Excerpts from
The Socialist
Phenomenon
by Igor Shafarevich
Originally published in Russian in France in
1975, by YMCA Press
See
Foreword by
Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Preface
This book is inspired by the conviction
that the cataclysms which humanity has experienced in the twentieth
century are only the beginning of a much more profound crisis -- of a
radical shift in the course of history. To characterize the scope of
this crisis, I had thought of comparing it to the end of ancient
civilization or to the transition from the Middle Ages to the modern
period. But later I became acquainted with a bolder and, it seems to me,
more penetrating approach. For example, F. Heichelheim in his
fascinating An Ancient Economic History expresses the supposition
that the present period of history...is coming to an end...
"It is quite possible that the economic
state controls of the last decades, produced by immanent trends of
our Late Capitalist Age of the twentieth century, mean the end and
conclusion of the long development in the direction of economic
individualism, and the beginnings of a novel organization of labor
which is closer to the Ancient Oriental models of five thousand
years ago than to the ideals for which the foundations were laid at
the beginning of the Iron Age."
It is hardly necessary to demonstrate
that one of the basic forces influencing the developing crisis of
mankind is socialism. It both promotes
this crisis, as a force destroying the "old world," and undertakes
to show a way out. Therefore the attempt to comprehend socialism -- its
origins, its driving forces, the goal toward which it leads -- is
dictated quite simply by the instinct for self-preservation. We fear the
possibility of finding ourselves at the crossroads with blinders on,
at a time when choosing which road to take may determine the whole of
mankind's future.
But it is precisely such attempts to
understand which seem to curtail all discussion. The fact that the
adherents of socialism themselves have expressed so many contradictory
views ought to put us on guard. In addition, notions about the nature of
socialism are as a rule strikingly vague, and yet they do not
elicit doubt and are perceived as truth needing no verification.
This is especially apparent in attempts to make critical evaluations of
socialism.
Pointing out the tragic facts that so
frequently have accompanied the socialist experiments of the twentieth
century usually evokes the objection that an idea cannot be judged by
the unsuccessful attempts at its implementation. The task of
rebuilding society is so immeasurably complicated, it is said, that
in the initial stages errors are inevitable; they are, however, due to
the shortcomings of certain individuals or the heritage of the past; in
no sense do they follow from the fine principles enunciated by the
founders of the doctrine.
The fact that even in the earliest
declarations of socialist doctrine there are schemes which in their
cruelty far exceed any real system is dismissed as insignificant. It
is argued that the determining factor is real life and hardly the
constructions of theoreticians or the fantasy of utopian thinkers. Life,
it is said, has its own laws. It will temper and smooth out the extremes
of the fanatics and create a social structure which, even if it does not
quite correspond to their original plans, will be at least viable, and
in any case closer to perfection than that which now exists....
It is natural to suppose that socialism,
too, contains a fundamental tendency which makes possible its phenomenal
influence on life. But it is unlikely to be identified by studying, for
example, the Western socialist parties, in which basic socialist
tendencies are hopelessly entangled with practical politics. It is
necessary, first, to study this phenomenon over a sufficiently long time
span in order to ascertain its basic characteristics and, second,
to examine its most striking and consistent manifestations.
In pursuing this method we shall be
astonished to find that socialism (at least at first sight) turns
out to be a glaring contradiction. Proceeding from a critique of
a given society, accusing it of injustice, inequality and lack of
freedom, socialism proclaims -- in the systems where it is expressed
with the greatest consistency -- a far greater injustice, inequality
and slavery! Noble Utopias... usually evoke nothing more than a
reproach for their "utopian" nature, for their ideals that are too high
for mankind at present. But it is enough merely to open these books to
be astonished by the scene: disobedient citizens turned into slaves;
informers; work and life in
paramilitary
detachments and under close supervision; passes that are needed
even for a simple stroll, and especially the details of general
leveling, depicted as they are with great relish (identical
clothing, identical houses, even identical cities). ...
The revolutionaries who drew up the
"Conspiracy of Equals" understood equality in such a way that they alone
formed the government, while others were to obey implicitly -- and those
who did not were to be exiled to certain islands for forced labor. In
the most popular work of Marxism, the Communist Manifesto,
one of the first measures of the new socialist system to be proposed is
the introduction of
compulsory labor. And it is predicted that this will lead to a
society in which "the free development of each will be the condition
of the free development of all"!
Attempts to establish the happy society
of the future by means of
executions may perhaps be explained by the discrepancy between vision
and reality, by the distortion that the idea undergoes in being put into
practice. But how to understand a teaching which in its ideal version
includes both an appeal to freedom and a program for the establishment
of slavery?
Or how to reconcile the
impassioned condemnation of the old order and quite justified
indignation at the suffering of the poor and the oppressed with the
fact that the same teachings envisage no less suffering for these
oppressed masses as the lot of whole generations prior to the
triumph of social justice? Thus Marx foresees fifteen, perhaps even
fifty years of civil war for the proletariat, and Mao Tse-tung is ready
to accept the loss of half of humanity in a nuclear war for the sake of
establishing a socialist structure in the world. A call for sacrifices
on this scale might sound convincing on the lips of a religious leader
appealing to a truth beyond this world. But not from convinced atheists.
It would seem that socialism lacks that
feature which, in mathematics, for example, is considered the minimal
condition for the existence of a concept: a definition free of
contradictions. Perhaps socialism is only a means of
propaganda, a set of several contradictory conceptions, each of
which appeals to a given group? The entire history of socialism speaks
against such a view. The monumental influence it has had on mankind
proves that socialism is in essence an internally consistent view of the
world. One needs only to uncover the true logic of socialism and to find
that vantage point from which it can be seen as a phenomenon without
contradiction. ...
If, for example, Marx repeatedly
expresses the thought that man exists only as a representative of the
interests of a definite class and has no existence as an individual,
of course we are not obliged to believe that the essence of man was
revealed to Marx. But why not accept that he is describing a view of the
world inherent in certain people, himself in particular, who regard man
not as a personality having an independent significance in the
world but merely as a tool of forces outside his control?
...Furthermore, since socialism is
capable of inspiring mass movements, it follows that many are
subject to the influence of such a world view, perhaps even all people
are to a greater or lesser degree. If socialism is viewed as the
ultimate truth about man, then it unquestionably disintegrates into
contradictory elements. But if we consider it to be a manifestation of
only one of the tendencies in man and mankind, then it appears possible
to remove the contradictions and to understand socialism as a basically
cohesive and consistent phenomenon....
This book would never have been written
were it not for the assistance rendered me by numerous people. At the
moment, it is not possible for me to name them all and to express to
each my debt of gratitude. But I can thank two of them here: A. I.
Solzhenitsyn, under whose influence I undertook to write this book, and
V. M. Borisov, whose criticism was invaluable.
See
Foreword by Aleksandr
I. Solzhenitsyn
Transcribed by Robert L Stephens
http://robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html
This book
is over 300 pages long. As time permits, I hope to read the all the
chapters, pull out the most relevant information from each, and post it
in this section of our website.