The following is a description taken from George Orwell's book, Homage to Catalonia. It's a firsthand account of one of the few really successful libertarian socialist revolutions in history - The Spanish Civil War.
It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags or with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle and with the initials of the revolutionary parties; almost every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were being systematically demolished by gangs of workmen. Every shop and cafe had an inscription saying that it had been collectivized; even the bootblacks had been collectivized and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal. Servile and even ceremonial forms of speech had temporarily disappeared. Nobody said 'Senior' or 'Don' or even 'Usted'; everyone called everyone else 'Comrade' and 'Thou', and said 'Salud!' instead of 'Buenos dias'. Tipping was forbidden by law; almost my first experience was receiving a lecture from a hotel manager for trying to tip a lift-boy. There were no private motor-cars, they had all been commandeered, and all the trams and taxis and much of the other transport were painted red and black. The revolutionary posters were everywhere, flaming from the walls in clean reds and blues that made the few remaining advertisements look like daubs of mud. Down the Ramblas, the wide central artery of the town where crowds of people streamed constantly to and fro, the loudspeakers were bellowing revolutionary songs all day and far into the night. And it was the aspect of the crowds that was the queerest thing of all. In outward appearance it was a town in which the wealthy classes had practically ceased to exist. Except for a small number of women and foreigners there were no 'well-dressed' people at all. Practically everyone wore rough working-class clothes, or blue overalls, or some variant of the militia uniform. All this was queer and moving.
He goes on to say:
There was much in it that I did not understand, in some ways I did not even like it, but I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for
3 comments:
Not to claim a monopoly on the term, but I find your use of the term "libertarian" in this context quite disturbing. The subtext of all the statements below is the use of force / coercion (anathema to most libertarians I've ever heard of)to "seize," "burn," "demolish," "commandeer":
"Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers"
"almost every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were being systematically demolished by gangs of workmen."
"Every shop and cafe had an inscription saying that it had been collectivized; even the bootblacks had been collectivized and their boxes painted red and black."
"There were no private motor-cars, they had all been commandeered"
Furthermore, this sounds like a state of affairs only sustainable through coercion:
"In outward appearance it was a town in which the wealthy classes had practically ceased to exist. Except for a small number of women and foreigners there were no 'well-dressed' people at all. Practically everyone wore rough working-class clothes, or blue overalls, or some variant of the militia uniform."
Frankly, parts of this remind me rather a lot of Nazi Germany (substitute synagogues for churches) or Ayn Rand's semi-autobiographical vision of 1920s Soviet Russia in We the Living. Are you really admiring this? To me, the inequalities of capitalism are infinitely superior to this sort of coerced egalitarianism. Nevertheless, I think such a collectivized society would be fine and dandy, providing it allowed its members to opt out voluntarily, i.e. to leave and take their property with them. (Sort of like in East Berlin before the Wall, except that the people fleeing couldn't take all their property with them.) Of course, in such a situation, there wouldn't be much left to steal. :) All you'd have left would be the dregs robbing the dregs. :) But there, too, you would have a society in which "the wealthy classes had practically ceased to exist" -- not because of institutionalized theft, but because of emigration to places not run by lunatics. :)
If you think capitalism is less violent, let me make the following point. We should compare apples with apples.
This refers to the construction of a socialist society with major upheavals and war going on.
You look at the construction of a capitalist society to get a good idea. You can look at the history of Europe, for example - nothing to write home about. Or Latin America (Duvalier in Haiti, Pinochet in Chile, neo-Nazis in Argentina). Or India (East India Company). Or China (opium wars). Or Russia (oligarchs and crushing poverty). Or the US (extermination of the Natives, violence against unions, McCarthyism).
If you want to talk about sustaining, you should really read Orwell's book (only the first chapter suffices - it's available online). He gives firsthand account of how little coercion there was.
Let me further write about libertarianism. In the US, the term "libertarian" has a special meaning which is unbridled capitalism. Libertarian, or "liberal" in Europe, always meant a sort of voluntary socialism or anarchism - even in the tradition of Adam Smith, who's much misquoted and misunderstood.
As to this society being a disturbing one, sure. Orwell himself says many things bothered him. We pick and choose factors which we feel are more important.
Regarding coercion, it's very difficult for me to imagine a society without any form of coercion or control. For example, what do you do about a serial killer, or a violent drunk?
The core issue of anarchism is that coercion/power is always illegitimate, unless it is given a justification.
The issue is, should the control be limited to a few people (people with money - capitalism, or people with privilege - communism)? Or is it everybody's right?
I should also point out that the comparison with Nazi Germany is, imho, unfair. The Churches are being demolished because they're seen as a symbol of oppression. Clergymen are not being massacred, nor persecuted. So the analogy with synagogues is pretty weak.
In fact, all kinds of racism and sexism broke down. The definitive symbol of the Spanish Civil War is a Catalan woman flying the CNT-FAI flag.
The society was not perfect, but it wasn't oppressive even in any remote sense of the term.
Post a Comment