris, complained that, contrary to Pertinax’s information, Weygand denied that he supported the Franco-Russian pact of 1935.
“By way of reply I invited to luncheon M. Simond, Weygand and his wife, M. Titulescu and two other friends. At my request Titulescu put the question to the general: ‘When M. Barthou bluntly informed me that we all must get nearer to Russia ... I asked you whether the innovation was necessary ...you replied ‘It is necessary.’ Is that a fair account of what took place?”
“Weygand ... was on the spot. Reluctantly he mumbled ‘Yes.’ ...”
Titulescu was the Rumanian statesman. Thus Pertinax was part and parcel of the men who ruled and led the corruption which was the Third Republic. If Gamelin was a grave-digger of no character, what about Pertinax himself? He says that de Gaulle in 1934 came to his house to dinner and argued hotly against a representative of the defensive doctrine of the French general staff. This argument Pertinax and his wife found “exceedingly unpleasant to listen to.” We hope it will be equally unpleasant for the French masses to read it at this late hour.
But let us grant that he was no military man and that it took Sedan to expose the military weakness. Pertinax’s direct responsibility is still enormous. The military weakness had social causes. They were known. In 1931, Pétain, the hero of Verdun, was thoroughly exposed for the fraud that he was in a book which was ignored by reviewers and disappeared so quickly from the book shops that its effect was as if it had never appeared. Foch, says Pertinax, had many times told him the truth about Pétain, and Foch died in 1929. Why didn’t Pertinax and all those who knew speak? Of Weygand’s bare-faced lie he says: “If ... I had dared to throw that lie in the teeth of one of our great army leaders, the Echo de Paris would have been shaken to its depths.” Pardon me, my friend. That is not the truth at all. What you mean is that “if you had dared” French bourgeois society would have been shaken. There is no need to accuse Pertinax of any personal dishonesty. The dishonesty was social. He and all his tribe conspired to keep the truth from the great masses of the people. According to their bourgeois logic, the crimes and incompetences of the great military leaders had to he hushed up. To have entered upon a task of fearless exposure would have created “panic.” It would help the enemy. So the exposure, such as it was, remained enclosed within the limits of hypocrisy and dishonesty organic to bourgeois society. [3] Pétain’s World War I reputation was a fake. [4] From 1935 he made propaganda everywhere for the pro-German, pro-fascist Laval. Who exposed him? To jump on the bandwagon now with a dramatic “J’accuse” does not exculpate the accuser. Pertinax is here a symbol. All who happened to have politically or otherwise opposed Laval, Weygand and Pétain, all who refused to accept Vichy, will use this as a passport by which they will seek status in post-Vichy France. The French masses should turn to them a face of steel and the more devastating their indictments, the more unflinching should be the rejection of those who knew so much and said so little.
The Democrats of France
Pertinax is a symbol of the democratic “anti-fascists,” Daladier, Reynaud and Blum. Daladier knew both Weygand and Gamelin well. As Prime Minister he protected them. He appointed Pétain ambassador to Franco Spain. In the face of the German danger, he kept proved friends of Laval in his cabinet (page 114). According to Pertinax, Daladier allowed the conservative groups “unbridled license” to undermine the national unity. Marcel Déat of Vichy fame, who signed a manifesto urging soldiers to desert from the army, went free. Rather than give up his personal power, Daladier preferred to have people in his cabinet whom he himself more than once called “traitors” (page 151). In the end his colleagues threw him out and he went into the Foreign Office and would not do any work – said he wanted to go home to the country.
This was the miserable scoundrel who had more power than any man in France between 1930 and 1940. All of them had their personal and political enmities. But all of them, Radical-Socialists and Social-Democrats, were one clique, consorting with proved fascists, appointing them to the highest and most responsible posts, united with them in the exploitation, suppression and deception of the great masses of the French people. Yet when the French Trotskyists said that they were the main enemy, these bourgeois politicians had the audacity to call them “unpatriotic” and “pro-German” and put them into jail.
Reynaud was no party man. For years he said what he thought and attacked his opponents regardless of consequences. But Reynaud, this great democrat, had a mistress, Madame de Portes. That is not important. What is important is that this woman had the ideas of Pétain and she and her friends saw Reynaud as the one who could at a suitable opportunity introduce into France – none could guess – the “New Order.” Thus the “New Order” was represented in the bedroom of the French Prime Minister, symbolical of the intimate relation between fascism and bourgeois democracy. To quote Pertinax, she had the whole night to undo what Reynaud’s democratic friends had done in the day.
She usually succeeded. Reynaud wished to appoint as Secretary of the War Committee de Gaulle, who had been his military adviser for many years and understood the strength of the German army and the weakness of the French. Madame de Portes blocked the appointment and Daladier too prevented it for his own factional reasons. But this must not blind us to the personal and political tie-up. De Gaulle, Reynaud’s man, was Pétain’s nephew. Blum, the socialist, was supporting Reynaud after having collaborated with and supported Daladier. Blum deferred humbly to Pétain at the War Council, but though he distrusted Gamelin’s military capacity did not dare to dismiss him. Reynaud, however, wanted to dismiss Gamelin. But he could think of no one to appoint for the whole French higher command was a mess. Then came the catastrophe of the break-through on May 10. France started up in alarm. Like Daladier, Gamelin collapsed personally and Reynaud appointed as commander-in-chief – Weygand. Then, to give the masses confidence in his government he appointed as vice-chief of the cabinet – Pétain. The people would take courage from the association of the great days of 1916 and 1918 with the name of Pétain – Pétain, commander-in-chief of the counter-revolution, whose ignorance, incompetence and defeatism had been unexposed by Pertinax and his fellow-journalists. Now we can see why Weygand could not take the bold strategic steps necessary when he succeeded Gamelin. Instead (beginning with defeat in his head and Pétain as a prospective Hindenburg) he displayed the most shocking incompetence and then appeared at Reynaud’s cabinet to call for an armistice. “I do not want France to run into the danger of falling into the anarchy which follows military defeat.” Little local governments would be set up “after the Soviet model.” Reynaud had to be quick because “were disorders to spread throughout the army and the population, he (Weygand) would consider the usefulness of the armistice as being already lost. Then the harm would have been clone” (page 263). Pétain sat nodding his head in agreement. In 1870 the miserable Bazaine surrendered at Metz and then asked the Germans for permission to “save France from herself.” No wonder they fought so badly in 1870 and in 1940.
Reynaud at first refused to agree. Pertinax keeps on insisting that a large majority of the cabinet was in favor of continuing the struggle. He misreads the historical logic of the social movement. The fact is that Reynaud, like the woman in Byron, while protesting that he would ne'er consent, consented. It was proposed to carry the government to North Africa and carry on from there. Reynaud agreed. Instead, this friend of Britain broke the alliance with Britain. Finally he resigned and Pétain took over. Blum and the others were all for resistance to the end. But Blum trusted Reynaud. Reynaud trusted Weygand. Weygand trusted Pétain. Pétain firmly believed that France needed Laval. And Laval thought that France needed Hitler.
On July 12, when Laval formally abolished French bourgeois democracy, Reynaud completed his evolution by asking the Socialists in his cabinet to support Pétain and Laval. At this meeting Blum voted against, but did not dare to defend himself (page 471). Herriot did not even vote against. Of 850 legislators, 569 supported Laval.
As could have been foreseen, the arrests began a few months later. Daladier, Gamelin and Blum were among those arrested and at the Riom Trials they were to make fine and courageous speeches against Pétain, Weygand and Laval, speeches as good in their way as this book by Pertinax. But that does not prevent them from being among the deepest diggers of the grave of France. If Pertinax’s guilt is not as great as theirs it is because his pen was not as mighty a spade as the swords which these others wielded.
Thus is democracy in crisis defended by bourgeois democrats. Let us conclude this section with a warning to the organized labor movement in the United States. Your Wallaces and your Willkies, your “progressives” and “sincere men” and “friends of labor” are bourgeois politicians, tied with a thousand threads to the bourgeois capitalist structure. Whenever they face a serious crisis, somehow or other, through “extraordinary powers” to Congress or Parliament, though the cabinet council, through giving the army power to keep order, through the bedroom, through sheer moral weakness, they either hand over the power to reaction or abandon it altogether. That is why the fierce fury of Pertinax against Vichy does not excite us very much. He and Daladier, Reynaud, Blum and de Gaulle all helped to put Vichy where it was. All the democratic supporters of Bonomi in Italy and of de Gaulle in France are busy at the same game today. This is an old, old story, as old as the republics of Greece and Rome.
Historical Digression
Yet before we leave this extraordinarily powerful denunciation we have to point out the great attraction this book will have for many French people on the whole and French intellectuals in particular. Like Pertinax, the intellectuals have been driven by the cataclysm to recognize that the ruin of France was not accidental. They have rendered splendid service in the underground and they recognize the necessity for drastic change. Apart from the gripping story he tells, Pertinax shows real feeling for French history and repeated flashes of insight and illumination, anti-Marxist though he is. Like all French intellectuals, he is proud of the French intellectual tradition, which he considers the finest European flower of the Graeco-Roman culture. His book is no theoretical mish-mash, as is the pseudo-Marxism of people like Hook and Laski. He himself is a product and uses the style of the best that remains of French classicism. This makes his political tendencies infinitely more mischievous. He is a skillful and subtle propagandist and we propose for a brief moment to challenge him here.
Hard-headed and practical as he is, he uses with telling effect familiar references to Catiline, Varus, Juvenal, driving home his points in terms well suited to his French readers. The climax of his book is the story of Terentius Varro, who had been routed at Cannae, “which Schleiffen considered a model of the victory of extermination” (see how cleverly he sets his case). But when Varro came home “factional strife” subsided. The citizens thanked him for “not having despaired of the Republic.” Pertinax goes on:
“How the antique phrase, stammered out by generations of schoolboys, takes on new life when applied to the French counter-revolutionaries!
“Reverse every detail of this picture and you have Pétain’s story.”
And there he ends his long narrative.
This, for France, steeped in the classical tradition, is wonderful propaganda. De Gaulle obviously did not despair of the Republic; French factions should rally behind him. Bur even in such limited space as we have, Pertinax will not get away with that. There is a much more important Roman parallel which applies not to de Gaulle only but to Pertinax himself, illuminates their past and predicts their future. It is worth relating.
Cicero in 63 B.C. was consul of Rome. He was (we quote only from the staid anti-Marxist Britannica) “leader of the Italian middle class.” He represented their “antipathy alike to socialistic schemes and to aristocratic exclusiveness.” Catiline and Caesar were aiming at dictatorial power and bidding for the support of the masses in true “fascist” fashion. Cicero, like Blum and Daladier, allowed Catiline the utmost license to carry out his plots against the republic. Space, alas, forbids us to quote from one astonishing speech in which he explains to the obviously angry Roman people why he took no stern measures against Catiline. However, Catiline fled from Rome. He was defeated and, despite the protest of Caesar, his friends were executed. Disorder continues and Cicero is exiled. Pompey, the soldier, has military power, but Cicero is recalled to restore the republic. In the face of growing confusion “even strict constitutionalists like Cicero talked of the necessity of investing Pompey with some extraordinary powers for the preservation of order.” Pathetic, isn’t it? Caesar destroys Pompey, establishes the dictatorship but is murdered. Once more the Romans call on Cicero to restore the republic. Cicero’s new policy “was to make use of Octavian, whose name was all-powerful with the veterans, until new legions had been raised which would follow the republican commanders.” Nothing ever teaches these people. Cicero in the end is murdered by Octavian, who finally abolishes the Roman Republic.
History is littered with the bones of the Ciceros and their modern counterparts. We have to add for Pertinax’s benefit that Cicero’s orations against Catiline have justly been famous as masterpieces of denunciation. It seems the denunciators are the best grave-diggers. For Pertinax in this book advocates a dictatorship for General de Gaulle in order to cleanse France of fascism and strengthen republican institutions (page 585). Our modern Cicero once more turns to the military dictator to save the republic. We repeat: these people never learn.
II – Pertinax Learns Nothing
When France was in danger, Pertinax’s crime was, by commission and omission, to have shielded the enemies of the Republic. Today, like a duck in water, he is doing the same thing all over again. Today United States imperialism is the enemy of French liberty. Pertinax finds excuses for the long American flirtation with Vichy and Weygand (pages 535–7). And, crime of crimes, he tries to excuse Roosevelt’s backing of Giraud. Backed by Roosevelt, Giraud set up in Algiers a regime of “white terror.” Pertinax is ready with his excuse: it was due to military necessity. He admits that “de Gaulle ... had practically to force a passage to North Africa through numberless obstacles.” But even after D-Day, he writes, “... the Washington and London governments do not yet see more clearly than in 1942–43.” So Roosevelt does not see clearly! Really, one can scarcely contain one’s contempt. It is like reading PM and The Post. Once more this highly intelligent, well informed man, who is not without character, does not use his influence and reputation to tell the truth in plain, simple language to his countrymen and to the world.
This is the truth: Roosevelt wanted to use American arms to place on the necks of the French people Giraud, a member of the same military gang which had ruined France. In that crime Pertinax shares. The Bourbons had forgotten nothing and learned nothing. Pertinax is worse. He has remembered everything but learned nothing. And why? Because, like those bourgeois whom he condemns in words, he can see workers only as people who work in factories and must do as they are told.
In his Preface, he says that he wrote for a rightist paper for thirty years because he was “temperamentally repelled by abstract political theorizing” (page VI). By “abstract political theorizing” he means, of course, Marxism. So with him it is not property, but temperament. We accept. However, this temperament has been well protected. He does not attack socialism directly but misses no opportunity to dig at anything tinged, however faintly, with the ideas of Marx. Mandel, one of his heroes, is repelled by the men of the Right, but “as for the men of the Left he saw them unfailingly ruin everything they touched.” When Frossard, a Marxist of twenty years before, joined Pétain, in 1942, Pertinax comments: “Still another Marxist converted to social conservatism!” See him then suddenly at the end of the book not only demand vengeance against the men who betrayed France but call for a break with the past as clean as 1789.
The German invasion, ebbing “back to its own boundaries ... will nevertheless leave behind it a state of revolution. It has shaken men’s ideas and their social conditions to the core.” Here is a revolutionary! But experience has taught us to go carefully with these gentlemen. What exactly does he want a de Gaulle dictatorship for? Pertinax himself tells us that Washington distrusted de Gaulle because he talked of “a second revolution.” Revolution today is revolution against the bourgeoisie. “The bourgeoisie,” says Pertinax, “stands condemned,” but only “insofar as it cannot get away from its moral complexion during the last fifty years.” So the bubble is blown. His strong, clear voice breaks down into stammering as soon as he touches the class question. The moral complexion of the bourgeoisie, my friend, is the reflection of the economic position of the bourgeoisie. If they feared socialism for fifty years they will still fear it, and will behave as before. Says Pertinax: “We can vaguely discern a new civilization in the making.” Vaguely.
There is no vagueness about the new society. The first thing is that bourgeois property must be destroyed. That is the conclusion shouting from every page of this book. Pertinax’s ears are deaf to it. What, he discerns only vaguely, the bourgeoisie sees only too clearly. That is why it acts as it does. Pertinax pleads passionately for the punishment of the “gangs responsible for the defeat, the armistice and the policy of collaboration.” Why? Because, unless this is done, “too many Frenchmen, however well meaning, may again be led astray by vested interests.” So there will again be “vested interests”? But it is the “vested interests” whom you yourself said had been so unsettled by socialism that they led the country to disaster. One feels like laughing and turning away. Despite all the big words, there is really nothing to Pertinax. Let us address ourselves to those who may be caught in the trap of his masterly indictment. For, no less than he, we want to see France on her feet again.
“Whither France?”
We, however, are unashamedly “abstract political theorists.” Our abstract political theory taught us that the French bourgeoisie would abandon democracy for fascism and would seek, yesterday the German bourgeoisie, today the American bourgeoisie, to save it from the destruction of its “vested interests” by the French proletariat leading the nation. Abstract political theorizing taught us that French society, after 1934, faced either the fascist dictatorship or the rule of the workers. Abstract political theorizing taught us that the Radical-Socialists and the Social-Democrats would pretend to lead the people, only to betray them. Abstract political theorizing taught us that we must choose our side and work for it, our theory being but a guide to action. This, however, could be done only by breaking with bourgeois society in all its forms and mercilessly exposing to the people all the crimes, plots, evasions and falsifications of bourgeois society. This is our conception of political journalism. Abstract political theorizing taught us that when a “veritable popular revolution broke out on May 25” (page 367), the thing to do was to help these workers to continue their revolution to the conquest of power. Pertinax admits that the “revolution” was justified but blames Blum for not curbing the workers and sending them back to labor sixty hours a week in the war industries. It is a pity that Pertinax wasn’t given the opportunity to try. Blum, Thorez and the Stalinists had work enough to prevent the revolution from succeeding.
Of the workers themselves, our abstract political theory taught us that they have been conditioned by their development under capitalist society to lead humanity to a new stage, to the socialist society. Bourgeois society today crushes them down. But we know the enormous power that lies in them. Not only brute power. All that is precious in France is now contained in them and in those intellectuals who see that France will rise again only as a workers’ France. What in French history is so splendid as the manner in which the French workers mobilized themselves for the national defense once they recognized that their rulers had betrayed and then deserted them? The ardor for liberty, the spontaneity, the sense of form, the historical consciousness, the wit, the mockery, the blend of sophistication and natural grace, all of which have endeared France to lovers of civilization the world over, these have never shone with more dazzling brilliance than in the crudely printed pages of the underground press, stained with the blood of French working men and women. France, “mother of laws and of civilization,” lives and will live forever, but must purge herself of the corrupt and traitorous bourgeoisie. “France has never had a free and uncensored press until we of the underground made one under the German occupation.” Let that inspired cry from a resistance leader ring in the ears of Pertinax and his brother worshippers of the “vested interests” until the workers establish above ground and in the light of day the free and uncensored press of a socialist France.
Pertinax has only contempt for the men of the Left and the Stalinists. We share it. They ruined France and will continue to drag her down. Why? Because today, as in 1936, like Blum, Daladier and Reynaud, they are pledged to the maintenance of bourgeois society. That way lies only further ruin and shame.
But there were others in France who not only theorized abstractly but worked in accordance with their theories. Their credo is embodied in a small volume entitled Whither France, written by Leon Trotsky. On page 18 this abstract theorizer says: “Only fools can think that the capitulation of Daladier or the treason of Herriot in the face of the worst reaction results from fortuitous temporary causes or from the lack of character in these two lamentable leaders.” You see, learned journalist, there is something to be learned from abstract theorizing.
Of the Social-Democracy and the Stalinists turned traitors to the revolution, Trotsky writes: “All the Jouhaux, Blums, Cachins ... are only phantoms.” Phantoms they proved to be in the great crisis of France. Today they are as busy as Pertinax preparing the destruction of what the French masses are so laboriously trying to build up.
What, then, is to be done? We cannot end better than by repeating the advice of Trotsky as the French strikes of 1936 burst from out of the depths of the masses. (Take note of it, Messrs. French intellectuals in particular. You have experienced one reality – fascism. You didn’t like it. You fought against it. Splendid. Now prepare yourselves for the second.) On June 9, Trotsky wrote:
“The revolutionary general staff cannot emerge from combinations at the top. The combat organization would not be identical with the party even if there were a mass revolutionary party in France, for the movement is incomparably broader than the party. The organization also cannot coincide with the trade unions for the unions embrace only an insignificant section of the class and are headed by an arch-reactionary bureaucracy. The new organization must correspond to the nature of the movement itself. It must reflect the struggling masses. It must express their growing will. This is a question of the direct representation of the revolutionary class. Here it is not necessary to invent new forms. Historical precedents exist. The industries and factories will elect their deputies who will meet to elaborate jointly plans of struggle and to provide the leadership. Nor is it necessary to invent the name for such an organization; it is the Soviet of Workers Deputies.” (Whither France, page 154)
And after that what will be the form of the new society that Pertinax sees so vaguely? That struggle for power, gentlemen, is the birth-pang of the new society.
Only a week before, Trotsky had written of these Soviets or Committees of Action:
“The Committees of Action cannot be at present anything but the committees of those strikers who are seizing the enterprises. From one industry to another, from one factory to the next, from one working class district to another, from city to city, the Committees of Action must establish a close bond with each other. They must meet in each city, in each productive group in their regions, in order to end with a Congress of all the Committees of Action in France. This will be the new order which must take the place of the reigning anarchy.” (pages 147–8)
Does anarchy reign? None denies it. Hitler’s New Order has been rejected. A Soviet France – that is the new order for which the country waits. This is the way it will be achieved. That is the only break which will be as clean as 1789. Recent events have shown that the French masses of today are of the same build their fathers were. Soon may they see the Soviet road!
Notes
1. On the actual map the German position is worse, for the line of attack sloped from east to west.
2. We said much the same ourselves. See particularly, The New International, July 1940.
3. The story got out however. [Note by MIA: In the printed version there is no indication where this note should come, but from the sense of the discussion, this would seem to be an appropriate place.]
4. The strategic decisions of Verdun were not his. On all critical occasions he was pessimistic to the point of defeatism. Clemenceau and Foch had to speak to him in a way that a commanding officer was never before addressed in public.
Top of the page
Last updated on 17 December 2015
|
./articles/Meyer-J.-(C.L.R.-James)/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.james-clr.works.1949.04.talented-tenth | <body>
<p class="title">C L R James 1949</p>
<h3>“The Talented Tenth”:<br>
Negro Leadership and Civil Rights</h3>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information"><span class="info">Source</span>: <em>Fourth International</em>, <a href="../../../../../history/etol/newspape/fi/index2.htm#fi49_04" target="new">Vol.X No.4</a>, April 1949, pp. 109-113, signed J. Meyer [C.L.R. James];<br>
<span class="info">Transcribed</span>: by Daniel Gaido.</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="fst">The preliminaries of the struggle over civil rights have already brought home to the Negro people that they can expect little from this Congress. The <em>Pittsburgh Courier</em> of February 26th expresses current Negro opinion editorially. “What reason was there for supposing that a Democratic Eighty-first Congress would be more ‘impressive’ than a Republican Eightieth Congress?” Its conclusion is also worth repetition: “The shadow-boxing going on in the Senate should be a post-graduate course to those whose political education has not gone beyond the campaign platform stage.”</p>
<p>But this does not mean that Negro injustice is merely the victim of the same old run-around. Not in the slightest degree. The 1948 elections showed that never since the period of the Civil War has the Negro question so shaken the nation. And never since that period has Congress been so involved in the Negro question as in the present session.</p>
<p>To pass any civil rights bill demands firm rules to end filibustering. This involves a break with a not unimportant traditional procedural practice. Secondly, civil rights are being exploited as a political weapon by the Republican Party against the Democratic Party. Bricker, a Republican from Ohio, maliciously proposes to add anti-discrimination clauses to a national housing bill. A Democratic senator bitterly protests at this proposal which he says will ruin the chances of the bill.</p>
<p>The NAACP and others demand that new labor legislation should contain clauses denying NLRB facilities to labor unions which discriminate against Negro workers. Senator Taft announces his agreement. The <em>New York Times</em> of February 8th says that the bitterness of the exchanges on the Republican attempt to exploit the civil rights issue exceeds anything since the special session called by Truman in 1947:</p>
<p>Democratic congressmen are exploiting the demand for the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Law and the passing of social security legislation in an attempt to sidetrack the struggle on civil rights. Whatever may be the fate of the various issues and bills now before Congress, it is clear that the Negro question has stamped itself indelibly upon the life of this session.</p>
<p>The Negro question is the central issue of this Congress in another and deeper sense. Despite Truman’s assumption by divine right of the most dangerous powers in the Taft-Hartley Act, the Democrats have two advantages in their maneuvers and evasions on this bill: 1) the Republicans are known to be in opposition; 2) the labor leaders are silent and covering up for Truman. But there is not the slightest cover for anybody on the civil rights program.</p>
<p>It was the issue above all on which Truman galvanized his party and won the sympathies of the people. The Dixiecrats dramatized the clash for him by splitting the Democratic Party. If Congress fails to make a reasonable, a passable demonstration of its willingness and ability to translate into action the wishes of the people then democracy, “the American Way,” will receive a terrible blow; abroad in the deadly serious propaganda war with Russia, in the rank and file of the labor movement, in the consciousness of the American people as a whole, and above all among the Negroes who have during recent years given ample evidence that their patience is nearing its end. Finally the struggle in Congress puts squarely before the nation the role of the Southern politicians who have misrepresented the South and distorted the political life of the country for a hundred and seventy years.<br>
</p>
<h5>A Bold Political Maneuver</h5>
<p class="fst">The administration knows this – knows it very well. Hence Truman and his political advisers have initiated and are resolutely carrying through a political maneuver of extreme boldness. They propose to split the Negro petty bourgeoisie from the Negro masses and attach them to the Democratic Party and the administration. They propose to use them as a weapon for stifling not only the actions but the very protests of the Negroes. Thus the educated, white-collar elements among the Negroes, whom many years ago Dr. DuBois dignified with the phrase “talented tenth,” are at last receiving some of the recognition he demanded for them. They are not receiving a gift or “justice.”</p>
<p>Far more than the Congress is involved. The country as a whole is deeply stirred by the insoluble general crisis, and many are looking more and more to the Negro question as at least one issue which ought to be solved. The petty bourgeoisie is politically active on this question as never before. Many bourgeois industrialists are awaking to the fact that they cannot allow labor and “communism” to be the sole defenders of democratic rights. Catholic and Jewish organizations for good reasons of their own have joined in the battle. All of these, including the labor leadership, with unerring instinct realize that the Negro petty bourgeoisie represents, <em>for them</em>, the key to the situation. That the masses of the people are sincere, there is no doubt. We shall come to that later.</p>
<p>But from the president down, in their various ways all the leaderships have one common aim-to keep the <em>Negro masses</em> quiet and to bluff the skeptical working class. Thus the policy of President Truman and the administration is no cheap trick. It represents a response of capitalist society to social and political forces deeply rooted in the history of the nation and its present social structure. As the forces align themselves, and they are doing so with great rapidity, the question of civil rights for Negroes gives invaluable indications of more fundamental social conflicts involving the whole future of American society.</p>
<p>The administration and its supporters have taken the lead first of all on the question of propaganda. The <em>Report of the President’s Committee on Civil Rights</em> was a landmark. Since that time we have had the plain-speaking, almost violent report on Jim Crow in Washington. Attorney-General Tom Clark now finds himself on liberal bookshelves as the author of an opus (a very dull and pedestrian affair) attacking racial covenants and bearing the suggestive title of <em>Prejudice and Property</em>. As for the speeches and articles and messages of Senator Humphrey, Governor Bowles, and the rest, one has only to look back to Roosevelt’s pitiful record from 1932 to 1945 to recognize the vast distance that the Democratic Party and the administration have traveled, under the whip of the Negro masses and the sympathy of the people. They are no longer on the defensive, as far as words are concerned. They have learned the trick of joining full-throatedly in the chorus of denunciation.</p>
<p>The administration recognizes how precious are its Negro spokesmen. Their presence on Democratic platforms and their signatures on Democratic documents are the sole certificate of Democratic purity on civil rights. Their control of the Negro masses is the slender barrier between the present turgid situation and bloody outbursts, Roosevelt (how he is being exposed these days!) used to appoint Negroes to posts dealing with Negroes. That is no longer satisfactory. Earl Brown, <em>Amsterdam News</em> columnist, quite recently made a blistering attack upon the Negro policy of the New Deal:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“In this period a number of Negroes were appointed to would-be advisory positions in the Government. All of these appointees were purely political manikins who were yanked around by departmental or bureau heads at will. They had no power. Most of them never even learned what they were supposed to do.”</p>
<p class="fst">Similarly, says Brown, Negroes in the diplomatic service were appointed only to posts dealing with Negroes. It is clear that in the minds of both whites and Negroes this must stop. Dr. Ralph Bunche, a Negro, after his success as mediator in Palestine, is mentioned by Leonard Lyons, <em>New York Post</em> columnist, as being seriously considered for the post of ambassador to Russia. (There is no question that a Russian post is higher than a post dealing with Negroes.) The truth of the rumor is not important. The rumor itself is.</p>
<p>The governor of the Virgin Islands is said to be slated for a federal judgeship or perhaps the Supreme Court. The Negro press notes with glee that he has been touring the South, hobnobbing with Southerners and Dixiecrats. This, it is claimed, is preparation for the judgeship.</p>
<p>The most startling appointment, however, is that of Mrs. Anna Hegemann as assistant to Social Security administrator Oscar Ewing. The post of Social Security Administrator has been recommended to Congress for cabinet status. The Negro press speculates with bated breath whether this would not mean that Mrs. Hegemann would occupy a post just below cabinet rank. Appetites are whetted by the career of Negro Congressman Dawson. He is now chairman of the Committee on House Expenditures. His secretary is a Negro, who now functions as secretary to the Committee.</p>
<p>In addition Truman has agreed to raise the status of the American and Liberian ministers to that of ambassador. The American minister, Edward Dudley, is expected to be the first Negro ambassador. True, Liberia is a Negro state, but he can always be promoted to Russia or Communist China or some such place.</p>
<p>The little Trumanites everywhere are following the example. Chester Bowles appoints a Negro as his military aide, the Democratic congressman for a Bronx constituency appoints a Negro as his secretary. This is just the beginning. What is intended, particularly if mass activity continues, was made perfectly clear by the remarkable events that took place in Washington during the inaugural celebrations.<br>
</p>
<h5>“A Big Day for Democracy”</h5>
<p class="fst">President Truman of Missouri and Vice President Barkley of Kentucky gave the Jim Crow tradition in Washington such blows as it has never been given before. To the inaugural ball 250 Negroes were invited. At a very special dinner given to Truman and Barkley as President and Vice President, four Negroes, two men and two women, were present. Negro Congressman Dawson was guest of honor at a dinner and parties in which Howard McGrath and numerous other Democratic magnates participated. Conversely, at dinners and patties given by the Democratic National Chairman and others, Congressman Dawson and numerous other Negroes from all over the country participated. At both the gala and traditional inaugural affairs, “the race” took an active part on and off the stage. For “the first time” in the annals of this country, three Negroes made a “command performance” before the Chief Executive at the same time. Lionel Hampton’s band played for the pre-inaugural ball, and the next night at the inaugural ball when Benny Goodman fell ill, Hampton, a guest at the bail, substituted for Goodman as leader of the band. Negroes stayed at the Statler and the Shoreham.</p>
<p>It is not difficult to believe the rumor that President Truman bluntly made the Southerners understand that if they did not like it they could stay away. He himself spoke to Lena Horne, the Negro film star, during one of the parties, and Governor (Kissing Jim) Folsom expressed himself as willing to oblige a Negro photographer in democratically including Miss Horne in the peculiar brand of gubernatorial activity from which he gets his name. (The lady excused herself and thus both the Negro picture pages and democracy were cheated.)</p>
<p>For the Negro petty bourgeoisie the whole business was no laughing matter. Sections of the Negro press went wild with joy.</p>
<p class="quoteb">“It was a big day for democracy.”</p>
<p class="quoteb">“Thee two greatest days in modern history passed into the pages of democracy ... leaving us with tired feet and happy heart. There’s more ... much more ... which we will be remembering for days to come, but right now, our fatigued mind refuses to admit all of it into the frontal cranium or wherever it is that things go when they want to come out on paper.”</p>
<p class="quoteb">“Biggest thrill of the day came via radio when newscasters chortled over the snub given Dixiecrats Thurmond and Talmadge by President Truman and Vice President Barkley.”</p>
<p class="fst">There is no question but that this is going to be repeated in New England, in Detroit, in Los Angeles. It may take time, but Truman’s Negro guests were politicos and Negro supporters from all over the country. It is inconceivable that so radical a departure did not have the whole country in mind. Gone – for the time being – are the day’s when Frederick Douglass forced his solitary way into a reception given by Abraham Lincoln, when Theodore Roosevelt brought the roof down on his head by an invitation to Booker T. Washington to lunch with him at the White House. Gone too are the days of furtive little luncheons by Mrs. Roosevelt at the White House to selected Negro stooges. A new stage has been reached and passed.</p>
<p>At the same time the big industrialists have moved on to the scene. Five Howard University senior engineering students, all veterans of World War II, have been hired by the General Electric Company. Here are already a few Negroes working as engineers with General Electric but it is obvious this is a new policy. M.M. Boring, Manager of Technical Personnel Division of G.E., Schenectady, New York, and his assistant personally visited the Howard School of Engineering and Architecture and after interviewing 14 students selected five. The Urban League has planned these policies with General Electric, General Motors, Merck (chemicals), Fairchild Aviation, international Harvester, American Telephone and Telegraph, Du Pont, Sinclair Oil, Ford Motor Co., Chrysler, Packard and the Automatic Manufacturing Company. The Industrial Secretary of the National Urban League, Julius Thomas, explains very precisely that this move concerns “highly skilled” Negroes and “high-paying” jobs. No longer will the labor movement alone have the monopoly, and credit of working side by side with Negroes. Careers, if even carefully rationed, are now open to the talents of the talented tenth.<br>
</p>
<h5>Cultivating a Privileged Caste</h5>
<p class="fst">Thus the administration and heavy industry have embarked on a concerted drive politically, economically, and socially, in the primitive sense of that word, to win over a caste of Negroes to their side. It is nothing new; British imperial policy, in India and in the colonies, squeezed this particular orange dry. In the last days of British imperialism in India there were less than six hundred Englishmen in the Indian civil service. (Britain merely kept the army, the navy and the air force in its own hands.)</p>
<p>Some such drastic policy was necessary or the American bourgeoisie would face disaster on the Negro question with all its national and international repercussions. The fierce upheavals in Harlem, Detroit and elsewhere, the story, as yet untold, of the unceasing and often bloody lighting for their rights by Negroes in the army, were climaxed by the declaration of Randolph and Reynolds which startled not only the bourgeoisie but the Negro leaders. Forrestal called them together to aid him in the elaboration of a segregated policy for Negroes in the armed forces. They turned him down flat. Something had to be done. It is being done. A new perspective has been opened for the Negro petty bourgeoisie. No one except a rabid reactionary can be otherwise than sympathetic to any body of Negroes who, after 300 years, find themselves to some small degree recognized as American citizens. The right of Negroes to jobs is a right which must be relentlessly fought for, not only in the factory but in the office and everywhere. But that is not what is at issue here at all. What is of the first importance is the political motivation of those who are making the concessions and, above all, the political consequences for the Negroes and the country as a whole. These are already visible.</p>
<p>The fiasco of the civil rights program in Congress appears to be purely the work of the Democratic and Republican fakers and intriguers maneuvering with the Southerners. Particularly brazen were the Brooks Hays proposals. The Democratic Party was offered Southern support for a federal anti-lynching bill by which the federal government would intervene only after proved inability of the slate authorities to deal with a lynching; there would be a federal FEPC, but the government would have no power to enforce any decisions. It now appears that the last word on this monstrous impudence rests not with the Democratic party but with the Negro leaders who are swarming in Washington. If they accept it, then Truman’s face is saved and it will be their task to pacify the Negroes and assure the rest of the country that “real progress” has been made.<br>
</p>
<h5>“Compromise” and “Dilemma”</h5>
<p class="fst">Lem Graves, the <em>Courier</em>’s Washington correspondent, reports in detail the opening motes. Graves states flatly the dilemma posed by the Brook Hays compromise. The Negro leaders will have to decide whether at some “prestige risk” they can work out an “honorable peace” with the Southern proponents of “honest and legitimate solutions” to the Negro problem “which might not go quite as far as the leaders have been asking the South to go ...” The other alternative is to reject all “enlightened compromises” from that quarter. The phrases that Graves uses show which side he is on. But though he gives moral support, he is under no illusions as to the risks the Negro leaders are running.</p>
<p>There is, he says, some danger in both moves. To make a deal, “there is the danger in all social movements, the leadership will be discredited by any step away from the pedestal of contention they have occupied.” In plain political terms: if they accept the compromise, the masses may leave them and they will be of no use whatever to the administration. He returns to this again and again. These leaders “haze to calculate the effect on their personal job and income status, of any retreat which would end the civil rights cold war. (This question of loss of face among one’s constituents affects Southern politicians and civil rights lobbyists alike).”</p>
<p>Graves is a little premature about any retreat by these Negro leaders “ending” the cold war. But his insight and particularly his frankness are none the less instructive. He poses the other alternative: refusing the “compromise.”</p>
<p>This might anger the hard-pressed Southern Negroes. That is one of the few references to the Negro masses in all the reporting about the inaugural celebration and the new status of Negroes in Washington.</p>
<p>Graves says that he took a poll among the Negro leaders. He learns from these gentlemen that they want to know: 1) how “sincere” are the proponents of the compromise; 2) how much backing have the proposals in Congress. The third concern of these fakers can only be fully appreciated if quoted verbatim: 3) “If Negro leaders would consent to dickering on the basis of a ‘compromise’ (which seems quite doubtful) how much higher would the Southerners raise their sights in an effort to come close to effective legislation in the civil rights field and to a basis of honorable compromise <em>which would not leave the racial leadership holding the bag</em>?”<br>
</p>
<h5>The Millions Are Not Considered</h5>
<p class="fst">We have underlined the last few words. The Negro leadership is prepared to go as far as possible in “honorable compromise” with the Southerners as long as they can hold their own position as leaders. What happens to the millions of Negroes is no concern of anybody. But with appointments in the offing to posts of policy-making status, with real social equality and invitations to cocktail parties and dinners with the highest in the land, and with an opening for high-paying white-collar jobs in industry for sons, daughters, nephews, nieces and protégés, the social basis of these fakers is widely extended. They are getting something to fight for. But if they are getting more they will have to do more. It will be their task not only to accept the “honorable compromise” but to sell it to the Negroes and the country.</p>
<p>Truman is ready to help them all he can. In the inaugural parade there were some segregated units. But there were also mixed units of cadets from West Point and Annapolis, mixed units of WACs and WAVEs, a mixed light-tank corps and a few others. This was a demonstration made to a million people from all over the country. The administration, there is not the slightest doubt, is preparing to make some token moves in regard to segregation in the armed forces. It is reported both in the capitalist press and in the Negro press that an end to segregation in the air forces is being prepared. We shall see.</p>
<p>But while the Negro press swoons with delight at the mixed units from Annapolis, it also reports that the number of officers in the navy under the new policy is about eight or eleven, or some such ridiculous figure. Still more revealing is the reality in Jersey. The governor has earned national publicity by insisting on no segregation in the National Guard but a Jersey correspondent asserts that there are eleven token Negro members of a white unit. That’s all. The old realities are to continue behind a facade of Negro petty bourgeois incorporated into positions of privilege and petty profit.</p>
<p>We are at the very beginning of this new development. All of it of course, as always, is the result of the tremendous activity of the Negro masses. But it is necessary to repeat that this deliberate policy of the administration is merely the crystallization of social and political developments in the nation at large. The American petty bourgeoisie today has “discovered” civil rights. If Congress and the administration are building up the Negro petty bourgeoisie on the one side, petty-bourgeois organizations and activities are proliferating all over the country bolstering the Negro petty bourgeoisie on the other. This, its historical antecedents, its effect upon the Negro masses and the proletariat, and the role of the labor leadership, will be the subject of a second and concluding article.</p>
<p class="skip"> </p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer"><a href="../../../index.htm">C L R James Archive</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated on: <!-- WebWriter AutoDato -->11 April 2009<!-- WW -->
</p>
</body> |
C L R James 1949
“The Talented Tenth”:
Negro Leadership and Civil Rights
Source: Fourth International, Vol.X No.4, April 1949, pp. 109-113, signed J. Meyer [C.L.R. James];
Transcribed: by Daniel Gaido.
The preliminaries of the struggle over civil rights have already brought home to the Negro people that they can expect little from this Congress. The Pittsburgh Courier of February 26th expresses current Negro opinion editorially. “What reason was there for supposing that a Democratic Eighty-first Congress would be more ‘impressive’ than a Republican Eightieth Congress?” Its conclusion is also worth repetition: “The shadow-boxing going on in the Senate should be a post-graduate course to those whose political education has not gone beyond the campaign platform stage.”
But this does not mean that Negro injustice is merely the victim of the same old run-around. Not in the slightest degree. The 1948 elections showed that never since the period of the Civil War has the Negro question so shaken the nation. And never since that period has Congress been so involved in the Negro question as in the present session.
To pass any civil rights bill demands firm rules to end filibustering. This involves a break with a not unimportant traditional procedural practice. Secondly, civil rights are being exploited as a political weapon by the Republican Party against the Democratic Party. Bricker, a Republican from Ohio, maliciously proposes to add anti-discrimination clauses to a national housing bill. A Democratic senator bitterly protests at this proposal which he says will ruin the chances of the bill.
The NAACP and others demand that new labor legislation should contain clauses denying NLRB facilities to labor unions which discriminate against Negro workers. Senator Taft announces his agreement. The New York Times of February 8th says that the bitterness of the exchanges on the Republican attempt to exploit the civil rights issue exceeds anything since the special session called by Truman in 1947:
Democratic congressmen are exploiting the demand for the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Law and the passing of social security legislation in an attempt to sidetrack the struggle on civil rights. Whatever may be the fate of the various issues and bills now before Congress, it is clear that the Negro question has stamped itself indelibly upon the life of this session.
The Negro question is the central issue of this Congress in another and deeper sense. Despite Truman’s assumption by divine right of the most dangerous powers in the Taft-Hartley Act, the Democrats have two advantages in their maneuvers and evasions on this bill: 1) the Republicans are known to be in opposition; 2) the labor leaders are silent and covering up for Truman. But there is not the slightest cover for anybody on the civil rights program.
It was the issue above all on which Truman galvanized his party and won the sympathies of the people. The Dixiecrats dramatized the clash for him by splitting the Democratic Party. If Congress fails to make a reasonable, a passable demonstration of its willingness and ability to translate into action the wishes of the people then democracy, “the American Way,” will receive a terrible blow; abroad in the deadly serious propaganda war with Russia, in the rank and file of the labor movement, in the consciousness of the American people as a whole, and above all among the Negroes who have during recent years given ample evidence that their patience is nearing its end. Finally the struggle in Congress puts squarely before the nation the role of the Southern politicians who have misrepresented the South and distorted the political life of the country for a hundred and seventy years.
A Bold Political Maneuver
The administration knows this – knows it very well. Hence Truman and his political advisers have initiated and are resolutely carrying through a political maneuver of extreme boldness. They propose to split the Negro petty bourgeoisie from the Negro masses and attach them to the Democratic Party and the administration. They propose to use them as a weapon for stifling not only the actions but the very protests of the Negroes. Thus the educated, white-collar elements among the Negroes, whom many years ago Dr. DuBois dignified with the phrase “talented tenth,” are at last receiving some of the recognition he demanded for them. They are not receiving a gift or “justice.”
Far more than the Congress is involved. The country as a whole is deeply stirred by the insoluble general crisis, and many are looking more and more to the Negro question as at least one issue which ought to be solved. The petty bourgeoisie is politically active on this question as never before. Many bourgeois industrialists are awaking to the fact that they cannot allow labor and “communism” to be the sole defenders of democratic rights. Catholic and Jewish organizations for good reasons of their own have joined in the battle. All of these, including the labor leadership, with unerring instinct realize that the Negro petty bourgeoisie represents, for them, the key to the situation. That the masses of the people are sincere, there is no doubt. We shall come to that later.
But from the president down, in their various ways all the leaderships have one common aim-to keep the Negro masses quiet and to bluff the skeptical working class. Thus the policy of President Truman and the administration is no cheap trick. It represents a response of capitalist society to social and political forces deeply rooted in the history of the nation and its present social structure. As the forces align themselves, and they are doing so with great rapidity, the question of civil rights for Negroes gives invaluable indications of more fundamental social conflicts involving the whole future of American society.
The administration and its supporters have taken the lead first of all on the question of propaganda. The Report of the President’s Committee on Civil Rights was a landmark. Since that time we have had the plain-speaking, almost violent report on Jim Crow in Washington. Attorney-General Tom Clark now finds himself on liberal bookshelves as the author of an opus (a very dull and pedestrian affair) attacking racial covenants and bearing the suggestive title of Prejudice and Property. As for the speeches and articles and messages of Senator Humphrey, Governor Bowles, and the rest, one has only to look back to Roosevelt’s pitiful record from 1932 to 1945 to recognize the vast distance that the Democratic Party and the administration have traveled, under the whip of the Negro masses and the sympathy of the people. They are no longer on the defensive, as far as words are concerned. They have learned the trick of joining full-throatedly in the chorus of denunciation.
The administration recognizes how precious are its Negro spokesmen. Their presence on Democratic platforms and their signatures on Democratic documents are the sole certificate of Democratic purity on civil rights. Their control of the Negro masses is the slender barrier between the present turgid situation and bloody outbursts, Roosevelt (how he is being exposed these days!) used to appoint Negroes to posts dealing with Negroes. That is no longer satisfactory. Earl Brown, Amsterdam News columnist, quite recently made a blistering attack upon the Negro policy of the New Deal:
“In this period a number of Negroes were appointed to would-be advisory positions in the Government. All of these appointees were purely political manikins who were yanked around by departmental or bureau heads at will. They had no power. Most of them never even learned what they were supposed to do.”
Similarly, says Brown, Negroes in the diplomatic service were appointed only to posts dealing with Negroes. It is clear that in the minds of both whites and Negroes this must stop. Dr. Ralph Bunche, a Negro, after his success as mediator in Palestine, is mentioned by Leonard Lyons, New York Post columnist, as being seriously considered for the post of ambassador to Russia. (There is no question that a Russian post is higher than a post dealing with Negroes.) The truth of the rumor is not important. The rumor itself is.
The governor of the Virgin Islands is said to be slated for a federal judgeship or perhaps the Supreme Court. The Negro press notes with glee that he has been touring the South, hobnobbing with Southerners and Dixiecrats. This, it is claimed, is preparation for the judgeship.
The most startling appointment, however, is that of Mrs. Anna Hegemann as assistant to Social Security administrator Oscar Ewing. The post of Social Security Administrator has been recommended to Congress for cabinet status. The Negro press speculates with bated breath whether this would not mean that Mrs. Hegemann would occupy a post just below cabinet rank. Appetites are whetted by the career of Negro Congressman Dawson. He is now chairman of the Committee on House Expenditures. His secretary is a Negro, who now functions as secretary to the Committee.
In addition Truman has agreed to raise the status of the American and Liberian ministers to that of ambassador. The American minister, Edward Dudley, is expected to be the first Negro ambassador. True, Liberia is a Negro state, but he can always be promoted to Russia or Communist China or some such place.
The little Trumanites everywhere are following the example. Chester Bowles appoints a Negro as his military aide, the Democratic congressman for a Bronx constituency appoints a Negro as his secretary. This is just the beginning. What is intended, particularly if mass activity continues, was made perfectly clear by the remarkable events that took place in Washington during the inaugural celebrations.
“A Big Day for Democracy”
President Truman of Missouri and Vice President Barkley of Kentucky gave the Jim Crow tradition in Washington such blows as it has never been given before. To the inaugural ball 250 Negroes were invited. At a very special dinner given to Truman and Barkley as President and Vice President, four Negroes, two men and two women, were present. Negro Congressman Dawson was guest of honor at a dinner and parties in which Howard McGrath and numerous other Democratic magnates participated. Conversely, at dinners and patties given by the Democratic National Chairman and others, Congressman Dawson and numerous other Negroes from all over the country participated. At both the gala and traditional inaugural affairs, “the race” took an active part on and off the stage. For “the first time” in the annals of this country, three Negroes made a “command performance” before the Chief Executive at the same time. Lionel Hampton’s band played for the pre-inaugural ball, and the next night at the inaugural ball when Benny Goodman fell ill, Hampton, a guest at the bail, substituted for Goodman as leader of the band. Negroes stayed at the Statler and the Shoreham.
It is not difficult to believe the rumor that President Truman bluntly made the Southerners understand that if they did not like it they could stay away. He himself spoke to Lena Horne, the Negro film star, during one of the parties, and Governor (Kissing Jim) Folsom expressed himself as willing to oblige a Negro photographer in democratically including Miss Horne in the peculiar brand of gubernatorial activity from which he gets his name. (The lady excused herself and thus both the Negro picture pages and democracy were cheated.)
For the Negro petty bourgeoisie the whole business was no laughing matter. Sections of the Negro press went wild with joy.
“It was a big day for democracy.”
“Thee two greatest days in modern history passed into the pages of democracy ... leaving us with tired feet and happy heart. There’s more ... much more ... which we will be remembering for days to come, but right now, our fatigued mind refuses to admit all of it into the frontal cranium or wherever it is that things go when they want to come out on paper.”
“Biggest thrill of the day came via radio when newscasters chortled over the snub given Dixiecrats Thurmond and Talmadge by President Truman and Vice President Barkley.”
There is no question but that this is going to be repeated in New England, in Detroit, in Los Angeles. It may take time, but Truman’s Negro guests were politicos and Negro supporters from all over the country. It is inconceivable that so radical a departure did not have the whole country in mind. Gone – for the time being – are the day’s when Frederick Douglass forced his solitary way into a reception given by Abraham Lincoln, when Theodore Roosevelt brought the roof down on his head by an invitation to Booker T. Washington to lunch with him at the White House. Gone too are the days of furtive little luncheons by Mrs. Roosevelt at the White House to selected Negro stooges. A new stage has been reached and passed.
At the same time the big industrialists have moved on to the scene. Five Howard University senior engineering students, all veterans of World War II, have been hired by the General Electric Company. Here are already a few Negroes working as engineers with General Electric but it is obvious this is a new policy. M.M. Boring, Manager of Technical Personnel Division of G.E., Schenectady, New York, and his assistant personally visited the Howard School of Engineering and Architecture and after interviewing 14 students selected five. The Urban League has planned these policies with General Electric, General Motors, Merck (chemicals), Fairchild Aviation, international Harvester, American Telephone and Telegraph, Du Pont, Sinclair Oil, Ford Motor Co., Chrysler, Packard and the Automatic Manufacturing Company. The Industrial Secretary of the National Urban League, Julius Thomas, explains very precisely that this move concerns “highly skilled” Negroes and “high-paying” jobs. No longer will the labor movement alone have the monopoly, and credit of working side by side with Negroes. Careers, if even carefully rationed, are now open to the talents of the talented tenth.
Cultivating a Privileged Caste
Thus the administration and heavy industry have embarked on a concerted drive politically, economically, and socially, in the primitive sense of that word, to win over a caste of Negroes to their side. It is nothing new; British imperial policy, in India and in the colonies, squeezed this particular orange dry. In the last days of British imperialism in India there were less than six hundred Englishmen in the Indian civil service. (Britain merely kept the army, the navy and the air force in its own hands.)
Some such drastic policy was necessary or the American bourgeoisie would face disaster on the Negro question with all its national and international repercussions. The fierce upheavals in Harlem, Detroit and elsewhere, the story, as yet untold, of the unceasing and often bloody lighting for their rights by Negroes in the army, were climaxed by the declaration of Randolph and Reynolds which startled not only the bourgeoisie but the Negro leaders. Forrestal called them together to aid him in the elaboration of a segregated policy for Negroes in the armed forces. They turned him down flat. Something had to be done. It is being done. A new perspective has been opened for the Negro petty bourgeoisie. No one except a rabid reactionary can be otherwise than sympathetic to any body of Negroes who, after 300 years, find themselves to some small degree recognized as American citizens. The right of Negroes to jobs is a right which must be relentlessly fought for, not only in the factory but in the office and everywhere. But that is not what is at issue here at all. What is of the first importance is the political motivation of those who are making the concessions and, above all, the political consequences for the Negroes and the country as a whole. These are already visible.
The fiasco of the civil rights program in Congress appears to be purely the work of the Democratic and Republican fakers and intriguers maneuvering with the Southerners. Particularly brazen were the Brooks Hays proposals. The Democratic Party was offered Southern support for a federal anti-lynching bill by which the federal government would intervene only after proved inability of the slate authorities to deal with a lynching; there would be a federal FEPC, but the government would have no power to enforce any decisions. It now appears that the last word on this monstrous impudence rests not with the Democratic party but with the Negro leaders who are swarming in Washington. If they accept it, then Truman’s face is saved and it will be their task to pacify the Negroes and assure the rest of the country that “real progress” has been made.
“Compromise” and “Dilemma”
Lem Graves, the Courier’s Washington correspondent, reports in detail the opening motes. Graves states flatly the dilemma posed by the Brook Hays compromise. The Negro leaders will have to decide whether at some “prestige risk” they can work out an “honorable peace” with the Southern proponents of “honest and legitimate solutions” to the Negro problem “which might not go quite as far as the leaders have been asking the South to go ...” The other alternative is to reject all “enlightened compromises” from that quarter. The phrases that Graves uses show which side he is on. But though he gives moral support, he is under no illusions as to the risks the Negro leaders are running.
There is, he says, some danger in both moves. To make a deal, “there is the danger in all social movements, the leadership will be discredited by any step away from the pedestal of contention they have occupied.” In plain political terms: if they accept the compromise, the masses may leave them and they will be of no use whatever to the administration. He returns to this again and again. These leaders “haze to calculate the effect on their personal job and income status, of any retreat which would end the civil rights cold war. (This question of loss of face among one’s constituents affects Southern politicians and civil rights lobbyists alike).”
Graves is a little premature about any retreat by these Negro leaders “ending” the cold war. But his insight and particularly his frankness are none the less instructive. He poses the other alternative: refusing the “compromise.”
This might anger the hard-pressed Southern Negroes. That is one of the few references to the Negro masses in all the reporting about the inaugural celebration and the new status of Negroes in Washington.
Graves says that he took a poll among the Negro leaders. He learns from these gentlemen that they want to know: 1) how “sincere” are the proponents of the compromise; 2) how much backing have the proposals in Congress. The third concern of these fakers can only be fully appreciated if quoted verbatim: 3) “If Negro leaders would consent to dickering on the basis of a ‘compromise’ (which seems quite doubtful) how much higher would the Southerners raise their sights in an effort to come close to effective legislation in the civil rights field and to a basis of honorable compromise which would not leave the racial leadership holding the bag?”
The Millions Are Not Considered
We have underlined the last few words. The Negro leadership is prepared to go as far as possible in “honorable compromise” with the Southerners as long as they can hold their own position as leaders. What happens to the millions of Negroes is no concern of anybody. But with appointments in the offing to posts of policy-making status, with real social equality and invitations to cocktail parties and dinners with the highest in the land, and with an opening for high-paying white-collar jobs in industry for sons, daughters, nephews, nieces and protégés, the social basis of these fakers is widely extended. They are getting something to fight for. But if they are getting more they will have to do more. It will be their task not only to accept the “honorable compromise” but to sell it to the Negroes and the country.
Truman is ready to help them all he can. In the inaugural parade there were some segregated units. But there were also mixed units of cadets from West Point and Annapolis, mixed units of WACs and WAVEs, a mixed light-tank corps and a few others. This was a demonstration made to a million people from all over the country. The administration, there is not the slightest doubt, is preparing to make some token moves in regard to segregation in the armed forces. It is reported both in the capitalist press and in the Negro press that an end to segregation in the air forces is being prepared. We shall see.
But while the Negro press swoons with delight at the mixed units from Annapolis, it also reports that the number of officers in the navy under the new policy is about eight or eleven, or some such ridiculous figure. Still more revealing is the reality in Jersey. The governor has earned national publicity by insisting on no segregation in the National Guard but a Jersey correspondent asserts that there are eleven token Negro members of a white unit. That’s all. The old realities are to continue behind a facade of Negro petty bourgeois incorporated into positions of privilege and petty profit.
We are at the very beginning of this new development. All of it of course, as always, is the result of the tremendous activity of the Negro masses. But it is necessary to repeat that this deliberate policy of the administration is merely the crystallization of social and political developments in the nation at large. The American petty bourgeoisie today has “discovered” civil rights. If Congress and the administration are building up the Negro petty bourgeoisie on the one side, petty-bourgeois organizations and activities are proliferating all over the country bolstering the Negro petty bourgeoisie on the other. This, its historical antecedents, its effect upon the Negro masses and the proletariat, and the role of the labor leadership, will be the subject of a second and concluding article.
C L R James Archive
Last updated on: 11 April 2009
|
./articles/Meyer-J.-(C.L.R.-James)/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.james-clr.works.1938.voice-africa | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../index.htm">C.L.R. James</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>C.L.R. James August</h2>
<h1>The Voice of Africa</h1>
<h3>(August 1938)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info"><span class="info">Source</span>: <em>International African Opinion</em>, Vol. 1, No. 2, August 1938.<br>
<span class="info">Transcribed</span>: by Christian Hogsbjerg with thanks to Marika Sherwood.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst"><strong>Facing Mount Kenya</strong><br>
by Jomo Kenyatta, with an introduction by B. Malinowski<br>
<em>Secker & Warburg. 12/6.</em></p>
<p class="fst">If ever there was a book that students of Africa needed, this is it. The book describes an African people, the Gikuyu, as they were forty years ago just before British imperialism descended on them. Similar books have been written before? Yes; but by white men chiefly, of varying intelligence and honesty. But even the best, like the late Emil Torday, wrote from the outside. Mr. Jomo Kenyatta is an unusual African. He is an anthropologist trained at London University, and even an unscientific reader can see the scrupulously scientific approach, the order, the method, the objectivity. But Mr. Kenyatta grew up not as a little missionary protégé but as a native African, with African ideas and African social ideals. He remains defiantly the same: his dedication is to the dispossessed youth of Africa “for perpetuation of communion with ancestral spirits...on the firm faith that the dead, the living, and the unborn will unite to rebuild the destroyed shrines.” He is ideologically rooted in the social and religious ideals of the civilisation which is being so ruthlessly destroyed by the united front of settler, official and missionary. Politically, I believe that there are the seeds here of an immense confusion. Anthropologically, it is, in addition to Mr. Kenyatta’s knowledge and method, the main source of his strength. Here, indeed, Africa speaks.</p>
<p>It would be futile to attempt to give any idea of what a book so packed with facts contains. The economic life of the Gikuyu, their system of education, their marriage laws, their religious life, their system of government, all are treated with the same intimate knowledge, sense of proportion, and illuminating detail. But behind the even tones of the exposition can be felt the fierce resentment of one who has been able to compare the old with the new, and who more than most can appreciate the fluent lies with which imperialism has sought to hide the traces of its bloody claws.</p>
<p>Take, for instance, education. The children were carefully given not only vocational training but were taught the history of the country by parents far more sensitive to child psychology than any European teacher up to twenty years ago. Mr. Kenyatta shows the economic necessity for polygamy. The sexual laws and conventions allowed the young people certain intimacies short of sexual intercourse, which was strictly forbidden, though the young people often slept in the same bed. After marriage, however, if men of the same tribal status (the age-group, to which both husband and wife belonged and all the members of which knew each other well), if male members of this group came from afar to visit the husband, custom permitted a wife to entertain one of them. Adultery under other circumstances could result in a divorce, though if there were children, the custom was to try and arrange a reconciliation. It was into this eminently sane and highly intelligent solution of what is always a complex problem that the missionary came, shouting his seventh commandment that he had got from Mount Sinai; foaming at the mouth because young people of different sexes slept in the same bed (for him that could only mean one thing); and calling on the bewildered husbands to abandon a second wife “in the name of Christianity.”</p>
<p>The whole civilisation, however, not only industry, but social organisation and religious practices, rested on land tenure and the description of this is the most valuable part of Mr. Kenyatta’s book. In taking the land away, the Europeans have done more than rob the native of his means of livelihood. They have disorganised his whole conception of life and substituted here and there a smattering of education and Christianity, totally unfitted for the people, and as vicious in its own sphere as the fourpence a day and systematic exploitation of native labour.</p>
<p>What is the remedy? All friends of the African know the first necessity. They must have their land back. But for what? Are they to go back to the old life, merely selecting what they approve of in European civilisation? This seems to be Mr. Kenyatta’s view. That religion and that life, vilely slandered as they have been and admirable as they are, rested on a certain method of industry. When the land is won the African will have to modernise his method of production, and his religion will inevitably follow. It is as well if his leaders recognise this frankly. This by no means implies bewildering the masses of the Gikuyu people with atheistic propaganda. But leaders must know where they stand. To an African listening to the elaborate tomfoolery of the Coronation ceremony, it will look as if the Europeans still carry on ancestor worship. But Mr. Kenyatta knows of the merciless greed of “Christian” imperialism. Does he consider his own the “true” religion? How does he see the future of a free Kenya? He must let us know, so that all of us, Africans and friends of Africa, can thrash the problem out. After so good a book as this what he says will carry enormous weight, not only among his own people but here in Europe as well.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on 11 September 2015</p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > C.L.R. James
C.L.R. James August
The Voice of Africa
(August 1938)
Source: International African Opinion, Vol. 1, No. 2, August 1938.
Transcribed: by Christian Hogsbjerg with thanks to Marika Sherwood.
Facing Mount Kenya
by Jomo Kenyatta, with an introduction by B. Malinowski
Secker & Warburg. 12/6.
If ever there was a book that students of Africa needed, this is it. The book describes an African people, the Gikuyu, as they were forty years ago just before British imperialism descended on them. Similar books have been written before? Yes; but by white men chiefly, of varying intelligence and honesty. But even the best, like the late Emil Torday, wrote from the outside. Mr. Jomo Kenyatta is an unusual African. He is an anthropologist trained at London University, and even an unscientific reader can see the scrupulously scientific approach, the order, the method, the objectivity. But Mr. Kenyatta grew up not as a little missionary protégé but as a native African, with African ideas and African social ideals. He remains defiantly the same: his dedication is to the dispossessed youth of Africa “for perpetuation of communion with ancestral spirits...on the firm faith that the dead, the living, and the unborn will unite to rebuild the destroyed shrines.” He is ideologically rooted in the social and religious ideals of the civilisation which is being so ruthlessly destroyed by the united front of settler, official and missionary. Politically, I believe that there are the seeds here of an immense confusion. Anthropologically, it is, in addition to Mr. Kenyatta’s knowledge and method, the main source of his strength. Here, indeed, Africa speaks.
It would be futile to attempt to give any idea of what a book so packed with facts contains. The economic life of the Gikuyu, their system of education, their marriage laws, their religious life, their system of government, all are treated with the same intimate knowledge, sense of proportion, and illuminating detail. But behind the even tones of the exposition can be felt the fierce resentment of one who has been able to compare the old with the new, and who more than most can appreciate the fluent lies with which imperialism has sought to hide the traces of its bloody claws.
Take, for instance, education. The children were carefully given not only vocational training but were taught the history of the country by parents far more sensitive to child psychology than any European teacher up to twenty years ago. Mr. Kenyatta shows the economic necessity for polygamy. The sexual laws and conventions allowed the young people certain intimacies short of sexual intercourse, which was strictly forbidden, though the young people often slept in the same bed. After marriage, however, if men of the same tribal status (the age-group, to which both husband and wife belonged and all the members of which knew each other well), if male members of this group came from afar to visit the husband, custom permitted a wife to entertain one of them. Adultery under other circumstances could result in a divorce, though if there were children, the custom was to try and arrange a reconciliation. It was into this eminently sane and highly intelligent solution of what is always a complex problem that the missionary came, shouting his seventh commandment that he had got from Mount Sinai; foaming at the mouth because young people of different sexes slept in the same bed (for him that could only mean one thing); and calling on the bewildered husbands to abandon a second wife “in the name of Christianity.”
The whole civilisation, however, not only industry, but social organisation and religious practices, rested on land tenure and the description of this is the most valuable part of Mr. Kenyatta’s book. In taking the land away, the Europeans have done more than rob the native of his means of livelihood. They have disorganised his whole conception of life and substituted here and there a smattering of education and Christianity, totally unfitted for the people, and as vicious in its own sphere as the fourpence a day and systematic exploitation of native labour.
What is the remedy? All friends of the African know the first necessity. They must have their land back. But for what? Are they to go back to the old life, merely selecting what they approve of in European civilisation? This seems to be Mr. Kenyatta’s view. That religion and that life, vilely slandered as they have been and admirable as they are, rested on a certain method of industry. When the land is won the African will have to modernise his method of production, and his religion will inevitably follow. It is as well if his leaders recognise this frankly. This by no means implies bewildering the masses of the Gikuyu people with atheistic propaganda. But leaders must know where they stand. To an African listening to the elaborate tomfoolery of the Coronation ceremony, it will look as if the Europeans still carry on ancestor worship. But Mr. Kenyatta knows of the merciless greed of “Christian” imperialism. Does he consider his own the “true” religion? How does he see the future of a free Kenya? He must let us know, so that all of us, Africans and friends of Africa, can thrash the problem out. After so good a book as this what he says will carry enormous weight, not only among his own people but here in Europe as well.
Top of the page
Last updated on 11 September 2015
|
./articles/Meyer-J.-(C.L.R.-James)/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.james-clr.works.1965.eastindians | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../index.htm">C L R James Internet Archive</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>C.L.R. James</h2>
<h1>West Indians of East Indian Descent</h1>
<h3>(1965)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info">From West Indians of East Indian Descent <em>IBIS Pamphlet</em> No. 1, <br>
C.L.R. James <br>
Printed by Enterprise Electric Printer, 52 Park Street for IBIS Publications, c/o 52 Park Street, Port-of-Spain. 1965 10 pp.<br>
Transcribed and Marked up by Damon Maxwell for the Marxist Internet Archive in September, 2009.</p>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<h3>Part I.</h3>
<p class="fst">A newspaper article, a pamphlet, cannot say everything. All you can do is to say certain essential things: you can begin the discussion. You can draw froth under the bed what has been hidden there for well over a hundred years.</p>
<p>I intend here to begin just three things.</p>
<p>(1) The question of racial prejudice between West Indians of East Indian descent and West Indians of African descent. I intend to give a few of the innumerable facts, and some pretty dirty facts, some of them are.<br>
(2) I intend to sketch briefly the history of the question, how it came and where it is going.<br>
(3) I shall then indicate what I think the West Indians of East Indian descent in Trinidad must do.</p>
<h4>(1) Racial Prejudice</h4>
<p>Prejudice – Prejudice is of many kinds. Brenda is a regular contributor to our paper. She writes an article about how some East Indian middle-class women try to pretend that they know nothing about East Indian food and East Indian early life. The article is an attack on East Indian pretentiousness.</p>
<p>I ask a young Creole: what do you think of it? She distastefully replied “A lot about Indians.” Her attitude was unfriendly. She has I am sure, no conscious prejudice. She is above that. She would, I am sure, marry an Indian boy whom she liked. But an article dealing with Indians almost exclusively and not announcing itself as such. That is too much.</p>
<p>Something a little more serious. A very sober man tells me: “You don’t know what Trinidad people are afraid of. Look .here: An Indian got a job at the Base. Next thing every job in that department was held by an Indian. That is the way they are. They are all for each other, they think of Indians first.”</p>
<h4>P.N.M. And Indians</h4>
<p>This man is without prejudice. I am certain of that. He Was discussing objectively the attitude of the general public.</p>
<p>Another man told me: “P.N. M. middle class are holding on tight to their positions. They say that in ten years the Indians will own everything in the place. And these P.N.M. are going to see to it that in addition to all this money they will not have political power. That will be the end of everything for the black people.</p>
<p>“Already, although the Indian population is smaller they have more professional people than the blacks. The Indians can handle money. The blacks cannot. P.N.M is holding on to politics.”</p>
<p>I had heard part of this before. I had shrugged my shoulders. Money is there to be made. Who makes it, makes it.</p>
<p>There were also I heard, some juicy scandals in P.N.M. over their attitude to East Indians. But scandals in P.N.M. flow thick and fast. The Indians say: “If we are a racial party, P.N.M. is one too.” They give proofs.</p>
<p>I can go on with this catalogue indefinitely. Everybody knows some, some know a lot. Everybody in public life pretends that they do not exist, they talk about them only to one another and in Whispers. The thing goes far. A creole girl told me she, lives near to some Indians. They invited her and her two sisters to a wedding. The three of them sat together all, the time. Nobody spoke to them. They spoke to nobody. That is a sickness, a social sickness. Its proper name in backwardness or social inexperience.</p>
<p>A Negro taxi driver from Couva told me that an Indian passenger always waits to take an Indian taxi-driver. He says that an Indian will take an Indian taxi-driver. He says that an Indian will take you: (a) If he is in a hurry; (b) If he knows you personally. Otherwise it is Indians for Indians all the time. “The Negroes” he says “are not like that.” He was not angry. He just took it for a fact of life. I take it much the same, but only in personal terms.</p>
<h4>Personal Experience</h4>
<p>You see I have much experience of this sort of thing abroad and at here. I daresay it is all true. 1 wish now to give a few recent observations and experiences of my own in Trinidad. First of all 15,000 (chiefly East Indian) sugar workers have made it quite clear that they wish to form an alliance with the predominantly African O.W. T.U., and chase into limbo their Indian leaders. No amount of gossip or complaints or facts can remove that from the front of my mind. That is a tremendous event. It is history, social movement, on the grand scale. That is a mighty, a knockout blow against racial differentiation. (And look where it comes from�from below.) That is what interests me. After five years of that the whole racial situation in the South will be altered. See Personal Problems in that context. Otherwise keep out of politics.</p>
<p>Secondly. I see and have found on enquiry that Indian girls are going out with black boys. Some are marrying. I am told that some Indian young men want their wives to be as their mothers were � household, attendants on them. The Indian girls of today will not have it – marriage they see as a companionship. The creole boys also say that an Indian wife takes better care of you. I have no statistics. I wish I had. But I see it all around, and all whom I ask agree that that is what is happening. This I have not been able personally to investigate but integration is making rapid strides. In any place where they meet, in a cricket game, in a hospital ward, where the houses are closely mixed, where people talk to each other as “neighbours”; where the Indian men are al work. East Indian women are incorporating themselves and being incorporated into West Indian family and social life. The reason is obvious: there is no other life: above all, the language is common. A social inquiry should be made. It will not be. This getting together of the two races is death to the two political factions masquerading as political parties in this country.</p>
<h4>Towards One People.</h4>
<p>Finally my recent personal experiences. I meet some Indian families today 1965. In household arrangements, in food, clothes, in speech, in books, in that indefinable communication which takes place when people like each other and speak freely and intimately, I cannot for the life of me discover whether they are Indian or creole. I think of this after I leave them. While I am there I am at home as if I am in London. It was not so thirty years ago. That I know for certain. It means that in the actual lives lived by the population, an integration is taking place, a steady fusing of the community into one whole � a West Indian whole. Vidia Naipaul, that brilliant writer, on page after page of his books denounces and derides those East Indians who will not face the fact that integration and not the nursing of forgotten customs is the only way to community in Trinidad. As always in a mixed and changing community the old outmode is vociferous especially when reactionaries in charge of the mass media of communication want ,the old. The new goes on below and in its own time bursts out. If we had publications of our own all this I am saying would be common talk. But in another thirty years, given political wisdom and political integrity Trinidad will be an amazing community, unique in the world. But we have hitter opponents. Sugar and oil workers together can make a new Trinidad. But some will fight to the end to keep them divided. They will make it in the end. Nothing can stop it. But blood can flow and hold it back. Blood Must Not Flow. Politics, generous but firm, can prevent it. History can help.</p>
<h3>Part II.</h3>
<h4>The Historical Development</h4>
<p>How has all this happened? And what is its future? Nobody writes or talks publicly about it – a sure sign of political corruption. I shall here do no more than introduce the history of the subject. Unfortunately I start from zero � I have nothing to base myself on. What passes for our history today is pure unadulterated rubbish.</p>
<p>The African slaves who came here had no common language, (the Tribes were broken up) no common religion, nothing to live by except imitation of their masters. This accounts for their social habits and characteristics up to today. Obviously they had (and politicians want to MISUSE: not use these vital habits they still have). African ways and customs. But from the start they were forced primarily to learn and to imitate. They have learnt with remarkable speed and success: language, science, games, religion, and alas the social prejudices of the masters. The aim of the able and energetic African was to get a superior job like one of his masters.</p>
<p>In this inevitable competition he lost what he never had much of: social solidarity and communal spirit. The Indian was totally different. He brought with him language, religion, food, social habits, moral practices. He too, set out to learn, but he had a social solidarity and a background of common civilisation which the West Indian African : never had. These are the things which to a substantial degree determine and shape social character.</p>
<p>It was so in all the islands. In Trinidad it was worse than, elsewhere. In Trinidad at abolition the African population was small: it grew from all the different islands – no solidarity. There was no solidarity above!. The whites were divided into France and English, Chinese came, Indians came, all nationally and racially united. The blacks remained a job-lot, educating themselves, learning, fighting for the jobs which their society honoured, but unlike the other racially not knit. In my view that is one reason why the have never been able to do much in business. It is not a racial defect. In Africa there are African tribes who are masters of business organization, for one the Ibo and the Yoruba. The blacks were never that social conscious and distinctive unity with communal ideas, upon which the individual could build and depend. He could learn and by himself. When he went abroad he was magnificent. But home he could do little which depended on a sense of communal feeling � business above all needs that. Am I wrong? At least the discussion begins.</p>
<h4>Unity At Last</h4>
<p>Now to make a big leap. The old days are going. Foreign I capital has created a powerful social unit – The O.W.T.U. It has also created the Sugar-Workers Union. And for the first time a social unification, island-wide, is about to take place. For if Oil and Sugar Unions join, people like Sutton are doomed. The people who govern us ought to be put in short pants and sent back to school. They understand nothing. There will be in no long time, under the leadership of the O.W.T.U., a united labour movement, a social force ignoring race, and united by social association and social need. </p>
<p>A new life begins for the islands. Stephen is leading politically with a calm certainty that is most impressive. At the centre of the labour movement is George Weekes. You can fight against the consolidation only by splitting the labour movement, putting yourselves at the beck and call of the imperialist and demoralising or corrupting everything that can take the country forward. The ignorance of elementary politics in some of our West Indian politicians appalls me. They make every blunder insight. Let us be charitable and call it blunders.</p>
<p>If they saw this, explained it to the people, and then told the foreign capitalists where the country stood, a serious discussion could begin. Texaco and Tate and Lyle know that all over the world new relations are beginning. They will accept that. But if they meet people whose supreme happiness is to prance about as rulers, Texaco and Tate & Lyle push as hard as they can and let the prancers prance.</p>
<p>Our sad past can now be left behind � is being left behind. It may not be smooth sailing. Ignorance, conceit, or sheer greed, may cause a lot of mischief, but the general forward line is clear. And I believe in fact I know, that with bold and careful handling the territory can enter into new waters and be an example to the whole of the Caribbean, P.N,M must go. That is the first necessity. They do not know what they are doing. </p>
<p>I may seem to have departed from my original thesis � West Indians of East Indian descent; No such thing. They do not live here alone. They have to fit themselves into the historical movement of the territory. P.N.M. no longer has the confidence of anybody except those who profit by it. The other Doctor of philosophy has forced the East Indians to rethink their whole social and political future. This analysis has aimed at making our East Indians (and other citizens too aware of what is going on, above the surface and below. No use gossiping^ and whispering about such matters.</p>
<p>It is sad that Trinidad writers and politicians never come out and raise these matters. We will make them do so now. If our social and political analysis is correct we need a new political party to be formed. The present parties bounce balls from day to day, that is all they do.. Fortunately we are the balls that they bounce.</p>
<h3>Part III.</h3>
<h4>Where do we go from here?</h4>
<p>Whenever a speaker or writer makes a serious political or social analysis he or she must always, end by saying what to do. If you do not, you leave people more apathetic than before; you leave them with the belief that you the speaker and your friends know a lot of things, the audience just have to listen, and you and your friends will fix it. Bad everywhere, it is murderous in the West Indies, where for so many centuries we have been trained in just listening to orders from above.</p>
<p>Now, I haven’t to tell the youthful West Indians of Indian descent that they have to Act. We can give them some help ; and some guidance. But they know what they want � and being young, they are not afraid. They do not want an East Indian party. They know that that has failed. It isolates the East Indian minority and creates more disharmony, disorder, suspicion, more hatred than ever before.</p>
<p> They want a united party, Indians and Negroes united. They are politically a splendid body of young people. I meet them every day. In spirit they are politically the most advanced people in the country: they want to finish with the old ways. They are for the most part devoted followers of Stephen. Not on account of race: they see that Stephen wants to clean up the mess. But they don’t know exactly what to do and are waiting, waiting Impatiently but waiting.</p>
<h4>Party Organization</h4>
<p>The words they have to learn are two: Party Organisation. With that we can conquer the world. Without that nothing but chaos and disaster. Remember that: Party Organisation.</p>
<p>And now we come to the people who can act at once. The middle class West Indians of East Indian descent. I have pointed out since 1962, you are in a position to make history in this country, to make the island into a tropical paradise. Organised labour have moved into the first place. O.W.T.U. (with Sugar) henceforth will have the primary voice in the thinking of all who believe that their first loyalty is to their country. Labour is socially placed to do so. By one of those unusual� but not at all accidental (I shall prove it) happenings, it is a man of your .race who has taken the first political Step and by act after act has shown that he knows what he is doing, what he has to do, and will not be deflected from doing it. Stephen is a labour man, and labour and our intellectuals are rallying around him. Come in. What else can you professionals do? There are two other alternatives.</p>
<p>You can go to London and study science with Capildeo and politics with Michael X. Or you can join. P.N.M. Both are unrewarding. By joining P.N.M. you will upset the racial fanaticism of many in that party (chiefly some leaders and a portion of the rank and file, the lowest gangster types whom the gangster leaders have miseducated). A number of middle-class Indians entering the P.N.M. will create a crisis in the party insoluble by the present sawdust dictators who have ruined that party and are fast leading the country God knows where.</p>
<p>Here is an opportunity for you educated West Indians of East Indian descent to make your contribution to the building of the country. You will establish for persons of your status and your race a position in this country you have never had before and will never have unless you join and take part in a new party.</p>
<p>You are not rolling in money ; but you have dollars to spare for a cause and you have professional education and knowledge. Don’t go abroad. The country needs you and you need the country. Organised labour lack much but in many social respects they are the most advanced people in the country. Do you think that when O.W.T.U. meets Texaco in a negotiation lasting months, do you think that there is in the country a more serious confrontation and investigation of minds? </p>
<p>No, you mass of West Indians of East Indian descent during recent years have made astonishing progress in attaining professional knowledge and intellectual qualifications. Organised labour needs such capacities. Everywhere in the world organised labour needs them. You can place that knowledge at the disposal of new politics. Come in and join. Say what you want in our paper, send in pamphlets, on public health, on law, on science, on education, on art, on letters on our society, you have plenty to say. You are to a large degree financially independent. Exercise your independence. A New Government will free you from the fears that arc choking all classes of the population. Freedom you need. To say what you think and not be penalised. The country is sick of fear. You in particular can do some thing. Do it.</p>
<p>It is the miserable division into racial parties that have helped to bring this country into the mess that it is. The clean-up will be a gigantic job. Come in and help. It cannot be done without you. You do not wish to go back to India. Make your Trinidad into something. Labour and the professional classes. That is an unbeatable combination in any developed society and ours is a highly developed society.</p>
<p>Let us face the fact that the middle-class West Indians of African descent feel that this island, as part of the Caribbean, is predominantly their field of operation. Your task is to show that you are second to none in rebuilding the country and bringing your energy and your knowledge and your ancient culture to the task.</p>
<h4>Indian Business</h4>
<p>The second group of East Indian descent to whom we speak are the small business men. You understand business. Well, Business First.</p>
<h4>Building A Party</h4>
<p>A party cannot be built without finances. The professionals will help. But you send us your cheques or bring your cash. We need tens of thousands of dollars to build a real party, to employ organisers, to publish material, to educate the public, the whole public � the whole public for history has made us into one people. Do not hesitate. Do not fumble. It will be the best investment you have ever made. I know you have heard such appeals before, and you have given your money and felt that in the rod you had given it for nothing. That in this case is not so and I will prove it to you. In 1962 I published here in Trinidad a pamphlet entitled Federation. In the Foreword I wrote as follows “The East Indians have contributed far beyond their numbers to the economic development of the territory. A heavy burden is placed on them. They more than al others have to break the racial stranglehold which both DLP and PNM are using against the political instincts and social aspirations of the people”</p>
<p>You see therefore in my interest in a man like Stephen Maharaj is nothing new. At the time I wrote the above I did not know him. But unless you are watching social forces carefully and how they are developing, and the men they are likely to produce, your politics is a lot of guesswork when it is not prejudice, conceit and greed.</p>
<p>In plain words, long before any question of any new party arose I (and my friends) recognized the important role you had played and had to play in building our community. What I am telling you now is that in this crisis you business men have a political role to play. Play it, rally round us, support us, send your cheques to Stephen or anyone he may send to you.</p>
<p>But, some of you will say, we are business men, not politicians; what are you getting us into? We are getting you into bigger and better business. Look again that at quotation. Ponder over it. Discuss it. Do you know what that means? We intend to build the local businessman of whatever race. He has done plenty. Now he must reap. I offered this policy to PNM. All they could think about was the Industrial Development Corporation with its pioneer status and our money draining away into the sea and going abroad. Foreign capitalists have their place. You have yours. Our local West Indians of East Indian descent have proved their business capacity. Any new party will put business and business opportunities in their way. We are supremely confident. Why are we so confident? Because the great mass of your people now live in poverty and we intend to finish up with that. Thousands of farmers living a descent life means better business for everybody. Better Business More Profits, More Opportunities for people with energy, an eye for the quick (and honest) dollar, a readiness to adventure. This may seem strange coming from this pen. The reason is this. </p>
<p>Our unemployment is terrible. Shanty Town is a disgrace� a national scandal.</p>
<p>But what people will not understand is that when you have tens of thousands of the population, chiefly East Indians, living below subsistence level, you are wasting the National capital. That is why you have to go begging for loans (at exorbitant interest) and gifts. East Indians have proved their capacity to be first-class West Indians. Make all of them so, all. It is a national task. That is why, I a socialist, see that all sections of society must enter into it.</p>
<h4>250 Acres</h4>
<p>The programme the P.A.C has put forward for discussion places this high on its list. 250 acres for sugar. Not an acre more for any man or any Company. Farming. Mixed Farming. (And look out for us, East Indian Labourers. Those East Indian children of yours are going to school, every single one of them. We are determined that they grow up into educated West Indians. No child of ten is going to help in the task. No. To school.) And with a real farm and a real household, the doctors, the educationists, the professional men and women, the scientists of all races will have the opportunity to lift the poorer people to the standard they themselves have reached. East Indian small business will have immense new opportunity larger than before. They want a change, those people, in particular the great mass of exploited East Indians. On them more than all others the crushing weight of the sugar-plantations has fallen. So you educated ones, and businessmen, take your part in new politics, support it, finance it, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. People always think of gain in terms of money. </p>
<p>Trinidad has more money today than it had twenty years ago. It is not a happier place. The new party intends to develop the economy, yes. It can abolish unemployment, yes. But those racial scandals which we related at the beginning of this article, they continue because of a backward economy, and because the racial differences are to the advantage of some not to bend every energy to destroy them. They are the offspring of imperialism and colonialism which live on them and could not live otherwise. Under Independence they are a disgrace and a scandal.</p>
<p>The people, of all races, want to put all this behind them and begin a new life. That is why we want and must have the new party.</p>
<p class="linkback"> <br>
<big><a href="#top"><strong>Top of page</strong></a></big></p>
<hr noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="linkback"> <a href="../../../../index.htm">Marxists’ Internet Archive</a> <a href="../../index.htm">C L R James Internet Archive</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated on <!-- WebWriter AutoDato -->September.21.2009<!-- WW --></p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > C L R James Internet Archive
C.L.R. James
West Indians of East Indian Descent
(1965)
From West Indians of East Indian Descent IBIS Pamphlet No. 1,
C.L.R. James
Printed by Enterprise Electric Printer, 52 Park Street for IBIS Publications, c/o 52 Park Street, Port-of-Spain. 1965 10 pp.
Transcribed and Marked up by Damon Maxwell for the Marxist Internet Archive in September, 2009.
Part I.
A newspaper article, a pamphlet, cannot say everything. All you can do is to say certain essential things: you can begin the discussion. You can draw froth under the bed what has been hidden there for well over a hundred years.
I intend here to begin just three things.
(1) The question of racial prejudice between West Indians of East Indian descent and West Indians of African descent. I intend to give a few of the innumerable facts, and some pretty dirty facts, some of them are.
(2) I intend to sketch briefly the history of the question, how it came and where it is going.
(3) I shall then indicate what I think the West Indians of East Indian descent in Trinidad must do.
(1) Racial Prejudice
Prejudice – Prejudice is of many kinds. Brenda is a regular contributor to our paper. She writes an article about how some East Indian middle-class women try to pretend that they know nothing about East Indian food and East Indian early life. The article is an attack on East Indian pretentiousness.
I ask a young Creole: what do you think of it? She distastefully replied “A lot about Indians.” Her attitude was unfriendly. She has I am sure, no conscious prejudice. She is above that. She would, I am sure, marry an Indian boy whom she liked. But an article dealing with Indians almost exclusively and not announcing itself as such. That is too much.
Something a little more serious. A very sober man tells me: “You don’t know what Trinidad people are afraid of. Look .here: An Indian got a job at the Base. Next thing every job in that department was held by an Indian. That is the way they are. They are all for each other, they think of Indians first.”
P.N.M. And Indians
This man is without prejudice. I am certain of that. He Was discussing objectively the attitude of the general public.
Another man told me: “P.N. M. middle class are holding on tight to their positions. They say that in ten years the Indians will own everything in the place. And these P.N.M. are going to see to it that in addition to all this money they will not have political power. That will be the end of everything for the black people.
“Already, although the Indian population is smaller they have more professional people than the blacks. The Indians can handle money. The blacks cannot. P.N.M is holding on to politics.”
I had heard part of this before. I had shrugged my shoulders. Money is there to be made. Who makes it, makes it.
There were also I heard, some juicy scandals in P.N.M. over their attitude to East Indians. But scandals in P.N.M. flow thick and fast. The Indians say: “If we are a racial party, P.N.M. is one too.” They give proofs.
I can go on with this catalogue indefinitely. Everybody knows some, some know a lot. Everybody in public life pretends that they do not exist, they talk about them only to one another and in Whispers. The thing goes far. A creole girl told me she, lives near to some Indians. They invited her and her two sisters to a wedding. The three of them sat together all, the time. Nobody spoke to them. They spoke to nobody. That is a sickness, a social sickness. Its proper name in backwardness or social inexperience.
A Negro taxi driver from Couva told me that an Indian passenger always waits to take an Indian taxi-driver. He says that an Indian will take an Indian taxi-driver. He says that an Indian will take you: (a) If he is in a hurry; (b) If he knows you personally. Otherwise it is Indians for Indians all the time. “The Negroes” he says “are not like that.” He was not angry. He just took it for a fact of life. I take it much the same, but only in personal terms.
Personal Experience
You see I have much experience of this sort of thing abroad and at here. I daresay it is all true. 1 wish now to give a few recent observations and experiences of my own in Trinidad. First of all 15,000 (chiefly East Indian) sugar workers have made it quite clear that they wish to form an alliance with the predominantly African O.W. T.U., and chase into limbo their Indian leaders. No amount of gossip or complaints or facts can remove that from the front of my mind. That is a tremendous event. It is history, social movement, on the grand scale. That is a mighty, a knockout blow against racial differentiation. (And look where it comes from�from below.) That is what interests me. After five years of that the whole racial situation in the South will be altered. See Personal Problems in that context. Otherwise keep out of politics.
Secondly. I see and have found on enquiry that Indian girls are going out with black boys. Some are marrying. I am told that some Indian young men want their wives to be as their mothers were � household, attendants on them. The Indian girls of today will not have it – marriage they see as a companionship. The creole boys also say that an Indian wife takes better care of you. I have no statistics. I wish I had. But I see it all around, and all whom I ask agree that that is what is happening. This I have not been able personally to investigate but integration is making rapid strides. In any place where they meet, in a cricket game, in a hospital ward, where the houses are closely mixed, where people talk to each other as “neighbours”; where the Indian men are al work. East Indian women are incorporating themselves and being incorporated into West Indian family and social life. The reason is obvious: there is no other life: above all, the language is common. A social inquiry should be made. It will not be. This getting together of the two races is death to the two political factions masquerading as political parties in this country.
Towards One People.
Finally my recent personal experiences. I meet some Indian families today 1965. In household arrangements, in food, clothes, in speech, in books, in that indefinable communication which takes place when people like each other and speak freely and intimately, I cannot for the life of me discover whether they are Indian or creole. I think of this after I leave them. While I am there I am at home as if I am in London. It was not so thirty years ago. That I know for certain. It means that in the actual lives lived by the population, an integration is taking place, a steady fusing of the community into one whole � a West Indian whole. Vidia Naipaul, that brilliant writer, on page after page of his books denounces and derides those East Indians who will not face the fact that integration and not the nursing of forgotten customs is the only way to community in Trinidad. As always in a mixed and changing community the old outmode is vociferous especially when reactionaries in charge of the mass media of communication want ,the old. The new goes on below and in its own time bursts out. If we had publications of our own all this I am saying would be common talk. But in another thirty years, given political wisdom and political integrity Trinidad will be an amazing community, unique in the world. But we have hitter opponents. Sugar and oil workers together can make a new Trinidad. But some will fight to the end to keep them divided. They will make it in the end. Nothing can stop it. But blood can flow and hold it back. Blood Must Not Flow. Politics, generous but firm, can prevent it. History can help.
Part II.
The Historical Development
How has all this happened? And what is its future? Nobody writes or talks publicly about it – a sure sign of political corruption. I shall here do no more than introduce the history of the subject. Unfortunately I start from zero � I have nothing to base myself on. What passes for our history today is pure unadulterated rubbish.
The African slaves who came here had no common language, (the Tribes were broken up) no common religion, nothing to live by except imitation of their masters. This accounts for their social habits and characteristics up to today. Obviously they had (and politicians want to MISUSE: not use these vital habits they still have). African ways and customs. But from the start they were forced primarily to learn and to imitate. They have learnt with remarkable speed and success: language, science, games, religion, and alas the social prejudices of the masters. The aim of the able and energetic African was to get a superior job like one of his masters.
In this inevitable competition he lost what he never had much of: social solidarity and communal spirit. The Indian was totally different. He brought with him language, religion, food, social habits, moral practices. He too, set out to learn, but he had a social solidarity and a background of common civilisation which the West Indian African : never had. These are the things which to a substantial degree determine and shape social character.
It was so in all the islands. In Trinidad it was worse than, elsewhere. In Trinidad at abolition the African population was small: it grew from all the different islands – no solidarity. There was no solidarity above!. The whites were divided into France and English, Chinese came, Indians came, all nationally and racially united. The blacks remained a job-lot, educating themselves, learning, fighting for the jobs which their society honoured, but unlike the other racially not knit. In my view that is one reason why the have never been able to do much in business. It is not a racial defect. In Africa there are African tribes who are masters of business organization, for one the Ibo and the Yoruba. The blacks were never that social conscious and distinctive unity with communal ideas, upon which the individual could build and depend. He could learn and by himself. When he went abroad he was magnificent. But home he could do little which depended on a sense of communal feeling � business above all needs that. Am I wrong? At least the discussion begins.
Unity At Last
Now to make a big leap. The old days are going. Foreign I capital has created a powerful social unit – The O.W.T.U. It has also created the Sugar-Workers Union. And for the first time a social unification, island-wide, is about to take place. For if Oil and Sugar Unions join, people like Sutton are doomed. The people who govern us ought to be put in short pants and sent back to school. They understand nothing. There will be in no long time, under the leadership of the O.W.T.U., a united labour movement, a social force ignoring race, and united by social association and social need.
A new life begins for the islands. Stephen is leading politically with a calm certainty that is most impressive. At the centre of the labour movement is George Weekes. You can fight against the consolidation only by splitting the labour movement, putting yourselves at the beck and call of the imperialist and demoralising or corrupting everything that can take the country forward. The ignorance of elementary politics in some of our West Indian politicians appalls me. They make every blunder insight. Let us be charitable and call it blunders.
If they saw this, explained it to the people, and then told the foreign capitalists where the country stood, a serious discussion could begin. Texaco and Tate and Lyle know that all over the world new relations are beginning. They will accept that. But if they meet people whose supreme happiness is to prance about as rulers, Texaco and Tate & Lyle push as hard as they can and let the prancers prance.
Our sad past can now be left behind � is being left behind. It may not be smooth sailing. Ignorance, conceit, or sheer greed, may cause a lot of mischief, but the general forward line is clear. And I believe in fact I know, that with bold and careful handling the territory can enter into new waters and be an example to the whole of the Caribbean, P.N,M must go. That is the first necessity. They do not know what they are doing.
I may seem to have departed from my original thesis � West Indians of East Indian descent; No such thing. They do not live here alone. They have to fit themselves into the historical movement of the territory. P.N.M. no longer has the confidence of anybody except those who profit by it. The other Doctor of philosophy has forced the East Indians to rethink their whole social and political future. This analysis has aimed at making our East Indians (and other citizens too aware of what is going on, above the surface and below. No use gossiping^ and whispering about such matters.
It is sad that Trinidad writers and politicians never come out and raise these matters. We will make them do so now. If our social and political analysis is correct we need a new political party to be formed. The present parties bounce balls from day to day, that is all they do.. Fortunately we are the balls that they bounce.
Part III.
Where do we go from here?
Whenever a speaker or writer makes a serious political or social analysis he or she must always, end by saying what to do. If you do not, you leave people more apathetic than before; you leave them with the belief that you the speaker and your friends know a lot of things, the audience just have to listen, and you and your friends will fix it. Bad everywhere, it is murderous in the West Indies, where for so many centuries we have been trained in just listening to orders from above.
Now, I haven’t to tell the youthful West Indians of Indian descent that they have to Act. We can give them some help ; and some guidance. But they know what they want � and being young, they are not afraid. They do not want an East Indian party. They know that that has failed. It isolates the East Indian minority and creates more disharmony, disorder, suspicion, more hatred than ever before.
They want a united party, Indians and Negroes united. They are politically a splendid body of young people. I meet them every day. In spirit they are politically the most advanced people in the country: they want to finish with the old ways. They are for the most part devoted followers of Stephen. Not on account of race: they see that Stephen wants to clean up the mess. But they don’t know exactly what to do and are waiting, waiting Impatiently but waiting.
Party Organization
The words they have to learn are two: Party Organisation. With that we can conquer the world. Without that nothing but chaos and disaster. Remember that: Party Organisation.
And now we come to the people who can act at once. The middle class West Indians of East Indian descent. I have pointed out since 1962, you are in a position to make history in this country, to make the island into a tropical paradise. Organised labour have moved into the first place. O.W.T.U. (with Sugar) henceforth will have the primary voice in the thinking of all who believe that their first loyalty is to their country. Labour is socially placed to do so. By one of those unusual� but not at all accidental (I shall prove it) happenings, it is a man of your .race who has taken the first political Step and by act after act has shown that he knows what he is doing, what he has to do, and will not be deflected from doing it. Stephen is a labour man, and labour and our intellectuals are rallying around him. Come in. What else can you professionals do? There are two other alternatives.
You can go to London and study science with Capildeo and politics with Michael X. Or you can join. P.N.M. Both are unrewarding. By joining P.N.M. you will upset the racial fanaticism of many in that party (chiefly some leaders and a portion of the rank and file, the lowest gangster types whom the gangster leaders have miseducated). A number of middle-class Indians entering the P.N.M. will create a crisis in the party insoluble by the present sawdust dictators who have ruined that party and are fast leading the country God knows where.
Here is an opportunity for you educated West Indians of East Indian descent to make your contribution to the building of the country. You will establish for persons of your status and your race a position in this country you have never had before and will never have unless you join and take part in a new party.
You are not rolling in money ; but you have dollars to spare for a cause and you have professional education and knowledge. Don’t go abroad. The country needs you and you need the country. Organised labour lack much but in many social respects they are the most advanced people in the country. Do you think that when O.W.T.U. meets Texaco in a negotiation lasting months, do you think that there is in the country a more serious confrontation and investigation of minds?
No, you mass of West Indians of East Indian descent during recent years have made astonishing progress in attaining professional knowledge and intellectual qualifications. Organised labour needs such capacities. Everywhere in the world organised labour needs them. You can place that knowledge at the disposal of new politics. Come in and join. Say what you want in our paper, send in pamphlets, on public health, on law, on science, on education, on art, on letters on our society, you have plenty to say. You are to a large degree financially independent. Exercise your independence. A New Government will free you from the fears that arc choking all classes of the population. Freedom you need. To say what you think and not be penalised. The country is sick of fear. You in particular can do some thing. Do it.
It is the miserable division into racial parties that have helped to bring this country into the mess that it is. The clean-up will be a gigantic job. Come in and help. It cannot be done without you. You do not wish to go back to India. Make your Trinidad into something. Labour and the professional classes. That is an unbeatable combination in any developed society and ours is a highly developed society.
Let us face the fact that the middle-class West Indians of African descent feel that this island, as part of the Caribbean, is predominantly their field of operation. Your task is to show that you are second to none in rebuilding the country and bringing your energy and your knowledge and your ancient culture to the task.
Indian Business
The second group of East Indian descent to whom we speak are the small business men. You understand business. Well, Business First.
Building A Party
A party cannot be built without finances. The professionals will help. But you send us your cheques or bring your cash. We need tens of thousands of dollars to build a real party, to employ organisers, to publish material, to educate the public, the whole public � the whole public for history has made us into one people. Do not hesitate. Do not fumble. It will be the best investment you have ever made. I know you have heard such appeals before, and you have given your money and felt that in the rod you had given it for nothing. That in this case is not so and I will prove it to you. In 1962 I published here in Trinidad a pamphlet entitled Federation. In the Foreword I wrote as follows “The East Indians have contributed far beyond their numbers to the economic development of the territory. A heavy burden is placed on them. They more than al others have to break the racial stranglehold which both DLP and PNM are using against the political instincts and social aspirations of the people”
You see therefore in my interest in a man like Stephen Maharaj is nothing new. At the time I wrote the above I did not know him. But unless you are watching social forces carefully and how they are developing, and the men they are likely to produce, your politics is a lot of guesswork when it is not prejudice, conceit and greed.
In plain words, long before any question of any new party arose I (and my friends) recognized the important role you had played and had to play in building our community. What I am telling you now is that in this crisis you business men have a political role to play. Play it, rally round us, support us, send your cheques to Stephen or anyone he may send to you.
But, some of you will say, we are business men, not politicians; what are you getting us into? We are getting you into bigger and better business. Look again that at quotation. Ponder over it. Discuss it. Do you know what that means? We intend to build the local businessman of whatever race. He has done plenty. Now he must reap. I offered this policy to PNM. All they could think about was the Industrial Development Corporation with its pioneer status and our money draining away into the sea and going abroad. Foreign capitalists have their place. You have yours. Our local West Indians of East Indian descent have proved their business capacity. Any new party will put business and business opportunities in their way. We are supremely confident. Why are we so confident? Because the great mass of your people now live in poverty and we intend to finish up with that. Thousands of farmers living a descent life means better business for everybody. Better Business More Profits, More Opportunities for people with energy, an eye for the quick (and honest) dollar, a readiness to adventure. This may seem strange coming from this pen. The reason is this.
Our unemployment is terrible. Shanty Town is a disgrace� a national scandal.
But what people will not understand is that when you have tens of thousands of the population, chiefly East Indians, living below subsistence level, you are wasting the National capital. That is why you have to go begging for loans (at exorbitant interest) and gifts. East Indians have proved their capacity to be first-class West Indians. Make all of them so, all. It is a national task. That is why, I a socialist, see that all sections of society must enter into it.
250 Acres
The programme the P.A.C has put forward for discussion places this high on its list. 250 acres for sugar. Not an acre more for any man or any Company. Farming. Mixed Farming. (And look out for us, East Indian Labourers. Those East Indian children of yours are going to school, every single one of them. We are determined that they grow up into educated West Indians. No child of ten is going to help in the task. No. To school.) And with a real farm and a real household, the doctors, the educationists, the professional men and women, the scientists of all races will have the opportunity to lift the poorer people to the standard they themselves have reached. East Indian small business will have immense new opportunity larger than before. They want a change, those people, in particular the great mass of exploited East Indians. On them more than all others the crushing weight of the sugar-plantations has fallen. So you educated ones, and businessmen, take your part in new politics, support it, finance it, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. People always think of gain in terms of money.
Trinidad has more money today than it had twenty years ago. It is not a happier place. The new party intends to develop the economy, yes. It can abolish unemployment, yes. But those racial scandals which we related at the beginning of this article, they continue because of a backward economy, and because the racial differences are to the advantage of some not to bend every energy to destroy them. They are the offspring of imperialism and colonialism which live on them and could not live otherwise. Under Independence they are a disgrace and a scandal.
The people, of all races, want to put all this behind them and begin a new life. That is why we want and must have the new party.
Top of page
Marxists’ Internet Archive C L R James Internet Archive
Last updated on September.21.2009
|
./articles/Meyer-J.-(C.L.R.-James)/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.james-clr.works.1939.12.negroq3 | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">C.L.R. James</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>J.R. Johnson</h2>
<h1>The Negro Question</h1>
<h3>(16 December 1939)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info">From <strong>Socialist Appeal</strong>, <a href="../../../../../history/etol/newspape/themilitant/socialist-appeal-1939/index.htm#sa03_93" target="new">Vol. III No. 93</a>, 16 December 1939, p. 3.<br>
Transcribed & marked up by <a href="../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Marxists’ Internet Archive</strong>.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">Periodically one comes across statements in the Negro press, more
often one hears remarks from individual Negroes, which betray with
what facility some Negro politicians slip into racial chauvinism to
cover political bankruptcy. The latest addition to the list is Roy
Wilkins.</p>
<p>Roy Wilkins is the editor of <strong>The Crisis</strong>, writes a weekly
column in the <strong>Amsterdam News</strong>, and is known everywhere as a
“progressive” person. He, with other Negro
intellectuals, was a great friend of the Stalinists in the days when
they were rooting for “F.D.R.,” throwing their cloaks in
the mud for Eleanor Roosevelt to walk on, and fraternizing with Negro
bishops and Father Divine as the future leaders of Negro
emancipation. All these rascally tools of Stalin were after was to
get America into war with Hitler, then Stalin’s enemy. The
moment Stalin came to terms with Hitler, the Stalinists began to see
that the war against Hitler was not so good after all, that in fact
it was a very bad war – it was an imperialist war. They opened
fire on F.D.R., Eleanor, Murphy, and all their old friends, and sure
as day they are going to instruct Ford, Patterson, Richard Moore and
the other Negro Browders to pour a special stream of abuse on Walter
White, Roy Wilkins, and the other Negro New Dealers, whom not four
months ago the Stalinists flattered and fawned upon.<br>
</p>
<h4>The Bedfellows Part</h4>
<p class="fst">Now the New Dealers are bitter. Eleanor, in particular, is very
bitter. She says the Stalinists “ought to go to Russia.”
One day she will, even send a letter to David Lasser of the Workers
Alliance, resigning her honorary membership, unless Dave Lasser first
expels her. All the liberals, once friends of the Stalinists, are now
howling for their blood. And high among them is Roy Wilkins. He
cursed the Hitler-Stalin pact and now, in his column in the <strong>Amsterdam
News</strong> of November 9th, he denounces the invasion of Finland and
the lies of Molotov.</p>
<p>The Fourth International denounces and will continue to denounce
the policies of Moscow, which remain the chief obstacle in the
working class on the road of the world revolution and the
emancipation of the workers. But we are no supporters of Mannerheim
and the Finnish bourgeoisie, who in 1918-1919 massacred Finnish
workers by the thousands. No word of this appears in Wilkins’
comment. He is for Mannerheim against Stalin. Wilkins is no
revolutionary and has the same ideas about politics as the
Roosevelts, Attorney-General Murphy, and the whole gang of New
Dealers, white and black.</p>
<p>What, however, is most revealing is the last paragraph of his
column. In it he says:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“Aside from everything else, this means that the
dark brother in America, who had been hoping for the emergence of
some international leadership sympathetic to his problems, must turn
elsewhere, for the opportunism of the Stalinites is on a par with the
opportunism of the Republican party. Both have tossed the brother
overboard as soon as they got what they wanted from him.”<br>
</p>
<h4>Wilkins Deceives the Negroes</h4>
<p class="fst">This is one of the most mischievous and despicable misstatements
that could be made by a man in Wilkins’ position. In what way
have the Stalinists, scoundrels though they are, tossed the black
brother overboard when they got what they wanted from him? Stalin and
the bureaucrats exiled Trotsky, a white man, and murdered nearly
every member of his family. They shot Zinoviev, Kamenev, Rykov,
Tomsky, Bucharin, Yagoda, and thousands upon thousands of other
Russians, all white men. As Wilkins knows, they massacred the Spanish
revolutionists, white people all. When they wanted to push America
into war against Hitler, they became New Dealers, they praised the
“democracies,” they said they would make capitalism work,
they shook hands with Wilkins and presented their foreheads to be
blessed by Father Divine and the behinds to be kicked by Walter
White.</p>
<p>Now that they want to keep America from going to war with Hitler,
they abuse Roosevelt, they curse the New Deal, they condemn
capitalism, they use phrases about socialism, and they open up a big
drive in Harlem to recapture the natural militancy of the Negroes.
All this is part of the Stalinist policy.</p>
<p>But how can Wilkins say that they have specifically used the black
man and now want to drop him when they have no more use for him?
Wilkins has committed a great crime against the Negro people.<br>
</p>
<h4>Why Wilkins Raises the Race Issue</h4>
<p class="fst">Today, in the world crisis we face, we need unity in the working
class, particularly between black and white. The workers may differ
among themselves, this one Stalinist, the other one Socialist,
another Trotskyite, etc. But against the capitalist class and their
capitalist war we must be united. We of the Fourth International know
the Stalinists for the treacherous corruption that they are. We point
out their political crimes, the political reasons for them, and we
ask the workers to break with them.</p>
<p>But Wilkins, who ought to know better, says to the Negroes, “It
is merely some more whites fooling the Negroes again.” While
some Detroit Negroes printed leaflets and distributed them to the
Negro workers telling them not to scab on the white workers, thereby
building up class solidarity, Wilkins goes out of his way to make the
Stalinist crimes a race question and thus accentuate racial
differences.</p>
<p>Every Negro worker, with three hundred years of oppression behind
him, is naturally inclined to see race prejudice in every political
move. That is understandable. We must explain, Wilkins deliberately
confuses. And why? Because he is not a Marxist; he is not a
revolutionary. He is bourgeois to the bone. He, like so many others,
wanted to be imperialist with Roosevelt and play at being
revolutionary with the Stalinists. But the Stalinists have only one
god – Stalin. They get their orders and they leave all the New
Dealers naked. Wilkins has nothing to fall back on. But he knows one
cry which will always catch the ears of Negroes – “Race.
They do it because we are black.”’</p>
<p>In reality the racial traitor is not the Stalinist, who twists his
policy for reactionary political reasons, but Wilkins himself. Yes,
Wilkins himself, who uses the race issue to cover up his political
bankruptcy.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on 27 June 2018</p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > C.L.R. James
J.R. Johnson
The Negro Question
(16 December 1939)
From Socialist Appeal, Vol. III No. 93, 16 December 1939, p. 3.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
Periodically one comes across statements in the Negro press, more
often one hears remarks from individual Negroes, which betray with
what facility some Negro politicians slip into racial chauvinism to
cover political bankruptcy. The latest addition to the list is Roy
Wilkins.
Roy Wilkins is the editor of The Crisis, writes a weekly
column in the Amsterdam News, and is known everywhere as a
“progressive” person. He, with other Negro
intellectuals, was a great friend of the Stalinists in the days when
they were rooting for “F.D.R.,” throwing their cloaks in
the mud for Eleanor Roosevelt to walk on, and fraternizing with Negro
bishops and Father Divine as the future leaders of Negro
emancipation. All these rascally tools of Stalin were after was to
get America into war with Hitler, then Stalin’s enemy. The
moment Stalin came to terms with Hitler, the Stalinists began to see
that the war against Hitler was not so good after all, that in fact
it was a very bad war – it was an imperialist war. They opened
fire on F.D.R., Eleanor, Murphy, and all their old friends, and sure
as day they are going to instruct Ford, Patterson, Richard Moore and
the other Negro Browders to pour a special stream of abuse on Walter
White, Roy Wilkins, and the other Negro New Dealers, whom not four
months ago the Stalinists flattered and fawned upon.
The Bedfellows Part
Now the New Dealers are bitter. Eleanor, in particular, is very
bitter. She says the Stalinists “ought to go to Russia.”
One day she will, even send a letter to David Lasser of the Workers
Alliance, resigning her honorary membership, unless Dave Lasser first
expels her. All the liberals, once friends of the Stalinists, are now
howling for their blood. And high among them is Roy Wilkins. He
cursed the Hitler-Stalin pact and now, in his column in the Amsterdam
News of November 9th, he denounces the invasion of Finland and
the lies of Molotov.
The Fourth International denounces and will continue to denounce
the policies of Moscow, which remain the chief obstacle in the
working class on the road of the world revolution and the
emancipation of the workers. But we are no supporters of Mannerheim
and the Finnish bourgeoisie, who in 1918-1919 massacred Finnish
workers by the thousands. No word of this appears in Wilkins’
comment. He is for Mannerheim against Stalin. Wilkins is no
revolutionary and has the same ideas about politics as the
Roosevelts, Attorney-General Murphy, and the whole gang of New
Dealers, white and black.
What, however, is most revealing is the last paragraph of his
column. In it he says:
“Aside from everything else, this means that the
dark brother in America, who had been hoping for the emergence of
some international leadership sympathetic to his problems, must turn
elsewhere, for the opportunism of the Stalinites is on a par with the
opportunism of the Republican party. Both have tossed the brother
overboard as soon as they got what they wanted from him.”
Wilkins Deceives the Negroes
This is one of the most mischievous and despicable misstatements
that could be made by a man in Wilkins’ position. In what way
have the Stalinists, scoundrels though they are, tossed the black
brother overboard when they got what they wanted from him? Stalin and
the bureaucrats exiled Trotsky, a white man, and murdered nearly
every member of his family. They shot Zinoviev, Kamenev, Rykov,
Tomsky, Bucharin, Yagoda, and thousands upon thousands of other
Russians, all white men. As Wilkins knows, they massacred the Spanish
revolutionists, white people all. When they wanted to push America
into war against Hitler, they became New Dealers, they praised the
“democracies,” they said they would make capitalism work,
they shook hands with Wilkins and presented their foreheads to be
blessed by Father Divine and the behinds to be kicked by Walter
White.
Now that they want to keep America from going to war with Hitler,
they abuse Roosevelt, they curse the New Deal, they condemn
capitalism, they use phrases about socialism, and they open up a big
drive in Harlem to recapture the natural militancy of the Negroes.
All this is part of the Stalinist policy.
But how can Wilkins say that they have specifically used the black
man and now want to drop him when they have no more use for him?
Wilkins has committed a great crime against the Negro people.
Why Wilkins Raises the Race Issue
Today, in the world crisis we face, we need unity in the working
class, particularly between black and white. The workers may differ
among themselves, this one Stalinist, the other one Socialist,
another Trotskyite, etc. But against the capitalist class and their
capitalist war we must be united. We of the Fourth International know
the Stalinists for the treacherous corruption that they are. We point
out their political crimes, the political reasons for them, and we
ask the workers to break with them.
But Wilkins, who ought to know better, says to the Negroes, “It
is merely some more whites fooling the Negroes again.” While
some Detroit Negroes printed leaflets and distributed them to the
Negro workers telling them not to scab on the white workers, thereby
building up class solidarity, Wilkins goes out of his way to make the
Stalinist crimes a race question and thus accentuate racial
differences.
Every Negro worker, with three hundred years of oppression behind
him, is naturally inclined to see race prejudice in every political
move. That is understandable. We must explain, Wilkins deliberately
confuses. And why? Because he is not a Marxist; he is not a
revolutionary. He is bourgeois to the bone. He, like so many others,
wanted to be imperialist with Roosevelt and play at being
revolutionary with the Stalinists. But the Stalinists have only one
god – Stalin. They get their orders and they leave all the New
Dealers naked. Wilkins has nothing to fall back on. But he knows one
cry which will always catch the ears of Negroes – “Race.
They do it because we are black.”’
In reality the racial traitor is not the Stalinist, who twists his
policy for reactionary political reasons, but Wilkins himself. Yes,
Wilkins himself, who uses the race issue to cover up his political
bankruptcy.
Top of the page
Last updated on 27 June 2018
|
./articles/Meyer-J.-(C.L.R.-James)/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.james-clr.works.1940.08.together | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">C.L.R. James</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>J.R. Johnson</h2>
<h1>Negro and White Workers Must Stand Together</h1>
<h3>(12 August 1940)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info"><em>The Negro’s Fight</em>, <strong>Labor Action</strong>, <a href="../../../../../history/etol/newspape/laboraction-ny/1940/index.htm#la04_18" target="new">vol. 4 No. 18</a>, 12 August 1940, p. 4.<br>
Transcribed & marked up by <a href="../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Marxists’ Internet Archive</strong>.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">At the present time America, like the rest of the world, is in a grave crisis. A Negro watches the billions being poured into armaments, the draft bill for conscription in peace-time, the violent attacks against aliens and Fifth Columnists. The world as we know it is going. That is clear. What is taking its place and how will it affect the Negroes?</p>
<p>What is taking place is an international reorganization of society to meet the world wide economic crisis. The crisis caused the war. Hit-that they are no more than slaves. Fascism has assumed full power over all production and has created a mighty armament by which it hopes to conquer Europe and reduce the whole continent to a colony of German imperialism.<br>
</p>
<h4>Wars – and More Wars</h4>
<p class="fst">Negroes understand this well. They know-how European imperialism trampled over Africa and reduced the Africans to slavery in order to exploit them. Today the colonies are not sufficient and the great imperialisms devour the smaller and weaker countries nearer home. And in the same way that imperialism in Africa created theories about the superiority of the white race in order to justify its attack on the Negroes, so Hitlerism creates theories about the superiority of the German race in order to justify the enslavement of European peoples.</p>
<p>Imperialism today, however, is a great mouth which swallows everything within reach and is never satisfied. British imperialism is fighting in defense of its own slave colonies in India and Africa. At the same time Britain, Italy, Japan, America and Germany are fighting a fierce trade battle for control of Latin America. That is why Hull went to Havana; to try to win over the Latin American countries to his support. In East Asia, Japan tries to swallow China and runs ahead of America and Britain for domination of the trade and resources of the Far East.</p>
<p>There is a life and death struggle going on all around and the Fascist state has a great advantage. Once it has defeated the workers it makes them work 12 hours a day for dog’s wages, it produces arms instead of food and clothes, and it can produce goods so cheaply that it undersells other countries in foreign markets. The American capitalist sees ail this, and. he is preparing to do exactly the same if he can, to batter down the workers organizations, to institute control and fight trade wars and then military wars. But the last war did not stop the crisis and the crisis was already so bad before this one began that the world faces years of continual wars, chaos and disaster until these imperialists are overthrown.<br>
</p>
<h4>Workers Must Stand Together!</h4>
<p class="fst">This affects the Negro in a very intimate way. Wherever the capitalist class has to batter down the workers it tries to demoralize them by dividing them, and setting them quarreling with each other. In Germany, Hitler used the Jews. In America, they will not only use the Jews but the Negroes. The capitalists have long practice in setting Negro workers against whites. As the battle between them and the workers becomes more acute they will seek to take away jobs from the Negroes to satisfy a section of the whites; they will intensify anti-Negro propaganda; they will try to turn the hostility of the white workers against the capitalist class against the workers instead. The Negroes must understand therefore, that the developing crisis will not only hit the American workers hard, but will hit them, as a weak section of the workers, harder than before?</p>
<p>What is the remedy? The remedy is to fight not tomorrow not next week, but now! Fight first and foremost for jobs in industry. The Negro suffers most and therefore he must fight most. He must fight under the general slogan of “Democracy for Negroes here and now!” He must join the local workers organizations, like the trade unions. he must criticize them mercilessly if they try to keep him out. He must form local Negro organizations, and cooperate with political organizations that will battle for Negro rights. The Workers Party is today in the very .front of that battle.</p>
<p>The Negro must show the white workers that he means to have his rights, that he must have his share of the jobs, that he is a fighter, that he fights always for his rights in the working class as a member of the working class. By this means the Negro can compel recognition and respect from the great masses of white workers, and prepare the way for the joint battle both have to fight against the gathering hordes of of American fascism.</p>
<p>Along with this battle for his rights, the Negro must fight for the defense of civil liberties, against the persecution of revolutionaries as Fifth Columnists, against the enemies of democratic rights wherever they show themselves. <strong>For wherever the working class or the revolutionary movement sustains a defeat, there the Negro is defeated also, if even one Negro lives in that community.</strong> That is the lesson of today. The Negroes must learn it and learn it well, and must fight for their place in the working class movement, as the surest way of defending the little that they have and gaining full equality.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on <!-- WebWriter AutoDato -->6.10.2012<!-- WW --></p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > C.L.R. James
J.R. Johnson
Negro and White Workers Must Stand Together
(12 August 1940)
The Negro’s Fight, Labor Action, vol. 4 No. 18, 12 August 1940, p. 4.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
At the present time America, like the rest of the world, is in a grave crisis. A Negro watches the billions being poured into armaments, the draft bill for conscription in peace-time, the violent attacks against aliens and Fifth Columnists. The world as we know it is going. That is clear. What is taking its place and how will it affect the Negroes?
What is taking place is an international reorganization of society to meet the world wide economic crisis. The crisis caused the war. Hit-that they are no more than slaves. Fascism has assumed full power over all production and has created a mighty armament by which it hopes to conquer Europe and reduce the whole continent to a colony of German imperialism.
Wars – and More Wars
Negroes understand this well. They know-how European imperialism trampled over Africa and reduced the Africans to slavery in order to exploit them. Today the colonies are not sufficient and the great imperialisms devour the smaller and weaker countries nearer home. And in the same way that imperialism in Africa created theories about the superiority of the white race in order to justify its attack on the Negroes, so Hitlerism creates theories about the superiority of the German race in order to justify the enslavement of European peoples.
Imperialism today, however, is a great mouth which swallows everything within reach and is never satisfied. British imperialism is fighting in defense of its own slave colonies in India and Africa. At the same time Britain, Italy, Japan, America and Germany are fighting a fierce trade battle for control of Latin America. That is why Hull went to Havana; to try to win over the Latin American countries to his support. In East Asia, Japan tries to swallow China and runs ahead of America and Britain for domination of the trade and resources of the Far East.
There is a life and death struggle going on all around and the Fascist state has a great advantage. Once it has defeated the workers it makes them work 12 hours a day for dog’s wages, it produces arms instead of food and clothes, and it can produce goods so cheaply that it undersells other countries in foreign markets. The American capitalist sees ail this, and. he is preparing to do exactly the same if he can, to batter down the workers organizations, to institute control and fight trade wars and then military wars. But the last war did not stop the crisis and the crisis was already so bad before this one began that the world faces years of continual wars, chaos and disaster until these imperialists are overthrown.
Workers Must Stand Together!
This affects the Negro in a very intimate way. Wherever the capitalist class has to batter down the workers it tries to demoralize them by dividing them, and setting them quarreling with each other. In Germany, Hitler used the Jews. In America, they will not only use the Jews but the Negroes. The capitalists have long practice in setting Negro workers against whites. As the battle between them and the workers becomes more acute they will seek to take away jobs from the Negroes to satisfy a section of the whites; they will intensify anti-Negro propaganda; they will try to turn the hostility of the white workers against the capitalist class against the workers instead. The Negroes must understand therefore, that the developing crisis will not only hit the American workers hard, but will hit them, as a weak section of the workers, harder than before?
What is the remedy? The remedy is to fight not tomorrow not next week, but now! Fight first and foremost for jobs in industry. The Negro suffers most and therefore he must fight most. He must fight under the general slogan of “Democracy for Negroes here and now!” He must join the local workers organizations, like the trade unions. he must criticize them mercilessly if they try to keep him out. He must form local Negro organizations, and cooperate with political organizations that will battle for Negro rights. The Workers Party is today in the very .front of that battle.
The Negro must show the white workers that he means to have his rights, that he must have his share of the jobs, that he is a fighter, that he fights always for his rights in the working class as a member of the working class. By this means the Negro can compel recognition and respect from the great masses of white workers, and prepare the way for the joint battle both have to fight against the gathering hordes of of American fascism.
Along with this battle for his rights, the Negro must fight for the defense of civil liberties, against the persecution of revolutionaries as Fifth Columnists, against the enemies of democratic rights wherever they show themselves. For wherever the working class or the revolutionary movement sustains a defeat, there the Negro is defeated also, if even one Negro lives in that community. That is the lesson of today. The Negroes must learn it and learn it well, and must fight for their place in the working class movement, as the surest way of defending the little that they have and gaining full equality.
Top of the page
Last updated on 6.10.2012
|
./articles/Meyer-J.-(C.L.R.-James)/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.james-clr.works.1963.deutscher | <body>
<p class="title">C.L.R. James 1963</p>
<h3>Indomitable Rebel<br>
<span class="term">Review of The Prophet Outcast, Trotsky: 1929-40 by Isaac Deutscher</span></h3>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information"><span class="info">Source</span>: <em>New Society</em>, 28 November 1963;<br>
<span class="info">Transcribed</span>: by Christian Hogsbjerg.</p>
<hr class="end">
<p>In portraying Trotsky’s last years Mr. Deutscher worthily completes his particular view of a representative figure of our time. He takes us unsparingly through the political catastrophes and miasma of the thirties: the rise of Hitler, appeasement, the uninterupted defeats of democracy and socialism in Europe and elsewhere. Brilliant and so far unsurpassed is his picture of the causes, horrors and results of the Russian collectivization; he is almost as good on Stalin <i>v</i> the Trotskyist Opposition inside Russia; here the strenuous analysis and significant details are vivified by sympathetic but realistic <i>apercus</i> of men like Rakovsky and lesser but not unimportant figures like Blumkin, Ivan Smirnov, Preobrazhensky. It is against this record of almost unrelieved defeat and suffering that Mr. Deutscher sets what he considers to be one of the greatest personalities in the socialist record and in fact in all history.</p>
<p>He does not shirk failures and mistakes, he makes politically relevant not only Trotsky’s martyrdom but his personal relations with his son, his unshakeably steadfast wife, his family and his friends – there is a full and moving account of the apparently unpolitical life of his daughter Zina. It is difficult to disagree that nothing magnificently human was alien to Trotsky.</p>
<p>Mr. Deutscher’s structure is built on scrupulous use of an astonishing range of material. Thus his book itself provides the evidence for his unnecessary and quite unhistorical inflation of the exiled Trotsky’s political and prophetic roles. He notes that the Polish delegation (with which he was associated) opposed Trotsky’s decision to found a Fourth International. I well remember at the Founding Conference their somewhat effete objections. They failed because they, as well as every single delegate, lived in the faith that at the very outbreak of war, the Third International, like the Second International in 1914, would become national patriots and repudiate both the revolution and the USSR. This would immediately open the road for the Fourth International. Further, the main conference document asserted that the majority of the Russian leadership were preparing the restoration of private property in Russia. For us this ensured the revolutionary upheaval and adherence of the Russian proletariat to the Fourth International. That had been Trotsky’s thesis through the years and this grave error is what vitiates the undoubtedly brilliant insights and constant warnings of his political analyses. If, as Trotsky repeatedly asserted, the proletariat everywhere was being led to disaster by Stalinism, the conclusion could not be avoided that the proletariat was in some way unfitted for its tasks. Mr Deutscher does not show, because there is no evidence to show, that Trotsky ever concerned himself with the specific stage of social structure, new needs and new capacities, new perspectives of the proletariat, the basis on which Internationals like the First and Second were founded. Mr Deutscher somewhat wryly admits that the Fourth International was founded because the Third International had shown its inability to learn from its mistakes. Social organizations initiating new societies are not founded on such premises.</p>
<p>Mr Deutscher faithfully notes that in his last years Trotsky was pro-Ally against Hitler, that in an unfinished article he called on American workers to defend American capitalism in World War II, that in 1939 he stated in print that if the war did not result in the socialist revolution, then it would have to be accepted that Marxism was utopia. Mr Deutscher either palliates or deplores Trotsky’s departures from what he repeatedly describes as “classical Marxism.” By this he obviously means the doctrines of Lenin which Trotsky’s party “the Bolshevik-Leninists,” was founded to maintain and continue. Writing with 1945-1963 in mind, Mr Deutscher does not hesitate to conclude that on this type of Leninism, “Trotsky, the man of practical action, would hardly have found any effective role for himself in this whole post-war drama.” Politics has the last word. The conclusion, though politically a logical one, thus places an unconvincing epitaph on the indomitable revolutionary whom the world knew and this book so powerfully resurrects.</p>
<p class="skip"> </p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">
<a href="../../index.htm">CLR James Archive</a>
</p>
</body> |
C.L.R. James 1963
Indomitable Rebel
Review of The Prophet Outcast, Trotsky: 1929-40 by Isaac Deutscher
Source: New Society, 28 November 1963;
Transcribed: by Christian Hogsbjerg.
In portraying Trotsky’s last years Mr. Deutscher worthily completes his particular view of a representative figure of our time. He takes us unsparingly through the political catastrophes and miasma of the thirties: the rise of Hitler, appeasement, the uninterupted defeats of democracy and socialism in Europe and elsewhere. Brilliant and so far unsurpassed is his picture of the causes, horrors and results of the Russian collectivization; he is almost as good on Stalin v the Trotskyist Opposition inside Russia; here the strenuous analysis and significant details are vivified by sympathetic but realistic apercus of men like Rakovsky and lesser but not unimportant figures like Blumkin, Ivan Smirnov, Preobrazhensky. It is against this record of almost unrelieved defeat and suffering that Mr. Deutscher sets what he considers to be one of the greatest personalities in the socialist record and in fact in all history.
He does not shirk failures and mistakes, he makes politically relevant not only Trotsky’s martyrdom but his personal relations with his son, his unshakeably steadfast wife, his family and his friends – there is a full and moving account of the apparently unpolitical life of his daughter Zina. It is difficult to disagree that nothing magnificently human was alien to Trotsky.
Mr. Deutscher’s structure is built on scrupulous use of an astonishing range of material. Thus his book itself provides the evidence for his unnecessary and quite unhistorical inflation of the exiled Trotsky’s political and prophetic roles. He notes that the Polish delegation (with which he was associated) opposed Trotsky’s decision to found a Fourth International. I well remember at the Founding Conference their somewhat effete objections. They failed because they, as well as every single delegate, lived in the faith that at the very outbreak of war, the Third International, like the Second International in 1914, would become national patriots and repudiate both the revolution and the USSR. This would immediately open the road for the Fourth International. Further, the main conference document asserted that the majority of the Russian leadership were preparing the restoration of private property in Russia. For us this ensured the revolutionary upheaval and adherence of the Russian proletariat to the Fourth International. That had been Trotsky’s thesis through the years and this grave error is what vitiates the undoubtedly brilliant insights and constant warnings of his political analyses. If, as Trotsky repeatedly asserted, the proletariat everywhere was being led to disaster by Stalinism, the conclusion could not be avoided that the proletariat was in some way unfitted for its tasks. Mr Deutscher does not show, because there is no evidence to show, that Trotsky ever concerned himself with the specific stage of social structure, new needs and new capacities, new perspectives of the proletariat, the basis on which Internationals like the First and Second were founded. Mr Deutscher somewhat wryly admits that the Fourth International was founded because the Third International had shown its inability to learn from its mistakes. Social organizations initiating new societies are not founded on such premises.
Mr Deutscher faithfully notes that in his last years Trotsky was pro-Ally against Hitler, that in an unfinished article he called on American workers to defend American capitalism in World War II, that in 1939 he stated in print that if the war did not result in the socialist revolution, then it would have to be accepted that Marxism was utopia. Mr Deutscher either palliates or deplores Trotsky’s departures from what he repeatedly describes as “classical Marxism.” By this he obviously means the doctrines of Lenin which Trotsky’s party “the Bolshevik-Leninists,” was founded to maintain and continue. Writing with 1945-1963 in mind, Mr Deutscher does not hesitate to conclude that on this type of Leninism, “Trotsky, the man of practical action, would hardly have found any effective role for himself in this whole post-war drama.” Politics has the last word. The conclusion, though politically a logical one, thus places an unconvincing epitaph on the indomitable revolutionary whom the world knew and this book so powerfully resurrects.
CLR James Archive
|
./articles/Meyer-J.-(C.L.R.-James)/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.james-clr.works.1946.07.louis-johnson | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">C.L.R. James</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>J.R. Johnson</h2>
<h4>One-Tenth of the Nation</h4>
<h1>Joe Louis and Jack Johnson</h1>
<h3>(1 July 1946)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info">Originally published in <strong>Labor Action</strong>, <a href="../../../../../history/etol/newspape/laboraction-ny/1946/index.htm#la10_26" target="new">Vol. X No. 26</a>, 1 July 1946, p. 3.<br>
Republished in Scott McLemee (<em>ed.</em>), <strong>C.L.R. James on the “Negro Question”</strong>, Jackson (Miss.) 1996, pp. 60–62.<br>
Transcribed by Daniel Gaido.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Marxists’ Internet Archive</strong>.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">A tense political or social situation can take the simplest or most commonplace event and make it into a symbol of political struggle. The most famous of such cases is the Dreyfus case in France fifty years ago. Lenin once pointed out how this anti-Semitic attack by the military caste on a Jewish officer nearly precipitated a revolution in France.</p>
<p>The situation of the Negroes has in the past lifted sporting events in which Negroes took part to a level of international political interest. Observers in Europe in 1935 noted the great satisfaction with which “the left” greeted the Olympic victories of the American Negroes. These games took place in Berlin, under Hitler’s very nose. His obnoxious racial theories were debunked on the presence of thousands of fanatical Nazis.</p>
<p>Now Joe Louis retains his title as heavyweight champion of the world. The Negroes rejoice, and the labor movement should view with sympathy and understanding their deep satisfaction.</p>
<p>The Negroes express by this a very simple, very human, and for that reason, social sentiment of great significance.</p>
<p class="quoteb">“Negroes are inferior? Very well then. Here is one Negro who is not inferior and beats everybody who dares to challenge him.”</p>
<p class="fst">The British government with its long experience in colonial domination, allows no nonsense of that kind. It prohibits by law competition for boxing titles between Englishmen and colored colonials, and we need have no doubt that if the reactionaries in the US ever got their chance they would restrict the championship to whites only. Luckily, the labor movement (whether individual workers supported Louis or Conn) would raise such a howl, that these fascistic types would have to keep their mouths shut.</p>
<p>Joe Louis, however, is a remarkable person, and has stamped his personality on this generation. He is a man of great personal dignity, and has borne the temptations and the publicity associated with the championship in a manner that has won the admiration of all. This has led to comments on Louis as a “representative of his race”the announcer on the night of the big fight referred to him as such.</p>
<p>Jimmy Cannon of the <strong>New York Post</strong> wrote a column which ended with the phrase that Joe was a credit to his race. But he added immediately, “I mean the human race.” Harlem was vastly pleased with this and the phrase has acquired wings among the Negro people.</p>
<p>At the opposite extreme is the <strong>New York Times</strong>.</p>
<p>A few days before the fight Jack Johnson, another Negro champion, died. Johnson had had a stormy and spectacular career and had served time in prison. The <strong>Times</strong> said in so many words that Johnson’s conduct had cast a stain upon the Negro character which Louis’s conduct was wiping away. This is a piece of ignorance and impertinence which deserves to be exposed.</p>
<p>Jack Johnson was champion of the old school of champions. In those days, the days of John L. Sullivan, J.J. Corbett, etc, the champions lived fast. What made the authorities mad was that Johnson refused to act differently simply because he was a Negro. He insisted on his right to live his own way. He was persecuted but remained irrepressible to the end. Doubtless he did many wrong and stupid things. But Negro publicists who followed his career have denounced all attempts to make him into a kind of Negro black sheep.</p>
<p>Similarly this attempt to hold up Louis as a model Negro has strong overtones of condescension and race prejudice. It implies: “See! When a Negro knows how to conduct himself, he gets on very well and we all love him.” From there the next step is: “If only all Negroes behaved like Joe, the race problem would be solved.”</p>
<p>And yet there is a sense in which the careful public conduct of Joe Louis is a matter not only of his personal character but of his origin. Joe himself has stated in public that he would rather die than do anything which would discredit his people. In this he reflects the acute social consciousness of the generation to which he belongs.</p>
<p>The Negro question today is not what it was in Jack Johnson’s time. Joe feels that he is not only a boxer but a social figure, someone whose actions can harm the struggle of Negroes for their full democratic rights. In that sense he feels he is a genuine “representative” of the Negro people. He feels it strongly and the Negroes, recognizing this, admire him for it as well as for his boxing prowess. That is not only legitimate but is good and in its way progressive. To the Negroes, it is only another reason why they should not be deprived of their rights. The important thing is to separate this healthy sentiment from the smug and hypocritical who clasp their hands across their chests and whine: “If only Negroes conducted themselves like Joe Louis, the Negro problem would be solved.”</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on 8 July 2019</p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > C.L.R. James
J.R. Johnson
One-Tenth of the Nation
Joe Louis and Jack Johnson
(1 July 1946)
Originally published in Labor Action, Vol. X No. 26, 1 July 1946, p. 3.
Republished in Scott McLemee (ed.), C.L.R. James on the “Negro Question”, Jackson (Miss.) 1996, pp. 60–62.
Transcribed by Daniel Gaido.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
A tense political or social situation can take the simplest or most commonplace event and make it into a symbol of political struggle. The most famous of such cases is the Dreyfus case in France fifty years ago. Lenin once pointed out how this anti-Semitic attack by the military caste on a Jewish officer nearly precipitated a revolution in France.
The situation of the Negroes has in the past lifted sporting events in which Negroes took part to a level of international political interest. Observers in Europe in 1935 noted the great satisfaction with which “the left” greeted the Olympic victories of the American Negroes. These games took place in Berlin, under Hitler’s very nose. His obnoxious racial theories were debunked on the presence of thousands of fanatical Nazis.
Now Joe Louis retains his title as heavyweight champion of the world. The Negroes rejoice, and the labor movement should view with sympathy and understanding their deep satisfaction.
The Negroes express by this a very simple, very human, and for that reason, social sentiment of great significance.
“Negroes are inferior? Very well then. Here is one Negro who is not inferior and beats everybody who dares to challenge him.”
The British government with its long experience in colonial domination, allows no nonsense of that kind. It prohibits by law competition for boxing titles between Englishmen and colored colonials, and we need have no doubt that if the reactionaries in the US ever got their chance they would restrict the championship to whites only. Luckily, the labor movement (whether individual workers supported Louis or Conn) would raise such a howl, that these fascistic types would have to keep their mouths shut.
Joe Louis, however, is a remarkable person, and has stamped his personality on this generation. He is a man of great personal dignity, and has borne the temptations and the publicity associated with the championship in a manner that has won the admiration of all. This has led to comments on Louis as a “representative of his race”the announcer on the night of the big fight referred to him as such.
Jimmy Cannon of the New York Post wrote a column which ended with the phrase that Joe was a credit to his race. But he added immediately, “I mean the human race.” Harlem was vastly pleased with this and the phrase has acquired wings among the Negro people.
At the opposite extreme is the New York Times.
A few days before the fight Jack Johnson, another Negro champion, died. Johnson had had a stormy and spectacular career and had served time in prison. The Times said in so many words that Johnson’s conduct had cast a stain upon the Negro character which Louis’s conduct was wiping away. This is a piece of ignorance and impertinence which deserves to be exposed.
Jack Johnson was champion of the old school of champions. In those days, the days of John L. Sullivan, J.J. Corbett, etc, the champions lived fast. What made the authorities mad was that Johnson refused to act differently simply because he was a Negro. He insisted on his right to live his own way. He was persecuted but remained irrepressible to the end. Doubtless he did many wrong and stupid things. But Negro publicists who followed his career have denounced all attempts to make him into a kind of Negro black sheep.
Similarly this attempt to hold up Louis as a model Negro has strong overtones of condescension and race prejudice. It implies: “See! When a Negro knows how to conduct himself, he gets on very well and we all love him.” From there the next step is: “If only all Negroes behaved like Joe, the race problem would be solved.”
And yet there is a sense in which the careful public conduct of Joe Louis is a matter not only of his personal character but of his origin. Joe himself has stated in public that he would rather die than do anything which would discredit his people. In this he reflects the acute social consciousness of the generation to which he belongs.
The Negro question today is not what it was in Jack Johnson’s time. Joe feels that he is not only a boxer but a social figure, someone whose actions can harm the struggle of Negroes for their full democratic rights. In that sense he feels he is a genuine “representative” of the Negro people. He feels it strongly and the Negroes, recognizing this, admire him for it as well as for his boxing prowess. That is not only legitimate but is good and in its way progressive. To the Negroes, it is only another reason why they should not be deprived of their rights. The important thing is to separate this healthy sentiment from the smug and hypocritical who clasp their hands across their chests and whine: “If only Negroes conducted themselves like Joe Louis, the Negro problem would be solved.”
Top of the page
Last updated on 8 July 2019
|
./articles/Meyer-J.-(C.L.R.-James)/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.james-clr.works.1939.08.cpzigzags | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">C.L.R. James</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>J.R. Johnson</h2>
<h1>The Communist Party’s Zigzags<br>
on Negro Policy</h1>
<h3>(15 August 1939)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info">This is an extract from <a href="negro1.htm#p2" target="new"><em>The SWP Tackles Negro Work</em></a>, <strong>The Socialist Appeal</strong>, Vol. III No. 59, 15 August 1939, p. 3.<br>
Republished in Scott McLemee (ed.), <strong>C.L.R. James on the “Negro Question”</strong>, Jackson (Miss.) 1996, pp. 116–117.<br>
Transcribed by Daniel Gaido.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Marxists’ Internet Archive</strong>.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">The CP passed through three stages in its Negro work: (a) up to 1928 when the Negro work was neglected, (b) 1929–35 when it made a drive, the period of which coincided with the period of [denouncing all other left currents as] social-fascism, and (c) 1935-39, the open abandonment of the revolutionary line by the CP and the catastrophic loss of nearly all its Negro membership.</p>
<p>In <strong>The Communist</strong> of September 1929, Cyril Biggs reviews the early experiences of the CP on the Negro question. For years, the Negro membership of the CP could be counted “literally” on the fingers of one hand. In 1928, the drive was initiated directly by the Comintern, which insisted at the 6th World Congress that the CP place the winning of the Negroes as one of its major tasks henceforth in America. The political line of the CP in those days was of course the line of social-fascism. Daily they went into action to make the revolution on every street corner. They formed their own red trade unions. They called Roosevelt and the New Dealers the worst enemies of the working class and the initiators of fascism in this country. They foamed at the mouth whenever they mentioned the NAACP and other petty-bourgeois Negro organizations.</p>
<p>That political line was false. It was nearly though not quite as bad as their present line of the Democratic Front – repudiating the revolution, making out Roosevelt and the New Deal to be the sole salvation of the American workers, grinning and smirking at Walter White and the NAACP.</p>
<p>Furthermore in 1929 the CP had many blunders to live down. It had opposed the migration of Negroes from the South to the North on the grounds that these newcomers would affect the economic position of the white workers in the North and result in sharpening racial antagonism. The Negro comrades who opposed this “gargantuan stupidity” were refused the five or six dollars they got weekly as postage for the news service they sent out to about 300 Negro newspapers. The CP had openly opposed social equality for Negroes at a convention in New York. This piece of stupidity was given wide publicity in the capitalist press and extensively quoted in the Negro press. Even when the turn was made to the Negroes, the party was guilty of open acts of blatant chauvinism.</p>
<p>In the unions there were scores of functionaries and departments for Greek, Italian, Jewish workers etc. But there was not a single Negro functionary, despite the fact that there were several thousand Negro workers in the needle trades in New York City alone. The personal behavior of whites to Negro comrades was frequently such as to damn the party in the minds of all Negroes who heard of it. One Negro comrade, Nicolai Garcia, was in Baltimore six days before he was able to get a bed. The white comrades with whom he came into contact just didn’t know what to do with him. Yet two days later when a white comrade arrived from New York and talked about going to a hotel, there were protests and offers from white comrades to put him up. Such incidents always spread like wildfire among Negroes. Here then was a false political line and a party membership many elements of which had not rid themselves of the crudest discrimination and prejudices practiced by capitalist society.</p>
<p>And yet, despite these handicaps, between 1929 and 1936 the party made progress. The social-fascist line at least summoned the masses to struggle. It differentiated sharply between the aims and methods of Communists on the one hand and of bourgeois politicians and vaguely “progressive” persons on the other. The CP made a revolutionary approach to the Negroes. And despite distortions of the revolutionary line, the demagogy and corruption, the bureaucratic manipulation of the Negro leaders, the chauvinism open and inverted, the party gained thousands of members and won a sympathetic if critical interest among many sections of the Negro community.</p>
<p>Then the line changed from one that at least attempted to be revolutionary to one which is today openly tied to American imperialism and the Roosevelt war machine. The result was immediate and unmistakable. Of their 2,000 Negro members in New York State, the CP has lost over 80% and the same thing happened all over the country ...</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on 13 March 2016</p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > C.L.R. James
J.R. Johnson
The Communist Party’s Zigzags
on Negro Policy
(15 August 1939)
This is an extract from The SWP Tackles Negro Work, The Socialist Appeal, Vol. III No. 59, 15 August 1939, p. 3.
Republished in Scott McLemee (ed.), C.L.R. James on the “Negro Question”, Jackson (Miss.) 1996, pp. 116–117.
Transcribed by Daniel Gaido.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
The CP passed through three stages in its Negro work: (a) up to 1928 when the Negro work was neglected, (b) 1929–35 when it made a drive, the period of which coincided with the period of [denouncing all other left currents as] social-fascism, and (c) 1935-39, the open abandonment of the revolutionary line by the CP and the catastrophic loss of nearly all its Negro membership.
In The Communist of September 1929, Cyril Biggs reviews the early experiences of the CP on the Negro question. For years, the Negro membership of the CP could be counted “literally” on the fingers of one hand. In 1928, the drive was initiated directly by the Comintern, which insisted at the 6th World Congress that the CP place the winning of the Negroes as one of its major tasks henceforth in America. The political line of the CP in those days was of course the line of social-fascism. Daily they went into action to make the revolution on every street corner. They formed their own red trade unions. They called Roosevelt and the New Dealers the worst enemies of the working class and the initiators of fascism in this country. They foamed at the mouth whenever they mentioned the NAACP and other petty-bourgeois Negro organizations.
That political line was false. It was nearly though not quite as bad as their present line of the Democratic Front – repudiating the revolution, making out Roosevelt and the New Deal to be the sole salvation of the American workers, grinning and smirking at Walter White and the NAACP.
Furthermore in 1929 the CP had many blunders to live down. It had opposed the migration of Negroes from the South to the North on the grounds that these newcomers would affect the economic position of the white workers in the North and result in sharpening racial antagonism. The Negro comrades who opposed this “gargantuan stupidity” were refused the five or six dollars they got weekly as postage for the news service they sent out to about 300 Negro newspapers. The CP had openly opposed social equality for Negroes at a convention in New York. This piece of stupidity was given wide publicity in the capitalist press and extensively quoted in the Negro press. Even when the turn was made to the Negroes, the party was guilty of open acts of blatant chauvinism.
In the unions there were scores of functionaries and departments for Greek, Italian, Jewish workers etc. But there was not a single Negro functionary, despite the fact that there were several thousand Negro workers in the needle trades in New York City alone. The personal behavior of whites to Negro comrades was frequently such as to damn the party in the minds of all Negroes who heard of it. One Negro comrade, Nicolai Garcia, was in Baltimore six days before he was able to get a bed. The white comrades with whom he came into contact just didn’t know what to do with him. Yet two days later when a white comrade arrived from New York and talked about going to a hotel, there were protests and offers from white comrades to put him up. Such incidents always spread like wildfire among Negroes. Here then was a false political line and a party membership many elements of which had not rid themselves of the crudest discrimination and prejudices practiced by capitalist society.
And yet, despite these handicaps, between 1929 and 1936 the party made progress. The social-fascist line at least summoned the masses to struggle. It differentiated sharply between the aims and methods of Communists on the one hand and of bourgeois politicians and vaguely “progressive” persons on the other. The CP made a revolutionary approach to the Negroes. And despite distortions of the revolutionary line, the demagogy and corruption, the bureaucratic manipulation of the Negro leaders, the chauvinism open and inverted, the party gained thousands of members and won a sympathetic if critical interest among many sections of the Negro community.
Then the line changed from one that at least attempted to be revolutionary to one which is today openly tied to American imperialism and the Roosevelt war machine. The result was immediate and unmistakable. Of their 2,000 Negro members in New York State, the CP has lost over 80% and the same thing happened all over the country ...
Top of the page
Last updated on 13 March 2016
|
./articles/Meyer-J.-(C.L.R.-James)/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.james-clr.works.1941.04.merguson | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">C.L.R. James</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>J.R. Johnson</h2>
<h1>Merguson Has an Obligation to the Negroes</h1>
<h3>(21 April 1941)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info"><em>The Negro’s Fight</em>, <strong>Labor Action</strong>, <a href="../../../../../history/etol/newspape/laboraction-ny/1941/index.htm#la05_16" target="new">Vol. 5 No. 16</a>, 21 April 1941, p. 4.<br>
Transcribed & marked up by <a href="../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Marxists’ Internet Archive</strong>.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">Walter Merguson is a Negro foreign correspondent for the <strong>Pittsburgh Courier</strong>. He and George Schuyler, the <strong>Courier</strong> columnist, are two of the best journalists in the profession. Merguson some months ago beat the big capitalist press in a news scoop from Paris. He is the only correspondent in Europe whose account of the Battle of France makes sense to me.</p>
<p>What really happened during those seven days or so when the French line was falling steadily back to Paris? Both Hitler and the French general staff have published figures of a few thousand dead on both sides. Most people seem to have accepted it. I don’t, I believe there is a deliberate conspiracy to prevent the mountains of dead from being known for fear of the terrible revulsion against the war which the revelation would cause. Merguson says that the French retreat was covered by three-quarters of a million black soldiers. He says they were not all killed in the fighting, but that they were captured, disarmed and then shot down like animals. His figures are probably exaggerated but I believe he has more of the truth than I have seen anywhere else.</p>
<p>The importance of Merguson was that he was sent to France especially to report on Negroes and in so doing he has been able to throw illumination on many aspects of the imperialist struggle which have escaped the other commentators.<br>
</p>
<h4>Merguson Finally Sees the Truth</h4>
<p class="fst">Now Merguson, ever since the war began, has been a fanatical admirer of French civilization. Week after week he sent factual, vivid descriptions of the life of the African troops in France. He praised their quarters, their food, the absence of race prejudice, the freedom with which they mingled with the French population. He approved entirely of these hundreds of thousands of Negroes being fattened to die for French democracy. When some Negroes in Great Britain denounced the French imperialists, Merguson attacked them. No use to point out to Merguson the merciless exploitation of millions of French colonials. No, the French in France treated Negroes well. It was therefore good to die for French democracy.</p>
<p>Then came the French collapse. Overnight the French capitalists found that fascism was better than democracy. Merguson’s eyes have been opened and he starts to howl. Listen to him in the <strong>Courier</strong> of April 5:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“I am convinced that I, like so many of my countrymen, have been duped, have been led into a fool’s paradise.</p>
<p class="quote">“I am witnessing on the scene the passing of a France that was, if nothing more, unfaithful to the trust that we had placed in her and unmindful of her obligations to her subjugated black colonials.”</p>
<p class="fst">Well, well. So Mr. Merguson has learned something.</p>
<p class="quoteb">“We have nothing to lose from the downfall of France except our yoke. She was as ruthless, cunning and diabolical as any other imperialist power.”<br>
</p>
<h4>But He Now Has a Chance</h4>
<p class="fst">Fine words, Mr. Merguson, but what of all these years that you were encouraging the blacks to fight for French democracy? What are you going to do to atone for the mischief you helped to cause? Yes, you, Mr. Merguson, helped. You did not know any better? OK. Anyone can make a mistake. But you were more intelligent than most. You had knowledge and opportunities of information. But you made a mistake. Too bad. But you have a chance now to show that you are an honest man and not an opportunistic faker.</p>
<p>French imperialism cheated the Negroes, did it? British imperialism, German imperialism, all you see are no good! What about American imperialism? This is your chance, Merguson. Tell the American Negroes how French imperialism deceived you and warn them against American imperialism. When you do that, when you tell them to fight against the enemy at home, then we will believe you. But you are no ordinary worker who has not had a chance. You had every chance and we want more from you than simple repentance.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on <!-- WebWriter AutoDato -->14.12.2012<!-- WW --></p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > C.L.R. James
J.R. Johnson
Merguson Has an Obligation to the Negroes
(21 April 1941)
The Negro’s Fight, Labor Action, Vol. 5 No. 16, 21 April 1941, p. 4.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
Walter Merguson is a Negro foreign correspondent for the Pittsburgh Courier. He and George Schuyler, the Courier columnist, are two of the best journalists in the profession. Merguson some months ago beat the big capitalist press in a news scoop from Paris. He is the only correspondent in Europe whose account of the Battle of France makes sense to me.
What really happened during those seven days or so when the French line was falling steadily back to Paris? Both Hitler and the French general staff have published figures of a few thousand dead on both sides. Most people seem to have accepted it. I don’t, I believe there is a deliberate conspiracy to prevent the mountains of dead from being known for fear of the terrible revulsion against the war which the revelation would cause. Merguson says that the French retreat was covered by three-quarters of a million black soldiers. He says they were not all killed in the fighting, but that they were captured, disarmed and then shot down like animals. His figures are probably exaggerated but I believe he has more of the truth than I have seen anywhere else.
The importance of Merguson was that he was sent to France especially to report on Negroes and in so doing he has been able to throw illumination on many aspects of the imperialist struggle which have escaped the other commentators.
Merguson Finally Sees the Truth
Now Merguson, ever since the war began, has been a fanatical admirer of French civilization. Week after week he sent factual, vivid descriptions of the life of the African troops in France. He praised their quarters, their food, the absence of race prejudice, the freedom with which they mingled with the French population. He approved entirely of these hundreds of thousands of Negroes being fattened to die for French democracy. When some Negroes in Great Britain denounced the French imperialists, Merguson attacked them. No use to point out to Merguson the merciless exploitation of millions of French colonials. No, the French in France treated Negroes well. It was therefore good to die for French democracy.
Then came the French collapse. Overnight the French capitalists found that fascism was better than democracy. Merguson’s eyes have been opened and he starts to howl. Listen to him in the Courier of April 5:
“I am convinced that I, like so many of my countrymen, have been duped, have been led into a fool’s paradise.
“I am witnessing on the scene the passing of a France that was, if nothing more, unfaithful to the trust that we had placed in her and unmindful of her obligations to her subjugated black colonials.”
Well, well. So Mr. Merguson has learned something.
“We have nothing to lose from the downfall of France except our yoke. She was as ruthless, cunning and diabolical as any other imperialist power.”
But He Now Has a Chance
Fine words, Mr. Merguson, but what of all these years that you were encouraging the blacks to fight for French democracy? What are you going to do to atone for the mischief you helped to cause? Yes, you, Mr. Merguson, helped. You did not know any better? OK. Anyone can make a mistake. But you were more intelligent than most. You had knowledge and opportunities of information. But you made a mistake. Too bad. But you have a chance now to show that you are an honest man and not an opportunistic faker.
French imperialism cheated the Negroes, did it? British imperialism, German imperialism, all you see are no good! What about American imperialism? This is your chance, Merguson. Tell the American Negroes how French imperialism deceived you and warn them against American imperialism. When you do that, when you tell them to fight against the enemy at home, then we will believe you. But you are no ordinary worker who has not had a chance. You had every chance and we want more from you than simple repentance.
Top of the page
Last updated on 14.12.2012
|
./articles/Meyer-J.-(C.L.R.-James)/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.james-clr.works.1945.06.tenth4 | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">C.L.R. James</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>J.R. Johnson</h2>
<h4>One-Tenth of the Nation</h4>
<h1>The Case of the 92nd</h1>
<h3>(June 1945)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info">From <strong>Labor Action</strong>, <a href="../../../../../history/etol/newspape/laboraction-ny/1945/index.htm#la09_26" target="new">Vol. IX No. 26</a>, 25 June 1945, p. 3.<br>
Transcribed & marked up by <a href="../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Marxists’ Internet Archive</strong>.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">For months now, the case of the 92nd Division, a Negro outfit, has reverberated through the Negro press. The capitalist press has had echoes of it. It is clear that we shall hear more of it, particularly in the postwar period.</p>
<p><em>The 92nd was stationed in Italy and fought in the Italian campaign. Toward the end of the campaign the rumors began to spread that the 92nd had not met the test of war. When this appeared in the press, the bitterness and protests of the Negro people began at once. Soon it had reached such a pitch that the War Department sent its Negro representative, Truman Gibson, to Italy to investigate and, if possible, patch up a situation which had become an international scandal.</em></p>
<p>Truman Gibson is one of the capitalist spokesmen who do their dirty work among the Negroes: The job he has was once held by Judge Hastie. These aides to the Secretary of War are supposed to represent Negro interests in the Army. So flagrant was the discrimination, so obvious the failure of the Roosevelt government to do anything about it that Hastie resigned. Now Truman Gibson found himself in Italy representing the War Department and representing the Negroes at the same time.<br>
</p>
<h4>An Infamous Interview</h4>
<p class="fst">The result could have been foreseen. At a press conference packed with reporters, Gibson gave a now-famous interview. It amounted to a long whitewash of the black record of the Administration’s treatment of the Negroes.</p>
<p>He blamed the weakness upon some abstract difficulties of Negroes as if he didn’t know where the difficulties originated. He took it upon himself to say that the 92nd had “melted away” under fire. He said that the record of the 92nd “presents a rather dismal picture.” There was a universal demand for his resignation. But Gibson continues in his job.</p>
<p><em>Now General Clark, commander of the American Army in Italy, has returned home. Speaking before 60,000 people in Chicago he said: “Our Negro troops were among our most valuable assets.” He spoke of the “glorious 92nd” and refused to discuss Truman Gibson’s statements. But, true or not true, the charges have gone abroad.</em></p>
<p>Roi Ottley, <strong>PM</strong> correspondent in Italy, has investigated the charges and reports that they were unfounded. But he leaves no doubt that in morale and fighting spirit something was radically wrong with the 92nd.<br>
</p>
<h4>Negro Press Replies</h4>
<p class="fst">To the charge that the Negro soldiers in the division were below the average in education, the Negro press replied that <em>even if this were true</em>, the fault is the fault of the American government. It sanctions the Jim Crow system in education and allows numerous Southern states to spend five times as much on the education of one white child as on the education of a Negro child.</p>
<p>On the question of morale, the reply is devastating. The men know that they are not fighting for democracy. They did not live in a true democracy, they know they are not going back to any democracy! The Negro press refuses to take any apologetic attitude. While it argues the case for and against the charges, it states emphatically: <em>If anything is wrong, you, the authorities, are responsible. This is a long way from the days when Negro publicists took examples of Negro excellence and boosted them to whites, hoping to achieve equality thereby.</em></p>
<p>So it is. But that is only one part of the story. In the integration which took place in the German campaign, men from Negro service battalions were trained, incorporated as combat troops, and won high opinions for themselves. The present case is different. If the 92nd is broken up and incorporated with white regiments, then however well the men fight, nothing will wash away the stain that the 92nd Division, <em>as a Negro division</em>, was a failure.</p>
<p><em>The labor movement should take note of these things. Such a struggle as the struggle of the Negro people for common justice in the Army can be used by capitalism to divide and disrupt the workers. The same struggle call be used by labor to strengthen and consolidate labor. The Negro struggle for just treatment in the Army is a struggle for democratic rights. And where anyone struggles for his own rights he struggles for the rights of all.</em></p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on 8 June 2016</p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > C.L.R. James
J.R. Johnson
One-Tenth of the Nation
The Case of the 92nd
(June 1945)
From Labor Action, Vol. IX No. 26, 25 June 1945, p. 3.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
For months now, the case of the 92nd Division, a Negro outfit, has reverberated through the Negro press. The capitalist press has had echoes of it. It is clear that we shall hear more of it, particularly in the postwar period.
The 92nd was stationed in Italy and fought in the Italian campaign. Toward the end of the campaign the rumors began to spread that the 92nd had not met the test of war. When this appeared in the press, the bitterness and protests of the Negro people began at once. Soon it had reached such a pitch that the War Department sent its Negro representative, Truman Gibson, to Italy to investigate and, if possible, patch up a situation which had become an international scandal.
Truman Gibson is one of the capitalist spokesmen who do their dirty work among the Negroes: The job he has was once held by Judge Hastie. These aides to the Secretary of War are supposed to represent Negro interests in the Army. So flagrant was the discrimination, so obvious the failure of the Roosevelt government to do anything about it that Hastie resigned. Now Truman Gibson found himself in Italy representing the War Department and representing the Negroes at the same time.
An Infamous Interview
The result could have been foreseen. At a press conference packed with reporters, Gibson gave a now-famous interview. It amounted to a long whitewash of the black record of the Administration’s treatment of the Negroes.
He blamed the weakness upon some abstract difficulties of Negroes as if he didn’t know where the difficulties originated. He took it upon himself to say that the 92nd had “melted away” under fire. He said that the record of the 92nd “presents a rather dismal picture.” There was a universal demand for his resignation. But Gibson continues in his job.
Now General Clark, commander of the American Army in Italy, has returned home. Speaking before 60,000 people in Chicago he said: “Our Negro troops were among our most valuable assets.” He spoke of the “glorious 92nd” and refused to discuss Truman Gibson’s statements. But, true or not true, the charges have gone abroad.
Roi Ottley, PM correspondent in Italy, has investigated the charges and reports that they were unfounded. But he leaves no doubt that in morale and fighting spirit something was radically wrong with the 92nd.
Negro Press Replies
To the charge that the Negro soldiers in the division were below the average in education, the Negro press replied that even if this were true, the fault is the fault of the American government. It sanctions the Jim Crow system in education and allows numerous Southern states to spend five times as much on the education of one white child as on the education of a Negro child.
On the question of morale, the reply is devastating. The men know that they are not fighting for democracy. They did not live in a true democracy, they know they are not going back to any democracy! The Negro press refuses to take any apologetic attitude. While it argues the case for and against the charges, it states emphatically: If anything is wrong, you, the authorities, are responsible. This is a long way from the days when Negro publicists took examples of Negro excellence and boosted them to whites, hoping to achieve equality thereby.
So it is. But that is only one part of the story. In the integration which took place in the German campaign, men from Negro service battalions were trained, incorporated as combat troops, and won high opinions for themselves. The present case is different. If the 92nd is broken up and incorporated with white regiments, then however well the men fight, nothing will wash away the stain that the 92nd Division, as a Negro division, was a failure.
The labor movement should take note of these things. Such a struggle as the struggle of the Negro people for common justice in the Army can be used by capitalism to divide and disrupt the workers. The same struggle call be used by labor to strengthen and consolidate labor. The Negro struggle for just treatment in the Army is a struggle for democratic rights. And where anyone struggles for his own rights he struggles for the rights of all.
Top of the page
Last updated on 8 June 2016
|
./articles/Meyer-J.-(C.L.R.-James)/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.james-clr.works.1946.08.tenth3 | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">C.L.R. James</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>J.R. Johnson</h2>
<h4>One-Tenth of the Nation</h4>
<h1>“Law and Order” Wink at Lynch Terror in South</h1>
<h3>(26 August 1946)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info">From <strong>Labor Action</strong>, <a href="../../../../../history/etol/newspape/laboraction-ny/1946/index.htm#la10_34" target="new">Vol. X No. 34</a>, 26 August 1946, pp. 1 & 7.<br>
Transcribed & marked up by <a href="../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Marxists’ Internet Archive</strong>.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">There is a mounting wave of terror directed against Negroes.</p>
<p><em>Terror reigns in Athens, Ala. The probe into the recent outbreak was due to begin on Monday, August 19. Extra state policemen and local police were mobilized but the Negroes, 1,500 out of a population of 3,500, feared the worst They have not gone to the local theater to sit in their Jim Crow gallery. They were not seen in the shopping area on Saturday, August 17.</em></p>
<p>But in the streets Ku Klux Klan elements gather in groups and call for more mob action against the Negro ex-GI who, by defending himself against two white veterans, brought out the mob a week ago.</p>
<p>Typical of the attitude of the authorities is the following: The Southern Negro Youth Congress had sent Burnham, its executive secretary, from Birmingham to Athens by bus.</p>
<p><em>The State Safety Director informed leading Negro citizens of this fact. He said that he had been informed of Burnham’s trip by agents of the FBI. Burnham himself reported that his bus had been trailed by a highway patrol car for 14 miles and that he was shadowed by law officers wherever he went in Athens.</em></p>
<p>The FBI, the state highway patrol and the local law officers. See how efficient, effective and vigilant they are about the visit of an investigator. But twenty people will commit murder in Georgia and they cannot find one.</p>
<p><em>Law and order, state, federal and local, are on the side of the lynchers. That is the miserable, the shameful truth. And that constitutes the terror.</em></p>
<p>The Negro citizens report also that the State Safety Director gave them some advice. The advice was to tell Burnham “to get to hell out.”<br>
</p>
<h4>Two More Lynchings</h4>
<p class="fst">When such a situation exists in one town for miles around, a tremendous tension develops. Tens of thousands of people are affected.</p>
<p><em>On Saturday, August 17, came the news of two more lynchings – in North Carolina this time. J.C. Farmer, ex-GI, was shot down by a score of men in eight cars. James Walker was shot by a white filling station owner and his brother.</em></p>
<p>Note what happened. Farmer was standing waiting for a bus when a policeman ordered him into his car.</p>
<p>He said he had done nothing. The cop struck him on the head and a fight began. The officer’s gun went off, shooting the owner through the hand. An hour later the posse came up and shot Farmer full of bullets.</p>
<p>In Walker’s case he and Bill Craig had had a quarrel, just that, had had a quarrel.</p>
<p>The atmosphere is electric. Any slight quarrel can result in submission to unjustified arrest or resistance – and perhaps a lynching.<br>
</p>
<h4>Mississippi, Too!</h4>
<p class="fst">There has been another recent lynching of a Negro in Mississippi. The body was found floating in the river with the marks of blows on it. The name of the criminal is known.</p>
<p><em>Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, the news of these outrages spreads like wildfire, bringing a blight and gloom on the lives of millions of Negroes in the South. No one knows when, going about his daily business, he may step into some altercation or misunderstanding with a white man and no one knows what the result will be.</em></p>
<p>Take the following, which occurred on Sunday, August 18, and Monday, August 19:</p>
<p class="quoteb"><em>In Magee, Miss., on Monday, August 19, a posse of 200–300 officers and citizens was hunting a family of Negroes. Bloodhounds supported the combination of officers and citizens.</em></p>
<p class="fst">This is the story:</p>
<p>On Sunday, August 18, an automobile with white passengers attempted to pass an old truck with Negroes. Says the <strong>World-Telegram</strong> of August 19:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“As the automobile drew alongside, one of the Negroes jumped out of the truck and fired a shotgun into the car.”</p>
<p class="fst"><em>This MAY have happened. But in the South, particularly the deep South, the driver of a car, if he is white, can demand the right of way from a Negro driver, even if the Negro driver is legally entitled to it. Furthermore, it would be important to hear the testimony of the Negroes themselves. At any rate, the white men reported the incident to the city marshal and four of them went to a house where they thought they would find the Negroes. As they approached, the Negroes opened fire. The white men retreated with wounds. The Negroes fled and the chase began. That is the atmosphere.</em></p>
<p>But in the North also, in their own way, the authorities are encouraging Negro persecution.</p>
<p><em>For months now a gang of hoodlums in Greenwich Village has been molesting Negroes who live or work there. Members of the gang are known. Complaints have been made to the Mayor and Commissioner Wallander. Nothing has been done. A deputation led by Walter White of the NAACP visited the Mayor. He complained about “Communist” agitation. The hoodlums are not fools. They read this and become bolder.</em></p>
<p>Another more subtle piece of anti-Negro action has occurred in regard to a Long Island murder case. The grand jury has returned an indictment against Ward Beecher Caraway, a 23-year-old Negro veteran, for first-degree murder only. Now it will be remembered that this case, involving a wealthy Long Island family, created a great stir, and a whole wagonload of detectives were turned loose on it.</p>
<p>When Caraway was arrested he denied the charge of rape. But the police gave out the charge to the press and flaring headlines accused the Negro and (by implication) smeared the Negro population. Now suddenly the charge is dropped. Why?</p>
<p>It is rumored that Miss Logan and Caraway were previously acquainted and were friendly overseas. This obviously throws a different light on the whole case.</p>
<p><em>But now the police step in. They deplore the idea that any Negro organizations should intervene in the case. This, they say, would only focus attention on the race angle. They, on the other hand, claim to be treating Caraway as an individual. It is the technique of the FBI and the state police in Athens, Ala., transferred to Long Island. Tell Burnham “to get to hell out.”</em></p>
<p>This is NOT only a question of Negroes. These are the symptoms of a social order diseased, a population restless and dissatisfied and a government which does not bestir itself when social tensions work themselves out at the expense of a persecuted minority. The labor movement must act.</p>
<p><em>If this violence continues unchecked and the apathy and connivance of the government continues, then a pattern is being set and a foundation laid for violence against organized labor itself.</em></p>
<p>We have repeatedly seen this in countries abroad. And the U.S. is no exception to the law that the only consistent guardians and defenders of democracy today are the organized labor movements.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on 8 July 2019</p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > C.L.R. James
J.R. Johnson
One-Tenth of the Nation
“Law and Order” Wink at Lynch Terror in South
(26 August 1946)
From Labor Action, Vol. X No. 34, 26 August 1946, pp. 1 & 7.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
There is a mounting wave of terror directed against Negroes.
Terror reigns in Athens, Ala. The probe into the recent outbreak was due to begin on Monday, August 19. Extra state policemen and local police were mobilized but the Negroes, 1,500 out of a population of 3,500, feared the worst They have not gone to the local theater to sit in their Jim Crow gallery. They were not seen in the shopping area on Saturday, August 17.
But in the streets Ku Klux Klan elements gather in groups and call for more mob action against the Negro ex-GI who, by defending himself against two white veterans, brought out the mob a week ago.
Typical of the attitude of the authorities is the following: The Southern Negro Youth Congress had sent Burnham, its executive secretary, from Birmingham to Athens by bus.
The State Safety Director informed leading Negro citizens of this fact. He said that he had been informed of Burnham’s trip by agents of the FBI. Burnham himself reported that his bus had been trailed by a highway patrol car for 14 miles and that he was shadowed by law officers wherever he went in Athens.
The FBI, the state highway patrol and the local law officers. See how efficient, effective and vigilant they are about the visit of an investigator. But twenty people will commit murder in Georgia and they cannot find one.
Law and order, state, federal and local, are on the side of the lynchers. That is the miserable, the shameful truth. And that constitutes the terror.
The Negro citizens report also that the State Safety Director gave them some advice. The advice was to tell Burnham “to get to hell out.”
Two More Lynchings
When such a situation exists in one town for miles around, a tremendous tension develops. Tens of thousands of people are affected.
On Saturday, August 17, came the news of two more lynchings – in North Carolina this time. J.C. Farmer, ex-GI, was shot down by a score of men in eight cars. James Walker was shot by a white filling station owner and his brother.
Note what happened. Farmer was standing waiting for a bus when a policeman ordered him into his car.
He said he had done nothing. The cop struck him on the head and a fight began. The officer’s gun went off, shooting the owner through the hand. An hour later the posse came up and shot Farmer full of bullets.
In Walker’s case he and Bill Craig had had a quarrel, just that, had had a quarrel.
The atmosphere is electric. Any slight quarrel can result in submission to unjustified arrest or resistance – and perhaps a lynching.
Mississippi, Too!
There has been another recent lynching of a Negro in Mississippi. The body was found floating in the river with the marks of blows on it. The name of the criminal is known.
Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, the news of these outrages spreads like wildfire, bringing a blight and gloom on the lives of millions of Negroes in the South. No one knows when, going about his daily business, he may step into some altercation or misunderstanding with a white man and no one knows what the result will be.
Take the following, which occurred on Sunday, August 18, and Monday, August 19:
In Magee, Miss., on Monday, August 19, a posse of 200–300 officers and citizens was hunting a family of Negroes. Bloodhounds supported the combination of officers and citizens.
This is the story:
On Sunday, August 18, an automobile with white passengers attempted to pass an old truck with Negroes. Says the World-Telegram of August 19:
“As the automobile drew alongside, one of the Negroes jumped out of the truck and fired a shotgun into the car.”
This MAY have happened. But in the South, particularly the deep South, the driver of a car, if he is white, can demand the right of way from a Negro driver, even if the Negro driver is legally entitled to it. Furthermore, it would be important to hear the testimony of the Negroes themselves. At any rate, the white men reported the incident to the city marshal and four of them went to a house where they thought they would find the Negroes. As they approached, the Negroes opened fire. The white men retreated with wounds. The Negroes fled and the chase began. That is the atmosphere.
But in the North also, in their own way, the authorities are encouraging Negro persecution.
For months now a gang of hoodlums in Greenwich Village has been molesting Negroes who live or work there. Members of the gang are known. Complaints have been made to the Mayor and Commissioner Wallander. Nothing has been done. A deputation led by Walter White of the NAACP visited the Mayor. He complained about “Communist” agitation. The hoodlums are not fools. They read this and become bolder.
Another more subtle piece of anti-Negro action has occurred in regard to a Long Island murder case. The grand jury has returned an indictment against Ward Beecher Caraway, a 23-year-old Negro veteran, for first-degree murder only. Now it will be remembered that this case, involving a wealthy Long Island family, created a great stir, and a whole wagonload of detectives were turned loose on it.
When Caraway was arrested he denied the charge of rape. But the police gave out the charge to the press and flaring headlines accused the Negro and (by implication) smeared the Negro population. Now suddenly the charge is dropped. Why?
It is rumored that Miss Logan and Caraway were previously acquainted and were friendly overseas. This obviously throws a different light on the whole case.
But now the police step in. They deplore the idea that any Negro organizations should intervene in the case. This, they say, would only focus attention on the race angle. They, on the other hand, claim to be treating Caraway as an individual. It is the technique of the FBI and the state police in Athens, Ala., transferred to Long Island. Tell Burnham “to get to hell out.”
This is NOT only a question of Negroes. These are the symptoms of a social order diseased, a population restless and dissatisfied and a government which does not bestir itself when social tensions work themselves out at the expense of a persecuted minority. The labor movement must act.
If this violence continues unchecked and the apathy and connivance of the government continues, then a pattern is being set and a foundation laid for violence against organized labor itself.
We have repeatedly seen this in countries abroad. And the U.S. is no exception to the law that the only consistent guardians and defenders of democracy today are the organized labor movements.
Top of the page
Last updated on 8 July 2019
|
./articles/Meyer-J.-(C.L.R.-James)/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.james-clr.works.1948.02.segregation | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">C.L.R. James</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>J.R. Johnson</h2>
<h1>Bourbon Campaign to Keep Jim Crow in Education</h1>
<h3>(2 February 1948)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info">
</p><hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info"><span class="info">Source:</span> <strong>The Militant</strong>, <a href="../../../../../history/etol/newspape/themilitant/1948/index.htm#m48_05" target="new">Vol. XII No. 5</a>, 2 February 1948, p. 4.<br>
<span class="info">Source:</span> PDF supplied by the <em>Riazanov Library Project</em>.<br>
<span class="info">Transcription/Mark-up:</span> <a href="../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Marxists’ Internet Archive</strong>.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">Persecution of the Negro people is the most irrational, the most unjustifiable, the most flagrantly undemocratic feature of American life. As the social crisis deepens Negro issues rise up to confuse, confound and expose the pretensions of the traditional social and political groupings in the country.</p>
<p>Faced with the case of Ada Lois Sipuel, the Supreme Court made a dramatic gesture of ordering the State of Oklahoma to produce a law school for this Negro girl or admit her into the regular school. This school has hitherto admitted only white students and had refused her application two years ago. The State of Oklahoma had only a few days- to admit her or provide the monstrosity of a law faculty for one student.</p>
<p>The apparent decisiveness of the court ruling created a great stir in the press. The liberals, as is customary with them, hailed this as a great victory for the democratic process. They saw visions of the achievement of Negro equality by process of law. They were somewhat disturbed by the fact that the Supreme Court carefully avoided pronouncing on the principle of segregation. But they comforted themselves with the fact that one of the justices had declared that a law school of one student was not a law school.</p>
<p>Now Oklahoma state officials have proceeded to set up a separate Negro “law school” with a 3-man faculty.</p>
<p><em>The Southern persecutors of the Negro people are already embarked on a vast scheme for circumventing the Supreme Court, taking advantage of its evasions, and continuing their persecution of the Negro people. Aware of the growing pressure for higher education among the Negroes, and conscious of the absurdity and expense of providing whole faculties for half a dozen students in each state, the Southerners now propose to open regional schools for Negro higher education, supported by groups of Southern states. As usual they are aided and abetted by powerful interests in the North.</em></p>
<p>In the <strong>Saturday Evening Post</strong> of Jan. 24, the scheme is launched in a nauseating article, full of superficial gestures towards Negro equality. The dearth of Negro doctors is deplored and a solution is proposed. Meharry Medical College is one of the two grade A higher medical schools in the country (Howard University is the other). Together they have turned out about 85% of all Negro doctors now practicing. Meharry is an 8 million dollar institution, with a yearly budget of a million dollars. It is run mainly by whites.<br>
</p>
<h4>“Realistic” Segregation</h4>
<p class="fst">Now Meharry is – or claims that it is – faced with bankruptcy. Last fall the Southern Governors Conference proposed to take over Meharry, finance it by fixed contributions from all Southern states who wish to send Negro students there, and expand its facilities. The <strong>Saturday Evening Post</strong> article takes a “realistic” view. Of course, segregation is deplorable. But inasmuch as there is no immediate probability of ending educational segregation in the South the proposal seems to the <strong>Post</strong> a good one.</p>
<p><em>It is obvious that the decision of the Supreme Court in regard to the Oklahoma law school will spur this plan, not only in medicine, but in every other field. By evading the issue of segregation the Supreme Court encourages the movement toward regional schools.</em></p>
<p>The Southern Governors do not rely only on propaganda. They employ bribery and corruption as well. Already Meharry has students whose fees are paid by the states. These we can be sure will be increased. But there is an even bigger bait. Negro professors, doctors and scientists will have dangled before them the prospect of being placed in charge of a large institution like Meharry with all the prerequisites and prestige such posts carry. There is a notorious vested Negro interest in such segregation projects.</p>
<p><em>It is notorious, also, that segregation always results in discrimination and lower standards than those prevailing in similar institutions for whites. But already the Negro capitulators are praising the prospects of the project, under the banner of realism. No doubt if the scheme goes through they will receive their reward. And Jim Crow will flourish more vigorously than ever.</em></p>
<p>The sentiment of many Negroes is overwhelmingly against such projects. A few benefit. But that is nothing compared to the entrenchment of the Southern system. The decision on the Oklahoma case with its evasion of the segregation issue will only spur on the Southern governors. The short-sighted celebration of the decision as a great milestone in the progress of democracy merely shows how superficially many liberals view both democracy and its unending persecution and cheating of the Negro people.</p>
<p>There is no short cut to the ending of this vicious circle whereby a hard-fought victory is so often turned into a still greater defeat, through the economic and social power of the Southern Bourbons and their allies. Nothing less is needed than an undeviating assault on the whole Southern system, and the Congress and Courts of Justice which manipulate legislation to support the system on the one hand, and fool the Negro people on the other. <em>A Labor Party and a Workers and Farmers Government aiming at the total abolition of the whole system is what is required. Organized labor alone can lead such a political movement. The Negroes who see their efforts and sacrifices so often ignored or twisted against them have everything to wan, including the defeat of self-seekers in their own ranks, by throwing their energies, and passion into the formation of such a party.</em></p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on 8 October 2020</p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > C.L.R. James
J.R. Johnson
Bourbon Campaign to Keep Jim Crow in Education
(2 February 1948)
Source: The Militant, Vol. XII No. 5, 2 February 1948, p. 4.
Source: PDF supplied by the Riazanov Library Project.
Transcription/Mark-up: Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
Persecution of the Negro people is the most irrational, the most unjustifiable, the most flagrantly undemocratic feature of American life. As the social crisis deepens Negro issues rise up to confuse, confound and expose the pretensions of the traditional social and political groupings in the country.
Faced with the case of Ada Lois Sipuel, the Supreme Court made a dramatic gesture of ordering the State of Oklahoma to produce a law school for this Negro girl or admit her into the regular school. This school has hitherto admitted only white students and had refused her application two years ago. The State of Oklahoma had only a few days- to admit her or provide the monstrosity of a law faculty for one student.
The apparent decisiveness of the court ruling created a great stir in the press. The liberals, as is customary with them, hailed this as a great victory for the democratic process. They saw visions of the achievement of Negro equality by process of law. They were somewhat disturbed by the fact that the Supreme Court carefully avoided pronouncing on the principle of segregation. But they comforted themselves with the fact that one of the justices had declared that a law school of one student was not a law school.
Now Oklahoma state officials have proceeded to set up a separate Negro “law school” with a 3-man faculty.
The Southern persecutors of the Negro people are already embarked on a vast scheme for circumventing the Supreme Court, taking advantage of its evasions, and continuing their persecution of the Negro people. Aware of the growing pressure for higher education among the Negroes, and conscious of the absurdity and expense of providing whole faculties for half a dozen students in each state, the Southerners now propose to open regional schools for Negro higher education, supported by groups of Southern states. As usual they are aided and abetted by powerful interests in the North.
In the Saturday Evening Post of Jan. 24, the scheme is launched in a nauseating article, full of superficial gestures towards Negro equality. The dearth of Negro doctors is deplored and a solution is proposed. Meharry Medical College is one of the two grade A higher medical schools in the country (Howard University is the other). Together they have turned out about 85% of all Negro doctors now practicing. Meharry is an 8 million dollar institution, with a yearly budget of a million dollars. It is run mainly by whites.
“Realistic” Segregation
Now Meharry is – or claims that it is – faced with bankruptcy. Last fall the Southern Governors Conference proposed to take over Meharry, finance it by fixed contributions from all Southern states who wish to send Negro students there, and expand its facilities. The Saturday Evening Post article takes a “realistic” view. Of course, segregation is deplorable. But inasmuch as there is no immediate probability of ending educational segregation in the South the proposal seems to the Post a good one.
It is obvious that the decision of the Supreme Court in regard to the Oklahoma law school will spur this plan, not only in medicine, but in every other field. By evading the issue of segregation the Supreme Court encourages the movement toward regional schools.
The Southern Governors do not rely only on propaganda. They employ bribery and corruption as well. Already Meharry has students whose fees are paid by the states. These we can be sure will be increased. But there is an even bigger bait. Negro professors, doctors and scientists will have dangled before them the prospect of being placed in charge of a large institution like Meharry with all the prerequisites and prestige such posts carry. There is a notorious vested Negro interest in such segregation projects.
It is notorious, also, that segregation always results in discrimination and lower standards than those prevailing in similar institutions for whites. But already the Negro capitulators are praising the prospects of the project, under the banner of realism. No doubt if the scheme goes through they will receive their reward. And Jim Crow will flourish more vigorously than ever.
The sentiment of many Negroes is overwhelmingly against such projects. A few benefit. But that is nothing compared to the entrenchment of the Southern system. The decision on the Oklahoma case with its evasion of the segregation issue will only spur on the Southern governors. The short-sighted celebration of the decision as a great milestone in the progress of democracy merely shows how superficially many liberals view both democracy and its unending persecution and cheating of the Negro people.
There is no short cut to the ending of this vicious circle whereby a hard-fought victory is so often turned into a still greater defeat, through the economic and social power of the Southern Bourbons and their allies. Nothing less is needed than an undeviating assault on the whole Southern system, and the Congress and Courts of Justice which manipulate legislation to support the system on the one hand, and fool the Negro people on the other. A Labor Party and a Workers and Farmers Government aiming at the total abolition of the whole system is what is required. Organized labor alone can lead such a political movement. The Negroes who see their efforts and sacrifices so often ignored or twisted against them have everything to wan, including the defeat of self-seekers in their own ranks, by throwing their energies, and passion into the formation of such a party.
Top of the page
Last updated on 8 October 2020
|
./articles/Meyer-J.-(C.L.R.-James)/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.james-clr.works.1948.03.malraux | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">C.L.R. James</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>G.F. Eckstein</h2>
<h1>Malraux, with Aid of <em>Times</em>, Slanders Trotskyism</h1>
<h3>(1 March 1948)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info">
</p><hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info"><span class="info">Source:</span> <strong>The Militant</strong>, <a href="../../../../../history/etol/newspape/themilitant/1948/index.htm#m48_09" target="new">Vol. 12 No. 9</a>, 1 March 1948, pp. 1 & 4.<br>
<span class="info">Source:</span> PDF supplied by the <em>Riazanov Library Project</em>.<br>
<span class="info">Transcription/Mark-up:</span> <a href="../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Marxists’ Internet Archive</strong>.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">All over Europe, particularly France, many former Socialists and ex-radicals are eager to serve as agents of American imperialism and its native allies. They plump for the Marshall Plan, collaborate with all the reactionary sections of the ruling class. But to be really effective they have to maintain the confidence of the workers.</p>
<p>To lull suspicion, they seek to cover up their present crimes by their previous connections with the labor movement. And Wall Street is not at all adverse to lending them a helping hand now and then.</p>
<p><em>One of the most notorious of these renegades among the intellectuals is André Malraux, well-known French novelist. After many years of service to the Kremlin, Malraux has joined de Gaulle’s fascist-minded party, “The Rally of the French People.”</em> Malraux now wants to refurbish himself in order to facilitate the passage of Social Democrats and ex-revolutionists to this new reactionary movement in France, and to facilitate acceptance of it in the United States.<br>
</p>
<h4>Lies and Slander</h4>
<p class="fst">The <strong>N.Y. Times</strong> correspondent C.L. Sulzberger helps out Malraux by his Feb. 14 <strong>Times</strong> article. Sulzberger’s article is full of inaccuracies and downright slanders both about the current policies and the past history of the Trotskyist movement. It seeks to link up Malraux with Trotsky himself. And the name of the deceased Victor Serge is dragged in for the same purpose. On top of this, it is stated that “there is a segment of French Trotskyism who would be inclined” – to follow and support de Gaulle-Malraux.</p>
<p><em>What connection did Malraux have with Trotskyism? His political connections were with the Kremlin. He took part in the Chinese Revolution of 1925–27 and embodied his experiences in a novel, <strong>Man’s Fate</strong>. Trotsky warmly reviewed it, but at the same time ruthlessly exposed the perfidious Stalinist policy in China, supported by Malraux.</em></p>
<p>Later Malraux visited Trotsky in France, publishing an account of his visit in the <strong>Modern Quarterly</strong> (March 1935). Here he expressed some Platonic sympathies for Trotsky.</p>
<p>But even this literary enthusiasm was short-lived. The Moscow Frameup Trials and the Spanish Civil War proved a turning point for Malraux. as for so many other intellectuals. He went to Spain and in the beginning of 1937 came to the U.S., soliciting aid for the Spanish Republic.<br>
</p>
<h4>Help the Kremlin</h4>
<p class="fst">At that time the Dewey Commission of Inquiry – which later completely vindicated Leon Trotsky and his son, Lev Sedov, and condemned the Moscow Trials as a gigantic judicial frameup – was starting its work.</p>
<p>Trotsky at the time accused Malraux of coming to the US for the purpose of aiding the Kremlin in stifling this movement to unmask its crimes. Trotsky also pointed out that Malraux had worked hand in hand with the Stalinists in China, just as he was doing in Spain.</p>
<p>These accusations appeared in a UP dispatch from Mexico, March 8. 1937. They, together with Malraux’s reply, were published in the <strong>Nation</strong>, March 27, 1937.</p>
<p><em>Malraux claimed that Trotsky’s attack was due solely to Malraux’s political differences with Trotsky on Spain and accused Trotsky of being ready “to hurl any accusations to dramatize his personal conflicts.” This was the sum-total of Malraux’s “Trotskyism.”</em></p>
<p>Malraux took part in the resistance movement during Hitler’s occupation of France, and, after the expulsion of the Germans, appeared in the cabinet of de Gaulle as Minister of Information. In that post he refused to issue a publication license to the French Trotskyist paper <strong>La Verité</strong>.</p>
<p>The fascistic aims of de Gaulle and his “corporate state,” are now no secret. Malraux therefore is in desperate need of using his past to deceive the workers about his present politics. According to Sulzberger, Malraux “always says that had Leon Trotsky won his party battle with Joseph Stalin, he himself would today be a Trotskyite Communist.” Not only Malraux but many others would have gladly attached themselves to a victorious state-power.<br>
</p>
<h4>Uses Serge</h4>
<p class="fst"><em>Malraux uses another device. Sulzberger quotes extensively from a letter shown to him by Malraux, allegedly written by Victor Serge. The quotations, though lengthy, are not precise. But there is no mistaking what they indicate and still less what use Malraux is making of them.</em> Serge reportedly hails de Gaulle’s electoral successes, states that he endorses Malraux’s political position and indicates that were he in France he would do what Malraux is doing, i.e., “collaborate” with de Gaulle. The use of this letter shows that Malraux is aiming not only at the French workers but at his American public which is fittingly aghast at his new political role. But Malraux will not be able to cover himself with the name of Serge whose friendship with Trotsky is heavily emphasized in Sulzberger’s article.<br>
</p>
<h4>Serge and Trotskyism</h4>
<p class="fst">Victor Serge was a distinguished revolutionary and writer of many years’ standing. After taking part in revolutionary struggles in Europe he went to Russia, worked with the Bolsheviks, and joined the Trotskyist Left Opposition. He bore himself heroically against the Stalinist persecution of all supporters of Trotskyism. Through his reputation abroad and the pressure of his friends, he was able to get out of Russia and to expose the crimes of Stalinism.</p>
<p><em>But for Serge, too, the Spanish Revolution was a decisive turning point in his relations with Trotskyism. Victor Serge publicly became a member of the POUM, a party which joined the Popular Front and carried out a vacillating policy. The break between Serge and Trotsky soon assumed an extremely sharp and well-publicized form.</em></p>
<p>Trotsky took every opportunity to denounce publicly Serge’s political theories and policies especially in relation to Spain. Thus he wrote in 1938: “Serge plays with the concept of revolution, writes poems about it, but is incapable of understanding it as it is.” The sharpness of the polemic and its comprehensive character show how necessary Trotsky thought it to break all political ties with Serge. All this appeared in the Pioneer Press edition of <strong>Their Morals and Ours</strong>.</p>
<p><em>Sulzberger, however, writes of Serge that in Mexico ‘‘he was a great friend of Trotsky until the latter was assassinated.” After 1938 Serge could not possibly have been “a great friend” of Trotsky in any place. It also happens that Serge arrived in Mexico after Trotsky was murdered.</em></p>
<p>As for the pretense that there are French Trotskyists who would consider Serge’s letter as a good reason to “the left” to join de Gaulle, it is a brazen lie in the GPU manner. The French Trotskyist movement knows de Gaulle for what he is, the mortal enemy of the French proletariat, and is in the vanguard of the struggle against him.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on 8 October 2020</p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > C.L.R. James
G.F. Eckstein
Malraux, with Aid of Times, Slanders Trotskyism
(1 March 1948)
Source: The Militant, Vol. 12 No. 9, 1 March 1948, pp. 1 & 4.
Source: PDF supplied by the Riazanov Library Project.
Transcription/Mark-up: Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
All over Europe, particularly France, many former Socialists and ex-radicals are eager to serve as agents of American imperialism and its native allies. They plump for the Marshall Plan, collaborate with all the reactionary sections of the ruling class. But to be really effective they have to maintain the confidence of the workers.
To lull suspicion, they seek to cover up their present crimes by their previous connections with the labor movement. And Wall Street is not at all adverse to lending them a helping hand now and then.
One of the most notorious of these renegades among the intellectuals is André Malraux, well-known French novelist. After many years of service to the Kremlin, Malraux has joined de Gaulle’s fascist-minded party, “The Rally of the French People.” Malraux now wants to refurbish himself in order to facilitate the passage of Social Democrats and ex-revolutionists to this new reactionary movement in France, and to facilitate acceptance of it in the United States.
Lies and Slander
The N.Y. Times correspondent C.L. Sulzberger helps out Malraux by his Feb. 14 Times article. Sulzberger’s article is full of inaccuracies and downright slanders both about the current policies and the past history of the Trotskyist movement. It seeks to link up Malraux with Trotsky himself. And the name of the deceased Victor Serge is dragged in for the same purpose. On top of this, it is stated that “there is a segment of French Trotskyism who would be inclined” – to follow and support de Gaulle-Malraux.
What connection did Malraux have with Trotskyism? His political connections were with the Kremlin. He took part in the Chinese Revolution of 1925–27 and embodied his experiences in a novel, Man’s Fate. Trotsky warmly reviewed it, but at the same time ruthlessly exposed the perfidious Stalinist policy in China, supported by Malraux.
Later Malraux visited Trotsky in France, publishing an account of his visit in the Modern Quarterly (March 1935). Here he expressed some Platonic sympathies for Trotsky.
But even this literary enthusiasm was short-lived. The Moscow Frameup Trials and the Spanish Civil War proved a turning point for Malraux. as for so many other intellectuals. He went to Spain and in the beginning of 1937 came to the U.S., soliciting aid for the Spanish Republic.
Help the Kremlin
At that time the Dewey Commission of Inquiry – which later completely vindicated Leon Trotsky and his son, Lev Sedov, and condemned the Moscow Trials as a gigantic judicial frameup – was starting its work.
Trotsky at the time accused Malraux of coming to the US for the purpose of aiding the Kremlin in stifling this movement to unmask its crimes. Trotsky also pointed out that Malraux had worked hand in hand with the Stalinists in China, just as he was doing in Spain.
These accusations appeared in a UP dispatch from Mexico, March 8. 1937. They, together with Malraux’s reply, were published in the Nation, March 27, 1937.
Malraux claimed that Trotsky’s attack was due solely to Malraux’s political differences with Trotsky on Spain and accused Trotsky of being ready “to hurl any accusations to dramatize his personal conflicts.” This was the sum-total of Malraux’s “Trotskyism.”
Malraux took part in the resistance movement during Hitler’s occupation of France, and, after the expulsion of the Germans, appeared in the cabinet of de Gaulle as Minister of Information. In that post he refused to issue a publication license to the French Trotskyist paper La Verité.
The fascistic aims of de Gaulle and his “corporate state,” are now no secret. Malraux therefore is in desperate need of using his past to deceive the workers about his present politics. According to Sulzberger, Malraux “always says that had Leon Trotsky won his party battle with Joseph Stalin, he himself would today be a Trotskyite Communist.” Not only Malraux but many others would have gladly attached themselves to a victorious state-power.
Uses Serge
Malraux uses another device. Sulzberger quotes extensively from a letter shown to him by Malraux, allegedly written by Victor Serge. The quotations, though lengthy, are not precise. But there is no mistaking what they indicate and still less what use Malraux is making of them. Serge reportedly hails de Gaulle’s electoral successes, states that he endorses Malraux’s political position and indicates that were he in France he would do what Malraux is doing, i.e., “collaborate” with de Gaulle. The use of this letter shows that Malraux is aiming not only at the French workers but at his American public which is fittingly aghast at his new political role. But Malraux will not be able to cover himself with the name of Serge whose friendship with Trotsky is heavily emphasized in Sulzberger’s article.
Serge and Trotskyism
Victor Serge was a distinguished revolutionary and writer of many years’ standing. After taking part in revolutionary struggles in Europe he went to Russia, worked with the Bolsheviks, and joined the Trotskyist Left Opposition. He bore himself heroically against the Stalinist persecution of all supporters of Trotskyism. Through his reputation abroad and the pressure of his friends, he was able to get out of Russia and to expose the crimes of Stalinism.
But for Serge, too, the Spanish Revolution was a decisive turning point in his relations with Trotskyism. Victor Serge publicly became a member of the POUM, a party which joined the Popular Front and carried out a vacillating policy. The break between Serge and Trotsky soon assumed an extremely sharp and well-publicized form.
Trotsky took every opportunity to denounce publicly Serge’s political theories and policies especially in relation to Spain. Thus he wrote in 1938: “Serge plays with the concept of revolution, writes poems about it, but is incapable of understanding it as it is.” The sharpness of the polemic and its comprehensive character show how necessary Trotsky thought it to break all political ties with Serge. All this appeared in the Pioneer Press edition of Their Morals and Ours.
Sulzberger, however, writes of Serge that in Mexico ‘‘he was a great friend of Trotsky until the latter was assassinated.” After 1938 Serge could not possibly have been “a great friend” of Trotsky in any place. It also happens that Serge arrived in Mexico after Trotsky was murdered.
As for the pretense that there are French Trotskyists who would consider Serge’s letter as a good reason to “the left” to join de Gaulle, it is a brazen lie in the GPU manner. The French Trotskyist movement knows de Gaulle for what he is, the mortal enemy of the French proletariat, and is in the vanguard of the struggle against him.
Top of the page
Last updated on 8 October 2020
|
./articles/Meyer-J.-(C.L.R.-James)/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.james-clr.works.1947.09.naacp | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">C.L.R. James</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>J.R. Johnson</h2>
<h1>The Rapid Growth of the NAACP</h1>
<h3>(September 1947)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info">Originally published in <strong>The Militant</strong>, 22 September 1947.<br>
Republished in Scott McLemee (ed.), <strong>C.L.R. James on the “Negro Question”</strong>, Jackson (Miss.) 1996, pp. 48–50.<br>
Transcribed by Daniel Gaido.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Marxists’ Internet Archive</strong>.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">The NAACP, I am informed, now has close to one million members. I doubt if many people know this. And I am pretty certain that if they do, few except the Marxists can understand what it means. It is one of the surest signs of the insoluble social crisis in the United States.</p>
<p>This growth has taken place during the last 12 years. In 1935, the membership was quite insignificant. In 1939, it was about 300,000. By 1943, it was half a million. And now, in 1947, it is almost one million. The Negro population is only 15 million. There is a small number of whites in the NAACP. The large majority of the membership is Negro. And when one out of every fifteen of the Negroes in the United States joins an organization aiming at the destruction of Negro oppression and discrimination, that becomes an indication of a tremendous social ferment in the nation as a whole.</p>
<p>What is it that has moved these Negroes to this tremendous mobilization? The answer is simple. There is obviously a dislocation of the whole social order which drives them towards unifying their forces for struggle. They are impelled toward the search for solidarity because they realize that all the great problems of the nation and of the Negro minority are now being posed. They gird themselves for a solution of their own.</p>
<p>Look at those two dates again, 1935 to 1947. To any Marxist student of American life, those dates must immediately call to mind the formation of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). Precisely during this time when the Negroes were just beginning to organize themselves, the labor movement of the United States accomplished one of the most astonishing mobilizations in the history of the working class.</p>
<p>The proletariat, in some of its deepest layers, felt that the foundations of American society were cracking under its feet, instinctively the long-overdue organization of industrial unions appeared out of the depths of dislocated capitalist society. If the CIO is a response of labor to the crisis of American society, then the organization of the Negroes in the NAACP is a response which has the same roots. Both were the reaction of Americans to the crisis of the American environment.</p>
<p>The NAACP response is not so much a Negro as an American phenomenon. But precisely because these Americans are Negroes, the mass mobilizations assume the astounding ratio of roughly one out of every fifteen Negroes in the nation. The Negroes are more bitterly oppressed, more disgusted, more humiliated, than any other section of the population. That is the reason why they react so strongly to the stimuli of disintegrating society.</p>
<p>That is what is important, the mass movement towards organizations. It expresses the sense that the conditions are intolerable; that the possibility of change exists; that it is necessary to act. Whenever hundreds of thousands of people take action of any significant kind, that is an infallible sign of social contradictions expressing themselves.</p>
<p>That being said, however, it is now possible to say certain other things. The NAACP, as led by Walter White and his fellow-fakers, is an organization miserably inadequate for the great cause it is designed to serve. For years, it has distinguished itself by its inability to mobilize its followers for mass action. It has done useful work in publicizing such barbarisms as lynching. It has fought cases in the courts. It has carried out a strictly legalistic type of propaganda and agitation.</p>
<p>Militant Negroes have long recognized the NAACP’s fear of mass action. Today the same leaders are in the saddle and with their long training, they undoubtedly wish nothing more than to carry on in the manner which has distinguished them in the past.</p>
<p>But history is overtaking them. An organization of one million is vastly different from an organization of one thousand. Furthermore, the Negro population in the United States is predominately proletarian or semi-proletarian. The moment you read a ratio like 1 in 15, it means that a substantial number of that million consists of working class families.</p>
<p>The very size of the organization gives confidence to its membership. They have not joined in order to send more telegrams to Washington or to make more cases before the Supreme Court. They want action. The NAACP is therefore in a state of turmoil. The membership is pressing for action. The leadership searches for some sort of program. It is impossible to give any forecast as to what the result will be.</p>
<p>For the time being, however, this much can be said. The fate of the extraordinary mass movement rests with the great social forces of the nation. This growth of the NAACP is not an accident; it represents the Negro mobilization following World War II which corresponds to the Negro mobilization that followed World War I. That mobilization was the Garvey movement. It took the extravagant form that it did precisely because there was not at that time in the United States an organized labor movement which could stand before the nation as the potential leader of all the oppressed. Today, that is not so. The Negro people as a whole believe in the CIO more than they believe in any social organization in the nation. In the industrial towns many of the members of the NAACP are good union men. Their education in the union movement has not lessened, but sharpened, their consciousness of their oppression as Negroes. They have heretofore joined the struggle of the NAACP as the most convenient medium for carrying on their own special struggle. It was the social crisis which precipitated the CIO into existence. It was the social crisis which has precipitated the phenomenal growth of the NAACP.</p>
<p>The deepening of the crisis will drive the American proletariat on to the road of political action on a scale corresponding to the social explosion which was the CIO. Any such movement will most certainly bring in its train convulsions in the NAACP. The solidity of American capitalist society is undermined, and under our eyes the forces that are to overthrow it are slowly but surely preparing themselves for the gigantic explosions which will usher in the actual revolutionary crisis.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on <!-- WebWriter AutoDato -->17.7.2011<!-- WW --></p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > C.L.R. James
J.R. Johnson
The Rapid Growth of the NAACP
(September 1947)
Originally published in The Militant, 22 September 1947.
Republished in Scott McLemee (ed.), C.L.R. James on the “Negro Question”, Jackson (Miss.) 1996, pp. 48–50.
Transcribed by Daniel Gaido.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
The NAACP, I am informed, now has close to one million members. I doubt if many people know this. And I am pretty certain that if they do, few except the Marxists can understand what it means. It is one of the surest signs of the insoluble social crisis in the United States.
This growth has taken place during the last 12 years. In 1935, the membership was quite insignificant. In 1939, it was about 300,000. By 1943, it was half a million. And now, in 1947, it is almost one million. The Negro population is only 15 million. There is a small number of whites in the NAACP. The large majority of the membership is Negro. And when one out of every fifteen of the Negroes in the United States joins an organization aiming at the destruction of Negro oppression and discrimination, that becomes an indication of a tremendous social ferment in the nation as a whole.
What is it that has moved these Negroes to this tremendous mobilization? The answer is simple. There is obviously a dislocation of the whole social order which drives them towards unifying their forces for struggle. They are impelled toward the search for solidarity because they realize that all the great problems of the nation and of the Negro minority are now being posed. They gird themselves for a solution of their own.
Look at those two dates again, 1935 to 1947. To any Marxist student of American life, those dates must immediately call to mind the formation of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). Precisely during this time when the Negroes were just beginning to organize themselves, the labor movement of the United States accomplished one of the most astonishing mobilizations in the history of the working class.
The proletariat, in some of its deepest layers, felt that the foundations of American society were cracking under its feet, instinctively the long-overdue organization of industrial unions appeared out of the depths of dislocated capitalist society. If the CIO is a response of labor to the crisis of American society, then the organization of the Negroes in the NAACP is a response which has the same roots. Both were the reaction of Americans to the crisis of the American environment.
The NAACP response is not so much a Negro as an American phenomenon. But precisely because these Americans are Negroes, the mass mobilizations assume the astounding ratio of roughly one out of every fifteen Negroes in the nation. The Negroes are more bitterly oppressed, more disgusted, more humiliated, than any other section of the population. That is the reason why they react so strongly to the stimuli of disintegrating society.
That is what is important, the mass movement towards organizations. It expresses the sense that the conditions are intolerable; that the possibility of change exists; that it is necessary to act. Whenever hundreds of thousands of people take action of any significant kind, that is an infallible sign of social contradictions expressing themselves.
That being said, however, it is now possible to say certain other things. The NAACP, as led by Walter White and his fellow-fakers, is an organization miserably inadequate for the great cause it is designed to serve. For years, it has distinguished itself by its inability to mobilize its followers for mass action. It has done useful work in publicizing such barbarisms as lynching. It has fought cases in the courts. It has carried out a strictly legalistic type of propaganda and agitation.
Militant Negroes have long recognized the NAACP’s fear of mass action. Today the same leaders are in the saddle and with their long training, they undoubtedly wish nothing more than to carry on in the manner which has distinguished them in the past.
But history is overtaking them. An organization of one million is vastly different from an organization of one thousand. Furthermore, the Negro population in the United States is predominately proletarian or semi-proletarian. The moment you read a ratio like 1 in 15, it means that a substantial number of that million consists of working class families.
The very size of the organization gives confidence to its membership. They have not joined in order to send more telegrams to Washington or to make more cases before the Supreme Court. They want action. The NAACP is therefore in a state of turmoil. The membership is pressing for action. The leadership searches for some sort of program. It is impossible to give any forecast as to what the result will be.
For the time being, however, this much can be said. The fate of the extraordinary mass movement rests with the great social forces of the nation. This growth of the NAACP is not an accident; it represents the Negro mobilization following World War II which corresponds to the Negro mobilization that followed World War I. That mobilization was the Garvey movement. It took the extravagant form that it did precisely because there was not at that time in the United States an organized labor movement which could stand before the nation as the potential leader of all the oppressed. Today, that is not so. The Negro people as a whole believe in the CIO more than they believe in any social organization in the nation. In the industrial towns many of the members of the NAACP are good union men. Their education in the union movement has not lessened, but sharpened, their consciousness of their oppression as Negroes. They have heretofore joined the struggle of the NAACP as the most convenient medium for carrying on their own special struggle. It was the social crisis which precipitated the CIO into existence. It was the social crisis which has precipitated the phenomenal growth of the NAACP.
The deepening of the crisis will drive the American proletariat on to the road of political action on a scale corresponding to the social explosion which was the CIO. Any such movement will most certainly bring in its train convulsions in the NAACP. The solidity of American capitalist society is undermined, and under our eyes the forces that are to overthrow it are slowly but surely preparing themselves for the gigantic explosions which will usher in the actual revolutionary crisis.
Top of the page
Last updated on 17.7.2011
|
./articles/Meyer-J.-(C.L.R.-James)/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.james-clr.works.1949.02.lincoln | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">C.L.R. James</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>J.R. Johnson</h2>
<h1>The Two Sides of Abraham Lincoln</h1>
<h3>(February 1949)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info">Originally published in <strong>The Militant</strong>, 14 February 1949. <a id="f1" href="#n1" name="f1">[1]</a><br>
Republished in Scott McLemee (ed.), <strong>C.L.R. James on the “Negro Question”</strong>, Jackson (Miss.) 1996, pp. 108–111.<br>
Transcribed by Daniel Gaido.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Marxists’ Internet Archive</strong>.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">What is it that the working class must remember about Abraham Lincoln? He himself expressed it best in his second inaugural address when he said of the Civil War:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, ‘The judgements of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’”</p>
<p class="fst">Here was the recognition at last of what the Negroes had done for America, and of what America had done to the Negroes – and the determination at whatever cost to break the power of the reactionary slaveholders. All the chatterers and fakers can be made to turn green and look another way, simply by asking them to explain these words of Lincoln as part of what they call the “democratic process” and “the American way.”</p>
<p>Abraham Lincoln was a genuine democrat. When in the Gettysburg address he said “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” he meant it. In those days monopoly capital did not exist. A great percentage of the population in the North consisted of small farmers, mechanics, and artisans. It seemed to many men that on the boundless acres that stretched beyond the Mississippi there was room and opportunity for everybody to acquire independence and exercise self-government from the town-meeting to the presidential elections.</p>
<p>But today, with a few giant corporations owning and dominating the economic life of the country and the lives of whole nations abroad; with tens of millions of workers beginning to punch the time-clock at the age of 18 with no other perspective for the rest of their lives until they are thrown out as infirm or incompetent; with the press, radio, and a vast government bureaucracy controlled by a few hundred people, to talk about government “of the people, by the people, for the people” is a mockery and hypocrisy of the worst kind.</p>
<p>Lincoln and others used to say plainly that if the people were dissatisfied with their government it was their revolutionary right to overthrow it. If he had returned and said that on any platform in 1948, Dewey, Truman, Wallace, and Norman Thomas would have united at once to denounce him. The FBI would have tapped his telephone and investigated him. And unmitigated rascals like J. Parnell Thomas and Rankin would have had him up before some House committee and tried to jail him for his “un-Americanism.” Believer in democracy and in the people, determined enemy of the slave-power, from them Lincoln drew the power which made him a great war leader, a writer and speaker whose best efforts will last as long as the English language, a genuine national hero.</p>
<p>Enemy of the slave-power, a friend to the people. That was one side of Lincoln. But there was another which was widely known and commented upon in his own day.</p>
<p>The viciousness of the slave-power, its cruelties and its crimes, its ambition to suppress liberty all over the United States in defense of its precious hordes of slaves, these things were brought and kept before the American people for thirty years by the constant rebellions among the slaves, by the Underground Railroad, and those elements in the North among the whites who supported these revolutionary actions. Lincoln bitterly opposed all this. He was prepared even as President to use the power of the Federal government to capture and return fugitive slaves.</p>
<p>One of the great chapters in American history is the Abolition movement of Garrison, Phillips, Douglass, and the others who, often hounded, stoned, and beaten, called incessantly for an end to slavery, denouncing it as a crime against civilization and the American people.</p>
<p>Lincoln hated the Abolitionists as troublemakers, and expressed his approval of their being beaten up.</p>
<p>The formation of the Republican Party was a triumph of the creative power and energy of the American people. Suddenly in 1854 all over the country party units sprang into being and in 1860 it swept into victory. Lincoln had nothing to do with this. Only when it was clear that the Whig Party was doomed did he throw in his lot with the new party.</p>
<p>Not only was Lincoln driven to emancipate the slaves by force of circumstances. He was ready to consider the formation of a Negro republic in Texas. He would have sent all the slaves to Africa if he could have managed it. Thus with all his virtues he shared to the full the reactionary capitalist prejudices of his day. And it was precisely these that blinded him to the truths which the escaping slaves and the abolitionists taught the American people for thirty years. In the end he had to follow the direction they pointed: civil war, arming of Negroes, crushing of the slave-power.</p>
<p>Lincoln could make these mistakes and still triumph as a leader because John Brown, Garrison, Douglass, and the other had to limit themselves to carrying on a revolutionary propaganda and aiding escaping slaves. Brown’s isolated attempt at a slave insurrection was doomed to failure. The workers did not have the numbers, the organization, the social power, the political experience to offer an independent road. The revolutionaries were right as against Lincoln but had no concrete program to place before the country. Thus like Lincoln, when the Republican Party came, they turned to it.</p>
<p>Today we live in an entirely different situation. The enemy is plain: monopoly-capitalism, the modern slave-holders. The class that is to be emancipated is the working class – the workers with the poor farmers and their allies, the great majority of the nation. The party that is to be formed is a great mass party of the proletariat, that will do for American society today what the Republican Party did in 1860-65. The revolutionaries today are those who carry on the traditions of Garrison, Douglass, and John Brown – brutal statement of the facts, refusal to pretend that there is any way out except by the destruction of capitalism, struggle for the independent action of the masses, refusal to compromise on principles. We can do this, and do it better than they did, because we have before our eyes the mighty power of the American proletariat and behind us the great traditions and experiences of Bolshevism.</p>
<p>That is our attitude to Lincoln ... We pay him the tribute due to him as a great historical figure, with a place in the struggle for human emancipation.</p>
<p>But for us he is no model. Rather, in the failures of his career and particularly in the men who were so consistently right against him, we find the points of departure to struggle for the unity, not only of North and South, but of all the nations of the world, for the emancipation not only of chattel-slaves but of the vast majority of the peoples of the world, the workers, farmers, and all the exploited and oppressed.</p>
<hr class="section" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<h3>Footnote</h3>
<p class="note"><a id="n1" href="#f1" name="n1">1.</a> The original text included three paragraphs concerning the 1948 electoral platform of the Socialist Workers Party which have been omitted from this version.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on <!-- WebWriter AutoDato -->19.7.2011<!-- WW --></p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > C.L.R. James
J.R. Johnson
The Two Sides of Abraham Lincoln
(February 1949)
Originally published in The Militant, 14 February 1949. [1]
Republished in Scott McLemee (ed.), C.L.R. James on the “Negro Question”, Jackson (Miss.) 1996, pp. 108–111.
Transcribed by Daniel Gaido.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
What is it that the working class must remember about Abraham Lincoln? He himself expressed it best in his second inaugural address when he said of the Civil War:
“Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, ‘The judgements of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’”
Here was the recognition at last of what the Negroes had done for America, and of what America had done to the Negroes – and the determination at whatever cost to break the power of the reactionary slaveholders. All the chatterers and fakers can be made to turn green and look another way, simply by asking them to explain these words of Lincoln as part of what they call the “democratic process” and “the American way.”
Abraham Lincoln was a genuine democrat. When in the Gettysburg address he said “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” he meant it. In those days monopoly capital did not exist. A great percentage of the population in the North consisted of small farmers, mechanics, and artisans. It seemed to many men that on the boundless acres that stretched beyond the Mississippi there was room and opportunity for everybody to acquire independence and exercise self-government from the town-meeting to the presidential elections.
But today, with a few giant corporations owning and dominating the economic life of the country and the lives of whole nations abroad; with tens of millions of workers beginning to punch the time-clock at the age of 18 with no other perspective for the rest of their lives until they are thrown out as infirm or incompetent; with the press, radio, and a vast government bureaucracy controlled by a few hundred people, to talk about government “of the people, by the people, for the people” is a mockery and hypocrisy of the worst kind.
Lincoln and others used to say plainly that if the people were dissatisfied with their government it was their revolutionary right to overthrow it. If he had returned and said that on any platform in 1948, Dewey, Truman, Wallace, and Norman Thomas would have united at once to denounce him. The FBI would have tapped his telephone and investigated him. And unmitigated rascals like J. Parnell Thomas and Rankin would have had him up before some House committee and tried to jail him for his “un-Americanism.” Believer in democracy and in the people, determined enemy of the slave-power, from them Lincoln drew the power which made him a great war leader, a writer and speaker whose best efforts will last as long as the English language, a genuine national hero.
Enemy of the slave-power, a friend to the people. That was one side of Lincoln. But there was another which was widely known and commented upon in his own day.
The viciousness of the slave-power, its cruelties and its crimes, its ambition to suppress liberty all over the United States in defense of its precious hordes of slaves, these things were brought and kept before the American people for thirty years by the constant rebellions among the slaves, by the Underground Railroad, and those elements in the North among the whites who supported these revolutionary actions. Lincoln bitterly opposed all this. He was prepared even as President to use the power of the Federal government to capture and return fugitive slaves.
One of the great chapters in American history is the Abolition movement of Garrison, Phillips, Douglass, and the others who, often hounded, stoned, and beaten, called incessantly for an end to slavery, denouncing it as a crime against civilization and the American people.
Lincoln hated the Abolitionists as troublemakers, and expressed his approval of their being beaten up.
The formation of the Republican Party was a triumph of the creative power and energy of the American people. Suddenly in 1854 all over the country party units sprang into being and in 1860 it swept into victory. Lincoln had nothing to do with this. Only when it was clear that the Whig Party was doomed did he throw in his lot with the new party.
Not only was Lincoln driven to emancipate the slaves by force of circumstances. He was ready to consider the formation of a Negro republic in Texas. He would have sent all the slaves to Africa if he could have managed it. Thus with all his virtues he shared to the full the reactionary capitalist prejudices of his day. And it was precisely these that blinded him to the truths which the escaping slaves and the abolitionists taught the American people for thirty years. In the end he had to follow the direction they pointed: civil war, arming of Negroes, crushing of the slave-power.
Lincoln could make these mistakes and still triumph as a leader because John Brown, Garrison, Douglass, and the other had to limit themselves to carrying on a revolutionary propaganda and aiding escaping slaves. Brown’s isolated attempt at a slave insurrection was doomed to failure. The workers did not have the numbers, the organization, the social power, the political experience to offer an independent road. The revolutionaries were right as against Lincoln but had no concrete program to place before the country. Thus like Lincoln, when the Republican Party came, they turned to it.
Today we live in an entirely different situation. The enemy is plain: monopoly-capitalism, the modern slave-holders. The class that is to be emancipated is the working class – the workers with the poor farmers and their allies, the great majority of the nation. The party that is to be formed is a great mass party of the proletariat, that will do for American society today what the Republican Party did in 1860-65. The revolutionaries today are those who carry on the traditions of Garrison, Douglass, and John Brown – brutal statement of the facts, refusal to pretend that there is any way out except by the destruction of capitalism, struggle for the independent action of the masses, refusal to compromise on principles. We can do this, and do it better than they did, because we have before our eyes the mighty power of the American proletariat and behind us the great traditions and experiences of Bolshevism.
That is our attitude to Lincoln ... We pay him the tribute due to him as a great historical figure, with a place in the struggle for human emancipation.
But for us he is no model. Rather, in the failures of his career and particularly in the men who were so consistently right against him, we find the points of departure to struggle for the unity, not only of North and South, but of all the nations of the world, for the emancipation not only of chattel-slaves but of the vast majority of the peoples of the world, the workers, farmers, and all the exploited and oppressed.
Footnote
1. The original text included three paragraphs concerning the 1948 electoral platform of the Socialist Workers Party which have been omitted from this version.
Top of the page
Last updated on 19.7.2011
|
./articles/Meyer-J.-(C.L.R.-James)/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.james-clr.works.1940.09.friends | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">C.L.R. James</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>J.R. Johnson</h2>
<h1>Where Will You Find Friends of the Negroes?</h1>
<h3>(9 September 1940)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info"><em>The Negro’s Fight</em>, <strong>Labor Action</strong>, <a href="../../../../../history/etol/newspape/laboraction-ny/1940/index.htm#la04_18" target="new">Vol. 4 No. 22</a>, 9 September 1940, p. 4.<br>
Transcribed & marked up by <a href="../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Marxists’ Internet Archive</strong>.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">Negroes have now had over 75 years of experience with the Democratic and Republican parties, and should be able to draw certain conclusions. During those years we have had Republican governments and again Democratic governments. But for Negroes – the same old Jim Crow: Jim Crow in the Federal service, Jim Crows in jobs – above all Jim Crow in jobs – Jim Crow in trains, in the army, in the navy. Anti-lynching bills are thrown out. Surely, if the Democratic and Republican parties were friends of the Negroes, they could easily join together and pass any bills they wanted to.</p>
<p>During the last few years, however the name of Roosevelt has made a great stir among the Negroes. Negroes had no relief, Negroes had no WPA. Now Negroes, or at least some Negroes, can get these things. Therefore, Roosevelt is a friend of the Negro. Negroes vote for Roosevelt.</p>
<p>But if Roosevelt is a friend of the Negro, why the same old Jim Crow in Washington, the nation’s capital? Why not a word from Roosevelt about the anti-lynching bill? Why the Jim Crow in the army, navy and in jobs? Why? Why? Because Roosevelt is no friend of the Negro. Roosevelt is no more a friend of the Negro than Willkie is.<br>
</p>
<h4>Small Favors Staved Off Explosion</h4>
<p class="fst">Negroes got relief and some jobs on the WPA because the American capitalist system was going to pieces in 1932, and if someone didn’t do something, there would have been an explosion. A certain section of the capitalists, with Roosevelt at their head decided to increase the purchasing power of the poorer classes to keep them quiet, and to set the wheels of industry going once more. So it was that the poorer people gained a little relief from starvation and the Negroes, being among the poorest, could not be excluded.</p>
<p>Roosevelt included Negroes among those who got a little something from the New Deal because he had to. If you want. proof, listen to Willkie. He agrees with all that remains of the New Deal. He has to. Because that is the only way that, for the time being, capitalism can stagger along. But he would be a very stupid Negro who thinks that because Willkie, if elected president, would continue relief and WPA, for that reason, Willkie is a friend of the Negro.<br>
</p>
<h4>On Fundamental Questions They Agree</h4>
<p class="fst">To understand the attitude of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party to Negroes we should watch their attitude to the war. Roosevelt is for help to Britain. Roosevelt is for a war against Hitler, Willkie is for a war against Hitler. Roosevelt is for conscription, Willkie is for conscription. The only difference between them on the war question is the way they spell their names.</p>
<p>Why? Because the protection of American capitalist interests by war is a fundamental necessity of American capitalism. So, though they fight each other for power, Roosevelt and Willkie are united on the war.</p>
<p>But the suppression of the Negroes is another fundamental question for American capitalism. And therefore, on this question, Roosevelt and Willkie are united also. And that is why, Republican or democratic government, we have the same old Jim Crow, in the federal service, in the army, navy and everywhere.<br>
</p>
<h4>The Negro’s Cause Is Labor’s Cause</h4>
<p class="fst">Once we learn that, then we have learned something very valuable. We know that no serious improvement in the Negroes position can come from these gangs. The Negroes must turn to themselves and to the labor movement. And, however discouraging the fight along this road may be at times yet it is the only road. Because the labor movement is frequently in violent conflict with the capitalist class, both Democratic and Republican, it must also champion the Negroes cause.</p>
<p>Thus today, the AFL and CIO are opposing conscription which is being pushed on by the Democrats and the Republicans, alike. Here the Negro comes in. He throws his full weight with the labor movement against conscription. For, whoever is against the capitalist class, is thereby a friend of Negro emancipation.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on <!-- WebWriter AutoDato -->6.10.2012<!-- WW --></p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > C.L.R. James
J.R. Johnson
Where Will You Find Friends of the Negroes?
(9 September 1940)
The Negro’s Fight, Labor Action, Vol. 4 No. 22, 9 September 1940, p. 4.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
Negroes have now had over 75 years of experience with the Democratic and Republican parties, and should be able to draw certain conclusions. During those years we have had Republican governments and again Democratic governments. But for Negroes – the same old Jim Crow: Jim Crow in the Federal service, Jim Crows in jobs – above all Jim Crow in jobs – Jim Crow in trains, in the army, in the navy. Anti-lynching bills are thrown out. Surely, if the Democratic and Republican parties were friends of the Negroes, they could easily join together and pass any bills they wanted to.
During the last few years, however the name of Roosevelt has made a great stir among the Negroes. Negroes had no relief, Negroes had no WPA. Now Negroes, or at least some Negroes, can get these things. Therefore, Roosevelt is a friend of the Negro. Negroes vote for Roosevelt.
But if Roosevelt is a friend of the Negro, why the same old Jim Crow in Washington, the nation’s capital? Why not a word from Roosevelt about the anti-lynching bill? Why the Jim Crow in the army, navy and in jobs? Why? Why? Because Roosevelt is no friend of the Negro. Roosevelt is no more a friend of the Negro than Willkie is.
Small Favors Staved Off Explosion
Negroes got relief and some jobs on the WPA because the American capitalist system was going to pieces in 1932, and if someone didn’t do something, there would have been an explosion. A certain section of the capitalists, with Roosevelt at their head decided to increase the purchasing power of the poorer classes to keep them quiet, and to set the wheels of industry going once more. So it was that the poorer people gained a little relief from starvation and the Negroes, being among the poorest, could not be excluded.
Roosevelt included Negroes among those who got a little something from the New Deal because he had to. If you want. proof, listen to Willkie. He agrees with all that remains of the New Deal. He has to. Because that is the only way that, for the time being, capitalism can stagger along. But he would be a very stupid Negro who thinks that because Willkie, if elected president, would continue relief and WPA, for that reason, Willkie is a friend of the Negro.
On Fundamental Questions They Agree
To understand the attitude of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party to Negroes we should watch their attitude to the war. Roosevelt is for help to Britain. Roosevelt is for a war against Hitler, Willkie is for a war against Hitler. Roosevelt is for conscription, Willkie is for conscription. The only difference between them on the war question is the way they spell their names.
Why? Because the protection of American capitalist interests by war is a fundamental necessity of American capitalism. So, though they fight each other for power, Roosevelt and Willkie are united on the war.
But the suppression of the Negroes is another fundamental question for American capitalism. And therefore, on this question, Roosevelt and Willkie are united also. And that is why, Republican or democratic government, we have the same old Jim Crow, in the federal service, in the army, navy and everywhere.
The Negro’s Cause Is Labor’s Cause
Once we learn that, then we have learned something very valuable. We know that no serious improvement in the Negroes position can come from these gangs. The Negroes must turn to themselves and to the labor movement. And, however discouraging the fight along this road may be at times yet it is the only road. Because the labor movement is frequently in violent conflict with the capitalist class, both Democratic and Republican, it must also champion the Negroes cause.
Thus today, the AFL and CIO are opposing conscription which is being pushed on by the Democrats and the Republicans, alike. Here the Negro comes in. He throws his full weight with the labor movement against conscription. For, whoever is against the capitalist class, is thereby a friend of Negro emancipation.
Top of the page
Last updated on 6.10.2012
|
./articles/Meyer-J.-(C.L.R.-James)/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.james-clr.works.1945.01.nation1 | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">C.L.R. James</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>J.R. Johnson</h2>
<h1>One-Tenth of the Nation</h1>
<h3>(1 January 1945)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info">From <strong>Labor Action</strong>, <a href="../../../../../history/etol/newspape/laboraction-ny/1945/index.htm#la09_01" target="new">Vol. IX No. 1</a>, 1 January 1945, p. 3.<br>
Transcribed & marked up by <a href="../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for <strong>MIA</strong>.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">As I wrote recently, congressional committees are busy with bills for a permanent FEPC. Congressmen themselves say it is because, among other reasons, there will be race riots in the U.S.A. after the war if discrimination continues.</p>
<p><em>Lillian Smith is the author of <strong>Strange Fruit</strong>, a best-selling novel on the race question in the South. At a Town Hall Meeting of the Air a short time ago she debated the race question with Roy Aucker, Washington columnist, and Representative O.C. Fisher, of Texas. Fisher took the view that a permanent FEPC would start a “beautiful racket.” It “would do nothing other than stir up race intolerance and friction.”</em></p>
<p>The <strong>American Mercury</strong> for December has published a debate on the Negro problem between Archibald Rutledge, a poet of South Carolina, and George Schuyler, associate editor of the <strong>Pittsburgh Courier</strong>. The editors of the <strong>Mercury</strong> say that the Negro problem is “reaching a crisis.” Schuyler states his opinion point-blank in the title of his article: <em>More Race Riots Are Coming</em>.<br>
</p>
<h4>Negro Problem Remains</h4>
<p class="fst"><em>Isn’t it obvious that we have here a deep-rooted political problem, something that goes down into the very roots of the nation’s economic, social and political life?</em></p>
<p>But if this is so, then it follows, that only some far-reaching, comprehensive plan and activity can deal with it. For three hundred, years it has plagued the country. The Civil War broke up one aspect of it, only to have the problem appear in another form.<br>
</p>
<h4>Socialism the Only Hope</h4>
<p class="fst"><em>In the midst of our daily activity, for union solidarity, for up-grading rights for Negroes, for support for FEPC bills, against discrimination, amidst all these necessary activities it is worth while to stop sometimes and think a little ahead.</em></p>
<p>We have therefore to place first things first. The solution of the Negro problem lies in the solution of capitalism’s major problem – the tremendous problem of unemployment. In the meantime, Negro and white workers, and Negroes who are not workers must hold on to that as a basic premise. And the solution of the unemployment problem demands a transformation of the American productive system from capitalism to socialism. The fiercer the Negro problem becomes the more urgent is the need for this transformation. Capitalist society cannot solve the Negro problem. As it drags human society to rack and ruin it creates a situation where people frantically run around saying to one another or writing in the press “What can we do to prevent race riots?”</p>
<p><em><strong>Labor Action</strong> and THE WORKERS PARTY have always supported and always will support to the best of their power any definite action, which will help the Negros to gain equal rights with their fellow citizens.</em></p>
<p>But we refuse to stop there. We are revolutionary socialists and we say “All these actions that we take from day to day must have a fundamental purpose in mind. That purpose must be the organization and education of the workers and all the oppressed to abolish this system under which we live.”<br>
</p>
<h4>Need for Labor Party</h4>
<p class="fst">To do that the first step is the organization of an independent party of labor.</p>
<p>The time has come for Negroes to think seriously in these terms. Let me close this column with a quotation from a recent article by Lillian Gunbb (<strong>Pittsburgh Courier</strong>, Dec. 16, 1944). She said:</p>
<p class="quoteb"><em>“Our governors and our mayors form committees to study this Negro problem ... There have been more studies made of the Negro than of any other group of people on earth.”</em></p>
<p class="fst">It is time somebody said that. It is time, too, to remind ourselves that innumerable laws have been passed giving Negroes rights. Yet the, Negroes are still pariahs in American society and people, say and write: “What shall we do to prevent race riots when the great war for democracy is over?”</p>
<p><em>The ultimate solution of the problem is socialism. The immediate problem is how to relate the necessary day to day struggles with the struggle for the Independent Labor Party; and how to insure that the Independent Labor Party will carry on the struggle to the abolition of capitalist society. Next week I shall make some remarks on this subject.</em></p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on 19 April 2016</p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > C.L.R. James
J.R. Johnson
One-Tenth of the Nation
(1 January 1945)
From Labor Action, Vol. IX No. 1, 1 January 1945, p. 3.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for MIA.
As I wrote recently, congressional committees are busy with bills for a permanent FEPC. Congressmen themselves say it is because, among other reasons, there will be race riots in the U.S.A. after the war if discrimination continues.
Lillian Smith is the author of Strange Fruit, a best-selling novel on the race question in the South. At a Town Hall Meeting of the Air a short time ago she debated the race question with Roy Aucker, Washington columnist, and Representative O.C. Fisher, of Texas. Fisher took the view that a permanent FEPC would start a “beautiful racket.” It “would do nothing other than stir up race intolerance and friction.”
The American Mercury for December has published a debate on the Negro problem between Archibald Rutledge, a poet of South Carolina, and George Schuyler, associate editor of the Pittsburgh Courier. The editors of the Mercury say that the Negro problem is “reaching a crisis.” Schuyler states his opinion point-blank in the title of his article: More Race Riots Are Coming.
Negro Problem Remains
Isn’t it obvious that we have here a deep-rooted political problem, something that goes down into the very roots of the nation’s economic, social and political life?
But if this is so, then it follows, that only some far-reaching, comprehensive plan and activity can deal with it. For three hundred, years it has plagued the country. The Civil War broke up one aspect of it, only to have the problem appear in another form.
Socialism the Only Hope
In the midst of our daily activity, for union solidarity, for up-grading rights for Negroes, for support for FEPC bills, against discrimination, amidst all these necessary activities it is worth while to stop sometimes and think a little ahead.
We have therefore to place first things first. The solution of the Negro problem lies in the solution of capitalism’s major problem – the tremendous problem of unemployment. In the meantime, Negro and white workers, and Negroes who are not workers must hold on to that as a basic premise. And the solution of the unemployment problem demands a transformation of the American productive system from capitalism to socialism. The fiercer the Negro problem becomes the more urgent is the need for this transformation. Capitalist society cannot solve the Negro problem. As it drags human society to rack and ruin it creates a situation where people frantically run around saying to one another or writing in the press “What can we do to prevent race riots?”
Labor Action and THE WORKERS PARTY have always supported and always will support to the best of their power any definite action, which will help the Negros to gain equal rights with their fellow citizens.
But we refuse to stop there. We are revolutionary socialists and we say “All these actions that we take from day to day must have a fundamental purpose in mind. That purpose must be the organization and education of the workers and all the oppressed to abolish this system under which we live.”
Need for Labor Party
To do that the first step is the organization of an independent party of labor.
The time has come for Negroes to think seriously in these terms. Let me close this column with a quotation from a recent article by Lillian Gunbb (Pittsburgh Courier, Dec. 16, 1944). She said:
“Our governors and our mayors form committees to study this Negro problem ... There have been more studies made of the Negro than of any other group of people on earth.”
It is time somebody said that. It is time, too, to remind ourselves that innumerable laws have been passed giving Negroes rights. Yet the, Negroes are still pariahs in American society and people, say and write: “What shall we do to prevent race riots when the great war for democracy is over?”
The ultimate solution of the problem is socialism. The immediate problem is how to relate the necessary day to day struggles with the struggle for the Independent Labor Party; and how to insure that the Independent Labor Party will carry on the struggle to the abolition of capitalist society. Next week I shall make some remarks on this subject.
Top of the page
Last updated on 19 April 2016
|
./articles/Helmholtz-Hermann/https:..www.marxists.org.reference.subject.philosophy.works.ge.wundt | <body>
<p><img src="../../../../../glossary/people/w/pics/wundt.jpg" hspace="12" width="200" align="LEFT" alt="wundt"></p>
<p class="title">Wilhelm Wundt (1897)</p>
<h4>Outlines of Psychology</h4>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information">
<span class="info">Source</span>: <em>Outlines of Psychology</em>, publ. Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig 1897;<br>
<span class="info">First Published</span>: in German as <i>Grundriss der Psychologie</i>, Leipzig, 1896;<br>
<span class="info">Translated</span>: With the Cooperation of the Author By Charles Hubbard Judd;<br>
First two chapters reproduced here.</p>
<hr class="end">
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<h3>§ 1. Problem of Psychology.</h3>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">1.</span> Two definitions of psychology have been the
most prominent in the. history of this science. According to
one, psychology is the "science of mind". Psychical
processes are regarded as phenomena from which it is possible
to infer the nature of an underlying metaphysical mind-substance.
According to the other, psychology is the "science of inner
experience": psychical processes are here looked upon as
belonging to a specific form of experience, which is readily distinguished
by. the fact that its contents are -known through "introspection",
or the "inner sense" as it has been called to distinguish
it from sense-perception through the outer senses.</p>
<p>
Neither of these definitions, however, is satisfactory to the
psychology of today. The first, or metaphysical, definition belongs
to a period of development that lasted longer in this science
than in others. But it is here too forever left behind, since
psychology has developed into an empirical discipline, operating
with methods of its own; and since the "mental sciences"
have gained recognition as a great department of scientific investigation,
distinct from the sphere of the natural sciences, and requiring
as a general ground-work an independent psychology, free from
all metaphysical theories.</p>
<p>
The second, or empirical, definition, which sees in psychology
a "science of inner experience", is inadequate because
it may give rise to the misunderstanding that psychology has to
do with objects totally different from those of the so-called
"outer experience". It is, indeed, true that there
are contents of experience which belong in the sphere of psychological
investigation, but are not to be found among the objects and processes
studied by natural science: such are our feelings, emotions, and
decisions. On the other hand, there is not a single natural phenomenon
that may not, from a different point of view, become an object
of psychology. A stone, a plant, a tone, a ray of light, are,
as natural phenomena, objects of mineralogy, botany, physics,
etc.; but in so far as they arouse in us <em>ideas, </em>they are
at the same time objects of psychology. For psychology seeks
to account for the genesis of these ideas, and for their relations
both to other ideas and to those psychical processes not referred
to external objects, such as feelings, volitions, etc. There
is, then, no such thing as an "inner sense" which can
be regarded as an organ of introspection, and thus distinct from
the outer senses, or organs of objective perception. Ideas, whose
attributes psychology seeks to investigate, arise through the
outer senses no less than do the sense-perceptions on which natural
science is based; while the subjective activities of feeling,
emotion, and volition, which are neglected in natural science,
are not known through special organs, but are directly and inseparably
connected with the ideas referred to external objects.</p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">2.</span> It follows, then that the expressions outer
and inner experience do not indicate different objects, but <em>different
points of view </em>from which we start in the consideration
and scientific treatment of a unitary experience. We are naturally
led to these points of view, because every concrete experience
immediately divides into <em>two factors</em>: into a <em>content</em>
presented to us, and our <em>apprehension </em>of this content.
We call the first of these factors <em>objects of experience, </em>the
second <em>experiencing subject</em>. This division points out
two directions for the treatment of experience. One is that of
the <em>natural sciences</em>, which concern themselves with
the <em>objects </em>of experience, thought of as independent of
the subject. The other is that <em>of psychology, </em>which investigates
the whole content of experience in its relations to the subject
and in its attributes derived directly from the subject. The
standpoint of natural science may, accordingly, be designated
as that of <em>mediate experience, </em>since it is possible only
after abstracting from the subjective factor present in all actual
experience; the standpoint of psychology, on the other hand, may
be designated as that of <em>immediate experience, </em>since it
purposely does away with this abstraction and all its consequences.</p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">3.</span> The assignment of this problem to psychology,
making it an empirical science coordinate with natural science
and supplementary to it, is justified by the method of all the
<em>mental sciences</em>, for which psychology furnishes the basis.
All of these sciences, philology, history, and political and
social science, have for their subject-matter immediate experience
as determined by the interaction of objects with the knowing and
acting subject. None of the mental sciences employs the abstractions
and hypothetical supplementary concepts of natural science; quite
otherwise, they all accept ideas and the accompanying subjective
activities as immediate reality. The effort is then made to explain
the single components of this reality through their mutual interconnections.
This method of psychological interpretation employed in the mental
sciences, must also be the mode of procedure in psychology itself,
being the method required by the subject-matter of psychology,
immediate reality of experience.</p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">3 a</span>. Since natural science investigates the content
of experience after abstracting from the experiencing subject,
its problem. is usually stated as the acquirement of " knowledge
of the outer world". By the expression outer world is meant
the sum total of all the objects presented in experience. The
problem of psychology has sometimes been correspondingly defined
as "self-knowledge of the subject". This definition
is, however, inadequate because the interaction of the subject
with the outer world and with other similar subjects is just as
much a problem of psychology as are the attributes of the single
subject. Furthermore, the expression can easily be interpreted
to mean that outer world and subject are separate components of
experience or that they can at least be distinguished as independent
contents of experience, whereas, in truth, outer experience is
always connected with the apprehending and knowing functions of
the subject, and inner experience always contains ideas from the
outer world as indispensable components. This interconnection
is the necessary result of the fact that in reality experience
is not a mere juxtaposition of different elements, but a single
organised whole which requires in each of its components the subject
that apprehends the content, and the objects that are presented
as content. For this reason natural science can not abstract
from the knowing subject entirely, but only from those attributes
of the subject which either disappear entirely when we remove
the subject in thought, as, the feelings, or from those which,
on the ground of physical researches, must be regarded as belonging
to the subject, as the qualities of sensations. Psychology, on
the contrary, has as its subject of treatment the <em>total </em>content
of experience in its immediate character.</p>
<p>
The only ground, then, for the division between natural science
on the one hand, and psychology and the mental sciences on the
other, is to be found in the fact that all experience contains
as its factors a content objectively presented, and an experiencing
subject. Still, it is by no means necessary that <em>logical</em>
definitions of these two factors should precede the separation
of the sciences from one another, for it is obvious that such
definitions are possible only after they have a basis in the investigations
of natural science and of psychology. All that it is necessary
to presuppose from the first, is the consciousness which accompanies
all experience, that in this experience objects are being presented
to a subject. There can be no assumption of a knowledge of the
conditions upon which the distinction is based, or of the definite
characteristics by which one factor can be, distinguished from
the other. Even the use of the terms object and subject in this
connection must be regarded as the application to the first stage
of experience, of distinctions which are reached only by developed
logical reflection.</p>
<p>
The forms of interpretation in natural science and psychology
are supplementary not only in the sense that the first considers
objects after abstracting, as far as possible, from the subject,
while the second has to do with the part the subject plays in
the rise of experience; but they are also supplementary in the
sense that each takes a different point of view in considering
the single contents of experience. Natural science seeks to discover
the nature of objects without reference to the subject. The knowledge
that it produces is therefore mediate or <em>conceptual. </em> In
place of the immediate objects of experience, it sets concepts
gained from these objects by abstracting from the subjective components
of our ideas. This abstraction makes it necessary, continually
to supplement reality with hypothetical elements. Scientific analysis
shows that many components of experience - as, for example, sensations
- are subjective effects of objective processes. These objective
processes in their objective character, independent of the subject,
can therefore never .be a part of experience. Science makes up
for this lack by forming supplementary hypothetical concepts of
the objective properties of matter. Psychology, on the other
hand, investigates the contents of experience in their complete
and actual form, both the ideas that are referred to objects,
and all the subjective processes that cluster about them. Its
knowledge is, therefore, immediate and perceptual: perceptual
in the broad sense of the term in which not only sense-perceptions,
but all <em>concrete</em> reality is distinguished from all that
is abstract and conceptual in thought. Psychology can exhibit
the interconnection of the contents of experience as actually
presented to the subject, only by avoiding entirely the abstractions
and supplementary concepts of natural science. Thus, while natural
science and psychology are both empirical sciences in the sense
that they aim to explain the contents of experience, though from
different points of view, still it is obvious that, in consequence
of the character of its problem, psychology is the <em>more strictly
empirical</em>.</p>
<h3>§ 2. General Theories of Psychology.</h3>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">1.</span> The view that psychology is an empirical science
which deals, not with specific contents of experience, but with
the immediate contents of all experience, is of recent origin.
It still encounters in the science of today oppositional views,
which are to be looked upon, in general, as the remnants of earlier
stages of development, and which are in turn arrayed against one
another according to their attitudes on the question of the relation
of psychology to philosophy and to the other sciences. On the
basis of the two definitions mentioned above (§ 1, 1) as
being the most widely accepted, two chief theories of psychology
may be distinguished: meta<em>physical</em> and <em>empirical </em>psychology.
Each is further divided into a number of special tendencies.</p>
<p>
<em>Metaphysical psychology </em>generally values very little the
empirical analysis and causal synthesis of psychical processes.
Regarding psychology as a part of philosophical metaphysics,
its chief effort is directed toward the discovery of a definition
of the "nature of mind" that shall be in accord with
the whole theory of the metaphysical system to which the particular
psychology belongs. After a metaphysical concept of mind has
thus been established, the attempt is made to deduce from it the
actual content of psychical experience. The characteristic that
distinguishes metaphysical from empirical psychology is, then,
its attempt to deduce psychical processes, -not from other psychical
processes, but from some substratum entirely unlike themselves:
either from the manifestations of a special mind-substance, or,
from the attributes and processes of matter. At this point metaphysical
psychology branches off in <em>two directions.</em> <em>Spiritualistic
psychology</em> considers psychical processes as the manifestations
of a <em>specific</em> mind-substance, which is regarded either
as essentially different from matter (dualism), or as related
in nature to matter (monism and monadology). The fundamental
metaphysical doctrine of spiritualistic psychology is the assumption
of the <em>supersensible</em> nature of mind and, in connection
with this, the assumption of its immortality. Sometimes the further
notion of preexistence is also added. <em>Materialistic psychology,
</em>on the other hand, refers processes to the same material substratum
natural science employs for the explanation of natural phenomena
According to this view, psychical processes, like physical vital
processes, are connected with certain organisations of material
particles which are formed during the life of the individual and
broken up at the end of that life. The metaphysical character
of this trend of psychology is determined by its denial of the
supersensible nature of the mind as asserted by spiritualistic
psychology. Both theories have in common, that they seek, not
to interpret psychical experience from experience itself, but
to derive it from presumptions about hypothetical processes in
a metaphysical substratum.</p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">2.</span> From the strife that followed these attempts
at metaphysical explanation, <em>empirical psychology </em>arose.
Wherever it is consistently carried out, it strives either to
arrange psychical processes under general concepts derived directly
from the interconnection of these processes themselves, or to
start with certain, as a rule simpler processes and then explain
the more complicated as the result of the interaction of those
with which it started. There may be various fundamental principles
for such an empirical interpretation, and thus it becomes possible
to distinguish several varieties of empirical psychology. In
general, these may be classified according to <em>two </em>principles
of division. The first has reference to the relation of inner
and outer experience, and the attitude that the two empirical
sciences, natural science and psychology, take toward each other.
The second has reference to the facts or concepts derived from
these facts, which are used for the interpretation of psychical
processes. Every system of empirical psychology has its place
under both of these principles of classification.</p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">3.</span> On <em>the general question s to the nature
of psychical</em> <em>experience, </em>the two views already mentioned
(§ 1) on account of their decisive significance in determining
the problem of psychology, stand over against each other: <em>psychology
of the</em> <em>inner sense</em>, and <em>psychology</em> as <em>the
science of immediate experience. </em>The first treats psychical
processes as contents of a special sphere of experience coordinate
with the experience which, derived through the outer. senses is
assigned as the province of the natural sciences, but though coordinate,
totally different from it. The second recognises no real difference
between inner and outer experience, but finds the distinction
only in the different points <em>of view </em>from which unitary
experience is considered in the two cases.</p>
<p>
The first of these two varieties of empirical psychology is the
older. It arose primarily from the effort to establish the independence
of psychical observation, in opposition to the encroachments.
of natural philosophy. In thus coordinating natural science and
psychology, it sees the justification for the equal recognition
of both spheres in their entirely different objects and modes
of perceiving these objects. -This view has influenced empirical
psychology in two ways. First, it favoured the opinion that psychology
should employ empirical methods, but that these methods, like
psychological experience, should be fundamentally different from
those of natural science. Secondly, it gave rise to the necessity
of showing some connection or other between these two kinds of
experience, which were supposed to be different. In regard to
the first demand, it was chiefly the psychology of the inner sense
that developed the method of <em>pure introspection</em> (§
3, 2). In attempting to solve the second question, this psychology
was necessarily driven back to a metaphysical basis, because of
its assumption of a difference between the physical and the psychical
contents of experience. For, from the very nature of the case,
it is impossible to account for the relations of inner to outer
experience or for the so-called "interaction between body
and mind", from the position here taken, except through metaphysical
presuppositions. These presuppositions must then, in turn, effect
the psychological investigation itself in such a way as to result
in the importation of metaphysical hypotheses into it.</p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">4.</span> Essentially distinct from the psychology of
the inner sense is the trend that defines psychology as the "science
of immediate experience". Regarding, as it does, outer and
inner experience, not as different parts of experience, but as
different ways of looking at one and the same experience, it cannot
admit any fundamental difference between the methods of psychology
and those of natural science. It has, therefore, most of all
to cultivate <em>experimental</em> methods which shall lead to just
such an exact analysis of psychical processes which the explanatory
natural sciences undertake in the case of natural phenomena, the
only differences being those which arise from the diverse points
of view. It holds also that the special mental sciences which
have to do with concrete mental processes and creations, stand
on this same basis of a scientific consideration of the immediate
contents of experience and of their relations to acting subjects.
It follows, then, that psychological analysis of the most general
mental products, such as language, mythological ideas, and laws
of custom, is to be regarded as an aid to the understanding of
all the more complicated psychical processes. In its methods,
then, this trend of psychology stands in close relation to other
sciences: as <em>experimental </em>psychology, to the natural sciences;
as <em>social psychology, </em>to the special mental sciences.</p>
<p>
Finally, from this point of view, the question of the relation
between psychical and physical objects disappears entirely. They
are not different objects at all, but one and the same content
of experience, looked at in one case - in that of natural sciences
- after abstracting from the subject, in the other - in that of
psychology - in their immediate character and complete relation
f psychical and physical objects are, when viewed from this position,
attempts to solve a problem that never would have existed if the
case had been correctly stated. Though psychology must dispense
with metaphysical supplementary hypotheses in regard to the interconnection
of psychical processes, because these processes are the immediate
contents of experience are the immediate contents of experience,
still another method of procedure is open from the very fact that
inner and outer experience are supplementary points of view.
Wherever breaks appear in the interconnection of psychical processes,
it is allowable to carry on the investigation according to the
physical methods of considering these same processes, in order
to discover whether the lacking coherency can be thus supplied.
The same holds for the reverse, method of filling up the breaks
in the continuity of our physiological knowledge, by means of
elements derived from psychological investigation. Only on the
basis of such a view, which sets the two forms of knowledge in
their true relation is it possible for psychology to become in
the fullest sense an empirical science. Only in this way, too,
can physiology become the true supplementary science of psychology,
and psychology, on the other hand, the auxiliary of physiology.</p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">5.</span> Under the <em>second </em>principle of classification
mentioned above (2), that is, according to the <em>facts or concepts
with which the</em> <em>investigation of psychical processes starts,
</em>there are <em>two</em> varieties of empirical psychology to
be distinguished. They are, at the same time, successive stages
in the development of psychological interpretation. The first
corresponds to a <em>descriptive, </em>the second to an <em>explanatory
</em>stage. The attempt to present a discriminating description
of the different psychical processes, gave rise to the need of
an appropriate <em>classification</em>. Class-concepts were formed,
under which the various processes were grouped; and the attempt
was made to satisfy the need of an interpretation in each particular
case, by subsuming the components of a given compound process
under their proper class-concepts. Such concepts are, for example,
sensation, knowledge, attention, memory, imagination, understanding,
and will. They correspond to the general concepts of physics
which are derived from the immediate apprehension of natural phenomena,
such as weight, heat, sound, and light. Like those concepts of
physics, these derived psychical concepts may serve for a first
grouping of the facts, but they contribute nothing whatever to
the explanation of these facts. Still, empirical psychology has
often been guilty of confounding this description with explanation.
Thus, the <em>faculty</em>-psychology considered these class-concepts
as psychical forces or faculties, and referred psychical processes
to their alternating or united activity.</p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">6.</span> Opposed to this method of treatment found
in the descriptive faculty-psychology, is that of <em>explanatory
</em>psychology. When consistently empirical, the latter must base
its interpretations on certain facts which themselves belong to
psychical experience. These facts may, however, be taken from
different spheres of psychical processes, and so it comes that
explanatory treatment may be further divided into <em>two </em>varieties,
which correspond to the two factors, objects and subject, that
go to make up immediate experience. When the chief emphasis is
laid on the <em>objects </em>of immediate experience, <em>intellectualistic
psychology </em>results. This attempts to derive all psychical
processes, especially the subjective feelings, impulses, and volitions,
from <em>ideas, or intellectual </em>processes as they may be called
on account of their importance for objective knowledge. If, on
the contrary, the chief emphasis is laid on the way in which immediate
experience arises in the subject, a variety of explanatory psychology
results which attributes to those subjective activities not referred
to external objects, a position as independent as that assigned
to ideas. This variety has been called <em>voluntaristic psychology,
</em>because of the importance that must be conceded to volitional
processes in comparison with other subjective processes.</p>
<p>
Of the two varieties of psychology that result from the general
attitudes on the question of the nature of inner experience (3),
psychology of the inner sense commonly tends towards intellectualism.
This is due to the fact that , when the inner sense is coordinated
with the outer senses, the contents of psychical experience that
first attract consideration are those presented as objects to
this inner sense, in a manner analogous to the presentation of
natural objects to the outer senses. It is assumed that the character
of objects can be attributed to <em>ideas </em>alone of all the
contents of psychical experience, because they are regarded as
<em>images </em>of the external objects presented to the outer senses.
Ideas, are, accordingly, looked upon as the only real objects
of the inner sense, while all processes not referred to external
objects, as, for example, the feelings, are interpreted as obscure
ideas, or ideas related to one's own body, or, finally, as effects
arising from combinations of the ideas.</p>
<p>
The psychology of immediate experience (4), on the other hand,
tends toward voluntarism. It is obvious that here, where the
chief problem of psychology is held to be the investigation of
the subjective rise of all experience, special attention will
be devoted to those factors from which natural science abstracts.</p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">7.</span> -Intellectualistic psychology has in
the course of its development separated into <em>two </em>trends.
In one, the <em>logical</em> processes of judgment and reasoning
are regarded as the typical. forms of all psychoses; in the other,
certain combinations of successive memory-ideas distinguished
by their frequency, the so-called <em>associations of ideas, </em>are
accepted as such. The <em>logical theory </em>is most closely related
to the popular method of psychological interpretation and is,
therefore, the older. It still finds some acceptance, however,
even in modern times. The <em>association-theory </em>arose from
the philosophical empiricism of the last century. The two theories
stand to a certain extent in antithesis, since the first attempts
to reduce the totality of psychical processes to higher, while
the latter seeks to reduce it to lower and, as it is assumed,
simpler forms of intellectual activity. Both are one-sided, and
not only fail to explain affective and volitional processes on
the basis of the assumption with which they start, but are not
able to give a complete interpretation even of the intellectual
processes.</p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">8.</span> The union of psychology of the inner sense
with the intellectualistic view has led to a peculiar assumption
that has been in many cases fatal to psychological theory. We
may define this assumption briefly as the <em>erroneous attribution
of the nature, of, things to ideas. </em>Not only was an analogy
assumed between the objects of the so-called inner sense an those
of the outer senses, but the former were regarded as the images
of the latter; and so it came that the attributes which natural
science ascribes to external objects, were transferred to the
immediate objects of the "inner sense", the ideas.
The assumption was then made that ideas are themselves things,
just as much as the external objects to which we refer them; that
they disappear from consciousness and come back into it; that
they may, indeed, be more or less intensely and clearly perceived,
according as the inner sense is stimulated through the outer senses
or not, and according to the degree of attention concentrated
upon them, but that on the whole they remain unchanged in qualitative
character.</p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">9. </span>In all these respects <em>voluntaristic psychology
</em>is opposed to intellectualism. While the latter assumes an
inner sense and specific objects of inner experience, voluntarism
is closely related to the view that inner experience is identical
with immediate experience. According to this doctrine, the content
of psychological experience does not consist of a sum of objects,
but of all that which makes up the process of experience in general,
that is, of all the experiences of the subject in their immediate
character, unmodified by abstraction or reflection. It follows
of necessity that the contents of psychological experience should
be regarded as an <em>interconnection of processes.</em></p>
<p>
This concept of <em>process </em>excludes the attribution of an
objective and more or less permanent character to the contents
of psychical experience. psychical facts are <em>occurrences,
</em>not objects; they take place, like all occurrences in time
and are never the same at a given point in time as they were the
preceding moment. In this sense <em>volitions</em> are <em>typical
</em>for all psychical processes. Voluntaristic psychology does
not by any means assert that volition is the only real form of
psychosis, but merely that, with its closely related feelings
and emotions, it is just as essential a component of .psychological
experience as sensations and ideas. It holds, further, that all
other psychical processes are to be thought of after the analogy
of volitions, they too being a series of continuous changes in
time, not a sum of permanent objects, as intellectualism generally
assumes in consequence of its erroneous attribution to ideas of
those properties which we attribute to external objects. The
recognition of the <em>immediate</em> reality of psychological experience,
excludes the possibility of the attempt to derive any particular
components of psychical phenomena from others specifically different.
The analogous attempts of metaphysical psychology to reduce all
psychological experience to the heterogeneous, imaginary processes
of a hypothetical substratum, are for the same reason inconsistent
with the real problem of psychology. While it concerns itself,
however, with immediate experience, psychology assumes from first
that all psychical contents contain objective as well subjective
factors. These are to be distinguished only through deliberate
abstraction, and can never appear as really separate processes.
In fact, immediate experience shows that there are no ideas which
do not arouse in us feelings and impulses of different intensities,
and, on the other hand, that a feeling or volition is impossible
which does not refer to some ideated object.</p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">10.</span> The governing principles of the psychological
position maintained in the following chapters may be summed up
in <em>three</em> general statements.</p>
<p class="indentb">
<span class="term">1)</span> Inner, or psychological, experience is not
a special sphere of. experience apart from others, but is <em>immediate
experience</em> in its totality.</p>
<p class="indentb">
<span class="term">2)</span> This immediate experience is not made up of
unchanging contents, but of an <em>interconnection of processes;
</em>not of objects, but of <em>occurrences</em> , of <em>universal
human experiences</em> and their relations in accordance with certain
laws.</p>
<p class="indentb">
<span class="term">3)</span> Each, of these processes contains an <em>objective
content</em> and a <em>subjective process, </em>thus including the
general conditions both of all knowledge and of all practical
human activity.</p>
<p>
Corresponding to these three general principles, we have <em>a
threefold attitude of psychology</em> to the other sciences.</p>
<p class="indentb">
<span class="term">1)</span> As the science of immediate experience, it
is <em>supplementary </em>to the <em>natural sciences, </em>which,
in; consequence of their abstraction from the subject, have to
do only with the objective, <em>mediate</em> contents of experience.
Any particular fact can, strictly speaking, be understood in
its full significance only after it has been subjected to the
analyses of both natural science and psychology. In this sense,
then, physics and physiology are auxiliary to psychology, and
the latter is, in turn, supplementary to the natural sciences.</p>
<p class="indentb">
<span class="term">2)</span> As the science of the universal forms of immediate
human, experience and their combination in accordance with certain
laws, it is the <em>foundation of the mental sciences.</em> The
subject-matter of these sciences is in all cases the activities
proceeding from immediate human experiences, and their effects.
Since psychology has for its problem the investigation of the
forms and laws of these activities, it is at once the most general
mental science, and the foundation for all the others, such as
philology, history, political economy, jurisprudence, etc.</p>
<p class="indentb">
<span class="term">3)</span> Since psychology pays equal attention to <em>both
</em>the subjective and objective conditions which underlie not
only theoretical knowledge, but practical activity as well, and
since it seeks to determine their interrelation, it is the empirical
discipline whose results are most immediately useful in the investigation
of the general problems of the <em>theory of knowledge</em> and
<em>ethics, </em>the two foundations of <em>philosophy. </em>Thus,
psychology is in relation to natural science the <em>supplementary</em>,
in relation to the mental sciences the <em>fundamental</em>, and
in relation to philosophy the <em>propaedeutic empirical science.</em></p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">10a.</span> The view that it is not a difference in
the objects of experience, but in the way of treating experience,
that distinguishes psychology from natural science, has come to
be recognised more and more in modern psychology. Still, a clear
comprehension of the essential character of this position in regard
to the scientific problems of psychology, is prevented by the
persistence of older tendencies derived from metaphysics and natural
philosophy. Instead of starting from the fact that the natural
sciences are possible only after abstracting from the subjective
factors of experience, the more general problem of treating the
contents of all experience in the most general way, is sometimes
assigned to natural science. In such a case psychology is, of
course, no longer coordinate with the natural sciences, but subordinate
to them. Its problem is no longer to remove the abstraction employed
by the natural sciences, and in this way to gain with them a complete
view of experience, but it has to use the concept "subject"
furnished by the natural sciences, and to give an account of the
influence of this subject on the contents of experience. Instead
of recognising that an adequate definition of "subject"
is possible only as a result of psychological investigations (§
1, 3 a), a finished concept formed exclusively by the natural
sciences is here foisted upon psychology. Now, for the natural
sciences the subject is identical with the body. Psychology is
accordingly defined as the science which has to determine the
dependence of immediate experience on the body. This position,
which may be designated as "psycho-physical materialism",
is epistemologically untenable and psychologically unproductive.
Natural science, which purposely abstracts from the subjective
component of all experience, is least of all in a position to
give a final definition of the subject. A psychology that starts
with such a purely physiological definition depends, therefore,
not on experience, but, just like the older materialistic psychology,
on a metaphysical presupposition. The position is psychologically
unproductive because, from the very first, it turns over the causal
interpretation of psychical processes to physiology . But physiology
has not yet furnished such an interpretation, and never will be
able to do so, because of the difference between the manner of
regarding phenomena in natural science and in psychology. It
is obvious, too, that such a form of psychology, which has been
turned into hypothetical brain-mechanics, can never be of any
service as a basis for the mental sciences.</p>
<p>
The <em>strictly empirical </em>trend of psychology, defined in
the principles formulated above, is opposed to these attempts
to renew metaphysical doctrines. In calling it "voluntaristic",
we are not to overlook the fact that, in itself, this psychological
voluntarism has absolutely no connection with any metaphysical
doctrine of will. Indeed, it stands in opposition to Schopenhauer's
one-sided metaphysical voluntarism, which derived all being from
a transcendental original will, and to the metaphysical systems
of a Spinoza or a Herbart, which arose from intellectualism.
In its relation to metaphysics, the characteristic of psychological
voluntarism in the sense above defined, is its exclusion of all
metaphysics from psychology. In its relations to other forms
of psychology, it refuses to accept any of the attempts to reduce
volitions to mere ideas, and at the same time emphasises the <em>typical</em>
character of volition for all psychological, experience. Volitional
acts are universally recognised as <em>occurrences</em>, made up
of a series of continual changes in quality and intensity. They
are typical in the sense that this characteristic of being occurrences
is held to be true for all the contents of psychical experience.</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information">
<span class="info">Further Reading</span>:
<a href="../../../../../glossary/people/w/u.htm#wundt-wilhelm">Biography</a> |
<a href="../ge/helmholt.htm">Helmholtz</a> |
<a href="../ge/schopenh.htm">Schopenhauer</a> |
<a href="../ge/brentano.htm">Brentano</a> |
<a href="../ge/dilthey.htm">Dilthey</a> |
<a href="../ge/husserl.htm">Husserl</a> |
<a href="../../../../archive/nietzsche/index.htm">Nietzche</a>
</p>
<p class="footer">
<a href="../../../../../subject/psychology/index.htm" target="_top">Marxist Psychology Archive</a> |
<a href="../../index.htm" target="_top">Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org</a></p>
</body> |
Wilhelm Wundt (1897)
Outlines of Psychology
Source: Outlines of Psychology, publ. Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig 1897;
First Published: in German as Grundriss der Psychologie, Leipzig, 1896;
Translated: With the Cooperation of the Author By Charles Hubbard Judd;
First two chapters reproduced here.
Introduction
§ 1. Problem of Psychology.
1. Two definitions of psychology have been the
most prominent in the. history of this science. According to
one, psychology is the "science of mind". Psychical
processes are regarded as phenomena from which it is possible
to infer the nature of an underlying metaphysical mind-substance.
According to the other, psychology is the "science of inner
experience": psychical processes are here looked upon as
belonging to a specific form of experience, which is readily distinguished
by. the fact that its contents are -known through "introspection",
or the "inner sense" as it has been called to distinguish
it from sense-perception through the outer senses.
Neither of these definitions, however, is satisfactory to the
psychology of today. The first, or metaphysical, definition belongs
to a period of development that lasted longer in this science
than in others. But it is here too forever left behind, since
psychology has developed into an empirical discipline, operating
with methods of its own; and since the "mental sciences"
have gained recognition as a great department of scientific investigation,
distinct from the sphere of the natural sciences, and requiring
as a general ground-work an independent psychology, free from
all metaphysical theories.
The second, or empirical, definition, which sees in psychology
a "science of inner experience", is inadequate because
it may give rise to the misunderstanding that psychology has to
do with objects totally different from those of the so-called
"outer experience". It is, indeed, true that there
are contents of experience which belong in the sphere of psychological
investigation, but are not to be found among the objects and processes
studied by natural science: such are our feelings, emotions, and
decisions. On the other hand, there is not a single natural phenomenon
that may not, from a different point of view, become an object
of psychology. A stone, a plant, a tone, a ray of light, are,
as natural phenomena, objects of mineralogy, botany, physics,
etc.; but in so far as they arouse in us ideas, they are
at the same time objects of psychology. For psychology seeks
to account for the genesis of these ideas, and for their relations
both to other ideas and to those psychical processes not referred
to external objects, such as feelings, volitions, etc. There
is, then, no such thing as an "inner sense" which can
be regarded as an organ of introspection, and thus distinct from
the outer senses, or organs of objective perception. Ideas, whose
attributes psychology seeks to investigate, arise through the
outer senses no less than do the sense-perceptions on which natural
science is based; while the subjective activities of feeling,
emotion, and volition, which are neglected in natural science,
are not known through special organs, but are directly and inseparably
connected with the ideas referred to external objects.
2. It follows, then that the expressions outer
and inner experience do not indicate different objects, but different
points of view from which we start in the consideration
and scientific treatment of a unitary experience. We are naturally
led to these points of view, because every concrete experience
immediately divides into two factors: into a content
presented to us, and our apprehension of this content.
We call the first of these factors objects of experience, the
second experiencing subject. This division points out
two directions for the treatment of experience. One is that of
the natural sciences, which concern themselves with
the objects of experience, thought of as independent of
the subject. The other is that of psychology, which investigates
the whole content of experience in its relations to the subject
and in its attributes derived directly from the subject. The
standpoint of natural science may, accordingly, be designated
as that of mediate experience, since it is possible only
after abstracting from the subjective factor present in all actual
experience; the standpoint of psychology, on the other hand, may
be designated as that of immediate experience, since it
purposely does away with this abstraction and all its consequences.
3. The assignment of this problem to psychology,
making it an empirical science coordinate with natural science
and supplementary to it, is justified by the method of all the
mental sciences, for which psychology furnishes the basis.
All of these sciences, philology, history, and political and
social science, have for their subject-matter immediate experience
as determined by the interaction of objects with the knowing and
acting subject. None of the mental sciences employs the abstractions
and hypothetical supplementary concepts of natural science; quite
otherwise, they all accept ideas and the accompanying subjective
activities as immediate reality. The effort is then made to explain
the single components of this reality through their mutual interconnections.
This method of psychological interpretation employed in the mental
sciences, must also be the mode of procedure in psychology itself,
being the method required by the subject-matter of psychology,
immediate reality of experience.
3 a. Since natural science investigates the content
of experience after abstracting from the experiencing subject,
its problem. is usually stated as the acquirement of " knowledge
of the outer world". By the expression outer world is meant
the sum total of all the objects presented in experience. The
problem of psychology has sometimes been correspondingly defined
as "self-knowledge of the subject". This definition
is, however, inadequate because the interaction of the subject
with the outer world and with other similar subjects is just as
much a problem of psychology as are the attributes of the single
subject. Furthermore, the expression can easily be interpreted
to mean that outer world and subject are separate components of
experience or that they can at least be distinguished as independent
contents of experience, whereas, in truth, outer experience is
always connected with the apprehending and knowing functions of
the subject, and inner experience always contains ideas from the
outer world as indispensable components. This interconnection
is the necessary result of the fact that in reality experience
is not a mere juxtaposition of different elements, but a single
organised whole which requires in each of its components the subject
that apprehends the content, and the objects that are presented
as content. For this reason natural science can not abstract
from the knowing subject entirely, but only from those attributes
of the subject which either disappear entirely when we remove
the subject in thought, as, the feelings, or from those which,
on the ground of physical researches, must be regarded as belonging
to the subject, as the qualities of sensations. Psychology, on
the contrary, has as its subject of treatment the total content
of experience in its immediate character.
The only ground, then, for the division between natural science
on the one hand, and psychology and the mental sciences on the
other, is to be found in the fact that all experience contains
as its factors a content objectively presented, and an experiencing
subject. Still, it is by no means necessary that logical
definitions of these two factors should precede the separation
of the sciences from one another, for it is obvious that such
definitions are possible only after they have a basis in the investigations
of natural science and of psychology. All that it is necessary
to presuppose from the first, is the consciousness which accompanies
all experience, that in this experience objects are being presented
to a subject. There can be no assumption of a knowledge of the
conditions upon which the distinction is based, or of the definite
characteristics by which one factor can be, distinguished from
the other. Even the use of the terms object and subject in this
connection must be regarded as the application to the first stage
of experience, of distinctions which are reached only by developed
logical reflection.
The forms of interpretation in natural science and psychology
are supplementary not only in the sense that the first considers
objects after abstracting, as far as possible, from the subject,
while the second has to do with the part the subject plays in
the rise of experience; but they are also supplementary in the
sense that each takes a different point of view in considering
the single contents of experience. Natural science seeks to discover
the nature of objects without reference to the subject. The knowledge
that it produces is therefore mediate or conceptual. In
place of the immediate objects of experience, it sets concepts
gained from these objects by abstracting from the subjective components
of our ideas. This abstraction makes it necessary, continually
to supplement reality with hypothetical elements. Scientific analysis
shows that many components of experience - as, for example, sensations
- are subjective effects of objective processes. These objective
processes in their objective character, independent of the subject,
can therefore never .be a part of experience. Science makes up
for this lack by forming supplementary hypothetical concepts of
the objective properties of matter. Psychology, on the other
hand, investigates the contents of experience in their complete
and actual form, both the ideas that are referred to objects,
and all the subjective processes that cluster about them. Its
knowledge is, therefore, immediate and perceptual: perceptual
in the broad sense of the term in which not only sense-perceptions,
but all concrete reality is distinguished from all that
is abstract and conceptual in thought. Psychology can exhibit
the interconnection of the contents of experience as actually
presented to the subject, only by avoiding entirely the abstractions
and supplementary concepts of natural science. Thus, while natural
science and psychology are both empirical sciences in the sense
that they aim to explain the contents of experience, though from
different points of view, still it is obvious that, in consequence
of the character of its problem, psychology is the more strictly
empirical.
§ 2. General Theories of Psychology.
1. The view that psychology is an empirical science
which deals, not with specific contents of experience, but with
the immediate contents of all experience, is of recent origin.
It still encounters in the science of today oppositional views,
which are to be looked upon, in general, as the remnants of earlier
stages of development, and which are in turn arrayed against one
another according to their attitudes on the question of the relation
of psychology to philosophy and to the other sciences. On the
basis of the two definitions mentioned above (§ 1, 1) as
being the most widely accepted, two chief theories of psychology
may be distinguished: metaphysical and empirical psychology.
Each is further divided into a number of special tendencies.
Metaphysical psychology generally values very little the
empirical analysis and causal synthesis of psychical processes.
Regarding psychology as a part of philosophical metaphysics,
its chief effort is directed toward the discovery of a definition
of the "nature of mind" that shall be in accord with
the whole theory of the metaphysical system to which the particular
psychology belongs. After a metaphysical concept of mind has
thus been established, the attempt is made to deduce from it the
actual content of psychical experience. The characteristic that
distinguishes metaphysical from empirical psychology is, then,
its attempt to deduce psychical processes, -not from other psychical
processes, but from some substratum entirely unlike themselves:
either from the manifestations of a special mind-substance, or,
from the attributes and processes of matter. At this point metaphysical
psychology branches off in two directions. Spiritualistic
psychology considers psychical processes as the manifestations
of a specific mind-substance, which is regarded either
as essentially different from matter (dualism), or as related
in nature to matter (monism and monadology). The fundamental
metaphysical doctrine of spiritualistic psychology is the assumption
of the supersensible nature of mind and, in connection
with this, the assumption of its immortality. Sometimes the further
notion of preexistence is also added. Materialistic psychology,
on the other hand, refers processes to the same material substratum
natural science employs for the explanation of natural phenomena
According to this view, psychical processes, like physical vital
processes, are connected with certain organisations of material
particles which are formed during the life of the individual and
broken up at the end of that life. The metaphysical character
of this trend of psychology is determined by its denial of the
supersensible nature of the mind as asserted by spiritualistic
psychology. Both theories have in common, that they seek, not
to interpret psychical experience from experience itself, but
to derive it from presumptions about hypothetical processes in
a metaphysical substratum.
2. From the strife that followed these attempts
at metaphysical explanation, empirical psychology arose.
Wherever it is consistently carried out, it strives either to
arrange psychical processes under general concepts derived directly
from the interconnection of these processes themselves, or to
start with certain, as a rule simpler processes and then explain
the more complicated as the result of the interaction of those
with which it started. There may be various fundamental principles
for such an empirical interpretation, and thus it becomes possible
to distinguish several varieties of empirical psychology. In
general, these may be classified according to two principles
of division. The first has reference to the relation of inner
and outer experience, and the attitude that the two empirical
sciences, natural science and psychology, take toward each other.
The second has reference to the facts or concepts derived from
these facts, which are used for the interpretation of psychical
processes. Every system of empirical psychology has its place
under both of these principles of classification.
3. On the general question s to the nature
of psychical experience, the two views already mentioned
(§ 1) on account of their decisive significance in determining
the problem of psychology, stand over against each other: psychology
of the inner sense, and psychology as the
science of immediate experience. The first treats psychical
processes as contents of a special sphere of experience coordinate
with the experience which, derived through the outer. senses is
assigned as the province of the natural sciences, but though coordinate,
totally different from it. The second recognises no real difference
between inner and outer experience, but finds the distinction
only in the different points of view from which unitary
experience is considered in the two cases.
The first of these two varieties of empirical psychology is the
older. It arose primarily from the effort to establish the independence
of psychical observation, in opposition to the encroachments.
of natural philosophy. In thus coordinating natural science and
psychology, it sees the justification for the equal recognition
of both spheres in their entirely different objects and modes
of perceiving these objects. -This view has influenced empirical
psychology in two ways. First, it favoured the opinion that psychology
should employ empirical methods, but that these methods, like
psychological experience, should be fundamentally different from
those of natural science. Secondly, it gave rise to the necessity
of showing some connection or other between these two kinds of
experience, which were supposed to be different. In regard to
the first demand, it was chiefly the psychology of the inner sense
that developed the method of pure introspection (§
3, 2). In attempting to solve the second question, this psychology
was necessarily driven back to a metaphysical basis, because of
its assumption of a difference between the physical and the psychical
contents of experience. For, from the very nature of the case,
it is impossible to account for the relations of inner to outer
experience or for the so-called "interaction between body
and mind", from the position here taken, except through metaphysical
presuppositions. These presuppositions must then, in turn, effect
the psychological investigation itself in such a way as to result
in the importation of metaphysical hypotheses into it.
4. Essentially distinct from the psychology of
the inner sense is the trend that defines psychology as the "science
of immediate experience". Regarding, as it does, outer and
inner experience, not as different parts of experience, but as
different ways of looking at one and the same experience, it cannot
admit any fundamental difference between the methods of psychology
and those of natural science. It has, therefore, most of all
to cultivate experimental methods which shall lead to just
such an exact analysis of psychical processes which the explanatory
natural sciences undertake in the case of natural phenomena, the
only differences being those which arise from the diverse points
of view. It holds also that the special mental sciences which
have to do with concrete mental processes and creations, stand
on this same basis of a scientific consideration of the immediate
contents of experience and of their relations to acting subjects.
It follows, then, that psychological analysis of the most general
mental products, such as language, mythological ideas, and laws
of custom, is to be regarded as an aid to the understanding of
all the more complicated psychical processes. In its methods,
then, this trend of psychology stands in close relation to other
sciences: as experimental psychology, to the natural sciences;
as social psychology, to the special mental sciences.
Finally, from this point of view, the question of the relation
between psychical and physical objects disappears entirely. They
are not different objects at all, but one and the same content
of experience, looked at in one case - in that of natural sciences
- after abstracting from the subject, in the other - in that of
psychology - in their immediate character and complete relation
f psychical and physical objects are, when viewed from this position,
attempts to solve a problem that never would have existed if the
case had been correctly stated. Though psychology must dispense
with metaphysical supplementary hypotheses in regard to the interconnection
of psychical processes, because these processes are the immediate
contents of experience are the immediate contents of experience,
still another method of procedure is open from the very fact that
inner and outer experience are supplementary points of view.
Wherever breaks appear in the interconnection of psychical processes,
it is allowable to carry on the investigation according to the
physical methods of considering these same processes, in order
to discover whether the lacking coherency can be thus supplied.
The same holds for the reverse, method of filling up the breaks
in the continuity of our physiological knowledge, by means of
elements derived from psychological investigation. Only on the
basis of such a view, which sets the two forms of knowledge in
their true relation is it possible for psychology to become in
the fullest sense an empirical science. Only in this way, too,
can physiology become the true supplementary science of psychology,
and psychology, on the other hand, the auxiliary of physiology.
5. Under the second principle of classification
mentioned above (2), that is, according to the facts or concepts
with which the investigation of psychical processes starts,
there are two varieties of empirical psychology to
be distinguished. They are, at the same time, successive stages
in the development of psychological interpretation. The first
corresponds to a descriptive, the second to an explanatory
stage. The attempt to present a discriminating description
of the different psychical processes, gave rise to the need of
an appropriate classification. Class-concepts were formed,
under which the various processes were grouped; and the attempt
was made to satisfy the need of an interpretation in each particular
case, by subsuming the components of a given compound process
under their proper class-concepts. Such concepts are, for example,
sensation, knowledge, attention, memory, imagination, understanding,
and will. They correspond to the general concepts of physics
which are derived from the immediate apprehension of natural phenomena,
such as weight, heat, sound, and light. Like those concepts of
physics, these derived psychical concepts may serve for a first
grouping of the facts, but they contribute nothing whatever to
the explanation of these facts. Still, empirical psychology has
often been guilty of confounding this description with explanation.
Thus, the faculty-psychology considered these class-concepts
as psychical forces or faculties, and referred psychical processes
to their alternating or united activity.
6. Opposed to this method of treatment found
in the descriptive faculty-psychology, is that of explanatory
psychology. When consistently empirical, the latter must base
its interpretations on certain facts which themselves belong to
psychical experience. These facts may, however, be taken from
different spheres of psychical processes, and so it comes that
explanatory treatment may be further divided into two varieties,
which correspond to the two factors, objects and subject, that
go to make up immediate experience. When the chief emphasis is
laid on the objects of immediate experience, intellectualistic
psychology results. This attempts to derive all psychical
processes, especially the subjective feelings, impulses, and volitions,
from ideas, or intellectual processes as they may be called
on account of their importance for objective knowledge. If, on
the contrary, the chief emphasis is laid on the way in which immediate
experience arises in the subject, a variety of explanatory psychology
results which attributes to those subjective activities not referred
to external objects, a position as independent as that assigned
to ideas. This variety has been called voluntaristic psychology,
because of the importance that must be conceded to volitional
processes in comparison with other subjective processes.
Of the two varieties of psychology that result from the general
attitudes on the question of the nature of inner experience (3),
psychology of the inner sense commonly tends towards intellectualism.
This is due to the fact that , when the inner sense is coordinated
with the outer senses, the contents of psychical experience that
first attract consideration are those presented as objects to
this inner sense, in a manner analogous to the presentation of
natural objects to the outer senses. It is assumed that the character
of objects can be attributed to ideas alone of all the
contents of psychical experience, because they are regarded as
images of the external objects presented to the outer senses.
Ideas, are, accordingly, looked upon as the only real objects
of the inner sense, while all processes not referred to external
objects, as, for example, the feelings, are interpreted as obscure
ideas, or ideas related to one's own body, or, finally, as effects
arising from combinations of the ideas.
The psychology of immediate experience (4), on the other hand,
tends toward voluntarism. It is obvious that here, where the
chief problem of psychology is held to be the investigation of
the subjective rise of all experience, special attention will
be devoted to those factors from which natural science abstracts.
7. -Intellectualistic psychology has in
the course of its development separated into two trends.
In one, the logical processes of judgment and reasoning
are regarded as the typical. forms of all psychoses; in the other,
certain combinations of successive memory-ideas distinguished
by their frequency, the so-called associations of ideas, are
accepted as such. The logical theory is most closely related
to the popular method of psychological interpretation and is,
therefore, the older. It still finds some acceptance, however,
even in modern times. The association-theory arose from
the philosophical empiricism of the last century. The two theories
stand to a certain extent in antithesis, since the first attempts
to reduce the totality of psychical processes to higher, while
the latter seeks to reduce it to lower and, as it is assumed,
simpler forms of intellectual activity. Both are one-sided, and
not only fail to explain affective and volitional processes on
the basis of the assumption with which they start, but are not
able to give a complete interpretation even of the intellectual
processes.
8. The union of psychology of the inner sense
with the intellectualistic view has led to a peculiar assumption
that has been in many cases fatal to psychological theory. We
may define this assumption briefly as the erroneous attribution
of the nature, of, things to ideas. Not only was an analogy
assumed between the objects of the so-called inner sense an those
of the outer senses, but the former were regarded as the images
of the latter; and so it came that the attributes which natural
science ascribes to external objects, were transferred to the
immediate objects of the "inner sense", the ideas.
The assumption was then made that ideas are themselves things,
just as much as the external objects to which we refer them; that
they disappear from consciousness and come back into it; that
they may, indeed, be more or less intensely and clearly perceived,
according as the inner sense is stimulated through the outer senses
or not, and according to the degree of attention concentrated
upon them, but that on the whole they remain unchanged in qualitative
character.
9. In all these respects voluntaristic psychology
is opposed to intellectualism. While the latter assumes an
inner sense and specific objects of inner experience, voluntarism
is closely related to the view that inner experience is identical
with immediate experience. According to this doctrine, the content
of psychological experience does not consist of a sum of objects,
but of all that which makes up the process of experience in general,
that is, of all the experiences of the subject in their immediate
character, unmodified by abstraction or reflection. It follows
of necessity that the contents of psychological experience should
be regarded as an interconnection of processes.
This concept of process excludes the attribution of an
objective and more or less permanent character to the contents
of psychical experience. psychical facts are occurrences,
not objects; they take place, like all occurrences in time
and are never the same at a given point in time as they were the
preceding moment. In this sense volitions are typical
for all psychical processes. Voluntaristic psychology does
not by any means assert that volition is the only real form of
psychosis, but merely that, with its closely related feelings
and emotions, it is just as essential a component of .psychological
experience as sensations and ideas. It holds, further, that all
other psychical processes are to be thought of after the analogy
of volitions, they too being a series of continuous changes in
time, not a sum of permanent objects, as intellectualism generally
assumes in consequence of its erroneous attribution to ideas of
those properties which we attribute to external objects. The
recognition of the immediate reality of psychological experience,
excludes the possibility of the attempt to derive any particular
components of psychical phenomena from others specifically different.
The analogous attempts of metaphysical psychology to reduce all
psychological experience to the heterogeneous, imaginary processes
of a hypothetical substratum, are for the same reason inconsistent
with the real problem of psychology. While it concerns itself,
however, with immediate experience, psychology assumes from first
that all psychical contents contain objective as well subjective
factors. These are to be distinguished only through deliberate
abstraction, and can never appear as really separate processes.
In fact, immediate experience shows that there are no ideas which
do not arouse in us feelings and impulses of different intensities,
and, on the other hand, that a feeling or volition is impossible
which does not refer to some ideated object.
10. The governing principles of the psychological
position maintained in the following chapters may be summed up
in three general statements.
1) Inner, or psychological, experience is not
a special sphere of. experience apart from others, but is immediate
experience in its totality.
2) This immediate experience is not made up of
unchanging contents, but of an interconnection of processes;
not of objects, but of occurrences , of universal
human experiences and their relations in accordance with certain
laws.
3) Each, of these processes contains an objective
content and a subjective process, thus including the
general conditions both of all knowledge and of all practical
human activity.
Corresponding to these three general principles, we have a
threefold attitude of psychology to the other sciences.
1) As the science of immediate experience, it
is supplementary to the natural sciences, which,
in; consequence of their abstraction from the subject, have to
do only with the objective, mediate contents of experience.
Any particular fact can, strictly speaking, be understood in
its full significance only after it has been subjected to the
analyses of both natural science and psychology. In this sense,
then, physics and physiology are auxiliary to psychology, and
the latter is, in turn, supplementary to the natural sciences.
2) As the science of the universal forms of immediate
human, experience and their combination in accordance with certain
laws, it is the foundation of the mental sciences. The
subject-matter of these sciences is in all cases the activities
proceeding from immediate human experiences, and their effects.
Since psychology has for its problem the investigation of the
forms and laws of these activities, it is at once the most general
mental science, and the foundation for all the others, such as
philology, history, political economy, jurisprudence, etc.
3) Since psychology pays equal attention to both
the subjective and objective conditions which underlie not
only theoretical knowledge, but practical activity as well, and
since it seeks to determine their interrelation, it is the empirical
discipline whose results are most immediately useful in the investigation
of the general problems of the theory of knowledge and
ethics, the two foundations of philosophy. Thus,
psychology is in relation to natural science the supplementary,
in relation to the mental sciences the fundamental, and
in relation to philosophy the propaedeutic empirical science.
10a. The view that it is not a difference in
the objects of experience, but in the way of treating experience,
that distinguishes psychology from natural science, has come to
be recognised more and more in modern psychology. Still, a clear
comprehension of the essential character of this position in regard
to the scientific problems of psychology, is prevented by the
persistence of older tendencies derived from metaphysics and natural
philosophy. Instead of starting from the fact that the natural
sciences are possible only after abstracting from the subjective
factors of experience, the more general problem of treating the
contents of all experience in the most general way, is sometimes
assigned to natural science. In such a case psychology is, of
course, no longer coordinate with the natural sciences, but subordinate
to them. Its problem is no longer to remove the abstraction employed
by the natural sciences, and in this way to gain with them a complete
view of experience, but it has to use the concept "subject"
furnished by the natural sciences, and to give an account of the
influence of this subject on the contents of experience. Instead
of recognising that an adequate definition of "subject"
is possible only as a result of psychological investigations (§
1, 3 a), a finished concept formed exclusively by the natural
sciences is here foisted upon psychology. Now, for the natural
sciences the subject is identical with the body. Psychology is
accordingly defined as the science which has to determine the
dependence of immediate experience on the body. This position,
which may be designated as "psycho-physical materialism",
is epistemologically untenable and psychologically unproductive.
Natural science, which purposely abstracts from the subjective
component of all experience, is least of all in a position to
give a final definition of the subject. A psychology that starts
with such a purely physiological definition depends, therefore,
not on experience, but, just like the older materialistic psychology,
on a metaphysical presupposition. The position is psychologically
unproductive because, from the very first, it turns over the causal
interpretation of psychical processes to physiology . But physiology
has not yet furnished such an interpretation, and never will be
able to do so, because of the difference between the manner of
regarding phenomena in natural science and in psychology. It
is obvious, too, that such a form of psychology, which has been
turned into hypothetical brain-mechanics, can never be of any
service as a basis for the mental sciences.
The strictly empirical trend of psychology, defined in
the principles formulated above, is opposed to these attempts
to renew metaphysical doctrines. In calling it "voluntaristic",
we are not to overlook the fact that, in itself, this psychological
voluntarism has absolutely no connection with any metaphysical
doctrine of will. Indeed, it stands in opposition to Schopenhauer's
one-sided metaphysical voluntarism, which derived all being from
a transcendental original will, and to the metaphysical systems
of a Spinoza or a Herbart, which arose from intellectualism.
In its relation to metaphysics, the characteristic of psychological
voluntarism in the sense above defined, is its exclusion of all
metaphysics from psychology. In its relations to other forms
of psychology, it refuses to accept any of the attempts to reduce
volitions to mere ideas, and at the same time emphasises the typical
character of volition for all psychological, experience. Volitional
acts are universally recognised as occurrences, made up
of a series of continual changes in quality and intensity. They
are typical in the sense that this characteristic of being occurrences
is held to be true for all the contents of psychical experience.
Further Reading:
Biography |
Helmholtz |
Schopenhauer |
Brentano |
Dilthey |
Husserl |
Nietzche
Marxist Psychology Archive |
Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org
|
./articles/Helmholtz-Hermann/https:..www.marxists.org.reference.subject.philosophy.works.ge.mach | <body>
<p class="title">Ernst Mach (1886, revised to 1905)</p>
<p><img src="../../../../../glossary/people/m/pics/mach.jpg" vspace="6" hspace="6" align="LEFT" border="3" alt="rugged guy with beard"></p>
<h4>The Analysis of Sensations<br>
<span class="term">and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical</span></h4>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information">
<span class="info">Source:</span> <em>The Analysis of Sensations</em> (1897). Dover Edition, 1959;<br> <span class="info">Translation:</span> by C M Williams and Sydney Waterlow;<br>
First Chapter reproduced here.</p>
<hr class="end">
<h3>I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:<br>
ANTI METAPHYSICAL.</h3>
<h5>1.</h5>
<p class="fst">
THE great results achieved by physical science in modern times
- results not restricted to its own sphere but embracing that
of other sciences which employ its help - have brought it about
that physical ways of thinking and physical modes of procedure
enjoy on all hands unwonted prominence, and that the greatest
expectations are associated with their application. In keeping
with this drift of modern inquiry, the physiology of the senses,
gradually abandoning the method of investigating sensations in
themselves followed by men like Goethe, Schopenhauer, and others,
but with greatest success by Johannes Muller, has also assumed
an almost exclusively physical character. This tendency must appear
to us as not altogether appropriate, when we reflect that physics,
despite its considerable development, nevertheless constitutes
but a portion of a <em>larger</em> collective body of knowledge,
and that it is unable, with its limited intellectual implements,
created for limited and special purposes, to exhaust all the subject-matter
in question. Without renouncing the support of physics, it is
possible for the physiology of the senses, not only to pursue
its own course of development, but also to afford to physical
science itself powerful assistance. The following simple considerations
will serve to illustrate this relation between the two.</p>
<h5>2.</h5>
<p class="fst">
Colours, sounds, temperatures, pressures, spaces, times, and so
forth, are connected with one another in manifold ways; and with
them are associated dispositions of mind, feelings, and volitions.
Out of this fabric, that which is relatively more fixed and permanent
stands prominently forth, engraves itself on the memory, and expresses
itself in language. Relatively greater permanency is exhibited,
first, by certain complexes of colours, sounds, pressures, and
so forth, functionally connected in time and space, which therefore
receive special names, and are called bodies. Absolutely permanent
such complexes are not.</p>
<p>
My table is now brightly, now dimly lighted. Its temperature varies.
It may receive an ink stain. One of its legs may be broken. It
may be repaired, polished, and replaced part by part. But, for
me, it remains the table at which I daily write.</p>
<p>
My friend may put on a different coat. His countenance may assume
a serious or a cheerful expression. His complexion, under the
effects of light or emotion, may change. His shape may be altered
by motion, or be definitely changed. Yet the number of the permanent
features presented, compared with the number of the gradual alterations,
is always so great, that the latter may be overlooked. It is the
same friend with whom I take my daily walk.</p>
<p>
My coat may receive a stain, a tear. My very manner of expressing
this shows that we are concerned here with a sum-total of permanency,
to which the new element is added and from which that which is
lacking is subsequently taken away.</p>
<p>
Our greater intimacy with this sum-total of permanency, and the
preponderance of its importance for me as contrasted with the
changeable element, impel us to the partly instinctive, partly
voluntary and conscious economy of mental presentation and designation,
as expressed in ordinary thought and speech. That which is presented
in a single image receives a single designation, a single name.</p>
<p>
Further, that complex of memories, moods, and feelings, joined
to a particular body (the human body), which is called the
"I" or "Ego," manifests itself as relatively permanent.
I may be engaged upon this or that subject, I may be quiet and
cheerful, excited and ill-humoured. Yet, pathological cases
apart, enough durable features remain to identify the ego. Of
course, the ego also is only of relative permanency.</p>
<p>
The apparent permanency of the ego consists chiefly in the single
fact of its continuity, in the slowness of its changes. The many
thoughts and plans of yesterday that are continued today, and
of which our environment in waking hours incessantly reminds us
(whence in dreams the ego can be very indistinct, doubled, or
entirely wanting), and the little habits that are unconsciously
and involuntarily kept up for long periods of time, constitute
the groundwork of the ego. There can hardly be greater differences
in the egos of different people, than occur in the course of years
in one person. When I recall today my early youth, I should take
the boy that I then was, with the exception of a few individual
features, for a different person, were it not for the existence
of the chain of memories. Many an article that I myself penned
twenty years ago impresses me now as something quite foreign to
myself. The very gradual character of the changes of the body
also contributes to the stability of the ego, but in a much less
degree than people imagine. Such things are much less analysed
and noticed than the intellectual and the moral ego. Personally,
people know themselves very poorly. When I wrote these lines in
1886, Ribot's admirable little book, <em>The Diseases of Personality</em>
(second edition, Paris, 1888, Chicago, 1895), was unknown to me.
Ribot ascribes the principal role in preserving the continuity
of the ego to the general sensibility. Generally, I am in perfect
accord with his views.</p>
<p>
The ego is as little absolutely permanent as are bodies. That
which we so much dread in death, the annihilation of our permanency,
actually occurs in life in abundant measure. That which is most
valued by us, remains preserved in countless copies, or, in cases
of exceptional excellence, is even preserved of itself. In the
best human being, however, there are individual traits, the loss
of which neither he himself nor others need regret. Indeed, at
times, death, viewed as a liberation from individuality, may even
become a pleasant thought. Such reflections of course do not make
physiological death any the easier to bear.</p>
<p>
After a first survey has been obtained, by the formation of the
substance-concepts " body " and " ego " (matter
and soul), the will is impelled to a more exact examination of
the changes that take place in these relatively permanent existences.
The element of change in bodies and the ego, is in fact, exactly
what moves the will I to this examination. Here the component
parts of the complex are first exhibited as its properties. A
fruit is sweet; but it can also be bitter. Also, other fruits
may be sweet. The red colour we are seeking is found in many bodies.
The neighbourhood of some bodies is pleasant; that of others,
unpleasant. Thus, gradually, different complexes are found to
be made up of common elements. The visible, the audible, the tangible,
are separated from bodies. The visible is analysed into colours
and into form. In the manifoldness of the colours, again, though
here fewer in number, other component parts are discerned - such
as the primary colours, and so forth. The complexes are disintegrated
into elements, that is to say, into their ultimate component parts,
which hitherto we have been unable to subdivide any further. The
nature of these elements need not be discussed at present; it
is possible that future investigations may throw light on it.
We need not here be disturbed by the fact that it is easier for
the scientist to study relations of relations of these elements
than the direct relations between them.</p>
<h5>3.</h5>
<p class="fst">
The useful habit of designating such relatively permanent compounds
by single names, and of apprehending them by single thoughts,
without going to the trouble each time of an analysis of their
component parts, is apt to come into strange conflict with the
tendency to isolate the component parts. The vague image which
we have of a given permanent complex, being an image which does
not perceptibly change when one or another of the component parts
is taken away, seems to be something which exists in itself. Inasmuch
as it is possible to take away singly every constituent part without
destroying the capacity of the image to stand for the totality
and to be recognised again, it is imagined that it is possible
to subtract<em> all</em> the parts and to have something still remaining.
Thus naturally arises the philosophical notion, at first impressive,
but subsequently recognised as monstrous, of a " thing-in-itself,"
different from its "appearance," and unknowable.</p>
<p>
Thing, body, matter, are nothing apart from the combinations of
the elements, - the colours, sounds, and so forth - nothing apart
from their so-called attributes. That protean pseudo-philosophical
problem of the single thing with its many attributes, arises wholly
from a misinterpretation of the fact, that summary comprehension
and precise analysis, although both are provisionally justifiable
and for many purposes profitable, cannot be carried on simultaneously.
A body is one and unchangeable only so long as it is unnecessary
to consider its details. Thus both the earth and a billiard-ball
are spheres, if we are willing to neglect all deviations from
the spherical form, and if greater precision is not necessary.
But when we are obliged to carry on investigations in orography
or microscopy, both bodies cease to be spheres.</p>
<h5>4.</h5>
<p class="fst">
Man is pre-eminently endowed with the power of voluntarily and
consciously determining his own point of view. He can at one time
disregard the most salient features of an object, and immediately
thereafter give attention to its smallest details; now consider
a stationary current, without a thought of its contents (whether
heat, electricity or fluidity), and then measure the width of
a Fraunhofer line in the spectrum; he can rise at will to the
most general abstractions or bury himself in the minutest particulars.
Animals possess this capacity in a far less degree. They do not
assume a point of view, but are usually forced to it by their
sense-impressions. The baby that does not know its father with
his hat on, the dog that is perplexed at the new coat of its master,
have both succumbed in this conflict of points of view. Who has
not been worsted in similar plights ? Even the man of philosophy
at times succumbs, as the grotesque problem, above referred to,
shows.</p>
<p>
In this last case, the circumstances appear to furnish a real
ground of justification. Colours, sounds, and the odours of bodies
are evanescent. But their tangibility, as a sort of constant nucleus,
not readily susceptible of annihilation, remains behind; appearing
as the vehicle of the more fugitive properties attached to it.
Habit, thus, keeps our thought firmly attached to this central
nucleus, even when we have begun to recognise that seeing hearing,
smelling, and touching are intimately akin in character. A further
consideration is, that owing to the singularly extensive development
of mechanical physics a kind of higher reality is ascribed to
the spatial and to the temporal than to colours, sounds, and odours;
agreeably to which, the temporal and spatial links of colours,
sounds, and odours appear to be more real than the colours, sounds
and odours themselves. The physiology of the senses, however,
demonstrates, that spaces and times may just as appropriately
be called sensations as colours and sounds. But of this later.</p>
<h5>5.</h5>
<p class="fst">
Not only the relation of bodies to the ego, but the ego itself
also, gives rise to similar pseudo - problems, the character of
which may be briefly indicated as follows:</p>
<p>
Let us denote the above-mentioned elements by the letters A B
C . . ., X L M . . ., a, b, c . . . Let those complexes of colours,
sounds, and so forth, commonly called bodies, be denoted, for
the sake of clearness, by A B C . .; the complex, known as our
own body, which is a part of the former complexes distinguished
by certain peculiarities, may be called K L M . . .; the complex
composed of volitions, memory-images, and the rest, we shall represent
by a b c . . . Usually, now, the complex a , c . . . K L M. .
., as making up the ego, is opposed to the complex A B C . . .,
as making up the world of physical objects; sometimes also, a
b c . . . is viewed as ego, and K L M . . . A B C . . . as world
of physical objects. Now, at first blush, A B C . . . appears
independent of the ego, and opposed to it as a separate existence.
But this independence is only relative, and gives way upon closer
inspection. Much, it is true, may change in the complex a b c
. . . without much perceptible change being induced in A B C .
. .; and <em>vice versa</em>. But many changes in a b c . . . do
pass, by way of changes in K L M . . ., to A B C . . .; and <em>vice
versa</em>. (As, for example, when powerful ideas burst forth into
acts, or when our environment induces noticeable changes in our
body.) At the same time the group K L M . . . appears to be more
intimately connected with a b c . . . and with A B C . . ., than
the latter with one another; and their relations find their expression
in common thought and speech.</p>
<p>
Precisely viewed, however, it appears that the group A B C . .
. is always codetermined by K L M. A cube when seen close at hand,
looks large; when seen at a distance, small; its appearance to
the right eye differs from its appearance to the left; sometimes
it appears double; with closed eyes it is invisible. The properties
of one and the same body, therefore, appear modified by our own
body; they appear conditioned by it. But where, now, is that <em>same</em>
body, which appears so <em>different</em>? All that can be said
is, that with different K L M different A B C . . . are associated.</p>
<p>
A common and popular way of thinking and speaking is to contrast
" appearance " with " reality." A pencil held
in front of us in the air is seen by us as straight; dip it into
the water, and we see it crooked. In the latter case we say that
the pencil <em>appears</em> crooked, but is in <em>reality</em> straight.
But what justifies us in declaring one fact rather than another
to be the reality, and degrading the other to the level of appearance
? In both cases we have to do with facts which present us with
different combinations of the elements, combinations which in
the two cases are differently conditioned. Precisely because of
its environment the pencil dipped in water is optically crooked;
but it is tactually and metrically straight. An image in a concave
or flat mirror is <em>only</em> visible, whereas under other and
ordinary circumstances a tangible body as well corresponds to
the visible image. A bright surface is brighter beside a dark
surface than beside one brighter than itself. To be sure, our
expectation is deceived when, not paying sufficient attention
to the conditions, and substituting for one another different
cases of the combination, we fall into the natural error of expecting
what we are accustomed to, although the case may be an unusual
one. The facts are not to blame for that. In these cases, to speak
of " appearance " may have a practical meaning, but
cannot have a scientific meaning. Similarly, the question which
is often asked, whether the world is real or whether we merely
dream it, is devoid of all scientific meaning. Even the wildest
dream is a fact as much as any other. If our dreams were more
regular, more connected, more stable, they would also have more
practical importance for us. In our waking hours the relations
of the elements to one another are immensely amplified in comparison
with what they were in our dreams. We recognise the dream for
what it is. When the process is reversed, the field of psychic
vision is narrowed; the contrast is almost entirely lacking. Where
there is no contrast, the distinction between dream and waking,
between appearance and reality, is quite otiose and worthless.</p>
<p>
The popular notion of an antithesis between appearance and reality
has exercised a very powerful influence on scientific and philosophical
thought. We see this, for example, in Plato's pregnant and poetical
fiction of the Cave, in which, with our backs turned towards the
fire, we observe merely the shadows of what passes (<em>Republic</em>,
vii. 1). But this conception was not thought out to its final
consequences, with the result that it has had an unfortunate influence
on our ideas about the universe. The universe, of which nevertheless
we are a part, became completely separated from us, and was removed
an infinite distance away. Similarly, many a young man, hearing
for the first time of the refraction of stellar light, has thought
that doubt was cast on the whole of astronomy, whereas nothing
is required but an easily effected and unimportant correction
to put everything right again.</p>
<h5>6.</h5>
<p class="fst">
We see an object having a point S. If we touch S, that is, bring
it into connexion with our body, we receive a prick. We can see
S, without feeling the prick. But as soon as we feel the prick
we find S on the skin. The visible point, therefore, is a permanent
nucleus, to which the prick is annexed, according to circumstances,
as something accidental. From the frequency of analogous occurrences
we ultimately accustom ourselves to regard all properties of bodies
as " effects " proceeding from permanent nuclei and
conveyed to the ego through the medium of the body; which effects
we call sensations. By this operation, however, these nuclei are
deprived of their entire sensory content, and converted into mere
mental symbols. The assertion, then, is correct that the world
consists only of our sensations. In which case we have knowledge
<em>only</em> of sensations, and the assumption of the nuclei referred
to, or of a reciprocal action between them, from which sensations
proceed, turns out to be quite idle and superfluous. Such a view
can only suit with a half-hearted realism or a half-hearted philosophical
criticism.</p>
<h5>7.</h5>
<p class="fst">
Ordinarily the complex a b c . . . K L M . . . is contrasted as
ego with the complex A B C . . . At first only those elements
of A B C ... that more strongly alter a b c .... as a prick, a
pain, are wont to be thought of as comprised in the ego. Afterwards,
however, through observations of the kind just referred to, it
appears that the right to annex A B C . . . to the ego nowhere
ceases. In conformity with this view the ego can be so extended
as ultimately to embrace the entire world. The ego is not sharply
marked off, its limits are very indefinite and arbitrarily displaceable
Only by failing to observe this fact, and by unconsciously narrowing
those limits, while at the same time we enlarge them, arise, in
the conflict of points of view, the metaphysical difficulties
met with in this connexion.</p>
<p>
As soon as we have perceived that the supposed unities "
body " and " ego " are only makeshifts, designed
for provisional orientation and for definite practical ends (so
that we may take hold of bodies, protect ourselves against pain,
and so forth), we find ourselves obliged, in many more advanced
scientific investigations, to abandon them as insufficient and
inappropriate. The antithesis between ego and world, between sensation
(appearance) and thing, then vanishes, and we have simply to deal
with the connexion of the elements a b c . . . A B C . . . K L
M . . ., of which this antithesis was only a partially appropriate
and imperfect expression. This connexion is nothing more or less
than the combination of the above-mentioned elements with other
similar elements (time and space). Science has simply to accept
this connexion, and to get its bearings in it, without at once
wanting to explain its existence.</p>
<p>
On a superficial examination the complex a b c . . . appears to
be made up of much more evanescent elements than A B C . . . and
K L M . . ., in which last the elements seem to be connected with
greater stability and in a more permanent manner (being joined
to solid nuclei as it were). Although on closer inspection the
elements of all complexes prove to be homogeneous, yet even when
this has been recognised, the earlier notion of an antithesis
of body and spirit easily slips in again. The philosophical spiritualist
is often sensible of the difficulty of imparting the needed solidity
to his mind-created world of bodies; the materialist is at a loss
when required to endow the world of matter with sensation. The
monistic point of view, which reflexion has evolved, is easily
clouded by our older and more powerful instinctive notions.</p>
<h5>8.</h5>
<p class="fst">
The difficulty referred to is particularly felt when we consider
the following case. In the complex A B C . . .. which we have
called the world of matter, we find as parts, not only our own
body K L M . . ., but also the bodies of other persons (or animals)
K' L' M' . . , K" L" M" . . .. to which, by analogy,
we imagine other a' b' c'..., a" b" c", annexed,
similar to a b c . . . So long as we deal with K' L' M' . . .,
we find ourselves in a thoroughly familiar province which is at
every point accessible to our senses. When, however, we inquire
after the sensations or feelings belonging to the body K' L' M'
. . ., we no longer find these in the province of sense: we add
them in thought. Not only is the domain which we now enter far
less familiar to us, but the transition into it is also relatively
unsafe. We have the feeling as if we were plunging into an abyss.
Persons who adopt this way of thinking only, will never thoroughly
rid themselves of that sense of insecurity, which is a very fertile
source of illusory problems.</p>
<p>
But we are not restricted to this course. Let us consider, first,
the reciprocal relations of the elements of the complex A B C
. . ., without regarding K L M . . . (our body). All physical
investigations are of this sort. A white ball falls upon a bell;
a sound is heard. The ball turns yellow before a sodium lamp,
red before a lithium lamp. Here the elements (A B C . . . ) appear
to be connected only with one another and to be independent of
our body (K L M . . . ). But if we take santonin, the ball again
turns yellow. If we press one eye to the side, we see two balls.
If we close our eyes entirely, there is no ball there at all.
If we sever the auditory nerve, no sound is heard. The elements
=4 B C . . ., therefore, are not only connected with one another,
but also with K L M; To this extent, and to this extent <em>only</em>,
do we call A B C . . . sensations, and regard A B C as belonging
to the ego. In what follows, wherever the reader finds the terms
" Sensation," " Sensation-complex," used alongside
of or instead of the expressions " element," "
complex of elements," it must be borne in mind that it is
only in the connexion and relation in question, only in their
functional dependence, that the elements are sensations. In another
functional relation they are at the same time physical objects.
We only use the additional term " sensations" to describe
the elements, because most people are much more familiar with
the elements in question as sensations (colours, sounds, pressures,
spaces, times, etc.), while according to the popular conception
it is particles of mass that are considered as physical elements,
to which the elements, in the sense here used, are attached as
" properties " or " effects.".</p>
<p>
In this way, accordingly, we do not find the gap between bodies
and sensations above described, between what is without and what
is within, between the material world and the spiritual world.
All elements A B C . . ., K L M. . .. constitute a <em>single</em>
coherent mass only, in which, when any one element is disturbed,
<em>all</em> is put in motion; except that a disturbance in K, L
M, . . . has a more extensive and profound action than one in
A B C . . . A magnet in our neighbourhood disturbs the particles
of iron near it; a falling boulder shakes the earth; but the severing
of a nerve sets in motion the <em>whole</em> system of elements.
Quite involuntarily does this relation of things suggest the picture
of a viscous mass, at certain places (as in the ego) more firmly
coherent than in others. I have often made use of this image in
lectures.</p>
<h5>9.</h5>
<p class="fst">
Thus the great gulf between physical and psychological research
persists only when we acquiesce in our habitual stereotyped conceptions.
A colour is a physical object as soon as we consider its dependence,
for instance, upon its luminous source, upon other colours, upon
temperatures, upon spaces, and so forth. When we consider, however,
its dependence upon the retina (the elements K L M. . .), it is
a psychological object, a sensation. Not the subject matter, but
the direction of our investigation, is different in the two domains.
(Cp. also Chapter II., pp. 43, 44.)</p>
<p>
Both in reasoning from the observation of the bodies of other
men or animals, to the sensations which they possess, as well
as in investigating the influence of our own body upon our own
sensations, we have to complete observed facts by analogy. This
is accomplished with much greater ease and certainty, when it
relates, say, only to nervous processes, which cannot be fully
observed in our own bodies - that is, when it is carried out in
the more familiar physical domain - than when it is extended
to the psychical domain, to the sensations and thoughts of other
people. Otherwise there is no essential difference.</p>
<h5>10.</h5>
<p class="fst">
The considerations just advanced, expressed as they have been
in an abstract form, will gain in strength and vividness if we
consider the concrete facts from which they flow. Thus, I lie
upon my sofa. If I close my right eye, the picture represented
in the accompanying cut is presented to my left eye In a frame
formed by the ridge of my eyebrow, by my nose, and by my moustache,
appears a part of my body, so far as visible, with its environment.
My body differs from other human bodies - beyond the fact that
every intense motor idea is immediately expressed by a movement
of it, and that, if it is touched, more striking changes are determined
than if other bodies are touched - by the circumstance, that it
is only seen piecemeal, and, especially, is seen without a head.
If I observe an element A within my field of vision, and investigate
its connexion with another element B within the same field, I
step out of the domain of physics into that of physiology or psychology,
provided B, to use the apposite expression of a friend of mine
made upon seeing this drawing, passes through my skin. Reflexions
like that for the field of vision may be made with regard to the
province of touch and the perceptual domains of the other senses.</p>
<h5>11.</h5>
<p class="fst">
Reference has already been made to the different character of
the groups of elements denoted by A B C . . . and a b c . . .
As a matter of fact, when we see a green tree before us, or remember
a green tree, that is, represent a green tree to ourselves, we
are perfectly aware of the difference of the two cases. The represented
tree has a much less determinate, a much more changeable form;
its green is much paler and more evanescent; and, what is of especial
note, it plainly appears in a different domain. A movement that
we will to execute is never more than a represented movement,
and appears in a different domain from that of the executed movement,
which always takes place when the image is vivid enough. Now the
statement that the elements A and a appear in different domains,
means, if we go to the bottom of it, simply this, that these elements
are united with different other elements. Thus far, therefore,
the fundamental constituents of A B C . . .. a b c . . . would
seem to be <em>the same</em> (colours, sounds, spaces, times, motor
sensations . . .), and only the character of their connexion different.</p>
<p>
Ordinarily pleasure and pain are regarded as different from sensations.
Yet not only tactual sensations, but all other kinds of sensations,
may pass gradually into pleasure and pain. Pleasure and pain also
may be justly termed sensations. Only they are not so well analysed
and so familiar, nor, perhaps, limited to so few organs as the
common sensations. In fact, sensations of pleasure and pain, however
faint they may be, really constitute an essential part of the
content of all so-called emotions. Any additional element that
emerges into consciousness when we are under the- influence of
emotions may be described as more or less diffused and not sharply
localised sensations. William James, and after him Theodule Ribot,
have investigated the physiological mechanism of the emotions:
they hold that what is essential is purposive tendencies of the
body to action - tendencies which correspond to circumstances
and are expressed in the organism. Only a part of these emerges
into consciousness. We are sad because we shed tears, and not
<em>vice versa</em>, says James. And Ribot justly observes that
a cause of the backward state of our knowledge of the emotions
is that we have always confined our observation to so much of
these physiological processes as emerges into consciousness. At
the same time he goes too far when he maintains that everything
psychical is merely "<em>surajoute</em>" to the physical,
and that it is only the physical that produces effects. For us
this distinction is non-existent.</p>
<p>
Thus, perceptions, presentations, volitions, and emotions, in
short the whole inner and outer world, are put together, in combinations
of varying evanescence and permanence, out of a small number of
homogeneous elements. Usually, these elements are called sensations.
But as vestiges of a one-sided theory inhere in that term, we
prefer to speak simply of elements, as we have already done. The
aim of all research is to ascertain the mode of connexion of these
elements. If it proves impossible to solve the problem by assuming
<em>one</em> set of such elements, then more than one will have
to be assumed. But for the questions under discussion it would
be improper to begin by making complicated assumptions in advance.</p>
<h5>12.</h5>
<p class="fst">
That in this complex of elements, which fundamentally is only
one, the boundaries of bodies and of the ego do not admit of being
established in a manner definite and sufficient for all cases,
has already been remarked. To bring together elements that are
most intimately connected with pleasure and pain into one ideal
mental-economical unity, the ego; this is a task of the highest
importance for the intellect working in the service of the pain-avoiding,
pleasure-seeking will. The delimitation of the ego, therefore,
is instinctively effected, is rendered familiar, and possibly
becomes fixed through heredity. Owing to their high practical
importance, not only for the individual, but for the entire species,
the composites " ego " and " body " instinctively
make good their claims, and assert themselves with elementary
force. In special cases, however, in which practical ends are
not concerned, but where knowledge is an end in itself, the delimitation
in question may prove to be insufficient, obstructive, and untenable.</p>
<p>
Similarly, class-consciousness, class-prejudice, the feeling of
nationality, and even the narrowest-minded local patriotism may
have a high importance, for certain purposes. But such attitudes
will not be shared by the broad-minded investigator, at least
not in moments of research. All such egoistic views are adequate
only for practical purposes. Of course, even the investigator
may succumb to habit. Trifling pedantries and nonsensical discussions;
the cunning appropriation of others' thoughts, with perfidious
silence as to the sources; when the word of recognition must be
given, the difficulty of swallowing one's defeat, and the too
common eagerness at the same time to set the opponent's achievement
in a false light: all this abundantly shows that the scientist
and scholar have also the battle of existence to fight, that the
ways even of science still lead to the mouth, and that the pure
impulse towards knowledge is still an ideal in our present social
conditions.</p>
<p>
The primary fact is not the ego, but the elements (sensations).
What was said on p. 21 as to the term " sensation "
must be borne in mind. The elements constitute the I. s have the
sensation green, signifies that the element green occurs in a
given complex of other elements (sensations, memories). When <em>I</em>
cease to have the sensation green, when <em>I</em> die, then the
elements no longer occur in the ordinary, familiar association.
That is all. Only an ideal mental-economical unity, not a real
unity, has ceased to exist. The ego is not a definite, unalterable,
sharply bounded unity. None of these attributes are important;
for all vary even within the sphere of individual life; in fact
their alteration is even sought after by the individual. <em>Continuity</em>
alone is important. This view accords admirably with the position
which Weismann has reached by biological investigations. ("<em>Zur
Frage der Unsterblichkeit der Einzelligen</em>," <em>Biolog
Centralbl</em>., Vol. IV., Nos. 21, 22; compare especially pages
654 and 655, where the scission of the individual into two equal
halves is spoken of.) But continuity is only a means of preparing
and conserving what is contained in the ego. This content, and
not the ego, is the principal thing. This content, however, is
not confined to the individual. With the exception of some insignificant
and valueless personal memories, it remains presented in others
even after the death of the individual. The elements that make
up the consciousness of a given individual are firmly connected
with one another, but with those of another individual they are
only feebly connected, and the connexion is only casually apparent.
Contents of consciousness, however, that are of universal significance,
break through these limits of the individual, and, attached of
course to individuals again, can enjoy a continued existence of
an impersonal, superpersonal kind, independently of the personality
by means of which they were developed. To contribute to this is
the greatest happiness of the artist, the scientist, the inventor,
the social reformer, etc.</p>
<p>
The ego must be given up. It is partly the perception of this
fact, partly the fear of it, that has given rise to the many extravagances
of pessimism and optimism, and to numerous religious, ascetic,
and philosophical absurdities. In the long run we shall not be
able to close our eyes to this simple truth, which is the immediate
outcome of psychological analysis. We shall then no longer place
so high a value upon the ego, which even during the individual
life greatly changes, and which, in sleep or during absorption
in some idea, just in our very happiest moments, may be partially
or wholly absent. We shall then be willing to renounce individual
immortality,' and not place more value upon the subsidiary elements
than upon the principal ones. In this way we shall arrive at a
freer and more enlightened view of life, which will preclude the
disregard of other egos and the overestimation of our own. The
ethical ideal founded on this view of life will be equally far
removed from the ideal of the ascetic, which is not biologically
tenable for whoever practises it, and vanishes at once with his
disappearance, and from the ideal of an overweening Nietzschean
"superman," who cannot, and I hope will not be tolerated
by his fellow-men.</p>
<p>
If a knowledge of the connexion of the elements (sensations) does
not suffice us, and we ask, <em>Who</em> possesses this connexion
of sensations, <em>Who</em> experiences it ? then we have succumbed
to the old habit of subsuming every element (every sensation)
under some unanalysed complex, and we are falling back imperceptibly
upon an older, lower, and more limited point of view. It is often
pointed out, that a psychical experience which is not the experience
of a determinate subject is unthinkable, and it is held that in
this way the essential part played by the unity of consciousness
has been demonstrated. But the Ego-consciousness can be of many
different degrees and composed of a multiplicity of chance memories.
One might just as well say that a physical process which does
not take place in some environment or other, or at least somewhere
in the universe, is unthinkable. In both cases, in order to make
a beginning with our investigation, we must be allowed to abstract
from the environment, which, as regards its influence, may be
very different in different cases, and in special cases may shrink
to a minimum. Consider the sensations of the lower animals, to
which a subject with definite features can hardly be ascribed.
It is out of sensations that the subject is built up, and, once
built up, no doubt the subject reacts in turn on the sensations.</p>
<p>
The habit of treating the unanalysed ego complex as an indiscerptible
unity frequently assumes in science remarkable forms. First, the
nervous system is separated from the body as the seat of the sensations.
In the nervous system again, the brain is selected as the organ
best fitted for this end, and finally, to save the supposed psychical
unity, a <em>point</em> is sought in the brain as the seat of the
soul. But such crude conceptions are hardly fit even to foreshadow
the roughest outlines of what future research will do for the
connexion of the physical and the psychical. The fact that the
different organs and parts of the nervous system are physically
connected with, and can be readily excited by, one another, is
probably at the bottom of the notion of "psychical unity."</p>
<p>
I once heard the question seriously discussed, "How the perception
of a large tree could find room in the little head of a man?)'
Now, although this "problem " is no problem, yet it
renders us vividly sensible of the absurdity that can be committed
by thinking sensations spatially into the brain. When I speak
of the sensations of another person, those sensations are, of
course, not exhibited in my optical or physical space; they are
mentally added, and I conceive them causally, not spatially, attached
to the brain observed, or rather, functionally presented. When
I speak of my own sensations, these sensations do not exist spatially
in my head, but rather my "head" shares with them the
same spatial field, as was explained above. (Compare the remarks
on Fig. I on pp. I7-I9 above.).</p>
<p>
The unity of consciousness is not an argument in point. Since
the apparent antithesis between the real world and the world given
through the senses lies entirely in our mode of view, and no actual
gulf exists between them, a complicated and variously interconnected
content of consciousness is no more difficult to understand than
is the complicated interconnection of the world.</p>
<p>
If we regard the ego as a real unity, we become involved in the
following dilemma: either we must set over against the ego a world
of unknowable entities (which would be quite idle and purposeless),
or we must regard the whole world, the egos of other people included,
as comprised in our own ego (a proposition to which it is difficult
to yield serious assent).</p>
<p>
But if we take the ego simply as a practical unity, put together
for purposes of provisional survey, or as a more strongly cohering
group of elements, less strongly connected with other groups of
this kind, questions like those above discussed will not arise,
and research will have an unobstructed future.</p>
<p>
In his philosophical notes Lichtenberg says: " We become
conscious of certain presentations that are not dependent upon
us; of others that we at least think are dependent upon us. Where
is the border-line? We know only the existence of our sensations,
presentations, and thoughts. We should say, <em>It thinks</em>,
just as we say, <em>It lightens</em>. It is going too far to say
<em>cogito</em>, if we translate <em>cogito </em>by <em>I think</em>.
The assumption, or postulation, of the ego is a mere practical
necessity." Though the method by which Lichtenberg arrived
at this result is somewhat different from ours, we must nevertheless
give our full assent to his conclusion.</p>
<h5>13.</h5>
<p class="fst">
Bodies do not produce sensations, but complexes of elements (complexes
of sensations) make up bodies. If, to the physicist, bodies appear
the real, abiding existences, whilst the " elements "
are regarded merely as their evanescent, transitory appearance,
the physicist forgets, in the assumption of such a view, that
all bodies are but thought-symbols for complexes of elements (complexes
of sensations). Here, too, the elements in question form the real,
immediate, and ultimate foundation, which it is the task of physiologico-physical
research to investigate. By the recognition of this fact, many
points of physiology and physics assume more distinct and more
economical forms, and many spurious problems are disposed of.</p>
<p>
For us, therefore, the world does not consist of mysterious entities,
which by their interaction with another, equally mysterious entity,
the ego, produce sensations, which alone are accessible. For us,
colours, sounds, spaces, times, . . . are provisionally the ultimate
elements, whose given connexion it is our business to investigate.</p>
<p>
[I have always felt it as a stroke of special good fortune, that
early in life, at about the age of fifteen, I lighted, in the
library of my father, on a copy of <em>Kant's Prolegomena to any
Future Metaphysics</em>. The book made at the time a powerful and
ineffaceable impression upon me, the like of which I never afterwards
experienced in any of my philosophical reading. Some two or three
years later the superfluity of the role played by "the thing
in itself" abruptly dawned upon me. On a bright summer day
in the open air, the world with my ego suddenly appeared to me
as <em>one</em> coherent mass of sensations, only more strongly
coherent in the ego. Although the actual working out of this thought
did not occur until a later period, yet this moment was decisive
for my whole view. I had still to struggle long and hard before
I was able to retain the new conception in my special subject.
With the valuable parts of physical theories we necessarily absorb
a good dose of false metaphysics, which it is very difficult to
sift out from what deserves to be preserved, especially when those
theories have become very familiar to us. At times, too, the traditional,
instinctive views would arise with great power and place impediments
in my way. Only by alternate studies in physics and in the physiology
of the senses, and by historico-physical investigations (since
about 1863), and after having endeavoured in vain to settle the
conflict by a physico-psychological monadology (in my lectures
on psycho-physics, in the <em>Zeitschrift fur praktische Heilkunde</em>,
Vienna, 1863, p. 364), have I attained to any considerable stability
in my views. I make no pretensions to the title of philosopher.
I only seek to adopt in physics a point of view that need not
be changed the moment our glance is carried over into the domain
of another science; for, ultimately, all must form one whole.
The molecular physics of today certainly does not meet this requirement.
What I say I have probably not been the first to say. I also do
not wish to offer this exposition of mine as a special achievement.
It is rather my belief that every one will be led to a similar
view, who makes a careful survey of any extensive body of knowledge.
Avenarius, with whose works I became acquainted in 1883, approaches
my point of view (<em>Philosophie als Denken des Welt nach dem
Princip des kleinsten Kraftmasses</em>, 1876). Also Hering, in
his paper on Memory (<em>Almanach der Wiener Akademie</em>, 1870,
p. 258; English translation, O. C. Pub. Co., Chicago, 4th edition,
enlarged, 1913), and J. Popper in his beautiful book, <em>Das Rechte
zu leben und die Pflicht zu sterben</em> (Leipzig, 1878, p. 62),
have advanced allied thoughts. Compare also my paper <em>Ueber
die okonomische Natur der physikalis der Forschung</em> (<em>Almanach
der WienerAkadernie</em>, 1882, p. 179, note; English translation
in my <em>Popular Scientific Lectures</em>, Chicago, 1894). Finally
let me also refer here to the introduction to W. Preyer's <em>Reine
Empfindungslehres</em> to Riehl's <em>Freibrurger Antrittsrede</em>,
p. 40, and to R. Wahle's <em>Gehirn und Bewusstsein</em>, 1884.
My views were indicated briefly in 1872 and 1875, and not expounded
at length until 1882 and 1883. I should probably have much additional
matter to cite as more or less allied to this line of thought,
if my knowledge of the literature were more extensive.]</p>
<p>
It is precisely in this that the exploration of reality consists.
In this investigation we must not allow ourselves to be impeded
by such abridgments and delimitations as body, ego, matter, spirit,
etc., which have been formed for special, practical purposes and
with wholly provisional and limited ends in view. On the contrary,
the fittest forms of thought must be created in and by that research
itself, just as is done in every special science. In place of
the traditional, instinctive ways of thought, a freer, fresher
view, conforming to developed experience, and reaching out beyond
the requirements of practical life, must be substituted throughout.</p>
<h5>14.</h5>
<p class="fst">
Science always has its origin in the adaptation of thought to
some definite field of experience. The results of the adaptation
are thought-elements, which are able to represent the whole field.
The outcome, of course, is different, according to the character
and extent of the field. If the field of experience is enlarged,
or if several fields heretofore disconnected are united, the traditional,
familiar thought-elements no longer suffice for the extended field.
In the struggle of acquired habit with the effort after adaptation,
problems arise, which disappear when the adaptation is perfected,
to make room for others which have arisen meanwhile. </p>
<p>
To the physicist, <em>qua</em> physicist, the idea of "body"
is productive of a real facilitation of view, and is not the cause
of disturbance. So, also, the person with purely practical aims,
is materially supported by the idea of the <em>I</em> or ego. For,
unquestionably, every form of thought that has been designedly
or undesignedly constructed for a given purpose, possesses for
that purpose a <em>permanent</em> value. When, however, physics
and psychology meet, the ideas held in the one domain prove to
be untenable in the other. From the attempt at mutual adaptation
arise the various atomic and monadistic theories - which, however,
never attain their end. If we regard sensations, in the sense
above defined (p. 13), as the elements of the world, the problems
referred to appear to be disposed of in all essentials, and the
first and most important adaptation to be consequently effected.
This fundamental view (without any pretension to being a philosophy
for all eternity) can at present be adhered to in all fields of
experience; it is consequently the one that accommodates itself
with the least expenditure of energy, that is, more economically
than any other, to the present temporary collective state of knowledge
Furthermore, in the consciousness of its purely economical function,
this fundamental view is eminently tolerant. It does not obtrude
itself into fields in which the current conceptions are still
adequate. It is also ever ready, upon subsequent extensions of
the field of experience, to give way before a better conception.</p>
<p>
The presentations and conceptions of the average man of the world
are formed and dominated, not by the full and pure desire for
knowledge as an end in itself, but by the struggle to adapt himself
favourably to the conditions of life. Consequently they are less
exact, but at the same time also they are preserved from the monstrosities
which easily result from a one-sided and impassioned pursuit of
a scientific or philosophical point of view. The unprejudiced
man of normal psychological development takes the elements which
we have called A B C . . . to be spatially contiguous and external
to the elements K L M. . .. and he holds this view<em> immediately</em>,
and not by any process of psychological projection or logical
inference or construction; even were such a process to exist,
he would certainly not be conscious of it. He sees, then, an "
external world " A B C . . . different from his body K L
M . and existing outside it. As he does not observe at first the
dependence of the A B C's . . . on the K L M's . . . (which are
always repeating themselves in the same way and consequently receive
little attention), but is always dwelling upon the fixed connexion
of the A B C's . . . with one another, there appears to him a
world of things independent of his Ego. This Ego is formed by
the observation of the special properties of the particular thing
K L M . . . with which pain, pleasure, feeling, will, etc., are
intimately connected. Further, he notices things K' L' M', K"
L" M", which behave in a manner perfectly analogous
to K L M, and whose behaviour he thoroughly understands as soon
as he has thought of analogous feelings, sensations, etc., as
attached to them in the same way as he observed these feelings,
sensations, etc., to be attached to himself. The analogy impelling
him to this result is the same as determines him, when he has
observed that a wire possesses <em>all</em> the properties of a
conductor charged with an electric current, except one which has
not yet been directly demonstrated, to conclude that the wire
possesses this one property as well. Thus, since he does not perceive
the sensations of his fellowmen or of animals but only supplies
them by analogy, while he infers from the behaviour of his fellow-men
that they are in the same position over against himself, he is
led to ascribe to the sensations, memories, etc., a particular
A B C . . . K L M . . . of a different nature, always differently
conceived according to the degree of civilisation he has reached;
but this process, as was shown above, is unnecessary, and in science
leads into a maze of error, although the falsification is of small
significance for practical life.</p>
<p>
These factors, determining as they do the intellectual outlook
of the plain man, make their appearance alternately in him according
to the requirements of practical life for the time being, and
persist in a state of nearly stable equilibrium. The scientific
conception of the world, however, puts the emphasis now upon one,
now upon the other factor, makes sometimes one and sometimes the
other its starting-point, and, in its struggle for greater precision,
unity and consistency, tries, so far as seems possible, to thrust
into the background all but the most indispensable conceptions.
In this way dualistic and monistic systems arise.</p>
<p>
The plain man is familiar with blindness and deafness, and knows
from his everyday experience that the look of things is influenced
by his senses; but it never occurs to him to regard the whole
world as the creation of his senses. He would find an idealistic
system, or such a monstrosity as solipsism, intolerable in practice.</p>
<p>
It may easily become a disturbing element in unprejudiced scientific
theorising when a conception which is adapted to a particular
and strictly limited purpose is promoted in advance to be the
foundation of <em>all</em> investigation. This happens, for example,
when all experiences are regarded as " effects " of
an external world extending into consciousness. This conception
gives us a tangle of metaphysical difficulties which it seems
impossible to unravel. But the spectre vanishes at once when we
look at the matter as it were in a mathematical light, and make
it clear to ourselves that all that is valuable to us is the discovery
of <em>functional relations</em>, and that what we want to know
is merely the dependence of experiences or one another. It then
becomes obvious that the reference to unknown fundamental variables
which are not given (things-in-themselves) is purely fictitious
and superfluous. But even when we allow this fiction, uneconomical
though it be, to stand at first, we can still easily distinguish
different classes of the mutual dependence of the elements of
" the facts of consciousness "; and this alone is important
for us.</p>
<p>
A B C . . . K L M a b c . . . </p>
<p>
K' L' M' ... a' b' c' ..</p>
<p>
K" L" M"... a" B" C"</p>
<p>
The system of the elements is indicated in the above scheme. Within
the space surrounded by a single line lie the elements which belong
to the sensible world, - the elements whose regular connexion
and peculiar dependence on one another represent both physical
(lifeless) bodies and the bodies of men, animals and plants. All
these elements, again, stand in a relation of quite peculiar dependence
to certain of the elements K L M - the nerves of our body, namely
- by which the facts of sense-physiology are expressed. The space
surrounded by a double line contains the elements belonging to
the higher psychic life, memory-images and presentations, including
those which we form of the psychic life of our fellow-men. These
may be distinguished by accents. These presentations, again, are
connected with one another in a different way (association, fancy)
from the sensational elements A B C . . . K L M; but it cannot
be doubted that they are very closely allied to the latter, and
that in the last resort their behaviour is determined by A B C
. . . K L M (the totality of the physical world), and especially
by our body and nervous system. The presentations a' b' c' of
the contents of the consciousness of our fellow-men play for us
the part of intermediate substitutions, by means of which the
behaviour of our fellow-men, - the functional relation of K' L'
M' to A B C - becomes intelligible, in so far as in and for itself
(physically) it would remain unexplained.</p>
<p>
It is therefore important for us to recognise that in all questions
in this connexion, which can be intelligibly asked and which can
interest us, everything turns on taking into consideration different
<em>ultimate variables</em> and different <em>relations of dependence</em>.
That is the main point. Nothing will be changed in the actual
facts or in the functional relations, whether we regard all the
data as contents of consciousness, or as partially so, or as completely
physical.</p>
<p>
The biological task of science is to provide the fully developed
human individual with as perfect a means of orientating himself
as possible. No other scientific ideal can be realised, and any
other must be meaningless.</p>
<p>
The philosophical point of view of the average man - if that term
may be applied to his naive realism - has a claim to the highest
consideration. It has arisen in the process of immeasurable time
without the intentional assistance of man. It is a product of
nature, and is preserved by nature. Everything that philosophy
has accomplished - though we may admit the biological justification
of every advance, nay, of every error - is, as compared with it,
but an insignificant and ephemeral product of art. The fact is,
every thinker, every philosopher, the moment he is forced to abandon
his one-sided intellectual occupation by practical necessity,
immediately returns to the general point of view of mankind. Professor
X., who theoretically believes himself to be a solipsist, is certainly
not one in practice when he has to thank a Minister of State for
a decoration conferred upon him, or when he lectures to an audience.
The Pyrrhonist who is cudgelled in Moliere's <em>Le Mariage force</em>,
does not go on saying "<em> Il me semble que vous me battez</em>,"
but takes his beating as really received.</p>
<p>
Nor is it the purpose of these " introductory remarks "
to discredit the standpoint of the plain man. The task which we
have set ourselves is simply to show why and for what purpose
we hold that standpoint during most of our lives, and why and
for what purpose we are provisionally obliged to abandon it. No
point of view has absolute, permanent validity. Each has importance
only for some given end.
...</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">Further Reading:<br>
<a href="../fr/poincare.htm">Poincare</a>
<a href="../ge/helmholt.htm">Helmholtz</a>
<a href="../../../../../glossary/people/m/a.htm#mach-ernst">Biography</a>
</p>
<p class="footer">
<a href="../../index.htm" target="_top">Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org</a></p>
</body> |
Ernst Mach (1886, revised to 1905)
The Analysis of Sensations
and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical
Source: The Analysis of Sensations (1897). Dover Edition, 1959; Translation: by C M Williams and Sydney Waterlow;
First Chapter reproduced here.
I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:
ANTI METAPHYSICAL.
1.
THE great results achieved by physical science in modern times
- results not restricted to its own sphere but embracing that
of other sciences which employ its help - have brought it about
that physical ways of thinking and physical modes of procedure
enjoy on all hands unwonted prominence, and that the greatest
expectations are associated with their application. In keeping
with this drift of modern inquiry, the physiology of the senses,
gradually abandoning the method of investigating sensations in
themselves followed by men like Goethe, Schopenhauer, and others,
but with greatest success by Johannes Muller, has also assumed
an almost exclusively physical character. This tendency must appear
to us as not altogether appropriate, when we reflect that physics,
despite its considerable development, nevertheless constitutes
but a portion of a larger collective body of knowledge,
and that it is unable, with its limited intellectual implements,
created for limited and special purposes, to exhaust all the subject-matter
in question. Without renouncing the support of physics, it is
possible for the physiology of the senses, not only to pursue
its own course of development, but also to afford to physical
science itself powerful assistance. The following simple considerations
will serve to illustrate this relation between the two.
2.
Colours, sounds, temperatures, pressures, spaces, times, and so
forth, are connected with one another in manifold ways; and with
them are associated dispositions of mind, feelings, and volitions.
Out of this fabric, that which is relatively more fixed and permanent
stands prominently forth, engraves itself on the memory, and expresses
itself in language. Relatively greater permanency is exhibited,
first, by certain complexes of colours, sounds, pressures, and
so forth, functionally connected in time and space, which therefore
receive special names, and are called bodies. Absolutely permanent
such complexes are not.
My table is now brightly, now dimly lighted. Its temperature varies.
It may receive an ink stain. One of its legs may be broken. It
may be repaired, polished, and replaced part by part. But, for
me, it remains the table at which I daily write.
My friend may put on a different coat. His countenance may assume
a serious or a cheerful expression. His complexion, under the
effects of light or emotion, may change. His shape may be altered
by motion, or be definitely changed. Yet the number of the permanent
features presented, compared with the number of the gradual alterations,
is always so great, that the latter may be overlooked. It is the
same friend with whom I take my daily walk.
My coat may receive a stain, a tear. My very manner of expressing
this shows that we are concerned here with a sum-total of permanency,
to which the new element is added and from which that which is
lacking is subsequently taken away.
Our greater intimacy with this sum-total of permanency, and the
preponderance of its importance for me as contrasted with the
changeable element, impel us to the partly instinctive, partly
voluntary and conscious economy of mental presentation and designation,
as expressed in ordinary thought and speech. That which is presented
in a single image receives a single designation, a single name.
Further, that complex of memories, moods, and feelings, joined
to a particular body (the human body), which is called the
"I" or "Ego," manifests itself as relatively permanent.
I may be engaged upon this or that subject, I may be quiet and
cheerful, excited and ill-humoured. Yet, pathological cases
apart, enough durable features remain to identify the ego. Of
course, the ego also is only of relative permanency.
The apparent permanency of the ego consists chiefly in the single
fact of its continuity, in the slowness of its changes. The many
thoughts and plans of yesterday that are continued today, and
of which our environment in waking hours incessantly reminds us
(whence in dreams the ego can be very indistinct, doubled, or
entirely wanting), and the little habits that are unconsciously
and involuntarily kept up for long periods of time, constitute
the groundwork of the ego. There can hardly be greater differences
in the egos of different people, than occur in the course of years
in one person. When I recall today my early youth, I should take
the boy that I then was, with the exception of a few individual
features, for a different person, were it not for the existence
of the chain of memories. Many an article that I myself penned
twenty years ago impresses me now as something quite foreign to
myself. The very gradual character of the changes of the body
also contributes to the stability of the ego, but in a much less
degree than people imagine. Such things are much less analysed
and noticed than the intellectual and the moral ego. Personally,
people know themselves very poorly. When I wrote these lines in
1886, Ribot's admirable little book, The Diseases of Personality
(second edition, Paris, 1888, Chicago, 1895), was unknown to me.
Ribot ascribes the principal role in preserving the continuity
of the ego to the general sensibility. Generally, I am in perfect
accord with his views.
The ego is as little absolutely permanent as are bodies. That
which we so much dread in death, the annihilation of our permanency,
actually occurs in life in abundant measure. That which is most
valued by us, remains preserved in countless copies, or, in cases
of exceptional excellence, is even preserved of itself. In the
best human being, however, there are individual traits, the loss
of which neither he himself nor others need regret. Indeed, at
times, death, viewed as a liberation from individuality, may even
become a pleasant thought. Such reflections of course do not make
physiological death any the easier to bear.
After a first survey has been obtained, by the formation of the
substance-concepts " body " and " ego " (matter
and soul), the will is impelled to a more exact examination of
the changes that take place in these relatively permanent existences.
The element of change in bodies and the ego, is in fact, exactly
what moves the will I to this examination. Here the component
parts of the complex are first exhibited as its properties. A
fruit is sweet; but it can also be bitter. Also, other fruits
may be sweet. The red colour we are seeking is found in many bodies.
The neighbourhood of some bodies is pleasant; that of others,
unpleasant. Thus, gradually, different complexes are found to
be made up of common elements. The visible, the audible, the tangible,
are separated from bodies. The visible is analysed into colours
and into form. In the manifoldness of the colours, again, though
here fewer in number, other component parts are discerned - such
as the primary colours, and so forth. The complexes are disintegrated
into elements, that is to say, into their ultimate component parts,
which hitherto we have been unable to subdivide any further. The
nature of these elements need not be discussed at present; it
is possible that future investigations may throw light on it.
We need not here be disturbed by the fact that it is easier for
the scientist to study relations of relations of these elements
than the direct relations between them.
3.
The useful habit of designating such relatively permanent compounds
by single names, and of apprehending them by single thoughts,
without going to the trouble each time of an analysis of their
component parts, is apt to come into strange conflict with the
tendency to isolate the component parts. The vague image which
we have of a given permanent complex, being an image which does
not perceptibly change when one or another of the component parts
is taken away, seems to be something which exists in itself. Inasmuch
as it is possible to take away singly every constituent part without
destroying the capacity of the image to stand for the totality
and to be recognised again, it is imagined that it is possible
to subtract all the parts and to have something still remaining.
Thus naturally arises the philosophical notion, at first impressive,
but subsequently recognised as monstrous, of a " thing-in-itself,"
different from its "appearance," and unknowable.
Thing, body, matter, are nothing apart from the combinations of
the elements, - the colours, sounds, and so forth - nothing apart
from their so-called attributes. That protean pseudo-philosophical
problem of the single thing with its many attributes, arises wholly
from a misinterpretation of the fact, that summary comprehension
and precise analysis, although both are provisionally justifiable
and for many purposes profitable, cannot be carried on simultaneously.
A body is one and unchangeable only so long as it is unnecessary
to consider its details. Thus both the earth and a billiard-ball
are spheres, if we are willing to neglect all deviations from
the spherical form, and if greater precision is not necessary.
But when we are obliged to carry on investigations in orography
or microscopy, both bodies cease to be spheres.
4.
Man is pre-eminently endowed with the power of voluntarily and
consciously determining his own point of view. He can at one time
disregard the most salient features of an object, and immediately
thereafter give attention to its smallest details; now consider
a stationary current, without a thought of its contents (whether
heat, electricity or fluidity), and then measure the width of
a Fraunhofer line in the spectrum; he can rise at will to the
most general abstractions or bury himself in the minutest particulars.
Animals possess this capacity in a far less degree. They do not
assume a point of view, but are usually forced to it by their
sense-impressions. The baby that does not know its father with
his hat on, the dog that is perplexed at the new coat of its master,
have both succumbed in this conflict of points of view. Who has
not been worsted in similar plights ? Even the man of philosophy
at times succumbs, as the grotesque problem, above referred to,
shows.
In this last case, the circumstances appear to furnish a real
ground of justification. Colours, sounds, and the odours of bodies
are evanescent. But their tangibility, as a sort of constant nucleus,
not readily susceptible of annihilation, remains behind; appearing
as the vehicle of the more fugitive properties attached to it.
Habit, thus, keeps our thought firmly attached to this central
nucleus, even when we have begun to recognise that seeing hearing,
smelling, and touching are intimately akin in character. A further
consideration is, that owing to the singularly extensive development
of mechanical physics a kind of higher reality is ascribed to
the spatial and to the temporal than to colours, sounds, and odours;
agreeably to which, the temporal and spatial links of colours,
sounds, and odours appear to be more real than the colours, sounds
and odours themselves. The physiology of the senses, however,
demonstrates, that spaces and times may just as appropriately
be called sensations as colours and sounds. But of this later.
5.
Not only the relation of bodies to the ego, but the ego itself
also, gives rise to similar pseudo - problems, the character of
which may be briefly indicated as follows:
Let us denote the above-mentioned elements by the letters A B
C . . ., X L M . . ., a, b, c . . . Let those complexes of colours,
sounds, and so forth, commonly called bodies, be denoted, for
the sake of clearness, by A B C . .; the complex, known as our
own body, which is a part of the former complexes distinguished
by certain peculiarities, may be called K L M . . .; the complex
composed of volitions, memory-images, and the rest, we shall represent
by a b c . . . Usually, now, the complex a , c . . . K L M. .
., as making up the ego, is opposed to the complex A B C . . .,
as making up the world of physical objects; sometimes also, a
b c . . . is viewed as ego, and K L M . . . A B C . . . as world
of physical objects. Now, at first blush, A B C . . . appears
independent of the ego, and opposed to it as a separate existence.
But this independence is only relative, and gives way upon closer
inspection. Much, it is true, may change in the complex a b c
. . . without much perceptible change being induced in A B C .
. .; and vice versa. But many changes in a b c . . . do
pass, by way of changes in K L M . . ., to A B C . . .; and vice
versa. (As, for example, when powerful ideas burst forth into
acts, or when our environment induces noticeable changes in our
body.) At the same time the group K L M . . . appears to be more
intimately connected with a b c . . . and with A B C . . ., than
the latter with one another; and their relations find their expression
in common thought and speech.
Precisely viewed, however, it appears that the group A B C . .
. is always codetermined by K L M. A cube when seen close at hand,
looks large; when seen at a distance, small; its appearance to
the right eye differs from its appearance to the left; sometimes
it appears double; with closed eyes it is invisible. The properties
of one and the same body, therefore, appear modified by our own
body; they appear conditioned by it. But where, now, is that same
body, which appears so different? All that can be said
is, that with different K L M different A B C . . . are associated.
A common and popular way of thinking and speaking is to contrast
" appearance " with " reality." A pencil held
in front of us in the air is seen by us as straight; dip it into
the water, and we see it crooked. In the latter case we say that
the pencil appears crooked, but is in reality straight.
But what justifies us in declaring one fact rather than another
to be the reality, and degrading the other to the level of appearance
? In both cases we have to do with facts which present us with
different combinations of the elements, combinations which in
the two cases are differently conditioned. Precisely because of
its environment the pencil dipped in water is optically crooked;
but it is tactually and metrically straight. An image in a concave
or flat mirror is only visible, whereas under other and
ordinary circumstances a tangible body as well corresponds to
the visible image. A bright surface is brighter beside a dark
surface than beside one brighter than itself. To be sure, our
expectation is deceived when, not paying sufficient attention
to the conditions, and substituting for one another different
cases of the combination, we fall into the natural error of expecting
what we are accustomed to, although the case may be an unusual
one. The facts are not to blame for that. In these cases, to speak
of " appearance " may have a practical meaning, but
cannot have a scientific meaning. Similarly, the question which
is often asked, whether the world is real or whether we merely
dream it, is devoid of all scientific meaning. Even the wildest
dream is a fact as much as any other. If our dreams were more
regular, more connected, more stable, they would also have more
practical importance for us. In our waking hours the relations
of the elements to one another are immensely amplified in comparison
with what they were in our dreams. We recognise the dream for
what it is. When the process is reversed, the field of psychic
vision is narrowed; the contrast is almost entirely lacking. Where
there is no contrast, the distinction between dream and waking,
between appearance and reality, is quite otiose and worthless.
The popular notion of an antithesis between appearance and reality
has exercised a very powerful influence on scientific and philosophical
thought. We see this, for example, in Plato's pregnant and poetical
fiction of the Cave, in which, with our backs turned towards the
fire, we observe merely the shadows of what passes (Republic,
vii. 1). But this conception was not thought out to its final
consequences, with the result that it has had an unfortunate influence
on our ideas about the universe. The universe, of which nevertheless
we are a part, became completely separated from us, and was removed
an infinite distance away. Similarly, many a young man, hearing
for the first time of the refraction of stellar light, has thought
that doubt was cast on the whole of astronomy, whereas nothing
is required but an easily effected and unimportant correction
to put everything right again.
6.
We see an object having a point S. If we touch S, that is, bring
it into connexion with our body, we receive a prick. We can see
S, without feeling the prick. But as soon as we feel the prick
we find S on the skin. The visible point, therefore, is a permanent
nucleus, to which the prick is annexed, according to circumstances,
as something accidental. From the frequency of analogous occurrences
we ultimately accustom ourselves to regard all properties of bodies
as " effects " proceeding from permanent nuclei and
conveyed to the ego through the medium of the body; which effects
we call sensations. By this operation, however, these nuclei are
deprived of their entire sensory content, and converted into mere
mental symbols. The assertion, then, is correct that the world
consists only of our sensations. In which case we have knowledge
only of sensations, and the assumption of the nuclei referred
to, or of a reciprocal action between them, from which sensations
proceed, turns out to be quite idle and superfluous. Such a view
can only suit with a half-hearted realism or a half-hearted philosophical
criticism.
7.
Ordinarily the complex a b c . . . K L M . . . is contrasted as
ego with the complex A B C . . . At first only those elements
of A B C ... that more strongly alter a b c .... as a prick, a
pain, are wont to be thought of as comprised in the ego. Afterwards,
however, through observations of the kind just referred to, it
appears that the right to annex A B C . . . to the ego nowhere
ceases. In conformity with this view the ego can be so extended
as ultimately to embrace the entire world. The ego is not sharply
marked off, its limits are very indefinite and arbitrarily displaceable
Only by failing to observe this fact, and by unconsciously narrowing
those limits, while at the same time we enlarge them, arise, in
the conflict of points of view, the metaphysical difficulties
met with in this connexion.
As soon as we have perceived that the supposed unities "
body " and " ego " are only makeshifts, designed
for provisional orientation and for definite practical ends (so
that we may take hold of bodies, protect ourselves against pain,
and so forth), we find ourselves obliged, in many more advanced
scientific investigations, to abandon them as insufficient and
inappropriate. The antithesis between ego and world, between sensation
(appearance) and thing, then vanishes, and we have simply to deal
with the connexion of the elements a b c . . . A B C . . . K L
M . . ., of which this antithesis was only a partially appropriate
and imperfect expression. This connexion is nothing more or less
than the combination of the above-mentioned elements with other
similar elements (time and space). Science has simply to accept
this connexion, and to get its bearings in it, without at once
wanting to explain its existence.
On a superficial examination the complex a b c . . . appears to
be made up of much more evanescent elements than A B C . . . and
K L M . . ., in which last the elements seem to be connected with
greater stability and in a more permanent manner (being joined
to solid nuclei as it were). Although on closer inspection the
elements of all complexes prove to be homogeneous, yet even when
this has been recognised, the earlier notion of an antithesis
of body and spirit easily slips in again. The philosophical spiritualist
is often sensible of the difficulty of imparting the needed solidity
to his mind-created world of bodies; the materialist is at a loss
when required to endow the world of matter with sensation. The
monistic point of view, which reflexion has evolved, is easily
clouded by our older and more powerful instinctive notions.
8.
The difficulty referred to is particularly felt when we consider
the following case. In the complex A B C . . .. which we have
called the world of matter, we find as parts, not only our own
body K L M . . ., but also the bodies of other persons (or animals)
K' L' M' . . , K" L" M" . . .. to which, by analogy,
we imagine other a' b' c'..., a" b" c", annexed,
similar to a b c . . . So long as we deal with K' L' M' . . .,
we find ourselves in a thoroughly familiar province which is at
every point accessible to our senses. When, however, we inquire
after the sensations or feelings belonging to the body K' L' M'
. . ., we no longer find these in the province of sense: we add
them in thought. Not only is the domain which we now enter far
less familiar to us, but the transition into it is also relatively
unsafe. We have the feeling as if we were plunging into an abyss.
Persons who adopt this way of thinking only, will never thoroughly
rid themselves of that sense of insecurity, which is a very fertile
source of illusory problems.
But we are not restricted to this course. Let us consider, first,
the reciprocal relations of the elements of the complex A B C
. . ., without regarding K L M . . . (our body). All physical
investigations are of this sort. A white ball falls upon a bell;
a sound is heard. The ball turns yellow before a sodium lamp,
red before a lithium lamp. Here the elements (A B C . . . ) appear
to be connected only with one another and to be independent of
our body (K L M . . . ). But if we take santonin, the ball again
turns yellow. If we press one eye to the side, we see two balls.
If we close our eyes entirely, there is no ball there at all.
If we sever the auditory nerve, no sound is heard. The elements
=4 B C . . ., therefore, are not only connected with one another,
but also with K L M; To this extent, and to this extent only,
do we call A B C . . . sensations, and regard A B C as belonging
to the ego. In what follows, wherever the reader finds the terms
" Sensation," " Sensation-complex," used alongside
of or instead of the expressions " element," "
complex of elements," it must be borne in mind that it is
only in the connexion and relation in question, only in their
functional dependence, that the elements are sensations. In another
functional relation they are at the same time physical objects.
We only use the additional term " sensations" to describe
the elements, because most people are much more familiar with
the elements in question as sensations (colours, sounds, pressures,
spaces, times, etc.), while according to the popular conception
it is particles of mass that are considered as physical elements,
to which the elements, in the sense here used, are attached as
" properties " or " effects.".
In this way, accordingly, we do not find the gap between bodies
and sensations above described, between what is without and what
is within, between the material world and the spiritual world.
All elements A B C . . ., K L M. . .. constitute a single
coherent mass only, in which, when any one element is disturbed,
all is put in motion; except that a disturbance in K, L
M, . . . has a more extensive and profound action than one in
A B C . . . A magnet in our neighbourhood disturbs the particles
of iron near it; a falling boulder shakes the earth; but the severing
of a nerve sets in motion the whole system of elements.
Quite involuntarily does this relation of things suggest the picture
of a viscous mass, at certain places (as in the ego) more firmly
coherent than in others. I have often made use of this image in
lectures.
9.
Thus the great gulf between physical and psychological research
persists only when we acquiesce in our habitual stereotyped conceptions.
A colour is a physical object as soon as we consider its dependence,
for instance, upon its luminous source, upon other colours, upon
temperatures, upon spaces, and so forth. When we consider, however,
its dependence upon the retina (the elements K L M. . .), it is
a psychological object, a sensation. Not the subject matter, but
the direction of our investigation, is different in the two domains.
(Cp. also Chapter II., pp. 43, 44.)
Both in reasoning from the observation of the bodies of other
men or animals, to the sensations which they possess, as well
as in investigating the influence of our own body upon our own
sensations, we have to complete observed facts by analogy. This
is accomplished with much greater ease and certainty, when it
relates, say, only to nervous processes, which cannot be fully
observed in our own bodies - that is, when it is carried out in
the more familiar physical domain - than when it is extended
to the psychical domain, to the sensations and thoughts of other
people. Otherwise there is no essential difference.
10.
The considerations just advanced, expressed as they have been
in an abstract form, will gain in strength and vividness if we
consider the concrete facts from which they flow. Thus, I lie
upon my sofa. If I close my right eye, the picture represented
in the accompanying cut is presented to my left eye In a frame
formed by the ridge of my eyebrow, by my nose, and by my moustache,
appears a part of my body, so far as visible, with its environment.
My body differs from other human bodies - beyond the fact that
every intense motor idea is immediately expressed by a movement
of it, and that, if it is touched, more striking changes are determined
than if other bodies are touched - by the circumstance, that it
is only seen piecemeal, and, especially, is seen without a head.
If I observe an element A within my field of vision, and investigate
its connexion with another element B within the same field, I
step out of the domain of physics into that of physiology or psychology,
provided B, to use the apposite expression of a friend of mine
made upon seeing this drawing, passes through my skin. Reflexions
like that for the field of vision may be made with regard to the
province of touch and the perceptual domains of the other senses.
11.
Reference has already been made to the different character of
the groups of elements denoted by A B C . . . and a b c . . .
As a matter of fact, when we see a green tree before us, or remember
a green tree, that is, represent a green tree to ourselves, we
are perfectly aware of the difference of the two cases. The represented
tree has a much less determinate, a much more changeable form;
its green is much paler and more evanescent; and, what is of especial
note, it plainly appears in a different domain. A movement that
we will to execute is never more than a represented movement,
and appears in a different domain from that of the executed movement,
which always takes place when the image is vivid enough. Now the
statement that the elements A and a appear in different domains,
means, if we go to the bottom of it, simply this, that these elements
are united with different other elements. Thus far, therefore,
the fundamental constituents of A B C . . .. a b c . . . would
seem to be the same (colours, sounds, spaces, times, motor
sensations . . .), and only the character of their connexion different.
Ordinarily pleasure and pain are regarded as different from sensations.
Yet not only tactual sensations, but all other kinds of sensations,
may pass gradually into pleasure and pain. Pleasure and pain also
may be justly termed sensations. Only they are not so well analysed
and so familiar, nor, perhaps, limited to so few organs as the
common sensations. In fact, sensations of pleasure and pain, however
faint they may be, really constitute an essential part of the
content of all so-called emotions. Any additional element that
emerges into consciousness when we are under the- influence of
emotions may be described as more or less diffused and not sharply
localised sensations. William James, and after him Theodule Ribot,
have investigated the physiological mechanism of the emotions:
they hold that what is essential is purposive tendencies of the
body to action - tendencies which correspond to circumstances
and are expressed in the organism. Only a part of these emerges
into consciousness. We are sad because we shed tears, and not
vice versa, says James. And Ribot justly observes that
a cause of the backward state of our knowledge of the emotions
is that we have always confined our observation to so much of
these physiological processes as emerges into consciousness. At
the same time he goes too far when he maintains that everything
psychical is merely "surajoute" to the physical,
and that it is only the physical that produces effects. For us
this distinction is non-existent.
Thus, perceptions, presentations, volitions, and emotions, in
short the whole inner and outer world, are put together, in combinations
of varying evanescence and permanence, out of a small number of
homogeneous elements. Usually, these elements are called sensations.
But as vestiges of a one-sided theory inhere in that term, we
prefer to speak simply of elements, as we have already done. The
aim of all research is to ascertain the mode of connexion of these
elements. If it proves impossible to solve the problem by assuming
one set of such elements, then more than one will have
to be assumed. But for the questions under discussion it would
be improper to begin by making complicated assumptions in advance.
12.
That in this complex of elements, which fundamentally is only
one, the boundaries of bodies and of the ego do not admit of being
established in a manner definite and sufficient for all cases,
has already been remarked. To bring together elements that are
most intimately connected with pleasure and pain into one ideal
mental-economical unity, the ego; this is a task of the highest
importance for the intellect working in the service of the pain-avoiding,
pleasure-seeking will. The delimitation of the ego, therefore,
is instinctively effected, is rendered familiar, and possibly
becomes fixed through heredity. Owing to their high practical
importance, not only for the individual, but for the entire species,
the composites " ego " and " body " instinctively
make good their claims, and assert themselves with elementary
force. In special cases, however, in which practical ends are
not concerned, but where knowledge is an end in itself, the delimitation
in question may prove to be insufficient, obstructive, and untenable.
Similarly, class-consciousness, class-prejudice, the feeling of
nationality, and even the narrowest-minded local patriotism may
have a high importance, for certain purposes. But such attitudes
will not be shared by the broad-minded investigator, at least
not in moments of research. All such egoistic views are adequate
only for practical purposes. Of course, even the investigator
may succumb to habit. Trifling pedantries and nonsensical discussions;
the cunning appropriation of others' thoughts, with perfidious
silence as to the sources; when the word of recognition must be
given, the difficulty of swallowing one's defeat, and the too
common eagerness at the same time to set the opponent's achievement
in a false light: all this abundantly shows that the scientist
and scholar have also the battle of existence to fight, that the
ways even of science still lead to the mouth, and that the pure
impulse towards knowledge is still an ideal in our present social
conditions.
The primary fact is not the ego, but the elements (sensations).
What was said on p. 21 as to the term " sensation "
must be borne in mind. The elements constitute the I. s have the
sensation green, signifies that the element green occurs in a
given complex of other elements (sensations, memories). When I
cease to have the sensation green, when I die, then the
elements no longer occur in the ordinary, familiar association.
That is all. Only an ideal mental-economical unity, not a real
unity, has ceased to exist. The ego is not a definite, unalterable,
sharply bounded unity. None of these attributes are important;
for all vary even within the sphere of individual life; in fact
their alteration is even sought after by the individual. Continuity
alone is important. This view accords admirably with the position
which Weismann has reached by biological investigations. ("Zur
Frage der Unsterblichkeit der Einzelligen," Biolog
Centralbl., Vol. IV., Nos. 21, 22; compare especially pages
654 and 655, where the scission of the individual into two equal
halves is spoken of.) But continuity is only a means of preparing
and conserving what is contained in the ego. This content, and
not the ego, is the principal thing. This content, however, is
not confined to the individual. With the exception of some insignificant
and valueless personal memories, it remains presented in others
even after the death of the individual. The elements that make
up the consciousness of a given individual are firmly connected
with one another, but with those of another individual they are
only feebly connected, and the connexion is only casually apparent.
Contents of consciousness, however, that are of universal significance,
break through these limits of the individual, and, attached of
course to individuals again, can enjoy a continued existence of
an impersonal, superpersonal kind, independently of the personality
by means of which they were developed. To contribute to this is
the greatest happiness of the artist, the scientist, the inventor,
the social reformer, etc.
The ego must be given up. It is partly the perception of this
fact, partly the fear of it, that has given rise to the many extravagances
of pessimism and optimism, and to numerous religious, ascetic,
and philosophical absurdities. In the long run we shall not be
able to close our eyes to this simple truth, which is the immediate
outcome of psychological analysis. We shall then no longer place
so high a value upon the ego, which even during the individual
life greatly changes, and which, in sleep or during absorption
in some idea, just in our very happiest moments, may be partially
or wholly absent. We shall then be willing to renounce individual
immortality,' and not place more value upon the subsidiary elements
than upon the principal ones. In this way we shall arrive at a
freer and more enlightened view of life, which will preclude the
disregard of other egos and the overestimation of our own. The
ethical ideal founded on this view of life will be equally far
removed from the ideal of the ascetic, which is not biologically
tenable for whoever practises it, and vanishes at once with his
disappearance, and from the ideal of an overweening Nietzschean
"superman," who cannot, and I hope will not be tolerated
by his fellow-men.
If a knowledge of the connexion of the elements (sensations) does
not suffice us, and we ask, Who possesses this connexion
of sensations, Who experiences it ? then we have succumbed
to the old habit of subsuming every element (every sensation)
under some unanalysed complex, and we are falling back imperceptibly
upon an older, lower, and more limited point of view. It is often
pointed out, that a psychical experience which is not the experience
of a determinate subject is unthinkable, and it is held that in
this way the essential part played by the unity of consciousness
has been demonstrated. But the Ego-consciousness can be of many
different degrees and composed of a multiplicity of chance memories.
One might just as well say that a physical process which does
not take place in some environment or other, or at least somewhere
in the universe, is unthinkable. In both cases, in order to make
a beginning with our investigation, we must be allowed to abstract
from the environment, which, as regards its influence, may be
very different in different cases, and in special cases may shrink
to a minimum. Consider the sensations of the lower animals, to
which a subject with definite features can hardly be ascribed.
It is out of sensations that the subject is built up, and, once
built up, no doubt the subject reacts in turn on the sensations.
The habit of treating the unanalysed ego complex as an indiscerptible
unity frequently assumes in science remarkable forms. First, the
nervous system is separated from the body as the seat of the sensations.
In the nervous system again, the brain is selected as the organ
best fitted for this end, and finally, to save the supposed psychical
unity, a point is sought in the brain as the seat of the
soul. But such crude conceptions are hardly fit even to foreshadow
the roughest outlines of what future research will do for the
connexion of the physical and the psychical. The fact that the
different organs and parts of the nervous system are physically
connected with, and can be readily excited by, one another, is
probably at the bottom of the notion of "psychical unity."
I once heard the question seriously discussed, "How the perception
of a large tree could find room in the little head of a man?)'
Now, although this "problem " is no problem, yet it
renders us vividly sensible of the absurdity that can be committed
by thinking sensations spatially into the brain. When I speak
of the sensations of another person, those sensations are, of
course, not exhibited in my optical or physical space; they are
mentally added, and I conceive them causally, not spatially, attached
to the brain observed, or rather, functionally presented. When
I speak of my own sensations, these sensations do not exist spatially
in my head, but rather my "head" shares with them the
same spatial field, as was explained above. (Compare the remarks
on Fig. I on pp. I7-I9 above.).
The unity of consciousness is not an argument in point. Since
the apparent antithesis between the real world and the world given
through the senses lies entirely in our mode of view, and no actual
gulf exists between them, a complicated and variously interconnected
content of consciousness is no more difficult to understand than
is the complicated interconnection of the world.
If we regard the ego as a real unity, we become involved in the
following dilemma: either we must set over against the ego a world
of unknowable entities (which would be quite idle and purposeless),
or we must regard the whole world, the egos of other people included,
as comprised in our own ego (a proposition to which it is difficult
to yield serious assent).
But if we take the ego simply as a practical unity, put together
for purposes of provisional survey, or as a more strongly cohering
group of elements, less strongly connected with other groups of
this kind, questions like those above discussed will not arise,
and research will have an unobstructed future.
In his philosophical notes Lichtenberg says: " We become
conscious of certain presentations that are not dependent upon
us; of others that we at least think are dependent upon us. Where
is the border-line? We know only the existence of our sensations,
presentations, and thoughts. We should say, It thinks,
just as we say, It lightens. It is going too far to say
cogito, if we translate cogito by I think.
The assumption, or postulation, of the ego is a mere practical
necessity." Though the method by which Lichtenberg arrived
at this result is somewhat different from ours, we must nevertheless
give our full assent to his conclusion.
13.
Bodies do not produce sensations, but complexes of elements (complexes
of sensations) make up bodies. If, to the physicist, bodies appear
the real, abiding existences, whilst the " elements "
are regarded merely as their evanescent, transitory appearance,
the physicist forgets, in the assumption of such a view, that
all bodies are but thought-symbols for complexes of elements (complexes
of sensations). Here, too, the elements in question form the real,
immediate, and ultimate foundation, which it is the task of physiologico-physical
research to investigate. By the recognition of this fact, many
points of physiology and physics assume more distinct and more
economical forms, and many spurious problems are disposed of.
For us, therefore, the world does not consist of mysterious entities,
which by their interaction with another, equally mysterious entity,
the ego, produce sensations, which alone are accessible. For us,
colours, sounds, spaces, times, . . . are provisionally the ultimate
elements, whose given connexion it is our business to investigate.
[I have always felt it as a stroke of special good fortune, that
early in life, at about the age of fifteen, I lighted, in the
library of my father, on a copy of Kant's Prolegomena to any
Future Metaphysics. The book made at the time a powerful and
ineffaceable impression upon me, the like of which I never afterwards
experienced in any of my philosophical reading. Some two or three
years later the superfluity of the role played by "the thing
in itself" abruptly dawned upon me. On a bright summer day
in the open air, the world with my ego suddenly appeared to me
as one coherent mass of sensations, only more strongly
coherent in the ego. Although the actual working out of this thought
did not occur until a later period, yet this moment was decisive
for my whole view. I had still to struggle long and hard before
I was able to retain the new conception in my special subject.
With the valuable parts of physical theories we necessarily absorb
a good dose of false metaphysics, which it is very difficult to
sift out from what deserves to be preserved, especially when those
theories have become very familiar to us. At times, too, the traditional,
instinctive views would arise with great power and place impediments
in my way. Only by alternate studies in physics and in the physiology
of the senses, and by historico-physical investigations (since
about 1863), and after having endeavoured in vain to settle the
conflict by a physico-psychological monadology (in my lectures
on psycho-physics, in the Zeitschrift fur praktische Heilkunde,
Vienna, 1863, p. 364), have I attained to any considerable stability
in my views. I make no pretensions to the title of philosopher.
I only seek to adopt in physics a point of view that need not
be changed the moment our glance is carried over into the domain
of another science; for, ultimately, all must form one whole.
The molecular physics of today certainly does not meet this requirement.
What I say I have probably not been the first to say. I also do
not wish to offer this exposition of mine as a special achievement.
It is rather my belief that every one will be led to a similar
view, who makes a careful survey of any extensive body of knowledge.
Avenarius, with whose works I became acquainted in 1883, approaches
my point of view (Philosophie als Denken des Welt nach dem
Princip des kleinsten Kraftmasses, 1876). Also Hering, in
his paper on Memory (Almanach der Wiener Akademie, 1870,
p. 258; English translation, O. C. Pub. Co., Chicago, 4th edition,
enlarged, 1913), and J. Popper in his beautiful book, Das Rechte
zu leben und die Pflicht zu sterben (Leipzig, 1878, p. 62),
have advanced allied thoughts. Compare also my paper Ueber
die okonomische Natur der physikalis der Forschung (Almanach
der WienerAkadernie, 1882, p. 179, note; English translation
in my Popular Scientific Lectures, Chicago, 1894). Finally
let me also refer here to the introduction to W. Preyer's Reine
Empfindungslehres to Riehl's Freibrurger Antrittsrede,
p. 40, and to R. Wahle's Gehirn und Bewusstsein, 1884.
My views were indicated briefly in 1872 and 1875, and not expounded
at length until 1882 and 1883. I should probably have much additional
matter to cite as more or less allied to this line of thought,
if my knowledge of the literature were more extensive.]
It is precisely in this that the exploration of reality consists.
In this investigation we must not allow ourselves to be impeded
by such abridgments and delimitations as body, ego, matter, spirit,
etc., which have been formed for special, practical purposes and
with wholly provisional and limited ends in view. On the contrary,
the fittest forms of thought must be created in and by that research
itself, just as is done in every special science. In place of
the traditional, instinctive ways of thought, a freer, fresher
view, conforming to developed experience, and reaching out beyond
the requirements of practical life, must be substituted throughout.
14.
Science always has its origin in the adaptation of thought to
some definite field of experience. The results of the adaptation
are thought-elements, which are able to represent the whole field.
The outcome, of course, is different, according to the character
and extent of the field. If the field of experience is enlarged,
or if several fields heretofore disconnected are united, the traditional,
familiar thought-elements no longer suffice for the extended field.
In the struggle of acquired habit with the effort after adaptation,
problems arise, which disappear when the adaptation is perfected,
to make room for others which have arisen meanwhile.
To the physicist, qua physicist, the idea of "body"
is productive of a real facilitation of view, and is not the cause
of disturbance. So, also, the person with purely practical aims,
is materially supported by the idea of the I or ego. For,
unquestionably, every form of thought that has been designedly
or undesignedly constructed for a given purpose, possesses for
that purpose a permanent value. When, however, physics
and psychology meet, the ideas held in the one domain prove to
be untenable in the other. From the attempt at mutual adaptation
arise the various atomic and monadistic theories - which, however,
never attain their end. If we regard sensations, in the sense
above defined (p. 13), as the elements of the world, the problems
referred to appear to be disposed of in all essentials, and the
first and most important adaptation to be consequently effected.
This fundamental view (without any pretension to being a philosophy
for all eternity) can at present be adhered to in all fields of
experience; it is consequently the one that accommodates itself
with the least expenditure of energy, that is, more economically
than any other, to the present temporary collective state of knowledge
Furthermore, in the consciousness of its purely economical function,
this fundamental view is eminently tolerant. It does not obtrude
itself into fields in which the current conceptions are still
adequate. It is also ever ready, upon subsequent extensions of
the field of experience, to give way before a better conception.
The presentations and conceptions of the average man of the world
are formed and dominated, not by the full and pure desire for
knowledge as an end in itself, but by the struggle to adapt himself
favourably to the conditions of life. Consequently they are less
exact, but at the same time also they are preserved from the monstrosities
which easily result from a one-sided and impassioned pursuit of
a scientific or philosophical point of view. The unprejudiced
man of normal psychological development takes the elements which
we have called A B C . . . to be spatially contiguous and external
to the elements K L M. . .. and he holds this view immediately,
and not by any process of psychological projection or logical
inference or construction; even were such a process to exist,
he would certainly not be conscious of it. He sees, then, an "
external world " A B C . . . different from his body K L
M . and existing outside it. As he does not observe at first the
dependence of the A B C's . . . on the K L M's . . . (which are
always repeating themselves in the same way and consequently receive
little attention), but is always dwelling upon the fixed connexion
of the A B C's . . . with one another, there appears to him a
world of things independent of his Ego. This Ego is formed by
the observation of the special properties of the particular thing
K L M . . . with which pain, pleasure, feeling, will, etc., are
intimately connected. Further, he notices things K' L' M', K"
L" M", which behave in a manner perfectly analogous
to K L M, and whose behaviour he thoroughly understands as soon
as he has thought of analogous feelings, sensations, etc., as
attached to them in the same way as he observed these feelings,
sensations, etc., to be attached to himself. The analogy impelling
him to this result is the same as determines him, when he has
observed that a wire possesses all the properties of a
conductor charged with an electric current, except one which has
not yet been directly demonstrated, to conclude that the wire
possesses this one property as well. Thus, since he does not perceive
the sensations of his fellowmen or of animals but only supplies
them by analogy, while he infers from the behaviour of his fellow-men
that they are in the same position over against himself, he is
led to ascribe to the sensations, memories, etc., a particular
A B C . . . K L M . . . of a different nature, always differently
conceived according to the degree of civilisation he has reached;
but this process, as was shown above, is unnecessary, and in science
leads into a maze of error, although the falsification is of small
significance for practical life.
These factors, determining as they do the intellectual outlook
of the plain man, make their appearance alternately in him according
to the requirements of practical life for the time being, and
persist in a state of nearly stable equilibrium. The scientific
conception of the world, however, puts the emphasis now upon one,
now upon the other factor, makes sometimes one and sometimes the
other its starting-point, and, in its struggle for greater precision,
unity and consistency, tries, so far as seems possible, to thrust
into the background all but the most indispensable conceptions.
In this way dualistic and monistic systems arise.
The plain man is familiar with blindness and deafness, and knows
from his everyday experience that the look of things is influenced
by his senses; but it never occurs to him to regard the whole
world as the creation of his senses. He would find an idealistic
system, or such a monstrosity as solipsism, intolerable in practice.
It may easily become a disturbing element in unprejudiced scientific
theorising when a conception which is adapted to a particular
and strictly limited purpose is promoted in advance to be the
foundation of all investigation. This happens, for example,
when all experiences are regarded as " effects " of
an external world extending into consciousness. This conception
gives us a tangle of metaphysical difficulties which it seems
impossible to unravel. But the spectre vanishes at once when we
look at the matter as it were in a mathematical light, and make
it clear to ourselves that all that is valuable to us is the discovery
of functional relations, and that what we want to know
is merely the dependence of experiences or one another. It then
becomes obvious that the reference to unknown fundamental variables
which are not given (things-in-themselves) is purely fictitious
and superfluous. But even when we allow this fiction, uneconomical
though it be, to stand at first, we can still easily distinguish
different classes of the mutual dependence of the elements of
" the facts of consciousness "; and this alone is important
for us.
A B C . . . K L M a b c . . .
K' L' M' ... a' b' c' ..
K" L" M"... a" B" C"
The system of the elements is indicated in the above scheme. Within
the space surrounded by a single line lie the elements which belong
to the sensible world, - the elements whose regular connexion
and peculiar dependence on one another represent both physical
(lifeless) bodies and the bodies of men, animals and plants. All
these elements, again, stand in a relation of quite peculiar dependence
to certain of the elements K L M - the nerves of our body, namely
- by which the facts of sense-physiology are expressed. The space
surrounded by a double line contains the elements belonging to
the higher psychic life, memory-images and presentations, including
those which we form of the psychic life of our fellow-men. These
may be distinguished by accents. These presentations, again, are
connected with one another in a different way (association, fancy)
from the sensational elements A B C . . . K L M; but it cannot
be doubted that they are very closely allied to the latter, and
that in the last resort their behaviour is determined by A B C
. . . K L M (the totality of the physical world), and especially
by our body and nervous system. The presentations a' b' c' of
the contents of the consciousness of our fellow-men play for us
the part of intermediate substitutions, by means of which the
behaviour of our fellow-men, - the functional relation of K' L'
M' to A B C - becomes intelligible, in so far as in and for itself
(physically) it would remain unexplained.
It is therefore important for us to recognise that in all questions
in this connexion, which can be intelligibly asked and which can
interest us, everything turns on taking into consideration different
ultimate variables and different relations of dependence.
That is the main point. Nothing will be changed in the actual
facts or in the functional relations, whether we regard all the
data as contents of consciousness, or as partially so, or as completely
physical.
The biological task of science is to provide the fully developed
human individual with as perfect a means of orientating himself
as possible. No other scientific ideal can be realised, and any
other must be meaningless.
The philosophical point of view of the average man - if that term
may be applied to his naive realism - has a claim to the highest
consideration. It has arisen in the process of immeasurable time
without the intentional assistance of man. It is a product of
nature, and is preserved by nature. Everything that philosophy
has accomplished - though we may admit the biological justification
of every advance, nay, of every error - is, as compared with it,
but an insignificant and ephemeral product of art. The fact is,
every thinker, every philosopher, the moment he is forced to abandon
his one-sided intellectual occupation by practical necessity,
immediately returns to the general point of view of mankind. Professor
X., who theoretically believes himself to be a solipsist, is certainly
not one in practice when he has to thank a Minister of State for
a decoration conferred upon him, or when he lectures to an audience.
The Pyrrhonist who is cudgelled in Moliere's Le Mariage force,
does not go on saying " Il me semble que vous me battez,"
but takes his beating as really received.
Nor is it the purpose of these " introductory remarks "
to discredit the standpoint of the plain man. The task which we
have set ourselves is simply to show why and for what purpose
we hold that standpoint during most of our lives, and why and
for what purpose we are provisionally obliged to abandon it. No
point of view has absolute, permanent validity. Each has importance
only for some given end.
...
Further Reading:
Poincare
Helmholtz
Biography
Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org
|
./articles/Helmholtz-Hermann/https:..www.marxists.org.reference.subject.philosophy.works.ge.fichte | <body>
<p><img src="../../../../../glossary/people/f/pics/fichte.jpg" align="RIGHT" height="176" width="134" border="2" alt="drawing of daggy looking johann fichte">
</p><p class="title">Johann Fichte (1810)</p>
<h1>Outlines of the Doctrine of Knowledge</h1>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information">
<span class="info">Source</span>: <em>Outline of the Doctrine of Knowledge</em> (1810). From <i>The Popular Works of Johann Gottlieb Fichte</i>, translated by William Smith, Pub: Trubner and Co., 1889. The whole of this essay is reproduced.
</p>
<hr class="end">
<a name="01"></a>
<h3>I.</h3>
<p class="fst">
THE Doctrine of Knowledge, apart from all special and definite
<em>knowing</em>, proceeds immediately upon Knowledge itself, in
the essential unity in which it recognises Knowledge as existing;
and it raises this question in the first place - How this Knowledge
can come into being, and what it is in its inward and essential
Nature?</p>
<p>
The following must be apparent: - There is but One who is absolutely
by and through himself, - namely, God; and God is not the mere
dead conception to which we have thus given utterance, but he
is in himself pure Life. He can neither change nor determine himself
in aught within himself, nor become any other Being; for his Being
contains within it all his Being and all possible Being, and neither
within him nor out of him can any new Being arise.</p>
<p>
If, therefore, Knowledge must be, and yet be not God himself,
then, since there is nothing but God, it can only be God<em> out
of</em> himself, - God's Being out of his Being, - his Manifestation,
in which he dwells wholly as he is in himself, while within himself
he also still remains wholly such as he is. But such a Manifestation
is a picture or <em>Schema</em>.</p>
<p>
If there be such a Schema - and this can only become evident through
its immediate being, seeing that it is immediate - it can only
be because God is; and, so surely as God is, it cannot but be.
It is, however, by no means to be conceived of as a work of God,
effected by some particular act, whereby a change is wrought in
himself; but it is to be conceived of as an immediate consequence
of his Being. It is absolutely, according to the Form of his Being,
just as he himself <em>is</em> absolutely; although it is not he
himself, but his Schema.</p>
<p>
Again: - Out of God there can be nothing whatever but this; -
no Being that is essentially independent, for that he alone is;
- only his Schema can there be out of him, and thus a Being out
of God signifies merely his Schema; - the two expressions mean
precisely the same thing.</p>
<a name="02"></a>
<h3>II.</h3>
<p class="fst">
Further. - Since it cannot be overlooked by the Doctrine of Knowledge
that Actual Knowledge does by no means present itself as a Unity,
such as is assumed above but as a multiplicity, there is consequently
a second task imposed upon it, - that of setting forth the ground
of this apparent Multiplicity. It is of course understood that
this ground is not to be derived from any outward source, but
must be shown to be contained in the essential Nature of Knowledge
itself as such; - and that therefore this problem, although apparently
two-fold, is yet but one and the same, - namely, to set forth
the essential Nature of Knowledge.</p>
<a name="03"></a>
<h3>III.</h3>
<p class="fst">
This Being out of God cannot, by any means, be a limited, completed,
and inert Being, since God himself is not such a dead Being, but,
on the contrary, is Life; - but it can only be a Power, since
only a Power is the true formal picture or Schema of Life. And
indeed it can only be the Power of realising that which is contained
in itself - a Schema. Since this Power is the expression of a
determinate Being - the Schema of the Divine Life - it is itself
determined; but only in the way in which an absolute Power may
be determined, - by laws, and indeed by determinate laws. If
this or that is to become actual, the Power must operate in this
way or that, subject to that determination.</p>
<a name="04"></a>
<h3>IV.</h3>
<p class="fst">
Thus in the first place - There can be an Actual Being out of
God only through the self-realisation of this absolute Power:
- this Power, however, can only produce pictures or Schemae, which
by combination become Actual Knowledge. Thus, whatever exists
out of God, exists only by means of absolutely free Power, as
the Knowledge belonging to this Power, and in its Knowledge; -
and any other Being but this out of the true Being which lies
hidden in God is altogether impossible.</p>
<a name="05"></a>
<h3>V.</h3>
<p class="fst">
Again, as to the determination of this Power by laws: - It is,
in the first place, determined through itself, as the Power of
Actual Knowledge. But it is essential to Actual Knowledge that
some particular Schema should be realised through this Power;
and then that through the same identical Power, in the same identical
position, this Schema should be recognised as a Schema, and as
a Schema not in itself independent, but demanding, as a condition
of its Existence, a Being out of itself The immediate and concrete
expression of this recognition, - which in Actual Knowledge never
attains to consciousness, but which is elevated into consciousness
only by means of the Doctrine of Knowledge, is Actual Knowledge
itself in its Form; and, in consequence of this latter recognition,
there is, of necessity, assumed an Objective Reality, wholly transcending
the Schema and independent of Knowledge. Since in this knowledge
of the Objective Reality, even the Schema itself is concealed,
much more is the Power which creates it concealed and unseen.
This is the fundamental law of the Form of Knowledge. So surely
therefore as the Power develops itself in this particular way,
it develops itself as we have described; not merely schematising,
but also schematising the Schema as a Schema, and recognising
it in its dependent nature; - not that it must unconditionally
do this, but that only by means of this process can it attain
to Actual Knowledge.</p>
<p>
In consequence of this there is much that remains invisible in
Actual Knowledge, but which, nevertheless, really is as the manifestation
of this Power. If therefore this, and all other manifestation
of this Power, were to be imported into Knowledge, then could
this only occur in a Knowledge other than that first mentioned;
and thus would the unity of Knowledge necessarily be broken up
into separate parts, by the opposition of the law of the form
of visibility to that law by which Knowledge perceives itself as
a perfect and indivisible whole.</p>
<a name="06"></a>
<h3>VI.</h3>
<p class="fst">
Further: - Within this its Formal Being, this Power is also determined
by an unconditional Imperative. It shall recognise itself as the
Schema of the Divine Life, which it is originally, and through
which alone it has Existence; - consequent]y this is its absolute
vocation, in which its efficiency as a Power is completely exhausted.
It shall recognise itself as the Schema of the Divine Life, -
but it is originally nothing more than a Power, although most
assuredly it is this determinate Power of the Schema of God: -
if it is to recognise itself as such a Schema in Reality, then
it must make itself so actually, by the realisation of the Power
- by its self-realisation.</p>
<a name="07"></a>
<h3>VII.</h3>
<p class="fst">
The recognition of itself as a Power to which an unconditional
Imperative is addressed, and which is able to fulfil that Imperative,
and the actual realisation of this Power, should the latter come
to pass, are distinct from each other; and the possibility of
the latter is dependent on the previous accomplishment of the
former.</p>
<p>
It shall recognise itself as the Divine Schema, not by means of
any Being inherent in itself, for there is no such Being, but
by means of the realisation of the Power. It must therefore previously
possess the knowledge that it is such a Power, and also by what
marks it may recognise itself in its self-realisation, in order
that it may direct its attention to these characteristic marks,
and so be enabled to judge of the realisation which they denote.</p>
<p>
Or it may be regarded thus - By means of the realisation of the
Power there arises a Schema, and a consciousness of that which
is contained in the Schema, and not more than this. (§ v.)
The formal addition, which lies beyond the immediate contents
of the Schema, - ie. that it is the Schema of God, - is not immediately
contained in it; and can only be attributed to it in consequence
of some characteristic mark perceived in the actual realisation
of the Power. The characteristic mark is this - that the Power
realize itself, with absolute Freedom, in accordance with the
recognised universal Imperative.</p>
<a name="08"></a>
<h3>VIII.</h3>
<p class="fst">
If it <em>shall</em> recognise itself as a Power to which an unconditional
Imperative is addressed, it must, previous to this <em>definite</em>
recognition, have also recognised itself <em>generally</em> as a
Principle; - and since it can only recognise itself by means of
its own self-development, it must necessarily develop itself before
being able to recognise itself immediately as the Principle in
this development. The necessity for this is contained in the intuition
that the Imperative shall become visible to it; and it may therefore
be named a necessity of the Imperative - a shall of the<em> shall</em>
- namely, a necessity of its visibility: - consequently this Imperative
- this shall - lies in the primitive determination of the Power
through its Being from God. Since, when it does not recognise
itself generally as a Principle, it cannot, in the same position
and at the same time, recognise itself in any more <em>definite</em>
form, it is clear that these two modes of Knowledge are separate
and distinct from each other. We call Knowledge by means of an
immediate invisible principle - <em>Intuition</em>.</p>
<a name="09"></a>
<h3>IX.</h3>
<p class="fst">
Since neither the Power itself as such, nor the Divine Life, is
schematised in Intuition, by which indeed there is first introduced
the practical possibility of such schematising, it is clear that
there is nothing left remaining in Intuition but the mere Form
of Power as given in its immediate expression. It is (§ V.)
a Power of Contemplation, - and that indeed without direction
towards the one Divine Life, which from this standpoint remains
concealed; - an undefined, wholly indeterminate, and yet absolute
Power, - and hence an Infinite. It therefore schematises itself
as contemplating an infinity in one glance:- SPACE; it consequently
thus also schematises <em>itself</em> as contracting and limiting
itself, in the same undivided Intuition, to a point in that first
infinity, a point which in itself is likewise infinitely divisible,
a consolidated infinite Space within the other simple infinite
Space, - or MATTER; - thus as an infinite Power of self-concentration,
and consequently also as an unlimited Material World in Space:
- all which, according to the fundamental law of Knowledge which
we have already adduced (§ v.) must appear to it as actual,
self-existent Being.</p>
<p>
Further: - by virtue of its merely formal power of Being, it is
an absolutely primitive Principle. In order to schematise itself
as such in Intuition, it must antecedent to its actual activity,
perceive a <em>possible</em> form of activity which - thus it must
seem to it - it either might or might not be able to realize.
This possible form of activity cannot be perceived by it in the
Absolute Imperative, which to this point of view is invisible;
hence it can only be perceived in a likewise blindly schematised
Causality, which indeed is not an immediate Causality but only
appears to become so through the apparent realisation of the Power.
But such a Causality is an Instinct. It was necessary that the
Power should feel itself impelled to this or that form of activity,
but without the source of the impulse being <em>immediately</em>
perceived, since such an immediate recognition would deprive it
of the appearance of Freedom, which is here an indispensable characteristic.</p>
<p>
This activity demanded by Instinct can only be an activity exercised
on the Material World. Hence the Instinct to activity comes into
view in immediate relation to material existences; these are consequently
recognised in this immediate relation, and acquire, through this
relation, not merely extension in Space, but, even more, their
internal qualities: - and by this remark we have completed the
definition of material existences, which was before left incomplete.</p>
<p>
Should the Power, by means of this Instinct and the consequent
appearance of self-determination, perceive itself as in a state
of real activity, then, in the perception of this activity, it
would be associated with the Material World in the same undivided
Form of Intuition; and hence in this Intuition, thus uniting it
with the Material World, it would perceive itself as a material
existence in a double relation to the Material World: - partly
as Sense, that it might feel the relation of that world to its
Instinct, - partly as Organism, that it might contemplate its
own activity therein.</p>
<p>
In this activity it now beholds itself as the same identical Power
in a state of self-determination; but as not exhausted in any
form of its activity, and as thus remaining a Power <em>ad infinitum</em>.
In this perception of its unlimited Power there arises before
it an Infinity; not in one glance, like that first mentioned,
but an Infinity in which it may behold its own infinite activity;
- an infinite series of successive links:- TIME. Since this activity
can be exercised <em>ad infinitum</em> only on the Material World,
Time is likewise transferred to that world in the unity of Intuition,
although that world already possesses its own peculiar expression
of Infinitude in the infinite divisibility of SPACE and of all
its parts.</p>
<p>
It is obvious that the position in which the Power gives itself
up wholly to the contemplation of the Material World and is exhausted
therein, is distinct from that in which it becomes cognisant of
its Instinct towards activity in this previously recognised World,
- that nevertheless there remains, even in the latter position,
a Schema of present and necessary Existence, in order that it
may be possible for the Instinct to enter into relations with
such Existence: - and this forms the connection between these two
separate and distinct positions of Intuition.</p>
<p>
This whole domain of Intuition is, as we said, the expression
and Schema of mere Power. Since Power, without the Schema of the
Divine Life, is nothing, while here it is nevertheless schematised
in this its nothingness, - this whole domain is consequently nothing
in itself, and only in its relation to Actual Being does it acquire
significance, the practical possibility of the latter being dependent
upon it.</p>
<a name="10"></a>
<h3>X.</h3>
<p class="fst">
There is further contained in the Power an original determination
to raise itself to the perception of the Imperative, the practical
realisation of which is now rendered immediately possible by the
recognised Existence of the whole domain of Intuition. But how
and in what way can this elevation be accomplished ? That which
abides firmly in Intuition, and is indeed the very root of it,
is Instinct; - by its means the Power itself is made dependent
on Intuition, and is imprisoned within it. The condition and the
only means for the now possible realisation of the Power, is therefore
the liberation of itself from Instinct, and the abolition of the
latter as the invisible and blind impulse of schematising, - and
in the abolition of the principle, the consequence of it - imprisonment
in Intuition - is likewise abolished. Knowledge would then stand
forth in its primitive unity, as it is perceived at first by the
Doctrine of Knowledge; - in this its essential unity it would
manifest itself as dependent, and as requiring a <em>substratum</em>
- a unity which shall exist absolutely through itself. Knowledge
in this form is no longer Intuition, but Thought; - and indeed
Pure Thought, or Intelligising.</p>
<a name="11"></a>
<h3>XI.</h3>
<p class="fst">
Before proceeding further, we must from this central point indicate
a distinction hitherto unnoticed in the sphere of Intuition. Only
through blind Instinct, in which the only possible guidance of
the Imperative is awanting, does the Power in Intuition remain
undetermined; where it is schematised as absolute it becomes infinite;
and where it is presented in a determinate form, as a principle,
it becomes at least manifold. By the above-mentioned act of
Intelligising, the Power liberates itself from Instinct, to direct
itself towards Unity. But so surely as it requires a special act
for the production of this Unity, - (in the first place indeed
inwardly and immediately within the Power itself, because only
under this condition could it be outwardly perceived in the Schema),
- so surely was the Power not viewed as One in the sphere of Intuition,
but as Manifold; - this Power, which now through perception and
recognition of itself has become an Ego - an Individual, - was,
in this sphere, not one Individual, but necessarily broken up
into a world of Individuals.</p>
<p>
This indeed does not occur in the Form of Intuition itself. The
original schematising principle, and the principle which recognises
this Schema immediately and in the very act of its production
as a Schema, are of necessity numerically one, not two; and thus
also, in the domain of Intuition, that which immediately contemplates
its Intuition is a single, self-inclosed, separate principle,
in this respect inaccessible to any other: - the individuality
of all men, who, on this account, can each have but one separate
individuality. But this separation of Individuals must certainly
take place in that Form in which alone unity also is produced,
- namely, in that of Thought; - hence the individuality we have
described, however isolated it may appear in the immediate Intuition
of itself, yet, when it comprehends itself in Thought, perceives
itself, in this Thought, as an Individual in a world of Individuals
like itself; which latter, since it cannot behold them as free
principles like itself in immediate Intuition, can only be recognised
by it as such, by an inference from the mode of their activity
in the World of Sense.</p>
<p>
From this farther definition of the sphere of Intuition - that
in it the Principle, which through its Being in God is <em>One</em>,
is broken up into <em>Many</em> - there follows yet another. This
division, even in the One Thought, and the mutual recognition,
which nevertheless is necessarily found in connection with it,
would not be possible were not the Object of the Intuition and
of the Activity of all, one and the same, - a like World to them
all. The Intuition of a World of Sense existed only in order that
through this World the Ego might become visible to itself as standing
under the Law of an Absolute Imperative. For this nothing more
was necessary than that the Intuition of such a World should simply
be; - the manner of its being is absolutely of no importance,
since for this purpose any form of it is sufficient. But the Ego
must besides recognise itself as One in a given Multiplicity of
Individuals; - and to this end it is necessary, besides the general
determinations of the World of Sense already mentioned, that this
World should be the same to each beholder: - the same Space, and
the same filling up of it for all; - notwithstanding that it is
still left to individual Freedom to apprehend this common filling
up in its own particular order in Time - the same Time, and the
same filling up of it by sensible events for all; - notwithstanding
that it still remains free to every one, so far as his own thought
and action are concerned, to fill it up after his own fashion.
The necessity for the Imperative becoming visible (§ VIII.)
as it proceeds from God, is assuredly contained in the One Principle,
since there is but One Principle that proceeds from God; and thus,
in consequence of the unity of the Power, it is possible for each
Individual to schematise his World of Sense in accordance with
the law of that original harmony; - and every Individual, under
the condition of being found on the way towards the recognition
of the Imperative, must so schematise it. I might say: - Every
Individual can and must, under the given condition, construct
the <em>True</em> World of Sense, - for this indeed has beyond the
universal and formal laws above deduced, no other Truth and Reality
than this universal harmony.</p>
<a name="12"></a>
<h3>XII.</h3>
<p class="fst">
Let us return to Pure Thought or Intelligising (§ I). By
it Knowledge is perceived as its only possible Schema of the Divine
Life. In this Thought I do not possess knowledge immediately,
but only in a Schema; still less do I possess in it the Divine
Life immediately, but only in a Schema of the Schema, - in a doubly
ineffectual conception. I reflect, - and a power of so reflecting
must, for the reason to be given presently, be contained in the
general Power, - I reflect that <em>I</em> perceive this Knowledge;
that therefore I can perceive it; that since, according to the
insight thus obtained, Knowledge is the expression of God, this
Power itself is likewise his expression; that the Power exists
only that it may be realised; and that consequently, in virtue
of my Being from God, I shall perceive it. Only by means of this
reflection do I arrive at the insight that I<em> shall</em>, absolutely:
- but I <em>shall</em>, besides, attain this insight; - hence, -
this must surely be now apparent - there must, likewise in virtue
of my Being from -God, be an absolute Power of this reflection
contained in the general Power. The whole sphere which we have
now described thus reveals itself as an Imperative of perception-
- that <em>I</em>, - the Principle already perceived in the sphere
of Intuition, - that<em> I shall</em>. In it, the Ego, which through.
mere reflection is immediately visible as a Principle, becomes
the Principle of the Schema, - as is apparent in the insight of
Knowledge in its unity, and of the Divine Life as its substratum,
which we have already adduced; - to which I may now add, by virtue
of this immediate reflection- - <em>I</em> think this, - <em>I</em>
produce this insight. This Knowledge, by means of a Principle
which is immediately visible as a Principle, is Pure Thought,
as we said; - in contradistinction to that by means of an immediate
invisible Principle - Intuition.</p>
<p>
These two, Pure Thought and Intuition, are thus distinguished
from each other in this, - that the latter, even in its very principle,
is abolished and annihilated by the former. Their connection,
on the other hand, consists in this, - that the latter is a condition
of the practical possibility of the former, - also that the Ego
which appears in the latter, still remains in the former in its
mere Schema, and is there taken into account, although in its
Actuality it is abolished along with Instinct.</p>
<a name="13"></a>
<h3>XIII.</h3>
<p class="fst">
In the thought thus described I merely conceive of Knowledge as
that which <em>may</em> be the Schema of divine Life, and, - since
this possibility if the expression of God and is thus founded
in Being, - as that which <em>shall</em> be the Schema of the Divine
Life; - but I myself by no means <em>am</em> this. To be this actually
no outward power can compel me; as before no outward power could
compel me even to realise the Intuition of the true Material World,
or to elevate myself to Pure Thought, and therefore to an actual
although empty insight into the absolutely formal Imperative.
This remains in my own <em>power</em>; nut now, since all the practical
conditions are fulfilled, it stands <em>immediately</em> in power.</p>
<p>
If, setting aside on the one hand mere void Intuition, and on
the other empty Intelligising, I should now, with absolute freedom
and independence of these, realise my Power, what would ensue?
A Schema; - a Knowledge therefore which, through Intelligising,
I already know as the Schema of God; but which, in the knowledge
thus realised, immediately appears to me as that which I absolutely
<em>shall</em>; - a Knowledge, the substance of which proceeds neither
from the World of Sense, for this is abolished, - nor from contemplation
of the mere empty Form of Knowledge, for this too I have cast
aside; - but which <em>exists</em> through absolutely as it is,
just as the Divine Life, whose Schema it is, <em>is</em> through
itself absolutely as it is.</p>
<p>
I know now that I <em>shall</em>. But all Actual Knowledge
brings with it, by its formal nature, its schematised apposition;
- although I now <em>know</em> of the Schema of God, yet <em>I am</em>
not yet immediately this Schema, but I am only a Schema of the
Schema. The required Being is not yet realised.</p>
<p>
<em>I</em> shall be. Who is this <em>I</em>? Evidently that which
is, - the Ego gives in Intuition, the Individual. This <em>shall</em>
be.</p>
<p>
What does its Being signify? It is given as a <em>Principle</em>
in the World of Sense. Blind Instinct is indeed annihilated, and
in its place there now stands the clearly perceived <em>Shall</em>.
But the Power that at first set this Instinct in motion remains,
in order that the <em>Shall</em> my now set it (the Power) in motion,
and become its higher determining Principle. By means of this
Power, <em>I shall</em> therefore, within its sphere, - the World
of Sense, - produce and make manifest that which I recognise as
my true Being in the Supersensuous World.</p>
<p>
The Power is given as an Infinite; - hence that which in the World
of Thought is absolutely One - that which <em>I shall</em> - becomes
in the World of Intuition an infinite problem for my Power, which
I have to solve in all Eternity.</p>
<p>
This Infinitude, which is properly a mere indefiniteness, can
have place only in Intuition, but by means in my true Essential
Being, which, as the Schema of God, is as simple and unchangeable
as himself. How then can this simplicity and unchangeableness
be produced within the yet continuing Infinitude, which is expressly
consecrated by the absolute <em>Shall</em> addressed to me as an
Individual?</p>
<p>
If, in the onflow of Time, the Ego, in every successive moment,
had to determine itself by a particular act, through the conception
of what it <em>shall</em>, - then in its original Unity, it was
assuredly indeterminate, and only continuously determinable in
an Infinite Time. But such an act of determination could only
become possible in Time, in opposition to some resisting power.
This resisting power, which was thus to be conquered by the act
of determination, could be nothing else than the Sensuous Instinct;
and hence the necessity of such a continuous self-determination
in Time would be the sure proof that the Instinct was not yet
thoroughly abolished; which abolition we have made a condition
of entering upon the Life in God.</p>
<p>
Through the actual and complete annihilation of the Instinct,
that infinite <em>determinability</em> is itself annihilated and
absorbed in a single, absolute <em>determination</em>. This determination
is the absolute and simple Will which makes the likewise simple
Imperative the impulsive Principle of the Power. Even if this
Power should still flow forth into Infinitude, as it must do,
the variety is only in its products, not in itself: - it is simple,
and its purpose is simple, and this purpose is at once and for
ever completed.</p>
<p>
And thus then the <em>Will</em> is that point in which Intelligising,
and Intuition or Reality, thoroughly interpenetrate each other.
It is a <em>real</em> principle, - for it is absolute, irresistibly
determining the Power, while it also maintains and supports itself,
- it is an <em>intelligising</em> principle, - for it penetrates
itself, and recognises the Imperative. In it the Power is completely
exhausted, and the Schema of the Divine Life elevated to Actuality.</p>
<p>
The infinite activity of the Power itself is not for its own sake,
and as an ultimate end; but it is only for the sake of evidencing,
in Intuition, the Being of the Will.</p>
<a name="14"></a>
<h3>XIV.</h3>
<p class="fst">
Thus then does the <em>Doctrine of Knowledge</em>, which in its
substance is the realisation of the absolute Power of intelligising
which has now been defined, end with the recognition of itself
as a mere Schema in a <em>Doctrine of Wisdom</em>, although indeed
a necessary and indispensable means to such a Doctrine: - a Schema,
the sole aim of which is, with the knowledge thus acquired, -
by which knowledge alone a Will, clear and intelligible to itself
and reposing upon itself without wavering or perplexity, is possible,
- to return wholly into Actual Life; - not into the Life of blind
and irrational Instinct which we have laid bare in all its nothingness,
but into the Divine Life which shall become visible to us.</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">
Further Reading:<br>
<a href="../../../../../archive/fichte/index.htm" target="_top">Fichte Archive</a> |
<a href="../../../../../glossary/people/f/i.htm#fichte-johann" target="_top">Biography</a> |
<a href="../../../ethics/kant/reason/ch01.htm">Kant</a> |
<a href="../../../../archive/hegel/works/hp/hpfichte.htm">Hegel on Fichte</a> |
<a href="../../../../../archive/ilyenkov/works/essays/essay4.htm" target="_top">Ilyenkov on Fichte</a><br>
<a href="../ge/schellin.htm">Schelling</a> |
<a href="../ge/schopenh.htm">Schopenhauer</a> |
<a href="../ge/hegel.htm">Hegel on Kant</a>
</p>
<p class="footer">
<a href="../../index.htm" target="_top">Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org</a></p>
</body> |
Johann Fichte (1810)
Outlines of the Doctrine of Knowledge
Source: Outline of the Doctrine of Knowledge (1810). From The Popular Works of Johann Gottlieb Fichte, translated by William Smith, Pub: Trubner and Co., 1889. The whole of this essay is reproduced.
I.
THE Doctrine of Knowledge, apart from all special and definite
knowing, proceeds immediately upon Knowledge itself, in
the essential unity in which it recognises Knowledge as existing;
and it raises this question in the first place - How this Knowledge
can come into being, and what it is in its inward and essential
Nature?
The following must be apparent: - There is but One who is absolutely
by and through himself, - namely, God; and God is not the mere
dead conception to which we have thus given utterance, but he
is in himself pure Life. He can neither change nor determine himself
in aught within himself, nor become any other Being; for his Being
contains within it all his Being and all possible Being, and neither
within him nor out of him can any new Being arise.
If, therefore, Knowledge must be, and yet be not God himself,
then, since there is nothing but God, it can only be God out
of himself, - God's Being out of his Being, - his Manifestation,
in which he dwells wholly as he is in himself, while within himself
he also still remains wholly such as he is. But such a Manifestation
is a picture or Schema.
If there be such a Schema - and this can only become evident through
its immediate being, seeing that it is immediate - it can only
be because God is; and, so surely as God is, it cannot but be.
It is, however, by no means to be conceived of as a work of God,
effected by some particular act, whereby a change is wrought in
himself; but it is to be conceived of as an immediate consequence
of his Being. It is absolutely, according to the Form of his Being,
just as he himself is absolutely; although it is not he
himself, but his Schema.
Again: - Out of God there can be nothing whatever but this; -
no Being that is essentially independent, for that he alone is;
- only his Schema can there be out of him, and thus a Being out
of God signifies merely his Schema; - the two expressions mean
precisely the same thing.
II.
Further. - Since it cannot be overlooked by the Doctrine of Knowledge
that Actual Knowledge does by no means present itself as a Unity,
such as is assumed above but as a multiplicity, there is consequently
a second task imposed upon it, - that of setting forth the ground
of this apparent Multiplicity. It is of course understood that
this ground is not to be derived from any outward source, but
must be shown to be contained in the essential Nature of Knowledge
itself as such; - and that therefore this problem, although apparently
two-fold, is yet but one and the same, - namely, to set forth
the essential Nature of Knowledge.
III.
This Being out of God cannot, by any means, be a limited, completed,
and inert Being, since God himself is not such a dead Being, but,
on the contrary, is Life; - but it can only be a Power, since
only a Power is the true formal picture or Schema of Life. And
indeed it can only be the Power of realising that which is contained
in itself - a Schema. Since this Power is the expression of a
determinate Being - the Schema of the Divine Life - it is itself
determined; but only in the way in which an absolute Power may
be determined, - by laws, and indeed by determinate laws. If
this or that is to become actual, the Power must operate in this
way or that, subject to that determination.
IV.
Thus in the first place - There can be an Actual Being out of
God only through the self-realisation of this absolute Power:
- this Power, however, can only produce pictures or Schemae, which
by combination become Actual Knowledge. Thus, whatever exists
out of God, exists only by means of absolutely free Power, as
the Knowledge belonging to this Power, and in its Knowledge; -
and any other Being but this out of the true Being which lies
hidden in God is altogether impossible.
V.
Again, as to the determination of this Power by laws: - It is,
in the first place, determined through itself, as the Power of
Actual Knowledge. But it is essential to Actual Knowledge that
some particular Schema should be realised through this Power;
and then that through the same identical Power, in the same identical
position, this Schema should be recognised as a Schema, and as
a Schema not in itself independent, but demanding, as a condition
of its Existence, a Being out of itself The immediate and concrete
expression of this recognition, - which in Actual Knowledge never
attains to consciousness, but which is elevated into consciousness
only by means of the Doctrine of Knowledge, is Actual Knowledge
itself in its Form; and, in consequence of this latter recognition,
there is, of necessity, assumed an Objective Reality, wholly transcending
the Schema and independent of Knowledge. Since in this knowledge
of the Objective Reality, even the Schema itself is concealed,
much more is the Power which creates it concealed and unseen.
This is the fundamental law of the Form of Knowledge. So surely
therefore as the Power develops itself in this particular way,
it develops itself as we have described; not merely schematising,
but also schematising the Schema as a Schema, and recognising
it in its dependent nature; - not that it must unconditionally
do this, but that only by means of this process can it attain
to Actual Knowledge.
In consequence of this there is much that remains invisible in
Actual Knowledge, but which, nevertheless, really is as the manifestation
of this Power. If therefore this, and all other manifestation
of this Power, were to be imported into Knowledge, then could
this only occur in a Knowledge other than that first mentioned;
and thus would the unity of Knowledge necessarily be broken up
into separate parts, by the opposition of the law of the form
of visibility to that law by which Knowledge perceives itself as
a perfect and indivisible whole.
VI.
Further: - Within this its Formal Being, this Power is also determined
by an unconditional Imperative. It shall recognise itself as the
Schema of the Divine Life, which it is originally, and through
which alone it has Existence; - consequent]y this is its absolute
vocation, in which its efficiency as a Power is completely exhausted.
It shall recognise itself as the Schema of the Divine Life, -
but it is originally nothing more than a Power, although most
assuredly it is this determinate Power of the Schema of God: -
if it is to recognise itself as such a Schema in Reality, then
it must make itself so actually, by the realisation of the Power
- by its self-realisation.
VII.
The recognition of itself as a Power to which an unconditional
Imperative is addressed, and which is able to fulfil that Imperative,
and the actual realisation of this Power, should the latter come
to pass, are distinct from each other; and the possibility of
the latter is dependent on the previous accomplishment of the
former.
It shall recognise itself as the Divine Schema, not by means of
any Being inherent in itself, for there is no such Being, but
by means of the realisation of the Power. It must therefore previously
possess the knowledge that it is such a Power, and also by what
marks it may recognise itself in its self-realisation, in order
that it may direct its attention to these characteristic marks,
and so be enabled to judge of the realisation which they denote.
Or it may be regarded thus - By means of the realisation of the
Power there arises a Schema, and a consciousness of that which
is contained in the Schema, and not more than this. (§ v.)
The formal addition, which lies beyond the immediate contents
of the Schema, - ie. that it is the Schema of God, - is not immediately
contained in it; and can only be attributed to it in consequence
of some characteristic mark perceived in the actual realisation
of the Power. The characteristic mark is this - that the Power
realize itself, with absolute Freedom, in accordance with the
recognised universal Imperative.
VIII.
If it shall recognise itself as a Power to which an unconditional
Imperative is addressed, it must, previous to this definite
recognition, have also recognised itself generally as a
Principle; - and since it can only recognise itself by means of
its own self-development, it must necessarily develop itself before
being able to recognise itself immediately as the Principle in
this development. The necessity for this is contained in the intuition
that the Imperative shall become visible to it; and it may therefore
be named a necessity of the Imperative - a shall of the shall
- namely, a necessity of its visibility: - consequently this Imperative
- this shall - lies in the primitive determination of the Power
through its Being from God. Since, when it does not recognise
itself generally as a Principle, it cannot, in the same position
and at the same time, recognise itself in any more definite
form, it is clear that these two modes of Knowledge are separate
and distinct from each other. We call Knowledge by means of an
immediate invisible principle - Intuition.
IX.
Since neither the Power itself as such, nor the Divine Life, is
schematised in Intuition, by which indeed there is first introduced
the practical possibility of such schematising, it is clear that
there is nothing left remaining in Intuition but the mere Form
of Power as given in its immediate expression. It is (§ V.)
a Power of Contemplation, - and that indeed without direction
towards the one Divine Life, which from this standpoint remains
concealed; - an undefined, wholly indeterminate, and yet absolute
Power, - and hence an Infinite. It therefore schematises itself
as contemplating an infinity in one glance:- SPACE; it consequently
thus also schematises itself as contracting and limiting
itself, in the same undivided Intuition, to a point in that first
infinity, a point which in itself is likewise infinitely divisible,
a consolidated infinite Space within the other simple infinite
Space, - or MATTER; - thus as an infinite Power of self-concentration,
and consequently also as an unlimited Material World in Space:
- all which, according to the fundamental law of Knowledge which
we have already adduced (§ v.) must appear to it as actual,
self-existent Being.
Further: - by virtue of its merely formal power of Being, it is
an absolutely primitive Principle. In order to schematise itself
as such in Intuition, it must antecedent to its actual activity,
perceive a possible form of activity which - thus it must
seem to it - it either might or might not be able to realize.
This possible form of activity cannot be perceived by it in the
Absolute Imperative, which to this point of view is invisible;
hence it can only be perceived in a likewise blindly schematised
Causality, which indeed is not an immediate Causality but only
appears to become so through the apparent realisation of the Power.
But such a Causality is an Instinct. It was necessary that the
Power should feel itself impelled to this or that form of activity,
but without the source of the impulse being immediately
perceived, since such an immediate recognition would deprive it
of the appearance of Freedom, which is here an indispensable characteristic.
This activity demanded by Instinct can only be an activity exercised
on the Material World. Hence the Instinct to activity comes into
view in immediate relation to material existences; these are consequently
recognised in this immediate relation, and acquire, through this
relation, not merely extension in Space, but, even more, their
internal qualities: - and by this remark we have completed the
definition of material existences, which was before left incomplete.
Should the Power, by means of this Instinct and the consequent
appearance of self-determination, perceive itself as in a state
of real activity, then, in the perception of this activity, it
would be associated with the Material World in the same undivided
Form of Intuition; and hence in this Intuition, thus uniting it
with the Material World, it would perceive itself as a material
existence in a double relation to the Material World: - partly
as Sense, that it might feel the relation of that world to its
Instinct, - partly as Organism, that it might contemplate its
own activity therein.
In this activity it now beholds itself as the same identical Power
in a state of self-determination; but as not exhausted in any
form of its activity, and as thus remaining a Power ad infinitum.
In this perception of its unlimited Power there arises before
it an Infinity; not in one glance, like that first mentioned,
but an Infinity in which it may behold its own infinite activity;
- an infinite series of successive links:- TIME. Since this activity
can be exercised ad infinitum only on the Material World,
Time is likewise transferred to that world in the unity of Intuition,
although that world already possesses its own peculiar expression
of Infinitude in the infinite divisibility of SPACE and of all
its parts.
It is obvious that the position in which the Power gives itself
up wholly to the contemplation of the Material World and is exhausted
therein, is distinct from that in which it becomes cognisant of
its Instinct towards activity in this previously recognised World,
- that nevertheless there remains, even in the latter position,
a Schema of present and necessary Existence, in order that it
may be possible for the Instinct to enter into relations with
such Existence: - and this forms the connection between these two
separate and distinct positions of Intuition.
This whole domain of Intuition is, as we said, the expression
and Schema of mere Power. Since Power, without the Schema of the
Divine Life, is nothing, while here it is nevertheless schematised
in this its nothingness, - this whole domain is consequently nothing
in itself, and only in its relation to Actual Being does it acquire
significance, the practical possibility of the latter being dependent
upon it.
X.
There is further contained in the Power an original determination
to raise itself to the perception of the Imperative, the practical
realisation of which is now rendered immediately possible by the
recognised Existence of the whole domain of Intuition. But how
and in what way can this elevation be accomplished ? That which
abides firmly in Intuition, and is indeed the very root of it,
is Instinct; - by its means the Power itself is made dependent
on Intuition, and is imprisoned within it. The condition and the
only means for the now possible realisation of the Power, is therefore
the liberation of itself from Instinct, and the abolition of the
latter as the invisible and blind impulse of schematising, - and
in the abolition of the principle, the consequence of it - imprisonment
in Intuition - is likewise abolished. Knowledge would then stand
forth in its primitive unity, as it is perceived at first by the
Doctrine of Knowledge; - in this its essential unity it would
manifest itself as dependent, and as requiring a substratum
- a unity which shall exist absolutely through itself. Knowledge
in this form is no longer Intuition, but Thought; - and indeed
Pure Thought, or Intelligising.
XI.
Before proceeding further, we must from this central point indicate
a distinction hitherto unnoticed in the sphere of Intuition. Only
through blind Instinct, in which the only possible guidance of
the Imperative is awanting, does the Power in Intuition remain
undetermined; where it is schematised as absolute it becomes infinite;
and where it is presented in a determinate form, as a principle,
it becomes at least manifold. By the above-mentioned act of
Intelligising, the Power liberates itself from Instinct, to direct
itself towards Unity. But so surely as it requires a special act
for the production of this Unity, - (in the first place indeed
inwardly and immediately within the Power itself, because only
under this condition could it be outwardly perceived in the Schema),
- so surely was the Power not viewed as One in the sphere of Intuition,
but as Manifold; - this Power, which now through perception and
recognition of itself has become an Ego - an Individual, - was,
in this sphere, not one Individual, but necessarily broken up
into a world of Individuals.
This indeed does not occur in the Form of Intuition itself. The
original schematising principle, and the principle which recognises
this Schema immediately and in the very act of its production
as a Schema, are of necessity numerically one, not two; and thus
also, in the domain of Intuition, that which immediately contemplates
its Intuition is a single, self-inclosed, separate principle,
in this respect inaccessible to any other: - the individuality
of all men, who, on this account, can each have but one separate
individuality. But this separation of Individuals must certainly
take place in that Form in which alone unity also is produced,
- namely, in that of Thought; - hence the individuality we have
described, however isolated it may appear in the immediate Intuition
of itself, yet, when it comprehends itself in Thought, perceives
itself, in this Thought, as an Individual in a world of Individuals
like itself; which latter, since it cannot behold them as free
principles like itself in immediate Intuition, can only be recognised
by it as such, by an inference from the mode of their activity
in the World of Sense.
From this farther definition of the sphere of Intuition - that
in it the Principle, which through its Being in God is One,
is broken up into Many - there follows yet another. This
division, even in the One Thought, and the mutual recognition,
which nevertheless is necessarily found in connection with it,
would not be possible were not the Object of the Intuition and
of the Activity of all, one and the same, - a like World to them
all. The Intuition of a World of Sense existed only in order that
through this World the Ego might become visible to itself as standing
under the Law of an Absolute Imperative. For this nothing more
was necessary than that the Intuition of such a World should simply
be; - the manner of its being is absolutely of no importance,
since for this purpose any form of it is sufficient. But the Ego
must besides recognise itself as One in a given Multiplicity of
Individuals; - and to this end it is necessary, besides the general
determinations of the World of Sense already mentioned, that this
World should be the same to each beholder: - the same Space, and
the same filling up of it for all; - notwithstanding that it is
still left to individual Freedom to apprehend this common filling
up in its own particular order in Time - the same Time, and the
same filling up of it by sensible events for all; - notwithstanding
that it still remains free to every one, so far as his own thought
and action are concerned, to fill it up after his own fashion.
The necessity for the Imperative becoming visible (§ VIII.)
as it proceeds from God, is assuredly contained in the One Principle,
since there is but One Principle that proceeds from God; and thus,
in consequence of the unity of the Power, it is possible for each
Individual to schematise his World of Sense in accordance with
the law of that original harmony; - and every Individual, under
the condition of being found on the way towards the recognition
of the Imperative, must so schematise it. I might say: - Every
Individual can and must, under the given condition, construct
the True World of Sense, - for this indeed has beyond the
universal and formal laws above deduced, no other Truth and Reality
than this universal harmony.
XII.
Let us return to Pure Thought or Intelligising (§ I). By
it Knowledge is perceived as its only possible Schema of the Divine
Life. In this Thought I do not possess knowledge immediately,
but only in a Schema; still less do I possess in it the Divine
Life immediately, but only in a Schema of the Schema, - in a doubly
ineffectual conception. I reflect, - and a power of so reflecting
must, for the reason to be given presently, be contained in the
general Power, - I reflect that I perceive this Knowledge;
that therefore I can perceive it; that since, according to the
insight thus obtained, Knowledge is the expression of God, this
Power itself is likewise his expression; that the Power exists
only that it may be realised; and that consequently, in virtue
of my Being from God, I shall perceive it. Only by means of this
reflection do I arrive at the insight that I shall, absolutely:
- but I shall, besides, attain this insight; - hence, -
this must surely be now apparent - there must, likewise in virtue
of my Being from -God, be an absolute Power of this reflection
contained in the general Power. The whole sphere which we have
now described thus reveals itself as an Imperative of perception-
- that I, - the Principle already perceived in the sphere
of Intuition, - that I shall. In it, the Ego, which through.
mere reflection is immediately visible as a Principle, becomes
the Principle of the Schema, - as is apparent in the insight of
Knowledge in its unity, and of the Divine Life as its substratum,
which we have already adduced; - to which I may now add, by virtue
of this immediate reflection- - I think this, - I
produce this insight. This Knowledge, by means of a Principle
which is immediately visible as a Principle, is Pure Thought,
as we said; - in contradistinction to that by means of an immediate
invisible Principle - Intuition.
These two, Pure Thought and Intuition, are thus distinguished
from each other in this, - that the latter, even in its very principle,
is abolished and annihilated by the former. Their connection,
on the other hand, consists in this, - that the latter is a condition
of the practical possibility of the former, - also that the Ego
which appears in the latter, still remains in the former in its
mere Schema, and is there taken into account, although in its
Actuality it is abolished along with Instinct.
XIII.
In the thought thus described I merely conceive of Knowledge as
that which may be the Schema of divine Life, and, - since
this possibility if the expression of God and is thus founded
in Being, - as that which shall be the Schema of the Divine
Life; - but I myself by no means am this. To be this actually
no outward power can compel me; as before no outward power could
compel me even to realise the Intuition of the true Material World,
or to elevate myself to Pure Thought, and therefore to an actual
although empty insight into the absolutely formal Imperative.
This remains in my own power; nut now, since all the practical
conditions are fulfilled, it stands immediately in power.
If, setting aside on the one hand mere void Intuition, and on
the other empty Intelligising, I should now, with absolute freedom
and independence of these, realise my Power, what would ensue?
A Schema; - a Knowledge therefore which, through Intelligising,
I already know as the Schema of God; but which, in the knowledge
thus realised, immediately appears to me as that which I absolutely
shall; - a Knowledge, the substance of which proceeds neither
from the World of Sense, for this is abolished, - nor from contemplation
of the mere empty Form of Knowledge, for this too I have cast
aside; - but which exists through absolutely as it is,
just as the Divine Life, whose Schema it is, is through
itself absolutely as it is.
I know now that I shall. But all Actual Knowledge
brings with it, by its formal nature, its schematised apposition;
- although I now know of the Schema of God, yet I am
not yet immediately this Schema, but I am only a Schema of the
Schema. The required Being is not yet realised.
I shall be. Who is this I? Evidently that which
is, - the Ego gives in Intuition, the Individual. This shall
be.
What does its Being signify? It is given as a Principle
in the World of Sense. Blind Instinct is indeed annihilated, and
in its place there now stands the clearly perceived Shall.
But the Power that at first set this Instinct in motion remains,
in order that the Shall my now set it (the Power) in motion,
and become its higher determining Principle. By means of this
Power, I shall therefore, within its sphere, - the World
of Sense, - produce and make manifest that which I recognise as
my true Being in the Supersensuous World.
The Power is given as an Infinite; - hence that which in the World
of Thought is absolutely One - that which I shall - becomes
in the World of Intuition an infinite problem for my Power, which
I have to solve in all Eternity.
This Infinitude, which is properly a mere indefiniteness, can
have place only in Intuition, but by means in my true Essential
Being, which, as the Schema of God, is as simple and unchangeable
as himself. How then can this simplicity and unchangeableness
be produced within the yet continuing Infinitude, which is expressly
consecrated by the absolute Shall addressed to me as an
Individual?
If, in the onflow of Time, the Ego, in every successive moment,
had to determine itself by a particular act, through the conception
of what it shall, - then in its original Unity, it was
assuredly indeterminate, and only continuously determinable in
an Infinite Time. But such an act of determination could only
become possible in Time, in opposition to some resisting power.
This resisting power, which was thus to be conquered by the act
of determination, could be nothing else than the Sensuous Instinct;
and hence the necessity of such a continuous self-determination
in Time would be the sure proof that the Instinct was not yet
thoroughly abolished; which abolition we have made a condition
of entering upon the Life in God.
Through the actual and complete annihilation of the Instinct,
that infinite determinability is itself annihilated and
absorbed in a single, absolute determination. This determination
is the absolute and simple Will which makes the likewise simple
Imperative the impulsive Principle of the Power. Even if this
Power should still flow forth into Infinitude, as it must do,
the variety is only in its products, not in itself: - it is simple,
and its purpose is simple, and this purpose is at once and for
ever completed.
And thus then the Will is that point in which Intelligising,
and Intuition or Reality, thoroughly interpenetrate each other.
It is a real principle, - for it is absolute, irresistibly
determining the Power, while it also maintains and supports itself,
- it is an intelligising principle, - for it penetrates
itself, and recognises the Imperative. In it the Power is completely
exhausted, and the Schema of the Divine Life elevated to Actuality.
The infinite activity of the Power itself is not for its own sake,
and as an ultimate end; but it is only for the sake of evidencing,
in Intuition, the Being of the Will.
XIV.
Thus then does the Doctrine of Knowledge, which in its
substance is the realisation of the absolute Power of intelligising
which has now been defined, end with the recognition of itself
as a mere Schema in a Doctrine of Wisdom, although indeed
a necessary and indispensable means to such a Doctrine: - a Schema,
the sole aim of which is, with the knowledge thus acquired, -
by which knowledge alone a Will, clear and intelligible to itself
and reposing upon itself without wavering or perplexity, is possible,
- to return wholly into Actual Life; - not into the Life of blind
and irrational Instinct which we have laid bare in all its nothingness,
but into the Divine Life which shall become visible to us.
Further Reading:
Fichte Archive |
Biography |
Kant |
Hegel on Fichte |
Ilyenkov on Fichte
Schelling |
Schopenhauer |
Hegel on Kant
Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org
|
./articles/Helmholtz-Hermann/https:..www.marxists.org.reference.subject.philosophy.works.ge.schopenh | <body>
<p><img src="../../../../../glossary/people/s/pics/schopenh.jpg" align="RIGHT" width="230" hspace="6" alt="fierce looking old preacher-type"></p>
<p class="title">Arthur Schopenhauer (1851)</p>
<h1>The World as Will and Representation</h1>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information">
<span class="info">Source</span>: <em>The World as Will and Representation</em> (1819, republished 1851). Dover Edition, 1969, translated by E F J Payne. Reproduced here,
sections 17 - 20, The Objectification of Will.
</p>
<hr class="end">
<h2>The World as Will.<br>
First Aspect: The Objectification of the Will</h2>
<a name="17"></a>
<h3>§17.</h3>
<p class="fst">
In the first book we considered the representation only as such,
and hence only according to the general form. It is true that,
so far as the abstract representation, the concept, is concerned,
we also obtained a knowledge of it according to its content, in
so far as it has all content and meaning only through its relation
to the representation of perception, without which it would be
worthless and empty. Therefore, directing our attention entirely
to the representation of perception, we shall endeavour to arrive
at a knowledge of its content, its more precise determinations,
and the forms it presents to us. It will be of special interest
for us to obtain information about its real significance, that
significance, otherwise merely felt, by virtue of which these
pictures or images do not march past us strange and meaningless,
as they would otherwise inevitably do, but speak to us directly,
are understood, and acquire an interest that engrosses our whole
nature.</p>
<p>
We direct our attention to mathematics, natural science, and philosophy,
each of which holds out the hope that it will furnish a part of
the information desired. In the first place, we find philosophy
to be a monster with many heads, each of which speaks a different
language. Of course, they are not all at variance with one another
on the point here mentioned, the significance of the representation
of perception. For, with the exception of the Sceptics and Idealists,
the others in the main speak fairly consistently of an <em>object</em>
forming the basis of the representation. This object indeed is
different in its whole being and nature from the representation,
but yet is in all respects as like it as one egg is like another.
But this does not help us, for we do not at all know how to distinguish
that object from the representation. We find that the two are
one and the same, for every object always and eternally presupposes
a subject, and thus remains representation. We then recognise
also that being-object belongs to the most universal form of the
representation, which is precisely the division into object and
subject. Further, the principle of sufficient reason, to which
we here refer, is also for us only the form of the representation,
namely the regular and orderly combination of one representation
with another and not the combination of the whole finite or infinite
series of representations with something which is not representation
at all, and is therefore not capable of being in any way represented.
We spoke above of the Sceptics and Idealists, when discussing
the controversy about the reality of the external world.</p>
<p>
Now if we look to mathematics for the desired more detailed knowledge
of the representation of perception, which we have come to know
only quite generally according to the mere form, then this science
will tell us about these representations only in so far as they
occupy time and space, in other words, only in so far as they
are quantities. It will state with extreme accuracy the How-many
and the How-large; but as this is always only relative, that is
to say, a comparison of one representation with another, and even
that only from the one-sided aspect of quantity, this too will
not be the information for which principally we are looking.</p>
<p>
Finally, if we look at the wide province of natural science, which
is divided into many fields, we can first of all distinguish two
main divisions. It is either a description of forms and shapes,
which I call <em>Morphology</em>; or an explanation of changes,
which I call Etiology. The former considers the permanent forms,
the latter the changing matter, according to the laws of its transition
from one form into another. Morphology is what we call natural
history in its whole range, though not in the literal sense of
the word. As botany and zoology especially, it teaches us about
the various, permanent, organic, and thus definitely determined
forms in spite of the incessant change of individuals; and these
forms constitute a great part of the content of the perceptive
representation. In natural history they are classified, separated,
united, and arranged according to natural and artificial systems,
and brought under concepts that render possible a survey and knowledge
of them all. There is further demonstrated an infinitely fine
and shaded analogy in the whole and in the parts of these forms
which runs through them all (<em>unité de plan</em>), by
virtue of which they are like the many different variations on
an unspecified theme. The passage of matter into those forms,
in other words the origin of individuals, is not a main part of
the consideration, for every individual springs from its like
through generation, which everywhere is equally mysterious, and
has so far baffled clear knowledge. But the little that is known
of this finds its place in physiology, which belongs to etiological
natural science. Mineralogy, especially where it becomes geology,
though it belongs mainly to morphology, also inclines to this
etiological science. Etiology proper includes all the branches
of natural science in which the main concern everywhere is knowledge
of cause and effect. These sciences teach how, according to an
invariable rule, one state of matter is necessarily followed by
another definite state; how one definite change necessarily conditions
and brings about another definite change; this demonstration is
called <em>explanation</em>. Here we find principally mechanics,
physics, chemistry, and physiology.</p>
<p>
But if we devote ourselves to its teaching, we soon become aware
that the information we are chiefly looking for no more comes
to us from Etiology than it does from morphology. The latter presents
us with innumerable and infinitely varied forms that are nevertheless
related by an unmistakable family likeness. For us they are representations
that in this way remain eternally strange to us, and, when considered
merely in this way, they stand before us like hieroglyphics that
are not understood. On the other hand, Etiology teaches us that,
according to the law of cause and effect, this definite condition
of matter produces that other condition, and with this it has
explained it, and has done its part. At bottom, however, it does
nothing more than show the orderly arrangement according to which
the states or conditions appear in space and time, and teach for
all cases what phenomenon must necessarily appear at this time
and in this place. It therefore determines for them their position
in time and space according to a law whose definite content has
been taught by experience, yet whose universal form and necessity
are known to us independently of experience. But in this way we
do not obtain the slightest information about the inner nature
of any one of these phenomena. This is called a <em>natural force</em>,
and lies outside the province of etiological explanation, which
calls the unalterable constancy with which the manifestation of
such a force appears whenever its known conditions are present,
a <em>law of nature</em>. But this law of nature, these conditions,
this appearance in a definite place at a definite time, are all
that it knows, or ever can know. The-force itself that is manifested,
the inner nature of the phenomena that appear in accordance with
those laws, remain for it an eternal secret, something entirely
strange and unknown, in the case of the simplest as well as of
the most complicated phenomenon. For although Etiology has so
far achieved its aim most completely in mechanics, and least so
in physiology, the force by virtue of which a stone falls to the
ground, or one body repels another, is, in its inner nature, just
as strange and mysterious as that which produces the movements
and growth of an animal. Mechanics presupposes matter, weight,
impenetrability, communicability of motion through impact, rigidity,
and so on as unfathomable; it calls them forces of nature, and
their necessary and regular appearance under certain conditions
a law of nature. Only then does its explanation begin, and that
consists in stating truly and with mathematical precision how,
where, and when each force manifests itself, and referring to
one of those forces every phenomenon that comes before it. Physics,
chemistry, and physiology do the same in their province, only
they presuppose much more and achieve less. Consequently, even
the most perfect etiological explanation of the whole of nature
would never be more in reality than a record of inexplicable forces,
and a reliable statement of the rule by which their phenomena
appear, succeed, and make way for one another in time and space.
But the inner nature of the forces that thus appear was always
bound to be left unexplained by Etiology, which had to stop at
the phenomenon and its arrangement, since the law followed by
Etiology does not go beyond this. In this respect it could be
compared to a section of a piece of marble showing many different
veins side by side, but not letting us know the course of these
veins from the interior of the marble to the surface. Or, if I
may be permitted a facetious comparison, because it is more striking,
the philosophical investigator must always feel in regard to the
complete Etiology of the whole of nature like a man who, without
knowing how, is brought into a company quite unknown to him, each
member of which in turn presents to him another as his friend
and cousin, and thus makes them sufficiently acquainted. The man
himself, however, while assuring each person introduced of his
pleasure at meeting him, always has on his lips the question:
"But how the deuce do I stand to the whole company?"</p>
<p>
Hence, about those phenomena known by us only as our representations,
Etiology can never give us the desired information that leads
us beyond them. For after all its explanations, they still stand
quite strange before us, as mere representations whose significance
we do not understand.- The causal connexion merely gives the rule
and relative order of their appearance in space and time, but
affords us no further knowledge of that which so appears. Moreover,
the law of causality itself has validity only for representations,
for objects of a definite class, and has meaning only when they
are assumed. Hence, like these objects themselves, it always exists
only in relation to the subject, and so conditionally. Thus it
is just as well known when we start from the subject, i.e., <em>a
priori</em>, as when we start from the object, i.e., <em>a posteriori</em>,
as Kant has taught us.</p>
<p>
But what now prompts us to make enquiries is that we are not satisfied
with knowing that we have representations, that they are such
and such, and that they are connected according to this or that
law, whose general expression is always the principle of sufficient
reason. We want to know the significance of those representations;
we ask whether this world is nothing more than representation.
In that case, it would inevitably pass by us like an empty dream,
or a ghostly vision not worth our consideration. Or we ask whether
it is something else, something in addition, and if so what that
something is. This much is certain, namely that this something
about which we are enquiring must be by its whole nature completely
and fundamentally different from the representation; and so the
forms and laws of the representation must be wholly foreign to
it. We cannot, then, reach it from the representation under the
guidance of those laws that merely combine objects, representations,
with one another; these are the forms of the principle of sufficient
reason.</p>
<p>
Here we already see that we can never get at the inner nature
of things <em>from without</em>. However much we may investigate,
we obtain nothing but images and names. We are like a man who
goes round a castle, looking in vain for an entrance, and sometimes
sketching the facades. Yet this is the path that all philosophers
before me have followed.</p>
<h3>§18.</h3>
<p class="fst">
In fact, the meaning that I am looking for of the world that stands
before me simply as my representation, or the transition from
it as mere representation of the knowing subject to whatever it
may be besides this, could never be found if the investigator
himself were nothing more than the purely knowing subject (a winged
cherub without a body). But he himself is rooted in that world;
and thus he finds himself in it as an <em>individual</em>, in other
words, his knowledge, which is the conditional supporter of the
whole world as representation, is nevertheless given entirely
through the medium of a body, and the affections of this body
are, as we have shown, the starting-point for the understanding
in its perception of this world. For the purely knowing subject
as such, this body is a representation like any other, an object
among objects. Its movements and actions are so far known to him
in just the same way as the changes of all other objects of perception;
and they would be equally strange and incomprehensible to him,
if their meaning were not unravelled for him in an entirely different
way. Otherwise, he would see his conduct follow on presented motives
with the constancy of a law of nature, just as the changes of
other objects follow upon causes, stimuli, and motives. But he
would be no nearer to understanding the influence of the motives
than he is to understanding the connexion with its cause of any
other effect that appears before him. He would then also call
the inner, to him incomprehensible, nature of those manifestations
and actions of his body a force, a quality, or a character, just
as he pleased, but he would have no further insight into it. All
this, however, is not the case; on the contrary, the answer to
the riddle is given to the subject of knowledge appearing as individual,
and this answer is given in the word <em>Will</em>. This and this
alone gives him the key to his own phenomenon, reveals to him
the significance and shows him the inner mechanism of his being,
his actions, his movements. To the subject of knowing, who appears
as an individual only through his identity with the body, this
body is given in two entirely different ways. It is given in intelligent
perception as representation, as an object among objects, liable
to the laws of these objects. But it is also given in quite a
different way, namely as what is known immediately to everyone,
and is denoted by the word <em>will</em>. Every true act of his
will is also at once and inevitably a movement of his body; he
cannot actually will the act without at the same time being aware
that it appears as a movement of the body. The act of will and
the action of the body are not two different states objectively
known connected by the bond of causality; they do not stand in
the relation of cause and effect, but are one and the same thing,
though given in two entirely different ways, first quite directly,
and then in perception for the understanding. The action of the
body is nothing but the act of will objectified, i.e., translated
into perception. Later on we shall see that this applies to every
movement of the body, not merely to movement following on motives,
but also to involuntary movement following on mere stimuli; indeed,
that the whole body is nothing but the objectified will, i.e.,
will that has become representation. All this will follow and
become clear in the course of our discussion. Therefore the body,
which in the previous book and in the essay<em> On the Principle
of Sufficient Reason</em> I called the <em>immediate</em> object,
according to the one-sided viewpoint deliberately taken there
(namely that of the representation), will here from another point
of view be called the <em>objectivity of the will</em>. Therefore,
in a certain sense, it can also be said that the will is knowledge
<em>a priori</em> of the body, and that the body is knowledge <em>a
posteriori</em> of the will. Resolutions of the will relating to
the future are mere deliberations of reason about what will be
willed at some time, not real acts of will. Only the carrying
out stamps the resolve; till then, it is always a mere intention
that can be altered; it exists only in reason, in the abstract.
Only in reflection are willing and acting different; in reality
they are one. Every true, genuine, immediate act of the will is
also at once and directly a manifest act of the body; and correspondingly,
on the other hand, every impression on the body is also at once
and directly an impression on the will. As such, it is called
pain when it is contrary to the will, and gratification or pleasure
when in accordance with the will. The gradations of the two are
very different. However, we are quite wrong in calling pain and
pleasure representations, for they are not these at all, but immediate
affections of the will in its phenomenon, the body; an enforced,
instantaneous willing or not-willing of the impression undergone
by the body. There are only a certain few impressions on the body
which do not rouse the will, and through these alone is the body
an immediate object of knowledge; for, as perception in the understanding,
the body is an indirect object like all other objects. These impressions
are therefore to be regarded directly as mere representations,
and hence to be excepted from what has just been said. Here are
meant the affections of the purely objective senses of sight,
hearing, and touch, although only in so far as their organs are
affected in the specific natural way that is specially characteristic
of them. This is such an exceedingly feeble stimulation of the
enhanced and specifically modified sensibility of these parts
that it does not affect the will, but, undisturbed by any excitement
of the will, only furnishes for the understanding data from which
perception arises. But every stronger or heterogeneous affection
of these sense-organs is painful, in other words, is against the
will; hence they too belong to its objectivity. Weakness of the
nerves shows itself in the fact that the impressions which should
have merely that degree of intensity that is sufficient to make
them data for the understanding, reach the higher degree at which
they stir the will, that is to say, excite pain or pleasure, though
more often pain. This pain, however, is in part dull and inarticulate;
thus it not merely causes us to feel painfully particular tones
and intense light, but also gives rise generally to a morbid and
hypochondriacal disposition without being distinctly recognised.
The identity of the body and the will further shows itself, among
other things, in the fact that every vehement and excessive movement
of the will, in other words, every emotion, agitates the body
and its inner workings directly and immediately, and disturbs
the course of its vital functions. This is specially discussed
in <em>The Will in Nature</em>.</p>
<p>
Finally, the knowledge I have of my will, although an immediate
knowledge, cannot be separated from that of my body. I know my
will not as a whole, not as a unity, not completely according
to its nature, but only in its individual acts, and hence in time,
which is the form of my body's appearing, as it is of every
body. Therefore, the body is the condition of knowledge of my
will. Accordingly, I cannot really imagine this will without my
body. In the essay <em>On the Principle of Sufficient Reason</em>
the will, or rather the subject of willing, is treated as a special
class of representations or objects. But even there we saw this
object coinciding with the subject, in other words, ceasing to
be object. We then called this coincidence the miracle <em>par
excellence</em> to a certain extent the whole of the present work
is an explanation of this. In so far as I know my will really
as object, I know it as body; but then I am again at the first
class of representations laid down in that essay, that is, again
at real objects. As we go on, we shall see more and more that
the first class of representations finds its explanation, its
solution, only in the fourth class enumerated in that essay, which
could no longer be properly opposed to the subject as object;
and that, accordingly, we must learn to understand the inner nature
of the law of causality valid in the first class, and of what
happens according to this law, from the law of motivation governing
the fourth class.</p>
<p>
The identity of the will and of the body, provisionally explained,
can be demonstrated only as is done here, and that for the first
time, and as will be done more and more in the further course
of our discussion. In other words, it can be raised from immediate
consciousness, from knowledge in the concrete, to rational knowledge
of reason, or be carried over into knowledge in the abstract.
On the other hand, by its nature it can never be demonstrated,
that is to say, deduced as indirect knowledge from some other
more direct knowledge, for the very reason that it is itself the
most direct knowledge. If we do not apprehend it and stick to
it as such, in vain shall we expect to obtain it again in some
indirect way as derived knowledge. It is a knowledge of quite
a peculiar nature, whose truth cannot therefore really be brought
under one of the four headings by which I have divided all truth
in the essay <em>On the Principle of Sufficient Reason</em>, §
29, namely, logical, empirical, transcendental, and metalogical.
For it is not, like all these, the reference of an abstract representation
to another representation, or to the necessary form of intuitive
or of abstract representing, but it is the reference of a judgement
to the relation that a representation of perception, namely the
body, has to that which is not a representation at all, but is
<em>toto genere</em> different therefrom, namely will. I should
therefore like to distinguish this truth from every other, and
call it <em>philosophical truth par excellence</em>. We can
turn the expression of this truth in different ways and say: My
body and my will are one; or. What as representation of perception
I call my body, I call my will in so far as I am conscious of
it in an entirely different way comparable with no other; or,
My body is the objectivity of my will; or, Apart from the fact
that my body is my representation, it is still my will, and so
on.</p>
<a name="19"></a>
<h3>§19.</h3>
<p class="fst">
Whereas in the first book we were reluctantly forced to declare
our own body to be mere representation of the knowing subject,
like all the other objects of this world of perception, it has
now become clear to us that something in the consciousness of
everyone distinguishes the representation of his own body from
all others that are in other respects quite like it. This is that
the body occurs in consciousness in quite another way,<em> toto
genere</em> different, that is denoted by the word <em>will</em>.
It is just this double knowledge of our own body which gives us
information about- that body itself, about its action and movement
following on motives, as well as about its suffering through outside
impressions, in a word, about what it is, not as representation,
but as something over and above this, and hence what it is<em>
in itself</em>. We do not have such immediate information about
the nature, action, and suffering of any other real objects.</p>
<p>
The knowing subject is an individual precisely by reason of this
special relation to the one body which, considered apart from
this, is for him only a representation like all other representations.
But the relation by virtue of which the knowing subject is an
<em>individual</em>, subsists for that very reason only between
him and one particular representation among all his representations.
He is therefore conscious of this particular representation not
merely as such, but at the same time in a quite different way,
namely as a will. But if he abstracts from that special relation,
from that twofold and completely heterogeneous knowledge of one
and the same thing, then that one thing, the body, is a representation
like all others. Therefore, in order to understand where he is
in this matter, the knowing individual must either assume that
the distinctive feature of that one representation is to be found
merely in the fact that his knowledge stands in this double reference
only to that one representation; that only into this one object
of perception is an insight in two ways at the same time open
to him; and that this is to be explained not by a difference of
this object from all others, but only by a difference between
the relation of his knowledge to this one object and its relation
to all others. Or he must assume that this one object is essentially
different from all others; that it alone among all objects is
at the same time will and representation, the rest, on the other
hand, being mere representation, i.e., mere phantoms. Thus, he
must assume that his body is the only real individual in the world,
i.e.-, the only phenomenon of will, and the only immediate object
of the subject. That the other objects, considered as mere <em>representations</em>,
are like his body, in other words, like this body fill space (itself
perhaps existing only as representation), and also, like this
body, operate in space - this, I say, is demonstrably certain
from the law of causality, which is <em>a priori</em> certain for
representations, and admits of no effect without a cause. But
apart from the fact that we can infer from the effect only a cause
in general, not a similar cause, we are still always in the realm
of the mere representation, for which alone the law of causality
is valid, and beyond which it can never lead us. But whether the
objects known to the individual only as representations are yet,
like his own body, phenomena of a will, is, as stated in the previous
book, the proper meaning of the question as to the reality of
the external world. To deny this is the meaning of <em>theoretical
egoism</em>, which in this way regards as phantoms all phenomena
outside its own will, just as practical egoism does in a practical
respect; thus in it a man regards and treats only his own person
as a real person, and all others as mere phantoms. Theoretical
egoism, of course, can never be refuted by proofs, yet in philosophy
it has never been positively used otherwise than as a sceptical
sophism, i.e., for the sake of appearance. As a serious conviction,
on the other hand, it could be found only in a madhouse; as such
it would then need not so much a refutation as a cure. Therefore
we do not go into it any further, but regard it as the last stronghold
of scepticism, which is always polemical. Thus our knowledge,
bound always to individuality and having its limitation in this
very fact, necessarily means that everyone can be only one thing,
whereas he can <em>know</em> everything else, and it is this very
limitation that really creates the need for philosophy. Therefore
we, who for this very reason are endeavouring to extend the limits
of our knowledge through philosophy, shall regard this sceptical
argument of theoretical egoism, which here confronts us, as a
small frontier fortress. Admittedly the fortress is impregnable,
but the garrison can never sally forth from it, and therefore
we can pass it by and leave it in our rear without danger.</p>
<p>
The double knowledge which we have of the nature and action of
our own body, and which is given in two completely different ways,
has now been clearly brought out. Accordingly, we shall use it
further as a key to the inner being of every phenomenon in nature.
We shall judge all objects which are not our own body, and therefore
are given to our consciousness not in the double way, but only
as representations, according to the analogy of this body. We
shall therefore assume that as, on the one hand, they are representation,
just like our body, and are in this respect homogeneous with it,
so on the other hand, if we set aside their existence as the subject's
representation, what still remains over must be, according to
its inner nature, the same as what in ourselves we call <em>will</em>.
For what other kind of existence or reality could we attribute
to the rest of the material world? From what source could we take
the elements out of which we construct such a world? Besides the
will and the representation, there is absolutely nothing known
or conceivable for us. If we wish to attribute the greatest known
reality to the material world, which immediately exists only in
our representation, then we give it that reality which our own
body has for each of us, for to each of us this is the most real
of things. But if now we analyse the reality of this body and
its actions, then, beyond the fact that it is our representation,
we find nothing in it but the will; with this even its reality
is exhausted. Therefore we can nowhere find another kind of reality
to attribute to the material world. If, therefore, the material
world is to be something more than our mere representation, we
must say that, besides being the representation, and hence in
itself and of its inmost nature, it is what we find immediately
in ourselves as will. I say 'of its inmost nature,' but we have
first of all to get to know more intimately this inner nature
of the will, so that we may know how to distinguish from it what
belongs not to it itself, but to its phenomenon, which has many
grades. Such, for example, is the circumstance of its being accompanied
by knowledge, and the determination by motives which is conditioned
by this knowledge. As we proceed, we shall see that this belongs
not to the inner nature of the will, but merely to its most distinct
phenomenon as animal and human being. Therefore, if I say that
the force which attracts a stone to the earth is of its nature,
in itself, and apart from all representation, will, then no one
will attach to this proposition the absurd meaning that the stone
moves itself according to a known motive, because it is thus that
the will appears in man.</p>
<p>
'Thus we cannot in any way agree with Bacon when he (<em>De Augmentis
Scientiarum</em>) thinks that all mechanical and physical movements
of bodies ensue only after a preceding perception in these bodies,
although a glimmering of truth gave birth even to this false proposition.
This is also the case with Kepler's statement, in his essay <em>De
Planeta Martis</em>, that the planets must have knowledge in order
to keep to their elliptical courses so accurately and to regulate
the velocity of their motion, so that the triangles of the plane
of their course always remain proportional to the time in which
they pass through their bases.</p>
<p>
But we will now prove, establish, and develop to its full extent,
clearly and in more detail, what has hitherto been explained provisionally
and generally.</p>
<a name="20"></a>
<h3>§20.</h3>
<p class="fst">
As the being-in-itself of our own body, as that which this body
is besides being object of perception, namely representation,
the <em>will</em>, as we have said, proclaims itself first of all
in the voluntary movements of this body, in so far as these movements
are nothing but the visibility of the individual acts of the will.
These movements appear directly and simultaneously with those
acts of will; they are one and the same thing with them, and are
distinguished from them only by the form of perceptibility into
which they have passed, that is to say, in which they have become
representation.</p>
<p>
But these acts of the will always have a ground or reason outside
themselves in motives. Yet these motives never determine more
than what I will at <em>this</em> time, in <em>this</em> place, in
<em>these</em> circumstances, not <em>that</em> I will in general,
or <em>what</em> I will in general, in other words, the maxim characterising
the whole of my willing. Therefore, the whole inner nature of
my willing cannot be explained from the motives, but they determine
merely its manifestation at a given point of time; they are merely
the occasion on which my will shows itself. This will itself,
on the other hand, lies outside the province of the law of motivation;
only the phenomenon of the will at each point of time is determined
by this law. Only on the presupposition of my empirical character
is the motive a sufficient ground of explanation of my conduct.
But if I abstract from my character, and then ask why in general
I will this and not that, no answer is possible, because only
the<em> appearance</em> or <em>phenomenon</em> of the will is subject
to the principle of sufficient reason, not the will itself, which
in this respect may be called <em>groundless</em>. Here I in part
presuppose Kant's doctrine of the empirical and intelligible characters,
as well as my remarks pertinent to this in the <em>Grundprobleme
der Ethik</em>. We shall have to speak about this again in more
detail in the fourth book. For the present, I have only to draw
attention to the fast that one phenomenon being established by
another, as in this case the deed by the motive, does not in the
least conflict with the essence-in-itself of the deed being will.
The will itself has no ground; the principle of sufficient reason
in all its aspects is merely the form of knowledge, and hence
its validity extends only to the representation, to the phenomenon,
to the visibility of the will, not to the will itself that becomes
visible.</p>
<p>
Now if every action of my body is an appearance or phenomenon
of an act of will in which my will itself in general and as a
whole, and hence my character, again expresses itself under given
motives, then phenomenon or appearance of the will must also be
the indispensable condition and presupposition of every action.
For the will's appearance cannot depend on something which does
not exist directly and only through it, and would therefore be
merely accidental for it, whereby the will's appearance itself
would be only accidental. But that condition is the whole body
itself. Therefore this body itself must be phenomenon of the will,
and must be related to my will as a whole, that is to say, to
my intelligible character, the phenomenon of which in time is
my empirical character, in the same way as the particular action
of the body is to the particular act of the will. Therefore the
whole body must be nothing but my will become visible, must be
my will itself, in so far as this is object of perception, representation
of the first class. It has already been advanced in confirmation
of this that every impression on my body also affects my will
at once and immediately, and in this respect is called pain or
pleasure, or in a lower degree, pleasant or unpleasant sensation.
Conversely, it has also been advanced that every violent movement
of the will, and hence every emotion and passion, convulses the
body, and disturbs the course of its functions. Indeed an etiological,
though very incomplete, account can be given of the origin of
my body, and a somewhat better account of its development and
preservation. Indeed this is physiology; but this explains its
theme only in exactly the same way as motives explain action.
Therefore the establishment of the individual action through the
motive, and the necessary sequence of the action from the motive,
do not conflict with the fact that action, in general and by its
nature, is only phenomenon or appearance of a will that is in
itself groundless. Just as little does the physiological explanation
of the functions of the body detract from the philosophical truth
that the whole existence of this body and the sum-total of its
functions are only the objectification of that will which appears
in this body's outward actions in accordance with motives. If,
however, physiology tries to refer even these outward actions,
the immediate voluntary movements, to causes in the organism,
for example, to explain the movement of a muscle from an affluxion
of humours ("like the contraction of a cord that is wet,"
as Reil says in the <em>Archiv für Physiologie</em>, Vol. VI,
p. 153); supposing that it really did come to a thorough explanation
of this kind, this would never do away with the immediately certain
truth that every voluntary movement (<em>functiones animales</em>)
is phenomenon of an act of will. Now, just as little can the physiological
explanation of vegetative life (<em>functiones naturales, vitales</em>),
however far it may be developed, ever do away with the truth that
this whole animal life, thus developing itself, is phenomenon
of the will. Generally then, as already stated, no etiological
explanation can ever state more than the necessarily determined
position in time and space of a particular phenomenon and its
necessary appearance there according to a fixed rule. On the other
hand, the inner nature of everything that appears in this way
remains for ever unfathomable, and is presupposed by every etiological
explanation; it is merely expressed by the name force, or law
of nature, or, when we speak of actions, the name character or
will. Thus, although every particular action, under the presupposition
of the definite character, necessarily ensues with the presented
motive, and although growth, the process of nourishment, and all
the changes in the animal body take place according to necessarily
lasting causes (stimuli), the whole series of actions, and consequently
every individual act and likewise its condition, namely the whole
body itself which performs it, and therefore also the process
through which and in which the body exists, are nothing but the
phenomenal appearance of the will, its becoming visible, the<em>
objectivity of the will</em>. On this rests the perfect suitability
of the human and animal body to the human and animal will in general,
resembling, but far surpassing, the suitability of a purposely
made instrument to the will of its maker, and on this account
appearing as fitness or appropriateness, i.e., the teleological
accountability of the body. Therefore the parts of the body must
correspond completely to the chief demands and desires by which
the will manifests itself; they must be the visible expression
of these desires. Teeth, gullet, and intestinal canal are objectified
hunger; the genitals are objectified sexual impulse; grasping
hands and nimble feet correspond to the more indirect strivings
of the will which they represent. Just as the general human form
corresponds to the general human will, so to the individually
modified will, namely the character of the individual, there corresponds
the individual bodily structure, which is therefore as a whole
and in all its parts characteristic and full of expression. It
is very remarkable that even Parmenides expressed this in the
following verses, quoted by Aristotle (<em>Metaphysics</em>):</p>
<p class="quoteb">
"Just as everyone possesses the complex of flexible limbs,
so does there dwell in men the mind in conformity with this. For
everyone mind and complex of limbs are always the same; for intelligence
is the criterion."
</p>
<a name="21"></a>
<h3>§21.</h3>
<p class="fst">
From all these considerations the reader has now gained in the
abstract, and hence in clear and certain terms, a knowledge which
everyone possesses directly in the concrete, namely as feeling.
This is the knowledge that the inner nature of his own phenomenon,
which manifests itself to him as representation both through his
actions and through the permanent substratum of these his body,
is his <em>Will</em>. This will constitutes what is most immediate
in his consciousness, but as such it has not wholly entered into
the form of the representation, in which object and subject stand
over against each other; on the contrary, it makes itself known
in an immediate way in which subject and object are not quite
clearly distinguished, yet it becomes known to the individual
himself not as a whole, but only in its particular acts. The reader
who with me has gained this conviction, will find that of itself
it will become the key to the knowledge of the innermost being
of the whole of nature, since he now transfers it to all those
phenomena that are given to him, not like his own phenomenon both
in direct and in indirect knowledge, but in the latter solely,
and hence merely in a one-sided way, as <em>representation</em>
alone has received a full and thorough treatment.</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">
Further Reading:<br>
<a href="../ge/fichte.htm">Fichte</a>
<a href="../dk/kierkega.htm">Kierkegaard</a>
<a href="../ge/wundt.htm">Wundt</a>
<a href="../../../../../glossary/people/s/c.htm#schopenhauer-arthur">Biography</a>
<a href="../../../../archive/nietzsche/index.htm">Nietzsche</a>
</p>
<p class="footer">
<a href="../../index.htm" target="_top">Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org</a></p>
</body> |
Arthur Schopenhauer (1851)
The World as Will and Representation
Source: The World as Will and Representation (1819, republished 1851). Dover Edition, 1969, translated by E F J Payne. Reproduced here,
sections 17 - 20, The Objectification of Will.
The World as Will.
First Aspect: The Objectification of the Will
§17.
In the first book we considered the representation only as such,
and hence only according to the general form. It is true that,
so far as the abstract representation, the concept, is concerned,
we also obtained a knowledge of it according to its content, in
so far as it has all content and meaning only through its relation
to the representation of perception, without which it would be
worthless and empty. Therefore, directing our attention entirely
to the representation of perception, we shall endeavour to arrive
at a knowledge of its content, its more precise determinations,
and the forms it presents to us. It will be of special interest
for us to obtain information about its real significance, that
significance, otherwise merely felt, by virtue of which these
pictures or images do not march past us strange and meaningless,
as they would otherwise inevitably do, but speak to us directly,
are understood, and acquire an interest that engrosses our whole
nature.
We direct our attention to mathematics, natural science, and philosophy,
each of which holds out the hope that it will furnish a part of
the information desired. In the first place, we find philosophy
to be a monster with many heads, each of which speaks a different
language. Of course, they are not all at variance with one another
on the point here mentioned, the significance of the representation
of perception. For, with the exception of the Sceptics and Idealists,
the others in the main speak fairly consistently of an object
forming the basis of the representation. This object indeed is
different in its whole being and nature from the representation,
but yet is in all respects as like it as one egg is like another.
But this does not help us, for we do not at all know how to distinguish
that object from the representation. We find that the two are
one and the same, for every object always and eternally presupposes
a subject, and thus remains representation. We then recognise
also that being-object belongs to the most universal form of the
representation, which is precisely the division into object and
subject. Further, the principle of sufficient reason, to which
we here refer, is also for us only the form of the representation,
namely the regular and orderly combination of one representation
with another and not the combination of the whole finite or infinite
series of representations with something which is not representation
at all, and is therefore not capable of being in any way represented.
We spoke above of the Sceptics and Idealists, when discussing
the controversy about the reality of the external world.
Now if we look to mathematics for the desired more detailed knowledge
of the representation of perception, which we have come to know
only quite generally according to the mere form, then this science
will tell us about these representations only in so far as they
occupy time and space, in other words, only in so far as they
are quantities. It will state with extreme accuracy the How-many
and the How-large; but as this is always only relative, that is
to say, a comparison of one representation with another, and even
that only from the one-sided aspect of quantity, this too will
not be the information for which principally we are looking.
Finally, if we look at the wide province of natural science, which
is divided into many fields, we can first of all distinguish two
main divisions. It is either a description of forms and shapes,
which I call Morphology; or an explanation of changes,
which I call Etiology. The former considers the permanent forms,
the latter the changing matter, according to the laws of its transition
from one form into another. Morphology is what we call natural
history in its whole range, though not in the literal sense of
the word. As botany and zoology especially, it teaches us about
the various, permanent, organic, and thus definitely determined
forms in spite of the incessant change of individuals; and these
forms constitute a great part of the content of the perceptive
representation. In natural history they are classified, separated,
united, and arranged according to natural and artificial systems,
and brought under concepts that render possible a survey and knowledge
of them all. There is further demonstrated an infinitely fine
and shaded analogy in the whole and in the parts of these forms
which runs through them all (unité de plan), by
virtue of which they are like the many different variations on
an unspecified theme. The passage of matter into those forms,
in other words the origin of individuals, is not a main part of
the consideration, for every individual springs from its like
through generation, which everywhere is equally mysterious, and
has so far baffled clear knowledge. But the little that is known
of this finds its place in physiology, which belongs to etiological
natural science. Mineralogy, especially where it becomes geology,
though it belongs mainly to morphology, also inclines to this
etiological science. Etiology proper includes all the branches
of natural science in which the main concern everywhere is knowledge
of cause and effect. These sciences teach how, according to an
invariable rule, one state of matter is necessarily followed by
another definite state; how one definite change necessarily conditions
and brings about another definite change; this demonstration is
called explanation. Here we find principally mechanics,
physics, chemistry, and physiology.
But if we devote ourselves to its teaching, we soon become aware
that the information we are chiefly looking for no more comes
to us from Etiology than it does from morphology. The latter presents
us with innumerable and infinitely varied forms that are nevertheless
related by an unmistakable family likeness. For us they are representations
that in this way remain eternally strange to us, and, when considered
merely in this way, they stand before us like hieroglyphics that
are not understood. On the other hand, Etiology teaches us that,
according to the law of cause and effect, this definite condition
of matter produces that other condition, and with this it has
explained it, and has done its part. At bottom, however, it does
nothing more than show the orderly arrangement according to which
the states or conditions appear in space and time, and teach for
all cases what phenomenon must necessarily appear at this time
and in this place. It therefore determines for them their position
in time and space according to a law whose definite content has
been taught by experience, yet whose universal form and necessity
are known to us independently of experience. But in this way we
do not obtain the slightest information about the inner nature
of any one of these phenomena. This is called a natural force,
and lies outside the province of etiological explanation, which
calls the unalterable constancy with which the manifestation of
such a force appears whenever its known conditions are present,
a law of nature. But this law of nature, these conditions,
this appearance in a definite place at a definite time, are all
that it knows, or ever can know. The-force itself that is manifested,
the inner nature of the phenomena that appear in accordance with
those laws, remain for it an eternal secret, something entirely
strange and unknown, in the case of the simplest as well as of
the most complicated phenomenon. For although Etiology has so
far achieved its aim most completely in mechanics, and least so
in physiology, the force by virtue of which a stone falls to the
ground, or one body repels another, is, in its inner nature, just
as strange and mysterious as that which produces the movements
and growth of an animal. Mechanics presupposes matter, weight,
impenetrability, communicability of motion through impact, rigidity,
and so on as unfathomable; it calls them forces of nature, and
their necessary and regular appearance under certain conditions
a law of nature. Only then does its explanation begin, and that
consists in stating truly and with mathematical precision how,
where, and when each force manifests itself, and referring to
one of those forces every phenomenon that comes before it. Physics,
chemistry, and physiology do the same in their province, only
they presuppose much more and achieve less. Consequently, even
the most perfect etiological explanation of the whole of nature
would never be more in reality than a record of inexplicable forces,
and a reliable statement of the rule by which their phenomena
appear, succeed, and make way for one another in time and space.
But the inner nature of the forces that thus appear was always
bound to be left unexplained by Etiology, which had to stop at
the phenomenon and its arrangement, since the law followed by
Etiology does not go beyond this. In this respect it could be
compared to a section of a piece of marble showing many different
veins side by side, but not letting us know the course of these
veins from the interior of the marble to the surface. Or, if I
may be permitted a facetious comparison, because it is more striking,
the philosophical investigator must always feel in regard to the
complete Etiology of the whole of nature like a man who, without
knowing how, is brought into a company quite unknown to him, each
member of which in turn presents to him another as his friend
and cousin, and thus makes them sufficiently acquainted. The man
himself, however, while assuring each person introduced of his
pleasure at meeting him, always has on his lips the question:
"But how the deuce do I stand to the whole company?"
Hence, about those phenomena known by us only as our representations,
Etiology can never give us the desired information that leads
us beyond them. For after all its explanations, they still stand
quite strange before us, as mere representations whose significance
we do not understand.- The causal connexion merely gives the rule
and relative order of their appearance in space and time, but
affords us no further knowledge of that which so appears. Moreover,
the law of causality itself has validity only for representations,
for objects of a definite class, and has meaning only when they
are assumed. Hence, like these objects themselves, it always exists
only in relation to the subject, and so conditionally. Thus it
is just as well known when we start from the subject, i.e., a
priori, as when we start from the object, i.e., a posteriori,
as Kant has taught us.
But what now prompts us to make enquiries is that we are not satisfied
with knowing that we have representations, that they are such
and such, and that they are connected according to this or that
law, whose general expression is always the principle of sufficient
reason. We want to know the significance of those representations;
we ask whether this world is nothing more than representation.
In that case, it would inevitably pass by us like an empty dream,
or a ghostly vision not worth our consideration. Or we ask whether
it is something else, something in addition, and if so what that
something is. This much is certain, namely that this something
about which we are enquiring must be by its whole nature completely
and fundamentally different from the representation; and so the
forms and laws of the representation must be wholly foreign to
it. We cannot, then, reach it from the representation under the
guidance of those laws that merely combine objects, representations,
with one another; these are the forms of the principle of sufficient
reason.
Here we already see that we can never get at the inner nature
of things from without. However much we may investigate,
we obtain nothing but images and names. We are like a man who
goes round a castle, looking in vain for an entrance, and sometimes
sketching the facades. Yet this is the path that all philosophers
before me have followed.
§18.
In fact, the meaning that I am looking for of the world that stands
before me simply as my representation, or the transition from
it as mere representation of the knowing subject to whatever it
may be besides this, could never be found if the investigator
himself were nothing more than the purely knowing subject (a winged
cherub without a body). But he himself is rooted in that world;
and thus he finds himself in it as an individual, in other
words, his knowledge, which is the conditional supporter of the
whole world as representation, is nevertheless given entirely
through the medium of a body, and the affections of this body
are, as we have shown, the starting-point for the understanding
in its perception of this world. For the purely knowing subject
as such, this body is a representation like any other, an object
among objects. Its movements and actions are so far known to him
in just the same way as the changes of all other objects of perception;
and they would be equally strange and incomprehensible to him,
if their meaning were not unravelled for him in an entirely different
way. Otherwise, he would see his conduct follow on presented motives
with the constancy of a law of nature, just as the changes of
other objects follow upon causes, stimuli, and motives. But he
would be no nearer to understanding the influence of the motives
than he is to understanding the connexion with its cause of any
other effect that appears before him. He would then also call
the inner, to him incomprehensible, nature of those manifestations
and actions of his body a force, a quality, or a character, just
as he pleased, but he would have no further insight into it. All
this, however, is not the case; on the contrary, the answer to
the riddle is given to the subject of knowledge appearing as individual,
and this answer is given in the word Will. This and this
alone gives him the key to his own phenomenon, reveals to him
the significance and shows him the inner mechanism of his being,
his actions, his movements. To the subject of knowing, who appears
as an individual only through his identity with the body, this
body is given in two entirely different ways. It is given in intelligent
perception as representation, as an object among objects, liable
to the laws of these objects. But it is also given in quite a
different way, namely as what is known immediately to everyone,
and is denoted by the word will. Every true act of his
will is also at once and inevitably a movement of his body; he
cannot actually will the act without at the same time being aware
that it appears as a movement of the body. The act of will and
the action of the body are not two different states objectively
known connected by the bond of causality; they do not stand in
the relation of cause and effect, but are one and the same thing,
though given in two entirely different ways, first quite directly,
and then in perception for the understanding. The action of the
body is nothing but the act of will objectified, i.e., translated
into perception. Later on we shall see that this applies to every
movement of the body, not merely to movement following on motives,
but also to involuntary movement following on mere stimuli; indeed,
that the whole body is nothing but the objectified will, i.e.,
will that has become representation. All this will follow and
become clear in the course of our discussion. Therefore the body,
which in the previous book and in the essay On the Principle
of Sufficient Reason I called the immediate object,
according to the one-sided viewpoint deliberately taken there
(namely that of the representation), will here from another point
of view be called the objectivity of the will. Therefore,
in a certain sense, it can also be said that the will is knowledge
a priori of the body, and that the body is knowledge a
posteriori of the will. Resolutions of the will relating to
the future are mere deliberations of reason about what will be
willed at some time, not real acts of will. Only the carrying
out stamps the resolve; till then, it is always a mere intention
that can be altered; it exists only in reason, in the abstract.
Only in reflection are willing and acting different; in reality
they are one. Every true, genuine, immediate act of the will is
also at once and directly a manifest act of the body; and correspondingly,
on the other hand, every impression on the body is also at once
and directly an impression on the will. As such, it is called
pain when it is contrary to the will, and gratification or pleasure
when in accordance with the will. The gradations of the two are
very different. However, we are quite wrong in calling pain and
pleasure representations, for they are not these at all, but immediate
affections of the will in its phenomenon, the body; an enforced,
instantaneous willing or not-willing of the impression undergone
by the body. There are only a certain few impressions on the body
which do not rouse the will, and through these alone is the body
an immediate object of knowledge; for, as perception in the understanding,
the body is an indirect object like all other objects. These impressions
are therefore to be regarded directly as mere representations,
and hence to be excepted from what has just been said. Here are
meant the affections of the purely objective senses of sight,
hearing, and touch, although only in so far as their organs are
affected in the specific natural way that is specially characteristic
of them. This is such an exceedingly feeble stimulation of the
enhanced and specifically modified sensibility of these parts
that it does not affect the will, but, undisturbed by any excitement
of the will, only furnishes for the understanding data from which
perception arises. But every stronger or heterogeneous affection
of these sense-organs is painful, in other words, is against the
will; hence they too belong to its objectivity. Weakness of the
nerves shows itself in the fact that the impressions which should
have merely that degree of intensity that is sufficient to make
them data for the understanding, reach the higher degree at which
they stir the will, that is to say, excite pain or pleasure, though
more often pain. This pain, however, is in part dull and inarticulate;
thus it not merely causes us to feel painfully particular tones
and intense light, but also gives rise generally to a morbid and
hypochondriacal disposition without being distinctly recognised.
The identity of the body and the will further shows itself, among
other things, in the fact that every vehement and excessive movement
of the will, in other words, every emotion, agitates the body
and its inner workings directly and immediately, and disturbs
the course of its vital functions. This is specially discussed
in The Will in Nature.
Finally, the knowledge I have of my will, although an immediate
knowledge, cannot be separated from that of my body. I know my
will not as a whole, not as a unity, not completely according
to its nature, but only in its individual acts, and hence in time,
which is the form of my body's appearing, as it is of every
body. Therefore, the body is the condition of knowledge of my
will. Accordingly, I cannot really imagine this will without my
body. In the essay On the Principle of Sufficient Reason
the will, or rather the subject of willing, is treated as a special
class of representations or objects. But even there we saw this
object coinciding with the subject, in other words, ceasing to
be object. We then called this coincidence the miracle par
excellence to a certain extent the whole of the present work
is an explanation of this. In so far as I know my will really
as object, I know it as body; but then I am again at the first
class of representations laid down in that essay, that is, again
at real objects. As we go on, we shall see more and more that
the first class of representations finds its explanation, its
solution, only in the fourth class enumerated in that essay, which
could no longer be properly opposed to the subject as object;
and that, accordingly, we must learn to understand the inner nature
of the law of causality valid in the first class, and of what
happens according to this law, from the law of motivation governing
the fourth class.
The identity of the will and of the body, provisionally explained,
can be demonstrated only as is done here, and that for the first
time, and as will be done more and more in the further course
of our discussion. In other words, it can be raised from immediate
consciousness, from knowledge in the concrete, to rational knowledge
of reason, or be carried over into knowledge in the abstract.
On the other hand, by its nature it can never be demonstrated,
that is to say, deduced as indirect knowledge from some other
more direct knowledge, for the very reason that it is itself the
most direct knowledge. If we do not apprehend it and stick to
it as such, in vain shall we expect to obtain it again in some
indirect way as derived knowledge. It is a knowledge of quite
a peculiar nature, whose truth cannot therefore really be brought
under one of the four headings by which I have divided all truth
in the essay On the Principle of Sufficient Reason, §
29, namely, logical, empirical, transcendental, and metalogical.
For it is not, like all these, the reference of an abstract representation
to another representation, or to the necessary form of intuitive
or of abstract representing, but it is the reference of a judgement
to the relation that a representation of perception, namely the
body, has to that which is not a representation at all, but is
toto genere different therefrom, namely will. I should
therefore like to distinguish this truth from every other, and
call it philosophical truth par excellence. We can
turn the expression of this truth in different ways and say: My
body and my will are one; or. What as representation of perception
I call my body, I call my will in so far as I am conscious of
it in an entirely different way comparable with no other; or,
My body is the objectivity of my will; or, Apart from the fact
that my body is my representation, it is still my will, and so
on.
§19.
Whereas in the first book we were reluctantly forced to declare
our own body to be mere representation of the knowing subject,
like all the other objects of this world of perception, it has
now become clear to us that something in the consciousness of
everyone distinguishes the representation of his own body from
all others that are in other respects quite like it. This is that
the body occurs in consciousness in quite another way, toto
genere different, that is denoted by the word will.
It is just this double knowledge of our own body which gives us
information about- that body itself, about its action and movement
following on motives, as well as about its suffering through outside
impressions, in a word, about what it is, not as representation,
but as something over and above this, and hence what it is
in itself. We do not have such immediate information about
the nature, action, and suffering of any other real objects.
The knowing subject is an individual precisely by reason of this
special relation to the one body which, considered apart from
this, is for him only a representation like all other representations.
But the relation by virtue of which the knowing subject is an
individual, subsists for that very reason only between
him and one particular representation among all his representations.
He is therefore conscious of this particular representation not
merely as such, but at the same time in a quite different way,
namely as a will. But if he abstracts from that special relation,
from that twofold and completely heterogeneous knowledge of one
and the same thing, then that one thing, the body, is a representation
like all others. Therefore, in order to understand where he is
in this matter, the knowing individual must either assume that
the distinctive feature of that one representation is to be found
merely in the fact that his knowledge stands in this double reference
only to that one representation; that only into this one object
of perception is an insight in two ways at the same time open
to him; and that this is to be explained not by a difference of
this object from all others, but only by a difference between
the relation of his knowledge to this one object and its relation
to all others. Or he must assume that this one object is essentially
different from all others; that it alone among all objects is
at the same time will and representation, the rest, on the other
hand, being mere representation, i.e., mere phantoms. Thus, he
must assume that his body is the only real individual in the world,
i.e.-, the only phenomenon of will, and the only immediate object
of the subject. That the other objects, considered as mere representations,
are like his body, in other words, like this body fill space (itself
perhaps existing only as representation), and also, like this
body, operate in space - this, I say, is demonstrably certain
from the law of causality, which is a priori certain for
representations, and admits of no effect without a cause. But
apart from the fact that we can infer from the effect only a cause
in general, not a similar cause, we are still always in the realm
of the mere representation, for which alone the law of causality
is valid, and beyond which it can never lead us. But whether the
objects known to the individual only as representations are yet,
like his own body, phenomena of a will, is, as stated in the previous
book, the proper meaning of the question as to the reality of
the external world. To deny this is the meaning of theoretical
egoism, which in this way regards as phantoms all phenomena
outside its own will, just as practical egoism does in a practical
respect; thus in it a man regards and treats only his own person
as a real person, and all others as mere phantoms. Theoretical
egoism, of course, can never be refuted by proofs, yet in philosophy
it has never been positively used otherwise than as a sceptical
sophism, i.e., for the sake of appearance. As a serious conviction,
on the other hand, it could be found only in a madhouse; as such
it would then need not so much a refutation as a cure. Therefore
we do not go into it any further, but regard it as the last stronghold
of scepticism, which is always polemical. Thus our knowledge,
bound always to individuality and having its limitation in this
very fact, necessarily means that everyone can be only one thing,
whereas he can know everything else, and it is this very
limitation that really creates the need for philosophy. Therefore
we, who for this very reason are endeavouring to extend the limits
of our knowledge through philosophy, shall regard this sceptical
argument of theoretical egoism, which here confronts us, as a
small frontier fortress. Admittedly the fortress is impregnable,
but the garrison can never sally forth from it, and therefore
we can pass it by and leave it in our rear without danger.
The double knowledge which we have of the nature and action of
our own body, and which is given in two completely different ways,
has now been clearly brought out. Accordingly, we shall use it
further as a key to the inner being of every phenomenon in nature.
We shall judge all objects which are not our own body, and therefore
are given to our consciousness not in the double way, but only
as representations, according to the analogy of this body. We
shall therefore assume that as, on the one hand, they are representation,
just like our body, and are in this respect homogeneous with it,
so on the other hand, if we set aside their existence as the subject's
representation, what still remains over must be, according to
its inner nature, the same as what in ourselves we call will.
For what other kind of existence or reality could we attribute
to the rest of the material world? From what source could we take
the elements out of which we construct such a world? Besides the
will and the representation, there is absolutely nothing known
or conceivable for us. If we wish to attribute the greatest known
reality to the material world, which immediately exists only in
our representation, then we give it that reality which our own
body has for each of us, for to each of us this is the most real
of things. But if now we analyse the reality of this body and
its actions, then, beyond the fact that it is our representation,
we find nothing in it but the will; with this even its reality
is exhausted. Therefore we can nowhere find another kind of reality
to attribute to the material world. If, therefore, the material
world is to be something more than our mere representation, we
must say that, besides being the representation, and hence in
itself and of its inmost nature, it is what we find immediately
in ourselves as will. I say 'of its inmost nature,' but we have
first of all to get to know more intimately this inner nature
of the will, so that we may know how to distinguish from it what
belongs not to it itself, but to its phenomenon, which has many
grades. Such, for example, is the circumstance of its being accompanied
by knowledge, and the determination by motives which is conditioned
by this knowledge. As we proceed, we shall see that this belongs
not to the inner nature of the will, but merely to its most distinct
phenomenon as animal and human being. Therefore, if I say that
the force which attracts a stone to the earth is of its nature,
in itself, and apart from all representation, will, then no one
will attach to this proposition the absurd meaning that the stone
moves itself according to a known motive, because it is thus that
the will appears in man.
'Thus we cannot in any way agree with Bacon when he (De Augmentis
Scientiarum) thinks that all mechanical and physical movements
of bodies ensue only after a preceding perception in these bodies,
although a glimmering of truth gave birth even to this false proposition.
This is also the case with Kepler's statement, in his essay De
Planeta Martis, that the planets must have knowledge in order
to keep to their elliptical courses so accurately and to regulate
the velocity of their motion, so that the triangles of the plane
of their course always remain proportional to the time in which
they pass through their bases.
But we will now prove, establish, and develop to its full extent,
clearly and in more detail, what has hitherto been explained provisionally
and generally.
§20.
As the being-in-itself of our own body, as that which this body
is besides being object of perception, namely representation,
the will, as we have said, proclaims itself first of all
in the voluntary movements of this body, in so far as these movements
are nothing but the visibility of the individual acts of the will.
These movements appear directly and simultaneously with those
acts of will; they are one and the same thing with them, and are
distinguished from them only by the form of perceptibility into
which they have passed, that is to say, in which they have become
representation.
But these acts of the will always have a ground or reason outside
themselves in motives. Yet these motives never determine more
than what I will at this time, in this place, in
these circumstances, not that I will in general,
or what I will in general, in other words, the maxim characterising
the whole of my willing. Therefore, the whole inner nature of
my willing cannot be explained from the motives, but they determine
merely its manifestation at a given point of time; they are merely
the occasion on which my will shows itself. This will itself,
on the other hand, lies outside the province of the law of motivation;
only the phenomenon of the will at each point of time is determined
by this law. Only on the presupposition of my empirical character
is the motive a sufficient ground of explanation of my conduct.
But if I abstract from my character, and then ask why in general
I will this and not that, no answer is possible, because only
the appearance or phenomenon of the will is subject
to the principle of sufficient reason, not the will itself, which
in this respect may be called groundless. Here I in part
presuppose Kant's doctrine of the empirical and intelligible characters,
as well as my remarks pertinent to this in the Grundprobleme
der Ethik. We shall have to speak about this again in more
detail in the fourth book. For the present, I have only to draw
attention to the fast that one phenomenon being established by
another, as in this case the deed by the motive, does not in the
least conflict with the essence-in-itself of the deed being will.
The will itself has no ground; the principle of sufficient reason
in all its aspects is merely the form of knowledge, and hence
its validity extends only to the representation, to the phenomenon,
to the visibility of the will, not to the will itself that becomes
visible.
Now if every action of my body is an appearance or phenomenon
of an act of will in which my will itself in general and as a
whole, and hence my character, again expresses itself under given
motives, then phenomenon or appearance of the will must also be
the indispensable condition and presupposition of every action.
For the will's appearance cannot depend on something which does
not exist directly and only through it, and would therefore be
merely accidental for it, whereby the will's appearance itself
would be only accidental. But that condition is the whole body
itself. Therefore this body itself must be phenomenon of the will,
and must be related to my will as a whole, that is to say, to
my intelligible character, the phenomenon of which in time is
my empirical character, in the same way as the particular action
of the body is to the particular act of the will. Therefore the
whole body must be nothing but my will become visible, must be
my will itself, in so far as this is object of perception, representation
of the first class. It has already been advanced in confirmation
of this that every impression on my body also affects my will
at once and immediately, and in this respect is called pain or
pleasure, or in a lower degree, pleasant or unpleasant sensation.
Conversely, it has also been advanced that every violent movement
of the will, and hence every emotion and passion, convulses the
body, and disturbs the course of its functions. Indeed an etiological,
though very incomplete, account can be given of the origin of
my body, and a somewhat better account of its development and
preservation. Indeed this is physiology; but this explains its
theme only in exactly the same way as motives explain action.
Therefore the establishment of the individual action through the
motive, and the necessary sequence of the action from the motive,
do not conflict with the fact that action, in general and by its
nature, is only phenomenon or appearance of a will that is in
itself groundless. Just as little does the physiological explanation
of the functions of the body detract from the philosophical truth
that the whole existence of this body and the sum-total of its
functions are only the objectification of that will which appears
in this body's outward actions in accordance with motives. If,
however, physiology tries to refer even these outward actions,
the immediate voluntary movements, to causes in the organism,
for example, to explain the movement of a muscle from an affluxion
of humours ("like the contraction of a cord that is wet,"
as Reil says in the Archiv für Physiologie, Vol. VI,
p. 153); supposing that it really did come to a thorough explanation
of this kind, this would never do away with the immediately certain
truth that every voluntary movement (functiones animales)
is phenomenon of an act of will. Now, just as little can the physiological
explanation of vegetative life (functiones naturales, vitales),
however far it may be developed, ever do away with the truth that
this whole animal life, thus developing itself, is phenomenon
of the will. Generally then, as already stated, no etiological
explanation can ever state more than the necessarily determined
position in time and space of a particular phenomenon and its
necessary appearance there according to a fixed rule. On the other
hand, the inner nature of everything that appears in this way
remains for ever unfathomable, and is presupposed by every etiological
explanation; it is merely expressed by the name force, or law
of nature, or, when we speak of actions, the name character or
will. Thus, although every particular action, under the presupposition
of the definite character, necessarily ensues with the presented
motive, and although growth, the process of nourishment, and all
the changes in the animal body take place according to necessarily
lasting causes (stimuli), the whole series of actions, and consequently
every individual act and likewise its condition, namely the whole
body itself which performs it, and therefore also the process
through which and in which the body exists, are nothing but the
phenomenal appearance of the will, its becoming visible, the
objectivity of the will. On this rests the perfect suitability
of the human and animal body to the human and animal will in general,
resembling, but far surpassing, the suitability of a purposely
made instrument to the will of its maker, and on this account
appearing as fitness or appropriateness, i.e., the teleological
accountability of the body. Therefore the parts of the body must
correspond completely to the chief demands and desires by which
the will manifests itself; they must be the visible expression
of these desires. Teeth, gullet, and intestinal canal are objectified
hunger; the genitals are objectified sexual impulse; grasping
hands and nimble feet correspond to the more indirect strivings
of the will which they represent. Just as the general human form
corresponds to the general human will, so to the individually
modified will, namely the character of the individual, there corresponds
the individual bodily structure, which is therefore as a whole
and in all its parts characteristic and full of expression. It
is very remarkable that even Parmenides expressed this in the
following verses, quoted by Aristotle (Metaphysics):
"Just as everyone possesses the complex of flexible limbs,
so does there dwell in men the mind in conformity with this. For
everyone mind and complex of limbs are always the same; for intelligence
is the criterion."
§21.
From all these considerations the reader has now gained in the
abstract, and hence in clear and certain terms, a knowledge which
everyone possesses directly in the concrete, namely as feeling.
This is the knowledge that the inner nature of his own phenomenon,
which manifests itself to him as representation both through his
actions and through the permanent substratum of these his body,
is his Will. This will constitutes what is most immediate
in his consciousness, but as such it has not wholly entered into
the form of the representation, in which object and subject stand
over against each other; on the contrary, it makes itself known
in an immediate way in which subject and object are not quite
clearly distinguished, yet it becomes known to the individual
himself not as a whole, but only in its particular acts. The reader
who with me has gained this conviction, will find that of itself
it will become the key to the knowledge of the innermost being
of the whole of nature, since he now transfers it to all those
phenomena that are given to him, not like his own phenomenon both
in direct and in indirect knowledge, but in the latter solely,
and hence merely in a one-sided way, as representation
alone has received a full and thorough treatment.
Further Reading:
Fichte
Kierkegaard
Wundt
Biography
Nietzsche
Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org
|
./articles/Helmholtz-Hermann/https:..www.marxists.org.reference.subject.philosophy.works.at.freud | <body>
<img src="../../../../../glossary/people/f/pics/freud.jpg" vspace="6" hspace="12" align="right" border="1" alt="wise professor-type with serious dark eyes and white goatie beard">
<p class="title">Sigmund Freud (1932)</p>
<h4>Lecture XXXV<br>
A Philosophy of Life</h4>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information">
<span class="info">Source</span>: <em>New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-analysis</em> (1933) publ. Hogarth Press. Last lecture reproduced here.</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="fst">
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN – In the last lecture we were occupied with trivial everyday affairs, with putting, as it were, our modest house in order. We will now take a bold step, and risk an answer to a question which has repeatedly been raised in non-analytic quarters, namely, the question whether psychoanalysis leads to any particular <em>Weltanschauung,</em> and if so, to what.</p>
<p>
‘<em>Weltanschauung</em>’ is, I am afraid, a specifically German notion, which it would be difficult to translate into a foreign language. If I attempt to give you a definition of the word, it can hardly fail to strike you as inept. By <em>Weltanschauung, </em>then, I mean an intellectual construction which gives a unified solution of all the problems of our existence in virtue of a comprehensive hypothesis, a construction, therefore, in which no question is left open and in which everything in which we are interested finds a place. It is easy to see that the possession of such a <em>Weltanschauung </em>is one of the ideal wishes of mankind. When one believes in such a thing, one feels secure in life, one knows what one ought to strive after, and how one ought to organise one’s emotions and interests to the best purpose.</p>
<p>
If that is what is meant by a <em>Weltanschauung</em>, then the question is an easy one for psychoanalysis to answer. As a specialised science, a branch of psychology – ‘depth-psychology’ or psychology of the unconscious – it is quite unsuited to form a <em>Weltanschauung </em>of its own; it must accept that of science in general. The scientific <em>Weltanschauung </em>is, however, markedly at variance with our definition. The <em>unified</em> nature of the explanation of the universe is, it is true, accepted by science, but only as a programme whose fulfilment is postponed to the future. Otherwise it is distinguished by negative characteristics, by a limitation to what is, at any given time, knowable, and a categorical rejection of certain elements which are alien to it. It asserts that there is no other source of knowledge of the universe but the intellectual manipulation of carefully verified observations, in fact, what is called research, and that no knowledge can be obtained from revelation, intuition or inspiration. It appears that this way of looking at things came very near to receiving general acceptance during the last century or two. It has been reserved for the present century to raise the objection that such a <em>Weltanschauung </em>is both empty and unsatisfying, that it overlooks all the spiritual demands of man, and all the needs of the human mind.</p>
<p>
This objection cannot be too strongly repudiated. It cannot be supported for a moment, for the spirit and the mind are the subject of scientific investigation in exactly the same way as any non-human entities. Psycho-analysis has a peculiar right to speak on behalf of the scientific <em>Weltanschauung</em> in this connection, because it cannot be accused of neglecting the part occupied by the mind in the universe. The contribution of psychoanalysis to science consists precisely in having extended research to the region of the mind. Certainly without such a psychology science would be very incomplete. But if we add to science the investigation of the intellectual and emotional functions of men (and animals), we find that nothing has been altered as regards the general position of science, that there are no new sources of knowledge or methods of research. Intuition and inspiration would be such, if they existed; but they can safely be counted as illusions, as fulfilments of wishes. It is easy to see, moreover, that the qualities which, as we have shown, are expected of a <em>Weltanschauung </em>have a purely emotional basis. Science takes account of the fact that the mind of man creates such demands and is ready to trace their source, but it has not the slightest ground for thinking them justified. On the contrary, it does well to distinguish carefully between illusion (the results of emotional demands of that kind) and knowledge.</p>
<p>
This does not at all imply that we need push these wishes contemptuously aside, or under-estimate their value in the lives of human beings. We are prepared to take notice of the fulfilments they have achieved for themselves in the creations of art and in the systems of religion and philosophy; but we cannot overlook the fact that it would be wrong and highly inexpedient to allow such things to be carried over into the domain of knowledge. For in that way one would open the door which gives access to the region of the psychoses, whether individual or group psychoses, and one would drain off from these tendencies valuable energy which is directed towards reality and which seeks by means of reality to satisfy wishes and needs as far as this is possible.</p>
<p>
From the point of view of science we must necessarily make use of our critical powers in this direction, and not be afraid to reject and deny. It is inadmissible to declare that science is one field of human intellectual activity, and that religion and philosophy are others, at least as valuable, and that science has no business to interfere with the other two, that they all have an equal claim to truth, and that everyone is free to choose whence he shall draw his convictions and in what he shall place his belief. Such an attitude is considered particularly respectable, tolerant, broad-minded and free from narrow prejudices. Unfortunately it is not tenable; it shares all the pernicious qualities of an entirely unscientific <em>Weltanschauung </em>and in practice comes to much the same thing. The bare fact is that truth cannot be tolerant and cannot admit compromise or limitations, that scientific research looks on the whole field of human activity as its own, and must adopt an uncompromisingly critical attitude towards any other power that seeks to usurp any part of its province.</p>
<p>
Of the three forces which can dispute the position of science, religion alone is a really serious enemy. Art is almost always harmless and beneficent, it does not seek to be anything else but an illusion. Save in the case of a few people who are, one might say, obsessed by art, it never dares to make any attacks on the realm of reality. Philosophy is not opposed to science, it behaves itself as if it were a science, and to a certain extent it makes use of the same methods; but it parts company with science, in that it clings to the illusion that it can produce a complete and coherent picture of the universe, though in fact that picture must needs fall to pieces with every new advance in our knowledge. Its methodological error lies in the fact that it over-estimates the epistemological value of our logical operations, and to a certain extent admits the validity of other sources of knowledge, such as intuition. And often enough one feels that the poet Heine is not unjustified when he says of the philosopher:</p>
<p class="quoteb">
‘With his night-cap and his night-shirt tatters,<br> He botches up the loop-holes in the structure of the world.’ </p>
<p>
But philosophy has no immediate influence on the great majority of mankind; it interests only a small number even of the thin upper stratum of intellectuals, while all the rest find it beyond them. In contradistinction to philosophy, religion is a tremendous force, which exerts its power over the strongest emotions of human beings. As we know, at one time it included everything that played any part in the mental life of mankind, that it took the place of science, when as yet science hardly existed, and that it built up a <em>Weltanschauung </em>of incomparable consistency and coherence which, although it has been severely shaken, has lasted to this day.</p>
<p>
If one wishes to form a true estimate of the full grandeur of religion, one must keep in mind what it undertakes to do for men. It gives them information about the source and origin of the universe it assures them of protection and final happiness amid the changing vicissitudes of life, and it guides their thoughts and actions by means of precepts which are backed by the whole force of its authority. It fulfils, therefore, three functions. In the first place, it satisfies man’s desire for knowledge; it is here doing the same thing that science attempts to accomplish by its own methods, and here, therefore, enters into rivalry with it. It is to the second function that it performs that religion no doubt owes the greater part of its influence. In so far as religion brushes away men’s fear of the dangers and vicissitudes of life, in so far as it assures them of a happy ending, and comforts them in their misfortunes, science cannot compete with it. Science, it is true, teaches how one can avoid certain dangers and how one can combat many sufferings with success; it would be quite untrue to deny that science is a powerful aid to human beings, but in many cases it has to leave them to their suffering, and can only advise them to submit to the inevitable. In the performance of its third function, the provision of precepts, prohibitions and restrictions, religion is furthest removed from science. For science is content with discovering and stating the facts. It is true that from the applications of science rules and recommendations for behaviour may be deduced. In certain circumstances they may be the same as those which are laid down by religion, but even so the reasons for them will be different.</p>
<p>
It is not quite clear why religion should combine these three functions. What has the explanation of the origin of the universe to do with the inculcation of certain ethical precepts? Its assurances of protection and happiness are more closely connected with these precepts. They are the reward for the fulfilment of the commands; only he who obeys them can count on receiving these benefits, while punishment awaits the disobedient. For the matter of that something of the same kind applies to science; for it declares that anyone who disregards its inferences is liable to suffer for it.</p>
<p>
One can only understand this remarkable combination of teaching, consolation and precept in religion if one subjects it to genetic analysis. We may begin with the most remarkable item of the three, the teaching about the origin of the universe for why should a cosmogony be a regular element of religious systems? The doctrine is that the universe was created by a being similar to man, but greater in every respect, in power, wisdom and strength of passion, in fact by an idealised superman. Where you have animals as creators of the universe, you have indications of the influence of totemism, which I shall touch on later, at any rate with a brief remark. It is interesting to notice that this creator of the universe is always a single god, even when many gods are believed in. Equally interesting is the fact that the creator is nearly always a male, although there is no lack of indication of the existence of female deities, and many mythologies make the creation of the world begin precisely with a male god triumphing over a female goddess, who is degraded into a monster. This raises the most fascinating minor problems, but we must hurry on. The rest of our enquiry is made easy because this God-Creator is openly called Father. Psycho-analysis concludes that he really is the father, clothed in the grandeur in which he once appeared to the small child. The religious man’s picture of the creation of the universe is the same as his picture of his own creation.</p>
<p>
If this is so, then it is easy to understand how it is that the comforting promises of protection and the severe ethical commands are found together with the cosmogony. For the same individual to whom the child owes its own existence, the father (or, more correctly, the parental function which is composed of the father and the mother), has protected and watched over the weak and helpless child, exposed as it is to all the dangers which threaten in the external world; in its father’s care it has felt itself safe. Even the grown man, though he may know that he possesses greater strength, and though he has greater insight into the dangers of life, rightly feels that fundamentally he is just as helpless and unprotected as he was in childhood and that in relation to the external world he is still a child. Even now, therefore, he cannot give up the protection which he has enjoyed as a child. But he has long ago realised that his father is a being with strictly limited powers and by no means endowed with every desirable attribute. He therefore looks back to the memory-image of the overrated father of his childhood, exalts it into a Deity, and brings it into the present and into reality. The emotional strength of this memory-image and the lasting nature of his need for protection are the two supports of his belief in God.</p>
<p>
The third main point of the religious programme, its ethical precepts, can also be related without any difficulty to the situation of childhood. In a famous passage, which I have already quoted in an earlier lecture, the philosopher Kant speaks of the starry heaven above us and the moral law within us as the strongest evidence for the greatness of God. However odd it may sound to put these two side by side – for what can the heavenly bodies have to do with the question whether one man loves another or kills him? – nevertheless it touches on a great psychological truth. The same father (the parental function) who gave the child his life, and preserved it from the dangers which that life involves, also taught it what it may or may not do, made it accept certain limitations of its instinctual wishes, and told it what consideration it would be expected to show towards its parents and brothers and sisters, if it wanted to be tolerated and liked as a member of the family circle, and later on of more extensive groups. The child is brought up to know its social duties by means of a system of love-rewards and punishments, and in this way it is taught that its security in life depends on its parents (and, subsequently, other people) loving it and being able to believe in its love for them. This whole state of affairs is carried over by the grown man unaltered into his religion. The prohibitions and commands of his parents live on in his breast as his moral conscience; God rules the world of men with the help of the same system of rewards and punishments, and the degree of protection and happiness which each individual enjoys depends on his fulfilment of the demands of morality; the feeling of security, with which he fortifies himself against the dangers both of the external world and of his human environment, is founded on his love of God and the consciousness of God’s love for him. Finally, he has in prayer a direct influence on the divine will, and in that way insures for himself a share in the divine omnipotence.</p>
<p>
I am sure that while you have been listening to me a whole host of questions must have come into your minds which you would like to have answered. I cannot undertake to do so here and now, but I am perfectly certain that none of these questions of detail would shake our thesis that the religious <em>Weltanschauung </em>is determined by the situation that subsisted in our childhood. It is therefore all the more remarkable that, in spite of its infantile character, it nevertheless has a forerunner. There was, without doubt, a time when there was no religion and no gods. It is known as the age of animism. Even at that time the world was full of spirits in the semblance of men (demons, as we call them), and all the objects in the external world were their dwelling-place or perhaps identical with them; but there was no supreme power which had created them all which controlled them, and to which it was possible to turn for protection and aid. The demons of animism were usually hostile to man, but it seems as though man had more confidence in himself in those days than later on. He was no doubt in constant terror of these evil spirits, but he defended himself against them by means of certain actions to which he ascribed the power to drive them away. Nor did he think himself entirely powerless in other ways. If he wanted something from nature – rain, for instance – he did not direct a prayer to the Weather-god, but used a spell, by means of which he expected to exert a direct influence over nature; he himself made something which resembled rain. In his fight against the powers of the surrounding world his first weapon was magic, the first forerunner of our modern technology. We suppose that this confidence in magic is derived from the over-estimation of the individual’s own intellectual operations, from the belief in the ‘omnipotence of thoughts’, which, incidentally, we come across again in our obsessional neurotics. We may imagine that the men of that time were particularly proud of their acquisition of speech, which must have been accompanied by a great facilitation of thought. They attributed magic power to the spoken word. This feature was later on taken over by religion. ‘And God said: Let there be light, and there was light.’ But the fact of magic actions shows that animistic man did not rely entirely on the force of his own wishes. On the contrary, he depended for success upon the performance of an action which would cause Nature to imitate it. If he wanted it to rain, he himself poured out water; if he wanted to stimulate the soil to fertility, he offered it a performance of sexual intercourse in the fields.</p>
<p>
You know how tenaciously anything that has once found psychological expression persists. You will therefore not be surprised to hear that a great many manifestations of animism have lasted up to the present day, mostly as what are called superstitions, side by side with and behind religion. But more than that, you can hardly avoid coming to the conclusion that our philosophy has preserved essential traits of animistic modes of thought such as the over-estimation of the magic of words and the belief that real processes in the external world follow the lines laid down by our thoughts. It is, to be sure, an animism without magical practices. On the other hand, we should expect to find that in the age of animism there must already have been some kind of morality, some rules governing the intercourse of men with one another. But there is no evidence that they were closely bound up with animistic beliefs. Probably they were the immediate expression of the distribution of power and of practical necessities.</p>
<p>
It would be very interesting to know what determined the transition from animism to religion; but you may imagine in what darkness this earliest epoch in the evolution of the human mind is still shrouded. It seems to be a fact that the earliest form in which religion appeared was the remarkable one of totemism, the worship of animals, in the train of which followed the first ethical commands, the taboos. In a book called <em>Totem and Taboo, </em>I once worked out a suggestion in accordance with which this change is to be traced back to an upheaval in the relationships in the human family. The main achievement of religion, as compared with animism, lies in the psychic binding of the fear of demons. Nevertheless, the evil spirit still has a place in the religious system as a relic of the previous age.</p>
<p>
So much for the pre-history of the religious Welt<em>anschauung. </em>Let us now turn to consider what has happened since, and what is still going on under our own eyes. The scientific spirit, strengthened by the observation of natural processes, began in the course of time to treat religion as a human matter, and to subject it to a critical examination. This test it failed to pass. In the first place, the accounts of miracles roused a feeling of surprise and disbelief, since they contradicted everything that sober observation had taught, and betrayed all too clearly the influence of human imagination. In the next place, its account of the nature of the universe had to be rejected, because it showed evidence of a lack of knowledge which bore the stamp of earlier days, and because, owing to increasing familiarity with the laws of nature, it had lost its authority. The idea that the universe came into being through an act of generation or creation, analogous to that which produces an individual human being, no longer seemed to be the most obvious and self-evident hypothesis; for the distinction between living and sentient beings and inanimate nature had become apparent to the human mind, and had made it impossible to retain the original animistic theory. Besides this, one must not overlook the influence of the comparative study of different religious systems, and the impression they give of mutual exclusiveness and intolerance.</p>
<p>
Fortified by these preliminary efforts, the scientific spirit at last summoned up courage to put to the test the most important and the most emotionally significant elements of the religious <em>Weltanschauung. </em>The truth could have been seen at any time, but it was long before anyone dared to say it aloud: the assertions made by religion that it could give protection and happiness to men, if they would only fulfil certain ethical obligations, were unworthy of belief. It seems not to be true that there is a power in the universe which watches over the well-being of every individual with parental care and brings all his concerns to a happy ending. On the contrary, the destinies of man are incompatible with a universal principle of benevolence or with – what is to some degree contradictory – a universal principle of justice. Earthquakes, floods and fires do not differentiate between the good and devout man and the sinner and unbeliever. And, even if we leave inanimate nature out of account and consider the destinies of individual men in so far as they depend on their relations with others of their own kind, it is by no means the rule that virtue is rewarded and wickedness punished, but it happens often enough that the violent, the crafty and the unprincipled seize the desirable goods of the earth for themselves, while the pious go empty away. Dark, unfeeling and unloving powers determine human destiny; the system of rewards and punishments, which, according to religion, governs the world, seems to have no existence. This is another occasion for abandoning a portion of the animism which has found refuge in religion.</p>
<p>
The last contribution to the criticism of the religious <em>Weltanschauung </em>has been made by psychoanalysis, which has traced the origin of religion to the helplessness of childhood, and its content to the persistence of the wishes and needs of childhood into maturity. This does not precisely imply a refutation of religion, but it is a necessary rounding off of our knowledge about it, and, at least on one point, it actually contradicts it, for religion lays claim to a divine origin. This claim, to be sure, is not false, if our interpretation of God is accepted.</p>
<p>
The final judgment of science on the religious <em>Weltanschauung, </em>then, runs as follows. While the different religions wrangle with one another as to which of them is in possession of the truth, in our view the truth of religion may be altogether disregarded. Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we have developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological necessities. But it cannot achieve its end. Its doctrines carry with them the stamp of the times in which they originated, the ignorant childhood days of the human race. Its consolations deserve no trust. Experience teaches us that the world is not a nursery. The ethical commands, to which religion seeks to lend its weight, require some other foundation instead, for human society cannot do without them, and it is dangerous to link up obedience to them with religious belief. If one attempts to assign to religion its place in man’s evolution, it seems not so much to be a lasting acquisition as a parallel to the neurosis which the civilised individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity.</p>
<p>
You are, of course, perfectly free to criticise this account of mine, and I am prepared to meet you half-way. What I have said about the gradual crumbling of the religious <em>Weltanschauung </em>was no doubt an incomplete abridgment of the whole story; the order of the separate events was not quite correctly given, and the co-operation of various forces towards the awakening of the scientific spirit was not traced. I have also left out of account the alterations which occurred in the religious <em>Weltanschauung </em>itself, both during the period of its unchallenged authority and afterwards under the influence of awakening criticism. Finally I have, strictly speaking, limited my remarks to one single form of religion, that of the Western peoples. I have, as it were, constructed a lay-figure for the purposes of a demonstration which I desired to be as rapid and as impressive as possible. Let us leave on one side the question of whether my knowledge would in any case have been sufficient to enable me to do it better or more completely. I am aware that you can find all that I have said elsewhere, and find it better said; none of it is new. But I am firmly convinced that the most careful elaboration of the material upon which the problems of religion are based would not shake these conclusions.</p>
<p>
As you know, the struggle between the scientific spirit and the religious <em>Weltanschauung </em>is not yet at an end; it is still going on under our very eyes to-day. However little psychoanalysis may make use as a rule of polemical weapons, we will not deny ourselves the pleasure of looking into this conflict. Incidentally, we may perhaps arrive at a clearer understanding of our attitude towards the <em>Weltanschauung. </em>You will see how easily some of the arguments which are brought forward by the supporters of religion can be disproved; though others may succeed in escaping refutation.</p>
<p>
The first objection that one hears is to the effect that it is an impertinence on the part of science to take religion as a subject for its investigations, since religion is something supreme, something superior to the capacities of the human understanding, something which must not be approached with the sophistries of criticism. In other words, science is not competent to sit in judgment on religion. No doubt it is quite useful and valuable, so long as it is restricted to its own province; but religion does not lie in that province, and with religion it can have nothing to do. If we are not deterred by this brusque dismissal, but enquire on what grounds religion bases its claim to an exceptional position among human concerns, the answer we receive, if indeed we are honoured with an answer at all, is that religion cannot be measured by human standards, since it is of divine origin, and has been revealed to us by a spirit which the human mind cannot grasp. It might surely be thought that nothing could be more easily refuted than this argument; it is an obvious <em>petitio principii, </em>a ‘begging of the question’. The point which is being called in question is whether there is a divine spirit and a revelation; and it surely cannot be a conclusive reply to say that the question be asked, because the Deity cannot be called in question. What is happening here is the same kind of thing as we meet with occasionally in our analytic work. If an otherwise intelligent patient denies a suggestion on particularly stupid grounds, his imperfect logic is evidence for the existence of a particularly strong motive for his making the denial, a motive which can only be of an affective nature and serve to bind an emotion.</p>
<p>
Another sort of answer may be given, in which a motive of this kind is openly admitted. Religion must not be critically examined, because it is the highest, most precious and noblest thing that the mind of man has brought forth, because it gives expression to the deepest feelings, and is the only thing that makes the world bearable and life worthy of humanity. To this we need not reply by disputing this estimate of religion, but rather by drawing attention to another aspect of the matter. We should point out that it is not a question of the scientific spirit encroaching upon the sphere of religion, but of religion encroaching upon the sphere of scientific thought. Whatever value and importance religion may have, it has no right to set any limits to thought, and therefore has no right to except itself from the application of thought.</p>
<p>
Scientific thought is, in its essence, no different from the normal process of thinking, which we all, believers and unbelievers alike, make use of when we are going about our business in everyday life. It has merely taken a special form in certain respects: it extends its interest to things which have no immediately obvious utility, it endeavours to eliminate personal factors and emotional influences, it carefully examines the trustworthiness of the sense perceptions on which it bases its conclusions, it provides itself with new perceptions which are not obtainable by everyday means, and isolates the determinants of these new experiences by purposely varied experimentation. Its aim is to arrive at correspondence with reality, that is to say with what exists outside us and independently of us, and, as experience has taught us, is decisive for the fulfilment or frustration of our desires. This correspondence with the real external world we call truth. It is the aim of scientific work, even when the practical value of that work does not interest us. When, therefore, religion claims that it can take the place of science and that, because it is beneficent and ennobling, it must therefore be true, that claim is, in fact, an encroachment, which, in the interests of everyone, should be resisted. It is asking a great deal of a man, who has learnt to regulate his everyday affairs in accordance with the rules of experience and with due regard to reality, that he should entrust precisely what affects him most nearly to the care of an authority which claims as its prerogative freedom from all the rules of rational thought. And as for the protection that religion promises its believers, I hardly think that any of us would be willing even to enter a motorcar if the driver informed us that he drove without allowing himself to be distracted by traffic regulations, but in accordance with the impulses of an exalted imagination.</p>
<p>
And indeed the ban which religion has imposed upon thought in the interests of its own preservation is by no means without danger both for the individual and for society. Analytic experience has taught us that such prohibitions, even though they were originally confined to some particular field, have a tendency to spread, and then become the cause of severe inhibitions in people’s lives. In women a process of this sort can be observed to follow from the prohibition against their occupying themselves, even in thought, with the sexual side of their nature. The biographies of almost all the eminent people of past times show the disastrous results of the inhibition of thought by religion. Intellect, on the other hand, – or rather, to call it by a more familiar name, reason – is among the forces which may be expected to exert a unifying influence upon men – creatures who can be held together only with the greatest difficulty, and whom it is therefore scarcely possible to control. Think how impossible human society would be if everyone had his own particular multiplication table and his own private units of weight and length. Our best hope for the future is that the intellect – the scientific spirit, – reason – should in time establish a dictatorship over the human mind. The very nature of reason is a guarantee that it would not fail to concede to human emotions and to all that is determined by them the position to which they are entitled. But the common pressure exercised by such a domination of reason would prove to be the strongest unifying force among men, and would prepare the way for further unifications. Whatever, like the ban laid upon thought by religion, opposes such a development is a danger for the future of mankind.</p>
<p>
The question may now be asked why religion does not put an end to this losing fight by openly declaring: ‘It is a fact that I cannot give you what men commonly call truth; to obtain that, you must go to science. But what I have to give you is incomparably more beautiful, more comforting and more ennobling than anything that you could ever get from science. And I therefore say to you that it is true in a different and higher sense.’ The answer is easy to find. Religion cannot make this admission, because if it did it would lose all influence over the mass of mankind. The ordinary man knows only one ‘truth’ – truth in the ordinary sense of the word. What may be meant by a higher, or a highest, truth, he cannot imagine. Truth seems to him as little capable of having degrees as death, and the necessary leap from the beautiful to the true is one that he cannot make. Perhaps you will agree with me in thinking that he is right in this.</p>
<p>
The struggle, therefore, is not yet at an end. The followers of the religious <em>Weltanschauung </em>act in accordance with the old maxim: the best defence is attack. ‘What’, they ask, ‘is this science that presumes to depreciate our religion, which has brought salvation and comfort to millions of men for many thousands of years? What has science for its part so far accomplished? What more can be expected of it? On its own admission, it is incapable of comforting or ennobling us. We will leave that on one side, therefore, though it is by no means easy to give up such benefits. But what of its teaching? Can it tell us how the world began, and what fate is in store for it? Can it even paint for us a coherent picture of the universe, and show us where the unexplained phenomena of life fit in, and how spiritual forces are able to operate on inert matter? If it could do that we should not refuse it our respect. But it has done nothing of the sort, not one single problem of this kind has it solved. It gives us fragments of alleged knowledge, which it cannot harmonise with one another, it collects observations of uniformities from the totality of events, and dignifies them with the name of laws and subjects them to its hazardous interpretations. And with what a small degree of certitude does it establish its conclusions! All that it teaches is only provisionally true; what is prized to-day as the highest wisdom is overthrown tomorrow and experimentally replaced by something else. The latest error is then given the name of truth. And to this truth we are asked to sacrifice our highest good!’</p>
<p>
Ladies and Gentlemen – In so far as you yourselves are supporters of the scientific <em>Weltanschauung</em> I do not think you will be very profoundly shaken by this critic’s attack. In Imperial Austria an anecdote was once current which I should like to call to mind in this connection. On one occasion the old Emperor was receiving a deputation from a political party which he disliked: ‘This is no longer ordinary opposition’, he burst out, ‘this is factious opposition.’ In just the same way you will find that the reproaches made against science for not having solved the riddle of the universe are unfairly and spitefully exaggerated. Science has had too little time for such a tremendous achievement. It is still very young, a recently developed human activity. Let us bear in mind, to mention only a few dates, that only about three hundred years have passed since Kepler discovered the laws of planetary movement; the life of Newton, who split up light into the colours of the spectrum, and put forward the theory of gravitation, came to an end in 1727, that is to say a little more than two hundred years ago; and Lavoisier discovered oxygen shortly before the French Revolution. I may be a very old man to-day, but the life of an individual man is very short in comparison with the duration of human development, and it is a fact that I was alive when Charles Darwin published his work on the origin of species. In the same year, 1859, Pierre Curie, the discoverer of radium, was born. And if you go back to the beginnings of exact natural science among the Greeks, to Archimedes, or to Aristarchus of Samos (<em>circa </em>250 B.C.), the forerunner of Copernicus, or even to the tentative origins of astronomy among the Babylonians, you will only be covering a very small portion of the period which anthropology requires for the evolution of man from his original ape-like form, a period which certainly embraces more than a hundred thousand years. And it must not be forgotten that the last century has brought with it such a quantity of new discoveries and such a great acceleration of scientific progress that we have every reason to look forward with confidence to the future of science.</p>
<p>
It has to be admitted that the other objections are valid within certain limits. Thus it is true that the path of science is slow, tentative and laborious. That cannot be denied or altered. No wonder that the gentlemen of the opposition are dissatisfied; they are spoilt, they have had an easier time of it with their revelation. Progress in scientific work is made in just the same way as in an analysis. The analyst brings expectations with him to his work, but he must keep them in the background. He discovers something new by observation, now here and now there, and at first the bits do not fit together. He puts forward suppositions, he brings up provisional constructions, and abandons them if they are not confirmed; he must have a great deal of patience, must be prepared for all possibilities, and must not jump at conclusions for fear of their leading him to overlook new and unexpected factors. And in the end the whole expenditure of effort is rewarded, the scattered discoveries fall into place and he obtains an understanding of a whole chain of mental events; he has finished one piece of work and is ready for the next. But the analyst is unlike other scientific workers in this one respect, that he has to do without the help which experiment can bring to research.</p>
<p>
But the criticism of science which I have quoted also contains a great deal of exaggeration. It is not true to say that it swings blindly from one attempt to another, and exchanges one error for the next. As a rule the man of science works like a sculptor with a clay model, who persistently alters the first rough sketch, adds to it and takes away from it, until he has obtained a satisfactory degree of similarity to some object, whether seen or imagined. And, moreover, at least in the older and more mature sciences, there is already a solid foundation of knowledge, which is now only modified and elaborated and no longer demolished. The outlook, in fact, is not so bad in the world of science.</p>
<p>
And finally, what is the purpose of all these passionate disparagements of science? In spite of its present incompleteness and its inherent difficulties, we could not do without it and could not put anything else in its place. There is no limit to the improvement of which it is capable, and this can certainly not be said of the religious <em>Weltanschauung. </em>The latter is complete in its essentials; if it is an error, it must remain one for ever. No attempt to minimise the importance of science can alter the fact that it attempts to take into account our dependence on the real external world, while religion is illusion and derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires.</p>
<p>
I must now go on to mention some other types of <em>Weltanschauung </em>which are in opposition to the scientific one; I do so, however, unwillingly, because I know that I am not competent to form a judgment upon them. I hope, therefore, that you will bear this confession in mind in listening to what I have to say, and that if your interest is aroused you will go elsewhere for more trustworthy information.</p>
<p>
In the first place I ought at this point to name the various philosophical systems which have ventured to draw a picture of the world, as it is reflected in the minds of thinkers whose eyes are as a rule turned away from it. But I have already attempted to give a general characterisation of philosophy and its methods, and I believe I am more unfitted than almost anyone to pass the individual systems under review. I shall ask you, therefore, instead to turn your attention to two other phenomena which, particularly in these days, cannot be ignored.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
<a name="Positivism"> </a> The <em>Weltanschauung </em>to which I shall first refer is, as it were, a counterpart of political anarchism, and may perhaps have emanated from it. No doubt there have been intellectual nihilists of this kind before, but at the present day the theory of relativity of modern physics seems to have gone to their heads. It is true that they start out from science, but they succeed in forcing it to cut the ground from under its own feet, to commit suicide, as it were; they make it dispose of itself by getting it to refute its own premises. One often has an impression that this nihilism is only a temporary attitude, which will only be kept up until this task has been completed. When once science has been got rid of, some kind of mysticism, or, indeed, the old religious <em>Weltanschauung, </em>can spring up in the space that has been left vacant. According to this anarchistic doctrine, there is no such thing as truth, no assured knowledge of the external world. What we give out as scientific truth is only the product of our own needs and desires, as they are formulated under varying external conditions; that is to say, it is illusion once more. Ultimately we find only what we need to find, and see only what we desire to see. We can do nothing else. And since the criterion of truth, correspondence with an external world, disappears, it is absolutely immaterial what views we accept. All of them are equally true and false. And no one has a right to accuse anyone else of error.</p>
<p>
For a mind which is interested in epistemology, it would be tempting to enquire into the contrivances and sophistries by means of which the anarchists manage to elicit a final product of this kind from science. One would no doubt be brought up against situations like the one involved in the familiar example of the Cretan who says that all Cretans are liars. But I am not desirous, nor am I capable, of going deeper into this. I will merely remark that the anarchistic theory only retains its remarkable air of superiority so long as it is concerned with opinions about abstract things; it breaks down the moment it comes in contact with practical life. Now the behaviour of men is guided by their opinions and knowledge, and the same scientific spirit which speculates about the structure of the atom or the origin of man is concerned in the building of a bridge that will bear its load. If it were really a matter of indifference what we believed, if there were no knowledge which was distinguished from among our opinions by the fact that it corresponds with reality, then we might just as well build our bridges of cardboard as of stone, or inject a tenth of a gram of morphia into a patient instead of a hundredth, or take tear-gas as a narcotic instead of ether. But the intellectual anarchists themselves would strongly repudiate such practical applications of their theory.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
<a name="Marx"> </a> The other opposing <em>Weltanschauung </em>is to be taken far more seriously, and in this case I very deeply regret the insufficiency of my knowledge. I dare say that you know more about this subject than I do and that you have long ago taken up your position for or against Marxism. The investigations of Karl Marx into the economic structure of society and into the influence of various forms of economic organisation upon all departments of human life have in our day acquired an authority that cannot be denied. How far they are right or wrong in detail, I naturally do not know. I gather that it is not easy even for better informed people to decide. Some of the propositions in Marx’s theory seem strange to me, such as that the evolution of forms of society is a process of natural history, or that the changes in social stratification proceed from one another in the manner of a dialectical process. I am by no means certain that I understand these statements rightly; moreover, they do not sound ‘materialistic’ but like traces of the obscure Hegelian philosophy under the influence of which Marx at one time passed. I do not know how I can throw off the view which I share with other laymen, who are inclined to trace back the formation of classes in society to the struggles which went on from the beginning of history between various human hordes. These hordes differed to a slight degree from one another; and it is my view that social differences go back to these original differences of tribe or race. Psychological factors, such as the amount of constitutional aggressiveness and also the degree of cohesion within the horde, and material factors, such as the possession of better weapons, decided the victory. When they came to live together in the same territory, the victors became the masters and the conquered the slaves. There is no sign in all this of natural laws or conceptual modifications; on the other hand, we cannot fail to recognise the influence which the progressive control over natural forces exerts on the social relationships between men, since men always place their newly won powers at the service of their aggressiveness, and use them against one another. The introduction of metals, of bronze and iron, put an end to whole cultural epochs and their social institutions. I really believe that gunpowder and fire-arms overthrew chivalry and the domination of the aristocracy, and that the Russian despotism was already doomed before the war was lost, since no amount of in-breeding among the ruling families of Europe could have produced a race of Tsars capable of withstanding the explosive force of dynamite.</p>
<p>
It may be, indeed, that with the present economic crisis which followed upon the Great War we are merely paying the price of our latest triumph over Nature, the conquest of the air. This does not sound very convincing, but at least the first links in the chain of argument are clearly recognisable. The policy of England was based on the security guaranteed by the seas which encircle her coasts. The moment Blériot flew over the Channel in his aeroplane this protective isolation was broken through; and on the night on which, in a time of peace, a German Zeppelin made an experimental cruise over London, war against Germany became a certainty. Nor must the threat of submarines be forgotten in this connection.</p>
<p>
I am almost ashamed of treating a theme of such importance and complexity in such a slight and inadequate manner, and I am also aware that I have not said anything that is new to you. I only wanted to call your attention to the fact that the factor of man’s control over Nature, from which he obtains his weapons for his struggle with his fellow-men, must of necessity also affect his economic arrangements. We seem to have travelled a long way from the problems of a <em>Weltanschauung, </em>but we shall soon come back to the point. The strength of Marxism obviously does not lie in its view of history or in the prophecies about the future which it bases upon that view, but in its clear insight into the determining influence which is exerted by the economic conditions of man upon his intellectual, ethical and artistic reactions. A whole collection of correlations and causal sequences were thus discovered, which had hitherto been almost completely disregarded. But it cannot be assumed that economic motives are the only ones which determine the behaviour of men in society. The unquestionable fact that different individuals, races and nations behave differently under the same economic conditions in itself proves that the economic factor cannot be the sole determinant. It is quite impossible to understand how psychological factors can be overlooked where the reactions of living human beings are involved; for not only were such factors already concerned in the establishment of these economic conditions but even in obeying these conditions, men can do no more than set their original instinctual impulses in motion – their self-preservative instinct, their love of aggression, their need for love and their impulse to attain pleasure and avoid pain. In an earlier lecture we have emphasised the importance of the part played by the super-ego, which represents tradition and the ideals of the past, and which will resist for some time the pressure exerted by new economic situations. And, finally, we must not forget that the mass of mankind, subjected though they are to economic necessities, are borne on by a process of cultural development – some call it civilisation – which is no doubt influenced by all the other factors, but is equally certainly independent of them in its origin; it is comparable to an organic process, and is quite capable of itself having an effect upon the other factors. It displaces the aims of the instincts, and causes men to rebel against what has hitherto been tolerable; and, moreover, the progressive strengthening of the scientific spirit seems to be an essential part of it. If anyone were in a position to show in detail how these different factors – the general human instinctual disposition, its racial variations and its cultural modifications – behave under the influence of varying social organisation, professional activities and methods of subsistence, how these factors inhibit or aid one another – if, I say, anyone could show this, then he would not only have improved Marxism but would have made it into a true social science. For sociology, which deals with the behaviour of man in society, can be nothing other than applied psychology. Strictly speaking, indeed, there are only two sciences – psychology, pure and applied, and natural science.</p>
<p>
When at last the far-reaching importance of economic conditions began to be realised, the temptation arose to bring about an alteration in them by means of revolutionary interference, instead of leaving the change to the course of historical development. Theoretical Marxism, as put into effect in Russian Bolshevism, has acquired the energy, the comprehensiveness and the exclusiveness of a <em>Weltanschauung, </em>but at the same time it has acquired an almost uncanny resemblance to what it is opposing. Originally it was itself a part of science, and, in its realisation, was built up on science and technology, but it has nevertheless established a ban upon thought which is as inexorable as was formerly that of religion. All critical examination of the Marxist theory is forbidden, doubts of its validity are as vindictively punished as heresy once was by the Catholic Church. The works of Marx, as the source of revelation, have taken the place of the Bible and the Koran, although they are no freer from contradictions and obscurities than those earlier holy books.</p>
<p>
And although practical Marxism has remorselessly swept away all idealistic systems and illusions, it has nevertheless developed illusions itself, which are no less dubious and unverifiable than their predecessors. It hopes, in the course of a few generations, so to alter men that they will be able to live together in the new order of society almost without friction, and that they will do their work voluntarily. In the meantime it moves elsewhere the instinctual barriers which are essential in any society, it directs outwards the aggressive tendencies which threaten every human community, and finds its support in the hostility of the poor against the rich, and of the hitherto powerless against the former holders of power. But such an alteration in human nature is very improbable. The enthusiasm with which the mob follow the Bolshevist lead at present, so long as the new order is incomplete and threatened from outside, gives no guarantee for the future, when it will be fully established and no longer in danger. In exactly the same way as religion, Bolshevism is obliged to compensate its believers for the sufferings and deprivations of the present life by promising them a better life hereafter, in which there will be no unsatisfied needs. It is true that this paradise is to be in this world; it will be established on earth, and will be inaugurated within a measurable time. But let us remember that the Jews, whose religion knows nothing of a life beyond the grave, also expected the coming of the Messiah here on earth, and that the Christian Middle Ages constantly believed that the Kingdom of God was at hand.</p>
<p>
There is no doubt what the answer of Bolshevism to these criticisms will be. ‘Until men have changed their nature’, it will say, ‘one must employ the methods which are effective with them today. One cannot do without compulsion in their education or a ban upon thinking or the application of force, even the spilling of blood; and if one did not awake in them the illusions you speak of, one would not be able to bring them to submit to this compulsion.’ And it might politely ask us to say how else it could be done. At this point we should be defeated. I should know of no advice to give. I should admit that the conditions of this experiment would have restrained me, and people like me, from undertaking it; but we are not the only ones concerned. There are also men of action, unshakeable in their convictions, impervious to doubt, and insensitive to the sufferings of anyone who stands between them and their goal. It is owing to such men that the tremendous attempt to institute a new order of society of this kind is actually being carried out in Russia now. At a time when great nations are declaring that they expect to find their salvation solely from a steadfast adherence to Christian piety, the upheaval in Russia – in spite of all its distressing features – seems to bring a promise of a better future. Unfortunately, neither our own misgivings nor the fanatical belief of the other side give us any hint of how the experiment will turn out. The future will teach us. Perhaps it will show that the attempt has been made prematurely and that a fundamental alteration of the social order will have little hope of success until new discoveries are made that will increase our control over the forces of Nature, and so make easier the satisfaction of our needs. It may be that only then will it be possible for a new order of society to emerge which will not only banish the material want of the masses, but at the same time meet the cultural requirements of individual men. But even so we shall still have to struggle for an indefinite length of time with the difficulties which the intractable nature of man puts in the way of every kind of social community.</p>
<p>
Ladies and Gentlemen – Let me in conclusion sum up what I had to say about the relation of psychoanalysis to the question of a <em>Weltanschauung</em>. Psychoanalysis is not, in my opinion, in a position to create a <em>Weltanschauung </em>of its own. It has no need to do so, for it is a branch of science, and can subscribe to the scientific <em>Weltanschauung. </em>The latter, however, hardly merits such a high-sounding name, for it does not take everything into its scope, it is incomplete and it makes no claim to being comprehensive or to constituting a system. Scientific thought is still in its infancy; there are very many of the great problems with which it has as yet been unable to cope. A <em>Weltanschauung </em>based upon science has, apart from the emphasis it lays upon the real world, essentially negative characteristics, such as that it limits itself to truth and rejects illusions. Those of our fellowmen who are dissatisfied with this state of things and who desire something more for their momentary peace of mind may look for it where they can find it. We shall not blame them for doing so; but we cannot help them and cannot change our own way of thinking on their account.
</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information"><span class="info">
Further Reading:</span><br>
<a href="../../../../../archive/freud/index.htm" target="_top">Sigmund Freud Archive</a> |
<a href="../../../../../glossary/people/f/r.htm#freud-sigmund" target="_top">Biography</a> |
<a href="#Positivism">On Positivism</a>, above |
<a href="#Marx">On Marxism</a>, above |
<a href="../at/freud2.htm">On the Unconscious</a> |
<a href="../../../../../archive/vygotsky/works/crisis/psycri01.htm" target="_top">Vygotsky on Freud</a> |
<a href="../../../../../subject/psychology/index.htm" target="_top">Marxist Psychology</a> |
<a href="../ru/pavlov.htm">Pavlov</a> |
<a href="../us/friedan.htm">Friedan</a> |
<a href="../../../ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/ch02.htm">De Beauvoir</a> |
<a href="../at/adler.htm">Adler</a> |
<a href="../at/jung.htm">Jung</a>
</p>
<p class="footer">
<a href="../../index.htm" target="_top">Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org</a></p>
</body> |
Sigmund Freud (1932)
Lecture XXXV
A Philosophy of Life
Source: New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-analysis (1933) publ. Hogarth Press. Last lecture reproduced here.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN – In the last lecture we were occupied with trivial everyday affairs, with putting, as it were, our modest house in order. We will now take a bold step, and risk an answer to a question which has repeatedly been raised in non-analytic quarters, namely, the question whether psychoanalysis leads to any particular Weltanschauung, and if so, to what.
‘Weltanschauung’ is, I am afraid, a specifically German notion, which it would be difficult to translate into a foreign language. If I attempt to give you a definition of the word, it can hardly fail to strike you as inept. By Weltanschauung, then, I mean an intellectual construction which gives a unified solution of all the problems of our existence in virtue of a comprehensive hypothesis, a construction, therefore, in which no question is left open and in which everything in which we are interested finds a place. It is easy to see that the possession of such a Weltanschauung is one of the ideal wishes of mankind. When one believes in such a thing, one feels secure in life, one knows what one ought to strive after, and how one ought to organise one’s emotions and interests to the best purpose.
If that is what is meant by a Weltanschauung, then the question is an easy one for psychoanalysis to answer. As a specialised science, a branch of psychology – ‘depth-psychology’ or psychology of the unconscious – it is quite unsuited to form a Weltanschauung of its own; it must accept that of science in general. The scientific Weltanschauung is, however, markedly at variance with our definition. The unified nature of the explanation of the universe is, it is true, accepted by science, but only as a programme whose fulfilment is postponed to the future. Otherwise it is distinguished by negative characteristics, by a limitation to what is, at any given time, knowable, and a categorical rejection of certain elements which are alien to it. It asserts that there is no other source of knowledge of the universe but the intellectual manipulation of carefully verified observations, in fact, what is called research, and that no knowledge can be obtained from revelation, intuition or inspiration. It appears that this way of looking at things came very near to receiving general acceptance during the last century or two. It has been reserved for the present century to raise the objection that such a Weltanschauung is both empty and unsatisfying, that it overlooks all the spiritual demands of man, and all the needs of the human mind.
This objection cannot be too strongly repudiated. It cannot be supported for a moment, for the spirit and the mind are the subject of scientific investigation in exactly the same way as any non-human entities. Psycho-analysis has a peculiar right to speak on behalf of the scientific Weltanschauung in this connection, because it cannot be accused of neglecting the part occupied by the mind in the universe. The contribution of psychoanalysis to science consists precisely in having extended research to the region of the mind. Certainly without such a psychology science would be very incomplete. But if we add to science the investigation of the intellectual and emotional functions of men (and animals), we find that nothing has been altered as regards the general position of science, that there are no new sources of knowledge or methods of research. Intuition and inspiration would be such, if they existed; but they can safely be counted as illusions, as fulfilments of wishes. It is easy to see, moreover, that the qualities which, as we have shown, are expected of a Weltanschauung have a purely emotional basis. Science takes account of the fact that the mind of man creates such demands and is ready to trace their source, but it has not the slightest ground for thinking them justified. On the contrary, it does well to distinguish carefully between illusion (the results of emotional demands of that kind) and knowledge.
This does not at all imply that we need push these wishes contemptuously aside, or under-estimate their value in the lives of human beings. We are prepared to take notice of the fulfilments they have achieved for themselves in the creations of art and in the systems of religion and philosophy; but we cannot overlook the fact that it would be wrong and highly inexpedient to allow such things to be carried over into the domain of knowledge. For in that way one would open the door which gives access to the region of the psychoses, whether individual or group psychoses, and one would drain off from these tendencies valuable energy which is directed towards reality and which seeks by means of reality to satisfy wishes and needs as far as this is possible.
From the point of view of science we must necessarily make use of our critical powers in this direction, and not be afraid to reject and deny. It is inadmissible to declare that science is one field of human intellectual activity, and that religion and philosophy are others, at least as valuable, and that science has no business to interfere with the other two, that they all have an equal claim to truth, and that everyone is free to choose whence he shall draw his convictions and in what he shall place his belief. Such an attitude is considered particularly respectable, tolerant, broad-minded and free from narrow prejudices. Unfortunately it is not tenable; it shares all the pernicious qualities of an entirely unscientific Weltanschauung and in practice comes to much the same thing. The bare fact is that truth cannot be tolerant and cannot admit compromise or limitations, that scientific research looks on the whole field of human activity as its own, and must adopt an uncompromisingly critical attitude towards any other power that seeks to usurp any part of its province.
Of the three forces which can dispute the position of science, religion alone is a really serious enemy. Art is almost always harmless and beneficent, it does not seek to be anything else but an illusion. Save in the case of a few people who are, one might say, obsessed by art, it never dares to make any attacks on the realm of reality. Philosophy is not opposed to science, it behaves itself as if it were a science, and to a certain extent it makes use of the same methods; but it parts company with science, in that it clings to the illusion that it can produce a complete and coherent picture of the universe, though in fact that picture must needs fall to pieces with every new advance in our knowledge. Its methodological error lies in the fact that it over-estimates the epistemological value of our logical operations, and to a certain extent admits the validity of other sources of knowledge, such as intuition. And often enough one feels that the poet Heine is not unjustified when he says of the philosopher:
‘With his night-cap and his night-shirt tatters, He botches up the loop-holes in the structure of the world.’
But philosophy has no immediate influence on the great majority of mankind; it interests only a small number even of the thin upper stratum of intellectuals, while all the rest find it beyond them. In contradistinction to philosophy, religion is a tremendous force, which exerts its power over the strongest emotions of human beings. As we know, at one time it included everything that played any part in the mental life of mankind, that it took the place of science, when as yet science hardly existed, and that it built up a Weltanschauung of incomparable consistency and coherence which, although it has been severely shaken, has lasted to this day.
If one wishes to form a true estimate of the full grandeur of religion, one must keep in mind what it undertakes to do for men. It gives them information about the source and origin of the universe it assures them of protection and final happiness amid the changing vicissitudes of life, and it guides their thoughts and actions by means of precepts which are backed by the whole force of its authority. It fulfils, therefore, three functions. In the first place, it satisfies man’s desire for knowledge; it is here doing the same thing that science attempts to accomplish by its own methods, and here, therefore, enters into rivalry with it. It is to the second function that it performs that religion no doubt owes the greater part of its influence. In so far as religion brushes away men’s fear of the dangers and vicissitudes of life, in so far as it assures them of a happy ending, and comforts them in their misfortunes, science cannot compete with it. Science, it is true, teaches how one can avoid certain dangers and how one can combat many sufferings with success; it would be quite untrue to deny that science is a powerful aid to human beings, but in many cases it has to leave them to their suffering, and can only advise them to submit to the inevitable. In the performance of its third function, the provision of precepts, prohibitions and restrictions, religion is furthest removed from science. For science is content with discovering and stating the facts. It is true that from the applications of science rules and recommendations for behaviour may be deduced. In certain circumstances they may be the same as those which are laid down by religion, but even so the reasons for them will be different.
It is not quite clear why religion should combine these three functions. What has the explanation of the origin of the universe to do with the inculcation of certain ethical precepts? Its assurances of protection and happiness are more closely connected with these precepts. They are the reward for the fulfilment of the commands; only he who obeys them can count on receiving these benefits, while punishment awaits the disobedient. For the matter of that something of the same kind applies to science; for it declares that anyone who disregards its inferences is liable to suffer for it.
One can only understand this remarkable combination of teaching, consolation and precept in religion if one subjects it to genetic analysis. We may begin with the most remarkable item of the three, the teaching about the origin of the universe for why should a cosmogony be a regular element of religious systems? The doctrine is that the universe was created by a being similar to man, but greater in every respect, in power, wisdom and strength of passion, in fact by an idealised superman. Where you have animals as creators of the universe, you have indications of the influence of totemism, which I shall touch on later, at any rate with a brief remark. It is interesting to notice that this creator of the universe is always a single god, even when many gods are believed in. Equally interesting is the fact that the creator is nearly always a male, although there is no lack of indication of the existence of female deities, and many mythologies make the creation of the world begin precisely with a male god triumphing over a female goddess, who is degraded into a monster. This raises the most fascinating minor problems, but we must hurry on. The rest of our enquiry is made easy because this God-Creator is openly called Father. Psycho-analysis concludes that he really is the father, clothed in the grandeur in which he once appeared to the small child. The religious man’s picture of the creation of the universe is the same as his picture of his own creation.
If this is so, then it is easy to understand how it is that the comforting promises of protection and the severe ethical commands are found together with the cosmogony. For the same individual to whom the child owes its own existence, the father (or, more correctly, the parental function which is composed of the father and the mother), has protected and watched over the weak and helpless child, exposed as it is to all the dangers which threaten in the external world; in its father’s care it has felt itself safe. Even the grown man, though he may know that he possesses greater strength, and though he has greater insight into the dangers of life, rightly feels that fundamentally he is just as helpless and unprotected as he was in childhood and that in relation to the external world he is still a child. Even now, therefore, he cannot give up the protection which he has enjoyed as a child. But he has long ago realised that his father is a being with strictly limited powers and by no means endowed with every desirable attribute. He therefore looks back to the memory-image of the overrated father of his childhood, exalts it into a Deity, and brings it into the present and into reality. The emotional strength of this memory-image and the lasting nature of his need for protection are the two supports of his belief in God.
The third main point of the religious programme, its ethical precepts, can also be related without any difficulty to the situation of childhood. In a famous passage, which I have already quoted in an earlier lecture, the philosopher Kant speaks of the starry heaven above us and the moral law within us as the strongest evidence for the greatness of God. However odd it may sound to put these two side by side – for what can the heavenly bodies have to do with the question whether one man loves another or kills him? – nevertheless it touches on a great psychological truth. The same father (the parental function) who gave the child his life, and preserved it from the dangers which that life involves, also taught it what it may or may not do, made it accept certain limitations of its instinctual wishes, and told it what consideration it would be expected to show towards its parents and brothers and sisters, if it wanted to be tolerated and liked as a member of the family circle, and later on of more extensive groups. The child is brought up to know its social duties by means of a system of love-rewards and punishments, and in this way it is taught that its security in life depends on its parents (and, subsequently, other people) loving it and being able to believe in its love for them. This whole state of affairs is carried over by the grown man unaltered into his religion. The prohibitions and commands of his parents live on in his breast as his moral conscience; God rules the world of men with the help of the same system of rewards and punishments, and the degree of protection and happiness which each individual enjoys depends on his fulfilment of the demands of morality; the feeling of security, with which he fortifies himself against the dangers both of the external world and of his human environment, is founded on his love of God and the consciousness of God’s love for him. Finally, he has in prayer a direct influence on the divine will, and in that way insures for himself a share in the divine omnipotence.
I am sure that while you have been listening to me a whole host of questions must have come into your minds which you would like to have answered. I cannot undertake to do so here and now, but I am perfectly certain that none of these questions of detail would shake our thesis that the religious Weltanschauung is determined by the situation that subsisted in our childhood. It is therefore all the more remarkable that, in spite of its infantile character, it nevertheless has a forerunner. There was, without doubt, a time when there was no religion and no gods. It is known as the age of animism. Even at that time the world was full of spirits in the semblance of men (demons, as we call them), and all the objects in the external world were their dwelling-place or perhaps identical with them; but there was no supreme power which had created them all which controlled them, and to which it was possible to turn for protection and aid. The demons of animism were usually hostile to man, but it seems as though man had more confidence in himself in those days than later on. He was no doubt in constant terror of these evil spirits, but he defended himself against them by means of certain actions to which he ascribed the power to drive them away. Nor did he think himself entirely powerless in other ways. If he wanted something from nature – rain, for instance – he did not direct a prayer to the Weather-god, but used a spell, by means of which he expected to exert a direct influence over nature; he himself made something which resembled rain. In his fight against the powers of the surrounding world his first weapon was magic, the first forerunner of our modern technology. We suppose that this confidence in magic is derived from the over-estimation of the individual’s own intellectual operations, from the belief in the ‘omnipotence of thoughts’, which, incidentally, we come across again in our obsessional neurotics. We may imagine that the men of that time were particularly proud of their acquisition of speech, which must have been accompanied by a great facilitation of thought. They attributed magic power to the spoken word. This feature was later on taken over by religion. ‘And God said: Let there be light, and there was light.’ But the fact of magic actions shows that animistic man did not rely entirely on the force of his own wishes. On the contrary, he depended for success upon the performance of an action which would cause Nature to imitate it. If he wanted it to rain, he himself poured out water; if he wanted to stimulate the soil to fertility, he offered it a performance of sexual intercourse in the fields.
You know how tenaciously anything that has once found psychological expression persists. You will therefore not be surprised to hear that a great many manifestations of animism have lasted up to the present day, mostly as what are called superstitions, side by side with and behind religion. But more than that, you can hardly avoid coming to the conclusion that our philosophy has preserved essential traits of animistic modes of thought such as the over-estimation of the magic of words and the belief that real processes in the external world follow the lines laid down by our thoughts. It is, to be sure, an animism without magical practices. On the other hand, we should expect to find that in the age of animism there must already have been some kind of morality, some rules governing the intercourse of men with one another. But there is no evidence that they were closely bound up with animistic beliefs. Probably they were the immediate expression of the distribution of power and of practical necessities.
It would be very interesting to know what determined the transition from animism to religion; but you may imagine in what darkness this earliest epoch in the evolution of the human mind is still shrouded. It seems to be a fact that the earliest form in which religion appeared was the remarkable one of totemism, the worship of animals, in the train of which followed the first ethical commands, the taboos. In a book called Totem and Taboo, I once worked out a suggestion in accordance with which this change is to be traced back to an upheaval in the relationships in the human family. The main achievement of religion, as compared with animism, lies in the psychic binding of the fear of demons. Nevertheless, the evil spirit still has a place in the religious system as a relic of the previous age.
So much for the pre-history of the religious Weltanschauung. Let us now turn to consider what has happened since, and what is still going on under our own eyes. The scientific spirit, strengthened by the observation of natural processes, began in the course of time to treat religion as a human matter, and to subject it to a critical examination. This test it failed to pass. In the first place, the accounts of miracles roused a feeling of surprise and disbelief, since they contradicted everything that sober observation had taught, and betrayed all too clearly the influence of human imagination. In the next place, its account of the nature of the universe had to be rejected, because it showed evidence of a lack of knowledge which bore the stamp of earlier days, and because, owing to increasing familiarity with the laws of nature, it had lost its authority. The idea that the universe came into being through an act of generation or creation, analogous to that which produces an individual human being, no longer seemed to be the most obvious and self-evident hypothesis; for the distinction between living and sentient beings and inanimate nature had become apparent to the human mind, and had made it impossible to retain the original animistic theory. Besides this, one must not overlook the influence of the comparative study of different religious systems, and the impression they give of mutual exclusiveness and intolerance.
Fortified by these preliminary efforts, the scientific spirit at last summoned up courage to put to the test the most important and the most emotionally significant elements of the religious Weltanschauung. The truth could have been seen at any time, but it was long before anyone dared to say it aloud: the assertions made by religion that it could give protection and happiness to men, if they would only fulfil certain ethical obligations, were unworthy of belief. It seems not to be true that there is a power in the universe which watches over the well-being of every individual with parental care and brings all his concerns to a happy ending. On the contrary, the destinies of man are incompatible with a universal principle of benevolence or with – what is to some degree contradictory – a universal principle of justice. Earthquakes, floods and fires do not differentiate between the good and devout man and the sinner and unbeliever. And, even if we leave inanimate nature out of account and consider the destinies of individual men in so far as they depend on their relations with others of their own kind, it is by no means the rule that virtue is rewarded and wickedness punished, but it happens often enough that the violent, the crafty and the unprincipled seize the desirable goods of the earth for themselves, while the pious go empty away. Dark, unfeeling and unloving powers determine human destiny; the system of rewards and punishments, which, according to religion, governs the world, seems to have no existence. This is another occasion for abandoning a portion of the animism which has found refuge in religion.
The last contribution to the criticism of the religious Weltanschauung has been made by psychoanalysis, which has traced the origin of religion to the helplessness of childhood, and its content to the persistence of the wishes and needs of childhood into maturity. This does not precisely imply a refutation of religion, but it is a necessary rounding off of our knowledge about it, and, at least on one point, it actually contradicts it, for religion lays claim to a divine origin. This claim, to be sure, is not false, if our interpretation of God is accepted.
The final judgment of science on the religious Weltanschauung, then, runs as follows. While the different religions wrangle with one another as to which of them is in possession of the truth, in our view the truth of religion may be altogether disregarded. Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we have developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological necessities. But it cannot achieve its end. Its doctrines carry with them the stamp of the times in which they originated, the ignorant childhood days of the human race. Its consolations deserve no trust. Experience teaches us that the world is not a nursery. The ethical commands, to which religion seeks to lend its weight, require some other foundation instead, for human society cannot do without them, and it is dangerous to link up obedience to them with religious belief. If one attempts to assign to religion its place in man’s evolution, it seems not so much to be a lasting acquisition as a parallel to the neurosis which the civilised individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity.
You are, of course, perfectly free to criticise this account of mine, and I am prepared to meet you half-way. What I have said about the gradual crumbling of the religious Weltanschauung was no doubt an incomplete abridgment of the whole story; the order of the separate events was not quite correctly given, and the co-operation of various forces towards the awakening of the scientific spirit was not traced. I have also left out of account the alterations which occurred in the religious Weltanschauung itself, both during the period of its unchallenged authority and afterwards under the influence of awakening criticism. Finally I have, strictly speaking, limited my remarks to one single form of religion, that of the Western peoples. I have, as it were, constructed a lay-figure for the purposes of a demonstration which I desired to be as rapid and as impressive as possible. Let us leave on one side the question of whether my knowledge would in any case have been sufficient to enable me to do it better or more completely. I am aware that you can find all that I have said elsewhere, and find it better said; none of it is new. But I am firmly convinced that the most careful elaboration of the material upon which the problems of religion are based would not shake these conclusions.
As you know, the struggle between the scientific spirit and the religious Weltanschauung is not yet at an end; it is still going on under our very eyes to-day. However little psychoanalysis may make use as a rule of polemical weapons, we will not deny ourselves the pleasure of looking into this conflict. Incidentally, we may perhaps arrive at a clearer understanding of our attitude towards the Weltanschauung. You will see how easily some of the arguments which are brought forward by the supporters of religion can be disproved; though others may succeed in escaping refutation.
The first objection that one hears is to the effect that it is an impertinence on the part of science to take religion as a subject for its investigations, since religion is something supreme, something superior to the capacities of the human understanding, something which must not be approached with the sophistries of criticism. In other words, science is not competent to sit in judgment on religion. No doubt it is quite useful and valuable, so long as it is restricted to its own province; but religion does not lie in that province, and with religion it can have nothing to do. If we are not deterred by this brusque dismissal, but enquire on what grounds religion bases its claim to an exceptional position among human concerns, the answer we receive, if indeed we are honoured with an answer at all, is that religion cannot be measured by human standards, since it is of divine origin, and has been revealed to us by a spirit which the human mind cannot grasp. It might surely be thought that nothing could be more easily refuted than this argument; it is an obvious petitio principii, a ‘begging of the question’. The point which is being called in question is whether there is a divine spirit and a revelation; and it surely cannot be a conclusive reply to say that the question be asked, because the Deity cannot be called in question. What is happening here is the same kind of thing as we meet with occasionally in our analytic work. If an otherwise intelligent patient denies a suggestion on particularly stupid grounds, his imperfect logic is evidence for the existence of a particularly strong motive for his making the denial, a motive which can only be of an affective nature and serve to bind an emotion.
Another sort of answer may be given, in which a motive of this kind is openly admitted. Religion must not be critically examined, because it is the highest, most precious and noblest thing that the mind of man has brought forth, because it gives expression to the deepest feelings, and is the only thing that makes the world bearable and life worthy of humanity. To this we need not reply by disputing this estimate of religion, but rather by drawing attention to another aspect of the matter. We should point out that it is not a question of the scientific spirit encroaching upon the sphere of religion, but of religion encroaching upon the sphere of scientific thought. Whatever value and importance religion may have, it has no right to set any limits to thought, and therefore has no right to except itself from the application of thought.
Scientific thought is, in its essence, no different from the normal process of thinking, which we all, believers and unbelievers alike, make use of when we are going about our business in everyday life. It has merely taken a special form in certain respects: it extends its interest to things which have no immediately obvious utility, it endeavours to eliminate personal factors and emotional influences, it carefully examines the trustworthiness of the sense perceptions on which it bases its conclusions, it provides itself with new perceptions which are not obtainable by everyday means, and isolates the determinants of these new experiences by purposely varied experimentation. Its aim is to arrive at correspondence with reality, that is to say with what exists outside us and independently of us, and, as experience has taught us, is decisive for the fulfilment or frustration of our desires. This correspondence with the real external world we call truth. It is the aim of scientific work, even when the practical value of that work does not interest us. When, therefore, religion claims that it can take the place of science and that, because it is beneficent and ennobling, it must therefore be true, that claim is, in fact, an encroachment, which, in the interests of everyone, should be resisted. It is asking a great deal of a man, who has learnt to regulate his everyday affairs in accordance with the rules of experience and with due regard to reality, that he should entrust precisely what affects him most nearly to the care of an authority which claims as its prerogative freedom from all the rules of rational thought. And as for the protection that religion promises its believers, I hardly think that any of us would be willing even to enter a motorcar if the driver informed us that he drove without allowing himself to be distracted by traffic regulations, but in accordance with the impulses of an exalted imagination.
And indeed the ban which religion has imposed upon thought in the interests of its own preservation is by no means without danger both for the individual and for society. Analytic experience has taught us that such prohibitions, even though they were originally confined to some particular field, have a tendency to spread, and then become the cause of severe inhibitions in people’s lives. In women a process of this sort can be observed to follow from the prohibition against their occupying themselves, even in thought, with the sexual side of their nature. The biographies of almost all the eminent people of past times show the disastrous results of the inhibition of thought by religion. Intellect, on the other hand, – or rather, to call it by a more familiar name, reason – is among the forces which may be expected to exert a unifying influence upon men – creatures who can be held together only with the greatest difficulty, and whom it is therefore scarcely possible to control. Think how impossible human society would be if everyone had his own particular multiplication table and his own private units of weight and length. Our best hope for the future is that the intellect – the scientific spirit, – reason – should in time establish a dictatorship over the human mind. The very nature of reason is a guarantee that it would not fail to concede to human emotions and to all that is determined by them the position to which they are entitled. But the common pressure exercised by such a domination of reason would prove to be the strongest unifying force among men, and would prepare the way for further unifications. Whatever, like the ban laid upon thought by religion, opposes such a development is a danger for the future of mankind.
The question may now be asked why religion does not put an end to this losing fight by openly declaring: ‘It is a fact that I cannot give you what men commonly call truth; to obtain that, you must go to science. But what I have to give you is incomparably more beautiful, more comforting and more ennobling than anything that you could ever get from science. And I therefore say to you that it is true in a different and higher sense.’ The answer is easy to find. Religion cannot make this admission, because if it did it would lose all influence over the mass of mankind. The ordinary man knows only one ‘truth’ – truth in the ordinary sense of the word. What may be meant by a higher, or a highest, truth, he cannot imagine. Truth seems to him as little capable of having degrees as death, and the necessary leap from the beautiful to the true is one that he cannot make. Perhaps you will agree with me in thinking that he is right in this.
The struggle, therefore, is not yet at an end. The followers of the religious Weltanschauung act in accordance with the old maxim: the best defence is attack. ‘What’, they ask, ‘is this science that presumes to depreciate our religion, which has brought salvation and comfort to millions of men for many thousands of years? What has science for its part so far accomplished? What more can be expected of it? On its own admission, it is incapable of comforting or ennobling us. We will leave that on one side, therefore, though it is by no means easy to give up such benefits. But what of its teaching? Can it tell us how the world began, and what fate is in store for it? Can it even paint for us a coherent picture of the universe, and show us where the unexplained phenomena of life fit in, and how spiritual forces are able to operate on inert matter? If it could do that we should not refuse it our respect. But it has done nothing of the sort, not one single problem of this kind has it solved. It gives us fragments of alleged knowledge, which it cannot harmonise with one another, it collects observations of uniformities from the totality of events, and dignifies them with the name of laws and subjects them to its hazardous interpretations. And with what a small degree of certitude does it establish its conclusions! All that it teaches is only provisionally true; what is prized to-day as the highest wisdom is overthrown tomorrow and experimentally replaced by something else. The latest error is then given the name of truth. And to this truth we are asked to sacrifice our highest good!’
Ladies and Gentlemen – In so far as you yourselves are supporters of the scientific Weltanschauung I do not think you will be very profoundly shaken by this critic’s attack. In Imperial Austria an anecdote was once current which I should like to call to mind in this connection. On one occasion the old Emperor was receiving a deputation from a political party which he disliked: ‘This is no longer ordinary opposition’, he burst out, ‘this is factious opposition.’ In just the same way you will find that the reproaches made against science for not having solved the riddle of the universe are unfairly and spitefully exaggerated. Science has had too little time for such a tremendous achievement. It is still very young, a recently developed human activity. Let us bear in mind, to mention only a few dates, that only about three hundred years have passed since Kepler discovered the laws of planetary movement; the life of Newton, who split up light into the colours of the spectrum, and put forward the theory of gravitation, came to an end in 1727, that is to say a little more than two hundred years ago; and Lavoisier discovered oxygen shortly before the French Revolution. I may be a very old man to-day, but the life of an individual man is very short in comparison with the duration of human development, and it is a fact that I was alive when Charles Darwin published his work on the origin of species. In the same year, 1859, Pierre Curie, the discoverer of radium, was born. And if you go back to the beginnings of exact natural science among the Greeks, to Archimedes, or to Aristarchus of Samos (circa 250 B.C.), the forerunner of Copernicus, or even to the tentative origins of astronomy among the Babylonians, you will only be covering a very small portion of the period which anthropology requires for the evolution of man from his original ape-like form, a period which certainly embraces more than a hundred thousand years. And it must not be forgotten that the last century has brought with it such a quantity of new discoveries and such a great acceleration of scientific progress that we have every reason to look forward with confidence to the future of science.
It has to be admitted that the other objections are valid within certain limits. Thus it is true that the path of science is slow, tentative and laborious. That cannot be denied or altered. No wonder that the gentlemen of the opposition are dissatisfied; they are spoilt, they have had an easier time of it with their revelation. Progress in scientific work is made in just the same way as in an analysis. The analyst brings expectations with him to his work, but he must keep them in the background. He discovers something new by observation, now here and now there, and at first the bits do not fit together. He puts forward suppositions, he brings up provisional constructions, and abandons them if they are not confirmed; he must have a great deal of patience, must be prepared for all possibilities, and must not jump at conclusions for fear of their leading him to overlook new and unexpected factors. And in the end the whole expenditure of effort is rewarded, the scattered discoveries fall into place and he obtains an understanding of a whole chain of mental events; he has finished one piece of work and is ready for the next. But the analyst is unlike other scientific workers in this one respect, that he has to do without the help which experiment can bring to research.
But the criticism of science which I have quoted also contains a great deal of exaggeration. It is not true to say that it swings blindly from one attempt to another, and exchanges one error for the next. As a rule the man of science works like a sculptor with a clay model, who persistently alters the first rough sketch, adds to it and takes away from it, until he has obtained a satisfactory degree of similarity to some object, whether seen or imagined. And, moreover, at least in the older and more mature sciences, there is already a solid foundation of knowledge, which is now only modified and elaborated and no longer demolished. The outlook, in fact, is not so bad in the world of science.
And finally, what is the purpose of all these passionate disparagements of science? In spite of its present incompleteness and its inherent difficulties, we could not do without it and could not put anything else in its place. There is no limit to the improvement of which it is capable, and this can certainly not be said of the religious Weltanschauung. The latter is complete in its essentials; if it is an error, it must remain one for ever. No attempt to minimise the importance of science can alter the fact that it attempts to take into account our dependence on the real external world, while religion is illusion and derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires.
I must now go on to mention some other types of Weltanschauung which are in opposition to the scientific one; I do so, however, unwillingly, because I know that I am not competent to form a judgment upon them. I hope, therefore, that you will bear this confession in mind in listening to what I have to say, and that if your interest is aroused you will go elsewhere for more trustworthy information.
In the first place I ought at this point to name the various philosophical systems which have ventured to draw a picture of the world, as it is reflected in the minds of thinkers whose eyes are as a rule turned away from it. But I have already attempted to give a general characterisation of philosophy and its methods, and I believe I am more unfitted than almost anyone to pass the individual systems under review. I shall ask you, therefore, instead to turn your attention to two other phenomena which, particularly in these days, cannot be ignored.
The Weltanschauung to which I shall first refer is, as it were, a counterpart of political anarchism, and may perhaps have emanated from it. No doubt there have been intellectual nihilists of this kind before, but at the present day the theory of relativity of modern physics seems to have gone to their heads. It is true that they start out from science, but they succeed in forcing it to cut the ground from under its own feet, to commit suicide, as it were; they make it dispose of itself by getting it to refute its own premises. One often has an impression that this nihilism is only a temporary attitude, which will only be kept up until this task has been completed. When once science has been got rid of, some kind of mysticism, or, indeed, the old religious Weltanschauung, can spring up in the space that has been left vacant. According to this anarchistic doctrine, there is no such thing as truth, no assured knowledge of the external world. What we give out as scientific truth is only the product of our own needs and desires, as they are formulated under varying external conditions; that is to say, it is illusion once more. Ultimately we find only what we need to find, and see only what we desire to see. We can do nothing else. And since the criterion of truth, correspondence with an external world, disappears, it is absolutely immaterial what views we accept. All of them are equally true and false. And no one has a right to accuse anyone else of error.
For a mind which is interested in epistemology, it would be tempting to enquire into the contrivances and sophistries by means of which the anarchists manage to elicit a final product of this kind from science. One would no doubt be brought up against situations like the one involved in the familiar example of the Cretan who says that all Cretans are liars. But I am not desirous, nor am I capable, of going deeper into this. I will merely remark that the anarchistic theory only retains its remarkable air of superiority so long as it is concerned with opinions about abstract things; it breaks down the moment it comes in contact with practical life. Now the behaviour of men is guided by their opinions and knowledge, and the same scientific spirit which speculates about the structure of the atom or the origin of man is concerned in the building of a bridge that will bear its load. If it were really a matter of indifference what we believed, if there were no knowledge which was distinguished from among our opinions by the fact that it corresponds with reality, then we might just as well build our bridges of cardboard as of stone, or inject a tenth of a gram of morphia into a patient instead of a hundredth, or take tear-gas as a narcotic instead of ether. But the intellectual anarchists themselves would strongly repudiate such practical applications of their theory.
The other opposing Weltanschauung is to be taken far more seriously, and in this case I very deeply regret the insufficiency of my knowledge. I dare say that you know more about this subject than I do and that you have long ago taken up your position for or against Marxism. The investigations of Karl Marx into the economic structure of society and into the influence of various forms of economic organisation upon all departments of human life have in our day acquired an authority that cannot be denied. How far they are right or wrong in detail, I naturally do not know. I gather that it is not easy even for better informed people to decide. Some of the propositions in Marx’s theory seem strange to me, such as that the evolution of forms of society is a process of natural history, or that the changes in social stratification proceed from one another in the manner of a dialectical process. I am by no means certain that I understand these statements rightly; moreover, they do not sound ‘materialistic’ but like traces of the obscure Hegelian philosophy under the influence of which Marx at one time passed. I do not know how I can throw off the view which I share with other laymen, who are inclined to trace back the formation of classes in society to the struggles which went on from the beginning of history between various human hordes. These hordes differed to a slight degree from one another; and it is my view that social differences go back to these original differences of tribe or race. Psychological factors, such as the amount of constitutional aggressiveness and also the degree of cohesion within the horde, and material factors, such as the possession of better weapons, decided the victory. When they came to live together in the same territory, the victors became the masters and the conquered the slaves. There is no sign in all this of natural laws or conceptual modifications; on the other hand, we cannot fail to recognise the influence which the progressive control over natural forces exerts on the social relationships between men, since men always place their newly won powers at the service of their aggressiveness, and use them against one another. The introduction of metals, of bronze and iron, put an end to whole cultural epochs and their social institutions. I really believe that gunpowder and fire-arms overthrew chivalry and the domination of the aristocracy, and that the Russian despotism was already doomed before the war was lost, since no amount of in-breeding among the ruling families of Europe could have produced a race of Tsars capable of withstanding the explosive force of dynamite.
It may be, indeed, that with the present economic crisis which followed upon the Great War we are merely paying the price of our latest triumph over Nature, the conquest of the air. This does not sound very convincing, but at least the first links in the chain of argument are clearly recognisable. The policy of England was based on the security guaranteed by the seas which encircle her coasts. The moment Blériot flew over the Channel in his aeroplane this protective isolation was broken through; and on the night on which, in a time of peace, a German Zeppelin made an experimental cruise over London, war against Germany became a certainty. Nor must the threat of submarines be forgotten in this connection.
I am almost ashamed of treating a theme of such importance and complexity in such a slight and inadequate manner, and I am also aware that I have not said anything that is new to you. I only wanted to call your attention to the fact that the factor of man’s control over Nature, from which he obtains his weapons for his struggle with his fellow-men, must of necessity also affect his economic arrangements. We seem to have travelled a long way from the problems of a Weltanschauung, but we shall soon come back to the point. The strength of Marxism obviously does not lie in its view of history or in the prophecies about the future which it bases upon that view, but in its clear insight into the determining influence which is exerted by the economic conditions of man upon his intellectual, ethical and artistic reactions. A whole collection of correlations and causal sequences were thus discovered, which had hitherto been almost completely disregarded. But it cannot be assumed that economic motives are the only ones which determine the behaviour of men in society. The unquestionable fact that different individuals, races and nations behave differently under the same economic conditions in itself proves that the economic factor cannot be the sole determinant. It is quite impossible to understand how psychological factors can be overlooked where the reactions of living human beings are involved; for not only were such factors already concerned in the establishment of these economic conditions but even in obeying these conditions, men can do no more than set their original instinctual impulses in motion – their self-preservative instinct, their love of aggression, their need for love and their impulse to attain pleasure and avoid pain. In an earlier lecture we have emphasised the importance of the part played by the super-ego, which represents tradition and the ideals of the past, and which will resist for some time the pressure exerted by new economic situations. And, finally, we must not forget that the mass of mankind, subjected though they are to economic necessities, are borne on by a process of cultural development – some call it civilisation – which is no doubt influenced by all the other factors, but is equally certainly independent of them in its origin; it is comparable to an organic process, and is quite capable of itself having an effect upon the other factors. It displaces the aims of the instincts, and causes men to rebel against what has hitherto been tolerable; and, moreover, the progressive strengthening of the scientific spirit seems to be an essential part of it. If anyone were in a position to show in detail how these different factors – the general human instinctual disposition, its racial variations and its cultural modifications – behave under the influence of varying social organisation, professional activities and methods of subsistence, how these factors inhibit or aid one another – if, I say, anyone could show this, then he would not only have improved Marxism but would have made it into a true social science. For sociology, which deals with the behaviour of man in society, can be nothing other than applied psychology. Strictly speaking, indeed, there are only two sciences – psychology, pure and applied, and natural science.
When at last the far-reaching importance of economic conditions began to be realised, the temptation arose to bring about an alteration in them by means of revolutionary interference, instead of leaving the change to the course of historical development. Theoretical Marxism, as put into effect in Russian Bolshevism, has acquired the energy, the comprehensiveness and the exclusiveness of a Weltanschauung, but at the same time it has acquired an almost uncanny resemblance to what it is opposing. Originally it was itself a part of science, and, in its realisation, was built up on science and technology, but it has nevertheless established a ban upon thought which is as inexorable as was formerly that of religion. All critical examination of the Marxist theory is forbidden, doubts of its validity are as vindictively punished as heresy once was by the Catholic Church. The works of Marx, as the source of revelation, have taken the place of the Bible and the Koran, although they are no freer from contradictions and obscurities than those earlier holy books.
And although practical Marxism has remorselessly swept away all idealistic systems and illusions, it has nevertheless developed illusions itself, which are no less dubious and unverifiable than their predecessors. It hopes, in the course of a few generations, so to alter men that they will be able to live together in the new order of society almost without friction, and that they will do their work voluntarily. In the meantime it moves elsewhere the instinctual barriers which are essential in any society, it directs outwards the aggressive tendencies which threaten every human community, and finds its support in the hostility of the poor against the rich, and of the hitherto powerless against the former holders of power. But such an alteration in human nature is very improbable. The enthusiasm with which the mob follow the Bolshevist lead at present, so long as the new order is incomplete and threatened from outside, gives no guarantee for the future, when it will be fully established and no longer in danger. In exactly the same way as religion, Bolshevism is obliged to compensate its believers for the sufferings and deprivations of the present life by promising them a better life hereafter, in which there will be no unsatisfied needs. It is true that this paradise is to be in this world; it will be established on earth, and will be inaugurated within a measurable time. But let us remember that the Jews, whose religion knows nothing of a life beyond the grave, also expected the coming of the Messiah here on earth, and that the Christian Middle Ages constantly believed that the Kingdom of God was at hand.
There is no doubt what the answer of Bolshevism to these criticisms will be. ‘Until men have changed their nature’, it will say, ‘one must employ the methods which are effective with them today. One cannot do without compulsion in their education or a ban upon thinking or the application of force, even the spilling of blood; and if one did not awake in them the illusions you speak of, one would not be able to bring them to submit to this compulsion.’ And it might politely ask us to say how else it could be done. At this point we should be defeated. I should know of no advice to give. I should admit that the conditions of this experiment would have restrained me, and people like me, from undertaking it; but we are not the only ones concerned. There are also men of action, unshakeable in their convictions, impervious to doubt, and insensitive to the sufferings of anyone who stands between them and their goal. It is owing to such men that the tremendous attempt to institute a new order of society of this kind is actually being carried out in Russia now. At a time when great nations are declaring that they expect to find their salvation solely from a steadfast adherence to Christian piety, the upheaval in Russia – in spite of all its distressing features – seems to bring a promise of a better future. Unfortunately, neither our own misgivings nor the fanatical belief of the other side give us any hint of how the experiment will turn out. The future will teach us. Perhaps it will show that the attempt has been made prematurely and that a fundamental alteration of the social order will have little hope of success until new discoveries are made that will increase our control over the forces of Nature, and so make easier the satisfaction of our needs. It may be that only then will it be possible for a new order of society to emerge which will not only banish the material want of the masses, but at the same time meet the cultural requirements of individual men. But even so we shall still have to struggle for an indefinite length of time with the difficulties which the intractable nature of man puts in the way of every kind of social community.
Ladies and Gentlemen – Let me in conclusion sum up what I had to say about the relation of psychoanalysis to the question of a Weltanschauung. Psychoanalysis is not, in my opinion, in a position to create a Weltanschauung of its own. It has no need to do so, for it is a branch of science, and can subscribe to the scientific Weltanschauung. The latter, however, hardly merits such a high-sounding name, for it does not take everything into its scope, it is incomplete and it makes no claim to being comprehensive or to constituting a system. Scientific thought is still in its infancy; there are very many of the great problems with which it has as yet been unable to cope. A Weltanschauung based upon science has, apart from the emphasis it lays upon the real world, essentially negative characteristics, such as that it limits itself to truth and rejects illusions. Those of our fellowmen who are dissatisfied with this state of things and who desire something more for their momentary peace of mind may look for it where they can find it. We shall not blame them for doing so; but we cannot help them and cannot change our own way of thinking on their account.
Further Reading:
Sigmund Freud Archive |
Biography |
On Positivism, above |
On Marxism, above |
On the Unconscious |
Vygotsky on Freud |
Marxist Psychology |
Pavlov |
Friedan |
De Beauvoir |
Adler |
Jung
Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org
|
./articles/Helmholtz-Hermann/https:..www.marxists.org.reference.subject.philosophy.works.ge.einstein | <body>
<p class="title">Albert Einstein (1949)</p>
<h2>Einstein's Reply to Criticisms</h2>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information">
<span class="info">Source</span>: From <em>Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist</em> (1949), from <em>The Library of Living Philosophers</em> Series;<br>
<span class="info">Published</span>: by Cambridge University Press, 1949. Including Neils Bohr's report of conversations with Einstein and Einstein's, reply reproduced here.</p>
<hr class="end">
<p><img src="../../../../../glossary/people/e/pics/einstein.jpg" height="328" width="238" align="LEFT" hspace="6" alt="einstein"></p>
<p>
BY WAY of introduction I must remark that it was not easy for
me to do justice to the task of expressing myself concerning the
essays contained in this volume. The reason lies in the fact that
the essays refer to entirely too many subjects, which, at the
present state of our knowledge, are only loosely connected with
each other. I first attempted to discuss the essays individually.
However, I abandoned this procedure because nothing even approximately
homogeneous resulted, so that the reading of it could hardly have
been either useful or enjoyable. I finally decided, therefore,
to order these remarks, as far as possible, according to topical
considerations.</p>
<p>
Furthermore, after some vain efforts, I discovered that the mentality
which underlies a few of the essays differs so radically from
my own, that I am incapable of saying anything useful about them.
This is not to be interpreted that I regard those essays - insofar
as their content is at all meaningful to me - less highly than
I do those which lie closer to my own ways of thinking, to which
[latter] I dedicate the following remarks.</p>
<p>
To begin with I refer to the essays of Wolfgang Pauli and Max
Born. They describe the content of my work concerning quanta and
statistics in general in their inner consistency and in their
participation in the evolution of physics during the last half
century. It is meritorious that they have done this: For only
those who have successfully wrestled with the problematic situations
of their own age can have a deep insight into those situations;
unlike the later historian, who finds it difficult to make abstractions
from those concepts and views which appear to his generation as
established, or even as self-evident. Both authors deprecate the
fact that I reject the basic idea of contemporary statistical
quantum theory, insofar as I do not believe that this fundamental
concept will provide a useful basis for the whole of physics.
More of this later.</p>
<p>
I now come to what is probably the most interesting subject which
absolutely must be discussed in connection with the detailed arguments
of my highly esteemed colleagues Born, Pauli, Heitler, Bohr, and
Margenau. They are all firmly convinced that the riddle of the
double nature of all corpuscles (corpuscular and undulatory character)
has in essence found its final solution in the statistical quantum
theory. On the strength of the successes of this theory they consider
it proved that a theoretically complete description of a system
can, in essence, involve only statistical assertions concerning
the measurable quantities of this system. They are apparently
all of the opinion that Heisenberg's indeterminacy-relation (the
correctness of which is, from my own point of view, rightfully
regarded as finally demonstrated) is essentially prejudicial in
favour of the character of all thinkable reasonable physical theories
in the mentioned sense. In what follows I wish to adduce reasons
which keep me from falling in line with the opinion of almost
all contemporary theoretical physicists. I am, in fact, firmly
convinced that the essentially statistical character of contemporary
quantum theory is solely to be ascribed to the fact that this
[theory] operates with an incomplete description of physical systems.</p>
<p>
Above all, however, the reader should be convinced that I fully
recognise the very important progress which the statistical quantum
theory has brought to theoretical physics. In the field of <em>mechanical</em>
problems - i.e., wherever it is possible to consider the interaction
of structures and of their parts with sufficient accuracy by postulating
a potential energy between material points - [this theory] even
now presents a system which, in its closed character, correctly
describes the empirical relations between statable phenomena as
they were theoretically to be expected. This theory is until now
the only one which unites the corpuscular and undulatory dual
character of matter in a logically satisfactory fashion; and the
(testable) relations, which are contained in it, are, within the
natural limits fixed by the indeterminacy-relation, <em>complete</em>.
The formal relations which are given in this theory - i.e., its
entire mathematical formalism - will probably have to be contained,
in the form of logical inferences, in every useful future theory.</p>
<p>
What does not satisfy me in that theory, from the standpoint of
principle, is its attitude towards that which appears to me to
be the programmatic aim of all physics: the complete description
of any (individual) real situation (as it supposedly exists irrespective
of any act of observation or substantiation). Whenever the positivistically
inclined modern physicist hears such a formulation his reaction
is that of a pitying smile. He says to himself: "there we
have the naked formulation of a metaphysical prejudice, empty
of content, a prejudice, moreover, the conquest of which constitutes
the major epistemological achievement of physicists within the
last quarter-century. Has any man ever perceived a 'real physical
situation'? How is it possible that a reasonable person could
today still believe that he can refute our essential knowledge
and understanding by drawing up such a bloodless ghost?"
Patience! The above laconic characterisation was not meant to
convince anyone; it was merely to indicate the point of view around
which the following elementary considerations freely group themselves.
In doing this I shall proceed as follows: I shall first of all
show in simple special cases what seems essential to me, and then
I shall make a few remarks about some more general ideas which
are involved.</p>
<p>
We consider as a physical system, in the first instance, a radioactive
atom of definite average decay time, which is practically exactly
localised at a point of the coordinate system. The radioactive
process consists in the emission of a (comparatively light) particle.
For the sake of simplicity we neglect the motion of the residual
atom after the disintegration process. Then it is possible for
us, following Gamow, to replace the rest of the atom by a space
of atomic order of magnitude, surrounded by a closed potential
energy barrier which, at a time t = 0, encloses the particle to
be emitted. The radioactive process thus schematised is then,
as is well known, to be described - in the sense of elementary
quantum mechanics - by a Psi-function in three dimensions, which
at the time t= 0 is different from zero only inside of the barrier,
but which, for positive times, expands into the outer space. This
Psi-function yields the probability that the particle, at some
chosen instant, is actually in a chosen part of space (i.e., is
actually found there by a measurement of position). On the other
hand, the Psi-function does not imply any assertion <em>concerning
the time instant of the disintegration</em> of the radioactive
atom.</p>
<p>
Now we raise the question: Can this theoretical description be
taken as the complete description of the disintegration of a single
individual atom? The immediately plausible answer is: No. For
one is, first of all, inclined to assume that the individual atom
decays at a definite time; however, such a definite time-value
is not implied in the description by the Psi-function. If, therefore,
the individual atom has a definite disintegration time, then as
regards the individual atom its description by means of the Psi-function
must be interpreted as an incomplete description. In this case
the Psi-function is to be taken as the description, not of a singular
system, but of an ideal ensemble of systems. In this case one
is driven to the conviction that a complete description of a single
system should, after all, be possible, but for such complete description
there is no room in the conceptual world of statistical quantum
theory.</p>
<p>
To this the quantum theorist will reply: This consideration stands
and falls with the assertion that there actually is such a thing
as a definite time of disintegration of the individual atom (an
instant of time existing independently of any observation). But
this assertion is, from my point of view, not merely arbitrary
but actually meaningless. The assertion of the existence of a
definite time-instant for the disintegration makes sense only
if I can in principle determine this time-instant empirically.
Such an assertion, however, (which, finally, leads to the attempt
to prove the existence of the particle outside of the force barrier),
involves a definite disturbance of the system in which we are
interested, so that the result of the determination does not permit
a conclusion concerning the status of the undisturbed system.
The supposition, therefore, that a radioactive atom has a definite
disintegration-time is not justified by anything whatsoever; it
is, therefore, not demonstrated either that the Psi-function can
not be conceived as a complete description of the individual system.
The entire alleged difficulty proceeds from the fact that one
postulates something not observable as "real." (This
the answer of the quantum theorist.)</p>
<p>
What I dislike in this kind of argumentation is the basic positivistic
attitude, which from my point of view is untenable, and which
seems to me to come to the same thing as Berkeley's principle,
<em>esse est percipi</em>. "Being" is always something
which is mentally constructed by us, that is, something which
we freely posit (in the logical sense). The justification of such
constructs does not lie in their derivation from what is given
by the senses. Such a type of derivation (in the sense of logical
deducibility) is nowhere to be had, not even in the domain of
pre-scientific thinking. The justification of the constructs,
which represent "reality" for us, lies alone in their
quality of making intelligible what is sensorily given (the vague
character of this expression is here forced upon me by my striving
for brevity). Applied to the specifically chosen example this
consideration tells us the following:</p>
<p>
One may not merely ask: "Does a definite time instant for
the transformation of a single atom exist?" but rather: "Is
it, within the framework of our theoretical total construction,
reasonable to posit the existence of a definite point of time
for the transformation of a single atom?" One may not even
ask what this assertion <em>means</em>. One can only ask whether
such a proposition, within the framework of the chosen conceptual
system - with a view to its ability to grasp theoretically what
is empirically given - is reasonable or not.</p>
<p>
Insofar, then, as a quantum-theoretician takes the position that
the description by means of a Psi-function refers only to an ideal
systematic totality but in no wise to the individual system, he
may calmly assume a definite point of time for the transformation.
But, if he represents the assumption that his description by way
of the Psi-function is to be taken as the complete description of
the individual system, then he must reject the postulation of
a specific decay-time. He can justifiably point to the fact that
a determination of the instant of disintegration is not possible
on an isolated system, but would require disturbances of such
a character that they must not be neglected in the critical examination
of the situation. It would, for example, not be possible to conclude
from the empirical statement that the transformation has already
taken place, that this would have been the case if the disturbances
of the system had not taken place.</p>
<p>
As far as I know, it was E. Schrödinger who first called
attention to a modification of this consideration, which shows
an interpretation of this type to be impracticable. Rather than
considering a system which comprises only a radioactive atom (and
its process of transformation), one considers a system which includes
also the means for ascertaining the radioactive transformation
- for example, a Geiger-counter with automatic registration-mechanism.
Let this latter include a registration-strip, moved by a clockwork,
upon which a mark is made by tripping the counter. True, from
the point of view of quantum mechanics this total system is very
complex and its configuration space is of very high dimension.
But there is in principle no objection to treating this entire
system from the standpoint of quantum mechanics. Here too the
theory determines the probability of each configuration of all
its co-ordinates for every time instant. If one considers all
configurations of the coordinates, for a time large compared with
the average decay time of the radioactive atom, there will be
(at most) <em>one</em> such registration-mark on the paper strip.
To each coordinate configuration corresponds a definite position
of the mark on the paper strip. But, inasmuch as the theory yields
only the relative probability of the thinkable co-ordinate-configurations,
it also offers only relative probabilities for the positions of
the mark on the paper strip, but no definite location for this
mark.</p>
<p>
In this consideration the location of the mark on the strip plays
the role played in the original consideration by the time of the
disintegration. The reason for the introduction of the system
supplemented by the registration-mechanism lies in the following.
The location of the mark on the registration-strip is a fact which
belongs entirely within the sphere of macroscopic concepts, in
contradistinction to the instant of disintegration of a single
atom. If we attempt [to work with] the interpretation that the
quantum-theoretical description is to be understood as a complete
description of the individual system, we are forced to the interpretation
that the location of the mark on the strip is nothing which belongs
to the system per se, but that the existence of that location
is essentially dependent upon the carrying out of an observation
made on the registration-strip. Such an interpretation is certainly
by no means absurd from a purely logical standpoint, yet there
is hardly likely to be anyone who would be inclined to consider
it seriously. For, in the macroscopic sphere it simply is considered
certain that one must adhere to the program of a realistic description
in space and time; whereas in the sphere of microscopic situations
one is more readily inclined to give up, or at least to modify,
this program.</p>
<p>
This discussion was only to bring out the following. One arrives
at very implausible theoretical conceptions, if one attempts to
maintain the thesis that the statistical quantum theory is in
principle capable of producing a complete description of an individual
physical system. On the other hand, those difficulties of theoretical
interpretation disappear, if one views the quantum-mechanical
description as the description of ensembles of systems.</p>
<p>
I reached this conclusion as the result of quite different types
of considerations. I am convinced that everyone who will take
the trouble to carry through such reflections conscientiously
will find himself finally driven to this interpretation of quantum-theoretical
description (the Psi-function is to be understood as the description
not of a single system but of an ensemble of systems).</p>
<p>
Roughly stated the conclusion is this: Within the framework of
statistical quantum theory there is no such thing as a complete
description of the individual system. More cautiously it might
be put as follows: The attempt to conceive the quantum-theoretical
description as the complete description of the individual systems
leads to unnatural theoretical interpretations, which become immediately
unnecessary if one accepts the interpretation that the description
refers to ensembles of systems and not to individual systems.
In that case the whole "egg-walking" performed in order
to avoid the "physically real" becomes superfluous.
There exists, however, a simple psychological reason for the fact
that this most nearly obvious interpretation is being shunned.
For if the statistical quantum theory does not pretend to describe
the individual system (and its development in time) completely,
it appears unavoidable to look elsewhere for a complete description
of the individual system; in doing so it would be clear from the
very beginning that the elements of such a description are not
contained within the conceptual scheme of the statistical quantum
theory. With this one would admit that, in principle, this scheme
could not serve as the basis of theoretical physics. Assuming
the success of efforts to accomplish a complete physical description,
the statistical quantum theory would, within the framework of
future physics, take an approximately analogous position to the
statistical mechanics within the framework of classical mechanics.
I am rather firmly convinced that the development of theoretical
physics will be of this type; but the path will be lengthy and
difficult.</p>
<p>
I now imagine a quantum theoretician who may even admit that the
quantum-theoretical description refers to ensembles of systems
and not to individual systems, but who, nevertheless, clings to
the idea that the type of description of the statistical quantum
theory will, in its essential features, be retained in the future.
He may argue as follows: True, I admit that the quantum-theoretical
description is an incomplete description of the individual system.
I even admit that a complete theoretical description is, in principle,
thinkable. But I consider it proven that the search for such a
complete description would be aimless. For the lawfulness of nature
is thus constituted that the laws can be completely and suitably
formulated within the framework of our incomplete description.</p>
<p>
To this I can only reply as follows: Your point of view - taken
as theoretical possibility - is incontestable. For me, however,
the expectation that the adequate formulation of the universal
laws involves the use of <em>all</em> conceptual elements which
are necessary for a complete description, is more natural. It
is furthermore not at all surprising that, by using an incomplete
description, (in the main) only statistical statements can be
obtained out of such description. If it should be possible to
move forward to a complete description, it is likely that the
laws would represent relations among all the conceptual elements
of this description which, <em>per se</em>, have nothing to do with
statistics.</p>
<p>
A few more remarks of a general nature concerning concepts and
[also] concerning the insinuation that a concept - for example
that of the real - is something metaphysical (and therefore to
be rejected). A basic conceptual distinction, which is a necessary
prerequisite of scientific and pre-scientific thinking, is the
distinction between "sense-impressions" (and the recollection
of such) on the one hand and mere ideas on the other. There is
no such thing as a conceptual definition of this distinction (aside
from, circular definitions, i.e., of such as make a hidden use
of the object to be defined). Nor can it be maintained that at
the base of this distinction there is a type of evidence, such
as underlies, for example, the distinction between red and blue.
Yet, one needs this distinction in order to be able to overcome
solipsism. Solution: we shall make use of this distinction unconcerned
with the reproach that, in doing so, we are guilty of the metaphysical
"original sin." We regard the distinction as a category
which we use in order that we might the better find our way in
the world of immediate sensations. The "sense" and the
justification of this distinction lies simply in this achievement.
But this is only a first step. We represent the sense-impressions
as conditioned by an "objective" and by a "subjective"
factor. For this conceptual distinction there also is no logical-philosophical
justification. But if we reject it, we cannot escape solipsism.
It is also the presupposition of every kind of physical thinking.
Here too, the only justification lies in its usefulness. We are
here concerned with "categories" or schemes of thought,
the selection of which is, in principle, entirely open to us and
whose qualification can only be judged by the degree to which
its use contributes to making the totality of the contents of
consciousness "intelligible." The above mentioned "objective
factor" is the totality of such concepts and conceptual relations
as are thought of as independent of experience, viz., of perceptions.
So long as we move within the thus programmatically fixed sphere
of thought we are thinking physically. Insofar as physical thinking
justifies itself, in the more than once indicated sense, by its
ability to grasp experiences intellectually, we regard it as "knowledge
of the real."</p>
<p>
After what has been said, the "real" in physics is to
be taken as a type of program, to which we are, however, not forced
to cling <em>a priori</em>. No one is likely to be inclined to attempt
to give up this program within the realm of the "macroscopic"
(location of the mark on the paper strip "real"). But
the "macroscopic" and the "microscopic" are
so inter-related that it appears impracticable to give up this
program in the "microscopic" alone. Nor can I see any
occasion anywhere within the observable facts of the quantum-field
for doing so, unless, indeed, one clings <em>a priori</em> to the
thesis that the description of nature by the statistical scheme
of quantum-mechanics is final.</p>
<p>
The theoretical attitude here advocated is distinct from that
of Kant only by the fact that we do not conceive of the "categories"
as unalterable (conditioned by the nature of the understanding)
but as (in the logical sense) free conventions. They appear to
be <em>a priori</em> only insofar as thinking without the positing
of categories and of concepts in general would be as impossible
as is breathing in a vacuum.</p>
<p>
From these meagre remarks one will see that to me it must seem
a mistake to permit theoretical description to be directly dependent
upon acts of empirical assertions, as it seems to me to be intended
[for example] in Bohr's principle of complementarity, the sharp
formulation of which, moreover, I have been unable to achieve
despite much effort which I have expended on it. From my point
of view [such] statements or measurements can occur only as special
instances, viz., parts, of physical description, to which I cannot
ascribe any exceptional position above the rest.</p>
<p>
The above mentioned essays by Bohr and Pauli contain a historical
appreciation of my efforts in the area of physical statistics
and quanta and, in addition, an accusation which is brought forward
in the friendliest of fashion. In briefest formulation this latter
runs as follows: "Rigid adherence to classical theory."
This accusation demands either a defence or the confession of
guilt. The one or the other is, however, being rendered much more
difficult because it is by no means immediately clear what is
meant by "classical theory." Newton's theory deserves
the name of a classical theory. It has nevertheless been abandoned
since Maxwell and Hertz have shown that the idea of forces at
a distance has to be relinquished and that one cannot manage without
the idea of continuous "fields." The opinion that continuous
fields are to be viewed as the only acceptable basic concepts,
which must also be assumed to underlie the theory of the material
particles, soon won out. Now this conception became, so to speak,
"classical;" but a proper, and in principle complete,
<em>theory</em> has not grown out of it. Maxwell's theory of the
electric field remained a torso, because it was unable to set
up laws for the behaviour of electric density, without which there
can, of course, be no such thing as an electro-magnetic field.
Analogously the general theory of relativity furnished then a
field theory of gravitation, but no theory of the field-creating
masses. (These remarks presuppose it as self-evident that a field-theory
may not contain any singularities, i.e., any positions or parts
in space in which the field laws are not valid.)</p>
<p>
Consequently there is, strictly speaking, today no such thing
as a classical field-theory; one can, therefore, also not rigidly
adhere to it. Nevertheless, field-theory does exist as a program:
"Continuous functions in the four-dimensional [continuum]
as basic concepts of the theory." Rigid adherence to this
program can rightfully be asserted of me. The deeper ground for
this lies in the following: The theory of gravitation showed me
that the non-linearity of these equations results in the fact
that this theory yields interactions among structures (localised
things) at all. But the theoretical search for non-linear equations
is hopeless (because of too great variety of possibilities), if
one does not use the general principle of relativity (invariance
under general continuous co-ordinate-transformations). In the
meantime, however, it does not seem possible to formulate this
principle, if one seeks to deviate from the above program. Herein
lies a coercion which I cannot evade. This for my justification.</p>
<p>
Nevertheless I am forced to weaken this justification by a confession.
If one disregards quantum structure, one can justify the introduction
of the g<sub>ik</sub> "operationally" by pointing to the fact that
one can hardly doubt the physical reality of the elementary light
cone which belongs to a point. In doing so one implicitly makes
use of the existence of an arbitrarily sharp optical signal. Such
a signal, however, as regards the quantum facts, involves infinitely
high frequencies and energies, and therefore a complete destruction
of the field to be determined. That kind of a physical justification
for the introduction of the g<sub>ik</sub> falls by the wayside, unless one
limits himself to the "macroscopic." The application
of the formal basis of the general theory of relativity to the
"microscopic" can, therefore, be based only upon the
fact that that tensor is the formally simplest covariant structure
which can come under consideration. Such argumentation, however,
carries no weight with anyone who doubts that we have to adhere
to the continuum at all. All honour to his doubt - but where else
is there a passable road?</p>
<p>
Now I come to the theme of the relation of the theory of relativity
to philosophy. Here it is Reichenbach's piece of work which, by
the precision of deductions and by the sharpness of his assertions,
irresistibly invites a brief commentary. Robertson's lucid discussion
also is interesting mainly from the standpoint of general epistemology,
although it limits itself to the narrower theme of "the theory
of relativity and geometry." To the question: Do you consider
true what Reichenbach has here asserted, I can answer only with
Pilate's famous question: "<em>What is truth?</em>"</p>
<p>
Let us first take a good look at the question: Is a geometry -
looked at from the physical point of view - verifiable (viz.,
falsifiable) or not? Reichenbach, together with Helmholtz, says:
Yes, provided that the empirically given solid body realises the
concept of "distance." Poincare says no and consequently
is condemned by Reichenbach. Now the following short conversation
takes place:</p>
<p>
<em><strong>Poincare</strong></em>: The empirically given bodies are not rigid,
and consequently can not be used for the embodiment of geometric
intervals. Therefore, the theorems of geometry are not verifiable.</p>
<p>
<em><strong>Reichenbach</strong></em>: I admit that there are no bodies which
can be immediately adduced for the "real definition"
of the interval. Nevertheless, this real definition can be achieved
by taking the thermal volume-dependence, elasticity, electro-
and magnetostriction, etc., into consideration. That this is really
[and] without contradiction possible, classical physics has surely
demonstrated.</p>
<p>
<em><strong>Poincare</strong></em>: In gaining the real definition improved
by yourself you have made use of physical laws, the formulation
of which presupposes (in this case) Euclidean geometry. The verification,
of which you have spoken, refers, therefore, not merely to geometry
but to the entire system of physical laws which constitute its
foundation. An examination of geometry by itself is consequently
not thinkable. - Why should it consequently not be entirely up
to me to choose geometry according to my own convenience (i.e.,
Euclidean) and to fit the remaining (in the usual sense "physical")
laws to this choice in such manner that there can arise no contradiction
of the whole with experience?</p>
<p>
(The conversation cannot be continued in this fashion because
the respect of the [present] writer for Poincare's superiority
as thinker and author does not permit it; in what follows therefore,
an anonymous non-positivist is substituted for Poincare. - )</p>
<p>
<em><strong>Reichenbach</strong></em>: There is something quite attractive
in this conception. But, on the other hand, it is noteworthy that
the adherence to the objective meaning of length and to the interpretation
of the differences of co-ordinates as distances (in pre-relativistic
physics) has not led to complications. Should we not, on the basis
of this astounding fact, be justified in operating further at
least tentatively with the concept of the measurable length, as
if there were such things as rigid measuring-rods. In any case
it would have been impossible for Einstein de facto (even if not
theoretically) to set up the theory of general relativity, if
he had not adhered to the objective meaning of length.</p>
<p>
Against Poincare's suggestion it is to be pointed out that what
really matters is not merely the greatest possible simplicity
of the geometry alone, but rather the greatest possible simplicity
of all of physics (inclusive of geometry). This is what is, in
the first instance, involved in the fact that today we must decline
as unsuitable the suggestion to adhere to Euclidean geometry.</p>
<p>
<em><strong>Non-Positivist</strong></em>: If, under the stated circumstances,
you hold distance to be a legitimate concept, how then is it with
your basic principle (meaning = verifiability) ? Do you not have
to reach the point where you must deny the meaning of geometrical
concepts and theorems and to acknowledge meaning only within the
completely developed theory of relativity (which, however, does
not yet exist at all as a finished product)? Do you not have to
admit that, in your sense of the word, no "meaning"
can be attributed to the individual concepts and assertions of
a physical theory at all, and to the entire system only insofar
as it makes what is given in experience "intelligible?"
Why do the individual concepts which occur in a theory require
any specific Justification anyway, if they are only indispensable
within the framework of the logical structure of the theory, and
the theory only in its entirety validates itself?</p>
<p>
It seems to me, moreover, that you have not at all done justice
to the really significant philosophical achievement of Kant. From
Hume Kant had learned that there are concepts (as, for example,
that of causal connection), which play a dominating role in our
thinking, and which, nevertheless, can not be deduced by means
of a logical process from the empirically given (a fact which
several empiricists recognise, it is true, but seem always again
to forget). What justifies the use of such concepts? Suppose he
had replied in this sense: Thinking is necessary in order to understand
the empirically given, and concepts <em>and "categories"
are necessary as indispensable elements of thinking</em>. If he
had remained satisfied with this type of an answer, he would have
avoided scepticism and you would not have been able to find fault
with him. He, however, was misled by the erroneous opinion, difficult
to avoid in his time - that Euclidean geometry is necessary to
thinking and offers <em>assured</em> (i.e., not dependent upon sensory
experience) knowledge concerning the objects of "external"
perception. From this easily understandable error he concluded
the existence of synthetic judgments <em>a priori</em>, which are
produced by the reason alone, and which, consequently, can lay
claim to absolute validity. I think your censure is directed less
against Kant himself than against those who today still adhere
to the errors of "synthetic judgments <em>a priori</em>."</p>
<hr class="section">
<p>
I can hardly think of anything more stimulating as the basis for
discussion in an epistemological seminar than this brief essay
by Reichenbach (best taken together with Robertson's essay).</p>
<p>
What has been discussed thus far is closely related to Bridgman's
essay, so that it will be possible for me to express myself quite
briefly without having to harbour too much fear that I shall be
misunderstood. In order to be able to consider a logical system
as physical theory it is not necessary to demand that all of its
assertions can be independently interpreted and "tested"
"operationally;" <em>de facto</em> this has never yet
been achieved by any theory and can not at all be achieved. In
order to be able to consider a theory as a <em>physical</em> theory
it is only necessary that it implies empirically testable assertions
in general.</p>
<p>
This formulation is insofar entirely unprecise as "testability"
is a quality which refers not merely to the assertion itself but
also to the co-ordination of concepts, contained in it, with experience.
But it is probably hardly necessary for me to enter upon a discussion
of this ticklish problem, inasmuch as it is not likely that there
exist any essential differences of opinion at this point. - </p>
<p>
<em><strong>Margenau</strong></em>;. This essay contains several original
specific remarks, which I must consider separately:</p>
<p>
To his Sec. I: "Einstein's position . . . contains features
of rationalism and extreme empiricism...." This remark is
entirely correct. From whence comes this fluctuation? A logical
conceptual system is physics insofar as its concepts and assertions
are necessarily brought into relationship with the world of experiences.
Whoever desires to set up such a system will find a dangerous
obstacle in arbitrary choice (<em>embarras de richesse</em>). This
is why he seeks to connect his concepts as directly and necessarily
as possible with the world of experience. In this case his attitude
is empirical. This path is often fruitful, but it is always open
to doubt, because the specific concept and the individual assertion
can, after all, assert something confronted by the empirically
given only in connection with the entire system. He then recognises
that there exists no logical path from the empirically given to
that conceptual world. His attitude becomes then more nearly rationalistic,
because he recognises the logical independence of the system.
The danger in this attitude lies in the fact that in the search
for the system one can lose every contact with the world of experience.
A wavering between these extremes appears to me unavoidable.</p>
<p>
To his Sec. 2: I did not grow up in the Kantian tradition, but
came to understand the truly valuable which is to be found in
his doctrine, alongside of errors which today are quite obvious,
only quite late. It is contained in the sentence: "The real
is not given to us, but put to us (<em>aufgegeben</em>) (by way
of a riddle)." This obviously means: There is such a thing
as a conceptual construction for the grasping of the inter-personal,
the authority of which lies purely in its validation. This conceptual
construction refers precisely to the "real" (by definition),
and every further question concerning the "nature of the
real" appears empty.</p>
<p>
To his Sec. 4: This discussion has not convinced me at all. For
it is clear <em>per se</em> that every magnitude and every assertion
of a theory lays claim to "objective meaning" (within
the framework of the theory). A problem arises only when we ascribe
group-characteristics to a theory, i.e., if we assume or postulate
that the same physical situation admits of several ways of description,
each of which is to be viewed as equally justified. For in this
case we obviously cannot ascribe complete objective meaning (for
example the x-component of the velocity of a particle or its x-coordinates)
to the individual (not eliminable) magnitudes. In this case, which
has always existed in physics, we have to limit ourselves to ascribing
objective meaning to the general laws of the theory, i.e., we
have to demand that these laws are valid for every description
of the system which is recognised as justified by the group. It
is, therefore, not true that "objectivity" presupposes
a group-characteristic, but that the group-characteristic forces
a refinement of the concept of objectivity. The positing of group
characteristics is heuristically so important for theory, because
this characteristic always considerably limits the variety of
the mathematically meaningful laws.</p>
<p>
Now there follows a claim that the group-characteristics determine
that the laws must have the form of differential equations; I
can not at all see this. Then Margenau insists that the laws expressed
by way of the differential equations (especially the partial ones)
are "least specific." Upon what does he base this contention?
If they could be proved to be correct, it is true that the attempt
to ground physics upon differential equations would then turn
out to be hopeless. We are, however, far from being able to judge
whether differential laws of the type to be considered have any
solutions at all which are everywhere singularity-free; and, if
so, whether there are too many such solutions.</p>
<p>
And now just a remark concerning the discussions about the Einstein-Podolski-Rosen
Paradox. I do not think that Margenau's defence of the "orthodox"
("orthodox" refers to the thesis that the t-function
characterises the individual system <em>exhaustively</em>) quantum
position hits the essential [aspects]. Of the "orthodox"
quantum theoreticians whose position I know, Niels Bohr's seems
to me to come nearest to doing justice to the problem. Translated
into my own way of putting it, he argues as follows:</p>
<p>
If the partial systems A and B form a total system which is described
by its Psi-function Psi/(<em>AB</em>), there is no reason why any
mutually independent existence (state of reality) should be ascribed
to the partial systems <em>A</em> and <em>B</em> viewed separately,
<em><strong>not even if the partial systems are spatially separated
from each other at the particular time under consideration</strong></em>.
The assertion that, in this latter case, the real situation of
<em>B</em> could not be (directly) influenced by any measurement
taken on <em>A</em> is, therefore, within the framework of quantum
theory, unfounded and (as the paradox shows) unacceptable.</p>
<p>
By this way of looking at the matter it becomes evident that the
paradox forces us to relinquish one of the following two assertions:</p>
<p class="indentb">
(1) the description by means of the Psi-function is <em>complete</em></p>
<p class="indentb">
(2) the real states of spatially separated objects are independent
of each other.</p>
<p>
On the other hand, it is possible to adhere to (2), if one regards
the Psi-function as the description of a (statistical) ensemble
of systems (and therefore relinquishes (1) ) . However, this
view blasts the framework of the "orthodox quantum theory."</p>
<p>
One more remark to Margenau's Sec. 7. In the characterisation
of quantum mechanics the brief little sentence will be found:
"on the classical level it corresponds to ordinary dynamics."
This is entirely correct - <em>cum grano salis</em>; and it is precisely
this granum salis which is significant for the question of interpretation.</p>
<p>
If our concern is with macroscopic masses (billiard balls or stars),
we are operating with very short de Broglie-waves, which are determinative
for the behaviour of the center of gravity of such masses. This
is the reason why it is possible to arrange the quantum-theoretical
description for a reasonable time in such a manner that for the
macroscopic way of viewing things, it becomes sufficiently precise
in position as well as in momentum. It is true also that this
sharpness remains for a long time and that the quasi-points thus
represented behave just like the mass-points of classical mechanics.
However, the theory shows also that, after a sufficiently long
time, the point-like character of the Psi-function is completely
lost to the center of gravity-co-ordinates, so that one can no
longer speak of any quasi-localisation of the centers of gravity.
The picture then becomes, for example in the case of a single
macro-mass-point, quite similar to that involved in a single free
electron.</p>
<p>
If now, in accordance with the orthodox position, I view the Psi-function
as the complete description of a real matter of fact for the individual
case, I cannot but consider the essentially unlimited lack of
sharpness of the position of the (macroscopic) body as <em>real</em>.
On the other hand, however, we know that, by illuminating the
body by means of a lantern at rest against the system of co-ordinates,
we get a (macroscopically judged) sharp determination of position.
In order to comprehend this I must assume that that sharply defined
position is determined not merely by the real situation of the
observed body, but also by the act of illumination. This is again
a paradox (similar to the mark on the paper strip in the above
mentioned example). The spook disappears only if one relinquishes
the orthodox standpoint, according to which the Psi-function is
accepted as a complete description of the single system.</p>
<p>
It may appear as if all such considerations were just superfluous
learned hairsplitting, which have nothing to do with physics proper.
However, it depends precisely upon such considerations in which
direction one believes one must look for the future conceptual
basis of physics.</p>
<p>
I close these expositions, which have grown rather lengthy, concerning
the interpretation of quantum theory with the reproduction of
a brief conversation which I had with an important theoretical
physicist. He: "I am inclined to believe in telepathy."
I: "This has probably more to do with physics than with psychology."
He: "Yes."</p>
<hr class="section">
<p>
The essays by Lenzen and Northrop both aim to treat my occasional
utterances of epistemological content systematically. From those
utterances Lenzen constructs a synoptic total picture, in which
what is missing in the utterances is carefully and with delicacy
of feeling supplied. Everything said therein appears to me convincing
and correct. Northrop uses these utterances as point of departure
for a comparative critique of the major epistemological systems.
I see in this critique a masterpiece of unbiased thinking and
concise discussion, which nowhere permits itself to be diverted
from the essential.</p>
<p>
The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of
noteworthy kind. They are dependent upon each other. Epistemology
without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science
without epistemology is - insofar as it is thinkable at all -
primitive and muddled. However, no sooner has the epistemologist,
who is seeking a clear system, fought his way through to such
a system, than he is inclined to interpret the thought-content
of science in the sense of his system and to reject whatever does
not fit into his system. The scientist, however, cannot afford
to carry his striving for epistemological systematic that far.
He accepts gratefully the epistemological conceptual analysis;
but the external conditions, which are set for him by the facts
of experience, do not permit him to let himself be too much restricted
in the construction of his conceptual world by the adherence to
an epistemological system. He therefore must appear to the systematic
epistemologist as a type of unscrupulous opportunist: he appears
as <em><strong>realist</strong></em> insofar as he seeks to describe a world
independent of the acts of perception; as <em><strong>idealist</strong></em>
insofar as he looks upon the concepts and theories as the free
inventions of the human spirit (not logically derivable from what
is empirically given); as <em><strong>positivist</strong></em> insofar as
he considers his concepts and theories justified only to the extent
to which they furnish a logical representation of relations among
sensory experiences. He may even appear as <em><strong>Platonist</strong></em>
or <em><strong>Pythagorean</strong></em> insofar as he considers the viewpoint
of logical simplicity as an indispensable and effective tool of
his research.</p>
<p>
All of this is splendidly elucidated in Lenzen's and Northrop's
essays.</p>
<hr class="section">
<p>
And now a few remarks concerning the essays by E. A. Milne, G.
Lemaitre, and L. Infeld as concerns the cosmological problem:</p>
<p>
Concerning Milne's ingenious reflections I can only say that I
find their theoretical basis too narrow. From my point of view
one cannot arrive, by way of theory, at any at least somewhat
reliable results in the field of cosmology, if one makes no use
of the principle of general relativity.</p>
<p>
As concerns Lemaître's arguments in favour of the so-called
"cosmological constant" in the equations of gravitation,
I must admit that these arguments do not appear to me as sufficiently
convincing in view of the present state of our knowledge.</p>
<p>
The introduction of such a constant implies a considerable renunciation
of the logical simplicity of theory, a renunciation which appeared
to me unavoidable only so long as one had no reason to doubt the
essentially static nature of space. After Hubble's discovery of
the "expansion" of the stellar system, and since Friedmann's
discovery that the unsupplemented equations involve the possibility
of the existence of an average (positive) density of matter in
an expanding universe, the introduction of such a constant appears
to me, from the theoretical standpoint, at present unjustified.</p>
<p>
The situation becomes complicated by the fact that the entire
duration of the expansion of space to the present, based on the
equations in their simplest form, turns out smaller than appears
credible in view of the reliably known age of terrestrial minerals.
But the introduction of the "cosmological constant"
offers absolutely no natural escape from the difficulty. This
latter difficulty is given by way of the numerical value of Hubble's
expansion-constant and the age-measurement of minerals, completely
independent of any cosmological theory, provided that one interprets
the Hubble-effect as Doppler effect.</p>
<p>
Everything finally depends upon the question: Can a spectral line
be considered as a measure of a "proper time" (<em>Eigen-Zeit</em>) ds
(ds<sup>2</sup> = g<sub>ik</sub>dx<sub>i</sub>dx<sub>k</sub>), (if one takes into consideration regions of
cosmic dimensions)? Is there such a thing as a natural object
which incorporates the "natural-measuring-stick" independently
of its position in four-dimensional space? The affirmation of
this question made the invention of the general theory of relativity
<em>psychologically</em> possible; however this supposition is logically
not necessary. For the construction of the present theory of relativity
the following is essential:</p>
<p class="indentb">
(1) Physical things are described by continuous functions, field-variables
of four co-ordinates. As long as the topological connection is
preserved, these latter can be freely chosen.</p>
<p class="indentb">
(2) The field-variables are tensor-components; among the tensors
is a symmetrical tensor g<sub>ik</sub> for the description of the gravitational
field.</p>
<p class="indentb">
(3) There are physical objects, which (in the macroscopic field)
measure the invariant <em>ds</em>.</p>
<p>
If (1) and (2) are accepted, (3) is plausible, but not necessary.
The construction of mathematical theory rests exclusively upon
(1) and (2).</p>
<p>
A complete theory of physics as a totality, in accordance with
(1) and (2) does not yet exist. If it did exist, there would be
no room for the supposition (3). For the objects used as tools
for measurement do not lead an independent existence alongside
of the objects implicated by the field-equations. - - It is not
necessary that one should permit one's cosmological considerations
to be restrained by such a sceptical attitude; but neither should
one close one's mind towards them from the very beginning.</p>
<hr class="section">
<p>
These reflections bring me to Karl Menger's essay. For the quantum-facts
suggest the suspicion that doubt may also be raised concerning
the ultimate usefulness of the program characterised in (1) and
(2). There exists the possibility of doubting only (2) and, in
doing so, to question the possibility of being able adequately
to formulate the laws by means of differential equations, without
dropping (1). The more radical effort of surrendering (1) with
(2) appears to me - and I believe to Dr. Menger also - to lie
more closely at hand. So long as no one has new concepts, which
appear to have sufficient constructive power, mere doubt remains;
this is, unfortunately, my own situation. Adhering to the continuum
originates with me not in a prejudice, but arises out of the fact
that I have been unable to think up anything organic to take its
place. How is one to conserve four-dimensionality in essence (or
in near approximation) and [at the same time] surrender the continuum?</p>
<hr class="section">
<p>
L. Infeld's essay is an independently understandable, excellent
introduction into the so-called "cosmological problem"
of the theory of relativity, which critically examines all essential
points.</p>
<hr class="section">
<p>
Max von Laue: An historical investigation of the development of
the conservation postulates, which, in my opinion, is of lasting
value. I think it would be worth while to make this essay easily
accessible to students by way of independent publication.</p>
<hr class="section">
<p>
In spite of serious efforts I have not succeeded in quite understanding
H. Dingle's essay, not even as concerns its aim. Is the idea of
the special theory of relativity to be expanded in the sense that
new group-characteristics, which are not implied by the Lorentz-invariance,
are to be postulated? Are these postulates empirically founded
or only by way of a trial "posited"? Upon what does
the confidence in the existence of such group-characteristics
rest?</p>
<hr class="section">
<p>
Kurt Gödel's essay constitutes, in my opinion, an important
contribution to the general theory of relativity, especially to
the analysis of the concept of time. The problem here involved
disturbed me already at the time of the building up of the general
theory of relativity, without my having succeeded in clarifying
it. Entirely aside from the relation of the theory of relativity
to idealistic philosophy or to any philosophical formulation of
questions, the problem presents itself as follows:</p>
<p><img src="../../images/einstei2.gif" vspace="3" hspace="3" align="right" alt="event space">
</p><p>
If <em>P</em> is a world-point, a "light-cone" (ds<sup>2</sup>= 0)
belongs to it. We draw a "time-like" world-line through
P and on this line observe the close world-points <em>B</em> and
<em>A</em>, separated by <em>P</em>. Does it make any sense to provide
the world-line with an arrow, and to assert that <em>B</em> is before
<em>P</em>, <em>A</em> after <em>P</em>? Is what remains of temporal
connection between world-points in the theory of relativity an
asymmetrical relation, or would one be just as much justified,
from the physical point of view, to indicate the arrow in the
opposite direction and to assert that <em>A is before P</em>,
<em>B after P?</em></p>
<p>
In the first instance the alternative is decided in the negative,
if we are justified in saying: If it is possible to send (to telegraph)
a signal (also passing by in the close proximity of <em>P</em>)
from <em>B</em> to <em>A</em>, but not from <em>A</em> to <em>B</em>,
then the one-sided (asymmetrical) character of time is secured,
i.e., there exists no free choice for the direction of the arrow.
What is essential in this is the fact that the sending of a signal
is, in the sense of thermodynamics, an irreversible process, a
process which is connected with the growth of entropy (<em>whereas,
according to our present knowledge</em>, all elementary processes
are reversible).</p>
<p>
If, therefore, <em>B</em> and <em>A</em> are two, sufficiently neighbouring,
world-points, which can be connected by a time-like line, then
the assertion: "<em>B</em> is before <em>A</em>," makes
physical sense. But does this assertion still make sense, if the
points, which are connectable by the time-like line, are arbitrarily
far separated from each other? Certainly not, if there exist point-series
connectable by time-like lines in such a way that each point precedes
temporally the preceding one, <em>and if the series is closed in
itself</em>. In that case the distinction "earlier-later"
is abandoned for world-points which lie far apart in a cosmological
sense, and those paradoxes, regarding the <em>direction</em> of
the causal connection, arise, of which Mr. Gödel has spoken.</p>
<p>
Such cosmological solutions of the gravitation-equations (with
not vanishing A-constant) have been found by Mr. Gödel. It
will be interesting to weigh whether these are not to be excluded
on physical grounds.</p>
<hr class="section">
<p>
I have the distressing feeling that I have expressed myself, in
this reply, not merely somewhat longwindedly but also rather sharply.
This observation may serve as my excuse: one can really quarrel
only with his brothers or close friends; others are too alien
[for that].</p>
<hr class="section">
<p>
P.S. The preceding remarks refer to essays which were in my hands
at the end of January 1949. Inasmuch as the volume was to have
appeared in March, it was high time to write down these reflections.</p>
<p>
After they had been concluded I learned that the publication of
the volume would experience a further delay and that some additional
important essays had come in. I decided, nevertheless, not to
expand my remarks further, which had already become too long,
and to desist from taking any position with reference to those
essays which came into my hands after the conclusion of my remarks.</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">
Further Reading:<br>
<a href="../../../../../glossary/people/e/i.htm#einstein-albert" target="_top">Biography</a> |
<a href="../../../../../reference/archive/einstein/index.htm" target="_top">Einstein Archive</a> |
<a href="../us/bridgman.htm">Bridgman</a> |
<a href="../dk/bohr.htm">Bohr</a>
</p>
<p class="footer">
<a href="../../index.htm" target="_top">Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org</a></p>
</body> |
Albert Einstein (1949)
Einstein's Reply to Criticisms
Source: From Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (1949), from The Library of Living Philosophers Series;
Published: by Cambridge University Press, 1949. Including Neils Bohr's report of conversations with Einstein and Einstein's, reply reproduced here.
BY WAY of introduction I must remark that it was not easy for
me to do justice to the task of expressing myself concerning the
essays contained in this volume. The reason lies in the fact that
the essays refer to entirely too many subjects, which, at the
present state of our knowledge, are only loosely connected with
each other. I first attempted to discuss the essays individually.
However, I abandoned this procedure because nothing even approximately
homogeneous resulted, so that the reading of it could hardly have
been either useful or enjoyable. I finally decided, therefore,
to order these remarks, as far as possible, according to topical
considerations.
Furthermore, after some vain efforts, I discovered that the mentality
which underlies a few of the essays differs so radically from
my own, that I am incapable of saying anything useful about them.
This is not to be interpreted that I regard those essays - insofar
as their content is at all meaningful to me - less highly than
I do those which lie closer to my own ways of thinking, to which
[latter] I dedicate the following remarks.
To begin with I refer to the essays of Wolfgang Pauli and Max
Born. They describe the content of my work concerning quanta and
statistics in general in their inner consistency and in their
participation in the evolution of physics during the last half
century. It is meritorious that they have done this: For only
those who have successfully wrestled with the problematic situations
of their own age can have a deep insight into those situations;
unlike the later historian, who finds it difficult to make abstractions
from those concepts and views which appear to his generation as
established, or even as self-evident. Both authors deprecate the
fact that I reject the basic idea of contemporary statistical
quantum theory, insofar as I do not believe that this fundamental
concept will provide a useful basis for the whole of physics.
More of this later.
I now come to what is probably the most interesting subject which
absolutely must be discussed in connection with the detailed arguments
of my highly esteemed colleagues Born, Pauli, Heitler, Bohr, and
Margenau. They are all firmly convinced that the riddle of the
double nature of all corpuscles (corpuscular and undulatory character)
has in essence found its final solution in the statistical quantum
theory. On the strength of the successes of this theory they consider
it proved that a theoretically complete description of a system
can, in essence, involve only statistical assertions concerning
the measurable quantities of this system. They are apparently
all of the opinion that Heisenberg's indeterminacy-relation (the
correctness of which is, from my own point of view, rightfully
regarded as finally demonstrated) is essentially prejudicial in
favour of the character of all thinkable reasonable physical theories
in the mentioned sense. In what follows I wish to adduce reasons
which keep me from falling in line with the opinion of almost
all contemporary theoretical physicists. I am, in fact, firmly
convinced that the essentially statistical character of contemporary
quantum theory is solely to be ascribed to the fact that this
[theory] operates with an incomplete description of physical systems.
Above all, however, the reader should be convinced that I fully
recognise the very important progress which the statistical quantum
theory has brought to theoretical physics. In the field of mechanical
problems - i.e., wherever it is possible to consider the interaction
of structures and of their parts with sufficient accuracy by postulating
a potential energy between material points - [this theory] even
now presents a system which, in its closed character, correctly
describes the empirical relations between statable phenomena as
they were theoretically to be expected. This theory is until now
the only one which unites the corpuscular and undulatory dual
character of matter in a logically satisfactory fashion; and the
(testable) relations, which are contained in it, are, within the
natural limits fixed by the indeterminacy-relation, complete.
The formal relations which are given in this theory - i.e., its
entire mathematical formalism - will probably have to be contained,
in the form of logical inferences, in every useful future theory.
What does not satisfy me in that theory, from the standpoint of
principle, is its attitude towards that which appears to me to
be the programmatic aim of all physics: the complete description
of any (individual) real situation (as it supposedly exists irrespective
of any act of observation or substantiation). Whenever the positivistically
inclined modern physicist hears such a formulation his reaction
is that of a pitying smile. He says to himself: "there we
have the naked formulation of a metaphysical prejudice, empty
of content, a prejudice, moreover, the conquest of which constitutes
the major epistemological achievement of physicists within the
last quarter-century. Has any man ever perceived a 'real physical
situation'? How is it possible that a reasonable person could
today still believe that he can refute our essential knowledge
and understanding by drawing up such a bloodless ghost?"
Patience! The above laconic characterisation was not meant to
convince anyone; it was merely to indicate the point of view around
which the following elementary considerations freely group themselves.
In doing this I shall proceed as follows: I shall first of all
show in simple special cases what seems essential to me, and then
I shall make a few remarks about some more general ideas which
are involved.
We consider as a physical system, in the first instance, a radioactive
atom of definite average decay time, which is practically exactly
localised at a point of the coordinate system. The radioactive
process consists in the emission of a (comparatively light) particle.
For the sake of simplicity we neglect the motion of the residual
atom after the disintegration process. Then it is possible for
us, following Gamow, to replace the rest of the atom by a space
of atomic order of magnitude, surrounded by a closed potential
energy barrier which, at a time t = 0, encloses the particle to
be emitted. The radioactive process thus schematised is then,
as is well known, to be described - in the sense of elementary
quantum mechanics - by a Psi-function in three dimensions, which
at the time t= 0 is different from zero only inside of the barrier,
but which, for positive times, expands into the outer space. This
Psi-function yields the probability that the particle, at some
chosen instant, is actually in a chosen part of space (i.e., is
actually found there by a measurement of position). On the other
hand, the Psi-function does not imply any assertion concerning
the time instant of the disintegration of the radioactive
atom.
Now we raise the question: Can this theoretical description be
taken as the complete description of the disintegration of a single
individual atom? The immediately plausible answer is: No. For
one is, first of all, inclined to assume that the individual atom
decays at a definite time; however, such a definite time-value
is not implied in the description by the Psi-function. If, therefore,
the individual atom has a definite disintegration time, then as
regards the individual atom its description by means of the Psi-function
must be interpreted as an incomplete description. In this case
the Psi-function is to be taken as the description, not of a singular
system, but of an ideal ensemble of systems. In this case one
is driven to the conviction that a complete description of a single
system should, after all, be possible, but for such complete description
there is no room in the conceptual world of statistical quantum
theory.
To this the quantum theorist will reply: This consideration stands
and falls with the assertion that there actually is such a thing
as a definite time of disintegration of the individual atom (an
instant of time existing independently of any observation). But
this assertion is, from my point of view, not merely arbitrary
but actually meaningless. The assertion of the existence of a
definite time-instant for the disintegration makes sense only
if I can in principle determine this time-instant empirically.
Such an assertion, however, (which, finally, leads to the attempt
to prove the existence of the particle outside of the force barrier),
involves a definite disturbance of the system in which we are
interested, so that the result of the determination does not permit
a conclusion concerning the status of the undisturbed system.
The supposition, therefore, that a radioactive atom has a definite
disintegration-time is not justified by anything whatsoever; it
is, therefore, not demonstrated either that the Psi-function can
not be conceived as a complete description of the individual system.
The entire alleged difficulty proceeds from the fact that one
postulates something not observable as "real." (This
the answer of the quantum theorist.)
What I dislike in this kind of argumentation is the basic positivistic
attitude, which from my point of view is untenable, and which
seems to me to come to the same thing as Berkeley's principle,
esse est percipi. "Being" is always something
which is mentally constructed by us, that is, something which
we freely posit (in the logical sense). The justification of such
constructs does not lie in their derivation from what is given
by the senses. Such a type of derivation (in the sense of logical
deducibility) is nowhere to be had, not even in the domain of
pre-scientific thinking. The justification of the constructs,
which represent "reality" for us, lies alone in their
quality of making intelligible what is sensorily given (the vague
character of this expression is here forced upon me by my striving
for brevity). Applied to the specifically chosen example this
consideration tells us the following:
One may not merely ask: "Does a definite time instant for
the transformation of a single atom exist?" but rather: "Is
it, within the framework of our theoretical total construction,
reasonable to posit the existence of a definite point of time
for the transformation of a single atom?" One may not even
ask what this assertion means. One can only ask whether
such a proposition, within the framework of the chosen conceptual
system - with a view to its ability to grasp theoretically what
is empirically given - is reasonable or not.
Insofar, then, as a quantum-theoretician takes the position that
the description by means of a Psi-function refers only to an ideal
systematic totality but in no wise to the individual system, he
may calmly assume a definite point of time for the transformation.
But, if he represents the assumption that his description by way
of the Psi-function is to be taken as the complete description of
the individual system, then he must reject the postulation of
a specific decay-time. He can justifiably point to the fact that
a determination of the instant of disintegration is not possible
on an isolated system, but would require disturbances of such
a character that they must not be neglected in the critical examination
of the situation. It would, for example, not be possible to conclude
from the empirical statement that the transformation has already
taken place, that this would have been the case if the disturbances
of the system had not taken place.
As far as I know, it was E. Schrödinger who first called
attention to a modification of this consideration, which shows
an interpretation of this type to be impracticable. Rather than
considering a system which comprises only a radioactive atom (and
its process of transformation), one considers a system which includes
also the means for ascertaining the radioactive transformation
- for example, a Geiger-counter with automatic registration-mechanism.
Let this latter include a registration-strip, moved by a clockwork,
upon which a mark is made by tripping the counter. True, from
the point of view of quantum mechanics this total system is very
complex and its configuration space is of very high dimension.
But there is in principle no objection to treating this entire
system from the standpoint of quantum mechanics. Here too the
theory determines the probability of each configuration of all
its co-ordinates for every time instant. If one considers all
configurations of the coordinates, for a time large compared with
the average decay time of the radioactive atom, there will be
(at most) one such registration-mark on the paper strip.
To each coordinate configuration corresponds a definite position
of the mark on the paper strip. But, inasmuch as the theory yields
only the relative probability of the thinkable co-ordinate-configurations,
it also offers only relative probabilities for the positions of
the mark on the paper strip, but no definite location for this
mark.
In this consideration the location of the mark on the strip plays
the role played in the original consideration by the time of the
disintegration. The reason for the introduction of the system
supplemented by the registration-mechanism lies in the following.
The location of the mark on the registration-strip is a fact which
belongs entirely within the sphere of macroscopic concepts, in
contradistinction to the instant of disintegration of a single
atom. If we attempt [to work with] the interpretation that the
quantum-theoretical description is to be understood as a complete
description of the individual system, we are forced to the interpretation
that the location of the mark on the strip is nothing which belongs
to the system per se, but that the existence of that location
is essentially dependent upon the carrying out of an observation
made on the registration-strip. Such an interpretation is certainly
by no means absurd from a purely logical standpoint, yet there
is hardly likely to be anyone who would be inclined to consider
it seriously. For, in the macroscopic sphere it simply is considered
certain that one must adhere to the program of a realistic description
in space and time; whereas in the sphere of microscopic situations
one is more readily inclined to give up, or at least to modify,
this program.
This discussion was only to bring out the following. One arrives
at very implausible theoretical conceptions, if one attempts to
maintain the thesis that the statistical quantum theory is in
principle capable of producing a complete description of an individual
physical system. On the other hand, those difficulties of theoretical
interpretation disappear, if one views the quantum-mechanical
description as the description of ensembles of systems.
I reached this conclusion as the result of quite different types
of considerations. I am convinced that everyone who will take
the trouble to carry through such reflections conscientiously
will find himself finally driven to this interpretation of quantum-theoretical
description (the Psi-function is to be understood as the description
not of a single system but of an ensemble of systems).
Roughly stated the conclusion is this: Within the framework of
statistical quantum theory there is no such thing as a complete
description of the individual system. More cautiously it might
be put as follows: The attempt to conceive the quantum-theoretical
description as the complete description of the individual systems
leads to unnatural theoretical interpretations, which become immediately
unnecessary if one accepts the interpretation that the description
refers to ensembles of systems and not to individual systems.
In that case the whole "egg-walking" performed in order
to avoid the "physically real" becomes superfluous.
There exists, however, a simple psychological reason for the fact
that this most nearly obvious interpretation is being shunned.
For if the statistical quantum theory does not pretend to describe
the individual system (and its development in time) completely,
it appears unavoidable to look elsewhere for a complete description
of the individual system; in doing so it would be clear from the
very beginning that the elements of such a description are not
contained within the conceptual scheme of the statistical quantum
theory. With this one would admit that, in principle, this scheme
could not serve as the basis of theoretical physics. Assuming
the success of efforts to accomplish a complete physical description,
the statistical quantum theory would, within the framework of
future physics, take an approximately analogous position to the
statistical mechanics within the framework of classical mechanics.
I am rather firmly convinced that the development of theoretical
physics will be of this type; but the path will be lengthy and
difficult.
I now imagine a quantum theoretician who may even admit that the
quantum-theoretical description refers to ensembles of systems
and not to individual systems, but who, nevertheless, clings to
the idea that the type of description of the statistical quantum
theory will, in its essential features, be retained in the future.
He may argue as follows: True, I admit that the quantum-theoretical
description is an incomplete description of the individual system.
I even admit that a complete theoretical description is, in principle,
thinkable. But I consider it proven that the search for such a
complete description would be aimless. For the lawfulness of nature
is thus constituted that the laws can be completely and suitably
formulated within the framework of our incomplete description.
To this I can only reply as follows: Your point of view - taken
as theoretical possibility - is incontestable. For me, however,
the expectation that the adequate formulation of the universal
laws involves the use of all conceptual elements which
are necessary for a complete description, is more natural. It
is furthermore not at all surprising that, by using an incomplete
description, (in the main) only statistical statements can be
obtained out of such description. If it should be possible to
move forward to a complete description, it is likely that the
laws would represent relations among all the conceptual elements
of this description which, per se, have nothing to do with
statistics.
A few more remarks of a general nature concerning concepts and
[also] concerning the insinuation that a concept - for example
that of the real - is something metaphysical (and therefore to
be rejected). A basic conceptual distinction, which is a necessary
prerequisite of scientific and pre-scientific thinking, is the
distinction between "sense-impressions" (and the recollection
of such) on the one hand and mere ideas on the other. There is
no such thing as a conceptual definition of this distinction (aside
from, circular definitions, i.e., of such as make a hidden use
of the object to be defined). Nor can it be maintained that at
the base of this distinction there is a type of evidence, such
as underlies, for example, the distinction between red and blue.
Yet, one needs this distinction in order to be able to overcome
solipsism. Solution: we shall make use of this distinction unconcerned
with the reproach that, in doing so, we are guilty of the metaphysical
"original sin." We regard the distinction as a category
which we use in order that we might the better find our way in
the world of immediate sensations. The "sense" and the
justification of this distinction lies simply in this achievement.
But this is only a first step. We represent the sense-impressions
as conditioned by an "objective" and by a "subjective"
factor. For this conceptual distinction there also is no logical-philosophical
justification. But if we reject it, we cannot escape solipsism.
It is also the presupposition of every kind of physical thinking.
Here too, the only justification lies in its usefulness. We are
here concerned with "categories" or schemes of thought,
the selection of which is, in principle, entirely open to us and
whose qualification can only be judged by the degree to which
its use contributes to making the totality of the contents of
consciousness "intelligible." The above mentioned "objective
factor" is the totality of such concepts and conceptual relations
as are thought of as independent of experience, viz., of perceptions.
So long as we move within the thus programmatically fixed sphere
of thought we are thinking physically. Insofar as physical thinking
justifies itself, in the more than once indicated sense, by its
ability to grasp experiences intellectually, we regard it as "knowledge
of the real."
After what has been said, the "real" in physics is to
be taken as a type of program, to which we are, however, not forced
to cling a priori. No one is likely to be inclined to attempt
to give up this program within the realm of the "macroscopic"
(location of the mark on the paper strip "real"). But
the "macroscopic" and the "microscopic" are
so inter-related that it appears impracticable to give up this
program in the "microscopic" alone. Nor can I see any
occasion anywhere within the observable facts of the quantum-field
for doing so, unless, indeed, one clings a priori to the
thesis that the description of nature by the statistical scheme
of quantum-mechanics is final.
The theoretical attitude here advocated is distinct from that
of Kant only by the fact that we do not conceive of the "categories"
as unalterable (conditioned by the nature of the understanding)
but as (in the logical sense) free conventions. They appear to
be a priori only insofar as thinking without the positing
of categories and of concepts in general would be as impossible
as is breathing in a vacuum.
From these meagre remarks one will see that to me it must seem
a mistake to permit theoretical description to be directly dependent
upon acts of empirical assertions, as it seems to me to be intended
[for example] in Bohr's principle of complementarity, the sharp
formulation of which, moreover, I have been unable to achieve
despite much effort which I have expended on it. From my point
of view [such] statements or measurements can occur only as special
instances, viz., parts, of physical description, to which I cannot
ascribe any exceptional position above the rest.
The above mentioned essays by Bohr and Pauli contain a historical
appreciation of my efforts in the area of physical statistics
and quanta and, in addition, an accusation which is brought forward
in the friendliest of fashion. In briefest formulation this latter
runs as follows: "Rigid adherence to classical theory."
This accusation demands either a defence or the confession of
guilt. The one or the other is, however, being rendered much more
difficult because it is by no means immediately clear what is
meant by "classical theory." Newton's theory deserves
the name of a classical theory. It has nevertheless been abandoned
since Maxwell and Hertz have shown that the idea of forces at
a distance has to be relinquished and that one cannot manage without
the idea of continuous "fields." The opinion that continuous
fields are to be viewed as the only acceptable basic concepts,
which must also be assumed to underlie the theory of the material
particles, soon won out. Now this conception became, so to speak,
"classical;" but a proper, and in principle complete,
theory has not grown out of it. Maxwell's theory of the
electric field remained a torso, because it was unable to set
up laws for the behaviour of electric density, without which there
can, of course, be no such thing as an electro-magnetic field.
Analogously the general theory of relativity furnished then a
field theory of gravitation, but no theory of the field-creating
masses. (These remarks presuppose it as self-evident that a field-theory
may not contain any singularities, i.e., any positions or parts
in space in which the field laws are not valid.)
Consequently there is, strictly speaking, today no such thing
as a classical field-theory; one can, therefore, also not rigidly
adhere to it. Nevertheless, field-theory does exist as a program:
"Continuous functions in the four-dimensional [continuum]
as basic concepts of the theory." Rigid adherence to this
program can rightfully be asserted of me. The deeper ground for
this lies in the following: The theory of gravitation showed me
that the non-linearity of these equations results in the fact
that this theory yields interactions among structures (localised
things) at all. But the theoretical search for non-linear equations
is hopeless (because of too great variety of possibilities), if
one does not use the general principle of relativity (invariance
under general continuous co-ordinate-transformations). In the
meantime, however, it does not seem possible to formulate this
principle, if one seeks to deviate from the above program. Herein
lies a coercion which I cannot evade. This for my justification.
Nevertheless I am forced to weaken this justification by a confession.
If one disregards quantum structure, one can justify the introduction
of the gik "operationally" by pointing to the fact that
one can hardly doubt the physical reality of the elementary light
cone which belongs to a point. In doing so one implicitly makes
use of the existence of an arbitrarily sharp optical signal. Such
a signal, however, as regards the quantum facts, involves infinitely
high frequencies and energies, and therefore a complete destruction
of the field to be determined. That kind of a physical justification
for the introduction of the gik falls by the wayside, unless one
limits himself to the "macroscopic." The application
of the formal basis of the general theory of relativity to the
"microscopic" can, therefore, be based only upon the
fact that that tensor is the formally simplest covariant structure
which can come under consideration. Such argumentation, however,
carries no weight with anyone who doubts that we have to adhere
to the continuum at all. All honour to his doubt - but where else
is there a passable road?
Now I come to the theme of the relation of the theory of relativity
to philosophy. Here it is Reichenbach's piece of work which, by
the precision of deductions and by the sharpness of his assertions,
irresistibly invites a brief commentary. Robertson's lucid discussion
also is interesting mainly from the standpoint of general epistemology,
although it limits itself to the narrower theme of "the theory
of relativity and geometry." To the question: Do you consider
true what Reichenbach has here asserted, I can answer only with
Pilate's famous question: "What is truth?"
Let us first take a good look at the question: Is a geometry -
looked at from the physical point of view - verifiable (viz.,
falsifiable) or not? Reichenbach, together with Helmholtz, says:
Yes, provided that the empirically given solid body realises the
concept of "distance." Poincare says no and consequently
is condemned by Reichenbach. Now the following short conversation
takes place:
Poincare: The empirically given bodies are not rigid,
and consequently can not be used for the embodiment of geometric
intervals. Therefore, the theorems of geometry are not verifiable.
Reichenbach: I admit that there are no bodies which
can be immediately adduced for the "real definition"
of the interval. Nevertheless, this real definition can be achieved
by taking the thermal volume-dependence, elasticity, electro-
and magnetostriction, etc., into consideration. That this is really
[and] without contradiction possible, classical physics has surely
demonstrated.
Poincare: In gaining the real definition improved
by yourself you have made use of physical laws, the formulation
of which presupposes (in this case) Euclidean geometry. The verification,
of which you have spoken, refers, therefore, not merely to geometry
but to the entire system of physical laws which constitute its
foundation. An examination of geometry by itself is consequently
not thinkable. - Why should it consequently not be entirely up
to me to choose geometry according to my own convenience (i.e.,
Euclidean) and to fit the remaining (in the usual sense "physical")
laws to this choice in such manner that there can arise no contradiction
of the whole with experience?
(The conversation cannot be continued in this fashion because
the respect of the [present] writer for Poincare's superiority
as thinker and author does not permit it; in what follows therefore,
an anonymous non-positivist is substituted for Poincare. - )
Reichenbach: There is something quite attractive
in this conception. But, on the other hand, it is noteworthy that
the adherence to the objective meaning of length and to the interpretation
of the differences of co-ordinates as distances (in pre-relativistic
physics) has not led to complications. Should we not, on the basis
of this astounding fact, be justified in operating further at
least tentatively with the concept of the measurable length, as
if there were such things as rigid measuring-rods. In any case
it would have been impossible for Einstein de facto (even if not
theoretically) to set up the theory of general relativity, if
he had not adhered to the objective meaning of length.
Against Poincare's suggestion it is to be pointed out that what
really matters is not merely the greatest possible simplicity
of the geometry alone, but rather the greatest possible simplicity
of all of physics (inclusive of geometry). This is what is, in
the first instance, involved in the fact that today we must decline
as unsuitable the suggestion to adhere to Euclidean geometry.
Non-Positivist: If, under the stated circumstances,
you hold distance to be a legitimate concept, how then is it with
your basic principle (meaning = verifiability) ? Do you not have
to reach the point where you must deny the meaning of geometrical
concepts and theorems and to acknowledge meaning only within the
completely developed theory of relativity (which, however, does
not yet exist at all as a finished product)? Do you not have to
admit that, in your sense of the word, no "meaning"
can be attributed to the individual concepts and assertions of
a physical theory at all, and to the entire system only insofar
as it makes what is given in experience "intelligible?"
Why do the individual concepts which occur in a theory require
any specific Justification anyway, if they are only indispensable
within the framework of the logical structure of the theory, and
the theory only in its entirety validates itself?
It seems to me, moreover, that you have not at all done justice
to the really significant philosophical achievement of Kant. From
Hume Kant had learned that there are concepts (as, for example,
that of causal connection), which play a dominating role in our
thinking, and which, nevertheless, can not be deduced by means
of a logical process from the empirically given (a fact which
several empiricists recognise, it is true, but seem always again
to forget). What justifies the use of such concepts? Suppose he
had replied in this sense: Thinking is necessary in order to understand
the empirically given, and concepts and "categories"
are necessary as indispensable elements of thinking. If he
had remained satisfied with this type of an answer, he would have
avoided scepticism and you would not have been able to find fault
with him. He, however, was misled by the erroneous opinion, difficult
to avoid in his time - that Euclidean geometry is necessary to
thinking and offers assured (i.e., not dependent upon sensory
experience) knowledge concerning the objects of "external"
perception. From this easily understandable error he concluded
the existence of synthetic judgments a priori, which are
produced by the reason alone, and which, consequently, can lay
claim to absolute validity. I think your censure is directed less
against Kant himself than against those who today still adhere
to the errors of "synthetic judgments a priori."
I can hardly think of anything more stimulating as the basis for
discussion in an epistemological seminar than this brief essay
by Reichenbach (best taken together with Robertson's essay).
What has been discussed thus far is closely related to Bridgman's
essay, so that it will be possible for me to express myself quite
briefly without having to harbour too much fear that I shall be
misunderstood. In order to be able to consider a logical system
as physical theory it is not necessary to demand that all of its
assertions can be independently interpreted and "tested"
"operationally;" de facto this has never yet
been achieved by any theory and can not at all be achieved. In
order to be able to consider a theory as a physical theory
it is only necessary that it implies empirically testable assertions
in general.
This formulation is insofar entirely unprecise as "testability"
is a quality which refers not merely to the assertion itself but
also to the co-ordination of concepts, contained in it, with experience.
But it is probably hardly necessary for me to enter upon a discussion
of this ticklish problem, inasmuch as it is not likely that there
exist any essential differences of opinion at this point. -
Margenau;. This essay contains several original
specific remarks, which I must consider separately:
To his Sec. I: "Einstein's position . . . contains features
of rationalism and extreme empiricism...." This remark is
entirely correct. From whence comes this fluctuation? A logical
conceptual system is physics insofar as its concepts and assertions
are necessarily brought into relationship with the world of experiences.
Whoever desires to set up such a system will find a dangerous
obstacle in arbitrary choice (embarras de richesse). This
is why he seeks to connect his concepts as directly and necessarily
as possible with the world of experience. In this case his attitude
is empirical. This path is often fruitful, but it is always open
to doubt, because the specific concept and the individual assertion
can, after all, assert something confronted by the empirically
given only in connection with the entire system. He then recognises
that there exists no logical path from the empirically given to
that conceptual world. His attitude becomes then more nearly rationalistic,
because he recognises the logical independence of the system.
The danger in this attitude lies in the fact that in the search
for the system one can lose every contact with the world of experience.
A wavering between these extremes appears to me unavoidable.
To his Sec. 2: I did not grow up in the Kantian tradition, but
came to understand the truly valuable which is to be found in
his doctrine, alongside of errors which today are quite obvious,
only quite late. It is contained in the sentence: "The real
is not given to us, but put to us (aufgegeben) (by way
of a riddle)." This obviously means: There is such a thing
as a conceptual construction for the grasping of the inter-personal,
the authority of which lies purely in its validation. This conceptual
construction refers precisely to the "real" (by definition),
and every further question concerning the "nature of the
real" appears empty.
To his Sec. 4: This discussion has not convinced me at all. For
it is clear per se that every magnitude and every assertion
of a theory lays claim to "objective meaning" (within
the framework of the theory). A problem arises only when we ascribe
group-characteristics to a theory, i.e., if we assume or postulate
that the same physical situation admits of several ways of description,
each of which is to be viewed as equally justified. For in this
case we obviously cannot ascribe complete objective meaning (for
example the x-component of the velocity of a particle or its x-coordinates)
to the individual (not eliminable) magnitudes. In this case, which
has always existed in physics, we have to limit ourselves to ascribing
objective meaning to the general laws of the theory, i.e., we
have to demand that these laws are valid for every description
of the system which is recognised as justified by the group. It
is, therefore, not true that "objectivity" presupposes
a group-characteristic, but that the group-characteristic forces
a refinement of the concept of objectivity. The positing of group
characteristics is heuristically so important for theory, because
this characteristic always considerably limits the variety of
the mathematically meaningful laws.
Now there follows a claim that the group-characteristics determine
that the laws must have the form of differential equations; I
can not at all see this. Then Margenau insists that the laws expressed
by way of the differential equations (especially the partial ones)
are "least specific." Upon what does he base this contention?
If they could be proved to be correct, it is true that the attempt
to ground physics upon differential equations would then turn
out to be hopeless. We are, however, far from being able to judge
whether differential laws of the type to be considered have any
solutions at all which are everywhere singularity-free; and, if
so, whether there are too many such solutions.
And now just a remark concerning the discussions about the Einstein-Podolski-Rosen
Paradox. I do not think that Margenau's defence of the "orthodox"
("orthodox" refers to the thesis that the t-function
characterises the individual system exhaustively) quantum
position hits the essential [aspects]. Of the "orthodox"
quantum theoreticians whose position I know, Niels Bohr's seems
to me to come nearest to doing justice to the problem. Translated
into my own way of putting it, he argues as follows:
If the partial systems A and B form a total system which is described
by its Psi-function Psi/(AB), there is no reason why any
mutually independent existence (state of reality) should be ascribed
to the partial systems A and B viewed separately,
not even if the partial systems are spatially separated
from each other at the particular time under consideration.
The assertion that, in this latter case, the real situation of
B could not be (directly) influenced by any measurement
taken on A is, therefore, within the framework of quantum
theory, unfounded and (as the paradox shows) unacceptable.
By this way of looking at the matter it becomes evident that the
paradox forces us to relinquish one of the following two assertions:
(1) the description by means of the Psi-function is complete
(2) the real states of spatially separated objects are independent
of each other.
On the other hand, it is possible to adhere to (2), if one regards
the Psi-function as the description of a (statistical) ensemble
of systems (and therefore relinquishes (1) ) . However, this
view blasts the framework of the "orthodox quantum theory."
One more remark to Margenau's Sec. 7. In the characterisation
of quantum mechanics the brief little sentence will be found:
"on the classical level it corresponds to ordinary dynamics."
This is entirely correct - cum grano salis; and it is precisely
this granum salis which is significant for the question of interpretation.
If our concern is with macroscopic masses (billiard balls or stars),
we are operating with very short de Broglie-waves, which are determinative
for the behaviour of the center of gravity of such masses. This
is the reason why it is possible to arrange the quantum-theoretical
description for a reasonable time in such a manner that for the
macroscopic way of viewing things, it becomes sufficiently precise
in position as well as in momentum. It is true also that this
sharpness remains for a long time and that the quasi-points thus
represented behave just like the mass-points of classical mechanics.
However, the theory shows also that, after a sufficiently long
time, the point-like character of the Psi-function is completely
lost to the center of gravity-co-ordinates, so that one can no
longer speak of any quasi-localisation of the centers of gravity.
The picture then becomes, for example in the case of a single
macro-mass-point, quite similar to that involved in a single free
electron.
If now, in accordance with the orthodox position, I view the Psi-function
as the complete description of a real matter of fact for the individual
case, I cannot but consider the essentially unlimited lack of
sharpness of the position of the (macroscopic) body as real.
On the other hand, however, we know that, by illuminating the
body by means of a lantern at rest against the system of co-ordinates,
we get a (macroscopically judged) sharp determination of position.
In order to comprehend this I must assume that that sharply defined
position is determined not merely by the real situation of the
observed body, but also by the act of illumination. This is again
a paradox (similar to the mark on the paper strip in the above
mentioned example). The spook disappears only if one relinquishes
the orthodox standpoint, according to which the Psi-function is
accepted as a complete description of the single system.
It may appear as if all such considerations were just superfluous
learned hairsplitting, which have nothing to do with physics proper.
However, it depends precisely upon such considerations in which
direction one believes one must look for the future conceptual
basis of physics.
I close these expositions, which have grown rather lengthy, concerning
the interpretation of quantum theory with the reproduction of
a brief conversation which I had with an important theoretical
physicist. He: "I am inclined to believe in telepathy."
I: "This has probably more to do with physics than with psychology."
He: "Yes."
The essays by Lenzen and Northrop both aim to treat my occasional
utterances of epistemological content systematically. From those
utterances Lenzen constructs a synoptic total picture, in which
what is missing in the utterances is carefully and with delicacy
of feeling supplied. Everything said therein appears to me convincing
and correct. Northrop uses these utterances as point of departure
for a comparative critique of the major epistemological systems.
I see in this critique a masterpiece of unbiased thinking and
concise discussion, which nowhere permits itself to be diverted
from the essential.
The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of
noteworthy kind. They are dependent upon each other. Epistemology
without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science
without epistemology is - insofar as it is thinkable at all -
primitive and muddled. However, no sooner has the epistemologist,
who is seeking a clear system, fought his way through to such
a system, than he is inclined to interpret the thought-content
of science in the sense of his system and to reject whatever does
not fit into his system. The scientist, however, cannot afford
to carry his striving for epistemological systematic that far.
He accepts gratefully the epistemological conceptual analysis;
but the external conditions, which are set for him by the facts
of experience, do not permit him to let himself be too much restricted
in the construction of his conceptual world by the adherence to
an epistemological system. He therefore must appear to the systematic
epistemologist as a type of unscrupulous opportunist: he appears
as realist insofar as he seeks to describe a world
independent of the acts of perception; as idealist
insofar as he looks upon the concepts and theories as the free
inventions of the human spirit (not logically derivable from what
is empirically given); as positivist insofar as
he considers his concepts and theories justified only to the extent
to which they furnish a logical representation of relations among
sensory experiences. He may even appear as Platonist
or Pythagorean insofar as he considers the viewpoint
of logical simplicity as an indispensable and effective tool of
his research.
All of this is splendidly elucidated in Lenzen's and Northrop's
essays.
And now a few remarks concerning the essays by E. A. Milne, G.
Lemaitre, and L. Infeld as concerns the cosmological problem:
Concerning Milne's ingenious reflections I can only say that I
find their theoretical basis too narrow. From my point of view
one cannot arrive, by way of theory, at any at least somewhat
reliable results in the field of cosmology, if one makes no use
of the principle of general relativity.
As concerns Lemaître's arguments in favour of the so-called
"cosmological constant" in the equations of gravitation,
I must admit that these arguments do not appear to me as sufficiently
convincing in view of the present state of our knowledge.
The introduction of such a constant implies a considerable renunciation
of the logical simplicity of theory, a renunciation which appeared
to me unavoidable only so long as one had no reason to doubt the
essentially static nature of space. After Hubble's discovery of
the "expansion" of the stellar system, and since Friedmann's
discovery that the unsupplemented equations involve the possibility
of the existence of an average (positive) density of matter in
an expanding universe, the introduction of such a constant appears
to me, from the theoretical standpoint, at present unjustified.
The situation becomes complicated by the fact that the entire
duration of the expansion of space to the present, based on the
equations in their simplest form, turns out smaller than appears
credible in view of the reliably known age of terrestrial minerals.
But the introduction of the "cosmological constant"
offers absolutely no natural escape from the difficulty. This
latter difficulty is given by way of the numerical value of Hubble's
expansion-constant and the age-measurement of minerals, completely
independent of any cosmological theory, provided that one interprets
the Hubble-effect as Doppler effect.
Everything finally depends upon the question: Can a spectral line
be considered as a measure of a "proper time" (Eigen-Zeit) ds
(ds2 = gikdxidxk), (if one takes into consideration regions of
cosmic dimensions)? Is there such a thing as a natural object
which incorporates the "natural-measuring-stick" independently
of its position in four-dimensional space? The affirmation of
this question made the invention of the general theory of relativity
psychologically possible; however this supposition is logically
not necessary. For the construction of the present theory of relativity
the following is essential:
(1) Physical things are described by continuous functions, field-variables
of four co-ordinates. As long as the topological connection is
preserved, these latter can be freely chosen.
(2) The field-variables are tensor-components; among the tensors
is a symmetrical tensor gik for the description of the gravitational
field.
(3) There are physical objects, which (in the macroscopic field)
measure the invariant ds.
If (1) and (2) are accepted, (3) is plausible, but not necessary.
The construction of mathematical theory rests exclusively upon
(1) and (2).
A complete theory of physics as a totality, in accordance with
(1) and (2) does not yet exist. If it did exist, there would be
no room for the supposition (3). For the objects used as tools
for measurement do not lead an independent existence alongside
of the objects implicated by the field-equations. - - It is not
necessary that one should permit one's cosmological considerations
to be restrained by such a sceptical attitude; but neither should
one close one's mind towards them from the very beginning.
These reflections bring me to Karl Menger's essay. For the quantum-facts
suggest the suspicion that doubt may also be raised concerning
the ultimate usefulness of the program characterised in (1) and
(2). There exists the possibility of doubting only (2) and, in
doing so, to question the possibility of being able adequately
to formulate the laws by means of differential equations, without
dropping (1). The more radical effort of surrendering (1) with
(2) appears to me - and I believe to Dr. Menger also - to lie
more closely at hand. So long as no one has new concepts, which
appear to have sufficient constructive power, mere doubt remains;
this is, unfortunately, my own situation. Adhering to the continuum
originates with me not in a prejudice, but arises out of the fact
that I have been unable to think up anything organic to take its
place. How is one to conserve four-dimensionality in essence (or
in near approximation) and [at the same time] surrender the continuum?
L. Infeld's essay is an independently understandable, excellent
introduction into the so-called "cosmological problem"
of the theory of relativity, which critically examines all essential
points.
Max von Laue: An historical investigation of the development of
the conservation postulates, which, in my opinion, is of lasting
value. I think it would be worth while to make this essay easily
accessible to students by way of independent publication.
In spite of serious efforts I have not succeeded in quite understanding
H. Dingle's essay, not even as concerns its aim. Is the idea of
the special theory of relativity to be expanded in the sense that
new group-characteristics, which are not implied by the Lorentz-invariance,
are to be postulated? Are these postulates empirically founded
or only by way of a trial "posited"? Upon what does
the confidence in the existence of such group-characteristics
rest?
Kurt Gödel's essay constitutes, in my opinion, an important
contribution to the general theory of relativity, especially to
the analysis of the concept of time. The problem here involved
disturbed me already at the time of the building up of the general
theory of relativity, without my having succeeded in clarifying
it. Entirely aside from the relation of the theory of relativity
to idealistic philosophy or to any philosophical formulation of
questions, the problem presents itself as follows:
If P is a world-point, a "light-cone" (ds2= 0)
belongs to it. We draw a "time-like" world-line through
P and on this line observe the close world-points B and
A, separated by P. Does it make any sense to provide
the world-line with an arrow, and to assert that B is before
P, A after P? Is what remains of temporal
connection between world-points in the theory of relativity an
asymmetrical relation, or would one be just as much justified,
from the physical point of view, to indicate the arrow in the
opposite direction and to assert that A is before P,
B after P?
In the first instance the alternative is decided in the negative,
if we are justified in saying: If it is possible to send (to telegraph)
a signal (also passing by in the close proximity of P)
from B to A, but not from A to B,
then the one-sided (asymmetrical) character of time is secured,
i.e., there exists no free choice for the direction of the arrow.
What is essential in this is the fact that the sending of a signal
is, in the sense of thermodynamics, an irreversible process, a
process which is connected with the growth of entropy (whereas,
according to our present knowledge, all elementary processes
are reversible).
If, therefore, B and A are two, sufficiently neighbouring,
world-points, which can be connected by a time-like line, then
the assertion: "B is before A," makes
physical sense. But does this assertion still make sense, if the
points, which are connectable by the time-like line, are arbitrarily
far separated from each other? Certainly not, if there exist point-series
connectable by time-like lines in such a way that each point precedes
temporally the preceding one, and if the series is closed in
itself. In that case the distinction "earlier-later"
is abandoned for world-points which lie far apart in a cosmological
sense, and those paradoxes, regarding the direction of
the causal connection, arise, of which Mr. Gödel has spoken.
Such cosmological solutions of the gravitation-equations (with
not vanishing A-constant) have been found by Mr. Gödel. It
will be interesting to weigh whether these are not to be excluded
on physical grounds.
I have the distressing feeling that I have expressed myself, in
this reply, not merely somewhat longwindedly but also rather sharply.
This observation may serve as my excuse: one can really quarrel
only with his brothers or close friends; others are too alien
[for that].
P.S. The preceding remarks refer to essays which were in my hands
at the end of January 1949. Inasmuch as the volume was to have
appeared in March, it was high time to write down these reflections.
After they had been concluded I learned that the publication of
the volume would experience a further delay and that some additional
important essays had come in. I decided, nevertheless, not to
expand my remarks further, which had already become too long,
and to desist from taking any position with reference to those
essays which came into my hands after the conclusion of my remarks.
Further Reading:
Biography |
Einstein Archive |
Bridgman |
Bohr
Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org
|
./articles/Helmholtz-Hermann/https:..www.marxists.org.reference.subject.philosophy.works.ge.brentano | <body>
<p><img src="../../../../../glossary/people/b/pics/brentano.jpg" hspace="12" width="200" align="LEFT" alt="dreamy-eyed guy with curly hair" border="1">
</p><p class="title">Franz Brentano (1874)</p>
<h4>Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint</h4>
<h2>I. The Concept and Purpose of Psychology</h2>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information">
<span class="info">Source</span>: <em>Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint</em>, (1874)
Routledge & Kegan Paul, First two chapters, "Concept and Purpose of Psychology" and "Psychological Method with Special Reference to its Experiential Basis".
</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="fst">
There are certain phenomena which once seemed familiar and obvious
and appeared to provide an explanation for things which had been
obscure. Subsequently, however, these phenomena began to seem
quite mysterious themselves and began to arouse astonishment and
curiosity. These phenomena, above all others, were zealously investigated
by the great thinkers of antiquity. Yet little agreement or clarity
has been reached concerning them to this day. It is these phenomena
which I have made my object of study. In this work I shall attempt
to sketch in general terms an accurate picture of their characteristics
and laws. There is no branch of science that has borne less fruit
for our knowledge of nature and life, and yet there is none which
holds greater promise of satisfying our most essential needs.
There is no area of knowledge, with the single exception of metaphysics,
which the great mass of people look upon with greater contempt.
And yet there is none to which certain individuals attribute greater
value and which they hold in higher esteem. Indeed, the entire
realm of truth would appear poor and contemptible to many people
if it were not so defined as to include this province of knowledge.
For they believe that the other sciences are only to be esteemed
insofar as they lead the way to this one. The other sciences are,
in fact, only the foundation; psychology is, as it were, the crowning
pinnacle. All the other sciences are a preparation for psychology;
it is dependent on all of them. But it is said to exert a most
powerful reciprocal influence upon them. It is supposed to renew
man's entire life and hasten and assure progress. And if, on the
one hand, it appears to be the pinnacle of the towering structure
of science, on the other hand, it is destined to become the basis
of society and of its noblest possessions, and, by this very fast,
to become the basis of all scientific endeavour as well.</p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">1. </span>The word "psychology" means <em>science
of the soul</em>. In fact, Aristotle, who was the first to make
a classification of science and to expound its separate branches
in separate essays, entitled one of his works <em>peri psychis</em>.
He meant by "soul" the nature, or, as he preferred to
express it, the form, the first activity, the first actuality
of a living being. And he considers something a living being if
it nourishes itself, grows and reproduces and is endowed with
the faculties of sensation and thought, or if it possesses at
least one of these faculties. Even though he is far from ascribing
consciousness to plants, he nevertheless considered the vegetative
realm as living and endowed with souls. And thus, after establishing
the concept of the soul, the oldest work on psychology goes on
to discuss the most general characteristics of beings endowed
with vegetative as well as sensory or intellectual faculties.</p>
<p>
This was the range of problems which psychology originally encompassed.
Later on, however, its field was narrowed substantially. Psychologists
no longer discussed vegetative activities. On the assumption that
it lacked consciousness, the entire realm of vegetative life ceased
to be considered within the scope of their investigations. In
the same way, the animal kingdom, insofar as it, like plants and
inorganic things is an object of external perception, was excluded
from their field of research. This exclusion was also extended
to phenomena closely associated with sensory life, such as the
nervous system and muscles, so that their investigation became
the province of the physiologist rather than the psychologist.</p>
<p>
This narrowing of the domain of psychology was not an arbitrary
one. On the contrary, it appears to be an obvious correction necessitated
by the nature of the subject matter itself. In fact, only when
the unification of related fields and the separation of unrelated
fields is achieved can the boundaries between the sciences be
correctly drawn and their classification contribute to the progress
of knowledge. And the phenomena of consciousness are related to
one another to an extraordinary degree. The same mode of perception
gives us all our knowledge of them, and numerous analogies relate
higher and lower phenomena to one another. The things which external
perception has shown us about living beings are seen as if from
a different angle or even in a completely different form, and
the general truths which we find here are sometimes the same principles
which we see governing inorganic nature, and sometimes analogous
ones. </p>
<p>
It could be said, and not without some justification, that Aristotle
himself suggests this later and more correct delimitation of the
boundaries of psychology. Those who are acquainted with him know
how frequently, while expounding a less advanced doctrine, he
sets forth the rudiments of a different and more correct viewpoint.
His metaphysics as well as his logic and ethics provides examples
of this. In the third book of his treatise <em>On the Soul</em>,
where he deals with voluntary actions, he dismisses the thought
of investigating the organs that serve as intermediaries between
a desire and the part of the body toward whose movement the desire
is directed. For, he says, sounding exactly like a modern psychologist,
such an investigation is not the province of one who studies the
soul, but of one who studies the body. I say this only in passing
so as perhaps to make it easier to convince some of the enthusiastic
followers of Aristotle who still exist even in our own times.</p>
<p>
We have seen how the field of psychology became circumscribed.
At the same time, and in quite an analogous manner, the concept
of life was also narrowed, or, if not this concept - for scientists
still ordinarily use this term in its broad original sense - at
least the concept of the soul. </p>
<p>
In modern terminology the word "soul" refers to the
substantial bearer of presentations and other activities which
are based upon presentations and which, like presentations, are
only perceivable through inner perception. Thus we usually call
soul the substance which has sensations such as fantasy images,
acts of memory, acts of hope or fear, desire or aversion. </p>
<p>
We, too, use the word "soul" in this sense. In spite
of the modification in the concept, then, there seems to be nothing
to prevent us from defining psychology in the terms in which Aristotle
once defined it, namely as the science of the soul. So it appears
that just as the natural sciences study the properties and laws
of physical bodies, which are the objects of our external perception,
psychology is the science which studies the properties and laws
of the soul, which we discover within ourselves directly by means
of inner perception, and which we infer, by analogy, to exist
in others. </p>
<p>
Thus delimited, psychology and the natural sciences appear to
divide the entire field of the empirical sciences between them,
and to be distinguished from one another by a clearly defined
boundary. </p>
<p>
But this first claim, at least, is not true. There are facts which
can be demonstrated in the same way in the domain of inner perception
or external perception. And precisely because they are wider in
scope, these more comprehensive principles belong exclusively
neither to the natural sciences nor to psychology. The fact that
they can be ascribed just as well to the one science as to the
other shows that it is better to ascribe them to neither. They
are, however, numerous and important enough for there to be a
special field of study devoted to them. It is this field of study
which, under the name metaphysics, we must distinguish from both
the natural sciences and psychology. </p>
<p>
Moreover, even the distinction between the two less general of
these three great branches of knowledge is not an absolute one.
As always happens when two sciences touch upon one another, here
too borderline cases between the natural and mental sciences are
inevitable. For the facts which the physiologist investigates
and those which the psychologist investigates are most intimately
correlated, despite their great differences in character. We find
physical and mental properties united in one and the same group.
Not only may physical states be aroused by physical states and
mental states by mental, but it is also the case that physical
states have mental consequences and mental states have physical
consequences. </p>
<p>
Some thinkers have distinguished a separate science which is supposed
to deal with these questions. One in particular is Fechner, who
named this branch of science "psychophysics" and called
the famous law which he established in this connection the "Psychophysical
Law." Others have named it, less appropriately, "physiological
psychology." </p>
<p>
Such a science is supposed to eliminate all boundary disputes
between psychology and physiology. But would not new and even
more numerous disputes arise in their place between psychology
and psychophysics on the one hand and between psychophysics and
physiology on the other? Ort is it not obviously the task of the
psychologist to ascertain the basic elements of mental phenomena?
Yet the psychophysicist must study them too, because sensations
are aroused by physical stimuli. Is it not the task of the physiologist
to trace voluntary as well as reflex actions back to the origins
through an uninterrupted causal chain? Yet the psychophysicist,
too, will have to investigate the first physical effects of mental
causes. </p>
<p>
Let us not, then, be unduly disturbed by the inevitable encroachment
of physiology upon psychology and vice versa. These encroachments
will be no greater than those which we observe, for example, between
physics and chemistry. They do nothing to refute the correctness
of the boundary line we have established; they only show that,
justified as it is, this distinction, like every other distinction
between sciences, is somewhat artificial. Nor will it be in any
way necessary to treat the whole range of so-called psychophysical
questions twice, i.e. once in physiology and once in psychology.
In the case of each of these problems we can easily show which
field contains the essential difficulty. Once this difficulty
is solved, the problem itself is as good as solved. For example,
it will definitely be the task of the psychologist to ascertain
the first mental phenomena which are aroused by a physical stimulus,
even if he cannot dispense with looking at physiological facts
in so doing. By the same token, in the case of voluntary movements
of the body, the psychologist will have to establish the ultimate
and immediate mental antecedents of the whole series of physical
changes which are connected with them, but it will be the task
of the physiologist to investigate the ultimate and immediate
physical causes of sensation, even though in so doing he must
obviously also look at the mental phenomenon. Likewise, with reference
to movements that have mental causes, the physiologist must establish
within his own field their ultimate and proximate effects. </p>
<p>
Concerning the demonstration that there is a proportional relationship
between increases in physical and mental causes and effects, i.e.
the investigation of the so-called "Psychophysical Law,"
it seems to me that the problem has two parts, one of which pertains
to the physiologist, while the other is the task of the psychologist.
The first is to determine which relative differences in the intensity
of physical stimuli correspond to the smallest noticeable differences
in the intensity of mental phenomena. The second consists in trying
to discover the relations which these smallest noticeable differences
bear to one another. But is not the answer to the latter question
immediately and completely evident? Is it not clear that all the
smallest noticeable differences must be considered equal to one
another ? This is the view which has been generally accepted.
Wundt himself, in his <em>Physiological Psychology</em> (p. 295),
offers the following argument: "A difference in intensity
which is just barely noticeable is . . . a psychic value of constant
magnitude. In fact, if one just noticeable difference were greater
or smaller than another, <em>then it would be greater or smaller
than the just noticeable</em>, which is a contradiction."
Wundt does not realize that this is a circular argument. If someone
doubts that all differences which are just noticeable are equal,
then as far as he is concerned, being "just noticeable"
is no longer a characteristic property of a constant magnitude.
The only thing that is correct and evident <em>a priori</em> is
that all just noticeable differences are equally noticeable, but
not that they are equal. If that were so, every increase which
is equal would have to be equally noticeable and every increase
which is equally noticeable would have to be equal. But this remains
to be investigated, and the investigation of this question, which
is the job of the psychologist because it deals with laws of comparative
judgement, could yield a result quite different from what was
expected. The moon does seem to change position more noticeably
when it is nearer the horizon than when it is high in the sky,
when in fact it changes the same amount in the same amount of
time in either case. On the other hand, the first task mentioned
above undoubtedly belongs to the physiologist. Physical observations
have more extensive application here. And it is certainly no coincidence
that we have to thank a physiologist of the first rank such as
E. H. Weber for paving the way for this law, and a philosophically
trained physicist such as Fechner for establishing it in a more
extended sphere. </p>
<p>
So the definition of psychology which was given above appears
to be justified, and its position among its neighbouring sciences
to have been clarified. </p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">2. </span> Nevertheless, not all psychologists would
agree to defining psychology as the science of the soul, in the
sense indicated above. Some define it, rather, as the science
of mental phenomena, thereby placing it on the same level as its
sister sciences. Similarly, in their opinion, natural science
is to be defined as the science of physical phenomena, rather
than as the science of bodies. </p>
<p>
Let us clarify the basis of this objection. What is meant by "science
of mental phenomena" or "science of physical phenomena"?
The words "phenomenon" or "appearance" are
often used in opposition to "things which really and truly
exist." We say, for example, that the objects of our senses,
as revealed in sensation, are merely phenomena; colour and sound,
warmth and taste do not really and truly exist outside of our
sensations, even though they may point to objects which do so
exist. John Locke once conducted an experiment in which, after
having warmed one of his hands and cooled the other, he immersed
both of them simultaneously in the same basin of water. He experienced
warmth in one hand and cold in the other, and thus proved that
neither warmth nor cold really existed in the water. Likewise,
we know that pressure on the eye can arouse the same visual phenomena
as would be caused by rays emanating from a so-called colored
object. And with regard to determinations of spatial location,
those who take appearances for true reality can easily be convinced
of their error in a similar way. From the same distance away,
things which are in different locations can appear to be in the
same location, and from different distances away, things which
are in the same location can appear to be in different locations.
A related point is that movement may appear as rest and rest as
movement. These facts prove beyond doubt that the objects of sensory
experience are deceptive. But even if this could not be established
so clearly, we would still have to doubt their veracity because
there would be no guarantee for them as long as the assumption
that there is a world that exists in reality which causes our
sensations and to which their content bears certain analogies,
would be sufficient to account for the phenomena. </p>
<p>
We have no right, therefore, to believe that the objects of so-called
external perception really exist as they appear to us. Indeed,
they demonstrably do not exist outside of us. In contrast to that
which really and truly exists, they are mere phenomena. </p>
<p>
What has been said about the objects of external perception does
not, however, apply in the same way to objects of inner perception.
In their case, no one has ever shown that someone who considers
these phenomena to be true would thereby become involved in contradictions.
On the contrary, of their existence we have that clear knowledge
and complete certainty which is provided by immediate insight.
Consequently, no one can really doubt that a mental state which
he perceives in himself exists, and that it exists just as he
perceives it. Anyone who could push his doubt this far would reach
a state of absolute doubt, a scepticism which would certainly
destroy itself, because it would have destroyed any firm basis
upon which it could endeavour to attack knowledge. </p>
<p>
Defining psychology as the science of mental phenomena in order
to make natural science and mental science resemble each other
in this respect, then, has no reasonable justification. </p>
<p>
There is another, quite different reason which generally motivates
those who advocate such a definition, however. These people do
not deny that thinking and willing really exist. And they use
the expression "mental phenomena" or "mental appearances"
as completely synonymous with "mental states", "mental
processes," and "mental events," as inner perception
reveals them to us. Nevertheless, their objection to the old definition,
too, is related to the fact that on such a definition the limits
of knowledge are misunderstood. If someone says that natural science
is the science of bodies, and he means by "body" a substance
which acts on our sense organs and produces presentations of physical
phenomena, he assumes that substances are the cause of external
appearances. Likewise, if someone says that psychology is the
science of the soul, and means by "soul" the substantial
bearer of mental states, then he is expressing his conviction
that mental events are to be considered properties of a substance.
But what entitles us to assume that there are such substances
? It has been said that such substances are not objects of experience;
neither sense perception nor inner experience reveal substances
to us. Just as in sense perception we encounter phenomena such
as warmth, colour and sound, in inner perception we encounter
manifestations of thinking, feeling and willing. But we never
encounter that something of which these things are properties.
It is a fiction to which no reality of any sort corresponds, or
whose existence could not possibly be proved, even if it did exist.
Obviously, then, it is not an object of science. Hence natural
science may not be defined as the science of bodies nor may psychology
be defined as the science of the soul. Rather, the former should
be thought of simply as the science of physical phenomena, and
the latter, analogously, as the science of mental phenomena. There
is no such thing as the soul, at least not as far as we are concerned,
but psychology can and should exist nonetheless, although, to
use Albert Lange's paradoxical expression, it will be a psychology
without a soul. </p>
<p>
We see that the idea is not as absurd as the expression makes
it seem. Even viewed in this way psychology still retains a wide
area for investigation. </p>
<p>
A glance at natural science makes this clear. For all the facts
and laws which this branch of inquiry investigates when it is
conceived of as the science of bodies will continue to be investigated
by it when it is viewed only as the science of physical phenomena.
This is how it is actually viewed at present by many famous natural
scientists who have formed opinions about philosophical questions,
thanks to the noteworthy trend which is now bringing philosophy
and the natural sciences closer together. In so doing, they in
no way restrict the domain of the natural sciences. All of the
laws of coexistence and succession which these sciences encompass
according to others, fall within their domain according to these
thinkers, too. </p>
<p>
The same thing is true of psychology. The phenomena revealed by
inner perception are also subject to laws. Anyone who has engaged
m scientific psychological research recognises this and even the
layman can easily and quickly find confirmation for it in his
own inner experience. The laws of the coexistence and succession
of mental phenomena remain the object of investigation even for
those who deny to psychology any knowledge of the soul. And with
them comes a vast range of important problems for the psychologist,
most of which still await solution. </p>
<p>
In order to make more intelligible the nature of psychology as
he conceived it, John Stuart Mill, one of the most decisive and
influential advocates of this point of view, has given in his
<em>System of Logic</em> synopsis of the problems with which psychology
must be concerned. </p>
<p>
In general, according to Mill, psychology investigates the laws
which govern the succession of our mental states, i.e. the laws
according to which one of these states produces another. </p>
<p>
In his opinion, some of these laws are general, others more special.
A general law, for example, would be the law according to which,
"whenever any state of consciousness has once been excited
in us, no matter by what cause . . . a state of consciousness
resembling the former but inferior in intensity, is capable of
being reproduced in us, without the presence of any such cause
as excited it at first." Every impression, he says, using
the language of Hume, has its idea. Similarly, there would also
be certain general laws which determine the actual appearance
of such an idea. He mentions three such Laws of Association of
Ideas. The first is the Law of Similarity: "Similar ideas
tend to excite one another." The second is the Law of Contiguity:
"When two impressions have been frequently experienced .
. . either simultaneously or in immediate succession, then when
one of these impressions, or the idea of it recurs, it tends to
excite the idea of the other." The third is the Law of Intensity:
"Greater intensity in either or both of the impressions,
is equivalent, in rendering them excitable by one another, to
a greater frequency of conjunction."</p>
<p>
The further task of psychology, according to Mill, is to derive
from these general and elementary laws of mental phenomena more
specific and more complex laws of thought. He says that since
several mental phenomena often work concurrently, the question
arises whether or not every such case is a case of a combination
of causes in other words, whether or not effects and initial conditions
are always related in the same way, as they are in the field of
mechanics, where a motion is always the result of motion, homogeneous
with its causes and in a certain sense the sum of its causes;
or whether the mental realm also exhibits cases similar to the
process of chemical combination, where you see in water none of
the characteristics of hydrogen and oxygen, and in cinnabar none
of the characteristics of mercury and sulphur. Mill himself believed
it to be an established fact that both types of case exist in
the domain of inner phenomena. Sometimes the processes are analogous
to those in mechanics and sometimes to those in chemical reactions.
For it may happen that several ideas coalesce in such a way that
they no longer appear as several but seem to be a single idea
of a completely different sort. Thus, for example, the idea of
extension and three dimensional space develops from kinaesthetic
sensations. </p>
<p>
A series of new investigations is linked with this point. In particular
the question will be raised as to whether belief and desire are
cases of mental chemistry, i.e. whether they are the product of
a fusion of ideas. Mill thinks that perhaps we must answer this
question negatively. In whatever way it should be decided, perhaps
even affirmatively, it would nevertheless be certain that entirely
different fields of investigation are opened here. And so there
emerges the new task of ascertaining, by means of special observations,
the laws of succession of these phenomena, i.e. of ascertaining
whether or not they are the products of such psychological chemistry,
so to speak. In respect to belief, we would inquire what we believe
directly; according to what laws one belief produces another;
and what are the laws in virtue of which one thing is taken, rightly
or erroneously, as evidence for another thing. In regard to desire,
the primary task would consist in determining what objects we
desire naturally and originally, and then we must go on to determine
by what causes we are made to desire things originally indifferent
or even disagreeable to us. </p>
<p>
In addition, there is yet another rich area for investigation,
one in which psychological and physiological research become more
closely involved with one another than elsewhere. The psychologist,
according to Mill, has the task of investigating how far the production
of one mental state by others is influenced by confirmable physical
states. Individual differences in susceptibility to the same psychological
causes can be conceived as having a threefold basis. They could
be an original and ultimate fact, they could be consequences of
the previous mental history of those individuals, and they could
be the result of differences in physical organisation. The attentive
and critical observer will recognise, Mill thinks, that by far
the greatest portion of a person's character can be adequately
explained in terms of his education and outward circumstances.
The remainder can, by and large, only be explained indirectly
in terms of organic differences. And obviously this holds true
not merely for the commonly recognised tendency of the deaf toward
mistrustfulness, of the congenitally blind toward lustfulness,
of the physically handicapped toward irritability, but also for
many other, less easily intelligible phenomena. If there are still,
as Mill grants, other phenomena, instincts in particular, which
cannot be explained in any other way except directly in terms
of one's particular physical organisation, we see that a wide
field of investigation is assured for psychology in the area of
ethology, i.e. formulating the laws of the formation of character.</p>
<p>
This is a survey of psychological problems from the point of view
of one of the most important advocates of psychology as a purely
phenomenalistic science. It is really true that in none of the
above-mentioned respects is psychology harmed by this new conception
of it or by the point of view which leads to such a conception.
As a matter of fact, in addition to the questions raised by Mill
and those implicit in them, there are still others which are equally
significant. Thus there is no shortage of important tasks for
psychologists of this school, among whom are, at the present time,
men who have made themselves pre-eminently of service to the advancement
of science. </p>
<p>
Nevertheless, the above conception of psychology seems to exclude
at least one question which is of such importance that its absence
alone threatens to leave a serious gap in this science. The very
investigation which the older conception of psychology considered
its main task, the very problem which gave the first impetus to
psychological research can, apparently, no longer be raised on
this view of psychology. I mean the question of continued existence
after death. Anyone familiar with Plato knows that above all else
it was the desire to ascertain the truth about this problem which
led him to the field of psychology. His <em>Phaedo</em> is devoted
to it, and other dialogues such as the <em>Phaednus</em>, <em>Timaeas</em>
and the <em>Republic</em> come back to the question time and again.
And the same thing is true of Aristotle. Admittedly he sets forth
his proofs for the immortality of the soul in less detail than
Plato, but it would be a mistake to conclude from this that the
problem was any less important to him. In his logical works, where
the doctrine of apodictic or scientific demonstration was necessarily
the most important issue, he still discusses the problem, condensed
into a few pages in the <em>Posterior Analytics</em>, in striking
contrast to other long, extended discussions. In the <em>Metaphysics</em>
he speaks of the deity only in a few short sentences in the last
book, yet this study was avowedly so essential to him that he
actually applied the name "theology" to the entire science,
as well as the names "wisdom" and "first philosophy."
In the same way, in his treatise On the Soul, he discusses man's
soul and its immortality only very briefly, even when he is doing
more than merely mentioning it in passing. Yet the classification
of psychological problems at the beginning of this work clearly
indicates that this question seemed to him to be the most important
object of psychology. We are told there that the psychologist
has the task, first of all, of investigating what the soul is,
and then of investigating its properties, some of which appear
to inhere in it alone and not in the body, and, as such, are spiritual.
Furthermore he must investigate whether the soul is composed of
parts or whether it is simple, and whether all the parts are bodily
states or whether there are some which are not, in which case
its immortality would be assured. The various <em>aporiai</em> which
are linked with these questions show that we have hit upon the
point which aroused this great thinker's thirst for knowledge
most of all. This is the task to which psychology first devoted
itself, and which gave it its first impetus for development. And
it is precisely this task which appears, at the present time,
to have fallen into disrepute and to have become impossible, at
least from the standpoint of those who reject psychology as the
science of the soul. For if there is no soul, then, of course,
the immortality of the soul is out of the question. </p>
<p>
This conclusion appears to be so immediately obvious that we cannot
be surprised if some partisans of the conception here developed,
A. Lange, for one, consider it to be self-evident. And so psychology
offers us a drama similar to the one which occurred in the natural
sciences. The alchemists' striving to produce gold from mixtures
of elements first instigated chemical research, but the mature
science of chemistry abandoned such ambitions as impossible. And
somewhat in the manner of the well-known parable about the promise
of the dying father, here too the heirs of earlier investigators
have fulfilled the predictions of their predecessors. In the parable
the sons industriously dug up the vineyard in which they believed
a treasure was hidden, and if they did not find the buried gold,
they reaped the fruit of the well-tilled soil instead. Something
similar has happened to chemists, and would be happening to psychologists
too. The mature science would have to abandon the question of
immortality, but we could say that, as consolation, the zealous
efforts which stemmed from a desire for the impossible have led
to the solution of other questions whose far-reaching significance
cannot be called into question. </p>
<p>
Nevertheless, these two cases are not wholly identical. In place
of the alchemists' dreams, reality offered a higher substitute.
But in comparison with Plato's and Aristotle's hopes of reaching
certainty concerning the continued existence of our better part
after the dissolution of the body, the laws of association of
ideas, of the development of convictions and opinions, and of
the origin and growth of desire and love, would hardly be real
compensation. The loss of this hope would appear to be far more
regrettable. Consequently, if the opposition between these two
conceptions of psychology really implied the acceptance or rejection
of the question of immortality, this issue would become of paramount
importance and would compel us to undertake metaphysical research
concerning the existence of substance as the bearer of mental
states. </p>
<p>
Yet, whatever appearance of necessity there is for restricting
the range of inquiry in this connection, it may still be no more
than an appearance. In his time David Hume strongly opposed the
metaphysicians who claimed to have found within themselves a substance
which was the bearer of mental states. "For my part,"
he says, "when I enter most intimately into what I call <em><strong>myself</strong></em>,
I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat
or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never
can catch <em>myself</em> at any time without a perception, and
never can observe anything but the perception, When my perceptions
are removed for any time, as by sound sleep; so long am I insensible
of myself, and may truly be said not to exist." If certain
philosophers claim that they perceive themselves as something
simple and permanent, Hume does not want to contradict them, but
of himself and of everyone else (this sort of metaphysician alone
excepted), he is convinced "that they are nothing but a bundle
or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other
with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and
movement." We see, therefore, that Hume ranks unequivocally
among the opponents of a substantial soul. Nevertheless, Hume
himself remarks that in a conception such as his, all the proofs
of immortality retain absolutely the same strength as in the traditional
conception to which it is opposed. Of course, Albert Lange interprets
this declaration as a mockery, and he may very likely be right,
for it is known that Hume did not elsewhere scorn the use of malicious
irony as a weapon. What Hume says, however, is not so obviously
ridiculous as Lange and perhaps Hume himself might think. For
even though it is self-evident that those who deny the existence
of a substantial soul cannot speak of the immortality of the soul
in the proper sense of the word, it still does not follow that
the question of the immortality of the soul loses all meaning
because we deny the existence of a substantial bearer of mental
phenomena. This becomes evident as soon as you recognise that
with or without a substantial soul you cannot deny that there
is a certain continuity of our mental life here on earth. If someone
rejects the existence of a substance, he must assume that such
a continuity does not require a substantial bearer. And the question
whether our mental life somehow continues even after the destruction
of the body will be no more meaningless for him than for anyone
else. It is wholly inconsistent for thinkers of this persuasion
to reject, for the reasons mentioned, the question of immortality
even in this, its essential sense, though it certainly would be
more appropriate to call it immortality of life than immortality
of the soul. </p>
<p>
This was fully recognised by John Stuart Mill. In the passage
from his Logic cited earlier, it is true that we do not find the
question of immortality listed among those problems to be dealt
with by psychology. In his work on Hamilton, however, he has developed
with utmost clarity the very idea that we have just formulated.</p>
<p>
Likewise, at the present time in Germany no important thinker
has expressed his rejection of a substantial substrate for both
mental and physical states as often and as categorically as Theodor
Fechner. In his <em>Psychophysics</em>, in his <em>Atomenlehre</em>
and in other writings, he criticises this doctrine, sometimes
in earnest, sometimes humorously. Nevertheless, he candidly acknowledges
his belief in immortality. It is clear, therefore, that even if
one accepts the metaphysical view which led modern thinkers to
substitute the definition of psychology as the science of mental
phenomena for the traditional definition as the science of the
soul, the field of psychology would not thereby be narrowed in
any way, and, above all, it would not suffer any essential loss.</p>
<p>
It would appear to be just as inadmissible, however, to accept
this view without a thorough metaphysical investigation, as it
is to reject it without a test. Just as there are eminent men
who have questioned and denied that phenomena have a substantial
bearer there also have been and still are other very famous scientists
who firmly believe that they do. H. Lotze agrees with Aristotle
and Leibniz on this point, as does Herbert Spencer, among contemporary
English empiricists. And, with his characteristic frankness, even
John Stuart Mill has recognised, in his work on Hamilton, that
the rejection of substance as the bearer of phenomena is not entirely
free from difficulties and uncertainties, especially in the mental
realm. If, then, the new definition of psychology were connected
with the new metaphysics just as inseparably as the old definition
was with the old, we would be forced either to look for a third
definition, or to descend into the fearful depths of metaphysics.</p>
<p>
Happily, the opposite is true. There is nothing in the new definition
of psychology which would not have to be accepted by adherents
of the older school as well. For whether or not there are souls,
the fact is that there are mental phenomena. And no one who accepts
the theory of the substantiality of the soul will deny that whatever
can be established with reference to the soul is also related
to mental phenomena. Nothing, therefore, stands in our way if
we adopt the modern definition instead of defining psychology
as the science of the soul. Perhaps both are correct. The differences
which still exist between them are that the old definition contains
metaphysical presuppositions from which the modern one is free;
that the latter is accepted by opposing schools of thought, while
the former already bears the distinctive mark of one particular
school; and the one, therefore, frees us from general preliminary
researches which the other would oblige us to undertake. Consequently,
the adoption of the modern conception simplifies our work. Furthermore,
it offers an additional advantage: any exclusion of an unrelated
question not only simplifies, but also reinforces the work. It
shows that the results of our investigation are dependent on fewer
presuppositions, and thus lends greater certainty to our convictions.</p>
<p>
We, therefore, define psychology as the science of mental phenomena,
in the sense indicated above. The preceding discussion should
be sufficient to clarify the general meaning of this definition.
Our subsequent investigation of the difference between mental
and physical phenomena will provide whatever further clarification
is needed. </p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">3. </span> If someone wanted to compare the relative
value of the scientific field which we have just described with
that of the natural sciences, using as a measuring stick only
and exclusively the interest aroused at the present time by these
two types of investigations, psychology would undoubtedly be overshadowed.
It is a different matter if we compare the goals which each of
the two sciences pursue. We have seen what kind of knowledge the
natural scientist is able to attain. The phenomena of light, sound,
heat, spatial location and locomotion which he studies are not
things which really and truly exist.' They are signs of something
real, which, through its causal activity, produces presentations
of them. They are not, however, an adequate representation of
this reality, and they give us knowledge of it only in a very
incomplete sense. We can say that there exists something which,
under certain conditions, causes this or that sensation. We can
probably also prove that there must be relations among these realities
similar to those which are manifested by spatial phenomena shapes
and sizes. But this is as far as we can go. We have no experience
of that which truly exists, in and of itself, and that which we
do experience is not true. The truth of physical phenomena is,
as they say, only a relative truth. The phenomena of inner perception
are a different matter. They are true in themselves. As they
appear to be, so they are in reality, a fast which is attested
to by the evidence with which they are perceived. Who could deny,
then, that this constitutes a great advantage of psychology over
the natural sciences?</p>
<p>
The high theoretical value of psychological knowledge is obvious
in still another respect. The worthiness of a science increases
not only according to the manner in which it is known, but also
with the worthiness of its object. And the phenomena the laws
of which psychology investigates are superior to physical phenomena
not only in that they are true and real in themselves, but also
in that they are incomparably more beautiful and sublime. Colour
and sound, extension and motion are contrasted with sensation
and imagination, judgement and will, with all the grandeur these
phenomena exhibit in the ideas of the artist, the research of
a great thinker, and the self-dedication of the virtuous man.
So we have revealed in a new way how the task of the psychologist
is higher than that of the natural scientist. </p>
<p>
It is also true that things which directly concern us claim our
attention more readily than things foreign to us. We are more
eager to know the order and origin of our own solar system than
that of some more remote group of heavenly bodies. The history
of our own country and of our ancestors attracts our attention
more than that of other people with whom we have no close ties.
And this is another reason for conferring the higher value upon
the science of mental phenomena. For our mental phenomena are
the things which are most our own. Some philosophers have even
identified the self with a collection of mental phenomena, others
with the substantial bearer of such a collection of phenomena.
And in ordinary language we say that physical changes are external
to us while mental changes take place within us.</p>
<p>
These very simple observations can easily convince anyone of the
great theoretical significance of psychological knowledge. But
even from the point of view of practical significance - and perhaps
this is what is most surprising - psychological questions are
in no way inferior to those which occupy the natural sciences.
Even in this respect there is hardly another branch of science
which can be placed on the same level with psychology unless perhaps
it is one which merits the same consideration on the grounds that
it is an indispensable preparatory step toward the attainment
of psychological knowledge.</p>
<p>
Let me point out merely in passing that psychology contains the
roots of aesthetics, which, in a more advanced stage of development,
will undoubtedly sharpen the eye of the artist and assure his
progress. Likewise, suffice it to say that the important art of
logic, a single improvement in which brings about a thousand advances
in science, also has psychology as its source. In addition, psychology
has the task of becoming the scientific basis for a theory of
education, both of the individual and of society. Along with aesthetics
and logic, ethics and politics also stem from the field of psychology.
And so psychology appears to be the fundamental condition of human
progress in precisely those things which, above all, constitute
human dignity. Without the use of psychology, the solicitude of
the father as well as that of the political leader, remains an
awkward groping. It is because there has been no systematic application
of psychological principles in the political field until now,
and even more because the guardians of the people have been, almost
without exception, completely ignorant of these principles, that
we can assert along with Plato and with many contemporary thinkers
that, no matter how much fame individuals have attained, no truly
great statesman has yet appeared in history. Even before physiology
was systematically applied to medicine, there was no lack of famous
physicians, as shown by the great confidence they won and by the
astonishing cures attributed to them. But anyone who is acquainted
with medicine today knows how impossible it would have been for
there to have been a single truly great physician prior to the
last few decades. The others were all merely blind empiricists,
more or less skilful, and more or less lucky. They were not, and
could not have been what a trained and discerning physician must
be. Up to the present time the same thing holds true of statesmen.
The extent to which they, too, are merely blind empiricists is
demonstrated every time that an extraordinary event suddenly changes
the political situation and even more clearly every time one of
them finds himself in a foreign country where conditions are different.
Forsaken by their empirically derived maxims, they become completely
incompetent and helpless.</p>
<p>
How many evils could be remedied, both on the individual and social
level, by the correct psychological diagnosis, or by knowledge
of the laws according to which a mental state can be modified
! What an increase in mental power mankind would achieve if the
basic mental conditions which determine the different aptitudes
for being a poet, a scientist, or a man of practical ability could
be fully ascertained beyond any doubt by means of psychological
analysis! If this were possible, we could recognise the tree,
not from its fruit, but from its very first budding leaves, and
could transplant it immediately to a place suited to its nature.
For aptitudes are themselves very complex phenomena; they are
the remote consequences of forces whose original activity suggests
these consequences no more than the shape of the first buds suggests
the fruit which the tree will bear. In both cases, however, we
are dealing with relationships that are subject to similar laws.
And just as botany can make accurate predictions, a sufficiently
developed psychology must be able to do the same. In this and
in a thousand other different ways, its influence would become
most beneficial. Perhaps it alone will be in a position to provide
us the means to counteract the decadence which sadly interrupts
the otherwise steadily ascending cultural development from time
to time. It has long been noted, and correctly so, that the often
used metaphorical expressions, "old nation," and "old
civilisation," are not strictly appropriate, because, while
organisms only partially regenerate themselves, society renews
itself completely in each successive generation; we can speak
of peoples and epochs becoming sick, but not old. There are, however,
such sicknesses which have always appeared periodically up to
now, and which, because of our lack of medical skill, have regularly
led to death. Hence, even though the really essential analogy
is missing, the similarity to old age in external appearance is
undeniable.</p>
<p>
It is apparent that the practical tasks I assign to psychology
are far from insignificant. But is it conceivable that psychology
will ever really approach this ideal? Doubt on this point seems
to be well-founded. From the fact that up to now, for thousands
of years, psychology has made practically no progress, many would
like to believe that they are justified in concluding with certainty
that it will also do little in the future to further the practical
interests of mankind.</p>
<p>
The answer to this objection is not far to seek. It is revealed
by a simple consideration of the place which psychology occupies
in the system of sciences. </p>
<p>
The general theoretical sciences form a kind of hierarchy in which
each higher step is erected on the basis of the one below it.
The higher sciences investigate more complex phenomena, the
lower ones phenomena that are simpler, but which contribute to
the complexity. The progress of the sciences which stand higher
in the scale 9 naturally presupposes that of the lower ones. It
is, therefore, evident that, apart from certain weak empirical
antecedents, the higher S sciences will attain their development
later than the lower. In particular, they will not be able to
reach that state of maturity in which they can meet the vital
needs of life at the same time as the lower sciences. Thus we
saw that mathematics had long been turned to practical applications,
while physics still lay dozing in its cradle and did not give
the slightest sign of its capacity, subsequently so brilliantly
proved, to be of service to the needs and desires of life. Similarly,
physics had long attained fame and multiple practical applications
when, through Lavoisier, chemistry discovered the first firm basis
upon which it could stand, in the next few decades, in order to
revolutionise, if not the earth, at least the cultivation of the
earth, and with it so many other spheres of practical activity.
And once again, chemistry had already achieved many splendid results
while physiology was yet to be born. And it is not necessary to
go back too many years to find the beginnings of a more satisfactory
development in physiology, and attempts at practical application
followed immediately. They were incomplete perhaps, but nonetheless
served to demonstrate that only from physiology is a re-birth
of medicine to be expected. It is easy to explain why physiology
developed so late. The phenomena it studies are much more complex
than those studied by the earlier sciences and are dependent upon
them, just as the phenomena of chemistry are dependent upon those
of physios and the phenomena of physics are dependent upon those
of mathematics. But it is just as easy to understand, then, why
psychology has not borne more abundant fruit up until now. Just
as physical phenomena are under the influence of mathematical
laws, and chemical phenomena are under the influence of physical
laws, and those of physiology under the influence of all these
laws, so psychological phenomena are influenced by the laws governing
the forces which shape and renew the bodily organs involved. Consequently,
if someone knew from direct experience absolutely nothing about
the state of psychology up to the present time, and were acquainted
only with the history of the other theoretical sciences and with
the recent birth of physiology and indeed even chemistry, he could
affirm, without in any way being a sceptic about psychological
matters, that psychology has achieved nothing as yet, or that
it has achieved very little, and that at best it is only recently
that it has shown a tendency toward a more substantial development.
This implies that the most important fruits which psychology may
bear for practical life, lie in the future. So, should this person
turn his attention to the history of psychology, he would merely
find in its barrenness confirmation of his expectations; and he
would find himself in no way committed to an unfavourable judgement
as to its future accomplishments.</p>
<p>
We see that the backward condition in which psychology has remained
appears to be a necessity, even if we do not doubt the possibility
of a rich development in the future. That there is such a possibility
is shown by the promising, though weak, beginning it has already
in fact made. Once a certain level of its possible development
has been reached, the practical consequences will not fail to
materialise. For the individual and even more for the masses,
where the imponderable circumstances which impede and promote
progress balance each other out, psychological laws will afford
a sure basis for action.</p>
<p>
We may, therefore, confidently hope that psychology will not always
lack both inner development and useful applications. Indeed the
needs which it must satisfy have already become pressing. Social
disorders cry out more urgently for redress than do the imperfections
in navigation and railway commerce, agriculture and hygiene. Questions
to which we might give less attention, if it were up to us to
choose, force themselves upon everyone's attention. Many people
have already seen this to be the most important task of our time.
We could mention several great scientists who are devoting themselves,
with this end in view, to the investigation of psychological laws
and to methodological inquiries concerning the derivation and
confirmation of conclusions to be applied in practice.</p>
<p>
It cannot possibly be the task of political economy to put an
end to the present confusion and to re-establish the peace in
society which has been increasingly lost amid the clash of conflicting
interests. Political economy has a role to play, but neither the
whole task nor the major part depends upon it. And indeed even
the growing interest which is being accorded to it can serve to
corroborate these statements. In the introduction to his <em>Principles
of Political Economy</em>, John Stuart Mill has touched upon the
relation between this science and psychology. The differences
in the production and distribution of goods by different peoples
and at different times, in his opinion, would depend to a certain
extent on differences in the states of their knowledge of physical
matters, but would also have psychological causes. "Insofar
as the economic condition of nations turns upon the state of physical
knowledge," he continues, "it is a subject for the physical
sciences, and the arts founded on them. But insofar as the causes
are moral or psychological, dependent on institutions and social
relations or on the principles of human nature, their investigation
belongs not to physical, but to moral and social science, and
is the object of what is called Political Economy."</p>
<p>
It seems beyond doubt, therefore, that in the future - and to
a certain extent perhaps the not too distant future - psychology
will exert a considerable influence upon the practical aspects
of life. In this sense we could characterise psychology, as others
have already done, as the science of the future, i.e. as the science
to which, more than any other, the future belongs; the science
which, more than any other, will mould the future; and the science
to which, in the future, other sciences will be of service and
to which they will be subordinate in their practical application.
For this will be the position of psychology once it reaches maturity
and is capable of effective action. Aristotle called politics
the master art to which all others serve as subsidiaries. As we
have seen, however, in order to be what it should be, it is necessary
that politics pay heed to psychology, just as the lesser arts
must heed the teachings of natural science. Its theory, I would
like to suggest, will merely be a different arrangement and further
development of psychological principles directed toward the attainment
of a practical goal.</p>
<p>
We have advanced four reasons which appear to be sufficient to
show the outstanding importance of the science of psychology:
the inner truth of the phenomena it studies, the sublimity of
these phenomena, the special relationship they have to us, and
finally, the practical importance of the laws which govern it.
To these we must add the special and incomparable interest which
psychology possesses insofar as it instructs us about immortality
and thus becomes, in another sense, the science of the future.
The question concerning the hope of a hereafter and our participation
in a more perfect state of the world falls to psychology. As we
have noted, psychology has already made attempts to solve this
problem, and it does not seem that all its efforts in that direction
have been without success. If this really is the case, we have
here, without doubt, its highest theoretical achievement, which
would be of the greatest practical importance as well, besides
lending new value to psychology's other theoretical achievements.
When we depart from this life we separate ourselves from all that
is subject to the laws of natural science. The laws of gravitation,
of sound, of light and electricity disappear along with the phenomena
for which experience has established them. Mental laws, on the
other hand, hold true for our life to come as they do in our present
life, insofar as this life is immortal.</p>
<p>
So Aristotle had good reason for placing psychology above all
the other sciences, as he did at the beginning of his treatise
On the Soul, even though in so doing he took into consideration
its theoretical advantages exclusively. He says,</p>
<p class="quoteb">
Holding as we do that, while knowledge of any kind is a thing
to be honoured and prized, one kind of it may, either by reason
of its greater exactness or of a higher dignity and greater wonderfulness
in its objects, be more honourable and precious than another,
on both counts we should naturally be led to place in the front
rank the study of the soul.
</p>
<p>
What undoubtedly causes surprise is the fact that Aristotle here
asserts that even with respect to its exactitude psychology is
superior to the other sciences. For him the exactitude of knowledge
is bound up with the imperishability of the object. According
to him, that which changes continuously and in every respect evades
scientific investigation, whereas that which is most permanent
possesses the most abiding truth. Be that as it may, we, too,
cannot deny that the laws of psychology at least possess a permanent
important truth.</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">
Further Reading:<br>
<a href="../../../../../glossary/people/b/r.htm#brentano-franz" target="_top">Biography</a> |
<a href="../ge/wundt.htm">Wundt</a> |
<a href="../ge/dilthey.htm">Dilthey</a> |
<a href="../ge/husserl.htm">Husserl</a> |
<a href="../../../../archive/nietzsche/index.htm">Nietzsche</a>
</p>
<p class="footer">
<a href="../../../../../subject/psychology/index.htm" target="_top">Marxist Psychology Archive</a> |
<a href="../../index.htm" target="_top">Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org</a></p>
</body> |
Franz Brentano (1874)
Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint
I. The Concept and Purpose of Psychology
Source: Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint, (1874)
Routledge & Kegan Paul, First two chapters, "Concept and Purpose of Psychology" and "Psychological Method with Special Reference to its Experiential Basis".
There are certain phenomena which once seemed familiar and obvious
and appeared to provide an explanation for things which had been
obscure. Subsequently, however, these phenomena began to seem
quite mysterious themselves and began to arouse astonishment and
curiosity. These phenomena, above all others, were zealously investigated
by the great thinkers of antiquity. Yet little agreement or clarity
has been reached concerning them to this day. It is these phenomena
which I have made my object of study. In this work I shall attempt
to sketch in general terms an accurate picture of their characteristics
and laws. There is no branch of science that has borne less fruit
for our knowledge of nature and life, and yet there is none which
holds greater promise of satisfying our most essential needs.
There is no area of knowledge, with the single exception of metaphysics,
which the great mass of people look upon with greater contempt.
And yet there is none to which certain individuals attribute greater
value and which they hold in higher esteem. Indeed, the entire
realm of truth would appear poor and contemptible to many people
if it were not so defined as to include this province of knowledge.
For they believe that the other sciences are only to be esteemed
insofar as they lead the way to this one. The other sciences are,
in fact, only the foundation; psychology is, as it were, the crowning
pinnacle. All the other sciences are a preparation for psychology;
it is dependent on all of them. But it is said to exert a most
powerful reciprocal influence upon them. It is supposed to renew
man's entire life and hasten and assure progress. And if, on the
one hand, it appears to be the pinnacle of the towering structure
of science, on the other hand, it is destined to become the basis
of society and of its noblest possessions, and, by this very fast,
to become the basis of all scientific endeavour as well.
1. The word "psychology" means science
of the soul. In fact, Aristotle, who was the first to make
a classification of science and to expound its separate branches
in separate essays, entitled one of his works peri psychis.
He meant by "soul" the nature, or, as he preferred to
express it, the form, the first activity, the first actuality
of a living being. And he considers something a living being if
it nourishes itself, grows and reproduces and is endowed with
the faculties of sensation and thought, or if it possesses at
least one of these faculties. Even though he is far from ascribing
consciousness to plants, he nevertheless considered the vegetative
realm as living and endowed with souls. And thus, after establishing
the concept of the soul, the oldest work on psychology goes on
to discuss the most general characteristics of beings endowed
with vegetative as well as sensory or intellectual faculties.
This was the range of problems which psychology originally encompassed.
Later on, however, its field was narrowed substantially. Psychologists
no longer discussed vegetative activities. On the assumption that
it lacked consciousness, the entire realm of vegetative life ceased
to be considered within the scope of their investigations. In
the same way, the animal kingdom, insofar as it, like plants and
inorganic things is an object of external perception, was excluded
from their field of research. This exclusion was also extended
to phenomena closely associated with sensory life, such as the
nervous system and muscles, so that their investigation became
the province of the physiologist rather than the psychologist.
This narrowing of the domain of psychology was not an arbitrary
one. On the contrary, it appears to be an obvious correction necessitated
by the nature of the subject matter itself. In fact, only when
the unification of related fields and the separation of unrelated
fields is achieved can the boundaries between the sciences be
correctly drawn and their classification contribute to the progress
of knowledge. And the phenomena of consciousness are related to
one another to an extraordinary degree. The same mode of perception
gives us all our knowledge of them, and numerous analogies relate
higher and lower phenomena to one another. The things which external
perception has shown us about living beings are seen as if from
a different angle or even in a completely different form, and
the general truths which we find here are sometimes the same principles
which we see governing inorganic nature, and sometimes analogous
ones.
It could be said, and not without some justification, that Aristotle
himself suggests this later and more correct delimitation of the
boundaries of psychology. Those who are acquainted with him know
how frequently, while expounding a less advanced doctrine, he
sets forth the rudiments of a different and more correct viewpoint.
His metaphysics as well as his logic and ethics provides examples
of this. In the third book of his treatise On the Soul,
where he deals with voluntary actions, he dismisses the thought
of investigating the organs that serve as intermediaries between
a desire and the part of the body toward whose movement the desire
is directed. For, he says, sounding exactly like a modern psychologist,
such an investigation is not the province of one who studies the
soul, but of one who studies the body. I say this only in passing
so as perhaps to make it easier to convince some of the enthusiastic
followers of Aristotle who still exist even in our own times.
We have seen how the field of psychology became circumscribed.
At the same time, and in quite an analogous manner, the concept
of life was also narrowed, or, if not this concept - for scientists
still ordinarily use this term in its broad original sense - at
least the concept of the soul.
In modern terminology the word "soul" refers to the
substantial bearer of presentations and other activities which
are based upon presentations and which, like presentations, are
only perceivable through inner perception. Thus we usually call
soul the substance which has sensations such as fantasy images,
acts of memory, acts of hope or fear, desire or aversion.
We, too, use the word "soul" in this sense. In spite
of the modification in the concept, then, there seems to be nothing
to prevent us from defining psychology in the terms in which Aristotle
once defined it, namely as the science of the soul. So it appears
that just as the natural sciences study the properties and laws
of physical bodies, which are the objects of our external perception,
psychology is the science which studies the properties and laws
of the soul, which we discover within ourselves directly by means
of inner perception, and which we infer, by analogy, to exist
in others.
Thus delimited, psychology and the natural sciences appear to
divide the entire field of the empirical sciences between them,
and to be distinguished from one another by a clearly defined
boundary.
But this first claim, at least, is not true. There are facts which
can be demonstrated in the same way in the domain of inner perception
or external perception. And precisely because they are wider in
scope, these more comprehensive principles belong exclusively
neither to the natural sciences nor to psychology. The fact that
they can be ascribed just as well to the one science as to the
other shows that it is better to ascribe them to neither. They
are, however, numerous and important enough for there to be a
special field of study devoted to them. It is this field of study
which, under the name metaphysics, we must distinguish from both
the natural sciences and psychology.
Moreover, even the distinction between the two less general of
these three great branches of knowledge is not an absolute one.
As always happens when two sciences touch upon one another, here
too borderline cases between the natural and mental sciences are
inevitable. For the facts which the physiologist investigates
and those which the psychologist investigates are most intimately
correlated, despite their great differences in character. We find
physical and mental properties united in one and the same group.
Not only may physical states be aroused by physical states and
mental states by mental, but it is also the case that physical
states have mental consequences and mental states have physical
consequences.
Some thinkers have distinguished a separate science which is supposed
to deal with these questions. One in particular is Fechner, who
named this branch of science "psychophysics" and called
the famous law which he established in this connection the "Psychophysical
Law." Others have named it, less appropriately, "physiological
psychology."
Such a science is supposed to eliminate all boundary disputes
between psychology and physiology. But would not new and even
more numerous disputes arise in their place between psychology
and psychophysics on the one hand and between psychophysics and
physiology on the other? Ort is it not obviously the task of the
psychologist to ascertain the basic elements of mental phenomena?
Yet the psychophysicist must study them too, because sensations
are aroused by physical stimuli. Is it not the task of the physiologist
to trace voluntary as well as reflex actions back to the origins
through an uninterrupted causal chain? Yet the psychophysicist,
too, will have to investigate the first physical effects of mental
causes.
Let us not, then, be unduly disturbed by the inevitable encroachment
of physiology upon psychology and vice versa. These encroachments
will be no greater than those which we observe, for example, between
physics and chemistry. They do nothing to refute the correctness
of the boundary line we have established; they only show that,
justified as it is, this distinction, like every other distinction
between sciences, is somewhat artificial. Nor will it be in any
way necessary to treat the whole range of so-called psychophysical
questions twice, i.e. once in physiology and once in psychology.
In the case of each of these problems we can easily show which
field contains the essential difficulty. Once this difficulty
is solved, the problem itself is as good as solved. For example,
it will definitely be the task of the psychologist to ascertain
the first mental phenomena which are aroused by a physical stimulus,
even if he cannot dispense with looking at physiological facts
in so doing. By the same token, in the case of voluntary movements
of the body, the psychologist will have to establish the ultimate
and immediate mental antecedents of the whole series of physical
changes which are connected with them, but it will be the task
of the physiologist to investigate the ultimate and immediate
physical causes of sensation, even though in so doing he must
obviously also look at the mental phenomenon. Likewise, with reference
to movements that have mental causes, the physiologist must establish
within his own field their ultimate and proximate effects.
Concerning the demonstration that there is a proportional relationship
between increases in physical and mental causes and effects, i.e.
the investigation of the so-called "Psychophysical Law,"
it seems to me that the problem has two parts, one of which pertains
to the physiologist, while the other is the task of the psychologist.
The first is to determine which relative differences in the intensity
of physical stimuli correspond to the smallest noticeable differences
in the intensity of mental phenomena. The second consists in trying
to discover the relations which these smallest noticeable differences
bear to one another. But is not the answer to the latter question
immediately and completely evident? Is it not clear that all the
smallest noticeable differences must be considered equal to one
another ? This is the view which has been generally accepted.
Wundt himself, in his Physiological Psychology (p. 295),
offers the following argument: "A difference in intensity
which is just barely noticeable is . . . a psychic value of constant
magnitude. In fact, if one just noticeable difference were greater
or smaller than another, then it would be greater or smaller
than the just noticeable, which is a contradiction."
Wundt does not realize that this is a circular argument. If someone
doubts that all differences which are just noticeable are equal,
then as far as he is concerned, being "just noticeable"
is no longer a characteristic property of a constant magnitude.
The only thing that is correct and evident a priori is
that all just noticeable differences are equally noticeable, but
not that they are equal. If that were so, every increase which
is equal would have to be equally noticeable and every increase
which is equally noticeable would have to be equal. But this remains
to be investigated, and the investigation of this question, which
is the job of the psychologist because it deals with laws of comparative
judgement, could yield a result quite different from what was
expected. The moon does seem to change position more noticeably
when it is nearer the horizon than when it is high in the sky,
when in fact it changes the same amount in the same amount of
time in either case. On the other hand, the first task mentioned
above undoubtedly belongs to the physiologist. Physical observations
have more extensive application here. And it is certainly no coincidence
that we have to thank a physiologist of the first rank such as
E. H. Weber for paving the way for this law, and a philosophically
trained physicist such as Fechner for establishing it in a more
extended sphere.
So the definition of psychology which was given above appears
to be justified, and its position among its neighbouring sciences
to have been clarified.
2. Nevertheless, not all psychologists would
agree to defining psychology as the science of the soul, in the
sense indicated above. Some define it, rather, as the science
of mental phenomena, thereby placing it on the same level as its
sister sciences. Similarly, in their opinion, natural science
is to be defined as the science of physical phenomena, rather
than as the science of bodies.
Let us clarify the basis of this objection. What is meant by "science
of mental phenomena" or "science of physical phenomena"?
The words "phenomenon" or "appearance" are
often used in opposition to "things which really and truly
exist." We say, for example, that the objects of our senses,
as revealed in sensation, are merely phenomena; colour and sound,
warmth and taste do not really and truly exist outside of our
sensations, even though they may point to objects which do so
exist. John Locke once conducted an experiment in which, after
having warmed one of his hands and cooled the other, he immersed
both of them simultaneously in the same basin of water. He experienced
warmth in one hand and cold in the other, and thus proved that
neither warmth nor cold really existed in the water. Likewise,
we know that pressure on the eye can arouse the same visual phenomena
as would be caused by rays emanating from a so-called colored
object. And with regard to determinations of spatial location,
those who take appearances for true reality can easily be convinced
of their error in a similar way. From the same distance away,
things which are in different locations can appear to be in the
same location, and from different distances away, things which
are in the same location can appear to be in different locations.
A related point is that movement may appear as rest and rest as
movement. These facts prove beyond doubt that the objects of sensory
experience are deceptive. But even if this could not be established
so clearly, we would still have to doubt their veracity because
there would be no guarantee for them as long as the assumption
that there is a world that exists in reality which causes our
sensations and to which their content bears certain analogies,
would be sufficient to account for the phenomena.
We have no right, therefore, to believe that the objects of so-called
external perception really exist as they appear to us. Indeed,
they demonstrably do not exist outside of us. In contrast to that
which really and truly exists, they are mere phenomena.
What has been said about the objects of external perception does
not, however, apply in the same way to objects of inner perception.
In their case, no one has ever shown that someone who considers
these phenomena to be true would thereby become involved in contradictions.
On the contrary, of their existence we have that clear knowledge
and complete certainty which is provided by immediate insight.
Consequently, no one can really doubt that a mental state which
he perceives in himself exists, and that it exists just as he
perceives it. Anyone who could push his doubt this far would reach
a state of absolute doubt, a scepticism which would certainly
destroy itself, because it would have destroyed any firm basis
upon which it could endeavour to attack knowledge.
Defining psychology as the science of mental phenomena in order
to make natural science and mental science resemble each other
in this respect, then, has no reasonable justification.
There is another, quite different reason which generally motivates
those who advocate such a definition, however. These people do
not deny that thinking and willing really exist. And they use
the expression "mental phenomena" or "mental appearances"
as completely synonymous with "mental states", "mental
processes," and "mental events," as inner perception
reveals them to us. Nevertheless, their objection to the old definition,
too, is related to the fact that on such a definition the limits
of knowledge are misunderstood. If someone says that natural science
is the science of bodies, and he means by "body" a substance
which acts on our sense organs and produces presentations of physical
phenomena, he assumes that substances are the cause of external
appearances. Likewise, if someone says that psychology is the
science of the soul, and means by "soul" the substantial
bearer of mental states, then he is expressing his conviction
that mental events are to be considered properties of a substance.
But what entitles us to assume that there are such substances
? It has been said that such substances are not objects of experience;
neither sense perception nor inner experience reveal substances
to us. Just as in sense perception we encounter phenomena such
as warmth, colour and sound, in inner perception we encounter
manifestations of thinking, feeling and willing. But we never
encounter that something of which these things are properties.
It is a fiction to which no reality of any sort corresponds, or
whose existence could not possibly be proved, even if it did exist.
Obviously, then, it is not an object of science. Hence natural
science may not be defined as the science of bodies nor may psychology
be defined as the science of the soul. Rather, the former should
be thought of simply as the science of physical phenomena, and
the latter, analogously, as the science of mental phenomena. There
is no such thing as the soul, at least not as far as we are concerned,
but psychology can and should exist nonetheless, although, to
use Albert Lange's paradoxical expression, it will be a psychology
without a soul.
We see that the idea is not as absurd as the expression makes
it seem. Even viewed in this way psychology still retains a wide
area for investigation.
A glance at natural science makes this clear. For all the facts
and laws which this branch of inquiry investigates when it is
conceived of as the science of bodies will continue to be investigated
by it when it is viewed only as the science of physical phenomena.
This is how it is actually viewed at present by many famous natural
scientists who have formed opinions about philosophical questions,
thanks to the noteworthy trend which is now bringing philosophy
and the natural sciences closer together. In so doing, they in
no way restrict the domain of the natural sciences. All of the
laws of coexistence and succession which these sciences encompass
according to others, fall within their domain according to these
thinkers, too.
The same thing is true of psychology. The phenomena revealed by
inner perception are also subject to laws. Anyone who has engaged
m scientific psychological research recognises this and even the
layman can easily and quickly find confirmation for it in his
own inner experience. The laws of the coexistence and succession
of mental phenomena remain the object of investigation even for
those who deny to psychology any knowledge of the soul. And with
them comes a vast range of important problems for the psychologist,
most of which still await solution.
In order to make more intelligible the nature of psychology as
he conceived it, John Stuart Mill, one of the most decisive and
influential advocates of this point of view, has given in his
System of Logic synopsis of the problems with which psychology
must be concerned.
In general, according to Mill, psychology investigates the laws
which govern the succession of our mental states, i.e. the laws
according to which one of these states produces another.
In his opinion, some of these laws are general, others more special.
A general law, for example, would be the law according to which,
"whenever any state of consciousness has once been excited
in us, no matter by what cause . . . a state of consciousness
resembling the former but inferior in intensity, is capable of
being reproduced in us, without the presence of any such cause
as excited it at first." Every impression, he says, using
the language of Hume, has its idea. Similarly, there would also
be certain general laws which determine the actual appearance
of such an idea. He mentions three such Laws of Association of
Ideas. The first is the Law of Similarity: "Similar ideas
tend to excite one another." The second is the Law of Contiguity:
"When two impressions have been frequently experienced .
. . either simultaneously or in immediate succession, then when
one of these impressions, or the idea of it recurs, it tends to
excite the idea of the other." The third is the Law of Intensity:
"Greater intensity in either or both of the impressions,
is equivalent, in rendering them excitable by one another, to
a greater frequency of conjunction."
The further task of psychology, according to Mill, is to derive
from these general and elementary laws of mental phenomena more
specific and more complex laws of thought. He says that since
several mental phenomena often work concurrently, the question
arises whether or not every such case is a case of a combination
of causes in other words, whether or not effects and initial conditions
are always related in the same way, as they are in the field of
mechanics, where a motion is always the result of motion, homogeneous
with its causes and in a certain sense the sum of its causes;
or whether the mental realm also exhibits cases similar to the
process of chemical combination, where you see in water none of
the characteristics of hydrogen and oxygen, and in cinnabar none
of the characteristics of mercury and sulphur. Mill himself believed
it to be an established fact that both types of case exist in
the domain of inner phenomena. Sometimes the processes are analogous
to those in mechanics and sometimes to those in chemical reactions.
For it may happen that several ideas coalesce in such a way that
they no longer appear as several but seem to be a single idea
of a completely different sort. Thus, for example, the idea of
extension and three dimensional space develops from kinaesthetic
sensations.
A series of new investigations is linked with this point. In particular
the question will be raised as to whether belief and desire are
cases of mental chemistry, i.e. whether they are the product of
a fusion of ideas. Mill thinks that perhaps we must answer this
question negatively. In whatever way it should be decided, perhaps
even affirmatively, it would nevertheless be certain that entirely
different fields of investigation are opened here. And so there
emerges the new task of ascertaining, by means of special observations,
the laws of succession of these phenomena, i.e. of ascertaining
whether or not they are the products of such psychological chemistry,
so to speak. In respect to belief, we would inquire what we believe
directly; according to what laws one belief produces another;
and what are the laws in virtue of which one thing is taken, rightly
or erroneously, as evidence for another thing. In regard to desire,
the primary task would consist in determining what objects we
desire naturally and originally, and then we must go on to determine
by what causes we are made to desire things originally indifferent
or even disagreeable to us.
In addition, there is yet another rich area for investigation,
one in which psychological and physiological research become more
closely involved with one another than elsewhere. The psychologist,
according to Mill, has the task of investigating how far the production
of one mental state by others is influenced by confirmable physical
states. Individual differences in susceptibility to the same psychological
causes can be conceived as having a threefold basis. They could
be an original and ultimate fact, they could be consequences of
the previous mental history of those individuals, and they could
be the result of differences in physical organisation. The attentive
and critical observer will recognise, Mill thinks, that by far
the greatest portion of a person's character can be adequately
explained in terms of his education and outward circumstances.
The remainder can, by and large, only be explained indirectly
in terms of organic differences. And obviously this holds true
not merely for the commonly recognised tendency of the deaf toward
mistrustfulness, of the congenitally blind toward lustfulness,
of the physically handicapped toward irritability, but also for
many other, less easily intelligible phenomena. If there are still,
as Mill grants, other phenomena, instincts in particular, which
cannot be explained in any other way except directly in terms
of one's particular physical organisation, we see that a wide
field of investigation is assured for psychology in the area of
ethology, i.e. formulating the laws of the formation of character.
This is a survey of psychological problems from the point of view
of one of the most important advocates of psychology as a purely
phenomenalistic science. It is really true that in none of the
above-mentioned respects is psychology harmed by this new conception
of it or by the point of view which leads to such a conception.
As a matter of fact, in addition to the questions raised by Mill
and those implicit in them, there are still others which are equally
significant. Thus there is no shortage of important tasks for
psychologists of this school, among whom are, at the present time,
men who have made themselves pre-eminently of service to the advancement
of science.
Nevertheless, the above conception of psychology seems to exclude
at least one question which is of such importance that its absence
alone threatens to leave a serious gap in this science. The very
investigation which the older conception of psychology considered
its main task, the very problem which gave the first impetus to
psychological research can, apparently, no longer be raised on
this view of psychology. I mean the question of continued existence
after death. Anyone familiar with Plato knows that above all else
it was the desire to ascertain the truth about this problem which
led him to the field of psychology. His Phaedo is devoted
to it, and other dialogues such as the Phaednus, Timaeas
and the Republic come back to the question time and again.
And the same thing is true of Aristotle. Admittedly he sets forth
his proofs for the immortality of the soul in less detail than
Plato, but it would be a mistake to conclude from this that the
problem was any less important to him. In his logical works, where
the doctrine of apodictic or scientific demonstration was necessarily
the most important issue, he still discusses the problem, condensed
into a few pages in the Posterior Analytics, in striking
contrast to other long, extended discussions. In the Metaphysics
he speaks of the deity only in a few short sentences in the last
book, yet this study was avowedly so essential to him that he
actually applied the name "theology" to the entire science,
as well as the names "wisdom" and "first philosophy."
In the same way, in his treatise On the Soul, he discusses man's
soul and its immortality only very briefly, even when he is doing
more than merely mentioning it in passing. Yet the classification
of psychological problems at the beginning of this work clearly
indicates that this question seemed to him to be the most important
object of psychology. We are told there that the psychologist
has the task, first of all, of investigating what the soul is,
and then of investigating its properties, some of which appear
to inhere in it alone and not in the body, and, as such, are spiritual.
Furthermore he must investigate whether the soul is composed of
parts or whether it is simple, and whether all the parts are bodily
states or whether there are some which are not, in which case
its immortality would be assured. The various aporiai which
are linked with these questions show that we have hit upon the
point which aroused this great thinker's thirst for knowledge
most of all. This is the task to which psychology first devoted
itself, and which gave it its first impetus for development. And
it is precisely this task which appears, at the present time,
to have fallen into disrepute and to have become impossible, at
least from the standpoint of those who reject psychology as the
science of the soul. For if there is no soul, then, of course,
the immortality of the soul is out of the question.
This conclusion appears to be so immediately obvious that we cannot
be surprised if some partisans of the conception here developed,
A. Lange, for one, consider it to be self-evident. And so psychology
offers us a drama similar to the one which occurred in the natural
sciences. The alchemists' striving to produce gold from mixtures
of elements first instigated chemical research, but the mature
science of chemistry abandoned such ambitions as impossible. And
somewhat in the manner of the well-known parable about the promise
of the dying father, here too the heirs of earlier investigators
have fulfilled the predictions of their predecessors. In the parable
the sons industriously dug up the vineyard in which they believed
a treasure was hidden, and if they did not find the buried gold,
they reaped the fruit of the well-tilled soil instead. Something
similar has happened to chemists, and would be happening to psychologists
too. The mature science would have to abandon the question of
immortality, but we could say that, as consolation, the zealous
efforts which stemmed from a desire for the impossible have led
to the solution of other questions whose far-reaching significance
cannot be called into question.
Nevertheless, these two cases are not wholly identical. In place
of the alchemists' dreams, reality offered a higher substitute.
But in comparison with Plato's and Aristotle's hopes of reaching
certainty concerning the continued existence of our better part
after the dissolution of the body, the laws of association of
ideas, of the development of convictions and opinions, and of
the origin and growth of desire and love, would hardly be real
compensation. The loss of this hope would appear to be far more
regrettable. Consequently, if the opposition between these two
conceptions of psychology really implied the acceptance or rejection
of the question of immortality, this issue would become of paramount
importance and would compel us to undertake metaphysical research
concerning the existence of substance as the bearer of mental
states.
Yet, whatever appearance of necessity there is for restricting
the range of inquiry in this connection, it may still be no more
than an appearance. In his time David Hume strongly opposed the
metaphysicians who claimed to have found within themselves a substance
which was the bearer of mental states. "For my part,"
he says, "when I enter most intimately into what I call myself,
I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat
or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never
can catch myself at any time without a perception, and
never can observe anything but the perception, When my perceptions
are removed for any time, as by sound sleep; so long am I insensible
of myself, and may truly be said not to exist." If certain
philosophers claim that they perceive themselves as something
simple and permanent, Hume does not want to contradict them, but
of himself and of everyone else (this sort of metaphysician alone
excepted), he is convinced "that they are nothing but a bundle
or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other
with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and
movement." We see, therefore, that Hume ranks unequivocally
among the opponents of a substantial soul. Nevertheless, Hume
himself remarks that in a conception such as his, all the proofs
of immortality retain absolutely the same strength as in the traditional
conception to which it is opposed. Of course, Albert Lange interprets
this declaration as a mockery, and he may very likely be right,
for it is known that Hume did not elsewhere scorn the use of malicious
irony as a weapon. What Hume says, however, is not so obviously
ridiculous as Lange and perhaps Hume himself might think. For
even though it is self-evident that those who deny the existence
of a substantial soul cannot speak of the immortality of the soul
in the proper sense of the word, it still does not follow that
the question of the immortality of the soul loses all meaning
because we deny the existence of a substantial bearer of mental
phenomena. This becomes evident as soon as you recognise that
with or without a substantial soul you cannot deny that there
is a certain continuity of our mental life here on earth. If someone
rejects the existence of a substance, he must assume that such
a continuity does not require a substantial bearer. And the question
whether our mental life somehow continues even after the destruction
of the body will be no more meaningless for him than for anyone
else. It is wholly inconsistent for thinkers of this persuasion
to reject, for the reasons mentioned, the question of immortality
even in this, its essential sense, though it certainly would be
more appropriate to call it immortality of life than immortality
of the soul.
This was fully recognised by John Stuart Mill. In the passage
from his Logic cited earlier, it is true that we do not find the
question of immortality listed among those problems to be dealt
with by psychology. In his work on Hamilton, however, he has developed
with utmost clarity the very idea that we have just formulated.
Likewise, at the present time in Germany no important thinker
has expressed his rejection of a substantial substrate for both
mental and physical states as often and as categorically as Theodor
Fechner. In his Psychophysics, in his Atomenlehre
and in other writings, he criticises this doctrine, sometimes
in earnest, sometimes humorously. Nevertheless, he candidly acknowledges
his belief in immortality. It is clear, therefore, that even if
one accepts the metaphysical view which led modern thinkers to
substitute the definition of psychology as the science of mental
phenomena for the traditional definition as the science of the
soul, the field of psychology would not thereby be narrowed in
any way, and, above all, it would not suffer any essential loss.
It would appear to be just as inadmissible, however, to accept
this view without a thorough metaphysical investigation, as it
is to reject it without a test. Just as there are eminent men
who have questioned and denied that phenomena have a substantial
bearer there also have been and still are other very famous scientists
who firmly believe that they do. H. Lotze agrees with Aristotle
and Leibniz on this point, as does Herbert Spencer, among contemporary
English empiricists. And, with his characteristic frankness, even
John Stuart Mill has recognised, in his work on Hamilton, that
the rejection of substance as the bearer of phenomena is not entirely
free from difficulties and uncertainties, especially in the mental
realm. If, then, the new definition of psychology were connected
with the new metaphysics just as inseparably as the old definition
was with the old, we would be forced either to look for a third
definition, or to descend into the fearful depths of metaphysics.
Happily, the opposite is true. There is nothing in the new definition
of psychology which would not have to be accepted by adherents
of the older school as well. For whether or not there are souls,
the fact is that there are mental phenomena. And no one who accepts
the theory of the substantiality of the soul will deny that whatever
can be established with reference to the soul is also related
to mental phenomena. Nothing, therefore, stands in our way if
we adopt the modern definition instead of defining psychology
as the science of the soul. Perhaps both are correct. The differences
which still exist between them are that the old definition contains
metaphysical presuppositions from which the modern one is free;
that the latter is accepted by opposing schools of thought, while
the former already bears the distinctive mark of one particular
school; and the one, therefore, frees us from general preliminary
researches which the other would oblige us to undertake. Consequently,
the adoption of the modern conception simplifies our work. Furthermore,
it offers an additional advantage: any exclusion of an unrelated
question not only simplifies, but also reinforces the work. It
shows that the results of our investigation are dependent on fewer
presuppositions, and thus lends greater certainty to our convictions.
We, therefore, define psychology as the science of mental phenomena,
in the sense indicated above. The preceding discussion should
be sufficient to clarify the general meaning of this definition.
Our subsequent investigation of the difference between mental
and physical phenomena will provide whatever further clarification
is needed.
3. If someone wanted to compare the relative
value of the scientific field which we have just described with
that of the natural sciences, using as a measuring stick only
and exclusively the interest aroused at the present time by these
two types of investigations, psychology would undoubtedly be overshadowed.
It is a different matter if we compare the goals which each of
the two sciences pursue. We have seen what kind of knowledge the
natural scientist is able to attain. The phenomena of light, sound,
heat, spatial location and locomotion which he studies are not
things which really and truly exist.' They are signs of something
real, which, through its causal activity, produces presentations
of them. They are not, however, an adequate representation of
this reality, and they give us knowledge of it only in a very
incomplete sense. We can say that there exists something which,
under certain conditions, causes this or that sensation. We can
probably also prove that there must be relations among these realities
similar to those which are manifested by spatial phenomena shapes
and sizes. But this is as far as we can go. We have no experience
of that which truly exists, in and of itself, and that which we
do experience is not true. The truth of physical phenomena is,
as they say, only a relative truth. The phenomena of inner perception
are a different matter. They are true in themselves. As they
appear to be, so they are in reality, a fast which is attested
to by the evidence with which they are perceived. Who could deny,
then, that this constitutes a great advantage of psychology over
the natural sciences?
The high theoretical value of psychological knowledge is obvious
in still another respect. The worthiness of a science increases
not only according to the manner in which it is known, but also
with the worthiness of its object. And the phenomena the laws
of which psychology investigates are superior to physical phenomena
not only in that they are true and real in themselves, but also
in that they are incomparably more beautiful and sublime. Colour
and sound, extension and motion are contrasted with sensation
and imagination, judgement and will, with all the grandeur these
phenomena exhibit in the ideas of the artist, the research of
a great thinker, and the self-dedication of the virtuous man.
So we have revealed in a new way how the task of the psychologist
is higher than that of the natural scientist.
It is also true that things which directly concern us claim our
attention more readily than things foreign to us. We are more
eager to know the order and origin of our own solar system than
that of some more remote group of heavenly bodies. The history
of our own country and of our ancestors attracts our attention
more than that of other people with whom we have no close ties.
And this is another reason for conferring the higher value upon
the science of mental phenomena. For our mental phenomena are
the things which are most our own. Some philosophers have even
identified the self with a collection of mental phenomena, others
with the substantial bearer of such a collection of phenomena.
And in ordinary language we say that physical changes are external
to us while mental changes take place within us.
These very simple observations can easily convince anyone of the
great theoretical significance of psychological knowledge. But
even from the point of view of practical significance - and perhaps
this is what is most surprising - psychological questions are
in no way inferior to those which occupy the natural sciences.
Even in this respect there is hardly another branch of science
which can be placed on the same level with psychology unless perhaps
it is one which merits the same consideration on the grounds that
it is an indispensable preparatory step toward the attainment
of psychological knowledge.
Let me point out merely in passing that psychology contains the
roots of aesthetics, which, in a more advanced stage of development,
will undoubtedly sharpen the eye of the artist and assure his
progress. Likewise, suffice it to say that the important art of
logic, a single improvement in which brings about a thousand advances
in science, also has psychology as its source. In addition, psychology
has the task of becoming the scientific basis for a theory of
education, both of the individual and of society. Along with aesthetics
and logic, ethics and politics also stem from the field of psychology.
And so psychology appears to be the fundamental condition of human
progress in precisely those things which, above all, constitute
human dignity. Without the use of psychology, the solicitude of
the father as well as that of the political leader, remains an
awkward groping. It is because there has been no systematic application
of psychological principles in the political field until now,
and even more because the guardians of the people have been, almost
without exception, completely ignorant of these principles, that
we can assert along with Plato and with many contemporary thinkers
that, no matter how much fame individuals have attained, no truly
great statesman has yet appeared in history. Even before physiology
was systematically applied to medicine, there was no lack of famous
physicians, as shown by the great confidence they won and by the
astonishing cures attributed to them. But anyone who is acquainted
with medicine today knows how impossible it would have been for
there to have been a single truly great physician prior to the
last few decades. The others were all merely blind empiricists,
more or less skilful, and more or less lucky. They were not, and
could not have been what a trained and discerning physician must
be. Up to the present time the same thing holds true of statesmen.
The extent to which they, too, are merely blind empiricists is
demonstrated every time that an extraordinary event suddenly changes
the political situation and even more clearly every time one of
them finds himself in a foreign country where conditions are different.
Forsaken by their empirically derived maxims, they become completely
incompetent and helpless.
How many evils could be remedied, both on the individual and social
level, by the correct psychological diagnosis, or by knowledge
of the laws according to which a mental state can be modified
! What an increase in mental power mankind would achieve if the
basic mental conditions which determine the different aptitudes
for being a poet, a scientist, or a man of practical ability could
be fully ascertained beyond any doubt by means of psychological
analysis! If this were possible, we could recognise the tree,
not from its fruit, but from its very first budding leaves, and
could transplant it immediately to a place suited to its nature.
For aptitudes are themselves very complex phenomena; they are
the remote consequences of forces whose original activity suggests
these consequences no more than the shape of the first buds suggests
the fruit which the tree will bear. In both cases, however, we
are dealing with relationships that are subject to similar laws.
And just as botany can make accurate predictions, a sufficiently
developed psychology must be able to do the same. In this and
in a thousand other different ways, its influence would become
most beneficial. Perhaps it alone will be in a position to provide
us the means to counteract the decadence which sadly interrupts
the otherwise steadily ascending cultural development from time
to time. It has long been noted, and correctly so, that the often
used metaphorical expressions, "old nation," and "old
civilisation," are not strictly appropriate, because, while
organisms only partially regenerate themselves, society renews
itself completely in each successive generation; we can speak
of peoples and epochs becoming sick, but not old. There are, however,
such sicknesses which have always appeared periodically up to
now, and which, because of our lack of medical skill, have regularly
led to death. Hence, even though the really essential analogy
is missing, the similarity to old age in external appearance is
undeniable.
It is apparent that the practical tasks I assign to psychology
are far from insignificant. But is it conceivable that psychology
will ever really approach this ideal? Doubt on this point seems
to be well-founded. From the fact that up to now, for thousands
of years, psychology has made practically no progress, many would
like to believe that they are justified in concluding with certainty
that it will also do little in the future to further the practical
interests of mankind.
The answer to this objection is not far to seek. It is revealed
by a simple consideration of the place which psychology occupies
in the system of sciences.
The general theoretical sciences form a kind of hierarchy in which
each higher step is erected on the basis of the one below it.
The higher sciences investigate more complex phenomena, the
lower ones phenomena that are simpler, but which contribute to
the complexity. The progress of the sciences which stand higher
in the scale 9 naturally presupposes that of the lower ones. It
is, therefore, evident that, apart from certain weak empirical
antecedents, the higher S sciences will attain their development
later than the lower. In particular, they will not be able to
reach that state of maturity in which they can meet the vital
needs of life at the same time as the lower sciences. Thus we
saw that mathematics had long been turned to practical applications,
while physics still lay dozing in its cradle and did not give
the slightest sign of its capacity, subsequently so brilliantly
proved, to be of service to the needs and desires of life. Similarly,
physics had long attained fame and multiple practical applications
when, through Lavoisier, chemistry discovered the first firm basis
upon which it could stand, in the next few decades, in order to
revolutionise, if not the earth, at least the cultivation of the
earth, and with it so many other spheres of practical activity.
And once again, chemistry had already achieved many splendid results
while physiology was yet to be born. And it is not necessary to
go back too many years to find the beginnings of a more satisfactory
development in physiology, and attempts at practical application
followed immediately. They were incomplete perhaps, but nonetheless
served to demonstrate that only from physiology is a re-birth
of medicine to be expected. It is easy to explain why physiology
developed so late. The phenomena it studies are much more complex
than those studied by the earlier sciences and are dependent upon
them, just as the phenomena of chemistry are dependent upon those
of physios and the phenomena of physics are dependent upon those
of mathematics. But it is just as easy to understand, then, why
psychology has not borne more abundant fruit up until now. Just
as physical phenomena are under the influence of mathematical
laws, and chemical phenomena are under the influence of physical
laws, and those of physiology under the influence of all these
laws, so psychological phenomena are influenced by the laws governing
the forces which shape and renew the bodily organs involved. Consequently,
if someone knew from direct experience absolutely nothing about
the state of psychology up to the present time, and were acquainted
only with the history of the other theoretical sciences and with
the recent birth of physiology and indeed even chemistry, he could
affirm, without in any way being a sceptic about psychological
matters, that psychology has achieved nothing as yet, or that
it has achieved very little, and that at best it is only recently
that it has shown a tendency toward a more substantial development.
This implies that the most important fruits which psychology may
bear for practical life, lie in the future. So, should this person
turn his attention to the history of psychology, he would merely
find in its barrenness confirmation of his expectations; and he
would find himself in no way committed to an unfavourable judgement
as to its future accomplishments.
We see that the backward condition in which psychology has remained
appears to be a necessity, even if we do not doubt the possibility
of a rich development in the future. That there is such a possibility
is shown by the promising, though weak, beginning it has already
in fact made. Once a certain level of its possible development
has been reached, the practical consequences will not fail to
materialise. For the individual and even more for the masses,
where the imponderable circumstances which impede and promote
progress balance each other out, psychological laws will afford
a sure basis for action.
We may, therefore, confidently hope that psychology will not always
lack both inner development and useful applications. Indeed the
needs which it must satisfy have already become pressing. Social
disorders cry out more urgently for redress than do the imperfections
in navigation and railway commerce, agriculture and hygiene. Questions
to which we might give less attention, if it were up to us to
choose, force themselves upon everyone's attention. Many people
have already seen this to be the most important task of our time.
We could mention several great scientists who are devoting themselves,
with this end in view, to the investigation of psychological laws
and to methodological inquiries concerning the derivation and
confirmation of conclusions to be applied in practice.
It cannot possibly be the task of political economy to put an
end to the present confusion and to re-establish the peace in
society which has been increasingly lost amid the clash of conflicting
interests. Political economy has a role to play, but neither the
whole task nor the major part depends upon it. And indeed even
the growing interest which is being accorded to it can serve to
corroborate these statements. In the introduction to his Principles
of Political Economy, John Stuart Mill has touched upon the
relation between this science and psychology. The differences
in the production and distribution of goods by different peoples
and at different times, in his opinion, would depend to a certain
extent on differences in the states of their knowledge of physical
matters, but would also have psychological causes. "Insofar
as the economic condition of nations turns upon the state of physical
knowledge," he continues, "it is a subject for the physical
sciences, and the arts founded on them. But insofar as the causes
are moral or psychological, dependent on institutions and social
relations or on the principles of human nature, their investigation
belongs not to physical, but to moral and social science, and
is the object of what is called Political Economy."
It seems beyond doubt, therefore, that in the future - and to
a certain extent perhaps the not too distant future - psychology
will exert a considerable influence upon the practical aspects
of life. In this sense we could characterise psychology, as others
have already done, as the science of the future, i.e. as the science
to which, more than any other, the future belongs; the science
which, more than any other, will mould the future; and the science
to which, in the future, other sciences will be of service and
to which they will be subordinate in their practical application.
For this will be the position of psychology once it reaches maturity
and is capable of effective action. Aristotle called politics
the master art to which all others serve as subsidiaries. As we
have seen, however, in order to be what it should be, it is necessary
that politics pay heed to psychology, just as the lesser arts
must heed the teachings of natural science. Its theory, I would
like to suggest, will merely be a different arrangement and further
development of psychological principles directed toward the attainment
of a practical goal.
We have advanced four reasons which appear to be sufficient to
show the outstanding importance of the science of psychology:
the inner truth of the phenomena it studies, the sublimity of
these phenomena, the special relationship they have to us, and
finally, the practical importance of the laws which govern it.
To these we must add the special and incomparable interest which
psychology possesses insofar as it instructs us about immortality
and thus becomes, in another sense, the science of the future.
The question concerning the hope of a hereafter and our participation
in a more perfect state of the world falls to psychology. As we
have noted, psychology has already made attempts to solve this
problem, and it does not seem that all its efforts in that direction
have been without success. If this really is the case, we have
here, without doubt, its highest theoretical achievement, which
would be of the greatest practical importance as well, besides
lending new value to psychology's other theoretical achievements.
When we depart from this life we separate ourselves from all that
is subject to the laws of natural science. The laws of gravitation,
of sound, of light and electricity disappear along with the phenomena
for which experience has established them. Mental laws, on the
other hand, hold true for our life to come as they do in our present
life, insofar as this life is immortal.
So Aristotle had good reason for placing psychology above all
the other sciences, as he did at the beginning of his treatise
On the Soul, even though in so doing he took into consideration
its theoretical advantages exclusively. He says,
Holding as we do that, while knowledge of any kind is a thing
to be honoured and prized, one kind of it may, either by reason
of its greater exactness or of a higher dignity and greater wonderfulness
in its objects, be more honourable and precious than another,
on both counts we should naturally be led to place in the front
rank the study of the soul.
What undoubtedly causes surprise is the fact that Aristotle here
asserts that even with respect to its exactitude psychology is
superior to the other sciences. For him the exactitude of knowledge
is bound up with the imperishability of the object. According
to him, that which changes continuously and in every respect evades
scientific investigation, whereas that which is most permanent
possesses the most abiding truth. Be that as it may, we, too,
cannot deny that the laws of psychology at least possess a permanent
important truth.
Further Reading:
Biography |
Wundt |
Dilthey |
Husserl |
Nietzsche
Marxist Psychology Archive |
Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org
|
./articles/Helmholtz-Hermann/https:..www.marxists.org.reference.subject.philosophy.works.ge.schlick | <body>
<p class="title">Moritz Schlick (1925)</p>
<h2>Epistemology & Modern Physics</h2>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information">
<span class="info">Source</span>: <em>The Emergence of Logical Empiricism</em> (1996) publ. Garland Publishing Inc. The whole of Schlick selection for series is reproduced here.</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="fst">
There is no longer any doubt nowadays, that theoretical philosophy
has standing only in close connection with the sciences, whether
it seeks in them a basis on which it attempts to build further,
or whether they form for it merely the subject-matter of its own
analyses, whereby it then makes individual inquiry into the first
principles of knowledge. This is very much the case if, as I
believe, philosophy can be nothing else whatever but the activity
whereby we clarify all our concepts. And it is also beyond doubt
that, of all the sciences, <em>physics </em>here stands at the forefront.
Physics, that is, occupies an exceptional position, because in
it two elements are united, which are only found separately in
the other sciences: in the first place its exactness, the quantitative
determinacy of its laws, whereby it differs from all other factual
sciences, more particularly the historical sciences; and secondly
the fact that it has as its subject-matter the <em>real, </em>and
in this respect differs from mathematics.</p>
<p>
Even a person who did not follow Kant, in permitting only absolutely
certain, exact knowledge to count as knowledge at all, would yet
be convinced that at any rate it represents the high point of
knowledge, so that a philosophy which could do complete justice
to exact knowledge would thereby at the same time have solved
the <em>entire </em>problem of knowledge. But this it can do, however,
only if it deals not merely with strict knowledge, but at the
same time with knowledge of the <em>real, </em>since merely imagined
or contrived objects are of little interest to the philosopher;
it is the world of reality which yields him the major problems.</p>
<p>
Hence the physical sciences are assured of having a unique significance
for philosophy, though this has not always been apparent in equal
measure to philosophers of different periods. After the making,
in our own day, of some attempts that were already methodically
defective, to couple the historical with the exact sciences from
a philosophical standpoint, the modern development of physics,
which has taken on a highly philosophical character, has brought
out the peculiar position of this science a great deal more clearly
than ever before. So clearly, indeed, that, given the present
state of research, some altogether crucial questions about the
mutual relationship of physics and epistemology can perhaps be
brought to a decision.</p>
<p>
The most important of these questions seems to me this: when,
through alliance with exact empirical science, philosophy emancipates
itself from the speculative procedure, does it acquire a better
criterion of its own truth? Given a proposition of physics, we
know how its truth can in principle be established: it has to
be confirmed by experience. But the question of how we actually
recognise the truth of a philosophical system is so far from having
found a generally satisfying answer, that it has often been put
forward only for the purpose of deriding philosophy.</p>
<p>
Today, however, after the insight gained into the thorough interpenetration of philosophy and the sciences, we can and must say of <em>epistemology</em>, at least, that the correct theory is that which prevails in course of the advance of physical research.</p>
<p>
But this formulation of the criterion of truth is initially so
indeterminate and general, that we still need very accurate elucidations
in order to understand its meaning aright. And here it is contemporary
physics alone which provides us with the instances of cognition
that are needed to specify and explain matters in full.</p>
<p>
Before examining individual cases, we shall ask in what sense
we can really expect beforehand to find epistemological statements
confirmed in physics. Can philosophy predict any experimental
finding of the empirical sciences? We certainly have no right
to assume this, for if so, philosophy would be dabbling in the
trade of physics, and nobody believes any more nowadays that physical
results can be obtained by purely philosophical methods. The
task of epistemology is not to predict what will be observed in
nature. It merely tells us beforehand how science will react,
if this or that is observed. What it prophesies, therefore, is
not the results of experiments, but the impact of experimental
results on the system of physics.</p>
<p>
By far the most important limiting case of such statements occurs
when it lays down specific principles with the claim that science
will <em>always </em>adhere to them, <em>whatever </em>sort of observations
may be made. In short, epistemology makes statements about the
dependence of physics on, and in limiting cases its independence
of <em>possible observations</em>. The statements are correct
when, on the occurrence of these observations, physical science
actually takes the form predicted.</p>
<p>
Here now is the weightiest example from modern physics. The epistemology
pursued by the great mathematicians of the 19th century (Gauss,
Riemann, Helmholtz) had maintained that a specific course of processes
in nature (a specific mode of behaviour on the part of light-rays
and measuring rods) was conceivable, on observation of which physics
would turn over to employing non-Euclidean geometries. This prediction,
as we know, has been most brilliantly confirmed by the general
theory of relativity, and the premises on whose basis this prophecy
was made, have thereby demonstrated their truth-value. But what
role did these premises play in the epistemology of the said mathematicians?
Do they form the inmost heart of their philosophy, determining
the character of the whole edifice of thought, or are they of
a less essential kind, so that they might perhaps equally find
a place in an altogether different theory of knowledge? This
question has to be answered in order to know in what degree and
what aspect modern physics is actually to be seen as confirmation
of that particular epistemology, which was notoriously that of
<em>empiricism.</em></p>
<p>
An important step towards deciding the matter is taken if we establish
whether, or in what degree, the opposite theory to empiricism,
that of Kantian apriorism, would be equally capable of validating
the principles of modern physics. This apriorism teaches, of course,
that natural science will always adhere to certain general principles,
<em>whatever </em>any given experimenter may happen to observe.
These principles are said to be synthetic, that is, not to express
mere tautologies, and they are also said to be <em>a priori. </em>The
latter has a double significance in the Kantian system. First,
that is, that they represent logical presuppositions of science,
so that without them we could erect no structure of connected
truths about nature at all; but secondly, too, that these principles
are <em>self-evident </em>for us, so that we simply cannot imagine
their invalidity, and hence that our ideational consciousness
is inexorably linked to them. Of these two aspects the so-called
logical interpretation of Kant (the Marburg school) emphasises
the first, while the psychological view stresses the second.
The conflict between the two attitudes is strange, since both
interpretations are quite indubitably combined together in Kant:
synthetic <em>a priori </em>propositions are for him <em>both </em>the
logically necessary presuppositions of science, and <em>also </em>imbued
with the psychological compulsion of self-evidence.</p>
<p>
Now which, according to the doctrine of apriorism, are the basic
synthetic judgements of all science? For Kant, they include the
axioms of Euclidean geometry, of which, as we have just seen,
modern physics demonstrates that they are not <em>a priori </em>in
the first sense, after it had already been made clear before this
that they are not so in the second (psychological) sense. For
in that sense apriorism with regard to Euclidean geometry has
already been refuted by psychological considerations, which many
philosophers still seem to overlook.</p>
<p>
In this one connection, concerning some (and hence not yet all)
geometrical axioms, modern physics therefore opts decisively in
favour of empiricism. But apriorism can take a variety of forms;
its principle is elastic, and does not have to be defended precisely
in Kant's version. It would be quite generally refuted only if
it turned out that science contains no synthetic <em>a </em>priori
propositions whatsoever. Anyone who maintains their existence
must of course be able to produce them. An apriorism that cannot
really enumerate a single synthetic <em>a priori </em>principle,
has thereby pronounced its own death-sentence. For this reason
I raised the question some years ago' , as to which judgements
about nature a modern apriorisrn would now be able to propose,
in the light of contemporary physics, as absolutely inescapable
presuppositions of all science, independent of any possible observations.</p>
<p>
And to this question modern scientific research appears to give
an answer of the same kind as that given in the case of Euclidean
geometry; for it shows that physical science <em>refuses </em>to
regard any one of the principles which might come into question
here as the sole possible basis. In order to convince ourselves
of this, let us go through the particular proposals which have
been made for keeping apriorism on its feet!</p>
<p>
In the first place, now that a portion of the Euclidean axioms
has had to be dropped, the attempt has been made to extract a
complex from the remaining axioms of geometry, and to proclaim
it as the unshakeable foundation of all scientific accounts of
space. Reverting to an older belief, it has been sought to ascribe
this rank to the axioms of <em>analysis situs, </em>to those principles,
that is, which describe the purely qualitative inter-relationships
of space, without reference to 'metrical' relations of magnitude
- in short, to the axioms of 'topological' space'. But there
are indications in modern physics that it has no wish to allow
itself to be fettered for ever by such axioms. Hermann Weyl has
already outlined a peculiar theory of matter according to which
electrons, the ultimate constituents of matter, are as it were
outside space. The latter would have such peculiar topological
properties that it would be impossible, for example, to imagine
a spherical volume of space containing electrons to contract by
steady shrinkage into a point. Still bolder constructions are
scientifically possible, and there is simply no predicting the
assumptions to which we may be driven by the astonishing physical
facts disclosed by modern research. Hence the appearance of contemporary
physics gives us clear warning against the attempt to view the
topological axioms, say, as a <em>noli me tangere </em>[touch me
not].</p>
<p>
In the second place, the language of the new physics pronounces
more clearly still against the endeavour to cling, say, to the
<em>continuity </em>of nature as a necessary and invariably satisfied
condition, which now finds expression in certain synthetic <em>a
priori</em> propositions. For since Riemann, some decades
ago, examined the physical possibility of a discontinuous space
composed of discrete points, Planck's quantum theory, in our own
day, has so domesticated the idea of jumpiness and discontinuity
in our view of nature, that our physics is nowhere prepared to
contest in principle the <em>possibility </em>of discontinuities.
Here too, therefore, apriorism finds no resting-place.</p>
<p>
Third and lastly, let us examine the attitude of present-day physics
to that principle which appears in Kant as the most important
of synthetic <em>a priori</em> propositions, and is also
not infrequently declared to be such even today: I mean, of course,
the <em>causal principle. </em>If, appropriately enough, we mean
by causality the existence of regularity in nature, it certainly
represents a necessary presupposition of science; without causality,
a knowledge of nature would be impossible, for such knowledge
consists, in fact, of discovering laws. From this simple fact
many have already sought to conclude that the causal law is to
be regarded as an <em>a priori </em>principle in the fullest sense.
But this is undoubtedly quite mistaken, or at least a misuse
of terminology. For this does nothing to establish an epistemological
apriorism. The latter only comes about if we add the claim that
we should continue to uphold the validity of the causal principle
for all natural processes, whatever science may disclose to us
in. the way of facts in nature. In other words, we should have
to possess an unshakeable conviction of the factual validity of
the causal principle. We see here how the logical <em>a priori
</em>is inseparable from the psychological, if it is to characterise
a particular epistemological position, namely the Kantian notion
that our understanding prescribes laws to nature. So when Ernst
Cassirer expresses the opinion that the idea of universal regularity
in nature, as such, continues to hold good as a synthetic <em>a
priori </em>principle, or when J. Winternitz , among others,
describes the causal law as a constitutive principle of science
in Kant's sense, the view of these exponents of a modified apriorism
can only be understood to mean that they regard the possibility
of science as absolutely assured, and consider a nature that would
furnish no laws to man an absurdity.</p>
<p>
As against this, it can be read off from the present state of
physics, that science does not recognise <em>a priori </em>constraints
of this kind, and opposes to the view in question the healthy
scepticism of the empiricist. The pursuit of processes within
the atom by the methods of quantum theory has led many physicists
to conclude that, within certain limits, processes that are strictly
causeless occur there; to these, therefore, the causal law could
find no applications.</p>
<p>
Even if - like the author - one fails to perceive in the facts
available any sufficient basis for this conclusion, it could still
become perfectly legitimate if further facts were to hand, and
so this case has the following lesson to teach: Although physics
is well aware that the causal principle, the reciprocal dependence
of natural processes on each other, is a presupposition for its
own existence, it still by no means assumes this presupposition
to be satisfied <em>a priori </em>everywhere, — or even in a particular
area; it ascertains for itself, rather, <em>using its own </em>methods
(and with the exactitude of these methods), whether and to what
extent this is the case. It establishes for itself, that is,
the boundaries of its own kingdom. That the methods of science
are able to make such an examination, can be confirmed by a subsequent
analysis of its procedure. All this in contradiction to apriorism,
according to which the causal principle is supposed not to be
an empirically testable proposition.</p>
<p>
The empiricist, of course, is well aware that it would always
be <em>possible</em> in principle to sustain the causal law by suitable
hypotheses -just as he knows that Euclidean geometry could be
held valid without exception, if we really wanted this; but he
denies that the human mind is unconditionally obliged to do this,
and denies also that the application of scientific methods could
always lead only to a confirmation of the causal principle. On
the contrary, it is quite easy to imagine observations which would
make it possible to sustain the causal law only by an infraction
of these methods: namely, by a continual introduction of new hypotheses
constructed <em>ad hoc. </em>And the modern physicist confirms
the empiricist's prediction the moment he thinks himself actually
confronted with observations of that kind.</p>
<p>
Thus a survey of the state of modern physics indicates that it
presents us in surprising sequence with a series of cases, in
which the empiricist and apriorist views of natural knowledge
may contend with one another; that without exception it pursues
the course recommended by empiricism; and that not one of its
principles is accorded those properties which a synthetic <em>a
</em>priori judgement of the Kantian type would have to possess.</p>
<p>
We may say, therefore, that modern physics shows us, that even
for epistemology there is a sort of confirmation by experience,
an objective criterion of truth, and that this criterion decides
in favour of the empiricist theory of knowledge.</p>
<p>
A remark needs to be added, to guard against erroneous conclusions
from what we have said.</p>
<p>
The relation outlined between modern physics and philosophy could
occasion regret that epistemology should cast the anchor of its
criterion of truth into empirical science, and thereby partake
of its uncertainty and mutability. But if the hope of grounding
philosophy on a firmer soil than that of experience and logic
must be abandoned (and it has never been more than a hope anyway),
this would have to be set off in the bargain against the advantage
of having obtained any objective criterion at all. It is very
notable that an actual exponent of apriorism, Elsbach (in his
book <em>Kant und Einstein</em> ), expresses the view that
epistemology can be expected only to vindicate the mutable state
of science at any time, but not science as such. This position
is no longer that of Kantianism (Einstein, in his critique of
Elsbach's book, says of him that he is in agreement neither with
Mohammed nor with the prophet); it is more empiricist than empiricism.
For the empiricist is unable to join in the lament of many onlookers,
that physics is constantly changing, that its theories are short-lived
and that hitherto supposedly correct laws are liable to be overthrown
at any moment by new discoveries. He knows, rather, that no law
till now, <em>in the sense and with the exactitude </em>whereby
it has once been confirmed, has ever again had to be abandoned.
The changeable elements in physics are not the relations of dependency,
which once established, continue to find repeated confirmation,
but rather the intuitive ideas which serve for interpretation
and interpolation. The split between the purely conceptual and
empirically confirmed content of a science, and the intuitive
images which illustrate the content without themselves belonging
thereto - this split is one of the most important achievements
of modern epistemology. A philosophy that knows how to achieve
it tidily everywhere may justifiably regard a confirmation by
modern physics in the sense outlined above as a confirmation by
science as such.</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">Further Reading:<br>
<a href="../../../../../glossary/people/s/c.htm#schlick-moritz" target="_top">Biography</a> |
<a href="../ge/husserl.htm">Husserl</a> |
<a href="../ge/carnap.htm">Carnap</a> |
<a href="../at/godel.htm">Gödel</a> |
<a href="../ge/mach.htm">Mach</a> |
<a href="../ge/hilbert.htm">Hilbert</a> |
<a href="../ne/brouwer.htm">Brouwer</a>
</p>
<p class="footer">
<a href="../../index.htm" target="_top">Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org</a></p>
</body> |
Moritz Schlick (1925)
Epistemology & Modern Physics
Source: The Emergence of Logical Empiricism (1996) publ. Garland Publishing Inc. The whole of Schlick selection for series is reproduced here.
There is no longer any doubt nowadays, that theoretical philosophy
has standing only in close connection with the sciences, whether
it seeks in them a basis on which it attempts to build further,
or whether they form for it merely the subject-matter of its own
analyses, whereby it then makes individual inquiry into the first
principles of knowledge. This is very much the case if, as I
believe, philosophy can be nothing else whatever but the activity
whereby we clarify all our concepts. And it is also beyond doubt
that, of all the sciences, physics here stands at the forefront.
Physics, that is, occupies an exceptional position, because in
it two elements are united, which are only found separately in
the other sciences: in the first place its exactness, the quantitative
determinacy of its laws, whereby it differs from all other factual
sciences, more particularly the historical sciences; and secondly
the fact that it has as its subject-matter the real, and
in this respect differs from mathematics.
Even a person who did not follow Kant, in permitting only absolutely
certain, exact knowledge to count as knowledge at all, would yet
be convinced that at any rate it represents the high point of
knowledge, so that a philosophy which could do complete justice
to exact knowledge would thereby at the same time have solved
the entire problem of knowledge. But this it can do, however,
only if it deals not merely with strict knowledge, but at the
same time with knowledge of the real, since merely imagined
or contrived objects are of little interest to the philosopher;
it is the world of reality which yields him the major problems.
Hence the physical sciences are assured of having a unique significance
for philosophy, though this has not always been apparent in equal
measure to philosophers of different periods. After the making,
in our own day, of some attempts that were already methodically
defective, to couple the historical with the exact sciences from
a philosophical standpoint, the modern development of physics,
which has taken on a highly philosophical character, has brought
out the peculiar position of this science a great deal more clearly
than ever before. So clearly, indeed, that, given the present
state of research, some altogether crucial questions about the
mutual relationship of physics and epistemology can perhaps be
brought to a decision.
The most important of these questions seems to me this: when,
through alliance with exact empirical science, philosophy emancipates
itself from the speculative procedure, does it acquire a better
criterion of its own truth? Given a proposition of physics, we
know how its truth can in principle be established: it has to
be confirmed by experience. But the question of how we actually
recognise the truth of a philosophical system is so far from having
found a generally satisfying answer, that it has often been put
forward only for the purpose of deriding philosophy.
Today, however, after the insight gained into the thorough interpenetration of philosophy and the sciences, we can and must say of epistemology, at least, that the correct theory is that which prevails in course of the advance of physical research.
But this formulation of the criterion of truth is initially so
indeterminate and general, that we still need very accurate elucidations
in order to understand its meaning aright. And here it is contemporary
physics alone which provides us with the instances of cognition
that are needed to specify and explain matters in full.
Before examining individual cases, we shall ask in what sense
we can really expect beforehand to find epistemological statements
confirmed in physics. Can philosophy predict any experimental
finding of the empirical sciences? We certainly have no right
to assume this, for if so, philosophy would be dabbling in the
trade of physics, and nobody believes any more nowadays that physical
results can be obtained by purely philosophical methods. The
task of epistemology is not to predict what will be observed in
nature. It merely tells us beforehand how science will react,
if this or that is observed. What it prophesies, therefore, is
not the results of experiments, but the impact of experimental
results on the system of physics.
By far the most important limiting case of such statements occurs
when it lays down specific principles with the claim that science
will always adhere to them, whatever sort of observations
may be made. In short, epistemology makes statements about the
dependence of physics on, and in limiting cases its independence
of possible observations. The statements are correct
when, on the occurrence of these observations, physical science
actually takes the form predicted.
Here now is the weightiest example from modern physics. The epistemology
pursued by the great mathematicians of the 19th century (Gauss,
Riemann, Helmholtz) had maintained that a specific course of processes
in nature (a specific mode of behaviour on the part of light-rays
and measuring rods) was conceivable, on observation of which physics
would turn over to employing non-Euclidean geometries. This prediction,
as we know, has been most brilliantly confirmed by the general
theory of relativity, and the premises on whose basis this prophecy
was made, have thereby demonstrated their truth-value. But what
role did these premises play in the epistemology of the said mathematicians?
Do they form the inmost heart of their philosophy, determining
the character of the whole edifice of thought, or are they of
a less essential kind, so that they might perhaps equally find
a place in an altogether different theory of knowledge? This
question has to be answered in order to know in what degree and
what aspect modern physics is actually to be seen as confirmation
of that particular epistemology, which was notoriously that of
empiricism.
An important step towards deciding the matter is taken if we establish
whether, or in what degree, the opposite theory to empiricism,
that of Kantian apriorism, would be equally capable of validating
the principles of modern physics. This apriorism teaches, of course,
that natural science will always adhere to certain general principles,
whatever any given experimenter may happen to observe.
These principles are said to be synthetic, that is, not to express
mere tautologies, and they are also said to be a priori. The
latter has a double significance in the Kantian system. First,
that is, that they represent logical presuppositions of science,
so that without them we could erect no structure of connected
truths about nature at all; but secondly, too, that these principles
are self-evident for us, so that we simply cannot imagine
their invalidity, and hence that our ideational consciousness
is inexorably linked to them. Of these two aspects the so-called
logical interpretation of Kant (the Marburg school) emphasises
the first, while the psychological view stresses the second.
The conflict between the two attitudes is strange, since both
interpretations are quite indubitably combined together in Kant:
synthetic a priori propositions are for him both the
logically necessary presuppositions of science, and also imbued
with the psychological compulsion of self-evidence.
Now which, according to the doctrine of apriorism, are the basic
synthetic judgements of all science? For Kant, they include the
axioms of Euclidean geometry, of which, as we have just seen,
modern physics demonstrates that they are not a priori in
the first sense, after it had already been made clear before this
that they are not so in the second (psychological) sense. For
in that sense apriorism with regard to Euclidean geometry has
already been refuted by psychological considerations, which many
philosophers still seem to overlook.
In this one connection, concerning some (and hence not yet all)
geometrical axioms, modern physics therefore opts decisively in
favour of empiricism. But apriorism can take a variety of forms;
its principle is elastic, and does not have to be defended precisely
in Kant's version. It would be quite generally refuted only if
it turned out that science contains no synthetic a priori
propositions whatsoever. Anyone who maintains their existence
must of course be able to produce them. An apriorism that cannot
really enumerate a single synthetic a priori principle,
has thereby pronounced its own death-sentence. For this reason
I raised the question some years ago' , as to which judgements
about nature a modern apriorisrn would now be able to propose,
in the light of contemporary physics, as absolutely inescapable
presuppositions of all science, independent of any possible observations.
And to this question modern scientific research appears to give
an answer of the same kind as that given in the case of Euclidean
geometry; for it shows that physical science refuses to
regard any one of the principles which might come into question
here as the sole possible basis. In order to convince ourselves
of this, let us go through the particular proposals which have
been made for keeping apriorism on its feet!
In the first place, now that a portion of the Euclidean axioms
has had to be dropped, the attempt has been made to extract a
complex from the remaining axioms of geometry, and to proclaim
it as the unshakeable foundation of all scientific accounts of
space. Reverting to an older belief, it has been sought to ascribe
this rank to the axioms of analysis situs, to those principles,
that is, which describe the purely qualitative inter-relationships
of space, without reference to 'metrical' relations of magnitude
- in short, to the axioms of 'topological' space'. But there
are indications in modern physics that it has no wish to allow
itself to be fettered for ever by such axioms. Hermann Weyl has
already outlined a peculiar theory of matter according to which
electrons, the ultimate constituents of matter, are as it were
outside space. The latter would have such peculiar topological
properties that it would be impossible, for example, to imagine
a spherical volume of space containing electrons to contract by
steady shrinkage into a point. Still bolder constructions are
scientifically possible, and there is simply no predicting the
assumptions to which we may be driven by the astonishing physical
facts disclosed by modern research. Hence the appearance of contemporary
physics gives us clear warning against the attempt to view the
topological axioms, say, as a noli me tangere [touch me
not].
In the second place, the language of the new physics pronounces
more clearly still against the endeavour to cling, say, to the
continuity of nature as a necessary and invariably satisfied
condition, which now finds expression in certain synthetic a
priori propositions. For since Riemann, some decades
ago, examined the physical possibility of a discontinuous space
composed of discrete points, Planck's quantum theory, in our own
day, has so domesticated the idea of jumpiness and discontinuity
in our view of nature, that our physics is nowhere prepared to
contest in principle the possibility of discontinuities.
Here too, therefore, apriorism finds no resting-place.
Third and lastly, let us examine the attitude of present-day physics
to that principle which appears in Kant as the most important
of synthetic a priori propositions, and is also
not infrequently declared to be such even today: I mean, of course,
the causal principle. If, appropriately enough, we mean
by causality the existence of regularity in nature, it certainly
represents a necessary presupposition of science; without causality,
a knowledge of nature would be impossible, for such knowledge
consists, in fact, of discovering laws. From this simple fact
many have already sought to conclude that the causal law is to
be regarded as an a priori principle in the fullest sense.
But this is undoubtedly quite mistaken, or at least a misuse
of terminology. For this does nothing to establish an epistemological
apriorism. The latter only comes about if we add the claim that
we should continue to uphold the validity of the causal principle
for all natural processes, whatever science may disclose to us
in. the way of facts in nature. In other words, we should have
to possess an unshakeable conviction of the factual validity of
the causal principle. We see here how the logical a priori
is inseparable from the psychological, if it is to characterise
a particular epistemological position, namely the Kantian notion
that our understanding prescribes laws to nature. So when Ernst
Cassirer expresses the opinion that the idea of universal regularity
in nature, as such, continues to hold good as a synthetic a
priori principle, or when J. Winternitz , among others,
describes the causal law as a constitutive principle of science
in Kant's sense, the view of these exponents of a modified apriorism
can only be understood to mean that they regard the possibility
of science as absolutely assured, and consider a nature that would
furnish no laws to man an absurdity.
As against this, it can be read off from the present state of
physics, that science does not recognise a priori constraints
of this kind, and opposes to the view in question the healthy
scepticism of the empiricist. The pursuit of processes within
the atom by the methods of quantum theory has led many physicists
to conclude that, within certain limits, processes that are strictly
causeless occur there; to these, therefore, the causal law could
find no applications.
Even if - like the author - one fails to perceive in the facts
available any sufficient basis for this conclusion, it could still
become perfectly legitimate if further facts were to hand, and
so this case has the following lesson to teach: Although physics
is well aware that the causal principle, the reciprocal dependence
of natural processes on each other, is a presupposition for its
own existence, it still by no means assumes this presupposition
to be satisfied a priori everywhere, — or even in a particular
area; it ascertains for itself, rather, using its own methods
(and with the exactitude of these methods), whether and to what
extent this is the case. It establishes for itself, that is,
the boundaries of its own kingdom. That the methods of science
are able to make such an examination, can be confirmed by a subsequent
analysis of its procedure. All this in contradiction to apriorism,
according to which the causal principle is supposed not to be
an empirically testable proposition.
The empiricist, of course, is well aware that it would always
be possible in principle to sustain the causal law by suitable
hypotheses -just as he knows that Euclidean geometry could be
held valid without exception, if we really wanted this; but he
denies that the human mind is unconditionally obliged to do this,
and denies also that the application of scientific methods could
always lead only to a confirmation of the causal principle. On
the contrary, it is quite easy to imagine observations which would
make it possible to sustain the causal law only by an infraction
of these methods: namely, by a continual introduction of new hypotheses
constructed ad hoc. And the modern physicist confirms
the empiricist's prediction the moment he thinks himself actually
confronted with observations of that kind.
Thus a survey of the state of modern physics indicates that it
presents us in surprising sequence with a series of cases, in
which the empiricist and apriorist views of natural knowledge
may contend with one another; that without exception it pursues
the course recommended by empiricism; and that not one of its
principles is accorded those properties which a synthetic a
priori judgement of the Kantian type would have to possess.
We may say, therefore, that modern physics shows us, that even
for epistemology there is a sort of confirmation by experience,
an objective criterion of truth, and that this criterion decides
in favour of the empiricist theory of knowledge.
A remark needs to be added, to guard against erroneous conclusions
from what we have said.
The relation outlined between modern physics and philosophy could
occasion regret that epistemology should cast the anchor of its
criterion of truth into empirical science, and thereby partake
of its uncertainty and mutability. But if the hope of grounding
philosophy on a firmer soil than that of experience and logic
must be abandoned (and it has never been more than a hope anyway),
this would have to be set off in the bargain against the advantage
of having obtained any objective criterion at all. It is very
notable that an actual exponent of apriorism, Elsbach (in his
book Kant und Einstein ), expresses the view that
epistemology can be expected only to vindicate the mutable state
of science at any time, but not science as such. This position
is no longer that of Kantianism (Einstein, in his critique of
Elsbach's book, says of him that he is in agreement neither with
Mohammed nor with the prophet); it is more empiricist than empiricism.
For the empiricist is unable to join in the lament of many onlookers,
that physics is constantly changing, that its theories are short-lived
and that hitherto supposedly correct laws are liable to be overthrown
at any moment by new discoveries. He knows, rather, that no law
till now, in the sense and with the exactitude whereby
it has once been confirmed, has ever again had to be abandoned.
The changeable elements in physics are not the relations of dependency,
which once established, continue to find repeated confirmation,
but rather the intuitive ideas which serve for interpretation
and interpolation. The split between the purely conceptual and
empirically confirmed content of a science, and the intuitive
images which illustrate the content without themselves belonging
thereto - this split is one of the most important achievements
of modern epistemology. A philosophy that knows how to achieve
it tidily everywhere may justifiably regard a confirmation by
modern physics in the sense outlined above as a confirmation by
science as such.
Further Reading:
Biography |
Husserl |
Carnap |
Gödel |
Mach |
Hilbert |
Brouwer
Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org
|
./articles/Helmholtz-Hermann/https:..www.marxists.org.reference.subject.philosophy.works.ge.schellin | <body>
<p><img src="../../../../../glossary/people/s/pics/schellin.jpg" align="LEFT" border="2" alt="drawing of the young schelling" hspace="12"></p>
<p class="title">Friedrich Schelling (1800)</p>
<h1>System of Transcendental Philosophy</h1>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information">
<span class="info">Source</span>: <em>System of Transcendental Idealism</em> (1800). Published by Charlottesville, University Press of Virginia, 1978, translated by Peter Heath.
Introduction and Part I reproduced here.</p>
<hr class="end">
<a name="01"></a>
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<h3>§ 1. Concept of Transcendental Philosophy</h3>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">1.</span> All knowledge is founded upon the coincidence of an objective with a subjective. - For we <em>know</em> only what is true; but truth is generally taken to consist in the coincidence of presentations with their objects.</p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">2.</span> The intrinsic notion of everything merely <em>objective</em> in our knowledge, we may speak of as <em>nature</em>. The notion of everything <em>subjective</em> is called, on the contrary, the <em>self</em>, or the <em>intelligence.</em> The two concepts are mutually opposed. The intelligence is initially conceived of as the purely presentative, nature purely as what can be presented; the one as the conscious, the other as the non-conscious. But now in every <em>knowing</em> a reciprocal concurrence of the two (the conscious and the intrinsically non-conscious) is necessary; the problem is to explain this concurrence.</p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">3.</span> In knowing as such – <em>in the fact</em> of my knowing – objective and subjective are so united that one cannot say which of the two has priority. Here there is no first and second; both are simultaneous and one. – Insofar as I <em>wish to explain</em> this identity, I must already have <em>done away with</em> it. To explain it, inasmuch as nothing else is given me (as explanatory principle) beyond these two factors of knowledge, I must necessarily <em>give priority</em> to one over the other, <em>set out</em> from the one, in order thence to arrive at the other; from <em>which</em> of the two I start, the problem does not specify.</p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">4.</span> Hence there are only two possibilities.</p>
<p class="indentb">
<span class="term">A.</span> <em>Either the objective is made primary, and the question is: how a subjective is annexed thereto, which coincides with it?</em></p>
<p class="indent">
The concept of the subjective is not <em>contained</em> in that of the objective; on the contrary, they exclude one another. The subjective must therefore <em>be annexed </em>to the objective. – The concept <em>of nature</em> does not entail that there should also be an intelligence that is aware of it. Nature, it seems, would exist, even if there were nothing that was aware of it. Hence the problem can also be formulated <em>thus</em>: how does intelligence come to be added to nature, or how does nature come to be presented?</p>
<p class="indent">
The problem assumes nature or the <em>objective</em> to be <em>primary</em>. Hence the problem is undoubtedly that of <em>natural science,</em> which does just this. – That natural science in fact – and without knowing it – at least <em>comes close</em> to the solution of this problem can be shown – briefly here.</p>
<p class="indent">
If all <em>knowing</em> has, as it were, two poles, which mutually presuppose and demand one another, they must seek each other in all the sciences; hence there must necessarily be <em>two</em> basic sciences, and it must be impossible to set out from the one pole without being driven toward the other. The necessary tendency of all <em>natural science</em> is thus to move from nature to intelligence. This and nothing else is at the bottom of the urge to bring <em>theory</em> into the phenomena of nature. – The highest consummation of natural science would be the complete spiritualising of all natural laws into laws of intuition and thought. The phenomena (the matter) must wholly disappear, and only the laws (the form) remain. Hence it is, that the more lawfulness emerges in nature itself, the more the husk disappears, the phenomena themselves become more mental, and at length vanish entirely. The phenomena of optics are nothing but a geometry whose lines are drawn by light, and this light itself is already of doubtful materiality. In the phenomena of magnetism all material traces are already disappearing, and in those of gravitation, which even scientists have thought it possible to conceive of merely as an immediate spiritual influence, nothing remains but its law, whose largescale execution is the mechanism of the heavenly motions. – The completed theory of nature would be that whereby the whole of nature was resolved into an intelligence. – The dead and unconscious products of nature are merely abortive attempts that she makes to reflect herself; inanimate nature so-called is actually as such an immature intelligence, so that in her phenomena the still unwitting character of intelligence is already peeping through. – Nature's highest goal, to become wholly an object to herself, is achieved only through the last and highest order of reflection, which is none other than man; or, more generally, it is what we call reason, whereby nature first completely returns into herself, and by which it becomes apparent that nature is identical from the first with what we recognise in ourselves as the intelligent and the conscious.</p>
<p class="indent">
This may be sufficient to show that natural science has a necessary tendency to render nature intelligent; through this very tendency it becomes <em>nature-philosophy</em>, which is one of the necessary basic sciences of philosophy. [The further elaboration of the concept of a nature-philosophy, and its necessary tendency, is to be found in the author's <em>Sketch for a System of Nature-Philosophy,</em> coupled with the Introduction to this sketch and the elucidations that are to appear in the first number of the <em>Journal for Speculative Physics</em>.]</p>
<p class="indentb">
<span class="term">B.</span> <em>Alternatively, the subjective is made primary, and the problem is: how an objective supervenes, which coincides</em> with it?</p>
<p class="indent">
If all knowledge rests upon the coincidence of these is undoubtedly the supreme problem for all knowledge; and if, as is generally admitted, philosophy is the highest and foremost of all sciences, we have here undoubtedly the main problem of philosophy.</p>
<p class="indent">
However, the problem only requires an explanation of the concurrence as such, and leaves it completely open as to where explanation starts from, as to which it should make primary and which secondary. – Yet since the two opposites are mutually necessary to each other, the result of the operation is bound to be the same, whichever point we set out from.</p>
<p class="indent">
To make the <em>objective</em> primary, and to derive the subjective from that, is, as has just been shown, the problem of <em>naturephilosophy</em>.</p>
<p class="indent">
If, then, there is a <em>transcendental philosophy</em>, there remains to it only the opposite direction, that of <em>proceeding from the subjective, as primary and absolute</em>! and <em>having the objective arise from this</em>. Thus nature-philosophy and transcendental philosophy have divided into the two directions possible to philosophy, and if <em>all</em> philosophy must go about <em>either </em>to make an intelligence out of nature, <em>or</em> a nature out of intelligence, then transcendental philosophy, which has the latter task, is thus the <em>other necessary basic science of philosophy</em>.</p>
<h2>§ 2</h2>
<h3>Corollaries</h3>
<p class="fst">
In the course of the foregoing, we have not only deduced the concept of transcendental philosophy, but have also furnished the reader with a glimpse into the entire system of philosophy; this, as we see, is constituted of two basic sciences which, though opposed to each other in principle and direction, mutually seek and supplement one another. Here we shall not set forth the entire system of philosophy, but only one of the basic sciences, and the derived concept thereof will thus first receive a more exact characterisation.</p>
<p>
[Only on completion of the system of transcendental philosophy will one come to recognise the necessity of a nature-philosophy, as a complementary science, and thereupon desist from making demands upon the former, which only a nature-philosophy can satisfy].</p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">1.</span> If the subjective – the first and only ground of all reality – is for transcendental philosophy the sole principle of explanation for everything else (§1), then it necessarily begins with a general doubt as to the reality of the objective. </p>
<p>
Just as the nature-philosopher, directed solely upon the objective, has nothing he more dearly wishes to prevent than an admixture of the subjective into knowledge, so the transcendental philosopher, by contrast, wishes nothing more dearly than to avoid an admixture of the objective into the purely subjective principle of knowledge. The means of separation lie in absolute scepticism – not the half-scepticism which merely contends against the common prejudices of mankind, while never looking to fundamentals, but rather that thoroughgoing scepticism which is directed, not against individual prejudices, but against the basic preconception, whose rejection leads automatically to the collapse of everything else. For in addition to the artificial prejudices implanted in mankind, there are others far more fundamental, laid down in us not by art or education, but by nature herself; prejudices which, for everyone but philosophers, serve as the principles of all knowledge, and for the merely self-made thinker rank even as the touchstone of all truth.</p>
<p>
The one basic prejudice, to which all others reduce, is no other than this: that there are things outside us. This is a conviction that rests neither on grounds nor on inferences (since there is not a single reputable proof of it) and yet cannot be extirpated by any argument to the contrary (<em>naturam furea expellas, tamen usque redibit</em>); it makes claim to <em>immediate </em>certainty, since it assuredly relates to something entirely different from us, and even opposed to us, of which we understand not at all how it enters into immediate consciousness; and hence it can be regarded as nothing more than a prejudice – innate and primary, to be sure – but no less a prejudice on that account.</p>
<p>
The contradiction, that a principle which by nature cannot be immediately certain is yet accepted as blindly and groundlessly as one that is so, is incapable of resolution by the transcendental philosopher, save on the presupposition that this principle is not just covertly and as yet uncomprehendingly connected with, but is identical with, one and the same with, an immediate certainty, <em>and to demonstrate this identity will</em> in fact be the concern of transcendental philosophy. </p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">2.</span> But now even for the common use of reason, nothing is immediately certain save the proposition I <em>exist</em>; which, since it actually loses its meaning <em>outside</em> immediate consciousness, is the most individual of all truths, and the <em>absolute preconception</em>, which must <em>first</em> be accepted, if anything else is to be certain. – The proposition <em>There are things outside us</em> will therefore only be certain for the transcendental philosopher in virtue of its identity with the proposition <em>I exist</em>, and its certainty will likewise only be equal to the certainty of the proposition from which It borrows its own.</p>
<p>
Transcendental cognition would thus differ from ordinary cognition on two counts.</p>
<p>
<em>First</em>, that the certainty that external things exist is for it a mere prejudice, which it goes beyond, in order to discover the grounds thereof. (It can never be the transcendental philosopher's business to demonstrate the existence of things-in-themselves, but merely that it is a natural and necessary prejudice to assume that external objects are real.)</p>
<p>
<em>Second</em>, that it separates the two propositions, I exist, and There are things outside me, which in ordinary consciousness are fused together; setting the one before the other, precisely in order to prove their identity, and so that it can really exhibit the immediate connection which is otherwise merely felt. By this very act of separation, if complete, it shifts into the transcendental mode of apprehension, which is in no way natural, but artificial.</p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">3.</span> If only the subjective has initial reality for the transcendental philosopher, he will also make only the subjective the immediate object of his cognition: the objective will become an object for him indirectly only, and whereas in ordinary cognition <em>the knowing itself</em> (the act of knowing) vanishes into the object, in transcendental cognition, on the contrary, the object <em>as</em> such vanishes into the act of knowing. Transcendental cognition is thus a knowing of knowing, insofar as it is purely subjective.</p>
<p>
Thus in intuition, for example, only the objective element attains to ordinary consciousness, the intuiting itself being lost in the object; whereas the transcendental mode of apprehension merely glimpses the intuited through the act of intuiting. – Again, ordinary thinking is a mechanism governed by concepts, though they are not distinguished as concepts; whereas transcendental thinking suspends this mechanism, and in becoming aware of the concept as an act, attains to the <em>concept of a concept</em>. – In ordinary action, the <em>acting itself</em> is lost sight of in the object of action; philosophising is likewise an <em>action</em>, yet not only an action but also at the same time a continuous <em>scrutiny of the self</em> so engaged.</p>
<p>
The nature of the transcendental mode of apprehension must therefore consist essentially in this, <em>that even that which in all other thinking, knowing, or</em> <em>acting escapes consciousness and is absolutely non-objective, is therein brought to consciousness and becomes objective</em> – <em>it consists, in short, of a constant objectifyinq-to-itself of the subjective</em>.</p>
<p>
The transcendental artifice will thus consist in the ability to maintain oneself constantly in this duality of acting and thinking.</p>
<h2>§ 3</h2>
<h4>Preliminary Division of Transcendental Philosophy</h4>
<p class="fst">
This division is preliminary, because the principles of division can only be first derived in the science itself.</p>
<p>
We revert to the concept of the science.</p>
<p>
Transcendental philosophy has to explain how knowledge as such is possible, it being presupposed that the subjective element therein is to be taken as dominant or primary.</p>
<p>
It therefore takes as its object, not an individual portion, nor a special object of knowledge, but <em>knowledge</em> itself and knowledge as such.</p>
<p>
But now all knowledge reduces to certain primordial convictions or primordial prejudices; transcendental philosophy must trace these individual convictions back to one fundamental conviction; this one, from which all others are derived, is formulated in the <em>first principle of this philosophy</em>, and the task of finding such a principle is nothing other than that of finding the absolute certainty whereby all other certainty is mediated.</p>
<p>
The division of transcendental philosophy itself is determined by those original convictions whose validity it vindicates. These convictions must first be sought in the common understanding. – And if we thus transport ourselves back to the standpoint of the common outlook, we find the following convictions deeply rooted in the human understanding.</p>
<p class="indentb">
<span class="term">A.</span> That there not only exists a world of things outside and independent of us, but also that our presentations are so far coincident with it that there is <em>nothing else</em> in things save what we attribute to them. This explains the constraint in our objective presentations, that things should be unalterably determined, and that our own presentations should also be mediately determined by this determinacy of things. This first and most fundamental conviction suffices to determine the first task of philosophy: to explain how our presentations can absolutely coincide with objects existing wholly independent of them. – The assumption that things are just what we take them to be, so that we are acquainted with them as they are <em>in themselves</em>, underlies the possibility of all experience (for what would experience be, and to what aberrations would physics, for example, be subject, without this presupposition of absolute identity between appearance and reality?) Hence, the solution of this problem is identical with <em>theoretical </em>philosophy, whose task is to investigate the possibility of experience.</p>
<p class="indentb">
<span class="term">B.</span> The second and no less basic conviction is this, that presentations, arising <em>freely and without necessity</em> in us, pass over from the world of thought into the real world, and can attain objective reality.</p>
<p class="indent">
This conviction is in opposition to the first. The first assumes that objects are <em>unalterably determined</em>, and thereby also our own presentations; the second assumes that objects are <em>alterable</em>, and are so, in fact, through the causality of presentations in us. On the first view there is a passage from the real world into the world of presentation, or a determining of presentation by an objective; on the second, there is a passage from the world of presentation into the real world, or a determining of the objective by a presentation (freely generated) in ourselves.</p>
<p class="indent">
This second conviction serves to determine a second problem, namely how an objective can be altered by a mere thought, so that it perfectly coincides therewith.</p>
<p class="indent">
Upon this conviction the possibility of all free action depends, so that the solution of this problem is identical with <em>Practical philosophy</em>.</p>
<p class="indentb">
<span class="term">C.</span> But with these two problems we find ourselves involved in a contradiction. – B calls for a dominance of thought (the ideal) over the world of sense; but how is this conceivable if (by A) the presentation is in origin already the mere slave of the objective? – Conversely, if the real world is a thing wholly independent of us, to which (as A tells us) our presentation must conform (as to its archetype), it is inconceivable how the real world, on the contrary, could (as <em>B</em> says) conform itself to presentations in us. – In a word, for certainty in theory we lose it in practice, and for certainty in practice we lose it in theory; it is impossible both that our knowledge should contain truth and our volition reality.</p>
<p class="indent">
If there is to be any philosophy at all, this contradiction must be resolved – and the solution of this problem, or answer to the question: <em>how can we think both of Presentations as conforming to objects, and objects as conforming to presentations</em>? is, not the first, but the <em>highest</em> task of transcendental philosophy.</p>
<p class="indent">
It is easy to see that this problem can be solved neither in theoretical nor in practical philosophy, but only in a higher discipline, which is the link that combines them, and neither theoretical nor practical, but <em>both</em> at once.</p>
<p class="indent">
How both the objective world accommodates to presentations in us, and presentations in us to the objective world, is unintelligible unless between the two worlds, the ideal and the real, there exists a <em>pre-determined harmony</em>. But this latter is itself unthinkable unless the activity, whereby the objective world, is produced, is at bottom identical with that which expresses itself in volition, and <em>vice versa.</em></p>
<p class="indent">
Now it is certainly a <em>productive</em> activity that finds expression in willing; all free action is productive, albeit <em>consciously</em> productive. If we now suppose, since the two activities have only to be one in principle, that the same activity which is <em>consciously</em> productive in free action, is productive <em>without consciousness</em> in bringing about the world, then our predetermined harmony is real, and the contradiction resolved.</p>
<p class="indent">
Supposing that all this is really the case, then this fundamental identity, of the activity concerned in producing the world with that which finds expression in willing, will display itself in the former's products, and these will have to appear as products of an activity at once <em>conscious and non-conscious</em>. </p>
<p class="indent">
Nature, both as a whole, and in its individual products, will have to appear as a work both consciously engendered, and yet simultaneously a product of the blindest mechanism; nature is purposive, without being <em>purposively explicable.</em> – The philosophy of <em>natural purposes</em>, or teleology, is thus our point of union between theoretical and practical philosophy. </p>
<p class="indentb">
<span class="term">D.</span> All that has so far been postulated is simply an identity of the non-conscious activity that has brought forth nature, and the conscious activity expressed in willing, without it being decided where the principle of this activity belongs, whether in nature or in ourselves.</p>
<p class="indent">
But now the system of knowledge can only be regarded as complete if it reverts back into its own principle. Thus the transcendental philosophy would be completed only if it could demonstrate this identity – the highest solution of its whole problem – in its own principle (namely the self).</p>
<p class="indent">
It is therefore postulated that this simultaneously conscious and non-conscious activity will be exhibited in the subjective, <em>in consciousness itself</em>.</p>
<p class="indent">
There is but one such activity, namely the <em>aesthetic</em>, and every work of art can be conceived only as a product of such activity. The ideal world of art and the real world of objects are therefore products of one and the same activity; the concurrence of the two (the conscious and the non-conscious) <em>without </em>consciousness yields the real, and <em>with</em> consciousness the aesthetic world.</p>
<p class="indent">
The objective world is simply the original, as yet unconscious, poetry of the spirit the universal organon of philosophy – and the keystone of its entire arch – <em>is the philosophy of art</em>.</p>
<h3>§ 4</h3>
<h3>The Organ of Transcendental Philosophy</h3>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">1.</span> The sole immediate object of transcendental concern is the subjective (§2); the sole organ of this mode of philosophising is therefore <em>inner sense</em>, and its object is such that it cannot even become, as can that of mathematics, an object of outer intuition. The mathematical object is admittedly no more located <em>outside</em> the knowing – process than that of philosophy. The whole existence of mathematics depends upon intuition, and so it also exists only in intuition, but this intuition itself is an external one. The mathematician, furthermore, is never concerned directly with intuition (the act of construction) itself, but only with the construct, which can certainly be presented externally, whereas the philosopher looks solely to the <em>act of construction itself,</em> which is an absolutely internal thing.</p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">2.</span> Moreover, the objects of the transcendental philosopher exist not at all, save insofar as they are freely produced. – One cannot be compelled to such production, as one can, say, by the external depiction of a mathematical figure, be compelled to intuit this internally. Hence, just as the existence of a mathematical figure depends on outer sense, so the entire reality of a philosophical concept depends solely on <em>inner sense</em>. The whole object of this philosophy is nothing else but the action of the intellect according to determinate laws. This action can be grasped only through immediate inner intuition on one's own part, and this too is possible only through production. But that is not all. In philosophising, one is not simply the object of contemplation, but always at the same time the subject. Two conditions are therefore required for the understanding of philosophy, <em>first</em> that one be engaged in a constant inner activity, a constant producing of these original acts of the intellect; and <em>second,</em> that one be constantly reflecting upon this production; in a word, that one always remain at the same time both the intuited (the producer) and the intuitant.</p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">3.</span> Through this constant double activity of producing and intuiting, something is to become an object, <em>which is not otherwise reflected by anything</em>. – We cannot here demonstrate, though we shall in the sequel, that this coming-to-be-reflected of the absolutely non-conscious and non-objective is possible only through an <em>aesthetic act</em> of the imagination. This much, however, is apparent from what we have already shown, namely that all philosophy is <em>productive</em>. Thus philosophy depends as much as art does on the productive capacity, and the difference between them rests merely on the different direction taken by the productive force. For whereas in art the production is directed outwards, so as to reflect the unknown by means of products, philosophical production is directed immediately inwards, so as to reflect it in intellectual intuition. The proper sense by which this type of philosophy must be apprehended is thus the <em>aesthetic</em> sense, and that is why the philosophy of art is the true organon of philosophy (§3).</p>
<p>
From ordinary reality there are only two ways out – poetry, which transports us into an ideal world, and philosophy, which makes the real world vanish before our eyes. – It is not apparent why the gift for philosophy should be any more widely spread than that for poetry, especially among that class of persons in whom, either through memory-work (than which nothing is more immediately fatal to productivity), or through dead speculation, destructive of all imagination, the aesthetic organ has been totally lost. </p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">4.</span> It is needless to linger over the commonplaces about a native sense of truth, since we are wholly indifferent to its conclusions, though one might ask what other conviction could still be sacred to one who takes for granted the most certain of all (that there are things outside us). – Let us rather take one more look at the so-called claims of the common understanding.</p>
<p>
In matters of philosophy the common understanding has no claims whatever, save that to which every object of enquiry is entitled, namely to be <em>completely accounted for.</em>
</p><p>
Thus it is no concern of ours to prove the truth of what it takes to be true; we merely have to lay bare the inevitability of its delusions. – It is agreed that the objective world belongs only to the necessary limitations which make self-consciousness (the I am) possible – for the common understanding it is sufficient if from this opinion itself the necessity of its own view is again derived.</p>
<p>
For this purpose it is necessary, not only that the inner workings of our mental activity be thrown open, the mechanism of necessary presentation unveiled, but also that it be shown by what peculiarity of our nature it is ordained, that what has reality merely in our intuition is reflected to us as something present outside us.</p>
<p>
Just as natural science brings forth idealism out of realism, in that it spiritualises natural laws into laws of mind, or appends the formal to the material (§1), so transcendental philosophy brings forth realism out of idealism, <em>in that it materialises the laws of mind into laws of nature</em>, or annexes the material to the formal.</p>
<h2>PART ONE<br>
On the Principle of Transcendental Idealism</h2>
<h3>SECTION ONE<br>
On the Necessity and Character of a Supreme Principle of Knowledge</h3>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">1.</span> It will be assumed meantime as a hypothesis, that there is indeed <em>reality</em> in our knowledge, and we shall ask what the conditions of this reality may be. – Whether there is <em>actually</em> reality in our knowledge will depend on whether these initially inferred conditions can be actually exhibited later on. </p>
<p>
If all knowledge rests upon the coincidence of an objective and a subjective (§1), the whole of our knowledge consists of propositions which are not <em>immediately</em> true, which derive their reality from something else.</p>
<p>
The mere putting-together of a subjective with a subjective gives no basis for knowledge proper. And conversely, knowledge proper presupposes a concurrence of opposites, whose concurrence can only be a <em>mediated</em> one.</p>
<p>
Hence there must be some universally mediating factor in our knowledge, which is the sole ground thereof. </p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">2.</span> It will be assumed as a hypothesis, that there is a <em>system</em> in our knowledge, that is, that it is a whole which is self-supporting and internally consistent with itself. – The sceptic denies this presupposition, like the first, and like the first it can be demonstrated only through the fact itself. – For what would it be like, if even our knowledge, and indeed the whole of nature (for us) were internally self-contradictory? – Let us then <em>assume</em> merely, that our knowledge is a primordial whole, of which the system of philosophy is to be the outline, and renew our preliminary enquiry as to the conditions of such a whole.</p>
<p>
Now every true system (such as that of the cosmos, for example) must contain the ground of its subsistence within <em>itself</em>; and hence, if there be a system of knowledge, its principle must <em>lie within knowledge itself.</em></p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">3.</span><em>There can only be one such principle.</em> For all truth is absolutely <em>on a par</em>. There may certainly be degrees of probability, but there are no degrees of truth; one truth is as true as another. But that the truth of all propositions of knowledge is absolutely equal is impossible, if they derive their truth from different principles (or mediating factors); so there can only be one (mediating) principle in all knowledge. </p>
<p class="fst">
<span class="term">4.</span> This principle is the mediating or indirect principle in every science, but the immediate and direct principle only of <em>the science of all knowledge</em>, or transcendental philosophy. ...</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">
Further Reading:<br>
<a href="../../../../../archive/ilyenkov/works/essays/essay4a.htm" target="_top">Ilyenkov on Schelling</a> |
<a href="../../../../archive/hegel/works/hp/hpschell.htm">Hegel on Schelling</a> |
<a href="../ge/schelli3.htm">On the History of Modern Philosophy</a>, 1833 |
<a href="../../../../../subject/philosophy/german.htm" target="_top">Classical German Philosophy</a> |
<a href="../../../../../archive/marx/works/1841/anti-schelling/ch01.htm#004" target="_top">Schelling's denunciation of Hegel</a>, 1841 |
<a href="../../../../../glossary/people/s/c.htm#schelling-friedrich">Biography of Schelling</a> |
<a href="../../../ethics/kant/reason/ch01.htm">Kant</a> |
<a href="../ge/fichte.htm">Fichte</a> |
<a href="../../../../../archive/marx/works/1841/anti-schelling/index.htm" target="_top">Engels on Schelling</a> |
<a href="../ge/hegel.htm">Hegel on Kant</a>
</p>
<p class="footer">
<a href="../../index.htm" target="_top">Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org</a></p>
</body> |
Friedrich Schelling (1800)
System of Transcendental Philosophy
Source: System of Transcendental Idealism (1800). Published by Charlottesville, University Press of Virginia, 1978, translated by Peter Heath.
Introduction and Part I reproduced here.
Introduction
§ 1. Concept of Transcendental Philosophy
1. All knowledge is founded upon the coincidence of an objective with a subjective. - For we know only what is true; but truth is generally taken to consist in the coincidence of presentations with their objects.
2. The intrinsic notion of everything merely objective in our knowledge, we may speak of as nature. The notion of everything subjective is called, on the contrary, the self, or the intelligence. The two concepts are mutually opposed. The intelligence is initially conceived of as the purely presentative, nature purely as what can be presented; the one as the conscious, the other as the non-conscious. But now in every knowing a reciprocal concurrence of the two (the conscious and the intrinsically non-conscious) is necessary; the problem is to explain this concurrence.
3. In knowing as such – in the fact of my knowing – objective and subjective are so united that one cannot say which of the two has priority. Here there is no first and second; both are simultaneous and one. – Insofar as I wish to explain this identity, I must already have done away with it. To explain it, inasmuch as nothing else is given me (as explanatory principle) beyond these two factors of knowledge, I must necessarily give priority to one over the other, set out from the one, in order thence to arrive at the other; from which of the two I start, the problem does not specify.
4. Hence there are only two possibilities.
A. Either the objective is made primary, and the question is: how a subjective is annexed thereto, which coincides with it?
The concept of the subjective is not contained in that of the objective; on the contrary, they exclude one another. The subjective must therefore be annexed to the objective. – The concept of nature does not entail that there should also be an intelligence that is aware of it. Nature, it seems, would exist, even if there were nothing that was aware of it. Hence the problem can also be formulated thus: how does intelligence come to be added to nature, or how does nature come to be presented?
The problem assumes nature or the objective to be primary. Hence the problem is undoubtedly that of natural science, which does just this. – That natural science in fact – and without knowing it – at least comes close to the solution of this problem can be shown – briefly here.
If all knowing has, as it were, two poles, which mutually presuppose and demand one another, they must seek each other in all the sciences; hence there must necessarily be two basic sciences, and it must be impossible to set out from the one pole without being driven toward the other. The necessary tendency of all natural science is thus to move from nature to intelligence. This and nothing else is at the bottom of the urge to bring theory into the phenomena of nature. – The highest consummation of natural science would be the complete spiritualising of all natural laws into laws of intuition and thought. The phenomena (the matter) must wholly disappear, and only the laws (the form) remain. Hence it is, that the more lawfulness emerges in nature itself, the more the husk disappears, the phenomena themselves become more mental, and at length vanish entirely. The phenomena of optics are nothing but a geometry whose lines are drawn by light, and this light itself is already of doubtful materiality. In the phenomena of magnetism all material traces are already disappearing, and in those of gravitation, which even scientists have thought it possible to conceive of merely as an immediate spiritual influence, nothing remains but its law, whose largescale execution is the mechanism of the heavenly motions. – The completed theory of nature would be that whereby the whole of nature was resolved into an intelligence. – The dead and unconscious products of nature are merely abortive attempts that she makes to reflect herself; inanimate nature so-called is actually as such an immature intelligence, so that in her phenomena the still unwitting character of intelligence is already peeping through. – Nature's highest goal, to become wholly an object to herself, is achieved only through the last and highest order of reflection, which is none other than man; or, more generally, it is what we call reason, whereby nature first completely returns into herself, and by which it becomes apparent that nature is identical from the first with what we recognise in ourselves as the intelligent and the conscious.
This may be sufficient to show that natural science has a necessary tendency to render nature intelligent; through this very tendency it becomes nature-philosophy, which is one of the necessary basic sciences of philosophy. [The further elaboration of the concept of a nature-philosophy, and its necessary tendency, is to be found in the author's Sketch for a System of Nature-Philosophy, coupled with the Introduction to this sketch and the elucidations that are to appear in the first number of the Journal for Speculative Physics.]
B. Alternatively, the subjective is made primary, and the problem is: how an objective supervenes, which coincides with it?
If all knowledge rests upon the coincidence of these is undoubtedly the supreme problem for all knowledge; and if, as is generally admitted, philosophy is the highest and foremost of all sciences, we have here undoubtedly the main problem of philosophy.
However, the problem only requires an explanation of the concurrence as such, and leaves it completely open as to where explanation starts from, as to which it should make primary and which secondary. – Yet since the two opposites are mutually necessary to each other, the result of the operation is bound to be the same, whichever point we set out from.
To make the objective primary, and to derive the subjective from that, is, as has just been shown, the problem of naturephilosophy.
If, then, there is a transcendental philosophy, there remains to it only the opposite direction, that of proceeding from the subjective, as primary and absolute! and having the objective arise from this. Thus nature-philosophy and transcendental philosophy have divided into the two directions possible to philosophy, and if all philosophy must go about either to make an intelligence out of nature, or a nature out of intelligence, then transcendental philosophy, which has the latter task, is thus the other necessary basic science of philosophy.
§ 2
Corollaries
In the course of the foregoing, we have not only deduced the concept of transcendental philosophy, but have also furnished the reader with a glimpse into the entire system of philosophy; this, as we see, is constituted of two basic sciences which, though opposed to each other in principle and direction, mutually seek and supplement one another. Here we shall not set forth the entire system of philosophy, but only one of the basic sciences, and the derived concept thereof will thus first receive a more exact characterisation.
[Only on completion of the system of transcendental philosophy will one come to recognise the necessity of a nature-philosophy, as a complementary science, and thereupon desist from making demands upon the former, which only a nature-philosophy can satisfy].
1. If the subjective – the first and only ground of all reality – is for transcendental philosophy the sole principle of explanation for everything else (§1), then it necessarily begins with a general doubt as to the reality of the objective.
Just as the nature-philosopher, directed solely upon the objective, has nothing he more dearly wishes to prevent than an admixture of the subjective into knowledge, so the transcendental philosopher, by contrast, wishes nothing more dearly than to avoid an admixture of the objective into the purely subjective principle of knowledge. The means of separation lie in absolute scepticism – not the half-scepticism which merely contends against the common prejudices of mankind, while never looking to fundamentals, but rather that thoroughgoing scepticism which is directed, not against individual prejudices, but against the basic preconception, whose rejection leads automatically to the collapse of everything else. For in addition to the artificial prejudices implanted in mankind, there are others far more fundamental, laid down in us not by art or education, but by nature herself; prejudices which, for everyone but philosophers, serve as the principles of all knowledge, and for the merely self-made thinker rank even as the touchstone of all truth.
The one basic prejudice, to which all others reduce, is no other than this: that there are things outside us. This is a conviction that rests neither on grounds nor on inferences (since there is not a single reputable proof of it) and yet cannot be extirpated by any argument to the contrary (naturam furea expellas, tamen usque redibit); it makes claim to immediate certainty, since it assuredly relates to something entirely different from us, and even opposed to us, of which we understand not at all how it enters into immediate consciousness; and hence it can be regarded as nothing more than a prejudice – innate and primary, to be sure – but no less a prejudice on that account.
The contradiction, that a principle which by nature cannot be immediately certain is yet accepted as blindly and groundlessly as one that is so, is incapable of resolution by the transcendental philosopher, save on the presupposition that this principle is not just covertly and as yet uncomprehendingly connected with, but is identical with, one and the same with, an immediate certainty, and to demonstrate this identity will in fact be the concern of transcendental philosophy.
2. But now even for the common use of reason, nothing is immediately certain save the proposition I exist; which, since it actually loses its meaning outside immediate consciousness, is the most individual of all truths, and the absolute preconception, which must first be accepted, if anything else is to be certain. – The proposition There are things outside us will therefore only be certain for the transcendental philosopher in virtue of its identity with the proposition I exist, and its certainty will likewise only be equal to the certainty of the proposition from which It borrows its own.
Transcendental cognition would thus differ from ordinary cognition on two counts.
First, that the certainty that external things exist is for it a mere prejudice, which it goes beyond, in order to discover the grounds thereof. (It can never be the transcendental philosopher's business to demonstrate the existence of things-in-themselves, but merely that it is a natural and necessary prejudice to assume that external objects are real.)
Second, that it separates the two propositions, I exist, and There are things outside me, which in ordinary consciousness are fused together; setting the one before the other, precisely in order to prove their identity, and so that it can really exhibit the immediate connection which is otherwise merely felt. By this very act of separation, if complete, it shifts into the transcendental mode of apprehension, which is in no way natural, but artificial.
3. If only the subjective has initial reality for the transcendental philosopher, he will also make only the subjective the immediate object of his cognition: the objective will become an object for him indirectly only, and whereas in ordinary cognition the knowing itself (the act of knowing) vanishes into the object, in transcendental cognition, on the contrary, the object as such vanishes into the act of knowing. Transcendental cognition is thus a knowing of knowing, insofar as it is purely subjective.
Thus in intuition, for example, only the objective element attains to ordinary consciousness, the intuiting itself being lost in the object; whereas the transcendental mode of apprehension merely glimpses the intuited through the act of intuiting. – Again, ordinary thinking is a mechanism governed by concepts, though they are not distinguished as concepts; whereas transcendental thinking suspends this mechanism, and in becoming aware of the concept as an act, attains to the concept of a concept. – In ordinary action, the acting itself is lost sight of in the object of action; philosophising is likewise an action, yet not only an action but also at the same time a continuous scrutiny of the self so engaged.
The nature of the transcendental mode of apprehension must therefore consist essentially in this, that even that which in all other thinking, knowing, or acting escapes consciousness and is absolutely non-objective, is therein brought to consciousness and becomes objective – it consists, in short, of a constant objectifyinq-to-itself of the subjective.
The transcendental artifice will thus consist in the ability to maintain oneself constantly in this duality of acting and thinking.
§ 3
Preliminary Division of Transcendental Philosophy
This division is preliminary, because the principles of division can only be first derived in the science itself.
We revert to the concept of the science.
Transcendental philosophy has to explain how knowledge as such is possible, it being presupposed that the subjective element therein is to be taken as dominant or primary.
It therefore takes as its object, not an individual portion, nor a special object of knowledge, but knowledge itself and knowledge as such.
But now all knowledge reduces to certain primordial convictions or primordial prejudices; transcendental philosophy must trace these individual convictions back to one fundamental conviction; this one, from which all others are derived, is formulated in the first principle of this philosophy, and the task of finding such a principle is nothing other than that of finding the absolute certainty whereby all other certainty is mediated.
The division of transcendental philosophy itself is determined by those original convictions whose validity it vindicates. These convictions must first be sought in the common understanding. – And if we thus transport ourselves back to the standpoint of the common outlook, we find the following convictions deeply rooted in the human understanding.
A. That there not only exists a world of things outside and independent of us, but also that our presentations are so far coincident with it that there is nothing else in things save what we attribute to them. This explains the constraint in our objective presentations, that things should be unalterably determined, and that our own presentations should also be mediately determined by this determinacy of things. This first and most fundamental conviction suffices to determine the first task of philosophy: to explain how our presentations can absolutely coincide with objects existing wholly independent of them. – The assumption that things are just what we take them to be, so that we are acquainted with them as they are in themselves, underlies the possibility of all experience (for what would experience be, and to what aberrations would physics, for example, be subject, without this presupposition of absolute identity between appearance and reality?) Hence, the solution of this problem is identical with theoretical philosophy, whose task is to investigate the possibility of experience.
B. The second and no less basic conviction is this, that presentations, arising freely and without necessity in us, pass over from the world of thought into the real world, and can attain objective reality.
This conviction is in opposition to the first. The first assumes that objects are unalterably determined, and thereby also our own presentations; the second assumes that objects are alterable, and are so, in fact, through the causality of presentations in us. On the first view there is a passage from the real world into the world of presentation, or a determining of presentation by an objective; on the second, there is a passage from the world of presentation into the real world, or a determining of the objective by a presentation (freely generated) in ourselves.
This second conviction serves to determine a second problem, namely how an objective can be altered by a mere thought, so that it perfectly coincides therewith.
Upon this conviction the possibility of all free action depends, so that the solution of this problem is identical with Practical philosophy.
C. But with these two problems we find ourselves involved in a contradiction. – B calls for a dominance of thought (the ideal) over the world of sense; but how is this conceivable if (by A) the presentation is in origin already the mere slave of the objective? – Conversely, if the real world is a thing wholly independent of us, to which (as A tells us) our presentation must conform (as to its archetype), it is inconceivable how the real world, on the contrary, could (as B says) conform itself to presentations in us. – In a word, for certainty in theory we lose it in practice, and for certainty in practice we lose it in theory; it is impossible both that our knowledge should contain truth and our volition reality.
If there is to be any philosophy at all, this contradiction must be resolved – and the solution of this problem, or answer to the question: how can we think both of Presentations as conforming to objects, and objects as conforming to presentations? is, not the first, but the highest task of transcendental philosophy.
It is easy to see that this problem can be solved neither in theoretical nor in practical philosophy, but only in a higher discipline, which is the link that combines them, and neither theoretical nor practical, but both at once.
How both the objective world accommodates to presentations in us, and presentations in us to the objective world, is unintelligible unless between the two worlds, the ideal and the real, there exists a pre-determined harmony. But this latter is itself unthinkable unless the activity, whereby the objective world, is produced, is at bottom identical with that which expresses itself in volition, and vice versa.
Now it is certainly a productive activity that finds expression in willing; all free action is productive, albeit consciously productive. If we now suppose, since the two activities have only to be one in principle, that the same activity which is consciously productive in free action, is productive without consciousness in bringing about the world, then our predetermined harmony is real, and the contradiction resolved.
Supposing that all this is really the case, then this fundamental identity, of the activity concerned in producing the world with that which finds expression in willing, will display itself in the former's products, and these will have to appear as products of an activity at once conscious and non-conscious.
Nature, both as a whole, and in its individual products, will have to appear as a work both consciously engendered, and yet simultaneously a product of the blindest mechanism; nature is purposive, without being purposively explicable. – The philosophy of natural purposes, or teleology, is thus our point of union between theoretical and practical philosophy.
D. All that has so far been postulated is simply an identity of the non-conscious activity that has brought forth nature, and the conscious activity expressed in willing, without it being decided where the principle of this activity belongs, whether in nature or in ourselves.
But now the system of knowledge can only be regarded as complete if it reverts back into its own principle. Thus the transcendental philosophy would be completed only if it could demonstrate this identity – the highest solution of its whole problem – in its own principle (namely the self).
It is therefore postulated that this simultaneously conscious and non-conscious activity will be exhibited in the subjective, in consciousness itself.
There is but one such activity, namely the aesthetic, and every work of art can be conceived only as a product of such activity. The ideal world of art and the real world of objects are therefore products of one and the same activity; the concurrence of the two (the conscious and the non-conscious) without consciousness yields the real, and with consciousness the aesthetic world.
The objective world is simply the original, as yet unconscious, poetry of the spirit the universal organon of philosophy – and the keystone of its entire arch – is the philosophy of art.
§ 4
The Organ of Transcendental Philosophy
1. The sole immediate object of transcendental concern is the subjective (§2); the sole organ of this mode of philosophising is therefore inner sense, and its object is such that it cannot even become, as can that of mathematics, an object of outer intuition. The mathematical object is admittedly no more located outside the knowing – process than that of philosophy. The whole existence of mathematics depends upon intuition, and so it also exists only in intuition, but this intuition itself is an external one. The mathematician, furthermore, is never concerned directly with intuition (the act of construction) itself, but only with the construct, which can certainly be presented externally, whereas the philosopher looks solely to the act of construction itself, which is an absolutely internal thing.
2. Moreover, the objects of the transcendental philosopher exist not at all, save insofar as they are freely produced. – One cannot be compelled to such production, as one can, say, by the external depiction of a mathematical figure, be compelled to intuit this internally. Hence, just as the existence of a mathematical figure depends on outer sense, so the entire reality of a philosophical concept depends solely on inner sense. The whole object of this philosophy is nothing else but the action of the intellect according to determinate laws. This action can be grasped only through immediate inner intuition on one's own part, and this too is possible only through production. But that is not all. In philosophising, one is not simply the object of contemplation, but always at the same time the subject. Two conditions are therefore required for the understanding of philosophy, first that one be engaged in a constant inner activity, a constant producing of these original acts of the intellect; and second, that one be constantly reflecting upon this production; in a word, that one always remain at the same time both the intuited (the producer) and the intuitant.
3. Through this constant double activity of producing and intuiting, something is to become an object, which is not otherwise reflected by anything. – We cannot here demonstrate, though we shall in the sequel, that this coming-to-be-reflected of the absolutely non-conscious and non-objective is possible only through an aesthetic act of the imagination. This much, however, is apparent from what we have already shown, namely that all philosophy is productive. Thus philosophy depends as much as art does on the productive capacity, and the difference between them rests merely on the different direction taken by the productive force. For whereas in art the production is directed outwards, so as to reflect the unknown by means of products, philosophical production is directed immediately inwards, so as to reflect it in intellectual intuition. The proper sense by which this type of philosophy must be apprehended is thus the aesthetic sense, and that is why the philosophy of art is the true organon of philosophy (§3).
From ordinary reality there are only two ways out – poetry, which transports us into an ideal world, and philosophy, which makes the real world vanish before our eyes. – It is not apparent why the gift for philosophy should be any more widely spread than that for poetry, especially among that class of persons in whom, either through memory-work (than which nothing is more immediately fatal to productivity), or through dead speculation, destructive of all imagination, the aesthetic organ has been totally lost.
4. It is needless to linger over the commonplaces about a native sense of truth, since we are wholly indifferent to its conclusions, though one might ask what other conviction could still be sacred to one who takes for granted the most certain of all (that there are things outside us). – Let us rather take one more look at the so-called claims of the common understanding.
In matters of philosophy the common understanding has no claims whatever, save that to which every object of enquiry is entitled, namely to be completely accounted for.
Thus it is no concern of ours to prove the truth of what it takes to be true; we merely have to lay bare the inevitability of its delusions. – It is agreed that the objective world belongs only to the necessary limitations which make self-consciousness (the I am) possible – for the common understanding it is sufficient if from this opinion itself the necessity of its own view is again derived.
For this purpose it is necessary, not only that the inner workings of our mental activity be thrown open, the mechanism of necessary presentation unveiled, but also that it be shown by what peculiarity of our nature it is ordained, that what has reality merely in our intuition is reflected to us as something present outside us.
Just as natural science brings forth idealism out of realism, in that it spiritualises natural laws into laws of mind, or appends the formal to the material (§1), so transcendental philosophy brings forth realism out of idealism, in that it materialises the laws of mind into laws of nature, or annexes the material to the formal.
PART ONE
On the Principle of Transcendental Idealism
SECTION ONE
On the Necessity and Character of a Supreme Principle of Knowledge
1. It will be assumed meantime as a hypothesis, that there is indeed reality in our knowledge, and we shall ask what the conditions of this reality may be. – Whether there is actually reality in our knowledge will depend on whether these initially inferred conditions can be actually exhibited later on.
If all knowledge rests upon the coincidence of an objective and a subjective (§1), the whole of our knowledge consists of propositions which are not immediately true, which derive their reality from something else.
The mere putting-together of a subjective with a subjective gives no basis for knowledge proper. And conversely, knowledge proper presupposes a concurrence of opposites, whose concurrence can only be a mediated one.
Hence there must be some universally mediating factor in our knowledge, which is the sole ground thereof.
2. It will be assumed as a hypothesis, that there is a system in our knowledge, that is, that it is a whole which is self-supporting and internally consistent with itself. – The sceptic denies this presupposition, like the first, and like the first it can be demonstrated only through the fact itself. – For what would it be like, if even our knowledge, and indeed the whole of nature (for us) were internally self-contradictory? – Let us then assume merely, that our knowledge is a primordial whole, of which the system of philosophy is to be the outline, and renew our preliminary enquiry as to the conditions of such a whole.
Now every true system (such as that of the cosmos, for example) must contain the ground of its subsistence within itself; and hence, if there be a system of knowledge, its principle must lie within knowledge itself.
3.There can only be one such principle. For all truth is absolutely on a par. There may certainly be degrees of probability, but there are no degrees of truth; one truth is as true as another. But that the truth of all propositions of knowledge is absolutely equal is impossible, if they derive their truth from different principles (or mediating factors); so there can only be one (mediating) principle in all knowledge.
4. This principle is the mediating or indirect principle in every science, but the immediate and direct principle only of the science of all knowledge, or transcendental philosophy. ...
Further Reading:
Ilyenkov on Schelling |
Hegel on Schelling |
On the History of Modern Philosophy, 1833 |
Classical German Philosophy |
Schelling's denunciation of Hegel, 1841 |
Biography of Schelling |
Kant |
Fichte |
Engels on Schelling |
Hegel on Kant
Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org
|
./articles/Helmholtz-Hermann/https:..www.marxists.org.reference.subject.philosophy.works.fr.poincare | <body>
<p><img src="../../../../../glossary/people/p/pics/poincare.jpg" width="200" vspace="1" hspace="6" align="LEFT" border="3" alt="poincare"></p>
<p class="title">
Henri Poincaré (1897)</p>
<h2>(from Science & Method)</h2>
<h4>The Relativity of Space</h4>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information">
<span class="info">Source</span>: <em>The Relativity of Space</em> from <em>Science & Method</em> (1897). The complete article reproduced here.</p>
<hr class="end">
<h3>I.</h3>
<p class="fst">
<strong>IT</strong> is impossible to picture empty space. All
our efforts to imagine pure space from which the changing images
of material objects are excluded can only result in a representation
in which highly-coloured surfaces, for instance, are replaced
by lines of slight colouration, and if we continued in this direction
to the end, everything would disappear and end in nothing. Hence
arises the irreducible relativity of space.</p>
<p>
Whoever speaks of absolute space uses a word devoid of meaning.
This is a truth that has been long proclaimed by all who have
reflected on the question, but one which we are too often inclined
to forget.</p>
<p>
If I am at a definite point in Paris, at the Place du Panthéon,
for instance, and I say, "I will come back <em>here </em>tomorrow;"
if I am asked, "Do you mean that you will come back to the
same point in space?" I should be tempted to answer yes.
Yet I should be wrong, since between now and tomorrow the earth
will have moved, carrying with it the Place du Panthéon,
which will have travelled more than a million miles. And if I
wished to speak more accurately, I should gain nothing, since
this million of miles has been covered by our globe in its motion
in relation to the sun, and the sun in its turn moves in relation
to the Milky Way, and the Milky Way itself is no doubt in motion
without our being able to recognise its velocity. So that we
are, and shall always be, completely ignorant how far the Place
du Panthéon moves in a day. In fact, what I meant to say
was,</p>
<p class="quoteb">
"Tomorrow I shall see once more the dome and pediment of the Panthéon,"
</p>
<p class="fst">
and if there was no Panthéon my sentence would have no
meaning and space would disappear.</p>
<p>
This is one of the most commonplace forms of the principle of
the relativity of space, but there is another on which Delbeuf
has laid particular stress. Suppose that in one night all the
dimensions of the universe became a thousand times larger. The
world will remain <em>similar </em>to itself, if we give the word
<em>similitude</em> the meaning it has in the third book of Euclid.
Only, what was formerly a metre long will now measure a kilometre,
and what was a millimetre long will become a metre. The bed in
which I went to sleep and my body itself will have grown in the
same proportion. When I awake in the morning what will be my
feeling in face of such an astonishing transformation? Well,
I shall not notice anything at all. The most exact measures will
be incapable of revealing anything of this tremendous change,
since the yard-measures I shall use will have varied in exactly
the same proportions as the objects I shall attempt to measure.
In reality the change only exists for those who argue as if space
were absolute. If I have argued for a moment as they do, it was
only in order to make it clearer that their view implies a contradiction.
In reality it would be better to say that as space is relative,
nothing at all has happened, and that it is for that reason that
we have noticed nothing.</p>
<p>
Have we any right, therefore, to say that we know the distance
between two points? No, since that distance could undergo enormous
variations without our being able to perceive it, provided other
distances varied in the same proportions. We saw just now that
when I say I shall be here tomorrow, that does not mean that
tomorrow I shall be at the point in space where I am today,
but that tomorrow I shall be at the same distance from the Panthéon
as I am today. And already this statement is not sufficient,
and I ought to say that tomorrow and today my distance from
the Panthéon will be equal to the same number of times
the length of my body.</p>
<p>
But that is not all. I imagined the dimensions of the world changing,
but at least the world remaining always similar to itself. We
can go much further than that, and one of the most surprising
theories of modern physicists will furnish the occasion. According
to a hypothesis of Lorentz and Fitzgerald, all bodies carried
forward in the earth's motion undergo a deformation. This deformation
is, in truth, very slight, since all dimensions parallel with
the earth's motion are diminished by a hundred-millionth, while
dimensions perpendicular to this motion are not altered. But
it matters little that it is slight; it is enough that it should
exist for the conclusion I am soon going to draw from it. Besides,
though I said that it is slight, I really know nothing about it.
I have myself fallen a victim to the tenacious illusion that
makes us believe that we think of an absolute space. I was thinking
of the earth's motion on its elliptical orbit round the sun, and
I allowed 18 miles a second for its velocity. But its true velocity
(I mean this time, not its absolute velocity, which has no sense,
but its velocity in relation to the ether), this I do not know
and have no means of knowing. It is, perhaps, 10 or 100 times
as high, and then the deformation will be 100 or 10,000 times
as great.</p>
<p>
It is evident that we cannot demonstrate this deformation. Take
a cube with sides a yard long. it is deformed on account of the
earth's velocity; one of its sides, that parallel with the motion,
becomes smaller, the others do not vary. If I wish to assure
myself of this with the help of a yard-measure, I shall measure
first one of the sides perpendicular to the motion, and satisfy
myself that my measure fit s this side exactly ; and indeed neither
one nor other of these lengths is altered, since they are both
perpendicular to the motion. I then wish to measure the other
side, that parallel with the motion ; for this purpose I change
the position of my measure, and turn it so as to apply it to this
side. But the yard-measure, having changed its direction and
having become parallel with the motion, has in its turn undergone
the deformation so that, though the side is no longer a yard long,
it will still fit it exactly, and I shall be aware of nothing.</p>
<p>
What, then, I shall be asked, is the use of the hypothesis of
Lorentz and Fitzgerald if no experiment can enable us to verify
it? The fact is that my statement has been incomplete. I have
only spoken of measurements that can be made with a yard-measure,
but we can also measure a distance by the time that light takes
to traverse it, on condition that we admit that the velocity of
light is constant, and independent of its direction. Lorentz
could have accounted for the facts by supposing that the velocity
of light is greater in the direction of the earth's motion than
in the perpendicular direction. He preferred to admit that the
velocity is the same in the two directions, but that bodies are
smaller in the former than in the latter. If the surfaces of
the waves of light had undergone the same deformations as material
bodies, we should never have perceived the Lorentz-Fitzgerald
deformation.</p>
<p>
In the one case as in the other, there can be no question of absolute
magnitude, but of the measurement of that magnitude by means of
some instrument. This instrument may be a yard-measure or the
path traversed by light. It is only the relation of the magnitude
to the instrument that we measure, and if this relation is altered,
we have no means of knowing whether it is the magnitude or the
instrument that has changed.</p>
<p>
But what I wish to make clear is, that in this deformation the
world has not remained similar to itself. Squares have become
rectangles or parallelograms, circles ellipses, and spheres ellipsoids.
And yet we have no means of knowing whether this deformation
is real.</p>
<p>
It is clear that we might go much further. Instead of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald
deformation, with its extremely simple laws, we might imagine
a deformation of any kind whatever; bodies might be deformed in
accordance with any laws, as complicated as we liked, and we should
not perceive it, provided all bodies without exception were deformed
in accordance with the same laws. When I say all bodies without
exception, I include, of course, our own bodies and the rays of
light emanating from the different objects.</p>
<p>
If we look at the world in one of those mirrors of complicated
form which deform objects in an odd way, the mutual relations
of the different parts of the world are not altered; if, in fact,
two real objects touch, their images likewise appear to touch.
In truth, when we look in such a mirror we readily perceive the
deformation but it is because the real world exists beside its
deformed image. And even if this real world were hidden from
us, there is something which cannot be hidden, and that is ourselves.
We cannot help seeing, or at least feeling, our body and our
members which have not been deformed, and continue to act as measuring
instruments. But if we imagine our body itself deformed, and
in the same way as if it were seen in the mirror, these measuring
instruments will fail us in their turn, and the deformation will
no longer be able to be ascertained.</p>
<p>
Imagine, in the same way, two universes which are the image one
of the other. With each object P in the universe A, there corresponds,
in the universe B, an object P<sub>1</sub> which is its image. The co-ordinates
of this image P<sub>1</sub> are determinate functions of those of the object
P ; moreover, these functions ma be of any kind whatever - I assume
only that they are chosen once for all. Between the position
of P and that of P<sub>1</sub> there is a constant relation ; it matters
little what that relation may be, it is enough that it should
be constant.</p>
<p>
Well, these two universes will be indistinguishable.</p>
<p>
I mean to say that the former will be for its inhabitants what
the second is for its own. This would be true so long as the
two universes remained foreign to one another. Suppose we are
inhabitants of the universe A ; we have constructed our science
and particularly our geometry. During this time the inhabitants
of the universe B have constructed a science, and as their world
is the image of ours, their geometry will also be the image of
ours, or, more accurately, it will be the same. But if one day
a window were to open for us upon the universe B, we should feel
contempt for them, and we should say, "These wretched people
imagine that they have made a geometry, but what they so name
is only a grotesque image of ours; their straight lines are all
twisted, their circles are hunchbacked, and their spheres have
capricious inequalities." We should have no suspicion that
they were saying the same of us, and that no one will ever know
which is right.</p>
<p>
We see in how large a sense we must understand the relativity
of space. Space is in reality amorphous, and it is only the
things that are in it that give it a form. What are we to think,
then, of that direct intuition we have of a straight line or of
distance? We have so little the intuition of distance in itself
that, in a single night, as we have said, a distance could become
a thousand times greater without our being able to perceive it,
if all other distances had undergone the same alteration. And
in a night the universe B might even be substituted for the universe
A without our having any means of knowing it, and then the straight
lines of yesterday would have ceased to be straight, and we should
not be aware of anything.</p>
<p>
One part of space is not by itself and in the absolute sense of
the word equal to another part of space, for if it is so for us,
it will not be so for the inhabitants of the universe B, and they
have precisely as much right to reject our opinion as we have
to condemn theirs.</p>
<p>
I have shown elsewhere what are the consequences of these facts
from the point of view of the idea that we should construct non-Euclidean
and other analogous geometries. I do not wish to return to this,
and I will take a somewhat different point of view.</p>
<h3>II.</h3>
<p class="fst">
If this intuition of distance, of direction, of the straight line,
if, in a word, this direct intuition of space does not exist,
whence comes it that we imagine we have it? If this is only an
illusion, whence comes it that the illusion is so tenacious ?
This is what we must examine. There is no direct intuition
of magnitude, as we have said, and we can only arrive at the relation
of the magnitude to our measuring instruments. Accordingly we
could not have constructed space if we had not had an instrument
for measuring it. Well, that instrument to which we refer everything,
which we use instinctively, is our own body. It is in reference
to our own body that we locate exterior objects, and the only
special relations of these objects that we can picture to ourselves
are their relations with our body. It is our body that serves
us, so to speak, as a system of axes of co-ordinates.</p>
<p>
For instance, at a moment a the presence of an object A is revealed
to me by the sense of sight; at another moment b the presence
of another object B is revealed by another sense, that, for instance,
of hearing or of touch. I judge that this object B occupies the
same place as the object A. What does this mean? To begin with,
it does not imply that these two objects occupy, at two different
moments, the same point in an absolute space, which, even if it
existed, would escape our knowledge, since between the moments
a and P the solar system has been displaced and we cannot know
what this displacement is. It means that these two objects occupy
the same relative position in reference to our body.</p>
<p>
But what is meant even by this? The impressions that have come
to us from these objects have followed absolutely different paths - the
optic nerve for the object A, and the acoustic nerve for the object
B - they have nothing in common from the qualitative point of view.'
The representations we can form of these two objects are absolutely
heterogeneous and irreducible one to the other. Only I know that,
in order to reach the object A, I have only to extend my right
arm in a certain way; even though I refrain from doing it, I represent
to myself the muscular and other analogous sensations which accompany
that extension, and that representation is associated with that
of the object A.</p>
<p>
Now I know equally that I can reach the object B by extending
my right arm in the same way, an extension accompanied by the
same train of muscular sensations. And I mean nothing else but
this when I say that these two objects occupy the same position.</p>
<p>
I know also that I could have reached the object A by another
appropriate movement of the left arm, and I represent to myself
the muscular sensations that would have accompanied the movement.
And by the same movement of the left arm, accompanied by the
same sensations, I could equally have reached the object B.</p>
<p>
And this is very important, since it is in this way that I could
defend myself against the dangers with which the object A or the
object B might threaten me. With each of the blows that may strike
us, nature has associated one or several parries which enable
us to protect ourselves against them. The same parry may answer
to several blows. It is thus, for instance, that the same movement
of the right arm would have enabled us to defend ourselves at
the moment <em>a</em> against the object A, and at the moment <em>b</em> against
the object B. Similarly, the same blow may be parried in several
ways, and we have said, for instance, that we could reach the
object A equally well either by a certain movement of the right
arm, or by a certain movement of the left.</p>
<p>
All these parries have nothing in common with one another, except
that they enable us to avoid the same blow, and it is that, and
nothing but that, we mean when we say that they are movements
ending in the same point in space. Similarly, these objects,
of which we say that they occupy the same point in space, have
nothing in common, except that the same parry can enable us to
defend ourselves against them.</p>
<p>
Or, if we prefer it, let us imagine innumerable telegraph wires,
some centripetal and others centrifugal. The centripetal wires
warn us of accidents that occur outside, the centrifugal wires
have to provide the remedy. Connections are established in such
a way that when one of the centripetal wires is traversed by a
current, this current acts on a central exchange, and so excites
a current in one of the centrifugal wires, and matters are so
arranged that several centripetal wires can act on the same centrifugal
wire, if the same remedy is applicable to several evils, and that
one centripetal wire can disturb several centrifugal wires, either
simultaneously or one in default of the other, every time that
the same evil can be cured by several remedies.</p>
<p>
It is this complex system of associations, it is this distribution
board, so to speak, that is our whole geometry, or, if you will,
all that is distinctive in our geometry. What we call our intuition
of a straight line or of distance is the consciousness we have
of these associations and of their imperious character.</p>
<p>
Whence this imperious character itself comes, it is easy to understand.
The older an association is, the more indestructible it will
appear to us. But these associations are not, for the most part,
conquests made by the individual, since we see traces of them
in the newly-born infant they are conquests made by the race.
The more necessary these conquests were, the more quickly they
must have been brought about by natural selection.</p>
<p>
On this account those we have been speaking of must have been
among the earliest, since without them the defence of the organism
would have been impossible. As soon as the cells were no longer
merely in juxtaposition, as soon as they were called upon to give
mutual assistance to each other, some such mechanism as we have
been describing must necessarily have been organised in order
that the assistance should meet the danger without miscarrying.</p>
<p>
When a frog's head has been cut off, and a drop of acid is placed
at some point on its skin, it tries to rub off the acid with the
nearest foot; and if that foot is cut off, it removes it with
the other foot. Here we have, clearly, that double parry I spoke
of just now, making it possible to oppose an evil by a second
remedy if the first fails. It is this multiplicity of parries,
and the resulting co-ordination, that is space.</p>
<p>
We see to what depths of unconsciousness we have to descend to
find the first traces of these spatial associations, since the
lowest parts of the nervous system alone come into play. Once
we have realised this, how can we be astonished at the resistance
we oppose to any attempt to dissociate what has been so long associated?
Now, it is this very resistance that we call the evidence of
the truths of geometry. This evidence is nothing else than the
repugnance we feel at breaking with very old habits with which
we have always got on very well.</p>
<h3>III.</h3>
<p class="fst">
The space thus created is only a small space that does not extend
beyond what my arm can reach, and the intervention of memory is
necessary to set back its limits. There are points that will
always remain out of my reach, whatever effort I may make to stretch
out my hand to them. If I were attached to the ground, like a
sea-polyp, for instance, which can only extend its tentacles,
all these points would be outside space, since the sensations
we might experience from the action of bodies placed there would
not be associated with the idea of any movement enabling us to
reach them, or with any appropriate parry. These sensations would
not seem to us to have any spatial character, and we should not
attempt to locate them.</p>
<p>
But we are not fixed to the ground like the inferior animals.
If the enemy is too far off, we can advance upon him first and
extend our hand when we are near enough. This is still a parry,
but a long-distance parry. Moreover, it is a complex parry, and
into the representation we make of it there enter the representation
of the muscular sensations caused by the movement of the legs,
that of the muscular sensations caused by the final movement of
the arm, that of the sensations of the semi-circular canals, etc.
Besides, we have to make a representation, not of a complexus
of simultaneous sensations, but of a complexus of successive sensations,
following one another in a determined order, and it is for this
reason that I said just now that the intervention of memory is
necessary.</p>
<p>
We must further observe that, to reach the same point, I can approach
nearer the object to be attained, in order not to have to extend
my hand so far. And how much more might be said? It is not one
only, but a thousand parries I can oppose to. the same danger.
All these parries are formed of sensations that may have nothing
in common, and yet we regard them as defining the same point in
space, because they can answer to the same danger and are one
and all of them associated with the notion of that danger. It
is the possibility of parrying the same blow which makes the unity
of these different parries, just as it is the possibility of being
parried in the same way which makes the unity of the blows of
such different kinds that can threaten us from the same point
in space. It is this double unity that makes t he individuality
of each point in space, and in the notion of such a point there
is nothing else but this.</p>
<p>
The space I pictured in the preceding section, which I might call
<em>restricted space, </em>was referred to axes of co-ordinates
attached to my body. These axes were fixed, since my body did
not move, and it was only my limbs that changed their position.
What are the axes to which the <em>extended space </em>is naturally
referred - that is to say, the new space I have just defined? We
define a point by the succession of movements we require to make
to reach it, starting from a certain initial position of the body.
The axes are accordingly attached to this initial position of
the body.</p>
<p>
But the position I call initial may be arbitrarily chosen from
among all the positions my body has successively occupied. If
a more or less unconscious memory of these successive positions
is necessary for the genesis of the notion of space, this memory
can go back more or less into the past. Hence results a certain
indeterminateness in the very definition of space, and it is precisely
this indeterminateness which constitutes its relativity.</p>
<p>
Absolute space exists no longer; there is only space relative
to a certain initial position of the body. For a conscious being,
fixed to the ground like the inferior animals, who would consequently
only know restricted space, space would still be relative, since
it would be referred to his body, but this being would not be
conscious of the relativity, because the axes to which he referred
this restricted space would not change. No doubt the rock to
which he was chained would not be motionless, since it would be
involved in the motion of our planet; for us, consequently, these
axes would change every moment, but for him they would not change.
We have the faculty of referring our extended space at one time
to the position A of our body considered as initial, at another
to the position B which it occupied some moments later, which
we are free to consider in its turn as initial, and, accordingly,
we make unconscious changes in the co-ordinates every moment.
This faculty would fail our imaginary being, and, through not
having travelled, he would think space absolute. Every moment
his system of axes would be imposed on him; this system might
change to any extent in reality, for him it would be always the
same, since it would always be the <em>unique</em> system. It is
not the same for us who possess, each moment, several systems
between which we can choose at will, and on condition of going
back by memory more or less into the past.</p>
<p>
That is not all, for the restricted space would not be homogeneous.
The different points of this space could not be regarded as equivalent,
since some could only be reached at the cost of the greatest efforts,
while others could be reached with ease. On the contrary, our
extended space appears to us homogeneous, and we say that all
its points are equivalent. What does this mean?</p>
<p>
If we start from a certain position A, we can, starting from that
position, effect certain movements M, characterised by a certain
complexus of muscular sensations. But, starting from another
position B, we can execute movements M, which will be characterised
by the same muscular sensations. Then let <em>a </em>be the situation
of a certain point in the body, the tip of the forefinger of the
right hand, for instance, in the initial position A, and let <em>b
</em>be the position of this same forefinger when, starting from
that position A, we have executed the movements M. Then let <em>a<sub>1</sub>
</em>be the situation of the forefinger in the position B, and
<em>b<sub>1</sub> </em>its situation when, starting from the position B, we
have executed the movements M<sub>1</sub>.</p>
<p>
Well, I am in the habit of saying that the points a and <em>b </em>are,
in relation to each other, as the points a' and b, and that means
simply that the two series of movements M and M<sub>1</sub> are accompanied
by the same muscular sensations. And as I am conscious that,
in passing from the position A to the position B, my body has
remained capable of the same movements, I know that there is a
point in space which is to the point a' what some point <em>b </em>is
to the point a, so that the two points a and a' are equivalent.
It is this that is called the homogeneity of space, and at the
same time it is for this reason that space is relative, since
its properties remain the same whether they are referred to the
axes A or to the axes B. So that the relativity of space and its
homogeneity are one and the same thing.</p>
<p>
Now, if I wish to pass to the great space, which is no longer
to serve for my individual use only, but in which I can lodge
the universe I shall arrive at it by an act of imagination. I
shall imagine what a giant would experience who could reach the
planets in a few steps, or, if we prefer, what I should feel myself
in presence of a world in miniature, in which these planets would
be replaced by little balls, while on one of these little balls
there would move a Lilliputian that l should call myself. But
this act of imagination would be impossible for me if I had not
previously constructed my restricted space and my extended space
for my personal use.</p>
<h3>IV.</h3>
<p class="fst">
Now we come to the question why all these spaces have three dimensions.
Let us refer to the "distribution board" spoken of
above. We have, on the one side, a list of the different possible
dangers - let us designate them as A<sub>1</sub>, A<sub>2</sub>, etc. - and, on the other
side, the list of the different remedies, which I will call in
the same way B<sub>1</sub>, B<sub>2</sub>, etc. Then we have connections between the
contact studs of the first list and those of the second in such
a way that when, for instance, the alarm for danger A<sub>3</sub> works,
it sets in motion or may set in motion the relay corresponding
to the parry B<sub>4</sub>.</p>
<p>
As I spoke above of centripetal or centrifugal wires, I am afraid
that all I have said may be taken, not as a simple comparison,
but as a description of the nervous system. Such is not my thought,
and that for several reasons. Firstly, I should not presume to
pronounce an opinion on the structure of the nervous system which
I do not know, while those who have studied it only do so with
circumspection. Secondly, because, in spite of my incompetence,
I fully realise that this scheme would be far too simple. And
lastly, because, on my list of parries, there appear some that
are very complex, which may even, in the case of extended space,
as we have seen above, consist of several steps followed by a
movement of the arm. It is not a question, then, of physical
connection between two real conductors, but of psychological association
between two series of sensations.</p>
<p>
If A<sub>1</sub> and A<sub>2</sub>, for instance, are both of them associated with the
parry B<sub>1</sub>, and if A<sub>1</sub> is similarly associated with B<sub>2</sub>, it will generally
be the case that A<sub>2</sub> and B<sub>2</sub> will also be associated. If this fundamental
law were not generally true, there would only be an immense confusion,
and there would be nothing that could bear any resemblance to
a conception of space or to a geometry. How, indeed, have we
defined a point in space? We defined it in two ways: on the one
hand, it is the whole of the alarms A which are in connection
with the same parry B ; on the other, it is the whole of the parries
B which are in connection with the same alarm A. If our law were
not true, we should be obliged to say that A<sub>1</sub> and A<sub>2</sub> correspond
with the same point, since they are both in connection with B<sub>1</sub>
; but we should be equally obliged to say that they do not correspond
with the same point, since A<sub>1</sub> would be in connection with B<sub>2</sub>,
and this would not be true of A<sub>2</sub> - which would be a contradiction.</p>
<p>
But from another aspect, if the law were rigorously and invariably
true, space would be quite different from what it is. We should
have well-defined categories, among which would be apportioned
the alarms A on the one side and the parries B on the other.
These categories would be exceedingly numerous, but they would
be entirely separated one from the other. Space would be formed
of points, very numerous but discrete; it would be <em>discontinuous.
</em>There would be no reason for arranging these points in one
order rather than another, nor, consequently, for attributing
three dimensions to space.</p>
<p>
But this is not the case. May I be permitted for a moment to
use the language of those who know geometry already? It is necessary
that I should do so, since it is the language best understood
by those to whom I wish to make myself clear. When I wish to
parry the blow, I try to reach the point whence the blow comes,
but it is enough if I come fairly near it. The n the parry B<sub>1</sub>
may answer to A<sub>1</sub>, and to A<sub>2</sub> if the point which corresponds with
B<sub>1</sub> is sufficiently close both to that which corresponds with A<sub>1</sub>
and to that which corresponds with A<sub>2</sub>. But it may happen that
the point which corresponds with another parry B<sub>2</sub> is near enough
to the point corresponding with A<sub>1</sub>, and not near enough to the
point corresponding with A<sub>2</sub>. And so the parry B<sub>2</sub> may answer to
A<sub>1</sub> and not be able to answer to A<sub>2</sub>.</p>
<p>
For those who do not yet know geometry, this may be translated
simply by a modification of the law enunciated above. Then what
happens is as follows. Two parries, B<sub>1</sub> and B<sub>2</sub>, are associated
with one alarm A<sub>1</sub>, and with a very great number of alarms that
we Will place in the same category as A<sub>1</sub>, and make to correspond
with the same point in space. But we may find alarms A<sub>2</sub> which
are associated with B<sub>2</sub> and not with B<sub>1</sub>, but on the other hand
are associated with B<sub>3</sub>, which are not with A<sub>1</sub>, and so on in succession,
so that we may write the sequence B<sub>1</sub>, A<sub>1</sub>, B<sub>2</sub>, A<sub>2</sub>, B<sub>3</sub>, A<sub>3</sub>, B<sub>4</sub>,
A<sub>4</sub>, in which each term is associated with the succeeding and preceding
terms, but not with those that are several places removed.</p>
<p>
It is unnecessary to add that each of the terms of these sequences
is not isolated, but forms part of a very numerous category of
other alarms or other parries which has the same connections as
it, and may be regarded as belonging to the same point in space.
Thus the fundamental law, though admitting of exceptions, remains
almost always true. Only, in consequence of these exceptions,
these categories, instead of being entirely separate, partially
encroach upon each other and mutually overlap to a certain extent,
so that space becomes continuous.</p>
<p>
Furthermore, the order in which these categories must be arranged
is no longer arbitrary, and a reference to the preceding sequence
will make it clear that B<sub>2</sub> must be placed between A<sub>1</sub> and A<sub>2</sub>, and,
consequently, between B<sub>1</sub> and B<sub>3</sub>, and that it could not be placed,
for instance, between B<sub>3</sub> and B<sub>4</sub>.</p>
<p>
Accordingly there is an order in which our categories range themselves
naturally which corresponds with the points in space, and experience
teaches us that this order presents itself in the form of a three
circuit distribution board, and it is for this reason that space
has three dimensions.</p>
<h3>V.</h3>
<p class="fst">
Thus the characteristic property of space, that of having three
dimensions, is only a property of our distribution board, a property
residing, so to speak, in the human intelligence. The destruction
of some of these connections that is to say of these associations
of ideas, would be sufficient to give us a different distribution
board, and that might be enough to endow space with a fourth dimension.</p>
<p>
Some people will be astonished at such a result. The exterior
world, they think, must surely count for something. If the number
of dimensions comes from the way in which we are made, there might
be thinking beings living in our world, but made differently from
us, who would think that space has more or less than three dimensions.
Has not M. de Cyon said that Japanese mice, having only two pairs
of semicircular canals, think that space has two dimensions?
Then will not this thinking being, if he is capable of constructing
a physical system, make a system of two or four dimensions, which
yet, in a sense, will be the same as ours, since it will be the
description of the same world in another language?</p>
<p>
It quite seems, indeed, that it would be possible to translate
our physics into the language of geometry of four dimensions.
Attempting such a translation would be giving oneself a great
deal of trouble for little profit, and I will content myself with
mentioning Hertz's mechanics, in which something of the kind may
be seen. Yet it seems that the translation would always be less
simple than the text, and that it would never lose the appearance
of a translation, for the language of three dimensions seems the
best suited to the description of our world, even though that
description may be made, in case of necessity, in another idiom.</p>
<p>
Besides, it is not by chance that our distribution board has been
formed. There is a connection between the alarm A<sub>1</sub> and the parry
B<sub>1</sub>, that is, a property residing in our intelligence. But why
is there this connection? It is because the parry B<sub>1</sub> enables
us effectively to defend ourselves against the danger A<sub>1</sub>, and
that. is a fact exterior to us, a property of the exterior world.
Our distribution board, then, is only the translation of an assemblage
of exterior facts; if it has three dimensions, it is because it
has adapted itself to a world having certain properties, and the
most important of these properties is that there exist natural
solids which are clearly displaced in accordance with the laws
we call laws of motion of unvarying solids. If, then, the language
of three dimensions is that which enables us most easily to describe
our world, we must not be surprised. This language is founded
on our distribution board, and it is in order to. enable us to
live in this world that this board has been established.</p>
<p>
I have said that we could conceive of thinking beings, living
in our world, whose distribution board would have four dimensions,
who would, consequently, think in hyperspace. It is not certain,
however, that such beings, admitting that,, they were born, would
be able to live and defend 'themselves against the thousand dangers
by which they would be assailed.</p>
<h3>VI.</h3>
<p class="fst">
A few remarks in conclusion. There is a striking contrast between
the roughness of this primitive geometry which is reduced to what
I call a distribution board, and the infinite precision of the
geometry of geometricians. And yet the latter is the child of
the former, but not of it alone; it required to be fertilised
by the faculty we have of constructing mathematical concepts,
such, for instance, as that of the group. It was necessary to
find among these pure concepts the one that was best adapted to
this rough space, whose genesis I have tried to explain in the
preceding pages, the space which is common to us and the higher
animals.</p>
<p>
The evidence of certain 'geometrical postulates is only, as I
have said, our unwillingness to give up very old habits. But
these postulates are infinitely precise, while the habits have
about them something essentially fluid. As soon as we wish to
think, we are bound to have infinitely precise postulates, since
this is the only means of avoiding contradiction. But among all
the possible systems of postulates, there are some that we shall
be unwilling to choose, because they do not accord sufficiently
with our habits. However fluid and elastic these may be, they
have a limit of elasticity.</p>
<p>
It will be seen that though geometry is not an experimental science,
it is a science born in connection with experience; that we have
created the space it studies, but adapting it to the world in
which we live. We have chosen the most convenient space, but
experience guided our choice. As the choice was unconscious,
it appears to be imposed upon us. Some say that it is imposed
by experience, and others that we are born with our space ready-made.
After the preceding considerations, it will be seen what proportion
of truth and of error there is - in these two opinions.</p>
<p>
In this progressive education which has resulted in the construction
of space, it is very difficult to determine what is the share
of the individual and what of the race. To what extent could
one of us, transported from his birth into an entirely different
world, where, for instance, there existed bodies displaced in
accordance with the laws of motion of non-Euclidean solids - to
what extent, I say, would he be able to give up the ancestral
space in order to build up an entirely new space?</p>
<p>
The share of the race seems to preponderate largely, and yet if
it is to it that we owe the rough space, the fluid space of which
I spoke just now, the space of the higher animals, is it not to
the unconscious experience of the individual that we owe the infinitely
precise space of the geometrician? This is a question that is
not easy of solution. I would mention, however, a fact which
shows that the space bequeathed to us by our ancestors still preserves
a certain plasticity. Certain hunters learn to shoot fish under
the water, although the image of these fish is raised by refraction
; and, moreover, they do it instinctively. Accordingly they have
learnt to modify their ancient instinct of direction, or, if you
will, to substitute for the association A<sub>1</sub>, B<sub>1</sub>, another association
A<sub>1</sub>, B<sub>2</sub>, because experience has shown them that the former does not succeed.</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">
Further Reading:<br>
<a href="../../../../../glossary/people/p/o.htm#poincare-henri" target="_top">Biography</a> |
<a href="../ge/mach.htm">Ernst Mach</a> |
<a href="../ge/helmholt.htm">Helmholtz</a> |
<a href="../us/peirce.htm">Peirce</a> |
<a href="../ge/einstein.htm">Einstein</a>
</p>
<p class="footer">
<a href="../../index.htm" target="_top">Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org</a></p>
</body> |
Henri Poincaré (1897)
(from Science & Method)
The Relativity of Space
Source: The Relativity of Space from Science & Method (1897). The complete article reproduced here.
I.
IT is impossible to picture empty space. All
our efforts to imagine pure space from which the changing images
of material objects are excluded can only result in a representation
in which highly-coloured surfaces, for instance, are replaced
by lines of slight colouration, and if we continued in this direction
to the end, everything would disappear and end in nothing. Hence
arises the irreducible relativity of space.
Whoever speaks of absolute space uses a word devoid of meaning.
This is a truth that has been long proclaimed by all who have
reflected on the question, but one which we are too often inclined
to forget.
If I am at a definite point in Paris, at the Place du Panthéon,
for instance, and I say, "I will come back here tomorrow;"
if I am asked, "Do you mean that you will come back to the
same point in space?" I should be tempted to answer yes.
Yet I should be wrong, since between now and tomorrow the earth
will have moved, carrying with it the Place du Panthéon,
which will have travelled more than a million miles. And if I
wished to speak more accurately, I should gain nothing, since
this million of miles has been covered by our globe in its motion
in relation to the sun, and the sun in its turn moves in relation
to the Milky Way, and the Milky Way itself is no doubt in motion
without our being able to recognise its velocity. So that we
are, and shall always be, completely ignorant how far the Place
du Panthéon moves in a day. In fact, what I meant to say
was,
"Tomorrow I shall see once more the dome and pediment of the Panthéon,"
and if there was no Panthéon my sentence would have no
meaning and space would disappear.
This is one of the most commonplace forms of the principle of
the relativity of space, but there is another on which Delbeuf
has laid particular stress. Suppose that in one night all the
dimensions of the universe became a thousand times larger. The
world will remain similar to itself, if we give the word
similitude the meaning it has in the third book of Euclid.
Only, what was formerly a metre long will now measure a kilometre,
and what was a millimetre long will become a metre. The bed in
which I went to sleep and my body itself will have grown in the
same proportion. When I awake in the morning what will be my
feeling in face of such an astonishing transformation? Well,
I shall not notice anything at all. The most exact measures will
be incapable of revealing anything of this tremendous change,
since the yard-measures I shall use will have varied in exactly
the same proportions as the objects I shall attempt to measure.
In reality the change only exists for those who argue as if space
were absolute. If I have argued for a moment as they do, it was
only in order to make it clearer that their view implies a contradiction.
In reality it would be better to say that as space is relative,
nothing at all has happened, and that it is for that reason that
we have noticed nothing.
Have we any right, therefore, to say that we know the distance
between two points? No, since that distance could undergo enormous
variations without our being able to perceive it, provided other
distances varied in the same proportions. We saw just now that
when I say I shall be here tomorrow, that does not mean that
tomorrow I shall be at the point in space where I am today,
but that tomorrow I shall be at the same distance from the Panthéon
as I am today. And already this statement is not sufficient,
and I ought to say that tomorrow and today my distance from
the Panthéon will be equal to the same number of times
the length of my body.
But that is not all. I imagined the dimensions of the world changing,
but at least the world remaining always similar to itself. We
can go much further than that, and one of the most surprising
theories of modern physicists will furnish the occasion. According
to a hypothesis of Lorentz and Fitzgerald, all bodies carried
forward in the earth's motion undergo a deformation. This deformation
is, in truth, very slight, since all dimensions parallel with
the earth's motion are diminished by a hundred-millionth, while
dimensions perpendicular to this motion are not altered. But
it matters little that it is slight; it is enough that it should
exist for the conclusion I am soon going to draw from it. Besides,
though I said that it is slight, I really know nothing about it.
I have myself fallen a victim to the tenacious illusion that
makes us believe that we think of an absolute space. I was thinking
of the earth's motion on its elliptical orbit round the sun, and
I allowed 18 miles a second for its velocity. But its true velocity
(I mean this time, not its absolute velocity, which has no sense,
but its velocity in relation to the ether), this I do not know
and have no means of knowing. It is, perhaps, 10 or 100 times
as high, and then the deformation will be 100 or 10,000 times
as great.
It is evident that we cannot demonstrate this deformation. Take
a cube with sides a yard long. it is deformed on account of the
earth's velocity; one of its sides, that parallel with the motion,
becomes smaller, the others do not vary. If I wish to assure
myself of this with the help of a yard-measure, I shall measure
first one of the sides perpendicular to the motion, and satisfy
myself that my measure fit s this side exactly ; and indeed neither
one nor other of these lengths is altered, since they are both
perpendicular to the motion. I then wish to measure the other
side, that parallel with the motion ; for this purpose I change
the position of my measure, and turn it so as to apply it to this
side. But the yard-measure, having changed its direction and
having become parallel with the motion, has in its turn undergone
the deformation so that, though the side is no longer a yard long,
it will still fit it exactly, and I shall be aware of nothing.
What, then, I shall be asked, is the use of the hypothesis of
Lorentz and Fitzgerald if no experiment can enable us to verify
it? The fact is that my statement has been incomplete. I have
only spoken of measurements that can be made with a yard-measure,
but we can also measure a distance by the time that light takes
to traverse it, on condition that we admit that the velocity of
light is constant, and independent of its direction. Lorentz
could have accounted for the facts by supposing that the velocity
of light is greater in the direction of the earth's motion than
in the perpendicular direction. He preferred to admit that the
velocity is the same in the two directions, but that bodies are
smaller in the former than in the latter. If the surfaces of
the waves of light had undergone the same deformations as material
bodies, we should never have perceived the Lorentz-Fitzgerald
deformation.
In the one case as in the other, there can be no question of absolute
magnitude, but of the measurement of that magnitude by means of
some instrument. This instrument may be a yard-measure or the
path traversed by light. It is only the relation of the magnitude
to the instrument that we measure, and if this relation is altered,
we have no means of knowing whether it is the magnitude or the
instrument that has changed.
But what I wish to make clear is, that in this deformation the
world has not remained similar to itself. Squares have become
rectangles or parallelograms, circles ellipses, and spheres ellipsoids.
And yet we have no means of knowing whether this deformation
is real.
It is clear that we might go much further. Instead of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald
deformation, with its extremely simple laws, we might imagine
a deformation of any kind whatever; bodies might be deformed in
accordance with any laws, as complicated as we liked, and we should
not perceive it, provided all bodies without exception were deformed
in accordance with the same laws. When I say all bodies without
exception, I include, of course, our own bodies and the rays of
light emanating from the different objects.
If we look at the world in one of those mirrors of complicated
form which deform objects in an odd way, the mutual relations
of the different parts of the world are not altered; if, in fact,
two real objects touch, their images likewise appear to touch.
In truth, when we look in such a mirror we readily perceive the
deformation but it is because the real world exists beside its
deformed image. And even if this real world were hidden from
us, there is something which cannot be hidden, and that is ourselves.
We cannot help seeing, or at least feeling, our body and our
members which have not been deformed, and continue to act as measuring
instruments. But if we imagine our body itself deformed, and
in the same way as if it were seen in the mirror, these measuring
instruments will fail us in their turn, and the deformation will
no longer be able to be ascertained.
Imagine, in the same way, two universes which are the image one
of the other. With each object P in the universe A, there corresponds,
in the universe B, an object P1 which is its image. The co-ordinates
of this image P1 are determinate functions of those of the object
P ; moreover, these functions ma be of any kind whatever - I assume
only that they are chosen once for all. Between the position
of P and that of P1 there is a constant relation ; it matters
little what that relation may be, it is enough that it should
be constant.
Well, these two universes will be indistinguishable.
I mean to say that the former will be for its inhabitants what
the second is for its own. This would be true so long as the
two universes remained foreign to one another. Suppose we are
inhabitants of the universe A ; we have constructed our science
and particularly our geometry. During this time the inhabitants
of the universe B have constructed a science, and as their world
is the image of ours, their geometry will also be the image of
ours, or, more accurately, it will be the same. But if one day
a window were to open for us upon the universe B, we should feel
contempt for them, and we should say, "These wretched people
imagine that they have made a geometry, but what they so name
is only a grotesque image of ours; their straight lines are all
twisted, their circles are hunchbacked, and their spheres have
capricious inequalities." We should have no suspicion that
they were saying the same of us, and that no one will ever know
which is right.
We see in how large a sense we must understand the relativity
of space. Space is in reality amorphous, and it is only the
things that are in it that give it a form. What are we to think,
then, of that direct intuition we have of a straight line or of
distance? We have so little the intuition of distance in itself
that, in a single night, as we have said, a distance could become
a thousand times greater without our being able to perceive it,
if all other distances had undergone the same alteration. And
in a night the universe B might even be substituted for the universe
A without our having any means of knowing it, and then the straight
lines of yesterday would have ceased to be straight, and we should
not be aware of anything.
One part of space is not by itself and in the absolute sense of
the word equal to another part of space, for if it is so for us,
it will not be so for the inhabitants of the universe B, and they
have precisely as much right to reject our opinion as we have
to condemn theirs.
I have shown elsewhere what are the consequences of these facts
from the point of view of the idea that we should construct non-Euclidean
and other analogous geometries. I do not wish to return to this,
and I will take a somewhat different point of view.
II.
If this intuition of distance, of direction, of the straight line,
if, in a word, this direct intuition of space does not exist,
whence comes it that we imagine we have it? If this is only an
illusion, whence comes it that the illusion is so tenacious ?
This is what we must examine. There is no direct intuition
of magnitude, as we have said, and we can only arrive at the relation
of the magnitude to our measuring instruments. Accordingly we
could not have constructed space if we had not had an instrument
for measuring it. Well, that instrument to which we refer everything,
which we use instinctively, is our own body. It is in reference
to our own body that we locate exterior objects, and the only
special relations of these objects that we can picture to ourselves
are their relations with our body. It is our body that serves
us, so to speak, as a system of axes of co-ordinates.
For instance, at a moment a the presence of an object A is revealed
to me by the sense of sight; at another moment b the presence
of another object B is revealed by another sense, that, for instance,
of hearing or of touch. I judge that this object B occupies the
same place as the object A. What does this mean? To begin with,
it does not imply that these two objects occupy, at two different
moments, the same point in an absolute space, which, even if it
existed, would escape our knowledge, since between the moments
a and P the solar system has been displaced and we cannot know
what this displacement is. It means that these two objects occupy
the same relative position in reference to our body.
But what is meant even by this? The impressions that have come
to us from these objects have followed absolutely different paths - the
optic nerve for the object A, and the acoustic nerve for the object
B - they have nothing in common from the qualitative point of view.'
The representations we can form of these two objects are absolutely
heterogeneous and irreducible one to the other. Only I know that,
in order to reach the object A, I have only to extend my right
arm in a certain way; even though I refrain from doing it, I represent
to myself the muscular and other analogous sensations which accompany
that extension, and that representation is associated with that
of the object A.
Now I know equally that I can reach the object B by extending
my right arm in the same way, an extension accompanied by the
same train of muscular sensations. And I mean nothing else but
this when I say that these two objects occupy the same position.
I know also that I could have reached the object A by another
appropriate movement of the left arm, and I represent to myself
the muscular sensations that would have accompanied the movement.
And by the same movement of the left arm, accompanied by the
same sensations, I could equally have reached the object B.
And this is very important, since it is in this way that I could
defend myself against the dangers with which the object A or the
object B might threaten me. With each of the blows that may strike
us, nature has associated one or several parries which enable
us to protect ourselves against them. The same parry may answer
to several blows. It is thus, for instance, that the same movement
of the right arm would have enabled us to defend ourselves at
the moment a against the object A, and at the moment b against
the object B. Similarly, the same blow may be parried in several
ways, and we have said, for instance, that we could reach the
object A equally well either by a certain movement of the right
arm, or by a certain movement of the left.
All these parries have nothing in common with one another, except
that they enable us to avoid the same blow, and it is that, and
nothing but that, we mean when we say that they are movements
ending in the same point in space. Similarly, these objects,
of which we say that they occupy the same point in space, have
nothing in common, except that the same parry can enable us to
defend ourselves against them.
Or, if we prefer it, let us imagine innumerable telegraph wires,
some centripetal and others centrifugal. The centripetal wires
warn us of accidents that occur outside, the centrifugal wires
have to provide the remedy. Connections are established in such
a way that when one of the centripetal wires is traversed by a
current, this current acts on a central exchange, and so excites
a current in one of the centrifugal wires, and matters are so
arranged that several centripetal wires can act on the same centrifugal
wire, if the same remedy is applicable to several evils, and that
one centripetal wire can disturb several centrifugal wires, either
simultaneously or one in default of the other, every time that
the same evil can be cured by several remedies.
It is this complex system of associations, it is this distribution
board, so to speak, that is our whole geometry, or, if you will,
all that is distinctive in our geometry. What we call our intuition
of a straight line or of distance is the consciousness we have
of these associations and of their imperious character.
Whence this imperious character itself comes, it is easy to understand.
The older an association is, the more indestructible it will
appear to us. But these associations are not, for the most part,
conquests made by the individual, since we see traces of them
in the newly-born infant they are conquests made by the race.
The more necessary these conquests were, the more quickly they
must have been brought about by natural selection.
On this account those we have been speaking of must have been
among the earliest, since without them the defence of the organism
would have been impossible. As soon as the cells were no longer
merely in juxtaposition, as soon as they were called upon to give
mutual assistance to each other, some such mechanism as we have
been describing must necessarily have been organised in order
that the assistance should meet the danger without miscarrying.
When a frog's head has been cut off, and a drop of acid is placed
at some point on its skin, it tries to rub off the acid with the
nearest foot; and if that foot is cut off, it removes it with
the other foot. Here we have, clearly, that double parry I spoke
of just now, making it possible to oppose an evil by a second
remedy if the first fails. It is this multiplicity of parries,
and the resulting co-ordination, that is space.
We see to what depths of unconsciousness we have to descend to
find the first traces of these spatial associations, since the
lowest parts of the nervous system alone come into play. Once
we have realised this, how can we be astonished at the resistance
we oppose to any attempt to dissociate what has been so long associated?
Now, it is this very resistance that we call the evidence of
the truths of geometry. This evidence is nothing else than the
repugnance we feel at breaking with very old habits with which
we have always got on very well.
III.
The space thus created is only a small space that does not extend
beyond what my arm can reach, and the intervention of memory is
necessary to set back its limits. There are points that will
always remain out of my reach, whatever effort I may make to stretch
out my hand to them. If I were attached to the ground, like a
sea-polyp, for instance, which can only extend its tentacles,
all these points would be outside space, since the sensations
we might experience from the action of bodies placed there would
not be associated with the idea of any movement enabling us to
reach them, or with any appropriate parry. These sensations would
not seem to us to have any spatial character, and we should not
attempt to locate them.
But we are not fixed to the ground like the inferior animals.
If the enemy is too far off, we can advance upon him first and
extend our hand when we are near enough. This is still a parry,
but a long-distance parry. Moreover, it is a complex parry, and
into the representation we make of it there enter the representation
of the muscular sensations caused by the movement of the legs,
that of the muscular sensations caused by the final movement of
the arm, that of the sensations of the semi-circular canals, etc.
Besides, we have to make a representation, not of a complexus
of simultaneous sensations, but of a complexus of successive sensations,
following one another in a determined order, and it is for this
reason that I said just now that the intervention of memory is
necessary.
We must further observe that, to reach the same point, I can approach
nearer the object to be attained, in order not to have to extend
my hand so far. And how much more might be said? It is not one
only, but a thousand parries I can oppose to. the same danger.
All these parries are formed of sensations that may have nothing
in common, and yet we regard them as defining the same point in
space, because they can answer to the same danger and are one
and all of them associated with the notion of that danger. It
is the possibility of parrying the same blow which makes the unity
of these different parries, just as it is the possibility of being
parried in the same way which makes the unity of the blows of
such different kinds that can threaten us from the same point
in space. It is this double unity that makes t he individuality
of each point in space, and in the notion of such a point there
is nothing else but this.
The space I pictured in the preceding section, which I might call
restricted space, was referred to axes of co-ordinates
attached to my body. These axes were fixed, since my body did
not move, and it was only my limbs that changed their position.
What are the axes to which the extended space is naturally
referred - that is to say, the new space I have just defined? We
define a point by the succession of movements we require to make
to reach it, starting from a certain initial position of the body.
The axes are accordingly attached to this initial position of
the body.
But the position I call initial may be arbitrarily chosen from
among all the positions my body has successively occupied. If
a more or less unconscious memory of these successive positions
is necessary for the genesis of the notion of space, this memory
can go back more or less into the past. Hence results a certain
indeterminateness in the very definition of space, and it is precisely
this indeterminateness which constitutes its relativity.
Absolute space exists no longer; there is only space relative
to a certain initial position of the body. For a conscious being,
fixed to the ground like the inferior animals, who would consequently
only know restricted space, space would still be relative, since
it would be referred to his body, but this being would not be
conscious of the relativity, because the axes to which he referred
this restricted space would not change. No doubt the rock to
which he was chained would not be motionless, since it would be
involved in the motion of our planet; for us, consequently, these
axes would change every moment, but for him they would not change.
We have the faculty of referring our extended space at one time
to the position A of our body considered as initial, at another
to the position B which it occupied some moments later, which
we are free to consider in its turn as initial, and, accordingly,
we make unconscious changes in the co-ordinates every moment.
This faculty would fail our imaginary being, and, through not
having travelled, he would think space absolute. Every moment
his system of axes would be imposed on him; this system might
change to any extent in reality, for him it would be always the
same, since it would always be the unique system. It is
not the same for us who possess, each moment, several systems
between which we can choose at will, and on condition of going
back by memory more or less into the past.
That is not all, for the restricted space would not be homogeneous.
The different points of this space could not be regarded as equivalent,
since some could only be reached at the cost of the greatest efforts,
while others could be reached with ease. On the contrary, our
extended space appears to us homogeneous, and we say that all
its points are equivalent. What does this mean?
If we start from a certain position A, we can, starting from that
position, effect certain movements M, characterised by a certain
complexus of muscular sensations. But, starting from another
position B, we can execute movements M, which will be characterised
by the same muscular sensations. Then let a be the situation
of a certain point in the body, the tip of the forefinger of the
right hand, for instance, in the initial position A, and let b
be the position of this same forefinger when, starting from
that position A, we have executed the movements M. Then let a1
be the situation of the forefinger in the position B, and
b1 its situation when, starting from the position B, we
have executed the movements M1.
Well, I am in the habit of saying that the points a and b are,
in relation to each other, as the points a' and b, and that means
simply that the two series of movements M and M1 are accompanied
by the same muscular sensations. And as I am conscious that,
in passing from the position A to the position B, my body has
remained capable of the same movements, I know that there is a
point in space which is to the point a' what some point b is
to the point a, so that the two points a and a' are equivalent.
It is this that is called the homogeneity of space, and at the
same time it is for this reason that space is relative, since
its properties remain the same whether they are referred to the
axes A or to the axes B. So that the relativity of space and its
homogeneity are one and the same thing.
Now, if I wish to pass to the great space, which is no longer
to serve for my individual use only, but in which I can lodge
the universe I shall arrive at it by an act of imagination. I
shall imagine what a giant would experience who could reach the
planets in a few steps, or, if we prefer, what I should feel myself
in presence of a world in miniature, in which these planets would
be replaced by little balls, while on one of these little balls
there would move a Lilliputian that l should call myself. But
this act of imagination would be impossible for me if I had not
previously constructed my restricted space and my extended space
for my personal use.
IV.
Now we come to the question why all these spaces have three dimensions.
Let us refer to the "distribution board" spoken of
above. We have, on the one side, a list of the different possible
dangers - let us designate them as A1, A2, etc. - and, on the other
side, the list of the different remedies, which I will call in
the same way B1, B2, etc. Then we have connections between the
contact studs of the first list and those of the second in such
a way that when, for instance, the alarm for danger A3 works,
it sets in motion or may set in motion the relay corresponding
to the parry B4.
As I spoke above of centripetal or centrifugal wires, I am afraid
that all I have said may be taken, not as a simple comparison,
but as a description of the nervous system. Such is not my thought,
and that for several reasons. Firstly, I should not presume to
pronounce an opinion on the structure of the nervous system which
I do not know, while those who have studied it only do so with
circumspection. Secondly, because, in spite of my incompetence,
I fully realise that this scheme would be far too simple. And
lastly, because, on my list of parries, there appear some that
are very complex, which may even, in the case of extended space,
as we have seen above, consist of several steps followed by a
movement of the arm. It is not a question, then, of physical
connection between two real conductors, but of psychological association
between two series of sensations.
If A1 and A2, for instance, are both of them associated with the
parry B1, and if A1 is similarly associated with B2, it will generally
be the case that A2 and B2 will also be associated. If this fundamental
law were not generally true, there would only be an immense confusion,
and there would be nothing that could bear any resemblance to
a conception of space or to a geometry. How, indeed, have we
defined a point in space? We defined it in two ways: on the one
hand, it is the whole of the alarms A which are in connection
with the same parry B ; on the other, it is the whole of the parries
B which are in connection with the same alarm A. If our law were
not true, we should be obliged to say that A1 and A2 correspond
with the same point, since they are both in connection with B1
; but we should be equally obliged to say that they do not correspond
with the same point, since A1 would be in connection with B2,
and this would not be true of A2 - which would be a contradiction.
But from another aspect, if the law were rigorously and invariably
true, space would be quite different from what it is. We should
have well-defined categories, among which would be apportioned
the alarms A on the one side and the parries B on the other.
These categories would be exceedingly numerous, but they would
be entirely separated one from the other. Space would be formed
of points, very numerous but discrete; it would be discontinuous.
There would be no reason for arranging these points in one
order rather than another, nor, consequently, for attributing
three dimensions to space.
But this is not the case. May I be permitted for a moment to
use the language of those who know geometry already? It is necessary
that I should do so, since it is the language best understood
by those to whom I wish to make myself clear. When I wish to
parry the blow, I try to reach the point whence the blow comes,
but it is enough if I come fairly near it. The n the parry B1
may answer to A1, and to A2 if the point which corresponds with
B1 is sufficiently close both to that which corresponds with A1
and to that which corresponds with A2. But it may happen that
the point which corresponds with another parry B2 is near enough
to the point corresponding with A1, and not near enough to the
point corresponding with A2. And so the parry B2 may answer to
A1 and not be able to answer to A2.
For those who do not yet know geometry, this may be translated
simply by a modification of the law enunciated above. Then what
happens is as follows. Two parries, B1 and B2, are associated
with one alarm A1, and with a very great number of alarms that
we Will place in the same category as A1, and make to correspond
with the same point in space. But we may find alarms A2 which
are associated with B2 and not with B1, but on the other hand
are associated with B3, which are not with A1, and so on in succession,
so that we may write the sequence B1, A1, B2, A2, B3, A3, B4,
A4, in which each term is associated with the succeeding and preceding
terms, but not with those that are several places removed.
It is unnecessary to add that each of the terms of these sequences
is not isolated, but forms part of a very numerous category of
other alarms or other parries which has the same connections as
it, and may be regarded as belonging to the same point in space.
Thus the fundamental law, though admitting of exceptions, remains
almost always true. Only, in consequence of these exceptions,
these categories, instead of being entirely separate, partially
encroach upon each other and mutually overlap to a certain extent,
so that space becomes continuous.
Furthermore, the order in which these categories must be arranged
is no longer arbitrary, and a reference to the preceding sequence
will make it clear that B2 must be placed between A1 and A2, and,
consequently, between B1 and B3, and that it could not be placed,
for instance, between B3 and B4.
Accordingly there is an order in which our categories range themselves
naturally which corresponds with the points in space, and experience
teaches us that this order presents itself in the form of a three
circuit distribution board, and it is for this reason that space
has three dimensions.
V.
Thus the characteristic property of space, that of having three
dimensions, is only a property of our distribution board, a property
residing, so to speak, in the human intelligence. The destruction
of some of these connections that is to say of these associations
of ideas, would be sufficient to give us a different distribution
board, and that might be enough to endow space with a fourth dimension.
Some people will be astonished at such a result. The exterior
world, they think, must surely count for something. If the number
of dimensions comes from the way in which we are made, there might
be thinking beings living in our world, but made differently from
us, who would think that space has more or less than three dimensions.
Has not M. de Cyon said that Japanese mice, having only two pairs
of semicircular canals, think that space has two dimensions?
Then will not this thinking being, if he is capable of constructing
a physical system, make a system of two or four dimensions, which
yet, in a sense, will be the same as ours, since it will be the
description of the same world in another language?
It quite seems, indeed, that it would be possible to translate
our physics into the language of geometry of four dimensions.
Attempting such a translation would be giving oneself a great
deal of trouble for little profit, and I will content myself with
mentioning Hertz's mechanics, in which something of the kind may
be seen. Yet it seems that the translation would always be less
simple than the text, and that it would never lose the appearance
of a translation, for the language of three dimensions seems the
best suited to the description of our world, even though that
description may be made, in case of necessity, in another idiom.
Besides, it is not by chance that our distribution board has been
formed. There is a connection between the alarm A1 and the parry
B1, that is, a property residing in our intelligence. But why
is there this connection? It is because the parry B1 enables
us effectively to defend ourselves against the danger A1, and
that. is a fact exterior to us, a property of the exterior world.
Our distribution board, then, is only the translation of an assemblage
of exterior facts; if it has three dimensions, it is because it
has adapted itself to a world having certain properties, and the
most important of these properties is that there exist natural
solids which are clearly displaced in accordance with the laws
we call laws of motion of unvarying solids. If, then, the language
of three dimensions is that which enables us most easily to describe
our world, we must not be surprised. This language is founded
on our distribution board, and it is in order to. enable us to
live in this world that this board has been established.
I have said that we could conceive of thinking beings, living
in our world, whose distribution board would have four dimensions,
who would, consequently, think in hyperspace. It is not certain,
however, that such beings, admitting that,, they were born, would
be able to live and defend 'themselves against the thousand dangers
by which they would be assailed.
VI.
A few remarks in conclusion. There is a striking contrast between
the roughness of this primitive geometry which is reduced to what
I call a distribution board, and the infinite precision of the
geometry of geometricians. And yet the latter is the child of
the former, but not of it alone; it required to be fertilised
by the faculty we have of constructing mathematical concepts,
such, for instance, as that of the group. It was necessary to
find among these pure concepts the one that was best adapted to
this rough space, whose genesis I have tried to explain in the
preceding pages, the space which is common to us and the higher
animals.
The evidence of certain 'geometrical postulates is only, as I
have said, our unwillingness to give up very old habits. But
these postulates are infinitely precise, while the habits have
about them something essentially fluid. As soon as we wish to
think, we are bound to have infinitely precise postulates, since
this is the only means of avoiding contradiction. But among all
the possible systems of postulates, there are some that we shall
be unwilling to choose, because they do not accord sufficiently
with our habits. However fluid and elastic these may be, they
have a limit of elasticity.
It will be seen that though geometry is not an experimental science,
it is a science born in connection with experience; that we have
created the space it studies, but adapting it to the world in
which we live. We have chosen the most convenient space, but
experience guided our choice. As the choice was unconscious,
it appears to be imposed upon us. Some say that it is imposed
by experience, and others that we are born with our space ready-made.
After the preceding considerations, it will be seen what proportion
of truth and of error there is - in these two opinions.
In this progressive education which has resulted in the construction
of space, it is very difficult to determine what is the share
of the individual and what of the race. To what extent could
one of us, transported from his birth into an entirely different
world, where, for instance, there existed bodies displaced in
accordance with the laws of motion of non-Euclidean solids - to
what extent, I say, would he be able to give up the ancestral
space in order to build up an entirely new space?
The share of the race seems to preponderate largely, and yet if
it is to it that we owe the rough space, the fluid space of which
I spoke just now, the space of the higher animals, is it not to
the unconscious experience of the individual that we owe the infinitely
precise space of the geometrician? This is a question that is
not easy of solution. I would mention, however, a fact which
shows that the space bequeathed to us by our ancestors still preserves
a certain plasticity. Certain hunters learn to shoot fish under
the water, although the image of these fish is raised by refraction
; and, moreover, they do it instinctively. Accordingly they have
learnt to modify their ancient instinct of direction, or, if you
will, to substitute for the association A1, B1, another association
A1, B2, because experience has shown them that the former does not succeed.
Further Reading:
Biography |
Ernst Mach |
Helmholtz |
Peirce |
Einstein
Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org
|
./articles/Helmholtz-Hermann/https:..www.marxists.org.reference.subject.philosophy.works.ru.pavlov | <body>
<img src="../../../../../glossary/people/p/pics/pavlov.jpg" vspace="6" hspace="6" align="right" border="1" alt="handsome young man with fine features and bushy beard">
<p class="title">Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (1924)</p>
<h4>Lectures on the Work of the Cerebral Hemisphere, Lecture One</h4>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information">
<span class="info">Source</span>: from <em>Experimental Psychology and other essays</em>, 1957, published by
Philosophical Library, NY. One lecture reproduced in full.
</p><hr class="end">
<p class="fst">
Gentlemen,</p>
<p class="fst">
One cannot but be struck by a comparison of the following facts.
First, the cerebral hemispheres, the higher part of the central
nervous system, is a rather impressive organ. In structure it
is exceedingly complex, comprising millions and millions (in man
- even billions) of cells, i.e., centres or foci of nervous activity.
These cells vary in size, shape and arrangement and are connected
with each other by countless branches. Such structural complexity
naturally suggests a very high degree of functional complexity.
Consequently, it would seem that a boundless field of investigation
is offered here for the physiologist. Secondly, take the dog,
man's companion and friend since prehistoric times, in its various
roles as hunter, sentinel, etc. We know that this complex behaviour
of the dog, its higher nervous activity (since no one will dispute
that this is higher nervous activity), is chiefly associated with
the cerebral hemispheres. If we remove the cerebral hemispheres
in the dog (Goltz and others), it becomes incapable of performing
not only the roles mentioned above, but even of looking after
itself. It becomes profoundly disabled and will die unless well
cared for. This implies that both in respect of structure and
function, the cerebral hemispheres perform considerable physiological
work.</p>
<p>
Let us turn now to man. His entire higher nervous activity is
also dependent on the normal structure and functioning of the
cerebral hemispheres. The moment the complex structure of his
hemispheres is damaged or disturbed in one way or another, he
also becomes an invalid; he can no longer freely associate with
his fellows as an equal and must be isolated.</p>
<p>
In amazing contrast to this boundless activity of the cerebral
hemispheres is the scant content of the present-day physiology
of these hemispheres. Up to 1870 there was no physiology of the
cerebral hemispheres at all; they seemed inaccessible to the physiologist.
It was in that year that Fritsch and Hitzig first successfully
applied the ordinary physiological methods of stimulation and
destruction to their study. Stimulation of certain parts of the
cerebral cortex regularly evoked contractions in definite groups
of the skeletal muscles (the cortical motor region). Extirpation
of these parts led to certain disturbances in the normal activity
of the corresponding groups of muscles.</p>
<p>
Shortly afterwards H. Munk, Ferrier and others demonstrated that
other regions of the cortex, seemingly not susceptible to artificial
stimulation, are also functionally differentiated. Removal of
these parts leads to defects in the activity of certain receptor
organs - the eye, the ear and the skin.</p>
<p>
Many researchers have been thoroughly investigating these phenomena.
More precision and more details have been obtained, especially
as regards the motor region, and this knowledge has even found
practical application in medicine; however, investigation as vet
has not gone far beyond the initial point. The essential fact
is that the entire higher and complex behaviour of the animal,
which is dependent on the cerebral hemispheres, as shown by the
previously mentioned experiment by Goltz with the extirpation
of the hemispheres in a dog, has hardly been touched upon in these
investigations and is not included even in the programme of current
physiological research, what do the facts relating to the cerebral
hemispheres, which are now at the disposal of the physiologist,
explain with regard to the behaviour of the higher animals? Is
there a general scheme of the higher nervous activity? What kind
of general rules govern this activity? The contemporary physiologist
finds himself truly empty-handed when he has to answer these lawful
questions. While the object of investigation is highly complex
in relation to structure, and extremely rich in function, research
in this sphere remains, as it were, in a blind alley, unable to
open up before the physiologist the boundless vistas which might
have been expected.</p>
<p>
Why is this so? The reason is clear, the work of the cerebral
hemispheres has never been regarded from the same point of view
as that of other organs of the body, or even other parts of the
central nervous system. It has been described as special <em>psychical
</em>activity - which we feel and apprehend in ourselves and which
we suppose exists in animals by analogy with human beings. Hence
the highly peculiar and difficult position of the physiologist.
On the one hand, the study of the cerebral hemispheres, as of
all other parts of the organism, seems to come within the scope
of physiology, but on the other hand, it is an object of study
by a special branch of science - psychology. What, then, should
be the attitude of the physiologist? Should he first acquire
psychological methods and knowledge and only then begin to study
the activity of the cerebral hemispheres? But there is a real
complication here. It is quite natural that physiology, in analysing
living matter, should always base itself on the more exact and
advanced sciences - mechanics, physics and chemistry. But here
we are dealing with an altogether different matter, since in this
particular case we should have to rely on a science which has
no claim to exactness as compared with physiology. Until recently
discussion revolved even around the question whether psychology
should be considered a natural science or a science at all. Without
going deeply into this question, I should like to cite some facts
which, although crude and superficial, seem to me very convincing.
Even the psychologists themselves do not regard their science
as being exact. Not so long ago James, an outstanding American
psychologist, called psychology not a science, but a "hope
for science." Another striking illustration has been provided
by Wundt, formerly a physiologist, who became a celebrated psychologist
and philosopher and even the founder of the so-called experimental
psychology. Prior to the war, in 1913, a discussion took place
in Germany as to the advisability of separating the psychological
branch of science from the philosophical in the universities,
i.e., of having two separate chairs instead of one. Wundt opposed
separation, one of his arguments being the impossibility of establishing
a common and obligatory examination programme' in psychology,
since each professor had his own ideas of the essence of psychology.
Is it not clear, then, that psychology has not yet reached the
stage of an exact science?</p>
<p>
This being the case, there is no need for the physiologist to
have recourse to psychology. In view of the steadily developing
natural science it would be more logical to expect that not psychology
should render assistance to the physiology of the cerebral hemispheres,
but, on the contrary, physiological investigation of the activity
of this organ in animals should lay the foundation for the exact
scientific analysis of the human subjective world. Consequently,
physiology must follow its own path - the path blazed for it long
ago. Taking as his starting-point the assumption that the functioning
of the animal's organism, unlike that of the human being, is similar
to the work of a machine, Descartes' three hundred years ago evolved
the idea of the reflex as the basic activity of the nervous system.
Descartes regarded every activity of the organism as a natural
response to certain external agents and believed that the connection
between the active organ and the given agent, that is, between
cause and effect, is achieved through a definite nervous path.
In this way the study of the activity of the animal nervous system
was placed on the firm basis of natural science. In the eighteenth,
nineteenth and twentieth centuries the idea of the reflex had
been extensively used by physiologists, but only in their work
on the lower parts of the central nervous system; gradually, however,
they began to study its higher parts, until finally, after Sherrington's
classical works on spinal reflexes, Magnus, his successor, established
the reflex nature of all the basic locomotor activities of the
organism. And so experiment fully justified the idea of the reflex
which , thereafter, was used in the study of the central nervous
system almost up to the cerebral hemispheres. It is to be hoped
that the more complex activities of the organism, including the
basic locomotor reflexes - states so far referred to in psychology
as anger, fear, playfulness, etc. - will soon be related to the
simple reflex activity of the subcortical parts of the brain.</p>
<p>
A bold attempt to apply the idea of the reflex to the cerebral
hemispheres not only of animals but also of man, was made by I.
M. Sechenov, the Russian physiologist, on the basis of the contemporary
physiology of the nervous system. In a paper published in Russian
in 1863 and entitled <em>Reflexes of the Brain </em>Sechenov
characterised the activity of the cerebral hemispheres as reflex,
i.e., determined activity. He regarded thoughts as reflexes in
which the effector end is inhibited, and affects as exaggerated
reflexes with a wide irradiation of excitation. A like attempt
has been made in our time by Ch. Richet who introduced the concept
of the psychical reflex in which the reaction to a given stimulus
is determined by its union with the traces left in the cerebral
hemispheres by previous stimuli. Generally, the recent physiology
of the higher nervous activity related to the cerebral hemispheres
tends to associate acting stimulation with traces left by previous
ones (associative memory - according to J. Loeb; training, education
by experience - according to other physiologists). But this was
mere theorising. The time had come for a transition to the experimental
analysis of the subject, and from the objective external aspect,
as is the case with any other branch of natural science. This
transition was determined by comparative physiology which had
just made its appearance as a result of the influence of the theory
of evolution. Now that it had turned its attention to the entire
animal kingdom, physiology, in dealing with its lower representatives,
was forced, of necessity, to abandon the anthropomorphic concept
and concentrate on the scientific elucidation of the relations
between the external agents influencing the animal and the responsive
external activity, the locomotor reaction of the latter. This
gave birth to J. Loeb's doctrine of animal tropisms; to the suggestion
by Beer, Bethe and Uexküll of an objective terminology for
designating the animal reactions; and finally, to the investigation
by zoologists of the behaviour of the lower representatives of
the animal world, by means of purely objective methods, by comparing
the effect of external influences on the animal with its responsive
external activity - as for example in the classical work of Jennings,
etc.</p>
<p>
Influenced by this new tendency in biology and having a practical
cast of mind, American psychologists who also became interested
in comparative psychology displayed a tendency to subject the
external activity of animals to experimental analysis under deliberately
induced conditions. Thorndike's <em>Animal Intelligence </em>(1898)
must be regarded as the starting-point for investigations of this
kind. In these investigations the animal was kept in a box and
food placed outside, within sight. The animal, naturally, tried
to reach the food, but to do so it had to open the door which
in the different experiments was fastened in a different way.
Tables and charts registered the speed and the manner in which
the animal solved this problem. The entire process was interpreted
as the formation of an association, connection between the visual
and the tactile stimulation and the locomotor activity. Afterwards
by means of this method, and by modifications of it, researchers
studied numerous questions relating to the associative ability
of various animals. Almost simultaneously with the above-mentioned
work by Thorndike, of which I was not then aware, I too had arrived
at the idea of the need for a similar attitude to the subject.
The following episode, which occurred in my laboratory, gave
birth to the idea.</p>
<p>
While making a detailed investigation of the digestive glands
I had to busy myself also with the so-called psychical stimulation
of the glands. When, together with one of my collaborators, I
attempted a deeper analysis of this fact, at first in the generally
accepted way, i.e., psychologically, visualising the probable
thoughts and feelings of the animal, I stumbled on a fact unusual
in laboratory practice. I found myself unable to agree with my
colleague; each of us stuck to his point of view, and we were
unable to convince each other by certain experiments. This made
me definitely reject any further psychological discussion of the
subject, and I decided to investigate it in a purely objective
way, externally, i.e., strictly recording all stimuli reaching
the animal at the given moment and observing its corresponding
responses either in the form of movements or in the form of salivation
(as occurred in this particular case).</p>
<p>
This was the beginning of the investigations that I have carried
on now for the past twenty-five years with the participation of
numerous colleagues who joined hand and brain with me in this
work and to whom I am deeply grateful. We have, of course, passed
through different stages, and the subject has been advanced only
gradually. At first we had but a few separate facts at our disposal,
but today so much material has been accumulated by us that we
can make an attempt to present it in a more or less systematised
form. I am now in a position to place before you a physiological
theory of the activity of the cerebral hemispheres which at any
rate conforms much more to the structural and functional complexity
of this organ than the theory which until now has been based on
a few fragmentary, though very important, facts of modern physiology.</p>
<p>
Thus, research along these new lines of strictly objective investigation
of the higher nervous activity has been carried out mainly in
my laboratories (with the participation of a hundred colleagues);
work along the same lines has been carried out also by American
psychologists. As for other physiological laboratories, so far
only a few have begun, starting somewhat later, to investigate
this subject, but in most cases their work is still in the initial
stage. So far there has been one essential point of difference
in the research of the Americans and in ours. Since in the case
of the Americans the objective investigation is being conducted
by psychologists, this means that, although psychologists study
the facts from the purely external - aspect, nevertheless, in
posing the problems, in analysing and formulating the results,
they tend to think more in terms of psychology. The result is
that with the exception of the group of "behaviourists"
their work does not bear a purely physiological character. Whereas,
we, having started from physiology, invariably and strictly adhere
to the physiological point of view, and we are investigating and
systematising the whole subject solely in a physiological way.</p>
<p>
I shall now pass to an exposition of our material, but before
doing so I should like to touch on the concept of the reflex in
general, on reflexes in physiology and the so-called instincts.</p>
<p>
In the main we base ourselves on Descartes' concept of the reflex.
Of course, this is a genuinely scientific concept, since the
phenomenon implied by it can be strictly determined. It means
that a certain agent of the external world, or of the organism's
internal medium produces a certain effect in one or other nervous
receptor, which is transformed into a nervous process, into nervous
excitation. The excitation is transmitted along certain nerve
fibres, as if along an electric cable, to the central nervous
system; thence, thanks to the established nervous connections,
it passes along other nerve fibres to the working organ, where
it in its turn is transformed into a special activity of the cells
of this organ. Thus, the stimulating agent proves to be indispensably
connected with the definite activity of the organism, as cause
and effect.</p>
<p>
It is quite obvious that the entire activity of the organism is
governed by definite laws. If the animal were not (in the biological
sense) strictly adapted to the surrounding world, it would, sooner
or later, cease to exist. If instead of being attracted by food,
the animal turned away from it, or instead of avoiding fire threw
itself into it, and so on, it would perish. The animal <em>must
</em>so react to the environment that all its responsive activity
ensures its existence. The same is true if we think of life in
terms of mechanics, physics and chemistry. Every material system
can exist as an entity only so long as its internal forces of
attraction, cohesion, etc., are equilibrated with the external
forces influencing it. This applies in equal measure to such
a simple object as a stone and to the most complex chemical substance,
and it also holds good for the organism. As a definite material
system complete in itself, the organism can exist only so long
as it is in equilibrium with the environment; the moment this
equilibrium is seriously disturbed, the organism ceases to exist
as a particular system. Reflexes are the elements of this constant
adaptation or equilibration. Physiologists have studied and are
studying numerous reflexes, these indispensable, machine-like
reactions of the organism, which at the same time are inborn,
i.e., determined by the peculiar organisation of the given nervous
system. Reflexes, like the belts of machines made by human hands,
are of two kinds: the positive and the negative inhibitory, in
other words, those which excite certain activities and those which
inhibit them. Although investigation of these reflexes by physiologists
has been under way for a long time, it is, of course, a long way
from being finished. More and more new reflexes are being discovered;
the properties of the receptor organs, on the surface on which
it is walking. In what way does it differ, say, from inclining
the head and closing the lids when something flashes near the
eye? We should call the latter a defensive reflex, and the first
an alimentary instinct, although in the case of the pecking, if
it is caused by the sight of a stain, nothing but inclining the
head and a movement of the beak occurs.</p>
<p>
Further, it has been noted that instincts are more complex than
reflexes. But there are exceedingly complex reflexes which no
one designates as instincts. Take, for example, vomiting. This
is a highly complex action and one that involves extraordinary
co-ordination of a large number of muscles, both striated and
smooth, usually employed in other functions of the organism and
spread over a large area. It also involves the secretion of various
glands which normally. participate in quite different activities
of the organism.</p>
<p>
The fact that instincts involve a long chain of successive actions,
while reflexes are, so to speak, one-storeyed, has also been regarded
as a point of distinction between them. By way of example let
us take the building of a nest, or of animal dwellings in general.
Here, of course, we have a long chain of actions: the animal
must search for the material', bring it to the site and put it
together and secure it. If we regard this as a reflex, we must
assume that the ending of one reflex excites a new one, or, in
other words, that these are chain-reflexes. But such chain activities
are by no means peculiar to instincts alone. We are familiar
with many reflexes which are also interlocked. Here is an instance.
When we stimulate an afferent nerve, for example, the n. ischiadicus,
there takes place a reflex rise of blood pressure. This is the
first reflex. The high pressure in the left ventricle of the
heart and in the first part of the aorta acts as a stimulus to
another reflex: it stimulates the endings of the n. depressoris
cordis which evokes a depressor reflex moderating the effect of
the first reflex. Let us take the chain-reflex recently established
by Magnus. A cat, even deprived of the cerebral hemispheres will
in most cases fall on its feet when thrown from a height. How
does this occur? The change in the spatial position of the otolithic
organ of the ear causes a certain reflex contraction of the muscles
in the neck, which restores the animal's head to a normal position
in relation to the horizon. This is the first reflex. The end
of this reflex - the contraction of the muscles in the neck and
the righting of the head in general - stimulates a fresh reflex
on certain muscles of the trunk and limbs which come into action
and, in the end, restore the animal's proper standing posture.</p>
<p>
Yet another difference between reflexes and instincts has been
assumed, namely, that instincts often depend on the internal state
or condition of the organism. For instance, a bird builds its
nest only in the mating season. Or, to take a simpler example,
when the animal is sated, it is no longer attracted by food and
stops eating. The same applies to the sexual instinct, which
is connected with the age of the organism, as well as with the
state of the reproductive glands. In general the hormones, products
of the glands of internal secretion, are of considerable importance
in this respect. But this, too, is not a peculiar property of
the instincts alone. The intensity of any reflex, as well as
its presence or absence, directly depends on the state of excitability
of the reflex centres which in turn always depends on the chemical
and physical properties of the blood (automatic stimulation of
the centres) and on the interaction of different reflexes.</p>
<p>
Finally, importance is sometimes attached to the fact that reflexes
are related to the activity of separate organs, whereas instincts
involve the activity of the organism as a whole, i.e., actually
the whole skeleto-muscular system. However, we know from the
works of Magnus and de Kleyn that standing, walking, and bodily
balance in general, are reflexes.</p>
<p>
Thus, reflexes and instincts alike are natural reactions of the
organism to certain stimulating agents, and consequently there
is no need to designate them by different terms. The term "reflex"
is preferable, since a strictly scientific sense has been imparted
to it from the very outset.</p>
<p>
The aggregate of these reflexes constitutes the foundation of
the nervous activity both in men and animals. Consequently, thorough
study of all these fundamental nervous reactions of the organism
is, of course, a matter of great importance. Unfortunately, as
already mentioned, this is a long way from having been accomplished,
especially in the case of those reflexes which are called instincts.
Our knowledge of these instincts is very limited and fragmentary.
We have but a rough classification of them - alimentary, self-defensive,
sexual, parental and social. But almost each of these groups
often includes numerous separate reflexes, some of which have
not been even identified by us, while some are confused with others
or, at least, they are not fully appreciated by us as to their
vital importance. To what extent this subject remains unelucidated
and how full it is still of gaps can be demonstrated by this example
from my own experience.</p>
<p>
Once, in the course of our experimental work which I shall describe
presently, we were puzzled by the peculiar behaviour of our animal.
This was a tractable dog with which we were on very friendly
terms. The dog was given a rather easy assignment. It was placed
in the stand and had its movements restricted only by soft loops
fastened round its leys (to which at first it did not react at
all). Nothing else was done except to feed it repeatedly at intervals
of several minutes. At first the dog was quiet and ate willingly,
but as time went on it became more and more excited: it began
to struggle against the surrounding objects, tried to break loose,
pawing at the floor, gnawing the supports of the stand, etc.
This ceaseless muscular exertion brought on dyspnoea and a continuous
secretion of saliva; this persisted for weeks, becoming worse
and worse, with the result that the dog was no longer fit for
our experimental work. This phenomenon puzzled us for a long
time. We advanced many hypotheses as to the possible reason for
this unusual behaviour, and although we had by then acquired sufficient
knowledge of the behaviour of dogs, our efforts were in vain until
it occurred to us that it might be interpreted quite simply -
as the manifestation of a freedom reflex, and that the dog would
not remain quiet so long as its movements were constrained. We
overcame this reflex by means of another - a food reflex, We began
to feed the dog only in the stand. At first it ate sparingly
and steadily lost weight, but gradually it began to eat more -
until it consumed the whole of its daily ration. At the same
time it became quiet during the experiments; the freedom reflex
was thus inhibited. It is obvious that the freedom reflex is
one of the most important reflexes, or, to use a more general
term, reactions of any living being. But this reflex is seldom
referred to, as if it were not finally recognised. James does
not enumerate it even among the special human reflexes (instincts).
Without a reflex protest against restriction of an animal's movements
any insignificant obstacle in its way would interfere with the
performance of certain of its important functions. As we know,
in some animals the freedom reflex is so strong that when placed
in captivity they reject food, pine away and die.</p>
<p>
Let us turn to another example. There is a reflex which is
still insufficiently appreciated and which can be termed the investigatory
reflex. I sometimes call it the "What-is-it?" reflex.
It also belongs to the fundamental reflexes and is responsible
for the fact that given the slightest change in the surrounding
world both man and animals immediately orientate their respective
receptor organs towards the agent evoking the change. The biological
significance of this reflex is enormous. If the animal were not
provided with this reaction, its life, one may say, would always
hang by a thread. In man this reflex is highly developed, manifesting
itself in the form of an inquisitiveness which gives birth to
scientific thought, ensuring for us a most reliable and unrestricted
orientation in the surrounding world. Still less elucidated and
differentiated is the category of negative, inhibitory reflexes
(instincts) induced by any strong stimuli, or even by weak but
unusual stimuli. So-called animal hypnotism belongs, of course,
to this category.</p>
<p>
Thus, the fundamental nervous reactions both of man and animals
are inborn in the form of reflexes. And I repeat once more that
it is highly important to have a complete list of these reflexes
and properly to classify them, since, as we shall see later, all
the remaining nervous activity of the organism is based on these
reflexes.</p>
<p>
However, although the reflexes just described constitute the fundamental
condition for the safety of the organism in the surrounding nature,
they in themselves are not sufficient to ensure a lasting, stable
and normal existence for the organism. This is proved by the
following experiment, carried out on a dog in which the cerebral
hemispheres have been extirpated. Besides the internal reflexes,
such a dog retains the fundamental external reflexes. It is attracted
by food; it keeps away from destructive stimuli; it displays the
investigatory reflex pricking up its ears and lifting its head
to sound. It possesses the freedom reflex as well, and strongly
resists any attempt at capture. Nevertheless, it is an invalid
and would not survive without care. Evidently something vital
is missing in its nervous activity. But what? It is impossible
not to see that the number of stimulating agents evoking reflex
reactions in this dog has decreased considerably, that the stimuli
act at a very short distance and are of a very elementary and
very general character, being undifferentiated. Hence, the equilibrium
of this higher organism with the environment in a wide sphere
of its life has also become very elementary, limited and obviously
inadequate.</p>
<p>
Let us now revert to the simple example with which we began our
investigations. When food or some unpalatable substance gets
into the mouth of the animal, it evokes a secretion of saliva
which moistens, dissolves and chemically alters the food, or in
the case of disagreeable substances removes them and cleanses
the mouth. This reflex is caused by the physical and chemical
properties of the above-mentioned substances when they come in
contact with the mucous membrane of the oral cavity. However,
a ' similar secretary reaction is produced by the same substances
when placed at a distance from the dog and act on it only by appearance
and smell. Moreover, even the sight of the vessel from which
the dog is fed suffices to evoke salivation, and what is more,
this reaction can be produced by the sight of the person who usually
brings the food, even by the sound of his footsteps in the next
room. All these numerous, distant, complex and delicately differentiated
stimuli lose their effect irretrievably when the dog is deprived
of the cerebral hemispheres; only the physical and chemical properties
of substances, when they come in contact with the mucous membrane
of the mouth, retain their effect. Meanwhile, the processing
significance of the lost stimuli is, in normal conditions, very
great. Dry food immediately encounters plenty of the required
liquid; unpalatable substances, which often destroy the mucous
membrane of the mouth, are removed from it by a layer of saliva
rapidly diluted and so on. But their significance is still greater
when they bring into action the motor component of the alimentary
reflex, i.e., when the seeking of food is effected.</p>
<p>
Here is another important example of the defensive reflex. The
strong animals prey on those smaller and weaker, and the latter
must inevitably perish if they begin to defend themselves only
when the fangs and claws of the enemy are already in their flesh.
But the situation is quite different when the defensive reaction
arises at the sight and sound of the approaching foe. The weak
animal has a chance of escaping by seeking cover or in flight.</p>
<p>
What, then, would be our general summing up of this difference
in attitude of the normal and of the decorticated animal to the
external world? What is the general mechanism of this distinction
and what is its basic principle?</p>
<p>
It is not difficult to see that in normal conditions the reactions
of the organism are evoked not only by those agents of the external
world that are essential for the organism, i.e., the agents that
bring direct benefit or harm to the organism, but by other countless
agents which are merely signals of the first agents, as demonstrated
above. It is not the sight and sound of the strong animal which
destroy the smaller and weaker animal, but its fangs and its claws.
However. the signalling, or to use Sherrington's term, the distant
stimuli, although comparatively limited in number, play a part
in the afore-mentioned reflexes. The essential feature of the
higher nervous activity, with which we shall be concerned and
which in the higher animal is probably inherent in the cerebral
hemispheres alone, is not only the action of countless signalling
stimuli, rather it is the important fact that in certain conditions
their physiological action changes.</p>
<p>
In the above-mentioned salivary reaction now one particular vessel
acted as a signal, now another, now one man, now another - strictly
depending on the vessel that contained the food or the unpalatable
substances before they were introduced in the dog's mouth, and
which person brought and gave them to the dog. This, clearly,
makes the machine-like activity of the organism still more precise
and perfect. The environment of the animal is so infinitely complex
and is so continuously in a state of flux, that the intricate
and complete system of the organism has the chance of becoming
equilibrated with the environment only if it is also in a corresponding
state of constant flux.</p>
<p>
Hence, the fundamental and most general activity of the cerebral
hemispheres is signalling, the number of signals being infinite
and the signalisation variable.</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">
Further Reading:<br>
<a href="../../../../../glossary/people/p/a.htm#pavlov-ivan" target="_top">Biography</a> |
<a href="../../../../../archive/vygotsky/works/crisis/index.htm" target="_top">Vygotsky</a> |
<a href="../at/freud.htm">Freud</a> |
<a href="../ge/helmholt.htm">Helmholtz</a> |
<a href="../us/james.htm">James</a> |
<a href="../ge/wundt.htm">Wundt</a>
</p>
<p class="footer">
<a href="../../../../../subject/psychology/index.htm" target="_top">Marxist Psychology Archive</a> |
<a href="../../index.htm" target="_top">Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org</a></p>
</body> |
Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (1924)
Lectures on the Work of the Cerebral Hemisphere, Lecture One
Source: from Experimental Psychology and other essays, 1957, published by
Philosophical Library, NY. One lecture reproduced in full.
Gentlemen,
One cannot but be struck by a comparison of the following facts.
First, the cerebral hemispheres, the higher part of the central
nervous system, is a rather impressive organ. In structure it
is exceedingly complex, comprising millions and millions (in man
- even billions) of cells, i.e., centres or foci of nervous activity.
These cells vary in size, shape and arrangement and are connected
with each other by countless branches. Such structural complexity
naturally suggests a very high degree of functional complexity.
Consequently, it would seem that a boundless field of investigation
is offered here for the physiologist. Secondly, take the dog,
man's companion and friend since prehistoric times, in its various
roles as hunter, sentinel, etc. We know that this complex behaviour
of the dog, its higher nervous activity (since no one will dispute
that this is higher nervous activity), is chiefly associated with
the cerebral hemispheres. If we remove the cerebral hemispheres
in the dog (Goltz and others), it becomes incapable of performing
not only the roles mentioned above, but even of looking after
itself. It becomes profoundly disabled and will die unless well
cared for. This implies that both in respect of structure and
function, the cerebral hemispheres perform considerable physiological
work.
Let us turn now to man. His entire higher nervous activity is
also dependent on the normal structure and functioning of the
cerebral hemispheres. The moment the complex structure of his
hemispheres is damaged or disturbed in one way or another, he
also becomes an invalid; he can no longer freely associate with
his fellows as an equal and must be isolated.
In amazing contrast to this boundless activity of the cerebral
hemispheres is the scant content of the present-day physiology
of these hemispheres. Up to 1870 there was no physiology of the
cerebral hemispheres at all; they seemed inaccessible to the physiologist.
It was in that year that Fritsch and Hitzig first successfully
applied the ordinary physiological methods of stimulation and
destruction to their study. Stimulation of certain parts of the
cerebral cortex regularly evoked contractions in definite groups
of the skeletal muscles (the cortical motor region). Extirpation
of these parts led to certain disturbances in the normal activity
of the corresponding groups of muscles.
Shortly afterwards H. Munk, Ferrier and others demonstrated that
other regions of the cortex, seemingly not susceptible to artificial
stimulation, are also functionally differentiated. Removal of
these parts leads to defects in the activity of certain receptor
organs - the eye, the ear and the skin.
Many researchers have been thoroughly investigating these phenomena.
More precision and more details have been obtained, especially
as regards the motor region, and this knowledge has even found
practical application in medicine; however, investigation as vet
has not gone far beyond the initial point. The essential fact
is that the entire higher and complex behaviour of the animal,
which is dependent on the cerebral hemispheres, as shown by the
previously mentioned experiment by Goltz with the extirpation
of the hemispheres in a dog, has hardly been touched upon in these
investigations and is not included even in the programme of current
physiological research, what do the facts relating to the cerebral
hemispheres, which are now at the disposal of the physiologist,
explain with regard to the behaviour of the higher animals? Is
there a general scheme of the higher nervous activity? What kind
of general rules govern this activity? The contemporary physiologist
finds himself truly empty-handed when he has to answer these lawful
questions. While the object of investigation is highly complex
in relation to structure, and extremely rich in function, research
in this sphere remains, as it were, in a blind alley, unable to
open up before the physiologist the boundless vistas which might
have been expected.
Why is this so? The reason is clear, the work of the cerebral
hemispheres has never been regarded from the same point of view
as that of other organs of the body, or even other parts of the
central nervous system. It has been described as special psychical
activity - which we feel and apprehend in ourselves and which
we suppose exists in animals by analogy with human beings. Hence
the highly peculiar and difficult position of the physiologist.
On the one hand, the study of the cerebral hemispheres, as of
all other parts of the organism, seems to come within the scope
of physiology, but on the other hand, it is an object of study
by a special branch of science - psychology. What, then, should
be the attitude of the physiologist? Should he first acquire
psychological methods and knowledge and only then begin to study
the activity of the cerebral hemispheres? But there is a real
complication here. It is quite natural that physiology, in analysing
living matter, should always base itself on the more exact and
advanced sciences - mechanics, physics and chemistry. But here
we are dealing with an altogether different matter, since in this
particular case we should have to rely on a science which has
no claim to exactness as compared with physiology. Until recently
discussion revolved even around the question whether psychology
should be considered a natural science or a science at all. Without
going deeply into this question, I should like to cite some facts
which, although crude and superficial, seem to me very convincing.
Even the psychologists themselves do not regard their science
as being exact. Not so long ago James, an outstanding American
psychologist, called psychology not a science, but a "hope
for science." Another striking illustration has been provided
by Wundt, formerly a physiologist, who became a celebrated psychologist
and philosopher and even the founder of the so-called experimental
psychology. Prior to the war, in 1913, a discussion took place
in Germany as to the advisability of separating the psychological
branch of science from the philosophical in the universities,
i.e., of having two separate chairs instead of one. Wundt opposed
separation, one of his arguments being the impossibility of establishing
a common and obligatory examination programme' in psychology,
since each professor had his own ideas of the essence of psychology.
Is it not clear, then, that psychology has not yet reached the
stage of an exact science?
This being the case, there is no need for the physiologist to
have recourse to psychology. In view of the steadily developing
natural science it would be more logical to expect that not psychology
should render assistance to the physiology of the cerebral hemispheres,
but, on the contrary, physiological investigation of the activity
of this organ in animals should lay the foundation for the exact
scientific analysis of the human subjective world. Consequently,
physiology must follow its own path - the path blazed for it long
ago. Taking as his starting-point the assumption that the functioning
of the animal's organism, unlike that of the human being, is similar
to the work of a machine, Descartes' three hundred years ago evolved
the idea of the reflex as the basic activity of the nervous system.
Descartes regarded every activity of the organism as a natural
response to certain external agents and believed that the connection
between the active organ and the given agent, that is, between
cause and effect, is achieved through a definite nervous path.
In this way the study of the activity of the animal nervous system
was placed on the firm basis of natural science. In the eighteenth,
nineteenth and twentieth centuries the idea of the reflex had
been extensively used by physiologists, but only in their work
on the lower parts of the central nervous system; gradually, however,
they began to study its higher parts, until finally, after Sherrington's
classical works on spinal reflexes, Magnus, his successor, established
the reflex nature of all the basic locomotor activities of the
organism. And so experiment fully justified the idea of the reflex
which , thereafter, was used in the study of the central nervous
system almost up to the cerebral hemispheres. It is to be hoped
that the more complex activities of the organism, including the
basic locomotor reflexes - states so far referred to in psychology
as anger, fear, playfulness, etc. - will soon be related to the
simple reflex activity of the subcortical parts of the brain.
A bold attempt to apply the idea of the reflex to the cerebral
hemispheres not only of animals but also of man, was made by I.
M. Sechenov, the Russian physiologist, on the basis of the contemporary
physiology of the nervous system. In a paper published in Russian
in 1863 and entitled Reflexes of the Brain Sechenov
characterised the activity of the cerebral hemispheres as reflex,
i.e., determined activity. He regarded thoughts as reflexes in
which the effector end is inhibited, and affects as exaggerated
reflexes with a wide irradiation of excitation. A like attempt
has been made in our time by Ch. Richet who introduced the concept
of the psychical reflex in which the reaction to a given stimulus
is determined by its union with the traces left in the cerebral
hemispheres by previous stimuli. Generally, the recent physiology
of the higher nervous activity related to the cerebral hemispheres
tends to associate acting stimulation with traces left by previous
ones (associative memory - according to J. Loeb; training, education
by experience - according to other physiologists). But this was
mere theorising. The time had come for a transition to the experimental
analysis of the subject, and from the objective external aspect,
as is the case with any other branch of natural science. This
transition was determined by comparative physiology which had
just made its appearance as a result of the influence of the theory
of evolution. Now that it had turned its attention to the entire
animal kingdom, physiology, in dealing with its lower representatives,
was forced, of necessity, to abandon the anthropomorphic concept
and concentrate on the scientific elucidation of the relations
between the external agents influencing the animal and the responsive
external activity, the locomotor reaction of the latter. This
gave birth to J. Loeb's doctrine of animal tropisms; to the suggestion
by Beer, Bethe and Uexküll of an objective terminology for
designating the animal reactions; and finally, to the investigation
by zoologists of the behaviour of the lower representatives of
the animal world, by means of purely objective methods, by comparing
the effect of external influences on the animal with its responsive
external activity - as for example in the classical work of Jennings,
etc.
Influenced by this new tendency in biology and having a practical
cast of mind, American psychologists who also became interested
in comparative psychology displayed a tendency to subject the
external activity of animals to experimental analysis under deliberately
induced conditions. Thorndike's Animal Intelligence (1898)
must be regarded as the starting-point for investigations of this
kind. In these investigations the animal was kept in a box and
food placed outside, within sight. The animal, naturally, tried
to reach the food, but to do so it had to open the door which
in the different experiments was fastened in a different way.
Tables and charts registered the speed and the manner in which
the animal solved this problem. The entire process was interpreted
as the formation of an association, connection between the visual
and the tactile stimulation and the locomotor activity. Afterwards
by means of this method, and by modifications of it, researchers
studied numerous questions relating to the associative ability
of various animals. Almost simultaneously with the above-mentioned
work by Thorndike, of which I was not then aware, I too had arrived
at the idea of the need for a similar attitude to the subject.
The following episode, which occurred in my laboratory, gave
birth to the idea.
While making a detailed investigation of the digestive glands
I had to busy myself also with the so-called psychical stimulation
of the glands. When, together with one of my collaborators, I
attempted a deeper analysis of this fact, at first in the generally
accepted way, i.e., psychologically, visualising the probable
thoughts and feelings of the animal, I stumbled on a fact unusual
in laboratory practice. I found myself unable to agree with my
colleague; each of us stuck to his point of view, and we were
unable to convince each other by certain experiments. This made
me definitely reject any further psychological discussion of the
subject, and I decided to investigate it in a purely objective
way, externally, i.e., strictly recording all stimuli reaching
the animal at the given moment and observing its corresponding
responses either in the form of movements or in the form of salivation
(as occurred in this particular case).
This was the beginning of the investigations that I have carried
on now for the past twenty-five years with the participation of
numerous colleagues who joined hand and brain with me in this
work and to whom I am deeply grateful. We have, of course, passed
through different stages, and the subject has been advanced only
gradually. At first we had but a few separate facts at our disposal,
but today so much material has been accumulated by us that we
can make an attempt to present it in a more or less systematised
form. I am now in a position to place before you a physiological
theory of the activity of the cerebral hemispheres which at any
rate conforms much more to the structural and functional complexity
of this organ than the theory which until now has been based on
a few fragmentary, though very important, facts of modern physiology.
Thus, research along these new lines of strictly objective investigation
of the higher nervous activity has been carried out mainly in
my laboratories (with the participation of a hundred colleagues);
work along the same lines has been carried out also by American
psychologists. As for other physiological laboratories, so far
only a few have begun, starting somewhat later, to investigate
this subject, but in most cases their work is still in the initial
stage. So far there has been one essential point of difference
in the research of the Americans and in ours. Since in the case
of the Americans the objective investigation is being conducted
by psychologists, this means that, although psychologists study
the facts from the purely external - aspect, nevertheless, in
posing the problems, in analysing and formulating the results,
they tend to think more in terms of psychology. The result is
that with the exception of the group of "behaviourists"
their work does not bear a purely physiological character. Whereas,
we, having started from physiology, invariably and strictly adhere
to the physiological point of view, and we are investigating and
systematising the whole subject solely in a physiological way.
I shall now pass to an exposition of our material, but before
doing so I should like to touch on the concept of the reflex in
general, on reflexes in physiology and the so-called instincts.
In the main we base ourselves on Descartes' concept of the reflex.
Of course, this is a genuinely scientific concept, since the
phenomenon implied by it can be strictly determined. It means
that a certain agent of the external world, or of the organism's
internal medium produces a certain effect in one or other nervous
receptor, which is transformed into a nervous process, into nervous
excitation. The excitation is transmitted along certain nerve
fibres, as if along an electric cable, to the central nervous
system; thence, thanks to the established nervous connections,
it passes along other nerve fibres to the working organ, where
it in its turn is transformed into a special activity of the cells
of this organ. Thus, the stimulating agent proves to be indispensably
connected with the definite activity of the organism, as cause
and effect.
It is quite obvious that the entire activity of the organism is
governed by definite laws. If the animal were not (in the biological
sense) strictly adapted to the surrounding world, it would, sooner
or later, cease to exist. If instead of being attracted by food,
the animal turned away from it, or instead of avoiding fire threw
itself into it, and so on, it would perish. The animal must
so react to the environment that all its responsive activity
ensures its existence. The same is true if we think of life in
terms of mechanics, physics and chemistry. Every material system
can exist as an entity only so long as its internal forces of
attraction, cohesion, etc., are equilibrated with the external
forces influencing it. This applies in equal measure to such
a simple object as a stone and to the most complex chemical substance,
and it also holds good for the organism. As a definite material
system complete in itself, the organism can exist only so long
as it is in equilibrium with the environment; the moment this
equilibrium is seriously disturbed, the organism ceases to exist
as a particular system. Reflexes are the elements of this constant
adaptation or equilibration. Physiologists have studied and are
studying numerous reflexes, these indispensable, machine-like
reactions of the organism, which at the same time are inborn,
i.e., determined by the peculiar organisation of the given nervous
system. Reflexes, like the belts of machines made by human hands,
are of two kinds: the positive and the negative inhibitory, in
other words, those which excite certain activities and those which
inhibit them. Although investigation of these reflexes by physiologists
has been under way for a long time, it is, of course, a long way
from being finished. More and more new reflexes are being discovered;
the properties of the receptor organs, on the surface on which
it is walking. In what way does it differ, say, from inclining
the head and closing the lids when something flashes near the
eye? We should call the latter a defensive reflex, and the first
an alimentary instinct, although in the case of the pecking, if
it is caused by the sight of a stain, nothing but inclining the
head and a movement of the beak occurs.
Further, it has been noted that instincts are more complex than
reflexes. But there are exceedingly complex reflexes which no
one designates as instincts. Take, for example, vomiting. This
is a highly complex action and one that involves extraordinary
co-ordination of a large number of muscles, both striated and
smooth, usually employed in other functions of the organism and
spread over a large area. It also involves the secretion of various
glands which normally. participate in quite different activities
of the organism.
The fact that instincts involve a long chain of successive actions,
while reflexes are, so to speak, one-storeyed, has also been regarded
as a point of distinction between them. By way of example let
us take the building of a nest, or of animal dwellings in general.
Here, of course, we have a long chain of actions: the animal
must search for the material', bring it to the site and put it
together and secure it. If we regard this as a reflex, we must
assume that the ending of one reflex excites a new one, or, in
other words, that these are chain-reflexes. But such chain activities
are by no means peculiar to instincts alone. We are familiar
with many reflexes which are also interlocked. Here is an instance.
When we stimulate an afferent nerve, for example, the n. ischiadicus,
there takes place a reflex rise of blood pressure. This is the
first reflex. The high pressure in the left ventricle of the
heart and in the first part of the aorta acts as a stimulus to
another reflex: it stimulates the endings of the n. depressoris
cordis which evokes a depressor reflex moderating the effect of
the first reflex. Let us take the chain-reflex recently established
by Magnus. A cat, even deprived of the cerebral hemispheres will
in most cases fall on its feet when thrown from a height. How
does this occur? The change in the spatial position of the otolithic
organ of the ear causes a certain reflex contraction of the muscles
in the neck, which restores the animal's head to a normal position
in relation to the horizon. This is the first reflex. The end
of this reflex - the contraction of the muscles in the neck and
the righting of the head in general - stimulates a fresh reflex
on certain muscles of the trunk and limbs which come into action
and, in the end, restore the animal's proper standing posture.
Yet another difference between reflexes and instincts has been
assumed, namely, that instincts often depend on the internal state
or condition of the organism. For instance, a bird builds its
nest only in the mating season. Or, to take a simpler example,
when the animal is sated, it is no longer attracted by food and
stops eating. The same applies to the sexual instinct, which
is connected with the age of the organism, as well as with the
state of the reproductive glands. In general the hormones, products
of the glands of internal secretion, are of considerable importance
in this respect. But this, too, is not a peculiar property of
the instincts alone. The intensity of any reflex, as well as
its presence or absence, directly depends on the state of excitability
of the reflex centres which in turn always depends on the chemical
and physical properties of the blood (automatic stimulation of
the centres) and on the interaction of different reflexes.
Finally, importance is sometimes attached to the fact that reflexes
are related to the activity of separate organs, whereas instincts
involve the activity of the organism as a whole, i.e., actually
the whole skeleto-muscular system. However, we know from the
works of Magnus and de Kleyn that standing, walking, and bodily
balance in general, are reflexes.
Thus, reflexes and instincts alike are natural reactions of the
organism to certain stimulating agents, and consequently there
is no need to designate them by different terms. The term "reflex"
is preferable, since a strictly scientific sense has been imparted
to it from the very outset.
The aggregate of these reflexes constitutes the foundation of
the nervous activity both in men and animals. Consequently, thorough
study of all these fundamental nervous reactions of the organism
is, of course, a matter of great importance. Unfortunately, as
already mentioned, this is a long way from having been accomplished,
especially in the case of those reflexes which are called instincts.
Our knowledge of these instincts is very limited and fragmentary.
We have but a rough classification of them - alimentary, self-defensive,
sexual, parental and social. But almost each of these groups
often includes numerous separate reflexes, some of which have
not been even identified by us, while some are confused with others
or, at least, they are not fully appreciated by us as to their
vital importance. To what extent this subject remains unelucidated
and how full it is still of gaps can be demonstrated by this example
from my own experience.
Once, in the course of our experimental work which I shall describe
presently, we were puzzled by the peculiar behaviour of our animal.
This was a tractable dog with which we were on very friendly
terms. The dog was given a rather easy assignment. It was placed
in the stand and had its movements restricted only by soft loops
fastened round its leys (to which at first it did not react at
all). Nothing else was done except to feed it repeatedly at intervals
of several minutes. At first the dog was quiet and ate willingly,
but as time went on it became more and more excited: it began
to struggle against the surrounding objects, tried to break loose,
pawing at the floor, gnawing the supports of the stand, etc.
This ceaseless muscular exertion brought on dyspnoea and a continuous
secretion of saliva; this persisted for weeks, becoming worse
and worse, with the result that the dog was no longer fit for
our experimental work. This phenomenon puzzled us for a long
time. We advanced many hypotheses as to the possible reason for
this unusual behaviour, and although we had by then acquired sufficient
knowledge of the behaviour of dogs, our efforts were in vain until
it occurred to us that it might be interpreted quite simply -
as the manifestation of a freedom reflex, and that the dog would
not remain quiet so long as its movements were constrained. We
overcame this reflex by means of another - a food reflex, We began
to feed the dog only in the stand. At first it ate sparingly
and steadily lost weight, but gradually it began to eat more -
until it consumed the whole of its daily ration. At the same
time it became quiet during the experiments; the freedom reflex
was thus inhibited. It is obvious that the freedom reflex is
one of the most important reflexes, or, to use a more general
term, reactions of any living being. But this reflex is seldom
referred to, as if it were not finally recognised. James does
not enumerate it even among the special human reflexes (instincts).
Without a reflex protest against restriction of an animal's movements
any insignificant obstacle in its way would interfere with the
performance of certain of its important functions. As we know,
in some animals the freedom reflex is so strong that when placed
in captivity they reject food, pine away and die.
Let us turn to another example. There is a reflex which is
still insufficiently appreciated and which can be termed the investigatory
reflex. I sometimes call it the "What-is-it?" reflex.
It also belongs to the fundamental reflexes and is responsible
for the fact that given the slightest change in the surrounding
world both man and animals immediately orientate their respective
receptor organs towards the agent evoking the change. The biological
significance of this reflex is enormous. If the animal were not
provided with this reaction, its life, one may say, would always
hang by a thread. In man this reflex is highly developed, manifesting
itself in the form of an inquisitiveness which gives birth to
scientific thought, ensuring for us a most reliable and unrestricted
orientation in the surrounding world. Still less elucidated and
differentiated is the category of negative, inhibitory reflexes
(instincts) induced by any strong stimuli, or even by weak but
unusual stimuli. So-called animal hypnotism belongs, of course,
to this category.
Thus, the fundamental nervous reactions both of man and animals
are inborn in the form of reflexes. And I repeat once more that
it is highly important to have a complete list of these reflexes
and properly to classify them, since, as we shall see later, all
the remaining nervous activity of the organism is based on these
reflexes.
However, although the reflexes just described constitute the fundamental
condition for the safety of the organism in the surrounding nature,
they in themselves are not sufficient to ensure a lasting, stable
and normal existence for the organism. This is proved by the
following experiment, carried out on a dog in which the cerebral
hemispheres have been extirpated. Besides the internal reflexes,
such a dog retains the fundamental external reflexes. It is attracted
by food; it keeps away from destructive stimuli; it displays the
investigatory reflex pricking up its ears and lifting its head
to sound. It possesses the freedom reflex as well, and strongly
resists any attempt at capture. Nevertheless, it is an invalid
and would not survive without care. Evidently something vital
is missing in its nervous activity. But what? It is impossible
not to see that the number of stimulating agents evoking reflex
reactions in this dog has decreased considerably, that the stimuli
act at a very short distance and are of a very elementary and
very general character, being undifferentiated. Hence, the equilibrium
of this higher organism with the environment in a wide sphere
of its life has also become very elementary, limited and obviously
inadequate.
Let us now revert to the simple example with which we began our
investigations. When food or some unpalatable substance gets
into the mouth of the animal, it evokes a secretion of saliva
which moistens, dissolves and chemically alters the food, or in
the case of disagreeable substances removes them and cleanses
the mouth. This reflex is caused by the physical and chemical
properties of the above-mentioned substances when they come in
contact with the mucous membrane of the oral cavity. However,
a ' similar secretary reaction is produced by the same substances
when placed at a distance from the dog and act on it only by appearance
and smell. Moreover, even the sight of the vessel from which
the dog is fed suffices to evoke salivation, and what is more,
this reaction can be produced by the sight of the person who usually
brings the food, even by the sound of his footsteps in the next
room. All these numerous, distant, complex and delicately differentiated
stimuli lose their effect irretrievably when the dog is deprived
of the cerebral hemispheres; only the physical and chemical properties
of substances, when they come in contact with the mucous membrane
of the mouth, retain their effect. Meanwhile, the processing
significance of the lost stimuli is, in normal conditions, very
great. Dry food immediately encounters plenty of the required
liquid; unpalatable substances, which often destroy the mucous
membrane of the mouth, are removed from it by a layer of saliva
rapidly diluted and so on. But their significance is still greater
when they bring into action the motor component of the alimentary
reflex, i.e., when the seeking of food is effected.
Here is another important example of the defensive reflex. The
strong animals prey on those smaller and weaker, and the latter
must inevitably perish if they begin to defend themselves only
when the fangs and claws of the enemy are already in their flesh.
But the situation is quite different when the defensive reaction
arises at the sight and sound of the approaching foe. The weak
animal has a chance of escaping by seeking cover or in flight.
What, then, would be our general summing up of this difference
in attitude of the normal and of the decorticated animal to the
external world? What is the general mechanism of this distinction
and what is its basic principle?
It is not difficult to see that in normal conditions the reactions
of the organism are evoked not only by those agents of the external
world that are essential for the organism, i.e., the agents that
bring direct benefit or harm to the organism, but by other countless
agents which are merely signals of the first agents, as demonstrated
above. It is not the sight and sound of the strong animal which
destroy the smaller and weaker animal, but its fangs and its claws.
However. the signalling, or to use Sherrington's term, the distant
stimuli, although comparatively limited in number, play a part
in the afore-mentioned reflexes. The essential feature of the
higher nervous activity, with which we shall be concerned and
which in the higher animal is probably inherent in the cerebral
hemispheres alone, is not only the action of countless signalling
stimuli, rather it is the important fact that in certain conditions
their physiological action changes.
In the above-mentioned salivary reaction now one particular vessel
acted as a signal, now another, now one man, now another - strictly
depending on the vessel that contained the food or the unpalatable
substances before they were introduced in the dog's mouth, and
which person brought and gave them to the dog. This, clearly,
makes the machine-like activity of the organism still more precise
and perfect. The environment of the animal is so infinitely complex
and is so continuously in a state of flux, that the intricate
and complete system of the organism has the chance of becoming
equilibrated with the environment only if it is also in a corresponding
state of constant flux.
Hence, the fundamental and most general activity of the cerebral
hemispheres is signalling, the number of signals being infinite
and the signalisation variable.
Further Reading:
Biography |
Vygotsky |
Freud |
Helmholtz |
James |
Wundt
Marxist Psychology Archive |
Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org
|
./articles/Krupskaya-Nadezhda/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.krupskaya.works.october | <body>
<p class="title">Nadezhda K. Krupskaya</p>
<h1>The Lessons of October</h1>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information">
<strong>Source:</strong> <a href="../../../history/international/comintern/sections/britain/pamphlets/1925/trotskyism/index.htm"><em>The Errors of Trotskyism</em></a>, May 1925<br>
<strong>Publisher:</strong> <a href="../../../history/international/comintern/sections/britain/index.htm">Communist Party of Great Britain</a><br>
<strong>Transcription/HTML Markup:</strong> Brian Reid<br>
<strong>Public Domain:</strong> Marxists Internet Archive
(2007). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this
work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit
“Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="fst">
Two years ago, Vladimir Ilyitch, speaking at a plenary meeting of the Moscow Soviet, said that now we were treading the path of practical work, that we were no longer treating Socialism as an ikon merely to be described in glowing colours. “We must take the right road,” he said, “it is necessary to submit everything to the test; the masses and the whole population must test our methods, and say: ‘Yes, this order of things is better than the old one.’” This is the task which we have set ourselves.
</p>
<p>
Our Party, a small group in comparison to the total population, took up this task. This small group undertook to change everything, and it did change everything. That this is no Utopia, but a reality in which we live, has been demonstrated. We have all seen that it has been done. We had to do it in such a way that the great majority of working proletarians and peasants had to admit: “It is not you who praise yourselves, but we who praise you. We tell you that you have attained so much better results that no reasonable human being would ever think of returning to the old order.”
</p>
<p>
The Party works continually and unwearyingly. In 1924 the fact of the Lenin Recruitment showed us that the working masses regard the C.P. as their Party. This is an important point. This is a real and permanent achievement, and in itself no small praise. Out in the country we are praised already for many things, though these things are as yet but little. Our Party devotes much attention to the peasantry, and not only to the whole peasantry, but to the poorer and middle strata. The Party is working for the improvement of the subordinate Soviet apparatus; it aids the village nuclei in their work, and hopes to attain much. The Party accomplishes a large amount of practical work of every description, comprising an enormous field of activity, and guides the carriage of history along the road pointed out by Lenin.
</p>
<p>
The Party has devoted itself seriously to the accomplishment of practical work. Under our conditions this is an extremely difficult task, and for this reason the Party is so hostile to any discussion. For this reason Comrade Trotsky’s speech on the last barricade seemed so strange to the Thirteenth Party Conference. And for this reason great indignation has been aroused by Comrade Trotsky’s latest “literary” efforts.
</p>
<p>
I do not know whether Comrade Trotsky has actually committed all the deadly sins of which he is accused—the exaggerations of controversy are inevitable. Comrade Trotsky need not complain about this. He did not come into the world yesterday, and he knows that an article written in the tone of the “Lessons of October” is bound to call forth the same tone in the ensuing controversy. But this is not the question. The question is that Comrade Trotsky calls upon us to study the “Lessons of October,” but does not lay down the right lines for this study. He proposes that we study the role played by this or that person in October, the role played by this or that tendency in the Central Committee, etc. But this is what we must not study.
</p>
<p>
The first thing which we must study is the international situation as it existed in October, and the relations of class forces in Russian at that time.
</p>
<p>
Does Comrade Trotsky call upon us to study this? No. And yet the victory would have been impossible without a profound analysis of the historical moment, without a calculation of the actual relations of forces. The application of the revolutionary dialectics of Marxism to the concrete conditions of a given moment, the correct estimation of this moment, not only from the standpoint of the given country, but on an international scale, is the most important feature of Leninism. The international experience of the last decade is the best confirmation of the correctness of this Leninist process. This is what we must teach the Communist Parties of all countries, and this is what our youth must learn from the study of October.
</p>
<p>
But Comrade Trotsky overlooks this question. When he speaks of Bulgaria or Germany, he occupies himself but little with the correct estimation of the moment. If we regard events through Comrade Trotsky’s spectacles, it appears exceedingly simple to guide events. Marxist analysis was never Comrade Trotsky’s strong point.
</p>
<p>
This is the reason why he so under-estimates the role played by the peasantry. Much has already been said about this.
</p>
<p>
We must further study the Party during October. Trotsky says a great deal about the Party, but for him the Party is the staff of leaders, the heads. But those who really wish to study October, must study the Party as it was in October. The Party was a living organism, in which the C.C. (“the staff”) was not cut off from the Party, in which the members of the lowest Party organisations were in daily contact with the members of the C.C. Comrades Sverdlov and Stalin knew perfectly well what was going on in every district in Petrograd, in every province, and in the army. And Lenin knew all this as well, though living illegally. He was kept well informed and received letters about everything which occurred in the life of the organisation. And Lenin did not only know how to listen, he also knew very well how to read between the lines. The victory was made possible by precisely the fact that there was a close contact between the C.C. and the collective organisation.
</p>
<p>
A Party whose upper stratum had lost contact with the organisation would never have been victorious. All Communist Parties must impress this upon themselves, and organise themselves accordingly.
</p>
<p>
Where the Party is so organised, where the staff knows the will of the collective organisation—and not merely from the resolutions—and works in harmony with this will, the vacillations or errors of individual members of the staff do not possess the decisive significance ascribed to them by Comrade Trotsky. When history confronts the Party with an entirely new and hitherto unexampled emergency, it in only natural that the situation is not uniformly estimated by everyone, and then it is the task of the organisation to find the right common line.
</p>
<p>
Lenin invariably attached enormous importance to the collective organisation of the Party. His relations to the Party Conferences were based upon this. At every Party Conference he brought forward everything which he had thought out since the last Party Conference. He held himself to be chiefly responsible to the Party Conference, to the organisation as a whole. In cases of differences of opinion he appealed to the Party Conference (for instance in the question of the Brest Peace).
</p>
<p>
Trotsky does not recognise the part played by the Party as a whole, as an organisation cast in one piece. For him the Party is synonymous with the staff. Let us take an example: “What is the Bolshevisation of the Communist Party?”—he asks in the “Lessons of October.” It consists in so educating the Parties, and so choosing their leaders that they do not go off the tracks when their October comes.
</p>
<p>
This is a purely “administrative” and utterly superficial standpoint. Yes, the personalities of the leaders is a point of the utmost importance. Yes, it is necessary that the most gifted, the best, the firmest in character of our members are selected for our staff: but it is not merely a question of their personal capacities, but a question of whether the staff is closely bound up with the whole organisation.
</p>
<p>
There is another factor thanks to which we have accomplished our victory in October, and that is the correct estimation of the role and importance of the masses. If you will read all that Lenin wrote on the role played by the masses in the revolution and in the development of Socialism, you will see that Lenin’s estimation of the part played by the masses is one of the corner-stones of Leninism. For Lenin the masses are never a means, but the decisive factor. If the Party is to lead millions, it must be in close contact with these millions, is must be able to comprehend the life, the sorrows, and aspirations of the masses. Bela Kun relates that when he began to speak to Lenin about a revolutionary war against Germany, Lenin replied “I know that you are not a mere chatterbox—take a journey to the front to-morrow and see whether the soldiers are ready for a revolutionary war.” Bela Kun took the journey to the front, and saw that Lenin was in the right.
</p>
<p>
We do not find any appeal for the study of this side of the October revolution in the “Lessons of October.” On the contrary. When forming his estimate of the German events, Comrade Trotsky under-estimates the passivity of the masses.
</p>
<p>
A certain Syrkin has put a very foolish interpretation on John Reed’s book. Many people are of the opinion that we should not put John Reed’s book into the hands of young people. It contains inaccuracies and legends. The history of the Party is not to be learnt from Reed. Why then did Lenin recommend this book so warmly? Because in the case of John Reed’s book this question is not the main point. The book gives us an excellent and artistic description of the psychology and trends of feeling among the masses of the soldiery and the workers who accomplished the October revolution, and of the clumsiness of the bourgeoisie and its servants. John Reed enables even the youngest Communist to grasp the spirit of revolution much more rapidly than the perusal of dozens of protocols and resolutions. It does not suffice for our youth to merely know the history of the Party, it, is of equal importance that they feel the pulse of the October revolution. How can our youth become Communists if they know nothing more than Party conditions in their narrower import, and do not feel what war and revolution have been?
</p>
<p>
Comrade Trotsky approaches the study of October from the wrong side. The incorrect estimate of October is only one step removed from a wrong estimate of actuality and from the wrong estimates of a number of phenomena of immense significance. The wrong estimate of actuality leads to wrong decisions and actions. Anyone can comprehend this. What has happened cannot be undone. Since the “Lessons of October” have seen the light of day, they must be fully discussed in the press and in the Party organisation. This must be done in a form accessible to every member of the Party.
</p>
<p>
Our Party has now greatly increased in numbers. Broad masses of workers are joining the Party, and these workers are insufficiently enlightened on the questions raised by Comrade Trotsky. Things perfectly clear to an old Bolshevist, who has fought determinedly for the Leninist line, are not clear to the young Party member. The Leninist must learn, above all, not to say that: “The discussion of this question disturbs us in our learning.” On the contrary, the discussion of this question will enable us to gain an even profounder comprehension of Leninism.
</p>
<p>
Comrade Trotsky devoted the whole of his powers to the fight for the Soviet power during the decisive years of the revolution. He held out heroically in his difficult and responsible position. He worked with unexampled energy and accomplished wonders in the interests of the safeguarding of the victory of the revolution. The Party will not forget this.
</p>
<p>
But the achievements of October have not yet been fully consummated. We must continue to work determinedly for their fulfilment. And here it would be dangerous and disastrous to deviate from the historically tested path of Leninism. And when such a comrade as Trotsky treads, even unconsciously, the path of revision of Leninism, then the Party must make a pronouncement.
</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">
<a href="../index.htm">Krupskaya Internet Archive</a> |
<a href="../../../history/international/comintern/sections/britain/pamphlets/1925/trotskyism/index.htm"><em>The Errors of Trotskyism</em> Index</a></p>
</body> |
Nadezhda K. Krupskaya
The Lessons of October
Source: The Errors of Trotskyism, May 1925
Publisher: Communist Party of Great Britain
Transcription/HTML Markup: Brian Reid
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive
(2007). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this
work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit
“Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
Two years ago, Vladimir Ilyitch, speaking at a plenary meeting of the Moscow Soviet, said that now we were treading the path of practical work, that we were no longer treating Socialism as an ikon merely to be described in glowing colours. “We must take the right road,” he said, “it is necessary to submit everything to the test; the masses and the whole population must test our methods, and say: ‘Yes, this order of things is better than the old one.’” This is the task which we have set ourselves.
Our Party, a small group in comparison to the total population, took up this task. This small group undertook to change everything, and it did change everything. That this is no Utopia, but a reality in which we live, has been demonstrated. We have all seen that it has been done. We had to do it in such a way that the great majority of working proletarians and peasants had to admit: “It is not you who praise yourselves, but we who praise you. We tell you that you have attained so much better results that no reasonable human being would ever think of returning to the old order.”
The Party works continually and unwearyingly. In 1924 the fact of the Lenin Recruitment showed us that the working masses regard the C.P. as their Party. This is an important point. This is a real and permanent achievement, and in itself no small praise. Out in the country we are praised already for many things, though these things are as yet but little. Our Party devotes much attention to the peasantry, and not only to the whole peasantry, but to the poorer and middle strata. The Party is working for the improvement of the subordinate Soviet apparatus; it aids the village nuclei in their work, and hopes to attain much. The Party accomplishes a large amount of practical work of every description, comprising an enormous field of activity, and guides the carriage of history along the road pointed out by Lenin.
The Party has devoted itself seriously to the accomplishment of practical work. Under our conditions this is an extremely difficult task, and for this reason the Party is so hostile to any discussion. For this reason Comrade Trotsky’s speech on the last barricade seemed so strange to the Thirteenth Party Conference. And for this reason great indignation has been aroused by Comrade Trotsky’s latest “literary” efforts.
I do not know whether Comrade Trotsky has actually committed all the deadly sins of which he is accused—the exaggerations of controversy are inevitable. Comrade Trotsky need not complain about this. He did not come into the world yesterday, and he knows that an article written in the tone of the “Lessons of October” is bound to call forth the same tone in the ensuing controversy. But this is not the question. The question is that Comrade Trotsky calls upon us to study the “Lessons of October,” but does not lay down the right lines for this study. He proposes that we study the role played by this or that person in October, the role played by this or that tendency in the Central Committee, etc. But this is what we must not study.
The first thing which we must study is the international situation as it existed in October, and the relations of class forces in Russian at that time.
Does Comrade Trotsky call upon us to study this? No. And yet the victory would have been impossible without a profound analysis of the historical moment, without a calculation of the actual relations of forces. The application of the revolutionary dialectics of Marxism to the concrete conditions of a given moment, the correct estimation of this moment, not only from the standpoint of the given country, but on an international scale, is the most important feature of Leninism. The international experience of the last decade is the best confirmation of the correctness of this Leninist process. This is what we must teach the Communist Parties of all countries, and this is what our youth must learn from the study of October.
But Comrade Trotsky overlooks this question. When he speaks of Bulgaria or Germany, he occupies himself but little with the correct estimation of the moment. If we regard events through Comrade Trotsky’s spectacles, it appears exceedingly simple to guide events. Marxist analysis was never Comrade Trotsky’s strong point.
This is the reason why he so under-estimates the role played by the peasantry. Much has already been said about this.
We must further study the Party during October. Trotsky says a great deal about the Party, but for him the Party is the staff of leaders, the heads. But those who really wish to study October, must study the Party as it was in October. The Party was a living organism, in which the C.C. (“the staff”) was not cut off from the Party, in which the members of the lowest Party organisations were in daily contact with the members of the C.C. Comrades Sverdlov and Stalin knew perfectly well what was going on in every district in Petrograd, in every province, and in the army. And Lenin knew all this as well, though living illegally. He was kept well informed and received letters about everything which occurred in the life of the organisation. And Lenin did not only know how to listen, he also knew very well how to read between the lines. The victory was made possible by precisely the fact that there was a close contact between the C.C. and the collective organisation.
A Party whose upper stratum had lost contact with the organisation would never have been victorious. All Communist Parties must impress this upon themselves, and organise themselves accordingly.
Where the Party is so organised, where the staff knows the will of the collective organisation—and not merely from the resolutions—and works in harmony with this will, the vacillations or errors of individual members of the staff do not possess the decisive significance ascribed to them by Comrade Trotsky. When history confronts the Party with an entirely new and hitherto unexampled emergency, it in only natural that the situation is not uniformly estimated by everyone, and then it is the task of the organisation to find the right common line.
Lenin invariably attached enormous importance to the collective organisation of the Party. His relations to the Party Conferences were based upon this. At every Party Conference he brought forward everything which he had thought out since the last Party Conference. He held himself to be chiefly responsible to the Party Conference, to the organisation as a whole. In cases of differences of opinion he appealed to the Party Conference (for instance in the question of the Brest Peace).
Trotsky does not recognise the part played by the Party as a whole, as an organisation cast in one piece. For him the Party is synonymous with the staff. Let us take an example: “What is the Bolshevisation of the Communist Party?”—he asks in the “Lessons of October.” It consists in so educating the Parties, and so choosing their leaders that they do not go off the tracks when their October comes.
This is a purely “administrative” and utterly superficial standpoint. Yes, the personalities of the leaders is a point of the utmost importance. Yes, it is necessary that the most gifted, the best, the firmest in character of our members are selected for our staff: but it is not merely a question of their personal capacities, but a question of whether the staff is closely bound up with the whole organisation.
There is another factor thanks to which we have accomplished our victory in October, and that is the correct estimation of the role and importance of the masses. If you will read all that Lenin wrote on the role played by the masses in the revolution and in the development of Socialism, you will see that Lenin’s estimation of the part played by the masses is one of the corner-stones of Leninism. For Lenin the masses are never a means, but the decisive factor. If the Party is to lead millions, it must be in close contact with these millions, is must be able to comprehend the life, the sorrows, and aspirations of the masses. Bela Kun relates that when he began to speak to Lenin about a revolutionary war against Germany, Lenin replied “I know that you are not a mere chatterbox—take a journey to the front to-morrow and see whether the soldiers are ready for a revolutionary war.” Bela Kun took the journey to the front, and saw that Lenin was in the right.
We do not find any appeal for the study of this side of the October revolution in the “Lessons of October.” On the contrary. When forming his estimate of the German events, Comrade Trotsky under-estimates the passivity of the masses.
A certain Syrkin has put a very foolish interpretation on John Reed’s book. Many people are of the opinion that we should not put John Reed’s book into the hands of young people. It contains inaccuracies and legends. The history of the Party is not to be learnt from Reed. Why then did Lenin recommend this book so warmly? Because in the case of John Reed’s book this question is not the main point. The book gives us an excellent and artistic description of the psychology and trends of feeling among the masses of the soldiery and the workers who accomplished the October revolution, and of the clumsiness of the bourgeoisie and its servants. John Reed enables even the youngest Communist to grasp the spirit of revolution much more rapidly than the perusal of dozens of protocols and resolutions. It does not suffice for our youth to merely know the history of the Party, it, is of equal importance that they feel the pulse of the October revolution. How can our youth become Communists if they know nothing more than Party conditions in their narrower import, and do not feel what war and revolution have been?
Comrade Trotsky approaches the study of October from the wrong side. The incorrect estimate of October is only one step removed from a wrong estimate of actuality and from the wrong estimates of a number of phenomena of immense significance. The wrong estimate of actuality leads to wrong decisions and actions. Anyone can comprehend this. What has happened cannot be undone. Since the “Lessons of October” have seen the light of day, they must be fully discussed in the press and in the Party organisation. This must be done in a form accessible to every member of the Party.
Our Party has now greatly increased in numbers. Broad masses of workers are joining the Party, and these workers are insufficiently enlightened on the questions raised by Comrade Trotsky. Things perfectly clear to an old Bolshevist, who has fought determinedly for the Leninist line, are not clear to the young Party member. The Leninist must learn, above all, not to say that: “The discussion of this question disturbs us in our learning.” On the contrary, the discussion of this question will enable us to gain an even profounder comprehension of Leninism.
Comrade Trotsky devoted the whole of his powers to the fight for the Soviet power during the decisive years of the revolution. He held out heroically in his difficult and responsible position. He worked with unexampled energy and accomplished wonders in the interests of the safeguarding of the victory of the revolution. The Party will not forget this.
But the achievements of October have not yet been fully consummated. We must continue to work determinedly for their fulfilment. And here it would be dangerous and disastrous to deviate from the historically tested path of Leninism. And when such a comrade as Trotsky treads, even unconsciously, the path of revision of Leninism, then the Party must make a pronouncement.
Krupskaya Internet Archive |
The Errors of Trotskyism Index
|
./articles/Krupskaya-Nadezhda/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.krupskaya.works.ethics | <body>
<p class="title">Nadezhda K. Krupskaya</p>
<h1>On Communist Ethics</h1>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information">
<strong>Written:</strong> 1924-1936;<br>
<strong>Source:</strong> <em>Communist Morality</em>, compiled by N. Bychkova, R. Lavrov and V. Lubisheva, Progress Publishers, 1962;<br>
<strong>Transcribed and HTML Markup:</strong> Sally Ryan for marxists.org, September, 2002.</p>
<hr class="end">
<h4>From the Speech at the Sixth Congress of the Russian Leninist Young Communist League</h4>
<p>
<em>July 12, 1924</em>
</p><p>
...We should try to link our personal lives with the cause for which we struggle, with the cause of building communism.</p><p>
This, of course, does not mean that we should renounce our personal life. The Party of communism is not a sect, and so such asceticism should not be advocated. At a factory, I once heard a woman addressing her work-mates say: "Comrades working women, you should remember that once you join the Party you have to give up husband and children."
</p><p>
Of course, this is not the approach to the question. It is not a matter of neglecting husband and children, but of training the children to become fighters for communism, to arrange things so that the husband becomes such a fighter, too. One has to know how to merge one's life with the life of society. This is not asceticism. On the contrary, the fact of this merging, the fact that the common cause of all working people becomes a personal matter, makes personal life richer. It does not become poorer, it offers deep and colourful experiences which humdrum family life has never provided. To know how to merge one's life with work for communism, with the work and struggle of the working people to build communism, is one of the tasks that face us. You, young people, are only just starting out on your lives, and you can build them so that there is no gap between your personal life and that of society....
</p>
<h4>From the Article "Lenin as a Man"</h4>
<p>
Lenin was a revolutionary Marxist and collectivist to the depths of his being. All his life and work was devoted to one great goal--the struggle for the triumph of socialism. This left its imprint on all his thoughts and feelings. He had none of the pettiness, petty envy, anger, revengefulness and vanity so much to be found in small-property-minded individualists.</p><p>
Lenin fought, he put questions sharply; in argument he introduced nothing personal but approached questions from the point of view of the matter in question, and, because of this, comrades were not usually offended at his sharp manner. He observed people closely, listened to what they had to say, tried to grasp the essential point, and so he was able, out of a number of insignificant points, to catch the nature of the person, he was able to approach people with remarkable sensitivity, to find in them all that was good and of value and could be put to the service of the common cause.
</p><p>
I often noticed how after meeting Ilyich people became different, and for this the comrades loved Ilyich and he himself gained as much from his meetings with them, as very few people could gain. Not everyone can learn from life, from other people. Ilyich knew how to. He never used artifice or diplomacy in dealing with people, never hoodwinked them, and people sensed his sincerity and candour.
</p><p>
Concern for his comrades was characteristic of him. He was concerned about them when he was in prison, at liberty, in exile, in emigration and when he became Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars. He was concerned not only about his comrades, but even about people complete strangers who needed his help. The only letter to me from Ilyich which I have preserved contains this phrase: "The letters for help which sometimes come to you I read and try to do what is possible." This was in the summer of 1919, when Ilyich had more than enough other concerns. The civil war was at its height. In the same letter he wrote: "It seems the Whites are in control of the Crimea again. There were more than enough things to see to, but I never heard Ilyich say he had no time, when it was a matter of helping people.
</p><p>
He was always telling me that I should be more concerned about the comrades I worked with and once, when during a party purge one of my workers from the People's Commissariat for Education was unjustly attacked, he found time to look through back numbers of publications in order to find material confirming that the worker, even before October, when still a member of the Bund, had defended the Bolsheviks.</p><p>
Lenin was kind, some people say. But the word "kind" from the old language of "virtue" hardly suits Ilyich, it is somehow inadequate and inaccurate.</p><p>
The family or group clannishness so characteristic of the old days was alien to Ilyich. He never separated the personal from the social. With him it was all merged into one. He could never have loved a woman whose views differed from his own, who was not his comrade in work. He had a habit of becoming passionately attached to people. His attachment to Plekhanov from whom he got so much, was typical in this respect, but it never prevented him from fighting hard against Plekhanov when he saw that Plekhanov was wrong, that his point of view harmed the cause; it did not prevent him from breaking completely with him when Plekhanov became a defencist.
</p><p>
Successful work delighted Ilyich. Work for the cause was the mainspring of his life, what he loved and what carried him away. Lenin tried to get as close as he could to the masses and he was able to do so. Association with workers gave him a very great deal. It gave him a real understanding of the tasks of the struggle of the proletariat at every stage. If we attentively study how Lenin worked as a scholar, a propagandist, a man of letters, an editor and organiser, we shall also understand him as a man. ...
</p>
<h4>From the Article "Lenin on Communist Morality"</h4>
<p>
Lenin was of the generation that grew up under the influence of Pisarev, Shchedrin, Nekrasov, Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky, of the revolutionary-democratic poets of the sixties. The <em>Iskra</em> poets mercilessly ridiculed the survivals of the old serfdom, they flayed depravity, servility, toadying, double-dealing, philistinism and bureaucratic methods. The writers of the 1860's advocated making a closer study of life and disclosing the survivals of the old feudal system. From his earliest years Lenin loathed philistinism, gossip, futile time-wasting, family life "separated from social interests", making women a plaything, an amusement, or a submissive slave. He despised the sort of life that is full of insincerity and easy adaptation to circumstances. Ilyich was particularly fond of Chernyshevsky's novel <em>What Is to Be Done?</em>; he loved the keen satire of Shchedrin, loved the <em>Iskra</em> poets, many of whose verses he knew by heart, and he loved Nekrasov.
</p><p>
For many long years Vladimir Ilyich had to live in emigration in Germany, Switzerland, England and France. He went to workers' meetings, looked closely at the lives of the workers, saw how they lived at home and spent their leisure hours in cafes or out walking.....
</p><p>
...Abroad we lived pretty poorly, for the most part lodging in cheap hired rooms where all kinds of people lived; we were bearded by a variety of landladies and ate in cheap restaurants. Ilyich was very fond of the Paris cafes, where in democratic songs singers sharply criticised bourgeois democracy and the day-to-day aspect of life. Ilyich particularly liked the songs of Montegus, the son of a Communard, who wrote good verses about life in the <em>faubourgs</em> (city outskirts). Ilyich once met and talked with Montegus at an evening party, and they conversed long after midnight about the revolution, the workers' movement and how socialism would create a new, socialist way of life.
</p><p>
Vladimir Ilyich always closely associated the questions of morality with those of the world outlook....
</p><p>
...In his speech on October 2, 1920, at the Third Congress of the Young Communist League, Vladimir Ilyich dwelt on communist morality, gave simple, concrete examples to explain the essence of communist morality. He told his audience that feudal and bourgeois morality is downright deception, the hoodwinking and befooling of workers and peasants in the interests of the landlords and capitalists; and that communist morality derives from the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat. He said that communist morality should aim at raising human society to a higher level, getting rid of the exploitation of labour. At the root of communist morality lies the struggle to strengthen and finally achieve communism. Lenin gave concrete examples to show the importance of solidarity, the ability to master oneself, to work tirelessly for what is needed to consolidate the new social system, the need for great and conscious discipline to this end, the need for strong solidarity in the fulfilment of set tasks. Ilyich told the young people that it was necessary for them to devote all their work, all their efforts to the common cause.
</p><p>
And Lenin's own life was a model of how this should be done. Ilyich could not live any other way, he did not know how to. But he was not an ascetic; he loved skating and fast cycling, mountain-climbing and hunting; he loved music and life in all its many-sided beauty; he loved his comrades, loved people in general. Everyone knows of his simplicity, his merry, infectious laughter. But everything about him was subordinated to the one thing--the struggle for a bright, enlightened, prosperous life of meaning and happiness for all. And nothing gladdened him so much as the successes achieved in this struggle. The personal side of him merged naturally with his social activity....
</p>
<h4>From a Letter to A. M. Gorky</h4>
<p>
<em>1 September 20, 1932</em>
</p><p>
...To build socialism means not only building gigantic factories and flour mills. This is essential but not enough for building socialism. People must grow in mind and heart. And on the basis of this individual growth of each in our conditions a new type of mighty socialist collective will in the long run be formed, where "I" and "we" will merge into one inseparable whole. Such a collective can only develop on the basis of profound ideological solidarity and an equally profound emotional rapprochement, mutual understanding.
</p><p>
And here, art, and literature in particular, can play a quite exceptional role. In <em>Capital,</em> Marx has a marvellous chapter [Ed. note--Ch. XI] which I want to translate into the simplest language that even the semi-literate can understand, the chapter on co-operation, where he writes that the collective gives birth to a new force. It is not just the sum-total of people, the sum-total of their forces, but a completely new, much more powerful, force. In his chapter on co-operation Marx writes about the new material force. But when, on its basis, unity of consciousness and will springs up, it becomes an indomitable force....
</p>
<h4> Letter to Working Men and Women<br> at the Trekhgornaya Manufaktura Mills</h4>
<p>
It is to be welcomed in every way that the Trekhgornaya Manufaktura Mills has seriously taken up the question of educating children. It is a highly important question.</p><p>
Much attention has recently been devoted to universal education, strengthening the schools and improving teaching methods. But not everything, by a long way, has yet been done. Working men and women need to get closer to the school, to take a deeper interest in its work. They can help a great deal in the teaching work and in communist education.</p><p>
Children spend the greater part of their time outside the school. Here they come under the influence of the street and frequently of hostile hooligan elements. Questions concerning the organisation of the children's out-of-school hours, the Young Pioneer movement, the provision of libraries and workshops and social work for the children, are of tremendous importance, Here, working men and women can do a very great deal. I firmly trust that this discussion of school and out-of-school education by the working people of the Trekhgornaya Manufaktura Mills will provide an impetus to this work.</p><p>
N. Krupskaya
</p>
<h4>From a Letter<br>
to the Party and Komsomol Members,<br> the Factory Committee, the Management<br> and the Entire Collective<br> of the Clara Zetkin Factory</h4>
<p>
<em>1935</em>
</p><p>
...The woman today is not simply a man's wife, she is a social worker, she wants to educate her children in the new way, she wants her whole day-to-day life to be rearranged of new lines. At every step she feels she lacks knowledge.</p><p>
It is necessary that at your factory, which bears the name of the great revolutionary Clara Zetkin, a woman who fought passionately for the emancipation of women-workers, it should be a matter of honour for all factory organisations to see to it that not a single person remains illiterate at the factory, that every working woman should become more literate.</p><p>
It is not only the youth that is studying today; everyone for whom the cause of Marx, Engels and Lenin is dear is studying. All politically-conscious working people in our Land of Soviets which has travelled such a hard road of struggle and has trained in this struggle self-sacrificing fighters who have achieved tremendous successes, are studying hard....
</p>
<h4>Letter to a Budding Writer</h4>
<p>
<em>July 3, 1936</em>
</p><p>
Dear Comrade!</p><p>
It seems to me that you are not on the right road. If you wish to become a real poet, a writer, whom the masses would love and appreciate, you have to work a great deal on yourself. Here no universities, no writers' unions will help.</p><p>
I cannot see from your letter what grieves your heart, what--apart from your own literary career--disturbs you. He who looks with indifference on life all round him "from the writer's carriage window" will never become a real writer. You have been in the Mining Institute, but have you any idea about the life of the miners, about their state of mind? They are one of the leading sections of the proletariat, and you are not interested in them ... so far, I hope.</p><p>
In my opinion, you will not make an engineer, that needs a different make-up, a different training.</p><p>
I would advise you to go to work in a pit, to make use of the knowledge you have acquired, to work side by side with ordinary workers, to take a look at the way they live, their home conditions. Then the themes for poems will come true to life, and there will be something that would stir you.</p><p>
There is often a great deal of snobbish conceit in budding writers--and even frequently in workers' children, but [it] has to be thoroughly washed away.
</p><p>
With comradely greetings,</p>
<p class="sig">
N. Krupskaya</p>
<p> </p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">
<a href="../index.htm">Krupskaya Internet Archive</a> |
<a href="../../../index.htm">Marxists Internet Archive</a></p>
</body> |
Nadezhda K. Krupskaya
On Communist Ethics
Written: 1924-1936;
Source: Communist Morality, compiled by N. Bychkova, R. Lavrov and V. Lubisheva, Progress Publishers, 1962;
Transcribed and HTML Markup: Sally Ryan for marxists.org, September, 2002.
From the Speech at the Sixth Congress of the Russian Leninist Young Communist League
July 12, 1924
...We should try to link our personal lives with the cause for which we struggle, with the cause of building communism.
This, of course, does not mean that we should renounce our personal life. The Party of communism is not a sect, and so such asceticism should not be advocated. At a factory, I once heard a woman addressing her work-mates say: "Comrades working women, you should remember that once you join the Party you have to give up husband and children."
Of course, this is not the approach to the question. It is not a matter of neglecting husband and children, but of training the children to become fighters for communism, to arrange things so that the husband becomes such a fighter, too. One has to know how to merge one's life with the life of society. This is not asceticism. On the contrary, the fact of this merging, the fact that the common cause of all working people becomes a personal matter, makes personal life richer. It does not become poorer, it offers deep and colourful experiences which humdrum family life has never provided. To know how to merge one's life with work for communism, with the work and struggle of the working people to build communism, is one of the tasks that face us. You, young people, are only just starting out on your lives, and you can build them so that there is no gap between your personal life and that of society....
From the Article "Lenin as a Man"
Lenin was a revolutionary Marxist and collectivist to the depths of his being. All his life and work was devoted to one great goal--the struggle for the triumph of socialism. This left its imprint on all his thoughts and feelings. He had none of the pettiness, petty envy, anger, revengefulness and vanity so much to be found in small-property-minded individualists.
Lenin fought, he put questions sharply; in argument he introduced nothing personal but approached questions from the point of view of the matter in question, and, because of this, comrades were not usually offended at his sharp manner. He observed people closely, listened to what they had to say, tried to grasp the essential point, and so he was able, out of a number of insignificant points, to catch the nature of the person, he was able to approach people with remarkable sensitivity, to find in them all that was good and of value and could be put to the service of the common cause.
I often noticed how after meeting Ilyich people became different, and for this the comrades loved Ilyich and he himself gained as much from his meetings with them, as very few people could gain. Not everyone can learn from life, from other people. Ilyich knew how to. He never used artifice or diplomacy in dealing with people, never hoodwinked them, and people sensed his sincerity and candour.
Concern for his comrades was characteristic of him. He was concerned about them when he was in prison, at liberty, in exile, in emigration and when he became Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars. He was concerned not only about his comrades, but even about people complete strangers who needed his help. The only letter to me from Ilyich which I have preserved contains this phrase: "The letters for help which sometimes come to you I read and try to do what is possible." This was in the summer of 1919, when Ilyich had more than enough other concerns. The civil war was at its height. In the same letter he wrote: "It seems the Whites are in control of the Crimea again. There were more than enough things to see to, but I never heard Ilyich say he had no time, when it was a matter of helping people.
He was always telling me that I should be more concerned about the comrades I worked with and once, when during a party purge one of my workers from the People's Commissariat for Education was unjustly attacked, he found time to look through back numbers of publications in order to find material confirming that the worker, even before October, when still a member of the Bund, had defended the Bolsheviks.
Lenin was kind, some people say. But the word "kind" from the old language of "virtue" hardly suits Ilyich, it is somehow inadequate and inaccurate.
The family or group clannishness so characteristic of the old days was alien to Ilyich. He never separated the personal from the social. With him it was all merged into one. He could never have loved a woman whose views differed from his own, who was not his comrade in work. He had a habit of becoming passionately attached to people. His attachment to Plekhanov from whom he got so much, was typical in this respect, but it never prevented him from fighting hard against Plekhanov when he saw that Plekhanov was wrong, that his point of view harmed the cause; it did not prevent him from breaking completely with him when Plekhanov became a defencist.
Successful work delighted Ilyich. Work for the cause was the mainspring of his life, what he loved and what carried him away. Lenin tried to get as close as he could to the masses and he was able to do so. Association with workers gave him a very great deal. It gave him a real understanding of the tasks of the struggle of the proletariat at every stage. If we attentively study how Lenin worked as a scholar, a propagandist, a man of letters, an editor and organiser, we shall also understand him as a man. ...
From the Article "Lenin on Communist Morality"
Lenin was of the generation that grew up under the influence of Pisarev, Shchedrin, Nekrasov, Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky, of the revolutionary-democratic poets of the sixties. The Iskra poets mercilessly ridiculed the survivals of the old serfdom, they flayed depravity, servility, toadying, double-dealing, philistinism and bureaucratic methods. The writers of the 1860's advocated making a closer study of life and disclosing the survivals of the old feudal system. From his earliest years Lenin loathed philistinism, gossip, futile time-wasting, family life "separated from social interests", making women a plaything, an amusement, or a submissive slave. He despised the sort of life that is full of insincerity and easy adaptation to circumstances. Ilyich was particularly fond of Chernyshevsky's novel What Is to Be Done?; he loved the keen satire of Shchedrin, loved the Iskra poets, many of whose verses he knew by heart, and he loved Nekrasov.
For many long years Vladimir Ilyich had to live in emigration in Germany, Switzerland, England and France. He went to workers' meetings, looked closely at the lives of the workers, saw how they lived at home and spent their leisure hours in cafes or out walking.....
...Abroad we lived pretty poorly, for the most part lodging in cheap hired rooms where all kinds of people lived; we were bearded by a variety of landladies and ate in cheap restaurants. Ilyich was very fond of the Paris cafes, where in democratic songs singers sharply criticised bourgeois democracy and the day-to-day aspect of life. Ilyich particularly liked the songs of Montegus, the son of a Communard, who wrote good verses about life in the faubourgs (city outskirts). Ilyich once met and talked with Montegus at an evening party, and they conversed long after midnight about the revolution, the workers' movement and how socialism would create a new, socialist way of life.
Vladimir Ilyich always closely associated the questions of morality with those of the world outlook....
...In his speech on October 2, 1920, at the Third Congress of the Young Communist League, Vladimir Ilyich dwelt on communist morality, gave simple, concrete examples to explain the essence of communist morality. He told his audience that feudal and bourgeois morality is downright deception, the hoodwinking and befooling of workers and peasants in the interests of the landlords and capitalists; and that communist morality derives from the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat. He said that communist morality should aim at raising human society to a higher level, getting rid of the exploitation of labour. At the root of communist morality lies the struggle to strengthen and finally achieve communism. Lenin gave concrete examples to show the importance of solidarity, the ability to master oneself, to work tirelessly for what is needed to consolidate the new social system, the need for great and conscious discipline to this end, the need for strong solidarity in the fulfilment of set tasks. Ilyich told the young people that it was necessary for them to devote all their work, all their efforts to the common cause.
And Lenin's own life was a model of how this should be done. Ilyich could not live any other way, he did not know how to. But he was not an ascetic; he loved skating and fast cycling, mountain-climbing and hunting; he loved music and life in all its many-sided beauty; he loved his comrades, loved people in general. Everyone knows of his simplicity, his merry, infectious laughter. But everything about him was subordinated to the one thing--the struggle for a bright, enlightened, prosperous life of meaning and happiness for all. And nothing gladdened him so much as the successes achieved in this struggle. The personal side of him merged naturally with his social activity....
From a Letter to A. M. Gorky
1 September 20, 1932
...To build socialism means not only building gigantic factories and flour mills. This is essential but not enough for building socialism. People must grow in mind and heart. And on the basis of this individual growth of each in our conditions a new type of mighty socialist collective will in the long run be formed, where "I" and "we" will merge into one inseparable whole. Such a collective can only develop on the basis of profound ideological solidarity and an equally profound emotional rapprochement, mutual understanding.
And here, art, and literature in particular, can play a quite exceptional role. In Capital, Marx has a marvellous chapter [Ed. note--Ch. XI] which I want to translate into the simplest language that even the semi-literate can understand, the chapter on co-operation, where he writes that the collective gives birth to a new force. It is not just the sum-total of people, the sum-total of their forces, but a completely new, much more powerful, force. In his chapter on co-operation Marx writes about the new material force. But when, on its basis, unity of consciousness and will springs up, it becomes an indomitable force....
Letter to Working Men and Women at the Trekhgornaya Manufaktura Mills
It is to be welcomed in every way that the Trekhgornaya Manufaktura Mills has seriously taken up the question of educating children. It is a highly important question.
Much attention has recently been devoted to universal education, strengthening the schools and improving teaching methods. But not everything, by a long way, has yet been done. Working men and women need to get closer to the school, to take a deeper interest in its work. They can help a great deal in the teaching work and in communist education.
Children spend the greater part of their time outside the school. Here they come under the influence of the street and frequently of hostile hooligan elements. Questions concerning the organisation of the children's out-of-school hours, the Young Pioneer movement, the provision of libraries and workshops and social work for the children, are of tremendous importance, Here, working men and women can do a very great deal. I firmly trust that this discussion of school and out-of-school education by the working people of the Trekhgornaya Manufaktura Mills will provide an impetus to this work.
N. Krupskaya
From a Letter
to the Party and Komsomol Members, the Factory Committee, the Management and the Entire Collective of the Clara Zetkin Factory
1935
...The woman today is not simply a man's wife, she is a social worker, she wants to educate her children in the new way, she wants her whole day-to-day life to be rearranged of new lines. At every step she feels she lacks knowledge.
It is necessary that at your factory, which bears the name of the great revolutionary Clara Zetkin, a woman who fought passionately for the emancipation of women-workers, it should be a matter of honour for all factory organisations to see to it that not a single person remains illiterate at the factory, that every working woman should become more literate.
It is not only the youth that is studying today; everyone for whom the cause of Marx, Engels and Lenin is dear is studying. All politically-conscious working people in our Land of Soviets which has travelled such a hard road of struggle and has trained in this struggle self-sacrificing fighters who have achieved tremendous successes, are studying hard....
Letter to a Budding Writer
July 3, 1936
Dear Comrade!
It seems to me that you are not on the right road. If you wish to become a real poet, a writer, whom the masses would love and appreciate, you have to work a great deal on yourself. Here no universities, no writers' unions will help.
I cannot see from your letter what grieves your heart, what--apart from your own literary career--disturbs you. He who looks with indifference on life all round him "from the writer's carriage window" will never become a real writer. You have been in the Mining Institute, but have you any idea about the life of the miners, about their state of mind? They are one of the leading sections of the proletariat, and you are not interested in them ... so far, I hope.
In my opinion, you will not make an engineer, that needs a different make-up, a different training.
I would advise you to go to work in a pit, to make use of the knowledge you have acquired, to work side by side with ordinary workers, to take a look at the way they live, their home conditions. Then the themes for poems will come true to life, and there will be something that would stir you.
There is often a great deal of snobbish conceit in budding writers--and even frequently in workers' children, but [it] has to be thoroughly washed away.
With comradely greetings,
N. Krupskaya
Krupskaya Internet Archive |
Marxists Internet Archive
|
./articles/Krupskaya-Nadezhda/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.krupskaya.works.howleninstudiedmarx | <body>
<h2>Nadezhda Krupskaya</h2>
<h3>How Lenin Studied Marx</h3>
<hr>
<hr>
<p class="information"><span class="info">Written:
</span>Unknown - 1933(?)<br>
<span class="info">First Published:</span>Unknown<br>
<span class="info">Source:</span>Nadezhda Krupskaya,
How Lenin Studied Marx, Labour Monthly pamphlet no. 2, (1933?)<br>
<span class="info">Translated:</span>Unknown<br>
<span class="info">Transcription/Markup:</span>Ted
Crawford, Steve Palmer<br>
<span class="info">Proofread:</span>Unknown<br>
<span class="info">Copyleft:</span> Permission
is
granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of
the Creative
Commons License.
</p>
<hr>
<p>OWING to the backwardness of industry in Russia, the workers'
movement only began to develop in the nineties, when the revolutionary
struggle of the working class was already taking place in a number of
other countries. There had already been the experience of the great
French Revolution, the experience of the revolution of 1848, the
experience of the Paris Commune in 1871. The great ideological leaders
of the workers' movement-Marx and Engels-were forged out in the fire of
the revolutionary struggle. The teachings of Marx showed the direction
taken by social development, the inevitability of the disintegration of
capitalist society, the replacement of this society by Communist
society, the paths which will be taken by the new social forms, the
path of the class struggle; they disclosed the role of the proletariat
in this struggle, and the inevitability of its victory.</p>
<p>Our workers' movement developed under the banner of Marxism.
It did not grow blindly, groping its way, but its aim and its path were
plain.</p>
<p>Lenin did a tremendous amount to illuminate the path of
struggle of the Russian proletariat with the light of Marxism. Fifty
years have passed since the death of Marx, but for our Party Marxism is
still the guide to action. Leninism is merely a further development of
Marxism, a deepening of it.</p>
<p>It is therefore obvious why it is of so great an interest to
illuminate the question of Lenin's study of Marx.</p>
<p><em>Lenin had a wonderful knowledge of Marx</em>.
In 1893, when he came to St. Petersburg, he astonished all of us who
were Marxists at the time with his tremendous knowledge of the works of
Marx and Engels.</p>
<p>In the nineties, when Marxist circles began to be formed, it
was chiefly the first volume of "Capital" which was studied. It was
possible to obtain "Capital," although with great difficulties. But
matters were extremely bad with regard to the other works of Marx. Most
of the members of the circles had not even read the "Communist
Manifesto." I, for example, read it for the first time only in 1898, in
German, when I was in exile.</p>
<p>Marx and Engels were absolutely prohibited. It is sufficient
to mention that in 1897, in his article "The Characteristics of
Economic Romanticism" written for the <em>New Word</em>,
Lenin was compelled to avoid using the words "Marx" and "Marxism." and
to speak of Marx in a roundabout way so as not to get the journal into
trouble.</p>
<p>Lenin understood foreign languages, and he did his best to dig
out everything that he could by Marx and Engels in German and French.
Anna. Ilyinishna tells how he read "The Poverty of Philosophy" in
French together with his sister, Olga. He had to read most in German.
He translated into Russian for himself the most important parts of the
works of Marx and Engels which interested him.</p>
<p>In his first big work, published illegally by him in 1894,
"Who are the Friends of the People?" there are quotations from the
"Communist Manifesto," the "Critique of Political Economy," the
"Poverty of Philosophy," "German Ideology," "The Letter of Marx to Ruge
" in 1843, Engels' books "Anti-Dühring" and "The Origin of the Family,
Private Property and the State."</p>
<p>The "Friends of the People " tremendously widened the Marxist
outlook of the majority of the then Marxists, who as yet had very
little acquaintance with the works of Marx. It dealt with a number of
questions in an entirely new way and was tremendously successful.</p>
<p>In the next work of Lenin, "The Economic Content of the
Teachings of the Narodniki and a Criticism of Them in the Book of
Struve" we find already references to "The Eighteenth Brumaire" and the
"The Civil War in France," to the "The Criticism of the Gotha
Programme" and the second and third volumes of "Capital."</p>
<p>Later, life in emigration made it possible for Lenin to become
acquainted with all the works of Marx and Engels and to study them.</p>
<p>The biography of Marx written by Lenin in 1914 for "Granat':
Encyclopaedia" illustrates better than anything else the wonderful
knowledge of the works of Marx by Lenin.</p>
<p>This is also shown by the innumerable extracts from Marx which
Lenin constantly made when reading his works. The Lenin Institute has
many notebooks with extracts from Marx.</p>
<p>Lenin used these extracts in his work, read them over and over
and made notes on them. <em>Lenin not only knew Marx, but he
also thought deeply on all his teachings</em>. In his speech at
the Third All-Russian Congress of the Y.C.L. in 1920, Lenin said to the
youth that it was necessary "to take the whole sum of human knowledge
and to take it in such a way that Communism will not be something
learned by heart but something which you have thought out yourselves,
something which forms the inevitable conclusion from the point of view
of modern education." (Volume XXV.) "If a Communist were to boast of
Communism on the basis of ready-made conclusions, without doing
serious, big and difficult work, without thoroughly understanding the
facts towards which he must take a critical attitude, such a Communist
would be a very poor one." (Volume XXV.)</p>
<p>Lenin not only studied the works of Marx but he studied what
was written about Marx and Marxism by the opponents from the camp of
the bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeoisie. In a polemic with them he
explains the basic positions of Marxism.</p>
<p>His first big work was "Who are the Friends of the People" and
how they fight against the Social-Democrats (a reply to an article in
"Russian Wealth" against the Marxists), where he drew a contrast
between the point of view of the Narodniki (Mikhailovsky, Krivenko,
Yushakova) and the point of view of Marx.</p>
<p>In the article, "The Economic Content of the Teachings of the
Narodniki, and the Criticism of Them in the Works of Struve," he
pointed out in what way the point of view of Struve was different from
the point of view of Marx.</p>
<p>When examining the agrarian question, he wrote a book, "The
Agrarian Question and the Criticism of Marx" (Volume IV.), where the
petty-bourgeois point of view of the Social-Democrats David, Hertz, and
the Russian critics, Chernov and Bulgakov was contrasted with the point
of view of Marx.</p>
<p>"<em>De choc des opinions jaillit la verite</em>"
(Truth arises from a conflict of opinions), says the French proverb.
Lenin loved to carry it out. He constantly brought to light and
contrasted class points of view on the basis of the questions of the
workers' movement.</p>
<p><em>It is very characteristic how Lenin set forth
various points of view side by side</em>. A great deal of light
is thrown on this by Volume XIX. or works, where the extracts,
conspects, plans for essays, &c., on the agrarian question for
the period preceding 1917 are collected.</p>
<p>Lenin carefully recapitulates the <em>statements of the
" critics,"</em> selects and copies out the clearest and most
characteristic phrases and counter-poses them to the statements of
Marx. In carefully analysing the statements of the " critics," he tries
to show the class essence of their statements, putting forward the most
important and urgent questions in prominent relief.</p>
<p>Lenin very frequently <em>deliberately sharpened a
question</em>. He considered that the tone was not the important
thing. You may express yourself coarsely and bitingly. What is
important is that you speak to the point. In the preface to the
correspondence of F. A. Sorge, he gives a quotation from Mehring from
his Correspondence with Sorge : " Mehring is right in saying that Marx
and Engels gave little thought to a ' high tone.' They did not stop
long to think before dealing a blow, but they did not whine about every
blow they received." (Volume XI.) Incisiveness of form and style were
natural to Lenin. He learned it from Marx. He says "Marx relates how he
and Engels fought constantly against the miserable conducting of this
"Social-Democrat" and often fought <em>sharply (wobei oft scharf
hergeht)</em> (Volume XI.). Lenin did not fear sharpness, but he
demanded that objections should be to the point. Lenin had one
favourite word which he frequently used: " quibbling." If a polemic
began which was not to the point, if people began to pick at trifles or
juggle with facts, he used to say: "that is mere quibbling." Lenin
expressed himself with still greater force against polemics which had
not the aim of bringing clearness into the question but of paying off
small factional grudges. This was the favourite method of the
Mensheviks. Concealing themselves behind quotations from Marx and
Engels, taken out of their context, out of the circumstances in which
they were written, they served factional aims entirely. In the preface
to the correspondence of F. A. Sorge, Lenin wrote: " To imagine that
the advice of Marx and Engels to the Anglo-American workers' movement
can be simply and directly adapted to Russian conditions means to
utilise Marxism, not to elucidate his method, not to study the concrete
historic peculiarities of the workers' movement in definite countries,
but for petty factional grudges of the intelligentsia." (Volume XI.)</p>
<p>Here we arrive directly at the question of <em>how
Lenin studied Marx</em>. This can partly be seen from the
previous quotation: It is necessary to elucidate the method of Marx, to
learn from Marx how to study the peculiarities of the workers' movement
in definite countries. Lenin did this. For Lenin the teachings of Marx
were a guide to action. He once used the following expression: "Who
wants to consult with Marx ? " . . . It is a very characteristic
expression. He himself constantly "consulted with Marx." At the most
difficult turning points of the revolution, he once again turned to the
reading of Marx. Sometimes when you went into his room, when everyone
around was excited, Lenin was reading Marx and could hardly tear
himself away. It was not to quieten his nerves, not to arm himself with
belief in the power of the working class, belief in its ultimate
victory. Lenin had sufficient of this faith. He buried himself in Marx
so as to "consult" with Marx, to find a reply from him to the burning
questions of the workers' movement. In the article "F. Mehring, on the
Second Duma," Lenin wrote : "The argumentation of such people is based
on a poor selection of quotations. They take the general position on
the support of the big bourgeoisie against the reactionary
petty-bourgeoisie and without criticism adapt it to the Russian Cadets
and the Russian Revolution. Mehring gives these people a good lesson. <em>Anyone
who wants to consult with Marx</em> (my italics, N.K.) on the
tasks of the proletariat and the bourgeois revolution must take the
reasoning of Marx which apply <em>precisely</em> to the
epoch of the German bourgeois revolution. It is not for nothing that
our Mensheviks so fearfully avoid this reasoning. In this reasoning we
see the fullest and clearest expression of the merciless struggle
against the <em>conciliatory</em> bourgeoisie which was
carried on by the Russian 'Bolsheviks' in the Russian revolution."
(Volume XI.)</p>
<p>Lenin's method was to take the works of Marx dealing with a <em>similar
situation</em> and carefully analyse them, compare them with the
current moment, discovering resemblances and differences. The
adaptation to the revolution of 1905 to 1907 illustrates best of all,
how Lenin did this.</p>
<p>In the pamphlet, "What is to be Done? " in 1902, Lenin
wrote </p>
<p class="indentb">"History now puts before us an
immediate task which is the <em>most
revolutionary</em> of all the <em>immediate</em>
tasks of the proletariat of any other country. The carrying out of this
task the destruction of the most powerful support not only for European
but also (we may now say) Asiatic reaction would make the Russian
proletariat the vanguard of the international revolutionary
proletariat." (Volume IV.)</p>
<p>We know that the revolutionary struggle of 1905 raised the
international role of the Russian working class, while the overthrow of
the Tsarist Monarchy in 1917, really made the Russian proletariat into
the vanguard of the international revolutionary proletariat, but this
took place only 15 years after "What is to be Done?" was written. When
in 1905, after the shooting of the workers on January 9th, the
revolutionary wave from the Dvortsoff Square began to rise higher and
higher, the question urgently arose as to where the Party must lead the
masses, what policy it must follow. And here Lenin consulted with Marx.
He quotes with special, attention the works of Marx dealing with the
French and German bourgeois democratic revolutions of 1848: "The Class
Struggle of 1848-50" and the third volume of The Literary Heritage of
Marx and Engels," published by F. Mehring and dealing with the German
revolution.</p>
<p>In June-July, 1905, Lenin wrote a pamphlet, "The. Two Tactics
of Social-Democracy and the Democratic Revolution," where the tactic of
the Mensheviks, who took the line of conciliation with the liberal
bourgeoisie was contrasted to the tactics of the Bolsheviks, who called
on the working class to carry on a most determined and irreconcilable
struggle against the Monarchy to the point of armed rebellion.</p>
<p>It was necessary to put an end to Tsarism, wrote Lenin in "Two
Tactics." "The conference (of the New Iskra-ites) also forgot that as
long as the power remains in the hands of the Tsar, any decisions of
any representatives remain empty talk and just as pitiful as the
'decisions' of the Frankfurt parliament which are famous in the history
of the German Revolution of 1848. For this very reason Marx, in the <em>Neue
Rheinische</em> <em>Zeitung,</em>
mercilessly poured sarcasm on the liberal Frankfurt 'liberators'
because they spoke excellent words, adopted all kinds of democratic
'decisions,' 'established' all kinds of freedom, but in reality left
the power in the hands of the Monarchy, and did not organise the armed
struggle against the troops of the monarchy. And while the Frankfurt
liberators chattered, the monarchy bided its time, strengthened its
military forces, and counter-revolution, relying on real force,
overthrew the democrats with all their beautiful decisions." (Volume
VIII.)</p>
<p>Lenin raises the question whether it would be possible for the
bourgeoisie to destroy the Russian Revolution by an agreement with
Tsarism, "or," as Marx said at one time, "settling with Tsarism in a
'plebeian' manner." "When the revolution decisively conquers, we shall
settle with Tsarism in a Jacobine, or if you will, in a plebeian,
manner." The whole of French terrorism, wrote Marx in the famous <em>Neue
Rheinische Zeitung</em> in 1848, was nothing else but
the plebeian manner of settling with the enemies of the bourgeoisie
with absolutism, feudalism, respectability. (See Marx's Literary
Heritage -- published by Mehring.)</p>
<p>Did those people who frightened the Social-Democratic Russian
workers with the bogey of "Jacobinism" in the epoch of the democratic
revolution ever think of the meaning of these words of Marx ? (Volume
VIII.)</p>
<p>The Mensheviks said that their tactics were "to remain the
Party of the extreme revolutionary opposition." And that this did not
exclude partial seizures of power from time to time and the formation
of revolutionary communes in one town or another. What do
"revolutionary communes" mean, asks Lenin, and replies:</p>
<p class="indentb">The confusion of revolutionary thought
leads them (the new
Iskra-ites), as often happens, <em>to <sub>.</sub>revolutionary
phrases</em>.The use of the words, "Revolutionary commune" in the
resolution of representatives of social-democracy is a revolutionary
phrase and nothing more. Marx more than once condemned such phrases,
when the tasks of the future are concealed behind soothing terms of the
<em>dead past.</em> The fascination of terms which have
played a rôle in history is converted in such cases into an empty and
harmful tinsel, into a rattle. We must give to the workers and to the
whole people a clear and unmistakeable idea of <em>why</em>
we want to establish a provisional revolutionary government, <em>what
changes exactly</em> we shall carry out if we
decisively influence the power, even to-morrow, if the national revolt
which has commenced is victorious. These are the questions which face
the political leaders. (Volume VIII.)</p>
<p class="indentb">These vulgarisers of Marxism never gave
thought to the words
of Marx on the necessity of replacing the weapon of criticism by
criticism with weapons. Using the name of Marx everywhere, they in
reality draw up a tactical resolution entirely in the spirit of the
Frankfurt bourgeois cacklers, freely criticising absolutism, deepening
democratic consciousness, and not understanding that the time of
revolution is a time of action, above and below. (Volume VIII.</p>
<p class="c1">"Revolutions are the locomotives of
history," says Marx. By this reference to Marx, Lenin appraises the
role of the revolution that was breaking out.</p>
<p>In his further analysis of the sayings of Karl Marx in the <em>Neue
Rheinische Zeitung</em>, Lenin makes clear what the revolutionary
democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry means. But in
drawing the analogy, Lenin dwells also on the question in what way our
bourgeois democratic revolution differs from the German bourgeois
democratic revolution of 1848. He says:</p>
<p class="indentb">Thus it was only in April, 1849, after
the revolutionary
newspaper, <em>Neue Rheinische Zeitung</em> (which had
been published since June 1, 1848) had existed almost a year, that Marx
and Engels expressed themselves in favour of a separate labour
organisation. Hitherto they simply conducted the "organ of democracy,"
which was not connected by any organisational link with an independent
labour party. This fact -- monstrous and improbable from our
contemporary point of view -- shows us clearly what an enormous
difference there was between the then German and the present Russian
social-democratic Labour Party. This fact shows us how much weaker
(owing to the backwardness of Germany in 1848, economically and
politically -- absence of state unity) were the proletarian features of
the movement in the German democratic revolution, the proletarian
streak in it.</p>
<p>Particularly interesting are Vladimir Ilyitch's articles which
refer to 1907 and are devoted to the correspondence and activity of
Marx.</p>
<p class="c1">They are "The Foreword to the Translation of
Marx's Letters to K.L. Kugelmann," "Mehring on the Second Duma," and
"The Foreword to the Letters to F.A. Sorge." These articles throw a
particularly vivid light on the method by which Lenin studied Marx. The
last article is of exceptional interest. It was written in the period
when Lenin had taken up once more seriously the study of philosophy, in
connection with his divergencies with Bogdanov, when the issues of
dialectical materialism called for his special attention.</p>
<p>While studying simultaneously also the sayings of Marx that
referred to questions analogous to those which sprang up among us in
connection with the breakdown of the revolution, and questions of
dialectical and historical materialism, <em>Lenin learned from
Marx how to <sub>.</sub>apply to the study</em> <em>of
historical development the method of dialectical materialism</em>.</p>
<p>In the "Foreword to the Correspondence with F.A. Sorge" he
wrote:</p>
<p class="indentb">"A comparison of what Marx and Engels
had to say on questions of
the Anglo-American and German labour movements is very instructive. If
one takes into consideration that Germany, on the one hand, and Great
Britain and America, on the other, represent different stages of
capitalist development, different forms of the rule of the bourgeoisie
as a class in the whole political life of these countries, the said
comparison assumes special significance. From the scientific pointof
view we have here a sample of materialist dialectic, ability to bring
forward and emphasise different points, different sides of the question
in their application to the concrete peculiarities of various political
and economic conditions. From the point of view of practical politics
and tactics of the worker's party, we have here a sample of the manner
in which the creators of the "Communist Manifesto" defined the task of
the struggling proletariat as applied to the various phases of the
national labour movement of the various countries" (free translation).</p>
<p>The revolution of 1905 brought to the fore a whole series of
new essential questions during the solution of which Lenin went more
deeply into the works of Karl Marx. The Leninist method (Marxist
through and through) of studying Marx was forged in the fire of the
revolution.</p>
<p>This method of studying Marx armed Lenin for struggle against
the distortions of Marxism with their emasculation of its revolutionary
essence. We know what an important part Lenin's book " State and
Revolution " has played in the organising of the October Revolution and
the Soviet Power. This book is entirely based on a deep study of Marx's
revolutionary teachings about the state. There Lenin writes :</p>
<p class="indentb">Marx's doctrines are now undergoing the
same fate which, more
than once in the course of history, has befallen the doctrines of other
revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes struggling for
emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the
oppressing classes have invariably meted out to them relentless
persecution, and received their teaching with the most savage
hostility, most furious hatred, and a ruthless campaign of lies and
slanders. After their death, however, attempts are usually made to turn
them into harmless saints, canonising them, as it were, and investing
their name with a certain halo by way of "consolation" to the oppressed
classes, and with the object of duping them, while at the same time
emasculating and vulgarising the real essence of their revolutionary
theories and blunting their revolutionary edge. At the present time the
bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labour movement are
co-operating in this work of adulterating Marxism. They omit,
obliterate, and distort the revolutionary side of its teaching, its
revolutionary soul, and push to the foreground and extol what is, or
seems, acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the Socialist Chauvinists are
now " Marxists " - save the mark<a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title="" id="_ednref1">[1]</a>!
And more and more do German bourgeois professors, erstwhile specialists
in the demolition of Marx, now speak of the "National-German" Marx,
who, forsooth, has educated the splendidly organised working class for
the present predatory war. In these circumstances, when the distortion
of Marxism is so widespread, our first task is to resuscitate the real
nature of Marx's teachings on the subject of the State. (First page in
" The State and Revolution.")</p>
<p>In "The Foundations of Leninism " Comrade Stalin wrote :</p>
<p class="indentb">Not until the next phase, the phase of
direct action, of
proletarian revolution, when the overthrow of the bourgeoisie had
become a question of practical politics, did the problem of finding
reserves for the proletarian army (strategy) become actual, and the
problem of the organisation of that army whether on the parliamentary
or the extra-parliamentary field (tactics) clearly demand a solution.
Not until this phase had begun, could proletarian strategy be
systematised and proletarian tactics be elaborated. <em>It was
now that Lenin disinterred Marx's and Engels' masterly ideas on
strategy and tactics, ideas which the opportunists of the Second
International had buried out of sight</em>. (The italics are
mine. - N.K.)</p>
<p>But Lenin did not confine himself to re-establishing
individual tactical propositions of Marx and Engels. He developed them
further and supplemented them by new ideas and propositions, creating
out of all this a system of rules and leading principles for the
conduct of the class struggle of the proletariat. Such pamphlets of
Lenin as "What is to be Done," "Two Tactics," "Imperialism," "State and
Revolution," "Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky," and
"Left-Wing Communism," will no doubt be a most valuable contribution to
the common treasure-house of Marxism, to its revolutionary arsenal. The
strategy and tactic of Leninism is a science regarding the leadership
of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat." (J. Stalin, "
Questions of Leninism.") Marx and Engels said that their teaching "is
not a dogma, but a guide to action." These words of theirs were
continually repeated by Lenin. The method by which he studied the works
of Marx and Engels, and revolutionary practice, all the circumstances
of the epoch of proletarian revolutions, helped Lenin to convert just
the revolutionary side of Marx into a real guide to action.</p>
<p>I shall dwell on a question which is of decisive significance.
Not so long ago we celebrated the fifteenth anniversary of the Soviet
Power. And in this connection we recalled how the seizure of power was
organised in October. it wasn't a spontaneous act, it was deeply
thought out by Lenin who was guided by Marx's direct instructions
regarding the organising of an uprising.</p>
<p>The October Revolution, by placing dictatorship into the hands
of the proletariat, radically changed all the conditions of struggle,
but only because Lenin was guided not by the letter of the teachings of
Marx and Engels, but by their revolutionary essence, because he knew
how to apply Marxism also to the building up of Socialism in the epoch
of proletarian dictatorship.</p>
<p>I shall only dwell on a few points. Thorough research work is
necessary here: select everything that was taken by Lenin from Marx and
Engels, indicating in what periods and in connection with what tasks of
the revolutionary movement. I have not even mentioned such important
questions as the national question, imperialism, &c. The
publication of Lenin's complete collected works makes this work easier.
<em>Lenin's way of studying Marx in all the phases of
revolutionary struggle from beginning to end will help us to understand
better and go deeper not only into Marx, but into Lenin himself, into
his method of studying Marx and the method of converting Marx's
teachings into a guide to action.</em></p>
<p>There is one more side of Lenin's study of Marx which must be
mentioned owing to its great significance. Lenin did not only study
what Marx and Engels wrote as well as what Marx's " critics " wrote
about him, <em>he also studied the way which led Marx to his
various views, and the works and books which stimulated Marx's thoughts
and drove them in a definite direction</em>. He studied, so to
speak, the sources of Marxist philosophy, what and how precisely Marx
took from this or that writer. He was specially concerned in making a
deep study of the method of dialectical materialism. In 1922, in the
article "Meaning of Militant Materialism," Lenin said that it was up to
the contributors to the periodical "Under the Banner of Marxism " to
organise the work for a systematic study of Hegel's dialectics from the
materialist point of view. He believed that without a serious
philosophical basis it is impossible to hold out in the struggle
against the pressure of bourgeois ideas and the restoration of
bourgeois philosophy. It was on the basis of his own experience that
Lenin wrote about the manner of studying Hegel's dialectics from the
materialist point of view. We give here the corresponding paragraph
from Lenin's article "On the Meaning of Militant Materialism."</p>
<p class="indentb">But in order to avoid reacting to such
a phenomenon
unintelligently, we must understand that no natural science, no
materialism whatever, can hold out in the struggle against the
onslaught of bourgeois ideas and the restoration of bourgeois
philosophy without a solid philosophical basis. In order, to give aid
to this struggle and help to carry it out to its successful conclusion,
the natural scientist must be a modern Materialist--a conscious
adherent of that Materialism which Marx-represents that is, he must be
a <em>dialectical</em> Materialist. To achieve this the
staff of <em>Under the Banner of Marxism</em> must
organise a systematic study of Hegelian dialectics from the Materialist
point of view, i.e., the dialectics which Marx applied concretely in
his <em>Capital</em> and used in his historical and
political works. . . .</p>
<p class="indentb">. . . Basing ourselves on the manner in
which Marx applied the
materialist conception of Hegelian dialectics we can, and must, work
out these dialectics from all sides. The magazine must publish excerpts
from the principal works of Hegel; must interpret them
materialistically, and give examples of how Marx applied dialectics, as
well as examples of dialectics from the field of economic and political
relations. Modern history, particularly modern imperialist war and
revolution, provide innumerable examples of this kind. The editors and
staff of <em>Under the Banner of Marxism</em> should, I
think, represent a sort of "Association of Materialist Friends of
Hegelian Philosophy." Modern natural scientists will find (if they will
seek and if we can learn to help them) in the materialist
interpretation of Hegelian dialectics a number of answers to those
brought forward to the front and which cause the intellectual admirers
of bourgeois fashions to "slip" into the reactionary camp. (P. 41, <em>Lenin
on Religion</em>, Little Lenin Library, Volume VII.)</p>
<p>The IX. and XII. volumes of Lenin's collected works have
already been published in the Soviet Union. They divulge the whole
process of Lenin's thought when he was working through Hegel's chief
works, they show how he applied the method of dialectical materialism
to the study of Hegel, how closely he connected this study with a deep
study of Marx's sayings, with the ability of converting Marxism into a
guide to action in the most varied circumstances.</p>
<p>But Hegel was not the only object of Lenin's study. He read
Marx's letter to Engels of November 1859, in which he criticises
severely Lassalle's book, " The Philosophy of Heraclitus, the Dark, of
Ephesus " (two volumes), and calls this work "amateurish." Lenin gives,
to begin with, a brief formulation of Marx's criticism: "Lassalle
simply <em>repeats</em> Hegel, he <em>describes</em>
him, <em>ruminates</em> millions of times on certain
sayings of Heraclitus, embellishing his work with a surfeit of Most
learned Gellertian ballast." But, nevertheless, Lenin plunges into the
study of this work of Lassalle, makes conspects and extracts of it,
writes notes to it, and sums it up thus: "Marx's criticism is on the
whole correct. It isn't worth while to read Lassalle's book." But the
work over this book gave Lenin himself a deeper understanding of Marx :
he understood why this book of Lassalle displeased Marx to such an
extent.</p>
<p>In conclusion, I will mention one more form of Lenin's work
over Marx - the popularisation of Marx's teachings. If the populariser
takes his work "seriously," if his aim is to give in a very simple and
intelligible form an explanation of the very essence of this or that
theory, this work will help him very much.</p>
<p>Lenin treated this work very seriously indeed. "There is
nothing I would like so much as being able to write for the workers,"
he wrote from exile to Plekhanov and Axelrod.</p>
<p>He wanted to explain and bring near to the masses the
teachings of Marx. In the nineties, when he worked in workers' circles,
he endeavoured to explain to them first of all the first volume of
"Capital," and illustrated the propositions brought forward there by
examples from the life of his hearers. In 1911, in the Party school in
Lonjumeau (near Paris), where Lenin was working hard for the
preparation of cadres of leaders for the budding revolutionary
movement, he lectured to the workers on political economy, and tried to
bring home to them as simply as possible the foundations of Marx's
teachings. In his articles to <em>Pravda</em>, Ilyitch
-tried to popularise various points from Marx's teachings. A sample of
Leninist popularisation is his characterisation during the 1921
disputes on trade unions of the manner of studying the subject with the
application of the dialectical method. Lenin said :</p>
<p>To know the subject thoroughly, one must take hold of and
study all its sides, all the connections and its proper place in the
given situation. We shall never fully attain this, but the demand of
many-sidedness will make us steer clear of errors and inertia. This
comes first. Secondly, dialectical logic demands that the subject be
taken in its development, in its "self-motion" (as Hegel says) and its
changes. Thirdly, human practice must concentrate on full "definition"
of the subject, as a criterion of truth, as well as a practical
indicator of the connection of the subject with what man needs.
Fourthly, dialectical logic teaches us that "There is no abstract
truth, that truth is always concrete," as the late Plekhanov, who was a
follower of Hegel, liked to say.</p>
<p>These few lines are the quintessence of what Lenin came to as
a result of long years of work over philosophical questions, in which
he always made use of the method of dialectical materialism, "
consulting " all the time, Marx. In a compressed form, these lines
indicate all that is essential, that must be a guide to action, while
studying phenomena.</p>
<p>The way in which Lenin worked over Marx is a lesson in how to
study Lenin himself. His teaching is inseparably connected with the
teaching of Marx, it is Marxism in action, it is the Marxism of the
epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions.</p>
<br clear="all">
<hr class="end">
<h4>Footnotes</h4>
<p><a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title="" id="_edn1">[1]</a> "Don't laugh!"</p>
<hr class="end"><br>
<p style="text-align: center;" class="footer">
<a href="../../index.htm" target="_top">Marxist
Writers’ Archive</a> | <a href="../index.htm">Krupskaya
Archive</a>
</p>
</body> |
Nadezhda Krupskaya
How Lenin Studied Marx
Written:
Unknown - 1933(?)
First Published:Unknown
Source:Nadezhda Krupskaya,
How Lenin Studied Marx, Labour Monthly pamphlet no. 2, (1933?)
Translated:Unknown
Transcription/Markup:Ted
Crawford, Steve Palmer
Proofread:Unknown
Copyleft: Permission
is
granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of
the Creative
Commons License.
OWING to the backwardness of industry in Russia, the workers'
movement only began to develop in the nineties, when the revolutionary
struggle of the working class was already taking place in a number of
other countries. There had already been the experience of the great
French Revolution, the experience of the revolution of 1848, the
experience of the Paris Commune in 1871. The great ideological leaders
of the workers' movement-Marx and Engels-were forged out in the fire of
the revolutionary struggle. The teachings of Marx showed the direction
taken by social development, the inevitability of the disintegration of
capitalist society, the replacement of this society by Communist
society, the paths which will be taken by the new social forms, the
path of the class struggle; they disclosed the role of the proletariat
in this struggle, and the inevitability of its victory.
Our workers' movement developed under the banner of Marxism.
It did not grow blindly, groping its way, but its aim and its path were
plain.
Lenin did a tremendous amount to illuminate the path of
struggle of the Russian proletariat with the light of Marxism. Fifty
years have passed since the death of Marx, but for our Party Marxism is
still the guide to action. Leninism is merely a further development of
Marxism, a deepening of it.
It is therefore obvious why it is of so great an interest to
illuminate the question of Lenin's study of Marx.
Lenin had a wonderful knowledge of Marx.
In 1893, when he came to St. Petersburg, he astonished all of us who
were Marxists at the time with his tremendous knowledge of the works of
Marx and Engels.
In the nineties, when Marxist circles began to be formed, it
was chiefly the first volume of "Capital" which was studied. It was
possible to obtain "Capital," although with great difficulties. But
matters were extremely bad with regard to the other works of Marx. Most
of the members of the circles had not even read the "Communist
Manifesto." I, for example, read it for the first time only in 1898, in
German, when I was in exile.
Marx and Engels were absolutely prohibited. It is sufficient
to mention that in 1897, in his article "The Characteristics of
Economic Romanticism" written for the New Word,
Lenin was compelled to avoid using the words "Marx" and "Marxism." and
to speak of Marx in a roundabout way so as not to get the journal into
trouble.
Lenin understood foreign languages, and he did his best to dig
out everything that he could by Marx and Engels in German and French.
Anna. Ilyinishna tells how he read "The Poverty of Philosophy" in
French together with his sister, Olga. He had to read most in German.
He translated into Russian for himself the most important parts of the
works of Marx and Engels which interested him.
In his first big work, published illegally by him in 1894,
"Who are the Friends of the People?" there are quotations from the
"Communist Manifesto," the "Critique of Political Economy," the
"Poverty of Philosophy," "German Ideology," "The Letter of Marx to Ruge
" in 1843, Engels' books "Anti-Dühring" and "The Origin of the Family,
Private Property and the State."
The "Friends of the People " tremendously widened the Marxist
outlook of the majority of the then Marxists, who as yet had very
little acquaintance with the works of Marx. It dealt with a number of
questions in an entirely new way and was tremendously successful.
In the next work of Lenin, "The Economic Content of the
Teachings of the Narodniki and a Criticism of Them in the Book of
Struve" we find already references to "The Eighteenth Brumaire" and the
"The Civil War in France," to the "The Criticism of the Gotha
Programme" and the second and third volumes of "Capital."
Later, life in emigration made it possible for Lenin to become
acquainted with all the works of Marx and Engels and to study them.
The biography of Marx written by Lenin in 1914 for "Granat':
Encyclopaedia" illustrates better than anything else the wonderful
knowledge of the works of Marx by Lenin.
This is also shown by the innumerable extracts from Marx which
Lenin constantly made when reading his works. The Lenin Institute has
many notebooks with extracts from Marx.
Lenin used these extracts in his work, read them over and over
and made notes on them. Lenin not only knew Marx, but he
also thought deeply on all his teachings. In his speech at
the Third All-Russian Congress of the Y.C.L. in 1920, Lenin said to the
youth that it was necessary "to take the whole sum of human knowledge
and to take it in such a way that Communism will not be something
learned by heart but something which you have thought out yourselves,
something which forms the inevitable conclusion from the point of view
of modern education." (Volume XXV.) "If a Communist were to boast of
Communism on the basis of ready-made conclusions, without doing
serious, big and difficult work, without thoroughly understanding the
facts towards which he must take a critical attitude, such a Communist
would be a very poor one." (Volume XXV.)
Lenin not only studied the works of Marx but he studied what
was written about Marx and Marxism by the opponents from the camp of
the bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeoisie. In a polemic with them he
explains the basic positions of Marxism.
His first big work was "Who are the Friends of the People" and
how they fight against the Social-Democrats (a reply to an article in
"Russian Wealth" against the Marxists), where he drew a contrast
between the point of view of the Narodniki (Mikhailovsky, Krivenko,
Yushakova) and the point of view of Marx.
In the article, "The Economic Content of the Teachings of the
Narodniki, and the Criticism of Them in the Works of Struve," he
pointed out in what way the point of view of Struve was different from
the point of view of Marx.
When examining the agrarian question, he wrote a book, "The
Agrarian Question and the Criticism of Marx" (Volume IV.), where the
petty-bourgeois point of view of the Social-Democrats David, Hertz, and
the Russian critics, Chernov and Bulgakov was contrasted with the point
of view of Marx.
"De choc des opinions jaillit la verite"
(Truth arises from a conflict of opinions), says the French proverb.
Lenin loved to carry it out. He constantly brought to light and
contrasted class points of view on the basis of the questions of the
workers' movement.
It is very characteristic how Lenin set forth
various points of view side by side. A great deal of light
is thrown on this by Volume XIX. or works, where the extracts,
conspects, plans for essays, &c., on the agrarian question for
the period preceding 1917 are collected.
Lenin carefully recapitulates the statements of the
" critics," selects and copies out the clearest and most
characteristic phrases and counter-poses them to the statements of
Marx. In carefully analysing the statements of the " critics," he tries
to show the class essence of their statements, putting forward the most
important and urgent questions in prominent relief.
Lenin very frequently deliberately sharpened a
question. He considered that the tone was not the important
thing. You may express yourself coarsely and bitingly. What is
important is that you speak to the point. In the preface to the
correspondence of F. A. Sorge, he gives a quotation from Mehring from
his Correspondence with Sorge : " Mehring is right in saying that Marx
and Engels gave little thought to a ' high tone.' They did not stop
long to think before dealing a blow, but they did not whine about every
blow they received." (Volume XI.) Incisiveness of form and style were
natural to Lenin. He learned it from Marx. He says "Marx relates how he
and Engels fought constantly against the miserable conducting of this
"Social-Democrat" and often fought sharply (wobei oft scharf
hergeht) (Volume XI.). Lenin did not fear sharpness, but he
demanded that objections should be to the point. Lenin had one
favourite word which he frequently used: " quibbling." If a polemic
began which was not to the point, if people began to pick at trifles or
juggle with facts, he used to say: "that is mere quibbling." Lenin
expressed himself with still greater force against polemics which had
not the aim of bringing clearness into the question but of paying off
small factional grudges. This was the favourite method of the
Mensheviks. Concealing themselves behind quotations from Marx and
Engels, taken out of their context, out of the circumstances in which
they were written, they served factional aims entirely. In the preface
to the correspondence of F. A. Sorge, Lenin wrote: " To imagine that
the advice of Marx and Engels to the Anglo-American workers' movement
can be simply and directly adapted to Russian conditions means to
utilise Marxism, not to elucidate his method, not to study the concrete
historic peculiarities of the workers' movement in definite countries,
but for petty factional grudges of the intelligentsia." (Volume XI.)
Here we arrive directly at the question of how
Lenin studied Marx. This can partly be seen from the
previous quotation: It is necessary to elucidate the method of Marx, to
learn from Marx how to study the peculiarities of the workers' movement
in definite countries. Lenin did this. For Lenin the teachings of Marx
were a guide to action. He once used the following expression: "Who
wants to consult with Marx ? " . . . It is a very characteristic
expression. He himself constantly "consulted with Marx." At the most
difficult turning points of the revolution, he once again turned to the
reading of Marx. Sometimes when you went into his room, when everyone
around was excited, Lenin was reading Marx and could hardly tear
himself away. It was not to quieten his nerves, not to arm himself with
belief in the power of the working class, belief in its ultimate
victory. Lenin had sufficient of this faith. He buried himself in Marx
so as to "consult" with Marx, to find a reply from him to the burning
questions of the workers' movement. In the article "F. Mehring, on the
Second Duma," Lenin wrote : "The argumentation of such people is based
on a poor selection of quotations. They take the general position on
the support of the big bourgeoisie against the reactionary
petty-bourgeoisie and without criticism adapt it to the Russian Cadets
and the Russian Revolution. Mehring gives these people a good lesson. Anyone
who wants to consult with Marx (my italics, N.K.) on the
tasks of the proletariat and the bourgeois revolution must take the
reasoning of Marx which apply precisely to the
epoch of the German bourgeois revolution. It is not for nothing that
our Mensheviks so fearfully avoid this reasoning. In this reasoning we
see the fullest and clearest expression of the merciless struggle
against the conciliatory bourgeoisie which was
carried on by the Russian 'Bolsheviks' in the Russian revolution."
(Volume XI.)
Lenin's method was to take the works of Marx dealing with a similar
situation and carefully analyse them, compare them with the
current moment, discovering resemblances and differences. The
adaptation to the revolution of 1905 to 1907 illustrates best of all,
how Lenin did this.
In the pamphlet, "What is to be Done? " in 1902, Lenin
wrote
"History now puts before us an
immediate task which is the most
revolutionary of all the immediate
tasks of the proletariat of any other country. The carrying out of this
task the destruction of the most powerful support not only for European
but also (we may now say) Asiatic reaction would make the Russian
proletariat the vanguard of the international revolutionary
proletariat." (Volume IV.)
We know that the revolutionary struggle of 1905 raised the
international role of the Russian working class, while the overthrow of
the Tsarist Monarchy in 1917, really made the Russian proletariat into
the vanguard of the international revolutionary proletariat, but this
took place only 15 years after "What is to be Done?" was written. When
in 1905, after the shooting of the workers on January 9th, the
revolutionary wave from the Dvortsoff Square began to rise higher and
higher, the question urgently arose as to where the Party must lead the
masses, what policy it must follow. And here Lenin consulted with Marx.
He quotes with special, attention the works of Marx dealing with the
French and German bourgeois democratic revolutions of 1848: "The Class
Struggle of 1848-50" and the third volume of The Literary Heritage of
Marx and Engels," published by F. Mehring and dealing with the German
revolution.
In June-July, 1905, Lenin wrote a pamphlet, "The. Two Tactics
of Social-Democracy and the Democratic Revolution," where the tactic of
the Mensheviks, who took the line of conciliation with the liberal
bourgeoisie was contrasted to the tactics of the Bolsheviks, who called
on the working class to carry on a most determined and irreconcilable
struggle against the Monarchy to the point of armed rebellion.
It was necessary to put an end to Tsarism, wrote Lenin in "Two
Tactics." "The conference (of the New Iskra-ites) also forgot that as
long as the power remains in the hands of the Tsar, any decisions of
any representatives remain empty talk and just as pitiful as the
'decisions' of the Frankfurt parliament which are famous in the history
of the German Revolution of 1848. For this very reason Marx, in the Neue
Rheinische Zeitung,
mercilessly poured sarcasm on the liberal Frankfurt 'liberators'
because they spoke excellent words, adopted all kinds of democratic
'decisions,' 'established' all kinds of freedom, but in reality left
the power in the hands of the Monarchy, and did not organise the armed
struggle against the troops of the monarchy. And while the Frankfurt
liberators chattered, the monarchy bided its time, strengthened its
military forces, and counter-revolution, relying on real force,
overthrew the democrats with all their beautiful decisions." (Volume
VIII.)
Lenin raises the question whether it would be possible for the
bourgeoisie to destroy the Russian Revolution by an agreement with
Tsarism, "or," as Marx said at one time, "settling with Tsarism in a
'plebeian' manner." "When the revolution decisively conquers, we shall
settle with Tsarism in a Jacobine, or if you will, in a plebeian,
manner." The whole of French terrorism, wrote Marx in the famous Neue
Rheinische Zeitung in 1848, was nothing else but
the plebeian manner of settling with the enemies of the bourgeoisie
with absolutism, feudalism, respectability. (See Marx's Literary
Heritage -- published by Mehring.)
Did those people who frightened the Social-Democratic Russian
workers with the bogey of "Jacobinism" in the epoch of the democratic
revolution ever think of the meaning of these words of Marx ? (Volume
VIII.)
The Mensheviks said that their tactics were "to remain the
Party of the extreme revolutionary opposition." And that this did not
exclude partial seizures of power from time to time and the formation
of revolutionary communes in one town or another. What do
"revolutionary communes" mean, asks Lenin, and replies:
The confusion of revolutionary thought
leads them (the new
Iskra-ites), as often happens, to .revolutionary
phrases.The use of the words, "Revolutionary commune" in the
resolution of representatives of social-democracy is a revolutionary
phrase and nothing more. Marx more than once condemned such phrases,
when the tasks of the future are concealed behind soothing terms of the
dead past. The fascination of terms which have
played a rôle in history is converted in such cases into an empty and
harmful tinsel, into a rattle. We must give to the workers and to the
whole people a clear and unmistakeable idea of why
we want to establish a provisional revolutionary government, what
changes exactly we shall carry out if we
decisively influence the power, even to-morrow, if the national revolt
which has commenced is victorious. These are the questions which face
the political leaders. (Volume VIII.)
These vulgarisers of Marxism never gave
thought to the words
of Marx on the necessity of replacing the weapon of criticism by
criticism with weapons. Using the name of Marx everywhere, they in
reality draw up a tactical resolution entirely in the spirit of the
Frankfurt bourgeois cacklers, freely criticising absolutism, deepening
democratic consciousness, and not understanding that the time of
revolution is a time of action, above and below. (Volume VIII.
"Revolutions are the locomotives of
history," says Marx. By this reference to Marx, Lenin appraises the
role of the revolution that was breaking out.
In his further analysis of the sayings of Karl Marx in the Neue
Rheinische Zeitung, Lenin makes clear what the revolutionary
democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry means. But in
drawing the analogy, Lenin dwells also on the question in what way our
bourgeois democratic revolution differs from the German bourgeois
democratic revolution of 1848. He says:
Thus it was only in April, 1849, after
the revolutionary
newspaper, Neue Rheinische Zeitung (which had
been published since June 1, 1848) had existed almost a year, that Marx
and Engels expressed themselves in favour of a separate labour
organisation. Hitherto they simply conducted the "organ of democracy,"
which was not connected by any organisational link with an independent
labour party. This fact -- monstrous and improbable from our
contemporary point of view -- shows us clearly what an enormous
difference there was between the then German and the present Russian
social-democratic Labour Party. This fact shows us how much weaker
(owing to the backwardness of Germany in 1848, economically and
politically -- absence of state unity) were the proletarian features of
the movement in the German democratic revolution, the proletarian
streak in it.
Particularly interesting are Vladimir Ilyitch's articles which
refer to 1907 and are devoted to the correspondence and activity of
Marx.
They are "The Foreword to the Translation of
Marx's Letters to K.L. Kugelmann," "Mehring on the Second Duma," and
"The Foreword to the Letters to F.A. Sorge." These articles throw a
particularly vivid light on the method by which Lenin studied Marx. The
last article is of exceptional interest. It was written in the period
when Lenin had taken up once more seriously the study of philosophy, in
connection with his divergencies with Bogdanov, when the issues of
dialectical materialism called for his special attention.
While studying simultaneously also the sayings of Marx that
referred to questions analogous to those which sprang up among us in
connection with the breakdown of the revolution, and questions of
dialectical and historical materialism, Lenin learned from
Marx how to .apply to the study of
historical development the method of dialectical materialism.
In the "Foreword to the Correspondence with F.A. Sorge" he
wrote:
"A comparison of what Marx and Engels
had to say on questions of
the Anglo-American and German labour movements is very instructive. If
one takes into consideration that Germany, on the one hand, and Great
Britain and America, on the other, represent different stages of
capitalist development, different forms of the rule of the bourgeoisie
as a class in the whole political life of these countries, the said
comparison assumes special significance. From the scientific pointof
view we have here a sample of materialist dialectic, ability to bring
forward and emphasise different points, different sides of the question
in their application to the concrete peculiarities of various political
and economic conditions. From the point of view of practical politics
and tactics of the worker's party, we have here a sample of the manner
in which the creators of the "Communist Manifesto" defined the task of
the struggling proletariat as applied to the various phases of the
national labour movement of the various countries" (free translation).
The revolution of 1905 brought to the fore a whole series of
new essential questions during the solution of which Lenin went more
deeply into the works of Karl Marx. The Leninist method (Marxist
through and through) of studying Marx was forged in the fire of the
revolution.
This method of studying Marx armed Lenin for struggle against
the distortions of Marxism with their emasculation of its revolutionary
essence. We know what an important part Lenin's book " State and
Revolution " has played in the organising of the October Revolution and
the Soviet Power. This book is entirely based on a deep study of Marx's
revolutionary teachings about the state. There Lenin writes :
Marx's doctrines are now undergoing the
same fate which, more
than once in the course of history, has befallen the doctrines of other
revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes struggling for
emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the
oppressing classes have invariably meted out to them relentless
persecution, and received their teaching with the most savage
hostility, most furious hatred, and a ruthless campaign of lies and
slanders. After their death, however, attempts are usually made to turn
them into harmless saints, canonising them, as it were, and investing
their name with a certain halo by way of "consolation" to the oppressed
classes, and with the object of duping them, while at the same time
emasculating and vulgarising the real essence of their revolutionary
theories and blunting their revolutionary edge. At the present time the
bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labour movement are
co-operating in this work of adulterating Marxism. They omit,
obliterate, and distort the revolutionary side of its teaching, its
revolutionary soul, and push to the foreground and extol what is, or
seems, acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the Socialist Chauvinists are
now " Marxists " - save the mark[1]!
And more and more do German bourgeois professors, erstwhile specialists
in the demolition of Marx, now speak of the "National-German" Marx,
who, forsooth, has educated the splendidly organised working class for
the present predatory war. In these circumstances, when the distortion
of Marxism is so widespread, our first task is to resuscitate the real
nature of Marx's teachings on the subject of the State. (First page in
" The State and Revolution.")
In "The Foundations of Leninism " Comrade Stalin wrote :
Not until the next phase, the phase of
direct action, of
proletarian revolution, when the overthrow of the bourgeoisie had
become a question of practical politics, did the problem of finding
reserves for the proletarian army (strategy) become actual, and the
problem of the organisation of that army whether on the parliamentary
or the extra-parliamentary field (tactics) clearly demand a solution.
Not until this phase had begun, could proletarian strategy be
systematised and proletarian tactics be elaborated. It was
now that Lenin disinterred Marx's and Engels' masterly ideas on
strategy and tactics, ideas which the opportunists of the Second
International had buried out of sight. (The italics are
mine. - N.K.)
But Lenin did not confine himself to re-establishing
individual tactical propositions of Marx and Engels. He developed them
further and supplemented them by new ideas and propositions, creating
out of all this a system of rules and leading principles for the
conduct of the class struggle of the proletariat. Such pamphlets of
Lenin as "What is to be Done," "Two Tactics," "Imperialism," "State and
Revolution," "Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky," and
"Left-Wing Communism," will no doubt be a most valuable contribution to
the common treasure-house of Marxism, to its revolutionary arsenal. The
strategy and tactic of Leninism is a science regarding the leadership
of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat." (J. Stalin, "
Questions of Leninism.") Marx and Engels said that their teaching "is
not a dogma, but a guide to action." These words of theirs were
continually repeated by Lenin. The method by which he studied the works
of Marx and Engels, and revolutionary practice, all the circumstances
of the epoch of proletarian revolutions, helped Lenin to convert just
the revolutionary side of Marx into a real guide to action.
I shall dwell on a question which is of decisive significance.
Not so long ago we celebrated the fifteenth anniversary of the Soviet
Power. And in this connection we recalled how the seizure of power was
organised in October. it wasn't a spontaneous act, it was deeply
thought out by Lenin who was guided by Marx's direct instructions
regarding the organising of an uprising.
The October Revolution, by placing dictatorship into the hands
of the proletariat, radically changed all the conditions of struggle,
but only because Lenin was guided not by the letter of the teachings of
Marx and Engels, but by their revolutionary essence, because he knew
how to apply Marxism also to the building up of Socialism in the epoch
of proletarian dictatorship.
I shall only dwell on a few points. Thorough research work is
necessary here: select everything that was taken by Lenin from Marx and
Engels, indicating in what periods and in connection with what tasks of
the revolutionary movement. I have not even mentioned such important
questions as the national question, imperialism, &c. The
publication of Lenin's complete collected works makes this work easier.
Lenin's way of studying Marx in all the phases of
revolutionary struggle from beginning to end will help us to understand
better and go deeper not only into Marx, but into Lenin himself, into
his method of studying Marx and the method of converting Marx's
teachings into a guide to action.
There is one more side of Lenin's study of Marx which must be
mentioned owing to its great significance. Lenin did not only study
what Marx and Engels wrote as well as what Marx's " critics " wrote
about him, he also studied the way which led Marx to his
various views, and the works and books which stimulated Marx's thoughts
and drove them in a definite direction. He studied, so to
speak, the sources of Marxist philosophy, what and how precisely Marx
took from this or that writer. He was specially concerned in making a
deep study of the method of dialectical materialism. In 1922, in the
article "Meaning of Militant Materialism," Lenin said that it was up to
the contributors to the periodical "Under the Banner of Marxism " to
organise the work for a systematic study of Hegel's dialectics from the
materialist point of view. He believed that without a serious
philosophical basis it is impossible to hold out in the struggle
against the pressure of bourgeois ideas and the restoration of
bourgeois philosophy. It was on the basis of his own experience that
Lenin wrote about the manner of studying Hegel's dialectics from the
materialist point of view. We give here the corresponding paragraph
from Lenin's article "On the Meaning of Militant Materialism."
But in order to avoid reacting to such
a phenomenon
unintelligently, we must understand that no natural science, no
materialism whatever, can hold out in the struggle against the
onslaught of bourgeois ideas and the restoration of bourgeois
philosophy without a solid philosophical basis. In order, to give aid
to this struggle and help to carry it out to its successful conclusion,
the natural scientist must be a modern Materialist--a conscious
adherent of that Materialism which Marx-represents that is, he must be
a dialectical Materialist. To achieve this the
staff of Under the Banner of Marxism must
organise a systematic study of Hegelian dialectics from the Materialist
point of view, i.e., the dialectics which Marx applied concretely in
his Capital and used in his historical and
political works. . . .
. . . Basing ourselves on the manner in
which Marx applied the
materialist conception of Hegelian dialectics we can, and must, work
out these dialectics from all sides. The magazine must publish excerpts
from the principal works of Hegel; must interpret them
materialistically, and give examples of how Marx applied dialectics, as
well as examples of dialectics from the field of economic and political
relations. Modern history, particularly modern imperialist war and
revolution, provide innumerable examples of this kind. The editors and
staff of Under the Banner of Marxism should, I
think, represent a sort of "Association of Materialist Friends of
Hegelian Philosophy." Modern natural scientists will find (if they will
seek and if we can learn to help them) in the materialist
interpretation of Hegelian dialectics a number of answers to those
brought forward to the front and which cause the intellectual admirers
of bourgeois fashions to "slip" into the reactionary camp. (P. 41, Lenin
on Religion, Little Lenin Library, Volume VII.)
The IX. and XII. volumes of Lenin's collected works have
already been published in the Soviet Union. They divulge the whole
process of Lenin's thought when he was working through Hegel's chief
works, they show how he applied the method of dialectical materialism
to the study of Hegel, how closely he connected this study with a deep
study of Marx's sayings, with the ability of converting Marxism into a
guide to action in the most varied circumstances.
But Hegel was not the only object of Lenin's study. He read
Marx's letter to Engels of November 1859, in which he criticises
severely Lassalle's book, " The Philosophy of Heraclitus, the Dark, of
Ephesus " (two volumes), and calls this work "amateurish." Lenin gives,
to begin with, a brief formulation of Marx's criticism: "Lassalle
simply repeats Hegel, he describes
him, ruminates millions of times on certain
sayings of Heraclitus, embellishing his work with a surfeit of Most
learned Gellertian ballast." But, nevertheless, Lenin plunges into the
study of this work of Lassalle, makes conspects and extracts of it,
writes notes to it, and sums it up thus: "Marx's criticism is on the
whole correct. It isn't worth while to read Lassalle's book." But the
work over this book gave Lenin himself a deeper understanding of Marx :
he understood why this book of Lassalle displeased Marx to such an
extent.
In conclusion, I will mention one more form of Lenin's work
over Marx - the popularisation of Marx's teachings. If the populariser
takes his work "seriously," if his aim is to give in a very simple and
intelligible form an explanation of the very essence of this or that
theory, this work will help him very much.
Lenin treated this work very seriously indeed. "There is
nothing I would like so much as being able to write for the workers,"
he wrote from exile to Plekhanov and Axelrod.
He wanted to explain and bring near to the masses the
teachings of Marx. In the nineties, when he worked in workers' circles,
he endeavoured to explain to them first of all the first volume of
"Capital," and illustrated the propositions brought forward there by
examples from the life of his hearers. In 1911, in the Party school in
Lonjumeau (near Paris), where Lenin was working hard for the
preparation of cadres of leaders for the budding revolutionary
movement, he lectured to the workers on political economy, and tried to
bring home to them as simply as possible the foundations of Marx's
teachings. In his articles to Pravda, Ilyitch
-tried to popularise various points from Marx's teachings. A sample of
Leninist popularisation is his characterisation during the 1921
disputes on trade unions of the manner of studying the subject with the
application of the dialectical method. Lenin said :
To know the subject thoroughly, one must take hold of and
study all its sides, all the connections and its proper place in the
given situation. We shall never fully attain this, but the demand of
many-sidedness will make us steer clear of errors and inertia. This
comes first. Secondly, dialectical logic demands that the subject be
taken in its development, in its "self-motion" (as Hegel says) and its
changes. Thirdly, human practice must concentrate on full "definition"
of the subject, as a criterion of truth, as well as a practical
indicator of the connection of the subject with what man needs.
Fourthly, dialectical logic teaches us that "There is no abstract
truth, that truth is always concrete," as the late Plekhanov, who was a
follower of Hegel, liked to say.
These few lines are the quintessence of what Lenin came to as
a result of long years of work over philosophical questions, in which
he always made use of the method of dialectical materialism, "
consulting " all the time, Marx. In a compressed form, these lines
indicate all that is essential, that must be a guide to action, while
studying phenomena.
The way in which Lenin worked over Marx is a lesson in how to
study Lenin himself. His teaching is inseparably connected with the
teaching of Marx, it is Marxism in action, it is the Marxism of the
epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions.
Footnotes
[1] "Don't laugh!"
Marxist
Writers’ Archive | Krupskaya
Archive
|
./articles/Krupskaya-Nadezhda/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.lenin.works.cw.volume37 | <body>
<p class="title"><a style="color: orange;" href="../../../../index.htm">MIA:</a> <a style="color: orange;" href="../../works/index.htm">V. I. Lenin Library:</a>
<a style="color: orange;" href="index.htm">Collected Works:</a> Volume 37
</p>
<table border="0" width="100%">
<tbody><tr>
<td width="8%"> </td>
<td width="84%" bgcolor="#ffffff"><p> </p>
<h1>Lenin Collected Works:<br>
</h1>
<h2>
Volume 37<br>
(Letters to Relatives)<br>
1893—1904, 1907—1917, 1919, 1921—1922
</h2>
<table width="75%" border="5" cellspacing="3%" cellpadding="3%" align="center">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" align="center"><a name="preface_bk" href="prfv37pp.htm"><span class="book">Preface by Progress Publishers</span></a><br>
<a name="v37pref2" href="misc/v37pref2.htm"><span class="book"><em>M. I.
ULYANOVA</em>. Preface to <em>Letters to Relatives</em> (1930
Edition)</span></a><br>
<a name="v37pref3" href="misc/v37pref3.htm"><span class="book"><em>A. I.
ULYANOVA-YELIZAROVA</em>. Apropos of Lenin’s Letters to Relatives</span></a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<h2>1893</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1893-oct-05mau" href="../1893/oct/05mau.htm">1. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>October 6</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%"><a title="65a-66">Page 65</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1893-oct-00mu" href="../1893/oct/00mu.htm">2. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>October</em>
</td><td width="10%"><a title="67-68a">Page 67</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1894</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1894-dec-13mu" href="../1894/dec/13mu.htm">3. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>December 13</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%"><a title="68b-69">Page 68</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1894-dec-24mu" href="../1894/dec/24mu.htm">4. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>December 24</em>
</td><td width="10%"><a title="70-71">Page 70</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1895</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1895-may-14mau" href="../1895/may/14mau.htm">5. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>May 14</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="72b">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1895-may-20mau" href="../1895/may/20mau.htm">6. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>May 20</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="73">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1895-jun-08mau" href="../1895/jun/08mau.htm">7. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>June 8</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="74">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1895-jul-18mau" href="../1895/jul/18mau.htm">8. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>July 18</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="75-76">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1895-aug-10mau" href="../1895/aug/10mau.htm">9. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>August 10</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="77">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1895-aug-29mau" href="../1895/aug/29mau.htm">10. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>August 29</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="78-79">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1895-sep-07mau" href="../1895/sep/07mau.htm">11. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>September 7</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="80">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1895-dec-05mau" href="../1895/dec/05mau.htm">12. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>December 5</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="81">7k</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1896</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1896-jan-02akc" href="../1896/jan/02akc.htm">13. TO A. K. CHEBOTARYOVA</a>
<em>January 2</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="82-84">14k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1896-jan-12au" href="../1896/jan/12au.htm">14. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>January 12</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="85-86">9k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1896-jan-14au" href="../1896/jan/14au.htm">15. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>January 14</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="87-88">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1896-jan-16au" href="../1896/jan/16au.htm">16. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>January 16</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="89-90">10k</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1897</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1897-mar-02mau" href="../1897/mar/02mau.htm">17. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>March 2</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="91-93">11k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1897-mar-10mu" href="../1897/mar/10mu.htm">18. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>March 10</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="94">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1897-mar-15mau" href="../1897/mar/15mau.htm">19. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>March 15 and 16</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="95-96">10k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1897-mar-26mau" href="../1897/mar/26mau.htm">20. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>March 26</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="97-98">10k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1897-apr-05mau" href="../1897/apr/05mau.htm">21. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>April 5</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="99-100">9k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1897-apr-17x" href="../1897/apr/17x.htm">22. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>April 17</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="101-104">21k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1897-may-07mau" href="../1897/may/07mau.htm">23. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>May 7</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="105">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1897-may-18x" href="../1897/may/18x.htm">24. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>May 18</em>
<!--
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: "david moros" {[email protected]}
Subject: Re: Maria or Anna?
To: "Robert J. Cymbala" {[email protected]}
Manyasha = "pet name" for Maria. Lenin's younger
sister. See footnote on pg. 67 letter 2.
Anna's (Lenin's older sister) nickname was Anyuta.
See endnote # 10 pg. 631.
-->
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="106-110">18k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1897-may-25x" href="../1897/may/25x.htm">25. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>May 25</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="111-115">20k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1897-jun-08x" href="../1897/jun/08x.htm">26. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>June 8</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="116-117">10k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1897-jun-15my" href="../1897/jun/15my.htm">27. TO HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW MARK YELIZAROV</a>
<em>June 15.</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="118-119">14k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1897-jul-19x" href="../1897/jul/19x.htm">28. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>July 19</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="120-122">14k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1897-aug-17mau" href="../1897/aug/17mau.htm">29. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>August 17</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="123-125">11k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1897-sep-07x" href="../1897/sep/07x.htm">30. TO HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW AND HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>September 7</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="126-127">11k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1897-sep-30mau" href="../1897/sep/30mau.htm">31. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>September 30</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="128-129">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1897-oct-12mau" href="../1897/oct/12mau.htm">32. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>October 12</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="130-132">13k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1897-oct-19x" href="../1897/oct/19x.htm">33. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>October 19</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="133-134">10k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1897-dec-10x" href="../1897/dec/10x.htm">34. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTERS MARIA AND ANNA</a>
<em>December 10</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="135-137">14k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1897-dec-21x" href="../1897/dec/21x.htm">35. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTERS MARIA AND ANNA</a>
<em>December 21</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="138-140">16k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1897-dec-27x" href="../1897/dec/27x.htm">36. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>December 27</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="141-142">9k</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1898</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-jan-04x" href="../1898/jan/04x.htm">37. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW</a>
<em>January 4</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="143-145">15k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-jan-24x" href="../1898/jan/24x.htm">38. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>January 24</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="146-149">18k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-feb-07mau" href="../1898/feb/07mau.htm">39. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>February 7</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="150-154">19k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-feb-14x" href="../1898/feb/14x.htm">40. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW</a>
<em>February 14</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="155-157">15k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-feb-18my" href="../1898/feb/18my.htm">41. TO HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW</a>
<em>February 18</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="158-159">9k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-feb-24x" href="../1898/feb/24x.htm">42. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>February 24</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="160-162">14k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-mar-01x" href="../1898/mar/01x.htm">43. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW</a>
<em>March 1</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="163-164">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-mar-08x" href="../1898/mar/08x.htm">44. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>March 8</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="165-166">10k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-mar-14mau" href="../1898/mar/14mau.htm">45. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>March 14</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="167-168">9k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-mar-28my" href="../1898/mar/28my.htm">46. TO HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW</a>
<em>March 28</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="169-170">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-may-10mau" href="../1898/may/10mau.htm">47. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>May 10</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="171-172">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-may-17mau" href="../1898/may/17mau.htm">48. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>May 17</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="173">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-jun-07mau" href="../1898/jun/07mau.htm">49. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>June 7</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="174-175">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-jun-14mau" href="../1898/jun/14mau.htm">50. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>June 14</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="176-177">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-jul-15au" href="../1898/jul/15au.htm">51. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>July 15</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="178-180">9k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-aug-02mau" href="../1898/aug/02mau.htm">52. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>August 2</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="181-183">12k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-aug-16x" href="../1898/aug/16x.htm">53. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>August 16.</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="184-185">11k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-aug-26mau" href="../1898/aug/26mau.htm">54. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>August 26</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="186-187">10k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-sep-16mau" href="../1898/sep/16mau.htm">55. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>September 16</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="188-189">9k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-oct-11mau" href="../1898/oct/11mau.htm">56. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>October 11</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="190-191">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-nov-01mau" href="../1898/nov/01mau.htm">57. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>November 1</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="192">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-nov-11au" href="../1898/nov/11au.htm">58. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>Written between November 7 and 11</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="193-195">13k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-nov-11mu" href="../1898/nov/11mu.htm">59. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>November 11</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="196-197">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-nov-15x" href="../1898/nov/15x.htm">60. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>November 15</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="198-199">12k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-nov-22x" href="../1898/nov/22x.htm">61. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>November 22</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="200-202">14k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-nov-28x" href="../1898/nov/28x.htm">62. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS BROTHER</a>
<em>November 28</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="203-204">9k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-dec-06x" href="../1898/dec/06x.htm">63. TO HIS MOTHER, HIS SISTER ANNA AND HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW</a>
<em>December 6</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="205-208">13k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-dec-12x" href="../1898/dec/12x.htm">64. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>December 12</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="209-211">14k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-dec-20x" href="../1898/dec/20x.htm">65. KRUPSKAYA AND LENIN TO LENIN’S MOTHER</a>
<em>December 20</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="212-213">11k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-dec-22mu" href="../1898/dec/22mu.htm">66. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>December 22 and 28</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="214">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1898-dec-28x" href="../1898/dec/28x.htm">67. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>December 28</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="215-216">11k</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1899</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-jan-03mau" href="../1899/jan/03mau.htm">68. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>January 3</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="217">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-jan-10mau" href="../1899/jan/10mau.htm">69. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>January 10</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="218-219">9k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-jan-17mau" href="../1899/jan/17mau.htm">70. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>January 17</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="220-221">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-jan-24mu" href="../1899/jan/24mu.htm">71. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>January 24</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="222-223">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-jan-26my" href="../1899/jan/26my.htm">72. TO HIS BROTHER</a>
<em>January 26</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="224-227">17k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-jan-30mau" href="../1899/jan/30mau.htm">73. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>January 30</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="228-229">9k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-feb-03mau" href="../1899/feb/03mau.htm">74. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>February 3</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="230-232">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-feb-07mau" href="../1899/feb/07mau.htm">75. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>February 7</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="233-234">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-feb-13au" href="../1899/feb/13au.htm">76. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>February 13</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="235-237">16k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-feb-21mau" href="../1899/feb/21mau.htm">77. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>February 21</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="238">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-feb-28x" href="../1899/feb/28x.htm">78. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>February 28</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="239-240">14k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-feb-28my" href="../1899/feb/28my.htm">79. TO HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW</a>
<em>February 28</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="241-242">9k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-mar-07mau" href="../1899/mar/07mau.htm">80. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>March 7</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="243-244">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-mar-07mu" href="../1899/mar/07mu.htm">81. KRUPSKAYA AND LENIN TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>March 7</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="245-246">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-mar-17x" href="../1899/mar/17x.htm">82. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>March 17</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="247-249">13k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-mar-17mu" href="../1899/mar/17mu.htm">83. KRUPSKAYA AND LENIN TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>March 17</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="250-251">10k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-mar-21mau" href="../1899/mar/21mau.htm">84. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>March 21</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="252">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-apr-04x" href="../1899/apr/04x.htm">85. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>April 4</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="253-255">15k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-apr-11x" href="../1899/apr/11x.htm">86. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>April 11</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="256-258">10k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-may-01x" href="../1899/may/01x.htm">87. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>May 1</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="259-261">15k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-may-09x" href="../1899/may/09x.htm">88. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>May 9</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="262-263">9k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-may-29x" href="../1899/may/29x.htm">89. TO HIS SISTER ANNA AND HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>May 29 and 30</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="264-265">11k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-jun-20x" href="../1899/jun/20x.htm">90. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS BROTHER</a>
<em>June 20</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="266-268">11k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-jul-11mau" href="../1899/jul/11mau.htm">91. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>July 11</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="269">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-aug-01mau" href="../1899/aug/01mau.htm">92. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>August 1</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="270">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-aug-07x" href="../1899/aug/07x.htm">93. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>August 7</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="271-272">11k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-aug-15mau" href="../1899/aug/15mau.htm">94. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>August 15</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="273">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-aug-22mau" href="../1899/aug/22mau.htm">95. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>August 22</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="274-275">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-aug-22mu" href="../1899/aug/22mu.htm">96. KRUPSKAYA AND LENIN TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>August 22</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="276-278">12k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-aug-25mau" href="../1899/aug/25mau.htm">97. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>August 25</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="279-280">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-sep-01mau" href="../1899/sep/01mau.htm">98. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>September 1</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="281-282">10k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-sep-11mau" href="../1899/sep/11mau.htm">99. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>September 11</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="283">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1899-oct-17mau" href="../1899/oct/17mau.htm">100. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>October 17</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="284-285">8k</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1900</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1900-jan-19mau" href="../1900/jan/19mau.htm">101. KRUPSKAYA AND LENIN TO LENIN’S MOTHER</a>
<em>January 19</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="286-287">11k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1900-mar-15mau" href="../1900/mar/15mau.htm">102. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>March 15</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="288">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1900-apr-06mau" href="../1900/apr/06mau.htm">103. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>April 6</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="289-290">11k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1900-apr-26mau" href="../1900/apr/26mau.htm">104. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>April 26</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="291">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1900-apr-30mau" href="../1900/apr/30mau.htm">105. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>April 30</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="292">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1900-may-05mau" href="../1900/may/05mau.htm">106. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>May 5</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="293-294">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1900-may-10mau" href="../1900/may/10mau.htm">107. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>May 10</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="295">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1900-may-18mau" href="../1900/may/18mau.htm">108. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>May 18</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="296">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1900-jul-02mau" href="../1900/jul/02mau.htm">109. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>July 2</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="297">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1900-aug-31mau" href="../1900/aug/31mau.htm">110. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>August 31</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="298">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1900-sep-07mau" href="../1900/sep/07mau.htm">111. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>September 7</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="299">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1900-sep-19mau" href="../1900/sep/19mau.htm">112. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>September 19</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="300-301">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1900-oct-03mau" href="../1900/oct/03mau.htm">113. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>October 3</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="302">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1900-nov-06mu" href="../1900/nov/06mu.htm">114. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>November 6 and 7</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="303-304">9k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1900-nov-29mu" href="../1900/nov/29mu.htm">115. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>November 29</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="305">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1900-dec-06mau" href="../1900/dec/06mau.htm">116. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>December 6</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="306-307">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1900-dec-14mu" href="../1900/dec/14mu.htm">117. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>December 14</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="308-309">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1900-dec-26mau" href="../1900/dec/26mau.htm">118. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>December 26</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="310-311">8k</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1901</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1901-jan-01mau" href="../1901/jan/01mau.htm">119. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>January 1</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="312">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1901-jan-16mau" href="../1901/jan/16mau.htm">120. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>January 16</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="313-314">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1901-jan-27mau" href="../1901/jan/27mau.htm">121. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>January 27</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="315-316">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1901-feb-09mau" href="../1901/feb/09mau.htm">122. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>February 9</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="317-318">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1901-feb-20mau" href="../1901/feb/20mau.htm">123. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>February 20</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="319-320">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1901-feb-27mau" href="../1901/feb/27mau.htm">124. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>February 27</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="321">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1901-mar-02mau" href="../1901/mar/02mau.htm">125. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>March 2</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="322">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1901-mar-04mau" href="../1901/mar/04mau.htm">126. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>March 4</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="323-324">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1901-may-19mau" href="../1901/may/19mau.htm">127. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>May 19</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="325-326">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1901-may-19mu" href="../1901/may/19mu.htm">128. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>May 19</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="327-328">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1901-jun-07mau" href="../1901/jun/07mau.htm">129. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>June 7</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="329-330">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1901-jul-01mau" href="../1901/jul/01mau.htm">130. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>July 1</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="331">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1901-jul-17mau" href="../1901/jul/17mau.htm">131. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>July 17</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="332">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1901-aug-03mau" href="../1901/aug/03mau.htm">132. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>August 3</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="333">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1901-sep-01mau" href="../1901/sep/01mau.htm">133. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>September 1</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="334-335">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1901-sep-21mau" href="../1901/sep/21mau.htm">134. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>September 21</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="336-337">8k</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1902</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1902-feb-26mau" href="../1902/feb/26mau.htm">135. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>February 26</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="338">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1902-mar-24mau" href="../1902/mar/24mau.htm">136. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>March 24</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="339-340">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1902-apr-02mau" href="../1902/apr/02mau.htm">137. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>April 2</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="341-342">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1902-apr-10au" href="../1902/apr/10au.htm">138. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>April 10</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="343">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1902-may-08mau" href="../1902/may/08mau.htm">139. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>May 8</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="344-345">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1902-jun-07mau" href="../1902/jun/07mau.htm">140. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>June 7</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="346-347">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1902-sep-14mau" href="../1902/sep/14mau.htm">141. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>September 14</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="348">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1902-sep-27mau" href="../1902/sep/27mau.htm">142. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>September 27</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="349">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1902-nov-09mau" href="../1902/nov/09mau.htm">143. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>November 9 </em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="350-351">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1902-dec-17mau" href="../1902/dec/17mau.htm">144. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>December 17</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="352-353">9k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1902-dec-26mau" href="../1902/dec/26mau.htm">145. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>December 26</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="354">6k</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1903</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1903-feb-04mau" href="../1903/feb/04mau.htm">146. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>February 4</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="355">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1903-feb-22mau" href="../1903/feb/22mau.htm">147. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>February 22</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="356-357">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1903-mar-29mau" href="../1903/mar/29mau.htm">148. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>March 29</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="358">6k</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1904</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1904-jan-08mau" href="../1904/jan/08mau.htm">149. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>January 8</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="359">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1904-jan-20mau" href="../1904/jan/20mau.htm">150. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>January 20</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="360">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1904-jul-02mau" href="../1904/jul/02mau.htm">151. KRUPSKAYA AND LENIN TO LENIN’S MOTHER</a>
<em>July 2</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="361-362">10k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1904-jul-08mau" href="../1904/jul/08mau.htm">152. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>July 7 or 8</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="363">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1904-jul-16x" href="../1904/jul/16x.htm">153. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>July 16</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="364">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1904-aug-28mau" href="../1904/aug/28mau.htm">154. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>August 28</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="365">6k</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1907</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1905-jun-27mau" href="../1905/jun/27mau.htm">155. LENIN AND KRUPSKAYA TO LENIN’S MOTHER</a>
<em>June 27</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="366-367">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1905-jun-00mu" href="../1905/jun/00mu.htm">156. LENIN AND KRUPSKAYA TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>End of June</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="368-369">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1905-oct-15mau" href="../1905/oct/15mau.htm">157. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>October 15</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="370-371">8k</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1908</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1908-jan-14mu" href="../1908/jan/14mu.htm">158. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>January 14</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="372-373">11k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1908-jan-22mau" href="../1908/jan/22mau.htm">159. LENIN AND KRUPSKAYA TO LENIN’S MOTHER</a>
<em>January 22</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="374-375">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1908-feb-07mu" href="../1908/feb/07mu.htm">160. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>February 7</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="376-377">12k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1908-feb-14mu" href="../1908/feb/14mu.htm">161. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>February 14</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="378-379">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1908-feb-17mu" href="../1908/feb/17mu.htm">162. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>February 17</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="380-381">10k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1908-mar-10au" href="../1908/mar/10au.htm">163. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>March 10</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="382">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1908-apr-23mu" href="../1908/apr/23mu.htm">164. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>Written between April 19 and 23</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="383">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1908-apr-20mau" href="../1908/apr/20mau.htm">165. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>June 20</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="384-385">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1908-jul-13mu" href="../1908/jul/13mu.htm">166. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>July 13</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="386-387">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1908-aug-09mu" href="../1908/aug/09mu.htm">167. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>August 9</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="388">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1908-jul-00mau" href="../1908/jul/00mau.htm">168. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>Summer</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="389">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1908-sep-30mau" href="../1908/sep/30mau.htm">169. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>September 30</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="390-391">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1908-oct-27au" href="../1908/oct/27au.htm">170. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>October 27</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="392-394">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1908-nov-08au" href="../1908/nov/08au.htm">171. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>November 8</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="395">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1908-nov-17mau" href="../1908/nov/17mau.htm">172. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>November 17</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="396-397">10k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1908-nov-26au" href="../1908/nov/26au.htm">173. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>November 26</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="398-399">9k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1908-dec-10mau" href="../1908/dec/10mau.htm">174. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>December 10</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="400-401">10k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1908-dec-19au" href="../1908/dec/19au.htm">175. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>December 19</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="402-403">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1908-dec-24au" href="../1908/dec/24au.htm">176. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>December 24</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="404-405">8k</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1909</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1909-feb-06au" href="../1909/feb/06au.htm">177. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>February 6</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="406">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1909-feb-17au" href="../1909/feb/17au.htm">178. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>February 16 or 17</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="407">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1909-feb-18au" href="../1909/feb/18au.htm">179. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>February 17 or 18</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="408-409">10k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1909-feb-23au" href="../1909/feb/23au.htm">180. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>February 23</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="410-411">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1909-mar-02au" href="../1909/mar/02au.htm">181. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>March 2</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="412">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1909-mar-09au" href="../1909/mar/09au.htm">182. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>March 9</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="413-414">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1909-mar-12au" href="../1909/mar/12au.htm">183. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>March 12</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="415-416">9k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1909-mar-21au" href="../1909/mar/21au.htm">184. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>March 21 and 22</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="417-418">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1909-mar-24au" href="../1909/mar/24au.htm">185. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>March 23 or 24</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="419-420">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1909-mar-26au" href="../1909/mar/26au.htm">186. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>March 26</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="421">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1909-apr-05au" href="../1909/apr/05au.htm">187. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>April</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="422-423">9k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1909-apr-06au" href="../1909/apr/06au.htm">188. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>April 6</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="424-425">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1909-apr-08au" href="../1909/apr/08au.htm">189. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>April 8</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="426-427">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1909-may-21mau" href="../1909/may/21mau.htm">190. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>May 21</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="428-429">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1909-may-26au" href="../1909/may/26au.htm">191. LENIN AND KRUPSKAYA TO LENIN’S SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>May 26</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="430-431">12k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1909-jul-00du" href="../1909/jul/00du.htm">192. TO HIS BROTHER</a>
<em>Late June-early July</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="432-433">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1909-jul-19mau" href="../1909/jul/19mau.htm">193. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>July 19</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="434-435">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1909-aug-24mau" href="../1909/aug/24mau.htm">194. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>August 24</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="436-437">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1909-oct-25mau" href="../1909/oct/25mau.htm">195. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>October 25</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="438">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1909-nov-04mau" href="../1909/nov/04mau.htm">196. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>November 4</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="439">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1909-dec-04mu" href="../1909/dec/04mu.htm">197. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>December 3 or 4</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="440-441">9k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1909-dec-08mau" href="../1909/dec/08mau.htm">198. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>December 7 or 8</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="442">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1909-dec-11mu" href="../1909/dec/11mu.htm">199. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>December 10 or 11</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="443-444">9k</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1910</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1910-jan-02mu" href="../1910/jan/02mu.htm">200. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>January 2</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="445-446">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1910-jan-00mu" href="../1910/jan/00mu.htm">201. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>Early January</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="447">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1910-jan-12mu" href="../1910/jan/12mu.htm">202. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>January 12</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="448">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1910-jan-31mu" href="../1910/jan/31mu.htm">203. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>January 30 or 31</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="449-450">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1910-feb-01au" href="../1910/feb/01au.htm">204. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>February 1</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="451">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1910-feb-13du" href="../1910/feb/13du.htm">205. TO HIS BROTHER</a>
<em>February 13</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="452-453">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1910-feb-13mau" href="../1910/feb/13mau.htm">206. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>February 13</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="454">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1910-feb-17du" href="../1910/feb/17du.htm">207. TO HIS BROTHER</a>
<em>February 17</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="455">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1910-apr-10mau" href="../1910/apr/10mau.htm">208. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>April 10</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="456-457">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1910-may-02au" href="../1910/may/02au.htm">209. LENIN AND KRUPSKAYA TO LENIN’S SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>May 2</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="458-459">10k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1910-jun-18mau" href="../1910/jun/18mau.htm">210. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>June 18</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="460">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1910-jun-18mu" href="../1910/jun/18mu.htm">211. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>June 18</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="461">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1910-jul-01mau" href="../1910/jul/01mau.htm">212. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>July 1</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="462">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1910-jul-28mu" href="../1910/jul/28mu.htm">213. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>July 28</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="463">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1910-sep-04mau" href="../1910/sep/04mau.htm">214. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>September 4</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="464">6k</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1911</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1911-jan-03my" href="../1911/jan/03my.htm">215. TO HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW</a>
<em>January 3</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="465-466">11k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1911-jan-19mau" href="../1911/jan/19mau.htm">216. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>January 19</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="467-468">9k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1911-apr-08mau" href="../1911/apr/08mau.htm">217. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>April 8</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="469">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1911-aug-20mau" href="../1911/aug/20mau.htm">218. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>August 20</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="470">4k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1911-aug-20mu" href="../1911/aug/20mu.htm">219. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>August 20</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="471">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1911-sep-28mau" href="../1911/sep/28mau.htm">220. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>September 28</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="472">6k</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1912</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1912-mar-09mau" href="../1912/mar/09mau.htm">221. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>March 8 or 9</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="473">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1912-mar-24au" href="../1912/mar/24au.htm">222. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>March 24</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="474">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1912-apr-07mau" href="../1912/apr/07mau.htm">223. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>April 7</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="475">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1912-may-27mau" href="../1912/may/27mau.htm">224. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>May 27</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="476">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1912-jun-02mau" href="../1912/jun/02mau.htm">225. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>June 2</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="477-478">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1912-jul-01mau" href="../1912/jul/01mau.htm">* 226. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>July 1</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="479-480">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1912-nov-00mu" href="../1912/nov/00mu.htm">227. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>End of November</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="481">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1912-oct-00au" href="../1912/oct/00au.htm">228. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>Autumn</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="482">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1912-dec-22mau" href="../1912/dec/22mau.htm">229. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>December 21 or 22</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="483-484">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1912-dec-25mu" href="../1912/dec/25mu.htm">230. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>December 24 or 25</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="485-486">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1912-dec-28mu" href="../1912/dec/28mu.htm">231. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>December 28</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="487">6k</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1913</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1913-jan-03mau" href="../1913/jan/03mau.htm">232. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>January 3</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="488">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1913-feb-24x" href="../1913/feb/24x.htm">233. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>February 24</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="489-490">11k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1913-mar-18au" href="../1913/mar/18au.htm">234. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>March 18</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="491">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1913-apr-00mu" href="../1913/apr/00mu.htm">* 235. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>First half of April</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="492">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1913-may-03mau" href="../1913/may/03mau.htm">236. KRUPSKAYA AND LENIN TO LENIN’S MOTHER</a>
<em>May 3</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="493-494">11k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1913-may-13mu" href="../1913/may/13mu.htm">237. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>May 12 or 13</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="495-496">12k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1913-may-25mau" href="../1913/may/25mau.htm">* 238. KRUPSKAYA AND LENIN TO LENIN’S MOTHER</a>
<em>May 25</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="497-498">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1913-jun-18mu" href="../1913/jun/18mu.htm">* 239. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>June 18</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="499">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1913-jun-24mau" href="../1913/jun/24mau.htm">240. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>June 24</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="500">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1913-jun-29mau" href="../1913/jun/29mau.htm">241. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>June 28 or 29</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="501">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1913-jul-29mau" href="../1913/jul/29mau.htm">242. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>July 26</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="502-503">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1913-nov-13mu" href="../1913/nov/13mu.htm">243. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>Nouember 12 or 13</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="504-505">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1913-dec-21mu" href="../1913/dec/21mu.htm">244. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>December 21</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="506">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1913-dec-26mau" href="../1913/dec/26mau.htm">245. KRUPSKAYA AND LENIN TO LENIN’S MOTHER</a>
<em>December26</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="507-508">8k</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1914</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1914-jan-07mau" href="../1914/jan/07mau.htm">* 246. KRUPSKAYA AND LENIN TO LENIN’S MOTHER</a>
<em>January 7</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="509-510">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1914-feb-11au" href="../1914/feb/11au.htm">247. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>February 11</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="511-512">10k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1914-feb-16mu" href="../1914/feb/16mu.htm">248. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>February 16</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="513">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1914-feb-21mau" href="../1914/feb/21mau.htm">249. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>February 21</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="514">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1914-mar-16mau" href="../1914/mar/16mau.htm">* 250. KRUPSKAYA AND LENIN TO LENIN’S MOTHER</a>
<em>March 16</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="515-516">9k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1914-apr-10mau" href="../1914/apr/10mau.htm">251. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>April 10</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="517">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1914-apr-22mu" href="../1914/apr/22mu.htm">252. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>April 22</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="518-519">8k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1914-nov-14au" href="../1914/nov/14au.htm">253. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>November 14</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="520-521">11k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1914-dec-22mu" href="../1914/dec/22mu.htm">254. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>December 22</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="522-523">7k</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1915</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1915-feb-09mu" href="../1915/feb/09mu.htm">255. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>February 9</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="524-525">9k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1915-oct-07mau" href="../1915/oct/07mau.htm">256. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>October 7</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="526-527">9k</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1916</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1916-feb-20mu" href="../1916/feb/20mu.htm">257. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>February 20</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="528">7k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1916-mar-12mau" href="../1916/mar/12mau.htm">258. TO HIS MOTHER</a>
<em>March 12</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="529">5k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1916-sep-20my" href="../1916/sep/20my.htm">259. TO HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW</a>
<em>September 20</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="530">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1916-oct-22mu" href="../1916/oct/22mu.htm">260. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>October 22</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="531-532">11k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1916-nov-26mu" href="../1916/nov/26mu.htm">261. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>November 26</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="533-534">7k</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1917</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1917-feb-15mu" href="../1917/feb/15mu.htm">262. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>February 15</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="535-536">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1917-feb-19my" href="../1917/feb/19my.htm">263. TO HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW</a>
<em>February 18 or 19</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="537-538">9k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="telegram" name="1917-apr-02x" href="../1917/apr/02x.htm">264. TELEGRAM TO HIS SISTERS MARIA AND ANNA</a>
<em>April 2</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="539">4k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1917-aug-00mu" href="../1917/aug/00mu.htm">265. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>August</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="540">6k</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1917-sep-00mu" href="../1917/sep/00mu.htm">266. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<em>End of August-September</em>
</td><td class="size" width="10%"><a title="541">7k</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1919</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="telegram" name="1919-jul-02nk" href="../1919/jul/02nk.htm">267. TELEGRAM TO HIS WIFE</a>
<em>July 2</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%"><a title="542">Page 542</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1919-jul-09nk" href="../1919/jul/09nk.htm">268. TO HIS WIFE</a>
<em>July 9</em>
</td><td width="10%"><a title="543-544">Page 543</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="telegram" name="1919-jul-10nk" href="../1919/jul/10nk.htm">269. TELEGRAM TO HIS WIFE</a>
<em>July 10</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%"><a title="545">Page 545</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1919-jul-15nk" href="../1919/jul/15nk.htm">* 270. TO HIS WIFE</a>
<em>July 15</em>
</td><td width="10%"><a title="546">Page 546</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1920-dec-00x" href="../1920/dec/00x.htm">* 271. TO HIS SISTER MARIA AND HIS WIFE</a>
<em>1919 or 1920</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%"><a title="547">Page 547</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1921</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr class="shade">
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1921-dec-00mu" href="../1921/dec/00mu.htm">* 272. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
</td><td width="10%"><a title="548">Page 548</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1922</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1922-dec-00au" href="../1922/dec/00au.htm">* 273. TO HIS SISTER ANNA</a>
<em>End of 1922</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%"><a title="549">Page 549</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%"><a class="letter" name="1922-dec-00mu" href="../1922/dec/00mu.htm">* 274. TO HIS SISTER MARIA</a>
<!-- [sic.] -->
</td><td width="10%"><a title="550">Page 550</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<a name="appen"></a>
<h2>APPENDICES</h2>
<blockquote>
<a name="nadya"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<!-- Started working here 1 October 2008 -->
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="misc/page553entry.htm">I. Entries Concerning Letters from Lenin to His Relatives (From the Files of the Moscow Gendarmerie)</a>
</td><td width="10%">Page 553</td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%">
II. Letters Written By <a href="../../../krupskaya/index.htm">Nadezhda Krupskaya</a>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1898</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1898/feb/15.htm">1. TO LENIN’S MOTHER AND HIS SISTER MARIA.</a>
<em>February 15</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 555</td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1898/mar/06.htm">2. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.</a>
<em>March 6</em>
</td><td width="10%">Page 557</td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1898/may/10.htm">3. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>May 10</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 558</td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1898/jun/14.htm">4. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>June 14</em>
</td><td width="10%">page 559</td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1898/aug/09.htm">5. TO LENIN’S SISTER ANNA.</a>
<em>August 9</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 561</td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1898/aug/26.htm">6. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>August 26</em>
</td><td width="10%">Page 562</td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1898/sep/11.htm">7. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.</a>
<em>September 11</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 563</td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1898/sep/27.htm">8. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>September 27</em>
</td><td width="10%">Page 566</td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1898/oct/14.htm">9. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>October 14</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 569</td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1898/nov/11.htm">10. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.</a>
<em>November 11</em>
</td><td width="10%">Page 571</td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1898/nov/22.htm">11. TO LENIN’S SISTER ANNA.</a>
<em>November 22</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 572</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1899</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1899/jan/10.htm">12. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>January 10</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 574</td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1899/jan/17.htm">13. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>January 17</em>
</td><td width="10%">Page 575</td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1899/jan/24.htm">14. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.</a>
<em>January 24</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 576</td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1899/apr/04.htm">* 15. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>April 4</em>
</td><td width="10%">Page 578</td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1899/jun/20.htm">16. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>June 20</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 579</td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1899/jul/03.htm">17. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>July 3</em>
</td><td width="10%">Page 581</td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1899/oct/17.htm">18. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>October 17</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 582</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1900</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1900/mar/28.htm">19. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.</a>
<em>March 28</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 583</td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1900/mar/30.htm">20. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.</a>
<em>March 30</em>
</td><td width="10%">Page 585</td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1900/jul/26.htm">21. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>July 26</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 586</td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1900/jul/26b.htm">22. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.</a>
<em>July 26</em>
</td><td width="10%">Page 588</td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1900/aug/26.htm">23. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>August 26</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 589</td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1900/sep/11.htm">24. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.</a>
<em>September 11</em>
</td><td width="10%">Page 590</td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1900/oct/01mau.htm">25. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>October 1</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 592</td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1900/nov/08mu.htm">26. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>November 8</em>
</td><td width="10%">Page 594</td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1900/dec/02mau.htm">27. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.</a>
<em>December 2</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 595</td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1900/dec/22muamu.htm"> 28. TO LENIN’S MOTHER AND HIS SISTER MARIA.</a>
<em>December 22</em>
</td><td width="10%">Page 596</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1901</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1901/feb/02mau.htm" name="29">29. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.</a>
<em>February 2</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 598</td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1901/feb/12.htm" name="30">30. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.</a>
<em>February 12</em>
</td><td width="10%">Page 600</td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1901/jun/11.htm" name="31">31. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>June 11</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 601</td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1901/jul/16.htm" name="32">32. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>July 16</em>
</td><td width="10%">Page 602</td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1901/aug/02.htm" name="33">33. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>August 2</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 603 </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1902</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr class="shade">
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1902/sep/27x.htm" name="34">34. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>September 27</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 604</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1903</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr class="shade">
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1903/mar/04.htm" name="35">* 35. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>March 4</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 605</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1904</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr class="shade">
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1904/jan/15.htm" name="36"> 36. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>January 15</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 607</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1909</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr class="shade">
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1909/dec/20x.htm" name="37">37. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>Written in the
twenties of December </em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 608 e</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1910</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr class="shade">
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1910/aug/24mau.htm" name="38">* 38. TO LENIN’S SISTER ANNA.</a>
<em>August 24</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 609</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1911</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1911/aug/26.htm" name="39">* 39. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>August 26</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 610</td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1911/sep/21.htm" name="40">* 40. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.</a>
<em>September 21</em>
</td><td width="10%">Page 611</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1912</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1912/mar/09lsa.htm" name="41">41. TO LENIN’S SISTER ANNA.</a>
<em>March 9</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 612</td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1912/may/27klm.htm" name="42">42. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>May 27</em>
</td><td width="10%">Page 613</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1913</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1913/jan/03kms.htm" name="43">43. TO LENIN’S MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA.</a>
<em>January 4</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 614</td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1913/feb/24.htm" name="44">44. TO LENIN’S MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA.</a>
<em>February 24</em>
</td><td width="10%">Page 615</td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1913/mar/18.htm" name="45">45. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>March 18</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 615</td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1913/apr/10lsa.htm" name="46">* 46. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.</a>
<em>April 10</em>
</td><td width="10%">Page 617</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1914</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1914/jan/31lsa.htm" name="47">* 47. TO LENIN’S SISTER ANNA.
<em>January 31</em>
</a></td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 618</td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1914/feb/11lsa.htm" name="48">48. TO LENIN’S SISTER ANNA.</a>
<em>February 11</em>
</td><td width="10%">Page 619</td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1914/apr/15lm.htm" name="49">49. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>April 15</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 621</td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1914/jun/08.htm" name="50"> 50. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>June 8</em>
</td><td width="10%">Page 621</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1915</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1915/sep/15lm.htm" name="51">51. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>September 24</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 622</td></tr>
<tr>
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1915/oct/11lm.htm" name="52">* 52 TO LENIN’S MOTHER.</a>
<em>October 11</em>
</td><td width="10%">Page 623</td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="shade" width="90%">
<a href="../1915/dec/14.htm" name="53">53. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.</a>
<em>December 14</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 624</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<h2>1916</h2>
<blockquote>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3%" cellspacing="3%" width="90%">
<tbody><tr class="shade">
<td width="90%">
<a href="../1916/feb/08lsm.htm" name="54">54. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.</a>
<em>February 8</em>
</td><td class="shade" width="10%">Page 626</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<hr class="end">
<p class="index">
<span class="book">
Volume 37 Transcription/Mark-up<br> (<font size="-1">Nos. 1—274</font>):</span> <a href="../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/rcymbala.htm">D.
Moros</a>, August, 2005—April, 2006.<br>
<span class="book"> (<font size="-1">Appendicies 1—54)</font>:</span> <a href="../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/dwalters.htm">David Walters</a>, September—October 2008</p><br>
<hr class="end">
<div align="center">
<table class="t2h-foot" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr align="center"> <td align="right" width="46%">
<span class="footer"><a href="volume36.htm">Previous</a></span>
</td>
<td width="7%"> | </td>
<td align="left"> <span class="footer"><a href="volume38.htm">Next</a></span> </td>
</tr>
<tr align="center"> <td align="left" width="46%">
<span class="footer"><a href="index.htm#volume37">Lenin
Collected Works</a></span> </td>
<td width="7%"> | </td>
<td align="left"><span class="footer"><a href="../../index.htm">Lenin
Internet Archive</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td> </td></tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</td>
<td width="8%"> </td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p> </p>
</body> |
MIA: V. I. Lenin Library:
Collected Works: Volume 37
Lenin Collected Works:
Volume 37
(Letters to Relatives)
1893—1904, 1907—1917, 1919, 1921—1922
Preface by Progress Publishers
M. I.
ULYANOVA. Preface to Letters to Relatives (1930
Edition)
A. I.
ULYANOVA-YELIZAROVA. Apropos of Lenin’s Letters to Relatives
1893
1. TO HIS MOTHER
October 6
Page 65
2. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
October
Page 67
1894
3. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
December 13
Page 68
4. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
December 24
Page 70
1895
5. TO HIS MOTHER
May 14
7k
6. TO HIS MOTHER
May 20
7k
7. TO HIS MOTHER
June 8
6k
8. TO HIS MOTHER
July 18
7k
9. TO HIS MOTHER
August 10
6k
10. TO HIS MOTHER
August 29
7k
11. TO HIS MOTHER
September 7
5k
12. TO HIS MOTHER
December 5
7k
1896
13. TO A. K. CHEBOTARYOVA
January 2
14k
14. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
January 12
9k
15. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
January 14
7k
16. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
January 16
10k
1897
17. TO HIS MOTHER
March 2
11k
18. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
March 10
7k
19. TO HIS MOTHER
March 15 and 16
10k
20. TO HIS MOTHER
March 26
10k
21. TO HIS MOTHER
April 5
9k
22. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA
April 17
21k
23. TO HIS MOTHER
May 7
5k
24. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER MARIA
May 18
18k
25. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA
May 25
20k
26. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA
June 8
10k
27. TO HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW MARK YELIZAROV
June 15.
14k
28. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER MARIA
July 19
14k
29. TO HIS MOTHER
August 17
11k
30. TO HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW AND HIS SISTER MARIA
September 7
11k
31. TO HIS MOTHER
September 30
8k
32. TO HIS MOTHER
October 12
13k
33. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER MARIA
October 19
10k
34. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTERS MARIA AND ANNA
December 10
14k
35. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTERS MARIA AND ANNA
December 21
16k
36. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER MARIA
December 27
9k
1898
37. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW
January 4
15k
38. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA
January 24
18k
39. TO HIS MOTHER
February 7
19k
40. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW
February 14
15k
41. TO HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW
February 18
9k
42. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER MARIA
February 24
14k
43. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW
March 1
7k
44. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA
March 8
10k
45. TO HIS MOTHER
March 14
9k
46. TO HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW
March 28
8k
47. TO HIS MOTHER
May 10
8k
48. TO HIS MOTHER
May 17
5k
49. TO HIS MOTHER
June 7
8k
50. TO HIS MOTHER
June 14
7k
51. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
July 15
9k
52. TO HIS MOTHER
August 2
12k
53. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA
August 16.
11k
54. TO HIS MOTHER
August 26
10k
55. TO HIS MOTHER
September 16
9k
56. TO HIS MOTHER
October 11
7k
57. TO HIS MOTHER
November 1
6k
58. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
Written between November 7 and 11
13k
59. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
November 11
7k
60. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA
November 15
12k
61. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA
November 22
14k
62. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS BROTHER
November 28
9k
63. TO HIS MOTHER, HIS SISTER ANNA AND HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW
December 6
13k
64. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA
December 12
14k
65. KRUPSKAYA AND LENIN TO LENIN’S MOTHER
December 20
11k
66. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
December 22 and 28
7k
67. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA
December 28
11k
1899
68. TO HIS MOTHER
January 3
7k
69. TO HIS MOTHER
January 10
9k
70. TO HIS MOTHER
January 17
7k
71. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
January 24
6k
72. TO HIS BROTHER
January 26
17k
73. TO HIS MOTHER
January 30
9k
74. TO HIS MOTHER
February 3
7k
75. TO HIS MOTHER
February 7
7k
76. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
February 13
16k
77. TO HIS MOTHER
February 21
8k
78. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA
February 28
14k
79. TO HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW
February 28
9k
80. TO HIS MOTHER
March 7
8k
81. KRUPSKAYA AND LENIN TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA
March 7
8k
82. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA
March 17
13k
83. KRUPSKAYA AND LENIN TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA
March 17
10k
84. TO HIS MOTHER
March 21
5k
85. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA
April 4
15k
86. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA
April 11
10k
87. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA
May 1
15k
88. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA
May 9
9k
89. TO HIS SISTER ANNA AND HIS MOTHER
May 29 and 30
11k
90. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS BROTHER
June 20
11k
91. TO HIS MOTHER
July 11
5k
92. TO HIS MOTHER
August 1
7k
93. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER MARIA
August 7
11k
94. TO HIS MOTHER
August 15
5k
95. TO HIS MOTHER
August 22
6k
96. KRUPSKAYA AND LENIN TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA
August 22
12k
97. TO HIS MOTHER
August 25
8k
98. TO HIS MOTHER
September 1
10k
99. TO HIS MOTHER
September 11
6k
100. TO HIS MOTHER
October 17
8k
1900
101. KRUPSKAYA AND LENIN TO LENIN’S MOTHER
January 19
11k
102. TO HIS MOTHER
March 15
7k
103. TO HIS MOTHER
April 6
11k
104. TO HIS MOTHER
April 26
5k
105. TO HIS MOTHER
April 30
7k
106. TO HIS MOTHER
May 5
7k
107. TO HIS MOTHER
May 10
6k
108. TO HIS MOTHER
May 18
6k
109. TO HIS MOTHER
July 2
6k
110. TO HIS MOTHER
August 31
7k
111. TO HIS MOTHER
September 7
7k
112. TO HIS MOTHER
September 19
7k
113. TO HIS MOTHER
October 3
6k
114. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
November 6 and 7
9k
115. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
November 29
5k
116. TO HIS MOTHER
December 6
8k
117. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
December 14
8k
118. TO HIS MOTHER
December 26
8k
1901
119. TO HIS MOTHER
January 1
6k
120. TO HIS MOTHER
January 16
8k
121. TO HIS MOTHER
January 27
7k
122. TO HIS MOTHER
February 9
7k
123. TO HIS MOTHER
February 20
7k
124. TO HIS MOTHER
February 27
7k
125. TO HIS MOTHER
March 2
6k
126. TO HIS MOTHER
March 4
7k
127. TO HIS MOTHER
May 19
7k
128. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
May 19
8k
129. TO HIS MOTHER
June 7
7k
130. TO HIS MOTHER
July 1
7k
131. TO HIS MOTHER
July 17
6k
132. TO HIS MOTHER
August 3
7k
133. TO HIS MOTHER
September 1
8k
134. TO HIS MOTHER
September 21
8k
1902
135. TO HIS MOTHER
February 26
7k
136. TO HIS MOTHER
March 24
7k
137. TO HIS MOTHER
April 2
8k
138. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
April 10
6k
139. TO HIS MOTHER
May 8
7k
140. TO HIS MOTHER
June 7
7k
141. TO HIS MOTHER
September 14
6k
142. TO HIS MOTHER
September 27
6k
143. TO HIS MOTHER
November 9
8k
144. TO HIS MOTHER
December 17
9k
145. TO HIS MOTHER
December 26
6k
1903
146. TO HIS MOTHER
February 4
6k
147. TO HIS MOTHER
February 22
8k
148. TO HIS MOTHER
March 29
6k
1904
149. TO HIS MOTHER
January 8
6k
150. TO HIS MOTHER
January 20
5k
151. KRUPSKAYA AND LENIN TO LENIN’S MOTHER
July 2
10k
152. TO HIS MOTHER
July 7 or 8
5k
153. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER MARIA
July 16
5k
154. TO HIS MOTHER
August 28
6k
1907
155. LENIN AND KRUPSKAYA TO LENIN’S MOTHER
June 27
7k
156. LENIN AND KRUPSKAYA TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA
End of June
8k
157. TO HIS MOTHER
October 15
8k
1908
158. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
January 14
11k
159. LENIN AND KRUPSKAYA TO LENIN’S MOTHER
January 22
7k
160. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
February 7
12k
161. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
February 14
8k
162. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
February 17
10k
163. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
March 10
7k
164. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
Written between April 19 and 23
6k
165. TO HIS MOTHER
June 20
8k
166. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
July 13
8k
167. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
August 9
6k
168. TO HIS MOTHER
Summer
6k
169. TO HIS MOTHER
September 30
7k
170. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
October 27
7k
171. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
November 8
6k
172. TO HIS MOTHER
November 17
10k
173. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
November 26
9k
174. TO HIS MOTHER
December 10
10k
175. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
December 19
8k
176. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
December 24
8k
1909
177. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
February 6
6k
178. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
February 16 or 17
6k
179. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
February 17 or 18
10k
180. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
February 23
7k
181. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
March 2
5k
182. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
March 9
8k
183. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
March 12
9k
184. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
March 21 and 22
8k
185. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
March 23 or 24
7k
186. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
March 26
5k
187. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
April
9k
188. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
April 6
7k
189. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
April 8
8k
190. TO HIS MOTHER
May 21
7k
191. LENIN AND KRUPSKAYA TO LENIN’S SISTER ANNA
May 26
12k
192. TO HIS BROTHER
Late June-early July
7k
193. TO HIS MOTHER
July 19
7k
194. TO HIS MOTHER
August 24
6k
195. TO HIS MOTHER
October 25
5k
196. TO HIS MOTHER
November 4
8k
197. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
December 3 or 4
9k
198. TO HIS MOTHER
December 7 or 8
6k
199. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
December 10 or 11
9k
1910
200. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
January 2
7k
201. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
Early January
7k
202. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
January 12
6k
203. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
January 30 or 31
8k
204. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
February 1
5k
205. TO HIS BROTHER
February 13
7k
206. TO HIS MOTHER
February 13
7k
207. TO HIS BROTHER
February 17
6k
208. TO HIS MOTHER
April 10
7k
209. LENIN AND KRUPSKAYA TO LENIN’S SISTER ANNA
May 2
10k
210. TO HIS MOTHER
June 18
6k
211. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
June 18
5k
212. TO HIS MOTHER
July 1
5k
213. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
July 28
6k
214. TO HIS MOTHER
September 4
6k
1911
215. TO HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW
January 3
11k
216. TO HIS MOTHER
January 19
9k
217. TO HIS MOTHER
April 8
6k
218. TO HIS MOTHER
August 20
4k
219. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
August 20
5k
220. TO HIS MOTHER
September 28
6k
1912
221. TO HIS MOTHER
March 8 or 9
6k
222. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
March 24
6k
223. TO HIS MOTHER
April 7
7k
224. TO HIS MOTHER
May 27
7k
225. TO HIS MOTHER
June 2
7k
* 226. TO HIS MOTHER
July 1
6k
227. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
End of November
7k
228. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
Autumn
6k
229. TO HIS MOTHER
December 21 or 22
7k
230. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
December 24 or 25
7k
231. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
December 28
6k
1913
232. TO HIS MOTHER
January 3
6k
233. TO HIS MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA
February 24
11k
234. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
March 18
6k
* 235. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
First half of April
5k
236. KRUPSKAYA AND LENIN TO LENIN’S MOTHER
May 3
11k
237. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
May 12 or 13
12k
* 238. KRUPSKAYA AND LENIN TO LENIN’S MOTHER
May 25
8k
* 239. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
June 18
5k
240. TO HIS MOTHER
June 24
5k
241. TO HIS MOTHER
June 28 or 29
5k
242. TO HIS MOTHER
July 26
7k
243. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
Nouember 12 or 13
8k
244. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
December 21
6k
245. KRUPSKAYA AND LENIN TO LENIN’S MOTHER
December26
8k
1914
* 246. KRUPSKAYA AND LENIN TO LENIN’S MOTHER
January 7
8k
247. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
February 11
10k
248. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
February 16
6k
249. TO HIS MOTHER
February 21
5k
* 250. KRUPSKAYA AND LENIN TO LENIN’S MOTHER
March 16
9k
251. TO HIS MOTHER
April 10
5k
252. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
April 22
8k
253. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
November 14
11k
254. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
December 22
7k
1915
255. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
February 9
9k
256. TO HIS MOTHER
October 7
9k
1916
257. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
February 20
7k
258. TO HIS MOTHER
March 12
5k
259. TO HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW
September 20
6k
260. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
October 22
11k
261. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
November 26
7k
1917
262. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
February 15
6k
263. TO HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW
February 18 or 19
9k
264. TELEGRAM TO HIS SISTERS MARIA AND ANNA
April 2
4k
265. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
August
6k
266. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
End of August-September
7k
1919
267. TELEGRAM TO HIS WIFE
July 2
Page 542
268. TO HIS WIFE
July 9
Page 543
269. TELEGRAM TO HIS WIFE
July 10
Page 545
* 270. TO HIS WIFE
July 15
Page 546
* 271. TO HIS SISTER MARIA AND HIS WIFE
1919 or 1920
Page 547
1921
* 272. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
Page 548
1922
* 273. TO HIS SISTER ANNA
End of 1922
Page 549
* 274. TO HIS SISTER MARIA
Page 550
APPENDICES
I. Entries Concerning Letters from Lenin to His Relatives (From the Files of the Moscow Gendarmerie)
Page 553
II. Letters Written By Nadezhda Krupskaya
1898
1. TO LENIN’S MOTHER AND HIS SISTER MARIA.
February 15
Page 555
2. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.
March 6
Page 557
3. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
May 10
Page 558
4. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
June 14
page 559
5. TO LENIN’S SISTER ANNA.
August 9
Page 561
6. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
August 26
Page 562
7. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.
September 11
Page 563
8. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
September 27
Page 566
9. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
October 14
Page 569
10. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.
November 11
Page 571
11. TO LENIN’S SISTER ANNA.
November 22
Page 572
1899
12. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
January 10
Page 574
13. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
January 17
Page 575
14. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.
January 24
Page 576
* 15. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
April 4
Page 578
16. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
June 20
Page 579
17. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
July 3
Page 581
18. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
October 17
Page 582
1900
19. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.
March 28
Page 583
20. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.
March 30
Page 585
21. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
July 26
Page 586
22. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.
July 26
Page 588
23. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
August 26
Page 589
24. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.
September 11
Page 590
25. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
October 1
Page 592
26. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
November 8
Page 594
27. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.
December 2
Page 595
28. TO LENIN’S MOTHER AND HIS SISTER MARIA.
December 22
Page 596
1901
29. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.
February 2
Page 598
30. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.
February 12
Page 600
31. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
June 11
Page 601
32. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
July 16
Page 602
33. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
August 2
Page 603
1902
34. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
September 27
Page 604
1903
* 35. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
March 4
Page 605
1904
36. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
January 15
Page 607
1909
37. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
Written in the
twenties of December
Page 608 e
1910
* 38. TO LENIN’S SISTER ANNA.
August 24
Page 609
1911
* 39. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
August 26
Page 610
* 40. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.
September 21
Page 611
1912
41. TO LENIN’S SISTER ANNA.
March 9
Page 612
42. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
May 27
Page 613
1913
43. TO LENIN’S MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA.
January 4
Page 614
44. TO LENIN’S MOTHER AND HIS SISTER ANNA.
February 24
Page 615
45. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
March 18
Page 615
* 46. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.
April 10
Page 617
1914
* 47. TO LENIN’S SISTER ANNA.
January 31
Page 618
48. TO LENIN’S SISTER ANNA.
February 11
Page 619
49. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
April 15
Page 621
50. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
June 8
Page 621
1915
51. TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
September 24
Page 622
* 52 TO LENIN’S MOTHER.
October 11
Page 623
53. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.
December 14
Page 624
1916
54. TO LENIN’S SISTER MARIA.
February 8
Page 626
Volume 37 Transcription/Mark-up (Nos. 1—274): D.
Moros, August, 2005—April, 2006.
(Appendicies 1—54): David Walters, September—October 2008
Previous
|
Next
Lenin
Collected Works
|
Lenin
Internet Archive
|
./articles/Krupskaya-Nadezhda/https:..web.archive.org.web.20080321232230.http:..www.rcgfrfi.easynet.co.uk.ww.lenin.bio-bks | <body text="#FFFFFF" bgcolor="#000000" link="#FF0000" vlink="#C0C0C0" alink="#FFFF00">
<font face="Arial,Helvetica">
<center>
<table cellpadding="5" cols="1" width="100%" bgcolor="#999999">
<tbody><tr>
<td>
<center><b><font face="arial,helvetica" color="#ffffff" size="+3">
ILYICH'S FAVOURITE BOOKS
</font></b></center>
</td></tr><tr>
<td>
<center><b><font face="Arial,Helvetica" color="#FFFFFF" size="+2">
by Nadezdha Krupskaya
</font></b></center>
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<p>
<font size="-1">
First published in <i>Reminiscences of Lenin by His Relatives</i>,
Moscow, 1956, pp.201-07
<br>
Transcribed for the Internet by the Workers' Web project, 1998
</font>
</p><p>
</p><hr size="2" width="50%">
</center>
<p>
</p><blockquote>
The comrade who first introduced me to Ilyich told me that he
was a man of scientific bent, that he read scientific books exclusively,
that he had never read a novel and never read poetry. This surprised
me. I myself in my youth had read all the classics; I knew practically
the whole of Lermontov by heart, and such writers as Chernyshevsky,
Lev Tolstoi and Uspensky had, somehow, become part of my life.
It seemed strange to me that here was a man not the least bit
interested in all that.
<p>
Afterwards, when in the course of work I became better acquainted
with Ilyich, got to know how he appraised people, and observed
how closely he studied life and people, then the living Ilyich
displaced the image of the man who had never read a book dealing
with the life of the people.
</p><p>
It so happened that the complications of life prevented us from
discussing this subject. It was only later, during our exile in
Siberia, that I learned that Ilyich knew the classics as well
as I did, and had not only read, but had re-read Turgenev, for
instance. I brought with me to Siberia books by Pushkin, Lermontov
and Nekrasov. Ilyich arranged them near his bed, alongside Hegel,
and read them over and over again in the evenings. Pushkin was
his favourite. But it was not only the style that he liked. For
example, he was very fond of Chernyshevsky's <i>What Is To Be
Done? </i>despite the fact that its style is somewhat naive. I
was surprised when I saw how attentively he read this book and
how he noticed its finest points. Incidentally, he was very fond
of Chernyshevsky, and his Siberian album contained two photographs
of this writer, on one of which he had written the dates of the
writer's birth and death. This album also contained a photograph
of Emile Zola and of Russian writers, Herzen and Pisarev. At one
time Ilyich was very fond of Pisarev and read many of his works.
In Siberia we also had a copy of Goethe's <i>Faust, </i>and a
volume of Heine's poems, both in German.
</p><p>
Upon returning to Moscow from exile Ilyich went to the theatre
to see <i>Der Kutscher Hänschel. </i>He said afterwards that
he had greatly enjoyed it.
</p><p>
Among the books he liked while in Munich I remember Gerhardt's
<i>Bei Mama, </i>and <i>Büttnerbauer </i>by Polenz.
</p><p>
Afterwards, during our second emigration in Paris, Ilyich found
pleasure in reading Victor Hugo's <i>Châtiments, </i>dealing
with the 1848 revolution; Hugo wrote it while abroad, and copies
were smuggled into France. Although there is a naive pomposity
in this verse, one feels, nevertheless, the breath of revolution.
Ilyich eagerly frequented the cafés and the suburban theatres
in Paris to hear the revolutionary chansonniers, who, in the working-class
districts, sang about everything -- about how intoxicated peasants
elected a travelling agitator to the Chamber of Deputies, about
the bringing up of children, unemployment and so on. Ilyich was
particularly fond of Montégus. The son of a Paris Communard,
he was a great favourite in the working-class districts. True,
in his improvised songs -- richly garnished with the flavour of
life -- there was no definite ideology of any kind, but there
was much in them that appealed. Ilyich often hummed his <i>Greeting
to the 17th Regiment</i>, which had refused to fire on strikers:
<i>"Salut, salut vous, soldats du 17-me"</i>. Once,
at a Russian social evening, Ilyich conversed with Montégus
and it was strange to see these two men who differed so vastly
-- when the war broke out Montégus sided with the chauvinists
-- dreaming of world revolution. But things like that happen --
you meet someone in a railway carriage whom you have never known
before, and to the accompaniment of the grinding wheels you talk
in serious vein and say things that you would never say at another
time, and then you part and never meet again. And so it was here.
Moreover, the conversation was in French, and it is easier to
dream aloud in a foreign language than in one's own. We had the
services of a French charwoman a couple of hours a day. Once Ilyich
heard her singing a song about Alsace. He asked her to sing it
over again and, afterwards, upon memorising the words, he often
sang it himself. The song ended with the words:
</p><blockquote>
<i>
Vous avez pris l'Alsace et Ia Lorraine
<br>
Mais malgré vous nous resterons français,
<br>
Vous avez pu germaniser nos plaines
<br>
Mais notre coeur -- vous ne l'aurez jamais!</i>
<p>
("You have seized Alsace and Lorraine, but in spite of you
we shall remain French; you have managed to Germanise our fields,
but never will you have our hearts".)
</p></blockquote>
That was in the year 1909, when reaction was rampant and the Party
lay defeated. But its revolutionary spirit had not been broken.
And the song suited Ilyich's mood. One should have heard the feeling
he put into the words:
<p>
<i>Mais notre coeur -- vous ne I'aurez jamais!</i>
</p><p>
During those very hard years in emigration, concerning which Ilyich
always spoke with a feeling of sadness (when we returned to Russia
he repeated once more what he had often said before: "Why
did we ever leave Geneva for Paris?") -- dunng those grim
years he dreamed and dreamed, whether in conversation with Montégus,
or fervently singing the song about Alsace, or during the sleepless
nights when he read Verhaeren.
</p><p>
Still later, during the war, Ilyich was attracted by Barbusse's
<i>Le Feu, </i>which he regarded as an extremely important book
-- a book which was in tune with his own feelings.
</p><p>
We seldom visited the theatre. On the rare occasions that we did,
the insipidness of the play and the bad acting got on Ilyich's
nerves. Usually we left the theatre after the first act. The other
comrades laughed at us and asked why we wasted our money.
</p><p>
On one occasion, however, Ilyich sat through a play; this I think
was at the end of 1915 in Berne, and the play was Tolstoi's <i>The
Living Corpse. </i>Although it was acted in German, the man who
took the role of the prince was a Russian and he succeeded in
putting over Tolstoi's idea. Tense and excited, Ilyich followed
every detail of the play.
</p><p>
And lastly, in Russia. To Ilyich the new art seemed somehow to
be alien and incomprehensible. Once we were asked to a concert
in the Kremlin for Red Army men. Ilyich was given a seat in the
front row. The actress Gzovskaya, declaiming something by Mayakovsky
-- "Speed is our body and the drum our heart" -- was
gesturing right in front of Ilyich, who was taken aback by the
suddenness of it all; he grasped very little of the recitation
and heaved a sigh of relief when Gzovskaya was replaced by another
actor who began to read Chekhov's <i>Evil-doer</i>.
</p><p>
One evening Ilyich wanted to see for himself how the young people
were getting on in the communes. We decided to visit our young
friend Varya Armand who lived in a commune for art school students.
I think that we made the visit on the day Kropotkin was buried,
in 1921. It was a hungry year, but the young people were filled
with enthusiasm. The people in the commune slept practically on
bare boards, they had neither bread nor salt. "But we do
have cereals," said a radiantfaced member of the commune.
With this cereal they boiled a good porridge for Ilyich. Ilyich
looked at the young people, at the radiant faces of the boys and
girls who crowded around him, and their joy was reflected in his
face. They showed him their naive drawings, explained their meaning.
and bombarded him with questions. And he, smiling, evaded answering
and parried by asking questions of his own: "What do you
read? Do you read Pushkin?" -- "Oh, no," said someone,
"after all he was a bourgeois; we read Mayakovsky."
Ilyich smiled. "I think," he said, "that Pushkin
is better." After this Ilyich took a more favourable view
of Mayakovsky. Whenever the poet's name was mentioned he recalled
the young art students who, full of life and gladness, and ready
to die for the Soviet system, were unable to find words in the
contemporary language with which to express themselves, and sought
the answer in the obscure verse of Mayakovsky. Later, however,
Ilyich once praised Mayakovsky for the verse in which he ridiculed
Soviet red tape. Of the books of the day, I remember that Ilyich
was enthusiastic about Ehrenburg's war novel. "You know,"
he said triumphantly, "that book by Ilya the Shaggy (Ehrenburg's
nickname) is a fine piece of work."
</p><p>
We went to the Art Theatre several times. On one occasion we saw
<i>The Deluge</i>,<i> </i>which Ilyich liked very much. The next
day we saw Gorky's <i>The Lower Depths</i>.
</p><p>
Ilyich liked Gorky the man, with whom he had become closely acquainted
at the London Congress of the Party, and he liked Gorky the artist;
he said that Gorky the artist was capable of grasping things instantly.
With Gorky he always spoke very frankly. And so it goes without
saying that he set high standards for a
</p><p>
Gorky production. The over-acting irritated him. After seeing
<i>The Lower Depths </i>he avoided the theatre for a long time.
Once the two of us went to see Chekhov's <i>Uncle Vanya</i>, which
he liked very much. And finally, the last time we went to the
theatre, in 1922 -- we saw a stage version of Dickens's <i>Cricket
on the Hearth. </i>After the first act Ilyich found it dull; the
saccharine sentimentality got on his nerves, and during the conversation
between the old toymaker and his blind daughter he could stand
it no longer and left in the middle of the act.
</p><p>
During the last months of his life I used to read him fiction
at his request, usually in the evenings. I read him Shchedrin,
and Gorky's <i>My Universities. </i>He also liked to hear poetry,
especially Demyan Bedny, preferring his heroic verse to his satirical.
</p><p>
Sometimes, when listening to poetry, he would gaze thoughtfully
out of the window at the setting sun. I remember the poem which
ended with the words: "Never, never shall the Communists
be slaves."
</p><p>
As I read, I seemed to be repeating a vow to Ilyich. Never, never
shall we surrender a single gain of the Revolution...
</p><p>
Two days before he died I read him a story by Jack London -- the
book is lying now on the table in his room -- <i>Love of Life.
</i>This is a powerful story. Over a snowy waste where a human
being had never set foot, a man, sick and dying from hunger, makes
his way towards a pier on a river. His strength is giving out,
he no longer walks, but crawls, and close behind him, also crawling,
is a
</p><p>
famished and dying wolf; in the ensuing struggle between man and
wolf, the man wins; half-dead, and half-crazed, he reaches his
goal. Ilyich was carried away by this story. Next day he asked
me to read another London story. However, with Jack London the
powerful is mixed with the exceedingly weak. The second story
was altogether different -- one that preached [a] bourgeois moral:
the captain of a ship promises the owner that he will sell the
cargo of grain at a good price; he sacrifices his life in order
to keep his word. Ilyich laughed and waved his hand.
</p><p>
That was the last time I read to him.
</p><p>
</p></blockquote>
</font></body> |
ILYICH'S FAVOURITE BOOKS
by Nadezdha Krupskaya
First published in Reminiscences of Lenin by His Relatives,
Moscow, 1956, pp.201-07
Transcribed for the Internet by the Workers' Web project, 1998
The comrade who first introduced me to Ilyich told me that he
was a man of scientific bent, that he read scientific books exclusively,
that he had never read a novel and never read poetry. This surprised
me. I myself in my youth had read all the classics; I knew practically
the whole of Lermontov by heart, and such writers as Chernyshevsky,
Lev Tolstoi and Uspensky had, somehow, become part of my life.
It seemed strange to me that here was a man not the least bit
interested in all that.
Afterwards, when in the course of work I became better acquainted
with Ilyich, got to know how he appraised people, and observed
how closely he studied life and people, then the living Ilyich
displaced the image of the man who had never read a book dealing
with the life of the people.
It so happened that the complications of life prevented us from
discussing this subject. It was only later, during our exile in
Siberia, that I learned that Ilyich knew the classics as well
as I did, and had not only read, but had re-read Turgenev, for
instance. I brought with me to Siberia books by Pushkin, Lermontov
and Nekrasov. Ilyich arranged them near his bed, alongside Hegel,
and read them over and over again in the evenings. Pushkin was
his favourite. But it was not only the style that he liked. For
example, he was very fond of Chernyshevsky's What Is To Be
Done? despite the fact that its style is somewhat naive. I
was surprised when I saw how attentively he read this book and
how he noticed its finest points. Incidentally, he was very fond
of Chernyshevsky, and his Siberian album contained two photographs
of this writer, on one of which he had written the dates of the
writer's birth and death. This album also contained a photograph
of Emile Zola and of Russian writers, Herzen and Pisarev. At one
time Ilyich was very fond of Pisarev and read many of his works.
In Siberia we also had a copy of Goethe's Faust, and a
volume of Heine's poems, both in German.
Upon returning to Moscow from exile Ilyich went to the theatre
to see Der Kutscher Hänschel. He said afterwards that
he had greatly enjoyed it.
Among the books he liked while in Munich I remember Gerhardt's
Bei Mama, and Büttnerbauer by Polenz.
Afterwards, during our second emigration in Paris, Ilyich found
pleasure in reading Victor Hugo's Châtiments, dealing
with the 1848 revolution; Hugo wrote it while abroad, and copies
were smuggled into France. Although there is a naive pomposity
in this verse, one feels, nevertheless, the breath of revolution.
Ilyich eagerly frequented the cafés and the suburban theatres
in Paris to hear the revolutionary chansonniers, who, in the working-class
districts, sang about everything -- about how intoxicated peasants
elected a travelling agitator to the Chamber of Deputies, about
the bringing up of children, unemployment and so on. Ilyich was
particularly fond of Montégus. The son of a Paris Communard,
he was a great favourite in the working-class districts. True,
in his improvised songs -- richly garnished with the flavour of
life -- there was no definite ideology of any kind, but there
was much in them that appealed. Ilyich often hummed his Greeting
to the 17th Regiment, which had refused to fire on strikers:
"Salut, salut vous, soldats du 17-me". Once,
at a Russian social evening, Ilyich conversed with Montégus
and it was strange to see these two men who differed so vastly
-- when the war broke out Montégus sided with the chauvinists
-- dreaming of world revolution. But things like that happen --
you meet someone in a railway carriage whom you have never known
before, and to the accompaniment of the grinding wheels you talk
in serious vein and say things that you would never say at another
time, and then you part and never meet again. And so it was here.
Moreover, the conversation was in French, and it is easier to
dream aloud in a foreign language than in one's own. We had the
services of a French charwoman a couple of hours a day. Once Ilyich
heard her singing a song about Alsace. He asked her to sing it
over again and, afterwards, upon memorising the words, he often
sang it himself. The song ended with the words:
Vous avez pris l'Alsace et Ia Lorraine
Mais malgré vous nous resterons français,
Vous avez pu germaniser nos plaines
Mais notre coeur -- vous ne l'aurez jamais!
("You have seized Alsace and Lorraine, but in spite of you
we shall remain French; you have managed to Germanise our fields,
but never will you have our hearts".)
That was in the year 1909, when reaction was rampant and the Party
lay defeated. But its revolutionary spirit had not been broken.
And the song suited Ilyich's mood. One should have heard the feeling
he put into the words:
Mais notre coeur -- vous ne I'aurez jamais!
During those very hard years in emigration, concerning which Ilyich
always spoke with a feeling of sadness (when we returned to Russia
he repeated once more what he had often said before: "Why
did we ever leave Geneva for Paris?") -- dunng those grim
years he dreamed and dreamed, whether in conversation with Montégus,
or fervently singing the song about Alsace, or during the sleepless
nights when he read Verhaeren.
Still later, during the war, Ilyich was attracted by Barbusse's
Le Feu, which he regarded as an extremely important book
-- a book which was in tune with his own feelings.
We seldom visited the theatre. On the rare occasions that we did,
the insipidness of the play and the bad acting got on Ilyich's
nerves. Usually we left the theatre after the first act. The other
comrades laughed at us and asked why we wasted our money.
On one occasion, however, Ilyich sat through a play; this I think
was at the end of 1915 in Berne, and the play was Tolstoi's The
Living Corpse. Although it was acted in German, the man who
took the role of the prince was a Russian and he succeeded in
putting over Tolstoi's idea. Tense and excited, Ilyich followed
every detail of the play.
And lastly, in Russia. To Ilyich the new art seemed somehow to
be alien and incomprehensible. Once we were asked to a concert
in the Kremlin for Red Army men. Ilyich was given a seat in the
front row. The actress Gzovskaya, declaiming something by Mayakovsky
-- "Speed is our body and the drum our heart" -- was
gesturing right in front of Ilyich, who was taken aback by the
suddenness of it all; he grasped very little of the recitation
and heaved a sigh of relief when Gzovskaya was replaced by another
actor who began to read Chekhov's Evil-doer.
One evening Ilyich wanted to see for himself how the young people
were getting on in the communes. We decided to visit our young
friend Varya Armand who lived in a commune for art school students.
I think that we made the visit on the day Kropotkin was buried,
in 1921. It was a hungry year, but the young people were filled
with enthusiasm. The people in the commune slept practically on
bare boards, they had neither bread nor salt. "But we do
have cereals," said a radiantfaced member of the commune.
With this cereal they boiled a good porridge for Ilyich. Ilyich
looked at the young people, at the radiant faces of the boys and
girls who crowded around him, and their joy was reflected in his
face. They showed him their naive drawings, explained their meaning.
and bombarded him with questions. And he, smiling, evaded answering
and parried by asking questions of his own: "What do you
read? Do you read Pushkin?" -- "Oh, no," said someone,
"after all he was a bourgeois; we read Mayakovsky."
Ilyich smiled. "I think," he said, "that Pushkin
is better." After this Ilyich took a more favourable view
of Mayakovsky. Whenever the poet's name was mentioned he recalled
the young art students who, full of life and gladness, and ready
to die for the Soviet system, were unable to find words in the
contemporary language with which to express themselves, and sought
the answer in the obscure verse of Mayakovsky. Later, however,
Ilyich once praised Mayakovsky for the verse in which he ridiculed
Soviet red tape. Of the books of the day, I remember that Ilyich
was enthusiastic about Ehrenburg's war novel. "You know,"
he said triumphantly, "that book by Ilya the Shaggy (Ehrenburg's
nickname) is a fine piece of work."
We went to the Art Theatre several times. On one occasion we saw
The Deluge, which Ilyich liked very much. The next
day we saw Gorky's The Lower Depths.
Ilyich liked Gorky the man, with whom he had become closely acquainted
at the London Congress of the Party, and he liked Gorky the artist;
he said that Gorky the artist was capable of grasping things instantly.
With Gorky he always spoke very frankly. And so it goes without
saying that he set high standards for a
Gorky production. The over-acting irritated him. After seeing
The Lower Depths he avoided the theatre for a long time.
Once the two of us went to see Chekhov's Uncle Vanya, which
he liked very much. And finally, the last time we went to the
theatre, in 1922 -- we saw a stage version of Dickens's Cricket
on the Hearth. After the first act Ilyich found it dull; the
saccharine sentimentality got on his nerves, and during the conversation
between the old toymaker and his blind daughter he could stand
it no longer and left in the middle of the act.
During the last months of his life I used to read him fiction
at his request, usually in the evenings. I read him Shchedrin,
and Gorky's My Universities. He also liked to hear poetry,
especially Demyan Bedny, preferring his heroic verse to his satirical.
Sometimes, when listening to poetry, he would gaze thoughtfully
out of the window at the setting sun. I remember the poem which
ended with the words: "Never, never shall the Communists
be slaves."
As I read, I seemed to be repeating a vow to Ilyich. Never, never
shall we surrender a single gain of the Revolution...
Two days before he died I read him a story by Jack London -- the
book is lying now on the table in his room -- Love of Life.
This is a powerful story. Over a snowy waste where a human
being had never set foot, a man, sick and dying from hunger, makes
his way towards a pier on a river. His strength is giving out,
he no longer walks, but crawls, and close behind him, also crawling,
is a
famished and dying wolf; in the ensuing struggle between man and
wolf, the man wins; half-dead, and half-crazed, he reaches his
goal. Ilyich was carried away by this story. Next day he asked
me to read another London story. However, with Jack London the
powerful is mixed with the exceedingly weak. The second story
was altogether different -- one that preached [a] bourgeois moral:
the captain of a ship promises the owner that he will sell the
cargo of grain at a good price; he sacrifices his life in order
to keep his word. Ilyich laughed and waved his hand.
That was the last time I read to him.
|
./articles/Krupskaya-Nadezhda/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.krupskaya.works.krup1 | <body>
<p class="title">Nadezhda K. Krupskaya</p>
<h1>Preface to<br>
<em>The Emancipation of Women</em></h1>
<h3>From <em>Writings of V.I. Lenin</em></h3>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information">
<strong>Written:</strong> November 30, 1933;<br>
<strong>Source:</strong> The Emancipation of Women: From <em>Writings of V.I. Lenin</em>;<br>
<strong>Publisher:</strong> International Publishers;<br>
<strong>Transcribed and HTML Markup:</strong> Sally Ryan.</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="fst">
In the course of his revolutionary activities Lenin often
wrote and spoke about the emancipation of working women in general
and peasant women in particular. To be sure, the emancipation of
women is inseparably bound up with the entire struggle for the
workers' cause, for socialism. We know Lenin as the leader of the
working people, as the organiser of the Party and Soviet
government, as a fighter and builder. Every working woman, every
peasant woman must know about all that Lenin did, every aspect of
his work, without limiting herself to what Lenin said about the
position of working women and their emancipation. But because
there exists the closest connection between the entire struggle of
the working class and improving the position of women, Lenin
often--on more than forty occasions, in fact--referred to this
question in his speeches and articles, and every one of these
references was inseparably bound up with all the other things that
were of interest and concern to him at the time.</p>
<p> From the very start of his revolutionary career Comrade Lenin
paid special attention to the position of women workers and
peasants and to drawing them into the working-class
movement. Lenin did his first practical revolutionary work in
St. Petersburg (now Leningrad), where he organised a group of
Social-Democrats which became extremely active among the
St. Petersburg workers, publishing illegal leaflets and
distributing them at factories. The leaflets were usually
addressed to the workmen. At that time the class consciousness of
the mass of the workers was still little developed, the most
backward among them being working women. They received very low
wages and their rights were flagrantly violated. So the leaflets
were usually addressed to the men (the two leaflets addressed to
the working women of the Laferm tobacco factory were an
exception). Lenin also wrote a leaflet for the workers of the
Tornton cloth mill (in 1895) and although the women working there
were most backward, he entitled the leaflet: "To the Working Men
and Women of the Tornton Mill." This is a detail, but a very
important one.</p>
<p> When he was in exile in 1899, Lenin corresponded with the
Party organisation (the First Party Congress was held in 1898) and
mentioned the subjects he wanted to write about in the illegal
press. These included a pamphlet called "Women and the Workers'
Cause". In this pamphlet Lenin intended to describe the position
of women factory workers and peasant women and to show that the
only salvation for them was through their participation in the
revolutionary movement, and that only the victory of the working
class would bring emancipation to women workers and peasants.</p>
<p> Writing in 1901 about the women who took part in the Obukhov
defence, about the speech delivered by a woman worker Marfa
Yakovleva in court, Lenin said:</p>
<p> "The memory of our heroic comrades murdered and tortured to
death in prison will increase tenfold the strength of the new
fighters and will rouse thousands to rally to their aid, and like
the eighteen-year-old Marfa Yakovleva, they will openly say:'We
stand by our brothers!' In addition to reprisals by the police and
the military against participants in demonstrations, the
government intends to prosecute them for rebellion; we will
retaliate by uniting our revolutionary forces and winning over to
our side all who are oppressed by the tyranny of tsarism, and by
systematically preparing for the uprising of the whole
people!"[CW, Vol 5, p248-9] Lenin made a close study of the life
and labour conditions of women factory workers, peasants and women
employed in the handicrafts.</p>
<p> While in prison, Lenin studied the position of peasants as
revealed by statistical reports; he studied the influence of the
handicrafts, the drift of the peasants to the factories and the
influence exerted by the factories on their culture and way of
life. At the same time he studied all these questions from the
viewpoint of women's labour. He pointed out that the peasant's
proprietorial psychology places on women a burden of unnecessary
and senseless drudgery (every peasant woman of a large family
clearing only the small part of the table she eats on, cooking a
separate meal for her own child and milking a cow to get only just
enough milk for her own child).</p>
<p> In his book <em>The Development of Capitalism in Russia</em>
Lenin describes how cattle farmers exploit peasant women, how the
merchant-buyers exploit women lace-weavers; he shows that
large-scale industry emancipates women and that the work at
factories broadens their outlook, makes them more cultured and
independent and helps them to break the shackles of patriarchal
life. Lenin said that the development of large-scale industry
would create the basis for complete emancipation of
women. Characteristic in this respect is Lenin's article "A Great
Technical Achievement" written in 1913.</p>
<p> Workers in the bourgeois countries must fight for equal rights for men and women.</p>
<p> In exile Lenin devoted much of his time to working out the
Party programme. At that time the Party had no programme. There
was only a draft programme compiled by the Emancipation of Labour
group. Examining this programme in his article "A Draft Programme
of Our Party" and commenting on #9 of the practical part of the
programme, which demanded "the revision of our entire civil and
criminal legislation, the abolition of social-estate divisions and
of punishments incompatible with the dignity of man", Lenin wrote
that it would be well to add here: <em>"complete equality of
rights for men and women."</em> [CW Vol 4, p239] (My
italics--N. K.)</p>
<p> In 1903, when the Party Programme was adopted, this clause was included in it.</p>
<p> In 1907, in his report on the International Congress in
Stuttgart Lenin noted with satisfaction that the Congress
condemned the opportunist practices of the Austrian
Social-Democrats who, while conducting a campaign for electoral
rights for men, put off the struggle for electoral rights for
women to "a later date".</p>
<p> The Soviet government established full equality of rights for men and women.</p>
<p> "We in Russia no longer have the base, mean and infamous
denial of rights to women or inequality of the sexes, that
disgusting survival of feudalism and medievalism which is being
renovated by the avaricious bourgeoisie ... in every other country
in the world without exception." </p>
<p>In 1913, studying the forms of bourgeois democracy and exposing
the hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie, Lenin also dealt with the
problem of prostitution and showed how, while encouraging white
slave traffic and raping girls in the colonies, representatives of
the bourgeoisie at the same time hypocritically pretended to be
campaigning against prostitution.</p>
<p> Lenin returned to this question in December 1919, when he
wrote that "free, civilised" America was touting for women for
bawdy houses in the vanquished countries.[CW Vol 30]</p>
<p> In close connection with this question Lenin examined the
question of child-bearing and indignantly wrote of the appeal of
some intellectuals to the workers to practise birth control on the
grounds that their children were doomed to poverty and
privation. This is a petty-bourgeois view, wrote Lenin. The
workers take a different view. Children are our future. As for
poverty and so on, this can be remedied. We are fighting against
capitalism and when we win a victory we shall build a bright
future for our children....</p>
<p> And finally, in 1916-17, when he could see the socialist
revolution was drawing near and was considering what the essential
elements of socialist construction would be, and how to draw the
masses into this construction, he particularly stressed the need
to draw working women into social work, the need to enable all
women to work for the benefit of society. <em>Eight</em> of his
articles written in this period deal with this question, which he
links up with the need to organise social life under socialism
along new lines. Lenin saw a direct connection between this and
the drawing of the most backward groups of women into the work of
ruling the country, the need for re-educating the masses in the
actual process of social work.</p>
<p> Social work teaches the art of government. "We are not
utopians," Lenin wrote before the October Revolution. "We know
that an unskilled labourer or a cook cannot immediately get on
with the job of state administration. In this we agree with the
Cadets, with Breshkovskaya, and with Tsereteli. We differ,
however. from these citizens in that we demand an immediate break
with the prejudiced view that only the rich, or officials chosen
from rich families, are capable of <em>administering</em> the
state, of performing the ordinary, everyday work of
administration. We demand that <em>training</em> in the work of
state administration be conducted by class-conscious workers and
soldiers and that this training be begun at once, i.e., that a
<em>beginning</em> be made at once in training all the working
people, all the poor, for this work."</p>
<p> We know that the Soviet government has done all it can to
draw working women in the town and countryside into the work of
administration. And we know what great successes have been
achieved on this front.</p>
<p> Lenin warmly greeted the awakening of the women of the Soviet
East. Since he attached particular importance to raising the level
of the nationalities that had been oppressed by tsarism and
capitalism, it is quite understandable why he so warmly greeted
the conference of delegates of the Women's Departments of Soviet
regions and republics in the East.</p>
<p> Speaking of the achievements of the Second Congress of the
Communist International, Lenin pointed out that "the Congress will
strengthen the ties with the communist movement of women, thanks
to the international conference of working women called at the
same time."[CW Vol 31]</p>
<p> In October 1932 we observed the fifteenth anniversary of
Soviet power and summed up our achievements on all fronts,
including the front of women's emancipation.</p>
<p> We know that women took a very active part in the Civil War,
that many of them died in action but many others were steeled in
battle. Some women were awarded the Order of the Red Banner for
the active part they played in the struggle for Soviets during the
Civil War. Many former women partisans now occupy important
posts. Women have been persistent in learning to conduct social
work.</p>
<p> Delegates' conferences are a school of social work. In 15
years almost 10 million women delegates have passed through this
school.</p>
<p> At the time when we observed the fifteenth anniversary of the
October Revolution 20 to 25 per cent of the deputies of the
village Soviets, district executive committees and city Soviets
were women. There were 186 women members of the All-Russia Central
Executive Committee and the Central Executive Committee of the
U.S.S.R. On this work they attain ever higher standards.</p>
<p> The number of women members of the Communist Party has also
been steadily growing. In 1922 there were only 40,000 but by
October 1932 the number exceeded 500,000.</p>
<p> Much progress has been made recently in fulfilling Lenin's
behest concerning the complete emancipation of women.</p>
<p> In the last few years large-scale industry has been
developing on a tremendous scale. It is being reorganised on the
basis of modern technology and scientific organisation of
labour. The socialist emulation and shock-workers' movement which
have now been widely adopted stimulate a new, communist attitude
towards labour. And it must be said that women are not lagging
behind men in this. Every day we see more and more front-rank
women workers who display great stamina and perseverance in
labour. Labour is not something women have to get used to. Under
the old regime the lives of women were full of continual, unending
labour, but it was the kind of labour that was looked down upon
and bore the imprint of bondage. And now this labour training and
perseverance in labour place women in the front ranks of the
builders of socialism and heroes of labour.</p>
<p> Collectivisation of agriculture was of the utmost importance
for the emancipation of women. From the very start Lenin regarded
the collectivisation of agriculture as a way of reorganising it
along socialist lines. Back in 1894, in his book <em>What the
Friends of the People Are</em> Lenin quoted Marx's words to the
effect that after "the expropriation of the expropriators" is
accomplished, that is, when the landowners are dispossessed of
their landed estates and the capitalists of their factories, free workers will be united into co-operatives and the communal ("collective", as Lenin explained) ownership of the land and the means of production they create will be established.</p>
<p> Following the October Revolution, which marked the beginning
of "the expropriation of the expropriators", the Soviet government
raised the question of organising agricultural artels and
communes. Particular attention was paid to this back in 1918 and
1919, but many years passed (as Lenin had predicted) before
collectivisation became extensive and struck deep roots. The years
of the Civil War, when the class struggle swept the country, the
progress of Soviet power in the villages, the help, the cultural
assistance rendered by the Soviet government to the
countryside--all this prepared the ground for collectivisation,
which is developing and growing stronger in the struggle against
the kulaks.</p>
<p> Small-scale and middle peasant farming shackled women, tied
them to the individual households, and narrowed their outlook;
they were in fact slaves of their husbands, who often beat them
cruelly. Small scale farming paved the way for religion. The
peasants used to say: "Each man for himself and God for all."
Lenin quoted this saying on many occasions, as it perfectly
expressed the psychology of a small proprietor. Collectivisation
transforms the peasant from a small proprietor into a
collectivist, undermines the peasants' isolation and the hold of
religion and emancipates women. Lenin said that socialism alone
would bring emancipation for women. His words are now coming
true. We can see how women's position has changed in the
collective farms.</p>
<p> The Congress of front-rank collective farmers held in the
middle of February is striking evidence of the headway made in the
collective cultivation of the land. There are now 200,000
collective farms, as compared with the 6,000 we had before. The
Congress discussed the question of the best way to organise work
on the collective farms. There were many women among the
delegates. Sopina, a collective farmer from the Central Black
Earth Region, made a fine speech which evoked thunderous
applause. When she takes a hand in collective-farm development,
the peasant woman grows in stature, learns to govern and to fight
resolutely against the kulaks, the class enemy....</p>
<p>
Religion is losing Ground. Now collective-farm women come to the
library and say: "You always give me books that simply say that
there is no God. I know that without reading books. Give me a
book that will tell me how and why religion arose and how and
why it will die away." In the last few years there has been a
tremendous growth of political consciousness of the
masses. Political departments at the machine and tractor
stations' (whose membership also includes women's organisers)
will help not only to consolidate the collective farms, but will
also help collective farmers, men and women, to get rid of
surviving prejudices and cultural backwardness; lack of rights
for women will become a thing of the past.</p>
<p> Ten years have passed since the day of Lenin's death. On that
sad day we shall check the fulfilment of all of Lenin's
behests. We shall sum up the results. Lenin's behest concerning
the emancipation of women is being fulfilled under the guidance of
the Party. We shall continue to advance along this path.</p>
<p class="sig">
November 30, 1933<br>
N. Krupskaya</p>
<p> </p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">
<a href="../index.htm">Krupskaya Internet Archive</a> |
<a href="../../../index.htm">Marxists Internet Archive</a></p>
</body> |
Nadezhda K. Krupskaya
Preface to
The Emancipation of Women
From Writings of V.I. Lenin
Written: November 30, 1933;
Source: The Emancipation of Women: From Writings of V.I. Lenin;
Publisher: International Publishers;
Transcribed and HTML Markup: Sally Ryan.
In the course of his revolutionary activities Lenin often
wrote and spoke about the emancipation of working women in general
and peasant women in particular. To be sure, the emancipation of
women is inseparably bound up with the entire struggle for the
workers' cause, for socialism. We know Lenin as the leader of the
working people, as the organiser of the Party and Soviet
government, as a fighter and builder. Every working woman, every
peasant woman must know about all that Lenin did, every aspect of
his work, without limiting herself to what Lenin said about the
position of working women and their emancipation. But because
there exists the closest connection between the entire struggle of
the working class and improving the position of women, Lenin
often--on more than forty occasions, in fact--referred to this
question in his speeches and articles, and every one of these
references was inseparably bound up with all the other things that
were of interest and concern to him at the time.
From the very start of his revolutionary career Comrade Lenin
paid special attention to the position of women workers and
peasants and to drawing them into the working-class
movement. Lenin did his first practical revolutionary work in
St. Petersburg (now Leningrad), where he organised a group of
Social-Democrats which became extremely active among the
St. Petersburg workers, publishing illegal leaflets and
distributing them at factories. The leaflets were usually
addressed to the workmen. At that time the class consciousness of
the mass of the workers was still little developed, the most
backward among them being working women. They received very low
wages and their rights were flagrantly violated. So the leaflets
were usually addressed to the men (the two leaflets addressed to
the working women of the Laferm tobacco factory were an
exception). Lenin also wrote a leaflet for the workers of the
Tornton cloth mill (in 1895) and although the women working there
were most backward, he entitled the leaflet: "To the Working Men
and Women of the Tornton Mill." This is a detail, but a very
important one.
When he was in exile in 1899, Lenin corresponded with the
Party organisation (the First Party Congress was held in 1898) and
mentioned the subjects he wanted to write about in the illegal
press. These included a pamphlet called "Women and the Workers'
Cause". In this pamphlet Lenin intended to describe the position
of women factory workers and peasant women and to show that the
only salvation for them was through their participation in the
revolutionary movement, and that only the victory of the working
class would bring emancipation to women workers and peasants.
Writing in 1901 about the women who took part in the Obukhov
defence, about the speech delivered by a woman worker Marfa
Yakovleva in court, Lenin said:
"The memory of our heroic comrades murdered and tortured to
death in prison will increase tenfold the strength of the new
fighters and will rouse thousands to rally to their aid, and like
the eighteen-year-old Marfa Yakovleva, they will openly say:'We
stand by our brothers!' In addition to reprisals by the police and
the military against participants in demonstrations, the
government intends to prosecute them for rebellion; we will
retaliate by uniting our revolutionary forces and winning over to
our side all who are oppressed by the tyranny of tsarism, and by
systematically preparing for the uprising of the whole
people!"[CW, Vol 5, p248-9] Lenin made a close study of the life
and labour conditions of women factory workers, peasants and women
employed in the handicrafts.
While in prison, Lenin studied the position of peasants as
revealed by statistical reports; he studied the influence of the
handicrafts, the drift of the peasants to the factories and the
influence exerted by the factories on their culture and way of
life. At the same time he studied all these questions from the
viewpoint of women's labour. He pointed out that the peasant's
proprietorial psychology places on women a burden of unnecessary
and senseless drudgery (every peasant woman of a large family
clearing only the small part of the table she eats on, cooking a
separate meal for her own child and milking a cow to get only just
enough milk for her own child).
In his book The Development of Capitalism in Russia
Lenin describes how cattle farmers exploit peasant women, how the
merchant-buyers exploit women lace-weavers; he shows that
large-scale industry emancipates women and that the work at
factories broadens their outlook, makes them more cultured and
independent and helps them to break the shackles of patriarchal
life. Lenin said that the development of large-scale industry
would create the basis for complete emancipation of
women. Characteristic in this respect is Lenin's article "A Great
Technical Achievement" written in 1913.
Workers in the bourgeois countries must fight for equal rights for men and women.
In exile Lenin devoted much of his time to working out the
Party programme. At that time the Party had no programme. There
was only a draft programme compiled by the Emancipation of Labour
group. Examining this programme in his article "A Draft Programme
of Our Party" and commenting on #9 of the practical part of the
programme, which demanded "the revision of our entire civil and
criminal legislation, the abolition of social-estate divisions and
of punishments incompatible with the dignity of man", Lenin wrote
that it would be well to add here: "complete equality of
rights for men and women." [CW Vol 4, p239] (My
italics--N. K.)
In 1903, when the Party Programme was adopted, this clause was included in it.
In 1907, in his report on the International Congress in
Stuttgart Lenin noted with satisfaction that the Congress
condemned the opportunist practices of the Austrian
Social-Democrats who, while conducting a campaign for electoral
rights for men, put off the struggle for electoral rights for
women to "a later date".
The Soviet government established full equality of rights for men and women.
"We in Russia no longer have the base, mean and infamous
denial of rights to women or inequality of the sexes, that
disgusting survival of feudalism and medievalism which is being
renovated by the avaricious bourgeoisie ... in every other country
in the world without exception."
In 1913, studying the forms of bourgeois democracy and exposing
the hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie, Lenin also dealt with the
problem of prostitution and showed how, while encouraging white
slave traffic and raping girls in the colonies, representatives of
the bourgeoisie at the same time hypocritically pretended to be
campaigning against prostitution.
Lenin returned to this question in December 1919, when he
wrote that "free, civilised" America was touting for women for
bawdy houses in the vanquished countries.[CW Vol 30]
In close connection with this question Lenin examined the
question of child-bearing and indignantly wrote of the appeal of
some intellectuals to the workers to practise birth control on the
grounds that their children were doomed to poverty and
privation. This is a petty-bourgeois view, wrote Lenin. The
workers take a different view. Children are our future. As for
poverty and so on, this can be remedied. We are fighting against
capitalism and when we win a victory we shall build a bright
future for our children....
And finally, in 1916-17, when he could see the socialist
revolution was drawing near and was considering what the essential
elements of socialist construction would be, and how to draw the
masses into this construction, he particularly stressed the need
to draw working women into social work, the need to enable all
women to work for the benefit of society. Eight of his
articles written in this period deal with this question, which he
links up with the need to organise social life under socialism
along new lines. Lenin saw a direct connection between this and
the drawing of the most backward groups of women into the work of
ruling the country, the need for re-educating the masses in the
actual process of social work.
Social work teaches the art of government. "We are not
utopians," Lenin wrote before the October Revolution. "We know
that an unskilled labourer or a cook cannot immediately get on
with the job of state administration. In this we agree with the
Cadets, with Breshkovskaya, and with Tsereteli. We differ,
however. from these citizens in that we demand an immediate break
with the prejudiced view that only the rich, or officials chosen
from rich families, are capable of administering the
state, of performing the ordinary, everyday work of
administration. We demand that training in the work of
state administration be conducted by class-conscious workers and
soldiers and that this training be begun at once, i.e., that a
beginning be made at once in training all the working
people, all the poor, for this work."
We know that the Soviet government has done all it can to
draw working women in the town and countryside into the work of
administration. And we know what great successes have been
achieved on this front.
Lenin warmly greeted the awakening of the women of the Soviet
East. Since he attached particular importance to raising the level
of the nationalities that had been oppressed by tsarism and
capitalism, it is quite understandable why he so warmly greeted
the conference of delegates of the Women's Departments of Soviet
regions and republics in the East.
Speaking of the achievements of the Second Congress of the
Communist International, Lenin pointed out that "the Congress will
strengthen the ties with the communist movement of women, thanks
to the international conference of working women called at the
same time."[CW Vol 31]
In October 1932 we observed the fifteenth anniversary of
Soviet power and summed up our achievements on all fronts,
including the front of women's emancipation.
We know that women took a very active part in the Civil War,
that many of them died in action but many others were steeled in
battle. Some women were awarded the Order of the Red Banner for
the active part they played in the struggle for Soviets during the
Civil War. Many former women partisans now occupy important
posts. Women have been persistent in learning to conduct social
work.
Delegates' conferences are a school of social work. In 15
years almost 10 million women delegates have passed through this
school.
At the time when we observed the fifteenth anniversary of the
October Revolution 20 to 25 per cent of the deputies of the
village Soviets, district executive committees and city Soviets
were women. There were 186 women members of the All-Russia Central
Executive Committee and the Central Executive Committee of the
U.S.S.R. On this work they attain ever higher standards.
The number of women members of the Communist Party has also
been steadily growing. In 1922 there were only 40,000 but by
October 1932 the number exceeded 500,000.
Much progress has been made recently in fulfilling Lenin's
behest concerning the complete emancipation of women.
In the last few years large-scale industry has been
developing on a tremendous scale. It is being reorganised on the
basis of modern technology and scientific organisation of
labour. The socialist emulation and shock-workers' movement which
have now been widely adopted stimulate a new, communist attitude
towards labour. And it must be said that women are not lagging
behind men in this. Every day we see more and more front-rank
women workers who display great stamina and perseverance in
labour. Labour is not something women have to get used to. Under
the old regime the lives of women were full of continual, unending
labour, but it was the kind of labour that was looked down upon
and bore the imprint of bondage. And now this labour training and
perseverance in labour place women in the front ranks of the
builders of socialism and heroes of labour.
Collectivisation of agriculture was of the utmost importance
for the emancipation of women. From the very start Lenin regarded
the collectivisation of agriculture as a way of reorganising it
along socialist lines. Back in 1894, in his book What the
Friends of the People Are Lenin quoted Marx's words to the
effect that after "the expropriation of the expropriators" is
accomplished, that is, when the landowners are dispossessed of
their landed estates and the capitalists of their factories, free workers will be united into co-operatives and the communal ("collective", as Lenin explained) ownership of the land and the means of production they create will be established.
Following the October Revolution, which marked the beginning
of "the expropriation of the expropriators", the Soviet government
raised the question of organising agricultural artels and
communes. Particular attention was paid to this back in 1918 and
1919, but many years passed (as Lenin had predicted) before
collectivisation became extensive and struck deep roots. The years
of the Civil War, when the class struggle swept the country, the
progress of Soviet power in the villages, the help, the cultural
assistance rendered by the Soviet government to the
countryside--all this prepared the ground for collectivisation,
which is developing and growing stronger in the struggle against
the kulaks.
Small-scale and middle peasant farming shackled women, tied
them to the individual households, and narrowed their outlook;
they were in fact slaves of their husbands, who often beat them
cruelly. Small scale farming paved the way for religion. The
peasants used to say: "Each man for himself and God for all."
Lenin quoted this saying on many occasions, as it perfectly
expressed the psychology of a small proprietor. Collectivisation
transforms the peasant from a small proprietor into a
collectivist, undermines the peasants' isolation and the hold of
religion and emancipates women. Lenin said that socialism alone
would bring emancipation for women. His words are now coming
true. We can see how women's position has changed in the
collective farms.
The Congress of front-rank collective farmers held in the
middle of February is striking evidence of the headway made in the
collective cultivation of the land. There are now 200,000
collective farms, as compared with the 6,000 we had before. The
Congress discussed the question of the best way to organise work
on the collective farms. There were many women among the
delegates. Sopina, a collective farmer from the Central Black
Earth Region, made a fine speech which evoked thunderous
applause. When she takes a hand in collective-farm development,
the peasant woman grows in stature, learns to govern and to fight
resolutely against the kulaks, the class enemy....
Religion is losing Ground. Now collective-farm women come to the
library and say: "You always give me books that simply say that
there is no God. I know that without reading books. Give me a
book that will tell me how and why religion arose and how and
why it will die away." In the last few years there has been a
tremendous growth of political consciousness of the
masses. Political departments at the machine and tractor
stations' (whose membership also includes women's organisers)
will help not only to consolidate the collective farms, but will
also help collective farmers, men and women, to get rid of
surviving prejudices and cultural backwardness; lack of rights
for women will become a thing of the past.
Ten years have passed since the day of Lenin's death. On that
sad day we shall check the fulfilment of all of Lenin's
behests. We shall sum up the results. Lenin's behest concerning
the emancipation of women is being fulfilled under the guidance of
the Party. We shall continue to advance along this path.
November 30, 1933
N. Krupskaya
Krupskaya Internet Archive |
Marxists Internet Archive
|
./articles/Krupskaya-Nadezhda/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.krupskaya.works.young-pioneers | <body>
<p class="title">Nadezhda K. Krupskaya</p>
<h1>Young Pioneers</h1>
<h3>How Women Can Help</h3>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information">
<strong>Source:</strong> <em>Workers’ Weekly</em>, July 3, 1925<br>
<strong>Publisher:</strong> <a href="../../../history/international/comintern/sections/britain/index.htm">Communist Party of Great Britain</a><br>
<strong>Transcription/HTML Markup:</strong> Brian Reid<br>
<strong>Proofreader:</strong> David Tate<br>
<strong>Public Domain:</strong> Marxists Internet Archive (2009). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="fst">
The bourgeoisie of all countries understands to a nicety what a great power the experiences of childhood have over people, and for this reason it endeavours to bring the children up in the bourgeois spirit from their earliest years.
</p>
<p>
The clergy, the teachers servile to the bourgeois Government, the unprincipled penny-a-line children’s authors and the grasping cinema proprietors all work feverishly in this direction.
</p>
<p>
During recent years the bourgeoisie has resorted to the Boy Scouts system for organising the children in detachments faithful to the old order, Camping, bivouacs, amusing games, sports—all these interests so engross the children that they do not know that in these organisations they are being quietly caught in the net of bourgeois ideas, and that they are being trained as the servile slaves of capitalism. The Fascist children’s organisation in Italy, the “Belilla,” is based on the same principles as the Boy Scouts.
</p>
<h5>A Million Russian Pioneers</h5>
<p>
On the other hand we see the Young Communist International, aided by the Communist Parties, striving to organise a Communist Children’s Movement.
</p>
<p>
In Germany the children’s groups are very well organised. The children do not let themselves be caned in the schools, refuse to say prayers, help the workers on strike, collect money for hungry children, and for all these things they are often taken to the police station, where they conduct themselves manfully. The Children’s Movement organises them and trains them in manliness and the will to struggle.
</p>
<p>
Here in Russia the Children’s Movement has also begun to grow. The participants in this Movement, aged from eleven to fourteen, are called the “Young Pioneers,” of which there are now already about a million.
</p>
<p>
<em>It is important that the Children’s Movement be as closely as possible connected with the workers’ organisations, especially the women’s</em>.
</p>
<p>
What can the working women do for the Young Pioneers? Conscious working women can, above all, carry on wide agitation among the women workers and peasants, who are not class conscious, explaining to them what are the “Young Pioneers.”
</p>
<h5>Explaining the Movement</h5>
<p>
Participation in the “Young Pioneers” organisation gives workers’ children friendship with their comrades, many happy experiences and a knowledge of the working-class struggle. It also arouses their curiosity. This must all be explained to those working and peasant women who do not like their children joining the Pioneers and scold them for it.
</p>
<p>
It must be explained to them that it is no less important for the girls than for the boys to join the Pioneers. The girls must not be tied down to the home, but from the early years should be accustomed to being together, in one organisation with the boys—to be with them on a comradely footing.
</p>
<p>
Young Pioneers desire, to work, they want to have industrious hands; in fact, they want to be able to do a great deal, and they are prepared to learn from whoever can teach them. The working women are capable of a great deal, let them transmit their knowledge to the Pioneers.
</p>
<p>
The working women can find a thousand ways in which to help the Young Pioneers to grow up as steadfast fighters, capable workers for the future, and good Communists.
</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">
<a href="../index.htm">Krupskaya Internet Archive</a>
</p>
</body> |
Nadezhda K. Krupskaya
Young Pioneers
How Women Can Help
Source: Workers’ Weekly, July 3, 1925
Publisher: Communist Party of Great Britain
Transcription/HTML Markup: Brian Reid
Proofreader: David Tate
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2009). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
The bourgeoisie of all countries understands to a nicety what a great power the experiences of childhood have over people, and for this reason it endeavours to bring the children up in the bourgeois spirit from their earliest years.
The clergy, the teachers servile to the bourgeois Government, the unprincipled penny-a-line children’s authors and the grasping cinema proprietors all work feverishly in this direction.
During recent years the bourgeoisie has resorted to the Boy Scouts system for organising the children in detachments faithful to the old order, Camping, bivouacs, amusing games, sports—all these interests so engross the children that they do not know that in these organisations they are being quietly caught in the net of bourgeois ideas, and that they are being trained as the servile slaves of capitalism. The Fascist children’s organisation in Italy, the “Belilla,” is based on the same principles as the Boy Scouts.
A Million Russian Pioneers
On the other hand we see the Young Communist International, aided by the Communist Parties, striving to organise a Communist Children’s Movement.
In Germany the children’s groups are very well organised. The children do not let themselves be caned in the schools, refuse to say prayers, help the workers on strike, collect money for hungry children, and for all these things they are often taken to the police station, where they conduct themselves manfully. The Children’s Movement organises them and trains them in manliness and the will to struggle.
Here in Russia the Children’s Movement has also begun to grow. The participants in this Movement, aged from eleven to fourteen, are called the “Young Pioneers,” of which there are now already about a million.
It is important that the Children’s Movement be as closely as possible connected with the workers’ organisations, especially the women’s.
What can the working women do for the Young Pioneers? Conscious working women can, above all, carry on wide agitation among the women workers and peasants, who are not class conscious, explaining to them what are the “Young Pioneers.”
Explaining the Movement
Participation in the “Young Pioneers” organisation gives workers’ children friendship with their comrades, many happy experiences and a knowledge of the working-class struggle. It also arouses their curiosity. This must all be explained to those working and peasant women who do not like their children joining the Pioneers and scold them for it.
It must be explained to them that it is no less important for the girls than for the boys to join the Pioneers. The girls must not be tied down to the home, but from the early years should be accustomed to being together, in one organisation with the boys—to be with them on a comradely footing.
Young Pioneers desire, to work, they want to have industrious hands; in fact, they want to be able to do a great deal, and they are prepared to learn from whoever can teach them. The working women are capable of a great deal, let them transmit their knowledge to the Pioneers.
The working women can find a thousand ways in which to help the Young Pioneers to grow up as steadfast fighters, capable workers for the future, and good Communists.
Krupskaya Internet Archive
|
./articles/Krupskaya-Nadezhda/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.krupskaya.works.taylorism | <body>
<p class="title"> Nadezhda Krupskaya 1921</p>
<h3>Taylor’s System and Organization</h3>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information">
<span class="info">First Published</span>: <i>Red Virgin Soil</i>, 1921, No 1, pp. 140-145;<br>
<span class="info">Translated</span>: Mark Alexandrovich, introduction by Renato Flores;<br>
<span class="info">Source</span>: https://cosmonaut.blog/tag/translation/.</p>
<img src="../images/work-measurement.jpg" align="right" alt="Time motion study being performed in the central institute of labor, 1923" border="1" hspace="16" vspace="2">
<p class="information">Nadezhda Krupskaya is unfairly remembered by the identity of her husband. A glance at her page in Marxists.org predominantly shows texts related to Lenin’s persona. One of her most detailed biographies is titled “Bride of the Revolution.” But as many women of the time who have been written out of history, she was a revolutionary in her own right, standing alongside Alexandra Kollontai or Inessa Armand. She was the chief Bolshevik cryptographer and served as secretary of Iskra for many years. She was hailed by Trotsky as being “in the center of all the organization work.” After the revolution, she contributed decisively to the revamping and democratization of the Soviet library system, always pushing for more campaigns that would increase literacy and general education.</p>
<p class="information">Her persistent interest in education and organization was a result of her life story. Krupskaya was the daughter of a downwardly mobile noble family: her father was a radical army officer, who combated prosecution of Polish Jews and ended up ejected from the government service, and her mother Elizaveta came from a landless noble family. Nadezhda was provided a decent, albeit unsteady education. She was committed to radical politics early on in her life, starting off as a Tolstoyan. Tolstoyism emphasized “going to the people,” so Krupskaya became a teacher to educate Russian peasants and seasonally spend time working in the fields. However, she found it hard to penetrate the peasant mistrust for outsiders and realized this was a political dead end. </p>
<p class="information">Krupskaya became a Marxist when enmeshed in the radical circles of St. Petersburg. Marxism appealed to her because it provided a methodology for revolution, with its science substituting the failures of Tolstoyan mystique. After her “conversion,” Krupskaya worked as an instructor in the industrial suburbs of St. Petersburg between 1891 and 1896. The “Evening-Sunday school” was financed by a factory owner, and provided evening classes for his workers. Although she nominally taught just reading, writing and basic arithmetic, she would also teach additional illegal classes on leftist topics and helped grow the revolutionary movement. Her first-hand experience in the factories of St. Petersburg would inform her life-long interests, heavily influencing her views on the organization of production.</p>
<p class="information">In this piece, Krupskaya looks at Frederick Taylor’s principles of scientific management and shows how they could be applied to the Soviet government. The early “collegiality"-based Soviet State was leading to inefficiencies all around, which produced a stagnant and unresponsive bureaucracy. Krupskaya believed that scientifically-driven organization would alleviate these organizational problems, and at the same time raise everyone’s consciousness of the work they were doing. She provided several prescriptions for the organization of production to achieve these goals, as well as a rationale for them.</p>
<p class="information">Taylorism is a dirty word in leftism today. But as Krupskaya did, we have to understand that we should not hate technology itself. Technology is deployed by certain class interests. Krupskaya mentions that workers rightly hated Taylor because the scientific organization of production had been deployed to the advantage of the capitalists. But Krupskaya also believed that Taylorism could be a weapon wielded by the Soviet State so that it could be more responsive to workers’ needs. Taylorism could even be used by the workers themselves to increase productivity and work shorter hours.</p>
<p class="information">Krupskaya was not alone in her support of a Soviet Taylorism. Gastev’s Central Institute of Labor wanted the full application of Taylor’s principles to production as the best way to organize the scarce resources available. Others opposed Taylorism, understanding that it came with insurmountable ideological baggage and would alienate workers from production. This old debate sees new spins played out today in the context of automation. And while there is no longer a Soviet state to organize scientifically, we can still use the principles of Taylorism in our political organizing as Amelia Davenport recently discussed in “Organizing for Power.”</p>
<hr class="end">
<img src="../images/krupskaya.jpg" align="right" alt="Krupskaya" border="1" hspace="16" vspace="2">
<p>The strange thing is that every communist knows that bureaucracy is an extremely negative thing, that it is ruining every living endeavor, that it is distorting all the measures, all the decrees, all the orders, but when the communist starts working in some commissariat or other Soviet institution, he will not have time to look back, as he will see himself half mired in such a hated bureaucratic swamp.</p>
<p>What’s the matter? Who is to blame here – evil saboteurs, old officials who broke into our commissariats, Soviet ladies?</p>
<p>No, the root of bureaucracy lies not in the evil will of one or another person, but in the absence of the ability to systematically and rationally organize the work.</p>
<p>Management is not an easy thing to do. It is a whole science. In order to properly organize the work of an institution, you need to know in detail the work itself, you need to know people, you need to have more perseverance, etc., etc.</p>
<p>We, Russians, have so far been little tempted in this science of management, but without studying it, without learning to manage, we will not move not only to communism, but even to socialism.</p>
<p>We can learn a lot from Taylor, and although he speaks mainly about the way the work is done at the plant, many of the organizational principles he preaches can, and should, be applied to Soviet work.</p>
<p>Here’s what Taylor himself writes about the application of the well-known organizational principles:</p>
<p class="indentb">“There is no work that cannot be researched to the benefit of the study, to find out the units of time, to divide it into elements... It is also possible to study well, for example, the time of clerical work and to assign a daily lesson to it, despite the fact that at first it seems to be very diverse in nature” (F. Taylor, “Industrial Administration and Technology Organization,” pp. 148).</p>
<p>Already from this quote it is clear that one of the basic principles of F. Taylor considers the decomposition of the work into its elements and the division of labour based on this.</p>
<p>Let’s take the work of people’s commissariats. Undoubtedly, there is a well-known division of labor in them. There is a people’s commissariat, there is a board of commissariats, there are departments, departments are divided into subdivisions, there are secretaries, clerks, typists, reporters, etc. But this, after all, is the coarsest division. Very often there is no borderline between the cases under the jurisdiction of the commissioner, board, department. This is usually determined by somehow eyeballing. The functions of different subdivisions are not always precisely defined and delineated. There are also states. But in most cases, these “states” are very approximate. There is no precise definition of the functions of individual employees at all. Hence, the multiplicity of institutions follows. There are, say, 10 people in an institution, and their functions are not exactly distributed. Eight of them are misinterpreted, the other two are overwhelmed with work over and above measure. The work is moving badly. It seems to the head of the institution that there are not enough people, he takes another ten, but the work is going badly. Why? Because the work is not distributed properly, the employees do not know what to do and how to do it. The swelling of commissariats is a constantly observed fact. But does it work better?</p>
<p>The question of “collegiality and identity,” a question that has grown precisely because of the lack of division of labour, the lack of separation between the functions of the commissioner and the functions of the collegium, the lack of separation between the responsibilities of the collegium and those of the commissioner. A misunderstanding of this seemingly simple thing often leads to administrative fiction. Thus, during the period of discussion in the Council of People’s Commissars of the question of collegiality and identity, one absolutely monstrous project was presented in the Council of People’s Commissars. It proposed to destroy not only the board, but also the heads of departments and subdivisions, it was proposed to leave only the commissioner and technical officers, to whom the people’s commissar had to give direct tasks. This project revealed a complete lack of understanding of the need for a detailed and strict division of labour. The authors wanted to simplify the office, but overlooked one small detail: if there was only a commissioner and technical staff, the commissioner would have to give several thousand tasks to the staff every day. No commissioner can do that.</p>
<p>The division of labour in the factory is very thorough and far-reaching. There, no one will ever doubt the usefulness of such a division.</p>
<p>The division of labour in Soviet institutions is the most crude, and there is no detailed division of functions. It must be created. The responsibilities of each employee should be defined in the most precise way – from the commissioner to the last messenger.</p>
<p>The terms of reference of each employee must be formulated in writing. These responsibilities can be very complex and extensive, but the more important it is to formulate them as precisely as possible. Of course, this applies even more to all sorts of boards, presidiums, etc.</p>
<p>Then F. Taylor insists on an exact instruction, also in writing, indicating in detail how to perform a particular job.</p>
<p>Taylor means the factory enterprise, but this requirement applies to all commissariat work.</p>
<p class="indentb">“Instructional cards can be used very widely and variedly. They play the same role in the art of management as in the technique of drawing and, like the latter, must change in size and shape to reflect the amount and variety of information it should provide. In some cases, the instruction may include a note written in pencil on a piece of paper that is sent directly to the worker in need of instructions; in other cases, it will contain many pages of typewriter text that have been properly corrected and stitched together and will be issued on the basis of control marks or other established procedures so that it can be used” (Ibid., p. 152).</p>
<p>Just think how much better the introduction of written instructions would be to set up a case in commissariats, how much would it reduce unnecessary conversations, how much accuracy would it bring to it, what would it be a reduction in unproductive waste of time.</p>
<p>Taylor insists on written instructions, reports, etc.</p>
<p>The written report is much more precise and, most importantly, it is recorded. The written form also facilitates control.</p>
<p>Separation of functions, introduction of a written instruction allow assigning less qualified people to one or another job. Taylor says that you can’t “take advantage of the work of a qualified worker where you can put a cheaper and less specialized person. No one would ever think about carrying a load on a trotter and put a draft horse where a small pony is enough. All the more so, a good craftsman should not be allowed to do the work that a laborer is good enough for” (Ibid., p. 30).</p>
<p>“To put the right man on the right place,” as the English say, is the task of the administrator. Most commissariats have so-called accounting and distribution departments. These departments should have highly qualified employees who know in detail the work of their commissariat, its needs, who are able to correctly evaluate people, find out their experience, knowledge and so on. This is one of the most important jobs, on which the success of the entire institution depends. Is this understood enough by the commissariats? No. This is occupied by random people.</p>
<p class="indentb">“No people,” you have to hear it all the time. That’s what bad administrators say. A skilled administrator can also use people with secondary qualifications if he or she is able to instruct them properly and distribute the work among them. There is no doubt,” Taylor writes, “that the average person works best when he or she or someone else is assigning him or her a certain lesson, and that the job must be done by him or her at a certain time. The lower the person’s mental and physical abilities, the shorter the lesson to be assigned” (Ibid., p. 60).</p>
<p>And Taylor gives instructions on how the work should be distributed:</p>
<p class="indentb">“Every worker, good and mediocre, must learn a certain lesson every day. In no case should it be inaccurate or uncertain. The lesson should be carefully and clearly described and should not be easy...</p>
<p class="indentb">“Each worker should have a full day’s lesson...</p>
<p class="indentb">“In order to be able to schedule a lesson for the next day and determine how far the entire plant has moved in one day, workers must submit written information to the accounting department every day, with an exact indication of the work performed” (Ibid., p. 57).</p>
<p>A system of bonus pay is only possible with detailed work distribution and accounting.</p>
<p>In commissariats, the premium system is usually used completely incorrectly. Bonuses are not given for extra hours of work or for more work given out, but are given in the form of an additional salary. One thing that indicates this is that there is no proper distribution of business work in Soviet institutions.</p>
<p>Of course, only those who know the job very well, to the smallest detail, can distribute it correctly.</p>
<p class="indentb">“The art of management is defined by us as the thorough knowledge of the work you want to give to workers and the ability to do it in the best and most economical way” (Ibid.)</p>
<p>It would seem that this is a matter of course, yet it is almost constantly ignored. Comrades are good administrators and, in general, good workers are constantly moving from one area of work to another: today he works in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, tomorrow in the theater department, the day after tomorrow in supply, then in Supreme Soviet of the National Economy or elsewhere. Before he has time to study a new field of work, he is transferred to a new field of work. It is clear that he cannot do what he could have done if he had worked in the same field for longer.</p>
<p>It is not enough to know people, to have general organizational skills – you need to know this area of work perfectly, only then you can distribute it correctly, instruct correctly, do accounting and supervise it.</p>
<p>Taylor’s control is particularly important. He suggests daily and even twice a day to quality control the work of workers, he insists on the most detailed written reporting, suggests not to be afraid of increasing the number of administrative personnel able to control the work. According to Taylor, the best thing would be if it were possible to organize a purely mechanical quality control (not for nothing, the control clocks are linked to the name of Taylor).</p>
<p>It’s vain to write laws if you don’t obey them. And Taylor understands that all the orders hang in the air, if they are not accompanied by a strictly carried out control.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, in terms of control in commissariats the situation is often very unfavorable.</p>
<p>The purpose of Taylor’s system is to increase the intensity of the worker’s work, to make his work more productive. Its goal is to change the slow pace of work to a faster pace and teach the worker to work without unnecessary breaks, cautiously and cherish every minute.</p>
<p>Of course, Taylor is the enemy of all the time-consuming conversations. He tries to replace oral reports with written ones. Where they are unavoidable, he tries to make them as concise as possible.</p>
<p class="indentb">“The management system increasingly includes a principle that can be called the “principle of exceptions.” However, like many other elements of the art of governance, it is applied on an ad hoc basis and, for the most part, is not recognized as a principle to be disseminated everywhere. The usual, albeit sad, look is represented by the administrator of a large business, sitting at his desk in good faith in the midst of a sea of letters and reports, on each of which he considers it his duty to sign and initial. He thinks that, having passed through his hands this mass of details, he is quite aware of the whole case. The principle of exceptions represents the exact opposite of this. With him, the manager receives only brief, concise and necessarily comparative information, however, covering all the issues related to management. Even this summary, before it reaches the director, must be carefully reviewed by one of his assistants and must contain the latest data, both good and bad, in comparison with past average figures or with established norms; thus, this information in a few minutes gives him a complete picture of the course of affairs and leaves him free time to reflect on the more general issues of the management system and to study the qualities and suitability of the more responsible, subordinate and employees.” (Ibid., p. 105).</p>
<p>What business-like character would the work of commissariats take if the comrades working there would keep to the “principle of exceptions"?</p>
<p>Let’s sum it up. F. Taylor believes that it is necessary:</p>
<ol class="numbered">
<li>Decomposition of the work into its simplest elements;</li>
<li>the most detailed division of labour based on the study of the work and its decomposition into elements;</li>
<li>precise definition of the functions that fall on each employee;</li>
<li>definition of these functions in exact written form;</li>
<li>Appropriate selection of employees;</li>
<li>such distribution of work, so that each employee has as many jobs as he can perform during the day, working at the fastest pace;</li>
<li>Continuous instruction by more knowledgeable persons, if possible in writing;</li>
<li>systematic, properly organized control;</li>
<li>to facilitate its written reporting (as soon as possible);</li>
<li>Where possible, mechanization of controls.</li>
</ol>
<p>“This is what everyone knows,” the reader will say.</p>
<p>But the point is not only to know, but to be able to apply. That’s the whole point.</p>
<p class="indentb">“No system should be conducted ineptly,” notes Taylor.</p>
<p>Where do you learn to manage? “Unfortunately, there are no management schools, not even a single enterprise to inspect most of the management details that represent the best of their kind” (Ibid., p. 164).</p>
<p>That’s what Taylor says about industry in advanced countries.</p>
<p>Clearly, in Russia, we will not find any samples of the industry, not just of the industry, but of the administrative apparatuses. We need to lay new groundwork here. Through thoughtful attitude to business, taking into account all working conditions, it is necessary to systematically improve the health of Soviet institutions, to expel the shadow of bureaucracy from them. Bureaucracy is not in reporting, not in writing papers, not in distributing functions, in the office – bureaucracy is a negligent attitude to business, confusion and stupidity, inability to work, inability to check the work. You have to learn how to manage, you have to learn how to work. Of course, everything is not done in one go. “It takes time, a lot of time for a fundamental change of control... The change of management is connected with the change of notions, views and customs of many people, ingrained beliefs and prejudices. The latter can only be changed slowly and mainly through a series of subject lessons, each of which takes time, and through constant criticism and discussion. In deciding to apply this type of governance, the necessary steps for this introduction should be taken one by one as soon as possible. You need to be prepared to lose some of your valuable people who will not be able to adapt to the changes, as well as the angry protests of many old, reliable employees who will see nothing but nonsense and ruin in the innovations ahead. It is very important that, apart from the directors of the company, all those involved in management are given a broad and understandable explanation of the main goals that are being achieved and the means that will be applied.</p>
<p>Taylor, as an experienced administrator, understands that the success of the case depends not so much on the individual, but on the sincerity of the entire team.</p>
<p>Only this Taylor’s team limits itself to administrative employees. This is quite understandable. In general, Taylor’s system has not only positive aspects – increasing labor productivity through its scientific formulation, but also negative aspects: increasing labor intensity, and the wage system is built by Taylor so that this increase in intensity benefits not the worker, but the entrepreneur.</p>
<p>The workers understood that Taylor’s system was an excellent sweat squeezing system and fought against it. Since all the production was in the hands of capitalists, the workers were not interested in increasing labor productivity, not interested in the rise of industry. Now, under Soviet rule, when the exploitation of the labor force has been destroyed and when workers are interested to the extreme in the rise of the industry – a team that should consciously relate to the introduction of improving working methods – there should be a team of all the workers of the plant or factory. The capitalist could not rely on the collective of the workers he was exploiting, he relied on the collective of administrative employees who helped him to carry out this exploitation. Now the working collective itself has to apply the most appropriate methods of work. He only needs to be familiarized in theory and practice with these methods. This is production propaganda.</p>
<p>As far as the employees of Soviet institutions and people’s commissariats are concerned, it is necessary to familiarize them with the methods of labor productivity. This falls on the production cell of the collective of employees. But only by raising the level of consciousness of all employees, only by involving them in the work of increasing the productivity of commissariats – it is possible to actually improve the state of affairs and destroy not in words, but in practice, the dead bureaucracy.</p>
<p class="skip"> </p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">
<a href="../index.htm">Krupskaya Archive</a></p><a href="../index.htm">
</a></body> |
Nadezhda Krupskaya 1921
Taylor’s System and Organization
First Published: Red Virgin Soil, 1921, No 1, pp. 140-145;
Translated: Mark Alexandrovich, introduction by Renato Flores;
Source: https://cosmonaut.blog/tag/translation/.
Nadezhda Krupskaya is unfairly remembered by the identity of her husband. A glance at her page in Marxists.org predominantly shows texts related to Lenin’s persona. One of her most detailed biographies is titled “Bride of the Revolution.” But as many women of the time who have been written out of history, she was a revolutionary in her own right, standing alongside Alexandra Kollontai or Inessa Armand. She was the chief Bolshevik cryptographer and served as secretary of Iskra for many years. She was hailed by Trotsky as being “in the center of all the organization work.” After the revolution, she contributed decisively to the revamping and democratization of the Soviet library system, always pushing for more campaigns that would increase literacy and general education.
Her persistent interest in education and organization was a result of her life story. Krupskaya was the daughter of a downwardly mobile noble family: her father was a radical army officer, who combated prosecution of Polish Jews and ended up ejected from the government service, and her mother Elizaveta came from a landless noble family. Nadezhda was provided a decent, albeit unsteady education. She was committed to radical politics early on in her life, starting off as a Tolstoyan. Tolstoyism emphasized “going to the people,” so Krupskaya became a teacher to educate Russian peasants and seasonally spend time working in the fields. However, she found it hard to penetrate the peasant mistrust for outsiders and realized this was a political dead end.
Krupskaya became a Marxist when enmeshed in the radical circles of St. Petersburg. Marxism appealed to her because it provided a methodology for revolution, with its science substituting the failures of Tolstoyan mystique. After her “conversion,” Krupskaya worked as an instructor in the industrial suburbs of St. Petersburg between 1891 and 1896. The “Evening-Sunday school” was financed by a factory owner, and provided evening classes for his workers. Although she nominally taught just reading, writing and basic arithmetic, she would also teach additional illegal classes on leftist topics and helped grow the revolutionary movement. Her first-hand experience in the factories of St. Petersburg would inform her life-long interests, heavily influencing her views on the organization of production.
In this piece, Krupskaya looks at Frederick Taylor’s principles of scientific management and shows how they could be applied to the Soviet government. The early “collegiality"-based Soviet State was leading to inefficiencies all around, which produced a stagnant and unresponsive bureaucracy. Krupskaya believed that scientifically-driven organization would alleviate these organizational problems, and at the same time raise everyone’s consciousness of the work they were doing. She provided several prescriptions for the organization of production to achieve these goals, as well as a rationale for them.
Taylorism is a dirty word in leftism today. But as Krupskaya did, we have to understand that we should not hate technology itself. Technology is deployed by certain class interests. Krupskaya mentions that workers rightly hated Taylor because the scientific organization of production had been deployed to the advantage of the capitalists. But Krupskaya also believed that Taylorism could be a weapon wielded by the Soviet State so that it could be more responsive to workers’ needs. Taylorism could even be used by the workers themselves to increase productivity and work shorter hours.
Krupskaya was not alone in her support of a Soviet Taylorism. Gastev’s Central Institute of Labor wanted the full application of Taylor’s principles to production as the best way to organize the scarce resources available. Others opposed Taylorism, understanding that it came with insurmountable ideological baggage and would alienate workers from production. This old debate sees new spins played out today in the context of automation. And while there is no longer a Soviet state to organize scientifically, we can still use the principles of Taylorism in our political organizing as Amelia Davenport recently discussed in “Organizing for Power.”
The strange thing is that every communist knows that bureaucracy is an extremely negative thing, that it is ruining every living endeavor, that it is distorting all the measures, all the decrees, all the orders, but when the communist starts working in some commissariat or other Soviet institution, he will not have time to look back, as he will see himself half mired in such a hated bureaucratic swamp.
What’s the matter? Who is to blame here – evil saboteurs, old officials who broke into our commissariats, Soviet ladies?
No, the root of bureaucracy lies not in the evil will of one or another person, but in the absence of the ability to systematically and rationally organize the work.
Management is not an easy thing to do. It is a whole science. In order to properly organize the work of an institution, you need to know in detail the work itself, you need to know people, you need to have more perseverance, etc., etc.
We, Russians, have so far been little tempted in this science of management, but without studying it, without learning to manage, we will not move not only to communism, but even to socialism.
We can learn a lot from Taylor, and although he speaks mainly about the way the work is done at the plant, many of the organizational principles he preaches can, and should, be applied to Soviet work.
Here’s what Taylor himself writes about the application of the well-known organizational principles:
“There is no work that cannot be researched to the benefit of the study, to find out the units of time, to divide it into elements... It is also possible to study well, for example, the time of clerical work and to assign a daily lesson to it, despite the fact that at first it seems to be very diverse in nature” (F. Taylor, “Industrial Administration and Technology Organization,” pp. 148).
Already from this quote it is clear that one of the basic principles of F. Taylor considers the decomposition of the work into its elements and the division of labour based on this.
Let’s take the work of people’s commissariats. Undoubtedly, there is a well-known division of labor in them. There is a people’s commissariat, there is a board of commissariats, there are departments, departments are divided into subdivisions, there are secretaries, clerks, typists, reporters, etc. But this, after all, is the coarsest division. Very often there is no borderline between the cases under the jurisdiction of the commissioner, board, department. This is usually determined by somehow eyeballing. The functions of different subdivisions are not always precisely defined and delineated. There are also states. But in most cases, these “states” are very approximate. There is no precise definition of the functions of individual employees at all. Hence, the multiplicity of institutions follows. There are, say, 10 people in an institution, and their functions are not exactly distributed. Eight of them are misinterpreted, the other two are overwhelmed with work over and above measure. The work is moving badly. It seems to the head of the institution that there are not enough people, he takes another ten, but the work is going badly. Why? Because the work is not distributed properly, the employees do not know what to do and how to do it. The swelling of commissariats is a constantly observed fact. But does it work better?
The question of “collegiality and identity,” a question that has grown precisely because of the lack of division of labour, the lack of separation between the functions of the commissioner and the functions of the collegium, the lack of separation between the responsibilities of the collegium and those of the commissioner. A misunderstanding of this seemingly simple thing often leads to administrative fiction. Thus, during the period of discussion in the Council of People’s Commissars of the question of collegiality and identity, one absolutely monstrous project was presented in the Council of People’s Commissars. It proposed to destroy not only the board, but also the heads of departments and subdivisions, it was proposed to leave only the commissioner and technical officers, to whom the people’s commissar had to give direct tasks. This project revealed a complete lack of understanding of the need for a detailed and strict division of labour. The authors wanted to simplify the office, but overlooked one small detail: if there was only a commissioner and technical staff, the commissioner would have to give several thousand tasks to the staff every day. No commissioner can do that.
The division of labour in the factory is very thorough and far-reaching. There, no one will ever doubt the usefulness of such a division.
The division of labour in Soviet institutions is the most crude, and there is no detailed division of functions. It must be created. The responsibilities of each employee should be defined in the most precise way – from the commissioner to the last messenger.
The terms of reference of each employee must be formulated in writing. These responsibilities can be very complex and extensive, but the more important it is to formulate them as precisely as possible. Of course, this applies even more to all sorts of boards, presidiums, etc.
Then F. Taylor insists on an exact instruction, also in writing, indicating in detail how to perform a particular job.
Taylor means the factory enterprise, but this requirement applies to all commissariat work.
“Instructional cards can be used very widely and variedly. They play the same role in the art of management as in the technique of drawing and, like the latter, must change in size and shape to reflect the amount and variety of information it should provide. In some cases, the instruction may include a note written in pencil on a piece of paper that is sent directly to the worker in need of instructions; in other cases, it will contain many pages of typewriter text that have been properly corrected and stitched together and will be issued on the basis of control marks or other established procedures so that it can be used” (Ibid., p. 152).
Just think how much better the introduction of written instructions would be to set up a case in commissariats, how much would it reduce unnecessary conversations, how much accuracy would it bring to it, what would it be a reduction in unproductive waste of time.
Taylor insists on written instructions, reports, etc.
The written report is much more precise and, most importantly, it is recorded. The written form also facilitates control.
Separation of functions, introduction of a written instruction allow assigning less qualified people to one or another job. Taylor says that you can’t “take advantage of the work of a qualified worker where you can put a cheaper and less specialized person. No one would ever think about carrying a load on a trotter and put a draft horse where a small pony is enough. All the more so, a good craftsman should not be allowed to do the work that a laborer is good enough for” (Ibid., p. 30).
“To put the right man on the right place,” as the English say, is the task of the administrator. Most commissariats have so-called accounting and distribution departments. These departments should have highly qualified employees who know in detail the work of their commissariat, its needs, who are able to correctly evaluate people, find out their experience, knowledge and so on. This is one of the most important jobs, on which the success of the entire institution depends. Is this understood enough by the commissariats? No. This is occupied by random people.
“No people,” you have to hear it all the time. That’s what bad administrators say. A skilled administrator can also use people with secondary qualifications if he or she is able to instruct them properly and distribute the work among them. There is no doubt,” Taylor writes, “that the average person works best when he or she or someone else is assigning him or her a certain lesson, and that the job must be done by him or her at a certain time. The lower the person’s mental and physical abilities, the shorter the lesson to be assigned” (Ibid., p. 60).
And Taylor gives instructions on how the work should be distributed:
“Every worker, good and mediocre, must learn a certain lesson every day. In no case should it be inaccurate or uncertain. The lesson should be carefully and clearly described and should not be easy...
“Each worker should have a full day’s lesson...
“In order to be able to schedule a lesson for the next day and determine how far the entire plant has moved in one day, workers must submit written information to the accounting department every day, with an exact indication of the work performed” (Ibid., p. 57).
A system of bonus pay is only possible with detailed work distribution and accounting.
In commissariats, the premium system is usually used completely incorrectly. Bonuses are not given for extra hours of work or for more work given out, but are given in the form of an additional salary. One thing that indicates this is that there is no proper distribution of business work in Soviet institutions.
Of course, only those who know the job very well, to the smallest detail, can distribute it correctly.
“The art of management is defined by us as the thorough knowledge of the work you want to give to workers and the ability to do it in the best and most economical way” (Ibid.)
It would seem that this is a matter of course, yet it is almost constantly ignored. Comrades are good administrators and, in general, good workers are constantly moving from one area of work to another: today he works in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, tomorrow in the theater department, the day after tomorrow in supply, then in Supreme Soviet of the National Economy or elsewhere. Before he has time to study a new field of work, he is transferred to a new field of work. It is clear that he cannot do what he could have done if he had worked in the same field for longer.
It is not enough to know people, to have general organizational skills – you need to know this area of work perfectly, only then you can distribute it correctly, instruct correctly, do accounting and supervise it.
Taylor’s control is particularly important. He suggests daily and even twice a day to quality control the work of workers, he insists on the most detailed written reporting, suggests not to be afraid of increasing the number of administrative personnel able to control the work. According to Taylor, the best thing would be if it were possible to organize a purely mechanical quality control (not for nothing, the control clocks are linked to the name of Taylor).
It’s vain to write laws if you don’t obey them. And Taylor understands that all the orders hang in the air, if they are not accompanied by a strictly carried out control.
Meanwhile, in terms of control in commissariats the situation is often very unfavorable.
The purpose of Taylor’s system is to increase the intensity of the worker’s work, to make his work more productive. Its goal is to change the slow pace of work to a faster pace and teach the worker to work without unnecessary breaks, cautiously and cherish every minute.
Of course, Taylor is the enemy of all the time-consuming conversations. He tries to replace oral reports with written ones. Where they are unavoidable, he tries to make them as concise as possible.
“The management system increasingly includes a principle that can be called the “principle of exceptions.” However, like many other elements of the art of governance, it is applied on an ad hoc basis and, for the most part, is not recognized as a principle to be disseminated everywhere. The usual, albeit sad, look is represented by the administrator of a large business, sitting at his desk in good faith in the midst of a sea of letters and reports, on each of which he considers it his duty to sign and initial. He thinks that, having passed through his hands this mass of details, he is quite aware of the whole case. The principle of exceptions represents the exact opposite of this. With him, the manager receives only brief, concise and necessarily comparative information, however, covering all the issues related to management. Even this summary, before it reaches the director, must be carefully reviewed by one of his assistants and must contain the latest data, both good and bad, in comparison with past average figures or with established norms; thus, this information in a few minutes gives him a complete picture of the course of affairs and leaves him free time to reflect on the more general issues of the management system and to study the qualities and suitability of the more responsible, subordinate and employees.” (Ibid., p. 105).
What business-like character would the work of commissariats take if the comrades working there would keep to the “principle of exceptions"?
Let’s sum it up. F. Taylor believes that it is necessary:
Decomposition of the work into its simplest elements;
the most detailed division of labour based on the study of the work and its decomposition into elements;
precise definition of the functions that fall on each employee;
definition of these functions in exact written form;
Appropriate selection of employees;
such distribution of work, so that each employee has as many jobs as he can perform during the day, working at the fastest pace;
Continuous instruction by more knowledgeable persons, if possible in writing;
systematic, properly organized control;
to facilitate its written reporting (as soon as possible);
Where possible, mechanization of controls.
“This is what everyone knows,” the reader will say.
But the point is not only to know, but to be able to apply. That’s the whole point.
“No system should be conducted ineptly,” notes Taylor.
Where do you learn to manage? “Unfortunately, there are no management schools, not even a single enterprise to inspect most of the management details that represent the best of their kind” (Ibid., p. 164).
That’s what Taylor says about industry in advanced countries.
Clearly, in Russia, we will not find any samples of the industry, not just of the industry, but of the administrative apparatuses. We need to lay new groundwork here. Through thoughtful attitude to business, taking into account all working conditions, it is necessary to systematically improve the health of Soviet institutions, to expel the shadow of bureaucracy from them. Bureaucracy is not in reporting, not in writing papers, not in distributing functions, in the office – bureaucracy is a negligent attitude to business, confusion and stupidity, inability to work, inability to check the work. You have to learn how to manage, you have to learn how to work. Of course, everything is not done in one go. “It takes time, a lot of time for a fundamental change of control... The change of management is connected with the change of notions, views and customs of many people, ingrained beliefs and prejudices. The latter can only be changed slowly and mainly through a series of subject lessons, each of which takes time, and through constant criticism and discussion. In deciding to apply this type of governance, the necessary steps for this introduction should be taken one by one as soon as possible. You need to be prepared to lose some of your valuable people who will not be able to adapt to the changes, as well as the angry protests of many old, reliable employees who will see nothing but nonsense and ruin in the innovations ahead. It is very important that, apart from the directors of the company, all those involved in management are given a broad and understandable explanation of the main goals that are being achieved and the means that will be applied.
Taylor, as an experienced administrator, understands that the success of the case depends not so much on the individual, but on the sincerity of the entire team.
Only this Taylor’s team limits itself to administrative employees. This is quite understandable. In general, Taylor’s system has not only positive aspects – increasing labor productivity through its scientific formulation, but also negative aspects: increasing labor intensity, and the wage system is built by Taylor so that this increase in intensity benefits not the worker, but the entrepreneur.
The workers understood that Taylor’s system was an excellent sweat squeezing system and fought against it. Since all the production was in the hands of capitalists, the workers were not interested in increasing labor productivity, not interested in the rise of industry. Now, under Soviet rule, when the exploitation of the labor force has been destroyed and when workers are interested to the extreme in the rise of the industry – a team that should consciously relate to the introduction of improving working methods – there should be a team of all the workers of the plant or factory. The capitalist could not rely on the collective of the workers he was exploiting, he relied on the collective of administrative employees who helped him to carry out this exploitation. Now the working collective itself has to apply the most appropriate methods of work. He only needs to be familiarized in theory and practice with these methods. This is production propaganda.
As far as the employees of Soviet institutions and people’s commissariats are concerned, it is necessary to familiarize them with the methods of labor productivity. This falls on the production cell of the collective of employees. But only by raising the level of consciousness of all employees, only by involving them in the work of increasing the productivity of commissariats – it is possible to actually improve the state of affairs and destroy not in words, but in practice, the dead bureaucracy.
Krupskaya Archive
|
./articles/Krupskaya-Nadezhda/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.krupskaya.works.rol.index | <body>
<h2>N. K. Krupskaya's</h2>
<h1>Reminiscences of Lenin</h1>
<br> <br>
<hr class="section">
<br>
<p class="information">
<b>Written:</b> 1933 <br>
<b>First Published:</b> International Publishers, 1970<br>
<b>Translated:</b> Bernard Isaacs<br>
<b>Transcribed:</b> Sally Ryan 1999 <br>
<b>HTML Markup:</b> <a href="../../../../admin/volunteers/steering.htm">Sally Ryan </a>1999 <br></p>
<hr class="base">
<h3>CONTENTS</h3>
<p class="toc">
<a href="intro.htm">Introduction</a></p>
<p class="toc">
Part I. <br></p>
<p class="index">
<a href="rol01.htm">St. Petersburg</a>
<br>
<a href="rol02.htm">In Exile, 1898-1901</a>
<br>
<a href="rol03.htm">Munich, 1901-1902</a>
<br>
<a href="rol04.htm">Life in London, 1902-1903</a>
<br>
<a href="rol05.htm">Geneva, 1903</a>
<br>
<a href="rol06.htm">The Second Congress, July-August 1903</a>
<br>
<a href="rol07.htm">After the Second Congress, 1903-1904</a>
<br>
<a href="rol08.htm">The Year 1905: Life in emigration</a>
<br>
<a href="rol09.htm">Back in St. Petersburg</a>
<br>
<a href="rol10.htm">St Petersburg and Finland, 1905-07</a>
<br>
<a href="rol11.htm">Again Abroad. End of 1907</a>
</p><p class="toc">
Part II.</p>
<p class="index">
<a href="rol12.htm">Second Emigration</a>
<br>
Years of Reaction</p>
<p class="indexb">
<a href="rol13.htm">Geneva, 1908</a>
<br>
<a href="rol14.htm">Paris, 1909-1910</a></p>
<p class="index-list">
The Years of New Revolutionary Upsurge, 1911-1914</p>
<p class="indexb">
<a href="rol15.htm">Paris, 1911-1912</a>
<br>
<a href="rol16.htm">Early 1912</a>
<br>
<a href="rol17.htm">Cracow, 1912-14</a></p>
<p class="index-list">
The Years of The War</p>
<p class="indexb">
<a href="rol18.htm">Cracow, 1914</a>
<br>
<a href="rol19.htm">Berne, 1914-1915</a>
<br>
<a href="rol20.htm">Zurich, 1916</a>
<br>
<a href="rol21.htm">Last Months in Emigration...</a></p>
<p class="index">
<a href="rol22.htm">In Petrograd</a>
<br>
<a href="rol23.htm">Underground Again</a>
<br>
<a href="rol24.htm">On the Eve of the Uprising</a></p>
<p class="toc">
Part III. </p>
<p class="index">
<a href="rol25.htm">Preface to Part III</a>
<br>
<a href="rol26.htm">The October Days</a>
<br>
<a href="rol27.htm">From the October Revolution to the Peace of Brest</a>
<br>
<a href="rol28.htm">Ilyich Moves to Moscow, His First Months of Work in Moscow</a>
<br>
<a href="rol29.htm">1919</a></p>
<br><br><br>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">
<a href="../../index.htm">Krupskaya Internet Archive</a> |
<a href="../../../../index.htm">Marxists Internet Archive</a>
</p></body> |
N. K. Krupskaya's
Reminiscences of Lenin
Written: 1933
First Published: International Publishers, 1970
Translated: Bernard Isaacs
Transcribed: Sally Ryan 1999
HTML Markup: Sally Ryan 1999
CONTENTS
Introduction
Part I.
St. Petersburg
In Exile, 1898-1901
Munich, 1901-1902
Life in London, 1902-1903
Geneva, 1903
The Second Congress, July-August 1903
After the Second Congress, 1903-1904
The Year 1905: Life in emigration
Back in St. Petersburg
St Petersburg and Finland, 1905-07
Again Abroad. End of 1907
Part II.
Second Emigration
Years of Reaction
Geneva, 1908
Paris, 1909-1910
The Years of New Revolutionary Upsurge, 1911-1914
Paris, 1911-1912
Early 1912
Cracow, 1912-14
The Years of The War
Cracow, 1914
Berne, 1914-1915
Zurich, 1916
Last Months in Emigration...
In Petrograd
Underground Again
On the Eve of the Uprising
Part III.
Preface to Part III
The October Days
From the October Revolution to the Peace of Brest
Ilyich Moves to Moscow, His First Months of Work in Moscow
1919
Krupskaya Internet Archive |
Marxists Internet Archive
|
./articles/Considerant-Victor/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.considerant.biography | <body>
<p class="title">Victor Considerant Archive</p>
<img src="../../glossary/people/c/pics/considerant-victor.jpg" width="300" alt="Victor Considerant" hspace="10" vspace="10" align="left" border="1">
<h3>Biography of Victor Prosper Considerant<br>
<span style="font-weight: normal;">by Joan Roelofs</span></h3>
<hr class="end"><p class="information">Victor Considerant was born in Salins (Jura) in 1808, and attended the same <em>coll�ge</em> in Besan�on as had <a href="../../glossary/people/f/o.htm#fourier">Charles Fourier</a>. During these years he learned of Fourierism from two followers: Just Muiron, a local government official, and Clarisse Vigoureux, a wealthy widow, his future mother-in-law. Considerant continued his education at the <em>�cole Polytechnique</em> in Paris, where he studied engineering. Here the ideas of <a href="../../glossary/people/s/a.htm#st-simon">Henri-Claude de Saint-Simon</a> were in vogue, and Considerant became well acquainted with them. Like many of his fellow students, he joined the military engineering corps upon graduation in 1830. By then, he was already a Fourier publicist, and in 1836 he gave up his career to become Fourier’s full-time disciple and interpreter. </p>
<p class="information">Considerant followed his master in seeking harmony and class collaboration, and rejecting violence and radical equalization of property. They were both outraged at the consequences of a “free enterprise” system, which was creating poverty among rural and urban workers, constant insecurity for the middle class, and a new aristocracy of monopolists and speculators. It was not coincidental that Considerant was an engineer; those so trained were receptive to planning and formed an important core of nineteenth century French socialism.</p>
<p class="information"> Although Considerant revered science, he also had faith in human goodness and Jesus’ message of love. In contrast, Fourier’s religion had been his own version of deism: passionate attraction was God’s plan for humanity’s salvation. Understanding this, as Fourier did, “social scientists” could transform disruptive passions into harmony. Considerant suggests a Christian socialist approach, one of his radical emendations of Fourier.</p>
<p class="information">Considerant continued to publish detailed expositions of Fourier’s <em>phalanstery</em>, which had been an important recruitment tool. Nevertheless, in his popular presentations, he increasingly de-emphasized all but its economic virtues. This eliminated the shocking and fantastic elements, but also much of Fourier’s brilliant social criticism. Socialism as a product of the Enlightenment aimed at all the institutions stifling human happiness and wellbeing, including war, status distinctions, slavery, political oppression, organized religion, marriage, and fashion, in addition to irrational and oppressive economic systems. Much of Fourier’s <em>oeuvre</em> parodies these institutions; hardly any of this remains in the sober Considerant. Perhaps the most striking omission was his evisceration of Fourier’s radical feminism. Considerant did support women’s suffrage, yet his heart does not seem to have been in it.</p>
<p class="information">The strange twist that gave Fourierism its opportunity was that in the 1820s some self-proclaimed leaders of the originally technocratic Saint-Simonian movement adopted cultish and bizarre practices and notions, such as a search for a female Messiah. Saint-Simonianism had a large following by 1831 (approximately 40,000) when massive defections to Fourierism began, especially among the engineers and other practically minded adherents. However, some of the potential philanthropists saw the <em>phalanstery</em> merely as a practical plan for the amelioration of poverty and unemployment. They envisioned it as a model farm or an agricultural colony to provide employment and subsistence rather than a cross-class experiment in utopia. </p>
<p class="information">The transformation of Fourierism was also abetted by technological changes. Just as Ebenezer Howard’s late 19th century charming and rational Garden City schemes were ultimately derailed by the private automobile, the thrill of railroads in the 1840s sidetracked the anarchic <em>phalanstery</em> in favor of national planning bureaucracies. </p>
<p class="information">During the 1830s and 1840s, under Considerant’s leadership, the �cole soci�taire, the official Fourierist society, had branches throughout in Europe and the United States. An “American Union of Associationists” was formed, with local and regional groups, and had more than 100,000 followers. Fourierism also became an important ideology among radical intellectuals in Russia. </p>
<p class="information">Fourierism was a “cross-class” solution to the economic chaos and distress, promising also to realize democracy by uniting rich, middle, and poor. It was attractive to recruits from freemasonry, which had similar goals. Many women became supporters; they were often highly educated, but lacked status in French society. Considerant himself had been recruited by his future mother-in-law, Clarisse Vigoureux. </p>
<p class="information">Considerant lectured, wrote, and edited publications; popularizations of Fourier’s ideas sold well, even among working class readers. However, he showed little enthusiasm for creating a trial <em>phalanstery</em>, although other Fourierists attempted this in France (1832 and 1841) and Algeria (1845), without much success. The United States was a more fertile ground, and scores of experiments in Fourierism ensued, stimulated especially by Albert Brisbane’s expositions in <em>The Social Destiny of Man, or Association and Reorganization of Industry </em>(Philadelphia, 1840), pamphlets, and a purchased front-page daily column in the <em>New York Tribune</em> (1842-1843). Brisbane had absorbed and transmitted the milder version of Fourierism from correspondence and visits to Considerant. \</p>
<p class="information">By the mid-1830s, Considerant began to regard working class movements and electoral politics as the paths to reform. His journalism and practical activities were moving in this new direction; nevertheless, he continued to work on his massive exposition of Fourier doctrine: <em>Destin�e sociale</em>, published in three volumes between 1834 and 1844. In 1843 he was elected to the Parisian local government council, and in the same year he transformed the Fourierist journal, <em>La Phalange</em>, into a new daily newspaper, <em>La D�mocratie pacifique</em>. It was designed as an organ for a political socialist movement, shorn of all Fourierist peculiarities. Considerant wrote his <em>Manifeste</em> for the 1843 introductory issue of the newspaper; it was reprinted as a pamphlet in 1847.</p>
<p class="information"><em>La D�mocratie pacifique</em> was a general newspaper, with advertisements, theater listings, crime reports, and much commentary on current news; its circulation reached 2,200. At that time, such newspapers were a new development, and their survival depended on donations from enthusiasts. It still championed the idea of “association,” yet the <em>phalanstery</em> as the road to socialism was soft-pedaled in favor of broad “New Deal-like” state action, including guarantees of the right to work, public works projects, and central economic planning. Even the term <em>phalanstery</em> was omitted in favor of “<em>commune</em>,” meaning “town” (without any of the later hippie connotations). </p>
<p class="information">The 1848 Revolution gave Considerant great hope that his theories might be realized; he contested and won a seat in the National Assembly. He then served on committees devoted to the unemployment crisis, yet he had no success in either advancing reformist goals or spreading the Fourierist word. Considerant’s experience led him to advocate direct democracy, such as legislation by referendum rather than representative assemblies. His continued condemnation of the communist tendency, for both its methods and goals, kept him apart from the working class. </p>
<p class="information"> Considerant played a major role in an 1849 protest action against the government’s plan to engineer a regime change for the Roman Republic. The insurrection was put down, some violence ensued, and he was forced to flee, becoming an exile in Belgium where he spent much time fishing. There he decided that it might be a propitious time for a trial <em>phalanstery</em>. Brisbane had met with him and invited him to the United States. Considerant accepted the offer, and began his tour with visits to the North American Phalanx and Oneida communities.</p>
<p class="information"> In 1852 he arrived in Texas, and in 1855 Considerant bought land near Dallas, intending to create a colony that would host various communal experiments, not only Fourierist ones. The preparation had been inadequate, and the environment hostile both physically and politically. Nevertheless, colonists began arriving from France, including children, elderly, and inappropriately skilled. Considerant was inept as an administrator, despite his military engineering education, and the colony, called R�union, disintegrated amidst acrimony and lack of hominy (malnutrition). His wife and mother-in-law might have been more effective managers, but they were sidelined; he did not seem to share the Fourierist appreciation for the genius of women.</p>
<p class="information">In 1857, Considerant moved to San Antonio, where he farmed, collected cacti, and sat out the Civil War. Upon his return to France in 1869, he was still celebrated by the surviving Fourierists. By then he had been influenced by Social Darwinism, and advocated a federated Europe, in concert with the United States, to serve as a benevolent world government. He joined the <a href="../../history/international/iwma/index.htm">First International</a>, and took part in the 1871 <a href="../../history/france/paris-commune/index.htm">Paris Commune</a>. He kept his faith in socialism and pacifism, and died in 1893.</p>
<p class="information">(For more information, off-site: Jonathan Beecher, <em>Victor Considerant and the Rise and Fall of French Romantic Socialism</em>, University of California Press, 2001).</p>
<p class="skip"> </p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">
<a href="index.htm"> Victor Considerant Archive</a>
</p>
</body> |
Victor Considerant Archive
Biography of Victor Prosper Considerant
by Joan Roelofs
Victor Considerant was born in Salins (Jura) in 1808, and attended the same coll�ge in Besan�on as had Charles Fourier. During these years he learned of Fourierism from two followers: Just Muiron, a local government official, and Clarisse Vigoureux, a wealthy widow, his future mother-in-law. Considerant continued his education at the �cole Polytechnique in Paris, where he studied engineering. Here the ideas of Henri-Claude de Saint-Simon were in vogue, and Considerant became well acquainted with them. Like many of his fellow students, he joined the military engineering corps upon graduation in 1830. By then, he was already a Fourier publicist, and in 1836 he gave up his career to become Fourier’s full-time disciple and interpreter.
Considerant followed his master in seeking harmony and class collaboration, and rejecting violence and radical equalization of property. They were both outraged at the consequences of a “free enterprise” system, which was creating poverty among rural and urban workers, constant insecurity for the middle class, and a new aristocracy of monopolists and speculators. It was not coincidental that Considerant was an engineer; those so trained were receptive to planning and formed an important core of nineteenth century French socialism.
Although Considerant revered science, he also had faith in human goodness and Jesus’ message of love. In contrast, Fourier’s religion had been his own version of deism: passionate attraction was God’s plan for humanity’s salvation. Understanding this, as Fourier did, “social scientists” could transform disruptive passions into harmony. Considerant suggests a Christian socialist approach, one of his radical emendations of Fourier.
Considerant continued to publish detailed expositions of Fourier’s phalanstery, which had been an important recruitment tool. Nevertheless, in his popular presentations, he increasingly de-emphasized all but its economic virtues. This eliminated the shocking and fantastic elements, but also much of Fourier’s brilliant social criticism. Socialism as a product of the Enlightenment aimed at all the institutions stifling human happiness and wellbeing, including war, status distinctions, slavery, political oppression, organized religion, marriage, and fashion, in addition to irrational and oppressive economic systems. Much of Fourier’s oeuvre parodies these institutions; hardly any of this remains in the sober Considerant. Perhaps the most striking omission was his evisceration of Fourier’s radical feminism. Considerant did support women’s suffrage, yet his heart does not seem to have been in it.
The strange twist that gave Fourierism its opportunity was that in the 1820s some self-proclaimed leaders of the originally technocratic Saint-Simonian movement adopted cultish and bizarre practices and notions, such as a search for a female Messiah. Saint-Simonianism had a large following by 1831 (approximately 40,000) when massive defections to Fourierism began, especially among the engineers and other practically minded adherents. However, some of the potential philanthropists saw the phalanstery merely as a practical plan for the amelioration of poverty and unemployment. They envisioned it as a model farm or an agricultural colony to provide employment and subsistence rather than a cross-class experiment in utopia.
The transformation of Fourierism was also abetted by technological changes. Just as Ebenezer Howard’s late 19th century charming and rational Garden City schemes were ultimately derailed by the private automobile, the thrill of railroads in the 1840s sidetracked the anarchic phalanstery in favor of national planning bureaucracies.
During the 1830s and 1840s, under Considerant’s leadership, the �cole soci�taire, the official Fourierist society, had branches throughout in Europe and the United States. An “American Union of Associationists” was formed, with local and regional groups, and had more than 100,000 followers. Fourierism also became an important ideology among radical intellectuals in Russia.
Fourierism was a “cross-class” solution to the economic chaos and distress, promising also to realize democracy by uniting rich, middle, and poor. It was attractive to recruits from freemasonry, which had similar goals. Many women became supporters; they were often highly educated, but lacked status in French society. Considerant himself had been recruited by his future mother-in-law, Clarisse Vigoureux.
Considerant lectured, wrote, and edited publications; popularizations of Fourier’s ideas sold well, even among working class readers. However, he showed little enthusiasm for creating a trial phalanstery, although other Fourierists attempted this in France (1832 and 1841) and Algeria (1845), without much success. The United States was a more fertile ground, and scores of experiments in Fourierism ensued, stimulated especially by Albert Brisbane’s expositions in The Social Destiny of Man, or Association and Reorganization of Industry (Philadelphia, 1840), pamphlets, and a purchased front-page daily column in the New York Tribune (1842-1843). Brisbane had absorbed and transmitted the milder version of Fourierism from correspondence and visits to Considerant. \
By the mid-1830s, Considerant began to regard working class movements and electoral politics as the paths to reform. His journalism and practical activities were moving in this new direction; nevertheless, he continued to work on his massive exposition of Fourier doctrine: Destin�e sociale, published in three volumes between 1834 and 1844. In 1843 he was elected to the Parisian local government council, and in the same year he transformed the Fourierist journal, La Phalange, into a new daily newspaper, La D�mocratie pacifique. It was designed as an organ for a political socialist movement, shorn of all Fourierist peculiarities. Considerant wrote his Manifeste for the 1843 introductory issue of the newspaper; it was reprinted as a pamphlet in 1847.
La D�mocratie pacifique was a general newspaper, with advertisements, theater listings, crime reports, and much commentary on current news; its circulation reached 2,200. At that time, such newspapers were a new development, and their survival depended on donations from enthusiasts. It still championed the idea of “association,” yet the phalanstery as the road to socialism was soft-pedaled in favor of broad “New Deal-like” state action, including guarantees of the right to work, public works projects, and central economic planning. Even the term phalanstery was omitted in favor of “commune,” meaning “town” (without any of the later hippie connotations).
The 1848 Revolution gave Considerant great hope that his theories might be realized; he contested and won a seat in the National Assembly. He then served on committees devoted to the unemployment crisis, yet he had no success in either advancing reformist goals or spreading the Fourierist word. Considerant’s experience led him to advocate direct democracy, such as legislation by referendum rather than representative assemblies. His continued condemnation of the communist tendency, for both its methods and goals, kept him apart from the working class.
Considerant played a major role in an 1849 protest action against the government’s plan to engineer a regime change for the Roman Republic. The insurrection was put down, some violence ensued, and he was forced to flee, becoming an exile in Belgium where he spent much time fishing. There he decided that it might be a propitious time for a trial phalanstery. Brisbane had met with him and invited him to the United States. Considerant accepted the offer, and began his tour with visits to the North American Phalanx and Oneida communities.
In 1852 he arrived in Texas, and in 1855 Considerant bought land near Dallas, intending to create a colony that would host various communal experiments, not only Fourierist ones. The preparation had been inadequate, and the environment hostile both physically and politically. Nevertheless, colonists began arriving from France, including children, elderly, and inappropriately skilled. Considerant was inept as an administrator, despite his military engineering education, and the colony, called R�union, disintegrated amidst acrimony and lack of hominy (malnutrition). His wife and mother-in-law might have been more effective managers, but they were sidelined; he did not seem to share the Fourierist appreciation for the genius of women.
In 1857, Considerant moved to San Antonio, where he farmed, collected cacti, and sat out the Civil War. Upon his return to France in 1869, he was still celebrated by the surviving Fourierists. By then he had been influenced by Social Darwinism, and advocated a federated Europe, in concert with the United States, to serve as a benevolent world government. He joined the First International, and took part in the 1871 Paris Commune. He kept his faith in socialism and pacifism, and died in 1893.
(For more information, off-site: Jonathan Beecher, Victor Considerant and the Rise and Fall of French Romantic Socialism, University of California Press, 2001).
Victor Considerant Archive
|
./articles/Considerant-Victor/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.considerant.manifesto.index | <body>
<p class="title"> Victor Considerant 1847</p>
<a href="front-cover.jpg"><img src="front-cover.jpg" width="300" border="1" hspace="6" vspace="6" alt="Back cover of book" align="right"></a>
<h1>Manifesto of Democracy</h1>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information"><span class="info">Original</span>: “Principles of Socialism. Manifesto of 19th century democracy,” by Victor Considerant, Graduate of the �cole Polytechnique, member of the Conseil G�n�ral de la Seine, followed by “Peaceful Democracy on Trial.”<br>
<span class="info">Source</span>: “Principles of Socialism. Manifesto of 19th century democracy,” by Victor Considerant, translated by Joan Roelofs, Washington Studies in World Intellectual History, published by Maisonneuve Press, 2006.<br>
<span class="info">First Published</span>: Paris 1847, reprinted by Otto Zeller, Osnabr�ck, 1978.<br>
<span class="info">Translated</span>: for Marxists.org by Joan Roelofs.</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="index"><a href="introduction.htm">Introduction by Joan Roelofs</a></p>
<p class="index"><a href="ch01.htm">Part One. The State of Society</a></p>
<p class="indentb">
I. <a href="ch01.htm#s1">Of the interests and needs of society.</a><br>
II. <a href="ch01.htm#s2">The Two Solutions to the Social Problem</a></p>
<p class="index"><a href="ch02.htm">Part Two. The State of Opinion</a></p>
<p class="indentb">
I. <a href="ch02.htm#s1">STUDY OF THE GREAT DIVISIONS OF MODERN DEMOCRACY</a></p>
<p class="indentc">
<a href="ch02.htm#a">Immobilist Democracy, or the Standpat-conservative party.</a><br>
<a href="ch02.htm#b">Retrograde Democracy or the revolutionary party.</a><br>
<a href="ch02.htm#c">Progressive Democracy, or the Party of Peaceful Reorganization.</a><br>
</p><p class="indentb">
II. <a href="ch02.htm#s2">DOCTRINES OF THE JOURNAL <em>PEACFUL DEMOCRACY</em></a>.</p>
<p class="indentc">
<a href="ch02.htm#d">General idea of human Destiny.</a><br>
<a href="ch02.htm#e">Fraternity and Unity</a><br>
<a href="ch02.htm#f">Religious Unity; – Free Inquiry.</a><br>
<a href="ch02.htm#g">Social Unity; – The Right to Work.</a><br>
<a href="ch02.htm#h"><em>Peaceful Democracy,</em> Journal of Governments’ and Peoples’ Interests.</a><br>
<a href="ch02.htm#i">Pwaceful Democracy is Monarchical</a><br>
<a href="ch02.htm#j">Political Unity; – Election</a><br>
</p><p class="indentb">
<a href="ch02.htm#s3">Conclusion.</a></p>
<p class="skip"> </p>
<p class="indentb">
<a href="notes.htm">Notes.</a><br>
<a href="acknowledgements.htm">Acknowledgements.</a></p>
<p class="skip"> </p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">
<a href="../../index.htm">Considerant Archive</a>
</p>
</body> |
Victor Considerant 1847
Manifesto of Democracy
Original: “Principles of Socialism. Manifesto of 19th century democracy,” by Victor Considerant, Graduate of the �cole Polytechnique, member of the Conseil G�n�ral de la Seine, followed by “Peaceful Democracy on Trial.”
Source: “Principles of Socialism. Manifesto of 19th century democracy,” by Victor Considerant, translated by Joan Roelofs, Washington Studies in World Intellectual History, published by Maisonneuve Press, 2006.
First Published: Paris 1847, reprinted by Otto Zeller, Osnabr�ck, 1978.
Translated: for Marxists.org by Joan Roelofs.
Introduction by Joan Roelofs
Part One. The State of Society
I. Of the interests and needs of society.
II. The Two Solutions to the Social Problem
Part Two. The State of Opinion
I. STUDY OF THE GREAT DIVISIONS OF MODERN DEMOCRACY
Immobilist Democracy, or the Standpat-conservative party.
Retrograde Democracy or the revolutionary party.
Progressive Democracy, or the Party of Peaceful Reorganization.
II. DOCTRINES OF THE JOURNAL PEACFUL DEMOCRACY.
General idea of human Destiny.
Fraternity and Unity
Religious Unity; – Free Inquiry.
Social Unity; – The Right to Work.
Peaceful Democracy, Journal of Governments’ and Peoples’ Interests.
Pwaceful Democracy is Monarchical
Political Unity; – Election
Conclusion.
Notes.
Acknowledgements.
Considerant Archive
|
./articles/Considerant-Victor/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.considerant.manifesto.ch02 | <body>
<p class="title"> Victor Considerant 1847</p>
<h1>Manifesto of Democracy</h1>
<hr class="end">
<h2>Part Two<br>
The State of Opinion</h2>
<h3><a name="s1">I. – STUDY OF THE GREAT DIVISIONS OF MODERN DEMOCRACY</a></h3>
<h5>� I.<br>
Universality of the democratic spirit in France; the Legitimist Party democratizes.</h5>
<p>THE CURRENT SITUATION, the critical needs of our time, the problems to resolve, and the peaceful organizational principle of their solution being known, it will be easy for us to describe the current temper, to show the nature and importance of the various shades of democratic opinion, and to determine the place of the trend that we represent.</p>
<p>Let us first and foremost take note of a fact: it is that our era, as our constitution, is democratic. In other words, that the language of <em>Democracy</em> is today destined to represent the passions, the principles, and the rights now universally accepted <em>in theory</em>, for which our fathers triumphantly endured the horrors of the first Revolution.</p>
<p>For some time, ever since tumultuous urban riots have ceased, the most brutal manifestations of the revolutionaries have been quelled, and the calm has allowed us to resume the serious study of ideas, the word “Democracy” has recovered the great, universal, and comprehensive significance that it is destined to have as the basic idea of the century.</p>
<p>The anti-democratic doctrine of the inequality of birth, the dogma of legal privileges, and the spirit of the <em>Ancien R�gime </em>have now disappeared. The Legitimist Party itself, nowadays, professes – sincerely, we believe – liberal and democratic principles. <sup class="enote"><a href="notes.htm#n300">[3]</a></sup> It rejects and condemns all the abuses and privileges of the <em>Ancien R�gime.</em> A <em>Memorandum</em> published by the party’s executive committee formally proclaimed these principles. And if the royalist Press doesn’t entirely support this <em>Memorandum, </em>it isn’t because it is too saturated with the liberal ideas of our century, endorsing universal rights, representative government, and equality of citizens within the Nation; and celebrating the demise of feudal and divine right. On the contrary, certain party spokesmen have strongly censured the <em>Memorandum</em> because they find it not democratic enough. The parties most attached to the past are futile; they are always of their epoch, and the great current of modern ideas carries them along despite themselves. If Henry V could return to the Tuileries, we would not need to fear for citizens’ rights, public liberties, or representative government, which his government would further enlarge in responsibilities rather than try to restrain. </p>
<p>The heirs of the old feudal party of the Aristocratic nobility today accept the democratic spirit. That recognized, we are going to show that the great modern, democratic party, in its entirety, is divided into three factions, forming a regular series. Its three branches can be classified according to the following nomenclature:</p>
<p class="indentb">Retrograde democracy, – revolutionary opinion;<br>
Immobilist democracy, – doctrinaire opinion;<br>
Progressive democracy, – peaceful and organizational opinion.</p>
<h5>� II.<br>
<em>Political</em> questions and <em>social</em> questions.</h5>
<p>BUT first let us proceed to a definition of the meaning we must give to these two terms: <em>political</em> issues and <em>social</em> issues. If we didn’t focus on this matter it would be impossible to understand anything about the current trends in the public mind, the changing composition of Opinion, and above all, the problems that are now crying out for solutions and that already deeply disturb contemporary intellectuals.</p>
<p>In a very broad and general sense, the word <em>Political</em> designates the regulation of all aspects in the life of Societies. On its side, the term social is more readily given this broad meaning. But according to the narrow sense in which these terms are used, the word <em>politics</em>, in the language of contemporary journalists, means nothing more than the facts about the relationship of people to government, and governments among themselves. The nature, institutions, constitution, and composition of Power; and its system and behavior; comprise the content of political questions.</p>
<p>Worn-out discussions and theories, and the new intrigues that these continue to stir up among the old parties, constitute the domain of what is called the <em>Old Politics</em>.</p>
<p><em>Social </em>questions, when contrasted with political questions, include especially information about the status, nature, and economy of Society; the relations among the classes; the institutions of property and industry; and the progress of welfare, positive liberty, enlightenment, intellect, morality, and public virtue. In a word, the general relationships among people and among nations, independently of transitory institutions, and the current leadership and politics of their various governments.</p>
<h5>� III.<br>
Triumph of the democratic principle in the political order. Collapse of the old politics.</h5>
<p>NOW it is the case that since 1789 the work of the modern spirit has been applied nearly exclusively to the narrow political arena. In the economic and social orders, as we have already shown, the Revolution has acted only negatively and abstractly. It has overthrown the masterships, guild wardens, privileged corporations, and the feudal property system; it has gotten rid of the nobility and the clergy; but it hasn’t created any new institutions. It has left individuals and classes at the hazard of the universal struggle inaugurated by this overthrow. It hasn’t created any system to protect the rights of the weak. The entire social and economic realm, which is increasingly ravaged by misery, corruption, fraud, vice, and crime, has been ceded to anarchy and domination by the strong.</p>
<p>But while the social question was totally ignored, all efforts were focused on political issues. Constitutional forms and day-to-day government activities totally occupied the leading minds. In this arena they didn’t stop at destroying the old administrative system and governmental constitution; they created a centralized Administration and a governmental System based on election. Both those institutions support the democratic principle.</p>
<p>The political order has thus been revitalized; its basis and institutions have been harmonized with the modern spirit. Equality before the law, administrative unity, and the electoral system for national representation completed, there is no longer major reform, or consequently, any great revolution to make or to fear on the political terrain. Because these achievements have given the democratic principle the high ground, and the democratic right has been established, the only issue from now on is to <em>regulate, develop</em>, and <em>progressively enlarge the exercise of this right</em>, in order to harmonize its enjoyment with developments in social progress. However, these developments must necessarily follow the principle, and are therefore no longer perhaps important, but secondary matters. </p>
<p>It is because the political question is now resolved in its great principles and its major proposals that it has become of secondary importance; henceforth, the economic, industrial, and social questions take the first rank. That is why the political parties are in conflict. That is why the efforts of the old spokesmen of the old parties to revive the old disputes which have been kept alive for too long are and will be futile insofar as they do not expand the scope of their reforms. That is why the political volcano, which previously spewed torrents of fire and burning lava, now, like the dead Icelandic craters, heaves up only torrents of lukewarm, fetid, mud.</p>
<h5>� IV.<br>
Torpor and corruption on the political terrain</h5>
<p>THE old politics is dying, now dead. The old spokesmen of the Press persist, through ignorance, routine, and pride, in preaching only a worn-out faith, a deceased cult: hollow formula that no longer say anything to the Nation. With the stubborn blindness of the formerly powerful, they refuse to recognize the advent of social Ideas or to invigorate the public mind with the great principles of justice, liberty, and humanity, although the realization of these principles is the task of our century. For their part, the masses, who can be stirred up only by intense ideas, can no longer interest themselves in the miserable intrigues and shabby deals of parliamentary strategy that are offered as the only nourishment for their collective noble instincts of patriotism and sociability. Disenchantment, boredom, and disgust are at their peak in this political arena, where there was still a vigorous and unified resistance during the fifteen years of the Restoration. The public mood is falling into a somnolence, helplessness, and torpor which smoothes the way for the domination of wealth and the invasion of corruption.</p>
<h5>� V.<br>
Transition on the social terrain and reawakening of the public spirit.</h5>
<p>MEANWHILE, while the drying wind of egoism and skepticism sweeps the sterile devastated fields that Humanity has deserted because it no longer has any great harvests to collect there, the field of social ideas, worked quietly by toilers long obscure, is sown and covered with vegetation. It has become the meeting ground, daily more frequented and lively, of the strong minds, the ardent hearts, the new generations, of all those, in a word, who feel love of humanity throbbing in their breast and sense that the people’s destiny is on the march to a glorious future.</p>
<p>Thus our age witnesses the extinction of a former cult, of an idea past its time that has exhausted its formula and has long since ceded its important substance. It witnesses the end – the miserable end – of a political movement that has delivered its fruits, experienced its glories and triumphs, and consumed several great generations, but whose prime mission has at least been accomplished. Yet, since Humanity won’t be bogged down by corruption, or halt its onward progress, our age also witnesses the birth of a new faith, the first dawning of the universal social Idea, whose beneficial rays will revive all the exalted and religious sentiments of the human soul and will soon shine upon the most beautiful, bountiful, and holy scenes in the world.</p>
<p>Aspects of this magnificent renewal, this glorious renaissance of Humanity, have been foreseen or predicted with great authority by all the superior geniuses of our century, and from very different viewpoints, from de Maistre to Fourier – the supreme Genius of Humanity in modern times. In the enormous solitude of his last years on the rock of Saint-Helena, the Prometheus of our age, the last representative of the genius of war, Napoleon, meditating on the future of nations pronounced the Destiny of modern Democracy to be a federation of European nations and its inevitable result, the definitive establishment of a harmonious World Unity.</p>
<p>But who are de Maistre, Fourier, Napoleon and other minds of this calibre compared to those clever politicians who each evening draft newspaper articles that the country hardly reads and the great Statesmen whose demagoguery paints France as prosperous and glorious!</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the social ignorance of these Political old Romans hasn’t prevented new ideas from developing and spreading, and if one wishes decisive evidence from the parliamentary arena itself, note this: Many deputies avow to each other that they are at <em>the end of their political tether</em> – these are their terms – and that they cannot proceed any further until they finally confront the social questions.</p>
<h5>� VI.<br>
The old political parties are today <em>immobilist</em> or <em>retrograde</em>.</h5>
<p>Reason, along with factual evidence of trends in current thought, indicates that intellectual activity is moving from the old constitutional politics to the economic constitution of Labor and social Relations. </p>
<p>Yet there are men, newspapers, and parties stubbornly clinging to the politico-parliamentary quarrels, who have no concern for universal needs, the progress of fundamental rights or the broad interests of Humanity in our time. They are occupied with various schemes of electoral reform, changes in the censorship laws, definitions of crime, modifications of jury selection, and other paltry matters of the sacramental articles and ridiculous programs of our parliamentary cliques. Rather than welcoming and studying the social questions that are becoming more pressing each day, they thrust them aside, try to hide them, or simply avoid dealing with them. These men, newspapers and parties are today the RETROGRADE or IMMOBILIST men, newspapers and parties. Although they may throw around the fine words of <em>Liberty, Progress, Rights of the People, national Sovereignty</em>, etc., and use them to lard up all their speeches and spice up all their articles, it is the direction of the ideas that determines the character of opinions. Those of whom we speak, in spite of their fine words no longer have any vital ideas and are obstacles to genuine social progress.<sup class="enote"><a href="notes.htm#n3">[3]</a></sup></p>
<p>With these assumptions, we will now move on to review the principal categories of the modern spirit or the broader democratic party, which in France includes the entire society.</p>
<h4><a name="a">Immobilist Democracy, or the Standpat-conservative party.</a></h4>
<h5>� VII.<br>
The doctrinaire school or systematic immobilism</h5>
<p>The Standpat-Conservative party has held Power in France since the July Revolution.</p>
<p>This party has fought for the democratic principle; it has worked to insert it into the constitution and to preserve equality before the law. Even today, it gives theoretical support to the modern democratic spirit.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the new constitution is only a transition between the old aristocratic Society of rights based solely on birth and the democratic institutions of the future. However, merely by blessing the principle of equality under law, this party has gained political power and social control and has decided that the principle has accomplished its work. Liberals, after fifteen years in the Opposition, are ministers; it is unreasonable to ask for anything more.</p>
<p>Despite their ritual language, and their reluctance to be seen as repudiating the heritage and principles of 1789, the current Power holders leave the urgent work of the present day to the indefinite future. This theoretical concession on their part is only trickery masking their egoism.</p>
<p>The doctrinaire School has been the pivot of this Standpat party, formed by a faction of old liberalism’s leaders, to which are joined prosperous former revolutionaries, some notables of the upper bourgeoisie and the bank, and all the wealthy dolts who always hear 1793 when Progress is mentioned. These people have found it perfectly reasonable to arm the people against the former Nobility and then to profit from the masses’ victories by monopolizing all the social positions previously reserved for those privileged by birth, and they denounce as revolutionary and anarchic any idea suggesting a change in the <em>status quo</em>!</p>
<p>The working classes and most of the Bourgeoisie are supposed to be satisfied with having changed masters and substituted a bourgeois moneyed Aristocracy for the noble Aristocracy. Let us listen to the high priest of the doctrine. In one of those moments of ministerial leisure that occasionally occurs amidst the dissensions of the Chamber, M. Guizot wrote:</p>
<p class="indentb">“Today, thanks to /<em>the victory of the good cause</em>/ and to God who has given it to us, <em>situations and interests have changed. There is no more war between the upper and lower class, no more reason to raise the banner of the masses against the elite</em>/. ... Not that there isn’t/<em>much more to do, much more than the most ambitious believe, to improve the social and material conditions of the vast majority, BUT the relation between the low and the high, the poor and the rich</em>, <em>is now regulated with justice and liberality. Each has his rights, his place, his future</em>.” (Guizot, <em>On Modern Democracy</em>).</p>
<p>And in another writing (<em>The State of Souls</em>):</p>
<p class="indentb">“Is it to be dismissed, this very liberty, today the most extensive and secure that mankind has ever known? Is it to be scorned, this general advancement of justice and wellbeing? Are they not recompense <em>appropriate</em> for the work and suffering of our time? Isn’t there now, after so many mistakes, enough <em>to please the most exacting and to refresh the weariest?</em>”</p>
<p>Yes, thanks to the victory of the people, some positions have changed: yours, for example, and those of your friends. But the people, the masses’ needs and interests, tell us what benefit victory has brought them? Each, you say, has his rights, his place, his future. What you don’t want to recognize is that a close study of the proletariat’s situation reveals that each, far from having <em>his rights, his place, and his future</em>, often doesn’t even have a place in the poorhouse.</p>
<p>Which is to say that these frightful affirmations lead one to believe that all the modern governments of France must have been overcome by a helpless dizziness and blindness!</p>
<h5>� VIII.<br>
Systematic immobilism as <em>provocateur</em>.</h5>
<p>Thus are misery, brutishness, material and intellectual deprivation, and political and social Serfdom of the masses bequeathed from generation to generation! Every day a parasitic currency speculator with a single sharp deal rakes in more gold than will be earned in a year by a hundred thousand workers whose labor feeds a province. Every day the large capitals, acting like engines of war, attack the small producers and the middle classes themselves. Yet, confronting this revolting spectacle of inequities and economic disasters, the Corypheus of immobilism, the leader of this blind party that triumphed over the former Aristocracy only by invoking justice and the rights of all, dares to say: <em>that each now has his rights, his place, his future!</em> <sup class="enote"><a href="notes.htm#n400">[4]</a></sup> That the reciprocal relations of the low and the high, the poor and the rich, <em>are today regulated</em> with justice and liberality!</p>
<p>This is what they are saying: The people who have spilled their blood for twenty-five years on a thousand battlefields, and who have made two Revolutions to win the rights of free people, have nothing further to ask of Society and Heaven.</p>
<p>The masses are plunged into increasing misery by continuously falling wages; bankruptcies and commercial crises constantly unsettle the economic arena; money dominates everything, buys everything, crushes everything; and statistics on crime show figures creeping up alarmingly each year. What do these miseries matter? M. Guizot and his buddies are ministers; isn’t that enough <em>to please the most exacting and to refresh the weariest</em>! </p>
<p>But, in truth, we might think that these egoistic, cold, politicians have assumed the task of driving the suffering people to despair, and pushing them to new Revolutions. To dare speak of justice and liberality, praise God! when inescapable misery weighs on 25 million people whose work produces nearly all the wealth of France! And, when we have noted that this magnificent state of things leaves more work for the future than our exalted leaders admit, you still say that the <em>status quo</em> is enough <em>to please the most exacting and to refresh the weariest</em>! </p>
<p>What is taking over here: pride, cruelty, or madness? It’s a question that we don’t have to resolve, but we can only admire and bless the wisdom and patience of the disinherited masses, confronted by their blind rulers’ outrageous provocations. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, if ideas don’t progress rapidly today, if the Bourgeoisie don’t everywhere raise up their generous voices to protest the unholy doctrines of egoism and proclaim for the lower classes the rights to Life and to Work for which they have so dearly paid; if the people, along with the Government, must despair of progress, tomorrow the civil war will be reborn, and we will have nothing more to do except ready our weapons. ...</p>
<h5>� IX.<br>
Split in the Conservative party. Formation of progressive Conservative party.</h5>
<p>But, thanks to God and to the noble sentiments of the century, the School of immobilist doctrinaires is in conflict. A major favorable development is occurring in the heart of the Conservative party. </p>
<p>There are within it two divisions that will split further apart in the future: the progressive Conservatives, and the faction that the eminent M. de Lamartine calls “Standpat.” </p>
<p>When the Conservative party constructed a dike against the revolutionary torrent, curbing the violence or maintaining the European Peace with all its strength, we said: “Honor to the conservative party.” This party has bravely performed the first part of its task, and by its success it has rendered a service to Civilization and to Humanity.</p>
<p>But if we willingly concede that the Resistance was glorious and legitimate as long as Society was in convulsions, we don’t hesitate to declare this Resistance illegitimate and absurd when Society has returned to a state of peace and order. Now the resistance is simply systematic and blind opposition to all applications of justice and liberty.</p>
<p>The number of Conservatives who share our views in this regard becomes greater every day. The split is drawn and widens more and more in the heart of the old party. The immense majority rejects the pure doctrinaire spirit, and perhaps the leader of the School himself wavers. M. Guizot, whom we have taken to task as the symbol and personification of rigid governmental tendencies, no longer has the sympathy of the Chamber. Since the period when he served as education minister, he has been supported not by his friends, but rather by the enemies of M. Thiers. In France these are all those who fear war, because of its nature and also its foolish expenditures. By virtue of this, we also accept, lacking anything better, the ministry of M. Guizot. In short, the conservative party is resigned to M. Guizot. It no longer sees him as its representative. This general repulsion for the Minister’s doctrines, despite his admirable talent and personal esteem, is a welcome symptom of Parliament’s progressive tendencies. </p>
<p>M. Thiers, the perpetual rival leader of the doctrinaire School, doesn’t share Guizot’s systematic antipathy to progress, but is equally undeserving of the progressive title. In history as in politics, M. Thiers believes in nothing, values nothing, and respects nothing except success. M. Thiers personifies only restless ambition and parliamentary intrigue. Profoundly skeptical in order to be ready for any sudden conversion, no opinion can count on him, and no party believes in him, unless it is a party of dupes. Therefore, we don’t have to be concerned about M. Thiers in our examination of contemporary opinions, since M. Thiers doesn’t represent any idea or opinion.</p>
<p>Thus, the Standpat School, or the systematic Resistance, doesn’t have such a great number of experienced politicians as we might be tempted to believe. If we except the pigs, the ambitious placeholders, and the High Barons of the bank, there will remain only the tremulous, these good people who claim that today we would be living in the best of worlds, were it not for the dissenters, the worthless fellows, and the utopians.</p>
<p>The healthy part of the conservative party goes along with progressive and organizational Democracy. It is beginning to sympathize with the suffering of the masses, and to welcome ideas that could result in an amelioration of the people’s condition without compromising rights already attained. Men of this disposition are lacking only great passion, the sacred fire of Humanity, and the Science of progress. We must excite them and educate them.</p>
<h5>� X.<br>
The split in the old conservative party’s publications.</h5>
<p>The internal movement that we have noted at the heart of the conservative party is necessarily reflected in its journals.</p>
<p>The <em>Journal of Debates</em>, trying to keep the sympathy and the clientele of both factions, has sketched in its columns a party of vast dimensions so that each may find there some politics according to his taste. If it leaves a place on the journal’s ground floor for <em>Defender</em> <em>of the poor</em>, it brings to the first floor an ardent apologist for financial Feudalism. The speculator, frightened by a vivid portrayal of the poor’s misery or by a courageous appeal to wealthy philanthropists, is quickly reassured by reading in the column above a magnificent pleading against the People for the profit of the big bank. But if, according to the Gospel, the same slave cannot serve two masters, the result of its Janus-like politics is that disputes occur everywhere – in spite of the intelligent and truly progressive articles that it sometimes contains thanks to the healthy faction among its Editors. </p>
<p><em>The Press</em>, more advanced, daring, and intelligent, and freer in its direction than the <em>Journal of Debates</em>, can easily stand for the paper of progressive conservatives. <em>The Press </em>condemns immobilism, and urges the Government to seize the initiative in social progress. It often reminds us that the Dynasty created by the July Revolution has a special mission to organize Democracy. </p>
<p>The<em> Press</em> has performed a major service for the Government by drawing a crowd of intellectuals away from the Opposition. For the benefit of the Conservative party, it has counterbalanced and mitigated the errors of the egoistic politics personified by the doctrinaire School’s leader. </p>
<p>The <em>Globe</em>, a journal founded to sustain slavery, retains its status as the Standpat-conservatives’ <em>Official Monitor</em>. The <em>Globe</em> has bravely accepted a task that it carries out with enthusiasm, but enthusiasm isn’t enough to revive a lost cause.</p>
<p>We haven’t been concerned with those journals of the systematic opposition that gravitate around a negation or a political notable with vacant opinions, or that argue endlessly about parliamentary intrigues. These journals no longer represent any Opinions; they do nothing but stir up the dust. </p>
<p>If our Society continues to experience great catastrophes, we say again, these catastrophes will be the result of the immobilist Conservatives’ continuation in power. If as we hope, it soon embarks on the contrary course of regulated, peaceful, Organizational Democracy, it will go there with the progressive Conservatives.<sup class="enote"><a href="notes.htm#n4">[4]</a></sup></p>
<h4><a name="b">Retrograde Democracy or the revolutionary party</a></h4>
<p>Retrograde, revolutionary Democracy is divided into two factions which are quite distinct, even hostile: one is <em>political</em>, the other <em>socialist</em>.</p>
<h5>� XI.<br>
The purely <em>political</em> party of retrograde Democracy.</h5>
<p>The first faction consists of those considered the extreme left, and the remnants of the republican party of 1832 and 1834. It sees itself as the heir of the Convention’s political doctrines, although it has lost – at least in its journals and its leaders – that celebrated Assembly’s tradition of grand sentiments, and it is inspired by only its worst traditions. </p>
<p>Its newspaper is the <em>National</em>, a profoundly retrograde journal, hostile to social progress, enemy of any new idea, and stubbornly condemning all those who seek to emancipate the working classes by the peaceful Organization of Labor method.</p>
<p>The Standpat-Conservatives, without having any more love for social progress than the men of the <em>National</em>, at least permit the discussion of such questions because of their devotion to liberty. The politicians of the <em>National</em> barely tolerate these discussions, pursue them with an extreme vexation, and shamefully, sometimes even try to stir up attacks against them by a Power they detest. The leaders of this party thus show how much liberty would have been allowed to the Press, to discussion, to intellectuals, and to progressive ideas, had the bad luck of France let political power to fall into their hands. </p>
<p>Overthrowing the current Government is the only goal of their pathetic efforts, the only idea of their politics. To overthrow the Government in order to seize Power; to set France at war with all the European monarchies; to create 45 million armed enemies on our Eastern and Northern borders by attempting to conquer the Rhineland provinces and Belgium; “to throw the most spirited and generous section of the proletariat onto the revolutionary battlefields” (Quote from the <em>National</em>), to remove all economic restraints: those are the major political points that these blind men offer for restoring the dignity and well being of the French people! Universal Suffrage, which they advocate boldly in its anarchic form of sudden, total introduction, is a revolutionary tool, the lever by which they hope to achieve their great plans.</p>
<p>As for their political doctrine, the philosophy of their system (if one can so speak) is the substitution of a temporary magistrate for a hereditary monarch as head of State. That is their great political and social panacea! Only if France agrees to elect its monarch every four years to be installed at the Tuileries in place of the hereditary king, a type of President named for four or five years that would be an elected and temporary office like the ex-Regent who made Spain so happy, will the era of happiness, liberty, and justice dawn! It is unbelievable that with four thousand years of history and examples of existing republican regimes under our eyes, for example, in Switzerland or throughout America, there can still be people so foolish or puerile as to base the prosperity of France on such a simple change in government structure.</p>
<p>This coterie without ideas or foresight that stubbornly refuses to consider the Organization of Labor, these men dead to progress, don’t want to look ahead. They can’t understand that war is the characteristic of barbaric times, that in humane Societies the genius of productive, abundant industry is replacing the destructive genius of conquest and revolutions, and that the regulated and equitable organization of Peace and Labor is the great issue, the supreme question of the age. This party, which has for long been leading the <em>Tribune</em> and the <em>National</em> off course, and which still includes young, generous, ardent spirits (who undoubtedly will defect sooner or later for better ideas), represents the <em>exclusively political</em> faction of revolutionary Democracy.<sup class="enote"><a href="notes.htm#n5">[5]</a></sup></p>
<h5>� XII.<br>
<em>Socialist</em> party of retrograde Democracy.</h5>
<p>The second faction, the <em>socialist</em> faction of revolutionary Democracy, which is very distinct from the purely political faction, is more advanced than the latter, in that it gives priority to social reform over governmental reform.</p>
<p>Its leaders are intense men, bold spirits outraged by injustice and inhumanity. They have been forced into extremism by the apologists for the current order.</p>
<p>These men see unfolding before their eyes the spectacle of cruel and endless economic struggles, veritable civil wars where the weak must certainly perish, the masses reduced to collective servitude through the rule of money, the large capitals crushing the small, Proletarians and Paupers increasing daily, and all nations covered with a vast shroud of corruption and misery. They see the whole product of social labor flow into the coffers of the stock-jobbers, whose parasitic industry doesn’t increase the nation’s wealth by one centime; they hear the lucky ones, the men who possess wealth, rank and power, exclaim in the face of these iniquities: “<em>In a free economy rank and fortune are the signs and rewards of work and ability</em> (or even virtue!), <em>and misery will no longer oppress any but the lazy and immoral.” </em>This tyranny of Capital and Landed Property (which has led to such odious and revolting exploitation in Ireland that the head of the Tories has just confessed in full Parliament to <em>property crimes!)</em> has filled the socialists with noble indignation. These men consider the institution of Property itself responsible for all the plagues of the current system, and all the iniquities of our perverse economic organization. Believing that it is the eternal root of despised egoism, they repeat Rousseau’s retrograde curses against the first man who, having cultivating and enclosed a field, said: “<em>This is mine</em>.” They radically deny the right to Property, defining Property as <em>theft</em>, and seek its abolition.</p>
<p>Rousseau was consistent in his retrograde doctrine, his negation of Property: he drove it straight to the most brutal Savagery. Logically, he also cursed the arts, sciences, and progress; he anathemized thought itself. He certainly knew that the concept of Property is a formal element of human individuality, and that it would be impossible to eliminate it without destroying that individuality, just as man would no longer be man if thinking, the supreme human attribute, ceased.</p>
<p>We mustn’t think of abolishing Property; its development is closely bound to the development of Humanity. It has brought man from the savage state and repeatedly given him the many benefits that his magnificent genius has created in the arts, sciences, and industry. On the contrary, we must discover and embed Property in institutions that are more perfect, secure, free, mobile, and at the same time, more <em>social</em>, by harmonizing the individual and general interest in all spheres. We must create collective property, not through promiscuity and the chaotic and barbaric <em>Egalitarian Community of Goods</em>, but rather by <em>Hierarchical Association</em>, a <em>voluntary</em> and <em>intelligent combination </em>of all individual Properties.</p>
<p>The negation of the right of Property is thus a retrograde idea. It is furthermore, insofar as it negates an enormous social and human interest, a revolutionary idea. However, we must say at the outset that the men who share this negative slogan divide themselves into two very distinct camps. On one side are the English Owenites, the French Icarians, and Communitarians of various types who reject all recourse to violence and rely only on time and persuasion for the success of their doctrines: these are the <em>purely socialist</em> Communitarians. On the other side are certain Chartists and the Babeuf-inspired Communists who are determined to make a great Revolution. They argue that the community of goods can be achieved and enforced only by martial law, and that egalitarian leveling must be maintained with an iron hand. The latter are the <em>political</em> communists.</p>
<p>The harsh attacks directed by the Saint-Simonian School against the legitimacy of inheritance have recently reawakened and fomented these anti-property doctrines, which are spreading rapidly and quietly among Society’s malcontents. Governments cannot prevent the destructiveness of these doctrines except by eliminating their causes, because they are simply extreme protests against the inhuman and odious economic regime that grinds Labor under the gigantic millstone of Capitalism. Governments and the upper classes would be wise to speedily recognize Labor’s rights, so that it will make its peace with Property. The only means, the sole healthy path, is the Association of Labor with the advantages of Capital.</p>
<p>If the egalitarians have a defective solution to the social question, at least, as we have said, they understand its paramount importance. They also strongly reject the doctrines of the political revolutionaries. Several of their leaders have fallen out with the <em>National</em>, and have indicated that they believe its Republic and universal Suffrage, as long as the masses remain uneducated and disadvantaged, are simply procedures for exploiting the People by a small Aristocracy of bourgeois and republican dictators, and nothing more.</p>
<h5>� XIII.<br>
The legitimate principles of each party.</h5>
<p>Intelligent people wouldn’t join in a completely mistaken cause. Every party has a purpose and a legitimate principle. Their flaw is their exclusivity, their negation of the other principles: they are usually sound in those principles they affirm and defend.</p>
<p>Let us review their legitimate sides by examining the various categories of democratic opinion – the modern temper – that we have just broadly sketched.</p>
<p><em>Immobilist Democracy</em> appears truly ignorant, blind, egoistic, and unjustified, by ignoring rights and interests seeking recognition and the requirements for progress. But it is legitimate in so far as it represents, in society and humanity, the principle of <em>Stability, Conservation</em>, and <em>Resistance</em> to <em>intemperate</em> movements towards false progress, those violent, revolutionary impulses of political or social Retrogrades.</p>
<p>Stability in the social realm is the first of the two conditions for the normal life of society; Progress is the second.</p>
<p>Order, however imperfect, and preservation of acquired rights and existing interests are elements of sociability equally important and sacred as the recognition and furtherance of new interests and rights.</p>
<p>When some men in Society violently attack Order or acquired rights, it is easy enough to find others pledged to the exclusive defense of these rights and to Resist all change. Usually a party that is mistaken and limited doesn’t develop in a social milieu without creating, by the law of antagonism, a mistaken and limited opposite party.</p>
<p>The Bourgeoisie, triumphant in 1830, was liberal in principles, and basically it is still strongly attached to the general ideas of modern Democracy. It was surely not philosophically hostile to liberty and progress. It was in reaction to the violence and riots of the republicans that a single-minded violent politics of Resistance developed in its ranks. It created a strong dike against the torrent.</p>
<p>The pacification of republican outbursts was soon followed by the conservative party’s transformation, and it is certain that if new revolutionary violence erupts, the immobilists would soon be reduced to a small number of blind men, deprived of all influence on Opinion and public interest trends. <sup class="enote"><a href="notes.htm#n6">[6]</a></sup></p>
<p><em>Revolutionary Democracy</em>, although illegitimate in its negative and subversive methods, is legitimate in its demands for the masses’ political rights, which the leaders of the dominant political groups <em>do not even recognize in principle</em>, and in its support for social rights to life, liberty, and progress, <em>unrecognized in principle</em> and <em>denied in practice</em> by the grim social System that the opposition party seeks to perpetuate.</p>
<p>Finally, the old royalist Party, which has long resisted the democratic trend of modern Society, nevertheless represents a legitimate element that is very important in the life of Societies: that of the historic Tradition, the inherited bond between the future and the past. This party includes the descendants of the men who gave France its current boundaries, and created its independence and nationality. This party, steeped in the laudable sentiments of national pride and martial grandeur, has held in trust the eminently noble principle of Fidelity. </p>
<p>Therefore, at the base of each party there are legitimate human and social principles for which these parties are really the guardians. It is only because of its worthwhile aspects that a party can attract members. The good elements, the justifiable positions, alone attract and engage the majority of each opinion because men are men and not demons. People go where they see the good. They can be mistaken about the means, but they never pursue evil knowingly and for its own sake. </p>
<p>We mustn’t then attack the deepest beliefs of each party and pit against each other the principles and interests enrolled under opposing banners.</p>
<p>What we must attack are the egoistic leaders and vacuous spokesmen directing and exploiting these parties, forcing them to maintain narrow, exclusive, and hostile positions in order to dominate them more easily. In summary, each party is the guardian of a principle, a great interest, or a legitimate protest. Sincere men of all opinions must not pursue the success of their party as an entity, but that of the legitimate principle at its base.</p>
<h4><a name="c">Progressive Democracy, or the Party of Peaceful Reorganization</a>.</h4>
<h5>� XIV.<br>
The good people from the old parties rally on the ground of pacific Democracy.</h5>
<p>The present situation and state of mind is characterized above all by the general abandonment of the old political battleground and the dissolution of the former parties.</p>
<p>Putting to one side the growing communist opinion, the quick overview that we have just given on contemporary opinion is now almost historic, as the extreme parties have rapidly weakened over the last ten years.</p>
<p>As we have established, the new democratic spirit was at first manifested in the political realm. Because it didn’t gain mastery without challenge, its sole concern was the struggle against the antiquated pretensions of the <em>ancien R�gime.</em> One might believe that the political arena was the only place where reforms were required in order for all to go well in the world. Great disillusionment was bound to follow such an expectation. The July Revolution was a definite victory, but a deceptive one. The political victory yields only so much; evil remains embedded in the entrails of Society and is steadily devouring it. In the protests and violent struggles that followed, the political terrain was still the arena. These struggles are ending.</p>
<p>Already, sincere, good natured, and generous men are deserting in droves from the battlefield of old quarrels; they are withdrawing from these moribund parties in which any man of worthwhile sentiments and ideas now suffocates. From the ranks of the former centrists as from those of diverse opposition parties, each day men are leaving who believe and even announce that the time for sterile discussions is past. They are saying that we must discard the old formulas, broach the economic and social issues, and work for the nation’s prosperity. We must promote Association and the brotherhood of classes by regulating and organizing Work, and the Association of nations by organizing the world for Peace. Stability and Progress, Peace, Work, Organization, preservation of acquired rights, extension and legitimation of new rights; those are the formulas which are already being heard everywhere.<sup class="enote"><a href="notes.htm#n7">[7]</a></sup></p>
<p>If the nation’s activity is dying out on the political battlefield, it is reborn on the fertile and glorious field of social labor.</p>
<p>A nation doesn’t move in one day from an old idea to a young idea, from an established creed to a new creed. Great revolutions do not occur serially except in a time of transition, indifference, skepticism, and even corruption. But Humanity comes out of these transitory crises with stronger faith, loftier hopes, and greater charity.</p>
<p>Therefore, from the debris of the old political parties there arises the generous and wise who break loose from the crowd, gradually dispel their mutual hostilities, and bring them into a higher sphere in order to reconcile the diverse principles for which they had been blindly fighting.</p>
<p>It is to these liberated men – animated by good will and noble aims – that we have the heart to speak. It is on these alluvial plains, on this well prepared fertile soil, that we must sow the seeds of the future.</p>
<p>These men, weary of the present scene, disapprove of immobilism and the economic doctrines guiding the development of modern Democracy. They are looking for a new faith. They are still talking only in terms of the general Democratic principles inherited from the revolutionary era, yet they see the need to replace mistaken policies with organic paths and methods. They have the heart for the task of our epoch; they don’t yet have its Science.</p>
<p>This state of mind is summarized in a formula today echoing from one end of France to the other: <em>Society cannot remain as it is; surely there is another way.</em></p>
<h5>� XV.<br>
Program of the progressive Democracy party. – True and false Democracy.</h5>
<p>Here are the perspectives and general theories that symbolize the common beliefs of the men who are following these new paths.</p>
<p>To them, <em>true Democracy</em> is the full recognition of the rights and interests of everyone, and their progressive, intelligent, and effective organization. It guarantees and consolidates rights already acquired, declares the legitimacy of all unrecognized rights, and seeks the acknowledgement of interests that are still aggrieved. True Democracy is for them the regulated organization of peace and labor, the development of national prosperity, and the progressive realization of order, justice, and liberty; in short, it is the liberal and hierarchic organization of families and classes in each <em>Commune</em>, the <em>Communes</em> and Provinces in the Nation, and the Association of Nations in Humanity. </p>
<p>False Democracy is the revolutionary spirit; the spirit of jealousy, hate, and war; anarchic liberty; violent and covetous equality; exclusive and dominating patriotism; and fierce, chaotic, armed, and hostile independence.</p>
<p>They understand that true Democracy unites, organizes, relates, classifies, associates, liberates, and centuples well-being and the physical, moral, and intellectual development of all people, of all classes. They seek to combine all strengths in harmony. True Democracy is the development of the fraternal spirit in Unity.</p>
<p>False Democracy divides, subverts, destroys, impoverishes, and covers the earth with ruins. It incites classes against each other and people against their governments; it increases suffering to inflame the revolutionary mentality; it provokes and maintains hatred of all Social superiority; it stirs up systematic defiance, suspicion, and revolt against all Governments; and finally, it foments massive uprisings and great revolutionary wars as the only road for the salvation of nations and Humanity. False Democracy sows anarchy and reaps despotism.</p>
<p>Progressive and organizational peaceful Democracy, and turbulent and violent revolutionary Democracy, are the two extreme cases, the two opposite expressions of the modern spirit. One of these versions includes all that is true, pure, noble, powerful, and humane in the trends of the century; the other expresses what the modern age retains of an earlier violent and barbaric spirit. The first liberates, develops, and blossoms in the sunlight of intelligence; the second, which has been only a great fleeting passion, a social rage provoked by enormous suffering, persistent evils, and profound misery, weakens, pales and diminishes each day, especially in its political expressions.</p>
<p>According to the newer, peaceful version of Democracy, the word does not mean “Government of Society by the lower classes.” It means “Government and social organization <em>in the interest of all</em>, through hierarchical participation in public office holding by eligible citizens, <em>whose numbers</em> <em>increase with the level of social development</em>.” The people isn’t a class; it is the totality; and government isn’t blind and chaotic action by incompetents; it is intelligent and unitary action by the competent – whose numbers must constantly increase through social education and governmental action.</p>
<p>Such are the general principles, the common creed, and the accepted views of this new Opinion destined to carry the peaceful and organizational banner of progressive Democracy, unless egoism, materialism, and short-sighted governments force it, out of desperation, to take up the call of revolution and war.</p>
<p>If we are asked how many men in France already share this Opinion, we will answer: Count the number of those in France who now accept the principles that we have just outlined and who would sign on to them. You will see that the number is enormous.</p>
<p>And if we are asked why this widespread Opinion doesn’t yet have a greater influence on events, we will answer: It is because it isn’t yet disciplined, and it doesn’t yet have widespread publicity and prominent Spokesmen. It is disseminated and appears in all the books, brochures, and writings of the Epoch’s intellectuals, yet it still hasn’t a loud enough voice. The old newspapers, which have been surviving on political quarrels, and which, like the old politicians, wish to forget nothing and are unable to learn anything, don’t support this great intellectual development; on the contrary, they oppose and distort it. – To initiate its first daily Newspaper, we now raise our peaceful banner.</p>
<h3><a name="s2">II. – DOCTRINES OF THE JOURNAL <em>PEACFUL DEMOCRACY</em>.</a></h3>
<p>We have described the state of Society and indicated its needs; we have described the state of Opinion and indicated its trends. We must now inform the reader who we are and what we propose.</p>
<p>What we propose the reader already knows from the preceding discussion, because it was written under the inspiration of these political and economic principles. We will summarize them shortly.</p>
<p>Who we are, we are going to tell you frankly.</p>
<h5>� I.<br>
Who we are.</h5>
<p>We toil in obscurity, inspired by a sincere love for Humanity, seeing all men as brothers, the weak and oppressed especially, but even those whom we attack most harshly for mistaken ideas or unjust power.</p>
<p>Most of us, from our earliest days, have had a natural tendency to explore social and political questions – those problems relevant to the fate of the suffering, who are, alas! all of Humanity. These studies have resulted in deep convictions, full of promise and bountiful hope. We have tried to share them with our fellow citizens, our peers, and our brothers, and spread these beliefs for the world’s benefit, through the free and wise voice of intelligence and progressive, powerful, and authoritative experience.</p>
<p>We weren’t writers or journalists; we became writers and journalists in order to propagate our convictions, giving up our careers without regret for a vocation that we believe is useful and holy.</p>
<p>At first we were regarded as innocent dreamers and utopians. We have continued our efforts. Our first successes brought on many types of attack; we haven’t been spared from accusations and unjust condemnations. We have kept going. Our convictions sustained us; the love of Humanity gave us the strength to persevere. We knew that were on the path of truth, reason, and good; we always persisted. Our first principle is that man is made for truth and goodness. We were therefore certain of gradually obtaining respect and sympathy, and winning to our views the men of good will, good nature, and honest minds – who are much more numerous than one would believe.</p>
<p>We weren’t mistaken. We say this in the sincerity of our faith because we believe it: thanks to our devotion that Humanity will one day reward with recognition, our forces grew rather rapidly.</p>
<h5>� II.<br>
Division of our Work by the increase of our forces.</h5>
<h4><a name="d">General idea of human Destiny</a>.</h4>
<p>In the modern age, the great renewals in human thought and social movements are made though books and technical writings where the new idea is advanced in a scientific, philosophic, artistic, or religious discourse as appropriate; and through newspapers where the general principles are applied to those subjects and the day-to-day concerns that catch public attention. That is how the writings of philosophers, poets, and economists of the last century and the beginning of this one, together with newspapers and the speakers’ platform, have worked to bring about today’s successful movement in the political order.</p>
<p>We have followed this natural progression. We have written various works and will continue to write them and to stimulate serious works devoted to renewal, according to the great principles of the Association of Humanity, Science, Art, and Philosophy; and to develop the social reality of Christianity, by which we mean Fraternity and Unity, the supreme goals of our doctrines.</p>
<p>At the same time we have worked to create in the world of public opinion a platform without which our efforts would be fruitless and our ideas unknown to the public. We have founded an outstanding periodical.</p>
<p>Designed to popularize the Theory and Techniques of social Science, this periodical is basically a Review, explaining to educated men in mostly Scientific terms the ideas of the great Genius whose enlightened discoveries are the basis of all our efforts, <em>Charles Fourier</em>. </p>
<p>We have a general scientific conception of the Destiny of Humanity. We believe that Humanity, impelled by the breath of God, is called to create an <em>Association</em> growing ever stronger, of individuals, families, classes, nations, and humankind, which form its elements.</p>
<p>We believe that this great Association of the human family will reach a perfect UNITY,</p>
<p>by which we mean a Social Status where Order will occur naturally and freely from the spontaneous agreement of all the human elements.</p>
<p>This theoretical view presents a general conception of universal Life, which applies to the past, the present, and the future of Societies. Thus, it includes perspectives on History, on contemporary Politics,<sup class="enote"><a href="notes.htm#n8">[8]</a></sup> and on the ultimate Organization of Societies.</p>
<p>Our periodical, by its basic objective and its character as a weekly Review, treats all three of these subjects, and most especially the last. </p>
<p>The growth of our movement has led to a simplification of our work, by dividing duties and separating the subjects. The <em>Phalange</em>, by becoming a nearly daily newspaper, must naturally be concerned with current, practical, and Socio-economic issues, and leave to books and special brochures theoretical developments related to those ultimate social institutions that we may regard as the most perfect, but are a far cry from current institutions. Besides, only current issues can attract public attention in a frequently appearing newspaper, which presents the best opportunity for instruction and initiation of new ideas.</p>
<p>This progress has impressed a movement favorable to our ideas and opinions. The <em>Phalange</em> has become more and more accessible to intellectuals who don’t know or don’t share our ultimate doctrines. The public regards it less and less as a newspaper written by utopians and designed for initiates. People who are the most biased against us have started to appreciate it and to approve of its Politics and Socio-Economics. These are simply practical applications of our general principles of Association, Organization, and Sociability, to solve current problems. Consequently, those who appreciate these solutions recognize little by little the merit of our principles and begin to look sympathetically at the whole range of applications.</p>
<h5>� III.<br>
The neutral and independent ground to which we summon all progressive thinkers.</h5>
<p>We have then, independently of our other work, developed the old <em>Phalange</em> into a ground on which all the good intellectuals, the moderately progressive thinkers, and the sincere men of different political factions, philosophies, or religious persuasions, can give us their nod, while maintaining their reservations about Theories about which they know nothing, or which they support to only a limited extent.</p>
<p>The more we bring everyone onto this ground, which will be the basis of <em>Peaceful Democracy</em>, the more quickly and surely will we further the great causes of human Sociability and ASSOCIATION, which is our ultimate goal.</p>
<p>Our task, as apostles of an idea that we believe leads to Humanity’s prosperity, health, peace, future Happiness, and liberty, is to broaden this ground as much as possible to provide easy access to those of all persuasions and especially to those still critical of our dreams for the future.</p>
<p>Now what we hear everywhere is that the public isn’t shocked or frightened by our ideas or principles, since when we apply them <em>to current issues using ordinary language</em>, they are deemed beneficial and sane. What frightens and puts people off are <em>technical terms</em>, those <em>formulas</em> that are regarded as our <em>scientific argot</em>.</p>
<p>Therefore, in the daily paper that we hope will reach many, and to move those now stuck in narrow partisan thinking about our broad ideas of Organization, universal Peace, and Association, we must strip away these technical terms and formulas, which have their place in specialized works, in scientific articles in the <em>Revue</em>,<sup class="enote"><a href="notes.htm#n9">[9]</a></sup> and even, within limits, in Miscellaneous articles in a daily paper under the rubric of a philosophic, literary, or social Study.</p>
<p>For that reason, in introducing the <em>Phalange </em>as a daily paper, thanks to the resources we have gained and the dedicated cooperation of many partisans who share our political and social views, we have selected a title that would seem less rarified and be more understandable by the public.</p>
<h5>� IV.<br>
Reasons for changing the title of the <em>Phalange</em></h5>
<p>This change had its price. Under the name <em>Phalange </em>we had attained sincere respect and esteem among even those who didn’t share all the journal’s doctrines. We had the pleasure of seeing each year bring greater recognition, testimonials from outsiders, and disinterested praise – for its spirit of truth, justice, and absolute impartiality; for the wisdom and generosity of its politics; and for the relevance of its social research.</p>
<p>But the name, drawn from our own technical terminology, confused many people. Many still believed that one must be an initiate in Phalansterian studies and doctrines in order to read and understand a journal called the <em>Phalange</em>, and that reading this journal was the equivalent of endorsing Theories that were being described in ridiculous and false terms by ignorant and malevolent journalists.</p>
<p>The name <em>Phalange</em> was particularly suitable for a journal that was primarily concerned with the institutions and organic laws of the societary system. It could be appropriately used again by a Review devoted to the specific study of these ultimate questions, but it wasn’t as suitable for what the <em>Phalange</em> had evolved into. By appearing three times a week, it was now focused on developing its principles in terms of current problems.</p>
<p>It mattered to the success of our principles and to enlarging the circle of readers for our daily paper, which must have the widest possible radius and bring <em>everyone</em> the message of Peace, Association, Humanity, and the Future, that the publication not appear to anyone, even mistakenly by a narrow interpretation of its title, as the paper of a social sect, of a tiny Church enclosed in its formulas, jargon, and private rituals.</p>
<p>For this reason we have had to choose, for a journal that we intend for everyone, a title taken from the language of everyone, in our century’s common idiom. We wished this title change to serve as a formal advertisement to the public that our newspaper is situated on a terrain accessible to those of good will and intelligence, without the need for any doctrinal preparation. All men of order and progress, friends of liberty and justice for all, will be able to join us.</p>
<p>Once the change was decided upon, we didn’t hesitate for long over the choice of the new title.</p>
<h5>� V.<br>
Reasons for choosing the title <em>Peaceful Democracy.</em></h5>
<p>Inspired by the most incontestable principles of Christianity and philosophy, the human spirit has now started its advance, <em>in the name of the rights of all</em>, to accomplish progressively the emancipation of the weak, the suffering, and the oppressed, and the Peace and Association of peoples, in order to finally establish the reign of God and his justice, proclaimed eighteen hundred years ago by Christ.</p>
<p>This great movement of the modern spirit, which every day becomes more self-conscious, can be characterized by the word <em>Democracy</em>. </p>
<p>In its universality and the peaceful, generous, and organizational meaning that it has brought, especially in recent times, to the national debate, where it is embraced by all shades of opinion and in the writings of highly respected wise and progressive journalists, this word is destined to become the watchword of our epoch, the banner of the great movement regenerating modern societies. As we believe that our principles are destined to lead this movement, it is therefore we who must carry its banner.</p>
<p>The word <em>Democracy</em> is the most profound, universal, and powerful word in current discourse, the only one that has a promising future in serious discussion. How mistaken it is to conceal its power because of its continued use by the revolutionary parties, in order to be respected by the most extreme conservative party speakers and journals. This observation is decisive.</p>
<p>The word has been and is still being interpreted by the parties in very different ways that are often mistaken and dangerous. The political and social enigma is presented to all in the same terms, but all do not know how to resolve the enigma. Thus, there appear false solutions with fatal consequences.</p>
<p>The more powerful the word in the minds of the masses the more it is destined to become, and the more supremely important it is for society that the masses not be led into its disastrous interpretations. </p>
<p>The revolutionary parties today use the word <em>Democracy</em> as a banner of revolution and war, a big stick, some against the government and political order and others against property and the foundation of social order.</p>
<p>We must take this weapon from their hands; we must spirit away this banner. The stick and the banner of war must be converted into a tool and flag of peace, organization, and work.</p>
<p>However, the attack we must make against revolutionary democracy is a purely intellectual one. God forbid that we would ever launch against any doctrines blind repression or the material weapons of Power. We must win the war of ideas. The people must judge freely between the contenders. We must demonstrate and persuade that those who are now agitating for a victory devoid of political rights are tricking and exploiting the masses, and that the true democrats are the people’s true friends who don’t incite them to revolt and war but teach them their social rights, demand their recognition, and pursue them peacefully through organization.</p>
<p>We alone today are in a position to offer this perspective and conviction to the people, because to do that, one must have an idea and sense of the people’s rights and future that is superior to that of these false friends and their political opponents.</p>
<p>In sum, it is because we feel ourselves strong that we will vigorously seize the word <em>Democracy</em>, and strip it away from those who abuse it.</p>
<p>It is a bold move, and it is also a smart move, because the peaceful and organizational interpretation that we will give loudly and clearly every day to a word that inspires all the warm and generous hearts, rallies all those who truly love the people, and excites the masses will be a great service to society. The whole society will grant us recognition for this. The advocates of freedom and emancipation, youth eager for progress, and sincerely democratic spirits who don’t confound Democracy with hatred will follow our banner. As for the Standpat-conservatives, we will force them to recognize this word as it serves the general aim of social Stability or Order, which they are unable to do.<sup class="enote"><a href="notes.htm#n10">[10]</a></sup> </p>
<p>Finally, in order to finish with our title, let us add that all the people can participate hierarchically in governing society once it has universalized well-being, developed all capacities, and associated all interests. The word, Democracy, even in its direct etymological sense meaning government of all by all, characterizes the Social State that is the most advanced that humanity can attain, and encompasses our broadest ideas. The most important function of Humanity when it attains its complete development in future Harmony will certainly be <em>self-government</em>.</p>
<p>The word suggests the issue of our time, the emancipation of the working classes, at the same time that it encompasses the broadest progress for the Future. We couldn’t have found a stronger and more appropriate title for these times. </p>
<p>In order to complete the general exposition of the political and economic doctrines of <em>Peaceful Democracy</em>, we need only summarize the principles that have inspired this work.</p>
<p>We will do this using as an outline the slogans inscribed on our journal’s banner. </p>
<h4><a name="e">FRATERNITY AND UNITY</a>.</h4>
<p style="text-align: center"><em>Vos omnes fratres estis,</em><br>
<em>Ut omnes unum sint</em></p>
<p>We have inscribed these two words in the highest rank, these two revelations of Christ, fraternity and <em>unity</em>, which are the alpha and omega of social Science, the base and summit of every great humane policy.</p>
<p>“You are all brothers, children of the same God, members of the same family.” “You must become<em> one</em> single body, <em>one</em> single soul, <em>one</em> single mind, and be <em>one</em> with God.” Every law, religion, and revelation of social policy and human Destiny is summarized in these words.</p>
<p>We have taken these words from the Gospel, because it is the Gospel that has revealed to the world the enlightenment and supreme Truths that it contains, and because we wanted to demonstrate an act of faith in these social and religious Truths that are the base and summit of Christianity itself.</p>
<p>Christianity is the great Religion of Humanity. Christianity can develop further, and it will certainly always continue to evolve. To believe that there will some day be a Religion for Humanity other than the one that has revealed its existence and its Unity in itself and in God is an illusion. <em>The individual and collective Union among men, and their individual and collective Union with God</em>: there will never be for mankind a more sublime principle, or a different one. Furthermore, this principle is Christian. Thus, from the scientific perspective of pure human reason we know that Christianity, which arose from the Creation, will become, with infinite developments compatible with its principle, the last Religion, and the sole universal Religion of Humanity.</p>
<p>Lately, people have tried to create new Religions. They believed Christianity finished, dead, and buried, and wanted to replace it so that society would not remain without Religion. The idea was well-intentioned, but it was wrong.</p>
<p>Christianity isn’t dead, far from it. The spirit of Christianity has never been more alive, widespread, and generally characteristic of intellectuals.</p>
<p>The modern political and social mentality at its best is nothing but the pure spirit of Christ. Voltaire himself, when he was denouncing the evil genius of War and Massacres with such holy and relentless anger; riddling all types of oppressors, usurpers, and bullies with penetrating sarcasm; and demanding rights for Humanity with all his moral strength – what was he but one of the most powerful apostles of Christ, imbued and overcome by the very spirit of Christ that he mocked?</p>
<p>One has seen the old oak stripped of its rusty leaves in winter; one has seen the dried branches fall; and one has thought that the venerable oak was wounded at the heart and was dying. But the yellowed leaves fall making way for the new leaves. Each season has its flowers and its fruits. The temporary and worn outgrowths fade and die; the base is eternal. Christianity, which has broken the chains of slaves, and given women and children the first step towards liberty, has as yet completed only a first draft of its task.</p>
<h4><a name="f">RELIGIOUS UNITY; – FREE INQUIRY</a>.</h4>
<p>Religious Unity encompasses all other Unities. We believe that humanity is destined to attain all the Unities: political, social, industrial, scientific, etc. But it is clear that it will not be able to achieve religious Unity, which synthesizes all the other Unities, except insofar as those are developed and actualized.</p>
<p>If there is a realm that is in essence free, it is surely that of conscience. It is therefore through freedom of conscience and free inquiry that humanity must attain religious Unity.</p>
<p>Unenlightened blind faith, which rests only on passive obedience of the mind, isn’t a religious faith; it is a coarse and brutal fetishism. Religious Truth can’t contradict other Truths or Reason, which is God’s Word implanted in mankind, the light enlightening every man present in the world. It is therefore by free inquiry, and philosophical and religious studies which aim to reconcile Religion with Science, that religious Unity will be attained.</p>
<p>Furthermore, where Unity matters the most and where it reaches its zenith is in the concept of Love for humanity and Adoration of God. It is there also that among all the truly religious men of our times Unity is actualized. Interpretation, dogmas, and the particularities of belief remain in the sphere of liberty and variety whether one observes all religions as a totality or looks at each of them individually. That is certainly true, since Catholicism, the most rigid religious communion there has ever been, leaves thousands of matters to the diverse free opinions of the faithful.</p>
<p>However, the Truth is one, and man is made for the Truth; he will arrive through research and inquiry at a religious Unity more and more complete and universal. Protestantism, guardian of the sacred principle of liberty; Catholicism, guardian of the sacrosanct principle of hierarchy and Unity; and Philosophy, which operates on the terrain of pure reason, are, according to our deepest conviction, destined to agree and unite one day. </p>
<p>PEACEFUL DEMOCRACY will devote some space to articles on these lofty questions. In the political sphere, it will resolutely uphold the principle of absolute liberty of conscience and the protection of all creeds. The current Government may be embarked, in this arena as in many others, on an illiberal and retrograde path, but fortunately, public opinion and the legislature are better disposed. This liberty has been established; we wish it to be widely and equitably guaranteed for all, and not in the manner of false liberals who seek it in order to have the right to believe in nothing. These overly permissive false liberals – in the same breath – think civil authorities should require priests to enact rituals that conflict with their ecclesiastical principles, thus putting the Sacred at the same level as public policy.</p>
<p>In the sphere of conscience, all must support liberty of conscience, and never the use of force, even if it were legitimate force.</p>
<h4><a name="g">SOCIAL UNITY; – THE RIGHT TO WORK</a>.</h4>
<p>Social unity will not be freely consented to and sustained by any population unless the social system meets the needs of all classes. The propertied classes sense the need to preserve order because they have everything to lose with disorder, and Society protects their right. Let us also do for the Right to Work, which is the only <em>Property</em> of the masses, what one does for the Right to Property of the elite; let us recognize it, guarantee it, protect it, and organize it. Only under this condition will there be a foundation laid for the National Unity of classes. </p>
<p>As for external social Unity, it must be managed through a policy of Association that sees States and Peoples as living personalities, each having its place in the sun and its right to free existence in the society of nations. In the eyes of this Policy, war is only a remnant of Barbarism, a deplorable inheritance. The increase and regularity of scientific, industrial and commercial relations among peoples; the speed and expansion in communication; and the progress of human rights and religious sensibility will insure that war will not remain much longer a feature of a civilized, learned, industrialized, and Christian Europe.</p>
<p>People are beginning to understand that they gain nothing from wars that spill blood all over the world, their COMMON FATHERLAND. The representative system is pacifist by nature; those who pay the price of war think twice before authorizing it.</p>
<p>Developments in industrial and commercial relations cannot entwine nations’ interests, as is happening rapidly today, without putting an ever stronger damper on war. In addition, Governments today appear increasingly peace loving. In the last 25 years we have seen hundreds of problems, which in former times would have led to European conflagrations, resolved by general Conferences and by diplomatic Meetings and Conventions.</p>
<p>War will not be finally eliminated until the day when the Great Powers, building on the current diplomatic practice of Conferences and Congresses, institutionalize the European Concert process by making the Congress of Powers a permanent Institution, charged with establishing international law, regulating all interstate relations, managing the association of major international or intercontinental interests, and establishing procedures for all those cases which in earlier times would have provoked wars.</p>
<p>This sovereign institution will be the creation of the nineteenth century. It already exists de facto; now it must only be legalized. It accords with both the interests and ideas of our time.</p>
<p>France has the greatest interest in putting itself in the forefront of this movement, and taking the initiative in the task of organizing world Peace. This goal is the true European mission of France, that is, its foreign Policy. Its role as a social liberator has been determined by its glorious antecedents and its noble character. France should lead the movement for the emancipation of peoples and the Destiny of Humanity. France must <em>make</em> and <em>organize</em> Peace in Europe, and not simply <em>submit</em> to it. Her momentary humiliation and weakness have no other cause than the momentary abandonment of this powerful and noble Policy.</p>
<p>PEACEFUL DEMOCRACY will represent this valiant and glorious Policy of peace, justice, and humanity, which is highly regarded in France and in all those nations where the new spirit is developing. We hope that it will quickly replace those stupid and blundering newspapers that constantly pick a quarrel with all of Europe. Their <em>Chauvinism</em> is as destructive to the foreign interests of our Nation as the <em>passive and shameful</em> Policy that currently demeans and humiliates France. These harmful publications serve only to create or sustain our neighbors’ feelings of hostility and hate against us, deriving from events of the last century that are no longer relevant, and which are the greatest reasons for our current weakness. France, with the power to do so much good for Europe, has her hands tied because of evil. If she proceeds along the peaceful and generous path of her true humanitarian Destiny she will be great and glorious among all nations. If she lets herself be led by backward thoughts and visions of conquest, or if she stagnates further into shameful inaction, she will very soon experience the fatal descent into decadence.</p>
<h4><a name="h"><em>PEACEFUL DEMOCRACY,</em></a><br>
JOURNAL OF GOVERNMENTS’ AND PEOPLES’ INTERESTS.</h4>
<p>We decidedly don’t share the systematic prejudices expressed against Governments. We certainly don’t define governments as do the Economists and Restoration-era Publicists: “<em>The ulcers that we must set upon to reduce as much as possible.” </em> We don’t believe that Governments are necessarily and <em>a priori</em> enemies of Peoples.</p>
<p>Governments make mistakes. If some elements of Society hold absurd and unjust prejudices against them, they have done much to nourish these dismal prejudices. They often err or take the wrong tack. We must monitor them and criticize them severely when they go astray. The evaluation that we have made above of the men who now have power in France clearly shows that we have no intention of shirking this duty. </p>
<p>However, we believe that the interests of Peoples and Governments are basically identical. Only misperception divides them. Let us take as an example the Monarch who arouses the most violent prejudices among us, the Czar of Russia. God forbid that we would approve of the policies of the Russian Autocrat! God forbid that we would advise France to conclude a close Alliance with Russia! But does anyone believe that in the entire Moscovy Empire there is any man who loves Russia more than the Czar does? Does anyone believe that there is a single person who feels more strongly representative of the Russian Mind, the Russian Nationality, and the Slavic Personality? Who is more devoted to the glory, the power, and the prosperity of this great People and to its destiny as he conceives it? We don’t think so.</p>
<p>Is there in all of Germany a man who more completely incarnates the desire for German unity than the King of Prussia? We wouldn’t think twice about it. Does anyone believe that Prince Metternich doesn’t act, as he perceives it, to promote the true interests and prosperity of the people he has governed for such a long time? Finally, what man of good faith, no matter how hostile he might be, would dare to imagine that if Louis-Philippe had in his hand a foolproof method to ensure the happiness of the French people, he would do anything other than open his hand and shower on the country universal wealth, the greatest liberty, and the most perfect order? What man would dare to imagine that Louis-Philippe would keep his hand closed? Louis-Philippe is merely King today, and these days the job of King is often difficult; he knows something about that. Well! under the hypothesis that we are posing, Louis-Philippe would be not only the King of the French, he would be their Idol and God. What more solid basis is there for establishing a new dynasty than the people’s adoration?</p>
<p>Generally, the Monarch is the man who is the most interested in the prosperity, glory, grandeur, and happiness of his kingdom. Does he therefore always know how to promote happiness? Unfortunately, no. But that is all the more reason to <em>enlighten</em> and <em>encourage</em> governments to progress rather than <em>overthrowing</em> them.</p>
<p>As for us, our position is not at all destructive of Governments and Kings. We are friends of the People first, and friends of governments second. That doesn’t mean we must admire all that Governments do, or for that matter all that the People might do.</p>
<p>The Constitutional form, with a hereditary Monarch and an elective Legislature seems to us more advanced, stable, and perfect than all other forms of Government; including the republican model. But we don’t insist, as does one political School, that it is impossible to have a truce or peace in Europe unless other Nations adopt our form of Government. We leave to other Nations the task of giving themselves institutions that suit them. Their independence and dignity are at stake in this matter, and Nations don’t generally look kindly upon their neighbors meddling in their internal affairs.</p>
<p>We therefore believe that we must live in peace with Monarchies and Republics, insofar as both treat us fairly and avoid seeking quarrels with us. Absolute Monarchies fear us more than we fear them. We must ourselves curb our militant and aggressive tendencies (that, of course, wasn’t meant for the current Minister), and if we wish to have our liberty and dignity respected, we must learn to have a little more respect for the liberty and dignity of others.</p>
<p>We have conquered Europe and Europe has conquered us; but we have been alone against all. The balance of military glory is still tilted in our favor. Let’s keep it at that, and not seek to restore the Empire. We no longer have an Emperor, his motives, or his excuses. Let us now try to triumph in Europe’s great intellectual, industrial and artistic campaigns. We should remain the leader of Europe, but on the constructive path of happiness, association, and liberty for the world.</p>
<p>It is because these are our beliefs and principles that we have subtitled <em>Peaceful Democracy</em> <em>journal</em> <em> of Governments’ and Peoples’ interests.</em></p>
<h4><a name="i">PEACEFUL DEMOCRACY IS MONARCHICAL</a></h4>
<p>Too much emphasis is put on governmental Reforms. That has been proven. We have had the experiments. The July Revolution put the liberal, constitutional party at the helm of the constitutional government. Did we get all that we expected? Far from it.</p>
<p>We have the most perfect form of government that yet exists. We stand by it, and we are right, but it is more because of its theoretical value than for its actual practical benefits. It is above all because we are weary, and rightfully so, of Reforms, Revolutions, and great political ventures, and we have learned to appraise their true worth.</p>
<p>We are, overall, among the great nations the one in which there is by far the greatest degree of liberty and equality. But that still applies more to our manners and spirit than to our political institutions.</p>
<p>Prussia, less free than France in several important aspects, is better governed by an absolute King than we are by our Ministers and Legislature. There is no nation that is making faster progress than Russia, pulled out of deepest barbarism in less than a hundred years by its Autocratic rulers. England, Europe’s venerable classical model of constitutionalism and political liberty, is the nation in which the masses’ situation is the sorriest. Finally, we would certainly not change our political and social status for that of the Republics of North and South America, whose inhabitants are impoverished, despite having the most fertile lands.</p>
<p>In view of these facts and our own experiences, it is inadvisable for intelligent men to give undue weight to political institutions.</p>
<p>Let us preserve what we have won; we mustn’t allow a retrenchment of those liberties for which we have dearly paid. We should progressively extend them, to improve the way our institutions work, to facilitate effective national administration, and to bring about gradually the social and economic emancipation of all those who still suffer and groan in the shadow of our political trophies. But let us be very wary of reviving revolutions and wars in order to chase after deceptive institutions and adopt some republican system.</p>
<p>It is a huge prejudice to believe that constitutional monarchy is incompatible with the democratic principle.</p>
<p>A constitutional government always follows the trend of public opinion and the truly powerful in a country. England is aristocratic in reality. Its monarchical government is merely the unitary instrument of its aristocracy. Let the ideas, manners and democratic institutions of France develop more and more, and our constitutional Monarchy will be more and more the instrument of French democratic thought.</p>
<p>Let us therefore generate ideas and create a massive public opinion. Then our constitutional mechanism, moved by a great national impulse, will soon grind the good grain that the nation entrusts to it.</p>
<p>If France had been republican in principles, manners, and traditions; if it had constituted a Republic in 1830; and if the republican form were now the operational and governmental mode of France, we would be saying: “Let us preserve our republican Government, and let it serve us to govern France well.” That is exactly what we are saying about the constitutional form that France now has.</p>
<p>Besides, not only is the Monarchy not in itself inconsistent with the democratic element. We need to remember that historically it has been under the protection of Monarchy that French democracy has increased. It was the alliance of the Commons and the Royalty against Feudalism that was the major cause of the gradual weakening and consequent final overthrow of the feudal system.</p>
<p>As we have seen, the new Feudalism is now weighing heavily on Royalty as well as on the Bourgeoisie and the People.</p>
<p>This has created a new alliance, and this time at least, victory will not be bloody and will result in the triumph of the oppressed. </p>
<h4><a name="j">POLITICAL UNITY; – ELECTION</a></h4>
<p>The unity of the people and its government is a lofty goal that politics must attain.</p>
<p>Insofar as interests are at war in Society, opinions and classes won’t be able to reach agreement. It isn’t the electoral system or universal suffrage that can bring accord and harmony out of the chaos. </p>
<p>Social Unity and the Association of different classes is therefore the condition <em>sine qua non</em> of political Unity.</p>
<p>On the question of political rights to electoral participation in National government there are two Schools diametrically opposed and equally mistaken.</p>
<p>The materialist School is led by M. Guizot and M. Thiers. The men of this school do not recognize <em>a priori</em> political rights. They don’t recognize any rights other than those the law grants. Rights for them are made in the Legislature. There is for them the <em>pays legal</em> and the rest are political non-entities. <sup class="enote"><a href="notes.htm#n500">[5]</a></sup></p>
<p>The other School consists of the <em>political ideologues</em>. Starting from the position that the rights of citizens are <em>a priori</em> equal, whatever be their status, wealth, or capacity, the men of this School want to involve everyone, immediately and equally, in governing Society.</p>
<p>One denies rights and acknowledges only positive law; the other does not take situations, appropriate means, or actuality into account, and accepts no transition or limits in the exercise of rights.</p>
<p>We say that the two Schools are equally mistaken. This is why:</p>
<p class="indentb">A man dies and leaves two young children. The children are the heirs, and property rights are vested upon the father’s death. The recognition of <em>their right</em> is not denied, but <em>the enjoyment,</em> <em>the exercise,</em> of their right is denied until they reach the age when they are able to use it wisely. They are given a guardian.</p>
<p>This is the way that we must reason regarding the political rights of the masses. Every member of our nation is endowed at birth with universal rights, but one must allow citizens to exercise rights to govern Society only so far and as much as they attain sufficient competence and capacity to handle safely rights so important and formidable.</p>
<p>This doctrine doesn’t disinherit the masses of their rights, as the political materialists do; it simply postpones their exercise. But, at the same time that it justifies this postponement and guardianship, it charges the guardians with an enormous responsibility. It places upon them the solemn duty of wise management of the minors’ interests, and furthermore, it obliges them to make all efforts to hasten the development of the minors’ capacity, and their accession to competence and the enjoyment of their rights.</p>
<p>Now, if the guardians administer with egoism, if their management is dishonest, if they so much as compromise through culpable recklessness, making a mockery of the rights and interests of the minors; if the minors, at the end of their tether, revolt against their guardians, throw them out, or break off with them, the guardians have only themselves to blame for the catastrophe. Revolution is always a great misfortune, but it is one that is provoked, justified, and merited. The Guardians of the people must be careful.</p>
<p>Because of these principles, we will not be found among the partisans of immediate, direct, universal Suffrage, but we are well-disposed to support arrangements that would introduce more intelligence and talent, and at the same time, more liberty, truth, and order, into our very defective electoral System. </p>
<h3><a name="s3">Conclusion</a></h3>
<p>We have concluded the exposition of <em>Peaceful Democracy’s</em> general principles, especially its perspectives on <em>Politics and social Economics</em>. </p>
<p>The other slogans that one reads on our masthead, those indicating our goals and objectives such as: <em>Social progress without revolution; Universal wealth; Attainment of order, justice, and liberty</em>; and those that specify our methods: <em>Industrial organization; Voluntary association of capital, labor, and talent</em>; don’t require any new exposition at the end of this Manifesto. The principles that they express have been explained as much as is appropriate in an article of this nature.</p>
<p>The reader now knows enough about us and our doctrines to decide how far he is in agreement with them. Our Cause is the Cause of God and Humanity; our Banner is that of Justice, Peace on earth, and the Association of Nations. Let the minds and hearts set on fire by this holy Cause join with us under the Banner of liberation!</p>
<p class="skip"> </p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">
<a href="../../../index.htm">Considerant Archive</a>
</p>
16
51
</body> |
Victor Considerant 1847
Manifesto of Democracy
Part Two
The State of Opinion
I. – STUDY OF THE GREAT DIVISIONS OF MODERN DEMOCRACY
� I.
Universality of the democratic spirit in France; the Legitimist Party democratizes.
THE CURRENT SITUATION, the critical needs of our time, the problems to resolve, and the peaceful organizational principle of their solution being known, it will be easy for us to describe the current temper, to show the nature and importance of the various shades of democratic opinion, and to determine the place of the trend that we represent.
Let us first and foremost take note of a fact: it is that our era, as our constitution, is democratic. In other words, that the language of Democracy is today destined to represent the passions, the principles, and the rights now universally accepted in theory, for which our fathers triumphantly endured the horrors of the first Revolution.
For some time, ever since tumultuous urban riots have ceased, the most brutal manifestations of the revolutionaries have been quelled, and the calm has allowed us to resume the serious study of ideas, the word “Democracy” has recovered the great, universal, and comprehensive significance that it is destined to have as the basic idea of the century.
The anti-democratic doctrine of the inequality of birth, the dogma of legal privileges, and the spirit of the Ancien R�gime have now disappeared. The Legitimist Party itself, nowadays, professes – sincerely, we believe – liberal and democratic principles. [3] It rejects and condemns all the abuses and privileges of the Ancien R�gime. A Memorandum published by the party’s executive committee formally proclaimed these principles. And if the royalist Press doesn’t entirely support this Memorandum, it isn’t because it is too saturated with the liberal ideas of our century, endorsing universal rights, representative government, and equality of citizens within the Nation; and celebrating the demise of feudal and divine right. On the contrary, certain party spokesmen have strongly censured the Memorandum because they find it not democratic enough. The parties most attached to the past are futile; they are always of their epoch, and the great current of modern ideas carries them along despite themselves. If Henry V could return to the Tuileries, we would not need to fear for citizens’ rights, public liberties, or representative government, which his government would further enlarge in responsibilities rather than try to restrain.
The heirs of the old feudal party of the Aristocratic nobility today accept the democratic spirit. That recognized, we are going to show that the great modern, democratic party, in its entirety, is divided into three factions, forming a regular series. Its three branches can be classified according to the following nomenclature:
Retrograde democracy, – revolutionary opinion;
Immobilist democracy, – doctrinaire opinion;
Progressive democracy, – peaceful and organizational opinion.
� II.
Political questions and social questions.
BUT first let us proceed to a definition of the meaning we must give to these two terms: political issues and social issues. If we didn’t focus on this matter it would be impossible to understand anything about the current trends in the public mind, the changing composition of Opinion, and above all, the problems that are now crying out for solutions and that already deeply disturb contemporary intellectuals.
In a very broad and general sense, the word Political designates the regulation of all aspects in the life of Societies. On its side, the term social is more readily given this broad meaning. But according to the narrow sense in which these terms are used, the word politics, in the language of contemporary journalists, means nothing more than the facts about the relationship of people to government, and governments among themselves. The nature, institutions, constitution, and composition of Power; and its system and behavior; comprise the content of political questions.
Worn-out discussions and theories, and the new intrigues that these continue to stir up among the old parties, constitute the domain of what is called the Old Politics.
Social questions, when contrasted with political questions, include especially information about the status, nature, and economy of Society; the relations among the classes; the institutions of property and industry; and the progress of welfare, positive liberty, enlightenment, intellect, morality, and public virtue. In a word, the general relationships among people and among nations, independently of transitory institutions, and the current leadership and politics of their various governments.
� III.
Triumph of the democratic principle in the political order. Collapse of the old politics.
NOW it is the case that since 1789 the work of the modern spirit has been applied nearly exclusively to the narrow political arena. In the economic and social orders, as we have already shown, the Revolution has acted only negatively and abstractly. It has overthrown the masterships, guild wardens, privileged corporations, and the feudal property system; it has gotten rid of the nobility and the clergy; but it hasn’t created any new institutions. It has left individuals and classes at the hazard of the universal struggle inaugurated by this overthrow. It hasn’t created any system to protect the rights of the weak. The entire social and economic realm, which is increasingly ravaged by misery, corruption, fraud, vice, and crime, has been ceded to anarchy and domination by the strong.
But while the social question was totally ignored, all efforts were focused on political issues. Constitutional forms and day-to-day government activities totally occupied the leading minds. In this arena they didn’t stop at destroying the old administrative system and governmental constitution; they created a centralized Administration and a governmental System based on election. Both those institutions support the democratic principle.
The political order has thus been revitalized; its basis and institutions have been harmonized with the modern spirit. Equality before the law, administrative unity, and the electoral system for national representation completed, there is no longer major reform, or consequently, any great revolution to make or to fear on the political terrain. Because these achievements have given the democratic principle the high ground, and the democratic right has been established, the only issue from now on is to regulate, develop, and progressively enlarge the exercise of this right, in order to harmonize its enjoyment with developments in social progress. However, these developments must necessarily follow the principle, and are therefore no longer perhaps important, but secondary matters.
It is because the political question is now resolved in its great principles and its major proposals that it has become of secondary importance; henceforth, the economic, industrial, and social questions take the first rank. That is why the political parties are in conflict. That is why the efforts of the old spokesmen of the old parties to revive the old disputes which have been kept alive for too long are and will be futile insofar as they do not expand the scope of their reforms. That is why the political volcano, which previously spewed torrents of fire and burning lava, now, like the dead Icelandic craters, heaves up only torrents of lukewarm, fetid, mud.
� IV.
Torpor and corruption on the political terrain
THE old politics is dying, now dead. The old spokesmen of the Press persist, through ignorance, routine, and pride, in preaching only a worn-out faith, a deceased cult: hollow formula that no longer say anything to the Nation. With the stubborn blindness of the formerly powerful, they refuse to recognize the advent of social Ideas or to invigorate the public mind with the great principles of justice, liberty, and humanity, although the realization of these principles is the task of our century. For their part, the masses, who can be stirred up only by intense ideas, can no longer interest themselves in the miserable intrigues and shabby deals of parliamentary strategy that are offered as the only nourishment for their collective noble instincts of patriotism and sociability. Disenchantment, boredom, and disgust are at their peak in this political arena, where there was still a vigorous and unified resistance during the fifteen years of the Restoration. The public mood is falling into a somnolence, helplessness, and torpor which smoothes the way for the domination of wealth and the invasion of corruption.
� V.
Transition on the social terrain and reawakening of the public spirit.
MEANWHILE, while the drying wind of egoism and skepticism sweeps the sterile devastated fields that Humanity has deserted because it no longer has any great harvests to collect there, the field of social ideas, worked quietly by toilers long obscure, is sown and covered with vegetation. It has become the meeting ground, daily more frequented and lively, of the strong minds, the ardent hearts, the new generations, of all those, in a word, who feel love of humanity throbbing in their breast and sense that the people’s destiny is on the march to a glorious future.
Thus our age witnesses the extinction of a former cult, of an idea past its time that has exhausted its formula and has long since ceded its important substance. It witnesses the end – the miserable end – of a political movement that has delivered its fruits, experienced its glories and triumphs, and consumed several great generations, but whose prime mission has at least been accomplished. Yet, since Humanity won’t be bogged down by corruption, or halt its onward progress, our age also witnesses the birth of a new faith, the first dawning of the universal social Idea, whose beneficial rays will revive all the exalted and religious sentiments of the human soul and will soon shine upon the most beautiful, bountiful, and holy scenes in the world.
Aspects of this magnificent renewal, this glorious renaissance of Humanity, have been foreseen or predicted with great authority by all the superior geniuses of our century, and from very different viewpoints, from de Maistre to Fourier – the supreme Genius of Humanity in modern times. In the enormous solitude of his last years on the rock of Saint-Helena, the Prometheus of our age, the last representative of the genius of war, Napoleon, meditating on the future of nations pronounced the Destiny of modern Democracy to be a federation of European nations and its inevitable result, the definitive establishment of a harmonious World Unity.
But who are de Maistre, Fourier, Napoleon and other minds of this calibre compared to those clever politicians who each evening draft newspaper articles that the country hardly reads and the great Statesmen whose demagoguery paints France as prosperous and glorious!
Nevertheless, the social ignorance of these Political old Romans hasn’t prevented new ideas from developing and spreading, and if one wishes decisive evidence from the parliamentary arena itself, note this: Many deputies avow to each other that they are at the end of their political tether – these are their terms – and that they cannot proceed any further until they finally confront the social questions.
� VI.
The old political parties are today immobilist or retrograde.
Reason, along with factual evidence of trends in current thought, indicates that intellectual activity is moving from the old constitutional politics to the economic constitution of Labor and social Relations.
Yet there are men, newspapers, and parties stubbornly clinging to the politico-parliamentary quarrels, who have no concern for universal needs, the progress of fundamental rights or the broad interests of Humanity in our time. They are occupied with various schemes of electoral reform, changes in the censorship laws, definitions of crime, modifications of jury selection, and other paltry matters of the sacramental articles and ridiculous programs of our parliamentary cliques. Rather than welcoming and studying the social questions that are becoming more pressing each day, they thrust them aside, try to hide them, or simply avoid dealing with them. These men, newspapers and parties are today the RETROGRADE or IMMOBILIST men, newspapers and parties. Although they may throw around the fine words of Liberty, Progress, Rights of the People, national Sovereignty, etc., and use them to lard up all their speeches and spice up all their articles, it is the direction of the ideas that determines the character of opinions. Those of whom we speak, in spite of their fine words no longer have any vital ideas and are obstacles to genuine social progress.[3]
With these assumptions, we will now move on to review the principal categories of the modern spirit or the broader democratic party, which in France includes the entire society.
Immobilist Democracy, or the Standpat-conservative party.
� VII.
The doctrinaire school or systematic immobilism
The Standpat-Conservative party has held Power in France since the July Revolution.
This party has fought for the democratic principle; it has worked to insert it into the constitution and to preserve equality before the law. Even today, it gives theoretical support to the modern democratic spirit.
Nevertheless, the new constitution is only a transition between the old aristocratic Society of rights based solely on birth and the democratic institutions of the future. However, merely by blessing the principle of equality under law, this party has gained political power and social control and has decided that the principle has accomplished its work. Liberals, after fifteen years in the Opposition, are ministers; it is unreasonable to ask for anything more.
Despite their ritual language, and their reluctance to be seen as repudiating the heritage and principles of 1789, the current Power holders leave the urgent work of the present day to the indefinite future. This theoretical concession on their part is only trickery masking their egoism.
The doctrinaire School has been the pivot of this Standpat party, formed by a faction of old liberalism’s leaders, to which are joined prosperous former revolutionaries, some notables of the upper bourgeoisie and the bank, and all the wealthy dolts who always hear 1793 when Progress is mentioned. These people have found it perfectly reasonable to arm the people against the former Nobility and then to profit from the masses’ victories by monopolizing all the social positions previously reserved for those privileged by birth, and they denounce as revolutionary and anarchic any idea suggesting a change in the status quo!
The working classes and most of the Bourgeoisie are supposed to be satisfied with having changed masters and substituted a bourgeois moneyed Aristocracy for the noble Aristocracy. Let us listen to the high priest of the doctrine. In one of those moments of ministerial leisure that occasionally occurs amidst the dissensions of the Chamber, M. Guizot wrote:
“Today, thanks to /the victory of the good cause/ and to God who has given it to us, situations and interests have changed. There is no more war between the upper and lower class, no more reason to raise the banner of the masses against the elite/. ... Not that there isn’t/much more to do, much more than the most ambitious believe, to improve the social and material conditions of the vast majority, BUT the relation between the low and the high, the poor and the rich, is now regulated with justice and liberality. Each has his rights, his place, his future.” (Guizot, On Modern Democracy).
And in another writing (The State of Souls):
“Is it to be dismissed, this very liberty, today the most extensive and secure that mankind has ever known? Is it to be scorned, this general advancement of justice and wellbeing? Are they not recompense appropriate for the work and suffering of our time? Isn’t there now, after so many mistakes, enough to please the most exacting and to refresh the weariest?”
Yes, thanks to the victory of the people, some positions have changed: yours, for example, and those of your friends. But the people, the masses’ needs and interests, tell us what benefit victory has brought them? Each, you say, has his rights, his place, his future. What you don’t want to recognize is that a close study of the proletariat’s situation reveals that each, far from having his rights, his place, and his future, often doesn’t even have a place in the poorhouse.
Which is to say that these frightful affirmations lead one to believe that all the modern governments of France must have been overcome by a helpless dizziness and blindness!
� VIII.
Systematic immobilism as provocateur.
Thus are misery, brutishness, material and intellectual deprivation, and political and social Serfdom of the masses bequeathed from generation to generation! Every day a parasitic currency speculator with a single sharp deal rakes in more gold than will be earned in a year by a hundred thousand workers whose labor feeds a province. Every day the large capitals, acting like engines of war, attack the small producers and the middle classes themselves. Yet, confronting this revolting spectacle of inequities and economic disasters, the Corypheus of immobilism, the leader of this blind party that triumphed over the former Aristocracy only by invoking justice and the rights of all, dares to say: that each now has his rights, his place, his future! [4] That the reciprocal relations of the low and the high, the poor and the rich, are today regulated with justice and liberality!
This is what they are saying: The people who have spilled their blood for twenty-five years on a thousand battlefields, and who have made two Revolutions to win the rights of free people, have nothing further to ask of Society and Heaven.
The masses are plunged into increasing misery by continuously falling wages; bankruptcies and commercial crises constantly unsettle the economic arena; money dominates everything, buys everything, crushes everything; and statistics on crime show figures creeping up alarmingly each year. What do these miseries matter? M. Guizot and his buddies are ministers; isn’t that enough to please the most exacting and to refresh the weariest!
But, in truth, we might think that these egoistic, cold, politicians have assumed the task of driving the suffering people to despair, and pushing them to new Revolutions. To dare speak of justice and liberality, praise God! when inescapable misery weighs on 25 million people whose work produces nearly all the wealth of France! And, when we have noted that this magnificent state of things leaves more work for the future than our exalted leaders admit, you still say that the status quo is enough to please the most exacting and to refresh the weariest!
What is taking over here: pride, cruelty, or madness? It’s a question that we don’t have to resolve, but we can only admire and bless the wisdom and patience of the disinherited masses, confronted by their blind rulers’ outrageous provocations.
Nevertheless, if ideas don’t progress rapidly today, if the Bourgeoisie don’t everywhere raise up their generous voices to protest the unholy doctrines of egoism and proclaim for the lower classes the rights to Life and to Work for which they have so dearly paid; if the people, along with the Government, must despair of progress, tomorrow the civil war will be reborn, and we will have nothing more to do except ready our weapons. ...
� IX.
Split in the Conservative party. Formation of progressive Conservative party.
But, thanks to God and to the noble sentiments of the century, the School of immobilist doctrinaires is in conflict. A major favorable development is occurring in the heart of the Conservative party.
There are within it two divisions that will split further apart in the future: the progressive Conservatives, and the faction that the eminent M. de Lamartine calls “Standpat.”
When the Conservative party constructed a dike against the revolutionary torrent, curbing the violence or maintaining the European Peace with all its strength, we said: “Honor to the conservative party.” This party has bravely performed the first part of its task, and by its success it has rendered a service to Civilization and to Humanity.
But if we willingly concede that the Resistance was glorious and legitimate as long as Society was in convulsions, we don’t hesitate to declare this Resistance illegitimate and absurd when Society has returned to a state of peace and order. Now the resistance is simply systematic and blind opposition to all applications of justice and liberty.
The number of Conservatives who share our views in this regard becomes greater every day. The split is drawn and widens more and more in the heart of the old party. The immense majority rejects the pure doctrinaire spirit, and perhaps the leader of the School himself wavers. M. Guizot, whom we have taken to task as the symbol and personification of rigid governmental tendencies, no longer has the sympathy of the Chamber. Since the period when he served as education minister, he has been supported not by his friends, but rather by the enemies of M. Thiers. In France these are all those who fear war, because of its nature and also its foolish expenditures. By virtue of this, we also accept, lacking anything better, the ministry of M. Guizot. In short, the conservative party is resigned to M. Guizot. It no longer sees him as its representative. This general repulsion for the Minister’s doctrines, despite his admirable talent and personal esteem, is a welcome symptom of Parliament’s progressive tendencies.
M. Thiers, the perpetual rival leader of the doctrinaire School, doesn’t share Guizot’s systematic antipathy to progress, but is equally undeserving of the progressive title. In history as in politics, M. Thiers believes in nothing, values nothing, and respects nothing except success. M. Thiers personifies only restless ambition and parliamentary intrigue. Profoundly skeptical in order to be ready for any sudden conversion, no opinion can count on him, and no party believes in him, unless it is a party of dupes. Therefore, we don’t have to be concerned about M. Thiers in our examination of contemporary opinions, since M. Thiers doesn’t represent any idea or opinion.
Thus, the Standpat School, or the systematic Resistance, doesn’t have such a great number of experienced politicians as we might be tempted to believe. If we except the pigs, the ambitious placeholders, and the High Barons of the bank, there will remain only the tremulous, these good people who claim that today we would be living in the best of worlds, were it not for the dissenters, the worthless fellows, and the utopians.
The healthy part of the conservative party goes along with progressive and organizational Democracy. It is beginning to sympathize with the suffering of the masses, and to welcome ideas that could result in an amelioration of the people’s condition without compromising rights already attained. Men of this disposition are lacking only great passion, the sacred fire of Humanity, and the Science of progress. We must excite them and educate them.
� X.
The split in the old conservative party’s publications.
The internal movement that we have noted at the heart of the conservative party is necessarily reflected in its journals.
The Journal of Debates, trying to keep the sympathy and the clientele of both factions, has sketched in its columns a party of vast dimensions so that each may find there some politics according to his taste. If it leaves a place on the journal’s ground floor for Defender of the poor, it brings to the first floor an ardent apologist for financial Feudalism. The speculator, frightened by a vivid portrayal of the poor’s misery or by a courageous appeal to wealthy philanthropists, is quickly reassured by reading in the column above a magnificent pleading against the People for the profit of the big bank. But if, according to the Gospel, the same slave cannot serve two masters, the result of its Janus-like politics is that disputes occur everywhere – in spite of the intelligent and truly progressive articles that it sometimes contains thanks to the healthy faction among its Editors.
The Press, more advanced, daring, and intelligent, and freer in its direction than the Journal of Debates, can easily stand for the paper of progressive conservatives. The Press condemns immobilism, and urges the Government to seize the initiative in social progress. It often reminds us that the Dynasty created by the July Revolution has a special mission to organize Democracy.
The Press has performed a major service for the Government by drawing a crowd of intellectuals away from the Opposition. For the benefit of the Conservative party, it has counterbalanced and mitigated the errors of the egoistic politics personified by the doctrinaire School’s leader.
The Globe, a journal founded to sustain slavery, retains its status as the Standpat-conservatives’ Official Monitor. The Globe has bravely accepted a task that it carries out with enthusiasm, but enthusiasm isn’t enough to revive a lost cause.
We haven’t been concerned with those journals of the systematic opposition that gravitate around a negation or a political notable with vacant opinions, or that argue endlessly about parliamentary intrigues. These journals no longer represent any Opinions; they do nothing but stir up the dust.
If our Society continues to experience great catastrophes, we say again, these catastrophes will be the result of the immobilist Conservatives’ continuation in power. If as we hope, it soon embarks on the contrary course of regulated, peaceful, Organizational Democracy, it will go there with the progressive Conservatives.[4]
Retrograde Democracy or the revolutionary party
Retrograde, revolutionary Democracy is divided into two factions which are quite distinct, even hostile: one is political, the other socialist.
� XI.
The purely political party of retrograde Democracy.
The first faction consists of those considered the extreme left, and the remnants of the republican party of 1832 and 1834. It sees itself as the heir of the Convention’s political doctrines, although it has lost – at least in its journals and its leaders – that celebrated Assembly’s tradition of grand sentiments, and it is inspired by only its worst traditions.
Its newspaper is the National, a profoundly retrograde journal, hostile to social progress, enemy of any new idea, and stubbornly condemning all those who seek to emancipate the working classes by the peaceful Organization of Labor method.
The Standpat-Conservatives, without having any more love for social progress than the men of the National, at least permit the discussion of such questions because of their devotion to liberty. The politicians of the National barely tolerate these discussions, pursue them with an extreme vexation, and shamefully, sometimes even try to stir up attacks against them by a Power they detest. The leaders of this party thus show how much liberty would have been allowed to the Press, to discussion, to intellectuals, and to progressive ideas, had the bad luck of France let political power to fall into their hands.
Overthrowing the current Government is the only goal of their pathetic efforts, the only idea of their politics. To overthrow the Government in order to seize Power; to set France at war with all the European monarchies; to create 45 million armed enemies on our Eastern and Northern borders by attempting to conquer the Rhineland provinces and Belgium; “to throw the most spirited and generous section of the proletariat onto the revolutionary battlefields” (Quote from the National), to remove all economic restraints: those are the major political points that these blind men offer for restoring the dignity and well being of the French people! Universal Suffrage, which they advocate boldly in its anarchic form of sudden, total introduction, is a revolutionary tool, the lever by which they hope to achieve their great plans.
As for their political doctrine, the philosophy of their system (if one can so speak) is the substitution of a temporary magistrate for a hereditary monarch as head of State. That is their great political and social panacea! Only if France agrees to elect its monarch every four years to be installed at the Tuileries in place of the hereditary king, a type of President named for four or five years that would be an elected and temporary office like the ex-Regent who made Spain so happy, will the era of happiness, liberty, and justice dawn! It is unbelievable that with four thousand years of history and examples of existing republican regimes under our eyes, for example, in Switzerland or throughout America, there can still be people so foolish or puerile as to base the prosperity of France on such a simple change in government structure.
This coterie without ideas or foresight that stubbornly refuses to consider the Organization of Labor, these men dead to progress, don’t want to look ahead. They can’t understand that war is the characteristic of barbaric times, that in humane Societies the genius of productive, abundant industry is replacing the destructive genius of conquest and revolutions, and that the regulated and equitable organization of Peace and Labor is the great issue, the supreme question of the age. This party, which has for long been leading the Tribune and the National off course, and which still includes young, generous, ardent spirits (who undoubtedly will defect sooner or later for better ideas), represents the exclusively political faction of revolutionary Democracy.[5]
� XII.
Socialist party of retrograde Democracy.
The second faction, the socialist faction of revolutionary Democracy, which is very distinct from the purely political faction, is more advanced than the latter, in that it gives priority to social reform over governmental reform.
Its leaders are intense men, bold spirits outraged by injustice and inhumanity. They have been forced into extremism by the apologists for the current order.
These men see unfolding before their eyes the spectacle of cruel and endless economic struggles, veritable civil wars where the weak must certainly perish, the masses reduced to collective servitude through the rule of money, the large capitals crushing the small, Proletarians and Paupers increasing daily, and all nations covered with a vast shroud of corruption and misery. They see the whole product of social labor flow into the coffers of the stock-jobbers, whose parasitic industry doesn’t increase the nation’s wealth by one centime; they hear the lucky ones, the men who possess wealth, rank and power, exclaim in the face of these iniquities: “In a free economy rank and fortune are the signs and rewards of work and ability (or even virtue!), and misery will no longer oppress any but the lazy and immoral.” This tyranny of Capital and Landed Property (which has led to such odious and revolting exploitation in Ireland that the head of the Tories has just confessed in full Parliament to property crimes!) has filled the socialists with noble indignation. These men consider the institution of Property itself responsible for all the plagues of the current system, and all the iniquities of our perverse economic organization. Believing that it is the eternal root of despised egoism, they repeat Rousseau’s retrograde curses against the first man who, having cultivating and enclosed a field, said: “This is mine.” They radically deny the right to Property, defining Property as theft, and seek its abolition.
Rousseau was consistent in his retrograde doctrine, his negation of Property: he drove it straight to the most brutal Savagery. Logically, he also cursed the arts, sciences, and progress; he anathemized thought itself. He certainly knew that the concept of Property is a formal element of human individuality, and that it would be impossible to eliminate it without destroying that individuality, just as man would no longer be man if thinking, the supreme human attribute, ceased.
We mustn’t think of abolishing Property; its development is closely bound to the development of Humanity. It has brought man from the savage state and repeatedly given him the many benefits that his magnificent genius has created in the arts, sciences, and industry. On the contrary, we must discover and embed Property in institutions that are more perfect, secure, free, mobile, and at the same time, more social, by harmonizing the individual and general interest in all spheres. We must create collective property, not through promiscuity and the chaotic and barbaric Egalitarian Community of Goods, but rather by Hierarchical Association, a voluntary and intelligent combination of all individual Properties.
The negation of the right of Property is thus a retrograde idea. It is furthermore, insofar as it negates an enormous social and human interest, a revolutionary idea. However, we must say at the outset that the men who share this negative slogan divide themselves into two very distinct camps. On one side are the English Owenites, the French Icarians, and Communitarians of various types who reject all recourse to violence and rely only on time and persuasion for the success of their doctrines: these are the purely socialist Communitarians. On the other side are certain Chartists and the Babeuf-inspired Communists who are determined to make a great Revolution. They argue that the community of goods can be achieved and enforced only by martial law, and that egalitarian leveling must be maintained with an iron hand. The latter are the political communists.
The harsh attacks directed by the Saint-Simonian School against the legitimacy of inheritance have recently reawakened and fomented these anti-property doctrines, which are spreading rapidly and quietly among Society’s malcontents. Governments cannot prevent the destructiveness of these doctrines except by eliminating their causes, because they are simply extreme protests against the inhuman and odious economic regime that grinds Labor under the gigantic millstone of Capitalism. Governments and the upper classes would be wise to speedily recognize Labor’s rights, so that it will make its peace with Property. The only means, the sole healthy path, is the Association of Labor with the advantages of Capital.
If the egalitarians have a defective solution to the social question, at least, as we have said, they understand its paramount importance. They also strongly reject the doctrines of the political revolutionaries. Several of their leaders have fallen out with the National, and have indicated that they believe its Republic and universal Suffrage, as long as the masses remain uneducated and disadvantaged, are simply procedures for exploiting the People by a small Aristocracy of bourgeois and republican dictators, and nothing more.
� XIII.
The legitimate principles of each party.
Intelligent people wouldn’t join in a completely mistaken cause. Every party has a purpose and a legitimate principle. Their flaw is their exclusivity, their negation of the other principles: they are usually sound in those principles they affirm and defend.
Let us review their legitimate sides by examining the various categories of democratic opinion – the modern temper – that we have just broadly sketched.
Immobilist Democracy appears truly ignorant, blind, egoistic, and unjustified, by ignoring rights and interests seeking recognition and the requirements for progress. But it is legitimate in so far as it represents, in society and humanity, the principle of Stability, Conservation, and Resistance to intemperate movements towards false progress, those violent, revolutionary impulses of political or social Retrogrades.
Stability in the social realm is the first of the two conditions for the normal life of society; Progress is the second.
Order, however imperfect, and preservation of acquired rights and existing interests are elements of sociability equally important and sacred as the recognition and furtherance of new interests and rights.
When some men in Society violently attack Order or acquired rights, it is easy enough to find others pledged to the exclusive defense of these rights and to Resist all change. Usually a party that is mistaken and limited doesn’t develop in a social milieu without creating, by the law of antagonism, a mistaken and limited opposite party.
The Bourgeoisie, triumphant in 1830, was liberal in principles, and basically it is still strongly attached to the general ideas of modern Democracy. It was surely not philosophically hostile to liberty and progress. It was in reaction to the violence and riots of the republicans that a single-minded violent politics of Resistance developed in its ranks. It created a strong dike against the torrent.
The pacification of republican outbursts was soon followed by the conservative party’s transformation, and it is certain that if new revolutionary violence erupts, the immobilists would soon be reduced to a small number of blind men, deprived of all influence on Opinion and public interest trends. [6]
Revolutionary Democracy, although illegitimate in its negative and subversive methods, is legitimate in its demands for the masses’ political rights, which the leaders of the dominant political groups do not even recognize in principle, and in its support for social rights to life, liberty, and progress, unrecognized in principle and denied in practice by the grim social System that the opposition party seeks to perpetuate.
Finally, the old royalist Party, which has long resisted the democratic trend of modern Society, nevertheless represents a legitimate element that is very important in the life of Societies: that of the historic Tradition, the inherited bond between the future and the past. This party includes the descendants of the men who gave France its current boundaries, and created its independence and nationality. This party, steeped in the laudable sentiments of national pride and martial grandeur, has held in trust the eminently noble principle of Fidelity.
Therefore, at the base of each party there are legitimate human and social principles for which these parties are really the guardians. It is only because of its worthwhile aspects that a party can attract members. The good elements, the justifiable positions, alone attract and engage the majority of each opinion because men are men and not demons. People go where they see the good. They can be mistaken about the means, but they never pursue evil knowingly and for its own sake.
We mustn’t then attack the deepest beliefs of each party and pit against each other the principles and interests enrolled under opposing banners.
What we must attack are the egoistic leaders and vacuous spokesmen directing and exploiting these parties, forcing them to maintain narrow, exclusive, and hostile positions in order to dominate them more easily. In summary, each party is the guardian of a principle, a great interest, or a legitimate protest. Sincere men of all opinions must not pursue the success of their party as an entity, but that of the legitimate principle at its base.
Progressive Democracy, or the Party of Peaceful Reorganization.
� XIV.
The good people from the old parties rally on the ground of pacific Democracy.
The present situation and state of mind is characterized above all by the general abandonment of the old political battleground and the dissolution of the former parties.
Putting to one side the growing communist opinion, the quick overview that we have just given on contemporary opinion is now almost historic, as the extreme parties have rapidly weakened over the last ten years.
As we have established, the new democratic spirit was at first manifested in the political realm. Because it didn’t gain mastery without challenge, its sole concern was the struggle against the antiquated pretensions of the ancien R�gime. One might believe that the political arena was the only place where reforms were required in order for all to go well in the world. Great disillusionment was bound to follow such an expectation. The July Revolution was a definite victory, but a deceptive one. The political victory yields only so much; evil remains embedded in the entrails of Society and is steadily devouring it. In the protests and violent struggles that followed, the political terrain was still the arena. These struggles are ending.
Already, sincere, good natured, and generous men are deserting in droves from the battlefield of old quarrels; they are withdrawing from these moribund parties in which any man of worthwhile sentiments and ideas now suffocates. From the ranks of the former centrists as from those of diverse opposition parties, each day men are leaving who believe and even announce that the time for sterile discussions is past. They are saying that we must discard the old formulas, broach the economic and social issues, and work for the nation’s prosperity. We must promote Association and the brotherhood of classes by regulating and organizing Work, and the Association of nations by organizing the world for Peace. Stability and Progress, Peace, Work, Organization, preservation of acquired rights, extension and legitimation of new rights; those are the formulas which are already being heard everywhere.[7]
If the nation’s activity is dying out on the political battlefield, it is reborn on the fertile and glorious field of social labor.
A nation doesn’t move in one day from an old idea to a young idea, from an established creed to a new creed. Great revolutions do not occur serially except in a time of transition, indifference, skepticism, and even corruption. But Humanity comes out of these transitory crises with stronger faith, loftier hopes, and greater charity.
Therefore, from the debris of the old political parties there arises the generous and wise who break loose from the crowd, gradually dispel their mutual hostilities, and bring them into a higher sphere in order to reconcile the diverse principles for which they had been blindly fighting.
It is to these liberated men – animated by good will and noble aims – that we have the heart to speak. It is on these alluvial plains, on this well prepared fertile soil, that we must sow the seeds of the future.
These men, weary of the present scene, disapprove of immobilism and the economic doctrines guiding the development of modern Democracy. They are looking for a new faith. They are still talking only in terms of the general Democratic principles inherited from the revolutionary era, yet they see the need to replace mistaken policies with organic paths and methods. They have the heart for the task of our epoch; they don’t yet have its Science.
This state of mind is summarized in a formula today echoing from one end of France to the other: Society cannot remain as it is; surely there is another way.
� XV.
Program of the progressive Democracy party. – True and false Democracy.
Here are the perspectives and general theories that symbolize the common beliefs of the men who are following these new paths.
To them, true Democracy is the full recognition of the rights and interests of everyone, and their progressive, intelligent, and effective organization. It guarantees and consolidates rights already acquired, declares the legitimacy of all unrecognized rights, and seeks the acknowledgement of interests that are still aggrieved. True Democracy is for them the regulated organization of peace and labor, the development of national prosperity, and the progressive realization of order, justice, and liberty; in short, it is the liberal and hierarchic organization of families and classes in each Commune, the Communes and Provinces in the Nation, and the Association of Nations in Humanity.
False Democracy is the revolutionary spirit; the spirit of jealousy, hate, and war; anarchic liberty; violent and covetous equality; exclusive and dominating patriotism; and fierce, chaotic, armed, and hostile independence.
They understand that true Democracy unites, organizes, relates, classifies, associates, liberates, and centuples well-being and the physical, moral, and intellectual development of all people, of all classes. They seek to combine all strengths in harmony. True Democracy is the development of the fraternal spirit in Unity.
False Democracy divides, subverts, destroys, impoverishes, and covers the earth with ruins. It incites classes against each other and people against their governments; it increases suffering to inflame the revolutionary mentality; it provokes and maintains hatred of all Social superiority; it stirs up systematic defiance, suspicion, and revolt against all Governments; and finally, it foments massive uprisings and great revolutionary wars as the only road for the salvation of nations and Humanity. False Democracy sows anarchy and reaps despotism.
Progressive and organizational peaceful Democracy, and turbulent and violent revolutionary Democracy, are the two extreme cases, the two opposite expressions of the modern spirit. One of these versions includes all that is true, pure, noble, powerful, and humane in the trends of the century; the other expresses what the modern age retains of an earlier violent and barbaric spirit. The first liberates, develops, and blossoms in the sunlight of intelligence; the second, which has been only a great fleeting passion, a social rage provoked by enormous suffering, persistent evils, and profound misery, weakens, pales and diminishes each day, especially in its political expressions.
According to the newer, peaceful version of Democracy, the word does not mean “Government of Society by the lower classes.” It means “Government and social organization in the interest of all, through hierarchical participation in public office holding by eligible citizens, whose numbers increase with the level of social development.” The people isn’t a class; it is the totality; and government isn’t blind and chaotic action by incompetents; it is intelligent and unitary action by the competent – whose numbers must constantly increase through social education and governmental action.
Such are the general principles, the common creed, and the accepted views of this new Opinion destined to carry the peaceful and organizational banner of progressive Democracy, unless egoism, materialism, and short-sighted governments force it, out of desperation, to take up the call of revolution and war.
If we are asked how many men in France already share this Opinion, we will answer: Count the number of those in France who now accept the principles that we have just outlined and who would sign on to them. You will see that the number is enormous.
And if we are asked why this widespread Opinion doesn’t yet have a greater influence on events, we will answer: It is because it isn’t yet disciplined, and it doesn’t yet have widespread publicity and prominent Spokesmen. It is disseminated and appears in all the books, brochures, and writings of the Epoch’s intellectuals, yet it still hasn’t a loud enough voice. The old newspapers, which have been surviving on political quarrels, and which, like the old politicians, wish to forget nothing and are unable to learn anything, don’t support this great intellectual development; on the contrary, they oppose and distort it. – To initiate its first daily Newspaper, we now raise our peaceful banner.
II. – DOCTRINES OF THE JOURNAL PEACFUL DEMOCRACY.
We have described the state of Society and indicated its needs; we have described the state of Opinion and indicated its trends. We must now inform the reader who we are and what we propose.
What we propose the reader already knows from the preceding discussion, because it was written under the inspiration of these political and economic principles. We will summarize them shortly.
Who we are, we are going to tell you frankly.
� I.
Who we are.
We toil in obscurity, inspired by a sincere love for Humanity, seeing all men as brothers, the weak and oppressed especially, but even those whom we attack most harshly for mistaken ideas or unjust power.
Most of us, from our earliest days, have had a natural tendency to explore social and political questions – those problems relevant to the fate of the suffering, who are, alas! all of Humanity. These studies have resulted in deep convictions, full of promise and bountiful hope. We have tried to share them with our fellow citizens, our peers, and our brothers, and spread these beliefs for the world’s benefit, through the free and wise voice of intelligence and progressive, powerful, and authoritative experience.
We weren’t writers or journalists; we became writers and journalists in order to propagate our convictions, giving up our careers without regret for a vocation that we believe is useful and holy.
At first we were regarded as innocent dreamers and utopians. We have continued our efforts. Our first successes brought on many types of attack; we haven’t been spared from accusations and unjust condemnations. We have kept going. Our convictions sustained us; the love of Humanity gave us the strength to persevere. We knew that were on the path of truth, reason, and good; we always persisted. Our first principle is that man is made for truth and goodness. We were therefore certain of gradually obtaining respect and sympathy, and winning to our views the men of good will, good nature, and honest minds – who are much more numerous than one would believe.
We weren’t mistaken. We say this in the sincerity of our faith because we believe it: thanks to our devotion that Humanity will one day reward with recognition, our forces grew rather rapidly.
� II.
Division of our Work by the increase of our forces.
General idea of human Destiny.
In the modern age, the great renewals in human thought and social movements are made though books and technical writings where the new idea is advanced in a scientific, philosophic, artistic, or religious discourse as appropriate; and through newspapers where the general principles are applied to those subjects and the day-to-day concerns that catch public attention. That is how the writings of philosophers, poets, and economists of the last century and the beginning of this one, together with newspapers and the speakers’ platform, have worked to bring about today’s successful movement in the political order.
We have followed this natural progression. We have written various works and will continue to write them and to stimulate serious works devoted to renewal, according to the great principles of the Association of Humanity, Science, Art, and Philosophy; and to develop the social reality of Christianity, by which we mean Fraternity and Unity, the supreme goals of our doctrines.
At the same time we have worked to create in the world of public opinion a platform without which our efforts would be fruitless and our ideas unknown to the public. We have founded an outstanding periodical.
Designed to popularize the Theory and Techniques of social Science, this periodical is basically a Review, explaining to educated men in mostly Scientific terms the ideas of the great Genius whose enlightened discoveries are the basis of all our efforts, Charles Fourier.
We have a general scientific conception of the Destiny of Humanity. We believe that Humanity, impelled by the breath of God, is called to create an Association growing ever stronger, of individuals, families, classes, nations, and humankind, which form its elements.
We believe that this great Association of the human family will reach a perfect UNITY,
by which we mean a Social Status where Order will occur naturally and freely from the spontaneous agreement of all the human elements.
This theoretical view presents a general conception of universal Life, which applies to the past, the present, and the future of Societies. Thus, it includes perspectives on History, on contemporary Politics,[8] and on the ultimate Organization of Societies.
Our periodical, by its basic objective and its character as a weekly Review, treats all three of these subjects, and most especially the last.
The growth of our movement has led to a simplification of our work, by dividing duties and separating the subjects. The Phalange, by becoming a nearly daily newspaper, must naturally be concerned with current, practical, and Socio-economic issues, and leave to books and special brochures theoretical developments related to those ultimate social institutions that we may regard as the most perfect, but are a far cry from current institutions. Besides, only current issues can attract public attention in a frequently appearing newspaper, which presents the best opportunity for instruction and initiation of new ideas.
This progress has impressed a movement favorable to our ideas and opinions. The Phalange has become more and more accessible to intellectuals who don’t know or don’t share our ultimate doctrines. The public regards it less and less as a newspaper written by utopians and designed for initiates. People who are the most biased against us have started to appreciate it and to approve of its Politics and Socio-Economics. These are simply practical applications of our general principles of Association, Organization, and Sociability, to solve current problems. Consequently, those who appreciate these solutions recognize little by little the merit of our principles and begin to look sympathetically at the whole range of applications.
� III.
The neutral and independent ground to which we summon all progressive thinkers.
We have then, independently of our other work, developed the old Phalange into a ground on which all the good intellectuals, the moderately progressive thinkers, and the sincere men of different political factions, philosophies, or religious persuasions, can give us their nod, while maintaining their reservations about Theories about which they know nothing, or which they support to only a limited extent.
The more we bring everyone onto this ground, which will be the basis of Peaceful Democracy, the more quickly and surely will we further the great causes of human Sociability and ASSOCIATION, which is our ultimate goal.
Our task, as apostles of an idea that we believe leads to Humanity’s prosperity, health, peace, future Happiness, and liberty, is to broaden this ground as much as possible to provide easy access to those of all persuasions and especially to those still critical of our dreams for the future.
Now what we hear everywhere is that the public isn’t shocked or frightened by our ideas or principles, since when we apply them to current issues using ordinary language, they are deemed beneficial and sane. What frightens and puts people off are technical terms, those formulas that are regarded as our scientific argot.
Therefore, in the daily paper that we hope will reach many, and to move those now stuck in narrow partisan thinking about our broad ideas of Organization, universal Peace, and Association, we must strip away these technical terms and formulas, which have their place in specialized works, in scientific articles in the Revue,[9] and even, within limits, in Miscellaneous articles in a daily paper under the rubric of a philosophic, literary, or social Study.
For that reason, in introducing the Phalange as a daily paper, thanks to the resources we have gained and the dedicated cooperation of many partisans who share our political and social views, we have selected a title that would seem less rarified and be more understandable by the public.
� IV.
Reasons for changing the title of the Phalange
This change had its price. Under the name Phalange we had attained sincere respect and esteem among even those who didn’t share all the journal’s doctrines. We had the pleasure of seeing each year bring greater recognition, testimonials from outsiders, and disinterested praise – for its spirit of truth, justice, and absolute impartiality; for the wisdom and generosity of its politics; and for the relevance of its social research.
But the name, drawn from our own technical terminology, confused many people. Many still believed that one must be an initiate in Phalansterian studies and doctrines in order to read and understand a journal called the Phalange, and that reading this journal was the equivalent of endorsing Theories that were being described in ridiculous and false terms by ignorant and malevolent journalists.
The name Phalange was particularly suitable for a journal that was primarily concerned with the institutions and organic laws of the societary system. It could be appropriately used again by a Review devoted to the specific study of these ultimate questions, but it wasn’t as suitable for what the Phalange had evolved into. By appearing three times a week, it was now focused on developing its principles in terms of current problems.
It mattered to the success of our principles and to enlarging the circle of readers for our daily paper, which must have the widest possible radius and bring everyone the message of Peace, Association, Humanity, and the Future, that the publication not appear to anyone, even mistakenly by a narrow interpretation of its title, as the paper of a social sect, of a tiny Church enclosed in its formulas, jargon, and private rituals.
For this reason we have had to choose, for a journal that we intend for everyone, a title taken from the language of everyone, in our century’s common idiom. We wished this title change to serve as a formal advertisement to the public that our newspaper is situated on a terrain accessible to those of good will and intelligence, without the need for any doctrinal preparation. All men of order and progress, friends of liberty and justice for all, will be able to join us.
Once the change was decided upon, we didn’t hesitate for long over the choice of the new title.
� V.
Reasons for choosing the title Peaceful Democracy.
Inspired by the most incontestable principles of Christianity and philosophy, the human spirit has now started its advance, in the name of the rights of all, to accomplish progressively the emancipation of the weak, the suffering, and the oppressed, and the Peace and Association of peoples, in order to finally establish the reign of God and his justice, proclaimed eighteen hundred years ago by Christ.
This great movement of the modern spirit, which every day becomes more self-conscious, can be characterized by the word Democracy.
In its universality and the peaceful, generous, and organizational meaning that it has brought, especially in recent times, to the national debate, where it is embraced by all shades of opinion and in the writings of highly respected wise and progressive journalists, this word is destined to become the watchword of our epoch, the banner of the great movement regenerating modern societies. As we believe that our principles are destined to lead this movement, it is therefore we who must carry its banner.
The word Democracy is the most profound, universal, and powerful word in current discourse, the only one that has a promising future in serious discussion. How mistaken it is to conceal its power because of its continued use by the revolutionary parties, in order to be respected by the most extreme conservative party speakers and journals. This observation is decisive.
The word has been and is still being interpreted by the parties in very different ways that are often mistaken and dangerous. The political and social enigma is presented to all in the same terms, but all do not know how to resolve the enigma. Thus, there appear false solutions with fatal consequences.
The more powerful the word in the minds of the masses the more it is destined to become, and the more supremely important it is for society that the masses not be led into its disastrous interpretations.
The revolutionary parties today use the word Democracy as a banner of revolution and war, a big stick, some against the government and political order and others against property and the foundation of social order.
We must take this weapon from their hands; we must spirit away this banner. The stick and the banner of war must be converted into a tool and flag of peace, organization, and work.
However, the attack we must make against revolutionary democracy is a purely intellectual one. God forbid that we would ever launch against any doctrines blind repression or the material weapons of Power. We must win the war of ideas. The people must judge freely between the contenders. We must demonstrate and persuade that those who are now agitating for a victory devoid of political rights are tricking and exploiting the masses, and that the true democrats are the people’s true friends who don’t incite them to revolt and war but teach them their social rights, demand their recognition, and pursue them peacefully through organization.
We alone today are in a position to offer this perspective and conviction to the people, because to do that, one must have an idea and sense of the people’s rights and future that is superior to that of these false friends and their political opponents.
In sum, it is because we feel ourselves strong that we will vigorously seize the word Democracy, and strip it away from those who abuse it.
It is a bold move, and it is also a smart move, because the peaceful and organizational interpretation that we will give loudly and clearly every day to a word that inspires all the warm and generous hearts, rallies all those who truly love the people, and excites the masses will be a great service to society. The whole society will grant us recognition for this. The advocates of freedom and emancipation, youth eager for progress, and sincerely democratic spirits who don’t confound Democracy with hatred will follow our banner. As for the Standpat-conservatives, we will force them to recognize this word as it serves the general aim of social Stability or Order, which they are unable to do.[10]
Finally, in order to finish with our title, let us add that all the people can participate hierarchically in governing society once it has universalized well-being, developed all capacities, and associated all interests. The word, Democracy, even in its direct etymological sense meaning government of all by all, characterizes the Social State that is the most advanced that humanity can attain, and encompasses our broadest ideas. The most important function of Humanity when it attains its complete development in future Harmony will certainly be self-government.
The word suggests the issue of our time, the emancipation of the working classes, at the same time that it encompasses the broadest progress for the Future. We couldn’t have found a stronger and more appropriate title for these times.
In order to complete the general exposition of the political and economic doctrines of Peaceful Democracy, we need only summarize the principles that have inspired this work.
We will do this using as an outline the slogans inscribed on our journal’s banner.
FRATERNITY AND UNITY.
Vos omnes fratres estis,
Ut omnes unum sint
We have inscribed these two words in the highest rank, these two revelations of Christ, fraternity and unity, which are the alpha and omega of social Science, the base and summit of every great humane policy.
“You are all brothers, children of the same God, members of the same family.” “You must become one single body, one single soul, one single mind, and be one with God.” Every law, religion, and revelation of social policy and human Destiny is summarized in these words.
We have taken these words from the Gospel, because it is the Gospel that has revealed to the world the enlightenment and supreme Truths that it contains, and because we wanted to demonstrate an act of faith in these social and religious Truths that are the base and summit of Christianity itself.
Christianity is the great Religion of Humanity. Christianity can develop further, and it will certainly always continue to evolve. To believe that there will some day be a Religion for Humanity other than the one that has revealed its existence and its Unity in itself and in God is an illusion. The individual and collective Union among men, and their individual and collective Union with God: there will never be for mankind a more sublime principle, or a different one. Furthermore, this principle is Christian. Thus, from the scientific perspective of pure human reason we know that Christianity, which arose from the Creation, will become, with infinite developments compatible with its principle, the last Religion, and the sole universal Religion of Humanity.
Lately, people have tried to create new Religions. They believed Christianity finished, dead, and buried, and wanted to replace it so that society would not remain without Religion. The idea was well-intentioned, but it was wrong.
Christianity isn’t dead, far from it. The spirit of Christianity has never been more alive, widespread, and generally characteristic of intellectuals.
The modern political and social mentality at its best is nothing but the pure spirit of Christ. Voltaire himself, when he was denouncing the evil genius of War and Massacres with such holy and relentless anger; riddling all types of oppressors, usurpers, and bullies with penetrating sarcasm; and demanding rights for Humanity with all his moral strength – what was he but one of the most powerful apostles of Christ, imbued and overcome by the very spirit of Christ that he mocked?
One has seen the old oak stripped of its rusty leaves in winter; one has seen the dried branches fall; and one has thought that the venerable oak was wounded at the heart and was dying. But the yellowed leaves fall making way for the new leaves. Each season has its flowers and its fruits. The temporary and worn outgrowths fade and die; the base is eternal. Christianity, which has broken the chains of slaves, and given women and children the first step towards liberty, has as yet completed only a first draft of its task.
RELIGIOUS UNITY; – FREE INQUIRY.
Religious Unity encompasses all other Unities. We believe that humanity is destined to attain all the Unities: political, social, industrial, scientific, etc. But it is clear that it will not be able to achieve religious Unity, which synthesizes all the other Unities, except insofar as those are developed and actualized.
If there is a realm that is in essence free, it is surely that of conscience. It is therefore through freedom of conscience and free inquiry that humanity must attain religious Unity.
Unenlightened blind faith, which rests only on passive obedience of the mind, isn’t a religious faith; it is a coarse and brutal fetishism. Religious Truth can’t contradict other Truths or Reason, which is God’s Word implanted in mankind, the light enlightening every man present in the world. It is therefore by free inquiry, and philosophical and religious studies which aim to reconcile Religion with Science, that religious Unity will be attained.
Furthermore, where Unity matters the most and where it reaches its zenith is in the concept of Love for humanity and Adoration of God. It is there also that among all the truly religious men of our times Unity is actualized. Interpretation, dogmas, and the particularities of belief remain in the sphere of liberty and variety whether one observes all religions as a totality or looks at each of them individually. That is certainly true, since Catholicism, the most rigid religious communion there has ever been, leaves thousands of matters to the diverse free opinions of the faithful.
However, the Truth is one, and man is made for the Truth; he will arrive through research and inquiry at a religious Unity more and more complete and universal. Protestantism, guardian of the sacred principle of liberty; Catholicism, guardian of the sacrosanct principle of hierarchy and Unity; and Philosophy, which operates on the terrain of pure reason, are, according to our deepest conviction, destined to agree and unite one day.
PEACEFUL DEMOCRACY will devote some space to articles on these lofty questions. In the political sphere, it will resolutely uphold the principle of absolute liberty of conscience and the protection of all creeds. The current Government may be embarked, in this arena as in many others, on an illiberal and retrograde path, but fortunately, public opinion and the legislature are better disposed. This liberty has been established; we wish it to be widely and equitably guaranteed for all, and not in the manner of false liberals who seek it in order to have the right to believe in nothing. These overly permissive false liberals – in the same breath – think civil authorities should require priests to enact rituals that conflict with their ecclesiastical principles, thus putting the Sacred at the same level as public policy.
In the sphere of conscience, all must support liberty of conscience, and never the use of force, even if it were legitimate force.
SOCIAL UNITY; – THE RIGHT TO WORK.
Social unity will not be freely consented to and sustained by any population unless the social system meets the needs of all classes. The propertied classes sense the need to preserve order because they have everything to lose with disorder, and Society protects their right. Let us also do for the Right to Work, which is the only Property of the masses, what one does for the Right to Property of the elite; let us recognize it, guarantee it, protect it, and organize it. Only under this condition will there be a foundation laid for the National Unity of classes.
As for external social Unity, it must be managed through a policy of Association that sees States and Peoples as living personalities, each having its place in the sun and its right to free existence in the society of nations. In the eyes of this Policy, war is only a remnant of Barbarism, a deplorable inheritance. The increase and regularity of scientific, industrial and commercial relations among peoples; the speed and expansion in communication; and the progress of human rights and religious sensibility will insure that war will not remain much longer a feature of a civilized, learned, industrialized, and Christian Europe.
People are beginning to understand that they gain nothing from wars that spill blood all over the world, their COMMON FATHERLAND. The representative system is pacifist by nature; those who pay the price of war think twice before authorizing it.
Developments in industrial and commercial relations cannot entwine nations’ interests, as is happening rapidly today, without putting an ever stronger damper on war. In addition, Governments today appear increasingly peace loving. In the last 25 years we have seen hundreds of problems, which in former times would have led to European conflagrations, resolved by general Conferences and by diplomatic Meetings and Conventions.
War will not be finally eliminated until the day when the Great Powers, building on the current diplomatic practice of Conferences and Congresses, institutionalize the European Concert process by making the Congress of Powers a permanent Institution, charged with establishing international law, regulating all interstate relations, managing the association of major international or intercontinental interests, and establishing procedures for all those cases which in earlier times would have provoked wars.
This sovereign institution will be the creation of the nineteenth century. It already exists de facto; now it must only be legalized. It accords with both the interests and ideas of our time.
France has the greatest interest in putting itself in the forefront of this movement, and taking the initiative in the task of organizing world Peace. This goal is the true European mission of France, that is, its foreign Policy. Its role as a social liberator has been determined by its glorious antecedents and its noble character. France should lead the movement for the emancipation of peoples and the Destiny of Humanity. France must make and organize Peace in Europe, and not simply submit to it. Her momentary humiliation and weakness have no other cause than the momentary abandonment of this powerful and noble Policy.
PEACEFUL DEMOCRACY will represent this valiant and glorious Policy of peace, justice, and humanity, which is highly regarded in France and in all those nations where the new spirit is developing. We hope that it will quickly replace those stupid and blundering newspapers that constantly pick a quarrel with all of Europe. Their Chauvinism is as destructive to the foreign interests of our Nation as the passive and shameful Policy that currently demeans and humiliates France. These harmful publications serve only to create or sustain our neighbors’ feelings of hostility and hate against us, deriving from events of the last century that are no longer relevant, and which are the greatest reasons for our current weakness. France, with the power to do so much good for Europe, has her hands tied because of evil. If she proceeds along the peaceful and generous path of her true humanitarian Destiny she will be great and glorious among all nations. If she lets herself be led by backward thoughts and visions of conquest, or if she stagnates further into shameful inaction, she will very soon experience the fatal descent into decadence.
PEACEFUL DEMOCRACY,
JOURNAL OF GOVERNMENTS’ AND PEOPLES’ INTERESTS.
We decidedly don’t share the systematic prejudices expressed against Governments. We certainly don’t define governments as do the Economists and Restoration-era Publicists: “The ulcers that we must set upon to reduce as much as possible.” We don’t believe that Governments are necessarily and a priori enemies of Peoples.
Governments make mistakes. If some elements of Society hold absurd and unjust prejudices against them, they have done much to nourish these dismal prejudices. They often err or take the wrong tack. We must monitor them and criticize them severely when they go astray. The evaluation that we have made above of the men who now have power in France clearly shows that we have no intention of shirking this duty.
However, we believe that the interests of Peoples and Governments are basically identical. Only misperception divides them. Let us take as an example the Monarch who arouses the most violent prejudices among us, the Czar of Russia. God forbid that we would approve of the policies of the Russian Autocrat! God forbid that we would advise France to conclude a close Alliance with Russia! But does anyone believe that in the entire Moscovy Empire there is any man who loves Russia more than the Czar does? Does anyone believe that there is a single person who feels more strongly representative of the Russian Mind, the Russian Nationality, and the Slavic Personality? Who is more devoted to the glory, the power, and the prosperity of this great People and to its destiny as he conceives it? We don’t think so.
Is there in all of Germany a man who more completely incarnates the desire for German unity than the King of Prussia? We wouldn’t think twice about it. Does anyone believe that Prince Metternich doesn’t act, as he perceives it, to promote the true interests and prosperity of the people he has governed for such a long time? Finally, what man of good faith, no matter how hostile he might be, would dare to imagine that if Louis-Philippe had in his hand a foolproof method to ensure the happiness of the French people, he would do anything other than open his hand and shower on the country universal wealth, the greatest liberty, and the most perfect order? What man would dare to imagine that Louis-Philippe would keep his hand closed? Louis-Philippe is merely King today, and these days the job of King is often difficult; he knows something about that. Well! under the hypothesis that we are posing, Louis-Philippe would be not only the King of the French, he would be their Idol and God. What more solid basis is there for establishing a new dynasty than the people’s adoration?
Generally, the Monarch is the man who is the most interested in the prosperity, glory, grandeur, and happiness of his kingdom. Does he therefore always know how to promote happiness? Unfortunately, no. But that is all the more reason to enlighten and encourage governments to progress rather than overthrowing them.
As for us, our position is not at all destructive of Governments and Kings. We are friends of the People first, and friends of governments second. That doesn’t mean we must admire all that Governments do, or for that matter all that the People might do.
The Constitutional form, with a hereditary Monarch and an elective Legislature seems to us more advanced, stable, and perfect than all other forms of Government; including the republican model. But we don’t insist, as does one political School, that it is impossible to have a truce or peace in Europe unless other Nations adopt our form of Government. We leave to other Nations the task of giving themselves institutions that suit them. Their independence and dignity are at stake in this matter, and Nations don’t generally look kindly upon their neighbors meddling in their internal affairs.
We therefore believe that we must live in peace with Monarchies and Republics, insofar as both treat us fairly and avoid seeking quarrels with us. Absolute Monarchies fear us more than we fear them. We must ourselves curb our militant and aggressive tendencies (that, of course, wasn’t meant for the current Minister), and if we wish to have our liberty and dignity respected, we must learn to have a little more respect for the liberty and dignity of others.
We have conquered Europe and Europe has conquered us; but we have been alone against all. The balance of military glory is still tilted in our favor. Let’s keep it at that, and not seek to restore the Empire. We no longer have an Emperor, his motives, or his excuses. Let us now try to triumph in Europe’s great intellectual, industrial and artistic campaigns. We should remain the leader of Europe, but on the constructive path of happiness, association, and liberty for the world.
It is because these are our beliefs and principles that we have subtitled Peaceful Democracy journal of Governments’ and Peoples’ interests.
PEACEFUL DEMOCRACY IS MONARCHICAL
Too much emphasis is put on governmental Reforms. That has been proven. We have had the experiments. The July Revolution put the liberal, constitutional party at the helm of the constitutional government. Did we get all that we expected? Far from it.
We have the most perfect form of government that yet exists. We stand by it, and we are right, but it is more because of its theoretical value than for its actual practical benefits. It is above all because we are weary, and rightfully so, of Reforms, Revolutions, and great political ventures, and we have learned to appraise their true worth.
We are, overall, among the great nations the one in which there is by far the greatest degree of liberty and equality. But that still applies more to our manners and spirit than to our political institutions.
Prussia, less free than France in several important aspects, is better governed by an absolute King than we are by our Ministers and Legislature. There is no nation that is making faster progress than Russia, pulled out of deepest barbarism in less than a hundred years by its Autocratic rulers. England, Europe’s venerable classical model of constitutionalism and political liberty, is the nation in which the masses’ situation is the sorriest. Finally, we would certainly not change our political and social status for that of the Republics of North and South America, whose inhabitants are impoverished, despite having the most fertile lands.
In view of these facts and our own experiences, it is inadvisable for intelligent men to give undue weight to political institutions.
Let us preserve what we have won; we mustn’t allow a retrenchment of those liberties for which we have dearly paid. We should progressively extend them, to improve the way our institutions work, to facilitate effective national administration, and to bring about gradually the social and economic emancipation of all those who still suffer and groan in the shadow of our political trophies. But let us be very wary of reviving revolutions and wars in order to chase after deceptive institutions and adopt some republican system.
It is a huge prejudice to believe that constitutional monarchy is incompatible with the democratic principle.
A constitutional government always follows the trend of public opinion and the truly powerful in a country. England is aristocratic in reality. Its monarchical government is merely the unitary instrument of its aristocracy. Let the ideas, manners and democratic institutions of France develop more and more, and our constitutional Monarchy will be more and more the instrument of French democratic thought.
Let us therefore generate ideas and create a massive public opinion. Then our constitutional mechanism, moved by a great national impulse, will soon grind the good grain that the nation entrusts to it.
If France had been republican in principles, manners, and traditions; if it had constituted a Republic in 1830; and if the republican form were now the operational and governmental mode of France, we would be saying: “Let us preserve our republican Government, and let it serve us to govern France well.” That is exactly what we are saying about the constitutional form that France now has.
Besides, not only is the Monarchy not in itself inconsistent with the democratic element. We need to remember that historically it has been under the protection of Monarchy that French democracy has increased. It was the alliance of the Commons and the Royalty against Feudalism that was the major cause of the gradual weakening and consequent final overthrow of the feudal system.
As we have seen, the new Feudalism is now weighing heavily on Royalty as well as on the Bourgeoisie and the People.
This has created a new alliance, and this time at least, victory will not be bloody and will result in the triumph of the oppressed.
POLITICAL UNITY; – ELECTION
The unity of the people and its government is a lofty goal that politics must attain.
Insofar as interests are at war in Society, opinions and classes won’t be able to reach agreement. It isn’t the electoral system or universal suffrage that can bring accord and harmony out of the chaos.
Social Unity and the Association of different classes is therefore the condition sine qua non of political Unity.
On the question of political rights to electoral participation in National government there are two Schools diametrically opposed and equally mistaken.
The materialist School is led by M. Guizot and M. Thiers. The men of this school do not recognize a priori political rights. They don’t recognize any rights other than those the law grants. Rights for them are made in the Legislature. There is for them the pays legal and the rest are political non-entities. [5]
The other School consists of the political ideologues. Starting from the position that the rights of citizens are a priori equal, whatever be their status, wealth, or capacity, the men of this School want to involve everyone, immediately and equally, in governing Society.
One denies rights and acknowledges only positive law; the other does not take situations, appropriate means, or actuality into account, and accepts no transition or limits in the exercise of rights.
We say that the two Schools are equally mistaken. This is why:
A man dies and leaves two young children. The children are the heirs, and property rights are vested upon the father’s death. The recognition of their right is not denied, but the enjoyment, the exercise, of their right is denied until they reach the age when they are able to use it wisely. They are given a guardian.
This is the way that we must reason regarding the political rights of the masses. Every member of our nation is endowed at birth with universal rights, but one must allow citizens to exercise rights to govern Society only so far and as much as they attain sufficient competence and capacity to handle safely rights so important and formidable.
This doctrine doesn’t disinherit the masses of their rights, as the political materialists do; it simply postpones their exercise. But, at the same time that it justifies this postponement and guardianship, it charges the guardians with an enormous responsibility. It places upon them the solemn duty of wise management of the minors’ interests, and furthermore, it obliges them to make all efforts to hasten the development of the minors’ capacity, and their accession to competence and the enjoyment of their rights.
Now, if the guardians administer with egoism, if their management is dishonest, if they so much as compromise through culpable recklessness, making a mockery of the rights and interests of the minors; if the minors, at the end of their tether, revolt against their guardians, throw them out, or break off with them, the guardians have only themselves to blame for the catastrophe. Revolution is always a great misfortune, but it is one that is provoked, justified, and merited. The Guardians of the people must be careful.
Because of these principles, we will not be found among the partisans of immediate, direct, universal Suffrage, but we are well-disposed to support arrangements that would introduce more intelligence and talent, and at the same time, more liberty, truth, and order, into our very defective electoral System.
Conclusion
We have concluded the exposition of Peaceful Democracy’s general principles, especially its perspectives on Politics and social Economics.
The other slogans that one reads on our masthead, those indicating our goals and objectives such as: Social progress without revolution; Universal wealth; Attainment of order, justice, and liberty; and those that specify our methods: Industrial organization; Voluntary association of capital, labor, and talent; don’t require any new exposition at the end of this Manifesto. The principles that they express have been explained as much as is appropriate in an article of this nature.
The reader now knows enough about us and our doctrines to decide how far he is in agreement with them. Our Cause is the Cause of God and Humanity; our Banner is that of Justice, Peace on earth, and the Association of Nations. Let the minds and hearts set on fire by this holy Cause join with us under the Banner of liberation!
Considerant Archive
16
51
|
./articles/Sakata-Shoichi/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.marx.works.1883.don.index | <body>
<a name="001"></a>
<p class="title">Frederick Engels (1873-1886)</p>
<h1>Dialectics of Nature</h1>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information">
<span class="info">First Published</span>: in Russian and German in the USSR in 1925,<br>
except for <i>Part Played by Labour</i>, 1896 and <i>Natural Science and the Spirit World</i>, 1898;<br>
<span class="info">Transcribed</span>: by Sally Ryan and [email protected] 1998/2001;<br>
Notes and Fragments transcribed by Andy Blunden 2006.</p>
<hr class="end">
<h4>Table of Contents</h4>
<a name="002"></a>
<p class="index">
<a href="preface.htm"> Preface</a>, by J. B. S. Haldane 1939</p>
<p class="index">
Articles and Chapters</p>
<p class="indentb">
<a href="ch01.htm"> Introduction</a><br>
<a href="ch02.htm"> Dialectics</a><br>
<a href="ch03.htm"> Basic Form of Motion</a><br>
<a href="ch04.htm"> The Measure of Motion - Work</a><br>
<a href="ch05.htm"> Heat</a><br>
<a href="ch06.htm"> Electricity</a><br>
<a href="ch08.htm">Tidal Friction, Kant and Thomson - Tait on the Rotation of the Earth and
Lunar Attraction</a><br>
<a href="../../1876/part-played-labour/index.htm">The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man</a>, 1876<br>
<a href="ch10.htm">Natural Science and the Spirit World</a>, 1878<br>
</p>
<p class="index">
Notes</p>
<p class="indentb">
<a href="ch07a.htm">From the History of Science</a><br>
<a href="ch07b.htm">Natural Science and Philosophy</a><br>
<a href="ch07c.htm">Dialectics</a><br>
<a href="ch07d.htm">Forms of Motion of Matter, Classification of the Sciences</a><br>
<a href="ch07e.htm">Mathematics</a><br>
<a href="ch07f.htm">Mechanics and Astronomy</a><br>
<a href="ch07f.htm#physics">Physics</a><br>
<a href="ch07f.htm#chemistry">Chemistry</a><br>
<a href="ch07g.htm">Biology</a><br>
</p>
<a name="003"></a>
<p class="index">
Appendices</p>
<p class="indentb">
<a href="appendix2.htm">Titles and Contents of Folders</a><br>
<a href="appendix2.htm#plans">Plans and Outlines</a><br>
Notes to Anti-D�hring: <a href="appendix1.htm">From the History of Science</a> (some duplication with notes above)<br>
Notes to Anti-D�hring: <a href="appendix3.htm">Fragment: Historical</a> (some duplication with notes above)<br>
Index to the Contents of the Folders<br>
Chronological List of Chapters and Fragments<br>
Bibliography<br>
</p>
<a name="004"></a>
<p class="skip"> </p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">
<a href="../../../letters/subject/science.htm">Letters on Natural Science</a><br>
<a href="../../subject/science/index.htm">Marx and Engels on Science and Mathematics</a><br>
<a href="../../../index.htm">Marx Engels Archive</a> |
<a href="preface.htm">Preface</a></p>
</body> |
Frederick Engels (1873-1886)
Dialectics of Nature
First Published: in Russian and German in the USSR in 1925,
except for Part Played by Labour, 1896 and Natural Science and the Spirit World, 1898;
Transcribed: by Sally Ryan and [email protected] 1998/2001;
Notes and Fragments transcribed by Andy Blunden 2006.
Table of Contents
Preface, by J. B. S. Haldane 1939
Articles and Chapters
Introduction
Dialectics
Basic Form of Motion
The Measure of Motion - Work
Heat
Electricity
Tidal Friction, Kant and Thomson - Tait on the Rotation of the Earth and
Lunar Attraction
The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man, 1876
Natural Science and the Spirit World, 1878
Notes
From the History of Science
Natural Science and Philosophy
Dialectics
Forms of Motion of Matter, Classification of the Sciences
Mathematics
Mechanics and Astronomy
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Appendices
Titles and Contents of Folders
Plans and Outlines
Notes to Anti-D�hring: From the History of Science (some duplication with notes above)
Notes to Anti-D�hring: Fragment: Historical (some duplication with notes above)
Index to the Contents of the Folders
Chronological List of Chapters and Fragments
Bibliography
Letters on Natural Science
Marx and Engels on Science and Mathematics
Marx Engels Archive |
Preface
|
./articles/Sakata-Shoichi/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.marx.works.1841.dr-theses.index | <body>
<p class="title">
Karl Marx Internet Archive
</p>
<hr class="base">
<h3>
The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature.<br>with an Appendix
</h3>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information">
<span class="info">Written:</span> March 1841;<br>
<span class="info">First Published:</span> 1902;<br>
<span class="info">Source:</span> Marx-Engels Collected Works Volume 1;<br>
<span class="info">Publisher:</span> Progress Publishers;<br>
<span class="info">Transcription/Markup:</span> Andy Blunden;<br>
<span class="info">Online Version:</span> Brian Baggins (marxists.org) 2000.</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="skip"> </p>
<p class="toc">
Contents: <span class="inote">According to Marx's original Table of Contents</span>
</p>
<p class="index">
<a class="mecw" href="dedicati.htm">Dedication</a></p>
<p class="index">
<a class="mecw" href="foreword.htm">Foreword</a></p>
<h4>Part One: Difference between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature <em>in General</em></h4>
<p class="index">
<a class="mecw" href="ch01.htm">I. The Subject of the Treatise</a></p>
<p class="index">
<a class="mecw" href="ch02.htm">II. Opinions on the Relationship Between Democritean and Epicurean Physics</a></p>
<p class="index">
<a class="mecw" href="ch03.htm">III. Difficulties Concerning the Identity of the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature</a></p>
<p class="index"><span class="context">
IV. General Difference in Principle Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature</span></p>
<p class="index"><span class="context">
V. Result</span></p>
<h4>Part Two: Difference between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature in detail</h4>
<p class="index">
<a class="mecw" href="ch04.htm">Chapter One</a>: The Declination of the Atom from the Straight Line</p>
<p class="index">
<a class="mecw" href="ch05.htm">Chapter Two</a>: The Qualities of the Atom</p>
<p class="index">
<a class="mecw" href="ch06.htm">Chapter Three</a>: <em>Atomoi archai</em> and <em>atoma stoicheia</em></p>
<p class="index">
<a class="mecw" href="ch07.htm">Chapter Four</a>: Time</p>
<p class="index">
<a class="mecw" href="ch08.htm">Chapter Five</a>: The Meteors</p>
<p class="index">
<a class="mecw" href="appendix.htm">Appendix</a> Critique of Plutarch's Polemic against the Theology of Epicurus</p>
<p class="index">
[<a class="mecw" href="app_frag.htm">Fragment from the Appendix</a>]</p>
<p>
II. Individual Immortality</p>
<p class="indentb">1. On Religious Feudalism. The Hell of the Populace<br><span class="context">2. The Longing of the Multitude<br>3. The Pride of the Elected</span></p>
<p class="index">
Notes</p>
<p class="indentb"><span class="context">
I. On Religious Feudalism. The Hell of the Populace<br>
II. Opinions on the Relationship between Democritean and Epicurean Physics (notes)<br>
III. Difficulties concerning the Ientity of the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature. (notes)</span><br>
IV. <a class="mecw" href="note-iv.htm">General Difference in Principle between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature</a></p>
<h4>Preliminary Note</h4>
<p><span class="context">
I. The Relationship of Man to God</span></p>
<p class="indentb"><span class="context">1. Fear and the Being Beyond<br>2. Cult and the Individual<br>3. Providence and the Degraded God</span></p>
<p class="index">
<a class="mecw" href="pref_new.htm">Draft of new Preface</a><br>
<a href="../../1839/notebook/index.htm">Marx's Notebooks on Epicurean Philosophy</a><br>
Editors' <a class="mecw" href="editors.htm">Footnotes</a> and <a class="mecw" href="../../cw/volume01/preface.htm#xxvi">Preface</a>, <a href="../../cw/volume01/01-107.gif">Image of Draft Preface</a>.
</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">
<a href="../../../index.htm">Karl Marx Internet Archive</a>
</p>
</body> |
Karl Marx Internet Archive
The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature.with an Appendix
Written: March 1841;
First Published: 1902;
Source: Marx-Engels Collected Works Volume 1;
Publisher: Progress Publishers;
Transcription/Markup: Andy Blunden;
Online Version: Brian Baggins (marxists.org) 2000.
Contents: According to Marx's original Table of Contents
Dedication
Foreword
Part One: Difference between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature in General
I. The Subject of the Treatise
II. Opinions on the Relationship Between Democritean and Epicurean Physics
III. Difficulties Concerning the Identity of the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature
IV. General Difference in Principle Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature
V. Result
Part Two: Difference between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature in detail
Chapter One: The Declination of the Atom from the Straight Line
Chapter Two: The Qualities of the Atom
Chapter Three: Atomoi archai and atoma stoicheia
Chapter Four: Time
Chapter Five: The Meteors
Appendix Critique of Plutarch's Polemic against the Theology of Epicurus
[Fragment from the Appendix]
II. Individual Immortality
1. On Religious Feudalism. The Hell of the Populace2. The Longing of the Multitude3. The Pride of the Elected
Notes
I. On Religious Feudalism. The Hell of the Populace
II. Opinions on the Relationship between Democritean and Epicurean Physics (notes)
III. Difficulties concerning the Ientity of the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature. (notes)
IV. General Difference in Principle between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature
Preliminary Note
I. The Relationship of Man to God
1. Fear and the Being Beyond2. Cult and the Individual3. Providence and the Degraded God
Draft of new Preface
Marx's Notebooks on Epicurean Philosophy
Editors' Footnotes and Preface, Image of Draft Preface.
Karl Marx Internet Archive
|
./articles/Sakata-Shoichi/https:..www.marxists.org.subject.japan.sakata.ch03 | <body>
<p class="title">Shoichi Sakata, July 1969</p>
<h3>Historical Introduction<br>
My Classics — Engels’ “Dialektik der Natur”</h3>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information"><span class="info">Source</span>: Supplement of the <em>Progress of Theoretical Physics</em>, No. 50, 1971;<br>
<span class="info">First published</span>: as a speech for FM broadcast of NHK on July 30, 1969, published in March 1971 issue of <em>Kagaku </em>(<i>Science</i>), after Sakata’s death.<br>
<span class="info">Transcribed</span>: for the Marxists Internet Archive by <a href="../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/ablunden.htm">Andy Blunden</a> </p>
<hr class="end">
<p><img src="../../../glossary/people/s/pics/sakata.gif" align="right" width="200" alt="japanese scientist type with black rimmed glasses" hspace="10" border="1"></p>
<p>Physics of atomic nuclei and elementary particles, which is my speciality, is entirely a new field of physics started more or less at the time when I was an undergraduate university student. Since one of our greatest concerns has been how to overcome the old, it may seem that we do not have much to do with the classics. But, creating new things through overcoming the old is the central problem in the <em>method of science </em>or methodology. In this sense, the classics are very important for us. As one of my classics, I want to quote Engels’ <em>Dialektik der Natur </em>(<i>Dialectics of Nature</i>), which has been continuously sending invaluable light into my studies of about forty years as a precious stone. Today, I would like to talk about how I encountered <em>Dialectics of Nature </em>and what influences it gave to my studies in physics.</p>
<p>Let me start with a brief introduction of Engels’ <em>Dialectics of Nature. </em>As you know, Engels was one of the most intimate friends of Marx and he himself is one of the greatest thinkers and philosophers of the nineteenth century. He constructed with Marx, dialectic materialism, the foundation of the so-called Marxism philosophy. He gave indispensable help to Marx for completion of <em>Das Kapital </em>(<em>Capital</em>), which is a new science to elevate the dialectic materialism as a methodology, and, from the early days, he was meditating over the application of the same methodology to the natural science, researches on nature. At that time, there had been made in fields of the natural science a series of new achievements, for example, discovery of the atom and molecule, discovery of cells in a living thing, establishment of the law of energy conservation and Darwin’s proposal of the theory of evolution. All of these achievements were causing bewilderment on the old picture of nature, the so-called metaphysical view on nature, but nobody had ever attained a new and comprehensive picture of nature correctly covering those discoveries. I may say that it was Engels who gave a light to the natural scientists, who had fallen into confusion before those new discoveries. A book published today under the title of Engels, <em>Dialectics of Nature</em>, is a collection of his manuscripts found after his death. A major part of the manuscripts was believed to be written by himself during a period between the early 1870s and 1880s, (1873-1882). In 1878, he published his famous book, <em>Anti-D�hring, </em>in which he described some fundamental problems of the natural dialectic. In 1882, he wrote a letter to Marx, saying that he was expecting to publish his natural dialectic in a short time. Because of a sudden change of the situation, the publication was postponed and never realised while he was alive. What I mean by a sudden change of the situation is the death of Marx in the next year, 1883. After Marx’s death, Engels had to put all of his efforts into the completion of Marx’s <em>Capital</em>. His life itself was finished in 1895, the next year after publication of the third volume of <em>Capital. </em>In this way, the manuscript of Engels’s <em>Dialectics of Nature </em>had to be left unpublished after his death. What made the case more unfortunate was that the manuscript was left in the hands of Bernstein of the German Social-Democratic Party, who had no ability for appreciating the value of the natural dialectic. Therefore, more than thirty years had to pass while the manuscript was relatively unknown and left unpublished. The publication was finally realised in 1925, when Lyasanov of the Soviet Union obtained a photo-copy of the manuscript and compiled German and Russian editions of the book.</p>
<p>Natural science accomplished a still larger revolution after the death of Engels, and its whole system was shaken from the fundamental basis by the so-called three big discoveries at the end of the last century – X-rays (1895), natural radio-activity (1896) and the electron (1897). Reading, for example, the chapter “Crisis of the Mathematical Physics” in Poincar�’s book, <em>La valour de la science </em>in 1905, you will be able to find out what serious surprises those discoveries incited among those natural scientists who did not possess a new view of nature and a correct methodology. The physicists had to lose their credit on the classical theory including Newton’s mechanics and the chemists began to doubt the persistency of elements and indivisibility of atoms. Many of them had fallen into the empiricism and the positivism, seeing that nothing could be more credible than experiences themselves. Mach and Ostwald were the representatives. On the other side, there were people, such as Boltzmann and Planck, who wanted to persist in the old view of nature, and violent disputes developed between the two groups. But, neither of the points of view were enough to seize the essence of the crisis of natural sciences at that time. The man who gave a correct analysis to the problem was Lenin with his view of the materialistic dialectic. His book entitled <em>Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, </em>published in 1908, is being held higher and higher in esteem today, as one of classics of the methodology of contemporary sciences, together with Engels’ <em>Dialectics of Nature.</em></p>
<p>Analysis of Lenin on contemporary sciences in his <em>Materialism and Empirio-Criticism </em>is, in many respects, in perfect agreement with that of Engels. Since both analyses were made from the same point of view of the materialistic dialectic, it may be no wonder that they were in agreement. But it is remarkable that Lenin did not know at all of the existence of the manuscripts of Engels. As I mentioned before, his manuscript had been buried for thirty years in the hands of a revisionist, who has no estimation of the value of the work, and the publication was made only after the death of Lenin.</p>
<p>Let me now talk about how I happened to encounter Engels’ <em>Dialectics of Nature</em>. I entered Kyoto University for the study of physics after finishing seven-year-studies at Koh-nan High School. I was attracted to theoretical physics since my high school days, reading books by J. Ishiwara, A. Kuwaki, H. Tanabe and others. These authors described serious conflicts among the theoretical physicists who were in confusion caused by the innovation of the relativity theory and of quantum mechanics. Among all, detailed introduction was given of controversies on such problems as methodology of sciences or a world picture, in particular, for the famous dispute between Mach and Planck. I was completely ignorant about Marxism in those days, but I happened to meet in the Esperantist Club, Tadashi Kato, who later became a translator of <em>Dialectics of Nature</em>. I became an intimate friend of his, for he himself was intending to become a theoretical physicist and his house was close to mine. He was very brilliant, and he was behaving like a competent scholar, though he was a high school student. In particular, he was a linguistic genius and mastered a number of foreign languages. Afterwards, he gave up the study of theoretical physics and entered the Faculty of Philosophy and Literature of Kyoto University. It was about this time when he started to translate Engels’ <em>Dialectics of Nature </em>into Japanese. I happened to encounter the natural dialectic for the first time when he came back home on vacation and told me about the book of Engels. As I mentioned to you before, Engels’ <em>Dialectics of Nature </em>was first published in 1925 in the Soviet Union. The Japanese people were able to have access to the natural dialectic relatively early, because the Japanese translation was published as early as 1929, only four years after the original publication. You may compare the situation with that in England, where Engels himself lived for a long time. The English translation was published as late as in 1940. The reason why the translation was published so early in Japan was that Marxism became familiar in Japan and publication was being made successively on translation of the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and others. But at the same time, we are deeply indebted to the genius of Kato, who mastered both fields of natural and social sciences and in addition was an excellent linguist. The translation of <em>Dialectics of Nature </em>was completed and published as one of the “Iwanami Library” under the joint translation of Kato and Yu-jiro Kako, his friend, though the larger part was made through the effort of Kato himself. The co-translator Kako, was his classmate in high school, and later became an assistant professor of the Faculty of Law of Kyoto University. He resigned his professorship together with Takikawa and other fellow professors at the moment of the famous Kyoto University incident, caused by the militarists, and died not long after while he was still young. Publication of the translation was made in the year I finished high school. I did not find any difficulties in understanding the natural dialectic, because I had already learnt the content directly from Kato in my high school days.</p>
<p>Later, I entered the Department of Physics of Kyoto University and started my studies on theoretical physics. As I began to understand the two revolutionary theories of the present century, the relativity theory and the quantum mechanics, I was gradually becoming aware of the importance of the dialectic view of nature, or the point of view of the natural dialectic. Above all, reading Lenin’s book of <em>Materialism and Empirio-Criticism </em>convinced me of the fruitlessness of the arguments between Mach and Planck at the beginning of the present century. I felt a strong stimulus deep in my heart, to accomplish a practical application in my real research of the natural dialectic as the methodology of contemporary sciences.</p>
<p>In 1932, I became a third year student and started to research in my speciality. The year of 1932 was an epoch-making period in modern physics for a series of revolutionary discoveries. Above all, the discovery of the neutron by Chadwick of England was of the greatest significance for the future direction of the development of physics. I may say that a new field of physics on atomic nuclei and elementary particles was started at this moment.</p>
<p>Before the discovery of the neutron, matter in general was regarded as being composed of protons and electrons only. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Dolton showed that matter is made from atoms, and we knew by the three great discoveries made at the end of the last century, that the atom is not the ultimate constituent of matter but has a complicated inner structure in itself. The structure of an atom has been made clearer and clearer in the present century. It was discovered in 1911 that an atom is composed of a nucleus and surrounding electrons. Motion of an electron inside an atom was found similar to the planetary motion in the solar system, but Newtonian mechanics could not be applied to the electron motion. Until the nineteenth century, Newtonian mechanics had been esteemed as an ideal of exact sciences and regarded as one of the ultimate rules or the absolute truths, which governs motion of all existences in nature including motion of heavenly bodies as well as atomic motions. But, the mechanics was losing its almightiness, being not applicable to the world of an electron, or the microscopic phenomena. This fact caused a strong reaction to all of the physicists, as did the three great discoveries at the end of the last century. But, a new mechanics was successfully constructed in 1925 which governs the microscopic world. It is discovery of quantum mechanics. Through establishment of the quantum mechanics, atomic physics made remarkable progress in a short time interval. In this way, we were able to understand the microscopic world as well as the macroscopic world.</p>
<p>Before 1932, people still could not enter into the world of atomic nuclei, a still finer world than that of an atom. Many of the physicists were expecting that the quantum mechanics could be applied to nuclear problems, under the assumption that an atomic nucleus is composed of protons and electrons. But the attempts were encountered with various contradictions, reasons of which were hardly understood. Then, Niels Bohr, a discoverer of quantum mechanics, proposed the idea that a new mechanics must be founded which governs the world of atomic nuclei in place of the quantum mechanics. But, he could not find any more fish under the same weeping willow.</p>
<p>Problems of atomic nuclei found the direction for their solution by the discovery of the neutron in 1932. Really, the atomic nucleus is a composite system of protons and neutrons. The reason that kept us away from the understanding was that an unknown kind of particle – the neutron – was playing an essential role in the nucleus. Since then, a rapid progress was made in nuclear physics on the basis of the proton-neutron model of a nucleus.</p>
<p>We must notice here the methodological characteristics which can be found typically in the “establishment of the quantum mechanics” and “development of nuclear physics”. I felt the necessity of analysing those problems from a point of view of the natural dialectics. I tried the analysis in my thesis for my bachelor’s degree, though it was not complete from the present point of view.</p>
<p>After graduation, I became an assistant to Yukawa at Osaka University. Yukawa was writing his famous paper on the meson theory. The meson theory was born from an investigation on the origin of the so-called nuclear force, a force putting protons and neutrons together into a nucleus. He made an assumption that a proton and a neutron are exchanging an unknown kind of elementary particle to be called the meson.</p>
<p>But, the society of physics at that time was deeply influenced by positivistic thought starting from Mach, and people were not willing to accept the Yukawa theory, which introduced an unknown elementary particle. At that moment Mituo Taketani developed a new methodology known as the three-stage theory, and it gave invaluable encouragement to the Yukawa theory. Taketani was my junior by one year in Kyoto University, but I had no chance to talk with him in my student days. When I was working in Nishina’s laboratory of the Institute of Physical and Chemical Research just after my graduation, he sometimes visited the laboratory and we became friendly with each other. After I started my studies with Yukawa at Osaka University, he frequently visited us there and we three began to collaborate on the study. He had profound knowledge in philosophy, science and art, and in addition he had very original opinions. So we enjoyed very much his visit to our laboratory. In those days he was a research assistant in Kyoto University, and he had a close circle of progressive young scholars, such as Shoichi Nakai, Takeshi Shimmura of the Faculty of Philosophy and Literature of Kyoto University and others. Their circle was publishing a journal with the title <em>Sekai-Butika </em>(World Culture). In 1936 he presented in this journal a paper entitled “Dialectics of Nature- on Quantum Mechanics”. It is an epoch-making contribution of a penetrating analysis on the quantum mechanics with a stereoscopic view of the materialistic dialectics. There, he was making a sharp criticism against the one-sided views of the Copenhagen interpretation of Bohr and others which contains strong positivistic tendencies. Through this work he attained “the three-stage theory” which should be placed at the highest level of the natural dialectics. His new methodology has been playing an important role like a compass in our collaborative study since then.</p>
<p>According to Taketani’s three-stage theory, a process of cognition of nature is to be carried out through the three stages: phenomenological — substantialistic — essentialistic stages.</p>
<p>The phenomenological stage is the one in which one observes and describes natural phenomena as they are. In the substantialistic stage, one investigates the structure of the object. Finally, one finds physical rules governing the object in the essentialistic stage. He demonstrated that both of quantum mechanics and Newtonian mechanics were constructed through the above three stages. The positivists are often neglecting the importance of the second stage, while Taketani was defining the situation of nuclear physics at that time as a stage of searching for, a road towards the third stage, through analyses of the second stage. The importance of the discovery of the neutron and also of the introduction of the meson can be understood from his point of view.</p>
<p>Experimental discovery of the meson in cosmic radiation was proving the validity of the Yukawa theory, and at the same time it was showing the power of Taketani’s methodology. Progress of our theory of elementary particles achieved in Japan since then and afterward is deeply indebted to Taketani’s methodology.</p>
<p>Concerning my studies, I made in 1942 the two-meson theory as a development of the Yukawa theory, proposed in 1946 the theory of mixed fields which opened a new way towards Tomonaga’s renormalisation theory, and constructed in 1956 the composite model of elementary particles. All of them were accomplished with Taketani’s methodology of the natural dialectics.</p>
<p>Engels is telling us in his <em>Dialectics of Nature </em>that nature is composed of various strata of different properties, on each of which the respective proper physical laws are operating. Those strata are neither isolated nor independent with each other, but are mutually dependent and correlating among themselves. They are in the midst of generation, annihilation and also mutual transformation, and are constituting nature as the whole unified existence. The three-stage theory of Taketani is developing a methodology for cognition of the individual strata on the basis of such a view of nature. Correctness of the dialectic view of nature has been made clearer and clearer by rapid progress of science after the death of Engels. On the old and fossilised metaphysical view of nature before Engels, one believes that nature is ultimately composed of atoms, which are eternal and indivisible, and their motion is governed by Newtonian mechanics, which is a final law over the whole existence. But, such an old point of view had to be abandoned as science made remarkable progress. Still, there remain even today a number of. physicists who believe the elementary particles to be the ultimate constituents in place of the atoms of old days, and wish to make a revival of the metaphysical picture of nature. There are, too, many of those with the positivistic point of view, who regard the concept of elementary particles as nothing but the so-called useful working hypothesis of Mach. It may be concluded that all of those people are remaining blind to the development of sciences after Engels, and do nothing but try to prevent a new step of cognition of nature beyond the stratum of elementary particles.</p>
<p>I used to keep on my desk a note with the following sentences of Engels. It says, “Essence of the modern atomism lies not only in its claim of discontinuity of matter, but also in its emphasis that those elements of the discontinuity, atoms-molecules-bodies-heavenly bodies and others, are the nodal points which restrict various qualitative mode of existence of matter in general.” In addition, I can never forget a famous phrase of Lenin in <em>his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, </em>which says that even an electron is as inexhaustible as an atom is. Those are indeed encouraging me to confront the view of regarding elementary particles as <em>the ultimate of matter </em>and to concentrate on the study of the composite model, with a standpoint of <em>the stratum of matter.</em></p>
<p>At the end, I would like to refer to the doctor thesis of Marx in its relation to <em>Dialectics of Nature </em>Dialectics. His thesis was entitled “On the difference between the atomism of Democritus and that of Epicurus.” I think that he is pointing out a difference of great significance. The atom of Democritus is a perfect existence created by God, so that it may be regarded as <em>the intimate of matter. </em>But, the atom of Epicurus is imperfect, because it contains accidental elements, which may be regarded as <em>a stratum of matter</em>. I think that the thesis should be highly appreciated, because it destroyed the current view that Epicurus was an Epigone of Democritus and it placed a proper estimation on Epicurus for opening a new road towards the dialectic view of nature.</p>
<p> </p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">
<a href="index.htm" target="_top">Shoichi Sakata</a> |
<a href="../index.htm" target="_top">Marxism in Japan</a> |
<a href="../../../reference/subject/philosophy/index.htm" target="_top">Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org</a></p>
</body> |
Shoichi Sakata, July 1969
Historical Introduction
My Classics — Engels’ “Dialektik der Natur”
Source: Supplement of the Progress of Theoretical Physics, No. 50, 1971;
First published: as a speech for FM broadcast of NHK on July 30, 1969, published in March 1971 issue of Kagaku (Science), after Sakata’s death.
Transcribed: for the Marxists Internet Archive by Andy Blunden
Physics of atomic nuclei and elementary particles, which is my speciality, is entirely a new field of physics started more or less at the time when I was an undergraduate university student. Since one of our greatest concerns has been how to overcome the old, it may seem that we do not have much to do with the classics. But, creating new things through overcoming the old is the central problem in the method of science or methodology. In this sense, the classics are very important for us. As one of my classics, I want to quote Engels’ Dialektik der Natur (Dialectics of Nature), which has been continuously sending invaluable light into my studies of about forty years as a precious stone. Today, I would like to talk about how I encountered Dialectics of Nature and what influences it gave to my studies in physics.
Let me start with a brief introduction of Engels’ Dialectics of Nature. As you know, Engels was one of the most intimate friends of Marx and he himself is one of the greatest thinkers and philosophers of the nineteenth century. He constructed with Marx, dialectic materialism, the foundation of the so-called Marxism philosophy. He gave indispensable help to Marx for completion of Das Kapital (Capital), which is a new science to elevate the dialectic materialism as a methodology, and, from the early days, he was meditating over the application of the same methodology to the natural science, researches on nature. At that time, there had been made in fields of the natural science a series of new achievements, for example, discovery of the atom and molecule, discovery of cells in a living thing, establishment of the law of energy conservation and Darwin’s proposal of the theory of evolution. All of these achievements were causing bewilderment on the old picture of nature, the so-called metaphysical view on nature, but nobody had ever attained a new and comprehensive picture of nature correctly covering those discoveries. I may say that it was Engels who gave a light to the natural scientists, who had fallen into confusion before those new discoveries. A book published today under the title of Engels, Dialectics of Nature, is a collection of his manuscripts found after his death. A major part of the manuscripts was believed to be written by himself during a period between the early 1870s and 1880s, (1873-1882). In 1878, he published his famous book, Anti-D�hring, in which he described some fundamental problems of the natural dialectic. In 1882, he wrote a letter to Marx, saying that he was expecting to publish his natural dialectic in a short time. Because of a sudden change of the situation, the publication was postponed and never realised while he was alive. What I mean by a sudden change of the situation is the death of Marx in the next year, 1883. After Marx’s death, Engels had to put all of his efforts into the completion of Marx’s Capital. His life itself was finished in 1895, the next year after publication of the third volume of Capital. In this way, the manuscript of Engels’s Dialectics of Nature had to be left unpublished after his death. What made the case more unfortunate was that the manuscript was left in the hands of Bernstein of the German Social-Democratic Party, who had no ability for appreciating the value of the natural dialectic. Therefore, more than thirty years had to pass while the manuscript was relatively unknown and left unpublished. The publication was finally realised in 1925, when Lyasanov of the Soviet Union obtained a photo-copy of the manuscript and compiled German and Russian editions of the book.
Natural science accomplished a still larger revolution after the death of Engels, and its whole system was shaken from the fundamental basis by the so-called three big discoveries at the end of the last century – X-rays (1895), natural radio-activity (1896) and the electron (1897). Reading, for example, the chapter “Crisis of the Mathematical Physics” in Poincar�’s book, La valour de la science in 1905, you will be able to find out what serious surprises those discoveries incited among those natural scientists who did not possess a new view of nature and a correct methodology. The physicists had to lose their credit on the classical theory including Newton’s mechanics and the chemists began to doubt the persistency of elements and indivisibility of atoms. Many of them had fallen into the empiricism and the positivism, seeing that nothing could be more credible than experiences themselves. Mach and Ostwald were the representatives. On the other side, there were people, such as Boltzmann and Planck, who wanted to persist in the old view of nature, and violent disputes developed between the two groups. But, neither of the points of view were enough to seize the essence of the crisis of natural sciences at that time. The man who gave a correct analysis to the problem was Lenin with his view of the materialistic dialectic. His book entitled Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, published in 1908, is being held higher and higher in esteem today, as one of classics of the methodology of contemporary sciences, together with Engels’ Dialectics of Nature.
Analysis of Lenin on contemporary sciences in his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism is, in many respects, in perfect agreement with that of Engels. Since both analyses were made from the same point of view of the materialistic dialectic, it may be no wonder that they were in agreement. But it is remarkable that Lenin did not know at all of the existence of the manuscripts of Engels. As I mentioned before, his manuscript had been buried for thirty years in the hands of a revisionist, who has no estimation of the value of the work, and the publication was made only after the death of Lenin.
Let me now talk about how I happened to encounter Engels’ Dialectics of Nature. I entered Kyoto University for the study of physics after finishing seven-year-studies at Koh-nan High School. I was attracted to theoretical physics since my high school days, reading books by J. Ishiwara, A. Kuwaki, H. Tanabe and others. These authors described serious conflicts among the theoretical physicists who were in confusion caused by the innovation of the relativity theory and of quantum mechanics. Among all, detailed introduction was given of controversies on such problems as methodology of sciences or a world picture, in particular, for the famous dispute between Mach and Planck. I was completely ignorant about Marxism in those days, but I happened to meet in the Esperantist Club, Tadashi Kato, who later became a translator of Dialectics of Nature. I became an intimate friend of his, for he himself was intending to become a theoretical physicist and his house was close to mine. He was very brilliant, and he was behaving like a competent scholar, though he was a high school student. In particular, he was a linguistic genius and mastered a number of foreign languages. Afterwards, he gave up the study of theoretical physics and entered the Faculty of Philosophy and Literature of Kyoto University. It was about this time when he started to translate Engels’ Dialectics of Nature into Japanese. I happened to encounter the natural dialectic for the first time when he came back home on vacation and told me about the book of Engels. As I mentioned to you before, Engels’ Dialectics of Nature was first published in 1925 in the Soviet Union. The Japanese people were able to have access to the natural dialectic relatively early, because the Japanese translation was published as early as 1929, only four years after the original publication. You may compare the situation with that in England, where Engels himself lived for a long time. The English translation was published as late as in 1940. The reason why the translation was published so early in Japan was that Marxism became familiar in Japan and publication was being made successively on translation of the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and others. But at the same time, we are deeply indebted to the genius of Kato, who mastered both fields of natural and social sciences and in addition was an excellent linguist. The translation of Dialectics of Nature was completed and published as one of the “Iwanami Library” under the joint translation of Kato and Yu-jiro Kako, his friend, though the larger part was made through the effort of Kato himself. The co-translator Kako, was his classmate in high school, and later became an assistant professor of the Faculty of Law of Kyoto University. He resigned his professorship together with Takikawa and other fellow professors at the moment of the famous Kyoto University incident, caused by the militarists, and died not long after while he was still young. Publication of the translation was made in the year I finished high school. I did not find any difficulties in understanding the natural dialectic, because I had already learnt the content directly from Kato in my high school days.
Later, I entered the Department of Physics of Kyoto University and started my studies on theoretical physics. As I began to understand the two revolutionary theories of the present century, the relativity theory and the quantum mechanics, I was gradually becoming aware of the importance of the dialectic view of nature, or the point of view of the natural dialectic. Above all, reading Lenin’s book of Materialism and Empirio-Criticism convinced me of the fruitlessness of the arguments between Mach and Planck at the beginning of the present century. I felt a strong stimulus deep in my heart, to accomplish a practical application in my real research of the natural dialectic as the methodology of contemporary sciences.
In 1932, I became a third year student and started to research in my speciality. The year of 1932 was an epoch-making period in modern physics for a series of revolutionary discoveries. Above all, the discovery of the neutron by Chadwick of England was of the greatest significance for the future direction of the development of physics. I may say that a new field of physics on atomic nuclei and elementary particles was started at this moment.
Before the discovery of the neutron, matter in general was regarded as being composed of protons and electrons only. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Dolton showed that matter is made from atoms, and we knew by the three great discoveries made at the end of the last century, that the atom is not the ultimate constituent of matter but has a complicated inner structure in itself. The structure of an atom has been made clearer and clearer in the present century. It was discovered in 1911 that an atom is composed of a nucleus and surrounding electrons. Motion of an electron inside an atom was found similar to the planetary motion in the solar system, but Newtonian mechanics could not be applied to the electron motion. Until the nineteenth century, Newtonian mechanics had been esteemed as an ideal of exact sciences and regarded as one of the ultimate rules or the absolute truths, which governs motion of all existences in nature including motion of heavenly bodies as well as atomic motions. But, the mechanics was losing its almightiness, being not applicable to the world of an electron, or the microscopic phenomena. This fact caused a strong reaction to all of the physicists, as did the three great discoveries at the end of the last century. But, a new mechanics was successfully constructed in 1925 which governs the microscopic world. It is discovery of quantum mechanics. Through establishment of the quantum mechanics, atomic physics made remarkable progress in a short time interval. In this way, we were able to understand the microscopic world as well as the macroscopic world.
Before 1932, people still could not enter into the world of atomic nuclei, a still finer world than that of an atom. Many of the physicists were expecting that the quantum mechanics could be applied to nuclear problems, under the assumption that an atomic nucleus is composed of protons and electrons. But the attempts were encountered with various contradictions, reasons of which were hardly understood. Then, Niels Bohr, a discoverer of quantum mechanics, proposed the idea that a new mechanics must be founded which governs the world of atomic nuclei in place of the quantum mechanics. But, he could not find any more fish under the same weeping willow.
Problems of atomic nuclei found the direction for their solution by the discovery of the neutron in 1932. Really, the atomic nucleus is a composite system of protons and neutrons. The reason that kept us away from the understanding was that an unknown kind of particle – the neutron – was playing an essential role in the nucleus. Since then, a rapid progress was made in nuclear physics on the basis of the proton-neutron model of a nucleus.
We must notice here the methodological characteristics which can be found typically in the “establishment of the quantum mechanics” and “development of nuclear physics”. I felt the necessity of analysing those problems from a point of view of the natural dialectics. I tried the analysis in my thesis for my bachelor’s degree, though it was not complete from the present point of view.
After graduation, I became an assistant to Yukawa at Osaka University. Yukawa was writing his famous paper on the meson theory. The meson theory was born from an investigation on the origin of the so-called nuclear force, a force putting protons and neutrons together into a nucleus. He made an assumption that a proton and a neutron are exchanging an unknown kind of elementary particle to be called the meson.
But, the society of physics at that time was deeply influenced by positivistic thought starting from Mach, and people were not willing to accept the Yukawa theory, which introduced an unknown elementary particle. At that moment Mituo Taketani developed a new methodology known as the three-stage theory, and it gave invaluable encouragement to the Yukawa theory. Taketani was my junior by one year in Kyoto University, but I had no chance to talk with him in my student days. When I was working in Nishina’s laboratory of the Institute of Physical and Chemical Research just after my graduation, he sometimes visited the laboratory and we became friendly with each other. After I started my studies with Yukawa at Osaka University, he frequently visited us there and we three began to collaborate on the study. He had profound knowledge in philosophy, science and art, and in addition he had very original opinions. So we enjoyed very much his visit to our laboratory. In those days he was a research assistant in Kyoto University, and he had a close circle of progressive young scholars, such as Shoichi Nakai, Takeshi Shimmura of the Faculty of Philosophy and Literature of Kyoto University and others. Their circle was publishing a journal with the title Sekai-Butika (World Culture). In 1936 he presented in this journal a paper entitled “Dialectics of Nature- on Quantum Mechanics”. It is an epoch-making contribution of a penetrating analysis on the quantum mechanics with a stereoscopic view of the materialistic dialectics. There, he was making a sharp criticism against the one-sided views of the Copenhagen interpretation of Bohr and others which contains strong positivistic tendencies. Through this work he attained “the three-stage theory” which should be placed at the highest level of the natural dialectics. His new methodology has been playing an important role like a compass in our collaborative study since then.
According to Taketani’s three-stage theory, a process of cognition of nature is to be carried out through the three stages: phenomenological — substantialistic — essentialistic stages.
The phenomenological stage is the one in which one observes and describes natural phenomena as they are. In the substantialistic stage, one investigates the structure of the object. Finally, one finds physical rules governing the object in the essentialistic stage. He demonstrated that both of quantum mechanics and Newtonian mechanics were constructed through the above three stages. The positivists are often neglecting the importance of the second stage, while Taketani was defining the situation of nuclear physics at that time as a stage of searching for, a road towards the third stage, through analyses of the second stage. The importance of the discovery of the neutron and also of the introduction of the meson can be understood from his point of view.
Experimental discovery of the meson in cosmic radiation was proving the validity of the Yukawa theory, and at the same time it was showing the power of Taketani’s methodology. Progress of our theory of elementary particles achieved in Japan since then and afterward is deeply indebted to Taketani’s methodology.
Concerning my studies, I made in 1942 the two-meson theory as a development of the Yukawa theory, proposed in 1946 the theory of mixed fields which opened a new way towards Tomonaga’s renormalisation theory, and constructed in 1956 the composite model of elementary particles. All of them were accomplished with Taketani’s methodology of the natural dialectics.
Engels is telling us in his Dialectics of Nature that nature is composed of various strata of different properties, on each of which the respective proper physical laws are operating. Those strata are neither isolated nor independent with each other, but are mutually dependent and correlating among themselves. They are in the midst of generation, annihilation and also mutual transformation, and are constituting nature as the whole unified existence. The three-stage theory of Taketani is developing a methodology for cognition of the individual strata on the basis of such a view of nature. Correctness of the dialectic view of nature has been made clearer and clearer by rapid progress of science after the death of Engels. On the old and fossilised metaphysical view of nature before Engels, one believes that nature is ultimately composed of atoms, which are eternal and indivisible, and their motion is governed by Newtonian mechanics, which is a final law over the whole existence. But, such an old point of view had to be abandoned as science made remarkable progress. Still, there remain even today a number of. physicists who believe the elementary particles to be the ultimate constituents in place of the atoms of old days, and wish to make a revival of the metaphysical picture of nature. There are, too, many of those with the positivistic point of view, who regard the concept of elementary particles as nothing but the so-called useful working hypothesis of Mach. It may be concluded that all of those people are remaining blind to the development of sciences after Engels, and do nothing but try to prevent a new step of cognition of nature beyond the stratum of elementary particles.
I used to keep on my desk a note with the following sentences of Engels. It says, “Essence of the modern atomism lies not only in its claim of discontinuity of matter, but also in its emphasis that those elements of the discontinuity, atoms-molecules-bodies-heavenly bodies and others, are the nodal points which restrict various qualitative mode of existence of matter in general.” In addition, I can never forget a famous phrase of Lenin in his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, which says that even an electron is as inexhaustible as an atom is. Those are indeed encouraging me to confront the view of regarding elementary particles as the ultimate of matter and to concentrate on the study of the composite model, with a standpoint of the stratum of matter.
At the end, I would like to refer to the doctor thesis of Marx in its relation to Dialectics of Nature Dialectics. His thesis was entitled “On the difference between the atomism of Democritus and that of Epicurus.” I think that he is pointing out a difference of great significance. The atom of Democritus is a perfect existence created by God, so that it may be regarded as the intimate of matter. But, the atom of Epicurus is imperfect, because it contains accidental elements, which may be regarded as a stratum of matter. I think that the thesis should be highly appreciated, because it destroyed the current view that Epicurus was an Epigone of Democritus and it placed a proper estimation on Epicurus for opening a new road towards the dialectic view of nature.
Shoichi Sakata |
Marxism in Japan |
Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org
|
./articles/Sakata-Shoichi/https:..www.marxists.org.subject.japan.sakata.ch01 | <body>
<p class="title">Shoichi Sakata, June 1947</p>
<h1>Theoretical Physics and Dialectics of Nature</h1>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information"><span class="info">Source</span>: Supplement of the <em>Progress of Theoretical Physics</em>, No. 50 1971;<br>
<span class="info">First published</span>: in the October issue of the journal <em>Chō-ryū</em> in 1947.<br>
<span class="info">Transcribed</span>: for the Marxists Internet Archive by <a href="../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/ablunden.htm">Andy Blunden</a>.</p>
<hr class="end">
<p><img src="../../../glossary/people/s/pics/sakata.gif" align="right" width="200" alt="japanese scientist type with black rimmed glasses" hspace="10" border="1"></p>
<h3>1</h3>
<p>Theoretical physics in our country has been known all over the world by the brilliant achievements of H. Yukawa. How could the theory of elementary particles have freely developed in such a society where the feudal system remained for a long time? J. D. Bernal of London University made the following criticism on the prospecta of Japanese science in a book written just before World War II: “It is over-elaborate, pedantic, and without imagination, and unfortunately, in many cases, it is also uncritical and inaccurate. It is unfair to blame the Japanese scientists for this. In a country where dangerous thoughts are being persecuted with increasing severity, originality in science will hardly be at a premium. Where science is used more openly and cynically even than in Europe for purposes of war research and for trying to find the absolute minimum of food on which factory workers can exist, it is unlikely to attract the best minds to do the best work. Of recent years there has been a notable though underground reaction against this official and military science. The younger Japanese scientists are beginning to be aware of the social implications of their work, and are thinking for themselves outside the orbit of the imperial and military myth of Shinta, or of its more violent modern forms such as Kōdō. If, in the revolutions that threaten East as much as West, the Japanese people should ever acquire any peace of freedom we may expect here also a great improvement in the quality of scientific work”.</p>
<p>Development of the Yukawa theory might certainly be a coincidence and good fortune. One may assert that in the field of science, such as theoretical physics where contemplative faculty plays a leading role, social conditions do not have much influence. However, it was actually shown by Nazism in Germany that even the innermost part of modern science could be affected by superstition and barbarism. If there had been no conscious efforts to get rid of the mythological viewpoint of the world and, its narrow-minded method of thinking, the theoretical physics in our country, too, would have followed a miserable path.</p>
<p>In recent years, theoretical physics have experienced a bewilderingly rapid development. It may certainly be said that the fruits obtained in the last half century surpass to a great extent the development in the past several centuries. The world of physics by Newton and Maxwell which had been believed to be firm and unshakeable, was overthrown by the advent of the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics. The metaphysical view of matter based on immutable elements and indivisible atoms was radically changed. While most physicists did not yet fully understand the new theories, the spearhead of physics further invaded the interior of atomic nuclei and development began in the theory of elementary particles. The true character of cosmic rays is to be clarified also. In such an unprecedented revolutionary age, even a scientist who has already accomplished his great work cannot follow the new development. Planck, who found the clue to quantum theory, and also Einstein, who constructed the theory of relativity, could not correctly understand the foundation of quantum mechanics. Physicists who felt uneasy about the basis of their own beliefs expressed their interests in philosophical problems and began to discuss problems such as “the role of science,“the reality of externality” and “the problem of causality.” They are making efforts to get a world view on which they never lose their own confidence even if they are faced with the revolutionary age and to acquire methodology useful for their own studies. But this is not necessarily an easy task. The reason is that philosophy is a science influenced strongly by social restrictions as it is said to be even a partisan science. It is not only the world of physics that is overtaken by the revolutionary age. In this century all the world was frequently astonished by many great upheavals such as World War I, the Russian Revolution, the financial panic, the rise of fascist nations and World War II. Physicists were to a great extent affected directly by these events. Also, these indirect influences were not small ones which were brought about from philosophy reflecting social unrest, philosophy guiding the Russian Revolution, philosophy trying to justify the ideology of fascists, etc.</p>
<p>It was during the period from the end of the 19th century to the beginning of this century, that physicists increased their interest in philosophy at first, while the discoveries of radium, electrons, etc., first shook the foundation of classical theories. As Poincar� stated in <em>Value of Science</em>, a whole of the fundamental laws of old physics such as “Newton’s principles”, “Mayer’s principle”, “Lavoisier’s principle” and “Carnot’s principle” stood on the brinks of their collapse and a “crisis of mathematical physics” occurred. Physicists who lost their confidence in the old theories could no longer believe anything other than their own experiences. Among them such empiricistic and positivistic tendencies were prevalent that science is not any copy of the objective reality, but merely a product of human consciousness, and that the role of science is to faithfully describe experiences and not to explain the essence of nature. Mach, Kirchhoff, Ostwald and Poincar� were representative scientists with these opinions. On the contrary, there appeared scientists such as Boltzmann and Planck who held fast to their viewpoint of realism, and controversies were raised frequently between the two groups of scientists. In the meanwhile, there were tragedies such as the suicides of Boltzmann and Drude. All of the above views of the world, however, were not sufficient to grasp the points of “the crisis of physics.” It was Lenin who correctly analysed these problems, whereas among physicists at that time, only a few knew of his investigation.</p>
<p>Remarkable development of physics in the subsequent period has been attained mainly on the basis of the atomistic viewpoint of matter contrary to expectation of the positivists. Studies on the structure of the atom were remarkably increased by invention of “the Geiger counter, which counts the number of particles invisible to the naked eye, such as electron and a-particle, and by device of “Wilson’s cloud chamber” which indicates the paths of the particles. In 1911, a model of an atom like the solar system was established by Rutherford. In this case, however, the old theory faced a crisis also. This model, in fact, could not offer any explanation of the stability of the atom and the regularity found in the series of spectra. In 1913, Bohr proposed the so-called old-quantum theory by introducing quite a daring hypothesis in which Planck’s concept of quantum was adopted. This theory has an eclectic character which admits, on the one hand, Newton’s and Maxwell’s classical laws and on the other hand, two assumptions quite incompatible with them. The contradiction of this dualistic character became more serious as the more complicated systems were treated, and then the way to the reconciliation could not be found even by Bohr’s “correspondence principle.”</p>
<p>At that time an astonishing fact was found: Matter as well as light has dual character. It was clarified that both matter and light were “particles” and “waves” at the same time. This was the problem which could no longer be solved merely by partial modification of classical physics. From many experiences before that time, it had been known that an electron is a particle with a certain amount of electricity and mass and that something like a “fragment” of an electron can never exist. Nevertheless it was found that an electron is also a wave and it passes simultaneously through two or more lattice points of a crystal and causes a diffraction phenomenon. Since a particle treated by Newtonian mechanics occupies a certain point in space at a certain time and moves along a certain orbit with a certain velocity as a particle of the ordinary concept, it is absolutely incompatible with the concept of wave which spreads over whole space. Obviously such contradictions were quite an intolerable matter for traditional physicists. Lorentz, an aged physicist who had studied the theory of electron and had built the basis of relativity, talked in despair, “Today, people assert just the opposite to what they said yesterday. In such a time, criterion of truth any longer could not be maintained and it is hard to understand what science is. I regret that I did not die five years ago before this contradiction was born”.</p>
<p>Physicists became sceptical again and some of them went into positivism, some into agnosticism and some into mysticism. However, in 1925, a new theory, “quantum mechanics” was born brilliantly. Nevertheless, philosophical confusion among physicists still continued concerning the interpretation of quantum mechanics. These confusions were spurred by the fact that pioneers of quantum mechanics often carelessly emphasised their positivistic opinions. For instance, Heisenberg said the following; “physicists are to describe formally, only the relations among perceptions,” “with modern physics we do not treat the reality or the structure of atoms, but only phenomena which we perceive in making observations of atoms,” and so on. Consequently, in its early days quantum mechanics was often expounded from the standpoint of positivism and operationalism of its modern version. The book by S. Kikuchi, which was published rather early in our country, is a typical example reflecting the above viewpoint. He said for example, “It is possible to consider that generally the law of nature describes in a given experimental operation the relation among indications of meters attached on instruments. It is not such as to grasp the entity behind phenomena through investigation of them”.</p>
<p>However, as my respected friend M. Taketani frequently advises, physics itself should be strictly distinguished from the interpretation given by physicists. In many cases, scientist acts differently from what he says. In his book <em>The Structure of Matter </em>Kikuchi says that the materialistic viewpoint, that the external world exists independently of human consciousness, is a naive standpoint of human beings living in a world of common sense and has no connection with the standpoint of highly advanced science such as quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, in the same book, he thoroughly returns to that standpoint of naive realism when he explains the diffraction of electron, the scattering of neutron, etc., on which he produced very brilliant achievement. This proves that in his laboratory he always stands on the viewpoint of naive realism.</p>
<p>The relation between science and view of the world cannot be clarified without historical investigation of the origin and development of science. However, a scientific specialist frequently includes a dogmatic interpretation within his narrow field of vision. Now we part from the theoretical physics for the time being and turn to these problems.</p>
<h3>2</h3>
<p>It is concluded that about a million years have passed since the beginning of mankind on the earth. Presumably tens of thousands of years have elapsed since the appearance of <em>homo sapiens</em>. Meanwhile man produced various materials for life and lived by consuming them. Life of man, unlike that of an animal, is carried on with a certain program; the characteristic is that he has tried to change the nature that surrounds him so as to adapt it to his own needs. If one may call this practical, then life of mankind is originally practical. To effect the practice, however, we must admit the following: Nature (externality) exists independently of our consciousness and is projected into consciousness through our senses. This is the point of view always entertained by man in performing his daily rituals, therefore, it has been called naive realism. Philosophically it is the materialistic point of view.</p>
<p>Man’s practice results in success in accordance with the prearranged plan, only when the image of externality made through our senses, namely, our knowledge about nature, is not wrong. Through success and failure of man’s performance, he discovers the objective structure and the law of nature to which his desire and volition cannot do anything. Science has advanced as the organisation of knowledge about the objective law that is cognised through the above-mentioned practice. Therefore, scientific knowledge guarantees the validity of man’s performance, while the truthfulness of his cognition should always be verified by practice. Considering the intimate relation between science and practice, we find that science should be constructed on the basis of “standpoint of practice,” that is to say, materialism. Thus we can understand the relation such that the progress in science and the success in practice continuously proves the validity of materialism. In this respect materialism is no longer a naive point of view, but a scientific view of the world which is supported by all the fruits of modern science. Then we may conclude that any standpoint which denies materialism obstructs the progress of science.</p>
<p>It is commonly said that the distinctive character of modern science resides in its positiveness. This is correct in the sense that it manifests a phase of the above-mentioned relation in that the criterion for the truthfulness of scientific cognition lies in “practice.” Natural scientists, however, emphasise only this positiveness unilaterally and are apt to be oblivious of or deny intentionally its materialistic premise. This viewpoint is what is implied by the positivism previously mentioned. This can be regarded as a reflection of the restlessness of scientists who are not able to rely on anything other than their experiences when they are faced with the revolutionary stage. A positivist says, “Science is to observe nature in itself”, and an operationalist with the new form of the positivism says, “A physical quantity is a symbol of the operation of a certain measurement, and has not any relations with objective reality”. But scientists always stand on “the standpoint of practice” in their laboratory. This is because “experiment” is one form of “practice.” On the one hand they say, “Physics is to describe formally only the relation among perceptions”, but on the other hand they study the structure of atom which cannot be observed through their direct experience and reveal the property of elementary particles. The reason why physicists could and did discover the atom and reveal its structure is not because they observed nature in itself. But, it is because a man takes “the standpoint of practice,” that a human cognition can go over the limitation of the sense and reveal the essential relation lying behind phenomena although his cognition starts from the direct experience in the beginning. It is based on the success of human practice forcing atomic energy to be released, that all human beings, now, have been made to recognise the existence of the atom.</p>
<p>In spite of the inseparable relation of the natural science to materialism, why do theoretical physicists lean towards positivism and empiricism whenever they are faced with revolutionary ages? The view of the world governing natural-scientists for a long time, until the last century, was the metaphysical materialism (mechanical materialism), in which the world is regarded as being constructed with individual, fixed and invariable objects being observable one by one independently. This is the viewpoint universalised on the basis of a view of nature obtained from the early development of natural science such as Newtonian mechanics, that is “Nature remained as it was as long as it continued to exist.” The planets and their satellites, once set in motion by the mysterious “first impulse,” circled on and on along their predestined ellipses for all eternity, or at any rate until the end of all things. The stars remained forever fixed and immovable in their places, keeping one another therein by “universal gravitation.” The earth has remained the same without alteration for all eternity or, alternatively, from the first day of its creation. The “five continents” of the present time had always existed, and they had always had the same mountains, valleys, and rivers, the same climate, and the same flora and fauna, except in so far as change or transplantation had taken place at the hand of man. The species of plants and animals had been established once and for all when they came into existence; “like continually produced like”. A form of materialism, however, has to change also as science develops. Subsequently remarkable development of science did require a change of the materialism. After the hypothesis on the formation of the solar system was presented by Kant and Laplace, it became an influential point of view that nature does not just exist, but comes into being and passes away. There appeared “the evolutionism” in every sphere of science. The thought of Heraclitus was revived that all nature moves in perpetual flow and circulation, and “the dialectic view of nature” was established. Following the above, materialism had to emerge to dialectic materialism. Physicists, who had believed in the firmness of Newtonian mechanics, were bound to the metaphysical materialism and were thinking in the framework of formal logic. This can be regarded as an evil that modern science falls into this excessive specialisation. When the discoveries of the new phenomena began to rock Newtonian mechanics to its foundation, they began to notice the brittleness of their views of nature and plunged into confusion. They could not understand that the narrow-mindedness of their views of the world was not due to its “materialistic character” but its “metaphysical character.” Thus, they erroneously recognised the break-down of some essential principles directly as the negation of a whole of the objective legitimacy, and threw out the baby with the bath water. This is the process that frequently leads physicists to positivism in revolutionary ages.</p>
<p>It is said that scientists can make themselves understood and co-operate with each other, even if they have different views of the world. The reason for this is firstly that they usually wear their philosophies only as ornaments and always take “the standpoint of practice” in actual research, and secondly that the content of science is, in a sense, a faithful reflection of the law of nature independent of their interpretations. However, progress in research must be made at quite a different rate, accordingly as they are clearly conscious of “materialistic dialectics" - the supreme standpoint founded on the whole results of modern science-, or they are tied unconsciously to a standpoint of the naive realism, or an erroneous view of the world. This can be said about any branch of science. Especially in the theoretical physics, which has been highly developed and deals with fundamental concepts and laws, they are exposed to continual dangers of taking an incorrect turn unless they are on the supreme standpoint and make research using the logic of high quality. Physicists in the past have relied solely upon the positivistic method, and made their advances by studying the correct directions from nature itself, with the rule of trial and error. They had blindly believed it to be the only right method. However, now that the great fruits of modern science have proved the validity of “dialectics of nature” and therefore revealed that the cognition of nature is made through the dialectic processes, we must intentionally apply the dialectics of nature as a compass which shows the way of our research.</p>
<p>Recently, the number of scientists who are conscious of the validity of this viewpoint has gradually increased. It should be noted that Russian scientists are studying the dialectics of nature with extraordinary enthusiasm. In other countries, scientists of the first rank, as J. D. Bernal (British chemico-physicist), J. Needham (British biologist) and P. Langevin (French physicist), have published excellent treatises on the dialectics of nature. Furthermore, I have been told, F. and I. Joliot-Curies, the discoverers of “the artificial radioactivity,” and P. M. S. Blackett, the discoverer of the cosmic-ray shower,” who are the greatest scientists, support it, and moreover R. Oppenheimer, who is one of the greatest American theoretical physicists and played an important role in the production of “the atomic bomb” is studying it. In our country, M. Taketani, one of my respected friends, has published excellent articles on the interpretation of quantum mechanics and on the process of the establishment of Newtonian mechanics, where he has developed the new stage (so to speak the quantum-mechanical stage) of the dialectics of nature. Recently, H. Yukawa) said that the course of development of theoretical pliysics is “dialectic” and that its basis is “materialistic.”</p>
<h3>3</h3>
<p>Next, let us briefly mention about the fundamental character of the dialectics of nature - "the logic of nature" - extracted from the dialectic view of nature based on the totality of the results of modern science. First, “it is necessary to understand that nature is by no means an accidental collection of objects and phenomena which are mutually separated, isolated and independent, it consists of one thing that is mutually related, dependent, restrictive and connected. The all of nature, from the smallest element to the largest, has its existence in eternal coming into being and passing away, in ceaseless flux, in unresting motion and change.” Secondly, the laws on development and motion of nature have the same form as those found by Hegel as the laws on development of thought. Namely they are: “The law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa; the law of the interpenetration of opposites; the law of the negation of the negation,” etc.</p>
<p>Let us explain these in a slightly concrete way. Current science has found that in nature there exist qualitatively different “levels" — the form of motion — for example, a series of the levels such as elementary particles — nuclei — atoms — molecules — masses — heavenly bodies — nebulae. These levels form various nodal points which restrict the various qualitative modes of existence of matter in general. And thus they are not merely related in a straightforward manner as described above. The “levels” are also connected in a direction such as molecules — colloids — cells — organs — individuals — societies. Even in the same masses, there exist “levels” of states corresponding to solids - liquids - gases. Metaphorically speaking, these circumstances may be described as having a sort of multi-dimensional structure of the fish net type, or it may be better to say that they have the onion-like structure of successive phases. These levels are by no means mutually isolated and independent, but they are mutually connected, dependent and constantly “transformed” into each other. For example, an atom is constructed from elementary particles and a molecule is constructed from atoms, and conversely the decompositions of a molecule into atoms, an atom into elementary particles can be made. These kinds of transformations occur constantly, with the creation of new quality and the destruction of others in ceaseless changes. Even the elementary particles, which have been regarded as the simplest and the ultimate constituents of matter, no longer have the metaphysical character of the eternally invariable “atom” such as postulated by Democritus. For instance, a meson produced in the atmosphere by cosmic rays transforms into an electron and a neutrino with such a short life of 2 x 10<sup class="enote">-6</sup> sec.</p>
<p>These types of transformations among different “levels,” the creation of new qualities and their eventual destruction, obey “Hegel’s law.” Some physicists may object to the above statement with the assertion: “The law for the construction of atoms. is quantum mechanics, while the one governing the solar system is Newtonian mechanics”. Quite right, each level is governed by a law inherent to the respective ones. Just for this reason, one needs individual sciences. It is the “dialectics,” however, that is commonly found as the universal law in “quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics, the law of evolution of living organisms, the law of evolution of societies” and even “in the law of development of thought.” Therefore, it may be regarded as “the logic of nature.” In view of this fact, quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics, and indeed every science can be understood only by the logic of dialectics. The confusion brought about on the interpretation of quantum mechanics had its main origin in the fact that physicists did not have the logic of dialectics. This point will be discussed again later.</p>
<p>The very law such as “the law of transformation of quantity into quality” is already well accepted in present-day natural science. This law states that “a rapid transformation from one of the levels to another does not happen accidentally, but is based on a law and it occurs as a result of accumulation of gradual quantitative changes.” In physics, every change is the transformations of quantity into quality. For example, in order to create an electron pair, the energy of about 10<sup class="enote">6</sup>eV is required and similarly, for meson production, the energy of 10<sup class="enote">8</sup>eV is needed. As is well known, recent developments in nuclear physics have been made taking an opportunity of the completion of the high voltage power supply of 8 x 10<sup class="enote">5</sup> volt due to Cookcroft and Walton. And it may be unnecessary to quote an example, to explain that chemistry is a science for the qualitative change of substance caused by the quantitative change of its components. On one occasion, Engels said, in an ironical tone, “And if these gentlemen have for years caused quantity and quality to be transformed into each other, without knowing what they did, then they will have to console themselves with Moliere’s Monsieur Jourdain who had spoken prose all his life without having the slightest inkling of it”.</p>
<p>The second law of dialectics states that every level consists of a unification of “the opposites” and, by the struggle of the opposites, they develop themselves into higher “levels.” Here, let us quote only one example from elementary particle physics. A nucleus is constructed from protons and neutrons. The Yukawa theory clarified the mechanism of how a nucleus is made of these. The essential point of this theory is that a neutron has the property of transforming into a proton and a negative meson. However, one cannot conclude that, simply because a neutron is transformed into a proton and a negative meson, the former is constructed from the latter two. For, this relation is of a reciprocal character and thus a proton can be transformed into a neutron and a positive meson. Accordingly, neutron and proton are both “elementary” and at the same time 66 composite,” i.e., they can be said to be the syntheses of both “elementarily” and “compositeness”. Furthermore, this opposition acts as a motive force in the process of constructing a nucleus - "a new quality" - from elementary particles.</p>
<p>In nature, the creation and the destruction of various “levels” occur ceaselessly and they form a history of nature. Now let us quote part of an excellent description of the evolution of the cosmos from a famous work, <i>The Birth and the Death of the Sun</i>, by J. Gamov of George Washington University:
</p><p class="indentb"> “The story begins with space uniformly filled with an unbelievably hot and dense gas, in which the processes of the nuclear transformation of the various elements went on as easily as an egg is cooked in boiling water. In this ‘prehistoric’ kitchen of the universe, the proportions of the different chemical elements - the great abundance of iron and oxygen and the rarity of gold and silver - were established. To this early epoch also belongs the formation of the long-lived radioactive elements, which even at the present time have not yet quite decayed.</p>
<p class="indentb"> “Under the action of tremendous pressure of this hot compressed gas, the universe began to expand, the density and the temperature of matter slowly declining all the while. At a certain stage of the expansion, the continuous gas broke up into separate irregular clouds of different sizes, which soon took on the regular spherical shapes of individual stars. The stars were still very large, much larger than they are now, and not very hot. But the progressive process of gravitational contraction diminished their diameters and raised their temperatures. The frequent mutual collisions among the members of this primitive stellar family led to the formation of numerous planetary systems and in one of these encounters our earth was born.</p>
<p class="indentb"> “While the stars grew hotter and hotter, and their planets-being small and unable to develop the high central temperatures necessary for thermonuclear reactions-covered themselves with solid crusts, the stellar gas’ uniformly filling all space continued to expand, and the distances between the stars began to approach their present values.</p>
<p class="indentb"> “At another stage of the expansion, corresponding to the average concentration still to be found within individual galaxies, the ‘stellar gas’ broke up into separate giant clouds of stars. While these stellar islands were still close to one another, their mutual gravitational interaction led in many cases to the formation of the odd-looking spiral arms and supplied them with a certain amount of rotational momentum.</p>
<p class="indentb"> “By that time most of the stars that made up these receding stellar islands had become sufficiently hot in their interior regions to start off various thermonuclear reactions between hydrogen and other light elements. First deuterium, then lithium, beryllium, and, finally, boron were turned into ‘ashes’ (nuclear ‘ash’ being the well-known gas helium); and, passing through these different phases of ‘red giant’ development, the stars approached the main and longest part of their evolution. When no other light elements were left, the stars began to transform their hydrogen into helium through the catalytic action of the phoenix-like elements, carbon and nitrogen. Our Sun is in this stage now.” </p>
<p>And furthermore, J. Gamov mentions the fate of our sun.</p>
<p>The earth, which was born in a certain stage of the evolution of the cosmos, was gradually cooled down and its surface was covered with the atmosphere and the hydrosphere. During the evolution of the earth in several hundreds or thousands million years, the organic matters with simple structure was first synthesised from various elements such as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen. In the next stage, the protein and the other substances were composed, which are required to construct living organisms. Then they formed the coacervate with more complex organism, and at last the protista was generated. On these matters a Russian biochemist, I. A. Operlin, has given full details of them in his work <em>Origin of Life, </em>and they will increasingly be clarified with the further development of biochemistry, geochemistry, etc. The evolution of life from the protista to mankind was revealed by C. Darwin in his work <em>The Doctrine of Evolution, </em>and with this very stage of the appearance of human beings, it runs into the genuine domain of history. The above description is a brief sketch of the dialectic view of nature which has been clarified by modern science.</p>
<p>Although the contents of the dialectics of nature as mentioned above are supplemented by the remarkable progress of individual sciences, they are not essentially different from those stated by Engels at the end of the last century. The contents of the dialectics of nature must be enriched constantly in the future by the development of science, but the essential features such as discussed previously, will never be lost through all ages. Because it is “the logic of nature.”</p>
<h3>4</h3>
<p>Let us again return to theoretical physics. Newtonian mechanics was the law which governs objects of a visible size, that is, “macroscopic world.” Therefore it is no wonder that, when the object of physics turned on the “4-6 microscopic world” of atoms and electrons, which are quite distinct quantitatively from the “macroscopic objects,” a “new law” being qualitatively different from “Newtonian mechanics” was discovered. This may be nothing more but again to prove “the law of transformation of quantity into quality.” And one needs not become desperate of the fact that an electron is a “wave” and at the same time can be a “corpuscule.” For this predicts only that there would be discovered, behind those phenomena, a more fundamental relationship which unifies opposites; “corpuscular character” and “wave character.” In fact, there had been two different currents of development in the establishment of quantum mechanics; one was “matrix mechanics” developed by the G&�uml;ttingen school, Heisenberg was its leader, the other “wave mechanics” developed by de Broglie and Schr�dinger. Although these two were considerably different in their appearances, they have later been proved to be mathematically equivalent to each other and unified into a rational theory as it is presently formulated. On the interpretation of quantum mechanics, after much meandering all scientists have arrived at almost the same view), except for the problem such as the observation problem which is closely connected with their own philosophies. Then the so-called “Copenhagen spirit” that contains Bohr’s “correspondence principle” as its main content constantly played a leading role, and also a confrontation between the realistic trend of the wave mechanics school and the positivistic trend dominating the Gb&tuml;tingen school was a remarkable feature.</p>
<p>The G�ttingen school, which employed as a guide the principle of positivism, i.e., physics should be constructed on directly observable quantities only, avoided the introduction of quantities such as orbit and velocity of electron in an atom and attempted to describe atomic phenomena in terms of only frequency and intensity of light emitted from an atom. People of the school built up the matrix mechanics on the basis of this view and of Bohr’s correspondence principle.</p>
<p>At one time, Schr�dinger, independently of such an epistemology of positivism, established the wave mechanics by introducing “wave equation” on the analogy of mechanics with optics following de Broglie’s idea of “material wave.” He first considered the “material wave” as a real matter which should take the place of “particle picture” of the old mechanics to satisfy the demand of immediacy, but it had become clear that such a naive interpretation should not be acceptable. For, even if the electron is a real wave such as water wave and propagates into the whole space according to the Schr�dinger wave equation, the electron must be necessarily found at a space point due to its particle nature when one observes the position of the electron. This means that the wave suddenly contracts into a point by an observation and furthermore that this contraction arises discontinuously and non-causally. Thus, it is by any means impossible to interpret classically, the quantum phenomena as a continuous and causal change by assuming the matter-wave as to be realistic.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the methodology of the G�ttingen school which attempted to construct the theory only in terms of the directly observable quantities, also could not help disclosing their narrow-mindedness. In fact, in the present theory there are again contained the position and the velocity of the electron which the school thought to have been excluded from the theory, and it has been clarified that the central problem is not on the point of whether these quantities are “directly” observable, but whether these quantities can be observed “simultaneously.” What Heisenberg’s “uncertainty relation” has told us is that the position and the velocity of electron are “complementary” quantities which cannot be measured simultaneously. The characteristic feature in quantum mechanics is in the point that one recognised the existence of such complementary quantities. Consequently it becomes impossible to describe the state of the particle, as in the case of Newtonian mechanics, in terms of the values of its position and velocity at a moment, so that it is necessary to introduce a new concept of the state which is represented by a vector (wave function) in the Hilbert space. The reason that an electron exhibits a contradictory character of corpuscule and wave is due to the fact that behind these phenomenological forms exists a fundamental relationship understood in terms of the quantum-mechanical state. Furthermore, it should be stated here that the wave function with such a significant meaning is a quantity which can neither be observed “directly,” of course, nor “in principle,” and this implies that the present quantum mechanics has been developed by getting over the epistemology of positivism.</p>
<p>Sometimes the development of quantum mechanics has been related as if it implies a success of the methodology of Machism. However, the positive role, in its true sense, played by the methodology of the G�ttingen school is found in the point that it forbids the application of “the concepts of daily life” to the microscopic region without criticism. And this point can be understood by the dialectics of nature, in which the law of transformation of quantity to quality is realised, more properly than by the positivistic epistemology. The discovery of the dual nature of the electron has enlightened us that the various concepts of Newtonian mechanics, which were taken from the macroscopic experiences, cannot strictly be applied to the microscopic region. However, the macroscopic and the microscopic regions should “not mutually be separated, isolated or independent,” but should “be correlated to, dependent on and restricted within each other.” Therefore one can never construct a new theory by merely being forbidden to apply all the ordinary concepts. It may be said that Bohr’s “correspondence principle,” which demands that: “new theory should always coincide with the classical theory asymptotically in the boundary region”, puts this point into its consciousness. Heisenberg, too, eliminated at last the positivism and stated, “Even if one attempts to purify all the unclear concepts before all the science, one can do nothing but to resort to the ‘compulsion of experience’ since there is no standard to judge which concept is in doubt. To make the concepts clear beforehand is equivalent to prearranging the future development of science by means of a logical analysis of language”, and further “Since the law of classical physics holds in the limit of the action quantum being zero, the classical concepts corresponding to these quantum laws should be indispensable elements of the natural science”. The reason why the correspondence principle, as a guide in searching for an unknown law, has always played a leading role during the entire development of quantum mechanics from the stage of old-quantum theory, is due to the fact that it reflects in part the dialectics of nature. And though the G�ttingen school was led by this misleading philosophy, it has well succeeded in establishing the matrix mechanics mainly due to the help of the correspondence principle.</p>
<p>If, however, theoretical physicists had been conscious of the dialectics of nature and learned the logic of high quality, they would have taken a more straightforward way to establish quantum mechanics. And it is no doubt that they would have arrived more quickly at the methodology, which Bohr and Heisenberg acquired at last through their excellent intuitions and their many years of struggles with nature, and would have given more adequate expressions for it. The methodology of Bohr and Heisenberg, though it worked well as an active weapon in constructing quantum mechanics, has frequently worked negatively in the recent development of theories of atomic nuclei and of elementary particles. This is due to the fact that the methodology consists of only a partial consciousness of the dialectics of nature. Indeed, a misleading methodology, if one applies it extensively as a creed, is always transferred into the opposition, according to the well-known law of dialectics.</p>
<p>In the interpretation of quantum mechanics, it was the so-called “observation problem” that most numerous misunderstandings were spread, in connection with philosophy. In quantum mechanics, the “state” of a microscopic system such as an atom, is expressed by “wave function” and develops continuously every moment according to Schr�dinger’s wave equation. This is a causal change described in terms of the differential equation, and does not differ in quality from the change of state of the macroscopic system. The characteristic feature of quantum mechanics, however, arises in the observation of such microscopic system; a measurement of the same physical quantity in the same state, does not always yield a definite result and we can only predict statistically a probability for getting a specific result. Moreover, the state of the system or the wave function changes discontinuously and non-causally through the measurement, thus which state the system changes to depends on the measured result of the physical quantity. An example is the aforementioned “contraction of wave.”</p>
<p>The essential point of “the observation problem,” is to clarify the relation of these two changes, i.e., a continuous and causal change of the state of a closed system and a discontinuous and non-causal one which arises in the measurement of the system. Now consider the characteristic feature of the measuring process. An observation is an action on “an object” with the “measuring apparatus” to measure quantities concerning the former by, for example, reading a change of the scale appearing in the latter. Then, in quantum mechanics even if a combined system of two is as a whole in a pure quantum mechanical state, it can be proved that as for the sub-system, it is generally no longer in a pure state, but consists of a statistical mixture of a number of quantum-mechanical states. This is a characteristic of quantum mechanics and indicates the dialectical relationship between the part and the whole and between the contingency and the necessity, which can never be understood by a formal logic. The discontinuous and non-causal change which arises in the measuring process, contrarily to the continuous and causal change of the state of the closed system, is a consequence of such an objective “quantum mechanical law of combination” between “object” and “measuring apparatus,” and has nothing to do with the so-called “action of the subject on the object.” The statement, which has hitherto frequently been made that quantum mechanics “rejects” the “objective reality of externality,” is based on a wrong understanding of the observation problem. This has been already pointed out by Taketani.</p>
<p>However, to sweep away such a misunderstanding it would be necessary to take note of another characteristic point of the quantum-mechanical measuring process. It is the fact that, while the object of measurement is microscopic, the main part of the measuring apparatus must necessarily be macroscopic. In other words, while the object is governed by the quantum-mechanical law, the measuring apparatus must be a device which amplifies a microscopic process arising within the apparatus into a macroscopic process. Therefore the microscopic portion within the apparatus has a close connection with the object, so that it may be difficult to determine to what part the observed object is extended and what part the measuring apparatus is. However, as Neumann has proved, using the above mentioned “law” of combination, quantum mechanics always gives the same result independent of the position of the cut-plane between the object and the measuring apparatus. This means that quantum mechanics is constructed quite ingeniously. Neumann stated, in the excess of emphasising the arbitrariness of the position of this cut-plane, that the object could be enlarged gradually to the limit that only the “abstract ego” remained as a cognisant subject; this is obviously going too far. For, the characteristic feature of the measuring apparatus is to contain the device which amplifies the microscopic process to the macroscopic one, thus we cannot push it into the side of the object. Moreover as the procedure that an observer reads a change of the scale, appearing in the apparatus produces no effect on the result of measurement, it is meaningless to involve the cognisant subject as well into the measuring apparatus. From the consideration of these points it will become very clear that the statistical nature arising in the quantum-mechanical measurement is a consequence of a “material interrelation” between the “object” and the “measuring apparatus”; both of which are of the “objective existence” and that the statistical nature is not due to the action of the subject on the object.</p>
<p>Though it has sometimes been argued that in the quantum mechanics “causality” should not be denied, the correct way to resolve this problem is found in the analysis of the measuring process as mentioned above. In quantum mechanics the concept of state is of essential importance and the state obeys the strict law of causality. On the other hand, the statistical law governs the phenomenal world which is concerned with the correlation among the observed values of physical quantities. However, as mentioned above, this statistical nature never denies the causality, but it is the “statistical nature” of the “portion” which is founded on the “causal nature” of the “whole system”. This relationship can be grasped only by the logic of dialectics which unifies the confrontations between the phenomenon and the essence, between the part and the whole, between the contingency and the necessity, and so on. And, much confusion which has been raised concerning the problem of the causality is due to the understanding of structural composition of quantum mechanics by means of a plane formal logic.</p>
<p>From the standpoint of the dialectics of nature, M. Taketani has analysed in detail the logical structure and the process of the establishment of quantum mechanics and has developed a powerful methodology - three-stage theory - for the theoretical physics. How his methodology has played a great role in the development of the elementary particle physics in our country will be mentioned in another place.</p>
<p> </p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">
<a href="ch02.htm">next section</a> |
<a href="index.htm" target="_top">Shoichi Sakata</a> |
<a href="../index.htm" target="_top">Marxism in Japan</a> |
<a href="../../../reference/subject/philosophy/index.htm" target="_top">Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org</a></p>
</body> |
Shoichi Sakata, June 1947
Theoretical Physics and Dialectics of Nature
Source: Supplement of the Progress of Theoretical Physics, No. 50 1971;
First published: in the October issue of the journal Chō-ryū in 1947.
Transcribed: for the Marxists Internet Archive by Andy Blunden.
1
Theoretical physics in our country has been known all over the world by the brilliant achievements of H. Yukawa. How could the theory of elementary particles have freely developed in such a society where the feudal system remained for a long time? J. D. Bernal of London University made the following criticism on the prospecta of Japanese science in a book written just before World War II: “It is over-elaborate, pedantic, and without imagination, and unfortunately, in many cases, it is also uncritical and inaccurate. It is unfair to blame the Japanese scientists for this. In a country where dangerous thoughts are being persecuted with increasing severity, originality in science will hardly be at a premium. Where science is used more openly and cynically even than in Europe for purposes of war research and for trying to find the absolute minimum of food on which factory workers can exist, it is unlikely to attract the best minds to do the best work. Of recent years there has been a notable though underground reaction against this official and military science. The younger Japanese scientists are beginning to be aware of the social implications of their work, and are thinking for themselves outside the orbit of the imperial and military myth of Shinta, or of its more violent modern forms such as Kōdō. If, in the revolutions that threaten East as much as West, the Japanese people should ever acquire any peace of freedom we may expect here also a great improvement in the quality of scientific work”.
Development of the Yukawa theory might certainly be a coincidence and good fortune. One may assert that in the field of science, such as theoretical physics where contemplative faculty plays a leading role, social conditions do not have much influence. However, it was actually shown by Nazism in Germany that even the innermost part of modern science could be affected by superstition and barbarism. If there had been no conscious efforts to get rid of the mythological viewpoint of the world and, its narrow-minded method of thinking, the theoretical physics in our country, too, would have followed a miserable path.
In recent years, theoretical physics have experienced a bewilderingly rapid development. It may certainly be said that the fruits obtained in the last half century surpass to a great extent the development in the past several centuries. The world of physics by Newton and Maxwell which had been believed to be firm and unshakeable, was overthrown by the advent of the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics. The metaphysical view of matter based on immutable elements and indivisible atoms was radically changed. While most physicists did not yet fully understand the new theories, the spearhead of physics further invaded the interior of atomic nuclei and development began in the theory of elementary particles. The true character of cosmic rays is to be clarified also. In such an unprecedented revolutionary age, even a scientist who has already accomplished his great work cannot follow the new development. Planck, who found the clue to quantum theory, and also Einstein, who constructed the theory of relativity, could not correctly understand the foundation of quantum mechanics. Physicists who felt uneasy about the basis of their own beliefs expressed their interests in philosophical problems and began to discuss problems such as “the role of science,“the reality of externality” and “the problem of causality.” They are making efforts to get a world view on which they never lose their own confidence even if they are faced with the revolutionary age and to acquire methodology useful for their own studies. But this is not necessarily an easy task. The reason is that philosophy is a science influenced strongly by social restrictions as it is said to be even a partisan science. It is not only the world of physics that is overtaken by the revolutionary age. In this century all the world was frequently astonished by many great upheavals such as World War I, the Russian Revolution, the financial panic, the rise of fascist nations and World War II. Physicists were to a great extent affected directly by these events. Also, these indirect influences were not small ones which were brought about from philosophy reflecting social unrest, philosophy guiding the Russian Revolution, philosophy trying to justify the ideology of fascists, etc.
It was during the period from the end of the 19th century to the beginning of this century, that physicists increased their interest in philosophy at first, while the discoveries of radium, electrons, etc., first shook the foundation of classical theories. As Poincar� stated in Value of Science, a whole of the fundamental laws of old physics such as “Newton’s principles”, “Mayer’s principle”, “Lavoisier’s principle” and “Carnot’s principle” stood on the brinks of their collapse and a “crisis of mathematical physics” occurred. Physicists who lost their confidence in the old theories could no longer believe anything other than their own experiences. Among them such empiricistic and positivistic tendencies were prevalent that science is not any copy of the objective reality, but merely a product of human consciousness, and that the role of science is to faithfully describe experiences and not to explain the essence of nature. Mach, Kirchhoff, Ostwald and Poincar� were representative scientists with these opinions. On the contrary, there appeared scientists such as Boltzmann and Planck who held fast to their viewpoint of realism, and controversies were raised frequently between the two groups of scientists. In the meanwhile, there were tragedies such as the suicides of Boltzmann and Drude. All of the above views of the world, however, were not sufficient to grasp the points of “the crisis of physics.” It was Lenin who correctly analysed these problems, whereas among physicists at that time, only a few knew of his investigation.
Remarkable development of physics in the subsequent period has been attained mainly on the basis of the atomistic viewpoint of matter contrary to expectation of the positivists. Studies on the structure of the atom were remarkably increased by invention of “the Geiger counter, which counts the number of particles invisible to the naked eye, such as electron and a-particle, and by device of “Wilson’s cloud chamber” which indicates the paths of the particles. In 1911, a model of an atom like the solar system was established by Rutherford. In this case, however, the old theory faced a crisis also. This model, in fact, could not offer any explanation of the stability of the atom and the regularity found in the series of spectra. In 1913, Bohr proposed the so-called old-quantum theory by introducing quite a daring hypothesis in which Planck’s concept of quantum was adopted. This theory has an eclectic character which admits, on the one hand, Newton’s and Maxwell’s classical laws and on the other hand, two assumptions quite incompatible with them. The contradiction of this dualistic character became more serious as the more complicated systems were treated, and then the way to the reconciliation could not be found even by Bohr’s “correspondence principle.”
At that time an astonishing fact was found: Matter as well as light has dual character. It was clarified that both matter and light were “particles” and “waves” at the same time. This was the problem which could no longer be solved merely by partial modification of classical physics. From many experiences before that time, it had been known that an electron is a particle with a certain amount of electricity and mass and that something like a “fragment” of an electron can never exist. Nevertheless it was found that an electron is also a wave and it passes simultaneously through two or more lattice points of a crystal and causes a diffraction phenomenon. Since a particle treated by Newtonian mechanics occupies a certain point in space at a certain time and moves along a certain orbit with a certain velocity as a particle of the ordinary concept, it is absolutely incompatible with the concept of wave which spreads over whole space. Obviously such contradictions were quite an intolerable matter for traditional physicists. Lorentz, an aged physicist who had studied the theory of electron and had built the basis of relativity, talked in despair, “Today, people assert just the opposite to what they said yesterday. In such a time, criterion of truth any longer could not be maintained and it is hard to understand what science is. I regret that I did not die five years ago before this contradiction was born”.
Physicists became sceptical again and some of them went into positivism, some into agnosticism and some into mysticism. However, in 1925, a new theory, “quantum mechanics” was born brilliantly. Nevertheless, philosophical confusion among physicists still continued concerning the interpretation of quantum mechanics. These confusions were spurred by the fact that pioneers of quantum mechanics often carelessly emphasised their positivistic opinions. For instance, Heisenberg said the following; “physicists are to describe formally, only the relations among perceptions,” “with modern physics we do not treat the reality or the structure of atoms, but only phenomena which we perceive in making observations of atoms,” and so on. Consequently, in its early days quantum mechanics was often expounded from the standpoint of positivism and operationalism of its modern version. The book by S. Kikuchi, which was published rather early in our country, is a typical example reflecting the above viewpoint. He said for example, “It is possible to consider that generally the law of nature describes in a given experimental operation the relation among indications of meters attached on instruments. It is not such as to grasp the entity behind phenomena through investigation of them”.
However, as my respected friend M. Taketani frequently advises, physics itself should be strictly distinguished from the interpretation given by physicists. In many cases, scientist acts differently from what he says. In his book The Structure of Matter Kikuchi says that the materialistic viewpoint, that the external world exists independently of human consciousness, is a naive standpoint of human beings living in a world of common sense and has no connection with the standpoint of highly advanced science such as quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, in the same book, he thoroughly returns to that standpoint of naive realism when he explains the diffraction of electron, the scattering of neutron, etc., on which he produced very brilliant achievement. This proves that in his laboratory he always stands on the viewpoint of naive realism.
The relation between science and view of the world cannot be clarified without historical investigation of the origin and development of science. However, a scientific specialist frequently includes a dogmatic interpretation within his narrow field of vision. Now we part from the theoretical physics for the time being and turn to these problems.
2
It is concluded that about a million years have passed since the beginning of mankind on the earth. Presumably tens of thousands of years have elapsed since the appearance of homo sapiens. Meanwhile man produced various materials for life and lived by consuming them. Life of man, unlike that of an animal, is carried on with a certain program; the characteristic is that he has tried to change the nature that surrounds him so as to adapt it to his own needs. If one may call this practical, then life of mankind is originally practical. To effect the practice, however, we must admit the following: Nature (externality) exists independently of our consciousness and is projected into consciousness through our senses. This is the point of view always entertained by man in performing his daily rituals, therefore, it has been called naive realism. Philosophically it is the materialistic point of view.
Man’s practice results in success in accordance with the prearranged plan, only when the image of externality made through our senses, namely, our knowledge about nature, is not wrong. Through success and failure of man’s performance, he discovers the objective structure and the law of nature to which his desire and volition cannot do anything. Science has advanced as the organisation of knowledge about the objective law that is cognised through the above-mentioned practice. Therefore, scientific knowledge guarantees the validity of man’s performance, while the truthfulness of his cognition should always be verified by practice. Considering the intimate relation between science and practice, we find that science should be constructed on the basis of “standpoint of practice,” that is to say, materialism. Thus we can understand the relation such that the progress in science and the success in practice continuously proves the validity of materialism. In this respect materialism is no longer a naive point of view, but a scientific view of the world which is supported by all the fruits of modern science. Then we may conclude that any standpoint which denies materialism obstructs the progress of science.
It is commonly said that the distinctive character of modern science resides in its positiveness. This is correct in the sense that it manifests a phase of the above-mentioned relation in that the criterion for the truthfulness of scientific cognition lies in “practice.” Natural scientists, however, emphasise only this positiveness unilaterally and are apt to be oblivious of or deny intentionally its materialistic premise. This viewpoint is what is implied by the positivism previously mentioned. This can be regarded as a reflection of the restlessness of scientists who are not able to rely on anything other than their experiences when they are faced with the revolutionary stage. A positivist says, “Science is to observe nature in itself”, and an operationalist with the new form of the positivism says, “A physical quantity is a symbol of the operation of a certain measurement, and has not any relations with objective reality”. But scientists always stand on “the standpoint of practice” in their laboratory. This is because “experiment” is one form of “practice.” On the one hand they say, “Physics is to describe formally only the relation among perceptions”, but on the other hand they study the structure of atom which cannot be observed through their direct experience and reveal the property of elementary particles. The reason why physicists could and did discover the atom and reveal its structure is not because they observed nature in itself. But, it is because a man takes “the standpoint of practice,” that a human cognition can go over the limitation of the sense and reveal the essential relation lying behind phenomena although his cognition starts from the direct experience in the beginning. It is based on the success of human practice forcing atomic energy to be released, that all human beings, now, have been made to recognise the existence of the atom.
In spite of the inseparable relation of the natural science to materialism, why do theoretical physicists lean towards positivism and empiricism whenever they are faced with revolutionary ages? The view of the world governing natural-scientists for a long time, until the last century, was the metaphysical materialism (mechanical materialism), in which the world is regarded as being constructed with individual, fixed and invariable objects being observable one by one independently. This is the viewpoint universalised on the basis of a view of nature obtained from the early development of natural science such as Newtonian mechanics, that is “Nature remained as it was as long as it continued to exist.” The planets and their satellites, once set in motion by the mysterious “first impulse,” circled on and on along their predestined ellipses for all eternity, or at any rate until the end of all things. The stars remained forever fixed and immovable in their places, keeping one another therein by “universal gravitation.” The earth has remained the same without alteration for all eternity or, alternatively, from the first day of its creation. The “five continents” of the present time had always existed, and they had always had the same mountains, valleys, and rivers, the same climate, and the same flora and fauna, except in so far as change or transplantation had taken place at the hand of man. The species of plants and animals had been established once and for all when they came into existence; “like continually produced like”. A form of materialism, however, has to change also as science develops. Subsequently remarkable development of science did require a change of the materialism. After the hypothesis on the formation of the solar system was presented by Kant and Laplace, it became an influential point of view that nature does not just exist, but comes into being and passes away. There appeared “the evolutionism” in every sphere of science. The thought of Heraclitus was revived that all nature moves in perpetual flow and circulation, and “the dialectic view of nature” was established. Following the above, materialism had to emerge to dialectic materialism. Physicists, who had believed in the firmness of Newtonian mechanics, were bound to the metaphysical materialism and were thinking in the framework of formal logic. This can be regarded as an evil that modern science falls into this excessive specialisation. When the discoveries of the new phenomena began to rock Newtonian mechanics to its foundation, they began to notice the brittleness of their views of nature and plunged into confusion. They could not understand that the narrow-mindedness of their views of the world was not due to its “materialistic character” but its “metaphysical character.” Thus, they erroneously recognised the break-down of some essential principles directly as the negation of a whole of the objective legitimacy, and threw out the baby with the bath water. This is the process that frequently leads physicists to positivism in revolutionary ages.
It is said that scientists can make themselves understood and co-operate with each other, even if they have different views of the world. The reason for this is firstly that they usually wear their philosophies only as ornaments and always take “the standpoint of practice” in actual research, and secondly that the content of science is, in a sense, a faithful reflection of the law of nature independent of their interpretations. However, progress in research must be made at quite a different rate, accordingly as they are clearly conscious of “materialistic dialectics" - the supreme standpoint founded on the whole results of modern science-, or they are tied unconsciously to a standpoint of the naive realism, or an erroneous view of the world. This can be said about any branch of science. Especially in the theoretical physics, which has been highly developed and deals with fundamental concepts and laws, they are exposed to continual dangers of taking an incorrect turn unless they are on the supreme standpoint and make research using the logic of high quality. Physicists in the past have relied solely upon the positivistic method, and made their advances by studying the correct directions from nature itself, with the rule of trial and error. They had blindly believed it to be the only right method. However, now that the great fruits of modern science have proved the validity of “dialectics of nature” and therefore revealed that the cognition of nature is made through the dialectic processes, we must intentionally apply the dialectics of nature as a compass which shows the way of our research.
Recently, the number of scientists who are conscious of the validity of this viewpoint has gradually increased. It should be noted that Russian scientists are studying the dialectics of nature with extraordinary enthusiasm. In other countries, scientists of the first rank, as J. D. Bernal (British chemico-physicist), J. Needham (British biologist) and P. Langevin (French physicist), have published excellent treatises on the dialectics of nature. Furthermore, I have been told, F. and I. Joliot-Curies, the discoverers of “the artificial radioactivity,” and P. M. S. Blackett, the discoverer of the cosmic-ray shower,” who are the greatest scientists, support it, and moreover R. Oppenheimer, who is one of the greatest American theoretical physicists and played an important role in the production of “the atomic bomb” is studying it. In our country, M. Taketani, one of my respected friends, has published excellent articles on the interpretation of quantum mechanics and on the process of the establishment of Newtonian mechanics, where he has developed the new stage (so to speak the quantum-mechanical stage) of the dialectics of nature. Recently, H. Yukawa) said that the course of development of theoretical pliysics is “dialectic” and that its basis is “materialistic.”
3
Next, let us briefly mention about the fundamental character of the dialectics of nature - "the logic of nature" - extracted from the dialectic view of nature based on the totality of the results of modern science. First, “it is necessary to understand that nature is by no means an accidental collection of objects and phenomena which are mutually separated, isolated and independent, it consists of one thing that is mutually related, dependent, restrictive and connected. The all of nature, from the smallest element to the largest, has its existence in eternal coming into being and passing away, in ceaseless flux, in unresting motion and change.” Secondly, the laws on development and motion of nature have the same form as those found by Hegel as the laws on development of thought. Namely they are: “The law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa; the law of the interpenetration of opposites; the law of the negation of the negation,” etc.
Let us explain these in a slightly concrete way. Current science has found that in nature there exist qualitatively different “levels" — the form of motion — for example, a series of the levels such as elementary particles — nuclei — atoms — molecules — masses — heavenly bodies — nebulae. These levels form various nodal points which restrict the various qualitative modes of existence of matter in general. And thus they are not merely related in a straightforward manner as described above. The “levels” are also connected in a direction such as molecules — colloids — cells — organs — individuals — societies. Even in the same masses, there exist “levels” of states corresponding to solids - liquids - gases. Metaphorically speaking, these circumstances may be described as having a sort of multi-dimensional structure of the fish net type, or it may be better to say that they have the onion-like structure of successive phases. These levels are by no means mutually isolated and independent, but they are mutually connected, dependent and constantly “transformed” into each other. For example, an atom is constructed from elementary particles and a molecule is constructed from atoms, and conversely the decompositions of a molecule into atoms, an atom into elementary particles can be made. These kinds of transformations occur constantly, with the creation of new quality and the destruction of others in ceaseless changes. Even the elementary particles, which have been regarded as the simplest and the ultimate constituents of matter, no longer have the metaphysical character of the eternally invariable “atom” such as postulated by Democritus. For instance, a meson produced in the atmosphere by cosmic rays transforms into an electron and a neutrino with such a short life of 2 x 10-6 sec.
These types of transformations among different “levels,” the creation of new qualities and their eventual destruction, obey “Hegel’s law.” Some physicists may object to the above statement with the assertion: “The law for the construction of atoms. is quantum mechanics, while the one governing the solar system is Newtonian mechanics”. Quite right, each level is governed by a law inherent to the respective ones. Just for this reason, one needs individual sciences. It is the “dialectics,” however, that is commonly found as the universal law in “quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics, the law of evolution of living organisms, the law of evolution of societies” and even “in the law of development of thought.” Therefore, it may be regarded as “the logic of nature.” In view of this fact, quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics, and indeed every science can be understood only by the logic of dialectics. The confusion brought about on the interpretation of quantum mechanics had its main origin in the fact that physicists did not have the logic of dialectics. This point will be discussed again later.
The very law such as “the law of transformation of quantity into quality” is already well accepted in present-day natural science. This law states that “a rapid transformation from one of the levels to another does not happen accidentally, but is based on a law and it occurs as a result of accumulation of gradual quantitative changes.” In physics, every change is the transformations of quantity into quality. For example, in order to create an electron pair, the energy of about 106eV is required and similarly, for meson production, the energy of 108eV is needed. As is well known, recent developments in nuclear physics have been made taking an opportunity of the completion of the high voltage power supply of 8 x 105 volt due to Cookcroft and Walton. And it may be unnecessary to quote an example, to explain that chemistry is a science for the qualitative change of substance caused by the quantitative change of its components. On one occasion, Engels said, in an ironical tone, “And if these gentlemen have for years caused quantity and quality to be transformed into each other, without knowing what they did, then they will have to console themselves with Moliere’s Monsieur Jourdain who had spoken prose all his life without having the slightest inkling of it”.
The second law of dialectics states that every level consists of a unification of “the opposites” and, by the struggle of the opposites, they develop themselves into higher “levels.” Here, let us quote only one example from elementary particle physics. A nucleus is constructed from protons and neutrons. The Yukawa theory clarified the mechanism of how a nucleus is made of these. The essential point of this theory is that a neutron has the property of transforming into a proton and a negative meson. However, one cannot conclude that, simply because a neutron is transformed into a proton and a negative meson, the former is constructed from the latter two. For, this relation is of a reciprocal character and thus a proton can be transformed into a neutron and a positive meson. Accordingly, neutron and proton are both “elementary” and at the same time 66 composite,” i.e., they can be said to be the syntheses of both “elementarily” and “compositeness”. Furthermore, this opposition acts as a motive force in the process of constructing a nucleus - "a new quality" - from elementary particles.
In nature, the creation and the destruction of various “levels” occur ceaselessly and they form a history of nature. Now let us quote part of an excellent description of the evolution of the cosmos from a famous work, The Birth and the Death of the Sun, by J. Gamov of George Washington University:
“The story begins with space uniformly filled with an unbelievably hot and dense gas, in which the processes of the nuclear transformation of the various elements went on as easily as an egg is cooked in boiling water. In this ‘prehistoric’ kitchen of the universe, the proportions of the different chemical elements - the great abundance of iron and oxygen and the rarity of gold and silver - were established. To this early epoch also belongs the formation of the long-lived radioactive elements, which even at the present time have not yet quite decayed.
“Under the action of tremendous pressure of this hot compressed gas, the universe began to expand, the density and the temperature of matter slowly declining all the while. At a certain stage of the expansion, the continuous gas broke up into separate irregular clouds of different sizes, which soon took on the regular spherical shapes of individual stars. The stars were still very large, much larger than they are now, and not very hot. But the progressive process of gravitational contraction diminished their diameters and raised their temperatures. The frequent mutual collisions among the members of this primitive stellar family led to the formation of numerous planetary systems and in one of these encounters our earth was born.
“While the stars grew hotter and hotter, and their planets-being small and unable to develop the high central temperatures necessary for thermonuclear reactions-covered themselves with solid crusts, the stellar gas’ uniformly filling all space continued to expand, and the distances between the stars began to approach their present values.
“At another stage of the expansion, corresponding to the average concentration still to be found within individual galaxies, the ‘stellar gas’ broke up into separate giant clouds of stars. While these stellar islands were still close to one another, their mutual gravitational interaction led in many cases to the formation of the odd-looking spiral arms and supplied them with a certain amount of rotational momentum.
“By that time most of the stars that made up these receding stellar islands had become sufficiently hot in their interior regions to start off various thermonuclear reactions between hydrogen and other light elements. First deuterium, then lithium, beryllium, and, finally, boron were turned into ‘ashes’ (nuclear ‘ash’ being the well-known gas helium); and, passing through these different phases of ‘red giant’ development, the stars approached the main and longest part of their evolution. When no other light elements were left, the stars began to transform their hydrogen into helium through the catalytic action of the phoenix-like elements, carbon and nitrogen. Our Sun is in this stage now.”
And furthermore, J. Gamov mentions the fate of our sun.
The earth, which was born in a certain stage of the evolution of the cosmos, was gradually cooled down and its surface was covered with the atmosphere and the hydrosphere. During the evolution of the earth in several hundreds or thousands million years, the organic matters with simple structure was first synthesised from various elements such as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen. In the next stage, the protein and the other substances were composed, which are required to construct living organisms. Then they formed the coacervate with more complex organism, and at last the protista was generated. On these matters a Russian biochemist, I. A. Operlin, has given full details of them in his work Origin of Life, and they will increasingly be clarified with the further development of biochemistry, geochemistry, etc. The evolution of life from the protista to mankind was revealed by C. Darwin in his work The Doctrine of Evolution, and with this very stage of the appearance of human beings, it runs into the genuine domain of history. The above description is a brief sketch of the dialectic view of nature which has been clarified by modern science.
Although the contents of the dialectics of nature as mentioned above are supplemented by the remarkable progress of individual sciences, they are not essentially different from those stated by Engels at the end of the last century. The contents of the dialectics of nature must be enriched constantly in the future by the development of science, but the essential features such as discussed previously, will never be lost through all ages. Because it is “the logic of nature.”
4
Let us again return to theoretical physics. Newtonian mechanics was the law which governs objects of a visible size, that is, “macroscopic world.” Therefore it is no wonder that, when the object of physics turned on the “4-6 microscopic world” of atoms and electrons, which are quite distinct quantitatively from the “macroscopic objects,” a “new law” being qualitatively different from “Newtonian mechanics” was discovered. This may be nothing more but again to prove “the law of transformation of quantity into quality.” And one needs not become desperate of the fact that an electron is a “wave” and at the same time can be a “corpuscule.” For this predicts only that there would be discovered, behind those phenomena, a more fundamental relationship which unifies opposites; “corpuscular character” and “wave character.” In fact, there had been two different currents of development in the establishment of quantum mechanics; one was “matrix mechanics” developed by the G&�uml;ttingen school, Heisenberg was its leader, the other “wave mechanics” developed by de Broglie and Schr�dinger. Although these two were considerably different in their appearances, they have later been proved to be mathematically equivalent to each other and unified into a rational theory as it is presently formulated. On the interpretation of quantum mechanics, after much meandering all scientists have arrived at almost the same view), except for the problem such as the observation problem which is closely connected with their own philosophies. Then the so-called “Copenhagen spirit” that contains Bohr’s “correspondence principle” as its main content constantly played a leading role, and also a confrontation between the realistic trend of the wave mechanics school and the positivistic trend dominating the Gb&tuml;tingen school was a remarkable feature.
The G�ttingen school, which employed as a guide the principle of positivism, i.e., physics should be constructed on directly observable quantities only, avoided the introduction of quantities such as orbit and velocity of electron in an atom and attempted to describe atomic phenomena in terms of only frequency and intensity of light emitted from an atom. People of the school built up the matrix mechanics on the basis of this view and of Bohr’s correspondence principle.
At one time, Schr�dinger, independently of such an epistemology of positivism, established the wave mechanics by introducing “wave equation” on the analogy of mechanics with optics following de Broglie’s idea of “material wave.” He first considered the “material wave” as a real matter which should take the place of “particle picture” of the old mechanics to satisfy the demand of immediacy, but it had become clear that such a naive interpretation should not be acceptable. For, even if the electron is a real wave such as water wave and propagates into the whole space according to the Schr�dinger wave equation, the electron must be necessarily found at a space point due to its particle nature when one observes the position of the electron. This means that the wave suddenly contracts into a point by an observation and furthermore that this contraction arises discontinuously and non-causally. Thus, it is by any means impossible to interpret classically, the quantum phenomena as a continuous and causal change by assuming the matter-wave as to be realistic.
On the other hand, the methodology of the G�ttingen school which attempted to construct the theory only in terms of the directly observable quantities, also could not help disclosing their narrow-mindedness. In fact, in the present theory there are again contained the position and the velocity of the electron which the school thought to have been excluded from the theory, and it has been clarified that the central problem is not on the point of whether these quantities are “directly” observable, but whether these quantities can be observed “simultaneously.” What Heisenberg’s “uncertainty relation” has told us is that the position and the velocity of electron are “complementary” quantities which cannot be measured simultaneously. The characteristic feature in quantum mechanics is in the point that one recognised the existence of such complementary quantities. Consequently it becomes impossible to describe the state of the particle, as in the case of Newtonian mechanics, in terms of the values of its position and velocity at a moment, so that it is necessary to introduce a new concept of the state which is represented by a vector (wave function) in the Hilbert space. The reason that an electron exhibits a contradictory character of corpuscule and wave is due to the fact that behind these phenomenological forms exists a fundamental relationship understood in terms of the quantum-mechanical state. Furthermore, it should be stated here that the wave function with such a significant meaning is a quantity which can neither be observed “directly,” of course, nor “in principle,” and this implies that the present quantum mechanics has been developed by getting over the epistemology of positivism.
Sometimes the development of quantum mechanics has been related as if it implies a success of the methodology of Machism. However, the positive role, in its true sense, played by the methodology of the G�ttingen school is found in the point that it forbids the application of “the concepts of daily life” to the microscopic region without criticism. And this point can be understood by the dialectics of nature, in which the law of transformation of quantity to quality is realised, more properly than by the positivistic epistemology. The discovery of the dual nature of the electron has enlightened us that the various concepts of Newtonian mechanics, which were taken from the macroscopic experiences, cannot strictly be applied to the microscopic region. However, the macroscopic and the microscopic regions should “not mutually be separated, isolated or independent,” but should “be correlated to, dependent on and restricted within each other.” Therefore one can never construct a new theory by merely being forbidden to apply all the ordinary concepts. It may be said that Bohr’s “correspondence principle,” which demands that: “new theory should always coincide with the classical theory asymptotically in the boundary region”, puts this point into its consciousness. Heisenberg, too, eliminated at last the positivism and stated, “Even if one attempts to purify all the unclear concepts before all the science, one can do nothing but to resort to the ‘compulsion of experience’ since there is no standard to judge which concept is in doubt. To make the concepts clear beforehand is equivalent to prearranging the future development of science by means of a logical analysis of language”, and further “Since the law of classical physics holds in the limit of the action quantum being zero, the classical concepts corresponding to these quantum laws should be indispensable elements of the natural science”. The reason why the correspondence principle, as a guide in searching for an unknown law, has always played a leading role during the entire development of quantum mechanics from the stage of old-quantum theory, is due to the fact that it reflects in part the dialectics of nature. And though the G�ttingen school was led by this misleading philosophy, it has well succeeded in establishing the matrix mechanics mainly due to the help of the correspondence principle.
If, however, theoretical physicists had been conscious of the dialectics of nature and learned the logic of high quality, they would have taken a more straightforward way to establish quantum mechanics. And it is no doubt that they would have arrived more quickly at the methodology, which Bohr and Heisenberg acquired at last through their excellent intuitions and their many years of struggles with nature, and would have given more adequate expressions for it. The methodology of Bohr and Heisenberg, though it worked well as an active weapon in constructing quantum mechanics, has frequently worked negatively in the recent development of theories of atomic nuclei and of elementary particles. This is due to the fact that the methodology consists of only a partial consciousness of the dialectics of nature. Indeed, a misleading methodology, if one applies it extensively as a creed, is always transferred into the opposition, according to the well-known law of dialectics.
In the interpretation of quantum mechanics, it was the so-called “observation problem” that most numerous misunderstandings were spread, in connection with philosophy. In quantum mechanics, the “state” of a microscopic system such as an atom, is expressed by “wave function” and develops continuously every moment according to Schr�dinger’s wave equation. This is a causal change described in terms of the differential equation, and does not differ in quality from the change of state of the macroscopic system. The characteristic feature of quantum mechanics, however, arises in the observation of such microscopic system; a measurement of the same physical quantity in the same state, does not always yield a definite result and we can only predict statistically a probability for getting a specific result. Moreover, the state of the system or the wave function changes discontinuously and non-causally through the measurement, thus which state the system changes to depends on the measured result of the physical quantity. An example is the aforementioned “contraction of wave.”
The essential point of “the observation problem,” is to clarify the relation of these two changes, i.e., a continuous and causal change of the state of a closed system and a discontinuous and non-causal one which arises in the measurement of the system. Now consider the characteristic feature of the measuring process. An observation is an action on “an object” with the “measuring apparatus” to measure quantities concerning the former by, for example, reading a change of the scale appearing in the latter. Then, in quantum mechanics even if a combined system of two is as a whole in a pure quantum mechanical state, it can be proved that as for the sub-system, it is generally no longer in a pure state, but consists of a statistical mixture of a number of quantum-mechanical states. This is a characteristic of quantum mechanics and indicates the dialectical relationship between the part and the whole and between the contingency and the necessity, which can never be understood by a formal logic. The discontinuous and non-causal change which arises in the measuring process, contrarily to the continuous and causal change of the state of the closed system, is a consequence of such an objective “quantum mechanical law of combination” between “object” and “measuring apparatus,” and has nothing to do with the so-called “action of the subject on the object.” The statement, which has hitherto frequently been made that quantum mechanics “rejects” the “objective reality of externality,” is based on a wrong understanding of the observation problem. This has been already pointed out by Taketani.
However, to sweep away such a misunderstanding it would be necessary to take note of another characteristic point of the quantum-mechanical measuring process. It is the fact that, while the object of measurement is microscopic, the main part of the measuring apparatus must necessarily be macroscopic. In other words, while the object is governed by the quantum-mechanical law, the measuring apparatus must be a device which amplifies a microscopic process arising within the apparatus into a macroscopic process. Therefore the microscopic portion within the apparatus has a close connection with the object, so that it may be difficult to determine to what part the observed object is extended and what part the measuring apparatus is. However, as Neumann has proved, using the above mentioned “law” of combination, quantum mechanics always gives the same result independent of the position of the cut-plane between the object and the measuring apparatus. This means that quantum mechanics is constructed quite ingeniously. Neumann stated, in the excess of emphasising the arbitrariness of the position of this cut-plane, that the object could be enlarged gradually to the limit that only the “abstract ego” remained as a cognisant subject; this is obviously going too far. For, the characteristic feature of the measuring apparatus is to contain the device which amplifies the microscopic process to the macroscopic one, thus we cannot push it into the side of the object. Moreover as the procedure that an observer reads a change of the scale, appearing in the apparatus produces no effect on the result of measurement, it is meaningless to involve the cognisant subject as well into the measuring apparatus. From the consideration of these points it will become very clear that the statistical nature arising in the quantum-mechanical measurement is a consequence of a “material interrelation” between the “object” and the “measuring apparatus”; both of which are of the “objective existence” and that the statistical nature is not due to the action of the subject on the object.
Though it has sometimes been argued that in the quantum mechanics “causality” should not be denied, the correct way to resolve this problem is found in the analysis of the measuring process as mentioned above. In quantum mechanics the concept of state is of essential importance and the state obeys the strict law of causality. On the other hand, the statistical law governs the phenomenal world which is concerned with the correlation among the observed values of physical quantities. However, as mentioned above, this statistical nature never denies the causality, but it is the “statistical nature” of the “portion” which is founded on the “causal nature” of the “whole system”. This relationship can be grasped only by the logic of dialectics which unifies the confrontations between the phenomenon and the essence, between the part and the whole, between the contingency and the necessity, and so on. And, much confusion which has been raised concerning the problem of the causality is due to the understanding of structural composition of quantum mechanics by means of a plane formal logic.
From the standpoint of the dialectics of nature, M. Taketani has analysed in detail the logical structure and the process of the establishment of quantum mechanics and has developed a powerful methodology - three-stage theory - for the theoretical physics. How his methodology has played a great role in the development of the elementary particle physics in our country will be mentioned in another place.
next section |
Shoichi Sakata |
Marxism in Japan |
Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org
|
./articles/Sakata-Shoichi/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.lenin.works.1908.mec.index | <body>
<header class="header-title">
<h3 class="author">V.I. Lenin</h3>
<h1 class="title">Materialism and Empirio-criticism</h1>
<h2 class="subtitle">Critical Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy<small><sup><span id="bkV14E011"><a href="#fwV14E011">[1]</a></span></sup></small></h2>
</header>
<section class="header-info">
<h3 class="book-info">Book information</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Written:</strong> February 1908—October 1908; Supplement to Chapter IV, Section I—in March 1909</li>
<li><strong>Published:</strong> May 1909 in Moscow as a separate book by <em>Zveno Publishers</em>. Published according to the text of the 1909 edition checked with the 1920 edition.</li>
<li><strong>Source:</strong> <a href="../../cw/index.htm#volume14"><em>Lenin Collected Works</em></a>, Progress Publishers, <a href="../../cw/v14pp72h.txt">1972</a>, Moscow, <a href="../../cw/volume14.htm#1908-mec-index">Volume 14</a>, pages <span class="pages">17-362</span></li>
<li><strong>Translated:</strong> Abraham Fineberg</li>
<li><strong>Transcription; Markup:</strong> <a href="../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/dwalters.htm">D. Walters</a>; <a href="http://alyx.io/pages/about/#details">Alyx Mayer</a></li>
<li><strong>License:</strong> Lenin Internet Archive 1999, 2014. You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work per the terms of the <a href="../../../../../admin/legal/cc/by-sa.htm">Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0</a> license; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.</li>
</ul>
</section>
<article>
<section class="article-contents">
<h3>Contents</h3>
<h4>Prefaces</h4>
<ul>
<li id="pref01"><a href="pref01.htm">Preface to the First Edition</a></li>
<li id="pref02"><a href="pref02.htm">Preface to the Second Edition</a></li>
<li id="intro"><a href="intro.htm">In Lieu of An Introduction</a></li>
</ul>
<h4>Chapters</h4>
<h5>1. The Theory of Knowledge of Empirio-Criticism and of Dialectical Materialism - I</h5>
<ol>
<li id="one1"><a href="one1.htm">Sensations And Complexes Of Sensations</a></li>
<li id="one2"><a href="one2.htm">“The Discovery of the World-Elements”</a></li>
<li id="one3"><a href="one3.htm">The Principal Co-Ordination and “Naive Realism”</a></li>
<li id="one4"><a href="one4.htm">Did Nature Exist Prior to Man?</a></li>
<li id="one5"><a href="one5.htm">Does Man Think With The Help of the Brain?</a></li>
<li id="one6"><a href="one6.htm">The Solipsism of Mach and Avenarius</a></li>
</ol>
<h5>2. The Theory of Knowledge of Empirio-Criticism and of Dialectical Materialism - II</h5>
<ol>
<li id="two1"><a href="two1.htm">The “Thing-In-Itself,” or V. Chernov Refutes Frederick Engels</a></li>
<li id="two2"><a href="two2.htm">“Transcendence,” Or Bazarov “Revises” Engels</a></li>
<li id="two3"><a href="two3.htm">L. Feuerbach and J. Dietzgen on the Thing-In-Itself</a></li>
<li id="two4"><a href="two4.htm">Does Objective Truth Exist?</a></li>
<li id="two5"><a href="two5.htm">Absolute and Relative Truth, or the Eclecticism of Engels as Discovered by A. Bogdanov</a></li>
<li id="two6"><a href="two6.htm">The Criterion of Practice in the Theory of Knowledge</a></li>
</ol>
<h5>3. The Theory of Knowledge of Dialectical Materialism and of Empirio-Criticism - III</h5>
<ol>
<li id="three1"><a href="three1.htm">What Is Matter? What Is Experience?</a></li>
<li id="three2"><a href="three2.htm">Plekhanov’s Error Concerning The Concept “Experience”</a></li>
<li id="three3"><a href="three3.htm">Causality And Necessity In Nature</a></li>
<li id="three4"><a href="three4.htm">The “Principle Of Economy Of Thought” And The Problem Of The “Unity Of The World”</a></li>
<li id="three5"><a href="three5.htm">Space And Time</a></li>
<li id="three6"><a href="three6.htm">Freedom and Necessity</a></li>
</ol>
<h5>4. The Philosophical Idealists as Comrades-In-Arms and Successors of Empirio-Criticism</h5>
<ol>
<li id="four1"><a href="four1.htm">The Criticism of Kantianism from the Left and From the Right</a></li>
<li id="four2"><a href="four2.htm">How the “Empirio-Symbolist” Yushkevich Ridiculed the “Empirio-Criticist” Chernov</a></li>
<li id="four3"><a href="four3.htm">The Immanentists as Comrades-In-Arms of Mach and Avenarius</a></li>
<li id="four4"><a href="four4.htm">Whither is Empirio-Criticism Tending?</a></li>
<li id="four5"><a href="four5.htm">A. Bogdanov’s “Empirio-Monism”</a></li>
<li id="four6"><a href="four6.htm">The “Theory of Symbols” (or Hieroglyphs) and the Criticism of Helmholtz</a></li>
<li id="four7"><a href="four7.htm">Two Kinds of Criticism of Dühring</a></li>
<li id="four8"><a href="four8.htm">How Could J. Dietzgen Have Found Favour with the Reactionary Philosophers?</a></li>
</ol>
<h5>5. The Recent Revolution in Natural Science and Philosophical Idealism</h5>
<ol>
<li id="five1"><a href="five1.htm">The Crisis in Modern Physics</a></li>
<li id="five2"><a href="five2.htm">“Matter Has Disappeared”</a></li>
<li id="five3"><a href="five3.htm">Is Motion Without Matter Conceivable?</a></li>
<li id="five4"><a href="five4.htm">The Two Trends in Modern Physics and English Spiritualism</a></li>
<li id="five5"><a href="five5.htm">The Two Trends in Modern Physics, and German Idealism</a></li>
<li id="five6"><a href="five6.htm">The Two Trends in Modern Physics and French Fideism</a></li>
<li id="five7"><a href="five7.htm">A Russian “Idealist Physicist”</a></li>
<li id="five8"><a href="five8.htm">The Essence and Significance of “Physical” Idealism</a></li>
</ol>
<h5>6. Empirio-Criticism and Historical Materialism</h5>
<ol>
<li id="six1"><a href="six1.htm">The Excursions of the German Empirio-Criticists Into The Field of the Social Sciences</a></li>
<li id="six2"><a href="six2.htm">How Bogdanov Corrects and “Develops” Marx</a></li>
<li id="six3"><a href="six3.htm">Suvorov’s “Foundations Of Social Philosophy”</a></li>
<li id="six4"><a href="six4.htm">Parties in Philosophy and Philosophical Blockheads</a></li>
<li id="six5"><a href="six5.htm">Ernst Haeckel and Ernst Mach</a></li>
<li id="concl"><a href="concl.htm">Conclusion</a></li>
<li id="four1sup"><a href="four1sup.htm">Supplement to Chapter Four, Section I</a></li>
</ol>
</section>
<section class="article-notes">
<h3>Notes</h3>
<p><span id="fwV14E011"><a href="#bkV14E011">[1]</a></span> The book <em>Materialism and Empirio-criticism. Critical Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy</em> was written by Lenin during February to October 1908 in Geneva and London. It was published in Moscow in May 1909 by the <em>Zveno</em> Publishers. The manuscript of the book and Lenin’s preparatory material for it have so far not been found.</p>
<p>The book is the outcome of a prodigious amount of creative scientific research carried out by Lenin during nine months. His main work on the book was carried out in Geneva libraries, but in order to obtain a detailed knowledge of the modern literature of philosophy and natural science be went in May 1908 to London, where he worked for about a month in the library of the British Museum. The list of sources quoted or mentioned by Lenin in his book exceeds 200 titles.</p>
<p>In December 1908 Lenin went from Geneva to Paris where he worked until April 1909 on correcting the proofs of his book. He had to agree to tone down some passages of the work so as not to give he tsarist censorship an excuse for prohibiting its publication. It was published in Russia under great difficulties. Lenin insisted on the speedy issue of the book, stressing that “not only literary but also serious political obligations” were involved in its publication.</p>
<p>Lenin’s work <em>Materialism and Empirio-criticism</em> played a decisive part in combating the Machist revision of Marxism. It enabled the philosophical ideas of Marxism to spread widely among the mass of party members and helped the party activists and progressive workers to master dialectical and historical materialism.</p>
<p>This classical work of Lenin’s has achieved a wide circulation in many countries, and has been published in over 20 languages.</p>
</section>
</article>
<nav class="nav-main">
<a href="../../index.htm">Works Index</a>
|
<a href="../../cw/volume14.htm#1908-mec-index">Volume 14</a>
|
<a href="../../cw/index.htm#volume14">Collected Works</a>
|
<a href="../../../index.htm">L.I.A. Index</a>
</nav>
</body> |
V.I. Lenin
Materialism and Empirio-criticism
Critical Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy[1]
Book information
Written: February 1908—October 1908; Supplement to Chapter IV, Section I—in March 1909
Published: May 1909 in Moscow as a separate book by Zveno Publishers. Published according to the text of the 1909 edition checked with the 1920 edition.
Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1972, Moscow, Volume 14, pages 17-362
Translated: Abraham Fineberg
Transcription; Markup: D. Walters; Alyx Mayer
License: Lenin Internet Archive 1999, 2014. You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work per the terms of the Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
Contents
Prefaces
Preface to the First Edition
Preface to the Second Edition
In Lieu of An Introduction
Chapters
1. The Theory of Knowledge of Empirio-Criticism and of Dialectical Materialism - I
Sensations And Complexes Of Sensations
“The Discovery of the World-Elements”
The Principal Co-Ordination and “Naive Realism”
Did Nature Exist Prior to Man?
Does Man Think With The Help of the Brain?
The Solipsism of Mach and Avenarius
2. The Theory of Knowledge of Empirio-Criticism and of Dialectical Materialism - II
The “Thing-In-Itself,” or V. Chernov Refutes Frederick Engels
“Transcendence,” Or Bazarov “Revises” Engels
L. Feuerbach and J. Dietzgen on the Thing-In-Itself
Does Objective Truth Exist?
Absolute and Relative Truth, or the Eclecticism of Engels as Discovered by A. Bogdanov
The Criterion of Practice in the Theory of Knowledge
3. The Theory of Knowledge of Dialectical Materialism and of Empirio-Criticism - III
What Is Matter? What Is Experience?
Plekhanov’s Error Concerning The Concept “Experience”
Causality And Necessity In Nature
The “Principle Of Economy Of Thought” And The Problem Of The “Unity Of The World”
Space And Time
Freedom and Necessity
4. The Philosophical Idealists as Comrades-In-Arms and Successors of Empirio-Criticism
The Criticism of Kantianism from the Left and From the Right
How the “Empirio-Symbolist” Yushkevich Ridiculed the “Empirio-Criticist” Chernov
The Immanentists as Comrades-In-Arms of Mach and Avenarius
Whither is Empirio-Criticism Tending?
A. Bogdanov’s “Empirio-Monism”
The “Theory of Symbols” (or Hieroglyphs) and the Criticism of Helmholtz
Two Kinds of Criticism of Dühring
How Could J. Dietzgen Have Found Favour with the Reactionary Philosophers?
5. The Recent Revolution in Natural Science and Philosophical Idealism
The Crisis in Modern Physics
“Matter Has Disappeared”
Is Motion Without Matter Conceivable?
The Two Trends in Modern Physics and English Spiritualism
The Two Trends in Modern Physics, and German Idealism
The Two Trends in Modern Physics and French Fideism
A Russian “Idealist Physicist”
The Essence and Significance of “Physical” Idealism
6. Empirio-Criticism and Historical Materialism
The Excursions of the German Empirio-Criticists Into The Field of the Social Sciences
How Bogdanov Corrects and “Develops” Marx
Suvorov’s “Foundations Of Social Philosophy”
Parties in Philosophy and Philosophical Blockheads
Ernst Haeckel and Ernst Mach
Conclusion
Supplement to Chapter Four, Section I
Notes
[1] The book Materialism and Empirio-criticism. Critical Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy was written by Lenin during February to October 1908 in Geneva and London. It was published in Moscow in May 1909 by the Zveno Publishers. The manuscript of the book and Lenin’s preparatory material for it have so far not been found.
The book is the outcome of a prodigious amount of creative scientific research carried out by Lenin during nine months. His main work on the book was carried out in Geneva libraries, but in order to obtain a detailed knowledge of the modern literature of philosophy and natural science be went in May 1908 to London, where he worked for about a month in the library of the British Museum. The list of sources quoted or mentioned by Lenin in his book exceeds 200 titles.
In December 1908 Lenin went from Geneva to Paris where he worked until April 1909 on correcting the proofs of his book. He had to agree to tone down some passages of the work so as not to give he tsarist censorship an excuse for prohibiting its publication. It was published in Russia under great difficulties. Lenin insisted on the speedy issue of the book, stressing that “not only literary but also serious political obligations” were involved in its publication.
Lenin’s work Materialism and Empirio-criticism played a decisive part in combating the Machist revision of Marxism. It enabled the philosophical ideas of Marxism to spread widely among the mass of party members and helped the party activists and progressive workers to master dialectical and historical materialism.
This classical work of Lenin’s has achieved a wide circulation in many countries, and has been published in over 20 languages.
Works Index
|
Volume 14
|
Collected Works
|
L.I.A. Index
|
./articles/Sakata-Shoichi/https:..www.marxists.org.subject.japan.sakata.ch02 | <body>
<p class="title">Shoichi Sakata, June 1968</p>
<h3>Philosophy and Methodology of Present-Day Science</h3>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information"><span class="info">Source</span>: Supplement of the <em>Progress of Theoretical Physics</em>, No. 50, 1971. <br>
</p><p class="information"><img src="../../../glossary/people/s/pics/sakata.gif" align="right" width="200" alt="japanese scientist type with black rimmed glasses" hspace="10" border="1"><br>
<span class="info">First published</span>: in the periodical news paper of Nagoya University (<em>Nagoya Daigaku Shinbun </em>June 13, 1968, No. 300) edited by the students, reproducing the speech of the author at the annual festival of the University for undergraduate students. Later, after a slight correction in form by the author, this was included in a book <em>Tetsugaku VI</em> (<i>Philosophy</i> Vol. 6) published by Iwanami (Tokyo) in 1968 under somewhat different title. The present translation is based on the latter text.<br>
<span class="info">Transcribed</span>: for the Marxists Internet Archive by <a href="../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/ablunden.htm">Andy Blunden</a>.</p>
<hr class="end">
<h5>1. What is the present-day science?</h5>
<p>What is, and how should we recognise, the present-day science? We know both ancient Greek science and modern science after the Renaissance, as being contrasted to the present-day science. There are opinions such that Greek science should not be taken as a science. Nevertheless, I think it is also science and bears a great significance even in the present age. Namely, various thoughts developed in Greek science show their profound effects in the present-day science. It is not too much to say that all sciences have their common origin in Greece. For example, the fundamental thinking on atomic research, to which I have been devoting myself, is well-known to stem from Greek thinkers. In fact, the modern and the present-day sciences have been effected decisively from the atomism developed in ancient Greek schools by Democritus, Epicurus and others, who proposed atom theories in which they conceived, beyond human sensual abilities, microscopic particles – atoms – as the constituents of the whole universe. In all events, Greek science is a science which played a great role in human history. History then greeted the Renaissance after the Dark Ages of medieval centuries. A new science which was created in the Renaissance, i.e., the modern science, possessed a new character different from Greek science as was symbolised by the words “knowledge is the power of mankind” of Francis Bacon, and contributed greatly to the advancement of humanity. In today’s science there remain still many characteristic phases inherited from the modern science; many people are, therefore, looking to the character of today’s science as merely a continuous succession of the modern science. I think, however, that the present-day science is not, and should not be, the Greek science nor the modern science; it has and should have a significance as a new phase of science. Science is now confronting a grave crisis from both internal and external causes; the reason for it is that today’s science has not yet cast off the traditional skin of the modern science. The modern science turns, nowadays, to strike mankind with monstrous terror contrary to man’s expectations that it would bring them the greatest felicity. What was the outcome of the birth of Greek science and the flourish of modern science in Europe? It was nothing but events of Auschwitz and Hiroshima, and furthermore the tragic Vietnam War of our days. Such a result is a destiny coming from the character of the modern science. The present-day science must proceed far beyond the modern science in order never to repeat these bitter experiences. In reality, however, the present-day science has in it a latent power capable of overcoming the limits of the modern science. Although it looks that the present-day science which we, the men of the twentieth century, are endeavouring to develop for the future is a continuance of the modern science advanced after the Renaissance, many of the indications imply that it is not the case. Therefore, we ought to bring up such a new power in order not to let the results of the present-day science be the tragedy of Auschwitz, Hiroshima and Vietnam as was the case of Greek and modern science.</p>
<p>The problem of clarifying the character of present-day science is closely connected with that of disclosing the philosophical and methodological implications inherent in the present-day science. Hence, I will begin our discussions with this point.</p>
<h5>2. Marx, the source of the method of present-day science</h5>
<p>In the twentieth century, there have been rapidly developed new sciences worthy of being known today as the present-day science in connection with the advancement of atomic physics. As a result, the present-day science has displayed its new view of nature different from that of the modern science, and has developed a new methodology of its own. However, in terms of the history of thoughts, the present-day science, or more precisely the thought and method of today’s science, stemmed not in our century but from the thought and method established by Marx early in the nineteenth century. Today, it is often said that social sciences are rather undeveloped compared with natural sciences. In fact, natural sciences in our days have produced such terrible weapons as A- and H- bombs, bacteria weapons, chemical gases and so on, thereby throwing mankind into serious crises. They claimed that the cause of human crises lies in the ill-balanced development between natural and social sciences. For example, the Science Council of Japan recently began organising discussions about desirable measures for the well-balanced advancement of both natural ‘and social sciences. It is well known that one of the characteristic aspects of today’s natural sciences lies in the use of huge experimental instrumentations which need an enormous sum as well as the large-scale collaboration of researching staffs, thus afterwards being called big science. Moreover, especially since we came into the twentieth century, it has appeared as an international trend of governmental policies, which have been giving too much importance to military research, putting money only in natural sciences and, as a result, oppressing the study of social sciences. Can we, however, say that the crises of mankind come from such an ill-balanced development between natural and social sciences, in accordance with the popular idea? I think this is not the case. Rather, the present-day science in a true sense was first established as a social science, already in the middle of the nineteenth century. It was <em>Capital </em>by Marx. This is indeed a science worthy of being called the present-day science. Behind Marx’s <em>Capital</em> there lies the dialectic materialism or its view of human history, and Marx discovered a highly lawful structure of human society by commanding profound logic of dialectics. In the twentieth century, the invaluable significance of <em>Capital </em>has been recognised more and more. Namely, the socialistic revolution succeeded first in Russia followed by the revolutions of China and other nations after World War II. Thus, a number of socialist republics have been established and Marx’s laws are being applied to their own lives. I know a famous scholar of economics who said that he made a better choice of non-conversion by witnessing recent dollar-crises, although many economists have come to conceive that Marxism turned to be out-dated in confronting a post-War prosperity of the capitalistic regime of the United States. At any rate, it is hardly deniable that in giving real perspective for the future, what have really been the motive forces of revolutionising human history, there are books such as Marx’s, <em>Capital</em>, Lenin’s <em>On Imperialism</em> and Mao’s <em>On Practice </em>and<em> On Contradictions.</em></p>
<h5>3. The law of the atomic world – quantum mechanics</h5>
<p>Turning our eyes to natural sciences, we see that Newtonian mechanics has the greatest significance in the modern development of science after the Renaissance. It was proved that Newtonian mechanics reflects the law of nature so profoundly that it has a great predictive power and governs the motions of arbitrary bodies in the world. As a result, the scientists in the nineteenth century were inclined to give an excessive value to Newtonian mechanics, making their views of nature and the world narrow ones. At any rate, however, it had the greatest meaning in the modern science, and was one of those most highly developed sciences. Although the significance of Newtonian mechanics has not changed at all even today, a very important fact was disclosed in the beginning of the twentieth century; that is, it does not govern all over the world, but has only a limited sphere of its applicability. This fact was first revealed by Einstein in the beginning of this century, when he discovered the theory of relativity, yet it was recognised more deeply when we stepped into the atomic world; it was realised that the atomic world was not governed by Newtonian mechanics. The law of motion of matter in the atomic world was the quantum mechanics discovered by de Broglie, Schr�dinger, Heisenberg and others.</p>
<h5>4. All laws have their own limits of applicability</h5>
<p>What was clarified by the present-day science that has been developed on a foundation of atomic physics? In the first place, it is that, however great the power of prophecy an advanced law has, it has a limit of applicability. It shows great powers only within the scope of applicability, but if one goes beyond this limit, it loses all its power at once. The motion of an electron in the atom is completely different from the motion of bodies we can see with our eyes. For instance, in our world a man is not able to enter a room through two entrances simultaneously, yet an electron comes in from two slits at the same time. The fact that the motion of an electron is far beyond our conception means that there exists for the electron another, entirely different law from that for visible bodies. To speak more physically, an electron possesses both particle-like and wave-like natures. The modern technological innovation owes very much to quantum mechanics which governs the atomic world, just like Newtonian mechanics was the foundation of the mechanical civilisation in the nineteenth century. For example, without quantum mechanics one could never develop electronics using the semi-conductors, nuclear engineering of producing reactors, atomic bombs and so forth.</p>
<p>It had long been believed until the nineteenth century that Newtonian mechanics was a law governing all over the world. As a result, however, there became dominant the so-called mechanistic conception of nature, a point of view relating philosophically to metaphysical materialism; namely, if God would only give a first impulse, then the world should undergo a prescribed movement subjected to Newton’s law after that. Standing on this point of view, only Newtonian mechanics is the Queen of all sciences, and all the rest could be derived from it. This is a view that regards not only Nature but also social phenomena as being essentially regulated by Newtonian mechanics. French materialism was typical in the sense that it took such a point of view as its back ground. In other words, the belief in Newtonian dynamics was so strong that it made this point of view dominant. During this century, a new world was discovered where Newtonian mechanics no longer holds true. The recognition of the fact that every law has its limit of applicability is really the first distinctive characteristic of the present-day science.</p>
<h5>5. Existence of infinite strata of matter each having its own law</h5>
<p>On the other hand, there has been developed another conception that nature is composed of infinite strata which are different from each other qualitatively, and that every stratum is subjected to its own law. This conception is the foundation of the dialectic view of nature, and was first proposed by Engels in the middle of the nineteenth century. This we may regard as the second distinctive character of the present-day science. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, an idea that matter is composed of atoms was revived by Dalton in modern chemistry. Later on, it became clear that there existed another stratum named molecules as a basis of matter, besides the stratum of atoms. In this century, however, it has been discovered that an atom is also composed of a nucleus and electrons, and a nucleus is further built of neutrons and protons. We call those constituents of atoms elementary particles. Thus, the level structure of matter has been revealed step by step in that there are atoms in a molecule, elementary particles in an atom. Today, we feel it necessary to push our investigations standing on such a structural point of view presupposing that even the elementary particles might no longer be the ultimate of matter, although they are now regarded as being the smallest unit of matter. In the world bigger than individual molecules, there emerges at a certain point a series of high polymers, a matter of new stratum which is different from usual ones qualitatively. For example, the protein molecules as the basic materials of living bodies, the cells composed of such proteins and others are the strata, respectively. Similarly, living bodies, and specifically including human beings among them, too, may be considered as one or the other of the strata. When human beings organise together as a society, this is also a stratum. In other words, the human society belongs to one of the infinite strata in nature; hence, natural science and social science are related to each other in this sense. Turning our eyes to a much bigger region, the earth is also one of the strata, as well as our solar system. There are still a lot of stars like the sun, and they gather to form a nebula called the Galaxy. A nebula can be also regarded as a stratum, but there are lots of nebulae in space. In the natural world there exist infinitely many strata, and they combine themselves into a complex network rather than forming a one-dimensional series from the large to the small. And in each stratum, there governs each own law which exerts the greatest predictive power within its limit of applicability. Newtonian mechanics was constructed essentially unifying the world of our visible bodies and heavenly bodies; it plays, within such a stratum, a role of the highest law of nature. However, in the world of atoms, molecules and elementary particles, there existed different laws, i.e., the laws of quantum mechanics. The laws discovered by Marx in human society have also a great power as such valid in the stratum of human society. In general, there govern respective laws for each stratum of nature. The aim of individual branches of science is to obtain the knowledge of such a law. Therefore, the existence of infinitely many strata in nature means, equivalently, that every law has its own limit of applicability.</p>
<h5>6. Strata under mutual transformations, nature under evolution</h5>
<p>The third important point that the present-day science has disclosed is the fact that these various strata form an evolving history, in which each of them is occurring, disappearing and changing to one another everlastingly.</p>
<p>The method of modern science that began at the Renaissance was the one by which one separated an object into pieces and studied each part in full detail. As a result, various sciences have been established such as physics, chemistry, biology, geology and so on. The specialisation, so to say, under which each branch of speciality is investigated deeper and deeper, played certainly an important part as a method of the modern science. This point was emphasised also by Descartes. However, it has been shown by the progress of atomic physics in the twentieth century that those sciences separated from each other in modern science should be synthesised again after all. Whereas Greek science was of a very synthetic aspect, such a character was lost completely in the modern science, and each learning has been pushed forward separately; the modern science made its way digging deeper and deeper in its speciality, almost losing the connection among each other. This tendency has been continuing even today. Although the progress of atomic science requires a unification of sciences to connect various branches of the present-day science on the one hand, yet almost all of scientists today have not gotten rid of the method of modern science on the other. Recently, in the field of the so-called big science, gigantic instruments are used and a large number of people should work together in a laboratory. Consequently an individual researcher in a huge organisation misses his direction even on his own study, because he plays merely a part as a gear wheel in a complex machine. Even more, he thoroughly loses his perspective about the relation between other branch of science and his own, or between science and society. Such a pathological aspect of specialisation in the modern science has continued even today, and still more we are able to say that it is promoted by the big sciences themselves. Although the present-day science has begun to have a highly unified character as never to be seen along the progress of atomic physics, yet its method has not at all been free from the method of modern science.</p>
<p>Thus, it is not too much to say that the most serious cause which has brought about the crisis to science and mankind today lies on this point, notwithstanding that the progress of atomic physics in this century is actually playing a role to synthesise various sciences together. For example, in chemistry there had been an idea of immutability of elements as a basic principle of chemistry. It was a main task for chemistry to obtain new substances by combining and dissolving those hundreds of elements existing in nature. And it had been believed that atoms were, as the basis of invariance of an element, indivisible and unchangeable particles, keeping their figure until today as God created them for the first time. But science in the twentieth century shocked the foundation of chemistry radically. As a result of the progress of atomic physics, in which atoms themselves are destroyed and new atoms are made easily in the laboratory today.</p>
<p>So the permanency of an element no longer holds true. On the other hand, it has become clear that when and how the various atoms were composed from elementary particles in the process of evolution of the universe. This is also the problem concerning the origin of elements.</p>
<p>The thermonuclear reaction in H-bombs and others occurs in the stars, and it plays an important role in the evolution of the stars. For example, the sun is burning owing to the mechanism of the formation of helium nucleai from four hydrogen nuclei. In ancient times, the heavenly fire was believed to be entirely different from the fire on earth, and to be a very mystic one since the Grecian age. But today it is revealed that the heavenly fire is burning by virtue of nuclear reactions. In the process of the evolution of heavenly bodies, a stratum called the solar system is formed, and the earth is born. Upon the earth, complicated molecules are composed of atoms gradually, and finally an albuminous molecule, which would become the origin of life, is synthesised. Then, life is created, it evolves to generate mankind, and men gather themselves to form a human society, which develops in succession. Such a course of evolution of nature can be traced by the advancement of atomic physics. In our present knowledge the history of matter begins with elementary particles, which are, however, not in the same figures as God created in remote ages, but known to be created with their antiparticles in the laboratory. Hence, they were not created by God, but must be formed in some time of the history of nature. The conception that various strata in nature do not only coexist simultaneously, but also change to one another constantly, thereby creating new strata and forming the whole history of nature; this conception is rather close to the thought of Heraclitus in Greece that whole things change. This is the world view of dialectic materialism which Marx made his background when he wrote <em>Capital </em>in the nineteenth century, and is also the conception of natural dialectic that Engels expounded upon the basis of achievement of natural science in those days. Such a conception has been confirmed further by scientific contents on the ground of the advancement of atomic physics in the twentieth century, and has been developed as the one providing powerful methods to push forward new sciences.</p>
<h5>7. The germination of the dialectic view of nature in Marx</h5>
<p>As I mentioned before, an original form of the dialectic view of nature was shown by Engels, a staunch friend of Marx, in his posthumous manuscripts <em>Dialektik der Natur. </em>However, in view of the history of thought, I would like to point out that there was already a germination of it in Marx’s early works. As last year happened to be just a hundred years after <em>Capital </em>of Marx was published, a lot of papers were presented in remembrance of it, but they scarcely touched upon this fact in their articles. Marx, generally known as a sociologist, worked out <em>Capital </em>and others and as a philosopher, developed materialistic dialectics, yet it was a problem of atoms that he was interested in at the start. The title of his doctoral thesis was “On the Difference between Atom Theories of Democritus and Epicurus”. In-Greek science the atom-theoretic way of thinking was represented by Democritus, whereas Epicurus was nominated as his successor. But Marx perceived, in his younger days, a grave difference between Democritus and Epicurus with his penetrating eye. Epicurus is popularly famous for the word “Epicurean” after his name, and as for his atom theory, he has only been believed as an expounder of the atom theory of Democritus. However, in reality, Epicurus’ atom theory is quite different in its elements from that of Democritus. Marx had a sharp insight into this point, and on this account, I think that his doctoral dissertation bears a great significance as a basis of the present-day science. A few years ago, Professor Shinsaku Aihara of Osaka University wrote a very suggestive paper entitled “On Sciences” in the magazine <em>Tenbo</em>. It is said commonly that the cause of the crisis of science and mankind lies in the limping growth of the natural science over the social science. However, Aihara stated, in opposition to this, as follows that it is not the case; rather it would be ridiculous to think that only one side of culture could be highly advanced whereas another in the same society could not. Already, in fact, Marx’s <em>Capital</em> achieved a great success, he says. I agree with him on this point, and still more I was deeply impressed by his following suggestion. Namely, usual Marxist-economists or Marxist-philosophers scarcely appreciate Marx’s doctoral thesis; and many of those people are considering it as having no relation with Marxism since it was written in the age when he was a Hegelian-leftist, before he became Marxist. Aihara, however, pointed out keenly that all of the germs of his various social-scientific works such as <em>Capital</em>, of his materialistic conception of history and so on are included early in this doctoral thesis. I was moved profoundly by this suggestion, and found it true that a bud of the dialectic outlook of nature could also be contained in this first article by Marx, although I had thought it was developed chiefly by Engels and pushed forward further by Lenin.</p>
<h5>8. The analysis of the concept of elementary particles</h5>
<p>As is well known, for studying the elementary particles it is necessary to use huge experimental equipment such as synchrotrons and so on. However, it does not always go well by only using huge and expensive equipment. An essential point for any development of the theory of elementary particles is how to analyse the concept of elementary particles. We have been devoting ourselves to the study based upon such a point of view. Democritus in Greece and his successor Dalton in the modern science, conceived atoms as the unchangeable extreme of matter existing behind the transmutations of things. Nevertheless, in the present-day physics we went further toward smaller and smaller regions until we reached elementary particles. In so far as we consider elementary particles from the view of the natural conception of the present-day science formed with the progress of atomic physics, we should not regard it as an extreme of matter but as one of the strata like molecules, atoms, nuclei and so on; otherwise we would not be able to recognise the nature of elementary particles merely by looking at phenomena as they are. Standing on such a point of view, we have developed a theory that there would exist more fundamental particles behind elementary particles. We must throw away the conception about elementary particles that is to regard them, like Dalton or Democritus, as the ultimate of matter. We put the basis of our research on this point which Marx discussed for the first time. Engels wrote in his <em>Dialektik der Natur </em>that the essential difference between modern atomism and previous one lies in that the former recognises the existence of various different strata such as celestial objects, bodies, molecules and atoms, and it is not the point that an atom is seen as an ultimate of matter. Lenin also wrote a famous phrase in his<em> Materialism and Empirio-Criticism</em>: “The electron is as inexhaustible as the atom”. However, the origin of these thoughts could again be traced back to Marx. If we read the letters exchanged by Marx and Engels, we find that Marx often mentioned that one should not regard an atom as an indivisible ultimate of matter. We can see that this thought had its origin in his doctoral thesis. It originates from his great insight into the difference between the atom theory of Democritus and that of Epicurus. The disparity between them is so subtle that it would easily fail to be noticed by ordinary people. Democritus conceived that an atom should be the ultimate of matter created by God; therefore, it is extremely perfect and it obeys only a rectilinear motion. On the other hand, however, Epicurus stated the view that the atom should never be perfect and it sometimes deviates from a rectilinear motion. Upon this difference Marx touched keenly. Namely, following the way of thinking by Democritus, an atom should take a form such as a sphere or a regular polyhedron since it is to be perfect. In fact, Plato thought that the atoms corresponding to four basic elements such as the earth, water, fire and wind, had shapes of different regular polyhedrons, because what God created should be perfect. As for heavenly bodies also, they thought, in Greek science, that all of them should obey circular motion because they were perfect objects. As they analysed various phenomena only in terms of circular motion, they at last had introduced a notion such as epicycles, making the situations awfully complicated. Such a situation was drastically changed to a simple one at a stroke by the heliocentric theory of Copernicus. Later Galileo found, through his telescope, that the moon was not a complete sphere, but had a pitted face and was very ugly. As a result, it became clear that God could not create such an object. At any rate, as far as one follows the way of Democritus, one is forced to think that all things were created by God at first. On the contrary, if we think, like Epicurus, an atom is imperfect, we then begin with investigating the causes of imperfection, turning our eyes to the next basic stratum, and the imperfection of atoms is explained from its nature. By taking such a way of approach in all its phases, the present-day science has disclosed, as a result, the dialectic outlook of nature. On this account, Marx’s doctoral thesis can be seen as a source of thoughts lying behind the present-day science, a source from which <em>Capital </em>was created and quantum mechanics was developed.</p>
<h5>9. The philosophy of quantum mechanics</h5>
<p>One may blame us for perverting the historical facts if we are claiming about quantum mechanics has been developed by materialistic dialectic. On the interpretations of quantum mechanics the so-called Copenhagen one was dominant when, thirty years ago, Yukawa developed his meson theory, of which investigation M. Taketani of Rikkyo University and I helped him. The Copenhagen interpretation, prevailing in the science of Western Europe at that time, was essentially based on the philosophy of Niels Bohr, who is known as the founder of atomic physics or quantum theory.</p>
<p>Although I mentioned that present-day science exhibited the dialectic outlook on Nature, nevertheless today’s scientists (and not them alone), have developed their theory not by starting from the dialectical view of Nature consciously, but merely by the methodology of the modern science since the Renaissance age. But it becomes now impossible to develop the present-day science by an old view such as to regard nature, the ground of science, as merely a collection of separated objects. We were deeply impressed with this point in the course of development of Yukawa’s meson theory. In this connection, Taketani published a paper entitled “Dialectics of Nature” in the journal <em>Sekai-Bunka</em> in Kyoto. In those days the <em>Sekal-Bunka</em> was introducing, e.g., the people’s front following France. This was the journal that survived to the last severe oppression in Japan, when there came an extreme world reaction under the influence of the first great panic after World War I. On account of publishing such an article in the <em>Sekai-Bunka</em>, he was arrested by the special high police and had to spend some months in a police cell. His article was really a remarkable one, being very unique and could be compared even with <em>Capital </em>by Marx. As to the difference the Copenhagen interpretation and Taketani’s interpretation, we may say that the former is discussing the logic of quantum mechanics in its established form, while Taketani’s three-stage theory of methodology, the interpretation of quantum mechanics he is discussing, is based on a standpoint of practice to create new things and has achieved a unique development of the dialectic outlook of nature.</p>
<p>It seems very curious that such an important contribution did appear, not in a socialist country where the dialectic materialism is highly appreciated, but in a capitalist country, especially in Japan when militarism was thriving there. However, I am convinced that his work has the greatest significance as a method of present-day science. The philosophers of present times in Japan used to set the limits of their region of speciality very narrowly, and confine themselves to it without giving high appreciation to the works by Taketani. In the socialist countries, the textbooks of materialistic dialectics are presented from the research institute for philosophy in the U.S.S.R., for instance, but they do not add anything unique to the methodology of the present-day science, they are rather scholastical. On the contrary, Taketani’s work is very unique and contributed greatly to theoretical physics in Japan since the advent of meson theory. Although a sensation occurred among natural scientists also in other fields from ours and it had a great influence upon them, there are yet some philosophers trying to ignore it unreasonably. Taketanl’s three-stage theory had an important meaning in order to discover a new stratum in nature, to recognise the law which is essential there, and it was actually successful in developing modern physics. He discovered and elaborated his three-stage theory in the history of development of quantum mechanics, then he re-examined Newtonian mechanics from this point of view to clarify its significance for the present age. According to Taketani’s analysis, the logic of quantum mechanics and that of Newtonian mechanics do not differ, essentially, from the logic of Marx’s <em>Capital</em>. In other words, Newtonian mechanics could have a modern significance only when we grasp it by an advanced logic. Just like <em>Capital </em>is highly established as a social science, Newtonian mechanics is also a very powerful one obeyed by profound logic within its limit of applicability, although we would be failed if we regard it, like the scientists in the nineteenth century, as being valid all over the world. In the case of quantum mechanics, we would lose the perspective to future development unless we grasp it with a highly advanced logic of, say, Taketani’s interpretation. I think that quantum mechanics, <em>Capital, </em>and Newtonian mechanics would come to be really powerful theories not only to interpret the world, but also to change the world and nature when they are understood in terms of such an advanced logic. As for Taketani’s three-stage theory, I would like to recommend you to read his collected works, published recently by Keisō-Shobō or a monograph entitled <em>Theoretical Problems at the Present Age</em> from Iwanami-Shoten, in both of which his theory is presented in detail.</p>
<h5>10. A new philosophy for the present-day science</h5>
<p>The progress of the present-day science has been supported hitherto by the extension of the methodology of the modern science initiated in the Renaissance. However, if its development from now on should still be guided by this methodology, sciences will not only degrade themselves but also bring about a grave crisis for mankind. Nay, we can say that the degradation of sciences and the crisis of humankind in present days already stemmed out from this point. As I mentioned before, nineteenth century’s science separated nature into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc., and took a way to specialisation in each field. So it has been thought that there is no relation between natural science and social science. However, standing on the dialectic viewpoint of nature, human society also should be regarded as one of the strata in nature. Various strata are connected to each other into one, and a unified nature and these strata have been created in the evolution of nature. In order to advance sciences and to make use of them for the happiness of mankind, we must combine again those sciences, separated into pieces by nineteenth century’s science, on the basis of the new outlook of nature and new methodology elaborated in the present-day science. Until they are combined, I think, today’s science could not be the present-day science in a true sense and could not play an important role in human history. Were it to be the case, the outcome of science would be nothing but Auschwitz, the Hiroshima and the Vietnam War, which should never happen again. In the symposium, of which content is presented as an opening article of this book, Goro Hani pointed out that the thoughts, philosophies, sciences and arts cannot he entitled to be the present-day thoughts, present-day philosophies, present-day sciences and arts as long as they do not start with Auschwitz; this is truly a sensible remark. Hani also stated there that he had never been moved so much as when he read for the first time <em>Dialectics of Nature</em> by Taketani, though he is not a specialist in natural science. I believe that what makes the present-day science the real one is nothing other than the theory of methodology as developed by Taketani.</p>
<p>Further, the symposium includes the following discussions: It seems that history comes to the greatly dangerous turning point when we cast a glance over the trend of history, for example, the dollar-crisis which occurred recently. The situation is very similar to that around 1930. In those days, Nazism arose and brought about the cruel affair of Auschwitz by Germany, who had been glorying in her high level of culture. Fascism rose also in both Japan and Italy ending in World War 11. The fact that there can be seen a resemblance between those days and today, means that the laws of history piercing through them are the same. For example, in the case of Newton’s law, the Earth or Mars would rotate on the same orbit as now, as far as God gave them the same initial impulse to it. Their motion would be modified, however, depending on the way of getting the first impulse. Consequently, assuming both the period of the 1930’s and today are governed by the same law of history, the same accident would happen again if the conditions are the same. But of course we never want such things to happen again. I think it is to prevent them that the world peace movements are taking their actions. Nevertheless, even those people known to be progressive historians in Japan are studying on the premise that fascism will certainly rise up again. Hani emphasised that it is extremely inexcusable. We should just think about what we have to do in order never to allow fascism. It is a duty of the true historians and of today’s scientists to pursue such a direction earnestly. The present-day science should not be the same as the modern science after the Renaissance. On this account, it should take a new point of view worthy of its name, proceed on the basis of new methodology and never walk again the way of the modern science. As I mentioned previously, today’s natural science has been demonised more and more, and the scientist has been reduced to a status like the labourer in a large factory or the salaried man in a big enterprise, losing his perspective to the whole. When scientists lose their total perspective, however, not only would science bring about a crisis to mankind but also the learning itself would revert to the bottom. Reflecting upon the fact that an outcome of Greek science and modern science after the Renaissance were the experience of Auschwitz, Hiroshima and Vietnam, the present-day science has to take a new way. Namely, it must step forward by making as its own the new methodology and the philosophy, which originated from Marx and include the three-stage theory of Taketani as a zenith.</p>
<p> </p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">
<a href="ch03.htm">next section</a> |
<a href="index.htm" target="_top">Shoichi Sakata</a> |
<a href="../index.htm" target="_top">Marxism in Japan</a> |
<a href="../../../reference/subject/philosophy/index.htm" target="_top">Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org</a></p>
</body> |
Shoichi Sakata, June 1968
Philosophy and Methodology of Present-Day Science
Source: Supplement of the Progress of Theoretical Physics, No. 50, 1971.
First published: in the periodical news paper of Nagoya University (Nagoya Daigaku Shinbun June 13, 1968, No. 300) edited by the students, reproducing the speech of the author at the annual festival of the University for undergraduate students. Later, after a slight correction in form by the author, this was included in a book Tetsugaku VI (Philosophy Vol. 6) published by Iwanami (Tokyo) in 1968 under somewhat different title. The present translation is based on the latter text.
Transcribed: for the Marxists Internet Archive by Andy Blunden.
1. What is the present-day science?
What is, and how should we recognise, the present-day science? We know both ancient Greek science and modern science after the Renaissance, as being contrasted to the present-day science. There are opinions such that Greek science should not be taken as a science. Nevertheless, I think it is also science and bears a great significance even in the present age. Namely, various thoughts developed in Greek science show their profound effects in the present-day science. It is not too much to say that all sciences have their common origin in Greece. For example, the fundamental thinking on atomic research, to which I have been devoting myself, is well-known to stem from Greek thinkers. In fact, the modern and the present-day sciences have been effected decisively from the atomism developed in ancient Greek schools by Democritus, Epicurus and others, who proposed atom theories in which they conceived, beyond human sensual abilities, microscopic particles – atoms – as the constituents of the whole universe. In all events, Greek science is a science which played a great role in human history. History then greeted the Renaissance after the Dark Ages of medieval centuries. A new science which was created in the Renaissance, i.e., the modern science, possessed a new character different from Greek science as was symbolised by the words “knowledge is the power of mankind” of Francis Bacon, and contributed greatly to the advancement of humanity. In today’s science there remain still many characteristic phases inherited from the modern science; many people are, therefore, looking to the character of today’s science as merely a continuous succession of the modern science. I think, however, that the present-day science is not, and should not be, the Greek science nor the modern science; it has and should have a significance as a new phase of science. Science is now confronting a grave crisis from both internal and external causes; the reason for it is that today’s science has not yet cast off the traditional skin of the modern science. The modern science turns, nowadays, to strike mankind with monstrous terror contrary to man’s expectations that it would bring them the greatest felicity. What was the outcome of the birth of Greek science and the flourish of modern science in Europe? It was nothing but events of Auschwitz and Hiroshima, and furthermore the tragic Vietnam War of our days. Such a result is a destiny coming from the character of the modern science. The present-day science must proceed far beyond the modern science in order never to repeat these bitter experiences. In reality, however, the present-day science has in it a latent power capable of overcoming the limits of the modern science. Although it looks that the present-day science which we, the men of the twentieth century, are endeavouring to develop for the future is a continuance of the modern science advanced after the Renaissance, many of the indications imply that it is not the case. Therefore, we ought to bring up such a new power in order not to let the results of the present-day science be the tragedy of Auschwitz, Hiroshima and Vietnam as was the case of Greek and modern science.
The problem of clarifying the character of present-day science is closely connected with that of disclosing the philosophical and methodological implications inherent in the present-day science. Hence, I will begin our discussions with this point.
2. Marx, the source of the method of present-day science
In the twentieth century, there have been rapidly developed new sciences worthy of being known today as the present-day science in connection with the advancement of atomic physics. As a result, the present-day science has displayed its new view of nature different from that of the modern science, and has developed a new methodology of its own. However, in terms of the history of thoughts, the present-day science, or more precisely the thought and method of today’s science, stemmed not in our century but from the thought and method established by Marx early in the nineteenth century. Today, it is often said that social sciences are rather undeveloped compared with natural sciences. In fact, natural sciences in our days have produced such terrible weapons as A- and H- bombs, bacteria weapons, chemical gases and so on, thereby throwing mankind into serious crises. They claimed that the cause of human crises lies in the ill-balanced development between natural and social sciences. For example, the Science Council of Japan recently began organising discussions about desirable measures for the well-balanced advancement of both natural ‘and social sciences. It is well known that one of the characteristic aspects of today’s natural sciences lies in the use of huge experimental instrumentations which need an enormous sum as well as the large-scale collaboration of researching staffs, thus afterwards being called big science. Moreover, especially since we came into the twentieth century, it has appeared as an international trend of governmental policies, which have been giving too much importance to military research, putting money only in natural sciences and, as a result, oppressing the study of social sciences. Can we, however, say that the crises of mankind come from such an ill-balanced development between natural and social sciences, in accordance with the popular idea? I think this is not the case. Rather, the present-day science in a true sense was first established as a social science, already in the middle of the nineteenth century. It was Capital by Marx. This is indeed a science worthy of being called the present-day science. Behind Marx’s Capital there lies the dialectic materialism or its view of human history, and Marx discovered a highly lawful structure of human society by commanding profound logic of dialectics. In the twentieth century, the invaluable significance of Capital has been recognised more and more. Namely, the socialistic revolution succeeded first in Russia followed by the revolutions of China and other nations after World War II. Thus, a number of socialist republics have been established and Marx’s laws are being applied to their own lives. I know a famous scholar of economics who said that he made a better choice of non-conversion by witnessing recent dollar-crises, although many economists have come to conceive that Marxism turned to be out-dated in confronting a post-War prosperity of the capitalistic regime of the United States. At any rate, it is hardly deniable that in giving real perspective for the future, what have really been the motive forces of revolutionising human history, there are books such as Marx’s, Capital, Lenin’s On Imperialism and Mao’s On Practice and On Contradictions.
3. The law of the atomic world – quantum mechanics
Turning our eyes to natural sciences, we see that Newtonian mechanics has the greatest significance in the modern development of science after the Renaissance. It was proved that Newtonian mechanics reflects the law of nature so profoundly that it has a great predictive power and governs the motions of arbitrary bodies in the world. As a result, the scientists in the nineteenth century were inclined to give an excessive value to Newtonian mechanics, making their views of nature and the world narrow ones. At any rate, however, it had the greatest meaning in the modern science, and was one of those most highly developed sciences. Although the significance of Newtonian mechanics has not changed at all even today, a very important fact was disclosed in the beginning of the twentieth century; that is, it does not govern all over the world, but has only a limited sphere of its applicability. This fact was first revealed by Einstein in the beginning of this century, when he discovered the theory of relativity, yet it was recognised more deeply when we stepped into the atomic world; it was realised that the atomic world was not governed by Newtonian mechanics. The law of motion of matter in the atomic world was the quantum mechanics discovered by de Broglie, Schr�dinger, Heisenberg and others.
4. All laws have their own limits of applicability
What was clarified by the present-day science that has been developed on a foundation of atomic physics? In the first place, it is that, however great the power of prophecy an advanced law has, it has a limit of applicability. It shows great powers only within the scope of applicability, but if one goes beyond this limit, it loses all its power at once. The motion of an electron in the atom is completely different from the motion of bodies we can see with our eyes. For instance, in our world a man is not able to enter a room through two entrances simultaneously, yet an electron comes in from two slits at the same time. The fact that the motion of an electron is far beyond our conception means that there exists for the electron another, entirely different law from that for visible bodies. To speak more physically, an electron possesses both particle-like and wave-like natures. The modern technological innovation owes very much to quantum mechanics which governs the atomic world, just like Newtonian mechanics was the foundation of the mechanical civilisation in the nineteenth century. For example, without quantum mechanics one could never develop electronics using the semi-conductors, nuclear engineering of producing reactors, atomic bombs and so forth.
It had long been believed until the nineteenth century that Newtonian mechanics was a law governing all over the world. As a result, however, there became dominant the so-called mechanistic conception of nature, a point of view relating philosophically to metaphysical materialism; namely, if God would only give a first impulse, then the world should undergo a prescribed movement subjected to Newton’s law after that. Standing on this point of view, only Newtonian mechanics is the Queen of all sciences, and all the rest could be derived from it. This is a view that regards not only Nature but also social phenomena as being essentially regulated by Newtonian mechanics. French materialism was typical in the sense that it took such a point of view as its back ground. In other words, the belief in Newtonian dynamics was so strong that it made this point of view dominant. During this century, a new world was discovered where Newtonian mechanics no longer holds true. The recognition of the fact that every law has its limit of applicability is really the first distinctive characteristic of the present-day science.
5. Existence of infinite strata of matter each having its own law
On the other hand, there has been developed another conception that nature is composed of infinite strata which are different from each other qualitatively, and that every stratum is subjected to its own law. This conception is the foundation of the dialectic view of nature, and was first proposed by Engels in the middle of the nineteenth century. This we may regard as the second distinctive character of the present-day science. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, an idea that matter is composed of atoms was revived by Dalton in modern chemistry. Later on, it became clear that there existed another stratum named molecules as a basis of matter, besides the stratum of atoms. In this century, however, it has been discovered that an atom is also composed of a nucleus and electrons, and a nucleus is further built of neutrons and protons. We call those constituents of atoms elementary particles. Thus, the level structure of matter has been revealed step by step in that there are atoms in a molecule, elementary particles in an atom. Today, we feel it necessary to push our investigations standing on such a structural point of view presupposing that even the elementary particles might no longer be the ultimate of matter, although they are now regarded as being the smallest unit of matter. In the world bigger than individual molecules, there emerges at a certain point a series of high polymers, a matter of new stratum which is different from usual ones qualitatively. For example, the protein molecules as the basic materials of living bodies, the cells composed of such proteins and others are the strata, respectively. Similarly, living bodies, and specifically including human beings among them, too, may be considered as one or the other of the strata. When human beings organise together as a society, this is also a stratum. In other words, the human society belongs to one of the infinite strata in nature; hence, natural science and social science are related to each other in this sense. Turning our eyes to a much bigger region, the earth is also one of the strata, as well as our solar system. There are still a lot of stars like the sun, and they gather to form a nebula called the Galaxy. A nebula can be also regarded as a stratum, but there are lots of nebulae in space. In the natural world there exist infinitely many strata, and they combine themselves into a complex network rather than forming a one-dimensional series from the large to the small. And in each stratum, there governs each own law which exerts the greatest predictive power within its limit of applicability. Newtonian mechanics was constructed essentially unifying the world of our visible bodies and heavenly bodies; it plays, within such a stratum, a role of the highest law of nature. However, in the world of atoms, molecules and elementary particles, there existed different laws, i.e., the laws of quantum mechanics. The laws discovered by Marx in human society have also a great power as such valid in the stratum of human society. In general, there govern respective laws for each stratum of nature. The aim of individual branches of science is to obtain the knowledge of such a law. Therefore, the existence of infinitely many strata in nature means, equivalently, that every law has its own limit of applicability.
6. Strata under mutual transformations, nature under evolution
The third important point that the present-day science has disclosed is the fact that these various strata form an evolving history, in which each of them is occurring, disappearing and changing to one another everlastingly.
The method of modern science that began at the Renaissance was the one by which one separated an object into pieces and studied each part in full detail. As a result, various sciences have been established such as physics, chemistry, biology, geology and so on. The specialisation, so to say, under which each branch of speciality is investigated deeper and deeper, played certainly an important part as a method of the modern science. This point was emphasised also by Descartes. However, it has been shown by the progress of atomic physics in the twentieth century that those sciences separated from each other in modern science should be synthesised again after all. Whereas Greek science was of a very synthetic aspect, such a character was lost completely in the modern science, and each learning has been pushed forward separately; the modern science made its way digging deeper and deeper in its speciality, almost losing the connection among each other. This tendency has been continuing even today. Although the progress of atomic science requires a unification of sciences to connect various branches of the present-day science on the one hand, yet almost all of scientists today have not gotten rid of the method of modern science on the other. Recently, in the field of the so-called big science, gigantic instruments are used and a large number of people should work together in a laboratory. Consequently an individual researcher in a huge organisation misses his direction even on his own study, because he plays merely a part as a gear wheel in a complex machine. Even more, he thoroughly loses his perspective about the relation between other branch of science and his own, or between science and society. Such a pathological aspect of specialisation in the modern science has continued even today, and still more we are able to say that it is promoted by the big sciences themselves. Although the present-day science has begun to have a highly unified character as never to be seen along the progress of atomic physics, yet its method has not at all been free from the method of modern science.
Thus, it is not too much to say that the most serious cause which has brought about the crisis to science and mankind today lies on this point, notwithstanding that the progress of atomic physics in this century is actually playing a role to synthesise various sciences together. For example, in chemistry there had been an idea of immutability of elements as a basic principle of chemistry. It was a main task for chemistry to obtain new substances by combining and dissolving those hundreds of elements existing in nature. And it had been believed that atoms were, as the basis of invariance of an element, indivisible and unchangeable particles, keeping their figure until today as God created them for the first time. But science in the twentieth century shocked the foundation of chemistry radically. As a result of the progress of atomic physics, in which atoms themselves are destroyed and new atoms are made easily in the laboratory today.
So the permanency of an element no longer holds true. On the other hand, it has become clear that when and how the various atoms were composed from elementary particles in the process of evolution of the universe. This is also the problem concerning the origin of elements.
The thermonuclear reaction in H-bombs and others occurs in the stars, and it plays an important role in the evolution of the stars. For example, the sun is burning owing to the mechanism of the formation of helium nucleai from four hydrogen nuclei. In ancient times, the heavenly fire was believed to be entirely different from the fire on earth, and to be a very mystic one since the Grecian age. But today it is revealed that the heavenly fire is burning by virtue of nuclear reactions. In the process of the evolution of heavenly bodies, a stratum called the solar system is formed, and the earth is born. Upon the earth, complicated molecules are composed of atoms gradually, and finally an albuminous molecule, which would become the origin of life, is synthesised. Then, life is created, it evolves to generate mankind, and men gather themselves to form a human society, which develops in succession. Such a course of evolution of nature can be traced by the advancement of atomic physics. In our present knowledge the history of matter begins with elementary particles, which are, however, not in the same figures as God created in remote ages, but known to be created with their antiparticles in the laboratory. Hence, they were not created by God, but must be formed in some time of the history of nature. The conception that various strata in nature do not only coexist simultaneously, but also change to one another constantly, thereby creating new strata and forming the whole history of nature; this conception is rather close to the thought of Heraclitus in Greece that whole things change. This is the world view of dialectic materialism which Marx made his background when he wrote Capital in the nineteenth century, and is also the conception of natural dialectic that Engels expounded upon the basis of achievement of natural science in those days. Such a conception has been confirmed further by scientific contents on the ground of the advancement of atomic physics in the twentieth century, and has been developed as the one providing powerful methods to push forward new sciences.
7. The germination of the dialectic view of nature in Marx
As I mentioned before, an original form of the dialectic view of nature was shown by Engels, a staunch friend of Marx, in his posthumous manuscripts Dialektik der Natur. However, in view of the history of thought, I would like to point out that there was already a germination of it in Marx’s early works. As last year happened to be just a hundred years after Capital of Marx was published, a lot of papers were presented in remembrance of it, but they scarcely touched upon this fact in their articles. Marx, generally known as a sociologist, worked out Capital and others and as a philosopher, developed materialistic dialectics, yet it was a problem of atoms that he was interested in at the start. The title of his doctoral thesis was “On the Difference between Atom Theories of Democritus and Epicurus”. In-Greek science the atom-theoretic way of thinking was represented by Democritus, whereas Epicurus was nominated as his successor. But Marx perceived, in his younger days, a grave difference between Democritus and Epicurus with his penetrating eye. Epicurus is popularly famous for the word “Epicurean” after his name, and as for his atom theory, he has only been believed as an expounder of the atom theory of Democritus. However, in reality, Epicurus’ atom theory is quite different in its elements from that of Democritus. Marx had a sharp insight into this point, and on this account, I think that his doctoral dissertation bears a great significance as a basis of the present-day science. A few years ago, Professor Shinsaku Aihara of Osaka University wrote a very suggestive paper entitled “On Sciences” in the magazine Tenbo. It is said commonly that the cause of the crisis of science and mankind lies in the limping growth of the natural science over the social science. However, Aihara stated, in opposition to this, as follows that it is not the case; rather it would be ridiculous to think that only one side of culture could be highly advanced whereas another in the same society could not. Already, in fact, Marx’s Capital achieved a great success, he says. I agree with him on this point, and still more I was deeply impressed by his following suggestion. Namely, usual Marxist-economists or Marxist-philosophers scarcely appreciate Marx’s doctoral thesis; and many of those people are considering it as having no relation with Marxism since it was written in the age when he was a Hegelian-leftist, before he became Marxist. Aihara, however, pointed out keenly that all of the germs of his various social-scientific works such as Capital, of his materialistic conception of history and so on are included early in this doctoral thesis. I was moved profoundly by this suggestion, and found it true that a bud of the dialectic outlook of nature could also be contained in this first article by Marx, although I had thought it was developed chiefly by Engels and pushed forward further by Lenin.
8. The analysis of the concept of elementary particles
As is well known, for studying the elementary particles it is necessary to use huge experimental equipment such as synchrotrons and so on. However, it does not always go well by only using huge and expensive equipment. An essential point for any development of the theory of elementary particles is how to analyse the concept of elementary particles. We have been devoting ourselves to the study based upon such a point of view. Democritus in Greece and his successor Dalton in the modern science, conceived atoms as the unchangeable extreme of matter existing behind the transmutations of things. Nevertheless, in the present-day physics we went further toward smaller and smaller regions until we reached elementary particles. In so far as we consider elementary particles from the view of the natural conception of the present-day science formed with the progress of atomic physics, we should not regard it as an extreme of matter but as one of the strata like molecules, atoms, nuclei and so on; otherwise we would not be able to recognise the nature of elementary particles merely by looking at phenomena as they are. Standing on such a point of view, we have developed a theory that there would exist more fundamental particles behind elementary particles. We must throw away the conception about elementary particles that is to regard them, like Dalton or Democritus, as the ultimate of matter. We put the basis of our research on this point which Marx discussed for the first time. Engels wrote in his Dialektik der Natur that the essential difference between modern atomism and previous one lies in that the former recognises the existence of various different strata such as celestial objects, bodies, molecules and atoms, and it is not the point that an atom is seen as an ultimate of matter. Lenin also wrote a famous phrase in his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism: “The electron is as inexhaustible as the atom”. However, the origin of these thoughts could again be traced back to Marx. If we read the letters exchanged by Marx and Engels, we find that Marx often mentioned that one should not regard an atom as an indivisible ultimate of matter. We can see that this thought had its origin in his doctoral thesis. It originates from his great insight into the difference between the atom theory of Democritus and that of Epicurus. The disparity between them is so subtle that it would easily fail to be noticed by ordinary people. Democritus conceived that an atom should be the ultimate of matter created by God; therefore, it is extremely perfect and it obeys only a rectilinear motion. On the other hand, however, Epicurus stated the view that the atom should never be perfect and it sometimes deviates from a rectilinear motion. Upon this difference Marx touched keenly. Namely, following the way of thinking by Democritus, an atom should take a form such as a sphere or a regular polyhedron since it is to be perfect. In fact, Plato thought that the atoms corresponding to four basic elements such as the earth, water, fire and wind, had shapes of different regular polyhedrons, because what God created should be perfect. As for heavenly bodies also, they thought, in Greek science, that all of them should obey circular motion because they were perfect objects. As they analysed various phenomena only in terms of circular motion, they at last had introduced a notion such as epicycles, making the situations awfully complicated. Such a situation was drastically changed to a simple one at a stroke by the heliocentric theory of Copernicus. Later Galileo found, through his telescope, that the moon was not a complete sphere, but had a pitted face and was very ugly. As a result, it became clear that God could not create such an object. At any rate, as far as one follows the way of Democritus, one is forced to think that all things were created by God at first. On the contrary, if we think, like Epicurus, an atom is imperfect, we then begin with investigating the causes of imperfection, turning our eyes to the next basic stratum, and the imperfection of atoms is explained from its nature. By taking such a way of approach in all its phases, the present-day science has disclosed, as a result, the dialectic outlook of nature. On this account, Marx’s doctoral thesis can be seen as a source of thoughts lying behind the present-day science, a source from which Capital was created and quantum mechanics was developed.
9. The philosophy of quantum mechanics
One may blame us for perverting the historical facts if we are claiming about quantum mechanics has been developed by materialistic dialectic. On the interpretations of quantum mechanics the so-called Copenhagen one was dominant when, thirty years ago, Yukawa developed his meson theory, of which investigation M. Taketani of Rikkyo University and I helped him. The Copenhagen interpretation, prevailing in the science of Western Europe at that time, was essentially based on the philosophy of Niels Bohr, who is known as the founder of atomic physics or quantum theory.
Although I mentioned that present-day science exhibited the dialectic outlook on Nature, nevertheless today’s scientists (and not them alone), have developed their theory not by starting from the dialectical view of Nature consciously, but merely by the methodology of the modern science since the Renaissance age. But it becomes now impossible to develop the present-day science by an old view such as to regard nature, the ground of science, as merely a collection of separated objects. We were deeply impressed with this point in the course of development of Yukawa’s meson theory. In this connection, Taketani published a paper entitled “Dialectics of Nature” in the journal Sekai-Bunka in Kyoto. In those days the Sekal-Bunka was introducing, e.g., the people’s front following France. This was the journal that survived to the last severe oppression in Japan, when there came an extreme world reaction under the influence of the first great panic after World War I. On account of publishing such an article in the Sekai-Bunka, he was arrested by the special high police and had to spend some months in a police cell. His article was really a remarkable one, being very unique and could be compared even with Capital by Marx. As to the difference the Copenhagen interpretation and Taketani’s interpretation, we may say that the former is discussing the logic of quantum mechanics in its established form, while Taketani’s three-stage theory of methodology, the interpretation of quantum mechanics he is discussing, is based on a standpoint of practice to create new things and has achieved a unique development of the dialectic outlook of nature.
It seems very curious that such an important contribution did appear, not in a socialist country where the dialectic materialism is highly appreciated, but in a capitalist country, especially in Japan when militarism was thriving there. However, I am convinced that his work has the greatest significance as a method of present-day science. The philosophers of present times in Japan used to set the limits of their region of speciality very narrowly, and confine themselves to it without giving high appreciation to the works by Taketani. In the socialist countries, the textbooks of materialistic dialectics are presented from the research institute for philosophy in the U.S.S.R., for instance, but they do not add anything unique to the methodology of the present-day science, they are rather scholastical. On the contrary, Taketani’s work is very unique and contributed greatly to theoretical physics in Japan since the advent of meson theory. Although a sensation occurred among natural scientists also in other fields from ours and it had a great influence upon them, there are yet some philosophers trying to ignore it unreasonably. Taketanl’s three-stage theory had an important meaning in order to discover a new stratum in nature, to recognise the law which is essential there, and it was actually successful in developing modern physics. He discovered and elaborated his three-stage theory in the history of development of quantum mechanics, then he re-examined Newtonian mechanics from this point of view to clarify its significance for the present age. According to Taketani’s analysis, the logic of quantum mechanics and that of Newtonian mechanics do not differ, essentially, from the logic of Marx’s Capital. In other words, Newtonian mechanics could have a modern significance only when we grasp it by an advanced logic. Just like Capital is highly established as a social science, Newtonian mechanics is also a very powerful one obeyed by profound logic within its limit of applicability, although we would be failed if we regard it, like the scientists in the nineteenth century, as being valid all over the world. In the case of quantum mechanics, we would lose the perspective to future development unless we grasp it with a highly advanced logic of, say, Taketani’s interpretation. I think that quantum mechanics, Capital, and Newtonian mechanics would come to be really powerful theories not only to interpret the world, but also to change the world and nature when they are understood in terms of such an advanced logic. As for Taketani’s three-stage theory, I would like to recommend you to read his collected works, published recently by Keisō-Shobō or a monograph entitled Theoretical Problems at the Present Age from Iwanami-Shoten, in both of which his theory is presented in detail.
10. A new philosophy for the present-day science
The progress of the present-day science has been supported hitherto by the extension of the methodology of the modern science initiated in the Renaissance. However, if its development from now on should still be guided by this methodology, sciences will not only degrade themselves but also bring about a grave crisis for mankind. Nay, we can say that the degradation of sciences and the crisis of humankind in present days already stemmed out from this point. As I mentioned before, nineteenth century’s science separated nature into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc., and took a way to specialisation in each field. So it has been thought that there is no relation between natural science and social science. However, standing on the dialectic viewpoint of nature, human society also should be regarded as one of the strata in nature. Various strata are connected to each other into one, and a unified nature and these strata have been created in the evolution of nature. In order to advance sciences and to make use of them for the happiness of mankind, we must combine again those sciences, separated into pieces by nineteenth century’s science, on the basis of the new outlook of nature and new methodology elaborated in the present-day science. Until they are combined, I think, today’s science could not be the present-day science in a true sense and could not play an important role in human history. Were it to be the case, the outcome of science would be nothing but Auschwitz, the Hiroshima and the Vietnam War, which should never happen again. In the symposium, of which content is presented as an opening article of this book, Goro Hani pointed out that the thoughts, philosophies, sciences and arts cannot he entitled to be the present-day thoughts, present-day philosophies, present-day sciences and arts as long as they do not start with Auschwitz; this is truly a sensible remark. Hani also stated there that he had never been moved so much as when he read for the first time Dialectics of Nature by Taketani, though he is not a specialist in natural science. I believe that what makes the present-day science the real one is nothing other than the theory of methodology as developed by Taketani.
Further, the symposium includes the following discussions: It seems that history comes to the greatly dangerous turning point when we cast a glance over the trend of history, for example, the dollar-crisis which occurred recently. The situation is very similar to that around 1930. In those days, Nazism arose and brought about the cruel affair of Auschwitz by Germany, who had been glorying in her high level of culture. Fascism rose also in both Japan and Italy ending in World War 11. The fact that there can be seen a resemblance between those days and today, means that the laws of history piercing through them are the same. For example, in the case of Newton’s law, the Earth or Mars would rotate on the same orbit as now, as far as God gave them the same initial impulse to it. Their motion would be modified, however, depending on the way of getting the first impulse. Consequently, assuming both the period of the 1930’s and today are governed by the same law of history, the same accident would happen again if the conditions are the same. But of course we never want such things to happen again. I think it is to prevent them that the world peace movements are taking their actions. Nevertheless, even those people known to be progressive historians in Japan are studying on the premise that fascism will certainly rise up again. Hani emphasised that it is extremely inexcusable. We should just think about what we have to do in order never to allow fascism. It is a duty of the true historians and of today’s scientists to pursue such a direction earnestly. The present-day science should not be the same as the modern science after the Renaissance. On this account, it should take a new point of view worthy of its name, proceed on the basis of new methodology and never walk again the way of the modern science. As I mentioned previously, today’s natural science has been demonised more and more, and the scientist has been reduced to a status like the labourer in a large factory or the salaried man in a big enterprise, losing his perspective to the whole. When scientists lose their total perspective, however, not only would science bring about a crisis to mankind but also the learning itself would revert to the bottom. Reflecting upon the fact that an outcome of Greek science and modern science after the Renaissance were the experience of Auschwitz, Hiroshima and Vietnam, the present-day science has to take a new way. Namely, it must step forward by making as its own the new methodology and the philosophy, which originated from Marx and include the three-stage theory of Taketani as a zenith.
next section |
Shoichi Sakata |
Marxism in Japan |
Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org
|
./articles/Sakata-Shoichi/https:..www.marxists.org.reference.subject.philosophy.works.dk.bohr | <body>
<p class="title">Niels Bohr (1949)</p>
<img src="../../../../../glossary/people/b/pics/bohr.jpg" vspace="1" hspace="8" border="1" height="200" align="LEFT" alt="honest looking young man with hair slicked back">
<h4>Discussions with Einstein<br>
on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics</h4>
<hr class="end">
<p class="information">
<span class="info">Source</span>: From <em>Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist</em> (1949), publ. Cambridge University Press, 1949. Neils Bohr's report of conversations with Einstein and Einstein's reply.</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="fst">
WHEN invited by the Editor of the series, <em>Living Philosophers</em>,
to write an article for this volume in which contemporary scientists are
honouring the epoch-making contributions of Albert Einstein to the progress
of natural philosophy and are acknowledging the indebtedness of our whole
generation for the guidance his genius has given us, I thought much of
the best way of explaining how much I owe to him for inspiration. In this
connection, the many occasions through the years on which I had the privilege
to discuss with Einstein epistemological problems raised by the modern
development of atomic physics have come back vividly to my mind and I have
felt that I could hardly attempt anything better than to give an account
of these discussions which, even if no complete concord has so far been
obtained, have been of greatest value and stimulus to me. I hope also that the account may convey to wider circles an impression of how essential the open-minded exchange of ideas has been for the progress in a field where new experience has time after time demanded a reconsideration of our views. </p>
<p>From the very beginning the main point under debate has been the attitude to take to the departure from customary principles of natural philosophy characteristic of the novel development of physics which was initiated in the first year of this century by Planck's discovery of the universal quantum of action. This discovery, which revealed a feature of atomicity in the laws of nature going far beyond the old doctrine of the limited divisibility of matter, has indeed taught us that the classical theories of physics are idealisations which can be unambiguously applied only in the limit where all actions involved are large compared with the quantum. The question at issue has been whether the renunciation of a causal mode of description of atomic processes involved in the endeavours to cope with the situation should be regarded as a temporary departure from ideals to be ultimately revived or whether we are faced with an irrevocable step towards obtaining the proper harmony between analysis and synthesis of physical phenomena. To describe the background of our discussions and to bring out as clearly as possible the arguments for the contrasting viewpoints, I have felt it necessary to go to a certain length in recalling some main features of the development to which Einstein himself has contributed so decisively. </p>
<p>As is well known, it was the intimate relation, elucidated primarily
by Boltzmann, between the laws of thermodynamics and the statistical regularities
exhibited by mechanical systems with many degrees of freedom, which guided
Planck in his ingenious treatment of the problem of thermal radiation,
leading him to his fundamental discovery. While, in his work, Planck was
principally concerned with considerations of essentially statistical character
and with great caution refrained from definite conclusions as to the extent
to which the existence of the quantum implied a departure from the foundations
of mechanics and electrodynamics, Einstein's great original contribution
to quantum theory (1905) was just the recognition of how physical phenomena
like the photo-effect may depend directly on individual quantum effects.
In these very same years when, in developing his theory of relativity,
Einstein laid a new foundation for physical science, he explored with a
most daring spirit the novel features of atomicity which pointed beyond
the whole framework of classical physics. </p>
<p>With unfailing intuition Einstein thus was led step by step to the conclusion
that any radiation process involves the emission or absorption of individual
light quanta or "photons" with energy and momentum </p>
<table width="60%" align="center">
<tbody><tr>
<td align="right" width="80%"><p><em>E</em>
= <em>hf</em> and <em>P</em> = <em>hs</em></p></td>
<td align="left"><p>(1)</p></td>
</tr></tbody></table>
<p class="fst">
respectively, where <em>h</em> is Planck's constant, while <em>f</em> and
<em>s</em> are the number of vibrations per unit time and the number of waves
per unit length, respectively. Notwithstanding its fertility, the idea
of the photon implied a quite unforeseen dilemma, since any simple corpuscular
picture of radiation would obviously be irreconcilable with interference
effects, which present so essential an aspect of radiative phenomena, and
which can be described only in terms of a wave picture. The acuteness of
the dilemma is stressed by the fact that the interference effects offer
our only means of defining the concepts of frequency and wavelength entering
into the very expressions for the energy and momentum of the photon. </p>
<p>In this situation, there could be no question of attempting a causal
analysis of radiative phenomena, but only, by a combined use of the contrasting
pictures, to estimate probabilities for the occurrence of the individual
radiation processes. However, it is most important to realize that the
recourse to probability laws under such circumstances is essentially different
in aim from the familiar application of statistical considerations as practical
means of accounting for the properties of mechanical systems of great structural
complexity. In fact, in quantum physics we are presented not with intricacies
of this kind, but with the inability of the classical frame of concepts
to comprise the peculiar feature of indivisibility, or "individuality,"
characterising the elementary processes. </p>
<p>The failure of the theories of classical physics in accounting for atomic
phenomena was further accentuated by the progress of our knowledge of the
structure of atoms. Above all, Rutherford's discovery of the atomic nucleus
(1911) revealed at once the inadequacy of classical mechanical and electromagnetic
concepts to explain the inherent stability of the atom. Here again the
quantum theory offered a clue for the elucidation of the situation and
especially it was found possible to account for the atomic stability, as
well as for the empirical laws governing the spectra of the elements, by
assuming that any reaction of the atom resulting in a change of its energy
involved a complete transition between two so-called stationary quantum
states and that, in particular, the spectra were emitted by a step-like
process in which each transition is accompanied by the emission of a monochromatic
light quantum of an energy just equal to that of an Einstein photon. </p>
<p>These ideas, which were soon confirmed by the experiments of Franck
and Hertz (1914) on the excitation of spectra by impact of electrons on
atoms, involved a further renunciation of the causal mode of description,
since evidently the interpretation of the spectral laws implies that an
atom in an excited state in general will have the possibility of transitions
with photon emission to one or another of its lower energy states. In fact,
the very idea of stationary states is incompatible with any directive for
the choice between such transitions and leaves room only for the notion
of the relative probabilities of the individual transition processes. The
only guide in estimating such probabilities was the so-called correspondence
principle which originated in the search for the closest possible connection
between the statistical account of atomic processes and the consequences
to be expected from classical theory, which should be valid in the limit
where the actions involved in all stages of the analysis of the phenomena
are large compared with the universal quantum. </p>
<p>At that time, no general self-consistent quantum theory was yet in sight,
but the prevailing attitude may perhaps be illustrated by the following
passage from a lecture by the writer from 1913: </p>
<p>I hope that I have expressed myself sufficiently clearly so that you
may appreciate the extent to which these considerations conflict with the
admirably consistent scheme of conceptions which has been rightly termed
the classical theory of electrodynamics. On the other hand, I have tried
to convey to you the impression that just by emphasising so strongly this
conflict it may also be possible in course of time to establish a certain
coherence in the new ideas.
</p>
<p class="fst">
Important progress in the development of quantum theory was made by
Einstein himself in his famous article on radiative equilibrium in 1917,
where he showed that Planck's law for thermal radiation could be simply
deduced from assumptions conforming with the basic ideas of the quantum
theory of atomic constitution. To this purpose, Einstein formulated general
statistical rules regarding the occurrence of radiative transitions between
stationary states, assuming not only that, when the atom is exposed to
a radiation field, absorption as well as emission processes will occur
with a probability per unit time proportional to the intensity of the irradiation,
but that even in the absence of external disturbances spontaneous emission
processes will take place with a rate corresponding to a certain <em>a priori</em>
probability. Regarding the latter point, Einstein emphasised the fundamental
character of the statistical description in a most suggestive way by drawing
attention to the analogy between the assumptions regarding the occurrence
of the spontaneous radiative transitions and the well-known laws governing
transformations of radioactive substances. </p>
<p>In connection with a thorough examination of the exigencies of thermodynamics
as regards radiation problems, Einstein stressed the dilemma still further
by pointing out that the argumentation implied that any radiation process
was "unidirected" in the sense that not only is a momentum corresponding
to a photon with the direction of propagation transferred to an atom in
the absorption process, but that also the emitting atom will receive an
equivalent impulse in the opposite direction, although there can on the
wave picture be no question of a preference for a single direction in an
emission process. Einstein's own attitude to such startling conclusions
is expressed in a passage at the end of the article, which may be translated
as follows: </p>
<p class="quoteb">
These features of the elementary processes would seem to make the development
of a proper quantum treatment of radiation almost unavoidable. The weakness
of the theory lies in the fact that, on the one hand, no closer connection
with the wave concepts is obtainable and that, on the other hand, it leaves
to chance (<em>Zufall</em>) the time and the direction of the elementary
processes; nevertheless, I have full confidence in the reliability of the
way entered upon.
</p>
<p class="fst">
When I had the great experience of meeting Einstein for the first time
during a visit to Berlin in 1920, these fundamental questions formed the
theme of our conversations. The discussions, to which I have often reverted
in my thoughts, added to all my admiration for Einstein a deep impression
of his detached attitude. Certainly, his favoured use of such picturesque
phrases as "ghost waves (<em>Gespensterfelder</em>) guiding the photons"
implied no tendency to mysticism, but illuminated rather a profound humour
behind his piercing remarks. Yet, a certain difference in attitude and
outlook remained, since, with his mastery for co-ordinating apparently
contrasting experience without abandoning continuity and causality, Einstein
was perhaps more reluctant to renounce such ideals than someone for whom
renunciation in this respect appeared to be the only way open to proceed
with the immediate task of co-ordinating the multifarious evidence regarding
atomic phenomena, which accumulated from day to day in the exploration
of this new field of knowledge. </p>
<p>In the following years, during which the atomic problems attracted the
attention of rapidly increasing circles of physicists, the apparent contradictions
inherent in quantum theory were felt ever more acutely. Illustrative of
this situation is the discussion raised by the discovery of the Stern-Gerlach
effect in 1922. On the one hand, this effect gave striking support to the
idea of stationary states and in particular to the quantum theory of the
Zeeman effect developed by Sommerfeld, on the other hand, as exposed so
clearly by Einstein and Ehrenfest, it presented with unsurmountable difficulties
any attempt at forming a picture of the behaviour of atoms in a magnetic
field. Similar paradoxes were raised by the discovery by Compton (1924)
of the change in wave-length accompanying the scattering of X-rays by electrons.
This phenomenon afforded, as is well known, a most direct proof of the
adequacy of Einstein's view regarding the transfer of energy and momentum
in radiative processes; at the same time, it was equally clear that no
simple picture of a corpuscular collision could offer an exhaustive description
of the phenomenon. Under the impact of such difficulties, doubts were for
a time entertained even regarding the conservation of energy and momentum
in the individual radiation processes; a view, however, which very soon
had to be abandoned in face of more refined experiments bringing out the
correlation between the deflection of the photon and the corresponding
electron recoil. </p>
<p>The way to the clarification of the situation was, indeed, first to
be paved by the development of a more comprehensive quantum theory. A first
step towards this goal was the recognition by de Broglie in 1925 that the
wave-corpuscle duality was not confined to the properties of radiation,
but was equally unavoidable in accounting for the behaviour of material
particles. This idea, which was soon convincingly confirmed by experiments
on electron interference phenomena, was at once greeted by Einstein, who
had already envisaged the deep-going analogy between the properties of
thermal radiation and of gases in the so-called degenerate state. The new
line was pursued with the greatest success by Schrödinger (1926) who,
in particular, showed how the stationary states of atomic systems could
be represented by the proper solutions of a wave-equation to the establishment
of which he was led by the formal analogy, originally traced by Hamilton,
between mechanical and optical problems. Still, the paradoxical aspects
of quantum theory were in no way ameliorated, but even emphasised, by the
apparent contradiction between the exigencies of the general superposition
principle of the wave description and the feature of individuality of the
elementary atomic processes. </p>
<p>At the same time, Heisenberg (1925) had laid the foundation of a rational
quantum mechanics, which was rapidly developed through important contributions
by Born and Jordan as well as by Dirac. In this theory, a formalism is
introduced, in which the kinematical and dynamical variables of classical
mechanics are replaced by symbols subjected to a non-commutative algebra.
Notwithstanding the renunciation of orbital pictures, Hamilton's canonical
equations of mechanics are kept unaltered and Planck's constant enters
only in the rules of commutation h </p>
<table width="60%" align="center">
<tbody><tr><td align="right" width="80%"><p><em>qp </em>- <em>pq</em> = -(<em>h</em>/2<span class="greek">p</span>) ,</p> </td>
<td align="left"><p>(2)</p></td>
</tr></tbody></table>
<p class="fst">
holding for any set of conjugate variables <em>q</em> and <em>p</em>. Through
a representation of the symbols by matrices with elements referring to
transitions between stationary states, a quantitative formulation of the
correspondence principle became for the first time possible. It may here
be recalled that an important preliminary step towards this goal was reached
through the establishment, especially by contributions of Kramers, of a
quantum theory of dispersion making basic use of Einstein's general rules
for the probability of the occurrence of absorption and emission processes.
</p>
<p>This formalism of quantum mechanics was soon proved by Schrödinger
to give results identical with those obtainable by the mathematically often
more convenient methods of wave theory, and in the following years general
methods were gradually established for an essentially statistical description
of atomic processes combining the features of individuality and the requirements
of the superposition principle, equally characteristic of quantum theory.
Among the many advances in this period, it may especially be mentioned
that the formalism proved capable of incorporating the exclusion principle
which governs the states of systems with several electrons, and which already
before the advent of quantum mechanics had been derived by Pauli from an
analysis of atomic spectra. The quantitative comprehension of a vast amount
of empirical evidence could leave no doubt as to the fertility and adequacy
of the quantum-mechanical formalism, but its abstract character gave rise
to a widespread feeling of uneasiness. An elucidation of the situation
should, indeed, demand a thorough examination of the very observational
problem in atomic physics. </p>
<p>This phase of the development was, as is well known, initiated in 1927
by Heisenberg, who pointed out that the knowledge obtainable of the state
of an atomic system will always involve a peculiar "indeterminacy."
Thus, any measurement of the position of an electron by means of some device,
like a microscope, making use of high frequency radiation, will, according
to the fundamental relations (1), be connected with a momentum exchange
between the electron and the measuring agency, which is the greater the
more accurate a position measurement is attempted. In comparing such considerations
with the exigencies of the quantum-mechanical formalism, Heisenberg called
attention to the fact that the commutation rule (2) imposes a reciprocal
limitation on the fixation of two conjugate variables, <em>q</em> and <em>p</em>,
expressed by the relation </p>
<table width="60%" align="center">
<tbody><tr><td align="right" width="80%"><p><span class="greek">D</span><em>q</em> . <span class="greek">D</span><em>P</em> approx= <em>h</em>,</p></td>
<td align="left"><p>(3)</p></td>
</tr></tbody></table>
<p class="fst">
where <span class="greek">D</span><em>q</em> and <span class="greek">D</span><em>p</em> are suitably defined latitudes in the determination of these variables.
In pointing to the intimate connection between the statistical
description in quantum mechanics and the actual possibilities of measurement,
this so-called indeterminacy relation is, as Heisenberg showed, most important
for the elucidation of the paradoxes involved in the attempts of analysing
quantum effects with reference to customary physical pictures. </p>
<p>The new progress in atomic physics was commented upon from various sides
at the International Physical Congress held in September 1927, at Como
in commemoration of Volta. In a lecture on that occasion, I advocated a
point of view conveniently termed "complementarity," suited to
embrace the characteristic features of individuality of quantum phenomena,
and at the same time to clarify the peculiar aspects of the observational
problem in this field of experience. For this purpose, it is decisive to
recognise that, <em>however far the phenomena transcend the scope of classical
physical explanation, the account of all evidence must be expressed in
classical terms</em>. The argument is simply that by the word "experiment"
we refer to a situation where we can tell others what we have done and
what we have learned and that, therefore, the account of the experimental
arrangement and of the results of the observations must be expressed in
unambiguous language with suitable application of the terminology of classical
physics. </p>
<p>This crucial point, which was to become a main theme of the discussions
reported in the following, implies the impossibility of any sharp separation
between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring
instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena
appear. In fact, the individuality of the typical quantum effects finds
its proper expression in the circumstance that any attempt of subdividing
the phenomena will demand a change in the experimental arrangement introducing
new possibilities of interaction between objects and measuring instruments
which in principle cannot be controlled. Consequently, evidence obtained
under different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a
single picture, but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that
only the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about
the objects. </p>
<p>Under these circumstances an essential element of ambiguity isinvolved
in ascribing conventional physical attributes to atomic objects, as is
at once evident in the dilemma regarding the corpuscular and wave properties
of electrons and photons, where we have to do with contrasting pictures,
each referring to an essential aspect of empirical evidence. An illustrative
example, of how the apparent paradoxes are removed by an examination of
the experimental conditions under which the complementary phenomena appear,
is also given by the Compton effect, the consistent description of which
at first had presented us with such acute difficulties. Thus, any arrangement
suited to study the exchange of energy and momentum between the electron
and the photon must involve a latitude in the space-time description of
the interaction sufficient for the definition of wave-number and frequency
which enter into the relation (1). Conversely, any attempt of locating
the collision between the photon and the electron more accurately would,
on account of the unavoidable interaction with the fixed scales and clocks
defining the space-time reference frame, exclude all closer account as
regards the balance of momentum and energy. </p>
<p>As stressed in the lecture, an adequate tool for a complementary way
of description is offered precisely by the quantum-mechanical formalism
which represents a purely symbolic scheme permitting only predictions,
on lines of the correspondence principle, as to results obtainable under
conditions specified by means of classical concepts. It must here be remembered
that even in the indeterminacy relation (3) we are dealing with an implication
of the formalism which defies unambiguous expression in words suited to
describe classical physical pictures. Thus, a sentence like "we cannot
know both the momentum and the position of an atomic object" raises
at once questions as to the physical reality of two such attributes of
the object, which can be answered only by referring to the conditions for
the unambiguous use of space-time concepts, on the one hand, and dynamical
conservation laws, on the other hand. While the combination of these concepts
into a single picture of a causal chain of events is the essence of classical
mechanics, room for regularities beyond the grasp of such a description
is just afforded by the circumstance that the study of the complementary
phenomena demands mutually exclusive experimental arrangements. </p>
<p>The necessity, in atomic physics, of a renewed examination of the foundation
for the unambiguous use of elementary physical ideas recalls in some way
the situation that led Einstein to his original revision on the basis of
all application of space-time concepts which, by its emphasis on the primordial
importance of the observational problem, has lent such unity to our world
picture. Notwithstanding all novelty of approach, causal description is
upheld in relativity theory within any given frame of reference, but in
quantum theory the uncontrollable interaction between the objects and the
measuring instruments forces us to a renunciation even in such respect.
This recognition, however, in no way points to any limitation of the scope
of the quantum-mechanical description, and the trend of the whole argumentation
presented in the Como lecture was to show that the viewpoint of complementarity
may be regarded as a rational generalisation of the very ideal of causality.
</p>
<p>At the general discussion in Como, we all missed the presence of Einstein,
but soon after, in October 1927, I had the opportunity to meet him in Brussels
at the Fifth Physical Conference of the Solvay Institute, which was devoted
to the theme "Electrons and Photons." At the Solvay meetings,
Einstein had from their beginning been a most prominent figure, and several
of us came to the conference with great anticipations to learn his reaction
to the latest stage of the development which, to our view, went far in
clarifying the problems which he had himself from the outset elicited so
ingeniously. During the discussions, where the whole subject was reviewed
by contributions from many sides and where also the arguments mentioned
in the preceding pages were again presented, Einstein expressed, however,
a deep concern over the extent to which causal account in space and time
was abandoned in quantum mechanics. </p>
<p>To illustrate his attitude, Einstein referred at one of the sessions
to the simple example, illustrated by Fig. 1, of a particle (electron or
photon) penetrating through a hole or a narrow slit in a diaphragm placed
at some distance before a photographic plate. </p>
<p><img src="../../images/bohr1.gif" height="200" width="307" align="left" alt="diffraction from a slit"></p>
<p class="fst">
On account of the diffraction of the wave connected with the motion
of the particle and indicated in the figure by the thin lines, it is under
such conditions not possible to predict with certainty at what point the
electron will arrive at the photographic plate, but only to calculate the
probability that, in an experiment, the electron will be found within any
given region of the plate. The apparent difficulty, in this description,
which Einstein felt so acutely, is the fact that, if in the experiment
the electron is recorded at one point A of the plate, then it is out of
the question of ever observing an effect of this electron at another point
(B), although the laws of ordinary wave propagation offer no room for a
correlation between two such events. </p>
<p>Einstein's attitude gave rise to ardent discussions within a small circle,
in which Ehrenfest, who through the years had been a close friend of us
both, took part in a most active and helpful way. Surely, we all recognised
that, in the above example, the situation presents no analogue to the application
of statistics in dealing with complicated mechanical systems, but rather
recalled the background for Einstein's own early conclusions about the
unidirection of individual radiation effects which contrasts so strongly
with a simple wave picture. The discussions, however, centred on the question
of whether the quantum-mechanical description exhausted the possibilities
of accounting for observable phenomena or, as Einstein maintained, the
analysis could be carried further and, especially, of whether a fuller
description of the phenomena could be obtained by bringing into consideration
the detailed balance of energy and momentum in individual processes. </p>
<p>To explain the trend of Einstein's arguments, it may be illustrative
here to consider some simple features of the momentum and energy balance
in connection with the location of a particle in space and time. For this
purpose, we shall examine the simple case of a particle penetrating through
a hole in a diaphragm without or with a shutter to open and close the hole,
as indicated in Figs. 2a and 2b, respectively. The equidistant parallel
lines to the left in the figures indicate the train of plane waves corresponding
to the state of motion of a particle which, before reaching the diaphragm,
has a momentum P related to the wave-number <em>s</em> by the second of equations
(1). In accordance with the diffraction of the waves when passing through
the hole, the state of motion of the particle to the right of the diaphragm
is represented by a spherical wave train with a suitably defined angular
aperture <em>u</em> and, in case of Fig. 2b, also with a limited radial extension.
Consequently, the description of this state involves a certain latitude
<span class="greek">D</span><em>p</em> in the momentum component of the particle parallel to the diaphragm
and, in the case of a diaphragm with a shutter, an additional latitude
<span class="greek">D</span><em>E</em> of the kinetic energy. </p>
<p>Since a measure for the latitude <span class="greek">D</span><em>q</em> in location of the particle
in the plane of the diaphragm is given by the radius <em>a</em> of the hole,
and since <em>u</em> approx= (1/<em>sa</em>), we get, using (1), just <span class="greek">D</span><em>p</em>
approx= <em>uP</em> approx= (<em>h</em>/<span class="greek">D</span><em>q</em>), in accordance with the
indeterminacy relation (3). This result could, of course, also be obtained
directly by noticing that, due to the limited extension of the wave-field
at the place of the slit, the component of the wave-number parallel to
the plane of the diaphragm will involve a latitude <span class="greek">D</span><em>s</em> approx= (1/<em>a</em>) approx= (1/<span class="greek">D</span><em>q</em>). </p>
<img src="../../images/bohr2.gif" height="200" width="454" align="left" alt="shutter on slit limiting interference pattern">
<p>Similarly, the spread of the frequencies of the harmonic components
in the limited wave-train in Fig. 2b is evidently <span class="greek">D</span><em>f</em> approx= (1/<span class="greek">D</span><em>t</em>),
where <em>t</em> is the time interval during which the shutter leaves the
hole open and, thus, represents the latitude in time of the passage of
the particle through the diaphragm. From (1), we therefore get </p>
<table width="60%" align="center">
<tbody><tr>
<td align="right" width="80%"><p><span class="greek">D</span><em>E</em> . <span class="greek">D</span><em>t</em> approx= <em>h</em>,</p></td>
<td align="left">(4) </td>
</tr></tbody></table>
<p class="fst">again in accordance with the relation (3) for the two conjugated variables
<em>E</em> and <em>t</em>. </p>
<p>From the point of view of the laws of conservation, the origin of such
latitudes entering into the description of the state of the particle after
passing through the hole may be traced to the possibilities of momentum
and energy exchange with the diaphragm or the shutter. In the reference
system considered in Figs. 2a and 2b, the velocity of the diaphragm may
be disregarded and only a change of momentum <span class="greek">D</span><em>p</em> between the particle
and the diaphragm needs to be taken into consideration. The shutter, however,
which leaves the hole opened during the time t, moves with a considerable
velocity <em>v</em> approx= (<em>a</em>/<span class="greek">D</span><em>t</em>), and a momentum transfer
<span class="greek">D</span><em>p</em> involves therefore an energy exchange with the particle, amounting
to <em>v</em><span class="greek">D</span><em>p</em> approx= (1/<span class="greek">D</span><em>t</em>) . <span class="greek">D</span><em>q</em> . <span class="greek">D</span><em>p</em> approx=
(<em>h</em>/<span class="greek">D</span><em>t</em>), being just of the same order of magnitude as the
latitude <span class="greek">D</span><em>E</em> given by (4) and, thus, allowing for momentum and energy
balance. </p>
<p>The problem raised by Einstein was now to what extent a control of the
momentum and energy transfer, involved in a location of the particle in
space and time, can be used for a further specification of the state of
the particle after passing through the hole. Here, it must be taken into
consideration that the position and the motion of the diaphragm and the
shutter have so far been assumed to be accurately co-ordinated with the
space-time reference frame. This assumption implies, in the description
of the state of these bodies, an essential latitude as to their momentum
and energy which need not, of course, noticeably affect the velocities,
if the diaphragm and the shutter are sufficiently heavy. However, as soon
as we want to know the momentum and energy of these parts of the measuring
arrangement with an accuracy sufficient to control the momentum and energy
exchange with the particle under investigation, we shall, in accordance
with the general indeterminacy relations, lose the possibility of their
accurate location in space and time. We have, therefore, to examine how
far this circumstance will affect the intended use of the whole arrangement
and, as we shall see, this crucial point clearly brings out the complementary
character of the phenomena. </p>
<p>Returning for a moment to the case of the simple arrangement indicated
in Fig. 1, it has so far not been specified to what use it is intended.
In fact, it is only on the assumption that the diaphragm and the plate
have well-defined positions in space that it is impossible, within the
frame of the quantum-mechanical formalism, to make more detailed predictions
as to the point </p>
<p><img src="../../images/bohr3.gif" height="200" width="450" align="middle" hspace="2" vspace="10" alt="interference pattern from 2 slits"></p>
<p class="fst">
of the photographic plate where the particle will be recorded. If, however,
we admit a sufficiently large latitude in the knowledge of the position
of the diaphragm it should, in principle, be possible to control the momentum
transfer to the diaphragm and, thus, to make more detailed predictions
as to the direction of the electron path from the hole to the recording
point. As regards the quantum-mechanical description, we have to deal here
with a two-body system consisting of the diaphragm as well as of the particle,
and it is just with an explicit application of conservation laws to such
a system that we are concerned in the Compton effect where, for instance,
the observation of the recoil of the electron by means of a cloud chamber
allows us to predict in what direction the scattered photon will eventually
be observed. </p>
<p>The importance of considerations of this kind was, in the course of
the discussions, most interestingly illuminated by the examination of an
arrangement where between the diaphragm with the slit and the photographic
plate is inserted another diaphragm with two parallel slits, as is shown
in Fig. 3. If a parallel beam of electrons (or photons) falls from the
left on the first diaphragm, we shall, under usual conditions, observe
on the plate an interference pattern indicated by the shading of the photographic
plate shown in front view to the right of the figure. With intense beams,
this pattern is built up by the accumulation of a large number of individual
processes, each giving rise to a small spot on the photographic plate,
and the distribution of these spots follows a simple law derivable from
the wave analysis. The same distribution should also be found in the statistical
account of many experiments performed with beams so faint that in a single
exposure only one electron (or photon) will arrive at the photographic
plate at some spot shown in the figure as a small star. Since, now, as
indicated by the broken arrows, the momentum transferred to the first diaphragm
ought to be different if the electron was assumed to pass through the upper
or the lower slit in the second diaphragm, Einstein suggested that a control
of the momentum transfer would permit a closer analysis of the phenomenon
and, in particular, to decide through which of the two slits the electron
had passed before arriving at the plate. </p>
<p>A closer examination showed, however, that the suggested control of
the momentum transfer would involve a latitude in the knowledge of the
position of the diaphragm which would exclude the appearance of the interference
phenomena in question. In fact, if <em>w</em> is the small angle between
the conjectured paths of a particle passing through the upper or the lower
slit, the difference of momentum transfer in these two cases will, according
to (1), be equal to <em>hsw</em> and any control of the momentum of the diaphragm
with an accuracy sufficient to measure this difference will, due to the
indeterminacy relation, involve a minimum latitude of the position of the
diaphragm, comparable with 1/<em>sw</em>. If, as in the figure, the diaphragm
with the two slits is placed in the middle between the first diaphragm
and the photographic plate, it will be seen that the number of fringes
per unit length will be just equal to <em>hsw</em> and, since an uncertainty
in the position of the first diaphragm of the amount of 1/<em>sw</em> will
cause an equal uncertainty in the positions of the fringes, it follows
that no interference effect can appear. The same result is easily shown
to hold for any other placing of the second diaphragm between the first
diaphragm and the plate, and would also be obtained if, instead of the
first diaphragm, another of these three bodies were used for the control,
for the purpose suggested, of the momentum transfer. </p>
<p>This point is of great logical consequence, since it is only the circumstance
that we are presented with a choice of <em>either</em> tracing the path of
a particle or observing interference effects, which allows us to escape
from the paradoxical necessity of concluding that the behaviour of an electron
or a photon should depend on the presence of a slit in the diaphragm through
which it could be proved not to pass. We have here to do with a typical
example of how the complementary phenomena appear under mutually exclusive
experimental arrangements and are just faced with the impossibility, in
the analysis of quantum effects, of drawing any sharp separation between
an independent behaviour of atomic objects and their interaction with the
measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which
the phenomena occur. </p>
<p>Our talks about the attitude to be taken in face of a novel situation
as regards analysis and synthesis of experience touched naturally on many
aspects of philosophical thinking, but, in spite of all divergencies of
approach and opinion, a most humorous spirit animated the discussions.
On his side, Einstein mockingly asked us whether we could really believe
that the providential authorities took recourse to dice-playing (".
. . <em>ob der liebe Gott würfelt</em>"), to which I replied by
pointing at the great caution, already called for by ancient thinkers,
in ascribing attributes to Providence in every-day language. I remember
also how at the peak of the discussion Ehrenfest, in his affectionate manner
of teasing his friends, jokingly hinted at the apparent similarity between
Einstein's attitude and that of the opponents of relativity theory; but
instantly Ehrenfest added that he would not be able to find relief in his
own mind before concord with Einstein was reached. </p>
<p>Einstein's concern and criticism provided a most valuable incentive
for us all to re-examine the various aspects of the situation as regards
the description of atomic phenomena. To me it was a welcome stimulus to
clarify still further the role played by the measuring instruments and,
in order to bring into strong relief the mutually exclusive character of
the experimental conditions under which the complementary phenomena appear,
I tried in those days to sketch various apparatus in a pseudo-realistic
style of which the following figures are examples. Thus, for the study
of an interference phenomenon of the type indicated in Fig. 3, it suggests
itself to use an experimental arrangement like that shown in Fig. 4, where
the solid parts of the apparatus, serving as diaphragms and plateholder,
are firmly bolted to a common support. </p>
<p><img src="../../images/bohr4.gif" height="200" width="322" align="left" alt="mechanical shutter"></p>
<p class="fst">
In such an arrangement, where the knowledge of the relative positions
of the diaphragms and the photographic plate is secured by a rigid connection,
it is obviously impossible to control the momentum exchanged between the
particle and the separate parts of the apparatus. The only way in which,
in such an arrangement, we could insure that the particle passed through
one of the slits in the second diaphragm is to cover the other slit by
a lid, as indicated in the figure; but if the slit is covered, there is
of course no question of any interference phenomenon, and on the plate
we shall simply observe a continuous distribution as in the case of the
single fixed diaphragm in Fig. 1. </p>
<p>In the study of phenomena in the account of which we are dealing with
detailed momentum balance, certain parts of the whole device must naturally
be given the freedom to move independently of others. Such an apparatus
is sketched in Fig. 5, where a diaphragm with a slit is suspended by weak
springs from a solid yoke bolted to the support on which also other immobile
parts of the arrangement are to be fastened. The scale on the diaphragm
together with the pointer on the bearings of the yoke refer to such study
of the motion of the diaphragm, as may be required for an estimate of the
momentum transferred to it, permitting one to draw conclusions as to the
deflection suffered by the particle in passing through the slit. Since,
however, any reading of the scale, in whatever way performed, will involve
an uncontrollable change in the momentum of the diaphragm, there will always
be, in conformity with the indeterminacy principle, a reciprocal relationship
between our knowledge of the position of the slit and the accuracy of the
momentum control. </p>
<p><img src="../../images/bohr5.gif" height="300" width="203" align="left" alt="shutter hanging on springs and pointer showing position"> </p>
<p class="fst">
In the same semi-serious style, Fig. 6 represents a part of an arrangement
suited for the study of phenomena which, in contrast to those just discussed,
involve time coordination explicitly. It consists of a shutter rigidly
connected with a robust clock resting on the support which carries a diaphragm
and on which further parts of similar character, regulated by the same
clock-work or by other clocks standardised relatively to it, are also to
be fixed. The special aim of the figure is to underline that a clock is
a piece of machinery, the working of which can completely be accounted
for by ordinary mechanics and will be affected neither by reading of the
position of its hands nor by the interaction between its accessories and
an atomic particle. In securing the opening of the hole at a definite moment,
an apparatus of this type might, for instance, be used for an accurate
measurement of the time an electron or a photon takes to come from the
diaphragm to some other place, but evidently, it would leave no possibility
of controlling the energy transfer to the shutter with the aim of drawing
conclusions as to the energy of the particle which has passed through the
diaphragm. </p>
<p><img src="../../images/bohr6.gif" height="200" width="226" align="left" alt="clockwork mechanism connected to shutter"> </p>
<p class="fst">
If we are interested in such conclusions we must, of course, use an
arrangement where the shutter devices can no longer serve as accurate clocks,
but where the knowledge of the moment when the hole in the diaphragm is
open involves a latitude connected with the accuracy of the energy measurement
by the general relation (4). </p>
<p>The contemplation of such more or less practical arrangements and their
more or less fictitious use proved most instructive in directing attention
to essential features of the problems. The main point here is the distinction
between the <em>objects</em> under investigation and the <em>measuring instruments</em>
which serve to define, in classical terms the conditions under which the
phenomena appear. Incidentally, we may remark that, for the illustration
of the preceding considerations, it is not relevant that experiments involving
an accurate control of the momentum or energy transfer from atomic particles
to heavy bodies like diaphragms and shutters would be very difficult to
perform, if practicable at all. It is only decisive that, in contrast to
the proper measuring instruments, these bodies together with the particles
would in such a case constitute the system to which the quantum-mechanical
formalism has to be applied. As regards the specification of the conditions
for any well-defined application of the formalism, it is moreover essential
that the <em>whole experimental arrangement</em> be taken into account. In
fact, the introduction of any further piece of apparatus, like a mirror,
in the way of a particle might imply new interference effects essentially
influencing the predictions as regards the results to be eventually recorded.
</p>
<p>The extent to which renunciation of the visualisation of atomic phenomena
is imposed upon us by the impossibility of their subdivision is strikingly
illustrated by the following example to which Einstein very early called
attention and often has reverted. If a semi-reflecting mirror is placed
in the way of a photon, leaving two possibilities for its direction of
propagation, the photon may either be recorded on one, and only one, of
two photographic plates situated at great distances in the two directions
in question, or else we may, by replacing the plates by mirrors, observe
effects exhibiting an interference between the two reflected wave-trains.
In any attempt of a pictorial representation of the behaviour of the photon
we would, thus, meet with the difficulty: to be obliged to say, on the
one hand, that the photon always chooses <em>one</em> of the two ways and,
on the other hand, that it behaves as if it had passed <em>both</em> ways.
</p>
<p>It is just arguments of this kind which recall the impossibility of
subdividing quantum phenomena and reveal the ambiguity in ascribing customary
physical attributes to atomic objects. In particular, it must be realised
that besides in the account of the placing and timing of the instruments
forming the experimental arrangement all unambiguous use of space-time
concepts in the description of atomic phenomena is confined to the recording
of observations which refer to marks on a photographic plate or to similar
practically irreversible amplification effects like the building of a water
drop around an ion in a cloud-chamber. Although, of course, the existence
of the quantum of action is ultimately responsible for the properties of
the materials of which the measuring instruments are built and on which
the functioning of the recording devices depends, this circumstance is
not relevant for the problems of the adequacy and completeness of the quantum-mechanical
description in its aspects here discussed. </p>
<p>These problems were instructively commented upon from different sides
at the Solvay meeting, in the same session where Einstein raised his general
objections. On that occasion an interesting discussion arose also about
how to speak of the appearance of phenomena for which only predictions
of statistical character can be made. The question was whether, as to the
occurrence of individual effects, we should adopt a terminology proposed
by Dirac, that we were concerned with a choice on the part of "nature"
or, as suggested by Heisenberg, we should say that we have to do with a
choice on the part of the "observer" constructing the measuring
instruments and reading their recording. Any such terminology would, however,
appear dubious since, on the one hand, it is hardly reasonable to endow
nature with volition in the ordinary sense, while, on the other hand, it
is certainly not possible for the observer to influence the events which
may appear under the conditions he has arranged. To my mind, there is no
other alternative than to admit that, in this field of experience, we are
dealing with individual phenomena and that our possibilities of handling
the measuring instruments allow us only to make a choice between the different
complementary types of phenomena we want to study. </p>
<p>The epistemological problems touched upon here were more explicitly
dealt with in my contribution to the issue of <em>Naturunssenschaften</em>
in celebration of Planck's 70th birthday in 1929. In this article, a comparison
was also made between the lesson derived from the discovery of the universal
quantum of action and the development which has followed the discovery
of the finite velocity of light and which, through Einstein's pioneer work,
has so greatly clarified basic principles of natural philosophy. In relativity
theory, the emphasis on the dependence of all phenomena on the reference
frame opened quite new ways of tracing general physical laws of unparalleled
scope. In quantum theory, it was argued, the logical comprehension of hitherto
unsuspected fundamental regularities governing atomic phenomena has demanded
the recognition that no sharp separation can be made between an independent
behaviour of the objects and their interaction with the measuring instruments
which define the reference frame. </p>
<p>In this respect, quantum theory presents us with a novel situation in
physical science, but attention was called to the very close analogy with
the situation as regards analysis and synthesis of experience, which we
meet in many other fields of human knowledge and interest. As is well known,
many of the difficulties in psychology originate in the different placing
of the separation lines between object and subject in the analysis of various
aspects of psychical experience. Actually, words like "thoughts"
and "sentiments," equally indispensable to illustrate the variety
and scope of conscious life, are used in a similar complementary way as
are space-time co-ordination and dynamical conservation laws in atomic
physics. A precise formulation of such analogies involves, of course, intricacies
of terminology, and the writer's position is perhaps best indicated in
a passage in the article, hinting at the mutually exclusive relationship
which will always exist between the practical use of any word and attempts
at its strict definition. The principal aim, however, of these considerations,
which were not least inspired by the hope of influencing Einstein's attitude,
was to point to perspectives of bringing general epistemological problems
into relief by means of a lesson derived from the study of new, but fundamentally
simple physical experience. </p>
<p>At the next meeting with Einstein at the Solvay Conference in 1930,
our discussions took quite a dramatic turn. As an objection to the view
that a control of the interchange of momentum and energy between the objects
and the measuring instruments was excluded if these instruments should
serve their purpose of defining the space-time frame of the phenomena Einstein
brought forward the argument that such control should be possible when
the exigencies of relativity theory were taken into consideration. In particular,
the general relationship between energy and mass, expressed in Einstein's
famous formula </p>
<table width="60%" align="center">
<tbody><tr>
<td align="right" width="80%"><p>E = mc<sup>2</sup>,</p></td>
<td align="left">(5) </td>
</tr></tbody></table>
<p class="fst">
should allow, by means of simple weighing, to measure the total energy
of any system and, thus, in principle to control the energy transferred
to it when it interacts with an atomic object. </p>
<p>As an arrangement suited for such purpose, Einstein proposed the device
indicated in Fig. 7, consisting of a box with a hole in its side, which
could be opened or closed by a shutter moved by means of a clock-work within
the box. </p>
<p><img src="../../images/bohr7.gif" height="200" width="233" align="left" alt="schematic of clock connected to shutter"></p>
<p class="fst">
If, in the beginning, the box contained a certain amount of radiation
and the clock was set to open the shutter for a very short interval at
a chosen time, it could be achieved that a single photon was released through
the hole at a moment known with as great accuracy as desired. Moreover,
it would apparently also be possible, by weighing the whole box before
and after this event, to measure the energy of the photon with any accuracy
wanted, in definite contradiction to the reciprocal indeterminacy of time
and energy quantities in quantum mechanics. </p>
<p>This argument amounted to a serious challenge and gave rise to a thorough
examination of the whole problem. At the outcome of the discussion, to
which Einstein himself contributed effectively, it became clear, however,
that this argument could not be upheld. In fact, in the consideration of
the problem, it was found necessary to look closer into the consequences
of the identification of inertial and gravitational mass implied in the
application of relation (5). Especially, it was essential to take into
account the relationship between the rate of a clock and its position in
a gravitational field well known from the red-shift of the lines in the
sun's spectrum following from Einstein's principle of equivalence between
gravity effects and the phenomena observed in accelerated reference frames.
</p>
<p>Our discussion concentrated on the possible application of an apparatus
incorporating Einstein's device and drawn in Fig. 8 in the same pseudo-realistic
style as some of the preceding figures. The box, of which a section is
shown in order to exhibit its interior, is suspended in a spring-balance
and is furnished with a pointer to read its position on a scale fixed to
the balance support. The weighing of the box may thus be performed with
any given accuracy <span class="greek">D</span><em>m</em> by adjusting the balance to its zero position by means of suitable loads. The essential point is now that any determination
of this position with a given accuracy <span class="greek">D</span><em>q</em> will involve a minimum
latitude <span class="greek">D</span><em>p</em> in the control of the momentum of the box connected
with <span class="greek">D</span><em>q</em> by the relation (3). This latitude must obviously again
be smaller than the total impulse which, during the whole interval <em>T</em>
of the balancing procedure, can be given by the gravitational field to
a body with a mass <span class="greek">D</span><em>m</em>, or </p>
<table width="60%" align="center">
<tbody><tr>
<td align="right" width="80%"><p><span class="greek">D</span><em>p</em> approx= <em>h</em> / <span class="greek">D</span><em>q T . g . </em><span class="greek">D</span><em>m</em>,</p> </td>
<td align="left">(6) </td>
</tr></tbody></table>
<p class="fst">
where <em>g</em> is the gravity constant. The greater the accuracy of
the reading <em>q</em> of the pointer, the longer must, consequently, be
the balancing interval <em>T</em>, if a given accuracy <span class="greek">D</span><em>m</em> of the weighing of the box with its content shall be obtained. </p>
<p><img src="../../images/bohr8.gif" height="300" width="243" align="left" alt="box with source and shuttered slit hanging on spring under gracvity"></p>
<p class="fst">
Now, according to general relativity theory, a clock, when displaced
in the direction of the gravitational force by an amount of <span class="greek">D</span><em>q</em>,
will change its rate in such a way that its reading </p>
<p>in the course of a time interval <em>T</em> will differ by an amount <span class="greek">D</span><em>T</em>
given by the relation </p>
<table width="60%" align="center">
<tbody><tr>
<td align="right" width="80%"><p><span class="greek">D</span><em>T</em> / <em>T</em> = (1/c<sup>2</sup>) <em>g</em><span class="greek">D</span><em>q,</em></p> </td>
<td align="left">(7)</td>
</tr></tbody></table>
<p class="fst">
By comparing (6) and (7) we see, therefore, that after the weighing
procedure there will in our knowledge of the adjustment of the clock be
a latitude </p>
<table width="60%" align="center">
<tbody><tr>
<td align="right" width="80%"><p><span class="greek">D</span><em>T</em> > <em>h</em> / (<em>c</em><sup>2</sup> <span class="greek">D</span><em>m</em>) ,</p> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr></tbody></table>
<p class="fst">
Together with the formula (5), this relation again leads to</p>
<table width="60%" align="center">
<tbody><tr>
<td align="right" width="80%"><p><span class="greek">D</span><em>T</em> . <span class="greek">D</span><em>E </em> > h,</p> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr></tbody></table>
<p class="fst">
in accordance with the indeterminacy principle. Consequently,
a use of the apparatus as a means of accurately measuring the
energy of the photon will prevent us from controlling the moment
of its escape.</p>
<p>
The discussion, so illustrative of the power and consistency of
relativistic arguments, thus emphasised once more the necessity
of distinguishing, in the study of atomic phenomena, between the
proper measuring instruments which serve to define the reference
frame and those parts which are to be regarded as objects under
investigation and in the account of which quantum effects cannot
be disregarded. Notwithstanding the most suggestive confirmation
of the soundness and wide scope of the quantum-mechanical way
of description, Einstein nevertheless, in a following conversation
with me, expressed a feeling of disquietude as regards the apparent
lack of firmly laid down principles for the explanation of nature,
in which all could agree. From my viewpoint, however, I could
only answer that, in dealing with the task of bringing order into
an entirely new field of experience, we could hardly trust in
any accustomed principles, however broad, apart from the demand
of avoiding logical inconsistencies and, in this respect, the
mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics should surely meet
all requirements.</p>
<p>
The Solvay meeting in 1930 was the last occasion where, in common
discussions with Einstein, we could benefit from the stimulating
and mediating influence of Ehrenfest, but shortly before his deeply
deplored death in 1933 he told me that Einstein was far from satisfied
and with his usual acuteness had discerned new aspects of the
situation which strengthened his critical attitude. In fact, by
further examining the possibilities for the application of a balance
arrangement, Einstein had perceived alternative procedures which,
even if they did not allow the use he originally intended, might
seem to enhance the paradoxes beyond the possibilities of logical
solution. Thus, Einstein had pointed out that, after a preliminary
weighing of the box with the clock and the subsequent escape of
the photon, one was still left with the choice of either repeating
the weighing or opening the box and comparing the reading of the
clock with the standard time scale. Consequently, we are at this
stage still free to choose whether we want to draw conclusions
either about the energy of the photon or about the moment when
it left the box. Without in any way interfering with the photon
between its escape and its later interaction with other suitable
measuring instruments, we are, thus, able to make accurate predictions
pertaining <em>either</em> to the moment of its arrival <em>or </em>to
the amount of energy liberated by its absorption. Since, however,
according to the quantum-mechanical formalism, the specification
of the state of an isolated particle cannot involve both a well-defined
connection with the time scale and an accurate fixation of the
energy, it might thus appear as if this formalism did not offer
the means of an adequate description.</p>
<p>
Once more Einstein's searching spirit had elicited a peculiar
aspect of the situation in quantum theory, which in a most striking
manner illustrated how far we have here transcended customary
explanation of natural phenomena. Still, I could not agree with
the trend of his remarks as reported by Ehrenfest. In my opinion,
there could be no other way to deem a logically consistent mathematical
formalism as inadequate than by demonstrating the departure of
its consequences from experience or by proving that its predictions
did not exhaust the possibilities of observation, and Einstein's
argumentation could be directed to neither of these ends. In fact,
we must realize that in the problem in question we are not dealing
with a <em>single</em> specified experimental arrangement, but are
referring to <em>two</em> different, mutually exclusive arrangements.
In the one, the balance together with another piece of apparatus
like a spectrometer is used for the study of the energy transfer
by a photon; in the other, a shutter regulated by a standardised
clock together with another apparatus of similar kind, accurately
timed relatively to the clock, is used for the study of the time
of propagation of a photon over a given distance. In both these
cases, as also assumed by Einstein, the observable effects are
expected to be in complete conformity with the predictions of
the theory.</p>
<p>
The problem again emphasises the necessity of considering the
whole experimental arrangement, the specification of which is
imperative for any well-defined application of the quantum-mechanical
formalism. Incidentally, it may be added that paradoxes of the
kind contemplated by Einstein are encountered also in such simple
arrangements as sketched in Fig. 5. In fact, after a preliminary
measurement of the momentum of the diaphragm, we are in principle
offered the choice, when an electron or photon has passed through
the slit, either to repeat the momentum measurement or to control
the position of the diaphragm and, thus, to make predictions pertaining
to alternative subsequent observations. It may also be added that
it obviously can make no difference as regards observable effects
obtainable by a definite experimental arrangement, whether our
plans of constructing or handling the instruments are fixed beforehand
or whether we prefer to postpone the completion of our planning
until a later moment when the particle is already on its way from
one instrument to another.</p>
<p>
In the quantum-mechanical description our freedom of constructing
and handling the experimental arrangement finds its proper expression
in the possibility of choosing the classically defined parameters
entering in any proper application of the formalism. Indeed, in
all such respects quantum mechanics exhibits a correspondence
with the state of affairs familiar from classical physics, which
is as close as possible when considering the individuality inherent
in the quantum phenomena. Just in helping to bring out this point
so clearly, Einstein's concern had therefore again been a most
welcome incitement to explore the essential aspects of the situation.</p>
<p>
The next Solvay meeting in 1933 was devoted to the problems of
the structure and properties of atomic nuclei, in which field
such great advances were made just in that period due to the experimental
discoveries as well as to new fruitful applications of quantum
mechanics. It need in this connection hardly be recalled that
just the evidence obtained by the study of artificial nuclear
transformations gave a most direct test of Einstein's fundamental
law regarding the equivalence of mass and energy, which was to
prove an evermore important guide for researches in nuclear physics.
It may also be mentioned how Einstein's intuitive recognition
of the intimate relationship between the law of radioactive transformations
and the probability rules governing individual radiation effects
was confirmed by the quantum-mechanical explanation of spontaneous
nuclear disintegrations. In fact, we are here dealing with a typical
example of the statistical mode of description, and the complementary
relationship between energy-momentum conservation and time-space
co-ordination is most strikingly exhibited in the well-known paradox
of particle penetration through potential barriers.</p>
<p>
Einstein himself did not attend this meeting, which took place
at a time darkened by the tragic developments in the political
world which were to influence his fate so deeply and add so greatly
to his burdens in the service of humanity. A few months earlier,
on a visit to Princeton where Einstein was then guest of the newly
founded Institute for Advanced Study to which he soon after became
permanently attached, I had, however, opportunity to talk with
him again about the epistemological aspects of atomic physics,
but the difference between our ways of approach and expression
still presented obstacles to mutual understanding. While, so far,
relatively few persons had taken part in the discussions reported
in this article, Einstein's critical attitude towards the views
on quantum theory adhered to by many physicists was soon after
brought to public attention through a paper with the title <em>Can
Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered
Complete?</em>, published in 1935 by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen.</p>
<p>
The argumentation in this paper is based on a criterion which
the authors express in the following sentence: "If, without
in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty
(i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical
quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding
to this physical quantity." By an elegant exposition of the
consequences of the quantum-mechanical formalism as regards the
representation of a state of a system, consisting of two parts
which have been in interaction for a limited time interval, it
is next shown that different quantities, the fixation of which
cannot be combined in the representation of one of the partial
systems, can nevertheless be predicted by measurements pertaining
to the other partial system. According to their criterion, the
authors therefore conclude that quantum mechanics does not "provide
a complete description of the physical reality," and they
express their belief that it should be possible to develop a more
adequate account of the phenomena.</p>
<p>
Due to the lucidity and apparently incontestable character of
the argument, the paper of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen created
a stir among physicists and has played a large role in general
philosophical discussion. Certainly the issue is of a very subtle
character and suited to emphasise how far, in quantum theory,
we are beyond the reach of pictorial visualisation. It will be
seen, however, that we are here dealing with problems of just
the same kind as those raised by Einstein in previous discussions,
and, in an article which appeared a few months later, I tried
to show that from the point of view of complementarity the apparent
inconsistencies were completely removed. The trend of the argumentation
was in substance the same as that exposed in the foregoing pages,
but the aim of recalling the way in which the situation was discussed
at that time may be an apology for citing certain passages from
my article.</p>
<p>
Thus, after referring to the conclusions derived by Einstein,
Podolsky and Rosen on the basis of their criterion, I wrote:</p>
<p class="quoteb">
Such an argumentation, how ever, would hardly seem suited to affect
the soundness of quantum-mechanical description, which is based
on a coherent mathematical formalism covering automatically any
procedure of measurement like that indicated. The apparent contradiction
in fact discloses only an essential inadequacy of the customary
viewpoint of natural philosophy for a rational account of physical
phenomena of the type with which we are concerned in quantum mechanics.
Indeed the <em>finite interaction between object and measuring
agencies</em> conditioned by the very existence of the quantum
of action entails - because of the impossibility of controlling
the reaction of the object on the measuring instruments, if these
are to serve their purpose - the necessity of a final renunciation
of the classical ideal of causality and a radical revision of
our attitude towards the problem of physical reality. In fact,
as we shall see, a criterion of reality like that proposed by
the named authors contains - however cautious its formulation
may appear - an essential ambiguity when it is applied to the
actual problems with which we are here concerned.
</p>
<p class="fst">
As regards the special problem treated by Einstein, Podolsky and
Rosen, it was next shown that the consequences of the formalism
as regards the representation of the state of a system consisting
of two interacting atomic objects correspond to the simple arguments
mentioned in the preceding in connection with the discussion of
the experimental arrangements suited for the study of complementary
phenomena. In fact, although any pair <em>q</em> and <em>p</em>, of
conjugate space and momentum variables obeys the rule of non-commutative
multiplication expressed by (2), and can thus only be fixed with
reciprocal latitudes given by (3), the difference q<sub>1</sub>
- q<sub>2</sub> between
two space-co-ordinates referring to the constituents of the system
will commute with the sum <em>p</em><sub>1</sub> + <em>p</em><sub>2</sub>
of the corresponding
momentum components, as follows directly from the commutability
of <em>q</em><sub>1</sub> with <em>p</em><sub>2</sub> and <em>q</em><sub>2</sub> with <em>p</em><sub>1</sub>. Both <em>q</em><sub>1</sub> - <em>q</em><sub>2</sub> and <em>p</em><sub>1</sub> + <em>p</em><sub>2</sub> can, therefore,
be accurately fixed in a state of the complex system and, consequently,
we can predict the values of either <em>q</em><sub>1</sub> or <em>p</em><sub>1</sub> if either <em>q</em><sub>2</sub> or <em>p</em><sub>2</sub> respectively, are determined by
direct measurements. If, for the two parts of the system, we take
a particle and a diaphragm, like that sketched in Fig. 5, we see
that the possibilities of specifying the state of the particle
by measurements on the diaphragm just correspond to the situation
described above, where it was mentioned that, after the particle
has passed through the diaphragm, we have in principle the choice
of measuring either the position of the diaphragm or its momentum
and, in each case, to make predictions as to subsequent observations
pertaining to the particle. As repeatedly stressed, the principal
point is here that such measurements demand mutually exclusive
experimental arrangements.</p>
<p>
The argumentation of the article was summarised. in the following
passage:</p>
<p class="quoteb">
From our point of new we now see that the wording of the above-mentioned
criterion of physical reality proposed by Einstein, Podolsky,
and Rosen contains an ambiguity as regards the meaning of the
expression ' without in any way disturbing a system.' Of course
there is in a case like that just considered no question of a
mechanical disturbance of the system under investigation during
the last critical stage of the measuring procedure. But even at
this stage there is essentially the question of <em>an influence
on the very conditions which define the possible types of predictions
regarding the future behaviour of the system</em>. Since these
conditions constitute an inherent element of the description of
any phenomenon to which the term "physical reality"
can be properly attached, we see that the argumentation of the
mentioned authors does not justify their conclusion that quantum-mechanical
description is essentially incomplete. On the contrary, this description,
as appears from the preceding discussion, may be characterised
as a rational utilisation of all possibilities of unambiguous
interpretation of measurements, compatible with the finite and
uncontrollable interaction between the objects and the measuring
instruments in the field of quantum theory. In fact, it is only
the mutual exclusion of any two experimental procedures, permitting
the unambiguous definition of complementary physical quantities,
which provides room for new physical laws, the coexistence of
which might at first sight appear irreconcilable with the basic
principles of science. It is just this entirely new situation
as regards the description of physical phenomena that the notion
of <em>complementarity</em> aims at characterising.
</p>
<p class="fst">
Rereading these passages, I am deeply aware of the inefficiency
of expression which must have made it very difficult to appreciate
the trend of the argumentation aiming to bring out the essential
ambiguity involved in a reference to physical attributes of objects
when dealing with phenomena where no sharp distinction can be
made between the behaviour of the objects themselves and their
interaction with the measuring instruments. I hope, however, that
the present account of the discussions with Einstein in the foregoing
years, which contributed so greatly to make us familiar with the
situation in quantum physics, may give a clearer impression of
the necessity of a radical revision of basic principles for physical
explanation in order to restore logical order in this field of
experience.</p>
<p>
Einstein's own views at that time are presented in an article
<em>Physics and Reality</em>, published in 1936 in the <em>Journal
of the Franklin Institute</em>. Starting from a most illuminating
exposition of the gradual development of the fundamental principles
in the theories of classical physics and their relation to the
problem of physical reality, Einstein here argues that the quantum-mechanical
description is to be considered merely as a means of accounting
for the average behaviour of a large number of atomic systems
and his attitude to the belief that it should offer an exhaustive
description of the individual phenomena is expressed in the following
words: "To believe this is logically possible without contradiction;
but it is so very contrary to my scientific instinct that I cannot
forego the search for a more complete conception."</p>
<p>
Even if such an attitude might seem well-balanced in itself, it
nevertheless implies a rejection of the whole argumentation exposed
in the preceding, aiming to show that, in quantum mechanics, we
are not dealing with an arbitrary renunciation of a more detailed
analysis of atomic phenomena, but with a recognition that such
an analysis is <em>in principle</em> excluded. The peculiar individuality
of the quantum effects presents us, as regards the comprehension
of well-defined evidence, with a novel situation unforeseen in
classical physics and irreconcilable with conventional ideas suited
for our orientation and adjustment to ordinary experience. It
is in this respect that quantum theory has called for a renewed
revision of the foundation for the unambiguous use of elementary
concepts, as a further step in the development which, since the
advent of relativity theory, has been so characteristic of modern
science.</p>
<p>
In the following years, the more philosophical aspects of the
situation in atomic physics aroused the interest of even larger
circles and were, in particular, discussed at the Second International
Congress for the Unity of Science in Copenhagen in July 1936.
In a lecture on this occasion, I tried especially to stress the
analogy in epistemological respects between the limitation imposed
on the causal description in atomic physics and situations met
with in other fields of knowledge. A principal purpose of such
parallels was to call attention to the necessity in many domains
of general human interest to face problems of a similar kind as
those which had arisen in quantum theory and thereby to give a
more familiar background for the apparently extravagant way of
expression which physicists have developed to cope with their
acute difficulties.</p>
<p>
Besides the complementary features conspicuous in psychology and
already touched upon, examples of such relationships can also
be traced in biology, especially as regards the comparison between
mechanistic and vitalistic viewpoints. Just with respect to the
observational problem, this last question had previously been
the subject of an address to the International Congress on Light
Therapy held in Copenhagen in 1932, where it was incidentally
pointed out that even the psycho-physical parallelism as envisaged
by Leibniz and Spinoza has obtained a wider scope through the
development of atomic physics, which forces us to an attitude
towards the problem of explanation recalling ancient wisdom, that
when searching for harmony in life one must never forget that
in the drama of existence we are ourselves both actors and spectators.</p>
<p>
Utterances of this kind would naturally in many minds evoke the
impression of an underlying mysticism foreign to the spirit of
science at the above mentioned Congress in 1936 I therefore tried
to clear up such misunderstandings and to explain that the only
question was an endeavour to clarify the conditions, in each field
of knowledge, for the analysis and synthesis of experience. Yet,
I am afraid that I had in this respect only little success in
convincing my listeners, for whom the dissent among the physicists
themselves was naturally a cause of scepticism as to the necessity
of going so far in renouncing customary demands as regards the
explanation of natural phenomena. Not least through a new discussion
with Einstein in Princeton in 1937, where we did not get beyond
a humorous contest concerning which side Spinoza would have taken
if he had lived to see the development of our days, I was strongly
reminded of the importance of utmost caution in all questions
of terminology and dialectics.</p>
<p>
These aspects of the situation were especially discussed at a
meeting in Warsaw in 1938, arranged by the International Institute
of Intellectual Co-operation of the League of Nations. The preceding
years had seen great progress in quantum physics due to a number
of fundamental discoveries regarding the constitution and properties
of atomic nuclei as well as due to important developments of the
mathematical formalism taking the requirements of relativity theory
into account. In the last respect, Dirac's ingenious quantum theory
of the electron offered a most striking illustration of the power
and fertility of the general quantum-mechanical way of description.
In the phenomena of creation and annihilation of electron pairs
we have in fact to do with new fundamental features of atomicity,
which are intimately connected with the non-classical aspects
of quantum statistics expressed in the exclusion principle, and
which have demanded a still more far-reaching renunciation of
explanation in terms of a pictorial representation.</p>
<p>
Meanwhile, the discussion of the epistemological problems in atomic
physics attracted as much attention as ever and, in commenting
on Einstein's views as regards the incompleteness of the quantum-mechanical
mode of description, I entered more directly on questions of terminology.
In this connection I warned especially against phrases, often
found in the physical literature, such as "disturbing of
phenomena by observation" or "creating physical attributes
to atomic objects by measurements." Such phrases, which may
serve to remind of the apparent paradoxes in quantum theory, are
at the same time apt to cause confusion, since words like "phenomena"
and "observations," just as "attributes" and
"measurements," are used in a way hardly compatible
with common language and practical definition.</p>
<p>
As a more appropriate way of expression, I advocated the application
of the word <em>phenomenon</em> exclusively to refer to the observations
obtained under specified circumstances, including an account of
the whole experimental arrangement. In such terminology, the observational
problem is free of any special intricacy since, in actual experiments,
all observations are expressed by unambiguous statements referring,
for instance, to the registration of the point at which an electron
arrives at a photographic plate. Moreover, speaking in such a
way is just suited to emphasise that the appropriate physical
interpretation of the symbolic quantum-mechanical formalism amounts
only to predictions, of determinate or statistical character,
pertaining to individual phenomena appearing under conditions
defined by classical physical concepts.</p>
<p>
Notwithstanding all differences between the physical problems
which have given rise to the development of relativity theory
and quantum theory, respectively, a comparison of purely logical
aspects of relativistic and complementary argumentation reveals
striking similarities as regards the renunciation of the absolute
significance of conventional physical attributes of objects. Also,
the neglect of the atomic constitution of the measuring instruments
themselves, in the account of actual experience, is equally characteristic
of the applications of relativity and quantum theory. Thus, the
smallness of the quantum of action compared with the actions involved
in usual experience, including the arranging and handling of physical
apparatus, is as essential in atomic physics as is the enormous
number of atoms composing the world in the general theory of relativity
which, as often pointed out, demands that dimensions of apparatus
for measuring angles can be made small compared with the radius
of curvature of space.</p>
<p>
In the Warsaw lecture, I commented upon the use of not directly
visualisable symbolism in relativity and quantum theory in the
following way:</p>
<p class="quoteb">
Even the formalisms, which in both theories within their scope
offer adequate means of comprehending all conceivable experience,
exhibit deep-going analogies. In fact, the astounding simplicity
of the generalisation of classical physical theories, which are
obtained by the use of multidimensional geometry and non-commutative
algebra, respectively, rests in both cases essentially on the
introduction of the conventional symbol sqrt(-1). The abstract
character of the formalisms concerned is indeed, on closer examination,
as typical of relativity theory as it is of quantum mechanics,
and it is in this-respect purely a matter of tradition if the
former theory is considered as a completion of classical physics
rather than as a first fundamental step in the thoroughgoing revision
of our conceptual means of comparing observations, which the modern
development of physics has forced upon us.
</p>
<p class="fst">
It is, of course, true that in atomic physics we are confronted
with a number of unsolved fundamental problems, especially as
regards the intimate relationship between the elementary unit
of electric charge and the universal quantum of action; but these
problems are no more connected with the epistemological points
here discussed than is the adequacy of relativistic argumentation
with the issue of thus far unsolved problems of cosmology. Both
in relativity and in quantum theory we are concerned with new
aspects of scientific analysis and synthesis and, in this connection,
it is interesting to note that, even in the great epoch of critical
philosophy in the former century, there was only question to what
extent <em>a priori</em> arguments could be given for the adequacy
of space-time co-ordination and causal connection of experience,
but never question of rational generalisations or inherent limitations
of such categories of human thinking.</p>
<p>
Although in more recent years I have had several occasions of
meeting Einstein, the continued discussions, from which I always
have received new impulses, have so far not led to a common view
about the epistemological problems in atomic physics, and our
opposing views are perhaps most clearly stated in a recent issue
of <em>Dialectica</em> bringing a general discussion of these problems.
Realising, however, the many obstacles for mutual understanding
as regards a matter where approach and background must influence
everyone's attitude, I have welcomed this opportunity of a broader
exposition of the development by which, to my mind, a veritable
crisis in physical science has been overcome. The lesson we have
hereby received would seem to have brought us a decisive step
further in the never-ending struggle for harmony between content
and form, and taught us once again that no content can be grasped
without a formal frame and that any form, however useful it has
hitherto proved, may be found to be too narrow to comprehend new
experience.</p>
<p>
Surely, in a situation like this, where it has been difficult
to reach mutual understanding not only between philosophers and
physicists but even between physicists of different schools, the
difficulties have their root not seldom in the preference for
a certain use of language suggesting itself from the different
lines of approach. In the Institute in Copenhagen, where through
those years a number of young physicists from various countries
came together for discussions, we used, when in trouble, often
to comfort ourselves with jokes, among them the old saying of
the two kinds of truth. To the one kind belong statements so simple
and clear that the opposite assertion obviously could not be defended.
The other kind, the so-called "deep truths," are statements
in which the opposite also contains deep truth. Now, the development
in a new field will usually pass through stages in which chaos
becomes gradually replaced by order; but it is not least in the
intermediate stage where deep truth prevails that the work is
really exciting and inspires the imagination to search for a firmer
hold. For such endeavours of seeking the proper balance between
seriousness and humour, Einstein's own personality stands as a
great example and, when expressing my belief that through a singularly
fruitful co-operation of a whole generation of physicists we are
nearing the goal where logical order to a large extent allows
us to avoid deep truth, I hope that it will be taken in his spirit
and may serve as an apology for several utterances in the preceding
pages.</p>
<p>
The discussions with Einstein which have formed the theme of this
article have extended over many years which have witnessed great
progress in the field of atomic physics. Whether our actual meetings
have been of short or long duration, they have always left a deep
and lasting impression on my mind, and when writing this report
I have, so-to-say, been arguing with Einstein all the time even
when entering on topics apparently far removed from the special
problems under debate at our meetings. As regards the account
of the conversations I am, of course, aware that I am relying
only on my own memory, just as I am prepared for the possibility
that many features of the development of quantum theory, in which
Einstein has played so large a part, may appear to himself in
a different light. I trust, however, that I have not failed in
conveying a proper impression of how much it has meant to me to
be able to benefit from the inspiration which we all derive from
every contact with Einstein.</p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">
Further Reading:<br>
<a href="../ge/einstein.htm">Einstein's Reply</a> |
<a href="../../../../archive/einstein/index.htm">Einstein Archive</a><br>
<a href="../../../../../glossary/people/b/o.htm#bohr-niels" target="_top">Biography of Niels Bohr</a> |
<a href="../../li_texts.htm#physic" target="list">Biographies of various physicists</a><br>
<a href="../ge/heisenb2.htm">Werner Heisenberg</a> on History of Quantum Theory |
<a href="../us/bridgman.htm">Percy Bridgman</a> on Operationalism |
<a href="../../../../../archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/05.htm">Lenin</a> on Revolution in Natural Science |
<a href="../us/kuhn.htm">The Structure of Scientific Revolutions</a>, Thomas Kuhn |
<a href="../fr/monod.htm">The Ethic of Knowledge and the Socialist Ideal</a>, Jacques Monod |
<a href="../ge/feyerabe.htm">Against Method</a>, Paul Feyerabend<br>
<a href="../../../../archive/hegel/help/sampler.htm#science">Hegel</a> references on Science<br>
<a href="../../help/maths.htm#Physics">The Crisis in Modern Physics</a> |
<a href="../../../../../reference/archive/hegel/help/mean06.htm#03a" target="_top">Crisis in Modern Physics</a><br>
<a href="../../../../../glossary/terms/p/o.htm#positivism" target="_top">Positivism</a>,
<a href="../../../../../glossary/terms/s/c.htm#science" target="_top">Science</a>, <a href="../../../../../glossary/terms/p/r.htm#practice" target="_top">Theory & Practice</a>, <a href="../../../../../glossary/terms/m/a.htm#matter" target="_top">Matter</a>,
<a href="../../../../../glossary/terms/c/o.htm#contradiction" target="_top">Contradiction</a>,
<a href="../../../../../glossary/terms/n/a.htm#nature" target="_top">Nature</a>
</p>
<p class="footer">
<a href="../../index.htm" target="_top">Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org</a></p>
</body> |
Niels Bohr (1949)
Discussions with Einstein
on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics
Source: From Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (1949), publ. Cambridge University Press, 1949. Neils Bohr's report of conversations with Einstein and Einstein's reply.
WHEN invited by the Editor of the series, Living Philosophers,
to write an article for this volume in which contemporary scientists are
honouring the epoch-making contributions of Albert Einstein to the progress
of natural philosophy and are acknowledging the indebtedness of our whole
generation for the guidance his genius has given us, I thought much of
the best way of explaining how much I owe to him for inspiration. In this
connection, the many occasions through the years on which I had the privilege
to discuss with Einstein epistemological problems raised by the modern
development of atomic physics have come back vividly to my mind and I have
felt that I could hardly attempt anything better than to give an account
of these discussions which, even if no complete concord has so far been
obtained, have been of greatest value and stimulus to me. I hope also that the account may convey to wider circles an impression of how essential the open-minded exchange of ideas has been for the progress in a field where new experience has time after time demanded a reconsideration of our views.
From the very beginning the main point under debate has been the attitude to take to the departure from customary principles of natural philosophy characteristic of the novel development of physics which was initiated in the first year of this century by Planck's discovery of the universal quantum of action. This discovery, which revealed a feature of atomicity in the laws of nature going far beyond the old doctrine of the limited divisibility of matter, has indeed taught us that the classical theories of physics are idealisations which can be unambiguously applied only in the limit where all actions involved are large compared with the quantum. The question at issue has been whether the renunciation of a causal mode of description of atomic processes involved in the endeavours to cope with the situation should be regarded as a temporary departure from ideals to be ultimately revived or whether we are faced with an irrevocable step towards obtaining the proper harmony between analysis and synthesis of physical phenomena. To describe the background of our discussions and to bring out as clearly as possible the arguments for the contrasting viewpoints, I have felt it necessary to go to a certain length in recalling some main features of the development to which Einstein himself has contributed so decisively.
As is well known, it was the intimate relation, elucidated primarily
by Boltzmann, between the laws of thermodynamics and the statistical regularities
exhibited by mechanical systems with many degrees of freedom, which guided
Planck in his ingenious treatment of the problem of thermal radiation,
leading him to his fundamental discovery. While, in his work, Planck was
principally concerned with considerations of essentially statistical character
and with great caution refrained from definite conclusions as to the extent
to which the existence of the quantum implied a departure from the foundations
of mechanics and electrodynamics, Einstein's great original contribution
to quantum theory (1905) was just the recognition of how physical phenomena
like the photo-effect may depend directly on individual quantum effects.
In these very same years when, in developing his theory of relativity,
Einstein laid a new foundation for physical science, he explored with a
most daring spirit the novel features of atomicity which pointed beyond
the whole framework of classical physics.
With unfailing intuition Einstein thus was led step by step to the conclusion
that any radiation process involves the emission or absorption of individual
light quanta or "photons" with energy and momentum
E
= hf and P = hs
(1)
respectively, where h is Planck's constant, while f and
s are the number of vibrations per unit time and the number of waves
per unit length, respectively. Notwithstanding its fertility, the idea
of the photon implied a quite unforeseen dilemma, since any simple corpuscular
picture of radiation would obviously be irreconcilable with interference
effects, which present so essential an aspect of radiative phenomena, and
which can be described only in terms of a wave picture. The acuteness of
the dilemma is stressed by the fact that the interference effects offer
our only means of defining the concepts of frequency and wavelength entering
into the very expressions for the energy and momentum of the photon.
In this situation, there could be no question of attempting a causal
analysis of radiative phenomena, but only, by a combined use of the contrasting
pictures, to estimate probabilities for the occurrence of the individual
radiation processes. However, it is most important to realize that the
recourse to probability laws under such circumstances is essentially different
in aim from the familiar application of statistical considerations as practical
means of accounting for the properties of mechanical systems of great structural
complexity. In fact, in quantum physics we are presented not with intricacies
of this kind, but with the inability of the classical frame of concepts
to comprise the peculiar feature of indivisibility, or "individuality,"
characterising the elementary processes.
The failure of the theories of classical physics in accounting for atomic
phenomena was further accentuated by the progress of our knowledge of the
structure of atoms. Above all, Rutherford's discovery of the atomic nucleus
(1911) revealed at once the inadequacy of classical mechanical and electromagnetic
concepts to explain the inherent stability of the atom. Here again the
quantum theory offered a clue for the elucidation of the situation and
especially it was found possible to account for the atomic stability, as
well as for the empirical laws governing the spectra of the elements, by
assuming that any reaction of the atom resulting in a change of its energy
involved a complete transition between two so-called stationary quantum
states and that, in particular, the spectra were emitted by a step-like
process in which each transition is accompanied by the emission of a monochromatic
light quantum of an energy just equal to that of an Einstein photon.
These ideas, which were soon confirmed by the experiments of Franck
and Hertz (1914) on the excitation of spectra by impact of electrons on
atoms, involved a further renunciation of the causal mode of description,
since evidently the interpretation of the spectral laws implies that an
atom in an excited state in general will have the possibility of transitions
with photon emission to one or another of its lower energy states. In fact,
the very idea of stationary states is incompatible with any directive for
the choice between such transitions and leaves room only for the notion
of the relative probabilities of the individual transition processes. The
only guide in estimating such probabilities was the so-called correspondence
principle which originated in the search for the closest possible connection
between the statistical account of atomic processes and the consequences
to be expected from classical theory, which should be valid in the limit
where the actions involved in all stages of the analysis of the phenomena
are large compared with the universal quantum.
At that time, no general self-consistent quantum theory was yet in sight,
but the prevailing attitude may perhaps be illustrated by the following
passage from a lecture by the writer from 1913:
I hope that I have expressed myself sufficiently clearly so that you
may appreciate the extent to which these considerations conflict with the
admirably consistent scheme of conceptions which has been rightly termed
the classical theory of electrodynamics. On the other hand, I have tried
to convey to you the impression that just by emphasising so strongly this
conflict it may also be possible in course of time to establish a certain
coherence in the new ideas.
Important progress in the development of quantum theory was made by
Einstein himself in his famous article on radiative equilibrium in 1917,
where he showed that Planck's law for thermal radiation could be simply
deduced from assumptions conforming with the basic ideas of the quantum
theory of atomic constitution. To this purpose, Einstein formulated general
statistical rules regarding the occurrence of radiative transitions between
stationary states, assuming not only that, when the atom is exposed to
a radiation field, absorption as well as emission processes will occur
with a probability per unit time proportional to the intensity of the irradiation,
but that even in the absence of external disturbances spontaneous emission
processes will take place with a rate corresponding to a certain a priori
probability. Regarding the latter point, Einstein emphasised the fundamental
character of the statistical description in a most suggestive way by drawing
attention to the analogy between the assumptions regarding the occurrence
of the spontaneous radiative transitions and the well-known laws governing
transformations of radioactive substances.
In connection with a thorough examination of the exigencies of thermodynamics
as regards radiation problems, Einstein stressed the dilemma still further
by pointing out that the argumentation implied that any radiation process
was "unidirected" in the sense that not only is a momentum corresponding
to a photon with the direction of propagation transferred to an atom in
the absorption process, but that also the emitting atom will receive an
equivalent impulse in the opposite direction, although there can on the
wave picture be no question of a preference for a single direction in an
emission process. Einstein's own attitude to such startling conclusions
is expressed in a passage at the end of the article, which may be translated
as follows:
These features of the elementary processes would seem to make the development
of a proper quantum treatment of radiation almost unavoidable. The weakness
of the theory lies in the fact that, on the one hand, no closer connection
with the wave concepts is obtainable and that, on the other hand, it leaves
to chance (Zufall) the time and the direction of the elementary
processes; nevertheless, I have full confidence in the reliability of the
way entered upon.
When I had the great experience of meeting Einstein for the first time
during a visit to Berlin in 1920, these fundamental questions formed the
theme of our conversations. The discussions, to which I have often reverted
in my thoughts, added to all my admiration for Einstein a deep impression
of his detached attitude. Certainly, his favoured use of such picturesque
phrases as "ghost waves (Gespensterfelder) guiding the photons"
implied no tendency to mysticism, but illuminated rather a profound humour
behind his piercing remarks. Yet, a certain difference in attitude and
outlook remained, since, with his mastery for co-ordinating apparently
contrasting experience without abandoning continuity and causality, Einstein
was perhaps more reluctant to renounce such ideals than someone for whom
renunciation in this respect appeared to be the only way open to proceed
with the immediate task of co-ordinating the multifarious evidence regarding
atomic phenomena, which accumulated from day to day in the exploration
of this new field of knowledge.
In the following years, during which the atomic problems attracted the
attention of rapidly increasing circles of physicists, the apparent contradictions
inherent in quantum theory were felt ever more acutely. Illustrative of
this situation is the discussion raised by the discovery of the Stern-Gerlach
effect in 1922. On the one hand, this effect gave striking support to the
idea of stationary states and in particular to the quantum theory of the
Zeeman effect developed by Sommerfeld, on the other hand, as exposed so
clearly by Einstein and Ehrenfest, it presented with unsurmountable difficulties
any attempt at forming a picture of the behaviour of atoms in a magnetic
field. Similar paradoxes were raised by the discovery by Compton (1924)
of the change in wave-length accompanying the scattering of X-rays by electrons.
This phenomenon afforded, as is well known, a most direct proof of the
adequacy of Einstein's view regarding the transfer of energy and momentum
in radiative processes; at the same time, it was equally clear that no
simple picture of a corpuscular collision could offer an exhaustive description
of the phenomenon. Under the impact of such difficulties, doubts were for
a time entertained even regarding the conservation of energy and momentum
in the individual radiation processes; a view, however, which very soon
had to be abandoned in face of more refined experiments bringing out the
correlation between the deflection of the photon and the corresponding
electron recoil.
The way to the clarification of the situation was, indeed, first to
be paved by the development of a more comprehensive quantum theory. A first
step towards this goal was the recognition by de Broglie in 1925 that the
wave-corpuscle duality was not confined to the properties of radiation,
but was equally unavoidable in accounting for the behaviour of material
particles. This idea, which was soon convincingly confirmed by experiments
on electron interference phenomena, was at once greeted by Einstein, who
had already envisaged the deep-going analogy between the properties of
thermal radiation and of gases in the so-called degenerate state. The new
line was pursued with the greatest success by Schrödinger (1926) who,
in particular, showed how the stationary states of atomic systems could
be represented by the proper solutions of a wave-equation to the establishment
of which he was led by the formal analogy, originally traced by Hamilton,
between mechanical and optical problems. Still, the paradoxical aspects
of quantum theory were in no way ameliorated, but even emphasised, by the
apparent contradiction between the exigencies of the general superposition
principle of the wave description and the feature of individuality of the
elementary atomic processes.
At the same time, Heisenberg (1925) had laid the foundation of a rational
quantum mechanics, which was rapidly developed through important contributions
by Born and Jordan as well as by Dirac. In this theory, a formalism is
introduced, in which the kinematical and dynamical variables of classical
mechanics are replaced by symbols subjected to a non-commutative algebra.
Notwithstanding the renunciation of orbital pictures, Hamilton's canonical
equations of mechanics are kept unaltered and Planck's constant enters
only in the rules of commutation h
qp - pq = -(h/2p) ,
(2)
holding for any set of conjugate variables q and p. Through
a representation of the symbols by matrices with elements referring to
transitions between stationary states, a quantitative formulation of the
correspondence principle became for the first time possible. It may here
be recalled that an important preliminary step towards this goal was reached
through the establishment, especially by contributions of Kramers, of a
quantum theory of dispersion making basic use of Einstein's general rules
for the probability of the occurrence of absorption and emission processes.
This formalism of quantum mechanics was soon proved by Schrödinger
to give results identical with those obtainable by the mathematically often
more convenient methods of wave theory, and in the following years general
methods were gradually established for an essentially statistical description
of atomic processes combining the features of individuality and the requirements
of the superposition principle, equally characteristic of quantum theory.
Among the many advances in this period, it may especially be mentioned
that the formalism proved capable of incorporating the exclusion principle
which governs the states of systems with several electrons, and which already
before the advent of quantum mechanics had been derived by Pauli from an
analysis of atomic spectra. The quantitative comprehension of a vast amount
of empirical evidence could leave no doubt as to the fertility and adequacy
of the quantum-mechanical formalism, but its abstract character gave rise
to a widespread feeling of uneasiness. An elucidation of the situation
should, indeed, demand a thorough examination of the very observational
problem in atomic physics.
This phase of the development was, as is well known, initiated in 1927
by Heisenberg, who pointed out that the knowledge obtainable of the state
of an atomic system will always involve a peculiar "indeterminacy."
Thus, any measurement of the position of an electron by means of some device,
like a microscope, making use of high frequency radiation, will, according
to the fundamental relations (1), be connected with a momentum exchange
between the electron and the measuring agency, which is the greater the
more accurate a position measurement is attempted. In comparing such considerations
with the exigencies of the quantum-mechanical formalism, Heisenberg called
attention to the fact that the commutation rule (2) imposes a reciprocal
limitation on the fixation of two conjugate variables, q and p,
expressed by the relation
Dq . DP approx= h,
(3)
where Dq and Dp are suitably defined latitudes in the determination of these variables.
In pointing to the intimate connection between the statistical
description in quantum mechanics and the actual possibilities of measurement,
this so-called indeterminacy relation is, as Heisenberg showed, most important
for the elucidation of the paradoxes involved in the attempts of analysing
quantum effects with reference to customary physical pictures.
The new progress in atomic physics was commented upon from various sides
at the International Physical Congress held in September 1927, at Como
in commemoration of Volta. In a lecture on that occasion, I advocated a
point of view conveniently termed "complementarity," suited to
embrace the characteristic features of individuality of quantum phenomena,
and at the same time to clarify the peculiar aspects of the observational
problem in this field of experience. For this purpose, it is decisive to
recognise that, however far the phenomena transcend the scope of classical
physical explanation, the account of all evidence must be expressed in
classical terms. The argument is simply that by the word "experiment"
we refer to a situation where we can tell others what we have done and
what we have learned and that, therefore, the account of the experimental
arrangement and of the results of the observations must be expressed in
unambiguous language with suitable application of the terminology of classical
physics.
This crucial point, which was to become a main theme of the discussions
reported in the following, implies the impossibility of any sharp separation
between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring
instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena
appear. In fact, the individuality of the typical quantum effects finds
its proper expression in the circumstance that any attempt of subdividing
the phenomena will demand a change in the experimental arrangement introducing
new possibilities of interaction between objects and measuring instruments
which in principle cannot be controlled. Consequently, evidence obtained
under different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a
single picture, but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that
only the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about
the objects.
Under these circumstances an essential element of ambiguity isinvolved
in ascribing conventional physical attributes to atomic objects, as is
at once evident in the dilemma regarding the corpuscular and wave properties
of electrons and photons, where we have to do with contrasting pictures,
each referring to an essential aspect of empirical evidence. An illustrative
example, of how the apparent paradoxes are removed by an examination of
the experimental conditions under which the complementary phenomena appear,
is also given by the Compton effect, the consistent description of which
at first had presented us with such acute difficulties. Thus, any arrangement
suited to study the exchange of energy and momentum between the electron
and the photon must involve a latitude in the space-time description of
the interaction sufficient for the definition of wave-number and frequency
which enter into the relation (1). Conversely, any attempt of locating
the collision between the photon and the electron more accurately would,
on account of the unavoidable interaction with the fixed scales and clocks
defining the space-time reference frame, exclude all closer account as
regards the balance of momentum and energy.
As stressed in the lecture, an adequate tool for a complementary way
of description is offered precisely by the quantum-mechanical formalism
which represents a purely symbolic scheme permitting only predictions,
on lines of the correspondence principle, as to results obtainable under
conditions specified by means of classical concepts. It must here be remembered
that even in the indeterminacy relation (3) we are dealing with an implication
of the formalism which defies unambiguous expression in words suited to
describe classical physical pictures. Thus, a sentence like "we cannot
know both the momentum and the position of an atomic object" raises
at once questions as to the physical reality of two such attributes of
the object, which can be answered only by referring to the conditions for
the unambiguous use of space-time concepts, on the one hand, and dynamical
conservation laws, on the other hand. While the combination of these concepts
into a single picture of a causal chain of events is the essence of classical
mechanics, room for regularities beyond the grasp of such a description
is just afforded by the circumstance that the study of the complementary
phenomena demands mutually exclusive experimental arrangements.
The necessity, in atomic physics, of a renewed examination of the foundation
for the unambiguous use of elementary physical ideas recalls in some way
the situation that led Einstein to his original revision on the basis of
all application of space-time concepts which, by its emphasis on the primordial
importance of the observational problem, has lent such unity to our world
picture. Notwithstanding all novelty of approach, causal description is
upheld in relativity theory within any given frame of reference, but in
quantum theory the uncontrollable interaction between the objects and the
measuring instruments forces us to a renunciation even in such respect.
This recognition, however, in no way points to any limitation of the scope
of the quantum-mechanical description, and the trend of the whole argumentation
presented in the Como lecture was to show that the viewpoint of complementarity
may be regarded as a rational generalisation of the very ideal of causality.
At the general discussion in Como, we all missed the presence of Einstein,
but soon after, in October 1927, I had the opportunity to meet him in Brussels
at the Fifth Physical Conference of the Solvay Institute, which was devoted
to the theme "Electrons and Photons." At the Solvay meetings,
Einstein had from their beginning been a most prominent figure, and several
of us came to the conference with great anticipations to learn his reaction
to the latest stage of the development which, to our view, went far in
clarifying the problems which he had himself from the outset elicited so
ingeniously. During the discussions, where the whole subject was reviewed
by contributions from many sides and where also the arguments mentioned
in the preceding pages were again presented, Einstein expressed, however,
a deep concern over the extent to which causal account in space and time
was abandoned in quantum mechanics.
To illustrate his attitude, Einstein referred at one of the sessions
to the simple example, illustrated by Fig. 1, of a particle (electron or
photon) penetrating through a hole or a narrow slit in a diaphragm placed
at some distance before a photographic plate.
On account of the diffraction of the wave connected with the motion
of the particle and indicated in the figure by the thin lines, it is under
such conditions not possible to predict with certainty at what point the
electron will arrive at the photographic plate, but only to calculate the
probability that, in an experiment, the electron will be found within any
given region of the plate. The apparent difficulty, in this description,
which Einstein felt so acutely, is the fact that, if in the experiment
the electron is recorded at one point A of the plate, then it is out of
the question of ever observing an effect of this electron at another point
(B), although the laws of ordinary wave propagation offer no room for a
correlation between two such events.
Einstein's attitude gave rise to ardent discussions within a small circle,
in which Ehrenfest, who through the years had been a close friend of us
both, took part in a most active and helpful way. Surely, we all recognised
that, in the above example, the situation presents no analogue to the application
of statistics in dealing with complicated mechanical systems, but rather
recalled the background for Einstein's own early conclusions about the
unidirection of individual radiation effects which contrasts so strongly
with a simple wave picture. The discussions, however, centred on the question
of whether the quantum-mechanical description exhausted the possibilities
of accounting for observable phenomena or, as Einstein maintained, the
analysis could be carried further and, especially, of whether a fuller
description of the phenomena could be obtained by bringing into consideration
the detailed balance of energy and momentum in individual processes.
To explain the trend of Einstein's arguments, it may be illustrative
here to consider some simple features of the momentum and energy balance
in connection with the location of a particle in space and time. For this
purpose, we shall examine the simple case of a particle penetrating through
a hole in a diaphragm without or with a shutter to open and close the hole,
as indicated in Figs. 2a and 2b, respectively. The equidistant parallel
lines to the left in the figures indicate the train of plane waves corresponding
to the state of motion of a particle which, before reaching the diaphragm,
has a momentum P related to the wave-number s by the second of equations
(1). In accordance with the diffraction of the waves when passing through
the hole, the state of motion of the particle to the right of the diaphragm
is represented by a spherical wave train with a suitably defined angular
aperture u and, in case of Fig. 2b, also with a limited radial extension.
Consequently, the description of this state involves a certain latitude
Dp in the momentum component of the particle parallel to the diaphragm
and, in the case of a diaphragm with a shutter, an additional latitude
DE of the kinetic energy.
Since a measure for the latitude Dq in location of the particle
in the plane of the diaphragm is given by the radius a of the hole,
and since u approx= (1/sa), we get, using (1), just Dp
approx= uP approx= (h/Dq), in accordance with the
indeterminacy relation (3). This result could, of course, also be obtained
directly by noticing that, due to the limited extension of the wave-field
at the place of the slit, the component of the wave-number parallel to
the plane of the diaphragm will involve a latitude Ds approx= (1/a) approx= (1/Dq).
Similarly, the spread of the frequencies of the harmonic components
in the limited wave-train in Fig. 2b is evidently Df approx= (1/Dt),
where t is the time interval during which the shutter leaves the
hole open and, thus, represents the latitude in time of the passage of
the particle through the diaphragm. From (1), we therefore get
DE . Dt approx= h,
(4)
again in accordance with the relation (3) for the two conjugated variables
E and t.
From the point of view of the laws of conservation, the origin of such
latitudes entering into the description of the state of the particle after
passing through the hole may be traced to the possibilities of momentum
and energy exchange with the diaphragm or the shutter. In the reference
system considered in Figs. 2a and 2b, the velocity of the diaphragm may
be disregarded and only a change of momentum Dp between the particle
and the diaphragm needs to be taken into consideration. The shutter, however,
which leaves the hole opened during the time t, moves with a considerable
velocity v approx= (a/Dt), and a momentum transfer
Dp involves therefore an energy exchange with the particle, amounting
to vDp approx= (1/Dt) . Dq . Dp approx=
(h/Dt), being just of the same order of magnitude as the
latitude DE given by (4) and, thus, allowing for momentum and energy
balance.
The problem raised by Einstein was now to what extent a control of the
momentum and energy transfer, involved in a location of the particle in
space and time, can be used for a further specification of the state of
the particle after passing through the hole. Here, it must be taken into
consideration that the position and the motion of the diaphragm and the
shutter have so far been assumed to be accurately co-ordinated with the
space-time reference frame. This assumption implies, in the description
of the state of these bodies, an essential latitude as to their momentum
and energy which need not, of course, noticeably affect the velocities,
if the diaphragm and the shutter are sufficiently heavy. However, as soon
as we want to know the momentum and energy of these parts of the measuring
arrangement with an accuracy sufficient to control the momentum and energy
exchange with the particle under investigation, we shall, in accordance
with the general indeterminacy relations, lose the possibility of their
accurate location in space and time. We have, therefore, to examine how
far this circumstance will affect the intended use of the whole arrangement
and, as we shall see, this crucial point clearly brings out the complementary
character of the phenomena.
Returning for a moment to the case of the simple arrangement indicated
in Fig. 1, it has so far not been specified to what use it is intended.
In fact, it is only on the assumption that the diaphragm and the plate
have well-defined positions in space that it is impossible, within the
frame of the quantum-mechanical formalism, to make more detailed predictions
as to the point
of the photographic plate where the particle will be recorded. If, however,
we admit a sufficiently large latitude in the knowledge of the position
of the diaphragm it should, in principle, be possible to control the momentum
transfer to the diaphragm and, thus, to make more detailed predictions
as to the direction of the electron path from the hole to the recording
point. As regards the quantum-mechanical description, we have to deal here
with a two-body system consisting of the diaphragm as well as of the particle,
and it is just with an explicit application of conservation laws to such
a system that we are concerned in the Compton effect where, for instance,
the observation of the recoil of the electron by means of a cloud chamber
allows us to predict in what direction the scattered photon will eventually
be observed.
The importance of considerations of this kind was, in the course of
the discussions, most interestingly illuminated by the examination of an
arrangement where between the diaphragm with the slit and the photographic
plate is inserted another diaphragm with two parallel slits, as is shown
in Fig. 3. If a parallel beam of electrons (or photons) falls from the
left on the first diaphragm, we shall, under usual conditions, observe
on the plate an interference pattern indicated by the shading of the photographic
plate shown in front view to the right of the figure. With intense beams,
this pattern is built up by the accumulation of a large number of individual
processes, each giving rise to a small spot on the photographic plate,
and the distribution of these spots follows a simple law derivable from
the wave analysis. The same distribution should also be found in the statistical
account of many experiments performed with beams so faint that in a single
exposure only one electron (or photon) will arrive at the photographic
plate at some spot shown in the figure as a small star. Since, now, as
indicated by the broken arrows, the momentum transferred to the first diaphragm
ought to be different if the electron was assumed to pass through the upper
or the lower slit in the second diaphragm, Einstein suggested that a control
of the momentum transfer would permit a closer analysis of the phenomenon
and, in particular, to decide through which of the two slits the electron
had passed before arriving at the plate.
A closer examination showed, however, that the suggested control of
the momentum transfer would involve a latitude in the knowledge of the
position of the diaphragm which would exclude the appearance of the interference
phenomena in question. In fact, if w is the small angle between
the conjectured paths of a particle passing through the upper or the lower
slit, the difference of momentum transfer in these two cases will, according
to (1), be equal to hsw and any control of the momentum of the diaphragm
with an accuracy sufficient to measure this difference will, due to the
indeterminacy relation, involve a minimum latitude of the position of the
diaphragm, comparable with 1/sw. If, as in the figure, the diaphragm
with the two slits is placed in the middle between the first diaphragm
and the photographic plate, it will be seen that the number of fringes
per unit length will be just equal to hsw and, since an uncertainty
in the position of the first diaphragm of the amount of 1/sw will
cause an equal uncertainty in the positions of the fringes, it follows
that no interference effect can appear. The same result is easily shown
to hold for any other placing of the second diaphragm between the first
diaphragm and the plate, and would also be obtained if, instead of the
first diaphragm, another of these three bodies were used for the control,
for the purpose suggested, of the momentum transfer.
This point is of great logical consequence, since it is only the circumstance
that we are presented with a choice of either tracing the path of
a particle or observing interference effects, which allows us to escape
from the paradoxical necessity of concluding that the behaviour of an electron
or a photon should depend on the presence of a slit in the diaphragm through
which it could be proved not to pass. We have here to do with a typical
example of how the complementary phenomena appear under mutually exclusive
experimental arrangements and are just faced with the impossibility, in
the analysis of quantum effects, of drawing any sharp separation between
an independent behaviour of atomic objects and their interaction with the
measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which
the phenomena occur.
Our talks about the attitude to be taken in face of a novel situation
as regards analysis and synthesis of experience touched naturally on many
aspects of philosophical thinking, but, in spite of all divergencies of
approach and opinion, a most humorous spirit animated the discussions.
On his side, Einstein mockingly asked us whether we could really believe
that the providential authorities took recourse to dice-playing (".
. . ob der liebe Gott würfelt"), to which I replied by
pointing at the great caution, already called for by ancient thinkers,
in ascribing attributes to Providence in every-day language. I remember
also how at the peak of the discussion Ehrenfest, in his affectionate manner
of teasing his friends, jokingly hinted at the apparent similarity between
Einstein's attitude and that of the opponents of relativity theory; but
instantly Ehrenfest added that he would not be able to find relief in his
own mind before concord with Einstein was reached.
Einstein's concern and criticism provided a most valuable incentive
for us all to re-examine the various aspects of the situation as regards
the description of atomic phenomena. To me it was a welcome stimulus to
clarify still further the role played by the measuring instruments and,
in order to bring into strong relief the mutually exclusive character of
the experimental conditions under which the complementary phenomena appear,
I tried in those days to sketch various apparatus in a pseudo-realistic
style of which the following figures are examples. Thus, for the study
of an interference phenomenon of the type indicated in Fig. 3, it suggests
itself to use an experimental arrangement like that shown in Fig. 4, where
the solid parts of the apparatus, serving as diaphragms and plateholder,
are firmly bolted to a common support.
In such an arrangement, where the knowledge of the relative positions
of the diaphragms and the photographic plate is secured by a rigid connection,
it is obviously impossible to control the momentum exchanged between the
particle and the separate parts of the apparatus. The only way in which,
in such an arrangement, we could insure that the particle passed through
one of the slits in the second diaphragm is to cover the other slit by
a lid, as indicated in the figure; but if the slit is covered, there is
of course no question of any interference phenomenon, and on the plate
we shall simply observe a continuous distribution as in the case of the
single fixed diaphragm in Fig. 1.
In the study of phenomena in the account of which we are dealing with
detailed momentum balance, certain parts of the whole device must naturally
be given the freedom to move independently of others. Such an apparatus
is sketched in Fig. 5, where a diaphragm with a slit is suspended by weak
springs from a solid yoke bolted to the support on which also other immobile
parts of the arrangement are to be fastened. The scale on the diaphragm
together with the pointer on the bearings of the yoke refer to such study
of the motion of the diaphragm, as may be required for an estimate of the
momentum transferred to it, permitting one to draw conclusions as to the
deflection suffered by the particle in passing through the slit. Since,
however, any reading of the scale, in whatever way performed, will involve
an uncontrollable change in the momentum of the diaphragm, there will always
be, in conformity with the indeterminacy principle, a reciprocal relationship
between our knowledge of the position of the slit and the accuracy of the
momentum control.
In the same semi-serious style, Fig. 6 represents a part of an arrangement
suited for the study of phenomena which, in contrast to those just discussed,
involve time coordination explicitly. It consists of a shutter rigidly
connected with a robust clock resting on the support which carries a diaphragm
and on which further parts of similar character, regulated by the same
clock-work or by other clocks standardised relatively to it, are also to
be fixed. The special aim of the figure is to underline that a clock is
a piece of machinery, the working of which can completely be accounted
for by ordinary mechanics and will be affected neither by reading of the
position of its hands nor by the interaction between its accessories and
an atomic particle. In securing the opening of the hole at a definite moment,
an apparatus of this type might, for instance, be used for an accurate
measurement of the time an electron or a photon takes to come from the
diaphragm to some other place, but evidently, it would leave no possibility
of controlling the energy transfer to the shutter with the aim of drawing
conclusions as to the energy of the particle which has passed through the
diaphragm.
If we are interested in such conclusions we must, of course, use an
arrangement where the shutter devices can no longer serve as accurate clocks,
but where the knowledge of the moment when the hole in the diaphragm is
open involves a latitude connected with the accuracy of the energy measurement
by the general relation (4).
The contemplation of such more or less practical arrangements and their
more or less fictitious use proved most instructive in directing attention
to essential features of the problems. The main point here is the distinction
between the objects under investigation and the measuring instruments
which serve to define, in classical terms the conditions under which the
phenomena appear. Incidentally, we may remark that, for the illustration
of the preceding considerations, it is not relevant that experiments involving
an accurate control of the momentum or energy transfer from atomic particles
to heavy bodies like diaphragms and shutters would be very difficult to
perform, if practicable at all. It is only decisive that, in contrast to
the proper measuring instruments, these bodies together with the particles
would in such a case constitute the system to which the quantum-mechanical
formalism has to be applied. As regards the specification of the conditions
for any well-defined application of the formalism, it is moreover essential
that the whole experimental arrangement be taken into account. In
fact, the introduction of any further piece of apparatus, like a mirror,
in the way of a particle might imply new interference effects essentially
influencing the predictions as regards the results to be eventually recorded.
The extent to which renunciation of the visualisation of atomic phenomena
is imposed upon us by the impossibility of their subdivision is strikingly
illustrated by the following example to which Einstein very early called
attention and often has reverted. If a semi-reflecting mirror is placed
in the way of a photon, leaving two possibilities for its direction of
propagation, the photon may either be recorded on one, and only one, of
two photographic plates situated at great distances in the two directions
in question, or else we may, by replacing the plates by mirrors, observe
effects exhibiting an interference between the two reflected wave-trains.
In any attempt of a pictorial representation of the behaviour of the photon
we would, thus, meet with the difficulty: to be obliged to say, on the
one hand, that the photon always chooses one of the two ways and,
on the other hand, that it behaves as if it had passed both ways.
It is just arguments of this kind which recall the impossibility of
subdividing quantum phenomena and reveal the ambiguity in ascribing customary
physical attributes to atomic objects. In particular, it must be realised
that besides in the account of the placing and timing of the instruments
forming the experimental arrangement all unambiguous use of space-time
concepts in the description of atomic phenomena is confined to the recording
of observations which refer to marks on a photographic plate or to similar
practically irreversible amplification effects like the building of a water
drop around an ion in a cloud-chamber. Although, of course, the existence
of the quantum of action is ultimately responsible for the properties of
the materials of which the measuring instruments are built and on which
the functioning of the recording devices depends, this circumstance is
not relevant for the problems of the adequacy and completeness of the quantum-mechanical
description in its aspects here discussed.
These problems were instructively commented upon from different sides
at the Solvay meeting, in the same session where Einstein raised his general
objections. On that occasion an interesting discussion arose also about
how to speak of the appearance of phenomena for which only predictions
of statistical character can be made. The question was whether, as to the
occurrence of individual effects, we should adopt a terminology proposed
by Dirac, that we were concerned with a choice on the part of "nature"
or, as suggested by Heisenberg, we should say that we have to do with a
choice on the part of the "observer" constructing the measuring
instruments and reading their recording. Any such terminology would, however,
appear dubious since, on the one hand, it is hardly reasonable to endow
nature with volition in the ordinary sense, while, on the other hand, it
is certainly not possible for the observer to influence the events which
may appear under the conditions he has arranged. To my mind, there is no
other alternative than to admit that, in this field of experience, we are
dealing with individual phenomena and that our possibilities of handling
the measuring instruments allow us only to make a choice between the different
complementary types of phenomena we want to study.
The epistemological problems touched upon here were more explicitly
dealt with in my contribution to the issue of Naturunssenschaften
in celebration of Planck's 70th birthday in 1929. In this article, a comparison
was also made between the lesson derived from the discovery of the universal
quantum of action and the development which has followed the discovery
of the finite velocity of light and which, through Einstein's pioneer work,
has so greatly clarified basic principles of natural philosophy. In relativity
theory, the emphasis on the dependence of all phenomena on the reference
frame opened quite new ways of tracing general physical laws of unparalleled
scope. In quantum theory, it was argued, the logical comprehension of hitherto
unsuspected fundamental regularities governing atomic phenomena has demanded
the recognition that no sharp separation can be made between an independent
behaviour of the objects and their interaction with the measuring instruments
which define the reference frame.
In this respect, quantum theory presents us with a novel situation in
physical science, but attention was called to the very close analogy with
the situation as regards analysis and synthesis of experience, which we
meet in many other fields of human knowledge and interest. As is well known,
many of the difficulties in psychology originate in the different placing
of the separation lines between object and subject in the analysis of various
aspects of psychical experience. Actually, words like "thoughts"
and "sentiments," equally indispensable to illustrate the variety
and scope of conscious life, are used in a similar complementary way as
are space-time co-ordination and dynamical conservation laws in atomic
physics. A precise formulation of such analogies involves, of course, intricacies
of terminology, and the writer's position is perhaps best indicated in
a passage in the article, hinting at the mutually exclusive relationship
which will always exist between the practical use of any word and attempts
at its strict definition. The principal aim, however, of these considerations,
which were not least inspired by the hope of influencing Einstein's attitude,
was to point to perspectives of bringing general epistemological problems
into relief by means of a lesson derived from the study of new, but fundamentally
simple physical experience.
At the next meeting with Einstein at the Solvay Conference in 1930,
our discussions took quite a dramatic turn. As an objection to the view
that a control of the interchange of momentum and energy between the objects
and the measuring instruments was excluded if these instruments should
serve their purpose of defining the space-time frame of the phenomena Einstein
brought forward the argument that such control should be possible when
the exigencies of relativity theory were taken into consideration. In particular,
the general relationship between energy and mass, expressed in Einstein's
famous formula
E = mc2,
(5)
should allow, by means of simple weighing, to measure the total energy
of any system and, thus, in principle to control the energy transferred
to it when it interacts with an atomic object.
As an arrangement suited for such purpose, Einstein proposed the device
indicated in Fig. 7, consisting of a box with a hole in its side, which
could be opened or closed by a shutter moved by means of a clock-work within
the box.
If, in the beginning, the box contained a certain amount of radiation
and the clock was set to open the shutter for a very short interval at
a chosen time, it could be achieved that a single photon was released through
the hole at a moment known with as great accuracy as desired. Moreover,
it would apparently also be possible, by weighing the whole box before
and after this event, to measure the energy of the photon with any accuracy
wanted, in definite contradiction to the reciprocal indeterminacy of time
and energy quantities in quantum mechanics.
This argument amounted to a serious challenge and gave rise to a thorough
examination of the whole problem. At the outcome of the discussion, to
which Einstein himself contributed effectively, it became clear, however,
that this argument could not be upheld. In fact, in the consideration of
the problem, it was found necessary to look closer into the consequences
of the identification of inertial and gravitational mass implied in the
application of relation (5). Especially, it was essential to take into
account the relationship between the rate of a clock and its position in
a gravitational field well known from the red-shift of the lines in the
sun's spectrum following from Einstein's principle of equivalence between
gravity effects and the phenomena observed in accelerated reference frames.
Our discussion concentrated on the possible application of an apparatus
incorporating Einstein's device and drawn in Fig. 8 in the same pseudo-realistic
style as some of the preceding figures. The box, of which a section is
shown in order to exhibit its interior, is suspended in a spring-balance
and is furnished with a pointer to read its position on a scale fixed to
the balance support. The weighing of the box may thus be performed with
any given accuracy Dm by adjusting the balance to its zero position by means of suitable loads. The essential point is now that any determination
of this position with a given accuracy Dq will involve a minimum
latitude Dp in the control of the momentum of the box connected
with Dq by the relation (3). This latitude must obviously again
be smaller than the total impulse which, during the whole interval T
of the balancing procedure, can be given by the gravitational field to
a body with a mass Dm, or
Dp approx= h / Dq T . g . Dm,
(6)
where g is the gravity constant. The greater the accuracy of
the reading q of the pointer, the longer must, consequently, be
the balancing interval T, if a given accuracy Dm of the weighing of the box with its content shall be obtained.
Now, according to general relativity theory, a clock, when displaced
in the direction of the gravitational force by an amount of Dq,
will change its rate in such a way that its reading
in the course of a time interval T will differ by an amount DT
given by the relation
DT / T = (1/c2) gDq,
(7)
By comparing (6) and (7) we see, therefore, that after the weighing
procedure there will in our knowledge of the adjustment of the clock be
a latitude
DT > h / (c2 Dm) ,
Together with the formula (5), this relation again leads to
DT . DE > h,
in accordance with the indeterminacy principle. Consequently,
a use of the apparatus as a means of accurately measuring the
energy of the photon will prevent us from controlling the moment
of its escape.
The discussion, so illustrative of the power and consistency of
relativistic arguments, thus emphasised once more the necessity
of distinguishing, in the study of atomic phenomena, between the
proper measuring instruments which serve to define the reference
frame and those parts which are to be regarded as objects under
investigation and in the account of which quantum effects cannot
be disregarded. Notwithstanding the most suggestive confirmation
of the soundness and wide scope of the quantum-mechanical way
of description, Einstein nevertheless, in a following conversation
with me, expressed a feeling of disquietude as regards the apparent
lack of firmly laid down principles for the explanation of nature,
in which all could agree. From my viewpoint, however, I could
only answer that, in dealing with the task of bringing order into
an entirely new field of experience, we could hardly trust in
any accustomed principles, however broad, apart from the demand
of avoiding logical inconsistencies and, in this respect, the
mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics should surely meet
all requirements.
The Solvay meeting in 1930 was the last occasion where, in common
discussions with Einstein, we could benefit from the stimulating
and mediating influence of Ehrenfest, but shortly before his deeply
deplored death in 1933 he told me that Einstein was far from satisfied
and with his usual acuteness had discerned new aspects of the
situation which strengthened his critical attitude. In fact, by
further examining the possibilities for the application of a balance
arrangement, Einstein had perceived alternative procedures which,
even if they did not allow the use he originally intended, might
seem to enhance the paradoxes beyond the possibilities of logical
solution. Thus, Einstein had pointed out that, after a preliminary
weighing of the box with the clock and the subsequent escape of
the photon, one was still left with the choice of either repeating
the weighing or opening the box and comparing the reading of the
clock with the standard time scale. Consequently, we are at this
stage still free to choose whether we want to draw conclusions
either about the energy of the photon or about the moment when
it left the box. Without in any way interfering with the photon
between its escape and its later interaction with other suitable
measuring instruments, we are, thus, able to make accurate predictions
pertaining either to the moment of its arrival or to
the amount of energy liberated by its absorption. Since, however,
according to the quantum-mechanical formalism, the specification
of the state of an isolated particle cannot involve both a well-defined
connection with the time scale and an accurate fixation of the
energy, it might thus appear as if this formalism did not offer
the means of an adequate description.
Once more Einstein's searching spirit had elicited a peculiar
aspect of the situation in quantum theory, which in a most striking
manner illustrated how far we have here transcended customary
explanation of natural phenomena. Still, I could not agree with
the trend of his remarks as reported by Ehrenfest. In my opinion,
there could be no other way to deem a logically consistent mathematical
formalism as inadequate than by demonstrating the departure of
its consequences from experience or by proving that its predictions
did not exhaust the possibilities of observation, and Einstein's
argumentation could be directed to neither of these ends. In fact,
we must realize that in the problem in question we are not dealing
with a single specified experimental arrangement, but are
referring to two different, mutually exclusive arrangements.
In the one, the balance together with another piece of apparatus
like a spectrometer is used for the study of the energy transfer
by a photon; in the other, a shutter regulated by a standardised
clock together with another apparatus of similar kind, accurately
timed relatively to the clock, is used for the study of the time
of propagation of a photon over a given distance. In both these
cases, as also assumed by Einstein, the observable effects are
expected to be in complete conformity with the predictions of
the theory.
The problem again emphasises the necessity of considering the
whole experimental arrangement, the specification of which is
imperative for any well-defined application of the quantum-mechanical
formalism. Incidentally, it may be added that paradoxes of the
kind contemplated by Einstein are encountered also in such simple
arrangements as sketched in Fig. 5. In fact, after a preliminary
measurement of the momentum of the diaphragm, we are in principle
offered the choice, when an electron or photon has passed through
the slit, either to repeat the momentum measurement or to control
the position of the diaphragm and, thus, to make predictions pertaining
to alternative subsequent observations. It may also be added that
it obviously can make no difference as regards observable effects
obtainable by a definite experimental arrangement, whether our
plans of constructing or handling the instruments are fixed beforehand
or whether we prefer to postpone the completion of our planning
until a later moment when the particle is already on its way from
one instrument to another.
In the quantum-mechanical description our freedom of constructing
and handling the experimental arrangement finds its proper expression
in the possibility of choosing the classically defined parameters
entering in any proper application of the formalism. Indeed, in
all such respects quantum mechanics exhibits a correspondence
with the state of affairs familiar from classical physics, which
is as close as possible when considering the individuality inherent
in the quantum phenomena. Just in helping to bring out this point
so clearly, Einstein's concern had therefore again been a most
welcome incitement to explore the essential aspects of the situation.
The next Solvay meeting in 1933 was devoted to the problems of
the structure and properties of atomic nuclei, in which field
such great advances were made just in that period due to the experimental
discoveries as well as to new fruitful applications of quantum
mechanics. It need in this connection hardly be recalled that
just the evidence obtained by the study of artificial nuclear
transformations gave a most direct test of Einstein's fundamental
law regarding the equivalence of mass and energy, which was to
prove an evermore important guide for researches in nuclear physics.
It may also be mentioned how Einstein's intuitive recognition
of the intimate relationship between the law of radioactive transformations
and the probability rules governing individual radiation effects
was confirmed by the quantum-mechanical explanation of spontaneous
nuclear disintegrations. In fact, we are here dealing with a typical
example of the statistical mode of description, and the complementary
relationship between energy-momentum conservation and time-space
co-ordination is most strikingly exhibited in the well-known paradox
of particle penetration through potential barriers.
Einstein himself did not attend this meeting, which took place
at a time darkened by the tragic developments in the political
world which were to influence his fate so deeply and add so greatly
to his burdens in the service of humanity. A few months earlier,
on a visit to Princeton where Einstein was then guest of the newly
founded Institute for Advanced Study to which he soon after became
permanently attached, I had, however, opportunity to talk with
him again about the epistemological aspects of atomic physics,
but the difference between our ways of approach and expression
still presented obstacles to mutual understanding. While, so far,
relatively few persons had taken part in the discussions reported
in this article, Einstein's critical attitude towards the views
on quantum theory adhered to by many physicists was soon after
brought to public attention through a paper with the title Can
Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered
Complete?, published in 1935 by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen.
The argumentation in this paper is based on a criterion which
the authors express in the following sentence: "If, without
in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty
(i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical
quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding
to this physical quantity." By an elegant exposition of the
consequences of the quantum-mechanical formalism as regards the
representation of a state of a system, consisting of two parts
which have been in interaction for a limited time interval, it
is next shown that different quantities, the fixation of which
cannot be combined in the representation of one of the partial
systems, can nevertheless be predicted by measurements pertaining
to the other partial system. According to their criterion, the
authors therefore conclude that quantum mechanics does not "provide
a complete description of the physical reality," and they
express their belief that it should be possible to develop a more
adequate account of the phenomena.
Due to the lucidity and apparently incontestable character of
the argument, the paper of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen created
a stir among physicists and has played a large role in general
philosophical discussion. Certainly the issue is of a very subtle
character and suited to emphasise how far, in quantum theory,
we are beyond the reach of pictorial visualisation. It will be
seen, however, that we are here dealing with problems of just
the same kind as those raised by Einstein in previous discussions,
and, in an article which appeared a few months later, I tried
to show that from the point of view of complementarity the apparent
inconsistencies were completely removed. The trend of the argumentation
was in substance the same as that exposed in the foregoing pages,
but the aim of recalling the way in which the situation was discussed
at that time may be an apology for citing certain passages from
my article.
Thus, after referring to the conclusions derived by Einstein,
Podolsky and Rosen on the basis of their criterion, I wrote:
Such an argumentation, how ever, would hardly seem suited to affect
the soundness of quantum-mechanical description, which is based
on a coherent mathematical formalism covering automatically any
procedure of measurement like that indicated. The apparent contradiction
in fact discloses only an essential inadequacy of the customary
viewpoint of natural philosophy for a rational account of physical
phenomena of the type with which we are concerned in quantum mechanics.
Indeed the finite interaction between object and measuring
agencies conditioned by the very existence of the quantum
of action entails - because of the impossibility of controlling
the reaction of the object on the measuring instruments, if these
are to serve their purpose - the necessity of a final renunciation
of the classical ideal of causality and a radical revision of
our attitude towards the problem of physical reality. In fact,
as we shall see, a criterion of reality like that proposed by
the named authors contains - however cautious its formulation
may appear - an essential ambiguity when it is applied to the
actual problems with which we are here concerned.
As regards the special problem treated by Einstein, Podolsky and
Rosen, it was next shown that the consequences of the formalism
as regards the representation of the state of a system consisting
of two interacting atomic objects correspond to the simple arguments
mentioned in the preceding in connection with the discussion of
the experimental arrangements suited for the study of complementary
phenomena. In fact, although any pair q and p, of
conjugate space and momentum variables obeys the rule of non-commutative
multiplication expressed by (2), and can thus only be fixed with
reciprocal latitudes given by (3), the difference q1
- q2 between
two space-co-ordinates referring to the constituents of the system
will commute with the sum p1 + p2
of the corresponding
momentum components, as follows directly from the commutability
of q1 with p2 and q2 with p1. Both q1 - q2 and p1 + p2 can, therefore,
be accurately fixed in a state of the complex system and, consequently,
we can predict the values of either q1 or p1 if either q2 or p2 respectively, are determined by
direct measurements. If, for the two parts of the system, we take
a particle and a diaphragm, like that sketched in Fig. 5, we see
that the possibilities of specifying the state of the particle
by measurements on the diaphragm just correspond to the situation
described above, where it was mentioned that, after the particle
has passed through the diaphragm, we have in principle the choice
of measuring either the position of the diaphragm or its momentum
and, in each case, to make predictions as to subsequent observations
pertaining to the particle. As repeatedly stressed, the principal
point is here that such measurements demand mutually exclusive
experimental arrangements.
The argumentation of the article was summarised. in the following
passage:
From our point of new we now see that the wording of the above-mentioned
criterion of physical reality proposed by Einstein, Podolsky,
and Rosen contains an ambiguity as regards the meaning of the
expression ' without in any way disturbing a system.' Of course
there is in a case like that just considered no question of a
mechanical disturbance of the system under investigation during
the last critical stage of the measuring procedure. But even at
this stage there is essentially the question of an influence
on the very conditions which define the possible types of predictions
regarding the future behaviour of the system. Since these
conditions constitute an inherent element of the description of
any phenomenon to which the term "physical reality"
can be properly attached, we see that the argumentation of the
mentioned authors does not justify their conclusion that quantum-mechanical
description is essentially incomplete. On the contrary, this description,
as appears from the preceding discussion, may be characterised
as a rational utilisation of all possibilities of unambiguous
interpretation of measurements, compatible with the finite and
uncontrollable interaction between the objects and the measuring
instruments in the field of quantum theory. In fact, it is only
the mutual exclusion of any two experimental procedures, permitting
the unambiguous definition of complementary physical quantities,
which provides room for new physical laws, the coexistence of
which might at first sight appear irreconcilable with the basic
principles of science. It is just this entirely new situation
as regards the description of physical phenomena that the notion
of complementarity aims at characterising.
Rereading these passages, I am deeply aware of the inefficiency
of expression which must have made it very difficult to appreciate
the trend of the argumentation aiming to bring out the essential
ambiguity involved in a reference to physical attributes of objects
when dealing with phenomena where no sharp distinction can be
made between the behaviour of the objects themselves and their
interaction with the measuring instruments. I hope, however, that
the present account of the discussions with Einstein in the foregoing
years, which contributed so greatly to make us familiar with the
situation in quantum physics, may give a clearer impression of
the necessity of a radical revision of basic principles for physical
explanation in order to restore logical order in this field of
experience.
Einstein's own views at that time are presented in an article
Physics and Reality, published in 1936 in the Journal
of the Franklin Institute. Starting from a most illuminating
exposition of the gradual development of the fundamental principles
in the theories of classical physics and their relation to the
problem of physical reality, Einstein here argues that the quantum-mechanical
description is to be considered merely as a means of accounting
for the average behaviour of a large number of atomic systems
and his attitude to the belief that it should offer an exhaustive
description of the individual phenomena is expressed in the following
words: "To believe this is logically possible without contradiction;
but it is so very contrary to my scientific instinct that I cannot
forego the search for a more complete conception."
Even if such an attitude might seem well-balanced in itself, it
nevertheless implies a rejection of the whole argumentation exposed
in the preceding, aiming to show that, in quantum mechanics, we
are not dealing with an arbitrary renunciation of a more detailed
analysis of atomic phenomena, but with a recognition that such
an analysis is in principle excluded. The peculiar individuality
of the quantum effects presents us, as regards the comprehension
of well-defined evidence, with a novel situation unforeseen in
classical physics and irreconcilable with conventional ideas suited
for our orientation and adjustment to ordinary experience. It
is in this respect that quantum theory has called for a renewed
revision of the foundation for the unambiguous use of elementary
concepts, as a further step in the development which, since the
advent of relativity theory, has been so characteristic of modern
science.
In the following years, the more philosophical aspects of the
situation in atomic physics aroused the interest of even larger
circles and were, in particular, discussed at the Second International
Congress for the Unity of Science in Copenhagen in July 1936.
In a lecture on this occasion, I tried especially to stress the
analogy in epistemological respects between the limitation imposed
on the causal description in atomic physics and situations met
with in other fields of knowledge. A principal purpose of such
parallels was to call attention to the necessity in many domains
of general human interest to face problems of a similar kind as
those which had arisen in quantum theory and thereby to give a
more familiar background for the apparently extravagant way of
expression which physicists have developed to cope with their
acute difficulties.
Besides the complementary features conspicuous in psychology and
already touched upon, examples of such relationships can also
be traced in biology, especially as regards the comparison between
mechanistic and vitalistic viewpoints. Just with respect to the
observational problem, this last question had previously been
the subject of an address to the International Congress on Light
Therapy held in Copenhagen in 1932, where it was incidentally
pointed out that even the psycho-physical parallelism as envisaged
by Leibniz and Spinoza has obtained a wider scope through the
development of atomic physics, which forces us to an attitude
towards the problem of explanation recalling ancient wisdom, that
when searching for harmony in life one must never forget that
in the drama of existence we are ourselves both actors and spectators.
Utterances of this kind would naturally in many minds evoke the
impression of an underlying mysticism foreign to the spirit of
science at the above mentioned Congress in 1936 I therefore tried
to clear up such misunderstandings and to explain that the only
question was an endeavour to clarify the conditions, in each field
of knowledge, for the analysis and synthesis of experience. Yet,
I am afraid that I had in this respect only little success in
convincing my listeners, for whom the dissent among the physicists
themselves was naturally a cause of scepticism as to the necessity
of going so far in renouncing customary demands as regards the
explanation of natural phenomena. Not least through a new discussion
with Einstein in Princeton in 1937, where we did not get beyond
a humorous contest concerning which side Spinoza would have taken
if he had lived to see the development of our days, I was strongly
reminded of the importance of utmost caution in all questions
of terminology and dialectics.
These aspects of the situation were especially discussed at a
meeting in Warsaw in 1938, arranged by the International Institute
of Intellectual Co-operation of the League of Nations. The preceding
years had seen great progress in quantum physics due to a number
of fundamental discoveries regarding the constitution and properties
of atomic nuclei as well as due to important developments of the
mathematical formalism taking the requirements of relativity theory
into account. In the last respect, Dirac's ingenious quantum theory
of the electron offered a most striking illustration of the power
and fertility of the general quantum-mechanical way of description.
In the phenomena of creation and annihilation of electron pairs
we have in fact to do with new fundamental features of atomicity,
which are intimately connected with the non-classical aspects
of quantum statistics expressed in the exclusion principle, and
which have demanded a still more far-reaching renunciation of
explanation in terms of a pictorial representation.
Meanwhile, the discussion of the epistemological problems in atomic
physics attracted as much attention as ever and, in commenting
on Einstein's views as regards the incompleteness of the quantum-mechanical
mode of description, I entered more directly on questions of terminology.
In this connection I warned especially against phrases, often
found in the physical literature, such as "disturbing of
phenomena by observation" or "creating physical attributes
to atomic objects by measurements." Such phrases, which may
serve to remind of the apparent paradoxes in quantum theory, are
at the same time apt to cause confusion, since words like "phenomena"
and "observations," just as "attributes" and
"measurements," are used in a way hardly compatible
with common language and practical definition.
As a more appropriate way of expression, I advocated the application
of the word phenomenon exclusively to refer to the observations
obtained under specified circumstances, including an account of
the whole experimental arrangement. In such terminology, the observational
problem is free of any special intricacy since, in actual experiments,
all observations are expressed by unambiguous statements referring,
for instance, to the registration of the point at which an electron
arrives at a photographic plate. Moreover, speaking in such a
way is just suited to emphasise that the appropriate physical
interpretation of the symbolic quantum-mechanical formalism amounts
only to predictions, of determinate or statistical character,
pertaining to individual phenomena appearing under conditions
defined by classical physical concepts.
Notwithstanding all differences between the physical problems
which have given rise to the development of relativity theory
and quantum theory, respectively, a comparison of purely logical
aspects of relativistic and complementary argumentation reveals
striking similarities as regards the renunciation of the absolute
significance of conventional physical attributes of objects. Also,
the neglect of the atomic constitution of the measuring instruments
themselves, in the account of actual experience, is equally characteristic
of the applications of relativity and quantum theory. Thus, the
smallness of the quantum of action compared with the actions involved
in usual experience, including the arranging and handling of physical
apparatus, is as essential in atomic physics as is the enormous
number of atoms composing the world in the general theory of relativity
which, as often pointed out, demands that dimensions of apparatus
for measuring angles can be made small compared with the radius
of curvature of space.
In the Warsaw lecture, I commented upon the use of not directly
visualisable symbolism in relativity and quantum theory in the
following way:
Even the formalisms, which in both theories within their scope
offer adequate means of comprehending all conceivable experience,
exhibit deep-going analogies. In fact, the astounding simplicity
of the generalisation of classical physical theories, which are
obtained by the use of multidimensional geometry and non-commutative
algebra, respectively, rests in both cases essentially on the
introduction of the conventional symbol sqrt(-1). The abstract
character of the formalisms concerned is indeed, on closer examination,
as typical of relativity theory as it is of quantum mechanics,
and it is in this-respect purely a matter of tradition if the
former theory is considered as a completion of classical physics
rather than as a first fundamental step in the thoroughgoing revision
of our conceptual means of comparing observations, which the modern
development of physics has forced upon us.
It is, of course, true that in atomic physics we are confronted
with a number of unsolved fundamental problems, especially as
regards the intimate relationship between the elementary unit
of electric charge and the universal quantum of action; but these
problems are no more connected with the epistemological points
here discussed than is the adequacy of relativistic argumentation
with the issue of thus far unsolved problems of cosmology. Both
in relativity and in quantum theory we are concerned with new
aspects of scientific analysis and synthesis and, in this connection,
it is interesting to note that, even in the great epoch of critical
philosophy in the former century, there was only question to what
extent a priori arguments could be given for the adequacy
of space-time co-ordination and causal connection of experience,
but never question of rational generalisations or inherent limitations
of such categories of human thinking.
Although in more recent years I have had several occasions of
meeting Einstein, the continued discussions, from which I always
have received new impulses, have so far not led to a common view
about the epistemological problems in atomic physics, and our
opposing views are perhaps most clearly stated in a recent issue
of Dialectica bringing a general discussion of these problems.
Realising, however, the many obstacles for mutual understanding
as regards a matter where approach and background must influence
everyone's attitude, I have welcomed this opportunity of a broader
exposition of the development by which, to my mind, a veritable
crisis in physical science has been overcome. The lesson we have
hereby received would seem to have brought us a decisive step
further in the never-ending struggle for harmony between content
and form, and taught us once again that no content can be grasped
without a formal frame and that any form, however useful it has
hitherto proved, may be found to be too narrow to comprehend new
experience.
Surely, in a situation like this, where it has been difficult
to reach mutual understanding not only between philosophers and
physicists but even between physicists of different schools, the
difficulties have their root not seldom in the preference for
a certain use of language suggesting itself from the different
lines of approach. In the Institute in Copenhagen, where through
those years a number of young physicists from various countries
came together for discussions, we used, when in trouble, often
to comfort ourselves with jokes, among them the old saying of
the two kinds of truth. To the one kind belong statements so simple
and clear that the opposite assertion obviously could not be defended.
The other kind, the so-called "deep truths," are statements
in which the opposite also contains deep truth. Now, the development
in a new field will usually pass through stages in which chaos
becomes gradually replaced by order; but it is not least in the
intermediate stage where deep truth prevails that the work is
really exciting and inspires the imagination to search for a firmer
hold. For such endeavours of seeking the proper balance between
seriousness and humour, Einstein's own personality stands as a
great example and, when expressing my belief that through a singularly
fruitful co-operation of a whole generation of physicists we are
nearing the goal where logical order to a large extent allows
us to avoid deep truth, I hope that it will be taken in his spirit
and may serve as an apology for several utterances in the preceding
pages.
The discussions with Einstein which have formed the theme of this
article have extended over many years which have witnessed great
progress in the field of atomic physics. Whether our actual meetings
have been of short or long duration, they have always left a deep
and lasting impression on my mind, and when writing this report
I have, so-to-say, been arguing with Einstein all the time even
when entering on topics apparently far removed from the special
problems under debate at our meetings. As regards the account
of the conversations I am, of course, aware that I am relying
only on my own memory, just as I am prepared for the possibility
that many features of the development of quantum theory, in which
Einstein has played so large a part, may appear to himself in
a different light. I trust, however, that I have not failed in
conveying a proper impression of how much it has meant to me to
be able to benefit from the inspiration which we all derive from
every contact with Einstein.
Further Reading:
Einstein's Reply |
Einstein Archive
Biography of Niels Bohr |
Biographies of various physicists
Werner Heisenberg on History of Quantum Theory |
Percy Bridgman on Operationalism |
Lenin on Revolution in Natural Science |
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn |
The Ethic of Knowledge and the Socialist Ideal, Jacques Monod |
Against Method, Paul Feyerabend
Hegel references on Science
The Crisis in Modern Physics |
Crisis in Modern Physics
Positivism,
Science, Theory & Practice, Matter,
Contradiction,
Nature
Philosophy Archive @ marxists.org
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.2005.05.natfhe | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h4>NATFHE conference:</h4>
<h1>Defend the members, safeguard union democracy</h1>
<h3>(May 2005)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>The Socialist</strong>, No. 394, 26 May 2005.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<table width="80%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" align="center">
<tbody><tr>
<td>
<p class="fst"><strong>THIS YEAR’S conference of the lecturers’ union NATFHE
takes place at the same time as the continuing employers’
offensive in both further and higher education (FE and HE).</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<hr class="section" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">In Wales talks between the employers and trade unions in FE
recently broke down as a result of the employers walking from the
negotiating table. NATFHE in Wales is a left-led union and the
employers were angered at the union’s position on its proposals on
part-time teaching staff and the union’s opposition to employer
proposals on progression on the new pay scales.</p>
<p>In England, a full two years after a national pay agreement on
pay, only 25% of FE colleges have implemented it in full.</p>
<p>In Southampton College the management response is to produce a new
contract based on performance-related pay, and threaten members with
the sack if they do not sign up to it! In HE similar bullying has
been employed in London Metropolitan University.</p>
<p>In Wales NATFHE has given the employers a deadline of 1 August to
return to the negotiating table and implement the part-timers’
agreement, otherwise members will be balloted for industrial action
from September.</p>
<p>In both FE and HE when our members strike, employers usually
deduct pay at more than one day for each day out, with the ridiculous
outcome of a NATFHE member being on strike for three weeks actually
owing the employer money! Conference motions and emergency motions
committing the union to sustentation (strike pay) of £50 per day
must be supported.</p>
<p>More than this, Conference must unequivocally support any section
of our membership that takes strike action to confront the employers’
offensive. For far too long NATFHE has allowed its members to be
picked off college by college and university by university.</p>
<p>Conference must find a way around the obstacles placed by the
incorporation (privatisation) of colleges and universities and the
anti-union laws to ensure a united struggle against the employers.</p>
<p>Conference will, however, be dominated by an internal issue, the
proposed merger with the Association of University Teachers. In
principle, nobody can actually oppose the merger or the prospect of
one union representing all who teach in post-school education.
However, it would seem that some supporters are so intent on merger,
at the expense of a proper discussion on the proposed constitution
and safeguarding democracy and accountability, that they are not even
prepared to have the issue properly aired at this Conference.</p>
<p>Conference must oppose this and support the emergency motions on
these matters from Wales, Yorkshire and Humberside and Northern
Regions.</p>
<hr class="section" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst"><strong>Andrew Price was a national executive (NEC) member for FE Wales
and a Welsh lay pay negotiator.</strong></p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 6 November 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
NATFHE conference:
Defend the members, safeguard union democracy
(May 2005)
From The Socialist, No. 394, 26 May 2005.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
THIS YEAR’S conference of the lecturers’ union NATFHE
takes place at the same time as the continuing employers’
offensive in both further and higher education (FE and HE).
In Wales talks between the employers and trade unions in FE
recently broke down as a result of the employers walking from the
negotiating table. NATFHE in Wales is a left-led union and the
employers were angered at the union’s position on its proposals on
part-time teaching staff and the union’s opposition to employer
proposals on progression on the new pay scales.
In England, a full two years after a national pay agreement on
pay, only 25% of FE colleges have implemented it in full.
In Southampton College the management response is to produce a new
contract based on performance-related pay, and threaten members with
the sack if they do not sign up to it! In HE similar bullying has
been employed in London Metropolitan University.
In Wales NATFHE has given the employers a deadline of 1 August to
return to the negotiating table and implement the part-timers’
agreement, otherwise members will be balloted for industrial action
from September.
In both FE and HE when our members strike, employers usually
deduct pay at more than one day for each day out, with the ridiculous
outcome of a NATFHE member being on strike for three weeks actually
owing the employer money! Conference motions and emergency motions
committing the union to sustentation (strike pay) of £50 per day
must be supported.
More than this, Conference must unequivocally support any section
of our membership that takes strike action to confront the employers’
offensive. For far too long NATFHE has allowed its members to be
picked off college by college and university by university.
Conference must find a way around the obstacles placed by the
incorporation (privatisation) of colleges and universities and the
anti-union laws to ensure a united struggle against the employers.
Conference will, however, be dominated by an internal issue, the
proposed merger with the Association of University Teachers. In
principle, nobody can actually oppose the merger or the prospect of
one union representing all who teach in post-school education.
However, it would seem that some supporters are so intent on merger,
at the expense of a proper discussion on the proposed constitution
and safeguarding democracy and accountability, that they are not even
prepared to have the issue properly aired at this Conference.
Conference must oppose this and support the emergency motions on
these matters from Wales, Yorkshire and Humberside and Northern
Regions.
Andrew Price was a national executive (NEC) member for FE Wales
and a Welsh lay pay negotiator.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 6 November 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.1985.07.educating | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h1>Educating Glamorgan’s Labour Council</h1>
<h3>(July 1985)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>Militant</strong>, No. 758, 19 July 1985, p. 15.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst">THE BEST result for Labour in the whole of Britain in the May
elections came in South Glamorgan. One of the main planks of the
party manifesto was the policy of no compulsory redundancies, which
the Labour-controlled authority had upheld between 1981 and 1985.</p>
<p>National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education
(NATFHE) members in South Glamorgan were therefore horrified to hear,
on 9 July, that the county council intended to proceed with ten
compulsory redundancies among the teachers at the South Glamorgan
Institute of Higher Education.</p>
<p>Horror turned to seething anger when the full story emerged.</p>
<p>Labour councillors had been discussing these policies with
education officials for a month without informing the college
lecturer’s union. Clearly, Labour councillors believed that
delaying announcements until colleges were breaking up would defuse
trade union action.</p>
<p>The Labour councillors had, however, grossly miscalculated. Our
members at the South Glamorgan Institute went on strike. On Tuesday
10 July over 150 took part in a lobby of the education committee.</p>
<p>To their shame the Labour councillors, to the obvious delight of
the Tories, recommended that the ten redundancies take place.</p>
<p>On Thursday 19 July a similar number of council workers lobbied
South Glamorgan Labour Party’s monthly meeting. To their credit the
officers allowed any council worker who was a party member the right
to attend and speak at the meeting.</p>
<p>An emergency resolution upholding the policy of no compulsory
redundancies was passed overwhelmingly (with a number of Labour
councillors abstaining).</p>
<p>Within 24 hours council leader Bob Morgan announced that the
redundancy notices were to be withdrawn.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 14 November 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
Educating Glamorgan’s Labour Council
(July 1985)
From Militant, No. 758, 19 July 1985, p. 15.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
THE BEST result for Labour in the whole of Britain in the May
elections came in South Glamorgan. One of the main planks of the
party manifesto was the policy of no compulsory redundancies, which
the Labour-controlled authority had upheld between 1981 and 1985.
National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education
(NATFHE) members in South Glamorgan were therefore horrified to hear,
on 9 July, that the county council intended to proceed with ten
compulsory redundancies among the teachers at the South Glamorgan
Institute of Higher Education.
Horror turned to seething anger when the full story emerged.
Labour councillors had been discussing these policies with
education officials for a month without informing the college
lecturer’s union. Clearly, Labour councillors believed that
delaying announcements until colleges were breaking up would defuse
trade union action.
The Labour councillors had, however, grossly miscalculated. Our
members at the South Glamorgan Institute went on strike. On Tuesday
10 July over 150 took part in a lobby of the education committee.
To their shame the Labour councillors, to the obvious delight of
the Tories, recommended that the ten redundancies take place.
On Thursday 19 July a similar number of council workers lobbied
South Glamorgan Labour Party’s monthly meeting. To their credit the
officers allowed any council worker who was a party member the right
to attend and speak at the meeting.
An emergency resolution upholding the policy of no compulsory
redundancies was passed overwhelmingly (with a number of Labour
councillors abstaining).
Within 24 hours council leader Bob Morgan announced that the
redundancy notices were to be withdrawn.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 14 November 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.1977.01.sister | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h1>Nye Bevan’s Sister Opposes Witch Hunt</h1>
<h3>(January 1977)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>Militant</strong>, No. 343, 18 January 1977, p. 10.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst">On Saturday February 5th over 200 people crowded into the Miners
Welfare Hall in Pontillan Fraith for a meeting called by Bedwellty
Labour Party to celebrate <strong>Tribune</strong>’s 40th Anniversary.</p>
<p>The first speaker Richard Clements (Editor of <strong>Tribune</strong>)
spoke vaguely about the need for ‘a socialist press’ without
really spelling out how this was to be achieved or what policies such
a press should advance.</p>
<p>Arianwen Norris (Aneurin Bevan’s sister) spoke of the campaign
to obtain regular sales of <strong>Tribune</strong> in Tredegar in 1937.
Describing the impoverished social conditions of working class people
at the time, she explained how the newspaper was well received.</p>
<p><em>Arianwen recently gave support to a resolution passed
unanimously by Ebbw Vale CLP opposing the witch hunt against <strong>Militant</strong>
supporters. To her credit she has not abandoned the socialist
traditions of the early pioneers of <strong>Tribune</strong>.</em></p>
<p>Fred Evans MP for Caerphilly drew strong applause from the
audience when he attacked ‘the conspiracy of the right wing of the
party, and the Tory press to deny that Marxism is a legitimate part
of the traditions of the Labour Party.’</p>
<p>The final speaker Ian Mikardo began by describing the swelling
opposition to the right wing policies of the Labour government from
the movement.</p>
<p><em>He said that every month the NEC receives around 100
resolutions critical of government policy, some sharply so.</em>
Unfortunately Comrade Mikardo spent most of his speech explaining
that however bad this government was, it was better than any Tory
government. It is extremely doubtful whether one single member of the
audience needed this explanation.</p>
<p>Although references were made by various speakers to “the
alternative strategy” of <strong>Tribune</strong> not once was an attempt
made to justify or explain this programme. Despite the good
intentions of the organisers, such meetings can in the final analysis
only serve to frustrate the attempts of the movement to formulate
alternative policies to the present disastrous policies of the
government. In particular the absence of questions and discussion
from the floor was a poor example to the movement.</p>
<p>Because of Callaghan’s links with South Wales, the <strong>Militant</strong>
supporters in the area, particularly within his own constituency have
been singled out for attack by the press. This seems to have
rebounded as <em>120 people from the meeting signed a petition
condemning the witch hunt, and those party members who use the Tory
press to attack other party members.</em> Over 60 copies of <strong>Militant</strong>
were sold.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 29 August 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
Nye Bevan’s Sister Opposes Witch Hunt
(January 1977)
From Militant, No. 343, 18 January 1977, p. 10.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
On Saturday February 5th over 200 people crowded into the Miners
Welfare Hall in Pontillan Fraith for a meeting called by Bedwellty
Labour Party to celebrate Tribune’s 40th Anniversary.
The first speaker Richard Clements (Editor of Tribune)
spoke vaguely about the need for ‘a socialist press’ without
really spelling out how this was to be achieved or what policies such
a press should advance.
Arianwen Norris (Aneurin Bevan’s sister) spoke of the campaign
to obtain regular sales of Tribune in Tredegar in 1937.
Describing the impoverished social conditions of working class people
at the time, she explained how the newspaper was well received.
Arianwen recently gave support to a resolution passed
unanimously by Ebbw Vale CLP opposing the witch hunt against Militant
supporters. To her credit she has not abandoned the socialist
traditions of the early pioneers of Tribune.
Fred Evans MP for Caerphilly drew strong applause from the
audience when he attacked ‘the conspiracy of the right wing of the
party, and the Tory press to deny that Marxism is a legitimate part
of the traditions of the Labour Party.’
The final speaker Ian Mikardo began by describing the swelling
opposition to the right wing policies of the Labour government from
the movement.
He said that every month the NEC receives around 100
resolutions critical of government policy, some sharply so.
Unfortunately Comrade Mikardo spent most of his speech explaining
that however bad this government was, it was better than any Tory
government. It is extremely doubtful whether one single member of the
audience needed this explanation.
Although references were made by various speakers to “the
alternative strategy” of Tribune not once was an attempt
made to justify or explain this programme. Despite the good
intentions of the organisers, such meetings can in the final analysis
only serve to frustrate the attempts of the movement to formulate
alternative policies to the present disastrous policies of the
government. In particular the absence of questions and discussion
from the floor was a poor example to the movement.
Because of Callaghan’s links with South Wales, the Militant
supporters in the area, particularly within his own constituency have
been singled out for attack by the press. This seems to have
rebounded as 120 people from the meeting signed a petition
condemning the witch hunt, and those party members who use the Tory
press to attack other party members. Over 60 copies of Militant
were sold.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 29 August 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.2008.11.prescott | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h4>TV review</h4>
<h1>Prescott: the class system and me</h1>
<h3>(November 2008)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>The Socialist</strong>, No. 556, 12 November 2008.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst">On 27 October, BBC 2 viewers watched a programme fronted by former
deputy prime minister John Prescott, purporting to explain the class
system in contemporary Britain. Although making a few valid points,
the programme failed to explain class and exposed Prescott’s
hypocrisy as a major figure in the ‘modernisation’ of the Labour Party.</p>
<p>Prescott’s origins are undoubtedly working class, as he began
his working life as a seafarer, playing a key role in what was then
the National Union of Seamen (NUS). On TV he could have used the
opportunity to explain how important trade unions are in representing
working-class interests and how the organised working class needs to
be politically represented.</p>
<p>Or he could have explained how a particularly ruthless set of
employers led him as a young militant to play a key role in the
national strike of the NUS in 1966.<br>
</p>
<h4>No longer believes in trade unionism</h4>
<p class="fst">Instead we heard none of this, because Prescott no longer believes
in trade unionism as his resignation from the RMT (successor to the
NUS) amply demonstrates. Instead Prescott chose to focus on trivia on
what he thought the working class eats and drinks and how its members speak.</p>
<p>On more than one occasion he railed against private education and
the huge correlation between the numbers in society who are privately
educated and the percentage of such people occupying elite positions.
Fair enough, but he needs to explain why this inequality persists
after eleven years of a government in which he was a prominent member.</p>
<p>The system of British private education has a charitable status,
meaning the schools can claim tax exemption. This in turn means that
the working-class taxpayer subsidises the fees of those who want to
pay £30,000 annually.</p>
<p>In the past there were debates in the Labour Party between those
who favoured the outright abolition of private education and those
who believed that such a policy would frighten middle-class voters.
They argued for the expediency of ending private schools’
charitable status.</p>
<p>Yet Prescott was a major supporter of the creation of New Labour.
This has ended this debate totally, to the extent that his was the
first Labour government that the bastions of educational privilege
felt safe with.</p>
<p>Many trade unionists, especially those like me who are involved
with education, will note the hypocrisy of Prescott’s attack on
private education.</p>
<p>His and Tony Blair’s government privatised part of English
secondary education through the development of academy schools.
Similarly Prescott’s posture as a champion of opportunity for
working-class students could be taken more seriously had he not
supported the introduction of fees and then top-up fees for
university students.</p>
<p>Whatever facile remark Prescott or the BBC chooses to make, the
British class system is not principally about fee-paying schools,
Lords of the Manor or correct pronunciation. It is principally about
an economic system, capitalism, that divides people on class lines
between those who own wealth and the means of producing it and those
who live by selling their labour power through work.</p>
<p>However much beer or tea he drinks or however much Prescott likes
fish and chips, he cannot conceal the fact that under the government
he served, the rich became considerably richer at the expense of the
rest of us.</p>
<p>The reason why Prescott and his mates got away with this is that
they succeeded in changing the class nature of the Labour Party, from
one whose roots were in trade unionism and socialist values to an
unashamedly pro-business party, which in Peter Mandelson’s
disgusting phrase “is intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.</p>
<p>At the end of the day Prescott’s programme was of little use to
those attempting to understand class today, but of some use to those
fighting to bury New Labour and build a new working-class party.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 6 November 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
TV review
Prescott: the class system and me
(November 2008)
From The Socialist, No. 556, 12 November 2008.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
On 27 October, BBC 2 viewers watched a programme fronted by former
deputy prime minister John Prescott, purporting to explain the class
system in contemporary Britain. Although making a few valid points,
the programme failed to explain class and exposed Prescott’s
hypocrisy as a major figure in the ‘modernisation’ of the Labour Party.
Prescott’s origins are undoubtedly working class, as he began
his working life as a seafarer, playing a key role in what was then
the National Union of Seamen (NUS). On TV he could have used the
opportunity to explain how important trade unions are in representing
working-class interests and how the organised working class needs to
be politically represented.
Or he could have explained how a particularly ruthless set of
employers led him as a young militant to play a key role in the
national strike of the NUS in 1966.
No longer believes in trade unionism
Instead we heard none of this, because Prescott no longer believes
in trade unionism as his resignation from the RMT (successor to the
NUS) amply demonstrates. Instead Prescott chose to focus on trivia on
what he thought the working class eats and drinks and how its members speak.
On more than one occasion he railed against private education and
the huge correlation between the numbers in society who are privately
educated and the percentage of such people occupying elite positions.
Fair enough, but he needs to explain why this inequality persists
after eleven years of a government in which he was a prominent member.
The system of British private education has a charitable status,
meaning the schools can claim tax exemption. This in turn means that
the working-class taxpayer subsidises the fees of those who want to
pay £30,000 annually.
In the past there were debates in the Labour Party between those
who favoured the outright abolition of private education and those
who believed that such a policy would frighten middle-class voters.
They argued for the expediency of ending private schools’
charitable status.
Yet Prescott was a major supporter of the creation of New Labour.
This has ended this debate totally, to the extent that his was the
first Labour government that the bastions of educational privilege
felt safe with.
Many trade unionists, especially those like me who are involved
with education, will note the hypocrisy of Prescott’s attack on
private education.
His and Tony Blair’s government privatised part of English
secondary education through the development of academy schools.
Similarly Prescott’s posture as a champion of opportunity for
working-class students could be taken more seriously had he not
supported the introduction of fees and then top-up fees for
university students.
Whatever facile remark Prescott or the BBC chooses to make, the
British class system is not principally about fee-paying schools,
Lords of the Manor or correct pronunciation. It is principally about
an economic system, capitalism, that divides people on class lines
between those who own wealth and the means of producing it and those
who live by selling their labour power through work.
However much beer or tea he drinks or however much Prescott likes
fish and chips, he cannot conceal the fact that under the government
he served, the rich became considerably richer at the expense of the
rest of us.
The reason why Prescott and his mates got away with this is that
they succeeded in changing the class nature of the Labour Party, from
one whose roots were in trade unionism and socialist values to an
unashamedly pro-business party, which in Peter Mandelson’s
disgusting phrase “is intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.
At the end of the day Prescott’s programme was of little use to
those attempting to understand class today, but of some use to those
fighting to bury New Labour and build a new working-class party.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 6 November 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.1981.08.noback | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h4>Letters</h4>
<h1>No Backsliding</h1>
<h3>(August 1981)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>Militant</strong>, No. 565, 14 August 1981, p. 8.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst">Dear Comrade,</p>
<p class="fst">John Goleman’s letter concerning the heckling of Neil Kinnock at
this year’s South Wales gala (issue 563) completely misses the
point made by Merion Evans (560).</p>
<p>The election of the deputy leader of the Labour Party offers Party
members a clear choice between the policies of diluted Thatcherism
represented by Healey, and the socialist policies endorsed by
successive conferences, represented by Tony Benn.</p>
<p>To his shame Kinnock has refused to support Benn. I can understand
right-wing Labour MPs supporting Healey (everyone should have a
chance of one death wish), but for the life of me I cannot understand
why a so-called ‘left’ MP should take the position Kinnock does.</p>
<p>That is the real issue behind Merion’s original letter, which
Comrade Goleman avoids in his letter.</p>
<p>As Comrade Goleman seems interested in evoking the memory of
previous speakers at South Wales miners galas, may I quote from Nye
Bevan who regularly spoke at the gala and was never heckled. Bevan’s
advice to Richard Crossman in 1955 is most relevant to Kinnock and
other ‘left’ MPs today who choose to backslide on the deputy
leadership issue:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“In moments of crisis when the knives are out,
equivocation is tantamount to treachery.”</p>
<table width="100%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3">
<tbody><tr>
<td width="60%">
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p class="fst">Yours fraternally<br>
<em>Andrew Price</em><br>
Cardiff SE CLP</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 12 July 2017/p>
</p></body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
Letters
No Backsliding
(August 1981)
From Militant, No. 565, 14 August 1981, p. 8.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
Dear Comrade,
John Goleman’s letter concerning the heckling of Neil Kinnock at
this year’s South Wales gala (issue 563) completely misses the
point made by Merion Evans (560).
The election of the deputy leader of the Labour Party offers Party
members a clear choice between the policies of diluted Thatcherism
represented by Healey, and the socialist policies endorsed by
successive conferences, represented by Tony Benn.
To his shame Kinnock has refused to support Benn. I can understand
right-wing Labour MPs supporting Healey (everyone should have a
chance of one death wish), but for the life of me I cannot understand
why a so-called ‘left’ MP should take the position Kinnock does.
That is the real issue behind Merion’s original letter, which
Comrade Goleman avoids in his letter.
As Comrade Goleman seems interested in evoking the memory of
previous speakers at South Wales miners galas, may I quote from Nye
Bevan who regularly spoke at the gala and was never heckled. Bevan’s
advice to Richard Crossman in 1955 is most relevant to Kinnock and
other ‘left’ MPs today who choose to backslide on the deputy
leadership issue:
“In moments of crisis when the knives are out,
equivocation is tantamount to treachery.”
Yours fraternally
Andrew Price
Cardiff SE CLP
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 12 July 2017/p>
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.1976.09.water | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h4>The Water Crisis</h4>
<h1>Who is to Blame?</h1>
<h3>(September 1976)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>Militant</strong>, No. 20, 3 September 1976, p. 4.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst">On the same day as the official unemployment figures for Wales showed 84,750 on the dole, a prospect of a massive increase in these figures is proposed as a result of the water shortage in Britain. South East Wales is the worst affected part of Britain with most households in the area at the moment having supplies cut off from 2 p.m. to 8 a.m. In order to prevent the appalling prospect of the water supplies running out completely by October, it has been proposed that industry in the Heads of the Valley area (Ebbw Vale, Tredegar, Rhymney) will have water supplies cut by half from September 1st.</p>
<p>According to John Collins, Assistant Secretary of the Welsh CBI, this move could lead to a two day week for workers in the area. Collins also warned ominously that if some firms were to close down as a result of the drought, they might remain permanently closed. In short, the working class of the South East Wales area face a massive reduction in take-home pay, increased unemployment and gross inconvenience for their children as many schools are threatened with closure.<br>
</p>
<h4>Reserves</h4>
<p class="fst">Although it is obviously true to point out that the drought is the worst Britain has experienced for centuries, the responsibility for the crisis faced in areas like ours must rest fairly and squarely with the owners of industry and the water authorities for not having organised sufficient permanent reserves for such an occurrence. It must surely be the ultimate condemnation of British capitalism that it cannot even plan for continued supplies of water, and that industry should be grinding to a halt now. Although nobody is justified in using water irresponsibly the appeals by both Len Murray and Dennis Howell, the newly appointed ‘Minister For Drought’, to domestic customers to save, really miss the point. It is part and parcel of the failure of big business to invest and plan properly that this situation has arisen. Even at the final hour more and more evidence is coming out on this.</p>
<p>Emlyn Jenkins, EC member of the South Wales NUM, pointed out on August 24th that a disused iron ore plant at Llanuarry can provide 4½ million gallons of water per day. This water is being pumped into a reservoir and is fit for consumption. Incredibly the contract between the Water Authority and the British Steel Corporation (who own the mine) runs out on November 5th. The excuse for this, and the fact that none of this or the 38 million gallons available in a nearby reservoir are to be used, according to the authority, is that it is “too costly”. Obviously the water authorities and the CBI would prefer to see workers and their families suffer than foot the bill to supply this water.</p>
<p>In reality this one example provided by a local trade unionists could be multiplied throughout the area, without even considering the plentiful supply of sea water on the South Wales coast that could be purified for both consumption and industrial use. Instead of placing the responsibility on consumers the labour leaders should draw up their own plans for maintaining existing and producing new forms of water supplies. If industry refuses to produce the funds for such projects then a cast iron case for public ownership without compensation exists.<br>
</p>
<h4>Planning</h4>
<p class="fst">Unless such a plan is produced workers and their families in many parts of Britain will face misery over the next period. As always the bosses will expect the workers to shoulder the burden of this crisis. Firstly unemployment followed quickly by exorbitant price rises as big business uses the drought as an excuse to jack up prices.</p>
<p>In the day to day struggles that result from this policy, the labour movement should throw the ball back firmly in the bosses’ court and demand work or full pay in industries threatened with shut down, and for the books of the food monopolies to be opened for inspection to trade unionists and housewives to see exactly how much of these increases is due to the drought and how much due to profiteering.</p>
<p>Above all else the crisis has shown that the planning of an essential commodity like water cannot be left to the likes of Lord Nugent and the unelected, unanswerable bureaucrats of the National Water Authority. Nobody can cause rain, but the chaos caused by this drought has yet again demonstrated the burning need for workers’ management of the economy and socialist planning.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 24 February 2020</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
The Water Crisis
Who is to Blame?
(September 1976)
From Militant, No. 20, 3 September 1976, p. 4.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
On the same day as the official unemployment figures for Wales showed 84,750 on the dole, a prospect of a massive increase in these figures is proposed as a result of the water shortage in Britain. South East Wales is the worst affected part of Britain with most households in the area at the moment having supplies cut off from 2 p.m. to 8 a.m. In order to prevent the appalling prospect of the water supplies running out completely by October, it has been proposed that industry in the Heads of the Valley area (Ebbw Vale, Tredegar, Rhymney) will have water supplies cut by half from September 1st.
According to John Collins, Assistant Secretary of the Welsh CBI, this move could lead to a two day week for workers in the area. Collins also warned ominously that if some firms were to close down as a result of the drought, they might remain permanently closed. In short, the working class of the South East Wales area face a massive reduction in take-home pay, increased unemployment and gross inconvenience for their children as many schools are threatened with closure.
Reserves
Although it is obviously true to point out that the drought is the worst Britain has experienced for centuries, the responsibility for the crisis faced in areas like ours must rest fairly and squarely with the owners of industry and the water authorities for not having organised sufficient permanent reserves for such an occurrence. It must surely be the ultimate condemnation of British capitalism that it cannot even plan for continued supplies of water, and that industry should be grinding to a halt now. Although nobody is justified in using water irresponsibly the appeals by both Len Murray and Dennis Howell, the newly appointed ‘Minister For Drought’, to domestic customers to save, really miss the point. It is part and parcel of the failure of big business to invest and plan properly that this situation has arisen. Even at the final hour more and more evidence is coming out on this.
Emlyn Jenkins, EC member of the South Wales NUM, pointed out on August 24th that a disused iron ore plant at Llanuarry can provide 4½ million gallons of water per day. This water is being pumped into a reservoir and is fit for consumption. Incredibly the contract between the Water Authority and the British Steel Corporation (who own the mine) runs out on November 5th. The excuse for this, and the fact that none of this or the 38 million gallons available in a nearby reservoir are to be used, according to the authority, is that it is “too costly”. Obviously the water authorities and the CBI would prefer to see workers and their families suffer than foot the bill to supply this water.
In reality this one example provided by a local trade unionists could be multiplied throughout the area, without even considering the plentiful supply of sea water on the South Wales coast that could be purified for both consumption and industrial use. Instead of placing the responsibility on consumers the labour leaders should draw up their own plans for maintaining existing and producing new forms of water supplies. If industry refuses to produce the funds for such projects then a cast iron case for public ownership without compensation exists.
Planning
Unless such a plan is produced workers and their families in many parts of Britain will face misery over the next period. As always the bosses will expect the workers to shoulder the burden of this crisis. Firstly unemployment followed quickly by exorbitant price rises as big business uses the drought as an excuse to jack up prices.
In the day to day struggles that result from this policy, the labour movement should throw the ball back firmly in the bosses’ court and demand work or full pay in industries threatened with shut down, and for the books of the food monopolies to be opened for inspection to trade unionists and housewives to see exactly how much of these increases is due to the drought and how much due to profiteering.
Above all else the crisis has shown that the planning of an essential commodity like water cannot be left to the likes of Lord Nugent and the unelected, unanswerable bureaucrats of the National Water Authority. Nobody can cause rain, but the chaos caused by this drought has yet again demonstrated the burning need for workers’ management of the economy and socialist planning.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 24 February 2020
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.2011.04.blackfri | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h4>Anniversary: Black Friday, 15 April 1921</h4>
<h1>A warning for the workers’ movement</h1>
<h3>(April 2011)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>The Socialist</strong>, No. 667, 20 April 2011.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<table width="90%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" align="center">
<tbody><tr>
<td>
<p class="fst"><strong>Following the magnificent 26 March TUC demonstration workers
and anti-cuts campaigners want to know how to build the movement
to defeat the cuts. Unfortunately trade unionists, looking to
their leaders for a way forward, have so far, in the main, been
disappointed.</strong></p>
<p><strong>However, a number of unions are looking at how to coordinate
strike action over the next few months, particularly over attacks
on pay and pensions.</strong></p>
<p><strong>In preparing this struggle history can provide useful
lessons. In 1921, 90 years ago, in a tragic event that became
known as Black Friday, right-wing trade union leaders betrayed the
miners.</strong></p>
<p><strong>As a result, the bosses were able to launch attacks on
almost the entire British working class. By the end of 1921 six
million workers had suffered wage cuts.</strong></p>
<p><strong>ANDREW PRICE explains why it is important for socialists
today to study Black Friday, but also the period of incredible
working class struggle in the 1920s.</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<hr class="section" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">For four years, from 1914 to 1918, working class men and women
made enormous sacrifices in World War One. During this time they were
lied to by pro-big business politicians such as Tory Winston
Churchill and Liberal David Lloyd George, who said that the war would
lead to a land “fit for heroes to live in”.</p>
<p>But post-war Britain was a society scarred by massive poverty and
huge social injustice, where the bosses were determined to maintain
the upper hand. Following the war the miners, in particular, felt
cheated.</p>
<p>Their industry was at the heart of British capitalism, employing
10% of the entire workforce, roughly 550,000 men. The war had
graphically demonstrated the lies of the supporters of capitalism.</p>
<p>The free market was not enough to provide adequate supplies to
fight in a world war. In the hands of the profiteer mine owners, coal
production was unreliable.</p>
<p>The ruling class was forced to accept the coal industry being
taken into public ownership. This had the full support of the miners
and their trade union, the Miners Federation of Great Britain (MFGB),
who hoped it would be a permanent measure.<br>
</p>
<h4>Private ownership</h4>
<p>But as the war drew to a conclusion the coal owners began to
agitate for the return of ‘their’ industry to private ownership,
confident of the support of the Liberal-Tory coalition headed by
Lloyd George.</p>
<p>This was fiercely opposed by the MFGB who feared the return of the
industry to private ownership would lead to an attack on their wages.
They threatened strike action.</p>
<p>Lloyd George saw no possibility of compromise in the situation and
tried to kick the ball into touch with the establishment of a Royal
Commission into the coal industry headed by Sir John Sankey.</p>
<p>Expecting one of their own to do what they wanted, the ruling
class and their Liberal-Tory allies were horrified when the final
report of the Commission expressed a lot of sympathy with the miners’
position and recommended that the industry remain in public ownership.</p>
<p>But that was the last anybody heard of Sankey and his Commission
as the government contemptuously rejected his recommendations. Then
the miners learned exactly whose side the Liberals and Tories were on.</p>
<p>However, the working class at this time was anything but docile.</p>
<p>The 1917 Russian Revolution saw workers, led by the socialist
Bolshevik party, take power. This inspired a wave of movements across
the world as workers, coming out of the hell of World War One, sought
an end to the anarchy and inequality of the war-ridden capitalist
system.</p>
<p>In Britain workers scaled heights of industrial militancy
previously thought impossible.</p>
<p>A short-lived post-war industrial boom meant that unemployment was
relatively low. This, combined with rising living costs, provided the
backdrop to the increased struggle.</p>
<p>On average, for every day in 1919, 100,000 workers were on strike.
The ruling class was rocked by this wave of workers’ action, which
even involved soldiers returning from the war and the police.</p>
<p>In 1915 an important alliance had been forged between the miners,
railway workers and transport workers. This Triple Alliance, of one
and a quarter million workers, was potentially a powerful weapon
against the bosses.</p>
<p>During that immediate post-war period of struggle the importance
of the Triple Alliance rose again. Lloyd George understood the
potential strength of the Alliance and in 1919 summoned the leaders
to a meeting.</p>
<p>Robert Smillie, the miners’ leader gave an account of the
meeting with Lloyd George to left Labour leader Aneurin Bevan, quoted
in his book <strong>In Place of Fear</strong>.</p>
<p class="quoteb">Lloyd George told them:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="quoteb">“Gentlemen you have fashioned in the Triple Alliance of
unions represented by you a most powerful instrument. I feel bound to
tell you that in our opinion we are at your mercy.</p>
<p class="quote">“The Army is disaffected and cannot be relied upon.
Trouble has already occurred in a number of camps.</p>
<p class="quote">“We have just emerged from a great war and the people
are eager for the reward of their sacrifices and we are in no
position to satisfy them. In these circumstances if you carry out
your threatened strike you will defeat us.</p>
<p class="quote">“But if you do so, have you weighed up the
consequences? The strike will be in defiance of the government of the
country and by its success will precipitate a constitutional crisis
of the first importance.</p>
<p class="quote">“For, if a force arises in the state that is stronger
than the state itself, it must be ready to take on the functions of
the state or withdraw and accept the authority of the state.</p>
<p class="quote">“Gentlemen,” asked the Prime Minister quietly, “have
you considered and if you have are you ready?”</p>
<p class="quoteb">“From that moment on”, said Bob Smillie, “we were
beaten and we knew we were.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="fst">In spite of defeatism among the workers’ leaders, the movement
did not go to sleep. Far from it.</p>
<p>This was demonstrated in 1920, when the British government
threatened to support Polish capitalists in the conflict against the
Russian workers’ state.</p>
<p>In the ranks of the labour movement there was a determination to
prevent the ruling class wiping out the gains of the 1917 revolution.
Councils of Action developed rapidly, where rank and file trade
unionists committed to strike action in the event of British
imperialism declaring war on Russia.</p>
<p>In 1920, London dockers heroically refused to load arms on to <em>The
Jolly George</em>, a ship destined for Poland. But in early 1921 the
post-war growth was well and truly over and industrial slump had set in.</p>
<p>The mines were handed back to the coal owners who declared that
the miners would pay the price of the industry’s crisis. They
proposed cuts in miners’ pay ranging from 10% to 49%.</p>
<p>Any miner refusing to accept these draconian cuts would be refused
entry to work. From 1 April that year the owners began a lock-out.</p>
<p>Immediately transport and rail workers rallied to the miners’
side. The leadership of the Triple Alliance was forced by the members
to call a strike in support of the miners from 15 April 1921.</p>
<p>But the coal owners were determined to crush the miners and
destroy the MFGB. Lloyd George’s Liberal-Tory coalition had no
problem in placing all state resources against the miners.</p>
<p>Following a declaration of a state of emergency the government
established a special Defence Corps to confront striking workers,
posted machine guns at most pit heads and despatched large numbers of
troops to the main working class areas.</p>
<p>However, faced with the brutal class politics of the employers and
their political representatives, the leaders of the Triple Alliance
never went beyond cowardice.</p>
<p>On the eve of the strike Frank Hodges, the right-wing president of
the MFGB, proposed local negotiations on wage cuts, instead of a
national agreement, which was one of the miners’ main demands.</p>
<p>This appalling position was immediately repudiated by the MFGB
executive but was music to the ears of the coal owners and to James
Thomas, the notorious right-wing leader of the railway workers.</p>
<p>On Black Friday, 15 April 1921, the leaders of the Triple Alliance
called off the proposed strike in support of the miners. Thomas
played a particularly pernicious role.</p>
<p>This left the miners in a very dangerous situation. In certain
areas, notably South Wales, individual trade union activists like
A.J. Cook did all that they could in a hopeless position.</p>
<p>After two months of fighting in isolation the miners returned to
work on the mine owners’ terms. Emboldened by the coal owners’
victory, other sections of the ruling class followed suit.</p>
<p>Engineers, builders, seafarers and cotton operatives were all
forced to accept big wage cuts.</p>
<p>In March 1922 the employers locked out members of the Amalgamated
Engineering Union (AEU), the largest engineering union, demanding big
wage cuts. Scandalously the AEU leadership agreed to most of the
employers’ demands.</p>
<p>In the immediate aftermath of Black Friday trade union membership
in Britain slumped dramatically from 8.3 million in 1920 to 5.6
million in 1922. Such a decline prompts comparisons with a similar
decline in Tory Britain in the 1980s.</p>
<p>Then, as in the 1920s, rising unemployment took its toll on
membership. But in the 1920s tens of thousands of trade unionists
left the movement in protest at the weak policies of the right wing,
cynically describing the Triple Alliance as the ‘Cripple Alliance’.<br>
</p>
<h4>Support for the left</h4>
<p class="fst">However, as Peter Taaffe points out in his 2006 book, <strong>1926
General Strike: Workers Taste Power</strong>, “one of the consequences
of Black Friday was a deepening of the hatred, particularly by the
miners, of the ‘traitor Thomas’ and increased support for the
left”.</p>
<p>Eventually rank and file militants began to organise independently
through the National Minority Movement (NMM). This brought together
some of the leading left wingers of the time such as Tom Mann, Ted
Lismer and George Peat – all AEU – and A.J. Cook of the miners
and Robert Williams of the transport workers.</p>
<p>The NMM campaigned against the class collaborationist policies of
the right wing and attempted to stop the haemorrhaging of trade union
membership with the slogan ‘back to the unions’.</p>
<p>In 1925 the NMM scored a considerable victory when one of its
members A.J. Cook was elected general secretary of the MFGB,
replacing Frank Hodges. Cook was an honest and decent socialist,
arguably one of the most principled trade union leaders ever in
Britain.</p>
<p>He worked tirelessly on behalf of his members and he stood out
like a beacon among right-wing and ‘left’-wing trade unionists by
his opposition to World War One.</p>
<p>Sadly, however, he was from the syndicalist school of socialism,
which does not understand the need for workers to have their own
party, as well as trade unions through which to fight.</p>
<p>These ideas were put to the test in the 1926 general strike and
found wanting. The NMM itself was deflected from the task of
transforming British trade unions by the false policies of the
British Communist Party (CP).</p>
<p>As Peter points out, the CP was “misled by the mistaken policies
of the Communist International, then under the direction of Stalin”.
Meanwhile the ruling class continued its preparations for civil war
against working people.</p>
<p>But they could not get away with every attack. In May 1925 the
bosses agreed to postpone for a year yet another proposed cut in
miners’ pay.</p>
<p>This became known as ‘Red Friday’, and was hailed as a
victory.</p>
<p>The whole of the decade of the 1920s is rich in lessons for the
British trade union movement today. The following year saw the
momentous 1926 general strike, the most important event in the
history of the British working class.</p>
<p>An unlimited general strike ushers in a revolutionary situation
and poses directly the question of power in society.</p>
<p>Which class will run society, the capitalists, retaining all the
bad features of existing society, or the working class, with the
power to transform capitalism into socialism?</p>
<p>Today a great opportunity exists for joint strike action by public
sector trade unionists on both jobs and pensions. Socialist Party
members in individual public sector unions are calling for these
ballots to be coordinated to produce generalised public sector strike
action.</p>
<p>Even if this were partial at first, and given the absence of
general strike action, even for one day since 1926, such action would
scare this weak and divided government, lifting the confidence of the
working class, and preparing the ground for later escalation.</p>
<p>In preparation the working class must try to build a leadership
that, unlike its mainly miserable counterpart in the 1920s, is
prepared to see the struggle through to its logical conclusion.</p>
<p>This May will see the 85th anniversary of the 1926 general strike,
rich in lessons for the battles of today.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 29 August 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
Anniversary: Black Friday, 15 April 1921
A warning for the workers’ movement
(April 2011)
From The Socialist, No. 667, 20 April 2011.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
Following the magnificent 26 March TUC demonstration workers
and anti-cuts campaigners want to know how to build the movement
to defeat the cuts. Unfortunately trade unionists, looking to
their leaders for a way forward, have so far, in the main, been
disappointed.
However, a number of unions are looking at how to coordinate
strike action over the next few months, particularly over attacks
on pay and pensions.
In preparing this struggle history can provide useful
lessons. In 1921, 90 years ago, in a tragic event that became
known as Black Friday, right-wing trade union leaders betrayed the
miners.
As a result, the bosses were able to launch attacks on
almost the entire British working class. By the end of 1921 six
million workers had suffered wage cuts.
ANDREW PRICE explains why it is important for socialists
today to study Black Friday, but also the period of incredible
working class struggle in the 1920s.
For four years, from 1914 to 1918, working class men and women
made enormous sacrifices in World War One. During this time they were
lied to by pro-big business politicians such as Tory Winston
Churchill and Liberal David Lloyd George, who said that the war would
lead to a land “fit for heroes to live in”.
But post-war Britain was a society scarred by massive poverty and
huge social injustice, where the bosses were determined to maintain
the upper hand. Following the war the miners, in particular, felt
cheated.
Their industry was at the heart of British capitalism, employing
10% of the entire workforce, roughly 550,000 men. The war had
graphically demonstrated the lies of the supporters of capitalism.
The free market was not enough to provide adequate supplies to
fight in a world war. In the hands of the profiteer mine owners, coal
production was unreliable.
The ruling class was forced to accept the coal industry being
taken into public ownership. This had the full support of the miners
and their trade union, the Miners Federation of Great Britain (MFGB),
who hoped it would be a permanent measure.
Private ownership
But as the war drew to a conclusion the coal owners began to
agitate for the return of ‘their’ industry to private ownership,
confident of the support of the Liberal-Tory coalition headed by
Lloyd George.
This was fiercely opposed by the MFGB who feared the return of the
industry to private ownership would lead to an attack on their wages.
They threatened strike action.
Lloyd George saw no possibility of compromise in the situation and
tried to kick the ball into touch with the establishment of a Royal
Commission into the coal industry headed by Sir John Sankey.
Expecting one of their own to do what they wanted, the ruling
class and their Liberal-Tory allies were horrified when the final
report of the Commission expressed a lot of sympathy with the miners’
position and recommended that the industry remain in public ownership.
But that was the last anybody heard of Sankey and his Commission
as the government contemptuously rejected his recommendations. Then
the miners learned exactly whose side the Liberals and Tories were on.
However, the working class at this time was anything but docile.
The 1917 Russian Revolution saw workers, led by the socialist
Bolshevik party, take power. This inspired a wave of movements across
the world as workers, coming out of the hell of World War One, sought
an end to the anarchy and inequality of the war-ridden capitalist
system.
In Britain workers scaled heights of industrial militancy
previously thought impossible.
A short-lived post-war industrial boom meant that unemployment was
relatively low. This, combined with rising living costs, provided the
backdrop to the increased struggle.
On average, for every day in 1919, 100,000 workers were on strike.
The ruling class was rocked by this wave of workers’ action, which
even involved soldiers returning from the war and the police.
In 1915 an important alliance had been forged between the miners,
railway workers and transport workers. This Triple Alliance, of one
and a quarter million workers, was potentially a powerful weapon
against the bosses.
During that immediate post-war period of struggle the importance
of the Triple Alliance rose again. Lloyd George understood the
potential strength of the Alliance and in 1919 summoned the leaders
to a meeting.
Robert Smillie, the miners’ leader gave an account of the
meeting with Lloyd George to left Labour leader Aneurin Bevan, quoted
in his book In Place of Fear.
Lloyd George told them:
“Gentlemen you have fashioned in the Triple Alliance of
unions represented by you a most powerful instrument. I feel bound to
tell you that in our opinion we are at your mercy.
“The Army is disaffected and cannot be relied upon.
Trouble has already occurred in a number of camps.
“We have just emerged from a great war and the people
are eager for the reward of their sacrifices and we are in no
position to satisfy them. In these circumstances if you carry out
your threatened strike you will defeat us.
“But if you do so, have you weighed up the
consequences? The strike will be in defiance of the government of the
country and by its success will precipitate a constitutional crisis
of the first importance.
“For, if a force arises in the state that is stronger
than the state itself, it must be ready to take on the functions of
the state or withdraw and accept the authority of the state.
“Gentlemen,” asked the Prime Minister quietly, “have
you considered and if you have are you ready?”
“From that moment on”, said Bob Smillie, “we were
beaten and we knew we were.”
In spite of defeatism among the workers’ leaders, the movement
did not go to sleep. Far from it.
This was demonstrated in 1920, when the British government
threatened to support Polish capitalists in the conflict against the
Russian workers’ state.
In the ranks of the labour movement there was a determination to
prevent the ruling class wiping out the gains of the 1917 revolution.
Councils of Action developed rapidly, where rank and file trade
unionists committed to strike action in the event of British
imperialism declaring war on Russia.
In 1920, London dockers heroically refused to load arms on to The
Jolly George, a ship destined for Poland. But in early 1921 the
post-war growth was well and truly over and industrial slump had set in.
The mines were handed back to the coal owners who declared that
the miners would pay the price of the industry’s crisis. They
proposed cuts in miners’ pay ranging from 10% to 49%.
Any miner refusing to accept these draconian cuts would be refused
entry to work. From 1 April that year the owners began a lock-out.
Immediately transport and rail workers rallied to the miners’
side. The leadership of the Triple Alliance was forced by the members
to call a strike in support of the miners from 15 April 1921.
But the coal owners were determined to crush the miners and
destroy the MFGB. Lloyd George’s Liberal-Tory coalition had no
problem in placing all state resources against the miners.
Following a declaration of a state of emergency the government
established a special Defence Corps to confront striking workers,
posted machine guns at most pit heads and despatched large numbers of
troops to the main working class areas.
However, faced with the brutal class politics of the employers and
their political representatives, the leaders of the Triple Alliance
never went beyond cowardice.
On the eve of the strike Frank Hodges, the right-wing president of
the MFGB, proposed local negotiations on wage cuts, instead of a
national agreement, which was one of the miners’ main demands.
This appalling position was immediately repudiated by the MFGB
executive but was music to the ears of the coal owners and to James
Thomas, the notorious right-wing leader of the railway workers.
On Black Friday, 15 April 1921, the leaders of the Triple Alliance
called off the proposed strike in support of the miners. Thomas
played a particularly pernicious role.
This left the miners in a very dangerous situation. In certain
areas, notably South Wales, individual trade union activists like
A.J. Cook did all that they could in a hopeless position.
After two months of fighting in isolation the miners returned to
work on the mine owners’ terms. Emboldened by the coal owners’
victory, other sections of the ruling class followed suit.
Engineers, builders, seafarers and cotton operatives were all
forced to accept big wage cuts.
In March 1922 the employers locked out members of the Amalgamated
Engineering Union (AEU), the largest engineering union, demanding big
wage cuts. Scandalously the AEU leadership agreed to most of the
employers’ demands.
In the immediate aftermath of Black Friday trade union membership
in Britain slumped dramatically from 8.3 million in 1920 to 5.6
million in 1922. Such a decline prompts comparisons with a similar
decline in Tory Britain in the 1980s.
Then, as in the 1920s, rising unemployment took its toll on
membership. But in the 1920s tens of thousands of trade unionists
left the movement in protest at the weak policies of the right wing,
cynically describing the Triple Alliance as the ‘Cripple Alliance’.
Support for the left
However, as Peter Taaffe points out in his 2006 book, 1926
General Strike: Workers Taste Power, “one of the consequences
of Black Friday was a deepening of the hatred, particularly by the
miners, of the ‘traitor Thomas’ and increased support for the
left”.
Eventually rank and file militants began to organise independently
through the National Minority Movement (NMM). This brought together
some of the leading left wingers of the time such as Tom Mann, Ted
Lismer and George Peat – all AEU – and A.J. Cook of the miners
and Robert Williams of the transport workers.
The NMM campaigned against the class collaborationist policies of
the right wing and attempted to stop the haemorrhaging of trade union
membership with the slogan ‘back to the unions’.
In 1925 the NMM scored a considerable victory when one of its
members A.J. Cook was elected general secretary of the MFGB,
replacing Frank Hodges. Cook was an honest and decent socialist,
arguably one of the most principled trade union leaders ever in
Britain.
He worked tirelessly on behalf of his members and he stood out
like a beacon among right-wing and ‘left’-wing trade unionists by
his opposition to World War One.
Sadly, however, he was from the syndicalist school of socialism,
which does not understand the need for workers to have their own
party, as well as trade unions through which to fight.
These ideas were put to the test in the 1926 general strike and
found wanting. The NMM itself was deflected from the task of
transforming British trade unions by the false policies of the
British Communist Party (CP).
As Peter points out, the CP was “misled by the mistaken policies
of the Communist International, then under the direction of Stalin”.
Meanwhile the ruling class continued its preparations for civil war
against working people.
But they could not get away with every attack. In May 1925 the
bosses agreed to postpone for a year yet another proposed cut in
miners’ pay.
This became known as ‘Red Friday’, and was hailed as a
victory.
The whole of the decade of the 1920s is rich in lessons for the
British trade union movement today. The following year saw the
momentous 1926 general strike, the most important event in the
history of the British working class.
An unlimited general strike ushers in a revolutionary situation
and poses directly the question of power in society.
Which class will run society, the capitalists, retaining all the
bad features of existing society, or the working class, with the
power to transform capitalism into socialism?
Today a great opportunity exists for joint strike action by public
sector trade unionists on both jobs and pensions. Socialist Party
members in individual public sector unions are calling for these
ballots to be coordinated to produce generalised public sector strike
action.
Even if this were partial at first, and given the absence of
general strike action, even for one day since 1926, such action would
scare this weak and divided government, lifting the confidence of the
working class, and preparing the ground for later escalation.
In preparation the working class must try to build a leadership
that, unlike its mainly miserable counterpart in the 1920s, is
prepared to see the struggle through to its logical conclusion.
This May will see the 85th anniversary of the 1926 general strike,
rich in lessons for the battles of today.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 29 August 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.1984.05.welshlp | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h4>Welsh LP conference</h4>
<h1>Looking for a way forward</h1>
<h3>(May 1984)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>Militant</strong>, No. 700, 18 May 1984, p. 13.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst">THIS WEEKEND’S Labour Party Wales Conference will be
overshadowed by the miners’ strike.</p>
<p>Shamefully last year the Welsh party was the only regional Labour
Party to endorse a witch-hunt against <strong>Militant</strong> supporters.</p>
<p>Fortunately this year the agenda is free from such divisive
motions and indeed many resolutions look in a positive manner to the
way forward for the Labour Party.</p>
<p><strong>Cardiff Central</strong> calls for full support for the NUM and a
massive investment programme for the coal industry. The same CLP, in
a separate resolution, calls for effective economic socialist
proposals.</p>
<p>Other excellent resolutions call for; full support for Liverpool
council <strong>(SEA)</strong>, workers’ democratic control of the NHS
<strong>(Caerphilly CLP)</strong>, a 24 hour general strike against anti-union
legislation <strong>(South Glamorgan Labour Party)</strong>, a socialist policy
for FE students <strong>(Ceredignon & Pembroke North CLP)</strong>, and a
campaign to attract working class women to the party <strong>(Swansea East
CLP)</strong>.</p>
<p>Marxists are also standing, in the various sections, for election
to the regional executive committee: CLP South Wales section: <strong>Lynne
Cuthbert</strong> (Caerphilly CLP). Affiliated organisations: <strong>Andrew
Price</strong> (Socialist Education Association). <strong>Tony Wedlake</strong>
(Cardiff West) and <strong>Richard Morgan</strong> (Aberavon) have been elected
on from LPYS regional conference.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 14 November 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
Welsh LP conference
Looking for a way forward
(May 1984)
From Militant, No. 700, 18 May 1984, p. 13.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
THIS WEEKEND’S Labour Party Wales Conference will be
overshadowed by the miners’ strike.
Shamefully last year the Welsh party was the only regional Labour
Party to endorse a witch-hunt against Militant supporters.
Fortunately this year the agenda is free from such divisive
motions and indeed many resolutions look in a positive manner to the
way forward for the Labour Party.
Cardiff Central calls for full support for the NUM and a
massive investment programme for the coal industry. The same CLP, in
a separate resolution, calls for effective economic socialist
proposals.
Other excellent resolutions call for; full support for Liverpool
council (SEA), workers’ democratic control of the NHS
(Caerphilly CLP), a 24 hour general strike against anti-union
legislation (South Glamorgan Labour Party), a socialist policy
for FE students (Ceredignon & Pembroke North CLP), and a
campaign to attract working class women to the party (Swansea East
CLP).
Marxists are also standing, in the various sections, for election
to the regional executive committee: CLP South Wales section: Lynne
Cuthbert (Caerphilly CLP). Affiliated organisations: Andrew
Price (Socialist Education Association). Tony Wedlake
(Cardiff West) and Richard Morgan (Aberavon) have been elected
on from LPYS regional conference.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 14 November 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.2006.05.natfhe | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h1>NATFHE demand pay justice</h1>
<h3>(May 2006)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>The Socialist</strong>, No. 441, 25 May 2006.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<table width="80%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" align="center">
<tbody><tr>
<td>
<p class="fst"><strong>NATFHE MEETS this weekend for its final conference. This
follows the decision of members of both NATFHE and the AUT to
merge into what will be the largest post-school education union in
the world – UCU, the University and College Union. We all welcome
the merger, but size alone will not guarantee victory for our
members in key battles with the employers and government.</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<hr class="section" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">Whichever sector we are in, all minds are on the current dispute
in the university sector over pay. There has been a clear attempt by
the media, the employers and New Labour to misrepresent this dispute.</p>
<p>The relative pay position of all university lecturers has declined
enormously. The union side has submitted a claim for 23.9% over three
years. The employers’ offer of 12% over the same period was rightly
rejected by the union side. It is the union side that should decide
when an offer is put to members, not the employers or Alan Johnson,
the New Labour secretary of state for education.</p>
<p>Some of the industrial hooliganism we have had to put up with for
years in Further Education is now coming to the university sector.</p>
<p>In the University of Northumbria, where our members are operating
the exam boycott, the employers have responded by withholding pay
completely.</p>
<p>On the 80th anniversary of the British General Strike, few would
have predicted that the lockout originating in the coal mines would
be deployed in a university!</p>
<p>To their great credit, our Northumbrian members have voted in a
ballot for indefinite strike action. They must not stand alone.
Conference must decide to pay them the maximum possible amount in
strike pay and, as soon as possible, all the university sector must
be brought out in indefinite action.</p>
<p>On the fringe, plans will be laid for the founding conference on
24 June of the proposed new left organisation in UCU – a conference
that has the potential to build big support for a left programme.</p>
<p>Elsewhere on the fringe there will be a meeting of the Campaign
for a New Workers’ Party. The creation of such a party is long
overdue for all who work in post-school education where the system of
free market capitalism, beloved of both the Tories and New Labour,
has done so much damage not just to our pay and conditions but to the
service we offer our communities.</p>
<hr class="section" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<br>
<p class="note"><strong>Andrew Price was a NATFHE NEC member representing Further
Education Wales</strong></p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 29 August 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
NATFHE demand pay justice
(May 2006)
From The Socialist, No. 441, 25 May 2006.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
NATFHE MEETS this weekend for its final conference. This
follows the decision of members of both NATFHE and the AUT to
merge into what will be the largest post-school education union in
the world – UCU, the University and College Union. We all welcome
the merger, but size alone will not guarantee victory for our
members in key battles with the employers and government.
Whichever sector we are in, all minds are on the current dispute
in the university sector over pay. There has been a clear attempt by
the media, the employers and New Labour to misrepresent this dispute.
The relative pay position of all university lecturers has declined
enormously. The union side has submitted a claim for 23.9% over three
years. The employers’ offer of 12% over the same period was rightly
rejected by the union side. It is the union side that should decide
when an offer is put to members, not the employers or Alan Johnson,
the New Labour secretary of state for education.
Some of the industrial hooliganism we have had to put up with for
years in Further Education is now coming to the university sector.
In the University of Northumbria, where our members are operating
the exam boycott, the employers have responded by withholding pay
completely.
On the 80th anniversary of the British General Strike, few would
have predicted that the lockout originating in the coal mines would
be deployed in a university!
To their great credit, our Northumbrian members have voted in a
ballot for indefinite strike action. They must not stand alone.
Conference must decide to pay them the maximum possible amount in
strike pay and, as soon as possible, all the university sector must
be brought out in indefinite action.
On the fringe, plans will be laid for the founding conference on
24 June of the proposed new left organisation in UCU – a conference
that has the potential to build big support for a left programme.
Elsewhere on the fringe there will be a meeting of the Campaign
for a New Workers’ Party. The creation of such a party is long
overdue for all who work in post-school education where the system of
free market capitalism, beloved of both the Tories and New Labour,
has done so much damage not just to our pay and conditions but to the
service we offer our communities.
Andrew Price was a NATFHE NEC member representing Further
Education Wales
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 29 August 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.2003.05.natfhe | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h4>NATFHE conference:</h4>
<h1>Defend Education – Fight New Labour’s Attacks</h1>
<h3>(May 2003)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>The Socialist</strong>, No. 301, 24 May 2003.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst"><strong>NATFHE, THE trade union organising lecturing staff in further
education (FE) colleges and new universities in England and Wales has
its conference this weekend.</strong></p>
<hr class="section" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">The war with Iraq has had a huge impact on consciousness and
social relationships. From the outset the union played an important
and very principled role, affiliating to the Stop the War Coalition,
with union members prominent in the mass anti-war demonstrations.</p>
<p>Prior to the outbreak of war, general secretary Paul Mackney,
along with Mick Rix of ASLEF, argued on the TUC general council that
the TUC should co-ordinate strike action against war. The day after
war broke out, the Equality Committee of the NEC accepted my proposal
calling for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq;
supporting NATFHE members and other trade unionists for walking out
of their workplaces in protest and congratulating all students who
had walked out of schools and colleges.</p>
<p>Contrary to the arguments of sections of NATFHE’s right wing,
the issue of war is a crucial question for all trade unionists. The
general secretary and the NEC’s position accurately reflected
members’ views, particularly the active membership.</p>
<p>Conference must ensure that there is no doubt on this question by
passing the emergency motion from Wales, which endorses the above
position and condemns the TUC for failing to mobilise strike action.</p>
<p>On members’ pay and conditions, big issues will be debated. In
higher education our members struggle in a severely underfunded
sector. The university sector has been badly let down by New Labour.</p>
<p>Tuition fees and top-up fees obstruct working-class students’
entry to university. But they also fail abysmally to provide the
funding for decentpay and working conditions for our members and to
provide quality education.</p>
<p>Charles Clarke, Margaret Hodge and the rest are being outflanked
by the Tories, with the hypocritical call by Duncan-Smith to abolish
tuition fees.</p>
<p>The problem will not be resolved, as the Tories claim, by reducing
the number of students going to university. Nor will it be resolved
within a tax system defended by capitalist parties such as the Tories
and New Labour, which treats the very rich more leniently than almost
anywhere in the capitalist world.</p>
<p>In further education, for the first time pay negotiations are
being conducted separately in England and Wales. Despite a pay deal
rewarding lower-paid members more than others in Wales, members in
both England and Wales are off target for pay parity with school
teachers by next year.</p>
<p>The employers are evidently opposed to this moderate demand. If we
are to achieve parity it will not be through ‘partnership’ with
either the employers or New Labour. Past experience shows that strike
action is the only language that such people understand.</p>
<p>This conference must be prepared to put this to our members,
accepting that if we go up this road NATFHE must give adequate
financial support to our members on strike.</p>
<hr class="section" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<br>
<p class="note"><strong>Andrew Price was a national executive council (NEC) member of
NATFHE, representing FE Wales</strong></p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 29 August 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
NATFHE conference:
Defend Education – Fight New Labour’s Attacks
(May 2003)
From The Socialist, No. 301, 24 May 2003.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
NATFHE, THE trade union organising lecturing staff in further
education (FE) colleges and new universities in England and Wales has
its conference this weekend.
The war with Iraq has had a huge impact on consciousness and
social relationships. From the outset the union played an important
and very principled role, affiliating to the Stop the War Coalition,
with union members prominent in the mass anti-war demonstrations.
Prior to the outbreak of war, general secretary Paul Mackney,
along with Mick Rix of ASLEF, argued on the TUC general council that
the TUC should co-ordinate strike action against war. The day after
war broke out, the Equality Committee of the NEC accepted my proposal
calling for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq;
supporting NATFHE members and other trade unionists for walking out
of their workplaces in protest and congratulating all students who
had walked out of schools and colleges.
Contrary to the arguments of sections of NATFHE’s right wing,
the issue of war is a crucial question for all trade unionists. The
general secretary and the NEC’s position accurately reflected
members’ views, particularly the active membership.
Conference must ensure that there is no doubt on this question by
passing the emergency motion from Wales, which endorses the above
position and condemns the TUC for failing to mobilise strike action.
On members’ pay and conditions, big issues will be debated. In
higher education our members struggle in a severely underfunded
sector. The university sector has been badly let down by New Labour.
Tuition fees and top-up fees obstruct working-class students’
entry to university. But they also fail abysmally to provide the
funding for decentpay and working conditions for our members and to
provide quality education.
Charles Clarke, Margaret Hodge and the rest are being outflanked
by the Tories, with the hypocritical call by Duncan-Smith to abolish
tuition fees.
The problem will not be resolved, as the Tories claim, by reducing
the number of students going to university. Nor will it be resolved
within a tax system defended by capitalist parties such as the Tories
and New Labour, which treats the very rich more leniently than almost
anywhere in the capitalist world.
In further education, for the first time pay negotiations are
being conducted separately in England and Wales. Despite a pay deal
rewarding lower-paid members more than others in Wales, members in
both England and Wales are off target for pay parity with school
teachers by next year.
The employers are evidently opposed to this moderate demand. If we
are to achieve parity it will not be through ‘partnership’ with
either the employers or New Labour. Past experience shows that strike
action is the only language that such people understand.
This conference must be prepared to put this to our members,
accepting that if we go up this road NATFHE must give adequate
financial support to our members on strike.
Andrew Price was a national executive council (NEC) member of
NATFHE, representing FE Wales
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 29 August 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.2007.03.kline | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h4>UCU general secretary election</h4>
<h1>Vote for Roger Kline</h1>
<h3>(March 2007)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>The Socialist</strong>, No. 476, 1 March 2007.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<table width="80%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" align="center">
<tbody><tr>
<td>
<p class="fst"><strong>LAST YEAR saw the merger of the two main post-school
education trade unions, the AUT and NATFHE into the University and
College Union (UCU). Currently members are voting for a general
secretary and a national executive (NEC).</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<hr class="section" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">Three candidates are up for general secretary – Sally Hunt
(currently joint general secretary of UCU), Roger Kline (an official
heading the union’s Equality and Employment unit) and Pete Jones, a
lay activist from the Further Education (FE) sector.</p>
<p>Nearly 14 years after the passing of the infamous Tory <em>Further
and Higher Education Act</em> the dire effects of the introduction of
market forces into the provision of post-school education are plain
to see.</p>
<p>University top up fees, New Labour’s policies will soon mean
£10,000 annually with increased problems for working-class students
and university funding.</p>
<p>University lecturers today are among the worst paid of all
teachers in both school and post-school education.</p>
<p>Only in Wales (where the union is left-led) has pay parity between
FE lecturers and school teachers been achieved. In England it is
still a long way off. In Northern Ireland our members have recently
taken strike action to achieve this goal.</p>
<p>New Labour has actually increased the Tory pressure of
privatisation and cuts. Currently our FE members are fighting some
appalling attacks on English as a Second Language (ESOL) provision.</p>
<p>Against this background UCU needs a left general secretary who can
give the lead all our members need.</p>
<p>Nobody claims that Sally Hunt is a left candidate, and her victory
may be welcomed by the employers and by government ministers. Many
activists see her hand in the unsatisfactory settlement of the
university pay dispute last summer.</p>
<p>Her unprincipled position of “members first and politics second”
helps nobody and threatens the work of the union in opposing both the
occupation of Iraq and racism and fascism.</p>
<p>Roger Kline and Pete Jones are both left candidates with much to
offer. But in this two-horse race between Roger and Sally Hunt a vote
for Kline is the best way to avoid a Hunt victory.</p>
<p>For this and other reasons Socialist Party members in UCU call
upon all members to vote for Roger Kline. But more importantly we
must build a strong union from below that will campaign for a
publicly owned and accountable post-school education system, where
all workers are properly rewarded.</p>
<hr class="section" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst"><strong>Andrew Price was member for FE in Wales of the UCU Transitional
NEC.</strong></p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 6 November 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
UCU general secretary election
Vote for Roger Kline
(March 2007)
From The Socialist, No. 476, 1 March 2007.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
LAST YEAR saw the merger of the two main post-school
education trade unions, the AUT and NATFHE into the University and
College Union (UCU). Currently members are voting for a general
secretary and a national executive (NEC).
Three candidates are up for general secretary – Sally Hunt
(currently joint general secretary of UCU), Roger Kline (an official
heading the union’s Equality and Employment unit) and Pete Jones, a
lay activist from the Further Education (FE) sector.
Nearly 14 years after the passing of the infamous Tory Further
and Higher Education Act the dire effects of the introduction of
market forces into the provision of post-school education are plain
to see.
University top up fees, New Labour’s policies will soon mean
£10,000 annually with increased problems for working-class students
and university funding.
University lecturers today are among the worst paid of all
teachers in both school and post-school education.
Only in Wales (where the union is left-led) has pay parity between
FE lecturers and school teachers been achieved. In England it is
still a long way off. In Northern Ireland our members have recently
taken strike action to achieve this goal.
New Labour has actually increased the Tory pressure of
privatisation and cuts. Currently our FE members are fighting some
appalling attacks on English as a Second Language (ESOL) provision.
Against this background UCU needs a left general secretary who can
give the lead all our members need.
Nobody claims that Sally Hunt is a left candidate, and her victory
may be welcomed by the employers and by government ministers. Many
activists see her hand in the unsatisfactory settlement of the
university pay dispute last summer.
Her unprincipled position of “members first and politics second”
helps nobody and threatens the work of the union in opposing both the
occupation of Iraq and racism and fascism.
Roger Kline and Pete Jones are both left candidates with much to
offer. But in this two-horse race between Roger and Sally Hunt a vote
for Kline is the best way to avoid a Hunt victory.
For this and other reasons Socialist Party members in UCU call
upon all members to vote for Roger Kline. But more importantly we
must build a strong union from below that will campaign for a
publicly owned and accountable post-school education system, where
all workers are properly rewarded.
Andrew Price was member for FE in Wales of the UCU Transitional
NEC.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 6 November 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.1983.12.ajcook | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andy Price</h2>
<h1>A miners’ leader and 1926</h1>
<h3>(December 1983)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>Militant</strong>, No. 679, 9 December 1983.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst"><em>NOVEMBER 22 marked the centenary of the birth of A.J. Cook. The
occasion was remembered by miners throughout Britain and the world
because of the enormously important role he played in the struggle to
establish trade unionism amongst miners.</em></p>
<p><em>The battles Cook led and fought in the 1920s contain important
lessons for trade unionists today and that is why we should carefully
study his life and work.</em></p>
<p>The main influence on Cook’s thinking was that of syndicalism.
As a philosophy syndicalism is characterised by both strengths and
weaknesses. It argues, and this is its fatal weakness, that the
struggle for socialism is essentially an <em>industrial</em> struggle,
which begins and <em>ends</em> on the shop floor. Marxism, on the other
hand accepts the importance of industrial struggle, but also argues
that <em>on their own</em> industrial struggles are insufficient to
bring about socialism. Shop floor battles need to be generalised into
political struggles linked to the perspective of achieving power for
the working class.</p>
<p>Syndicalism’s strength in the early twentieth century lay in its
progressive role in breaking down parochial attitudes amongst workers
and in fighting to organise strong industrial unions, particularly
among semi-skilled and unskilled workers.</p>
<p>This was true of one of the very early organisations in which Cook
played a part. The South Wales Miners’ Unofficial Reform Committee
was formed out of the experiences of the 1912 miners’ strike and
the Cambrian lock out. Cook and Noah Ablett established themselves as
dedicated fighters for the main demands of the committee, contained
in <strong>The Miners’ Next Step</strong>:</p>
<ul>
<li>One union for all miners, with a string and centralised leadership.</li>
<li>A minimum wage of 8/– a day</li>
<li>A seven-hour day.</li>
<li>Control of the industry to be taken out of the hands of the
coal owners and run by the miners.</li>
</ul>
<p class="fst">Cook’s struggles in South Wales to win support for the demands
of <strong>The Miners’ Next Step</strong> were a mere foretaste of the
titanic battles he was to lead in the 1920s. In this period the whip
of the bosses, determined to make the workers pay for capitalism’s
crisis, and the inspiration of the Bolshevik Revolution, spurred the
working class to colossal battles.</p>
<p>The first major battle came in 1921 when Lloyd George suddenly
announced the ending of war-time control over the coal industry and
the owners, proposing massive wage cuts, posted lock-out notices at
every pit.</p>
<p>The determination of the ruling class to break the unions and in
particular the miners was observed by Julian Symons, not a writer
noted for his revolutionary fervour:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“A state of emergency was declared, reservists were called to
the colours, <em>machine guns were posted at pit heads</em> and troops
in battle order were sent to many working class areas.” Symons –
<strong>The General Strike!</strong> (our emphasis)</p>
<p class="fst">The working class were betrayed by their own leaders. Last minute
hesitancy by miners’ leader Hodges let the ultra-reactionary leader
of the railwaymen, Jimmy Thomas, seize the opportunity he had been
looking for [to call – <em>ID</em>] off the strike of Triple Alliance
unions. The entire working class, not just the miners, had been
betrayed in a most abject manner. The miners would now have to fight
on their own, and Friday 15 April, 1921 was to be bitterly remembered
as Black Friday.</p>
<p>During the 1921 lock-out Cook achieved national status as a
miners’ leader. Correctly he tried to make the best of a very bad
situation and worked tirelessly for the miners’ cause. A parallel
can be drawn here with the overwhelmingly successful struggle of the
miners in 1972 when a little known Yorkshire organiser, Arthur
Scargill, rose to national prominence.<br>
</p>
<h4>Cook’s high point</h4>
<p class="fst">Given the betrayal of the leaders of what was subsequently
referred to as the Cripple Alliance the defeat of the miners was
inevitable. The betrayal wrought a terrible price not just on the
miners who returned to work on the coal owners’ terms of massive
wage cuts, but within a year of the 1921 lock-out wage cuts had
successfully been imposed on engineering workers, shipyard workers
and cotton operatives. Drunk with success the coal owners and the
government decided where ever possible to victimise militants. Cook
was arrested, charged with unlawful assembly and sentenced to four
months imprisonment.</p>
<p>One of the conclusions drawn by rank and file militants from the
defeat of 1921 was the need to organise more effectively and to build
a fighting leadership in the TUC. To this end Cook played an
important role in the establishment of the National Minority
Movement. In 1924 its founding conference was attended by 270
delegates representing a quarter of a million workers. At its peak
the NMM had one million trade unionists affiliated to it, which
represented only a fraction of its true support and influence.</p>
<p>The newly formed Communist Party placed itself at the head of the
Minority Movement and, because of this, the movement was never able
to realise its true potential. Hindered by early bouts of
ultra-leftism and fatally misled by Stalin during the general strike,
the influence of the CP was another factor in the defeat of 1926.</p>
<p>In 1924 the solid support enjoyed by the Minority Movement among
miners was reflected in Cook’s election to the General Secretary’s
position of the MFGB.</p>
<p>Shortly after his election Cook led the miners into what appeared
to be a great victory. The appalling mismanagement of the industry by
the coal owners had delivered it to almost complete financial ruin.
The coal owners, determined to shift the responsibility for the
crisis onto the shoulders of the miners, served notice that the
miners would have to accept <em>less</em> money for working longer
hours. In June 1925 the owners served one month’s notice on the
miners to terminate the existing wages agreement, cut wages and
enforce longer hours.</p>
<p>During this crisis Cook adamantly refused to even to speak to the
coal owners until the notices were withdrawn. When the government,
obviously stalling, set up a court of inquiry into the coal industry,
which Cook correctly refused to appear before, so overwhelming was
the case in support of the miners that the court of inquiry,
eventually ruled in their favour! At rank and file level the miners
enjoyed massive support from fellow trade unionists and this was
sufficient to force the TUC General Council, frightened of losing its
authority, to declare in favour of the miners and threaten widespread
sympathy action in their support. In the face of such solid
opposition Tory Prime Minister Baldwin capitulated and on 31 July
announced a subsidy of £23 million to the coal industry to prevent
wage cuts.</p>
<p>The miners had won a great victory largely as a result of Cook’s
determined leadership. 31 July went into the annals of labour history
as Red Friday.<br>
</p>
<h4>Battle lines</h4>
<p class="fst">The tragedy of Red Friday was that many trade union leaders, even
some on the left, believed that Red Friday was the end and not the
beginning of the struggle. Baldwin’s subsidy was to last nine
months, until 1 May 1926. The ruling class was to use this nine
months to prepare thoroughly for a major confrontation with the trade unions.</p>
<p>“Whatever it may cost in blood and treasure we shall find that
the trade unions will be smashed from top to bottom” – declared
Lord Londonderry speaking not just on behalf of his fellow coal
owners, but on behalf of the whole ruling class.</p>
<p>“I mean all workers in this country have got to take
reductions”, said Baldwin.</p>
<p>The ruling class’ meticulous preparations for civil war were
spearheaded by Winston Churchill who never missed an opportunity to
express his almost pathological hatred of trade unionism and
socialism. The TUC General Council did nothing.</p>
<p>When the general strike began the right-wing leadership of the TUC
were absolutely terrified of the force that they had unleashed. Again
Thomas personified the sheer rottenness of their position.</p>
<p class="quoteb">“What I dreaded more than anything else was ... if by
chance it should have got out of the hands of those who could be able
to exercise some control, every sane man then knows what would have
happened.”</p>
<p class="fst">Cook declared a radically different, but nevertheless dangerously
misguided, point of view. “A strike of the miners would mean the
end of capitalism” he declared on the eve of the strike.</p>
<p>Throughout the nine heroic days of May 1926, whilst the right wing
consciously sold out their members, Cook fought might and main for a
miners’ victory. But in this situation honesty and dedication were
not enough. Cook did not, and as a syndicalist could not, understand
the situation. The only way the general strike could have led to the
end of capitalism was to link the struggle to the perspective of
workers’ power. This meant a leadership prepared to broaden the
struggle to link the Councils of Action to the perspective of a
democratic workers’ state.</p>
<p>Unfortunately the Communist Party was totally misled by Stalin.
They persuaded the Minority Movement to place their faith in the
‘left’ members of the TUC General Council. Two of these leaders,
Powell and Hicks, were to play a key role in the betrayal of the
strike whilst the CP tail-ended the movement with the totally
abstract slogan “All power to the TUC General Council”!</p>
<p>During the 1926 general strike the question of power was posed in
the starkest possible terms in British society. Syndicalism was put
to the test and failed. The main responsibility for the defeat of
1926 will always lie with the treacherous policy of the right wing
leaders of the TUC General Council. Compared with Cook they will
forever stand as pygmies in the gallery of working class leaders in
British history. Having said this it would be foolish to deny that
Cook’s politics bore <em>no</em> responsibility for the defeat of the
general strike.</p>
<p>The position of Marxism and the brilliant predictions made by
Trotsky in <strong>Where is Britain Going?</strong> were borne out entirely by
the events of May 1926. No situation could be of greater class
polarisation than that of a general strike.</p>
<p>Despite Cook’s total commitment to the miners’ cause his
confused position left him with no credible alternative to that of
the right wing. In fact Cook withdrew from sale his pamphlet <strong>Nine
Days</strong> in which he criticised the right wing’s role in the
strike. He refused to support the demand for the reconvening of the
conference of trade union executives until <em>after</em> the miners’
lock out. Scandalously in the first TUC Congress after the strike
Cook added his enormous authority to the demand of the right wing
that the strike should not even be discussed!</p>
<p>The defeat of the general strike, the long lock-out of the miners,
and their return to work on the coal owners’ terms shattered Cook.
The general strike constituted the greatest ever defeat of the
British working class. The unbelievable indignities the Tories
inflicted on the miners, and the sheer desperation of the situation
were summed up in a letter which Cook wrote in April 1929 to Arthur Horner:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“Practically every day young men, stranded, call for
food, clothing and shelter at my office. Every day the post brings
terrible epistles of agony and despair. I have helped all I can,
begged all I can till I have been almost demented with despair.”</p>
<p class="fst">Shortly after this Cook died of cancer. Every ounce of his energy
had been devoted to the cause of socialism, and every penny he owned
was given to the Miners’ Federation. Hodges, his predecessor, was
appointed by the Tories a member of the National Electricity Board.
He later became a director of several colliery and steel companies
and died in 1947 leaving an estate of over £100,000. He represents
the traditions of the right wing. Cook represents a tradition the
right wing cannot begin to understand.</p>
<p>After 1926 the trade unions were broken. Company unionism spread
like a cancer throughout the coalfields. Today the unions are
infinitely stringer and in the coming battles we can learn from
Cook’s weaknesses, but more importantly draw inspiration from his
strengths.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 14 November 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andy Price
A miners’ leader and 1926
(December 1983)
From Militant, No. 679, 9 December 1983.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
NOVEMBER 22 marked the centenary of the birth of A.J. Cook. The
occasion was remembered by miners throughout Britain and the world
because of the enormously important role he played in the struggle to
establish trade unionism amongst miners.
The battles Cook led and fought in the 1920s contain important
lessons for trade unionists today and that is why we should carefully
study his life and work.
The main influence on Cook’s thinking was that of syndicalism.
As a philosophy syndicalism is characterised by both strengths and
weaknesses. It argues, and this is its fatal weakness, that the
struggle for socialism is essentially an industrial struggle,
which begins and ends on the shop floor. Marxism, on the other
hand accepts the importance of industrial struggle, but also argues
that on their own industrial struggles are insufficient to
bring about socialism. Shop floor battles need to be generalised into
political struggles linked to the perspective of achieving power for
the working class.
Syndicalism’s strength in the early twentieth century lay in its
progressive role in breaking down parochial attitudes amongst workers
and in fighting to organise strong industrial unions, particularly
among semi-skilled and unskilled workers.
This was true of one of the very early organisations in which Cook
played a part. The South Wales Miners’ Unofficial Reform Committee
was formed out of the experiences of the 1912 miners’ strike and
the Cambrian lock out. Cook and Noah Ablett established themselves as
dedicated fighters for the main demands of the committee, contained
in The Miners’ Next Step:
One union for all miners, with a string and centralised leadership.
A minimum wage of 8/– a day
A seven-hour day.
Control of the industry to be taken out of the hands of the
coal owners and run by the miners.
Cook’s struggles in South Wales to win support for the demands
of The Miners’ Next Step were a mere foretaste of the
titanic battles he was to lead in the 1920s. In this period the whip
of the bosses, determined to make the workers pay for capitalism’s
crisis, and the inspiration of the Bolshevik Revolution, spurred the
working class to colossal battles.
The first major battle came in 1921 when Lloyd George suddenly
announced the ending of war-time control over the coal industry and
the owners, proposing massive wage cuts, posted lock-out notices at
every pit.
The determination of the ruling class to break the unions and in
particular the miners was observed by Julian Symons, not a writer
noted for his revolutionary fervour:
“A state of emergency was declared, reservists were called to
the colours, machine guns were posted at pit heads and troops
in battle order were sent to many working class areas.” Symons –
The General Strike! (our emphasis)
The working class were betrayed by their own leaders. Last minute
hesitancy by miners’ leader Hodges let the ultra-reactionary leader
of the railwaymen, Jimmy Thomas, seize the opportunity he had been
looking for [to call – ID] off the strike of Triple Alliance
unions. The entire working class, not just the miners, had been
betrayed in a most abject manner. The miners would now have to fight
on their own, and Friday 15 April, 1921 was to be bitterly remembered
as Black Friday.
During the 1921 lock-out Cook achieved national status as a
miners’ leader. Correctly he tried to make the best of a very bad
situation and worked tirelessly for the miners’ cause. A parallel
can be drawn here with the overwhelmingly successful struggle of the
miners in 1972 when a little known Yorkshire organiser, Arthur
Scargill, rose to national prominence.
Cook’s high point
Given the betrayal of the leaders of what was subsequently
referred to as the Cripple Alliance the defeat of the miners was
inevitable. The betrayal wrought a terrible price not just on the
miners who returned to work on the coal owners’ terms of massive
wage cuts, but within a year of the 1921 lock-out wage cuts had
successfully been imposed on engineering workers, shipyard workers
and cotton operatives. Drunk with success the coal owners and the
government decided where ever possible to victimise militants. Cook
was arrested, charged with unlawful assembly and sentenced to four
months imprisonment.
One of the conclusions drawn by rank and file militants from the
defeat of 1921 was the need to organise more effectively and to build
a fighting leadership in the TUC. To this end Cook played an
important role in the establishment of the National Minority
Movement. In 1924 its founding conference was attended by 270
delegates representing a quarter of a million workers. At its peak
the NMM had one million trade unionists affiliated to it, which
represented only a fraction of its true support and influence.
The newly formed Communist Party placed itself at the head of the
Minority Movement and, because of this, the movement was never able
to realise its true potential. Hindered by early bouts of
ultra-leftism and fatally misled by Stalin during the general strike,
the influence of the CP was another factor in the defeat of 1926.
In 1924 the solid support enjoyed by the Minority Movement among
miners was reflected in Cook’s election to the General Secretary’s
position of the MFGB.
Shortly after his election Cook led the miners into what appeared
to be a great victory. The appalling mismanagement of the industry by
the coal owners had delivered it to almost complete financial ruin.
The coal owners, determined to shift the responsibility for the
crisis onto the shoulders of the miners, served notice that the
miners would have to accept less money for working longer
hours. In June 1925 the owners served one month’s notice on the
miners to terminate the existing wages agreement, cut wages and
enforce longer hours.
During this crisis Cook adamantly refused to even to speak to the
coal owners until the notices were withdrawn. When the government,
obviously stalling, set up a court of inquiry into the coal industry,
which Cook correctly refused to appear before, so overwhelming was
the case in support of the miners that the court of inquiry,
eventually ruled in their favour! At rank and file level the miners
enjoyed massive support from fellow trade unionists and this was
sufficient to force the TUC General Council, frightened of losing its
authority, to declare in favour of the miners and threaten widespread
sympathy action in their support. In the face of such solid
opposition Tory Prime Minister Baldwin capitulated and on 31 July
announced a subsidy of £23 million to the coal industry to prevent
wage cuts.
The miners had won a great victory largely as a result of Cook’s
determined leadership. 31 July went into the annals of labour history
as Red Friday.
Battle lines
The tragedy of Red Friday was that many trade union leaders, even
some on the left, believed that Red Friday was the end and not the
beginning of the struggle. Baldwin’s subsidy was to last nine
months, until 1 May 1926. The ruling class was to use this nine
months to prepare thoroughly for a major confrontation with the trade unions.
“Whatever it may cost in blood and treasure we shall find that
the trade unions will be smashed from top to bottom” – declared
Lord Londonderry speaking not just on behalf of his fellow coal
owners, but on behalf of the whole ruling class.
“I mean all workers in this country have got to take
reductions”, said Baldwin.
The ruling class’ meticulous preparations for civil war were
spearheaded by Winston Churchill who never missed an opportunity to
express his almost pathological hatred of trade unionism and
socialism. The TUC General Council did nothing.
When the general strike began the right-wing leadership of the TUC
were absolutely terrified of the force that they had unleashed. Again
Thomas personified the sheer rottenness of their position.
“What I dreaded more than anything else was ... if by
chance it should have got out of the hands of those who could be able
to exercise some control, every sane man then knows what would have
happened.”
Cook declared a radically different, but nevertheless dangerously
misguided, point of view. “A strike of the miners would mean the
end of capitalism” he declared on the eve of the strike.
Throughout the nine heroic days of May 1926, whilst the right wing
consciously sold out their members, Cook fought might and main for a
miners’ victory. But in this situation honesty and dedication were
not enough. Cook did not, and as a syndicalist could not, understand
the situation. The only way the general strike could have led to the
end of capitalism was to link the struggle to the perspective of
workers’ power. This meant a leadership prepared to broaden the
struggle to link the Councils of Action to the perspective of a
democratic workers’ state.
Unfortunately the Communist Party was totally misled by Stalin.
They persuaded the Minority Movement to place their faith in the
‘left’ members of the TUC General Council. Two of these leaders,
Powell and Hicks, were to play a key role in the betrayal of the
strike whilst the CP tail-ended the movement with the totally
abstract slogan “All power to the TUC General Council”!
During the 1926 general strike the question of power was posed in
the starkest possible terms in British society. Syndicalism was put
to the test and failed. The main responsibility for the defeat of
1926 will always lie with the treacherous policy of the right wing
leaders of the TUC General Council. Compared with Cook they will
forever stand as pygmies in the gallery of working class leaders in
British history. Having said this it would be foolish to deny that
Cook’s politics bore no responsibility for the defeat of the
general strike.
The position of Marxism and the brilliant predictions made by
Trotsky in Where is Britain Going? were borne out entirely by
the events of May 1926. No situation could be of greater class
polarisation than that of a general strike.
Despite Cook’s total commitment to the miners’ cause his
confused position left him with no credible alternative to that of
the right wing. In fact Cook withdrew from sale his pamphlet Nine
Days in which he criticised the right wing’s role in the
strike. He refused to support the demand for the reconvening of the
conference of trade union executives until after the miners’
lock out. Scandalously in the first TUC Congress after the strike
Cook added his enormous authority to the demand of the right wing
that the strike should not even be discussed!
The defeat of the general strike, the long lock-out of the miners,
and their return to work on the coal owners’ terms shattered Cook.
The general strike constituted the greatest ever defeat of the
British working class. The unbelievable indignities the Tories
inflicted on the miners, and the sheer desperation of the situation
were summed up in a letter which Cook wrote in April 1929 to Arthur Horner:
“Practically every day young men, stranded, call for
food, clothing and shelter at my office. Every day the post brings
terrible epistles of agony and despair. I have helped all I can,
begged all I can till I have been almost demented with despair.”
Shortly after this Cook died of cancer. Every ounce of his energy
had been devoted to the cause of socialism, and every penny he owned
was given to the Miners’ Federation. Hodges, his predecessor, was
appointed by the Tories a member of the National Electricity Board.
He later became a director of several colliery and steel companies
and died in 1947 leaving an estate of over £100,000. He represents
the traditions of the right wing. Cook represents a tradition the
right wing cannot begin to understand.
After 1926 the trade unions were broken. Company unionism spread
like a cancer throughout the coalfields. Today the unions are
infinitely stringer and in the coming battles we can learn from
Cook’s weaknesses, but more importantly draw inspiration from his
strengths.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 14 November 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.1982.06.double | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h4>Letters</h4>
<h1>Double standards over trades councils</h1>
<h3>(June 1982)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>Militant</strong>, No. 605, 11 June 1982, p. 12.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br> Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst">Dear Comrades,</p>
<p class="fst">I was interested to read Keith Narey’s <a href="../../../narey/1982/03/tulp.html" target="new">article</a> (<strong>Militant</strong>, issue 594) on the attitude of the TUC towards Bradford Trades Council’s involvement in the Bradford North Labour Party. The attempt of the right wing to build a Chinese wall between the activities of the industrial and political wings of the movement is not of course a recent development.</p>
<p>In the 1960s the right wing of the TUC and the Labour Party began the process of the breaking up of Trades and Labour Councils. These bodies brought together representatives of both the local Labour Parties and the local trade union branches into effective organisations. They were broken up in practically every case, but not without opposition from local activists. In fact the TUC and Labour right wing had to spend an enormous amount of time on this which could have been devoted to far more useful ends. I agree with Keith that trade unionists should fight against the 1977 TUC ruling which forbids trades councils sending resolutions to CLPs, or being involved in reselection.</p>
<p>However, it does seem odd that this ruling should be enforced only where Pat Wall is involved. At this year’s Wales Labour Party conference a resolution was submitted by Mid Glamorgan County Association of Trades Councils calling for the expulsion of <strong>Militant</strong> supporters from the Labour Party. Comrades might well ask themselves why, in an area that contains such unemployment blackspots as the Rhondda, Pontypridd or Caerphilly, the CATC should be devoting its energies to witch-hunts.</p>
<p>And after the Bradford North experience, are Len Murray and Co. Going to be hot-foot down to Pontypridd to sort out Mid Glamorgan CATC for getting involved in Labour Party affairs?</p>
<table width="100%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3">
<tbody><tr>
<td width="60%">
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p class="fst">Yours fraternally<br>
<em>Andrew Price</em><br>
Cardiff SE Labour Party</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 26 September 2017</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
Letters
Double standards over trades councils
(June 1982)
From Militant, No. 605, 11 June 1982, p. 12.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton. Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
Dear Comrades,
I was interested to read Keith Narey’s article (Militant, issue 594) on the attitude of the TUC towards Bradford Trades Council’s involvement in the Bradford North Labour Party. The attempt of the right wing to build a Chinese wall between the activities of the industrial and political wings of the movement is not of course a recent development.
In the 1960s the right wing of the TUC and the Labour Party began the process of the breaking up of Trades and Labour Councils. These bodies brought together representatives of both the local Labour Parties and the local trade union branches into effective organisations. They were broken up in practically every case, but not without opposition from local activists. In fact the TUC and Labour right wing had to spend an enormous amount of time on this which could have been devoted to far more useful ends. I agree with Keith that trade unionists should fight against the 1977 TUC ruling which forbids trades councils sending resolutions to CLPs, or being involved in reselection.
However, it does seem odd that this ruling should be enforced only where Pat Wall is involved. At this year’s Wales Labour Party conference a resolution was submitted by Mid Glamorgan County Association of Trades Councils calling for the expulsion of Militant supporters from the Labour Party. Comrades might well ask themselves why, in an area that contains such unemployment blackspots as the Rhondda, Pontypridd or Caerphilly, the CATC should be devoting its energies to witch-hunts.
And after the Bradford North experience, are Len Murray and Co. Going to be hot-foot down to Pontypridd to sort out Mid Glamorgan CATC for getting involved in Labour Party affairs?
Yours fraternally
Andrew Price
Cardiff SE Labour Party
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 26 September 2017
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.2005.06.natfhe | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h4>NATFHE conference:</h4>
<h1>Members prepare for future battles</h1>
<h3>(June 2005)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>The Socialist</strong>, No. 396, 9 June 2005.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<table width="80%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" align="center">
<tbody><tr>
<td>
<p class="fst"><strong>THIS YEAR'S Annual Conference of lecturers' union NATFHE
took place at a time of the greatest offensive by the employers
and the government against pay and conditions since the
Incorporation (privatisation) of Further Education Colleges (FE)
and Universities (HE).</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<hr class="section" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">Conference acclaimed the struggles of our members against
management bullying in Newcastle and Southampton FE colleges and in
London Metropolitan University. Conference condemned the failure of
around 75% of English FE colleges to implement a national pay deal
nearly two years after its agreement. We also passed a motion that
refused to absolve the leadership of NATFHE of some of the
responsibility for this appalling situation.</p>
<p>Conference enthusiastically endorsed general secretary Paul
Mackney's call for a national strike in the autumn in support of the
English FE pay claim. In an excellent debate on pensions, conference
unanimously passed a motion from Wales arguing that New Labour will
return to the offensive against public-sector workers' pensions, but
this time around must be met by strike action by the relevant unions
on the same day.</p>
<p>Most of the second day of the conference was taken up with the
debate over the proposed merger with the Association of University
Teachers (AUT). Sensibly the leadership dropped its previous policy
of forbidding any debate on the proposed sixth draft of the
constitution of the new union and backed Emergency Resolution 15.1
from Wales calling for a full discussion and vote on proposals to
amend the constitution.</p>
<p>After the passing of the motion conference engaged in a
constructive debate. But proposals to include all aspects of current
democracy in the new constitution were defeated, despite attracting
substantial minority votes.</p>
<p>NATFHE and AUT members will now be balloted in the Autumn, opening
up the prospect of a larger more powerful union. If properly led,
this could confront and defeat all who wish to extend market forces
to post-school education.</p>
<hr class="section" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<br>
<p class="note"><strong>Andrew Price was a member of the NATFHE national executive.</strong></p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 29 August 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
NATFHE conference:
Members prepare for future battles
(June 2005)
From The Socialist, No. 396, 9 June 2005.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
THIS YEAR'S Annual Conference of lecturers' union NATFHE
took place at a time of the greatest offensive by the employers
and the government against pay and conditions since the
Incorporation (privatisation) of Further Education Colleges (FE)
and Universities (HE).
Conference acclaimed the struggles of our members against
management bullying in Newcastle and Southampton FE colleges and in
London Metropolitan University. Conference condemned the failure of
around 75% of English FE colleges to implement a national pay deal
nearly two years after its agreement. We also passed a motion that
refused to absolve the leadership of NATFHE of some of the
responsibility for this appalling situation.
Conference enthusiastically endorsed general secretary Paul
Mackney's call for a national strike in the autumn in support of the
English FE pay claim. In an excellent debate on pensions, conference
unanimously passed a motion from Wales arguing that New Labour will
return to the offensive against public-sector workers' pensions, but
this time around must be met by strike action by the relevant unions
on the same day.
Most of the second day of the conference was taken up with the
debate over the proposed merger with the Association of University
Teachers (AUT). Sensibly the leadership dropped its previous policy
of forbidding any debate on the proposed sixth draft of the
constitution of the new union and backed Emergency Resolution 15.1
from Wales calling for a full discussion and vote on proposals to
amend the constitution.
After the passing of the motion conference engaged in a
constructive debate. But proposals to include all aspects of current
democracy in the new constitution were defeated, despite attracting
substantial minority votes.
NATFHE and AUT members will now be balloted in the Autumn, opening
up the prospect of a larger more powerful union. If properly led,
this could confront and defeat all who wish to extend market forces
to post-school education.
Andrew Price was a member of the NATFHE national executive.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 29 August 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.biog.honoured | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h1>Socialist fighter honoured by lecturers’ union</h1>
<h3>(May 2008)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>The Socialist</strong>, No. 533, 14 May 2008.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst">Socialist Party member Andrew Price is retiring from work next
February, so he is standing down from his position as the UCU
national executive member for Welsh Further Education.</p>
<p>The UCU executive have voted to confer life membership of the
union on Andrew, in recognition of his many years of involvement in
the union and one of its predecessors, NATFHE.</p>
<p>He has been a branch officer of NATFHE/UCU for more than 25 years
and he served on the executive of the two unions for 13 years, twice
defeating right-wing candidates.</p>
<p>For the past five years he has been a lay negotiator for Welsh FE
pay and conditions, being one of the leaders of the recent strike
against the employer’s attempts to break the national agreement on pay.</p>
<p>Andrew told <strong>The Socialist</strong>:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“Coming in the same week as the 40th anniversary of my
membership of the Socialist Party, I am delighted that the brothers
and sisters of my trade union have conferred this honour on me.</p>
<p class="quote">“But this is not the main prize. That came on 16 April
this year when members walking out on strike and joining picket lines
reached an all time high in Wales, with over 250 strikers
demonstrating outside the Welsh Assembly.”</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 1 September 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Socialist fighter honoured by lecturers’ union
(May 2008)
From The Socialist, No. 533, 14 May 2008.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
Socialist Party member Andrew Price is retiring from work next
February, so he is standing down from his position as the UCU
national executive member for Welsh Further Education.
The UCU executive have voted to confer life membership of the
union on Andrew, in recognition of his many years of involvement in
the union and one of its predecessors, NATFHE.
He has been a branch officer of NATFHE/UCU for more than 25 years
and he served on the executive of the two unions for 13 years, twice
defeating right-wing candidates.
For the past five years he has been a lay negotiator for Welsh FE
pay and conditions, being one of the leaders of the recent strike
against the employer’s attempts to break the national agreement on pay.
Andrew told The Socialist:
“Coming in the same week as the 40th anniversary of my
membership of the Socialist Party, I am delighted that the brothers
and sisters of my trade union have conferred this honour on me.
“But this is not the main prize. That came on 16 April
this year when members walking out on strike and joining picket lines
reached an all time high in Wales, with over 250 strikers
demonstrating outside the Welsh Assembly.”
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 1 September 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.1980.05.natfhe | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h4>NATFHE</h4>
<h1>Our fight is a political fight</h1>
<h3>(May 1980)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>Militant</strong>, No. 504, 23 May 1980, p. 14.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst">The Tories’ first year in office has been a continuous onslaught
on our education services. This is the stark challenge facing the
annual conference of the National Association of Teachers in Further
and Higher Education.</p>
<p>As the NEC report points out, the cuts already imposed on the
Manpower Services Commission have had a serious effect on further
education courses and the cuts the MSC will make in 1980 will have a
more drastic effect in the academic year 1980–1. The swingeing
increases in overseas students’ fees will have a similar effect in
jeopardising a number of valuable courses.</p>
<p>In the field of higher education, the government limit on the
financial pool for advanced courses will, as the NEC rightly points
out, have “disastrous consequences for public sector higher education.”</p>
<p>On the pay front, contrary to the exaggerated claims of the Tory
press, most teachers in further and higher education gained very
little from the Clegg settlement. In fact NATFHE members will have to
wait until September 1981 before they have had a year’s salary as
agreed by Clegg. This is from an agreement on our 1979 salaries!</p>
<p>Clegg has failed to restore the salaries as outlined by the
Houghton settlement in 1975, except for a small number of badly-paid
teachers, and has enormously increased pay differentials.</p>
<p>Last week the final insult came when Clegg reported that he had
“miscalculated by 4 per cent”. It is doubtful whether management
will try to claw this back; almost certainly they will try to take it
from the 1980–1 claim.</p>
<p>Conference should draw up a balance sheet from this particular
experience and the union must resolve never again to be caught in the
trap of comparability deals.</p>
<p>All this reinforces the urgency of the pay settlement of 1980–1.
With the present high rates of inflation, the NEC has estimated that
any settlement below 20% will represent a devaluation of Clegg before
the members have received it.</p>
<p>The support for a half-day strike in the recent branch ballot on
further sanctions should negotiations break down, is a positive
indication of the discontent on pay. Members now expect action to
secure a 20% settlement.</p>
<p>As the struggle against Thatcher’s policies become more intense,
NATFHE members have been forced to recognise the need for political
action. As the ATTI, NATFHE was the first teachers’ union to
affiliate to the TUC. It should now set the lead amongst teachers by
affiliating to the Labour Party.</p>
<p>The Socialist Education Association will be holding a fringe
meeting as the start of a campaign for NATFHE affiliation, a campaign
which should be fully supported by the membership as a whole. Only by
posing the socialist alternative to the free market madness of
Thatcher and Joseph, can we secure a decent education system for our
members and the youth of Britain.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 14 November 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
NATFHE
Our fight is a political fight
(May 1980)
From Militant, No. 504, 23 May 1980, p. 14.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
The Tories’ first year in office has been a continuous onslaught
on our education services. This is the stark challenge facing the
annual conference of the National Association of Teachers in Further
and Higher Education.
As the NEC report points out, the cuts already imposed on the
Manpower Services Commission have had a serious effect on further
education courses and the cuts the MSC will make in 1980 will have a
more drastic effect in the academic year 1980–1. The swingeing
increases in overseas students’ fees will have a similar effect in
jeopardising a number of valuable courses.
In the field of higher education, the government limit on the
financial pool for advanced courses will, as the NEC rightly points
out, have “disastrous consequences for public sector higher education.”
On the pay front, contrary to the exaggerated claims of the Tory
press, most teachers in further and higher education gained very
little from the Clegg settlement. In fact NATFHE members will have to
wait until September 1981 before they have had a year’s salary as
agreed by Clegg. This is from an agreement on our 1979 salaries!
Clegg has failed to restore the salaries as outlined by the
Houghton settlement in 1975, except for a small number of badly-paid
teachers, and has enormously increased pay differentials.
Last week the final insult came when Clegg reported that he had
“miscalculated by 4 per cent”. It is doubtful whether management
will try to claw this back; almost certainly they will try to take it
from the 1980–1 claim.
Conference should draw up a balance sheet from this particular
experience and the union must resolve never again to be caught in the
trap of comparability deals.
All this reinforces the urgency of the pay settlement of 1980–1.
With the present high rates of inflation, the NEC has estimated that
any settlement below 20% will represent a devaluation of Clegg before
the members have received it.
The support for a half-day strike in the recent branch ballot on
further sanctions should negotiations break down, is a positive
indication of the discontent on pay. Members now expect action to
secure a 20% settlement.
As the struggle against Thatcher’s policies become more intense,
NATFHE members have been forced to recognise the need for political
action. As the ATTI, NATFHE was the first teachers’ union to
affiliate to the TUC. It should now set the lead amongst teachers by
affiliating to the Labour Party.
The Socialist Education Association will be holding a fringe
meeting as the start of a campaign for NATFHE affiliation, a campaign
which should be fully supported by the membership as a whole. Only by
posing the socialist alternative to the free market madness of
Thatcher and Joseph, can we secure a decent education system for our
members and the youth of Britain.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 14 November 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.2008.03.voteyes | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h4>Wales further education pay dispute:</h4>
<h1>Vote ‘yes’ in strike ballot</h1>
<h3>(March 2008)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>The Socialist</strong>, No. 524, 12 March 2008.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<table width="80%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" align="center">
<tbody><tr>
<td>
<p class="fst"><strong>Welsh members of the University and College Union (UCU)
employed in the Further Education (FE) sector, are currently
voting in a strike ballot in a pay dispute declared by their union
with the Welsh employers’ body Fforwm.</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<hr class="section" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">For the last two years Welsh FE lecturers have enjoyed something
as yet beyond the reach of their counterparts in England and Northern
Ireland – pay parity with schoolteachers.</p>
<p>This national agreement was not the result of the generosity of
the employers or the ‘clear red water’ that supposedly separates
New Labour in Westminster from its colleagues in the Welsh Assembly
in Cardiff. It was the achievement of NATFHE (UCU’s predecessor
union), which in Wales was genuinely left-led. We threatened the
employers with a massive programme of strike action unless agreement
was reached.</p>
<p>Now at virtually the first serious test of the agreement, the
employers are blatantly breaking it by refusing lecturers the right
to progress to the top point of the salary scale.</p>
<p>UCU members throughout Welsh FE understand that this dispute goes
a lot further than this. If the employers break the agreement now,
that is the start of a slippery slope.</p>
<p>The agreement has given our membership a small element of
protection from the free-market madness originally introduced by the
Tories but sustained by New Labour in both London and Cardiff, which
once meant 23 Welsh FE colleges all on different pay rates!</p>
<p>It is essential that UCU members throughout Welsh FE deliver a
massive ‘Yes’ vote to both questions on the ballot paper. Voting
results will be watched carefully by both the employers and Assembly politicians.</p>
<p>Recently the Webb review into post-school education in Wales
recommended the reduction in Welsh FE colleges from 23 to 9. Nobody
believes that such a reduction could be achieved without massive
redundancies – mostly compulsory.</p>
<p>Fforwm therefore views this dispute as a forerunner of a future
bigger battle. Most Welsh FE college principals have imposed a 2.5%
pay increase – then awarded themselves an increase way above that.
In the week that Welsh Assembly members awarded themselves an 8%
increase, UCU members have every right to expect decent pay levels.</p>
<p>A victory in this dispute would not just be a victory for our
membership; it would be a victory also for the students throughout
the communities we serve.</p>
<hr class="section" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst"><strong>Andrew Price was UCU Wales lay negotiator on FE pay.</strong></p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 6 November 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
Wales further education pay dispute:
Vote ‘yes’ in strike ballot
(March 2008)
From The Socialist, No. 524, 12 March 2008.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
Welsh members of the University and College Union (UCU)
employed in the Further Education (FE) sector, are currently
voting in a strike ballot in a pay dispute declared by their union
with the Welsh employers’ body Fforwm.
For the last two years Welsh FE lecturers have enjoyed something
as yet beyond the reach of their counterparts in England and Northern
Ireland – pay parity with schoolteachers.
This national agreement was not the result of the generosity of
the employers or the ‘clear red water’ that supposedly separates
New Labour in Westminster from its colleagues in the Welsh Assembly
in Cardiff. It was the achievement of NATFHE (UCU’s predecessor
union), which in Wales was genuinely left-led. We threatened the
employers with a massive programme of strike action unless agreement
was reached.
Now at virtually the first serious test of the agreement, the
employers are blatantly breaking it by refusing lecturers the right
to progress to the top point of the salary scale.
UCU members throughout Welsh FE understand that this dispute goes
a lot further than this. If the employers break the agreement now,
that is the start of a slippery slope.
The agreement has given our membership a small element of
protection from the free-market madness originally introduced by the
Tories but sustained by New Labour in both London and Cardiff, which
once meant 23 Welsh FE colleges all on different pay rates!
It is essential that UCU members throughout Welsh FE deliver a
massive ‘Yes’ vote to both questions on the ballot paper. Voting
results will be watched carefully by both the employers and Assembly politicians.
Recently the Webb review into post-school education in Wales
recommended the reduction in Welsh FE colleges from 23 to 9. Nobody
believes that such a reduction could be achieved without massive
redundancies – mostly compulsory.
Fforwm therefore views this dispute as a forerunner of a future
bigger battle. Most Welsh FE college principals have imposed a 2.5%
pay increase – then awarded themselves an increase way above that.
In the week that Welsh Assembly members awarded themselves an 8%
increase, UCU members have every right to expect decent pay levels.
A victory in this dispute would not just be a victory for our
membership; it would be a victory also for the students throughout
the communities we serve.
Andrew Price was UCU Wales lay negotiator on FE pay.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 6 November 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.2003.06.walesfe | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h4>Wales further education colleges:</h4>
<h1>Lecturers Fight for a Living Wage</h1>
<h3>(June 2003)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>The Socialist,</strong> No. 305, 21 June 2003.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<table width="80%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" align="center">
<tbody><tr>
<td>
<p class="fst"><strong>LAST NOVEMBER the Welsh Assembly, through its education
minister Jane Davidson, intervened in the long-running dispute
over Further Education (FE) college lecturers’ pay. They
promised the injection of £9 million, paving the way for parity
of pay between FE lecturers and schoolteachers in April 2004.</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<hr class="section" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">For NATFHE, the main trade union organising teaching staff in FE
colleges, acceptance of these proposals meant a switch from national
(England and Wales) pay bargaining to Wales-level bargaining.</p>
<p>Wales also withdrew from national industrial action, notably the
one-day strike called jointly with UNISON on 5 November 2002.</p>
<p>Acceptance of the proposals meant a tacit recognition that the
only way the union could achieve justice on pay was through a
partnership with the employers and New Labour in the Welsh Assembly.</p>
<p>For this reason, prominent left-wingers in the union in Wales like
myself and Craig Lewis, the chair of the FE sector committee, opposed
the Davidson proposals.</p>
<p>We pointed out the college employers’ poor record on pay and
conditions since the incorporation (privatisation) of FE Colleges by
the Tories in 1993.</p>
<p>NATFHE members in Wales voted narrowly to accept the Davidson
proposals. From then, every left-wing activist in the union in Wales
strove to achieve the best possible deal in line with member’s wishes.</p>
<p>Initially negotiations with the Welsh employers organisation
Fforwm went relatively smoothly, with agreement being reached on the
allocation of the £9 million from the Assembly, giving most to the
lowest-paid workers – the support staff and the hourly paid
teaching staff and least to the management grades.</p>
<p>However, talks on parity with schoolteachers quickly floundered.
Currently schoolteachers are employed on a six-point scale, following
which a teacher may progress through a five-point upper scale after
successful completion of development reviews.</p>
<p>Given the clear similarity between the job of a schoolteacher and
a FE college lecturer, NATFHE argues that all main-grade college
lecturers should have the same opportunities as schoolteachers to progress.</p>
<p>This position was opposed by the employers, who proposed a new
grade – Advanced Practitioners, meaning that only a small minority
of main-grade lecturers would progress to parity with schoolteachers.</p>
<p>NATFHE made a number of concessions to achieve agreement but the
employers refused to compromise. They didn’t use the funding
argument, stating that not all of us deserve pay parity with schoolteachers.</p>
<p>NATFHE in Wales has already adopted an action programme, should
pay talks break down, involving a three-day strike in September to be
escalated if necessary to indefinite strike action. The strategy was
endorsed by the union’s national conference, which also voted
overwhelmingly despite opposition from the right-wing, to support
members on strike at £50 per day from day one.</p>
<p>A victory for NATFHE members in Wales would pave the way for a
similar victory in England, a victory for all trade unionists.</p>
<hr class="section" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst"><strong>Andrew Price was NATFHE NEC member for FE Wales and a Wales pay
negotiator.</strong></p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 6 November 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
Wales further education colleges:
Lecturers Fight for a Living Wage
(June 2003)
From The Socialist, No. 305, 21 June 2003.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
LAST NOVEMBER the Welsh Assembly, through its education
minister Jane Davidson, intervened in the long-running dispute
over Further Education (FE) college lecturers’ pay. They
promised the injection of £9 million, paving the way for parity
of pay between FE lecturers and schoolteachers in April 2004.
For NATFHE, the main trade union organising teaching staff in FE
colleges, acceptance of these proposals meant a switch from national
(England and Wales) pay bargaining to Wales-level bargaining.
Wales also withdrew from national industrial action, notably the
one-day strike called jointly with UNISON on 5 November 2002.
Acceptance of the proposals meant a tacit recognition that the
only way the union could achieve justice on pay was through a
partnership with the employers and New Labour in the Welsh Assembly.
For this reason, prominent left-wingers in the union in Wales like
myself and Craig Lewis, the chair of the FE sector committee, opposed
the Davidson proposals.
We pointed out the college employers’ poor record on pay and
conditions since the incorporation (privatisation) of FE Colleges by
the Tories in 1993.
NATFHE members in Wales voted narrowly to accept the Davidson
proposals. From then, every left-wing activist in the union in Wales
strove to achieve the best possible deal in line with member’s wishes.
Initially negotiations with the Welsh employers organisation
Fforwm went relatively smoothly, with agreement being reached on the
allocation of the £9 million from the Assembly, giving most to the
lowest-paid workers – the support staff and the hourly paid
teaching staff and least to the management grades.
However, talks on parity with schoolteachers quickly floundered.
Currently schoolteachers are employed on a six-point scale, following
which a teacher may progress through a five-point upper scale after
successful completion of development reviews.
Given the clear similarity between the job of a schoolteacher and
a FE college lecturer, NATFHE argues that all main-grade college
lecturers should have the same opportunities as schoolteachers to progress.
This position was opposed by the employers, who proposed a new
grade – Advanced Practitioners, meaning that only a small minority
of main-grade lecturers would progress to parity with schoolteachers.
NATFHE made a number of concessions to achieve agreement but the
employers refused to compromise. They didn’t use the funding
argument, stating that not all of us deserve pay parity with schoolteachers.
NATFHE in Wales has already adopted an action programme, should
pay talks break down, involving a three-day strike in September to be
escalated if necessary to indefinite strike action. The strategy was
endorsed by the union’s national conference, which also voted
overwhelmingly despite opposition from the right-wing, to support
members on strike at £50 per day from day one.
A victory for NATFHE members in Wales would pave the way for a
similar victory in England, a victory for all trade unionists.
Andrew Price was NATFHE NEC member for FE Wales and a Wales pay
negotiator.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 6 November 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.1978.11.70-35 | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h1>£70 for 35 hrs</h1>
<h3>(November 1978)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>Militant</strong>, No. 431, 10 November 1978.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst">September unemployment figures showed 6.2% officially unemployed
in Britain as a whole. In Cardiff 8.9% are unemployed; 14% in the
Ebbw Vale area.</p>
<p>Faced with this situation, the local labour movement has come out
with a fighting lead. Cardiff Trades Council’s campaign against
unemployment has involved mass distribution of an excellent leaflet
calling for:</p>
<table align="center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3">
<tbody><tr>
<td>
<ul>
<li>A 35-hour week without loss of pay;</li>
<li>£70 minimum wage;</li>
<li>a programme of public works;</li>
<li>a planned publicly-owned economy under workers’ control and management.</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p class="fst">A very good working relationship has been established between the
Trades Council and the local YCAU. The Trades Council has agreed to
send seven delegates to the YCAU industrial conference in Bridgend on
November 25th.</p>
<p>Support has also come from NUPE, EETPU, Bakers’ Union, AUEW,
POEU, ASLEF branches, Rover shop stewards and numerous Labour Parties
and LPYS branches so far. There is still a lot of potential support
to be tapped.</p>
<p>The South East Wales YCAU urges all sections of the local Labour
movement to support the Trades Council Conference.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 14 November 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
£70 for 35 hrs
(November 1978)
From Militant, No. 431, 10 November 1978.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
September unemployment figures showed 6.2% officially unemployed
in Britain as a whole. In Cardiff 8.9% are unemployed; 14% in the
Ebbw Vale area.
Faced with this situation, the local labour movement has come out
with a fighting lead. Cardiff Trades Council’s campaign against
unemployment has involved mass distribution of an excellent leaflet
calling for:
A 35-hour week without loss of pay;
£70 minimum wage;
a programme of public works;
a planned publicly-owned economy under workers’ control and management.
A very good working relationship has been established between the
Trades Council and the local YCAU. The Trades Council has agreed to
send seven delegates to the YCAU industrial conference in Bridgend on
November 25th.
Support has also come from NUPE, EETPU, Bakers’ Union, AUEW,
POEU, ASLEF branches, Rover shop stewards and numerous Labour Parties
and LPYS branches so far. There is still a lot of potential support
to be tapped.
The South East Wales YCAU urges all sections of the local Labour
movement to support the Trades Council Conference.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 14 November 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.1982.11.stooge | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h4>Letter</h4>
<h1>LPYS – Don’t go back to the stooge days</h1>
<h3>(November 1982)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>Militant</strong>, No. 627, 19 November 1982, p. 12.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst">Dear comrade,</p>
<p class="fst">I was horrified to read reports that the new hard right majority
on Labour’s National Executive Committee intends to carry out
attacks on the Labour Party Young Socialists.</p>
<p>Presumably Dennis Howell, John Golding and other witch-hunters on
the NEC don’t like the present leadership of the LPYS. The fact
that this leadership is supported by the overwhelming majority of
LPYS members, and that this leadership has succeeded where others
have failed in building a mass LPYS are small details to these
witch-hunters, as their purge gathers its own momentum.</p>
<p>From 1965 to 1970 the LPYS had a stooge leadership imposed on them
by a constitution drawn up by Reg Underhill (yes he was at it in
those days as well). This leadership, whose ideas would be applauded
by Denis Howell today, was as representative of LPYS opinion as John
Golding is of CLP opinion today.</p>
<p><strong>Militant</strong> led the fight to democratise the LPYS, and when in
1970 the LPYS was eventually allowed to elect its own National
Committee <strong>Militant</strong> supporters won a majority.</p>
<p>In 1970, I spoke at a national demonstration organised by the
LPYS. As I recall around 500 youth were in attendance. A few weeks
ago I marched with the LPYS from my own CLP in a demonstration of
over 8,000 youth in Liverpool.</p>
<p>On the South Wales train there were over 300 young people. Many of
them were new to politics, but by the end of the day all of them had
been signed up for the LPYS and the Party. This demonstration was a
magnificent tribute to the dedication of those young comrades who
lead the LPYS, nationally and locally.</p>
<p>In the mid 1960’s when I joined the LPYS I remember Frank Field
being active in the YS. Presumably he remembers a pathetically small
organisation, incapable of campaigning on youth issues, a leadership
totally repulsive to any self-respecting youth, and a tiny movement
policed by Underhill and Bessie Braddock. Is this what this erstwhile
‘left’ MP wants a return to when he calls for the suspension of
the LPYS leadership?</p>
<p>Capitalism has sentenced million of our youth to a life sentence
on the dole. More than ever before the Party needs a strong youth
movement. In the unlikely event of Howell, Golding, Field and company
getting their way in their proposed purge of the youth – the ranks
of this movement will never forgive this abject betrayal.</p>
<table width="100%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3">
<tbody><tr>
<td width="60%">
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p class="fst">Yours Fraternally,<br>
<em>Andrew Price</em>,<br>
National Vice-Chairman of the LPYS (1970–73)</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 12 July 2017/p>
</p></body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
Letter
LPYS – Don’t go back to the stooge days
(November 1982)
From Militant, No. 627, 19 November 1982, p. 12.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
Dear comrade,
I was horrified to read reports that the new hard right majority
on Labour’s National Executive Committee intends to carry out
attacks on the Labour Party Young Socialists.
Presumably Dennis Howell, John Golding and other witch-hunters on
the NEC don’t like the present leadership of the LPYS. The fact
that this leadership is supported by the overwhelming majority of
LPYS members, and that this leadership has succeeded where others
have failed in building a mass LPYS are small details to these
witch-hunters, as their purge gathers its own momentum.
From 1965 to 1970 the LPYS had a stooge leadership imposed on them
by a constitution drawn up by Reg Underhill (yes he was at it in
those days as well). This leadership, whose ideas would be applauded
by Denis Howell today, was as representative of LPYS opinion as John
Golding is of CLP opinion today.
Militant led the fight to democratise the LPYS, and when in
1970 the LPYS was eventually allowed to elect its own National
Committee Militant supporters won a majority.
In 1970, I spoke at a national demonstration organised by the
LPYS. As I recall around 500 youth were in attendance. A few weeks
ago I marched with the LPYS from my own CLP in a demonstration of
over 8,000 youth in Liverpool.
On the South Wales train there were over 300 young people. Many of
them were new to politics, but by the end of the day all of them had
been signed up for the LPYS and the Party. This demonstration was a
magnificent tribute to the dedication of those young comrades who
lead the LPYS, nationally and locally.
In the mid 1960’s when I joined the LPYS I remember Frank Field
being active in the YS. Presumably he remembers a pathetically small
organisation, incapable of campaigning on youth issues, a leadership
totally repulsive to any self-respecting youth, and a tiny movement
policed by Underhill and Bessie Braddock. Is this what this erstwhile
‘left’ MP wants a return to when he calls for the suspension of
the LPYS leadership?
Capitalism has sentenced million of our youth to a life sentence
on the dole. More than ever before the Party needs a strong youth
movement. In the unlikely event of Howell, Golding, Field and company
getting their way in their proposed purge of the youth – the ranks
of this movement will never forgive this abject betrayal.
Yours Fraternally,
Andrew Price,
National Vice-Chairman of the LPYS (1970–73)
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 12 July 2017/p>
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.1976.06.fightracism | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h1>Young Socialists fight racialism</h1>
<h3>(June 1976)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>Militant</strong>, No. 310, 25 June 1976, p. 12.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst"><strong>The Labour Party Young Socialists have swung into action to
counter racialists and have won a tremendous response from immigrant
workers and wide sections of the labour movement. They have set an
example for the labour movement nationally how to defeat racialist
propaganda and build support for the movement.</strong></p>
<p>The last two weeks had seen the development of activities by
anti-immigrant groups in the city. On Friday June 19th the
Anti-Immigration League organised a meeting in Cardiff to be
addressed by Lady Birdwood and Sadie Relph.</p>
<p>A picket of the meeting was organised which was supported by the
Cardiff Trades Council. Given the shortage of time the picket was a
great success. Two hundred pickets lined the street outside the hall,
and only 15 turned up for the racialist meeting which was switched to
the home of the organiser!</p>
<p>Unfortunately the efforts of the labour movement in the city to
fight racialism have been hindered by a very negative attitude by
certain officials in the movement. Emrys Jones, the Welsh Regional
Organiser for the Labour Party, appealed twice through the press to
Labour Party members in the area to stay away from the picket!</p>
<p>On Saturday June 20th Cardiff North West, Cardiff South and
Cardiff North LPYS branches organised a meeting against racialism. On
learning about this meeting Jones circulated the 3 Constituency
Labour Parties, claiming that such a meeting was likely to worsen
race relations in the city and that in his opinion the CLPs <em>should
not give permission for the LYPS branches to hold this meeting!</em></p>
<p>On Friday June 19th the 3 CLPs met and discussed Jones’ letter.
To their great credit Cardiff North and Cardiff North West CLPs
ignored Jones’ advice and gave support to the meeting.</p>
<p>Unfortunately due to <em>a strong appeal from James Callaghan</em>
(the local MP) and a very obstructive attitude from the chair in
refusing to allow a full discussion on the issue Cardiff South East
GMC vote not to support the meeting.</p>
<p>On Sunday June 20th the immigrant community gave the best possible
reply to Emrys Jones. Around 100 people crowded into the meeting,
literally squashed into every corner of the room. Over half the
meeting was composed of immigrant workers, with practically every
immigrant group represented.</p>
<p>The first speaker was Henry Newbury, himself an Asian and a member
of Cardiff West CLP and the AUEW, described the life of an Asian
immigrant in Britain. In a fighting contribution Henry produced
statistics which utterly refuted the poisonous propaganda of the
racialists. He pointed the way forward for the movement in calling
for unity between black and white workers on a socialist programme.</p>
<p>Paul Copping (Cardiff North LPYS and LPYS Welsh Regional
Committee) in an excellent speech showed how racialism was a tool of
the ruling class to create divisions amongst the working class. Paul
echoed Henry’s arguments that in no sense could immigrants be held
responsible for the shortages of jobs, low wages, lack of housing
etc. Paul called for a campaign against racialism aimed at striking
at the very root of the disease.</p>
<p>The lively discussion that followed was led by the immigrant
comrades. Practically every immigrant speaker supported the arguments
of the platform.</p>
<p><em>More significantly they all pledged full support and full
involvement of their groups in the co-ordinating committee set up by
the LPYS against racialism in the city.</em></p>
<p>This fantastic response showed the willingness of the immigrant
workers to struggle alongside their white brothers against injustice
and to involve themselves in a real socialist campaign.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 6 November 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
Young Socialists fight racialism
(June 1976)
From Militant, No. 310, 25 June 1976, p. 12.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
The Labour Party Young Socialists have swung into action to
counter racialists and have won a tremendous response from immigrant
workers and wide sections of the labour movement. They have set an
example for the labour movement nationally how to defeat racialist
propaganda and build support for the movement.
The last two weeks had seen the development of activities by
anti-immigrant groups in the city. On Friday June 19th the
Anti-Immigration League organised a meeting in Cardiff to be
addressed by Lady Birdwood and Sadie Relph.
A picket of the meeting was organised which was supported by the
Cardiff Trades Council. Given the shortage of time the picket was a
great success. Two hundred pickets lined the street outside the hall,
and only 15 turned up for the racialist meeting which was switched to
the home of the organiser!
Unfortunately the efforts of the labour movement in the city to
fight racialism have been hindered by a very negative attitude by
certain officials in the movement. Emrys Jones, the Welsh Regional
Organiser for the Labour Party, appealed twice through the press to
Labour Party members in the area to stay away from the picket!
On Saturday June 20th Cardiff North West, Cardiff South and
Cardiff North LPYS branches organised a meeting against racialism. On
learning about this meeting Jones circulated the 3 Constituency
Labour Parties, claiming that such a meeting was likely to worsen
race relations in the city and that in his opinion the CLPs should
not give permission for the LYPS branches to hold this meeting!
On Friday June 19th the 3 CLPs met and discussed Jones’ letter.
To their great credit Cardiff North and Cardiff North West CLPs
ignored Jones’ advice and gave support to the meeting.
Unfortunately due to a strong appeal from James Callaghan
(the local MP) and a very obstructive attitude from the chair in
refusing to allow a full discussion on the issue Cardiff South East
GMC vote not to support the meeting.
On Sunday June 20th the immigrant community gave the best possible
reply to Emrys Jones. Around 100 people crowded into the meeting,
literally squashed into every corner of the room. Over half the
meeting was composed of immigrant workers, with practically every
immigrant group represented.
The first speaker was Henry Newbury, himself an Asian and a member
of Cardiff West CLP and the AUEW, described the life of an Asian
immigrant in Britain. In a fighting contribution Henry produced
statistics which utterly refuted the poisonous propaganda of the
racialists. He pointed the way forward for the movement in calling
for unity between black and white workers on a socialist programme.
Paul Copping (Cardiff North LPYS and LPYS Welsh Regional
Committee) in an excellent speech showed how racialism was a tool of
the ruling class to create divisions amongst the working class. Paul
echoed Henry’s arguments that in no sense could immigrants be held
responsible for the shortages of jobs, low wages, lack of housing
etc. Paul called for a campaign against racialism aimed at striking
at the very root of the disease.
The lively discussion that followed was led by the immigrant
comrades. Practically every immigrant speaker supported the arguments
of the platform.
More significantly they all pledged full support and full
involvement of their groups in the co-ordinating committee set up by
the LPYS against racialism in the city.
This fantastic response showed the willingness of the immigrant
workers to struggle alongside their white brothers against injustice
and to involve themselves in a real socialist campaign.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 6 November 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.2014.02.today | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h4>Review:</h4>
<h1>Marxism in Today’s World</h1>
<h3>(February 2014)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>The Socialist</strong>, No. 800, 26 February 2014.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst"><strong>Marxism in Today’s World</strong><br>
by Peter Taaffe</p>
<p class="fst">This Christmas, one of my presents was the book <strong>Marxism in
Today’s World</strong> by Peter Taaffe. This is an extended interview
originally given in 2003 to an Italian Marxist, on the politics of
the Socialist Party, the Committee for a Workers’ International
(CWI) and <strong>The Socialist</strong>’s forerunner, <strong>Militant</strong>, with
additional comments from Bob Labi of the CWI.</p>
<p>Peter Taaffe, Bob Labi and I all became Trotskyists in the 1960s;
I first joined Militant in 1968. In fact, a decisive factor in my
joining was Peter’s capacity to explain some of the complex ideas
of Marxism in a way working class men and women could understand.</p>
<p>In 1969, I was elected as Welsh representative on the National
Committee of the Labour Party Young Socialists, and later, when
Marxists became a majority of the Committee, I became National
Vice-chairperson of the organisation while Bob Labi (the London
representative) became editor of the LPYS newspaper (then known as <strong>Left</strong>).</p>
<p><strong>Marxism in Today’s World</strong> is divided into the following
sections: 9/11 and after; the world situation; the Middle East;
Ireland and the National Question; the Permanent Revolution today;
Russia, Eastern Europe and State Capitalism; China; the history of
the Militant and the CWI.</p>
<p>I am unable to make detailed comments on most of these sections
except to say that there is important commentary on a difficult
period from roughly 1985 to 1995, a period that saw the defeat of the
miners’ strike of 1984–85, the collapse of Stalinism across
Eastern Europe, and the Labour Party’s shift to the right.</p>
<p>Some chose to deny social reality and remained within the Labour
Party, deluding themselves and a few others that things had not
fundamentally changed.</p>
<p>Some of these went on to pursue parliamentary ambitions that some
of them probably had when they described themselves as Marxists.</p>
<p>Some, including Peter, me and many others, were expelled from the
Labour Party, helped to establish Militant Labour and remain today as
members of the Socialist Party and the CWI.</p>
<p>I hope every member of the Socialist Party and the CWI reads
<strong>Marxism in Today’s World</strong>, including young comrades not even
born when many of the events analysed took place.</p>
<p>To work properly as a party member in today’s world you need to
understand how we have cherished and defended at each stage our most
important legacy: the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky.</p>
<p>Buy this book, read it, organise branch meetings around it and
help develop your own political understanding to the point where you
can play a decisive role in ridding the world of the scourge of capitalism.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 31 August 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
Review:
Marxism in Today’s World
(February 2014)
From The Socialist, No. 800, 26 February 2014.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
Marxism in Today’s World
by Peter Taaffe
This Christmas, one of my presents was the book Marxism in
Today’s World by Peter Taaffe. This is an extended interview
originally given in 2003 to an Italian Marxist, on the politics of
the Socialist Party, the Committee for a Workers’ International
(CWI) and The Socialist’s forerunner, Militant, with
additional comments from Bob Labi of the CWI.
Peter Taaffe, Bob Labi and I all became Trotskyists in the 1960s;
I first joined Militant in 1968. In fact, a decisive factor in my
joining was Peter’s capacity to explain some of the complex ideas
of Marxism in a way working class men and women could understand.
In 1969, I was elected as Welsh representative on the National
Committee of the Labour Party Young Socialists, and later, when
Marxists became a majority of the Committee, I became National
Vice-chairperson of the organisation while Bob Labi (the London
representative) became editor of the LPYS newspaper (then known as Left).
Marxism in Today’s World is divided into the following
sections: 9/11 and after; the world situation; the Middle East;
Ireland and the National Question; the Permanent Revolution today;
Russia, Eastern Europe and State Capitalism; China; the history of
the Militant and the CWI.
I am unable to make detailed comments on most of these sections
except to say that there is important commentary on a difficult
period from roughly 1985 to 1995, a period that saw the defeat of the
miners’ strike of 1984–85, the collapse of Stalinism across
Eastern Europe, and the Labour Party’s shift to the right.
Some chose to deny social reality and remained within the Labour
Party, deluding themselves and a few others that things had not
fundamentally changed.
Some of these went on to pursue parliamentary ambitions that some
of them probably had when they described themselves as Marxists.
Some, including Peter, me and many others, were expelled from the
Labour Party, helped to establish Militant Labour and remain today as
members of the Socialist Party and the CWI.
I hope every member of the Socialist Party and the CWI reads
Marxism in Today’s World, including young comrades not even
born when many of the events analysed took place.
To work properly as a party member in today’s world you need to
understand how we have cherished and defended at each stage our most
important legacy: the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky.
Buy this book, read it, organise branch meetings around it and
help develop your own political understanding to the point where you
can play a decisive role in ridding the world of the scourge of capitalism.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 31 August 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.1981.08.travesty | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h4>Cardiff South East</h4>
<h1>A Travesty of Democracy</h1>
<h3>(August 1981)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>Militant</strong>, No. 564, 7 August 1981, p. 2.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst"><strong>At a recent meeting Cardiff South East CLP nominated Denis
Healey for the position of deputy leader of the Party.</strong></p>
<p>Nothing surprising about that you might say coming from one of the
most right-wing CLPs in Britain. But the way in which this decision
was reached should be of concern to every activist in the Party.</p>
<p>When GMC members received their notice of the meeting, they also
received without any explanation at all a piece of paper on which
they had to write the name of the candidate they supported for Party
leader, deputy leader, and treasurer. At the meeting Lord Brooks, the
CLP secretary and national organiser for ‘Solidarity’ explained
that this ‘democratic’ procedure would allow everybody to have
their say. Yes indeed! At least one ballot paper went to somebody
living outside the constituency!</p>
<p>Brooks refused to give any explanation as to how many ballot
papers had been sent out, how many had been sent back, and after the
count no figures were given on the votes cast for each candidate. In
addition Brooks was quite prepared to dish out ballot papers at the
GMC meeting on request, so as far as the GMC knew nothing could have
prevented a delegate posting his ballot paper in and then claiming
another one at the meeting.</p>
<p>During the protests that were going on about this appalling
travesty of the basic principles of electoral procedure one delegate
asked Brooks if he would read out the letters that had been sent to
each CLP from Tony Benn and John Silkin. Brooks replied that he had
read the letters and they were rubbish so he had left them at home.</p>
<p>Any active trade unionist would literally cringe at the idea of a
secretary having the right to arbitrarily decide which correspondence
should be reported to a meeting. There have already been disputes
over correspondence. Brooks left a YS resolution off the GMC agenda,
claiming he had not received it, yet two YS members said they had
taken the trouble of personally delivering it to Brooks.</p>
<p>The way in which Cardiff South East CLP is run has important
lessons for the movement. Having been an active member of this party
for over 10 years, I cannot recall many GMCs in the last few years
where the sort of attacks one reads in the <strong>Daily Express</strong> about
the <strong>Militant</strong> and the left in general are not made.</p>
<p>Practically always these attacks are spearheaded by Brooks and
local MP Jim Callaghan. They are supported by a small vociferous
clique of right-wingers who resort to terrible personal abuse when
their position is challenged. When you next hear Denis Healey
attacking the ‘intolerance’ of the left, remember that it is
people like these who desperately want him to win.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 29 August 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
Cardiff South East
A Travesty of Democracy
(August 1981)
From Militant, No. 564, 7 August 1981, p. 2.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
At a recent meeting Cardiff South East CLP nominated Denis
Healey for the position of deputy leader of the Party.
Nothing surprising about that you might say coming from one of the
most right-wing CLPs in Britain. But the way in which this decision
was reached should be of concern to every activist in the Party.
When GMC members received their notice of the meeting, they also
received without any explanation at all a piece of paper on which
they had to write the name of the candidate they supported for Party
leader, deputy leader, and treasurer. At the meeting Lord Brooks, the
CLP secretary and national organiser for ‘Solidarity’ explained
that this ‘democratic’ procedure would allow everybody to have
their say. Yes indeed! At least one ballot paper went to somebody
living outside the constituency!
Brooks refused to give any explanation as to how many ballot
papers had been sent out, how many had been sent back, and after the
count no figures were given on the votes cast for each candidate. In
addition Brooks was quite prepared to dish out ballot papers at the
GMC meeting on request, so as far as the GMC knew nothing could have
prevented a delegate posting his ballot paper in and then claiming
another one at the meeting.
During the protests that were going on about this appalling
travesty of the basic principles of electoral procedure one delegate
asked Brooks if he would read out the letters that had been sent to
each CLP from Tony Benn and John Silkin. Brooks replied that he had
read the letters and they were rubbish so he had left them at home.
Any active trade unionist would literally cringe at the idea of a
secretary having the right to arbitrarily decide which correspondence
should be reported to a meeting. There have already been disputes
over correspondence. Brooks left a YS resolution off the GMC agenda,
claiming he had not received it, yet two YS members said they had
taken the trouble of personally delivering it to Brooks.
The way in which Cardiff South East CLP is run has important
lessons for the movement. Having been an active member of this party
for over 10 years, I cannot recall many GMCs in the last few years
where the sort of attacks one reads in the Daily Express about
the Militant and the left in general are not made.
Practically always these attacks are spearheaded by Brooks and
local MP Jim Callaghan. They are supported by a small vociferous
clique of right-wingers who resort to terrible personal abuse when
their position is challenged. When you next hear Denis Healey
attacking the ‘intolerance’ of the left, remember that it is
people like these who desperately want him to win.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 29 August 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.2012.10.road | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h1>The road to New Labour</h1>
<h3>(October 2012)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>Socialism Today</strong>, No. 142, October 2012.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<table width="80%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" align="center">
<tbody><tr>
<td>
<p class="fst"><strong>Neil Kinnock’s speech to the 1985 Labour Party conference signalled the start of a purge of Marxists from the party and anticipated the creation of New Labour. ANDREW PRICE, who was expelled from the Labour Party 25 years ago, looks back.</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p class="fst">MANY YOUNGER READERS will only remember the Labour Party as New Labour – a bourgeois political party based on the ideas of neo-liberalism. For most of its history, however, it was rooted in the organised working class and was formally committed to socialism, albeit producing leaders such as Ramsey MacDonald, Hugh Gaitskell, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan and Neil Kinnock, who were far more interested in accommodating themselves to capitalism than promoting socialism.</p>
<p>The party was born at a time of heightened class tensions. In 1918, the same year as the party conference was addressed by a representative of the Russian Bolshevik Party, it adopted Clause IV, Part 4 of its constitution, formally committing it to the socialist transformation of society. (see box)</p>
<p>Such origins are a million miles removed from the sanitised party of Blair, Mandelson and the Milibands which, as the current leadership election demonstrates, is still wedded to neo-liberalism. Because of its prior existence as a bourgeois workers’ party, it made sense for the forerunners of the Socialist Party – <strong>Militant</strong> supporters – to be individual members of the party and its youth wing, the Labour Party Young Socialists (LPYS).</p>
<p>In 1983, in the wake of a massive election defeat, the party elected Kinnock as leader. He and his followers were ruthlessly determined to rid the Labour Party of Marxists, as I found to my cost when I was expelled from Cardiff South and Penarth Constituency Labour Party (CLP) 25 years ago. Ultimately, Kinnock was successful in driving out the Marxists – at the price of destroying the Labour Party as it had existed until then.<br>
</p>
<h4>Ruling-class pressure</h4>
<p class="fst">THE 1970s WAS a decade of class struggle that radicalised growing sections of the working class. This in turn affected the Labour Party, as CLPs and party conferences endorsed a number of left-wing policies. The decade ended with the defeat of Callaghan’s right-wing Labour government and the coming to power of Margaret Thatcher whose brutal brand of Toryism was unique in post-war Britain. During the 1980s, support for <strong>Militant</strong> grew considerably in both the CLPs and the LPYS, particularly in Liverpool.</p>
<p>Thatcherism accelerated the radicalisation of the working class and the shift to the left as many workers expected Labour to champion the working class with the same passion as Thatcher represented the ruling class. Coupled with the radicalisation of the party was an organised campaign led by Tony Benn and the late Eric Heffer, a Liverpool MP, to democratise the party and ensure that future Labour governments did not drift into right-wing policies.</p>
<p>These developments were viewed with consternation by the ruling class which, through the mass media, expressed concern at the growth in support for socialism in the party. They urged their shadows in the Labour Party to take action to reverse these trends. The demand was raised for disciplinary action against <strong>Militant</strong> supporters, branded as ‘infiltrators’ into the Labour Party. This was an outright lie. From Labour’s inception, Marxists had been party members. And, as a relatively democratic party, Labour had always allowed like-minded individuals to organise. What irked our opponents was our capacity to be better organised than most.</p>
<p>In 1980, Michael Foot became party leader. He was from a left-wing background, had once edited the left paper, <strong>Tribune</strong>, and had suffered in previous witch-hunts against supporters of Aneurin Bevan. In 1983, however, Foot buckled to pressure and initiated the expulsion from the party of the then editorial board of <strong>Militant</strong>: Peter Taaffe, Ted Grant, Lynn Walsh, Clare Doyle and Keith Dickinson. Foolishly, Foot and others believed that by cutting off the head of <strong>Militant</strong> its growth in the Labour Party would stop. This did not happen because working-class men and women had endorsed Marxism of their own volition – not through the ‘manipulation’ by infiltrators.</p>
<p>Labour fought the 1983 election with its most left-wing manifesto since 1918. It called for the reversal of all Tory cuts, scrapping Britain’s nuclear weapons, repealing anti-union laws, and the restoration to public ownership of all industries and services privatised by the Tories.</p>
<p>The Tory press kept up a remorseless campaign against the ‘dangers’ if Labour won. The attacks on three Marxists – Dave Nellist, Terry Fields and Pat Wall – standing as official Labour candidates in Coventry, Liverpool and Bradford, were particularly vicious.<br>
</p>
<h4>Kinnock’s betrayal</h4>
<p class="fst">THE LABOUR PARTY lost the election, with the Tories securing a massive parliamentary majority (albeit losing 685,000 votes). Clearly, the Tory press campaign, including its promotion of the alliance between the Liberals and a right-wing Labour split-off, the Social Democratic Party, had its effect, but some within the Labour Party also hoped for a defeat. In Cardiff South and Penarth, where Callaghan was standing for re-election, people attending what they thought was a routine election meeting heard Callaghan attack Labour’s defence policy in front of representatives of the international media!</p>
<p>Following the 1983 election, the ruling class and its shadows in the Labour Party argued that Labour’s defeat resulted from a left-wing manifesto with too much emphasis on socialism. None of the proponents of this view were able to explain the results in Liverpool. Given a big national swing to the Tories, Liverpool, where Labour was clearly identified with the left, recorded a swing to Labour which, if repeated nationally, would have been sufficient to form a Labour government.</p>
<p>Such details were ignored as Labour was urged by its political enemies to ‘modernise’, including a purge of Marxists from its ranks. This was the key issue in the leadership election following Foot’s resignation in 1983. One candidate was Roy Hattersley – a Labour right-winger mistrusted by many party members and trade unionists for his record in government. This mistrust led a section of the ruling class to hold back from promoting him as the candidate to bring about the desired counter-revolution in the Labour Party. Another candidate, Kinnock, was not tainted with such mistrust and claimed to be left-wing.</p>
<p>In reality, his links with left-wing ideals were very tenuous. In 1981, he and his supporters effectively sabotaged the chances of Tony Benn becoming deputy leader of the Labour Party. Some Tory newspapers warmed to Kinnock, referring to him as ‘soft left’ – in contrast to the ‘hard left’ of Benn and Heffer and the ‘illegitimate’ left of <strong>Militant</strong> – and he won by a large majority, with Hattersley as his deputy.</p>
<p>Kinnock’s efforts to ‘modernise’ the Labour Party were frustrated by two major developments. In March 1984, the provocative behaviour of the Tories led to the epic miners’ strike, which lasted until February 1985. At grassroots level most Labour members saw the Tories determined to smash the miners and their union, and expected Kinnock to support them. But Kinnock regarded the strike as the last thing he wanted given his modernisation agenda. In private, he attacked the strike. In public, he maintained a craven silence.</p>
<p>The other development frustrating Kinnock’s plans was the election of a Labour council in Liverpool led by a number of <strong>Militant</strong> supporters, as explained in the book by Peter Taaffe and Tony Mulhearn, <strong>Liverpool: A City That Dared to Fight</strong>. Liverpool Labour council was determined to lead a fight-back on behalf of a city whose people had been brought to their knees by poverty, unemployment and bad housing. From the outset of the struggle, Kinnock was implacably opposed to the strategy of Liverpool Labour council, even when it won what most saw as a major victory over Thatcher in 1984. One year later, when the determination of the Liverpool labour movement led Thatcher to consider more concessions, Kinnock blew the prospects of a settlement out of the water with his disgraceful speech to Labour Party conference (see box). In this he broke an elementary rule that anyone describing themselves as a socialist should abide by: he attacked workers in struggle.</p>
<p>The following day the gutter press praised him for his ‘brave speech’. Ordinary party members, particularly in Liverpool, were stunned by his breathtaking hypocrisy. He failed to mention a single one of the huge achievements of the council that had succeeded against all the odds in dramatically improving housing and employment in the city. Despite his lies, not a single worker lost his or her job as a result of council policy, in contrast to the many Labour-run councils that responded to Thatcherism with massive redundancies.<br>
</p>
<h4>Labour’s purge trials</h4>
<p class="fst">THIS SPEECH WAS the green light for a mass purge of Marxists from the party. Quietly the word went out: where witch-hunters were in the majority, expel; where not, as in Liverpool, Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) would do the dirty work. The Liverpool socialists were referred to the NEC which, in 1986, after ten meetings and at an incredible cost of £250,000, expelled nine party leaders with a combined party membership of 141 years.</p>
<p>In November 1985, Cardiff South and Penarth CLP began proceedings to expel myself and two others, Dave Bartlett and Diane Mitchell. As I attempted to address the CLP executive committee against my proposed expulsion, I appealed to the chair to stop being howled down by Callaghan supporters. The chair responded by joining in himself. Faced with such hooligan behaviour, I had no option but to walk out of the meeting, learning later from the <strong>South Wales Echo</strong> that the executive had recommended ending my almost 20-year membership of the Labour Party.</p>
<p>Throughout the country, <strong>Militant</strong> supporters were being subjected to such treatment, and this led many of us to initiate legal action. In every case this was taken with great reluctance, as many workers had understandable reservations about taking the Labour Party to court, and was never a substitute for a political campaign.</p>
<p>The experience in Cardiff, after the establishment of a defence fund endorsed by a former mayor of the city, was that money flowed in for our legal costs. One donation was from a South Wales miner who had fought in the Spanish civil war with the international brigade. With the help of a good barrister, we showed that the Cardiff South and Penarth witch-hunters had systematically broken Labour Party rules in our treatment. Within weeks our party membership was restored.</p>
<p>Similar debacles took place in many other CLPs. This later led the Labour Party to establish the National Constitutional Committee (NCC), to streamline expulsions. Having had my party membership returned, by 1988 I was referred to the NCC. Following a very serious illness, when time was ever more urgent, I decided to concentrate my political efforts on <strong>Militant</strong> and trade union work in the lecturers’ union, NATFHE. I resigned my Labour Party membership with few regrets, after more than 22 years membership. Meanwhile, Kinnock was showing how correct our perspectives had been. He had turned from purging <strong>Militant</strong> to purging party policy. Every one of the gains made by the left was removed.<br>
</p>
<h4>Paving the way for Blair</h4>
<p class="fst">THE MAJOR PROBLEM with Kinnock’s plan to make the Labour Party more electable was that it failed to impress the voters. In 1987, after a very presidential election campaign, in which the 1985 speech attacking Liverpool council was used in an election broadcast, Thatcher was returned with a majority only slightly less than the Tories had in 1983. In the dying years of her premiership, however, Thatcher scored a spectacular own goal with the introduction of the poll tax. Throughout Britain millions of working people could not, or refused to pay this iniquitous tax. On the ground, <strong>Militant</strong> supporters responded by organising anti-poll tax unions, giving support to non-payers. A <strong>Sun</strong> editorial referred to the advocates of non-payment as ‘Toy Town Trots’. Following their lead, as ever, Kinnock employed the same term in a speech attacking non-payment with far more force than the poll tax itself. At the height of the non-payment campaign, the Tories dropped Thatcher as leader. <strong>Militant</strong> – certainly not Kinnock and the Labour Party – deserves the credit for her downfall.</p>
<p>Kinnock’s eventual replacement, John Smith, elected after the 1992 election defeat, was another moderniser. After his death in 1994, he was replaced by the moderniser of all modernisers, Tony Blair and, in 1995, Blair persuaded the Labour Party to drop Clause IV, a truly defining moment in the party’s history. The party with a working-class base and capitalist leadership had now become a bourgeois political party. In this sense, the war on Marxism unleashed by Kinnock had been won, but at the terrible price of destroying the Labour Party.</p>
<p>Looking back on all this, it is still difficult not to get angry. During their heroic strike, I met miners who with their families had been to hell and back. Their communities today are still ravaged, and their youth have turned to drugs. What contempt do these brave men and women have for the multi-millionaire Kinnock ensconced in the House of Lords? Our crime was to devote ourselves tirelessly to fighting the Tories, the employers and advocating socialism. Our departure paved the way for upper-middle-class upstarts like Blair, Mandelson and the Milibands to take the party over. They were the real infiltrators, helped on their way by Kinnock and others.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 24 February 2020</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
The road to New Labour
(October 2012)
From Socialism Today, No. 142, October 2012.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
Neil Kinnock’s speech to the 1985 Labour Party conference signalled the start of a purge of Marxists from the party and anticipated the creation of New Labour. ANDREW PRICE, who was expelled from the Labour Party 25 years ago, looks back.
MANY YOUNGER READERS will only remember the Labour Party as New Labour – a bourgeois political party based on the ideas of neo-liberalism. For most of its history, however, it was rooted in the organised working class and was formally committed to socialism, albeit producing leaders such as Ramsey MacDonald, Hugh Gaitskell, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan and Neil Kinnock, who were far more interested in accommodating themselves to capitalism than promoting socialism.
The party was born at a time of heightened class tensions. In 1918, the same year as the party conference was addressed by a representative of the Russian Bolshevik Party, it adopted Clause IV, Part 4 of its constitution, formally committing it to the socialist transformation of society. (see box)
Such origins are a million miles removed from the sanitised party of Blair, Mandelson and the Milibands which, as the current leadership election demonstrates, is still wedded to neo-liberalism. Because of its prior existence as a bourgeois workers’ party, it made sense for the forerunners of the Socialist Party – Militant supporters – to be individual members of the party and its youth wing, the Labour Party Young Socialists (LPYS).
In 1983, in the wake of a massive election defeat, the party elected Kinnock as leader. He and his followers were ruthlessly determined to rid the Labour Party of Marxists, as I found to my cost when I was expelled from Cardiff South and Penarth Constituency Labour Party (CLP) 25 years ago. Ultimately, Kinnock was successful in driving out the Marxists – at the price of destroying the Labour Party as it had existed until then.
Ruling-class pressure
THE 1970s WAS a decade of class struggle that radicalised growing sections of the working class. This in turn affected the Labour Party, as CLPs and party conferences endorsed a number of left-wing policies. The decade ended with the defeat of Callaghan’s right-wing Labour government and the coming to power of Margaret Thatcher whose brutal brand of Toryism was unique in post-war Britain. During the 1980s, support for Militant grew considerably in both the CLPs and the LPYS, particularly in Liverpool.
Thatcherism accelerated the radicalisation of the working class and the shift to the left as many workers expected Labour to champion the working class with the same passion as Thatcher represented the ruling class. Coupled with the radicalisation of the party was an organised campaign led by Tony Benn and the late Eric Heffer, a Liverpool MP, to democratise the party and ensure that future Labour governments did not drift into right-wing policies.
These developments were viewed with consternation by the ruling class which, through the mass media, expressed concern at the growth in support for socialism in the party. They urged their shadows in the Labour Party to take action to reverse these trends. The demand was raised for disciplinary action against Militant supporters, branded as ‘infiltrators’ into the Labour Party. This was an outright lie. From Labour’s inception, Marxists had been party members. And, as a relatively democratic party, Labour had always allowed like-minded individuals to organise. What irked our opponents was our capacity to be better organised than most.
In 1980, Michael Foot became party leader. He was from a left-wing background, had once edited the left paper, Tribune, and had suffered in previous witch-hunts against supporters of Aneurin Bevan. In 1983, however, Foot buckled to pressure and initiated the expulsion from the party of the then editorial board of Militant: Peter Taaffe, Ted Grant, Lynn Walsh, Clare Doyle and Keith Dickinson. Foolishly, Foot and others believed that by cutting off the head of Militant its growth in the Labour Party would stop. This did not happen because working-class men and women had endorsed Marxism of their own volition – not through the ‘manipulation’ by infiltrators.
Labour fought the 1983 election with its most left-wing manifesto since 1918. It called for the reversal of all Tory cuts, scrapping Britain’s nuclear weapons, repealing anti-union laws, and the restoration to public ownership of all industries and services privatised by the Tories.
The Tory press kept up a remorseless campaign against the ‘dangers’ if Labour won. The attacks on three Marxists – Dave Nellist, Terry Fields and Pat Wall – standing as official Labour candidates in Coventry, Liverpool and Bradford, were particularly vicious.
Kinnock’s betrayal
THE LABOUR PARTY lost the election, with the Tories securing a massive parliamentary majority (albeit losing 685,000 votes). Clearly, the Tory press campaign, including its promotion of the alliance between the Liberals and a right-wing Labour split-off, the Social Democratic Party, had its effect, but some within the Labour Party also hoped for a defeat. In Cardiff South and Penarth, where Callaghan was standing for re-election, people attending what they thought was a routine election meeting heard Callaghan attack Labour’s defence policy in front of representatives of the international media!
Following the 1983 election, the ruling class and its shadows in the Labour Party argued that Labour’s defeat resulted from a left-wing manifesto with too much emphasis on socialism. None of the proponents of this view were able to explain the results in Liverpool. Given a big national swing to the Tories, Liverpool, where Labour was clearly identified with the left, recorded a swing to Labour which, if repeated nationally, would have been sufficient to form a Labour government.
Such details were ignored as Labour was urged by its political enemies to ‘modernise’, including a purge of Marxists from its ranks. This was the key issue in the leadership election following Foot’s resignation in 1983. One candidate was Roy Hattersley – a Labour right-winger mistrusted by many party members and trade unionists for his record in government. This mistrust led a section of the ruling class to hold back from promoting him as the candidate to bring about the desired counter-revolution in the Labour Party. Another candidate, Kinnock, was not tainted with such mistrust and claimed to be left-wing.
In reality, his links with left-wing ideals were very tenuous. In 1981, he and his supporters effectively sabotaged the chances of Tony Benn becoming deputy leader of the Labour Party. Some Tory newspapers warmed to Kinnock, referring to him as ‘soft left’ – in contrast to the ‘hard left’ of Benn and Heffer and the ‘illegitimate’ left of Militant – and he won by a large majority, with Hattersley as his deputy.
Kinnock’s efforts to ‘modernise’ the Labour Party were frustrated by two major developments. In March 1984, the provocative behaviour of the Tories led to the epic miners’ strike, which lasted until February 1985. At grassroots level most Labour members saw the Tories determined to smash the miners and their union, and expected Kinnock to support them. But Kinnock regarded the strike as the last thing he wanted given his modernisation agenda. In private, he attacked the strike. In public, he maintained a craven silence.
The other development frustrating Kinnock’s plans was the election of a Labour council in Liverpool led by a number of Militant supporters, as explained in the book by Peter Taaffe and Tony Mulhearn, Liverpool: A City That Dared to Fight. Liverpool Labour council was determined to lead a fight-back on behalf of a city whose people had been brought to their knees by poverty, unemployment and bad housing. From the outset of the struggle, Kinnock was implacably opposed to the strategy of Liverpool Labour council, even when it won what most saw as a major victory over Thatcher in 1984. One year later, when the determination of the Liverpool labour movement led Thatcher to consider more concessions, Kinnock blew the prospects of a settlement out of the water with his disgraceful speech to Labour Party conference (see box). In this he broke an elementary rule that anyone describing themselves as a socialist should abide by: he attacked workers in struggle.
The following day the gutter press praised him for his ‘brave speech’. Ordinary party members, particularly in Liverpool, were stunned by his breathtaking hypocrisy. He failed to mention a single one of the huge achievements of the council that had succeeded against all the odds in dramatically improving housing and employment in the city. Despite his lies, not a single worker lost his or her job as a result of council policy, in contrast to the many Labour-run councils that responded to Thatcherism with massive redundancies.
Labour’s purge trials
THIS SPEECH WAS the green light for a mass purge of Marxists from the party. Quietly the word went out: where witch-hunters were in the majority, expel; where not, as in Liverpool, Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) would do the dirty work. The Liverpool socialists were referred to the NEC which, in 1986, after ten meetings and at an incredible cost of £250,000, expelled nine party leaders with a combined party membership of 141 years.
In November 1985, Cardiff South and Penarth CLP began proceedings to expel myself and two others, Dave Bartlett and Diane Mitchell. As I attempted to address the CLP executive committee against my proposed expulsion, I appealed to the chair to stop being howled down by Callaghan supporters. The chair responded by joining in himself. Faced with such hooligan behaviour, I had no option but to walk out of the meeting, learning later from the South Wales Echo that the executive had recommended ending my almost 20-year membership of the Labour Party.
Throughout the country, Militant supporters were being subjected to such treatment, and this led many of us to initiate legal action. In every case this was taken with great reluctance, as many workers had understandable reservations about taking the Labour Party to court, and was never a substitute for a political campaign.
The experience in Cardiff, after the establishment of a defence fund endorsed by a former mayor of the city, was that money flowed in for our legal costs. One donation was from a South Wales miner who had fought in the Spanish civil war with the international brigade. With the help of a good barrister, we showed that the Cardiff South and Penarth witch-hunters had systematically broken Labour Party rules in our treatment. Within weeks our party membership was restored.
Similar debacles took place in many other CLPs. This later led the Labour Party to establish the National Constitutional Committee (NCC), to streamline expulsions. Having had my party membership returned, by 1988 I was referred to the NCC. Following a very serious illness, when time was ever more urgent, I decided to concentrate my political efforts on Militant and trade union work in the lecturers’ union, NATFHE. I resigned my Labour Party membership with few regrets, after more than 22 years membership. Meanwhile, Kinnock was showing how correct our perspectives had been. He had turned from purging Militant to purging party policy. Every one of the gains made by the left was removed.
Paving the way for Blair
THE MAJOR PROBLEM with Kinnock’s plan to make the Labour Party more electable was that it failed to impress the voters. In 1987, after a very presidential election campaign, in which the 1985 speech attacking Liverpool council was used in an election broadcast, Thatcher was returned with a majority only slightly less than the Tories had in 1983. In the dying years of her premiership, however, Thatcher scored a spectacular own goal with the introduction of the poll tax. Throughout Britain millions of working people could not, or refused to pay this iniquitous tax. On the ground, Militant supporters responded by organising anti-poll tax unions, giving support to non-payers. A Sun editorial referred to the advocates of non-payment as ‘Toy Town Trots’. Following their lead, as ever, Kinnock employed the same term in a speech attacking non-payment with far more force than the poll tax itself. At the height of the non-payment campaign, the Tories dropped Thatcher as leader. Militant – certainly not Kinnock and the Labour Party – deserves the credit for her downfall.
Kinnock’s eventual replacement, John Smith, elected after the 1992 election defeat, was another moderniser. After his death in 1994, he was replaced by the moderniser of all modernisers, Tony Blair and, in 1995, Blair persuaded the Labour Party to drop Clause IV, a truly defining moment in the party’s history. The party with a working-class base and capitalist leadership had now become a bourgeois political party. In this sense, the war on Marxism unleashed by Kinnock had been won, but at the terrible price of destroying the Labour Party.
Looking back on all this, it is still difficult not to get angry. During their heroic strike, I met miners who with their families had been to hell and back. Their communities today are still ravaged, and their youth have turned to drugs. What contempt do these brave men and women have for the multi-millionaire Kinnock ensconced in the House of Lords? Our crime was to devote ourselves tirelessly to fighting the Tories, the employers and advocating socialism. Our departure paved the way for upper-middle-class upstarts like Blair, Mandelson and the Milibands to take the party over. They were the real infiltrators, helped on their way by Kinnock and others.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 24 February 2020
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.2006.07.newparty | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h1>Wales launches Campaign for New Workers’ Party</h1>
<h3>(July 2006)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>The Socialist</strong>, No. 448, 13 July 2006.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<table width="80%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" align="center">
<tbody><tr>
<td>
<p class="fst"><strong>A WELL-attended meeting, mainly of trade union activists and
largely drawn from South Wales, met in Cardiff on 29 June to
launch the Campaign for a New Workers Party (CNWP) in Wales.</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<hr class="section" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">From the platform Rob Williams (T&GWU), convenor of the Visteon
Car plant in Swansea,described the current struggle to protect jobs
in the works given New Labour’s total failure to stem the loss of
jobs in manufacturing throughout the country.</p>
<p>Alex Gounelas (USDAW) explained how very few youth in Britain had
any political memories before the rise of New Labour, and how they’d
suffered as a result of the government’s policy in spheres such as
low pay and education. Young people could be enthused by the prospect
of a new workers’ party in the same way that they were enthused by
the struggle against the war with Iraq.</p>
<p>John McInally (PCS NEC) condemned the huge Civil Service job
losses caused by this government’s policies, and the massive
privatisation brought about by New Labour in the same area. The call
for a new workers’ party is in tune with the aspirations of many
public sector trade unionists today.</p>
<p>On the same day that Blaenau Gwent voters delivered a damning
verdict on New Labour, this meeting showed what the campaign can and
will do throughout Wales in the next period.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 6 November 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
Wales launches Campaign for New Workers’ Party
(July 2006)
From The Socialist, No. 448, 13 July 2006.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
A WELL-attended meeting, mainly of trade union activists and
largely drawn from South Wales, met in Cardiff on 29 June to
launch the Campaign for a New Workers Party (CNWP) in Wales.
From the platform Rob Williams (T&GWU), convenor of the Visteon
Car plant in Swansea,described the current struggle to protect jobs
in the works given New Labour’s total failure to stem the loss of
jobs in manufacturing throughout the country.
Alex Gounelas (USDAW) explained how very few youth in Britain had
any political memories before the rise of New Labour, and how they’d
suffered as a result of the government’s policy in spheres such as
low pay and education. Young people could be enthused by the prospect
of a new workers’ party in the same way that they were enthused by
the struggle against the war with Iraq.
John McInally (PCS NEC) condemned the huge Civil Service job
losses caused by this government’s policies, and the massive
privatisation brought about by New Labour in the same area. The call
for a new workers’ party is in tune with the aspirations of many
public sector trade unionists today.
On the same day that Blaenau Gwent voters delivered a damning
verdict on New Labour, this meeting showed what the campaign can and
will do throughout Wales in the next period.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 6 November 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.1982.05.bevan | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h4>T.V. Reviews</h4>
<h1>‘Nye Bevan’</h1>
<h3>(May 1982)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>Militant</strong>, No. 601, 14 May 1982, p. 6.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst"><strong>The life of Aneurin Bevan whose political battles have
important lessons for the labour movement today was the subject of a
recent BBC TV play by Paul Ferris.</strong></p>
<p>Born in Tredegar, South Wales in 1897 Bevin’s early involvement
with the labour movement was as a syndicalist fighting to stamp out
company unionism and establish the South Wales Miners Federation. He
became more involved in political struggles after the defeat of the
1926 General Strike.</p>
<p>During the 1930s as MP for Ebbw Vale Bevan brilliantly
demonstrated how a socialist should use parliament as a platform to
express the anger of the mass unemployed. In the 1945 Labour
Government Bevan was responsible for introduction of the National
Health Service. In the 1950s he was the centre of a witch-hunt
organised by the right wing who wanted to expel him and his
supporters from the Party.</p>
<p>Unfortunately having seen Gaitskellism defeated at rank and file
level in the movement towards the end of his life Bevan sought a
compromise with the right wing. He shattered the faith many of his
supporters had in him when he changed his position on nuclear weapons
in favour of Gaitskell’s.</p>
<p>This play could have been the subject of a serious analysis of any
of these themes. It could have sought to explain to the generation to
whom Bevan was only a name the battles he fought on their behalf.</p>
<p>The play did come of this. Indeed he dealt with the major
political questions in a largely superficial manner, sometimes being
more concerned about gossip about Bevan than in his political ideas.</p>
<p>One partial exception was the establishment of the National Health
Service. Here the mass support this important reform received was
well portrayed as was the selfish and reckless attitude of the
British Medical Association.</p>
<p>Yet the play failed to even mention the tooth and nail opposition
of the Tories to the NHS and their full support for the
extra-parliamentary opposition of the BMA. The play did, however,
bring out Bevan’s insistence that the Health Service should be free
and that private practice should only continue on a temporary basis.
The present devastated condition of the Health Service with the
scandal of private medicine flourishing would horrify Bevan if he
could see it today.</p>
<p>The stormy events of the 1950s in which the Gaitskellites, who
enjoy a majority in the Parliamentary Party, attempted to purge the
constituencies of Bevanite support was subjected to very poor
treatment. At its best the play portrayed the dispute as a clash
between the middle class and working class in the Party; at its worst
to a personality clash between Gaitskell and Bevan.</p>
<p>The fact that Bevan was nearly expelled from the Party, that CLPs
were closed down, that the right wing could only resort to
organisational measures to defeat the political arguments of the
Bevanites were all left out.</p>
<p>Some of those who supported the moves to expel Bevan in the 1950s
now favour organisational measures against <strong>Militant</strong>
supporters. Both Callaghan and Healey supported the expulsion of
Bevan in the 1950s. That is why those who did not experience these
battles should study actually what happened. Unfortunately Ferris’s
play largely failed to explain any of the mighty events in Bevan’s life.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 12 July 2017/p>
</p></body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
T.V. Reviews
‘Nye Bevan’
(May 1982)
From Militant, No. 601, 14 May 1982, p. 6.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
The life of Aneurin Bevan whose political battles have
important lessons for the labour movement today was the subject of a
recent BBC TV play by Paul Ferris.
Born in Tredegar, South Wales in 1897 Bevin’s early involvement
with the labour movement was as a syndicalist fighting to stamp out
company unionism and establish the South Wales Miners Federation. He
became more involved in political struggles after the defeat of the
1926 General Strike.
During the 1930s as MP for Ebbw Vale Bevan brilliantly
demonstrated how a socialist should use parliament as a platform to
express the anger of the mass unemployed. In the 1945 Labour
Government Bevan was responsible for introduction of the National
Health Service. In the 1950s he was the centre of a witch-hunt
organised by the right wing who wanted to expel him and his
supporters from the Party.
Unfortunately having seen Gaitskellism defeated at rank and file
level in the movement towards the end of his life Bevan sought a
compromise with the right wing. He shattered the faith many of his
supporters had in him when he changed his position on nuclear weapons
in favour of Gaitskell’s.
This play could have been the subject of a serious analysis of any
of these themes. It could have sought to explain to the generation to
whom Bevan was only a name the battles he fought on their behalf.
The play did come of this. Indeed he dealt with the major
political questions in a largely superficial manner, sometimes being
more concerned about gossip about Bevan than in his political ideas.
One partial exception was the establishment of the National Health
Service. Here the mass support this important reform received was
well portrayed as was the selfish and reckless attitude of the
British Medical Association.
Yet the play failed to even mention the tooth and nail opposition
of the Tories to the NHS and their full support for the
extra-parliamentary opposition of the BMA. The play did, however,
bring out Bevan’s insistence that the Health Service should be free
and that private practice should only continue on a temporary basis.
The present devastated condition of the Health Service with the
scandal of private medicine flourishing would horrify Bevan if he
could see it today.
The stormy events of the 1950s in which the Gaitskellites, who
enjoy a majority in the Parliamentary Party, attempted to purge the
constituencies of Bevanite support was subjected to very poor
treatment. At its best the play portrayed the dispute as a clash
between the middle class and working class in the Party; at its worst
to a personality clash between Gaitskell and Bevan.
The fact that Bevan was nearly expelled from the Party, that CLPs
were closed down, that the right wing could only resort to
organisational measures to defeat the political arguments of the
Bevanites were all left out.
Some of those who supported the moves to expel Bevan in the 1950s
now favour organisational measures against Militant
supporters. Both Callaghan and Healey supported the expulsion of
Bevan in the 1950s. That is why those who did not experience these
battles should study actually what happened. Unfortunately Ferris’s
play largely failed to explain any of the mighty events in Bevan’s life.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 12 July 2017/p>
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.1979.02.rubbish | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price & Chris Burns</h2>
<h1>Rubbish for Rubbish</h1>
<h3>(February 1979)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>Militant</strong>, No. 444, 23 February 1979, p. 3.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst"><em>Reg Deacon [Chairman Cardiff No. 18 branch GMWU] and Doug
Toutt on the picket line spoke to <strong>Militant</strong>:</em></p>
<p class="fst">Cardiff’s dustmen initially voted to work during the low pay
dispute, and about two-thirds of the refuse would have been
collected. But management [i.e. Cardiff Tory council] told them they
would work as normal or not at all. This deliberate provocation has
led to an all-out dustmen’s strike in Cardiff.</p>
<p>Doug’s wage slip showed a take-home pay of £43 after being paid
a bonus. This was for a driver – assistants get less and many have
to claim FIS to make ends meet.</p>
<p>Because the employers’ offer does not cover bonuses it would
mean only 70p a week for most of the men!</p>
<p>Picketing has been very successful. If Jim Callaghan tried to
cross the picket line, said Dave, they would persuade him not to. But
if he did, it would show him up in his true colours.</p>
<p>All the pickets felt angry that they had been forced to take this
action under a Labour government. They felt the government’s
attitude was bound to disillusion Labour voters. One thing was
certain, however: the last person they wanted was Margaret Thatcher.</p>
<p class="quoteb">“We want £60 a week – I’m fed up of collecting
rubbish and getting paid rubbish for it.”</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 12 July 2017/p>
</p></body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price & Chris Burns
Rubbish for Rubbish
(February 1979)
From Militant, No. 444, 23 February 1979, p. 3.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
Reg Deacon [Chairman Cardiff No. 18 branch GMWU] and Doug
Toutt on the picket line spoke to Militant:
Cardiff’s dustmen initially voted to work during the low pay
dispute, and about two-thirds of the refuse would have been
collected. But management [i.e. Cardiff Tory council] told them they
would work as normal or not at all. This deliberate provocation has
led to an all-out dustmen’s strike in Cardiff.
Doug’s wage slip showed a take-home pay of £43 after being paid
a bonus. This was for a driver – assistants get less and many have
to claim FIS to make ends meet.
Because the employers’ offer does not cover bonuses it would
mean only 70p a week for most of the men!
Picketing has been very successful. If Jim Callaghan tried to
cross the picket line, said Dave, they would persuade him not to. But
if he did, it would show him up in his true colours.
All the pickets felt angry that they had been forced to take this
action under a Labour government. They felt the government’s
attitude was bound to disillusion Labour voters. One thing was
certain, however: the last person they wanted was Margaret Thatcher.
“We want £60 a week – I’m fed up of collecting
rubbish and getting paid rubbish for it.”
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 12 July 2017/p>
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.1980.05.where | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h4>Local Councils</h4>
<h1>Where the Money Goes</h1>
<h3>(May 1980)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>Militant</strong>, No. 504, 23 May 1980, p. 7.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst"><em>The estimates that the Cardiff City Council published a few
months back provide an insight into the grip that money lenders can
have on one relatively small local authority.</em></p>
<p><em>In 1979 in Cardiff, for example, 24,314 house-holders paid
£5,473,215 worth of rent into the funds of the City Council.</em></p>
<p><em>Yet £7,533,746 was paid back in debt charges; i.e. the
interest paid back on the money borrowed to build the houses in the
first place.</em></p>
<p>Furthermore the city treasurer estimates that in 1981 the total
rents collected will be just over £7.5 million, but interest
repayments will have shot up to over £11.5 million. So much for the
subsidised council tenant.</p>
<p>In 1979 all of the rents paid in Cardiff and almost all of the
government subsidy (which of course comes from taxes levied on
working people) were swallowed up in interest repayments to the
financial parasites.</p>
<p>Of course the exploitation does not end with housing. The same
report shows that rate-payers in Cardiff are still paying interest on
the money borrowed to build the Guildford Crescent Baths, first
erected during the reign of Queen Victoria!</p>
<p>In the Wales Empire poll built to cater for the holding of the
Empire Games in Cardiff in the 1950s, interest repayments were almost
as high as the wages paid to the workers who run the biggest swimming
pool in Wales.</p>
<p>After years of fighting by local Labour councillors, Ely, the
second largest council estate in the city was recently granted a
leisure centre, which has proved to be a very well supported amenity.</p>
<p>Again the city treasurer reports that interest repayments were
£10,000 greater than the takings in the centre in 1979.</p>
<p>The terrible bus service in Cardiff with its astronomical fares
lost £96,000 in 1979. Hardly surprising when £350,571 was paid back
to the money lenders. Just as a parting shot the money lenders took
over £15,000 in 1979 on the money borrowed for the disposal of the
dead in Cardiff.</p>
<p>Readers of the <strong>Militant</strong> will need little reminding of the
events of the last year’s ‘Winter of Discontent’. Right wing
Labour ministers like Owen and Ennals then took time off from
praising the virtues of crossing picket lines to explain to low paid
council workers that there was no money in the kitty to pay them a
living wage.</p>
<p>Little wonder that this is the case when money lenders are robbing
council left, right and centre.</p>
<p>And it is Labour councils and working class areas that face the
greatest burden in this place of exploitation. It is precisely run
down working class areas where the lowest amount of money can be
raised on rates, and the greatest amount of money needs to be spent.</p>
<p>So Labour councils have no alternative under the present system
than to go cap in hand to the financiers who bleed them white.</p>
<p>Instead of bowing to the dictates of Heseltine and his well oiled
Tory pals and cutting services on increasing rates and rents, the
labour movement should boldly declare that the next Labour government
will say enough is enough and cancel all local authority debts to the money-lenders.</p>
<p>Finally it should be spelt out what socialist policies would mean
in practice. The nationalisation of financial institutions with
direct government finances to local authorities would remove once and
for all the crippling burden of interest repayments.</p>
<p>This in turn would lead to a big reduction in rents and rates,
better schools, free public transport and leisure amenities at a
price people could afford. So much for the right wing argument that
socialist policies would lose Labour votes.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 14 November 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
Local Councils
Where the Money Goes
(May 1980)
From Militant, No. 504, 23 May 1980, p. 7.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
The estimates that the Cardiff City Council published a few
months back provide an insight into the grip that money lenders can
have on one relatively small local authority.
In 1979 in Cardiff, for example, 24,314 house-holders paid
£5,473,215 worth of rent into the funds of the City Council.
Yet £7,533,746 was paid back in debt charges; i.e. the
interest paid back on the money borrowed to build the houses in the
first place.
Furthermore the city treasurer estimates that in 1981 the total
rents collected will be just over £7.5 million, but interest
repayments will have shot up to over £11.5 million. So much for the
subsidised council tenant.
In 1979 all of the rents paid in Cardiff and almost all of the
government subsidy (which of course comes from taxes levied on
working people) were swallowed up in interest repayments to the
financial parasites.
Of course the exploitation does not end with housing. The same
report shows that rate-payers in Cardiff are still paying interest on
the money borrowed to build the Guildford Crescent Baths, first
erected during the reign of Queen Victoria!
In the Wales Empire poll built to cater for the holding of the
Empire Games in Cardiff in the 1950s, interest repayments were almost
as high as the wages paid to the workers who run the biggest swimming
pool in Wales.
After years of fighting by local Labour councillors, Ely, the
second largest council estate in the city was recently granted a
leisure centre, which has proved to be a very well supported amenity.
Again the city treasurer reports that interest repayments were
£10,000 greater than the takings in the centre in 1979.
The terrible bus service in Cardiff with its astronomical fares
lost £96,000 in 1979. Hardly surprising when £350,571 was paid back
to the money lenders. Just as a parting shot the money lenders took
over £15,000 in 1979 on the money borrowed for the disposal of the
dead in Cardiff.
Readers of the Militant will need little reminding of the
events of the last year’s ‘Winter of Discontent’. Right wing
Labour ministers like Owen and Ennals then took time off from
praising the virtues of crossing picket lines to explain to low paid
council workers that there was no money in the kitty to pay them a
living wage.
Little wonder that this is the case when money lenders are robbing
council left, right and centre.
And it is Labour councils and working class areas that face the
greatest burden in this place of exploitation. It is precisely run
down working class areas where the lowest amount of money can be
raised on rates, and the greatest amount of money needs to be spent.
So Labour councils have no alternative under the present system
than to go cap in hand to the financiers who bleed them white.
Instead of bowing to the dictates of Heseltine and his well oiled
Tory pals and cutting services on increasing rates and rents, the
labour movement should boldly declare that the next Labour government
will say enough is enough and cancel all local authority debts to the money-lenders.
Finally it should be spelt out what socialist policies would mean
in practice. The nationalisation of financial institutions with
direct government finances to local authorities would remove once and
for all the crippling burden of interest repayments.
This in turn would lead to a big reduction in rents and rates,
better schools, free public transport and leisure amenities at a
price people could afford. So much for the right wing argument that
socialist policies would lose Labour votes.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 14 November 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.2012.12.legacies | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h4>Letter</h4>
<h1>Clay Cross legacies</h1>
<h3>(December 2012)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>Socialism Today</strong>, No. 164, December 2012/January 2013.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst">I read with great interest Dave Gorton’s article on the fortieth
anniversary of the stand of Clay Cross council against the Tory
Housing Finance Act (<strong>Socialism Today</strong>, No. 163, November
2012).</p>
<p>I was one of the generation of Marxists campaigning in South Wales
at the time in support of the councillors. This involved me in
helping to organise a successful public meeting in Cardiff addressed
by Clay Cross councillor David Skinner and confronting within Cardiff
South East Constituency Labour Party (CLP) the local MP James
Callaghan, a right-wing Labour opponent of the council.</p>
<p>In 1972 I attended a huge conference in Cardiff on the Housing
Finance Act organised by the South Wales National Union of Miners
(NUM). On the platform was a young newly-elected Labour MP from the
South Wales coalfields masquerading as a left winger. Eloquently he
denounced the entire Tory Act but was then asked by a miner to
support the type of action favoured by councillor Skinner referred to
in Dave’s article. He refused but his weasel words were drowned by
the loud booing of practically everybody present. His name? Neil
Kinnock.</p>
<p>Twenty-three years later Kinnock famously denounced a similar
stand against the Tories by the Labour group of Liverpool city
council, led by <strong>Militant</strong> supporters (the forerunner of the
Socialist Party).</p>
<p>The Liverpool and Clay Cross councillors joined those from Poplar
in the 1920s in becoming part of the living traditions of the labour
movement. Their names will be remembered long after those of
political pygmies like Callaghan and Kinnock are forgotten.</p>
<table width="100%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3">
<tbody><tr>
<td width="60%">
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p class="fst"><em>Andrew Price</em><br>
Cardiff</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 29 August 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
Letter
Clay Cross legacies
(December 2012)
From Socialism Today, No. 164, December 2012/January 2013.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
I read with great interest Dave Gorton’s article on the fortieth
anniversary of the stand of Clay Cross council against the Tory
Housing Finance Act (Socialism Today, No. 163, November
2012).
I was one of the generation of Marxists campaigning in South Wales
at the time in support of the councillors. This involved me in
helping to organise a successful public meeting in Cardiff addressed
by Clay Cross councillor David Skinner and confronting within Cardiff
South East Constituency Labour Party (CLP) the local MP James
Callaghan, a right-wing Labour opponent of the council.
In 1972 I attended a huge conference in Cardiff on the Housing
Finance Act organised by the South Wales National Union of Miners
(NUM). On the platform was a young newly-elected Labour MP from the
South Wales coalfields masquerading as a left winger. Eloquently he
denounced the entire Tory Act but was then asked by a miner to
support the type of action favoured by councillor Skinner referred to
in Dave’s article. He refused but his weasel words were drowned by
the loud booing of practically everybody present. His name? Neil
Kinnock.
Twenty-three years later Kinnock famously denounced a similar
stand against the Tories by the Labour group of Liverpool city
council, led by Militant supporters (the forerunner of the
Socialist Party).
The Liverpool and Clay Cross councillors joined those from Poplar
in the 1920s in becoming part of the living traditions of the labour
movement. Their names will be remembered long after those of
political pygmies like Callaghan and Kinnock are forgotten.
Andrew Price
Cardiff
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 29 August 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.biog.obituary | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Dave Reid</h2>
<h3>Obituary</h3>
<h1>Andrew Price: Fighter, teacher, party campaigner</h1>
<h4>23 February 1949 – 3 October 2014</h4>
<h3>(October 2014)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From the <a href="http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/" target="new"><em>Socialist Party Website</em></a>, 7 October 2014.<br>
Formatted by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst">It was with great sadness that Socialist Party members and trade
unionists across South Wales received the news that Andrew Price had
passed away following a serious chest infection.</p>
<p>Our heartfelt condolences go out to his wife Enid, children
Rachel, Philip and Michael, and grandchildren Josh, Sam, Jack and Liam.</p>
<p>Andrew was an inspirational figure who overcame chronic ill health
to continue to play a leading role as one of the most militant
leaders of the South Wales labour movement.</p>
<p>He was a great orator, a tenacious fighter and a stalwart of the
Socialist Party and its predecessors the Militant Tendency and
Militant Labour.</p>
<p>As such he was hated by the right wing of the labour movement who
responded with relentless and often spiteful attacks (the right wing
vetoed a vote in Splott ward Labour Party to send Andrew a get well
card following his stroke).</p>
<p>But Andrew rose above those attacks, reinforced by an unwavering
conviction in the correctness of Marxist ideas and the eventual
victory of the working class.<br>
</p>
<h4>Early life</h4>
<p class="fst">Andrew was born in Pontypridd, one of four sons, before his family
moved to Cardiff while he was still a young boy.</p>
<p>Andrew grew up a real Cardiffian before returning to Pontypridd
and going to Aberystwyth university in 1967.</p>
<p>In Pontypridd Andrew joined the Labour Party Young Socialists, the
beginning of nearly 50 years of labour movement activity.</p>
<p>In 1968 he was convinced of Marxist ideas and joined Militant, at
that time a small tendency within the Labour Party.</p>
<p>In 1969 he was one of the first <strong>Militant</strong> supporters to be
elected onto the National Committee (NC) of the Labour Party Young
Socialists (LPYS) and contributed in no small measure to the success
in 1970 of <strong>Militant</strong> gaining a majority on the LPYS NC, a
majority never relinquished until the right wing under Neil Kinnock
effectively closed the LPYS in 1989, after all attempts at
engineering a political defeat of Militant had failed.</p>
<p>It was at an LPYS meeting in Cardiff in 1968 that Andrew met Enid
Phillips. At that meeting Andrew and Enid were in different political
trends – Enid was a supporter of <strong>Tribune</strong>, the left reformist
paper of the Labour Party – but they still fell for each other.</p>
<p>It was the beginning of a life-long partnership of deep mutual
love and dedication. In later years the Price household, the most
political in Tremorfa, appeared from the outside to be the least
politicised as Andrew and Enid agreed to display neither Labour nor
Socialist Party posters in their window!</p>
<p>In 1971 Rachel their daughter was born, followed three years later
by twins Michael and Philip. Andrew was a devoted father, and later
grandfather, combining his dedication to his family with his
commitment to the struggle to change society.</p>
<p>The 1970s was a period of heightened class struggle against the
Tory Heath government which Andrew participated in.</p>
<p><strong>Militant</strong>’s ideas were gaining an increasing echo and he
played a prominent role in the Cardiff Trades Union Council which he
continued until the end.</p>
<p>The election of a Labour government was viewed with great
expectation by the working class, but it was led by the right wing
who attempted to balance support from the trade union movement with
carrying out the dictates of big business.</p>
<p>Andrew clashed in the Cardiff South East CLP (constituency Labour
Party) with a leader of the government, Jim Callaghan, who was first
foreign secretary, then prime minister.<br>
</p>
<h4>Labour Party witch hunt</h4>
<p class="fst">Led by the Tory press, the right wing began a campaign against
“Trotskyist infiltration” in Cardiff South East Labour Party.</p>
<p>For 13 years Andrew, together with other <strong>Militant</strong>
supporters, especially Dave Bartlett, fought tooth and nail repeated
attempts to expel him from the Labour Party, all of which failed
until Andrew was struck down with a stroke in 1988.</p>
<p>Reminding anyone who would listen that it was Marxists who helped
form the Labour Party, Andrew fought every attempt to get him out of
Cardiff South East Labour Party and off Callaghan’s CLP General
Management Committee (GMC).</p>
<p>After the right wing mobilised at Splott ward’s AGM to vote
Andrew off the GMC, Andrew remembered that the Socialist Education
Association (SEA), of which he was a member, was affiliated to
Cardiff South East Labour Party and so got delegated from the SEA.</p>
<p>His right wing opponents were seething as Andrew took his seat at
the next GMC meeting. When the right wing responded by mobilising
dozens of right wingers from all across Cardiff to join the SEA in an
attempt to unseat him, Andrew and Dave Bartlett responded by signing
up dozens of left wingers.</p>
<p>The normally sleepy SEA was surprised to see its Cardiff branch
mushroom into the biggest in the country! Under Andrew’s leadership
the Cardiff SEA became not just a battleground with the right wing
but one of the best venues in Cardiff for socialist discussion and
debate with many outside speakers invited to speak on educational and
socialist issues.</p>
<p>The campaign against <strong>Militant</strong> supporters in Cardiff South
East was very personal and occasionally violent, but he never once
faltered, maintaining a principled support for <strong>Militant</strong> and
Marxist ideas and refusing to stoop to the personal and petty levels
of his opponents.</p>
<p>The attacks from the right wing did not prevent Andrew from
winning wide support from the labour movement in South Wales.</p>
<p>In 1980 he even managed to be elected as the delegate from Cardiff
South East CLP to Labour Party national conference and took great
delight in reporting back how he voted in the conference to the right
wing at the GMC.</p>
<p>He was short-listed as Labour parliamentary candidate in
Caerphilly, Torfaen and Cardiff Central constituencies, only missing
out in Cardiff Central by a handful of votes to another left winger
in1982.</p>
<p>In 1985 eventually the right wing in Cardiff South Labour Party
voted to expel Andrew along with Dave Bartlett and Diane Mitchell.</p>
<p>Andrew used the attack as a platform to campaign against the witch
hunt and for the ideas of Marxism in the labour movement, travelling
all over the country speaking at Labour Party meetings and raising
funds for the Cardiff South Defence Fund.</p>
<p>The Cardiff South three successfully won an injunction against the
right wing for unconstitutionally railroading the expulsions through.<br>
</p>
<h4>Dedication to labour movement</h4>
<p class="fst">Andrew played a prominent role in the South Wales labour movement
in the struggles against the reactionary Thatcher government.</p>
<p>During the miners’ strike of 1984–5 Andrew was seen on many
picket lines in support of the miners, and when the picket lines were
attacked by the police he was often seen where the fighting was at
its thickest.</p>
<p>Andrew was also a staunch defender of <strong>Militant</strong>-led
Liverpool council, organising support meetings in Cardiff.</p>
<p>In 1988 Andrew suffered a serious stroke that partially paralysed
his left side. His disability made movement very difficult, but aided
by Enid, he insisted on returning to work and continuing his
political activity.</p>
<p>For the rest of his life Andrew refused to allow his disability to
prevent him playing a full role in the labour movement and as a
teacher. This would not have been possible without the huge day to
day and moral support he received from Enid for the remaining 26
years of his life.</p>
<p>He had already come to the conclusion that the undemocratic
changes to the Labour Party had made it increasingly difficult to
change it and that it was better to build support for Marxism outside
the Labour Party and for him to concentrate on the wider struggle.</p>
<p>In 1989 Margaret Thatcher gave him a golden opportunity with the
poll tax. Andrew threw himself into the struggle and soon clashed
again with the right wing Labour councillors who decided to implement
Thatcher’s poll tax.</p>
<p>He helped set up Splott anti-poll tax union and when summoned to
court for non-payment Andrew stood his ground and defied the
magistrates.</p>
<p>Andrew’s deep personal loyalty was sorely tested when the
<strong>Militant</strong> leadership split in 1991 mainly over the issue of
staying in the Labour Party.</p>
<p>But despite being telephoned a number of times by leaders of the
small minority faction who wished to remain in the Labour Party,
Andrew supported the position of the majority who realised that
Labour was becoming a party wedded to capitalism in which the voice
of the working class was silenced.<br>
</p>
<h4>Teacher and trade unionist</h4>
<p class="fst">Andrew had begun teaching sociology at Rumney Tech in 1971 and for
the next 38 years was an inspiring teacher to thousands of further
education students.</p>
<p>Many times he would be sought out on street stalls by former
students who were grateful for his dedication and patience.</p>
<p>And Andrew was also a great union organiser in the college
lecturers’ union, NATFHE (now part of UCU), serving for many years
on its Wales and UK executive committees.</p>
<p>Over the years he was an uncompromising negotiator on behalf of
union members at his college and as a Wales negotiator with the Welsh
college employers.</p>
<p>With Andrew as one of the FE leaders, Wales was one of the most
combative parts of NATFHE and Welsh FE lecturers led by Andrew
secured the best pay and employment deals in Britain, including pay
parity with teachers that served as an aim for lecturers in England.</p>
<p>Even after retiring Andrew continued to play an important role at
the Cardiff Trades Union Council, UCU Wales Retired Members branch
and at the Wales TUC conference, at this year’s conference
powerfully condemning the bedroom tax.</p>
<p>Andrew was a tremendous orator, always speaking clearly and was
able to speak colourfully but also directly, telling it like it is.<br>
</p>
<h4>Later years</h4>
<p class="fst">Despite being one of the oldest members of the Socialist Party in
Wales Andrew had a special relationship with the youngest members.</p>
<p>One recalls:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“A fountain of knowledge in the local Socialist Party
branch he would answer every question and take time to speak to an
annoying teenager (me) at every meeting and activity.”</p>
<p class="fst">Another recalls:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“Andrew became my comrade and friend but he never
stopped being my teacher. He was an inspiration to all around him.
The struggles he endured, the respect he had amongst his peers and
younger generations. Always willing to patiently explain – many
times too patiently to the annoyance of other comrades. Always
entertaining to sit down and have a pint with.”</p>
<p class="fst">One young member insisted in remaining in Andrew’s party branch
even though she didn’t live in the area, so that she could hear his
contributions in the political discussions.</p>
<p>After leaving the Labour Party Andrew dedicated himself to arguing
the need for a new mass workers’ party.</p>
<p>He understood that this was the main political task for the trade
union movement. Labour Party supporters in the trade unions sometimes
tired of his interventions, but Andrew understood that this issue was
central for the working class to defend itself against the capitalist onslaught.</p>
<p>Andrew also understood that building support for socialist ideas
was crucial as well. He never missed a Socialist Party branch meeting
except for illness or holiday, even though he had more reason than anyone.</p>
<p>He understood that finance was vital to our success and was an
inspiring and determined finance organiser. He was the best district
treasurer Wales Socialist Party ever had. In 1987 he and Chris Peace
organised a sponsored bike ride to raise money for the fighting fund.</p>
<p>In later years he did not allow his disability to prevent him from
repeating the feat, this time on an adapted bike.</p>
<p>For three years anyone who attended an anti-cuts meeting or a
trades council meeting was gently “persuaded” to sponsor Andrew.
In two years he raised over £1,000, which was paid into the
financial appeals at Socialism 2012 and 2013.</p>
<p>This year Andrew will not be here to repeat his ride, but some
sponsor money has already been collected.</p>
<p>Socialist Party Wales is setting up an Andrew Price memorial fund
with a target of £2,000 to ensure Andrew’s 2014 efforts are not wasted.</p>
<p>For decades Andrew inspired enormous respect and affection, even
from opponents, because he had absolute integrity.</p>
<p>He was dedicated to changing society and convinced that the
working class, the ideas of Marxism and the methods of the Socialist
Party and CWI are the only means by which we can achieve that.</p>
<p>His example is an inspiration to generations of socialists and
although he has passed away, his memory lives on in the minds of
generations of socialists, who are proud to have known Andrew and
shared in his battles. He will be sorely missed and never forgotten.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 29 August 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Dave Reid
Obituary
Andrew Price: Fighter, teacher, party campaigner
23 February 1949 – 3 October 2014
(October 2014)
From the Socialist Party Website, 7 October 2014.
Formatted by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
It was with great sadness that Socialist Party members and trade
unionists across South Wales received the news that Andrew Price had
passed away following a serious chest infection.
Our heartfelt condolences go out to his wife Enid, children
Rachel, Philip and Michael, and grandchildren Josh, Sam, Jack and Liam.
Andrew was an inspirational figure who overcame chronic ill health
to continue to play a leading role as one of the most militant
leaders of the South Wales labour movement.
He was a great orator, a tenacious fighter and a stalwart of the
Socialist Party and its predecessors the Militant Tendency and
Militant Labour.
As such he was hated by the right wing of the labour movement who
responded with relentless and often spiteful attacks (the right wing
vetoed a vote in Splott ward Labour Party to send Andrew a get well
card following his stroke).
But Andrew rose above those attacks, reinforced by an unwavering
conviction in the correctness of Marxist ideas and the eventual
victory of the working class.
Early life
Andrew was born in Pontypridd, one of four sons, before his family
moved to Cardiff while he was still a young boy.
Andrew grew up a real Cardiffian before returning to Pontypridd
and going to Aberystwyth university in 1967.
In Pontypridd Andrew joined the Labour Party Young Socialists, the
beginning of nearly 50 years of labour movement activity.
In 1968 he was convinced of Marxist ideas and joined Militant, at
that time a small tendency within the Labour Party.
In 1969 he was one of the first Militant supporters to be
elected onto the National Committee (NC) of the Labour Party Young
Socialists (LPYS) and contributed in no small measure to the success
in 1970 of Militant gaining a majority on the LPYS NC, a
majority never relinquished until the right wing under Neil Kinnock
effectively closed the LPYS in 1989, after all attempts at
engineering a political defeat of Militant had failed.
It was at an LPYS meeting in Cardiff in 1968 that Andrew met Enid
Phillips. At that meeting Andrew and Enid were in different political
trends – Enid was a supporter of Tribune, the left reformist
paper of the Labour Party – but they still fell for each other.
It was the beginning of a life-long partnership of deep mutual
love and dedication. In later years the Price household, the most
political in Tremorfa, appeared from the outside to be the least
politicised as Andrew and Enid agreed to display neither Labour nor
Socialist Party posters in their window!
In 1971 Rachel their daughter was born, followed three years later
by twins Michael and Philip. Andrew was a devoted father, and later
grandfather, combining his dedication to his family with his
commitment to the struggle to change society.
The 1970s was a period of heightened class struggle against the
Tory Heath government which Andrew participated in.
Militant’s ideas were gaining an increasing echo and he
played a prominent role in the Cardiff Trades Union Council which he
continued until the end.
The election of a Labour government was viewed with great
expectation by the working class, but it was led by the right wing
who attempted to balance support from the trade union movement with
carrying out the dictates of big business.
Andrew clashed in the Cardiff South East CLP (constituency Labour
Party) with a leader of the government, Jim Callaghan, who was first
foreign secretary, then prime minister.
Labour Party witch hunt
Led by the Tory press, the right wing began a campaign against
“Trotskyist infiltration” in Cardiff South East Labour Party.
For 13 years Andrew, together with other Militant
supporters, especially Dave Bartlett, fought tooth and nail repeated
attempts to expel him from the Labour Party, all of which failed
until Andrew was struck down with a stroke in 1988.
Reminding anyone who would listen that it was Marxists who helped
form the Labour Party, Andrew fought every attempt to get him out of
Cardiff South East Labour Party and off Callaghan’s CLP General
Management Committee (GMC).
After the right wing mobilised at Splott ward’s AGM to vote
Andrew off the GMC, Andrew remembered that the Socialist Education
Association (SEA), of which he was a member, was affiliated to
Cardiff South East Labour Party and so got delegated from the SEA.
His right wing opponents were seething as Andrew took his seat at
the next GMC meeting. When the right wing responded by mobilising
dozens of right wingers from all across Cardiff to join the SEA in an
attempt to unseat him, Andrew and Dave Bartlett responded by signing
up dozens of left wingers.
The normally sleepy SEA was surprised to see its Cardiff branch
mushroom into the biggest in the country! Under Andrew’s leadership
the Cardiff SEA became not just a battleground with the right wing
but one of the best venues in Cardiff for socialist discussion and
debate with many outside speakers invited to speak on educational and
socialist issues.
The campaign against Militant supporters in Cardiff South
East was very personal and occasionally violent, but he never once
faltered, maintaining a principled support for Militant and
Marxist ideas and refusing to stoop to the personal and petty levels
of his opponents.
The attacks from the right wing did not prevent Andrew from
winning wide support from the labour movement in South Wales.
In 1980 he even managed to be elected as the delegate from Cardiff
South East CLP to Labour Party national conference and took great
delight in reporting back how he voted in the conference to the right
wing at the GMC.
He was short-listed as Labour parliamentary candidate in
Caerphilly, Torfaen and Cardiff Central constituencies, only missing
out in Cardiff Central by a handful of votes to another left winger
in1982.
In 1985 eventually the right wing in Cardiff South Labour Party
voted to expel Andrew along with Dave Bartlett and Diane Mitchell.
Andrew used the attack as a platform to campaign against the witch
hunt and for the ideas of Marxism in the labour movement, travelling
all over the country speaking at Labour Party meetings and raising
funds for the Cardiff South Defence Fund.
The Cardiff South three successfully won an injunction against the
right wing for unconstitutionally railroading the expulsions through.
Dedication to labour movement
Andrew played a prominent role in the South Wales labour movement
in the struggles against the reactionary Thatcher government.
During the miners’ strike of 1984–5 Andrew was seen on many
picket lines in support of the miners, and when the picket lines were
attacked by the police he was often seen where the fighting was at
its thickest.
Andrew was also a staunch defender of Militant-led
Liverpool council, organising support meetings in Cardiff.
In 1988 Andrew suffered a serious stroke that partially paralysed
his left side. His disability made movement very difficult, but aided
by Enid, he insisted on returning to work and continuing his
political activity.
For the rest of his life Andrew refused to allow his disability to
prevent him playing a full role in the labour movement and as a
teacher. This would not have been possible without the huge day to
day and moral support he received from Enid for the remaining 26
years of his life.
He had already come to the conclusion that the undemocratic
changes to the Labour Party had made it increasingly difficult to
change it and that it was better to build support for Marxism outside
the Labour Party and for him to concentrate on the wider struggle.
In 1989 Margaret Thatcher gave him a golden opportunity with the
poll tax. Andrew threw himself into the struggle and soon clashed
again with the right wing Labour councillors who decided to implement
Thatcher’s poll tax.
He helped set up Splott anti-poll tax union and when summoned to
court for non-payment Andrew stood his ground and defied the
magistrates.
Andrew’s deep personal loyalty was sorely tested when the
Militant leadership split in 1991 mainly over the issue of
staying in the Labour Party.
But despite being telephoned a number of times by leaders of the
small minority faction who wished to remain in the Labour Party,
Andrew supported the position of the majority who realised that
Labour was becoming a party wedded to capitalism in which the voice
of the working class was silenced.
Teacher and trade unionist
Andrew had begun teaching sociology at Rumney Tech in 1971 and for
the next 38 years was an inspiring teacher to thousands of further
education students.
Many times he would be sought out on street stalls by former
students who were grateful for his dedication and patience.
And Andrew was also a great union organiser in the college
lecturers’ union, NATFHE (now part of UCU), serving for many years
on its Wales and UK executive committees.
Over the years he was an uncompromising negotiator on behalf of
union members at his college and as a Wales negotiator with the Welsh
college employers.
With Andrew as one of the FE leaders, Wales was one of the most
combative parts of NATFHE and Welsh FE lecturers led by Andrew
secured the best pay and employment deals in Britain, including pay
parity with teachers that served as an aim for lecturers in England.
Even after retiring Andrew continued to play an important role at
the Cardiff Trades Union Council, UCU Wales Retired Members branch
and at the Wales TUC conference, at this year’s conference
powerfully condemning the bedroom tax.
Andrew was a tremendous orator, always speaking clearly and was
able to speak colourfully but also directly, telling it like it is.
Later years
Despite being one of the oldest members of the Socialist Party in
Wales Andrew had a special relationship with the youngest members.
One recalls:
“A fountain of knowledge in the local Socialist Party
branch he would answer every question and take time to speak to an
annoying teenager (me) at every meeting and activity.”
Another recalls:
“Andrew became my comrade and friend but he never
stopped being my teacher. He was an inspiration to all around him.
The struggles he endured, the respect he had amongst his peers and
younger generations. Always willing to patiently explain – many
times too patiently to the annoyance of other comrades. Always
entertaining to sit down and have a pint with.”
One young member insisted in remaining in Andrew’s party branch
even though she didn’t live in the area, so that she could hear his
contributions in the political discussions.
After leaving the Labour Party Andrew dedicated himself to arguing
the need for a new mass workers’ party.
He understood that this was the main political task for the trade
union movement. Labour Party supporters in the trade unions sometimes
tired of his interventions, but Andrew understood that this issue was
central for the working class to defend itself against the capitalist onslaught.
Andrew also understood that building support for socialist ideas
was crucial as well. He never missed a Socialist Party branch meeting
except for illness or holiday, even though he had more reason than anyone.
He understood that finance was vital to our success and was an
inspiring and determined finance organiser. He was the best district
treasurer Wales Socialist Party ever had. In 1987 he and Chris Peace
organised a sponsored bike ride to raise money for the fighting fund.
In later years he did not allow his disability to prevent him from
repeating the feat, this time on an adapted bike.
For three years anyone who attended an anti-cuts meeting or a
trades council meeting was gently “persuaded” to sponsor Andrew.
In two years he raised over £1,000, which was paid into the
financial appeals at Socialism 2012 and 2013.
This year Andrew will not be here to repeat his ride, but some
sponsor money has already been collected.
Socialist Party Wales is setting up an Andrew Price memorial fund
with a target of £2,000 to ensure Andrew’s 2014 efforts are not wasted.
For decades Andrew inspired enormous respect and affection, even
from opponents, because he had absolute integrity.
He was dedicated to changing society and convinced that the
working class, the ideas of Marxism and the methods of the Socialist
Party and CWI are the only means by which we can achieve that.
His example is an inspiration to generations of socialists and
although he has passed away, his memory lives on in the minds of
generations of socialists, who are proud to have known Andrew and
shared in his battles. He will be sorely missed and never forgotten.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 29 August 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.1984.02.tory-nazi | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h1>Tory MP in Nazi regalia</h1>
<h3>(February 1984)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>Militant</strong>, No. 686, 10 February 1984, p. 3.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst">LAST MONDAY <em>Panorama</em> presented some very well documented
evidence of some of the fascist scum that has floated into the main
sewer of the Tory party.</p>
<p>One named in the programme was Neil Hamilton MP who, <em>Panorama</em>
stated, once dressed up as a Nazi in his student days.</p>
<p>Hamilton, now MP for Tatton, was a student in University College
Aberystwyth in the late 1960s. I was a student there at the same time
and can confirm the correctness of <em>Panorama</em>’s statement.</p>
<p>In an interview at the end of the film Tory chairman, Gummer,
bleated that Hamilton had not dressed up as a Nazi, but as an
“Italian ice cream seller”. Either Gummer is a liar or someone
has really pulled the wool over his eyes.</p>
<p>Perhaps Mr Gummer will reject my memory of events, but he can
hardly challenge the report of the official student union newspaper,
<strong>Courier</strong>. Writing in 1972 of the hustings for student union
presidency for 1971, the paper says:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“The highlight of the evening was as usual Neil
Hamilton’s entrance; lights off, music playing, slide of a swastika
on the screen, and the arrival of Mr Hamilton in <em>full Nazi
regalia</em>” (my emphasis).</p>
<p class="fst">The fact that the student editors found this somewhat amusing
speaks volumes for their middle class flippancy. The relatives of the
six million Jews exterminated by the Nazis or the workers who died in
the “war against fascism” will not share the joke.</p>
<p>The labour movement should not treat Hamilton, Proctor and the
other Tory racist sympathisers as a joke either. The demagogic
appeals to the base and filthy sentiment of racism stands as a cover
behind which they will seek to develop a movement mainly based on the
middle class, but involving demoralised sections of the working class
to smash the trade union movement and democratic rights.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 14 November 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
Tory MP in Nazi regalia
(February 1984)
From Militant, No. 686, 10 February 1984, p. 3.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
LAST MONDAY Panorama presented some very well documented
evidence of some of the fascist scum that has floated into the main
sewer of the Tory party.
One named in the programme was Neil Hamilton MP who, Panorama
stated, once dressed up as a Nazi in his student days.
Hamilton, now MP for Tatton, was a student in University College
Aberystwyth in the late 1960s. I was a student there at the same time
and can confirm the correctness of Panorama’s statement.
In an interview at the end of the film Tory chairman, Gummer,
bleated that Hamilton had not dressed up as a Nazi, but as an
“Italian ice cream seller”. Either Gummer is a liar or someone
has really pulled the wool over his eyes.
Perhaps Mr Gummer will reject my memory of events, but he can
hardly challenge the report of the official student union newspaper,
Courier. Writing in 1972 of the hustings for student union
presidency for 1971, the paper says:
“The highlight of the evening was as usual Neil
Hamilton’s entrance; lights off, music playing, slide of a swastika
on the screen, and the arrival of Mr Hamilton in full Nazi
regalia” (my emphasis).
The fact that the student editors found this somewhat amusing
speaks volumes for their middle class flippancy. The relatives of the
six million Jews exterminated by the Nazis or the workers who died in
the “war against fascism” will not share the joke.
The labour movement should not treat Hamilton, Proctor and the
other Tory racist sympathisers as a joke either. The demagogic
appeals to the base and filthy sentiment of racism stands as a cover
behind which they will seek to develop a movement mainly based on the
middle class, but involving demoralised sections of the working class
to smash the trade union movement and democratic rights.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 14 November 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.1977.04.welshtuc | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h1>Welsh TUC face jobs crisis</h1>
<h3>(April 1977)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>Militant</strong>, No. 352, 22 April 1977, p. 12.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst"><strong>The Annual Conference on the Welsh TUC takes place at a time of
sharp crisis for the Welsh economy. The seriousness of the crisis is
spelt out in the report of the General Council for the Conference.</strong></p>
<p>This report shows the appalling levels of unemployment in Wales,
and the sharp increase in the level of unemployment since the last
conference. In keeping the British economy as a whole it is working
class youth who have suffered most in relation to unemployment. As
the General Council report shows between July 1975 and July 1976
youth unemployment increased by over 50% for males and 107% for
females. Despite enormous handouts of £100 million in financial
inducements to firms between 1964 and 1970 and the offer of £22
million selective assistance, since July 1975, unemployment has
spiralled to over 83,000 or 8% of the working population.</p>
<p>Equally the report shows just how hollow the promises for planned
new jobs were. <em>In Ebbw Vale government spokesmen promised an extra
2,118 jobs to compensate for the 1,394 redundancies in the steel
industry. To date 480 jobs have been provided!</em></p>
<p>This scandalous situation is reflected in the resolutions
submitted to this year’s conference. Not one attempt to rally
support for the continuance of the government’s present economic strategy.</p>
<p>The beginning of a fighting programme to defeat unemployment is
spelt out in certain resolutions. The AUEW Engineering Section for
example calls for earlier retirement, a shorter working week and a
reduction in overtime. The important qualification to add here is the
need to provide much more than the miserable £23 a week offered to
workers to retire early, and to qualify the demands on working hours
with the demand for no loss in pay. Otherwise it would be asking
workers to accept a further cut in living standards.</p>
<p>In keeping with the mood of their brothers and sisters in the rest
of the movement, only two resolutions calls for the continuation of
the Social Contract. NUPE couples the demand here with a demand for
better treatment of the low paid. The experience of the last two
years should have shown them, that the worse sufferers from pay
restraint have been precisely the low paid.</p>
<p>A once and for all remedy for these workers should be a £60 a
week minimum wage tied to a genuine cost of living index drawn up by
the trade union movement. In place of the demand for yet more wage
restraint, conference should unconditionally support the clear
demands of the NUM and the South Glamorgan Trades Council to reject
the swindle of wage restraint once and for all.</p>
<p>A number of resolutions call for selective import controls as a
solution to the problems facing Welsh workers. Conference should
oppose this parochial solution. The protected firms would be given a
blank cheque to jack-up prices, while the loss of markets by foreign
firms would cause loss of jobs, with the subsequent decline in
purchasing power of foreign workers and the trade recession would
deepen and ultimately produce greater unemployment on a world scale.</p>
<p>Equally the demand for more money to be injected into the economy
misses the point. Despite millions of pounds swallowed up by big
business, industrial production in Wales is still below that of the 3
day week of 1974, and only slightly caught up on 1970 figures. As Jim
Callaghan put it ”you can take a horse to water but you cannot
force him to drink”.</p>
<p>In the struggle for many of the worthwhile reforms called for on
this Conference agenda, Welsh trade unionists will have to draw the
conclusion that only an extension of public ownership to the 200 or
so firms that dominate the British economy and the drawing up of a
socialist plan of production controlled by working people can solve
the problems of workers in Wales or elsewhere in Britain.</p>
<p>The Welsh TUC should take up the demand of Swansea Trades Council
for industrial action against unemployment, but use such action as
the beginning of a socialist campaign to end the misery of
unemployment and inflation for ever.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 6 November 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
Welsh TUC face jobs crisis
(April 1977)
From Militant, No. 352, 22 April 1977, p. 12.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
The Annual Conference on the Welsh TUC takes place at a time of
sharp crisis for the Welsh economy. The seriousness of the crisis is
spelt out in the report of the General Council for the Conference.
This report shows the appalling levels of unemployment in Wales,
and the sharp increase in the level of unemployment since the last
conference. In keeping the British economy as a whole it is working
class youth who have suffered most in relation to unemployment. As
the General Council report shows between July 1975 and July 1976
youth unemployment increased by over 50% for males and 107% for
females. Despite enormous handouts of £100 million in financial
inducements to firms between 1964 and 1970 and the offer of £22
million selective assistance, since July 1975, unemployment has
spiralled to over 83,000 or 8% of the working population.
Equally the report shows just how hollow the promises for planned
new jobs were. In Ebbw Vale government spokesmen promised an extra
2,118 jobs to compensate for the 1,394 redundancies in the steel
industry. To date 480 jobs have been provided!
This scandalous situation is reflected in the resolutions
submitted to this year’s conference. Not one attempt to rally
support for the continuance of the government’s present economic strategy.
The beginning of a fighting programme to defeat unemployment is
spelt out in certain resolutions. The AUEW Engineering Section for
example calls for earlier retirement, a shorter working week and a
reduction in overtime. The important qualification to add here is the
need to provide much more than the miserable £23 a week offered to
workers to retire early, and to qualify the demands on working hours
with the demand for no loss in pay. Otherwise it would be asking
workers to accept a further cut in living standards.
In keeping with the mood of their brothers and sisters in the rest
of the movement, only two resolutions calls for the continuation of
the Social Contract. NUPE couples the demand here with a demand for
better treatment of the low paid. The experience of the last two
years should have shown them, that the worse sufferers from pay
restraint have been precisely the low paid.
A once and for all remedy for these workers should be a £60 a
week minimum wage tied to a genuine cost of living index drawn up by
the trade union movement. In place of the demand for yet more wage
restraint, conference should unconditionally support the clear
demands of the NUM and the South Glamorgan Trades Council to reject
the swindle of wage restraint once and for all.
A number of resolutions call for selective import controls as a
solution to the problems facing Welsh workers. Conference should
oppose this parochial solution. The protected firms would be given a
blank cheque to jack-up prices, while the loss of markets by foreign
firms would cause loss of jobs, with the subsequent decline in
purchasing power of foreign workers and the trade recession would
deepen and ultimately produce greater unemployment on a world scale.
Equally the demand for more money to be injected into the economy
misses the point. Despite millions of pounds swallowed up by big
business, industrial production in Wales is still below that of the 3
day week of 1974, and only slightly caught up on 1970 figures. As Jim
Callaghan put it ”you can take a horse to water but you cannot
force him to drink”.
In the struggle for many of the worthwhile reforms called for on
this Conference agenda, Welsh trade unionists will have to draw the
conclusion that only an extension of public ownership to the 200 or
so firms that dominate the British economy and the drawing up of a
socialist plan of production controlled by working people can solve
the problems of workers in Wales or elsewhere in Britain.
The Welsh TUC should take up the demand of Swansea Trades Council
for industrial action against unemployment, but use such action as
the beginning of a socialist campaign to end the misery of
unemployment and inflation for ever.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 6 November 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.2007.04.deeside | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h1>No victimisation</h1>
<h4>Support Deeside college lecturers</h4>
<h3>(April 2007)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>The Socialist</strong>, No. 484, 26 April 2007.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<table width="80%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" align="center">
<tbody><tr>
<td>
<p class="fst"><strong>TOWARDS THE end of 2006, the University and College Union
(UCU) rejected a pay offer from the Welsh employers’ organisation
Fforwm, declared a dispute and began to ballot for strike action.</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<hr class="section" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">A little later Bernice Waugh, one of the union’s three lay
negotiators was declared compulsorily redundant from her post in the
Welsh College of Horticulture.</p>
<p>Shortly after this in Deeside College another lay negotiator,
Craig Lewis, saw his remission time from teaching to be a negotiator
removed. In January, as the third lay negotiator, I was threatened
with redundancy and the loss of my remission time.</p>
<p>In my own case a negotiated settlement protecting both my job and
my remission time in Coleg Glan Hafren Cardiff was reached last week.</p>
<p>In Deeside the principal compounded his victimisation of Craig
Lewis by sacking Pete Jones, a candidate in the recent UCU general
secretary election in the middle of the campaign!</p>
<p>When Deeside branch produced a newsletter condemning
victimisation, the principal was mortally offended and demanded its
withdrawal and an apology.</p>
<p>When the branch told him exactly what to do with those requests he
took steps amounting to the virtual derecognition of the union in the
college.</p>
<p>Following the refusal of the branch officers to sign a document
retracting perfectly true statements accepted as such by UCU members
in the college, Deeside branch is now balloting for a programme of
strike action and action short of a strike.</p>
<p>The actions of the principal of Deeside College are a total
disgrace, typical of the management thuggery introduced into FE by
arrangements initiated by the Tories but preserved by New Labour.</p>
<p>They threaten every UCU member, whether employed in an FE College
or a university. Our members in Deeside must win this dispute. Theirs
would not just be a victory for all workers in post-school education,
but for workers everywhere.</p>
<p class="fst"><strong>Post script.</strong> On Saturday 21 April, UCU Wales conference
unanimously passed a motion condemning Deeside management and
supporting our members.</p>
<p>The conference also unanimously re-elected Craig Lewis, Andrew
Price and Bernice Waugh as lay negotiators.</p>
<hr class="section" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<br>
<p class="note"><strong>Andrew Price was a lay negotiator representing UCU Further Education Wales.</strong></p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 29 August 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
No victimisation
Support Deeside college lecturers
(April 2007)
From The Socialist, No. 484, 26 April 2007.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
TOWARDS THE end of 2006, the University and College Union
(UCU) rejected a pay offer from the Welsh employers’ organisation
Fforwm, declared a dispute and began to ballot for strike action.
A little later Bernice Waugh, one of the union’s three lay
negotiators was declared compulsorily redundant from her post in the
Welsh College of Horticulture.
Shortly after this in Deeside College another lay negotiator,
Craig Lewis, saw his remission time from teaching to be a negotiator
removed. In January, as the third lay negotiator, I was threatened
with redundancy and the loss of my remission time.
In my own case a negotiated settlement protecting both my job and
my remission time in Coleg Glan Hafren Cardiff was reached last week.
In Deeside the principal compounded his victimisation of Craig
Lewis by sacking Pete Jones, a candidate in the recent UCU general
secretary election in the middle of the campaign!
When Deeside branch produced a newsletter condemning
victimisation, the principal was mortally offended and demanded its
withdrawal and an apology.
When the branch told him exactly what to do with those requests he
took steps amounting to the virtual derecognition of the union in the
college.
Following the refusal of the branch officers to sign a document
retracting perfectly true statements accepted as such by UCU members
in the college, Deeside branch is now balloting for a programme of
strike action and action short of a strike.
The actions of the principal of Deeside College are a total
disgrace, typical of the management thuggery introduced into FE by
arrangements initiated by the Tories but preserved by New Labour.
They threaten every UCU member, whether employed in an FE College
or a university. Our members in Deeside must win this dispute. Theirs
would not just be a victory for all workers in post-school education,
but for workers everywhere.
Post script. On Saturday 21 April, UCU Wales conference
unanimously passed a motion condemning Deeside management and
supporting our members.
The conference also unanimously re-elected Craig Lewis, Andrew
Price and Bernice Waugh as lay negotiators.
Andrew Price was a lay negotiator representing UCU Further Education Wales.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 29 August 2016
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.1981.04.right | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h4>Cardiff South East</h4>
<h1>Right Manoeuvres</h1>
<h3>(April 1981)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>Militant</strong>, No. 548, 17 April 1981, p. 10.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst">Around the country the great ‘democrats’ of Labour’s right wing are determined to destroy the spirit of conference decisions on mandatory re-selection.</p>
<p>Predictably, nowhere is this more true than in the now notorious Cardiff South East Labour Party. In their determination to secure a ‘short list of one’, namely James Callaghan, the right-wing dominated General Management Committee (GMC) voted to accept a time-table of just five weeks, including Easter and the local election period.</p>
<p>What is more, delegations have been ruled ‘out of order’ by the Regional Officer of the Labour Party, Hubert Morgan. The most scandalous example is that of the Cardiff branch of the Socialist Education Association (SEA) which has had delegates to the constituency since 1976.</p>
<p>In January, the branch paid the level of affiliation fees which it was asked to pay <em>in writing</em> by Cardiff City Labour Party. After the delegations had been frozen for re-selection, Hubert Morgan disqualified the SEA’s three delegates because the City Party had asked for the wrong affiliation fees.</p>
<p>It will come as no surprise to readers of this paper that these three delegates are <strong>Militant</strong> supporters! With the backing of Cardiff City Labour Party and the SEA General Secretary, Graham Lane, the Cardiff SEA branch are appealing to Labour’s National Executive about the decision.</p>
<p>Just remember this story when you hear the right wing tell stories about ‘left-wing manoeuvres’.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 26 September 2017</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
Cardiff South East
Right Manoeuvres
(April 1981)
From Militant, No. 548, 17 April 1981, p. 10.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
Around the country the great ‘democrats’ of Labour’s right wing are determined to destroy the spirit of conference decisions on mandatory re-selection.
Predictably, nowhere is this more true than in the now notorious Cardiff South East Labour Party. In their determination to secure a ‘short list of one’, namely James Callaghan, the right-wing dominated General Management Committee (GMC) voted to accept a time-table of just five weeks, including Easter and the local election period.
What is more, delegations have been ruled ‘out of order’ by the Regional Officer of the Labour Party, Hubert Morgan. The most scandalous example is that of the Cardiff branch of the Socialist Education Association (SEA) which has had delegates to the constituency since 1976.
In January, the branch paid the level of affiliation fees which it was asked to pay in writing by Cardiff City Labour Party. After the delegations had been frozen for re-selection, Hubert Morgan disqualified the SEA’s three delegates because the City Party had asked for the wrong affiliation fees.
It will come as no surprise to readers of this paper that these three delegates are Militant supporters! With the backing of Cardiff City Labour Party and the SEA General Secretary, Graham Lane, the Cardiff SEA branch are appealing to Labour’s National Executive about the decision.
Just remember this story when you hear the right wing tell stories about ‘left-wing manoeuvres’.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 26 September 2017
|
./articles/Price-Andrew/https:..www.marxists.org.history.etol.writers.price.1993.11.decline | <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="linkback"><a id="top" href="../../index.htm" name="top">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<h2>Andrew Price</h2>
<h4>Review</h4>
<h1>Capitalism, Culture and Decline in Britain</h1>
<h3>(November 1993)</h3>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="info">From <strong>Militant International Review</strong>, No. 54, November–December 1993, p. 32.<br>
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.<br>
Marked up by <a href="../../../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL)</strong>.</p>
<hr width="100%" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>
<p class="fst"><strong>Capitalism, Culture and Decline in Britain, 1750–1990</strong><br>
by W.D. Rubinstein<br>
<em>Published by Routledge, 1993, £25 hb</em></p>
<p class="fst">In our economic analysis of world capitalism, <strong>Militant</strong> has
explained the reasons for the massive economic boom from roughly
1950–1975 and how the system has since moved to periodic slumps and
booms. Within the general crisis of world capitalism, however, there
are special features of the crisis of British capitalism, which has
witnessed the massive decline of Britain as an industrial nation.</p>
<p>The recent book by W.D. Rubinstein, an Australian academic, is a
contribution to this debate on the decline of British capitalism.
However I cannot conclude that he has helped us understand the
process any more clearly.</p>
<p>Rubinstein devotes the largest part of his work to a string attack
on what he calls ‘the cultural critique’. This argument traces
the massive growth of British industry post-1760 leading to the
establishment of Britain by 1850 as ‘the workshop of the world’.
But this period of industrial hegemony was short-lived. After 1870
came the economic decline of Britain, a process that has continued to
the present day. The ‘cultural critique’ advanced by a number of
economic historians attributes Britain’s economic decline to an
‘anti-business’ and ‘anti-industrial’ culture among people in
power in Britain.</p>
<p>Rather than seriously examine the actual historical relationship
between the development of capitalist economy and the institutions of
the state (government, law, the education system, civil servants,
police, the army etc.) Rubinstein attacks supporters of the ‘cultural
critique’ with the argument that Britain was never really an
industrial nation and therefore has not suffered a process of
industrial decline.</p>
<p>In nearly all of his arguments he is wrong. For example, a British
Conservative writing in 1826, quoted in Trotsky’s <strong>Where is
Britain Going?</strong>, argues:</p>
<p class="quoteb">“The prospects which are now opening to England almost
exceed the boundaries of thought, and can be measured by no standard
found in history ... The manufacturing industry of England may be
fairly computed as four times greater than that of all other
continents taken collectively, and sixteen such continents as Europe
could not manufacture as much cotton as England does.”</p>
<p class="fst">So much for Rubinstein’s claim that Britain was not the workshop
of the world.</p>
<p>Rubinstein’s arguments range from the unusual to the
questionable to the downright ridiculous. Thus having produced
statistical data on Britain’s industrial decline, he claims that it
is not really a question of the rapid <em>decline</em> of British
capitalism rather than the rapid <em>growth</em> of German and US
capitalism! In defending the decision of the British ruling class to
invest in services rather than manufacturing industry, Rubinstein
shows that more people use Heathrow airport than any other airport in
the world. Finally, he attacks those who maintain the superiority of
manufacturing over a service economy in the following terms:
</p><p class="quoteb">“It is difficult to believe that there is not some underlying sexual
undertone to the preference for manufacturing rather than services”!</p>
<p class="fst">Rubinstein fails to draw a distinction between making money and
creating wealth. The British ruling class has been very skilful in
the former, but have shown little facility for the latter. Early in
the lifetime of the present Tory government, for example, the very
minimal exchange controls introduced by the previous Labour
government were lifted. Since then billions of pounds that could have
been invested in manufacturing industry has flowed abroad. This has
made the ruling class richer as has their colossal investment in
banking and insurance. But British manufacturing continues its
remorseless downward march.</p>
<p>These actions graphically indicate the absolute decline of British
capitalism, and the ruling class’s pessimism for the future.
Ironically they have less faith in the future of capitalism than have
the leadership of the Labour Party. But despite considerable
scholarship and research, this vital point is lost on Rubinstein.
Those looking for an introduction to the complex but vital questions
raised in this book are better advised to start with Trotsky’s
<strong>Where is Britain Going?</strong>, which retains today all the vitality
and relevance as when it was first published.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
<p class="linkback"><a href="../../index.htm">Andrew Price Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../index.htm">ETOL Main Page</a></p>
<p class="updat">Last updated: 31 August 2016</p>
</body> |
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Andrew Price
Review
Capitalism, Culture and Decline in Britain
(November 1993)
From Militant International Review, No. 54, November–December 1993, p. 32.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
Capitalism, Culture and Decline in Britain, 1750–1990
by W.D. Rubinstein
Published by Routledge, 1993, £25 hb
In our economic analysis of world capitalism, Militant has
explained the reasons for the massive economic boom from roughly
1950–1975 and how the system has since moved to periodic slumps and
booms. Within the general crisis of world capitalism, however, there
are special features of the crisis of British capitalism, which has
witnessed the massive decline of Britain as an industrial nation.
The recent book by W.D. Rubinstein, an Australian academic, is a
contribution to this debate on the decline of British capitalism.
However I cannot conclude that he has helped us understand the
process any more clearly.
Rubinstein devotes the largest part of his work to a string attack
on what he calls ‘the cultural critique’. This argument traces
the massive growth of British industry post-1760 leading to the
establishment of Britain by 1850 as ‘the workshop of the world’.
But this period of industrial hegemony was short-lived. After 1870
came the economic decline of Britain, a process that has continued to
the present day. The ‘cultural critique’ advanced by a number of
economic historians attributes Britain’s economic decline to an
‘anti-business’ and ‘anti-industrial’ culture among people in
power in Britain.
Rather than seriously examine the actual historical relationship
between the development of capitalist economy and the institutions of
the state (government, law, the education system, civil servants,
police, the army etc.) Rubinstein attacks supporters of the ‘cultural
critique’ with the argument that Britain was never really an
industrial nation and therefore has not suffered a process of
industrial decline.
In nearly all of his arguments he is wrong. For example, a British
Conservative writing in 1826, quoted in Trotsky’s Where is
Britain Going?, argues:
“The prospects which are now opening to England almost
exceed the boundaries of thought, and can be measured by no standard
found in history ... The manufacturing industry of England may be
fairly computed as four times greater than that of all other
continents taken collectively, and sixteen such continents as Europe
could not manufacture as much cotton as England does.”
So much for Rubinstein’s claim that Britain was not the workshop
of the world.
Rubinstein’s arguments range from the unusual to the
questionable to the downright ridiculous. Thus having produced
statistical data on Britain’s industrial decline, he claims that it
is not really a question of the rapid decline of British
capitalism rather than the rapid growth of German and US
capitalism! In defending the decision of the British ruling class to
invest in services rather than manufacturing industry, Rubinstein
shows that more people use Heathrow airport than any other airport in
the world. Finally, he attacks those who maintain the superiority of
manufacturing over a service economy in the following terms:
“It is difficult to believe that there is not some underlying sexual
undertone to the preference for manufacturing rather than services”!
Rubinstein fails to draw a distinction between making money and
creating wealth. The British ruling class has been very skilful in
the former, but have shown little facility for the latter. Early in
the lifetime of the present Tory government, for example, the very
minimal exchange controls introduced by the previous Labour
government were lifted. Since then billions of pounds that could have
been invested in manufacturing industry has flowed abroad. This has
made the ruling class richer as has their colossal investment in
banking and insurance. But British manufacturing continues its
remorseless downward march.
These actions graphically indicate the absolute decline of British
capitalism, and the ruling class’s pessimism for the future.
Ironically they have less faith in the future of capitalism than have
the leadership of the Labour Party. But despite considerable
scholarship and research, this vital point is lost on Rubinstein.
Those looking for an introduction to the complex but vital questions
raised in this book are better advised to start with Trotsky’s
Where is Britain Going?, which retains today all the vitality
and relevance as when it was first published.
Top of page
Andrew Price Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 31 August 2016
|
./articles/Kuusinen-Otto/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.kuusinen.1923.06.ecci | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a href="../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../index.htm">Kuusinen</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Kuusinen (Finland)</h2>
<h1>The Enlarged Executive</h1>
<h4>Sixth Day of Session: Evening</h4>
<h3>(18 June 1923)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info">From <strong>International Press Correspondence</strong>, <a href="../../../../history/international/comintern/inprecor/1923/v03n49-jul-12-1923-Inprecor-stan.pdf" target="new">Vol. 3 No. 49</a>, 12 July 1923, pp. 492–493.<br>
Transcribed & marked up by <a href="../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Marxists’ Internet Archive</strong>.<br>
<span class="info">Public Domain:</span> Marxists Internet Archive (2022). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="date">June 18, 1923</p>
<p class="fst">In one of his articles Comrade Tranmael reproaches the Communist International with two defects inherited from the Second International – opportunism and centralism. We know the history of the Comintern to be one of relentless crusade against opportunism. We also know that the Second International collapsed because of decentralisation, of which fact comrade Tranmael is well aware. Comrade Tranmael apparently has a different conception of centralism than we have. And this is probably the consequence of his traditions of the fight against the old Trade Union bureaucracy. He is afraid of dualism and of the contrast between the membership and bureaucracy, and he is to a certain extent right when calling attention to the danger. This is provided for in the theses of the Third Congress, where it says: “Even the revolutionary labour movement inevitably inherits this tendency of formalism and bureaucratism from the bourgeois environment, up to a certain point. These contrasts must be combated by the Communist Party by persistent work of political organisation and education, and by many improvements and provisions”. By democratic centralism we mean the association of centralism with proletarian democracy, the unification of the struggle. The relative limits of centralisation must be extended as far as required by revolutionary activity. The slogan of the World Party raised by the Fourth Congress is not a new thing. It is as old as the Communist International itself. This World Party has not yet come, it is our goal, and we may discuss the way to ensure its quickest achievement, but not question the slogan itself. It is a difficult thing to create a World Party. We only have the beginning of it. The history of the formation of this Party has been chiefly the history of intervention in so-called internal affairs of affiliated parties. These interventions have, rarely satisfied all concerned, but after the first unavoidable conflicts, there remained something very solid, which enabled all these parties to learn something about the importance of coordination. This gives rise to truly united fighting and to a deep-rooted confidence of the parties in the Executive, which means much more than the mere adherence to the Comintern. It is true that the leadership is still to a great extent, in the hands of Russian comrades, but this is due not only to their Russian, but also to their International experiences.</p>
<p>Let us take the latest intervention in the Internal affairs of the American Party. After a few months the two factions, which were hitherto at loggerheads, informed us that at last they had created a united Party, thanks to the intervention of the Executive. The peculiar circumstances in Scandinavia do not absolve Scandinavian comrades of their duties; they only suggest the starting point, but by no means a different policy. According to reports from the representative of the Executive in Norway, only a small section of the membership is active there. It is therefore a question of arousing them all to greater activity. Comrade Tranmael asks for guarantees against opportunism. The best guarantee is, on the one hand, the actions of the bourgeoisie, and, on the other hand, the Communist preparations for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. The situation is more difficult in Sweden, where a small Communist Party is opposed by a great Social-Democratic Party, but I must say that the Communist Party has a large following, particularly in the Trade Unions. Also in that country it is most important to increase the activity of the members. We must particularly criticise the attitude of the leaders of the Swedish Party towards the Youth League. Comrade Hoeglund should remain true to his traditions as the champion of the Communist Youth Movement by creating at the present moment better relations between the Youth and the Party. The criticisms of Comrades Tranmael and Hoeglund put them at the parting of the ways. I conclude with the wish that at this Congress Tranmael and Scheflo will shake hands and resolve to build together our Communist Party in order to lead the working class to victory.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on 2 September 2022</p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > Kuusinen
Kuusinen (Finland)
The Enlarged Executive
Sixth Day of Session: Evening
(18 June 1923)
From International Press Correspondence, Vol. 3 No. 49, 12 July 1923, pp. 492–493.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2022). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
June 18, 1923
In one of his articles Comrade Tranmael reproaches the Communist International with two defects inherited from the Second International – opportunism and centralism. We know the history of the Comintern to be one of relentless crusade against opportunism. We also know that the Second International collapsed because of decentralisation, of which fact comrade Tranmael is well aware. Comrade Tranmael apparently has a different conception of centralism than we have. And this is probably the consequence of his traditions of the fight against the old Trade Union bureaucracy. He is afraid of dualism and of the contrast between the membership and bureaucracy, and he is to a certain extent right when calling attention to the danger. This is provided for in the theses of the Third Congress, where it says: “Even the revolutionary labour movement inevitably inherits this tendency of formalism and bureaucratism from the bourgeois environment, up to a certain point. These contrasts must be combated by the Communist Party by persistent work of political organisation and education, and by many improvements and provisions”. By democratic centralism we mean the association of centralism with proletarian democracy, the unification of the struggle. The relative limits of centralisation must be extended as far as required by revolutionary activity. The slogan of the World Party raised by the Fourth Congress is not a new thing. It is as old as the Communist International itself. This World Party has not yet come, it is our goal, and we may discuss the way to ensure its quickest achievement, but not question the slogan itself. It is a difficult thing to create a World Party. We only have the beginning of it. The history of the formation of this Party has been chiefly the history of intervention in so-called internal affairs of affiliated parties. These interventions have, rarely satisfied all concerned, but after the first unavoidable conflicts, there remained something very solid, which enabled all these parties to learn something about the importance of coordination. This gives rise to truly united fighting and to a deep-rooted confidence of the parties in the Executive, which means much more than the mere adherence to the Comintern. It is true that the leadership is still to a great extent, in the hands of Russian comrades, but this is due not only to their Russian, but also to their International experiences.
Let us take the latest intervention in the Internal affairs of the American Party. After a few months the two factions, which were hitherto at loggerheads, informed us that at last they had created a united Party, thanks to the intervention of the Executive. The peculiar circumstances in Scandinavia do not absolve Scandinavian comrades of their duties; they only suggest the starting point, but by no means a different policy. According to reports from the representative of the Executive in Norway, only a small section of the membership is active there. It is therefore a question of arousing them all to greater activity. Comrade Tranmael asks for guarantees against opportunism. The best guarantee is, on the one hand, the actions of the bourgeoisie, and, on the other hand, the Communist preparations for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. The situation is more difficult in Sweden, where a small Communist Party is opposed by a great Social-Democratic Party, but I must say that the Communist Party has a large following, particularly in the Trade Unions. Also in that country it is most important to increase the activity of the members. We must particularly criticise the attitude of the leaders of the Swedish Party towards the Youth League. Comrade Hoeglund should remain true to his traditions as the champion of the Communist Youth Movement by creating at the present moment better relations between the Youth and the Party. The criticisms of Comrades Tranmael and Hoeglund put them at the parting of the ways. I conclude with the wish that at this Congress Tranmael and Scheflo will shake hands and resolve to build together our Communist Party in order to lead the working class to victory.
Top of the page
Last updated on 2 September 2022
|
./articles/Kuusinen-Otto/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.kuusinen.1921.08.finland | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../index.htm">Kuusinen</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>O.W. Kuusinen</h2>
<h1>A Butcher State</h1>
<h3>(25 August 1921)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info">From <strong>International Press Correspondence</strong>, <a href="../../../../history/international/comintern/inprecor/1921/v01n01-oct-01-1921-inprecor.pdf" target="new">Vol. I No. 1</a>, 1 October 1921, pp. 3–4.<br>
Transcribed & marked up by <a href="../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Marxists’ Internet Archive</strong>.<br>
<span class="info">Public Domain:</span> Marxists Internet Archive (2018). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">A year before the constitution of the Communist International took place in Moscow, its foundation was laid in the midst of revolutionary struggle. It happened in Finland, in the spring of 1918. On the snow-covered battle fields in the class-war of Finland, international forces fought on both sides. On the red front fought the battalions of the Russian workers, the red guards of the Finnish proletariat, the battalions of the Lettish comrades. On the white front the troops of German imperialism, the bands of the Finnish middle-class, the voluntary battalion of Swedish political agitators, counter-revolutionary officers etc.</p>
<p>By this war which lasted three months the international idea took strong hold of the proletariat as well as of the middle-class of Finland.</p>
<p>The necessary condition for the international education of the proletariat is its deliverance from the spell of democratic illusions. At that time it was profoundly and quickly done in Finland. In the year 1906 there was on paper a very democratic constitution of parliament in Finland. The social-democrat labour party possessed 40–45% of the members of the diet. In 1917 they had the majority already. In that year democratic liberty in Finland was so great that the working class could quite publicly form and arm their red guards.</p>
<p>The democratic illusions strengthened in this way were, however, destroyed in a few weeks by the reality of the class struggle: capitalist democracy in its highest form is nothing but a camouflage for the mobilisation of social forces for the class-war.</p>
<p>At the same time the division of the old social-democratic labour-movement into the camps of the Second and the Third International took place in a very concrete form: the adherents of the right wing unmasked themselves as counter-revolutionary saboteurs in the fight of the revolutionary masses. After the great massacre of the 1st of May 1918, thousands of members of the Finnish Labour Party lay shot to death on the ground with their membership; cards reposing on their breast, whilst many of the triumphant conquerors carried their books of membership of the German Social-Democratic Party or of German trade-unions in their pockets.</p>
<p>By its voluntary troops recruited from its class the Finnish bourgeoisie had given an example to European reaction. Already in 1905 they were called butchers in Finland. Now the dictatorship of the butchers had temporarily gained a perfect victory. In a blood-thirsty manner they made use of all possibilities of the White Terror and of systematic inquisition. But the result was a great disappointment for them – the ranks of the revolutionary clearheaded masses of workmen are now much stronger and more resolute than ever in Finland and are on the way to final victory.</p>
<p>The national illusions of the Finnish middle-class have likewise been destroyed. The independence of Finland really existed only during the four weeks of the end of the year 1917, when Bolshevist Soviet Russia hat made a present of this independence to the Finnish bourgeoisie and when it had not yet been delivered by them as a body to Germain imperialism. During the German domination in 1918 Finland was impudently pillaged of victuals and valuables. After the German defeat the Finnish Butcher state has still kept up secret connections with the German monarchist league, but has more and more been vanquished by the mighty British imperialism. Now its force of passive defence against the English imperialism is totally broken.</p>
<p>Under these circumstances its situation has become by no means easier. The little butcher-state is strangled by its own independence. It has no market for its products; The production of worthless paper money is the only branch of industry, that is not wanting in White Finland. The tremendous unproductive costs for the military equipments of troops, the speculation of banks and import firms, and the robberies that are systematically committed on the State by the “independent” bureaucracy have exhausted the economic force of the country. Next autumn or winter threatens the Finnish butcher regime with an economic catastrophe. In order to save herself Finland cries for help in ail directions for a foreign “economic dictator” for any Stinnes with unlimited powers.</p>
<p>The Finnish Utopia of national independence has been as unlucky as the Utopia of pure democracy. In the moment, when it seemed to be on the point of perfect realisation, when they knocked already at the gates of their Jericho they were in fact ultimately driven out of all the land of Canaan. The little butcher-state had of course just like other deformities of the same type its imperialist dream too, its fixed idea of a “Great Finland”. This fixed idea was also pursued by adventurous expeditions to Esthonia, to North Karelia and to Olenetz in South-Karelia. But every time this raving megalomania was shaken into clear-headed consciousness by the rough fist of the Russian Red Army.</p>
<p>By these hard experiences changes have been taking place among the possessing classes of Finland. Part of them are politically exhausted and wish social peace and order at any price. That is to say: secured capitalist profit at any price, no matter where it comes from, even from the Bolsheviki. This part of the bourgeoisie is inclined to help the capitalist production of the country by commerce with Soviet-Russia, but they are being terrorised by the active butchers. The active butchers are looking for rescue in a new secret alliance with the monarchists of all countries of Continental Europe, in new warlike adventures against Soviet-Russia.</p>
<p>By this endeavour they meet half-way the intentions of the French bourgeoisie to organise a holy alliance in Europe in defence of French profit. The new commercial treaty of Finland with France is the outward proof that also the Finnish butchers will henceforward join the French secret alliance as hirelings.</p>
<p>It will soon be evident, how long and how far these black plans of concentration may be carried on, on the European Continent without meeting with the opposition of the British policy of splitting up the Baltic into small “independent” states. But one thing is sure: the revolution of the European proletariat will pronounce the final sentence on the plans of the political intriguers of both parties.</p>
<p>Finland herself is of course only a very small phenomenon and a passing spectacle. But it is evident, that her fate is in some respects typical of the present precess of the European class-war. The factor, which plays the dominant role in the class-war in Finland, <em>is the organisation of the communists for the proletarian revolution against the organisation of the butchers</em>.</p>
<p class="fst">Moscow, August 25th 1921</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on 4 December 2018</p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > Kuusinen
O.W. Kuusinen
A Butcher State
(25 August 1921)
From International Press Correspondence, Vol. I No. 1, 1 October 1921, pp. 3–4.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2018). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
A year before the constitution of the Communist International took place in Moscow, its foundation was laid in the midst of revolutionary struggle. It happened in Finland, in the spring of 1918. On the snow-covered battle fields in the class-war of Finland, international forces fought on both sides. On the red front fought the battalions of the Russian workers, the red guards of the Finnish proletariat, the battalions of the Lettish comrades. On the white front the troops of German imperialism, the bands of the Finnish middle-class, the voluntary battalion of Swedish political agitators, counter-revolutionary officers etc.
By this war which lasted three months the international idea took strong hold of the proletariat as well as of the middle-class of Finland.
The necessary condition for the international education of the proletariat is its deliverance from the spell of democratic illusions. At that time it was profoundly and quickly done in Finland. In the year 1906 there was on paper a very democratic constitution of parliament in Finland. The social-democrat labour party possessed 40–45% of the members of the diet. In 1917 they had the majority already. In that year democratic liberty in Finland was so great that the working class could quite publicly form and arm their red guards.
The democratic illusions strengthened in this way were, however, destroyed in a few weeks by the reality of the class struggle: capitalist democracy in its highest form is nothing but a camouflage for the mobilisation of social forces for the class-war.
At the same time the division of the old social-democratic labour-movement into the camps of the Second and the Third International took place in a very concrete form: the adherents of the right wing unmasked themselves as counter-revolutionary saboteurs in the fight of the revolutionary masses. After the great massacre of the 1st of May 1918, thousands of members of the Finnish Labour Party lay shot to death on the ground with their membership; cards reposing on their breast, whilst many of the triumphant conquerors carried their books of membership of the German Social-Democratic Party or of German trade-unions in their pockets.
By its voluntary troops recruited from its class the Finnish bourgeoisie had given an example to European reaction. Already in 1905 they were called butchers in Finland. Now the dictatorship of the butchers had temporarily gained a perfect victory. In a blood-thirsty manner they made use of all possibilities of the White Terror and of systematic inquisition. But the result was a great disappointment for them – the ranks of the revolutionary clearheaded masses of workmen are now much stronger and more resolute than ever in Finland and are on the way to final victory.
The national illusions of the Finnish middle-class have likewise been destroyed. The independence of Finland really existed only during the four weeks of the end of the year 1917, when Bolshevist Soviet Russia hat made a present of this independence to the Finnish bourgeoisie and when it had not yet been delivered by them as a body to Germain imperialism. During the German domination in 1918 Finland was impudently pillaged of victuals and valuables. After the German defeat the Finnish Butcher state has still kept up secret connections with the German monarchist league, but has more and more been vanquished by the mighty British imperialism. Now its force of passive defence against the English imperialism is totally broken.
Under these circumstances its situation has become by no means easier. The little butcher-state is strangled by its own independence. It has no market for its products; The production of worthless paper money is the only branch of industry, that is not wanting in White Finland. The tremendous unproductive costs for the military equipments of troops, the speculation of banks and import firms, and the robberies that are systematically committed on the State by the “independent” bureaucracy have exhausted the economic force of the country. Next autumn or winter threatens the Finnish butcher regime with an economic catastrophe. In order to save herself Finland cries for help in ail directions for a foreign “economic dictator” for any Stinnes with unlimited powers.
The Finnish Utopia of national independence has been as unlucky as the Utopia of pure democracy. In the moment, when it seemed to be on the point of perfect realisation, when they knocked already at the gates of their Jericho they were in fact ultimately driven out of all the land of Canaan. The little butcher-state had of course just like other deformities of the same type its imperialist dream too, its fixed idea of a “Great Finland”. This fixed idea was also pursued by adventurous expeditions to Esthonia, to North Karelia and to Olenetz in South-Karelia. But every time this raving megalomania was shaken into clear-headed consciousness by the rough fist of the Russian Red Army.
By these hard experiences changes have been taking place among the possessing classes of Finland. Part of them are politically exhausted and wish social peace and order at any price. That is to say: secured capitalist profit at any price, no matter where it comes from, even from the Bolsheviki. This part of the bourgeoisie is inclined to help the capitalist production of the country by commerce with Soviet-Russia, but they are being terrorised by the active butchers. The active butchers are looking for rescue in a new secret alliance with the monarchists of all countries of Continental Europe, in new warlike adventures against Soviet-Russia.
By this endeavour they meet half-way the intentions of the French bourgeoisie to organise a holy alliance in Europe in defence of French profit. The new commercial treaty of Finland with France is the outward proof that also the Finnish butchers will henceforward join the French secret alliance as hirelings.
It will soon be evident, how long and how far these black plans of concentration may be carried on, on the European Continent without meeting with the opposition of the British policy of splitting up the Baltic into small “independent” states. But one thing is sure: the revolution of the European proletariat will pronounce the final sentence on the plans of the political intriguers of both parties.
Finland herself is of course only a very small phenomenon and a passing spectacle. But it is evident, that her fate is in some respects typical of the present precess of the European class-war. The factor, which plays the dominant role in the class-war in Finland, is the organisation of the communists for the proletarian revolution against the organisation of the butchers.
Moscow, August 25th 1921
Top of the page
Last updated on 4 December 2018
|
./articles/Kuusinen-Otto/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.kuusinen.1924.x01.leadership | <body>
<p class="title">O. W. Kuusinen</p>
<h1>Under the Leadership of Russia</h1>
<hr>
<p class="information">
<span class="info">Source:</span> <a href="../../../../history/international/comintern/ci/index.htm"><em>The Communist International</em></a>, 1924, No. 1 (New Series), pp. 132-146<br>
<span class="info">Translator:</span> M. L. Kortchmar<br>
<span class="info">Transcription/HTML Markup:</span> Brian Reid<br>
<span class="info">Public Domain:</span> Marxists Internet Archive (2008). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.</p>
<hr>
<h5>The World Army of the Proletarian Revolution</h5>
<p class="fst">
TEN years ago Capital was the autocratic ruler of the world. Russia was the gendarme of Europe, the dreaded foe of every revolutionary national movement, the support of the domination of the possessing classes throughout the world.
</p>
<p>
Now the world is divided between the powers of capital and those of labour. One-sixth of the earth’s surface is in the hands of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, which constitutes an effective counter-force to the capitalist world and a strong foundation for the proletarian world-revolution.
</p>
<p>
Besides, the proletarian world revolution has its active army within every capitalist country, the sections of the Communist International and the trade unions, and other mass-organisations which are already under the direct influence of the Communist parties. The effective forces at the disposal of the capitalist world are still larger than those of the Communist International; but the reserve forces of the proletarian world-revolution are incomparably greater. Not only the great majority of the working class in all the capitalist countries, but also many proletarianised elements of the petty-bourgeoisie of the towns, many semi-proletarian and small-peasant elements in the country, may be considered as a potential, if to some extent latent, power for the world-revolution. Furthermore, the national liberation movements among the oppressed peoples of Asia and Africa furnish a direct auxiliary force for the revolutionary movement of the European proletariat.
</p>
<p>
This division of the forces, and the direction of their further development, is the fundamental feature of the present period in world-history which was inaugurated ten years ago by the imperialist world-war and found its continuation in the Russian revolution and in the revolutionary upheavals in Finland, Germany, Czecho-Slovakia, Hungary, Italy and a number of other countries, in the war and intervention against Soviet Russia, in the Turko-Greek war, in the Irish war for liberty, in the fights of the Ruhr, in numerous revolutionary liberation movements among the Asiatic peoples and so on. It is a period of wars and revolutions which take place on the grounds of the increasing economic, social and political <strong>dissolution of the capitalist system</strong>. It is the fourth and the last period of the capitalist epoch, which follows after the preceding periods of mercantilism, liberalism and imperialism, and whose concrete forms are not yet plainly discernible; but there can be no doubt whatever as to the possible result of the struggles of this period; <strong>the establishment of proletarian dictatorship on a world-wide scale</strong>.
</p>
<p>
And this is the most important slogan of the Communist International.
</p>
<p>
Foreseen by the genius of Marx, the proletarian dictatorship was made by Lenin the victorious <strong>battle-cry</strong> of the Russian Bolsheviks, and under his leadership it was adopted by the masses of the fighting proletariat in Russia and carried to <strong>realization</strong>. At the time of the birth of the Communist International the proletarian dictatorship in Russia was already realised in the shape of the Soviet Government. Thus, the Communist International got its principal slogan not from theoretical prophecy, but from the accomplished fact of the Russian proletariat. By this fact, as by the whole nature of the new period, the revolutionary idea of the conquest of power and of the realisation of Socialism obtained quite a different meaning in the Communist International from what it had been in the international movement of the past. In the First and in the Second International it merely served as means of propaganda, and in the Second International it was used exclusively for purposes of parliamentary campaigns and electioneering. To the Communist International the idea of the proletarian dictatorship was no longer mere propaganda, but the most important practical task which has already been solved by one section in whose country this dictatorship is steadily progressing towards the realisation of Socialism, while in other countries the achievement of this task is being prepared by the daily struggles of the Communist parties.
</p>
<p>
The Communist International was thus from the very beginning a revolutionary militant organisation, a party of the class-war, of the destruction of the bourgeois machinery of the state, of the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship and of the realisation of Socialism and Communism.
</p>
<br>
<h5>The Russian Founders of the International</h5>
<p>
Just as the Russian proletariat was ahead of all the other countries in the historic battles of the present period, being the first to establish the victorious rule of Socialist workers, so the Russian Communist Party took a leading part in the Communist International from the moment of its inception.
</p>
<p>
This leading part of the R.C.P., which no one in our ranks would ever think of disputing, is based not only upon the authority of the Russian revolution, but also upon the authority of the R.C.P. itself, and upon the capacities of the leaders of the R.C.P. for leadership of the international movement. With regard to the revolutionary past, to extensive experience and large heroic sacrifices by the members, to Marxian insight and correct judgment on the part of the leaders, no party will stand comparison with the Russian section of the Communist International.
</p>
<p>
Of course, much of this was achieved by the able leadership of Lenin. Not only by his direct contributions to the Russian and international movement, and part of which is our inheritance in his published works, but also by the leaders which he trained for the Russian as well as for the international movement. The leading Russian comrades who had the good fortune to work side by side with Lenin in the years of victory as well as in the preceding years of underground work, and in emigration, having passed through the only school of experience imaginable, are to-day almost unequalled in art of political leadership.
</p>
<p>
Thus the Communist International possesses in the Russian leadership, in the person of its chairman and of the members of the Russian delegation as well as of the Central Committee of the R.C.P., an accumulated stock of far-reaching revolutionary experience, of Marxian leadership and of proven ability, which are requisite to the historic tasks of the Communist International. We can only repeat here the words contained in the manifesto of the foreign comrades of our Executive on the 25th anniversary of the R.C.P., in which it was said: “The leadership of the Russian comrades in the Communist International is our pride.”
</p>
<p>
Renegades and enemies repeatedly accused the Communist International of aiding the foreign policy of Soviet Russia. If this were true, we could only claim credit for it. To us as Communists it would be a matter of joy to be able to render efficient aid to the Socialist power of the Soviets. Unfortunately, we cannot claim anything of the kind.
</p>
<p>
How many times indeed did Soviet Russia experience the need for aid by the workers of other countries, but the latter were not in a position to render any effective aid. Our foreign sections were altogether too weak for that. What could the English, French or American comrades do to defeat the criminal interventions by the governments of their respective countries? Almost nothing. What could the Polish comrades do against the murderous attack of the Polish troops upon Soviet Russia in 1920 and during the war which followed? Almost nothing. The Polish proletariat was at that time so powerless that it could neither help itself nor Soviet Russia. With her own fists Soviet Russia has overcome the numerous enemies. Only in one respect were the foreign sections of the C.I. so far able to render a little aid, namely in the work of famine-relief in 1922.
</p>
<p>
Of course, far be it from us to forget the self-sacrificing fights on behalf of Soviet Russia on the part of Communists in Germany, Poland, France, Italy and the Balkans. Neither do we forget the heroic revolt of the French sailors at Odessa. We do not forget that the work of the Communists has aroused the sympathies for Soviet Russia among the working masses in Czecho-Slovakia, in France, in England and in America, and this contributed materially to the failure of the criminal intervention undertaken by the Entente. To me, personally, it is a matter of particular pride to recall the fact that during the debauches of the Finnish white bands in the districts of Olonetz and Karelia, our Finnish cadets were able to render material services in beating back the attack, and that in Finland the workers, in spite of the white terror, expressed openly in defence of Soviet Russia (many of our comrades are still in prison in that country for their attitude in those days). I must certainly admit that the task of the Finnish comrades on that occasion was naturally much easier than that of the Polish comrades in 1920. Many other instances could be quoted of effective aid rendered by foreign Communists, <em>e.g.</em>, by Latvian and Esthonian comrades.
</p>
<p>
All this has to be admitted, while at the same time we must declare that during the first two years the Communist parties in the capitalist countries were altogether too weak to render any truly effective aid for the rescue of the Russian revolution.
</p>
<p>
At the time that the Communist International was founded, the leading Russian comrades were fully aware of the fact that instead of any aid from the young international organisations, the R.C.P. would have to lend its aid to the foreign sections for many years to come. These things notwithstanding, they insisted on founding the International. Above all, Comrade Lenin. He cherished that idea for a long time already. Two years previously, immediately after the February revolution, he asked for a union of the revolutionary workers’ organisations of the different countries in a new International. But what could at that time be started? The conscious revolutionary forces in the other countries were altogether small and scattered. One had to wait and to cultivate the seed for the new International. The first year of Soviet rule was actually the cause which led to the formation of many small Communist parties and to the remodelling of some parties after the example of the Russian Bolsheviks. But the tremendous pressure of daily work did not allow the leaders of the R.C.P, during that year to think even of calling an international congress. It was only at the end of that year, after the victory of the red army over the Czecho-Slovak legions and after the collapse of German imperialism, which allowed the Soviet Republic its first brief respite, that Lenin was able to start again upon the realisation of his cherished dream: the founding of an organisation which would carry out the proletarian world-revolution!
</p>
<p>
The existence of the Soviet authority, in Russia was in those days by no means assured. One could be sure only of the imminence of big battles, but not of their results. Yet this did not prevent the Russian comrades from going on with the work of forming the International. On the contrary, it spurred them to work speedily in this direction. <strong>The new International was to be founded at all events!</strong> Come what may; it was intended as the rock which was to resist all storms and calamities. It was to be the rock on which the human race was to build its everlasting kingdom of labour unchained, with no classes and no exploitation.
</p>
<p>
I know not whether the comrades pictured to themselves the matter in such poetical fashion. Probably they did not. For all of them are advocates of materialism <strong>par excellence</strong>. One thing is certain, that no greater example was ever known of such rock-like faith in a revolutionary <strong>idea</strong>. An excellent idea, a well-founded and even scientific idea, but a mere idea at that. The Russian revolution was reality, the great, painful and joyful, hopeful and uncertain reality. But the proletarian world-revolution was as yet a star on the horizon. Nevertheless the leaders of the Russian revolution, who always build their politics upon firm realities, relied more upon the great idea of the future than upon most concrete reality. I leave it to the diligent minds of young theoreticians to find a logical harmony between this fact of highest revolutionary idealism and the doctrine of historic materialism, which is certainly an absolutely correct theory.
</p>
<p>
By the bye, this was not the only occasion nor the last occasion on which the international interest has won the day in Russia. I shall merely mention the great test in the autumn of 1923, in connection with the development of the revolutionary crisis in Germany. I believe that the Russian comrades understand international solidarity in quite their own way. It is in their blood. And when wise owls come along and talk about the alleged subordination of the international interests to the momentary interests of the Foreign Commissariat, these creatures should simply be laughed out of court.
</p>
<br>
<h5>Through the First Stages</h5>
<p>
That the Russian comrades were not building castles in the air in March, 1919, was soon demonstrated by the splendid growth of the Communist International. Resembling rather an idea than an international organisation at the time of its founding it grew in the course of two years into a world-organisation with live and active sections in all the capitalist countries and in all parts of the world.
</p>
<p>
The first two years of the organising work of the Comintern constituted an international stage of great revolutionary mass struggles. In the year 1921 this first revolutionary wave began to recede in the various countries, capitalism got a respite and started upon a counter-offensive. The two stages together served to the Communist International as a systematic and thorough course of political education, not in studies or laboratories, but on the field of political fights in all countries.
</p>
<p>
The most important lesson learned by the Communist International during these educational years, under the leadership of the Russian Party (with more or less success) was <strong>the role and nature of the Communist Party</strong> in guiding the destinies of the proletarian revolution. This difficult course of study is by no means at an end, even the most developed of our sections have still a great many things to learn in this respect, but the solid groundwork has already been achieved. The principles of “Bolshevism” on this point have been endorsed by all the sections. Much discussion still goes on about the <strong>correct application</strong> of these principles; but this kind of discussion can hardly be fully disposed of in a capitalist environment. At all events, the principles themselves are no longer questioned. It means: firstly, the achievement of actual leadership by the Communist Party in the trade union movement, in the factory council movement, and in all the special ramifications of the revolutionary labour movement, as well as of the unorganised masses of the toilers, in the entire process of the proletarian revolution; secondly, the establishment of a centralised and strong leadership within the Party, which must be organically united with the membership at large, on the basis of constant and united activity with the organisations and the individual members.
</p>
<p>
The course of the second stage is distinguished by a rather significant departure from the first stage, and quite for obvious reasons. In both cases the course was indicated by the historical nature of the stage in question, and by the actual strategical chief aim of the Comintern.
</p>
<p>
During the first stage the chief aim was the attainment of political and organisational independence for the Communist movement. To this end it was necessary, in the first place, to draw a clear line of demarcation from the Right, from the reformist and opportunist wings of Socialism. The principles of the latter, the formula of “pure” democracy, were sharply analysed and exposed as the basis of the capitalist state, and consequently as the basis of co-operation with the capitalist counter-revolution. The Second International and the leaders of the Amsterdam International were branded as a bunch of traitors in the service of the counter-revolution, and the opportunist leaders of the 2½ International were unmercifully divested of all the fig-leaves of sham revolutionism. In our own ranks particular stress was laid on the lucidity of principles, on strong centralism and on iron discipline in the Party.
</p>
<p>
During the second stage the chief aim was to win the majority of the working class and to put it under the leadership of the Communist Parties. This necessitated, firstly, a more precise demarcation against sectarian and anarchist tendencies, and pronounced emphasis upon the danger of isolation from the masses. Secondly, it called for the development of the tactics of the united front as the most important method to gain the confidence of the working masses, and to combat the influence of the reformist and opportunist (including syndicalist and anarchist) labour leaders. Stress was laid on the necessity to venture to negotiate with the leading organs of the labour organisations of the opposite camp, while reserving the right to criticise freely and to expose the opposite party before the working masses. In our own ranks attention was called to the futility of revolutionary dogmatism, to the necessity of applying proper methods and of increasing the general activity of the Party on the basis of slogans and partial demands which arise directly from the actual needs of the working masses.
</p>
<p>
These were two distinct but <strong>interdependent</strong> courses. They are to be taken together, and not separately, in order to understand them properly. They differed by reason of the particular momentary circumstances, and they were united by the unity of the underlying principles.
</p>
<p>
What are the net results so far obtained? Firstly, our sections have acquired the necessary training, and the Communist movement has been strengthened in the various countries. Secondly, the revolutionary seed has been sown, which is now sprouting among the widest masses and will eventually bear fruit. The inward growth of our sections is recorded everywhere without exception. The external growth during the second stage (since 1921) was not equally pronounced in all the sections, and in some there has been even a temporary set-back, notably in Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, and Norway. In Norway, properly speaking, there has been no retrogression, but rather a strengthening of the Communist ranks; the apparent set-back consists chiefly of the fact that the Communist International used to have a larger section there, the majority of which could not be considered at all as a Communist Party, and that the birth of the Norwegian Communist Party has but recently taken place, out of the womb of the old party. In the other three countries, the temporary decrease of membership is due to official suppression which has driven these parties into illegality. Temporary illegality and temporary defeats are rather the rule than the exception for revolutionary labour parties before the conquest of power. These we have discounted beforehand, and they determine in no way the outcome of the class struggle. The deciding factor is the steady revolutionisation of the majority of the proletariat.
</p>
<p>
The results so far obtained by way of revolutionising the proletariat are, of course, different in the various countries, and it could not be otherwise. For instance, in Scandinavia the present stage of this process cannot be the same as in Germany or in Poland. The minds of the great mass of the workers are not independent from the economic and political circumstances of the capitalist environment. The working masses are tied up with this environment by a thousand invisible threads, which in the course of generations have spun veritable cobwebs of bourgeois illusions and prejudices in their heads, which hinder the dawn of proletarian class-consciousness and which will not be removed until the whole edifice of the capitalist system will collapse and shatter the old cobwebs in its fall. These illusions on private property, on money, free trade, the state and the law, on democracy, on religion and the nation, are still prevalent among the workers of America and Scandinavia, as well as of England and France, to a considerable extent. On the other hand, in such countries as Germany and Poland these threads have largely been torn, so that it is only a question of time when these loosened cobwebs will be removed from the minds of the workers by the dawn of class consciousness.
</p>
<p>
It should be borne in mind that in no capitalist country the present-day ideology of the working class is the same as it was ten years ago. A tremendous process of revolutionary education has been going on everywhere, and in this respect the seed sown by the Communist International is bearing fruit. With perfect confidence we anticipate the coming harvest, but not everywhere in the course of next summer. In the tremendous cultivating process of the proletarian world-revolution, the harvest is not reaped in the same year as the seed was sown.
</p>
<p>
It is another question whether we have been skilful in scattering the seed everywhere in quite the proper way. I do not believe that our methods of agitation and propaganda, not to speak of the leadership of the mass fights were carried out everywhere with uniform expediency. For instance, the Russian exponents of practical Marxism have busied themselves in recent years with the problem of the “podkhod,” <em>i.e.</em>, of the proper method of “approaching” in the conduct of agitation and propaganda. I wonder if our comrades in the other countries have studied this important problem with sufficient thoroughness; whether, for instance, in their work, among the trade unions, they have not relied solely upon intuition, in which case we have no guarantee that our agitation has been uniformly effective among the masses.
</p>
<p>
Of quite particular importance is the question of “approaching” the <strong>peasants</strong>. In this case the Communist who does not understand the psychology of the peasant, and his circumstances, and who fails to “approach” him in the proper manner, may achieve the opposite result to what was anticipated. On the whole the question of the revolutionary attitude of the poorer peasants towards the alliance with the working class, while retaining the hegemony of the proletariat, one of the most important problems for the Russian Party and for the Communist International, has not yet been thoroughly thrashed out by all our sections. The task is by no means an easy one, because the peasants are peasants and the workers in many cases have not yet been entirely emancipated from the craft traditions of the old labour movement.
</p>
<p>
The case is partly similar in regard to the <strong>question of nationality</strong>. Many of our sections have not yet worked out the courageous revolutionary attitude, which is practised by the Russian Communist Party, in favour of the unconditional right of self-determination for the subject races of the imperialist powers, in the hope that the national prejudices of these races will quickly be done away with in the course of their progress to complete liberty from any foreign yoke. Many of our sections (England, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, Yugoslavia, Roumania, etc.), have much to gain, as regards influence and power, by tactful and courageous activity in the question of nationality. At the same time proper attention should be given to the question of exercising tactful and courageous influence upon the nationalist prejudices of the petty-bourgeois (and partly also proletarian) masses of the dominant nations, which the fascisti are trying to exploit for the furtherance of the counter-revolution. In this respect the German Communist Party has set an example of the manner in which the influence of the fascist demagogues can be successfully paralysed.
</p>
<p>
A new period in the international movement of the class-struggle was inaugurated last summer and autumn by the events in Germany, Poland and Bulgaria. A similar turn of events was doubtlessly ushered in by the advent of the Labour Government in Great Britain. In most of the other countries this turn has not yet fully set in, or at least the outlines of the new period are not yet plainly visible.
</p>
<p>
The first rumblings of this period in Germany and in Bulgaria have given us no victories, but costly experiences. Nevertheless they were but the prelude, and the last word has not yet been spoken.
</p>
<p>
The chief tasks of the Communist parties during this period, of course, will continue to differ for the various countries. In some countries, notably in Germany, it is already a question of the <strong>fight for power</strong>; in other countries <strong>the majority of the working class has yet to be won over</strong>, (<em>e.g.</em>, in France, Italy, Czecho-Slovakia, Norway), and in other countries the Communist parties have first to be brought up to the level of real Communist <strong>mass-parties</strong> (England, America, Sweden, Austria, etc.). Furthermore, there are countries in which the elementary Communist <strong>propaganda and agitation</strong>, the spade work of the movement has yet to be done. With all this, it seems certain that the new period will be marked by greater uniformity and decisiveness than the preceding period, in regard to the aspect of militancy. In this connection the general policy of the Comintern may experience some modification. In regard to Germany this was already the case in the resolutions adopted by the E.C.C.I. in September, 1923, and in January, 1924 (“Fight for power,” “Unity from the Bottom.”)
</p>
<p>
At all events, we find that the army of the Communist International enters into the third period with quite different strength and preparedness than it did into the second. It has indeed become an army of the proletarian worldrevolution.
</p>
<br>
<h5>Some Systematic Work</h5>
<p>
I have said that all the sections of the International have experienced internal growth. That is quite so. But it is more important to us to joint out the things which are yet to be attained, than the things that have already been achieved.
</p>
<p>
In connection with the influence of the Russian Communist Party upon our International, I would like to say a word of two about the importance of introducing more “system” in the leading work of our sections.
</p>
<p>
As far as I know, Comrade Lenin worked very systematically. The leaders of the Russian Party work systemically, too. All the other Communist parties have surely a great deal to learn from this system of Leninism. Without dwelling on its formal aspects, I would like to point out the following leading features of this system:
</p>
<p class="indent">
1. Proper information and analysis of the situation.
</p>
<p class="indent">
2. Clear strategical aims.
</p>
<p class="indent">
3. Adoption of method and of measures for the attainment of the goal.
</p>
<p class="indent">
4. Proper organisation and control.
</p>
<p>
I would ask the esteemed comrades not to be scared by glancing at the scheme that I have just outlined. I advocate no schemes, but systematic work. All the points that I have outlined, of course, occur in the daily work of our Party, but in a more or less conscious and systematic form.
</p>
<p>
Solid information is the first essential for proper decision and for competent leadership. Everyone recollects with what care, patience and perseverance Comrade Lenin would gather all the possible and reliable information about the question on which he had to decide. He could question and cross-question as no one else. In his writings he repeatedly urges the necessity of systematic information.
</p>
<p>
In the Secretariat of the Executive we feel constantly that so far we have failed in organising a solid system of information to the Executive by the various sections. We feel quite poignantly this defect, which must be obviated by strenuous efforts on either side. At all events, the individual parties should improve their system of information, to start with.
</p>
<p>
Here is not the place to dwell on the subject of the Marxian analysis of the situation, which is a science in itself. At all events, this work should certainly be carried out in a systematic way.
</p>
<p>
The line of conduct, as mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3, must be worked out on the basis of an analysis of the situation. The standard of Marxian insight has certainly grown in our ranks, since everywhere in our movement this “line” is spoken of and sought after. The Social-Democratic parties used to boast of their Marxism before the war, and still they lack a great deal in this respect even to-day.
</p>
<p>
Nevertheless, the political “line” is not a simple function but a combination of functions, and there ought to be systematic distribution of these functions. Quite frequently the “line” is merely drawn by determining the next task (or tasks), without in any way drawing a distinction between the measures and the aims to which the measures are directed (besides, the method for the achievement of the aim is either casually mentioned or is not mentioned at all). At the same time the substance of the programmatic demands is very frequently confused with the strategic aim. For instance, demands and proposals are made which are in the nature of a programme of action (<em>e.g.</em>, the eight-hour day, tax exemption for workers and toiling peasants, State subsidies for the unemployed, workers’ control over production, election of army and navy officers by the rank and file, and so on). What is the real purpose of the Party in raising these demands? To carry out the programme? Of course, no. Its purpose is to fight for this programme in order to attain other aims (than the demands that are raised), <em>e.g.</em>, in order to bring under our influence a part of the Social-Democratic members of the trade unions, to win the peasants over to the proletarian front, to get the leadership of the unemployed movement into the hands of our party, to accelerate the revolutionisation of the most active part of the industrial workers, to cause a state of unrest in the army and navy, and so on. These and similar aims can only serve us as strategical aims. Perhaps, as a result of the action, some of these demands may really be attained; but it is not of decisive importance whether they are attained or not. Of decisive importance is the question whether the definite strategical aim is achieved or not. A programmatic demand can be all right even if none of it is attained (and this is frequently foreseen), providing that the raising of this demand and the fight for it will ensure success in the prosecution of this strategical aim agreed upon. On the other hand, even if achieved, the demand is not of the slightest use if it cannot further the strategical aim.
</p>
<p>
Choosing a “line” without a <strong>deliberate strategical aim</strong> is, of course, tantamount to groping in the dark, as it gives no guarantee that the proper line was found from the Marxian standpoint. The most essential considerations for revolutionary Marxists might then be overlooked. Yet we must always be clearly aware of the aim to which our forthcoming actions are to be directed. For this distinguishes us from all the blind politicians in the world, that we do not act on the spur of the moment, but on the ground of Marxian, <em>i.e.</em>, scientific analysis of the situation, and in the deliberate interests of the revolution in so far as we expect them to be served by the action that we undertake. The measures to be adopted for the achievement of this aim are quite a different matter, of course. Another matter again are the slogans which we are to launch into the masses in order to influence them or to create a movement which should facilitate the achievement of the aim.
</p>
<p>
To my mind it would be useful to deal with this question at somewhat greater length (also to distinguish between the leading aim and the side issues), and to illustrate the fore-going theoretical hints by examples from the activity of the E.C.C.I.; but I must content myself with the abstract argument for the development of a systematic “line.” It is to be hoped that before long the deliberate strategical aiming in the Marxian sense will become the common property and habit in the ranks of the Communist International, and that it will be accompanied by regular and precise demarcation against “Right” and “Left.”
</p>
<p>
The task of organising for the attainment of the decisions in a proper way is nothing new to our parties. This is the direction in which all the parties have been working for a long time. No one will dispute the complete vindication of the last advice by Lenin which he gave at the Fourth World Congress to the Communist parties of the capitalist ,countries: “You must assimilate a good bit of the Russian experiences.”
</p>
<p>
What Lenin considered of particular importance is to make all the party members active and to set to every individual member his daily task in the work of the party. The lack of this activity he described as the “greatest shortcoming in the Communist parties of the capitalist countries.” The forming of Communist nuclei at all the factories, the widest possible participation by all the members in the distribution of party literature and in the development of the Communist press, the attraction of the proletarian women and youth to regular revolutionary activity, all these organisational demands of Lenin have only partly been fulfilled. And in all these tasks it is imperative and necessary to assimilate a bit of the Russian experiences, not to copy, but to adapt it to the peculiar circumstances of every individual country.
</p>
<p>
Besides the daily regular activity of the Party, it is necessary to learn from the Russian Party how to concentrate the forces on the carrying out of urgent tasks and on taking the lead in mass-action. Even the ripest of our sections, the German Communist Party, has recently shown itself badly deficient in this respect. It will certainly be wiser next time.
</p>
<p>
One word, in conclusion, on systematic control in the carrying out of the Party tasks, which was also a very substantial feature in the “system” of Lenin.
</p>
<p>
All this applies, of course, not only to the central committees of the parties, but also to the leading organs and even to the committees of the smallest nuclei, and to some extent even to all the individual members of the Party.
</p>
<br>
<h5>Towards Victory!</h5>
<p>
“The most important thing for this period is to study,” said Comrade Lenin in the autumn of 1922, addressing himself to the foreign as well as to the Russian comrades. The whole International has still a lot to learn. Is it a sign of weakness that we frequently have to admit this openly? I believe it is a sign of strength. Just ask our deadly enemies whether they find this reassuring. Ten years ago, they felt themselves so secure that in no country they thought necessary to organise fascist groups against us. Now the most aristocratic rascals and the wealthiest robbers are compelled to arm themselves to their teeth. <strong>The gentlemen are afraid of us</strong>, and the more we learn how to lead the revolution the more reason they will have to fear us.
</p>
<p>
The capitalist world is incapable of solving its critical problems. It tried to solve them by the greatest crime on record, by the imperialist world-war, with the result that the foundations of the capitalist system are now on the edge of the precipice. France, who ten years ago was the wealthiest banker of Europe, is now no longer able to pay her debts and has to shudder at the sight, on beholding the golden francs being transformed into worthless scraps of paper. England, the proudest ruler of the world, must now allow herself to be governed by a comical company known as the Labour Government, which has proved its bankruptcy in the international labour movement and is now to undergo a second bankruptcy at the head of the British Empire. The former German Empire is now a desperate beggar, Austria a pauper, and Hungary an apache. Capitalist Europe bears the brand of doom on its brow.
</p>
<p>
The Second International of social-traitors has been compelled in nearly all the countries to change the deception of capitalist democracy for open servitude to the capitalist dictatorship. Also the 2½ International has gone to the devil for it is no longer to be seen on earth. The privileged aristocracy of labour is vanishing rapidly. The time is nigh when bankrupt capitalism will no longer be able to feed its slaves, let alone to bribe them.
</p>
<p>
The greatest hindrance to the proletarian revolution in the minds of the workers was the cowardly prejudice: “We cannot win, it is impossible!” The Russian proletariat has shown it to be possible, and how it is possible.
</p>
<p>
By this deed the Russian proletariat has won the hegemony of the international labour movement. And this it will retain until the full accomplishment of its great historical tasks in the process of the proletarian world-revolution. Its greatest task is due to the position of Russia as a bridge between West and East: it has linked up the proletarian revolution of the West with the national liberation movement of the peoples of the East.
</p>
<p>
Under the leadership of the Russian Communist Party, the Communist International will learn the art of victory. It is not yet the world-party that has won the victory. But this is what it will be!
</p>
<p class="fst">
O. W. KUUSINEN
</p>
<hr>
<p class="skip"> </p>
<p class="footer">
<a href="../../index.htm">O. W. Kuusinen Archive</a> | <a href="../../../../history/international/comintern/ci/index.htm"><em>The Communist International</em> Index</a></p>
</body> |
O. W. Kuusinen
Under the Leadership of Russia
Source: The Communist International, 1924, No. 1 (New Series), pp. 132-146
Translator: M. L. Kortchmar
Transcription/HTML Markup: Brian Reid
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2008). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
The World Army of the Proletarian Revolution
TEN years ago Capital was the autocratic ruler of the world. Russia was the gendarme of Europe, the dreaded foe of every revolutionary national movement, the support of the domination of the possessing classes throughout the world.
Now the world is divided between the powers of capital and those of labour. One-sixth of the earth’s surface is in the hands of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, which constitutes an effective counter-force to the capitalist world and a strong foundation for the proletarian world-revolution.
Besides, the proletarian world revolution has its active army within every capitalist country, the sections of the Communist International and the trade unions, and other mass-organisations which are already under the direct influence of the Communist parties. The effective forces at the disposal of the capitalist world are still larger than those of the Communist International; but the reserve forces of the proletarian world-revolution are incomparably greater. Not only the great majority of the working class in all the capitalist countries, but also many proletarianised elements of the petty-bourgeoisie of the towns, many semi-proletarian and small-peasant elements in the country, may be considered as a potential, if to some extent latent, power for the world-revolution. Furthermore, the national liberation movements among the oppressed peoples of Asia and Africa furnish a direct auxiliary force for the revolutionary movement of the European proletariat.
This division of the forces, and the direction of their further development, is the fundamental feature of the present period in world-history which was inaugurated ten years ago by the imperialist world-war and found its continuation in the Russian revolution and in the revolutionary upheavals in Finland, Germany, Czecho-Slovakia, Hungary, Italy and a number of other countries, in the war and intervention against Soviet Russia, in the Turko-Greek war, in the Irish war for liberty, in the fights of the Ruhr, in numerous revolutionary liberation movements among the Asiatic peoples and so on. It is a period of wars and revolutions which take place on the grounds of the increasing economic, social and political dissolution of the capitalist system. It is the fourth and the last period of the capitalist epoch, which follows after the preceding periods of mercantilism, liberalism and imperialism, and whose concrete forms are not yet plainly discernible; but there can be no doubt whatever as to the possible result of the struggles of this period; the establishment of proletarian dictatorship on a world-wide scale.
And this is the most important slogan of the Communist International.
Foreseen by the genius of Marx, the proletarian dictatorship was made by Lenin the victorious battle-cry of the Russian Bolsheviks, and under his leadership it was adopted by the masses of the fighting proletariat in Russia and carried to realization. At the time of the birth of the Communist International the proletarian dictatorship in Russia was already realised in the shape of the Soviet Government. Thus, the Communist International got its principal slogan not from theoretical prophecy, but from the accomplished fact of the Russian proletariat. By this fact, as by the whole nature of the new period, the revolutionary idea of the conquest of power and of the realisation of Socialism obtained quite a different meaning in the Communist International from what it had been in the international movement of the past. In the First and in the Second International it merely served as means of propaganda, and in the Second International it was used exclusively for purposes of parliamentary campaigns and electioneering. To the Communist International the idea of the proletarian dictatorship was no longer mere propaganda, but the most important practical task which has already been solved by one section in whose country this dictatorship is steadily progressing towards the realisation of Socialism, while in other countries the achievement of this task is being prepared by the daily struggles of the Communist parties.
The Communist International was thus from the very beginning a revolutionary militant organisation, a party of the class-war, of the destruction of the bourgeois machinery of the state, of the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship and of the realisation of Socialism and Communism.
The Russian Founders of the International
Just as the Russian proletariat was ahead of all the other countries in the historic battles of the present period, being the first to establish the victorious rule of Socialist workers, so the Russian Communist Party took a leading part in the Communist International from the moment of its inception.
This leading part of the R.C.P., which no one in our ranks would ever think of disputing, is based not only upon the authority of the Russian revolution, but also upon the authority of the R.C.P. itself, and upon the capacities of the leaders of the R.C.P. for leadership of the international movement. With regard to the revolutionary past, to extensive experience and large heroic sacrifices by the members, to Marxian insight and correct judgment on the part of the leaders, no party will stand comparison with the Russian section of the Communist International.
Of course, much of this was achieved by the able leadership of Lenin. Not only by his direct contributions to the Russian and international movement, and part of which is our inheritance in his published works, but also by the leaders which he trained for the Russian as well as for the international movement. The leading Russian comrades who had the good fortune to work side by side with Lenin in the years of victory as well as in the preceding years of underground work, and in emigration, having passed through the only school of experience imaginable, are to-day almost unequalled in art of political leadership.
Thus the Communist International possesses in the Russian leadership, in the person of its chairman and of the members of the Russian delegation as well as of the Central Committee of the R.C.P., an accumulated stock of far-reaching revolutionary experience, of Marxian leadership and of proven ability, which are requisite to the historic tasks of the Communist International. We can only repeat here the words contained in the manifesto of the foreign comrades of our Executive on the 25th anniversary of the R.C.P., in which it was said: “The leadership of the Russian comrades in the Communist International is our pride.”
Renegades and enemies repeatedly accused the Communist International of aiding the foreign policy of Soviet Russia. If this were true, we could only claim credit for it. To us as Communists it would be a matter of joy to be able to render efficient aid to the Socialist power of the Soviets. Unfortunately, we cannot claim anything of the kind.
How many times indeed did Soviet Russia experience the need for aid by the workers of other countries, but the latter were not in a position to render any effective aid. Our foreign sections were altogether too weak for that. What could the English, French or American comrades do to defeat the criminal interventions by the governments of their respective countries? Almost nothing. What could the Polish comrades do against the murderous attack of the Polish troops upon Soviet Russia in 1920 and during the war which followed? Almost nothing. The Polish proletariat was at that time so powerless that it could neither help itself nor Soviet Russia. With her own fists Soviet Russia has overcome the numerous enemies. Only in one respect were the foreign sections of the C.I. so far able to render a little aid, namely in the work of famine-relief in 1922.
Of course, far be it from us to forget the self-sacrificing fights on behalf of Soviet Russia on the part of Communists in Germany, Poland, France, Italy and the Balkans. Neither do we forget the heroic revolt of the French sailors at Odessa. We do not forget that the work of the Communists has aroused the sympathies for Soviet Russia among the working masses in Czecho-Slovakia, in France, in England and in America, and this contributed materially to the failure of the criminal intervention undertaken by the Entente. To me, personally, it is a matter of particular pride to recall the fact that during the debauches of the Finnish white bands in the districts of Olonetz and Karelia, our Finnish cadets were able to render material services in beating back the attack, and that in Finland the workers, in spite of the white terror, expressed openly in defence of Soviet Russia (many of our comrades are still in prison in that country for their attitude in those days). I must certainly admit that the task of the Finnish comrades on that occasion was naturally much easier than that of the Polish comrades in 1920. Many other instances could be quoted of effective aid rendered by foreign Communists, e.g., by Latvian and Esthonian comrades.
All this has to be admitted, while at the same time we must declare that during the first two years the Communist parties in the capitalist countries were altogether too weak to render any truly effective aid for the rescue of the Russian revolution.
At the time that the Communist International was founded, the leading Russian comrades were fully aware of the fact that instead of any aid from the young international organisations, the R.C.P. would have to lend its aid to the foreign sections for many years to come. These things notwithstanding, they insisted on founding the International. Above all, Comrade Lenin. He cherished that idea for a long time already. Two years previously, immediately after the February revolution, he asked for a union of the revolutionary workers’ organisations of the different countries in a new International. But what could at that time be started? The conscious revolutionary forces in the other countries were altogether small and scattered. One had to wait and to cultivate the seed for the new International. The first year of Soviet rule was actually the cause which led to the formation of many small Communist parties and to the remodelling of some parties after the example of the Russian Bolsheviks. But the tremendous pressure of daily work did not allow the leaders of the R.C.P, during that year to think even of calling an international congress. It was only at the end of that year, after the victory of the red army over the Czecho-Slovak legions and after the collapse of German imperialism, which allowed the Soviet Republic its first brief respite, that Lenin was able to start again upon the realisation of his cherished dream: the founding of an organisation which would carry out the proletarian world-revolution!
The existence of the Soviet authority, in Russia was in those days by no means assured. One could be sure only of the imminence of big battles, but not of their results. Yet this did not prevent the Russian comrades from going on with the work of forming the International. On the contrary, it spurred them to work speedily in this direction. The new International was to be founded at all events! Come what may; it was intended as the rock which was to resist all storms and calamities. It was to be the rock on which the human race was to build its everlasting kingdom of labour unchained, with no classes and no exploitation.
I know not whether the comrades pictured to themselves the matter in such poetical fashion. Probably they did not. For all of them are advocates of materialism par excellence. One thing is certain, that no greater example was ever known of such rock-like faith in a revolutionary idea. An excellent idea, a well-founded and even scientific idea, but a mere idea at that. The Russian revolution was reality, the great, painful and joyful, hopeful and uncertain reality. But the proletarian world-revolution was as yet a star on the horizon. Nevertheless the leaders of the Russian revolution, who always build their politics upon firm realities, relied more upon the great idea of the future than upon most concrete reality. I leave it to the diligent minds of young theoreticians to find a logical harmony between this fact of highest revolutionary idealism and the doctrine of historic materialism, which is certainly an absolutely correct theory.
By the bye, this was not the only occasion nor the last occasion on which the international interest has won the day in Russia. I shall merely mention the great test in the autumn of 1923, in connection with the development of the revolutionary crisis in Germany. I believe that the Russian comrades understand international solidarity in quite their own way. It is in their blood. And when wise owls come along and talk about the alleged subordination of the international interests to the momentary interests of the Foreign Commissariat, these creatures should simply be laughed out of court.
Through the First Stages
That the Russian comrades were not building castles in the air in March, 1919, was soon demonstrated by the splendid growth of the Communist International. Resembling rather an idea than an international organisation at the time of its founding it grew in the course of two years into a world-organisation with live and active sections in all the capitalist countries and in all parts of the world.
The first two years of the organising work of the Comintern constituted an international stage of great revolutionary mass struggles. In the year 1921 this first revolutionary wave began to recede in the various countries, capitalism got a respite and started upon a counter-offensive. The two stages together served to the Communist International as a systematic and thorough course of political education, not in studies or laboratories, but on the field of political fights in all countries.
The most important lesson learned by the Communist International during these educational years, under the leadership of the Russian Party (with more or less success) was the role and nature of the Communist Party in guiding the destinies of the proletarian revolution. This difficult course of study is by no means at an end, even the most developed of our sections have still a great many things to learn in this respect, but the solid groundwork has already been achieved. The principles of “Bolshevism” on this point have been endorsed by all the sections. Much discussion still goes on about the correct application of these principles; but this kind of discussion can hardly be fully disposed of in a capitalist environment. At all events, the principles themselves are no longer questioned. It means: firstly, the achievement of actual leadership by the Communist Party in the trade union movement, in the factory council movement, and in all the special ramifications of the revolutionary labour movement, as well as of the unorganised masses of the toilers, in the entire process of the proletarian revolution; secondly, the establishment of a centralised and strong leadership within the Party, which must be organically united with the membership at large, on the basis of constant and united activity with the organisations and the individual members.
The course of the second stage is distinguished by a rather significant departure from the first stage, and quite for obvious reasons. In both cases the course was indicated by the historical nature of the stage in question, and by the actual strategical chief aim of the Comintern.
During the first stage the chief aim was the attainment of political and organisational independence for the Communist movement. To this end it was necessary, in the first place, to draw a clear line of demarcation from the Right, from the reformist and opportunist wings of Socialism. The principles of the latter, the formula of “pure” democracy, were sharply analysed and exposed as the basis of the capitalist state, and consequently as the basis of co-operation with the capitalist counter-revolution. The Second International and the leaders of the Amsterdam International were branded as a bunch of traitors in the service of the counter-revolution, and the opportunist leaders of the 2½ International were unmercifully divested of all the fig-leaves of sham revolutionism. In our own ranks particular stress was laid on the lucidity of principles, on strong centralism and on iron discipline in the Party.
During the second stage the chief aim was to win the majority of the working class and to put it under the leadership of the Communist Parties. This necessitated, firstly, a more precise demarcation against sectarian and anarchist tendencies, and pronounced emphasis upon the danger of isolation from the masses. Secondly, it called for the development of the tactics of the united front as the most important method to gain the confidence of the working masses, and to combat the influence of the reformist and opportunist (including syndicalist and anarchist) labour leaders. Stress was laid on the necessity to venture to negotiate with the leading organs of the labour organisations of the opposite camp, while reserving the right to criticise freely and to expose the opposite party before the working masses. In our own ranks attention was called to the futility of revolutionary dogmatism, to the necessity of applying proper methods and of increasing the general activity of the Party on the basis of slogans and partial demands which arise directly from the actual needs of the working masses.
These were two distinct but interdependent courses. They are to be taken together, and not separately, in order to understand them properly. They differed by reason of the particular momentary circumstances, and they were united by the unity of the underlying principles.
What are the net results so far obtained? Firstly, our sections have acquired the necessary training, and the Communist movement has been strengthened in the various countries. Secondly, the revolutionary seed has been sown, which is now sprouting among the widest masses and will eventually bear fruit. The inward growth of our sections is recorded everywhere without exception. The external growth during the second stage (since 1921) was not equally pronounced in all the sections, and in some there has been even a temporary set-back, notably in Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, and Norway. In Norway, properly speaking, there has been no retrogression, but rather a strengthening of the Communist ranks; the apparent set-back consists chiefly of the fact that the Communist International used to have a larger section there, the majority of which could not be considered at all as a Communist Party, and that the birth of the Norwegian Communist Party has but recently taken place, out of the womb of the old party. In the other three countries, the temporary decrease of membership is due to official suppression which has driven these parties into illegality. Temporary illegality and temporary defeats are rather the rule than the exception for revolutionary labour parties before the conquest of power. These we have discounted beforehand, and they determine in no way the outcome of the class struggle. The deciding factor is the steady revolutionisation of the majority of the proletariat.
The results so far obtained by way of revolutionising the proletariat are, of course, different in the various countries, and it could not be otherwise. For instance, in Scandinavia the present stage of this process cannot be the same as in Germany or in Poland. The minds of the great mass of the workers are not independent from the economic and political circumstances of the capitalist environment. The working masses are tied up with this environment by a thousand invisible threads, which in the course of generations have spun veritable cobwebs of bourgeois illusions and prejudices in their heads, which hinder the dawn of proletarian class-consciousness and which will not be removed until the whole edifice of the capitalist system will collapse and shatter the old cobwebs in its fall. These illusions on private property, on money, free trade, the state and the law, on democracy, on religion and the nation, are still prevalent among the workers of America and Scandinavia, as well as of England and France, to a considerable extent. On the other hand, in such countries as Germany and Poland these threads have largely been torn, so that it is only a question of time when these loosened cobwebs will be removed from the minds of the workers by the dawn of class consciousness.
It should be borne in mind that in no capitalist country the present-day ideology of the working class is the same as it was ten years ago. A tremendous process of revolutionary education has been going on everywhere, and in this respect the seed sown by the Communist International is bearing fruit. With perfect confidence we anticipate the coming harvest, but not everywhere in the course of next summer. In the tremendous cultivating process of the proletarian world-revolution, the harvest is not reaped in the same year as the seed was sown.
It is another question whether we have been skilful in scattering the seed everywhere in quite the proper way. I do not believe that our methods of agitation and propaganda, not to speak of the leadership of the mass fights were carried out everywhere with uniform expediency. For instance, the Russian exponents of practical Marxism have busied themselves in recent years with the problem of the “podkhod,” i.e., of the proper method of “approaching” in the conduct of agitation and propaganda. I wonder if our comrades in the other countries have studied this important problem with sufficient thoroughness; whether, for instance, in their work, among the trade unions, they have not relied solely upon intuition, in which case we have no guarantee that our agitation has been uniformly effective among the masses.
Of quite particular importance is the question of “approaching” the peasants. In this case the Communist who does not understand the psychology of the peasant, and his circumstances, and who fails to “approach” him in the proper manner, may achieve the opposite result to what was anticipated. On the whole the question of the revolutionary attitude of the poorer peasants towards the alliance with the working class, while retaining the hegemony of the proletariat, one of the most important problems for the Russian Party and for the Communist International, has not yet been thoroughly thrashed out by all our sections. The task is by no means an easy one, because the peasants are peasants and the workers in many cases have not yet been entirely emancipated from the craft traditions of the old labour movement.
The case is partly similar in regard to the question of nationality. Many of our sections have not yet worked out the courageous revolutionary attitude, which is practised by the Russian Communist Party, in favour of the unconditional right of self-determination for the subject races of the imperialist powers, in the hope that the national prejudices of these races will quickly be done away with in the course of their progress to complete liberty from any foreign yoke. Many of our sections (England, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, Yugoslavia, Roumania, etc.), have much to gain, as regards influence and power, by tactful and courageous activity in the question of nationality. At the same time proper attention should be given to the question of exercising tactful and courageous influence upon the nationalist prejudices of the petty-bourgeois (and partly also proletarian) masses of the dominant nations, which the fascisti are trying to exploit for the furtherance of the counter-revolution. In this respect the German Communist Party has set an example of the manner in which the influence of the fascist demagogues can be successfully paralysed.
A new period in the international movement of the class-struggle was inaugurated last summer and autumn by the events in Germany, Poland and Bulgaria. A similar turn of events was doubtlessly ushered in by the advent of the Labour Government in Great Britain. In most of the other countries this turn has not yet fully set in, or at least the outlines of the new period are not yet plainly visible.
The first rumblings of this period in Germany and in Bulgaria have given us no victories, but costly experiences. Nevertheless they were but the prelude, and the last word has not yet been spoken.
The chief tasks of the Communist parties during this period, of course, will continue to differ for the various countries. In some countries, notably in Germany, it is already a question of the fight for power; in other countries the majority of the working class has yet to be won over, (e.g., in France, Italy, Czecho-Slovakia, Norway), and in other countries the Communist parties have first to be brought up to the level of real Communist mass-parties (England, America, Sweden, Austria, etc.). Furthermore, there are countries in which the elementary Communist propaganda and agitation, the spade work of the movement has yet to be done. With all this, it seems certain that the new period will be marked by greater uniformity and decisiveness than the preceding period, in regard to the aspect of militancy. In this connection the general policy of the Comintern may experience some modification. In regard to Germany this was already the case in the resolutions adopted by the E.C.C.I. in September, 1923, and in January, 1924 (“Fight for power,” “Unity from the Bottom.”)
At all events, we find that the army of the Communist International enters into the third period with quite different strength and preparedness than it did into the second. It has indeed become an army of the proletarian worldrevolution.
Some Systematic Work
I have said that all the sections of the International have experienced internal growth. That is quite so. But it is more important to us to joint out the things which are yet to be attained, than the things that have already been achieved.
In connection with the influence of the Russian Communist Party upon our International, I would like to say a word of two about the importance of introducing more “system” in the leading work of our sections.
As far as I know, Comrade Lenin worked very systematically. The leaders of the Russian Party work systemically, too. All the other Communist parties have surely a great deal to learn from this system of Leninism. Without dwelling on its formal aspects, I would like to point out the following leading features of this system:
1. Proper information and analysis of the situation.
2. Clear strategical aims.
3. Adoption of method and of measures for the attainment of the goal.
4. Proper organisation and control.
I would ask the esteemed comrades not to be scared by glancing at the scheme that I have just outlined. I advocate no schemes, but systematic work. All the points that I have outlined, of course, occur in the daily work of our Party, but in a more or less conscious and systematic form.
Solid information is the first essential for proper decision and for competent leadership. Everyone recollects with what care, patience and perseverance Comrade Lenin would gather all the possible and reliable information about the question on which he had to decide. He could question and cross-question as no one else. In his writings he repeatedly urges the necessity of systematic information.
In the Secretariat of the Executive we feel constantly that so far we have failed in organising a solid system of information to the Executive by the various sections. We feel quite poignantly this defect, which must be obviated by strenuous efforts on either side. At all events, the individual parties should improve their system of information, to start with.
Here is not the place to dwell on the subject of the Marxian analysis of the situation, which is a science in itself. At all events, this work should certainly be carried out in a systematic way.
The line of conduct, as mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3, must be worked out on the basis of an analysis of the situation. The standard of Marxian insight has certainly grown in our ranks, since everywhere in our movement this “line” is spoken of and sought after. The Social-Democratic parties used to boast of their Marxism before the war, and still they lack a great deal in this respect even to-day.
Nevertheless, the political “line” is not a simple function but a combination of functions, and there ought to be systematic distribution of these functions. Quite frequently the “line” is merely drawn by determining the next task (or tasks), without in any way drawing a distinction between the measures and the aims to which the measures are directed (besides, the method for the achievement of the aim is either casually mentioned or is not mentioned at all). At the same time the substance of the programmatic demands is very frequently confused with the strategic aim. For instance, demands and proposals are made which are in the nature of a programme of action (e.g., the eight-hour day, tax exemption for workers and toiling peasants, State subsidies for the unemployed, workers’ control over production, election of army and navy officers by the rank and file, and so on). What is the real purpose of the Party in raising these demands? To carry out the programme? Of course, no. Its purpose is to fight for this programme in order to attain other aims (than the demands that are raised), e.g., in order to bring under our influence a part of the Social-Democratic members of the trade unions, to win the peasants over to the proletarian front, to get the leadership of the unemployed movement into the hands of our party, to accelerate the revolutionisation of the most active part of the industrial workers, to cause a state of unrest in the army and navy, and so on. These and similar aims can only serve us as strategical aims. Perhaps, as a result of the action, some of these demands may really be attained; but it is not of decisive importance whether they are attained or not. Of decisive importance is the question whether the definite strategical aim is achieved or not. A programmatic demand can be all right even if none of it is attained (and this is frequently foreseen), providing that the raising of this demand and the fight for it will ensure success in the prosecution of this strategical aim agreed upon. On the other hand, even if achieved, the demand is not of the slightest use if it cannot further the strategical aim.
Choosing a “line” without a deliberate strategical aim is, of course, tantamount to groping in the dark, as it gives no guarantee that the proper line was found from the Marxian standpoint. The most essential considerations for revolutionary Marxists might then be overlooked. Yet we must always be clearly aware of the aim to which our forthcoming actions are to be directed. For this distinguishes us from all the blind politicians in the world, that we do not act on the spur of the moment, but on the ground of Marxian, i.e., scientific analysis of the situation, and in the deliberate interests of the revolution in so far as we expect them to be served by the action that we undertake. The measures to be adopted for the achievement of this aim are quite a different matter, of course. Another matter again are the slogans which we are to launch into the masses in order to influence them or to create a movement which should facilitate the achievement of the aim.
To my mind it would be useful to deal with this question at somewhat greater length (also to distinguish between the leading aim and the side issues), and to illustrate the fore-going theoretical hints by examples from the activity of the E.C.C.I.; but I must content myself with the abstract argument for the development of a systematic “line.” It is to be hoped that before long the deliberate strategical aiming in the Marxian sense will become the common property and habit in the ranks of the Communist International, and that it will be accompanied by regular and precise demarcation against “Right” and “Left.”
The task of organising for the attainment of the decisions in a proper way is nothing new to our parties. This is the direction in which all the parties have been working for a long time. No one will dispute the complete vindication of the last advice by Lenin which he gave at the Fourth World Congress to the Communist parties of the capitalist ,countries: “You must assimilate a good bit of the Russian experiences.”
What Lenin considered of particular importance is to make all the party members active and to set to every individual member his daily task in the work of the party. The lack of this activity he described as the “greatest shortcoming in the Communist parties of the capitalist countries.” The forming of Communist nuclei at all the factories, the widest possible participation by all the members in the distribution of party literature and in the development of the Communist press, the attraction of the proletarian women and youth to regular revolutionary activity, all these organisational demands of Lenin have only partly been fulfilled. And in all these tasks it is imperative and necessary to assimilate a bit of the Russian experiences, not to copy, but to adapt it to the peculiar circumstances of every individual country.
Besides the daily regular activity of the Party, it is necessary to learn from the Russian Party how to concentrate the forces on the carrying out of urgent tasks and on taking the lead in mass-action. Even the ripest of our sections, the German Communist Party, has recently shown itself badly deficient in this respect. It will certainly be wiser next time.
One word, in conclusion, on systematic control in the carrying out of the Party tasks, which was also a very substantial feature in the “system” of Lenin.
All this applies, of course, not only to the central committees of the parties, but also to the leading organs and even to the committees of the smallest nuclei, and to some extent even to all the individual members of the Party.
Towards Victory!
“The most important thing for this period is to study,” said Comrade Lenin in the autumn of 1922, addressing himself to the foreign as well as to the Russian comrades. The whole International has still a lot to learn. Is it a sign of weakness that we frequently have to admit this openly? I believe it is a sign of strength. Just ask our deadly enemies whether they find this reassuring. Ten years ago, they felt themselves so secure that in no country they thought necessary to organise fascist groups against us. Now the most aristocratic rascals and the wealthiest robbers are compelled to arm themselves to their teeth. The gentlemen are afraid of us, and the more we learn how to lead the revolution the more reason they will have to fear us.
The capitalist world is incapable of solving its critical problems. It tried to solve them by the greatest crime on record, by the imperialist world-war, with the result that the foundations of the capitalist system are now on the edge of the precipice. France, who ten years ago was the wealthiest banker of Europe, is now no longer able to pay her debts and has to shudder at the sight, on beholding the golden francs being transformed into worthless scraps of paper. England, the proudest ruler of the world, must now allow herself to be governed by a comical company known as the Labour Government, which has proved its bankruptcy in the international labour movement and is now to undergo a second bankruptcy at the head of the British Empire. The former German Empire is now a desperate beggar, Austria a pauper, and Hungary an apache. Capitalist Europe bears the brand of doom on its brow.
The Second International of social-traitors has been compelled in nearly all the countries to change the deception of capitalist democracy for open servitude to the capitalist dictatorship. Also the 2½ International has gone to the devil for it is no longer to be seen on earth. The privileged aristocracy of labour is vanishing rapidly. The time is nigh when bankrupt capitalism will no longer be able to feed its slaves, let alone to bribe them.
The greatest hindrance to the proletarian revolution in the minds of the workers was the cowardly prejudice: “We cannot win, it is impossible!” The Russian proletariat has shown it to be possible, and how it is possible.
By this deed the Russian proletariat has won the hegemony of the international labour movement. And this it will retain until the full accomplishment of its great historical tasks in the process of the proletarian world-revolution. Its greatest task is due to the position of Russia as a bridge between West and East: it has linked up the proletarian revolution of the West with the national liberation movement of the peoples of the East.
Under the leadership of the Russian Communist Party, the Communist International will learn the art of victory. It is not yet the world-party that has won the victory. But this is what it will be!
O. W. KUUSINEN
O. W. Kuusinen Archive | The Communist International Index
|
./articles/Kuusinen-Otto/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.kuusinen.1925.05.german-october | <body>
<p class="title">O. W. Kuusinen</p>
<h1>A Misleading Description of the “German October”</h1>
<hr>
<p class="information">
<span class="info">Source:</span> <em><a href="../../../../history/international/comintern/sections/britain/pamphlets/1925/trotskyism/index.htm">The The Errors of Trotskyism</a></em>, May 1925<br>
<span class="info">Publisher:</span> <a href="../../../../history/international/comintern/sections/britain/index.htm">Communist Party of Great Britain</a><br>
<span class="info">Transcription/HTML Markup:</span> Brian Reid<br>
<span class="info">Public Domain:</span> Marxists Internet Archive (2007). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.</p>
<hr>
<p class="fst">“During the second half of last year we had here (in Germany) a classic demonstration of how the opportunity of a uniquely revolutionary situation of world historical significance may be missed.” (Trotsky, September, 1924, in his “Lessons of October.”)
</p>
<p>
“If the (German) Party had proclaimed insurrection in October last year, as proposed by the Berlin comrades, it would now be lying prone with a broken neck.” (From the draft of theses, by Trotsky and Radek, January, 1924.)
</p>
<p>
Both in September, 1923 and in January, 1924, I had much opportunity, in my capacity as secretary, to take part in the commissions on the German question appointed by the Executive of the Comintern; I am thus not only familiar with the standpoint of the Executive as a whole, but also with a standpoint of the separation leading comrades with regard to the events in Germany in October. I was thus exceedingly astonished to see the light in which these events are viewed by Trotsky in the preface to his book “1917” (“The Lessons of October”). I was much surprised that such recent events—events really not lying in any remote past can be so misrepresented. As the facts are not yet generally known, we must oppose Comrade Trotsky’s description by a statement of the actual position.
</p>
<h5>The Accusation</h5>
<p>
Comrade Trotsky devotes his “Lessons of October” to the exposition and delineation of the following theme: The experiences of the Russian October and the experiences of many European countries, especially the experience—as he expresses it “of the German October which did not take place,” all go to show one and the same thing. In Germany, authoritative comrades in our own ranks opposed the insurrection at the decisive moment. In Russia, thanks to the pressure exercised by Comrade Lenin, and thanks to the cooperation of Comrade Trotsky, the insurrection was set in action and the victory won. But in the “German October” the insurrection was not begun, although in Comrade’s Trotsky’s opinion “every pre-requisite for revolution was given, with the exception of far-seeing and energetic leaders.”
</p>
<p>
The existence of this revolutionary situation was not recognised in time, and no comrade arose and put pressure upon the Central, striving to prevent the insurrection. For this reason we had neither insurrection nor seizure of power. The German October did not take place, we gained nothing more than a “classic example of how the opportunity of a uniquely revolutionary situation of world historical significance may be missed.”
</p>
<p>
This drama of the German October was played for Comrade Trotsky against the background of the history of the Russian October. He describes in detail the energy with which he himself took action in 1917, and in even greater detail the manner in which various other comrades attempted to “retreat before the battle.” These comrades—“opponents of the insurrection”—had extraordinarily overestimated the forces of the enemy only two weeks before the bloodless victory of the Bolsheviki in Petrograd (“even Lenin was of the opinion that the enemy had still considerable forces in Petrograd”). According to Comrade Trotsky, the leaders of the German C.P. committed this same error of over-estimating the forces of our adversaries in October last year.
</p>
<p>
“They confidently accepted all figures calculated by the bourgeoisie as to their armed forces, added these carefully to the forces of the police and militia, then rounded up the result to half a million and more, and thus assumed a compact force, armed to the teeth, and fully able to paralyse their endeavours. It is an incontestable fact that the German counter-revolution possessed forces which were better organised and better trained than the whole and half elements of the Kornilov forces. But the active forces of the German revolution were again different from ours. In Germany the proletariat represents the overwhelming majority of the population. In our case the revolutionary question was decided, at least, at first, by Petrograd and Moscow. In Germany the insurrection would have had ten mighty strongholds at once. If we take all this into consideration, then the armed forces of the enemy were in reality by no means so dangerous as represented by the statistical calculation, with figures rounded up to numbers beyond the truth.” (“Lessons of October,” Russian edition, p. 11.)
</p>
<p>
This is the only place in which Comrade Trotsky mentions any difference in the objective premises of the Russian and German Octobers. According to his description, the conditions for the seizure of power in 1923 in Germany were not in the least less favourable than in Russia in 1917.
</p>
<p>
“It is not possible to imagine conditions more favourable, or more suitable and matured for the seizure of power.”
</p>
<p>
He does not make the very slightest mention, not even a superficial indication of any reasons, however insignificant, which might justify the retreat at the time of the “German October.” No, no, in his opinion the insurrection was the unconditional duty of the Party at this juncture. To him it is a misfortune that during the “German October” the opponents of the insurrection were able to “drag the Party back.”
</p>
<p>
Thus (according to Comrade Trotsky) the German revolution fell through. After this defeat the guilty comrades came forward with their “biassed calculations,” for the purpose of “justifying the policy which had led to defeat.” And Comrade Trotsky adds:
</p>
<p>
“It is easy to imagine how history would have been written if those comrades in the C.C. (of the Russian C.P.) who inclined in 1917 to the tactics of retreat before the battle, had had their way. The semi-official writers of history would have had no difficulty in maintaining that an insurrection in the year 1917 would have been utter nonsense.” (p. 41.)
</p>
<p>
Thanks to Comrade Trotsky’s dramatic art, his representation of the German October conjures up the figure of the one chiefly guilty of the German defeat. It is true that Comrade Trotsky does not give his name, but his figure is easily recognisable among the others. Everything that is said of him shows plainly that the figure is not that of a German; the unnamed German accused take a secondary place. The chief of the accused is obviously responsible for the appearance of the Germans in the dock at all.
</p>
<p>
Why did he not appoint better leaders in the Central of the German Party? Why did he not exercise proper pressure on the German leaders? This was his first duty...
</p>
<p>
Or, was anything else to be expected of him after the “experiences of October?” What more was to be expected of him in the future?
</p>
<p>
“Of late”—writes Trotsky—“much has been written and spoken about the necessity of “Bolshevising” the Comintern. . . What does the Bolshevising of the Communist Parties mean? It means that these parties are to be so schooled, and their leaders so chosen, that they do not leave the track when their October arrives. This is the true import of Hegel, and of all the wisdom of our books and philosophies.” (p. 64.)
</p>
<p>
Thus Comrade Trotsky in September, 1924.
</p>
<h5>Two Different Roles</h5>
<p>
Comrade Trotsky spoke differently to this in January, 1924.
</p>
<p>
At that time the Executive of the Comintern, with the collaboration of leading German comrades representing all three tendencies, had drawn the balance of the unhappy German revolution. It’s true that Comrade Trotsky did not participate personally in these sessions, but Comrade Radek submitted theses drafted, according to his official declaration, “by Comrades Trotsky and Piatakov, and by me (Radek).”
</p>
<p>
This thesis draft from the Right minority was rejected by the Executive of the Comintern, and has not been published to this day. In one part of these theses we read:
</p>
<p>
“The Executive decidedly rejects the demand made by the leaders of the Berlin organisation, to the effect that the retreat made by the Party in October is to be regarded as unjustified and even traitorous. If the Party had proclaimed the insurrection in October, as proposed by the Berlin comrades, it would now be lying prone with a broken neck. The Party committed grave errors during the retreat, and these errors are the object of our present criticism. But the retreat itself corresponded to the objective situation, and is approved by the Executive.”
</p>
<p>
We thus see that in January of this year, Comrade Trotsky was seriously of the opinion that the retreat was right during the German October, and was in accordance with the objective situation. The leaders of the Berlin organisation considered this retreat “entirely unjustified and even traitorous.” But Comrade Trotsky protested most decidedly against this view of the matter. He demanded together with Radek, Piatakov and the chairman of the German Party Central, Brandler, that the Executive should approve the retreat.
</p>
<p>
How are we to understand this?
</p>
<p>
In order to understand this, the reader must know that the tactics of “retreat before the battle,” proposed by the right wing of the Central of the German C.P. in October, 1923, were adopted with the immediate co-operation of Comrade Radek. In all essentials Comrade Trotsky has always been in agreement with this rightwing of the German C.P. (Brandler, etc.); and this was again the case in January after the defeat.
</p>
<p>
“The experience gained in the European struggles during the last few years, and especially the experience of the German struggle, show us that there are two types of leader who have the tendency to drag the Party back just at the moment when it should leap forward.” (p. 14.)
</p>
<p>
Comrade Trotsky writes this in September in his book, “The Lessons of October.” He stigmatises these “types” most thoroughly, and declares further.
</p>
<p>
“At decisive moments these two types work hand in hand, and oppose insurrection.” (p. 64.)
</p>
<p>
In October, 1923, this was really the case in Germany. And three months later—in January—Trotsky expresses the opinion that these “types” had acted perfectly rightly in Germany, that they had taken the course of action which had to be taken, that the objective situation demanded precisely this course of action, and that the Party was bound to make this retreat. An insurrection would have been utter nonsense, and the Party would have broken its neck.
</p>
<p>
The “types” thus accused naturally submitted their “biassed calculation” to the Executive in January “for the purpose of justifying the policy leading to the defeat.” The Executive rejected these calculations decisively enough. But Comrade Trotsky defended them.
</p>
<p>
Such was his lack of “boldness,” just three months after the German October.
</p>
<p>
In spite of the “Lessons of October.”
</p>
<p>
And in spite of the main rule for all the revolutions in the world: “Not to leave the track when their own October comes.”
</p>
<p>
This was in January of this year. But by September, as we have seen, Comrade Trotsky had assumed quite another role. We do not hear a single word about the justification of the retreat, nor is there a trace to be found of the “types.” No, now Comrade Trotsky appeals for the insurrection, and condemns those opposed to it.
</p>
<p>
“The decisive turning point is the moment when the Party of the proletariat passes from the stage of preparation, propaganda, organisation and agitation, to the stage of actual struggle for power, to armed insurrection against the bourgeoisie. Every irresolute, sceptical, opportunist, and pro-capitalist element still remaining in the Party will oppose insurrection at this moment, will seek theoretical formulas for this opposition, and find them among the opponents of the day before, the opportunists.” (p. ixiv.)
</p>
<p>
Thus: Down with the opportunists! Down with the heroes of capitulation! Down with Brandler and the sharers of his views!
</p>
<p>
A thousand times: Hurrah for insurrection!
</p>
<p>
But—as someone among the audience might ask diffidently—what about the broken neck?
</p>
<p>
We have here two distinct views of the German October. Which of them corresponds to the actual truth?
</p>
<p>
In my opinion, neither of them. Both are wrong.
</p>
<h5>Correct and Timely Estimate of the Situation</h5>
<p>
In an article written by Comrade Trotsky in May (“East and West”) and referred to in the “Lessons of October” (p. 69), he states that “some comrades” (here Comrade Zinoviev is chiefly meant) had declared, after the German defeat: “We have over-estimated the situation, the revolution is not yet mature.” Comrade Trotsky is ironical about this “we” (we, Zinoviev), and declares:
</p>
<p>
“‘Our’ error did not lie in the fact that ‘we’ over-estimated the pre-requisites of revolution, but in that ‘we’ under-estimated, them, and did not recognise at the right moment the necessity of the application of energetic and courageous tactics: the necessity for the struggle to gain the masses for the fight for power.”
</p>
<p>
What do the facts tell us?
</p>
<p>
Even in the theses drawn up by Comrades Trotsky and Radek in January, 1924, the following is acknowledged:
</p>
<p>
“From the very beginning the Comintern and the German C.P. regarded the Ruhr struggles as a period of revolutionary development in Germany.” . . . “The appeal issued by the Leipsic Party Conference of the German C.P., the decisions of the Frankfort Conference, the resolution passed by the delegation of the German C.P. in the spring conference with the Comintern, all go to prove that both the German C.P. and the Comintern have grasped the fact that the German proletariat stands at a parting of the ways, that, after the Party has carried out its united front tactics, after it has accomplished much patient work among the Social-Democratic masses and among the non-partisan workers, and after it has gathered around it broad masses of the proletariat, it will find itself confronted by the task of not merely winning over the overwhelming majority of the proletariat, but of leading the proletariat into battle as a revolutionary Party working for the concrete aim of seizing political power, and regarding this as the sole means of escape from the situation in which the German people is placed.”
</p>
<p>
These lines are an excellent characterisation of the view-point of the Executive. But it is above all the viewpoint represented by Comrade Zinoviev’s proposals. But as to the viewpoint of the German C.P., this is somewhat embellished by Comrades Radek and Trotsky. At that time, during the autumn and winter of 1923, the Central had but a very dim idea of the revolutionary tasks facing the Party.
</p>
<p>
There was a great deal more clarity contained in various propositions made by the left opposition, but these were rejected by the Party.
</p>
<p>
If Comrade Trotsky had been desirous of describing the matter in strict accordance with actuality, he would have had to express himself somewhat as follows: With reference to the Executive and the Left opposition, these should least of all be exposed to the reproach of not having recognised the necessity for an energetic change of tactics, since they did actually recognise this necessity and exercised pressure upon the German C.P.
</p>
<p>
Yes, Comrade Trotsky may reply, but the pressure exercised by the Executive upon the German Party at that time was not “strong enough.” The January theses drawn up by Comrades Trotsky and Radek did actually contain this reproach. But they should have made their reproach “at the right time,” in the summer or autumn of 1923. If they had done so, it is possible that the Executive would have followed their advice and increased pressure. But three months after October, in January, 1924, this wise discovery was a very cheap and entirely useless argument.
</p>
<p>
The second point of the January theses of Comrades Trotsky and Radek, subjected to the criticism of the Comintern, is to be taken more seriously. They assert that the questions relating to the Ruhr struggle were discussed, even in the Enlarged Executive (middle of June, 1923) “much more from the standpoint of propaganda than from the standpoint of organisation for an immediate struggle.”
</p>
<p>
The task of organising the immediate struggle with the object of seizing power had not been concretely formulated, it is true, by June. The Executive did not adopt the “October course” until August, two months later.
</p>
<p>
J In June the situations in Germany was still such that no person of any commonsense could have thought of regarding the organisation of armed insurrection as the next task. Before such an important step as this can be taken, the existence of symptomatic phenomena proclaiming the rise of a wave of revolution, in however slight degree, is an absolutely imperative preliminary condition. In June no such symptoms were observable.
</p>
<p>
At the beginning of August an abrupt change took place in Germany. The general situation became revolutionary. Of this we have proof in the mighty mass movement leading to the overthrow of the Cuno government. Had the German C.P. foreseen this movement, it should have entered courageously into the struggle in July, and have taken over the initiative and leadership of the movement. As a matter of fact, the German Central issued a courageous proclamation on 12th July, calling upon the proletariat to take part in street demonstrations on Anti-Fascist Day (29th July).
</p>
<p>
The government prohibited this demonstration. The Left opposition of the Party demanded “the conquest of the street.”
</p>
<p>
At this time Comrades Zinoviev and Bucharin, as also Comrade Trotsky, were in Caucasia. The first two informed us, during the discussion already begun on the subject, that they were in favour of the street demonstration. Comrade Radek and I, who were in Moscow, were opposed to it. To us it appeared to be running a useless risk. Comrade Radek, who often evinces a high degree of sensitiveness for changes in the political atmosphere, did not on this occasion feel the approach of something great (nor did I), and, therefore, we could not see any valid reason for such hazardous action on the part of the German C.P. This was a mistake on our part. The view taken by Comrades Zinoviev and Bucharin was expressed in the following words:
</p>
<p>
“It is only by such methods as the appeal issued on 12th July that the German C.P. can become, in the eyes of the whole of the workers, the generally acknowledged champion and the united centre of the whole proletariat in the struggle against Fascism. Without this, the sad experience suffered by Italy and Bulgaria will be repeated. In the German Central there are more than enough retarding elements, and elements standing for prudence and caution.”
</p>
<p>
To this Radek replied that he regarded this forcing of the struggle in Germany as “steering towards a defeat in July for fear of a repetition of the Bulgarian events” and opposed these tactics most decidedly. Comrade Trotsky, however, informed us that he had formed no opinion of his own upon the subject, not being sufficiently informed.
</p>
<p>
The two points of view which had thus been formed among the members of the Executive were communicated to the Central of the C.P. of Germany. In all probability Comrade Brandler acted entirely independently of both points of view; in other words, he had probably never taken the idea of a street demonstration seriously for a moment.
</p>
<p>
Immediately after this, the broad mass movement set in. Under the pressure of this movement, the Cuno government resigned on 12th August. Comrade Zinoviev, in Caucasia, received only the scanty information provided by the Rosta on this movement; a mighty revolutionary wave is rising.
</p>
<p>
He raised the alarm.
</p>
<p>
By 15th August his most important theses “The situation in Germany and our first tasks” were already prepared. He has scarcely ever written anything better than this. A clearly defined October course runs like a scarlet thread through the whole.
</p>
<p>
After we had received these theses from Zinoviev from Caucasia, we—Radek and I—realised that in Germany the revolution was knocking at the door. This is the fact of the matter.
</p>
<p>
The following are a few sentences from the theses:
</p>
<p>
“The crisis is approaching, decisive events are at the gate. A. new and decisive chapter is beginning in the activity of the German C.P., and with this in the whole Comintern. The C.P. of Germany shapes its course rapidly and decisively in view of the impending decisive revolutionary crisis.
</p>
<p>
“The crisis is approaching. Enormous interests are at stake. The moment is coming nearer and nearer in which we shall need courage, courage, and again courage.”
</p>
<p>
Almost at the same time as we received these theses, Comrades Zinoviev and Bucharin arrived at Moscow. Comrade Trotsky, too, came back. Zinoviev’s theses were acknowledged to be right, and were accepted by the Executive. The representatives of the C. P. of Germany were at once invited to come to Moscow, but the Central replied that its representatives “could not come at present.” Although the <em>bel-esprits</em> among the German comrades (not the Left, these had already ceased to be <em>bel-esprits</em>) were already up to the ears in the revolutionary movement, they had no clear idea of the significance and graveness of the movement.
</p>
<p>
This circumstance is the best proof of the acumen with which Comrade Zinoviev grasped the import of the German movement. But Comrade Trotsky appears to have forgotten Zinoviev’s estimate of the situation, though made “at the right time.”
</p>
<h5> In the September Commission</h5>
<p>
Comrade Zinoviev defended his standpoint for three weeks. The representatives of the Central of the German C.P. did not appear in Moscow till the middle of September. They had no choice but to acknowledge that the latest events had fully confirmed the diagnosis and revolutionary prognosis made by Zinoviev a month before, although they themselves, the representatives of the German Central, had not grasped this immediately.
</p>
<p>
Comrade Brandler succumbed to fantastic revolutionary visions. The seizure of power now, appeared to him as an easy and certain matter. He greatly exaggerated the readiness to fight and the military preparedness of the German C.P., and rendered is more difficult for the Executive to form a correct idea of the immediate difficulties and requirements of the German movement.
</p>
<p>
At the September Commission of the Comintern, Comrade Trotsky declared himself to be in agreement with Comrade Zinoviev and other comrades with reference to the general estimate of the situation. But in the question of the workers’ Soviets slogan there was a grave difference of opinion. Comrade Zinoviev and other comrades considered it necessary for the German C.P. not to limit itself to the propaganda of the idea of the Soviets only, but to proceed to the actual formation of workers’ councils, especially in districts where the conditions were most favourable for this.
</p>
<p>
Comrades Trotsky and Brandler protested energetically against this. As the other German comrades shared their opinion, Comrade Zinoviev and the others in agreement with him did not deem it possible to insist upon the acceptance of their propositions at all costs. The final decision on this question was thus unanimously accepted by the Commission.
</p>
<p>
I am not of the opinion that this decision proved to be right. I believe that a most important slogan for the mobilisation and organisation of revolutionary forces was here abandoned. Comrade Trotsky in his “Lessons of October” seeks to defend this decision. To me his defence is inadequate, but I think it unnecessary to dwell upon this vexed question within the confines of this article, as such discussion would lead to too many side-tracks. With regard to this point the decision was based upon Comrade Trotsky’s standpoint and not on Comrade Zinoviev’s. The articles written by Comrade Zinoviev at the time show plainly that he submitted loyally to the decision and wrote accordingly. No person of sound commonsense can thus maintain that Comrade Zinoviev’s proposition could have contributed even in the slightest degree to the defeat of the German revolution.
</p>
<p>
But enough of that!
</p>
<p>
An exceedingly strange and unsubstantiated accusation against Comrade Zinoviev is contained in the following words of Comrade Trotsky’s:
</p>
<p>
“Our error lies in the fact that ‘we’ kept on repeating for weeks the old platitudes about the impossibility of ‘fixing a definite time for the revolution,’ resulting in every chance being neglected.” (“East and West,” p. 59.)
</p>
<p>
Where was the question discussed “for weeks”?
</p>
<p>
In the Commission there was not one single day wasted in the discussion of the question of whether it would be possible to fix a certain time for the revolution or not. It is true that, in the course of the debate on questions of greater importance, a similar point was touched upon. The one-sided inclination shown by Comrade Trotsky to carry out the revolution strictly according to the almanac appeared to almost all the comrades present as a narrowly organisatory and somewhat un-Marxist manner of dealing with the subject. It is very possible that some comrade expressed this opinion aloud.
</p>
<p>
Serious differences of opinion arose in the Commission with reference to the “choice of leading persons.” Not that Comrade Trotsky was anxious to remove any of the opportunist members of the Central. No, he had nothing to say against those members of the Central who, later on in October, retreated before the battle. On the contrary, he wanted to remove from the Central one of the leading forces of the left-wing, Comrade Ruth Fischer. He proposed that the Executive of the Comintern should retain her in Moscow, so that she could not “disturb” the revolutionary work of the Brandler Central Committee.
</p>
<p>
Comrade Zinoviev was entirely opposed to this proposal of Comrade Trotsky’s, and it was with much pains and trouble that he finally succeeded in gaining a weak majority in the Commission for the rejection of this proposition.
</p>
<p>
I cannot remember for which of the two propositions I voted. It is very possible that I voted for Comrade Trotsky’s motion. At that time I still regarded Comrade Brandler as a steadfast revolutionist. I have no right, personally, to reproach any other comrades for having made mistakes in the question of the selection of members of the German Central. But as Comrade Trotsky is anxious to impart instructions to the Executive on the “choice of leading persons,” without saying a single word about his own errors, then I cannot but observe that in this respect Comrade Trotsky has not set us any very good example.
</p>
<p>
It is possible to agree with him when he says, referring to the German Central:
</p>
<p>
“To ignore such lessons (as that of last year—O.K.), and to fail to draw from them the necessary conclusions with regard to the choice of persons signifies to invite inevitable defeat.” (p. 1xiii.)
</p>
<p>
But here it must not be forgotten to add the really instructive episode of Ruth Fischer, in the September Commission.
</p>
<p>
No differences of opinion arose in the Commission on the other questions submitted, many of them of great practical importance.
</p>
<p>
The sister Parties of the most important neighbouring countries were mobilised by the Executive and prepared, as far as possible, for the possibilities of the German revolution.
</p>
<h5>The German October as it was in Reality</h5>
<p>
Events in Germany took a different course to that desired by us. The revolutionary proletariat suffered a severe defeat. The causes of this defeat lay partly in the objective difficulties of the situation, partly in the deficient leadership of the Party.
</p>
<p>
It cannot be maintained that the estimate of the situation as made by the Executive in August and September, was wrong in any essential. Nothing of the kind! The possibility of victory really existed. It is true that in September (but not in August) this possibility was over-estimated. The elementary mass movement ebbed more rapidly than we had foreseen. The Social-Democrats proved in many respects to be even stronger pillars of capitalism than we had concluded from the words of our German comrades. The representatives of the German C.P. in the German commission exaggerated the Communist strength.
</p>
<p>
It is naturally a fantastic exaggeration when Comrade Trotsky writes in “East and West” (p. 120):
</p>
<p>
“With regard to all the pre-requisites of revolution, we were in the most favourable position that can be imagined.”
</p>
<p>
No, in September our estimate of the situation was not so exaggeratedly favourable. Comrade Trotsky, in his victorious self-confidence, omits to consider the great difference between the objective pre-requisites of the German revolution of 1923 and the Russian of 1917, and forgets the points in which the Russian revolution was more favourably placed, for instance the fact that in Russia we had an armed army of many millions, the overwhelming majority of which stood for the proletarian revolution in the autumn of 1917. We had nothing to compare with this in Germany in 1923, and Comrade Trotsky, when writing history, omits such trifles.
</p>
<p>
The general situation in Germany was, however, not unfavourable. At the Fifth Congress, after it was possible to form a clear idea of events, Comrade Zinoviev was quite right in saying:
</p>
<p>
“Should the revolutionary situation of October, 1923 be repeated, we should again insist upon the open acknowledgment of the fact that the revolution is knocking at the door. . . I repeat, should such a situation occur again, then we shall examine the figures, calculate our forces more accurately, but again stake everything upon the card of revolution.”
</p>
<p>
The actually existing possibility of victory was not taken advantage of by the German Party in October. The Party equipped itself for the battle, but did not enter into it. This was the greatest disappointment to us.
</p>
<p>
The Brandler Central 1s chiefly to blame. Brandler maintained that the incredible difficulties rendered the retreat inevitable. As we have seen, Comrade Trotsky agreed with this assertion by January. And a number of other comrades, including Comrade Zinoviev (and the writer of these lines) were at first—in November and December—of the same opinion, as a result of the information received chiefly through Radek and the Central of the Merman C.P. This opinion was partially shaken during the January conference, thanks to the information received from the Left. The Executive was not able to state with certainty in its resolution, whether the retreat had really been unavoidable or not. The Executive declined to accede to the demand of the Right (Radek, Trotsky, Brandler, etc.) and to “approve” the retreat.
</p>
<p>
But this or that solution of this historical question was no longer of any actual political significance. The leaders of the Party, apart from this or that answer to this question, exposed themselves to the severest criticism in October. The necessity of the retreat itself, had it really been a necessity, could not serve as justification for the utter incompetence evinced by the Central of the German C.P.
</p>
<p>
In class warfare, as in all warfare, the conditions determine the forms and aims of the strategy employed. Attacks and retreats are decided by the conditions of the struggle. But whatever these conditions, and however unfavourable they may be, they can never be such as to justify passivity in a revolution. Capitulation is not a form of fighting. It is a renunciation of the fight.
</p>
<p>
Comrade Zinoviev’s speech at the Fifth World Congress contained the following words:
</p>
<p>
“We do not reproach Brandler for not having won a victory. No. We are fully aware that defeats are often met with in war. We reproach him with something quite different: we do not ask him why are you not victorious: we ask him: why did you not fight, why did you not do your utmost to gain the victory?”
</p>
<p>
The Central of the German C.P. did not fight, it capitulated without fighting.
</p>
<p>
It need not be said that Brandler’s actions were not based on any conscious, that is, treacherous reasoning. No; if Comrade Trotsky’s present assertions (with regard to the alleged brilliant prospects of victory and the absolute impossibility of allowing the retreat) were really in accordance with the facts, then we could only conclude that Brandler and all his co-workers were traitors. But in reality this is not the case. Brandler and his adherents are incontestably Communists, but they are Communists who have committed a number of opportunist errors. They wanted to fight, but went “off the tracks.” In Saxony, they played at being ministers, instead of bringing the masses into the streets. They “prepared themselves” for revolution, but did nothing to develop the revolutionary forces of the masses. They even issued directions that all mass action should be abstained from until the “decisive struggle.” These directions were carried out everywhere, with the exception of Hamburg. And this was all. The fears and warning; expressed by Comrade Zinoviev in summer last year with respect to the possibility of a repetition of the Bulgarian events in Germany were thus substantiated. In his August theses he gave a special warning against precisely the mistake which had such disastrous results in October.
</p>
<p>
“It is impossible to save up powder until the decisive moment.
</p>
<p>
“It would be doctrinary theory, and a gigantic political error to postpone all action until the decisive struggle.”
</p>
<p>
But the German Central took precisely the wrong road. It committed precisely the “gigantic political error” against which the Executive had issued an equivocal and decided warning.
</p>
<h5>When the Left Hand does not Know what the Right is Doing</h5>
<p>
It is scarcely necessary to state that after the October experience fundamental changes took place in the Central of the German C.P. In January the Executive undertook an energetic renewal of this Central. The right-wing was removed.
</p>
<p>
Later, in May, Comrade Trotsky wrote:
</p>
<p>
“It is proper that the German C.P. has fundamentally reformed its leading organ.”
</p>
<p>
We take note of this delayed acknowledgment But it would have been better if Comrade Trotsky had lent his support to this reform earlier, in January. But at that time he was opposed to it. In the draft of theses by Comrades Trotsky and Radek, already referred to, we read that the “demand for a reform in the Central implies a panic, threatening the very existence of the Party.”
</p>
<p>
Comrade Trotsky thus supported the German Right until the last minute, whilst the Executive, and above all Comrade Zinoviev, combated the Right. We had a similar example in the September Commission in the Ruth Fischer case.
</p>
<p>
But the readers of the “Lessons of October” receive an exactly contrary impression. Thus, for instance, Comrade Trotsky writes as follows with reference to the importance of the “choice of leading persons”:
</p>
<p>
“Here ample experience was gained through that German October which failed to take place. The choice of leaders must be made from the viewpoint of revolutionary action. In Germany there were sufficient opportunities of testing the leading Party members in moments of immediate struggle.” (p. lxiii.)
</p>
<p>
This is true, and it is just for this reason that Right leaders have frequently been excluded from the German Central (Levi, Friesland, Geyer) etc.) These have later proved to be renegades. On the other band, the Executive has frequently supplemented the Party Central by representatives of the Left. But this has not been done on any single occasion on the initiative of Comrade Trotsky. The initiative has generally been Comrade Zinoviev’s, and has generally encountered resistance on the part of Comrade Trotsky.
</p>
<p>
This is no accidental phenomenon. When the Russian debate has been discussed in the sections of the Comintern, the few adherents of Comrade Trotsky have generally belonged to the extreme Right-wing of the Party. And this cannot be regarded as pure accident.
</p>
<p>
It is unnecessary to dwell upon the Russian questions, or on the international questions now belonging more to the past. It is, however, worth while to devote some attention to the prospects of the international situation as seen by Comrade Trotsky In face of all the facts of the present moment, of all the proofs to the contrary, he still speaks of a continued democratic pacifist “era.” This proves the strength of his trend towards the Right.
</p>
<p>
But this is not the whole truth. No one can understand Trotsky who sees in him nothing more than an ordinary opportunist. Comrade Trotsky is not a one-handed man. He has a right hand and a left hand. We already had the opportunity of seeing him in two roles in his interpretation of the “German October.”
</p>
<p>
And with Comrade Trotsky this does not happen by accident: it is a general rule. In actual practice he always represents two different “types” so to speak. One type deviates to the right, the other to the left. A superficial observer might conclude that Comrade Trotsky vacillates constantly between the two types. But this only appears to be the case. Comrade Trotsky is not a vacillating man. He generally adopts a definite—but wrong—course.
</p>
<p>
In reality the case is this: In his actions he deviates towards the Right, but he describes these actions in Left, very Left, terms. The Right type is the type of the man of action who speaks little, who does his work and says nothing about it. The Left type, is a man, anxious to play a prominent public role, a man who talks a great deal and does very little, and knows little about work except to describe it. But the descriptions given by the Left type differ entirely from the work actually done by the Right type.
</p>
<p>
Comrade Trotsky is not simply an ordinary opportunist. He possesses a finely developed sense of the æsthetic. He feels the æsthetic defects of the external form of opportunist policy. The external forms of politics please him more and more in proportion to their deviation to the Left. In art this may be very good, even excellent, and the Bible praises those whose right hand knoweth not what their left hand doeth; but in politics every inconsistency between form and contents, between description and actuality, between theory and practice, is invariably detrimental.
</p>
<p>
This is most clearly evidenced by the question of the German October. Comrade Trotsky, in his “Lessons of October” states that nobody “has attempted to give any other argumentation” of the events in Germany than the argumentation afforded by his May article and his speech of June.
</p>
<p>
Pardon me, Comrade Trotsky, but this is an error. The Comintern made the attempt. The German C.P. made it also. A number of articles were published. The attempt led to the holding of a number of speeches and the passing of a number of resolutions in various countries. The E.C.C.I. even published a number of pamphlets on the subject: “The Lessons of the German Events.”
</p>
<p>
It is to be regretted that Comrade Trotsky did not take the trouble to acquaint himself with at least a part of these works and with the ample supply of facts and material which they afford, before he built up his new scheme. Had he done this, he would not have so misrepresented matters. By May he had entirely forgotten the actuality of the past year (and even of January, 1924). It would seem that the comparatively advantageous results of the election had the effect of making him regard the situation of the year before as having been most favourable. And he entirely reversed the direction taken by his imagination.
</p>
<p>
Trotsky is, however, no master of the tactical and strategic mathematics of Leninism. Here it is the C.C. of the Russian C.P. which is seated firmly in the saddle, and not he. Frequently he views a situation with amazing onesidedness. In politics he often permits himself to be influenced by feelings or is led astray from the straight path by externals, by personal antipathy or sympathy for instance. This was never the case with Lenin, and should never occur in any member of Lenin’s Party.
</p>
<p>
Thus he permitted himself to be led astray by the criticism of the October defeat, and made use of this defeat as the basis for a charge against the chairman of the Comintern.
</p>
<p>
This is the evil tendency of his interpretation of historical events. He himself denies that he possesses any such tendency, but it is perfectly obvious to others. All this is not particularly “æsthetic.” Trotsky himself says: “this would be too lamentable.” Yes, it is lamentable and false.
</p>
<p>
This tendency of Trotsky’s is not only directed against certain persons, but involves a politically detrimental trend towards the Right. In attacking the person of Comrade Zinoviev, he strikes an indirect blow against the leadership of the Communist International and against the line taken by its Executive. This flank attack is condemned in advance to utter defeat. The line pursued by the Executive was and is right. The course pursued by Comrade Trotsky was and is such that events prove him to have no right to assume the role of infallible judge.
</p>
<h5>Two Words about the Civil War in Finland</h5>
<p>
In conclusion, a few words about the lessons taught by events in Finland In Comrade Trotsky’s preface we find the following:
“In the year 1917, the course of events in Finland was as follows: The revolutionary movement developed under exceedingly favourable conditions, under the protection and with the immediate military support of revolutionary Russia. But in the Finnish Party the majority of the leaders proved to be Social-Democrats, and these led the revolution to defeat.” (p. xl.)
</p>
<p>
This is not entirely correct.
</p>
<p>
It is true that in 1917 we in Finland actually missed an opportunity offered by the favourable revolutionary situation during the general strike, in the first place because we were Social-Democrats at that time, and in the second place because we were. almost entirely without weapons. It is, however, not true that at that time our revolution had the protection and immediate military support of revolutionary Russia. Our general strike took place at exactly the same time as the street fighting in Moscow for the seizure of power. At that time red Petrograd was not in a position to afford us any help. As to the garrisons and fleets still in Finland at that time, the men were partly on our side, but so sick of war that Aye could not expect them—especially in a foreign country—to come to our help.
</p>
<p>
Trotsky might say to us: “You have gone off the rails,” and we should not protest against this judgment. We said this ourselves in 1918, by which time we were able to subject ourselves to a severe self-criticism.
</p>
<p>
But we learnt something from the experience, and that with considerable rapidity. Two months later we took up the fight again.
</p>
<p>
This time we were able to claim the protection and military support of revolutionary Russia. But in March the Finnish White Guards were reinforced by German soldiery, and this decided the fate of the conflict. Our workers’ front could not hold out against regular German troops.
</p>
<p>
This was the main cause of our defeat.
</p>
<p>
No doubt there was a second cause as well: that we did not fight so well as we might have fought But at that time we were not Communists, but Social-Democrats, and we were almost entirely lacking in Bolshevist experience. But whether our Party fought well or badly, at least it <em>fought</em>.
</p>
<p>
Thus the German comrades need not take it as a self-praise on our part if I have blamed them for capitulating without a struggle six years after the Russian revolution, and after the experience won during four years of Bolshevist leadership in the Comintern.
</p>
<p>
We Finnish Communists have no reason to praise ourselves, but we have as little reason to fear the smoke from the powder of October.
</p>
<p>
I forgot to mention a third cause of the defeat of our revolution in 1918: this was the well known theatrical gesture made by Comrade Trotsky at the first Peace negotiations with the representatives of the German Government at Brest-Litovsk (January./ Februarv). The peace conditions proposed at that time by the German government were much more favourable than those dictated later, both for Soviet Russia and for the Finnish workers’ government. Before Comrade Trotsky left for Brest-Litovsk for the last time (at the end of January), Comrade Lenin told him that he should sign the peace treaty at once on receipt of the German ultimatum. Comrade Zinoviev, as Comrade Trotsky himself testifies, declared that “we only worsen the peace conditions by further delay, and must, therefore, sign at once.” (Minutes of the Seventh Party Conference, p. 79.)
</p>
<p>
Had peace come about between Germany and Russia at that time, then it is highly probable that the German government would have sent no troops to Finland. This conclusion of ours is based upon the memoirs of German generals, published after the war.
</p>
<p>
But on 10th February, Comrade Trotsky refused to accept the conditions of peace offered by the Germans. A valuable month passed before the peace treaty was accepted, and during this time Soviet Russia was obliged to abandon Reval and other cities at our (Finland’s) back to the Germans. And during the same time the German troops struck their blow at us.
</p>
<hr>
<p class="footer">
<a href="../../index.htm">Kuusinen Archive</a><br>
<a href="../../../../history/international/comintern/sections/britain/pamphlets/1925/trotskyism/index.htm"><em>The Errors of Trotskyism</em> Index</a></p>
</body> |
O. W. Kuusinen
A Misleading Description of the “German October”
Source: The The Errors of Trotskyism, May 1925
Publisher: Communist Party of Great Britain
Transcription/HTML Markup: Brian Reid
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2007). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
“During the second half of last year we had here (in Germany) a classic demonstration of how the opportunity of a uniquely revolutionary situation of world historical significance may be missed.” (Trotsky, September, 1924, in his “Lessons of October.”)
“If the (German) Party had proclaimed insurrection in October last year, as proposed by the Berlin comrades, it would now be lying prone with a broken neck.” (From the draft of theses, by Trotsky and Radek, January, 1924.)
Both in September, 1923 and in January, 1924, I had much opportunity, in my capacity as secretary, to take part in the commissions on the German question appointed by the Executive of the Comintern; I am thus not only familiar with the standpoint of the Executive as a whole, but also with a standpoint of the separation leading comrades with regard to the events in Germany in October. I was thus exceedingly astonished to see the light in which these events are viewed by Trotsky in the preface to his book “1917” (“The Lessons of October”). I was much surprised that such recent events—events really not lying in any remote past can be so misrepresented. As the facts are not yet generally known, we must oppose Comrade Trotsky’s description by a statement of the actual position.
The Accusation
Comrade Trotsky devotes his “Lessons of October” to the exposition and delineation of the following theme: The experiences of the Russian October and the experiences of many European countries, especially the experience—as he expresses it “of the German October which did not take place,” all go to show one and the same thing. In Germany, authoritative comrades in our own ranks opposed the insurrection at the decisive moment. In Russia, thanks to the pressure exercised by Comrade Lenin, and thanks to the cooperation of Comrade Trotsky, the insurrection was set in action and the victory won. But in the “German October” the insurrection was not begun, although in Comrade’s Trotsky’s opinion “every pre-requisite for revolution was given, with the exception of far-seeing and energetic leaders.”
The existence of this revolutionary situation was not recognised in time, and no comrade arose and put pressure upon the Central, striving to prevent the insurrection. For this reason we had neither insurrection nor seizure of power. The German October did not take place, we gained nothing more than a “classic example of how the opportunity of a uniquely revolutionary situation of world historical significance may be missed.”
This drama of the German October was played for Comrade Trotsky against the background of the history of the Russian October. He describes in detail the energy with which he himself took action in 1917, and in even greater detail the manner in which various other comrades attempted to “retreat before the battle.” These comrades—“opponents of the insurrection”—had extraordinarily overestimated the forces of the enemy only two weeks before the bloodless victory of the Bolsheviki in Petrograd (“even Lenin was of the opinion that the enemy had still considerable forces in Petrograd”). According to Comrade Trotsky, the leaders of the German C.P. committed this same error of over-estimating the forces of our adversaries in October last year.
“They confidently accepted all figures calculated by the bourgeoisie as to their armed forces, added these carefully to the forces of the police and militia, then rounded up the result to half a million and more, and thus assumed a compact force, armed to the teeth, and fully able to paralyse their endeavours. It is an incontestable fact that the German counter-revolution possessed forces which were better organised and better trained than the whole and half elements of the Kornilov forces. But the active forces of the German revolution were again different from ours. In Germany the proletariat represents the overwhelming majority of the population. In our case the revolutionary question was decided, at least, at first, by Petrograd and Moscow. In Germany the insurrection would have had ten mighty strongholds at once. If we take all this into consideration, then the armed forces of the enemy were in reality by no means so dangerous as represented by the statistical calculation, with figures rounded up to numbers beyond the truth.” (“Lessons of October,” Russian edition, p. 11.)
This is the only place in which Comrade Trotsky mentions any difference in the objective premises of the Russian and German Octobers. According to his description, the conditions for the seizure of power in 1923 in Germany were not in the least less favourable than in Russia in 1917.
“It is not possible to imagine conditions more favourable, or more suitable and matured for the seizure of power.”
He does not make the very slightest mention, not even a superficial indication of any reasons, however insignificant, which might justify the retreat at the time of the “German October.” No, no, in his opinion the insurrection was the unconditional duty of the Party at this juncture. To him it is a misfortune that during the “German October” the opponents of the insurrection were able to “drag the Party back.”
Thus (according to Comrade Trotsky) the German revolution fell through. After this defeat the guilty comrades came forward with their “biassed calculations,” for the purpose of “justifying the policy which had led to defeat.” And Comrade Trotsky adds:
“It is easy to imagine how history would have been written if those comrades in the C.C. (of the Russian C.P.) who inclined in 1917 to the tactics of retreat before the battle, had had their way. The semi-official writers of history would have had no difficulty in maintaining that an insurrection in the year 1917 would have been utter nonsense.” (p. 41.)
Thanks to Comrade Trotsky’s dramatic art, his representation of the German October conjures up the figure of the one chiefly guilty of the German defeat. It is true that Comrade Trotsky does not give his name, but his figure is easily recognisable among the others. Everything that is said of him shows plainly that the figure is not that of a German; the unnamed German accused take a secondary place. The chief of the accused is obviously responsible for the appearance of the Germans in the dock at all.
Why did he not appoint better leaders in the Central of the German Party? Why did he not exercise proper pressure on the German leaders? This was his first duty...
Or, was anything else to be expected of him after the “experiences of October?” What more was to be expected of him in the future?
“Of late”—writes Trotsky—“much has been written and spoken about the necessity of “Bolshevising” the Comintern. . . What does the Bolshevising of the Communist Parties mean? It means that these parties are to be so schooled, and their leaders so chosen, that they do not leave the track when their October arrives. This is the true import of Hegel, and of all the wisdom of our books and philosophies.” (p. 64.)
Thus Comrade Trotsky in September, 1924.
Two Different Roles
Comrade Trotsky spoke differently to this in January, 1924.
At that time the Executive of the Comintern, with the collaboration of leading German comrades representing all three tendencies, had drawn the balance of the unhappy German revolution. It’s true that Comrade Trotsky did not participate personally in these sessions, but Comrade Radek submitted theses drafted, according to his official declaration, “by Comrades Trotsky and Piatakov, and by me (Radek).”
This thesis draft from the Right minority was rejected by the Executive of the Comintern, and has not been published to this day. In one part of these theses we read:
“The Executive decidedly rejects the demand made by the leaders of the Berlin organisation, to the effect that the retreat made by the Party in October is to be regarded as unjustified and even traitorous. If the Party had proclaimed the insurrection in October, as proposed by the Berlin comrades, it would now be lying prone with a broken neck. The Party committed grave errors during the retreat, and these errors are the object of our present criticism. But the retreat itself corresponded to the objective situation, and is approved by the Executive.”
We thus see that in January of this year, Comrade Trotsky was seriously of the opinion that the retreat was right during the German October, and was in accordance with the objective situation. The leaders of the Berlin organisation considered this retreat “entirely unjustified and even traitorous.” But Comrade Trotsky protested most decidedly against this view of the matter. He demanded together with Radek, Piatakov and the chairman of the German Party Central, Brandler, that the Executive should approve the retreat.
How are we to understand this?
In order to understand this, the reader must know that the tactics of “retreat before the battle,” proposed by the right wing of the Central of the German C.P. in October, 1923, were adopted with the immediate co-operation of Comrade Radek. In all essentials Comrade Trotsky has always been in agreement with this rightwing of the German C.P. (Brandler, etc.); and this was again the case in January after the defeat.
“The experience gained in the European struggles during the last few years, and especially the experience of the German struggle, show us that there are two types of leader who have the tendency to drag the Party back just at the moment when it should leap forward.” (p. 14.)
Comrade Trotsky writes this in September in his book, “The Lessons of October.” He stigmatises these “types” most thoroughly, and declares further.
“At decisive moments these two types work hand in hand, and oppose insurrection.” (p. 64.)
In October, 1923, this was really the case in Germany. And three months later—in January—Trotsky expresses the opinion that these “types” had acted perfectly rightly in Germany, that they had taken the course of action which had to be taken, that the objective situation demanded precisely this course of action, and that the Party was bound to make this retreat. An insurrection would have been utter nonsense, and the Party would have broken its neck.
The “types” thus accused naturally submitted their “biassed calculation” to the Executive in January “for the purpose of justifying the policy leading to the defeat.” The Executive rejected these calculations decisively enough. But Comrade Trotsky defended them.
Such was his lack of “boldness,” just three months after the German October.
In spite of the “Lessons of October.”
And in spite of the main rule for all the revolutions in the world: “Not to leave the track when their own October comes.”
This was in January of this year. But by September, as we have seen, Comrade Trotsky had assumed quite another role. We do not hear a single word about the justification of the retreat, nor is there a trace to be found of the “types.” No, now Comrade Trotsky appeals for the insurrection, and condemns those opposed to it.
“The decisive turning point is the moment when the Party of the proletariat passes from the stage of preparation, propaganda, organisation and agitation, to the stage of actual struggle for power, to armed insurrection against the bourgeoisie. Every irresolute, sceptical, opportunist, and pro-capitalist element still remaining in the Party will oppose insurrection at this moment, will seek theoretical formulas for this opposition, and find them among the opponents of the day before, the opportunists.” (p. ixiv.)
Thus: Down with the opportunists! Down with the heroes of capitulation! Down with Brandler and the sharers of his views!
A thousand times: Hurrah for insurrection!
But—as someone among the audience might ask diffidently—what about the broken neck?
We have here two distinct views of the German October. Which of them corresponds to the actual truth?
In my opinion, neither of them. Both are wrong.
Correct and Timely Estimate of the Situation
In an article written by Comrade Trotsky in May (“East and West”) and referred to in the “Lessons of October” (p. 69), he states that “some comrades” (here Comrade Zinoviev is chiefly meant) had declared, after the German defeat: “We have over-estimated the situation, the revolution is not yet mature.” Comrade Trotsky is ironical about this “we” (we, Zinoviev), and declares:
“‘Our’ error did not lie in the fact that ‘we’ over-estimated the pre-requisites of revolution, but in that ‘we’ under-estimated, them, and did not recognise at the right moment the necessity of the application of energetic and courageous tactics: the necessity for the struggle to gain the masses for the fight for power.”
What do the facts tell us?
Even in the theses drawn up by Comrades Trotsky and Radek in January, 1924, the following is acknowledged:
“From the very beginning the Comintern and the German C.P. regarded the Ruhr struggles as a period of revolutionary development in Germany.” . . . “The appeal issued by the Leipsic Party Conference of the German C.P., the decisions of the Frankfort Conference, the resolution passed by the delegation of the German C.P. in the spring conference with the Comintern, all go to prove that both the German C.P. and the Comintern have grasped the fact that the German proletariat stands at a parting of the ways, that, after the Party has carried out its united front tactics, after it has accomplished much patient work among the Social-Democratic masses and among the non-partisan workers, and after it has gathered around it broad masses of the proletariat, it will find itself confronted by the task of not merely winning over the overwhelming majority of the proletariat, but of leading the proletariat into battle as a revolutionary Party working for the concrete aim of seizing political power, and regarding this as the sole means of escape from the situation in which the German people is placed.”
These lines are an excellent characterisation of the view-point of the Executive. But it is above all the viewpoint represented by Comrade Zinoviev’s proposals. But as to the viewpoint of the German C.P., this is somewhat embellished by Comrades Radek and Trotsky. At that time, during the autumn and winter of 1923, the Central had but a very dim idea of the revolutionary tasks facing the Party.
There was a great deal more clarity contained in various propositions made by the left opposition, but these were rejected by the Party.
If Comrade Trotsky had been desirous of describing the matter in strict accordance with actuality, he would have had to express himself somewhat as follows: With reference to the Executive and the Left opposition, these should least of all be exposed to the reproach of not having recognised the necessity for an energetic change of tactics, since they did actually recognise this necessity and exercised pressure upon the German C.P.
Yes, Comrade Trotsky may reply, but the pressure exercised by the Executive upon the German Party at that time was not “strong enough.” The January theses drawn up by Comrades Trotsky and Radek did actually contain this reproach. But they should have made their reproach “at the right time,” in the summer or autumn of 1923. If they had done so, it is possible that the Executive would have followed their advice and increased pressure. But three months after October, in January, 1924, this wise discovery was a very cheap and entirely useless argument.
The second point of the January theses of Comrades Trotsky and Radek, subjected to the criticism of the Comintern, is to be taken more seriously. They assert that the questions relating to the Ruhr struggle were discussed, even in the Enlarged Executive (middle of June, 1923) “much more from the standpoint of propaganda than from the standpoint of organisation for an immediate struggle.”
The task of organising the immediate struggle with the object of seizing power had not been concretely formulated, it is true, by June. The Executive did not adopt the “October course” until August, two months later.
J In June the situations in Germany was still such that no person of any commonsense could have thought of regarding the organisation of armed insurrection as the next task. Before such an important step as this can be taken, the existence of symptomatic phenomena proclaiming the rise of a wave of revolution, in however slight degree, is an absolutely imperative preliminary condition. In June no such symptoms were observable.
At the beginning of August an abrupt change took place in Germany. The general situation became revolutionary. Of this we have proof in the mighty mass movement leading to the overthrow of the Cuno government. Had the German C.P. foreseen this movement, it should have entered courageously into the struggle in July, and have taken over the initiative and leadership of the movement. As a matter of fact, the German Central issued a courageous proclamation on 12th July, calling upon the proletariat to take part in street demonstrations on Anti-Fascist Day (29th July).
The government prohibited this demonstration. The Left opposition of the Party demanded “the conquest of the street.”
At this time Comrades Zinoviev and Bucharin, as also Comrade Trotsky, were in Caucasia. The first two informed us, during the discussion already begun on the subject, that they were in favour of the street demonstration. Comrade Radek and I, who were in Moscow, were opposed to it. To us it appeared to be running a useless risk. Comrade Radek, who often evinces a high degree of sensitiveness for changes in the political atmosphere, did not on this occasion feel the approach of something great (nor did I), and, therefore, we could not see any valid reason for such hazardous action on the part of the German C.P. This was a mistake on our part. The view taken by Comrades Zinoviev and Bucharin was expressed in the following words:
“It is only by such methods as the appeal issued on 12th July that the German C.P. can become, in the eyes of the whole of the workers, the generally acknowledged champion and the united centre of the whole proletariat in the struggle against Fascism. Without this, the sad experience suffered by Italy and Bulgaria will be repeated. In the German Central there are more than enough retarding elements, and elements standing for prudence and caution.”
To this Radek replied that he regarded this forcing of the struggle in Germany as “steering towards a defeat in July for fear of a repetition of the Bulgarian events” and opposed these tactics most decidedly. Comrade Trotsky, however, informed us that he had formed no opinion of his own upon the subject, not being sufficiently informed.
The two points of view which had thus been formed among the members of the Executive were communicated to the Central of the C.P. of Germany. In all probability Comrade Brandler acted entirely independently of both points of view; in other words, he had probably never taken the idea of a street demonstration seriously for a moment.
Immediately after this, the broad mass movement set in. Under the pressure of this movement, the Cuno government resigned on 12th August. Comrade Zinoviev, in Caucasia, received only the scanty information provided by the Rosta on this movement; a mighty revolutionary wave is rising.
He raised the alarm.
By 15th August his most important theses “The situation in Germany and our first tasks” were already prepared. He has scarcely ever written anything better than this. A clearly defined October course runs like a scarlet thread through the whole.
After we had received these theses from Zinoviev from Caucasia, we—Radek and I—realised that in Germany the revolution was knocking at the door. This is the fact of the matter.
The following are a few sentences from the theses:
“The crisis is approaching, decisive events are at the gate. A. new and decisive chapter is beginning in the activity of the German C.P., and with this in the whole Comintern. The C.P. of Germany shapes its course rapidly and decisively in view of the impending decisive revolutionary crisis.
“The crisis is approaching. Enormous interests are at stake. The moment is coming nearer and nearer in which we shall need courage, courage, and again courage.”
Almost at the same time as we received these theses, Comrades Zinoviev and Bucharin arrived at Moscow. Comrade Trotsky, too, came back. Zinoviev’s theses were acknowledged to be right, and were accepted by the Executive. The representatives of the C. P. of Germany were at once invited to come to Moscow, but the Central replied that its representatives “could not come at present.” Although the bel-esprits among the German comrades (not the Left, these had already ceased to be bel-esprits) were already up to the ears in the revolutionary movement, they had no clear idea of the significance and graveness of the movement.
This circumstance is the best proof of the acumen with which Comrade Zinoviev grasped the import of the German movement. But Comrade Trotsky appears to have forgotten Zinoviev’s estimate of the situation, though made “at the right time.”
In the September Commission
Comrade Zinoviev defended his standpoint for three weeks. The representatives of the Central of the German C.P. did not appear in Moscow till the middle of September. They had no choice but to acknowledge that the latest events had fully confirmed the diagnosis and revolutionary prognosis made by Zinoviev a month before, although they themselves, the representatives of the German Central, had not grasped this immediately.
Comrade Brandler succumbed to fantastic revolutionary visions. The seizure of power now, appeared to him as an easy and certain matter. He greatly exaggerated the readiness to fight and the military preparedness of the German C.P., and rendered is more difficult for the Executive to form a correct idea of the immediate difficulties and requirements of the German movement.
At the September Commission of the Comintern, Comrade Trotsky declared himself to be in agreement with Comrade Zinoviev and other comrades with reference to the general estimate of the situation. But in the question of the workers’ Soviets slogan there was a grave difference of opinion. Comrade Zinoviev and other comrades considered it necessary for the German C.P. not to limit itself to the propaganda of the idea of the Soviets only, but to proceed to the actual formation of workers’ councils, especially in districts where the conditions were most favourable for this.
Comrades Trotsky and Brandler protested energetically against this. As the other German comrades shared their opinion, Comrade Zinoviev and the others in agreement with him did not deem it possible to insist upon the acceptance of their propositions at all costs. The final decision on this question was thus unanimously accepted by the Commission.
I am not of the opinion that this decision proved to be right. I believe that a most important slogan for the mobilisation and organisation of revolutionary forces was here abandoned. Comrade Trotsky in his “Lessons of October” seeks to defend this decision. To me his defence is inadequate, but I think it unnecessary to dwell upon this vexed question within the confines of this article, as such discussion would lead to too many side-tracks. With regard to this point the decision was based upon Comrade Trotsky’s standpoint and not on Comrade Zinoviev’s. The articles written by Comrade Zinoviev at the time show plainly that he submitted loyally to the decision and wrote accordingly. No person of sound commonsense can thus maintain that Comrade Zinoviev’s proposition could have contributed even in the slightest degree to the defeat of the German revolution.
But enough of that!
An exceedingly strange and unsubstantiated accusation against Comrade Zinoviev is contained in the following words of Comrade Trotsky’s:
“Our error lies in the fact that ‘we’ kept on repeating for weeks the old platitudes about the impossibility of ‘fixing a definite time for the revolution,’ resulting in every chance being neglected.” (“East and West,” p. 59.)
Where was the question discussed “for weeks”?
In the Commission there was not one single day wasted in the discussion of the question of whether it would be possible to fix a certain time for the revolution or not. It is true that, in the course of the debate on questions of greater importance, a similar point was touched upon. The one-sided inclination shown by Comrade Trotsky to carry out the revolution strictly according to the almanac appeared to almost all the comrades present as a narrowly organisatory and somewhat un-Marxist manner of dealing with the subject. It is very possible that some comrade expressed this opinion aloud.
Serious differences of opinion arose in the Commission with reference to the “choice of leading persons.” Not that Comrade Trotsky was anxious to remove any of the opportunist members of the Central. No, he had nothing to say against those members of the Central who, later on in October, retreated before the battle. On the contrary, he wanted to remove from the Central one of the leading forces of the left-wing, Comrade Ruth Fischer. He proposed that the Executive of the Comintern should retain her in Moscow, so that she could not “disturb” the revolutionary work of the Brandler Central Committee.
Comrade Zinoviev was entirely opposed to this proposal of Comrade Trotsky’s, and it was with much pains and trouble that he finally succeeded in gaining a weak majority in the Commission for the rejection of this proposition.
I cannot remember for which of the two propositions I voted. It is very possible that I voted for Comrade Trotsky’s motion. At that time I still regarded Comrade Brandler as a steadfast revolutionist. I have no right, personally, to reproach any other comrades for having made mistakes in the question of the selection of members of the German Central. But as Comrade Trotsky is anxious to impart instructions to the Executive on the “choice of leading persons,” without saying a single word about his own errors, then I cannot but observe that in this respect Comrade Trotsky has not set us any very good example.
It is possible to agree with him when he says, referring to the German Central:
“To ignore such lessons (as that of last year—O.K.), and to fail to draw from them the necessary conclusions with regard to the choice of persons signifies to invite inevitable defeat.” (p. 1xiii.)
But here it must not be forgotten to add the really instructive episode of Ruth Fischer, in the September Commission.
No differences of opinion arose in the Commission on the other questions submitted, many of them of great practical importance.
The sister Parties of the most important neighbouring countries were mobilised by the Executive and prepared, as far as possible, for the possibilities of the German revolution.
The German October as it was in Reality
Events in Germany took a different course to that desired by us. The revolutionary proletariat suffered a severe defeat. The causes of this defeat lay partly in the objective difficulties of the situation, partly in the deficient leadership of the Party.
It cannot be maintained that the estimate of the situation as made by the Executive in August and September, was wrong in any essential. Nothing of the kind! The possibility of victory really existed. It is true that in September (but not in August) this possibility was over-estimated. The elementary mass movement ebbed more rapidly than we had foreseen. The Social-Democrats proved in many respects to be even stronger pillars of capitalism than we had concluded from the words of our German comrades. The representatives of the German C.P. in the German commission exaggerated the Communist strength.
It is naturally a fantastic exaggeration when Comrade Trotsky writes in “East and West” (p. 120):
“With regard to all the pre-requisites of revolution, we were in the most favourable position that can be imagined.”
No, in September our estimate of the situation was not so exaggeratedly favourable. Comrade Trotsky, in his victorious self-confidence, omits to consider the great difference between the objective pre-requisites of the German revolution of 1923 and the Russian of 1917, and forgets the points in which the Russian revolution was more favourably placed, for instance the fact that in Russia we had an armed army of many millions, the overwhelming majority of which stood for the proletarian revolution in the autumn of 1917. We had nothing to compare with this in Germany in 1923, and Comrade Trotsky, when writing history, omits such trifles.
The general situation in Germany was, however, not unfavourable. At the Fifth Congress, after it was possible to form a clear idea of events, Comrade Zinoviev was quite right in saying:
“Should the revolutionary situation of October, 1923 be repeated, we should again insist upon the open acknowledgment of the fact that the revolution is knocking at the door. . . I repeat, should such a situation occur again, then we shall examine the figures, calculate our forces more accurately, but again stake everything upon the card of revolution.”
The actually existing possibility of victory was not taken advantage of by the German Party in October. The Party equipped itself for the battle, but did not enter into it. This was the greatest disappointment to us.
The Brandler Central 1s chiefly to blame. Brandler maintained that the incredible difficulties rendered the retreat inevitable. As we have seen, Comrade Trotsky agreed with this assertion by January. And a number of other comrades, including Comrade Zinoviev (and the writer of these lines) were at first—in November and December—of the same opinion, as a result of the information received chiefly through Radek and the Central of the Merman C.P. This opinion was partially shaken during the January conference, thanks to the information received from the Left. The Executive was not able to state with certainty in its resolution, whether the retreat had really been unavoidable or not. The Executive declined to accede to the demand of the Right (Radek, Trotsky, Brandler, etc.) and to “approve” the retreat.
But this or that solution of this historical question was no longer of any actual political significance. The leaders of the Party, apart from this or that answer to this question, exposed themselves to the severest criticism in October. The necessity of the retreat itself, had it really been a necessity, could not serve as justification for the utter incompetence evinced by the Central of the German C.P.
In class warfare, as in all warfare, the conditions determine the forms and aims of the strategy employed. Attacks and retreats are decided by the conditions of the struggle. But whatever these conditions, and however unfavourable they may be, they can never be such as to justify passivity in a revolution. Capitulation is not a form of fighting. It is a renunciation of the fight.
Comrade Zinoviev’s speech at the Fifth World Congress contained the following words:
“We do not reproach Brandler for not having won a victory. No. We are fully aware that defeats are often met with in war. We reproach him with something quite different: we do not ask him why are you not victorious: we ask him: why did you not fight, why did you not do your utmost to gain the victory?”
The Central of the German C.P. did not fight, it capitulated without fighting.
It need not be said that Brandler’s actions were not based on any conscious, that is, treacherous reasoning. No; if Comrade Trotsky’s present assertions (with regard to the alleged brilliant prospects of victory and the absolute impossibility of allowing the retreat) were really in accordance with the facts, then we could only conclude that Brandler and all his co-workers were traitors. But in reality this is not the case. Brandler and his adherents are incontestably Communists, but they are Communists who have committed a number of opportunist errors. They wanted to fight, but went “off the tracks.” In Saxony, they played at being ministers, instead of bringing the masses into the streets. They “prepared themselves” for revolution, but did nothing to develop the revolutionary forces of the masses. They even issued directions that all mass action should be abstained from until the “decisive struggle.” These directions were carried out everywhere, with the exception of Hamburg. And this was all. The fears and warning; expressed by Comrade Zinoviev in summer last year with respect to the possibility of a repetition of the Bulgarian events in Germany were thus substantiated. In his August theses he gave a special warning against precisely the mistake which had such disastrous results in October.
“It is impossible to save up powder until the decisive moment.
“It would be doctrinary theory, and a gigantic political error to postpone all action until the decisive struggle.”
But the German Central took precisely the wrong road. It committed precisely the “gigantic political error” against which the Executive had issued an equivocal and decided warning.
When the Left Hand does not Know what the Right is Doing
It is scarcely necessary to state that after the October experience fundamental changes took place in the Central of the German C.P. In January the Executive undertook an energetic renewal of this Central. The right-wing was removed.
Later, in May, Comrade Trotsky wrote:
“It is proper that the German C.P. has fundamentally reformed its leading organ.”
We take note of this delayed acknowledgment But it would have been better if Comrade Trotsky had lent his support to this reform earlier, in January. But at that time he was opposed to it. In the draft of theses by Comrades Trotsky and Radek, already referred to, we read that the “demand for a reform in the Central implies a panic, threatening the very existence of the Party.”
Comrade Trotsky thus supported the German Right until the last minute, whilst the Executive, and above all Comrade Zinoviev, combated the Right. We had a similar example in the September Commission in the Ruth Fischer case.
But the readers of the “Lessons of October” receive an exactly contrary impression. Thus, for instance, Comrade Trotsky writes as follows with reference to the importance of the “choice of leading persons”:
“Here ample experience was gained through that German October which failed to take place. The choice of leaders must be made from the viewpoint of revolutionary action. In Germany there were sufficient opportunities of testing the leading Party members in moments of immediate struggle.” (p. lxiii.)
This is true, and it is just for this reason that Right leaders have frequently been excluded from the German Central (Levi, Friesland, Geyer) etc.) These have later proved to be renegades. On the other band, the Executive has frequently supplemented the Party Central by representatives of the Left. But this has not been done on any single occasion on the initiative of Comrade Trotsky. The initiative has generally been Comrade Zinoviev’s, and has generally encountered resistance on the part of Comrade Trotsky.
This is no accidental phenomenon. When the Russian debate has been discussed in the sections of the Comintern, the few adherents of Comrade Trotsky have generally belonged to the extreme Right-wing of the Party. And this cannot be regarded as pure accident.
It is unnecessary to dwell upon the Russian questions, or on the international questions now belonging more to the past. It is, however, worth while to devote some attention to the prospects of the international situation as seen by Comrade Trotsky In face of all the facts of the present moment, of all the proofs to the contrary, he still speaks of a continued democratic pacifist “era.” This proves the strength of his trend towards the Right.
But this is not the whole truth. No one can understand Trotsky who sees in him nothing more than an ordinary opportunist. Comrade Trotsky is not a one-handed man. He has a right hand and a left hand. We already had the opportunity of seeing him in two roles in his interpretation of the “German October.”
And with Comrade Trotsky this does not happen by accident: it is a general rule. In actual practice he always represents two different “types” so to speak. One type deviates to the right, the other to the left. A superficial observer might conclude that Comrade Trotsky vacillates constantly between the two types. But this only appears to be the case. Comrade Trotsky is not a vacillating man. He generally adopts a definite—but wrong—course.
In reality the case is this: In his actions he deviates towards the Right, but he describes these actions in Left, very Left, terms. The Right type is the type of the man of action who speaks little, who does his work and says nothing about it. The Left type, is a man, anxious to play a prominent public role, a man who talks a great deal and does very little, and knows little about work except to describe it. But the descriptions given by the Left type differ entirely from the work actually done by the Right type.
Comrade Trotsky is not simply an ordinary opportunist. He possesses a finely developed sense of the æsthetic. He feels the æsthetic defects of the external form of opportunist policy. The external forms of politics please him more and more in proportion to their deviation to the Left. In art this may be very good, even excellent, and the Bible praises those whose right hand knoweth not what their left hand doeth; but in politics every inconsistency between form and contents, between description and actuality, between theory and practice, is invariably detrimental.
This is most clearly evidenced by the question of the German October. Comrade Trotsky, in his “Lessons of October” states that nobody “has attempted to give any other argumentation” of the events in Germany than the argumentation afforded by his May article and his speech of June.
Pardon me, Comrade Trotsky, but this is an error. The Comintern made the attempt. The German C.P. made it also. A number of articles were published. The attempt led to the holding of a number of speeches and the passing of a number of resolutions in various countries. The E.C.C.I. even published a number of pamphlets on the subject: “The Lessons of the German Events.”
It is to be regretted that Comrade Trotsky did not take the trouble to acquaint himself with at least a part of these works and with the ample supply of facts and material which they afford, before he built up his new scheme. Had he done this, he would not have so misrepresented matters. By May he had entirely forgotten the actuality of the past year (and even of January, 1924). It would seem that the comparatively advantageous results of the election had the effect of making him regard the situation of the year before as having been most favourable. And he entirely reversed the direction taken by his imagination.
Trotsky is, however, no master of the tactical and strategic mathematics of Leninism. Here it is the C.C. of the Russian C.P. which is seated firmly in the saddle, and not he. Frequently he views a situation with amazing onesidedness. In politics he often permits himself to be influenced by feelings or is led astray from the straight path by externals, by personal antipathy or sympathy for instance. This was never the case with Lenin, and should never occur in any member of Lenin’s Party.
Thus he permitted himself to be led astray by the criticism of the October defeat, and made use of this defeat as the basis for a charge against the chairman of the Comintern.
This is the evil tendency of his interpretation of historical events. He himself denies that he possesses any such tendency, but it is perfectly obvious to others. All this is not particularly “æsthetic.” Trotsky himself says: “this would be too lamentable.” Yes, it is lamentable and false.
This tendency of Trotsky’s is not only directed against certain persons, but involves a politically detrimental trend towards the Right. In attacking the person of Comrade Zinoviev, he strikes an indirect blow against the leadership of the Communist International and against the line taken by its Executive. This flank attack is condemned in advance to utter defeat. The line pursued by the Executive was and is right. The course pursued by Comrade Trotsky was and is such that events prove him to have no right to assume the role of infallible judge.
Two Words about the Civil War in Finland
In conclusion, a few words about the lessons taught by events in Finland In Comrade Trotsky’s preface we find the following:
“In the year 1917, the course of events in Finland was as follows: The revolutionary movement developed under exceedingly favourable conditions, under the protection and with the immediate military support of revolutionary Russia. But in the Finnish Party the majority of the leaders proved to be Social-Democrats, and these led the revolution to defeat.” (p. xl.)
This is not entirely correct.
It is true that in 1917 we in Finland actually missed an opportunity offered by the favourable revolutionary situation during the general strike, in the first place because we were Social-Democrats at that time, and in the second place because we were. almost entirely without weapons. It is, however, not true that at that time our revolution had the protection and immediate military support of revolutionary Russia. Our general strike took place at exactly the same time as the street fighting in Moscow for the seizure of power. At that time red Petrograd was not in a position to afford us any help. As to the garrisons and fleets still in Finland at that time, the men were partly on our side, but so sick of war that Aye could not expect them—especially in a foreign country—to come to our help.
Trotsky might say to us: “You have gone off the rails,” and we should not protest against this judgment. We said this ourselves in 1918, by which time we were able to subject ourselves to a severe self-criticism.
But we learnt something from the experience, and that with considerable rapidity. Two months later we took up the fight again.
This time we were able to claim the protection and military support of revolutionary Russia. But in March the Finnish White Guards were reinforced by German soldiery, and this decided the fate of the conflict. Our workers’ front could not hold out against regular German troops.
This was the main cause of our defeat.
No doubt there was a second cause as well: that we did not fight so well as we might have fought But at that time we were not Communists, but Social-Democrats, and we were almost entirely lacking in Bolshevist experience. But whether our Party fought well or badly, at least it fought.
Thus the German comrades need not take it as a self-praise on our part if I have blamed them for capitulating without a struggle six years after the Russian revolution, and after the experience won during four years of Bolshevist leadership in the Comintern.
We Finnish Communists have no reason to praise ourselves, but we have as little reason to fear the smoke from the powder of October.
I forgot to mention a third cause of the defeat of our revolution in 1918: this was the well known theatrical gesture made by Comrade Trotsky at the first Peace negotiations with the representatives of the German Government at Brest-Litovsk (January./ Februarv). The peace conditions proposed at that time by the German government were much more favourable than those dictated later, both for Soviet Russia and for the Finnish workers’ government. Before Comrade Trotsky left for Brest-Litovsk for the last time (at the end of January), Comrade Lenin told him that he should sign the peace treaty at once on receipt of the German ultimatum. Comrade Zinoviev, as Comrade Trotsky himself testifies, declared that “we only worsen the peace conditions by further delay, and must, therefore, sign at once.” (Minutes of the Seventh Party Conference, p. 79.)
Had peace come about between Germany and Russia at that time, then it is highly probable that the German government would have sent no troops to Finland. This conclusion of ours is based upon the memoirs of German generals, published after the war.
But on 10th February, Comrade Trotsky refused to accept the conditions of peace offered by the Germans. A valuable month passed before the peace treaty was accepted, and during this time Soviet Russia was obliged to abandon Reval and other cities at our (Finland’s) back to the Germans. And during the same time the German troops struck their blow at us.
Kuusinen Archive
The Errors of Trotskyism Index
|
./articles/Kuusinen-Otto/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.kuusinen.1951.08.warmongers-international | <body>
<p class="title">Otto Kuusinen 1951</p>
<h3>A Warmongers’ International</h3>
<hr class="end"><p class="information"><span class="info">Source</span>: Pamphlet published by the Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1952, the original text being published in <em>Pravda</em>, 27 August 1951. Scanned, annotated and prepared for the Marxist Internet Archive by Paul Flewers.</p><hr class="end">
<p>At the beginning of July this year, the Anglo-American politicians put into operation in Western Germany new units in what would appear to be two different lines of strategy. On the one hand, McCloy, <sup class="enote"><a href="#n1">[1]</a></sup> the American gauleiter in Bonn, summoned Adenauer <sup class="enote"><a href="#n2">[2]</a></sup> and a number of Hitlerite generals and ordered them to speed up to the utmost the formation of the German divisions for inclusion in the ‘European army’ of the North-Atlantic military alliance. On the other hand, in Frankfort on the Main, under the protection of the Anglo-American occupational forces, a congress was held of the Right-wing Socialists of the North-Atlantic Alliance countries and of several other countries and a so-called ‘Socialist International’ was inaugurated. The direct leadership of this latter unit was entrusted to Morgan Phillips, <sup class="enote"><a href="#n3">[3]</a></sup> the secretary of the Executive Committee of the British Labour Party; he, too, was elected chairman of this International.</p>
<p>What is this International? Is it the resurrected old Second International, which had lived so dishonestly and had died so ingloriously, or some new invention?</p>
<p>To be able to answer this question we must first ascertain what attitude this International adopted towards the major problems of present-day international politics.</p>
<h5>‘Socialist’ Boosting of American Imperialism</h5>
<p>It is not worth while asking the present-day Right-wing Socialists what their attitude is towards the imperialism of their respective countries. Everybody knows that the British Labour Party leaders have long been officially carrying out the policy of British imperialism, that the French Right-wing Socialists have been carrying out the policy of French imperialism, the Dutch Right-wing Socialists have been carrying out the policy of Dutch imperialism, and so, forth.</p>
<p>And it is equally useless asking them what their attitude is towards imperialism in general, for to this question they answer without batting an eyelid: of course, we are opposed to imperialism... In the declaration of the aims and objects of their International <sup class="enote"><a href="#n4">[4]</a></sup> they claim that they oppose imperialism in all its forms. Thus, their words constantly contradict their deeds.</p>
<p>But even this verbal repudiation of imperialism melts away on the lips of these ‘internationalists’ as soon as the question of their attitude towards American imperialism is brought up; and this is a question that no workers’ party in the world can brush aside, for everybody knows that after German imperialism was crushed in the Second World War, the United States of America became the principal centre of international imperialist reaction. Hence, if American imperialism is not opposed, the hollow phrase ‘oppose imperialism in all its forms’ can deceive nobody.</p>
<p>This is exactly the case with the policy of the Right-wing Socialists. They obsequiously support the execution of all the imperialist plans of the United States government — the Marshall Plan, the North-Atlantic military alliance, the remilitarisation of Germany and Japan, and so forth. And yet they have the brazenness to assure the workers that they oppose imperialism in all its forms!</p>
<p>At the Frankfort congress Mr Morgan Phillips was not ashamed to characterise the United States’ policy as ‘progressive and unselfish’. In the documents of the congress, the United States and other imperialist countries are described as idyllic ‘free democracies’. There is not a single word in these documents to suggest that such a thing as American imperialism even exists in the world. The Right-wing socialist press in a number of countries circulated an article by Norman Thomas <sup class="enote"><a href="#n5">[5]</a></sup> in which this old perjurer on behalf of the American bourgeoisie, in obedience to his new instructions, asked whether America is an imperialist power and declared that American imperialism is only a vestige of the past. Thus, all the data of science and politics concerning the existence of the most arrogant imperialism of our times is annulled at one stroke.</p>
<p>Nor is this all. Having undertaken the task of boosting the United States’ policy, the leaders of the Frankfort International go so far as to describe the predatory plans and methods of the American imperialists as ‘socialistic’. This is incredible, but it is a fact.</p>
<p>Thus, for example, Morgan Phillips exclaimed: ‘Rearmament [of Germany] may further socialist development.’ (!) He also said at the preliminary conference in Copenhagen: ‘The Marshall Plan and the assistance rendered by President Truman <sup class="enote"><a href="#n6">[6]</a></sup> is practical Socialism on an international scale.’</p>
<p>Does not this beat the record of shameless boosting? What will be said to this by the people of Western Europe who are groaning under the burden imposed upon them by the ‘assistance’ rendered under the Marshall Plan? And what will the cruelly exploited American workers and farmers say to the following statement uttered by another Labour Party leader, Kenneth Younger: <sup class="enote"><a href="#n7">[7]</a></sup> ‘Much is being done in the United States which Europeans would call Socialism.’ (?!)</p>
<p>The declaration of the Right-wing Socialist International says vaguely, without indicating where: ‘In some countries the foundations of a socialist society have already been laid.’ Which countries does this refer to? Not to the Soviet Union, where socialist society was built long ago, nor to the People’s Democracies, where the foundations of socialist society are being laid with great success. This is brazenly denied in the declaration of the Frankfort International. Hence, the authors of the declaration mean some of the capitalist countries, evidently, Great Britain and the United States.</p>
<p>This was made perfectly clear by Spaak, <sup class="enote"><a href="#n8">[8]</a></sup> the leader of the Belgian Right-wing Socialists, who, after crossing the Atlantic, announced to the world that in America ‘millionaires are gradually disappearing’ and that ‘American capitalism is achieving socialist objects’.</p>
<p>Such are the lengths to which the Right-wing Socialists go in their mendacious boosting of Americanism. The question is: why do they indulge in this high-powered boosting? Is it only out of obsequiousness to the American imperialists? Of course, they are grovelling at the feet of the American imperialists, for they know that their political careers in their own countries nowadays depend primarily upon the goodwill of the trans-Atlantic millionaires and their emissaries. But why call these grasping moneygrubbers ‘builders of Socialism'? It is, probably, no more flattering to them than it would be to a Chicago gangster if he were called ‘holy father’. Obviously, therefore, they have some other aim in view.</p>
<p>Evidently, the main object of this boosting of American imperialism as ‘Socialism’ is to deceive the socialist workers of Europe. The artful dodgers of the Frankfort International (formerly the COMISCO) <sup class="enote"><a href="#n9">[9]</a></sup> are attempting by means of this mendacious boosting of American imperialism to make the latter popular in the eyes of the West-European workers who hate the capitalists, but who do not know sufficiently well the worst of all exploiters, namely, the American monopolists.</p>
<p>Everything goes to show that this propagandist function undertaken by the corrupt bourgeois socialists is closely linked (by golden chains) with Mr Acheson’s <sup class="enote"><a href="#n10">[10]</a></sup> notorious ‘total diplomacy’. According to reports published in the British press, emanating from the British Foreign Office, James E Webb, <sup class="enote"><a href="#n11">[11]</a></sup> Acheson’s Undersecretary, during his visit to London, told Herbert Morrison, <sup class="enote"><a href="#n12">[12]</a></sup> then British Foreign Secretary, that the United States government would also like to see closer cooperation between the Yugoslav Tito group <sup class="enote"><a href="#n13">[13]</a></sup> and the Right-wing International that is under the leadership of the British Labour Party. Webb said that this would strengthen the political groups in Europe through which the United States and British governments could conduct their propaganda among the workers.</p>
<p>But will even costly propaganda be of much use when the American imperialists are bossing the show in the West-European countries with such arrogance that nothing can conceal their rapacity? And at home, in Washington, as is well known, they shout so loudly about their plans of world conquest that they can be heard in all five parts of the globe. We recall that even Acheson, their chief diplomat, in a radio broadcast he delivered on 10 September, last year, declared: ‘I believe that with modern weapons and ingenuity we can do again exactly what was done for so many centuries at the time of the Roman Empire.’</p>
<p>After such outpourings from the lips of the official leaders of American foreign policy it is, of course, hellish hard for the spellbinders of the Socialist International to prove to the workers that there is no American imperialism, and that it is not aspiring to world domination.</p>
<p>It is not surprising that indignation is growing rapidly among the masses of the working people in all West-European countries against the tremendous influx of American emissaries — all kinds of advisers, profiteers, spies, senators, military and police officials, in short, all the importunate and grasping agents of the American plutocracy. In spite of the desperate pro-American propaganda efforts of the Right-wing Socialists, the voice of the masses is being heard crying even more loudly and imperatively: ‘Out with the American imperialists!’ ‘Yankees, go home!’</p>
<h5>Gravediggers of National Sovereignty and Independence</h5>
<p>The sovereignty of the old West-European countries is a hindrance to the rapid execution of the United States’ plans for expansion in Europe.</p>
<p>It is true that, far from resisting, the governments of these countries are facilitating the execution of these predatory American plans. The Cabinet Ministers and big capitalists of Europe are selling the economic and cultural interests of their respective countries to the American monopolies. Those branches of industry which compete with American capital, particularly those in France, Belgium and Italy, are being wound up; productive forces are being destroyed; the economy of these countries is being transformed into an appendage of American capitalism.</p>
<p>When all this is achieved through the complicated machine of continuous negotiation between the local and American magnates, the latter have to keep on haggling all the time, they have to keep on greasing the works, ladling out palm oil. This, of course, is a tiresome and costly business. It would be far more convenient to arrange matters in the way the emissaries of the Morgans and Rockefellers are accustomed to arrange them in countries which have been robbed of their sovereignty, like the Philippines, and many of the Latin-American countries. There, the American magnates simply say what they want and the local ones understand at once what they have to do... It is so convenient when there is no sovereignty!</p>
<p>Another inconvenience in sovereign capitalist countries is that their rulers, even the most obliging, are often compelled to resort to all sorts of manoeuvres to carry out the demands of the Americans because the people in these countries are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices. This also retards American expansion.</p>
<p>The American imperialists are determined to rob the peoples of Western Europe of their national sovereignty. They have been trying to do this for the past five or six years. To facilitate their expansion they want to secure the removal of all customs barriers, to redraw the state frontiers of the old European countries and arbitrarily to group them into mandated ‘Beneluxes’ <sup class="enote"><a href="#n14">[14]</a></sup> under American rule. Hence, they must secure the abolition of the national sovereignty of these countries.</p>
<p>But national sovereignty has proved to be as hard as ivory, and to be able to gnaw through it one must have the teeth of a dog, and it takes lots of time. That is why the Right-wing Socialists were called in to do the job. Some of the more enterprising of them have repeatedly tried their teeth on it during the past few years, and the subject has been much discussed at the conference and on commissions of the COMISCO, but nothing came of it. So it was decided to mobilise a whole International for the purpose. The congress of the Frankfort International adopted and proclaimed the following decision: ‘The system of unlimited national sovereignty must be overcome.’</p>
<p>The word ‘unlimited’ in this decision did not drop in by chance. Since this is a delicate matter, the liquidators of national sovereignty wanted to express themselves in the most cautious terms, as much as to say: we do not want to abolish all sovereignty, but only ‘unlimited’ sovereignty; we are willing to allow some of it to remain. How much they want to abolish and how much to leave they, of course, prefer not to say, because however little of its sovereignty any nation retained the American monopolists would consider it too much.</p>
<p>Thus, the Right-wing Socialist International has proclaimed itself an agency for liquidating the national sovereignty of the French, British, Italian, Belgian, Dutch, Scandinavian and other peoples. This means that the ‘Socialists’ in every non-American country have undertaken the task of ‘overcoming’ the unwillingness of their nation to sell its sovereignty.</p>
<p>This task is, of course, beyond their strength. Where will they find a sovereign nation that is willing to surrender its sovereignty? The traitors to their nations may argue until they are black in the face that sovereignty is an ‘outmoded idea’, but the people will persist in retorting: ‘Not for sale!’</p>
<p>What do they offer in exchange for the sovereignty of the independent nations? A ‘new world order’, which is to be created under the aegis of the American monopolists. But the American monopolists themselves cannot decently disguise the fact that they want to abolish the sovereignty of other countries in order to impose their own sovereignty upon all countries.</p>
<p>And so it turns out that the enigmatic picture of a ‘new world order’ painted by the masters of the Frankfort School is nothing more than the futurist cover of an advertising prospectus of American world domination. Of course, the prospectus promises everybody the possibility of obtaining both ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ in instalments, but every man who knows anything at all, knows perfectly well that there can be no freedom and democracy where American or any other imperialism rules.</p>
<p>As regards the attitude of the ‘Socialist’ International towards the struggle the colonial and dependent countries are waging for national independence, it is very characteristic that in its declaration of ‘aims and objects’ it carefully avoids using the word ‘independence’. True, the declaration talks about the struggle for ‘liberation’, and against ‘the subjection and exploitation of any nation’, but it studiously avoids answering the question: is the Socialist International for or against the national independence of the oppressed nations?</p>
<p>The opportunists of the old Second International often promised the colonial peoples independence, although they always broke their promise; but the 1951 International does not even promise this. Why? Because they grudge a few extra words?</p>
<p>No. The reason is that the American imperialists strongly dislike the slogan of independence for the colonial countries. They are not averse to advocating the ‘liberation’ of some colony or other that is ruled by, say, British or French imperialism, but they assert that there is no subjection and exploitation in the American colonies; such scandalous things are to be found only in non-American colonies, they say. Hence, Washington has no objection to calls for the ‘liberation’ of colonies and for the liquidation of ‘subjection and exploitation’ in them if these calls are couched in general terms, and without any reference to the American colonies. The call for a struggle for the independence of the colonial and dependent countries, however, smacks of revolt against imperialist oppression! The American aspirants to world domination have learned, particularly in China, how dangerous it is for imperialism when an oppressed nation rises to wage a determined struggle for national independence. Even in the Philippines, to whom the United States government granted a charter of nominal ‘independence’, the people are still fighting for real independence.</p>
<p>Naturally, therefore, the gentlemen in Washington no longer tolerate the slogan of a struggle for the independence of the oppressed nations even as mere propaganda. Consequently, the abettors of imperialism, the Right-wing Socialists, also had to stop playing with this slogan in their propaganda.</p>
<p>But in spite of all the efforts of the imperialists and their Right-wing socialist agents, all the nations that are oppressed by the imperialists will continue and intensify their struggle for complete national freedom and independence.</p>
<p>There can be no doubt that the plan to subjugate the freedom-loving nations and to establish an imperialist ‘new world order’ will fail. The first attempt to impose such a ‘new order’ upon mankind — the insane attempt made by German fascist imperialism and its abettors — failed ignominiously. The present plan of American imperialism and its abettors is no less insane, and is doomed to the same ignominious failure.</p>
<h5>Abettors of the Instigators of a New World War</h5>
<p>During the past few years, since the movement of the vast masses of the working people in defence of peace began in all countries, the Right-wing Socialists everywhere fiercely opposed the struggle for peace in any form. They prohibited the members of their parties from supporting the defence of peace slogan. <sup class="enote"><a href="#n15">[15]</a></sup> The struggle for peace had got on the nerves of these social-democratic gentlemen to such a degree that they simply foamed at the mouth when they heard the word ‘peace’.</p>
<p>This was the case up to 1951. The reactionary leaders of Social-Democracy have now changed their tactics. The defence of peace roused the broad masses of the working people to such an extent that the Right-wing Socialists stood in danger of becoming completely isolated. Hence, they were compelled to unfurl the flag of peace in order to deceive the masses. This is what they did at the congress in Frankfort on the Main.</p>
<p>But have the Labour Party and Social-Democratic leaders abandoned their <em>policy </em>of <em>opposing </em>peace? Have they ceased to be the abettors of the American and British policy of preparing a new war? No, they have not.</p>
<p>They say that the preservation of peace is ‘the most urgent task of our times’, but actually they are continuing fiercely to attack every mass movement in support of peace and of the conclusion of a Five-Power Peace Pact.</p>
<p>One would have thought that people who call themselves representatives of democracy and of ‘democratic Socialism’ would support the settlement of disputes between countries by means of negotiation. Surely, there is no other democratic way of safeguarding peace. </p>
<p>But did the politicians at the Frankfort congress come out in favour of the settlement of disputes in international relations by negotiation? No, they did not. There is not a word in the documents of the congress about the necessity of negotiations between the Great Powers with the object of preserving peace. Does this not show that the claim of the Right-wing Socialists that they represent democracy and peace is sheer hypocrisy?</p>
<p>It is easy to guess why the Right-wing Socialists did not say a word about the necessity of peace by negotiation. Any statement on their part recommending negotiation might have, to some degree, weakened war propaganda; it would have embarrassed the United States and British governments which are sabotaging all the efforts of the Soviet government to reach a peaceful settlement of the major disputes in international relations. Moreover, such a statement by the Socialist International might have relaxed the tension in international relations and of the war hysteria in the United States, and Acheson and the armament manufacturers would not have thanked the clumsy European Social-Democrats for this.</p>
<p>Instead of calling for peace by negotiation, the congress called upon all the capitalist countries to unite and arm to the teeth. Morgan Phillips arrogantly stated that it is not worthwhile for the Social-Democrats even to think of cooperating with the USSR and the People’s Democracies.</p>
<p>The speeches delivered at the Frankfort congress breathed fierce hatred of the Soviet Union and the People’s Democracies. The Right-wing Socialists showed that the growing ties of friendship between the masses of the working people in the capitalist countries and the peoples who have freed themselves from the yoke of capitalism fill them with burning anger and alarm. The resolutions they passed drip with filthy slander against the Soviet Union, the People’s Democracies and the international communist movement.</p>
<p>All these outpourings of anger and hatred openly bore the character of incitement to war. Nevertheless, the congress unctuously declared that it ‘considers peace the basic aim of international Socialism’.</p>
<p>But did not the congress utterly expose its hypocrisy by its attitude on the Korean question, for example?</p>
<p>In Korea, as everybody knows, American troops, in conjunction with British and other troops, have been fighting for over a year to subjugate and exterminate the freedom-loving Korean people. The question is: what did the Right-wing socialist congress do to help bring about peace in Korea? Nothing. It did the very opposite. It shamelessly supported the war that is being waged by the American aggressors.</p>
<p>Its attitude on the question of reducing and controlling armaments was exactly the same. Instead of backing the demand of peace supporters for the reduction of armaments by all countries, the congress declared that the capitalist countries ‘must strengthen their military power’. To counteract the rising anger of the masses against the insane armaments drive of the imperialist countries, the Labour Party and Social-Democratic leaders decided to mobilise their International for the purpose of conducting raging propaganda in support of their governments’ programmes of rearmament and preparation for world war.</p>
<p>In his address, Morgan Phillips brazenly stated that it was the ‘moral duty’ of the Socialists of all countries to agree to the sacrifices entailed by rearmament. This may be the ‘moral duty’ of those ‘Socialists’ who have personally received an advance from their imperialist masters, but it is quite obvious that they have no right whatever to impose any duty upon the masses of the people to bring sacrifice to the altar of war.</p>
<p>It must be particularly emphasised that these pseudo-socialist ‘peacemakers’ are conducting propaganda in favour of unlimited arming by the imperialist powers and of the employment of the most barbarous methods of exterminating the people. They have fought and are continuing to fight furiously the demand of peace supporters for the prohibition of atomic weapons. They have not uttered a single word in condemnation of the notorious plan of the American military authorities to employ in war poison gas and the bacteriological weapons they have borrowed from the Japanese war criminals.</p>
<p>It goes without saying that these people who pose as champions of peace strongly oppose the prohibition of war propaganda. When the legislatures in the Soviet Union and the People’s Democracies passed laws prohibiting war propaganda, the Right-wing socialist newspapers, in chorus, denounced these laws as unwarranted restriction of ‘freedom’. But who wants freedom to conduct war propaganda? Only the imperialists and their agents. For the cause of peace it is harmful.</p>
<p>Can the Right-wing Socialists consent to the prohibition of war propaganda? Of course not. That would mean prohibiting the chief function they perform in the service of international imperialist reaction.</p>
<h5>Lies and Slander: The Weapons of the Aggressors</h5>
<p>As we know, a characteristic idea current among the Hitlerite leaders in fascist Germany was that it is more profitable in politics to resort to big lies rather than to small ones because, they argued, the people are more likely to believe big lies. Acting up to this idea they, for example, organised the burning of the Reichstag and then accused the Communists of this crime. They also often employed the ‘big lie’ method in foreign policy. This method of political gangsters and provocateurs is now being widely employed by the Anglo-American warmongers, including the Right-wing Socialists.</p>
<p>The slanders and lies to which the present-day imperialists resort in their foreign policy are not simply camouflage to cover up their real aims, they are actual weapons. At the very time that the Japanese imperialists were preparing to invade China, General Araki, <sup class="enote"><a href="#n16">[16]</a></sup> one of their most prominent leaders, said: ‘We Japanese are apostles of peace. We have not the slightest intention of attacking other countries.’ This was a simple lie. Had Araki said that China was planning aggression against Japan, and that the latter was therefore preparing for ‘defence’, it would have been a complex lie, so to speak.</p>
<p>The present-day imperialists resort to all sorts of lies. We know that even Truman and Attlee <sup class="enote"><a href="#n17">[17]</a></sup> try to camouflage their aggressive policy with olive branches, but for their purposes ordinary camouflage is not enough, because, firstly, they cannot conceal from the peoples the fact that the American and British governments are preparing a new world war; their military-strategical preparations: war budgets, armaments drive, remilitarisation of Germany and Japan, military alliances, American naval and air bases in all parts of the world, and so forth, have assumed such vast dimensions that they cannot be concealed. Secondly, they cannot give up their war propaganda, which also glaringly exposes their aggressive aims. But since they must find some justification for their war policy, what can they do to deceive the masses?</p>
<p>Here falsehood again comes to the rescue of the imperialists. They thought of the following: we can proclaim ourselves the defending side and the peaceful countries against which we are preparing aggression as the aggressors. Then everything will be in order, and on the plea of ‘defence’ we can continue instigating war and our practical preparations for a war of aggression...</p>
<p>As we know, the American and British aggressors are employing this lie in connection with Korea. They have proclaimed the Korean people, who are defending their country, as aggressors, and are brazenly shouting that the American and British troops who have been sent to Korea to kill the Koreans and to seize their country are defending America and Britain! The Americans seized the Chinese island of Taiwan and bombed Chinese towns and villages, but on encountering detachments of Chinese volunteers in Korea they proclaimed the Chinese People’s Republic an aggressor!</p>
<p>The Right-wing Socialists in particular took a fancy to this lie. They became so enamoured of it that at the Frankfort congress they decided to add their mite to it. They proclaimed that the aggressor in the war in Korea is the... Cominform! Mr Morgan Phillips, the dashing leader of the International, went even further and proclaimed Russia the aggressor in Korea! This is the limit.</p>
<p>Thus, the imperialists and their socialist henchmen found a ‘convenient’ means of military and political attack upon the nations they have chosen as the objects of their imperialist aggression. Lies and slander are now officially accepted weapons in the arsenal of the North-Atlantic military alliance, on a par with atomic bombs, poison gas and plague germs. With the aid of these weapons they can proclaim any war of aggression they launch as the ‘aggression of the Cominform’, or as ‘Russian aggression’.</p>
<p>Whether such a lie is worth anything is another question. The entire ‘method’ is based on bare assertions. For example: everybody knows that from the moment it came into existence the Cominform has been fighting for lasting peace among the nations, but the Right-wing socialist congress blatantly asserted that the Cominform’s policy compelled all the ‘free democracies’ (meaning the United States, Great Britain and their satellites) to attach first-class importance to military defence. The congress, of course, adduced nothing in support of this mendacious statement, and did not even attempt to do so.</p>
<p>This congress also backed the well-known fable that the countries in the North-Atlantic Alliance are arming in order to ‘avert the war’ which, they allege, the Soviet Union and the People’s Democracies are planning. But could they adduce any facts to support their claim that the United States, or Great Britain, or any other country in the North-Atlantic Alliance, is threatened? No, they could not. They themselves do not believe that any such danger exists. The Soviet Union is not building war bases in other countries around the United States or Great Britain; but the United States is building such bases everywhere around the Soviet Union.</p>
<p>Thousands of facts prove that the Soviet Union is pursuing a policy of peace. All the pronouncements and proposals made by the Soviet representatives in the United Nations testify to the undeviating efforts of the Soviet government to safeguard peace. The United States and British governments, however, mobilising the support of the states that are dependent upon them, are more and more converting the United Nations into an instrument of aggressive war. As a consequence, as Comrade Stalin has pointed out, the United Nations is ceasing to be a world organisation of equal nations, is killing its moral prestige, and is dooming itself to collapse.</p>
<p>In the interview he gave a <em>Pravda </em>correspondent in February 1951, Comrade Stalin exposed the favourite lie of that most outstanding leader of the bourgeois Socialists Attlee, then British Prime Minister. Comrade Stalin said:</p>
<p class="indentb">Premier Attlee has to lie about the Soviet Union, he has to make out that the peaceful policy of the Soviet Union is an aggressive policy, and that the aggressive policy of the British government is a peaceful policy, in order to mislead the British people, force upon them these lies about the USSR, and thus inveigle them by deceit into a new world war, which the ruling circles of the United States of America are engineering. <sup class="enote"><a href="#n18">[18]</a></sup></p>
<p>Evidently, Mr Attlee and his partners think that the people will believe his lies. Falsehood in politics is a sign of weakness, not of strength. The lies the Anglo-American imperialists tell are whoppers, but they all the more easily burst like soap bubbles.</p>
<p>American intervention in Korea has given the people of all countries a glaring example of the employment of the ‘big lie’ method by the imperialists, and since then the ‘secret’ of this despicable weapon has been discovered by the broad masses, thus paving the way for its utter exposure.</p>
<h3>* * *</h3>
<p>In face of all these facts it is not difficult to answer the question as to whether the present ‘Socialist International’ is the resurrected old Second International or a new revelation. It is undoubtedly the natural offspring of the Second International, which was the international agency of the bourgeoisie in the working-class movement. From the day the first socialist state in the world was set up, the Second International, to the end of its days, was a counter-revolutionary body hostile to Socialism. Its offspring is following in its footsteps.</p>
<p>From the moment it came into existence, the new International became one of the most zealous detachments of the bodyguard of present-day imperialism. Its leaders curry favour with the most reactionary section of the bourgeoisie. The Right-wing Socialist International has already shown that it is an agency of the most aggressive imperialism in the world, namely, American imperialism. The chief and immediate function of this International is to incite aggressive war against the entire camp of democracy and Socialism.</p>
<p>Hence, the new Right-wing Socialist International contains a lot of new knavery.</p>
<p>All the more reason, therefore, have not only the Communist Parties of all countries, but also all honest Socialists, and all peace supporters, to secure by their ceaseless educational activities among the working people the complete isolation of the pseudo-socialist abettors of the warmongers, for they are the worst enemies of peace, democracy and Socialism.</p>
<h3>Notes</h3>
<hr class="end"><p class="information"><a name="n1"><span class="info">1.</span></a> John Jay McCloy (1895-1989) was a lawyer and banker who served as US Assistant Secretary of War during the Second World War, President of the World Bank during 1947-49, and US High Commissioner for Germany during 1949-52, during which time the Federal Republic of Germany was established and many Nazis convicted of war crimes were either pardoned or had their sentences reduced.</p>
<p class="information"><a name="n2"><span class="info">2.</span></a> Konrad Hermann Joseph Adenauer (1876-1967) was a lawyer and a prominent member of the Centre Party in Weimar Germany and mayor of Cologne during 1917-33. He led the Christian Democratic Union from its formation in 1946. The CDU received the largest vote in the first West German elections, held in 1949, and Adenauer served as Chancellor from then until 1963.</p>
<p class="information"><a name="n3"><span class="info">3.</span></a> Morgan Walter Phillips (1902-1963) became Secretary of the Labour Party in 1944, holding the post until 1961. He became the Secretary of the Socialist International upon its formation in 1948, holding the post until 1957.</p>
<p class="information"><a name="n4"><span class="info">4.</span></a> See <a href="http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=39">http://www.socialistinternational.org</a>.</p>
<p class="information"><a name="n5"><span class="info">5.</span></a> Norman Mattoon Thomas (1884-1968) joined the Socialist Party of America during the First World War, and became its figurehead, standing as its Presidential candidate six times. A Christian reformist socialist, he was at this juncture subject to harsh criticism by the official communist movement.</p>
<p class="information"><a name="n6"><span class="info">6.</span></a> Harry S Truman (1884-1972), a Democrat, was US Vice-President during 1945 and President during 1945-53.</p>
<p class="information"><a name="n7"><span class="info">7.</span></a> Kenneth Gilmour Younger (1908-1976), a barrister, was elected in 1945 as a Labour MP, and in 1950 became Acting Foreign Secretary when Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin fell ill.</p>
<p class="information"><a name="n8"><span class="info">8.</span></a> Paul Henri Charles Spaak (1899-1972) joined the Belgian Workers Party in 1920, became a government minister in 1935, and was Prime Minister during 1938-39, 1946 and 1947-49, and Foreign Minister during 1939-49, 1954-58 and 1961-66. He was Secretary-General of NATO during 1957-61.</p>
<p class="information"><a name="n9"><span class="info">9.</span></a> In 1947 the International Socialist Conference (COMISCO) was set up in order to coordinate the activities of social-democratic parties. It formed the basis of the Socialist International, which was formally established in July 1951.</p>
<p class="information"><a name="n10"><span class="info">10.</span></a> Dean Gooderham Acheson (1893-1971) was US Secretary of State under President Truman during 1949-53 and helped elaborate US foreign policy during the Cold War, especially in respect of the Marshall Plan and the establishment of NATO.</p>
<p class="information"><a name="n11"><span class="info">11.</span></a> James E Webb (1906-1992) worked in various private sector bodies and US federal organisations before becoming Undersecretary of State during 1949-53. He subsequently headed NASA.</p>
<p class="information"><a name="n12"><span class="info">12.</span></a> Herbert Stanley Morrison (1888-1965) was a Labour MP during 1923-24, 1929-31 and 1935-59. He was Home Secretary during 1940-45, Deputy Prime Minister during 1945-51 and Foreign Secretary during 1951.</p>
<p class="information"><a name="n13"><span class="info">13.</span></a> Yugoslavia had been expelled from the Cominform in June 1949, and Josip Broz Tito (1892-1980), at this juncture Chairman of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, was thereafter considered by Moscow to be a renegade of the worst kind, until a reconciliation took place after Stalin’s death.</p>
<p class="information"><a name="n14"><span class="info">14.</span></a> Benelux was the name given to the customs union established in 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg.</p>
<p class="information"><a name="n15"><span class="info">15.</span></a> For example, the British Peace Committee organised a World Peace Conference in Sheffield in November 1950. The Labour Party threatened to expel any member who attended it, and the Labour government barred many overseas visitors to the conference from entering Britain.</p>
<p class="information"><a name="n16"><span class="info">16.</span></a> Baron Sadao Araki (1877-1966) was a career officer in the Japanese army and a fervent right-wing nationalist and anti-communist. He was Minister of War and then Minister of Education during the 1930s. He was sentenced for war crimes after the Second World War.</p>
<p class="information"><a name="n17"><span class="info">17.</span></a> Clement Richard Attlee (1883-1967) was a Labour MP during 1922-55, Leader of the Labour Party during 1935-55, and Prime Minister during 1945-51.</p>
<p class="information"><a name="n18"><span class="info">18.</span></a> JV Stalin, ‘<a href="../../../../reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/02/17.htm">Interview with a <em>Pravda</em> Correspondent</a>’ (17 February 1951).</p>
<p class="skip"> </p>
<hr class="end">
<p class="footer">
<a href="../../index.htm"> Rajani Palme Archive</a>
</p>
</body> |
Otto Kuusinen 1951
A Warmongers’ International
Source: Pamphlet published by the Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1952, the original text being published in Pravda, 27 August 1951. Scanned, annotated and prepared for the Marxist Internet Archive by Paul Flewers.
At the beginning of July this year, the Anglo-American politicians put into operation in Western Germany new units in what would appear to be two different lines of strategy. On the one hand, McCloy, [1] the American gauleiter in Bonn, summoned Adenauer [2] and a number of Hitlerite generals and ordered them to speed up to the utmost the formation of the German divisions for inclusion in the ‘European army’ of the North-Atlantic military alliance. On the other hand, in Frankfort on the Main, under the protection of the Anglo-American occupational forces, a congress was held of the Right-wing Socialists of the North-Atlantic Alliance countries and of several other countries and a so-called ‘Socialist International’ was inaugurated. The direct leadership of this latter unit was entrusted to Morgan Phillips, [3] the secretary of the Executive Committee of the British Labour Party; he, too, was elected chairman of this International.
What is this International? Is it the resurrected old Second International, which had lived so dishonestly and had died so ingloriously, or some new invention?
To be able to answer this question we must first ascertain what attitude this International adopted towards the major problems of present-day international politics.
‘Socialist’ Boosting of American Imperialism
It is not worth while asking the present-day Right-wing Socialists what their attitude is towards the imperialism of their respective countries. Everybody knows that the British Labour Party leaders have long been officially carrying out the policy of British imperialism, that the French Right-wing Socialists have been carrying out the policy of French imperialism, the Dutch Right-wing Socialists have been carrying out the policy of Dutch imperialism, and so, forth.
And it is equally useless asking them what their attitude is towards imperialism in general, for to this question they answer without batting an eyelid: of course, we are opposed to imperialism... In the declaration of the aims and objects of their International [4] they claim that they oppose imperialism in all its forms. Thus, their words constantly contradict their deeds.
But even this verbal repudiation of imperialism melts away on the lips of these ‘internationalists’ as soon as the question of their attitude towards American imperialism is brought up; and this is a question that no workers’ party in the world can brush aside, for everybody knows that after German imperialism was crushed in the Second World War, the United States of America became the principal centre of international imperialist reaction. Hence, if American imperialism is not opposed, the hollow phrase ‘oppose imperialism in all its forms’ can deceive nobody.
This is exactly the case with the policy of the Right-wing Socialists. They obsequiously support the execution of all the imperialist plans of the United States government — the Marshall Plan, the North-Atlantic military alliance, the remilitarisation of Germany and Japan, and so forth. And yet they have the brazenness to assure the workers that they oppose imperialism in all its forms!
At the Frankfort congress Mr Morgan Phillips was not ashamed to characterise the United States’ policy as ‘progressive and unselfish’. In the documents of the congress, the United States and other imperialist countries are described as idyllic ‘free democracies’. There is not a single word in these documents to suggest that such a thing as American imperialism even exists in the world. The Right-wing socialist press in a number of countries circulated an article by Norman Thomas [5] in which this old perjurer on behalf of the American bourgeoisie, in obedience to his new instructions, asked whether America is an imperialist power and declared that American imperialism is only a vestige of the past. Thus, all the data of science and politics concerning the existence of the most arrogant imperialism of our times is annulled at one stroke.
Nor is this all. Having undertaken the task of boosting the United States’ policy, the leaders of the Frankfort International go so far as to describe the predatory plans and methods of the American imperialists as ‘socialistic’. This is incredible, but it is a fact.
Thus, for example, Morgan Phillips exclaimed: ‘Rearmament [of Germany] may further socialist development.’ (!) He also said at the preliminary conference in Copenhagen: ‘The Marshall Plan and the assistance rendered by President Truman [6] is practical Socialism on an international scale.’
Does not this beat the record of shameless boosting? What will be said to this by the people of Western Europe who are groaning under the burden imposed upon them by the ‘assistance’ rendered under the Marshall Plan? And what will the cruelly exploited American workers and farmers say to the following statement uttered by another Labour Party leader, Kenneth Younger: [7] ‘Much is being done in the United States which Europeans would call Socialism.’ (?!)
The declaration of the Right-wing Socialist International says vaguely, without indicating where: ‘In some countries the foundations of a socialist society have already been laid.’ Which countries does this refer to? Not to the Soviet Union, where socialist society was built long ago, nor to the People’s Democracies, where the foundations of socialist society are being laid with great success. This is brazenly denied in the declaration of the Frankfort International. Hence, the authors of the declaration mean some of the capitalist countries, evidently, Great Britain and the United States.
This was made perfectly clear by Spaak, [8] the leader of the Belgian Right-wing Socialists, who, after crossing the Atlantic, announced to the world that in America ‘millionaires are gradually disappearing’ and that ‘American capitalism is achieving socialist objects’.
Such are the lengths to which the Right-wing Socialists go in their mendacious boosting of Americanism. The question is: why do they indulge in this high-powered boosting? Is it only out of obsequiousness to the American imperialists? Of course, they are grovelling at the feet of the American imperialists, for they know that their political careers in their own countries nowadays depend primarily upon the goodwill of the trans-Atlantic millionaires and their emissaries. But why call these grasping moneygrubbers ‘builders of Socialism'? It is, probably, no more flattering to them than it would be to a Chicago gangster if he were called ‘holy father’. Obviously, therefore, they have some other aim in view.
Evidently, the main object of this boosting of American imperialism as ‘Socialism’ is to deceive the socialist workers of Europe. The artful dodgers of the Frankfort International (formerly the COMISCO) [9] are attempting by means of this mendacious boosting of American imperialism to make the latter popular in the eyes of the West-European workers who hate the capitalists, but who do not know sufficiently well the worst of all exploiters, namely, the American monopolists.
Everything goes to show that this propagandist function undertaken by the corrupt bourgeois socialists is closely linked (by golden chains) with Mr Acheson’s [10] notorious ‘total diplomacy’. According to reports published in the British press, emanating from the British Foreign Office, James E Webb, [11] Acheson’s Undersecretary, during his visit to London, told Herbert Morrison, [12] then British Foreign Secretary, that the United States government would also like to see closer cooperation between the Yugoslav Tito group [13] and the Right-wing International that is under the leadership of the British Labour Party. Webb said that this would strengthen the political groups in Europe through which the United States and British governments could conduct their propaganda among the workers.
But will even costly propaganda be of much use when the American imperialists are bossing the show in the West-European countries with such arrogance that nothing can conceal their rapacity? And at home, in Washington, as is well known, they shout so loudly about their plans of world conquest that they can be heard in all five parts of the globe. We recall that even Acheson, their chief diplomat, in a radio broadcast he delivered on 10 September, last year, declared: ‘I believe that with modern weapons and ingenuity we can do again exactly what was done for so many centuries at the time of the Roman Empire.’
After such outpourings from the lips of the official leaders of American foreign policy it is, of course, hellish hard for the spellbinders of the Socialist International to prove to the workers that there is no American imperialism, and that it is not aspiring to world domination.
It is not surprising that indignation is growing rapidly among the masses of the working people in all West-European countries against the tremendous influx of American emissaries — all kinds of advisers, profiteers, spies, senators, military and police officials, in short, all the importunate and grasping agents of the American plutocracy. In spite of the desperate pro-American propaganda efforts of the Right-wing Socialists, the voice of the masses is being heard crying even more loudly and imperatively: ‘Out with the American imperialists!’ ‘Yankees, go home!’
Gravediggers of National Sovereignty and Independence
The sovereignty of the old West-European countries is a hindrance to the rapid execution of the United States’ plans for expansion in Europe.
It is true that, far from resisting, the governments of these countries are facilitating the execution of these predatory American plans. The Cabinet Ministers and big capitalists of Europe are selling the economic and cultural interests of their respective countries to the American monopolies. Those branches of industry which compete with American capital, particularly those in France, Belgium and Italy, are being wound up; productive forces are being destroyed; the economy of these countries is being transformed into an appendage of American capitalism.
When all this is achieved through the complicated machine of continuous negotiation between the local and American magnates, the latter have to keep on haggling all the time, they have to keep on greasing the works, ladling out palm oil. This, of course, is a tiresome and costly business. It would be far more convenient to arrange matters in the way the emissaries of the Morgans and Rockefellers are accustomed to arrange them in countries which have been robbed of their sovereignty, like the Philippines, and many of the Latin-American countries. There, the American magnates simply say what they want and the local ones understand at once what they have to do... It is so convenient when there is no sovereignty!
Another inconvenience in sovereign capitalist countries is that their rulers, even the most obliging, are often compelled to resort to all sorts of manoeuvres to carry out the demands of the Americans because the people in these countries are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices. This also retards American expansion.
The American imperialists are determined to rob the peoples of Western Europe of their national sovereignty. They have been trying to do this for the past five or six years. To facilitate their expansion they want to secure the removal of all customs barriers, to redraw the state frontiers of the old European countries and arbitrarily to group them into mandated ‘Beneluxes’ [14] under American rule. Hence, they must secure the abolition of the national sovereignty of these countries.
But national sovereignty has proved to be as hard as ivory, and to be able to gnaw through it one must have the teeth of a dog, and it takes lots of time. That is why the Right-wing Socialists were called in to do the job. Some of the more enterprising of them have repeatedly tried their teeth on it during the past few years, and the subject has been much discussed at the conference and on commissions of the COMISCO, but nothing came of it. So it was decided to mobilise a whole International for the purpose. The congress of the Frankfort International adopted and proclaimed the following decision: ‘The system of unlimited national sovereignty must be overcome.’
The word ‘unlimited’ in this decision did not drop in by chance. Since this is a delicate matter, the liquidators of national sovereignty wanted to express themselves in the most cautious terms, as much as to say: we do not want to abolish all sovereignty, but only ‘unlimited’ sovereignty; we are willing to allow some of it to remain. How much they want to abolish and how much to leave they, of course, prefer not to say, because however little of its sovereignty any nation retained the American monopolists would consider it too much.
Thus, the Right-wing Socialist International has proclaimed itself an agency for liquidating the national sovereignty of the French, British, Italian, Belgian, Dutch, Scandinavian and other peoples. This means that the ‘Socialists’ in every non-American country have undertaken the task of ‘overcoming’ the unwillingness of their nation to sell its sovereignty.
This task is, of course, beyond their strength. Where will they find a sovereign nation that is willing to surrender its sovereignty? The traitors to their nations may argue until they are black in the face that sovereignty is an ‘outmoded idea’, but the people will persist in retorting: ‘Not for sale!’
What do they offer in exchange for the sovereignty of the independent nations? A ‘new world order’, which is to be created under the aegis of the American monopolists. But the American monopolists themselves cannot decently disguise the fact that they want to abolish the sovereignty of other countries in order to impose their own sovereignty upon all countries.
And so it turns out that the enigmatic picture of a ‘new world order’ painted by the masters of the Frankfort School is nothing more than the futurist cover of an advertising prospectus of American world domination. Of course, the prospectus promises everybody the possibility of obtaining both ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ in instalments, but every man who knows anything at all, knows perfectly well that there can be no freedom and democracy where American or any other imperialism rules.
As regards the attitude of the ‘Socialist’ International towards the struggle the colonial and dependent countries are waging for national independence, it is very characteristic that in its declaration of ‘aims and objects’ it carefully avoids using the word ‘independence’. True, the declaration talks about the struggle for ‘liberation’, and against ‘the subjection and exploitation of any nation’, but it studiously avoids answering the question: is the Socialist International for or against the national independence of the oppressed nations?
The opportunists of the old Second International often promised the colonial peoples independence, although they always broke their promise; but the 1951 International does not even promise this. Why? Because they grudge a few extra words?
No. The reason is that the American imperialists strongly dislike the slogan of independence for the colonial countries. They are not averse to advocating the ‘liberation’ of some colony or other that is ruled by, say, British or French imperialism, but they assert that there is no subjection and exploitation in the American colonies; such scandalous things are to be found only in non-American colonies, they say. Hence, Washington has no objection to calls for the ‘liberation’ of colonies and for the liquidation of ‘subjection and exploitation’ in them if these calls are couched in general terms, and without any reference to the American colonies. The call for a struggle for the independence of the colonial and dependent countries, however, smacks of revolt against imperialist oppression! The American aspirants to world domination have learned, particularly in China, how dangerous it is for imperialism when an oppressed nation rises to wage a determined struggle for national independence. Even in the Philippines, to whom the United States government granted a charter of nominal ‘independence’, the people are still fighting for real independence.
Naturally, therefore, the gentlemen in Washington no longer tolerate the slogan of a struggle for the independence of the oppressed nations even as mere propaganda. Consequently, the abettors of imperialism, the Right-wing Socialists, also had to stop playing with this slogan in their propaganda.
But in spite of all the efforts of the imperialists and their Right-wing socialist agents, all the nations that are oppressed by the imperialists will continue and intensify their struggle for complete national freedom and independence.
There can be no doubt that the plan to subjugate the freedom-loving nations and to establish an imperialist ‘new world order’ will fail. The first attempt to impose such a ‘new order’ upon mankind — the insane attempt made by German fascist imperialism and its abettors — failed ignominiously. The present plan of American imperialism and its abettors is no less insane, and is doomed to the same ignominious failure.
Abettors of the Instigators of a New World War
During the past few years, since the movement of the vast masses of the working people in defence of peace began in all countries, the Right-wing Socialists everywhere fiercely opposed the struggle for peace in any form. They prohibited the members of their parties from supporting the defence of peace slogan. [15] The struggle for peace had got on the nerves of these social-democratic gentlemen to such a degree that they simply foamed at the mouth when they heard the word ‘peace’.
This was the case up to 1951. The reactionary leaders of Social-Democracy have now changed their tactics. The defence of peace roused the broad masses of the working people to such an extent that the Right-wing Socialists stood in danger of becoming completely isolated. Hence, they were compelled to unfurl the flag of peace in order to deceive the masses. This is what they did at the congress in Frankfort on the Main.
But have the Labour Party and Social-Democratic leaders abandoned their policy of opposing peace? Have they ceased to be the abettors of the American and British policy of preparing a new war? No, they have not.
They say that the preservation of peace is ‘the most urgent task of our times’, but actually they are continuing fiercely to attack every mass movement in support of peace and of the conclusion of a Five-Power Peace Pact.
One would have thought that people who call themselves representatives of democracy and of ‘democratic Socialism’ would support the settlement of disputes between countries by means of negotiation. Surely, there is no other democratic way of safeguarding peace.
But did the politicians at the Frankfort congress come out in favour of the settlement of disputes in international relations by negotiation? No, they did not. There is not a word in the documents of the congress about the necessity of negotiations between the Great Powers with the object of preserving peace. Does this not show that the claim of the Right-wing Socialists that they represent democracy and peace is sheer hypocrisy?
It is easy to guess why the Right-wing Socialists did not say a word about the necessity of peace by negotiation. Any statement on their part recommending negotiation might have, to some degree, weakened war propaganda; it would have embarrassed the United States and British governments which are sabotaging all the efforts of the Soviet government to reach a peaceful settlement of the major disputes in international relations. Moreover, such a statement by the Socialist International might have relaxed the tension in international relations and of the war hysteria in the United States, and Acheson and the armament manufacturers would not have thanked the clumsy European Social-Democrats for this.
Instead of calling for peace by negotiation, the congress called upon all the capitalist countries to unite and arm to the teeth. Morgan Phillips arrogantly stated that it is not worthwhile for the Social-Democrats even to think of cooperating with the USSR and the People’s Democracies.
The speeches delivered at the Frankfort congress breathed fierce hatred of the Soviet Union and the People’s Democracies. The Right-wing Socialists showed that the growing ties of friendship between the masses of the working people in the capitalist countries and the peoples who have freed themselves from the yoke of capitalism fill them with burning anger and alarm. The resolutions they passed drip with filthy slander against the Soviet Union, the People’s Democracies and the international communist movement.
All these outpourings of anger and hatred openly bore the character of incitement to war. Nevertheless, the congress unctuously declared that it ‘considers peace the basic aim of international Socialism’.
But did not the congress utterly expose its hypocrisy by its attitude on the Korean question, for example?
In Korea, as everybody knows, American troops, in conjunction with British and other troops, have been fighting for over a year to subjugate and exterminate the freedom-loving Korean people. The question is: what did the Right-wing socialist congress do to help bring about peace in Korea? Nothing. It did the very opposite. It shamelessly supported the war that is being waged by the American aggressors.
Its attitude on the question of reducing and controlling armaments was exactly the same. Instead of backing the demand of peace supporters for the reduction of armaments by all countries, the congress declared that the capitalist countries ‘must strengthen their military power’. To counteract the rising anger of the masses against the insane armaments drive of the imperialist countries, the Labour Party and Social-Democratic leaders decided to mobilise their International for the purpose of conducting raging propaganda in support of their governments’ programmes of rearmament and preparation for world war.
In his address, Morgan Phillips brazenly stated that it was the ‘moral duty’ of the Socialists of all countries to agree to the sacrifices entailed by rearmament. This may be the ‘moral duty’ of those ‘Socialists’ who have personally received an advance from their imperialist masters, but it is quite obvious that they have no right whatever to impose any duty upon the masses of the people to bring sacrifice to the altar of war.
It must be particularly emphasised that these pseudo-socialist ‘peacemakers’ are conducting propaganda in favour of unlimited arming by the imperialist powers and of the employment of the most barbarous methods of exterminating the people. They have fought and are continuing to fight furiously the demand of peace supporters for the prohibition of atomic weapons. They have not uttered a single word in condemnation of the notorious plan of the American military authorities to employ in war poison gas and the bacteriological weapons they have borrowed from the Japanese war criminals.
It goes without saying that these people who pose as champions of peace strongly oppose the prohibition of war propaganda. When the legislatures in the Soviet Union and the People’s Democracies passed laws prohibiting war propaganda, the Right-wing socialist newspapers, in chorus, denounced these laws as unwarranted restriction of ‘freedom’. But who wants freedom to conduct war propaganda? Only the imperialists and their agents. For the cause of peace it is harmful.
Can the Right-wing Socialists consent to the prohibition of war propaganda? Of course not. That would mean prohibiting the chief function they perform in the service of international imperialist reaction.
Lies and Slander: The Weapons of the Aggressors
As we know, a characteristic idea current among the Hitlerite leaders in fascist Germany was that it is more profitable in politics to resort to big lies rather than to small ones because, they argued, the people are more likely to believe big lies. Acting up to this idea they, for example, organised the burning of the Reichstag and then accused the Communists of this crime. They also often employed the ‘big lie’ method in foreign policy. This method of political gangsters and provocateurs is now being widely employed by the Anglo-American warmongers, including the Right-wing Socialists.
The slanders and lies to which the present-day imperialists resort in their foreign policy are not simply camouflage to cover up their real aims, they are actual weapons. At the very time that the Japanese imperialists were preparing to invade China, General Araki, [16] one of their most prominent leaders, said: ‘We Japanese are apostles of peace. We have not the slightest intention of attacking other countries.’ This was a simple lie. Had Araki said that China was planning aggression against Japan, and that the latter was therefore preparing for ‘defence’, it would have been a complex lie, so to speak.
The present-day imperialists resort to all sorts of lies. We know that even Truman and Attlee [17] try to camouflage their aggressive policy with olive branches, but for their purposes ordinary camouflage is not enough, because, firstly, they cannot conceal from the peoples the fact that the American and British governments are preparing a new world war; their military-strategical preparations: war budgets, armaments drive, remilitarisation of Germany and Japan, military alliances, American naval and air bases in all parts of the world, and so forth, have assumed such vast dimensions that they cannot be concealed. Secondly, they cannot give up their war propaganda, which also glaringly exposes their aggressive aims. But since they must find some justification for their war policy, what can they do to deceive the masses?
Here falsehood again comes to the rescue of the imperialists. They thought of the following: we can proclaim ourselves the defending side and the peaceful countries against which we are preparing aggression as the aggressors. Then everything will be in order, and on the plea of ‘defence’ we can continue instigating war and our practical preparations for a war of aggression...
As we know, the American and British aggressors are employing this lie in connection with Korea. They have proclaimed the Korean people, who are defending their country, as aggressors, and are brazenly shouting that the American and British troops who have been sent to Korea to kill the Koreans and to seize their country are defending America and Britain! The Americans seized the Chinese island of Taiwan and bombed Chinese towns and villages, but on encountering detachments of Chinese volunteers in Korea they proclaimed the Chinese People’s Republic an aggressor!
The Right-wing Socialists in particular took a fancy to this lie. They became so enamoured of it that at the Frankfort congress they decided to add their mite to it. They proclaimed that the aggressor in the war in Korea is the... Cominform! Mr Morgan Phillips, the dashing leader of the International, went even further and proclaimed Russia the aggressor in Korea! This is the limit.
Thus, the imperialists and their socialist henchmen found a ‘convenient’ means of military and political attack upon the nations they have chosen as the objects of their imperialist aggression. Lies and slander are now officially accepted weapons in the arsenal of the North-Atlantic military alliance, on a par with atomic bombs, poison gas and plague germs. With the aid of these weapons they can proclaim any war of aggression they launch as the ‘aggression of the Cominform’, or as ‘Russian aggression’.
Whether such a lie is worth anything is another question. The entire ‘method’ is based on bare assertions. For example: everybody knows that from the moment it came into existence the Cominform has been fighting for lasting peace among the nations, but the Right-wing socialist congress blatantly asserted that the Cominform’s policy compelled all the ‘free democracies’ (meaning the United States, Great Britain and their satellites) to attach first-class importance to military defence. The congress, of course, adduced nothing in support of this mendacious statement, and did not even attempt to do so.
This congress also backed the well-known fable that the countries in the North-Atlantic Alliance are arming in order to ‘avert the war’ which, they allege, the Soviet Union and the People’s Democracies are planning. But could they adduce any facts to support their claim that the United States, or Great Britain, or any other country in the North-Atlantic Alliance, is threatened? No, they could not. They themselves do not believe that any such danger exists. The Soviet Union is not building war bases in other countries around the United States or Great Britain; but the United States is building such bases everywhere around the Soviet Union.
Thousands of facts prove that the Soviet Union is pursuing a policy of peace. All the pronouncements and proposals made by the Soviet representatives in the United Nations testify to the undeviating efforts of the Soviet government to safeguard peace. The United States and British governments, however, mobilising the support of the states that are dependent upon them, are more and more converting the United Nations into an instrument of aggressive war. As a consequence, as Comrade Stalin has pointed out, the United Nations is ceasing to be a world organisation of equal nations, is killing its moral prestige, and is dooming itself to collapse.
In the interview he gave a Pravda correspondent in February 1951, Comrade Stalin exposed the favourite lie of that most outstanding leader of the bourgeois Socialists Attlee, then British Prime Minister. Comrade Stalin said:
Premier Attlee has to lie about the Soviet Union, he has to make out that the peaceful policy of the Soviet Union is an aggressive policy, and that the aggressive policy of the British government is a peaceful policy, in order to mislead the British people, force upon them these lies about the USSR, and thus inveigle them by deceit into a new world war, which the ruling circles of the United States of America are engineering. [18]
Evidently, Mr Attlee and his partners think that the people will believe his lies. Falsehood in politics is a sign of weakness, not of strength. The lies the Anglo-American imperialists tell are whoppers, but they all the more easily burst like soap bubbles.
American intervention in Korea has given the people of all countries a glaring example of the employment of the ‘big lie’ method by the imperialists, and since then the ‘secret’ of this despicable weapon has been discovered by the broad masses, thus paving the way for its utter exposure.
* * *
In face of all these facts it is not difficult to answer the question as to whether the present ‘Socialist International’ is the resurrected old Second International or a new revelation. It is undoubtedly the natural offspring of the Second International, which was the international agency of the bourgeoisie in the working-class movement. From the day the first socialist state in the world was set up, the Second International, to the end of its days, was a counter-revolutionary body hostile to Socialism. Its offspring is following in its footsteps.
From the moment it came into existence, the new International became one of the most zealous detachments of the bodyguard of present-day imperialism. Its leaders curry favour with the most reactionary section of the bourgeoisie. The Right-wing Socialist International has already shown that it is an agency of the most aggressive imperialism in the world, namely, American imperialism. The chief and immediate function of this International is to incite aggressive war against the entire camp of democracy and Socialism.
Hence, the new Right-wing Socialist International contains a lot of new knavery.
All the more reason, therefore, have not only the Communist Parties of all countries, but also all honest Socialists, and all peace supporters, to secure by their ceaseless educational activities among the working people the complete isolation of the pseudo-socialist abettors of the warmongers, for they are the worst enemies of peace, democracy and Socialism.
Notes
1. John Jay McCloy (1895-1989) was a lawyer and banker who served as US Assistant Secretary of War during the Second World War, President of the World Bank during 1947-49, and US High Commissioner for Germany during 1949-52, during which time the Federal Republic of Germany was established and many Nazis convicted of war crimes were either pardoned or had their sentences reduced.
2. Konrad Hermann Joseph Adenauer (1876-1967) was a lawyer and a prominent member of the Centre Party in Weimar Germany and mayor of Cologne during 1917-33. He led the Christian Democratic Union from its formation in 1946. The CDU received the largest vote in the first West German elections, held in 1949, and Adenauer served as Chancellor from then until 1963.
3. Morgan Walter Phillips (1902-1963) became Secretary of the Labour Party in 1944, holding the post until 1961. He became the Secretary of the Socialist International upon its formation in 1948, holding the post until 1957.
4. See http://www.socialistinternational.org.
5. Norman Mattoon Thomas (1884-1968) joined the Socialist Party of America during the First World War, and became its figurehead, standing as its Presidential candidate six times. A Christian reformist socialist, he was at this juncture subject to harsh criticism by the official communist movement.
6. Harry S Truman (1884-1972), a Democrat, was US Vice-President during 1945 and President during 1945-53.
7. Kenneth Gilmour Younger (1908-1976), a barrister, was elected in 1945 as a Labour MP, and in 1950 became Acting Foreign Secretary when Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin fell ill.
8. Paul Henri Charles Spaak (1899-1972) joined the Belgian Workers Party in 1920, became a government minister in 1935, and was Prime Minister during 1938-39, 1946 and 1947-49, and Foreign Minister during 1939-49, 1954-58 and 1961-66. He was Secretary-General of NATO during 1957-61.
9. In 1947 the International Socialist Conference (COMISCO) was set up in order to coordinate the activities of social-democratic parties. It formed the basis of the Socialist International, which was formally established in July 1951.
10. Dean Gooderham Acheson (1893-1971) was US Secretary of State under President Truman during 1949-53 and helped elaborate US foreign policy during the Cold War, especially in respect of the Marshall Plan and the establishment of NATO.
11. James E Webb (1906-1992) worked in various private sector bodies and US federal organisations before becoming Undersecretary of State during 1949-53. He subsequently headed NASA.
12. Herbert Stanley Morrison (1888-1965) was a Labour MP during 1923-24, 1929-31 and 1935-59. He was Home Secretary during 1940-45, Deputy Prime Minister during 1945-51 and Foreign Secretary during 1951.
13. Yugoslavia had been expelled from the Cominform in June 1949, and Josip Broz Tito (1892-1980), at this juncture Chairman of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, was thereafter considered by Moscow to be a renegade of the worst kind, until a reconciliation took place after Stalin’s death.
14. Benelux was the name given to the customs union established in 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg.
15. For example, the British Peace Committee organised a World Peace Conference in Sheffield in November 1950. The Labour Party threatened to expel any member who attended it, and the Labour government barred many overseas visitors to the conference from entering Britain.
16. Baron Sadao Araki (1877-1966) was a career officer in the Japanese army and a fervent right-wing nationalist and anti-communist. He was Minister of War and then Minister of Education during the 1930s. He was sentenced for war crimes after the Second World War.
17. Clement Richard Attlee (1883-1967) was a Labour MP during 1922-55, Leader of the Labour Party during 1935-55, and Prime Minister during 1945-51.
18. JV Stalin, ‘Interview with a Pravda Correspondent’ (17 February 1951).
Rajani Palme Archive
|
./articles/Kuusinen-Otto/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.kuusinen.1923.02.circular | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../index.htm">Kuusinen</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>O.W. Kuusinen</h2>
<h4>E.C.C.I.</h4>
<h1>Circular addressed by the Comintern<br>
to its affiliated Sections</h1>
<h3>(18 January 1923)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info">From <strong>International Press Correspondence</strong>, <a href="../../../../history/international/comintern/inprecor/1923/v03n16-feb-15-1923-Inprecor-yxr.pdf" target="new">Vol. 3 No. 16</a>, 15 February 1923, pp. 129–130.<br>
Transcribed & marked up by <a href="../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Marxists’ Internet Archive</strong>.<br>
<span class="info">Public Domain:</span> Marxists Internet Archive (2021). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">Dear Comrades!</p>
<p>The joint appeal of the Comintern and the Profintern on the fight against Fascism is being sent you by today’s post</p>
<p>The fundamental questions are dealt with in the appeal. Here we shall only emphasize the necessity of practical organizatory work in the struggle against Fascism. (Demonstrations, mass meetings, systematic press campaigns, etc.) The labor organizations in Italy’s neighbour slates have a special responsibility. Thanks to their proximity, these labor organizations can do much lor the struggle against Fascism, and for their Italian comrades.</p>
<p>In addition to this, it is imperative that every possible material aid be lent to the Italian workers in their fight against their oppressors. The Comintern and the Profintern have decided to create an international fighting fund against Fascism. Every organization affiliated to the Comintern is called upon to devote a lump sum to this purpose, and to organize continuous collections of money for this fund. The money will be given to those organizations which are carrying on revolutionary work against Fascism.</p>
<p>The Committee of Action of the Comintern and Profinfern will issue further instructions as to how and to whom the money collected is to be delivered.</p>
<table width="100%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3">
<tbody><tr>
<td width="60%">
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p class="fst">With communist greetings,<br>
Secretariat of the Executive Committee<br>
of the Communist International<br>
<em>O.W. Kuusinen</em></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p class="fst">Moscow, January 18, 1923</p>
<h4>* * *</h4>
<h3>Statutes for the collection and administration<br>
of the International Fighting Fund against Fascism</h3>
<p class="fst">1. In accordance with resolutions passed at a joint session of the executives of the Communist International and the Red International of Labor Unions, an international fighting fund against fascism is formed.</p>
<p class="fst">2. The object of the fighting fund is to raise the means for energetically fighting Fascism, and to lend pecuniary support to all proletarian organizations and revolutionary groups engaged in direct combat with Fascism. At present, only the Italian labor organizations are involved in the active fight against Fascism. </p>
<p class="fst">3. Money for the fighting fund is to be raised:</p>
<ol type="a">
<li>by grants from the central treasuries of the various organizations.</li>
<li>by the collection of money, among the proletariat of all countries, through subscription lists.</li>
</ol>
<p class="fst">4. All proletarian organizations, in all countries, are to be appealed to, to take part in the collection.</p>
<p class="fst">5. A committee is to be formed in every country to organize the collection of money, on which every labor organization of whatever political tendency participating in the’ collection shall have at least one representative.</p>
<p class="fst">6. Only these national committees have the right to issue collection forms, which must be numbered and provided with a stamp. All monies and subscription forms must be delivered up io the national committee in each country. The receipt of the money collected on the collection lists is to be publicly acknowledged in the labor press of the country in question.</p>
<p class="fst">7. The headquarters of the international fighting fund are in Berlin. The Executive Committee consists of one representative each from the various political and trade union internationals taking part in the collection. The central committee appoints two general treasurers and the auditors, and assumes the duty of administering the fund and of publishing periodical accounts of the monies received.</p>
<p class="fst">8. The national committees have to pay over all their monies to the central committee.</p>
<p class="fst">9. The central committee decides on the expenditure and distribution of the monies.</p>
<p class="c"><strong>*</strong></p>
<p class="fst">The R.I.L.U. has already opened the fund with a contribution of 10,000 gold roubles (about 5,000 dollars).</p>
<h4>* * *</h4>
<a name="memel"></a>
<h3>Declaration of the Communist International regarding<br>
the alleged “Section of the Comintern” in Memel</h3>
<p class="fst">A so-called “United German-Lithuanian Socialist Labor Party for the Memel district, III. International” has made its appearance in Memel, and has instigated an uprising for the purpose of affiliating the Memel district to Lithuania.</p>
<p>The Executive Committee of the Communist International proclaims io the general public, and especially to the workers of the Memel district in Lithuania, that there exists no such organization of the Third International in the Memel district. It is solely a despicable provocation on the part of the Lithuanian nationalists, who do not venture to come forward in their own names, but hope to serve their purpose better by acting under the cloak of the Third International, whose followers are persecuted in Lithuania with greater severity than in Tsariat times, and who are tortured in the prisons.</p>
<table width="100%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3">
<tbody><tr>
<td width="35%">
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p class="fst"><strong>The Executive Committee of the Communist International</strong><br>
<em>O.W. Kuusinen</em> (Secretary)</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on 8 July 2021</p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > Kuusinen
O.W. Kuusinen
E.C.C.I.
Circular addressed by the Comintern
to its affiliated Sections
(18 January 1923)
From International Press Correspondence, Vol. 3 No. 16, 15 February 1923, pp. 129–130.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2021). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
Dear Comrades!
The joint appeal of the Comintern and the Profintern on the fight against Fascism is being sent you by today’s post
The fundamental questions are dealt with in the appeal. Here we shall only emphasize the necessity of practical organizatory work in the struggle against Fascism. (Demonstrations, mass meetings, systematic press campaigns, etc.) The labor organizations in Italy’s neighbour slates have a special responsibility. Thanks to their proximity, these labor organizations can do much lor the struggle against Fascism, and for their Italian comrades.
In addition to this, it is imperative that every possible material aid be lent to the Italian workers in their fight against their oppressors. The Comintern and the Profintern have decided to create an international fighting fund against Fascism. Every organization affiliated to the Comintern is called upon to devote a lump sum to this purpose, and to organize continuous collections of money for this fund. The money will be given to those organizations which are carrying on revolutionary work against Fascism.
The Committee of Action of the Comintern and Profinfern will issue further instructions as to how and to whom the money collected is to be delivered.
With communist greetings,
Secretariat of the Executive Committee
of the Communist International
O.W. Kuusinen
Moscow, January 18, 1923
* * *
Statutes for the collection and administration
of the International Fighting Fund against Fascism
1. In accordance with resolutions passed at a joint session of the executives of the Communist International and the Red International of Labor Unions, an international fighting fund against fascism is formed.
2. The object of the fighting fund is to raise the means for energetically fighting Fascism, and to lend pecuniary support to all proletarian organizations and revolutionary groups engaged in direct combat with Fascism. At present, only the Italian labor organizations are involved in the active fight against Fascism.
3. Money for the fighting fund is to be raised:
by grants from the central treasuries of the various organizations.
by the collection of money, among the proletariat of all countries, through subscription lists.
4. All proletarian organizations, in all countries, are to be appealed to, to take part in the collection.
5. A committee is to be formed in every country to organize the collection of money, on which every labor organization of whatever political tendency participating in the’ collection shall have at least one representative.
6. Only these national committees have the right to issue collection forms, which must be numbered and provided with a stamp. All monies and subscription forms must be delivered up io the national committee in each country. The receipt of the money collected on the collection lists is to be publicly acknowledged in the labor press of the country in question.
7. The headquarters of the international fighting fund are in Berlin. The Executive Committee consists of one representative each from the various political and trade union internationals taking part in the collection. The central committee appoints two general treasurers and the auditors, and assumes the duty of administering the fund and of publishing periodical accounts of the monies received.
8. The national committees have to pay over all their monies to the central committee.
9. The central committee decides on the expenditure and distribution of the monies.
*
The R.I.L.U. has already opened the fund with a contribution of 10,000 gold roubles (about 5,000 dollars).
* * *
Declaration of the Communist International regarding
the alleged “Section of the Comintern” in Memel
A so-called “United German-Lithuanian Socialist Labor Party for the Memel district, III. International” has made its appearance in Memel, and has instigated an uprising for the purpose of affiliating the Memel district to Lithuania.
The Executive Committee of the Communist International proclaims io the general public, and especially to the workers of the Memel district in Lithuania, that there exists no such organization of the Third International in the Memel district. It is solely a despicable provocation on the part of the Lithuanian nationalists, who do not venture to come forward in their own names, but hope to serve their purpose better by acting under the cloak of the Third International, whose followers are persecuted in Lithuania with greater severity than in Tsariat times, and who are tortured in the prisons.
The Executive Committee of the Communist International
O.W. Kuusinen (Secretary)
Top of the page
Last updated on 8 July 2021
|
./articles/Kuusinen-Otto/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.trotsky.1923.03.ecci | <body text="black" bgcolor="white" link="#0000EE" vlink="#007FF0" alink="#0000EE">
<h2>Trotzky, Radek, Bukharin <em>et al.</em></h2>
<h4>E.C.C.I.</h4>
<table width="80%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" align="center">
<tbody><tr>
<td>
<h1>To Comrades Cachin, Monmousseou, Treint, Semard, Jacob, Hueber, Massot, Marrane-Gourdeaux, Lartigue, Cazals, Ker, Pietri, Paguereaux</h1>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<h3>(13 March 1923)</h3>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="information"><span class="info">Source:</span> <a href="../../../../history/international/comintern/inprecor/1923/v03n25-mar-13-1923-Inprecor-loc.pdf" target="new">Vol. 3 No. 25</a>, 13 March 1923, p. 194.<br>
<span class="info">Transcription/HTML Markup:</span> <a href="../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <a href="../../index.htm"><em>Trotsky Internet Archive</em></a>.<br>
<span class="info">Copyleft:</span> Leon Trotsky Internet Archive (www.marxists.org) 2021. Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of the <a href="../../../../admin/legal/cc/by-sa.htm" target="new">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0</a>.</p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<br>
<p class="fst">Dear friends,</p>
<p class="erst">We the undersigned, send you our heartiest fraternal greetings and the expression of our profoundest appreciation of your courageous attitude. The French Communist Party and the C.G.T.U. have saved the honor of the French proletariat through you. Everywhere where your action is known your names are held in highest honor by the elite of the proletariat. We are fully convinced that your trial will prove to be the trial of the imperialist bourgeoisie and its agents of the 2nd and Amsterdam Internationals.</p>
<table cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" width="100%">
<tbody><tr>
<td width="40%">
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p class="erst"><strong>For the Executive Committee of the Communist International.</strong><br>
<em>Trotzky, Radek, Bukharin, Kuusinen, Gramsci, Hörnle, Mac Manus, Hula, Schatzkin.</em></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<hr>
<h3><img src="../../works/return2.jpg" alt="return" border="1" width="400" height="139" usemap="#return2B298067E"><map id="return2B298067E" name="return2B298067E">
<area coords="300,-3,491,134" alt="return" shape="rect" href="../../index.htm">
<area coords="-3,1,96,136" alt="return" shape="rect" href="../../../index.htm">
<area coords="103,77,296,119" alt="return" shape="rect" href="../../../index.htm">
<area coords="102,8,295,51" alt="return" shape="rect" href="../../index.htm">
</map><br>
</h3>
<p class="updat">Last updated on: 10 August 2021</p>
</body> |
Trotzky, Radek, Bukharin et al.
E.C.C.I.
To Comrades Cachin, Monmousseou, Treint, Semard, Jacob, Hueber, Massot, Marrane-Gourdeaux, Lartigue, Cazals, Ker, Pietri, Paguereaux
(13 March 1923)
Source: Vol. 3 No. 25, 13 March 1923, p. 194.
Transcription/HTML Markup: Einde O’Callaghan for the Trotsky Internet Archive.
Copyleft: Leon Trotsky Internet Archive (www.marxists.org) 2021. Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0.
Dear friends,
We the undersigned, send you our heartiest fraternal greetings and the expression of our profoundest appreciation of your courageous attitude. The French Communist Party and the C.G.T.U. have saved the honor of the French proletariat through you. Everywhere where your action is known your names are held in highest honor by the elite of the proletariat. We are fully convinced that your trial will prove to be the trial of the imperialist bourgeoisie and its agents of the 2nd and Amsterdam Internationals.
For the Executive Committee of the Communist International.
Trotzky, Radek, Bukharin, Kuusinen, Gramsci, Hörnle, Mac Manus, Hula, Schatzkin.
Last updated on: 10 August 2021
|
./articles/Kuusinen-Otto/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.kuusinen.1922.11.avantgarde | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../index.htm">Kuusinen</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>O.W. Kuusinen</h2>
<h1>The Avant-guard</h1>
<h3>(24 November 1922)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info">From <strong>International Press Correspondence</strong>, <a href="../../../../history/international/comintern/inprecor/1922/v02n102-nov-24-1922-Inprecor.pdf" target="new">Vol. 2 No. 102</a>, 24 November 1922, pp. 823–824.<br>
Transcribed & marked up by <a href="../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Marxists’ Internet Archive</strong>.<br>
<span class="info">Public Domain:</span> Marxists Internet Archive (2021). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">What were the principal dangers that threatened to strangle the first Proletarian Revolution in Russia during the first years of its existence?</p>
<p>First of all, the external and internal enemies of the Proletarian Revolution were at the door. The second danger lay in the fear that the revolutionary forces might be dissolved and dissipated in chaos.</p>
<p>The external enemies at the beginning were divided into two hostile camps, and the Soviet government at that time succeeded in tying the offensive force of its nearest principal enemy – German imperialism – by means of the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk. To the other enemies of the Proletarian Revolution who were continually cropping up in fresh legions like the notorious Czecho-Slovakian legion, an insurmountable barrier was erected through the formation of the Red Army. The latter task in itself necessitated everywhere the guiding activity of the politically conscious elements. The same thing applies to the other branches of Soviet activity. The entire Soviet organization was originally a loosely connected elemental force which necessitated tremendous efforts to transform it gradually into the mighty Soviet system. Who was capable of giving uniform guidance to this work?</p>
<p>This was accomplished by the Russian Communist Party. The saving of the Proletarian Revolution was the work of millions of proletarians. The victorious leadership of these millions was the task of the Russian Communist Party.</p>
<p>A retrospective glance at the task and difficulties of the young Soviet Power in its gigantic scope is sufficient to give an inkling of the danger of disintegration of the revolutionary forces. When now, in little Austria the great masters of the 2½ International and the foremost experts of social-treachery are continually whining: “we could any day take power into our hands, but the thousand and one difficulties of governing that would immediately arise would cause us to relinquish the power ”, one cannot help reflecting: “Well, what ought our Russian comrades to say about their difficulties?”</p>
<p>Our Russian comrades threw themselves into the immense Soviet activity without even having a moment’s time to talk about their difficulties. towards the middle of 1918 this slogan was recognized in all its scope and poignancy, and the slogan of: “Back into the Party” was the rallying call to the political vanguard. The Party organization had for a long time been relegated to the background by the stress of excessive Soviet work. But it became evident that only the work of the Party could bring uniformity into the revolutionary activity. The Party was confronted with the dilemma of either being driven by the elemental process of the revolutionary forces. Without reliable guidance the revolution was heading for failure, and only a strongly welded party organization could effectively assume the leadership.</p>
<p>The role of the revolutionary workers’ party as the leader of the class struggle is on the whole one of the most important facts brought home to us by the example of the Russian Communist Party. At the same time the Russian Communist Party carried forward the development of Marxian theory and practice. It is true that the <b>Communist Manifesto</b> in its day gave a theoretical outline of the essential tasks of the Communists, by describing them as “ the most resolute and constant force for progress in all countries”, who “fight for the achievement of the immediate aims and interests of the working class, yet at the same time see in the present phase of the movement also its future”. Yet Marx could not lay down any fixed lines of party organization. At the time of the <b>Communist Manifesto</b> and the First International, the labor parties were as yet either little sects or loosely connected groupings and currents, not one of which represented – the Party in the larger historical sense”.</p>
<p>In the period of capitalist development which followed, there sprang up in most countries the big Parliamentary Labor parties which pursued a reformist policy and were opposed by a narrow-minded, non-political or politically indifferent, trade-unionist movement. The onward march from this embryonic stage to that of a revolutionary workers’ party was effected only through the Russian Bolshevik Party.</p>
<p>The Russian comrades affectionately described their party as a vanguard. Indeed this mental picture describes both sides of the role of the party: marching forward at the head of the fighting masses without loosing contact with the masses, – standing in the first firing line of the masses fighting for their vital interests, without merging themselves in the masses.</p>
<p>This conception of the role of the party, thanks to the efforts of the Russian Communist Party, has become the dominant viewpoint of the revolutionary labor movement in most countries. It is true that in the ranks of revolutionary (and semi-revolutionary) Syndicalism a struggle is still going on against the principle that the party should play a leading role in the revolutionary class struggle. Yet at bottom it is not so much a struggle against the actual leadership of the party, but rather a wrestling, within the minds of the undeveloped revolutionaries against their old prejudices. Within the ranks of the Communist Party the viewpoint introduced by the Russian Communist Party is no longer questioned in debate (except perhaps for a few individual and stubborn opponents).</p>
<p>Yet it is one thing to recognize the correctness of a principle, and quite another thing to carry it out. It can hardly be claimed that all sections of the Comintern have adopted this principle in practice. On the contrary, in most countries there is keen discussion on this question, and partly even on the question whether “under present circumstances” there should be any innovations at all introduced in our old working methods. Properly speaking this was the cause of much of the factional strife in many sections of our Party, and the differences of opinion which have arisen temporarily between Parties and the Executive of the Comintern. This strife and clash of opinion is mostly a stimulus to the party on the forward march towards becoming a truly revolutionary Workers’ Party.</p>
<p>Thinking of the important lessons the other Communist parties (without exception) have already learned in this regard from the activity of the Russian Communist Party, one comes back to the idea of the urgent necessity of making the most important experiences of the Russian Communist Party widely known through popularly written publications.</p>
<p>This of course, does not mean, that the Russian Communist Party in its development as the vanguard of the proletarian revolution has reached the point of perfection. It is no secret that the Russian comrades themselves are of an altogether different opinion, as can be seen from the frank self-criticism in all their party discussions. No other party reveals such courage in its self-criticism and this of course is a sign of the political maturity of the Party.</p>
<p>The development of the Russian Communist Party is far from complete, yet the way and the manner of its development are to us extremely edifying. “Through work and struggle” – Oh yes, it is quite a simple matter to write this down on paper, but how uncommonly complex in practice. The Russian Communist Party has proved capable of asserting its authority through went and struggle, without any considerable friction of conflicts in the ranks. This is one lesson. It took its leading role in all seriousness, moulding the formal relations of Party members to their tasks and to the masses as an organised whole and substituting technical guidance for bureaucratic interference. This is another lesson. It has constantly striven to bring about the proper division of labor between the Party and the Soviet organs, finding the fitting work for party members in every field of activity, finding the suitable forces for any new and difficult tasks, and so on. finally there is much to be learned from the way in which the leading organs of the party have always been anxious to make timely discovery of any mistakes that may have been committed, constantly revising, and improving, and if need be, altering their form of activity.</p>
<p>The most weakly developed part of Russian politics was the ability to make judicious use of the forces available. Comrade Lenin twenty years ago, in his <i>Notes on the Consolidation and Development of Revolutionary Activity</i> gave prominent place to the importance of a proper division of labor and proper use of all available forces. In the course of the last twenty years, Lenin has done more than anyone else in the matter of organizing the leadership of the revolutionary class struggle of the proletariat. Everyone is aware of the enormous experience he has gained, particularly since 1917. And yet, after all his experiences, what was the main watchword at the last Congress of the Russian Communist Party?</p>
<p><i>Proper choice of men and control over the execution of the work!</i></p>
<p>Speaking of the lessons to be learned from the Russian Communist Party, it would be altogether inadequate to limit oneself to the one subject of the role of the Communist Party, indeed, there are equally valuable lessons to be learned in many other directions, it is instructive to know how the Russian Communist Party has found the happy way of uniting revolutionary figthing ardour with revolutionary adaptability: how it made this happy combination effective whenever and wherever it was put to the test. Then comes perhaps the most important lesson: the Marxian strategy of the revolutionary class struggle. Mention should be made of the manner in which the Russian Communist Party adopted the Marxian method and developed it further in the practice of the greater proletarian revolution.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on 3 January 2021</p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > Kuusinen
O.W. Kuusinen
The Avant-guard
(24 November 1922)
From International Press Correspondence, Vol. 2 No. 102, 24 November 1922, pp. 823–824.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2021). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
What were the principal dangers that threatened to strangle the first Proletarian Revolution in Russia during the first years of its existence?
First of all, the external and internal enemies of the Proletarian Revolution were at the door. The second danger lay in the fear that the revolutionary forces might be dissolved and dissipated in chaos.
The external enemies at the beginning were divided into two hostile camps, and the Soviet government at that time succeeded in tying the offensive force of its nearest principal enemy – German imperialism – by means of the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk. To the other enemies of the Proletarian Revolution who were continually cropping up in fresh legions like the notorious Czecho-Slovakian legion, an insurmountable barrier was erected through the formation of the Red Army. The latter task in itself necessitated everywhere the guiding activity of the politically conscious elements. The same thing applies to the other branches of Soviet activity. The entire Soviet organization was originally a loosely connected elemental force which necessitated tremendous efforts to transform it gradually into the mighty Soviet system. Who was capable of giving uniform guidance to this work?
This was accomplished by the Russian Communist Party. The saving of the Proletarian Revolution was the work of millions of proletarians. The victorious leadership of these millions was the task of the Russian Communist Party.
A retrospective glance at the task and difficulties of the young Soviet Power in its gigantic scope is sufficient to give an inkling of the danger of disintegration of the revolutionary forces. When now, in little Austria the great masters of the 2½ International and the foremost experts of social-treachery are continually whining: “we could any day take power into our hands, but the thousand and one difficulties of governing that would immediately arise would cause us to relinquish the power ”, one cannot help reflecting: “Well, what ought our Russian comrades to say about their difficulties?”
Our Russian comrades threw themselves into the immense Soviet activity without even having a moment’s time to talk about their difficulties. towards the middle of 1918 this slogan was recognized in all its scope and poignancy, and the slogan of: “Back into the Party” was the rallying call to the political vanguard. The Party organization had for a long time been relegated to the background by the stress of excessive Soviet work. But it became evident that only the work of the Party could bring uniformity into the revolutionary activity. The Party was confronted with the dilemma of either being driven by the elemental process of the revolutionary forces. Without reliable guidance the revolution was heading for failure, and only a strongly welded party organization could effectively assume the leadership.
The role of the revolutionary workers’ party as the leader of the class struggle is on the whole one of the most important facts brought home to us by the example of the Russian Communist Party. At the same time the Russian Communist Party carried forward the development of Marxian theory and practice. It is true that the Communist Manifesto in its day gave a theoretical outline of the essential tasks of the Communists, by describing them as “ the most resolute and constant force for progress in all countries”, who “fight for the achievement of the immediate aims and interests of the working class, yet at the same time see in the present phase of the movement also its future”. Yet Marx could not lay down any fixed lines of party organization. At the time of the Communist Manifesto and the First International, the labor parties were as yet either little sects or loosely connected groupings and currents, not one of which represented – the Party in the larger historical sense”.
In the period of capitalist development which followed, there sprang up in most countries the big Parliamentary Labor parties which pursued a reformist policy and were opposed by a narrow-minded, non-political or politically indifferent, trade-unionist movement. The onward march from this embryonic stage to that of a revolutionary workers’ party was effected only through the Russian Bolshevik Party.
The Russian comrades affectionately described their party as a vanguard. Indeed this mental picture describes both sides of the role of the party: marching forward at the head of the fighting masses without loosing contact with the masses, – standing in the first firing line of the masses fighting for their vital interests, without merging themselves in the masses.
This conception of the role of the party, thanks to the efforts of the Russian Communist Party, has become the dominant viewpoint of the revolutionary labor movement in most countries. It is true that in the ranks of revolutionary (and semi-revolutionary) Syndicalism a struggle is still going on against the principle that the party should play a leading role in the revolutionary class struggle. Yet at bottom it is not so much a struggle against the actual leadership of the party, but rather a wrestling, within the minds of the undeveloped revolutionaries against their old prejudices. Within the ranks of the Communist Party the viewpoint introduced by the Russian Communist Party is no longer questioned in debate (except perhaps for a few individual and stubborn opponents).
Yet it is one thing to recognize the correctness of a principle, and quite another thing to carry it out. It can hardly be claimed that all sections of the Comintern have adopted this principle in practice. On the contrary, in most countries there is keen discussion on this question, and partly even on the question whether “under present circumstances” there should be any innovations at all introduced in our old working methods. Properly speaking this was the cause of much of the factional strife in many sections of our Party, and the differences of opinion which have arisen temporarily between Parties and the Executive of the Comintern. This strife and clash of opinion is mostly a stimulus to the party on the forward march towards becoming a truly revolutionary Workers’ Party.
Thinking of the important lessons the other Communist parties (without exception) have already learned in this regard from the activity of the Russian Communist Party, one comes back to the idea of the urgent necessity of making the most important experiences of the Russian Communist Party widely known through popularly written publications.
This of course, does not mean, that the Russian Communist Party in its development as the vanguard of the proletarian revolution has reached the point of perfection. It is no secret that the Russian comrades themselves are of an altogether different opinion, as can be seen from the frank self-criticism in all their party discussions. No other party reveals such courage in its self-criticism and this of course is a sign of the political maturity of the Party.
The development of the Russian Communist Party is far from complete, yet the way and the manner of its development are to us extremely edifying. “Through work and struggle” – Oh yes, it is quite a simple matter to write this down on paper, but how uncommonly complex in practice. The Russian Communist Party has proved capable of asserting its authority through went and struggle, without any considerable friction of conflicts in the ranks. This is one lesson. It took its leading role in all seriousness, moulding the formal relations of Party members to their tasks and to the masses as an organised whole and substituting technical guidance for bureaucratic interference. This is another lesson. It has constantly striven to bring about the proper division of labor between the Party and the Soviet organs, finding the fitting work for party members in every field of activity, finding the suitable forces for any new and difficult tasks, and so on. finally there is much to be learned from the way in which the leading organs of the party have always been anxious to make timely discovery of any mistakes that may have been committed, constantly revising, and improving, and if need be, altering their form of activity.
The most weakly developed part of Russian politics was the ability to make judicious use of the forces available. Comrade Lenin twenty years ago, in his Notes on the Consolidation and Development of Revolutionary Activity gave prominent place to the importance of a proper division of labor and proper use of all available forces. In the course of the last twenty years, Lenin has done more than anyone else in the matter of organizing the leadership of the revolutionary class struggle of the proletariat. Everyone is aware of the enormous experience he has gained, particularly since 1917. And yet, after all his experiences, what was the main watchword at the last Congress of the Russian Communist Party?
Proper choice of men and control over the execution of the work!
Speaking of the lessons to be learned from the Russian Communist Party, it would be altogether inadequate to limit oneself to the one subject of the role of the Communist Party, indeed, there are equally valuable lessons to be learned in many other directions, it is instructive to know how the Russian Communist Party has found the happy way of uniting revolutionary figthing ardour with revolutionary adaptability: how it made this happy combination effective whenever and wherever it was put to the test. Then comes perhaps the most important lesson: the Marxian strategy of the revolutionary class struggle. Mention should be made of the manner in which the Russian Communist Party adopted the Marxian method and developed it further in the practice of the greater proletarian revolution.
Top of the page
Last updated on 3 January 2021
|
./articles/Kuusinen-Otto/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.kuusinen.1944.finland-unmasked | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a href="../../../index.htm" id="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../index.htm">Kuusinen</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>By OTTO KUUSINEN</h2>
<h4>FOREWORD by Ivor MONTAGU</h4>
<h2>25 YEARS OF ANTI‐SOVIET POLICY</h2>
<h1>FINLAND UNMASKED</h1>
<h3>(1944)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info"><b>Source:</b> Pamphlet published by <strong> London Caledonian Press Ltd., for the Russia Today Society, London</strong>, 1944.<br>
Transcribed & marked up by Johnny Essex for the <strong>Marxists’ Internet Archive</strong>.<br>
<span class="info">Public Domain:</span> Marxists Internet Archive(2021). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p> </p>
<h4>CONTENTS</h4>
<h4>INTRODUCTION</h4>
<h4>SOURCES OF FINLAND'S ANTI‐SOVIET POLICY </h4>
<h4>HOW FINLAND WAS HITCHED TO THE WAR CHARIOT OF GERMAN IMPERIALISM </h4>
<h4>HITLERITE FINLAND:</h4>
<h5> (i) GERMAN MASTERS—FINNISH FLUNKEYS </h5>
<h5> (ii) DEMOCRACY—HITLER STYLE</h5>
<h4>THE FINNISH GAMBLERS’DOOM </h4>
<p> </p>
<h4>INTRODUCTION</h4>
<p class="fst">IT is terribly important for democrats in Britain , just because so many of them were stampeded into making a mistake about Finland in 1939‐40, not to go ahead and make another one now.</p>
<p>It is terribly important for them to understand the truth about Finland , that underlies the deceptive façade.</p>
<p>Here is a country whose territory is being used to bomb and torpedo the convoys from Britain and the U.S.A., taking essential goods through to Russia to help save all those values that mean anything to all the civilised people in the world.</p>
<p>Everyone realises that if the people who rule Finland had their way , and achieved the object into winning which they threw all their country's resources, Hitler would be victorious and night would descend, horror and corruption and slavery engulf all our families.</p>
<p>And yet just because —in 1939–40—propaganda succeeded in taking in a lot of people and making them believe that Finland was somehow a peace‐loving little democracy and deserving of sympathy, these
same people now try to find excuses for shutting their eyes to what they really cannot help seeing very plainly.</p>
<p>And like suckers they try to invent all kinds of complicated fictions to account for the (supposedly) accidental presence of Finland on the side of wrong against right.</p>
<p>That is why this book by Otto Kuusinen is so terribly important. Otto Kuusinen knows what he is talking about. He is himself a Finn. And he is a very responsible person. He is Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet (that is, equivalent to President) of the
Karelo‐Finnish Socialist Soviet Republic, one of the sixteen constituent Republics of the U.S.S.R. He is also a Deputy‐Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., that is, one of the
Vice‐Presidents of the entire Soviet Union. The four chapters of this little book of his were serialised in August, September and October, by the Moscow Trade Union journal<i> War and the Working Class</i>.</p>
<p>Did you know that though there is a Parliament in Finland every opposition deputy has either been killed or put in prison ?</p>
<p>Did you know that, when the ban was lifted for a few weeks in 1940, a Finnish Society of Peace and Friendship with the Soviet Union obtained in three months more than twice as many members as the largest Finnish political party ?
</p>
<p>Did you know that the ties of Finland's rulers with Hitler did not begin with June 22, 1941, but are of very long standing ?</p>
<p>Did you know that the leaders of Finland's “Social Democratic” Party and “ trade unions” maintain their position as a result of the government in which they participate jailing and torturing all the opposition in their party and unions ?</p>
<p>Did you know that Finland received its freedom from Socialist Soviet Russia without firing a shot, but that Finnish soil has since
been used–with the help of Finland's rulers– or five invasions of Russia in twenty‐five years ? </p>
<p>Did you know that Finnish “democracy” itself is founded on Finland's rulers having called in German troops to help them exterminate 30,000 men and women of the Finnish working class.</p>
<p>When you know and bear in mind these facts, that will help you to
understand that the association of present‐day Finland with Hitler‐
Germany is not at all accidental, that its democratic‐sounding names
and propaganda are not all they wish to seem.</p>
<p>Finland represents a serious problem. Finland is a nation, and as
such must be free. The Finns are a people, and as such must be happy
and prosperous–just like Germany and the Germans.</p>
<p>But a generation of falsehood has built up in Finland very many
Finns who are no less dangerous to mankind and civilisation—not only
to the Soviet Union—than the fanatics of the Hitler Youth. Somehow
they must be tackled; somehow Finnish democracy must be made
not fake but real; somehow Finland must become a good neighbour,
and the Finns wild shared in Hitler's aggression must be put out of
harm's way as thoroughly as his other puppet satellites, That is the
problem.</p>
<p>Blinking our eyes to the facts of it won't help. Studying Kuusinen's
book will.</p>
<p>Ivor Montagu.</p>
<p> </p>
<h4>1 – SOURCES OF FINLAND'S ANTI‐SOVIET POLICY</h4>
<p class="fst">THERE is no other country which has for a quarter of a
century so consistently and stubbornly pursued an anti‐Soviet
policy as Finland.</p>
<p>There has been many a change in the general orientation of ,
Finland's foreign policy , but throughout all these changes Finland's
ruling clique has ever been drawn – like a compass needle turning
to the north—into the embrace of those States and governments
which at each given period occupied a position of hostility to the
U.S.S.R.</p>
<p>What explains this persistency of Finland's ruling circles in their
hostility to the Soviet Union? It is not enough to call this a
manifestation of chauvinism. Undeniably the ruling, wealthy circles
of Finland are tainted with chauvinism, but their chauvinism is a
phenomenon requiring special explanation.</p>
<p>The Finnish chauvinists have always proclaimed themselves representatives of old Finnish Nationalism, preaching an “hereditary”
national hatred for all Russians. “Russia is the age‐old enemy of
Finland, “ they say. But this is false, demagogic phrasing.</p>
<p>As a matter of historical fact they do not hate all Russians.
Finland's ruling circles get along very well with Russian White
Guards and White emigrés. They established “collaboration ”
with these latter immediately following the October Revolution in
1917 and have harmoniously co‐operated with them ever since.</p>
<p>The nationalist demagogy directed against “all Russians ” was
needed by Finland's rulers to inject with their anti‐Soviet chauvinism
wider circles of the population, fanning the mistrust of Russians
inherited from the period of Russian oppression. And to a certain
extent this scheme of the Finnish chauvinists has been successful.
In the autumn of 1939, at the start of the three months' hostilities
between Finland and the Soviet Union, considerable sections of
Finland's population fell a prey to chauvinistic poison: not only
business owners and landowners, rich peasants and officials, but
also a certain section of the working people.</p>
<p>The principal advocate and most active disseminator of this
chauvinism has, however, always been the reactionary leadership of
the Finnish bourgeoisie, the ruling wealthy circles, together with
their agents, these latter including the apparatus and Press of both
bourgeois and Social Democratic parties, the Protective Guard
(Schutzkorps), the officer corps, etc.</p>
<p>Characteristic of Finnish chauvinism is the fact that its advocates
belong precisely to those circles of the Finnish bourgeoisie which, in
the period of Tsarist oppression, were distinguished not by nationalism
but by betrayal of the national interests. Precisely those Finnish
politicians (the so‐called <i>Suoemetarians</i>) who sold the interests of
their people to Tsarism, who, more than any others, kowtowed
before the Russian Governors‐General, changed their uniform after
the October Revolution, and began to appear in the role of the
most ostentatious “ patriots.‐ The costume of extreme Finnish
Nationalism was donned by Mannerheim and a number of other
Tsarist officers who, though born in Finland, had even forgotten the
Finnish language, having served their entire lives in Russia as most
loyal servants of Tsarism. After the October Revolution cut short
their careers in Russia, they moved to Finland to become Finnish
chauvinists.</p>
<p>Clearly a chauvinism born as a result of transformations so rapid
is chauvinism of a special kind, Let us examine the origins of this
chauvinism, </p>
<p>Finland's wealthy ruling circle is a numerically small clique of
bitter oppressors of the workers, a reactionary group that would
never have been able to retain power without support from without
and an emergency apparatus of violence within the country.</p>
<p>Under the Tsardom the leadership of the Finnish bourgeoisie
ruled with the support of the bayonets of Russian Tsarism. Tsarism
in its policy of repression of the Finnish people similarly relied on
the most reactionary section of the Finnish bourgeoisie. The two
maintained mutual collaboration with a view to keeping enslaved
the Finnish popular masses. There was, it is true, friction between
them, but this concerned only questions of secondary importance.
In the matter of suppressing the class‐struggle of the proletariat and
popular manifestations in Finland, Tsarism and the Finnish wealthy
ruling circles always acted as one. There were actually instances
in which wealthy Finns demanded of Tsarism greater repressions
against the Finnish popular masses. I remember, for example, the
political General Strike of November, 1905. Gn that occasion the
reactionary leadership of the bourgeoisie in Helsinki officially implored
the Tsarist Governor‐General to send Russian troops to deal with
the unarmed Finnish Red Guard. The Tsar's satrap did not then
dare to take the step requested, for at that moment the Tsar himself
was in great fear of the powerful revolutionary moves of the Russian
working class. But in most cases Tsarism generously gave the
Finnish wealthy ruling caste all the support it needed in its struggle
against the working people of Finland.</p>
<p>When, therefore, Tsarism fell under the impact of the February
Revolution in 1917, Finland's reactionary bourgeoisie was gripped
by “fear of isolation.” It had no troops at its disposal. The
Schutzkorps detachments were few and small at that time, and so
hateful to the working people that the reactionary rulers of the
country had to organise them in secret. Under the influence of
events in Russia, Finland's working class was rapidly becoming
imbued with the revolutionary spirit. The Finnish Parliament, the
<i>Seim</i>, did not afford a sufficiently reliable political bulwark for
reaction. All the bourgeois parties taken together had only half
the seats in Parliament, even slightly less at that moment; the
Social Democratic group in the <i>Seim</i>, despite the fact that its
majority consisted of Right‐wing opportunists, was in such a state
as the result of the activities of the Left‐wing deputies and the
pressure of revolutionary workers from below that the reactionary
bourgeoisie could not rely upon it.</p>
<p>The reliable support it needed, the Finnish wealthy ruling caste
decided, it could obtain from the Russian Provisional Government.
As early as that period a part of the Finnish Nationalists had already
established connections with Germany in search of a new support
from without, but until this search produced results, the ruling
wealthy clique clung desperately to Kerensky's Provisional Government.</p>
<p>In the light of these facts can be appreciated the significance of
the conflict which broke out in the Finnish <i>Seim</i> during the spring
and summer of 1917. With Lenin's approval, we, Left workers'
deputies, fought for the right of the Finnish people to self‐
determination. The reactionary bourgeois parties stubbornly
insisted on the preservation of the traditional suzerainty of the
Russian Monarchy over Finland. When we finally succeeded in
winning a majority vote in Parliament in favour of a Bill abolishing
this traditional suzerainty, the Finnish reactionaries appealed to the
Kerensky Government and succeeded in getting the Finnish Parliament
dissolved. They were afraid of independence for Finland, they were
afraid that with the overlordship of Russia they might lose their
own last support.</p>
<p>But Kerensky's Provisional Government fell on November 7, 1917.
The people of Finland welcomed the success of the October Revolution
as a happy and joyful event. But the reactionary bourgeoisie rc garded
it as a frightful calamity. It was quite obvious that the victory
of the Socialist Revolution in Russia opened for the Finnish people
the possiblity of an independent free existence and a happy voluntary
comradesh'p with the Russian people. It is of course well known
that the Bolshevik Party has always asserted the right of nations
to self‐determination. Immediately after the October Revolution, as
representative of the Soviet Government, Peoples' Commissar for
National Affairs Stalin, attending the Congress of the Finnish
Social Democratic Party in Finland, proclaimed the full freedem of
organising their own life for the Finnish as well as all the other peoples
of the former Russian State; voluntary and honest union of the
Finnish people with the Russian people; no guardianship, no
surveillance from above over the Finnish people. Such were guiding
principles of the policy of the Council of Peoples' Commissars. Thus
there could be no doubt whatever as to the readiness of the Soviet
Government to grant Finland the full right of self‐determination.
But this, it was only too plain, was the reverse of soothing to the
ruling clique of the Finnish bourgeoisie; the latter was afraid of
independence for Finland without the outside support necessary to
safeguard its reactionary rule.</p>
<p>Accordingly the leaders of the Finnish weaithy ruling caste
hastened to appeal to the Government of Imperial Germany, seeking
in German imperialism a new master for Finland and the outside support for themselves in the struggle against the working people.
Svinhufvud, head of the reactionary Government, sent an ex‐Senator
to Germany with the following instructions: “Make arrangements
for the Germans to come here or we shall not be able to cope with
the situation.”</p>
<p>The German Government readily assumed the role of imperialist
guardian of Finland, but nevertheless advised the Finnish rulers to
request the Soviet Government to grant Finnish independence.
Accordingly, in reply to a request by the Finnish Government, on
December 31, 1917, the Soviet Government adopted a decree, signed
by Lenin and Stalin, granting full independence to Finland. And
in “appreciation” of this magnanimity on the part of the Soviet
Government, Finland's ruling clique at once began openly to manifest
its hostility towards the Soviet people, joining in the counter‐
revolutionary intrigues of the Russian White Guards against the
Soviet power.</p>
<p>It might have been supposed that common sense would have
suggested to the gentlemen of independent Finland to refrain from
intervention in the affairs of their great neighbour. But this did not
happen. Afraid that the power of the Workers' and Peasants' Movement in Finland might rapidly grow under conditions of bourgeois
democracy, the Finnish reactionaries regarded the victory of Workers'
and Peasants' power in Russia as a “ dangerous example” to the
working people of Finland, and hence they regarded it as in their
interests to struggle for the restoration of the power of the oppressors
in the neighbouring country.
</p>
<p>No longer hoping to retain power with the methods of bourgeois
democracy, in January, 1918, the reactionary Svinhufvud Government
hastily prepared a counter‐revolutionary uprising in the country. In
reply to this, the Finnish working class firmly resolved not to surrender
without a battle, came out together with the poor peasantry in a
revolutionary struggle for power. For three months a Workers'
Government held all Southern Finland, and only with the, troops of
the German Kaiser did the counter‐revolutionary government succeed
at the cost of severe battles in defeating our Red Guard and satiating
its lust for blood in an unprecedented mass terror.
</p>
<p>As is well known, the Finnish White Guard ruling caste conducted
this counter‐revolutionary war against the workers and peasants of
Finland under cover of the slogan “ Finland's War of Liberation from
Russian Oppression.” But since Russian oppression had been
abolished by the October Revolution in the previous year, and at the
end of 1917 the Soviet Government had solemnly recognised Finland's
independence. Finland obviously had no reason to fight in the following
year for its “Liberation from the Russian Yoke.” This completely
fictitious slogan directed against the Russian people and the Russian
State was necessary to the reactionary rulers of Finland to deceive
the Finnish peasants and the urban petty bourgeoisie. But at the
same time as it served as a demagogic slogan, it also expressed the
bellicose hostility of the Finnish White Guards towards the Soviet
Government.</p>
<p>For during February and March, Mannerheim openly called upon
the Finnish White Guard Army, that he headed, to start a campaign
against Petrograd and for the conquest of Soviet Karelia. Two Finnish
White Guard expeditions, led by a Captain Utlerius, were actually
dispatched to Soviet Karelia in March, 1918, but they were smashed
before getting there by Finnish Red Guard detachments with the aid
of the local population. For a campaign against Leningrad,
Mannerheim was not strong enough; it is true that in autumn the
same year Finnish Protective Guard gangs did invade the Leningrad
Region <i>via</i> Esthonia, but they were routed there.</p>
<p>Thus already during the first year of the independent existence of
the Finnish State, the country's administration emerged as a bitter
enemy of the Soviet Union, Its aggressive anti‐Soviet chauvinism
was, from the very outset, the expression of a frantic desire, by whatever
means, to bring about the elimination of Soviet power from the great
neighbouring country.</p>
<p>This insane desire of Finland's ruling clique proceeded from its
morbid and panic‐inspired fear lest the example of the Soviet Union
encouraged the struggle of the working people of Finland for their
liberation from the yoke of the wealthy ruling class. The chauvinism
of Finland's rulers base always been, and remains to this day, a
manifestation of the anti‐Soviet fury of a counter‐revolutionary gang
in mortal fear of its people and constantly concerned with the preservation of its power over the masses of the people oppressed and
exploited by it. There lies the primary source of the anti‐Soviet
chauvinism of Finland's ruling clique. A terroristic regime in home
policy and anti‐Soviet aggression in foreign policy—these are not two
policies, but merely two aspects of one and the same policy of the
counter‐revolutionary ruling circles.</p>
<p>A second source of the anti‐Soviet policy of Finland's ruling
caste lies in its greedy desire to lay its hands on the natural wealth of
Soviet Karelia, and above all on the tremendous Soviet Karelian
forest land. This tempting wealth, alas, lies on the other side of the
border, whence not even a single log may be removed. What therefore
was to be done? The ruling circles decided on the fitting out of an
…unofficial ” expedition. The Government pretended ignorance of
it. Its organisation and finance was undertaken by the big Helsinki
banks and the prominent representatives of the timber industry of
Eastern Finland constituted into a so‐called Karelian Committee—
the unofficial leadership of the expedition. The majority of the Schutz‐
korps was drawn into the expedition, and the armaments included
guns supplied from Army stores. The command was undertaken by
officers of the Finnish Army with Major von Herzen at their head.</p>
<p>This expedition began in the spring of 1919 and was routed by the
end of June in the same year. The following year (October 14, 1920)
the Finnish Government signed a Peace Treaty between Finland and
the Russian Socialist Federation of Soviet Republics, but simultaneously
throughout Finland volunteers began to be recruited for a new campaign ‐
against Soviet Karelia. After thorough preparation in November,
1921, numerically strong and well‐armed detachments of the new
expedition began their march against Karelia, only to be smashed two
or three months later by units of the Red Army. An heroic detach‐
ment of Finnish skiers under Toivo Antikainen, detailed by the Red
Army Command to penetrate deep into the enemy rear, smashed up
the G.H.Q. of the Finnish Wh.te Guard invaders in the. village of
Kimasjaervi in the course of a sweeping surprise raid.</p>
<p>The people of Soviet Karelia did not allow the natural wealth of
their country to slip from their hands, Even prior to the predatory
campaigns of the Finnish White Guards the Karelo‐Finnish people,
who had received under the Soviet system full freedom of economic
and cultural development, turned a deaf ear to the nationalist appeals
of Finland's rulers, who assumed the role of “Liberators of their
Tribal Brethren.” But only in the course of the brigand campaigns
did the Karelo‐Finnish people learn the full extent of the rapacious
character of their Finnish White Guard self‐styled “Liberators.”</p>
<p>The vulture was forced temporarily to postpone the attempts to
carry out its aggressive plans, but it did not abandon the plans themselves. </p>
<p>These are the sources of the anti‐Soviet chauvinism of Finland's
rulers. From its very inception it has been in essence a chauvinism
of the Fascist variety.</p>
<h4>2 – HOW FINLAND WAS HITCHED TO THE WAR CHARIOT OF GERMAN IMPERIALISM</h4>
<p class="fst">THE hitching of Finland to the war chariot of German imperialism
was a lengthy affair, prepared over a number of years by linking
Finland with Germany economically and politically.</p>
<p>Ever since the inception of the Finnish State, Finland's rulers boycotted the development of trade with the Soviet Union, although the
interests of Finland's national economy clearly demanded extensive
trade relations with the U.S.S.R., in the framework of normal good
neighbourly relations. The Soviet Union could undoubtedly have
purchased at least two‐thirds of Finland's exports and sold to Finland
on favourable terms no less than four‐fifths of all the imported goods
she required. It is quite obvious that trade relations with the Soviet
Union on such a seale could have been of the utmost importance for
the development of Finland's national economy. But Finland's
wealthy ruling caste did not follow this course, for it would have involved
some corresponding benefit to the Soviet Union. Persisting in its anti‐
Soviet position, it prepared to boycott the development of trade in
general with the U.S.S.R., and as a result, year in and year out, this
trade remained at the insignificant level of no more than 2 to 8 per cent.
of Finland's foreign trade total. The earlier econcmiec developments
of the Soviet Union was, of course, able to proceed without trade with
the Finnish capitalists, but the boycott cost Finland dear.</p>
<p>The Finnish ruling magnates sought compensation for the loss of the
Russian market primarily in Germany. With what result? Firstly,
the Germans demanded as payment for military aid to the Finnish
counter‐revolutionaries Finland's economic and political subordination to Imperialist Germany. In 1918 they agreed to send German
troops to serve as executioners in Finland only after an enslaving
“Trade and Peace Treaty ” had been signed on behalf of Finland in
Berlin. Even a Conservative bourgeois historian such as Schuebergson
could not do other than estimate this Treaty as an act of blackmail
that “made Finland politically and economically dependent upon
Germany.” Only the defeat of German imperialism in the World War
half a year later delivered Finland from this enslaving agreement.</p>
<p>Secondly, the search for a market for Finnish exports in Germany
in the subsequent period proved futile. Instead of increasing, Finland's
exports to Germany declined with the pre‐war period. Instead,
Finland was flooded with German commodities, chiefly of types unnecessary for the development of Finland's national economy. For
example, in 1929 imports from Germany comprised 38 per cent. of
Finland's import total, while her exports to Germany comprised not more
than 14 per cent. of her export total. This added to the difficulties
in the way of the development of industry in Finland. The machine‐building industry especially suffered from German competition and the
total lack of foreign markets for its product. With difficulty Finland
found purchasers for timber, paper and cellulose in remote countries,
including the U.S.A., but naturally the U.S.A. did not buy Finnish
machinery.</p>
<p>Thus Finland in the main became a market for Germany. Matters
reached such a ridiculous stage that Finland, in need of grain and not
wishing to buy grain from the Soviet Union, purchased from Germany
grain that had been exported from the Soviet Union, paying the German
middlemen an extra 30 <i>pfennigs</i> per kilogram (510 marks a ton), and,
of course, permitted the Finnish merchants to reap abundant profits
on top of that at the expense of the Finnish consumers. This was
a typical economic expression of the dull‐witted anti‐Soviet bitterness
of the Finnish wealthy ruling caste.</p>
<p>The German Fascist movement was widely popularised in Finland,
especially among the Schutzkorps members, the students, and the
rural bourgeoisie, and soon a special Hitlerite agency, the so‐called
“Lappo Movement, ” was organised there. In June, 1930, the Lappo,
the Schutzkorps, and the police began joint raids on the Left‐wing
Labour Movement under the slogan “ The Destruction of Communism.”
The Fascist gangsters smashed newspaper print shops and the premises
of workers' organisations, kidnapped hundreds of the most active
workers of the Socialist Movement and trade union officials, beat
and brutally humiliated them, murdered many of them, and took
many others of them to Finland's eastern frontier, expelling them
into Soviet territory. The Left deputies in Parliament—the members
of the Socialist Workers' and Poor Peasants' Parliamentary Group—
were arrested and sentenced to many years' imprisonment. The
Fascists succeeded in rounding up many members of the outlawed
Communist Party as well; but the majority of their victims were
leading members of the legal Labour Movement—Left Socialists,
supporters of or workers for the United Front.</p>
<p>In connection with the bandit actions of the Fascists, the Government disbanded all the old trade union organisations of Finland.
This, directly, was the principal aim of the ruling reactionary big
business circles. Having achieved this in circumstances of nation‐wide
Fascist terror, they could immediately effect a drastic cut in wages
in all branches of industry. In the majority of branches of industry
wages dropped by 30 per cent., and in some by even 60. Hundreds
of millions of marks were pocketed by the wealthy Finnish ruling
caste, with the aid of Fascist terror, in this way in 1930.</p>
<p>Subsequently, in 1932, the Lappo Fascists tried to seize power.
But the “ rebellion” they staged was liquidated by the Government
without a single shot being fired. This demonstrated the fact that
the Finnish Fascists were strong only when acting on the instructions
of the wealthy ruling clique, and that when acting without its sanction
they were quite powerless,
</p>
<p>After this, the Fascist Lappo group was renamed the I.K.L. Party
(“ The Patriotic People's Movement”) and began to participate in
Parliamentary elections, at first together with the Coalition Party
and later independently. Both within and without the <i>Seim</i> the
I.K.L. Party conducted undermining activities directed against all
surviving Parliamentary rights and demanding the establishment of
total Fascist dictatorship. The I.K.L. Party never concealed its
political kinship with German Fascism. Of course, the “ Fifth
Column ” of German Fascism in Finland is more widespread than the
I.K.L. Party. But the I.K.L. serves as a direct party agency of
the Hitlerites in Finland. It not only conducted consistent propaganda
for the programmatic principles of German Fascism, it not only
imitated the methods of violence practised by the Hitlerites, but also
in the field of foreign policy it did its utmost to serve German
imperialism in the latter's aim of drawing Finland into the military
adventures prepared by Hitler to conquer world dominion for
Germany.</p>
<p>It is hardly necessary to explain that the I.K.L. conducted an
exceedingly bitter campaign against the Soviet Union. It openly
advocated the seizure of U.S.S.R. territory (“ up to the Urals, ” even
“up to the Yenisei ”) for a “ Greater Finland.”</p>
<p>Throughout the period 1933‐1939 Finland's ruling circles made
use of the Fascist 1.K.L. Party as a political and military battering
ram, but refrained from yielding it the reins of government as they did
not fully understand its political position. In home policy the wealthy
reactionary ruling circles pursued a course of further Fascistiation
of the regime, but they no longer needed the drastic change called
for by the Fascist adventurers of the I.K.L. In foreign policy,
following Hitler's advent to power in Germany, they steered a course
of close collaboration with the Hitlerite Government, but did not
refuse a similar collaboration with the then governments of Britain
and France, for they did not desire to rely on Germany alone as the
agents of Hitler, as the I.K.L. Party demanded.</p>
<p>The main party of Finland's wealthy reactionary rulers was the
Coalition Party, headed by the thorough‐going reactionaries Svinhufvud,
Walden, Linkomies, Paasikivi, and others, who as far back as 1918
had helped the German imperialists to shed the blood of Finland's
working people. Despite the fact that the Coalition Party never
received extensive support in any election, it invariably played the
leading role in Parliament and the Government, using for the purpose
the whole network of influential sympathisers that it possessed in
other Government parties.</p>
<p>There came a time, however, when the Fascist brigandage, and
the obvious desire of President Svinhufvud and his henchmen in
the Government (especially the then Premier Kivimaeki, now
Finland's envoy in Berlin) to take Finland along the Fascist road,
evoked indignation among wide masses of the working people. These
masses were in any case dissatisfied with the miserable wages, the
tremendous unemployment, and the ruinous policy of the wealthy
ruling circles regarding the peasantry. Added to this there was the
uneasiness of the people evoked by the bellicose aggressiveness of
Fascist Germany in Central Europe and the close relations of Finland's
rulers with the Hitlerite imperialists.</p>
<p>Recovering from the Fascist blow it had received in 1930, the
underground Communist Party of Finland regained mass influence
by its struggle against Fascism and the encroachments of the capitalists.
Appealing to the working‐class masses, under the slogan of “The
United Proletarian Front, ” to join the Social Democratic trade unions
(the only trade unions legally allowed to exist in the country), the
Communist Party achieved the transformation of the majority of
local trade union branches into organs of economic class struggle,
which frequently organised strikes despite the bans of the Social
Democratic apparatus. Within the ranks of the Social Democratic
Party a Left Wing was formed (Mauri Ryemi and others), which,
favouring a United Front of the working class, fought against the reactionary clique of Tanner. Under the slogan, “ The People's
United Front against Fascism, ” the Communist Party organised a
number of successful campaigns which met with a wide response
from the masses, for example, the campaign in defence of political
prisoners and against the death sentence.</p>
<p>The anti‐Fascist sentiments among wide masses of the working
people resulted in temporary vacillations even in the ranks of such
governmental parties as the Agrarian Union and the Progressive
Party. At the Presidential elections of 1936 those who supported
the re‐election of Svinhufvud as President were left in a munority.
This was the only case when even the agents of the Coalition Party
in the ranks of the other governmental parties, fearing to lose their
mass influence, refused to follow the dictates of the Coalition Party.
Another nominee of the wealthy reactionary ruling caste, Kallio,
of the Agrarian Union, was elected. As a result of the differences
that had arisen on this question the Coalition Party was for the
moment no longer able to continue speeding, as it had been doing,
along the Fascist road. But the change of President effected by
the elections made no difference at all to Finland's war‐mongering
foreign policy. </p>
<p>The Communists and other anti‐Fascists repeatedly warned the
people of the imperialist aspirations of Fascist Germany and of
the danger of war as a result of the machinations behind the scenes
on the part of militarists and the I.K.L. Party with the German
Fascists, and urged a change in foreign policy in the direction of
restoring sincere and friendly relations with the Soviet Union. But
this had no effect upon the Government, It was once again confirmed
that, regardless of the personal composition of the Government, the
bellicose foreign policy of big‐business Finland remained ever the
same hostile anti‐Soviet policy.</p>
<p>The Social Democratic henchmen of the wealthy ruling circles
represented the matter hypocritically in their statements, as though
the Finnish Government's policy differed radically from the open
anti‐Soviet policy proclaimed by the I.K.L. They insisted that no
one in Finland save a few “ irresponsible persons, ” various individual
“crazy adventurers ” entirely devoid of influence, supported a policy
of hostility and war against the Soviet Union, and that among
“responsible circles” in Finland no one approved such anti‐Soviet
hostility or ever thought of anything but peaceful and good neighbourly
relations with the land of the Soviets. This was a deliberate lie.
The respective policies of both “ responsible ” and “ irresponsible ”
circles in Finland towards the Soviet Union were equally hostile and
equally aggressive. The oniy difference consisted in the fact that
the “‘responsible‐ ones did not shout their desire for an anti‐Soviet
war out loud but energetically pursued practical preparations for
it instead.</p>
<p>Thus, to this end, the General Staff of the Finnish Army developed
intensive activity in close contact with representatives of the German
General Staff and other foreign “ specialists." Especially noteworthy
were the frequent visits to Helsinki in 1937 of all sorts of emissaries
of Hitler Germany, Whenever any Finn publicly expressed apprehensions regarding the unrestricted meddling of German spies in the
affairs of the Finnish Army, one Coalition Party newspaper forthrightly
countered: “We have no military secrets from the Germans.”</p>
<p>The military preparations of the Finnish General Staff were not
confined to strengthening the armaments of the Finnish Army and the development of the country's war industry.
For example, <i> ten times more aerodromes were built in Finland than were required for the Finnish Air Force </i> ( and these included forty large
aerodromes constructed chiefly along the Soviet Border ).
Contrary to the existing international convention for the demilitarisation of the Aaland Islands,
construction was secretly begun there in preparation of a base for
German submarines and aircraft. Strategic highways and railways
leading to the Soviet frontier were built in Eastern Finland. And,
above all, hundreds of fortifications of the strongest type were built
on the Karelian Isthmus under the guidance of German and other
foreign specialists, with design thereby to create a springboard for a
sudden attack on Leningrad. In the summer of 1939 the Chief of
the German Army General Staff, General Halder, visited Finland to
inspect this “ Mannerheim Line.” By the autumn of 1939 Finland,
and the Karelian Isthmus primarily, had been converted into a perfect
military arena for an attack on the Soviet Union.</p>
<p>In their military plans, Finland's rulers had calculated particularly
on an attack by Germany, and not by Germany alone, against the
U.S.S.R. They had anticipated a joint anti‐Soviet war carried out
by Germany, Poland and a number of other States with the support
or even participation of the British and French Governments.</p>
<p>Especially after the Munich deal between Hitler, Chamberlain, and
Daladier (in the autumn of 1938) did Finland's rulers believe that
exactly that kind of war was on the way, and they made energetic
preparations to take part in it. But in the autumn of 1939 matters
took a different course. Germany attacked Poland, and war began
between Germany on one side and Britain and France on the other.</p>
<p>The situation in which a great European War had thus arisen was
pregnant with dangers for the U.S.S.R. as well, and the Soviet Government could not but pay attention to strengthening the security of its
European frontiers. Especially unfavourable, of course, in this respect
were matters in regard to the security of Leningrad, within a score
of miles of which hostile authorities obsessed by anti‐Soviet chauvinism
had built a base for an attack by the imperialists on the city of Lenin.
In view of this, the Soviet Government proposed to Finland an adjustment of the frontier on the Karelian isthmus with a more than ample
territorial compensation at a different place. The Finnish Government,
however, disinclined to make any departure from its consistently
hostile attitude, rejected this proposal, broke off negotiations, actually
set the country on a war footing, and brazenly provoked war.</p>
<p>That Winter War is, of course, still fresh in everyone's mind. Despite
the strength of the numerous Finnish ferro‐concrete fortifications in
the Karelian Isthmus, units of the Red Army crushed the so‐called
“ Mannerheim Line ” in a comparatively brief space of time and dealt
a decisive defeat to the Finnish Army. This outcome of the war was
not that which Finland's rulers had expected, and it obliged them
hastily to ask the Soviet Government for peace. The results of the
conflict were the reverse of that which Finland's rulers had so often
attempted to achieve by force of arms ‐ instead of the incorporation
of Soviet Karelia in White Guard Finland, it resulted in the liberation
of Finnish Karelia from the rule of the wealthy Finnish dominating
clique and its incorporation in Soviet Karelia, which was thereupon
transformed into the Karelo‐Finnish Socialist Soviet Republic.</p>
<p>In some instances a severe lesson of this kind might perhaps have
brought an enemy to his senses. But the Finnish Government, it
turned out, only became more fixed in its insanity. It assumed an
outward guise of loyalty, it professed the intention ever to preserve
friendly relations with the Seviet Union. In the Peace Treaty also
it solemnly pledged itself to refrain from any attack upon the Soviet
Union and to take no part in any coalition hostile to the U.S.S.R. But
the ink with which the representatives of the Finnish Government
signed this Peace Treaty on March 12, 1940, had hardly had time to
dry when it began a behind‐the‐scenes search for some back door of
entry into an imperialist coalition for an anti‐Soviet war.</p>
<p>During the 1939‐40 war the Finnish Government had succeeded in
paralysing every form of opposition on the part of conscientious workers
who regarded the anti‐Soviet war as criminal and hoped for a victory
of the Red Army. The Central Committee of the Finnish Communist
Party called on the people to rise against their criminal government,
and an insurrectionary *” People's Government of Finland“ with a
democratic programme of action was set up in Eastern Finland. It
is today even more clear than it was then that tremendous calamities
would have been spared the Finnish people had they at that time
supported the programme of action of our “ People's Government.”
But by ruthless terror and deafening chauvinist cries Finland's rulers,
together with their Social Democratic assistants, succeeded in nipping
the developing anti‐war movement in the country in the bud and
isolating its supporters.</p>
<p>But immediately following the end of the war, as soon as the
Government terror temporarily even slightly slackened, the hitherto
mullled voice of large sections of the working masses was raised in
condemnation of the Government of war and against anti‐Soviet
chauvinism. The Society for Peace and Friendship with the
U.S.5.R. founded in the spring, 1940, developed within the space of two
or three months into a huge mass organisation, which by autumn of
that year already had 50 to 60,000 members compared with the mere
25,000 counted by the Social Democratic Party, the largest Party in
the country. The newspaper issued by the Society, the <i>Kansan
Sanomat</i> obtained 27,000 subscribers, compared with the circulation
of the central organ of the Social Democratie Party, which within
the same period dropped from 25,000 to 9,000. The Society and its
paper conducted an active campaign for a sincere policy of peace and
the establishment of friendly relations with the Soviet Union. And
around the same issue a new split took place within Finnish Social
Democracy ; not only the Left Wing, whose leaders had been expelled
from the Social Democratic Party even before the war, but also the
former Centre deputies of the Party (Vijk Rajsanen and others) began
a frank struggle against the Social Chauvinist leadership clique with
Minister Tanner at its head</p>
<p>In August and September, 1940, the Finnish Government, having
mobilised its entire police force, launched an attack on the Society
for Peace and Friendship with the U.S.S.R.,smashed its organisations
and restored throughout the country the savage war‐time terror. The
wealthy ruling caste felt that it had once again found support outside
the country and so at once it showed its teeth again at the mass movement of opposition. This backing, moreover, was once again found in
German imperialism. During the winter war of Finland against the
U.S.S.R., Fascist‐Germany's hands had been tied, and she did not risk
interference.But as soon as Hitler had succeeded in smashing France
in the summer of 1940, he joined at once in a plot with Finland's rulers.
As subsequently revealed, this was a plot for military attack on the
U.S.S.R.</p>
<p>As far back as autumn, 1940, the shipment of German troops to
Finland began, and in the months that followed a number of German
divisions complete with tanks, aircraft, artillery and other arms concentrated on Finnish territory. At the same time, in the winter of
1940-41, the recruitment began in Finland of “reliable” cut-throats
for dispatch to Germany and formation there into so-called “ Finnish
battalions” for inclusion in the ranks of the German Army in the
latter's offensive against the U.S.S.R. It is now known that the
Finnish Government, deeming it necessary for diplomatic reasons at
the time to organise the recruitment and dispatch of these persons in
strict secrecy, set up a special body in Helsinki with a signboard on its
office “ Ratas Engineering Agency.”Through this agency more than
10,000 Schutzkorps members or similar individuals were recruited in
different parts of Finland and sent to Germany during spring 1941.
(During the war the Red Army encountered and defeated part of the
Schutzkorps battations on the Central Front and part in the Caucasus.)</p>
<p>All these preparations for a joint war by Germany and Finland
against the U.S.S.R. were taking place at a time when the German
and Finnish Governments were publicly making assurance of their
absolute fidelity to the agreements each had concluded with the Soviet
Union. Both in the event revealed themselves as equally treacherous.
But in hypocritical double-dealing the Finnish accomplices of Hitler
before long broke even the records set up by the Fuhrer himself.
When these secret war preparations were followed by the joint attack
on the U.S.S.R., Hitler on launching the offensive (June 22, 1941)
especially emphasised that the operations were conducted jointly with
the Finnish Army.The Finnish Government, which most plainly
refrained from denying Hitler's statement, but pretended that it had
not heard it, began to assert that Finland had not attacked the U.S.S.R.
but, on the contrary, the U.S.S.R., had attacked Finland. Since this
lie is being circulated by the Finnish Government to this day, it is in
place to recall here the following generally known facts :</p>
<p>In the first place, long prior to Germany's attack on the Soviet
‐ Union, the Finnish rulers carried out a general mobilisation of all
reservists up to the age of 42, and a mobilisation of motor transport,
horses, etc., dispatching numerous troops eastward to the Soviet border.
</p>
<p>Secondly, several days prior to the war against the U.S.S.R., the
Finnish Government carried out mass arrests throughout the country
of all friends of the Soviet Union and active figures in the Labour
Movement known to the police as opponents of an anti‐Soviet war.</p>
<p>Thirdly, on June 17, 18 and 19, German ships arrived from Germany
and hastily unloaded war supplies, including artillery, in Helsinki, </p>
<p>Fourthly, as early as June 20 and 21, German troops hitherto
stationed in Finland at a certain distance from the Soviet border were
brought up nearer to the frontier ready for the attack on the Soviet
Union.</p>
<p>Fifthly, during the night of June 21 and 22, German military authorities and the Finnish police, together raided the Soviet Consulate in
Petsamo, looted it and took its personnel to Kirkenes.</p>
<p>Sixthly, that same night an attempt was made by a large group of
planes to raid Kronstadt from Finnish territory. On June 23 planes
taking off from Finnish territory again attempted to bomb Kronstadt,
one plane was shot down and four German officers on board taken
prisoner. At once thereafter German and Finnish infantry units
launched an offensive at a number of points on the Finnish frontier,
embarking upon an invasion of the U.S.S.R.</p>
<p>All these indisputable facts completely expose the falsehoods of the
Finnish Government when it endeavours to cover up the vile crime it
perpetrated in attacking the U.S.S.R. together with the Fascists.</p>
<p>In his speech of November 19, 1941, Hitler, boastfully enumerating
the measures he had taken in advance to transform the countries
bordering the U.S.S.R. into armed jumping‐off grounds for his attack
on the Soviet Union, again repeated that Finland had declared its
readiness to come out on the side of Germany prior to June 22. Listening to this declaration by Hitler, the Finnish Government once again
became deaf, admitting by its eloquent silence the fact that during
the second half of 1940 and the first half of 1941 it had completely
lined up with German Fascism as a subordinate but energetic associate
in its imperialist war gamble.</p>
<p>This implied a complete switch of Finland's foreign policy to the
position of the home‐grown Fascists the “ Quislings” of the I.K.L,
Party. During the earlier period (1933‐39) as we have seen those
who pressed for Finland to orientate itself only on Germany and subordinate itself entirely to Hitler's will had been only the direct agents
of German Fascism then called “irresponsibles” and “crazy
adventurers.” But now it was the “ responsible” Government of
Finland which having vainly tried to embark on two boats simultaneously, the German and the Anglo-French, plunged headlong into
Hitler's pirate ship; prostrated itself before him and sold the independence of its country.</p>
<p>This gambler's leap was made during Hitler's war for world domination. This means that Finland's rulers must have been perfectly
aware that, in hitching their country to Hitler's war chariot, they were
thereby involving Finland in a clash not only with the Soviet Union
but with all freedom‐loving countries; including Britain and the
U.S.A.</p>
<p>The adventurist nature of such a leap was obvious. Yet upon this
adventure they embarked. Plunging. into war by the side of Hitler
the Finnish White Guard blackguards dreamed not only of territorial conquests, they dreamed also of the “ destruction of Bolshevism ,”
the destruction of the Soviet State, no more and no less. In telling
this to the Swedes they explained it as motivated by desire for the
“security of Finland, ” that is, the security of their reactionary power
in Finland. The Swedish newspaper <i>Dagens Nyheter </i>wrote about it
as follows; “The principle thesis of Finland” (i.e. of her ruling
clique) “ is well known; Finland, it is claimed, cannot solve the
problem of her 'security ' unless the Soviet Union suffers catastrophe.”</p>
<p>This “main thesis ” of Finland's rulers recalls at once to mind the
imbecility of those German Fascists whom Stalin, in his report on the
Constitution of the U.S.S.R., compared to the obstinate bureaucrat
depicted by Shchedrin who decided to “ Shut America up again.”
Only the obstinate Finnish rulers are still more afraid of the “dangerous
example ” constituted by the existence of a State whose people are
free, and hence they went to war to “Shut the Soviet Union up again.”
They imagined and believed that tomorrow or the day after the Soviet
Union might be “shut up” or, as the Finnish newspaper <i>Uajala</i>
screamed at the start of the war: “the Soviet Union will be crushed
and annihilated.”</p>
<p>Thus the leadership of the Finnish State was plunged into Hitler's
gamble by the same motive that characterised its anti‐Soviet
chauvinism from the very beginning ; lust for conquest, hatred of the
people, and the counter‐revolutionary fury of its ruling clique.</p>
<h3>3 – HITLERITE FINLAND</h3>
<h4>(i) German Masters-Finnish Flunkeys</h4>
<p class="fst">THE fact that there are considerable numbers of German troops
stationed in Finland is in itself sufficient evidence that the
Germans are today masters of the country. Is there then no
difference between the Fascist position of Finland and that of the
countries occupied by Hitler Germany ? The answer to this question
must be that there is a difference, though not a very vital one.</p>
<p>Like the German‐occupied countries, Finland has been deprived of
her independence. But she is not only in a position of subjection to
Germany, she is also subservient to her. Finland is a vassal of
Hitler Germany, aiding her—above all, by fighting and acting as
her confederate in pursuit of interests which are those of Hitler
Germany though of no advantage to the Finnish people.
</p>
<p>For the part now being played by the rulers of Finland is a new
role, a development of the old. Finland's rulers are now no more
than the flunkeys of the German masters of Finland. The Finnish
people are being starved no less than the people of the occupied
countries. Germany has plundered Finland no less thoroughly than
she has the occupied countries, but all this has been accomplished
through the agency of the Finnish authorities.</p>
<p>The working people of Finland are being brutally exploited and
oppressed in the interests of the German imperialists. Thousands of
Finns are being arrested, tortured and killed at the German bidding.
But all this is being carried out directly by the Finnish authorities.</p>
<p>And these instruments of the German oppression of Finland are
not newcomers, upstarts only now invested with powers for the purpose
like the German‐appointed gendarmes in Norway, Holland, and
Belgium. No, in Finland the function of Quisling has been undertaken
by the old rulers, the clique that has ruled the country continuously
for a quarter of a century or more.</p>
<p>Having sold Finland to Hitler Germany and assumed the function
of flunkeys to Hitler, the Finnish rulers at once singled themselves out
from all his agents in the various countries by an unparalleled, unsurpassable hypocrisy. They do not tell their people, as Quisling does in
Norway, for example, that they must submit to the will of the Germans,
although to no less a degree than Quisling they force the people to
obey their German masters. They keep reiterating, as ever, that
Finland is an entirely “independent nation, ‐ and they represent
themselves as some sort of “ patriots, ” claiming to be “ championing ”
Finland's independence. In general they pretend to notice no encroachments whatsoever on Finland's independence by Germany.
When the Germans plunder Finland, extorting material without
the least ceremony, the Finnish rulers call this “economic collaboration”
between Finland and Germany, and the Finnish President expresses to
Germany his “appreciation of Germany's aid.”</p>
<p>When the Germans require Finland to join the so‐called “anti-
Comintern <i>bloc</i>, ” or demand Gestapo control over the functioning of
the Finnish Secret Service, or when Berlin simply decides on the
suitability of one or other Finnish gentleman for the post of Finnish
Prime Minister, then from Helsinki comes ever one and the same
servile reply: “ Yes, sir.” This is called “ political collaboration.”</p>
<p>And when Hitler insists on more and more consignments of cannon
fodder, then the flunkeys of the Government of Finland beat their
breasts and proclaim that in this matter they are first among all
Germany's vassals, in other words, that in proportion to the population
they have now sent more man‐power to the war than any other vassal
country. This is called “ military collaboration” with Germany.</p>
<p>In actual fact, the German masters have among all their flunkeys
none more obsequious than the rulers of Finland.
</p>
<p>Finland is not the only country which has a military alliance with
Hitler Germany. What is characteristic is that the Finnish Government is the only ally of Hitler which attempts to deny and “ explain ”
its military and political alliance with Hitler. It is true that not
everywhere or always do the Finnish rulers deny that they are fighting
together with Hitler Germany or for an identical war aim. When
Hitler visited Finland in the summer of 1942, for example, and on a
number of other occasions, the Finnish rulers made open parade of
assurances of loyalty to Hitler Germany in prosecution of the
common war. Cabinet Minister Tanner, in the course of his war‐time
visits to Berlin and Vienna, solemnly proclaimed that: “ Finland
would wage together with Germany and other friendly Powers ” (i.e.,
Italy, Hungary, and Rumania) “ the war for European culture ” (i.e.,
Hitler's New Order in Europe) “until victory is won.” But no sooner
had Tanner returned to Finland than, in obedience to a diplomatic
prompting, he switched the tune to “Finland is not fighting on either
side in this war of the Great Powers.”</p>
<p>Thus for the Finnish rulers the “ truth” appears to vary according
to the locality where their speeches happen to be made. It also appears
to depend upon the situation at the fronts. When the German forces
are advancing, every Finnish Government spokesman clamours about
“the war to a victorious finish by Germany's side.” When, on the
contrary, the German forces are retreating and suffering defeats, then
some Cabinet Minister, or even the Finnish President himself, comes
out with an explanation that, “ while in a certain sense Finland is,
it is true, a belligerent nation, yet, more strictly speaking, Finland
is actually all but neutral... .”</p>
<p>This hypocrisy is one of the basic laws governing the conduct of the
present rulers of Finland. They have not the slightest intention of
breaking their guilty connections with Hitler Germany—but they
are anxious to disguise them, Why? Is it because they are ashamed ?
Are they worried by traces of a twinge of conscience ? No, they are not
actuated by ethical considerations ; their consciences do not function.
The explanation is: quite different. They are afraid that things may
not turn out as they expected. They are afraid that their alliance
with Hitler may result: in their complete isolation, in both home and
foreign policy.</p>
<p>Inside Finland no one disputes the existence of the German alliance.
No one in Finland takes seriously the official diplomatic versions that
there is no such thing as a military alliance with Fascist Germany.
The people have eyes and they see. They realise that, in the view of
all civilised countries; the alliance with Hitler disgraces Finland,
and that it endangers and prejudices Finland's future.</p>
<p>There is no doubt at all that the Finnish people would like to
shake off the hold of Fascist Germany. The Finnish rulers, knowing
this, try to persuade them that “ military considerations ” require
that Finland engage at least in a temporary collaboration with Hitler
Germany. “For us, ” they claim with characteristic distortion, “ the
present war is a sequel to the Winter War of 1940. At that time
Finland could not cope with the task confronting her because she
was obliged to fight with only her own forces. Today things are
different. Today we are being helped by Germany with all her
military strength. How could we dare refuse such vital and necessary
aid. It is not we who are helping Germany, but Germany that is
helping Finland.” This is the kind of demagogy with which they
try to dupe the Finnish people, representing the situation not as
though Finland were in the clutches of the German imperialists and
furnishing cannon fodder to Hitler but as though, on the contrary,
Hitler's bandits had come north like so many knights‐errant hastening
to shed their blood to rescue Finland, the damsel in distress, from
fearful peril.</p>
<p>Internationally also Finland's rulers fear that they may find
themselves completely isolated. The peoples of all the German‐
occupied countries turn away in disgust from Hitler's Finnish
accomplices. Britain has declared war on Finland. In Sweden
public opinion is beginning to turn against the war of conquest being
waged both by Germany and her Finnish confederate. In the U.S.A.,
the Government has closed all the Finnish consulates and cut short
the subversive activities of the Finnish “ Information Bureau” in
New York.
</p>
<p>It is because of these unmistakable signs of increasing isolation
that the Finnish Government cannot afford openly and without
equivocation to admit that Finland has been harnessed by it to the
war chariot of German. imperialism and is fighting for Hitler's
dictatorship in Europe. The line of reasoning followed by the
Finnish Cabinet is that, since no one can tell how the war will end,
it would be taking an unnecessary risk to provoke public opinion
in the democratic countries by frank avowal of the alliance with
Hitler, particularly with that public opinion hostile to them as it
now is.</p>
<p>The wealthy Finnish ruling circles still have friends and patrons
among the most reactionary circles of the bourgeois democratic
countries. The Finnish Government also has paid agents in these
countries with the job of influencing local public opinion. And the
apologists of both these sorts are severely handicapped in their
efforts by the fact that Finland's complicity in Hitler's predatory
war is plain to all, and almost as generally abhorred. It is to help
these agents that the Finnish Government declares that it is “ not
fighting on either side in this war of the Great Powers.” But murder
will out, and so will the roar of cannon. And since the newspapers
of the democratic countries have nothing but derision for the broad
claim that Finland is “ not participating in Hitler's war, ” the rulers
of Finland have had to cast about for some way of making their alibi
more plausible.</p>
<p>Hence, a new explanation of their position is now being circulated
by their agents in the bourgeois democratic countries. “We are
not fighting for Hitler's New Order in Europe, ” this version runs,
“Finland is not a German vassal as Rumania and Hungary are, as
Italy was. This war we are fighting is a private war of our own
against the U.S.S.R. Germany's entirely separate war against the
U.S.S.R. began at the same time, and this pure coincidence is what
has led, don't you see, to our temporary and coincidental collaboration
with Hitler Germany.”</p>
<p>This subterfuge, of course, is not believed abroad any more than
its eruder predecessors. But the Finnish Government hopes that
some more gullible foreigners, even though not crediting such
explanations, may accept them at some future date as a sign of
Finland's “good will” and readiness to repudiate its conspiracy with
the Germans.</p>
<p>In Finland itself, of course, every child understands that all this
talk about a “ private war of our own” is only intended to throw
dust in the eyes of the simpletons abroad. And some of Hitler's
Finnish stooges, abandoning all diplomatic scruples, quite cheerfully
declare outright, as, for example, the <i>Ajan Suunta </i>recently, that
“ Any separate Finnish war is out of the question.” While Hitler
himself, who obtains no advantage from the diplomatic sophistry so
clung to by the Finnish rulers, has time and again spiked their guns
by declaring that, long before Germany's attack on the U.S.S.R.,
the Finnish Government had pledged itself to take the field on his
side. Yet even in the face of these repeated statements, the Finnish
Government's agents and apologists in the democratic countries keep
right on insisting that Finland is fighting on no side but her own and
that, if she be at the moment fighting by the side of Germany, this is
purely coincidental and quite temporary.</p>
<p>The U.S. State Department called the bluff of the Helsinki gentry
by proposing in October, 1941, that the Finnish Government cease
pursuing hostilities against the U.S.S.R., and thus prove its desire
to discontinue a foreign policy which, as the U.S. Government made
clear in its memorandum, must inevitably entail complete subjection
of Finland to Hitler Germany. The Finnish Government at first
endeavoured to evade making an answer, but later was obliged to
admit—indirectly—that its connection with Hitler and his war was,
after all, by no means accidental or temporary.</p>
<p>As time has gone on the Finnish Government has exposed itself
more and more palpably in the eyes of the American public. This
is evident from numerous instances, including not only editorial
comment in the American Press but also statements made by
influential U.S. public figures.</p>
<p>For example, when it became known in the U.S.A. that the Finnish
Government was employing the slave labour of Poles recruited by
the Hitlerites, the American paper P.M. wrote that this voluntary
participation of Finland in Hitler's enslavement of the European
peoples exposed Helsinki's denial of a union between Finland ahd
the Fascist axis as nothing but a swindle. Finland was shown up
in the guise of a hypocrite, not only a participant in Hitler's blood
thirsty war but a receiver of stolen goods. While yet at the same
time, as the paper noted, unscrupulously assuring the world that it
slipped into its present company only accidentally and against its
will' P.M. called openly on the Finnish people to overthrow their
pro‐Fascist Government and replace it by a government prepared
to secure them peace.</p>
<p>Thus, we see, the swindlers in power in Finland are finding it
difficult any longer to deceive the American public. In Sweden they
are now finding their job nearly as hard, Lately many Swedes who
supported Finland's anti‐Soviet war policy up to only a couple of
years ago have changed their view. Even such a public figure as
Professor Andreas Lindblom, who during the war of 1939‐40 headed
the notorious Finnish Relief Committee, has recently frankly condemned the war of conquest being waged by Finland against the
U.S.S.R., and, yet more, has acknowledged that the Finnish Government was also in the wrong during the earlier conflict, the Winter
War against the U.S.S.R.
</p>
<p>All this goes to show how hard it is becoming for the swindlers of
Finland to lead public opinion up the garden these days.</p>
<h5>(ii) Democracy—Hitler Style</h5>
<p class="fst">IN Finland, the German Fascists did not need to stamp out
democracy themselves, as they had to in so many occupied
countries. The Finnish Government saw to it for them. The
main part of the job of depriving the Finnish people of all democratic
rights had been effected long before the war, particularly during the
years of the White Terror in 1918‐1930 and during the winter of
1939‐1940.</p>
<p>Actually, throughout the last quarter of a century, Finland has
had no system of democracy comparable even to the conservative
order existing in, for example, Sweden, Britain or America. Apologists
for the Finnish Government may object that Finland has a Parliament.
It is true that Finland has an institution that goes by the name of
Parliament (<i>the <i>Seim</i></i>). But, in the first place, this Parliament is
maintained by the domination of the Schutzkorps.
</p>
<p>Secondly, anyone who campaigns for a candidate other than those
of the six Government parties—which include the Hitlerite I.K.L.
Party—anyone who collects signatures for the nomination of any
other candidate, or who even gives his own signature for the purpose,
is liable to arrest.</p>
<p>Thirdly, it is only on paper that a member of the Finnish Parliament
enjoys the right to his own opinion and immunity from arrest. In
actual fact, every opposition member elected to the Finnish Parliament
during the past quarter of a century—excepting, of course, only the
Fascists—has subsequently been arrested and imprisoned. Two
members of the Constitutional Committee of Parliament were kidnapped
by the Fascist thugs at a meeting of the Committee. When the
crime was dealt with, it was the kidnapped members, not the
kidnappers, who were confined in prison.
</p>
<p>And lastly, this so‐called Parliament is not permitted to decide
the major issues facing the country, such as, in particular, those of
war and peace. It was only from Hitler's speech of June 22, 1941,
that the members of the Finnish Parliament: learned that Finland
was to take part in the present war. And when Finland joined the
“ anti‐Comintern bloc” in the autumn of 1941, Parliament learned
of it only after the pact had been signed in Berlin.</p>
<p>Legislation involving new taxation is still submitted by the
Government to Parliament for endorsement, but even in this matter
the functions of Parliament have been so completely reduced to a
formality that many members—as indicated by complaints on the
subject in the Finnish Press—refuse to attend the sessions. Thus,
the Finnish Parliament has almost attained the condition to which
the German Reichstag has been reduced under Hitler, which
circumstance scarcely entitles it to be called a Parliamentary move.
</p>
<p>The last vestiges of civil liberty, freedom of the Press, freedom
of association and right of assembly have been stamped out in
Finland, and today this applies not only to the labouring population
but to the ranks of the bourgeoisie as well. A tyrannical terror reigns
in the country.
</p>
<p>Details very rarely emerge from the torture chambers of the
Finnish prisons: According to official statistics the number of
prisoners in 1942 was 40 per cents above “normal.” Yet the
officially announced number of prisoners in 1941 was 17, 300, while
in normal years it had been approximately 6, 000. The proportion
of political prisoners is not specified. In March this year, a Stockholm
newspaper wrote that many things happen in Finland of which the
Finnish general public is not aware. Persons have been left under
“preventive arrest” as penalty for their Socialist convictions for
over 2<sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>2</sub> years, and are still held. If they were tried at all, this took
place in <i>camera</i>. The death penalty, abolished a hundred years ago,
has been reintroduced for political as well as criminal offences. The
fact was published that a Communist M.P. was executed a year ago.
Other such cases are known, but the Press neither desires nor would
be allowed to speak of them.
</p>
<p>The treatment of political prisoners in the prisons is brutal in the
extreme, for the jailers are their political opponents. Arns Pekurinen,
a famous Finnish Pacifist, was secretly removed from the prison in
which he had been confined since the start of the Winter War of 1939‐40,
and soon after his wife was notified that he had been “ killed at the
front.” Swedish newspapers have described the starvation conditions
under which Finnish political prisoners are confined. Many have died
of under‐nourishment. The survivors are terribly emaciated, but
none the less obliged to do heavy labours. Many are so hungry that
they seize opportunities to eat discarded garbage.
</p>
<p>Finnish jailers and police have in the past been notorious for their
barbarous treatment of political prisoners, but since the Gestapo took
over the supervision of police and prison administration in Finland,
the tortures to which political prisoners are subjected have become
still more diabolical. Information in my possession, for example,
shows that one political prisoner confined in Rikinjaki prison was so
viciously manhandled as to be unconscious for two days. Another
political prisoner was shot through the head ; the jailers “explained ”
this was an “ accident.” According to statements published in the
Swedish Press, Dr. Naori Vuemier, prominent Finnish Socialist leader,
has been subjected to such ill‐treatment and tortures in prison that
last year he attempted to commit suicide. In 1940 Dr. Vuemier was
Chairman of the Society for Peace and Friendship between Finland
and the U.S.S.R. For this he was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.
Now, apparently, characteristic Fascist methods are being
used in the attempt to get rid of him for good.</p>
<p>About three hundred leading members of the Society for Peace and
Friendship with the U.S.S.R., confined in the Kadyulia Concentration
Camp when the war started, were thereupon removed and taken to
the front, “ to dance in the minefields, ” as the Fascist officers in charge
of their escorts took great delight in telling them. Twenty‐five of the
more prominent Labour and Trade Union leaders amongst them were
singled out on the way, led off, and killed by the roadside. Some of
those who actually reached the front succeeded in coming to the Soviet
lines. The fate of the rest is unknown.</p>
<p>Such is the barbarous face of present‐day “ democracy ” in Finland.
If we gaze not upon the mask, but at what that mask conceals, we can
readily perceive that such a brand of democracy is found neither unsafe
nor incongruous by the German Fascists.</p>
<p>In general, as we know, the German Fascists proclaim the principle
of the abolition of democracy and of its replacement everywhere by
their authoritarian and terrorist reg'me. But the German Fascists,
naturally, raise no objection to the brand of democracy that obtains
in Finland. The <i>Berliner Boersenzeitung</i>, a leading publication of the
Hitlerite State, made exactly this point recently, when it wrote “The
example of Finland shows that there can exist quite practically community of fortune between leading authoritarian States and small
democratic countries.” The Fascists are in no wise disconcerted by
the fact that Finland, their sister‐in‐arms, is a land of “ genuine
democracy.”</p>
<p>In what particular this “ genuine democracy” after the Finnish
model differs in substance from a Fascist regime, no one ean specify.
For it differs not in substance, but in outward appearance only. The
sole difference is that the wealthy Finnish reactionary rulers still
endeavour to cover the nakedness of this terrorist dictatorship with
tag‐ends of old democratic draperies. Should the war end successfully
for them, of course, they would be able to shed even these wretched
rags, which include “ Parliament ” and the “ Finnish Social Democratic
Party.” But this they can only do if Fascist Germany emerges the
victor in the war, and since this prospect no longer exists, the ragged
tag‐ends will be mobilised to play their part if the designs of the wealthy
Fascist ruling caste do not miscarry.</p>
<p>As regards the Finnish Social Democratic leaders their political
position is adequately characterised by their participation in the
Finnish Fascist organisation “ The Union of Brothers‐in‐Arms, ” as
well as by the formal pact executed between the Social Democratic
Party and the <i>Schutzkorps.</i>
</p>
<p>There are two features particularly characteristic of the Social
Democratie leaders of Finland. one is their political duplicity. On
any question you care to examine you will find that between their
works and their deeds there lies a yawning gulf.</p>
<p>These men co‐operated with the Fascists, the <i>Schutzkorps,</i> the police
and the Secret Service in brutally strangling the, last vestiges of
independence of the Finnish working class. But in their May Day
1942 manifesto they declared : “ The working class desires to champion
independence, liberty and democratic social order.”</p>
<p>These men shared in selling to Hitler the independence, liberty
and democratic rights of the Finnish people. In the manifesto they
state: “ We cannot allow these possessions of such vital importance
to our people to be bought or sold.”</p>
<p>These men—Tanner and his associates—shared in throwing into
prison even those deputies of their own Party who did not choose to
join with them in their intrigues for the abolition of democracy in
Finland. And in the same manifesto they have the effrontery to
proclaim; “ An end must be put to intrigues against the democratic
way of Government.”
</p>
<p>These are only brief examples of this unparalleled duplicity.</p>
<p>The other particulars characteristic, in respect to which, again, they
have broken all records, is their servility towards Fascists in general
and Hitler in particular.
</p>
<p>If they were not masters of this art, the Social Democratic leaders
would not be occupying ministerial positions in the Finnish Cabinet
conducting the present war. That is obvious and incontrovertible.
<i>It is not, after all, accidental, that the Finnish Social Democratic Party
is the only Social Democratic Party in the world that participates in a
government of Hitler's gendarmes, openly supports Hitler's war of conquest,
and hence works to secure the victory of the sworn enemy of the liberty of
all nations.</i></p>
<p>This circumstance is sufficiently indicative, not only of the quality
of the Finnish Social Democratic Party at the present stage in its
history, but of the festering ulcer into which “ Finnish democracy ”
in general has now developed. For the Hitlerised Social Democratic
Party in Finland is part and parcel of the Hitlerised “democracy ”
that now prevails there.</p>
<h4>4 ‐ FINNISH GAMBLERS' DOOM</h4>
<p class="fst">ALL the war plans of the Finnish rulers were based on the illusions
of an anticipated victory of Hitler Germany over the peoples
of the U.S.S.R., Great Britain, and other freedom‐loving countries.
In the course of the war, however, these illusions have been shattered
one after the other.</p>
<p>In August and September, 1941, the hopes of the Finnish ruling
circles soared.<i>The Helsinken Sanomat,</i> a Government organ, wrote :
“The last remnants of the Soviet forces are now threatened with
encirclemente and annihilation.” Another Government organ, the
<i>Uusi Suomi</i> declared : “One thing is certain, that the war will end before
the onset of winter, ” and the chief commentator of the Finnish radio
stated (September, 1941); “ The final score with the Russians will be settled in the immediate future.“ </p>
<p>But in December, 1941, after the first powerful counter‐blows of the
Red Army, the tone of the Helsinki spokesmen became for a time
decidedly more subdued. Even Mannerheim had no better consolation to offer his troops than “ If we hold out until spring we shall
win through.”</p>
<p>In the spring and summer of 1942 a new wave of illusions engulfed
Helsinki, this time concerning the anticipated irresistibility of the
Germans on the southern front. Every report of a temporary success
by the German Army emanating from Berlin acquired an added boastfulness in the course of its journey through the ether to Helsinki and
was splashed in big type in the Finnish Press. According to these
newspapers by September Stalingrad had already been finally captured
by the Germans, the Soviet Union had already been deprived of the
Caucasus oil, and so forth. “As far as human reason can judge, ”
wrote the military correspondent of the <i>Helsinken Sanomat</i> on
September 15, 1942, “the last hour of the Bolsheviks has already
struck.” Blinded by the boastings of the Germans and their own
illusions, Hitler's Helsinki flunkeys forgot all they knew of the
striking force of the Red Army, the power of which they had learned
previously, in the course of the winter battles of 1940.</p>
<p>It may well be imagined that when the bubble of these ill‐founded
illusions suddenly burst several weeks later, the effect was:more than
stunning. In the phrase of one observer, when the Red Army took
the offensive in the Stalingrad area, it was as though all the main
government buildings in Helsinki had been shaken by an earthquake,
The usual truculent barking of President Ryti over the Finnish radio
changed all at once to a pusillanimous whine: “Today Finland is
living through a period of hardship and suffering. But we had no
other choice. The logic of fate governs the course of events.” And
again: “Surprises in the further course of the war are not excluded.
The tremendous events now taking place will affect Finland also.
The fortunes of war may betray us.” It took Mr, Ryti a whole month
to get over his fright and even then he did not recover entirely.</p>
<p>The Government, alarmed at Finland's growing isolation in. the
foreign political arena, set about dispatching one Finnish Cabinet
Minister after another to Sweden to deny, in interviews and speeches,
the “ Greater Finland” plans of the Government.</p>
<p>At the same time the Finnish Press started a discussion on the
question of the possibility of Finland withdrawing from the war. It
at once became clear, however, that this was merely an attempt to
hoodwink the Finnish people and foreign observers, and that there
was not the slightest sincere intention of putting an end to Finland's
participation in Hitler's war of conquest. The idea of the rulers of
Finland was simply to wave the white flag a little, in order to stave off
the people's growing discontent with the war and to furnish their
apologists in Britain and the U.S.A. with something to make use of,
in the case of Germany's defeat, to diminish the blame resting on the
Finnish Government for its collaboration in Hitler's war.</p>
<p>How far the Finnish rulers were ready to go in their collaboration
in Hitler's bloody shambles may be judged from the following circumstance : In the spring of 1943 the pitiable remnants of the Finnish
battalions routed in the North Caucasus while fighting there in collaboration with the German Army got back to Finland. Out of more
than 10, 000 picked butchers of the Finnish S.S.—only 800 returned,
and these were probably first‐class long‐distance runners. They were
accorded a triumphant welcome at Tampere. But it turned out that
the so‐called heroes were themselves fed up with war, or at least with
the war on the eastern front, They were urged to go back to Germany
when their leave was finished. But this most of them refused to be
persuaded to do. Meanwhile Hitler, as the Swedish Press reported,
was imperatively demanding that the Finnish Government replace ‘the
Finnish battalions which had disappeared from the southern front,
that it furnish the same quantity of cannon‐fodder as before. Did the
Finnish Government refuse ? Certainly not. It was decided on a
new draft of volunteers for the Berlin butchers' mincing machine—and
was ready, if the volunteers could not be found in Finland, to dispatch
the necessary number of Finnish heads by force, in chains if need be,
to the German slaughter‐house.</p>
<p>The most recent reorganisation of the Finnish Government is an
event more patent proof of the absence of any intention on the part
of Finland's rulers to change their course in the Fascist war.
</p>
<p>Rangell's place as Premier was taken by Linkomies, the head of the
Coalition Party. Even among the other political bosses of the Finnish
wealth ruling caste, Linkomies has always been outstanding as an
extreme chauvinist and particularly rabid reactionary. He invariably
protected the toughs of the Lappo which gave rise to the I.K.L. Party,
and behind the scenes directed their deeds of violence along the lines
desired by the wealthy ruling caste. He has always been one of
Hitler's most trusted Finnish cronies and is one of those most responsible for instigating Finland's part in the war. The change in Prime
Minister thus simply meant that a small Fascist has been replaced by
a big Fascist. As Minister of Foreign Affairs, Witting, the German
agent, who had too obviously compromised himself as such, was
replaced by Ramsay, the craftier diplomat of the two. ‘The job
assigned to him is to continue the same game but open up his cards
less. The Ministry of Internal Affairs was handed to the arch‐
reactionary Ehnrovth, for a long time Secretary of the Finnish
Employers' Association and subsequently active plotter of anti‐Soviet
intrigues at the League of Nations. Walden, paper king of Finland,
was retained as War Minister, and Tanner, who also enjoys Hitler's
unchanging confidence, was left as Finance Minister</p>
<p>It is hardly necessary to say that Berlin was pleased with this kind
of reorganisation of the Finnish Government, and the rulers of Finland,
Hitler's flunkeys, who in December and January had been frightened
and crestfallen, once more began to crow. But this time it was with
a lessened bravado, for now it was without confidence in victory. All
their efforts are now directed towards trying to relieve themselves of
the responsibilities for their crimes, preserve power in their own hands,
and keep some part at least of the Soviet territory they have seized.
To this end they continue to fight as an auxiliary of Hitler Germany,
while at the same time making every possible effort to deceive public
opinion in the U.S.A., Great Britain, and Sweden.
</p>
<p>There appear to be internal dissensions in Finland between the two
largest Government parties: the Agrarian Alliance, which incites
against the workers, and the Social Democratic Party, which incites
against the peasants. This much is at least clear: both the one and
the other dissentient desire to divert the growing dissatisfaction of the
masses from its most dangerous objective, that is, from becoming
directed against the wealthy ruling circles and their Government.</p>
<p>Not only is unity among the people beyond the power of the present
Government to achieve but, as we have illustrated, the groups comprising the Government are obliged to destroy whatever national unity
there is, for it is bound to become directed against the Government.
It is precisely the unity of the people that they fear.</p>
<p>The adherents of the Finnish Government exemplify also more
serious differences of opinion than the above. Regarding these differences of opinion the Swedish newspaper <i>Dagens Nyheter</i> wrote:
“ Everyone who knows the situation in Finland will agree that the
relations between the adherents of the programme calling for the
conquest of Greater Karelia and those who favour a prudent defensive
are strained, and may easily become more strained.” This Swedish
paper in speaking of the adherents of the so‐called “prudent ”
defensive appears to be thinking primarily of certain circles of the
Finnish‐Swedish Party, who are constantly being intimidated by the
threats of the Hitlerite L.K.L. Party. On November 29, 1942, for
example, the <i>Ajan Suunta </i>wrote: “The Swedish—Jewish Press issues
the orders, and the Finnish Swedes at once obey. It may be taken
for granted that they are collaborating with certain outside interests in
matters relating to the present war and with the design of weakening Russia's enemy, Finland, by means of the help of those outside
interests.” This is the sort of insolence with which Hitler's Finnish
agents are accustomed to browbeat the Swedish opposition into silence.</p>
<p>In addition to the Swedes there are persons among the Government
parties who understand clearly enough the dangerous and adventurist
nature of the Government's course in continuing the Fascist war but
do : nothing to deflect that course. Political cowardice characterises
the entire “ opposition ” in the camp of the Government parties.
When, for example, in February, 1943, the powers of the President
expired, only twenty ‐ three of the electors objected to the re ‐ election
of Ryti, the Hitlerite lackey, and even then they did not dare
vote against bis re ‐ election but merely abstained . This so ‐ called
“ opposition ” is afraid of its own shadow. True, it is afraid of the
consequences of the military adventure undertaken by the Ryti ‐
Linkomies ‐ Mannerheim clique. But it is even more afraid of
attempts to hinder these Hitler agents in the pursuit of their
adventure , for what it fears most of all is the breakdown of the
internal front , that is , its own united front with the ruling clique .
This “ opposition ” does not even dream of seeking the support of the
popular masses so as to launch a serious struggle against the criminal
policy of the Government , for it itself fears the people and therefore
shuns any step that could possibly encourage the growth of the existing
dissatisfaction among the Finnish people and also their activity.</p>
<p>In May, 1943, the Social Democratic trade union leaders came out
similarly with a special “ loyal opposition ” platform of their own.
But that is no genuine opposition. It is merely a swindle. Concern
at the growing indignation of the working masses against the war and
the Hitlerite policy of the Government obliges the trade union leadership to resort to verbal repudiation of this policy in an endeavour to
cover up its actual collaboration with the authorities in carrying out
this policy. It acted in this matter completely on the instructions
of the Government, particularly of Tanner, who had sold out completely to Hitler and the wealthy Finnish Fascist clique or as a certain
Swedish paper put it more politely, “ who has devoted himself to the
cause of the war policy and its camouflaging.”</p>
<p>The internal demoralisation of the Finnish ruling clique is bound to
grow. But at the same time it is plain that Fascist rule in Finland
will not collapse as a result of its own internal discord or the economic
difficulties confronting it. It is rotten and decomposing but it will
not collapse unless it is overthrown. It is only by decisive struggle
that the Finnish people can save themselves from the plague of
Hitlerism.</p>
<p>For two years and more now Finland has been fighting as the
auxiliary of Fascist Germany, fighting for the establishment of
Hitlerite tyranny over the peoples of Europe. In the course of these
two years the relationship of forces between the belligerent sides has
changed to such an extent that today the inevitability of the ultimate
collapse of the robber war of the Hitlerites and their associates is
already plain. The heroism of the Red Army and the strategie genius
of its Supreme Command have foiled the predatory plans ot those who
embarked on the invasion of the U.S.S.R. and the day is not far off
when the Sovict Union, together with the other freedom ‐loving
countries, will utterly crush these most vicious enemies of mankind.</p>
<p>In the autumn of 1941, when the Finnish Government signed in
Berlin the pact affirming Finland's adherence to the so ‐ called
“ anti ‐ Comintern <i>bloc</i> ”, the Finnish Press commented that Finland
had become the hub of the Axis. There is now no longer any question
about whether this hub will hold out. The only question is how long
the whole Axis will hold out. And every sensible person in the world
knows that the answer is , “ Not long.”</p>
<p>One year later, in the autumn of 1942, one of the Hitlerite Finnish
papers wrote that, so long as the leaders of Finland maintained their
collaboration with Germany, there would be nothing to fear. They
have maintained that collaboration. But, as we have seen, a host of
grave trials and worries have descended upon them. Their whole
policy is bankrupt. They shall answer for their crimes with their
heads .
</p>
<p>Finland's participation in Hitler's robber war is the greatest misfortune that has ever befallen the Finnish people and the greatest
disgrace in their history. Let us hope that the Finnish people will
presently find the requisite strength and courage to rid themselves of
this disgrace, incurred by the anti ‐ Soviet war, by a decisive struggle to
overthrow the power of the criminal agents of Hitler Fascism. It is a
question of the Finnish people's honour.
</p>
<p>And this brings us to the main question, namely, that the vital
interests of the Finnish people themselves no less than those of the
Soviet people require a secure guarantee that never again shall there
be a repetition of Finland's treacherous attack on Soviet territory, so
that in time to come the Finnish people shall be able to dwell not in
enmity but in peaceful collaboration with the great Soviet people.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on 3 January 2021</p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > Kuusinen
By OTTO KUUSINEN
FOREWORD by Ivor MONTAGU
25 YEARS OF ANTI‐SOVIET POLICY
FINLAND UNMASKED
(1944)
Source: Pamphlet published by London Caledonian Press Ltd., for the Russia Today Society, London, 1944.
Transcribed & marked up by Johnny Essex for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive(2021). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
SOURCES OF FINLAND'S ANTI‐SOVIET POLICY
HOW FINLAND WAS HITCHED TO THE WAR CHARIOT OF GERMAN IMPERIALISM
HITLERITE FINLAND:
(i) GERMAN MASTERS—FINNISH FLUNKEYS
(ii) DEMOCRACY—HITLER STYLE
THE FINNISH GAMBLERS’DOOM
INTRODUCTION
IT is terribly important for democrats in Britain , just because so many of them were stampeded into making a mistake about Finland in 1939‐40, not to go ahead and make another one now.
It is terribly important for them to understand the truth about Finland , that underlies the deceptive façade.
Here is a country whose territory is being used to bomb and torpedo the convoys from Britain and the U.S.A., taking essential goods through to Russia to help save all those values that mean anything to all the civilised people in the world.
Everyone realises that if the people who rule Finland had their way , and achieved the object into winning which they threw all their country's resources, Hitler would be victorious and night would descend, horror and corruption and slavery engulf all our families.
And yet just because —in 1939–40—propaganda succeeded in taking in a lot of people and making them believe that Finland was somehow a peace‐loving little democracy and deserving of sympathy, these
same people now try to find excuses for shutting their eyes to what they really cannot help seeing very plainly.
And like suckers they try to invent all kinds of complicated fictions to account for the (supposedly) accidental presence of Finland on the side of wrong against right.
That is why this book by Otto Kuusinen is so terribly important. Otto Kuusinen knows what he is talking about. He is himself a Finn. And he is a very responsible person. He is Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet (that is, equivalent to President) of the
Karelo‐Finnish Socialist Soviet Republic, one of the sixteen constituent Republics of the U.S.S.R. He is also a Deputy‐Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., that is, one of the
Vice‐Presidents of the entire Soviet Union. The four chapters of this little book of his were serialised in August, September and October, by the Moscow Trade Union journal War and the Working Class.
Did you know that though there is a Parliament in Finland every opposition deputy has either been killed or put in prison ?
Did you know that, when the ban was lifted for a few weeks in 1940, a Finnish Society of Peace and Friendship with the Soviet Union obtained in three months more than twice as many members as the largest Finnish political party ?
Did you know that the ties of Finland's rulers with Hitler did not begin with June 22, 1941, but are of very long standing ?
Did you know that the leaders of Finland's “Social Democratic” Party and “ trade unions” maintain their position as a result of the government in which they participate jailing and torturing all the opposition in their party and unions ?
Did you know that Finland received its freedom from Socialist Soviet Russia without firing a shot, but that Finnish soil has since
been used–with the help of Finland's rulers– or five invasions of Russia in twenty‐five years ?
Did you know that Finnish “democracy” itself is founded on Finland's rulers having called in German troops to help them exterminate 30,000 men and women of the Finnish working class.
When you know and bear in mind these facts, that will help you to
understand that the association of present‐day Finland with Hitler‐
Germany is not at all accidental, that its democratic‐sounding names
and propaganda are not all they wish to seem.
Finland represents a serious problem. Finland is a nation, and as
such must be free. The Finns are a people, and as such must be happy
and prosperous–just like Germany and the Germans.
But a generation of falsehood has built up in Finland very many
Finns who are no less dangerous to mankind and civilisation—not only
to the Soviet Union—than the fanatics of the Hitler Youth. Somehow
they must be tackled; somehow Finnish democracy must be made
not fake but real; somehow Finland must become a good neighbour,
and the Finns wild shared in Hitler's aggression must be put out of
harm's way as thoroughly as his other puppet satellites, That is the
problem.
Blinking our eyes to the facts of it won't help. Studying Kuusinen's
book will.
Ivor Montagu.
1 – SOURCES OF FINLAND'S ANTI‐SOVIET POLICY
THERE is no other country which has for a quarter of a
century so consistently and stubbornly pursued an anti‐Soviet
policy as Finland.
There has been many a change in the general orientation of ,
Finland's foreign policy , but throughout all these changes Finland's
ruling clique has ever been drawn – like a compass needle turning
to the north—into the embrace of those States and governments
which at each given period occupied a position of hostility to the
U.S.S.R.
What explains this persistency of Finland's ruling circles in their
hostility to the Soviet Union? It is not enough to call this a
manifestation of chauvinism. Undeniably the ruling, wealthy circles
of Finland are tainted with chauvinism, but their chauvinism is a
phenomenon requiring special explanation.
The Finnish chauvinists have always proclaimed themselves representatives of old Finnish Nationalism, preaching an “hereditary”
national hatred for all Russians. “Russia is the age‐old enemy of
Finland, “ they say. But this is false, demagogic phrasing.
As a matter of historical fact they do not hate all Russians.
Finland's ruling circles get along very well with Russian White
Guards and White emigrés. They established “collaboration ”
with these latter immediately following the October Revolution in
1917 and have harmoniously co‐operated with them ever since.
The nationalist demagogy directed against “all Russians ” was
needed by Finland's rulers to inject with their anti‐Soviet chauvinism
wider circles of the population, fanning the mistrust of Russians
inherited from the period of Russian oppression. And to a certain
extent this scheme of the Finnish chauvinists has been successful.
In the autumn of 1939, at the start of the three months' hostilities
between Finland and the Soviet Union, considerable sections of
Finland's population fell a prey to chauvinistic poison: not only
business owners and landowners, rich peasants and officials, but
also a certain section of the working people.
The principal advocate and most active disseminator of this
chauvinism has, however, always been the reactionary leadership of
the Finnish bourgeoisie, the ruling wealthy circles, together with
their agents, these latter including the apparatus and Press of both
bourgeois and Social Democratic parties, the Protective Guard
(Schutzkorps), the officer corps, etc.
Characteristic of Finnish chauvinism is the fact that its advocates
belong precisely to those circles of the Finnish bourgeoisie which, in
the period of Tsarist oppression, were distinguished not by nationalism
but by betrayal of the national interests. Precisely those Finnish
politicians (the so‐called Suoemetarians) who sold the interests of
their people to Tsarism, who, more than any others, kowtowed
before the Russian Governors‐General, changed their uniform after
the October Revolution, and began to appear in the role of the
most ostentatious “ patriots.‐ The costume of extreme Finnish
Nationalism was donned by Mannerheim and a number of other
Tsarist officers who, though born in Finland, had even forgotten the
Finnish language, having served their entire lives in Russia as most
loyal servants of Tsarism. After the October Revolution cut short
their careers in Russia, they moved to Finland to become Finnish
chauvinists.
Clearly a chauvinism born as a result of transformations so rapid
is chauvinism of a special kind, Let us examine the origins of this
chauvinism,
Finland's wealthy ruling circle is a numerically small clique of
bitter oppressors of the workers, a reactionary group that would
never have been able to retain power without support from without
and an emergency apparatus of violence within the country.
Under the Tsardom the leadership of the Finnish bourgeoisie
ruled with the support of the bayonets of Russian Tsarism. Tsarism
in its policy of repression of the Finnish people similarly relied on
the most reactionary section of the Finnish bourgeoisie. The two
maintained mutual collaboration with a view to keeping enslaved
the Finnish popular masses. There was, it is true, friction between
them, but this concerned only questions of secondary importance.
In the matter of suppressing the class‐struggle of the proletariat and
popular manifestations in Finland, Tsarism and the Finnish wealthy
ruling circles always acted as one. There were actually instances
in which wealthy Finns demanded of Tsarism greater repressions
against the Finnish popular masses. I remember, for example, the
political General Strike of November, 1905. Gn that occasion the
reactionary leadership of the bourgeoisie in Helsinki officially implored
the Tsarist Governor‐General to send Russian troops to deal with
the unarmed Finnish Red Guard. The Tsar's satrap did not then
dare to take the step requested, for at that moment the Tsar himself
was in great fear of the powerful revolutionary moves of the Russian
working class. But in most cases Tsarism generously gave the
Finnish wealthy ruling caste all the support it needed in its struggle
against the working people of Finland.
When, therefore, Tsarism fell under the impact of the February
Revolution in 1917, Finland's reactionary bourgeoisie was gripped
by “fear of isolation.” It had no troops at its disposal. The
Schutzkorps detachments were few and small at that time, and so
hateful to the working people that the reactionary rulers of the
country had to organise them in secret. Under the influence of
events in Russia, Finland's working class was rapidly becoming
imbued with the revolutionary spirit. The Finnish Parliament, the
Seim, did not afford a sufficiently reliable political bulwark for
reaction. All the bourgeois parties taken together had only half
the seats in Parliament, even slightly less at that moment; the
Social Democratic group in the Seim, despite the fact that its
majority consisted of Right‐wing opportunists, was in such a state
as the result of the activities of the Left‐wing deputies and the
pressure of revolutionary workers from below that the reactionary
bourgeoisie could not rely upon it.
The reliable support it needed, the Finnish wealthy ruling caste
decided, it could obtain from the Russian Provisional Government.
As early as that period a part of the Finnish Nationalists had already
established connections with Germany in search of a new support
from without, but until this search produced results, the ruling
wealthy clique clung desperately to Kerensky's Provisional Government.
In the light of these facts can be appreciated the significance of
the conflict which broke out in the Finnish Seim during the spring
and summer of 1917. With Lenin's approval, we, Left workers'
deputies, fought for the right of the Finnish people to self‐
determination. The reactionary bourgeois parties stubbornly
insisted on the preservation of the traditional suzerainty of the
Russian Monarchy over Finland. When we finally succeeded in
winning a majority vote in Parliament in favour of a Bill abolishing
this traditional suzerainty, the Finnish reactionaries appealed to the
Kerensky Government and succeeded in getting the Finnish Parliament
dissolved. They were afraid of independence for Finland, they were
afraid that with the overlordship of Russia they might lose their
own last support.
But Kerensky's Provisional Government fell on November 7, 1917.
The people of Finland welcomed the success of the October Revolution
as a happy and joyful event. But the reactionary bourgeoisie rc garded
it as a frightful calamity. It was quite obvious that the victory
of the Socialist Revolution in Russia opened for the Finnish people
the possiblity of an independent free existence and a happy voluntary
comradesh'p with the Russian people. It is of course well known
that the Bolshevik Party has always asserted the right of nations
to self‐determination. Immediately after the October Revolution, as
representative of the Soviet Government, Peoples' Commissar for
National Affairs Stalin, attending the Congress of the Finnish
Social Democratic Party in Finland, proclaimed the full freedem of
organising their own life for the Finnish as well as all the other peoples
of the former Russian State; voluntary and honest union of the
Finnish people with the Russian people; no guardianship, no
surveillance from above over the Finnish people. Such were guiding
principles of the policy of the Council of Peoples' Commissars. Thus
there could be no doubt whatever as to the readiness of the Soviet
Government to grant Finland the full right of self‐determination.
But this, it was only too plain, was the reverse of soothing to the
ruling clique of the Finnish bourgeoisie; the latter was afraid of
independence for Finland without the outside support necessary to
safeguard its reactionary rule.
Accordingly the leaders of the Finnish weaithy ruling caste
hastened to appeal to the Government of Imperial Germany, seeking
in German imperialism a new master for Finland and the outside support for themselves in the struggle against the working people.
Svinhufvud, head of the reactionary Government, sent an ex‐Senator
to Germany with the following instructions: “Make arrangements
for the Germans to come here or we shall not be able to cope with
the situation.”
The German Government readily assumed the role of imperialist
guardian of Finland, but nevertheless advised the Finnish rulers to
request the Soviet Government to grant Finnish independence.
Accordingly, in reply to a request by the Finnish Government, on
December 31, 1917, the Soviet Government adopted a decree, signed
by Lenin and Stalin, granting full independence to Finland. And
in “appreciation” of this magnanimity on the part of the Soviet
Government, Finland's ruling clique at once began openly to manifest
its hostility towards the Soviet people, joining in the counter‐
revolutionary intrigues of the Russian White Guards against the
Soviet power.
It might have been supposed that common sense would have
suggested to the gentlemen of independent Finland to refrain from
intervention in the affairs of their great neighbour. But this did not
happen. Afraid that the power of the Workers' and Peasants' Movement in Finland might rapidly grow under conditions of bourgeois
democracy, the Finnish reactionaries regarded the victory of Workers'
and Peasants' power in Russia as a “ dangerous example” to the
working people of Finland, and hence they regarded it as in their
interests to struggle for the restoration of the power of the oppressors
in the neighbouring country.
No longer hoping to retain power with the methods of bourgeois
democracy, in January, 1918, the reactionary Svinhufvud Government
hastily prepared a counter‐revolutionary uprising in the country. In
reply to this, the Finnish working class firmly resolved not to surrender
without a battle, came out together with the poor peasantry in a
revolutionary struggle for power. For three months a Workers'
Government held all Southern Finland, and only with the, troops of
the German Kaiser did the counter‐revolutionary government succeed
at the cost of severe battles in defeating our Red Guard and satiating
its lust for blood in an unprecedented mass terror.
As is well known, the Finnish White Guard ruling caste conducted
this counter‐revolutionary war against the workers and peasants of
Finland under cover of the slogan “ Finland's War of Liberation from
Russian Oppression.” But since Russian oppression had been
abolished by the October Revolution in the previous year, and at the
end of 1917 the Soviet Government had solemnly recognised Finland's
independence. Finland obviously had no reason to fight in the following
year for its “Liberation from the Russian Yoke.” This completely
fictitious slogan directed against the Russian people and the Russian
State was necessary to the reactionary rulers of Finland to deceive
the Finnish peasants and the urban petty bourgeoisie. But at the
same time as it served as a demagogic slogan, it also expressed the
bellicose hostility of the Finnish White Guards towards the Soviet
Government.
For during February and March, Mannerheim openly called upon
the Finnish White Guard Army, that he headed, to start a campaign
against Petrograd and for the conquest of Soviet Karelia. Two Finnish
White Guard expeditions, led by a Captain Utlerius, were actually
dispatched to Soviet Karelia in March, 1918, but they were smashed
before getting there by Finnish Red Guard detachments with the aid
of the local population. For a campaign against Leningrad,
Mannerheim was not strong enough; it is true that in autumn the
same year Finnish Protective Guard gangs did invade the Leningrad
Region via Esthonia, but they were routed there.
Thus already during the first year of the independent existence of
the Finnish State, the country's administration emerged as a bitter
enemy of the Soviet Union, Its aggressive anti‐Soviet chauvinism
was, from the very outset, the expression of a frantic desire, by whatever
means, to bring about the elimination of Soviet power from the great
neighbouring country.
This insane desire of Finland's ruling clique proceeded from its
morbid and panic‐inspired fear lest the example of the Soviet Union
encouraged the struggle of the working people of Finland for their
liberation from the yoke of the wealthy ruling class. The chauvinism
of Finland's rulers base always been, and remains to this day, a
manifestation of the anti‐Soviet fury of a counter‐revolutionary gang
in mortal fear of its people and constantly concerned with the preservation of its power over the masses of the people oppressed and
exploited by it. There lies the primary source of the anti‐Soviet
chauvinism of Finland's ruling clique. A terroristic regime in home
policy and anti‐Soviet aggression in foreign policy—these are not two
policies, but merely two aspects of one and the same policy of the
counter‐revolutionary ruling circles.
A second source of the anti‐Soviet policy of Finland's ruling
caste lies in its greedy desire to lay its hands on the natural wealth of
Soviet Karelia, and above all on the tremendous Soviet Karelian
forest land. This tempting wealth, alas, lies on the other side of the
border, whence not even a single log may be removed. What therefore
was to be done? The ruling circles decided on the fitting out of an
…unofficial ” expedition. The Government pretended ignorance of
it. Its organisation and finance was undertaken by the big Helsinki
banks and the prominent representatives of the timber industry of
Eastern Finland constituted into a so‐called Karelian Committee—
the unofficial leadership of the expedition. The majority of the Schutz‐
korps was drawn into the expedition, and the armaments included
guns supplied from Army stores. The command was undertaken by
officers of the Finnish Army with Major von Herzen at their head.
This expedition began in the spring of 1919 and was routed by the
end of June in the same year. The following year (October 14, 1920)
the Finnish Government signed a Peace Treaty between Finland and
the Russian Socialist Federation of Soviet Republics, but simultaneously
throughout Finland volunteers began to be recruited for a new campaign ‐
against Soviet Karelia. After thorough preparation in November,
1921, numerically strong and well‐armed detachments of the new
expedition began their march against Karelia, only to be smashed two
or three months later by units of the Red Army. An heroic detach‐
ment of Finnish skiers under Toivo Antikainen, detailed by the Red
Army Command to penetrate deep into the enemy rear, smashed up
the G.H.Q. of the Finnish Wh.te Guard invaders in the. village of
Kimasjaervi in the course of a sweeping surprise raid.
The people of Soviet Karelia did not allow the natural wealth of
their country to slip from their hands, Even prior to the predatory
campaigns of the Finnish White Guards the Karelo‐Finnish people,
who had received under the Soviet system full freedom of economic
and cultural development, turned a deaf ear to the nationalist appeals
of Finland's rulers, who assumed the role of “Liberators of their
Tribal Brethren.” But only in the course of the brigand campaigns
did the Karelo‐Finnish people learn the full extent of the rapacious
character of their Finnish White Guard self‐styled “Liberators.”
The vulture was forced temporarily to postpone the attempts to
carry out its aggressive plans, but it did not abandon the plans themselves.
These are the sources of the anti‐Soviet chauvinism of Finland's
rulers. From its very inception it has been in essence a chauvinism
of the Fascist variety.
2 – HOW FINLAND WAS HITCHED TO THE WAR CHARIOT OF GERMAN IMPERIALISM
THE hitching of Finland to the war chariot of German imperialism
was a lengthy affair, prepared over a number of years by linking
Finland with Germany economically and politically.
Ever since the inception of the Finnish State, Finland's rulers boycotted the development of trade with the Soviet Union, although the
interests of Finland's national economy clearly demanded extensive
trade relations with the U.S.S.R., in the framework of normal good
neighbourly relations. The Soviet Union could undoubtedly have
purchased at least two‐thirds of Finland's exports and sold to Finland
on favourable terms no less than four‐fifths of all the imported goods
she required. It is quite obvious that trade relations with the Soviet
Union on such a seale could have been of the utmost importance for
the development of Finland's national economy. But Finland's
wealthy ruling caste did not follow this course, for it would have involved
some corresponding benefit to the Soviet Union. Persisting in its anti‐
Soviet position, it prepared to boycott the development of trade in
general with the U.S.S.R., and as a result, year in and year out, this
trade remained at the insignificant level of no more than 2 to 8 per cent.
of Finland's foreign trade total. The earlier econcmiec developments
of the Soviet Union was, of course, able to proceed without trade with
the Finnish capitalists, but the boycott cost Finland dear.
The Finnish ruling magnates sought compensation for the loss of the
Russian market primarily in Germany. With what result? Firstly,
the Germans demanded as payment for military aid to the Finnish
counter‐revolutionaries Finland's economic and political subordination to Imperialist Germany. In 1918 they agreed to send German
troops to serve as executioners in Finland only after an enslaving
“Trade and Peace Treaty ” had been signed on behalf of Finland in
Berlin. Even a Conservative bourgeois historian such as Schuebergson
could not do other than estimate this Treaty as an act of blackmail
that “made Finland politically and economically dependent upon
Germany.” Only the defeat of German imperialism in the World War
half a year later delivered Finland from this enslaving agreement.
Secondly, the search for a market for Finnish exports in Germany
in the subsequent period proved futile. Instead of increasing, Finland's
exports to Germany declined with the pre‐war period. Instead,
Finland was flooded with German commodities, chiefly of types unnecessary for the development of Finland's national economy. For
example, in 1929 imports from Germany comprised 38 per cent. of
Finland's import total, while her exports to Germany comprised not more
than 14 per cent. of her export total. This added to the difficulties
in the way of the development of industry in Finland. The machine‐building industry especially suffered from German competition and the
total lack of foreign markets for its product. With difficulty Finland
found purchasers for timber, paper and cellulose in remote countries,
including the U.S.A., but naturally the U.S.A. did not buy Finnish
machinery.
Thus Finland in the main became a market for Germany. Matters
reached such a ridiculous stage that Finland, in need of grain and not
wishing to buy grain from the Soviet Union, purchased from Germany
grain that had been exported from the Soviet Union, paying the German
middlemen an extra 30 pfennigs per kilogram (510 marks a ton), and,
of course, permitted the Finnish merchants to reap abundant profits
on top of that at the expense of the Finnish consumers. This was
a typical economic expression of the dull‐witted anti‐Soviet bitterness
of the Finnish wealthy ruling caste.
The German Fascist movement was widely popularised in Finland,
especially among the Schutzkorps members, the students, and the
rural bourgeoisie, and soon a special Hitlerite agency, the so‐called
“Lappo Movement, ” was organised there. In June, 1930, the Lappo,
the Schutzkorps, and the police began joint raids on the Left‐wing
Labour Movement under the slogan “ The Destruction of Communism.”
The Fascist gangsters smashed newspaper print shops and the premises
of workers' organisations, kidnapped hundreds of the most active
workers of the Socialist Movement and trade union officials, beat
and brutally humiliated them, murdered many of them, and took
many others of them to Finland's eastern frontier, expelling them
into Soviet territory. The Left deputies in Parliament—the members
of the Socialist Workers' and Poor Peasants' Parliamentary Group—
were arrested and sentenced to many years' imprisonment. The
Fascists succeeded in rounding up many members of the outlawed
Communist Party as well; but the majority of their victims were
leading members of the legal Labour Movement—Left Socialists,
supporters of or workers for the United Front.
In connection with the bandit actions of the Fascists, the Government disbanded all the old trade union organisations of Finland.
This, directly, was the principal aim of the ruling reactionary big
business circles. Having achieved this in circumstances of nation‐wide
Fascist terror, they could immediately effect a drastic cut in wages
in all branches of industry. In the majority of branches of industry
wages dropped by 30 per cent., and in some by even 60. Hundreds
of millions of marks were pocketed by the wealthy Finnish ruling
caste, with the aid of Fascist terror, in this way in 1930.
Subsequently, in 1932, the Lappo Fascists tried to seize power.
But the “ rebellion” they staged was liquidated by the Government
without a single shot being fired. This demonstrated the fact that
the Finnish Fascists were strong only when acting on the instructions
of the wealthy ruling clique, and that when acting without its sanction
they were quite powerless,
After this, the Fascist Lappo group was renamed the I.K.L. Party
(“ The Patriotic People's Movement”) and began to participate in
Parliamentary elections, at first together with the Coalition Party
and later independently. Both within and without the Seim the
I.K.L. Party conducted undermining activities directed against all
surviving Parliamentary rights and demanding the establishment of
total Fascist dictatorship. The I.K.L. Party never concealed its
political kinship with German Fascism. Of course, the “ Fifth
Column ” of German Fascism in Finland is more widespread than the
I.K.L. Party. But the I.K.L. serves as a direct party agency of
the Hitlerites in Finland. It not only conducted consistent propaganda
for the programmatic principles of German Fascism, it not only
imitated the methods of violence practised by the Hitlerites, but also
in the field of foreign policy it did its utmost to serve German
imperialism in the latter's aim of drawing Finland into the military
adventures prepared by Hitler to conquer world dominion for
Germany.
It is hardly necessary to explain that the I.K.L. conducted an
exceedingly bitter campaign against the Soviet Union. It openly
advocated the seizure of U.S.S.R. territory (“ up to the Urals, ” even
“up to the Yenisei ”) for a “ Greater Finland.”
Throughout the period 1933‐1939 Finland's ruling circles made
use of the Fascist 1.K.L. Party as a political and military battering
ram, but refrained from yielding it the reins of government as they did
not fully understand its political position. In home policy the wealthy
reactionary ruling circles pursued a course of further Fascistiation
of the regime, but they no longer needed the drastic change called
for by the Fascist adventurers of the I.K.L. In foreign policy,
following Hitler's advent to power in Germany, they steered a course
of close collaboration with the Hitlerite Government, but did not
refuse a similar collaboration with the then governments of Britain
and France, for they did not desire to rely on Germany alone as the
agents of Hitler, as the I.K.L. Party demanded.
The main party of Finland's wealthy reactionary rulers was the
Coalition Party, headed by the thorough‐going reactionaries Svinhufvud,
Walden, Linkomies, Paasikivi, and others, who as far back as 1918
had helped the German imperialists to shed the blood of Finland's
working people. Despite the fact that the Coalition Party never
received extensive support in any election, it invariably played the
leading role in Parliament and the Government, using for the purpose
the whole network of influential sympathisers that it possessed in
other Government parties.
There came a time, however, when the Fascist brigandage, and
the obvious desire of President Svinhufvud and his henchmen in
the Government (especially the then Premier Kivimaeki, now
Finland's envoy in Berlin) to take Finland along the Fascist road,
evoked indignation among wide masses of the working people. These
masses were in any case dissatisfied with the miserable wages, the
tremendous unemployment, and the ruinous policy of the wealthy
ruling circles regarding the peasantry. Added to this there was the
uneasiness of the people evoked by the bellicose aggressiveness of
Fascist Germany in Central Europe and the close relations of Finland's
rulers with the Hitlerite imperialists.
Recovering from the Fascist blow it had received in 1930, the
underground Communist Party of Finland regained mass influence
by its struggle against Fascism and the encroachments of the capitalists.
Appealing to the working‐class masses, under the slogan of “The
United Proletarian Front, ” to join the Social Democratic trade unions
(the only trade unions legally allowed to exist in the country), the
Communist Party achieved the transformation of the majority of
local trade union branches into organs of economic class struggle,
which frequently organised strikes despite the bans of the Social
Democratic apparatus. Within the ranks of the Social Democratic
Party a Left Wing was formed (Mauri Ryemi and others), which,
favouring a United Front of the working class, fought against the reactionary clique of Tanner. Under the slogan, “ The People's
United Front against Fascism, ” the Communist Party organised a
number of successful campaigns which met with a wide response
from the masses, for example, the campaign in defence of political
prisoners and against the death sentence.
The anti‐Fascist sentiments among wide masses of the working
people resulted in temporary vacillations even in the ranks of such
governmental parties as the Agrarian Union and the Progressive
Party. At the Presidential elections of 1936 those who supported
the re‐election of Svinhufvud as President were left in a munority.
This was the only case when even the agents of the Coalition Party
in the ranks of the other governmental parties, fearing to lose their
mass influence, refused to follow the dictates of the Coalition Party.
Another nominee of the wealthy reactionary ruling caste, Kallio,
of the Agrarian Union, was elected. As a result of the differences
that had arisen on this question the Coalition Party was for the
moment no longer able to continue speeding, as it had been doing,
along the Fascist road. But the change of President effected by
the elections made no difference at all to Finland's war‐mongering
foreign policy.
The Communists and other anti‐Fascists repeatedly warned the
people of the imperialist aspirations of Fascist Germany and of
the danger of war as a result of the machinations behind the scenes
on the part of militarists and the I.K.L. Party with the German
Fascists, and urged a change in foreign policy in the direction of
restoring sincere and friendly relations with the Soviet Union. But
this had no effect upon the Government, It was once again confirmed
that, regardless of the personal composition of the Government, the
bellicose foreign policy of big‐business Finland remained ever the
same hostile anti‐Soviet policy.
The Social Democratic henchmen of the wealthy ruling circles
represented the matter hypocritically in their statements, as though
the Finnish Government's policy differed radically from the open
anti‐Soviet policy proclaimed by the I.K.L. They insisted that no
one in Finland save a few “ irresponsible persons, ” various individual
“crazy adventurers ” entirely devoid of influence, supported a policy
of hostility and war against the Soviet Union, and that among
“responsible circles” in Finland no one approved such anti‐Soviet
hostility or ever thought of anything but peaceful and good neighbourly
relations with the land of the Soviets. This was a deliberate lie.
The respective policies of both “ responsible ” and “ irresponsible ”
circles in Finland towards the Soviet Union were equally hostile and
equally aggressive. The oniy difference consisted in the fact that
the “‘responsible‐ ones did not shout their desire for an anti‐Soviet
war out loud but energetically pursued practical preparations for
it instead.
Thus, to this end, the General Staff of the Finnish Army developed
intensive activity in close contact with representatives of the German
General Staff and other foreign “ specialists." Especially noteworthy
were the frequent visits to Helsinki in 1937 of all sorts of emissaries
of Hitler Germany, Whenever any Finn publicly expressed apprehensions regarding the unrestricted meddling of German spies in the
affairs of the Finnish Army, one Coalition Party newspaper forthrightly
countered: “We have no military secrets from the Germans.”
The military preparations of the Finnish General Staff were not
confined to strengthening the armaments of the Finnish Army and the development of the country's war industry.
For example, ten times more aerodromes were built in Finland than were required for the Finnish Air Force ( and these included forty large
aerodromes constructed chiefly along the Soviet Border ).
Contrary to the existing international convention for the demilitarisation of the Aaland Islands,
construction was secretly begun there in preparation of a base for
German submarines and aircraft. Strategic highways and railways
leading to the Soviet frontier were built in Eastern Finland. And,
above all, hundreds of fortifications of the strongest type were built
on the Karelian Isthmus under the guidance of German and other
foreign specialists, with design thereby to create a springboard for a
sudden attack on Leningrad. In the summer of 1939 the Chief of
the German Army General Staff, General Halder, visited Finland to
inspect this “ Mannerheim Line.” By the autumn of 1939 Finland,
and the Karelian Isthmus primarily, had been converted into a perfect
military arena for an attack on the Soviet Union.
In their military plans, Finland's rulers had calculated particularly
on an attack by Germany, and not by Germany alone, against the
U.S.S.R. They had anticipated a joint anti‐Soviet war carried out
by Germany, Poland and a number of other States with the support
or even participation of the British and French Governments.
Especially after the Munich deal between Hitler, Chamberlain, and
Daladier (in the autumn of 1938) did Finland's rulers believe that
exactly that kind of war was on the way, and they made energetic
preparations to take part in it. But in the autumn of 1939 matters
took a different course. Germany attacked Poland, and war began
between Germany on one side and Britain and France on the other.
The situation in which a great European War had thus arisen was
pregnant with dangers for the U.S.S.R. as well, and the Soviet Government could not but pay attention to strengthening the security of its
European frontiers. Especially unfavourable, of course, in this respect
were matters in regard to the security of Leningrad, within a score
of miles of which hostile authorities obsessed by anti‐Soviet chauvinism
had built a base for an attack by the imperialists on the city of Lenin.
In view of this, the Soviet Government proposed to Finland an adjustment of the frontier on the Karelian isthmus with a more than ample
territorial compensation at a different place. The Finnish Government,
however, disinclined to make any departure from its consistently
hostile attitude, rejected this proposal, broke off negotiations, actually
set the country on a war footing, and brazenly provoked war.
That Winter War is, of course, still fresh in everyone's mind. Despite
the strength of the numerous Finnish ferro‐concrete fortifications in
the Karelian Isthmus, units of the Red Army crushed the so‐called
“ Mannerheim Line ” in a comparatively brief space of time and dealt
a decisive defeat to the Finnish Army. This outcome of the war was
not that which Finland's rulers had expected, and it obliged them
hastily to ask the Soviet Government for peace. The results of the
conflict were the reverse of that which Finland's rulers had so often
attempted to achieve by force of arms ‐ instead of the incorporation
of Soviet Karelia in White Guard Finland, it resulted in the liberation
of Finnish Karelia from the rule of the wealthy Finnish dominating
clique and its incorporation in Soviet Karelia, which was thereupon
transformed into the Karelo‐Finnish Socialist Soviet Republic.
In some instances a severe lesson of this kind might perhaps have
brought an enemy to his senses. But the Finnish Government, it
turned out, only became more fixed in its insanity. It assumed an
outward guise of loyalty, it professed the intention ever to preserve
friendly relations with the Seviet Union. In the Peace Treaty also
it solemnly pledged itself to refrain from any attack upon the Soviet
Union and to take no part in any coalition hostile to the U.S.S.R. But
the ink with which the representatives of the Finnish Government
signed this Peace Treaty on March 12, 1940, had hardly had time to
dry when it began a behind‐the‐scenes search for some back door of
entry into an imperialist coalition for an anti‐Soviet war.
During the 1939‐40 war the Finnish Government had succeeded in
paralysing every form of opposition on the part of conscientious workers
who regarded the anti‐Soviet war as criminal and hoped for a victory
of the Red Army. The Central Committee of the Finnish Communist
Party called on the people to rise against their criminal government,
and an insurrectionary *” People's Government of Finland“ with a
democratic programme of action was set up in Eastern Finland. It
is today even more clear than it was then that tremendous calamities
would have been spared the Finnish people had they at that time
supported the programme of action of our “ People's Government.”
But by ruthless terror and deafening chauvinist cries Finland's rulers,
together with their Social Democratic assistants, succeeded in nipping
the developing anti‐war movement in the country in the bud and
isolating its supporters.
But immediately following the end of the war, as soon as the
Government terror temporarily even slightly slackened, the hitherto
mullled voice of large sections of the working masses was raised in
condemnation of the Government of war and against anti‐Soviet
chauvinism. The Society for Peace and Friendship with the
U.S.5.R. founded in the spring, 1940, developed within the space of two
or three months into a huge mass organisation, which by autumn of
that year already had 50 to 60,000 members compared with the mere
25,000 counted by the Social Democratic Party, the largest Party in
the country. The newspaper issued by the Society, the Kansan
Sanomat obtained 27,000 subscribers, compared with the circulation
of the central organ of the Social Democratie Party, which within
the same period dropped from 25,000 to 9,000. The Society and its
paper conducted an active campaign for a sincere policy of peace and
the establishment of friendly relations with the Soviet Union. And
around the same issue a new split took place within Finnish Social
Democracy ; not only the Left Wing, whose leaders had been expelled
from the Social Democratic Party even before the war, but also the
former Centre deputies of the Party (Vijk Rajsanen and others) began
a frank struggle against the Social Chauvinist leadership clique with
Minister Tanner at its head
In August and September, 1940, the Finnish Government, having
mobilised its entire police force, launched an attack on the Society
for Peace and Friendship with the U.S.S.R.,smashed its organisations
and restored throughout the country the savage war‐time terror. The
wealthy ruling caste felt that it had once again found support outside
the country and so at once it showed its teeth again at the mass movement of opposition. This backing, moreover, was once again found in
German imperialism. During the winter war of Finland against the
U.S.S.R., Fascist‐Germany's hands had been tied, and she did not risk
interference.But as soon as Hitler had succeeded in smashing France
in the summer of 1940, he joined at once in a plot with Finland's rulers.
As subsequently revealed, this was a plot for military attack on the
U.S.S.R.
As far back as autumn, 1940, the shipment of German troops to
Finland began, and in the months that followed a number of German
divisions complete with tanks, aircraft, artillery and other arms concentrated on Finnish territory. At the same time, in the winter of
1940-41, the recruitment began in Finland of “reliable” cut-throats
for dispatch to Germany and formation there into so-called “ Finnish
battalions” for inclusion in the ranks of the German Army in the
latter's offensive against the U.S.S.R. It is now known that the
Finnish Government, deeming it necessary for diplomatic reasons at
the time to organise the recruitment and dispatch of these persons in
strict secrecy, set up a special body in Helsinki with a signboard on its
office “ Ratas Engineering Agency.”Through this agency more than
10,000 Schutzkorps members or similar individuals were recruited in
different parts of Finland and sent to Germany during spring 1941.
(During the war the Red Army encountered and defeated part of the
Schutzkorps battations on the Central Front and part in the Caucasus.)
All these preparations for a joint war by Germany and Finland
against the U.S.S.R. were taking place at a time when the German
and Finnish Governments were publicly making assurance of their
absolute fidelity to the agreements each had concluded with the Soviet
Union. Both in the event revealed themselves as equally treacherous.
But in hypocritical double-dealing the Finnish accomplices of Hitler
before long broke even the records set up by the Fuhrer himself.
When these secret war preparations were followed by the joint attack
on the U.S.S.R., Hitler on launching the offensive (June 22, 1941)
especially emphasised that the operations were conducted jointly with
the Finnish Army.The Finnish Government, which most plainly
refrained from denying Hitler's statement, but pretended that it had
not heard it, began to assert that Finland had not attacked the U.S.S.R.
but, on the contrary, the U.S.S.R., had attacked Finland. Since this
lie is being circulated by the Finnish Government to this day, it is in
place to recall here the following generally known facts :
In the first place, long prior to Germany's attack on the Soviet
‐ Union, the Finnish rulers carried out a general mobilisation of all
reservists up to the age of 42, and a mobilisation of motor transport,
horses, etc., dispatching numerous troops eastward to the Soviet border.
Secondly, several days prior to the war against the U.S.S.R., the
Finnish Government carried out mass arrests throughout the country
of all friends of the Soviet Union and active figures in the Labour
Movement known to the police as opponents of an anti‐Soviet war.
Thirdly, on June 17, 18 and 19, German ships arrived from Germany
and hastily unloaded war supplies, including artillery, in Helsinki,
Fourthly, as early as June 20 and 21, German troops hitherto
stationed in Finland at a certain distance from the Soviet border were
brought up nearer to the frontier ready for the attack on the Soviet
Union.
Fifthly, during the night of June 21 and 22, German military authorities and the Finnish police, together raided the Soviet Consulate in
Petsamo, looted it and took its personnel to Kirkenes.
Sixthly, that same night an attempt was made by a large group of
planes to raid Kronstadt from Finnish territory. On June 23 planes
taking off from Finnish territory again attempted to bomb Kronstadt,
one plane was shot down and four German officers on board taken
prisoner. At once thereafter German and Finnish infantry units
launched an offensive at a number of points on the Finnish frontier,
embarking upon an invasion of the U.S.S.R.
All these indisputable facts completely expose the falsehoods of the
Finnish Government when it endeavours to cover up the vile crime it
perpetrated in attacking the U.S.S.R. together with the Fascists.
In his speech of November 19, 1941, Hitler, boastfully enumerating
the measures he had taken in advance to transform the countries
bordering the U.S.S.R. into armed jumping‐off grounds for his attack
on the Soviet Union, again repeated that Finland had declared its
readiness to come out on the side of Germany prior to June 22. Listening to this declaration by Hitler, the Finnish Government once again
became deaf, admitting by its eloquent silence the fact that during
the second half of 1940 and the first half of 1941 it had completely
lined up with German Fascism as a subordinate but energetic associate
in its imperialist war gamble.
This implied a complete switch of Finland's foreign policy to the
position of the home‐grown Fascists the “ Quislings” of the I.K.L,
Party. During the earlier period (1933‐39) as we have seen those
who pressed for Finland to orientate itself only on Germany and subordinate itself entirely to Hitler's will had been only the direct agents
of German Fascism then called “irresponsibles” and “crazy
adventurers.” But now it was the “ responsible” Government of
Finland which having vainly tried to embark on two boats simultaneously, the German and the Anglo-French, plunged headlong into
Hitler's pirate ship; prostrated itself before him and sold the independence of its country.
This gambler's leap was made during Hitler's war for world domination. This means that Finland's rulers must have been perfectly
aware that, in hitching their country to Hitler's war chariot, they were
thereby involving Finland in a clash not only with the Soviet Union
but with all freedom‐loving countries; including Britain and the
U.S.A.
The adventurist nature of such a leap was obvious. Yet upon this
adventure they embarked. Plunging. into war by the side of Hitler
the Finnish White Guard blackguards dreamed not only of territorial conquests, they dreamed also of the “ destruction of Bolshevism ,”
the destruction of the Soviet State, no more and no less. In telling
this to the Swedes they explained it as motivated by desire for the
“security of Finland, ” that is, the security of their reactionary power
in Finland. The Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter wrote about it
as follows; “The principle thesis of Finland” (i.e. of her ruling
clique) “ is well known; Finland, it is claimed, cannot solve the
problem of her 'security ' unless the Soviet Union suffers catastrophe.”
This “main thesis ” of Finland's rulers recalls at once to mind the
imbecility of those German Fascists whom Stalin, in his report on the
Constitution of the U.S.S.R., compared to the obstinate bureaucrat
depicted by Shchedrin who decided to “ Shut America up again.”
Only the obstinate Finnish rulers are still more afraid of the “dangerous
example ” constituted by the existence of a State whose people are
free, and hence they went to war to “Shut the Soviet Union up again.”
They imagined and believed that tomorrow or the day after the Soviet
Union might be “shut up” or, as the Finnish newspaper Uajala
screamed at the start of the war: “the Soviet Union will be crushed
and annihilated.”
Thus the leadership of the Finnish State was plunged into Hitler's
gamble by the same motive that characterised its anti‐Soviet
chauvinism from the very beginning ; lust for conquest, hatred of the
people, and the counter‐revolutionary fury of its ruling clique.
3 – HITLERITE FINLAND
(i) German Masters-Finnish Flunkeys
THE fact that there are considerable numbers of German troops
stationed in Finland is in itself sufficient evidence that the
Germans are today masters of the country. Is there then no
difference between the Fascist position of Finland and that of the
countries occupied by Hitler Germany ? The answer to this question
must be that there is a difference, though not a very vital one.
Like the German‐occupied countries, Finland has been deprived of
her independence. But she is not only in a position of subjection to
Germany, she is also subservient to her. Finland is a vassal of
Hitler Germany, aiding her—above all, by fighting and acting as
her confederate in pursuit of interests which are those of Hitler
Germany though of no advantage to the Finnish people.
For the part now being played by the rulers of Finland is a new
role, a development of the old. Finland's rulers are now no more
than the flunkeys of the German masters of Finland. The Finnish
people are being starved no less than the people of the occupied
countries. Germany has plundered Finland no less thoroughly than
she has the occupied countries, but all this has been accomplished
through the agency of the Finnish authorities.
The working people of Finland are being brutally exploited and
oppressed in the interests of the German imperialists. Thousands of
Finns are being arrested, tortured and killed at the German bidding.
But all this is being carried out directly by the Finnish authorities.
And these instruments of the German oppression of Finland are
not newcomers, upstarts only now invested with powers for the purpose
like the German‐appointed gendarmes in Norway, Holland, and
Belgium. No, in Finland the function of Quisling has been undertaken
by the old rulers, the clique that has ruled the country continuously
for a quarter of a century or more.
Having sold Finland to Hitler Germany and assumed the function
of flunkeys to Hitler, the Finnish rulers at once singled themselves out
from all his agents in the various countries by an unparalleled, unsurpassable hypocrisy. They do not tell their people, as Quisling does in
Norway, for example, that they must submit to the will of the Germans,
although to no less a degree than Quisling they force the people to
obey their German masters. They keep reiterating, as ever, that
Finland is an entirely “independent nation, ‐ and they represent
themselves as some sort of “ patriots, ” claiming to be “ championing ”
Finland's independence. In general they pretend to notice no encroachments whatsoever on Finland's independence by Germany.
When the Germans plunder Finland, extorting material without
the least ceremony, the Finnish rulers call this “economic collaboration”
between Finland and Germany, and the Finnish President expresses to
Germany his “appreciation of Germany's aid.”
When the Germans require Finland to join the so‐called “anti-
Comintern bloc, ” or demand Gestapo control over the functioning of
the Finnish Secret Service, or when Berlin simply decides on the
suitability of one or other Finnish gentleman for the post of Finnish
Prime Minister, then from Helsinki comes ever one and the same
servile reply: “ Yes, sir.” This is called “ political collaboration.”
And when Hitler insists on more and more consignments of cannon
fodder, then the flunkeys of the Government of Finland beat their
breasts and proclaim that in this matter they are first among all
Germany's vassals, in other words, that in proportion to the population
they have now sent more man‐power to the war than any other vassal
country. This is called “ military collaboration” with Germany.
In actual fact, the German masters have among all their flunkeys
none more obsequious than the rulers of Finland.
Finland is not the only country which has a military alliance with
Hitler Germany. What is characteristic is that the Finnish Government is the only ally of Hitler which attempts to deny and “ explain ”
its military and political alliance with Hitler. It is true that not
everywhere or always do the Finnish rulers deny that they are fighting
together with Hitler Germany or for an identical war aim. When
Hitler visited Finland in the summer of 1942, for example, and on a
number of other occasions, the Finnish rulers made open parade of
assurances of loyalty to Hitler Germany in prosecution of the
common war. Cabinet Minister Tanner, in the course of his war‐time
visits to Berlin and Vienna, solemnly proclaimed that: “ Finland
would wage together with Germany and other friendly Powers ” (i.e.,
Italy, Hungary, and Rumania) “ the war for European culture ” (i.e.,
Hitler's New Order in Europe) “until victory is won.” But no sooner
had Tanner returned to Finland than, in obedience to a diplomatic
prompting, he switched the tune to “Finland is not fighting on either
side in this war of the Great Powers.”
Thus for the Finnish rulers the “ truth” appears to vary according
to the locality where their speeches happen to be made. It also appears
to depend upon the situation at the fronts. When the German forces
are advancing, every Finnish Government spokesman clamours about
“the war to a victorious finish by Germany's side.” When, on the
contrary, the German forces are retreating and suffering defeats, then
some Cabinet Minister, or even the Finnish President himself, comes
out with an explanation that, “ while in a certain sense Finland is,
it is true, a belligerent nation, yet, more strictly speaking, Finland
is actually all but neutral... .”
This hypocrisy is one of the basic laws governing the conduct of the
present rulers of Finland. They have not the slightest intention of
breaking their guilty connections with Hitler Germany—but they
are anxious to disguise them, Why? Is it because they are ashamed ?
Are they worried by traces of a twinge of conscience ? No, they are not
actuated by ethical considerations ; their consciences do not function.
The explanation is: quite different. They are afraid that things may
not turn out as they expected. They are afraid that their alliance
with Hitler may result: in their complete isolation, in both home and
foreign policy.
Inside Finland no one disputes the existence of the German alliance.
No one in Finland takes seriously the official diplomatic versions that
there is no such thing as a military alliance with Fascist Germany.
The people have eyes and they see. They realise that, in the view of
all civilised countries; the alliance with Hitler disgraces Finland,
and that it endangers and prejudices Finland's future.
There is no doubt at all that the Finnish people would like to
shake off the hold of Fascist Germany. The Finnish rulers, knowing
this, try to persuade them that “ military considerations ” require
that Finland engage at least in a temporary collaboration with Hitler
Germany. “For us, ” they claim with characteristic distortion, “ the
present war is a sequel to the Winter War of 1940. At that time
Finland could not cope with the task confronting her because she
was obliged to fight with only her own forces. Today things are
different. Today we are being helped by Germany with all her
military strength. How could we dare refuse such vital and necessary
aid. It is not we who are helping Germany, but Germany that is
helping Finland.” This is the kind of demagogy with which they
try to dupe the Finnish people, representing the situation not as
though Finland were in the clutches of the German imperialists and
furnishing cannon fodder to Hitler but as though, on the contrary,
Hitler's bandits had come north like so many knights‐errant hastening
to shed their blood to rescue Finland, the damsel in distress, from
fearful peril.
Internationally also Finland's rulers fear that they may find
themselves completely isolated. The peoples of all the German‐
occupied countries turn away in disgust from Hitler's Finnish
accomplices. Britain has declared war on Finland. In Sweden
public opinion is beginning to turn against the war of conquest being
waged both by Germany and her Finnish confederate. In the U.S.A.,
the Government has closed all the Finnish consulates and cut short
the subversive activities of the Finnish “ Information Bureau” in
New York.
It is because of these unmistakable signs of increasing isolation
that the Finnish Government cannot afford openly and without
equivocation to admit that Finland has been harnessed by it to the
war chariot of German. imperialism and is fighting for Hitler's
dictatorship in Europe. The line of reasoning followed by the
Finnish Cabinet is that, since no one can tell how the war will end,
it would be taking an unnecessary risk to provoke public opinion
in the democratic countries by frank avowal of the alliance with
Hitler, particularly with that public opinion hostile to them as it
now is.
The wealthy Finnish ruling circles still have friends and patrons
among the most reactionary circles of the bourgeois democratic
countries. The Finnish Government also has paid agents in these
countries with the job of influencing local public opinion. And the
apologists of both these sorts are severely handicapped in their
efforts by the fact that Finland's complicity in Hitler's predatory
war is plain to all, and almost as generally abhorred. It is to help
these agents that the Finnish Government declares that it is “ not
fighting on either side in this war of the Great Powers.” But murder
will out, and so will the roar of cannon. And since the newspapers
of the democratic countries have nothing but derision for the broad
claim that Finland is “ not participating in Hitler's war, ” the rulers
of Finland have had to cast about for some way of making their alibi
more plausible.
Hence, a new explanation of their position is now being circulated
by their agents in the bourgeois democratic countries. “We are
not fighting for Hitler's New Order in Europe, ” this version runs,
“Finland is not a German vassal as Rumania and Hungary are, as
Italy was. This war we are fighting is a private war of our own
against the U.S.S.R. Germany's entirely separate war against the
U.S.S.R. began at the same time, and this pure coincidence is what
has led, don't you see, to our temporary and coincidental collaboration
with Hitler Germany.”
This subterfuge, of course, is not believed abroad any more than
its eruder predecessors. But the Finnish Government hopes that
some more gullible foreigners, even though not crediting such
explanations, may accept them at some future date as a sign of
Finland's “good will” and readiness to repudiate its conspiracy with
the Germans.
In Finland itself, of course, every child understands that all this
talk about a “ private war of our own” is only intended to throw
dust in the eyes of the simpletons abroad. And some of Hitler's
Finnish stooges, abandoning all diplomatic scruples, quite cheerfully
declare outright, as, for example, the Ajan Suunta recently, that
“ Any separate Finnish war is out of the question.” While Hitler
himself, who obtains no advantage from the diplomatic sophistry so
clung to by the Finnish rulers, has time and again spiked their guns
by declaring that, long before Germany's attack on the U.S.S.R.,
the Finnish Government had pledged itself to take the field on his
side. Yet even in the face of these repeated statements, the Finnish
Government's agents and apologists in the democratic countries keep
right on insisting that Finland is fighting on no side but her own and
that, if she be at the moment fighting by the side of Germany, this is
purely coincidental and quite temporary.
The U.S. State Department called the bluff of the Helsinki gentry
by proposing in October, 1941, that the Finnish Government cease
pursuing hostilities against the U.S.S.R., and thus prove its desire
to discontinue a foreign policy which, as the U.S. Government made
clear in its memorandum, must inevitably entail complete subjection
of Finland to Hitler Germany. The Finnish Government at first
endeavoured to evade making an answer, but later was obliged to
admit—indirectly—that its connection with Hitler and his war was,
after all, by no means accidental or temporary.
As time has gone on the Finnish Government has exposed itself
more and more palpably in the eyes of the American public. This
is evident from numerous instances, including not only editorial
comment in the American Press but also statements made by
influential U.S. public figures.
For example, when it became known in the U.S.A. that the Finnish
Government was employing the slave labour of Poles recruited by
the Hitlerites, the American paper P.M. wrote that this voluntary
participation of Finland in Hitler's enslavement of the European
peoples exposed Helsinki's denial of a union between Finland ahd
the Fascist axis as nothing but a swindle. Finland was shown up
in the guise of a hypocrite, not only a participant in Hitler's blood
thirsty war but a receiver of stolen goods. While yet at the same
time, as the paper noted, unscrupulously assuring the world that it
slipped into its present company only accidentally and against its
will' P.M. called openly on the Finnish people to overthrow their
pro‐Fascist Government and replace it by a government prepared
to secure them peace.
Thus, we see, the swindlers in power in Finland are finding it
difficult any longer to deceive the American public. In Sweden they
are now finding their job nearly as hard, Lately many Swedes who
supported Finland's anti‐Soviet war policy up to only a couple of
years ago have changed their view. Even such a public figure as
Professor Andreas Lindblom, who during the war of 1939‐40 headed
the notorious Finnish Relief Committee, has recently frankly condemned the war of conquest being waged by Finland against the
U.S.S.R., and, yet more, has acknowledged that the Finnish Government was also in the wrong during the earlier conflict, the Winter
War against the U.S.S.R.
All this goes to show how hard it is becoming for the swindlers of
Finland to lead public opinion up the garden these days.
(ii) Democracy—Hitler Style
IN Finland, the German Fascists did not need to stamp out
democracy themselves, as they had to in so many occupied
countries. The Finnish Government saw to it for them. The
main part of the job of depriving the Finnish people of all democratic
rights had been effected long before the war, particularly during the
years of the White Terror in 1918‐1930 and during the winter of
1939‐1940.
Actually, throughout the last quarter of a century, Finland has
had no system of democracy comparable even to the conservative
order existing in, for example, Sweden, Britain or America. Apologists
for the Finnish Government may object that Finland has a Parliament.
It is true that Finland has an institution that goes by the name of
Parliament (the Seim). But, in the first place, this Parliament is
maintained by the domination of the Schutzkorps.
Secondly, anyone who campaigns for a candidate other than those
of the six Government parties—which include the Hitlerite I.K.L.
Party—anyone who collects signatures for the nomination of any
other candidate, or who even gives his own signature for the purpose,
is liable to arrest.
Thirdly, it is only on paper that a member of the Finnish Parliament
enjoys the right to his own opinion and immunity from arrest. In
actual fact, every opposition member elected to the Finnish Parliament
during the past quarter of a century—excepting, of course, only the
Fascists—has subsequently been arrested and imprisoned. Two
members of the Constitutional Committee of Parliament were kidnapped
by the Fascist thugs at a meeting of the Committee. When the
crime was dealt with, it was the kidnapped members, not the
kidnappers, who were confined in prison.
And lastly, this so‐called Parliament is not permitted to decide
the major issues facing the country, such as, in particular, those of
war and peace. It was only from Hitler's speech of June 22, 1941,
that the members of the Finnish Parliament: learned that Finland
was to take part in the present war. And when Finland joined the
“ anti‐Comintern bloc” in the autumn of 1941, Parliament learned
of it only after the pact had been signed in Berlin.
Legislation involving new taxation is still submitted by the
Government to Parliament for endorsement, but even in this matter
the functions of Parliament have been so completely reduced to a
formality that many members—as indicated by complaints on the
subject in the Finnish Press—refuse to attend the sessions. Thus,
the Finnish Parliament has almost attained the condition to which
the German Reichstag has been reduced under Hitler, which
circumstance scarcely entitles it to be called a Parliamentary move.
The last vestiges of civil liberty, freedom of the Press, freedom
of association and right of assembly have been stamped out in
Finland, and today this applies not only to the labouring population
but to the ranks of the bourgeoisie as well. A tyrannical terror reigns
in the country.
Details very rarely emerge from the torture chambers of the
Finnish prisons: According to official statistics the number of
prisoners in 1942 was 40 per cents above “normal.” Yet the
officially announced number of prisoners in 1941 was 17, 300, while
in normal years it had been approximately 6, 000. The proportion
of political prisoners is not specified. In March this year, a Stockholm
newspaper wrote that many things happen in Finland of which the
Finnish general public is not aware. Persons have been left under
“preventive arrest” as penalty for their Socialist convictions for
over 21⁄2 years, and are still held. If they were tried at all, this took
place in camera. The death penalty, abolished a hundred years ago,
has been reintroduced for political as well as criminal offences. The
fact was published that a Communist M.P. was executed a year ago.
Other such cases are known, but the Press neither desires nor would
be allowed to speak of them.
The treatment of political prisoners in the prisons is brutal in the
extreme, for the jailers are their political opponents. Arns Pekurinen,
a famous Finnish Pacifist, was secretly removed from the prison in
which he had been confined since the start of the Winter War of 1939‐40,
and soon after his wife was notified that he had been “ killed at the
front.” Swedish newspapers have described the starvation conditions
under which Finnish political prisoners are confined. Many have died
of under‐nourishment. The survivors are terribly emaciated, but
none the less obliged to do heavy labours. Many are so hungry that
they seize opportunities to eat discarded garbage.
Finnish jailers and police have in the past been notorious for their
barbarous treatment of political prisoners, but since the Gestapo took
over the supervision of police and prison administration in Finland,
the tortures to which political prisoners are subjected have become
still more diabolical. Information in my possession, for example,
shows that one political prisoner confined in Rikinjaki prison was so
viciously manhandled as to be unconscious for two days. Another
political prisoner was shot through the head ; the jailers “explained ”
this was an “ accident.” According to statements published in the
Swedish Press, Dr. Naori Vuemier, prominent Finnish Socialist leader,
has been subjected to such ill‐treatment and tortures in prison that
last year he attempted to commit suicide. In 1940 Dr. Vuemier was
Chairman of the Society for Peace and Friendship between Finland
and the U.S.S.R. For this he was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.
Now, apparently, characteristic Fascist methods are being
used in the attempt to get rid of him for good.
About three hundred leading members of the Society for Peace and
Friendship with the U.S.S.R., confined in the Kadyulia Concentration
Camp when the war started, were thereupon removed and taken to
the front, “ to dance in the minefields, ” as the Fascist officers in charge
of their escorts took great delight in telling them. Twenty‐five of the
more prominent Labour and Trade Union leaders amongst them were
singled out on the way, led off, and killed by the roadside. Some of
those who actually reached the front succeeded in coming to the Soviet
lines. The fate of the rest is unknown.
Such is the barbarous face of present‐day “ democracy ” in Finland.
If we gaze not upon the mask, but at what that mask conceals, we can
readily perceive that such a brand of democracy is found neither unsafe
nor incongruous by the German Fascists.
In general, as we know, the German Fascists proclaim the principle
of the abolition of democracy and of its replacement everywhere by
their authoritarian and terrorist reg'me. But the German Fascists,
naturally, raise no objection to the brand of democracy that obtains
in Finland. The Berliner Boersenzeitung, a leading publication of the
Hitlerite State, made exactly this point recently, when it wrote “The
example of Finland shows that there can exist quite practically community of fortune between leading authoritarian States and small
democratic countries.” The Fascists are in no wise disconcerted by
the fact that Finland, their sister‐in‐arms, is a land of “ genuine
democracy.”
In what particular this “ genuine democracy” after the Finnish
model differs in substance from a Fascist regime, no one ean specify.
For it differs not in substance, but in outward appearance only. The
sole difference is that the wealthy Finnish reactionary rulers still
endeavour to cover the nakedness of this terrorist dictatorship with
tag‐ends of old democratic draperies. Should the war end successfully
for them, of course, they would be able to shed even these wretched
rags, which include “ Parliament ” and the “ Finnish Social Democratic
Party.” But this they can only do if Fascist Germany emerges the
victor in the war, and since this prospect no longer exists, the ragged
tag‐ends will be mobilised to play their part if the designs of the wealthy
Fascist ruling caste do not miscarry.
As regards the Finnish Social Democratic leaders their political
position is adequately characterised by their participation in the
Finnish Fascist organisation “ The Union of Brothers‐in‐Arms, ” as
well as by the formal pact executed between the Social Democratic
Party and the Schutzkorps.
There are two features particularly characteristic of the Social
Democratie leaders of Finland. one is their political duplicity. On
any question you care to examine you will find that between their
works and their deeds there lies a yawning gulf.
These men co‐operated with the Fascists, the Schutzkorps, the police
and the Secret Service in brutally strangling the, last vestiges of
independence of the Finnish working class. But in their May Day
1942 manifesto they declared : “ The working class desires to champion
independence, liberty and democratic social order.”
These men shared in selling to Hitler the independence, liberty
and democratic rights of the Finnish people. In the manifesto they
state: “ We cannot allow these possessions of such vital importance
to our people to be bought or sold.”
These men—Tanner and his associates—shared in throwing into
prison even those deputies of their own Party who did not choose to
join with them in their intrigues for the abolition of democracy in
Finland. And in the same manifesto they have the effrontery to
proclaim; “ An end must be put to intrigues against the democratic
way of Government.”
These are only brief examples of this unparalleled duplicity.
The other particulars characteristic, in respect to which, again, they
have broken all records, is their servility towards Fascists in general
and Hitler in particular.
If they were not masters of this art, the Social Democratic leaders
would not be occupying ministerial positions in the Finnish Cabinet
conducting the present war. That is obvious and incontrovertible.
It is not, after all, accidental, that the Finnish Social Democratic Party
is the only Social Democratic Party in the world that participates in a
government of Hitler's gendarmes, openly supports Hitler's war of conquest,
and hence works to secure the victory of the sworn enemy of the liberty of
all nations.
This circumstance is sufficiently indicative, not only of the quality
of the Finnish Social Democratic Party at the present stage in its
history, but of the festering ulcer into which “ Finnish democracy ”
in general has now developed. For the Hitlerised Social Democratic
Party in Finland is part and parcel of the Hitlerised “democracy ”
that now prevails there.
4 ‐ FINNISH GAMBLERS' DOOM
ALL the war plans of the Finnish rulers were based on the illusions
of an anticipated victory of Hitler Germany over the peoples
of the U.S.S.R., Great Britain, and other freedom‐loving countries.
In the course of the war, however, these illusions have been shattered
one after the other.
In August and September, 1941, the hopes of the Finnish ruling
circles soared.The Helsinken Sanomat, a Government organ, wrote :
“The last remnants of the Soviet forces are now threatened with
encirclemente and annihilation.” Another Government organ, the
Uusi Suomi declared : “One thing is certain, that the war will end before
the onset of winter, ” and the chief commentator of the Finnish radio
stated (September, 1941); “ The final score with the Russians will be settled in the immediate future.“
But in December, 1941, after the first powerful counter‐blows of the
Red Army, the tone of the Helsinki spokesmen became for a time
decidedly more subdued. Even Mannerheim had no better consolation to offer his troops than “ If we hold out until spring we shall
win through.”
In the spring and summer of 1942 a new wave of illusions engulfed
Helsinki, this time concerning the anticipated irresistibility of the
Germans on the southern front. Every report of a temporary success
by the German Army emanating from Berlin acquired an added boastfulness in the course of its journey through the ether to Helsinki and
was splashed in big type in the Finnish Press. According to these
newspapers by September Stalingrad had already been finally captured
by the Germans, the Soviet Union had already been deprived of the
Caucasus oil, and so forth. “As far as human reason can judge, ”
wrote the military correspondent of the Helsinken Sanomat on
September 15, 1942, “the last hour of the Bolsheviks has already
struck.” Blinded by the boastings of the Germans and their own
illusions, Hitler's Helsinki flunkeys forgot all they knew of the
striking force of the Red Army, the power of which they had learned
previously, in the course of the winter battles of 1940.
It may well be imagined that when the bubble of these ill‐founded
illusions suddenly burst several weeks later, the effect was:more than
stunning. In the phrase of one observer, when the Red Army took
the offensive in the Stalingrad area, it was as though all the main
government buildings in Helsinki had been shaken by an earthquake,
The usual truculent barking of President Ryti over the Finnish radio
changed all at once to a pusillanimous whine: “Today Finland is
living through a period of hardship and suffering. But we had no
other choice. The logic of fate governs the course of events.” And
again: “Surprises in the further course of the war are not excluded.
The tremendous events now taking place will affect Finland also.
The fortunes of war may betray us.” It took Mr, Ryti a whole month
to get over his fright and even then he did not recover entirely.
The Government, alarmed at Finland's growing isolation in. the
foreign political arena, set about dispatching one Finnish Cabinet
Minister after another to Sweden to deny, in interviews and speeches,
the “ Greater Finland” plans of the Government.
At the same time the Finnish Press started a discussion on the
question of the possibility of Finland withdrawing from the war. It
at once became clear, however, that this was merely an attempt to
hoodwink the Finnish people and foreign observers, and that there
was not the slightest sincere intention of putting an end to Finland's
participation in Hitler's war of conquest. The idea of the rulers of
Finland was simply to wave the white flag a little, in order to stave off
the people's growing discontent with the war and to furnish their
apologists in Britain and the U.S.A. with something to make use of,
in the case of Germany's defeat, to diminish the blame resting on the
Finnish Government for its collaboration in Hitler's war.
How far the Finnish rulers were ready to go in their collaboration
in Hitler's bloody shambles may be judged from the following circumstance : In the spring of 1943 the pitiable remnants of the Finnish
battalions routed in the North Caucasus while fighting there in collaboration with the German Army got back to Finland. Out of more
than 10, 000 picked butchers of the Finnish S.S.—only 800 returned,
and these were probably first‐class long‐distance runners. They were
accorded a triumphant welcome at Tampere. But it turned out that
the so‐called heroes were themselves fed up with war, or at least with
the war on the eastern front, They were urged to go back to Germany
when their leave was finished. But this most of them refused to be
persuaded to do. Meanwhile Hitler, as the Swedish Press reported,
was imperatively demanding that the Finnish Government replace ‘the
Finnish battalions which had disappeared from the southern front,
that it furnish the same quantity of cannon‐fodder as before. Did the
Finnish Government refuse ? Certainly not. It was decided on a
new draft of volunteers for the Berlin butchers' mincing machine—and
was ready, if the volunteers could not be found in Finland, to dispatch
the necessary number of Finnish heads by force, in chains if need be,
to the German slaughter‐house.
The most recent reorganisation of the Finnish Government is an
event more patent proof of the absence of any intention on the part
of Finland's rulers to change their course in the Fascist war.
Rangell's place as Premier was taken by Linkomies, the head of the
Coalition Party. Even among the other political bosses of the Finnish
wealth ruling caste, Linkomies has always been outstanding as an
extreme chauvinist and particularly rabid reactionary. He invariably
protected the toughs of the Lappo which gave rise to the I.K.L. Party,
and behind the scenes directed their deeds of violence along the lines
desired by the wealthy ruling caste. He has always been one of
Hitler's most trusted Finnish cronies and is one of those most responsible for instigating Finland's part in the war. The change in Prime
Minister thus simply meant that a small Fascist has been replaced by
a big Fascist. As Minister of Foreign Affairs, Witting, the German
agent, who had too obviously compromised himself as such, was
replaced by Ramsay, the craftier diplomat of the two. ‘The job
assigned to him is to continue the same game but open up his cards
less. The Ministry of Internal Affairs was handed to the arch‐
reactionary Ehnrovth, for a long time Secretary of the Finnish
Employers' Association and subsequently active plotter of anti‐Soviet
intrigues at the League of Nations. Walden, paper king of Finland,
was retained as War Minister, and Tanner, who also enjoys Hitler's
unchanging confidence, was left as Finance Minister
It is hardly necessary to say that Berlin was pleased with this kind
of reorganisation of the Finnish Government, and the rulers of Finland,
Hitler's flunkeys, who in December and January had been frightened
and crestfallen, once more began to crow. But this time it was with
a lessened bravado, for now it was without confidence in victory. All
their efforts are now directed towards trying to relieve themselves of
the responsibilities for their crimes, preserve power in their own hands,
and keep some part at least of the Soviet territory they have seized.
To this end they continue to fight as an auxiliary of Hitler Germany,
while at the same time making every possible effort to deceive public
opinion in the U.S.A., Great Britain, and Sweden.
There appear to be internal dissensions in Finland between the two
largest Government parties: the Agrarian Alliance, which incites
against the workers, and the Social Democratic Party, which incites
against the peasants. This much is at least clear: both the one and
the other dissentient desire to divert the growing dissatisfaction of the
masses from its most dangerous objective, that is, from becoming
directed against the wealthy ruling circles and their Government.
Not only is unity among the people beyond the power of the present
Government to achieve but, as we have illustrated, the groups comprising the Government are obliged to destroy whatever national unity
there is, for it is bound to become directed against the Government.
It is precisely the unity of the people that they fear.
The adherents of the Finnish Government exemplify also more
serious differences of opinion than the above. Regarding these differences of opinion the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter wrote:
“ Everyone who knows the situation in Finland will agree that the
relations between the adherents of the programme calling for the
conquest of Greater Karelia and those who favour a prudent defensive
are strained, and may easily become more strained.” This Swedish
paper in speaking of the adherents of the so‐called “prudent ”
defensive appears to be thinking primarily of certain circles of the
Finnish‐Swedish Party, who are constantly being intimidated by the
threats of the Hitlerite L.K.L. Party. On November 29, 1942, for
example, the Ajan Suunta wrote: “The Swedish—Jewish Press issues
the orders, and the Finnish Swedes at once obey. It may be taken
for granted that they are collaborating with certain outside interests in
matters relating to the present war and with the design of weakening Russia's enemy, Finland, by means of the help of those outside
interests.” This is the sort of insolence with which Hitler's Finnish
agents are accustomed to browbeat the Swedish opposition into silence.
In addition to the Swedes there are persons among the Government
parties who understand clearly enough the dangerous and adventurist
nature of the Government's course in continuing the Fascist war but
do : nothing to deflect that course. Political cowardice characterises
the entire “ opposition ” in the camp of the Government parties.
When, for example, in February, 1943, the powers of the President
expired, only twenty ‐ three of the electors objected to the re ‐ election
of Ryti, the Hitlerite lackey, and even then they did not dare
vote against bis re ‐ election but merely abstained . This so ‐ called
“ opposition ” is afraid of its own shadow. True, it is afraid of the
consequences of the military adventure undertaken by the Ryti ‐
Linkomies ‐ Mannerheim clique. But it is even more afraid of
attempts to hinder these Hitler agents in the pursuit of their
adventure , for what it fears most of all is the breakdown of the
internal front , that is , its own united front with the ruling clique .
This “ opposition ” does not even dream of seeking the support of the
popular masses so as to launch a serious struggle against the criminal
policy of the Government , for it itself fears the people and therefore
shuns any step that could possibly encourage the growth of the existing
dissatisfaction among the Finnish people and also their activity.
In May, 1943, the Social Democratic trade union leaders came out
similarly with a special “ loyal opposition ” platform of their own.
But that is no genuine opposition. It is merely a swindle. Concern
at the growing indignation of the working masses against the war and
the Hitlerite policy of the Government obliges the trade union leadership to resort to verbal repudiation of this policy in an endeavour to
cover up its actual collaboration with the authorities in carrying out
this policy. It acted in this matter completely on the instructions
of the Government, particularly of Tanner, who had sold out completely to Hitler and the wealthy Finnish Fascist clique or as a certain
Swedish paper put it more politely, “ who has devoted himself to the
cause of the war policy and its camouflaging.”
The internal demoralisation of the Finnish ruling clique is bound to
grow. But at the same time it is plain that Fascist rule in Finland
will not collapse as a result of its own internal discord or the economic
difficulties confronting it. It is rotten and decomposing but it will
not collapse unless it is overthrown. It is only by decisive struggle
that the Finnish people can save themselves from the plague of
Hitlerism.
For two years and more now Finland has been fighting as the
auxiliary of Fascist Germany, fighting for the establishment of
Hitlerite tyranny over the peoples of Europe. In the course of these
two years the relationship of forces between the belligerent sides has
changed to such an extent that today the inevitability of the ultimate
collapse of the robber war of the Hitlerites and their associates is
already plain. The heroism of the Red Army and the strategie genius
of its Supreme Command have foiled the predatory plans ot those who
embarked on the invasion of the U.S.S.R. and the day is not far off
when the Sovict Union, together with the other freedom ‐loving
countries, will utterly crush these most vicious enemies of mankind.
In the autumn of 1941, when the Finnish Government signed in
Berlin the pact affirming Finland's adherence to the so ‐ called
“ anti ‐ Comintern bloc ”, the Finnish Press commented that Finland
had become the hub of the Axis. There is now no longer any question
about whether this hub will hold out. The only question is how long
the whole Axis will hold out. And every sensible person in the world
knows that the answer is , “ Not long.”
One year later, in the autumn of 1942, one of the Hitlerite Finnish
papers wrote that, so long as the leaders of Finland maintained their
collaboration with Germany, there would be nothing to fear. They
have maintained that collaboration. But, as we have seen, a host of
grave trials and worries have descended upon them. Their whole
policy is bankrupt. They shall answer for their crimes with their
heads .
Finland's participation in Hitler's robber war is the greatest misfortune that has ever befallen the Finnish people and the greatest
disgrace in their history. Let us hope that the Finnish people will
presently find the requisite strength and courage to rid themselves of
this disgrace, incurred by the anti ‐ Soviet war, by a decisive struggle to
overthrow the power of the criminal agents of Hitler Fascism. It is a
question of the Finnish people's honour.
And this brings us to the main question, namely, that the vital
interests of the Finnish people themselves no less than those of the
Soviet people require a secure guarantee that never again shall there
be a repetition of Finland's treacherous attack on Soviet territory, so
that in time to come the Finnish people shall be able to dwell not in
enmity but in peaceful collaboration with the great Soviet people.
Top of the page
Last updated on 3 January 2021
|
./articles/Kuusinen-Otto/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.kuusinen.1923.01.denmark | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a id="top" href="../../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../../index.htm">Kuusinen</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Kuusinen</h2>
<h1>Report and Resolution of<br>
the Danish Commission</h1>
<h3>(January 1923)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info">From <strong>International Press Correspondence</strong>, <a href="../../../../history/international/comintern/inprecor/1923/v03n02-jan-05-1923-Inprecor-loc.pdf" target="new">Vol. 3 No. 2</a>, 5 January 1923, pp. 26–27.<br>
Transcribed & marked up by <a href="../../../../admin/volunteers/biographies/eocallaghan.htm" target="new">Einde O’Callaghan</a> for the <strong>Marxists’ Internet Archive</strong>.<br>
<span class="info">Public Domain:</span> Marxists Internet Archive (2021). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="fst">We have at present two Communist Parties in Denmark, and both have appealed to this Congress. On the ground of these appeals the Presidium has drawn up a resolution on which I would like to make a short report:</p>
<p class="fst">The Danish Communist movement originates from two sources: the opposition wing of the Social-Democratic Youth Movement and the Revolutionary Wing of the Syndicalists. It was most fortunate for the Communist movement in Denmark that it was able to enlist the greater number of the Syndicalists on its side; it must however be said that the leading Danish comrades, who came from the Youth Movement, were not capable of fulfilling the tasks which confronted them. These comrades formed the small original Communist Party, and under this leadership the revolutionary wing of the Syndicalists was attached to the party in the form of a Federation.</p>
<p>About a year ago the Communist International Executive ordered the Party to combine this new organisation of two semi-autonomous wings into one united party. We were almost certain that there would really be a genuine unity in Denmark when we suddenly discovered that a severe split had just taken place and that during the period when the greatest battle of the class struggle which Denmark has so far seen, the general strike of last February – the Communist movement, whose power at best was limited, and which needed all its power for the struggle with the employers, was split asunder through internal disagreement. The Executive could not regard this passively. It demanded of both sides immediate union. It then founded a Scandinavian Unity Committee, composed of members of the Swedish and Norwegian parties, besides comrades from the two Danish factions, under the chairmanship of the Finnish comrade Manner. Against the votes of the original small group of leaders of the Danish Communist Party, this Committee demanded that unity be accomplished, and drew up a proposition to which the Danish organisations should consent. This meant a general vote on unity. The result of this was that nearly all the members of the so-called New Party voted for the proposal of the Scandinavian Commission. As for the so-called “Old” party, both parties were at this time of equal size, I believe the majority in it voted against the proposal, but there was an important minority in favour of it.</p>
<p>Then, last August representatives of both sides came here to Moscow. The Executive of the Communist International stood by its demand for unity. It demanded the formation ot the United Party and gave special directions to both of the parties towards this end. The representatives of both sides, then here in Moscow, declared that they would fulfil these directions. In spite of this, this proposal of the Executive was not fully carried out but was at first only partially accomplished. The new party loyally obeyed the directions of the Executive. A portion of the old party also joined them. A Unity Congress took place, according to the orders of the Communist International Executive; so there is now a United Communist Party in Denmark. But a part of the old party was opposed to this unity and remained outside of the recently unified party. Thia section now appeals to the Fourth Congress. What proposal does it make? It appears before us with the rather remarkable proposal that, for the time being, the Cougress shall not recognise either of these parties. Now, the Presidium is of the opinion that Denmark u far too small a country to possess two communist parties and that we must recognise the United Party which has loyally carried out the recommendations of the International.</p>
<p>However, this Congress should now issue a call to all those organisations which still stand outside the ranks of the Danish united Communist Party, instructing them to join the United Party, within the next three months. There should be no humiliating conditions attached to this. We do not ask that the members of those sections which have not yet joined the United Party must join as individuals only. They should be permitted to join in as a body. But there is one condition which we must impose: that they will loyally carry out the directions of the Party and of the Communist International. Unless this condition is fulfilled, no real unity can be brought about.</p>
<p>We trust that most of the organisations which remain outside the Party will unite with their communist comrades of the United Party.</p>
<p>The new United Party has already done much to justify its existence through its recent activities. We must, of course, expect much more from the Party in the future. The Danish Party is very small, but its tasks are great. So far, the Party has not become a mass party. It must still travel a long way before it establishes living contact with the broad masses. We must not forget that Social Democracy is very strongly organised in Denmark, perhaps stronger, comparatively, than in any other country. The Social Democratic Party, controls the Labour Unions. It may be said that it represents the organised workers of Denmark. In many important branches of industry, 95% of the workers are organised in unions. There are of course, opposition tendencies and movements in the Trade Union Movement; but our communist comrades have not yet understood how to make use of this situation, and have not yet established connection with the opposition element.</p>
<p>This is one of the main tasks for the Danish Party in the near future.</p>
<p>The resolution is quite short, and contains two points. I shall now read it to you:</p>
<ol>
<li>This Congress declares that the present Communist Party of Denmark, which was formed under the directions of the Executive of the Communist International, by a union of the Communist “Enhatsparti” and a part of the so-called old Party, one which has loyally carried out all decisions of the Communist International, is recognised as the only section of the Communist International in Denmark, the party’s chief publication <b>Arbeiderbladet</b>, and other recognised organs of the Party, shall be issued as Communist Party publications.<br>
</li>
<li>The Congress demands that all Communist organisations at present outside of the United Party shall join the United Party.</li>
</ol>
<p class="fst">Such organisations and members of the so-called old party, who, within the next three months decide in favour of this United Communist Party and declare themselves as prepared loyally to execute all directions of this party and its central organs, and of the Communist International, shall be received into the United Party without further conditions. The proposal is unanimously adopted.</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on 8 July 2021</p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > Kuusinen
Kuusinen
Report and Resolution of
the Danish Commission
(January 1923)
From International Press Correspondence, Vol. 3 No. 2, 5 January 1923, pp. 26–27.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2021). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
We have at present two Communist Parties in Denmark, and both have appealed to this Congress. On the ground of these appeals the Presidium has drawn up a resolution on which I would like to make a short report:
The Danish Communist movement originates from two sources: the opposition wing of the Social-Democratic Youth Movement and the Revolutionary Wing of the Syndicalists. It was most fortunate for the Communist movement in Denmark that it was able to enlist the greater number of the Syndicalists on its side; it must however be said that the leading Danish comrades, who came from the Youth Movement, were not capable of fulfilling the tasks which confronted them. These comrades formed the small original Communist Party, and under this leadership the revolutionary wing of the Syndicalists was attached to the party in the form of a Federation.
About a year ago the Communist International Executive ordered the Party to combine this new organisation of two semi-autonomous wings into one united party. We were almost certain that there would really be a genuine unity in Denmark when we suddenly discovered that a severe split had just taken place and that during the period when the greatest battle of the class struggle which Denmark has so far seen, the general strike of last February – the Communist movement, whose power at best was limited, and which needed all its power for the struggle with the employers, was split asunder through internal disagreement. The Executive could not regard this passively. It demanded of both sides immediate union. It then founded a Scandinavian Unity Committee, composed of members of the Swedish and Norwegian parties, besides comrades from the two Danish factions, under the chairmanship of the Finnish comrade Manner. Against the votes of the original small group of leaders of the Danish Communist Party, this Committee demanded that unity be accomplished, and drew up a proposition to which the Danish organisations should consent. This meant a general vote on unity. The result of this was that nearly all the members of the so-called New Party voted for the proposal of the Scandinavian Commission. As for the so-called “Old” party, both parties were at this time of equal size, I believe the majority in it voted against the proposal, but there was an important minority in favour of it.
Then, last August representatives of both sides came here to Moscow. The Executive of the Communist International stood by its demand for unity. It demanded the formation ot the United Party and gave special directions to both of the parties towards this end. The representatives of both sides, then here in Moscow, declared that they would fulfil these directions. In spite of this, this proposal of the Executive was not fully carried out but was at first only partially accomplished. The new party loyally obeyed the directions of the Executive. A portion of the old party also joined them. A Unity Congress took place, according to the orders of the Communist International Executive; so there is now a United Communist Party in Denmark. But a part of the old party was opposed to this unity and remained outside of the recently unified party. Thia section now appeals to the Fourth Congress. What proposal does it make? It appears before us with the rather remarkable proposal that, for the time being, the Cougress shall not recognise either of these parties. Now, the Presidium is of the opinion that Denmark u far too small a country to possess two communist parties and that we must recognise the United Party which has loyally carried out the recommendations of the International.
However, this Congress should now issue a call to all those organisations which still stand outside the ranks of the Danish united Communist Party, instructing them to join the United Party, within the next three months. There should be no humiliating conditions attached to this. We do not ask that the members of those sections which have not yet joined the United Party must join as individuals only. They should be permitted to join in as a body. But there is one condition which we must impose: that they will loyally carry out the directions of the Party and of the Communist International. Unless this condition is fulfilled, no real unity can be brought about.
We trust that most of the organisations which remain outside the Party will unite with their communist comrades of the United Party.
The new United Party has already done much to justify its existence through its recent activities. We must, of course, expect much more from the Party in the future. The Danish Party is very small, but its tasks are great. So far, the Party has not become a mass party. It must still travel a long way before it establishes living contact with the broad masses. We must not forget that Social Democracy is very strongly organised in Denmark, perhaps stronger, comparatively, than in any other country. The Social Democratic Party, controls the Labour Unions. It may be said that it represents the organised workers of Denmark. In many important branches of industry, 95% of the workers are organised in unions. There are of course, opposition tendencies and movements in the Trade Union Movement; but our communist comrades have not yet understood how to make use of this situation, and have not yet established connection with the opposition element.
This is one of the main tasks for the Danish Party in the near future.
The resolution is quite short, and contains two points. I shall now read it to you:
This Congress declares that the present Communist Party of Denmark, which was formed under the directions of the Executive of the Communist International, by a union of the Communist “Enhatsparti” and a part of the so-called old Party, one which has loyally carried out all decisions of the Communist International, is recognised as the only section of the Communist International in Denmark, the party’s chief publication Arbeiderbladet, and other recognised organs of the Party, shall be issued as Communist Party publications.
The Congress demands that all Communist organisations at present outside of the United Party shall join the United Party.
Such organisations and members of the so-called old party, who, within the next three months decide in favour of this United Communist Party and declare themselves as prepared loyally to execute all directions of this party and its central organs, and of the Communist International, shall be received into the United Party without further conditions. The proposal is unanimously adopted.
Top of the page
Last updated on 8 July 2021
|
./articles/Kuusinen-Otto/https:..www.marxists.org.archive.kuusinen.1919.self-criticism | <body bgcolor="#FFFFF0" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#3300FF" alink="#FF0000">
<p class="toplink"><a href="../../../index.htm" name="top">MIA</a> > <a href="../../index.htm">Archive</a> > <a href="../index.htm">Kuusinen</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>By O. W. Kuusinen</h2>
<h1>The Finnish Revolution</h1>
<h4>A Self‑Criticism</h4>
<h3>(1919)</h3>
<hr class="infotop" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="info"><b>Source:</b> Pamphlet published by <strong>The Workers’ Socialist Federation, London</strong>, 1919.<br>
Transcribed & marked up by Peter Nutter for the <strong>Marxists’ Internet Archive</strong>.<br>
<span class="info">Public Domain:</span> Marxists Internet Archive (2020). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.</p>
<hr class="infobot" size="1" noshade="noshade">
<!--
London:
THE WORKERS’ SOCIALIST FEDERATION:
400 Old Ford Road, Bow, E. 1919.
-->
<h2>I. FEARS AND HESITATIONS IN FACE OF THE REVOLUTION</h2>
<p class="fst">Proletarian revolutions, as Marx says, are always their own critics. We who have taken part in them ought consciously to facilitate this self‑criticism, without, for that matter, seeking to avoid the historical responsibilities for our previous action.</p>
<p>The Finnish Revolution began in January of this year “1918”. Its mistakes had already begun in the preceding year.</p>
<p>Just as the war took most of the Socialist parties in the great European countries by surprise, and showed how little they were conscious of their historic mission, so in the spring of 1917 the Russian Revolution surprised Finnish Social-Democracy. This spring‑time liberty fell for us like a gift from the skies, and our party was overwhelmed by the intoxicating sap of March. The official watchword had been that of independent class struggle, i.e, the same which German Social Democracy had put forward before the war. During the reactionary period it was easy enough to maintain this position; it was not exposed to any serious attack, and resistance on the part of the Socialists of the Right could not manage to make itself felt. In March the Party’s proletarian virtue was exposed to temptation and to fall into sin; and in fact our Social-Democracy prostituted itself just as much with the bourgeoisie of Finland as with that of Russia “at the beginning”. The Russian Mensheviki also came forward as tempters. The Finnish Coalition Government was the offspring of this immoral union. At the time of its formation in March about half the Party representatives were opposed to it, and it was joined only by the Right-Socialists. Nevertheless, the resistance of the others was of so passive a nature, that it did not hinder for a single moment our collaboration with those Socialists Who were hobnobbing with Finnish and Russian landowners. And it was very characteristic that in our Party meeting, held in June – during which we, in passing, gave our adhesion to the Zimmerwald International – not a single voice was raised to demand separation from the Government Socialists.</p>
<p>What above all led us astray was the vague phantom of Parliamentary Democracy. If we had not had a Diet composed of a single Chamber, Proportional Representation and a relatively wide suffrage, and if the elections of the summer of 1916 our Party had not obtained a majority in the Diet, it might perhaps have been easier to be on our guard against the spring temptation. But at this moment the path of Parliamentary Democracy seemed cleared to an extraordinary extent, and wide vistas opened themselves out before our working-class movement. Our bourgeoisie had no army, nor even a police force they could count upon; and, moreover, could not form one by any lawful means, seeing that they would have needed the authorisation of the Social-Democrats of the Diet. Therefore there seemed every reason to keep to the beaten track of Parliamentary legality, in which, so it appeared, Social Democracy could wrest one victory after another from the middle class.</p>
<p>For Parliamentary Democracy to burst into full bloom it was now only necessary to get rid of the feeble authority of the Russian Provisional Government; to which the Finnish bourgeoisie clung like a drowning man to a straw. The Social‑Democrats wished to brush aside, or at least to curtail, its legal right to interfere, so that it could not trouble the “internal affairs ” of the country; in other words to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie. In this way our patriotism and our struggle for the independence of Finland seemed to spring from the very highest motives; it was a direct fight for democratic liberty, an organic part of the proletarian class-war.</p>
<p>The legislative results obtained in the Diet during the summer played their part in lulling us in the illusions of Parliamentarianism.</p>
<p>The normal working day of eight hours, which the mass of the workers had already caused to be adopted in most trades, became law; scarcely a Parliament had a more advanced law on this question than that of Finland. For the democratisation of the Communal Administration there was noted also a reform which meant that the power which had been entirely monopolised by the capitalists was transferred to the platform of Universal Suffrage – and this also was a bigger step in advance than had been known to any previous legislation. We saw clearly that the adoption of these laws was by no means due to the Parliament itself, but that a tempestuous wind from without had helped them to cross the shoals of Parliamentarianism with greater facility than in more normal times. This tempest made itself felt in the form of a mass demonstration which accompanied a full session of the Diet, in which one was conscious of a spirit, more violent than usual, thanks above all to the presence of some Russian soldier comrades. There was nothing new in this for us, for we had always explained that Parliamentarianism gives its best results when the people exert pressure from without.</p>
<p>A worse sign of the powerlessness of Parliamentary Democracy to obtain results, was its inability to stop the wastage in food supplies. This naturally led to the belief that the Parliamentary results mentioned above were after all only results on paper, for the law necessary to stop speculation in food supplies was drawn up and voted, although that was as far as it got. The Coalition Government in reality did nothing. It was like a lazy bull which the Socialists were pulling by the horns, whilst the bourgeois pulled it by the tail, so that it went neither backward nor forward. And so speculation could go on in peace.</p>
<p>The hungry working masses soon lost all confidence in the Coalition Government, and, when all is said, in the leaders of the Social-Democratic Party as well. At Helsingfors the enraged, workers sought, on their own account, to take stock of and distribute the stores of butter, and in the autumn a general strike broke out quite automatically in the capital, and lasted two days until the organised proletariat ended it. The atmospheric pressure increased in a most disturbing fashion for our Parliamentarianism. It was the realisation of Democracy; the free aggravation of the Class Struggle. But we Social-Democratic representatives failed to comprehend true Democracy, and only its fleeting image was before our eyes.</p>
<p>This phantasmagoria was shaken for the first time by the Provisional Government of Kerensky. In spite of a violent resistance on the part of the bourgeois minority, the Diet had passed a fundamental law relating to the internal democratic liberty o Finland and to the Diet’s right of wielding "supreme power" in the country. This law had been drawn up in accordance with the decisions of the Congress of Representatives of the All-Russian Workers’ and Soldiers’ Councils. A semi-official deputation of Mensheviki “Tcheidze, Lieber, and Dan” came from Petrograd to prevent the passing of the so‑called law of the “supreme power,” but they were too late. Thereupon, at the end of July, the Russian Provisional Government dissolved the Diet and ordered new elections. On two occasions our Social-Democratic group attempted to hold a plenary session of the dissolved Diet. The first time hussars, sent by Kerensky, were found posted at the gates of the building. The second time we found nothing but &ödquo;Kerensky’s seals.” The President of the Diet, Comrade Manner, had the doors opened, and the plenary session took place, but it was only attended by members of the Social-Democratic group.</p>
<p>Our Party did not refuse to take part in the elections which were held at the beginning of October. By these elections, in spite of a marked increase in the number of Social-Democratic voters, we lost our majority in the Diet. The chief resource of the bourgeois parties in the elections was evidently sophistication. Immediately after the elections the Press gave out that in the constituencies where the bureau was made up solely of bourgeois, the bourgeois parties had obtained a number of votes greater than that of the sum-total of electors in the whole of the northern region. Later, during the revolution, there were discovered in the “cachettes” of presidents of electoral bureaux whole masses of Social-Democratic voting papers, regularly filled up. The bourgeois in addition gained several seats by means of electoral cartels. But, apart altogether from these causes, I am convinced that the nascent disgust at Parliamentarianism amongst the mass of the proletariat contributed to the election results. The Diet’s powerlessness, and the uncertainty of the results of its work, its delays and lack of energy, the slackening of the political activity of Social-Democracy at the instance of the Coalition Government – with the result that electoral enthusiasm amongst the proletariat was in no wise so great as one had a right to expect, in view of the strong political tension then reigning. It became evident that the fine illusions of our Parliamentary Democracy had received this second shock not merely by reason of external causes, but partly as a result of our own mistakes and intrinsic feebleness.</p>
<p>From now onwards the torrent of history rushed with a furious rapidity towards its first place of foaming eddies. As might have been expected, the bourgeoisie sought to make use of the advantage they had gained by seizing dictatorial power and degrading the Diet into a mere mask covering the dictatorship. The working class, on the other hand, had lost all hope of immediate help on the part of the Diet, and was tending consciously or unconsciously towards revolution. The Coalition Government had already been dissolved before the elections. The bitterness of the class-struggle could prevent nothing.</p>
<p>Moreover, even in Finland it was felt that Russia was steering towards a new and more complete revolution, the explosion of which might be heard at any moment. Kerensky’s Provisional Government was trembling like an aspen in a storm, The power of the Bolsheviki was growing like a storm-cloud.</p>
<p>Our Social‑Democracy, which ought in this crisis to have put forth the whole of its forces in preparing for revolution, sat and waited quite calmly for ‐ the meeting of the Diet! At the beginning of November the union of the bourgeois groups voted a resolution entrusting the supreme power in internal affairs – formerly a prerogative of the monarch – to a triumvirate, but did not dare to put this decision into execution. At the same time they entered into negotiations with the Russian Provisional Government concerning the sharing of power. Nekrasoff, the Governor-General of Kerensky’s Government, left for Petrograd, taking with him a draft of an agreement for signature.</p>
<p>But he did not return to Helsingfors. The Russian proletariat had, at that very time, under the leadership of the Bolshevik party, overthrown the, bourgeoisie and their lackeys and had itself taken the reins of power.</p>
<p>Amongst us, too, the genius of revolt passed over the country. We did not mount upon its wings, but bowed our heads and let it fly far above us. In this way, November was for us but a festival to commemorate our capitulation!</p>
<p>Would revolution at that time have given us the victory in Finland? That is not the same thing as asking if the revolution of the proletariat would have been able to get the victory directly as in Russia. At this distance the first seems probable. The second, on the other hand, improbable, just as it did at the time.</p>
<p>The chances of success were not on the whole bad. The enthusiasm and desire to fight on the part of the proletariat were, on the whole, great. The bourgeoisie was relatively badly armed, in spite of the fact that it had begun to get arms from Germany. It is true that the proletariat was also without arms. We borrowed several hundreds of rifles from groups of Russian soldiers at Helsingfors, and that was, practically speaking, all that we had in the wey of arms at that time. There is no doubt, however, that more could have been obtained, at need, from Russian comrades, at least up to a certain point. What wag far more important, the Russian soldiers could have given much more direct military aid to the Finnish revolution than later during the winter, when the "debacle" of the Russian army and navy was at its height. There were doubtless also in our country certain Russian forces whom one could reckon on as being more liable to obey the orders of their reactionary officers than the behests of proletarian solidarity; but it is not at all likely that these elements would have made any really important active resistance to the revolutionary tempest.</p>
<p>In face of these signs, we Social-Democrats, “united on the basis of the class war,” swung first to one side and then to the other, leaning first of all strongly towards revolution, only to draw back again. The true Socialists of the Right, who were about half the Party, were divided into two groups, one distinctly opposing the revolution and the other desiring it. In the Social-Democratic group of the Diet, the majority was evidently so hostile to the revolutionary currents that it could be said to be with the bourgeoisie rather than with the proletariat. On the other hand the Right Socialist leaders in the territorial organisations wanted to have recourse to a sort of revolution, a kind of revolutionary general strike, to obtain the majority in the Government.</p>
<p>Acting in conjunction with them the Council of our Party “the Labour Commission” formed a Central Revolutionary Council which, especially after the S.-D. members of the Diet had given their adhesion – at first they were openly hostile to revolution – was good enough at making speeches on revolution, but impotent to carry out truly revolutionary policy. This Committee decided to begin by supporting the proclamation for a general strike. At a congress of representatives of the territorial organisation which had just met, it was decided to call a general strike embracing the whole country. Was this strike to mean revolution, or simply a demonstration in support of the demands put forward in the strike manifesto? No decision was taken, for we were not at one on this point.</p>
<p>The general strike spread throughout the country. Our “Central Revolutionary Council” discussed the question of going further. We, who without reason have been called “Marxists,” did not wish to do so, and the “revolutionaries” of the territorial organisation did not wish to go forward without us.</p>
<p>In not desiring to,go as far as revolution, we Social-Democrats of the Centre were, in a way, acting consistently with our point of view, imbued, as this had been for many years, with Socialist activity. We were in fact <b>Social-Democrats</b>, and not Marxists. Our Social-Democratic point of view was: “1”, Peaceful, continuous, but not revolutionary class-war, and at the same time “2”, an independent class-war, seeking no alliance with the bourgeoisie. These two points of view decided our tactics.</p>
<p>“1”. We did not believe in revolution; we did not trust it, nor did we call for it ... This, when all is said, is characteristic of Social-Democracy.</p>
<p>Social-Democracy is in principle a working-class movement, which organises and moulds the workers for the class-struggle “legal, bourgeois and parliamentary”. It is true that Socialism finds a place in its programme as the goal to be aimed at, and that, in a certain measure, it is a factor in the general trend of the true or “immediate” programme of Social-Democracy. But on the whole it is only a Utopian ornament, seeing that it is impossible even to imagine Socialism as realisable within the bourgeois society, in the framework of which the practical action of Social-Democracy is nevertheless enclosed. The road historically unavoidable for passing from the bourgeois into the socialist society, the road of revolution and of the dictatorship of the armed proletariat is quite outside the conscious, practical field of operation of Social-Democracy; it begins only where the action of Social-Democracy ends.</p>
<p>The relations of a consistent Social-Democracy with revolution are just as passive as those of a tolerant historian with respect to the revolutionaries of past times. “The Revolution is born, not made” is the favourite expression of Social-Democracy, for it considers that it is not its sphere to <b>work</b> in support of revolution. It has on the contrary a natural tendency to delay the revolutionary explosion. This is easy enough to understand from the viewpoint of the true practical object of Social-Democracy: the revolutionary movement distrusts its action and threatens to interrupt it. Now as one cannot, when it is a question of revolution, decide with absolute certainty whether it will lead at the first essay to victory or to defeat, it always, in the event of revolution, seems possible that a danger threatens the gains of Social-Democracy’s work of organisation, of its political conquests, its organisations, houses, libraries, newspapers, reforming laws, democratic institutions, acquired rights, etc. The whole practical action of Social-Democracy is founded on these benefits. They have become in part the intrinsic aim of its life; they are for the most part necessary to its future evolution and to its existence on the field of bourgeois legalism. That is why Social-Democracy strives by all means in its power to protect and conserve its conquests, even if danger threatens them from the side of the proletarian revolution.</p>
<p>Doubtless the doctrines of Social‑Democracy, leaning in so doing on Marx, regard the conquests of organisation, their growth and conservation, as necessary in the very first place for the proletarian revolution. And evidently they <b>are</b> finally useful to this revolution. Yet the latter takes place not at all by reason of Social-Democracy but in spite of it. “In the same way the military organisation of the bourgeois State will assuredly prove useful to the proletarian revolution, although the latter is against the object – military organisation.” If Social-Democracy could always direct the will of the labouring masses, the working class with its organisations would hardly ever plunge into an enterprise so risky as a revolution, and:would thus never reach the final goal of Socialism, unless of course the bourgeoisie were itself to provoke the workers to revolution. In this case alone, then, is Social-Democracy consistent with itself – a thing, however, when it enters into a revolutionary struggle to protect its future and its legal bourgeois conquests – as we did in January.</p>
<p>In November, however, we determined to avoid the revolutionary struggle, partly in order to protect our democratic conquests, partly because we hoped to be able to weather the storm by Parliamentary means, perhaps also with the fatalistic idea in our minds, that “if the revolution comes now or later, it will come in spite of our resistance, and will show its power to the full.”</p>
<p>What was the result of this historical error? Could we avoid an armed conflict? No! It was only postponed till a time when the bourgeoisie would be better prepared for it than they were in November. The bourgeoisie always bring about a conflict with the workers when they desire it. In the fight put up by the working class there was but one danger, namely, that the bourgeoisie might determine the moment for the outbreak of the revolution. When the workers begin the revolution, the bourgeois are not always ready at every point, and may thus be partially taken by surprise, especially if a reactionary Government has for a considerable time been arousing feelings of hatred amongst the masses. In that case, a revolution set in motion by the workers may carry with it the discontented middle classes, or at least it may disunite and discourage the partisans of the Government.</p>
<p>Seeing that a Government, even after some delay, has always at its disposal the means of disarming the masses, can arrest the protagonists of the revolution, can methodically place “safe” troops for attack and defence against “the internal enemy,” and can in general concentrate the whole of its forces for an active or passive resistance to the revolution. Moreover it may be taken for granted that at the moment when the class-war breaks out, the Government will know how to arrange the external situation as favourably as possible according to its needs, will; if possible, have sought help from outside, or in any case will have made ready in the rear against any attack coming from inside the frontier. In November the bourgeois class of Finland would have had more trouble in obtaining help from the German Government than they subsequently had in winter, when the German troops had been withdrawn from the Russian front – but it was difficult for us to foresee this in November, or for that matter in January as well.</p>
<p>“2”. We Centre Social-Democrats did not wish to form a “bloc” with the bourgeois “Liberals,” although the Right S.-D.’s, those who were for, equally with those who were against the revolution, looked upon it as desirable. With some sort of “entente” it is desirable. With some sort of “entente” of this kind, it was scarcely to be hoped that the aim which was floating before the eyes of the “Centrist” S.-D.’s could be realised, i.e., the formation of a Liberal Government whose members should be in great part Socialists, and whose programme should be the alleviation cf the food famine and the adoption of a hundred different reforms through Parliamentary methods. That several Agrarians might be included as a sort of reinforcement in a “Red” Senate constituted by “revolutionary means” was looked upon favourably by the Right S.-D.’s. With this in view, the S.-D. group of the Diet, during the week of the general strike, held several conferences with the Agrarian Party, and probably also with certainn other Liberal groups, and “Comrade” Tokoi made inquiries as to whether the Senate officials would remain at their posts under a “Red Senate.” Thus the object of the “revolutionary&rdquot; S.-D.’s was in reality to reform the spring Coalition Senate in a more thorough way than before, i.e., with a S.-D. majority, and leaving eventually the worst reactionaries, out of account altogether.</p>
<p>Viewing the matter in the most favourable light, this result might well have been obtained by the revolution in November. Nothing more. Finnish Social-Democracy could have gained nothing else. One section of the workers would certainly have demanded more extreme measures, but the majority of our working class party, which was contented with so little, would then have been able to stifle the real revolutionary voice of the proletariat, for having obtained satisfaction on this point, it would have opposed the revolutionary demands for a dictatorship. It would then have attained its object, or very nearly so. At this distance it now seems even – more probable than it did then. In any case the Finnish bourgeois class would probably have given way for the time being before the revolutionary movement, in order the better to protect its own chief interests, which were in no way threatened by the Right S.-D.’s. The Finnish revolution in November would then most probably have become a bourgeois revolution with liberal tendencies. There would then have been a split.in the ranks of the organised workers: the Right Wing would have drawn nearer to the Conservative Front with the bourgeoisie, the Left would have been the standard bearer of Revolutionary Socialism or Communism, and would have continued to attack the bourgeois State with its partisans and powers.</p>
<p>It was in some such way, although not so clearly, that we “Marxists” in the Party Council had figured to ourselves the results of a revolution already continued during the week of the November general strike. But for that very reason we had two very weighty reasons for opposing the revolution: “1” We did not want to help in uniting the Right Socialists with the bourgeoisie, and “2” we wished to avoid splitting the S.-D.’s into two opposite camps. So that from this standpoint also our thought was moving in channels characteristic, not of Marxism, but of Social-Democracy.</p> <p>In fact we curbed the historic evolution of things by preventing a split in the working class movement, although the beginnings of such a division were already a necessary condition if the working class movement were to advance towards a consciously revolutionary goal.</p>
<p>And now artificially patched up and with sections in opposition to one another, the movement was absolutely incapable of action. A division, it is true, might have been damaging to Social-Democratic action,i.e., to the success of Parliamentary and Trade Union work. Hopes of a success at the polls might have been lessened by it. But for the real progress of the working class movement, and for the strengthening of the class-war, this internal rupture could not but have been of service. It would have meant the withdrawal from the working class front of harmful and doubtful elements, which, ranged on the side of the bourgeoisie, would have done less damage to the revolutionary class struggle than in the ranks of the workers themselves.</p>
<p>Doubtless, in spite of the most intense effort, we should in all probability have been unable to dictate the revolution’s immediate conquests. History itself would have done that. But we ought to have made the attempt, we ought to have fought and attacked, so as to help in the progress of events as much as possible. History itself cannot work with empty gloves – it needs fighting hands. And even if the great break up of the ice had not come in the history of the class struggle in Finland, but had confined itself to disintegrating the bourgeois “bloc,” this break-up would have been one step in advance. The force of resistance of the ice-block would have been weakened; the pressure of the torrent would not have been broken against a compact roof, and would have been able to bring all its strength and weight to bear against the opposing obstacle until it smashed it. This is, indeed, the most rapid and natural method to use in ice-breaking. It is just what came about in Russia. By this method a good beginning may most easily be made. The resistant power of the bourgeois State is thus largely put out of working order at the decisive moment. On the other hand the break-up may hang out for weeks beyond the prescribed time, if the ice crust is of equal thickness right up to the last moment; if there are not formed here and there cracks and eddies before the final rupture.</p>
<p>We prevented the formation of these eddies by countermanding the general strike at the end of a, week and by referring back a decision as to revolution to the Party Congress. This caused discontent and even exasperation amongst the working masses. The discontent did not reach the stage of revolt against the Party leaders, but it acted in a manner which was if anything still more dangerous for the future class struggles of the workers : confidence in the party leaders was to a great extent lost.</p>
<p>The leaders who had need, as one would have thought, of well-stoked fires in order to get up full speed against the enemy, now gaining strength, wasted their time in blowing upon and rekindling the ashes of distrust. The awakened mistrustand hostility made themselves felt in the sequel as a nightmare during the whole course of the Revolution. In this way there was sown in November the seed of the April débacle. The Party Congress, which met a few weeks after the general strike, felt that already the crest of the revolutionary wave was beginning to fall under the influence of various cross winds. The delegates present at.the conference had been elected during the spring, when conditions were quite different. About half of these delegates seemed to be more or less favourable to Revolution; the other half was opposed to it. We Centrists wanted, above everything, to keep the party together, and we “succeeded.” In the joint resolution there was no statement either for or against Revolution, but in its place the spirit of the old class struggle manifested itself; also a whole crowd of unmeaning reforms. were demanded by the bourgeoisie, and an appeal to arms was made to the workers, not, however, for a revolutionary offensive, but for the defence that had become necessary.</p>
<p>For the moment the necessity for defence had become the most important question, as the bourgeoisie, seeing that for the time being it had escaped the danger of revolution, was now consciously preparing for the attack. The bourgeois newspapers openly conducted a fierce campaign against Social-Democracy, and with more secrecy the bourgeoisie got ready for war, procured arms, drilled and put the bourgeois army on a footing, and despatched agents abroad on urgent missions. The workers’ guard also drilled, and the party council even co-operated in this work. But the work went on lazily, without the necessary intensity and energy. Little revolutions were threatening here and there with their anarchic influences: at Abo a revolution of this kind broke out.</p>
<p>The work of Parliament was not, and could not be, anything than harmful to the working-class movement. All that it did was to bind together in a useless way all our forces which were necessary for the revolutionary struggle. It only served to deceive the masses and helped to mask what was coming, to close their eyes to bourgeois preparations, such preparations as the workers themselves ought to have made. When the Revolution had threatened to break out in November, we had been successful in getting a decision from the Democratic majority of the Diet, according to which the Diet itself, and not merely a Government “bloc,” would have wielded the supreme power in the country. This seemed a real step, small enough it is true, towards pure democracy. In the Constituent Commission we were already tracing the fundamental lines of this régime, so fine in perspective, and decided to institute a competition for the best design for a flag for the Finnish Democratic State.</p>
<p>It was then that we heard from the lips of M. Svinhufoud the constitution of the Capitalist State. It contained but one paragraph:– “A strong police force.”</p>
<p>It was an ignoble and sanguinary constitution. But it was bound to the historic reality of the class‑war, and the repression of the masses at a time when more than one Social‑ Democrat was still dreaming of a Democratic Constitution springing from victories gained at the polls.<br>
</p>
<h2>II. FOR DEMOCRACY</h2>
<p class="fst">During the revolution which swept over Finland last winter, the Finnish Social-Democracy did not follow its tendency beyond the régime of general popular representation. On the contrary it sought as much as possible to create a régime which should be democratic in the highest degree. In the same order of ideas was the plan for setting up a “popular commissariat,” a plan which seemed from time to time on the point of being adopted by referendum during the spring. By this project, the Diet elected on a democratic basis was to exercise the supreme power; the Government was only to be its executive committee; the president was not to have the right of independent action, and was to be subject to regular and direct control from the Diet; the people’s power of initiative was to be very wide; officials were to be nominated for a certain length of time, and high officials were to be nominated by the Diet.</p>
<p>Of course this form of Government was not the final aim of the people’s commissariat, but simply an instrument whose object was to realise social and economic aspirations. By this means it was hoped to create conditions favourable to evolutionin the direction of Socialism, and to institute reforms from which the Socialist society should finally emerge.</p>
<p>This idea appeared perfectly natural in the conditions then existing in Finland. A democratic régime in Finland would apparently have guaranteed a majority to the popular representation, a great part of which would openly have put forward claims to a Socialist régime, and probably the remainder would not have displayed much opposition to reforms, going cautiously and step by step in this direction. The adversaries of Socialism would certainly have formed a minority in the Diet, and would have been powerless in such a situation, Such at least was our opinion.</p>
<p>Taking into consideration the economic life of Finland, an idea of this kind did not seem impossible of realisation. Apart from the fact that capitalist evolution was not in an advanced stage in Finland, it ought to have been easy, by reason of the simple nature of the conditions of production, to allow the State to take over most establishments – easier at any rate than in many countries having a more complex economic life. ‘The timber and paper industries are those which are of the greatest importance in Finland, as regards the value of what is produced. Already two-thirds of the forests belong to the State. The paper industry is relatively centralised, and the taking over of about ten of the chief firms would evidently be tantamount to administering the whole industry. The same thing applies to the wood-sawing industry. Production is‘practically in the hands of a very small number of big companies, who, by the way, are not looked upon favourably by the peasant proprietors. It was rightly maintained that the sequestration of a couple of hundred firms would have placed entire control in the hands of the State, and consequently would have given a decisive influence on the other branches of capitalism. In this way the State would have become the preponderating capitalist, not as a State ruled by the bourgeoisie and private capital to serve as an instrument of class, but as a “Populist State,” in which the bourgeoisie, being in the minority, would no longer have held supreme power. Power would have fallen completely into the hands of the working-class majority, who would have used it to their own advantage so as to change the economic activity of the State in such wise as to make it watch ever more and more over the interests of the workers, and so to transform the State into a Socialist Society.</p>
<p>A social policy on these lines was in the minds of the Finnish People’s Commissariat. At any rate a certain number of its members expected that the majority of the Democratic Diet would adopt the measure of taking over the big timber and paper factories on the scale mentioned above, and of putting external commerce under State control, which would, of course, have resulted in a change in the situation of the State Bank. It is difficult and useless now to speculate as to what would have happened if German Imperialism had not come to the rescue of the capitalists of Finland: if the workers had obtained the victory. But without yielding to such vague speculations, it can now be seen that the idea of the Democratic State, with which the People’s Commissariat deluded itself, was <b>historically false</b>.</p>
<p>It wished to build a bridge, to construct a passage from Capitalism to Socialism. But Democracy is unable to bear the burden of such a mission. Its historic character has made itself felt in the course of the Revolution. It satisfied neither the bourgeois nor the workers, although no one openly declared against it. The bourgeoisie did not think it prudent to declare against democracy, and the workers, these same workers who in 1904–5 had fought with such glowing enthusiasm for democracy, remained indifferent enough. For one party as for the other, the dictatorship was now alone to be desired – for the bourgeoisie the White Dictatorship, for the workers the Red Dictatorship. Both felt in their secret hearts that the democratic plan was neither a compromise nor a reconciliation. To one and to the other, their own power seemed to be preferred to any popular power or Democracy.</p>
<p>Democracy was the governing system of the previous year in Finland. The Russian bourgeois revolution of March had made a present of it to our country. On paper it did not exist any more than it did as a generally recognised and fundamental law, but it existed “de facto”for all that. It was by no means a complete form of Democracy, comparable with the scheme put forward later on by the People’s Commissariat; but it was as good as it was possible for: it to be in a Bourgeois State. To go farther along the democratic road, in other words to make use of the class-war without having recourse to violent methods, was an historical impossibility.</p>
<p>It is easy enough at this distance to discover this important truth, but it was more difficult to do so in Finland last year. The relative feebleness of the Finnish bourgeoisie, its inability to carry on a Parliamentary struggle, and the fact that it had no armed forces, were So many factors through which we Social-Democrats were predestined to suffer from the democratic illusion, inasmuch as we wished to reach Socialism by means of a struggle in the Diet and by democratic representation of the people. This was equivalent to entering on a course which could not agree with the true postulates of history – to seek to avoid a Socialist Revolution, to shun the real bridge between Capitalism and Socialism, i.e., the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is an historical necessity.</p>
<p>In our eyes the Democracy of the past year appeared as the programme of the future, not as a thing of the past. It showed itself, however, to be too much stained with error,: too feeble, to be capable of serving as a foundation for the erection of the Socialist edifice. That is why it was so necessary to complete and strengthen it. It was weak, extremely weak. We did not perceive that it was so weal that it was impossible to buttress it. Weakness was, in fact, its main characteristic, a weakness to which Democracy is perforce: condemned in every bourgeois society. – It was weak even as a stay for the bourgeoisie, and still more so as an arm in the working-class struggle. Its sole historic advantage – an advantage for both parties at one and the same time – was that which had always characterised Democracy, namely, that it allowed the class-war to be carried on in relative freedom. It allowed it to develop up to that point when a decision by force of arms became necessary. Thus the historic mission of this democracy was to crumble as useless, after having fulfilled its task and served as an old worm-eaten bulwark between the two conflicting fronts.<br>
</p>
<h2>III. FIRST COMMUNIST PROGRAMME IN THE REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE</h2>
<p class="fst">When at the end of January the Finnish bourgeoisie gave the word of command to its butchers to begin the attack, Social Democracy was indignant because of democracy. “The bourgeoisie is violating and destroying democracy” so ran the cry from the Social-Democrat side – “To arms! Democracy is in danger.” And so indeed it was. The bourgeois wished once and for all to emerge from their torpor, to throw off their democratic chains, which were for them an obstacle if not a danger. They desired to set up a naked class tyranny, an unchecked pillaging authority, a “strong police,” a butchers’ republic, or, as we shall see, a butchers’ monarchy.</p>
<p>That is what the bourgeoisie wanted. Social-Democracy replied by revolution. But what was its watchword? The power of the workers? No, it was democracy, a democracy which should not be violated.</p>
<p>Our position. from a Socialist standpoint was not clear, and, viewed historically was Utopian. Such a democracy could at best be created only on paper. Such a thing has never existed in a society formed of classes, and can never develop there. In Democracy a robber class has always stolen power from the people.</p>
<p>If in future the capitalist system were to continue to exist on the economic field, such a Democracy would be an impossibility; a Democracy in which the proletariat would have become the ruling class in the State, and by means of the State would have striven to reach the primitive sources of the exploiting power of capitalism. If, on the other hand, the economic system of capitalism were already ripe for its fall, – then for this work democracy was both useless and impossible. In the first case the form of the Democratic State, if it had been realised on paper, would have become a screen masking the absolute power of the bourgeois. class, and up to a certain point it would have proved an inconvenience and an obstacle. In the second case it would have proved a mask and an obstacle to the absolute power of the working-class. In any event a true democracy could not spring from it. In a class society only two kinds of relations between classes can exist. The one a state of oppression, maintained by violence “arms, laws, tribunals, etc.”, in which the struggle for the liberation of the oppressed classes is confined to the use of relatively pacific means “whether they be underground or open, anarchic; parliamentary or professional”; whilst the other is a state of open struggle between the classes, <b>the Revolution</b>, in which a violent conflict decides which of the two classes will in future be the oppressor and which the oppressed.</p> <p>When the Finnish bourgeoisie provoked the workers to an open struggle for class supremacy, the workers’ party ought to have chosen some clear and definite position; one of these two: either to take up the challenge ahd engage in a revolutionary struggle for <b>working‑class power</b>, or to submit with a struggle to the bourgeoisie, recognising its own weakness and betraying the cause of its class, The Finnish working class party did not decide for one or for the other course. It did its duty by going into battle, it drew up its forces for the struggle, but it was for a <b>defensive struggle</b>, not for a definite revolutionary fight. It is true that we talked much of revolution, and we actually took part ii a struggle which was by nature revolutionary, but it was with closed eyes that we did so, without being conscious of the meaning of this social revolution. We talked at the same time of democracy and a democratic State, which meant, if anything, that revolution was perforce the very thing to be avoided. <b>Thus: the standard of revolution was in reality raised – so that revolution might be avoided.</b></p>
<p>In our situation that was an enormous mistake. Now that we have understood this, we ought also to. recognise it openly, even if we did not do so at the opportune moment. We did not grasp the fact that when the revolution broke out, the workers threw democracy violently aside, blotted it out as a hindrance and a point of no value in their programme. If the workers of Finland had not accepted the challenge thrown down by the bourgeoisie, but had meekly allowed themselves to be beaten, imprisoned and slaughtered, certainly a protecting democratic programme would have been in its place. But on that day in January when the worker raised his hand against his mortal enemy, that hand tore away the democratic rags and tatters which separated them. After that day, to keep up the pretence of a democratic programme was equivalent to a retreat; as was also the case with a democracy “favourable to the workers,” like that included in the plan for a constitution drawn up by the People’s Commissariat.</p>
<p>The fact that the representatives of a class in revolution, or engaged in any other phase of the class struggle, are not conscious of the struggle’s true aim and import does not necessarily mean that one must give up the struggle or that all is bound to end in shipwreck. It ought not to be interpreted as a struggle against one’s own class, or as conscious or unconscious deception. The struggle in itself is a historic fact, it is the principal fact which decided and conduces to a true result, and each man who, according to the measure of his strength and ability takes part in the revolutionary struggle of the aroused class, upholds that class in so doing, even if on his lips and his thoughts he nourishes the most unhistoric, unscientific facts one could wish for. The Finnish Social Democracy, by carrying out its duty of putting up a fight, did not betray its class, and by its struggle upheld the programme of the revolution, even though inscribed on its banners were the watchwords of the old democracy.</p>
<p>It was not the first time in the history of the world that such a thing had taken place as the foremost champions of a struggling class adopting a watchword which was not consonant with the historical idea of their struggle. Revolutionary watchwords have generally arisen fortuitously, and have been made up of high-sounding, superficial and not very far-seeing political phrases, to which are joined as by chance the strange expressions of an inverted symbolism. Tor example, the Hussite movement in Bohemia was at bottom a struggle for the most real class advantages, although in the first place the point at issue was a theological dispute concerning the Host, communion, and the drinking of wine. During the Finnish revolution the democratic programme was for the S.-D.’s of Finland their communion wine. It did not hinder Social-Democracy from taking part in the revolutionary struggle, but as a programme it was no longer of service in the struggle itself. If an unskilled navigator is steering a wrong course which will lead him to destruction or carry him away from his destination, and a violent storm throws him back into the right course without his knowing it, the result is evidently due not to the sailor, but to the storm. He may have done his duty during the voyage with zeal and courage, but he did not know how to use his maps and his compass, given to him expressly that he might steer in the right direction.</p>
<p>The modern S.-D. Party, whose activity should be based on a Marxian and consequently scientific policy, has less than any other, any reason or point of honour for carrying this symbolism to the barricade. For, worst of all, it was for us a weakness and a hindrance in the struggle. The knowledge that the fight is for a definite object is sufficient in itself to raise the morale and endurance of the fighters, but the lack of a clear aim induces uncertainty, hesitation and weakness. Such was the case with the February revolution in Finland. We did not keep order with enough energy. For example, at Helsingfors we gave. too free a rein to the bourgeoisie, which allowed them to carry on a campaign of plotting against us. Domiciliary visits and imprisonment of offenders. were not carried out with sufficient energy. Counter-revolutionaries,who had been proved guilty, were punished with too much leniency. We did not put these gentlemen of leisure early enough under the obligation of working, and we should certainly have acted with more insight if we had put: forward the dictatorship of the proletariat as the evident aim of the revolution. From the very moment that this was not done, our action held to a middle, dangerous way, which fact. was in itself sufficient to make the bourgeoisie bolder in their plots, and at the same time to encourage certain anarchic elements which had found their way into the Red Guards to commit “motu propue” murders, robberies, and other misdeeds – a lack of discipline which tended to produce disorder in the ranks even of the revolutionaries.</p>
<p>The result of the Finnish revolution did not, however, depend upon these circumstances. It was impossible to avoid defeat when the German Government had joined the other hangmen. But suppose the German Government had not – interfered, what would have happened? We cannot say with certainty, but it is. possible that the result of the struggle might have depended on whether revolutionary order was to be severely maintained for a considerable time as an intentional dictatorship, or whether it was to be merely a humanitarian stage onthe road leading to the haven of peaceful democracy. Indirectly, in that case, all would then have depended on what standard or symbol was put forward by the S.-D. leaders.</p>
<p>One thing, which in a certain measure contributed to giving a certain character to the programme of the. People’s Commissariat and the Finnish Social Democracy, was the line of action we felt bound to pursue with respect to the "petite bourgeois "and peasant, endeavouring not to repel or frighten them with the terms Socialism and Dictatorship of the Proletariat, but striving to quieten them by talking democracy and otherwise treating them gently. This was well enough as an election dodge, but it was not revolutionary tactics. During the revolution this prudence on our part was seen to be a mistake. The tranquillity of the “petite bourgeoisie” and their vague sympathies, did not, and could not have any noteworthy influence on the development of the struggle. The fighting spirit depended entirely upon the workers, upon their enthusiasm, boldness and confidence in the revolutionary leaders. Democratic formulae were calcuated rather to depress than to stimulate the workers’ enthusiasm, for without any doubt they looked upon them as something out of place rather than as the final aim for which the worker was, if need arose, joyfully to sacrifice his life. The clear signals of class Socialism would have aroused their ardour in an altogether different way. They would then have felt that the struggle was indeed carrying them onward straight to the realisation of the greatest historical ideal. And if they had seen that the leaders of the revolution treated the bourgeoisie with the severity which must be used in a bloody class war towards the enemies and oppressors who but deserved to be oppressed in their turn, then the workers would have felt in their hearts a, boundless confidence in their comrades at the head of things.</p>
<p>For every working-class party leading a revolution, the most precious thing to possess is the enthusiastic confidence of the workers. No mite of this should be lost, if we want to see the revolution triumphant.<br>
</p>
<h2>IV. THE LOGIC OF THE STORM</h2>
<p class="fst">The proletarian revolution is above all else a great work. of organisation. The power of the Government should be organised as the mechanism of the power of the working class; the proletarian army should be organised as a sure support of this power, and the class‑war should be organised on a Socialist basis.</p>
<p>Many observations made in the course of this work of organisation demand a special treatment which we have no intention of giving them here. Here we intend to indicate merely the main directing lines which experience has shown us to be necessary to follow in organising revolution.</p>
<p>In the practical work of Government organisation we were at the outset led into the right path through a general strike of officials. In spite of all our wanderings in the paths of Liberalism, the entire management of State and communal affairs fell into the hands of the organised workers from the moment the officials had decided unanimously to strike. In places a certain number kept at work, but generally speaking their aim was either sabotage or to help the butchers to make war. This happened on the railways and in the post and telegraph offices. As far as the latter are concerned, we should perhaps have played our game better by dismissing all employees known for their bourgeois opinions, even if this had dislocated and diminished, or for that matter almost entirely suspended the telegraphic service for a time: for as long as the war was in progress front to front, it was dangerous to permit adversaries and deserters to continue at their work in the railway and telegraph services. A free telephone service could be used for the purposes of military espionage by members of the bourgeois class remaining on our side of the front. Moreover, its use during the time of open struggle ought to have been reduced to.a minimum, since a really effective control cannot be exercised in any case.</p>
<p>As a result of the general strike of managers and technical experts, the organisation of production went partly in the direction desired by the workers, i.e., that of socialisation, much more rapidly and completely than our Social-Democracy had wished it to go. First of all came, naturally, the state and communal commercial establishment, which fell into the hands of the organised workers, but they were soon followed by several big capitalist concerns, notably by the biggest enterprise of its kind in the country – the paper factories. Generally speaking the re-working of the factories stopped by the capitalists did not present any insurmountable difficulties to the workers. Doubtless the want of technical experts would later on have made itself felt more strongly than at first, but however, imperfect the resources at the workers’ command, experience proved in most cheering fashion that the workers of Finland were capable of organising production. In the majority of industries much greater success was obtained than had ever been counted on.</p>
<p>On the other hand in the class-war itself, and in the organisation of the Red Army, mistakes, irregularities and omissions were made, due largely, it is true, to lack of experience and technical knowledge, but also to the fact that sufficient attention was not paid to organising for the combat itself. Preparations for taking up the struggle were not sufficiently detailed or methodical and lacked energy. Not even the arrest of the bourgeois agitators had been prepared for beforehand. The Red Army was at first formed solely of volunteers from the ranks of the organised workers; later unorganized workers were admitted; in some places they were forced to join the army; in others universal compulsory military service was set up, and even the bourgeoisie were sent to the front armed with rifles.. Evidently the most practical measure would have been to adopt general compulsory service in the working class by calling up all men able to bear arms, or those of certain classes. Army pay, which was about the same as that received by a well-paid worker, need not have been so high. The provisioning of the army was organised ‘in a satisfactory manner, but the need of footwear and clothing was great, especially the former. The transport and storage of munitions, so that they could be at hand when wanted, was at first badly organised, and never was really satisfactory. Worst of all was the organisation of the intelligence system. The organisation of corps of scouts at the back of the army was also a mistake, and the action of this corps was harmful and a danger to military operations. The fact that in the army on the front not even the simplest measures relating to the scout corps were put into practice, which the Red Army suffered, namely, the lack of trained, capable and punctual officers who could inspire confidence. We had previously had no trained forces, since the country had been without an army for a sufficiently long period; only a few old non-commissioned officers were requisitioned by the workers. The most elementary military instruction for officers would certainly have been extremely useful, but it was not to be had, and we were without it throughout the whole course of the revolution.</p>
<p>To a most alarming extent it was sheer hazard which decided to whom such or such a post of command should be given. Sometimes these men were equal to the task before them, and made model troops of their men. But there were also in officers’ corps and in the staffs a great number of unskilful, incompetent men, who, while not ne’er-do-wells, were nevertheless mere talkers who had never yet succeeded in any organising work or post of command, and who did not know how to set about things, although they had risen in the general confusion. If the well-tried organisers of the working-class movement had volunteered in greater numbers to lead the operations “as often was the case”, the leadership of the class-war would certainly have improved on our side. The agitation undertaken in our ranks by the paid agents of the bourgeoisie against our military command would then have borne less fruit. An underground agitation of this kind is in a class-war the most dangerous and insidious weapon of the bourgeoisie, and the greater the number of elements with obscure antecedents who rise to the surface during a revolution, the more easily when reverses come do doubts arise about the honesty and incorruptibility of leaders.</p>
<p>The general leadership of the class struggle on our side also leaves much room for criticism. Lack of arms was the chief reason why a more energetic and continuous offensive was not undertaken at the outset. However, even when we had obtained arms, there was still the lack of drilled men. The weeks which had gone by had not been employed in energetically forming and drilling new troops, for no one had then expected a long class-war extending over several months. There was no regular specialist organisation. Our troops fought practically the whole time without reserves, a most fatiguing and dangerous thing. True, our front resisted the enemy’s attacks, but, wanting as we were in reserves and in special attacking battalions, we were not in a position to make any really serious attacks. As our advance on the northern front continued for some time, there resulted from it to the north of Tammerfors a dangerous bulge, the flanks of which were almost entirely uncovered. This bulge required five or six times more men to hold it than a straight front immediately to the north of Tammerfors would have needed. We were soon to pay for this tactical error. The Whites’ flank attack produced such unsteadiness amongst the tired troops holding the inside of the are, and forced them to retreat in such disorder, that the enemy had every opportunity for surrounding Tammerfors and pushing his front to the south of the town.</p>
<p>Without doubt our troops were already depressed by the announcement that the German Government had promised to come to the aid of the bourgeoisie, by sending first of all an expedition to the Aaland Islands to facilitate the transport of arms and troops in Finland. It was in Aaland, too, that the descent on our rear of the Germans and of the butchers’ troops was prepared. The Russian officers had taken good care that the enemy should encounter no more resistance from the fortifications outside Hangs than they did at Aaland. The Russian defenders had been withdrawn, but the forts had not been handed over to the Finns. The landing at Hangs, which we could not prevent for want of troops, directly threatened the capital, and made the defence of the whole of south-west Finland a forlorn hope. The evacuation of the whole of this territory began at once with the object of retiring into eastern Finland, up to the line of the river Kymene, for example. But it then appeared that it was difficult to withdraw troops from localities which had not been attacked by the enemy. Whilst our evacuation and retreat were being delayed, the enemy got imposing forces together in eastern Finland to prevent our retreating into Russia. Towards the end of April it became impossible for us to resist these attacks made by the troops of the international butchers. And when our Karelian front was broken the greatest part of our army was surrounded. Probably only four or five thousand of our revolutionary forces managed to pass into Russia.</p>
<p>The Government of Finland had at first asked for help from the Swedish Government. Arms and munitions were constantly coming in from Sweden, but the negotiations came to nothing as far as direct military intervention was concerned.On their side the Swedes tried during the revolution to put an embargo on Aaland, which belonged to Finland. When the defeat of the revolutionary army was certain, and there was left only the hangman’s work to do, Sweden sent her “black brigade” to Tammerfors to drink the blood of the revolutionary workers, a thing which the faithful Socialist lackeys of the Swedish Government and bourgeoisie made no attempt to prevent. Before the arrival of the black brigade a semi-official delegation of Right Swedish Socialists came to Helsingfors, and Möller, the secretary of the party, declared in their name that the victory of the Finnish Revolution would be a disaster for international democracy. The international Socialist swindlers were thus already afraid of our revolution. They feared lest it should spread the flames which threatened to set fire to the feathers of the couch which the bourgeoisie had prepared for them. For us, on the other hand, it seems terrible that our revolution with its democratic programme might have been triumphant. It would have troubled the understanding of the workers of neighbouring countries in relation to the great task of the proletarian revolution.</p>
<p>Once more did victory rest with capitalist violence. German imperialism gave ear to the lamentations of our bourgeois, and gave itself out as ready to swallow up the newly-acquired independence, which, at the request of the Finnish Social Democrats, had been granted to Finland by the Soviet Republic of Russia. The national sentiment of the bourgeoisie did not suffer in the least on this account, and the yoke of a foreign imperialism had no terrors for them when it seemed that their “fatherland” was on the point of becoming the fatherland of the workers. They were willing to sacrifice the entire people to the great German bandit provided that they could keep for themselves the dishonourable position of slave drivers.</p>
<p>They were now indeed in this position, and they took the whip in hand. And never had the whip been wielded in more bestial, brutal fashion than it was under Svinhufoud’s rule in Finland every day uninterruptedly for seven months. The savage lust for revenge on the part of the Finnish bourgeoisie was responsible for more victims amongst defenceless prisoners than the war of the classes had cost the workers during three months. By a systematic mass massacre of our comrades, the butchers’ Government seemed as if it were desirous of proving by moving evidence to the workers of all lands what relentless vengeance they, the workers, bring upon themselves if they do not from the moment they arrive in power subject the bourgeoisie of their country to an iron dictatorship, instead of remaining animated, as was the revolutionary Government in Finland, by such delicate feelings of humanity towards their class enemies. Not content with mass shootings, the bourgeoisie immediately set about starving their prisoners to death. Evidently this is the favourite form. of vengeance for the clerical‑monarchic‑capitalist joint stock society! When the workers, feeling themselves proudly to be the true proprietors and creators of all wealth, are writhing in the pangs of hunger and dying one after the other, then it is that the fine shareholder enjoys such a sight all the more, whets his appetite with it, and feels what superhuman power is his! Like all scoundrels he relishes it so much as to forget that the labour‑power of the worker is necessary to him, until some private capitalist, like Baron Linder in this case, aroused from his intoxicating joy by the view of de-populated fields and factories, gives utterance to the truth that “this is shameful,” and exhorts his boon companions in Svinhufoud’s camp to exercise more moderation in their revenge.</p>
<p>The capitalists’ paradise was now well nigh complete. The golden crown alone was lacking. But it was soon ordered – vulgar work from the Hohenzollern branch in Hesse, and modelled on Master William’s designs. On the eve of the day when the bourgeois Diet was to elect its king, the Nemesis of History raised a warning finger, and in Bulgaria and on the French front there sounded the fateful funeral knell of German imperialism.</p>
<p>The mad masters. of Finland did not yet understand the importance of retreating. They wished to run full tilt with their horns against the wall. Soon we shall see them cringing and fawning before English imperialism – until such time as the workers shall make short shrift of the English brigand too.</p>
<p>The workers’ movement in Finland was broken last spring, and will not be reborn in its primitive form. The axe without an edge was cast into the furnace of history – to be re-smelted, and soon we shall see it emerge pure communist steel! The rust and scum float on the surface in Finland. The Socialist: renegades under the leadership of Tanner, a former senator, came upon the scene to barter openly their worn-out ideals for the greater joy of the bourgeois “Progressives.&rdquot “Comrade” Tokoi, accompanied by the comedian Orjatsalo and others, shifted their stall to the Archangel market, there to play a tragic-comic farce to keep up the Finnish Legion, lured into the ranks of British imperialism. At the end of August we finally settled our accounts with the officials of the old organisation at the Moscow Congress, when the Communist Party of Finland was founded on the following fundamental principles:–</p>
<p>“1”. The working class must energetically prepare for an armed revolution, and not hang back with the old system with its Parliaments and professional and co-operative societies.</p>
<p>“2”. Only a working-class party working for the propagation ofCommunism and for the success of the future social revolution can be recognised or supported. All other action must be resolutely condemned, unmasked and combatted.</p>
<p>“3”. By the revolution the working class must take all power into its hands, and set up an iron dictatorship. Therefore our efforts must lead to the suppression of the bourgeois state and not to the setting up of 4 democracy, neither before nor after the revolution.</p>
<p>“4”. Through the dictatorship of the workers must be created a Communist society, by means of the expropriation of all land and capitalist property, and by the workers taking production and distribution into their own hands. Thus neither before nor by the revolution must anything be undertaken which aims merely at rendering more supportable the system of the expropriation of capital.</p>
<p>“5”. The proletarian revolution must be propagated as energetically as possible, and the Russian People’s Soviet Socialist Republic supported by every means in our power.</p>
<p>These are the lessons we have drawn from our struggle and from the great example of the Russian people. We now understand that the principal rule of Marxian tactics is as follows: – First of all a just appreciation of the historical situation, and then an energetic movement going as far as possible within the limits set by evolution.</p>
<p>When the historical conditions are absent, to make a revolution is contrary to the Marxian idea. After a revolution has failed, fugitives have often succumbed to the temptation of arranging for revolutionary plots with. their eyes closed, and at moments when the course of events has brought about the disappearance of favourable conditions. These improvisers of revolution and this revolutionary stupidity have been censured in the severest way by Marx. On the other hand, when history has entered upon a revolutionary period, when conditions favourable to revolution seem to exist, when it appears to be “coming,” as is the case in Europe today, then inactivity or the curbing of the march of revolution must be strongly condemned from a Marxian point of view. The working-class movement should take the direction of revolution, should prepare itself seriously for the event, and not seek to avoid it by other action.</p>
<p>It is in this spirit that we now want to take action, in Finland as in Russia, and everywhere where our young forces may be necessary to the success of the international proletarian revolution. In Russia our first duty must be to organise and exercise in the best possible way contingents for the Red Guards. Our young men are already displaying great activity in this respect.</p>
<p>In an open letter addressed to Comrade Lenin our party congress asked him to give the following message to the Russian friends of our Party:–</p>
<p class="quoteb">“The Finnish Communists go with joy into the battle. We would fain be there when the final assault is given to the fortresses of capitalism, and raze them level with the ground. The Finnish Communists will not lag behind when the Proletarians of all lands are conquering the world.”</p>
<p class="link"> <br>
<a href="#top">Top of the page</a></p>
<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">
<p class="updat">Last updated on 3 January 2021</p>
</body> |
MIA > Archive > Kuusinen
By O. W. Kuusinen
The Finnish Revolution
A Self‑Criticism
(1919)
Source: Pamphlet published by The Workers’ Socialist Federation, London, 1919.
Transcribed & marked up by Peter Nutter for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2020). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
I. FEARS AND HESITATIONS IN FACE OF THE REVOLUTION
Proletarian revolutions, as Marx says, are always their own critics. We who have taken part in them ought consciously to facilitate this self‑criticism, without, for that matter, seeking to avoid the historical responsibilities for our previous action.
The Finnish Revolution began in January of this year “1918”. Its mistakes had already begun in the preceding year.
Just as the war took most of the Socialist parties in the great European countries by surprise, and showed how little they were conscious of their historic mission, so in the spring of 1917 the Russian Revolution surprised Finnish Social-Democracy. This spring‑time liberty fell for us like a gift from the skies, and our party was overwhelmed by the intoxicating sap of March. The official watchword had been that of independent class struggle, i.e, the same which German Social Democracy had put forward before the war. During the reactionary period it was easy enough to maintain this position; it was not exposed to any serious attack, and resistance on the part of the Socialists of the Right could not manage to make itself felt. In March the Party’s proletarian virtue was exposed to temptation and to fall into sin; and in fact our Social-Democracy prostituted itself just as much with the bourgeoisie of Finland as with that of Russia “at the beginning”. The Russian Mensheviki also came forward as tempters. The Finnish Coalition Government was the offspring of this immoral union. At the time of its formation in March about half the Party representatives were opposed to it, and it was joined only by the Right-Socialists. Nevertheless, the resistance of the others was of so passive a nature, that it did not hinder for a single moment our collaboration with those Socialists Who were hobnobbing with Finnish and Russian landowners. And it was very characteristic that in our Party meeting, held in June – during which we, in passing, gave our adhesion to the Zimmerwald International – not a single voice was raised to demand separation from the Government Socialists.
What above all led us astray was the vague phantom of Parliamentary Democracy. If we had not had a Diet composed of a single Chamber, Proportional Representation and a relatively wide suffrage, and if the elections of the summer of 1916 our Party had not obtained a majority in the Diet, it might perhaps have been easier to be on our guard against the spring temptation. But at this moment the path of Parliamentary Democracy seemed cleared to an extraordinary extent, and wide vistas opened themselves out before our working-class movement. Our bourgeoisie had no army, nor even a police force they could count upon; and, moreover, could not form one by any lawful means, seeing that they would have needed the authorisation of the Social-Democrats of the Diet. Therefore there seemed every reason to keep to the beaten track of Parliamentary legality, in which, so it appeared, Social Democracy could wrest one victory after another from the middle class.
For Parliamentary Democracy to burst into full bloom it was now only necessary to get rid of the feeble authority of the Russian Provisional Government; to which the Finnish bourgeoisie clung like a drowning man to a straw. The Social‑Democrats wished to brush aside, or at least to curtail, its legal right to interfere, so that it could not trouble the “internal affairs ” of the country; in other words to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie. In this way our patriotism and our struggle for the independence of Finland seemed to spring from the very highest motives; it was a direct fight for democratic liberty, an organic part of the proletarian class-war.
The legislative results obtained in the Diet during the summer played their part in lulling us in the illusions of Parliamentarianism.
The normal working day of eight hours, which the mass of the workers had already caused to be adopted in most trades, became law; scarcely a Parliament had a more advanced law on this question than that of Finland. For the democratisation of the Communal Administration there was noted also a reform which meant that the power which had been entirely monopolised by the capitalists was transferred to the platform of Universal Suffrage – and this also was a bigger step in advance than had been known to any previous legislation. We saw clearly that the adoption of these laws was by no means due to the Parliament itself, but that a tempestuous wind from without had helped them to cross the shoals of Parliamentarianism with greater facility than in more normal times. This tempest made itself felt in the form of a mass demonstration which accompanied a full session of the Diet, in which one was conscious of a spirit, more violent than usual, thanks above all to the presence of some Russian soldier comrades. There was nothing new in this for us, for we had always explained that Parliamentarianism gives its best results when the people exert pressure from without.
A worse sign of the powerlessness of Parliamentary Democracy to obtain results, was its inability to stop the wastage in food supplies. This naturally led to the belief that the Parliamentary results mentioned above were after all only results on paper, for the law necessary to stop speculation in food supplies was drawn up and voted, although that was as far as it got. The Coalition Government in reality did nothing. It was like a lazy bull which the Socialists were pulling by the horns, whilst the bourgeois pulled it by the tail, so that it went neither backward nor forward. And so speculation could go on in peace.
The hungry working masses soon lost all confidence in the Coalition Government, and, when all is said, in the leaders of the Social-Democratic Party as well. At Helsingfors the enraged, workers sought, on their own account, to take stock of and distribute the stores of butter, and in the autumn a general strike broke out quite automatically in the capital, and lasted two days until the organised proletariat ended it. The atmospheric pressure increased in a most disturbing fashion for our Parliamentarianism. It was the realisation of Democracy; the free aggravation of the Class Struggle. But we Social-Democratic representatives failed to comprehend true Democracy, and only its fleeting image was before our eyes.
This phantasmagoria was shaken for the first time by the Provisional Government of Kerensky. In spite of a violent resistance on the part of the bourgeois minority, the Diet had passed a fundamental law relating to the internal democratic liberty o Finland and to the Diet’s right of wielding "supreme power" in the country. This law had been drawn up in accordance with the decisions of the Congress of Representatives of the All-Russian Workers’ and Soldiers’ Councils. A semi-official deputation of Mensheviki “Tcheidze, Lieber, and Dan” came from Petrograd to prevent the passing of the so‑called law of the “supreme power,” but they were too late. Thereupon, at the end of July, the Russian Provisional Government dissolved the Diet and ordered new elections. On two occasions our Social-Democratic group attempted to hold a plenary session of the dissolved Diet. The first time hussars, sent by Kerensky, were found posted at the gates of the building. The second time we found nothing but &ödquo;Kerensky’s seals.” The President of the Diet, Comrade Manner, had the doors opened, and the plenary session took place, but it was only attended by members of the Social-Democratic group.
Our Party did not refuse to take part in the elections which were held at the beginning of October. By these elections, in spite of a marked increase in the number of Social-Democratic voters, we lost our majority in the Diet. The chief resource of the bourgeois parties in the elections was evidently sophistication. Immediately after the elections the Press gave out that in the constituencies where the bureau was made up solely of bourgeois, the bourgeois parties had obtained a number of votes greater than that of the sum-total of electors in the whole of the northern region. Later, during the revolution, there were discovered in the “cachettes” of presidents of electoral bureaux whole masses of Social-Democratic voting papers, regularly filled up. The bourgeois in addition gained several seats by means of electoral cartels. But, apart altogether from these causes, I am convinced that the nascent disgust at Parliamentarianism amongst the mass of the proletariat contributed to the election results. The Diet’s powerlessness, and the uncertainty of the results of its work, its delays and lack of energy, the slackening of the political activity of Social-Democracy at the instance of the Coalition Government – with the result that electoral enthusiasm amongst the proletariat was in no wise so great as one had a right to expect, in view of the strong political tension then reigning. It became evident that the fine illusions of our Parliamentary Democracy had received this second shock not merely by reason of external causes, but partly as a result of our own mistakes and intrinsic feebleness.
From now onwards the torrent of history rushed with a furious rapidity towards its first place of foaming eddies. As might have been expected, the bourgeoisie sought to make use of the advantage they had gained by seizing dictatorial power and degrading the Diet into a mere mask covering the dictatorship. The working class, on the other hand, had lost all hope of immediate help on the part of the Diet, and was tending consciously or unconsciously towards revolution. The Coalition Government had already been dissolved before the elections. The bitterness of the class-struggle could prevent nothing.
Moreover, even in Finland it was felt that Russia was steering towards a new and more complete revolution, the explosion of which might be heard at any moment. Kerensky’s Provisional Government was trembling like an aspen in a storm, The power of the Bolsheviki was growing like a storm-cloud.
Our Social‑Democracy, which ought in this crisis to have put forth the whole of its forces in preparing for revolution, sat and waited quite calmly for ‐ the meeting of the Diet! At the beginning of November the union of the bourgeois groups voted a resolution entrusting the supreme power in internal affairs – formerly a prerogative of the monarch – to a triumvirate, but did not dare to put this decision into execution. At the same time they entered into negotiations with the Russian Provisional Government concerning the sharing of power. Nekrasoff, the Governor-General of Kerensky’s Government, left for Petrograd, taking with him a draft of an agreement for signature.
But he did not return to Helsingfors. The Russian proletariat had, at that very time, under the leadership of the Bolshevik party, overthrown the, bourgeoisie and their lackeys and had itself taken the reins of power.
Amongst us, too, the genius of revolt passed over the country. We did not mount upon its wings, but bowed our heads and let it fly far above us. In this way, November was for us but a festival to commemorate our capitulation!
Would revolution at that time have given us the victory in Finland? That is not the same thing as asking if the revolution of the proletariat would have been able to get the victory directly as in Russia. At this distance the first seems probable. The second, on the other hand, improbable, just as it did at the time.
The chances of success were not on the whole bad. The enthusiasm and desire to fight on the part of the proletariat were, on the whole, great. The bourgeoisie was relatively badly armed, in spite of the fact that it had begun to get arms from Germany. It is true that the proletariat was also without arms. We borrowed several hundreds of rifles from groups of Russian soldiers at Helsingfors, and that was, practically speaking, all that we had in the wey of arms at that time. There is no doubt, however, that more could have been obtained, at need, from Russian comrades, at least up to a certain point. What wag far more important, the Russian soldiers could have given much more direct military aid to the Finnish revolution than later during the winter, when the "debacle" of the Russian army and navy was at its height. There were doubtless also in our country certain Russian forces whom one could reckon on as being more liable to obey the orders of their reactionary officers than the behests of proletarian solidarity; but it is not at all likely that these elements would have made any really important active resistance to the revolutionary tempest.
In face of these signs, we Social-Democrats, “united on the basis of the class war,” swung first to one side and then to the other, leaning first of all strongly towards revolution, only to draw back again. The true Socialists of the Right, who were about half the Party, were divided into two groups, one distinctly opposing the revolution and the other desiring it. In the Social-Democratic group of the Diet, the majority was evidently so hostile to the revolutionary currents that it could be said to be with the bourgeoisie rather than with the proletariat. On the other hand the Right Socialist leaders in the territorial organisations wanted to have recourse to a sort of revolution, a kind of revolutionary general strike, to obtain the majority in the Government.
Acting in conjunction with them the Council of our Party “the Labour Commission” formed a Central Revolutionary Council which, especially after the S.-D. members of the Diet had given their adhesion – at first they were openly hostile to revolution – was good enough at making speeches on revolution, but impotent to carry out truly revolutionary policy. This Committee decided to begin by supporting the proclamation for a general strike. At a congress of representatives of the territorial organisation which had just met, it was decided to call a general strike embracing the whole country. Was this strike to mean revolution, or simply a demonstration in support of the demands put forward in the strike manifesto? No decision was taken, for we were not at one on this point.
The general strike spread throughout the country. Our “Central Revolutionary Council” discussed the question of going further. We, who without reason have been called “Marxists,” did not wish to do so, and the “revolutionaries” of the territorial organisation did not wish to go forward without us.
In not desiring to,go as far as revolution, we Social-Democrats of the Centre were, in a way, acting consistently with our point of view, imbued, as this had been for many years, with Socialist activity. We were in fact Social-Democrats, and not Marxists. Our Social-Democratic point of view was: “1”, Peaceful, continuous, but not revolutionary class-war, and at the same time “2”, an independent class-war, seeking no alliance with the bourgeoisie. These two points of view decided our tactics.
“1”. We did not believe in revolution; we did not trust it, nor did we call for it ... This, when all is said, is characteristic of Social-Democracy.
Social-Democracy is in principle a working-class movement, which organises and moulds the workers for the class-struggle “legal, bourgeois and parliamentary”. It is true that Socialism finds a place in its programme as the goal to be aimed at, and that, in a certain measure, it is a factor in the general trend of the true or “immediate” programme of Social-Democracy. But on the whole it is only a Utopian ornament, seeing that it is impossible even to imagine Socialism as realisable within the bourgeois society, in the framework of which the practical action of Social-Democracy is nevertheless enclosed. The road historically unavoidable for passing from the bourgeois into the socialist society, the road of revolution and of the dictatorship of the armed proletariat is quite outside the conscious, practical field of operation of Social-Democracy; it begins only where the action of Social-Democracy ends.
The relations of a consistent Social-Democracy with revolution are just as passive as those of a tolerant historian with respect to the revolutionaries of past times. “The Revolution is born, not made” is the favourite expression of Social-Democracy, for it considers that it is not its sphere to work in support of revolution. It has on the contrary a natural tendency to delay the revolutionary explosion. This is easy enough to understand from the viewpoint of the true practical object of Social-Democracy: the revolutionary movement distrusts its action and threatens to interrupt it. Now as one cannot, when it is a question of revolution, decide with absolute certainty whether it will lead at the first essay to victory or to defeat, it always, in the event of revolution, seems possible that a danger threatens the gains of Social-Democracy’s work of organisation, of its political conquests, its organisations, houses, libraries, newspapers, reforming laws, democratic institutions, acquired rights, etc. The whole practical action of Social-Democracy is founded on these benefits. They have become in part the intrinsic aim of its life; they are for the most part necessary to its future evolution and to its existence on the field of bourgeois legalism. That is why Social-Democracy strives by all means in its power to protect and conserve its conquests, even if danger threatens them from the side of the proletarian revolution.
Doubtless the doctrines of Social‑Democracy, leaning in so doing on Marx, regard the conquests of organisation, their growth and conservation, as necessary in the very first place for the proletarian revolution. And evidently they are finally useful to this revolution. Yet the latter takes place not at all by reason of Social-Democracy but in spite of it. “In the same way the military organisation of the bourgeois State will assuredly prove useful to the proletarian revolution, although the latter is against the object – military organisation.” If Social-Democracy could always direct the will of the labouring masses, the working class with its organisations would hardly ever plunge into an enterprise so risky as a revolution, and:would thus never reach the final goal of Socialism, unless of course the bourgeoisie were itself to provoke the workers to revolution. In this case alone, then, is Social-Democracy consistent with itself – a thing, however, when it enters into a revolutionary struggle to protect its future and its legal bourgeois conquests – as we did in January.
In November, however, we determined to avoid the revolutionary struggle, partly in order to protect our democratic conquests, partly because we hoped to be able to weather the storm by Parliamentary means, perhaps also with the fatalistic idea in our minds, that “if the revolution comes now or later, it will come in spite of our resistance, and will show its power to the full.”
What was the result of this historical error? Could we avoid an armed conflict? No! It was only postponed till a time when the bourgeoisie would be better prepared for it than they were in November. The bourgeoisie always bring about a conflict with the workers when they desire it. In the fight put up by the working class there was but one danger, namely, that the bourgeoisie might determine the moment for the outbreak of the revolution. When the workers begin the revolution, the bourgeois are not always ready at every point, and may thus be partially taken by surprise, especially if a reactionary Government has for a considerable time been arousing feelings of hatred amongst the masses. In that case, a revolution set in motion by the workers may carry with it the discontented middle classes, or at least it may disunite and discourage the partisans of the Government.
Seeing that a Government, even after some delay, has always at its disposal the means of disarming the masses, can arrest the protagonists of the revolution, can methodically place “safe” troops for attack and defence against “the internal enemy,” and can in general concentrate the whole of its forces for an active or passive resistance to the revolution. Moreover it may be taken for granted that at the moment when the class-war breaks out, the Government will know how to arrange the external situation as favourably as possible according to its needs, will; if possible, have sought help from outside, or in any case will have made ready in the rear against any attack coming from inside the frontier. In November the bourgeois class of Finland would have had more trouble in obtaining help from the German Government than they subsequently had in winter, when the German troops had been withdrawn from the Russian front – but it was difficult for us to foresee this in November, or for that matter in January as well.
“2”. We Centre Social-Democrats did not wish to form a “bloc” with the bourgeois “Liberals,” although the Right S.-D.’s, those who were for, equally with those who were against the revolution, looked upon it as desirable. With some sort of “entente” it is desirable. With some sort of “entente” of this kind, it was scarcely to be hoped that the aim which was floating before the eyes of the “Centrist” S.-D.’s could be realised, i.e., the formation of a Liberal Government whose members should be in great part Socialists, and whose programme should be the alleviation cf the food famine and the adoption of a hundred different reforms through Parliamentary methods. That several Agrarians might be included as a sort of reinforcement in a “Red” Senate constituted by “revolutionary means” was looked upon favourably by the Right S.-D.’s. With this in view, the S.-D. group of the Diet, during the week of the general strike, held several conferences with the Agrarian Party, and probably also with certainn other Liberal groups, and “Comrade” Tokoi made inquiries as to whether the Senate officials would remain at their posts under a “Red Senate.” Thus the object of the “revolutionary&rdquot; S.-D.’s was in reality to reform the spring Coalition Senate in a more thorough way than before, i.e., with a S.-D. majority, and leaving eventually the worst reactionaries, out of account altogether.
Viewing the matter in the most favourable light, this result might well have been obtained by the revolution in November. Nothing more. Finnish Social-Democracy could have gained nothing else. One section of the workers would certainly have demanded more extreme measures, but the majority of our working class party, which was contented with so little, would then have been able to stifle the real revolutionary voice of the proletariat, for having obtained satisfaction on this point, it would have opposed the revolutionary demands for a dictatorship. It would then have attained its object, or very nearly so. At this distance it now seems even – more probable than it did then. In any case the Finnish bourgeois class would probably have given way for the time being before the revolutionary movement, in order the better to protect its own chief interests, which were in no way threatened by the Right S.-D.’s. The Finnish revolution in November would then most probably have become a bourgeois revolution with liberal tendencies. There would then have been a split.in the ranks of the organised workers: the Right Wing would have drawn nearer to the Conservative Front with the bourgeoisie, the Left would have been the standard bearer of Revolutionary Socialism or Communism, and would have continued to attack the bourgeois State with its partisans and powers.
It was in some such way, although not so clearly, that we “Marxists” in the Party Council had figured to ourselves the results of a revolution already continued during the week of the November general strike. But for that very reason we had two very weighty reasons for opposing the revolution: “1” We did not want to help in uniting the Right Socialists with the bourgeoisie, and “2” we wished to avoid splitting the S.-D.’s into two opposite camps. So that from this standpoint also our thought was moving in channels characteristic, not of Marxism, but of Social-Democracy. In fact we curbed the historic evolution of things by preventing a split in the working class movement, although the beginnings of such a division were already a necessary condition if the working class movement were to advance towards a consciously revolutionary goal.
And now artificially patched up and with sections in opposition to one another, the movement was absolutely incapable of action. A division, it is true, might have been damaging to Social-Democratic action,i.e., to the success of Parliamentary and Trade Union work. Hopes of a success at the polls might have been lessened by it. But for the real progress of the working class movement, and for the strengthening of the class-war, this internal rupture could not but have been of service. It would have meant the withdrawal from the working class front of harmful and doubtful elements, which, ranged on the side of the bourgeoisie, would have done less damage to the revolutionary class struggle than in the ranks of the workers themselves.
Doubtless, in spite of the most intense effort, we should in all probability have been unable to dictate the revolution’s immediate conquests. History itself would have done that. But we ought to have made the attempt, we ought to have fought and attacked, so as to help in the progress of events as much as possible. History itself cannot work with empty gloves – it needs fighting hands. And even if the great break up of the ice had not come in the history of the class struggle in Finland, but had confined itself to disintegrating the bourgeois “bloc,” this break-up would have been one step in advance. The force of resistance of the ice-block would have been weakened; the pressure of the torrent would not have been broken against a compact roof, and would have been able to bring all its strength and weight to bear against the opposing obstacle until it smashed it. This is, indeed, the most rapid and natural method to use in ice-breaking. It is just what came about in Russia. By this method a good beginning may most easily be made. The resistant power of the bourgeois State is thus largely put out of working order at the decisive moment. On the other hand the break-up may hang out for weeks beyond the prescribed time, if the ice crust is of equal thickness right up to the last moment; if there are not formed here and there cracks and eddies before the final rupture.
We prevented the formation of these eddies by countermanding the general strike at the end of a, week and by referring back a decision as to revolution to the Party Congress. This caused discontent and even exasperation amongst the working masses. The discontent did not reach the stage of revolt against the Party leaders, but it acted in a manner which was if anything still more dangerous for the future class struggles of the workers : confidence in the party leaders was to a great extent lost.
The leaders who had need, as one would have thought, of well-stoked fires in order to get up full speed against the enemy, now gaining strength, wasted their time in blowing upon and rekindling the ashes of distrust. The awakened mistrustand hostility made themselves felt in the sequel as a nightmare during the whole course of the Revolution. In this way there was sown in November the seed of the April débacle. The Party Congress, which met a few weeks after the general strike, felt that already the crest of the revolutionary wave was beginning to fall under the influence of various cross winds. The delegates present at.the conference had been elected during the spring, when conditions were quite different. About half of these delegates seemed to be more or less favourable to Revolution; the other half was opposed to it. We Centrists wanted, above everything, to keep the party together, and we “succeeded.” In the joint resolution there was no statement either for or against Revolution, but in its place the spirit of the old class struggle manifested itself; also a whole crowd of unmeaning reforms. were demanded by the bourgeoisie, and an appeal to arms was made to the workers, not, however, for a revolutionary offensive, but for the defence that had become necessary.
For the moment the necessity for defence had become the most important question, as the bourgeoisie, seeing that for the time being it had escaped the danger of revolution, was now consciously preparing for the attack. The bourgeois newspapers openly conducted a fierce campaign against Social-Democracy, and with more secrecy the bourgeoisie got ready for war, procured arms, drilled and put the bourgeois army on a footing, and despatched agents abroad on urgent missions. The workers’ guard also drilled, and the party council even co-operated in this work. But the work went on lazily, without the necessary intensity and energy. Little revolutions were threatening here and there with their anarchic influences: at Abo a revolution of this kind broke out.
The work of Parliament was not, and could not be, anything than harmful to the working-class movement. All that it did was to bind together in a useless way all our forces which were necessary for the revolutionary struggle. It only served to deceive the masses and helped to mask what was coming, to close their eyes to bourgeois preparations, such preparations as the workers themselves ought to have made. When the Revolution had threatened to break out in November, we had been successful in getting a decision from the Democratic majority of the Diet, according to which the Diet itself, and not merely a Government “bloc,” would have wielded the supreme power in the country. This seemed a real step, small enough it is true, towards pure democracy. In the Constituent Commission we were already tracing the fundamental lines of this régime, so fine in perspective, and decided to institute a competition for the best design for a flag for the Finnish Democratic State.
It was then that we heard from the lips of M. Svinhufoud the constitution of the Capitalist State. It contained but one paragraph:– “A strong police force.”
It was an ignoble and sanguinary constitution. But it was bound to the historic reality of the class‑war, and the repression of the masses at a time when more than one Social‑ Democrat was still dreaming of a Democratic Constitution springing from victories gained at the polls.
II. FOR DEMOCRACY
During the revolution which swept over Finland last winter, the Finnish Social-Democracy did not follow its tendency beyond the régime of general popular representation. On the contrary it sought as much as possible to create a régime which should be democratic in the highest degree. In the same order of ideas was the plan for setting up a “popular commissariat,” a plan which seemed from time to time on the point of being adopted by referendum during the spring. By this project, the Diet elected on a democratic basis was to exercise the supreme power; the Government was only to be its executive committee; the president was not to have the right of independent action, and was to be subject to regular and direct control from the Diet; the people’s power of initiative was to be very wide; officials were to be nominated for a certain length of time, and high officials were to be nominated by the Diet.
Of course this form of Government was not the final aim of the people’s commissariat, but simply an instrument whose object was to realise social and economic aspirations. By this means it was hoped to create conditions favourable to evolutionin the direction of Socialism, and to institute reforms from which the Socialist society should finally emerge.
This idea appeared perfectly natural in the conditions then existing in Finland. A democratic régime in Finland would apparently have guaranteed a majority to the popular representation, a great part of which would openly have put forward claims to a Socialist régime, and probably the remainder would not have displayed much opposition to reforms, going cautiously and step by step in this direction. The adversaries of Socialism would certainly have formed a minority in the Diet, and would have been powerless in such a situation, Such at least was our opinion.
Taking into consideration the economic life of Finland, an idea of this kind did not seem impossible of realisation. Apart from the fact that capitalist evolution was not in an advanced stage in Finland, it ought to have been easy, by reason of the simple nature of the conditions of production, to allow the State to take over most establishments – easier at any rate than in many countries having a more complex economic life. ‘The timber and paper industries are those which are of the greatest importance in Finland, as regards the value of what is produced. Already two-thirds of the forests belong to the State. The paper industry is relatively centralised, and the taking over of about ten of the chief firms would evidently be tantamount to administering the whole industry. The same thing applies to the wood-sawing industry. Production is‘practically in the hands of a very small number of big companies, who, by the way, are not looked upon favourably by the peasant proprietors. It was rightly maintained that the sequestration of a couple of hundred firms would have placed entire control in the hands of the State, and consequently would have given a decisive influence on the other branches of capitalism. In this way the State would have become the preponderating capitalist, not as a State ruled by the bourgeoisie and private capital to serve as an instrument of class, but as a “Populist State,” in which the bourgeoisie, being in the minority, would no longer have held supreme power. Power would have fallen completely into the hands of the working-class majority, who would have used it to their own advantage so as to change the economic activity of the State in such wise as to make it watch ever more and more over the interests of the workers, and so to transform the State into a Socialist Society.
A social policy on these lines was in the minds of the Finnish People’s Commissariat. At any rate a certain number of its members expected that the majority of the Democratic Diet would adopt the measure of taking over the big timber and paper factories on the scale mentioned above, and of putting external commerce under State control, which would, of course, have resulted in a change in the situation of the State Bank. It is difficult and useless now to speculate as to what would have happened if German Imperialism had not come to the rescue of the capitalists of Finland: if the workers had obtained the victory. But without yielding to such vague speculations, it can now be seen that the idea of the Democratic State, with which the People’s Commissariat deluded itself, was historically false.
It wished to build a bridge, to construct a passage from Capitalism to Socialism. But Democracy is unable to bear the burden of such a mission. Its historic character has made itself felt in the course of the Revolution. It satisfied neither the bourgeois nor the workers, although no one openly declared against it. The bourgeoisie did not think it prudent to declare against democracy, and the workers, these same workers who in 1904–5 had fought with such glowing enthusiasm for democracy, remained indifferent enough. For one party as for the other, the dictatorship was now alone to be desired – for the bourgeoisie the White Dictatorship, for the workers the Red Dictatorship. Both felt in their secret hearts that the democratic plan was neither a compromise nor a reconciliation. To one and to the other, their own power seemed to be preferred to any popular power or Democracy.
Democracy was the governing system of the previous year in Finland. The Russian bourgeois revolution of March had made a present of it to our country. On paper it did not exist any more than it did as a generally recognised and fundamental law, but it existed “de facto”for all that. It was by no means a complete form of Democracy, comparable with the scheme put forward later on by the People’s Commissariat; but it was as good as it was possible for: it to be in a Bourgeois State. To go farther along the democratic road, in other words to make use of the class-war without having recourse to violent methods, was an historical impossibility.
It is easy enough at this distance to discover this important truth, but it was more difficult to do so in Finland last year. The relative feebleness of the Finnish bourgeoisie, its inability to carry on a Parliamentary struggle, and the fact that it had no armed forces, were So many factors through which we Social-Democrats were predestined to suffer from the democratic illusion, inasmuch as we wished to reach Socialism by means of a struggle in the Diet and by democratic representation of the people. This was equivalent to entering on a course which could not agree with the true postulates of history – to seek to avoid a Socialist Revolution, to shun the real bridge between Capitalism and Socialism, i.e., the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is an historical necessity.
In our eyes the Democracy of the past year appeared as the programme of the future, not as a thing of the past. It showed itself, however, to be too much stained with error,: too feeble, to be capable of serving as a foundation for the erection of the Socialist edifice. That is why it was so necessary to complete and strengthen it. It was weak, extremely weak. We did not perceive that it was so weal that it was impossible to buttress it. Weakness was, in fact, its main characteristic, a weakness to which Democracy is perforce: condemned in every bourgeois society. – It was weak even as a stay for the bourgeoisie, and still more so as an arm in the working-class struggle. Its sole historic advantage – an advantage for both parties at one and the same time – was that which had always characterised Democracy, namely, that it allowed the class-war to be carried on in relative freedom. It allowed it to develop up to that point when a decision by force of arms became necessary. Thus the historic mission of this democracy was to crumble as useless, after having fulfilled its task and served as an old worm-eaten bulwark between the two conflicting fronts.
III. FIRST COMMUNIST PROGRAMME IN THE REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE
When at the end of January the Finnish bourgeoisie gave the word of command to its butchers to begin the attack, Social Democracy was indignant because of democracy. “The bourgeoisie is violating and destroying democracy” so ran the cry from the Social-Democrat side – “To arms! Democracy is in danger.” And so indeed it was. The bourgeois wished once and for all to emerge from their torpor, to throw off their democratic chains, which were for them an obstacle if not a danger. They desired to set up a naked class tyranny, an unchecked pillaging authority, a “strong police,” a butchers’ republic, or, as we shall see, a butchers’ monarchy.
That is what the bourgeoisie wanted. Social-Democracy replied by revolution. But what was its watchword? The power of the workers? No, it was democracy, a democracy which should not be violated.
Our position. from a Socialist standpoint was not clear, and, viewed historically was Utopian. Such a democracy could at best be created only on paper. Such a thing has never existed in a society formed of classes, and can never develop there. In Democracy a robber class has always stolen power from the people.
If in future the capitalist system were to continue to exist on the economic field, such a Democracy would be an impossibility; a Democracy in which the proletariat would have become the ruling class in the State, and by means of the State would have striven to reach the primitive sources of the exploiting power of capitalism. If, on the other hand, the economic system of capitalism were already ripe for its fall, – then for this work democracy was both useless and impossible. In the first case the form of the Democratic State, if it had been realised on paper, would have become a screen masking the absolute power of the bourgeois. class, and up to a certain point it would have proved an inconvenience and an obstacle. In the second case it would have proved a mask and an obstacle to the absolute power of the working-class. In any event a true democracy could not spring from it. In a class society only two kinds of relations between classes can exist. The one a state of oppression, maintained by violence “arms, laws, tribunals, etc.”, in which the struggle for the liberation of the oppressed classes is confined to the use of relatively pacific means “whether they be underground or open, anarchic; parliamentary or professional”; whilst the other is a state of open struggle between the classes, the Revolution, in which a violent conflict decides which of the two classes will in future be the oppressor and which the oppressed. When the Finnish bourgeoisie provoked the workers to an open struggle for class supremacy, the workers’ party ought to have chosen some clear and definite position; one of these two: either to take up the challenge ahd engage in a revolutionary struggle for working‑class power, or to submit with a struggle to the bourgeoisie, recognising its own weakness and betraying the cause of its class, The Finnish working class party did not decide for one or for the other course. It did its duty by going into battle, it drew up its forces for the struggle, but it was for a defensive struggle, not for a definite revolutionary fight. It is true that we talked much of revolution, and we actually took part ii a struggle which was by nature revolutionary, but it was with closed eyes that we did so, without being conscious of the meaning of this social revolution. We talked at the same time of democracy and a democratic State, which meant, if anything, that revolution was perforce the very thing to be avoided. Thus: the standard of revolution was in reality raised – so that revolution might be avoided.
In our situation that was an enormous mistake. Now that we have understood this, we ought also to. recognise it openly, even if we did not do so at the opportune moment. We did not grasp the fact that when the revolution broke out, the workers threw democracy violently aside, blotted it out as a hindrance and a point of no value in their programme. If the workers of Finland had not accepted the challenge thrown down by the bourgeoisie, but had meekly allowed themselves to be beaten, imprisoned and slaughtered, certainly a protecting democratic programme would have been in its place. But on that day in January when the worker raised his hand against his mortal enemy, that hand tore away the democratic rags and tatters which separated them. After that day, to keep up the pretence of a democratic programme was equivalent to a retreat; as was also the case with a democracy “favourable to the workers,” like that included in the plan for a constitution drawn up by the People’s Commissariat.
The fact that the representatives of a class in revolution, or engaged in any other phase of the class struggle, are not conscious of the struggle’s true aim and import does not necessarily mean that one must give up the struggle or that all is bound to end in shipwreck. It ought not to be interpreted as a struggle against one’s own class, or as conscious or unconscious deception. The struggle in itself is a historic fact, it is the principal fact which decided and conduces to a true result, and each man who, according to the measure of his strength and ability takes part in the revolutionary struggle of the aroused class, upholds that class in so doing, even if on his lips and his thoughts he nourishes the most unhistoric, unscientific facts one could wish for. The Finnish Social Democracy, by carrying out its duty of putting up a fight, did not betray its class, and by its struggle upheld the programme of the revolution, even though inscribed on its banners were the watchwords of the old democracy.
It was not the first time in the history of the world that such a thing had taken place as the foremost champions of a struggling class adopting a watchword which was not consonant with the historical idea of their struggle. Revolutionary watchwords have generally arisen fortuitously, and have been made up of high-sounding, superficial and not very far-seeing political phrases, to which are joined as by chance the strange expressions of an inverted symbolism. Tor example, the Hussite movement in Bohemia was at bottom a struggle for the most real class advantages, although in the first place the point at issue was a theological dispute concerning the Host, communion, and the drinking of wine. During the Finnish revolution the democratic programme was for the S.-D.’s of Finland their communion wine. It did not hinder Social-Democracy from taking part in the revolutionary struggle, but as a programme it was no longer of service in the struggle itself. If an unskilled navigator is steering a wrong course which will lead him to destruction or carry him away from his destination, and a violent storm throws him back into the right course without his knowing it, the result is evidently due not to the sailor, but to the storm. He may have done his duty during the voyage with zeal and courage, but he did not know how to use his maps and his compass, given to him expressly that he might steer in the right direction.
The modern S.-D. Party, whose activity should be based on a Marxian and consequently scientific policy, has less than any other, any reason or point of honour for carrying this symbolism to the barricade. For, worst of all, it was for us a weakness and a hindrance in the struggle. The knowledge that the fight is for a definite object is sufficient in itself to raise the morale and endurance of the fighters, but the lack of a clear aim induces uncertainty, hesitation and weakness. Such was the case with the February revolution in Finland. We did not keep order with enough energy. For example, at Helsingfors we gave. too free a rein to the bourgeoisie, which allowed them to carry on a campaign of plotting against us. Domiciliary visits and imprisonment of offenders. were not carried out with sufficient energy. Counter-revolutionaries,who had been proved guilty, were punished with too much leniency. We did not put these gentlemen of leisure early enough under the obligation of working, and we should certainly have acted with more insight if we had put: forward the dictatorship of the proletariat as the evident aim of the revolution. From the very moment that this was not done, our action held to a middle, dangerous way, which fact. was in itself sufficient to make the bourgeoisie bolder in their plots, and at the same time to encourage certain anarchic elements which had found their way into the Red Guards to commit “motu propue” murders, robberies, and other misdeeds – a lack of discipline which tended to produce disorder in the ranks even of the revolutionaries.
The result of the Finnish revolution did not, however, depend upon these circumstances. It was impossible to avoid defeat when the German Government had joined the other hangmen. But suppose the German Government had not – interfered, what would have happened? We cannot say with certainty, but it is. possible that the result of the struggle might have depended on whether revolutionary order was to be severely maintained for a considerable time as an intentional dictatorship, or whether it was to be merely a humanitarian stage onthe road leading to the haven of peaceful democracy. Indirectly, in that case, all would then have depended on what standard or symbol was put forward by the S.-D. leaders.
One thing, which in a certain measure contributed to giving a certain character to the programme of the. People’s Commissariat and the Finnish Social Democracy, was the line of action we felt bound to pursue with respect to the "petite bourgeois "and peasant, endeavouring not to repel or frighten them with the terms Socialism and Dictatorship of the Proletariat, but striving to quieten them by talking democracy and otherwise treating them gently. This was well enough as an election dodge, but it was not revolutionary tactics. During the revolution this prudence on our part was seen to be a mistake. The tranquillity of the “petite bourgeoisie” and their vague sympathies, did not, and could not have any noteworthy influence on the development of the struggle. The fighting spirit depended entirely upon the workers, upon their enthusiasm, boldness and confidence in the revolutionary leaders. Democratic formulae were calcuated rather to depress than to stimulate the workers’ enthusiasm, for without any doubt they looked upon them as something out of place rather than as the final aim for which the worker was, if need arose, joyfully to sacrifice his life. The clear signals of class Socialism would have aroused their ardour in an altogether different way. They would then have felt that the struggle was indeed carrying them onward straight to the realisation of the greatest historical ideal. And if they had seen that the leaders of the revolution treated the bourgeoisie with the severity which must be used in a bloody class war towards the enemies and oppressors who but deserved to be oppressed in their turn, then the workers would have felt in their hearts a, boundless confidence in their comrades at the head of things.
For every working-class party leading a revolution, the most precious thing to possess is the enthusiastic confidence of the workers. No mite of this should be lost, if we want to see the revolution triumphant.
IV. THE LOGIC OF THE STORM
The proletarian revolution is above all else a great work. of organisation. The power of the Government should be organised as the mechanism of the power of the working class; the proletarian army should be organised as a sure support of this power, and the class‑war should be organised on a Socialist basis.
Many observations made in the course of this work of organisation demand a special treatment which we have no intention of giving them here. Here we intend to indicate merely the main directing lines which experience has shown us to be necessary to follow in organising revolution.
In the practical work of Government organisation we were at the outset led into the right path through a general strike of officials. In spite of all our wanderings in the paths of Liberalism, the entire management of State and communal affairs fell into the hands of the organised workers from the moment the officials had decided unanimously to strike. In places a certain number kept at work, but generally speaking their aim was either sabotage or to help the butchers to make war. This happened on the railways and in the post and telegraph offices. As far as the latter are concerned, we should perhaps have played our game better by dismissing all employees known for their bourgeois opinions, even if this had dislocated and diminished, or for that matter almost entirely suspended the telegraphic service for a time: for as long as the war was in progress front to front, it was dangerous to permit adversaries and deserters to continue at their work in the railway and telegraph services. A free telephone service could be used for the purposes of military espionage by members of the bourgeois class remaining on our side of the front. Moreover, its use during the time of open struggle ought to have been reduced to.a minimum, since a really effective control cannot be exercised in any case.
As a result of the general strike of managers and technical experts, the organisation of production went partly in the direction desired by the workers, i.e., that of socialisation, much more rapidly and completely than our Social-Democracy had wished it to go. First of all came, naturally, the state and communal commercial establishment, which fell into the hands of the organised workers, but they were soon followed by several big capitalist concerns, notably by the biggest enterprise of its kind in the country – the paper factories. Generally speaking the re-working of the factories stopped by the capitalists did not present any insurmountable difficulties to the workers. Doubtless the want of technical experts would later on have made itself felt more strongly than at first, but however, imperfect the resources at the workers’ command, experience proved in most cheering fashion that the workers of Finland were capable of organising production. In the majority of industries much greater success was obtained than had ever been counted on.
On the other hand in the class-war itself, and in the organisation of the Red Army, mistakes, irregularities and omissions were made, due largely, it is true, to lack of experience and technical knowledge, but also to the fact that sufficient attention was not paid to organising for the combat itself. Preparations for taking up the struggle were not sufficiently detailed or methodical and lacked energy. Not even the arrest of the bourgeois agitators had been prepared for beforehand. The Red Army was at first formed solely of volunteers from the ranks of the organised workers; later unorganized workers were admitted; in some places they were forced to join the army; in others universal compulsory military service was set up, and even the bourgeoisie were sent to the front armed with rifles.. Evidently the most practical measure would have been to adopt general compulsory service in the working class by calling up all men able to bear arms, or those of certain classes. Army pay, which was about the same as that received by a well-paid worker, need not have been so high. The provisioning of the army was organised ‘in a satisfactory manner, but the need of footwear and clothing was great, especially the former. The transport and storage of munitions, so that they could be at hand when wanted, was at first badly organised, and never was really satisfactory. Worst of all was the organisation of the intelligence system. The organisation of corps of scouts at the back of the army was also a mistake, and the action of this corps was harmful and a danger to military operations. The fact that in the army on the front not even the simplest measures relating to the scout corps were put into practice, which the Red Army suffered, namely, the lack of trained, capable and punctual officers who could inspire confidence. We had previously had no trained forces, since the country had been without an army for a sufficiently long period; only a few old non-commissioned officers were requisitioned by the workers. The most elementary military instruction for officers would certainly have been extremely useful, but it was not to be had, and we were without it throughout the whole course of the revolution.
To a most alarming extent it was sheer hazard which decided to whom such or such a post of command should be given. Sometimes these men were equal to the task before them, and made model troops of their men. But there were also in officers’ corps and in the staffs a great number of unskilful, incompetent men, who, while not ne’er-do-wells, were nevertheless mere talkers who had never yet succeeded in any organising work or post of command, and who did not know how to set about things, although they had risen in the general confusion. If the well-tried organisers of the working-class movement had volunteered in greater numbers to lead the operations “as often was the case”, the leadership of the class-war would certainly have improved on our side. The agitation undertaken in our ranks by the paid agents of the bourgeoisie against our military command would then have borne less fruit. An underground agitation of this kind is in a class-war the most dangerous and insidious weapon of the bourgeoisie, and the greater the number of elements with obscure antecedents who rise to the surface during a revolution, the more easily when reverses come do doubts arise about the honesty and incorruptibility of leaders.
The general leadership of the class struggle on our side also leaves much room for criticism. Lack of arms was the chief reason why a more energetic and continuous offensive was not undertaken at the outset. However, even when we had obtained arms, there was still the lack of drilled men. The weeks which had gone by had not been employed in energetically forming and drilling new troops, for no one had then expected a long class-war extending over several months. There was no regular specialist organisation. Our troops fought practically the whole time without reserves, a most fatiguing and dangerous thing. True, our front resisted the enemy’s attacks, but, wanting as we were in reserves and in special attacking battalions, we were not in a position to make any really serious attacks. As our advance on the northern front continued for some time, there resulted from it to the north of Tammerfors a dangerous bulge, the flanks of which were almost entirely uncovered. This bulge required five or six times more men to hold it than a straight front immediately to the north of Tammerfors would have needed. We were soon to pay for this tactical error. The Whites’ flank attack produced such unsteadiness amongst the tired troops holding the inside of the are, and forced them to retreat in such disorder, that the enemy had every opportunity for surrounding Tammerfors and pushing his front to the south of the town.
Without doubt our troops were already depressed by the announcement that the German Government had promised to come to the aid of the bourgeoisie, by sending first of all an expedition to the Aaland Islands to facilitate the transport of arms and troops in Finland. It was in Aaland, too, that the descent on our rear of the Germans and of the butchers’ troops was prepared. The Russian officers had taken good care that the enemy should encounter no more resistance from the fortifications outside Hangs than they did at Aaland. The Russian defenders had been withdrawn, but the forts had not been handed over to the Finns. The landing at Hangs, which we could not prevent for want of troops, directly threatened the capital, and made the defence of the whole of south-west Finland a forlorn hope. The evacuation of the whole of this territory began at once with the object of retiring into eastern Finland, up to the line of the river Kymene, for example. But it then appeared that it was difficult to withdraw troops from localities which had not been attacked by the enemy. Whilst our evacuation and retreat were being delayed, the enemy got imposing forces together in eastern Finland to prevent our retreating into Russia. Towards the end of April it became impossible for us to resist these attacks made by the troops of the international butchers. And when our Karelian front was broken the greatest part of our army was surrounded. Probably only four or five thousand of our revolutionary forces managed to pass into Russia.
The Government of Finland had at first asked for help from the Swedish Government. Arms and munitions were constantly coming in from Sweden, but the negotiations came to nothing as far as direct military intervention was concerned.On their side the Swedes tried during the revolution to put an embargo on Aaland, which belonged to Finland. When the defeat of the revolutionary army was certain, and there was left only the hangman’s work to do, Sweden sent her “black brigade” to Tammerfors to drink the blood of the revolutionary workers, a thing which the faithful Socialist lackeys of the Swedish Government and bourgeoisie made no attempt to prevent. Before the arrival of the black brigade a semi-official delegation of Right Swedish Socialists came to Helsingfors, and Möller, the secretary of the party, declared in their name that the victory of the Finnish Revolution would be a disaster for international democracy. The international Socialist swindlers were thus already afraid of our revolution. They feared lest it should spread the flames which threatened to set fire to the feathers of the couch which the bourgeoisie had prepared for them. For us, on the other hand, it seems terrible that our revolution with its democratic programme might have been triumphant. It would have troubled the understanding of the workers of neighbouring countries in relation to the great task of the proletarian revolution.
Once more did victory rest with capitalist violence. German imperialism gave ear to the lamentations of our bourgeois, and gave itself out as ready to swallow up the newly-acquired independence, which, at the request of the Finnish Social Democrats, had been granted to Finland by the Soviet Republic of Russia. The national sentiment of the bourgeoisie did not suffer in the least on this account, and the yoke of a foreign imperialism had no terrors for them when it seemed that their “fatherland” was on the point of becoming the fatherland of the workers. They were willing to sacrifice the entire people to the great German bandit provided that they could keep for themselves the dishonourable position of slave drivers.
They were now indeed in this position, and they took the whip in hand. And never had the whip been wielded in more bestial, brutal fashion than it was under Svinhufoud’s rule in Finland every day uninterruptedly for seven months. The savage lust for revenge on the part of the Finnish bourgeoisie was responsible for more victims amongst defenceless prisoners than the war of the classes had cost the workers during three months. By a systematic mass massacre of our comrades, the butchers’ Government seemed as if it were desirous of proving by moving evidence to the workers of all lands what relentless vengeance they, the workers, bring upon themselves if they do not from the moment they arrive in power subject the bourgeoisie of their country to an iron dictatorship, instead of remaining animated, as was the revolutionary Government in Finland, by such delicate feelings of humanity towards their class enemies. Not content with mass shootings, the bourgeoisie immediately set about starving their prisoners to death. Evidently this is the favourite form. of vengeance for the clerical‑monarchic‑capitalist joint stock society! When the workers, feeling themselves proudly to be the true proprietors and creators of all wealth, are writhing in the pangs of hunger and dying one after the other, then it is that the fine shareholder enjoys such a sight all the more, whets his appetite with it, and feels what superhuman power is his! Like all scoundrels he relishes it so much as to forget that the labour‑power of the worker is necessary to him, until some private capitalist, like Baron Linder in this case, aroused from his intoxicating joy by the view of de-populated fields and factories, gives utterance to the truth that “this is shameful,” and exhorts his boon companions in Svinhufoud’s camp to exercise more moderation in their revenge.
The capitalists’ paradise was now well nigh complete. The golden crown alone was lacking. But it was soon ordered – vulgar work from the Hohenzollern branch in Hesse, and modelled on Master William’s designs. On the eve of the day when the bourgeois Diet was to elect its king, the Nemesis of History raised a warning finger, and in Bulgaria and on the French front there sounded the fateful funeral knell of German imperialism.
The mad masters. of Finland did not yet understand the importance of retreating. They wished to run full tilt with their horns against the wall. Soon we shall see them cringing and fawning before English imperialism – until such time as the workers shall make short shrift of the English brigand too.
The workers’ movement in Finland was broken last spring, and will not be reborn in its primitive form. The axe without an edge was cast into the furnace of history – to be re-smelted, and soon we shall see it emerge pure communist steel! The rust and scum float on the surface in Finland. The Socialist: renegades under the leadership of Tanner, a former senator, came upon the scene to barter openly their worn-out ideals for the greater joy of the bourgeois “Progressives.&rdquot “Comrade” Tokoi, accompanied by the comedian Orjatsalo and others, shifted their stall to the Archangel market, there to play a tragic-comic farce to keep up the Finnish Legion, lured into the ranks of British imperialism. At the end of August we finally settled our accounts with the officials of the old organisation at the Moscow Congress, when the Communist Party of Finland was founded on the following fundamental principles:–
“1”. The working class must energetically prepare for an armed revolution, and not hang back with the old system with its Parliaments and professional and co-operative societies.
“2”. Only a working-class party working for the propagation ofCommunism and for the success of the future social revolution can be recognised or supported. All other action must be resolutely condemned, unmasked and combatted.
“3”. By the revolution the working class must take all power into its hands, and set up an iron dictatorship. Therefore our efforts must lead to the suppression of the bourgeois state and not to the setting up of 4 democracy, neither before nor after the revolution.
“4”. Through the dictatorship of the workers must be created a Communist society, by means of the expropriation of all land and capitalist property, and by the workers taking production and distribution into their own hands. Thus neither before nor by the revolution must anything be undertaken which aims merely at rendering more supportable the system of the expropriation of capital.
“5”. The proletarian revolution must be propagated as energetically as possible, and the Russian People’s Soviet Socialist Republic supported by every means in our power.
These are the lessons we have drawn from our struggle and from the great example of the Russian people. We now understand that the principal rule of Marxian tactics is as follows: – First of all a just appreciation of the historical situation, and then an energetic movement going as far as possible within the limits set by evolution.
When the historical conditions are absent, to make a revolution is contrary to the Marxian idea. After a revolution has failed, fugitives have often succumbed to the temptation of arranging for revolutionary plots with. their eyes closed, and at moments when the course of events has brought about the disappearance of favourable conditions. These improvisers of revolution and this revolutionary stupidity have been censured in the severest way by Marx. On the other hand, when history has entered upon a revolutionary period, when conditions favourable to revolution seem to exist, when it appears to be “coming,” as is the case in Europe today, then inactivity or the curbing of the march of revolution must be strongly condemned from a Marxian point of view. The working-class movement should take the direction of revolution, should prepare itself seriously for the event, and not seek to avoid it by other action.
It is in this spirit that we now want to take action, in Finland as in Russia, and everywhere where our young forces may be necessary to the success of the international proletarian revolution. In Russia our first duty must be to organise and exercise in the best possible way contingents for the Red Guards. Our young men are already displaying great activity in this respect.
In an open letter addressed to Comrade Lenin our party congress asked him to give the following message to the Russian friends of our Party:–
“The Finnish Communists go with joy into the battle. We would fain be there when the final assault is given to the fortresses of capitalism, and raze them level with the ground. The Finnish Communists will not lag behind when the Proletarians of all lands are conquering the world.”
Top of the page
Last updated on 3 January 2021
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.