{"id":2007,"date":"2019-08-28T16:44:34","date_gmt":"2019-08-28T16:44:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/?p=2007"},"modified":"2019-08-28T16:44:36","modified_gmt":"2019-08-28T16:44:36","slug":"scylla-and-charybdis-or-communism-and-fascism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/2019\/08\/28\/scylla-and-charybdis-or-communism-and-fascism\/","title":{"rendered":"SCYLLA AND CHARYBDIS, OR COMMUNISM AND FASCISM"},"content":{"rendered":"\nFrom: Betrand Russell, In Praise of Idleness and Other Essays<\/i><\/a>, 1935\n<\/p>

\nIt is said by many in the present day that Communism and Fascism are the only practical alternatives in politics, and that whoever does not support the one in effect supports the other. I find myself in opposition to both, and I can no more accept either alternative than, if I had lived in the sixteenth century, I could have been either a \nProtestant or a Catholic. I will set forth, as briefly \nas I can, my objections, first to Communism, then \nto Fascism, and then to what both have in common. \n

\n\n\nWhen I speak of a \u201cCommunist,\u201d I mean a \nperson who accepts the doctrines of the Third \nInternational. In a sense, the early Christians were \nCommunists, and so were many mediaeval sects; \nbut this sense is now obsolete. I will set forth my \nreasons for not being a Communist seriatim. \n

\n\n\n1. I cannot assent to Marx\u2019s philosophy, still less \nto that of Lenin\u2019s Materialism and Empirio-Criticism<\/i>. I \nam not a materialist, though I am even further \nremoved from idealism. I do not believe that there \nis any dialectical necessity in historical change; \nthis belief was taken over by Marx from Hegel, \nwithout its only logical basis, namely, the primacy \nof the Idea. Marx believed that the next stage in \nhuman development must be in some sense a progress; I see no reason for this belief. \n

\n\n\n2. I cannot accept Marx\u2019s theory of value, nor \nyet, in his form, the theory of surplus value. The \ntheory that the exchange value of a commodity \nis proportional to the labour involved in its production, which Marx took over from Ricardo, is \nshown to be false by Ricardo\u2019s theory of rent, and \nhas long been abandoned by all non-Marxian \neconomists. The theory of surplus value rests upon \nMalthus\u2019s theory of population, which Marx elsewhere rejects. Marx\u2019s economics do not form a \nlogically coherent whole, but are built up by the \nalternate acceptance and rejection of older doctrines, \nas may suit his convenience in making out a case \nagainst the capitalists. \n\n

\n\n3. It is dangerous to regard any one man as \ninfallible; the consequence is necessarily an over-\nsimplification. The tradition of the verbal inspiration of the Bible has made men too ready to look \nfor a Sacred Book. But this worship of authority is \ncontrary to the scientific spirit. \n

\n\n\n4. Communism is not democratic. What it calls \nthe \u201cdictatorship of the proletariat\u201d is in fact the \ndictatorship of a small minority, who become an \noligarchic governing class. All history shows that \ngovernment is always conducted in the interests \nof the governing class, except in so far as it is influenced by fear of losing its power. This is the \nteaching, not only of history, but of Marx. The \ngoverning class in a Communist State has even \nmore power than the capitalist class in a \u201cdemocratic\u201d State. So long as it retains the loyalty of the \narmed forces, it can use its power to obtain for itself \nadvantages quite as harmful as those of capitalists. \nTo suppose that it will always act for the general \ngood is mere foolish idealism, and is contrary to \nMarxian political psychology. \n

\n\n\n5. Communism restricts liberty, particularly intellectual liberty, more than any other system except \nFascism. The complete unification of both economic \nand political power produces a terrifying engine of \noppression, in which there are no loopholes for \nexceptions. Under such a system progress would \nsoon become impossible, since it is the nature of \nbureaucrats to object to all change except increase \nin their own power. All serious innovation is only \nrendered possible by some accident enabling unpopular persons to survive. Kepler lived by astrology, \nDarwin by inherited wealth, Marx by Engels\u2019s \n\u201cexploitation\u201d of the proletariat of Manchester. \nSuch opportunities of surviving in spite of unpopularity would be impossible under Communism. \n

\n\n\n6. There is in Marx, and in current Communist \nthought, an undue glorification of manual as against \nbrain workers. The result has been to antagonize \nmany brain workers who might otherwise have \nseen the necessity of Socialism, and without whose \nhelp the organization of a Socialist State is scarcely \npossible. The division of classes is put by Marxians, \nin practice even more than in theory, too low in the \nsocial scale. \n

\n\n\n7. The preaching of the class-war is likely to \ncause it to break out at a moment when the opposing \nforces are more or less evenly balanced, or even when \nthe preponderance is on the side of the capitalists. \nIf the capitalist forces preponderate, the result is \nan era of reaction. If the forces on both sides are \nroughly equal, the result, given modern methods of \nwarfare, is likely to be the destruction of civilization, \ninvolving the disappearance of both capitalism and \nCommunism. I think that, where democracy exists, \nSocialists should rely upon persuasion, and should \nonly use force to repel an illegal use of force by their \nopponents. By this method it will be possible for \nSocialists to acquire so great a preponderance that \nthe final war may be brief, and not sufficiently \nserious to destroy civilization. \n

\n\n\n8. There is so much of hate in Marx and in \nCommunism that Communists can hardly be \nexpected, when victorious, to establish a regime \naffording no outlet for malevolence. The arguments \nin favour of oppression are therefore likely to seem \nto the victors stronger than they are, especially if \nthe victory has resulted from a fierce and doubtful \nwar. After such a war the victorious party are not \nlikely to be in the mood for sane reconstruction. \nMarxists are too apt to forget that war has its own \npsychology, which is the result of fear, and is independent of the original cause of contention. \n<\/p>

\n\n\nThe view that the only practically possible choice \nis between Communism and Fascism seems to me \ndefinitely untrue in America, England, and France, \nand probably also in Italy and Germany. England \nhad a period of Fascism under Cromwell, France \nunder Napoleon, but in neither case was this a bar \nto subsequent democracy. Politically immature \nnations are not the best guides as to the political \nfuture. \n

\n\n\nMy objections to Fascism are simpler than my \nobjections to Communism, and in a sense more \nfundamental. The purpose of the Communists is \none with which, on the whole, I am in agreement; \nmy disagreement is as to means rather than ends. \nBut in the case of the Fascists I dislike the end as \nmuch as the means. \n

\n\n\nFascism is a complex movement; its German and \nItalian forms differ widely, and in other countries, \nif it spreads, it may assume still other shapes. It has, \nhowever, certain essentials, without which it would \ncease to be Fascism. It is anti-democratic, it is \nnationalistic, it is capitalistic, and it appeals to those \nsections of the middle class which suffer through \nmodern developments and expect to suffer still \nmore if Socialism or Communism becomes established. Communism, also, is anti-democratic, but \nonly for a time, at least so far as its theoretical statements can be accepted as giving its real policy; \nmoreover, it aims at serving the interests of wage-earners, who are a majority in advanced countries, \nand are intended by Communists to become the \nwhole population. Fascism is anti-democratic in a \nmore fundamental sense. It does not accept the \ngreatest happiness of the greatest number as the \nright principle in statesmanship, but selects certain \nindividuals, nations, and classes as \u201cthe best,\u201d and \nas alone worthy of consideration. The remainder \nare to be compelled by force to serve the interests \nof the elect. \n

\n\n\nWhile Fascism is engaged in the struggle to acquire \npower, it has to make an appeal to a considerable \nsection of the population. Both in Germany and in \nItaly, it arose out of Socialism, by rejecting whatever was anti-nationalistic in the orthodox programme. It took over from Socialism the idea of \neconomic planning and of an increase in the power \nof the State, but the planning, instead of being \nfor the benefit of the whole world, was to be in \nthe interests of the upper and middle class in one \ncountry. And these interests it seeks to secure, not \nso much by increased efficiency, as by increased \noppression, both of wage-earners and of unpopular \nsections of the middle-class itself. In relation to the \nclasses which lie outside the scope of its benevolence, \nit may, at best, achieve the kind of success to be \nfound in a well-run prison; more than this it does \nnot even wish to do. \n

\n\n\nThe root objection to Fascism is its selection of a \nportion of mankind as alone important. The holders \nof power have, no doubt, made such a selection, in \npractice, ever since government was first instituted ; \nbut Christianity, in theory, has always recognized \neach human soul as an end in itself, and not a mere \nmeans to the glory of others. Modern democracy \nhas derived strength from the moral ideals of \nChristianity, and has done much to divert Governments from exclusive preoccupation with the interests \nof the rich and powerful. Fascism is, in this respect, \na return to what was worst in ancient paganism. \n

\n\n\nIf Fascism could succeed, it would not do anything to cure the evils of capitalism; on the contrary, \nit would make them worse. The manual work would \ncome to be performed by forced labour at subsistence level; the men engaged in it would have no \npolitical rights, no freedom as to where they lived \nor worked, and probably not even a permanent \nfamily life; they would, in fact, be slaves. All this \nmay already be seen beginning in the German \nmethod of dealing with unemployment; it is, indeed, \nan inevitable result of capitalism freed from the \ncontrol of democracy, and the similar conditions of \nforced labour in Russia suggest that it is an inevitable \nresult of any dictatorship. In the past, absolutism \nhas always been accompanied by some form of \nslavery or serfdom. \n

\n\n\nAll this would result if Fascism were to succeed, \nbut it is hardly possible that it should permanently \nsucceed, because it cannot solve the problem of \neconomic nationalism. The most powerful force on \nthe side of the Nazis has been heavy industry, \nespecially steel and chemicals. Heavy industry, \norganized nationally, is the greatest influence \nmaking for war in the present day. If every civilized \ncountry had a Government subservient to the \ninterests of heavy industry — as is, to a considerable \nextent, already the case — war, before long, would \nbe unavoidable. Each fresh victory of Fascism brings \nwar nearer; and war, when it comes, is likely to \nsweep away Fascism along with most of what will \nhave been in existence at its outbreak. \n

\n\n\nFascism is not an ordered set of beliefs, like \nlaisser-faire<\/i> or Socialism or Communism; it is \nessentially an emotional protest, partly of those \nmembers of the middle-class (such as small shop- \nkeepers) who suffer from modern economic developments, partly of anarchic industrial magnates whose \nlove of power has grown into megalomania. It is \nirrational, in the sense that it cannot achieve what \nits supporters desire; there is no philosophy of \nFascism, but only a psycho-analysis. If it could \nsucceed, the result would be widespread misery; \nbut its inability to find a solution for the problem \nof war makes it impossible that it should succeed \nfor more than a brief moment. \n\n

\n\nI do not think that England and America are \nlikely to adopt Fascism, because the tradition of \nrepresentative government is too strong in both \ncountries to permit such a development. The ordinary \ncitizen has a feeling that public affairs concern him, \nand would not wish to lose the right of expressing \nhis political opinions. General Elections and Presidential Elections are sporting events, like the Derby, \nand life would seem duller without them. Of France \nit is impossible to feel quite so confident. But I shall \nbe surprised if France adopts Fascism, except \nperhaps temporarily during a war. \n

\n\n\nThere are some objections — and these, to my \nmind, the most conclusive — which apply to Communism and Fascism equally. Both are attempts \nby a minority to mould a population forcibly in \naccordance with a preconceived pattern. They \nregard a population as a man regards the materials \nout of which he intends to construct a machine: \nthe materials undergo much alteration, but in \naccordance with his purposes, not with any law of \ndevelopment inherent in them. Where living beings \nare concerned, and most of all in the case of human \nbeings, spontaneous growth tends to produce certain \nresults, and others can only be produced by means \nof a certain stress and strain. Embryologists may \nproduce beasts with two heads, or with a nose \nwhere a toe should be; but such monstrosities do \nnot find life very pleasant. Similarly Fascists and \nCommunists, having in their minds a picture of \nsociety as a whole, distort individuals so as to make \nthem fit into a pattern; those who cannot be adequately distorted are killed or placed in concentration \ncamps. I do not think an outlook of this sort, which \ntotally ignores the spontaneous impulses of the \nindividual, is ethically justifiable, or can, in the \nlong run, be politically successful. It is possible to \ncut shrubs into the shape of peacocks, and by a \nsimilar violence a similar distortion can be inflicted \nupon human beings. But the shrub remains passive, \nwhile the man, whatever the dictator may desire, \nremains active, if not in one sphere then in another. \nThe shrub cannot pass on the lesson in the use of the \nshears which the gardener has been teaching, but \nthe distorted human being can always find humbler \nhuman beings upon whom he can wield smaller \nshears. The inevitable effects of artificial moulding \nupon the individual are to produce either cruelty \nor listlessness, perhaps both in alternation. And \nfrom a population with these characteristics no good \nthing is to be expected. \n

\n\n\nThe moral effect upon the Dictator is another \nmatter to which both Communists and Fascists give \ninsufficient consideration. If he is, to begin with, a \nman with little human sympathy, he will, from the \nfirst, be unduly ruthless, and will shrink from no \ncruelty in pursuit of his impersonal ends. If, initially, \nhe suffers sympathetically from the misery which \ntheory obliges him to inflict, he will either have to \ngive way to a successor made of sterner stuff, or \nwill have to stifle his humanitarian feelings, in \nwhich case he is likely to become even more sadistic \nthan the man who has undergone no such struggle. \nIn either case, government will be in the hands \nof ruthless men, in whom love of power will be \ncamouflaged as desire for a certain type of society. \nBy the inevitable logic of despotism, whatever of \ngood may have existed in the original purposes of \nthe dictatorship will gradually fade out of sight, \nand the preservation of the Dictator\u2019s power will \nemerge more and more as the naked purpose of the \nState machine. \n

\n\n\nPreoccupation with machines has produced what \nmay be called the manipulator\u2019s fallacy, which \nconsists in treating individuals and societies as if \nthey were inanimate, and manipulators as if they \nwere divine beings. Human beings change under \ntreatment, and the operators themselves change \nas a result of the effect which the operations have \nupon them. Social dynamics is therefore a very \ndifficult science, about which less is known than is \nnecessary to warrant a dictatorship. In the typical \nmanipulator, all feeling for natural growth in his \npatient is atrophied; the result is not, as he hopes, \npassive adaptation to a place in the preconceived \npattern, but morbid and distorted growth, leading \nto a pattern which is grotesque and macabre. The \nultimate psychological argument for democracy \nand for patience is that an element of free growth, \nof go-as-you-please and untrained natural living, \nis essential if men are not to become misshapen \nmonsters. In any case, believing, as I do, that \nCommunist and Fascist dictatorships are alike \nundesirable, I deplore the tendency to view them \nas the only alternatives, and to treat democracy as \nobsolete. If men think them the only alternatives, \nthey will become so; if men think otherwise, they \nwill not. \n\n\n\n\n\n<\/body>\n\n<\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

From: Betrand Russell, In Praise of Idleness and Other Essays, 1935 It is said by many in the present day that Communism and Fascism are the only practical alternatives in politics, and that whoever does not support the one in effect supports the other. I find myself in opposition to both, and I can no … Continue reading “SCYLLA AND CHARYBDIS, OR COMMUNISM AND FASCISM”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2007","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bullshit-institutions"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2007","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2007"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2007\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2009,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2007\/revisions\/2009"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2007"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2007"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2007"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}